Greatest American? (All Over on Page Eight)

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

The property was being used to provide for the war - mostly it was being used to feed the Confederate army, and move troops by the (handful) of railways. Much of the "property" taken from the Southerners were slaves, who were freed. Sherman spent much of his campaign in Georgia actually fighting: he was opposed by Johnston, and later Hood.

Striking at an enemy's source of supply isn't "going to far". Freeing enslaved humans he calls "property" isn't "going too far".

Actually, Sherman spent a lot of time torching houses, farms, and towns that had no able bodied men to defend them. Take the food and supplies needed to keep his army on the road, then burn whats left so nobody else could ever use it. Most of what he took wan't the enemies supplies, but their homes and property while only the women, childeren, and older population were there to defend it.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, Sherman spent a lot of time torching houses, farms, and towns that had no able bodied men to defend them. Take the food and supplies needed to keep his army on the road, then burn whats left so nobody else could ever use it. Most of what he took wan't the enemies supplies, but their homes and property while only the women, childeren, and older population were there to defend it.

Food that would have been used to supply to Confederate armies. There is a reason that Lee's men were starving, unclothed, and low on ammunition by the time Petersburg rolled around. Their sources of supply had been destroyed. Attacking the enemy's base of supply is a perfectly acceptable tactic in warfare, and Georgia and South Carolina were part of that.

I notice you didn't comment on the fact that Sherman was "taking" humans held as property and freeing them.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Food that would have been used to supply to Confederate armies. There is a reason that Lee's men were starving, unclothed, and low on ammunition by the time Petersburg rolled around. Their sources of supply had been destroyed. Attacking the enemy's base of supply is a perfectly acceptable tactic in warfare, and Georgia and South Carolina were part of that.

He was torching civilian towns that were nowhere near the confederate army. Little towns that had little to no supplies to start with, and individual farms that didn't have anything to do with the confederate supply route. And he left thousands of starving women and children behind him, wiping out whole families, not just the men who were fighing in the army.

I notice you didn't comment on the fact that Sherman was "taking" humans held as property and freeing them.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I wasn't responding to your comments about slavery, I was pointing out that he was ruthlessly destroying civilian homes and towns that had nothing to do with the confederate supply system.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

How about everyone take 5-10 minute break before replying back to this thread... I would like to see it stay open. (Though I think the overall choice has been/is decided I’m curious to see who number two is.)

 

[David Howery]

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

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I don't think I'm throwing anything on the fire here

Jefferson was not President during the Second War of American Independence.

No, he wasn't. But the implication made was that his policies were responsible for our problems a few years later during that war. A point that doesn't seem particularly strong not least considering the grossly bad decisions made by his successor and the military themselves that led DIRECTLY to the problems. It's sort of like me joining the Ultimate Fighting League (or whatever it's called) despite my lack of fighting skills, and retroactively blaming my father for not putting me in martial arts when I was 6. Clearly, he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that I was going to try and fight martial artists at some point, and it was his responsibility to prepare for that contingency. After all, I can hardly be blamed for my own choices, right? That's why we have parents.

I think it would be interesting to get a Canadian perspective on the causes of the War of 1812. Official Marine Corps Doctrine is that the war was really the end of the Revolutionary War--establishing beyond a doubt that we were beyond British dreams of control.

Yep. We made it irksomely expensive to keep kicking our arse repeatedly, to the point that it was easier for both parties to end the thing. Them because they were sick of spending the money, and us because our arse hurt.

Nope. No doubt there

...OK. Maybe I'm being a tad hyperbolic there, but that's the gist of it, IMO.

 

[Storm Raven]

He was torching civilian towns that were nowhere near the confederate army. Little towns that had little to no supplies to start with, and individual farms that didn't have anything to do with the confederate supply route. And he left thousands of starving women and children behind him, wiping out whole families, not just the men who were fighing in the army.

Georgia was the Confederate supply system. Leaving those areas untouched would have just shifted the sources of supply to them. Leaving the food lying around would have meant that it would have been diverted into the hands of the Confederate army, probably by being expropriated by the government and then shipped north to places like Petersburg. You aren't thinking about logistics.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I wasn't responding to your comments about slavery, I was pointing out that he was ruthlessly destroying civilian homes and towns that had nothing to do with the confederate supply system.

It means that "taking civlian property" was the right thing to do - expropriating slaves from their master's is always the right thing to do. And it would have been impossible without his march across Georgia, and moves against those "innocent civlian towns".

Besides, Johnston and Hood were still trying to fight him. Ripping out their ability to forage for food, supplies, and support in the local area was necessary. Resistance wilted in Georgia precisely because the support network was knocked out from under the Confederate armies.

 

[Desdichado]

Yep. We made it irksomely expensive to keep kicking our arse repeatedly, to the point that it was easier for both parties to end the thing. Them because they were sick of spending the money, and us because our arse hurt.

It wasn't quite that one-sided. The Battle of Lake Eerie, the Battle of Chipewa, the Battle of Lake Champlain, the Battle of Baltimore, and the Battle of the Thames, for example, were notable American successes against British Canada and/or their Indian allies. The Americans even burned York (later rebuilt and renamed Toronto) which probably precipitated the infamous burning of Washington in the first place. Stephen Decatur, Isaac Hull and whatsisname Porter had some notable early naval successes. And even though the timing made it ironically unnecessary, the Battle of New Orleans was hailed as a great victory for the Americans.

Although the War of 1812 is probably merely a footnote in British history, especially in light of their other "War of 1812" against Napolean it had a profound impact on the national identity of both the U.S. and what would later emerge as Canada.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Georgia was the Confederate supply system. Leaving those areas untouched would have just shifted the sources of supply to them. Leaving the food lying around would have meant that it would have been diverted into the hands of the Confederate army, probably by being expropriated by the government and then shipped north to places like Petersburg. You aren't thinking about logistics.

What was the purpose of burning the houses and taking the food of individual homes? He would take everything, even when there was not even enough to support the families that lived in them, much less the confederate army. And no, I'm not talking about logistics, where taking the supplies away would help his cause. I'm talking about the ruthless destruction of the very way of life of thousands of people. He was destroying civilian populations, NOT military supplies in the majority of cases. His main purpose was to terrify the population, nothing else.

It means that "taking civlian property" was the right thing to do - expropriating slaves from their master's is always the right thing to do. And it would have been impossible without his march across Georgia, and moves against those "innocent civlian towns".

Again, you're trying to put words into my mouth. I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about the methods he used against non-military populations. The people in most of those towns were innocent civilians. After he left, people resorted to eating dead animal carcasses and grass in some cases, as he would leave them with nothing, taking what he could carry and burning or killing what was left.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Georgia was the Confederate supply system. Leaving those areas untouched would have just shifted the sources of supply to them. Leaving the food lying around would have meant that it would have been diverted into the hands of the Confederate army, probably by being expropriated by the government and then shipped north to places like Petersburg. You aren't thinking about logistics.

[/i]

It means that "taking civlian property" was the right thing to do - expropriating slaves from their master's is always the right thing to do. And it would have been impossible without his march across Georgia, and moves against those "innocent civlian towns".

Besides, Johnston and Hood were still trying to fight him. Ripping out their ability to forage for food, supplies, and support in the local area was necessary. Resistance wilted in Georgia precisely because the support network was knocked out from under the Confederate armies.

You have just highlighted exactly why the Confederacy lost. She wouldn't resort to such dirty tactics and attempted to fight an honorable war.

I wonder what your perspective is on such tactics by the U.S. in Vietnam and elsewhere. Care to defend them as "logistics?"