Sherman's March to the Sea - Page 2

dawna · #11 03-27-2005, 12:32 AM

Neil:

A few thoughts at the end of the day. I'm sure you're not suggesting that after almost four years of fighting and naval blockades in the South, that there was little economical, physical or moral strain on the Southern people...or are you?

My questions from my last posting: "And given the mindset of a revenge seeking army, is it so difficult to imagine the true extent of the destruction and terror that civilians suffered at the hands of Sherman's army? Since the Leiber Code was introduced in 1863 as a code of conduct to be used during the war (war crimes - rape, murder, plunder), how do you reconcile this to the treatment of innocent civilians (women, children, elderly, sick) during Sherman's campaign? If the theory behind Sherman's total warfare policy was to include society as well as the military, then why bother with an Order such as the Leiber Code? Or was this just another form of the Lincoln administration paying lip service to it's own war-time propoganda?"

And also from my previous posting, I'm curious to know what you make of the Emory International Law's report on the plight of black refugees during Sherman's march to the sea.

Dawna

unionblue · #12 03-27-2005, 03:01 AM

8thvacav & Dawna,

To answer a few of your questions, I refer to the book, Marching Through Georgia, The Story Of Soldiers & Civilians During Sherman's Campaign, by Lee Kennett.

From Part 1, Invasion, Chapter 1, Mise-en-Sce'ne, page 4:

"The Rebel invasion of Pennsylvania had been handsomely beaten back at Gettysburg; Grant's own victory at Vicksburg had sundered the Confederacy along the line of the Mississippi; then too, Tennessee, Kentucky, the western part of Virginia--now called West Virginia--and portions of other rebellious states had fallen to the Union army. But if the scale had clearly tipped in the North's favor, after three years of war the core of the South had not been pierced, and large Rebel armies were still intact; there was much work to be done."

8thvacav, you submit that the campaign by Sherman was not needed because the South could not get supplies and was running out of men. Someone forgot to tell General Lee, Hood, Johnson, Bragg and others this fact. Lee defending Petersburg and Hood smashing his army against Union forces before Franklin and Nashville were far in the future, before Sherman's campaign. There was no sign of any of the Confederate armies in the East or the West were ready to give up. President Davis in Richmond had made it very clear that unless the South could have independence from the United States, he would not stop fighting.

Dawna, in spite of the three years (remember, there was a bit to go before Sherman began his march, which took ten months to complete) of shortages, economic impact of the Union blockade and other privations, are you telling me the South was already to accept surrender terms before Sherman began his march? Again, what evidence to you have of that? (And no, Dawna, I am not saying that the war had not taken its toll on the South and its civilian population, but what was the condition of moral and the war fighting spirit of the South before the march to the sea? Do you see any indication by large masses of Southern civilians or military that were ready to give up with the military situation that was in place before Sherman's campaign in the early months of 1864?)

Time and time again we on this board are presented with the "fact" that Sherman was an 'evil' man, that his actions during the march to the sea were wrong, that there were illegal war crimes committed, depredations, wanton destruction, etc. My questions are;

What portions of the 1863 Leiber Code did Sherman and his army specifically violate?

Define 'innocent civilians' and what specifically the Leiber Code has to say about enemy civilians or those civilians in rebellion.

How many murders, deaths and hangings were there of the Southern civilian population during and along the route of Sherman's forces during the march to the sea campaign?

I have heard the story of slaves being left on one side of the river while the Union army pulled up a pontoon bridge to prevent them from following them. I will research it a bit more and if the facts check out the way you say they do, I will comment. But I am also curious; did you know the reason why run away slaves were so desperate to follow Sherman's army? Have you read the reports of Wheeler's Confederate calvary shooting any and all slaves who were off the plantation and following the Union army? Is there any complaint or law broken in these instances? Or is it alright to shoot 'property' and no harm done?

In other words, I hear charge after charge against Sherman, many of them emotional in content but with little evidence to support them. I too, will check my sources, but again, please provide me with something I can check also.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

