|View single post by ole|
|Posted: Fri May 4th, 2007 09:13 pm||
|Remember there were mines at Ft. Mcalister afterwards and again Sherman used prisoners to clear mines.
Seems that back in this thread somewhere, I posted, in effect, that Sherman considered that particular use of mines legitimate. His use of prisoners from that fort to clear them is not particularly egregious in that he was looking for those who placed them -- "you put 'em there; you take 'em out." Not much unusual in that.
The complexion of the war took a decided turn for the worse in 1864 compared to the earlier years, not saying this was the cause, in fact the biggest culprit was the treatment of black soldiers who were captured, but Sherman's actions were one in a host of sticks placed on the bonfire of the black flag.
And, what else is new? You can see the same thing in war after war. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. They all begin with noble reasons and eventually detreriorate into "kill them all and let god sort them out." War is a nasty business. It might start as two gentlemen squaring off on a field of honer. It inevitably ends when all the gouging of eyes and private parts has caused one to toss it in.
To believe that ethics is involved in an armed stuggle is to believe that there will be magical compensation for a lost tooth. Ain't gonna happen. Wars always end when one side has been beaten to near death and, short of that, will acknowlege defeat. Ethics might be a player at the beginning, it is rarely present at the end.
Doesn't make much difference who was right. The loser is automatically wrong. End of story.
Ole (I need a nap now.)