The Greatest General of The Civil War....

[williamlayton]

Hooker
How do you propose that the South was taxed illegaly much less singled out for a spefic tax aimed directly at them?
Blessings

[Swampman]

Because he could.

[williamlayton]

Savannah posed no threat, they had an infastructure that the Union could use. It was a captured and surrendered town and the port was useful to the Union.
Marietta had no industry to support the South.
Sherman was into destroying the ability of the South to continue the war.
NOW, South Carolina was a different story and Sherman wanted to make South Carolina pay.
He left North Carolina alone for the most part.
Blessings
 

[jackruff]

He and his troops learned how to burn and destroy in Jackson and Meridian.

[williamlayton]

Meridian was left alone.
Those that attacked him were killed---the North was appaled at what happned.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

Anyway, why did Sherman the Destroyer leave Savanah and Marietta alone...?

..TM7
.

bribe for one , and one he or someone he knew had family living there  if i remember correctly.

[DickelDawg]

William Tecumseh Sherman was a dastardly fellow of the worst kind. He took advantage of non-combatants and pillaged his way across the South. May his soul rest in HELL!

[williamlayton]

He fought war the way it is. I doubt you can call his behavior dastardly and praise the war we won in WWII.

Merridian had nothing that would help the war effortfor the South--as did Atlanta.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

He fought war the way it is. I doubt you can call his behavior dastardly and praise the war we won in WWII.

Merridian had nothing that would help the war effortfor the South--as did Atlanta.
Blessings

Yep...rape, including pubescent girls, outright murder of infants, cripples, children, and the elderly.  You must be so proud of him.  I guess the end justifies the means. 

[mcwoodduck]

He fought war the way it is. I doubt you can call his behavior dastardly and praise the war we won in WWII.

Merridian had nothing that would help the war effortfor the South--as did Atlanta.
Blessings

Yep...rape, including pubescent girls, outright murder of infants, cripples, children, and the elderly.  You must be so proud of him.  I guess the end justifies the means.

And the union troops marching stopped the Rebels from doing that to their own people.
no one tells jokes about a Guy from NYC introducing his Mother, Sister and Wife a there is only one woman standing there.  Stereo types come from some place.  If you want to go to the gutter and accuse all kinds of bad things  expect some back. things  were done on both sides, in the indian wars, and if you read the bible the Isrealites killed everyone they invaded from the time they left Egypt, infants included.
Are there and were there bad behaviors on both side, yep did some officers loose control of their men, on Both sides, Yep was it wrong, yep!  But again notice I am saying both sides.  Were there alligations of rape by young women who not having had young men around were perswaded by Union troops and became in the family way- sure,  - The blue belly raped me.  Not I was .... it was the Victorian era after all.

[SHOOTALL]

In Bible days when you went to war you made sure the ones you made war on would be a long time comming before they could make war on you once more. This included destorying the infastructure that supported the war effort from food , babies and war goods. They realized that support from home had to be stopped. Today we fight a PC war or police action . WE DOOM OURSELVES TO FIGHT THE SAME WAR OVER AND OVER . That said I live in and was born in the South . I love the South but one thing is sure when the war ended the South's ablity to wage war was gone for a long time. One might say the end did justify the means in a Biblical sense.
 War is not a game , we don't sent in a team on a field . Its one nation aginst another or one group aginst another . The field is the lands where people live and work.

[williamlayton]

TM
Since you have already done the research, why don't you fill in the details.
Savannah sent out a peace delagation and offered the city without defense if Sherman would take it peacfully. Then after the agreement was accepted the Southern garrison slipped out of Savannah in the dead of night, into South Carolina.
Savannah was treated with respect---for the most part---by Sherman.
There are accounts of Union troops overstepping the agreement but they were delt with by Sherman.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

"We had to rape children to save the Union."  That is what some of you are saying.  Sickening.
But I guess good to know that some of you will do that if needed. 

