This is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread. She lost thirty thousand dollars worth of product--much of which was in slaves--because she refused to comply with the lawful orders of the President of the United States of America and free her slaves. And then a bunch of starving Union soldiers come through this aristocratic cunt's palatial estate, and do they burn it down, rape her, and kill her? No, they just take the food and burn the cotton. That's it.
This wasn't a fucking war crime; if anything, the fucking soldiers showed an incredible amount of restraint. Fuck. What the fuck is wrong with you? "Slaves marched away against their will?" Yeah, boy, I'm sure she never made any slaves do anything against their will, right? Fuck.
No, I'm not sure what stormfront is. If you read the rest of her journal she talks about how they broke in and destroyed all their china, silver, etc. How do you know they were starving? Sounds like they were strong enough to take a thousand pounds worth of meat. Ugh.
I realize this is D&D, but some of you dudes just live in a different reality, I think.
For fuck's sake, I did read that. Nowhere in there does it say starving union soldiers.
Anyway the whole point was that Sherman wasn't a pretty good dude, like some people said. He was a pretty vicious dude. Hell, even Grant and Abe were against it. I realize we're demonizing here, but maybe, just maybe, enemy civilians shouldn't have their food taken, valuables destroyed and buildings burned. Maybe. It was an effective tactic, yes. He was definitely an evil guy, though.
One-third of Columbia, SC, was destroyed in the fire of February 17, 1865. Over thirty-six square blocks, including all of city’s business district and much of the upper class residential area, was reduced to rubble and ashes. Only one southern death was reported, a black male. A thriving city and economy was turned into a city on welfare over night.
For fuck's sake, I did read that. Nowhere in there does it say starving union soldiers.
Anyway the whole point was that Sherman wasn't a pretty good dude, like some people said. He was a pretty vicious dude. Hell, even Grant and Abe were against it. I realize we're demonizing here, but maybe, just maybe, enemy civilians shouldn't have their food taken, valuables destroyed and buildings burned. Maybe. It was an effective tactic, yes. He was definitely an evil guy, though.
One-third of Columbia, SC, was destroyed in the fire of February 17, 1865. Over thirty-six square blocks, including all of city’s business district and much of the upper class residential area, was reduced to rubble and ashes. Only one southern death was reported, a black male. A thriving city and economy was turned into a city on welfare over night.
Oh no, a union general attacked the economy of a treasonous state! How awful! If the confederates didn't want their economy crippled they shouldn't have rebelled in the defense of slavery.
One-third of Columbia, SC, was destroyed in the fire of February 17, 1865. Over thirty-six square blocks, including all of city’s business district and much of the upper class residential area, was reduced to rubble and ashes. Only one southern death was reported, a black male. A thriving city and economy was turned into a city on welfare over night.
...Are you fucking shitting me?
The reason the "thriving city and economy" went to being on welfare overnight had little-to-nothing to do with the fire, and just about everything to do with the fact that the slaves upon which the economy was built were all freed. Seattle and San Francisco both dealt with way fucking worse fires (like, reducing the entire city to ash), and were tremendously improved by them.
Destroying a business district and OH NOES RICH PEOPLE'S HOUSES won't destroy an economy, because businesses and housing is just where you do the shit and can be rebuilt. Destroying resources is how you fuck shit up.
For fuck's sake, I did read that. Nowhere in there does it say starving union soldiers.
Anyway the whole point was that Sherman wasn't a pretty good dude, like some people said. He was a pretty vicious dude. Hell, even Grant and Abe were against it. I realize we're demonizing here, but maybe, just maybe, enemy civilians shouldn't have their food taken, valuables destroyed and buildings burned. Maybe. It was an effective tactic, yes. He was definitely an evil guy, though.
One-third of Columbia, SC, was destroyed in the fire of February 17, 1865. Over thirty-six square blocks, including all of city’s business district and much of the upper class residential area, was reduced to rubble and ashes. Only one southern death was reported, a black male. A thriving city and economy was turned into a city on welfare over night.
You're a fucking moron. It's pretty well-known history that soldiers in this war lived off meager amounts of hard tack if anything at all, all while marching miles and miles and miles every day. It's a very safe assumption to say that any of the soldiers were starving, Union or otherwise.
And he destroyed 1/3rd of a city and left one dead when the point was to destroy their infrastructure so they couldn't fight anymore. Who really gives a shit? Man, I grew up in the housing projects in Atlanta, just down the street from Underground, and now live about 45 minutes north and I've never seen anybody argue as stupidly as you are right now.
For fuck's sake, I did read that. Nowhere in there does it say starving union soldiers.
Anyway the whole point was that Sherman wasn't a pretty good dude, like some people said. He was a pretty vicious dude. Hell, even Grant and Abe were against it. I realize we're demonizing here, but maybe, just maybe, enemy civilians shouldn't have their food taken, valuables destroyed and buildings burned. Maybe. It was an effective tactic, yes. He was definitely an evil guy, though.
One-third of Columbia, SC, was destroyed in the fire of February 17, 1865. Over thirty-six square blocks, including all of city’s business district and much of the upper class residential area, was reduced to rubble and ashes. Only one southern death was reported, a black male. A thriving city and economy was turned into a city on welfare over night.
You're a fucking moron. It's pretty well-known history that soldiers in this war lived off meager amounts of hard tack if anything at all, all while marching miles and miles and miles every day. It's a very safe assumption to say that any of the soldiers were starving, Union or otherwise.
And he destroyed 1/3rd of a city and left one dead when the point was to destroy their infrastructure so they couldn't fight anymore. Who really gives a shit? Man, I grew up in the housing projects in Atlanta, just down the street from Underground, and now live about 45 minutes north and I've never seen anybody argue as stupidly as you are right now.
You've never seen anybody argue that Sherman was an evil man? Every book I've read about the ACW says he was a pretty bad guy. I've read your posts before, though, so I understand what kind of people you might hang out with. I realize it is edgy to think like that.
And no, Incenjucar, that isn't what I meant. I've read plenty of books and seen documentaries on the ACW. Not to be a dick waver or whatever. Sherman was an evil guy. Trying to be edgy as shit and think otherwise is fucking stupidity.
I think Sherman's Total War and the nukes on Japan are usually justified in the same manner. Certain means justify certain ends, even though we don't like to think that way.
People who go around killing for a living tend to be evil, even if they're working for good causes. It's sort of what being a mass murderer for a living DOES to you. See: Batman's Code.
Thing is, you're not providing very good examples of him being exceptionally vile compared to slavers.
Armies do certain things out of need and reason. An army fights on its stomach, so you take food when you can find it, and deny it to your opponents. You also deny your opponents resources of any sort, including shelter.
You've never seen anybody argue that Sherman was an evil man? Every book I've read about the ACW says he was a pretty bad guy.
I'm surprised you can read, much less read a whole book, because I said I'd never seen anybody argue it as stupidly or badly as you have attempted to. Fact is, Sherman was simply trying to end the fighting as quickly as possible. That's actually commendable, and, as mentioned, he evactuated the cities before destroying them. Where's the atrocity again?
I've read your posts before, though, so I understand what kind of people you might hang out with. I realize it is edgy to think like that.
And what the fuck is this supposed to mean? You think I'm deliberately trying to be edgy? Get your head out of your ass, you insulting twat.
You're calling us nuts because we can't empathize with people who fought a war so they could own other people? And I'm not talking about the soldiers, I'm talking about the landed aristocracy who were the driving force behind the war. You want us to feel sorry for them because they lost their china and their silver. Seriously? Seriously? And we're supposed to be fucking nuts?
People who go around killing for a living tend to be evil, even if they're working for good causes. It's sort of what being a mass murderer for a living DOES to you. See: Batman's Code.
Thing is, you're not providing very good examples of him being exceptionally vile compared to slavers.
Armies do certain things out of need and reason. An army fights on its stomach, so you take food when you can find it, and deny it to your opponents. You also deny your opponents resources of any sort, including shelter.
I'm not comparing him to slavers. I'm just saying he was evil. Ranks up there with Andersonville in atrocities committed during the war.
Unless you're saying that since he was less evil than the people who owned slaves (and remember, he burned people's shit no matter if they owned slaves or not) he had every right to destroy their property, meh.
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited February 2009
Jesus, muggins. You make it sound like you lay awake sobbing at night for the brave buildings lost in the line of duty. That you visit your pastor and in a choking voice ask him if the souls of those cotton bales will be waiting for you in heaven.
If I were a civilian in a war I would be upset if everything I owned and the place I lived in got destroyed because I was on the wrong side of a dotted line.
Then again we blew up plenty of civilian things in WW2 and no one complains about that.
