"... which party can whip ..." misrepresentation

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

POWER & MONEY

"Those side issues of [slaves], State rights, conciliation, outrages, cruelty, barbarity, bankruptcy, subjugation, &c., are all idle and non-sensical. The only principle in this war is, which party can whip."

William T. Sherman

Battalion,

Below is the actual complete text of the letter in which General Sherman uses the phrase "which party can whip" that you have recently been posting a snippet of a quote from, using it to imply something the general was not saying. As usual when debunking these attempts to misrepresent other people's words, I have marked the parts you omitted in blue text and the parts you have been posting in black text so that everyone can clearly identify how you have tried to distort what was said.

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, near Atlanta, August 14, 1864.

Hon. JAMES GUTHRIE,
Louisville:
MY DEAR SIR: I regret exceedingly the arrest of many gentlemen and persons in Kentucky, and still more that they should give causes of arrest. I cannot in person inquire into these matters, but must leave them to the officer who is commissioned and held responsible by Government for the peace and safety of Kentucky. It does appear to me when our national integrity is threatened and the very fundamental principles of all government endangered that minor issues should not be made by Judge Bullitt and others. We cannot all substitute our individual opinions, however honest, as the test of authority. As citizens and individuals we should waive and abate our' private notions of right and policy to those of the duly appointed agents of the Government, certain that if they be in error the time will be short when the real principles will manifest themselves and be recognized. In your career how often have you not believed our Congress had adopted a wrong policy and how short the time now seems to you when the error rectified itself or you were willing to admit yourself wrong. I notice in Kentucky a disposition to cry against the tyranny and oppression of our Government. Now, were it not for war you know tyranny could not exist in our Government; therefore any acts of late partaking of that aspect are the result of war; and who made this war? Already we find ourselves drifting toward new issues, and are beginning to forget the strong facts of the beginning. You know and I know that long before the North, or the Federal Government, dreamed of war the South had seized the U.S. arsenals, forts, mints, and custom-houses, and had made prisoners of war of the garrisons sent at their urgent demand to protect them "against Indians, Mexicans, and negroes." I know this of my own knowledge, because when the garrison of Baton Rouge was sent to the Rio Grande to assist in protecting that frontier against the guerrilla Cortina, who had cause of offense against the Texan people, Governor Moore made strong complaints and demanded a new garrison for Baton Rouge, alleging as a reason that it was not prudent to have so much material of war in a parish where there were 20,000 slaves and less than 5.000 whites, and very shortly after this he and Bragg, backed by the militia of New Orleans, made "prisoners of war" of that very garrison, sent there at their own request. You also remember well who first burned the bridges of your railroad, who forced Union men to give up their slaves to work on the rebel forts at Bowling Green, who took wagons and horses and burned houses of persons differing with them honestly in opinion, when I would not let our men burn fence rails for fire or gather fruit or vegetables though hungry, and these were the property of outspoken rebels. We at that time were restrained, tied by a deep-seated reverence for law and property. The rebels first introduced terror as a part of their system, and forced contributions to diminish their wagon trains and thereby increase the mobility and efficiency of their columns. When General Buell had to move at a snail's pace with his vast wagon trains, Bragg moved rapidly, living on the country. No military mind could endure this long, and we are forced in self-defense to imitate their example. To me this whole matter seems simple. We must, to live and prosper, be governed by law, and as near that which we inherited as possible. Our hitherto political and private differences were settled by debate, or vote, or decree of a court. We are still willing to return to that system, but our adversaries say no, and appeal to war. They dared us to war, and you remember how tauntingly they defied us to the contest. We have accepted the issue and it must be fought out. You might as well reason with a thunder-storm. War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want, not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we whipped or they are are. Those side issues of ******s, State rights, conciliation, outrages, cruelty, barbarity, bankruptcy, subjugation, &c., are all idle and nonsensical. The only principle in this war is, which party can whip. It is as simple as a schoolboy's fight, and when one or the other party gives in, we will be the better friends. I confess to-day I have more respect for some of the open enemies than I have for the canting sneaks to my rear, and though they call me pretty hard names I believe the feeling is reciprocated. I hope the question will soon resolve itself into "Shall we have a government that must be obeyed, and will you fight for it?" and if the answer be affirmative they are friends, if in the negative or doubtful, then they are enemies or mere denizens of the land, stript of the right of suffrage, debarred from speaking or writing, yea even from marrying, for I would stop the breed. If the people of our country had at any stage of existence of this war risen to the full occasion, instead of being put off with sickly expedients, we would long since had peace, and the longer we remain blind to it the longer will be the war, the more of these insidious, mean little side issues that harass you in Kentucky and the fearful load of debt that somebody must pay.

