True American Hero

[Fledermaus]

Well, there's bound to be some bitterness when someone gets their ass kicked up between their shoulders.

Indeed....

 

[mrjurrs]

The North attacked the South by denying them the option of seceding from the Union.

SC and GA both signed the Constitution. They had no right to secede.

 

[Rich2018]

And isn’t even remotely close to being “Nazi-esque“. Sherman was far more lenient than he had to be on the Confederates and the local wannabe guerrillas.

In short, you’ve got nothing......and still can’t defend your claims.

No, he was far more severse and terroristic on the civilian population than he needed to be.

 

[Fledermaus]

No, he was far more severse and terroristic on the civilian population than he needed to be.

Severse?

He was exactly what the South needed...

 

[Hamish Howl]

No, he was far more severse and terroristic on the civilian population than he needed to be.

He was a big old softie. He didn't burn their towns down unless they resisted.

They were already traitors, he didn't actually need an excuse.

 

[Rich2018]

He was a big old softie. He didn't burn their towns down unless they resisted.

They were already traitors, he didn't actually need an excuse.

Yeah, just like the British

 

[Tigerace117]

No, he was far more severse and terroristic on the civilian population than he needed to be.

And yet you still have zero evidence to support your claims.

Sherman could have shot every last wannabe guerrilla out of hand and been completely in the right according to the laws of war of the time. That he didn’t shows what a joke your claims are.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yeah, just like the British

View attachment 67313520

Nah, if he was acting like the British he’d have executed every Georgian caught fighting for the Confederacy, banned them from living in towns, and forced vast numbers of them to leave the country.

 

[Rich2018]

And yet you still have zero evidence to support your claims.

The historical record is evidence enough

Sherman could have shot every last wannabe guerrilla out of hand and been completely in the right according to the laws of war of the time. That he didn’t shows what a joke your claims are.

Sure, it would not have made him more or less a terrorist general though - regardless of which legal code he adhered to

Nah, if he was acting like the British he’d have executed every Georgian...

Britain only burned down public buildings* like the Whitehouse and Capitol in 1814 - they even spared the Post Office as it was too close to private housing
Sherman burned down the entire city of Atlanta, in his barbaric display in 1864

The British were civilized; Sherman was a barbaric terrorist

Your slanderous rantings prove you don't know what you're talking about


*they also burned down the offices of a newspaper that had published uncomplimentary articles on the British commander

 

[Tigerace117]

The historical record is evidence enough



Sure, it would not have made him more or less a terrorist general though - regardless of which legal code he adhered to




Britain only burned down public buildings* like the Whitehouse and Capitol in 1814 - they even spared the Post Office as it was too close to private housing
Sherman burned down the entire city of Atlanta, in his barbaric display in 1864

The British were civilized; Sherman was a barbaric terrorist

Your slanderous rantings prove you don't know what you're talking about


*they also burned down the offices of a newspaper that had published uncomplimentary articles on the British commander

The historical record shows that Sherman was far more lenient than he had to be.

Nope, he still would have been completely within the laws of war even if he had shot every last guerrilla wannabe. No “terrorism“ whatsoever.

You trying to make excuses for Britain’s actions in Ireland and elsewhere while squealing about how awful you think Sherman was just goes to show what a bad joke your “arguments“ are.



The Irish, Indians, Kenyans, Chinese, and many, many more can tell you just how ”civilized“ the British were. Here’s a hint—- they made Sherman look mild in comparison.

I’ll give you another hint— pointing out how you don’t have any evidence isn‘t ”slander”.

 

[Rich2018]

The historical record shows that Sherman was far more lenient than he had to be.

And the destruction of the entire city of Atlanta is evidence of that ?

He was way more terroristic than he needed to be
You can't excuse him by saying "well he could have been worse"

Nope, he still would have been completely within the laws of war even if he had shot every last guerrilla wannabe. No “terrorism“ whatsoever.

What legal code he adhered to is completely irelevent

(as the Nazis found at Nuremberg and other trials)

You trying to make excuses for Britain’s actions in Ireland and elsewhere...

No, just saying the the British burning of Washington in 1814 was a million times more measured and lenient that the terroristic wanton destruction employed by Sherman

The Irish, Indians, Kenyans, Chinese, and many, many more can tell you just how ”civilized“ the British were. Here’s a hint—- they made Sherman look mild in comparison.

