Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Shane, I know that Sherman's deeds have been exaggerated. Much about the WBTS was. I have tried to stick to the facts. I don't think Sherman's deeds need any exaggeration. However, if you told the women and children of certain areas of the South in 1864 that Sherman had horns under his hat some probably would have believed it. You are absolutely correct; but large portion sof the city of Savanah were quite grateful for the rations and food he supplied as well.
You refer to the lost cause as a propaganda machine. The South and the Confederacy knew all too well about propaganda. The Southern states were a target of propaganda since even before they chose secession. That remains true to this day. Believe me, I understand your disgust with message boards that continue to propagate this propaganda. I've found myself in the same frustrating situation many times of defending my ancestors from lies and slander. The fact that the people being slandered are long dead is of little consolation to me. And, as you said, someone has to defend them. Ahmen, though I will stress that the average Southerner interested in keeping the memory of their ancestor alive is not a Lost Causer, a Lost Causer is one who lies, distorts and invents w/ the intent of making themselves better by making the US look worse... is that a reasonable definition?
It's hard to tell how much misinformation is simply lies and how much of it is genuinely believed. I find history is kinder to the victors than it is to the Confederates. Confederate heritage defenders (often referred to in a derogatory manner as "lost causers") understand this and tend to be suspicious about information that comes from sources they percieve as biased. Again you do good service for those interested in honoring the memories of brave men and women.
I'm sure some people do enjoy spreading lies and anyone that obviously does it with "glee", should be ignored as not having anything worthwhile to contribute. Again I agree, unfortunately many have a tendency to seek out those who agree w/ part of what they would say... subtle and insidious.
I don't think many Southerners believe Sherman murdered civilians en masse, although, civilians were murdered. Most don't believe salt was sown, not because of Sherman's kindness, but because it would have taken time to cover large fields, salt was pricey then and the results wouldn't give instant gratification to vengence seekers. Sherman wanted results he could hold up before the Southerners right then. Sherman wanted his mission accomplished, which was to win and win he did. Salt would have slowed his army down... slow is something rarelt attributed to his march.
I think with all the Southern hatred heaped upon Sherman, he becomes the underdog in the opinion of his defenders and that makes it easier to overlook or minimize his crimes against the South, whether you believe they were crimes of war or crimes against humanity. I don't believe it a crime to wish to end a war and to destroy an enemy during wartime I also do not believe the man or many of his men guilty of war crimes... Most importantly I don't believe calling the actions of the men of Shermans Army crimes against humanity; lessens what happened in true crimes against humanity such as what happened courtesy of the Nazis etc. Though the UN today would convict those men today simply because they were American soldiers.
As I've said before Rose, I'll gladly read your words even if I do not agree w/ them at least there is a bit of understanding...
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
A superb analogy considering the firebombing of Tokyo was far more destructive and led to far more loss of life than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. THose two bombs certainly kept Operation Downfall from becoming a horrid historical epic.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"Wilson, I'm a ****ed sight smarter man than Grant; I know more about organization, supply and administration and about everything else than he does; but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't give a **** for what the enemy does out of his sight but it scares me like hell. I'm more nervous than he is. I am much more likely to change my orders or to countermarch my command than he is. He uses such information as he has according to his best judgment; he issues his orders and does his level best to carry them out without much reference to what is going on about him...."
"A more unpromising boy never entered the military academy."
Upperclassman Sherman
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Thanks. I simply can't brush off the actions of a man that waged war on women and old men. I'm not going to claim Sherman had two heads, but it should be admitted that he would be considered a war criminal by today's standards.
You really think so? Would you please describe the standards you are referring to? I do not think you can suport what you just said.
Rosie, Shane, Grant and/or anyone interested in taking a stab,
About two years ago I went to a lecture titled, Was the Civil War a Total War? The speaker, and darn it if I forget her name, went to great lengths to say that the Civil War was not a "total war" (involving all aspects of culture, society, civilian population and resources, etc). After listening in on this discussion for awhile, I am curious to know if any of you think that the Civil War was total war, possibly an aspect of it...maybe Sherman's March to the Sea?
Bart
__________________ "Thank You....Noooo."
Major Charles Emerson Winchester III M.A.S.H. 4077th
Your post #196, is it SHERMAN or GRANT you are talking about?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
In reference to your post #197, no one is out to change your opinion on Sherman's march to the sea and beyond. Lord knows, I would sooner try to change a man's religion or political beliefs before I tried changing his opinion!
It has been my experience that an opinion, once formed, is a cherished thing, to be held close and not to be exposed to anything that might change it. It is comfortable to have a long held opinion, like a favorite jacket or pair of jeans. No matter how old and ragged it gets, no matter how many times your wife tells you to get rid of it because it looks and smells terrible, you resist, because it is comfortable and familiar and you would be a little bit lost without it.
I consider it an interesting observation on your part in your post where you declare to Ms Rose that she is determined not to be steamrolled by an 'abundance of opinion.' In all the posts you read, you could not find one historical fact or two by those who voiced their opinion that Sherman was not a war criminal, that he and his army did not engage in total war upon women and civilians? Not once did you find the stories painting Sherman as a monster not even a bit the product of some lies and myth?
I also like your comment about talking about the benefits of nuclear weapons to Japanese families with roots in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I read where one son of such a family thanked Col. Paul Tibbets for dropping the atomic bomb, as it prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians by starvation because food was being horded by the Japanese military.
As for the war being already won, I am afraid there were a lot of people in government in Richmond who weren't buying that argument, and neither were there a lot of folks in the Confederacy who were willing to admit that 'fact' either.
But, it's just my opinion.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
If the situation was ongoing today and a region of the country wished to become its own entity..and not pay US taxes, be a sovereign nation ect (given our military is too advanced for this to happen) .... that's why it is a hypothetical. I wonder at what lengths people would be willing to go to to have our country united again. If they may support some sort of "total war." --- But, then I got to thinking... If California with all of their liberals along the coast wished to secede. Well, I do believe I would sit on my butt and attempt to push them out the door. I think we just may be better off
Neil, thanks for correcting my error in the 196 post. Yes, my old fingers should have typed SHERMAN, though there are some Southern folks who don't care too much for Grant either. Guess my great grandfather Ulysses Grant Cress would be hard to explain in some neighborhoods?
In reference to your post #197, no one is out to change your opinion on Sherman's march to the sea and beyond. Lord knows, I would sooner try to change a man's religion or political beliefs before I tried changing his opinion!...
I consider it an interesting observation on your part in your post where you declare to Ms Rose that she is determined not to be steamrolled by an 'abundance of opinion.' In all the posts you read, you could not find one historical fact or two by those who voiced their opinion that Sherman was not a war criminal....
Thank you for the recognition of my opinions. Regardless of my opinions, the fact that the military nor the government of the United States did not bring such an indictment is proof enough to me that Sherman was not a war criminal.
Quote:
.... that he and his army did not engage in total war upon women and civilians?
You're splitting hairs here. No... he did not engage in total war against women and children. He engaged in war against women and children and old men and property. That segment which in no way could defend itself really was all there was for him encounter here other than the few harassing troops (mostly militia) occasionally confronting his 80 thousand regulars. The fact that he did not attempt to kill and destroy everyone and everything he encountered... that he killed few and graciously spared some property on occasion disqualifies a charge of total war.
Quote:
Not once did you find the stories painting Sherman as a monster not even a bit the product of some lies and myth?
I thought I'd already acknowledged the lies, exaggerations, distortions and myth. If I haven't, I do so here. But, as I stated, even if you could strip same from story, the remaining core still shows Sherman's strategy and tactics to be way over the top. Sherman showed some restraint at Savannah and the outcome... the result... was as powerful or more powerful than any other along the route... proving to me that the same could have been accomplished elsewhere without the total devastation and terror tactics, and without the spirit of revenge, retribution and spite.
Also, let's take a minute to examine what we throw on the table as "facts" and use to form and bolster our opinions. For example, the OR. Although this may be considered an prime and acceptable source of the facts, it is rife with exaggeration, distortion, gloss, paint, and polish... particularly the action reports. It often is dialog written to shape perceptions of what occurred as opposed to a report of what actually did. Even though it may be the case and provable (or interpretable) otherwise to be the case, it is going to be rare or impossible to find and officer or an official offer a report that, "I screwed up. I shouldn't have done that.". Just ain't gonna happen. Yet we still enthusiastically accept OR ( and other potentially corrupted reports) as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... especially when they support our position/opinion. So I'm going to take everything with a grain of salt. I hope you understand.
Quote:
I also like your comment about talking about the benefits of nuclear weapons to Japanese families with roots in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I read where one son of such a family thanked Col. Paul Tibbets for dropping the atomic bomb, as it prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians by starvation because food was being horded by the Japanese military.
It is a fitting analogy and offered as a concession of understanding. I think as Americans we can all understand it... in that while we can all accept the reasoning and justifications, it still has to make us feel a little uncomfortable... especially when viewed through the eyes of our opponents. Therefore, before you hang you hat on the story and many others like it, acknowledge that you understand that the Japanese have a "public" face and a "private" face. You'll find many stories where they thank us or otherwise accept the blame... but that is not necessarily what they're thinking. They just wish not to leave you with any insult or discomfort.
I wasn't raised under that code of conduct and do not mind offering a true opinion. I'd rather you know what I really think and had rather know what you really think rather than cloud or corrupt the processes of discussion.
Quote:
As for the war being already won, I am afraid there were a lot of people in government in Richmond who weren't buying that argument, and neither were there a lot of folks in the Confederacy who were willing to admit that 'fact' either.
I'll agree with you. Take Appomattox for example. If Lee had instead walked out of his meeting with Grant and said he'd been unable to reach terms with Grant and asked his men to fight another year, most of those ragged, barefooted, starving and underarmed soldiers would have done so, even if they knew it was futile. They "may" have accepted the fact the War was lost but they darn sure were not going to admit it. A "Southern" thing? Now on the other hand, as early as 1863 and certainly by the fall and winter of 1864, the government in Washington and military of the United States had to have an inkling of an idea there was no possibility they were going to be beaten... maybe thought they could lose it or that it could drag on unnecessarily and had to throw some knockout punches. I can understand that... but Sherman threw a successful knockout punch and then kicked the (in absentia) opponent while he was down.
Wilson's campaign through Alabama and central Georgia was comparable in objectives to Sherman's. The results of Wilson's campaign were comparable to Sherman's. Yet Wilson accomplished all without tactics of terror and devastation. In fact, there is an abundance of documentation... from the Southern population... that Wilson and LaGrange often went above and beyond to protect the people from wanton destruction, terror and pillage and to see that property and any food and supplies available were left for the people and not needlessly destroyed or wasted. He devoted full and thorough attention to military objectives but directed no venom to the civilian population. But he still threw a knockout punch... and did so with some dignity, humanity and decency. Perhaps the fact he was working for Thomas had some bearing on this? But either way, he proved an viable option to Sherman's approach.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
