Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Ok enigma just because some people dont obey the laws of war does that make it right to not obey them? Sherman LET his men rape. Since it was in war did it make it alright to do? Please answer YES OR NO! If you answer yes you are a lunatic (and I KNOW that you arent a lunatic) If you answer No then you have agreed that there are some UNDENIABLE moral EVEN IN WAR.

Your humble friend yet enemy, General Lee

P.S. REMEMBER YES OR NO!

You keep commmenting on that fact Lee, and i have never read that about sherman before, so if you could please tell me where you got that information i would appreciate it.

Read the War Between the States Americas Uncivil War or just ask IGB. :)

There are other places to I can PM them to you later if you want.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Read the War Between the States Americas Uncivil War or just ask IGB. :)

There are other places to I can PM them to you later if you want.

that's the title right

Yes... The War Between the States: Americas Uncivil War. That is the ULTIMTATE single resource about the causes effects and such of the war.

Could you give me the author's name?

John Dwyer was the General Editor. http://www.amazon.com/War-Between-States-Americas-Uncivil/dp/0976822407
theres a link

I'll look into and see if what you say about Sherman is true.

Ok thats fine Glad your interested enough to look it up!

Always eager to discover the truth Lee:afro:

Good for you. You are on your way to becoming a Confederate lol jk:D

Sry Lee, I wont ever be that. Besides, just because you all knew the truth dont mean you speak it.

You know? I used to be a hard headed Yank but... I was proven wrong and now... Im in the right direction!

Come on now havent i proved that I am at least a little un-hardheaded?

I must say Oppie that you ARE NOT as hard headed as some people who I have talked to. CONGRADULATIONS! I now await Enigmas reply to my post on the other page!

that's right you better recognize. Loljk, by the way this is my 500th post. Hurray for me!

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Ok enigma just because some people dont obey the laws of war does that make it right to not obey them? Sherman LET his men rape. Since it was in war did it make it alright to do? Please answer YES OR NO! If you answer yes you are a lunatic (and I KNOW that you arent a lunatic) If you answer No then you have agreed that there are some UNDENIABLE moral EVEN IN WAR.

Your humble friend yet enemy, General Lee

P.S. REMEMBER YES OR NO!

Personally, I don't believe it is right. But that is because I am Christian. Do you think everyone is christian? No. Or should I say, does everyone hold the same morals? No. I was talking for the world when I said that. I was applying it to the world and how it is accepted overall. I bet there hasn't been one war where these rules have been followed to the dot or have been enforced to the letter.

Who's going to enforce them, enigme? Not Sherman, that's for certain. And that's my whole point, and Lee's I believe. If I remember right, a particular group of yankees wanted to include morals in the debate about the causes of the war; well, now the table's turned. It is undeniable that all men hold certain morals, -it is supposedly always thus with Christians- and this is the "code" of conduct that arrose during the era of 'wars between kings' in Europe. However, Sherman proved to be an embarrasment and a cause of shame to his country and his religion, by displaying an utter lack of regard for any moral standards, professional or personal, by allowing and ordering what he did.

Enigma, you mentioned that Gen. Lord Cornwallis ordered his own men fired upon during battle; this sounds vaugely familiar, but could you provide the specifics?

You also stated that logic cancels the need for knowledge. However, it has been my experience that "knowledge is power." And no one can beat me there.

General Stuart wrote:

Who's going to enforce them, enigme? Not Sherman, that's for certain. And that's my whole point, and Lee's I believe. If I remember right, a particular group of yankees wanted to include morals in the debate about the causes of the war; well, now the table's turned. It is undeniable that all men hold certain morals, -it is supposedly always thus with Christians- and this is the "code" of conduct that arrose during the era of 'wars between kings' in Europe. However, Sherman proved to be an embarrasment and a cause of shame to his country and his religion, by displaying an utter lack of regard for any moral standards, professional or personal, by allowing and ordering what he did.

Enigma, you mentioned that Gen. Lord Cornwallis ordered his own men fired upon during battle; this sounds vaugely familiar, but could you provide the specifics?

You also stated that logic cancels the need for knowledge. However, it has been my experience that "knowledge is power." And no one can beat me there.

