Sherman's March to the Sea

[tnbn75]

Originally Posted by JBM

Hood ordered the destruction of military stores and public buildings which did yield a huge fire, but Sherman on Sept 7 ordered the evacuation of the city and the complete burning/destruction of the town.

Tom, you get in a very pissy mode sometimes and give no balance to your posts. I was simply responding to the previous poster who claimed Sherman's destruction was Fallujah of paying compensation before destroying, and I don't think that is accurate. Why go off on tangential spins to try and win some moralistic battle?

Sherman also warned the citizens of Atlanta to leave before he burnt it. is what i meant. we gave the citizens of fallujah money so as not to incite them.

Tom I agree the bombing of hiroshima/nagasaki saved american lives in the long run.

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by JBM

Hood ordered the destruction of military stores and public buildings which did yield a huge fire, but Sherman on Sept 7 ordered the evacuation of the city and the complete burning/destruction of the town.

Okay, but we seem to agree on the important point - that Hood started the fire.

Originally Posted by JBM

Tom, you get in a very pissy mode sometimes and give no balance to your posts. I was simply responding to the previous poster who claimed Sherman's destruction was Fallujah of paying compensation before destroying, and I don't think that is accurate. Why go off on tangential spins to try and win some moralistic battle?

Are you a shrink that you seem to like to psychoanalyze my posts and attach some subliminal significance upon them? What gets me is that when bringing up what destruction (albeit on a necessarily smaller than Sherman) the Texas Rangers brought to Georgians (and other Southern transgressions against civilians from both sides) is that it almost immediately brings in a firestorm. Perhaps I should be the one doing the psychoanalyzing.

[JBM]

Originally Posted by TomDeFranco

Okay, but we seem to agree on the important point - that Hood started the fire.

No. Hood started one fire, Sherman started a different fire. Sherman's engulfed the whole town.

Originally Posted by TomDeFranco

Are you a shrink that you seem to like to psychoanalyze my posts and attach some subliminal significance upon them? What gets me is that when bringing up what destruction (albeit on a necessarily smaller than Sherman) the Texas Rangers brought to Georgians (and other Southern transgressions against civilians from both sides) is that it almost immediately brings in a firestorm. Perhaps I should be the one doing the psychoanalyzing.

(not worth commenting)

[TomDeFranco]

Originally Posted by JBM

No. Hood started one fire, Sherman started a different fire. Sherman's engulfed the whole town.

Whatever!

Originally Posted by JBM

(not worth commenting)

I think that the transgressions committed by Southern troops are well worth commenting on - and topical, too. Terry's Texas Rangers committed more than their share of atrocities in Georgia during Sherman's March; Much of which was blamed on Sherman. Also, I remember listening to a historian of the march stating that he is sometimes confronted by Georgians that Sherman did this and Sherman did that. It turns out that Sherman and his forces were nowhere near the area

[Bladerunnernyc]

Originally Posted by TomDeFranco

Whatever!



I think that the transgressions committed by Southern troops are well worth commenting on - and topical, too. Terry's Texas Rangers committed more than their share of atrocities in Georgia during Sherman's March; Much of which was blamed on Sherman. Also, I remember listening to a historian of the march stating that he is sometimes confronted by Georgians that Sherman did this and Sherman did that. It turns out that Sherman and his forces were nowhere near the area

I quote Sherman regarding the above charges of brutality- for he said it best to the Mayor & CC of Savannah (He let them all remain in office) just before he left;

Before I had reached Savannah, and during our stay there, the rebel officers and newspapers represented the conduct of the men of our army as simply infamous; that we respected neither age nor sex; that we burned every thing we came across--barns, stables, cotton-gins, and even dwelling-houses; that we ravished the women and killed the men, and perpetrated all manner of outrages on the inhabitants. Therefore it struck me as strange that Generals Hardee and Smith should commit their, families to our custody, and even bespeak our personal care and attention. These officers knew well that these reports were exaggerated in the extreme, and yet tacitly assented to these publications, to arouse the drooping energies of the people of the South.

As the division of Major-General John W. Geary, of the Twentieth Corps, was the first to enter Savannah, that officer was appointed to command the place, or to act as a sort of governor. He very soon established a good police, maintained admirable order, and I doubt if Savannah, either before or since, has had a better government than during our stay. The guard-mountings and parades, as well as the greater reviews, became the daily resorts of the ladies, to hear the music of our excellent bands; schools were opened, and the churches every Sunday were well filled with most devout and respectful congregations; stores were reopened, and markets for provisions, meat, wood, etc., were established, so that each family, regardless of race, color, or opinion, could procure all the necessaries and even luxuries of life, provided they had money. Of course, many families were actually destitute of this, and to these were issued stores from our own stock of supplies.
On the subject on Georgia- this reminds me of the vote in Georgia on Jan 2, 1861. It was rigged by pro-Confederates lead by Judge Henry Benning. The vote was even announced on the cover of Harpers Weekly as 50,243 in favor of secession to 37,123 against. Estate documents that had been in trust (30 years ago) were given to the Georgia Historical Society showing massive fraud and detailed the counties. After checking out all the available documents and materials- the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Georgia Historical Society announced the final total as for the vote on January 2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession.

The AJC headline was;

RIGGED ELECTION PROPELLED GEORGIA INTO JOINING THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY

In regards to the actual burning of Atlanta-I've posted some of Sherman's EXACT words to the mayor and people of Atlanta below. In my opinion- Atlanta deserved to burn- as did every Confederate location that promoted war. I think Sherman put it best below in regards to all the Unionist citizens terrorized by the Confederates.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country..........

We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.

........the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

[PROUD TEXAN]

It SEEMS that total war (every man,woman,child, goat, chicken,dog, cat, then salt the earth) is the quickest way to end a war (Japan); and in the current war this is being toyed with by our enemies. But not even they have commited to this as of yet. But the minimum amount of force is all that is needed to achieve a victory. A guerilla war would be the result of excessive force and this may have been why Sherman did not continue this after he reached his goal. A guerilla war is a great way to win a war. Was this was a secondary plan for the Confederacy at this stage?
These are thoughts with no documentation (don't smoke me HellBoy.) I am not as knowledgable as most on this forum and express my thoughts as a way to gain knowledge, so please bear with me.

[Bladerunnernyc]

Originally Posted by PROUD TEXAN

It SEEMS that total war (every man,woman,child, goat, chicken,dog, cat, then salt the earth) is the quickest way to end a war (Japan); and in the current war this is being toyed with by our enemies. But not even they have commited to this as of yet. But the minimum amount of force is all that is needed to achieve a victory. A guerilla war would be the result of excessive force and this may have been why Sherman did not continue this after he reached his goal. A guerilla war is a great way to win a war. Was this was a secondary plan for the Confederacy at this stage?
These are thoughts with no documentation (don't smoke me HellBoy.) I am not as knowledgable as most on this forum and express my thoughts as a way to gain knowledge, so please bear with me.

Guerrilla war did not suit the national image that the Confederacy wished to cultivate of a civilized nation in being. The use of “semi-guerrilla warfare” (aka-American Revolution) would have involved fielding a small mobile army or two, or three that could have lived primarily off the land, or in any case would have required fewer supplies to sustain them. Union armies would have been allowed inside the Confederacy but then constantly harassed by the smaller Confederate mobile armies supported by guerrilla bands operating locally.

The main problem with the strategy was that it meant surrendering territory to the enemy and almost guaranteed a lengthy conflict. Given that the concept was well known at the time of the Civil War- it was never seriously considered a logical strategy by the southern aristocratic elite.

[Notch]

I beleive that the South wanted a "chivalrous", "noble" and "gentlemens" war... Sherman wanted it over with the least amount of loss of life. Period.

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking"

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over"

Sherman's remarks above clearly state two distinct things:

1. Keep your politics and bleeding hearts out of the way the military works. It has a job to do; let them do it.
2. War is ugly. If you want a pretty war, fine, it will go on and on and never end. If you want ti over and want to save lives instetad of throwing them away, then get down to business and make war, make it completely and whole-heartedly. The enemy will get so sick of it that it will end.

Something is to be said for this manner of military mindset. Our government could learn something from one of it's own. But alas, we tend to ignore the past and continually releat it.

