Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

Ron, atleast as Southerners we can hold our heads high that when General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia crossed into the North that they conducted themselves as proper Southern gentlemen.

Are you serious? Things happen in war on both sides of a conflict. No one is innocent. You need to examine the historical record. What do you call the burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania because the townspeople had no money to pay the ransom? Although not part exactly of General Lee's Army specifically, what about the murder of 300 black soldiers and officers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee who tried to surrender but were instead killed.

Let's not ascribe qualities to our heroes that they might not have. If we're going to study history, we need to examine the good and the bad.

 

[FirstLegion]

I am talking about the subject matter and now Matt - you are making this discussion personal against me - you want to back off little - I think you are crossing the line here.

I'm not making it personal against you Ron, on the contrary, I'm commenting about your comment, not about you. I'm not saying you should agree with the author's piece, but to simply say it's "crap" because he's a professor at the University of Ohio and then toss in a "war crimes" for good measure without providing any basis for your opinion isn't really helpful to any serious discussion about it. So if his piece, which is at least well presented and reasoned, even if you don't agree with it, is "crap" then your rebuttal to it is...what?

 

[jazzeum]

Wow, that is nuts. I guess we better ban Mort Kunstler, Don Troiani, King & Country and everywhere else the evils Bars are emblazoned.

And no Deitz, I don't think the Stars and Bars represents the destruction of the United States, do you actually believe that???

TD

I agree that is nuts. We need to let history be history. It was probably not the best media placement decision but nothing to get crazy about either.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Are you serious? Things happen in war on both sides of a conflict. No one is innocent. You need to examine the historical record. What do you call the burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania because the townspeople had no money to pay the ransom? Although not part exactly of General Lee's Army specifically, what about the murder of 300 black soldiers and officers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee who tried to surrender but were instead killed.

Let's not ascribe qualities to our heroes that they might not have. If we're going to study history, we need to examine the good and the bad.

Ft. Pillow was not under the jurisdiction of General Lee and he and his command is all I mentioned. As for Chambersburg, that is an incident that slipped my mind. It should also be noted that the Chambersburg incident was perpetrated (sp?) by cavalry from Jubal Early's command, not Lee's. The previous two times when Southern cavalry had invaded the area, the Northern residents remarked at how well behaved their invaders were. During the Gettysburg campaign some military warehouses were burned down but never any civilian proprty. As I said, proper Southern Gentlemen fought for General Lee.

 

[Rob]

Well hey while were at it I guess we should apologise to the British. Our flag represents the loss of their premier 18th century colonies. Maybe we oughta get a new flag.

No apologies needed mate.If anyone has reason to regret past deeds its us!.

I only have a very basic limited knowledge of the ACW i must confess,however one thing i do know is that out of that terrible conflict eventually came a united nation that stood together when the world needed them in its two darkest hours.Many countries including my own have done terrible things in the past but have learnt and moved on,its where we are now that counts.

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Wow, that is nuts. I guess we better ban Mort Kunstler, Don Troiani, King & Country and everywhere else the evils Bars are emblazoned.
...

It is nuts. Professor McPherson needs to get a life and perhaps learn something more from the history he teaches. Incongruous, perhaps; offensive, please.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Thank you Rob, a weight has been lifted from my chest .

 

[Rob]

Thank you Rob, a weight has been lifted from my chest .

Happy to help mate!

 

[thebritfarmer]

No apologies needed mate.If anyone has reason to regret past deeds its us!.

I only have a very basic limited knowledge of the ACW i must confess,however one thing i do know is that out of that terrible conflict eventually came a united nation that stood together when the world needed them in its two darkest hours.Many countries including my own have done terrible things in the past but have learnt and moved on,its where we are now that counts.
Rob

I am in full agreement with you there Rob !!

 

[FirstLegion]

Wow, that is nuts. I guess we better ban Mort Kunstler, Don Troiani, King & Country and everywhere else the evils Bars are emblazoned.

And no Deitz, I don't think the Stars and Bars represents the destruction of the United States, do you actually believe that???

TD

Yeah, it is nuts. I think that people who understand and appreciate military history see the stars and bars in that light - as a battle standard for a very worthy army with a long and storied battle history. It's really those who can't see it in that perspective, or who view it in the negative ways it's been used since the war ended (which isn't helpful of course), who take issue with it. MacPherson should know better...

 

[VanguardFC007]

Yeah, it is nuts. I think that people who understand and appreciate military history see the stars and bars in that light - as a battle standard for a very worthy army with a long and storied battle history. It's really those who can't see it in that perspective, or who view it in the negative ways it's been used since the war ended (which isn't helpful of course), who take issue with it. MacPherson should know better...

Agreed Matt, you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[Warrior]

"I also told you to build a website too if I remember corrrectly, and actually built your first one for you! (NOW THAT'S A FRIEND!) I wish I had thought to start First Legion back then! Of course, I didn't know a thing about toy soldiers and was totally mesmerized by trying to wargame with K&C's first WWII figures. Ahh, the good old days when all of this was just a hobby for me...

Wow, has it been 12 years already? We're getting old George."

You are correct Matt, it was you who built the first Minutemen website. Funny thing is back then, figures such as yours would not have gone over as successfully as they have now as back then, gloss was all the rage and hardly anyone was producing or buying matte finished figures. And aren't you
glad you chimed in on this thread?

Regarding this thread; it has certainly been an eye opener for me to say the least.

The opinions being expressed here are certainly interesting, this thread does not quite have the entertainment value of the the NJJA thread about flooding Ebay with merchandise, but it's still an award winner.

I'm waiting for someone to get slapped with a glove and challenged to a duel. "You sir, unlike myself are not a gentleman......"slap!"......."well sir, I take offense to that comment (not to mention the slap) and I challenge you to a duel, pistols at 50 paces just as soon as I finish my mint julip."

Bottom line is Brad has said it best; 143 years is still not enough time, I don't think there will ever be enough time. The war is over, the nation is one again, but it's crystal clear to me that is not the case, there is and always will be a north/south divide. Sad commentary really

 

[Spitfrnd]

...I'm not saying you should agree with the author's piece, but to simply say it's "crap" because he's a professor at the University of Ohio and then toss in a "war crimes" for good measure without providing any basis for your opinion isn't really helpful to any serious discussion about it. ...

I would hope none of this is taken personally. I would note however that I do not read that article as even suggesting that no war crimes were committed by or under the direction of Sherman during that campaign. To be clear, I would define that to include intentional attacks against civilian populations and their property, making non-defended localities the objects of attack, intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, deportation or transfer of the population of an occupied territory within or outside this territory and outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating and degrading treatment as well as rape, and other forms of sexual violence. Certainly there has been sufficient evidence of these violations offerred with original source documentation to merit the use of the term, however you rate the justification. Even if it were true that such conduct was not as widespread as commonly understood, that would not mean those acts were any more acceptable in my view.

 

[Spitfrnd]

"...I'm waiting for someone to get slapped with a glove and challenged to a duel. "You sir, unlike myself are not a gentleman......"slap!"......."well sir, I take offense to that comment (not to mention the slap) and I challenge you to a duel, pistols at 50 paces just as soon as I finish my mint julip."
....

If that happens, just remember that a slap would be considered a challenge and that the party challenged gets to chose the weapon.

 

[tdubel]

"I also told you to build a website too if I remember corrrectly, and actually built your first one for you! (NOW THAT'S A FRIEND!) I wish I had thought to start First Legion back then! Of course, I didn't know a thing about toy soldiers and was totally mesmerized by trying to wargame with K&C's first WWII figures. Ahh, the good old days when all of this was just a hobby for me...

Wow, has it been 12 years already? We're getting old George."

You are correct Matt, it was you who built the first Minutemen website. Funny thing is back then, figures such as yours would not have gone over as successfully as they have now as back then, gloss was all the rage and hardly anyone was producing or buying matte finished figures. And aren't you
glad you chimed in on this thread?

Regarding this thread; it has certainly been an eye opener for me to say the least.

The opinions being expressed here are certainly interesting, this thread does not quite have the entertainment value of the the NJJA thread about flooding Ebay with merchandise, but it's still an award winner.

I'm waiting for someone to get slapped with a glove and challenged to a duel. "You sir, unlike myself are not a gentleman......"slap!"......."well sir, I take offense to that comment (not to mention the slap) and I challenge you to a duel, pistols at 50 paces just as soon as I finish my mint julip."

Bottom line is Brad has said it best; 143 years is still not enough time, I don't think there will ever be enough time. The war is over, the nation is one again, but it's crystal clear to me that is not the case, there is and always will be a north/south divide. Sad commentary really

George,
I think this thread for the most part shows the intelligence of our forum. We all like to take a side a debate it, I dont have any open wounds, just opinions that I have formed from the basic facts over my life. I do regard many Northern Commanders very highly including the 54th Mass! I just have my own opinion about Sherman as much as some have theirs about Forrest, we will always have some bias. This has been a great thread and I have learned a few things!

I also like it when "both sides" agree on the ridiculousness of the PC police.

Tis all in fun, I think it is always good to review all perspectives, may not change everyone's opinion, but it should give you a better idea of viewpoint.

TD

 

[Deitz]

Wow, that is nuts. I guess we better ban Mort Kunstler, Don Troiani, King & Country and everywhere else the evils Bars are emblazoned.

And no Deitz, I don't think the Stars and Bars represents the destruction of the United States, do you actually believe that???

TD

I knew this would upset some people. Maybe I misunderstood what the South was fighting for? Maybe the South was fighting to preserve the Union and not to start a new country.

 

[tdubel]

I knew this would upset some people. Maybe I misunderstood what the South was fighting for? Maybe the South was fighting to preserve the Union and not to start a new country.

Hey, if that is what you believe, you are entitled to it, I just don't. Not upset, more perplexed, have never ran across that viewpoint before.

TD

 

[Deitz]

Well I think the best answer I can give you is wall a mile in my shoes mate. Not to put to fine a point on it but it does not and never did represent the destruction of the United States, rather the recognition of a transfer (albeit temporary) of some the then current United States to the Confederate States. Besides, whether or not you appreciate the cause, you certainly cannot help but honor the valor.

I have not questioned the honor or valor of the Southern Soldiers. I agree with Grant's quote on the Southern soldiers. I just do not agree with the cause that they fought. I have my views on the Confederate Battle Flag and many do not agree. Taht is fine.

But for some to call my views "Nuts", I don not think that is appropriate. We all have our views and I understand others viewpoints. One does not have to justify one's position by personnally attacking the others view point.

Is it OK for me to come out of the bunker yet.

 

[FirstLegion]

I would hope none of this is taken personally. I would note however that I do not read that article as even suggesting that no war crimes were committed by or under the direction of Sherman during that campaign. To be clear, I would define that to include intentional attacks against civilian populations and their property, making non-defended localities the objects of attack, intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, deportation or transfer of the population of an occupied territory within or outside this territory and outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating and degrading treatment as well as rape, and other forms of sexual violence. Certainly there has been sufficient evidence of these violations offerred with original source documentation to merit the use of the term, however you rate the justification. Even if it were true that such conduct was not as widespread as commonly understood, that would not mean those acts were any more acceptable in my view.

I agree with this of course that the lessening of the number of occurences of such actions doesn't make the ones that occured any more excuseable. However, the interesting part about the article is that there is clearly more at work here than factual history when it come to the mythmaking built around Sherman's march and that there seems to have been some agendas at work at the same time. Trudeau also seems to support this in his new book as well. Also interesting, particularly according to Trudeau as well as the author of the article, is the clear separation of the Carolina campaign from the 25 days spent marching from Atlanta to Savannah (i.e. Sherman's March to the sea). Both suggest that the conduct of the Union troops in South Carolina was a lot worse than anywhere else and that it was very personal ("punishment"). I think where the myth in part comes in is that the history has attributed the worst of what went on as the norm throughout the entire course of the campaign.

Trudeau interestingly points out in his web presentation that the brutality was not at all one sided either. He says that there were many cases of Union foragers being taken and murdered by the southern civilians. He also goes on to say that Union officers purposely exagerrated these stories to their men to help keep them from ranging too far afield while foraging and keeping them close to the army. However, he goes on to say that it became such a problem that Sherman finally executed a confederate POW in retaliation. I think this shows an example that the brutality wasn't one sided nor is the propogation of disinformation one sided either. Both sides committed "war crimes" and both sides are guilty at times of exaggerating these crimes to serve their own agendas.

I personally think that the march, while no doubt containing examples of "war crimes" on the part of individuals and certain groups was not conducted from the top down as one of total anhiliation and wanton destruction of the south and it did in fact serve a military purpose that helped to bring the war to it's conclusion (the breaking of the Southern will to fight and the lessening of it's capacity to resist). Whether or not one feels that actions such as destorying farms and local foodstores and other such directed/targeted actions against a civilian population is allowable in war or not is where the discussion gets interesting from a morality perspective. It's obvious to anyone that things like rape and murder and such are clearly never allowable or justifiable, so as far as I'm concerned such isolated occurences, which I believe they are, shouldn't be part of the discussion. But items such as forcing the civilian population to leave Atlanta with the intention of using it as a large military base or the destruction of infrastructure such as the rails or the burning of farms or taking food for the army at the expense of the local population are much more open to debate as to what's allowable in war. To me, these are actions of "hard" or even "total" war, but they are most certainly not war crimes - they are just the ugly part of war. Trudeau is asked this question directly - whether or not these actions taken by the Union succeeded in their goal and were militarily useful and to this he responds that they were "unfortunately necessary."

Anyway, this will be my last post on this. I do find this an interesting discussion when engaged in a thoughtful and open minded way, however, it is apparent that it does strike too close to home for some. So, if I've offended anyone with my views on this or even by opening it up for discussion at all, I apologize. I just find it a topic worthy or discussion.

 

[tdubel]

I have not questioned the honor or valor of the Southern Soldiers. I agree with Grant's quote on the Southern soldiers. I just do not agree with the cause that they fought. I have my views on the Confederate Battle Flag and many do not agree. Taht is fine.

But for some to call my views "Nuts", I don not think that is appropriate. We all have our views and I understand others viewpoints. One does not have to justify one's position by personnally attacking the others view point.

Is it OK for me to come out of the bunker yet.

Deitz,
the Nuts comment was for the NY Times article piece, not your view. I was posting comments on 2 posts at one time, I was asking you a question about your view and you answered. Like I said, I had never run across that viewpoint before.

TD