I’ll give you another hint— pointing out how you don’t have any evidence isn‘t ”slander”.

We're talking about the terroristic acts of Sherman, and specifically about his barbaric destruction of Atlanta. In stark comparison with the measured and civilized way the British burned down only public buildings in Washington and respected life and private property

Stay on topic

Cut out the yes, but...what-about-ism.

 

[Tigerace117]

And the destruction of the entire city of Atlanta is evidence of that ?

He was way more terroristic than he needed to be
You can't excuse him by saying "well he could have been worse"




What legal code he adhered to is completely irelevent

(as the Nazis found at Nuremberg and other trials)




No, just saying the the British burning of Washington in 1814 was a million times more measured and lenient that the terroristic wanton destruction employed by Sherman




We're talking about the terroristic acts of Sherman, and specifically about his barbaric destruction of Atlanta. In stark comparison with the measured and civilized way the British burned down only public buildings in Washington and respected life and private property

Stay on topic

Cut out the yes, but...what-about-ism.

Yawn. No sane general would have left the rail networks at Atlanta intact before setting off, unsupported, deep into enemy territory. All the weeping about “burning the city” doesn’t change the fact that Sherman was totally right to do so.

Actually he was far less harsh than he should have been. The country would have been far better off if he’d been even half as “terroristic” as you claim.

Except, of course, for the fact that unlike the Nazis, he followed the rules of war. It’s not Sherman‘s fault that he hurt the slavers‘ feelings by defeating them.

Lol if Sherman was a “terrorist” for burning Atlanta, then the British were definitely terrorists for burning DC(and your claims that one can “burn a city more leniently” are absolutely hilarious).



Oh look, more hysterics— and a total lack of evidence—-from you. It’s always amusing watching you demonstrate how little you know about history.

 

[Rich2018]

Yawn. No sane general would have left the rail networks at Atlanta intact before setting off...

You could argue that the railhead was a military target

Now make an argument that private residential properties were

Actually he was far less harsh than he should have been...

LOL

He was WAY harsher than he needed to be

He went beyond military necessity and descended into "punishing" Georgia and its people

Except, of course, for the fact that unlike the Nazis, he followed the rules of war...

What rules ?
International law regarding armed conflict weren't drawn up for another 35 years

Lol if Sherman was a “terrorist” for burning Atlanta, then the British were definitely terrorists for burning DC...

Nope, as explained to you (and clearly not something you read) the British only burned PUBLIC buildings and indeed spared the Post Office because it was located too near PRIVATE residences

Sherman burned the entire city of Atlanta.
He was a terrorist general
Try again

Oh look, more hysterics— and a total lack of evidence—-from you. It’s always amusing watching you demonstrate how little you know about history.

The evidence is in the history books, go read them and educate yourself on the history of your OWN country.

 

[Tigerace117]

You could argue that the railhead was a military target

Now make an argument that private residential properties were




LOL

He was WAY harsher than he needed to be

He went beyond military necessity and descended into "punishing" Georgia and its people



What rules ?
International law regarding armed conflict weren't drawn up for another 35 years




Nope, as explained to you (and clearly not something you read) the British only burned PUBLIC buildings and indeed spared the Post Office because it was located too near PRIVATE residences

Sherman burned the entire city of Atlanta.
He was a terrorist general
Try again




The evidence is in the history books, go read them and educate yourself on the history of your OWN country.

Yawn. That’s what happens when you go to war to try and save slavery. My heart bleeds for them

Lol, no, he certainly wasn’t. He was way more lenient than he had to be—or should have been.

There were established rules of warfare—although not formalized by treaty yet—and codes of conduct for the Union Army. Nothing he did violated either.

The British still burned the city, which, according to you, is terrorism. You grasping at straws doesn’t change the fact.

They also torched numerous other cities; their destruction of the Summer Palace in China was
far worse than anything Sherman did.

As usual, you don’t have any evidence......just hysterics and British Empire fanboyism.

 

[Rich2018]

That’s what happens when you go to war to try and save slavery.

No, that is what happens when you give command to a callous, terroristic general

He was way more lenient than he had to be—or should have been.