Okay, Stuart, so your saying that what Sherman did was wrong? I'll give you that one. A lot of the things that he did do was wrong - however I have yet to read where he ordered his men to rape women. And about civilian life - there is much controversy surrounding the issue but it sounds like there was very little loss of civilian life. What Sherman did was blaze a path of total war through the South. He eliminated much needed resources for the south. Guess what Stuart, eliminate the enemies ability to fight (which was exactly what Russia did to Napoleon except the roles where reversed here) and voila, they can't fight any more thus eliminating further loss of life. Apparently at the time, Grant and Lee were at a stale mate...so I see your point where you say he could've gone and aided him. But do you know what else Sherman did? He crushed southern moral. The people of the South witnessed this and thought to themselves "How can we compete with that?" Obviously we weren't winning the war any quicker going up against Lee. So he burned a path of total destruction - your point? War is war people - and things like this happen in war. Are you going to argue with me that what Russia did to wipe out most of Napoleon's army is unethical? If you think that Sherman had no right to do this then you need to have a MRI on your head to make sure that it is working properly. Who says war is humane? Who says war is ethical? War is hell - like I stated before. War is immoral in its own right. And do you think that the North was the only one that committed war crimes? Do you think Sherman was the only immoral one on the battlefield? One thing he did do was release thousands of slaves, and they look upon him as a hero. Is that immoral? He was following orders, so I guess you could say that the North was immoral entirely...or was the South - who started the war and ended up causing the loss of so much human life. So was what Sherman and the North did the only immoral acts in the war? I think not. Let me just state what I vaguely remember - POW camps in the South.

Oh, and I don't believe I stated that logic cancels out knowledge - but can be used more effectively in certain situations that knowledge can. Knowledge is limited - logic is not. ("You also stated that logic cancels the need for knowledge. However, it
has been my experience that "knowledge is power." And no one can beat
me there. " ---Who is sounding arrogant now?)

Enigma... Like you said... Not everyone is a christian... BUT whether or not someone is a christian they are still governed by an UNCHANGABLE LAW OF MORALS! I wouldnt care abit if during a battle Sherman anihalated a Southern army. BUT some of the things Sherman allowed (notice I dont say commanded I dont think he ever did but as their commander he is STILL responsible for not punishing them) were wrong period! I dont care if he was a Christian or not... That doesnt change moral. If its wrong for a Christian to do then it is wrong for an unbeliever to do. (Btw goods things people do dont cancel out the sins they do.)
Your friend General Lee

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Enigma... Like you said... Not everyone is a christian... BUT whether or not someone is a christian they are still governed by an UNCHANGABLE LAW OF MORALS! I wouldnt care abit if during a battle Sherman anihalated a Southern army. BUT some of the things Sherman allowed (notice I dont say commanded I dont think he ever did but as their commander he is STILL responsible for not punishing them) were wrong period! I dont care if he was a Christian or not... That doesnt change moral. If its wrong for a Christian to do then it is wrong for an unbeliever to do. (Btw goods things people do dont cancel out the sins they do.)
Your friend General Lee

Really? Are unbelievers governed by the same laws as Christians are? No. And let me ask you another question - who has dictated what is moral or not? What is moral or not is completely up to the individual...period. What is moral for you may not be moral for me. Some of the stuff that Sherman "allowed" was immoral. Some of it was complete strategic skill. And perhaps he didn't have time to court marshall them. Perhaps he needed all the men he could get. You just don't know, you weren't alive back then. And also, don't be to quick to judge Sherman and say that he was a bad guy. Remember Mary Magdalane... or even Paul (originally Saul)?

