Sherman was a hero - Page 13

larry_cockerham · #**121** 08-14-2006, 05:13 PM

I'm afraid Sherman was 'squared **f' by the remnant ** the AOT at Bentonville in 1865. Wasn't much ** a fight with worn, bloodied, devestated bodies against well-fed soldiers, but it was a matter ** pride or self-destruction. Sherman gets points for finally, after four long years, achieving a strategy to end the war. He simply moved north to meet Grant if needed and finished **f the AOT on the way to Durham. That ain't bad for a soldier. The problem with us folks in the S***h was his attitude.

unionblue · #**122** 08-14-2006, 08:29 PM

Larry,

So it was Sherman's attitude that the So.u.t.h has problems with?

Now that, I get.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

whitworth · #**123** 08-14-2006, 08:47 PM

Sherman destroyed the ability ** the Confederacy to wage war in s***hern Tennessee, Georgia, S***h Carolina and North Carolina.

He sent reinforcements to Nashville and completed fooled the Confederate leadership by going east, through Confederate territory that was lightly defended, Georgia.

The Confederacy, in its brillance, sent Hood on a winter campaign, poorly supplied, headed for catastophe.

Better to speak ** that terrible Sherman, who failed to follow Hood into Tennesee with his whole army. Better to blame the general for passing through a very defenseless terrain, than face the true nature ** the facts.

whitworth · #**124** 08-14-2006, 08:48 PM

Sherman destroyed the ability ** the Confederacy to wage war in s***hern Tennessee, Georgia, S***h Carolina and North Carolina.

He sent reinforcements to Nashville and completed fooled the Confederate leadership by going east, through Confederate territory that was lightly defended, Georgia.

The Confederacy, in its brillance, sent Hood on a winter campaign, poorly supplied, headed for catastophe.

Better to speak ** that terrible Sherman, who failed to follow Hood into Tennesee with his whole army. Better to blame the general for passing through a very defenseless terrain, than face the true nature ** the facts.

Wild_Rose · #**125** 08-15-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unionblue

Larry,

So it was Sherman's attitude that the So.u.t.h has problems with?

Now that, I get.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil, I agree with Larry, except I would add that the So.u.t.h also had problems with his actions regarding civilians. As a Southerner, I'm eternally grateful that Robert E. Lee kept his war on the battlefield. I'd be very embarassed and ashamed had he made war on Union women and children.

Regards,
Rose

unionblue · #**126** 08-15-2006, 03:49 PM

Wild_Rose,

You are aware of NO actions taken by Lee's men against civilians or other noncombatants during any of his campaigns?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Hanny · #**127** 08-17-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unionblue

Wild_Rose,

You are aware of NO actions taken by Lee's men against civilians or other noncombatants during any of his campaigns?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

In the USA, chiefly political courses, the following is used, it lists Southern civilian losses during the WBTS, but no Northern civilian losses, because the sample was to small to use no doubt, being as R E Lee and the CSA adhered to the laws of war of the USA pre war, ie Hallecks and the AOW, while the Union moved into a harder version that specificlly allowed the civilians to be targetted and punished in collective punishment should the mil need dicate that resorse, untill the Lieber code that came into operation for the Union.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM

Since you ask about Lee, perhaps you know where he gave such orders to wage war on civilians, instead of expcitly saying the oposite, because thats how he hoped to influence Northern public opinion, not because he lacked the means to act in the same manner, but sought a different outcome from his actions.

Hanny · #**128** 08-17-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

I'm afraid Sherman was 'squared **f' by the remnant ** the AOT at Bentonville in 1865. Wasn't much ** a fight with worn, bloodied, devestated bodies against well-fed soldiers, but it was a matter ** pride or self-destruction. Sherman gets points for finally, after four long years, achieving a strategy to end the war. He simply moved north to meet Grant if needed and finished **f the AOT on the way to Durham. That ain't bad for a soldier. The problem with us folks in the S***h was his attitude.

His attitude is not the problem, its people not understanding the nature of war thats the problem, he demonstarted that the CSA could not protect its civilians, as part of the scheme for returning them to the Union. The South could have done the same but did not bneed to do so.

War is the problem, not those who practicew it

unionblue · #**129** 08-17-2006, 08:14 PM

Hanny,

My question was not anwered, the one I asked in post #126, (at least to my satisfaction) by you and I am still waiting on Wild_Rose to answer it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Wild_Rose · #**130** 08-17-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unionblue

Wild_Rose,

You are aware of NO actions taken by Lee's men against civilians or other noncombatants during any of his campaigns?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I'm sorry, Neil. I missed this message. Yes, I do know of some actions against civilians by Lee's men, but they pale in comparison to the destruction of Southern property by the Union. Any destructive action taken by Lee's men was not condoned by Lee as it was on the Union end by Sherman. In fact when Lee invaded Pennsylvania, many Southerners were hoping he would give the Yankees a dose of their own medicine. Lee disappointed them. He ordered his men to pay for any supplies they took and he forbade any wanton destruction to private property.

Regards,
Rose