[williamlayton]

Joe
It was not policy that children were to be raped---c'mon.
Raiders did the same thing.
I will bet that Southern boys raped black slaves as a part of rite of passage and then laughed and bragged about it.
Just for the record--those who did so were normally brought to justice and hanged.
Your old wives tales are not reality.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Joe
It was not policy that children were to be raped---c'mon.
Raiders did the same thing.
I will bet that Southern boys raped black slaves as a part of rite of passage and then laughed and bragged about it.
Just for the record--those who did so were normally brought to justice and hanged.
Your old wives tales are not reality.
Blessings

For the record - most were not "brought to justice and hanged."  Most got off free and clear. 
For the record - many men were murdered when they tried to prevent federals from raping their mothers, wives, and daughters. 

And, for the record - your attempt to justify and support the rape of children is sickening. 

[Ethan]

I know this is going to ruffle some feathers but for the North Shermen and for the South it has to be Robert E. Lee

[mcwoodduck]

Joe
It was not policy that children were to be raped---c'mon.
Raiders did the same thing.
I will bet that Southern boys raped black slaves as a part of rite of passage and then laughed and bragged about it.
Just for the record--those who did so were normally brought to justice and hanged.
Your old wives tales are not reality.
Blessings

For the record - most were not "brought to justice and hanged."  Most got off free and clear. 
For the record - many men were murdered when they tried to prevent federals from raping their mothers, wives, and daughters. 

And, for the record - your attempt to justify and support the rape of children is sickening.

William,
I don't think there is any way you or I can convince Subjoe that history is history, that any crimes were few and far between, were not a matter of policy and were commited on both sides.  While I am not going to say the Union troops were saints I will not also say all were sinners.  The same with the Confederate troops.  And any ofthe men that committed any crimes that were not punnished died over 100 years ago.  It is like trying to explain to a Chevy guy why the Ford is better.  No matter what you say you are wrong and vise verse.  Something must have happened in his family where 146 years or more later he still holds a grudge. 

[subdjoe]

Ah, so because the rapists died over 100 years ago, then rape of children is OK.

Dig into the records of letters that federal soldiers wrote, and the diaries they kept. You will find dozens of accounts of federal soldiers witnessing other federal soldiers committing murder and rape, including rape of children.  Figure that with so few total existing records letters and diaries, those dozens of accounts translate to many hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents.

But, hey!  raping children is just fine if it 'preserves the Union.' Right?  After all, in the total war you advocate, nothing is out of bounds. 

[williamlayton]

Joe
No one has denied or tried to claim that it was OK.
How am I a sicky? I doubt you can answer that.
Then, more to the point, are you claiming all within the South were rightous?
Who is the real hypocrit?
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

 If one goes back and reads about battles in Bible times and there after the spoils of war included women and child rape if I remember history. It has gone on since The German military was encouraged to get as many women pregrant in occupied lands as possible . In Africa today it is still praticed . In many cases its not allowed by leadership yet still done.
 Is it right ? depends on who you are and what you are. When you consider the savage conditions of the war of northern aggression and the lack of communication or leadership on the fringe many bad things took place on both sides. If one looks deep enough they will see that Southerners raped and killed each other in some cases during the war . It was a misuse of power for sure but it happened .
Do I think it was right ? I was raised in a time when it is wrong so no I don't think it was right .

[us920669]

It is my understanding that Lee controlled his men pretty well in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  Now, if they had gotten to Boston, who knows what might have happened.

Somewhere else on the forum someone recommended a movie called Tae Guk Gi, a Korean War movie made by Koreans.  A lot of people didn't like it, since it showed soldiers from both sides doing things that would lead to an investigation today, but that's the whole point.

[mcwoodduck]

Ah, so because the rapists died over 100 years ago, then rape of children is OK.

Dig into the records of letters that federal soldiers wrote, and the diaries they kept. You will find dozens of accounts of federal soldiers witnessing other federal soldiers committing murder and rape, including rape of children.  Figure that with so few total existing records letters and diaries, those dozens of accounts translate to many hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents.

But, hey!  raping children is just fine if it 'preserves the Union.' Right?  After all, in the total war you advocate, nothing is out of bounds.

Not saying it was right, saying it happened, it was wrong and since it happened over 100 years ago there is noting we can do about punnishing the violators.  Also painting the Union army with a wide brush of all were rapists or it was policy too is wrong.  War will bring out the worst in some people and if you were willing to rape before the war you most definatly would during the war if you thoought you could get away with it.
I think you are sick to continue to bring up child rape.  And again let's look at stereo types. Most southern states allow 16 year olds to get married, while most Northern states make people wait till they ate at least voting age.  So who has the policy of child rape?, the ones that allow 16 year olds to get married or the ones that only allow consenting adults to marry.  Keep making your case history and current laws are against your argument.

[wncchester]

"Major General William Tecumseh Sherman - he brought the concept of total war to the south."

Well, considering that our magnificant uncle Billy did his thing after Lookout Mountain and Atlanta when the greatly outnumbered Southern forces had been depleted so his road through Georgia and the Carolines was defended by scattered handsfull of old men and boys.  It's hardly amazing that his army found it easy to crush the scattered old people, women and children over the path of his brave 'historic march', in which he invented the policy of 'war is hell' on civilians, actions that would outrage American citizens today and our military would punish as "war crimes."  While little of what Billy did speeded the end of confilct he single handedly embittered much of the South for a very long time and he still would, if our "history" books hadn't been PC edited for propoganda effect.   

While it's likely true that most of the northern forces didn't themselves commit pillage, murder and rape, it is well known that the 'good boys' did nothing to stop the 'bad boys' - what good would it have done when the crimes were condoned by the officers, including the commanding officer.  So, yeah, Billy was a 'great' Northern general... if that means anything.   Fact is, if uncle Billy was in command of the same actions in Iraq today, he and a large part of his valiant yankee army would be in jail for many years, if not hung.

[billy_56081]

Yep winchester you're right and that is why we will lose in Irag just like the south did.

[subdjoe]

Joe
No one has denied or tried to claim that it was OK.
How am I a sicky? I doubt you can answer that.
Then, more to the point, are you claiming all within the South were rightous?
Who is the real hypocrit?
Blessings

No, you and others keep saying that the federals needed to wage total war, and you are OK with anything they did.  Sorry.  You can't have it both ways. 

[subdjoe]

Again, you and others have supported, admired, and advocated the concept of total war and doing all that can be done to demoralize the enemy.  As I said above, you can't have it both ways. 

Why am I sick to bring it up? Because it make you uncomfortable because you give support to those who committed it in their dedication to Lincolns total war?  It is a part of the total war you say was necessary to preserve the Union.  Sorry if you have trouble living with it.

Ah, so because the rapists died over 100 years ago, then rape of children is OK.

Dig into the records of letters that federal soldiers wrote, and the diaries they kept. You will find dozens of accounts of federal soldiers witnessing other federal soldiers committing murder and rape, including rape of children.  Figure that with so few total existing records letters and diaries, those dozens of accounts translate to many hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents.

But, hey!  raping children is just fine if it 'preserves the Union.' Right?  After all, in the total war you advocate, nothing is out of bounds.

Not saying it was right, saying it happened, it was wrong and since it happened over 100 years ago there is noting we can do about punnishing the violators.  Also painting the Union army with a wide brush of all were rapists or it was policy too is wrong.  War will bring out the worst in some people and if you were willing to rape before the war you most definatly would during the war if you thoought you could get away with it.
I think you are sick to continue to bring up child rape.  And again let's look at stereo types. Most southern states allow 16 year olds to get married, while most Northern states make people wait till they ate at least voting age.  So who has the policy of child rape?, the ones that allow 16 year olds to get married or the ones that only allow consenting adults to marry.  Keep making your case history and current laws are against your argument.

