Ohio Football Topic
Topic: The Sherman Ohio University Connection
Page: 1 of 1
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/12/2014 12:27 AM
Ater causing great thread drift in Jeff's sports quote thread (for which I hereby apologize), I thought I'd start a separate thread to continue with actual factual material connecting the Sherman family with our beloved alma mater.  The connections are:

Cump Sherman's step father and father-in-law, Thomas Ewing, was in Ohio's first graduating class in 1815.  Sherman married Ellen Ewing, who was his step sister who he met while being raised by Ewings after his father untimely death.

WTS' oldest brother Charles Taylor Sherman had completed his junior year at Ohio University when their father died. He was also "shipped out" and ended up studying studying law in Dayton, and later practiced law in Mansfield, Ohio.

 
Last Edited: 6/12/2014 4:59:23 PM by OhioCatFan
OUcats82
General User
Member Since: 1/9/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,912
mail
OUcats82
mail
Posted: 6/12/2014 7:38 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Ater causing great thread drift in Jeff's sports quote thread (for which I hereby apologize), I thought I'd start a separate thread to continue with actual factual material connecting the Sherman family with our beloved alma mater.  The connections are:

Cump Sherman's step father and father-in-law, T was in Ohio's first graduating class in 1815.  Sherman married Ellen Ewing, who was his step sister who he met while being raised by Ewings after his father untimely death.

WTS' oldest brother Charles Taylor Sherman had completed his junior year at Ohio University when their father died. He was also "shipped out" and ended up studying studying law in Dayton, and later practiced law in Mansfield, Ohio.

 

Is Ellen from this family lineage?

Thomas Ewing

Ewing House was named in honor of Thomas Ewing. A native of West Liberty, VA, he was educated at Ohio University. Thomas Ewing and John Hunter were the first two graduates of Ohio University. He studied law in the office of Philomen Beecher, Lancaster, OH, and in 1816 was admitted to the bar. He was one of the most successful attorneys in the West. He served as trustee of Ohio University. He was a United States Senator, Secretary of Treasury, and Secretary of Interior. He also was an advisor to four United States Presidents.

 
Bobcat Grad 86
General User
BG86
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 1,397
person
mail
Bobcat Grad 86
mail
Posted: 6/12/2014 1:21 PM
I thought this was a Richard Sherman thread before I opened it.


OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/12/2014 5:01 PM
OUcats82 wrote:expand_more

Is Ellen from this family lineage?

Thomas Ewing

Ewing House was named in honor of Thomas Ewing. A native of West Liberty, VA, he was educated at Ohio University. Thomas Ewing and John Hunter were the first two graduates of Ohio University. He studied law in the office of Philomen Beecher, Lancaster, OH, and in 1816 was admitted to the bar. He was one of the most successful attorneys in the West. He served as trustee of Ohio University. He was a United States Senator, Secretary of Treasury, and Secretary of Interior. He also was an advisor to four United States Presidents.

 

Yes, somehow my listing of Thomas Ewing as the man who was WTS's father-in-law and and step-father got cut out by my editing incompetence.  I've added it back in. 

 
OUcats82
General User
Member Since: 1/9/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,912
mail
OUcats82
mail
Posted: 6/13/2014 9:55 AM
Thanks for the information OCF.  I have always greatly enjoyed Ohio history (both for our beloved university and our state).  My family tree has WTS in the older branches so he is of greater interest to me.  

Unfortunately most of our prospective students were not too interested to learn any of what I had to share during my years as a campus tour guide.  I did have a few enjoyable conversations, one with a couple of parents from Gallipolis once whose local family roots go back quite a ways.  
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/13/2014 10:43 AM
So are you a descendant of one of WTS' daughters?  If so, which one?   His sons, four I think there were, either died young or never married.  One was a Roman Catholic priest.  
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 6/14/2014 12:55 AM
In my opinion this thread (and other WTS threads on BA) lends praise to a figure of extremely dubious distinction:

 “The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” Sherman wrote to Sheridan. By 1890 the U.S. Army murdered as many as 60,000 Indians, placing the survivors in concentration camps known as “reservations.”

Link to this particular source here (of course there are troves of similar analysis):

http://www.textbookcheck.com/database/?p=826

Like many figures of historical significance - there is the "good", and the "bad". "Historical Relevance" justifications here I find do not balance the net equation. "Total War" to "preserve the Union" is one thing, to destroy a multi-millennia Native Culture to serve purely self economic interest circa the "Age of Enlightenment" is quite another. I just see the "bad" side here as pretty friggin' horrific and detestable. With little actual significant link to OHIO - I see no reason to discuss efforts to manufacture any stronger links.........
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 6/14/2014 7:03 AM
RSBobcat wrote:expand_more
In my opinion this thread (and other WTS threads on BA) lends praise to a figure of extremely dubious distinction:

 “The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” Sherman wrote to Sheridan. By 1890 the U.S. Army murdered as many as 60,000 Indians, placing the survivors in concentration camps known as “reservations.”