My editorial is this: If you want the conflicts happening today to be over then let our soldiers do what they do instead of politically micromanaging them. It'll be over a whole lot quicker. And as stated, our enemy knows this tactic all too well and is using it. They know we won't. /end my editorial

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by PROUD TEXAN

It SEEMS that total war (every man,woman,child, goat, chicken,dog, cat, then salt the earth) is the quickest way to end a war (Japan); and in the current war this is being toyed with by our enemies. But not even they have commited to this as of yet. But the minimum amount of force is all that is needed to achieve a victory. A guerilla war would be the result of excessive force and this may have been why Sherman did not continue this after he reached his goal. A guerilla war is a great way to win a war. Was this was a secondary plan for the Confederacy at this stage?
These are thoughts with no documentation (don't smoke me HellBoy.) I am not as knowledgable as most on this forum and express my thoughts as a way to gain knowledge, so please bear with me.

Actually, it suited them just fine to an extent. The Confederacy opened Pandora's Box in 1862 & found it very hard to close. 1862 saw one act & one general orders issued from two different sources that very much affected guerrilla warfare. April 21, 1862 saw the Confederate Congress pass the Partisan Ranger Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_Ranger_Act After this passed & to help in his fight against Samuel Curtis's victorious Federal Army making its way through Missouri & Arkansas, Confederate Major-General Hindman issued General Orders Number 17, which organized Rebels in the TransMississippi region into irregular warfare bands. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...=&oq=&gs_rfai=Appendix A has the Partisan Ranger Act & Appendix B has General Order 17.
http://civilwarthosesurnames.blogspo...nfederacy.html Is another good source. Needless to say, having passed this & implemented it, the Confederacy found it could not control it. Growing quickly out of hand & certainly affecting how Federal armies dealt with the areas that contained them, the South figured out that they would have to bring these men under control. http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articl...iew.cfm?AID=68 In February 1864, the Confederate Congress repealed the act, but by then the damage was done & irregulars continued to operate until the end of the war.
http://www.southernmessenger.org/the...ost_column.htm

[bubblehead]

It has been observed many times in these forums that the second world war was an inevitable continuation of the first world war due to the way the war ended. The point being that Germany did not feel defeated at the end of the first world war. Therefore, a great deal of effort and lives was expended during the second war to ensure that Germany felt well and truly defeated.

Take that lesson and apply it to the ACW! Sherman did his part to make quite sure the South fully believed they were defeated. I was raised around people who never accepted that the South lost the war. What if the vast majority of the Southern states' population had felt that way, as the German population did after WW1? Could such failure to finish the job properly have led to further conflict at a later time?

You go to war to defeat the enemy! The enemy is defeated when he BELIEVES he is defeated! Whatever it takes to make him believe he is defeated is what it takes. I don't believe in targeting civilians, as the Arab barbarians do. But I do believe in disregarding the consequences on the civilian population while accomplishing a military objective.

War is an ugly, cruel, nasty and dehumanizing business! This cannot be changed.

[Bladerunnernyc]

Originally Posted by bubblehead

It has been observed many times in these forums that the second world war was an inevitable continuation of the first world war due to the way the war ended. The point being that Germany did not feel defeated at the end of the first world war. Therefore, a great deal of effort and lives was expended during the second war to ensure that Germany felt well and truly defeated.

Take that lesson and apply it to the ACW! Sherman did his part to make quite sure the South fully believed they were defeated. I was raised around people who never accepted that the South lost the war. What if the vast majority of the Southern states' population had felt that way, as the German population did after WW1? Could such failure to finish the job properly have led to further conflict at a later time?

You go to war to defeat the enemy! The enemy is defeated when he BELIEVES he is defeated! Whatever it takes to make him believe he is defeated is what it takes. I don't believe in targeting civilians, as the Arab barbarians do. But I do believe in disregarding the consequences on the civilian population while accomplishing a military objective.

War is an ugly, cruel, nasty and dehumanizing business! This cannot be changed.

Alexander Stevens predicted that the CSA would be eventually destroyed if it took the path of breaking away from the United States and starting a war- he was right!

