The Avengement of South Carolina

[Alabaman]

Cash:
President Lincoln was in office while war attrocities took place, via his armies. Was President Lincoln a good and righteous leader of the United States for condoning such atrocities during his administration?
President Lincoln did know the burning of non-military targets was transpiring. He didn't try to stop it.

In another thread you said before the Cleburne Proclamation was written/rejected in 1864, it (the war) was all over with (paraphrasing you). Why add atrocity to victory, if you know you are the victor in this struggle? Atrocity couldn't hasten military victory, as per your thoughts on the war being won already. Do you condone brutality, as a civilized man?

The ravaging of the South's civilian populaion/property only brought longer-lasing hatred to our country. Lincoln's assissanation has no bearing. President Lincoln had adequate time to halt the revenge of Gen. Sherman & his Army. Lincoln did nothing to stop the actions of his Army.

Rob Adams

[elektratig]

Since the thread seems to be, in effect, a discussion of Sherman's strategy and tactics, I'll add a little more fat to the fire by pointing out a fine essay by the classicist and military historian Victor Hanson explaining why the campaign was brilliant, effective and humane.

Happy reading!

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson110099.html

[ole]

Bama:
There are a few misconceptions in your statement ...

"Why add atrocity to victory, if you know you are the victor in this struggle? Atrocity couldn't hasten military victory, as per your thoughts on the war being won already. Do you condone brutality, as a civilized man?"

In full-scale war, burning the foe's symbols was not considered an atrocity. I might agree with "wanton destruction," but "atrocity" is not an accurate description.

For "a war already won." We can see that it was already won. I suspect the CSA saw that it was already won. But wars are not won until the other side quits and sues for peace.

What you suggest sounds like, "We've whupped 'em. Let's let them catch their breath so we can resume fighting a gentleman's war." Wars don't work that way. When you've got the heat up, they're running, and the end is in sight, that's the time to crank up the heat -- when they're getting to look on quitting as a good idea.

Atrocity? I see monuments to criminal folly.

Respectfully,
Ole

[cash]

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Cash:
President Lincoln was in office while war attrocities took place, via his armies.

So what? Those who actually committed atrocities were, when they could be identified, tried by court-martial and punished.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

Do you condone brutality, as a civilized man?

I agree with Stonewall Jackson who said to keep your sword sheathed in peace, but in war you draw your sword and throw away the sheath.

Originally Posted by Alabaman

The ravaging of the South's civilian populaion/property only brought longer-lasing hatred to our country. Lincoln's assissanation has no bearing. President Lincoln had adequate time to halt the revenge of Gen. Sherman & his Army. Lincoln did nothing to stop the actions of his Army.

Rob Adams

------------

Rob, there's quite a lot of mythology there that has no basis in actual historical fact.

You might be interested in the following as a starter:

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/.../myth/myth.htm

Regards,
Cash

[elektratig]

Cash,

Thanks for the link to the article.

[ole]

elektratig:

You are not a very nice person. It was wrong of you to post the link to Hanson's essay without accompanying advisements. The essay will surely upset those of our southern friends who chose to read it, and they should have been warned.

Bad boy. Sit.
Ole

[elektratig]

Ole,

Jeez -- I thought my describing Hanson's essay as "explaining why [Sherman's] campaign was brilliant, effective and humane" was reasonable warning!

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by cash

I agree with Stonewall Jackson who said to keep your sword sheathed in peace, but in war you draw your sword and throw away the sheath.

Haven't I read somewhere that at the time Jackson was killed, his sword was rusted into his sheath?

[johan_steele]

Ole, thanks for lightening the mood... I needed that.

[ole]

Elektratig:
"Haven't I read somewhere that at the time Jackson was killed, his sword was rusted into his sheath?"

Haven't heard about that one, but I have read that he couldn't unsheath his sword at Cedar Mountain. So he just waved it, sheath and all.
Ole