Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but I disagree with your sanitized version of what happened. One of his stated objectives was to exterminate the people and repopulate the land. You seem to forget these people had to live off the land for their food and existence which you even admit Sherman destroyed. So he didn't attack the civilian population? Yes, he did.
"Until we can repopulate Georgia it is useless to occupy it, but utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources."
He was crazy alright and a coward for targeting the people! He was a bloodthirsty crazy man who should have been put to death for what he did to the civilian population in the South!
And one of his critics pointed out that he even supposedly admitted after the war that he could be hanged for the things he did.
Sherman was taken to making such statements, but you have to read them within the context of what he DID and what he really MEANT. You, as I feared you were, are merely looking at snippets of information that happen to support the point of view that you believe. If you read the entire body of what Sherman has written or said, then you would understand that he was not using those words literally, but was speaking in metaphor as many people of the time did.
When Sherman spoke of "repopulate" he meant "to make American again". In his writings there is a strong difference in his mind between the Southerner in rebellion as enemy and the Southerner in union as brother. He wanted to "depopulate" the rebels and "repopulate" with Americans, but the actual "populace" was the same.
When he spoke of "utter destruction of the people" he was speaking of their morale, pride, ability and desire to continue to wage war. He wanted to "destroy" their desire to continue to fight, not physically destroy them. Major difference.
As for the hanging bit, I have never seen any source that Sherman ever made such a remark. I do know that Otto Eisenschiml, who was an author, not a formal historian, wrote after the Nuremberg Trials of WW2 that Sherman "could have been hanged for war crimes". Given the remainder of his body of work (he wrote a book theorizing that Lincoln was assassinated by Stanton) I would not consider him an 'authority' on history and his theories are generally rebuked by actual historians.
Mod cut: Orphaned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turn Hearts
I think you need to add the word "liar" to describe this man with his multiple personalities.
Great quote from that bastion of unbiased opinion on the Civil War..."A Southern View of History"...
General Hampton's home was in Columbia and he was also the one responsible for it's defense, he was obviously very upset. More than that though, much of the destruction is at least partially blamed on Hampton himself. The city leaders wanted to send out a surrender delegation well in advance of Sherman's army arriving. They wanted the Confederate army under Hampton to leave believing that this would spare the city as much suffering as possible. The Governor of SC and General Hampton, refused; with the latter vowing to "fight from house to house". As it was as General Hampton's troops fled the city, they lit cotton bales on fire in the middle of the street. This is what started the burning of Columbia.
As the army entered the just starting to burn city, they were greeted by throngs of liberated Union prisoners and African American slaves. There was ample liquor in the town and the newly liberated and the troops started to party. The partying of SOME hampered the fire containment efforts of the Columbia fire departments and the UNION ARMY troops HELPING them to put out the fires. That's right, the troops for the most part were trying to stop the entire city from burning. Overnight, things did get out of hand, but Sherman quickly restored order. The rampaging fire was contained and the troops were brought inline. From there the only buildings burned were important Confederate landmarks, war industries and railroads.
General Hampton was just wailing like a scolded child over the fact his favorite mansion was burned...
Neat trivia though...I live in Logan Township, NJ. It is named for General John Alexander "Black Jack" Logan who served with Sherman in the Carolina's campaign. General Hamptons second favorite mansion was spared because General Logan decided to make it his headquarters.
No, you are wrong. He did lie and confessed that he did so later.
His "confession" according to your "source" is from a book written by a panel of "southern investigators" in the immediate post-war years. He did state that it was Hampton, because he believed it was Hampton and the fact suited his purposes. There are three competing theories on Columbia's fires:
1. They were started when retreating Confederate cavalry burned cotton bales in the streets to block the Union advance and conceal their withdrawal.
2. They were started accidentally by the "carrying on" of the liberated troops and slaves.
3. They were purposefully started by the liberated troops and slaves.
No matter how you slice it, Sherman did NOT order it to happen, he sent troops to help put the fires out and he worked rapidly to restore order among the troops and within the city.
Regardless of all of this though, answer me this...
Exactly what fate do traitors leading a rebellion against the nation deserve?
No, you are wrong. He did lie and confessed that he did so later.
To burning Columbia, SC? I see no refutable proof from your source either way. Certainly it was a combination of wood structures, whiskey, and the unwise practice of burning of cotton bales in the streets during high winds, etc.
It's already understood that Sherman destroyed anything that would have aided the enemy. That fact that his troops also are attributed to trying to put out the fire in Columbia is telling in that there swath of destruction was selective.
Still, the topic by the OP is not about property destruction - but rape and murder...and something about burning schools.
Attacking civilians is something a terrorist does and coward at that.
So by that criteria what do you have to say about Bill Anderson, Champ Ferguson, Lieutenant Colonel James Keith, and Captain William Clarke Quantrill, avenging angels of your god?
So by that criteria what do you have to say about Bill Anderson, Champ Ferguson, Lieutenant Colonel James Keith, and Captain William Clarke Quantrill, avenging angels of your god?
