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.
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.
April the 3, 1865
Goldsboro, North Carolina
(Letter to his wife)
The country that we have traveled over in the last 8 months is destroyed totally. Sherman told us to burn everything and you may depend there was nothing left. Neither stock of any kind that we could eat we shot down and left them laying. Houses we burned and fencing and large cotton factories we burned off the [--unreadable--] [--unreadable--] I ever [--unreadable--]. We burned the houses and the women and children standing outside crying. Neither clothes nor nothing to eat. We traveled about 4 hundred miles through the center of South Carolina and we cleaned everything in the distance of 80 miles wide and we are doing the same in this country.
William Craig, 116 Reg't Ill.Inf. which subsequently became Co. F, 116 Reg't Ill.Inf.
This isn't "pop culture" encouraging the slander of an upstanding Union officer. This was a Union soldier confiding to his wife what he saw with his own eyes. I don't know why you believe all these stories were invented. I find them from the war era and shortly after from many reputable sources. The destruction left behind by Sherman speaks for its self, no one needs to lie about it.
Some claim Sherman was brilliant, some claim he was crazy. I believe he may have been both. I, also, believe that many who defend Sherman's actions are those that can't accept that a Union officer would stoop to his level. Therefore, they must take the stand that the stories are Southern exaggerations. Allowing that some are exaggerations, there is plenty of evidence left over to make a case against Sherman.
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
If you would, I'd like an example of a humane and decent war.
Ole
Ok. Wars can't be described as humane and decent. However, individual men's actions can be humane and decent in spite of being involved in a war.
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
Ok. Wars can't be described as humane and decent. However, individual men's actions can be humane and decent in spite of being involved in a war.
Lots of examples of humane and decent exist on both sides. These are usually set after the shooting and the heat have dissapated sufficiently so as to appear less foolish.
In Sheridan's case, and Wilson's case, and Sherman's cases, the entire point was to demonstrate invincibility and vulnerability. Humanity and decency would not have demonstrated those half so well.
Sherman did not ruin the Confederacy; it's people did most of that when their investments went further south. No slaves, no money, no crops, and no free labor had more to do with her ruin than Sherman's demonstration.
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
Sherman's purpose was to make the South feel the war was now hopeless. He seems to have done it.
At the same time, many Southern civilians thought a visit from Wheeler's cavalry was as bad or worse than a visit from Sherman's bummers. Wheeler had been ordered to destroy anything Sherman might use and his men (getting out of control as seems to have happened whenever Wheeler was off on his own), seem to have behaved with a noticeable abandon as they rode through their own people.
This led to complaints to the Confederate government, Beauregard looking for a major-general to put over Wheeler, and Wheeler himself issuing this little circular to his own men:
==============
CIRCULAR.] IN THE FIELD,December 10, 1864.
Soldiers! While you have been engaged gallantly fighting the enemy a band of thieves and stragglers have spread over the country robbing and insulting the wives and children of your brother soldiers who are opposing the invaders upon other fields. These soldiers expect protection from you, and I appeal to every officer and soldier of this command to assist in arresting and bringing to justice these depredators, who claim to belong to the command, and by their conduct are bringing disgrace upon you and distress upon citizens, the families of comrades in arms.
JOS. WHEELER,
Major-General.
============
Eventually, the Confederate Congress and government promoted Wade Hampton over Wheeler's head to enough rank to command Wheeler, and sent him to the Carolinas to rein this man in.
Sherman's men certainly did destroy much property as they progressed across the South in 1864-65. However, Confederate armies and soldiers did quite a bit of the destruction and confiscation that emasculated the South's economy for the coming days. Here's a letter from Georgia citizens complaining to Jefferson Davis about it. Notice how laughable the script Confederates were giving as they conscripted property was, even to Confederate citizens:
[Italics were added by me for emphasis.]
==========
GRIFFIN, GA., December 27, 1964.
Hon. JEFFERSON DAVIS,
President Confederate Stales of America, Richmond, Va.:
DEAR SIR: From a sentiment contained in your speech at Macon, in this State, viz, that you read all letters written to you, I am emboldened to address this note to you. Unless something is done, and that speedily, too, there will be thousands of the best citizens of this State, and heretofore as loyal as any men in the Confederacy, that will not care one cent which army is victorious in Georgia. I say this with heartfelt sorrow and deep regret. I cannot believe that you are fully Aware of the true state of things in Middle Georgia. Let me enumerate some facts which have been and are yet being enacted in the section where I live.
Since August last there have been thousands of cavalry and wagon trains feeding upon our corn-fields, and for which quartermasters and officers in command of trains, regiments, battalions, companies, and squads have been giving the farmers their receipts, and we were all told that those receipts would pay our Government taxes and tithing; and though many of those receipts were signed by bonded quartermasters, yet not one of them will be taken by our collector. But again: When General Sherman left Atlanta Wheeler's cavalry commenced their retreat before him, and but a handful of Sherman's men ran W[heeler's] whole command down to Griffin, and while S[herman's] army was marching through Fayette, Clayton, Henry, and Butts, Wheeler's cavalry was burning up all the corn and fodder, driving off all the stock of the farmers for ten miles on each side of the railroad, all of from ten to twenty-five miles to the right and rear of Sherman's forces. Worse than all, the stock of mules and horses which General Wheeler's forces carried off, nine out of ten they have appropriated to their own use. In consequence of which there will be thousands upon thousands of acres of lands uncultivated the next year for the want of plow stock, which has been stolen from them by men claiming to act under orders from those high in authority. There are hundreds of families that have not one ear of corn left, whose husbands are now in the Army, and have been for the last three years, and now we are notified that our tithing must be paid. Our corn eaten up, or rather wasted or burnt, our fatting hogs shot down because too fat to drive, I ask, how can we pay our tithing? And yet we are threatened with having our lands sold for taxes. Our scrip for corn, used by the orders of our generals, will not be taken.
Again, there is another thing giving great offense. Two days since a soldier's wife wanted to pay her tax, which was $87. She had a certificate for $100 for that amount of the old issue which she had deposited. The collector refused to give her the change, even in the old issue. She then offered the collector the certificate of $100 for her tax, which was only $87, and he would not do that. The wife of the poor soldier had to submit to a shave by one then present of 50 cents on the dollar upon her certificate and then borrow $37 to pay her taxes, paying $137 for her tax of $87 only. Is this law? Can it be so? I then protested against it, and I still do. If that is the law of the Confederacy I do not wonder that there are so many men absent from the Army. Once more. How is it that we have certified claims upon our Government, past due ten months, and when we enter the quartermaster's office we see placed up conspicuously in large letters, "No funds"? Some of these said quartermasters [who] four years ago were not worth the clothes upon their backs are now large dealers in lands, negroes, and real estate. I speak of facts. Again. How is it, sir, that many of our brave men who fought with the immortal Taylor at Buena Vista have been sacrificed by drunken officers high in command now in Georgia? This I assert is true.
In conclusion, let me ask you what is to become of the families of our soldiers whose corn has been destroyed? I know of one man, though he has suffered seriously by Wheeler's robbers, he is now, as he has been for three years, selling corn to soldiers' families for $1.50 per bushel in the old currency; and I do hope and pray that Congress will pass a law that any man or woman who sells corn for more than $2 per bushel and wheat over $3, pork over 20 cents, oats $2, fodder $1.50 per hundred pounds--if a man, he shall be sent to the front, and if a woman she shall forfeit $100 for every bushel sold above $2, and any merchant or trader that shall sell any article above 400 per cent. what that article was worth before the war shall either be sent to the front or pay a fine of ten times its value. Such a law would send thousands of absent soldiers back to their commands. I have not put down aught in malice. That you may know who I am and my standing, I refer you to the names found below.
With a sincere desire and prayer to God that your life may be spared for many years,
I am, very truly, your obedient servant,
P. A. LAWSON.
References: His Excellency J. E. Brown, Milledgeville, Ga.; Hon. E. A. Nisbet, LL. D., Macon, Ga.; Hon. R. P. Trippe, Forsythe, Ga.; editors Intelligencer, Atlanta, Ga
==========
Again, Sherman's men certainly did a lot -- but just as clearly additional devastation was spread by Wheeler and his men, and by Confederate government agents.
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.
I agree w/ a large portion of your post, However; I do not believe it applies to Conscripts, to those who were not from an area that benefited directly from slavery and others who joined as part of a community... IMHO these groups significantly increased as the war progressed.
I recall reading once that put the percentages of enlisted men of the CS who owned slaves as less than .05% while Line officers numbered only about 10% while those of the rank of Colonel and higher numbered about 40%... General officers were in the 80% range and the politicians were well into the 90% range. You are of coarse correct, any man who saw the slaveowners in high ranks well away from the firing line probably wouldn't have minded 20 negroes if it gave them a chance to stay off the line and into the tents and better food of Staff *** row.
It certainly was not good for morale that many common CS soldiers saw it as a rich mans war but a poor mans fight. Frankly I agree w/ their analysis... especially after the 20 Negro exemption rule.
__________________ 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
Rose, Trice has ilustrated one of my points that Sherman's men were not the only men in Georgia destroying crops etc. What do you think of such? Does it in any way broaden your view of what happened in Georgia in the fall of 64?
