Which Civil War General Do You Love to Hate?

Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Location
central NC
497889249.jpg

(Public Domain)
I was recently struck by a comment another poster made in which they pondered how someone who was loyal to the Southern Cause could criticize a renowned Southern general like James Longstreet. I have often wondered that myself. This phenomenon is common on both sides. For example, there are plenty of loyal Unionists who seem to take pleasure in trying to prove that General Grant was an alcoholic. Perhaps the answer is simple – folks love having someone to hate.

So, which general do you love to hate? And please tell us why!

I’ll get us started. I love to hate General Sherman. While I understand how his tactics brought an end to the Civil War, I hate them. The idea of terrorizing women and children just makes me cringe. I think Sherman’s “total war” strategy was despicable
 
I have two.

1. William T. Sherman: A war criminal is a war criminal, whether he's on your side or the other. In every war, the US has prosecuted soldiers for crossing moral and ethical lines that should never be crossed, no matter what they got accomplished. The US has never been a "win at any cost" kind of country. Our adversaries tend to be those kinds of countries. Sherman defenders rarely touch the subject of whether he had the authority to have a policy of war that was different from that of the President or the commanding general of the US Army. He did not.

2. Nathan Bedford Forest: When you're the founder of the KKK, in my book, that pretty much cancels out any other good thing you might have ever done in your life. Enough said?
 
Vote Here:
View attachment 343739
(Public Domain)
I was recently struck by a comment another poster made in which they pondered how someone who was loyal to the Southern Cause could criticize a renowned Southern general like James Longstreet. I have often wondered that myself. This phenomenon is common on both sides. For example, there are plenty of loyal Unionists who seem to take pleasure in trying to prove that General Grant was an alcoholic. Perhaps the answer is simple – folks love having someone to hate.

So, which general do you love to hate? And please tell us why!

I’ll get us started. I love to hate General Sherman. While I understand how his tactics brought an end to the Civil War, I hate them. The idea of terrorizing women and children just makes me cringe. I think Sherman’s “total war” strategy was despicable
Not understanding the hate for Sherman. We have had past threads which showed that house burnings in Georgia were greatly exaggerated. Sherman's men did not massacre civilians. At least several Union soldiers during the March through Georgia were executed for rape.
Total war against civilians by US soldiers would be true against the Indians and wars well after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
I have two.

1. William T. Sherman: A war criminal is a war criminal, whether he's on your side or the other. In every war, the US has prosecuted soldiers for crossing moral and ethical lines that should never be crossed, no matter what they got accomplished. The US has never been a "win at any cost" kind of country. Our adversaries tend to be those kinds of countries. Sherman defenders rarely touch the subject of whether he had the authority to have a policy of war that was different from that of the President or the commanding general of the US Army. He did not.

2. Nathan Bedford Forest: When you're the founder of the KKK, in my book, that pretty much cancels out any other good thing you might have ever done in your life. Enough said?
The US definitely has been a win at any cost country but that's mostly semi and more modern politics. The US war against the Indians since the Colonial Era to 1890 was definitely win at any cost .
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
View attachment 343739
(Public Domain)
I was recently struck by a comment another poster made in which they pondered how someone who was loyal to the Southern Cause could criticize a renowned Southern general like James Longstreet. I have often wondered that myself. This phenomenon is common on both sides. For example, there are plenty of loyal Unionists who seem to take pleasure in trying to prove that General Grant was an alcoholic. Perhaps the answer is simple – folks love having someone to hate.

So, which general do you love to hate? And please tell us why!

I’ll get us started. I love to hate General Sherman. While I understand how his tactics brought an end to the Civil War, I hate them. The idea of terrorizing women and children just makes me cringe. I think Sherman’s “total war” strategy was despicable
General George Pickett who executed Unionist soldiers who deserted from the Confederate Army. After the war his actions were condoned by Grant.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
Braxton Bragg...he may have been very capable in a recruiting and training capacity, but not as an army commander. He was good at planning a campaign, but inflexible when his plans made first contact with the enemy. He was never able to adjust. And his petty squabbles with his subordinates contributed to the defeat and ultimate destruction of the Army of Tennessee. He was one of the North's best weapons...
 
Vote Here:
Not understanding the hate for Sherman. We have had past threads which showed that house burnings in Georgia were greatly exaggerated. Sherman's men did not massacre civilians. At least several Union soldiers during the March through Georgia were executed for rape.
Total war against civilians by US soldiers would be true against the Indians and wars well after the ACW.
Leftyhunter
The only thing I agree with is it was as equally wrong and reprehensible in the Indian wars and incidents such as My Lai, Hiroshima or firebombing a city full of refugees at Dresden.

As to the OP, Nathaniel Lyon of course, as I think his actions simply created more division in what had demonstrated itself a Unionist sentiment state, and lead in part to a far more bitter war here.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I'm sure don't hate anyone yet I think I can understand, for some, how the history of Sherman's March to the Sea is a very personal issue. Living and growing up in South Carolina there were constant reminders of what happened there. I know many family lines that had been affected by Sherman. Also, reading the slave narratives from Georgia and SC it is interesting to see remembrances of Sherman's army scattered throughout. I think the fact that he enjoyed the hospitality of the South only to later bring destruction and damage is not something some will forget or let go.
 
Vote Here:
The Lieber Code of Conduct was introduced on April 24th 1864, that clearly stated that defenceless Citizens were NOT to be attacked or Cities & Towns plundered.
Yet Sherman attacked Roswell, in July 1864 during the Atlanta campaign, burned down the Mills, and deported 400 innocent Women & Children to the north............just for this one incident I hate the Man !
 
Vote Here:
The only thing I agree with is it was as equally wrong and reprehensible in the Indian wars and incidents such as My Lai, Hiroshima or firebombing a city full of refugees at Dresden.

As to the OP, Nathaniel Lyon of course, as I think his actions simply created more division in what had demonstrated itself a Unionist sentiment state, and lead in part to a far more bitter war here.
In Sherman's defense he did nothing remotely on the scale of the more recent above incidents.
We have definitely debated Lyon in the past. Lyon is a love him or hate him kind of guy. Not much middle ground.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
The Lieber Code of Conduct was introduced on April 24th 1864, that clearly stated that defenceless Citizens were NOT to be attacked or Cities & Towns plundered.
Yet Sherman attacked Roswell, in July 1864 during the Atlanta campaign, burned down the Mills, and deported 400 innocent Women & Children to the north............just for this one incident I hate the Man !
That point has been debated in the past. At least up North there were jobs for the women and they returned South after the war. In Sherman's defense US forces have done far more population removal post ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
Braxton Bragg...he may have been very capable in a recruiting and training capacity, but not as an army commander. He was good at planning a campaign, but inflexible when his plans made first contact with the enemy. He was never able to adjust. And his petty squabbles with his subordinates contributed to the defeat and ultimate destruction of the Army of Tennessee. He was one of the North's best weapons...
That's an interesting point to ponder. Someday I should get a good biography about Bragg. Recently Bragg has gotten some love from a recent biography. I forget which one.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
In Sherman's defense he did nothing remotely on the scale of the more recent above incidents.

I've just finished reading Marszalek's biography of Sherman. He makes it quite clear that Sherman's targets were infrastructure and other associated structures (smokehouses, mills, etc.) that contributed to the Confederate capacity to make war or provide the necessary food and resources that would enable them to carry on with the struggle.
 
Vote Here:
I've just finished reading Marszalek's biography of Sherman. He makes it quite clear that Sherman's targets were infrastructure and other associated structures (smokehouses, mills, etc.) that contributed to the Confederate capacity to make war or provide the necessary food and resources that would enable them to carry on with the struggle.
Exactly right. I have never heard of Sherman massacring civilians such has Quantril at Lawrence,Kn. Sherman punished rapist's. Not understanding the beef about Sherman.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
I think the fact that he enjoyed the hospitality of the South only to later bring destruction and damage is not something some will forget or let go.

The interesting thing is that Sherman was generally lauded in the South for many years after the CW because his views on Reconstruction coincided with that of many southerners. Moreover, as Sherman often noted, his fondness for the south and its people pre-dated the war; moreover, he believed that bringing the war home to the civilian population would be the fastest way of bringing the conflict to an end.
 
Vote Here:
That point has been debated in the past. At least up North there were jobs for the women and they returned South after the war. In Sherman's defense US forces have done far more population removal post ACW.
Leftyhunter
Oh you are thinking of Nov 27th 1868 when Custer massacred “ friendly Cheyenne ( Women & Children included) on the Washita river.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top