Union Civil War Generals

[CBR]

I don’t hate Sherman but it is safe to say I don’t admire him either.

you can't change the past but some things need a little more light shined on them to get a clearer view.

And I think it is is important to see things in the proper light instead of judging people by modern standards. Sherman did not release Einsatzgruppen on peaceful southerners. Nor did Sherman create horrors like seen in Spain in the Napoleonic era. Nor were they treated like the Boors. In that sense Sherman does not appear like a monster and he certainly did not exist in some vacuum with the atrocities seen in some of the border states.

[Fisherking]

And I think it is is important to see things in the proper light instead of judging people by modern standards. Sherman did not release Einsatzgruppen on peaceful southerners. Nor did Sherman create horrors like seen in Spain in the Napoleonic era. Nor were they treated like the Boors. In that sense Sherman does not appear like a monster and he certainly did not exist in some vacuum with the atrocities seen in some of the border states.

I would say that those were his intent.

Remember that he also became commander of the US Army and supervised the policy Genocide against American Indians.

He practiced a war of terror through the south, avoiding concentrations of actual troops and carrying the war to the civilian population.

I agree that we should avoid holding historical figures to the standards of today. But with Sherman his policies shocked and disgusted most people of his day as well.

You are confusing the lack of Government outrage, by his superiors, with acceptability.

There is more than enough historical documentation. His own letters, orders to subordinates, and his memoirs are quite clear.

Add to that the countless diary entries, by both civilians and Union Soldiers, and newspaper article from the north and south. It also sent shockwaves through Europe.

The atrocities and marauding of his troops was much worse than those committed by Quantrell and on a much larger scale. It is hypocritical to condemn the one and give the greater one a pass.

But unlike the Germans, Sherman was on the winning side and his actions were sanctioned by his government.

It is very difficult to not be disgusted and shocked if you have a good grip on the actual facts.

[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 ?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

He did what it took to win the war though.

[CBR]

He did what it took to win the war though.

His experiences with guerrillas in the border states meant his attitude towards civilians hardened during the war, that is a fact and can be seen in his Mississippi Campaign

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

His experiences with guerrillas in the border states meant his attitude towards civilians hardened during the war, that is a fact and can be seen in his Mississippi Campaign

Of course CBR. I read his memoirs, not fully, but from what I seen I would presume that is the case.

[CBR]

One interesting quote from his memoirs about the March to the Sea:

No doubt, many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence, were committed by these parties of foragers, usually called "bummers;" for I have since heard of jewelry taken from women, and the plunder of articles that never reached the commissary; but these acts were exceptional and incidental. I never heard of any cases of murder or rape; and no army could have carried along sufficient food and forage for a march of three hundred miles; so that foraging in some shape was necessary. The country was sparsely settled, with no magistrates or civil authorities who could respond to requisitions, as is done in all the wars of Europe; so that this system of foraging was simply indispensable to our success.

[Noncommunist]

He did what it took to win the war though.

By 1864/5, how much did that campaign even matter for winning the war? Yeah, it did split the Confederacy in two yet again but the Confederates were already on their last legs anyways.

[CBR]

I think it sped things up as it practically isolated lee and lowered the overall will to keep on fighting.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

By 1864/5, how much did that campaign even matter for winning the war? Yeah, it did split the Confederacy in two yet again but the Confederates were already on their last legs anyways.

I think if he would have done it eariler the war still proably would have lasted a time though but maybe not as long.

[Fisherking]

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

Excellent discussion guys.

[CBR]

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.

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?

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.

[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

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

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.

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.