Sherman's March

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

Sherman fought guerrillas all across the West. He stated that he would make “young and old” feel the hard hand of war. By destroying Southern morale he ended the war quicker and saved lives in the long run.

The same way that the Allies did in post-WWII Germany – insurgents shoot at our troops and we level your entire village with artillery. It is barbaric and would make people scream but a few months of that would save thousands of lives in Iraq in the long run.

It’s just a shitty moral situation. Like the dems wanting us to get out of Iraq – if we left today there will be several hundred thousand dead in the next year. There aren’t a lot of great options.

Maybe it’s time for the Black Flag?

22

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

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. [/quote]

You have the privilege of retrospect. Don’t forget that Lincoln was not even assured re-election in 1864 and there were plenty of editorials on Lincoln’s “unnecessary war”.

I am not pretending the Iraqi War is the Civil War - what I am saying is that the mentality, regardless of context, would not be tolerated.

Martial virtue - with context being irrelevant - is something to be frowned on.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Interesting, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the point. Regardless of how a given war is to be fought - conventionally or not - what kind of mental approach is used? What is the character?

That is the point I am interested in. What made Sherman interesting was his frighteningly dogged attitude - unwavering commitment, tragic sense of the bigger picture, and unapologetic moralizing.

You think the Left could possibly admire any man that stubborn and willing to unrelentingly punish those who he disagreed with?

Old Democrats, maybe - modern ones?

23

[quote]MODOK wrote:
As a matter of fact, of all the pictures that I’ve seen from the postbellum years, I can’t recall seeing one non-gaunt person.[/quote]

Yeah, people were busy fighting and dying instead of raising crops. There’s a big shock.

Maybe your ancestors had gotten a bit lazy since they had previously managed to farm out all the hard work?

24

With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword… --Robert E. Lee

I’m not going to engage in a pointless debate on who was right or wrong, but I think it necessary to put the social conscience into some type of context.

This notion of a “United States”, as one large state with a centralized government did not exist in the time period leading up to and prior to the civil war. Looking at the quote I provided above, Lee sees himself more as a Virginian, than an “American”. States were seen as countries themselves with the President of the U.S. acting as a delegate to those states.

With this being said, I think it seemed pretty logical for the common southerner, who often could not afford a real uniform, to fight in the war to protect his homeland. He must have thought it was worth dying for.

The civil war was an absolute tragedy that should have never happened and its too bad that we even have to have these discussions.

Dustin

25

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Interesting, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the point. Regardless of how a given war is to be fought - conventionally or not - what kind of mental approach is used? What is the character?

That is the point I am interested in. What made Sherman interesting was his frighteningly dogged attitude - unwavering commitment, tragic sense of the bigger picture, and unapologetic moralizing.

You think the Left could possibly admire any man that stubborn and willing to unrelentingly punish those who he disagreed with?

Old Democrats, maybe - modern ones? [/quote]

I don’t know. I admire him alot, and I would consider myself a “modern Democrat” I guess. Although, I’d rather know what you think the distinction is before I call myself one.

It is a different time. A man like Sherman would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Though I admire him, I admire him because of what he did in that time period- put him here right now, with the ability to kill massive amounts of people, and I don’t know if I’d want his finger on the button.

Maybe a man like Grant, who had more…compassion? Or a sense of human life (I know, he was the “butcher” at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania and all that, but he still seems more sane than Sherman).

I don’t know that Sherman was a man who could have run the entire Civil War. Remember, even though he had his own army, he was still an arm of Grant, in the same way that Sheridan was, or the Navy- part of a cohesive plan made up by someone else.

I’m trying not to wander off of the main point here, which is more that Sherman functioned well back then as an Army commander who was limited by his commanding general, and also by the feeling of the people at home- not so different than now. If he was put in Iraq, then he would function in the same way- as long as there was someone above him to rein him in, or give him a general direction. If he was given too much power, or too much destructive capabilities, he might be too violent. You know there were many questions about his sanity, period, even though he refuted that later on in the war- but it speaks to the character of the man.

Like you said, he was more than willing to punish those he disagreed with. Doggedness is one thing, brutality, another. It worked in 1864 because it crushed the morale of the South. I dont know that it would work in 2007 against a religiously backed enemy who has been fighting the same war against brutal enemies for the entire time.

I realize that I said, “Too violent” before. What is “too violent”? Well, it was too violent if it didn’t work. If it did work, as it did for him, than it was just enough violence to end the thing quicker. This may be something that can only be looked at through hindsight.

I feel like you’re asking me if Marciano would have really beat Ali. But, yes, the Left could admire that. They admire Che Guevara…

26

[quote]Dustin wrote:
With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword… --Robert E. Lee

I’m not going to engage in a pointless debate on who was right or wrong, but I think it necessary to put the social conscience into some type of context.

This notion of a “United States”, as one large state with a centralized government did not exist in the time period leading up to and prior to the civil war. Looking at the quote I provided above, Lee sees himself more as a Virginian, than an “American”. States were seen as countries themselves with the President of the U.S. acting as a delegate to those states.

With this being said, I think it seemed pretty logical for the common southerner, who often could not afford a real uniform, to fight in the war to protect his homeland. He must have thought it was worth dying for.

The civil war was an absolute tragedy that should have never happened and its too bad that we even have to have these discussions.

Dustin
[/quote]

Never did I say that it wasn’t a cause worth dying for.

There was a famous incident of someone asking a Southerner why he was fighting, and his only answer was, “Cause’ you’re down here.”

Makes sense to me.

27

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never did I say that it wasn’t a cause worth dying for.

There was a famous incident of someone asking a Southerner why he was fighting, and his only answer was, “Cause’ you’re down here.”

Makes sense to me.
[/quote]

Okay then. My post wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular. I’m glad you responded though, because it appears that in some of your posts that you have a legit hatred for the South during the civil war.

Dustin

28

Hmm, nice to ask questions of The Left, and then ask people to stand in for it. I won’t pretend to be able to do that.

I do know that some people are Against War, and it wouldn’t matter how a war was conducted to them. These people will see it all as bad - Lixy comes to mind here.

I also know that some other’s are not against war, per se, but are against needless brutality. The key word in that phrase being Needless.

At some level war is about making an enemy ineffective. Deprive the enemy of supplies. Kill the enemy (dead people are largely ineffective). Sap their will.

War is not about inflicting punishment on individuals. Brutality without a military objective is simply brutality.

Beyond that there is a matter of scale. Should the US nuke the entire Middle East? Should it have engaged in the fire bombing of Japan’s cities during WWII? Should it have dropped nuclear bombs?

It is possible for people that are not Against War to apply measures of decency or morality to decisions made in times of war. Hell, even commanders who make such decisions wrestle with their demons… and they are certainly warriors.

We all sit around and cheer, assuming that the final outcome makes everything okay.

Do I think the US should raze neighborhoods of predominantly civilians in Iraq, for example? No, I don’t think it would serve a military objective. It wouldn’t break the will of the fighters, but it would certainly throw gasoline on regional fires and make international relations a lot tougher.

That’s a possible reality for the situation, it has nothing to do with being unwilling to do what’s needed. Also, what’s needed will change based on the capabilities of the enemy. Right now, we are all outraged at terrorist acts, but honestly, on a national scale the effects are small, caused by a government not listening to warnings (which won’t happen again), even if the news and the emotional impact it generates is large.

Again, I’m not trying to answer for the left… the left is too diverse an entity. However, I can see where those that aren’t Against War can disagree on what represents an appropriate action designed to achieve a military objective.

29

[quote]Dustin wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never did I say that it wasn’t a cause worth dying for.

There was a famous incident of someone asking a Southerner why he was fighting, and his only answer was, “Cause’ you’re down here.”

Makes sense to me.

Okay then. My post wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular. I’m glad you responded though, because it appears that in some of your posts that you have a legit hatred for the South during the civil war.

Dustin

[/quote]

There are times when I have a hard time feeling bad for people that fought on the side of slavery… of course, so few owned slaves, and most fought just because of the fact that there were soldiers marching across their farms… another war started by the rich that the poor bled through…

How’s that for a socialist diatribe MODOK?

30

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I don’t know. I admire him alot, and I would consider myself a “modern Democrat” I guess. Although, I’d rather know what you think the distinction is before I call myself one.

It is a different time. A man like Sherman would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. Though I admire him, I admire him because of what he did in that time period- put him here right now, with the ability to kill massive amounts of people, and I don’t know if I’d want his finger on the button.

Maybe a man like Grant, who had more…compassion? Or a sense of human life (I know, he was the “butcher” at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania and all that, but he still seems more sane than Sherman).

I don’t know that Sherman was a man who could have run the entire Civil War. Remember, even though he had his own army, he was still an arm of Grant, in the same way that Sheridan was, or the Navy- part of a cohesive plan made up by someone else.

I’m trying not to wander off of the main point here, which is more that Sherman functioned well back then as an Army commander who was limited by his commanding general, and also by the feeling of the people at home- not so different than now. If he was put in Iraq, then he would function in the same way- as long as there was someone above him to rein him in, or give him a general direction. If he was given too much power, or too much destructive capabilities, he might be too violent. You know there were many questions about his sanity, period, even though he refuted that later on in the war- but it speaks to the character of the man.

Like you said, he was more than willing to punish those he disagreed with. Doggedness is one thing, brutality, another. It worked in 1864 because it crushed the morale of the South. I dont know that it would work in 2007 against a religiously backed enemy who has been fighting the same war against brutal enemies for the entire time.

I realize that I said, “Too violent” before. What is “too violent”? Well, it was too violent if it didn’t work. If it did work, as it did for him, than it was just enough violence to end the thing quicker. This may be something that can only be looked at through hindsight.

I feel like you’re asking me if Marciano would have really beat Ali. But, yes, the Left could admire that. They admire Che Guevara…[/quote]

Good post, Irish.

The first thing I thought about was even pre-Iraq: when Bush, after 9/11, had tough words and rhetoric for the enemy and those who would help them (“with us or against us”, and so forth), he was panned and ridiculed by the Left.

What if Bush (or anyone else for that matter) uttered the Shermanesque “war is cruelty” remarks post-9/11? The harshness of those words - however true - would have the bulk of Democratic leadership calling for impeachment and there would protests in the streets of NYC and San Francisco.

And it isn’t just Bush. After Pearl Harbor, someone asked if FDR if he wanted to bring Japan to justice - he is reported to have replied “no, I want to bring Japan to its knees”.

What would modern Democrats make of such rhetoric? They have no stomach for it, and even less spine.

My point was that the martial spirit - the inflexibility, the unwillingness to accept anything other than an unconditional defeat of the enemy (oh no! that sounds too much like moral absolutism!) - is in short supply these days, and our warfighting suffers as a result.

Some have suggested that Sherman needed Grant to make sure Sherman didn’t turn the war into an excuse for brutality. I personally disagree. Sherman stated in his letters over and over that his intentions were to uphold the law to preserve the Union and nothing more. He even instructed the mayor that if Atlanta would surrender, he would use his army to give them protection.

Moreover, when Sherman began his march, he was cut off from communications with the rest of the Union forces - he “went dark”. He had essentially no restraint via higher ups. He could have brutalized the South in wanton fashion. But he actually didn’t.

Sherman was harsh, but not a lunatic hell-bent on violence.

Back to the point, I suggest that even if we had a war more “just” than the Iraq war (and I still have no problem with the decision, although I am critical of the execution of it), we are hamstrung because that “martial spirit” is not seen as a good thing to have in a character these days - which sucks, of course, because we need it now more than ever.

31

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I wonder what the Left’s view of Uncle Billy’s “total war” in the March to the Sea is.[/quote]

If all wars were “total wars,” I think we’d stopped having them a long time ago.

Our current “good for the economy” wars are bullshit and cause more problems than they solve.

32

[quote]pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I wonder what the Left’s view of Uncle Billy’s “total war” in the March to the Sea is.

If all wars were “total wars,” I think we’d stopped having them a long time ago.

Our current “good for the economy” wars are bullshit and cause more problems than they solve.

