Posted on 05/02/2017 5:06:54 PM PDT by BenLurkin
...Civil War historians argue opposite sides of the debate.
...
After World War II, the Nuremberg Charter defined war crimes as violations of the laws or customs of war. It lists several categories of offenses....
Murder or ill-treatment of civilians: Union artillery had barely gotten into range of Atlanta when, on July 19, 1864, Sherman ordered a bombardment of the city’s buildings: “No consideration must be paid to the fact they are occupied by families, but the place must be cannonaded.” The Yankee guns fired their first shells on July 20, and within a few days, Confederate newspapers began reporting casualties. One shell wounded a woman and killed the child she was carrying in her arms. In my book, I have concluded that the victims were the wife and child of John M. Weaver, an engineer who lived on Walton Street.
Sherman maintained a perverse determination to shell Atlanta, denying that innocent civilians still lived there. “You may fire from 10 to 15 shots from every gun you have in position into Atlanta that will reach any of its houses,” he ordered his artillery on Aug. 1. “Fire slowly and with deliberation between 4 p.m. and dark.”
...
On Sept. 4, just days after his troops entered Atlanta, Sherman dictated his Special Field Orders 67: “The City of Atlanta being exclusively required for warlike purposes, will at once be vacated by all except the Armies of the United States.” Civilians wishing to go south would be taken to Confederate lines under truce flags; the Rebels would then have to transport them on to Macon. The displaced could take some possessions, but most of their property, not to mention their homes, would be left behind.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlantaforward.blog.ajc.com ...
If political correctness has taught us nothing it has shown that it is impossible to ascribe current cultural norms and acceptance to historical facts.
And yet they keep trying.
Because norms are more important to the agenda than facts
to them. Control the narrative, control the past, control
the present is the name of their game.
The case for reparations is clear.
Like
As the man stated: “War is Hell.”
If so then war itself is a crime, and everyone involved a criminal.
Did Sherman fit the definition of a war criminal? Yes. Is he a war criminal? No. Only the losers can be war criminals.
No
Uh ... no.
First I've heard of it anyway.
No.
Sherman was both a war criminal and a war hero—and neither a war criminal nor a war hero.
In one sense—dispassionate theoretical evaluation—Sherman doubtless committed acts that—to the modern sensibility as well as that of his contemporaries—would be considered "war crimes".
In another sense—practicing the art of warfare—Sherman was simply a high-ranking soldier following the orders of his commander in chief—orders that specifically requested the "scorched earth" tactics that he employed.
Like any prominent historical figure—especially an American—Sherman is hard to pigeonhole, IMHO...
Yes.
Compared to ‘Spoons’ Butler (sometimes called ‘Beast’ Butler), Sherman was an angel. He didn’t steal for personal enrichment and he didn’t authorize his troops to rape the women.
I googled that and got this:
This title is pretty misleading and implies that Sherman was marching them around to clear the mines by stepping on them...
But if you actually read the link, you'd see that after the Union took the fort. He basically was like, "you guys planted them, now you guys gotta dig em up".
If so, it wasn't any war crime.
Very interesting. Thanks for the book information...
Sherman was still a professional military man after the war, and was Commanding General of the Army from 1869 to 1883. He wouldn’t have been able to officially advise a foreign head of state of anything under those circumstances.
Was President Harry S. Truman?
War has no rules, that’s why it is called ‘war’.
in the early 1980’s we were touring an antebellum plantation in Louisiana. An older lady, most likely a local was the guide. During the conversation I brought up General Sherman. This woman responded angrily that she would be grateful if I would not bring up his name again in her presence. I reacted by asking what could be the problem with that as the Civil War was (at that time) was over 120 years ago. She sniffed “you sir have no idea what that man did to my family”.
it was unreal.
Read “The Siege Of Atlanta, 1864” by Samuel Carter III.
Lots of info on how General Sherman acted.
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.