Why It Makes Sense... (2 Viewers)

[VanguardFC007]

I think a Northerner has the right to get their ears perked at certain topics as a Southerner would do the same if certain topics were broached. Its the nature of the conflict that we have our regional differences. In a perfect world everything would have worked out like the Glorious Revolution in England where not a drop of blood was shed. Unfortunately the emotions of the era as well as the stubborness of both sides prevented such a bloodless solution.

 

[FirstLegion]

I was gonna stay out of this but Sherman as a Hero? Any commander after him that did half of what he did, would be court martialed and imprisoned for life, or executed. Violated civil rights, illegal search and seizures, destruction of private property for no more reason than to create panic and pull troops from the front. Burned almost an entire city whether he meant to or not is of little concern. Allowed troops under his command to murder, rape, steal and torture civilians. He did indeed wage total war above and beyond what can be justified. Hero I think not, the man was a terrorist plain and simple. Lincoln's terrorist.

This thread is interesting, but seems to be getting a bit ridiculous. Sherman as a terrorist?? C'mon people, keep your eye on the ball and remember the time and place of what was going on.

The funny thing is that the focus of the thread seems to have turned to the North and how they were an invading nation, how they committed war crimes, and how they would be judged by "today's" standards. Let's turn the conversation a bit - how would the south be judged by today's standards for slavery? How would, say, Massachusetts for example, be judged by today's standards if it decided to leave the Union and declare itself a Nation?

I think, by "today's" standards, if Sherman invaded a "nation" that was one which upheld slavery, the slave holding nation would be viewed as in the wrong entirely, and by "today's" standards a "nation" that had slavery, even if burned entirely to the ground, would be viewed to have gotten what it deserved. I think that by "today's" standards, yes, Sherman might be labelled as a war criminal, but the labels on the slave holding "nation" would be FAR worse. I know this is certainly the case with WWII - when one views what the Russians did to the Germans towards the close of WWII after having sustained 3 years of brutal occupation or when one views the firebombing of Dresden in light of the London Blitz, little sympathy is mustered to these unjustices done to Germany because of the unjustices that they themselves propogated. In both cases, both side committed atrocities and all of these are injustices. (And NO, I'm not comparing the south to the Nazis, so please don't anyone be so simple as to even go there.)

Personally, I don't loose any sleep at night over Sherman's actions anymore than I lose sleep over hiroshima - both were undoubtedly wrong when viewed by themselves and not in the context of the historical time and place, but both were also expedients that in the long run, probably resulted in lowering the death toll than had the Civil War or WWII been dragged out for another year or more. It's war and war happens and brings out the worst in mankind. They did what was necessary to win a bloody and ugly war. The result of that war, though not it's initial purpose, was the eradication of slavery from the "modern" world and a sin that seems to be overlooked here and one that helps to put Sherman's actions into context, if not completely justifying the harsh treatment of an armed nation that fought to defend such an unjust institution. Unless of course one views the rape and murder of slaves as something less than the rape and murder of non-slaves? BOTH are wrong and neither has justification.

Of course, this is all from a view point in today's terms. My point is, when viewing what Sherman did it can't be viewed in a vacuum. Neither can the institution of slavery. Nor can secession in general. These were all events that happened at a specific point in history and cannot be viewed objectively from outside of that specific point in history. However, if you must view it in today's terms, slavery is a much bigger evil than anything Sherman or the North did. Sherman's march, though terrible and bloody, was a one-off isolated event. Slavey was an evil insitution.

In closing, I don't agree with the statement that the victors write the history in the modern world (including the ACW). In fact, its almost always the losers who are much more introspective and spend a LOT more time on trying to figure out how they lost than the victors do in assessing how they won. The statement that the victors write the history is reserved for meaning that those who win's version of events are the ones that get published. That probably used to be true, but doesn't really hold up in the modern era, particuarly not in a country with a free press. I'd be willing to bet my life that twice as many books on the ACW have been written by southerners than northerners.

 

[Spitfrnd]

...
The funny thing is that the focus of the thread seems to have turned to the North and how they were an invading nation, how they committed war crimes, and how they would be judged by "today's" standards. Let's turn the conversation a bit - how would the south be judged by today's standards for slavery? How would, say, Massachusetts for example, be judged by today's standards if it decided to leave the Union and declare itself a Nation?

Well some today would say let it go. Sorry but living in New Hampshire can give you that perspective and I couldn't resist having a bit of fun with such a set up.

...I think, by "today's" standards, if Sherman invaded a "nation" that was one which upheld slavery, the slave holding nation would be viewed as in the wrong entirely, and by "today's" standards a "nation" that had slavery, even if burned entirely to the ground, would be viewed to have gotten what it deserved. I think that by "today's" standards, yes, Sherman might be labeled as a war criminal, but the labels on the slave holding "nation" would be FAR worse. I know this is certainly the case with WWII - when one views what the Russians did to the Germans in WWII after having sustained 3 years of brutal occupation or when one views the firebombing of Dresden in light of the London Blitz, little sympathy is mustered to these injustices done to Germany because of the injustices that they themselves propagated. In both cases, these are injustices. (And NO, I'm not comparing the south to the Nazis, so please don't anyone be so simple as to even go there.)

Personally, I don't loose any sleep at night over Sherman's actions. It's war and war happens and brings out the worst in mankind. They did what was necessary to win a bloody and ugly war. The result of that war, though not it's initial purpose, was the eradication of slavery from the "modern" world and a sin that seems to be overlooked here and one that completely justifies the harsh treatment of an armed nation that fought to defend such an unjust institution. Unless of course one views the rape and murder of slaves as something less than the rape and murder of non-slaves? BOTH are wrong and neither has justification.

I am afraid I must get serious and respectfully disagree on this one. The end does not really justify the means to me, not now, not then. Slavery was a residual evil that needed to be eliminated and it was on its way out. Frankly, the majority of slave owners at that point already humanly treated their slaves and were well on the way of freeing them without the North's righteous intrusions. Of course some were not. Query do the sins of the few justify the torture of the many, not to me, then or now. I must say that even if a country today practiced slavery, that would in no way justify the war crimes that Sherman committed any more than the brutality of the Viet Cong justified the torture of their families or targeting of North Vietnamese civilians. The later situation is something I have some direct experience with and while and eye for an eye may work for crime where the criminals can be identified, tried and punished; it does not work and is simply a crime in itself when applied on an undiscriminating national level; civilization demands more and frankly even international law demands more. So were Sherman's actions justified to achieve victory, not to me, not by any rules I respect.

...
However, if you must view it in today's terms, slavery is a much bigger evil than anything Sherman or the North did. Sherman's march, though terrible and bloody, was a one-off isolated event. Slavery was an evil institution.

Yes slavery was evil; no, even as a one off event, which actually it was not, Sherman's actions should not be condoned even on a relative basis but rather should be condemned for what they were. This is again the ends and means issue.

...
....The statement that the victors write the history is reserved for meaning that those who win's version of events are the ones that get published. That probably used to be true, but doesn't really hold up in the modern era, particularly not in a country with a free press. I'd be willing to bet my life that twice as many books on the ACW have been written by southerners than northerners.

Well I think actually it is meant to suggest who gets to pick the official view, which, free press or not, is the one that makes it into most history books below the college level; winners do this.

 

[Shiloh]

I must disagree because there were still slaves in the north to. I don't remember anyone burning down or torturing people in Maryland or Kentucky for having large slave populations. So while I agree that slavery was bad did it really warrant this kind of retribution? I don't think slavery entered into it at all, as non slave holding civilians were destroyed just like the plantation owners. To put it in simple terms if you burn my house, rape my wife and starve my kids I don't care what your politics are, I am gonna hate you.

 

[Spitfrnd]

.....To some of you, Sherman is anathema. To me, he is a hero, for his capture of Atlanta guaranteed Lincoln's election. Otherwise, Lincoln would have lost and his successor, McClellan, might have let the South go its merry way or if the country had been re-unified, slavery would have probably still continued.
......

With respect Brad, there is absolutely nothing to support the view that slavery would have continued. You don't have to be a Southern to know that.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I must disagree because there were still slaves in the north to. I don't remember anyone burning down or torturing people in Maryland or Kentucky for having large slave populations. So while I agree that slavery was bad did it really warrant this kind of retribution? I don't think slavery entered into it at all, as non slave holding civilians were destroyed just like the plantation owners. To put it in simple terms if you burn my house, rape my wife and starve my kids I don't care what your politics are, I am gonna hate you.

Tis abosutely true. If again by "today's standards" we go, no American commander would ever, ever, ever get away with the things Sherman did. Tonight weve read terrorist and weve read hero, the truth as always is probably somewhere in the middle of all that.

