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

 

[SC_hunter]

LOL>>>>>> I still love ya Mike...Take care my friend..

 

[JChambers]

The guys at nuremburg were being tried for assaulting the civilians all over Europe and literally exterminating a large portion of them. It was not just a few cases of murderous troops who were under them. I still stand firm. Sherman was a Great man, his soldiers...well that's a much different story.

 

[Montana Jim]

Interesting the passions we hold to...

...all based on what we learned about the same subject depending on where we grew up, who we learned from, who wrote the textbooks, etc...

I tend to enjoy those shows for their entertainment value, not any relevent historical slant... thats because I don't trust anyone. Hell - most of our American history is screwed up and not correct from what most of us learned.

Once while visiting my sister in North Carolina we were in a mall - and I with my New York "Tony Saprano" accent said something loudly and the whole freaking mall stopped and looked at me like I was an alien. Only then did I realize that Yankees still exist! LMAO Then I realized a few times that my NY license plates stopped traffic a few times because folks were just staring at me.

I felt more welcome in Korea, Spain, and Germany than I ever did in our own Southern States.

I just think it's interesting.

 

[JChambers]

Amen to that!!! I can't agree with feeling unwelcome in the south, some of my close friends are from Tennessee and I have had keg parties in the smokies shooting at anything that moved with the best of em. But, I do have to say that I just returned from a five month trip to Europe; Germany, Poland, France, Italy, Greece, and the Czech Republic and I did feel very comfortable. And yes, it is very interesting how history is different everywhere you go. I went learning certain things about WWII and then learned different being there. I guess it really is where your from, but in any case what is true is true. The Civil War DID occur, and there were many atrocities throughout. But hey, war is hell. Don't matter if your the deliverer of the fires or the receiver, the fact is the same, it happened and there is nothing we can do about it, except learn from it.

 

[Dinker]

I have to say that I have read this thread with interest. Being from Georgia and growing up in S.C., I have been interested in the Civil War discussion all my life. I am from a small town where the overflow from Andersonville was sent to a makeshift prison camp. Camp Lawton (Now Magnolia Springs State Park) was one of the targets Sherman set his sights on. I was not there to say first hand what went on. I have heard accounts passed down through generations of Sherman riding his horse into a church, leaving hoof marks on the pews and ordering the destruction of the Stained Glass Windows. ( see Big Buckhead Baptist Church Millen, Ga.) The one thing I have always been told that was a measuring stick of a leader was how well his men folllowed his orders. Sherman was either a terrible leader or a terrible man. That perception is left up to the individual. History can make a hero or a villian depending on the way the events are portrayed. In school General George A. Custer was portrayed as a Golden Haired Hero. I assure you he was not. General Sherman's history is the same. The difference is that General Sherman's history is taught in two diffferent forms. The Northern view and the Southern View. I feel that with this arguement, like many disagreements, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[SC_hunter]

Dinker, You are so right when you say ...The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.HH

 

[DCMatt]

I'm not one for beating a dead horse, but I thought I'd pass this along.

This is a quote I took from The History Channel forum. The topic was "Sherman: Hero or Terrorist"

I'm the actor who portrayed Sherman in "Sherman's March." Just a note to say that this question of hero or terrorist was the one that I hoped to answer before filming began. I read everything I could find, especially the Burke Davis & Lee Kennett books and John F. Marszalek's "Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order." I was born in SC, and so had grown up believing that he had horns and a forked tail.
I thought I had answered the question many times before my opinion would shift again. Finally I decided to try and play the dichotomy. Rick King's script and direction lent itself to this approach, which I hope will present viewers with the illusion of a real human being.

He played the dichotomy - somewhere in the middle...

DCMatt

 

[Montana Jim]

Good post Matt.

 

[Monty]

For abut the last six months I have been reading books on the Civil War exclusively. I found out I didn't learn a damn thing about the Civil War in high school or college. After all these years I am just now discovering what it was all about and the horrors visited on the country by both sides. There were atrosities aplenty committed by troops of both armies. The north did much out of revenge while the south did much out of necessity. The south was poorly prepared to go to war and many times had no uniforms, shoes, food and musty powder that failed to go off half the time. Many times old Stonewall Jackson's troops had nothing to eat for days but boiled corn and green apples. Many of them were barefoot even in the winter. Much of their supplies were those captured from the north. And bodies, the south had no great population to draw soldiers from and were outnumbered at nearly every battle. They had no industry to speak of except agriculture and a few textile mills. They did have a good railroad system however designed to get their raw products to market. At the same time the north had much heavy industry to make implements for war and uniforms and boots , etc. They also had a much greater population from which to draw soldiers. Toward the end, they made use of the south's own railroad system to defeat them. The main problem they had was outrunning their supply lines or having southern cavalry double back behind them and capture their supplies. But the south had much better leadership and won many more battles than they should have. The north gradually killed off their best leaders and experienced soldiers and more or less starved them out. But all that has little to do with atrocities.
The southern soldiers often plundered their own citizenry just to find food and to survive. Many of the southern soldiers were only short term enlistees and took off as soon as their six months was up as an example. Thousands more deserted and with good cause. Many in the south entered into the war thinking of becoming heroes but thanks to men like Sherman they found out war was hell. I haven't read anything that villianized the leaders of either side, rather they just tended to look the other way. The fact remains that to wage war one must kill people and if the innocents get in the way, they are just SOL...sh** out of luck. Well, that's my take on things based on just what I have read in the past few months. Monty

 

[BamaBill]

I would say a pretty fairly accurate portrayal. If I were to add something it would be the lack of good intel and bad communication contributed to many of the mistakes that were made on both sides. Typically the side that made the fewest mistakes came off the victor. In fact, Gettysburg was a bad situation that just kept getting worse with every decision Lee and his staff made. Lee was a world class commander, but even the best commander would be hard pressed to take a high position charging over long, open ground, into the face of superior firepower. The fact that his men loved him and the South enough to try is an enduring testament to the bravery of those men.

