NationStates Jolt Archive

A General in the Union Army during the American Civil War, Sherman has a reputation for brutality and harshness which exists to this very day. All that he conquered in the South he decimated, pioneering the "scorched earth" policy that has been used countlessly throughout history. I have heard him regarded as "one of the most hated men in the South" and can fully appreciate such a view. He did what was necessary to win the war and he didn't look back. But, that does not mean he enjoyed it.

Until this very day my view of Sherman was always that of a bloodthirsty animal, a Hitler or a Stalin who walked under the banner of the U.S.A. He gave direct orders to his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, and physically destroy as much of the country as they could. I thought that the only thing which kept him from massacring every city he captured was the orders that came from above. I understand the necessity of what he did, most historians agree that his actions considerably sped up the end of the Civil War, but that didn't make me think any more of him as a human being. I thought he enjoyed what he did. Then I started researching Minsesweeper on Wikipedia.

As most people know, Wikipedia branches considerably in every article it has. Links lead to links which lead to links, and eventually you're reading something completely unconnected to your topic. I started researching the game Minesweeper, went to the game Quake, somehow ended up at the Unabomber, went to Che Guevera, then to the CIA, then to the Cuban Missile Crisis, then to DVD Easter Eggs (How I ended up here still boggles me), then to the Prussian Kings of the 1800's, the Fountain of Youth, Juan Ponce de Leon, and somehow (after a dozen more leaps) ended up at the American Civil War. I read a whole bunch on that topic (causes, major battles, prominant figures, etc.) and finally settled on Sherman. It blew my mind. From what I gather, the man hated war. I mean he despised it. He did not live for combat, he did not enjoy decimating the southern lands, he didn't even enjoy the victory over the South. He hated war.

Most people would then ask "If he hated war so much, why was he persistent in his persuit of destruction and why be so harsh with the South?" Because it was necessary. He was a man who loved the U.S.A. and all it stood for and he didn't want to let it just die. In essence, he did what was needed to be done. My view of the man has really changed.

Below, you will find three quotes that were on Wikipedias page about Sherman. I believe they will illustrate both his hatred for battle and his love of his country. The first is his statement to a Southern friend when he first learned of South Carolina's secession. The second is from one of Sherman's letters to the mayor and city council of Atlanta, Georgia. The third.....well, the third is actually unmarked on Wikipedia, but I feel it is the most profound.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!
You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...
Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth -- right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

"Its glory is all moonshine; even success most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families... War is hell."

No one forced him to do anything.

I think he was marvelously effective. He made the war completely unpalatable to the South by destroying everything he could get to.

We didn't have a problem with insurgents after that.

I'm convinced that it's not enough to defeat a country's army in a war - you have to convince the people of that country that they are defeated. This can take place in several ways:

1. Lay waste to the whole country. This is the traditional method, and you'll notice that it worked in Germany in WW II. They were finally convinced that they were defeated.

2. If they obey a single man, like an Emperor, get him to say it's over. That worked in Japan.

If you don't convince the populace that they were defeated, you can get:

1. Another war later - the German populace in WW I was not convinced that they were defeated in the traditional sense, so they came back again with a chip on their shoulder for WW II.

2. Insurgents and terrorism

If we didn't want insurgents after our invasion of Iraq, we should have done what the Mongols did to Baghdad in 1258. If we don't have the stomach to do that sort of thing, then we shouldn't go to war at all.

I might add that with the exception of the Russian defense of its homeland in WW II, defensive wars rarely do anything except delay the war for another day. If you don't have the stomach to do what you have to do to destroy your enemy and subjugate his people, it's only a matter of time before they acquire the will to do it to you.

OBL already has the will. He just doesn't have enough supporters yet to finish the job.

Look at General Sherman's eyes in his portraits. Resolute in his mission, but at the same time weary with all the destruction. The mark of a fine soldier and a good man.

I only wish John Wilkes Booth had gotten to him like he did that invader Lincoln.

I only wish John Wilkes Booth had gotten to him like he did that invader Lincoln.

I see someone is still fighting the "War of Northern Agression." There are still pockets of resistance remaining below the Mason-Dixon Line.

There's a simple reason. No matter who won or lost, the Southern commanders knew both people would have to live together afterwards and didn't feel pillaging, raping and burning was the honorable thing to do...unlike this savage. For his part, Lincoln also realized this which is why when the South surrendered, Lincoln sought no reprisals against the Southern fighters or commanders and simply ask they lay down their arms and go home for the most part.

He probably figured they needed the manpower to rebuild the cities burnt to the ground by the Northern Aggressors for no other reason than pettiness and revenge. There was no military advantage to burning cities at that time.

I only wish John Wilkes Booth had gotten to him like he did that invader Lincoln.

Actually you should hate Booth.

Invader Lincoln didn't want the South mistreated after the war. He felt you can't heal wounds if you treat people as inferiors.

Lincoln getting killed allowed for the Grant Administration which was probably one of the most corrupt administrations ever.

There's a simple reason. No matter who won or lost, the Southern commanders knew both people would have to live together afterwards and didn't feel pillaging, raping and burning was the honorable thing to do...unlike this savage. For his part, Lincoln also realized this which is why when the South surrendered, Lincoln sought no reprisals against the Southern fighters or commanders and simply ask they lay down their arms and go home for the most part.

He probably figured they needed the manpower to rebuild the cities burnt to the ground by the Northern Aggressors for no other reason than pettiness and revenge. There was no military advantage to burning cities at that time.

Really. Then all the stuff ol' Nathianial Beford Forest did were a like?

Ever read about Gainsville Texas were northern supports were killed?

The south had its moments as well. Not like Sherman but they were not "polite" soldiers.