Good Morning...Federal Army Ransacks the Cradle of Secession

[Okla-homey]

February 17, 1865: Sherman sacks Columbia, South Carolina

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/931/shermans2oi7.jpg
William Tecumseh Sherman

145 years ago today, soldiers from Union Lieutenant General William Tecumseh Sherman's army ransack Columbia, South Carolina, and leave a charred city in their wake.

Sherman is most famous for his "March to the Sea" in the closing months of 1864. After capturing Atlanta in September, Sherman cut away from base of supply and his supply lines and cut a swath of destruction across Georgia on his way to Savannah.

His three corps lived off the land and destroyed railroads, burned warehouses, and ruined plantations along the way. This was a calculated effort--Sherman thought that the war would end quicker if civilians of the South felt some destruction personally, a view supported by General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of all Federal forces, and President Lincoln.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9840/shermansmarcher8.gif

After spending a month in Savannah, Sherman headed north to tear the Confederacy into smaller pieces. The Federal soldiers took particular delight in carrying the war to South Carolina, the symbol of the rebellion.

SC was the first state to secede and the site of Fort Sumter, where South Carolinians fired on the Federal garrison to start the war. When General Wade Hampton's cavalry evacuated Columbia, the capital was open to Sherman's men.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7305/shermanssouthcarolinamafr8.jpg
Entering Columbia. February 17, 1865.

Many of the Federals got drunk on liquor they found in a state dispensary before starting the rampage. General Henry Slocum observed:
"A drunken soldier with a musket in one hand and a match in the other is not a pleasant visitor to have about the house on a dark, windy night."

Sherman claimed that the raging fires were started by evacuating Confederates and fanned by high winds. He later wrote:
"Though I never ordered it and never wished it, I have never shed any tears over the event, because I believe that it hastened what we all fought for, the end of the War."

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3960/shermanburningcolumbiaol3.jpg

Belatedly, some bluecoats helped fight the fires, but more than two-thirds of the city was destroyed. Already choked with refugees from the path of Sherman's army, Columbia's situation became even more desperate when Sherman's army destroyed the remaining public buildings before marching out of Columbia three days later.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8567/shermancolumbiascruins2sx4.jpg
Shot from the uncompleted state capitol steps looking down Columbia's Main street.


I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.
- William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman remains a controversial figure. Southerners generally despise him. Northerners are of mixed opinion about his legacy. This fact may be attributable to the fact he didn't care much for media types who, for better or worse, generally control the public opinion of national personalities.


If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.
- William Tecumseh Sherman

One constant however, is the fact Sherman's troops loved him because of his uncanny ability to outmaneuver enemy forces attempting to block his army's advance. Sherman was among the most conservative combat generals of the war in that he spent his soldiers lives, and those of his enemy, very sparingly. He believed it was better to destroy things than people to achieve his military objectives. For these reasons, his soldiers called him "Uncle Billy" as a term of affection.

At the beginning of the war, on learning of the first secessions from the United States, Sherman observed to a close friend, Professor David F. Boyd of Virginia, an enthusiastic secessionist, almost perfectly describing the four years of war to come:


You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2299/shermabburning20of20coltz1.jpg
At a 2008 press event in South Carolina, a mixed group comprised of various Neo-Confederates (Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the League of the South (LoS)) hanged effigies of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Sherman on the grounds of the SC capitol after trying them for war crimes. :rolleyes:

Years after the war, he was pressed to run for the presidency, and famously replied; "If nominated, I shall not run; if elected, I shall not serve."


If forced to choose between the penitentiary and the White House for four years, I would say the penitentiary, thank you. - William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman remained in the army until 1883 and retired as a four star.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4788/shermanwilliamtshermanpm5.jpg
General of the Army Sherman in 1881.

Years later, as an old man, he was often visited by old veterans of his campaigns who were down on their luck. His door was always open, and each would leave his home with a few dollars in their pocket given them by "Uncle Billy."

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6513/insane7zovq3.jpg

[XingTheRubicon]

scoreboard

[Sooner04]

Little known fact: Sherman carried a wallet with the words "Bad Mother ****er" stamped on the front.

[Okla-homey]

Little known fact: Sherman carried a wallet with the words "Bad Mother ****er" stamped on the front.

He was sure ahead of his era, that's for sure. The notion that wars can be shortened by breaking stuff in addition to killing people was a foreshadowing of contemporary US operational and tactical strategy.

[Leroy Lizard]

He was sure ahead of his era, that's for sure. The notion that wars can be shortened by breaking stuff in addition to killing people was a foreshadowing of contemporary US operational and tactical strategy.

The Zeppelin bombings of London were much in the same vein. But then again, ransacking a captured town was hardly novel. In a sense, Sherman reintroduced terrorism in warfare, which smacked of Erik the Red.

Sherman would have been a good SS commander in WWII.

[C&CDean]

I'm just wondering how Homey's South Carolina born and bred wife thinks about all his hatred of the confederacy and love for Abe and the guy who murdered more Georgians and South Carolinians than one could even count.

Things that make you go "HMMMMM?"

[Leroy Lizard]

I wonder if any American Indians are viewing and what they think of this Sherman love.

[Okla-homey]

I'm just wondering how Homey's South Carolina born and bred wife thinks about all his hatred of the confederacy and love for Abe and the guy who murdered more Georgians and South Carolinians than one could even count.

Things that make you go "HMMMMM?"

One thing professionals learn to to do is appreciate people who achieve greateness in their field. Heck, even Patton considered Rommel a "magnificent bastage." He read Rommel's book too, despite the fact Patton was dyslexic and had a hard time with the printed word.

Sherman? Accomplished more with fewer casualties than any major commander on either side. That's a fact. And that puts him among the very best officers in US history.

As far as the Cornfederacy goes, I've repeatedly stated I have no animosity and nothing but the utmost respect for the Southern soldier. OTOH, their political leadership, and the plantation-ocracy from which it sprang that destroyed their country and killed a generation of America's finest in a misguided and failed attempt to preserve chattle slavery? P1ss on 'em.

And the neo-confederates who think it would have been better if the South had won are idiots.

[TUSooner]

As far as the Cornfederacy goes, I've repeatedly stated I have no animosity and nothing but the utmost respect for the Southern soldier. OTOH, their political leadership, and the plantation-ocracy from which it sprang that destroyed their country and killed a generation of America's finest in a misguided and failed attempt to preserve chattle slavery? P1ss on 'em.

And the neo-confederates who think it would have been better if the South had won are idiots.

Hear him! 'Specially that last part.

[Okla-homey]

In a sense, Sherman reintroduced terrorism in warfare, which smacked of Erik the Red.



Bullshiite. You really should read some history of the Seven Years War in North America, a/k/a the French and Indian War. Or trepidations and atrocities committed on both sides during our Revolution. Or the British sacking of Washington in the War of 1812, etc., etc., etc.

[C&CDean]

Hear him! 'Specially that last part.

Oh I hear him fine, and I agree, but I just thought our board history buff would know that the CW wasn't ALL about slavery.

[TUSooner]

Oh I hear him fine, and I agree, but I just thought our board history buff would know that the CW wasn't ALL about slavery.

Yeah, well. Everybody has lost pof reasons for war. But I still have yet to hear anyone explain how or why we would have had a civil war without chattel slavery.
All those southerners and were hopped up about the theory of states' rights because states' rights were their permit for chattel slavery. The fact of slavery and the desire for slavery gave rise to all the prettied up theoretical justifications for secession that we see paraded before us today.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, well. Everybody has lost pof reasons for war. But I still have yet to hear anyone explain how or why we would have had a civil war without chattel slavery.
All those southerners and were hopped up about the theory of states' rights because states' rights were their permit for chattel slavery. The fact of slavery and the desire for slavery gave rise to all the prettied up theoretical justifications for secession that we see paraded before us today.

Yeah, except a bunch of them boys up north had slaves and wanted to keep them too. Geographically speaking, a single northern state couldn't stand alone even if they wanted to.

My biggest problem with the whole "the south wanted to keep their slaves so they fought the north" like you read in all the history books is that it makes the union boys out to be angels and saviours of black folk and the southerners to be "****** haters." Not true. At all. In fact, it's an outright lie and an injustice.

[TUSooner]

Yeah, except a bunch of them boys up north had slaves and wanted to keep them too. Geographically speaking, a single northern state couldn't stand alone even if they wanted to.

My biggest problem with the whole "the south wanted to keep their slaves so they fought the north" like you read in all the history books is that it makes the union boys out to be angels and saviours of black folk and the southerners to be "****** haters." Not true. At all. In fact, it's an outright lie and an injustice.

Sure, racism was big in the north. One reason some northerners didn't want slaves in their states is because they didn't want any black people around, especialy ones that would take jobs from white men.

But mainly, saying the disagreement over slavery caused the war is not the same thing as saying the north fought the war to free the slaves. Or that the union boys were angels; or that the rebels boys were "****** haters."

Some northern boys might have had lofty motives - it was a very religious age, after all, and not deadly cynical like ours is. But I'm pretty sure most of the blue boys went to war to "save the union" or "kill the damned rebels" or the most likely reason: they just couldn't get out of it. And I'll betcha very few rebel boys died for the sole reason of "keeping the n*****s down." They fought for their states and their homes.
But that doesn't mean the war wasn't "about slavery."
Why politicians start wars and why young men fight them are not necessarily the same thing.

[Okla-homey]

And for the record, this Souse Cackalackey guy appear to be a boob of the first order.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6217403.shtml

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, except a bunch of them boys up north had slaves and wanted to keep them too. Geographically speaking, a single northern state couldn't stand alone even if they wanted to.

My biggest problem with the whole "the south wanted to keep their slaves so they fought the north" like you read in all the history books is that it makes the union boys out to be angels and saviours of black folk and the southerners to be "****** haters." Not true. At all. In fact, it's an outright lie and an injustice.

You are of course correct most Northern boys didn't care two turds for the black folks. In fact, the most destructive riot in US history was in NYC in 1864over the Federal draft, during which black folks were killed on sight by the rioters.

That doesn't change the fact, and I've studied mid 19th c. US history since boyhood, srsly,the South started the war because they could see the Congressional writing on the wall as to a looming Constitutional amendment barring chattel slavery. In truth, you need only read the various seceding states' "Ordinances of Secession" to see it in contemporaneously published print.

The rank-and-file Southern boys promptly responded to the call to "defend their homes and firesides" for two reasons; 1) southern politicians who had everything to lose dared them to go or be branded cowards, and; 2) the boys thought it would be fun and a nice diversion from smelling mule farts all day behind their plows.

[Leroy Lizard]

You really should read some history of the Seven Years War in North America, a/k/a the French and Indian War. Or trepidations and atrocities committed on both sides during our Revolution.

There's a difference between committing atrocities and committing terrorism. The latter is designed to send a message, which Sherman outright admitted.

Heinrich Sherman... has a nice fit.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Insert Sic'em post in three, two, one...

[Stitch Face]

Kinda off topic, but this thread made me think of it:

In that Charlie Daniels song, when he says "the South is gonna do it again!" what is he talking about? Make a failed attempt to secede from the union? That's not catchy.

[OUDoc]

Kinda off topic, but this thread made me think of it:

In that Charlie Daniels song, when he says "the South is gonna do it again!" what is he talking about? Make a failed attempt to secede from the union? That's not catchy.
He correctly predicted the rise of NASCAR.
Charlie is scary good.

[FaninAma]

Slavery was not illegal in 1861.

Most Constitutional scholars of the time felt states
had the right to secede.

A brutal war was not required to end slavery in any
other country in the world in which slavery had been
allowed.

Most southerners did not own slaves. Many of these non-slave
owning civilians were savagely killed by Sherman.

That wonderful savior of the Union, Lincoln,
violated almost every item of the Bill of Rights in
prosecuting the war.

Tha Northern Army was mainly made up of concripted
immigrants, especially among the Irish while the rich
industrialists of the north bought their and their sons'
way out of serving.

So let's not pretend that the North was a bastion of morality
or that Lincoln wad anything but a lackey of the Northern
industrialists.

[Leroy Lizard]

Most Constitutional scholars of the time felt states
had the right to secede.

Didn't we do the same in 1776?

[tommieharris91]

Most Constitutional scholars of the time felt states
had the right to secede.


Article I, Section 10 kinda makes a mockery of this statement.

[SicEmBaylor]

Article I, Section 10 kinda makes a mockery of this statement.

How so? Article I, Section 10 is a limitation of state power so long as it remains within the Union. It says nothing about a state leaving the union.

In any case, denying a state and the people within a state the right to choose their own government is patently absurd and against the very founding principles of our nation. It's ideologically inconsistent to argue that we had the right to separate from Britain on the basis that people have a right to choose their own government and yet deny that exact same right to the people of the south and call it a rebellion or treason.

Either you believe people have the right to create and establish a government of their own choosing or you don't. Whatever you may think of various domestic institutions in the south, there is no getting around the fact that a state and its citizens ought to be able to freely leave what they free entered into when they believe their interests are best served in another manner.

[yankee]

if i could have 5 famous dead/alive americans for dinner one night, william tecumseh sherman sure as hell would be one of them. american bad ***.

[SicEmBaylor]

if i could have 5 famous dead/alive americans for dinner one night, william tecumseh sherman sure as hell would be one of them. american bad ***.

Yep, burning the homes of civilians and their crops and letting them starve to death sure exemplifies our best.

You know, the South's biggest mistake was not doing the EXACT same thing when it invaded the north. They should have razed every city, burned EVERY home...destroyed EVERY field.....and killed everyone capable of carrying a rifle. Their respect for the property and lives of others did them no good in the end and it sure wasn't reflected by the other side.

No, the biggest mistake they made was not killing everyone. They should have killed every last yankee they came across.

[SicEmBaylor]

The problem is that while the states are now fairly homogeneous, it wasn't always the case. The blunt fact of the matter is that the Northern states and Southern states were so utterly and completely different that they really had no business unifying into a single nation in the first place.

During the Revolution, the states were united only out of necessity. After the war there was no clear certainty that they would united into a single nation. It took a LOT of work to get them to come together into one nation because they were almost wholly incompatible with one another and represented VERY different beliefs as to the role of government.

From the very beginning, the northern people and states were meddling puritans who favored a much stronger centralized government with centralized banking and monetary systems and high tarriffs with an ever increasing industrial base.

The south was much more laissez-faire, strongly favored local and state government, and believed in a less controlled monetary system and free-trade that better matched the agrarian lifestyle.

Most of the debates at the Constitutional Convention, surprisingly to most, did not center around north/south arguments...they were big state/little state arguments. HOWEVER, the south was always afraid of a tyrannical centralized government that would interfere in the domestic affairs of the states. They were given every assurance that wouldn't be the case. Of course we know now that was an absolute lie...

[Crucifax Autumn]

Their respect for the property and lives of others did them no good in the end and it sure wasn't reflected by the other side.


You know...I'm not gonna get into the idiotic and silly argument about what the war was about or who was right or wrong, but I actually find this particular statement to be absolutely friggin' hilarious. Try asking Toby or Kunta Kintay or whatever the hell his name is what he thinks of the South's "respect...for the lives of others"! :P

[Crucifax Autumn]

It's also funny as all hell that the states with the meddling puritans are now the ones full of Godless liberals!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Jeff Davis was a butt pirate.

But my great grandma passed down a recipe for a pie named after him that is amazing. Therefore I shall overlook his butt piracy and his sailing the high seas in search of booty.

I will instead state with clarity and accuracy that Robert E. Lee was a quitter and a poosy. If he was hardcore, he'd have went out in a slow motion, guns blazing scene where he kills Grant, but takes a fatal wound as well. Like in a movie because that shizzle is fo realz.

[FaninAma]

You know...I'm not gonna get into the idiotic and silly argument about what the war was about or who was right or wrong, but I actually find this particular statement to be absolutely friggin' hilarious. Try asking Toby or Kunta Kintay or whatever the hell his name is what he thinks of the South's "respect...for the lives of others"! :P

Again, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves.
Those who contend the Civil War was fought over slavery want to
deflect from the purely economic issues that caused Lincoln to wage
war on the seceding states and at the same time excuse the
brutal, murderous tactics against the sothern civilians that
the Northern army generals engaged in.

BTW, we are barely 140 years out and the great system of
centralizing power started by Lincoln is rapidly imploding on itself
due to fraud, corruption and debt that has been allowed
to continue unchecked because it is so much harder to
hold a huge central government accountable than it is more
localized forms of government.

I am do proud that my country is leaving my children the
problem of dealing with a national debt if 11 trillion dollars.....
And that's just the debt the government admits to. It doesn't
include the trillions more in IIU's owed to social security
and Medicare.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

There's a difference between committing atrocities and committing terrorism. The latter is designed to send a message, which Sherman outright admitted.

Heinrich Sherman... has a nice fit.

If you're going to compare Sherman to SS Generals because he took the war to the populace, then you'll have to add Curtis Lemay for the firebombing of Japanese cities (and N Vietnam), the British Air Marshals for the bombing of German cities, Eisenhower for approving the plans, etc.

Its only recently (post WWII) that warring parties gave a rats *** about civilians on the other side. And its only post Vietnam that military and political types actually paid more than lip service to that concept.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What he said.

Dresden, anyone?

[tommieharris91]

How so? Article I, Section 10 is a limitation of state power so long as it remains within the Union. It says nothing about a state leaving the union.



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Last I checked, the seceding states entered into a Confederation...

[tommieharris91]

I am do proud that my country is leaving my children the
problem of dealing with a national debt if 11 trillion dollars.....
And that's just the debt the government admits to. It doesn't
include the trillions more in IIU's owed to social security
and Medicare.

Soc. Sec. and Medicare are currently included in the national debt, and also happen to make up somewhere 25%-30% of it.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Yep, burning the homes of civilians and their crops and letting them starve to death sure exemplifies our best.

You know, the South's biggest mistake was not doing the EXACT same thing when it invaded the north. They should have razed every city, burned EVERY home...destroyed EVERY field.....and killed everyone capable of carrying a rifle. Their respect for the property and lives of others did them no good in the end and it sure wasn't reflected by the other side.

No, the biggest mistake they made was not killing everyone. They should have killed every last yankee they came across.

Hummm. Do the names Nathan Bedford Forrest or William Quantrill ring a bell?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

No, no, no, no, no!

HUGE difference here. What they did was actually enter a COMPACT, and because of such, screwed the white man with gambling.

[TUSooner]

Again, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves.
Those who contend the Civil War was fought over slavery want to
deflect from the purely economic issues that caused Lincoln to wage
war on the seceding states and at the same time excuse the
brutal, murderous tactics against the sothern civilians that
the Northern army generals engaged in.

BTW, we are barely 140 years out and the great system of
centralizing power started by Lincoln is rapidly imploding on itself
due to fraud, corruption and debt that has been allowed
to continue unchecked because it is so much harder to
hold a huge central government accountable than it is more
localized forms of government.

I am do proud that my country is leaving my children the
problem of dealing with a national debt if 11 trillion dollars.....
And that's just the debt the government admits to. It doesn't
include the trillions more in IIU's owed to social security
and Medicare.

Reality called and left you a message. She said you haven't been around in a long time and she hopes you'll get in touch soon.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

My family owned slaves. And they were black people.

Word.

[C&CDean]

I think the big thing people are forgetting is that Sherman did these horrible things to fellow Americans. Yes, it was effective, but it was also brutal and barbaric.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you're going to compare Sherman to SS Generals because he took the war to the populace, then you'll have to add Curtis Lemay for the firebombing of Japanese cities (and N Vietnam), the British Air Marshals for the bombing of German cities, Eisenhower for approving the plans, etc.

Lemay would be more like Sherman if he burned Tokyo after he had captured it. What would you think of Lemay then?

[Leroy Lizard]

Last I checked, the seceding states entered into a Confederation...

Doesn't matter. By seceding, the Southern states were absolving themselves of any need to obey the Constitution.

I am sure that the British had laws against open rebellion, too. Didn't stop us from rebelling, did it?

[Leroy Lizard]

Reality called and left you a message. She said you haven't been around in a long time and she hopes you'll get in touch soon.

Actually Faninama is right.

[tommieharris91]

Doesn't matter. By seceding, the Southern states were absolving themselves of any need to obey the Constitution.


It doesn't make what they did legal under the terms of our Constitution, which states such as South Carolina and Georgia ratified.

[OUDoc]

I can't believe people are still arguing about this.

[tommieharris91]

In any case, denying a state and the people within a state the right to choose their own government is patently absurd and against the very founding principles of our nation. It's ideologically inconsistent to argue that we had the right to separate from Britain on the basis that people have a right to choose their own government and yet deny that exact same right to the people of the south and call it a rebellion or treason.

Either you believe people have the right to create and establish a government of their own choosing or you don't. Whatever you may think of various domestic institutions in the south, there is no getting around the fact that a state and its citizens ought to be able to freely leave what they free entered into when they believe their interests are best served in another manner.

Didn't Lincoln, as head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief, have to enforce the Constitution though? Without enforcing Art. I, Sec. 10, the US (well, Northern states had the Confederacy won) could have completely fallen apart and there would likely have been more rebellions (and that's a big can-o-worms right there.)

What I'm trying to say is, if some group of people want to rebel against their country, they better be able to defend themselves and their new country when the old country decides they want it back. When a part of a country decides to split and form its own country, wars get started. This has happened throughout British history from about 1700 on.

And lastly, everyone here should understand that the winners of wars get to write the history books. We beat Britain in the American Revolution, so we got to become our own nation and write the history. The United States beat the Condeferate States in the Civil War, thus the history of the Civil War gets to be written from the perspective of the Northerners (yes, Dean, what Sherman did was barbaric.)

(YAY POSITIVE LAW!!!1!!1!)

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Lemay would be more like Sherman if he burned Tokyo after he had captured it. What would you think of Lemay then?

What Sherman did to Atlanta was directly analogous to what the Allied air forces did to Germany and Japan. He denied the enemy access to resources and limited their ability to transport material. If Sherman had the capacity to bomb the south into submission, he would have. The revisionist history of "oh the poor south was so mistreated by uncle billy" is crap. All they had to do was surrender. Just like Germany and just like Japan. If you pick a fight, you cant complain how the other guy kicks your ***.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay


LeMay soon concluded that the techniques and tactics developed for use in Europe against the Luftwaffe were unsuitable against Japan. His bombers flying from China were dropping their bombs near their targets only 5% of the time. Operational losses of aircraft and crews were unacceptably high owing to Japanese daylight air defenses and continuing mechanical problems with the B-29. In January 1945 LeMay was transferred from China to relieve Brig. Gen. Haywood S. Hansell as commander of the XXI Bomber Command in the Marianas.

He became convinced that high-altitude, precision bombing would be ineffective, given the usual cloudy weather over Japan. Because Japanese air defenses made daytime bombing below jet stream altitudes too perilous, LeMay finally switched to low-altitude, nighttime incendiary attacks on Japanese targets, a tactic senior commanders had been advocating for some time. Japanese cities were largely constructed of combustible materials such as wood and paper. Precision high-altitude daylight bombing was ordered to proceed only when weather permitted or when specific critical targets were not vulnerable to area bombing.

LeMay commanded subsequent B-29 Superfortress combat operations against Japan, including the massive incendiary attacks on 64 Japanese cities. This included the the firebombing of Tokyo on 9–March 10, 1945, the most destructive bombing raid of the war.[2] For this first attack, LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model E-46 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosphorus bombs, and napalm and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000–9,000 feet over Tokyo.

The first pathfinder planes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing some 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city. Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target.

The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose."


Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left 5 million homeless.[4] Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 220,000 people killed.[2] Some 40% of the built-up areas of 66 cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry.[2]

[Okla-homey]

Its only recently (post WWII) that warring parties gave a rats *** about civilians on the other side. And its only post Vietnam that military and political types actually paid more than lip service to that concept.

Principally because aerially delivered weapons are technologically capable of precise target servicing nowadays. Therefore, we have the luxury of precision strikes with minimal non-combatant fatalities.

During WWII and Korea, the best we could do with dumb bombs was about a 166 meter CEP*. Thus, the powers that be said "to heck with that," and proceeded with "area" (a/k/a "carpet) bombing.

We now have bombs which sport a >3 meter CEP. Suffice to say, our air-to-surface missiles are even more precise. It's cheaper too. One modern Mk82 500# GP bomb can do the work of 20 WWII era 500 pounders.

All that said, I submit if we lacked precision weapons, we would still be "area bombing," as in WWII.

Me? I used to teach this crap.

*CEP, "circular error probable," USAF lingo for the mean distance a bomb will hit from the the center of a target circle.

[olevetonahill]

I can't believe people are still arguing about this.

And we Have a WINNAH :D
Dayum folks The Rebs Lost, the Dayum Yankees won
AS David Earl said
GADOCADWI

[yankee]

Yep, burning the homes of civilians and their crops and letting them starve to death sure exemplifies our best.

You know, the South's biggest mistake was not doing the EXACT same thing when it invaded the north. They should have razed every city, burned EVERY home...destroyed EVERY field.....and killed everyone capable of carrying a rifle. Their respect for the property and lives of others did them no good in the end and it sure wasn't reflected by the other side.

No, the biggest mistake they made was not killing everyone. They should have killed every last yankee they came across.

i could care less if you think his moral character was outstanding...i just said he was a bad ***, i wouldn't invite him to my home for wine and cheese night and discuss the fashion trends. maybe that's for you. you bitter rebs...

[C&CDean]

i could care less if you think his moral character was outstanding...i just said he was a bad ***, i wouldn't invite him to my home for wine and cheese night and discuss the fashion trends. maybe that's for you. you bitter rebs...

Know how I know you're gay?

I ain't got a horse in this race. My kin are all German Jews who immigrated after the Civil War. My only problem is that folks on here are talking about FELLOW ****ING AMERICANS like they're nazis or japs or something. And my opinion of what makes a feller "bad ***" differs greatly from yours. yankee.

[yankee]

Know how I know you're gay?

I ain't got a horse in this race. My kin are all German Jews who immigrated after the Civil War. My only problem is that folks on here are talking about FELLOW ****ING AMERICANS like they're nazis or japs or something. And my opinion of what makes a feller "bad ***" differs greatly from yours. yankee.

i realize that on a board full of southern sympathizers sherman probably isn't going to be the most popular guy, just like anyone from "way up there in yankeeland", from ANY time period...and honestly, i really don't care. all i know is that he took the attitude of "if you **** with the united states, you'll get ****ed up". and that's cool with me, and i don't care if it was 150 years ago.

[Leroy Lizard]

What Sherman did to Atlanta was directly analogous to what the Allied air forces did to Germany and Japan. He denied the enemy access to resources and limited their ability to transport material. If Sherman had the capacity to bomb the south into submission, he would have.

Sherman had already captured Atlanta. So the two are not analogous at all.

If you capture Tokyo, you don't need to burn Tokyo to the ground in order to deny the Japanese resources. The burning of Atlanta was just a terrorist act committed against a city that had already capitulated.


The revisionist history of "oh the poor south was so mistreated by uncle billy" is crap. All they had to do was surrender. Just like Germany and just like Japan. If you pick a fight, you cant complain how the other guy kicks your ***.

You can excuse any atrocity if you use this logic.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yeah but blowing **** up, salting the land, and burning the crops is just good damned fun!

[Leroy Lizard]

And lastly, everyone here should understand that the winners of wars get to write the history books.

Not always true. The Republicans got to write the history books for the Spanish Civil War, which is why we have this glowing portrayal of the Commie bastards.

[fadada1]

And the neo-confederates who think it would have been better if the South had won are idiots.

why do you hate swamp buggy racing???


:D

[SicEmBaylor]

Didn't Lincoln, as head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief, have to enforce the Constitution though? Without enforcing Art. I, Sec. 10, the US (well, Northern states had the Confederacy won) could have completely fallen apart and there would likely have been more rebellions (and that's a big can-o-worms right there.)

In what way does Article I, Section X deny a state the right to secede? It certainly limits the power of states under the constitution, but it says nothing about states leaving the union thus no longer being bound by the terms of the Constitution.


What I'm trying to say is, if some group of people want to rebel against their country, they better be able to defend themselves and their new country when the old country decides they want it back. When a part of a country decides to split and form its own country, wars get started. This has happened throughout British history from about 1700 on.

It wasn't a rebellion. The difference is that in a rebellion you have an ad-hoc group of individuals whom have no claim to original sovereignty attempting to subvert the legitimate authority of a government. The War of Northern Aggression was totally different. The individual states were merely reclaiming the rights they had previously ceded to the Federal government so long as that government represented the interests of the state. Once those interest were no longer being served, the states merely reclaimed the full sovereignty they previously enjoyed.


And lastly, everyone here should understand that the winners of wars get to write the history books. We beat Britain in the American Revolution, so we got to become our own nation and write the history. The United States beat the Condeferate States in the Civil War, thus the history of the Civil War gets to be written from the perspective of the Northerners (yes, Dean, what Sherman did was barbaric.)

This, more than anything, is why people have so little understanding of the causes of the war or the constitutional arguments involved.


(YAY POSITIVE LAW!!!1!!1!)

[SicEmBaylor]

It doesn't make what they did legal under the terms of our Constitution, which states such as South Carolina and Georgia ratified.

Actually, it does. The Constitution was written and intended as the governing document of the Federal government. What limitations exist on the states are merely those rights that the Federal government has over the states (such as ensuring states don't conduct foreign diplomacy, etc.) which are very few compared to the many many limitations on Federal power.

The states were intended to have so many more rights than the states that it was impossible to list all of state power which is why the Constitution specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the Federal government is retained by the states or, state law not withstanding, the people themselves. Now if you can point to where in the Constitution it states that states are bound by blood to stay in the Union for all eternity then you'd have an argument.

Let me ask you this, do you really believe any state would have ratified the Constitution if they knew they were perpetually relinquishing any right they ever had to form a new government or enter into a new relationship with states of their choosing? Absolutely not. If they knew they would have been kept in the Union by the end of a bayonet and the business end of a canon they would never have entered the Union in the first place and the Constitution would never ever have been ratified.

[TUSooner]

Actually, it does. The Constitution was written and intended as the governing document of the Federal government. What limitations exist on the states are merely those rights that the Federal government has over the states (such as ensuring states don't conduct foreign diplomacy, etc.) which are very few compared to the many many limitations on Federal power.

The states were intended to have so many more rights than the states that it was impossible to list all of state power which is why the Constitution specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the Federal government is retained by the states or, state law not withstanding, the people themselves. Now if you can point to where in the Constitution it states that states are bound by blood to stay in the Union for all eternity then you'd have an argument.

Let me ask you this, do you really believe any state would have ratified the Constitution if they knew they were perpetually relinquishing any right they ever had to form a new government or enter into a new relationship with states of their choosing? Absolutely not. If they knew they would have been kept in the Union by the end of a bayonet and the business end of a canon they would never have entered the Union in the first place and the Constitution would never ever have been ratified.

That's part speculation (especially that bit about "What would they have thought!?"), and 100% useless quasi-theoretical horse poo put forth by someone who hasn't ventured within screaming distance of real life in years.
But anybody who's been around here for a year or more already knows that. Ho hum.

I happen to think we'd have been better off without the Revolution of 1776. If we'd have stayed British, the Empire would still be kicking @ss worldwide, and most of the world would be far better for it. My theory is every bit as sensible as this neo-confederate dog vomit that comes up every time the Civil War is mentioned. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

That's part speculation (especially that bit about "What would they have thought!?"), and 100% useless quasi-theoretical horse poo put forth by someone who hasn't ventured within screaming distance of real life in years.
But anybody who's been around here for a year or more already knows that. Ho hum.

I happen to think we'd have been better off without the Revolution of 1776. If we'd have stayed British, the Empire would still be kicking @ss worldwide, and most of the world would be far better for it. My theory is every bit as sensible as this neo-confederate dog vomit that comes up every time the Civil War is mentioned. :rolleyes:

Almost as silly, is the oft-advanced canard by confederate apologists that the independent Cornfederacy would have eventually ended human chattel slavery of its own accord. Riiiiiiiiight. Heck, they didn't even let black folks vote down there until the Feds intervened in the 1960's.

[tommieharris91]

It wasn't a rebellion. The difference is that in a rebellion you have an ad-hoc group of individuals whom have no claim to original sovereignty attempting to subvert the legitimate authority of a government. The War of Northern Aggression was totally different. The individual states were merely reclaiming the rights they had previously ceded to the Federal government so long as that government represented the interests of the state. Once those interest were no longer being served, the states merely reclaimed the full sovereignty they previously enjoyed.

Did the states who seceded not breach a contract? Did they not break an agreement which they ratified just about 70 years before then? Did states such as South Carolina not try to subvert the legitimate authority of a government and a document they expressly gave power to? The Constitution clearly states that the States cannot enter into a Confederation and the seceding states clearly did.

Also, according to Wikipedia, the Confederate forces instigated the Battle of Fort Sumter and also seized Union Army bases within the newly established Confederate States of America before the Fort Sumter attack. Based on this, I cannot buy calling the US Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" or that Lincoln had no right to invade a land that was once his.

[Leroy Lizard]

Did the states who seceded not breach a contract? Did they not break an agreement which they ratified just about 70 years before then? Did states such as South Carolina not try to subvert the legitimate authority of a government and a document they expressly gave power to? The Constitution clearly states that the States cannot enter into a Confederation and the seceding states clearly did.

Your argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they broke an agreement. It wouldn't be secession if they hadn't.

Do you think that we didn't break an agreement when we declared our independence from the British? We were British subjects that colonized the New World in the name of Britain. Our actions were very much illegal and, in the eyes of the British, traitorous.

So what is your view of our declaration of independence?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WAS ABOUT SLAVERY!

Thomas Jefferson freed/banged the slaves!

[SicEmBaylor]

Did the states who seceded not breach a contract?
If it was a contact then the terms of the contract are written in the Constitution itself and there exists absolutely NO clause giving authority to the Federal government to forcibly keep every party bound to that contract. The fact that the power to leave the Union is never mentioned within the document makes it an issue for the states to decide themselves by the very terms of that contact.


Did they not break an agreement which they ratified just about 70 years before then? Did states such as South Carolina not try to subvert the legitimate authority of a government and a document they expressly gave power to?
The agreement was that the states entered into the Union because a Federal government would best serve the interests of their state and the people of the state. The Federal government broke the premise by which the states had agreed to enter in the first place. Furthermore, I'd like to once again point out that there was never ever any agreement to remain in that union for perpetuity.


The Constitution clearly states that the States cannot enter into a Confederation and the seceding states clearly did.
You're taking that completely out of context. When it was debated at the Philadelphia convention, that clause was intended to prevent states that were part of the union from forming independent alliances with other states. I completely agree with this clause, but it only pertains to states that are part of the union. If states leave the union they are no longer bound by this clause or any other part of the Constitution. States remaining within the Union are bound by this clause...not those that have left.


Also, according to Wikipedia, the Confederate forces instigated the Battle of Fort Sumter and also seized Union Army bases within the newly established Confederate States of America before the Fort Sumter attack. Based on this, I cannot buy calling the US Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" or that Lincoln had no right to invade a land that was once his.

Incorrect. When the state of South Carolina seceded it left the union and reclaimed its independence and sovereignty. They repeatedly asked the Federal government to leave its territory and gave them ample opportunity to withdraw. Instead of withdrawing their forces, Lincoln and the Federal government actually reinforced Ft. Sumpter at which point the state was forced to retake its territory by force.

Once the state was out of the union it had every right to ask another foreign power to leave its territory. Not doing so was an act of war by the Federal government regardless of who fired the first shots. For example, if Britain had decided to leave a garrison of troops right off of Boston harbor and refused to remove them then it would have constituted an act of war. ANY nation or state has a right to forcibly remove the troops of another government within their own territory.

[NormanPride]

This argument is asinine. Regardless of what some paper said, does anyone think that half the union seceding would be some non-issue? Does ANYONE think there wouldn't be military conflict over something that major? The north was supposed to go "Aw, shucks, guys, if you don't like us that much..."

That's stupid. Of course there was a war. The south lost, so they had to go back. DUH.

[Okla-homey]

Incorrect. When the state of South Carolina seceded it left the union and reclaimed its independence and sovereignty. They repeatedly asked the Federal government to leave its territory and gave them ample opportunity to withdraw. Instead of withdrawing their forces, Lincoln and the Federal government actually reinforced Ft. Sumpter at which point the state was forced to retake its territory by force.



Sic,
The above is factually incorrect. The Federal government attempted to resupply the two companies of heavy artillery artillery troops who had abandoned Ft Moultrie on the mainland and had rowed over to Ft. Sumter on Christmas night 1860 because the unfinished Sumter, on a rockpile at the mouth of the harbor, was more defensible. The unarmed supply ship "Star of the West" was subsequently driven off by artillery fire by SC forces.

As far as who shot who, the SC folks were quite happy to have Federal dollars build Ft Sumter for the defense of their harbor, and in fact, begged it to do so in the wake of the disastrous War of 1812 in which undefended US harbors didn't fare so well.

When SC decided to quit the Union fifty some odd years later, it unreasonably insisted the US abandon all federal facilities the US had bought and paid for within the state. That, dog won't hunt. Period. Then, making matters worse, they threatened US forces stationed therein with violence, which was a very stupid thing to do.

[Leroy Lizard]

This argument is asinine. Regardless of what some paper said, does anyone think that half the union seceding would be some non-issue? Does ANYONE think there wouldn't be military conflict over something that major? The north was supposed to go "Aw, shucks, guys, if you don't like us that much..."

That's stupid. Of course there was a war. The south lost, so they had to go back. DUH.

We all know what happened. The question is, "Was the South justified?" Depends on your point of view.

[NormanPride]

They were justified to secede, as per the original agreement. They were not, however, justified to expect to keep all the stuff that the federal government paid for without reimbursement (to which Homey alluded). This conflict bore more conflict, and war erupted. It was a foregone conclusion. If Texas seceded now, the US would want back all its toys. There would be conflict. I bet if Texas paid the US back for everything, it wouldn't come to blows.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Sherman had already captured Atlanta. So the two are not analogous at all.

If you capture Tokyo, you don't need to burn Tokyo to the ground in order to deny the Japanese resources. The burning of Atlanta was just a terrorist act committed against a city that had already capitulated.

You can excuse any atrocity if you use this logic.


Had Sherman left the railroads, foundries and storehouses of Atlanta (and the south in general) in tact, the confederates would have started up business as soon as he moved east. So he did the logical thing. He burned the supplies and trashed the railroads so they couldn't be used against union forces.

Lemay couldnt capture Toyko so he did the next best thing. He burned it to the ground. They knew full well that civilian homes were going to burn when they did it. By todays standards, both would qualify as terror.

I'd still rather have dead Japanese than dead US servicemen. I'd still rather have Atlanta smoldering in ruins than have the US broken into multiple countries and slavery continuing for however long it would have lasted.

Wars a bitch. If you aren't prepared to pay the price, don't start the war.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic,
The above is factually incorrect. The Federal government attempted to resupply the two companies of heavy artillery artillery troops who had abandoned Ft Moultrie on the mainland and had rowed over to Ft. Sumter on Christmas night 1860 because the unfinished Sumter, on a rockpile at the mouth of the harbor, was more defensible. The unarmed supply ship "Star of the West" was subsequently driven off by artillery fire by SC forces.

As far as who shot who, the SC folks were quite happy to have Federal dollars build Ft Sumter for the defense of their harbor, and in fact, begged it to do so in the wake of the disastrous War of 1812 in which undefended US harbors didn't fare so well.

When SC decided to quit the Union fifty some odd years later, it unreasonably insisted the US abandon all federal facilities the US had bought and paid for within the state. That, dog won't hunt. Period. Then, making matters worse, they threatened US forces stationed therein with violence, which was a very stupid thing to do.

What's factually incorrect? The Federal government attempted to resupply an outpost in territory that did not belong to them and without the permission of the state.

I can't imagine what is unreasonable about asking a foreign government to remove their troops. The colonies were more than happy to have British troops in N. America during the 7 years/French and Indian War and I'm sure all of their outposts and forts along the frontier were most welcome...until they were no longer welcome. Does that make it unreasonable for the United States to have expected the British to abandon their outposts within our territory? Absolutely not.

Is it unreasonable for Ukraine to have expected the Russians to leave its former Soviet military bases once they split from the Soviet Union? Of course not. Why is it therefore unreasonable for South Carolina to do what we would naturally expect any nation to demand of a foreign government with a military contingent within its territory?

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

What's factually incorrect? The Federal government attempted to resupply an outpost in territory that did not belong to them and without the permission of the state.

I can't imagine what is unreasonable about asking a foreign government to remove their troops. The colonies were more than happy to have British troops in N. America during the 7 years/French and Indian War and I'm sure all of their outposts and forts along the frontier were most welcome...until they were no longer welcome. Does that make it unreasonable for the United States to have expected the British to abandon their outposts within our territory? Absolutely not.

Is it unreasonable for Ukraine to have expected the Russians to leave its former Soviet military bases once they split from the Soviet Union? Of course not. Why is it therefore unreasonable for South Carolina to do what we would naturally expect any nation to demand of a foreign government with a military contingent within its territory?

The British and Russians agreed to leave their bases because they weren't prepared to fight for them.

Had the Brits won the revolutionary war, they'd have hung the folks that signed the Declaration of Independence and that would have been that. The bases might still be in British hands. But the Brits lost so they shut up and went home.

South Carolina declared independence. The US government told them to **** off. SC started shooting and voila, war. The south lost. That settled the issue of a states right to secede from the union. It doesn't exist.

[Leroy Lizard]

Had Sherman left the railroads, foundries and storehouses of Atlanta (and the south in general) in tact, the confederates would have started up business as soon as he moved east. So he did the logical thing. He burned the supplies and trashed the railroads so they couldn't be used against union forces.

Read the following:


We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience. -- Sherman

This is proof that Sherman intended the wrecking of Atlanta as a terrorist activity.

He destroyed 300 miles of railroad. There is no chance in Hell that the South could have replaced that much railroad in a full decade under wartime conditions. This was nothing more than vandalism on a massive scale done out of sheer hatred.


Wars a bitch. If you aren't prepared to pay the price, don't start the war.

So I suppose American Indians started the Indian Wars, heh?


In his campaigns against the Indian tribes, Sherman repeated his Civil War strategy by seeking not only to defeat the enemy's soldiers, but also to destroy the resources that allowed the enemy to sustain its warfare. The policies he implemented included the extensive killing of large numbers of buffalo, which were the primary source of food for the Plains Indians

If you look at the conduct of his career, including genocidal attempts on American Indians, you will see the making of a good SS officer.

[Okla-homey]

Read the following:



This is proof that Sherman intended the wrecking of Atlanta as a terrorist activity.

