Date: April 24th.
Location: History Channel
Topic: William Tecumseh Sherman, villian or patriot.

"War is Hell" he said.

He was Ruthless and efficient you could do with him in Iraq.

he may of been the enemy, but he was sure good at his job (Sherman that is).


"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William T. Sherman

Lincoln was an evildoer.

Lincoln was an evildoer.

He had a nice beard and a better hairdo than yours.

Your just jealous.

Reconstruct the South.

Reconstruct the South.

Burn the north.

"War is Hell" he said.

He was Ruthless and efficient you could do with him in Iraq.

Actually he got in a great deal of trouble for offering very liberal terms of surrender to Johnston. The "radical republicans" detested him for this.

He also prevented any news of Lincoln's assassination from getting out to the troops, when most of his army was occupying Raleigh, NC. Had the news gotten out Raleigh likely would've been burned to the ground. As it was the Union forces were as light on N.Carolina as they were heavy on Georgia and parts of South Carolina.

Though the idiot Rebs were completely at fault with Columbia, of course. They managed to burn that down all on their own. :)

Reconstruct the South.

It was officially reconstructed as of the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876. :)

Reconstruct the South.


This implies there was a civilization there in the first place...

Actually he got in a great deal of trouble for offering very liberal terms of surrender to Johnston. The "radical republicans" detested him for this.

He also prevented any news of Lincoln's assassination from getting out to the troops, when most of his army was occupying Raleigh, NC. Had the news gotten out Raleigh likely would've been burned to the ground. As it was the Union forces were as light on N.Carolina as they were heavy on Georgia and parts of South Carolina.

Though the idiot Rebs were completely at fault with Columbia, of course. They managed to burn that down all on their own. :)

Thise incidents happened at the end of the war, he could afford to be a little magnanimous.

I have just read a book called the longest surrender about the end of the US civil war, the Union commanders for the most part acted with admirable restraint.

Thise incidents happened at the end of the war, he could afford to be a little magnanimous.

I have just read a book called the longest surrender about the end of the US civil war, the Union commanders for the most part acted with admirable restraint.
One thing you have to keep in mind with a lot of books about the Civil War is that history is written by the victors, and therefore a lot of the accounts that are considered history are biased heavily towards the union point of view. Children in the north and and children in the south are, in many ways, taught two different versions of the war.
As far as the damage done to southern infrastructure by the union, there are still ruins all over the south. The area has never completely recovered.

One thing you have to keep in mind with a lot of books about the Civil War is that history is written by the victors, and therefore a lot of the accounts that are considered history are biased heavily towards the union point of view. Children in the north and and children in the south are, in many ways, taught two different versions of the war.
As far as the damage done to southern infrastructure by the union, there are still ruins all over the south. The area has never completely recovered.

This one isnt, it is written from the extracts of memoirs by Jefferson Davis and other Confederate commanders.

On the whole I think I would side with the North.

This one isnt, it is written from the extracts of memoirs by Jefferson Davis and other Confederate commanders.

On the whole I think I would side with the North.
I may have to check out that book then.
I tend to blame the founders of the US for the civil war, because they didn't address the issue of slavery at all and left it for future generations to decide.

I may have to check out that book then.
I tend to blame the founders of the US for the civil war, because they didn't address the issue of slavery at all and left it for future generations to decide.

it's an old book out of print, my father has it at the moment I can get the details.

Slavery wasnt an issues in the 1780's. I think some of the signaturies to the declaration were themselves slave owners. So they were unlikely to outlaw it.

Slavery wasnt really a cause of the war but it was a running sore and a bone of contention between the states.

it's an old book out of print, my father has it at the moment I can get the details.

Slavery wasnt an issues in the 1780's. I think some of the signaturies to the declaration were themselves slave owners. So they were unlikely to outlaw it.

Slavery wasnt really a cause of the war but it was a running sore and a bone of contention between the states.
Some of the founders did see the hypocrisy in that they were writing about freedom for "all men" but it didn't include slaves. I think Franklin was definitely in this category, I can't remember the others offhand. The History Channel ran this weeks long special about the founding of the US, and I watched all of them...problem is by the time you finish you can't remember most of it.

When did it change from "The Civil War" to "The War Between The States" ?

Just asking...

PS: Wasn't Tecumseh an Indian chief ?

Some of the founders did see the hypocrisy in that they were writing about freedom for "all men" but it didn't include slaves. I think Franklin was definitely in this category, I can't remember the others offhand. The History Channel ran this weeks long special about the founding of the US, and I watched all of them...problem is by the time you finish you can't remember most of it.

LOL thats old age creeping in.

When did it change from "The Civil War" to "The War Between The States" ?

Just asking...

PS: Wasn't Tecumseh an Indian chief ?

Yes he was named after him.

When did it change from "The Civil War" to "The War Between The States" ?

Just asking...

PS: Wasn't Tecumseh an Indian chief ?
During the time it has happening and for some time after the "Civil War" was known to people as "The War Between The States". As time passed it came to be called the "Civil War" by later generations though. At least, that's how it was explained to me when I was younger.

i actually agree with sherman's ideas about warfare. there is no kind and gentle war. too bad our current leaders don't understand that...

they had a thing on sherman's march last night that was utter crap. :not:

Tecumseh Sherman is awesome. :nice:

I would love to have seen Atlanta burn. What a glorious night it must have been for this country.

Tecumseh Sherman is awesome. :nice:

I would love to have seen Atlanta burn. What a glorious night it must have been for this country.

