Author: Fuzzy Curmudgeon

There is a lot in this article about William Tecumseh Sherman that misses the point. Basically it’s a psychoanalysis after the fact of one of the greatest generals in our history, and it doesn’t work very well.
This quote directly follows a sub-head of “Criminal acts?”

Lincoln and Grant initially opposed the idea of the march, and Sherman went to great lengths to promote it, even advocating it on the basis of the diplomatic benefits when military reasons alone were not enough to justify it: The world would witness the awesome power of the Union and the utter helplessness of the South.

Actually the reason Lincoln and Grant opposed the idea of the march was that they figured it was a great way for Sherman to be destroyed in detail by Hood’s remnants, Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry, and Georgia state militia. They weren’t too worried about the legalities of the case.

Sherman’s actions, however, belied his words, typified by the incident when he made his headquarters at the plantation of Gen. Howell Cobb, a leading Rebel. “Spare nothing,” he ordered, and everything was burned, despite the fact that the deserted plantation offered no significant material aid to the Confederacy.

Uh huh. Let’s see what Mr. Foote has to say about that.

A leading secessionist and one-time speaker of the U.S. House and Treasury Secretary under Buchanan, Cobb had been appointed by [Governor] Joe Brown to command the state reserves in the present crisis; in which capacity — though it turned out there were no “reserves” for him to command — he had been exhorting his fellow Georgians to resist the blue invasion by the destruction of everything edible in its path. “Of course, we confiscated his property,” Sherman would recall, “and found it rich in corn, beans, peanuts, and sorghum molasses. . . . I sent back word to General Davis to explain whose plantation it was, and instructed him to spare nothing. That night huge bonfires consumed the fence rails, kept our soldiers warm, and the teamsters and men, as well as the slaves, carried off an immense quantity of corn and provisions of all sorts.”
His aim, he said, in thus enforcing “a devastation more or less relentless,” was to convince the planters roundabout “that it is in their interest not to impede our movements.” [Unfortunately his own foragers didn’t pay any attention to his orders and destroyed and confiscated these planters’ property along the line of march.]
…In time Sherman would concede that “many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence were committed by these parties of foragers. . . .” [He estimated that the march inflicted damage of at least $100,000,000,] “at least twenty millions of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simple waste and destruction. This may seem a hard species of warfare,” he declared, “but it brings the sad realities of war home to those who have been directly or indirectly instrumental in involving us in its attendant calamities.” Such, after all, was one of the main purposes of the expedition, and if, in its course, southern women had been subjected to certain discourtesies in their homes, there was a measure of justice in that as well, since they were among the fieriest proponents of a war that might have ended by now except for their insistence that it be fought to the last ditch. Many of the soldiers believed as much, at any rate. “You urge young men to the battlefield where men are being killed by the thousands, while you stay home and sing The Bonnie Blue Flag,” an Ohio colonel heard one of his troopers lecture a resentful housewife, “but you set up a howl when you see the Yankees down here getting your chickens. Many of your young men have told us they are tired of war, and would quit, but you women would shame them and drive them back.”
Foote, Shelby, The Civil War: A Narrative. Volume III, Red River to Appomattox, pp. 643-645

Mr. Trammell should pay a bit more attention to detail before using something like the burning of Cobb’s plantation out of context. And he should also remember that we don’t judge the Civil War by modern standards. It was a law unto itself.

According to Maj. Robisch, “Soldiers serving in the U.S. Army today would be criminally liable for larceny or destruction of property for similar conduct.” It was hardly the kind of action that would engender international support.

Indeed. However, let’s remember something: Our Civil War wasn’t an international event. Although they were invited by the South to play, the English and French opted to stay out. The rules are usually different in fratricidal conflicts…and again, you’re judging the Civil War by modern standards that simply do not apply.

The fact, mostly ignored for more than 137 years, is that Lee’s army was defeated by Grant’s tactical maneuvers, and not a lack of materiel. When the war closed, vast quantities of ammunition, clothing and food were still in warehouses in western North Carolina, and isolated parts of Virginia. Sherman’s march did not destroy a fraction of the total goods manufactured in Richmond, for example.

That’s true. But it’s also true that Grant’s army destroyed and occupied the FUCKING ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY RAILROADS, you numbskull. Lee’s army was out of food, ill-clad, and nearly out of ammunition when Grant ground it to a halt at Appomattox Courthouse, because for months its lines of supply had been cut or nearly so. Richmond was abandoned at least partly because the troops couldn’t be fed! Once Grant got across the Southside Railway, Lee knew the game was up, and tried to break out.

As for Georgia, the local effect was more devastating. The march set the Georgia economy back for almost 100 years, and left deep psychological scars.

