View single post by Albert Sailhorst
 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 05:46 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 555
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

You who, in the midst of peace and prosperity, have plunged a nation into war -- dark and cruel war -- who dared and badgered us to battle, insulted our flag, seized our arsenals and forts that were left in the honorable custody of peaceful ordnance-sergeants, seized and made 'prisoners of war' the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians

turned loose your privateers to plunder unarmed ships; expelled Union families by the thousands, burned their houses, and declared, by an act of your Congress, the confiscation of all debts due Northern men for goods had and received!

 

All of these accusations made by Sherman to Hood are common practices of war (the English, in the 1600's, used privateers to attack French & Spanish merchant ships), not "war crimes"....Why did Sherman say the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians...Did the Southern people need protection from the blacks??(I dodn't understand the rationale of that statement, but that's beside the point)

This was also in the documentation that you quoted Gen. Hood wrote back agreeing to cooperate, since "I do not have any alternative in this matter," and "Permit me to say that the unprecedented measure you propose transcends, in studied and ingenious cruelty, all acts ever before brought to my attention in the dark history of war.
"In the name of God and humanity, I protest, believing that you will find that you are expelling from their homes and firesides the wives and children of a brave people."


The operative words of Hood are: "unprecedented", "cruelty", "expelling from their homes......wives and children....."

Contained in my previos post is: Of these crimes Sherman wrote, “…no doubt, many acts of pillage, robbery and violence…" here he conceded to the acts committed by his men during the march (Sherman, 182-83). These acts were punishable under General Order 100, Art. 47. Sherman never prosecuted these men for their crimes therefore because all commanders are responsible for the troops under their control he became punishable under the same article." Sherman "conceeded to these acts" and did not prosecute his troops, because, to prosecute them, would leave him culpable and vulnerable to the same charges.

Further, in my previous post "However, Sherman expressly forbade his foragers to provide receipts for private property taken from civilians along the route of the march. Also, the foraging parties took far more property than Union forces needed, and no military necessity existed that justifies seizure or destruction in excess of the army's requirements (Sherman, 175-76). This was a direct violation of General Order 100, Art. 38. Any Courts Martial past or present would have convicted William Tecumseh Sherman. " Which means Sherman did not provide receipts to the citizens for property "stolen" by his troops, and that troops under his command took far more property than was needed, without justification as to military purpose.

I suppose, the bottom line is, it depends on which side of the fence a person is on regarding this matter.....Was Robert E. Lee a traitor?....Would he be a traitor if the South had won the war??.....Was George Washington a hero, or traitor to the British Crown??.....It all depends on one's point of view.....

Again, good luck in your research!!

Albert Sailhorst

Scott's Battery



 

 Close Window