 

[FirstLegion]

Well some today would say let it go. Sorry but living in New Hampshire can give you that perspective and I couldn't resist having a bit of fun with such a set up. .

Ahh, should have seen this coming!!!

I am afraid I must get serious and respectfully disagree on this one. The end does not really justify the means to me, not now, not then. .

Alas, but in many cases the ends do justify the means. Using this logic, the Allies should have never bombed German cities in WWII to name but one example.

Slavery was a residual evil that needed to be eliminated and it was on its way out. Frankly, the majority of slave owners at that point already humanly treated their slaves and were well on the way of freeing them without the North's righteous intrusions. .

Let's agree to disagree on this entirely. Does being treated well as a "slave" somehow make BEING a slave more tolerable or any less unjust? It's almost as if you're saying that as long as a slave is well treated, then slavery is ok (I know you're not saying this, but read what you wrote!)

Query do the sins of the few justify the torture of the many, not to me, then or now. I must say that even if a country today practiced slavery, that would in no way justify the war crimes that Sherman committed any more than the brutality of the Viet Cong justified the torture of their families or targeting of North Vietnamese civilians.

I both agree and disagree with this. Yes, the crimes of the few does not justify the punishment of the many. However, on what level are the many passively responsible? If, for example, a hypothetical nation allows itself to be governed by a brutal and oppressive regime, is the populace at least in some way responsible for the actions of the regime under which it allows itself to be governed? To use a concrete example, doesn't the german population as a whole bear some responsibilty for the crimes of the Nazis by virture of putting up with it and allowing it to happen? Personally, I believe they are responsible.

So were Sherman's actions justified to achieve victory, not to me, not by any rules I respect.
.

Again, it needs to be viewed in it's historical context and the norms of the day. It was brutal by today's standards, but not so much by the norms of the day. We'd all be horrified today by what happened to the American Indians at around the same period. But at the time, it just wasn't viewed the same way...

Yes slavery was evil; no, even as a one off event, which actually it was not, Sherman's actions should not be condoned even on a relative basis but rather should be condemned for what they were. This is again the ends and means issue. .

Let's agree to disagree on this. Again, it must be viewed in it's proper historical context. You simply can't view these events from a modern point of view. They must be viewed in the context in which they occured. If Sherman's actions shortened the war (for the sake of argument) and in the end, saved thousands of lives over the loss of life of a prolonged war, can it then be justified? I can only assume that you feel Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the largest wartime atrocities ever committed. I, on the other hand, feel that they can be justified in light of their historical context (an aggressive enemy that started a war, refused to surrender, was using suicide tactics and general strategy at that point with the sole goal of making victory so bloody and costly that they could negotiate a more favorable peace).

Well I think actually it is meant to suggest who gets to pick the official view, which, free press or not, is the one that makes it into most history books below the college level; winners do this.

Well, below the college level it all gets pretty shabby treatment. If we're juding the "official" view by what is covered in 8 pages of a high school history book, then sure. However, in the case of the ACW, high school books are in every school and every school in every state is free to choose it's own books, correct? So how could it only be the "victors" putting out the information in this case as each state/school is free to determine it's own lessons and history?

In closing, just remember, my whole point is not that Sherman was right or what not, my point is that these events all occured at a particular moment in history and can't be viewed objectively from today's standards. I think it goes too far to call Sherman a "terrorist" when his actions are viewed in their historical context. The south was militarily defeated at that point and didn't surrender. At some point, when you knock someone down over and over again and they keep getting up, you have to hit them with a brick to keep them down. At some point, they themselves are responsible for their own destruction. Sometimes there are enemies that simply won't surrender without total destruction.

 

[FirstLegion]

With respect Brad, there is absolutely nothing to support the view that slavery would have continued. You don't have to be a Southern to know that.

With all due respect back at you, there is nothing to suggest that the south would have willingly given up slavery either. On the contrary, the south was clearly willing to fight for at least their "right" to determine if they could have slaves. Given that the south never "freed" the slaves, but rather that emancipation was forced on them, this is a pretty hollow point of view.

 

[tdubel]

Honestly, the slavery argument is just not an argument in my opinion. ON both sides of the line, there were issues. It was on the way out and this war was not about that (maybe a precursor), but when they got started, that issue went out the window.

The war itself is just a tough issue to debate, but one that is a good debate. I always find I learn something new each time we go through this.

