re: Joe Burrow in the SEC Championship: The last time a man from Ohio led an army into Atlanta

You do know that Sherman did no such thing as burning Atlanta...that was done by the locals.....however he did make Georgia howl.

quote:

---

I like the sentiment but...frick Sherman

---

Down vote away, but I'm from the South and an LSU grad, and I LOVE Sherman. His method is HOW YOU FIGHT A WAR TO WIN. We should try it again sometime against our enemies.

quote:

---

there was no reason for him to burn an entire city. There's really nothing funny about that.

---

bullshite. War is hell.

Pussy.

Look up Curtis Lemay. He put Sherman to shame. THAT IS HOW YOU FIGHT A WAR.

quote:

---

Down vote away, but I'm from the South and an LSU grad, and I LOVE Sherman. His method is HOW YOU FIGHT A WAR TO WIN. We should try it again sometime against our enemies.

---

Atlanta was not the enemy. The south was not the enemy. This was an unnecessary war. So few people owned slaves, that the matter could have easily been resolved. The south wanted to secede due to, among other reasons, unfair tariffs that Lincoln was imposing on them. And Lincoln had no lawful right to stop them from doing so. The constitution gave the states individual sovereignty. The south was treated as a separate entity from the north by Lincoln. So the south had every right to seek independence.

So what did Lincoln do? He started a war. There was no stated purpose, in the beginning, that this had ANYTHING to do with slavery. Revisionist historians have invented that narrative. It was only when the British were preparing to come to the aid of the confederates, that Lincoln suddenly used ending slavery as his goal. It was a precursor to modern day smear politics, where people use "race" to muddy the waters and scare other aways from getting involved.

Do a little research on Lincoln. He was FOR slavery his whole life, until it was convenient for him to change course. His mentor was a Senator from Kentucky named Henry Clay, who was a slave owner... That's right, a slave owner from a union state. Do a little research on that, too. There were many of them. As someone else mentioned earlier, there were free blacks who also owned slaves. This whole demonization of the south was, and still is, based on a huge lie.

That war never should have happened. And so what Sherman did, was destroy the lives of his own countrymen, and it had no tactical purpose. No one was trying to destroy America. There were no foreign troops or terrorists threatening the freedom of American citizens. To compare that war to any other war is absurd.

Sherman didn't burn Atlanta, he burned Columbia, SC, the birthplace of the rebellion.

quote:

---

There was no stated purpose, in the beginning, that this had ANYTHING to do with slavery. Revisionist historians have invented that narrative

---

quote:

---

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

---

And more

quote:

---

[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

---

quote:

---

I heard Sherman was also the first Football HC, hired by then-AD Abraham Lincoln. Led LSU to it's first SEC Title in 1857.....

---

should we be claiming the Horace Greeley poll for national champion in 1859?

Not funny at all. You should be ashamed of your self.

quote:

---

General William Sherman

---

Screw that guy.

Geaux Burrow.