Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear Sherman referred to as brilliant for waging war on old men, women and children. Rather than square off in front of the Confederate army, he chose to attack their defenseless women and children, mothers and fathers. Perhaps some call that "brilliant tactics", but it is immoral and disgusting. If you don't understand why the South faults him so much, perhaps if you read some of the personal Southern accounts of the results of his "scorched earth" policy you would begin to understand. As someone pointed out, you can find plenty about Sherman on this message board, also, you can find as many excuses for his behavior as imagination will allow, but no excuse will hold up for starving women and their children, actually destroying thier food that Sherman didn't want or need, and sometimes burning their houses down in front of them.
Rose: I'm totally with you, except for the page.
"Women and children" tugs a bit, doesn't it? Women and children were left without the poppa long before Sherman started to hoof if east. Momma had to do it or old what's his name who'd been watching over the place since forever.
I will give you that Sherman's moves occasionally exceeded the bounds of propriety. I will not, however, entertain the notion that 60,000 gemerally hacked off men could be persuaded to be nice. Give me a break here! These guys had been in since the beginning in '61. They, after doing three years, reenlisted. I ask you, what was on the minds of these gentle fellows? Quite simply, they wanted to see a whole bunch of grey-clad dead people. Nothing genteel about it. Not very noble, is it?
They went in and they were ****ed off. (Suspect the censor will take care of that booboo.) No army in the history of the world had greater motivation than those fellows. None can surpass the one who, under Sherman, ripped the guts out of the Confederacy. Noble? Sometimes. But in war, all's fair. And Sherman stands out as an unfortunate testimony to that.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Rose: I'm totally with you, except for the page.
"Women and children" tugs a bit, doesn't it? Women and children were left without the poppa long before Sherman started to hoof if east. Momma had to do it or old what's his name who'd been watching over the place since forever.
I will give you that Sherman's moves occasionally exceeded the bounds of propriety. I will not, however, entertain the notion that 60,000 gemerally hacked off men could be persuaded to be nice. Give me a break here! These guys had been in since the beginning in '61. They, after doing three years, reenlisted. I ask you, what was on the minds of these gentle fellows? Quite simply, they wanted to see a whole bunch of grey-clad dead people. Nothing genteel about it. Not very noble, is it?
They went in and they were ****ed off. (Suspect the censor will take care of that booboo.) No army in the history of the world had greater motivation than those fellows. None can surpass the one who, under Sherman, ripped the guts out of the Confederacy. Noble? Sometimes. But in war, all's fair. And Sherman stands out as an unfortunate testimony to that.
Ole
Ole is spot on I think; and frankly the evidence of mass devestation caused by Shermans men is exaggerated and often outright false. I point out just one... the false letter supposedly found in the street.... the man attributed to writing the letter was never anywhere near SC. It would be simple if there was just one such invention; but there have been all too many. MOre recent research has shown that most of the destruction attributed to Shermans boys is pure invention.
Unfortunately, such slander was common and encouraged by the Lost Cause; the pity is that it took root in our popular culture. IMHO it was that slander that began the penchant for Americans to blame Americans for everything under the sun. We Americans sure do like to place the blame for all kinds of ills upon the shoulders of Americans... but it is never us; always that other group. Early accomplished what he set out to do w/ the Lost Cause, to harm the US in any way possible. They failed on the field of politics, on the field of battle but they certainly gave it their all on the stage of history and culture.
There just aren't that many verifiable accounts of Southern Civilians starving because of Sherman's men... in fact I've never seen one. Sherman, in fact, fed a city that the CS had not... Savannah. The Impressment/tithing sys of the CS was well and truly starving the people of the South; not Sherman. Ironically, it was the CS elite (read large slaveowners) who were profitting and continuing to live high on the hog not the average white southerner. It is ironic to see the list of the wealthiest Southerners pre war and a similar list post war... contains most of the same names.
Blame for the destruction wrought upon the CS rests squarely upon the shoulders of those wealthy planters who influenced and accomplished Secession. The common soldier and citizen of the CS was a man or woman simply trying to survive and make do as best they could. Then again it was the wealthy who flourished and continued as they had after the war. The shame is so many descendents of the first group so willingly defend the memory of the second.
But whoever waited for the common people when a great move was to be made-we must make the move and force them to follow." Alfred Aldrich
"There was an undoubted majority of the people who desired to remain in the Union... The election machinery was all in the hands of the secessionists, who manipulated the election to suit their end. John Tenney
"The prevailing ideas entertained by... the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other in the order of providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. Alexander Stephens.
