What both Lee and Washington had, though, which is the reason for their legends, is great strength of character, a calm humility, and a sense of honor and duty both toward their men and their countries, that their men would have followed them anywhere. Both were model servant-leaders (particularly Lee, who after the war took a job as President of the bankrupt Washington College because he felt that educating the next generation might help him to heal the wounds of war).
Gettysburg/Gods and Generals
- Thread starter Myshkin
- Start date
- Status
What both Lee and Washington had, though, which is the reason for their legends, is great strength of character, a calm humility, and a sense of honor and duty both toward their men and their countries, that their men would have followed them anywhere. Both were model servant-leaders (particularly Lee, who after the war took a job as President of the bankrupt Washington College because he felt that educating the next generation might help him to heal the wounds of war).
AlexanderHenderson1647
Puritan Board Freshman
Disagree or agree for merits of the Southern cause argument as one might, there is nothing lost on Lee by way of any high regard assigned to him. The briefest survey of his character and successes will easily evince that. From all accounts, Southern and Northern, he was truly larger than life. For what it is worth, I believe that is a very sober assessment of the man and his legend, to say nothing of his outstanding Godliness. I wouldn't for one minute dismiss that as mythology, for all the difficulties that history poses to its students.
On your other note, McClellan was a strange bird. Those things you point out are fair assessments. He, like Lee, had the heat of political figures (read: the micromanagerial, derisive commander in chief, Honest Abe) bearing down on him. But, he was guilty of some genuinely bizarre inactivity that is only well explained (if nothing but in part) by his desire to not be a guilty of senseless slaughter, throwing both his men and his opponents into the meat grinder. You say this in a way, though I disagree with the term "decisive action." It seems euphemistic - Grant's "decisive action" got him branded a butcher and that seems to be the case. 'Sure, we will take heavy human losses, but attritition is on our side. We have enough 'meat' to wear you down if we just keep coming forward.' That isn't sound military strategy. Meade was his better in this way. But, McClellan was a believer and argued strongly against the way the War was prosecuted in his campaign for the Presidency against Lincoln. He had some strong arguments in his corner.
Don Kistler
Puritan Board Sophomore
With regard to "Pickett's Charge," I was told by a guide at the Gettysburg Battle Field that when the command to charge was given, 1/3 of the men refused to go. If that is true, one can only imagine what the full 15,000 might have accomplished that day.
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
I apologize if I was too euphemistic in referring to "decisive action." Finishing the war demanded a great and tragic slaughter, and Grant wasn't the only one tempted to put great numbers of his men's lives in danger to strike what he thought could be a decisive blow to shorten the war. Lee wasn't immune to the "just one more charge" temptation, as one of my old professors used to put it, either. I'm not sure McClellan's approach ended up being all that merciful, either, though, in the sense that his approach dragged things out and didn't in the end lead to less bloodshed. The bloodiest day of the war was on his watch, after all. So the question is, which approach would cause more suffering, trying to finish the war quickly while taking risks, or dragging it out through a slow strategy of maneuver?
But in agreement with your point about a war of attrition, this is actually the reason for my great admiration of Sherman (I know, I know, now I'm really in for it.) He found a way to achieve decisive strategic goals while avoiding loss of life among his own men and enemy forces, waging what was essentially psychological warfare before its time. Ironic that Grant was responsible for far more Southern deaths, but Sherman ends up the one being hated.
And yes, while I don't think Little Mac was an idiot, (although he'd be easier to explain if he were), he was definitely a "strange bird."
---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------
In partial answer to your question, generals from West Point in the war included both geniuses and dunderheads, just as "political generals" included geniuses and dunderheads. To me, the really significant contribution of West Point was the close connection among generals on both sides. The man leading the opposing forces might have been your roomate, or served alongside you in Mexico. It always interests me how well these generals could read each other across the battlefield due to prewar training and service together.
But in agreement with your point about a war of attrition, this is actually the reason for my great admiration of Sherman (I know, I know, now I'm really in for it.) He found a way to achieve decisive strategic goals while avoiding loss of life among his own men and enemy forces, waging what was essentially psychological warfare before its time. Ironic that Grant was responsible for far more Southern deaths, but Sherman ends up the one being hated.
And yes, while I don't think Little Mac was an idiot, (although he'd be easier to explain if he were), he was definitely a "strange bird."
