Sherman's March to the Sea

There is more to the War than the East. Just because that is where the newspapers were... there are numerous examples of some pretty nasty goings on west of the Appalacians and in the Trans-Mississippi.

What if Lees men had gone nuts in PA on either invasion? What is your point? If they had, I am not saying that they would have been any less justified in their action than Shermans Men. As it is any black man caught by either of Lee's Marches North were shipped back South and sold... free or slave. Something that you have to dig pretty deeply in history to find.

Laundresses who Forrests captured, who may or may not have been quadroons were carried South after the 3rd MN surrendered at Murfreesborough and sold into slavery.

It's not uncommon for the loser to say, "I was more honorable in my action." Ok they still lost. Honor is nothing but an excuse. Honor is fine and good, but it fails to win wars. Geneva Convention, Marquis of Queensberry rules... doesn't do a bit of good if the other side hasn't signed them or isn't abiding by them.

But once again the CS ignored any rules of warfare when dealing w/ Black Soldiers time and time again. Ft Pillow, Petersburg, Saltville etc. This of coarse does not count because they were black men. Shermans men... Well Wheelers Cav never chrged Sherans Men half so well as they attacked defenseless people at Ebenezer Creek. I'll suffice it to say that I would have prefered to be a white CS soldier as a POW than a Black Soldier as a CS POW... any guesses as to who had a longer life expectancy?

Shermans men never fired into masses of civilians or charged into them sabres flailing. And there is no evidence they ever involved themselves in the mass execution of prisoners.

Saints? Absolutely not but little different than their opponents when it comes to moral flaws.
 
General Steele, I would hope that someday I can express myself with as much eloquence as you have.

Ms. Yankeewoman: I'm so happy to read your contributions. Thank you.

Sgtcsa: The Pennsylvania Campaign was run by Lee, who had the chance to declare scorched earth but chose not to, as it would have been politically inappropriate AT THAT TIME. Notice that Chambersburg is not mentioned? If that wasn't carrying the war to a civilian populace, what is? I have no doubt that if Lee had seen an opportunity to destroy northern will by scorching some earth here or there, he would have done it. Such a gesture by the AoV would have trebled northern resolve, and he knew it. Restraint was not so much nobility as it practicality. You want to wake the 300-pound gorilla? Kick him where it hurts. Do not be surprised that he is going to come onto you like stink on (nevermind)!
Ole
 
One more time.

If the end justifies the means, as it frequently does in matters of war, and we're not talking morality, the end of the war justifies the means of its accomplishment. In essence, Sherman did more to end the war with his controversial march to the sea and beyond than any other action taken 'til that time. He killed the war. When Sherman began his march, Lee lost any hope of relief at Petersburg. Hood killed a goodly portion by dashing his army against Franklin and Nashville. Johnston was fighting his usual retreating action. Lee had no options. The war was essentially over before Appomattox. At least, Lee saw that. No supplies. No will to provide them. Everyone wanting to go home. He couldn't carve a victory from those cirumstances -- nevermind the valiant mindset of his diminishing troops. It was over before Columbia burned. It was over when Sherman headed east from Atlanta. It was over but for that final, Vince Lombardi "second effort." But there was no energy left. It was done.
 
From the book, Marching Through Georgia, by Lee Kennett, Chapter 15, Aftermath, page 309:

"While he paused in Savannah, the general (Sherman) was also compiling the record of what his forces had done in Georgia; his report and those of subordinate commanders were subsequently printed in the Official Records, where they make impressive reading. The army had wrecked three hundred miles of railway, as well as countless bridges and unnumbered miles of telegraph lines. It had seized five thousand horses, four thousand mules, and thirteen thousand head of cattle, taken for its use nine and a half million pounds of corn and ten and a half million pounds of fodder, destroyed cotton gins and mills without number, and done a total of one hundred million dollars damage to the state's economy."

