The Founding Father of ‘Collective Responsibility’? by Tom DiLorenzo

Miscellaneous History
, ,
1

Recently Tom DiLorenzo, sadly associated with the Von Mises Institute, published the following article on the internet: The Founding Father of ‘Collective Responsibility’? The subject was General William T. Sherman, Union general in the Civil War; the thesis being that recent barbaric military actions of the United States trace back to said General Sherman.

Mr. DiLorenzo’s article is based on faulty premises: 1) that General Sherman was a butcher of civilians 2) that the military of the United States, following and expanding on Sherman’s doctrine of total war, purposely targets civilians. Any resonable observer of history would be aware of the extent to which our military goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualities – often to the detriment of our own troops.

Regarding General Sherman, Mr. DiLorenzo shows amazing blindness and unfortunately gives the impression of being the last confederate standing. In truth, whatever Sherman may have said or written about the need to kill civilians (and I have my doubt about DiLorenzo’s sources) his military excursions caused fewer military and civilian casualities than those of other Civial War generals. If anything DiLorenzo should look to the Confererate General Nathan Bedford Forrest for such a villian.

DiLorenzo makes Sherman out as a butcher leaving a river of civilian dead in his wake. Dead, no; property destruction, yes, and plenty of it. In truth Sherman was vilified more by Confederates – and now DiLorenzo – for stealing their chickens and freeing their slaves then killing their soldiers. Let us not forget that Sherman gave the Confederate General Joseph Johnston very generous surrender terms, terms Lincoln had previously laid out to both Sherman and Grant. These are facts in the historical record.

DiLorenzo should stick to financial commentary – his historical bias is embarassing. This is not an anamoly on DiLorenzo’s part: previous articles of his have attacked Lincoln for, among other things, starting the Civil War!!

2

First, its “Dr. DiLorenzo”, not “mr.”. You call people doctors even if they’re your ideological enemies. There’s no point pretending like they have a fake doctorate.

Second, his premise does not depend on Sherman’s butchering of civilians. It depends on Sherman’s destructiveness of human flourishing and Sherman’s espoused attitudes. It is WELL documented that Sherman destroyed gargantuan amounts of wealth and capital.

Dr. DiLorenzo writes that “[collective responsibility] is a phrase that was used by General William Tecumseh Sherman himself.” From there, Dr. DiLorenzo catalogues how Sherman’s WORDS (read: not his actions) endorsed the killing of civilians. The only part where DiLorenzo points to his killing of civilians is in the 1984 paragraph where he orders “a few” civilians killed. This is perfeclty in line with the mainstream view that Sherman did not kill a significant (read: more than a few) civilians.

The article ties in to moderon philosophies of war, because Sherman’s philosophy of war is similar. It doesn’t matter that you think Sherman is a lesser evil because he killed fewer than other commanders would have. That is COMPLETELY beside the point, because the point is A) Philosophical and B) Related to the fact that we currently idolize Sherman.

Dr. DiLorenzo’s only thesis is that Sherman was not an American Hero because his PHILOSOPHY disregarded human life, and his actions disregarded human flourishing. This is paralleled in modern wars since they follow a similar philosophy.

Btw, if you think Dr. DiLorenzo is factually wrong, you might want to include a hyperlink to where you’re getting your information.

3

Come on, Sieben, some random Internet troll said it, so it must be true.

Here’s the story of Ai - one of the less boring sections of the Hebrew Scriptures - rife with the sickening caveman morality of collective responsibility and punishment:

But the Israelites were unfaithful in regard to the devoted things; Achan son of Karmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So the LORD’s anger burned against Israel.

Now Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is near Beth Aven to the east of Bethel, and told them, “Go up and spy out the region.” So the men went up and spied out Ai.

When they returned to Joshua, they said, “Not all the army will have to go up against Ai. Send two or three thousand men to take it and do not weary the whole army, for only a few people live there.” So about three thousand went up; but they were routed by the men of Ai, who killed about thirty-six of them. They chased the Israelites from the city gate as far as the stone quarries and struck them down on the slopes. At this the hearts of the people melted in fear and became like water.

Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. And Joshua said, “Alas, Sovereign LORD, why did you ever bring this people across the Jordan to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? If only we had been content to stay on the other side of the Jordan! Pardon your servant, Lord. What can I say, now that Israel has been routed by its enemies? The Canaanites and the other people of the country will hear about this and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth. What then will you do for your own great name?”

The LORD said to Joshua, “Stand up! What are you doing down on your face? Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions. That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.

“Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: There are devoted things among you, Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove them.

“‘In the morning, present yourselves tribe by tribe. The tribe the LORD chooses shall come forward clan by clan; the clan the LORD chooses shall come forward family by family; and the family the LORD chooses shall come forward man by man. Whoever is caught with the devoted things shall be destroyed by fire, along with all that belongs to him. He has violated the covenant of the LORD and has done an outrageous thing in Israel!’”

Early the next morning Joshua had Israel come forward by tribes, and Judah was chosen. The clans of Judah came forward, and the Zerahites were chosen. He had the clan of the Zerahites come forward by families, and Zimri was chosen. Joshua had his family come forward man by man, and Achan son of Karmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was chosen.

Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and honor him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me.”

Achan replied, “It is true! I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel. This is what I have done: When I saw in the plunder a beautiful robe from Babylonia, two hundred shekels of silver and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them. They are hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath.”

So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent, and there it was, hidden in his tent, with the silver underneath. They took the things from the tent, brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites and spread them out before the LORD.

Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold bar, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. Joshua said, “Why have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today.”

Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them. Over Achan they heaped up a large pile of rocks, which remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from his fierce anger. Therefore that place has been called the Valley of Achor ever since.

Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.”

So Joshua and the whole army moved out to attack Ai. He chose thirty thousand of his best fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: “Listen carefully. You are to set an ambush behind the city. Don’t go very far from it. All of you be on the alert. I and all those with me will advance on the city, and when the men come out against us, as they did before, we will flee from them. They will pursue us until we have lured them away from the city, for they will say, ‘They are running away from us as they did before.’ So when we flee from them, you are to rise up from ambush and take the city. The LORD your God will give it into your hand. When you have taken the city, set it on fire. Do what the LORD has commanded. See to it; you have my orders.”

Then Joshua sent them off, and they went to the place of ambush and lay in wait between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai—but Joshua spent that night with the people.

Early the next morning Joshua mustered his army, and he and the leaders of Israel marched before them to Ai. The entire force that was with him marched up and approached the city and arrived in front of it. They set up camp north of Ai, with the valley between them and the city. Joshua had taken about five thousand men and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city. So the soldiers took up their positions—with the main camp to the north of the city and the ambush to the west of it. That night Joshua went into the valley.

When the king of Ai saw this, he and all the men of the city hurried out early in the morning to meet Israel in battle at a certain place overlooking the Arabah. But he did not know that an ambush had been set against him behind the city. Joshua and all Israel let themselves be driven back before them, and they fled toward the wilderness. All the men of Ai were called to pursue them, and they pursued Joshua and were lured away from the city. Not a man remained in Ai or Bethel who did not go after Israel. They left the city open and went in pursuit of Israel.

Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Hold out toward Ai the javelin that is in your hand, for into your hand I will deliver the city.” So Joshua held out toward the city the javelin that was in his hand. As soon as he did this, the men in the ambush rose quickly from their position and rushed forward. They entered the city and captured it and quickly set it on fire.

The men of Ai looked back and saw the smoke of the city rising up into the sky, but they had no chance to escape in any direction; the Israelites who had been fleeing toward the wilderness had turned back against their pursuers. For when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city and that smoke was going up from it, they turned around and attacked the men of Ai. Those in the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives. But they took the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua.

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.

So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. He impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the LORD, the God of Israel, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the Israelites. He built it according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses—an altar of uncut stones, on which no iron tool had been used. On it they offered to the LORD burnt offerings and sacrificed fellowship offerings. There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on stones a copy of the law of Moses. All the Israelites, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the LORD, facing the Levitical priests who carried it. Both the foreigners living among them and the native-born were there. Half of the people stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had formerly commanded when he gave instructions to bless the people of Israel.

Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the foreigners who lived among them.

(Book of Joshua, ch. 7,8 NIV)

Clayton -

4

I read DiLorenzo’s article again thinking I might have misjudged the poor man. No. He wrote the following:

In the military context, “collective responsibility” is a euphemism for the mass murder of innocent civilians. It is a phrase that was used by General William Tecumseh Sherman himself, long preceding today’s nonchalant dismissal of the murder of civilians in foreign countries as “collateral damage.”

And a few paragraphs down:

William Tecumseh Sherman was indeed the founding father of terrorism perpetrated by the U.S. government and disquised by the language of “collective security.”

So Dilorenzo in the first paragraph implies that Sherman was responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians, and in the second paragraph calls him a terrorist equivalent to what our military does now. Again, our military does not target civilians and goes out of its to do so – often resulting in our own casualities. I agree that Sherman caused an immense amount of property damage but he was not responsible for mass murder. He helped win a civil war started by the Southern slave states and was and is, to the majority of Americans and unbiased historians a hero. To Southerners of the past, and apparently to some today, he is not.

5

Care to discredit the quotes that DiLorenzo gave where Sherman says “we even have to kill innocent women and children”?

It sure as hell is not my military and I think you’re deluded in imagining that it is yours.

If you hit and kill a pedestrian, is it a valid defense to tell the judge “well, I wasn’t targeting pedestrians, he just happened to get in the way of the direction my car was traveling.” Collateral damage is a euphemism for murder and it occurs in such gross quantities (somewhere between 100,00 and 1,000,000 civilians killed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq) precisely because the military is not liable to anybody for its actions. Anyone with an ounce of sense in their head ought to react in shock and horror at the idea of any human being or human organization being granted legal immunity - de facto or otherwise - for their actions.

That is quite false. The US military acts like any organization would act when granted blanket legal immunity for its actions: reckless and wanton.

I’m no DiLorenzo, so I don’t have all the facts and figures to argue with you. However, I will note that mass destruction of property is murder - murder by degree. Human beings need food to stay alive. Destroy the food, people will die. And so on for all other forms of property. So, even if it’s true that Sherman “merely” destroyed lots of property, then it still follows that he’s a murderer because countless people necessarily died as a result of his wanton destruction of property.

The Civil War was not. The South was not staging a military coup against which the Federal government defended itself. Calling the 1861 war in the United States a “civil war” is like calling the Irish struggle against the British a Civil War. It’s grossly prejudicial language.

Hmm, I missed the part where the South invaded the North first. Care to point me to that in the history books?

Clayton -

6

[Citations Needed]

7

He implies no such thing. He says Sherman used the phrase. And it is now in use today. So in a way, he founded the modern PHILOSOPHY (read: not necessarily killin babies) of collective responsibility.

No. He doesn’t. He doesn’t say Sherman actually DID horrible things comparable to the modern military. He says that he laid the philosophical foundation.

Well they must suck at it because literally 1000x more civilians have died than soldiers.

But I see what it is. DiLorenzo pisses you off because he clashes with your worldview. Well, your criticism of DiLorenzo is wrong, illustrated by the fact that you cannot even read his paper. And your worldview is probably wrong too though we haven’t discussed it in depth. You know, lip service and all that jazz.

8

Stopped reading there.

9

Ever here of Fort Sumpter? The ‘South’ intiated the violence. Need citations for that? Are you actually saying that needs citation???

Ever here of slavery in America? Need citations for that? There seems to be more concern for Southern carrot patches and chicken hutches than decades of human enslavement and the effort and blood spent to erradicate it.

Poor old Ludwig would turn iin his grave to see how his name has been ursurped to promote irrationality. Why don’t you gentlemen join the Joseph Goebells Institute – or should I have said, out of respect for his education, Dr. Joseph Goebells?

Adiios.

10

No, the South did not initiate the violence against Fort Sumpter. Lincoln wanted the South to attack Fort sumpter (and he made sure they did so), so he would have an excuse to kill innocent people.

