Sherman Sherman was a hero

[johan_steele]

I am an avid defender of Sherman and his men, especially since I have discovered, quite conclusively in my opinion that much of what has been blamed upon Sherman and his men was pure bogus, exaggeration or post war propoganda.

Less than a thousand casualties, both military & civilians (over half were Georgia Militia at Griswoldville)

His actions at the very least shortened the War by a year if not ended it. It is a fascinating look at the way wars are won or lost. As to the claims of Sherman being the first to use such tactics need to look to the US actions during the Seminole War, THe French in Spain, English in India & China. Shermans march was nothing new to the world and hardly as brutal as the French actions in Spain.

Here are some titles that I think are well written and intriguing.

Fellman, MichaelCitizen Sherman: A LIfe of William Tecumseh Sherman

Lewis, Lloyd Sherman, Fighting Prophet

Marszalek, John A Soldiers Passion for Order

same author Shermans Other War, The General and the Civil War Press

His own memoirs are interesting and not too self serving...

As to the March to the Sea there are quite a few books out there some of them better than others. While I don't agree w/ the conclusions of all listed below I think they are reputable and fairly intellectually honest.

Glatthar, Joseph THe March to the Sea and beyond:Shermans Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaign

Neely, Mark "Was the Civil War a Total War?"

Royster, Charles THe Destructive War: Sherman, Jackson and the Americans

Cist, Henry M., Campaigns of the Civil War.-VII. The Army of the Cumberland, Castle Books, 2002.

Cox, Jacob D., Campaigns of the Civil War.-X. The March to the Sea-Franklin and Nashville, Castle Books, 2002.

 

[johan_steele]

Very simply put by a worthy CS General: "Hit the enemy where he ain't."

Shermans March to the Sea proved beyond a shadow of doubt to any and all who that the CSA had lost. The CS couldn't defend it's heartland, 60,000 men moved through the heart of Georgia w/ little significant opposition. How much Jeff Davis & the CS govt could or was willing to do to protect the CSA was shown to all.

Some would say that Sherman proved that it was all over but the shouting. The CSA could no longer field an army that could seriously challenge a Union Army in the field.

Who was Sherman fighting? The will of the CSA. Wars and battles are won in the will.

Here is a rough estimation of the damage from Shermans march.

35,000+ bales of cotton
7000 horses
20,000 head of cattle

approx $100 million in property damage.

Cotton, how is that a military target? The CS was all but bankrupt due to inept handling of the treasury, their one main bargaining crop was cotton that could be traded for guns, cannon, equipment etc. aka a valid military target.

Horses. The CS Cav, transport for cannon supplies etc. aka a valid military target

Cattle. Without the cattle, the food, soldiers cannot fight. Battles grind into sieges, sieges into truces & surrenders.

As to $100 millions in property damage. 200 miles of Railroad (transport troops & supplies), bridges (same as RR's), mills (changes grain to flour to feed horses & troops). The destruction of Plantations... keep in mind that approx 25,000 slaves fell in behind Shermans Army. Care to take a guess at the value of 25,000 slaves? I'll wager it would be considered about a quarter of that 100 millions. Everyone conveniently forgets that the Emancipation Proclomation gave the South fits. In many cases the soldiers didn't even have to free the slaves, they did it themselves and eliminated the CS's chief source of labor and the main reason for Secession in the first place. Kind of pointless to fight for the God given right to buy & sell human flesh when the chief product is headed for freedom.

Every plantation & its fields burned, every barn destroyed was that much less fodder for the CS Army or Cotton for the purchases of English Cannon & rifles. Every home destroyed or family displaced by the approach of 60,000 men was one more mouth calling upon the CS govt to feed & protect them and more proof that the CS could not. The population saw it, the world saw it.

Sherman had less than 200 men killed, almost none in combat. Most were hanged by Wheelers men... to include a 14 year old drummer boy. Of coarse these numbers don't include those black men, women and chikldren killed by Wheelers Cav at Ebenezer Creek when Jeff Davis (no, the Union Bastard) had the pontoons pulled before the freed slaves could cross.

As to the robbery & looting, how much was there really? Shermans Army averaged just one wagon per regiment. This does not count the ambulances. The wagons contained ammunition and rations. Shermans men average 12-15 miles a day, tore up a mile of railroad per day. How much time did that leave for looting? How did they carry the loot? From reading the diaries, and letters of men who participated they certainly didn't get rich from that march. Now I have done several route marches carrying a rifle, blanket roll, rations, canteen, 8 lbs of ammo... Sorry but I don't think I'd be real interested in carrying a chandelier or family heirloom furniture. vandalising the property of the people who started the mess in the first place? Yes.

As to the Rapes.... how many were there? I believe there were about twenty reported. IMO the number was off by about 10 times. Though I suspect that not all were commited by marauding evil yanks. There is some evidence to suggest that at least one group of hanged Union men were hanged by other Union troops... apparently they felt rape was a little out of line to. But there were more than just Union Troops in the area. CS Deserters, some estimates as high as 10,000 of them though I don't think the number was that high. Wheelers Cav... who didn't exactly have a steller rep w/ Georgia locals. And of coarse the freed slaves, people who had never been paid, a lifetime of slavery... suddenly an opportunity for revenge.

Not that there would be any reason for revenge from freed slaves, take a look at the conditions on Cobb's plantation if anyone needs a reason for revenge.

 

[johan_steele]

Don't be misled by the stories of the ragged rebel, a large majority of them have proven to be bogus. The largest problem w/ the CS Army wasn't supplies but an inept quartermaster sys that believed ammunition and arms were more important than food. Lee's men were well equiped w/ arms and ammunition and even well clothed from late 1862 to the very end. Shoes were a problem for both sides during the war simply because of the materials and construction of the time. They wore out quickly with hard use. Johnstons forces at Bentonville were well armed and well equiped as well.

When Sherman started his march, Grant was stalemated in front of Petersburg, Lee was in a strong position behind earthworks, His Army was intact and a dangerous foe. Hood was northbound for Tennessee. Leaving only "insignificant" forces in Alabama and the Trans Mississippi. But those men were still there in the fall of 64 and still quite willing and able to fight. Jeff Davis certainly didn't believe the War was over, in fact he seemed to be becoming more shrill and unrealistic as the war neared its end.

Sherman showed the world and the CS that the war was all but over, the South was beaten and incapable of winning the War. Before Shermans march that was still in doubt.

Take a look how long after Sherman left Atlanta before the city had newspapers running again, take a look at what the Georgia governor had to say about the hundreds of Wagons loaded w/ loot when he arrived in Atlanta after all of Shermans men were gone.

Look to the reports of looting of Dalton by Wheelers men and the anger it caused Georgians at the time.

Bluntly & brutally put Sherman scared the CS into submission. THe scale of destruction nowhere approached what other generals he is compared w/ might have done. I assure you if Sherman had been a Gengis Khan North Georgia would be barren still. If he had been one of the French Generals in Spain during the Napoleans time... All of North Georgia would have blue coated ancestors. I could go on but I don't believe it is needed.

Sherman was no worse than a host of his contemporaries. He was a better general than most yes; but when it comes to his being evil. No.

On the Indian subject, there are two mistakes I believe most make. 1: the belief that the Indians of the 19th century were just poor innocent lovers of nature. No, not only untue but patently insulting to the Native Americans of the time and of today. The Lakota, Cheyenne, Blackfoot, Kiowa, Commanche, Ute etc were some of histories toughest fighting men. They were warriors, men who lived to fight and the white man provided a wonderful opponent. They were no poor helpless bunny huggers. It was a kind of warfare I pray the world never again experiances, it was a no quarter given and none asked conflict. The closest any in the modern world have to such a clash of cultures culminated in the savage Pacific fighting of WWII.

2: Many seem to equate all of the ills the Native Americans faced with Sherman. Shermans treatment of the Native Americans was no different than that of the US for fifty years prior. Think I'm wrong, look to the Trail of Tears (ordered by a Southern President I believe) the Seminole War, the Blackhawk war, Commanche dealings etc. Native Americans were being lied to, murdered, ejected from their lands well prior to Sherman even going to West Point and it was all but policy into the 1890's.

Was Sherman an evil man? No more so than any Civil War General. I'm always suprised that noone places the blame for the march where it belongs, upon the CS govt as they made no real attempt to stop or even to slow it.

Just my thoughts on the subject... again.

 

[blue_zouave]

Thank you, Johan, for a well researched and well written series of posts.

Zou

 

[ole]

In, I believe, Confederates in the Attic, is an amusing tale bearing on Sherman's barbarity. I'll repeat it for the benefit of those who haven't heard it before. The author (Horwitz?) tells of visiting a southern lady who claimed that Sherman burned her town on his march. After regailing him with the horrors visited on the citizens, she invited him to tour some of the many fine antebellum mansions in the town.

Of coarse these numbers don't include those black men, women and chikldren killed by Wheelers Cav at Ebenezer Creek when Jeff Davis (no, the Union Bastard) had the pontoons pulled before the freed slaves could cross.

Sorry shane, I'll need to clarify that a bit. Sherman hisself said he had heard of no killing done by Wheeler's Cavalry, nor did Davis. As far as Sherman was concerned, Davis pulled up the bridge because he wanted it. Wheeler's cavalry was very close, so haste is understandable. That he was close is given credence because the tail end of Davis' troops saw the slaves jumping into the river to escape Wheeler (although some may have been desperate enough jump in simply to follow the blue soldiers), and heard the screaming when Wheeler arrived.

I'm confident you wouldn't have mentioned killing if you hadn't read it in a reliable source. I would like to read that.

Ole

 

[johan_steele]

I'll need to clarify that a bit. Sherman hisself said he had heard of no killing done by Wheeler's Cavalry, nor did Davis. As far as Sherman was concerned, Davis pulled up the bridge because he wanted it. Wheeler's cavalry was very close, so haste is understandable. That he was close is given credence because the tail end of Davis' troops saw the slaves jumping into the river to escape Wheeler (although some may have been desperate enough jump in simply to follow the blue soldiers), and heard the screaming when Wheeler arrived.

I'm confident you wouldn't have mentioned killing if you hadn't read it in a reliable source. I would like to read that.

Ole

No problem Ole, I read two seperate first hand accounts from Indiana troops that were in the rear guard when the pontoons were pulled. Both accounted seeing Union troops trying to provide cover fire for the slaves on the other side of the swollen creek but finding that. IIRC one was quite angry that Wheelers men were out of range of his rifle. Both accounted seeing hundreds of slaves pile into the swollen creek in an effort to cross. Many of the men in the pontoons pulled freed slaves aboard their pontoons.

There are numerous accounts of Wheelers men charging into the slaves gathered at Ebeneezer Creek and of rounding the survivors up to gleefully return to slavery. IIRC Battalion was kind enough to provide a reference to 1400 or so slaves being rounded up by Wheelers men.

I recall seeing a figure of 2500 slaves killed by Wheelers men. I initially thought the number impossibly high, then I read the accounts of hundreds drowned trying to cross the creek. Over the years various sources led me to believe that something truly evil happened there; far uglier than anything at Ft Pillow. While Wheelers men may have been largely responsible it was Davis who orchestrated the pulling of the pantoons.

Jeff Davis, US General, was not well known for accurate reports... and he certainly would have been interested in CYA if the situation warrented it. This was the man who murdered General Nelson (Union) and got away w/ it. I think in this case Sherman accepted the report on the incident.

The incident is brushed upon in several works; I will make an effort to look them up.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I've stated this before, but forgive me.

Sherman was attacking the means of the South making war, including its psychological resources. He wasn't massacring people, but he was destroying their property, stores, means of liveihood and intrastructure. Unlike whatever damage Lee and his men did during the Gettysburg campaign, this destruction was policy, directed from the top.

As to the morality of it, I guess that Sherman's answer would be it shortened the war and led to victory, which in a modern war, is morality.

 

[SpartanGSG]

Perhaps this will put some additional perspective and I quote Sherman from Foote:
"If the people raise a howl against my barbarity or cruelty," he told Halleck, "I will answer that war is war and not popularity -seeking."

Sure enough, when Mayor Calhoun protested that the suffering of the sick and aged, turned out homeless with winter coming on, would be "appalling and heart-rending", Sherman replied that while he gave "full credit to your statement of the distress that will be occasioned," he would not revoke his orders for immediate resettlement. "They were not designed to meet the humanities of the case, but to prepare for the future struggle...You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it...You might as well appeal against the thunder storm as against these terrible hardships of war...Now you must go and take your old and feeble, feed and nurse them and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta. Yours in haste."

Later to Hood when appealing for a truce to allow the evacuation of Atlanta..."In the name of commense sense...I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacriligious 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." ..."Talk thus to the marines, but not to me, who have seen these things...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 backs, or to remove them to places of safety among their own friends."

Hmm, doesnt sound to me like the Yankee heathen who preferred fighting the infirmed and powerless rather than the Confederate Army as has been suggested in this thread.

Respectfully,
Spartan

 

[ole]

Thanks for the heads up, shane. I knew you'd have an answer.
Ole

 

[matthew mckeon]

By the way, one of the trustees of Louisana State University, of which Sherman was briefly president, has proposed to name a building after him, to honor the first president of LSU.

But not the fire fighting training school there.

 

[Wild_Rose]

There was considerable burning and looting during the Gettysburg Campaign. Lee forbid it, as did Sherman, but both were powerless to curtail it absolutely. And I don't believe you can show that Lee didn't know about the burning of Chambersburg.Name one.
Ole

I don't claim that Confederate soldiers did not loot and burn, but I can't find any account of it. Sherman, on the other hand, swore to make Georgia "howl". He bragged often and loudly about what he would do to Southern property. If he ever meted out any diciplinary action for his soldiers looting or burning against his orders, I can't find any accounting of that either.

Of course I can't prove that Lee did or did not know about Chambersburg, but I believe it would be totally out of character for him to condone such actions.

To name one thing worse than losing would be to win the war, but lose your integrity and honor in the process. A nation without honor can never be truly great.

Just more of my humble opinions.

Regards,
Rose

 

[Wild_Rose]

By the way, one of the trustees of Louisana State University, of which Sherman was briefly president, has proposed to name a building after him, to honor the first president of LSU.

But not the fire fighting training school there.

Sherman proposition debated
By JESSICA FENDER
Capitol news bureau
Published: Jul 7, 2006

Sen. Robert Barham, R-Oak Ridge, last month got the Legislature to pass a resolution in favor of putting Sherman's name on a campus building.
"I became aware that LSU had a tradition of naming buildings for former presidents," Barham said. "I just thought it was noteworthy that the first one had no recognition."

Sherman, the acting superintendent who followed him and LSU's third superintendent do not have buildings named for them. Namesakes must be dead for two years before LSU etches their names on its buildings.
Barham's resolution and an Advocate editorial in favor of a Sherman building have set talk radio and editorial pages ablaze with criticism and support of the idea.

Jim Wharton, chemistry professor and a former LSU chancellor, said Sherman sets a poor example for students.

"He conducted total war … which meant he burned the crops, killed domestic and draft animals. It was a war against the civilian population," said Wharton, who formerly served on the committee that recommends names for buildings on campus.

Wharton points out that Sherman was also responsible for the massacre of Indians in Oklahoma. He said Sherman's contributions — aside from leading the university — would not be enough to get him a building nowadays.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/3292491.html

There is more of the report. Some speak for Sherman having a building named for him, but I doubt it's going to happen.

Rose

 

[YankeeBelle]

Oh Rose!

:noway: ::shakes head:: Rose, I do respect your opinions, though they differ from many on this board...but humble doesn't seem to describe them well. Be honest here, your mind is made up that Sherman is in fact the devil reincarnated and there is no way you will see any other way... even if it turns out that he never even stepped foot into georgia or the carolinas. I think that is the first step to your "healing." Please take no offense. It's all in good fun, after all. <---hey, I like this guy, too! 2nd best general in the war!

 

[Wild_Rose]

Rose, I do respect your opinions, though they differ from many on this board...but humble doesn't seem to describe them well. Be honest here, your mind is made up that Sherman is in fact the devil reincarnated and there is no way you will see any other way... even if it turns out that he never even stepped foot into georgia or the carolinas. I think that is the first step to your "healing." Please take no offense. It's all in good fun, after all. <---hey, I like this guy, too! 2nd best general in the war!

Sure, my mind is made up. But, I do humbly and respectfully offer my personal opinion about Sherman. I promise that if it turns out that he never set foot in Georgia or the Carolinas, I will change my mind, publicly apologize, and change my ringtone from "Dixie" to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".

Seriously, there is no "healing" needed. This is simply a message board to express views and discuss history.

Regards,
Rose

 

[Battalion]

No problem Ole, I read two seperate first hand accounts from Indiana troops that were in the rear guard when the pontoons were pulled. Both accounted seeing Union troops trying to provide cover fire for the slaves on the other side of the swollen creek but finding that. IIRC one was quite angry that Wheelers men were out of range of his rifle. Both accounted seeing hundreds of slaves pile into the swollen creek in an effort to cross. Many of the men in the pontoons pulled freed slaves aboard their pontoons.

There are numerous accounts of Wheelers men charging into the slaves gathered at Ebeneezer Creek and of rounding the survivors up to gleefully return to slavery. IIRC Battalion was kind enough to provide a reference to 1400 or so slaves being rounded up by Wheelers men.

I recall seeing a figure of 2500 slaves killed by Wheelers men. I initially thought the number impossibly high, then I read the accounts of hundreds drowned trying to cross the creek. Over the years various sources led me to believe that something truly evil happened there; far uglier than anything at Ft Pillow. While Wheelers men may have been largely responsible it was Davis who orchestrated the pulling of the pantoons.

Jeff Davis, US General, was not well known for accurate reports... and he certainly would have been interested in CYA if the situation warrented it. This was the man who murdered General Nelson (Union) and got away w/ it. I think in this case Sherman accepted the report on the incident.

The incident is brushed upon in several works; I will make an effort to look them up.

Sherman to Halleck 12 January 1865:

"...that ****-and-bull story of my turning back negroes that Wheeler might kill them is all humbug. I turned nobody back. Jeff. C. Davis did at Ebenezer Creek forbid certain plantation slaves- old men, women, and children-to follow his column; but they would come along and he took up his pontoon bridge, not because he wanted to leave them, but because he wanted his bridge.
He and Slocum both tell me they don't believe Wheeler killed one of them...."
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-...=/moa/waro/waro0099/&tif=00038.TIF&pagenum=36[/QUOTE]

*

Sherman's Memoirs-

"...On the occasion referred to, the bridge was taken up from Ebenezer Creek while some of the camp-followers remained asleep on the far ther side, and these were picked up by Wheeler's cavalry. Some of them, in their fright, were drowned in trying to swim over, and others may have been cruelly killed by Wheeler's men, but this was a mere supposition...."
http://www.sonshi.com/sherman22.html

*

Wheeler's report, Savannah Campaign, 24 December 1864-

"...On the night December 8 we shelled the camp of the Fourteenth Corps with good effect, throwing the corps into confusion and causing it to leave camp at midnight, abandoning clothing, arms. &c. By breaking up the camp during the extreme darkness a great many negroes were left in our hands, whom we sent back to their owners. We also captured three wagons and teams, and caused the enemy to burn several more wagons. The whole number of negroes captured from the enemy during the movement was nearly 2,000...."
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-.../moa/waro/waro0092/&tif=00430.TIF&pagenum=410[/QUOTE]

 

[30th_il]

Sherman

W.T. Sherman..no matter what you think of the man, good or bad, wouldn't ya just love to sit down and a beer and cigar with the man!

 

[johan_steele]

Battalion; thank yopu for giving so much credence to Sherman's own words. I wonder if you are so quick to quote him when he isn't saying what you like?

As to Wheeler... I agree w/ Forrest on the man.

 

[ole]

Hold the cigar. I want two beers.
Ole

 

[johan_steele]

Hold the cigar. I want two beers.
Ole

Scotch... and my pipe.

