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. 

 

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.  

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.  

 “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.  

 

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. 

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.  



 

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

Oh, and "wrong" is relative.