Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

but we do or should before we post anny thing on here.

Yep. Unlike vin who let's Stuart do all the talking for him.

I'll do my on talking, I will never let anny body do the talking for me.

Civility_C wrote:

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.

Sure, he didnt need those homes, but the confederate army could have used them for shelter and/or supplies. And a point that I was trying(and evidently failing ) to stress was that the men UNDER Sherman's command were not commiting war crimes. It was the BUMMERS. If you could prove to me that men actually UNDER his command raped women, and went out side of Sherman's orders(which was to take only the things that could be used for the war effort) then I would gladly drop Sherman like a sack of corn. But since nobody seems to have substantiel evidence that they did, I am sticking to my conclusions. By the way, I would be plenty mad for sure, but in a war, nobody ever likes what the other side does, Period.

Of couse not because both sides are fighting for different causes, do you relly think they would have a war if they both believed in the same thing.

coby wrote:

Of couse not because both sides are fighting for different causes, do you relly think they would have a war if they both believed in the same thing.

Coby,

Coby has a point.

The Opposition wrote:

coby wrote:

Of couse not because both sides are fighting for different causes, do you relly think they would have a war if they both believed in the same thing.

Coby,

what?

Yes he does but his point is BESIDE the point. No offence Coby.

why is my point beside the point? explane.

No. His point is on the point. War is because of diffrences. Sherman was diffrent then Johnson, who burned his own food supplies.

Ha see oppie!

The Opposition wrote:

Civility_C wrote:

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.

Sure, he didnt need those homes, but the confederate army could have used them for shelter and/or supplies. And a point that I was trying(and evidently failing ) to stress was that the men UNDER Sherman's command were not commiting war crimes. It was the BUMMERS. If you could prove to me that men actually UNDER his command raped women, and went out side of Sherman's orders(which was to take only the things that could be used for the war effort) then I would gladly drop Sherman like a sack of corn. But since nobody seems to have substantiel evidence that they did, I am sticking to my conclusions. By the way, I would be plenty mad for sure, but in a war, nobody ever likes what the other side does, Period.

I'll do so. be

IBG, please continue to state your opinion, that's the only reason we are able to have a debate, as opposed to a lecture. And Oppie, I'm glad you still have an open mind on the matter, but I was confused by one thing: you stated that you would drop Sherman if his men committed rape, but you would stand by him if his men committed, in essence, robbery. People, why are we putting such a heavy emphasis on rape? As if it's the only crime in the book, or the only real offense during war. I don't understand how anyone could have such a view.... What about murdur? Thievery? Trespassing? Assault and battery? Arson?

When we read about the slaying of thousands of men, and we consider that this happened on a regular basis, we get caught up with the 'big picture' of things. It is easy to over look the individual soldier. He had his own beliefs, his own family, and his own story. This is true for every man that ever put on a uniform. But we must not forget, that the same is also true for the millions that never shouldered a gun, or marched under a flag. These people in my mind are the 'big picture.' What is the United States of America? Or the Confederate States of America for that matter? What does this name represent? The president, the joint chiefs of staff? Congress and our law-makers? The States themselves? In my mind, the United States of America is an invisible bond, created for the bennifit of all mankind. This bond also connects all of us, not by blood lines, or native localities, but by the simple belief that "we hold these truths to be self-vident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are the beliefs that hold us all together today. But this was a different time in the world, a time in which this Great Expiriment was still young. We can not help what held the people of the South together, their beliefs were their own. They deserved that much as American citizens, the right to create and hold to their own opinions. But when it is stated that this great entity, the people of the South, deserved nothing but the torch, simply because of their belief in the fact that Man should not lay down and accept injustice, I begin to wonder, what has happened to our principles?

General Stuart wrote:

IBG, please continue to state your opinion, that's the only reason we are able to have a debate, as opposed to a lecture. And Oppie, I'm glad you still have an open mind on the matter, but I was confused by one thing: you stated that you would drop Sherman if his men committed rape, but you would stand by him if his men committed, in essence, robbery. People, why are we putting such a heavy emphasis on rape? As if it's the only crime in the book, or the only real offense during war. I don't understand how anyone could have such a view.... What about murdur? Thievery? Trespassing? Assault and battery? Arson?

When we read about the slaying of thousands of men, and we consider that this happened on a regular basis, we get caught up with the 'big picture' of things. It is easy to over look the individual soldier. He had his own beliefs, his own family, and his own story. This is true for every man that ever put on a uniform. But we must not forget, that the same is also true for the millions that never shouldered a gun, or marched under a flag. These people in my mind are the 'big picture.' What is the United States of America? Or the Confederate States of America for that matter? What does this name represent? The president, the joint chiefs of staff? Congress and our law-makers? The States themselves? In my mind, the United States of America is an invisible bond, created for the bennifit of all mankind. This bond also connects all of us, not by blood lines, or native localities, but by the simple belief that "we hold these truths to be self-vident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are the beliefs that hold us all together today. But this was a different time in the world, a time in which this Great Expiriment was still young. We can not help what held the people of the South together, their beliefs were their own. They deserved that much as American citizens, the right to create and hold to their own opinions. But when it is stated that this great entity, the people of the South, deserved nothing but the torch, simply because of their belief in the fact that Man should not lay down and accept injustice, I begin to wonder, what has happened to our principles?

The only people that the men UNDER Sherman's command murdered were confederate soldiers. Any other was carried out by bummers. And as far as the lootting of houses by Sherman's soldiers, until you have proof dont bother saying it again. SEIZING MATERIAL THAT COULD BWE USED OFR THE WAR EFFORT WENT ON IN BOTH FRONTS. Dont try and say that the Union is the only one that took provisions and such from the other side.

Well, I'm glad you think I'm good enough to continue the debate. (no sarcasm.)

OPPIE, DON'T BE DENSE. Open up and recieve the truth: you canNOT prove to me that the only men who committed murder on the march were bummers. SECONDLY, you continue to declare that such siezure of items happened on both sides; tell me one instance when a large Confederate army, of all arms, invaded into Northern territory, period, besides the excursions by Lee and Early. I'm being easy on you! I'm not even going to force you to back up your statements with facts! All I want you to do, is prove that ANY confederate army of all arms went into a northern state, and we'll go from there. After that, we'll look at the chances that such a force had to pillage and burn, so obviously New Mexico doesn't fly.

My whole point is, and Sherman ordered the pillaging and looting of homes of southern civilians, which should be a war crime in anyones' book. Oppie graciously accepted that Sherman did indeed order such atrocities. IBG, you stated that Sherman's march shortened the war. I beg to differ, but facts only show the opposite; Sherman could have made forced marches through Georgia and S. Carolina to reach the Atlantic, where the navy would be ready to transport him and his men to Virginia to join Grant. In Virginia, Sherman would have been able to help capture Richmond, and finally defeat Lee's army. However, he chose to remain behind, in the deep South, where he could do damage, yes, but no real strategic damage. Consider this: At the end of his march, he estimated that he had inflicted over $100,000,000 worth of damages, but the problem is, he converted over 20% percent of that to his own use, which instantly incriminates him and his men as criminals, guilty of grand theft. By taking such loot from civilians, Sherman automatically gave away his selfish motive, which is what it was, not a strategic plan, as several of you have called it.

General Stuart wrote:

OPPIE, DON'T BE DENSE. Open up and recieve the truth: you canNOT prove to me that the only men who committed murder on the march were bummers. SECONDLY, you continue to declare that such siezure of items happened on both sides; tell me one instance when a large Confederate army, of all arms, invaded into Northern territory, period, besides the excursions by Lee and Early. I'm being easy on you! I'm not even going to force you to back up your statements with facts! All I want you to do, is prove that ANY confederate army of all arms went into a northern state, and we'll go from there. After that, we'll look at the chances that such a force had to pillage and burn, so obviously New Mexico doesn't fly.

My whole point is, and Sherman ordered the pillaging and looting of homes of southern civilians, which should be a war crime in anyones' book. Oppie graciously accepted that Sherman did indeed order such atrocities. IBG, you stated that Sherman's march shortened the war. I beg to differ, but facts only show the opposite; Sherman could have made forced marches through Georgia and S. Carolina to reach the Atlantic, where the navy would be ready to transport him and his men to Virginia to join Grant. In Virginia, Sherman would have been able to help capture Richmond, and finally defeat Lee's army. However, he chose to remain behind, in the deep South, where he could do damage, yes, but no real strategic damage. Consider this: At the end of his march, he estimated that he had inflicted over $100,000,000 worth of damages, but the problem is, he converted over 20% percent of that to his own use, which instantly incriminates him and his men as criminals, guilty of grand theft. By taking such loot from civilians, Sherman automatically gave away his selfish motive, which is what it was, not a strategic plan, as several of you have called it.

You are the dense one, you have abolutely NO SOLID FACTS and you continue to pursue the same goal, to disprove my thoughts on Sherman. All you have is circumstance and probable cause. Believe me if you have concrete evidence that your oppinion is sound, that please show me at once.

Read The War Between the states Americas Uncivil war, read The South was Right, read the rise and fall of the Confederate government. LISTEN TO SHERMAN!



"There is a class of people (in the
South), men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can
hope for peace and order." -- General William T. Sherman


"Next year their lands will be taken,
for in war we can take them, and rightfully too, and another year they may beg
in vain for their lives. A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain
limit ought to know the consequences. Many many people, with less pertinacity
than the South, have been wiped out of national existence. To those who submit
to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the
petulant and persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he
or she is disposed of the better." -- General William T. Sherman

Refute those quotes if you can. (and answer Jebs question)

The Opposition wrote:

The only people that the men UNDER Sherman's command murdered were confederate soldiers. Any other was carried out by bummers. And as far as the lootting of houses by Sherman's soldiers, until you have proof dont bother saying it again. SEIZING MATERIAL THAT COULD BE USED FOR THE WAR EFFORT WENT ON IN BOTH FRONTS. Dont try and say that the Union is the only one that took provisions and such from the other side.

Bummers were under Sherman. (dont tell me an army cant be controlled. Look at Lees army)

Oh yes! Jeb look at that! Blatant evidence! the Northern soldiers needed to loot the clothes out of houses and the earrings in womens ears for the WAR EFFORT! (that doesnt sound logical...)

Please go see my posts on this subject, under "Sherman's march to the Sea."

And you're absolutely right, Lee.

Oppie, you know something is wrong when Sherman sees his own men destroying a church, and simply says, "They had it coming..."
This is an exerpt from a transcript I found:


“The discipline of the soldiers, upon their first entry into the city, was perfect and most admirable. There was no disorder or irregularity on the line of march, showing that their officers had them completely in hand. They were a fine looking body of men, mostly young and of vigorous formation, well clad and shod, seemingly wanting for nothing…But, if the entrance into town and while on duty, was indicative of admirable drill and discipline, such ceased to be the case the moment the troops were dismissed.”— Columbia resident James Gibbes76
“This city was full of whisky and wine, and the colored people who swarmed the streets, set it out on the sidewalks by the barrel with the heads knocked in and tin cups provided; bottles and demijohns were passed liberally to the troops passing through the city to camp quarters.”—Private John C. Arbuckle77
As General Howard, whose troops were in charge of the city, established headquarters in a house near the university and went to sleep, General Sherman occupied a house not far away on the east side of town.78 Both were some distance from the troops who had taken over the streets of the city.
Until now Columbia residents had hoped that their fate would be much like Savannah’s where there had been no great destruction of personal property.79 That hope quickly faded in the afternoon hours.
“Our first trouble came about an hour after the entrance, when two horsemen rode into the yard, and came into the house, saying they had come to look for arms….they ransacked the house and helped themselves to all the small things they fancied.…At last they rode off, assuring us that they would call again. ”—Harriott H. Ravenel80
“About 2 to 3 P.M. the soldiers began breaking into the stores and banks…the plunder and destruction of valuable property was beyond description…I was passing the Bank of Charleston and the Commercial Bank of Columbia and found a squad of about fifty soldiers breaking them open and loading themselves with silver to the extent of their ability to carry….Every store in the city was sacked…there was a marked air of absence from all restraint and control.”— James Gibbes81
Out of fear for their property, residents began requesting Union guards for their homes and many were granted their requests.82 Even the Ursuline Convent on Main Street, after repeated personal assurances of safety by Sherman and just as adamant warnings of doom by Union soldiers, finally requested and received guards from the general.83
Although neither Sherman nor his officers issued orders for the firing of the city,84 some Union soldiers warned residents that Columbia would be burned and even described how rockets would signal for the destruction to begin.85
“Towards night, crowds of our escaped prisoners, soldiers, and negroes… were parading the streets in groups.”—David Conygham86


Part 4
At dark, the night of terror began. As the signal officers of Sherman’s divisions shot off rockets in standard practice to show their locations, fires began to break out all over the city and neighborhoods.87 Soldiers carried pots and vessels of turpentine, kerosene or other flammable liquid in which they dipped balls of cotton, lit them and flung the fire balls over and under houses.88 The troops charged with patrolling the streets did nothing to stop the rioting.89
“The streets were crowded with murdering groups of demons from all the corps in the army.”—David Conyngham 90
“The boys…were spreading the conflagration by firing the city in a hundred places.”—Captain S.H.M. Byers91
“Universal license to burn and plunder was the order of the day.” —Union Officer Thomas G. Myers92
“Such an awful sight! The…street filled with a throng of men, drunken, dancing, shouting, cursing wretches, every one bearing a tin torch or a blazing lightwood knot. The sky so dark a half hour before, was already glowing with light, and flames were rising in every direction.”—Harriott H. Ravenel93
Sherman, who had just finished supper at his headquarters, stepped out into the yard, “saw the darkness lit up with the lurid hue of conflagration” and remarked, “They have brought it on themselves.”94
Generals Howard and Hazen went quickly into the streets ordering soldiers to help fight the fire. Sherman joined them much later in the effort.95
“True, Generals Sherman, Howard, and others were out giving instructions for putting out a fire in one place, while a hundred fires were lighting all round them. How much better would it have been had they brought in a division or brigade of sober troops, and cleared out the town, even with steel and bullet!”—David Conyngham96
The fierce wind, which had been blowing since about two that afternoon, was helping to spread the fire, making “a tornado of flame”. Most efforts to stop the fire were futile.97 However, the area around General Howard’s headquarters, including the buildings on the college campus being used as hospitals, was saved by the work of Union soldiers and hospital workers.98
Pillaging continued throughout the city. Women and men, black and white were robbed of their valuables at gun and knife point.99 Black women were raped.100
Soldiers pulled children about their beds while plunging long knives repeatedly between them into the mattresses looking for hidden treasures.101 Outside, hundreds of men were “probing the ground with their bayonets or iron ramrods, searching for buried treasures.”102
“Such a scene…drunken soldiers, rushing from house to house, emptying them of their valuables, and then firing them…”—David Conyngham103
“A crowd had burst in and … spread themselves over everything, and from that time until morning a roaring stream of drunkards poured thought the house, plundering and raging, and yet in a way curiously civil and abstaining from personal insult.”—Harriott H. Ravenel104
The streets were now also full of terrified women, children and old men seeking safety in the park, lunatic asylum and other open places to avoid the “devouring fire”.105
“Many wandered about wringing their hands and crying; some sat stolid and speechless in the street watching everything that they had go to destruction.” –Captain S.H.M. Byers106
“Shrieks, groans, and cries of distress resounded from every side. Men, women, and children, some half naked, as they rushed from their beds, were running frantically about.”—David Conyngham107
“It was a most fearful night…The illumination was more brilliant than I am able to describe…Not only the glare of the flames, but the millions of sparks and cinders that filled the air all helped to make an illumination that far surpassed the brightness of day….The storm of fire…raged with unabated fury.”—James Gibbes108
At about 11 p.m., the students and most of the nuns at the Ursuline Convent fled to a nearby church. “We marched through the blazing streets with the precision of a military band….Father O’Connell led the procession, a crucifix held high above his head. The main body of nuns followed…then the pupils, the smaller between the larger for protection. Not a cry; not a moan. Even the drunken soldiers seemed silenced for a little while by this grand sight of Church triumphing over War! The roaring of the fire, the scorching flames on either side as we marched down Blanding Street…”—Sara Aldrich Richardson109
Midnight came and a brigade of Union troops south of the city was finally sent into the streets to arrest disorderly soldiers and citizens. About 2500 men were arrested “including officers of nearly every grade…”110 Because he did not have a pass, even Captain Byers, who had been helping a family escape the fire, was taken into custody.111 Other soldiers, like Private Abruckle who was aiding citizens in the streets reach safety, were allowed to remain in the city to help.112
Yet, the pillaging and burning continued by men “ruder and fiercer.”113
The guards assigned to the Ursuline Convent began their own rampage of the building forcing the remaining nuns to leave. “Fire was falling so thick that it burned the veils and dresses of the nuns on their way to join their sisters in the graveyard” of the church nearby.114
“About two o’clock in the morning, the house behind ours, and the one across the street, burnt down, and ours seemed in such danger that we took the four little children, whom we had kept in bed, and my mother took them across the street into the academy square, where many burnt-out people had taken refuge.”—Harriott H. Ravenel115
About 3 a.m., the cross above the Convent fell116 and an hour later the winds subsided.117 Then with the light, reveille sounded and the soldiers remaining in the city immediately returned to their ranks.118


Part 5
“The 18th of February dawned upon a city of ruins…Nothing remained but the tall, spectre-looking chimneys. The noble-looking trees that shaded the streets, the flower gardens that graced them, were blasted and withered by fire. The streets were full of rubbish, broken furniture and groups of crouching, desponding, weeping, helpless women and children….That long street of rich stores, the fine hotels, the court-houses, the extensive convent buldings, and last the old capitol, where the order of secession was passed…were all in one heap of unsightly ruins and rubbish.” –David Conyngham119
“Groups of men, women, and children were gathered in the streets and squares, huddled together over a trunk, a mattress, or a bundle of clothes.” –Major George Ward Nichols120
“The city was a scene of smoldering ruin.”—Private John C. Arbuckle121
“Around the charred ruin of their homes were grouped whole families, mourning and weeping over the terrible desolation. Who could see it and not feel that Justice had been avenged in this great curse on the city.”—Captain S.H.M. Byers122
“The truth is, last night our men got beyond our control.” –General Oliver Howard123
“I have never doubted that Columbia was deliberately set on fire in more than a hundred places.”—General William B. Hazen124
On the morning of February 20, Sherman’s army marched out of Columbia leaving behind 500 head of cattle in poor condition to feed the 7000 remaining residents.125 All public property surviving the fire had been destroyed except for the new capitol under construction, which Major George Ward Nichols thought was because it was such a beautiful work of art.126 “The capital building is far from completion, but, if ever finished, it will be the most beautiful architectural creation in this country.”127
Leaving with Sherman were thousands of refugees. “Old men, women and children, blacks and whites, rich and poor, on foot, with packs of every conceivable kind.”128
Private John C. Arbuckle--“In the parks and other vacant places were gathered multitudes of the destitute and homeless. Truly it was a scene of appalling distress and suffering…As our columns went by, the people gave vigorous expression to their desire for revenge, hissed and hooted, called us vile names, swore at us, spit upon us, not a few of the women undertook to lay violent hands upon us. While we could not seriously blame them for their abusive words and acts, being mainly innocent sufferers; nevertheless, here was the spot where they had sown the wind, and now at last had come the whirlwind.”129
Major George Ward Nichols--“Columbia will have bitter cause to remember the visit of Sherman’s army. Even if peace and prosperity soon return to the land, not in this generation nor the next—no, not for a century—can this city or the state recover from the deadly blow which has taken its life. It is not alone in the property that has been destroyed…that the most blasting, withering blow has fallen. It is in the crushing downfall of their inordinate vanity, their arrogant pride, that the rebels will feel the effects of the visit of our army.”130

One of the worst examples of Sherman's command, I know. And I agree in this case he should have exercised far more control over his troops. Goes to show you what Liqour can do to a man. And the looting in this case was genuine as well. But I still dont see, even in a drunken rage, when men under Sherman's command committed rape. Unless I missed something?

You want to hear a story. While marching through Virginia, this regiment stopped at this local farm right near a fence. The captain turned to his troops and said, "I don't want to see anyone tearing down that fence. If I do, you will be in trouble." A courier galloped up to him and was talking to him. During this time, the troops dissassembled the whole fence. When they started marching again, the captain suddenly noticed that there was alot more wood with his troops and the fence had dissapered. He shurrged his shoulders and moved. He didn't see anyone tear down the fence.