As for Sherman, see what I told ya......mention his name and the bombs go off. Brad, First Legion, I know you all may regard him for what he is, but "we" don't respect him and probably never will. The complete burning and decimation he did was over the top and ridiculous. Even with the sheer number of men he had, he could not easily win a fair fight. Personally, I think it was his inept command. Let's be honest, give Lee, Stuart, Forrest, Stonewall (Especially Stonewall) the numbers he had and there would have undoubtedly been a "Stars and Bars" flying in DC.

IN the end of all of this, I think the Country being preserved was the right thing to happen, I don't agree with the tactics used to secure that nor do I agree with the period of Reconstruction (better termed Northern Corruption, which I don't think any student of history will argue). BUT, all in all, United States as one country was the right thing to do.

NOW< one other point on here I saw about who writes history. Let us all remember to the victor goes the spoils and yes that includes the history writing. It is only debated 100 years later by idiots like us who have nothing else better to do in our spare time!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FirstLegion]

Personally, I think it was his inept command. Let's be honest, give Lee, Stuart, Forrest, Stonewall (Especially Stonewall) the numbers he had and there would have undoubtedly been a "Stars and Bars" flying in DC.

Now THIS, I agree with wholeheartedly. I never said I thought Sherman was a master strategist! The Confederacy clearly had the best generals of the war and were the "elite" army of the two. The fact that Lee was ever able to invade the north at all given the preponderance of Northern military might is a testament to his command ability. This I won't argue with. It's amazing the south lasted as long as they did and the string of victories against insurmountable odds that they achieved is nothing short of incredible.

However, what I will argue with is that I just don't think the south would have ever surrendered without being totally destroyed first.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Slavery cannot be counted as a cause for the war on the basic ground that it wasnt a cause to begin the war. The South seceeded to protect its states rights (See the Bill of Rights - a power not expressly given to the Federal Government will be given to the State Governments). In 1862 when Lincoln delivers the Emancipation Proclamation to make it about slavery what was the South to do? Stop fighting and figure out what the war was really over? Certainly not. The South continued fighting for states rights, not for slavery. Whatever the North wanted to fight for was their own business but the South shouldnt have been held accountable for what was clearly a Northern changing of the rules after it had started.

I dont believe the average Southerner would have fought at the begining had the war been about slavery; just as his Northern counterpart wouldnt have fought had it initially been about slavery. Both sides began the fight with the same intentions from the opposite side - a state's right to choose for itself.

 

[FirstLegion]

The slavery argument is only an argument when viewed in a modern perspective. I didn't say it was the cause of the war or what not. What I am saying is that one can't look back from today's world and call Sherman a "terrorist" for how he waged the war and then totally dismiss that those same tactics helped to bring about the end of slavery. My point being that if Sherman is a terrorist for how he waged the war when viewed by today's moral standards, what then is a united south that had slavery when viewed by today's moral standards? So, the point is, Sherman couldn't anymore get away with those tactics in today's America anymore than a state could get way with secession today or with the institution of slavery today. It all must be viewed together and within it's proper historical context.

 

[Deitz]

Slavery cannot be counted as a cause for the war on the basic ground that it wasnt a cause to begin the war. The South seceeded to protect its states rights (See the Bill of Rights - a power not expressly given to the Federal Government will be given to the State Governments). In 1862 when Lincoln delivers the Emancipation Proclamation to make it about slavery what was the South to do? Stop fighting and figure out what the war was really over? Certainly not. The South continued fighting for states rights, not for slavery. Whatever the North wanted to fight for was their own business but the South shouldnt have been held accountable for what was clearly a Northern changing of the rules after it had started.

I dont believe the average Southerner would have fought at the begining had the war been about slavery; just as his Northern counterpart wouldnt have fought had it initially been about slavery. Both sides began the fight with the same intentions from the opposite side - a state's right to choose for itself.

Slavery may not have been the only cause of the Civil War, but to say it wasn't one of reasons for the war is to ignore history.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Slavery may not have been the only cause of the Civil War, but to say it wasn't one of reasons for the war is to ignore history.

While slavery was a "precursor" to the war, and the main right refered to by state's rights, it wasnt what the soldiers were fighting for. And what they fought for is what should be considered the reasons for fighting the war; in my opinion.

