Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

Well said everyone. I believe calmer heads have prevailed and the conversation can continue. I agree that it has been quite thought provoking. I do hope we can soon move onto the war itself and get off its causes but thats just my personal taste. The war was much shorter than the buildup so maybe its appropriate we spend all this time on the causes.

Speaking of the war itself, and most specifically of Sherman's march to the sea (the point at which I initially jumped into this thread) I read an interesting presentation online on the "myth" of Sherman's march. It's an interesting read...

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm
 
Nevermind Rutledge, you were calling out First Legion because he is from Boston.

Carry on.

Oh sure, it's ok if he calls me out!! I thought we were friends man.... :( Where's the love??

Personally, I'd like to hear more about your girlfriends posture. :D
 
After watching "The Departed" I make it a point never to argue or offend anyone from Boston even if they are a Celtics fan. They also have great portuguese food out toward Fall River.
 
Speaking of the war itself, and most specifically of Sherman's march to the sea (the point at which I initially jumped into this thread) I read an interesting presentation online on the "myth" of Sherman's march. It's an interesting read...

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

I started to respond to this link, but I cannot find the proper words to express my opinion, I will leave it at that.

I guess I have finally found a commentary that offends me and my supposed intelligence. One story does not make a fact, I believe that the March is well documented in history.

TD
 
Speaking of the war itself, and most specifically of Sherman's march to the sea (the point at which I initially jumped into this thread) I read an interesting presentation online on the "myth" of Sherman's march. It's an interesting read...

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm


Hmmm... I dunno. That was special. Ill need to spend some more time with this. I think I am to tired right now to fully understand what I just read.
 
I've usually found that when we uncritically accept what we believe to be fact, there's more lurking below the surface. The accepted causef the Civil War -- slavery --may be one such story and Sherman's march may be another. There may be something to the OSU story or not. However, I'm intrigued now and will want to look into it. There is a relatively new book out there called "Southern Storm" by Noah Andre Trudeau, who is a well respected Civil War author, that may be a good starting point. Now, if I canonly find the time :)
 
"Oh sure, it's ok if he calls me out!! I thought we were friends man.... :( Where's the love??

Personally, I'd like to hear more about your girlfriends posture. :D"

You know we are tight Mr Matt, twelve years of friendship will do that. And if I recall correctly, it was you who thought me selling toy soldiers was a good idea back in 1997...:)

Boy were you right....;)

You've seen Miss Tiffany and her posture, enough said...:D
 
"After watching "The Departed" I make it a point never to argue or offend anyone from Boston even if they are a Celtics fan." You are a smart man Combat, I've never doubted that since I had the pleasure of meeting you and this just confirms it.......:)

"They also have great portuguese food out toward Fall River."

They sure do, literally right down the road from me as a matter of fact; yep, a smart man for sure........;)
 
I started to respond to this link, but I cannot find the proper words to express my opinion, I will leave it at that.

I guess I have finally found a commentary that offends me and my supposed intelligence. One story does not make a fact, I believe that the March is well documented in history.

TD

Hmm...whether you agree with the commentary or not, which is by a professor of history, I don't think it is offensive. In the factual basis section, the author doesn't deny what took place. Read that section again, which contains quotes such as "But the scale of the overall devastation was enormous", "The army burned everything it came near in the State of South Carolina", and "What happened to South Carolina forcefully underscored the substantially directed nature of the severity that had preceded it. It showed what a Federal army could do when it wanted to wreak indiscriminate havoc."

So the author isn't saying that Sherman's march wasn't bad, particularly in South Carolina, where apparently the Union soldiers in large numbers took it upon themselves to personally punish the state that they blamed for starting/prolonging the war. What the author is saying is that for the most part (south carolina excluded) that the march was a very directed and targeted campaign of destruction that was "roughly proportional to legitimate needs." Where the myth comes in, according to the author, is that the entire march is historically viewed to be one of wanton raping, murdering, and pillaging with a goal towards total anhiliation of everyone and everything in it's path. Factual history shows this not to be the case.

Read it again.
 
I've usually found that when we uncritically accept what we believe to be fact, there's more lurking below the surface. The accepted causef the Civil War -- slavery --may be one such story and Sherman's march may be another. There may be something to the OSU story or not. However, I'm intrigued now and will want to look into it. There is a relatively new book out there called "Southern Storm" by Noah Andre Trudeau, who is a well respected Civil War author, that may be a good starting point. Now, if I canonly find the time :)

Thanks for pointing this book out. From a review by Publisher's Weekly:

"Trudeau, a prize-winning Civil War historian (Gettysburg), addresses William T. Sherman's march to the sea in the autumn of 1864. Sherman's inclusion of civilian and commercial property on the list of military objectives was not a harbinger of total war, says Trudeau. Rather, its purpose was to demonstrate to the Confederacy that there was no place in the South safe from Union troops. The actual levels of destruction and pillage were limited even by Civil War standards, Trudeau says; they only seemed shocking to Georgians previously spared a home invasion on a grand scale...."

