Sherman was a hero

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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

No. In fact, I don't think the issue should be about hating or liking Sherman's actions. We are talking about a historical event. Look at Sherman and his campaign as part of a very large and bloody civil war. What did it mean? Why did he do it? What was its result? Think of it in its proper context.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

You bring up the word "crimes." In what way were Sherman's actions criminal?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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

Look at what warfare is, overall. It is the use of force over another to impose your will over theirs. Generally it is done by killing, wounding or otherwise eliminating enemy soldiers, enemy material, and enemy strengths. The idea being that with such a loss one's opponent cannot or will not continue to resist.

So, why would destroying family possessions and property not be a legitimate military target, particularly if that family supports the war effort? Sherman's attitude was that if the Southern population really wanted independence and was really willing to support a war to gain it, they should face the reality of war and its destruction. His strategy was shocking to many Southerners...because they suddenly found themselves part of the war they had sat back and advocated with words and supported with material. It was also shocking because they had felt themselves immune to destruction before, either due to the conflict being many miles away, or because they did not see their property as a legitimate military target. But why wasn't it? Were they not part of the war effort? Did not the Confederacy depend upon their political, moral and economic support?

The loss of family possessions directly related to the support (or lack of) for the war. Many, many Southerners defiantly defended the Confederate cause...until their barns were burned, their animals killed or taken, and their sense of security destroyed. Then these Southerners lost the taste for war. That is what Sherman wanted.

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."

There is no doubt that Sherman's campaign caused a great deal of anxiety and hatred towards his men. But, again, warfare is not a popularity contest. Attempts to handle Southern secessionists softly, to soothe them back into the Union did not work. It was war. Southern men took up arms against Union men in arms and each side killed as many as they could in battle. Sherman did not try to win the hearts and minds of Southerners, like Emma LeConte. He wanted to break their will to fight. LeConte may have hated Sherman and his men with all of her might---but she (and many others) did not wage war against the Union for much longer.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

What did she do? There were many diehards at the end of the war. But by April 1865, they were a minority. And, they either moved out of the country or just acquiesced.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Not exactly...see below and bottom.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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.

Again, not exactly. There are countless people whose families suffered through the Civil War, Sherman's campaign, etc., and put the past behind them. In the latter years of the nineteenth century, much of the population in the two sections enjoyed a feeling of unity not shared in decades. In fact, Sherman visited and entertained numerous Southern guests (former enemies) during his retirement years. Ex-Confederate general Joe Johnston served as a pall bearer at Sherman's funeral. Not exactly a sign of undying Southern hatred.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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?

Above you talk about Southerners who "share history." You also talk a great deal about the sufferings of people in Georgia during Sherman's march. And you say I do not understand. I usually do not bring my personal history into discussions, but I did have relatives who fought Sherman. My g-g-grandfather (one of many ancestors who fought for the Confederacy) served in the 39th Georgia Infantry from 1862 to late 1864. Captured and paroled at Vicksburg, he went back into the field and fought Sherman in Tennessee and Georgia -- that is until his home was overrun by Sherman's men around September 1864, outside Atlanta. In October, he did what many Confederate soldiers were doing in these last years of the war...he threw in the towel. With his family destitute and behind enemy lines, my grandfather gathered up his wife and children and got out of there. He swore allegiance to the Union and lived the rest of his life in peace.

Now, I did not grow up in Georgia (for my g-g-grandfather did not go back to Georgia after the war). But my family did suffer from Sherman's campaign. They lost their home, most of their possessions and their sense of security. And they settled in another state (in the South) and had to start over. But I don't take it personally. When I read about Sherman's campaign, I look at it as a major event during a very traumatic time. I do not identify with Sherman's men. I am proud of my grandfather's service, but I don't feel like I have to continue his cause. He risked his life, and gave up a great deal...as did my g-g-grandmother and their children. And when the war ended, for him and the country, he went back to normal life as best as he could.

My interest in history has grown and is enriched by my personal family connections. But it does not mold my historical study. I try not to generate my historical conclusions according to what my family may or may not have done. I am fascinated by what my grandfather in the 39th Georgia did, as well as what my relatives in other units undertook -- many of which did not come home. But I don't fight their wars. I don't look upon them as icons or demigods. I see them as normal people living, working and fighting for and within the society and environment of their time. (Heck, another line of my family came to America from London in 1720 as an indentured servant. His three boys--one of which was my direct paternal g-something grandfather--supported the British during the American Revolution. I don't feel compelled to identify with the British when reading about that conflict.) I try to understand all of it, but I do not take it personally.

[JerseyBart]

Forgiven me if I'm offbase a bit here, but there is likely a difference of opinion on General Sherman's legacy between southern citizens and southern officers & generals. If I am a southern officer, I may not have liked what Sherman did in the south, but he's a fellow officer from the otherside and I'd may also be envious, jealous and in awe of what he did. Sherman accomplished something that they couldn't and didn't, but possibly would have if they were in his position at the time and/or had the chance. I may have even wanted to share old war stories with him in the later years and found him to be a good guy. You may have heard a "wow, you really stuck it to us in the ____ in 1864 you old _____," followed by a slap on the back or a handshake.

You also see in grainy old footage at Civil War battle anniversaries how the aging soldiers from both sides got back together, staged reenactments only to shake hands at the climax of the conflict instead of the shooting, death and carnage that took place 10, 25, 50 years prior. Whoever attacked who in that battle or campaign most likely ransacked the towns close to it looking for supplies and souvenirs to take home. To the officers and soldiers that may have just been a part of war. They may have taken part in the ransacking or destruction of a town. I won't use the words: all, most, none or never. They get people in trouble.

Finally, If I were a southern citizen I'd be pretty po'd at what Sherman did and/or progagandized as having accomplished at my expense. "You ruined MY family, home, community..." etc. All that I would know if him is what he leveled or was said to have leveled at us. Plain and simple...no handshake, slap on the back or want to get to know him better, just downright hatred even if it wasn't justified, justified to a certain level or completely justified.

In conclusion, maybe fellow soliders and officers could let bygones be bygones but depending on what was done, said, heard and believed, the common citizen could not. Just a thought.

Bart

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

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



Rose

Unquestionably, Mr. S meant to teach the valuable lesson that no one, or persons, or organizations, etc. can be able to destroy the United States of America. An ideal with which I think we can mostly agree with.

[Wild_Rose]

First let me apologize for not answering the posts that were directed to me. I've sold my house and I must have driven 800 miles in the past few days looking for a new house. I've looked at about a dozen places that all seem to have some flaw or other that I can't overlook and I'm exhausted.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

I try to understand all of it, but I do not take it personally.

Scotsman, forgive me, but I am weary of the Sherman thread. It has gone on long enough for me to see that everyone has an opinion and it isn't going to change. I really can't think of anything to say about Sherman that hasn't been said. Most are more forgiving, if not downright apathetic to his actions, than I am. I find what he did appalling and most of you don't. So really, there is no more to say (for my part of this discussion). I don't have any personal stake in what Sherman did or did not do. I simply find his actions reprehensible and I seem to be the minority in that opinion. But, I can't bring myself to accept the excuses I've heard for the inexcusable.

Respectfully,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by samgrant

Unquestionably, Mr. S meant to teach the valuable lesson that no one, or persons, or organizations, etc. can be able to destroy the United States of America. An ideal with which I think we can mostly agree with.

Sam, the only thing I disagree with is that secession would have "destroyed" the United States. I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't believe this country is great because of the number of states it can boast. The only lesson most Southerners learned from Sherman is that apparently "might makes right" or possibly that "the end is justified by any means".

Rose

[JerseyBart]

Rose,

For what it's worth, I applaud you for stating your case so eloquantly over the last month+. You fought hard and against pretty steep odds. Happy house hunting. I'll be doing the same in early 2007, so I'll be bothering you for some tips pretty soon.

Bart

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

In conclusion, maybe fellow soliders and officers could let bygones be bygones but depending on what was done, said, heard and believed, the common citizen could not. Just a thought.

Bart

The men who had been on the sharp end called them "staybehinders" and other less polite names. It is amazing how chewing the same mud, facing the same diseases and losing friends in the same way can have a a strange effect that gives once mortal enemies common ground that a civilian or rear echelon soldier cannot/couldn't understand.

That the veterans who made up the GAR & various CV organizations got along as well as they did postwar speaks volumes...

[JerseyBart]

Shane,

Amen to that. Mutual experiences...mutual respect!!!

Bart

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by JerseyBart

Rose,

For what it's worth, I applaud you for stating your case so eloquantly over the last month+. You fought hard and against pretty steep odds. Happy house hunting. I'll be doing the same in early 2007, so I'll be bothering you for some tips pretty soon.

Thanks Bart. I can tell you this, house hunting AIN'T fun. I know what I'm looking for so why doesn't it simply appear and save me all of this wasted time?

Rose

[JerseyBart]

Rose,

Doesn't it just make sense, because it would make life a lot easier. If you figure out how that works, please fill me in on how you did it.

Bart