-
American Moses
October 12, 2011 | 30 comments
-
Everybody Loves Reagan
January 31, 2011 | 60 comments
-
Meet Todd Young
August 27, 2010 | 14 comments
-
Paul Johnson’s Churchill
January 11, 2010 | 24 comments
-
Art Doesn’t Work
November 3, 2009 | 17 comments
Special Report
Positively Shermanesque
It’s okay if top Republicans follow the example of William Tecumseh Sherman and decline to run for president.
Republicans, increasingly anxious about the approaching presidential contest, are spending an inordinate amount of time searching for saviors.
As a result, accomplished governors, charismatic candidates-turned talk show hosts, and rising congressional stars have been beseeched to run, and all have politely declined.
Disconsolate, GOP faithful wonder how any concerned and qualified citizen could possibly resist the call of the White House. For guidance, they should consult William Tecumseh Sherman.
The controversial general’s notoriety extends beyond his brilliant battlefield strategy; by his own admission, he was the first American to turn down the presidency.
Sherman’s rejection of the 1884 Republican presidential nomination, referenced with regularity every four years, is legendary. But his rationale for refusing, less frequently cited, should provide comfort to those who opt not run and bring clarity to their frustrated suitors.
The demand for the general’s candidacy actually predated the 1884 contest by more than two decades. Shortly before Union forces, under Sherman’s command, captured Atlanta in September 1864, some Democrats, looking for a solider-candidate, set their sights on the architect of that soon-to-be concluded campaign.
But when Sherman caught wind that Democrats hoped to make him their man, he wrote disgustedly, “If forced to choose between the penitentiary and the White House for four years… I would say the penitentiary, thank you.” The Democrats nominated General George McClellan, and Sherman, never comfortable with politics, managed to steer clear of presidential talk. For a time.
After President U.S. Grant’s renomination in 1872, forward-looking Republicans envisioned Sherman, now Commanding General of the U.S. Army, as his successor. But Sherman, whose distrust of politicians (in his opinion, they were men who used “their temporary power for selfish ends” ) had been reinforced during Grant’s ethically-challenged administration, flatly informed former Missouri Congressman James S. Rollins that he would not accept the job — even “if nominated or elected.”
As if to underscore this, Sherman relocated Army headquarters from Washington to St. Louis, where he remained until called back to the capital in 1875.
Sherman’s retirement and return to Missouri in 1884 coincided with another presidential contest, and yet another attempt to coerce the old general into the fray. As Republicans gathered in Chicago in June to settle on a standard bearer, loyalties fractured between President Chester Arthur, James G. Blaine, and George Edmunds.
Naturally, Sherman was suggested as a unity candidate and implored to run. Blaine had cautioned him that this was almost inevitable. True to form, the 64-year old Sherman scoffed that only “a fool, a madman, an ass” would embark on a new career at his age, and that he would not sacrifice his personal life nor the happiness of his family, now settled in St. Louis and safely removed from the corrupting influence of Washington, for the presidency. He reminded Blaine that “their thoughts, and feelings should and ought to influence my action.”
Sherman also had no interest in submitting to the scrutiny of the press. “If I ran for President I’d wake up some morning and find all over the newspapers that I’d poisoned my grandmother,” he told another acquaintance. “Now you know I never saw my mother’s mother, but the newspapers would say I killed her and prove it.”
This did little to squelch the movement. As the convention commenced, telegrams from Chicago to St. Louis told the general that his nomination was all but certain, and he should prepare to answer his party’s call. On June 5, however, Sherman settled the matter.
Upon receipt of a wire warning that he must put aside his “prejudices and accept the presidency,” Sherman, without removing the cigar from his mouth, scrawled a response: “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.”
He then handed the message to his son Thomas for delivery. The younger Sherman recalled that his father “then went on with the conversation he had been engaged in.”
About the Author
Ryan L. Cole writes from Indiana.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ryan L. Cole
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/15/positively-shermanesque
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- Current Wisdom
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.15.11 @ 6:30AM
I'm glad I read your article.
I had thought it was Sarah Palin who had poisoned her grandmother. Now I know better.
Alan Brooks| 6.15.11 @ 1:13PM
yes, Sherman was a great deal better than any of today's politrickians.
Cosmo| 6.16.11 @ 3:03AM
Yes, Sherman was a great guy...except for how many civilians did he kill? American citizens?
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:04AM
Not as many civilians were killed by Sherman as you think. Further, unlike the meatgrinder of battle that the Army of the Potomac went through, the Army of the West arrived in washington, DC, fairly intact.
Sherman destroyed property and pride.
Mike Hawk| 6.15.11 @ 6:54AM
I thought W poisoned his grandmother.
Gen Sherman's brother was US Senator from Ohio. One in the family and that was enough for him.
He hated politicians and newpapermen. He once said during the Civil War that if he had had all the reporters killed that afternoon, there would be news from hell by morning.
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 11:45AM
If somenone doesn't want the job why would anyone force them. I think Mrs. Palin would be foolish to run. The harassment of her family would be terrible. She is too young and so is her family to stand the strain of these jackels. Better an old timer who has seen it all. Ron Paul for Presidentt. Rand Paul for Vice President.
Nick| 6.15.11 @ 12:07PM
Yes, Jack, yes.
And Bigfoot for Treasury. Oh...and the Loch Ness Monster for Defense.
How many delegates did Paul win in the '08 primaries? What percentage of the vote did he get in the primaries? How many states did Paul win?
I'll save you the time:
# of delegates - 40
% of the vote - less than 5%, on Super Tuesday
# of states won - ZERO!
Ron Paul will NEVER be president.
Get a new hobby.
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 12:49PM
Get used to the fact that Ron Paul and his ideas are the future of the party. No prowar, pro bankster Republican can win. I watched the debate and saw Paul get most of the applause. I also saw the other people on stage moving his way on the issues. No to any more big government, bankster loving warmongers. Ron Paul or someone who convincingly sounds like him will be the nominee. Or the party will die. His issues are defining the campaign. The day of the neocons is over. It is time to return the party to small government conservativism. That is what the Tea Party is all about.
Nick| 6.15.11 @ 3:12PM
Yes, Jack, yes. I agree.
Ron Paul is defining the campaign. He'll show them all!!!
Especially about the strawberries!
Ahh, yes....the strawberries that's... that's where he has them. They laughed at the Paulbots and made jokes, but Ron proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with...with geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and the Paulbots would have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers........
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:30AM
Nick, Nick...Ron Paul as Old Yellowstain? Magnifique!
Nick| 6.17.11 @ 2:46PM
Thanks, OT!
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:06AM
That's right, jack. No Jew supported Zionist lackspittle can win. The future is Islam! The future is Sharia! the Future is Child rape! the Future is Ron Paul!
My ass, scumbag.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 1:49PM
Sic'em Nick!
SpiralArchitect| 6.15.11 @ 2:05PM
Yes. The GOP is simply going to surrender all that it is & the Big Gov will join in with submission of it's girth and grandure.
"Yes, we are a tired old gargantuan entity, all consuming all powerful. Let us disband and submit because people say we are too large. No, we will not accept any proposed opposition or interferrence - do as you wish." -Big Gov
Yes, I can see it now.
Clint| 6.15.11 @ 9:13PM
CNN Poll May,2011:
Ron Paul,The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama. The poll indicates the president leading Gingrich by 17 points, Palin by 19, and Trump by 22 points. "
Nick| 6.17.11 @ 2:47PM
Thanks, Mr. Tomlinson!
SonOfSam| 6.15.11 @ 7:42AM
Enough with the "looking for a savior"! First off, politics ain't salvation. Second, the closest we've come to a truly mythic President in my lifetime is Ronald Reagan, and I believe that he would be the first to say, knock it off with this "savior" nonsense. We are free people; we don't need a ruler or someone to "run" the country. We need to run this country, and we need to start by taking personal responsibility, and by re-claiming what is rightfully ours from the pretenders and usurpers in Washington. You don't do that by blindly following a "savior"
Patzer| 6.15.11 @ 8:40AM
Well said, Sir!
SonOfSam| 6.15.11 @ 12:35PM
Thank you, I do try to be as articulate as possible.
SpiralArchitect| 6.15.11 @ 2:06PM
You gone dun gud.
Shermans riding again!| 6.16.11 @ 6:31PM
Reading my mind?
SteveE| 6.15.11 @ 9:38AM
Oh, how quickly we forget! Well, it WAS a long time ago - a little less than three years, I believe - that the liberals found THEIR savior. Sorry. Apply the adjective "savior" to any politician and my BS antennae are fully extended. I cannot remember the exact quote, and certainly not who it's credited to, but... "Any man who wishes to be President should immediately be disqualified on the grounds of poor judgement." You're spot-on SoS.
SonOfSam| 6.15.11 @ 12:37PM
Thanks Steve, and thank you for reminding us of one of the main things that separates us from the libs: as conservatives and patriots, we DON'T put all of our faith in one person, ever. And we don't follow blindly, no matter what the tingly legged haters out there might believe of us
Ned the Red| 6.15.11 @ 10:15AM
I agree Son Of Sam. I always think of Grant telling his officers at the Battle of the Wilderness in 1864 to knock off all the nonsense about, "what is Lee going to do?". Grant said something like he is only a man, you guys act like he is going to come flying in here any minute do a few back flips and win the battle.
SonOfSam| 6.15.11 @ 12:33PM
Ultimately, all men are flawed human individuals, who eat in front and crap out the back like everyone. This applies to everyone, from the dude who ring up your order at Wal Mart, to the mightiest leaders in history. I put my trust in GOD. I'll give everyone else a fair hearing, but I try to do it with my brain switched on and my eyes wide open
Michael Tomlinson| 6.15.11 @ 1:52PM
Sanity!
What's sad many of those posting on TAS would be calling Reagan a RINO based on his real policies and not the myth "created" by the so-called alternative media that "twists and pulls" Reagan into a caricature to support their agendas and not his.
J.T.Foster| 6.15.11 @ 7:58AM
You folks need a history lesson bad.W.T.Sherman was a war criminal worse than any we have witnessed in our time.He makes Khadafy and Hitler look like school boys.
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 8:14AM
What garbage!
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 8:28AM
You are a revisionist!
Read his "Letter to Atlanta." Particularly the last 3 paragraphs.
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty.....Mayor.html
grant1863| 6.15.11 @ 8:55AM
Thank you for the link.
Patzer| 6.15.11 @ 8:41AM
B.S. They had it coming.
Greycoat| 6.15.11 @ 8:56AM
Gen J.E.Johnston invited him in & set the table for his boys.
SteveE| 6.15.11 @ 9:50AM
Wow, JT. What other funny stories have you heard in this "world" you live in? I heard a good one the other day. Maybe they tell the same story in your world. The title was... I know, don't tell me... Oh, yeah... "The War of Northern Aggression"... Geez, dude. Sherman marched his army across the land, and destroyed his declared enemy's will and ability to make war. These are war crimes? I'm glad "we" won the air war in WWII.
BackToBasics| 6.15.11 @ 11:37PM
The same folks do not make any noise about the total bombing of 1 square mile of Dresden, Germany that killed 60,000 in one night. Oh, I forgot, that happened when a Democrat was president.
mike daniels| 6.15.11 @ 10:17AM
Still smarting about getting whipped down there Billy Bob???
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:08AM
JT. You are so full of shit, sir. Hitler murdered tens of millions. He raped and tortured and his subordinates made lampshades out of the skin of his victims.
Sherman won the war for the Union at relatively low cost in blood.
Louis Jenkins| 6.15.11 @ 8:07AM
To the victor goes the spoils. For whatever reason Sherman refused to take the spoils. Perhaps he was satisfied with the fame that gutting the South brought to him.
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 9:05AM
I don't think so. He disliked politicians and positively detested journalists. He could not get along with the press. He is supposed to have said that if he lined up all the camp following journalists who followed his army and had them shot he would be receiving dispatches from hell from them on the next day.
JFGalt| 6.15.11 @ 12:57PM
I think Gen Sherman liked who he was. He chose with whom to associate with and call friend. In politics you never know who your real friends are.
Sarah Palin scares me in that she really wants to be president. So does Mitt Romney and the host of other wannabees. We've seen that nothing stood in OBAMA!'s way. Neither truth nor fiction just "Change We Can Believe In". We got change alright. That's all I have left in my savings. Whenever I hear someone speak of public service all I can picture is a pig at a feeding trough. It's no wonder Colin Powell didn't want to be president and even when he relented and became Sec of State, the pros sent him to the slaughter with phoney facts to present at the UN in the case against Iraq. Our system of govt is broken or rather it is in the hands of an elitist group of thugs who jet over the flyover country as if we merely exist to feed their treasuries. Well, we're still here and getting sick of it. Will any of the latest crop of Rino Republicans save us - nope, sorry Charlie! Even if elected, what will they bring to the table? Nothing but the same old failed policies and people. The Tea Party has been thoroughly co-opted thanks to the Republicorps. When was the last time you even hear Tea Party mentioned except as a derision.
albert constantine jr.| 6.15.11 @ 9:14AM
The most dangerous people in politics are those who prefer to be kingmaker instead of king. It appears he recognized this characteristic in those who approached him to run and wisely declined.
George S| 6.15.11 @ 9:38AM
Liberals look to saviours to lead them to utopia. Conservatives look to candidates to steer in the opposite direction.
Derek Leaberry| 6.15.11 @ 9:39AM
Sherman, along with Lincoln and Sheridan, were the USA's first totalitarians. But how were these men formed in our beloved country?
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 11:43AM
Stay on point.
There are websites where you can re fight the civil war and argue about it's causes and outcome. Go there. The subject of this article is about choosing not to run for President.
Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 4:41PM
Bob K., apparently you are new here. This website becomes a place to re-fight the War of Northern Agression every time someone writes a positive article about Lincoln. Just search for articles about Lincoln and you will see.
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 6:10PM
Thanks Red for the tongue in cheek humor. I'm very old here and I am wearied of their collective insanity! I tried to head it off at the pass this time but to no avail. These clowns must have access to some secret "dungeons and dragons" game that is centered on the Civil War and the damage it did to Western Civilization!
Next time I will try mockery and lampoon when they appear. Feel free to join me.
Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 11:25PM
Bob K., I think you misunderstand me. I very much support the Southern position. Secession is a moral and legal option under our system as originally intended, and Lincoln had no right to prevent it by force of arms. That he did so makes him a tyrant. I can assure you that no tongue in cheek humor was intended, and I am sorry that wasn't clear.
Bob K.| 6.16.11 @ 2:33AM
Without his actions (supported by the people in the north) to save the Union we would be living in a much different world than we are now. And he could not have done it without this political backing and support of the North. Both my paternal great grandfathers with their 4 brothers each, supported it and fought in it and were not drafted. They volunteered.
Your side lost and I'm glad it did. The dispute could not have been settled without war. That is a historical fact. It is more than a fact, it is the truth.
I won't mock you but I do feel sorry for people like you who can't let go of the past nor love America for what it became after that war.
Both of my maternal great-grandparents immigrated here from Poland during the great immigrations that took place after that war. They came here because they wanted to partake in the opportunities and freedoms the war preserved in this country. It was no longer partitioned by political hatreds and it treated all men equally. We had to go to war to establish that fact so all the world could see it. I would not be here but for that war.
Most of us wouldn't be here if you think about it.
Red Phillips | 6.16.11 @ 7:27AM
"Without his actions (supported by the people in the north) to save the Union we would be living in a much different world than we are now."
Precisely. I would be living in a world with a more decentralized human scale government as it should be. I wouldn't have the massive tyrannical central government I endure now.
And the conflict most certainly could have been settled without war. The South could have simply been allowed to secede peacefully as was their right. Only a tyrant kills people to keep together what is supposed to be a voluntary union.
Bob K.| 6.16.11 @ 7:12PM
And would an independent South have gone to war against Hitler? And helped to save Western civilization?
Would we (I use the plural to represent the independent North and South. 2 of the 5 nations that would share North America.--Russia owned Alaska.) have had our expansion to the West if there were an Independent South or would we have eventually warred with each other over that?
Would either of us have become the greatest maritime nation in the world with the greatest fleet in history as we became after our Civil War?
Would either of us have had economies which would have eventually driven Communist Russia into effective bankruptcy?
There are many other questions of this nature which you may regard as fantastical but it is the only way to respond to fantasy.
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:29AM
Yes, Red, you would. The individual states would have been swallowed by the Red Army.
We are exceptional, and the last, best hope of earth. Someone said that last bit. Trying to remember who...
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 6:06PM
You confederate apologists make me ill. The confederacy held three and one half million human beings in chattell slavery, bought and sold men, women and children, and you Red have the nerve to complain about present-day "tyranny"! What a laugh.
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:09AM
Red, I'm sorry. The true Title for the war is "The Late Unpleasantness."
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 1:09PM
Right on Derek: They were 3 of the biggest war criminals in history. They devastated a third of the country and laid it in waste. The South didn't rcover for 100 years. Slavery ended all over the world peacefully, without all this bloodshed. We should have let the South go it's own way. Lincoln supported slavery in the South for perpituity. He was much more intrested in the Tariffs lost then in freeing the slaves.
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:14AM
Ah, Jack. Were that you were only alive in the time of Custer....he would know what to do...
Had lincoln let the South go it would have meant the end for true free government. We would have degenerated into a land of squabbling duchies, and the Nazis would have won WWII, if the Kaiser didn't win the First.
Now, I know that Nazis winning fills your wittle Pat Buchanan underwear with....glee, but most Americans don't think so.
Lincoln was our greatest 19th Century President. Sorry, folks. Give me a break. The Greatest President of the 19th and 20th Centuries (Lincoln and Reagan) have both been men shaped and formed by the soil of Illinois. Unfortunately, the worst President of the last 100 years was shaped by that same soil.
wally| 6.15.11 @ 9:57AM
Nice article. However, this:
The controversial general's notoriety extends beyond his brilliant battlefield strategy
Is nonsense- the man was a boob on the battlefield. Would not listen to his betters (Thomas) and end the Atlanta campaign way earlier than it did end. Afraid to fight, and when he did he demonstrated a complete failyre to grasp the situation at hand.
Bag General. Probably would have been a good president, however...
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:15AM
Dear wally---actually, Sherman was a mediocre battlefield General, it is true.
But he was the best strategist of the Civil War.
Seek| 6.17.11 @ 3:52PM
And he knew how to deal with the Indians.
wally| 6.15.11 @ 9:58AM
If only I could learn to spell...
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 2:43PM
I rather like failyre. Maybe you just coined a term. As in "Your Failure".
Handy| 6.15.11 @ 10:08AM
What about that war criminal Harry Truman? Didn't he incinerate a lot of Jap civilians? Oh yeah, he ended WWII rather quickly, saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives.
Same with Sherman's march. He was in it to win it.
Don| 6.15.11 @ 11:48AM
realy stupid comparison - Truman would not have killed Georgians.
Handy| 6.16.11 @ 12:04AM
Stalin was from Georgia, so I guess you are correct.
Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 1:11PM
Truman was a war criminal of the worst order. The Japanese were begging for peace terms. There was no excuse for what Truman did. It was more about a demonstation of this terrible weapon to the Soviets.
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 1:59PM
What too many fail to realize is the war,by its nature, is immoral. The most moral thing to do is end it quickly. We tried not to in Nam with incrementalism and look at our theaters today. We should be most reluctant to go to war and most dilligent in applying overwhelming force to end it.
Handy| 6.16.11 @ 12:44AM
We all know about you wimps in Wisconsin, Jack. If Truman had any balls, he would have nuked North Korea to demonstrate real power to the Commies.
Instead, he fired MacArthur and left close to 50,000 of our own in the cold, cold ground.
Come to think of it, Truman was a war criminal. His enemy was us. The treasonous bastard's legacy lives on. We haven't won a war in over 65 years.
Seek| 6.17.11 @ 3:53PM
Actually, we've won every war we've fought in the last 65 years, including Vietnam. We just haven't won too many peaces. Ask Panama's Manuel Noriega how we did there back in 1989.
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:19AM
So begging for peace terms that they didn't surrender after Hiroshima, Jack.
So begging for surrender that they were preparing for a horrific invasion that would have wiped out, BY PLAN, the initial American and British divisions planning it.
You should look at the work of Paul Fussell on this. Paul tended towards the Liberal side in his writing. He also wrote a book called "Thank God For the Atom Bomb."
Unlike you, Paul was WWII infantry. My granddad was WWI infantry. All I can say is "thank G-d for the atom bomb."
By the way, they didn't surrender until several days after Nagasaki!
Yeah, they were ready to surrender, all right.
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 5:27PM
Jack - Your ignorance of WWII history is breathtaking. Far from "begging for peace terms," the Japanese were prepared for and intent on brutal combat to the last Japanese citizen. It was only their belief that the US had additional bombs that resulted in their surrender. If that had happened and there had been no bombing, the Japanese death toll -- not to mention the American deaths -- would have far exceeded that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And, I, personally, would never have been born. My father, having survived Normandy and then 175 days of continuous German rocket attacks on Antwerp (day and night, for 175 days -- as a medic, the number of dead and wounded Belgians and Americans he had to save and treat was uncountable) -- was waiting to be redeployed to Asia at the time of the Japanese surrender. I'm glad he made it. And glad Truman made the decision he did.
Bob K.| 6.18.11 @ 10:00AM
There is another factor that contributed to Japan surrendering. John Lukacs writes about it at p.158 of his "The Legacy of the Second World War." Yale Univ. Press, 2010. "Not only because of the atomic bomb, as many believe: but principally because the slogan of Unconditional Surrender was-wisely-modified by President Truman and some of his advisers. They chose not to insist on the removal of Emperor Hirohito from the Japaneses throne, in other words, Japan's surrender was not entirely "unconditional." It was Hirohito alone who was able to impress upon the Japanese people that they must cease fighting, that they had lost this war. Much good came from that: or, perhaps better put, much more harm was spared."
And then we also often forget that Russia had agreed at Yalta not to enter the war against Japan until 45 days after Germany's surrender and they were quite willing to enter the war because they wanted to partake in a partition of Japan. Particularly it's northern islands.
C Smith| 6.15.11 @ 10:15AM
William Tecumseh Sherman, a name that cannot so much as be mentioned without the somber recollection of Sherman's "March to the Sea." Regardless of one's regard for Sherman as a man, his enduring legacy is one of restoring the "kingdom" of the states. Sherman and his scorched earth campaign have a future counterpart for those who say: "... Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (2Peter 3:4).
"Who is this that cometh from Edom [Jordan], with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth" (Isaiah 63:1-6).
"And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs [the length of Palestine]" (Revelation 14:20).
cicero| 6.15.11 @ 10:52AM
During the late stages of the Civil War, the citizens of Georgia were still providing Lee's army with the provisions necessary to carry on the war. As a result of the southern press' blatantly false reporting, the Georgians and South Carolinians actually believed that they were winning the war. Sherman's march to the sea was his way to show theem that the Union, in fact, could go wherever it wanted to, and the Southern armies couldn't do anything about it. This was to convince them that continuing the war was futile. The march burned all the crops along the way. There was no mass killing or raping of civilians. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any at all. Johnson, the Confederate general in command of the southern army that was to oppose him pulled back, and offered no resistance. He also failed to come to the assigtance of Lee in Virginia. Sherman's march, in fact, ended the war.
For some unknown reason, the Civil War is the only war where the victors let the vanquished write the history. As a result, Lee became a genius, and Stonewall Jackson , had he lived, would have won the war. I recommend the memiors of both Grant and Sherman.
RCV| 6.15.11 @ 11:25AM
You're absolutely right, Cicero. After the deal that gave the 1876 election in exchange for ending Reconstruction, the Southern myths permeated poular history. Grant's reputation got tanked, and Reconstruction was painted as a criminal disaster. The Confederates were allowed to reimpose slavery in a new form and pretend, for another century, that they were complying with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
NoBama2012| 6.15.11 @ 11:39AM
Sherman was an original. Just as Grant, he was no Lee or Jackson fighting overwhelming odds but both were among the few Union generals who understood how to properly use the federal advantage in men and arms. While he went down in Georgia as a butcher he simply understood the necessity of ending a war that had needlessly gone on for 4 bloody years and was magnanimous to his opponents in victory. His refusal to engage in the often underhanded game of politics was one important measure of the man but a second one stands out as well. When he passed away, Joseph Johnston the Confederate General who had stood in his way thought enough of him to act as a pallbearer for his former enemy in bad weather, caught a cold in the process and died himself a few weeks later.
wally| 6.15.11 @ 12:10PM
Not meaning to be disagreeable, but neither Garnt nor Sherman understood how to properly use their advantages. Both used outdated, unimaginative (murderous) tactics -frontal infantry assaults against fortified works, etc.-that wasted far more northern lives than was necessary.
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 1:55PM
Wally, as far as tactics go you are correct. The candidacies were just an outcome (like Ike) of their military success. Albeit much preferable to community organizers as we have learned. Sherman also was (probably) clinically depressed or bi-polar) which could have been dangerous even in pre-nuclear times. We should worry about ineptitude in our commander-in-chief and too often we do not. For example, Colin Powell- wrong on many issues- still had the executive command experience to do the job. We need a combination of that background coupled with a keen understanding of free market economics. Look hard and pray that such a one is here.
wally| 6.15.11 @ 2:35PM
Amen.
Handy| 6.16.11 @ 12:54AM
Colin Powell: The choco Pillsbury Dough Boy. Full of yeast, but no fiber.
NoBama2012| 6.15.11 @ 3:48PM
Wally: I still stand by Sherman. His only real mistake was at Kennesaw Mountain. Grant only got to Lee because Lee couldn't replace his losses. Lee killed more men in Grant's Army in a retrograde movement than he had in his own. My comment was more or less in comparison to losers like like McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker, all of whom were beaten by smaller forces.
Mike Giles| 6.15.11 @ 5:29PM
Grant got to Lee, because he realized what the actual strategic situation was. In earlier battles, Lee had beaten the Union general and that general had retreated. Grant would be stymied and he simply kept looking for away around Lee's army. This had the effect of pushing Lee back toward Richmond, and both Lee and Grant understood that Lee could not sustain a siege of Richmond. Heck, Grant would have taken Richmond earlier if Ben Butler had anything resembling competence. BTW, as a percentage of his army Lee's casualties were often greater in victory, than various Union generals were in defeat.
Mike Giles| 6.15.11 @ 5:21PM
Both Grant and Sherman, indeed all the Civil War generals on both sides preferred to catch the enemies in their flanks and/or maneuver them into a impossible position. As for Grant or Sherman being "butchers" it wasn't Grant who ordered Pickett's Charge or Malvern Hill. And it wasn't Sherman who ordered the carnage at Franklin or Nashville. It should also be remembered that many of the Battles of the Civil War were meeting engagements, where the opposing armies often just blundered into each other. In any case, both Grant and Sherman were modern Generals, who understood that attempting to win the war in one climactic Napoleonic battle , was an exercise in futility. The Southern people needed to be defeated.
