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.
You may overlook Sherman's zeal to destroy the South, but I think it was not proper to harm the civilian population. How many of the young, sick and elderly died or were injured trying to escape for their lives to get out of his path of destruction?
If General Lee and/or some of the other southern generals had done the same with the major northern cities, I am pretty sure the North would not sit still until they had avenged themselves of these great atrocities. Do you think the North would be praising Lee and others for bringing a swift end to the war by going after their women and children and the elderly? I do not think so. Their actions would be considered cowardly acts and would never be forgotten.
I don't think it was proper for white Americans to own blacks as if they were horses or cows.
I don't think it was proper for the Confederates to enshrine chattel slavery in their constitution.
I think it is reprehensible to justify slavery at all.
No, you are wrong. The crazy cowards are the men like Hood who chose to fight with Atlanta as the backdrop and then lit the city on fire while it was filled with civilians; while they ran away with their tail between their legs and then largely refused to agree to accept and care for the civilian refugees after Sherman guaranteed them safe passage.
Beyond that, he never "attacked" civilians. If he "attacked" them, then he is probably the worst general in history because almost no civilians were actually killed by Sherman or his army. They brought financial and logistical destruction to the south. Where they marched they ended the ability of that area to support the war effort. HOWEVER, they took great care to not kill or injure civilians. The only homes burned were mainly in South Carolina that were "planter class" homes that had been abandoned. Sherman saw this particular class from SC as being the "hot heads" that started the whole mess. Despite all of the great Southern legends, belly aching and tall-tales, Sherman's "March to the Sea" was a rather restrained event focused on ending the industrial capacity of the South to wage war...NOT killing, raping, murdering and looting. Even more of a marvel then the operation itself is the degree to which Sherman was able to maintain discipline within his army.
I can't give reps for a while, but this deserves kudos. Very well said.
The entire March to the Sea had few pitched battles, and most of the fighting was just skirmishes. As major Civil War campaigns went, it was practically bloodless.
No, you are wrong. The crazy cowards are the men like Hood who chose to fight with Atlanta as the backdrop and then lit the city on fire while it was filled with civilians; while they ran away with their tail between their legs and then largely refused to agree to accept and care for the civilian refugees after Sherman guaranteed them safe passage.
Beyond that, he never "attacked" civilians. If he "attacked" them, then he is probably the worst general in history because almost no civilians were actually killed by Sherman or his army. They brought financial and logistical destruction to the south. Where they marched they ended the ability of that area to support the war effort. HOWEVER, they took great care to not kill or injure civilians. The only homes burned were mainly in South Carolina that were "planter class" homes that had been abandoned. Sherman saw this particular class from SC as being the "hot heads" that started the whole mess. Despite all of the great Southern legends, belly aching and tall-tales, Sherman's "March to the Sea" was a rather restrained event focused on ending the industrial capacity of the South to wage war...NOT killing, raping, murdering and looting. Even more of a marvel then the operation itself is the degree to which Sherman was able to maintain discipline within his army.
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.
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.
Did the results of his actions repopulate Georgia? There is your answer.
Sherman was a complex and colorful character, full of bombast and wordy hysterics. No one argues with that. The same could be said of other colorful generals such as Patton.
But history is very exact with what he did and what he didn't do - including the destruction almost down to the dollar amount. 300 miles of railroad destroyed, seized 13,000 head of cattle, mostly to feed his army, destroying storage barns, corn mills, and millions of pounds of corn feed that would have gone to feeding Lee's troops in Virginia, where Grant was engaged in a bloody trench warfare stalemate (forcing Lee's starving army to desert in droves and finally surrender), or cotton mills that would be used to finance the war effort. For the southerners that it effected, it created hardships for sure. But he left enough for them to subsist on per his published general orders.
What he did not do was rape and murder.
Most published account say Sherman hated war, and the destruction and death that is caused. His goal was to end war, with the most efficient and effective way possible.
