Bestest Presidents

[David Floyd]

he got the job done...

So did Eichmann and Heydrich.

and was the father of modern warfare. every single war since Sherman has been fought with his tactics in mind, for better or for worse.

I really don't think I'd call Sherman the father of modern warfare, Speer. And in any case, his military tactics don't justify his war crimes.

(and truly, Sherman wasn't even that bad. he didn't kill civilians and didn't actively burn down people's homes. it was just that fires spread)

When you set fires in major cities, and do nothing to combat them, of COURSE the fires are going to spread

He also, I believe, marched prisoners through areas suspected to be mined.

and yet the Republican party ran as an abolitionist party... it was Bell and the Unionists/Whigs who were the ones who wanted to preserve the Union at all costs.

I'm not interested in the Republican Party - I'm talking about Abe Lincoln, and so were you.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

-- August 22, 1862 - Letter to Horace Greeley

[Al B. Sure!]

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new--North as well as South.

-Lincoln, June 16, 1858

[David Floyd]

Uh, what's your point? That's a weak comeback to my quote, which CLEARLY indicates that Lincoln's top priority was the preservation of the Union. Not only does your quotation do nothing to counter that, but it actually reinforces it in some ways (and, as a kicker, doesn't even directly show that Lincoln opposes slavery).

[Al B. Sure!]

So did Eichmann and Heydrich.

forgot who you were talking to?

I really don't think I'd call Sherman the father of modern warfare, Speer. And in any case, his military tactics don't justify his war crimes.

what war crimes? the same war crimes that every general after Sherman committed?

He also, I believe, marched prisoners through areas suspected to be mined.

that has been proven to be false... i had an assignment last year about Sherman and i was trying to dig up some dirt... there were a lot of unsubstantiated accusations (such as Sherman marching prisoners through mined areas or Sherman being racist and abandoning slaves). none of them panned out.

[Al B. Sure!]

(and, as a kicker, doesn't even directly show that Lincoln opposes slavery).

the rest of the speech most definently does... but it's long...

[Al B. Sure!]

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade - how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free" - unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

same speech

[David Floyd]

forgot who you were talking to?

No, but apparently you forgot who you were talking to, if you're trying to argue a point using modern military history.

what war crimes? the same war crimes that every general after Sherman committed?

To start with, Sherman ordered the destruction of Atlanta, by intentionally setting fires and allowing the fires to spread all over the city. Under 500 buildings in the entire city were still standing at the end, and this included private houses.

Following the destruction of Atlantic, he proceeded to "march to the sea", destroying all food and livestock in his path.

I don't think you can say every general since Sherman has willfully targetted civilians in that manner - but those who did are also war criminals (and I also consider people such as Curtis LeMay, in WW2, to be war criminals for what they did).

the rest of the speech most definently does... but it's long...

Fair enough, but that still doesn't counter my point.

[David Floyd]

Much better - now you showed that Lincoln personally opposed slavery. Congratulations. Now show me where Lincoln stated that ending slavery was his most important consideration

Oh, and just to make it a little more difficult, that quote is going to HAVE to be after August 22, 1862.

[Al B. Sure!]

To start with, Sherman ordered the destruction of Atlanta, by intentionally setting fires and allowing the fires to spread all over the city. Under 500 buildings in the entire city were still standing at the end, and this included private houses.

it was a tactical decision... Sherman's army was relatively small and weighted down by the hordes of freed slaves following it around. Sherman had reports that a confederate army was forming to oppose him. He simply did not have the numbers to garrison the city, hold off a Confederate offensive, and put down an insurgency in the city itself. obviously, his only choice was to take the city out of the picture. he did provide safety for the civilians, though...

Following the destruction of Atlantic, he proceeded to "march to the sea", destroying all food and livestock in his path.

not quite... much of it was given to the hordes of freed slaves who followed his army about. as for the rest, they couldn't carry it around with them so they scorched it. Sherman did order his men to take the names of the owners of seized and destroyed property, intending for there to be future compensation. it didnt really happen as far as i know. wasn't Sherman's fault. blame the US Gov't for that one.

[David Floyd]

Sherman's army was relatively small

Not compared to the forces of Joseph E. Johnston and then John Bell Hood. Sherman entered Georgia with around 100,000 men. The Confederate forces had around half that.

He simply did not have the numbers to garrison the city, hold off a Confederate offensive, and put down an insurgency in the city itself.

That really isn't true. He soundly beat Johnston and Hood at each opportunity - hell, Hood lost 11,000 men defending Atlanta alone.

as for the rest, they couldn't carry it around with them so they scorched it.

Hence the war crime - scorching the food supplies of civilians. I'm fully aware of what Sherman did - you don't consider his actions to be war crimes, and I do. Most people don't consider Curtis LeMay a war criminal, either, but I believe that any action taken against civilians that falls outside of the scope of unavoidable collateral damage is a war crime.

[Al B. Sure!]

that quote is going to HAVE to be after August 22, 1862? so easy...

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond--man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

-Lincoln, March 4, 1865

and don't forget the Emancipation Proclamation...

[David Floyd]

Read through the following article, if you have time.

http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/robisch.html

The gist of it is that, from a modern point of view, Sherman's tactics at Atlanta, and the March to the Sea, violated many international laws and conventions regarding the conduct of war, and some of his actions were not in compliance with General Order 100, the only applicable article regarding "war crimes" at the time.

Obviously, modern standards can't be applied retroactively, however, I think it's fair to say that Sherman still had certain moral obligations that he refused to fulfill.

[David Floyd]

I don't see how that quote establishes that Lincoln's first priority was ending slavery.

and don't forget the Emancipation Proclamation...

Which, oddly enough, only purported to free slaves in Confederate territory, not in any of the border states. It was a political move designed to weaken the South.

[Al B. Sure!]

Which, oddly enough, only purported to free slaves in Confederate territory, not in any of the border states. It was a political move designed to weaken the South.

and how would that be? the South wasn't taking orders from the federal gov't.

i have a question for you, mr. libertarian... why are you so pro-international law? i wouldn't think you would appreciate american citizens being tried for 'war crimes', defined by international bodies, and convicted by these same international bodies.

[David Floyd]

and how would that be? the South wasn't taking orders from the federal gov't.

Exactly. The EP, practically speaking, didn't do that much. It simply freed all slaves in states "still in rebellion", and was only enforceable when US troops conquered those states.

why are you so pro-international law?

I never said that I necessarily was.

i wouldn't think you would appreciate american citizens being tried for 'war crimes', defined by international bodies, and convicted by these same international bodies.

If Nuremburg was good enough for Keitel and Jodl, it was good enough for LeMay.

Although in general, you're right - I don't support the right of international bodies to try Americans, but then again, it isn't a problem, because I don't support the US fighting foreign wars to begin with.

I certainly support US trials for US war criminals.