The Wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman and the War on Terror

Pontiac | 7/26/2010 | Pontiac

[Pontiac]

William Tecumseh Sherman is either a hated war criminal or a honored war hero in the United States in this article I do not debate this point but only draw upon his wisdom as it applies to war. In what follows I will apply this wisdom to our present long and destined to be longer war against the World Islamic Terrorist Organizations.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in the last decade. The words “Bush’s war” and the questions of the Iraq war’s legality have been the subject of many a written word in our national press. This is however not the subject of this piece. Today I will expound upon the wisdom of these wars and wars yet to begin.

The war in Afghanistan is the result of an act of war perpetrated by Islamic extremist terrorist on our nation. This is an indisputable fact. The active participants in this act were from various Middle Eastern Muslim nations primarily Saudi Arabia but also Yemini and Egyptian. The stated grievances of these men were the United States support of Israel and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

There are other unstated but strong motives that these men had. These motives have been expressed by like minded supporters of these terrorist actions. These motives are the spread of Western culture to the Muslim countries. In the minds of the fundamentalist Muslim the worst of the West influences is on women. That a woman can show bare skin let alone her face in public is to the Arab Muslim unacceptable and an affront to Allah. To the Taliban (the ruling power in Afghanistan at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack on this country) television, music, make up, dancing, soccer, kite flying and much more were forbidden as un-Islamic Western practices. To these people everything Western was evil. Another fundamental tenet of Islam is that all the world must be brought under the control of Islam, by sword if necessary.

For these reasons the Islamic terrorist brought war to our country. Our support of Israel may have been the precipitating act in their minds for the attack but their desire to humble the preeminent non-Islamic country in the world was large in their minds.

I will not discuss the legality of the Iraq war more than to state that congress voted on and passed a resolution authorizing the war and had available to them all of the intelligence documents concerning weapons of mass destruction that was available to the Bush administration.

The need for the war is however in my opinion undeniable. Saddam Hussein was a financial supporter of world wide Islamic terror. He had used chemical weapons on his own citizens he at the very least was gathering material to produce a nuclear weapon. Although we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there is evidence that he moved the weapons and the factories to Syria during the period before the war when the Bush administration was trying to negotiate Saddam’s peaceful surrender.

The point I wish to make about the Iraq war is that although direct ties between Al Qaida and Iraq are few Saddam had numerous ties with other terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the IRA. After the Iraq war a terrorist training camp was found there that had a Boeing 727 fuselage used for training terrorist hi-jackers.

Political correctness and multiculturalism has been much used in the arguments against these wars; either explicitly or in couched phrases; the failure of the government or the press to use the word terrorist or to openly name the people we are fighting as Muslim or Islamist is simply foolish political correctness. The first rule in war is to know your enemy. If you can not name your enemy, if you can not allow yourself to express anger and hatred at your enemy you will not defeat that enemy.

The press has spent a great deal of ink saying how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has harmed the reputation of the US and made us a pariah in international affairs. William Tecumseh Sherman arguably the most effective Union General of the Civil War had this to say about war and popularity:

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking.”

The United States is at war with people who choose to be at war with us and drew first blood. We do not have a choice of whether to go to war or not. This war is also not only a war of Islam against the United State. Islam is at war around the world. It is at war in Indonesia, the Philippines Islands, several African Countries, Europe, and even the Middle East itself. These Islamist are not simply trying to convert the world to Islam by the sword they also seek to purify Islam were it already exist. This is literally a world war. We are at war and we do not have the luxury of being kind and gentile with those who wish to kill us. I again turn to the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman:

“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”

The United States has made more effort than any nation at war ever has to limit the number of civilian casualties and yet the international press continues to excoriate the US for the incredibly few civilian dead in these wars. William Tecumseh Sherman had this to say:

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”

We now have the technology to minimize civilian casualties but they can not be eliminated and we can not allow fear of civilian casualties to prevent us from pursuing the enemy where ever he may hide. Our enemy knows of our reluctance to harm civilians and uses this against us. He has used civilian villages a refuge and taken up human shields as a tactic of defense. This is a war crime and we must not permit it to deter us. To do so will encourage its continued use and lead to further civilian deaths or our ultimate defeat because we become unwilling to kill the enemy. We must adopt William Tecumseh Sherman’s stated goal:

“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

We can not fight a war with half measures. It will only prolong the war and multiply the casualties. This should be the lesson of the Viet Nam war. A limited war is an endless war and can not be won.

I will end by again quoting the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman:

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”

[Nosterrex]

I can see that you are an admirer of Sherman. Yes, Sherman did win some battles, but he did not defeat the Confederate Army. Unlike, for instance, the Battle of Waterloo, in which the British, Prussians, and Russians defeated Napoleon's army, there was never such a definitive battle. Lee agreed to surrender to Grant only under certain conditions. If Lee had not gotten those conditions, he would not have surrendered.
The Union had two things going in its favor. First, they had a significant numerical superiority. Secondly, they had technological superiority, especially towards the end of the war. Such advantages can make a mediocre general appear brilliant. Sherman's strategy was a scorch earth policy which meant that civilians were going to suffer. If you could not defeat the Confederate Army in the field, destroy their base, which were the farms.
It is only commonsense that if Sherman could have defeated the Army, there would have been no need to terrorize the civilians. Grant, on the other hand, attempted to defeat the Confederate Army, and he did not engage in what can only be termed as the atrocities of Sherman. The Nazi war criminals were guilty of far lesser atrocities than Sherman, but since the Union won, Sherman was regarded as a hero.

[Non-Sequitur]

"I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter."

Can't sum up Sherman's ethics on warfare better than that.

[Nosterrex]

If I were Hood, I would have done the same. Would you trust Adolf Hitler if he offered you an agreement? Why would Hood, or any Confederate general trust Sherman? Many of the general officers knew each other before the war. They knew who they could trust, and who they could not. Sherman, as stated by his own ethical principles, could justify any action, even lying, if it helped him win the war. Sherman is not a Lee. The Union Army burned, plundered, and raped throughout the South. Why would Hood assume that Sherman only had the best interest of the civilians in Atlanta? Also, I do not know what Hood’s orders were. I doubt that he made such a decision without consultation.

[Joe 6-pack]

"If I were Hood, I would have done the same. Would you trust Adolf Hitler if he offered you an agreement? Why would Hood, or any Confederate general trust Sherman? Many of the general officers knew each other before the war. They knew who they could trust, and who they could not."

And in the lead up to the war, when Sherman was the Superintendant of the Louisiana Theological Seminary and Military Academy, Beauregard and a number of others implored him to join the Confederacy...seems they liked and trusted him enough to ask him to join their ranks. Johnston never stopped respecting him, serving as a pall bearer at WST's funeral, and contracting pnuemonia because he refused to wear his hat.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

My family was burned out and had to walk to relatives in Mississippi.

It sounds as if your ancestors were easily discouraged.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Robert E. Lee would not approve of such a message.

[rustbucket]

Actually the quote is "Thus, of the burning of Orangeburg, he denied his men had done it..."I was told by some citizen it was burned by some Jew."" How do you know that was not the case?

As reported by eyewitnesses in an 1866 report by South Carolina [Link to a 1920 history book that quotes the 1866 report] , the towns and villages of Hardeeville, Grahamville, Gallisonville, McPhersonville, Barnwell, Blackville, Orangeburg, Lexington, Winnsboro, Camden, and Cheraw were burned in addition to the state capital, Columbia. From the report:

For eighty miles along the route of his army, through the most highly improved and cultivated region of the State, according to the testimony of respectable and intelligent witnesses, the habitations of but two white persons remain. ... If a single town or village or hamlet within their line of march escaped altogether the torch of the invaders, the committee have not been informed of the exception. The line of General Sherman's march, from his entering the territory of the State up to Columbia, and from Columbia to the North Carolina border, was one continuous track of fire.

Surely all of that wasn't burned by this supposed Jew that Sherman mentions. I wonder who burned all those towns along his march?

I wouldn't rely on Sherman to say the truth about what his men did in South Carolina. Consider Sherman's testimony about the burning and looting of Columbia, South Carolina, given at a hearing in 1873 [Source: New York Times, May 10, 1873]:

Q. -- I understand you to say that you saw no pillaging going on along Richardson or Main-street during the hours of daylight on the 17th.

A. -- I did not.

Q. -- Not anywhere else in Columbia during the hours of daylight?

A. -- No, Sir.

Q. -- You were not apprised of it in any way?

A. -- I was not.

Q. -- You were not aware that almost every store along Main-street was broken into by men in Federal uniform?

A. -- I was informed by the Mayor that Wade Hampton's cavalry had gone through the town and plundered their stores before we got there; The Mayor himself reported that to me.

Q.-- I asked you if you are aware of that these stores were plundered by men in Federal uniforms subsequently?

A. -- I do not know anything about the Federal uniform being used by the rebels.

Q. -- I did not ask about the rebels; I asked a very simple question and I want an answer?

A. -- I heard nothing about the plundering of stores by our men during the day of our first occupation of Columbia.

Q. -- And know nothing of it?

A. -- I know nothing of it personally or officially.

Q. -- Do you know anything of it in any way whatsoever, individually, privately, or in any way?

A. -- No, Sir; on the contrary, there was very good order in the city; I walked about the streets like everybody else that day, and saw nothing out of the way; ...

