Tuesday, May 1, 2007

The Truth about Sherman's March

Dr. Clyde Wilson takes apart a recent program about "Sherman's March" on the History Channel, exposing the usual litany of politically correct lies. Dr. Wilson says:

Our scholars give us the official story, dressed up and paraded yet again.

Sherman’s March was a great military feat. A lie. An army of 60,000 men marched through territory undefended except for a few thousand cavalry and home guards. Even this opposition gave Sherman trouble whenever it became active. And he was checked whenever he met a real Confederate force, even one greatly outnumbered.

Sherman’s army only seized food on its march because of necessity and in keeping with recognized rules of foraging. A stupendous lie. One does not need to look at a single Southern commentary but only at the words of Sherman and thousands of his men. The expedition was deliberately intended and carried out as a campaign of terrorism against the noncombatant population. The recognized rules of foraging did not involve the wholesale burning of dwellings, schools, and churches, destruction of crops and livestock, theft of everything portable of value, molestation of women, brutality toward old men, boys, and slaves, both male and female. This had been federal practice since the first day of the war but had not been previously as systematized. But, Golly, Sherman should not be criticized for burning Atlanta. He actually destroyed only a third of it!

Sherman’s army brought benevolent emancipation to grateful slaves. A lie. Again, one need not consult a single Southern source to establish beyond a doubt that Sherman and his men overwhelmingly despised the black population of the South and preyed upon them as readily as upon white women and children. If it had been a question of being there to free the slaves they would have all gone home.

Any atrocities that Sherman ordered or allowed were only just retaliation against Southerners, because the Southerners for some unaccountable reason, perhaps their natural depravity, were "vicious." This lie speaks for itself.

The deliberate sack and destruction of Columbia, after it had been peacefully surrendered, is no big deal and Southerners are emotional and deluded to resent it. This only works if you start with the assumption that Southerners are inferior beings and have no right to resent anything their betters do to them.

Share

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sherman and Grant were both ruthless scum.

elena maria vidal said...

Yes, they were.

Anonymous said...

Again I am sorry for not leaving a comment.

Were Generals Sherman and Grant alive after the Gulf War they wopuld have been tryed for war crimes.

Anonymous said...

Ther was a Union General Jefferson C. Davis who abandonned thousands of refugee blacks to the not to happy troops of the Confederacy. He claimed they were slowing him down and eating too much food. that they fared roughly as runaways is probably an understatement.

South Carolina is just now recoverng from the war.