Btw Im afraid that you dont know too much about the war or you would know that the North had Pow camps that were actually worse than the Souths. Also you cant justify Sherman because of what the South did. That is an illogical argument. You dont prove that people are good by pointing out their enemies wrongs. (Not saying that there is much that you can really truely hold against the south but that is another arguement so please dont bring it into it)

enigma7patriot wrote:

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Enigma... Like you said... Not everyone is a christian... BUT whether or not someone is a christian they are still governed by an UNCHANGABLE LAW OF MORALS! I wouldnt care abit if during a battle Sherman anihalated a Southern army. BUT some of the things Sherman allowed (notice I dont say commanded I dont think he ever did but as their commander he is STILL responsible for not punishing them) were wrong period! I dont care if he was a Christian or not... That doesnt change moral. If its wrong for a Christian to do then it is wrong for an unbeliever to do. (Btw goods things people do dont cancel out the sins they do.)
Your friend General Lee

Really? Are unbelievers governed by the same laws as Christians are? No. And let me ask you another question - who has dictated what is moral or not? What is moral or not is completely up to the individual...period. What is moral for you may not be moral for me. Some of the stuff that Sherman "allowed" was immoral. Some of it was complete strategic skill. And perhaps he didn't have time to court marshall them. Perhaps he needed all the men he could get. You just don't know, you weren't alive back then. And also, don't be to quick to judge Sherman and say that he was a bad guy. Remember Mary Magdalane... or even Paul (originally Saul)?

Moral is COMPLETELY UP TO THE BIBLE PERIOD! prove to me from the bible that Moral is relative.

So murdering might be wrong for me and not for you? Thats not logical.

Well, enigma, where I come from, a SMILEY FACE usually means that the statement was made in jest. I was NOT saying that my knowledge is unmatched in the entire world (honestly, whoever took it that way better get an MRI lol). But I had to remind myself that since you've never met me, you don't know this, but I am a somewhat sarcastic person. Well, sorry you didn't get the joke....

Back to topic, in your first statement you admitted that Sherman did commit war crimes. But then you go on to call him a hero because he followed Lincoln's orders and released slaves...I think you better go and rethink this, you're obviously confused...

If you didn't read any earlier posts, you might not have seen that Gen. Lee actually provided a link to a book that has specific accounts of Sherman's men raping women. Gen. Lee also provided a quote, made by Sherman, to the effect that there was an entire class of people in the south, -including women and children- who must be extirminated before the war could come to an end. I think that addresses your claim that there was minimal loss of civilian life.....If you think that Sherman crushed southern moral, you're entirely wrong, and I can easily back this up with facts. Because of Sherman's unnecessary pillaging of the Deep South, the South's hatred of the north only deepened, and caused a long, slow, reconstruction that really wasn't complete untill the 1950's. And by 'reconstruction,' I mean the emotional rebuilding of the country. For instance, did you know that Atlanta, Georgia didn't celebrate the 4th of July until 1944, immediately after the D-Day landings of WWII?

If you want to discuss Napoleon, I would love to on another topic. Enigma obviously doesn't realize the reality of Napoleon's march into Russia; when Napoleon invaded the Russian Empire, he was crossing fields of ice and snow the entire way...the only towns that he encountered were small, and of these only a handfull escaped burning by the Russian forces, for the sake of making Bonapart's crossing as difficult as possible. Napoleon thought that the Russians would finally stand and fight to save Moscow, he was wrong; the Russians not only willing abandoned this major city, but sacrificed it to flames. It was at this point that Napoleon realized that he and his army's survival depended on getting out of the Russian Winter, and back to Eorope. According to some reports, the Grande Armee, which left France 600,000 strong, arrived back in Paris with barely 25,000 survivors, due to the cold, and Russian attacks launched at the retreating French army's rear. In this example, the Russians were only able to defeat Bonapart by using their native weather, and by sacrificing anything that could make his journey easier.

And enigma says that this resembles Sherman's march, but "in reverse"?

First of all, the South's climate didn't exactly resemble that of a Russian winter. Second, the only thing that made Sherman's march possible was the fact that he and his army lived off the plentiful southern lands; he wasn't marching across frozen, barren, deserts that a retreating army had set on fire...see the difference? Thirdly, Napoleon went into Russian seeking an army to do battle with and defeat...whereas Sherman went into the Deep South, knowing that Hood was crossing into Tennessee, in his rear, not in his front, and with the specific goal of demolishing the south, crushing its people, and leaving scars on these "rebels" that would never heal.

Hey Lee, I sure hope it's not immoral to prove Enigma wrong,......We'd be sinners for sure!