I surely wish you all in Kentucky well. I want to push the main rebel army far from you, and to root out that other class, who, under the plea of being soldiers, are regarded by us all as common vagabonds and thieves. Joe Johnston would never sanction such dogs as call themselves guerrillas in Kentucky, nor would Lee or Bragg, or any other man who thinks he is fighting to establish a new and independent government better suited to their interests and honor. I will, therefore, sustain General Burbridge if satisfied he is not influenced by mere personal motives, and nothing has occurred to evince anything of the kind. Bullitt and the rest must therefore spend some years abroad and take tune to study and reflect on the great theory of self-government which began with old Adam and has made precious little progress since. I should like Governor Bramlette and the real thinking men of Kentucky to know the kindly feelings I entertain toward them, and how earnest is my wish to insure to them tranquillity and peace.

With respect,
W. T. SHERMAN,

Major-General, Commanding.

Clearly, you have taken the quote out of context and deliberately misrepresented it -- or else simply taken it from some place where someone else did so, without bothering to verify it. Which one was it?

Tim

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by trice

Battalion,

Below is the actual complete text of the letter in which General Sherman uses the phrase "which party can whip" that you have recently been posting a snippet of a quote from, using it to imply something the general was not saying. As usual when debunking these attempts to misrepresent other people's words, I have marked the parts you omitted in blue text and the parts you have been posting in black text so that everyone can clearly identify how you have tried to distort what was said.

HDQRS. MILITARY DIVISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
In the Field, near Atlanta, August 14, 1864.

Hon. JAMES GUTHRIE,
Louisville:
MY DEAR SIR: I regret exceedingly the arrest of many gentlemen and persons in Kentucky, and still more that they should give causes of arrest. I cannot in person inquire into these matters, but must leave them to the officer who is commissioned and held responsible by Government for the peace and safety of Kentucky. It does appear to me when our national integrity is threatened and the very fundamental principles of all government endangered that minor issues should not be made by Judge Bullitt and others. We cannot all substitute our individual opinions, however honest, as the test of authority. As citizens and individuals we should waive and abate our' private notions of right and policy to those of the duly appointed agents of the Government, certain that if they be in error the time will be short when the real principles will manifest themselves and be recognized. In your career how often have you not believed our Congress had adopted a wrong policy and how short the time now seems to you when the error rectified itself or you were willing to admit yourself wrong. I notice in Kentucky a disposition to cry against the tyranny and oppression of our Government. Now, were it not for war you know tyranny could not exist in our Government; therefore any acts of late partaking of that aspect are the result of war; and who made this war? Already we find ourselves drifting toward new issues, and are beginning to forget the strong facts of the beginning. You know and I know that long before the North, or the Federal Government, dreamed of war the South had seized the U.S. arsenals, forts, mints, and custom-houses, and had made prisoners of war of the garrisons sent at their urgent demand to protect them "against Indians, Mexicans, and negroes." I know this of my own knowledge, because when the garrison of Baton Rouge was sent to the Rio Grande to assist in protecting that frontier against the guerrilla Cortina, who had cause of offense against the Texan people, Governor Moore made strong complaints and demanded a new garrison for Baton Rouge, alleging as a reason that it was not prudent to have so much material of war in a parish where there were 20,000 slaves and less than 5.000 whites, and very shortly after this he and Bragg, backed by the militia of New Orleans, made "prisoners of war" of that very garrison, sent there at their own request. You also remember well who first burned the bridges of your railroad, who forced Union men to give up their slaves to work on the rebel forts at Bowling Green, who took wagons and horses and burned houses of persons differing with them honestly in opinion, when I would not let our men burn fence rails for fire or gather fruit or vegetables though hungry, and these were the property of outspoken rebels. We at that time were restrained, tied by a deep-seated reverence for law and property. The rebels first introduced terror as a part of their system, and forced contributions to diminish their wagon trains and thereby increase the mobility and efficiency of their columns. When General Buell had to move at a snail's pace with his vast wagon trains, Bragg moved rapidly, living on the country. No military mind could endure this long, and we are forced in self-defense to imitate their example. To me this whole matter seems simple. We must, to live and prosper, be governed by law, and as near that which we inherited as possible. Our hitherto political and private differences were settled by debate, or vote, or decree of a court. We are still willing to return to that system, but our adversaries say no, and appeal to war. They dared us to war, and you remember how tauntingly they defied us to the contest. We have accepted the issue and it must be fought out. You might as well reason with a thunder-storm. War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want, not a word of argument, not a sign of let up, no cave in till we whipped or they are are. Those side issues of ******s, State rights, conciliation, outrages, cruelty, barbarity, bankruptcy, subjugation, &c., are all idle and nonsensical. The only principle in this war is, which party can whip. It is as simple as a schoolboy's fight, and when one or the other party gives in, we will be the better friends. I confess to-day I have more respect for some of the open enemies than I have for the canting sneaks to my rear, and though they call me pretty hard names I believe the feeling is reciprocated. I hope the question will soon resolve itself into "Shall we have a government that must be obeyed, and will you fight for it?" and if the answer be affirmative they are friends, if in the negative or doubtful, then they are enemies or mere denizens of the land, stript of the right of suffrage, debarred from speaking or writing, yea even from marrying, for I would stop the breed. If the people of our country had at any stage of existence of this war risen to the full occasion, instead of being put off with sickly expedients, we would long since had peace, and the longer we remain blind to it the longer will be the war, the more of these insidious, mean little side issues that harass you in Kentucky and the fearful load of debt that somebody must pay.