I will say this, and this is coming from a guy who starting reading this thread, drove past a house or two with Confederate flags flying, and then finished it up. Living in South Carolina, everyone I've met who wears the shirts, drives the stickered vehicles, or flies the flag out front can most easily and fairly described as uneducated. I like to think this is not a generalization as I specify these are people I've come into contact with. They're idiots, just like any of you might run into in any of your local areas, but these guys are thoughtful enough to declare exactly where they're from.
To the Southerners: Why do you defend such people?
To the Northerners (and others): Such people are not indicative of the entire population.
I have a problem with flying a flag that is the symbol of a government that existed pretty much entirely for a single reason: because they thought that white people should be able to own black people, and they didn't have a problem getting several hundred thousand people killed over it.
It wasn't the symbol of any government. It wasn't even a symbol of the entire Confederate army.
Again, this isn't the equivalent of a swastika; it's the equivalent of a Nazi flag.
No, it's the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag. Does it offend some people? Yes and rightly so. Does everyone who uses it subscribe to an abhorrent system of beliefs? No. Hell, the Iron Cross is now the official symbol of the German army. That doesn't mean that their soldiers dream night and day of invading France.
No, it's pretty much the equivalent of the Nazi flag. In fact, I'm not sure there is a better equivalent to it, since both were racist goverments that opressed "lesser" races and fought, among other things, to keep their "right" to do it. Both of them also got steamrolled in destructive wars and were wiped off the fact of the Earth. The difference between modern Germans and some Southern people is that the Germans aren't flaunting the Nazi flag as it was some thing to be proud about. Except for the Neo-Nazis. And yeah, it's also the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag as well, which means that any asshole who goes flaunting it in China or Korea should probably get their butts kicked as well.
Is that not the official Flag of the Confederate States? There, in the right corner?
That is the third flag of the Confederacy; that is not the flag we have been discussing. And isn't there a quote a bit further up the tree talking about how an entire flag is not equivalent to the charge on another flag?
So what you are exactly arguing here? That the confederate Stars and Stripes is in fact not the official symbol of the Confederacy? Because it has featured in two of the three official flags, in the Navy Jack and apparently in 180 different military battle flags and is obviously the only part of the flag that can be used as a recognizable symbol.
I am arguing that if you are going to take a hostile position on a subject, you really should have some kind of rudimentary knowledge of what you are talking about and not contradict yourself through willful ignorance. We are not talking about the confederate Stars and Stripes, we are talking about the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is the symbol of the Confederacy no more than a blue field with fifty stars on it is the official symbol of the United States. It was a flag of some of the Confederate armies. It was similar to other flags of the confederate military. It was used as an element of the national flag of the Confederacy; it was not the national flag of the confederacy. If people wanted to fly a recognizable symbol of the Confederate government, they would have flown the Stars and Bars or Bloodstained Banner.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
If I were a civilian in a war I would be upset if everything I owned and the place I lived in got destroyed because I was on the wrong side of a dotted line.
Then again we blew up plenty of civilian things in WW2 and no one complains about that.
I'm sure the aristocratic cunts who owned all those slaves were very upset by it. Upset enough to be the driving force behind the deaths of three-quarters of a million people, in the name of protecting their right to own black people.
What I'm trying to say here is that if they had been drawn and quartered, I really would have considered that too good for them. They got off light.
I have a problem with flying a flag that is the symbol of a government that existed pretty much entirely for a single reason: because they thought that white people should be able to own black people, and they didn't have a problem getting several hundred thousand people killed over it.
It wasn't the symbol of any government. It wasn't even a symbol of the entire Confederate army.
Again, this isn't the equivalent of a swastika; it's the equivalent of a Nazi flag.
No, it's the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag. Does it offend some people? Yes and rightly so. Does everyone who uses it subscribe to an abhorrent system of beliefs? No. Hell, the Iron Cross is now the official symbol of the German army. That doesn't mean that their soldiers dream night and day of invading France.
No, it's pretty much the equivalent of the Nazi flag. In fact, I'm not sure there is a better equivalent to it, since both were racist goverments that opressed "lesser" races and fought, among other things, to keep their "right" to do it. Both of them also got steamrolled in destructive wars and were wiped off the fact of the Earth. The difference between modern Germans and some Southern people is that the Germans aren't flaunting the Nazi flag as it was some thing to be proud about. Except for the Neo-Nazis. And yeah, it's also the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag as well, which means that any asshole who goes flaunting it in China or Korea should probably get their butts kicked as well.
Is that not the official Flag of the Confederate States? There, in the right corner?
That is the third flag of the Confederacy; that is not the flag we have been discussing. And isn't there a quote a bit further up the tree talking about how an entire flag is not equivalent to the charge on another flag?
So what you are exactly arguing here? That the confederate Stars and Stripes is in fact not the official symbol of the Confederacy? Because it has featured in two of the three official flags, in the Navy Jack and apparently in 180 different military battle flags and is obviously the only part of the flag that can be used as a recognizable symbol.
I am arguing that if you are going to take a hostile position on a subject, you really should have some kind of rudimentary knowledge of what you are talking about and not contradict yourself through willful ignorance. We are not talking about the confederate Stars and Stripes, we are talking about the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is the symbol of the Confederacy no more than a blue field with fifty stars on it is the official symbol of the United States. It was a flag of some of the Confederate armies. It was similar to other flags of the confederate military. It was used as an element of the national flag of the Confederacy; it was not the national flag of the confederacy. If people wanted to fly a recognizable symbol of the Confederate government, they would have flown the Stars and Bars or Bloodstained Banner.
Yes, but in modern parlance, it is used to represent the Confederacy and so-called 'rebel pride', as evidenced by those who fly it as such.
If I were a civilian in a war I would be upset if everything I owned and the place I lived in got destroyed because I was on the wrong side of a dotted line.
Then again we blew up plenty of civilian things in WW2 and no one complains about that.
I'm sure the aristocratic cunts who owned all those slaves were very upset by it. Upset enough to be the driving force behind the deaths of three-quarters of a million people, in the name of protecting their right to own black people.
What I'm trying to say here is that if they had been drawn and quartered, I really would have considered that too good for them. They got off light.
And the aristocratic cunts weren't the ones fighting (and dying) in the war they helped create. While plenty of those douchenozzles lost all their crap I'm sure the vast majority of people who lost everything were just average Joes who didn't really care about or want a war but were kind of shoehorned into one by the aristocracy of the South. In committing scorched earth Sherman may have ruined the lives of people who either weren't really his enemy or started the mess in the first place.
I mean, the civil war was about the right to own slaves, but the vast majority of people didn't own slaves. Does that make Sherman a bad person? I dont know. I certainly don't think it makes him a better person, though.
Or at least that's how every history book I've ever read has basically put it.
You're right though, the Southern aristocracy got off light. They committed high treason and then ignored amendments to the constitution and federal laws that concerned the civil rights of all minorities. And then most of them went on to weasel their way out of paying (financially as well as socially) for the mess they had created.
I have a problem with flying a flag that is the symbol of a government that existed pretty much entirely for a single reason: because they thought that white people should be able to own black people, and they didn't have a problem getting several hundred thousand people killed over it.
It wasn't the symbol of any government. It wasn't even a symbol of the entire Confederate army.
Again, this isn't the equivalent of a swastika; it's the equivalent of a Nazi flag.
No, it's the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag. Does it offend some people? Yes and rightly so. Does everyone who uses it subscribe to an abhorrent system of beliefs? No. Hell, the Iron Cross is now the official symbol of the German army. That doesn't mean that their soldiers dream night and day of invading France.
No, it's pretty much the equivalent of the Nazi flag. In fact, I'm not sure there is a better equivalent to it, since both were racist goverments that opressed "lesser" races and fought, among other things, to keep their "right" to do it. Both of them also got steamrolled in destructive wars and were wiped off the fact of the Earth. The difference between modern Germans and some Southern people is that the Germans aren't flaunting the Nazi flag as it was some thing to be proud about. Except for the Neo-Nazis. And yeah, it's also the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag as well, which means that any asshole who goes flaunting it in China or Korea should probably get their butts kicked as well.
Is that not the official Flag of the Confederate States? There, in the right corner?
That is the third flag of the Confederacy; that is not the flag we have been discussing. And isn't there a quote a bit further up the tree talking about how an entire flag is not equivalent to the charge on another flag?
So what you are exactly arguing here? That the confederate Stars and Stripes is in fact not the official symbol of the Confederacy? Because it has featured in two of the three official flags, in the Navy Jack and apparently in 180 different military battle flags and is obviously the only part of the flag that can be used as a recognizable symbol.
I am arguing that if you are going to take a hostile position on a subject, you really should have some kind of rudimentary knowledge of what you are talking about and not contradict yourself through willful ignorance. We are not talking about the confederate Stars and Stripes, we are talking about the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is the symbol of the Confederacy no more than a blue field with fifty stars on it is the official symbol of the United States. It was a flag of some of the Confederate armies. It was similar to other flags of the confederate military. It was used as an element of the national flag of the Confederacy; it was not the national flag of the confederacy. If people wanted to fly a recognizable symbol of the Confederate government, they would have flown the Stars and Bars or Bloodstained Banner.
The Stars and Bars, to my information, is simply the first of the three official flags of the Confederacy. Why are the two other official flags with the battle flag on them somehow less official? And the Bloodstained Banner, is that not the second official flag, which is the battle flag on white. I admit that I'm no expert on the issue, but when a symbol appears in most of your goverment's flags, including two of the three official ones, it's pretty clear that it is the official symbol of the goverment. The Army of Northern Virginia simply incorporates this same symbol without the addition of white or white or red.
Yes, but in modern parlance, it is used to represent the Confederacy and so-called 'rebel pride', as evidenced by those who fly it as such.
Well, in modern usage it can mean a lot of things. Like when GA adopted it as a large part of the state flag in 1956, it was done so in direct response to forced integration. So, you know, the reasons people take the flag to be racist are plural.
And the aristocratic cunts weren't the ones fighting (and dying) in the war they helped create. While plenty of those douchenozzles lost all their crap I'm sure the vast majority of people who lost everything were just average Joes who didn't really care about or want a war but were kind of shoehorned into one by the aristocracy of the South. In committing scorched earth Sherman may have ruined the lives of people who either weren't really his enemy or started the mess in the first place.
I mean, the civil war was about the right to own slaves, but the vast majority of people didn't own slaves. Does that make Sherman a bad person? I dont know. I certainly don't think it makes him a better person, though.
Or at least that's how every history book I've ever read has basically put it.
You're right though, the Southern aristocracy got off light. They committed high treason and then ignored amendments to the constitution and federal laws that concerned the civil rights of all minorities. And then most of them went on to weasel their way out of paying (financially as well as socially) for the mess they had created.
Though, I mean, it's fair to point out that Sherman wasn't burning these buildings just to be a dick. Part of war is removing or crippling the enemies ability to fight. Homes provide infrastructure, safe houses, resources and other such benefits.
When the choice is burn some empty houses or let the war go on longer, it's hard in my mind to chose to let the war go on longer. Yes, people owned those houses but, assuming the houses were of strategic value it seems like the lesser of the two evils to me.
I think the reason the Stars and Bars have stood the test of time despite all these other flags is because that one is a particularly attractive flag. Meanings aside, you have to admit it is a compelling design.
I have a problem with flying a flag that is the symbol of a government that existed pretty much entirely for a single reason: because they thought that white people should be able to own black people, and they didn't have a problem getting several hundred thousand people killed over it.
It wasn't the symbol of any government. It wasn't even a symbol of the entire Confederate army.
Again, this isn't the equivalent of a swastika; it's the equivalent of a Nazi flag.
No, it's the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag. Does it offend some people? Yes and rightly so. Does everyone who uses it subscribe to an abhorrent system of beliefs? No. Hell, the Iron Cross is now the official symbol of the German army. That doesn't mean that their soldiers dream night and day of invading France.
No, it's pretty much the equivalent of the Nazi flag. In fact, I'm not sure there is a better equivalent to it, since both were racist goverments that opressed "lesser" races and fought, among other things, to keep their "right" to do it. Both of them also got steamrolled in destructive wars and were wiped off the fact of the Earth. The difference between modern Germans and some Southern people is that the Germans aren't flaunting the Nazi flag as it was some thing to be proud about. Except for the Neo-Nazis. And yeah, it's also the equivalent of the Rising Sun flag as well, which means that any asshole who goes flaunting it in China or Korea should probably get their butts kicked as well.
Is that not the official Flag of the Confederate States? There, in the right corner?
That is the third flag of the Confederacy; that is not the flag we have been discussing. And isn't there a quote a bit further up the tree talking about how an entire flag is not equivalent to the charge on another flag?
So what you are exactly arguing here? That the confederate Stars and Stripes is in fact not the official symbol of the Confederacy? Because it has featured in two of the three official flags, in the Navy Jack and apparently in 180 different military battle flags and is obviously the only part of the flag that can be used as a recognizable symbol.
I am arguing that if you are going to take a hostile position on a subject, you really should have some kind of rudimentary knowledge of what you are talking about and not contradict yourself through willful ignorance. We are not talking about the confederate Stars and Stripes, we are talking about the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is the symbol of the Confederacy no more than a blue field with fifty stars on it is the official symbol of the United States. It was a flag of some of the Confederate armies. It was similar to other flags of the confederate military. It was used as an element of the national flag of the Confederacy; it was not the national flag of the confederacy. If people wanted to fly a recognizable symbol of the Confederate government, they would have flown the Stars and Bars or Bloodstained Banner.
The Stars and Bars, to my information, is simply the first of the three official flags of the Confederacy. Why are the two other official flags with the battle flag on them somehow less official? And the Bloodstained Banner, is that not the second official flag, which is the battle flag on white. I admit that I'm no expert on the issue, but when a symbol appears in most of your goverment's flags, including two of the three official ones, it's pretty clear that it is the official symbol of the goverment. The Army of Northern Virginia simply incorporates this same symbol without the addition of white or white or red.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I think the reason the Stars and Bars have stood the test of time despite all these other flags is because that one is a particularly attractive flag. Meanings aside, you have to admit it is a compelling design.
Certainly, it is very distinctive and easily recognizable. Also, good primary color usage.
People who go around killing for a living tend to be evil, even if they're working for good causes. It's sort of what being a mass murderer for a living DOES to you. See: Batman's Code.
Thing is, you're not providing very good examples of him being exceptionally vile compared to slavers.
Armies do certain things out of need and reason. An army fights on its stomach, so you take food when you can find it, and deny it to your opponents. You also deny your opponents resources of any sort, including shelter.
I'm not comparing him to slavers. I'm just saying he was evil. Ranks up there with Andersonville in atrocities committed during the war.
Unless you're saying that since he was less evil than the people who owned slaves (and remember, he burned people's shit no matter if they owned slaves or not) he had every right to destroy their property, meh.
I would disagree about Andersonville, heavily.
Yes, Sherman's total war most assuredly made life miserable for a lot of people, some or perhaps even most of whom were only guilty of being born on the wrong side of a line. However, it helped hasten the end of the war, and let's face it, the Confederacy certainly wasn't a pleasant place to live while the war was underway. You could argue that he helped the general citizenry of the Confederacy by helping bring the war to an end.
He was an asshole, and systematically destroyed private property in order to bring his enemy down. But he wasn't a butcher. He didn't exterminate every civilian that crossed his path.
However at Andersonville, 13,000 Union prisoners of war died of disease and starvation.
I feel that isn't comparable. You're free to feel otherwise of course.
To the Southerners: Why do you defend such people?
To the Northerners (and others): Such people are not indicative of the entire population.
I'm originally from Michigan, and living in the South now. I saw just as many Rebel flags in Michigan as I see here. It's partially a rural/urban thing, not just a North/South thing.
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
And the aristocratic cunts weren't the ones fighting (and dying) in the war they helped create. While plenty of those douchenozzles lost all their crap I'm sure the vast majority of people who lost everything were just average Joes who didn't really care about or want a war but were kind of shoehorned into one by the aristocracy of the South. In committing scorched earth Sherman may have ruined the lives of people who either weren't really his enemy or started the mess in the first place.
I mean, the civil war was about the right to own slaves, but the vast majority of people didn't own slaves. Does that make Sherman a bad person? I dont know. I certainly don't think it makes him a better person, though.
Or at least that's how every history book I've ever read has basically put it.
You're right though, the Southern aristocracy got off light. They committed high treason and then ignored amendments to the constitution and federal laws that concerned the civil rights of all minorities. And then most of them went on to weasel their way out of paying (financially as well as socially) for the mess they had created.
Weren't most property owners slaveholders? And therefore Sherman was destroying the property of the slaveholders?
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
Thanatos on
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
The only problem I have with sherman is that scorched earth doesn't seem like a good idea when you're fighting a civil war.
I'm originally from Michigan, and living in the South now. I saw just as many Rebel flags in Michigan as I see here. It's partially a rural/urban thing, not just a North/South thing.
I haven't spent much time in surrounding states to see if it's the same, but Michigan really did strike me as a colder version of Alabama.
The only problem I have with sherman is that scorched earth doesn't seem like a good idea when you're fighting a civil war.
It only seems that way when you're thinking about the post-war, rather than the war right in front of you. And Sherman's job was to think about the war in front of him.
Weren't most property owners slaveholders? And therefore Sherman was destroying the property of the slaveholders?
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
It's been a while since I took a history class on this topic but there were tons and tons of poor sharecroppers. The percentage of the population that owned slaves in the south was very, very small.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
I think the reason the Stars and Bars have stood the test of time despite all these other flags is because that one is a particularly attractive flag. Meanings aside, you have to admit it is a compelling design.
Certainly, it is very distinctive and easily recognizable. Also, good primary color usage.
The design is cool indeed. From a pure look standpoint I actually think it's better looking then most of the flags that are in existence now. Maybe better then the official U.S. Flag too.
It's the same with the Nazi Flag. It's an extremely powerful design. Dictatorships may be brutal opressors, but they somehow find very good designers.
Weren't most property owners slaveholders? And therefore Sherman was destroying the property of the slaveholders?
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
It's been a while since I took a history class on this topic but there were tons and tons of poor sharecroppers. The percentage of the population that owned slaves in the south was very, very small.
If I remember correctly, sharecroppers are defined by the fact that they don't own the land they work.
Weren't most property owners slaveholders? And therefore Sherman was destroying the property of the slaveholders?
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
It's been a while since I took a history class on this topic but there were tons and tons of poor sharecroppers. The percentage of the population that owned slaves in the south was very, very small.
If I remember correctly, sharecroppers are defined by the fact that they don't own the land they work.
Yes. But, if you own property and rent it out to sharecroppers well... your not a slave owner (well, you could still be but, your land is not being worked by slaves, you dig?).
Posts
Anyway the whole point was that Sherman wasn't a pretty good dude, like some people said. He was a pretty vicious dude. Hell, even Grant and Abe were against it. I realize we're demonizing here, but maybe, just maybe, enemy civilians shouldn't have their food taken, valuables destroyed and buildings burned. Maybe. It was an effective tactic, yes. He was definitely an evil guy, though.
Oh no, a union general attacked the economy of a treasonous state! How awful! If the confederates didn't want their economy crippled they shouldn't have rebelled in the defense of slavery.
The reason the "thriving city and economy" went to being on welfare overnight had little-to-nothing to do with the fire, and just about everything to do with the fact that the slaves upon which the economy was built were all freed. Seattle and San Francisco both dealt with way fucking worse fires (like, reducing the entire city to ash), and were tremendously improved by them.
Actually pretty good, compared to other things that happened during that war. Or any other war.
You're a fucking moron. It's pretty well-known history that soldiers in this war lived off meager amounts of hard tack if anything at all, all while marching miles and miles and miles every day. It's a very safe assumption to say that any of the soldiers were starving, Union or otherwise.
And he destroyed 1/3rd of a city and left one dead when the point was to destroy their infrastructure so they couldn't fight anymore. Who really gives a shit? Man, I grew up in the housing projects in Atlanta, just down the street from Underground, and now live about 45 minutes north and I've never seen anybody argue as stupidly as you are right now.
Fixed.
And no, Incenjucar, that isn't what I meant. I've read plenty of books and seen documentaries on the ACW. Not to be a dick waver or whatever. Sherman was an evil guy. Trying to be edgy as shit and think otherwise is fucking stupidity.
Thing is, you're not providing very good examples of him being exceptionally vile compared to slavers.
Armies do certain things out of need and reason. An army fights on its stomach, so you take food when you can find it, and deny it to your opponents. You also deny your opponents resources of any sort, including shelter.
I'm surprised you can read, much less read a whole book, because I said I'd never seen anybody argue it as stupidly or badly as you have attempted to. Fact is, Sherman was simply trying to end the fighting as quickly as possible. That's actually commendable, and, as mentioned, he evactuated the cities before destroying them. Where's the atrocity again?
And what the fuck is this supposed to mean? You think I'm deliberately trying to be edgy? Get your head out of your ass, you insulting twat.
Unless you're saying that since he was less evil than the people who owned slaves (and remember, he burned people's shit no matter if they owned slaves or not) he had every right to destroy their property, meh.
Then again we blew up plenty of civilian things in WW2 and no one complains about that.
To the Southerners: Why do you defend such people?
To the Northerners (and others): Such people are not indicative of the entire population.
