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.
Lol. The Roosevelt policies were the communist revolution.
Had we fixed Hoover's screw ups, the 30s could have been a growth decade.
I used to believe that too, but in re-reading about the New Deal I now come to the conclusion that Roosevelt was more of a pragmatist. Much of the New Deal was ad hoc -- he got desperate as the Depression deepened (things actually got worse between his election & inauguration). So I agree with Modernman here, FDR was trying to forestall a Communist Revolution in the USA. His biggest political opponent during his first re-election campaign was --- Huey Long of Louisiana. Now THERE was a flipping Communist if there ever was one!
No, a communist revolution would have been much worse. People don't realize it these days, but a sizable percentage of the population was so desperate during the Great Depression that they would have been willing to chuck capitalism out the door. Roosevelt was able to defuse the situation and lower the misery to an acceptable level.
"Slavery was a crime against Humanity."
Lest you should forget............Ohio, a slave state.
"John Brown had been born on May 9, 1800 in Torrington, Connecticut. He was raised by his parents under strict religious and moral principles.
"At an early age, John Brown became an ardent believer in the wrongs of slavery. His father also held strong anti-slavery beliefs. When John Brown was five years old, his family left Connecticut and moved to Hudson, Ohio.
"Here his abhorrence of slavery became even stronger. Personally witnessing the abuse of a young black slave, he is said to have pledged an eternal war against slavery."
He could have begun his eternal war in Ohio, where because of its history of slave ownership, no war crimes could be committed.
Or thats what he was able make people beleive.
The reality is that lower tariffs, more money supply and lower taxes would have helped more. Sure, the TVA and gov money to restart the agriculture/ money cycle would have helped, but the CCC programs were close to slavery.
Did women have the right to vote in the North?
He could have begun his eternal war in Ohio, where because of its history of slave ownership, no war crimes could be committed.
Ohio outlawed slavery in 1803. John Brown was born in 1800 and his family moved to Ohio in 1805. So, any slaves he saw in Hudson (which is outside of Akron, I believe) would have belonged to slave owners from another state who were passing through Ohio at the time.
Yes, he killed their will to fight. All he had to do was kill their wife and kids. Maybe their old Mama and Daddy too.
Easy when ya think about it.
I should have led with a sarcasm alert:
My point is that the war of aggression/secession is still going on, certainly at this forum it is.
Had Grant simply and finally whipped the Southern armies, then allowed them the basically decent terms he favored, let them go home [including to Kentucky], and held the line for reasonable reparations, the issues would not still be with us after a century and a half.
"splitting the south" hurt the confederacy, diverted troops, and enraged/terrified those in its path - it didn't cause the southern armies to fight less or to run away more. Beating them in the field would have taken their fight away without creating the hatred. That is one of the problems today in Iraq, not that we were not violent enough but that we tried so hard to avoid violence. The Iraqi army and Baathists were NOT defeated and an army that believes it was not defeated 'fair and square' will try a comeback.
Oh, and that potential for a guerilla war that Sherman avoided by his decisive violence against non-combatants? I presume you are aware that the KKK was indeed a guerilla response to occupation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174259/posts
This would have done Sherman proud. Thread, my only real beef with the war outcome is with Sherman.
I've lived in Chambersburg all my life and I've never met anyone who was still sensitive about the burning. Most of us are proud to be part of such an important part of U.S. history. We actually celebrate the burning of our town.
I was in a bar there looking at a series of photograths they have on the wall there. I my strong southern drawl, I made the comment of, "Don't ya'll figure you should get around to building it back"?
Hmmm...Maybe the locals were a little miffed that you would insult present day Chambersburg. Our little town may not look like much to a visitor but those of us who reside here like it well enough to stay.
I was literally escorted out of town with my Yankee friend begging the locals not to kill me.
Oh, you were not! I think you've embellished a bit.
And by the way, you're welcome to come back anytime. And don't forget to visit Gettysburg while you're in the area.
I was in Chambersburg two weeks ago. Made it to Gettysburg for the Battle Reenactments. Had a wonderful time. Loved the area and the people!
Yes, States would still have the right to succeed from the Union.
Yes, zarf is vile.
War is hell and you're outrage is very selective.
The Confederacy is dead. Get over it.
I have so much to read that I don't know where to begin. The Foote books are on my list. I've read Foote's book on Gettysburg...it was good.
Will you please put me on it?
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.