His actions say otherwise
He was far more callous than he needed to be

eg: the burning of the entire city of Atlanta - as opposed to the more measured and civilized approach of the British to Washington DC, in 1814

There were established rules of warfare—although not formalized by treaty yet

Really ?
Where are they documented ?
You're talking through your @ss (as usual)

The British still burned the city, which, according to you, is terrorism.

Nope, not even close, just a handful of selected public buildings, and as I've explained to you. And the post office was spared because it was too close to private residences

They also torched numerous other cities; their destruction of the Summer Palace in China was
far worse than anything Sherman did.

LOL, and you talk of grasping at straws...sure if you want to go there
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo fire bombing, Dresden
How about the bombing of North Vietnam that expended more bombs than dropped in WWII ?

Now can you get back on topic and try not to justify Sherman barbaric actions because someone, somewhere was worse ?
Stop your what-about-ism

As usual, you don’t have any evidence......

The history books dear boy, read the history books
And learn what a terroristic general you hero Sherman was.

 

[Tigerace117]

No, that is what happens when you give command to a callous, terroristic general



His actions say otherwise
He was far more callous than he needed to be

eg: the burning of the entire city of Atlanta - as opposed to the more measured and civilized approach of the British to Washington DC, in 1814




Really ?
Where are they documented ?
You're talking through your @ss (as usual)



Nope, not even close, just a handful of selected public buildings, and as I've explained to you. And the post office was spared because it was too close to private residences




LOL, and you talk of grasping at straws...sure if you want to go there
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo fire bombing, Dresden
How about the bombing of North Vietnam that expended more bombs than dropped in WWII ?

Now can you get back on topic and try not to justify Sherman barbaric actions because someone, somewhere was worse ?
Stop your what-about-ism



The history books dear boy, read the history books
And learn what a terroristic general you hero Sherman was.

Sherman was neither “callous” nor a “terrorist”.......but I’m not surprised you aren’t able to face basic historical facts.

There is no such thing as a “civilized” burning of a city, and your attempt to claim that there is just goes to show what a joke your claim is.

Sherman could have shot every guerrilla wannabe his army encountered and been perfectly within his rights according to the laws of war. That he didn’t, again, shows how laughable your claims are.

Both in Lieber Code, in other Union Army regulations, and in previously established norms and standards which would be codified, bit by bit, over the next century....as I already stated.

Still the burning of a city, and still terrorism by your own standard



Two words for you bud.

Bomber. Harris.

I get that you are a raving hypocrite, but the grasping at straws is pathetic even by your standards.

You are the one who tried to equate Sherman to the Nazis....and started squealing when everyone else pointed out what a joke your claims are.

I have read plenty of history books, which is how I know just how laughable your claims are.

But then again, expecting historical accuracy from a British Empire fanboy is a joke

 

[Rich2018]

Sherman was neither “callous” nor a “terrorist”

Sorry, he was both

There is no such thing as a “civilized” burning of a city...

No there isn't
And Britain never burned Washington DC - just public buildings (and even one of those was spared because to torch it would threaten private housing). Unlike the barbaric destruction of the entire city of Atlanta at the hands of Sherman - which seemingly you now conceded was uncivilized

Sherman could have shot every guerrilla wannabe his army encountered and been perfectly within his rights according to the laws of war.

1. I keep telling you that there was no rules of law
2. Saying that Sherman could've been worse is like defending the Nazi at Nuremberg by saying they weren't that bad because they only killed 6 million Jews and they could've easily killed 7 million

Both in Lieber Code, in other Union Army regulations, and in previously established norms and standards which would be codified....

Precisely, would would be codified...ie not law at the time
The Lieber Code was an instruction by Abraham Lincoln, not law

Still the burning of a city, and still terrorism by your own standard

Yes it is

Bomber. Harris.

WWII was total war, nevertheless it would have been illegal as well as immoral for allied troops to occupy a German city and then torch it

I get that you are a raving hypocrite...

No you don't
You're the one grasping at straws by trying to justify Sherman's crimes by saying other commanders in other wars were worse
So what ?

Stay on topic, what Sherman did was not necessary or moral. He was just "punishing" the South (or part of it) for daring to declare independence

You are the one who tried to equate Sherman to the Nazis....and started squealing when everyone else pointed out what a joke your claims are.

