- This topic has 7 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
What is your assessment of him? Obviously a successful general, but do you think some of his decisions could have been better?
He understood what war was all about. He wasn't a prisoner of his own hubris like his predecessors were. He knew he wasn't a brilliant tactical genius, but he understood that to win, the enemy's will had to be broken. He understood war was a dirty business and not fit for gentlemen to fight. Sherman was no gentleman in the traditional sense of the word. He was a warrior who wasn't afraid of using the resources he had at his disposal. At the end of the day, whether you like Sherman or hate him, you have to give him the credit he is due for taking the fight to the Southern people and making the war so unbearable that they had to quit. That was what Lincoln wanted, and that was what Sherman did.
Ok, you pretty much hit the nail on the head of what I was referring to. He got the job done. But doing things such as expelling the residents of Atlanta, refusing to do a prisoner exchange for malnourished Union troops kept in Andersonville, and even promising 40 acres and a mule paint him in a rather negative light.
I am a huge Sherman supporter. I have read multiple volumes about him, good and bad, but when the rubber meets the road Sherman as stated knew that the war wasn't going to be pretty, it wasn't going to be quick and he knew exactly what needed to be done to win with the least amount of casualties.Sherman wanted as little loss of life, on both sides, as possible. This is why he chose the scorched earth policy. It was a economic attack. The results of whcih caused strife in the people, which in turn caused desertion in Confederate ranks, laid waste to supplies and support for the Confederates, and brought the south to it's knees and seriously dropped the moral of the Confederate soldiers. Most of all, it saved the lives of his men AND the rebels by not engaging each other in actual combat.He believed that war should be ugly, it should be painful and it should yank at every emothion one can think of. As he said, the crueler it is, the sooner it is over. He said in response to those screaming at his actions that it was war, no popularity seeking. Sherman wanted the war over. He called the glory that was felt from it "moonshine". It was intoxicating to those who did not know combat. He wanted to "sober them up" with his actions.What I like best about Sherman was it was never about him. He was not a glory hound. He was just efficient and was tired of war. He knew exactly how to end the war and stood by his convictions.We would be wise to model that strategy today. Our enemy knows this theory of "total war" all too well and employ it. We have the best Army in the world, but our politicians and policies are preventing them from doing what they do best. Make war ugly. Make the enemy want it to end. Until that happens, it will continue.
I am a huge Sherman supporter. I have read multiple volumes about him, good and bad, but when the rubber meets the road Sherman as stated knew that the war wasn't going to be pretty, it wasn't going to be quick and he knew exactly what needed to be done to win with the least amount of casualties.Sherman wanted as little loss of life, on both sides, as possible. This is why he chose the scorched earth policy. It was a economic attack. The results of whcih caused strife in the people, which in turn caused desertion in Confederate ranks, laid waste to supplies and support for the Confederates, and brought the south to it's knees and seriously dropped the moral of the Confederate soldiers. Most of all, it saved the lives of his men AND the rebels by not engaging each other in actual combat.He believed that war should be ugly, it should be painful and it should yank at every emothion one can think of. As he said, the crueler it is, the sooner it is over. He said in response to those screaming at his actions that it was war, no popularity seeking. Sherman wanted the war over. He called the glory that was felt from it "moonshine". It was intoxicating to those who did not know combat. He wanted to "sober them up" with his actions.What I like best about Sherman was it was never about him. He was not a glory hound. He was just efficient and was tired of war. He knew exactly how to end the war and stood by his convictions.We would be wise to model that strategy today. Our enemy knows this theory of "total war" all too well and employ it. We have the best Army in the world, but our politicians and policies are preventing them from doing what they do best. Make war ugly. Make the enemy want it to end. Until that happens, it will continue.
I'm impressed by what you're saying here, and yes I can see how his actions contributed to his goal. But I see it also as leading to dicey ethical situations. For example, by refusing the POW exchange at Andersonville, Sherman kept his army strong and mobile; liberating Union soldiers who were starving or malnourished would not contribute to his army in accomplishing its objectives. On the other hand, I think we can say that doing so probably cost the lives of many Union soldiers who had to remain at Andersonville (if Sherman had other reasons for leaving them there, such as a belief that they would soon be liberated by other Union troops, I would be interested in hearing it). I could be wrong, but I can't see an American general making the same kind of decision today.
