Remembering William T. Sherman on his 200th birthday - Page 5 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-13-2020, 08:57 AM
borderboss1 borderboss1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.E. View Post
I had this thought a few days back, and didn't voice it, but it occurs to me that no matter how you feel about him, Sherman was essentially the atomic bomb of the Civil War. His campaign was something entirely new, devastating and demoralizing, and hastened the end of the war.
L.
My thoughts exactly as well. Sherman's march was intended to end the war by showing the South once and for all that they could not win.
__________________
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
  #102  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:26 PM
UncleEd UncleEd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,255
Regarding the destruction, I believe these
figures are from Sherman's own report
on the campaign in Georgia:

$100 million in wealth was destroyed with
one-fifth of the foodstuffs, horses, mules
and cattle being used by his army and
the other four-fifths was purely waste/
destroyed.

Obviously the campaign was not just
aimed at battling the CSA army but
to break the spirits of the civilians
who would support that army.

At the "gates" to Savannah his ultimatum
was surrender or everything will be
destroyed. It really was a policy of
unconditional surrender, the same
as toward Germany and Japan in WWII.
  #103  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:20 PM
Boge Boge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Border
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by saread View Post
...Lincoln thought logically for the time and wasn't burdened with the hypersensitivy to perceived racism we have today. It was just a different era.

Sort of like Michael Bloomberg in the recently discovered old videos of him.
__________________
"She had a Mount Rushmore t-shirt on, and those guys never looked so good. Especially Jefferson and Lincoln. Kind of bloated but happy."

Guy Noir, private eye.
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #104  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:48 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,871
"Total war" does not, nor did it in 1865, include deliberately decimating a non combatant population. An example of total war is WWII, where the entire, sole, national effort is on victory, to the deprivation of ones own population. While we targeted major cities, the special targets were directly military in nature. The collateral damage was simply the result of the location of military targets and the limitation of the technology of the time.
I've no issue with a mid 19th century army on the march taking what it NEEDS, armies of the time were required to forrage of necessity. Destroying what they did not need or carry was wholesale murder- in a time when sustenance farming was survival, if one didn't have enough put up for a winter, one starved to death. The theft of person property of intrinsic value, for personal gain, was and is a crime. The widespread, wanton rape and direct killing of noncombatants was a war crime, regardle of the end result.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #105  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:49 AM
Colt191145 Colt191145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
"Total war" does not, nor did it in 1865, include deliberately decimating a non combatant population. An example of total war is WWII, where the entire, sole, national effort is on victory, to the deprivation of ones own population. While we targeted major cities, the special targets were directly military in nature. The collateral damage was simply the result of the location of military targets and the limitation of the technology of the time.
I've no issue with a mid 19th century army on the march taking what it NEEDS, armies of the time were required to forrage of necessity. Destroying what they did not need or carry was wholesale murder- in a time when sustenance farming was survival, if one didn't have enough put up for a winter, one starved to death. The theft of person property of intrinsic value, for personal gain, was and is a crime. The widespread, wanton rape and direct killing of noncombatants was a war crime, regardle of the end result.
WWII firebombing of Dresden Germany???? Burned to the ground, decimated the civilian population. Destroyed nothing of of direct military nature.
  #106  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:00 AM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt191145 View Post
WWII firebombing of Dresden Germany???? Burned to the ground, decimated the civilian population. Destroyed nothing of of direct military nature.
Dresden (like most large cities of the time) had a large industrial base that was feeding the Nazi war machine. In addition it was a key rail hub and staging area for moving men and material.
A target doesn't need to contain troops, military installations, or arms to be a legitimate, strategic military target.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #107  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:04 AM
Colt191145 Colt191145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Dresden (like most large cities of the time) had a large industrial base that was feeding the Nazi war machine. In addition it was a key rail hub and staging area for moving men and material.
A target doesn't need to contain troops, military installations, or arms to be a legitimate, strategic military target.
Then the burning of Atlanta and march to Savannah could be viewed in a similar manner?
  #108  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:24 AM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt191145 View Post
Then the burning of Atlanta and march to Savannah could be viewed in a similar manner?
Not really- Atlanta was not a major industrial city feeding a war effort... one could make the case that the destruction of captured cities was not uncommon at the time, and therefore acceptable.

