Posted on 08/03/2005 10:47:14 PM PDT by churchillbuff
A city in east-central Ohio in September will celebrate Army Gen. William T. Sherman and the 125th anniversary of his ``War is hell'' speech.
The events will be Sept. 23-25, mostly in Lancaster in Fairfield County, the birth place of the Union Civil War general who marched in 1864 from Atlanta to Savannah through the heart of the Confederacy.
The celebration will include nationally recognized scholars and authors and hundreds of re-enactors portraying notable Ohioans and key Civil War figures. There will be a Civil War tea and fashion show and history walks featuring a Civil War encampment.
There will also be a Sept. 23 opening dinner at the Franklin Park Conservatory in Columbus. The speaker will be Dr. Richard McMurry, a Civil War author and historian. Re-enactors will portray Sherman and Ohio's own President Rutherford B. Hayes.
Sherman (1820-1891) delivered his famous speech on Aug. 11, 1880, at the Civil War Soldiers' Reunion at the Ohio State Fairgrounds (now the Columbus Park Conservatory).
``The war is away back in the past and you can tell what books cannot. When you talk, you come down to practical realities, just as they happened.... There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell. You can bear this warning voice to generations yet to come. I look upon war with horror; but if it has to come, I am here,'' Sherman told 10,000 Civil War veterans.
Sherman's birthplace in Lancaster is a museum run by the Fairfield Heritage Association.
For more information, contact the association at 105 E. Wheeling St., Lancaster, OH 43130, 740-654-9923. The Internet site is www.lancaster-oh.com/Sherman.
Sherman did not have pillage the South as he did .
I think he gave the Nazi's the idea for their Blitzkrieg.
Totally unacceptable.
Are you comparing an American general instrumental in ending the Civil War, which the South started, with the Nazis?
"celebrate Army Gen. William T. Sherman"
Grrrrrrrrr.
"Are you comparing an American general instrumental in ending the Civil War"
If Sherman's methods are acceptable, why aren't we targeting women and children in the Middle East?
"which the South started"
Only in the sense that they wanted to be left alone by someone who refused to let them alone.
Sherman did this with a minimum of loss in life, quite opposite from the bloodlettings between Grant & Lee further north... said bloodlettings being made possible only because both these generals were certainly of indomitable disposition, but wherein one (Lee) could only continue fighting if he had the logistics from the deep South that continued to feed his army the needed cotton, bullets, food and human flesh for those battles to be fought.
Sherman was one of America's greatest Generals, a man of Honor just as much as Lee. Because of his "pillage"; hundreds of thousands of lives were spared.
CGVet58
isn't it interesting how the Yankee's write their own versions of history ?
If the someone who wanted to be left alone really wanted to be left alone, they shouldn't have opened fire on a federal reservation. They all but handed Lincoln all the justification he needed to present the fencesitters. The right of secession was a point which warranted some constitutional debate, but nothing in the Constitution could be read as permitting the attack on Fort Sumter. It was federal property.
Victor Davis Hanson's take on Sherman. Worth a read: http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/5300.html
"If the someone who wanted to be left alone really wanted to be left alone, they shouldn't have opened fire on a federal reservation."
Well, if you want to take it to that level, according to accepted international law, Lincoln committed the first act of war when he undertook to reinforce Sumpter.
It there was a right to secede, and there was, then Lincoln was obliged to get his troops off.
We need more men like William T. Sherman in our war against the Islamics. The South brought it on themselves, and should consider themselves lucky that they didn't have to face General Clemenza.
"isn't it interesting how the Yankee's write their own versions of history ?"
I hate that.
So if someone, or a group wants "to be left alone" they incite mobs to attack United States forts and shipping? How interesting.
It's a real shame the U.S. did not have a dozen more Generals just like Sherman in order crush the insurrectionists, and resort civil order a couple of years prior to 1865.
I hope he can watch. From Hell!
Impeccably stated!
It's a real shame the CSA didn't have M-16's
" More than any other person, he destroyed the institution of American slavery and the Southern aristocracy that was interwoven with it."
I guess, given the immense, unnecessary loss of life and the hagiography that passes for study of Lincoln, it's just too much to ask people to accept that the War of Northern Aggression was not only wrongfully prosecuted by a tyrannical government, but unnecessary.
