Sherman quote

[wncchester]

ironfoot - Where did you get your information from?

I'm 67.  Been a "student" of history since learning to read.  I have gotten fragments of history from many sources in many places but never kept a bibliography, wish I had.   Much came from Carl Sandburg, Bruce Catton and some old encyclopedias.  Some from visits to historical sites and the books they often sell.  A little from PBS and History Channel TV programs.  Not much real background or expansion on the full story came from normal "history" texts. 

I wish some history doctoral candidate would do his thesis on the larger story and tell it all but guess that won't happen.  It would be politically incorrect and universities aren't into that.

[steelshooter68]

wncchester,
        If a doctor of history were to fully expand and expound on these subjects,he or she would immediatelyy and roundly shouted down and probly be put in the nut house.He or she would definately be labeled a racist and never get published again.The information is there to be found, but as long as its hard to find 90 percent of the public will never see it. Unless they get the info in a halftime show, or Jeff Gordon says it on national TV,most people will never know any more than they were taught in school.I simply said that to make a point,I like a good race as much as anyone,so we understand I am not trying to offend anyone.
      I  questioned what I learned in school,but simply had to learn to hang my head and take my medicine.Medicine? That was doled out to me by "some" of my teachers and many of my class mates. I went to school in northern VA,and learned at an early age to keep my mouth shut or learn to talk without a southern accent,so I opted for keeping my mouth shut. A few of the boys in high school got to find out what Tarheel means,when it was taken farther than name calling.
       The internet can be a great thing.It has given us a great capacity to find the things we are looking for from gun barrels to socks to the odd book out of print for 40 years. But then I see the words of Paul to Timothy about the last days,Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
        If you have never been to the museum of the Confederacy in Richmond I encourage you to do so,I spent an entire day there last year,  as I made one last pass by the 3Rrd National that was draped over President Davis's coffin,I wept.

[ironfoot]

ironfoot - Where did you get your information from?

I'm 67.  Been a "student" of history since learning to read.  I have gotten fragments of history from many sources in many places but never kept a bibliography, wish I had.   Much came from Carl Sandburg, Bruce Catton and some old encyclopedias.  Some from visits to historical sites and the books they often sell.  A little from PBS and History Channel TV programs.  Not much real background or expansion on the full story came from normal "history" texts. 

I wish some history doctoral candidate would do his thesis on the larger story and tell it all but guess that won't happen.  It would be politically incorrect and universities aren't into that.

I was asking about your interpretation of the severing of the pontoon bridge, and its effect on the freed slaves that had been following Sherman's army. I got my information from the History Channel, as best as I can remember that part of the episode. Where did you get your information about how the severing of the pontoon bridge effected those freed slaves?

[ironfoot]

wncchester,
        If a doctor of history were to fully expand and expound on these subjects,he or she would immediatelyy and roundly shouted down and probly be put in the nut house.He or she would definately be labeled a racist and never get published again.The information is there to be found, but as long as its hard to find 90 percent of the public will never see it.

Bunk!

It is ironic that you complain about censorship.
Here is what you said about me in the Christian Brothers thread:

"I have read many of your replies and quite frankly I can't believe you haven't been banned on many occasions.I am a member of several other forums and have never met your equal,congrats."

Apparently there is money to be made in voicing the Confederate apologist viewpoint.
Here is part of your quote from the Christian Brothers thread:

"Now if you would be so kind as to search out a library that can provide you with "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas Dilorenzo, and "The South Was Right" by James Ronald Kennedy these books may shed a little more light on the subject of the War of Southern Independence."

Thousands of books paint a positive portrait of Lincoln, but you are hawking two that trash him, and nobody has banned the books or you from promoting them.

[wncchester]

Iron - "I was asking about your interpretation of the severing of the pontoon bridge, and its effect on the freed slaves that had been following Sherman's army. I got my information from the History Channel, as best as I can remember that part of the episode. Where did you get your information about how the severing of the pontoon bridge effected those freed slaves?"


"Where did (I) get that info?"  Well, the core of it was included in that H.C. program.  Did you not notice that part?

