Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

You yankees are digressing on bummers on purpose....lol. Ok, I might be wrong, but it was my belief that Sherman actually sent out organized raiding parties to terrorize the surrounding farmland.....isn't he quoted as saying that he left behind a 50-mile swath of desolation? And I know that his army didn't covere 50 miles, going from end to end, so that can mean that either Sherman was ordering the destruction done, or he approved of the destruction being done by the bummers. And even that wouldn't be a feasible theory, because I myself have read accounts of Shermans men marching into S. Carolina, being described as "the biggest baggage train on the continent," with men toting loot and spoils, leading mules with stolen treasures on their backs....etc. There is no way that you can say all of the destruction was committed by the bummers, because only an army is coordinated enough to make such a thorough and complete sweep through an area so large and leave it in ruins. You might say there were an incredible amount of bummers who had deserted and were not under Sherman's command... But then Sherman wouldn't have had an army left to command. But then that might explain why he never went after the deserters.......not! Remember, we're talking about a 50-mile strip of land that was demolished, not just a certain neighborhood, or city. It is hard to believe that all of the pillaging was done by a small portion of Sherman's army, deserters, who were in hiding, and had no coordination. Infact, I find it impossible to believe. But that is only my opinion....

"And I know that his army didn't covere 50 miles, going from end to end, so that can mean that either Sherman was ordering the destruction done, or he approved of the destruction being done by the bummers"

Ofcourse he approved destruction(to an extent), I was talking about the raping of those women.

The Opposition wrote:

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.

Alright, by reading this post of yours, oppie, and the one above, I believe you are contradicting yourself....It's obvious you're grasping at straws here. You're just jumping on anything to cover your blue butt. Oppie, you don't have to BE a general to understand some of their basic command responsibilities. But then again, maybe you were just voicing your own ignorance on the subject... So, he wasn't "associated" with the men committing the destruction of the South? Ahem, sorry, but it was my belief that he was their LEADER. For reasons I have stated above, I think it is impossible for roving bands of deserters to incite such an acute degree of destruction on an area, and thus, I would be forced to believe that Sherman organized raiding parties, -that would be much more coordinated, and therefore more thorough in their work- designed to inflict this damage. Which leads to my next point: If the bummers didn't do nearly as much of the damage to Southern homes and property as these raiders under Sherman's orders, (a point I think proved by logic) it also proves logical that that these raiders, whose only distinction from regular bummers was that they were under orders to loot and pillage, -whereas bummers did so on their own "initiative"- would act like bummers, and commit the crimes of bummers, like murder and rape of civilians.

And I am forced to belive that much of your post is purely oppinion and assumtion based on logical guesses. Am I mistaken?

Oppie, prove to me that bummers were comprised entirely of deserters, and were in no way a part of Sherman's command. To do this, you would have to also prove that Sherman never ordered any form of pillage or destruction during the march; by making such an order, Sherman would automatically be turning that part of his force into a raiding party, no better than any group of bummers.

Like I said, merely oppinion and assumption.

No, I just asked you to prove the following points, which would prove my logic unsound... Where did I include an opinion just now?

BOTH your posts are linked to the same thing Stuart, ASSUMPTION.

Excuse me, but you still haven't answered the question, opinion or not.

Could you please restate the question my good man.

or, you could just scroll up the page, moron lol (joking)

That wasnt to nice Jeb....
(though from that emoticon I gather that you were jk lol)

You want me to prove what the bummers consisted of? That is no easy task Stuart. I would need to do a bit more reserch on the subject to PROVE my point to you.

Do it then... Im sure finding out the truth wouldnt hurt you. lol

Understood, Oppie; yes, it would require some research, but it would greatly further the amount of material we have to debate on in this topic.

oh, and Gen. Lee, oppie and me are buds I thought that would be obvious from the way he's constantly trying to one-up me (to his chagrine lol) I don't think he took offense at the joke, but I edited it anyway to make it more clear.

BTW, Oppie, I highly doubt that you'll find anything to prove your point lol!

I know but it is just that it sounded harse and I didnt want his weak mind to be emotionly scarred... lol jk oppie

No hard feelings Lee.

Oppie stabbed Lee! Down with the traitor!

Iron Brigade General wrote:

Oppie stabbed Lee! Down with the traitor!

Traitor? Who's side are you on?

IBG you see the light?! lol

Oppie, just because you have a brain the size of a shrimp's eyeball doesn't mean we do too. just kidding...

................................................................ I dont find that funny.

General Stuart wrote:

Oppie, just because you have a brain the size of a shrimp's eyeball doesn't mean we do too. just kidding...

THAT was HILARIOUS!!!!!!