BillO
Captain
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Location
- Quinton, VA.
Looks like a good place to start oneThat's your arguement??
Looks like a good place to start oneThat's your arguement??
Americans North and South are great and magnimous winners, but we suck at losing, digs at our very souls....They do seem to have taken losing the war very personal.
There are scads of them. I have about eight.
Atlanta, like Vicksburg, was a city occupied by enemy troops. You'd have Sherman not drive them out by military action?
The civilians always get the mooky end of the stick when they're stuck between two opposing armies.
Atlanta and it's industry and rail connections was a war objective. I can't blame Hood for fortifying it, nor can I blame Sherman for taking it.
For some historical fact, a good portion of the city was destroyed when Hood blew up his accumulated powder and munitions and decamped. Another good portion of it was destroyed due to collateral damage when Sherman instructed his men to destroy all industries of military value. Vicksburg was not destroyed presumably because there was little of military value to destroy.
The questionable feature was when Sherman demanded that all civilians leave Atlanta. He didn't care if they went north or south, he just didn't want the mix in the military depot he was constructing.
I think those who understand war can find sound reasoning therein.
Now. Can we get back to the books touted in the OP? I've not read them, and I probably wouldn't if they were free. Having been on this board for longer than most, I could write them. BooHoo. He didn't play fair.
I don't know where we get the idea that there is honor in a war. And that one can tippy-toe around a guy you've just knocked down. Seems that the prevalent, contempory attitude was to make durn sure he didn't get up.
"What the Yankees Did to Us." Crock.
Explain.Crock.
Sherman ought to have been hung as a war criminal. The senseless murder and destruction that he was responsible for is unforgivable.
Sherman ought to have been hung as a war criminal. The senseless murder and destruction that he was responsible for is unforgivable.
Crock.
This is not going to suffice, Complicity. Around here, members gain credibility by explaining what they mean. You've been asked twice to explain your answer. I'd suggest you do so. Doesn't mean anyone will agree--but if you make coherent arguments over time, people will respect your opinion.
This is not your usual internet hit and run forum. Once you've been here awhile, we'll probably understand what you're getting at--till then please humor us. And show a little respect for long-term folks (all of them).
Ole as a long term member has a reputation of being able to back up his posts with solid research and first hand sources, you on the other hand have not proven yourself yet and posted about Yankee conspiracys to stifle book sales..Not the kind of thing that supports a reputation as a solid researcher on the war...And besides if someone asks Ole why would he call crock on something he would be glad to explain himself, thats something you have not done even though asked twice..Please examine post number 3 on the December 23, 2012 thread "What the Yankees Did to Us"
It was a two word post by a former moderator using the pseudonym "Ole" and is provided below. It was popularly "liked" and never criticized by a moderator.
Calling "crock."
Sherman ought to have been hung as a war criminal. The senseless murder and destruction that he was responsible for is unforgivable.
O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XXXIX/2 [S# 78]
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTH GEORGIA (THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN EXCEPTED), FROM MAY 1, 1864, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1864.(*)--#21
WASHINGTON, September 28, 1864.
Major-General SHERMAN, Atlanta, Ga.:
GENERAL: Your communications of the 20th in regard to the removal of families from Atlanta and the exchange of prisoners,(+) and also the official report(++) of your campaign, are just received. I have not had time as yet to examine your report. The course which you have pursued in removing rebel families from Atlanta and in the exchange of prisoners is fully approved by the War Department. Not only are you justified by the laws and usages of war in removing these people, but I think it was your duty to your own army to do so.
We have tried three years of conciliation and kindness without any reciprocation.
I don't care what your feelings are about US versus CS or Yankees or even who you voted for in the last election. You've got to admit that this is funny!
I get it. Two wrongs make a right.
Just because Halleck said it doesn't make it true.
It is necessary for the objective historian to evaluate the validity of remarks by war participants. Cutting-and-pasting original source material is valueless w/o such discernment.
When Halleck wrote the above obscenity Jackson, Mississippi was in ashes as was much of central Louisiana because of fires deliberately set by Yankee soldiers. Admittedly, anyone can go to the OR and find false denials of Yankee culpability, but they were largely self serving. Sherman and his pyromanic subordinate, A. J. Smith, were responsible. It would be necessary to disregard objectivity or be as gullible as the gate keepers of Troy to believe otherwise.
There are scads of them. I have about eight.
Now. Can we get back to the books touted in the OP? I've not read them, and I probably wouldn't if they were free
Having been on this board for longer than most, I could write them.
"What the Yankees Did to Us." Crock.
"It is necessary for the objective historian to evaluate the validity of remarks by war participants"
We need a priest class to tell us whats,what,we can't think and reason for ourselves..come to our own conclusions..
"It is necessary for the objective historian to evaluate the validity of remarks by war participants"
We need a priest class to tell us whats,what,we can't think and reason for ourselves..come to our own conclusions..
I get it. Two wrongs make a right.
Just because Halleck said it doesn't make it true.
It is necessary for the objective historian to evaluate the validity of remarks by war participants. Cutting-and-pasting original source material is valueless w/o such discernment.
When Halleck wrote the above obscenity Jackson, Mississippi was in ashes as was much of central Louisiana because of fires deliberately set by Yankee soldiers. Admittedly, anyone can go to the OR and find false denials of Yankee culpability, but they were largely self serving. Sherman and his pyromanic subordinate, A. J. Smith, were responsible. It would be necessary to disregard objectivity or be as gullible as the gate keepers of Troy to believe otherwise.