Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

I wasn't pointing fingers. I was showing that everyone has blame. ANd, they were 1600-Napoleonic Era rules. The wagon rules came directly from then. The 40 days was not officially a rule until the 1600's. Before hand, most people couldn't make a siege longer then that.

Um I'm a little lost... Are we talking about the 1600's or the 1860's?

I thought so. Thanks for specifying.....

Ok IGB By saying that war is not gentlemanly and by saying that we are not being forceful enough in Iraq are you saying that the army there should be allowed to pillage and rape? Or are you just justifing it for the North to have done to the South? (I wont get into burning cities down. I just want to know your opinion about pillage and rape.) Please answer my post yes and know or I will consider my point to have been made. JUST yes or no.

(Btw The North used Southern Soldiers as shields too.)
Your friend General Lee

Quote :

Ok IGB By saying that war is not gentlemanly and by saying that we are not being forceful enough in Iraq are you saying that the army there should be allowed to pillage and rape? Or are you just justifing it for the North to have done to the South? (I wont get into burning cities down. I just want to know your opinion about pillage and rape.)

No. Where did I say that you could rape and pillage? I didn't. I was just saying you can't expect people to be gentleman about war! Just to let you know, I am against rape and pillaging. Just because everyone else on this site likes blasting Sherman and Grant for somethings they doesn't mean I can't protect them. Not thier actions, just them personally.

Then you have lost the argument for you have not only said that Sherman is indefencible for his war crimes. But you have also said that what he allowed WAS WRONG! Therefore you have said that he was a terrorist... You can bend it any way you want... That is in-ecessance what you said and acknowledged.
Your friend General Lee

great point Lee. If you can't defend them, IBG, then the conversation's over.

I never said I was going to defend their actions. So, fine, consider this discussion over. But, I would appreciate it if you Southerners would not just focus on actions and more on personality.

IBG when I get old and become a communist dictator I will love my children my wife and my country but I will murder thousands of millions of people. Everyone will love my personality.... I will JUST murder. Have you seen Batman Begins? Its not who you are underneath it what you do that defines you. The Bible (which you cant argue with) says "by their fruits you shall know them." Sherman was wicked PERIOD. In my opinion someone can outwardly be the "nicest person in the world but if that someone (Sherman for that matter!) is going to allow raping... well lets just say most people wont hold you in high regard.
Your opionated friend General Lee

HA! Personality instead of actions??? "Actions speak louder than words." At least, they do in respectable places, like the South and California lol.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

IBG when I get old and become a communist dictator I will love my children my wife and my country but I will murder thousands of millions of people. Everyone will love my personality.... I will JUST murder. Have you seen Batman Begins? Its not who you are underneath it what you do that defines you. The Bible (which you cant argue with) says "by their fruits you shall know them." Sherman was wicked PERIOD.
Your friend General Lee

Sry IBG but he's right, your actions tell what lies underneeth. It doesnt matter what you say your like inside, what you do tells the story for you.

Well said. Glad you decided to come around.

Come around? I am stating the truth, I havent joined you or your gray coats.

It's what you believe in that tells most, not the color of your uniform.

Thanks for the support Oppie!

Gray represents your view, sry Stuart. Just becasue we have one thing in common doesnt mean I agree with you on everything:P

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Thanks for the support Oppie!

your welcome, but dont expect me to agree with you on everything:afro:

I dont. after all you are oppie! Back to topic unless topic is done....

Iron Brigade General wrote:

......you Southerners....

You southerners?What is that supossed to mean? General Lees right

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

I dont. after all you are oppie! Back to topic unless topic is done....

the topic is most vertainly not over, however, any responces(by me at least) will be delayed for a lil while, until I adavance more into my study.

General Stuart wrote:

Ok, enigma, you obviously like studying this subject, but it is also obvious that you don't really know much about it. Case in point: your post is a joke. Please don't take offense, but your "scenario" with the Canadian army (lol) and the US army was hilariously pathetic. First of all, if exploding bullets are decreed illegal, why would our government produce them, and then ship them to the field, even though the army can't use them? Honestly......

This situation - our government had recently confiscated this large store from a group of rebels trying to take it to the Canadians. Please Stuart.

General Stuart wrote:

enigma, you either haven't read my posts on this, or don't know enough about the Geneva conventions; probably the latter judging by your last post. Did you notice that the four Geneva conventions of 1949, the ones that are still in effect today, were passed by the United Nations? Tell me, what is the whole point of the U.N.? (Hint: It was created to form a world alliance that would hopefully stop individual nations from going to war with eachother) And it was also created to form some kind of international confederation, whose overwhelming world unity would deter other nations who chose to oppose it, from resisting it. This idea had first arrisen immediatly after WWI, and even though it had the full support of President W. Wilson, the people, and thus Congress turned it down. However, without the support of the US, the newest of the world powers, such a union could not function with the necessary power. But once the United Nations came to be, there came semi-valid proof that all nations, for the sake of combatants and non-combatants alike, would ratify and obey a simple group of 'rules' pertaining to war. The nations who went against these rules would have the U.N. to answer to. These rules that were included in the four conventions of 1949 were originally passed in some form or another in the conventions of Geneva and Hague. In all truth, contrary to what enogma would believe, the "rules" of war have been closely followed and basically observed without fault in all of these years (however, war crimes do appear, and these are unfortunately unprevantable). The only catch is, that the styles of warfare have undeniably changed since 1949. So while it might look to enigma like the "rules" of war are a joke, he merely needs to look at facts to see that the reality of it is, that what is needed most is either addition or revision of the standing rules to fit the kind of warfare the world has adapted to.

And one suggestion, enigma. Next time, try resorting to facts, instead of hypothetical scenarios featuring the canadian army.

Oh my, trying to knock down my logic are we? Obviously this issue has been resolved in this forum with me, yes me, being right. The whole concept of war is inhumane, and what makes you think that anyone should follow rules in war? And if you say that you hate those who don't follow rules during war, then remember the American Revolution. Everyone was supposed to line up in nice formations and blow the snot out of each other. They weren't supposed to use guerilla tactics, etc. It was the proper rules of engagement that we were supposed to follow. But guess what, the U.S. adapted, and may not have won every battle, but sure as heck began to frustrate Britain, so much so that Cornwallis ordered cannons blown into the middle of the field - right where his own troops were (on purpose might I add). The fact is war is hell. What man can do, man will do, and rules will only be followed if the governing nations fighting decides to follow such rules (look at Iraq, and what they do as IBG stated. Do you think this war is the most unique in the entirety of the world where the rules have been broken. Please). And sometimes logic comes into play and is a more useful weapon than is pure knowledge. Ah. I have said to much...

And yes, Stuart, you have caught me at my own game. A guess, yes, but a lucky one indeed. The civil war isn't my thing. When I first came to this forum, my knowledge on the CW was minimal, what one can learn in one week during a 6-week course (and other moments in time). However, during this forum, my knowledge has expanded tremendously - so much so that I can hold my own against you Stuart. I congratulate you, IBG, your forum is a success (oh well, if that wasn't its intention).

Iron Brigade General wrote:

I wasn't pointing fingers. I was showing that everyone has blame. ANd, they were 1600-Napoleonic Era rules. The wagon rules came directly from then. The 40 days was not officially a rule until the 1600's. Before hand, most people couldn't make a siege longer then that.

Um, I am confused. Wasn't Napoleon barely after the Revolutionary war? I just need some clarification (stupidity on my part, I know).

Yes Napoleon was from the late 1700's till like 1815 or something. That still doesn't have anything to do with the Civil War.

Well, people were talking about rules, so I just put down some rules that were intresting.

Ok enigma just because some people dont obey the laws of war does that make it right to not obey them? Sherman LET his men rape. Since it was in war did it make it alright to do? Please answer YES OR NO! If you answer yes you are a lunatic (and I KNOW that you arent a lunatic) If you answer No then you have agreed that there are some UNDENIABLE moral EVEN IN WAR.

Your humble friend yet enemy, General Lee

P.S. REMEMBER YES OR NO!