Demon Of The Lost Cause Sherman And Civil War History

[john boland]

"Demon Of The Lost Cause Sherman And Civil War History" is a 150 page short novel by Florida State History Professor Wesley Moody. This work is a study of William Tecumseh Sherman's reputation from his first public servant roles to his death in 1891. Moody explores why Sherman remains one of the most controversial figures in American history using contemporary newspaper accounts, Shermans's letters and memoirs, as well as biographies of Sherman and histories of his times. Moody speculates that Sherman's shifting reputation was formed by whoever contolled the message, whether it was the Lost Cause historians of the South, Sherman's political enemies in the North, or Sherman himself. Areas of focus include but not limited to Vicksburg Campaign, The Battle Of Chatanooga, Meridan Mississippi, Battle Of And Evacuation Of Atlanta, The March To The Sea, and the Burning Of Columbia, South Carolina. An enjoyable informative read that reveals that Sherman may have not been the tyrant the legends and myths have portrayed.

[D1J1]

Can you give us some clarification? Is it a novel or a study of Sherman and the Lost Cause? I am confused by the word "novel" by whomever in your post.

Regards,
Dennis

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by john boland

"Demon Of The Lost Cause Sherman And Civil War History" is a 150 page short novel by Florida State History Professor Wesley Moody. This work is a study of William Tecumseh Sherman's reputation from his first public servant roles to his death in 1891. Moody explores why Sherman remains one of the most controversial figures in American history using contemporary newspaper accounts, Shermans's letters and memoirs, as well as biographies of Sherman and histories of his times. Moody speculates that Sherman's shifting reputation was formed by whoever contolled the message, whether it was the Lost Cause historians of the South, Sherman's political enemies in the North, or Sherman himself. Areas of focus include but not limited to Vicksburg Campaign, The Battle Of Chatanooga, Meridan Mississippi, Battle Of And Evacuation Of Atlanta, The March To The Sea, and the Burning Of Columbia, South Carolina. An enjoyable informative read that reveals that Sherman may have not been the tyrant the legends and myths have portrayed.

I would surely check out the footnotes to see where his information comes from. So far, I can only find a screen writer that gives his review of the book.

[john boland]

It is a study in the form of a short novel that draws from different sources both from a Union and as well as Confederate viewpoints such as the periodicals of that era. Others sources include diaries and memoirs of actual observers. Some of the sources remained with the arguement that Sherman was a tyrant while some indicate Sherman actions were justified. The study presents the reader with an overview of Sherman's life and how his reputation may have been unfairly villianized only to statisfy the role of culprit or the Lost Cause prime anatagonist.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by john boland

It is a study in the form of a short novel that draws from different sources both from a Union and as well as Confederate viewpoints such as the periodicals of that era. Others sources include diaries and memoirs of actual observers. Some of the sources remained with the arguement that Sherman was a tyrant while some indicate Sherman actions were justified. The study presents the reader with an overview of Sherman's life and how his reputation may have been unfairly villianized only to statisfy the role of culprit or the Lost Cause prime anatagonist.

And I repeat. Are the writers sources listed in the back or as footnotes? If there are none, then it amounts to the writers opinion which may or may not be revisionist itself.

[D1J1]

I found this review helpful. It echos some of what John has provided as well as other items and clarifications. No mention of the term novel, and that is a definite plus to me.

http://cwba.blogspot.com/2012/01/moo...erman-and.html

Based on the information at hand I am not certain I would buy the book, but I definitely would check out a copy at the library if one becomes available.

Regards,
Dennis

[john boland]

There is a 20 page Notes Section with footnotes as well as a 10 page Biblography at the conclusion.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by john boland

There is a 20 page Notes Section with footnotes as well as a 10 page Biblography at the conclusion.

Great! Thanks for your answer. That puts a different view on things.

Marshall

[john boland]

Here is an example of how some of the arguements are presented. In regards to Burning Of Columbia SC, a Formal Commision was formed to hear claims presented by both Union and Confederate Governements. The Commission collected evidence and interviewed witnesses about the Burning of the State Capital. Sherman testified that there was no military reason to put Columbia to the torch for if so he would have do so. Sherman and his staff had made HQ's within the city limits and if a burning was ordered it would have more sense to initiate it as Sherman's forces moved out of the city. Wade Hampton also testified to the Commission. His arguement was the fire was started as retribution for session. Sherman also added that the fire was likely the result of the smoldering embers left behind from the fire the Confederates had set to destroy cotton and and warehouses packed with grain before Hampton left the city. When it all washed out, future generations of Southerners would feel Sherman intentionally tried to ruin Hampton's reputation further adding to Sherman's villian role. In US Grant's memoirs, Grant stated he did not who started the fires but he knew the Union troops put them out. Arguements such as these are presented to vindicate Sherman from his tyrant sterotype. I enjoyed the study and found it at my local library this past week.

[hellboy30]

Interesting, thanks for the post John.

[john boland]

Even in the 1970's authors were trying to draw parallels between Sherman and atrocities in the Vietnam war. "Merchant Of Terror: General Sherman And Total War was published in 1973. Some antiwar authors during these turbulent times portrayed Sherman as a terrorist whose actions could be compared to the actions of the Japanesse during the Bataan Death March and even set precedents for modern day massacres such as at My Lai. The idea of an agrarian underdog fighting for is independence against an industrial power willing to use torture and attrocities to ensure victory was a Lost Cause version of the Civil War. These authors saw the American involvement in The Vietnam War in the same realm. If Sherman's actions were the standard by which war was waged when the kid gloves came off, then the behavior of the US Army in 1968 should not have been considered any different than the behavior of the Us Army in 1864. Surely The Civil War and The Vietnam War were fought 100 years apart and militarily different but Sherman's critics seemed to blame him to a degree for modern trends in discipline breakdowns.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by john boland

Even in the 1970's authors were trying to draw parallels between Sherman and atrocities in the Vietnam war. "Merchant Of Terror: General Sherman And Total War was published in 1973. Some antiwar authors during these turbulent times portrayed Sherman as a terrorist whose actions could be compared to the actions of the Japanesse during the Bataan Death March and even set precedents for modern day massacres such as at My Lai. The idea of an agrarian underdog fighting for is independence against an industrial power willing to use torture and attrocities to ensure victory was a Lost Cause version of the Civil War. These authors saw the American involvement in The Vietnam War in the same realm. If Sherman's actions were the standard by which war was waged when the kid gloves came off, then the behavior of the US Army in 1968 should not have been considered any different than the behavior of the Us Army in 1864. Surely The Civil War and The Vietnam War were fought 100 years apart and militarily different but Sherman's critics seemed to blame him to a degree for modern trends in discipline breakdowns.

Maybe this will help you to think about human nature.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people...-the-Dust.html