Excuse me, but did I just hear the world’s tiniest violin playing?

Would the war have ended sooner if Sherman had taken the course Grant did in Virginia, and pursued Hood’s army to the death? No one can know, but it’s certainly a reasonable possibility.

Not to anyone who actually knows Civil War history. Sherman wasn’t about to go after Hood’s remnants. That was an ambush waiting to happen, what with Forrest waiting in the wings just itching to get his cavalry into Sherman’s flanks. Hood’s army was finished as a fighting force by the time Sherman started out on his march.
All in all I don’t think much of this article. The WashTimes’ Civil War page has been declining of late, unfortunately.

I was just reading this article over on NRO and had a bit of an epiphany.
Why not immediately double the pay of all military personnel?
A few restrictions, though. While we would accept the current obligations of those in the service as valid, any new recruit or any re-up would be a ten-year obligation; period, end of subject, only way out is to get killed or become permanently disabled or do something stupid that earns you a dishonorable. But after 10 years you could retire on half pension; after 20, full pension.
And at the same time we do this, welfare gets cut to subsistence levels. The message: Serve your country and make a decent living. Choose to sit on your duff, and you can just get by while you’re looking for a job.
If we’re really committed to a strong national defense and a years-long war on terror, we need recruits. And they should be paid enough to make joining up worthwhile. In turn they should be willing to serve for a longer period. And let’s face it, under this plan joining at 18 and reupping once gets you to 38 and a full pension; technically you could sit on your butt for the rest of your life. (Few probably would.)
I would have joined up 25 years ago for a deal like that. Instead I’m still a wage slave at 43. Ah well.

A must read.

REALLY busy today. Wearing 4 hats simultaneously. Arghh.

Says Fox.
I love some of the quotes.

“Gore was instrumental in helping to create the longest period of economic growth in our nation’s history, creating millions of new jobs, and turning record deficits into surpluses. He has served as a leader on environmental issues and in international affairs, working with passion and conviction to tackle the toughest challenges we face.” — Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who expects to make a decision soon on whether he will run.

Not even Clinton was instrumental in creating the longest period of economic growth in the nation’s history. It was created by Ronaldus Magnus in the 1980’s and the Clinton bozos simply rode it till the steam ran out. If Edwards can’t even get his economic history straight, he’ll make a lousy president. Which he would anyway; he’s a Democrat from the South.
And I won’t even talk about Gore’s “blame the humans” Luddite approach to environmentalism.

“From his trailblazing work on the environment and technology as a member of Congress to his extraordinary accomplishments as vice president in the areas of foreign affairs and economic security, Al has defined himself as someone who identifies problems before anyone else and offers solutions while others are still mulling the question.– Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, who associates say is “very, very likely” to run for president.

The problem with Gore’s answers is that he comes up with them so quickly, they’re still half-baked and still in the wrapper. Gore is not all that smart, and he is not a trailblazer by any stretch of the imagination. He does like to take credit for other people’s ideas and achievements, though: “I invented the Internet.”

“Al Gore was the best vice president America ever had. He would have been a fine president had history taken a different course two years ago.” — Former President Clinton.

Part I: Doubtful, and unproven. Part II: Probably better than you, you filthy scumbucket.

“While Al Gore will not be a candidate in 2004, I know we can count on both of them to speak out on the issues they have fought so hard for and care so deeply about.” — Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe.

I know this is out of context but both of whom? (And if both are Algore, which of the 50 different personalities are we talking about?)

“I have the greatest respect for Al Gore, for his many years of dedicated service to our nation, and for his decision, which I am sure was not an easy one,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y

“Plus, it gets him out of my way…”

“I think it opens the field. … Everybody has a chance and that’s an exciting time for us as Democrats.” — Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

And probably a belly-laughing time for those of us on the conservative side of the fence.

…if, as do I, you believe global warming is a complete crock of shit, is CO₂ Science Magazine. This is a publication of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

Stupid site: http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com
I won’t even link it, it’s so full of shit. “Shooting first” being one of the many misstatements of fact.

Columbia has revoked Michael Bellesiles’ Bancroft Prize.
They’ve asked him to return the prize money, $4000.
(Via Melissa Seckora at the Corner.)

We should have sunk the damn ship. We certainly had every right to do so; a non-flag carrier smuggling SCUD missiles has no protection under international law.
So here’s a big
FUCK YOU
to Dear Leader.

An interesting article (via LGF) on what’s being called “fourth generation warfare” talks about things that we’ve really known since the Civil War.
The report in question was written in 1989. It defines “fourth generation warfare” like this:

According to these tacticians, the purpose of their analysis was to predict the next generation of combat U.S. forces would encounter — the so-called “fourth generation.” As they saw it, this type of warfare has “a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him. Targets will include such things as the population’s support for the war and the enemy’s culture.” The authors predicted that armies of the future would “be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts.”
If this description of fourth-generation warfare seems familiar it is because that is how al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups conduct business against Israel, the United States and other Western nations.

It also seems familiar if you have read anything at all about the campaigns of Grant and Sherman.

Lind says that effectively combating fourth-generation warfare will present conflicts for American culture. The 1989 report states: “If we bomb an enemy city, the pictures of enemy civilian dead brought into every living room in the country on the evening news can easily turn what may have been a military success — assuming we also hit the military target — into a serious defeat.” Lind says that as the war continues, and U.S. forces pursue terrorist forces, Americans must get used to casualties among the civilians in whose midst the terrorist jihadists and their supporters will hide. Lind says Muslims who support terrorist attacks know and expect that. “As we weep even over their casualties,” he says, “they will be cheering over ours.”

The problem here is that we need to quit weeping over them at all. It’s amazing how relevant our Civil War is to the war on terrorism, because at least a couple of our generals understood immediately how to defeat the South: Pound on them repeatedly until they are utterly vanquished and tired of war. And don’t worry too much about what happens to them in the process; they started it and we’re going to finish it. Shelby Foote, in his wonderful trilogy, has put a lot of this in perspective:

“If the North design to conquer the South [wrote Tecumseh Sherman in 1862], we must begin at Kentucky and reconquer the country from there as we did from the Indians. It was this conviction then as plainly as now that made men think I was insane. A good many flatterers now want to make me a prophet.”
Prophet or not, he could speak like one in an early October letter to his senator brother: “I rather think you now agree with me that this is no common war…. You must now see that I was right in not seeking prominence at the outset. I knew and know yet that the northern people have to unlearn all their experience of the past thirty years and be born again before they will see the truth.” None of it had been easy thus far, nor was it going to be easy in the future. The prow of the ship might pierce the wave, yet once it was clear of the vessel’s stern the wave was whole again: “Though our armies pass across and through the land, the war closes in behind and leaves the same enemy behind…. I don’t see the end,” he concluded, “or the beginning of the end, but suppose we must prevail and persist or perish.” He saw only one solution, an outgrowth of his statement to his wife that the Federal armies would have to “reconquer the country . . . as we did from the Indians.” What was required from here on was harshness. “We cannot change the hearts of the people of the South,” he told his friend and superior Grant; “but we can make war so terrible that they will realize the fact that however brave and gallant and devoted their country, still they are mortal and should exhaust all peaceful remedies before they fly to war.”

A colonel from Massachusetts was even more direct and blunt as to what he saw as the only solution to the problem:

“Vindicating the majesty of an insulted Government, by extirpating all rebels, and fumigating their nests with the brimstone of unmitigated Hell, I conceive to be the holy purpose of our further efforts,” a Massachusetts colonel wrote home to his governor from Beaufort, South Carolina, and being within fifty airline miles of the very birthplace of rebellion, he added: “I hope I shall . . . do something . . . in ‘The Great Fumigation,’ before the sulphur gives out.” Just what it was that he proposed to do, with regard to those he called “our Southern brethren,” he had announced while waiting at Annapolis for the ship that brought him down the coast. “Do we fight them to avenge . . . insult? No! The thing we seek is permanent dominion. And what instance is there of permanent dominion without changing, revolutionizing, absorbing, the institutions, life and manners of the conquered peoples? . . . They think we mean to take their Slaves. Bah! We must take their ports, their mines, their water power, the very soil they plough, and develop them by the hands of our artisan armies. . . . We are to be a regenerating, colonizing power or we are to be whipped. Schoolmasters, with howitzers, must instruct our Southern brethren that they are a set of d—-d fools in everything that relates to . . . modern civilization. . . . This army must not come back. Settlement, migration must put the seal on battle, or we gain nothing.”
(All quotes from Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville, pp. 800-801)

This last is a bit too Roman for my taste (and very non-American, although at the same time I understand the man’s frustration), but I wonder what Reconstruction would have been like if we had followed a plan like that? (Probably an even bigger failure than it was, but then Lincoln didn’t plan on getting assassinated.)
Anyway, it’s clear that as far back as 1862, we knew what to do about a threat like al-Qaeda: Stomp on it like a bug and fumigate its nest. The defeat of barbarians requires acts that may themselves seem barbaric; but the alternative is too terrible to contemplate. Rome ultimately took the alternative way; we don’t have to follow in their footsteps.