sgtcsa · #13 03-27-2005, 03:41 AM

Unionblue,
Let me say this, about that. I doubt that any real figures are available for what you want. Perhaps I haven't explored my options deep enough. However, I do know this, What Sherman did, was contrary to the 'gentlemans' war, if you will, that the Confederates fought, or even the way the war was fought in the first 3 years. As I have stated on this board before, I can probably see why he decided to take that route, but as far as I'm concerned, that is still no real excuse for dealing with the civilian populace the way he did. For years, it so demoralized the South, and angered the average Southerner so much, that they didn't vote Republican for many years after the war ended. The solid South went Democratic in it's voting habits, and it hasn't been untill the last, perhaps 25-30 years that, that trend has stopped. Sherman instilled such a deep seated anger that it has not been abated much by the intervening years. As a young boy, I can remember my grandparents talking about the way Sherman treated the inhabitants of the South, and it was not very flattering. I guess many stories have been told about his march through the South, and some you probably can believe and some not, but I believe that the stories that have been told from family to family and generation to generation can be relied upon to have a basis of truth to them, with some, perhaps something added and to others, something lost, but by and large, I believe them to be true. I wish I had the time this morning to put into words the stories that have been passed down to me about this conflict, and maybe one of these days, I may do just that, but untill then, suffice to say, in spite of what has occured in other time periods, this event still ranks as a major tragedy in military lore. It is my hope that we, as Southerners, don't not let it kanker our thoughts too badly, to hold such a grudge against our northern neighbors, that it keeps us bitter towards them. I do not condone Shermans actions, nor will I ever, but I realize that I must continue to move on. The lives that were taken during that event, will always be remembered and honored by us, who continue to live. We will never forget.

larry_cockerham · #14 03-27-2005, 08:02 AM

A lot of the foregoing discussion seems to bash our old buddy (depending on your view) Bill Sherman for his conduct, but does not often address the tactical management of the war. Sherman was the mastermind behind the war in the western theater. He made the decision to ignore Bell's Army of Tennessee, figuring they could do little harm since George Thomas was in place in Nashville along with Wilson's cavalry. Starting toward the sea from Atlanta, he was able to subdue Georgia and South Carolina to a great extent and was ready to link with Grant if the need developed. Sherman was part of the high command, perhaps it's operative center. Being from North Carolina, I never much liked the thought of destruction being thrust on South Carolina and Georgia, but if the war was to end, it had to happen. Did it need to be quite that severe? Probably not.

johan_steele · #15 03-27-2005, 08:37 AM

Sigh here we go again. I think these several posts ask and answer many of the pertinent questions about Sherman and his men.

For Neil: Less than a thousand CS casualties, both military & civilians (over half were Georgia Militia at Griswoldville) Sherman lost well under 200 men. There is no figure on the dead and wounded freed slaves at Ebeneezer Creek. The best guesses I have seen place the number at well over 2500... defenseless, unarmed civilians. But again, because they were black men, women and children attacked by Wheeler they are overshadowed by Sherman. THough Jeff Davis (the Union General) was as much at fault for ordering the pontoons pulled before they could cross.

Shermans actions at the very least shortened the War by a year if not ended it. It is a fascinating look, as to it being the first time such tactics were used. It was not the US actions during the Seminole War, THe French in Spain, English in India & China in others words there was ample precedence w/in the last 60 years of much more brutal actions by European Armies against a civilian populace. Shermans march was nothing new to the world and hardly as brutal as the French actions in Spain.

Here are some titles on the subject that I think are well written and intriguing.

Fellman, Michael Citizen Sherman: A LIfe of William Tecumseh Sherman

Lewis, Lloyd Sherman, Fighting Prophet

Marszalek, John A Soldiers Passion for Order

same author Shermans Other War, The General and the Civil War Press

His own memoirs are interesting and not too self serving...

As to the March to the Sea there are quite a few books out there some of them better than others. While I don't agree w/ the conclusions of all listed below I think they are reputable and fairly intellectually honest.

Glatthar, Joseph THe March to the Sea and beyond:Shermans Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaign

Neely, Mark "Was the Civil War a Total War?"

Royster, Charles THe Destructive War: Sherman, Jackson and the Americans

Cist, Henry M., Campaigns of the Civil War.-VII. The Army of the Cumberland, Castle Books, 2002.

Cox, Jacob D., Campaigns of the Civil War.-X. The March to the Sea-Franklin and Nashville, Castle Books, 2002.

johan_steele · #16 03-27-2005, 08:51 AM

Very simply put by a worthy CS General: "Hit the enemy where he ain't."

Shermans March to the Sea proved beyond a shadow of doubt to any and all who that the CSA had lost. The CS couldn't defend it's heartland, 60,000 men moved through the heart of Georgia w/ little significant opposition. How much Jeff Davis could or was willing to do to protect the CSA was shown to all.

Some would say that Sherman proved that it was all over but the shouting. The CSA could no longer field an army that could seriously challenge a Union Army in the field.

Who was Sherman fighting? The will of the CSA. Wars and battles are won in the will.

Here is a rough estimation of the damage from Shermans own words... bear w/ me if they are off as I am working from memory.

35,000+ bales of cotton
7000 horses
20,000 head of cattle

approx $100 million in property damage.

Cotton, how is that a military target? The CS was all but bankrupt due to inept handling of the treasury, their one main bargaining crop was cotton that could be traded for guns, cannon, equipment etc. aka a valid military target.

Horses. The CS Cav, transport for cannon supplies etc. aka a valid military target

Cattle. Without the cattle, the food, soldiers cannot fight. Battles grind into sieges, sieges into truces & surrenders.

