T Nation

Sherman's March

http://www.history.com/minisites/civilwar/

Sunday night 9 pm. Two great-uncles marched with Sherman and helped burn Atlanta. Should be fun to watch.

Should I even bother to weigh in on this? :wink:

I am curious as to the Left’s opinion of this section of history. Just as I maintain that if the Left was honest with themselves as they present themselves today, they should despise Lincoln - I wonder what the Left’s view of Uncle Billy’s “total war” in the March to the Sea is.

LOL

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Should I even bother to weigh in on this? :wink:

I am curious as to the Left’s opinion of this section of history. Just as I maintain that if the Left was honest with themselves as they present themselves today, they should despise Lincoln - I wonder what the Left’s view of Uncle Billy’s “total war” in the March to the Sea is.[/quote]

:slight_smile:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
So its “fun” to watch Americans killing other Americans? Thats very high-minded of you.

I do enjoy reading and watching programs on the War of Northern Agression, but it really is the saddest chapter in our history as a country. [/quote]

Well, I’m torn: I agree that the Southerners probably had an implicit right to secede and that cutting a 60 mile wide swath through the South was pretty barbaric (Shame, uncles! :wink: But slavery WAS ended and America began to assert itself as a world power. It also ended the damn war sooner, IMO.

I don’t want to turn this into another secession debate (Thunder will win again :smiley: ). But I think it’d be an interesting show.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
But slavery WAS ended and America began to assert itself as a world power. It also ended the damn war sooner, IMO.
[/quote]

Of course, if you hadn’t started the first civil war, you would already have been a superpower, AND slavery would have been gone thirty years earlier…

You would also have to wear plaid shirts and say “eh” after each sentence.

TQB

[i]“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking”

-William Tecumseh Sherman[/i]

True then, and true even now.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[i]“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking”

-William Tecumseh Sherman[/i]

True then, and true even now. [/quote]

He was a pure warrior, that’s for sure. If only he were in charge now…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

True then, and true even now.

He was a pure warrior, that’s for sure. If only he were in charge now…
[/quote]

In our tolerant, postmodern society, we can have no truck with an antiquated archetype like a “warrior” - warriors hurt people’s feelings and harm self-esteem. And we couldn’t have that, under any circumstances.

Ok, back to my senses.

[quote]MODOK wrote:
So its “fun” to watch Americans killing other Americans? Thats very high-minded of you.

I do enjoy reading and watching programs on the War of Northern Agression, but it really is the saddest chapter in our history as a country. [/quote]

Still bitter cause you fuckers lost huh? Remember, when you pick a fight, you better be able to finish it. Northern Aggression my fucking balls.

Thanks for posting this HH. They don’t have nearly enough about the Civil War on that channel, and Sherman is one of my favorites… right next to Sheridan (which shouldn’t surprise anyone.)

They knew how to fight.

It sounds like the South still hasn’t recovered from it’s great ass whooping. Fucking whiners.

  1. The Civil War initiated total warfare? I guess the four million people (including 1 million civilians) who died in the Napoleonic Wars were struck down by rosewater from a squirt gun.

  2. Despite Sherman’s reputation in the South as a ferocious ogre bent on vengeance and destruction, he was actually sparing of the lives of his own soldiers, of the enemy’s soldiers, and of civilians.

[quote]MODOK wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
MODOK wrote:
So its “fun” to watch Americans killing other Americans? Thats very high-minded of you.

I do enjoy reading and watching programs on the War of Northern Agression, but it really is the saddest chapter in our history as a country.

Still bitter cause you fuckers lost huh? Remember, when you pick a fight, you better be able to finish it. Northern Aggression my fucking balls.

Thanks for posting this HH. They don’t have nearly enough about the Civil War on that channel, and Sherman is one of my favorites… right next to Sheridan (which shouldn’t surprise anyone.)

They knew how to fight.

Shut up idiot. “War of Northern Agression” is common vernacular in the south used to describe the war. Not that you would know anything about the history and culture of the southern United States.

I’d recommend you do a little reading on the subject but I fear it would take away valuable time better devoted to spewing your autocratic northern superiority views on internet forums. Bigots are incredibly annoying.

[/quote]

Really? You want to go head to head on the Civil War? Wrong fucking guy.

Who pulled that first cannon lanyard? Cause as I recall, Edward Ruffin did it, and he was a Virgnian (who offed himself when they lost, I might add. A true hero).

Yea, I know, it’s the “War Between the States”, or the War of the Sixties (cause you know, there haven’t been any since then), or the “The Second American Revolution” (or maybe not that one, cause revolutions actually incinuate that they weren’t crushed).

Either way, they’re all names written by neoconfederates and apologists to make it seem like the South wasn’t heinously wrong.

