McDonnell declares April Confederate History Month..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

And R13 you should have paid more attention in US History class..or learn to not be spoonfed info, cuz you have missed the boat as far as the Civil War goes.

---

Really? Well go ahead and show me where I've been so wrong in all of what I've said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple man

Silly me, I thought Lincoln was the CIC , and calling Grant's shots- he did appoint him. And as far as "Him" helping us? It is what it is ,and I didn't have a horse in that race. The whole war was about cheap labor.

---

That's like saying the President of Arbys, was told by the regional manager, that was told by manager, that his workers had been spitting in food...it doesn't happen. Those few times may have happened, but it wasn't a command by Sherman or part of 'total war', it just happened. If he even knew about what they were doing, it wouldn't go any further than him, definitely not to Grant and esp. not to Lincoln.

R13, the history classes where you went to school must be like the Japanese classes where they spent 6 pages on WWII and didn't mention they started the war. WTS didn't just burn ONE town, that was just a large one that came to mind. And how much did the northern voters like the tatic? They elected Grant president. ....OK you can put your head back in the sand now.

Info about WTS-
From his memoirs


"No army can be efficient unless it be a unit for action; and the power must come from above, not from below: the President usually delegates his power to the commander-in-chief, and he to the next, and so on down to the lowest actual commander of troops, however small the detachment. No matter how troops come together, when once united, the highest officer in rank is held responsible, and should be consequently armed with the fullest power of the Executive, subject only to law and existing orders. The more simple the principle, the greater the likelihood of determined action; and the less a commanding officer is circumscribed by bounds or by precedent, the greater is the probability that he will make the best use of his command and achieve the best results."

" For the rapid transmission of orders in an army covering a large space of ground, the magnetic telegraph is by far the best, though habitually the paper and pencil, with good mounted orderlies, answer every purpose. I have little faith in the signal-service by flags and torches, though we always used them; because, almost invariably when they were most needed, the view was cut off by intervening trees, or by mists and fogs. There was one notable instance in my experience, when the signal-flags carried a message. of vital importance over the heads of Hood's army, which had interposed between me and Allatoona, and had broken the telegraph-wires--as recorded in Chapter XIX.; but the value of the magnetic telegraph in war cannot be exaggerated, as was illustrated by the perfect concert of action between the armies in Virginia and Georgia during 1864. Hardly a day intervened when General Grant did not know the exact state of facts with me, more than fifteen hundred miles away as the wires ran. So on the field a thin insulated wire may be run on improvised stakes or from tree to tree for six or more miles in a couple of hours"

From his quotes
"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it" Sherman to the leadership of Atlanta, prior to Burning the City.

And finally an opinion- he is the guy that STARTED the total war concept ,as far as this country is concerned.

Finally here is a line about a set fo orders taken from a dead Union officer in 1864, for the burning of richmond.

" Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid (February 28?March 3, 1864) was an ambitious attempt by Union cavalrymen to assault the lightly defended Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia, and free prisoners of war during the American Civil War (1861?1865). The brainchild of the flamboyant Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick, the raid turned into a fiasco when Kilpatrick's men were stopped northwest of the city and a supporting column, under the command of twenty-one-year-old Colonel Ulric Dahlgren, was routed to the east. Dahlgren was killed, and papers found on his body, which were subsequently published by the Richmond press, detailed plans to burn the city and assassinate Confederate president Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Public opinion in both the North and the South was inflamed, and historians continue to debate the "
All you have to do is search the net for Sherman and that raid and you will find the stuff I'm talking about. I'd post the link, but you usually just complain about a source , however that will not change history.
PS don't forget -both sides were so happy with this war that would allow a "substitute" to be purchased so neither group wanted to kill any wealthy kids.

I do find it funny that some blast Lincoln for his approach to the Constitution, but then praise a certain other President who did the same thing, totally disregarding the Constitution, especially individual freedom.

The only difference is that one was dealing with civil war, a war in which the state of the nation was in jeopardy, the other was dealing with a foreign war against a country that had not attacked American soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple man

R13, the history classes where you went to school must be like the Japanese classes where they spent 6 pages on WWII and didn't mention they started the war. WTS didn't just burn ONE town, that was just a large one that came to mind. And how much did the northern voters like the tatic? They elected Grant president. ....OK you can put your head back in the sand now.

---

Trying to figure where you're getting this? Sherman used "total war", which is to burn and destroy everything so that the enemy forces couldn't use them later mainly. So I don't know what part you've posted that I've denied? His "scorched earth" tactic created a massive amount of destruction in the march, so where am I wrong again?

I think he is pointing out that Sherman was in daily contact with Grant and did know what his troops were doing. Grand and Shermans daily updates were also sent to Lincoln. They all knew what was going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Trying to figure where you're getting this? Sherman used "total war", which is to burn and destroy everything so that the enemy forces couldn't use them later mainly. So I don't know what part you've posted that I've denied? His "scorched earth" tactic created a massive amount of destruction in the march, so where am I wrong again?

---

"That's like saying the President of Arbys, was told by the regional manager, that was told by manager, that his workers had been spitting in food...it doesn't happen. Those few times may have happened, but it wasn't a command by Sherman or part of 'total war', it just happened. If he even knew about what they were doing, it wouldn't go any further than him, definitely not to Grant and esp. not to Lincoln. "

That make things any clearer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1inStripes

I think he is pointing out that Sherman was in daily contact with Grant and did know what his troops were doing. Grand and Shermans daily updates were also sent to Lincoln. They all knew what was going on.

---

Lincoln and Grant both knew because Grant was Sherman's superior and Lincoln was the Commander in Chief...and anyone with doubts that Lincoln knew what was going on, remember he replaced numerous Generals that didn't please him, and the Union had the service of a telegraph most of the time to keep him informed. But really, Grant was as reckless with the lives of his own men (see Cold Harbor) as Sherman was with the lives of Southern women and children....neither cared what price their legacy would cost ..and Lincoln didn't either. IMO, if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, his legacy as a "saintly" President would never have come about. And we all know what Grant's legacy as President was... It's not hard to realize that these folks weren't what you would call "good people".

"Lipstick on a pig.":D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

Lincoln and Grant both knew because Grant was Sherman's superior and Lincoln was the Commander in Chief...and anyone with doubts that Lincoln knew what was going on, remember he replaced numerous Generals that didn't please him, and the Union had the service of a telegraph most of the time to keep him informed. But really, Grant was as reckless with the lives of his own men (see Cold Harbor) as Sherman was with the lives of Southern women and children....neither cared what price their legacy would cost ..and Lincoln didn't either. IMO, if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, his legacy as a "saintly" President would never have come about. And we all know what Grant's legacy as President was... It's not hard to realize that these folks weren't what you would call "good people".

---

I completely agree. For his "legacy" JWB is the best thing that happened to him (and no folks I am not condoning assassination, and never would for any US president).