He destroyed 300 miles of railroad. There is no chance in Hell that the South could have replaced that much railroad in a full decade under wartime conditions. This was nothing more than vandalism on a massive scale done out of sheer hatred.



So I suppose American Indians started the Indian Wars, heh?



If you look at the conduct of his career, including genocidal attempts on American Indians, you will see the making of a good SS officer.

While I'm reasonably sure you are not a nincompoop, you are sure making noise like one. Look, rivers and railraods controlled this continent in the mid-19th century. They were the way large quantities of troops and military supplies were moved.

Perfect example, on the eve of one of the biggest scraps of the end of 1863 campaign season, Bobby Lee cut loose an entire corps from his Army of Northern Virginia under James Longstreet, that had been chilling-out in the Virginia tidewater, for service at Chickamauga in north Georgia versus the Federal Army of the Ohio that was poised to strike Braxton Bragg's CS Army of Tennessee.

Now, how do you think those 30,000 guys and all their stuff got from the VA/NC border to North Georgia in under three days and were not too worn-out to fight when they arrived? They loaded them on choo-choos. And they arrived just in time to win a major Reb victory in mid-September 1863. In fact, it was the last big Reb victory for the CS Army of Tennessee.

Now, given that experience, what military leader worth his shoulder straps is going to leave intact RR's in Georgia, or anywhere else in the states in rebellion?

Sheesh.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Read the following:
This is proof that Sherman intended the wrecking of Atlanta as a terrorist activity.

He destroyed 300 miles of railroad. There is no chance in Hell that the South could have replaced that much railroad in a full decade under wartime conditions. This was nothing more than vandalism on a massive scale done out of sheer hatred.


I don't dispute any of that. Again, if the south wasn't prepared to suffer the devastation of war, they should have tried for a political solution. They thought a war would be a glorious undertaking that they would win in short order. They were wrong.



So I suppose American Indians started the Indian Wars, heh?

If you look at the conduct of his career, including genocidal attempts on American Indians, you will see the making of a good SS officer.


The Indians got the muddy end of the stick but thats a topic in and of itself. I dont think you can lay the blame for the treatment of the plains Indians at Shermans feet. The political leadership of the country made the decision to enter into agreements with them, break the agreements and enter into new agreements (which they then broke).

And the natives weren't exactly idyllic peace loving folk. They got their territory by beating down other tribes. The Sioux pushed out the Cheyenne, who had pushed out the Kiowa. The white folks came along and pushed out the Sioux (and the Cheyenne, and the Kiowa, etc.).

I still contend that your comparison to the SS is at best hyperbole. If every military or political commander that engaged in total war against an enemy had "the makings of a good SS officer", every successful general from Washington to Schwarzkopf could meet that criteria.

But then again, I suspect you just like to argue. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Now, how do you think those 30,000 guys and all their stuff got from the VA/NC border to North Georgia in under three days and were not too worn-out to fight when they arrived? They loaded them on choo-choos. And they arrived just in time to win a major Reb victory in mid-September 1863. In fact, it was the last big Reb victory for the CS Army of Tennessee.

You completely sidestepped the issue: The Yanks destroyed 300 miles of railroad track. There is no way the Confederates could have replaced even a quarter of that under wartime conditions. Do you really think that the Yankee army was under a threat of Rebels forging 600 miles of railroad track and laying it down? That's roughly 50,000 tons of steel, weighing more than the battleship Bismark. It would be a lot faster to just march to your destination than wait for the rails to be rebuilt.

Just destroy the trains. The Rebs weren't going to be making replacements.

It was nothing more than terrorist activity designed to inflict economic hardship on a defeated population. Sherman even admitted it.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't dispute any of that. Again, if the south wasn't prepared to suffer the devastation of war, they should have tried for a political solution. They thought a war would be a glorious undertaking that they would win in short order. They were wrong.

Since we started the war in Iraq (and there is no doubt that we initiated the invasion), the Iraqis are then excused for performing any kind of atrocities they wish on our troops?

With only rare exceptions, one side will always think the other side started it. Your logic allows any army to justify in its own mind the atrocities it commits. "They asked for it."

Naturally, that doesn't mean that the horrors of war are avoidable or even undesirable. But you don't justify such actions by "who started it." It's stupid.


The Indians got the muddy end of the stick but thats a topic in and of itself. I dont think you can lay the blame for the treatment of the plains Indians at Shermans feet. The political leadership of the country made the decision to enter into agreements with them, break the agreements and enter into new agreements (which they then broke).

This is called being an apologist.

You stated that Sherman was justified in his actions because the South started the war. Well, the Indians didn't start the Indian wars, so you are now going to craft a whole new argument to justify Sherman's actions.

As far as being hyperbole, check out the following quote by Sherman:


"[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

Does that sound like Schwarzkopf? Did LeMay ever say anything like this?

Hyperbole, heh? Hyperbole my ***!

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

You completely sidestepped the issue: The Yanks destroyed 300 miles of railroad track. There is no way the Confederates could have replaced even a quarter of that under wartime conditions. Do you really think that the Yankee army was under a threat of Rebels forging 600 miles of railroad track and laying it down? That's roughly 50,000 tons of steel, weighing more than the battleship Bismark. It would be a lot faster to just march to your destination than wait for the rails to be rebuilt.

Just destroy the trains. The Rebs weren't going to be making replacements.

It was nothing more than terrorist activity designed to inflict economic hardship on a defeated population. Sherman even admitted it.

So what? If the leadership of the south didn't like it, they could have surrendered. If the leadership of Georgia didn't like it, they could have surrendered. They knew what to expect when he took Atlanta and Columbia SC after that. But they didn't. That's the price you pay for stupid leadership.

[Leroy Lizard]

So what? If the leadership of the south didn't like it, they could have surrendered. If the leadership of Georgia didn't like it, they could have surrendered. They knew what to expect when he took Atlanta and Columbia SC after that. But they didn't. That's the price you pay for stupid leadership.

You could say the same thing about the Republicans fighting the Nationalists. Or the Chinese fighting the Japanese. Again, any army can justify atrocities using your logic.

Oh, don't forget to explain your way out of the following quote:


"[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

I'm waiting. Homey, maybe you can help him.

[fadada1]

been reading the comments back and forth... i, by no means, am a historian on the civil war and the polital undertones assumed/perceived/accused by either side before, during, or after the war.

i will say this however... sherman saw an opportunity to win the war the best way he saw fit. some of his actions might be seen as controversial (apparently by southerners - possibly because they had their collective asses handed to them), but opportunities were seen, and he took advantage of them.

having never met the man, i would assume, if asked, he would recite the cliche, "all's fair in love and war."

fast forward to today... maybe since the mid 1960's. had we (or would we) politicians that would allow our men to fight with such "morally questionable" tactics, we might have ended our 2 current wars 8 years ago. a cousin of mine, a retired admiral and 3 tour fighter pilot, mentioned to me many years ago that "we were fighting a war with both hands tied behind our backs."

maybe sherman was ahead of his time and fought wars in the way they should be - without rules.

JMHO.

[yankee]

the south has not risen since the civil war. thank you general sherman. i guess they got the picture.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Since we started the war in Iraq (and there is no doubt that we initiated the invasion), the Iraqis are then excused for performing any kind of atrocities they wish on our troops?

With only rare exceptions, one side will always think the other side started it. Your logic allows any army to justify in its own mind the atrocities it commits. "They asked for it."

Naturally, that doesn't mean that the horrors of war are avoidable or even undesirable. But you don't justify such actions by "who started it." It's stupid.


The difference is I don't consider what Sherman did to the south to be an atrocity. Who started the war has no bearing on the issue.

Had he ordered captured confederates to be lined up and shot. That would be an atrocity. Had he ordered or tacitly permitted rape and murder (ala Nanjing 1938 or so), that would be an atrocity. All he did was destroy the south's capacity to make war. Hell, Bell set fire to most if his own supplies to keep them out of Shermans hands.



...

You stated that Sherman was justified in his actions because the South started the war. Well, the Indians didn't start the Indian wars, so you are now going to craft a whole new argument to justify Sherman's actions.


I stated Sherman was justified in his action because it was a war, not because the south started it. All I said about the south was that if they didnt like it, too bad.

Actually you brought the Indian wars into the thread. I suspect to change the topic (but that's just me).

I dont think I need to justify Shermans actions. He was ordered to put a stop to Indian attacks on the railroads. He did so by the most ruthless means available to keep his casualties as low as possible.
If you want to judge him by 21st century standards that's ok with me. I think its safe to say that by that standard the Indians don't come off scot free either. Neither do the good folks of Georgia, Mississippi, or Tennessee for stealing the Cherokee, Creek and Seminole (among others) lands.

