William Tecumseh Sherman

[El Justo]

and 20-some years after that and then 5 years after that and then even just 15 or so years after that it's a vicious cycle, i'd reckon.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I find the terms hero and villain to be too subjective in most cases. The real question is whether Sherman was an effective general and the answer is almost without a doubt that he was.

 

[Elrohir]

I'd just like to know what CFC'ers think of General William T. Sherman.

I know how Godwynn and Skadistic feel about him , but I'd like to hear everyones thoughts about him.

I think he was awesome. Georgia deserved it!

In all seriousness, though, I think he was a soldier who did his duty. He did what he thought was right, even though it was ugly. He served his country well, and I do believe he helped America - even the South - in the long run. "Hero" and "villain" are rather subjective terms, but I would consider him and overall positive influence and powerful figure in American history.

Wasn't he the one who opted for scorched earth tactics in the South and who advocated wholesale slaughter of Indigenous Americans?

All is fair in war, they say.

He didn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of the natives. He applied the same rules of war to the natives that he did to the Confederacy - hard, fast warfare. He was a soldier. He had buffalo and horses killed and homes and other resources destroyed when fighting the natives, that's true. He didn't kill unnecessarily, however. (And his treatment of Indian civilians was probably at least as gentle as their treatment of American settlers....food for thought.) He was brutal in warfare, but very generous in peace towards everyone he fought against.

 

[West 36]

Can I get some more info on him? Deaths and such, how much of an affect this was on the South, etc. I know the guy, but knowing him better would allow me to have a better opinion on him. I have liked him, but probably only because he's made out to be a hero from the get-go.

 

[Adler17]

He fought a Total War, perhaps not to the last consequence. Thus he was a villain. Nothing can justify the destruction of so many civilian houses. In that days war was still considered as a gentlemen's game. The rights of civilians were violated in a way not known after 1648. Thus as there is no justification for that he is a villain.

Adler

 

[BCLG100]

I remember watching something on the History Channel about how he did restrain his troops slightly more in Georgia.

But he basically allowed them to do whatever they wanted in South Carolina, as it was the "Cradle of Secession" (as I believe it was termed).

He wrote a very compassionate and polite open letter to the citizens of Atlanta. I've got a copy of it on my bed.

He fought a Total War, perhaps not to the last consequence. Thus he was a villain. Nothing can justify the destruction of so many civilian houses. In that days war was still considered as a gentlemen's game. The rights of civilians were violated in a way not known after 1648. Thus as there is no justification for that he is a villain.

Adler

He didnt fight a total war. One man cannot fight a total war. A total war has arguably never been fought in history with Britain in WW2 coming close, where every single person and occupation was driving the war effort. You could go to parts of the Union where they'd be near oblivious to what was going on. What he did wasn't a fourteenth century chevauchee and it wasn't Dresden just because it hadn't happened in awhile doesnt make it worse. Though post 1648 with the beginning of the slave trade i'd have to disagree that civilian rights were not violated.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I have a lot of respect for Sherman. He successfully helped bring an end to the Civil War. I know some people have problems with his methods but I believe that the results of his actions were much better than having the war drag on for a few more years. It is also obvious that his intent was not to harm civilians but to bring an end to the war.

Another reason I like Sherman is that he had a number of goods quotes some which I have submitted to the "historical quote" thread.

 

[El Justo]

BCGL100,

i think he was referring to total war as "scorched earth" or denying the enemy of any and all things that may be of value to him. that would mean food stuffs, crops, peoples, buildings, etc.

 

[silver 2039]

He did what was nessecary for victory. Besides the South deserved it he taught them the penalty for treason.

 

[Red Door]

Hero, although he didn't do enough burning.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Hero, his wanton destruction was bad but not nearly as bad as countless others and not entirely undeserving...

He certainly shortened the war bringing it to a decisive end.

 

[Adler17]

I indeed meant the strategy of scorched earth.

Adler