As to $100 millions in property damage. 200 miles of Railroad (transport troops & supplies), bridges (same as RR's), mills (changes grain to flour to feed horses & troops). The destruction of Plantations... keep in mind that approx 25,000 slaves fell in behind Shermans Army. Care to take a guess at the value of 25,000 slaves? I'll wager it would be considered about a quarter of that 100 millions. Everyone conveniently forgets that the Emancipation Proclomation gave the South fits. In many cases the soldiers didn't even have to free the slaves, they did it themselves and eliminated the CS's chief source of labor and the main reason for rebellion in the first place. Kind of pointless to fight for the God given right to buy & sell human flesh when the chief product is headed for freedom.

Every plantation & its fields burned, every barn destroyed was that much less fodder for the CS Army or Cotton for the purchases of English Cannon & rifles. Every home destroyed or family displaced by the approach of 60,000 men was one more mouth calling upon the CS govt to feed & protect them and more proof that the CS was no longer viable. The population saw it, the world saw it.

Sherman had less than 200 men killed, almost none in combat. Most were hanged by Wheelers men... to include a 14 year old drummer boy. Of coarse these numbers don't include those black men, women and children killed by Wheelers Cav at Ebenezer Creek when Jeff Davis (no, the Union Bastard) had the pontoons pulled before the freed slaves could cross.

As to the robbery & looting, how much was there really? Shermans Army averaged just one wagon per regiment. This does not count the ambulances. The wagons contained ammunition and rations. Shermans men average 12-15 miles a day, tore up a mile of railroad per day. How much time did that leave for looting? How did they carry the loot? From reading the diaries, and letters of men who participated they certainly didn't get rich from that march. Now I have done several route marches carrying a rifle, blanket roll, rations, canteen, 8 lbs of ammo... Sorry but I don't think I'd be real interested in carrying a chandelier or family heirloom furniture.

As to the Rapes.... how many were there? I believe there were about twenty reported. I believe the number was off by about 10 times. Though I suspect that not all were commited by marauding evil yanks. There is some evidence to suggest that at least one group of hanged Union men were hanged by other Union troops... apparently they felt rape was a little out of line to. But there were more than just Union Troops in the area. CS Deserters, some estimates as high as 10,000 of them though I don't think the number was half that high. Wheelers Cav... who didn't exactly have a steller rep w/ Georgia locals. And of coarse the freed slaves, people who had never been paid, a lifetime of slavery... suddenly an opportunity for revenge.

Not that there would be any reason for revenge, take a look at the conditions on Cobb's plantation if anyone needs a reason for revenge.

What could Lee or Johnston have done if they had ample supplies? And when I say ample supplies I mean food. If Sherman had chased Hood into TN there is no doubt Hood would have been crushed completely... Thomas did a fine job of that himself. But the South would not have known beyond a shadow of doubt that it was well and truly whipped.

Don't be misled by the stories of the ragged rebel, a large majority of them have proven to be bogus. The largest problem w/ the CS Army wasn't supplies but an inept quartermaster sys that believed ammunition and arms were more important than food. Lee's men were well equiped w/ arms and ammunition and even well clothed from late 1862 to the very end. Shoes were a problem for both sides during the war simply because of the materials and construction of the time. They wore out quickly with hard use. Johnstons forces at Bentonville were well armed and well equiped as well.

When Sherman started his march, Grant was stalemated in front of Petersburg, Lee was in a strong position behind earthworks, HIs Army was intact and a dangerous foe. Hood was northbound for Tennessee. Leaving only "insignificant" forces in Alabama and the Trans Mississippi. But those men were still there in the fall of 64 and still quite willing and able to fight. Jeff Davis certainly didn't believe the War was over, in fact he seemed to be becoming more shrill and unrealistic as the war neared its end.

I am reminded of the similarities to Japan and Nazi Germany in WWII. THey were beaten by late 44 but they were still fighting most of a year later. It took Berlin to convince the Germans they were licked and two A bombs to convince the Japanese. It took Shermans March to convince the CS they were licked. Sherman showed the world and the CS that the war was all but over, the South was beaten and incapable of winning the War. Before Shermans march that was still in doubt.

Take a look how long after Sherman left Atlanta before the city had newspapers running again, take a look at what the Georgia governor had to say about the hundreds of Wagons loaded w/ loot when he arrived in Atlanta after all of Shermans men were gone. Look to the reports of looting of Dalton by Wheelers men and the anger it caused Georgians at the time.

Bluntly & brutally put Sherman scared the CS into submission. THe scale of destruction nowhere approached what other generals he is compared w/ might have done. I assure you if Sherman had been a Gengis Khan North Georgia would be barren still. If he had been one of the French Generals in Spain during the Napoleans time... All of North Georgia would have blue coated ancestors. I could go on but I don't believe it is needed.