Just because the government shafted the Indians doesn't make Sherman the devil. Westerners were shafting the Indians since we first set foot over here. What we did to the Indians was reprehensible. But that didn't start with Sherman or end with him. Not an apology, just a fact.

But again, I think you're really just trying to change the argument cus you're losing. :D



As far as being hyperbole, check out the following quote by Sherman:


[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."



Bravo. You have properly identified hyperbole on the part of Sherman.

Did he say the most politically correct thing in the world? No. Did he express the common opinion of the day among most round eyes? Probably. He said the same about southerners but he didn't exterminate them.



Oh, don't forget to explain your way out of the following quote

Sorry it took so long to respond. I have a life. Maybe you could rent one and see if you like it. :D




Does that sound like Schwarzkopf? Did LeMay ever say anything like this?



Actually, yes. (And no. None of these quotes bothers me in the least)




Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.



I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that's been fed to them.



If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.



Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.



We should bomb Vietnam back into the stone age.




We need to destroy, not attack, not damage, not surround. I want to destroy the Republican Guard.

[Leroy Lizard]

having never met the man, i would assume, if asked, he would recite the cliche, "all's fair in love and war."

Including this?


"[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

How far is too far? According to your logic, there is no limit. As long as you win, then any cruelty is justified, which is exactly the logic Hitler used when he referred to the Armenian genocide.


the south has not risen since the civil war. thank you general sherman. i guess they got the picture.

So did the Indians. The Jews got the picture too, as did the Armenians.

[Leroy Lizard]

Did he say the most politically correct thing in the world? No. Did he express the common opinion of the day among most round eyes? Probably. He said the same about southerners but he didn't exterminate them.

Are you kidding me? Are you really trying to cast Sherman's statement as merely "politically incorrect"?

So you have no problem with a U.S. general stating "[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children"?

This wasn't just a wild statement thrown out in a bar. He wrote this in a letter to the President of the United States.

That's okay with you?

[yankee]

Including this?



How far is too far? According to your logic, there is no limit. As long as you win, then any cruelty is justified, which is exactly the logic Hitler used when he referred to the Armenian genocide.



So did the Indians. The Jews got the picture too, as did the Armenians.

rounding up millions of jews and putting them to work and killing them in concentration camps = sherman tearing up railroads. got it.

[Leroy Lizard]

rounding up millions of jews and putting them to work and killing them in concentration camps = sherman tearing up railroads. got it.

Try again: "[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children"?

That's more than just tearing up railroads.

What do you think of Sherman's statement?

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Are you kidding me? Are you really trying to cast Sherman's statement as merely "politically incorrect"?

So you have no problem with a U.S. general stating "[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children"?

This wasn't just a wild statement thrown out in a bar. He wrote this in a letter to the President of the United States.

That's okay with you?

Doesn't matter if its ok with me. He said it. He acted on it. Its a fact. It was the common attitude of the time. There were a lot of things people said and did in the 18th and 19th centuries that were reprehensible when viewed through hindsight. For example:



"The immediate objectives are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements. It will be essential to ruin their crops to the ground and prevent their planting more." - George Washington

So Sherman apparently was just using the "Washington Strategy".


"This unfortunate race, whome we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilise, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate." - Thomas Jefferson

...or was it the "Jefferson Strategy"?


"The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continenet could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages." - Theodore Roosevelt

Hummm. That dang TR. Maybe he'd a been a good SS officer. :rolleyes:

Really Lizard. I'm starting to think Homey was giving you too much credit. You'll need to find a doorknob to argue with. I'm losing interest.

[Leroy Lizard]

Doesn't matter if its ok with me. He said it. He acted on it. Its a fact. It was the common attitude of the time. There were a lot of things people said and did in the 18th and 19th centuries that were reprehensible when viewed through hindsight.

Let's go back to my original point: The notion that any amount of property damage and killing is justified as long as you think you're in the right is a dangerous idea, and many of you have been espousing it. If we're willing to justify attitudes that the extermination of Indians is fair game, why get worked up over slavery?

BTW, Washington was not espousing Shermanian policy, because his quote makes it clear that he felt the burning of crops was necessary to win the war. Sherman admitted that his destruction of Southern property was aimed at demoralizing the population. And while Teddy Roosevelt may have called Indians savages in his quote, I don't see anything there that advocates exterminating women and children.

[yankee]

Try again: "[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children"?

That's more than just tearing up railroads.

What do you think of Sherman's statement?

well, did he do what he said? did he commit acts that would even warrant him being mentioned in the same sentence as the holocaust? and i'm not sure WHY the indians are still being brought up by you...the original discussion was about him doing such terrible, terrible acts to the rebel hicks that rose up.

[Leroy Lizard]

well, did he do what he said? did he commit acts that would even warrant him being mentioned in the same sentence as the holocaust?

As a general, he didn't actually kill anyone himself. Neither did Himmler. But both were directly responsible for actions that took place under their command, especially since Sherman advocated mass extermination in his letter.

[Sooner04]

We won, ya'll lost. Sorry 'bout Atlanta and all those crops.

Yours,
Bill T. Sherman

[yankee]

As a general, he didn't actually kill anyone himself. Neither did Himmler. But both were directly responsible for actions that took place under their command, especially since Sherman advocated mass extermination in his letter.

sherman was waging a war. himmler was responsible for rounding up of millions of innocent jews and then killing them. please, for the love of God, stop comparing sherman to anything related with the nazis. it's an insult to the suffering that happened.

[yankee]

We won, ya'll lost. Sorry 'bout Atlanta and all those crops.

Yours,
Bill T. Sherman

/endthread.

[Leroy Lizard]

sherman was waging a war.

Apparently he felt that he was waging a war against women and children.

I think it's the height of hypocrisy to castigate the South for slavery and at the same time defend those who openly advocated mass exterminations of Indian women and children. ("Well, you just have to understand the times...")

Could Sherman have been an SS officer. EASILY! Just convince him that his victims are not really humans and that they are the enemy and deserve it.

Could he have killed people himself? I'm not sure. Himmler certainly didn't have the stomach for it.

[yankee]

Apparently he felt that he was waging a war against women and children.

I think it's the height of hypocrisy to castigate the South for slavery and at the same time defend those who openly advocated mass exterminations of Indian women and children. ("Well, you just have to understand the times...")

Could Sherman have been an SS officer. EASILY! Just convince him that his victims are not really humans and that they are the enemy and deserve it.

Could he have killed people himself? I'm not sure. Himmler certainly didn't have the stomach for it.

i'm not going to justify that killing women and children was the right thing to do, but the comparison to himmler is purely speculation on your part, and nothing more. apples and oranges...two COMPLETELY different situations, regardless of the time period.

[Leroy Lizard]

If by apples you mean Indians and by oranges you mean Jews, okay.


i'm not going to justify that killing women and children was the right thing to do,

Gee, ya' think?

[yankee]

If by apples you mean Indians and by oranges you mean Jews, okay.





yup, two completely different circumstances. it took you a while, but you eventually figured it out. good job buddy, glad i was there to help show you your wrongs.

[Leroy Lizard]

Gee, I thought we were all humans. Thanks for straightening me out.

[Sooner04]

Ow! My arm! I'm on your side, ya dumbass!

Ouch,
Tom S.W. Jackson

[NormanPride]

Isn't it a recent thing that armies have given two ****s about the populace when invading? I mean, they're the ones making food, clothing, and weaponry for the enemy.

I think we're not distinguishing between different acts of terrorism. Sherman's was born of a desire to end conflict quicker whereas the Islamic extremists we see now are focused on creating conflict and strife. Tearing up 300 miles of railroad used for the enemy military is a far cry from crashing planes into civilian commerce buildings.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think we're not distinguishing between different acts of terrorism. Sherman's was born of a desire to end conflict quicker whereas the Islamic extremists we see now are focused on creating conflict and strife. Tearing up 300 miles of railroad used for the enemy military is a far cry from crashing planes into civilian commerce buildings.

No one equated the two. They got linked because of some posters' inane rationalization for Sherman's March that "anything goes as long as you win and feel the other side is to blame." The logical extension of that philosophy has led to horrendously evil acts.

I just find it funny that we go out of our way to applaud a man who, by his own admission, had zero respect for human life. He inflicted far more suffering than needed not out of military necessity, but because he was a truly evil person. If a man who advocates mass extermination of women and children is not evil, then who is?

[NormanPride]

See, I think that's the main disconnect here. You're under the assumption that Sherman made those orders because he enjoyed being evil. I think the rest of us think he made them because he thought it was the quickest way to end the conflict. You're focusing on the women and children who we believe were collateral damage, rather than the military targets which you believe were collateral damage. Sherman, however, was very specific when discussing his military tactics, and he believed that destroying any production assets was a priority in an extended conflict. Killing women and children was not a goal (except with the Native Americans, who just about everyone at the time thought genocide was about the only option - still not excusable).

