You know, you had me there until the last comment.
One ma’s traitor is another man’s hero. I don’t know much about Vallandigham beyond the fact that he was a militant copperhead.
In the Revolution, Tories were considered traitors but the Whigs. But were they really, or just following their consciences like Anderson, Lee, and perhaps Vallandigham.
I would consider Arnold a real traitor as he changed sides for purely personal profit. If a person sincerely believes that what they are doing politically is correct, does that make them a traitor?
“Leftist propaganda. Both Hiroshima and Dresden were legitimate military targets and their destruction was undertaken not to kill civilians but to cripple enemy logistics.”
Not sure about that. I wouldn’t waste tears on civilians killed in either situation, personally, but I think the “collateral damage” in those attacks was so massive and would have been so obvious to the planners that its hard to think they were not planned. There is no doubt in my minid that Dresden was payback time by the Brits for the bombing of London.
“He had no interest in slaughtering Confederate civilians, and he never enacted such an alien policy.”
Perhaps. But all things proceed by degrees and by the military practise of the time his acitons were pretty shocking. Its also hard to believe that these actions did not result in substantial civilian collateral damage either directly or due to exposure and starvation created.
“Nothing Sherman did in Georgia is even remotely related to those atrocities. Stalin and Hitler were intent on eliminating populations. Sherman’s goal was the seizure of property.”
Again, all things proceed by degrees. And I think Sherman himself stated that he intended to make war so horrible to the civilian population by this actions that they would no longer support the war effort. Connecting the dots there leads to some frighting conclusions.
“So obviously he was not responsible for setting any precedent in that regard.”
All things proceed by degrees.
“..just as the ANV had fired the property of abolitionists and Unionists in MD and PA.”
Is the source for this the book you mentioned in this post?
“Jubal Early, John Bell Hood and Nathan Bedford Forrest all attempted to get a guerrilla war going. Two of them were Lee’s lieutenants. All three were leaders of national reknown in the Confederacy. Their attempts failed because the South was used up - thanks to Farragut, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan.”
Aside from Forrest, the other two were not very effective leaders, were they? The South had many leaders - these were but three. Even one of those - Mosby - became a good Republican afterwards.
Indeed they are, because treason is the betrayal of an external moral obligation, not a function of one's personal feelings.
I think the “collateral damage” in those attacks was so massive and would have been so obvious to the planners that its hard to think they were not planned.
The very reson why Dresden is so famous/infamous is because of the freak occurrence of a firestorm that had never occurred in any previous bombing runs, including many runs that dropped multiple times the amount of ordinance dropped on Dresden.
The weather, the fact that Dresden lacked the extensive network of air-raid shelters that characterized Berlin and Hamburg, and the fact that Dresden had far more wooden than concrete/brick construction - unlike other German cities - resulted in a casualty count far above what the Allies or the Nazis would have expected.
No one had any idea what the casualties at Hiroshima might be - the US had only tested the weapon in desert areas.
by the military practise of the time his acitons were pretty shocking
Not at all.
Every general of the Civil War was a student of the Napoleonic Wars and were well aware of the tactics employed by French troops in Spain.
Sherman's conduct was quite restrained compared to Napoleon's in the Iberian peninsula.
There was nothing shocking about Sherman's march in historical context, except for the country in which it was taking place.
And I think Sherman himself stated that he intended to make war so horrible to the civilian population by this actions that they would no longer support the war effort.
And he did so, not by murdering civilians, but by seizing property - showing civilians that war had a cost.
Again, all things proceed by degrees.
Killing people and seizing livestock do not differ in degree - they differ in kind.
Aside from Forrest, the other two were not very effective leaders, were they?
They certainly were responsible for thousands of Union casualties.