Sherman was a hero

[johan_steele]

[quote=larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by trice

The attitude of Sherman's troops on that is well-documented, and the destruction in South Carolina is far greater than in either Georgia or North Carolina.


I submit the reason Sherman "spared" North Carolina was the presence of Joseph Johnston and the remnant of the Army of Tennessee.

Larry, Johnston had nothing to do w/ it... Bentonville wrecked Johnston's army and the one thing he really worried about was a start up of hostilities again after the news of Lincolns death... if that had happened SC would have looked like a lovetap. Sherms and his Generals as well as the men really rheined in the foraging; partly because NC was known to have a lot of Union sympathizers and was one of the last states to join the CS.

After Bentonville Johnston knew the war was over & so did Sherman; there was no need to kill more men so close to the end of the War and both men knew it.

When Johnston learned how quickly Shermans Army moved through southern SC he is said to have said "... no army like it since the time of Julius Caesar." He was right and wrong on that note. If Caesars Army had moved through Georgia & SC their path would be barren and unpopulated still.

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

The attitude of Sherman's troops on that is well-documented, and the destruction in South Carolina is far greater than in either Georgia or North Carolina.

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

I submit the reason Sherman "spared" North Carolina was the presence of Joseph Johnston and the remnant of the Army of Tennessee.

Since I don't think and never said Sherman "spared" North Carolina, I am not sure what point you are responding to here. He and his army simply treated SC harder than they did GA or NC.

People who were present at the time commented on what I am describing. The moment they crossed the Savannah River, the attitude of Sherman's troops was different. They treated South Carolina differently, much more harshly, and appear to have felt that it was only what the people in that place had asked for with their thirty-year drive for secession. As soon as they crossed into North Carolina, that attitude seems to have changed back to what it was in Georgia.

The remant of the Army of Tennessee arriving from Alabama appears to have been about 5,000 men. With reinforcements sent from Lee and the concentration of the troops retreating before Sherman and from Charleston, Johnston still was greatly outnumbered just by Sherman alone.

Sherman had some 60,000 troops, and was about to meet up with 40,000 more troops Grant was sending his way. Undoubtedly he was more cautious as he came into Johnston's reach and Johnston's force concentrated, but not noticeably different in his policies as to the population because of it.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

When Johnston learned how quickly Shermans Army moved through southern SC he is said to have said "... no army like it since the time of Julius Caesar." He was right and wrong on that note. If Caesars Army had moved through Georgia & SC their path would be barren and unpopulated still.

There is a quote much like this from Hardee somewhere, to the effect that he knew the war was over when he saw Sherman coming through the swamps in SC, in the rain, corduroying roads and building bridges over flooded streams, at ten miles/day or more.

Regards,
Tim

[unionblue]

jkeith21,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply in your post #210.

I think I understand and appreciate your opinions on the subject at hand.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[samgrant]

Sherman did a thorough study of Georgia census figures and targeted whealth Georgians, as they would have (allegedly) contributed most to the rebel cause.

[Wild_Rose]

I don't care to argue Sherman's virtues (or lack of) any longer. I've said all I need to say and I'm presented with the same repeated arguments that haven't swayed my opinion. However, I will address a couple of your points and questions.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

The Confederacy chose to defend its self-proclaimed secession with bullets. Sherman showed them just how destructive war could be -- to both soldiers and civilians.

Whether or not you like it is irrelevant.

And you think the South should be grateful to Sherman for teaching us such a valuable lesson?

There are a great many things that fall into the catagory of "irrelevant" as to whether I like it or not. Sherman's crimes against Southern civilians are just one of them. Gloating is another, but as you said, that is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Again, I must ask why the trauma of losing family possessions was not part of winning the war? The destruction Sherman's men wrought turned many Southerners against the war. They lost their property, they felt hopeless, they had other things to worry about rather than continuing the war---they realized that further resistance was not worth the cost. They gave up. And that is what Sherman wanted. And he did it by burning some property, not by killing as many men (husbands, sons, brothers, fathers, etc.) in the Confederate ranks as he possibly could.

I don't understand the question, "I must ask why the trauma of losing family possessions was not part of winning the war?"

Emma LeConte wrote in her journal upon Sherman's men pulling out of Columbia, "I wonder if the vengeance of heaven will not pursue such fiends! Before they came here I thought I hated them as much as was possible - now I know there are no limits to the feeling of hatred."

I believe it's possible that kind of passion can survive generations. It certainly isn't the words of a woman that is so frightened that she wants to give up and submit to the Union.

By the questions you ask me it seems that you have little insight regarding the feelings of Southern people. Your above statement seems to prove that. It's not that all Southern people think or believe the same things, but they at least seem to have more understanding of those that share their history. I feel like I could explain to you till the cows come home to no avail. But, no, Sherman didn't frighten the South into submission, he did, however, gain their undying hatred.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

One final question...you mention you had relatives in Texas. Did you have family specifically affected by Sherman's march?

Only distant relatives. My Texas ancestors came from South Carolina prior to the war. Some settled in Mississippi and the others went on to Texas. Why do you ask?

Rose

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Emma LeConte wrote in her journal upon Sherman's men pulling out of Columbia, "I wonder if the vengeance of heaven will not pursue such fiends! Before they came here I thought I hated them as much as was possible - now I know there are no limits to the feeling of hatred."

I believe it's possible that kind of passion can survive generations. It certainly isn't the words of a woman that is so frightened that she wants to give up and submit to the Union.

Yet the fires in Columbia seem to have been started originally by Hampton's retreating Confederates burning bales of cotton in the city streets. Those fires spread to nearby buildings, as would have been all too likely and common. And isn't it true that the Confederacy surrendered shortly after Sherman made his march?

Certainly Sherman did not do a lot to assist in putting out those fires, nor did the first wave of troops coming through -- they seem to have reveled in it and possibly/probably helped it along. The follow-up Union force did, however, assist the citizens in putting out the fires and saving what could be saved. Did Emma LeConte have the same feeling of hatred for those who helped?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

... But, no, Sherman didn't frighten the South into submission, he did, however, gain their undying hatred.

Yet rebel soldiers deserted the field forces daily as a result of his march, leaving Johnston and Lee without the means to continue resistance. Why was that, do you think?

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

I submit the reason Sherman "spared" North Carolina was the presence of Joseph Johnston and the remnant of the Army of Tennessee.

Johnston had nothing to do with sparing North Carolina. Sherman and his people were not as mad at the North Carolinians as they were at the South. Johnston's army was spared Hood's fate when Sherman called back a movement that would have been disastrous to Johnston -- an act of benevolence if there ever was one -- because Johnston was beaten and there was no reason to kill more.

Sherman had no interest in carrying the war past capitulation. When the fighting stopped, he immediately became forgiving and benevolent. He railed against practices initiated during Reconstruction. When fighting, he had but one object: to win. When fighting ceased, he had but one object: to heal.

Ole

[samgrant]

Sherman let his troops vent on S. C. as the birth of the rebellion. The soldiers considered that that state most responsible for all that they had been thru. Georgia and N. C. were gloves on.

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Yet the fires in Columbia seem to have been started originally by Hampton's retreating Confederates burning bales of cotton in the city streets. Those fires spread to nearby buildings, as would have been all too likely and common.

The smoldering cotton bales were well under control and most were already put out when Sherman got into Columbia. Upon signal the Union soldiers began firing the town. It wasn't the Confederates responsible for burning Columbia. That is simply another "Sherman wasn't such a bad guy" fabrication. The citizens of Columbia reported that the cotton bales didn't start the fire, but of course, they were the victims and must have exaggerated if not outright lied. Pardon the sarcasm, but it's ridiculous that Southerner's words aren't considered reliable in the face of the Yankee "gospel".

Originally Posted by trice

And isn't it true that the Confederacy surrendered shortly after Sherman made his march?

Yes, and I'm sure it was in part due to Sherman's march. But if you are trying to tell me, again, that the end justifies the means, it is a waste of time, because that is no excuse.

Originally Posted by trice

Certainly Sherman did not do a lot to assist in putting out those fires, nor did the first wave of troops coming through -- they seem to have reveled in it and possibly/probably helped it along. The follow-up Union force did, however, assist the citizens in putting out the fires and saving what could be saved. Did Emma LeConte have the same feeling of hatred for those who helped?

I don't know. Emma LeConte was talking about the Union soldiers in general, not the small handful that tried to help (mainly officers). I would be guessing to say she probably hated them equally for even being in Columbia in the first place and allowing such a thing to happen in the second place. I do not believe Sherman and his officers had such little control over their troops and the proof, for me, is that no one was diciplined for their actions...not even a reprimand. Sherman fully expected his men to do exactly what they did do...."I almost tremble for her fate."

Originally Posted by trice

Yet rebel soldiers deserted the field forces daily as a result of his march, leaving Johnston and Lee without the means to continue resistance. Why was that, do you think?

Why do you think? The only think they held more dear than their country was being threatened. So if you think this made Sherman a hero, that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. However, you aren't going to convince me that bringing the war on civilians, defenseless ones, at that, is an honorable victory.

Rose