[Leroy Lizard]

I would use the word "vindictive" rather than evil to describe Sherman's attitude towards the South.


Killing women and children was not a goal (except with the Native Americans, who just about everyone at the time thought genocide was about the only option - still not excusable).

To suggest that Sherman was only expressing popular sentiment is excusing his attitude. You can't have it both ways.

Slavery was somehow this horror that not only had to stop but justified ruining a region of the country for decades, but mass extermination of Indians was okay? You don't see a disconnect there?

[NormanPride]

I would use the word "vindictive" rather than evil to describe Sherman's attitude towards the South.



To suggest that Sherman was only expressing popular sentiment is excusing his attitude. You can't have it both ways.

Slavery was somehow this horror that not only had to stop but justified ruining a region of the country for decades, but mass extermination of Indians was okay? You don't see a disconnect there?

I found this bit on Wikipedia after doing some light reading up on Sherman's tactics against Native Americans.


After the 1866 Fetterman Massacre, Sherman wrote Grant that "[w]e must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."[106] After George Armstrong Custer's defeat at the Battle of Little Bighorn, Sherman wrote that "hostile savages like Sitting Bull and his band of outlaw Sioux ... must feel the superior power of the Government."[107] He further wrote that "[d]uring an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age."[108] Despite his harsh treatment of the warring tribes, Sherman spoke out against the unfair way speculators and government agents treated the natives within the reservations.

I think he gave a lot of lip service to "kill 'em all" types of war, but it was apparent in his tactics that he avoided civilian casualties and focused on destruction of property. The Sioux seem to be an exception born of similar conflicts as we see today with radical Islam. Many here favor turning that area to glass, so one can assume that it was similar hyperbole.

[SoonerAtKU]

Know how I know you're gay?

I ain't got a horse in this race. My kin are all German Jews who immigrated after the Civil War. My only problem is that folks on here are talking about FELLOW ****ING AMERICANS like they're nazis or japs or something. And my opinion of what makes a feller "bad ***" differs greatly from yours. yankee.

I get what you're saying, but you have to understand that these people were fighting a war to NOT be Americans any more. It was something they were rejecting, and in doing so, incurred consequences most dire and distasteful. I'm pretty sure if there were an uprising today of citizens wishing to leave the union, we'd all say "have a nice time" up until the moment they tried to take American property with them.

[C&CDean]

Oh I don't know. Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Timothy Robbins, and a bunch of them other knuckleheads could take California and be damned as far as I'm concerned. I like an odd number of stars on the flag anyhow.

[SoonerAtKU]

There's a lot of pretty cool and useful stuff in CA. Berkeley, for all the faults (pun intended) that university has, has been responsible for some of the most cutting-edge research on the planet. Same for CalTech. I'd be pretty peeved if a bunch of actors and granola-folks were to get control of that, plus all the air and sea bases located there. They can have the land, just leave us all the cool stuff in and on it.

[C&CDean]

Just so long as they take LAS, they can even have Disneyland.

[royalfan5]

It's too bad the Civil War South didn't enjoy the wisdom of latter day Atlantans OutKast, because they would have then know not to pull thing out unless they planned bang, and not to bang unless they planned to hit something. Sherman understood what they were getting at though.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's too bad the Civil War South didn't enjoy the wisdom of latter day Atlantans OutKast, because they would have then know not to pull thing out unless they planned bang, and not to bang unless they planned to hit something. Sherman understood what they were getting at though.

I have to say that had we won the war, we at least would likely never have to suffer through an Outkast song.

[Okla-homey]

The only thing Bill Sherman did wrong was be president of LSU before the war. srsly.

[SicEmBaylor]

So long as we're discussing war criminals, Sheridan should really be a part of the discussion as well. He certainly did everything he could to deserve it.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ye of "the only good Indian" fame?

[SicEmBaylor]

Ye of "the only good Indian" fame?

One and the same.

[Leroy Lizard]

But SicEm, these were Indians. Haven't we learned by now that they don't count?

[Okla-homey]

So long as we're discussing war criminals, Sheridan should really be a part of the discussion as well. He certainly did everything he could to deserve it.

You know, imprisoning, beating, raping and compelling a population of innocent human beings to perform forced labor is a violation of contemporary international law too.

Therefore, as long as we're tossing around comparisons to Nazis with mid-nineteenth century Americans, be sure you equate the antebellum South and the Confederacy to the Third Reich. And in a very real sense, those big Southern plantations are analagous to Nazi concentration camps.

I suspect most reasonable folks would agree ending that Southern horror "by any means necessary" was the right thing to do.

Yessir, those big Southern plantations Uncle Billy's boys burned on his "March to the Sea" and Carolinas Campaigns were the moral equivalent and the direct precursors to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

[Sooner04]

You know, imprisoning, beating, raping and compelling a population of innocent human beings to perform forced labor is a violation of contemporary international law too.

Therefore, as long as we're tossing around comparisons to Nazis with mid-nineteenth century Americans, be sure you equate the antebellum South and the Confederacy to the Third Reich. And in a very real sense, those big Southern plantations are analagous to Nazi concentration camps.

I suspect most reasonable folks would agree ending that Southern horror "by any means necessary" was the right thing to do.

Yessir, those big Southern plantations Uncle Billy's boys burned on his "March to the Sea" and Carolinas Campaigns were the moral equivalent and the direct precursors to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
That's a bit of a stretch.

[NormanPride]

Yeah, I don't think there were mass graves of hundreds and hundreds of slaves, or medical experiments, or torture, or mass killings... etc, etc.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, I don't think there were mass graves of hundreds and hundreds of slaves, or medical experiments, or torture, or mass killings... etc, etc.

I realize its not completely analagous, but when folks start analogizing US soldiers in the Civil War to the SS, well, lets just say, "pot, meet kettle."

The "mass graves" are in the middle of the Atlantic, where the slavers tossed the one in four who didn't survive the passage overboard. As to "torture," ever see what happened to an escaped slave when he was caught? Of course, the slave master didn't call it "torture," he called it "whipping." Same diff.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4825/scarsh.jpg (http://img713.imageshack.us/i/scarsh.jpg/)

It was also a crime in the ante-bellum South to teach a slave to read. You know, rather like the Nazi policy of denying public education to Jewish children.

Its indisputable that a great number of the genteel "moonlight and magnolia" crowd were beasts to their slaves.

[Leroy Lizard]

I suspect most reasonable folks would agree ending that Southern horror "by any means necessary" was the right thing to do.

By the same token, would you have supported an overthrow of the U.S. government to end the Indian massacres?

The hypocrisy is blatant. "Any means necessary" to stop slavery. "That's just the way things were" when describing wholesale extermination of a race of people.


The "mass graves" are in the middle of the Atlantic, where the slavers tossed the one in four who didn't survive the passage overboard. As to "torture," ever see what happened to an escaped slave when he was caught? Of course, the slave master didn't call it "torture," he called it "whipping." Same diff.

And what happened to American Indians that dared refuse to give away their land? They were treated every bit as bad, and by the same people who are lauded by many in here as heroes.

There are many parallels between the U.S. Cavalry and the S.S. Both were charged with securing land for the government (lebensraum). Both considered the inhabitants as subhumans. Both set up concentration camps. The fact that Sherman espoused mass extermination of women and children is not surprising and it sounds exactly like what you would expect of a typical SS officer. Sheridan was no better.

So why does the Confederacy catch so much grief, but not the U.S.? And this attitude has extended to modern times. Why has one race cornered the market in civil rights? (American Indians were not granted the right to vote until 1924, 54 years after Blacks were given the same right.)

Sherman and Sheridan are both war criminals and should be considered as such. To suggest otherwise is to claim that American Indians are somehow less worthy of civil rights than Blacks.

[Okla-homey]

Why has one race cornered the market in civil rights? (American Indians were not granted the right to vote until 1924, 54 years after Blacks were given the same right.)



For the record, blacks may well have benefitted from federal legislation that granted them US citizenship and with it, the Consitutional right to vote with the ratification of the XIV Amendment in 1868. However, you are "just whistling Dixie" if you think blacks in the former Confederate states started actually being allowed to vote until almost a hundred years later. Remember that whole civil rights struggle led by MLK?

As to Indians? You bet. Hosed, screwed-over, lied to, and the victims of oppressive bigotry. But they actually were allowed to vote when they were granted citizenship. And on the whole, they are doing a lot better nowadays than the US black community.

Anyhow, when you start slinging the Nazi paint-brush, just make sure you're an equal-opportunity slinger and give the ante-bellum South and its plantation aristocracy two coats. Also for the record, it was those guys who pressured Andy Jackson into forcing the Five Tribes out of Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and northern Louisiana to make room for more cotton fields worked by slaves.