God you are such a clueless, unwavering ass on this issue.

they had a thing on sherman's march last night that was utter crap. :not:

I tend to agree. They came across mostly like northern apologists. It was only 30% of Atlanta that they burned, well gee that makes it all better then. That scene where the soldier put the Kepi on the black kids head? ROFLMAO. That would have never happened. My favorite is when Sherms men tore down the pontoon bridge and left the blacks on the other side where they were picked up by the southernors.

I tend to agree. They came across mostly like northern apologists. It was only 30% of Atlanta that they burned, well gee that makes it all better then. That scene where the soldier put the Kepi on the black kids head? ROFLMAO. That would have never happened. My favorite is when Sherms men tore down the pontoon bridge and left the blacks on the other side where they were picked up by the southernors.i especially enjoyed the "re-enactment" of sherman's conversations with slaves...just horrible revisionist crap.

I don't suppose they mentioned those wonderful 'property camps' Lincoln and Sherman set up and shoved most of those 'freed' slaves in to die by the hundreds of thousands, either. I saw the shows in A&E's listings, or was it the History Channel, but found other stuff to do; was it actually worth watching despite the usual PC propaganda? It doesn't appear to be.

That special on Sherman would've been a lot better if they didn't keep portraying it as everybody in the south who was white hated Sherman and everyone who was black loved him.
Slavery was horrible and inexcusable of course. But what they neglected to mention is that in areas where Sherman plundered and destroyed everything, black people were then free to starve with the white people. He wasn't there to help anybody from the south, he was a terrorist with an army basically.
But to be fair, Quantrill's Raiders were the southern equivalent, so it's not like either side was very moral.

I choose Black America to help me celebrate the life of our beloved general William Tecumseh Sherman. :)

Glory Hallelujah!

Let us not relent until every rebel ass is kicked into submission.

I tend to agree. They came across mostly like northern apologists. It was only 30% of Atlanta that they burned, well gee that makes it all better then. That scene where the soldier put the Kepi on the black kids head? ROFLMAO. That would have never happened. My favorite is when Sherms men tore down the pontoon bridge and left the blacks on the other side where they were picked up by the southernors.

Are you calling general Sherman a racist?

I remind you sir that Sherman served under Abraham Lincoln, who has gone down in the history of this country as one who freed the slaves.

The South must end this nonsense of demonizing the noble deceased.

Ah, T. Sherman... One of the first to apply more lethal, modern weapons in government sponsored psychotic breaks from reality. :rolleyes:

What was the result of our Glorious Civil War? 1) "Freed the slaves", sorta. The fact that they had to go another 5 or 6 generations before the bluecoats saw fit to outlaw impediments to their education or employment? Um, we were distracted by the Injun/Spanish/German/Japanese menace and had to wait awhile. Sorry.
Oh, here's another one, #2: "To preserve the Union". That they did, and just to make sure it was preserved, we reconstructed your southern ass. When we got done remodeling, you were still dirt poor, abused, barely educated and ill-equiped to compete with the North. Wouldn't want you to try and break away again, would we? Let's just say the Marshall Plan was still a few decades away as a concept, especially after what happened to...
#3: "the glorious beginning of the Republican Party, led by one of our greatest presidents, Abe Lincoln" BANG! oops, he's dead! Not to worry, one of his trusted associates will lead the way. They are honest too, right? Sorry, no. They immediately set out to cornhole Lincoln's plan for postwar reconstruction -teach them johnny rebs a lesson and make a few bucks. A few Republicans still favor this method... some f****** vampires never die.
-Don't have much sympathy for the rebs in this fiasco, either.
As much as Lincoln was hated by the south, Booth & his idiot band of merry morons practically tied the beaten southern belle to a chair and set her up for rape by feds outraged after the assassination (let alone the war).
Democratic party leaders saw fit to use the southern hatred of Republicans for over a century, in order to gain power. :eek7: Yeah, sleep with the fat, drunk, cheatin' wife-beatin' member of the KKK because he'll buy you a new car. And then claim you aren't a whore. Dixiecrats were still power dealers after LBJ declined another run for the presidency. Corrosion at it's worst.

Oh yeah, the Civil War: the first of many wars to end all wars...

Sherman was the first modern general in that he understood that to win a war you must do whatever is necessary. The end justifies the means. Its not about what is good and rightious. Its war... plane and simple.

Sherman was the first modern general in that he understood that to win a war you must do whatever is necessary. The end justifies the means. Its not about what is good and rightious. Its war... plane and simple.

-While Sherman was careful with his words, he expressed his doubts about how reconstruction was going to be carried out after his hellish means. Quote (in letter to Gen Grant, dated April 28, 1865): "... I had seen General Weitzel's invitation to the Virginia Legislature, made in Mr. Lincoln's very presence, and failed to discover any other official hint of a plan of reconstruction, or any ideas calculated to allay the fears of the people of the South, after the destruction of their armies and civil authorities would leave them without any government whatever.

We should not drive a people into anarchy, and it is simply impossible for our military power to reach all the masses of their unhappy country."

While Sherman seemed at ease with a military visiting anarchy upon a violent & rebellious people, he was clearly uneasy at the lack of action by civilian authorities to quickly restore the south to a sense of law and order.

Short answer: Sherman gave gentle criticism to this betrayal of the "end justifies the means". His "means" (total war) were of little use precisely because the "end" was corrupted by others. This corruption of total war was employed by scumbag politicians after WWI as well. Perhaps the first "clean" or positive "end" came after WWII with the Marshall Plan.

I would very much like to see the unedited writings of those various military leaders whose execution of Total War was betrayed by their political, civilian leadership. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower saw this from both sides; between Truman's basic honesty and Eisenhower's experience, we have seen what little good can come out of this "end justifying the means".