Sherman Sherman's Slaves

But unlike Confederate generals Sherman was redeemed by freeing slaves as was his colleague George Thomas. St.Paul was a terrible person but he won redemption by latter good works both Thomas and Sherman did the same.
Leftyhunter
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove Sherman a friend to contemporary Black folks. He wasn't exactly opposed to slavery, or their standing in society. His opinions seem harsh, even by 19th century standards.

Redeemed later..? :O o: Was this before, or after his treatment of Native Americans...?

Sherman has a looooong record, & left many writings of his redeeming qualities, before, during, & after the War. I'd dare say, some of the most vile language every put to paper concerning other human beings, was authored by Sherman.
 
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove Sherman a friend to contemporary Black folks. He wasn't exactly opposed to slavery, or their standing in society. His opinions seem harsh, even by 19th century standards.

Redeemed later..? :O o: Was this before, or after his treatment of Native Americans...?

Sherman has a looooong record, & left many writings of his redeeming qualities, before, during, & after the War. I'd dare say, some of the most vile language every put to paper concerning other human beings, was authored by Sherman.
Actions speak louder then words . Sherman was not a Saint by any means but his March through Georgia did much to end Slavery. No contemporary Southeners had any problems with how Sherman' treated the Indians only a very few of their 21st Century offspring.
Leftyhunter
 
Actions speak louder then words .
They certainly do. On that we are in agreement.

I just find it odd that you consider Sherman a friend of contemporary Black folks. It wasn't just his words that were detrimental to them. In addition, after denying he owned any slaves, evidence was presented that he did. You kind of ignored it. Again, that's odd, as based on previous discussions about other folks (like Lee for example), you've listed him owning slaves as a negative.

Then, you declare Sherman "redeemed", knowing full well he played a significant factor in slaughtering, & starving out countless Indians. What exactly would it take for you to not defend Sherman..? Proof he whipped a slave..? Proof he murdered one..? I find these contradictions.....odd. Which is why I ask these questions. I'm trying to understand your perspective more clearly.
 
They certainly do. On that we are in agreement.

I just find it odd that you consider Sherman a friend of contemporary Black folks. It wasn't just his words that were detrimental to them. In addition, after denying he owned any slaves, evidence was presented that he did. You kind of ignored it. Again, that's odd, as based on previous discussions about other folks (like Lee for example), you've listed him owning slaves as a negative.

Then, you declare Sherman "redeemed", knowing full well he played a significant factor in slaughtering, & starving out countless Indians. What exactly would it take for you to not defend Sherman..? Proof he whipped a slave..? Proof he murdered one..? I find these contradictions.....odd. Which is why I ask these questions. I'm trying to understand your perspective more clearly.

I guess we could just agree Sherman was a man of his times and a friend of the South.

And he did own slaves and more than likely found them unfit and unready to assume freedom and the responsibilities of US citizenship.
 
They certainly do. On that we are in agreement.

I just find it odd that you consider Sherman a friend of contemporary Black folks. It wasn't just his words that were detrimental to them. In addition, after denying he owned any slaves, evidence was presented that he did. You kind of ignored it. Again, that's odd, as based on previous discussions about other folks (like Lee for example), you've listed him owning slaves as a negative.

Then, you declare Sherman "redeemed", knowing full well he played a significant factor in slaughtering, & starving out countless Indians. What exactly would it take for you to not defend Sherman..? Proof he whipped a slave..? Proof he murdered one..? I find these contradictions.....odd. Which is why I ask these questions. I'm trying to understand your perspective more clearly.
Lee had his slaves beaten and families torn apart. Sherman' apparently owned one slave at a time. Sherman is not a candidate for sainthood but Sherman did free slaves and did purpose forty acres and a mule for freed slaves.
Again contemporary Southern whites cared not one cwit for Indians post ACW vs those today that condone slavery because he even though it is false that somehow the Confederacy was nicer to the Indians.
Leftyhunter
 
But unlike Confederate generals Sherman was redeemed by freeing slaves as was his colleague George Thomas. St.Paul was a terrible person but he won redemption by latter good works both Thomas and Sherman did the same.
Leftyhunter
Ummmm everyone involved in the civil war freed their slaves, by your logic they all were redeemed then. Fact is owning someone is owning someone, whether for a year, a decade, or all their life. It was legal and rather common, I hold no grudge for Sherman, Grant or Thomas for taking advantage of the opportunities they had.
 
Ummmm everyone involved in the civil war freed their slaves, by your logic they all were redeemed then. Fact is owning someone is owning someone, whether for a year, a decade, or all their life. It was legal and rather common, I hold no grudge for Sherman, Grant or Thomas taking advantage of the opportunities they had.
No because Sherman unlike Southern slave owners used military force to free slaves not just grudgingly freeing slaves then actively oppressing them afterwards.
Leftyhunter
 
No because Sherman unlike Southern slave owners used military force to free slaves not just grudgingly freeing slaves then actively oppressing them afterwards.
Leftyhunter
Again choosing to own someone is choosing to own someone, freeing someone is freeing someone, yes people prewar who moved between states....slave and free, would sell them when moving, they rather had to.

But is like hot button moral issues today, I may disagree with something being legal......but I dont condemn someone personally for taking advantage of what is legal.........

There is "good slavery" or "slavery lite" as you insinuate. If you view it something excusable and redeemable, it was for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Again choosing to own someone is choosing to own someone, freeing someone is freeing someone, yes people prewar who moved between states....slave and free, would sell them when moving, they rather had to.

But is like hot button moral issues today, I may disagree with something being legal......but I dont condemn someone personally for taking advantage of what is legal.........
Those who were enslaved might have a different viewpoint.
Leftyhunter
 
Which makes absolutely no sense as the Yankees ended up freeing slaves from the heatless Southern whites.
Leftyhunter
Everyone has an opinion. But are you saying that never happened?
If it is, please note the 3 websites below.
 
Those who were enslaved might have a different viewpoint.
Leftyhunter
Not according to you, it was entirely ok and redeemable for Sherman, Grant, and Thomas to own slaves, they apparently were all happy slaves, as you seem to not want to condemn them being owned by their owners.........Your flip flopping faster then a catfish out of water.

Again if it was excusable or redeemable by some, it would be for anyone who owned other human beings. If you think its a forgivable action, then anyone can be forgived.........
 
Not according to you, it was entirely ok and redeemable for Sherman, Grant, and Thomas to own slaves, they apparently were all happy slaves, as you seem to not to want condemn them being owned by their owners.........Your flip flopping faster then a catfish out of water.

Again if it was exusable or redeemable by some, it would be for anyone who owned other human beings.
I never said that their slaves were happy although Thomas's two slaves stayed with the Thomas family. Grant quickly freed his slave. I never said they should own slaves. I just pointed out that their actions in the ACW freed slaves.
Leftyhunter
 
I never said that their slaves were happy although Thomas's two slaves stayed with the Thomas family. Grant quickly freed his slave. I never said they should own slaves. I just pointed out that their actions in the ACW freed slaves.
Leftyhunter
No you said it said it was something that is redeemable, someone could do some later good deed or work, and its all good..........well that would apply to anyone then. Including postwar.

If that's your standard, not sure if I agree with it........but it would have to be applied to everyone to even be a standard........
 
Last edited:
Which makes absolutely no sense as the Yankees ended up freeing slaves from the heatless Southern whites.
Leftyhunter
For 2 years the Union soldiers helped return slaves to their master
or left them to die in a contraband death camp for years.
 
Back
Top