What was NOT acceptable, even by the standards of the time, and specifically prohibited by the Lieber Accords, what the absolute destruction of everything in their path, homes and farms, the theft of intrinsic value goods (at the expense of being able to carry food) the destruction of anything they couldn't carry, and the random rape and murder of the noncombatant population that they encountered.
The people and resources encountered on the march were not supplying or facilitating the war effort- the South lacked the infrastructure to move goods to supply its army. There was no industrial base.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #109  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:33 AM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,871
In Dresden, the city center was targeted, because thats where the main rail junction was, as well as command and control of the city and its essential services. The destruction of these assets prevented movement of troops and material, and slowed, in the short term, the ability to recover from the attack. Ironically, the industrial base, more than 100 factories, primarily in suburbs ringing the city, making everything from synthetic oils to optics, to artillery guns, and everything in between, were very selectively targeted. Only the most critical sites were destroyed. The rest was deliberately spared to facilitate the economic recovery and return to normalcy post war.
__________________
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain. ~ John Adams
  #110  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:11 AM
havanajim havanajim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,339
While some of us may feel out of place at times, we remain men of our own times. We have the luxury of second-guessing everything that has come before us, yet, on the whole, still manage to screw up events in our own era. Others down the road will second-guess us too, no doubt. The way some of you feel about Sherman and Lincoln is most likely the same way that the native tribes feel about Custer, Nelson, and others. However, nothing changes the fact that the men of that time thought that what they did is what was needed. We weren't there, and, frankly, it's because of those harsh decisions made at the time that we have the luxury of typing away in comfort, second-guessing them today.

It would be interesting to debate how things might be different if we took people with our modern-day sensitivities and transported them back to crucial moments in harsher historical times. I often joke that if we sent today's kinder, gentler, hapless, dependent people back to 1850 and had them attempt prairie crossings in wagon trains, there would hardly be anyone living west of Independence Missouri today - aside from the native tribes that is!
  #111  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:38 AM
USMM guy USMM guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 21,428
This kind of makes you wonder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by havanajim View Post
While some of us may feel out of place at times, we remain men of our own times. We have the luxury of second-guessing everything that has come before us, yet, on the whole, still manage to screw up events in our own era. Others down the road will second-guess us too, no doubt. The way some of you feel about Sherman and Lincoln is most likely the same way that the native tribes feel about Custer, Nelson, and others. However, nothing changes the fact that the men of that time thought that what they did is what was needed. We weren't there, and, frankly, it's because of those harsh decisions made at the time that we have the luxury of typing away in comfort, second-guessing them today.

It would be interesting to debate how things might be different if we took people with our modern-day sensitivities and transported them back to crucial moments in harsher historical times. I often joke that if we sent today's kinder, gentler, hapless, dependent people back to 1850 and had them attempt prairie crossings in wagon trains, there would hardly be anyone living west of Independence Missouri today - aside from the native tribes that is!
If this has anything to do with why all of these social justice warriors are so intent on rewriting the past. It makes you wonder what these people are setting up all of these young people for?

If you think about it, why would any honest government have an issue with an armed citizenry?
  #112  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:22 PM
Colt191145 Colt191145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by wccountryboy View Post
Not really- Atlanta was not a major industrial city feeding a war effort... one could make the case that the destruction of captured cities was not uncommon at the time, and therefore acceptable.

What was NOT acceptable, even by the standards of the time, and specifically prohibited by the Lieber Accords, what the absolute destruction of everything in their path, homes and farms, the theft of intrinsic value goods (at the expense of being able to carry food) the destruction of anything they couldn't carry, and the random rape and murder of the noncombatant population that they encountered.
The people and resources encountered on the march were not supplying or facilitating the war effort- the South lacked the infrastructure to move goods to supply its army. There was no industrial base.
Although times change governments do not learn from the past. Shermans army burned and destroyed everything in their path, the only thing good that came out of it all was an end to the war.

The Japanese inflicted much of the same on Korea and China. The hate between those nations is still very strong today because of these complete disregard for human life.

The Germans also did the same to the Russians and got the same or even worse in return.

The middle east has a long and current history of this type of warfare. Look at Syria right now.

If we all stop and look at history it does repeat itself in many ways both good and bad.

Every American man and woman should take a serious look at history and current world events. Then decide if they want to support ANY type of gun control in our Republic.
  #113  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:44 PM
combat auto's Avatar
combat auto combat auto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,672
Armies have been killing civilians since the beginning of time...It comes in and out of the definition of "acceptable" warfare depending on time in history and space (place). I believe, I am not 100% positive, some hundreds of years before and going into the Civil war it generally wasn't practiced in Europe or America by Christians against Christians (albeit they may be exceptions). But the practice (of attacking civilian populations) in the CW was another reason (I listed some others way above somewhere) that war was considered the first modern day war because it foreshadowed a lot of the new (and resurrected-old) horrors which war brings and which would be manifested on steroids in the 20th Century.

Of course today, killing civilians is again not accepted practice by most nations these day. Which is a good thing.

That said, war is full of horror an evil. The quintessential example of this is WW2 when 2 A-bombs were dropped on civilians. No decent human bean would feel good about this. But considering the alternative, 500,000 to 1,000,000 American's dying in an invasion, it was justified as the lesser of 2 evils.

One would have to do a similar "count" to come to any even partially objective, non-biased, fair conclusion. If Sherman hadn't bombed civilian populations, etc, how many more soldiers on both sides would have died vs the civilians he killed.

I don't know the answer, so whatever you guys come up, I'll accept, FWIW.
__________________
Member: NRA, GOA, ANJRPC, VCDL.
"To be born free is an accident. To live free is a responsibility. To die free is an obligation."-Gen. Halley.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." –Ulysses
Ekeibolon - Jeff Cooper

Last edited by combat auto; 02-14-2020 at 12:47 PM.
  #114  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:34 PM
tipoc tipoc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Redwood City, Calif.
Posts: 4,056
Two small sidepoints:

The Constitution of the CSA rewrote the second amendment.

The USA version reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The CSA version reads: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Only 2 commas different. Both God and the Devil are in the details.

There was a "small" matter that came up during the CW. Napoleon the III of France, nephew of the Great Napoleon, pulled together a coalition of France, England and Spain to invade Mexico. At that time the French army was still considered the finest in the world.

https://history.state.gov/milestones...h-intervention

Mexico had elected Benito Juarez as President and a rebellion against him had erupted that lasted several years and ended with Juarez still in power. The country was in debt. Napoleon the III took the US civil war as an opportunity to expand their power in the Americas. England and Spain saw the same and England an opportunity to aid the CSA. (It was the rapid, massive growth of the British textile industry that had fueled the the expansion of slavery in the South and upon whom the slaveocracy was dependent).

The three armies landed in Vera Cruz but England and Spain soon figured out they had been suckered in. They left and the French army set out to march into Mexico City.

Napoleon had a plan. He offered a deal to the CSA which they agreed to. France would bypass the Union naval blockade to deliver cannon, arms and ammunition, by land to the CSA in exchange for cotton. Cotton to fuel the growth of the French textile industry at the expense of England which dominated that industry in Europe and increasingly internationally. A permanent deal could be had for cheap Southern cotton. That was a part of his plans. The other was of course to control Mexico and extend French power in the America's. The destruction of the Union would aid in this.

The CSA jettisoned the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. A revolutionary Doctrine that pledged the U.S. to keeping the old colonial powers of Europe out of the America's.

Napoleon's army set out for Mexico City in 1862 with 8,000 troops. They were met in the town of Puebla on May 5th 1862 by a hastily thrown together rag tag Mexican force of 4,000. The French were delivered a humiliating defeat. (So Cinco de Mayo! Lift a bottle of Tecate or Dos Equis and toast Benito Juarez, the Little Giant Zapotec!)

The French were successful a year later when a force of 30,000 fought their way to Mexico City. But the plans to directly aid the Confederacy were deterred by the active fight the forces of Benito Juarez put up.

While the U.S. did not directly oppose, for diplomatic reasons, the French attack, nor the British. They did denounce the effort. Grant and Phil Sheridan smuggled arms into Juarez's forces during the war.

Had Mexico fallen to the French, England and France would have had an open road to support the Confederacy and a road back into colonial control of the Americas.

Last edited by tipoc; 02-14-2020 at 04:51 PM.
  #115  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:36 PM
HarryO45 HarryO45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Home of the Infantry
Posts: 4,548
My family recognizes Robert E. Lee's birthday
  #116  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:35 PM
UncleEd UncleEd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,255
Tipoc,

An excellent Big Picture review of that time period.

No doubt existed in Europe that if the CSA was
successful, the door would reopen for the
colonial powers to reassert themselves in what
was becoming a really unified United States from
the Atlantic to the Pacific.

An aspect of this international Big Picture was the
visit of Russian fleets to the U.S. which were
welcomed by the Lincoln administration. This
Russian ploy opened the prospect that Russia
might stab the French and British in the back
if they got embroiled in the U.S. The fleets
in 1863 patrolled the East Coast and West
Coast waters.

Last edited by UncleEd; 02-14-2020 at 05:54 PM.
  #117  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:28 PM
Bill Cee Bill Cee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Delaware
Posts: 134
Sherman

He said, “The only good Indians I saw were dead Indians.” That’s nothing of which to be proud.
  #118  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:06 PM
Plaidad Plaidad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 940
Bill Cee, I believe that quote is actually from General Phil Sheridan, not Sherman.
  #119  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:03 AM
glider glider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,879
Custer was certainly no hero and he got his rank thru marriage. He was pretty much a screw up, at West Point and in the military. I think what needs to be remembered about the Civil War is that these war crimes we have been discussing were committed against citizens of the US by there own government. We have eliminated some dictators in the last 15 years that we all agree were terrible to there own people but they weren't all that much worse than what our government did to its citizens during the Civil War. People that Lincoln didn't agree with were thrown in prison and never charged with anything, sometimes for several years. Complete farms were seized and never returned to there rightful owners . Banks were seized. All of this plus what Sherman did. If you were union you were able to do anything you wanted without repercussions. Never forget, it was the government and the military that did this. The real reason for the Civil War was incompetence in our government !
  #120  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:55 AM
HT77 HT77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryO45 View Post
My family recognizes Robert E. Lee's birthday
Sherman would be unfit to lick his boots.
  #121  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:39 AM
AZ Desertrat AZ Desertrat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,400
Being a Civil War buff, and have been since I was a kid...I always thought of Shermans "total war" attitude was a little harsh. Yes, I know, as do all the veterans on here that War is Hell and we all had to do what we did to achieve victory and be here to tell about it.
The March to the Sea, and destroying all the agriculture, railroads, etc in the South seems criminal to me. These were fellow Americans and civilians he was wiping out. I don't like the guy at all. Could also be that I am related to Robert E Lee.
__________________
USCG Veteran
Semper Paratus
NRA Benefactor Member
Philippians 4:13
  #122  
Old 02-15-2020, 07:36 PM
Boge Boge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Border
Posts: 3,084
The South lost. The end. No amount of resentment can change historical fact. Move on and get over it.
__________________
"She had a Mount Rushmore t-shirt on, and those guys never looked so good. Especially Jefferson and Lincoln. Kind of bloated but happy."

Guy Noir, private eye.
  #123  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:08 PM
shooter59 shooter59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rocky mountain area
Posts: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Desertrat View Post
Being a Civil War buff, and have been since I was a kid...I always thought of Shermans "total war" attitude was a little harsh. Yes, I know, as do all the veterans on here that War is Hell and we all had to do what we did to achieve victory and be here to tell about it.
The March to the Sea, and destroying all the agriculture, railroads, etc in the South seems criminal to me. These were fellow Americans and civilians he was wiping out. I don't like the guy at all. Could also be that I am related to Robert E Lee.
Then you know about, and are not far from the westernmost fight of the civil war? Pretty neat sidebar, huh?
  #124  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:25 PM
USMM guy USMM guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 21,428
How about the Northernmost engagement of the civil War?

I am guessing that Boge might know. Well for all those in suspense. In the closing days of the war. Twelve confederate soldiers road into St. Albans Vermont. Shortly after their arrival they proceeded to liberate four banks to the tune of 200,000 $.

They were last seen headed for the Canadian border. Never to be seen or heard from again.
  #125  
Old 02-16-2020, 05:37 AM
UncleEd UncleEd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMM guy View Post
I am guessing that Boge might know. Well for all those in suspense. In the closing days of the war. Twelve confederate soldiers road into St. Albans Vermont. Shortly after their arrival they proceeded to liberate four banks to the tune of 200,000 $.

They were last seen headed for the Canadian border. Never to be seen or heard from again.
Eh, that's not quite accurate but then the raiders did get back into
Canada.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved