Was Sherman a War Criminal? (1 Viewer)

Seeing that it was written by a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is all I need to know.
 
Hmmm and most the articles you post are by Northern Newspapers and by people that never served in the military. As you said in your thread This article is based on facts and well researched. Now, if you don't like the articles, there is nothing forcing you to read them or commenting about them. Also so you know, the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy have done way more than any other organization to protect and preserve the history of the Civil war.
 
I didn't say anything about other organizations but about the SCV. They have an ax to grind. As far as this article, I see very few citations or references. Moreover, I would have to see where the Grimsley quote is taken from to see if it was taken out of context. However, no page reference is given.
 
jazzeum said:
I didn't say anything about other organizations but about the SCV. They have an ax to grind. As far as this article, I see very few citations or references. Moreover, I would have to see where the Grimsley quote is taken from to see if it was taken out of context. However, no page reference is given.
Click to expand...

"one of the more controlled acts of destruction during the war’s final year" I took this as a good thing, as Sheridan didn't allow the process to turn into utter carnage like the burning of Atlanta. Yes he was denying the enemy the valley but in his mind it was destruction with a purpose to be controlled. As far as the SCV axe to grind, anybody gets tired of always hearing the same one sided story all the time, revisionist history or heritage. I have studied the western theater (the forgotten part) of the Civil war for nearly 40 years, and the truth is somewhere in the middle and not very pretty for either side.
 
Last edited:
My gut feeling is that the North did not start the war and so whatever means necessary to end it made perfect sense to me. Should not throw pebbles if the other side has rocks. :tongue: Michael
 
maddadicus said:
My gut feeling is that the North did not start the war and so whatever means necessary to end it made perfect sense to me. Should not throw pebbles if the other side has rocks. :tongue: Michael
Click to expand...

Then we should Nuclear Biological or Chemical weapons first thing in all future wars?

The North may have not fired the first shot but mostly certainly did start the war when it refused to leave Fort Sumter. They abandoned Fort Moultrie but not Sumter. South Carolina saw this as foreign troops on sovereign soil and chaffed at it being there.

Shiloh's Monday Morning Quarterback version: This was handled as bad as it could be by South Carolina and the Confederacy. Fort Moultrie was the better position of the 2 forts so who cares if the Union wants to sit out there on that man made island and stew in the harbor, they weren't affecting commerce so big whoop and if they did try and stop an English ship let's see how they fair against the wrath that causes. For the time being we just need to trade cotton for guns and bide our time if we really think war is the answer.

Then when South Carolina did attack and start the war, the Confederacy could have not stood with them and told Washington hey your beef is with South Carolina an individual state not the rest of us. So Washington would out of necessity either had to attack the rest of the states in rebellion or waged war against just South Carolina. This would have been a logistical nightmare as they would have to go around and attack a defended coast.
 
Last edited:
Fort Pillow, attempted burning of New York City, the burning of Chambersburg, Andersonville, stealing black people on the Gettysburg Campaign.......... Fortunately the veterans agreed to shake hands and the leadership got to keep cheap labor by other names. The "we wuz rite" folks shouldn't use 20th century terms for 19th century warfare, that's just being......"PC!"
 
Shiloh said:
Hmmm and most the articles you post are by Northern Newspapers and by people that never served in the military. As you said in your thread This article is based on facts and well researched. Now, if you don't like the articles, there is nothing forcing you to read them or commenting about them. Also so you know, the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy have done way more than any other organization to protect and preserve the history of the Civil war.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's totally necessary to be a military veteran to write military history. I would think that museums and schools would be a better repository of documentation. The various Sons and Daughters groups may not have uniform standards of what is history and what is local custom.
 
Gents, the mods are keeping an eye on this thread. The last I checked, the 'Battle of the Treefrog Forum' is not listed in my Civil War Encyclopedia...so let's not add it!
 
Scott said:
Fort Pillow, attempted burning of New York City, the burning of Chambersburg, Andersonville, stealing black people on the Gettysburg Campaign.......... Fortunately the veterans agreed to shake hands and the leadership got to keep cheap labor by other names. The "we wuz rite" folks shouldn't use 20th century terms for 19th century warfare, that's just being......"PC!"
Click to expand...

Then doesn't the massacre at Fort Pillow fit the PC bill? By the way the Joint Committee On the Conduct of the War could not find enough evidence and acquitted Forrest.
 
Shiloh said:
Then doesn't the massacre at Fort Pillow fit the PC bill? By the way the Joint Committee On the Conduct of the War could not find enough evidence and acquitted Forrest.
Click to expand...
You know, that's a good point. Thanks for the correction.
 
I read the report of the Joint Committee and didn't see where they acquitted him. Could you please point out where they did so.
 
Sub-Committee Report April 18th 1866 or 1867 it doesn't say which but it does state it could not be proven Forrest ordered the massacre. If he was found guilty he would have hanged and he wasn't. I am not a lawyer and may have misspoke but if he is not found guilty and not found innocent he is?
 
Thanks. Do you have a link. I was looking at the 1864 report. If it couldn't be proven - and where have we heard that lately - then he's not guilty of the charge.

Brad
 
Thanks for the link to that article.

I stopped reading after the first sentence, but thanks anyway for the link.

148 years later and the war still rages on.
 
jazzeum said:
Thanks. Do you have a link. I was looking at the 1864 report. If it couldn't be proven - and where have we heard that lately - then he's not guilty of the charge.

Brad
Click to expand...
Haven't found it on line but it is in the Book that Devil Forrest.
 
I think you guys have the same issues we Brits have with Haig and Monty. Sadly, some like to look at History with a pure perception and condone leaders and officers who acted in different times socially, politically and, in a different standpoint to what is constituted as war and how it is conducted today.

Everyone is a war criminal, incompetent etc etc with the 20/20 hindsight we import on these events many years later. for me the term is bandied around too much without taking the entire situation both in terms of the military campaign and how it was going and the social and political aspects also

When you take one person out of an entire situation isolate him and address his action/s in minutia then its easy to say X or Y

Reading the article its clear there is some heavy bias involved and emotion running over the issues needing to be addressed. That always causes acrimony and obfuscates the issues even further.
Mitch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top