21 October 2013

Should We Tear Down Sherman's Statue?

Photograph by Mike Lynaugh
After burning and pillaging Atlanta and Columbia, S.C., Gen. William Tecumseh “Uncle Billy” Sherman talked of a “final solution to the Indian problem” and wrote his friend Gen. Grant: “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.” ~ Patrick J. Buchanan
The Confederacy wanted to enslave African-Americans. Sherman wanted to exterminate the Sioux. Why is it we don't hear more about Sherman's hatred and bigotry toward the American Indian? The statue pictured above is located in the heart of Washington D.C. (in front of the Treasury Department), and completely controlled by the Federal government. The Feds shoulder complete responsibility for it. Should there be an interpretive plaque at Sherman's statue, or should someone who wanted to exterminate a people even have a statue?

A slippery slope, is it not?

More here.


Arlee Bird said...

The way I see it Sherman and others who have had controversial backgrounds are important historical figures who had a significant role in the building and shaping of our nation. The interpretative plaque is a fine idea, but why waste a statue? Leave it, explain it.

Tossing It Out

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Of course, I was being facetious to illustrate the silliness and hypocrisy of the left. For example, Democrat historians and others like to go on and on about Nathan Bedford Forrest and renaming parks, moving statues, etc, etc because of Fort Pillow and Forrest's association with the KKK. However, they totally ignore Sherman right under their noses who, based on their presentism and "high moral standards" was every bit as evil as Forrest, but apparently, they're ok with it.

13thBama said...

Meanwhile, in more recent news, others are forgiven for their KKK ties.


ropelight said...

The truth about Sherman will never be revealed on an official plaque as long as apologists for Northern atrocities, like James McPherson, bend over backwards to whitewash Sherman's record. As an example, McPherson claims Sherman didn't allow his troops to burn Columbia, SC.

... Sherman did not deliberately burn Columbia; a majority of Union soldiers, including the general himself, worked through the night to put out the fires.

However, McPherson's fable is directly contradicted by the commander of Sherman's own 15th Corps. In 1867 General Howard said, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act."

In his official report, Sherman put the blame on Confederate Lt. Gen. Wade Hampton, who Sherman said had ordered the burning of cotton in the streets. However, in his memoirs, Sherman confessed he had blamed Hampton out of spite.

"In my official report of this conflagration I distinctly charged it to General Wade Hampton, and confess I did so pointedly to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was in my opinion a braggart and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina."

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Sherman's feelings about Confederate Southerners were similar to his feelings about the Sioux.

Touchthe Past said...

Check out "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. He points out how Lincoln''s deliberate targeting of non-combatants in the Civil War extended to his attempts to "exterminate" the Plains Indians. It's one aspect of a tour de force exposé regarding Lincoln's actual goals and the motivation behind an unnecessary Civil War. Great reading.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

ouch - yes, I have Professor DiLorenzo's book . . . "the rest of the story" on our 16th President.