If any American General had done 10% of what Sherman did in the 20th Century, he would have been court-martialed and imprisoned. Consider what Sherman did and compare that the Gen. Patton's slapping a soldier with his glove in 1943......No comparison, yet Patton was disgraced and nearly relieved. Patton never had his army burn private homes!! Sherman did what he did because it was the only way The North could win the war.....but I think even Sherman acknowledged in so many words that there was no honor in his actions!
@@ErikFender1ok then why was the commander over vietnam then oh wait no on cares oh wait a min it call collateral damage it happen and if it means to end a war so be it look at germany at the end of ww2 it completely destroyed or the cities in the soviet union or France or even briatin during ww2 and ww1
Sherman's actions shortened the war by breaking southern will to resist , thereby saving lives in the long run ! Yes , it was cruel , however , it was successful !
Likely from your assessment of Shermans March to the sea, either you are not from the South, or somewhat sadistic. Scars from this are felt even today, and bitterness.
He was a monster and Andersonville was the result of Grant ending the prisoner exchange system. Henry Wirz stood trial for things he could not help, and the guards went hungry just as the prisoners did. Wirz was not even allowed the offered testimonies by prisoners that had been held in Andersonville. His court martial was a kangaroo court and resulted in judicial murder. Thousands of southerners died in Yankee prison camps. It was intentional.
George Washington’s family heraldry include the phrase exitus acta probat. The end justifies the means. Ending war requires removing your opponent’s will to fight as well as their ability. Our country was founded on this principle.
As much as people call Sherman a monster, there's another horrible thing. I think Sherman's actions put on full display that the confederacy can't defend itself. Sherman's coming was no surprise to anyone. If a people cannot mount an effective defense, then what's the point of anything else?
Irrelevant. What you are saying is might makes right. Southern losses had resulted in Sherman being able to carry out the rape and rapine that characterized his command. The Southern Army was suffering from lack of supply and material. What Sherman did was inexcusable.
The bombing campaigns during WWII gets a pass because both sides were using dumb bombs (smart guided munitions didn't exist yet) and those bombs were intended to hit hard and soft military targets (even if those targets were embedded among civilians populations. Collateral damage is a part of war. Also, "war crimes" weren't formally codify until after WWII, mainly because of the Holocaust and horrible treatment of POWs.
greed was the foundation of it. the removal of Lincoln left the carpet baggers essentially unchecked. with Johnson essentially left toothless and an empty president.
@@jeffmisch1485 It was a combination of both. The way Yankees fought the war built a bitterness in the south that is still felt, and rightly so. Carpetbaggers were an insult to injury. Add in the fact that the Yankee Army armed blacks and set them on whites.
Looking at the comments, it's easy to see the two views of Sherman. No doubt German lives were upended/ruined with the American march through Germany in WW II. But note that the commentator says that there were Union soldiers who disobeyed orders and did more than destroy what could be used by the Confederates. There's no evidence/proof, that Sherman ordered the excesses. Sherman's Army had to forage for supplies as they cut themselves off from their supply lines. The slaves who followed his Army no doubt hoped to follow them all the way, but 1) there wouldn't be enough supplies to feed both the Army and the mass of slaves following them. The worst came when the Confederates had garnered enough men to confront Sherman but Sherman didn't have the supplies for a full on engagement, so they couldn't wait for the slaves to cross the bridges but had to destroy them before the Confederates could take them. It's easy to make these condemnations of Sherman from the safety of over 100 years after the event, from the comfort of ones chair in front of a computer screen, and not fully understanding the full context of what was occurring. The taking of the Mississippi River, Atlanta, and the March to the Sea, crippled the Confederates ability to continue the war. BTW, IMO, if you want to see America's First Terrorist, I give you John Brown, who butchered families in Kansas if he 'thought' they were pro-slavery.
Lost Cause hit piece. Dark parts of his march? This is common knowledge to anyone with a passing understanding of the Civil War. And no, Sherman burning stuff down wouldn't shock modern folks. The indiscriminate total war acts of the 20th century alone made Sherman's march look like a picnic. Shermans march was arguably cruel, but likely saved thousands of lives from a dragged out war that could have lasted months or even years longer than it did. And speaking of "terrorists" in the Civil War, Nathan Bedford Forrest massacring surrendering Black troops, and even Jefferson Davis issuing executive orders for summary executions of officers leading black units was considered criminal activity even by 19th century standards. And that was before Sherman trashed Georgia. Do a video on that. The rebels tore the country apart for a cause that was literally about violating the human rights of millions of humans, so it's hard for most rational people to feel sorry that some pyromaniac general trashed their infrastructure and burned a few cities and plantations to the ground to hasten the wars end. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes applies here..
"Lost Cause hit piece. Dark parts of his march?" Can't face the facts your heroes were nothing but terrorists. What is in the video is nothing but the truth of Sherman's march and, as such, is not a "hit piece" no matter how much you would like to dismiss it as such.
Slavery was a crime against humanity. Oh, and by the way, our poor innocent native Americans also engaged in the institution of slavery, which the White man ended.
The entire premise of this video in applying current day standards to the actions of people living over 150 years in the past is totally irrelevant. By your measure the US and UK committed "war crimes" in bombing German and Japanese cities and civilians purposely. The bombing of Berlin, Tokyo by the UK with night bombing of Berlin and the US firebombing of Tokyo were no different than Sherman's tactics. They were all designed to destroy the will of the enemy civilians to continue support for their dictators and war effort. All I can say to the person(s) behind these absurd, unrealistic videos and any "historical analysis" is to give it a rest and get some education into the realities and purposes of historical scholarship. Also you had best hope people 150+ years in the future don't apply their hopefully more enlightened standards to you.
Ya know, 20% of this vid argues that we should apply MODERN laws to past history. Look, that is revisionism. Pure and simple. Sherman did what he had to do. End of story.
He was a murdering terrorist who lacked any morals or ethics. One of the other things they don't mention is that the first thing he had destroyed were Southern churches in the path of his army.
As a means of supporting our efforts please hit the LIKE & SUBSCRIBE button.🤍🙏
Everything that you mentioned is common knowledge. What the hell did you think a war is like?
If any American General had done 10% of what Sherman did in the 20th Century, he would have been court-martialed and imprisoned. Consider what Sherman did and compare that the Gen. Patton's slapping a soldier with his glove in 1943......No comparison, yet Patton was disgraced and nearly relieved. Patton never had his army burn private homes!! Sherman did what he did because it was the only way The North could win the war.....but I think even Sherman acknowledged in so many words that there was no honor in his actions!
Excatly even lee said at Fredericksburg now i may be paraphasing a bit it is well that war is so terbbile less we grow ro fond of it
@@ErikFender1ok then why was the commander over vietnam then oh wait no on cares oh wait a min it call collateral damage it happen and if it means to end a war so be it look at germany at the end of ww2 it completely destroyed or the cities in the soviet union or France or even briatin during ww2 and ww1
Show me where the Southern soldier's acted upon northern population as the Yankees did? You can't.
"War is all hell."- Sherman
Sherman's actions shortened the war by breaking southern will to resist , thereby saving lives in the long run ! Yes , it was cruel , however , it was successful !
I disagree play. The South was in Dire Straits but it didn't end until Robert E Lee was defeated
Likely from your assessment of Shermans March to the sea, either you are not from the South, or somewhat sadistic. Scars from this are felt even today, and bitterness.
Sherman was a monster and terrorist. Sherman should not be honored in any way.
Some people should research Andersonville if they think Sherman was a monster all by himself
He was a monster and Andersonville was the result of Grant ending the prisoner exchange system. Henry Wirz stood trial for things he could not help, and the guards went hungry just as the prisoners did. Wirz was not even allowed the offered testimonies by prisoners that had been held in Andersonville. His court martial was a kangaroo court and resulted in judicial murder.
Thousands of southerners died in Yankee prison camps. It was intentional.
George Washington’s family heraldry include the phrase exitus acta probat. The end justifies the means. Ending war requires removing your opponent’s will to fight as well as their ability. Our country was founded on this principle.
That is also the label of the "Christian Right". They can overlook any sence of ethics if it gets them what THEY want, not what Jesus would want.
As much as people call Sherman a monster, there's another horrible thing. I think Sherman's actions put on full display that the confederacy can't defend itself. Sherman's coming was no surprise to anyone. If a people cannot mount an effective defense, then what's the point of anything else?
Irrelevant. What you are saying is might makes right. Southern losses had resulted in Sherman being able to carry out the rape and rapine that characterized his command. The Southern Army was suffering from lack of supply and material. What Sherman did was inexcusable.
Checkout Sherman’s actions in Southern Oregon, Northern California after the Civil War.
So how do we classify the bombing campaigns during World War II by both sides
The bombing campaigns during WWII gets a pass because both sides were using dumb bombs (smart guided munitions didn't exist yet) and those bombs were intended to hit hard and soft military targets (even if those targets were embedded among civilians populations. Collateral damage is a part of war. Also, "war crimes" weren't formally codify until after WWII, mainly because of the Holocaust and horrible treatment of POWs.
war is a playground for monsters
I believe that Sherman march to the sea is the reason that reconstruction didn't work.
Reconstruction did not work because Lincoln was assassinated. The reconstruction enacted by his successor President Johnson
greed was the foundation of it. the removal of Lincoln left the carpet baggers essentially unchecked. with Johnson essentially left toothless and an empty president.
It was more carpetbaggers taking advantage of a defeated enemy.
@@jeffmisch1485 It was a combination of both. The way Yankees fought the war built a bitterness in the south that is still felt, and rightly so. Carpetbaggers were an insult to injury. Add in the fact that the Yankee Army armed blacks and set them on whites.
Sally Fields said.that all this fighting should stop. People can get hurt or killed in wars.😅😅😅😅😅😅
Depends on how you classify 'civilians'. These resources were always available to the Confederates.
Are we having this conversation about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because If you aren’t, I might think you were a certain way.
He was a monster.
He was an American Hero and a Traitor's monster.
@@dougberry9105 Sherman was mentally off balance and a monster by any measure.
Looking at the comments, it's easy to see the two views of Sherman. No doubt German lives were upended/ruined with the American march through Germany in WW II. But note that the commentator says that there were Union soldiers who disobeyed orders and did more than destroy what could be used by the Confederates. There's no evidence/proof, that Sherman ordered the excesses. Sherman's Army had to forage for supplies as they cut themselves off from their supply lines. The slaves who followed his Army no doubt hoped to follow them all the way, but 1) there wouldn't be enough supplies to feed both the Army and the mass of slaves following them. The worst came when the Confederates had garnered enough men to confront Sherman but Sherman didn't have the supplies for a full on engagement, so they couldn't wait for the slaves to cross the bridges but had to destroy them before the Confederates could take them.
It's easy to make these condemnations of Sherman from the safety of over 100 years after the event, from the comfort of ones chair in front of a computer screen, and not fully understanding the full context of what was occurring. The taking of the Mississippi River, Atlanta, and the March to the Sea, crippled the Confederates ability to continue the war.
BTW, IMO, if you want to see America's First Terrorist, I give you John Brown, who butchered families in Kansas if he 'thought' they were pro-slavery.
Lost Cause hit piece. Dark parts of his march? This is common knowledge to anyone with a passing understanding of the Civil War. And no, Sherman burning stuff down wouldn't shock modern folks.
The indiscriminate total war acts of the 20th century alone made Sherman's march look like a picnic.
Shermans march was arguably cruel, but likely saved thousands of lives from a dragged out war that could have lasted months or even years longer than it did.
And speaking of "terrorists" in the Civil War, Nathan Bedford Forrest massacring surrendering Black troops, and even Jefferson Davis issuing executive orders for summary executions of officers leading black units was considered criminal activity even by 19th century standards. And that was before Sherman trashed Georgia. Do a video on that.
The rebels tore the country apart for a cause that was literally about violating the human rights of millions of humans, so it's hard for most rational people to feel sorry that some pyromaniac general trashed their infrastructure and burned a few cities and plantations to the ground to hasten the wars end. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes applies here..
Yesssss❤
Damned straight!
"Lost Cause hit piece. Dark parts of his march?"
Can't face the facts your heroes were nothing but terrorists. What is in the video is nothing but the truth of Sherman's march and, as such, is not a "hit piece" no matter how much you would like to dismiss it as such.
He had no buisness being brutal to civilians.
Napoleon used similar tactics in Russia, and the Russians even used them against napoleon.
And the Nazis.
Total war concept was also used against the American Indians ! This act by Sherman was a war crime !! We are all Americans !
Slavery was a crime against humanity. Oh, and by the way, our poor innocent native Americans also engaged in the institution of slavery, which the White man ended.
Terrible video, very short on facts, just endlessly repeating the same lines
Thanks for the nice words.
-Kay
You wish they were lies. Sherman was scum.
Don’t rewrite anything, next you’ll ask if Lincoln’s assignation was deserved. It was war.
The entire premise of this video in applying current day standards to the actions of people living over 150 years in the past is totally irrelevant. By your measure the US and UK committed "war crimes" in bombing German and Japanese cities and civilians purposely.
The bombing of Berlin, Tokyo by the UK with night bombing of Berlin and the US firebombing of Tokyo were no different than Sherman's tactics. They were all designed to destroy the will of the enemy civilians to continue support for their dictators and war effort.
All I can say to the person(s) behind these absurd, unrealistic videos and any "historical analysis" is to give it a rest and get some education into the realities and purposes of historical scholarship. Also you had best hope people 150+ years in the future don't apply their hopefully more enlightened standards to you.
I think he had mental problems !
Ya know, 20% of this vid argues that we should apply MODERN laws to past history. Look, that is revisionism. Pure and simple.
Sherman did what he had to do. End of story.
No. Sherman did was his hatred dictated. He proved he was mentally unbalanced and kept proving after the war. He was scum.
He was a murdering terrorist who lacked any morals or ethics. One of the other things they don't mention is that the first thing he had destroyed were Southern churches in the path of his army.
Let me guess 😅 You think your Founding Fathers had morals?😅😅😅