Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Darth K'Trava]

I'd probably go with a friend of mine's ancestor, Richard D. Speight who made sure that we had the Bill of Rights in our Constitution by refusing to sign it until they were added.

After that would probably be historical figures like George Washington, FDR, Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson, George Bush (both father and son) and Ronald Reagan. But I can't choose one outta that list....

 

[Storm Raven]

Sherman left a path of destruction and death. A general who did what he allowed his men to do today would be tried and convicted of war crimes.

Of course, he gave orders against killing civilians, and forbade confiscating items that were not contraband. And prosecuted many who violated those orders. But you'd rather not deal with the reality.

Burning down civilian's homes stealing all of there food and what he could not carry he burned.

Confiscating and destroying contraband.

He allowed his men to rape and loot. They even went as far as digging up cementries to rob the dead in some of the areas they went through.

Prohibited by his orders.

Sherman was a monster. And the fact that he freed slaves does not change what he was.

The South got no more than it deserved. In point of fact, it should have been worse.

 

[Storm Raven]

And food was? What were they supposed to eat? Dirt?

Yes, as a matter of fact. From a letter Sherman wrote to Grant after reaching Savannah

As to matters in the Southeast, I think Hardee, in Savannah, has good artillerists, some 5,000 or 6,000 infantry, and it may be a mongrel mass of 8,000 to 10,000 militia. In all our marching through Georgia he has not forced us to use anything but a skirmish line, though at several points he had erected fortifications and tried to alarm us by bombastic threats. In Savannah he has taken refuge in a line constructed behind swamps and overflowed rice fields, extending from a point on the Savannah River about three miles above the city around by a branch of the Little Ogeechee, which stream is impassable from its salt marshes and boggy swamps, crossed only by narrow causeways or common corduroy roads. There must be 25,000 citizens -- men, women, and children -- in Savannah that must also be fed, and how he is to feed them beyond a few days I cannot imagine, as I know that his requisitions for corn on the interior counties were not filled, and we are in possession of the rice fields and mills which could alone be of service to him in this neighborhood. He can draw nothing from South Carolina, save from a small corner down in the southeast, and that by a disused wagon road. I could easily get possession of this, but hardly deem it worth the risk of making a detachment, which would be in danger by its isolation from the main army.

That food, which Sherman confiscated, would have otherwise been used to supply the troops facing him. By cutting the Confederate supply line, he denied them war material in the form of rations to feed their troops.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

wow... for a minute there, I thought I'd accidently wandered onto the alternate history board I post on....

OOOOO..... where's that?

 

[Darth K'Trava]

That's funny, cos slavery was legal in the United States (Union) all throughout the War Between the States. Also, slaverye existed under the flag of the United States far longer than it did under that of the Confederate States . . .

Thre was this thing on the History Channel about Abraham Lincoln where he was going after slavery before the war but couldn't find a LEGAL way to get rid of it but figured that it would take a war to end it and guess what? That's exactly what happened!! And then worked and got the 13th Amendment passed, abolishing slavery in the US forever. And he had all these clemency plans for the South once the war ended that was alot soft-handed than the Reconstruction Period that did happen after his death.

 

[Captain Tagon]

OOOOO..... where's that?

Seconded.

 

[Elf Witch]

Then why did he give better terms of surrender than Grant? (and I would hardly say that not wanting to see the war prolong would make him a bad man... I would say that would make him a good or at least reasonable man.)



Then which ones do you suggest reading?

As for your families ordeal. I'm not going to comment on that other than to say I'm sorry it happened.

Or a man who wanted the war over with a clean victory to his name.

I will get back to you with things to read most of my stuff is packed in a warehouse at the moment. It was a hobby of mine in the 80s before computers so I really don't have anything earmarked on the net. I will have to do a search and see if the journals and articles I have copies of are available on some web site.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Or a man who wanted the war over with a clean victory to his name.

I can see that, but not really from Sherman, that would have been more of a move I would expect out of Custer. Sherman faded away, was promoted during Grant's tenure as president but really did nothing else to make himself note worthy. He was solider and little more.

I don’t doubt that some of those 60,000 men did some pretty vile things… Sadly that’s human nature and no general can keep things like that from happen. Especially with the technology of 1860’s.

 

[Elf Witch]

Of course, he gave orders against killing civilians, and forbade confiscating items that were not contraband. And prosecuted many who violated those orders. But you'd rather not deal with the reality.

[/i]

Confiscating and destroying contraband.

[/i]

Prohibited by his orders.

[/i]

The South got no more than it deserved. In point of fact, it should have been worse.

Excuse me I do deal with reality. I have read and studied the Civil war. Not just the pap you get in your high school history books. He may have given orders to his men but that did not stop them from the looting and raping that they did. And as far as I can tell from my studies there is little evidence that I have found of men punished under his command for misconduct. If someone has a link to where his men were punished I would like to read it.

The South did not desreve the punishment it got after the war. The south had every right to try and leave a country that was showing that it did not care what happened to to the economy and way of life of some of its states.

The civil war was fought over state rights vs federal rights. I as a person of this century find the idea of slavery horrible and wrong. But to the south of that time it was not just a way of life it was the entire base of how the economy worked. And here came all these other states that did not have slaves and did not need them suddenly telling the south what to do. Without any thought of the consquences to the southern economy.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

The South did not desreve the punishment it got after the war. The south had every right to try and leave a country that was showing that it did not care what happened to to the economy and way of life of some of its states.

I agree totally, its a shame the Booth killed/assassinated the man that was going to give them the easy piece they deserved.

The civil war was fought over state rights vs federal rights.

Again I agree totally. The America we are now could not have been formed without the Civil War but I also think, and again this is opinion, that the world would be a worse off if the Confederacy had been allowed to succeed. Small wars between the two countries would have happened and America wouldn’t have been around to be the backbone for the trials and tribulations of the 20th century.