Campfire Chat - General DiscussionsThis is a forum for posting discussion topics, questions, current events, and anything else you'd like to chat about. Please post serious Civil War History threads in appropriate History Forums.
I'll try and dig it up for you. Here it is under a web site called:
The Reconstruction of North Georgia. Just go to the second paragraph with the title, 'The Civil War Ends' to read about Gen. Sherman sending Gov. Brown those surrender terms three times.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Found an interesting web site which describes the Civil War in Georgia. The first battle it talks about in the one which took place at Griswoldville on Nov. 21, 1864.
Makes for interesting reading about the first significant battle of Sherman's March to the Sea. Plus, further down the page, you will find many links concerning the Civil War, Confederate units and other web sites on the war.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I like books with lots of pictures. I was reading the Time-Life Civil War series volume on Sherman's March to the sea and saw a mention of General Osterhaus ordering any of his men found looting to be fined a month's pay. I tried to find the source for this information and found nothing until I went into a CD copy of the Official Records Chapter (Volume?) LVI, page 498, dated Nov. 20, 1864, Field Orders #177. I hope this is proper citing of the source:
"1. In publishing paragraph II, Special Field Orders 172, from department headquarters, the attention of all officers commanding foraging parties is again called to the importance of enforcing the very strictest discipline while on such duties. These parties must absolutely be conducted in obedience and in conformity to existing orders; when found guilty of violating the restrictions laid down in that order must be punished by their commanding officer. The fine imposed should be not less than the deduction of one month's pay. Officers in charge of foraging parties who permit their men to straggle or commit unwarrantable acts must be reported to these headquarters, and their names will be sent forward for summary dismissal from service for incompetence, for failing to enforce orders, and for disobedience of orders."
That's all well and good but it made me wonder. If a man is fined a month's pay and is feeling impoverished, wouldn't that encourage him to be more sly in his looting, and more energetic? And isn't that kind of like trying to instruct a child that hitting is wrong by whaling the tar out of him?
Neil, thank you for this site about Georgia, I enjoy learning about some of the little known events. I found it very moving hearing of the 14 year old and his dead male family members on with field with him. It all seems so fruitless, I bet they felt they were doing the right thing when they signed up and had little idea of the futility of the resistance. I must say I do enjoy the site links I get introduce to on this site, I don't always have time to search for new ones, so it's great to have them picked out for me.
At first glance, a month's pay does seem a bit light. Please notice however, that the order was modified by "not less than." And officers of the punished had dismissal hanging over their head. (There you might think that an officer might be glad to be sent home, but dismissal was then more humiliating than today's dishonorable discharge.)
Please consider this opinion (and don't press me to cite statistics, it's only a semi-logical feeling based on the times): The soldier was to be punished for exceeding the restrictions. The soldier didn't need plunder to feed, clothe, house, or arm himself. Chances are, he sent most of his pay home to help his family. Take a month's pay out of that and he isn't hurt -- his family is. If he wasn't sending his pay home, he was spending it in gambling, purchasing comforts from sutlers, and other pursuits of which he would be deprived but could not be replaced by plunder.
Short of more severe corporal punishments he could be given, a month's pay may be considered a definite negative. (But, then there is, what if he isn't caught at it?)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I was reading the Time-Life Civil War series volume on Sherman's March to the sea and saw a mention of General Osterhaus ordering any of his men found looting to be fined a month's pay. I tried to find the source for this information and found nothing until I went into a CD copy of the Official Records Chapter (Volume?) LVI, page 498, dated Nov. 20, 1864, Field Orders #177. I hope this is proper citing of the source:
Linear Mode