 

[Monty]

I think Lee was the better general over all, but he just didn't have the implements of war to do what he intended in the last days. That includes manpower. He was awfully good at reading the other generals and guessing what they would do next. A weakness I see is that he was so afraid of offending the generals and colonels under him the failed to discipline them when they screwed up. Jackson on the other hand had half of his command staff under arrest at any given time, so the went overboard just the other direction. At least that's the impression I am getting from the books I have read. And speaking of atrocities (we were weren't we?), how about Lawrence, Kansas? Pretty shabby. Now about Stonewall....the majority of the authors I have read so far don't paint a very good picture of what he did accomplish. According to them, he took credit for a lot of tkhings that his subordinates did and didn't give praise where praise was due. Lord help you if you ever offended him as he held a grudge for ever. He was a poor communicator and half the time when a battle started his subordinates received no instructions. I don't know if he ever had a true friend. In the heat of battle he was just as likely to go off alone and take a nap as not. Strange man. Some say brilliant, but very eccentric at best. Oh well, way off topic. Thanks for the opportunity to add a little to the discussion. Monty

 

[Montana Jim]

Monty... I think we all appreciate your well read and learned insight.

I for one have not done much CW readng (except about President Lincoln), and find your opinions valuable and interesting.

Thank you.

 

[transplant]

what have we learned that the feds will do what ever to maintain their power if a group of people chose to join the union , in like fashion they should be allowed to leave. the south didn't want to be control by washington, much like today washington is going to get it way.

 

[randall61]

I live in marietta Ga and from doing research most towns were torched when sherman was done with them,as the foraging, the union troops would take most things ,unless buried or
hid. .I will also say in times of war
brutal things happen,but considering the unions never ending supply trains the acts on civlians & their homes was extreme.


on the plus side sherman was a good tactical leader ,and was respected by his men.he also got the job done.although replacing johnston made it easier.

 

[Monty]

I am presently reading about Sherman's pursuit of Johnston all across Georgia and back to Atlanta. He constantly tried to flank Johnston but Johnston was always a move ahead of him, backing up and setting up defensive barriors. Then when Sherman would attack him he would lose a battle and a lot of men but he is slowly wearing Johnston down due to attrition that the South could ill afford. Now Sherman has his eye on Atlanta and is planning another flanking movement 5 miles outside Atlanta. I know how it ends, but the way it is written it is suspensful just the same. Seeing the strategy behind everything adds so much to the reality of what happened. The South has won the great majority of battles but are losing the war. Kinda' ironic. The author talks about a textile mill being run by a French immigrant that is producing cloth for southern uniforms. He is claiming "diplomatic immunity" so to speak. Sherman said baloney to his claims of neutrality and ordered the mill torched. He told his men to burn the factory and if the owner protested to hang him. He did and they did. A good example of Sherman's justice. Monty

 

[JChambers]

As you continue to read about Sherman and his tactics you will find that Johnston was never a step ahead of him, he just pulled back and set up a new position to avoid flanking and total destruction. And as for the Frenchman..."diplomatic immunity"? In who's country? The south technically succeeded from the North and viewed the South as their own country so in the eyes of Sherman, he had no immunity and Sherman handled business the way any general would have at the time. May I offer you another good reading for analyzing Johnston's movements is Co. Aytch, by Sam Watkins. Check it out.

 

[Monty]

I feel like Johnston was a step ahead of him because Sherman continually tried to flank him and Johnston would back up ahead of Sherman's ability to sidle around him. It was really all he could do since he was so outnumbered.. Sherman tried a few frontal assaults and got his butt kicked every time. Then when he tried to slip around Johnston's flank, he would find the area abandoned and a new formidable defensive position set up a few miles down the road. Finally at the gates of Atlanta Sherman was forced to split his forces and Johnston planned to attack each segment one at a time and possibly defeat them both. However he was relieved of command before he could carry out his plan. Davis was convinced he wasn't acting fast enough to keep Atlanta from being taken and wanted guarantees from Johnston that he could defend Atlanta. Johnston asked for reinforcements and more help but all he got was some Georgia millitiamen who were just old men and young boys. When relieved of duty he lit out for Macon without briefing the new commander on what the battle field situation was......Continued next chapter! Monty

 

[Montana Jim]

I'm enjoying the cliff-notes Monty!

 

[Monty]

I have read accounts of these battles several time but not in this great detail, nor have I seen anyone else post much on the forum. Not meaning to be critical but it is usually something like, "Braxton Bragg was a bum", and not much detail to back it up. When I get involved in something I get carried away and become a blabber mouth! I hijacked this line and I apologize, so I'll shut up now and start one of my own when I have somethng to say. M nty

 

[randall61]

the mills were the roswell mills,rowell king & the frenchman were partners .rowell headed south & the frenchman tried to declare neutrality but to no avail,...he was hanged & the women & children were sent up north on prision trains...............in roswell,ga the first apartments were built to house the workers at the mill.