Laid-back Sherman

[wilber6150]

Always is.



Are you kidding me?



I guess you are kidding.



I think I have seen y'all post saying she was hit by a stray bullet. Sherman ordered the bombardment of Atlanta and went to the cannons to watch. Big difference between a cannon ball and a stray bullet. I think you would surely know what a stray bullet is? That means it could have been a yankee bullet or a Confederate bullet.

Are you serious?
Was the cannon aimed at this person? Lee ordered the attack that advanced through the town, he was observing the attack as it happened, so with your logic how is he not to blame.. And the bullet that killed Wade came from the direction in which the Confederates controlled, so it wasn't a Yankee bullet.. And what does it matter whether a bullet or a cannon ball killed someone in determining whether or not the commanding general is to blame for a civilians death?
On the other hand, why don't you blame Hood for not evacuating the citizens or leaving the city and letting it be captured as an open city with minimal civilian loss?

 

[wilber6150]

Innocent civilian lives lost is a tragedy no matter how you look at it, but to accuse a general of intentionally murdering civilians because they were killed in an artillary barrage is ludicrous..

 

[Elennsar]

I suppose one could say that Sherman, while not deliberately targeting in the sense of oh a sniper picking his target, was launching an attack that would inevitably kill civilians as a direct consequence - as opposed to unhappy chance.

But I don't know enough about what was targeted to know if that holds water.

 

[Nathanb1]

I suppose one could say that Sherman, while not deliberately targeting in the sense of oh a sniper picking his target, was launching an attack that would inevitably kill civilians as a direct consequence - as opposed to unhappy chance.

But I don't know enough about what was targeted to know if that holds water.

Since a good proportion of Civil War battles were fought at or near towns (and why is an isolated farm any different than a town? How about the Henry house?) I guess we need to tar ANY general and ANYONE related in any way to a stray or placed shot with the same brush. We might move on from this inane discussion.....

 

[wilber6150]

I suppose one could say that Sherman, while not deliberately targeting in the sense of oh a sniper picking his target, was launching an attack that would inevitably kill civilians as a direct consequence - as opposed to unhappy chance.

But I don't know enough about what was targeted to know if that holds water.

The city was under siege and bombarded, was their unfortunate deaths a result of an overshot or were they near or in a legitimate target? He was a director of gas works ,per the post, so did he live near the gas works, a legitimate target? Who knows but how does one equate that with accusing a man of intentionally killing civilians with cannons?

 

[Elennsar]

The city was under siege and bombarded, was their unfortunate deaths a result of an overshot or were they near or in a legitimate target?

Or were targets chosen other than say the gas works? Were targets chosen by Sherman/monitored by Sherman? I dunno.

He was a director of gas works ,per the post, so did he live near the gas works, a legitimate target? Who knows but how does one equate that with accusing a man of intentionally killing civilians with cannons?

I suppose if one thinks Sherman is deliberately attacking homes as opposed to gas workses...

I'm just trying to sort out his intent. If things went wrong, his responsibility to deal with that is another problem entirely.

 

[ole]

When your enemy holes up in a civilian area and impedes your campaign, who is more at fault?

Do you I shell you out of your holes and risk collateral damage? Or is driving you out of your holes more important than what civilians get killed in the process of prosecuting a campaign?

Or do I leave you where you are and abandon the campaign whining that you are sheltering behind civilians?

And I have no doubt civilians died when they had the unfortunate circumstance of being in the line of fire. Was it ever not thus?.

How many were killed in Vicksburg? In Atlanta? in Charlestown? Most certainly there were some, but how many to justify the butcher label?

How many French died in the bombing raids during its occupation during WWII? How many Soviets? Slavs? Poles?

As Miss Nathonb1 mentioned, "War is hell and you can't refine it" We're getting a bit better at it, and we've learned a few things, but we haven't entirely solved the problem of friendly fire. And collateral damage.

 

[Elennsar]

When your enemy holes up in a civilian area and impedes your campaign, who is more at fault?

