[BigBollocks]

I recently read a book on General Sherman (Civil War General) that gave me terrific insight on why he was such a great leader. Those of you who are uneducated and/or don't care for war/nation collapsing strategy can skip this thread.

Early in the war, Sherman led a battle in Tennessee that saw thousands upon thousands of soldiers killed on both sides. As Sherman watched all these 17 year old impoverished Confederate soldiers writhing to death in agony (some of whom were African American), he quickly realized that they didn't have a stake in the war whatsoever, and that they were all simply pawns for the wealthy plantation owners. He then shifted gears to efforts that would hurt all the wealthy and powerful Southern policy makers economically (see Sherman's March, the torching of buildings/estates, etc.), and was rather quickly rewarded.

Fast forward to today. Why haven't the enemies of the US shifted gears in order to further speed up the demise of the US economical engine? It's no secret that the very cream of the crop in terms of wealth and power would never put themselves or their children in the US military, so there's little to be gained by an insurgency against front line troops. Unlike up to 20-30 years ago when all US Presidents and elected officials had served or had all their friends/family serve militarily, our policy makers are so far removed from the front lines nowadays they could care less. However, an assault on the crème de la crème pocketbooks would have the Bush's, Chaney's, Romney's, etc. of the world crying like little girls. I personally think that we are this generation's Russia and will crumble in time from within due to economic reasons, but why not speed up the process if you're against us?

Just my two cents, and all thoughts welcomed from either side...

[pavyracer]

Fukk Sherman. If he ever passes again through my hood in Atlanta I'll cut him in pieces and barbecue him. South Pride!

[john pavlic]

and I seriously doubt whether as a collective force we could rise to the needs of a major land war again. We just dont have the industry needed to produce conventional war products.

There will NEVER be a major land war again, there will be small conflicts as we have seen the last 50 years. but there will never be another world war fought like that it will be nuclear or nothing

[BigBollocks]

In some ways its already happened, the tech bubble, 911, housing bubble, credit crunch all took huge tolls on our financial system. IMO, terrorists arent capable of doing it again at this time.I firmly believe that the Bush admistration if nothing else has made it tough for the terrorists to attack here again. Besides we seem to being a pretty good job of imploding by ourselfs.

People today have no sense or knoweldge of the battles that were fought in times past. Today we whine when we lose 3500 troops in a 5 year old war, in WW1 in the battle of the Somme more than a million men were killed in one battle. There were battles in the Civil war where 10s of thousands died in one day,I could go on about battle after battle, but no one cares. We as a nation have grown soft, and I seriously doubt whether as a collective force we could rise to the needs of a major land war again. We just dont have the industry needed to produce conventional war products.

Sorry for getting off your orignal topic BB. 90 days and counting and my kid comes home from Iraq!

later

Great point in terms of the aggregate number of men lost during the Civil War compared to today, as well as the lack of industry required to fight a major land war. Congrats on your son coming home CP! What does he do overseas?

[BigBollocks]

DrunkenLullaby we've heard threats of oil being bought in Euro before, and I'm certain it's simply a matter of WHEN this will happen. There have even been articles saying that Bush invaded the Middle East in order to thwart this attempt and protect the dollar (as nutty as that seems). I'd lay 1,000,000/1 that the dollar's stature has little to no bearing on his foreign policy efforts...

[curious]

I recently read a book on General Sherman (Civil War General) that gave me terrific insight on why he was such a great leader. Those of you who are uneducated and/or don't care for war/nation collapsing strategy can skip this thread.

Early in the war, Sherman led a battle in Tennessee that saw thousands upon thousands of soldiers killed on both sides. As Sherman watched all these 17 year old impoverished Confederate soldiers writhing to death in agony (some of whom were African American), he quickly realized that they didn't have a stake in the war whatsoever, and that they were all simply pawns for the wealthy plantation owners. He then shifted gears to efforts that would hurt all the wealthy and powerful Southern policy makers economically (see Sherman's March, the torching of buildings/estates, etc.), and was rather quickly rewarded.

Fast forward to today. Why haven't the enemies of the US shifted gears in order to further speed up the demise of the US economical engine? It's no secret that the very cream of the crop in terms of wealth and power would never put themselves or their children in the US military, so there's little to be gained by an insurgency against front line troops. Unlike up to 20-30 years ago when all US Presidents and elected officials had served or had all their friends/family serve militarily, our policy makers are so far removed from the front lines nowadays they could care less. However, an assault on the crème de la crème pocketbooks would have the Bush's, Chaney's, Romney's, etc. of the world crying like little girls. I personally think that we are this generation's Russia and will crumble in time from within due to economic reasons, but why not speed up the process if you're against us?