Link to this particular source here (of course there are troves of similar analysis):

http://www.textbookcheck.com/database/?p=826

Like many figures of historical significance - there is the "good", and the "bad". "Historical Relevance" justifications here I find do not balance the net equation. "Total War" to "preserve the Union" is one thing, to destroy a multi-millennia Native Culture to serve purely self economic interest circa the "Age of Enlightenment" is quite another. I just see the "bad" side here as pretty friggin' horrific and detestable. With little actual significant link to OHIO - I see no reason to discuss efforts to manufacture any stronger links.........

That quote is authored by Wlliam Fellman, an author with, let's say, a wide variety of reviews. It seems his biggest criticism is his effort, in this very book, to "psychoanalyze" Sherman with a big dose of speculation. 

I'll let OCF and BTC respond further, as they've probably read this author. 

I will say the use of the term "murder" in the quote above is loaded, and reveals the author's biases. I will also say that while you acknowledge the fallacy of "historical relevance," you also ignore it. By applying today's sensibilities, we would be hard pressed to find virtue in nearly ANY historical figure. 

 
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 6/14/2014 11:37 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
In my opinion this thread (and other WTS threads on BA) lends praise to a figure of extremely dubious distinction:

 “The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” Sherman wrote to Sheridan. By 1890 the U.S. Army murdered as many as 60,000 Indians, placing the survivors in concentration camps known as “reservations.”

Link to this particular source here (of course there are troves of similar analysis):

http://www.textbookcheck.com/database/?p=826

Like many figures of historical significance - there is the "good", and the "bad". "Historical Relevance" justifications here I find do not balance the net equation. "Total War" to "preserve the Union" is one thing, to destroy a multi-millennia Native Culture to serve purely self economic interest circa the "Age of Enlightenment" is quite another. I just see the "bad" side here as pretty friggin' horrific and detestable. With little actual significant link to OHIO - I see no reason to discuss efforts to manufacture any stronger links.........

That quote is authored by Wlliam Fellman, an author with, let's say, a wide variety of reviews. It seems his biggest criticism is his effort, in this very book, to "psychoanalyze" Sherman with a big dose of speculation. 

I'll let OCF and BTC respond further, as they've probably read this author. 

I will say the use of the term "murder" in the quote above is loaded, and reveals the author's biases. I will also say that while you acknowledge the fallacy of "historical relevance," you also ignore it. By applying today's sensibilities, we would be hard pressed to find virtue in nearly ANY historical figure. 

 

Plenty of other sources on the topic - piles - this just quick link. Also MANY incidents where the acts were nothing less than "murder" - some of that both ways of course - but the aggressor in the campaigns and in the era unquestionably the significant offender.
 
Applying today's sensibilities - that's what progress is all about - eh? There are plenty of 'virtuous" historical figures, and plenty where the prior perceived "virtue" has eroded. For me WTS has fallen below the "Mendoza" line of virtue (vs despicable attributes) to merit any attention without the whole story being presented.
 
Believe me - I respect WTS contributions in the Civil War - I was at Pittsburgh Landing/Shiloh just 6 weeks ago.  

 
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 6/14/2014 4:53 PM
RSBobcat wrote:expand_more
Applying today's sensibilities - that's what progress is all about - eh? 






That's where we disagree. In my opinion, it's not fair to hold historical figures by today's standards. Holding these historical figures up as virtuous should not be translated as some sort of total virtuosity, or that these people are saints. All of these figures have their faults. And many of those faults have grown over the years as our culture changes. But, in my opinion, it's a very slippery slope, and these criticisms begin to precede and define the historical figures. 
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/14/2014 11:48 PM
I have limited time at the moment, so I'll only make a brief response.  First, I've studied Sherman during the Civil War to a much greater extent than his actions during the Indian Wars.  Prof. Marszalek, who has been mentioned in another thread, and who wrote what some considered the definitive biography of WTS, talks about his attitude toward Indians in part of his book. He says that Sherman saw Indians as inferior and stubborn, and that the two characteristics together he found particularly bothersome.  Marszalek says that in Sherman's view "Indians had to give up their culture and become more like whites if they wished to survive.  It was 'the law of the survival of the fittest,' he repeated on numerous occasions, expressing his belief in the social Darwinism that was so popular in the postwar years."  Though not dismissing the brutality of our Indian policy and pointing out that sometimes the army wiped out entire villages of Indians, Marszalek does put this period of our history in some perspective when he adds: "Compared to the gigantic battles of the Civil War, the one thousand or so engagements of the Indian wars and the approximately one thousand army loses and the three to six thousand Indian casualties were small."  Not to get too far off track, but Marszalek also points out that originally Grant was in agreement with Sherman's attitude that the best way to deal with the Indians was militarily but that once he became president his ideas underwent a metamorphosis and Grant became an exponent of a much more peaceful policy toward the Indians. 
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:08 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Applying today's sensibilities - that's what progress is all about - eh? 