I haven't read it, but it sure looks interesting and seems like it will be in line with the essay of the other historian.
 
You know we are tight Mr Matt, twelve years of friendship will do that. And if I recall correctly, it was you who thought me selling toy soldiers was a good idea back in 1997...:)

Boy were you right....;)

You've seen Miss Tiffany and her posture, enough said...:D

Yes, I did didn't I. 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.
 
Hmm...whether you agree with the commentary or not, which is by a professor of history, I don't think it is offensive. In the factual basis section, the author doesn't deny what took place. Read that section again, which contains quotes such as "But the scale of the overall devastation was enormous", "The army burned everything it came near in the State of South Carolina", and "What happened to South Carolina forcefully underscored the substantially directed nature of the severity that had preceded it. It showed what a Federal army could do when it wanted to wreak indiscriminate havoc."

So the author isn't saying that Sherman's march wasn't bad, particularly in South Carolina, where apparently the Union soldiers in large numbers took it upon themselves to personally punish the state that they blamed for starting/prolonging the war. What the author is saying is that for the most part (south carolina excluded) that the march was a very directed and targeted campaign of destruction that was "roughly proportional to legitimate needs." Where the myth comes in, according to the author, is that the entire march is historically viewed to be one of wanton raping, murdering, and pillaging with a goal towards total anhiliation of everyone and everything in it's path. Factual history shows this not to be the case.

Read it again.


I think if you had a family history that was affected by the tactics of total war as illustrated by the March and other later campaigns in the Civil War, you would have the same feeling I do about this piece. I think my good friend Louis B. has always been correct about this subject, there is too much geographical and cultural difference (of opinion) about the War to ever have a true agreement on the opinions (our own) formulated from fact.

TD
 
I get tired of saying this but 143 years is obviously too soon for people to put it to rest. The question is how long does it go on before tempers not aroused. I lost family in the Holocaust but I didn't know them just as Tom (excuse me if use you as an example) didn't know his ancestors. I have forgiven the German people and most of the pepetrators are dead or will soon be. Forgive but not forget what happened. Shouldn't that be the same criteria here: forgive what happened to your family in Maryland but not forget?
 
Hmm...whether you agree with the commentary or not, which is by a professor of history, I don't think it is offensive. In the factual basis section, the author doesn't deny what took place. Read that section again, which contains quotes such as "But the scale of the overall devastation was enormous", "The army burned everything it came near in the State of South Carolina", and "What happened to South Carolina forcefully underscored the substantially directed nature of the severity that had preceded it. It showed what a Federal army could do when it wanted to wreak indiscriminate havoc."

So the author isn't saying that Sherman's march wasn't bad, particularly in South Carolina, where apparently the Union soldiers in large numbers took it upon themselves to personally punish the state that they blamed for starting/prolonging the war. What the author is saying is that for the most part (south carolina excluded) that the march was a very directed and targeted campaign of destruction that was "roughly proportional to legitimate needs." Where the myth comes in, according to the author, is that the entire march is historically viewed to be one of wanton raping, murdering, and pillaging with a goal towards total anhiliation of everyone and everything in it's path. Factual history shows this not to be the case.

Read it again.


LOL - Ohio State is now rewriting history - priceless. :rolleyes:

If winning the War wasn't enough - now we are going to lie our way out of War Crimes - please :rolleyes:
 
LOL - Ohio State is now rewriting history - priceless. :rolleyes:

If winning the War wasn't enough - now we are going to lie our way out of War Crimes - please :rolleyes:

Before you start passing judgment, you might take a look at his bio, which is pretty distinguished and includes a text on warfare used at the U.S. Military Academy.
 
Brad

If you think for one minute that actual first hand accounts of Sherman's men and how they waged their War Against Civilians is going to get washed away with one Yankee article ....

Well we have a saying in the South - " That Dog Won't Hunt ! "

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
I get tired of saying this but 143 years is obviously too soon for people to put it to rest. The question is how long does it go on before tempers not aroused. I lost family in the Holocaust but I didn't know them just as Tom (excuse me if use you as an example) didn't know his ancestors. I have forgiven the German people and most of the pepetrators are dead or will soon be. Forgive but not forget what happened. Shouldn't that be the same criteria here: forgive what happened to your family in Maryland but not forget?

Brad,
I understand what you are saying and yes you are correct, but I still think it is just a geographical difference that will never be bridged, don't know why, but I think it is due to the opinions we form from the basic facts.

I guess I try to be objective, as you know (or I think we discussed), had relatives on both sides, none were slave owners (ever to my knowledge). I do of course forgive (as that is not an issue), I think it is more of a not forgetting and the opinion I have formed on some of the campaigns. Even as a student of history, I cannot "appreciate" the leadership of Sherman. I also feel the same way about some of the German tank/brigade commanders. Some of them were brilliant on the battlefield, but when you dig into their rise in rank, etc, they were plain thru and thru Nazis. Now, please don't think I am comparing Sherman to a Nazi, that is not the case, I am just trying to explain my own critical thinking of each situation.

Other than Sherman, we can probably agree on 99% of the rest of the Civil War!:):)

Here is some food for thought for all involved in this discussion, who do you think the best commander was on both sides..... objectively..... for me it is Stonewall Jackson, I think he was the best tactical general bar none.

Who was the worst..............Braxton Bragg.....yes in my opinion he was worse than any of the inept Union Generals that are often cited for not capitalizing on their overwhelming strength (men).

Now that is a discussion we should be able to have in earnest.

TD
 
A really interesting thread guys and I have joined the discussion a little late. As a Brit I would not dare give an opinion on the case of slavery/abolition within the North and the South as causes of the struggle/war between the States and the continuation of segregation following the end of the war right up to almost the present day. History tells us it happened and I have been around that buoy many times before and trust me there is no solution to the argument/discussion. However, using Britain and other European countries, who had banned slavery by 1855, I'll take the discussion if I may off at a slight tangent to Africa where the majority of US slaves originated from.

Europe although giving up the institution of slavery still practiced colonialism on the Dark Continent and with a relish right up until the early 1960's when independences were quickly doled out to the various African countries.Now colonialism on one hand was seen as exploitation and oppression in fact not far removed from slavery itself. But on the other hand colonial governments did much to develop Africa and the Africans themselves benefited from the hospitals, schools, railroads and a civil society.

But following independence can anyone state if the independence of Africa has really worked? It would appear that racism and segregation is alive and well across the whole continent practiced with the same relish as their European masters but now by the corrupt African governments themselves.
Sudan/Darfur; Congo; Ivory Coast; Zimbabwe; Chad; Somalia; Guinea; Liberia; Burundi; Sierra Leone; Uganda; Nigeria/Biafra; Rwanda; Ethiopia; Malawi; Kenya; Cameroon; Angola. Every single one of those countries has had and continues to have endless civil wars, coups d'etats, oppression, misery, murder, ethnic cleansing, rape, thousands of refugees, the highest infant mortality in the world and an Aids pandemic in fact the complete collapse of civil society.

Most of these countries are/were poorly governed nations with weak institutions run in the main by African despots. Public service is fraught with favouritism, incompetence and corruption with continuous segregation/racial wars between tribal factions to the point that The Black Continent is now almost written off as hopeless-a veritable Continent without hope- but a continent that had such independent hope and rich resources that could have been developed into shining examples of a successful indigenous people. But they all followed the very first African state to gain it's independence-Ghana-who within six years was war stricken and completely bankrupt.

What has this got to do with this discussion? perhaps not a lot! However, Yes slavery/segregation happened in the South and to some degree in the North but stop beating yourselves up about it guys the independent alternative has not exactly been an illuminated beacon of African Utopia.

Reb

Ian Smith could not have said it better
 
I think if you had a family history that was affected by the tactics of total war as illustrated by the March and other later campaigns in the Civil War, you would have the same feeling I do about this piece. I think my good friend Louis B. has always been correct about this subject, there is too much geographical and cultural difference (of opinion) about the War to ever have a true agreement on the opinions (our own) formulated from fact.
TD

I get tired of saying this but 143 years is obviously too soon for people to put it to rest. The question is how long does it go on before tempers not aroused. I lost family in the Holocaust but I didn't know them just as Tom (excuse me if use you as an example) didn't know his ancestors. I have forgiven the German people and most of the perpetrators are dead or will soon be. Forgive but not forget what happened. Shouldn't that be the same criteria here: forgive what happened to your family in Maryland but not forget?
I quoted these two together because while they are somewhat contradictory, I agree in part with both. Tom, you are right that those with a family connection to an event like Sherman’s march (as I have as well) or the Holocaust face the greatest challenge in forgiving even the ancestors of those responsible. Brad you are right that at some point it is appropriate to forgive but not to forget. As I have said before, there is no magic in the number of years for this, it simply depends on each individual and their capacity for accepting that we should judge everyone for who they are and what they do, not what their relatives did. I have no quarrel with any Yankee; most of my current friends are from that part of the country, some of them very long standing at this point. I also have no problem discussing this topic without anger, while it does leave me with some remorse. Judging Sherman’s actions as war crimes is fine as long as you have a factual basis for that judgment, which I believe some of us think we do. That is simply the not forgetting part. It would only be problematic if we wanted to try his descendents. The cited article and text are interesting as data points and are worth reading. Whether they are correct is something that can only be assessed by a careful analysis of conflicting data. The examination of history is a continuous process and one article or book is a wee part of that process.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top