Just my two cents, and all thoughts welcomed from either side...

General Sherman was a murderer and a war criminal. He fought a war of genocide against an unarmed civilian population. Had the Confederacy won the War of Northern Agression, Sharman, Grant, Beast Bulter, and Phil Sheridan would have been tried and executed for war crimes, possibly Lincoln as well.

Your depiction of the Southern soldier as "not having a stake" in the fight is totally wrong. And for anyone to say that the Confederate soldier was unwilling to fight is totally absurd. The Confederacy had a total population of 9 million. Of that 4 million were slaves. The Confederacy had 1,250,000 men under arms. This is 25% of the white population. That means that every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 was under arms.

20% of the men under arms in the Confederate army were wounded or killed in battle. Troops who are unwilling to fight do not sustain casualty rates like that. Troops who are unwilling to fight either run away or surrender. In all the battles of the civil war Confederate troops ran away exactly twice, both times more out of disgust with their commanding general than out of fear of the enemy, at the battles of Cedar Creek and the Battle of Franklin. Why Jubal Early and John Hood would be given command or armies is beyond me, they were incompetent to command anything more than a division. The Union army, on the contrary, ran away many times. At First Bull Run, Second Bull Run, Second Harper's Ferry, New Market, Wilson's Creek, Pittsburgh Landing, Brice's Crossroads, Chancelorville, Okolona and Prairie Mound, Harrisburg, Johnsonville, well the list goes on and on.

My family is from West Va. My grandmother has pictures of her great grandfather and his close relatives, brothers, nephews, cousins, in laws, in Confederate uniform. All of the able bodied men in my family fought as partisan guerilla cavalry against the Unionists in West Va. That part of the country is coal mining country. There were no slaves there. I'm pretty certain my kinfolk never saw a slave nor did they know anyone who owned a slave.

The Confederates fought for a great many things but to say that they were forced to fight for principles that they did not agree with is preposterous.

"General" Sherman was a coward, a mass murderer, and a war criminal. He was removed from command early in the war for cowardice under fire and if he had not had Grant and Halleck protecting him would have been court martialed and possibly executed.

[BigBollocks]

Just a infantryman, assigned to a scout battalion this tour. Which is kinda f up considering his 1st tour he was a diesel truck mechanic .Army wisdom I guess.

later

It's all "needs of the army" as you're well aware CP. I'm sure you're counting down the days now. I've heard that a number of folks with advanced degrees in finance or human resources who would have been a shoe in for finance or adjutant general officer positions out of ROTC or OCS a few years ago are being primarily assigned infantry, transportation, and armor positions.

[curious]

It's all "needs of the army" as you're well aware CP. I'm sure you're counting down the days now. I've heard that a number of folks with advanced degrees in finance or human resources who would have been a shoe in for finance or adjutant general officer positions out of ROTC or OCS a few years ago are being primarily assigned infantry, transportation, and armor positions.

Don't you know anything about the Army? They always assign soldiers to the job that is most opposite what they are actually qualified for.

[BigBollocks]

General Sherman was a murderer and a war criminal. He fought a war of genocide against an unarmed civilian population. Had the Confederacy won the War of Northern Agression, Sharman, Grant, Beast Bulter, and Phil Sheridan would have been tried and executed for war crimes, possibly Lincoln as well.

Your depiction of the Southern soldier as "not having a stake" in the fight is totally wrong. And for anyone to say that the Confederate soldier was unwilling to fight is totally absurd. The Confederacy had a total population of 9 million. Of that 4 million were slaves. The Confederacy had 1,250,000 men under arms. This is 25% of the white population. That means that every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 was under arms.

20% of the men under arms in the Confederate army were wounded or killed in battle. Troops who are unwilling to fight do not sustain casualty rates like that. Troops who are unwilling to fight either run away or surrender. In all the battles of the civil war Confederate troops ran away exactly twice, both times more out of disgust with their commanding general than out of fear of the enemy, at the battles of Cedar Creek and the Battle of Franklin. Why Jubal Early and John Hood would be given command or armies is beyond me, they were incompetent to command anything more than a division. The Union army, on the contrary, ran away many times. At First Bull Run, Second Bull Run, Second Harper's Ferry, New Market, Wilson's Creek, Pittsburgh Landing, Brice's Crossroads, Chancelorville, Okolona and Prairie Mound, Harrisburg, Johnsonville, well the list goes on and on.

My family is from West Va. My grandmother has pictures of her great grandfather and his close relatives, brothers, nephews, cousins, in laws, in Confederate uniform. All of the able bodied men in my family fought as partisan guerilla cavalry against the Unionists in West Va. That part of the country is coal mining country. There were no slaves there. I'm pretty certain my kinfolk never saw a slave nor did they know anyone who owned a slave.

The Confederates fought for a great many things but to say that they were forced to fight for principles that they did not agree with is preposterous.

"General" Sherman was a coward, a mass murderer, and a war criminal. He was removed from command early in the war for cowardice under fire and if he had not had Grant and Halleck protecting him would have been court martialed and possibly executed.

Curious I too am beyond impressed with the fight the Confederate soldiers put up despite being outnumbered and short of resources. I tend to think you've overstated the underlying motivation (or lack thereof) in many of the Confederate soldiers' case, but this could be due to different readings and/or potential biases. As for war crimes, the winners generally do this to the losers in any war this laced with casualties.

The thread was really more based on Sherman's underlying economical strategy tied to today as opposed to troop psychology nonetheless.

[BigBollocks]

LOL, back in 76 when I joined the Army I enlisted to learn a trade, but the Army determined by a multitude of tests that my calling was to be a forward artillery spotter. To this day I still dont hear worth a crap, Im always saying "WHAT" did you say.

later

LOL CP

[curious]

Curious I too am beyond impressed with the fight the Confederate soldiers put up despite being outnumbered and short of resources. I tend to think you've overstated the underlying motivation (or lack thereof) in many of the Confederate soldiers' case, but this could be due to different readings and/or potential biases. As for war crimes, the winners generally do this to the losers in any war this laced with casualties.

The thread was really more based on Sherman's underlying economical strategy tied to today as opposed to troop psychology nonetheless.

The crimes that Sherman, Grant, Butler, and Sheridan committed have nothing to do with battle casualties. Each of these criminals gave specific orders that southern males between the ages of 16 and 55 be rounded up and shot as "guerillas" whether there was any evidence against them or not. Each of these criminals gave specific orders that livestock were to be slaughtered, crops ruined, horses stolen, farm buildings burned, in other words a policy was undertaken which ensured the starvation of the civilian population. The murder went beyond able bodied males. Homes were burned with the women and children still inside. Southern women who defended themselves instead of just submitting to being gang raped were shot in front of their children. These were not even battlefield atrocities, these atrocities were committed far from any battlefield. These people where cowards and criminals by anyone's standards. Sheridan was the worst, but he was just acting under direct orders from Grant, orders which were very specific as to which specific crimes were to be committed.

[Ajax_db]

The crimes that Sherman, Grant, Butler, and Sheridan committed have nothing to do with battle casualties. Each of these criminals gave specific orders that southern males between the ages of 16 and 55 be rounded up and shot as "guerillas" whether there was any evidence against them or not. Each of these criminals gave specific orders that livestock were to be slaughtered, crops ruined, horses stolen, farm buildings burned, in other words a policy was undertaken which ensured the starvation of the civilian population. The murder went beyond able bodied males. Homes were burned with the women and children still inside. Southern women who defended themselves instead of just submitting to being gang raped were shot in front of their children. These were not even battlefield atrocities, these atrocities were committed far from any battlefield. These people where cowards and criminals by anyone's standards. Sheridan was the worst, but he was just acting under direct orders from Grant, orders which were very specific as to which specific crimes were to be committed.

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo27.html

In "Citizen Sherman" Michael Fellman describes how Sherman’s chief engineer, Captain O.M. Poe, advised that the bombing of Atlanta was of no military significance (the Confederates had already abandoned the city) and implored Sherman to stop the bombardment after viewing the carcasses of dead women and children in the streets. Sherman coldly told him the dead bodies were "a beautiful sight" and commenced the destruction of 90 percent of all the buildings in Atlanta. After that, the remaining 2,000 residents were evicted from their homes just as winter was approaching.

Proud Son of a Confederate Veteran Private Richard Parsley, CSA Tennessee 84th Infantry, Co. E - Died Jan 21 1865 - Camp Chase Prison, Columbus, OH - equal in atrocities to Elmira NY

[BigBollocks]

Wow CP and Ajax, I had no idea it went quite that far. I went through a lot of the monuments in Chattanooga, and probably 95% are Union monuments that continue to be restored. The few Confederate monuments are all substantially backwards, and either faced backwards and/or rotting on top of that. The winners definitely re-write history, but I had no idea Sherman was such a cold-hearted son of a bitch. It sounds like he was as big of a war criminal as they come by, yet the history books hail him as a hero.

I still he think he was dead on the money in terms of hurting the South economically, but ignoring others' requests to not commit senseless violence is nuts. The US could send Iraq into the stone age by cutting off all their electricity, etc, and I've wondered if there's a time we'll do just that if worse came to worse (particularly in Mosul). Cheers...