---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------
In partial answer to your question, generals from West Point in the war included both geniuses and dunderheads, just as "political generals" included geniuses and dunderheads. To me, the really significant contribution of West Point was the close connection among generals on both sides. The man leading the opposing forces might have been your roomate, or served alongside you in Mexico. It always interests me how well these generals could read each other across the battlefield due to prewar training and service together.
AlexanderHenderson1647
Puritan Board Freshman
Nah, not completely out of bounds, I just draw a sharper distinction. Admittedly, it does get get dicey drawing lines of what is "appropriate" when exposing men to risk. But, in military terms, it isn't strategically sound. I would argue that it is the Biblical point of view that one should always want to spare as much bloodshed as possible. If it is necessary to be reckless with the life committed to your hands and against the military force opposing you, then you must do that. Likewise, were you a soldier, what would your preference be in your commanding officer? Sure, at times Lee and other headier Generals pulled out charges that seemed reckless. But Grant's strategy was generally so in the East.
In terms of Sherman v. Grant- Grant was not as guilty of the wanton atrocities committed on innocent citizenry. Would you argue that it is Biblical to deliberately expose innocents to the terrors of war? Sherman admitted to being a war criminal, and that with complete impunity. The premise being, he didn't believe there were "crimes" in war when you are on the "right" side. I would challenge you to tell me if you support these notions of a military leader as a Christian:
“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”
“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
“You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”
“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking”
"I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state."
Sherman to McCook"Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston." Brigadier General Edward M. McCook, "My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned....I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable."
Again, partisanship aside, I decry all attacks by Union or Confederate personnel who harmed or killed, without serious justification or by complete mistake, any citizen. Do you believe there is justification for wanton killing or senseless destruction from a Biblical perspective?
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
Very interesting post and quotations, and I'm grateful for the biblical perspective you have brought to the discussion. I do agree with the biblical principles you have outlined with regard to the status of civilians. However, not all Christian military men in the past have interpreted the Bible that way in warfare, and I'm hesitant to apply the term "war criminal" according to today's standards. Your condemnation of Sherman would condemn the 17th century Puritans as well, if we look at their behavior in the Pequot and King Philip's War. For a lengthier response about Sherman, I will need to wait until my current course load eases up a bit before I can dig into my old resources, as it's been a while since I have studied the subject in a more systematic way. I am interested in numbers concerning wanton killing of civilians, not having to do with reprisals. The main aim of his march was to interrupt the flow of foodstuffs to Lee's army, tear up railroads, and destroy public proerty and economic infrastructure. I'm not sure that this counts as wanton or senseless in wartime. Any 19th century army carried out reprisals, even against civilians, in the face of irregular warfare. We would term it criminal, but in the 19th century it was quite common.
Like you, not trying to be partisan, I can find similar statements urging war without mercy from Stonewall Jackson, whose genuine Christianity I don't think anyone here holds in doubt. Like Sherman, Jackson also wanted to pursue a destructive war, a short burst of cruelty, in order to end it sooner. He urged, "I always thought we ought to meet the Federal invaders on the outer verge of just right and defence, and raise at once the black flag, viz., 'No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides!'" He added that "The Bible is full of such wars, and it is the only policy that would bring the North to its senses." (quoted in James I. Robertson's biography). The Confederate government to its credit rejected his recommendations. He also wanted to hold norhtern cities for ransom. As you an I both interpret scripture to condemn such an attitude, Jackson believed the Bible justified a no prisoners policy. The Puritans in Massachusetts as well as Cromwell, similarly, applied the wars of the Old Testament in their actions at Mystic, Connecticut, and Drogheda, respectively.
My point is, that, tragically, the role of civilians in wartime has changed over the course of time, and it is encouraging to see that the trend is toward avoiding civilian death and suffering as much as possible. I would need to see figures of actual civilian deaths in the wake of Sherman's march, but foraging was common and accepted practice in the 19th century. Reprisals against civilian partisans were also accepted practice--one needs only look at the German reaction to French partisans in the Franco-Prussian War. One could argue that our Army Air Corps did far worse than anything Sherman's bummers got up to in its firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Here we get into the gray areas of war plants staffed by civilians and the like. It is really only recently, at least in historical terms, that Western armies have begun to see civilians as off limits, and civilian casualties now are the result of blunders or being used as human shields. Sherman was facing, as the quotations you provide, a hostile population that was supplying the Confederacy with food, men, and its will to fight. The second quotation you cite contains Sherman's motive--he wanted a quick end to the war, and both he and Jackson agreed that a hard war, as they would put it, was the surest means to that end.
