Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by nightowl6261a, Apr 2, 2005.
Banned readin in the south.
At the risk of sounding stupid, who is this Sherman character??
He's either this guy: http://www.jaxjewishcenter.com/camp-...p-grenada.html or, more likely, this one: http://www.civilwaralbum.com/atlanta/
in the states we learn history from all of the world, do the europeans not learn the history of the US?
He was one of the major generals on the Union (North) side of the American Civil War (1861-65). Both he and Grant (Northern General and later US President) wrote memoirs of their lives. These memoirs were influential on American letters. Anyway, Sherman (who was named after an Indian chief by the way), strategized that a devastating assault over Southern (Confederate) territory, in which his troops would cut supply lines, burn crop fields, destroy infrastructure, would shorten (and thereby end) the War. His troops burned down crops and houses, a "scorched earth policy" as it were. It was referred to as "Sherman's March." As far as I know, and I haven't really read much Civil War history, there were, at the time, wildly conflicting and varying reports of the extent of the damage to the South land by Sherman's soldiers.
In essence (as far as I understand it): Sherman reasoned that the War had gone on to long, and that one serious and concentrated assault on the South would break it and put the war to an end. In his memoirs he meditates on the costs of what he did.
at the risk of offending my good friends from the south, I believe that sherman was a geneus and, to a lesser extent, a hero. he was one of the norther leaders who had very strong ties to the south, he had worked for years in the south, and would have been welcomed in the confederate military, he had not sought a career in the military, having spend a chunk of his life running railroads, but he felt a huge debt to the federal government and felt that the union had to be protected. he led a force of men that faced great obsticles and he was carful to avoid direct confrontation with the emeny as much as poissible, leadin the war to the destruction of the economic base of the enemy, and destroying the enemies moral suppoprt from home.
sherman was the exact opposite of a man like lee (who I also have great respect for) who led his men on a losing quest for honor that cost huge numbers of lives. sherman saw war as something that needed to be won quickly and at the lowest possible cost to his force. he saw the war between the states as something that could destroy the federal government. he thought that the whole philosophy of the south, of the warrior gentleman, of the spartan ideal living off the economics of slave plantations needed to be brougth down to close the war, and he went to the source.
again, my apologies to chris and the other people from the south, but sherman happens to be a big hero of mine (if my wife's anesthesia had lasted a little longer after giving birth to my son, he might be named tecumsah today)
globe, no apologies ness. i agree with you 100%, he was an incredible man who made some great war time decisions, and had he not been put into the predicament of war, probably would have died from alcholism, but the war ressurected a man with a brilliant plan, that, had it been anyone else, might have caused more pain upon a people than could have been endured. he was sympathetic to the cause, not in support of slavery and a way of life, but in the beliefs that men have different ways of living, yet he wanted a united country without division and hardships, which had the states been split into 2 countries, would have caused many hardships not only on the north but the south as well. he was a man with a plan, and delivered when all seemed doomed, remeber the south began the war winning until sherman's presence became overwhelming, he respected lee's decision to wave the white flag and surrender, and was partially responsible for the southern leaders not being imprisoned or facing charges by the US govt for treason against the country at the end of the war. he was a true gentleman, and desperately tried to save a country, although few southerners will attest to his goodwill, he really in the end saved the south from further destruction with some of the tactics he used to defeat them. i actually salute the man, not totally the ranks from which the blood was spilled, but then i am one of a few you will meet that believes the war did not need to happen, the south needed to move into a time past the issues and understand rights, which in a lot of places still has not changed, and may never.
thanks, I thought I was putting myself in deep shit.
We do, but I doubt if you will know some of the Dutch admirals that once ruled the waves. Or which Dutch admiral destroyed the british fleet.
We learn some of the basic stuff about the US, just as US high school kids learn some of the basic European history, like the Roman era, Napoleon, etc.
Roy, I suppose that is fair enough, I guess with the limited amount of US history in comparison to that of the European history, I thought maybe you all would learn more about us than we of you, especially with the quality of scholls probably being better there.
The main stigma I think that people have with the South and Southerners in general is that they feel somehow we are stupider, more racist, and culturally deprived.
Granted, there are a lot of Southern people who live up to theses embarassments, but if you look around places like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Colorado, just to name a few states at random, you'll find that it's not just a Southern problem. It's an American problem. "Bubba" lives in Boise and Alpena, too.
Long time lurker, but I had to sign up officially when I read this post by Valmont:
My God, man, are you just cranky today or are you always so rude, arrogant, condescending and mean?
Seriously. Â This is a joke thread. Â Lighten up. Â Your tripe implies that intellectual thoughts and religion are mutually exclusive??
Relax Lindsay. I would say that prejudices against intellectualism in many parts of the United States are reciprocated by those who generally live in on the coasts or in Europe but are in fact woefully ignorant about religion.
I am a lapsed Catholic, but have tried to read as many of the great moral (and other) theologians as possible, as well as understanding religious history.
The recent election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a very intelligent and thoughtful, man to the papacy has brought this ignorance to light. It seems to me that very few of his opponents have tried to understand the often very well articulated and consistent interpretation of certain church teachings, but instead have labeled him a reactionary. That he may be, but his body of theological work is nonetheless impeccably reasoned, and deserves more respect and understanding than I've seen/read of late.
Policy - Please wander through Atlanta saying that... wear that suit you are having made with the canvassed back but be sure to tell them to use Kevlar canvas for you.
I believe Grant's memoirs are considered the finest by a american president. Clinton's memoirs were like the man, too self indulgent.
I think Sherman's philosophy behind his path of total destruction was similar to what we did to the Japanese in WWII. We justified dropping the two atomic bombs because we felt it would bring that war to a quicker end, saving lives on both sides. If Sherman hadn't taken such extreme measures, the Civil War would have lasted longer and more lives would have been lost in the ensuing years.
Separate names with a comma.