Maybe being crazy helped him be successful. Point being, being crazy would NOT keep you from being successful.
At least that is what I am banking on.. i got half that equation in the books, just waiting on the other half.
Patton was also very driven to get the job done. He did brilliantly as a general. When the war was over and he wasn't ready for it to be, he lost some of that stature. Politics shifted and he didn't wish to. But this has no bearing on his accompllishments as a general in the middle of a war.
Some of the most effective generals have not found an easy road after war. The skill set is different.
Did the results of his actions repopulate Georgia? There is your answer.
Sherman was a complex and colorful character, full of bombast and wordy hysterics. No one argues with that. The same could be said of other colorful generals such as Patton.
But history is very exact with what he did and what he didn't do - including the destruction almost down to the dollar amount. 300 miles of railroad destroyed, seized 13,000 head of cattle, mostly to feed his army, destroying storage barns, corn mills, and millions of pounds of corn feed that would have gone to feeding Lee's troops in Virginia, where Grant was engaged in a bloody trench warfare stalemate (forcing Lee's starving army to desert in droves and finally surrender), or cotton mills that would be used to finance the war effort. For the southerners that it effected, it created hardships for sure. But he left enough for them to subsist on per his published general orders.
What he did not do was rape and murder.
Most published account say Sherman hated war, and the destruction and death that is caused. His goal was to end war, with the most efficient and effective way possible.
I think you need to add the word "liar" to describe this man with his multiple personalities.
Quote:
On the 21st of February, 1865, only a few days after the burning of Columbia, General Hampton wrote to General Sherman, charging him with being responsible for its destruction, and other outrages, in which he said, among other things:
"You permitted, if you have not ordered, the commission of these offences against humanity and the rules of war. You fired into the city of Columbia without a word of warning. After its surrender by the mayor, who demanded protection to private property, you laid the whole city in ashes, leaving amid its ruins thousands of old men and helpless women and children, who are likely to perish of starvation and exposure. Your line of march can be traced by the lurid light of burning houses, and in more than one household there is an agony far more bitter than death."
Did the results of his actions repopulate Georgia? There is your answer.
Sherman was a complex and colorful character, full of bombast and wordy hysterics. No one argues with that. The same could be said of other colorful generals such as Patton.
But history is very exact with what he did and what he didn't do - including the destruction almost down to the dollar amount. 300 miles of railroad destroyed, seized 13,000 head of cattle, mostly to feed his army, destroying storage barns, corn mills, and millions of pounds of corn feed that would have gone to feeding Lee's troops in Virginia, where Grant was engaged in a bloody trench warfare stalemate (forcing Lee's starving army to desert in droves and finally surrender), or cotton mills that would be used to finance the war effort. For the southerners that it effected, it created hardships for sure. But he left enough for them to subsist on per his published general orders.
What he did not do was rape and murder.
Most published account say Sherman hated war, and the destruction and death that is caused. His goal was to end war, with the most efficient and effective way possible.
The best generals hate war. They are motivated to end it with the most effective plan. They do not want to play war for the sake of war.
Why? ...and what does it have to do with the topic?
Your argument now seems to be based on that you don't like the guy, not about the actions that he did or didn't do.
No, you are wrong. He did lie and confessed that he did so later.
Quote:
We say proof of his ordering (or permitting, which is just as bad) the destruction of Columbia is overwhelming. (See report of Chancellor Carroll, chairman of a committee appointed to investigate the facts about this in General Bradley T. Johnson's Life of Johnson, from which several of these extracts are taken.) Our people owe General Johnson a debt of gratitude for this and his other contributions Confederate history. And Sherman had the effrontery to write in his Memoirs that in his official report of this conflagration, he distinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and (says) confess I did so pointedly go shake the faith of his people in him." (2 Sherman's Memoirs, page 287.)
The man who confessed to the world that he made this false charge with such a motive needs no characterization at the hands of this committee.
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.
Very well said.