__________________ 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
This isn't "pop culture" encouraging the slander of an upstanding Union officer. This was a Union soldier confiding to his wife what he saw with his own eyes. I don't know why you believe all these stories were invented. I find them from the war era and shortly after from many reputable sources. The destruction left behind by Sherman speaks for its self, no one needs to lie about it. I have never said there were no problems; only that they have been exaggerated all out of proportion and that Union troops were not the only suppliers of nasty people in Georgia.
Some claim Sherman was brilliant, some claim he was crazy. I believe he may have been both. I, also, believe that many who defend Sherman's actions are those that can't accept that a Union officer would stoop to his level. Therefore, they must take the stand that the stories are Southern exaggerations. Allowing that some are exaggerations, there is plenty of evidence left over to make a case against Sherman. Is there also a case to be made against Wheeler or others? Rose I know there were some real dirtbags in the Union Army; Jeff Davis (Union) is on the top of my list. Though there were others... Custer isn't one of my favs either. That said I can find ample evidence of real winners on the CS side as well and if I opted to concentrate on the negatives I fear I might find more than I would like. What I take umbrage w/ is the implication that they were anything but a minority (on either side). When it comes to exaggerations and falsehoods it seems to be the Lost Cause that perpetrated more than their fair share. It seems to me that the tactic was to tell lies often enough that they gain a measure of truth. The shame of it is that it is so difficult to convince some that they are exaggerations and in many cases fabrications.
Years of reading first hand of accounts in the form of letters & diaries convinced me that there was something wrong w/ the accounts of Shermans boys raping & pillaging their way across Georgia. Listening to the shrill ranting of one man who claimed he knew for a fact that there were a million rapes in Georgia or that Shermans men had sown salt all along their route, that every building between Atlanta and Savannah was burned by Sherman's men, that places like Waycross Georgia had felt the scourge of Sherman. I had/have a hard time imagining otherwise reasonable people enthusiastically embracing... exaggerations to the extreme.
Then the knowledge of just what kind of propoganda machine the Lost Cause was/is disenheartened me to the point that I thought to simply give up all the discussion boards I frequent. A friend told me to not worry about it; the people being slandered were all dead. Someone has to at least try and defend them; in that I am not alone. Most of the more modern researchers into Sherman's March to the Sea have come to the conclusion that it was not nearly so severe as the Lost Cause would have us believe. The glee w/ which some willingly lied to smear US Soldiers makes me sick. My knowledge of just how few CS civilians were killed or otherwise physically harmed... then watching over and over again the exaggerations & rhetoric grow more shrill despite the contrary info provided. Things like that make me wonder if some people want to know contrary info are capable of acknowledging it or if they enjoy painting US soldiers w/ the broad brush of exaggerations and lies that the Lost Cause was/is so fond of using.
That there is still a habitable area between Atlanta and Savannah and SC itself is still there is testimony to the restraint, or decency of Sherman's men. Salt was not sown, the area was not repopulated by blue clad fathers and women and children were not killed en masse... if at all.
__________________ 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
Lots of examples of humane and decent exist on both sides. These are usually set after the shooting and the heat have dissapated sufficiently so as to appear less foolish.
In Sheridan's case, and Wilson's case, and Sherman's cases, the entire point was to demonstrate invincibility and vulnerability. Humanity and decency would not have demonstrated those half so well.
It seems to keep returning to the excuse that "the end justifies the means". But, it still seems to me that the mighty Union could have won the war without targeting civilians. Sherman and the others you mention didn't have to demonstrate invincibility and vulnerability in order to win. That was the method of their choice. Yeah, I know. Sherman claims to have saved lives by using harsh methods to end the war earlier than was otherwise possible. And here we are again, the end supposedly justified the means. I believe saving lives was the last thing on Sherman's mind when he burned private homes, destroyed a family's food and crops. He did it out of vindictiveness (how dare the rebel traitors stand up to the Federal government). They had to be taken down a notch. Winning a war against them wasn't enough. They had to pay more dearly than that and how better to crush the Confederate soldier than to attack his wife, mother and children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Sherman did not ruin the Confederacy; it's people did most of that when their investments went further south. No slaves, no money, no crops, and no free labor had more to do with her ruin than Sherman's demonstration.
I agree that Sherman didn't ruin the Confederacy. The Confederacy was out numbered, out supplied and had out financed. Losing the war ruined the Confederacy. The majority of the Southern people didn't depend on free labor, but they did depend on their livestock, barns, a home to live in and small valuables that Sherman's men destroyed or stole like the thieves they were. What Sherman did do was guarantee poverty to the Southern states for decades to come.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
