I saw it, but thought I would check into Partisan's claims. She does later in the book make the blanket statement that Lee was subverting the government, "while wearing a U.S. uniform." The claim is basically that Lee was satan from cradle to grave, so if he ever donned a uniform, it was done with only treachery in his heart.
It could be that someone is simply allowing the drool/foam/hatred to blind them to reality.
You say this jokingly, but the book sitting closed on the table is still oozing hatred. I will have to lock it in the safe overnight for fear that it may come to life, prowl the house, and prey upon my young children. Example:
After considering the Official Reports, which we have cited at length, the reader will know that General Cox's summary of the partial destruction of Columbia ais admirable and correct: the fire was started by the Confederates, who sought to destroy the cotton; and the citizens of Columbia, both black and white, by plying some of the soldiers with liquor, raised against themselves the "invisible spirit of wine," and, thus sowing the wind, they reaped the whirlwind. [G: italics in original, bold mine]
Those poor Union soldiers. As Ms Shelton explains, they practically had no choice but burn the city to the ground after those wicked civilians put them under the spell of alchohol.
Didn't there used to be a Rebel brand beer? Maybe something with a Dixie cross on the can? I seem to remember that from years ago. I'll have to hope somebody else remembers, as one can only imagine what Google comes up with when you search for "Rebel flag beer can"
Soon afterwards, before he left Columbia, Sherman changed his tune and started passing the blame to Confederate General Wade Hampton, saying his men started the fire by burning the cotton they had left in the streets.Sherman's subordinates, however, did not substantiate this view. General Charles Woods, whose division was first into the city, wrote in his report, dated February 21, 1865, just after leaving Columbia, that the fire and its spreading was due to alcohol and it effects on "drunken negroes and the vilest vagabond soldiers, the veriest scum of the entire army." In his March 26th report, General William Woods, brother of Charles, stated, "I am satisfied by statements made to me by respectable citizens of the town that the fire was first set by the negro inhabitants." Likewise, XV Corps commander, General John A. Logan, made no mention of any burning cotton in his report, dated March 31, instead blaming the fire on "drunken soldiers."
On April 4, 1865, Sherman submitted his official report of the Carolinas Campaign. In it he still held Hampton accountable:
I disclaim on the part of my army any agency in this fire, but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia remains unconsumed. And without hesitation I charge general Wade Hampton with having burned his own city of Columbia, not with a malicious intent, or as the manifestation of a silly "Roman stoicism," but from folly and want of sense, in filling it with lint, cotton, and tinder.
Though the general admitted that "others not on duty, including the officers who had long been imprisoned there, rescued by us, may have assisted in spreading the fire after it had once begun, and may have indulged in unconcealed joy to see the ruin of the capital of South Carolina."
* * *
In 1875, in his Memoirs, Sherman freely admitted he lied about Hampton: "I did so pointedly, to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my opinion boastful, and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina." Sherman also said that his men had "utterly ruined Columbia."
So we'll chalk that up as a biased opinion, unsubstantiated by any facts.