Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

Heh, heh, heh. You are something Stuart. Grasping at something like that. To think that Lee gave them a reciept while he was running from the union. That's absolutely ridiculous to even consider. I'm sry Stuart, but that was a bit pitiful.

Who's grasping here? You're repeatedly dodging my question.

I dont think i'm dodgin it at all. In fact, I just gave you your answer. Lee COULDENT have given them a reciept because he was on the RUN.

That's laughable. A reciept is a small piece of paper, oppie, signed by the officer it was granted by, and with the estimated amount of damages to be reimbursed. Lee wasn't on the run either; nobody ever had to run from McClellan, he was too slow. If he was on the run, why did he hold his position an extra day after the battle, and wait to recieve an attack that never came? He simply was forced to withdraw, because McClellan had found his orders for the campaign, which ruled out any further chance of surprise. He withdrew from Maryland, and settled down in Virginia in winter quarters. Of course, this rest was interupted by the Battle of Fredericksburg. And we all know what happened there.

Learn your history, Oppie, before you tell me Lee was running.

Your conclusion is debatable Stuart, but wholy improbable.

You double posted. And what's improbable? Is it that you don't know what happened at Fredericksburg? 'Cuz that would be sad.....

Not that, the fact the you think Lee gave those poeple a reciept.

It wouldn't be straight from Lee it would be from Jackson's quartermaster, which IBG said was his great-great-grandfather. So if he doesn't know, you're out of luck. But I'll say it now, it was a regular occurance for military personnel to requisition items and provide a reciept for them, so I seriously doubt you'll find that one wasn't given in this instance.

So why dont you ask IBG and show everyone that you are incorrect?

I haven't heard IBG say wether that was the case or not, so I have absolutely no clue. But I can make a good guess as to what the outcome will be. And I have provided my reasons, so if you're too combative/defensive to see the light, it's not my fault.

Whatever Stuart, you wait and see.

I'll be there.

So will I

That is a difference between taking wood for milatary use and pillaging and burning as I pointed out earlier on in this topic. (though even if the wood was taken for milatary use according to the laws of war it was suposed to be paid for.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

.... he (Sherman) had no purpose in doing so (burning and pillaging) excepted hurting the South whereas... ...the Confederates used the dismantled houses. I wouldnt look on it nearly as badly if Sherman had been doing the same thing.

Btw this quote has been somewhat edited to fit this context. If you want to see its real wording and context go to the first page of this topic.

Sherman was destroying and/or seizing anything that could be used to support the war effort of the south.

Have you read history? He burned down entire cities... So peoples homes were being used for the war effort?

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Have you read history? He burned down entire cities... So peoples homes were being used for the war effort?

Anything that COULD be used, dont you get it. It was a precatution takin by Sherman to ensure that the south couldent make any kind of a comeback at all.

Oppie my friend, Oh Oppie.

Yes most Confederates would kill a Union solider, but wouldn't you if they burned your house and barn, killed any hope you had of growing anything to eat, raped the women in your family AND stole every bit of livestock you owned? Now I don't know about you, but I would be pretty mad.

There are STILL shells of houses that had been burned on Shemans March. Now I know for a fact that Sherman did NOT need the homes of a hundreds (if not thousands) of homes, only inhabited by women, children and old men.

I'd be pretty mad if someone did that to my home.

Hum...I am getting very weary of this constant Sherman bashing. And, the only reason why is the March to the Sea. Good grief. Why aren't we bashing Sheridan or some one else like him? Because, Sherman had more men and, he destroyed more homes.
Listen, if everything that could have been perserved had, how long do you think the war would have lasted? A very long time. By terrorrizing the citizens, it helped Sherman. Southern troops started going home to protect and help their families, saving alot of Union boys lives by taking them away from the main armies.
If all that food had been able to get exported to the army of NV, if they had fled Petersburg, they would have killed alot more men and would probably have escaped, thus resulting in more death. The longer a war lasts, the more people die in the long run. The more losses you have in the short run and win the war because of it sooner, that saves alot more people from the same fate in the future. It's simple logic.

thats a good point IBG. the longer the war lasts the more casulties you're going to have, am I right or am I right?

Thanks Coby, but, prepare for the inevitable lynching of both of us.

I'm ready. bring it on.

But, what's the point to this forum if we aren't allowed to voice our own opinions? We do, but, it comes to naught becasue everybody thinks we don't know what we are talking about.