Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Gentlegamer]

No arguing the historical significance for the U.S. and Canada, but my understanding is that if the British hadn't had badder fish to fry, they probably would have mopped the floor with us eventually.

At least, that's what I've gleaned from some fairly casual looking and one conversation with a history professor since last year when I saw that dreadful documentary. I'm no expert. Like most of the country, I was given little more in history class than "we fought the British again in 1812" and didn't pursue it much until just recently. You certainly are better informed than I, so don't be shy about correcting me further if my broad sweeps are a bit too broad.

You may be right, but it should be remembered that Andy Jackson and his "irregulars" whipped some British vets of the Napoleonic War at the Battle of New Orleans . . .

 

[Storm Raven]

Foraging was a common practice in that day, so yes, technically, the Confederate military could have used civilian supplies. But in the rules of civilized war, civilians are not a target of the military if they are not actually fighting.

That hasn't been true for almost 200 years. Besides, Sherman didn't usually kill civilians, he expropriated contraband - war material, and the mechanisms to produce it. It just happens that the war material in question was food and slaves.

Not even the British terrorized and destroyed property during the Revolutionary War like Sherman did.

Which Revolutionary War have you been studying? The British campaign in the southern states was notorious for targeting the civilian populace. For example: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Ta/Tarletons_Raiders.htm

 

[Desdichado]

No arguing the historical significance for the U.S. and Canada, but my understanding is that if the British hadn't had badder fish to fry, they probably would have mopped the floor with us eventually.

At least, that's what I've gleaned from some fairly casual looking and one conversation with a history professor since last year when I saw that dreadful documentary. I'm no expert. Like most of the country, I was given little more in history class than "we fought the British again in 1812" and didn't pursue it much until just recently. You certainly are better informed than I, so don't be shy about correcting me further if my broad sweeps are a bit too broad.

No, I think that's definately a fair statement, and quite likely true. I just didn't construe that that was what you meant.

 

[Gentlegamer]

That hasn't been true for almost 200 years.

The 1860s certainly falls into that era. If you want to argue that the South following civilized rules of war was foolish on her part, that is another discussion entirely.

Which Revolutionary War have you been studying? The British campaign in the southern states was notorious for targeting the civilian populace. For example: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/T/Ta/Tarletons_Raiders.htm

I studied under Dr. James Kirby Martin. I'm aware of Tarleton and the exaggerated version that appreared in "The Patriot." I stand by my statement. The British did not engage in the kind of terrorization and descruction among civilians like Sherman did.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

It just happens that the war material in question was food

Gee, maybe he should have taken all their water , clothes, and air as well? :\
Regardless of what you are fighting for or against, you don't take a basic, life sustaining necessity away from civilians who are not actively involved in the conflict. That's just plain evil, and unjustified.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

No, I think that's definately a fair statement, and quite likely true. I just didn't construe that that was what you meant.

No need for the embarrassed smiley. It probably wasn't all that clear what I meant. I've been suffering from a significant lack of clarity in my internet posts lately. Probably from trying to do too many things at once.

 

[jaerdaph]

He's not on the list, but I think the greatest American alive today is Mark Felt aka Deep Throat. He's a true patriot who didn't let party loyalty get in the way of doing what was right.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

But in the rules of civilized war, civilians are not a target of the military if they are not actually fighting.

When did those rules come out? Honestly? It’s pretty harsh to judge the world of yesterday with the rules of today.

Not even the British terrorized and destroyed property during the Revolutionary War like Sherman did.

No they waited to 1814 for that.

That's just plain evil, and unjustified.

Rich, its not, it’s called winning the war. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe in the long run Sherman's saved lives by doing what he did? He made it so the Confederacy couldn’t fight the war. If he was such an evil monster, my words not yours, why did he give Johnston, and the south, an easy piece instead of taking it to them like congress was screaming for him to do?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

In a way, Sherman's March can be compared to the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. Both ended up taking FAR more civilian lives, but very well may have prevented prolonging the war and saving other lives in the process.

War isn't exactly the best place to put morals...really, it all comes down to killing the other people. But, as BS said, Sherman could have done far, far worse. The war could have gone on much longer, and he could have continued fighting on like Congress wanted him to instead of actually trying to stop the fighting and settle for peace.

Not that this means his march was a GOOD thing, but it doesn't make him anymore evil than it does Truman for ordering the dropping of the Atomic Bombs.

 

[Storm Raven]

The 1860s certainly falls into that era. If you want to argue that the South following civilized rules of war was foolish on her part, that is another discussion entirely.

The South was an anachronism fighting under outdated concepts of warfare. They lost to a modern nation. The "civilized rules of warfare" that the South espoused hadn't been a reality since before the Napoleaonic Wars.

I studied under Dr. James Kirby Martin. I'm aware of Tarleton and the exaggerated version that appreared in "The Patriot." I stand by my statement. The British did not engage in the kind of terrorization and descruction among civilians like Sherman did.

You'd like to believe that, but Tarleton's raids amounted to little more than looting expeditions designed to terrorize the populace. And he wasn't the only one guilty of such actions. Yes, the Patriot version was exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that atrocities didn't occur.