The one causing civilian deaths by their actions.

Do you I shell you out of your holes and risk collateral damage? Or is driving you out of your holes more important than what civilians get killed in the process of prosecuting a campaign?

Or do I leave you where you are and abandon the campaign whining that you are sheltering behind civilians?
[/quote]Or do you fight in such a way as to minimalize civilian losses because civilians are not legitimate targets? Do you actually attempt to avoid hitting civilians even if it means passing up targets that would otherwise be legitimate, or do you treat enemy civilians as part of the cost of war with no more emotion than you have for the cost of the shells?

As Miss Nathonb1 mentioned, "War is hell and you can't refine it" We're getting a bit better at it, and we've learned a few things, but we haven't entirely solved the problem of friendly fire. And collateral damage.

And so long as its treated as okay to kill civilians because one soldier on your side is worth infinite enemy civilians, so atomic bombs and mortar shells to mosques and shelling cities are okay, we won't solve the problem.

 

[K Hale]

Tragic that he was killed, but if the city is under artillery bombardment, what's he doing sitting around anywhere but in a cellar?

You think I'd be baking bread as two warring armies moved through my town?

WTF.

 

[Nathanb1]

Tragic that he was killed, but if the city is under artillery bombardment, what's he doing sitting around anywhere but in a cellar?

You think I'd be baking bread as two warring armies moved through my town?

WTF.

Would you be baking bread anyway?

 

[ole]

Can't find it at the moment, and my memory is much like Larry's, only more so.

In Columbia, Sherman ordered burned about seven sites. and they were all west of the burned district -- near the river. Gas works, arsenals, stuff like that.

The rest of it was not by his order.

There were disturbing "reports" of the Yanks coming in with ******s meant to start fires. Can't yet sort that out from fact, but it does remain that the Western men had a certain resentment for them being where they were in the first place. They were there because South Carolina was the reason they had just spent three years fighting across the south. In that situation, I'm reasonably certain that they weren't inclined to baby-sitting.

When Sherman set out for Savannah from Atlanta, he sent to Thomas every man he figured couldn't make the march. He hand-picked the toughest, most veteran units. These were hard guys. Everyone of them were as hard as the next guy in the AoT.

Problem was, those hard guys in the AoT went west with Hood and left Sherman with some over 60,000 really hard guys to deal with a confused Cavalry guy and Home Guard and four scattered commanders who had different ideas of what Sherman intended and how to stop him. Maybe one of those major boo-boos of the entire war.

I figure Hood couldn't have trailed him. (No forage left.) But there was a slim chance in getting in front of him and stopping him.

Sherman could not afford a major battle. I don't know that Hood could have either, but it is something to be thunk about and perhaps belongs on the "What If" forum.

Sherman led a great many fat and happy through the Great Pineys, but they were getting close. Again.

 

[K Hale]

Would you be baking bread anyway?

You'd be surprised, I have my grandmother's recipe for Irish soda bread and I do bake it from time to time!

 

[ole]

And so long as its treated as okay to kill civilians because one soldier on your side is worth infinite enemy civilians, so atomic bombs and mortar shells to mosques and shelling cities are okay, we won't solve the problem.

Now you're getting it. First order of business is to make them say quit first. When the cost may become that you have to quit first, you've already lost.

War is not about giving and taking; it is about taking. And you take until the other side gives up. The soldiers job is to kill people and break things until the other side no longer poses a threat. Threat eliminated; no more war. Sometimes, that is handled more clumsily than at other times, but it remains the same: You make them quit.

Bottom line is boots on the ground. Always has been, and I'll suspect it always will be. Overwhelming power has a way of seeing that people see the same things the same way you do. Prepare for peace by being the meanest sonofa***** in the valley. Peace is guaranteed only when they are afraid of you.

 

[ole]

You'd be surprised, I have my grandmother's recipe for Irish soda bread and I do bake it from time to time!

I have a kiler recipe for Irish Soda Bread Works out a perfect accompaniement for any Irish dish.

 

[Nathanb1]

I have a kiler recipe for Irish Soda Bread Works out a perfect accompaniement for any Irish dish.

Kinda ironic considering we're discussing Jenny Wade lol

 

[K Hale]

Kinda ironic considering we're discussing Jenny Wade lol

You make that stuff right, a bullet will bounce off the top crust.

 

[kenjcruz]

When your enemy holes up in a civilian area and impedes your campaign, who is more at fault?

In Sherman's memoirs there is a fascinating exchange of letters between Hood and Sherman. Sherman had evicted the civillian population of Atlanta after taking the city and Hood protested. Although Sherman's purpose was more likely to keep the citizens out the way while he went about his military business it did have the effect of removing them from harms way.

 

[K Hale]

Sherman vs. Hood really is a great exchange of letters. It did not take Sherman long to realize he was in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. You can follow along and pretty much see him reach that point, and then he gets very terse for about one more letter before deciding it's time to cut off the communication entirely.

EDIT: And of course it's online. http://www.civilwarhome.com/atlantaevacuation.htm The seething sarcasm in Sherman's final letter is a thing to behold.

 

[K Hale]

Man. I haven't read those letters in a while. Sherman's of Sept. 10th is absolutely epic.

Poor Hood... even after all the mileage Sherman got out of "the dark history of war," Hood was dumb enough to actually reuse the phrase with a straight face in his reply.

 

[wilber6150]

From the exchange of letters...

General J. B. HOOD, C. S. Army, Comdg. Army of Tennessee:
GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date [9th], at the hands of Messrs. Ball and Crew, consenting to the arrangements I had proposed to facilitate the removal south of the people of Atlanta who prefer to go in that direction. I inclose you a copy of my orders, which will, I am satisfied, accomplish my purpose perfectly. You style the measure proposed "unprecedented," and appeal to the dark history of war for a parallel as an act of "studied and ingenious cruelty." It is not unprecedented, for General Johnston himself, very wisely and properly, removed the families all the way from Dalton down, and I see no reason why Atlanta should be excepted. Nor is it necessary to appeal to the dark history of war when recent and modern examples are so handy. You, yourself, burned dwelling-houses along your parapet, and I have seen to-day fifty houses that you have rendered uninhabitable because they stood in the way of your forts and men. You defended Atlanta on a line so close to town that every cannon shot and many musket shots from our line of investment that overshot their mark went into the habitations of women and children. General Hardee did the same at Jonesborough, and General Johnston did the same last summer at Jackson, Miss. I have not accused you of heartless cruelty, but merely instance these cases of very recent occurrence, and could go on and enumerate hundreds of others and challenge any fair man to judge which of us has the heart of pity for the families of a "brave people." I say that it is kindness to these families of Atlanta to remove them now at once from scenes that women and children should not be exposed to, and the "brave people" should scorn to commit their wives and children to the rude barbarians who thus, as you say, violate the laws of war, as illustrated in the pages of its dark history. In the name of common sense I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner; you who, in the midst of peace and prosperity, have plunged a nation into war, dark and cruel war; who dared and badgered us to battle, insulted our flag, seized our arsenals and forts that were left in the honorable custody of peaceful ordnance sergeants; seized and made "prisoners of war" the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians long before any overt act was committed by the, to you, hated Lincoln Government; tried to force Kentucky and Missouri into rebellion, spite of themselves; falsified the vote of Louisiana, turned loose your privateers to plunder unarmed ships; expelled Union families by the thousands; burned their houses and declared by an act of your Congress the confiscation of all debts due Northern men for goods had and received. Talk thus to the marines, but not to me, who have seen these things, and who will this day make as much sacrifice for the peace and honor of the South as the best born Southerner among you. If we must be enemies, let us be men and fight it out, as we propose to do, and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity. God will judge us in due time, and He will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women, and the families of "a brave people" at our back, or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people.

W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-general, Commanding​

.

I wonder if the poor father and daughter mentioned by Southlands post were victims of these overshots due to the defensive line being so close to Atlanta...