It’s so funny how you say the other people are being irrational BTW.

11

Livermore JIm,

What was Sherman’s track record as commander of the army against the Indians in the American West after the Civil War?

From his wiki entry: "After the 1866 Fetterman Massacre, Sherman wrote Grant that “we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”[108] After George Armstrong Custer’s defeat at the Battle of Little Bighorn, Sherman wrote that “hostile savages like Sitting Bull and his band of outlaw Sioux … must feel the superior power of the Government.” [109] He further wrote that “during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”[110] "

Are you really staking your position that civilians weren;t killed on a lack of written doumentation of how many he may have killed in his march to the sea?

The guy was an evil warmonger with no regard for human life.

12

Oh come on, no one died and there was only a little bit of property damage.

13

Godwin’s Law.

500×500 92.7 KB

Clayton -

14

Looks like I struck a nerve with you, “Livermore Jim”.

This is something of a red herring. Also, Fort Sumter per se justified the subsequent military invasion and subjugation of the Confederacy, in your eyes?

Another red herring, buddy.

You seem to be good at this red-herring stuff. This one also seems to be an argumentum ad hominem.

Cry me a river.

Now then, as to exactly what I want citations for, I can spell it out for you in more detail:

[Citation(s) Needed]

[Citation(s) Needed]

[Citation(s) Needed]

There, does that help?

16

I love seeing how some libertarians act when someone attempts to slaughter one of THEIR sacred cows. Thename calling and pettiness of the arguments would make Saul Alinsky proud. “No link,” “It’s Dr., not Mr.,” “internet troll,” … seriously??

Yes, Sherman destroyed vast amounts of wealth and property. That was his job. The military’s job is to blow s**t up. Is all this too complicated? Soldiers are the executioners of the State, not the judge or jury. They are paid employees like any other profession. The greater their pay and resources, the greater the ass-kicking ability that can be demanded. Sherman shouldn’t be vilified simply because he excelled in his career path. As for any concern for civilian casualties, I’m afraid that was someone else’s department.

Sherman was a stark realist, and he worked to end the Civil War the only way he knew how-- by winning it.

I too have been extremely dismayed at economists condemning historical figures based on little more than a disagreement in philosophy, having little or nothing to do with economics. Economics does have a significant place in history that is most often overlooked, which is why I love the interpretations of Mises and Rothbard concerning Civil War financing. DiLorenzo, however, takes his anti-war stand to a whole other level. I swear I actually yawn every time I hear an anti-war libertarian use the word “terrorism”.

17

Thanks for demonstrating the Fuehrerprinzip to us, FleetCenturion.

And now Godwin’s Law has obtained for this thread too.

18

I’m thinking there is a deeper issue here involving State rights. To many on the extreme right, and I include Ron Paul, the individual states have the right to do as they wish. Ron Paul, in a recent debate said, if Prez, he would not interfer with any State that enacted mandatory heath care laws: coercion to collect money. In the last debate, Rick Perry took a similar stance. Only Michele Bachmann fired back that coercion was coercion, no matter from Federal or State.

This, I fear, is the thinking of DiLorenze and the seed of his diatribes against Lincoln and Sherman – and the support on this site for those views.

Logically, Ron Paul would have supported the Dred Scott decision returning escaped slaves to their masters – and probably DiLorenzo.

19

Yeah right, Livermore. The libertarians you refer to are the ones who propose moral rules for all people at all times. They aren’t relativists or anything. You think Paul would support the idea of slavery if Texas made it legal? Silly.

The thing is, there are two different subsets of political debate: How to go about the creation of law and the content of the law itself (or the policy). Paul supports state’s rights (the creation of law) and libertarianism (specific policy). He thinks the first subset will lead to more liberty for the second subset, therefore he supports federalism in our current state of statism. It’s not hard to understand.

This would be like me telling you that if you said, generally, “the States should be subservient to the Federal government because of the Supremacy Clause!”, I could retort, “oh, well what if the federal government wanted slavery and all 50 states didn’t?”

20

Invoking Goebbels is, by definition, trolling.

Clayton -