I surely wish you all in Kentucky well. I want to push the main rebel army far from you, and to root out that other class, who, under the plea of being soldiers, are regarded by us all as common vagabonds and thieves. Joe Johnston would never sanction such dogs as call themselves guerrillas in Kentucky, nor would Lee or Bragg, or any other man who thinks he is fighting to establish a new and independent government better suited to their interests and honor. I will, therefore, sustain General Burbridge if satisfied he is not influenced by mere personal motives, and nothing has occurred to evince anything of the kind. Bullitt and the rest must therefore spend some years abroad and take tune to study and reflect on the great theory of self-government which began with old Adam and has made precious little progress since. I should like Governor Bramlette and the real thinking men of Kentucky to know the kindly feelings I entertain toward them, and how earnest is my wish to insure to them tranquillity and peace.

With respect,
W. T. SHERMAN,

Major-General, Commanding.

Clearly, you have taken the quote out of context and deliberately misrepresented it -- or else simply taken it from some place where someone else did so, without bothering to verify it. Which one was it?

Tim

POWER

"When the people of the South tried to rule us through the negro, and became insolent, we cast them down, and on that question we are strong and unanimous. Neither cotton, the negro, nor any single interest or class should govern us."

William T. Sherman

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

POWER

"When the people of the South tried to rule us through the negro, and became insolent, we cast them down, and on that question we are strong and unanimous. Neither cotton, the negro, nor any single interest or class should govern us."

William T. Sherman

And, once again, what is your point? Sherman's is clear and unabiguously expressed if you read the entire letter. It seems totally opposed to what you are making it out to be with these little snippets out of context. I urge you again to drop this false policy and simply explain yourself in your own words. Anything else, at this point, will simply make you look bad.

Or do you somehow believe that the total statement he made disappears if you close your eyes to it?

Tim

[trice]

Battalion,

Just posting this to once again bring this thread to the top so that people can easily see how you are deliberately misrepresenting what William Sherman said. I have no idea why you would continue to include the out-of-context distortion of his letter in your signature on posts. Doing so will only mark you as a deliberate deceiver in every post you make.

For anyone who wonders what this is about, just read the first post in this thread, and notice how Battalion continues to try to misrepresent Sherman with every post he includes the snippet from the letter. His false respresentation has all the integrity of the "quotes" or "blurbs" taken from reviewers you see in movie ads, where a statement like "I wish I could say this was an exciting movie, but it bored me" becomes "... an exciting movie ...". Battalion uses the same method in his quotes.

Tim

[unionblue]

Trice,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to post Sherman's letter in it's entirety.

Again, it seems to some that the art of clipping and snipping can tell the whole story or help them 'win' a war that is already decided and a part of history.

This does not help in the study of the Civil War nor does it change it's outcome nor it's causes that brought the war on in the first place. (Note that I said causes.)

No one who uses and posts on this board is fooled by snips of statements, speeches, letters or diaries, but almost always insist on seeing the enitre document. It answers the question and allows one to verify the context in which the statement was given and thereby determine the true intent of the author.