Compare that with the following published in the Columbia Phoenix newspaper a few weeks after the burning and looting of Columbia by noted author William Gilmore Simms based on Simms' own first hand observations in Columbia and those of other eyewitnesses in Columbia during that first day [Source: A City Laid Waste, The Capture, Sack, and Destruction of the City of Columbia by Simms, edited by David Aiken]. From page 61, originally from Simm's newspaper account:

Hardly had the [Union] troops reached the head of Main street, when the work of pillage was begun. Stores were broken open in the presence of thousands within the first hour of their arrival. The contents, when too cumbersome for the plunderers, were cast into the streets. Gold and silver, jewels and liquors, were eagerly sought. No attempt was made to arrest the burglars. The officers, soldiers, all, seemed to consider it a matter of course. And wo to him who carried a watch with gold chain pendant; or who wore a choice hat, or overcoat, or boots, or shoes. He was stripped by ready experts in the twinkling of an eye. It is computed that, from first to last, twelve hundred watches were transferred from the pockets of their owners to those of the robbers. Purses shared the same fate; nor was Confederate currency repudiated.

Sherman's troops had marched into town in an orderly fashion. Then when they were dismissed, wholesale robbery and plunder immediately began and lasted the rest of the day and night. From page 64:

Sherman, at the head of his cavalry, traversed the streets everywhere – so did his officers – yet they saw nothing to rebuke or restrain. Subsequently, these officers were everywhere on foot, yet beheld nothing which required the imposition of authority. Robbery was going on at every corner – in every house – yet there was no censure, no punishment.

Can we award Sherman a posthumous Baghdad Bob Award?

[mstar]

My family was burned out and had to walk to relatives in Mississippi. It sounds as if your ancestors were easily discouraged.

I was going to ask you if you knew anything about Chesterfield County, S.C. after Sherman finished with it, then rustbucket posted his description of the carnage.

My family left because there was nothing left. They joined the many others forced to walk out of the area to live with relatives, so they could eat and have shelter.

Thank you, rustbucket, for posting this. Bless you.

[mac_truck]

Putting William Gilmore Simms’ polemic aside, what was the result of the official inquiry into the burning of Colombia SC?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘Is that what the socialists teach the little Yankee eggheads up there? Oh, brother...’

I am not sure, but I believe that at least a few Confederate veterans were not executed. Only a handful of officers and no members of the Confederate government were executed. This is extremely uncommon in Civil Wars. In the Revolution all of the leaders fully realized that if they lost, they would be killed.

[mstar]

It is on my Kindle, which presents a problem, since I have not seen it or unpacked it from my last out of town trip. When found, it will prob. need to be charged. When I recover it, I will get back to you.

Finally found my Kindle and charged the batteries up enough to use.

Here is the quote from Sherman's letter to H.W. Halleck, Commander In Chief, Washington, D.C.

"I would deem it very unwise at this time, or for years to come, to revive the government of Louisiana. etc or to institute in this quarter any civil government in which the local people have much to say. They had a government so mild and paternal they gradually forgot they had any at all, save what they themselves controlled; they asserted an absolute right to seize public moneys, forts, arms, and even to shut up natural avenues of travel and commerce. They chose war, they ignored and denied all the obligations of the solemn contract of government and appealed to force.

We have accepted the issue and now they begin to realize that war is a two edged sword, and it may are that many of the inhabitants cry for peace. I know them well, and the very impulses of their nature; and to deal with the inhabitants of that part of the south which borders on the great river, we must recognize the classes in to which they have divided themselves.

First there are the large planters, owning lands, slaves, and all kinds of personal property. These are, on the whole the ruling class. They are educated, wealthy, and easily, approached. In some districts they are bitter as gall and have given up slaves, plantations, and all, serving in the armies of the confederacy; whereas in others they are conservative.

None dare admit a friendship for us, though they say freely that they were at the outset opposed to war and disunion. I know we can manage this class, but only by action. Argument is exhausted, and words have lost their usual meaning. Nothing but the logic of events touches their understanding; but of late, it has worked a wonderful change. If our country were like Europe crowded with people, I would say it would be easier to replace this class than to reconstruct it, subordinate to the policy of the nation; but as this is not the case, it is better to allow the planters with individual exceptions, gradually to recover their plantations, to hire any species of labor, and to adapt themselves to the new order of things. Still their friendship and assistance to reconstruct order out of the present ruin cannot be depended on. They watch the operations of our armies, and hope still for a Southern Confederacy that will restore to them the slaves and privileges which they fell are otherwise lost forever."

[rustbucket]

I expect you know the answer or you wouldn't have asked.

