Peace through superior fire power.
Posted on 01/04/2009 2:29:32 PM PST by NCjim
Sherman did not set up concentration camps. On the contrary, he saved many southerners from the fear of a trip to the confederate gulag in Tuscaloosa. I suspect more southern civilian lives were saved by Sherman's shortening of the rebellion than were lost by his imaginary war crimes.
And many argue that Roosevelt forced the Japanese to attack the U.S., too. Or that Bush tricked Iraq into forcing his hand and attacking. Such arguements are usually made by the losing side, and are an attempt to justify their aggression and explain their loss.
2. Who started the war has no bearing on how a war should be fought (Just War vs. Justice In War).
Even Vattel didn't support rebellion.
Sherman is a dishonorably exception to the conduct of the American soldier and his cowardly attempt at justification does not excuse his disgracing this uniform.
Spoken like a supporter of the lost cause.
In the end they accomplished that, too.
That was not true in 1864, the fact that the Confederacy was still holding out was why Sherman chose to dishonor himself, his uniform and his cause.
And Sherman was one of the reasons why the rebellion was eventually brought to an end. And for all your complaining you manage to overlook the fact that the South suffered the least for their act of rebellion than any other people you would care to mention. At the same time you complain about Sherman, China was wrapping up a rebellion that claimed the lives of over 50 million and devestated whole sections of the country. The Southern civilian population suffered less and was incorporated back into the body politic faster than any other unsuccessful rebellion in history.
In the end they accomplished that, too.
I'm an not claiming that his tactics were ineffective, just that they were unworthy of an American soldier.
And for all your complaining you manage to overlook the fact that the South suffered the least for their act of rebellion than any other people you would care to mention.
That is very true, Sherman only commanded one army, he was not king of the United States.
Are you saying American should lower it's conduct to the standards of China?
Forgive me if I am sounding rabid, but like all Vietnam vets, after falsely being accused of being baby-killers, rapists, the army of Genghis Khan, etc. I am very sensitive about the honor of the American Army.
I go into a rage whenever I hear hyped reports of American atrocities in the media. Almost all of them turn out be unsubstantiated, but in the few cases (like Me Lai) where they turn out to be true, they deserve our condemnation and the most severe punishment for the perpetrators.
I believe Sherman violated the laws of war, lost control of his troops and brought shame to the United States Army.
Do you support the actions of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, etc.?
Sherman is a dishonorably exception to the conduct of the American soldier and his cowardly attempt at justification does not excuse his disgracing this uniform.
Spoken like a supporter of the lost cause.
My condemnation of Sherman is not because he fought for the North or the South, it is because he is an American soldier.
Forgive me if I am sounding rabid, but like all Vietnam vets, after falsely being accused of being baby-killers, rapists, the army of Genghis Khan, etc. I am very sensitive about the honor of the American Army.
I go into a rage whenever I hear hyped reports of American atrocities in the media. Almost all of them turn out be unsubstantiated, but in the few cases (like Me Lai) where they turn out to be true, they deserve our condemnation and the most severe punishment for the perpetrators.
I believe Sherman violated the laws of war, lost control of his troops and brought shame to the United States Army.
I never said he set up concentration camps, I said he violated the laws of war.
I suspect more southern civilian lives were saved by Sherman's shortening of the rebellion
That can and has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities.
Colonel, forgive me if I am sounding rabid, but like all Vietnam vets, after falsely being accused of being baby-killers, rapists, the army of Genghis Khan, etc. I am very sensitive about the honor of the American Army.
I go into a rage whenever I hear hyped reports of American atrocities in the media. Almost all of them turn out be unsubstantiated, but in the few cases (like Me Lai) where they turn out to be true, they deserve our condemnation and the most severe punishment for the perpetrators.
I believe Sherman violated the laws of war, lost control of his troops and brought shame to the United States Army.
Clemenza, as a Christian and as an American I cannot agree with you. That is the way of savages, not civilized peoples.
Since they won and I live in the U.S. then yes. And had the South won their rebellion then I suppose you would feel the same about Davis, Lee, Jackson, et.al. But they didn't win, did they?
My condemnation of Sherman is not because he fought for the North or the South, it is because he is an American soldier.
Do you condemn all American soldiers or just the Yankee ones. When Lee's men were stripping the countryside in Pennsylvania and looting homes, did you condemn him? When his army was rounding up freed blacks and sending them south into slavery were you condemning him? When his troops burned Chambersburg were you condeming him? Of course not, because your ire is highly selective like all Southron supporters.
It was war, a war that the confederacy initiated. Having started the war, where the war came was solely in their hands. War is unpleasant to anyone, and civil wars tend to be the most unplesant. And in any war civilians suffer, sometimes worse than the soldiers themselves. Blame those who brought the war in the first place, not those who ended it.
Forgive me if I am sounding rabid, but like all Vietnam vets, after falsely being accused of being baby-killers, rapists, the army of Genghis Khan, etc. I am very sensitive about the honor of the American Army.
And yet you have no qualms about levelling those same charges against Sherman. With the same level of evidence.
Peace through superior fire power.
Why? When we bombed Germany and Japan was it to kill civilians or destroy their capacity to wage war? It was the later, and that was what Sherman was out to do as well. Atlanta was an manufacturing center for the South. Georgia fed the rebel armies. Savannah was a major seaport. Sherman destroyed Atlanta's ability to manufacture goods for the confederates. He cut Georgia in half and denied supplies to the army. And he removed Savannah as a shipping point. Did civilians suffer? Yes, but nowhere near the extent you would have us believe. You are obviously conviced that Sherman burned everything in sight, stole everything not nailed down, and left disease and starvation in his wake. All you Southron types are. Thank God that modern historians are looking at his campaigns and cutting through all the Southron BS.
Does Southern "BS" include statements by Sherman and his generals, such as are listed in this link? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2149065/posts?page=24#24
I think there were some buildings in Atlanta that escaped burning, so Sherman didn't get them all.
I never said that. He did burn private property, destroyed crops, stole or ruined food and slaughtered farm animals, leaving helpless civilians homeless in winter and starving. And he failed to maintain discipline, resulting in rape, arson, robbery and murder by the few bad apples among his troops.
P.S. I am not a Southerner, and my only kin who served in the Civil War wore blue.
So if the American Revolution had failed, you would be calling them traitors? Right or wrong just depends on if you win or loose? So you don't consider the men at the Alamo or at Battan hero's?
Do you condemn all American soldiers or just the Yankee ones.
Since the article was about Sherman, he is the one I was condemning. But I condemn any American soldier, in any war, who violates the sacred trust and honor of a soldier.
And yet you have no qualms about leveling those same charges against Sherman. With the same level of evidence.
The evidence against Sherman is overwhelming, including his own admission.
P.S. I am not a southerner, and the my only ancestor's who fought in the Civil War wore blue.
I know. Our interlocutor did.
Of course, because if they had lost then as an English subject I would consider them traitors. But please don't for a moment try to convince me that there is any equality between the situation our Founding Fathers found themselves in and the rebel cause. Because their flat out ain't any.
So you don't consider the men at the Alamo or at Battan hero's?
Their side won in the end, didn't they?
Since the article was about Sherman, he is the one I was condemning. But I condemn any American soldier, in any war, who violates the sacred trust and honor of a soldier.
So let's hear you rip into a reb or two.
If your moral values are based only on who wins or loses, I am wasting my time trying to make you see right from wrong.
So let's hear you rip into a reb or two.
I would gladly see Quantrill in front of a firing squad.
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.