OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more

Since this thread started out as a distraction and then wandered from there and now includes references to General Sherman, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share with the BA multitudes a graphic that will soon be on my Civil War web site.  This is the results of the 1863 Ohio gubernatorial election, which was a contest between Ohio alumnus John Brough (rhymes with "rough") and Clement Vallandigham.   Brough was a War Democrat, who also had the Republican nomination, and ran on a fusion Union ticket.  Vallandigham was a Peace Democrat (aka Copperhead).   The county-level results in this map are interesting on many levels.  And, from a modern perspective, it challenges many stereotypes about various regions of the Buckeye State.

RED = Brough (Union Ticket)
BROWN = Vallandigham (Peace Democrat, aka Copperhead)





This is relevant to football, since Brough, according to legend, once kicked a rugby ball over Cutler Hall from the McGuffey Hall level in his college days.  He was considered an excellent athlete despite the fact that in latter years he was known for his corpulence. 

Perhaps, OHIO teams should be known as the Brough Riders! 

I would also add that although Sherman's brutal approach in his drive across Georgia helped solidify and quicken the Union defeat of the rebellion, earned him the reputation of a "Hero", his post war dealings with Native Americans/The Indian Nations was equally as brutal, and in no way "heroic". He pushed for Army control over Government dealings with "Indian Affairs", and his policy/directive initiatives were often carried through by his Civil War underling, another Ohio Civil War "hero native", Phil Sheridan". Both Sherman and Sheridan have a historical record of inexcusable brutality, not to mention multiple incredible absolute blunders and failures - both from a policy and miltary perpective in this period of our history (one chapter of which of course includes another with Ohio roots, the infamously egotistical buffoon - George Armstrong Custer). The contemporary historians view is virtually unanimous that this chapter in our nations history, with so many Ohioan rooted leaders at the helms, was indeed quite shameful, a disgracefully embarrassing stain on our national history and reputation. Grant, of course another great Civil War General (second greatest of the war?) with Ohio roots, and Sherman's superior, and then post war as President, had a more "enlightened/compassionate" view of the the Native Americans/Indian Nations. Grant though was distant from the events, and of course much more caught up in matters National/East/Post War, not Frontier/Out There. Sherman and Sheridan (especially Sheridan) were much more "hands on" with the dealings in all things Native American/Indian West/Frontier.

History of course is full of contradictions. "Hindsight is always 20/20", or at least clearer than when immersed in the course of the current culture of events. To have a University that is dedicated to higher learning, which includes learning lessons from the past, have a as a mascot an image reflecting as much of what is great in it's local heritage, and equally (at least) as much as what could be considered despicable? I'm just not comfortable with that.