[williamlayton]

Joe
Point out one time I said it was OK. It happened. Many were executed for these acts---not all.
Some of the acts never happened--they were tales told to bring shame.
Sherman, before he started the mach, when he was seeking permission, argued that the South was a hollow shell and the doing would not be a problem.
He also argued it would bring closer a hasty end to the war.
Never did Sherman think that his march would be a battle. It did hasten Southern attitudes to change towards an aura of defeat.
Blessings

[mcwoodduck]

Again, you and others have supported, admired, and advocated the concept of total war and doing all that can be done to demoralize the enemy.  As I said above, you can't have it both ways. 

Why am I sick to bring it up? Because it make you uncomfortable because you give support to those who committed it in their dedication to Lincolns total war?  It is a part of the total war you say was necessary to preserve the Union.  Sorry if you have trouble living with it.

Ah, so because the rapists died over 100 years ago, then rape of children is OK.

Dig into the records of letters that federal soldiers wrote, and the diaries they kept. You will find dozens of accounts of federal soldiers witnessing other federal soldiers committing murder and rape, including rape of children.  Figure that with so few total existing records letters and diaries, those dozens of accounts translate to many hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents.

But, hey!  raping children is just fine if it 'preserves the Union.' Right?  After all, in the total war you advocate, nothing is out of bounds.

Not saying it was right, saying it happened, it was wrong and since it happened over 100 years ago there is noting we can do about punnishing the violators.  Also painting the Union army with a wide brush of all were rapists or it was policy too is wrong.  War will bring out the worst in some people and if you were willing to rape before the war you most definatly would during the war if you thoought you could get away with it.
I think you are sick to continue to bring up child rape.  And again let's look at stereo types. Most southern states allow 16 year olds to get married, while most Northern states make people wait till they ate at least voting age.  So who has the policy of child rape?, the ones that allow 16 year olds to get married or the ones that only allow consenting adults to marry.  Keep making your case history and current laws are against your argument.

The term Total war is the total war effort, food, clothes, supplies, logistics, anything that helps keep a soldier in the field.
Rape is a sexual assault of another person and that was never in the plan of the Union army.  Again I am not saying it did not happen, I am sure it did, same as I am sure Southern soldiers too commited rape while in the field.
Or are you using Rape like the Chineese do in terms of how the Japaneese army assaulted NanKing and stole everything that was not nailed down. 
But again, no matter what I say, no matter what argument of isolated insodences and no matter how much I say it was wrong, you are just going to keep shouting Rape, and child rape, not an argument just a reaction word.  Much like how the Liberals all yell " it's for the Children" with everyone of their arguments from tax increases to gas prices to no drilling.  A covers all argument. 

[subdjoe]

The term Total war is the total war effort, food, clothes, supplies, logistics, anything that helps keep a soldier in the field.
Rape is a sexual assault of another person and that was never in the plan of the Union army.  Again I am not saying it did not happen, I am sure it did, same as I am sure Southern soldiers too commited rape while in the field.
Or are you using Rape like the Chineese do in terms of how the Japaneese army assaulted NanKing and stole everything that was not nailed down. 
But again, no matter what I say, no matter what argument of isolated insodences and no matter how much I say it was wrong, you are just going to keep shouting Rape, and child rape, not an argument just a reaction word.  Much like how the Liberals all yell " it's for the Children" with everyone of their arguments from tax increases to gas prices to no drilling.  A covers all argument.

Oh...so now "total war" and "doing everything you can to demoralize the enemy" has qualifiers on it!  I see.   What else doesn't get covered?  Killing cripples?  Murdering infants?  Sorry, you are still trying to explain it away and justify it. 

I wasn't thinking of the Rape of Nanking, but that is a good comparison.  Taking or destroying anything and everything, wanton murder of civilians, and actual physical sexual rape of huge numbers of women and girls.   Very good comparison for the level of brutality that Lincoln sanctioned. 

[SHOOTALL]

did they do anything they didn't do later in the indian wars ?