Re: Union Civil War Generals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CBR
I can read his order no 120 for the March to the Sea. Seems pretty clear that he was nowhere near what we see in other wars.
It is easy to check about Albert Einstein. Where is the stuff about Sherman? I have found a lot of what seem to be pro-southern emotional drivel so far. Your link provides no facts except for some quotes. There is a book title though: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians. That must be it then? I buy that book and it will tell all the juicy stuff about the monster Sherman? Any other books I should get ?
Is it really surprising that there are emotional rants against the man?
It has been 145 years but there is still great bitterness on the part of many people in Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.
His own words and attitudes are not enough? You do not wish to take the man at his word during the war but in his recollections he has in an understated way admitted that his men wrecked violence and murder, though he shies from the rape charges by that time and in a more civil environment.
Of course, postwar he was head of the army and we see his policies at work against the Indian Nations of the plains and west coast.
Does anyone doubt that there were atrocities committed against the Indian Nations?
These were often against tribes and bands who were at peace the US.
Was this something new, or was it a continuation of policies first employed against the south?
Re: Union Civil War Generals
Excellent discussion guys. :bow:
Re: Union Civil War Generals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
Is it really surprising that there are emotional rants against the man?
It has been 145 years but there is still great bitterness on the part of many people in Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.
Maybe its time to move on instead of reveling in the myths of the Lost Cause. Imagine if we all were supposed to be so emotional about events going back that far.
Quote:
His own words and attitudes are not enough? You do not wish to take the man at his word during the war but in his recollections he has in an understated way admitted that his men wrecked violence and murder, though he shies from the rape charges by that time and in a more civil environment.
No, his own words are not enough. Especially not when a war is also fought with words. Sherman is well known for his strong rhetoric during the war but when did he carry them out? Somehow I have not found any historians mentioning all his supposed horrors. Are they just all Yankee writers denying the inconvenient truth? Or am I just too picky with the books, in that case where is stuff I should read?
Quote:
Of course, postwar he was head of the army and we see his policies at work against the Indian Nations of the plains and west coast.
Does anyone doubt that there were atrocities committed against the Indian Nations?
These were often against tribes and bands who were at peace the US.
Was this something new, or was it a continuation of policies first employed against the south?
That is an attempt to connect the dots: he was bad later so he must always have been bad! If the atrocities versus Southerners were so big there must be a lot of details about them somewhere.
Re: Union Civil War Generals
considering the people of Atlanta voulantarily destroyed there own city before the yanks could get their hands own it, I dont feel to bad.
The south should count itself lucky, most of the time invading armies destroy more than just property. Ask any Polish or East German woman around the spring of 45.
It's really all about perspective
Re: Union Civil War Generals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
considering the people of Atlanta voulantarily destroyed there own city before the yanks could get their hands own it, I dont feel to bad.
The south should count itself lucky, most of the time invading armies destroy more than just property. Ask any Polish or East German woman around the spring of 45.
It's really all about perspective
Indeed. :2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
Is it really surprising that there are emotional rants against the man?
It has been 145 years but there is still great bitterness on the part of many people in Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.
His own words and attitudes are not enough? You do not wish to take the man at his word during the war but in his recollections he has in an understated way admitted that his men wrecked violence and murder, though he shies from the rape charges by that time and in a more civil environment.
Of course, postwar he was head of the army and we see his policies at work against the Indian Nations of the plains and west coast.
Does anyone doubt that there were atrocities committed against the Indian Nations?
These were often against tribes and bands who were at peace the US.
Was this something new, or was it a continuation of policies first employed against the south?
And no one complains about Grant being a alleged butcher of his men. :dizzy2:
