The Wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman and the War on Terror

William Tecumseh Sherman is either a hated war criminal or a honored war hero in the United States in this article I do not debate this point but only draw upon his wisdom as it applies to war. In what follows I will apply this wisdom to our present long and destined to be longer war against the World Islamic Terrorist Organizations.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in the last decade. The words “Bush’s war” and the questions of the Iraq war’s legality have been the subject of many a written word in our national press. This is however not the subject of this piece. Today I will expound upon the wisdom of these wars and wars yet to begin.

The war in Afghanistan is the result of an act of war perpetrated by Islamic extremist terrorist on our nation. This is an indisputable fact. The active participants in this act were from various Middle Eastern Muslim nations primarily Saudi Arabia but also Yemini and Egyptian. The stated grievances of these men were the United States support of Israel and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

There are other unstated but strong motives that these men had. These motives have been expressed by like minded supporters of these terrorist actions. These motives are the spread of Western culture to the Muslim countries. In the minds of the fundamentalist Muslim the worst of the West influences is on women. That a woman can show bare skin let alone her face in public is to the Arab Muslim unacceptable and an affront to Allah. To the Taliban (the ruling power in Afghanistan at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack on this country) television, music, make up, dancing, soccer, kite flying and much more were forbidden as un-Islamic Western practices. To these people everything Western was evil. Another fundamental tenet of Islam is that all the world must be brought under the control of Islam, by sword if necessary.

For these reasons the Islamic terrorist brought war to our country. Our support of Israel may have been the precipitating act in their minds for the attack but their desire to humble the preeminent non-Islamic country in the world was large in their minds.

I will not discuss the legality of the Iraq war more than to state that congress voted on and passed a resolution authorizing the war and had available to them all of the intelligence documents concerning weapons of mass destruction that was available to the Bush administration.

The need for the war is however in my opinion undeniable. Saddam Hussein was a financial supporter of world wide Islamic terror. He had used chemical weapons on his own citizens he at the very least was gathering material to produce a nuclear weapon. Although we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there is evidence that he moved the weapons and the factories to Syria during the period before the war when the Bush administration was trying to negotiate Saddam’s peaceful surrender.

The point I wish to make about the Iraq war is that although direct ties between Al Qaida and Iraq are few Saddam had numerous ties with other terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the IRA. After the Iraq war a terrorist training camp was found there that had a Boeing 727 fuselage used for training terrorist hi-jackers.

Political correctness and multiculturalism has been much used in the arguments against these wars; either explicitly or in couched phrases; the failure of the government or the press to use the word terrorist or to openly name the people we are fighting as Muslim or Islamist is simply foolish political correctness. The first rule in war is to know your enemy. If you can not name your enemy, if you can not allow yourself to express anger and hatred at your enemy you will not defeat that enemy.

The press has spent a great deal of ink saying how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has harmed the reputation of the US and made us a pariah in international affairs. William Tecumseh Sherman arguably the most effective Union General of the Civil War had this to say about war and popularity:

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking.”

The United States is at war with people who choose to be at war with us and drew first blood. We do not have a choice of whether to go to war or not. This war is also not only a war of Islam against the United State. Islam is at war around the world. It is at war in Indonesia, the Philippines Islands, several African Countries, Europe, and even the Middle East itself. These Islamist are not simply trying to convert the world to Islam by the sword they also seek to purify Islam were it already exist. This is literally a world war. We are at war and we do not have the luxury of being kind and gentile with those who wish to kill us. I again turn to the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman:

“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”

The United States has made more effort than any nation at war ever has to limit the number of civilian casualties and yet the international press continues to excoriate the US for the incredibly few civilian dead in these wars. William Tecumseh Sherman had this to say:

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”

We now have the technology to minimize civilian casualties but they can not be eliminated and we can not allow fear of civilian casualties to prevent us from pursuing the enemy where ever he may hide. Our enemy knows of our reluctance to harm civilians and uses this against us. He has used civilian villages a refuge and taken up human shields as a tactic of defense. This is a war crime and we must not permit it to deter us. To do so will encourage its continued use and lead to further civilian deaths or our ultimate defeat because we become unwilling to kill the enemy. We must adopt William Tecumseh Sherman’s stated goal:

“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

We can not fight a war with half measures. It will only prolong the war and multiply the casualties. This should be the lesson of the Viet Nam war. A limited war is an endless war and can not be won.

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”

This is also documented in Fellman's book. Sherman blamed the burning of Orangeburg, SC, "on some Jew" pp.231 Actually the quote is "Thus, of the burning of Orangeburg, he denied his men had done it..."I was told by some citizen it was burned by some Jew."" How do you know that was not the case?

Well if you want to get technical, the entire quote is; "Thus of the burning of Organgeburg, he denied his men had done it, adding offhandedly, 'I was told by a citizen that it was burned by some Jew.'"

I don't know if "some Jew"did it or not, apparently neither did Sherman because he never took the time to find out. If, as he claimed, he did not order the city burned, then someone went against his orders, and a crime was committed. The fact remains, his callous remark and actions show that neither "the Jew" in question, or Orangeburg's citizens were worth his trouble.

He wrote to his wife Ellen in 1858, "Individuals may prosper in a falling community but they must be Jews, without pity, soul, heart, or bowels of compassion." "Citizen Sherman" pp. 65, sourced Sherman's letters to Ellen (Sherman),San Francisco, Mar 3, 1858

His racism toward Jews, Mexicans, Indians, Asians, Turks, ect. has been documented in his letters and writings. These, along with his memoirs, are available for your research. The examples are too lengthy to post here.

So were Lee and Davis and Jackson.

Really? Where is your documentation?

Lee, Davis, and Jackson, unlike Sherman and Lincoln, are not deified as the great emancipators, the defender of the down trodden blacks.

Don't judge people from 150 years ago by today's standards.

You go first.

Really? Where is your documentation?

Lee, Davis, and Jackson, unlike Sherman and Lincoln, are not deified as the great emancipators, the defender of the down trodden blacks.

If you are going to condemn Lincoln and Sherman as racists, and by today's standards they were, then isn't it only fair that you should also condemn men like Davis and Jackson and Lee for their views which were as bad if not worse?

You go first.

I'm not the one doing it.

There is no doubt that Sherman was an unpleasant individual in many ways, with a full load of the prejudices and bigotries common during the times. But don't pretend that he was alone in that, or that the majority of his peers on both sides of the war were any different. Sherman recognized war for what it was, and fought it in a manner which was designed to bring it to an end as quickly as possible. He wasn't there to nation-build. I wish our current leaders believed the same.

In my opinion Sherman does stand alone in his cruelty, his special place in history confirms this.

Sherman was there to nation build. In his memoirs he states he wished the United States had the population of Britain, then he could just get rid of the the upper level of southern society. So how was he going to eliminate a particular group of Southern society. Sorry this sounds like a Hitler. This is recorded in his memoirs if you care to research it.

I don't know if "some Jew"did it or not, apparently neither did Sherman because he never took the time to find out.

Why should he? He had a war to fight.

His racism toward Jews, Mexicans, Indians, Asians, Turks, ect. has been documented in his letters and writings. These, along with his memoirs, are available for your research. The examples are too lengthy to post here.

And as I said, when compared by today's standards Sherman comes off as a rather crude and unlikeable fellow. But when compared by today's standards every one back then would seem just as loathsome in their own way. Lee and Davis believed blacks were suited for slavery and nothing else. The whole confederate cause was built on enslaving a third of their population. I'm certainly not trying to justify Sherman's views on race or religion, but the confederacy has absolutely no claim to the moral high-ground in this. Their views were as bad or worse.

In my opinion Sherman does stand alone in his cruelty, his special place in history confirms this.

In his memoirs he states he wished the United States had the population of Britain, then he could just get rid of the the upper level of southern society. So how was he going to eliminate a particular group of Southern society. Sorry this sounds like a Hitler.

I've read Sherman's memoirs and I would love to have you quote the section you're speaking of. If it's the one I think it is then you're badly exaggerating Sherman's meaning.

Thomas Jackson was a slave owner until the day he died. Jefferson Davis was a slave owner as well, and said in March 1861 that, "You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be." Robert Lee was saying as late as January 1865, "...the relation of master and slave...(was)the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country..." Hardly the actions of men who believed that blacks were there equal in any way.

The social system of the south was like that of the English manor system. Each manor was different because, with the exception of the ruling monarchy, the manor lord's rule was absolute. What I am saying is each plantation was different because the owners' moral values were different. Many of their own free will, freed their slaves, giving them, or allowing them to purchase land, along with the means to start their own lives. Otherwise just because one owned a slave did not mean he thought the black person was a lower form of life. The remarks you have quoted "as racist" could be referring a former slaves' limitations due to the system of that time, not his skin color.

I'm not the one doing it.

and I don't have a problem with it. I use the timeless commands of the Lord as my guideline. Those same Words were available to all during this particular time period.

Oh please. At about the time Sherman was making his march to the sea, a rebellion in China was wrapping up that had killed over 20 million people and depopulated whole sections of the country. So spare us the 'stands alone in his cruelty' nonsense

I am referring to Americans, living in a country where the rule of law is based on Christian values and the U.S. Constitution.

The social system of the south was like that of the English manor system.

Except that the Lord of the Manor didn't buy and sell his workforce.

Many of their own free will, freed their slaves, giving them, or allowing them to purchase land, along with the means to start their own lives.

Comparatively few did. And many if not most Southern states had laws severely restricting the ability of the slave owner to free his chattel. And those who were free were not and could never be citizens or enjoy any rights, thanks to Chief Justice Taney. Another difference between the Southern U.S. and the English manor lords.

Otherwise just because one owned a slave did not mean he thought the black person was a lower form of life.

Oh please.

The remarks you have quoted "as racist" could be referring a former slaves' limitations due to the system of that time, not his skin color.

Then by all means let's see some quotes from Davis or Lee or Jackson or any other Southern leader of the period before or during the rebellion who believed the black man was his equal in any respect at all.

I am referring to Americans, living in a country where the rule of law is based on Christian values and the U.S. Constitution.

A country where those launching the insurrection suffered less and were incorporated back into the body politic quicker than any other rebellion in recorded history. You keep complaining how the South suffered so terribly. The fact of the matter is compared to the losing side of other insurrections in history, the South barely suffered at all.

Your claim, let's see your quote. The one I'm thinking of is on page 361 of the Library of America edition of Sherman's memoirs.

It is on my Kindle, which presents a problem, since I have not seen it or unpacked it from my last out of town trip. When found, it will prob. need to be charged. When I recover it, I will get back to you. If you want to quote what you have, please do, and I will tell you if that is what I am referring to.

You obviously misunderstand what I asked.

Atrocities and unnecessary civilian deaths have occurred in every war in history. It's a given.

Whether we consider a particular army or commander guilty of "war crimes" consists not in whether such things occurred, but rather in how many of them occurred, and also in how those guilty are dealt with. So if you wish to call Sherman a war criminal you must quantify how many of such events were committed by his troops as compared to those under the command of other generals. Otherwise your evidence is anecdotal and therefore meaningless.

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.