Matrix Games Forums

History Channel has a documentary called Sherman's march coming in April. Butcher or hero?

ORIGINAL: Drex

History Channel has a documentary called Sherman's march coming in April. Butcher or hero?

REALIST...

I guess it depends on where you were born.

All generals in war are butchers. But he was ahead of his time in regards to thinking about total war.

ORIGINAL: Drex

History Channel has a documentary called Sherman's march coming in April. Butcher or hero?

Sherman was one of many possible things-- a butchered hero, a hero, butchered, a butchering hero, a heroic butcherer, a butcher who was a hero, or a heroic butchering, butchered hero who was butchered heroically by a bunch of heroes with butchers.

You'd think the History Channel could come up with something original.


Alan

I wasn't quoting the History Channel verbatim but butcher was in it. Anyhow I'm glad someone is doing a documentary on it. Don't think I;ve seen one doen cept for Burn's segment on it.

My own view is that Sherman went to "total war" just as the South was already on its last legs. So the more brutal aspects of the march were unnecessary and therefore unjustified. The devastation caused bitterness that lasted for generations and made healing the wounds of the war much more difficult.

I remember as a kid having square dance classes and one of the songs was "Marching through Georgia", still being sung after a hundred years.

being European, I think it's nice that documentary makers are trying to give an objective view on this historical fact. So having the view from both sides - and most interesting, Shermans own view on his "march".

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

My own view is that Sherman went to "total war" just as the South was already on its last legs. So the more brutal aspects of the march were unnecessary and therefore unjustified. The devastation caused bitterness that lasted for generations and made healing the wounds of the war much more difficult.

I really don't have a view, but to his defense the war had gone on long enough and total war was one of the ways it was able to finish off as fast as it did. Grant was sick of war and wanted it over. i can see why he had to implement this total war.

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

My own view is that Sherman went to "total war" just as the South was already on its last legs. So the more brutal aspects of the march were unnecessary and therefore unjustified. The devastation caused bitterness that lasted for generations and made healing the wounds of the war much more difficult.

The South had already lost the war militarily by the Summer of 1864..., it was simply holding on (and condeming thousands more men of both sides to death and injury) in hopes that Union "morale" might break. Sherman simply turned this view against the South with his devastation of the Confederate Economy during his "March". He was simply emphasizing the South's hopeless position in a very visable manner...., hoping to break Confederate "morale".

Shermans lack of control over his troops or lack of concern for the civilian population was disgusting. He allowed by neglect or indifference the OPEN city of Columbia SC to be burned by uncontrolled looting troops. He should have been tried for that crime.

dup.

dup.

ORIGINAL: elcidce

Shermans lack of control over his troops or lack of concern for the civilian population was disgusting. He allowed by neglect or indifference the OPEN city of Columbia SC to be burned by uncontrolled looting troops. He should have been tried for that crime.

Tell it to the citizens of Lawrence, Kansas. Stragglers and deserters and draft dogers on both sides wrecked havoc on the innocent. But if the South had accepted defeat when they were defeated instead of waiting to the "bitter end", the war would have been over in July of 1864. I also have no sympathy for the Japanese who died in the last year of the war denying the obvious and forcing further bloodshed.

Sherman had reached the sea and turned north. He effectively gutted the Confederacy when he reached Sanannah. He turned north to Columbia for one reason only. To exact revenge on Columbia.

Columbia had surrendered to the Union army. The mayor met them at the river to surrender the city and declare it open. After the Union occupied it they began looting it and burned it to the ground. The Confederates were no longer resisting and no where to be found. Sherman should have been tried and made responsible for his incompetence/ indifference toward the civilian population. His armys actions in Columbia typify what we call today war crimes.

Sounds like your still a little sore it happened. [:D]

it hardly compares to what we call war crimes. I am not familiar with the Columbia outrage but I'm sure it did not involve the mass execution of civilians like what was perpetrated in WWII. Mass destruction of property while deplorable can still be replaced through reconstruction. Just my opinion.

Things that would be considered war crimes today were committed by both sides. Sherman's men took revenge on Columbia but Forrest's men massacred prisoners at Fort Pillow. Almost everyone has heard of Andersonville but the North's Elmira prison was just as bad and the South's Libby prison was equal to both of them. Makes you wonder why they call it 'civil' war.

Sherman wasn't a butcher but rather a burner, and at times he provided aid to the Southern civilians.
 
Chris