Sherman was a hero

[IAmHistory]

No one is ever going to convince anyone of anything. Why? Because we all assume we are right...now can't we all just get along?!

[larry_cockerham]

Sam, Ole, Shane and others, I ain't arguing about Sherman's poor attitude when I gave Johnston credit for lack of damage in North Carolina along with the Army of Tennessee. Remember folks that Charlotte was never surrendered because it was OCCUPIED by the Confederate army. The railroad north from Charlotte to Spencer, Salisbury, Durham, Raleigh etc. was also in Confederate control until the Confederacy ceased to exist. This was an area the yanks simply didn't get to. Sorry, we WON that inning. Our southern lads, bloody as they were, put up a most creditable fight at Bentonville. We lost, saluted and went home, thanks to Divine providence and the loss of thousands of men in a cause in which they believed. Johnston had been re-assigned the command of the AOT by Lee (Davis was busy). Too little, too late.

[ole]

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".

No one has argued that Sherman's boys had nothing to do with the subsequent destruction in Columbia -- just that the cotton bales were the primary culprit. You must not have read a previous discussion in another thread about those bales and the nature of fire in conjuction with compacted cotton. Nor have you accepted the record that, when Sherman rode into town, he had to ride on the sidewalk because of the burning bales.

A fire in baled cotton, mattresses, upholstery, coal mines, et alii, is not "controlled" until it is cold. A brisk wind will whip a warm spot in such material into a blazing inferno. (Oh my! A very strong wind started blowing after the fires were "under control.") You've also apparently not seen the map of the burned district. Buildings were burned on both sides of the street along which the cotton was piled. From there, the fire spread almost exclusively east -- fires to the west were largely confined to installations of military value burned by Sherman's orders. Scattered fires further east can easily be attributed to incendiary-minded rioting soldiers (and a whole bunch of rowdies).

Now I'll ask for citations that "the citizens of Columbia reported that the cotton bales didn't start the fire." And I will have to look up the report that two soldiers were shot by their colonel for refusing to submit to control.

Undoubtedly, the initial troops did considerable damage, including burning (and I don't buy "drunk" as an excuse) and finishing the looting started well before the first yankee crossed the river. But Sherman and his army were and are not solely responsible for the destruction of a goodly portion of the city. If it could be shown that Sherman issued orders to burn the entire city to the ground, my opinion would be the same: "What would you expect?" I'm simply trying to peel away the myth and establish an understanding that bears a faint resemblance to fact.

Feelings, even strong feelings, are valuable assets. In the pursuit of historical fact, they get in the way. Opinions (like _________, everybody has one) should be based on some credible evidence, not emotion. Specious lecture concluded.
Ole

[larry_cockerham]

The city of Cheraw was another example of Sherman's "wrath". Many wealthy Charlestonians had some of their belongings such as jewelry and furniture taken to Cheraw for "safe" keeping. Somehow Sherman's boys found the cache.

[trice]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Sam, Ole, Shane and others, I ain't arguing about Sherman's poor attitude when I gave Johnston credit for lack of damage in North Carolina along with the Army of Tennessee. Remember folks that Charlotte was never surrendered because it was OCCUPIED by the Confederate army. The railroad north from Charlotte to Spencer, Salisbury, Durham, Raleigh etc. was also in Confederate control until the Confederacy ceased to exist. This was an area the yanks simply didn't get to. Sorry, we WON that inning. Our southern lads, bloody as they were, put up a most creditable fight at Bentonville. We lost, saluted and went home, thanks to Divine providence and the loss of thousands of men in a cause in which they believed. Johnston had been re-assigned the command of the AOT by Lee (Davis was busy). Too little, too late.

Bentonville was a nice effort, and might have been more successful if Braxton Bragg hadn't commanded one wing. But Johnston was darn lucky to get away afterwards. If he had faced an aggressive commander like Grant, Sheridan, or Thomas, his army would have been smashed by Mower's Charge on March 21 like no other army in the Civil War was smashed. All it needed was a little support.

