Wild_Rose
Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
samgrant said:1) yes, as William sez, it was a most remarkable achievement, and credit to Lincoln and his army.
I've tried really hard to understand how Sherman's march was a "remarkable achievement" and a "credit to Lincoln". What is remarkable about a bully plowing through (largely) defenseless towns comprised of mostly elderly, women and children and how is that a credit to the "benelovent" Lincoln?
samgrant said:2) but those boys didn't sign up to free the slaves, they signed to Preserve the Union and suppress the rebellion, but may have had achange of heart after being in the south.
Maybe, do you have any evidence this is true? I believe if it is true they rejoiced mainly because they saw it as even more revenge against the slave owning South.
samgrant said:3) Battalion's response was not to the point of William's post - he just carped about alleged 'atrocities' of the Union soldiers.
It would be interesting to know what "carping" the North would have done if Lee had been as morally corrupt as Sherman and created a scorched earth effect on their homeland and made war against their women and children. Sherman and his men committed outrage after outrage against the South and if Southern people complain you call it "carping". That is incomprehensible.
samgrant said:But as for that I said that it was not to be unexpected that young men (boys) may have gone on a 'rampage' from time to time as in their stressful situation they might have expected to act their age (comparing and contrasting present day youthful rioting over such as football, basketball games).
Sam, you have just compared war crimes and inhumane acts against non-combatants to youthful rioting over a sports game. "Boys will be boys", is that it? Steal the lady's valuables, take her food and destroy what you don't need, throw her and her children out of her house and then burn it and all their posessions that weren't stolen...you call this mere vandalism? You believe it is not to be unexpected? It would be not unexpected to see such behavior in earlier century barbarians, but for United States troops it was nothing short of appalling.
samgrant said:And finally Sherman wasn't after the little folks and left them largely untouched, but WAS after the wealth of the Confederacy which initiated and fed the rebellion.
Sherman's men hated Southerners. If they left the little folks alone it was because they had nothing of value to take, but if they had food or livestock they could kiss it good-bye when the Union troops paid a visit. As a matter of fact they even robbed the slaves. Sherman may have had a loftier agenda, but he didn't stop his troops from their shameful behavior in the South.
Rose