Sorry, I can't answer that, I have never studied these men's lives.
Sorry, I can't answer that, I have never studied these men's lives. Maybe you can ask someone else.
I don't need to ask anyone else, I asked YOU, and since you haven't "studied" these men's lives and apparently not much else about the Civil War so I sincerely suggest that you if you wish to have any credibility on this forum that you start to study these historically significant civil war criminals.
The buck stops at General Sherman. He was the leading terrorist in the South at that time. You can't try to pass it to someone else.
Whose passing? There were two armies fighting, one of them lit the city on fire. That army was not led by Sherman. If you want to get all existential about it, then why was Sherman there to begin with? No, the devil didn't send him. He was there because the south was in rebellion against the government. Therefore, the rebels brought Sherman upon themselves.
Mod cut: Orphaned (quoted post has been deleted).
I don't recall General Lee terrorizing Pennsylvania. Sherman was a terrorist and should have been tried as a war criminal and he and his fellow officers should have been hanged in a public place in Atlanta for all of his crimes.
Attacking civilians is something a terrorist does and coward at that.
Whoever was responsible for any evil done in Andersonville should be hanged as well. (Were those responsible not punished?) There should be no tolerance of terrorism on either side.[/quote]
General Lee's armies foraged, plundered, extorted and burned as they marched through Pennsylvania. Other Confederate armies did the same in Tennessee. I guess the difference is that since the north won, northerners aren't still crying about it. Again, Sherman NEVER "attacked" civilians. Considering the tens of thousands of civilians that Sherman's army came in contact with and the fact that there are no confirmed cases of civilians being killed by Sherman's army, I'd say "attacking" civilians was never his intention.
What "mass murder and other things" did the Union Army commit in the South after the end of the Civil War? What did they burn? The United States Congress over-rode Presidential Reconstruction after 1866 because under Andrew Johnson's lenient program, the southern states promptly set up governments full of ex-Confederates that were dedicated to re-enslaving the recently freed blacks.
Congressional Reconstruction established military rule in the former Confederacy, occupying the South with Union troops who were mostly black. Ex-Confederates were barred from voting and office holding until they swore an oath to the Union and received a pardon which most Confederates refused to do, so that gave power over to anti-Secessionist whites, northern transplants, and blacks. Former Confederate states were not allowed to rejoin the Union until they passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
The Confederates engaged in rebellion. In many countries, defeated rebels were/are hung or shot, forced into exile, transported to prison colonies, had all their wealth confiscated, etc. The Union, even under Congressional Reconstruction, acted with amazing restraint given the provocation. I believe only Henry Wirz, the commander of the infamous Andersonville prison camp, was executed. Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for a couple of years. Maybe a few others were imprisoned for shorter periods.
All in all, Southerners have nobody to blame but themselves for the holocaust that they unleashed on the country in 1861, and for the impoverishment of their region for another century.
This ^^^^ That's all you need to know. Now stop trying to reinvent history.
If Southerners want to reinvent something, LOOK at YOURSELVES and your actions during or after the Civil War. Look at it with the eyes of outsiders. ASK non Southern people how you seem and how you should change. OWN UP to what the South has done.
Read some NON SOUTHERN books and open up to information that does not come from a white SOUTHERN prospective.
When you do, if you are honest, you will find that there is so much to be disgusted about.
There was a holocaust on American soil. It happened in The South.
It's blatantly obvious that no one will ever change your mindset on this topic. Given your apparent belief in your own version of Christianity that seemingly governs these things.
However, I will say that I have found little of value in anything you have posted. This is all nothing more than typical neo-Confederate southern whining over the "big bad Yankee come down and whooped us good". Sherman was not a bloodthirsty, tyrannical, murdering, rampaging man. He did what he did out of cold calculation to end the war. If you have EVER read any of his actual writings or histories beyond out of context clips from your favorite neo-Confederate websites you would realize that he did not enjoy, relish or want the task given to him. At the end of the day he would have much preferred for the South to end their foolish REBELLION against the LEGITIMATE government of the UNITED States. If they would not come to their senses, then he had to do everything within his power to end the ability of the South to continue to wage war so that lives could be saved. This isn't even mentioning the fact that most of Sherman's "dastardly deeds" were actually carried out by Southerh forces (burning of the cities for instance) or that his armies foraging was nothing that hadn't been repeated a thousand times over by Southern armies. If God was involved, then Sherman was...trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath were stored; He loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on.
Speaking only for myself, I don't care much less hate what the Bible says or doesn't say just as I don't care or hate anything written in the other mythologies written by ancient civilizations. Any religious text that justifies inhuman treatment of one human being by another yet pretends out of the other side of its mouth that we are all brothers and should take pains to love and protect one another is not a philosophy to be taken seriously. Now what I do hate are men in the 21st century who blindly and illogically use the mythology of 3rd century sheep herders as some guide for post Enlightenment societies.
Orphaned.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 11-12-2013 at 01:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
