Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I'm afraid you are way overstating what happened to civilians, Dawna. There was destruction of property, but civilians were not murdered. In fact, Georgia civilians at the time thought Wheeler's cavalry was guilty of more depredations than Sherman's men.
Cash:
I must admit that I'm having a difficult time understanding how you've come to the conclusion that no civilians were murdered during Sherman's campaign, particularly when one of Sherman's pro-biographers stated that "had the Confederates somehow won, they would have found themselves justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war againstnoncombatants." ("Marching Through Georgia:" Lee Kennett)
"There was destruction of property." In Sherman's words: "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." In my estimation Cash, this amounts to a little more than your claim that "there was destruction of property."
"The Confederate Military History," Volume 6, Chapter XVII:
Under Sherman's orders Capt. O. M. Poe "thoroughly destroyed Atlanta, save its mere dwelling-houses and churches." The destruction was by fire purposely applied to buildings, and permitted to spread, as was expected, from house to house until the defenseless city was almost entirely reduced to ashes. No efforts were made to prevent the spread of the conflagration, and scarcely any structure was designedly spared. Only about 450 buildings escaped this ruthless burning, among them many churches, which in those days generally stood apart from other buildings. The thoroughness of the destruction can be realized, when we consider that by the census of 1860 Atlanta had a population of 10,000, which in 1864 had increased to 14,000. More than 4,000 houses, including dwellings, shops, stores, mills and depots were burned, about eleven-twelfths of the city. Capt. Daniel Oakey, of the Second Massachusetts volunteers, says: "Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the Thirty-third Massachusetts played martial airs and operatic selections."
Sherman himself noted the rising columns of smoke as he rode away from the city. Considering that he had been in possession of the city since the 3d of September, he had had ample time to utterly destroy everything in it that could be of advantage to an enemy, without the wanton and inexcusable method to which he resorted. It was no more necessary from a military point of view to destroy mercantile establishments than private dwellings or churches. The destruction of Atlanta can never be excused. The name of the Federal commander will always be associated with this barbarous act.
Howard, evidently ashamed of the manner of the marching through Georgia, claims that the "Sherman bummers" were not with his wing. He reported the capture of about 1,200 prisoners, 10,500 cattle, about $300,000 worth of subsistence, 931 horses, 1,850 mules, about 5,000,000 pounds each of corn and fodder, and the destruction of 3,500 bales of cotton and 191 miles of railroad. Slocum 'reported a similar amount of subsistence taken, 119 miles of railroad wrecked, 17,000 bales of cotton destroyed. The limits of this chapter do not permit of an adequate description of the ruin wrought throughout Georgia. The imagination, acting upon the basis of the outline here given, cannot exceed the reality.
And what of the burning of cities such as Jackson, *******n, and Randolph, whose populations consisted of 'non-combatants? Do you believe any of the reports/diaries, for example, that have been included in this thread; or do you consider them as mere embellishment 'of historical fact?'
"What overshadows that is the kidnapping of black citizens off the streets in Pennsylvania and taking them south in chains to be sold into slavery. What overshadows that is the cold-blooded murder of black soldiers who had surrendered and were unarmed at Fort Pillow, Poison Springs, and Olustee. And let's not forget the diabolical plot to attempt to spread smallpox among Union civilians."
Emory International Law Review, Volume 9, Number 2, Thomas G. Robisch: "The presence of Sherman's army prompted a great number of slaves to leave their homes, often on a moment's notice, to follow the Union soldiers. To these people, Sherman was somewhat of a mythical figure who had come to bring them freedom. Except for a relatively small number of refugees who were employed as pioneers (road construction workers), servants, mistresses or prostitutes, Sherman's army had little use for these people. Sherman considered these refugees to be unwanted responsibilities, and he discouraged slaves from following his men as best he could, Nevertheless, the presence of his army attracted thousands of blacks.
These refugees created problems for the Union army in terms of the army's ability or disposition to provide them with adequate food, shelter, and medical care. Unfortunately, many of the runaway slaves who followed Sherman's soldiers were unable to care sufficiently for themselves, and the federal army provided them with little help.
On one occasion, when one of Sherman's corps commanders believed that the crowd of refugees had become unduly burdensome, he forced the runaway slaves to remain behind at a river-crossing by burning the bridges used by the soldiers to cross the river. By abandoning them in this manner, the Union army tacitly permitted former owners to recapture these former slaves.