The Mixed Commission on British and American Claims were asked by British subjects to determine whether "the 'city was wantonly fired by the army of General Sherman'9 with his 'consent and connivance' resulting in the destruction of their property." [See: Link]

The Commission, faced with conflicting testimony, came to the conclusion that the fire " 'was not to be described to either the intention or default of either the Federal or confederate [sic] officers,'12 a kind of nondecision which seemed to say that the results of war could not be changed." [same source as above] Of course, the US representative on this three-person Commission was a Republican judge from Indiana. The Commission considered a huge number of claims, not just Columbia.

Let's see. Cities and towns were burned along the path of Sherman's army before it got to Columbia and along its path after the army left Columbia. Columbia was just part of a pattern. His troops figured out what they could get away with as far as looting and burning. Sherman appears to have been looking the other way when all of this occurred, although he does say in his wartime correspondence that he burned Rome, Georgia, and intended to burn Atlanta in a few days. I posted some of the Union correspondence and newspaper reports before [see Link].

As far as who burned Columbia is concerned, Simms' first hand reports are very clear that the Federal soldiers did it. If you think he is perhaps a biased reporter of what happened, consider the report of Union Captain George Whitfield Pepper in his 1866 book, Personal Recollections of Sherman's Campaigns: In Georgia and the Carolinas. Pepper reported that that he saw crowds of soldiers returning from Columbia "waving gold watches, handfuls of gold, jewelry, and rebel shinplasters [rb: paper money] in the air, and boasting of having burned the town." Pepper also confirmed Simms observation that Federal soldiers kept cutting the fire hoses of the Columbia fire fighters trying to put out the fires: "The fire companies brought out their engines and our men cut the hose to pieces."

Here are some additional links for you. I have hard copies of Lucas' book (the first link above), the Aiken version of Simms' book [here is a link to an 1865 version of Simms' book], and Pepper's book [Link].

[central_va]

I am not sure, but I believe that at least a few Confederate veterans were not executed. Only a handful of officers and no members of the Confederate government were executed. This is extremely uncommon in Civil Wars

The reason why Jefferson Davis et. al. were not tried, even thought they all asked for a trial, was that the US government could not try them as secession is not illegal and nobody wanted to be the hypocrite that forced the issue. Even the Yankees could see that, if Jefferson Davis won his trial then the entire war effort by the North would have been a crime/invasion against an independent nation(a position that I agree with).

[Non-Sequitur]

...and he did not engage in what can only be termed as the atrocities of Sherman. The Nazi war criminals were guilty of far lesser atrocities than Sherman, but since the Union won, Sherman was regarded as a hero.

I just love rabid, mouth-foaming Lost Cause BS. It's what makes you guys so much fun to watch.

[Non-Sequitur]

Surely all of that wasn't burned by this supposed Jew that Sherman mentions. I wonder who burned all those towns along his march?

Did Sherman blame one for starting the fires?

Consider Sherman's testimony about the burning and looting of Columbia, South Carolina, given at a hearing in 1873...

War is hell.

Can we award Sherman a posthumous Baghdad Bob Award?

No, but there are a couple of Lost Causers around here I think would qualify for the award.

[Non-Sequitur]

That is the quote I'm thinking of. And as I suspected, you badly exaggerated Sherman's intent because you ignore the passage which follows:

"In my judgment, we have two more battles to win before we should even bother our minds with the idea of restoring civil order...When these are done, then, and not until then, will the planters of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, submit. Slavery is already gone, and, to cultivate the land, negro or other labor must be hired. This, of itself, if a vast revolution, and time must be afforded to to allow men to adjust their minds and habits to the new order of things."

These are, I assume, the same men you just claimed Sherman wanted to destroy or replace?

[Non-Sequitur]

The reason why Jefferson Davis et. al. were not tried, even thought they all asked for a trial, was that the US government could not try them as secession is not illegal and nobody wanted to be the hypocrite that forced the issue.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! The reason the et.al. weren't tried, much as they deserved it, was because of the three clemency acts Andrew Johnson issued during his presidency. The reason Davis wasn't tried, much as he deserved it, was that Chief Justice Chase made it clear that he believed that trying Davis for treason after the ratification of the 14th Amendment would violate ol' Jeff's 5th Amendment protections. Kind of ironic once you think of it - a man who had no respect for the Constitution saved from jail by a man who had.

[Non-Sequitur]

Only a handful of officers and no members of the Confederate government were executed.

Actually none of the confederate officers or officials were tried for their crimes, much less executed. And you're correct, it is unheard of in all history for the losing side of a bloody rebellion to suffer so little and be returned to political power so quickly.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Yup, it is, but it is also how you actually win wars. To win - really win - you must break the other side’s will to fight. See Sun Tzu.

The islamists know this, hence their use of terror. We have forgotten that, hence our endless entanglements. Only after you break their will to fight can you rebuild them. See WWII.

---

Exactly so.

[Non-Sequitur]

I need to take a sherman and wipe my lincoln real good.

Don't you need to take your head out of your Jefferson Davis first?