After the battle, Sherman rendevoused with Schofield (20,000 more men) at Goldsborough and also with Terry. Having been in motion almost constantly for two months, he left his troops to reorganize and rest a little while he went to City Point to meet with Grant and Lincoln to discuss the next campaign (i.e., smashing Lee and Johnston). On March 27 he arrived at City Point; on March 30 he returned to Goldsborough. On April 1, Sheridan smashes Pickett at Five Forks, and on April 9 Lee surrendered. On April 10th Sherman started for Raliegh. On April 12th, Sherman received news of Lee's surrender. On April 14th, Johnston asked Sherman for a cessation of hostilities, "the object being to permit the civil authorities to enter into the needful arrangements to terminate the existing war".

At no point in there did General Johnston's army hinder Sherman's operations in any important way. Once Sherman was in motion and Lee surrendered, Johnston surrendered.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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".

Pardon my confusion, but I certainly didn't say anything about the reliability of "Southerner's words" or "Yankee gospel. However, you seem rather worked up about it for some reason. Why is that?

There are lots of reasons Columbia burned and sources not determined to blame only one side always acknowledge this. I myself aluded to this in my last message when I noted: "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."

Ole has pointed some of this out to you.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Yes, and I'm sure it was in part due to Sherman's march.

Only one message back you said "But, no, Sherman didn't frighten the South into submission, he did, however, gain their undying hatred." That is what I was responding to here. Now you are sure that Sherman's March played a part in Southern surrender. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Since I said nothing at all even remotely related to your comment here, what are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Your depiction that "mainly officers" tried to help is simply wrong. Perhaps you might consider that Emma LeConte, whatever she felt and whatever she saw, might also have been wrong to some degree in her judgement. Emotion is a poor substitute for truth and accuracy, however strongly the emotion is felt.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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."

As one histiorian said, if Columbia had not been burning already when the Yankees arrived, it certainly would have been burning when they left. This is what I and some others here have been saying, that the Union forces had a different feel for SC because they viewed her as the source of secession after her thirty-year drive to bring it upon the nation. Certainly Sherman did not do much to stop it -- he wandered the streets watching and commenting, and only the follow-up Union troops made any strong effort to stop the fires. But that does not mean the cotton bales Hampton's men set afire did not play their port, nor the horde of "rabble" the city fathers had been worrying about for days, nor the criminals released from the prison.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Why do you think? The only think they held more dear than their country was being threatened.

So you agree that Sherman's actions had an important effect in hurrying the end of the war because Southern soldiers deserted in reaction to it. Earlier you said they did not, it seems to me.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I don't particularly like Sherman. I think he was an uneven general, good at some things and bad at others. I doubt I have ever called him a hero in my life. I have made no effort to convince you his campaign was particularly "honorable". So why would you attribute such things to me?

War always comes to civilians. You may like to imagine there was a time when somehow it did not, but I think if you look at history rigorously you will be likely to find that under the surface of what you see it did. War is harsh and horrible, hard to control, often randomly violent. It fans the flames of anger and hate and fear. Expecting some polite form where nothing happens to the people living where it is fought is simply not realistic.

Many people in 1861 felt the same: the braggarts and fools you can see claiming one Rebel is wiorth 2 or 3 or 10 Yankees, or the critics who thought trained troops and discipline were not needed, or those impressionable people who thought it would all be over in one battle. By 1865 they should have known far better.

Since you seem so intent upon criticizing Sherman for his policies, I think you should take a look at Stonewall Jackson. He advocated taking the hard hand of war into the North in 1861, long before Sherman burned a stick of anything anywhere. If he had managed it, would you be spending your time calling this Southern "hero" a monster?

BTW, you might want to take a look at "Sherman and the Burning of Columbia" by Marion B. Lucas, Foreword by Bell I. Wiley, ISBN 1-57003-358-7. In case you want to dismiss it as more "Yankee gospel", it was published by the University of South Carolina Press. According to their press release, Marion B. Lucas is University Distinguished Professor and professor of history at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. Also a native South Carolinian and graduate of the University of South Carolina.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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".

Pardon my confusion, but I certainly didn't say anything about the reliability of "Southerner's words" or "Yankee gospel. However, you seem rather worked up about it for some reason. Why is that?

