Posted on 12/19/2019 8:38:38 AM PST by robowombat
> Sherman was speaking from his convictions, not his war experience. <
If that were true, Sherman would have imposed crushing conditions on the Confederates who surrendered to him. But he didn’t. Sherman actually got into trouble for offering conditions that were too lenient!
Please see the link in my post #40.
The man was quite simply a war criminal who would have been right at home in a Nazi or Communist uniform.
He made similar quotes about his genocidal views toward Native Americans.
He also hated Blacks, Mexicans and especially Jews. His influence was key in getting his friend Grant to issue his infamous general order #11 calling for Jews to be ethnically cleansed from 3 states.
Now let’s count on some PC Revisionist apologists to come along and try to make excuses for this war criminal....
His thinking of annihilation of the “secesh” is in full accord with the pubic expressions of rabid northern abolitionists. Shelby Steele has cited various contemporary published examples of such enraged cries for blood, blood, and more blood in the north. Unfortunately I can't cite volume, chapter, and verse at the moment as my no tech paper bookmarks are no longer there.
It’s not. The Abbeville Institute is meticulous in its research and citing of sources. You’ve probably not heard quotes like this because they are inconvenient for PC Revisionists in Academia. So they try to sweep them under the rug.......
Having just traveled from Ft Griffin to Ft Richardson (Texas y'all) and not seeing any Indians, he got the report of the Warren Wagontrain Massacare on the road his party had just traveled.
If you feel that's ignorant, so be it. I've read that letter of Sherman's before. His autobiography has some shockingly blunt and uncomfortable comments in it as well. I don't agree at all with his view of the Federal Government as akin to a Feudal lord with God given authority. Like everyone he was a man of his times and circumstances. The curious fact is that it's today's Marxist Democrats who echo the view he expressed about Federal authority and the need to "eliminate" anyone who resists. N'est-ce pas?
A man after my own heart.
That is the whole point. In a war of cultures there will be only victors and the destroyed, In an existential conflict there are no rules other than those that enable the enemy to be killed in larger numbers faster. The muzzards can never be at real peace with the kuffars but when they work themselves up into a jihad they have to be killed in such large numbers that they desist for a good while. They want to literally destroy us in the way the Saxons did to the Guallo-Romans.
Back when the paliwogs were busy intafadaing an elderly Jew was heard to remark at tv coverage of paliwogs rioting on the Temple Mount. “Ah, where is Himmler when is truly needed.” Same thing we need a number of Shermans and Sheridans and Halseys today.
Your absolutely right. And every single southern state had Soldiers fight for the Union, not so the northern states.
hahahahah!!! The Abbeville institute is meticulous in its research and citing of sources? LOL Oh wait, you were being serious?
As I said, it was clear the PC Revisionists would be along any minute with their usual BS.
King George hated secessionists as well.
Banastre Tarleton was the Sherman of that previous generation.
Benedict Arnold gave his royal master good service also as witnessed by the visit of his merry men to Groton, CN and the younger Butler showed real aptitude for border raiding in New York province.
I agree with Sherman’s assessment of war in general. However, I disagree with his assessment of the necessity of that war in particular. The Civil War was a violation of the 1st Amendment and the human right of freedom of association. The North should have let the South go in peace. It’s not like the South was an anarchic regime - they had a constitution and ruling bodies
Unionists could not believe people in the South were serious about wanting to leave the USA. The WBTS then followed a common trend of a cycle of escalating violence that produced a truly giant conflict. Do Unionists actually believe that the cost of 600 to 750 K soldiers dead of wounds or disease, another couple hundred thousand civilians (heavily blacks) dead from disease and the usual train of chaos of war and most of the South from Tennessee to the Gulf and west from Mississippi to Virginia destroyed so thoroughly that from which it to this day has not fully recovered and confirmation at gunpoint of a new centralized ‘consolidated’ nation which has eventually given birth to the current federal behemoth state was worth it?
I didn’t know about that Groton Heights, Ft Griswold Massacre. An ugly business.
Ugly yes but less terrible than the generalized burning of homes and civilian property that Arnold virtually encouraged just as he did on the subsequent Virginia/James River raid.
A sad ending to someone who began as a hero of the Revolution. And who may well have saved the Continental Army from destruction at Saratoga.
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.