Panic-stricken, many of the refugees dove into the river and died trying to swim across. Sherman refused to criticize the corps commander, a Union general with the improbable name of Jeff Davis, who was responsible for the decision to burn the bridges. In addition to this incident, the Union army's other acts of desertion of black refugees caused a substantial number of deaths from hunger, exposure, and sickness."
I didn't say civilians deserved anything, Dawna. I said that wars are terrible things, and innocents are always hurt in wars. But to claim the confederacy itself was the victim is akin to the Menendez brothers pleading for mercy on the basis that they were orphans. The confederacy started the war, so whatever happened to civilians in either section happened because of what the confederacy did.
Cash, in the past you and others on these Boards have clearly stated that "the South deserved what they got." That was the mentality of Sherman's army and in the general's own words:
December 18 –“With Savannah in our possession, at some future time, if not now, we can punish South Carolina as she deserves…I do sincerely believe that the whole United States, north and south, would rejoice to have this army turned loose on South Carolina, to devastate that State… it would have a direct and immediate bearing on your campaign in Virginia.” (Report of Major General William T. Sherman. Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Company)
I'm afraid in your haste to cast President Lincoln as the Devil incarnate you have gone beyond what the historical record will sustain. President Lincoln did not ignore any restrictions, and neither did Generals Sherman and Sheridan.
Perhaps you could explain to me then in what way the Leiber Code was not jaundiced, when the entire purpose of Sherman's army was to 'demoralize Southern non-combatants?'
"As I said, wars are terrible things, and it is inevitable that innocent civilians will be hurt. There is nothing that can be done to prevent it. No matter how much one tries to limit the damage to civilians, they will still be hurt. That is one reason why one must take very seriously the decision to go to war. The ultimate blame for what happened to southern states in the Civil War belongs with those who made the decision to start the war."
How can we look at the same issue and view it so differently? There was no attempt made to limit the damage caused to civilians in the South, or to their property - quite the opposite. When the South seceded, President Lincoln did not have to invade Virginia...he could have simply let the States go and thus avoided the carnage and bloodshed that became the direct result of his actions. You invariably avoid the fact that Lincoln had a choice.
Why don't you toss your glass of papaya juice against the nearest fireplace and take a walk on the wild side with me, if only for a moment? Let's dispense with the impotent rhetoric of 'cause, deserve, constitution etc., and put a more human touch on the plight of the Southern people. I would even ask you to risk it all and consider the major populace as something other than parsimonious and sodden children, who had little more to do then swat fans and polish their dueling pistols.
And if you haven't actually dismantled the fireplace by now, then I only ask you this. Do you believe that there is a moral equivalence between innocent civilians and an army chaperoned by revenge? After all, it's rather difficult to convince a group of people that you have their best interests at heart, when the welcome wagon you send out is stacked with subjugation.
In the entire above post, I noticed you did not post (I may have missed it) the number of civilians killed by General Sherman's men. Do you have a reliable figure or source for the number you think were killed?
I also have the book, Marching Trough Georgia, by Lee Kennett, and the book as a whole comes off as debunking much of the 'crimes' of Sherman's famous march. Chapter 14 of the book, titled 'The Victims' has some interesting comments. Page 305:
"Though there may not have been a "family council" to decide what measures a household should take when Sherman's men appeared in the vicinity; one has the impression that the man's temporary departure was part of a prearranged plan based on the assumption that if the man stayed there was appreciable rish that some form of violence would be visited on him, and that if the woman received the invaders there was no appreciable risk that she would be subjected to bodily harm."
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
In the entire above post, I noticed you did not post (I may have missed it) the number of civilians killed by General Sherman's men. Do you have a reliable figure or source for the number you think were killed?
Neil:
"I also have the book, Marching Trough Georgia, by Lee Kennett, and the book as a whole comes off as debunking much of the 'crimes' of Sherman's famous march. Chapter 14 of the book, titled 'The Victims' has some interesting comments." Which I thought made the statement of Mr. Kennett's from my previous posting to be that much more interesting, and revealing.
I've read that up to 50,000 civilians were killed by Shermans army, and possibly more. Just as it was difficiult to determine the full extent of the destruction to the South, it would also be a challenge to confirm exactly how many civilians were raped and murdered. But I would be curious to know what your estimate might be?
"Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and PEOPLE will cripple their military resources. I can make the march and make Georgia howl."
"There is a class of people (in the South), men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order."
Conyngham, Sherman's March Through the South, New York, 1865: 311, 344: "The middle of the finest day looked black and gloomy, for a dense smoke arose on all sides, clouding the very heavens...As for the wholesale burnings, pillage, devastation...magnify all I have said of Georgia some fifty fold, and throw in an occasional murder...and you have a pretty good idea of the whole thing."
Letter from Major A.A. King to General Rosecrans on July 25, 1864: "The rebels in a body have passed from among us, and the counties are comparatively quiet. The amount of damage done the people is in proportion of ten to one, and the misfortune is that those who came as our defenders and to drive out thieves, robbers, and bushwhackers damaged the people ten times as much in this way as did these rebels, from whom we had no right to expect better things. The officers, I hear, said they could not restrain the men;...Garrison and his myrmidons have been let loose among us, and it may be that they have done the chief work;... An inquiry by an honest military court into these things will develop the enormity of crimes of the most startling character. Robbery, murder, arson, and rapes will figure largely in the catalogue." From Major A.A.King, Richmond (Mo), 25 july 1864 to general Rosecrans OR SI vol XLI part 2 p387.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
50,000 murdered would equate to almost one per soldier. In the worst case, if 10 of every 100 soldiers should have been smothered at birth, 500 men murdered 10 each. To be a bit more charitable, 250 men murdered 20 each. That well exceeds incredible.
I can accept 1000 murders, although that cannot be substantiated, but 50,000 is a stretch beyond comprehension.
Historical analysis cannot abide any preconception. What happened, happened, and can be sustantiated. What anyone concludes in that respect is a matter of either fact or desire.
Ole, I was including the black Civilians murdered at Ebeneezer creek by drowning as a result of the Union Jeff Davis pulling the pontoons. And by Wheelers most effective Cav charge. I agree w/ you, I admit to being disgusted by a recent book on Sherman from a lady we a serious anti-US/Union agenda that claimed 100,000... pure horror fantasy but such numbers are out there. And they are easily refuted simply by comparing the Census info.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I simply do not know any official number or unofficial number of civilians killed in the course of Sherman's march to the sea. I am willing to check out any source you might name and see if they meet my standards of proof.
Enjoying England, I hope. Have a chance to visit any interesting sites there as yet?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
What is the book? I'll wager that it wasn't published by UNCP.
No doubt there were murders. No doubt there were rapes. No doubt there was unjustifiable violence and pillage. That such actions were sanctioned/condoned/ordered is partisan conjecture.
My take on the "march" is that 60,000 men, most of them having spent a year or two getting shot at, is not going to be pretty. That some of them should have been smothered at birth or hung before they reached their teens is a sad fact of life. "Whatsoever ye sow ...." comes to mind.
If I walk into a bar, I know enough to not to approach the biggest guy and call him a fag. If I did, every friend I have in the world would ask, " what in the he*l was he thinking of?" Not one would say "it was an innocent remark and the reaction was excessive." That reaction would be my responsibility. It would be more than a bit lame to claim that it was an overreaction.
The confederacy walked into a bar .... If you didn't start the fight, you can moan about the results. If you did ... Tough.
Ole,
Could you please make your point re: "The avengement of... comments without the use of such analogies. You know, we do have ladies viewing this thread as members and lurkers. It doesen't enlighten the board in a manner of good taste. My Southern manners compelled me to ask this of you. Thanks.
Rob
Like Unionblue, I, too, would like to see any citations to reliable sources discussing the actual number of civilian deaths during the March to the Sea. In this regard, I note the following by Mark Grimsley, a Professor of Military History at OSU, in a 1995 lecture at the U.S. Military Academy:
"[M]ost [Civil War historians] would agree with Gerald F. Linderman's assessment, offered in his fine study Embattled Courage, that in the war's final year the Federals practiced a 'warfare of terror' against Southern civilians. Linderman's assessment, based upon an extensive survey of soldiers diaries and letters as well as official correspondence, is reasonable, and accords with other worthwhile studies. It is also an assessment I shared for a number of years, and my essay at Kings was thoroughly consistent with an interpretation that emphasized the terror and destructiveness of the North's hard war against Southern property. But eventually I became troubled, for official Union policy plainly did not contemplate such indiscriminate destruction. And although wanton depredations certainly occurred, I DISCOVERED ALMOST NO INSTANCES IN WHICH WHITE SOUTHERNERS WERE KILLED, ASSAULTED, OR RAPED. INDEED, MY READING OF THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUSTAIN A PORTRAYAL OF UNRESTRAINED DESTRUCTION EVEN OF PROPERTY." (Emphasis added)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
