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.
The difference is you don't see the Confederate high command sanctioning,approving, or ordering these atrocities.I also can't help but notice many more of these atrocities were committed on Southerners than visa-versa.
Could the difference be that most of the war was fought on southern soil amongst southern civilians?
I don't see anything simple with respect to $80 million in damage to public property, war materials, and complete destruction to the Southern transportation system. Besides cotton, what do you estimate the damage in civilian property to be; and what of the destruction to communities including churches?
----------------------------
If we're still talking about Sherman's statement, then I believe he may break down some of these figures in his memoirs. I'll have to see if I can find them. I would still maintain the destruction to communities by Sherman is exaggerated, although there were instances of retaliatory destruction. For example, if Union soldiers found the body of a Federal who had been murdered by bushwhackers, Sherman would routinely order the destruction of all buildings within a certain radius of where the body was found. That is a retaliatory measure that is allowed by the rules of warfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"No, ma'am, the Lieber Code's purpose was not to protect civilians. That was one function it performed, but its purpose was to codify the rules and regulations for conducting warfare, including treatment of prisoners of war and use of weapons."
Part of the rules and regulaltions for conducting warfare (including treatment of prisoners) includes the behaviour towards civilians - the Leiber Code is very specific about this and public property.
Leiber Code of Conduct - General Order No. 100:
Secion II
Public and private property of the enemy - Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries.
Art. 35.
Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded.
Art. 37.
The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished.
Art. 44
All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.
A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior.
Art. 47
Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred.
And if we check the Courts-Martial Records we will see Union soldiers court-martialed for violations, and in some cases executed for those violations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"What you would have to do is show me a provision of the Lieber Code that prohibited demoralizing civilians. I don't think you can. If not, then, demoralizing civilians is not a violation of the Lieber Code."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Sherman's total warfare policy, and you can explain the difference to me between this policy, and the demoralization of civilians. Are you suggesting that this was the purpose of Sherman's army - 'to confuse and debase the morals of the enemy?' Since Sherman openly admitted to be at war with every Southern man, woman, and child; his sweeping warfare strategies seem to have been well practiced by the time he was confronted with the "Indian problem" - starve the enemy and destroy their way of life.
Demoralizing the southern civilians in this case meant taking away their will to fight and demonstrating to them that the confederacy was lost. Nothing in the excerpts you quoted prohibits this.
And in many respects, it worked.
"Most civilians, however, recognized the march of Sherman's army as the death knell of the Confederacy. After watching the Union troops pour into Winnsboro, a woman recalled: 'The Confederacy seemed suddenly to have changed, a glory had passed from it, and, without acknowledging it, we felt the end was near.' Another woman, at the time of her letter several hundred miles removed from the march, did not need to see the blue rows and the devastation to spot the coming of the end: 'I feel very blue, sometimes utterly hopeless about C.S.A. The army has walked through Georgia, destroying cities and laying waste the country. Sherman threatens S.C. terribly ... we have not the men to meet him or check him.' " [Joseph T. Glatthaar, The March to the Sea and Beyond: Sherman's Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaigns, p. 154]
In fact, it helped end the war earlier than it would otherwise have ended.
"For the Confederate troops in the field, far away from home, the experience was a nightmare. 'When the men learned of the suffering of their women at home,' a South Carolina private wrote, 'many of them not unnaturally deserted, and went to their aid.' After letters from home reached the 4th Georgia Cavalry, the troops were so upset over the condition of their families caused by Sherman's army and, even more, by Wheeler's cavalry, that their command had to send a detachment from Alabama to correct the abuses. When Col. Charles H. Olmstead's brigade passed through Georgia to reinforce Gen. Joe Johnston in late February and early March 1865, hundreds of men left the ranks 'to look after their families, and who can blame them for doing so?' their commander wrote. Eventually Olmstead had to return for them, and by the time they reached North Carolina, Johnston was asking for terms of surrender. Nor did the effect of Sherman's campaigns spare Robert E. Lee's army. In late February Lee wrote North Carolina Governor Zebulon B. Vance:
'The state of despondency that now prevails among our people is producing a bad effect upon the troops. Desertions are becoming very frequent and there is good reason to believe that they are occasioned to a considerable extent by letters written to the soldiers by their friends at home.'
"In the two previous weeks several hundred men had deserted from A. P. Hill's Corps alone, composed mainly of North Carolinians." [Ibid., pp. 154-155]
So say what you will about Sherman's campaigns, the destruction caused by them shortened the war and saved the lives of many men, both Union and confederate, and the amount of destruction caused by Sherman's troops has been greatly exaggerated over the years. Those closest to the events saw that Wheeler's cavalry was responsible for much of the plunder and destruction later generations mistakenly blamed on Sherman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"It depends on the invasion. And are you talking long term or short term? For example, Sherman's invasion of Georgia caused a great deal of destruction in the short term, but as it paved the way for ultimate victory and the removal of slavery, in the long term its results were promotion and betterment."
What do you consider long term - over a decade of martial law and reconstruction?
Not long enough, in my view, but that's a different topic. In some cases, planters were able to get back into operation very rapidly. Bedford Forrest in Tennessee is one example. He was able to restore profitable operations of his plantations almost immediately. For others it took longer, but eventually cotton production recovered and without slavery holding the development of the region back, technological innovation proceeded at a rapid pace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Sherman's statement that 'war is cruelty and that it cannot be refined' is most curious to me. In stating that civilians would inexorably be harmed, Sherman believed that advantage should be taken not only of the military effect, but to augment the psychological effects as well. Demoralization, or total warfare?
Demoralization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I didn't even know what a latigo was until I just now looked it up in the dictionary. Oh, please don't ever give up your spurs and latigo, Dawna. It just wouldn't be right.
Another trip back to the dictionary Cash? I think you could be having way too much fun!
I don't recall "leveling" charges against Gen. W.T. Sherman's men. If you read my reply closely I have offered a theory that "light-weight" gold jewelry could be easily carried and/or mailed, after looting from homes.
My comment was an overall comment encompassing not only this thread but other accounts in the wider world, not meant to focus on your comments specifically.
Do you really think MobileBoy's comment was to be taken literally?
--------------
Why not? Not only does it ignore the fact that the vast majority of the war was conducted in the south, but it also ignores the confederate plot to burn New York City as well as the kidnapping of blacks off the streets in Pennsylvania to be sent south into slavery by Lee's troops in the Gettysburg Campaign.
Cash,
I don't kmow what you guys aer talkling about.Whay comment did I takey or not take liberally?I'm confused.
Ashley
I assumed Rob meant this one: "The difference is you don't see the Confederate high command sanctioning,approving, or ordering these atrocities.I also can't help but notice many more of these atrocities were committed on Southerners than visa-versa."
I'm aware of Chambersburg, Pa. being ransomed and subsequently burned by CS forces but were there many others burned? Chambersburg received Federal funds for it's losses. Have Southern Cities that were destroyed received Federal funding.
From memory, I think Hagerstown and Frederick were both ransomed by Early. They paid the ransom and were spared. I don't know if there were more....I just remember these two.
Thanks Cash,
If that is what you guys were talking about yea I meant it just like I said it.
I guess that is what you guys were wondering.To my knowledge the Confederate high command didn't support atrocities on civilians.I know there were some scoundrels ,but I never heard of Lee endorsing that kind of warfare and I believe he condemned it.Grant, Sherman and the like openly supported this type of warfare per my knowledge of things.If this offended somebody because I said my belief about the Confederate high command then my bad.If I'm missing information on the issue by all means feel free to enlighten me.
Regards,
Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
