Posted on 12/05/2014 1:01:20 PM PST by aomagrat
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -
At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.
"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.
"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."
McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.
"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."
(Excerpt) Read more at wistv.com ...
I am proud of that fact that at the onset of the US involvement in WWII, the USAF did sited daytime bombing against military targets.
They were as precise as you could be in the early 40's. We know that often looks like laying swathes of useless destruction today, but that was NOT a war crime: they were as precise as they COULD be. More than that, being physically impossible, would not have been morally obligatory.
I am not making an anti-war argument here, or even an anti-bombing argument. I am making the fundamental distinction that the difference between an good soldier/sailor/airman/marine and a Nazi, is that the good guys have moral limits. They do not indiscriminately slaughter, or intentionally target and massacre, noncombatants.
Is that your measure of the threshold for a war crime? Then may we expect your retreat from the charge against Sherman and the union soldiers. Because they did none of that.
:o)
I am for peace. But if war is forced upon you, rally around those who will wage war justly. Save the children of the poor. And crush the oppressor.
I am making the fundamental distinction that the difference between an good soldier/sailor/airman/marine and a Nazi, is that the good guys have moral limits. They do not indiscriminately slaughter, or intentionally target and massacre, noncombatants.
<><><><><><
How do Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit into the calculus above?
They’re not southrons ;’)
Almost unmentioned by anybody, is that fact that the targeted destruction of assets indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (such as stored foods, cropland, livestock, wells and reservoirs, etc.) resulted in the South in the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of black slaves. They were an entirely rural people, living always at a level close to subsistence, and strategies such as Sherman's "scorched earth" policy contributed to their massive die-off during and directly after the war.
There's a book called "Sick from Freedom" by Jim Downs (LINK) which attempts to accurately estimate the extent of the black die-off. The slaves were (like the urban and rural whites) denied food and even denied the ability produce crops (e.g. because of the slaughter of mules and other work animals), facing rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera --- and many of them simply starved to death.
A shame. And one we have not yet faced.
In other words you are willing to continue to move the goalposts until you are satisfied that no condition can rehabilitate his reputation. That’s OK by me because it reflects upon you not me.
History does not consider Sherman a “war criminal” and those who shout it only look foolish to the rest of us.
"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."
This is not a war crime "because" it is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. It is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions "because" it is a war crime.
“It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”
The Yankee Army under the command of Gen. Averel stole my Great-Great Grandmother`s horse. They also sole hundreds of bushels of corn, thousands of split rail fences to use for their campfires, see “Southern Claims Commision “ Alleghany County Va.
I take it she survived, at least long enough to bear one of your great-grandparents. I’m glad of that. So many did not.
Somewhere in my library I have a pamphlet published by local Florida historians that says the same thing. I purchased it at Fort Pickens.
I found my missing “pamphlet.” It is 120 pages long and is entitled, “Pensacola Fortifications, 1698-1980, Guardians on the Gulf” by James C. and Irene S. Coleman and published by the Pensacola Historical Society.
On page 39 it says, “About midnight on the eighth [January 8, 1861] a group of men approached the fort and failing to answer when challenged, were fired upon by the guard.”
Madame, you miss my point. Yes there is the tyrant who must be vanquished by the just but the crime of war, for what ever reason is a crime unto to nature, unto God, it is the crime of covetousness, greed, the lust for power, the love of killing. Righteousness prevails but war by it’s nature is a crime.
You should look into it a bit more. The firebombing of Dresden was done by both the RAF and US bombers in February 1945. Over a three day period both forces bombarded the city as a whole, targeting civilians and not just military or industrial targets. And the firebombing of Japanese cities, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were both indiscriminate and designed to kill as many civilians as possible. But that is war, and war is hard. So where were they any worse than Sherman was?
150 years after the fact...
Article 1 refers to the powers of Congress. You might consider what Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution to the people, signed a statement saying that this was what the Constitution meant with respect to habeas corpus:
That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
But we are to believe that you know more than Hamilton and Jay about what the Constitution means.
Let me reiterate Article 1 Section 9 :The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. I never professed to more than Hamilton and Jay about what the Constitution means wise guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.