As a non-polemical postscript, General Edward M. McCook is of great local interest here in Tallahassee, as he captured the city at the end of the war and implemented the Emancipation Proclamation here. Late as it is herear, I hope the above response is both coherent and collegial. It is interesting that Americans can still get worked up over the events of, well, exactly 150 years ago. Then again, I've visited a historic English church where the tour guide was mad that Cromwell's soldiers knocked over the statues and broke the stained glass windows, and that was in the 1650s!
This has been a good discussion. It would probably benefit from a pint or two.
Like you, not trying to be partisan, I can find similar statements urging war without mercy from Stonewall Jackson, whose genuine Christianity I don't think anyone here holds in doubt. Like Sherman, Jackson also wanted to pursue a destructive war, a short burst of cruelty, in order to end it sooner. He urged, "I always thought we ought to meet the Federal invaders on the outer verge of just right and defence, and raise at once the black flag, viz., 'No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides!'" He added that "The Bible is full of such wars, and it is the only policy that would bring the North to its senses." (quoted in James I. Robertson's biography). The Confederate government to its credit rejected his recommendations. He also wanted to hold norhtern cities for ransom. As you an I both interpret scripture to condemn such an attitude, Jackson believed the Bible justified a no prisoners policy. The Puritans in Massachusetts as well as Cromwell, similarly, applied the wars of the Old Testament in their actions at Mystic, Connecticut, and Drogheda, respectively.
My point is, that, tragically, the role of civilians in wartime has changed over the course of time, and it is encouraging to see that the trend is toward avoiding civilian death and suffering as much as possible. I would need to see figures of actual civilian deaths in the wake of Sherman's march, but foraging was common and accepted practice in the 19th century. Reprisals against civilian partisans were also accepted practice--one needs only look at the German reaction to French partisans in the Franco-Prussian War. One could argue that our Army Air Corps did far worse than anything Sherman's bummers got up to in its firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Here we get into the gray areas of war plants staffed by civilians and the like. It is really only recently, at least in historical terms, that Western armies have begun to see civilians as off limits, and civilian casualties now are the result of blunders or being used as human shields. Sherman was facing, as the quotations you provide, a hostile population that was supplying the Confederacy with food, men, and its will to fight. The second quotation you cite contains Sherman's motive--he wanted a quick end to the war, and both he and Jackson agreed that a hard war, as they would put it, was the surest means to that end.
As a non-polemical postscript, General Edward M. McCook is of great local interest here in Tallahassee, as he captured the city at the end of the war and implemented the Emancipation Proclamation here. Late as it is herear, I hope the above response is both coherent and collegial. It is interesting that Americans can still get worked up over the events of, well, exactly 150 years ago. Then again, I've visited a historic English church where the tour guide was mad that Cromwell's soldiers knocked over the statues and broke the stained glass windows, and that was in the 1650s!
This has been a good discussion. It would probably benefit from a pint or two.
AlexanderHenderson1647
Puritan Board Freshman
To be sure, thanks for the consideration. Again, I appeal not to how some might have allowed for "scorched earth," but challenge that they haven't any sufficient Scriptural grounds. So that, I would press with you. What is a Biblical war and where does it stop short?
I'll have to examine that. But, I would gladly hold them to a Biblical standard if they did in fact murder. Mind you, take your time and refresh what you've studied- I understand how school can drain time! I would appreciate hearing more. Now, I'd be surprised to hear you conclude that his main objective was more than what he himself proclaimed it to be- to demoralize by terror against one and all. Again, commonality or none, that doesn't count. Protestantism has more than a few heroes who DIDN'T wantonly harm innocents. Adolphus Gustavus to name one. He had one of his own men executed for stealing a cow from a citizen!