I am arguing that if you are going to take a hostile position on a subject, you really should have some kind of rudimentary knowledge of what you are talking about and not contradict yourself through willful ignorance. We are not talking about the confederate Stars and Stripes, we are talking about the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It is the symbol of the Confederacy no more than a blue field with fifty stars on it is the official symbol of the United States. It was a flag of some of the Confederate armies. It was similar to other flags of the confederate military. It was used as an element of the national flag of the Confederacy; it was not the national flag of the confederacy. If people wanted to fly a recognizable symbol of the Confederate government, they would have flown the Stars and Bars or Bloodstained Banner.
- John Stuart Mill
What I'm trying to say here is that if they had been drawn and quartered, I really would have considered that too good for them. They got off light.
Yes, but in modern parlance, it is used to represent the Confederacy and so-called 'rebel pride', as evidenced by those who fly it as such.
And the aristocratic cunts weren't the ones fighting (and dying) in the war they helped create. While plenty of those douchenozzles lost all their crap I'm sure the vast majority of people who lost everything were just average Joes who didn't really care about or want a war but were kind of shoehorned into one by the aristocracy of the South. In committing scorched earth Sherman may have ruined the lives of people who either weren't really his enemy or started the mess in the first place.
I mean, the civil war was about the right to own slaves, but the vast majority of people didn't own slaves. Does that make Sherman a bad person? I dont know. I certainly don't think it makes him a better person, though.
Or at least that's how every history book I've ever read has basically put it.
You're right though, the Southern aristocracy got off light. They committed high treason and then ignored amendments to the constitution and federal laws that concerned the civil rights of all minorities. And then most of them went on to weasel their way out of paying (financially as well as socially) for the mess they had created.
The Stars and Bars, to my information, is simply the first of the three official flags of the Confederacy. Why are the two other official flags with the battle flag on them somehow less official? And the Bloodstained Banner, is that not the second official flag, which is the battle flag on white. I admit that I'm no expert on the issue, but when a symbol appears in most of your goverment's flags, including two of the three official ones, it's pretty clear that it is the official symbol of the goverment. The Army of Northern Virginia simply incorporates this same symbol without the addition of white or white or red.
Though, I mean, it's fair to point out that Sherman wasn't burning these buildings just to be a dick. Part of war is removing or crippling the enemies ability to fight. Homes provide infrastructure, safe houses, resources and other such benefits.
When the choice is burn some empty houses or let the war go on longer, it's hard in my mind to chose to let the war go on longer. Yes, people owned those houses but, assuming the houses were of strategic value it seems like the lesser of the two evils to me.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
- John Stuart Mill
Certainly, it is very distinctive and easily recognizable. Also, good primary color usage.
I would disagree about Andersonville, heavily.
Yes, Sherman's total war most assuredly made life miserable for a lot of people, some or perhaps even most of whom were only guilty of being born on the wrong side of a line. However, it helped hasten the end of the war, and let's face it, the Confederacy certainly wasn't a pleasant place to live while the war was underway. You could argue that he helped the general citizenry of the Confederacy by helping bring the war to an end.
He was an asshole, and systematically destroyed private property in order to bring his enemy down. But he wasn't a butcher. He didn't exterminate every civilian that crossed his path.
However at Andersonville, 13,000 Union prisoners of war died of disease and starvation.
I feel that isn't comparable. You're free to feel otherwise of course.
Edit:
I'm originally from Michigan, and living in the South now. I saw just as many Rebel flags in Michigan as I see here. It's partially a rural/urban thing, not just a North/South thing.
He most definitely was when he was torching farms, and burning the upper-class housing.
It's been a while since I took a history class on this topic but there were tons and tons of poor sharecroppers. The percentage of the population that owned slaves in the south was very, very small.
http://www.amazon.com/Confederates-Attic-Dispatches-Unfinished-Civil/dp/067975833X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233699039&sr=8-1
No, but it's true that slaveowners owned a disproportionate amount of the south's property.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
The design is cool indeed. From a pure look standpoint I actually think it's better looking then most of the flags that are in existence now. Maybe better then the official U.S. Flag too.
It's the same with the Nazi Flag. It's an extremely powerful design. Dictatorships may be brutal opressors, but they somehow find very good designers.
If I remember correctly, sharecroppers are defined by the fact that they don't own the land they work.
Yes. But, if you own property and rent it out to sharecroppers well... your not a slave owner (well, you could still be but, your land is not being worked by slaves, you dig?).