"...We have no statistics on losses prepared by Georgia or Confederate authorties with which to compare Sherman's figures. So complete was the confusion that descended upon the state that only in 1868 did Georgia's government begin compiling figures again in any meaningful way; not until the Federal Census of 1870 do we have a good statistical portrait of postbellum Georgia. By then the track of Sherman's army was difficult to follow in statistical terms; while the quantity of draft animals in the Georgia 'swath' was catastrophically low as compared to 1860, the figures for other Georgia counties were hardly better. Given the way Sherman's men scattered over the countryside and the casual approach they took to their work of destruction, the figures he gives are open to question. While the length of track destroyed was easy enough to calculate, a good many of the other figures were probably pulled out of the air. Sherman's estimate of a hundred million dollars is similarly suspect, particularly since he was also quoted as saying the army destroyed a million dollars worth of property per mile, which would add up to three times the sum he put in his final report. If we mark out the lines of march of his four corps, assume all the country between the columns was swept over, and add an additional five miles to each side of this swath for the roamings of foragers and bummers, it appears the area devastated was about 12 percent of Georgia's territory, including some extremely rich areas but also some very unproductive ones. Yet Sherman's fighure of one hundred million dollars represents a full third of Georgia's total wealth in 1860, exclusive of slaves."

Shane, just trying to help out your memory on the statistics part of the march.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Neil, Thanks... I've been combing through three books I thought the specific numbers were in and never have found it. Easter weekend didn't help my digging. Part of the reason I put the disclaimer down... glad I did.
 
Shane,
You have repeatedly made references to "Cobbs Plantation." Can you tell me where to read more on this, or could you maybe tell us a little here?

Thanks
 
I appreciate the reading material and other resources that people have suggested this past weekend and I'm doing my best to keep up! I do understand that at times "the end justifies the means," but my struggle is with the severity of Sherman's March and the needless destruction of property and crimes committed against civilians en route. I know that Sherman is perceived by many as a brilliant stratigical officer, and while this may well be true and his tactics certainly did end the war, I think it's important to examine (and remember) the fact that General Sherman allowed far too many atrocities to be committed along the route of his campaign to end the war.

I simply cannot ignore the quotes that I provided in my original posting as they are far too disturbing, and perhaps revealing of Sherman's mental stability at the time of the Civil War; or they at least make me question, as did Sherman himself, (and his wife) his ability to command the Union army.

Neil, you asked this question: "How many Southern civilians were killed, hung or murdered during Sherman's campaign, to include his march through South Carolina? Does anyone have figures and sources I might check?

And from your Posting # 24, I'm providing this excerpt from "Marching Through Georgia": "Given the way Sherman's men scattered over the countryside and the casual approach they took to their work of destruction, the figures he (Sherman) gives are open to question. While the length of track destroyed was easy enough to calculate, a good many of the other figures were probably pulled out of the air." I would invite you to consider that just as it was difficult to ascertain the full extent of the destruction to the South, it would also be impossible to determine exactly how many civilians were killed, hung, raped and murdered during Sherman's march to the sea.

As for the Leiber Code, does that part which was designed to protect civilians during times of war not come into direct conflict with Sherman's total warfare policy? I really am having a difficult time understanding the mindset that spawned the development of a war-time Code of Conduct in 1863, and then only a few short months later, waged war on innocent citizens.

I've read countless dairies of civilians who survived Sherman's march to the sea, and I would like to provide one more with this posting:

Eliza Andrews: The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl (24 Dec. 1864):

"About three miles from Sparta we struck the "burnt country," as it is well named by the natives, and then I could better understand the wrath and desperation of these poor people. I almost felt as if I should like to hang a Yankee myself. There was hardly a fence left standing all the way from Sparta to Gordon. The fields were trampled down and the road was lined with carcasses of horses, hogs, and cattle that the invaders, unable either to consume or to carry away with them, had wantonly shot down, to starve out the people and prevent them from making their crops. The stench in some places was unbearable; every few hundred yards we had to hold our noses or stop them with the cologne Mrs. Elzey had given us, and it proved a great boon.

The dwellings that were standing all showed signs of pillage, and on every plantation we saw the charred remains of the ginhouse and packing screw; while here and there lone chimney stacks, "Sherman's sentinels," told of homes laid in ashes. The infamous wretches! I couldn't wonder now that these poor people should want to put a rope arond the neck of every red-handed "devil of them" they could lay their hands on. Hayricks and fodder stacks were demolished, corncribs were empty, and every bale of cotton that could be found was burnt by the savages. I saw no grain of any sort except little patches they had spilled when feeding their horses and which there was not even a chicken left in the country to eat."
 
I think I might have picked up a little splinter with this thread. You know the kind...... keeps begging you to pick at it.

Let's talk some REAL horrors........

Anybody want to discuss Centralia, Missouri?

How about Lawrence, Kansas?

Gosh, I'm sorry!....... I just realized they were CONFEDERATE raids. Don't want to talk about them, do we?
 
Yankeewoman:

Perhaps I have a somewhat different perspective on Sherman's march to the sea because I'm a foreigner, but in truth, since this thread was originally started to discuss Sherman's actions as an army commander and his 'march to the sea' campaign etc., that has been my focus. But I am more than happy to discuss any atrocity committed by the Confederate army in Kansas or anywhere else you choose to name. In fact, I think it a superb idea to start a new thread on this very topic, (let the unbeguiled Confederates come forth) but the point of this particular thread is Sherman's infamous march to the sea.

I am interested in Sherman's war tactics as an example in unparelled thinking, but I am also extremely concerned as to what some of his questionable actions cost to South Carolina (the revenge state) and Georgia; how can you possibly look at Sherman's campaign without considering both the exessive economical and spiritual devastation to the Southern people? If you only want to discuss "the march" than what is there to say other than Sherman ended the war? Why even have this thread? I am interested in what that meant for everyone, before, during, and after Sherman's campaign.

But I feel I've said enough on this thread and it's the 'Southerners' who are really qualified to speak on such matters...their ancestors lay in senseless graves.

Dawna
 
To the contrary, Dawna, "southerners" are not necessarily the best commentators on Sherman's March. It just adds heat.

There is precious little evidence of wide-scale atrocity against civilians, unless you consider taking their animals and fodder an atrocity. Most certainly, every grain was taken to feed US army animals, as well as every wisp of hay. Cotton was burned to deprive income that might be used by CS troops, as were the mills to process the grain and cotton. This was not done to starve civilians but to deprive sustenance to the CS army.

Gather together 1000 men. Be selective and pick from the most moral -- say, the priesthood. Without fail, there will be a few who should be hanged. Among soldiers, there will be more. The point is that when an army moves, a few of its members are going to commit crimes without official sanction.

But, if such crimes were as widely practiced as some believe, wouldn't you think there would be some statistics?
Ole
 
CedarStriper please forgive me as I am away from my resources at the moment so I will have to work from memory. IIRC several sources detail Cobbs plantation in detail and the effect it had on the men who passed through it. Several period letters describe Cobbs Plantation as the turning point of the March to the Sea. Before this point many of the foragers were very unenthusiastic about foraging liberally. After reaching Cobbs Plantation and learning A. that a CS unit wearing Blue had pretended to be Yanks and then killed and brutalized several slaves in an apparent effort to convince the slaves that Yanks would be worse than their masters. B. The men got to see first hand the barbarism that was slavery and the word spread like wildfire, likely inflated w/ each telling, ie the stocks "leap stoppers" ( a device designed to assist in the resetting and rebreaking of a leg) the whipping station, where more consideration was given the tree than the individual being whipped the whips. C. THe bloodhounds trained to chase down and catch slaves or whoever the overseer set them upon. Learning that the dogs were so well trained that they would not let go of an individual until a specific command was given. In short this epitomized as reality every brutal punishment put forward in Uncle Toms Cabin. From that point on no dog was safe in front of Shermans Army. D. The number of "Quadroons" many who were known to be the masters children who were in slavery, To the men, white women and men in slavery.

THere was a similar plantation during the Vicksburg Campaign, IIRC it was in Louisiana and seen by far fewer troops, the stories were generally disbelieved. Though by 64 most of the men had seen the effects of slavery first hand.
 
Yankeewoman,
Let's see here, that's Centrailia? Lawrence? I take it these were not rather large cities? Rather brutal raids, yes, rather small in what they may have accomplished. Perhaps there were not enough of them to make the Yankees howl. Sherman took it to new heights, and set his sights on something bigger, to make the whole South howl. However, one of the men I admire the most, didn't use Quantrills tactics, but he did get the job done. If only there were more men like him to do the work, there might have been some different results. Col John Mosby was a partisan ranger to be sure, but he was a much better soldier than Quantrill was. He is still a legend where I grew up, and rightfully so. Yes, we did have some 'soldiers' that got out of hand, just as the Yanks did, but then again, Sherman had a much larger force to put his options into gear, also, by then the war was on it's last legs, and the South didn't have much left to fight with. I don't believe Sherman 'slaughtered' civilians, especially in great numbers,and I'm sure that there were civilian casualties, which his men took out their anger on, for the South starting that war, or so they believed, but he sure did destroy everything else in his path, and ran the civilians, including the old, women and children, out of the area, and the country. So, did the Confederates do some pretty rough stuff? Sure, you bet, so did the Yanks. I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone the Confederates were all good, they did some things that were not according to Hoyle, also, but they didn't, or didn't get to, use the tactic to the extent that your boy Sherman did. He sure did get one thing right.......War is Hell!
 
Ole,
It is here I have to disagree with you. When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, he used practicality all right, but I do not agree at all, with the notion that was worried about what the politicians thought about how he made war, he followed orders, true, but I doubt seriously he would have resorted to that type of warfare. He WAS nobel, and that is a correct statement. Lee didn't take to the idea that civilians had to suffer in the war. Some of that may have happened, to be sure, but with two rather large armies tramping through their back yards, shooting and killing one another, it probably behooved everyone to either run for it, or hide somewhere, which I'm sure a lot of them did. Some didn't and were hurt, Jennie Wade, an example. Others just stayed and made it through unscathed. But no one can tell me that Gen Lee would have instigated a scortched earth policy, either politically or otherwise. Yes, Gen Lee was a nobel man, perhaps the most nobel on either side, and I fiercely disagree with you that he would resort to war of that scale. My opinion, to be sure, and one that no one can change. I may add, if you permit me, to say that I respect your opinion, but I lean toward you being a little 'misguided' on the intent of Gen. Lee and his way of warfare.

Yours, with respect,
sgtcsa
 
Gen. Steele,
I thank you sir, for your comments. I believe that the South produced many a good man, as did the North, however, being a former citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have a particular fondness for two Virginians.....One John Singleton Mosby, and Turner Ashby. Having lived in the areas where both soldiers performed their tasks of warfare, my grand parents recollections of each of them were very vivid, having been told them by their parents, and then, of course, related to me. I have memories of seeing those areas where those two warriors staged many of their raids, before they became devoloped. Mosby, of course, never officially surrenderd, he just disbanded his command. Ashby, was killed early in his brief, but illustrious career, on June, 6th, 1862, near Harrisonburg, Va. Perhaps some day, we may discuss these two gallant gentlemen. Perhaps, some day, we may compare notes on specific men who fought against each other.

Respectfully yours,
sgtcsa
 
From the GA Division CSA History Curriculum Project:

New Manchester, Georgia and The Roswell, Georgia Mills

In July of 1864, Sherman's troops approached Atlanta, Georgia, during
Sherman's "March To The Sea." Enroute, Sherman left a trail of utter
destruction behind, leaving nothing for the civilian population in his path.

At ten o'clock on Saturday morning, July 2, 1864, two regiments of U.S.
cavalry, commanded by Colonel Silas Adams and a strong force of infantry
under Major Haviland Thompkins appeared at New Manchester, Georgia, a town
that once stood in present day Douglas County on the present site of
Swee****er Creek State Park.

>From high ground across Swee****er Creek, Confederate scouts saw them set up
artillery within sight of the factory, but they could do nothing. From the
windows of the mill, anxious employees watched as a line of blue-uniformed
skirmishers approached the building. Not a shot was fired, however, and
Major Thompkins and Colonel Adams were soon in the mill office demanding to
know who was in charge.

Henry Lovern and A.C. "Cicero" Tippens were quickly brought before the
officers and placed under arrest, along with every man, woman and child in
the nearby town. The mill was shut down and the citizens of New Manchester
returned to their homes under guard, having been misled after being told
that once transportation arrived that they would be moved west out of the
path of the armies where they would be safe from harm. For the next several
days, Federal soldiers searched the town, broke open the company safe-it was
empty-and sent patrols up and down Swee****er Creek to check out the
Ferguson-Merchant Mill to the north and Alexander's Mill to the south.

Meanwhile, Major Thompkins led part of the cavalry force in his command up
the Chattahoochee River to Roswell, Georgia, where the Roswell Mills were
located. Here he encountered a defiant Frenchman named Theopholie Roche. In
a desperate attempt to save the Roswell Mills, the owners, without
consideration, deeded the property to Roche. He was an "attaché" of the
factory and was as that time a citizen of France, a foreign national. Roche
ran up a French flag and claimed protection under it. When told of this,
General Sherman became furious. "I repeat my orders," he raged at U.S.
General Garrar, "that you arrest all people, male and female, connected with
those factories, no matter what the clamor, and let them foot it, under
guard, to Marietta, where I will send them by cars to the North." "If you
hang Roche," he screamed, "I approve the act beforehand!"

On Friday, July 8, Major Thompkins arrived back at New Manchester where he
informed Colonel Adams of General Sherman's determination to destroy the
town and deport it's people. The next morning Major Thompkins sent a guard
for Henry Lovern to tell him of the decision.

Thompkins had burnt the Roswell Factory on the previous Thursday. Thompkins
advised Lovern that the New Manchester hands "must fix up to go west where
they could get provisions as they intended to destroy everything in this
part of the country."

On Saturday, July 9, 1864, a detachment of eight men went to the factory and
set fire to it in several places. One by one the company store, the machine
shops and the homes around the mill were put to the torch. Great clouds of
smoke filled the air as the civilians of New Manchester watched their homes
burn.

Major Thompkins then ordered that the 300-foot-long wooden dam across the
creek above the mill be cannonaded. After several shots ripped holes in the
dam the swirling waters of Swee****er Creek finished off the destruction.
Within minutes, several hundred thousand dollars worth of property perished
in the flood, including one piece of Union artillery. The transport wagons
then arrived, not to take the citizens to safety westward but to
take them to Marietta, Georgia, where they would board trains for
deportation to the North.

When the transport wagons proved to be insufficient, each cavalryman was
ordered to take a second rider on his horse. The women hated riding behind
the soldiers, but it was "a very fine sight," one Illinois soldier wrote
home, one "we don't often see in the army." "The employees were all women,"
he continued, "and the
ordered to take a second rider on his horse. The women hated riding behind
the soldiers, but it was "a very fine sight," one Illinois soldier wrote
home, one "we don't often see in the army." "The employees were all women,"
he continued, "and they were really good looking." Since the men had not
been near a woman for months, order and discipline quickly broke down.

Besides, one soldier later wrote in his defense, "we always felt that we had
a perfect right to appropriate to our own use anything we needed for our
comfort and convenience." The Yankee troopers' "delirium," one soldier
confided to his diary, "took the form of making love to the women." In this
manner, the people of New Manchester set out for the sixteen-mile trip to
Marietta, Georgia. Before night, one officer found it necessary to move his
troops one mile north of the prisoners to restore a semblance of order and
discipline within his troops.

By the time the New Manchester women reached Marietta, Georgia, they had
long since ceased to exist as identifiable individuals. They had been merged
with groups of other mill prisoners and were huddled together - 400 in the
group - the male prisoners having been segregated from the female. This
group hereafter was referred to in official reports and dispatches simply as
the "Roswell Women," or the "Factory Hands."

Once they arrived in Marietta and were housed in the Georgia Military
Institute building, the battered women became an embarrassment to U.S.
General George H. Thomas, who wrote to Sherman on July 10: "The Roswell
Factory hands, 400 or 500 in number, have arrived at Marietta. The most of
them are women. I can only order them transportation to Nashville where it
seems hard to turn them adrift. What had best be done with them?" Sherman
replied, "I have ordered General Webster at Nashville to dispose of them.
They will be sent to Indiana."

On July 15th, these women were given nine days' rations, placed on trains
and were sent to a distribution point in Nashville, Tennessee. On July 20th,
they were again moved to Louisville, Kentucky, where a local newspaper
reporter noted their arrival: "The train which arrived at Louisville from
Nashville last evening brought up from the South two hundred and forty-nine
women and children, who are sent by order of General Sherman, to be
transferred north of the Ohio River, there to remain during the war. We
understand that there are now at Nashville fifteen hundred women and
children, who are in a very destitute condition, and who are to be sent to
Louisville to be sent North. A number of them were engaged in the
manufactories at Swee****er at the time that place was captured by our
forces."

By this time, however, General Sherman's wholesale deportations had caused a
furor in the North. One New York newspaper wrote: "...it is hardly
conceivable that an officer bearing a United States commission of Major
General should have so far forgotten the commonest dictates of decency and
humanity...as to drive four hundred penniless girls hundreds of miles away
from their homes and friends to seek their livelihood amid strange and
hostile people. We repeat our earnest hope that further information may
redeem the name of General Sherman and our own from this frightful
disgrace."

In April 1865, a great silence descended across the land - the war was over.
The South, shattered and defeated, had become a conquered province. Nowhere
was the silence greater than at New Manchester. Not one of the New
Manchester women ever returned and only a handful of the men. Henry Lovern,
for instance, returned in January 1866 and became an employee of the
Princeton Manufacturing Company's textile mill in Athens, Georgia. Nathaniel
Humphries, who ran the company's store at New Manchester was confined for
eleven months at Jeffersonville, Indiana. From there he returned to Georgia
and spent the remainder of his life in Cobb and Carroll Counties. W.H. Bell,
second in the card room, finally returned, as did Gideon J. Jennings, who
had been employed at the factory as a machinist.

In March 1868, these were the only men who could be found within the state
who had a first-hand knowledge of the events at New Manchester on those
fateful days. Most of them never saw their families again. One husband
traced his wife to Louisville, Kentucky, where they were reunited, but this
was an exception. Most of them died never knowing the whereabouts of their
wives and children.

On October 26, 1882, Theopholie Roche, the Frenchman, brought suit against
the government of the United States claiming damages in the amount of
$125,000 for false arrest and destruction of the Roswell Mills. When this
case came to a hearing before the French-American Claims Commission on July
2, 1883, it was dismissed "for want of prosecution." Roche had escaped the
hangman's noose but not Gen. Sherman's wrath.

References: "The Lost Cause" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 37. "The Story of
the Confederate States" by Joseph T. Derry, Part 3, Section 3, Chapter 3 &
4. "The South Was Right" by James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy, Chapter
4. "Truths of History" by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 10. Also 3 pages
of documentation (available upon request) found in: O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME
XXXVIII/1 [S# 72] MAY 1-SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign.
No. 1.--Reports of Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, U.S. Army, commanding
Military Division of the Mississippi. O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/5 [S#
76] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN THE
ATLANTA CAMPAIGN, FROM JULY 1, 1864, TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--#4 O.R.-- SERIES
I--VOLUME XXXVIII/5 [S# 76] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS
RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN, FROM JULY 1, 1864, TO
SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--#5 Elijah S. Coleman©
 
Dawna,

My thrust of my posts have been, 'where is the proof?' If there was such utter destruction and death, murder and rape, I feel as Ole does, there should be much more written sources than there are.

I also wish to explain my questions concerning the Leiber Code. What did Sherman violate when applying this Code of Conduct? Not much according to the British legal authority J. M. Spaight. It is this man's conclusion that Sherman violated the rules of war (the Leiber Code) only once in the Atlanta campaign: when he failed to give a 24 hour warning before bombarding the city on July 20, 1864.

As for your contribution of the Eliza Andrews Journal, it is also included in the book I made reference to. Here is a comment from an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Lee Kennett:

Tales grew over years

There is little doubt that the Georgians who were in Sherman's line of march during 1864 went through a wrenching ordeal they would never forget. The march from Atlanta to Savannah has traditionally been portrayed as a sinister version of Exodus, with pillars of fire and columns of smoke. The army's track, the "burned country," was marked by what were known as "Sherman's sentinels"--forlorn chimneys, mile after mile of them, standing over the ashes of farmhouses and manors. But here exaggeration seems to have crept in with the telling and retelling; the tragedy gradually enhanced.

In the 1950s a geographer armed with old maps was able to trace the fate of houses along a 60-mile stretch of the "fiery trail" between Covington and Millegeville. He found that "a great many houses, perhaps even most of them" survived the Yankees passage. A similar study of milledgeville and its environs found almost no evidence of arson there.

Now, the above is contributed by Mr. Kennett, who opens his article with the following:

As a historian and biographer, I have spent the past decade going through the considerable mass of Gen. William Sherman's papers. Being a Southerner by birth and upbringing, I began my work with a vague, inherited dislike of the man; 10 years and two books later, I have not been converted into an ardent admirer. There were flaws of character in the general; a certain instability, a consuming preoccupation with his own image, and as a soldier a sometimes disturbing way of dealing with those under his command or control.

All this being said, I am pretty sure Sherman should not be considered the "bete noire" of Southern history, much less saluted as "the Attila of the West," the title H.L. Mencken accorded him. Much of Sherman's violence was verbal. He habitually used language that was vivid, emphatic and that tended toward exaggeration. Even E. Merton Coulter, the dean of Georgia historians a half-century ago, conceded that the general made many threats he did not carry out.

