No. I would not.

If that's the case then maybe you should STFU and stay out of the discussion.

Lincoln's election was in November of 1864. Sherman's march began in August-September.

There was much "howling" before the election.

"Sherman said this about Southerners: "To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources" (emphasis added).

Here you have a clear statement that Sherman's goal was to commit genocide against the people of Georgia. Remember that his famous "march" was not met by any serious military resistance other than a few cavalry skirmishes. It was almost entirely a campaign of death and destruction of civilians and their property. And he wanted to "repopulate" the state with fine New England stock such as himself, the son of a New England lawyer of Puritan descent.

Readers who are familiar with the U.S. Constitution may find it difficult to find the part of the document that permits the U.S. government to murder its own citizens or to completely suspend the Constitution during wartime, but Sherman apparently read between the lines better than most. "The Government of the United States has in North Alabama," he once declared, "any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war — to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact." "We will . . . take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper," said the maniacal murderer in the blue uniform.

Writing to his wife in 1862, Sherman informed her that "the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men women, and children, who must be killed or banished . . ."

I can proudly say I've never owned anything with a Tecumseh engine..................

Maybe when you start choosing to use the full quote instead of the half-ass liberal media version we can discuss this further.

The full quote is such:

He left Tennessee with approx 100,000 troops bound for Georgia in May of 1864. That began his campaign with Lincoln's blessings.

http://www.mce.k12tn.net/civil_war/timeline_of_the_american_civil_w.htm

"There is a class of people, men women, and children, who must be killed or banished "

That's more than enough of the quote to know that he was a monster.

Again, history says otherwise:

The March to the Sea, the most destructive campaign against a civilian population during the Civil War (1861-65), began in Atlanta on November 15, 1864, and concluded in Savannah on December 21, 1864.

U.S. president Abraham Lincoln was skeptical and did not want Sherman to move into enemy territory before the presidential election in November, Sherman persuaded his friend Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant that the campaign was possible in winter. Through Grant's intervention Sherman finally gained permission, although he had to delay until after election day.

Shuter wrote:"He was a terrorist and a madman carrying out a campaign to get Lincoln re-elected."

His campaign began when he left Tennessee, not just the March from Atlanta to Savannah up through SC.


In the spring of 1864, Sherman was made supreme commander of the armies in the West and was ordered by Grant to "create havoc and destruction of all resources that would be beneficial to the enemy." With a grand aggregate of 98,797 troops and 254 cannons, on May 4, 1864, Sherman began the Atlanta Campaign.

He got Lincoln re-elected with the taking of Atlanta. But he still was not given the go ahead for the march until after the election.

He also helped end the Civil War. His March to the Sea was the Civil War equivalent to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

In your incessant thirst to prove me wrong you have conceded my point. His campaign (I never said the "March", that was your words) got Lincoln elected but was inclusive.

There is sufficient evidence within my posts to show Sherman delusional, morally corrupt, and a monster terrorist with little to no compassion.

I would still enjoy pissing on his grave.

Many times, history is not written as it really happened.

I need a "That was easy" button

His campaign was to end the war. He succeeded. Call him what you will but his strategy worked. It's been studied and copied.

It was war and not a junior league tea social.

War is Hell.

like I need yer arse telling me what to do or talk about. Get over yourself....

"His campaign was to end the war."

We all know that. That issue was not debated.

The debate was whether it was ethical or not.

I don't believe it was when you single out women and children to torture & exterminate just to cause misery and suffering.

As many would say in deer hunting, "Shoot Them Ethically" to not prolong suffering. But you're OK with starving women & children?

I'd still love to piss on his grave.

I didn't say I was OK with it but it brought a swift end to the war.
I'm not particularly fond of the burning of women and children but it brought about the end of WWII and probably saved millions of lives. Millions of Japanese citizens were killed but we didn't make a villain of Paul Tibbets or Doolittle or McArthur.

Big difference between Japan and the South in those two very different wars.

Japan wanted to destroy the USA totally. The South just wanted to be left alone and not fall prey economically to the Northern Bankers, Indistrialists & Federalist taxation.

Thus, "The War Of Northern Aggression". The North invaded the South.

There is no comparison in WWII and the Civil War. The Civil War hostilities were against our own kind. I would think the North would have shown compassion for civilians, just as Lee did.

Besides, Tibbets, Doolittle, and McArthur weren't monsterous terrorists.

War is War. It isn't something you can do half-ass if you expect to win. No matter what romantic notions you have of it, it boils down to killing and destruction. Maybe if Lee had burnt Washington and marched through the North there wouldn't be talk about Sherman.

Japan did not want to destroy the U.S. Tibbets killed 100,000 in a single mission and the burning of Tokyo probably killed close to a quarter of a million so I'm sure the Japanese had a different view of Tibbets, McArthur etc. than you.