I'm sure Sherman languished over the fate of those at Andersonville. But knowing the type of man he was, he probably figured that it would be hypocritical of him to inflict suffering on the Southern people while saving others from suffering too (when all were Americans in his eyes). But I'm speculating here, and I'm not defending Sherman in the least bit. I said he wasn't a gentleman in the traditional sense.
But war is not “gentlemanly”. Oh, it USED to be, and that is how the South believed it should be fought. War is war, and it is ugly, horrible and many people suffer and die, civilian and soldiers alike. The South wanted a "clean" war... the politicians today want a "clean" war... HOWEVER, the Taliban, terrorists, and the like understand war much better than we do, at least in the sense of what it takes to win. Total war, make it ugly, and make the otherside want to quit.Our soldiers have the know-how, the equipment, the training and the fact that they are Americans on their side. What they don't have is the ability to fully use their skills. They are being forced to fight in a "gentlemanly Way" when the enemy could care less about that. They want to win. Period. No different than in 1864-65. Substitute the South with today's American public/government viewpoint of war, and the North with Sherman. We already know the outcome in 1865.Sherman was a soldier, a leader and a visionary. I again believe we need leaders like him now.
Grant killed men while Sherman destroyed property, yet today Southerners hate Sherman more than Grant. That's a sad commentary on how mankind thinks.
The above comments on Sherman destroying the will to wage war is important.Compare the first war in Iraq to the second. In the first war by the time the American soldiers arrived the bombing campaign had destroyed the will of the soldiers and civilians alike to continue to fight. In the second war American troops easily won the initial battles, but did not destroy the will to fight. Hence the outcome of these two wars was very different.
The above comments on Sherman destroying the will to wage war is important.Compare the first war in Iraq to the second. In the first war by the time the American soldiers arrived the bombing campaign had destroyed the will of the soldiers and civilians alike to continue to fight. In the second war American troops easily won the initial battles, but did not destroy the will to fight. Hence the outcome of these two wars was very different.
How relevant is your comparison with the Iraq war? What are your sources?Is it just a personal analysis?
The above comments on Sherman destroying the will to wage war is important.Compare the first war in Iraq to the second. In the first war by the time the American soldiers arrived the bombing campaign had destroyed the will of the soldiers and civilians alike to continue to fight. In the second war American troops easily won the initial battles, but did not destroy the will to fight. Hence the outcome of these two wars was very different.
How relevant is your comparison with the Iraq war?Very. You really can't see the relevance and the connection? What are your sources?See below.Is it just a personal analysis?Yes. Couldn't you tell that by reading what I wrote? BTW, analysis is usually what one posts when the OP asks for an assessment.
Now, Omer, a question for you:What's the game you're trying to play on this board? (I moderate a fairly large board devoted to a different topic. Frankly, I suspect if you joined my board I'd end up having to ban you for trolling and/or being disrespectful to other posters.)
He is being watched, believe me. He is up to some game, I just have not figured out what yet. I am undecided on whether he really believes some of these things or is just trying to play Devil's Advocate and provoke responses. As always, I find that the best policy when dealing with boorishness is ignoring, but only up to a point.
Now, Omer, a question for you:What's the game you're trying to play on this board? (I moderate a fairly large board devoted to a different topic. Frankly, I suspect if you joined my board I'd end up having to ban you for trolling and/or being disrespectful to other posters.)
My purpose is fully respectful, don't worry.However, I'm a bit irritated to read comments or personal analysis without any source or reference supporting it.I agree that this is just a forum and that courtesy must prevail and I'm very sorry if I hurted your feelings but I never bend to any God-like affirmation furthermore I didn't insult you!About your post, I can provide a source and several arguments about a comparison between the Civil war (Sheridan) and Iraq war.Parallels with 2007, the War in Iraq, and President George W. Bush are obvious but not with the war itself nor even with Sheridan.http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/355655/how_the_iraq_war_is_like_the_american.html?cat=9 Best regards
What are the parallels between the Iraq War and Sherman's conduct in the US Civil War? I cannot see any between Sherman's scorched earth policy in 1864 and American conduct in Iraq from 2003-Present.