[Early1964]

If I am understanding correctly it seems most all of you take it for granted that the foodstuffs of Georgia would have somhow made it to the ANV and the AoT if Sherman did not make his uncontested "March to the Sea". Perhaps some would have but Georgia Governor Brown was a major PIA to President Davis and except in the excellent troops Georgia contributed to the ANV there wasn't much in subsistance heading to Lee from Georgia by 1864. On the other hand General Sherman was quite worried about "that devil Forrest" disrupting his March. As the Confedracy fought in Districts rather then theatres Sherman's March was really just a vivid demonstration of what Gen. John Pope started in Virginia in 1862 before being routed by Lee at Second Bull Run. Some of the cruelest and most unnessasary war on civilians was conducted by General David Hunter in the lower Shennadoah Valley after Gettysburg. Lee's ANV was relatively mild in their conduct in Maryland and PA. during southern invasions above the Potomac.(see for reference Lee's General Orders and 1862 decree to the citizens of Maryland in September 1862). Chambersburg was burned in retaliation of Hunter's actions. I quess I agree with most of you that once the dogs of war are unleashed by either side it is a impossible mission to stop.

[Slug]

Originally Posted by guthrieba

Sir, I must respectfully disagree. War should not be made on civilians. If you war against civilians, then you are nothing better than a d--nYankee.

Hello guthrieba.
Wow, that's quite a statement.
Is it true?
I guess it depends who you ask.
Most of my life, I have felt that the Yankees were the good guys.
Like the cavalry were in movies against the Indians.
Or, the defenders of the Alamo against the Mexicans.
And so on...
OK, I'll commit.
Right now in time, I will say that the march to the sea was justified.
Why?
Because the North wanted to end the war.
As I write the above, I think about what others have said about harassing civilians.
I don't like armies that harass civilians.

[IronMan15]

Originally Posted by RapierFighter

One of the most controversial aspects of the Civil War is the above mentioned topic. Some have gone so far as to suggest that his rampage across the South to be the birth of what we would call modern warfare, that is to say that the war must be carried into the heartlands of an enemy to destroy his capacity to make war, and anyone who contributes in any way to the enemy war effort constitutes and enemy. War was no longer confined to battlefields.

The controversy rages still. Supporters say that General Sherman was a hero who did what had to be done to end the war and reunite the country, lest it go on and on. Die-hard Southerners instead believe that Sherman was a war criminal who used dishonorable means to force the South to submit, whatever the cost to the civilians caught in the middle. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

Was the March justified? If it was not, by what rule or principle? If Sherman was a war criminal, what exactly was his crime? Is it right in any sense of the word to burn crops and kill livestock to reduce the enemy's ability to resist? Is it fair the lay the blame for modern warfare on the shoulders of one man considering that the Civil War laid the groundwork for war in the 20th century in so many ways?

Sherman is still a demon to many in the South, which is purely hippocritical considering I have spoken to die-hard rebs (I lived in Virginia for five years) who call the man a war criminal with one breath but defend the actions of Quantrill's Raiders with the next. Quantrill's Raiders murdered 150 unarmed men and boys (boys, by the way, means that they were CHILDREN) in their attack on Lawrence, Kansas. How can this be justified? Are actions deplorable if committed by the enemy and somehow always justified if committed by one's own side? If someone is a die-hard Confederate, how do they justify the actions of a guerilla when those actions were deplored by the Confederate Government? It has been suggested to me by those whose company I don't much care for that Quantrill's actions were justifiable because he was fighting for a good cause, and that the cause of Southern Independence was worth any atrocity that might be committed. After all, you can't break an omlette with breaking 150 defenseless aggs.

But then Sherman is the war criminal. The South may hate his guts, but Sherman never hated them back. Sherman loved the South. He loved Southerners. He lived in the South for many years. He wanted to show mercy at a time when Radical Republicans were looking for vengeance. His voice was among the loudest calling for an amicable reunion. Sherman even voiced sympathy for the Southern call for state's rights. He believed that some matters are better left for the states to dictate for themselves rather than the U.S. Government. That said, he believed that seccession was going to far. Sherman thought that there was nothing, let alone slavery discussed in terms of expansion and economics that could be a justifiable reason to risk the downfall of the nation. Sherman, by the way, was not troubled by the concept of slavery. He cared nothing for blacks, and figured that whatever the South did with them was just fine. He didn't however, believe that the attempts by Northern politicians to curtail the expansion of slavery into the west gave the South the right to secceed. When Sherman, at the end of the war, met face to face with Confederate Joespeh E. Johnston, Johnston was elated. Sherman was his friend, and Johnston also knew that Sherman's love of the South would make for a less-than-vengeful attitude towards the disbanding of his army. Johnston was right. Sherman's terms to Johnston were favorable to say the least, and many veterans of Johnston's command viewed Sherman in a very friendly light. To many Southerners, Sherman was a hero who just happened to wear a blue uniform.

Still, Sherman was a loyal soldier of the United States. He took very seriously his oath to 'defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.' He was not amused at his friends who broke that oath and became the very enemies in question. Sherman wanted the South back in the Union. He wanted his country whole again. That meant winning the war.

Sherman's mission to brun crops, slaughter livestock, destroy Southern industry, and wipe out the Southern rail system was brutal, and there is no way around that. But was it necessary? Was Sherman a criminal, or a man who got cozy with the needs of war? If he hadn't reduced the ability of the South to continue the fight, what would have happened? The war would almost certainly have gone on longer. How many more would have died? How many die-hard Confederates would not be alive today because their ancestors would have been killed in the war in 1866?

Here is another question that bears asking: If Sherman had been a Confederate general and had undertaken such a destructive march across the North, how would the South feel about him then? Would he be a man who did what he had to do and thus his actions would have been justified? Does the South hate him not so much for the destrcution he caused than for the fact that he beat them and hastened their defeat? Is right or wrong based not on action but on whose side you're on?

The war ended in its time, and a great reason for this is the South could not continue the war because of the actions of Sherman behind their lines. Call him a criminal, but the March to the Sea brought him little pleasure. He talked publicly about the South needing to be taught a lesson (so to speak), but like so many others, the public man and the private man were quite different. He loved the South, as stated before, and was torn apart by his need to destroy it. But he thought that there was no other way if the war was to end any time soon and his old Southern friends were to be his countrymen again. He talked much to both Lincoln and to Grant about how much he despised the need to punish the South, even as he was telling the newspapers that he felt no sympathy for them.

War is hell, and guess who said that? Perhaps Sherman thought that laying waste to a place he loved and was home to many of his friends was hell. Perhaps this cannot be explained by right or wrong. Perhaps there is no fair or unfair here. In the end, the war had to end. The country had to be made whole. Just like Aggamemnon who sacrificed his own daughter to gain the winds for his ships to sail to Troy and destroy it, Sherman had to look in the mirror and realize that he had to destory something he loved for the sake of a country he loved more.

Nothing about that war was fair. Little about any war is. As much as his name is demonized in the South even today, I can only sit and ponder the emotions the man must have felt inside in places he didn't talk about as he sat on his horse and watched Atlanta burn to the ground.

In my opinion, such as it is, the man was no demon, he was a soldier. He was no war criminal, he was a loyal American. He was not a viscious destoryer, he was a man who wanted his country to survive. He wanted the United States to reunite. Of course, we did just that.

The war is over. The wounds have healed, even if we lament the scars that still show.

I can imagine that many of you will be very adamant in stating your opinions about this, and I can promise that they will sometimes be very contrary to mine. But Sherman was among those who brought the South back into the United States and allowed us to be brothers so that we could continue to discuss the reasons that are ancestors, for four bloody years, forgot their brotherhood.

So, brothers...fire away. Tell me what you think. If you think that I am a butthead who engages in needless sermonizing, you're probably right. But I care about my country, and part of that is a belated sense of relief that it exists when it might not have 140 years ago.

Tell me what you think, and feel free to be brutal in your judgments.

Sources:

Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American -- by B. H. Liddell Hart

None died in Vain, the Saga of the American Civil War-by Robert Leckie

Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman (Library of America) -- by William Tecumseh Sherman, Charles Royster

And the documentary, April 1865 on the History Channel

Thanks. Love all.

Sherman's March has been a controversial matter in my house for a long time, it's been argued about at thanksgiving. The reason being is that My Dad was born and raised in Wisconsin, the great(maybe another great in their) grandson of a Colonel in the 12th Illinois Cavalry. My mom was born in Houston and was raised the daughter of two Confedrates(I wouldn't say diehard) who told her that Sherman was an evil, maniacal rapist s.o.b. . My Dad was raised to believe he was a hero. From an unbiased perspective I think his actions were justified and ended the war, but also think it may have been extreme, but war's hell. Great post sir