You started the war, and we burnt the motherfucker down and ended it. You want to talk about vernacular? It should be, “That War That We Never Had a Chance in Hell of Winning, But We Started It Anyway and Then Whine About it For 150 Years”.

How’s that for vernacular?

[quote]MODOK wrote:
No doubt that “war is hell”. I’m sure if Nathan Bedford Forrest would have had the manpower, resources, and
opportunity that he would have burned a 60 mile wide 300 mile long path of destruction through New England as well.
[/quote]

Yea, and when they tried to surrender he’d have murdered them all, a la Fort Pillow.

[quote]

The War Between the States was truly a turning point in the history of war.
It marked the turning point from Napoleonic tactics annd “gentlemanly” warfare to the concept of total war that has been the hallmark of warfare ever since.[/quote]

That I can agree with.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
MODOK wrote:
No doubt that “war is hell”. I’m sure if Nathan Bedford Forrest would have had the manpower, resources, and
opportunity that he would have burned a 60 mile wide 300 mile long path of destruction through New England as well.

Yea, and when they tried to surrender he’d have murdered them all, a la Fort Pillow.

The War Between the States was truly a turning point in the history of war.
It marked the turning point from Napoleonic tactics annd “gentlemanly” warfare to the concept of total war that has been the hallmark of warfare ever since.

That I can agree with.
[/quote]

If memory serves, the Geneva Convention was right around then, and the USA signed it after the war, like in 1885 or so. I’ll have to Google it.

Anyway, since we hadn’t signed the convention yet, it was an ‘anything goes’ war.

From a Google:

"The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars."

Now if only everyone would follow the darn rules!!! :smiley:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking”

-William Tecumseh Sherman[/i]

True then, and true even now.

He was a pure warrior, that’s for sure. If only he were in charge now…
[/quote]

That’s exactly what I was thinking. What if someone like Sherman was in charge right now and not on a short leash? Makes you wonder huh.

But sadly, as Thunder has already pointed out, this simply would not be accepted by the feel good crowd. They want a humane war, like that’s even possible.

It sounds kind of funny, but Mr. Myagi said it best. “Do karate yes, or do karate no. Do karate maybe, squash like grape.” The same logic I think can and should be applied to warfare.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking”

-William Tecumseh Sherman[/i]

True then, and true even now.

He was a pure warrior, that’s for sure. If only he were in charge now…

That’s exactly what I was thinking. What if someone like Sherman was in charge right now and not on a short leash? Makes you wonder huh.

But sadly, as Thunder has already pointed out, this simply would not be accepted by the feel good crowd. They want a humane war, like that’s even possible.

It sounds kind of funny, but Mr. Myagi said it best. “Do karate yes, or do karate no. Do karate maybe, squash like grape.” The same logic I think can and should be applied to warfare.

[/quote]

Sherman…Patton…Halsey…MacArthur…LeMay. Any of them would be a big improvement.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

But sadly, as Thunder has already pointed out, this simply would not be accepted by the feel good crowd. They want a humane war, like that’s even possible. [/quote]

Yes - which is why I really am curious as to how the Left squares its appreciation for Lincoln, Sherman, etc.

Can you imagine the editorials and blogs we would see nowadays if we had a Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan active? They would make screeds against George W. Bush look like Puritan poetry.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

But sadly, as Thunder has already pointed out, this simply would not be accepted by the feel good crowd. They want a humane war, like that’s even possible.

Yes - which is why I really am curious as to how the Left squares its appreciation for Lincoln, Sherman, etc.

Can you imagine the editorials and blogs we would see nowadays if we had a Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan active? They would make screeds against George W. Bush look like Puritan poetry.[/quote]

The difference is in the times and the context of the war.

The Civil War was a necessary, completely unavoidable war that could have legitamately cause the destruction of this country.

The Iraq War was not.

Besides this, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that this entire war is a different type… no armies in the field, per se.

If there was a massed Muslim army under a flag that was to be fought, then I would say do to them the same thing we did to Germany in WWII- firebomb every manufacturing plant, and do what must be done.

However, using conventional tactics doesn’t work in a guerilla war, as we found in Vietnam.

It’s like saying that Grant or Sherman could defeated John S. Mosby… maybe in the open field, but Mosby never fought in the open, so it’s apples and oranges. Guerillas like Mosby also conducted their war after the main manufacturing points in the South had been annihilated, ala Atlanta, Richmond, etc. and the rail system was destroyed by Sherman’s neckties.

See what I’m saying here, or am I not answering the question? The Islamic War is one that has to be fought with counterintelligence and guerilla tactics led by Special Forces and airstrikes, not masses of men on the ground… the only thing our army presents over there is a target.

If the FBI could take down the mob, then they can take down Al-Queda and prevent attacks.