[steelshooter68]

         Ok Ironfoot, now you are just skinning your ignorance.How could you possibly know what the books contain? I have read a great deal on Lincoln.It was required reading in school.Karl Marx was required reading in the United Soviet Socialist Republic.When you get a grasp of the big picture,and look beyond what makes you feel nice and cozy and safe.You might find out where we are headed.But I will bet a dollar to a donut you aren't worried about that.
         

[ironfoot]

Iron - "I was asking about your interpretation of the severing of the pontoon bridge, and its effect on the freed slaves that had been following Sherman's army. I got my information from the History Channel, as best as I can remember that part of the episode. Where did you get your information about how the severing of the pontoon bridge effected those freed slaves?"


"Where did (I) get that info?"  Well, the core of it was included in that H.C. program.  Did you not notice that part?

Its funny how two people can see the same thing, and interpret it so differently.
I have tried to access the pontoon bridge incident over the internet, and found references to it, but have not yet found a detailed account on the freed slaves following Sherman's army. I was hoping you could provide a reference so I could read more about it.

Why do you think that some of the slaves in the front of the army would risk drowning in order to meet up with slaves in the back of the army? Wasn't it to try to protect them from the Confederates following them? That was my interpretation. They weren't swimming away because they were afraid of Sherman. Sherman was kind to them. But Sherman's army couldn't be slowed down by those freed slave families if Sherman's army wanted to survive and win.

[ironfoot]

         Ok Ironfoot, now you are just skinning your ignorance.How could you possibly know what the books contain?
         

I have read excerpts from both of them.
They have been recommended on this site by others of your ilk in the past.
If I recommend two books on the civil war, will you agree to read them?

[ironfoot]

wncchester,
      I  questioned what I learned in school,but simply had to learn to hang my head and take my medicine.Medicine? That was doled out to me by "some" of my teachers and many of my class mates. I went to school in northern VA,and learned at an early age to keep my mouth shut or learn to talk without a southern accent,so I opted for keeping my mouth shut. A few of the boys in high school got to find out what Tarheel means,when it was taken farther than name calling.

Sorry to hear you had a difficult time with school classmates. Kids can be cruel. It isn't fun to be discriminated against. I think all of us have experienced that to some degree or another.

[wncchester]

Iron, FACTS are not subject to a vote.  Interpretation tho  is a personal thing, some" interpreters" simply ignore the facts.  Now, taking your points in turn:

"Why do you think that some of the slaves in the front of the army would risk drowning in order to meet up with slaves in the back of the army?"

I don't think it is true the slaves were "in front of the army".  As told on the HC program, the black men were close on the heels of the army.  Apparently they wanted to be handy for any work that might earn a meal for themselves and their trailing families. My interprestation.

"Wasn't it to try to protect them from the Confederates following them?" 

Not sure what "them" you mean here; protect the slaves or the army ??  But for sure, no Confederate forces were following or ahead of Sherman, that's why their progress was largely unimpeded.  All that was in Sherman's path to defend their homes were old men and little boys, as the program also mentioned.

"That was my interpretation." 

OK, so that was your interpretation.  Wrong, but it's yours.

"They weren't swimming away because they were afraid of Sherman."

True enough.  As I said, they were swimming to rejoin their families on the other (south) bank.
They obviously had no deadly fear of any pursuers on the south bank tho.

"Sherman was kind to them."

Yeah.   All the "kind" army wanted was to keep the adult working men while  abandoning their families, so as not to have to feed them.  The  well known kindness of Sherman puts tears of gratitude in my eyes.  And to those black men's eyes too I would guess.  But that is only my interpretation, I have no text to reference so I may be wrong.

You really should pay more attention to historical programs, all this info was there.  Of course the script didn't make a big issue of much of the brutality of Sherman's march but they did make it clear, even if only briefly.

[steelshooter68]

     I really need to be loading bullets but I have to give a quick reply.Name some books for me to read.Shall I read them in "excerpts",or shall I read the whole thing Ironfoot? I have read many books,watched many movies,andscoured the internet. The best information I have ever seen wasn't in a book,or on TV or on the internet,it was behind glass in Richmond Virginia.It was not a mock up,it was original documents,letters of corresponence,journals etc.written by those who were there.I also went to the Smithsonian on my trip,the Civil War display?,now that was a mock up,nothing real,just a doctor of history art project.
      "Thousands of books on Lincoln" your words.Wow he was the most amazing man who ever lived.Thousands implies by definition at least 2000.That means 13.79 books per year,in 145 years,have been written about the man.I'd like to prove you wrong but I have more constructive things to do tonight.I think it goes against common sense to say 2000 books were written on LIncoln.
         I have never implied you be censored,but if you must attack someone personally then you should sit in the penalty box.I think you love a good scrap no matter the subject,but are a little short on facts or real honest history.
   

[ironfoot]

Yes there are thousands of books about Lincoln.
One of the reviewers mentions that fact in reviewing one of the more recent Lincoln biographies.
You can read about it here:

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=068482535X


Here is a link to some of the other new Lincoln books.


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/books/newbook.htm

Most of the books about Lincoln portray him as a great man.
Why should I read the two you like, who cherry pick facts to trash him?
Are you a fan of Michael Moore movies too?

[creekbear]

Nabob, we of southern decent call it the "war of northern aggression" because  it was NOT a Civil War.A civil War is a war inside a nation. The southern states had legally seceeded as per the laws of the time allowed the disoloution of the union .

Jamesrus

[jamesrus]

Akk Creekbear needs to learn to log out when he uses my computer. The last post was from Jamesrus.


If you really want to find out what really happened, it is in the library of congress. There are countless tales from officers in the Union Armies about the depredations their own army was incurring against the southern peoples, both black and white.

In Sherman's march to the sea, many women both black and white were raped by northern soldiers. A northern Colonel was court-martialed for allowing his men to rape and pillage a town. He was sentenced to a discharge and prison. Then Lincoln re-commisioned his with a promotion and sent him back into action.

There were many interviews with ex slaves in which many...not all...said life was better for them before the war.

The reason the black men were with Sherman on his march to the sea was because Sherman was using them for the menial camp chores. They did this to help feed their families who were following the army.

If the Union cared so much about the ex-slaves, why did many of the northern states pass laws making it illegal for negros to move into their states after the war?

There were depredations on both sides in this war. But i believe it all falls back to the fact that The North invaded a newly Sovoreign Nation without provocation in a purely monetary preservation endeavor.  Without the south, the Norths agricultural output was cut by 60 percent. Thus the loss of already heavily overtaxed agricultural output.

Jamesrus

[wncchester]

Jamesrus, Exactly so.  So why do so few know of all that? 

Wellll, it's PC to call it a "civil" war from the victors side because it helps justify what the North did. 

Some "historians" love to speak of the (very few) incidents of "brother against brother, cousin against cousin" as if it was massive but I suspect there were, as a percentage of the total combatants, more of those fraternal clashes involved across WWII than in our War Between the States.

It's also not PC to speak of what the Union forces did to Southern civilians, almost as a matter of course, as opposed to what the Southern forces did to Northern civilians and were held accountable for in a serious way, during and for several years following the war. 

It is also PC to speak of the horrors of Andersonville even though the commander, and the South in general, had little food or aid to give those prisoners.  Fact is, there was enough food put in there to take much better care of those helpless men but a large gang of thugs took it from the weaker men.  Those (northern) thugs are responsible for the deaths of many of the prisoners but that's rarely mentioned.

It is not PC to mention that Southern prisoners were abused and starved in Northern prisons even though those were calculated horrors intended to cause the deaths of the prisoners in their tender care.

You put the plight of blacks under Union control, in both the North and South, exactly right.

[jamesrus]

The plight of the Union soldiers in the prison camps can be put directly on the back of Lincoln. Up unto a certain point the exchange of prisoners was a regular event. Lincoln put a stop to this common practice, thus overtaxing the food supplies for these prisons in both north and south. Prisoners starved because Lincoln wouldn't let exchanges be made. It was hard enough for the south to feed its army, much less the thousands of prisoners left to rot by their commander in chief.

There was a very publicised case of a camp warden being executed after the end of the war, on the word of one person who said he regularly beat and tortured his prisoners.  There were literally hundreds of ex prisoners willing to testify that this was not true, but these men were supressed by the union army and not let to testify. They even told stories about the warden cutting the guards rations by 1/3 to distribute among the prisoners.  Townspeople from a nearby town even brought any extra fod that could be found to help feed these men.

Jamesrus

[wncchester]

"There was a very publicised case of a camp warden being executed after the end of the war, on the word of one person who said he regularly beat and tortured his prisoners."

Yeah, that was Capt. Wertz at Andersonville, Georgia.  Been there, it is a sad place.  But, actually, there were several prosecution "witnesses" who lied to the court, some of whom were never even there, and it seems the court knew that at the time.   After the rigged show trial based on trumped-up evidence and no real defense, over-seen by a bunch of blue belly officers, Wertz was condemned and hung for political reasons. 

Of course few news stories told of the same and worse treatment experienced by Southern prisoners held in places where food, warm clothing, shelter and medicines were readily available but deliberately withheld.

Sherman said, "...war is hell", then he proceeded to make it so for helpless non-combatants.  A  real hero he was.  Not.  Nor were the northern prison camp commanders and "doctors".

[williamlayton]

I read the warning and feel obliged too respond too this topic.
Not all from the South see things exactly as Southern propaganda presents it.
Shermans act are not all Shermans acts just as not all of patton's act were all of Patton's acts. Sherman was the leader but not all acted on his conditions.
War IS hell and none in the Frey or the line of the Frey are immune too mistreatment or murder or death.
Some, in Shermans command, should have been dealt with more appropriately than they were---so goes it for the southern boys.
These opinions are a bit one-sided and lacking in the understanding of the nature of war. Maybe these one-sided thoughts are the results of propaganda/excuses/hatred---maybe, because these southern boys lost a war they began.
It is a fact that in TEXAS, by GOD some towns and counties never seceded and even had created Union pro militia.
About the only support for this whole ill-considered war was in the Eastern part of Texas---then, again, only some. A great Tennessean, Sam Houston, resigned as Governor is disgust.
You can argue, jump up and down, quote much one-sided opinion---but---based on one Texan, ME, after much study and soul searching I find it too be much ado about poorly designed and one-sided and prejudiced study behaviors.
That said---that is your right, and, your right too be wrong as long as you wish.
 
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I read the warning and feel obliged too respond too this topic.
Not all from the South see things exactly as Southern propaganda presents it.
Shermans act are not all Shermans acts just as not all of patton's act were all of Patton's acts. Sherman was the leader but not all acted on his conditions.
War IS hell and none in the Frey or the line of the Frey are immune too mistreatment or murder or death.
Some, in Shermans command, should have been dealt with more appropriately than they were---so goes it for the southern boys.
These opinions are a bit one-sided and lacking in the understanding of the nature of war. Maybe these one-sided thoughts are the results of propaganda/excuses/hatred---maybe, because these southern boys lost a war they began.
It is a fact that in TEXAS, by GOD some towns and counties never seceded and even had created Union pro militia.
About the only support for this whole ill-considered war was in the Eastern part of Texas---then, again, only some. A great Tennessean, Sam Houston, resigned as Governor is disgust.
You can argue, jump up and down, quote much one-sided opinion---but---based on one Texan, ME, after much study and soul searching I find it too be much ado about poorly designed and one-sided and prejudiced study behaviors.
That said---that is your right, and, your right too be wrong as long as you wish.
  Blessings

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make it so WL. Out of 33 States 6 left because of feelings of injustice against their States rights. That is only 18% and would have been it but for Lincoln's desire to push it into something more. The other problem, for Lincoln, was that those 6 States supplied more than half of the yearly federal income. Yet with that loss plus losing 5 more states after the shooting started the Federal government didn't collapse but fought a war costing some 2 million dollars a day for over four years. There was never a real NEED only a perceived slap in the face (A point of Honor; if you will). Lincoln should have called Davis out if he felt so strongly about it. Of course Davis, being ex military, would more than likely have won that duel. It would have saved some 630,000 war dead and 50,000 Southern women and children dead. But it's all in the past so we should just forget it? "Those who forget history are DOOMED to repeat it."

[Ga.windbreak]

The Hard Hand of War - Mark Grimsley

In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." But by 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy."In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."
The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."
Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities.
Shermans’ band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.

Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln’s war. This is yet another reason why Americans will continue their fascination with the War for Southern Independence.

[williamlayton]

My wife, the Hen, tells me that all the time.
I would assume that the statement you made about what Sherman said can be backed by refrences---I would like too read the whole of the statement.
The war had drug on and so many had died that it was time for finality. The use of more modern weapons was causing new forms of military protocol. Lincoln was under constant surveillance for opportunities of assassination. Snipers were more prevalent and the code of war had changed faces right before everyones eyes.
If one can see that new and extreme tactics were called for it is more understandable.
Let us remember that Shermans main goal was not too make Georgia Howl but to bring the War too South and North Carolina for whom he had much disdain and wished too punish THEM for egging on and bringing the war too a head.
The general option was too win the war. If the South could be shown that their defense was eggshell thin, and, that the North could roam at will then there would finally come a solution---surrender.
It was just a matter of time boys and just a matter of who would take over the South---America or someone from Europe.
The north looking ahead to a coast too coast nation could ill afford too have a European power in their back yard--Remember the war of 1812?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

My wife, the Hen, tells me that all the time.
I would assume that the statement you made about what Sherman said can be backed by refrences---I would like too read the whole of the statement.
Blessings

I guess you'll just have to read the book or Google it WL. I really don't get your meaning on this though. Just what are you saying here? That Sherman didn't say these things, they were taken out of context, or he never did the acts? The Acts are what they are and are there for all to see. We prosecute war atrocities done against civilians (by us) all the time now; why not then?

 ironfoot would have us believe that the Southern States' slavery is the worse crime ever committed against anyone, worse than the Holocaust, worse than Stalin's murder of over 20 million, worse than the rape of our Constitution, or the 800 year rape of Scotland by England. While conveniently forgetting that slavery was part and parcel of all of the 13 colonies/states until 1790 and those in the North weren't given their freedom they were just shipped south and sold so that their masters didn't lose any money or freed after 1865. Very morally upstanding on their part; yea right. Yet up until 1807 slavery was not illegal anywhere on earth in any country and was written about in the Bible with an eye towards the proper treatment there of; am I singing the praises of slavery? No I am not ; I am pointing out the facts there of, without references of course.

The troops under Sherman's command did to the South what Stalin's troops did to the Germans while retaking Germany in WWII using the same excuse that the Germans did it to them while trying to take Russia. Sherman was in charge and that means that he is responsible. He raped and killed Southern civilian women and children; both white and black. All the while stealing millions in property. You can gloss over it all you like that doesn't make it smell any better; it still stinks.

To you too

[williamlayton]

I am not sure where or what book is being referenced, and, yes I would like too read it.
There was much hatered on both sides so mud slinging is not a good arguement.
There is always hatered and acts of violence and acts of extreme violence in war--that is why it is called war and not debating.
Rules of war get lost in the gray of expediency---on both sides---or was Andersonville a fairy tale?
The South stood little to no chance of winning the war--that is a forgone conclusion of every author i have read on the subject.
The South HOPED the North would just go away and mind their own business. The North found that preserving the nation WAS their business.
The south was its own worse enemy in slipping back into the past and not just moving on after the war---this is not true on all Southern states, there are notable exceptions---see Texas.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

The book is called "The Hard Hand of War" by Mark Grimsley.

I've not read it yet so I'm not sure how truthful it is but I would think if the writer wrote it he has himself covered.

Peace.

[williamlayton]

I have spent an eternity these last two days reading a great number of reviews of this book---I have located a source and will order it soon.
I have not read one review--even from a Southern perspective--which disagree's with anything I speculated on concerning Shermans motives.
Even the southern press acknowledges the reasons correctly.
What is interesting is that even though they agree they disagree. They disagree on the need for such a hard hand. The South would have wanted a more gracious war.
I cannot recall the history of any war where the very act of war was gracious. There are examples of General Staff seeing such war a gallant, glorious and chivalrous--as long as they were not confronted by danger, first hand.
"His guts our blood" is a constant thought concerning Patton.
War is fought too be won, both decisively and finally, as quick as possible with the fewest casualties too the winner---too hell with the loser. At least from a troopers view.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

War is fought too be won, both decisively and finally, as quick as possible with the fewest casualties too the winner---too hell with the loser. At least from a troopers view.
Blessings

So, if I'm reading you properly you are saying that killing, raping, and stealing from non combatants is OK so long as you win? Just because it was done and gotten away with doesn't make it right. You are aware that this was the very first time that Cities were torched and non combatants killed during a war, right? Lincoln opened up a whole new way of fighting which goes on to this day including major cities being destroyed on both sides in WWII with several million non combatants killed unnecessarily.

In the war between the states Southern Generals were determined to not allow this to occur by them even when it could have been done because they were in a position to do so on several occasions.

As to a troopers view I can only speak for myself but that surely wasn't the way I thought and most of the people I know felt the same way. Sorry.
Peace

[doc_kreipke]

Most historians agree that Sherman initiated the concept of total war. Another big example of that would be the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima & Nagasaki in WW2. If Lincoln was wrong, was Truman wrong? Should he have held off on the bombs and pressed for an invasion of mainland Japan?

Regards,

[williamlayton]

I think that a short study will disclose that non-combantans have been killed in war for a long time.
Do I think it is right?  NO! We killed thousands of frenchmen prior too the invasion of Normandy. Maybe heart wrenching is a better term than right. Is it necessary that some die? I think in the effort too win a war, limit casualties on your side it is necessary that some innocent die.
Now, let's discuss if any who would support the overthrow of the constitution are innocent. That is a more appropriate way of looking at this ---well, really, any war---topic.
Surely an army trying too win a war cannot stop its advance for those who refuse too get out of the way.
I have a friend who was raised in Dresden--born in 1940---father in the German army, and he went thru the most horrendous bombings recorded in Europe. His father and family came too America in 1954. He holds no grudge against the bombings.
My personal opinion about this whole affair is that the South lost the war and will never admit that they caused it or have any responsibility for the actions taken against them.
There is no chivalry in any war in history, and, yes towns throughout history have been pillaged and sacked---rape was not an invention of the Union army nor was it solely limited too the North.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Most historians agree that Sherman initiated the concept of total war. Another big example of that would be the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima & Nagasaki in WW2. If Lincoln was wrong, was Truman wrong? Should he have held off on the bombs and pressed for an invasion of mainland Japan?

Regards,

The fire bombings of Tokyo by LeMay were worse that the two nuclear bombs and killed more people yet are never talked about. If Sherman's "total war" was necessary then why did he not burn Savannah? Did Truman allow the Army to Rape and pillage? Did he kick out the surviving citizens of Nagasaki and take their food and clothing from them? Did he allow the Reconstruction of Japan and Germany to be such that people were allowed to starve because their food and their homes were taken after the war was over? The answer to this is No! Truman did only what he had to do and saved as many lives as he could both American and Japanese. Sherman and his troops had no such feelings or they wouldn't have done the things that they did. There is a difference you know but you will still color it anyway you like.

Peace.

[williamlayton]

The war was over and the Japanese had surrendered by this time.
During the occupation was there rape and theft. YES! This was lessend by the fact of Brothels and the fact that there was very little too steal.
Savannah surrendered.
Sherman had North and South Carolina in his sights and these were two states he wanted too make howl.
The effects were lessend on these two because of the surrender.
Blessings