Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

Was Sherman a hero whos burning of the South was justifiable or a war crimnal who escaped justice?

Arguable both ways. Since I'm from Idaho, I don't feel much sympathy for either side. Sherman brought the South to their knees and helped end the war. He is a hero that way. He destroyed alot of property and shipped 400 wemon north to be rapped. He is a villan that way.

Same as the General. I like Sherman for knowing how to break a Nation, but don't like the way he treated the people.

(for one) In my oppion it was wrong of him to burn civilians houses.

It was just as bad as dismantaling people houses.

Definently. except for he had no purpose in doing so excepted hurting the South whereas (at least in the account you gave before) The Confederates used the dismantled houses. I wouldnt look on it nearly as bad if it was the same thing Sherman did.

General Lee's got it right on. Personally, I think Sherman was "2 bricks shy of a load" as a philosopher of old put it. He was almost sacked during the war due to charges of "mental instability". Looking back, many people who were slightly touched still had one part of their brain that functioned anywhere from normally to brilliantly. He probably fits this discription. As it was, if I remember right, he either was sacked, or he resigned because of the rumors, and only came back because of his friend U.S. Grant (the drunk) lol. As you can tell, I am no fan of either of these two men.

And back to the question at hand: Sherman tried to bring the war to the people, to noncombatants. This, of course, was against any and all rules of war at that time, and in my mind does qualify as an act of terrorism.

I think you said it better than I coulda

Ok someone has to defend this poor dillusional man. Lol.
Might I add that as he went through Georgia he was also releasing slaves.
And umm, those civilian houses that he burned, were in enemy terrtroy, and i'm sorry, but those poeple were just as guilty as any confederate soldier. There arent any in-betweens. You reap what you sow my friends and those men and women supported the confederacy. That means they are in the same lot as their government. I highly doubt that a southern countryman would hesitate to kill a union soldier if he had the chance. Same goes for a union countryman. Therefore you cannot condemn this man for destroying his enemys supporters' plantations.

(As you read the following please dont get the impression that I am upset with you)

So you are saying that in war you may commit atrocities such as burning down homes, raping, and killing civilians? They are your enemies after all. You are fighting them. NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! Acts like that are normally call "war crimes." Unless you are some ungodly leader you dont purposfully let your men fight anyone but soldiers! Im sorry but there are even laws during war.

Your very humble yet very shocked friend, General Lee

I like this General Lee guy. And I checked, Sherman WAS sacked early in the war under charges of mental instabilaty.

OK, Oppie, I understand what you're saying about Sherman accomplishing good things while in Georgia, i.e. freeing slaves, but would you call John Brown a good man just because the men he murdered happened to be slave owners? A statistic I heard once might interest you: only a quarter of southerners owned slaves at all, and out of that group, only a seventh of those owned more than 50. In other words, only about 3% of the south represented the "plantation" class that you spoke of. When you read about Sherman, you realize how cold blooded he really was. The "March through Georgia" is rarely called what it is: just short of wholesale massacre of civilians. Sherman's march is nothing to celebrate or glorify; he didn't have any serious opposition in front of him, other than old men in homeguard units; the only southern army who opposed him, under John Bell Hood, was so far outnumbered, he felt his only chance of success would be to attack Sherman's supply lines and go for the vital cities in the enemy's rear. This is the reason that Sherman felt so secure in letting his army loose, to run wild through the countryside. If he had really cared about ending the war soon, he would have kept his men under the strictest order and pushed on without delay, either to defeat Hood, or to come up through the Carolinas and arrive in Lee's rear. I can't help but believe that Sherman's top priority was not ending the war, as it should have been, but only to bring as much pain and suffering as possible to the citizens of the South. Perhaps he enjoyed taking out his anger at Union defeats and setbacks, of which there was no shortage, on helpless, defenseless, largely female civilians.

And they tried Henry Wirtz for war crimes? I can think of nothing worse that happened during the war than those attrocities committed, allowed, and encouraged by William Sherman.

Sherman once said that according to what he had been taught at West point he deserve death for war crimes.

talk about brutally honest lol. I never heard that one, but, there you go. I agree with him.

Never thought you ever would agree with him did you? lol

lol you got that right.

I wasnt defending what he did to those women, or the killing of all those civilians. I was specifically talking about the burning of those plantations.

But perhaps I have not done all the research that I should have on Sherman.

If you read what I said, only 3% of the south equalled plantations. So what was all the rest of that stuff Sherman was burning? Trash heaps? Well, they were homes to some. Ya, when you do research on the guy, you'll realize what he really was.

You know, in all my study of him, he was a very modest guy. When he recieved his commission for the voulenteers, McDowell commented that he should have gotten the same rank as he did. Sherman said, "I ---- know that!"
When he was with Grant one time, Grant offered him his seat. Sherman was horrified by the offer but, Grant respected Sherman's age (Sherman was two year older).

Ok lets think of it this way.... If the during the War for American Independence the British had burned every city they came upon would they now be looked on as guiltless because it was war? NO they would be condenmed in almost every history book you came upon. Why? Because 1: the winners write the history books.... We Americans won the war and we would say that it was wrong.... 2 more importantly it is against the laws of the Bible and of civilization. If you can show me where the Bible and the Geneva Convention alow such acts as burning down homes in war then I might change my mind but till then I will look upon those acts of Sherman as being wicked and barbaric.

Your VERY convinced and opinionated friend, General Lee

Gemeva Convention was after WWII if I blieve correctly. And, if you read the Bible, God allowed the Cannannites to be put to the sword. Even those who did surrender. Your arguments are very convincing.

Oh! so you are saying that the rules change? (Geneva Convention) Wrong now wrong then.

Also I suspected you would bring up that God COMMANDED the Canaanites to be destroyed. Are you saying that all the Confederates should have been destroyed? Or is there a difference between the two circumstances?
There obviously is. 1: God did not directly command that the war be fought in the first place much less give the Yanks free leave to kill. 2: while the Isrealites were in the wilderness they asked Edom to let them pass threw their land (Edoms land). The Edomites said no and even though the Edomites were in the wrong God did not allow the Isrealites to fight them. I can take your argument and say "even though Yanks were right (in their opinion) they didnt have a right to attack the Confederates because God didnt allow Israel to atack Edom." This argument can be as convincing as yours and could be used to condemn all war.
3: Why did God allow the Isrealites to kill everyone? This was an act of Gods punishment on the wicked pagan Canaanites and the means he used plant Israel in Canaan.
4: Let me give you another biblical example.... In Ester when the Jews fought the people trying to distroy them they didnt kill the non-combatants even though that is what their enemies woulda done. They fought only the fighters and they didnt even lay a hand on their enemies wealth much less burn down their homes for no reason. If they had it would have been as good as condemning the non combatants to a slow death.

But if you want to believe that the way the Israelites fought the canaanites are the guidelines we should follow in war.... I wont blame muslims if they ever attack the US and burn down your hometown.

Your un-upset yet rather sarcastic friend
General Lee

Now, did I say that he ordered the South destroyed? No. I did not. I was just pointing out to you that God did have that done to the cannanites. You act as if I am trying to advocate total war here. I am not.

I know your not advocating it.... you are just defending it.

Im just saying that what God COMMANDED for the canaanites does not follow through to the Confederates.
Your Friend General Lee