I think Lincoln realized that at Gettysburg, but thanks to (what else) an actor, we'll never know.
"It's a real shame the U.S. did not have a dozen more Generals just like Sherman in order crush the insurrectionists, and resort civil order a couple of years prior to 1865."
And you talk about freedom? Well, you're pretty free with words like "insurrectionists," I guess.
There was no insurrection. The South never undertook to overthrow the government of the US. They *seceded.* Do you know what that word means? They sought to leave a voluntary union as they had joined it, by popular vote.
Here's a remark by H. L. Mencken:
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
"The South brought it on themselves"
Yeah, that's what George III and the redcoats said...until they lost.
And that's the difference.
The founding fathers knew that they were committing treason in the eyes of the crown, and were prepared to suffer the consequences. Southerners knew that they were committing treason to the Union, yet too many of their descendents still whine about how they were treated, which was considerably better than other folks in other domestic conflicts around the world.
"One side in the Civil War was virtually the only democracy in the world at that time; and the other was a slave empire conspiring with foreign dictators in an attempt to destroy that democracy."
I'd love to stay and chat, but I have to go somewhere.
Before I toddle off, just a couple of things:
"Slave empire" is so overblown as to be risible. They were states, in the United States, where slaves were owned. Following secession, they attempted to become another democracy, with the same Republican institutions as the US.
And yes, if they had won, slavery would have been legal. It might have taken as much as another 20 years before economics killed it without a bloody, tragic war.
Secession would hardly have "destroyed" the US. It would have made it smaller, but the South had no intention of attacking.
People here go on and on about how brainwashed the young are when they come out of universities, and are totally unable to see that they have been lied to on the same scale about the WNA.
Well said! Excellent food for thought.
" Southerners knew that they were committing treason to the Union"
Road apples. The states voted to ratify the constitution--that is, to join the US--and a number of them in ratifying specifically reserved the right to withdraw at their own discretion.
They took a vote, and it was decided to withdraw. To call that treason is...well, tyrannical.
While you are at it, arm the traitor's M-16's with nukes so multiple millions in the North could be slaughtered so the profitable economic interests of the South's Cotton Empire, based on slave labour, would proceed uninterrupted?
After reviewing your comments in this thread, the insurrectionist leadership got off far too easy.
It appears that you have the idea that slavery was just a minor function of the CSA and that it was a democracy, holding popular votes.
Two very simple questions:
1. What percentage of the CSA population do you believe were slaves?
2. What percentage of the adult population do you believe was allowed to vote in the CSA?
Just estimate. Round numbers are fine.
You say he only brought the war to the rich folks of the south. The only problem is all the poor folks he raped and pillaged on his way to those "rich" folks. Alot of poor people starved to death because of this MONSTER!
some of those here in that food chain are not so young...just angry.
As a foreigner who grew up in NYC and lives south of the Mason/Dixon line
Both the Yanks and CSA had great commanders on the field of battle; both sides committed atrocities etc. War is hell, as most of us know, and the domain of hell was, during the civilwar/war between the states, within our country.
Secession from the union was due to economic reason, not slavery.
What we need is such figures as Grant and Lee, Sherman and Stonewall Jackson, and other commanders in Iraq.
I'm certain, these gentlemen would set their differences aside and fight for our country.
Why not? You Rebs do it all the time.
"I think he gave the Nazi's the idea for their Blitzkrieg. "
Ghengis Khan had Sherman beat by 600 years.
I see the Civil War still starts fights....:-)
Oh,...I also thought about attending this event next month, but...no....
"I see the Civil War still starts fights....:-)"
That's right. Lee and Jackson were entirely correct about that.
Being a Southernor and STILL a staunch secessionist, I have to applaud what you said here.
Grant owned Bobby Lee.....kicked his butt all over the south.
"It appears that you have the idea that slavery was just a minor function of the CSA and that it was a democracy, holding popular votes."
Does it? Does it appear that way to you, after I specifically called it a "Republican" government?
My goodness. I would have thought you understood the difference between a democracy and a republic.
"Just estimate."
I don't have to estimate squat. I've seen the numbers, and can easily find them again. It's irrelevant to me anyway, because smaller percentages than that would have the vote today if I had my way.
For instance, people who are told, "It's a republican form of government" and reply, "I guess you think it's a democracy" would not have the vote.
"some of those here in that food chain are not so young...just angry."
You don't have to be young. The rewriting of the history of the WNA started before the last veterans were even cold.
Some of those most certain of their position here would be astounded to read of the honors paid to General Lee and his wife by the veterans of the *North*.
"Grant owned Bobby Lee.....kicked his butt all over the south."
You're barking, Dog, but that assertion has no teeth.
Considering what he had to work with, Lee performed astounding feats.
"Being a Southernor and STILL a staunch secessionist, I have to applaud what you said here."
Hey, come on...
The Southern states began to secede, Lincoln said he was going to prevent them from seceding by force of arms, and he attacked.
I do not believe the charges of wide-spread rape, much less this sort of barbarity being condoned by Sherman, are credible - please read Victor Davis Hanson's "The Soul of Battle" - he is an outstanding historian and has included a well-researched, referenced and documented account of Sherman's campaign in the South.
As for the local starvation, remember; Sherman was intent (and succeeded...) on destroying the fiber that supplied the muscle of the Confederate Army. Until the war was brought to that area of the South which had not experienced any discomfort from the battlefields to the north, there was no foreseeable prospect of the war ending. Had there been no Sherman, how many thousands... tens or hundreds of thousands... would have died?
Same book, different General, same premise and conclusion. Patton's 3rd Army ran up a string of victories that - after the destruction of German resistance in the collapse of the Falaise pocket - saw him in command of the finest and most lethal American army in France (indeed, of any allied army in that theatre), with no practical German organized resistance in front him. The Rhine was open, and there's a case to be made (VDH makes it, imo) that had he been properly supported by the allied high command, he could have been in Czechoslovakia 4 months earlier than historically occurred. Instead, for many reasons (most wrong), Eisenhower cut his logistics down to a bare minimum.
The net result can be measured in millions slaughtered... and those killed were not even soldiers. I'm talking about the death camps, where only towards the end of the war did the slaughter average around 100,000 a week. Just do the math, and you tell me if Patton should have been given his head... the war would have ended earlier, and millions would have lived.
And before anybody goes off on me, I am not equating the CSA with Nazi Germany... I offer the above purely in terms of analysing War on it's own terms.
Summary: Sherman saved lives because he did what he did and shortened the war because of it; Patton being hamstrung by a shortsighted HQ resulted in untold deaths that could have been avoided. Me, I'll place my money on a Sherman (and Patton) any day of the week.
"We don't want your negroes or your horses or your houses or your lands or anything you have, but we do want, and will have, a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involves the destruction of your improvements we cannot help it. You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers that live by falsehood and excitement, and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters the better for you. I repeat then that by the original compact of government the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, &c., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi we fed thousands upon thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition and molded shells and shot to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, and desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can now only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. But, my dear sirs, when that peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter. Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them and build for them in more quiet places proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta."
SHERMAN, Sept. 12, 1864, letter to the Mayor of Atlanta.
It is indeed a truism that the victors write the history...and the losers write the myths.
And what clause of that 'accepted international law' did Lincoln violate?
I guess, given the immense, unnecessary loss of life and the hagiography that passes for study of Lincoln, it's just too much to ask people to accept that the War of Northern Aggression was not only wrongfully prosecuted by a tyrannical government, but unnecessary.You are correct. The tyrannical government that took over the southern states and attempted to illegally form their own nation wrongfully prosecuted its war in order to maintain its slave holding. It was also unnecessary for those people in that government and those who owned those slaves understood that they were violating the very creed that the nation was founded upon. Thank God for President Lincoln and Thank God for General Sherman.Oh, by the way, if anything, if not "The Civil War," should be called "the War of Southern Stupidity." Any government which would provoke a war facing a power with the industrial imbalance that existed at that time could call itself nothing but "stupid."
Which was a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and therefore void ab initio. (meaning void from the get-go.)
Eloquent words from a Great American Hero who understood better than anyone else that when the time for Mars is come upon Man, there is but one way to go about your business.
Humble thanks to you for posting it... see my own comments on this thread; am in 100% agreement with you.
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.