There are lots of reasons Columbia burned and sources not determined to blame only one side always acknowledge this. I myself aluded to this in my last message when I noted: "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."

Ole has pointed some of this out to you.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Yes, and I'm sure it was in part due to Sherman's march.

Only one message back you said "But, no, Sherman didn't frighten the South into submission, he did, however, gain their undying hatred." That is what I was responding to here. Now you are sure that Sherman's March played a part in Southern surrender. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Since I said nothing at all even remotely related to your comment here, what are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Your depiction that "mainly officers" tried to help is simply wrong. Perhaps you might consider that Emma LeConte, whatever she felt and whatever she saw, might also have been wrong to some degree in her judgement. Emotion is a poor substitute for truth and accuracy, however strongly the emotion is felt.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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."

As one histiorian said, if Columbia had not been burning already when the Yankees arrived, it certainly would have been burning when they left. This is what I and some others here have been saying, that the Union forces had a different feel for SC because they viewed her as the source of secession after her thirty-year drive to bring it upon the nation. Certainly Sherman did not do much to stop it -- he wandered the streets watching and commenting, and only the follow-up Union troops made any strong effort to stop the fires. But that does not mean the cotton bales Hampton's men set afire did not play their part, nor the horde of "rabble" the city fathers had been worrying about for days, nor the criminals released from the prison.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Why do you think? The only think they held more dear than their country was being threatened.

So you agree that Sherman's actions had an important effect in hurrying the end of the war because Southern soldiers deserted in reaction to it. Earlier you said they did not, it seems to me.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

I don't particularly like Sherman. I think he was an uneven general, good at some things and bad at others. I doubt I have ever called him a hero in my life. I have made no effort to convince you his campaign was particularly "honorable". So why would you attribute such things to me?

War always comes to civilians. You may like to imagine there was a time when somehow it did not, but I think if you look at history rigorously you will be likely to find that under the surface of what you see it did. War is harsh and horrible, hard to control, often randomly violent. It fans the flames of anger and hate and fear. Expecting some polite form where nothing happens to the people living where it is fought is simply not realistic.

Many people in 1861 felt the same: the braggarts and fools you can see claiming one Rebel is wiorth 2 or 3 or 10 Yankees, or the critics who thought trained troops and discipline were not needed, or those impressionable people who thought it would all be over in one battle. By 1865 they should have known far better.

Since you seem so intent upon criticizing Sherman for his policies, I think you should take a look at Stonewall Jackson. He advocated taking the hard hand of war into the North in 1861, long before Sherman burned a stick of anything anywhere. If he had managed it, would you be spending your time calling this Southern "hero" a monster?

BTW, you might want to take a look at "Sherman and the Burning of Columbia" by Marion B. Lucas, Foreword by Bell I. Wiley, ISBN 1-57003-358-7. In case you want to dismiss it as more "Yankee gospel", it was published by the University of South Carolina Press. According to their press release, Marion B. Lucas is University Distinguished Professor and professor of history at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. Also a native South Carolinian and graduate of the University of South Carolina.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

BTW, you might want to take a look at "Sherman and the Burning of Columbia" by Marion B. Lucas, Foreword by Bell I. Wiley, ISBN 1-57003-358-7. In case you want to dismiss it as more "Yankee gospel", it was published by the University of South Carolina Press. According to their press release, Marion B. Lucas is University Distinguished Professor and professor of history at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. Also a native South Carolinian and graduate of the University of South Carolina.

I bought that book after our last go 'round on Sherman and Columbia. A fascinating account! Professor Lucas took great pains to incorporate accounts of city officials and citizens. His conclusions are very much the same as yours and mine -- placing blame on any single cause (cotton bales, Sherman, Sherman's advance troops, refugee rabble, escaped criminals) ingnores evidence to the contrary. I was expecting to see a whitewash, but was pleasantly surprised to find an even-handed, unemotional examination of the situation. I was expecting him to address the vaunted "signal to commence burning." Perhaps he found it beneath notice?

Ole

[johan_steele]

Anything w/ a forward by Wiley is worth a look and this is one of the many books that lead to me questioning what I thought I knew.

