William T. Sherman: A War Criminal or a Champion of Victory?

Historical figures are often scrutinized under the lens of contemporary moral standards. One such figure, General William Tecumseh Sherman, is often brought up in discussions about war crimes. This article delves into the debate surrounding Sherman's actions during the American Civil War and considers whether he should be tried for war crimes.

The Historical Context

At the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865), the rules of warfare were far less stringent than they are today. The Nine Articles of Conduct for Land Armies in the Field by King Alfred the Great (871-899), which influenced the Lieber Code of 1863, did not fully govern the conduct of warfare. When a general engages in actions that may be considered war crimes today, it is essential to consider the context of the time.

For instance, if a Confederate army had ravaged the North, its General would have been held accountable for the actions of the losing side. According to historical norms, the losing side's General would have been tried for any war crimes committed. This was how wars were fought and ended 150 years ago. Historically, the judgment would have been that the losing side received what was deemed appropriate.

The Controversial March

General Sherman, who famously said, "War is hell," has been criticized for his actions during the "March to the Sea" in Georgia. He destroyed infrastructure and infrastructure industries to cripple the Confederate economy and will. This strategy, while controversial, was seen as a legitimate military strategy at the time. It is argued that such destruction was considered a justifiable action to weaken the enemy's ability to wage war.

Contemporary views, however, suggest that Sherman's actions would be unacceptable by today's standards of the rules of warfare. The International Criminal Court, for example, would likely classify such actions as war crimes. However, the expanded meaning of the term "war crime" is subject to debate, and the legal and ethical frameworks have evolved significantly since the 19th century.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

From a legal perspective, it is virtually impossible to try a deceased person for war crimes. The laws surrounding the posthumous prosecution of individuals, such as the 1864 law cited in the challenge, are varied and complex. Most forms of justice around the world do not allow for the trial of the dead. Additionally, the winners of a war have a significantly lower chance of being charged with war crimes.

In Sherman's case, he was on the winning side of the conflict, which further complicates efforts to hold him accountable. Even if there were a charged 1864 law he allegedly broke, the practicalities of prosecuting a dead person make it an almost impossibility.

Conclusion

While some may argue that William T. Sherman's actions during the Civil War amounted to war crimes by today's standards, the historical context is crucial. Context, the rules of warfare at the time, and the prevailing ethical frameworks of the 19th century must be considered. Unless his corpse were to be exhumed, it is impossible to prosecute him for any alleged offenses.

Instead of engaging in mock trials or arguments about past actions, it is more productive to focus on the lessons learned from such conflicts. Understanding why certain actions were deemed acceptable or unacceptable in the past can help shape better policies and practices in future conflicts.