Again, thank you for spending the time to clear up another narrow view of history by throwing open the entire window of history, instead of just allowing a sliver of distorted sunlight to barely peek through.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by trice

Battalion,

Just posting this to once again bring this thread to the top so that people can easily see how you are deliberately misrepresenting what William Sherman said. I have no idea why you would continue to include the out-of-context distortion of his letter in your signature on posts. Doing so will only mark you as a deliberate deceiver in every post you make.

For anyone who wonders what this is about, just read the first post in this thread, and notice how Battalion continues to try to misrepresent Sherman with every post he includes the snippet from the letter. His false respresentation has all the integrity of the "quotes" or "blurbs" taken from reviewers you see in movie ads, where a statement like "I wish I could say this was an exciting movie, but it bored me" becomes "... an exciting movie ...". Battalion uses the same method in his quotes.

Tim

Nothing is misrepresented. Nothing out of context.
Sherman clearly indicates that slavery ("n------") was a pumped-up side issue of the war.

~

Now continue with your back-slappers club.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Nothing is misrepresented. Nothing out of context.
Sherman clearly indicates that slavery ("n------") was a pumped-up side issue of the war.

~

Now continue with your back-slappers club.

Actually what you do repeatedly has been thrown open for all to see.

After all if the facts don't support your theories simply distort them. It's what the Lost Cause and its proponents have been doing for over a century. We've seen them on this board and others for quite a while.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Actually what you do repeatedly has been thrown open for all to see.

After all if the facts don't support your theories simply distort them. It's what the Lost Cause and its proponents have been doing for over a century. We've seen them on this board and others for quite a while.

Go back to your back-slappin'

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Nothing is misrepresented. Nothing out of context.
Sherman clearly indicates that slavery ("n------") was a pumped-up side issue of the war.

~

Now continue with your back-slappers club.

No, Battalion, anyone who actually bothers to read Sherman's letter objectively will see that Sherman's meaning is entirely different in context than the distortion you are trying to present.

This merely repeats the similar attempt you made to distort Robert E. Lee's position on secession about a year ago, when I first started participating in this forum, using exactly the same sort of "..." snippets. Your current post just shows more of the same attempts to deny an already revealed truth you showed then, and in the months since on other misrepresentations. By your own actions, you mark yourself still further as unreliable in what you post, exactly the sort of intellectual integrity shown by those who make all those blurb quotes in movie ads I mentioned before.

Why you would do this to yourself after it has been repeatedly shown that people here bother to check to see what you have distorted I do not know. As I said, at this point all it does is mark you as one who engages in deliberate attempts to distort and deceive with your own posts.

Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Trice,

Thank you for ...

No need. I am actually sorry I felt it was necessary, to tell the truth. Unfortunately, deceptions repeated long and loudly enough become accepted. This is a concept Hitler's mouthpiece Goebbels was very familiar with and used as often as he could, but he certainly did not invent it, nor did the propagandists of any recent century. So when you see someone acting repeatedly like this it becomes necessary to point it out baldly and directly. That is my only reason for being so obnoxious in my posts, since the polite ones I tried first did not work.

Napoleon could distort/lie/mislead in his announcements as well as any. He once said that when he needed a man, he could brown-nose with the best of them. But constant use wears thin, and people who see they have been deceived tend to become cynical about the deceiver.

Napoleon's old soldiers were as cynical as any. By 1807 (i.e., after seeing the Emperor's official bulletin of another glorious victory in the bloody, frozen hell of Friedland), they had their own phrase for attempts to put one over on them. Translated, it comes out roughly as "to lie like a bulletin". Posts from Battalion should be approached with the same attitude, IMHO, due to his documented history of deliberate misrepresentation.

The shame of it is that there are many interesting parts of that letter from Sherman. People determined to take things out of context, looking for anything at all they can cast into support for their own favorite point, manage to miss all of them. That is really too bad, and mainly shows that they have no desire to discover the past as it was and are not searching for it. Rather, they are looking for scraps to feed some pet theory, and want to see only what fits their view.

Anyone actually reading Sherman's letter can see the gist of it, because Sherman is quite bald about it. He is saying all this other stuff may be important, but the nation cannot deal with it RIGHT NOW. The text of his letter is all around this single point: "As citizens and individuals we should waive and abate our' private notions of right and policy to those of the duly appointed agents of the Government, certain that if they be in error the time will be short when the real principles will manifest themselves and be recognized. " In short, says Sherman, forget all the rest of this for the moment and let there be only issue before us: who will win the war. Once that is done, all other issues will be quickly resolved, and any charged tyranny (from the letter he is replying to) will quickly disappear as the nation goes back to peace.

Regards,
Tim