So I guess you approve of the Muslim methods of war? EID's, chopping off heads, terrorism, etc.?

After all, they are doing it all in the name of Muslim Jihad.

I don't approve of Sherman's methods either.

I would still enjoy pissing on his grave.

Sherman didn't engage in terrorism. He waged war. All these civilians were aiding the war effort. The Roswell women were working at a mill that made cloth for the confederate army. Rail lines carried food and munitions. His aim was to destroy the war making ability and end the war.

Do you not think that America wouldn't engage in similar tactics if it weren't for the press? America defoliated Southeast Asia. Destroyed European cities. McArthur wanted to nuke the chinese and north koreans.
Don't look at the approval or what you consider nice ways to wage war.

IED's are horrible but they are tremendously effective. They literally take maybe $100 and hold up a billion dollars worth of war fighting men and machine. Of course I hate them, but if someone invades my country and I want to wage war on them, IED's are in the arsenal.

It's all about waging war. Sherman did it as well as any.
All is fair in love and war.

"All these civilians were aiding the war effort."

Not true in the least.

Made no difference to Sherman whether they were aiding the war effort or not.

He purposely left Atlanta with no provisions with the intent of stealing every thing he could from civilians along the way.

He pillaged, raped, and robbed his way through Georgia. What food & crops he didn't steal, he destroyed. He spoilt the fields with salt to keep crops from being grown again. The number of raped & sodomized women were uncountable. He shot children because they cried and annoyed him. He broke the legs of any visibly healthy men for 60 miles wide across Georgia. He would be put to a firing squad today for doing this to any fellow humans worldwide.

Any attempt at defending him is telling.

But as you say, it was effective. There are rules for war today even tho' we are the only ones who abide by them. All is NOT fair if there is any compassion.

Sherman was the ultimate Terrorist Coward.

I would still love to piss on his grave.

The women were working at a mill making cloth for the confederate army. That is aiding the war effort.

Confederate troops pillaged Manassas and other places. It was a common tactic.



You got any references for these claims?

Now you are just coming up with myth and hysteria.

They would never have wasted salt, it was almost as expensive as gold.

They did indeed. Read Michael Fellman's book, Citizen Sherman, and others.

He stole what he could transport and dumped the rest in the fields of farmers.

Also, Sherman was a failure at conventional warfare:

"Similarly, I would be curious to know what Fellman
makes of Sherman's ineptness as a battlefield tactician.
Whatever his virtues as an operational commander, Sherman
was downright awful in his handling of military engagements.
His off-hand remark at Chickasaw Bayou in December 1862 --
that it would cost 5,000 men to capture Vicksburg, and the
price might as well be paid then as later -- was the prelude
to an unimaginative frontal assault on the Walnut Hills
that ended in prompt, complete failure. At Missionary
Ridge in November 1863 his share of the attack suffered
humiliating defeat in what was otherwise a storybook Union
triumph. The bloody, needless assault at Kennesaw Mountain
in June 1864 -- vividly depicted in Charles Royster's THE
DESTRUCTIVE WAR (1991) -- also fits the pattern, as does
Sherman's squandering of a wonderful opportunity to
destroy the Confederate army at Bentonville in March 1865.

Albert Castel made a formidable case against Sherman's
generalship in DECISION IN THE WEST: THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN OF
1864 (1992), but it has always seemed to me that Sherman's
tactical clumsiness cries out for psychological
interpretation. It almost seems as if Sherman mistrusted
his ability to outfight an opponent on the battlefield,
convinced himself that tactical finesse did not matter, and
so committed his forces to action with little forethought --
or, as at Bentonville, withheld them just as inexplicably.
Of these actions, Fellman comments only on Kennesaw
Mountain, and, considering his bold conclusions on other
subjects, his position here is disappointingly modest: he
says only that it is not possible to know exactly why
Sherman ordered the attack; he does not seem to realize
that even frontal assaults can be carried out with
calculating intelligence rather than wild abandon."

And you are defending the indefensible.

I have read many books, probably 8-10, biographies of Sherman. Maybe you should read some too?

It was funny when someone brought up slavery. Sherman loathed black people entirely.

But go to the Indian Wars. His true self was revealed when he massacred thousands of innocent women and children. Like I said, he was a monster.

They were all horrible at conventional warfare because they were fighting with outdated ideas and modern technology.
Picketts Charge was a futile waste of men.

From the reviews it doesn't look like Fellman researched his book very well. Since Sherman considered Salt contraband and understood its value I doubt he would have wasted it on fields. Especially since he would have had to haul all that salt down from the north since the south was severely low on salt.

You can continue to defend if you like. At least I have given you enough food for thought for you to read and make your own mind up, since history has him written wrong.

I would still like to piss on his grave.

I've read plenty about Sherman. I'm just asking for a reference. You are the one throwing out wild claims about breaking legs, salting fields and shooting children.

I never said Sherman was one way or the other in reference to slavery. I think the point was that you were defending the south, which condoned the owning of slaves and did not see the irony in your position.

Also, a lot of people think Sherman's tactics were something he came up with himself. Total destruction and humiliation was something that was entrenched in militaria long before Sherman. Read up on what Floyd did to the Creeks during the Creek Indian war under Andrew Jackson.

You are very correct. Sherman was not nearly astute enough to have an original, clever idea pertaining to warfare.

I have never been a fan of Jackson either for what he did to the Indians. Especially the Cherokees. His most famous battle would not have been successful had it not been for the Cherokees being his ally. When he told Marshall & the Supreme Court to enforce their own decision, he should have been impeached & imprisoned.
History has a strange way of revealing the truth, and sometimes not the truth.

He still wouldnt have wasted salt or gone on a leg breaking spree.

"I think the point was that you were defending the south, which condoned the owning of slaves and did not see the irony in your position."

I don't think I defended the South. I was merely against William T. Sherman's madman policies towards women & children in a war that the North couldn't seem to win with conventional warfare even though they outnumbered the South several times over..

I would be against his atrocities if they had happened elsewhere too.

Slavery would have gone away in the South anyway.
The churches were gaining momentum in that area and it was a matter of time only.

Repeated raping of women and young girls, and indiscriminate murder of women and children, still occurs every day in war-torn areas of Africa engaged in civil conflicts.

We probably could find a good organization or two to accept donations if you'd like to help fight those atrocities.

Many still don't believe he kidnapped women & children and sent them North to starve either.

Where did he send them? North is a pretty big place.

I would like to think that our country and it's military was/is better than that. Maybe not.