Sherman's March?
- Thread starter Old School 3319
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
No sir.....just an opinion on Sherman.
I've tried a few but not Sherman's March. As a Southerner, I have an aversion to anything associated with that individual. As for the others, they're middle of the road aromatics. If you like them, have at it.
Cheers,
Chili
No matter one's opinion, he sure how how to wage war, take the fight out of people. He was a kick ass and take names kinda of guy. Perhaps the blend is a bit like that, not subtle at all and a winner.
Because Lincoln wanted his generals to wage total war and destroy the South's ability and desire to wage war. Grant wanted the three armies to engage the enemy as basically one fighting force on all available fronts. A good soldier, Sherman understood total war, followed orders and destroyed the Confederacy's ability and desire to continue to waste it's youth. With the economy laid waste to and the middle army destroyed, the citizens of the CSA no longer wanted to fight, despite the desire of their government and non-combatant planters to continue to destroy the youth of the south. If the citizens won't/can't feed the war machine ... it withers and dies.
I find the youth who are seduced into the soldier's ranks due to an overweening patriotism tragic. If their communities had been destoyed by a Grant, they might have reconsidered.
Peer pressure and, for many, boredom and the chance to "see the elephant" were the driving enlistment factors. Even the expectations of family and girlfriends can send a boy off to war with a forced smile on his face. There is a certain aura of the coward a fighting age male still at home carries. But, patriotism is as good a reason as the others. The bounty was another factor, some collected bounties more than once. And, let's not forget the anger upon one's home being destroyed or, family injured, assaulted and/or killed. Youngsters perceive responsibility different than us old, cynical men. And, that is often a good thing when it comes to the survival of a country.
While all that may or may not be accurate, still it's a insensitive act to name a commercial product after what may- in another context- amount to a despicable war crime against a civilian population.
How about these: Wounded Knee Wampum, Dunkirk Delight or Mỹ Lai Melange.
If everyone could, or would, stick to the blend itself that would be nice.
A VaBur with maple? Sounds like I might have to give it a try.
It's gotten good reviews so far on TR albeit a limited number. 3.3 out of 4 stars with 6 reviews. Here's @jiminks review:
The nutty, earthy, woody, sweet burley takes the lead over the grassy, citrusy Virginia. The maple has a little richness and is more obvious than the rum, which, as in most r&m blends I have smoked, is typical. The toppings sublimate the tobaccos almost to a medium extent though they don’t drown them out. The aspects you’ll notice the most are nuts, woody, and a little grass. The strength is in the center of mild to medium, while the taste is a step past that mark. The nic-hit is fairly mild. Won’t bite or get harsh. The tobacco is a little moist, but not enough to goop a pipe, though some may prefer a light dry time. Burns cool and clean at a slightly slow pace with a very consistent, rather smooth flavor from top to bottom. Leaves little moisture in the bowl, and requires an average number of relights. Has a very pleasant, lightly lingering after taste and room note. An all day smoke. Three and a half stars.
A VaBur with maple? Sounds like I might have to give it a try.
It's gotten good reviews so far on TR albeit a limited number. 3.3 out of 4 stars with 6 reviews. Here's @jiminks review:
The nutty, earthy, woody, sweet burley takes the lead over the grassy, citrusy Virginia. The maple has a little richness and is more obvious than the rum, which, as in most r&m blends I have smoked, is typical. The toppings sublimate the tobaccos almost to a medium extent though they don’t drown them out. The aspects you’ll notice the most are nuts, woody, and a little grass. The strength is in the center of mild to medium, while the taste is a step past that mark. The nic-hit is fairly mild. Won’t bite or get harsh. The tobacco is a little moist, but not enough to goop a pipe, though some may prefer a light dry time. Burns cool and clean at a slightly slow pace with a very consistent, rather smooth flavor from top to bottom. Leaves little moisture in the bowl, and requires an average number of relights. Has a very pleasant, lightly lingering after taste and room note. An all day smoke. Three and a half stars.
Balderdash! One person's war criminal is, of course, a war hero to the winning side. Sherman is/was a hero to many. Indian tribes sent men to fight other American natives under his leadership. He shortened the war so, many mother's looked on him not as a "butcher" but a savior. Lincoln only had the authority to free slaves where he had no power, the so-called CSA which didn't exist in the mind of the US Government. Sherman, Grant and the like took that presidential directive into the offending states and enforced it. I suspect the name "Sherman" appeals to many more than it offends.
Actually, I suspect many of pipe smokers have absolutely no idea of who Sherman was. They probably think of Mr. Peabody's young protagonist when they hear the name if they are my age.
I perpetually shop blends even when I'm not smoking much, so I've read about this brand but haven't bought any. As I recall, these are entirely aromatic blends, and I tend to go for non-aromatic blends, or tobacco forward aromatic blends made by brands that do first-rate non-aromatics, if that makes sense. When I see only flavored blends, I feel like I've come to the candy store and look elsewhere. Prejudicial, but maybe honest.
For some, even most I suppose. But, where would be the fun in that?
War crimes? Against civilians? Do you have a cite for that?
Yes, he burned crops, took livestock, and burned houses- hopefully only the ones that garrisoned soldiers- but those aren't war crimes, and they weren't aimed at civilians, though, indeed, many suffered due to the above actions.
Speaking of refighting the Civil War/War Between the States/ The Late Unpleasantness ... one of the most devoted scholars of the war I've known, who had a great-great who'd been a cavalry officer with the CSA, collected cuttings and grew trees from various battlefields he walked. He met his third wife, who saw him through to the end, walking (I think it was) Gettysburg. She was a Civil War scholar from Michigan, and her great-great had fought with the GAR. Perhaps not healing but the passage of time. My father was rather prejudicial about the Japanese after he'd served in the Pacific during WWII, but some of his closer friends in his eighties were a Japanese couple who had him over for a tea ceremony and Japanese meals. My late wife was a Southerner of intellectual and scholarly distinction, and she married a Chicago suburb kid ... who her mom called peculiar, or as she pronounced it, pecul-ya. That's me.
- Status