General Sherman

[SC_hunter]

Just thought I would let you know...if you hadn't seen anything on it yet...The History Channel is doing a segment on Sherman at 9pm tonight...HH all

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[redneckinwayz]

it was a good program, too bad it had to be about a ruthless killer....

 

[DCMatt]

it was a good program, too bad it had to be about a ruthless killer....

I saw the program. The general consensus by historians on the show was that Sherman was NOT as bad as his legend claims he was.

DCMatt

 

[SC_hunter]

Gotta agree with you Matt...It appears that he spared Ga. the brunt of his force and kinda just said "Oh well" to SC. Since he figured SC. started the war, he was a bit indifferent to us. Think he made the remark something to the affect...SC started this war and I will show her what war is all about.

 

[JChambers]

"He made the remark something to the affect...SC started this war and I will show her what war is all about."


As well he should have...it's exactly the sort of attitude our modern day leaders should have toward the bastards over in the middle east!!! Sherman was a great commander, besides all of his personal issues. He was also a great man, as he showed by being a pallbearer at Joe Johnston's funeral.

JChambers

 

[SC_hunter]

JC...As a "Southerner" we were told that he was an evil man...well, he was the right man for the job that he was assigned. I don't think in todays world we could ever have a general like Sherman. We need the politicians to leave our generals now alone and if we are gonna fight a war....Lets do as Sherman said...win and end this as soon as possible. You can't play "nice" in the sandbox with lunatics and fanatics.

 

[JChambers]

Well said SC_Hunter....well said.

 

[BILL96]

From the very begining one of Lincolns greatest frustrations was that he didn't have a general that carry the fight to the south. It took a long time before he finaly found Grant. Lincoln new the type of savagery that it was going to take to end the rebellion and bring the south back into the union and it took men like Sherman to do the job that needed to be done.

 

[Casull]

As well he should have...it's exactly the sort of attitude our modern day leaders should have toward the #@!$%#@!s over in the middle east!!! Sherman was a great commander, besides all of his personal issues. He was also a great man,

Gag. Sherman was a murdering thug who turned his minions loose on civilians. Had the South won the War of Northern Aggression, Sherman would have been tried as a war criminal, as well he should.

 

[JChambers]

There were orders given to not harm the civilians physically, but foraging was allowed. Sherman never ordered homes burned unless there was a confrontation from the civilian population. A "scorched earth" policy was implamented by all the Union command. If anyone was a murderer it was Phil Sheridan for what he did in the valley. But, by all means, it was the only way the North could have put an end to the war quickly. They had to take all of the South's resources away from them so that they no longer had the ability to fight. Sherman was doing his job, and had it not been done, the war would have continued. The south at that point needed to be taught a lesson about what war was really about. They would think nothing of pillaging farms in the North and taking what they wanted. And that is all that Sherman's forces did in the south. Furthermore, when the Rebs were in the Northern territories and they commandeered homes for officers and hospitals and were destroying towns with battle, they thought nothing of it. Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman took the war to the south and fought fire with fire. Still, he was a great man and had an undying respect for his foes, as I said before about him having been a pallbearer at Joseph Johnston's funeral. The very same man, that he was fighting through GA, and SC! Just because someones troops may not have respected the enemy's territory, doesn't mean that the commander himself did not.

 

[Casull]

So JChambers, Sherman and the others were only trying to teach the "Rebs" a "lesson about what war was really about"? I guess with that kind of attitude, someone might be deluded into thinking that Sherman was a "great" man. However, I tend to see the Confederate States and the Southerners as having been fighting against an overreaching federal government, and fighting for their homes and state's rights. But, you probably also think that Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution was a grand thing as well. Ah, well it did give us the Federal government monster that we have today. That's a good thing, right?

 

[SC_hunter]

Casull...Think you are missing the point a little. It was not whether we won the war or lost the war. I am a Southerner and I can't say that Sherman was a monster. He has been portrayed as one through generations of hand me down stories. When you deal with facts instead of "stories" then you might see that too. We lost and that is that....and I'm familiar with the saying..."Forget Hell". He in fact was one heck of General. To think that he started his campaign with 6,000 troops thereabouts and only lost approx. 600 men in his march, goes to show that he was not a reckless man.

 

[Casull]

SC_Hunter, I guess it all depends on who is supplying the "facts" as to whether Sherman is viewed as "great" or "monsterous". I don't particularly buy into that "documentary" that the History Channel provided as the end all be all. As I am sure you know, the victors write the history. By the way, I never said that Sherman was reckless, just a murderous thug.

 

[Heavy Chevy]

I am glad some of you think Sherman was so great.
I'll bet you same folks thought Hitler was a gas !!

He may have gave orders for foraging, but burning farms because the owners would not give up silverware is just criminal.

Killing a young black Slave because he would not give up his masters silver and gold is atrocious.

