SPECIAL FIELD ORDERS, No. 15.

[william42]

It's amazing the number of people who have opinions on the law and never, never, ever study case law.

I'm probably goin' out on a limb here, but I'll bet there are large numbers of people who have an opinion "on the law", but have never studied case law. I'm one of them. Are you an attorney whit? Or do you just like to study case law on your own.

Terry

[whitworth]

If you read Sherman biography you will find that all of Sherman's military orders were overturned, while his army was still in North Carolina. Civilians, particularly the Secretary of War Stanton, were taking civilian control back from the military. Sherman was so unhappy with Stanton when his troops marched through Washington, that he refused to shake Stanton's hand.

Some read words and fail to understand that Sherman's Order 15 was not a permanent law of the land. It would never pass Constitutional muster to give away private property. There was a legal procedure for confiscation of property as provided in law, but not accomplished by a military order.

[ole]

Giving the slaves a plot of land was an either an act of kindness or a ploy to shed his following -- or both. The wording of the order makes it plain that he knew he didn't have the authority to transfer property -- only to give temporary leave to live on it and raise a crop. Much too much has been made of the "40 acres and a mule" schtick. There was never any such thing ... officially.

Ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Ole

Giving the slaves a plot of land was an either an act of kindness or a ploy to shed his following -- or both. The wording of the order makes it plain that he knew he didn't have the authority to transfer property -- only to give temporary leave to live on it and raise a crop. Much too much has been made of the "40 acres and a mule" sch tick. There was never any such thing ... officially.

Ole

There was a great quandary within the Union army and government as to 'what the heck to do with all these newly liberated 'darkies'', this was apparently just one of several ad hoc solutions.

I've been preparing to delve into this situation of what the heck to do with these 'freedmen'.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by whitworth

If you read Sherman biography you will find that all of Sherman's military orders were overturned, while his army was still in North Carolina. Civilians, particularly the Secretary of War Stanton, were taking civilian control back from the military. Sherman was so unhappy with Stanton when his troops marched through Washington, that he refused to shake Stanton's hand.

Some read words and fail to understand that Sherman's Order 15 was not a permanent law of the land. It would never pass Constitutional muster to give away private property. There was a legal procedure for confiscation of property as provided in law, but not accomplished by a military order.

Aside from the constitutionality; Sherman was unhappy with Stanton mostly because of Stanton's branding him as an 'appeaser' as a result of the original surrender agreement Sherman gave to Johnson.

As we have seen (Buffalo-Guard's post #5, this thread):

"On January 11th, President Lincoln sent his Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, to Savannah. Stanton instructed General Sherman to set up a meeting with some of the city's black ministers. He wanted to hear how the freedmen imagined their future in the South. That evening, twenty black men entered the grand parlor as guests of Stanton and Sherman. Sixteen were former slaves. They chose Reverend Garrison Frazier, who'd purchased his freedom nine years earlier, to be their spokesman. For the first time, Federal officials conferred with freed slaves about the future of African Americans in the South.

The exchange that occurs between Sherman, Stanton, and the Union generals, and Reverend Frazier, is one of the extraordinary moments of the Civil War and the ending of the Civil War, because they asked Frazier not just, "What should we do with all these refugees?" They asked him questions about what the war meant. They asked him questions about what the Emancipation Proclamation had meant. They asked him what the presence of black troops in the Union army meant. And, in many ways, you'll find no better definition of the meaning of the Civil War in the kinds of answers that Garrison Frazier gives that day in Savannah.

Four days later, anxious to get thousands of freed slaves off his hands, and Washington off his back, General Sherman issued Special Field Order 15. It was only a temporary order, but it became one of the most controversial of the Civil War. Plantations in the rice country had been abandoned by white planters during the war. Four hundred thousand of these acres would be given over to African Americans for settlement. The huge land tract included the Sea Islands and parts of the Georgia and South Carolina coast.

Forty acres of land will be given out to each family. Plus, Sherman says, the Army's got tons of mules, which we don't really need. They're broken down from our long march. If any one wants a mule they can have one of these mules. This is the origin of that famous phrase, "forty acres and a mule.""

So it was Stanton who initiated the 'freedman' policy in that area, not Sherman. Sherman was actually not enthusiastic about the idea of bringing blacks into the midstream. (it is interesting that Stanton, formerly a Democrat, became one of the most vociferous advocates for abolition and hard core reconstruction of the South into the Union.)

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by whitworth

Sherman's Order 15 was a military order, which had no permanance in Federal Statute or law.

Just interested then, were all 'military orders' issued during the war nullified afterwards? And did that mean that similar Federal Statutes were enacted to, in effect, replace the 'military orders' which were rescinded?

[ole]

Sam:

There was a great quandary within the Union army and government as to 'what the heck to do with all these newly liberated 'darkies'', this was apparently just one of several ad hoc solutions.

See any modern parallels? There's always something no one figured on.

Just interested then, were all 'military orders' issued during the war nullified after wards? And did that mean that similar Federal Statutes were enacted to, in effect, replace the 'military orders' which were rescinded?

Can't answer that from personal knowledge, but it stands to reason that legal military orders would be automatically superceded after hostilities ceased by governmental orders. I'd suspect some were sustained, others were 86'd.
Ole