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:22AM
That, incidentally, Wally, was why Sherman preferred maneuver and NOT FIGHTING to win.
However, you are correct. the most modern and efficient general of the Civil war was George Thomas. That being said, Grant's written orders were models of precision, and his Vicksburg campaign was one of the most brilliant ever.
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 12:01PM
Well said, nobama 2012!
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.11 @ 12:06PM
I can't remain silent.
I hope each of you will check out my blog spot.
Please scroll down and read the posts there.
www.txbooks.blogspot.com
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 2:07PM
Having trouble posting to your blog. Guess I need instruction since I got an "illegal ur"l warning.
Al Adab| 6.15.11 @ 1:47PM
How can any of us blame those who choose not to run? The months of character assasination, ridicule, attacks on family, to say nothing of "investigations" and unfounded charges would be enough to discourage anyone. Are there many of us who write here that might actually consider seeking office even at a local level? Some of those are no better, no more civil in tone, than these national races. TR praised "the man in the arena" and rightly so even in that more civil era.
Pelligrino| 6.16.11 @ 3:00AM
Al Adab, you are correct. I think a real man would be actually trembling if thinking through all the repercussions that will unfold upon announcing a candidacy. Particularly if one is openly a Christian, holds marriage to be something ordained by God as the union of a man and woman, against anti-homosexuals in our military, in favor of strong support for Israel, ready to end illegal immigration and deport the violators now here....
And these are just a few issues that a congressman, governor, senator, VP, or president will address in 2-4 years. Just a fraction.
Yet this would unleash a frenzy.
Legions of liberal media wolves would descend. Public library check-out records examined for the last 3 decades, cyber hacks into one's medical records (and that of one's family members), every school chum going back to 4th grade interviewed, all family business deals scrutinized, audio sound bytes from 25 years prior as fair game....
All of us have people in our histories who would say, "What, him!? No way! That loser? Running for elected office? Heck, he couldn't even coach competently in Little League and I think I remember him getting fired from his first two jobs."
Today in America, it would be more vicious than the Bible story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his own brothers and then later falsely accused and imprisoned.
That is why we must pray for and support any good man or woman -- a person of good character who truly does wish to aid the nation -- who will undergo this merciless gauntlet, one will will enter the "Arena."
Think Aqua Bhudda. (Whether that story was true, semi-true, or pure bunk matters little. The issue is that the union of a media & liberal rapacious Left that hates and will act on that hate to manufacture whatever it takes.)
Just look at how the New York Times and Washington Post were (still are?) dangling job offers to those who "dig up" trash on Sarah Palin from sifting through her 24,000 released emails.
Gloria Alred? Now back in the news. Oh!? Yes, we saw her last in California on behalf of that Hispanic woman....a "client" she dropped immediately after election day November 2010, correct?
AA, you are right. Which of us has the strength of character and fortitude to be in the "Arena?"
Thom| 6.15.11 @ 3:14PM
"The controversial general's notoriety extends beyond his brilliant battlefield strategy; "
The person that wrote this apparently knows nothing of Sherman’s Atlanta campaign. He had nearly twice the manpower, arms, and unlimited supplies compared to the Confederates. A brilliant battlefield strategy would have been to actually use that advantage in a way that minimized his losses and prevented the Confederates from reaching prepared defensive positions in Atlanta. By the standards of Napoleon and the mileage he got out of his forces there are no Union brilliant battlefield strategies. This is the same Sherman who sent several times the forces to kill one Confederate Calvary General and was defeated in every attempt by a man that didn’t go to West Point. The real Sherman would not have even attempted to march on Atlanta if all he had was an equal force to the Confederates. It would have taken a degree of audacity for the real Sherman to risk that. Giving Sherman his due is one thing; inflating his myth is another.
That the man saw politics and the news media for what they really are is some credit to his judgment however.
Mike Giles| 6.15.11 @ 5:40PM
Someone once said that: "Amateurs talk strategy and tactics. Professionals talk logistics." The problem Sherman had was the same one that almost all Union Generals had - supplying their armies in hostile territory. Time and again, Union campaigns were brought to a halt by the destruction of, or being caught off from their supply base. Much of the large army that Sherman had was needed to guard his line of communication. He eventually settled upon the same strategy that Grant used during the Vicksburg campaign, living off the country. The South was stupid. All they needed to do was to gather enough troops to make Sherman stop moving for a few days - and his army would have began to starve - forcing his retreat back through country he had already denuded. Instead Hood took his army off to Tennessee to fall upon Sherman's non existent lines of communication and eventually, to complete it's destruction.
Thom| 6.15.11 @ 8:00PM
Yes Mike logistics are vital but it doesn’t take half his force to protect his line of communications and he still had a massive advantage in manpower and material if you look at the forces engaged. The “South” was not stupid. Hood was stupid; Jefferson Davis was stupid but J.E. Johnston was doing precisely what one does against a superior number of forces operating deep within your territory. Johnson would have abandoned Atlanta and kept his force in tact leaving Sherman with a real and meaningful threat to his logistics. Given how many battles Napoleon won with near parity or inferior numbers in enemy territory is stands to reason that such things are manageable given comparable types of armies in the field. Given how many forces and men Sherman sent after Forrest and the outcomes had Jefferson Davis had a clue history might just paint a different picture here. That’s precisely what the Russians did in 1812 to Napoleon despite Napoleon winning a tactical victory at Borodino and occupying Moscow.
Bob K.| 6.15.11 @ 6:30PM
He wasn't going to do this and he gave the political leaders of Atlanta ample warning and very good reasons why he was going to do it his way. It is part of the historical record now. Read it here in his Orders to the Mayor and City Council of Atlanta. It is short and precise and explicit. You will find out more about his thought process in it than in anything written here, or elsewhere for that matter.
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty.....Mayor.html
Thom| 6.15.11 @ 7:41PM
Wasn't going to do what Bob K.?
Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 11:47PM
Sherman the Barbarian says "I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be..."
One of which did not not include preventing secession. Note the blatant Union worship in War Criminal Sherman's letter. I'm sure Bismarck would agree with him.
Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 3:26AM
Red, I don't see anywhere that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
You and I will die in obscurity. Lincoln will be celebrated a millenia from now.
Richard Baker| 6.15.11 @ 9:00PM
General Sherman understood, as many do not, that the Presidency isn't always worth the effort. I believe Preident Truman referred to the White House as the "Great White Jail" and Washington absolutely wanted out at the end of his Administration and didn't really want it in the first place.
Thom| 6.15.11 @ 9:31PM
An unfortunate truth and particularly relevant since it seems most of the electorate doesn’t want an elected President but a King that can wave his hand and miracles be performed to solve their personal problems (at someone else’s expense of course) .
BD57| 6.15.11 @ 10:00PM
The bottom line (at least, for me) - - - in this day and age, anyone who wants to be President is automatically suspect ...
Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 11:30PM
"It's okay if top Republicans follow the example of William Tecumseh Sherman and decline to run for president."
Whew. When I first started reading this I thought the author was going to say "It's okay if top Republicans follow the example of William Tecumseh Sherman and become barbaric war criminals."
Replica AH Handbags | 6.16.11 @ 12:08AM
Very detailed info. I am very glad to read this article. Thanks for giving us nice articles.
Handy| 6.16.11 @ 12:26AM
I grew up in the Land of Lincoln and it has taken many years to shed myself of his iconography.
The Civil War should never have been fought. Slavery would have fallen on its own and without 500,000 dead. Lincoln was the barbarian. Secession was, and remains, clearly legal, in fact moral. Sherman merely brought a sad chapter in our history to a quicker end.
On to California of today. Would we expend blood and treasure to free the surfers?
David | 6.16.11 @ 2:09AM
Yet another telling sign of what The RNC's become ... using a filthy scumbag like Sherman in a comparison of anything Republican! How to save what's left of America can be found at : TheNewCSA.blogspot.com
RCV| 6.17.11 @ 5:30PM
If it wasn't for "filthy scumbags" like Sherman, there would be no American Republic today.
TheNewCSA.blogspot.com | 6.16.11 @ 2:13AM
It's common knowledge that Lee was the superior general, ( forgiving his one blunder at Gettysburg. )
weddingdresses | 6.16.11 @ 4:08AM
It's common knowledge that Lee was the superior general, ( forgiving his one blunder at Gettysburg. )
Bee Yond| 6.16.11 @ 7:32AM
----Degradation Programming ALERT----
AS the sordidness of total cyber surveillance and TSA at home and the CFR-RIIA contrived 'color' revolutions abroad unfold ----citing the draconian
(total war) Sherman as a 'model' really is TOOOOO
transparent.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 6:20AM
As a result, accomplished governors, charismatic candidates-turned talk show hosts, and rising congressional stars have been beseeched to run, and all have politely declined.