 

[johan_steele]

From Sherman's own memoirs. Let's be consistant if we are going to use his words as proof. "...a soldier passed me with a ham on his musket, a jug of sorghum-molasses under his arm, and a big piece of honey in his hand, from which he was eating, and, catching my eye, he remarked sotto voce and carelessly to a comrade, "Forage liberally on the country," quoting from my general orders. On this occasion, as on many others that fell under my personal observation, I reproved the man, explained that foraging must be limited to the regular parties properly detailed, and that all provisions thus obtained must be delivered to the regular commissaries, to be fairly distributed to the men who kept their ranks."


We found abundance of corn, molasses, meal, bacon, and sweet-potatoes. We also took a good many cows and oxen, and a large number of, mules. In all these the country was quite rich, never before having been visited by a hostile army; the recent crop had been excellent, had been just gathered and laid by for the winter. As a rule, we destroyed none, but kept our wagons full, and fed our teams bountifully.

"The skill and success of the men in collecting forage was one of the features of this march. Each brigade commander had authority to detail a company of foragers, usually about fifty men, with one or two commissioned officers selected for their boldness and enterprise. This party would be dispatched before daylight with a knowledge of the intended day's march and camp; would proceed on foot five or six miles from the route traveled by their brigade, and then visit every plantation and farm within range. They would usually procure a wagon or family carriage, load it with bacon, corn-meal, turkeys, chickens, ducks, and every thing that could be used as food or forage, and would then regain the main road, usually in advance of their train. When this came up, they would deliver to the brigade commissary the supplies thus gathered by the way. Often would I pass these foraging-parties at the roadside, waiting for their wagons to come up, and was amused at their strange collections--mules, horses, even cattle, packed with old saddles and loaded with hams, bacon, bags of cornmeal, and poultry of every character and description. Although this foraging was attended with great danger and hard work, there seemed to be a charm about it that attracted the soldiers, and it was a privilege to be detailed on such a party. Daily they returned mounted on all sorts of beasts, which were at once taken from them and appropriated to the general use; but the next day they would start out again on foot, only to repeat the experience of the day before. No doubt, many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence, were committed by these parties of foragers, usually called "bummers;" for I have since heard of jewelry taken from women, and the plunder of articles that never reached the commissary; but these acts were exceptional and incidental. I never heard of any cases of murder or rape; and no army could have carried along sufficient food and forage for a march of three hundred miles; so that foraging in some shape was necessary. The country was sparsely settled, with no magistrates or civil authorities who could respond to requisitions, as is done in all the wars of Europe; so that this system of foraging was simply indispensable to our success. By it our men were well supplied with all the essentials of life and health, while the wagons retained enough in case of unexpected delay, and our animals were well fed. Indeed, when we reached Savannah, the trains were pronounced by experts to be the finest in flesh and appearance ever seen with any army."

Those are Shermans words...

To the People of Georgia:

Arise for the defense of your native soil! Rally around your patriotic Governor and gallant soldiers! Obstruct and destroy all the roads in Sherman's front, flank, and rear, and his army will soon starve in your midt. Be confident. Be resolute. Trust in an overruling Providence, and success will soon crown your efforts. I hasten to join you in the defense of your homes and firesides.

G. T. BEAUREGARD

To the People of Georgia:

You have now the best opportunity ever yet presented to destroy the enemy. Put every thing at the disposal of our generals; remove all provisions from the path of the, invader, and put all obstructions in his path.

Every citizen with his gun, and every negro with his spade and axe, can do the work of a soldier. You can destroy the enemy by retarding his march.

Georgians, be firm! Act promptly, and fear not!

B. H. Hill, Senator.

To the People of Georgia:

We have had a special conference with President Davis and the Secretary of War, and are able to assure you that they have done and are still doing all that can be done to meet the emergency that presses upon you. Let every man fly to arms! Remove your negroes, horses, cattle, and provisions from Sherman's army, and burn what you cannot carry. Burn all bridges, and block up the roads in his route. Assail the invader in front, flank, and rear, by night and by day. Let him have no rest.

JULIAN HARTRIDGE
MARK BLANDFORD
J. H. ECHOLS
GEO. N. LESTER
JOHN T. SHUEMAKE
JAS. M. SMITH

Just as a note, this is a CLEAR call from the CS govt to civilians to fire upon US troops thus inviting retaliation upon the civilian populace. Not very responsible... or honorable.