Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

Well for him to prove us wrong but it wouldnt be immoral for us to prove him wrong. lol just kidding

I'm waiting, enigma......

Me too... Im waiting for any yankees.... lol jk

........................hmm.........................

I wonder what the persanol logs of Sherman's lutienients would say about him? I dont know but I bet they would shed some light on this controversey. What do you think Stuart?

The Opposition wrote:

........................hmm.........................

I wonder what the persanol logs of Sherman's lutienients would say about him? I dont know but I bet they would shed some light on this controversey. What do you think Stuart?

That might be interesting....Did any of his officers write memoirs? I haven't read any, that's for sure. But, I seriously doubt that they would include any negative information on Sherman, since it would cast shadows on a victorious campaign that they themselves took part in, and possibly involve them in suspicion of war crimes. Remember, for them to reveal atrocities allowed under Sherman's watch, indirectly draws attention to their involvment. And besides this, for any of them to have acted upon their own initiative during the time in question, i.e., blow the whistle to Washington, would have been voluntarilly committing career suicide. Even if Sherman had been found guilty and dismissed, -which would be highly unlikely considering that he just forced the fall of Atlanta- the responsible officer would always be remembered as a whistle-blower, which would end his career just as effectively as though Sherman hadn't been sacked at all. For example, Gen. Schofield tried to "hasten" Gen. Thomas' dismissal by a series of misleading telegraphs to Washington. Luckily, Lincoln didn't act immediately on the "provided" evidence of Gen. Thomas' lacluster performances as army commander in Tennessee, which gave Thomas time to win a crucial victory against Hood outside of Memphis, and thus restore his reputation in political circles. And guess what happened to Schofield? Well, let's just say that he wasn't given any opportunities to get his name in the newspapers anymore. And he was second in command to Thomas, as powerful as you could get next to the army commander, and he failed. This is why I think it would be highly unlikely that we would find any incriminating evidence penned by Sherman's lieutenants, during or after the war. Accounts do exist though, written by soldiers of Sherman's army, detailing reports of rape and manslaughter committed by Sherman's "bummers" during the march to the sea.

Really? Do you know how I could get my hands on those?

Bummers weren't under control of Sherman. They were outside of the command, and, they were vagabonds and scum of nature. I won't protect them.

Wait a mintute, if you have nothing more then accounts of the bummers commiting these crimes then how do you propse to put blame on Sherman for what they did(when they werent even under his command)?{Stuart}

thats a good point IBG.

Thanks Coby. I read a very good article on how this confed cavalry unit caught up with these bummers and massacred them. And, I actualled cheered.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

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)

]
thats true the North did have really bad pow camps and I don't agree with that they should have treated the prisoners better.

IBG, I might be wrong, but as far as I know, the bummers were in fact in Sherman's command. Otherwise, they would be nothing more than civilians in blue jackets running through the South committing crimes. If you are saying they were detatched, then that might be so, but any and every part of an army has a chain of command, this is to specifically provide and maintain marked responsibility, a "paper trail" if you will. So even in this scenario, there would be someone still responsible for the "bummers" war crimes. And even if they were detatched, by orders of Sherman, it would then be entirely Sherman's responsibility to see that they didn't do anything to shame the name of the army; and likewise, it would be his responsibility to take the consequences (if any) for their crimes.

Well, they were more of stragglers, I should say. They were soldiers, from Sherman's army, but, they were stragglers and deserters who just decided to stay near the army but not in it. Same thing happened during the 1862-1863 winter with the AOTP. There was 80,000 desertions and AWOL.

So, Sherman decided to allow them to desert, and did nothing about it? That's against some of the first rules of army command; if that doesn't say something about his shirking responsibility as a commanding officer, I don't know what does...

He didn't let them desert, but, he couldn't exactly catch them either. Someone not wanting to be found can hide really well, even if he is close by.

But Sherman didn't even make a real effort. And if he had tried, he could have picked up loads of these roaming bands....

You cant say that, you werent there. There could have been many good reasons why he didnt catch them.

Another yankee excuse........ pathetic.

He was too busy destroying railroads and such.

Thats a lame excuse too!

I think you're making exuses by saying that we are making excuses.

if they are excusses then give some proof that prooves that we are making excuses.

Sherman was still responsible for their crimes. Period.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The top dog always gets the blame.

I hope you're saying that in a humorous way

Stuart since you've never been in a leadership posisiton such as, oh lets say, GENERAL, I dont think you can say what he was responcible for or what he wasnt. Especially if you think he was responcible for people he wasnt even associated with, anymore that is.