[/quote]

pookie,

I wanted to tell you that you are one of the liberal guys who I respect.

Don’t let that go to your head ):

Sure doesn’t seem like nice guy wars go very well.

JeffR

33

I thought Sherman’s approach shared much with Patton. Go right at them, the hard battle now saves lives in the long run. “War is war and no popularity seeking”.

34

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
I thought Sherman’s approach shared much with Patton. Go right at them, the hard battle now saves lives in the long run. “War is war and no popularity seeking”.[/quote]

Chucky,

At the Battle of Shiloh, Cump was in charge of the right flank. For the first 45 minutes of the battle, Sherman didn’t believe the rebels were attacking in force.

He was then shot through the hand. He looked at and remarked, “Well, I guess they’re serious.”

Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.

JeffR

35

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never did I say that it wasn’t a cause worth dying for.

There was a famous incident of someone asking a Southerner why he was fighting, and his only answer was, “Cause’ you’re down here.”

Makes sense to me.
[/quote]

But how can that be?

I thought “they” started the war?

Does the wish to be no longer ruled by you equal “starting a war”?

They weren`t fighting to control you. They never started anything. They just left.

And yes, that damn Fort. 150 years should be enough to get rid of the most blatant propaganda.

36

[quote]MODOK wrote:
I know you’ve always had trouble following a train of though vroom, but try to keep up. I said POSTbellem, meaning AFTER the war. No one was fighting anything except carpetbaggers during Reconstruction. And you just showed your complete and utter ignorance of 19th century American history by suggesting that my ancestors were slave owners.
[/quote]

Dude, there is this concept known as cause and effect. See, during times of war, things like crops and so forth can be neglected, burnt, foraged by the enemy and so forth.

Then, for a while afterwards, because a lot of working age people have died or been injured, it may be harder to find available labor tend crops and grow foods. Or, are you suggesting that the land would no longer grow food, or perhaps that nobody would willingly sell food to the south?

Anyway, I will admit complete ignorance of your personal ancestry. Gladly. Thankfully even.

[quote]Do you know what percentage of the southern population were slave owners? About the same percentage as there are intelligent Canadians (1-2%). My great granddad and his family were as poor as the blacks were. They were sharecroppers living in a one room dirt floor cabin with 8 children.

Yes, we really profited from slavery. Why don’t you stick to what you do best; modern socialist diatribe.[/quote]

There will always be aristrocrats versus the poor dirt farmers, it’s true in any society. Sorry you didn’t choose your parents better… don’t blame me for it. Societies can be shaped by minorities in quantity if they have majorities of influence.

Think about it.

37

[quote]JeffR wrote:
At the Battle of Shiloh, Cump was in charge of the right flank. For the first 45 minutes of the battle, Sherman didn’t believe the rebels were attacking in force.

He was then shot through the hand. He looked at and remarked, “Well, I guess they’re serious.”

Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.

JeffR
[/quote]

Jerffy,

All your jerking off aside, this little anecdote has nothing to do with whether or not he’d “get along with” modern democrats.

Now, if you started to realize that “modern democrats” isn’t a cohesize term that can easily describe everyone to the left of you, then things might eventually start to make more sense to you.

I won’t be holding my breath.

38

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.[/quote]

Something tells me he’d be equally disgusted with modern Republicans…

Way too much lying, spinning and covering of asses going on in modern politics. On all sides.

39

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.

Something tells me he’d be equally disgusted with modern Republicans…

Way too much lying, spinning and covering of asses going on in modern politics. On all sides.
[/quote]

Pookie,

You have a point. He wouldn’t like the modern Republicans who waffle.

However, if he disliked some Republicans he would LOATHE and DESPISE the modern democrat:

Take a peek at this (note we are several months into a new offensive that most think is bearing some fruit).

JeffR

40

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Sherman wouldn’t get along with a modern democrat.

JeffR
[/quote]

In all seriousness, why do you insist on placing individuals in these silly little groups? Like modern democrat, liberal democrat, liberal and communist for example.

Your previous posts are littered with examples of this. Why is do you do this?

Dustin