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.
In other words, Wheeler's men also left the Georgia women without food. I fail to see the difference between Wheeler destroying what Sherman could use, and Sherman destroying what Wheeler could use.
The letter posted complaining about Wheeler's men clearly states that Wheeler was carrying out a scorched earth policy where he thought Sherman was going to be. How often did he do that, I wonder?
Ole
Ole,
Anyone here interested in the topic of Sherman's destructiveness might want to take a look at "Thieves, Murderers, Trespassers":
The Mythology of Sherman's March Copyright (c) 1997 by Mark Grimsley
which you can find at http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/.../myth/myth.htm
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.
Thank you for bringing that point up. Those conscripted into the army do not fit under the same classification as those who volunteered.
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.
Question: Do you believe that the majority of the Southern population supported secession and the Confederacy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
This is an odd argument. You say that Sherman's tactics which were admittedly used to save lives was worse than had he killed more people for the same end -- Union victory. The "harsh" methods he used was to make the Southern population uncomfortable, to strike fear, and to destroy the will to fight. You see this discomfort (which was largely nonlethal) as more terrible than costly battles which killed thousands of men on both sides?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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?
I think you make a strong point here. Union soldiers believed that the South was responsible for the war. Secession and the firing on Ft. Sumter (and further actions) had led to war and a conflict of arms. Hatred was a natural consequence.
But, your point that "winning a war against them wasn't enough" is not the case, at least not with Sherman. He repeatedly stated throughout his campaign for Atlanta and through Georgia that his actions were specifically in the context of rebellion. Once the Confederacy was destroyed, and secessionist Southerners had surrendered, he would welcome them back into the Union and help them rebuild. The sincerity of these statements was proven by his too-generous terms to Joe Johnston's surrendering army -- terms which had to be revoked by Grant.
A man bent on complete vindictiveness beyond the scope of the war itself would not let off his opponents so easily.
Further, your post assumes that the war was won, or could have been won, without Sherman's campaign across the South. That is very much a hindsight observation, and one not shared by many in the North or South. His campaign was vital for Union success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Sherman's campaign across the South hardly affected a "majority of Southern people." Even as large as his swath of destruction was, it was the psychological effect which hit the Confederacy so hard. His army of 100,000 men or so could never hope to destroy a majority of Southern property. You are talking about an area of eleven states, with millions of homes and dollars in property. Much of this was destroyed or ruined during the war, but Sherman's men were only responsible for a small precentage of that destruction.
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.
Shane, I know that Sherman's deeds have been exaggerated. Much about the WBTS was. I have tried to stick to the facts. I don't think Sherman's deeds need any exaggeration. However, if you told the women and children of certain areas of the South in 1864 that Sherman had horns under his hat some probably would have believed it.
"Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."
"In case of...destruction (of bridges) by the enemy,...the commanding officer...on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby....Should the enemy burn forage and corn on our route, houses, barns, and cotton-gins must also be burned to keep them company."
"I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state."
"I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources at $100,000,000; at least $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simply waste and destruction."
These are the words of Sherman, himself, and surely not exaggerated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
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.
You refer to the lost cause as a propaganda machine. The South and the Confederacy knew all too well about propaganda. The Southern states were a target of propaganda since even before they chose secession. That remains true to this day. Believe me, I understand your disgust with message boards that continue to propagate this propaganda. I've found myself in the same frustrating situation many times of defending my ancestors from lies and slander. The fact that the people being slandered are long dead is of little consolation to me. And, as you said, someone has to defend them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
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.
It's hard to tell how much misinformation is simply lies and how much of it is genuinely believed. I find history is kinder to the victors than it is to the Confederates. Confederate heritage defenders (often referred to in a derogatory manner as "lost causers") understand this and tend to be suspicious about information that comes from sources they percieve as biased.
I'm sure some people do enjoy spreading lies and anyone that obviously does it with "glee", should be ignored as not having anything worthwhile to contribute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
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.
I don't think many Southerners believe Sherman murdered civilians en masse, although, civilians were murdered. Most don't believe salt was sown, not because of Sherman's kindness, but because it would have taken time to cover large fields, salt was pricey then and the results wouldn't give instant gratification to vengence seekers. Sherman wanted results he could hold up before the Southerners right then.
I think with all the Southern hatred heaped upon Sherman, he becomes the underdog in the opinion of his defenders and that makes it easier to overlook or minimize his crimes against the South, whether you believe they were crimes of war or crimes against humanity.
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
Ms. Rose, my applause for another factual and well organized desertation. I still am stunned and amused very slightly at the bias held by mis-informed folks still bashing us poor dumb Southerners. General Grant was no saint and certainly not a hero to those who were in his path. He was a soldier. War is cruel and dumb at best. Militarily his efforts helped finally end the war. Humanitarily, he scored few points in Georgia or South Carolina. Some folks in Tennessee weren't too fond of him either.
Ms. Rose, my applause for another factual and well organized desertation. I still am stunned and amused very slightly at the bias held by mis-informed folks still bashing us poor dumb Southerners. General Grant was no saint and certainly not a hero to those who were in his path. He was a soldier. War is cruel and dumb at best. Militarily his efforts helped finally end the war. Humanitarily, he scored few points in Georgia or South Carolina. Some folks in Tennessee weren't too fond of him either.
