MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Message Boards  
  For New Members  
  On This Day....  
  General  
  American History  
  Ancient History  
  British History  
  Current Events  
  European History  
  The Civil War  
  War  
  World History  
  Pictures  
    
    
  Links  
  Militaria Board  
  Cars/Motorcycles  
  
  
  Tools  
 
The Civil War : Sherman; A good general or war criminal
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
(1 recommendation so far) Message 1 of 46 in Discussion 
From: adam  (Original Message)Sent: 10/27/2003 3:11 AM
    I live Just south of Nashville where Rosecarns started the march to Atlanta. Course He got Held up and pounded at Chattanooga and was releaved by Grant who started the Rebs moving south and turned it over to Sherman. He stayed on the battle plan of fighting the enemy in front of him till he took Atlanta(I never understood why he never sent a division to Andersonville). After he had no army to fight he took it as his policy to rape the southern women burn their homes and kill the farms.
 Sherman didnt do anything but pursue a scorched earth policy in the name of taking the crops from the Confederate Army. His rational was wrong because while the crops were plentful there was no way to get them to the Rebs because the Feds had taken the rail road that was theonly way to get food to the Army.
 
As you see I feel he was a criminal and the farmers need to be paid for the destruction of their farms and homes long before any exslave gets one cent.
 
As you can tell I vote that Sherman was a war criminal
 
Still puffing
Adam


First  Previous  32-46 of 46  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 32 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 5/7/2006 8:49 PM
Sunday, some don't like Ole' Pete (Longstreet), hell that is sacraligious to me.  Gotta love all those January born generals....Lee, Jackson, and Ole' Pete.  Hell I always thought that Braxton Bragg was the biggest disappointment.  Love the way Longstreet and Forrest dragged his bacon out of the fire in Tennesse...Then he repayed them by havin' them shipped out.  Then of course he loses to the yanks.  Always figured that the yanks appreciated his stupidity so much that they just had to name Ft. Bragg after him to show their respects for his decisions in Tennesse.  Then again what was the odds of Bragg gettin' fired since he was the xo under Davis in the Mexican war.

Reply
 Message 33 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 5/7/2006 9:17 PM
Hello Normal
Your #30.
hell the klan must have not been present at that meetin'.......I say we just annex Mexico, cures the problem of cheap
Yes, sorry,  I was out rehearsing "well hung" jokes and got kind of carried away, especially with the dress rehearsals. 
Problem is, finding aryan Mexicans. I believe their Spanish forbears started doing  filthy things with the indiginous Navajos, Diggers, Apaches and Comanches (OUCH!) and Gila monsters so it's very hard for us Limeys to find one to introduce to The Light Infantry Club, when we move towards Annexation. Hang on, wasn't there that Terrence Stamp chap in "Blue?" Nope, he was Irish. Better have a Mexican, then.   Or better still, he:-
El Flash de Luz.

Reply
 Message 34 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname--sundaySent: 5/7/2006 10:15 PM
TinCan used to call me "Pete"
 
Normal, did you know that Vermont is trying to secede, too?
 
sunday

Reply
 Message 35 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 5/7/2006 11:31 PM
Greetin's and Salutations Flash, yea I don't think that annex Mexico would work much either.   I do have to make such sarcastic tones though less my socialist friends stop thinkin' I am a right wing imperlialistic war mongerin' conservative.  Cannot allow myself to be mislabeled now can I.  Now as far as the Spanish and Mexico go have to say they did a might job better than the french.  Wonder if they celebrate Cinco de Mayo in france.  

Reply
 Message 36 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 5/7/2006 11:34 PM
Sunday, no I had no idea about Vermont tryin' to leave this here union, but I have just did a search of it and gonna read about it.  Just one of the reasons I come here Sunday, yer more educational than my school teacher.

Reply
 Message 37 of 46 in Discussion 
From: bowleggedSent: 5/9/2006 7:27 PM
"Sides how can we be united when only Lee has surrendered. "

Joe Johnston surrendered to his good buddy Billy Sherman in North Carolina about two weeks after Lee's surrender. Ironically, at the age of 82, Johnston caught pneumonia and died as a result of serving as a pall bearer at Sherman's funeral.

Lt. Gen, Richard Taylor (son of former POTUS Zachary Taylor) surrendered 12,000 Rebels to Union Gen. Canby at Citronelle, Alabama on May 4, 1865. Kirby Smith (actually, Simon Buckner acting in Smith's name) surrendered all of the Rebel forces of the trans-Mississippi by May 26, 1865, and John Bell Hood surrendered to Union Gen. Davidson on May 31, 1865. The last Confederate General officer to surrender was Brig. Gen. Stand Watie, commander of Confederate Indians and Chief of the Cherokee Nation who, on June 23, 1865 surrendered to Lt. Col. Asa Matthews at Doaksville near Ft. Towson in Indian Territory.

Reply
 Message 38 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 5/9/2006 10:30 PM
Normal
The way I read it was that northern Mexico was ungovernable because of the depredations of the Comanches and therefore was a vacuum. The Comanches were of course a horse-mounted tribe.
The Mexicans tried to buy peace by setting them off against the Apaches, but both sides would come back for more goodies.
It was the Texans, before during and after the 2 Mexican wars who flattened the Indian tribes (with the help of the Walker Dragoon Colt), and so therefore, don't you Yanks have a right to Mexican soil?
  
Cheers
Peter

Reply
 Message 39 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 5/13/2006 3:21 PM
bow, don't believe all them nasty rumors bro.  Hell history is always written by the victors or in this case the aggressive yanks.  Thing is since the great travesty of the war of northern aggression.  There has been a small groupof us that have planned to reb this country up a bit.  So far our plans have been very fruitful......We done got ya'll to vote for a Arkansas boy and now a Texan.  So when it is all said done after 16 years of us southern boys we reckon we should be able to run Larry the cable guy and then we can finally claim victory after so many years of keepin' the torch ablaze.

Reply
 Message 40 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 5/13/2006 3:25 PM
Flash, hell bro havin' Mexico won't mean all that much to me unless it has more than enough oil to help me fuel at a much cheaper price what I believe to be the greatest Brit accomplishment my land rover.

Reply
 Message 41 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 5/13/2006 5:49 PM
we should be able to run Larry the cable guy Sorry, don't understand.
Look, Normal, be a sport. take Mexico.  I don't like fajitas much anyway.

Reply
 Message 42 of 46 in Discussion 
From: wanderingnanaSent: 6/26/2006 9:39 AM

Actually, Lee was very good on the defensive- otherwise the South would have folded  18 months before it did.  The fact that he kept the Union Army at bay in front of Petersburg for such a length of time was no accident.  Lee acted offensively because it was the only choice he had-other than stand a siege of Richmond which would have led to the defeat of the South much earlier- and he was frequently quoted as saying that.  That belies the fact the Lee's casualties acting on the offensive were horrendous.  Longstreet certainly would have rather acted defensively, but once he started to fight, he did a very good job of it.  I am no fan of Lee's, but the man did a remarkable job with very little to work with except an army of very brave- and foolish- men.  I say foolish because anyone who assaulted Malvern Hill or Cemetary Ridge had to be either brave or a few bricks shy of a full load.


Reply
 Message 43 of 46 in Discussion 
From: wanderingnanaSent: 6/26/2006 9:43 AM




From: "--sunday" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "The History Page" <[email protected]>
To: "The History Page" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sherman; A good general or war criminal
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:21:35 -0700

<META content="Microsoft SafeHTML" name=Generator> <STYLE> ThmFgColumnHeader, A.FrameLink, A.HeaderLink, A.FooterLink, A.LgtCmd, A.MSNLink {color:#FFFFFF;} ThmFgTitleLightBk {color:#FF6600;} ThmFgSmallLight {color:#ff0000;} ThmFgNavLink, A.NavLink, A.ChildLink:hover {color:#666699;} ThmFgInactiveText, A.SystemLink {color:#666666;} ThmFgFrameTitle {color:#FFFFCC;} ThmFgMiscText, A.Cat, A.SubCat {color:#336699;} ThmFgCommand, A.Command, A.LargeCommand, A.MsgLink {color:#003366;} ThmFgHeader {color:#333333;} ThmFgDivider {color:#CCCCCC;} ThmBgStandard {background-color:#FFFFFF;} ThmBgUnknown1 {background-color:#FF6600;} ThmBgFraming {background-color:#666699;} ThmBgUnknown2 {background-color:#666666;} ThmBgHighlightDark {background-color:#FFFFCC;} ThmBgHighlightLight, #idToolbar, #tbContents {background-color:#FFFFE8;} ThmBgTitleDarkBk {background-color:#F1F1F1;} ThmBgAlternate {background-color:#ECF1F6;} ThmBgUnknown3 {background-color:#CCCCFF;} ThmBgDivider {background-color:#CCCCCC;} ThmBgHeader {background-color:#9999CC;} ThmBgLinks {background-color:#8696C9;} ThmBgSharkBar {background-color:#8696C9;} ThmBgGlobalNick {background-color:#9394A9;} calfgndcolor {color:#E00505;} calbgndcolor {color:#E00505;} </STYLE>
New Message on The History Page

Sherman; A good general or war criminal

Reply
  Reply to Sender   Recommend Message 27 in Discussion
From: --sunday   Oh Sunday, you were so mistaken. I'm from Montana- which was settled- or so rumor says- by the deserters from Braggs Army.  They couldn't get any further away than Montana, but they never really left home.  They still do occasionally fight that war up there- and we Yankees still have to tell them they lost- cause they don't believe it.

Jim, I know you asked that question of NormalParanoia, but I have to throw in a few words here.  The answer is absolutely NOT.  From what I'm hearing, the South is blaming the Yankees for all the immigration problems. 
 
When I moved to Virginia in 1967, I had no idea that I was moving to a foreign country.  I was under the mistaken impression that the "late unpleasantness" was over and we were a united country once again.  Apparently this is not the case.
 
sunday

View other groups in this category.


To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it arrives, go to your E-mail Settings.

Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go to Passport Member Services.
For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us page.

If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this MSN group, or if you received this message by mistake, please click the "Remove" link below. On the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply click "Send". Your e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing list.
Remove my e-mail address from The History Page.


Reply
 Message 44 of 46 in Discussion 
From: wanderingnanaSent: 6/26/2006 9:51 AM



Actually, Sunday, he really became a pariah when he took that ambassadorship. The problem was that he and Grant were very good friends before the war and of course Grant was not at all popular in the South and so when Longstreet renewed his friendship, why all those old "patriots" down there got there tails in a holler and started saying what a bad boy Old Pete was. Also, Jubal Early had a lot to do with Longstreets lack of popularity as did some of Lee's relations and staff- Old Jube was pretty incompetent- especially at Gettysburg and of course, later in the Shenandoah Valley and he wrote this book that pretty well trashed everybody-including Longstreet- who ever disagreed with him.  It's been pretty well established that Early and Lee's friends were covering up their own mistakes and putting the blame on Longstreet.  Meade was afraid that the ANV would do what Longstreet wanted to do on the 3rd day at Gettysburg- Lee was guilty of repeating his mistake at Malvern Hill.  Early was never a factor after the first day.

Reply
 Message 45 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname-TinCanSent: 6/27/2006 3:18 PM
Yeah right, Bush is about as Texan as I am Floridian! We had Mexico once, gave it back, good call.

Reply
 Message 46 of 46 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameT-man1971Sent: 9/18/2006 4:17 AM
For the fans who want to criminalize Sherman look at the plight of the Nez perce after the the retreat he turned a deaf ear to their plight after their capture his only concern was to send them off.  Hoverrode Colonel Miles and General Howards agreements with Josephand banished them to squalid conditions in until he was able to send them off to Indian Country to endure more suffering.
 
T-man

First  Previous  32-46 of 46  Next  Last 
Return to The Civil War