Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

Who's off topic now huh one and only???

back to topic...

That's what I thought..................................

it's the yankee's turn....

Alright fine. I just found out something intresting about the bummers. Are you ready for this Stuart? They were nothing more then renegades from shermans army composed entirerly of Union deserters, newly freeds blacks....and.............................even confederate deserters. These men were under no dicipline whatsoever and couldent be controlled by Sherman. Not to mention he had a job to do and couldent waste valuble time to go after them. Even though he should have, that does not make him responecible for there crimes. BOO YAH.

General Stuart wrote:

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....

I think Stuart already addressed that.

Yes but I am refering to the things that were wrong that were committed(rape,murder), not the pilliging of the south. THATS CALLED STRATEGY.

And dont give me the , "it was wrong for them to steal from the south," line, it as war, and they did the same thing to the north.

General Stuart wrote:

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.

I think Stuart already covered that too.

Yes but his facts are a bit loose in this post One&Only.

[quote="The Opposition"]And dont give me the , "it was wrong for them to steal from the south," line, it as war, and they did the same thing to the north. [/quote

that's not true and you know it. tell me one time that rebels did anything wrong in the north.

Alright, how about dismanteling Union houses and taking them back to the south.

ha, good thing I read that far back. you're saying it wrong, they used the wood for a bridge, which isn't at all like burning it for no reason.

and besides, maryland was a slave state, it wasn't really part of the north.

Very funny. Doesnt matter what they used it for, it's still pilliging.

The One And Only wrote:

and besides, maryland was a slave state, it wasn't really part of the north.

Oh yeah it was.

Yeah. And massacred the male population at St. Louis, and burned several cities to the ground, and stole food and clothing from Union Citizens as early as 1861. And, yes, That was a post I made about the wood and my great-great grandfather was the one to order it.

Thankyou for clearing that up IBG. Maybe now someone wont be so easily persuaded by the alure of the southern side.

The acts you mentioned, were committed by state "malitia" or bushwackers, whose movements and actions were in no way commanded by the Confederate States Government, or officers of that government. These weren't even Confederate troops, only, 'the underground' if you will.

And Oppie, using plankings from a house to use as a bridge isn't pillaging, you should know that. It's called 'commandeering.'

Stuart dont make yourself sound ignorant, you are saying the same thing about those men that we are saying about the bummers. Its the same stituation . And call it what you want it is still considered pillaging.

It's not pillaging. Please enjoy the following definition from the Mirriam-Webster dictionary:



Main Entry: 2pillage
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pil·laged; pil·lag·ing
transitive verb : to plunder ruthlessly : LOOT
intransitive verb : to take booty
synonym see RAVAGE
- pil·lag·er noun


You're all wet there, Oppie.

General Stuart wrote:

It's not pillaging. Please enjoy the following definition from the Mirriam-Webster dictionary:



Main Entry: 2pillage
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pil·laged; pil·lag·ing
transitive verb : to plunder ruthlessly : LOOT
intransitive verb : to take booty
synonym see RAVAGE
- pil·lag·er noun


You're all wet there, Oppie.

Nice try using webster to cover yourself, but stealing and dismateling houses is in fact, "to take booty". Sry Stuart.

Noun

• S:[url=] (n) [/url]loot, booty, pillage, plunder, prize, swag, dirty money (goods or money obained illegally
  

The Southern army was merely using the right of eminent domain, which is a law, and therefor the act was not illegal. Anyway, come on, what was Lee going to do? Wait for the river to become passible, while the union army is right behind him? Come on, you have to know that in order for Lee to do it, it must have been the only thing left, and you can also believe that it was done the best way possible.

Aside from that, it is a common act in war for a soldier or commisary to requisition articles from a store, business, etc., and provide reciepts to be reimbursed by the government at a later time. Prove that the owner of the house was not given a reciept, and I will admit that it was merely a small wrong done for a greater good. Otherwise, you can't back up what you're saying, and your point is therefore invalid.

The end never justifies the means Stuart.

Like I said, prove to me that the owner wasn't given a reciept.