Larry - Thank you for pointing this out.
Ms Rose - You are indeed determined not to be steamrolled by an abundance of opinion. Please continue to hold the ground for us with your educated, informed and insightful ripostes.
I do not want to unnecessarily stir the pot here ladies and gentlemen, because we can all learn more by listening than we can by talking. But, pointedly yet respectfully submitted... it is going to be a futile endeavour to attempt to "enlighten" us here in Georgia or in the South by painting Sherman as a victim of lies and myth.
You might as well try to explain the benefits of using nuclear weapons to Japanese families with roots in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You may be correct in much of what you say and believe the reasons it was done to be just. But it ain't going to fly in Japan.
And it ain't gonna fly here.
Even if and, possibly, especially if you stripped all of the myth from both sides of the story, Sherman's campaign through Georgia... from Atlanta to Savannah and into Carolina did not win the War, nor was it necessary to win the War. Sherman had already won the War in the West with the taking of Atlanta. It was a well-executed, vainglorious exercise in revenge to let the residents of that area, those throughout the South and his peers and superiors know in no uncertain terms that he had won the War.
Question: Do you believe that the majority of the Southern population supported secession and the Confederacy?
I have no idea what that could possibly have to do with this topic, but I'd say less so in the border states, but more solidly in the deep South. Lincoln's call for troops pushed the border states into more or less reluctant secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
This is an odd argument. You say that Sherman's tactics which were admittedly used to save lives was worse than had he killed more people for the same end -- Union victory.
Admitted by whom? I didn't say Sherman's tactics were used to save lives or that it was worse than if he had killed more people for Union victory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
The "harsh" methods he used was to make the Southern population uncomfortable, to strike fear, and to destroy the will to fight. You see this discomfort (which was largely nonlethal) as more terrible than costly battles which killed thousands of men on both sides?
I believe he made Southern civilians a bit more than "uncomfortable". There is no way to prove how many lives were spared because of Sherman's despicable actions, or even if any were. I believe if you could ask the Southern soldier if he preferred meeting Sherman on the battlefield or if he preferred Sherman to attack his home, wife and children, the answer should be obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
But, your point that "winning a war against them wasn't enough" is not the case, at least not with Sherman. He repeatedly stated throughout his campaign for Atlanta and through Georgia that his actions were specifically in the context of rebellion.
What else could he say? But, he did claim South Carolina deserved it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
Once the Confederacy was destroyed, and secessionist Southerners had surrendered, he would welcome them back into the Union and help them rebuild. The sincerity of these statements was proven by his too-generous terms to Joe Johnston's surrendering army -- terms which had to be revoked by Grant.
I'm skeptical of the sincerity of a man that did all that Sherman did to the people of the South. If he was trying to prove he "wasn't such a bad guy", I'm having trouble buying the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
A man bent on complete vindictiveness beyond the scope of the war itself would not let off his opponents so easily.
A man not bent on complete vindictiveness would not have done the unnecessary things he did to the devastation of Southern civilians, thier homes and properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
Further, your post assumes that the war was won, or could have been won, without Sherman's campaign across the South. That is very much a hindsight observation, and one not shared by many in the North or South. His campaign was vital for Union success.
Southern victory would have been nothing short of miraculous. By 1864 the Confederate army was in rags, barefoot, hungry and sadly lacking in numbers comparable to the Union army. They had no medicine or other necessary supplies. I believe it is you using hindsight to vindicate Sherman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
Sherman's campaign across the South hardly affected a "majority of Southern people."
That's an interesting obversation, but hardly one in question. My ancestors in Texas were not affected at all as several other Confederate states were not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotsman
Even as large as his swath of destruction was, it was the psychological effect which hit the Confederacy so hard. His army of 100,000 men or so could never hope to destroy a majority of Southern property. You are talking about an area of eleven states, with millions of homes and dollars in property. Much of this was destroyed or ruined during the war, but Sherman's men were only responsible for a small precentage of that destruction.
I never claimed Sherman destroyed a majority of Southern property, only that he targeted civilians and left women and children homeless and often destroyed their food even if he couldn't haul it off and to add insult to injury he stole their family possessions that had nothing to do with winning a war. You bet it was psychological. I can agree with you there.
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
Ms. Rose, my applause for another factual and well organized desertation. I still am stunned and amused very slightly at the bias held by mis-informed folks still bashing us poor dumb Southerners. General Grant was no saint and certainly not a hero to those who were in his path. He was a soldier. War is cruel and dumb at best. Militarily his efforts helped finally end the war. Humanitarily, he scored few points in Georgia or South Carolina. Some folks in Tennessee weren't too fond of him either.
Thanks. I simply can't brush off the actions of a man that waged war on women and old men. I'm not going to claim Sherman had two heads, but it should be admitted that he would be considered a war criminal by today's standards.
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
You might as well try to explain the benefits of using nuclear weapons to Japanese families with roots in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You may be correct in much of what you say and believe the reasons it was done to be just. But it ain't going to fly in Japan.
Good anology.
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