What he did was comparable with much of what German troops did in WWII - to give you an idea of the scale of Sherman's war crimes.

I have read plenty of history books, which is how I know just how laughable your claims are.

Try reading ones aimed at adults

But then again, expecting historical accuracy from a British Empire fanboy is a joke

Typical slander from the defeated:

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

 

[Tigerace117]

Sorry, he was both



No there isn't
And Britain never burned Washington DC - just public buildings (and even one of those was spared because to torch it would threaten private housing). Unlike the barbaric destruction of the entire city of Atlanta at the hands of Sherman - which seemingly you now conceded was uncivilized



1. I keep telling you that there was no rules of law
2. Saying that Sherman could've been worse is like defending the Nazi at Nuremberg by saying they weren't that bad because they only killed 6 million Jews and they could've easily killed 7 million



Precisely, would would be codified...ie not law at the time
The Lieber Code was an instruction by Abraham Lincoln, not law



Yes it is



WWII was total war, nevertheless it would have been illegal as well as immoral for allied troops to occupy a German city and then torch it



No you don't
You're the one grasping at straws by trying to justify Sherman's crimes by saying other commanders in other wars were worse
So what ?

Stay on topic, what Sherman did was not necessary or moral. He was just "punishing" the South (or part of it) for daring to declare independence



What he did was comparable with much of what German troops did in WWII - to give you an idea of the scale of Sherman's war crimes.




Try reading ones aimed at adults





Typical slander from the defeated:

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

Oh look, you are wrong.......as usual.

The British burned DC, which, by your own standards, is “terrorism“ . You trying to excuse your heroes‘ committing the exact same actions doesn’t change the facts. And no, there was nothing “uncivilized” about destroying Atlanta. There was plenty uncivilized about the British Empire looting and burning the Summer Palace though.

You keep squealing the same excuses but they don’t change the fact. Codes of conduct instituted by the President of the United States are laws of war, as are the previously established(and later codified) standards of behavior.

Your desperate attempts to equate Sherman to the Nazis are as laughable as ever. If he was actually as “terroristic” as you claim he certainly wouldn’t have spared your slaver heroes.

Plenty of German cities were torched by Allied bombing raids during the Second World War. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about doing so. And guess what? There was nothing “illegal and immoral” about it.

Nope, you are the one who desperately tried to equate Sherman to the Nazis.....and your post is typical slander from the defeated

Your slaver heroes squealed out of humiliation because the Yankees kicked their asses. Hence the lies about Sherman.

 

[Rich2018]

The British burned DC, which, by your own standards, is “terrorism“ ...

No Britain did not burn down Washington DC - had thet done so it would have been an act of terrorism
They burned down selected public buildings

Keep up with your straw-man, it makes you look more and more laughable

...codes of conduct instituted by the President of the United States are laws of war...

Wrong again

....if he was actually as “terroristic” as you claim he certainly wouldn’t have spared your slaver heroes....

Which "slaver heroes" would they be ?

You hero Sherman was a racist too, as well as a terroristic general, regardless who he might have spared
Your posts are getting more and more laughable

Plenty of German cities were torched by Allied bombing raids during...

It was at best, an unwise folly. And it's been speculated that Harris was more interested in punishing Germany for their bombing of the UK in the blitz
A good source of information on this can be had in Max Hasting's excellent book: Bomber Command

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

The Germans did indeed regard it as terrorism, nevertheless - had allied soldiers occupied a town and then torched it, it would have contravened the law of armed conflict and definitely have been a terrorist act

Nope, you are the one who desperately tried to equate Sherman to the Nazis.

Because the terroristic crimes Sherman committed was akin to much of what German forces did in WWII

Your slaver heroes squealed out of humiliation because the Yankees kicked their asses. Hence the lies about Sherman.

Sorry, no slaver heroes and they deserved to get their asses kicked. Slavery is/was immoral and forever an indelible stain on the history of the USA and any claims of "freedom" in both the DoI and the Constitution

The Southern, slave owning middle classes were as immoral as the bulk of the founders of the American Revolution and your hero Sherman himself. a callous, terroristic general and a hypocrite to boot

It's laughable that you apologize for such despicable historical figures like him.

 

[Tigerace117]

No Britain did not burn down Washington DC - had thet done so it would have been an act of terrorism
They burned down selected public buildings

Keep up with your straw-man, it makes you look more and more laughable



Wrong again




Which "slaver heroes" would they be ?

You hero Sherman was a racist too, as well as a terroristic general, regardless who he might have spared
Your posts are getting more and more laughable




It was at best, an unwise folly. And it's been speculated that Harris was more interested in punishing Germany for their bombing of the UK in the blitz
A good source of information on this can be had in Max Hasting's excellent book: Bomber Command

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

The Germans did indeed regard it as terrorism, nevertheless - had allied soldiers occupied a town and then torched it, it would have contravened the law of armed conflict and definitely have been a terrorist act




Because the terroristic crimes Sherman committed was akin to much of what German forces did in WWII




Sorry, no slaver heroes and they deserved to get their asses kicked. Slavery is/was immoral and forever an indelible stain on the history of the USA and any claims of "freedom" in both the DoI and the Constitution

The Southern, slave owning middle classes were as immoral as the bulk of the founders of the American Revolution and your hero Sherman himself. a callous, terroristic general and a hypocrite to boot

It's laughable that you apologize for such despicable historical figures like him.

Yawn. Oh look, more desperate grasping at straws from you frantically trying to excuse your heroes doing the exact same thing you squealed about Sherman.

Coming from you that’s utterly laughable.

Your Confederate slaver heroes......as you know full well.

But hey, way to remind everyone you don’t have a clue what “terrorism” is

None of which changes the facts.....and none of which has anything to do with Sherman.

The Germans were even larger hypocrites than you....and them considering it “terrorism” doesn’t make it so.

Your slaver heroes are just as immoral as the throughly genocidal British Empire, which gave the Nazis a run for their money as one of the worst regimes on earth.

Your excuses are laughable.

 

[Rich2018]

Yawn. Oh look, more desperate grasping at straws from you frantically trying to excuse your heroes doing the exact same thing you squealed about Sherman.

Coming from you that’s utterly laughable.

Your Confederate slaver heroes......as you know full well.

But hey, way to remind everyone you don’t have a clue what “terrorism” is

None of which changes the facts.....and none of which has anything to do with Sherman.

The Germans were even larger hypocrites than you....and them considering it “terrorism” doesn’t make it so.

Your slaver heroes are just as immoral as the throughly genocidal British Empire, which gave the Nazis a run for their money as one of the worst regimes on earth.

Your excuses are laughable.

Sorry, no slaver heroes and they deserved to get their asses kicked. Slavery is/was immoral and forever an indelible stain on the history of the USA and any claims of "freedom" in both the DoI and the Constitution

The Southern, slave owning middle classes were as immoral as the bulk of the founders of the American Revolution and your hero Sherman himself. a callous, terroristic general and a hypocrite to boot

What's laughable is that you apologize for such despicable historical figures like him.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sorry, no slaver heroes and they deserved to get their asses kicked. Slavery is/was immoral and forever an indelible stain on the history of the USA and any claims of "freedom" in both the DoI and the Constitution

The Southern, slave owning middle classes were as immoral as the bulk of the founders of the American Revolution and your hero Sherman himself. a callous, terroristic general and a hypocrite to boot

What's laughable is that you apologize for such despicable historical figures like him.

The slavers were just as immoral
as the throughly genocidal British Empire, which gave the Nazis a run for their money as one of the worst regimes on earth.

Your excuses are laughable.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, no slaver heroes and they deserved to get their asses kicked. Slavery is/was immoral and forever an indelible stain on the history of the USA and any claims of "freedom" in both the DoI and the Constitution

The Southern, slave owning middle classes were as immoral as the bulk of the founders of the American Revolution and your hero Sherman himself. a callous, terroristic general and a hypocrite to boot

What's laughable is that you apologize for such despicable historical figures like him.

Sherman didn't burn all of Atlanta...

Reminder of Sherman's orders.

... IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms....

— William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.

 

[Rich2018]

The slavers were just as immoral

Slavers were immoral

That doesn't excuse Sherman's callous and barbaric crimes though.

 

[Fledermaus]

Like?