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.
according to the classic book, WHITE OVER BLACK, there were NO US-flagged ships in the US slave trade from the southland. only from the north.
free dixie,sw
Well, they were all U.S.flagged ships, but one of the last ones captured was the Wanderer, taken by the U.S. Navy in 1858 bound for Georgia with 400 slaves onboard, owned by a southerner, Charles A.L. Lamar. For you to claim that not a single slave ship was owned by southerners is patently wrong. And as for not a single slave being brought in under the confederate flag, can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that on all those hundreds of passages by southern-owned blockade runners that not a single slave was brought it from Cuba or Mexico?
every good damnyankee apologist KNOWS that the victims & desendents of the hateFILLED, arrogant, cruel, amoral damnyankee invaders ALWAYS LIE, if it makes their invaders look bad. (sarcasm)
it as if the world discounted everything done to the Jews & other "undesirables", during the Hitler Terror, because the NAZIs didn't think it was IMMORAL & didn't write everything they did down.
free dixie,sw
Mass. wasn't it?? from the township of New Bedford???? and the whole crew were from where??? yep, New England.
free dixie,sw
No, no, and no. Built in New York, not New Bedford. Sold to southerners, specifically Charles Lamar, not people from Massachussetts. Set sail from Charleston, not New England. Bound for Jekyll Island, Georgia via the African slave coast. Captured by U.S. ships.
PLEASE respond with your ORIGIONAL source material for any differences in the data.
books CAN be wrong.
btw, i don't think i said, as i didn't know, where she was built.
free dixie,sw
You information is wrong, as usual. Try "The Slaveship Wanderer" by Tom Henderson Wells. The Wanderer was launched in 1857 as a yacht for J.D. johnson of Louisiana. It was sold in 1858 to W.C. Corrie of Charleston, and his associates Charles A. L. Lamar of Savannah and Nelson C. Trowbridge of New Orleans. Converted to the slave trade, Wanderer left Charleston on July 3, 1858 and sailed to Trinidad. She left there July 27, 1858 and sailed to the west coast of Africa. After crossing the Atlantic, Wanderer entered the Congo River on 16 September. She took on board some 500 blacks, in spite of an epidemic of yellow fever in the area, and sailed for North America on October 18. She was briefly chased by USS Vincennes as she left the mouth of the river but not caught. At the end of a six-week voyage in which many of the captives died, Wanderer arrived at Jekyll Island on November 28, 1858 and delivered her slaves. From first to last a southern effort.
ONCE MORE, (SIGH!) the classic book, WHITE OVER BLACK, states that "NO slave ship was ever owned or crewed by persons from the southern states. the hands of the northerners are NOT CLEAN." (emphasis, mine)
the point is that you & the other damnyankees on FR are UNwilling to EVER admit that anything done by the money-grubbing, self-righteous,arrogant damnyankees was less than PERFECT & that anything ever done by southerners was anything other than flawed,stupid & evil. that makes the unionist cause & her adherents look DUMB!
personal to YOU: you are SMARTER than your peers here. too bad that you don't educate them, as they might listen to their betters.
free dixie,sw
More SW BS. I gave the source. And I will deny that her captain and crew were all from New England. And I will repeat that her owners were all from the south. She set sail from a southern port. And she returned to a southern port with a cargo of illegal slaves.
ONCE MORE, (SIGH!) the classic book, WHITE OVER BLACK, states that "NO slave ship was ever owned or crewed by persons from the southern states. the hands of the northerners are NOT CLEAN." (emphasis, mine)
And ONCE MORE (SIGH!), the classic book, THE SLAVESHIP WANDERER, states that THE WANDERER was OWNED by SOUTHERN INTRESTS. She SAILED from a SOUTHERN PORT. She RETURNED to a SOUTHERN PORT with a cargo of ILLEGAL SLAVES for SOUTHERN OWNERS. (emphasis mine) You are incapable of accepting the truth, incapable of recognizing the truth if jumped out and bit you on your Jefferson Davis. You are the most amazing, bigoted, closed minded, ranting figure I have ever come across.
i can only believe that you think the other people on this thread don't have the education you have AND that they don't know that there is a HUGE difference between an ORIGIONAL SOURCE DOCUMENT & a DERIVATIVE SOURCE, like the book THE WANDERER.
all here, with the possible exception of the damnyankee lunatics in your coven, DO KNOW that you quoted a secondary, derivative source.
btw, i'd sooner have the reputation as the "most amazing,bigoted,closed minded,ranting figure" than have your reputation as a LIAR, an APOLOGIST FOR THE DAMNYANKEE WAR CRIMINALS and/or a person whose mission in life is to MISeducate your fellows on the net.
free dixie,sw
So what makes the alleged book that you claim supports your crazy claims ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT and the book I used to support my claim a DERIVATIVE SOURCE?
Very good. Seems that the southern school system manages to instill some correct information after all. But if you follow the posts back to Post 552 then you'll see that everything I said there was true. And not a single country in the Western Hemisphere engaged in war to end slavery.
Yep. The Slaveship Wanderer by Tom Henderson Wells.
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.