The war is based on the principle and fact of the inequality of mankind- for the policy we say races, in reality, as all history shows it as the truth is classes. James Hammond
"We wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very valuable and there was raised a howl of 'rich man's war, poor man's fight.'... from this time to the end of the war... We Cursed the war... we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride and valor was gone." Sam Watkins
While it is a bitter pill to come back into the Union, don't think there is much regret for the loss of the Confederacy. The treatment the solders have received from the government in various ways put them against it. Sgt William Andrews. ANV Feb 1861-April 1865
I think these men (All Southern) knew what they were talking about.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Shane:
A somber nod; a brushed tear; and a very long sigh.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Blame for the destruction wrought upon the CS rests squarely upon the shoulders of those wealthy planters who influenced and accomplished Secession. The common soldier and citizen of the CS was a man or woman simply trying to survive and make do as best they could.
I will disagree with you a bit here. The common white southerner was very much part of the war and its reason. While you may argue that the majority of the "blame" for the conflict and subsequent destruction lies among the secessionist leaders (since they encouraged otherwise loyal Americans into rebellion), portraying them as solely responsible does have the added effect of painting average southerners as sheep, blindly led into a conflict they did not want, could not understand, and could not say no to.
Evidence of just how vital the South's public support was for secession and the war may be found within the topic of this thread -- Sherman and his destruction of portions of the South. While Rose and others denounce Sherman's actions as "immoral and disgusting," his campaign through Georgia and South Carolina was very deliberate and highly successful. Criticism of Sherman's campaign focus on some assumption that a democratic population is not actually part of a war effort; it assumes that the "women and children, mothers and fathers" were somehow unrelated to the Confederate army or Confederate cause. This was not the case at all.
War in democratic societies stand on three pillars: the armed forces, the leadership, and the population. Unlike undemocratic nations, in which a king can conscript an army and use it without consent of the people, democratic nations must rely upon these three pillars working together. The armed forces are the literal weapons used in war by the democratic society. The leadership commands as well as helps shape policy. Finally, the population gives legitimacy and support to both the armed forces and the leadership. When one of these pillars collapses (or gives up the fight), the war is over.
Sherman did not actually kill civilians. Instead, his campaign was designed to destroy the civilian morale of the South by destroying property and by demonstrating to the Southern people that their Confederate forces could not (or would not) stop him. His campaign was far more successful in its ideological and psychological effects than by any specific amount of damage.
To get back to my original point, Sherman's campaign was only successful in weakening the Confederate war effort because the Southern population was a vital pillar. The attack upon Atlanta and push through Georgia created a situation in which many Confederate soldiers and southern civilians really did "try to survive"...by giving up or turning against the war effort. They realized that resistance against Sherman and the Union armies was futile. And without those men in Confederate ranks, and those civilians supporting the leaders, the Confederacy crumbled.
Scotsman; I would agree w/ a large portion of what you wrote here; the eception being that from what I've found Secessionists & "loyal" CSers were becoming a distinct minority by 1865 (they appear to have been a slim majority in 1861 contrary to popular belief). The CS had lost, for all practical purposes all of TN, Arkansas, Missouri and large chunks of Alabama; there were large well armed bands of draft resisters & other anti CS govt groups in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, & NC... THings were looking pretty ugly for the CS by the time Sherman began his march to the Sea. BUT and it is a very big but... that don't sound right... no one had managed to convince the CS govt, the ANV or the AoT CS that they were beaten. Sherman did that.. he also proved it to the S populace and to the world.
IMHO the avaerage CS soldier in the ranks by late 64 knew the score... as can be shown by the massive desertion rates. But that said, soldiers have a tendency to stay in things for the long haul when the men they are fighting beside stay... they weren't there anymore to defend the CS or to whip yanks; they were there for their friends and comrades in the rank & file.
The avaerage CS soldier wasn't there to defend slavery IMHO... the men who sent them were though... that is the tragedy and crime in my eyes. The men that flew them... failed horribly in standing behind what they stared (the North was no better) so much for the courage of their conviction.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Now. I'm going to be busted to cadet or, at least, banned forever for this, but the word, "dolt" rattles around in the empty spaces. It has settled.
Ole
I have no grasp of what you posted, can you expalin your line of thought better?.
