• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatness of William Tecumseh Sherman

Jack Hays said:
That's exactly what they sought: to overthrow the US government in their states.
Click to expand...

No, they sought to eject their states out of the union. At no time was there any plan to destroy the Federal government. There's no evidence to suggest that there was.

I agree that secession is illegal, but let's not make inaccurate comments in order to prove that. There's no need, it is what it is.
 
apdst said:
No, they sought to eject their states out of the union. At no time was there any plan to destroy the Federal government. There's no evidence to suggest that there was.

I agree that secession is illegal, but let's not make inaccurate comments in order to prove that. There's no need, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

By attempting to end federal power in their states they were attempting to destroy the federal government.
 
Jack Hays said:
By attempting to end federal power in their states they were attempting to destroy the federal government.
Click to expand...

No, the Federal government would have still existed.
 
Jack Hays said:
But not in the seceded states.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean the Federal government was destroyed. And, the Southern states didn't reject democracy. Secession was decided, democratically.
 
apdst said:
Which doesn't mean the Federal government was destroyed. And, the Southern states didn't reject democracy. Secession was decided, democratically.
Click to expand...

The seceding states attempted to overturn the democratic result of 1860 and destroy the federal government within their boundaries.
 
Jack Hays said:
The seceding states attempted to overturn the democratic result of 1860 and destroy the federal government within their boundaries.
Click to expand...

No, they chose not to subject to the result of the 1860 election and instead subject themselves to their own democratic process.

Again, it is what it is, let's don't try to call it something that it isn't.
 
apdst said:
No, they chose not to subject to the result of the 1860 election and instead subject themselves to their own democratic process.

Again, it is what it is, let's don't try to call it something that it isn't.
Click to expand...

What it was, was treason. They had no right, none, to avoid the 1860 result, and their own process was illegitimate.
 
apdst said:
The average Southern soldier fought to defend his home from invasion by the North.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point Nathan Bedford Forest made concerning the blacks who fought with & for him:

'When I entered the army I
took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them surrendered with me. I
told these boys if we lose you will be made free. If we win the
fight and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way you will be freed. These boys stayed
with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live”.

He ended with 'They were protecting their homeland.'
.
 
Necromancy is at work here.

But yes, Sherman was not only a great tactician but his March to Sea was a brilliant campaign that demonstrated the brutal effectiveness of total warfare ahead of it's time.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Necromancy is at work here.

But yes, Sherman was not only a great tactician but his March to Sea was a brilliant campaign that demonstrated the brutal effectiveness of total warfare ahead of it's time.
Click to expand...

Total war has been around for much longer than the Civil War. Genghis Khan, the Crusades, the Peloponnesian Wars ect.. Sherman just realized in order to win the Civil War he needed to wage total war. He executed his strategy masterfully. The difference then was it was at the beginning of the industrial age and war was just starting to become industrialized and therefor much more devastating much faster and easier.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Total war has been around for much longer than the Civil War. Genghis Khan, the Crusades, the Peloponnesian Wars ect.. Sherman just realized in order to win the Civil War he needed to wage total war. He executed his strategy masterfully. The difference then was it was at the beginning of the industrial age and war was just starting to become industrialized and therefor much more devastating much faster and easier.
Click to expand...

With Genghis Khan you have a point. But the Crusaders did not practice a theory of total war, they just massacred and killed a lot of non-Christians. That's not really total war. And the Peloponnesian War wasn't total war; it just dragged on for so long without a clear balance of power that the ramifications for protracted conflict became more prominent.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Necromancy is at work here.

But yes, Sherman was not only a great tactician but his March to Sea was a brilliant campaign that demonstrated the brutal effectiveness of total warfare ahead of it's time.
Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:
Total war has been around for much longer than the Civil War. Genghis Khan, the Crusades, the Peloponnesian Wars ect.. Sherman just realized in order to win the Civil War he needed to wage total war. He executed his strategy masterfully. The difference then was it was at the beginning of the industrial age and war was just starting to become industrialized and therefor much more devastating much faster and easier.
Click to expand...

Sherman's war was not all that total, especially compared to what came later. His greatness was in his highly mobile, deep penetration offensive maneuvers. That's why 20th century armor commanders studied him. And why he's still studied today: mobile warfare.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sherman's war was not all that total, especially compared to what came later. His greatness was in his highly mobile, deep penetration offensive maneuvers. That's why 20th century armor commanders studied him. And why he's still studied today: mobile warfare.
Click to expand...

His tactical capabilities should not be underestimated as well. He routinely defeated one of the best defensive minds of the Civil War, Joseph Johnston.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
His tactical capabilities should not be underestimated as well. He routinely defeated one of the best defensive minds of the Civil War, Joseph Johnston.
Click to expand...

He said he always sought to put his opponent "on the horns of a dilemma."
 
In today's world, Sherman would be convicted of war crimes.

I don't have a opinion on him other than him being a brutal SOB when it came to scorched earth warfare. His efforts may have saved lives by ending the war sooner, but his tactics killed quite few civilians.
 
RetiredUSN said:
In today's world, Sherman would be convicted of war crimes.

I don't have a opinion on him other than him being a brutal SOB when it came to scorched earth warfare. His efforts may have saved lives by ending the war sooner, but his tactics killed quite few civilians.
Click to expand...

That's actually just Confederate propaganda. His troops killed no more civilians than did those of any other commander.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom