Posted on 07/18/2004 8:40:59 PM PDT by canalabamian
Not only was William Tecumseh Sherman guilty of many of the crimes that some apologists portray as "tall tales," but also his specter seems to haunt the scandal-ridden halls of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Sherman had a relatively poor record battling armies. His lack of preparation nearly destroyed Union forces at Shiloh. He was repulsed at Chickasaw Bluffs, losing an early opportunity to capture Vicksburg, Miss. The result was a bloody campaign that dragged on for months. He was blocked by Gen. Pat Cleburne at the Battle of Chattanooga and needed to be bailed out by Gen. George Thomas' Army of the Cumberland. His troops were crushed by rebel forces in the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain.
But Sherman knew how to make war against civilians. After the capture of Atlanta, he engaged in policies similar to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia by expelling citizens from their homes. "You might as well appeal against the thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war," he told the fleeing population. Today, Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for similar actions in Kosovo.
An article on Sherman in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last spring asserted that Sherman attacked acceptable military targets "by the standards of war at the time." This seems to assume that human rights were invented with the creation of the United Nations. But Gen. Grant did not burn Virginia to the ground. Gen. Lee did not burn Maryland or Pennsylvania when he invaded. Both sought to destroy each other's armies instead of making war against women and children, as Sherman did.
After promising to "make Georgia . . . howl," Sherman continued such policies in the Carolinas. Not only did he preside over the burning of Columbia, but he also executed several prisoners of war in retaliation for the ambush of one of his notorious foraging parties. While Andersonville's camp commander, Henry Wirz, was found guilty of conspiracy to impair the health and destroy the life of prisoners and executed, nothing like that happened to Sherman.
According to an article by Maj. William W. Bennett, Special Forces, U.S. Army, Sherman turned his attention to a new soft target after the Civil War: Native Americans. Rather than engage Indian fighters, Sherman again preferred a strategy of killing noncombatants. After an ambush of a military detachment by Red Cloud's tribe, Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."
Bennett notes that Sherman carried out his campaign with brutal efficiency. On the banks of the Washita River, Gen. George Armstrong Custer massacred a village of the friendly Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle, who had located to a reservation. Sherman was quoted as saying, "The more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or maintained as a species of paupers. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous."
Such slaughter was backed by the extermination of the buffalo as a means of depriving the men, women and children with a source of food. Many Native Americans not killed by Sherman's troopers were forced onto reservations or exiled to Florida to face swamps and disease.
Now we have learned about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Such events may seem unrelated, were it not for reports that Sherman's policies are still taught to West Point cadets as an example of how to break an enemy's will to fight.
Are we therefore shocked by the acts of barbarity against Iraqi detainees? As long as we honor Sherman, teach his tactics and revise history to excuse his actions, we can expect more examples of torture and savagery against noncombatants we encounter in other countries.
John Tures is an assistant professor of political science at LaGrange College who was born in Wisconsin, opposes the 1956 Georgia flag and still has a low opinion of Sherman.
right. Lincoln only 'freed' the slaves a few years into the war to keep the euros on his side...
Davis repelled an intruder. The next four states certainly didn't secede to preserve slavery, but seceded because a despot was calling for troops to use against former members of the union, as stated by Gov. Ellis of North Carolina:
I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration, for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people.
"This book was the subject of a 2 part series on History Channel. I only saw the last part...
I think Lee probably did more to save the Union in that month than anybody else..
I agree. Jefferson Davis wanted Lee to start a guerilla war... Lee refused. He gave his word of honor to Grant. He knew that he had been beaten and there was no dishonor in defeat.
Lee's example did much to help heal the wounds. He was a true gentleman."
I've seen "April 1865" a couple of times now, and its very well done. If I think of it, I'll probably end up getting it on DVD. The program was much easier to watch than the book was to read, in my opinion. But if you are a CW junkie, it doesn't really matter, does it?......LOL!
And I whole heartedly agree with your statements concerning Lee's actions in that terrible month.
I've always been of the opinion that one shot by Booth did more harm to the South in the long run than anything Sherman did, or any other Union General for that matter. That single bullet ensured hatred that clearly exists to this day, ensured the South would be treated in much the same way Germany was treated in the aftermath of WWI in my opinion.
Lee could have easily gone guerrilla.
But, the war was not started by Lincoln for slavery. His goals in the war were to keep the union, that was, until he saw the benefit of making it a moralistic war later (Hence, the Emancipation Proclamation came later). Just do a cursory examination of his statements. His concern early on was NOT the blacks in bondage. It was keeping rebellious Southerners from leaving.
The institution of slavery died with the Confederacy. Thank God for that fact.
Are you calling Lincoln a liar?
The institution of slavery is alive and well in many countries to this day. Suadan for example.
Turns out he was wrong about the constitutionality part, wasn't he? And far from repelling an intruder, the Davis regime seized something that didn't belong to it.
Thank God for these two great Americans. I am proud to claim each of them as my own.
All I can say is 'wow.'
The war was far from over when Sherman started his march through Georgia(Oct.1864). It went on for another 7 months and only ended when Joe Johnston surrendered to Sherman in North Carolina and Lee realized he was hopelessly beaten in Virginia.
Agreed. Often what separates a 'successful general' from an unsuccessful one is that the former can maintain the trust of his superiors even in defeat.
Sherman's record as a battlefield tactician is spotty, but he was great at the operational level in that he could move armies efficiently. This is what was lacking.
Thomas was a bulldog, but he was often criticized for being slow. At Nashville the orders had been cut by Grant to remove him from command, but news of Thomas' crushing counterattack against Hood saved him and his military reputation.
The institution of slavery died with the Confederacy. Thank God for that fact..
Agreed. I think the debate here was the need for Sherman to commit genocide.
Slavery continues today in third-world countries. President Bush was down in FLA to discuss the "slavery" of migrant workers last week.
Agreed.
The Supreme Court also ruled that abortion was constitutional, as was sodomy. Next will be homosexual marriage.
Judges are not god. Lincoln's regime was content to allow slavery to exist, and only desired the tariff revenues. To that end he sent an armed fleet to seize SC property. Congress did not sanction his actions, his blockade was an act of war.
I'm not arguing with you that it was a just war...it was.
I'm taking your comments about all southerners to task because it is ignorant. I thought we conservatives judged each man on his or her character...not group sterotypes.
Granted.
Yet, examine Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses. In the end, this was no opportunistic issue for Lincoln. This was a religious crusade in whcih God guided the just to victory.
The transition speaks for itself.
The war in that theater was over.
We did burn territory in WWII after we held it with boots on the ground.
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.