Sherman was no worse than a host of his contemporaries. He was a better general than most yes; but when it comes to his being evil. No more than any of his contemperaries.

On the Indian subject, there are two mistakes I believe are made. 1: the belief that the Indians of the 19th century were just poor innocent lovers of nature. No, not only untue but patently insulting to the Native Americans of the time and of today. THe Lakota, Cheyenne, Blackfoot, Kiowa, Commanche, Ute etc were some of histories toughest fighting men. They were warriors, men who lived to fight and the white man provided a wonderful opponent. They were no poor helpless bunny huggers. It was a kind of warfare I pray the world never again experiances, it was a no quarter given and none asked conflict. The closest any in the modern world have to such a clash of cultures culminated in the savage Pacific fighting of WWII.

2: Some equate all of the ills the Native Americans faced with Sherman. Shermans treatment of the Native Americans was no different than that of the US for fifty years prior. Think I'm wrong, look to the Trail of Tears (ordered by a Southern President I believe) the Seminole War, the Blackhawk war, Commanche dealings etc. Native Americans were being lied to, murdered, ejected from their lands well prior to Sherman even going to West Point and it was all but policy into the 1890's.

Was Sherman an evil man? No more so than any Civil War General. I'm always suprised that noone places the blame for the march where it belongs, upon the CS govt as they made no real attempt to stop or even to slow it.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

johan_steele · #17 03-27-2005, 08:56 AM

The what if question that if Shermans men had been angels crossing North Georgia, touched no personal property whatsoever. Commited no depradations of any sort. Sherman and his men would still be hated and reviled as the men that broke the spirit of the Confederacy. They would still be blamed of actions that they were not responsible for and every crime commited in Georgia would still be blamed on them. In my own opinion Shermans men are hated first for their success and second for any damage they might have done.

Burning no private homes... actually they burned very few private homes. Plantation homes as they found them w/ great enthusiasm after Cobb's Plantation. If they hadn't looted anything... where in the devil did all of that loot go and who carried it? The idea that they stole wagons to carry it is not supported by any letter or diary or first hand account I have ever read. There is ample evidence of everything from buggies to heavy farm wagons being used to bring foraged food into the men at night. But again there is no evidence to suggest they were used to haul loot. They were abandoned or broken up into fire wood.

The problem w/ the deep seated hatred of anything north of the Mason Dixon is that it existed well prior to Sherman and his picnic from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman could have fed a starving CS city and they would still hate him... actually he did (Savannah).

As to the stolen property, most of it was slaves. I think that more than anything is what irritates those who espouse Sherman as the Anti-Christ. Whether they are willing to admit it or not.

As to Shermans March turning the former South into stolid Democrats... they were that prior to the CW, there was no change there. And the hatred of the Republican party was focused more upon Lincoln and the EP than Sherman.

johan_steele · #18 03-27-2005, 08:57 AM

Let us go one step further in my reasoning about the thievery and personal enrichment. The 35,000 bales of cotton burned. If Sherman was intent upon enriching himself why didn't he order the confiscation of the Cotton for it's use by the Union? He didn't because he knew hauling that much Cotton requireded horses and men to drive the wagons, it would have slowed the Army to a crawl. Slow, that is something never attributed to the March to the Sea.

yankeewoman · #19 03-27-2005, 01:45 PM

You are correct, sir! Those bales of burning cotton in Columbia.....? Now, who do you all think set fire to them? They were burning when Sherman's troops came into the city. I believe that means that someone who had been there prior to entry of the Union Army (let's see now, who would that be...... oh, yeah!... WADE HAMPTON) had pulled the cotton (some loose, not all baled) into the streets and set fire to it! Lay the blame for Columbia where it lies ...... on Wade Hampton.

As for Mrs. S. writing Lincoln, she did do just that. Sherman suffered from what might be termed clinical depression in our time. This happened before Shiloh, when he called for more troops than what were needed. Have any other generals of the ACW done this?

As for Ebeneezer Creek, the hordes of slaves following the Union Army had been told to disperse. The marching troops could not afford the time to stop and care for the indigent. Gen. Jeff. C. Davis did what any rational fighting general would have/should have done. Now, what was it that Gen. Wheeler did?

I have read Fellman's book and, while I am under the impression that he has no great admiration for Sherman, there is no evidence that civilians were allowed to starve, What it was, was war. War is cruelty; you cannot refine it .........oh, wait! I think somebody said that didn't they?

sgtcsa · #20 03-27-2005, 04:20 PM

You know, I believe you're right. Perhaps it's too bad the Southern army didn't adabt that form of warfare, but then, I suppose they thought that it was too humane, and in the end, I guess that's what done'em in. I wonder what would have happened if the Southern army had used the scorched earth policy when it invaded Pa. Just another what if, in a war full of what if's.

sgtcsa