Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

`Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians
WIS TV ^ | Dec 05, 2014 | Renee Standera

Posted on 12/05/2014 1:01:20 PM PST by aomagrat

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -

At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.

"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.

"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."

McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.

"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."

(Excerpt) Read more at wistv.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; sherman; southcarolina; warcriminal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-204 next last
To: DoodleDawg
Objectively --- if they did carpet-bombing in populated areas, or chose weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction --- yes.

I am proud of that fact that at the onset of the US involvement in WWII, the USAF did sited daytime bombing against military targets.

They were as precise as you could be in the early 40's. We know that often looks like laying swathes of useless destruction today, but that was NOT a war crime: they were as precise as they COULD be. More than that, being physically impossible, would not have been morally obligatory.

I am not making an anti-war argument here, or even an anti-bombing argument. I am making the fundamental distinction that the difference between an good soldier/sailor/airman/marine and a Nazi, is that the good guys have moral limits. They do not indiscriminately slaughter, or intentionally target and massacre, noncombatants.

121 posted on 12/06/2014 7:30:47 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
They do not indiscriminately slaughter, or intentionally target and massacre, noncombatants.

Is that your measure of the threshold for a war crime? Then may we expect your retreat from the charge against Sherman and the union soldiers. Because they did none of that.

122 posted on 12/06/2014 7:35:36 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein; wardaddy
Good will all around!

:o)

I am for peace. But if war is forced upon you, rally around those who will wage war justly. Save the children of the poor. And crush the oppressor.

123 posted on 12/06/2014 7:36:19 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (He who sat on the White Horse is called Faithful and True: in righteousness He judges and wages war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I am making the fundamental distinction that the difference between an good soldier/sailor/airman/marine and a Nazi, is that the good guys have moral limits. They do not indiscriminately slaughter, or intentionally target and massacre, noncombatants.

<><><><><><

How do Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit into the calculus above?


124 posted on 12/06/2014 7:38:04 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: dmz

They’re not southrons ;’)


125 posted on 12/06/2014 7:39:10 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Add to that, this related crime: the strategic destruction of the food supply of the civilian population. I would be glad to clear Sherman's name ... IF it could be shown that he did not wage war on civilians by deploying the weapon of starvation.

Almost unmentioned by anybody, is that fact that the targeted destruction of assets indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (such as stored foods, cropland, livestock, wells and reservoirs, etc.) resulted in the South in the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of black slaves. They were an entirely rural people, living always at a level close to subsistence, and strategies such as Sherman's "scorched earth" policy contributed to their massive die-off during and directly after the war.

There's a book called "Sick from Freedom" by Jim Downs (LINK) which attempts to accurately estimate the extent of the black die-off. The slaves were (like the urban and rural whites) denied food and even denied the ability produce crops (e.g. because of the slaughter of mules and other work animals), facing rampant disease, including horrific outbreaks of smallpox and cholera --- and many of them simply starved to death.

A shame. And one we have not yet faced.

126 posted on 12/06/2014 7:54:03 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (He who sat on the White Horse is called Faithful and True: in righteousness He judges and wages war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

In other words you are willing to continue to move the goalposts until you are satisfied that no condition can rehabilitate his reputation. That’s OK by me because it reflects upon you not me.

History does not consider Sherman a “war criminal” and those who shout it only look foolish to the rest of us.


127 posted on 12/06/2014 7:59:15 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Unequivocally condemned.
128 posted on 12/06/2014 8:04:28 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (He who sat on the White Horse is called Faithful and True: in righteousness He judges and wages war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Look again. I have not moved the goalposts. This is the same point I made in #64 which you apparently didn't notice (that's OK, I don't read everything, either) and it's the same point made both in U.S. and the Geneva Conventions of International Law. The relevant passage says:

"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

This is not a war crime "because" it is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. It is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions "because" it is a war crime.

129 posted on 12/06/2014 8:14:27 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (He who sat on the White Horse is called Faithful and True: in righteousness He judges and wages war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.”

The Yankee Army under the command of Gen. Averel stole my Great-Great Grandmother`s horse. They also sole hundreds of bushels of corn, thousands of split rail fences to use for their campfires, see “Southern Claims Commision “ Alleghany County Va.


130 posted on 12/06/2014 8:41:18 AM PST by Einherjar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Einherjar

I take it she survived, at least long enough to bear one of your great-grandparents. I’m glad of that. So many did not.


131 posted on 12/06/2014 8:48:01 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (He who sat on the White Horse is called Faithful and True: in righteousness He judges and wages war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Politicalkiddo; PeaRidge
With respect to the shots fired at Fort Barrancas, here are a couple of links that indicate the shots were fired by Union soldiers in the fort, not by Southerners outside the fort: Link 1 and Link 2.

Somewhere in my library I have a pamphlet published by local Florida historians that says the same thing. I purchased it at Fort Pickens.

132 posted on 12/06/2014 10:23:24 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Politicalkiddo; PeaRidge

I found my missing “pamphlet.” It is 120 pages long and is entitled, “Pensacola Fortifications, 1698-1980, Guardians on the Gulf” by James C. and Irene S. Coleman and published by the Pensacola Historical Society.

On page 39 it says, “About midnight on the eighth [January 8, 1861] a group of men approached the fort and failing to answer when challenged, were fired upon by the guard.”


133 posted on 12/06/2014 10:40:03 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Madame, you miss my point. Yes there is the tyrant who must be vanquished by the just but the crime of war, for what ever reason is a crime unto to nature, unto God, it is the crime of covetousness, greed, the lust for power, the love of killing. Righteousness prevails but war by it’s nature is a crime.


134 posted on 12/06/2014 1:19:49 PM PST by jmacusa (Liberalism defined: When mom and dad go away for the weekend and the kids are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
You entirely missed Article 1 Section 9. There the president has the power to act unilaterally in such extreme times. He doesn't need to consult the Supreme court to take the actions granted him under this article. And notice also it say's ''may require it.
135 posted on 12/06/2014 1:26:35 PM PST by jmacusa (Liberalism defined: When mom and dad go away for the weekend and the kids are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
They were as precise as you could be in the early 40's. We know that often looks like laying swathes of useless destruction today, but that was NOT a war crime: they were as precise as they COULD be. More than that, being physically impossible, would not have been morally obligatory

You should look into it a bit more. The firebombing of Dresden was done by both the RAF and US bombers in February 1945. Over a three day period both forces bombarded the city as a whole, targeting civilians and not just military or industrial targets. And the firebombing of Japanese cities, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were both indiscriminate and designed to kill as many civilians as possible. But that is war, and war is hard. So where were they any worse than Sherman was?

136 posted on 12/06/2014 1:51:54 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
It's just easier to condemn Sherman by applying standards which were not in effect against alleged misdeeds that may or may not have occurred on his watch.

150 years after the fact...

137 posted on 12/06/2014 2:07:43 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; TexasFreeper2009
You entirely missed Article 1 Section 9. There the president has the power to act unilaterally in such extreme times. He doesn't need to consult the Supreme court to take the actions granted him under this article. And notice also it say's ''may require it.

Article 1 refers to the powers of Congress. You might consider what Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained the Constitution to the people, signed a statement saying that this was what the Constitution meant with respect to habeas corpus:

That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

But we are to believe that you know more than Hamilton and Jay about what the Constitution means.

138 posted on 12/06/2014 2:08:20 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
We may not, after defining all our words and parsing every sentence, be as fear apart as we may think, but I must say that while resort to arms is dreadful, all war is not a crime or a sin. That is a position common to religious pacifists,who understand that if it is a sin, that means we must not do it because it is forbidden by Almighty God. But I do not think that's your position. The vows of Crusaders, take in themselves, as pledges of obedience to God, would be pledges against "covetousness, greed, the lust for power, the love of killing." St.Joan of Arc would have understood it that way. Probably King Louis IX as well.
139 posted on 12/06/2014 2:28:01 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Thy love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket

Let me reiterate Article 1 Section 9 :The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. I never professed to more than Hamilton and Jay about what the Constitution means wise guy.


140 posted on 12/06/2014 2:35:43 PM PST by jmacusa (Liberalism defined: When mom and dad go away for the weekend and the kids are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-204 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson