Replies

jeffersondem: "I have no doubt Sherman would have welcomed the opportunity to drop an atomic bomb on Mt. Vernon."

I'm certain Sherman was highly respectful of George Washington's memory since they shared several key values:

Both believed in the ultimate value of the United States as... well, united and states.
Both lead armies to defeat rebellions against the United States.
- In Pres. Washington's case it was to defeat the 1792-4 Whiskey Rebellion.
- In Sherman's case it was to defeat the 1861-5 Slavers' Rebellion.
Sherman's 1864 army of about 100,000 men was larger than Washington's of 13,000 in 1794, but the US 1864 population was nearly ten times larger than in 1794, so, relative to populations, they commanded the same size armies and, of course, both were victorious -- though, as it turned out, the Whiskey Rebels needed only to sober up, while Slaver Rebels took considerably more... ah... persuasion.
Both Washington and Sherman believed that slavery was wrong and should be gradually abolished.
Both believed that in peacetime the legalities of slavery were matters of individual states' authority.
Both offered the enemy's slaves freedom in exchange for military service.

That's why I don't think Sherman would blame George Washington for the US Civil War.

jeffersondem: "As to your earlier claim that began: “Every CSA surrender was “unconditional” . . .”"

Again, a matter of definitions -- famously, "Unconditional Surrender Grant" told Buckner at Fort Donalson that only "unconditional surrender" was acceptable, and I can't find any record of conditions allowed by Grant.

At Appomattox Court House, the words "unconditional surrender" were actually spoken by Union Gen. George Custer to CSA Gen. Longstreet.
But when Grant met with Lee, he proposed and Lee accepted the following:

"In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th inst., I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms, to wit:

Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate.
One copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate.
The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands.
The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them.
This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage.
This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.[17]"

Notice, first, that these are Grant's conditions, not Lee's.
And, second, compare these terms to, for example, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which imposed a long list of punishments on defeated Germans, so by contrast, Grant's "unconditional" conditions seem mild, almost non-existent.

So I'd think the bottom line here, as our FRiend x pointed out, is that conditions allowed by the victor are not counted the same as those insisted on by the vanquished.

Feel free to correct me on this, if you can find examples of defeated Confederates imposing conditions on the victorious Union army.

Yes, of course, there is a larger point here, to which I readily agree, and that is the Confederate government itself never officially surrendered, conditionally or any otherwise.
And since the words "Confederate" and "Democrats" are synonymous for all practical purposes, that can help explain why Democrats have remained at war against the United States, our Constitution and our values, ever since.

😄