His men ravaged women and killed farmers here in SC just because they were in his way.They burned houses and farms all of the way from Savannah to Columbia in early 1865. And then burned Columbia.They tore up railroads.They destroyed the whole infrastructure here in the South.


I am getting off this subject before it grows,

Mike in SC

 

[JChambers]

I do think that Sherman was GREAT, I do not however think that Hitler was a "gas". Hitler is a totally different subject, he WAS a muderous thug who sent his hordes killing and murdering all over Europe just for personal gain of the reich. There is no way to compare the two whatsoever. As far as SHERMAN himself being a tyrant or a murderous thug...again HE was NOT! Some of his troops however were, some were looking for retribution, some believed that the south should pay dearly for their "crimes" against the union. You can't blame the man for what a few of his troops did. The whole situation against the civilian population was a bit over exagerated. Yes much was destroyed, but once again, if you compare Sherman with Sheridan, he looks like a saint. As far as the "victors" being the ones who wrote history, again, you are wrong my friend...the American Civil War was different than any other war in history. Most of the written history comes from survivors and civilian accounts on BOTH sides, not just the Union. Some of the greatest civil war memoirs, such as "I wrode with Stonewall" by Henry Kyd Douglas, or "Co. Aytch" by Sam Watkins, both southerners. They give detailed accounts of what both sides did to the other, and for the other. So I believe that SOME people need to educate themselves on the subject before speaking negativly on a great officer. And furthermore, if someone can produce one shred of evidence that Sherman ordered those atrocities, please forward them to me and I will bow my head. Oh, and just as a last minute bit of info...I did not watch the documentry on the History channel the other night and my judgement is not based on that.

 

[diggummup]

JChambers-you really are misinformed and I will not get into an arguement with you over this.Some people you just can't reach,I can clearly see you are one of them.Sherman should have been right next to Wirz on the gallows.Ignoring Early and his fire bugs was not a part of War.Sherman committed unspeakable acts on the citizens of Ga. and the Carolinas.He gave a wink and a nod to his junior officers, and rank and file, when they committed these acts, against what was for the most part, unarmed civilians.Great!! I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!! I've said my peace.I will not get into this any further.For the record,I didn't see it either!!

 

[JChambers]

Im sorry you feel that way diggumup, but I must ask again for historical evidence to support your "wink and nod" theory. I may be wrong, but on this subject, I do not believe so. I'm not here to argue, but I would like some documentation proving your theory. Please forward me any shred of evidence, like I asked before.

JChambers

 

[Heavy Chevy]

I have to agree with diggumup on Sherman.

Sherman may not have ordered the atrocities committed against the civilians, he did nothing to stop it.That only encouraged the behavior.

There is plenty of evidence of these atrocities all over the South.
I am sure there was probably some caused by the Confederates up North but there couldn't have been much as the South never captured Union territory.

Mike in SC

PS JChambers I didn't watch the show on TV either.
PPS diggummup I do disagree about Wirz being hung though.

 

[SC_hunter]

Casull...Think you are missing the point a little. It was not whether we won the war or lost the war. I am a Southerner and I can't say that Sherman was a monster. He has been portrayed as one through generations of hand me down stories. When you deal with facts instead of "stories" then you might see that too. We lost and that is that....and I'm familiar with the saying..."Forget Hell". He in fact was one heck of General. To think that he started his campaign with 6,000 troops thereabouts and only lost approx. 600 men in his march, goes to show that he was not a reckless man.

Where did you find the 6,000 troops he started the campaign with, my research says he had 86,000. At least that is how many men he had when he planned a four prong attack in North Carolina?

I typed the number wrong, my mistake...you were closer to the number...the number I was referring to was 62,000..Sorry beale...Got my info on the number from this website... http://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-s-march-to-the-sea
diggummup....War is not a pretty sight, and yes, things were done that would be considered brutal to say the least....but that is war....If we as a people decide to go to war...then do what it takes to win....If we lose then we will suffer in the end...
Just one note on what you said Heavy Chevy.......he tore up railroads and wrecked the infrastructure of the south.....That was his "JOB"....Cut the supply lines to the troops to the north...that way he didn't have to burn any or all of the supply houses down south....no need to...there was no way to resupply..Makes sense to me....

 

[Heavy Chevy]

Quote
"Just one note on what you said Heavy Chevy.......he tore up railroads and wrecked the infrastructure of the south.....That was his "JOB"....Cut the supply lines to the troops to the north...that way he didn't have to burn any or all of the supply houses down south....no need to...there was no way to resupply..Makes sense to me....
Unquote.

Hey sc_hunter,
I see.
When the victors say "I was only following orders" it is OK.
But when the guys who were tried at Nuremberg used the same excuse,they were hung.

How you can justify Sherman's behavior is very scary. Especially since you are Police Officer.

As i said before, i am getting off of this subject.
HH to you and all here,
Mike