When any USA/CSA QM, (who delgates to others), requires anything he has to pay, or give script, SOP for both sides, Sherman for instance grabbed vastt numbers of rail cars and gave script, which the RR company held till post war before getting compensation and then the cars back.
Both armys used the same method.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I never sad it had anything to do w/ Lee. But since they were some of Sherman's men and this is a thread about Sherman...
The destruction of an enemy economy can be viewed as an act of war; and breaking open banks to pay for things w/ CS paper money... fits the midwestern sense of humor & irony as Ole so aptly pointed out...
The CS govt never repaid any script... I'm not certain there is evidence they intended to.
Are you suggesting Lee was unaware of the tiny incident at Chambersburg? Lee was unaware of Braggs order to poison every well as his Army retreated from Kentucky (which in at least one occasion included the use of Union POWs... alive or dead when they hit the water... I don't want to know.)
THe history of the 2nd MN VI mentions the poisoning of wells as does the memoir of Genl Beatty and several other texts
My mistake, i thought you were picking up on the sub plot of Lee, when your talking more generally, but your wrong if you think Lee, whoi had authority for his Dept, had much influence on other Depts and certainly no responsobility for actions taken in them.
Now which Chambersburg incident do you mean?, there are several.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Rose: I'm totally with you, except for the page.
"Women and children" tugs a bit, doesn't it? Women and children were left without the poppa long before Sherman started to hoof if east. Momma had to do it or old what's his name who'd been watching over the place since forever.
Yes, for me, "women and children" tugs quite a bit. Poppa may have left long before Sherman headed east, but he left them with a house, livestock, crops, food and family valuables that many of them no longer had after Sherman passed through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
I will give you that Sherman's moves occasionally exceeded the bounds of propriety. I will not, however, entertain the notion that 60,000 gemerally hacked off men could be persuaded to be nice. Give me a break here! These guys had been in since the beginning in '61. They, after doing three years, reenlisted. I ask you, what was on the minds of these gentle fellows? Quite simply, they wanted to see a whole bunch of grey-clad dead people. Nothing genteel about it. Not very noble, is it?
Ole, it's not a question of 60,000 men being "nice". It's a matter of them remembering their morals and common decency. You are right, there was nothing genteel (which is not something I would expect in war) but, some of the bahavior was anything but noble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
They went in and they were ****ed off. (Suspect the censor will take care of that booboo.) No army in the history of the world had greater motivation than those fellows. None can surpass the one who, under Sherman, ripped the guts out of the Confederacy. Noble? Sometimes. But in war, all's fair. And Sherman stands out as an unfortunate testimony to that.
Ole
I beg to differ. The Confederate army had the greater motive. They were fighting for independence, their homes, families, their land and the right to govern themselves. I don't doubt for a moment they were ****ed, also. I believe the Confederate cause was more personal to each man than was the Union cause to their men. What was the Union fighting for? slaves? Not according to most of the letters and diaries of Union soldiers. Was it for the Union? The Union was gone never to return as it had been before the war. I believe the soldiers knew this and I don't think a lot of them had their heart in it as much as history would have us believe, again, letters and diaries indicate this.
It may be true that all is fair in war, but that doesn't mean that it was all humane and decent.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
It may be true that all is fair in war, but that doesn't mean that it was all humane and decent.
If you would, I'd like an example of a humane and decent war.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The avaerage CS soldier wasn't there to defend slavery IMHO... the men who sent them were though... that is the tragedy and crime in my eyes.
The average CS soldier certainly did wish to defend slavery -- even if it was in a roundabout way. As others here have argued, there was a sense of defending the "home." This defense of home meant the protection and maintenance of the societies and communities in which these men were born, worked and lived. One living in the South did not necessarily need to own slaves in order to benefit from the institution or to see it as a perfectly legitimate interest for their society or state to maintain. Eugene Genovese's book The Political Economy of Slavery (I think it is) has a specific chapter (9) touching on yeoman farmers in the Old South. He asks a very important question: "Why wouldn't average Southerners support slavery?" His chapter outlines the relationship between yeomen farmers and the institution, chiefly through their relationship with slaveowners.
Many Confederate soldiers may not have owned slaves, and they may not have been able to specifically identify with slaveholding interests. But, many of them desired to someday join the ranks of slaveowners and just as many saw the institution as a vital measure of Southern political, economic and social stability. Finally, the fear that outsiders, such as "Northerners," were intending to abolish slavery and disrupt Southern society was certainly real in their minds.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