Now here's were we truly cross sabers- Jackson would in NO way be counted with Sherman in his wartime policy. His benign treatment of innocents is well documented. Some of his policies became standard with the Geneva Conventions (ie. paroling medical personnel.) There is only some question about his policy against some in WV, but I'm not for sure of that in particular. Jackson was correct, I believe, and to the shame of the Confederate government his concept of the "no quarter" was rejected. Note the above highlights. No quarter to invaders. Or in the abler words of Dabney, in Life and Campaigns, "The character of his thinking was illustrated by the declaration which he made upon assuming this command, that it was the true policy of the South to take no prisoners in this war. He affirmed that this would be in the end truest humanity, because it would shorten the contest, and prove economical of the blood of both parties; and that it was a measure urgently dictated by the interests of our cause, and clearly sustained by justice. This startling opinion he calmly sustained in conversation, many months after, by the following considerations, which he prefaced with the remark, that, inasmuch as the authorities of the Confederate States had seen fit to pursue the other policy, he had cheerfully acquiesced, and was as careful as other commanders to enjoin on his soldiers the giving of quarter and humane treatment to disarmed enemies. But he affirmed this war was, in its intent and inception, different from all civilized wars, and therefore should not be brought under their rules. It was not, like them, a strife for a point of honor, a diplomatic quarrel, a commercial advantage, a boundary, or a province; but an attempt on the part of the North against the very existence of the Southern States. It was founded in a denial to their people of the right of self-government, in virtue of which, solely, the Northern States themselves existed. Its intention was a wholesale murder and piracy, the extermination of a whole people's national life. It was, in fact, but the “John Brown Raid” resumed and extended, with new accessories of horror, and, as the Commonwealth of Virginia had righteously put to death every one of those cut-throats upon the gallows, why were their comrades in the same crime to claim now a more. honorable treatment? Such a war was an offence against humanity so monstrous, that it outlawed those who shared its guilt beyond the pale of forbearance." There is nothing cruel about self-defense. It is unfortunate and regrettable, but not cruel. The cruelty is when one forces you to use deadly force against them and then the blood is on their hands. Were someone to bolt through my door right now with the intent of killing my family and I had to resort to deadly force, I wouldn't be guilty of cruelty. The South was fighting a defensive war. Again, the CSA was plagued with a number of faults, so this is not a perfectly pure war, but it was justified in that way, I believe. Note, I contrast that sharply against attacking and terrorizing citizenry at large, ie. 'you show up in a sovereign state with a gun in your hand to kill our citizens, you are guilt of a capital crime' vs. 'we believe your government is doing something illegal- in order to force them to quit fighting, we will kill and harm indiscriminately.' Again Dabney says, "His action, like Cromwell's, was always vigorous, and at the call of justice could be rigid. But his career could never have been marked by a massacre like that of Drogheda, or an execution like that of the King."
Regarding the first part, I believe you will find some shocking facts. There are some sad actions taken to terrorize and murder. The second part we agree on. If there is a war, soldiers will forage to eat, take arms to better equip themselves, plunder practical stuffs for use in the field. That's the sad matter of war and I believe justifiable even today. But even people of this time were shocked at the treatment given to the innocents.
Again, if we are talking what was "accepted" then some would ok Sherman's actions. You're referring to partisans, and I say that has a limited scope Biblically speaking. Are any giving excuse to the Germans in their treatment of the French? I'm sure there are some, but would their actions be "accepted." That I'm not so certain of. Nor am I justifying the US Army in their air raids - I'm pretty convinced that they murdered in those blanket bombings of heavily citizen laden centers. I haven't read of a genuine justification for the military tactics being acted out, but I could be wrong. Now Sherman will tell you in his own words that he was out to make the average citizen feel war, just because they lived and breathed in enemy territory. Terror and demoralization, not Biblical tactics and always an outrage, even at that time and well before. None of those quotes justify Sherman. I mean, with the "quick end" mentality, one could argue that a "just" party in a war could capture women from occupied enemy cities and gang rape them vowing to continue until the enemy surrendered. They would likely get a speedy surrender, but at what moral cost? Of course I'm not trying to characterize your argument/position as this, but it is a matter to be encountered (and not a charge that Sherman's forces are free from.) Where does the line get drawn? Again, note Sherman says, 'grab them at random and shoot them. Burn houses at random,' etc. He's not just taking out partisans per se, even allowing for that position.
Too bad Lincoln never saw fit to enforce it in the North nor any of the Southern states occupied by his armies!
Very much so, I appreciate chatting it over. Well, if were just a matter of Xs and Os, it'd be just a kid's game, but as it is, 600,000 souls went flying to eternity and our nation was forever altered. We are living the consequences of the worldviews at work then. One ought never lose perspective. I was wondering about that pic of yours- I thought that was the Lord Protector! I'm trying to figure out what to do with him. I've studied him and have friends who are on either end of the "lover - loather" spectrum. Morecraft hails him as the exemplary hero- Dabney calls him insincere and a fanatic usurper. *Sigh* Sometime you need to give me some perspective. I want to like him, but I'm not for sure if I should.
If I ever make it to Tallahassee, I'm taking you up on this. I extend the same offer should you get up to SE Tennessee
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
You are correct--that is Cromwell's statue oustide the Houses of Parliament. I did an MA thesis on him, and I have a love-hate relationship with him, myself.
- Status
