Re: Making Saints of Monsters

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:18:24 -0400, Gary <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:06:14 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:26:28 -0400, Gary <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Making Saints of Monsters

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

In response to an LRC review of a (Distortion of) History Channel
"documentary" on Sherman?s march to the sea by Clyde Wilson, Valerie
Protopapas of Huntington Station, New York, took it upon herself to go
to the library and research Sherman herself. Sherman?s History Channel
image of a heroic and benevolent egalitarian just sounded like, well,
like a lie to her. So out of the blue she wrote Professor Wilson (who
now describes himself as a recovering academic historian) that "the
truth about Sherman and his genocidal beliefs (and tactics) is, like
Lincoln?s views on race and slavery, well reported but ignored."

That is, one can find the facts of history if one looks for them. But
when it comes to the War for Southern Independence, one will also
discover pages and pages of spin, excuse-making, and rhetorical
cover-ups. History may be "well reported" in academic treatises and
government documents, but as Mrs. Protopapas says, it rarely makes it
into the public school textbooks or television documentaries, and is
therefore ignored by the general public.

In her letter to Clyde Wilson, shared with yours truly, Mrs.
Protopapas said that "I find it quite unique that after almost 150
years, purveyors of the myths surrounding the [second] War of
Secession retain not only their desire, but their ABILITY to hide the
facts . . . of the era. The same lies and half-truths continue to be
presented as hard fact with every passing generation and all attempts
at bringing even a modicum of well-documented facts (such as the
actual words of the men involved) are met with a hostility every bit
as virulent as was the case shortly after the war ended. And they say
that the South won?t let the past die!"

This statement suggests that Valerie is familiar with the Lincoln
cult, the Straussians, and the James McPherson/Harold Holzer/Doris
Kearns-Goodwin school of "Civil War scholarship," which she accuses of
presenting a "murderous myth that makes saints of monsters and
monsters of decent men." The following is a collection of some of the
information about General William Tecumseh Sherman that Valerie
Protopapas, an ordinary citizen who does not claim to be a "Civil War
scholar" and who does not reside in the South, dug up about one of the
more monstrous characters in American history. She labeled her
collection of information "Shermaniana."

On Indian Genocide

Drawing on Michael Fellman?s book, Citizen Sherman, the general is
quoted as saying the following about the Plains Indians shortly after
the war: "It is one of those irreconcilable conflicts that will end
only in one way, one or the other must be exterminated . . . . We must
act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the
extermination, men, women and children" (p. 26). According to Fellman,
Sherman "had given [General Phillip] Sheridan prior authorization to
slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his
subordinates felt was necessary . . . . Sherman would cover the
political and media front" and "maintained personal deniability." "The
more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed
next year," wrote Sherman. "They all have to be killed or be
maintained as a species of paupers."

Valerie quotes Professor Harry Stout of Yale Divinity School as
recently writing that Sherman?s "religion" was "America, and America?s
God was a jealous God of law and order." All those who "resisted" were
"reprobates who deserved death."

But Sherman?s "religion" was not "America," which at the time was
comprised of some 30 million people. His God was the federal
government or, more specifically, the Lincoln administration and
Lincoln himself. This is what motivated Sherman, not the ending of
slavery or anything else. After all, the citizens of the Southern
states were Americans and included the descendants of Jefferson,
Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Patrick Henry, among other notable
historical figures (Robert E. Lee?s wife, Mary Custis Lee, was
descended from Martha Washington?s family).

It was Lincoln, not "America," who defined obeying his own dictatorial
orders as "law and order." There was no national plebiscite that
decided to pillage, plunder and burn Southern cities and towns and
murder civilians by the tens of thousands, as Lincoln?s army did. And
even if there was, it certainly would not have been approved by all of
"America," as Sherman contended. Lincoln won only 39% of the popular
vote in 1860 and still only 55% in 1864 despite having rigged the
elections by shutting down hundreds of opposition newspapers,
imprisoning tens of thousands of political dissenters without due
process, and having soldiers intimidate Democratic Party voters
throughout the North. The fact that he also had to recruit and pay
hundreds of thousands of European mercenaries, and invoke
conscription, speaks volumes about how popular his war was among
Americans of the Northern states. Moreover, it is absurd to label the
bombing, pillaging and plundering of the entire South, along with
killing its people by the hundreds of thousands, as "law and order" or
the protection of life, liberty and property, as called for by the
U.S. Constitution.

On Genocide in the South

Quoting again from the Fellman biography, Sherman said this about
Southerners: "To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death
is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . .
Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the
utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their
military resources" (emphasis added).

Here you have a clear statement that Sherman?s goal was to commit
genocide against the people of Georgia. Remember that his famous
"march" was not met by any serious military resistance other than a
few cavalry skirmishes. It was almost entirely a campaign of death and
destruction of civilians and their property. And he wanted to
"repopulate" the state with fine New England stock such as himself,
the son of a New England lawyer of Puritan descent.

Readers who are familiar with the U.S. Constitution may find it
difficult to find the part of the document that permits the U.S.
government to murder its own citizens or to completely suspend the
Constitution during wartime, but Sherman apparently read between the
lines better than most. "The Government of the United States has in
North Alabama," he once declared, "any and all rights which they
choose to enforce in war ? to take their lives, their homes, their
lands, their everything . . . . war is simply power unrestrained by
constitution or compact." "We will . . . take every life, every acre
of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems
proper," said the maniacal murderer in the blue uniform.

Writing to his wife in 1862, Sherman informed her that "the war will
soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the
least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of
people, men women, and children, who must be killed or banished . . ."

In a January 1865 letter to General Grant, Sherman once again
explained his philosophy of mass murder: "We are not fighting against
enemy armies but against an enemy people; both young and old, rich and
poor must feel the iron hand of war . . ."

Europeans, meanwhile, were comparing Sherman to the Marquis de Sade
and predicting that future wars outside of America would likely be
waged against innocent civilians, once Sherman?s "success" was
understood. They also considered Sherman?s war crimes to be the mark
of an unsuccessful military man. He did not establish any particularly
stellar record as a military commander under fire; his "forte" was the
mass murder of civilians and acts of terrorism reigned upon Southern
cities with weapons of mass destruction.

Lincoln always knew about all of this, as Walter Brian Cisco explains
in his must-read book, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians. He
gladly rewarded and praised generals such as Sherman and Sheridan for
murdering and terrorizing citizens ? American citizens ? all in the
name of defending "law and order in America."

March 31, 2008

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html



I don't necessarily disagree with anything about Sherman
above, but the fact that no mention is made of the Cherokee
being driven off their lands and forced to leave everything
behind, by forced march into poverty along the "trail of tears"
by Andrew Jackson, after they had accommodated the
white man and done everything humanly possible to live in
peace and good will, puts a stain of self-serving hypocrisy
on the whole article.

As I've mentioned, I find Andrew Jackson the most
fascinating person in American History, but I also think that
Machiavelli's "A great man cannot be a good man" seems
to have been written prophetically with Jackson in mind.

I never learned much about Jackson. I suppose his was one of the
higher class acts that ever resided in the White House. I mean on
those rare days when he wasn't trying to murder somebody.



For all his faults, one of the very best presidents, IMV, as long
as you weren't black or Amerindian. I'm very happy to have
pictures of him in my wallet.




I do know that one of my ancestors was named Post Master of a little
GA town during his adminstration. And such appointments in those days
would have been signed by the president. It would be nice to have
that scrap of paper. Especially if it were framed and placed over
the mantle.

It would be nice to have that appointment signed by Jackson.

I just saw a bit on TV yesterday about the Ravens in the Tower
of London. Their wings are clipped so they can't fly away, and
they have a keeper, since the legend is that Britain can never fall
while they remain there. During WWII, most were stricken with a
fatal disease, but luckily one of them lived, and as a result Britain
survived the Nazi attempt to invade -- though barely.

One of the ravens lately became a nuisance because he kept
eating the wiring for a television antenna. Since the ravens
are technically Privates in the British Army, he couldn't be just
shipped out to a zoo or sanctuary without an official procedure
first. The keeper reports that as a result, he's probably the only
Private in the history of the British Army who was given a
dishonourable discharge by a Field Marshal.

(I was originally going to respond by noting that William
Wordsworth was a postmaster, and highly praised in that office,
but the ravens were more interesting, though they had
absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.)



Come to think of it, the South voted solid Democrat from his day
until 1964. His was a powerful legacy.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Historical Significance
    ... AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II. ... taking food and war materials. ... unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, who had ... history are often dicey things. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc)
  • Historical Significance
    ... AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II. ... taking food and war materials. ... unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, who had ... history are often dicey things. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: Making Saints of Monsters
    ... In response to an LRC review of a History Channel ... to the library and research Sherman herself. ... when it comes to the War for Southern Independence, ... recently writing that Sherman?s "religion" was "America, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Ebooks Forum
    ... How to Write the History of the New World: ... Land and Development in Latin America: ... Fearless Women in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Civil War ... The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • ebooks list
    ... History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues Malamat, ... Power and Politics in the Middle East: ... Iraq and the War on Terror: ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)