Sherman Sherman was a hero

[johan_steele]

IIRC only about 1/3-1/2 of the city was destroyed. Of that damage about half was done by the CS Army withdrwaing and destrying stores & supplies. Shermans men did more of the same. One of my favorite pictures of Atlanta shows a tavern w/ a band on one side that has been gutted by fire. Shermans men madecertain the tavern was ok before they left. I had read a story that the owner of the tavern was a CS soldier that had lost a leg at Antietem and was home serving drinks to whoever would pay.

The supposed exchange that endeared the man to the men went something like this.

Yank: "Reb you'd **** in my drink given a chance wouldn't you?"
Reb bartender: "Only if you was an officer, only if you was an officer."

Man made good coin off the US Army and when the bank next door was torched prior to the wisthdrawel US troops stood by and made certain the fire did not spread to the tavern.

 

[Old Bay]

For this, you get a cookie.

Nom nom nom!

Oh God... I LOL'd! What IS that?? Or should I say, what WAS that?

It said cottonwood ash. I just googled 'pile of ash' and it came up.

 

[proud texan]

http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/wirz.htm

Some good points and information are found in this short article.

 

[ole]

Sorry, Poud Texan, we've been there and done that. Wirz got screwed and that is that. No qargument. Somebody had to hang for something. Witz got the shor straw.This was not a debate amon choir boys.

 

[PINCKNEYUSMCRET]

Sherman was doing his job, there was a saying capture their hearts and minds and the rest will follow. Some times it is necessasry to grab them by the blls.

Pinckney

 

[proud texan]

Sherman was doing his job, there was a saying capture their hearts and minds and the rest will follow. Some times it is necessasry to grab them by the blls.

Pinckney

Thats fine to say from the side that's doing the grabbin'

From the article aforementioned:
By modern standards, a strong case could be made that Sherman was a
war criminal. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 imposed the obligation
on all parties to allow free passage of medical and hospital stores – not
their destruction as contraband. Under the 1977 Additional Protocols to
the Geneva Convention, Article 69 imposes a duty to provide relief
supplies to the population of an adversary, and Article 70 requires a
belligerent to treat offers of relief of a humanitarian and impartial
character as a duty. Crimes of War, Edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff,
W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1999, p. 179.

 

[K Hale]

1949? Wait, what?

Now if you said 1849...

 

[wilber6150]

Thats fine to say from the side that's doing the grabbin'

From the article aforementioned:
By modern standards, a strong case could be made that Sherman was a
war criminal. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 imposed the obligation
on all parties to allow free passage of medical and hospital stores – not
their destruction as contraband. Under the 1977 Additional Protocols to
the Geneva Convention, Article 69 imposes a duty to provide relief
supplies to the population of an adversary, and Article 70 requires a
belligerent to treat offers of relief of a humanitarian and impartial
character as a duty. Crimes of War, Edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff,
W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1999, p. 179.

I guess Wheeler would fall under that as well, or Lee in Penn.. So what does it say about executing prisoners?

 

[Elennsar]

1949? Wait, what?

Now if you said 1849...

Yeah. If Sherman did what he did after that was made illegal, that would be one thing. This is like saying that (pick someone, anyone) would be a criminal by modern standards - as an author writing when Prohibition was the law.

Would also love to see proof of Sherman's actions in that regard. I have to admit to skimming the article, but it sounds more intent on making a case than the evidence.

 

[Nathanb1]

Ellensar wrote: Yeah. If Sherman did what he did after that was made illegal, that would be one thing. This is like saying that (pick someone, anyone) would be a criminal by modern standards - as an author writing when Prohibition was the law.

Just remember, guys--what's good for the goose is good for the gander.....I think I'll keep this one close at hand for future "pasting."

 

[Elennsar]

Ellensar wrote: Yeah. If Sherman did what he did after that was made illegal, that would be one thing. This is like saying that (pick someone, anyone) would be a criminal by modern standards - as an author writing when Prohibition was the law.

Just remember, guys--what's good for the goose is good for the gander.....I think I'll keep this one close at hand for future "pasting."

If you have anything in particular in mind to use this for, do tell.

Not saying I object - what's good for the goose is good for the gander as you said - but I'd like to know
what I'm going to be eating foot for so I can be braced for it being used against me.

And as a note, if the idea is that Sherman doing that should be condemned even if it wasn't illegal then, that's a seperate argument from it being criminal by modern law and therefore condemnation worthy, so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Nathanb1]

I'm collecting ammunition. Shhhhhhhh. It's a secret. You're not the only one with "stuff" being collected.....as a matter of fact, you're probably the least of offenders!

 

[Elennsar]

Must be an interesting list.

 

[Nathanb1]

Must be an interesting list.

Let's just say I'm on a campaign against absolutism and expecting people (in history) to play by rules that weren't yet invented when they did whatever they did!

 

[proud texan]

I guess Wheeler would fall under that as well, or Lee in Penn.. So what does it say about executing prisoners?

But the subject of this particular thread is........inject music from Jeporady......

 

[Nathanb1]

Sherman!!! Who actually invented some rules himself, thank you very much.

 

[wilber6150]

But the subject of this particular thread is........inject music from Jeporady......

Ahhh but the executing of prisoners is involved with Sherman, we can skip the Lee part.. However Wheeler is also in play....

 

[K Hale]

Yeah. If Sherman did what he did after that was made illegal, that would be one thing. This is like saying that (pick someone, anyone) would be a criminal by modern standards - as an author writing when Prohibition was the law.

Jim Bowie's land frauds were 100% legal, until they weren't any more.

Fact is, something is only illegal if there's a law on the books saying so.

 

[dvrmte]

The Lieber Codes gave Union armies a liberal use of their power against civilians but Sherman went beyond them. So he broke the rules of war that his own country made.

dvrmte

 

[Elennsar]

Jim Bowie's land frauds were 100% legal, until they weren't any more.

Fact is, something is only illegal if there's a law on the books saying so.

Exactly. Condemn it as wrong regardless of legality or don't bring up the subject of whether it was right or wrong if you're going to criticize Sherman for what he did on his march.

The Lieber Codes gave Union armies a liberal use of their power against civilians but Sherman went beyond them. So he broke the rules of war that his own country made.

dvrmte

I'm not entirely sure. If, for instance, there is nothing addressing whether or not it is okay to - for instance - destroy medicines as "contraband", is it "going beyond them" to do so?

Again, I'm not saying doing so is a-okay, but there's a difference between being a rule breaker and being within the rules but still wrong.

If you really think the "was in the wrong" part is the point, I think you have a better case than if you want to argue he violated any laws or codes.