[johan_steele]

just a few notes and accounts of how relatives of CS deserters could expect to be treated by the CS.

From incidents in NC. Paludan Victims: A true Story of the Civil War

Those unfortunate enough to be relatives of suspects that the troops could not find were whipped and tortured and hanged until almost dead and then let down again for more questioning. 85 years old Mrs Unus Riddle was whipped, hanged temporarily, and robbed. 75 year old Sally Moors was whipped w/ hickory rods until the blood ran down her back. Another woman, the mother of an infant child, was tied in the snow to a tree and her baby placed in the doorway of their cabin... unless she spoke they promised to leave them there.

This was not done by evil Yanks under Shermans command but Confederate "Home Guard" in NC; there are similar accounts from both SC & Georgia. Ample accounts exist showing that there were plenty of people who were less than honorable in the area of Shermans march well prior to his moving through the area.

From Devens Pictorial Book of Anecdotes and Incidents of the War of the Rebellion

Troopers sent to round up deserters and "layouts" often ran into stiff resistance, especially in the South. Hundreds of layout gangs went on the offensive, attacking govt supply wagons, raiding local plantations, and harassing draft officials. THey elimintaed Confederate authority in large parts of the South. So violent did the South's inner civil war become by 1863 that one Southern Newspaper editor wrote, "We are fighting each other harder than we ever fought the enemy."

Then there was Bill Wall and his gang of deserters and draft evaders. Govenor Brown sought help from Davis (no the CS one this time) "...tories and deserters in NE Georgia are now disarming the loyal people and commiting many outrages." He received no response.

William Strickland raised the Wiregrass anti-CS... Strickland had been a soldier in the 2nd Florida Cav. He received word that his wife was mortally ill. He was refused a furlough and deserted. He raised band of similar men and in 1863 their famileis were rounded up and imprisoned in Camp Smith near Tallahassee... several died living in conditions as bad as any POW camp. The raiders offered their servixces to the US Army as the "Independent Rangers of Taylor County."

All present in A People's History of the Civil War by David Williams

These were not isolated incidents. Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Alabama, TN, Georgia, Florida, La, Miss, Florida, Virginia, NC, SC... all had sizeable percentages of anti CS feeling running through the population and enough draft evaders & deserters to make life quite difficult for CS authorities. Lee himself noted that 2/3 of the CS Army had deserted by mid 64... in short there were more CS deserters than CS soldiers in the field! Many thousands of women wrote their husbands begging them to return home to save the farmstead. It wasn't necessarily because they felt secession was a bad thing... they were being set upon by unscrupolous debt collectors, govt titheing agents etc... all the while looking down the road at the planters & big slaveowners who sat fat & happy either untouched by such calamity or able to buy their way out of any problem. Many a CS soldier returned home only to find their family holdings seized by debtors & their families gone... In other words CS deserters had no reason to feel loyalty or fondness for the CS.

Sherman's route to the Sea... the majority of civilian homes detroyed were large plantation house, not the poor farmers cabin. THe large amounts of food foraged from the populace came largely from large plantations... not from the poor. When one reads accounts of foragers lining the route of march waiting their Regiments the descriptions of fine buggies, thourobred horses etc denote plunder of the wealthy. The Foragers concentrated on the wealthy; those who brought the war about and who were paying for it and reaping what they had sown for the first time.

The average soldier in Sherman's Army came from a farm; he was guaranteed to be more sympathetic to a poor white farmer than a deserted plantation house... incidently the neighbor down the road was every bit as aware that the rich family had fled. Any reason not to raid the house and blame the looting on Sherman's men? Makes more sense than trying to figure out how some of Sherman's men carted away chandeliers, fine furniture etc. I also rather suspect there were quite a few old scores settled as well.

Now add the slaves to the mix...

IMO no more than a third of the looting attributed to Sherman's men in Georgia or NC was done by them... in SC it was vandalism extrodinaire. The Lost Cause is fond of forgetting the anger of slaves, CS deserters and the minor fact that Wheelers men had not been paid for a year and had been subsisting off the populace for that long. Wheeler was certainly aware of it.