Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eleutheria5

Sherman fought modern warfare and went through the heart of the rebellion, it was completely justified and probably saved lives.


66 posted on 01/01/2018 5:41:29 PM PST by arrogantsob (Check out "Chaos and Mayhem" at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: arrogantsob

Tell that to the farmers whose crops he looted and burnt the remainder of in the Susquehana Valley. Tell that to the city of Atlanta. It was modern all right. The British did the same to the Boers. The American rebels did the same to the Iroquois before Sherman. Justified, though? As for saving lives, that’s a moot argument, since the scorched earth campaign also cost lives. The question is, which course would have cost more lives. Same argument about Hiroshima. Only one course was taken, though. If Sherman had simply contended with rebel troops on the battlefield, would it have cost more lives? If I had wheels, would I have been a trolly?

Bottom line is, he burnt Atlanta to satisfy voters, because the Dems were running a campaign in ‘64 saying that the war was unwinnable (familiar?), it’s time to negotiate a settlement, and rebels were sallying into Pennsylvania and looting shops for their supplies, and Pennsylvania shop-owners and their customers were pissed. This was after Gettysburg, and the voters were still unimpressed. There had been a subsequent battle with 5,000 men lost in one day. So when he got to Atlanta, he burnt it down. Lincoln won.


71 posted on 01/02/2018 12:45:50 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson