Influence of Native American Warfare on Cavalry Tactics

[ole]

First, I might remind the participants that this thread started with a question if Native American Influence on Cavalry tactics. The Indians certainly learned from the post-war Cav and developed a few innovations of their own, which gave some lessons to the post-war Cavalry.

As the question has been asked and answered, and we've devolved into a discussion of Sherman's march and rape and so on. I'd suggest that the question be the subject of a new thread for the benefit of those who want to find some information on Sherman's march and wouldn't expect to find it on a thread about Indians.

DJ's provision of a link involving Rape was an eye-opener, though. Given that records of charges and executions are hard to come by for various reasons, I'm still rather amazed that with hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the field, the incidence of rape (or ravishing) was so low. Of every 1000 men, some are going to be rat bastards. What is encouraging for the time is the number of incidents wherein the soldiers themselves took the offenders out of due process and killed them. It is almost as true today as it was then -- when you sweep the general population, you're going to take up some very immoral with them.

It is truly remarkable that 60,000 men can march through Georgia and the Carolinas and leave so little evidence of outrageous conduct against women. With the percentages of my contention, there ought to have been at least 600, if not 6,000, cases of rape. Given that many would not have been reported, the incidence cannot come close to 600. (Let alone the million sometimes bandied about by extremists. Do the math. 60,000 men doing a million rapes. These guys didn't have time to march as far and and as fast as they did, being otherwise occupied. (That's a skosh more than 16.5 rapes per soldier over 5 months. Takes it into the ridiculous, doesn't it?)

Sherman's boys did a remarkable job of destruction during the march. By and large, homes were not burned when the resident stayed in it. To be sure, his barn was burned, his sustenance taken or destroyed, his draft animals confiscated or destroyed, his livestock consumed or destroyed, his mills and gins destroyed, but his home, so long as it was occupied, was spared.

Sherman, by destroying everything of value to the CS Army, also destroyed the will of the civilian. It could have been much, much worse.

ole

[ole]

If General Grant didn't curb General Sherman; Sherman would have slaughtered what was left of General Lee's army.

Must here object, M.E. Sherman curbed himself in letting Johnston off the hook. He could have utterly destroyed Johnston's army in North Carolina. He chose not to and instead offered overly generous terms.

Sherman was not so much of a beast. He talked mean, but acted gently. He didn't want to kill anyone, he just wanted them to stop fighting. And to make them stop fighting, he was prepared to institute draconian measures because he believed in stopping the devastation. Kind of contradictory, isn't it? I'm going to smash your face until you give me a reason to stop smashing your face.

Sherman was, really, a gentle man. But he saw the end he wanted and was prepared to do whatever it took to gain that end.

ole