However as I have previously said, everyone may have their own opinion. It inspires these great debates that we have and I believe we can all agree that we wouldnt want it any other way.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Harris,

Your argument doesn't hold water for one simple reason. After the Dred Scott decision, the Republican Party was formed on an abolitionist platform, and Lincoln was nominated as the Republican candidate for the presidency. When this occurred, several southern states announced that if Lincoln was elected they would leave the union. In response, Lincoln announced that if he was elected, he would do whatever was necessary to preserve the union, including abandon the abolitionist position. The southern states didn't buy Lincoln's promise, and bailed on the union once he was elected. So while for the north, Slavery might not have been the reason for the war, it certainly was for the south. The only states' rights the southern states were fighting to preserve were (1) slavery and (2) the right to leave the union if they did not get to keep slavery.

 

[Spitfrnd]

With all due respect back at you, there is nothing to suggest that the south would have willingly given up slavery either. On the contrary, the south was clearly willing to fight for at least their "right" to determine if they could have slaves. Given that the south never "freed" the slaves, but rather that emancipation was forced on them, this is a pretty hollow point of view.

Actually Matt, I think you need to review your history on this point. Slavery was a dying institution all over the world at that point. The willingness was expedience. Are you really trying to suggest that the South, as a group, would have acted against their own self interest, not to mention the conscience of most. Sorry but morality is not a Northern invention. I will not call your view hollow however, that is an not a word that is properly exchanged among friends. And to the point that sometimes, the end justifies the means, no it never does. The morality of ending WWII is justified quite differently. Otherwise there would be no need to have a category defined as WAR CRIMES, somewhat of an oxymoron otherwise.

 

[FirstLegion]

Actually Matt, I think you need to review your history on this point. Slavery was a dying institution all over the world at that point. The willingness was expedience. Are you really trying to suggest that the South, as a group, would have acted against their own self interest, not to mention the conscience of most. Sorry but morality is not a Northern invention.

As far as I know, slavery was a dead institution among world powers at that point except within the United States. It seems to me, as Louis points out below, that leaving the Union in order to protect their right to have slaves, the south most certainly did act against their own self-interest (with hindsight of course). I don't believe for a second that morality is a Northern invention, but to suggest that some silent majority in the south felt that slavery was wrong and wanted to free the slaves but didn't, is a bit of a stretch for me to accept.

I will not call your view hollow however, that is an not a word that is properly exchanged among friends.

My apologies, but I think you misread me (or I mispoke!). I meant to say it's a hollow argument because one can't make an argument about what "might" have happened, but rather one must stick to the historical fact of what "did" happen. So while I agree with you that slavery would have eventually died out on it's own at some point, the fact is that it didn't die out on it's own, and to speculate when and under what circumstances it would have died out, is just that - pure speculation. When you said "there is absolutely nothing to support the view that slavery would have continued", I assume you mean nothing other than the 5 year war fought in large part to defend the institution?

And to the point that sometimes, the end justifies the means, no it never does.

Ah, see, this is where we disagree.

This is certainly an interesting discussion...

 

[VanguardFC007]

Matt,

Youre quite right, slavery was a dead institution all over the world except the American Contintent. Had slavery lived past the WBTS then it to would have ended in the South eventually due to England. In England there was a movement to withhold support of the South due to the slavery issue. Had the South gained its independence, economic pressure from England would have eventually forced the South into emancipation whether the slave owners liked it or not. Then you have the whole other issue of what you do with former slaves and as you can look back into US history to see, that took the better part of 130 years to figure out.; but thats a topic for a later date.

 

[jazzeum]

I think the fascinating thing about this conflict is how politicians did what they normally do: avoid having to make hard decisions. Ultimately, the day had to come when slavery had to be reckoned with and that was 1861. They did it in 1820 and papered it over in 1850 but they simply postponed the inevitable. As a matter of fact, before the Compromise of 1850 was adopted, several southern stated were considering secession and a meeting was held in Nashville to consider the possibilities. However, the Southern unionists were not convinced so nothing really happened.

In addition, it wasn't really a compromise as the North and South voted sectionally and only a select group tipped the votes one way or the other on all the measures. It was really an armistice not a compromise.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Its interesting that the back-to-back greatest political eras couldnt peacefully work something out. From what Ive read all the major players of the age knew it was a problem, they just didnt know how to fix it without causing disunion. Other minds of the time figured they would just leave it to the next generation. Sadly those politicians were even less brilliant. Then there were other great minds who didnt even see the problem i.e. Jackson and Calhoun etc.