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.
Ole, I don't recall the author but recall the specifics of the back of the cover mentioning Shermans march killing 100,000 civilians. It was enough to catch my eye. I took long enough to read the first couple pages and check the bibliography & footnotes and knew I wasn't going to waste my time or money on such poorly researched crap.
Alabaman, there were ertainly men in Sherman's Army that deserved to be smothered at birth I readily admit such. But they were the minority.
THe barroom analogy makes sense. I recall, almost fondly so you can have my head checked, being in a bar w/ friends and talking w/ a good Scotsman. THe comment that I thought bagpipes a wonderful instrument but didn't understand the point of a plaid skirt got a pool cue broke across my back. My friends were too busy laughing at my misfortune to be sympathetic. While certainly an overreaction... I hold no malice towards the Scotsman, it's been well over ten years ago and frankly I deserved the wack.
You'll forgive me I hope f I hold no sympathy for either SC or Georgia. I've read enough letters and diaries to agree w/ Mr Lindermans assessment. I've read enough period evidence to refute many of te exaggerations put forward so shrilly by the Lost Cause & Neo Confed side of the isle.
Sherman & Mosby both have something in common: they destroyed property instead of killing soldiers; either their own or the enemies and they are despised. Grant & Lee are lionized and they killed their men off by the thousands.
__________________ 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
Do you believe no attrocities ocurred, or rather, attrocities ocurred but are grossly over-estimated by Southerner's of late?
Certainly you take in consideration the confussion and chaotic late-war atmosphere of a totally defeated South, along with a noted degree of vengeance per Union troops by some of our Northern membership & their reported sources? 50,000 has been refuted to a measly "less than 1,000" including negroes drowned by U.S. Gen. J. Davis' lack of compassion toward his burdening followers; negroes, he as a U.S. General had invaded the South to free from inhumane bondage. 1,000 (or a little less) civilian souls 'officially' reported dead would certainly ascend higher due to the dangers of reporting an unwitnessed crime to an invading army officer, restraints of citizens under Martial law and the bias of Federal soldiers. And one-thousand civilians killed, is a lot of people in my humble opinion.
Citing Prof. Mark Grimsley's approval of Gerald F. Linderman's personal assessment of most Civil War Historians agreement means what? Factual unbiased evidence? Who are the "most Historians" Linder's conclusions based upon?
"I believe that a people who would wage total war upon a section of it's own 'perceived' people, will also attempt by any means necessary, to amend it's barbaric behaviour." source, personal thought by Rob Adams upon reading Sherman's personal thoughts toward the South and his statement of making "Georgia howl."
I'm afraid you underestimate our good ladies. I would welcome having any one of them watch my back any time.
If you will, read again about the former slaves abandoned by US General Davis. They were cut adrift. Their deaths were not at the hand of US troops. Who killed them? Drove them to try swimming the river? Why lay this on Sherman's account?
Johan,
Your post made sense except for Grant being lionized.I never realized that anyone thought that highly of Grant.Who lionized him?Also Lee was far superior to Grant as a soldier, as a person,in reputation,in just about every way Grant was clearly his inferior.Grant is also to blame for the death of Union troops at Andersonville since he stopped prisoner exchange.He didn't value his men's life on or off of the battlefield.I have always thought that Grant was underrated militarily because I never knew anyone considered him a great military man.Perhaps I learned something new.
I also think it's not a good example to compare Sherman with Mosby.Sherman destroyed civilian property.His men raped, looted,etch...Unless I missed something Mosby nor his men were ever accused of rape,looting,ethch...Did Mosby and his partisan rangers burn down homes turning out women and children?I've never read where they committed such acts or were even accused of it.There is a clear difference between attacking civilian targets and attacking military targets.Sherman would be paralleled more with Al Quaida for his acts.I agree that Sherman's acts were exagerrated but the 1000 number seems a little low.It doesn't seem logical to just take the lowest figure reported as the correct assessment.War intentionally waged on civilians is terrorism.Sherman was no better in his actions than the terrorist who crashed planes into the twin towers.What makes it worse is that the US government sponsored his acts and saw to it he could never be punished for it.Sherman sure doesn't deserve respect for bringing shame to the flag he was supposed to honor.Bloody Bill Anderson or Quantrill would be an appropriate Confederate(notice I don't say Southern) comparison to Sherman.It is slander on Mosby to compare him to the likes of Sherman as well as a terrible insult to him and all of his descendants.If you have any evidence on Mosby I'd lappreciate seeing it.I'm not well versed in everything about the grey ghost, but I don't recall him committing sherman atrocities.
I've also got to agree with Rob that citing what's his name proves what?
Sorry for disagreeing so much Shane.I guess we just see the world through different eyes.
Regards,
Ashley
I'm simply looking for a serious estimate by someone who has studied the question. I'm naturally suspicious of received wisdom, lurid accounts and anecdotal evidence. I've never found a reliable source who has said, "Sherman's troops are estimated to have killed x thousand to y thousand civilians" (or even "x hundred to y hundred civilians"). I'm not vouching for the good professor -- although his resume looks pretty impressive to me, and I suspect they don't invite just anyone to present a lecture at the USMA.
Another source whom I DO trust, the historian Victor Hanson, has similarly found little or no hard evidence of murder and rape:
"As for the charge that Sherman's brand of war was amoral, if we forget for a moment what constitutes 'morality' in war and examine acts of violence per se against Southern civilians, we learn that there were few, if any, gratuitous murders on the march. There seem also to have been less than half a dozen rapes, a fact acknowledged by both sides. Any killing outside of battle was strictly military execution in response to the shooting of Northern prisoners. The real anomaly seems to be that Sherman brought more than sixty thousand young men through one of the richest areas of the enemy South without unchecked killing or mayhem. After the war a Confederate officer remarked of the march through Georgia: 'The Federal army generally behaved very well in this State. I don't think there was ever an army in the world that would have behaved better, on a similar expedition, in an enemy country. Our army certainly wouldn't.'"
(For those of you who have any interest in the Peloponnesian War, I can recommend without hesitation Professor Hanson's latest book, "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War" [Random House 2005].)
In short, the hysterical claims that Sherman cut through Georgia like Hitler through Poland appear illusory, but I'm looking for more specificity than that. If you have cites, I'd love to see them.
On a related note, I think that Gen. Jeff Davis's decision to abandon the slaves at Ebenezer Creek is an event that has to be separately evaluated. Sherman, of course, later defended Davis's actions as required by military necessity. Many have doubted that justification. Depending on which way you come out on the question, it was either tragic but unavoidable or an outrage for which Davis should have been punished. Ole has a point, in that Davis's troops did not kill the slaves, but it was certainly foreseeable that they might panic and try to ford the river, particularly since vengeful Confederate troops were reportedly in the area (and were the reason Davis gave for precipitously taking up the bridge). But in either event, that is a different issue from whether Sherman's troops intentionally killed more than de minimis numbers of innocent civilians.
Finally, as for Mobileboy's intemperate condemnation and comparison with the allegedly divine R.E. Lee, I offer Professor Hanson's bemused conclusion (from the same essay cited above):
"I am also surprised . . . at the absence of contrasts drawn between Sherman and Lee. Lee, who wrecked his army by sending thousands on frontal charges against an entrenched enemy and who himself owned slaves, enjoys the reputation of a reluctant, humane knight who battled for a cause--States' Rights and the sanctity of Southern soil--other than slavery. Sherman, who was careful to save his soldiers from annihilation and who freed thousands of slaves in Georgia, is too often seen as a murderous warrior who fought for a cause--federalism and the punishment of treason--other than freedom.
"Lee, as Sherman noted, crafted the wrong offensive for an outmanned and outproduced South, which led to horrendous casualties; Sherman's marches drew naturally on the material and human surpluses of the North and so cracked the core of the Confederacy, with few killed on either side. Lee wrongly thought the Union soldier would not fight as well as the Confederate; Sherman rightly guessed that the destruction of Southern property would topple the entire Confederacy. The one ordered thousands to their deaths when the cause was clearly lost; the other destroyed millions of dollars of property to hasten the end of bloodshed. Yet Sherman, who fought on the winning side, who promised in the abstract death and terror, who was unkempt, garrulous, and blunt, is usually criticized; Lee, who embodies the Lost Cause, who wrote of honor and sacrifice, and who was dapper, genteel, and mannered, is canonized. Historians would do better to assess each on what he did, not on what he professed."
Neil: "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."
There you have it, Dawna. It will not matter what sources you produce. Neil's standards will not be met. Nor will the standards of almost any other Yank on this board.
We will always disagree on the number of innocents who were killed while "making Georgia howl" and we'll always disagree about all those others along the route to the sea. We see murder and mayhem; they want and need to see distortion of fact. (Frankly, I would need to see that too if Confederate troops had systematically cut a swath of murder, rape, pillage, destruction across the countryside.)
Pictures can show the buildings but there is not a person of Northern persuasion on this board who does not discount all those diaries, letters, etc. that do exist. I don't know "how" they can discount them but they do. It's as if they actually believe that people made these horror stories up!
We know the truth. Someone said it was time to summarize this thread. I disagree totally. Continue to quote from diaries and letters from real people who were there! At least that way others will read and judge for themselves. Some won't find it so easy to discount letters and diaries from those distant times.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
THea, many stories are true, many more are exaggeration and all too many are outright lies. I think you will have to forgive skeptics like Neil or I when it is all too easy to question the integrity of a claim. I point specifically to a particular letter you used that purported to be a letter written by a Union Officer who took part in depradations. THe only problem w/ the letter is the man who wrote it never existed. THis is neither isolated nor unique.
I have recently had to tell a dear friend that he paid $200 for some very clever forgaries of CS letters.
Perhaps my skepticism comes from having read better than 2000 period letters & diaries...
__________________ 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
Johan,
Your post made sense except for Grant being lionized.I never realized that anyone thought that highly of Grant.Who lionized him?Also Lee was far superior to Grant as a soldier, as a person,in reputation,in just about every way Grant was clearly his inferior.Grant is also to blame for the death of Union troops at Andersonville since he stopped prisoner exchange.He didn't value his men's life on or off of the battlefield.I have always thought that Grant was underrated militarily because I never knew anyone considered him a great military man.Perhaps I learned something new.
Grant beat Lee, he authored the stratagy that won the war and he would go on to be a (underrated in my opinion, read Steven Ambrose on the man) President. Grant thought strategically and Lee tactically. Lee won battles, Grant won the campaigns and the War. Grant stopped the Prisoner exchanges because the CS was not honoring their end of the bargain. No, count that no CS troops who surrendered at Vicksburg were properly exchanged by the CS, Grant was quite incensed to learn that many of the CS troops captured after Missionary Ridge had surrendered at Vicksburg and were back in the line. Also the treatment of USCT troops & the CS refusal to treat USCT men as POW's was the straw that crushed the cartel. A lack of integrity in the CS side of the Cartel ended it.
And yet his men adored him...
Ironically the ACW was at one time studied religiously in the Soviet Military Colleges, Grant's startegic direction in particular was studied and Lee's gamble at Chanclorsville.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
also think it's not a good example to compare Sherman with Mosby.Sherman destroyed civilian property.His men raped, looted,etch...Unless I missed something Mosby nor his men were ever accused of rape,looting,ethch...Did Mosby and his partisan rangers burn down homes turning out women and children?I've never read where they committed such acts or were even accused of it.There is a clear difference between attacking civilian targets and attacking military targets.Sherman would be paralleled more with Al Quaida for his acts.I agree that Sherman's acts were exagerrated but the 1000 number seems a little low.It doesn't seem logical to just take the lowest figure reported as the correct assessment.War intentionally waged on civilians is terrorism.Sherman was no better in his actions than the terrorist who crashed planes into the twin towers.What makes it worse is that the US government sponsored his acts and saw to it he could never be punished for it.Sherman sure doesn't deserve respect for bringing shame to the flag he was supposed to honor.Bloody Bill Anderson or Quantrill would be an appropriate Confederate(notice I don't say Southern) comparison to Sherman.It is slander on Mosby to compare him to the likes of Sherman as well as a terrible insult to him and all of his descendants.If you have any evidence on Mosby I'd lappreciate seeing it.I'm not well versed in everything about the grey ghost, but I don't recall him committing sherman atrocities.
Mosby had very serious discipline problems w/ his men on his last two campaigns and I have a tendency to discount many of the claims against Mosby's men as fabrications.
Comparing US troops to Al Queda is so offensive as to be funny and am a little suprised to hear such from you. Would you please be kind enough to back up such an outrageous claim. Where were Shermans Rape rooms, where are the mass graves of southern civilians et al?
I am not taking the lowest number, that is 206 and I don't give it much credit as I believe it far too low. Most of the period numbers don't account for blacks, my own estimate is closer to 600 and the numbers of blacks in the same range. I have put the total number of CS civilians killed during the campaign at less than 2000 w/ between 1/3 & 1/2 being caused by other sources than Shermans men. Recently freed slaves, CS deserters and Wheelers men.
Neither Bloody Bill Anderson nor Quantrill were soldiers, they were at best guerillas and at worst murderers.
Far too many of the claims of Union atrocities are too easily discounted.
Take a look to Terrible Innocence by Mark Coburn, THe Hard Hand of War by Grimsley, The March to the Sea and Beyond by Glatthaar, Sherman, a Soldiers Passion for Order by MArszalek and Hitchcocks memoirs of the march are particularly interesting. While I don't agree totally w/ everything put forward by all of them I find them to be balanced and there is at least a serious attempt to be unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Sorry for disagreeing so much Shane.I guess we just see the world through different eyes.
Regards,
Ashley
THat is why I spend so much time here. It isn't important to agree but knowing where the other side stands is important and I asure you I have learned a LOT since joining this Forum. I guess I see through the eyes of a soldier and am far more sympathetic of the US & CS soldier than either the Union or CS civilian.
__________________ 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
Mobileboy,
I am inclined to agree with you, in that Lee was better than Grant, and you could take that to the bank. Grant had his moments, but I do not believe he could out general Lee. The basic reason Grant won, was simply because he had much more to work with. Another 'what if'. IF, Lee had an equal number of troops to that of Grant, Grant would have never defeated Lee. Plainly and simply put! Grant simply bludgened him into submission, he did not out general nor out fight him. For every move Grant made, Lee went stride for stride with him. It was only, because he (Lee), had fewer troops at his disposal, which was the real reason Lee capitulated, he was just overwhelmed, and not because Grant out and out beat him.
Glad to see you post friend.I hope to see you comment on here more often.It can become a little addictive, but it is quite educational.
Regards,
Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
