Dilbert_X wrote:
Kmar wrote:
That's the problem with small thinkers like you. You're oblivious to historical context. It's obvious how little you know about the man. Otherwise you would understand the why and circumstances of his tactics .. which despite your comment, was not like the Taliban. I don't think you understand what guerilla warfare actually means. Go spend another five more minutes wiki educating yourself.
maybe read the entire
guest comment you quoted?
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/c … 2600b.html
I'm somewhat less impressed with guest comments than learned historians, still your guest admits your ancestor used brutal tactics learned from the Cherokee he slaughtered and dispossessed.
*Your guest... that is the origin of
your selected quote. Perhaps investigate the words you quote next time. Those events were done under British order, usually as a rebuttal to what the Cherokee had instigated.
His letters show that he was clearly not happy with what was happening.
"The next morning we proceeded, by order of Colonel Grant, to burn down the Indian cabins. Some of our men seemed to enjoy this cruel work, laughing very heartily at the curling flames as they mounted, loud-crackling, over the tops of the huts. But to me it appeared a shocking sight. 'Poor creatures!' thought I, 'we surely need not grudge you such miserable habitations.'
The Cherokee wars were particularly ugly. To win wars you must break the will of your opponent. The Cherokees knew this, and so did the Brits. They both used brutal tactics to try and break each other.