 But, in my opinion, it's a very slippery slope, and these criticisms begin to precede and define the historical figures.
 


From OCF:

"Marszalek also points out that originally Grant was in agreement with Sherman's attitude that the best way to deal with the Indians was militarily but that once he became president his ideas underwent a metamorphosis and Grant became an exponent of a much more peaceful policy toward the Indians."

Seems the "slope" was not that slippery for many of his contemporaries, including his peers (and superiors ........)
Last Edited: 6/15/2014 2:09:23 AM by RSBobcat
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 6/15/2014 7:33 AM
RSBobcat wrote:expand_more
Applying today's sensibilities - that's what progress is all about - eh? 

 But, in my opinion, it's a very slippery slope, and these criticisms begin to precede and define the historical figures.
 


From OCF:

"Marszalek also points out that originally Grant was in agreement with Sherman's attitude that the best way to deal with the Indians was militarily but that once he became president his ideas underwent a metamorphosis and Grant became an exponent of a much more peaceful policy toward the Indians."

Seems the "slope" was not that slippery for many of his contemporaries, including his peers (and superiors ........)



I don't know if you're disagreeing with me or just arguing. If you think Grant doesn't have his share of historical criticism, you're not paying attention. So, according to your theory, we can't hold Grant up as any shining beacon of light when he was responsible for so much military barbarity. My point stands.

 
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 6/16/2014 12:47 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Applying today's sensibilities - that's what progress is all about - eh? 

 But, in my opinion, it's a very slippery slope, and these criticisms begin to precede and define the historical figures.
 


From OCF:

"Marszalek also points out that originally Grant was in agreement with Sherman's attitude that the best way to deal with the Indians was militarily but that once he became president his ideas underwent a metamorphosis and Grant became an exponent of a much more peaceful policy toward the Indians."

Seems the "slope" was not that slippery for many of his contemporaries, including his peers (and superiors ........)



I don't know if you're disagreeing with me or just arguing. If you think Grant doesn't have his share of historical criticism, you're not paying attention. So, according to your theory, we can't hold Grant up as any shining beacon of light when he was responsible for so much military barbarity. My point stands.

 

I don't want to just argue, so will wrap it up here. Per WTS in particular, I find that his record concerning Indian Affairs, especially significant because of the critical official role he had, is virtually unknown. It is worth "knowing". Then make 'relevance" decisions as you will.  



 
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 6/16/2014 1:58 PM
Hey, did y'all know that Sherman led a little known military campaign through Siberia?  Temporarily took Chokurdakh for the minerals in the area but quickly found out that even the Siberian summers were worse than the winters Napoleon and Hitler faced. 
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 6/16/2014 2:14 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
In my opinion, it's not fair to hold historical figures by today's standards. 


Perhaps not, but why do we owe them fairness? If they were wrong, they were wrong. If I felt like teasing you, I'd say you were veering close to relativism.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 6/16/2014 2:22 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
In my opinion, it's not fair to hold historical figures by today's standards. 


Perhaps not, but why do we owe them fairness? If they were wrong, they were wrong. If I felt like teasing you, I'd say you were veering close to relativism.

You, personally, don't owe them anything. Again, it's my opinion on the matter. 

Oh, and "wrong" is relative.
 
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 6/16/2014 2:41 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
In my opinion, it's not fair to hold historical figures by today's standards. 


Perhaps not, but why do we owe them fairness? If they were wrong, they were wrong. If I felt like teasing you, I'd say you were veering close to relativism.

You, personally, don't owe them anything. Again, it's my opinion on the matter. 

Oh, and "wrong" is relative.
 


Depends on whether you believe in universal truth.
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 6/16/2014 7:04 PM
Not in this case.
Showing Messages: 1 - 19 of 19
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)