Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

I only wish to defend Sherman. Pretty much, he was not a bad person. He just was forced to do some stuff to end the war. Not that I am saying he was justified in destroying everything he did.

You cannot judge the heart of a man by looking into the past and studying his actions. Heck, you cant judge the heart of any man. Nobody can see into the heart of another. It's something that's hidden within oneself. It's hard to tell axactly everything that happened because all that we have is what was handed down from generation to generation. Therefore, even when I dont know a lot about Sherman i can conclude that part of his past has been misread. Which part and how much i do not know, but I DO know that you cant say that a man is a terrible person based of facts that you've read about when you have NEVER met the guy. Please note that i'm not justifying anything wrong that he did.

Youre right. I guess I cant really say that Hitler and Stalin were bad. I never did meet them. Even though they did some bad things they cant be called bad... Please forgive my sarcasm.

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matt 7:17-18

Hitler went to a Mormon church when he was little. Just visiting and all. But, when the US government condemned him for what he did, he said they couldn't say anything about him since they had persecuted the Mormons.

Are you getting off topic or are you disqualifing my argument that Hitler was bad? I dont quite understand what you are saying. If you are saying that I cant say Hitler was bad because the US has faults too... thats just illogical and I highly doubt that that is what you were trying to say.... could you clarify yourself?

Your very bewildered yet very opinionated friend,
General Lee

I was just giving an intresting fact on the Hit man.

Ok, IBG, I have done research on the Geneva Convention and can tell you that it was not created after WWII. It was in fact created in 1864, and was meant to provide protection and care to wounded soldiers during war (they must have heard about your friend Grant). It called for private volunteer agencies who would be neutral in times of war and provide care to soldiers of any nationality. This is what started the Red Cross. Anyway, according to my source, in the years prior to WWI, as new types of technology and weaponry were entering the field of battle, the convention met in Geneva again, to discuss rules of war. Geneva was the site of these meetings because by this time Switzerland had already declared itself nuetral to all world events and was therefore the logical point of contact for diplomats of warring nations. There were four conventions, each one deciding a different issue. My source didn't state, but I would think that the conventions would have taken place in 1864, when it was founded, prior to WWI, after WWI, and then a final time after WWII. After the last convention, in 1949, the four laws passed by the delegates where consolidated and passed by the U.N.

Now, back to Sherman. Lee is right, the tale is written by the conquorors, not the vanquished. I was also impressed with General Lee's comparisons to the bible, all of which made perfect sense to me. Now, I don't think Lincoln ever claimed to have spoken with God, right? Anyway, as to IBG's charge to the effect that Sherman "had to do certain certain things to end the war," as I stated earlier, if Sherman's real goals were to end the war in all possible haste, do you think he would have lingered in the deep south, leaving his men free to rape and pillage at will? No! This reveals his true aims. If you need any more proof, read the man's very words in General Lee's "Quotes" forum. Very interesting reading....

Wow Stuart... thats awesome. Thanks for posting it and RIGHT ON!

something I left out, the reason the Geneva Convention found it necessary to meet again in the years prior to WWI, was largely because of the arrival of barbaric technology, like exploding bullets that would explode upon entering the skin, and triangular bayonets. They never did address poison gasses, though, which would seem to be against the natural rules of war, but if it came out during wartime, I can understand that the nation who created it/used it first (Germany) would not be very keen to ban it.

And glad you liked it Civ.

Good post Jeb.
I now understand that you were just stating a fact IBG. At first I didnt quite get it.
Your understanding friend lol
General Lee

Everything I've read on the GC it says it was after WWII that it was made.

I finally found an article that deals with the subject in more debth (btw, msn search sucks). Now I can see that IBG was probably thinking of the four Geneva Conventions held in 1949, which are the "rules" of war still in effect today. A quick correction on my other post, the convention held prior to WWI was held in Hague, not Geneva (Hague Conventions, 1907). Duh lol. But I just discovered all of this by reading the below article. This is just an exerpt, I highlighted the important part. Now, if anybody can dig up a copy of the Lieber Code, then we'll really be able to see how many rules of war -in effect at the time- Sherman broke.


"War has always had its own codes and rules, but the modern laws governing armed conflict were developed during the 20th century, when industrialized nations fought large, mechanized, bloody wars of attrition. World Wars I and II—featuring aerial combat, bombing campaigns, chemical and trench warfare, and the slaughter of soldiers and civilians on an unprecedented scale—spurred the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which laid out basic principles of conduct for civilized nations. These treaties aimed to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to the extent possible, to minimize the suffering inherent in war. But like their predecessors—the prisoner-of-war treaty signed in Geneva in 1929, the Union Army's Lieber Code of 1863, the 1864 Geneva Convention, and the 1907 Hague Conventions, among others—the Geneva Conventions of '49 were fundamentally backward-looking, reflecting the dominant nature of warfare at the time: large air and land campaigns between states employing relatively symmetrical forces."

Although Sherman was obviouslly a troubled man, he definately knew his war tactics. I was doing some research on Sherman and found it quite intresting(not that i agree with it) how his rampage through the states tied in closely with confederate "dissersion". I'm usually not one to defend the south, but the truth is the truth. What really happened was the slodiers who were "disserting" their units were not greenhorns,they were veterans. Sherman knew that if he attacked the plantations and farms that he would succesfully weaken the confederate army in his area because all of the battle hardened soldiers went to protect their families.(that were being attacked by Sherman and his army.)

To be honest this tactic made me sick to my stomach.

Well, Sherman really didn't want to hurt the people. The Economy yes, the food stocks yes. I don't think he really wanted people personally hurt and that is why he did the march, to end the war sooner and keep tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides from dying.

Your probably right IBG, he wasnt a bad general, in fact he was a quite good one, but some of his tactics are questionable.

that could be said with a lot of generals though, everybody makes mistakes.

I don't agree with the tactics on what they did. I agree with the fact that it ended the war quicker.

Yes yes yes everything could have been done better on both sides.

Sherman still is getting a lot more atention then any other general hahahaha.

too true, both sides could have done better.

MUCH better.

"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

"I begin to regard the death and mangling of a
couple of thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash." --
General William T. Sherman

No.... Sherman didnt want to hurt anyone. He just wanted them dead.

Your very humble yet very sarcastic friend... General Lee

IBG, why do you persist in saying that the "march" ended the war sooner? If Sherman really wanted to end the war as soon as possible, he would have moved his soldiers with all haste to a position from which they could force the surrender of a rebel army. Instead, he lingered in the deep south, far from any real military resistance.

And what was he doing? He was "destroying one the most vital cities in the South".... This was truly a senseless thing to do since the war was basically won and he could have (like Jeb said) ended it sooner if he would have gone after the "rebels." His point was not to end the war but to etch the scars of war on the south. (please read my above quotes from him )
Your friend General Lee

That's where most of the food that could be grown for the CS Army that hadn't been ravaged was found. Once he destroyed that, the CS soldiers would give up easier for want of food. And also, destroying Atlanta and Savannah made the South less capable of doing stuff.