Started By
Message

re: William Tecumseh Sherman

Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:08 am to
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37811 posts
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:08 am to
quote:

There's a golden monument to him in Manhattan right by the Plaza Hotel

I've got a picture of me pissing on that mother fricker at 4AM in Central Park in 2001 just days before the towers went down.
Posted by jfootball14
Member since Nov 2013
1535 posts
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:25 am to
quote:

He hated the idea of war and wished the South hadn't pursued it


How old (dumb) are you?
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
13572 posts
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:27 am to

quote:

Everybody knows about his Civil War exploits. Less well known is that he presided over the destruction of the Plains Indians, using tactics explicitly designed to starve them onto reservations.


Nice get Jim Rockford. Whenever I see Sherman's name I think of the irony. Sherman's father gave him that middle name because he respected what an Indian leader Tecumseh was......and Sherman went out and killed all the indians.

When they were tracking and starving the last tribes, the Navajo, their chief came in surrendered and asked that his people not be harmed (they were marched and starved anyway). When one of his guards heard this he laughed and said he will be hanged when he gets to the fort. The chief responded to the interpreter who then laughed.

When the guard asked the interpreter what the chief said, he responded "The chief says your missionaries' tell him your chief died so that you might live".
Posted by tigerinexile
NYC
Member since Sep 2004
1274 posts
Posted on 5/19/24 at 8:57 am to
If he would’ve been around in 1993 he would’ve had no problem with burning those children in Waco
Posted by ccard257
Fort Worth, TX
Member since Oct 2012
1315 posts
Posted on 5/19/24 at 9:05 am to
quote:

The South needed a Sherman.


They had one, but never used him for that purpose. At the outset of the war he advocated for a fast and brutal black flag campaign on the north before they could gather an effective army. However, at the time he was a weird/dorky professor at VMI and not capable of convincing higher ups to go along with his plan. By the time they realized he was pretty good at the whole war thing the north had raised a large army and then some dipshits from North Carolina shot him at Chancellorsville.
Posted by dchog
Pea ridge
Member since Nov 2012
21452 posts
Posted on 5/19/24 at 1:55 pm to
I didn't like the idea of the South fighting most of the battles in the South when it should have been fought up North. I don't know if they had the numbers and resources but fighting a military much larger than them in an area susceptible to being taken over at any moment would be costly.
Posted by cwil1
KY/TN border
Member since Oct 2023
102 posts
Posted on 5/20/24 at 6:37 am to
IIRC the only battles fought in the north were Gettysburg, and some raids into Indiana and Ohio by John Hunt Morgan and his Kentuckians. The southern war strategy was to defend their 13 claimed states until the north got tired of war, and came to the table to discuss.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram