William Tecumseh Sherman: Hero, or Villain?

Post Reply New Topic

excerpt from

Ode to the Confederate Dead

Row after row with strict impunity
The headstones yield their names to the elements.
The wind whirls without recollection;
In the riven troughs the splayed leaves
Pile up,of nature the casual sacrament
To the seasonal eternity of death....
Turn your eyes to the immoderate past,
Turn to the inscrutable infantry rising
Demons out of the earth-they will not last,
Stonewall,Stonewall,and the sunken fields of hemp........
-Alan Tate

DAMN!
This thread got to all of four pages in less than one day!

The crimes Sherman commited were crimes against property, and not against people.
He did not perpetrate anything like the My Lai massacre, or Ledice, or Hiroshima.

His march to sea from Atlanta to Savanah that laid waste to the sixty mile wide swath of georgia was the "nineteenth century equivalent of a bombing raid"- in the words of historian Bruce Catton.

He wounded the enemy's abilty to make war, and thus shortened the war. Thus actually saving lives. But though it was similiar in concept to the allied strategic bombing of Germany in world war two because he made war on the enemy's economy ( in addition to fighting his armies) , unlike the allied air campain aginst Germany - very few civilians were killed. So basically he destroyed property to save lives on both sides by ending the war faster. So on balance I would call him a "nonvillian". Niether "hero" no "villian" feels right for me.

AP,what if you caught Sherman groping her?He just looks like a groper.Would you throw your glove down then?Sherman looks like he would cheat,he'd throw sand in your face and ravish your sister,than burn down your house and shoot the dogs.Of course he would help himself to the valuable goods inside.If you had any good cigars or liquor you could kiss it good-bye.

But if that's true about Lee and the treatment of slaves than it is a black mark against his character.

Rapists were usually executed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_the ... _Civil_War

Looks like the women of color got treated badly by the Union soldiers,now thats rough when your liberators treat you no differently than some of the slave holders.
I bet Sherman spent lots of time in those camps full of soiled doves,he looks like a old smut hound.But if he drank as much as they say,he may have had ED,this made him mad so he took his aggression out on poor Georgia.

Those Southern history textbooks don't have anything nice to say about the Great Liberator at all, do they?

Yes,they do.It said"The President was a FRIEND of the war torn South".
And that the South would have been treated better if he had lived.

I would have thought that Southern textbooks would have been more sympathetic to Johnson.

^^^^^Not really,it is rather venomous towards the radical republicans,claims they de-railed Lincoln's plan for the South.He's not mentioned that much.
There is a lot about the (Brooks/Baxter war)and the end of the carpetbag government when Pres.Grant advised recognition of Brooks as governor and adoption of the Poland report.
Later on Augustus Garland,Democrat became Govenor and conditions began to improve.
Augustus Hill Garland's history is interesting,go to The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & culture,punch in Garland's name.You should read it,he seemed to be a pretty good guy.

I'm starting to think that Southern History Lessons are basically

"Robert E. Lee was a perfect gentleman and a scholar. Ladies would fall into a swoon as he bowed to kissed their gloved hands.

Northern generals were uncouth ruffians and barbarians.

Anyone who thinks otherwise will receive a severe beating from the school's pedogluteophile, until he changes his mind."

You mean you would prefer Sherman at a dinner party over Lee?
Would you discuss the arts with Sherman or Lee?
Who would you like to see Madame Butterfly with,Sherman or Lee?
Just hypothetical questions.

You make it too easy.