Thus he told his subordinates in North Georgia that the way to keep trains from being blown up was to fill the cars with local civilians and Confederate prisoners and then pull them "by means of a long rope" across places where explosive charges were suspected. "Of course the enemy can not complain of his own traps," he reasoned. But my research produced no evidence that the scheme was ever carried out. Nor did he deport Southern hotheads and diehards who fell into his hands to places like Honduras and Madagascar, a proposal actually approved by Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton.

Sherman's overall record on Southern civilians was reviewed about a century ago by a War Department commission investigating orders authorizing "extreme repressive measures." They found four of his orders that had probably gone too far, including the one for hostages on the rail lines never carried out. But the commission's findings also put other distinguished name among the malefactors, including Gens. Grant, McClellan and Sheridan, and on the Southern side, Jubal A. Early and Jefferson Davis.

I also have a copy of the Lieber Code. In Section I, Article 29, it states, "The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief."

In Section X, Article 156, it states, "Common justice and plain expediency require that the military commander protect the manifestly loyal citizens, in revolted territories, against the hardships of the war as much as the common misfortune of all war admits."

"The commander will throw the burden of the war, as much as lies within his power, on the disloyal citizens, of the revolted portion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police than the noncombatant enemies have to suffer in regular war; and if he deems it appropriate, or if his government demands of him that every citizen shall, by oath of allegiance, or by some other manifest act, declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, he may expel, transfer, imprison, or fine the revolted citizens who refuse to pledge themselves anew as citizens obedient to the law and loyal to the government."

"Whether it is expedient to do so, and whether reliance can be placed upon such oaths, the commander or his government have the right to decide."

Thus, it is my contention, Dawna, the reason there is a decided lack of numbers or statistics on civilian deaths, murders, rapes, etc., is that there are few or none to report. It is also my contention, based on historical evidence, or the lack thereof, that Sherman, although harsh, did not do the amount of harm that some here in the 21st century give him credit for.

Now, as to your account of the slaves that were following Sherman's army and what happened to them, I came across this account, by George M. Hovsepian, Dec. 14, 1998, in an essay entitled, Sherman's March to the Sea:

One of the most tragic events of the war involving non-combatants occurred during the march to the sea. With just tens of miles to go before Sherman's troops reached Savannah, they had at their rear 25,000 blacks who had left their plantations and were determined to follow Sherman to freedom. Sherman and his generals had admonished the Negroes to go home, that the war would soon be over and they would be free but to little avail. Even though many of these had turned back from exhaustion and fatigue, there were still a considerable number of blacks, women and children included, when Sherman's column was crossing Ebenezer Creek. The creek was unfordable and a span was put in place by Sherman's engineers. After Sherman's troops finished crossing, he ordered the span removed and left all of the blacks on the other side.

With Confederate horsemen closing on their position, the Negroes surged forward and then stampeded into the creek, determined not to be left behind by their deliverers who they thought would lead them out of bondage. Many of those drowned to the horror of the engineers standing on the far bank. Seeing the disaster that their actions had brought on, the engineers waded into the icy creek to save who they could. To be accurate, it is important to note that Sherman did not know of this incident until much later and made no specific order to rid himself of the blacks who he saw as a burden. He did however, make it crystal clear through comments to his subordinates and directly to black ministers that he did not want them anywhere around his soldiers. The blacks did not heed the advice or the warnings.

I consider the above an unfortunate situation but not a deliberate act brought on by Sherman, but if on anyone, those officers in charge of the situation at the time.

So, what do we have? One violation of the Lieber Code and mostly what I consider the truth of the actual campaign being very much overblown by the retelling. I do not expect you to agree or be swayed by my observations and sources given in this reply. I am just trying to let you know what I base my own conclusions on and why I believe the way I do.

In other words Dawna, I am always suspicious of emotion and emotional statements when they are not grounded in historical fact. To me the emotion generated by visions of Gone With The Wind, a story written by a Confederate officers granddaughter years after the fact, a bit hard to take. It makes for a good story, and even better movie, but not very good factual history.

In my own opinion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Sherman proposes his march to the sea:
"I propose that we break up the railroad from Chattanooga forward, and that we strike out with our wagons for Milledgeville, Millen, and Savannah. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless for us to occupy it; but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people, will cripple their military resources. By attempting to hold the roads, we will lose a thousand men each month, and will gain no result. I can make this march, and make Georgia howl!"
--from a telegram, dated 9 Oct 1864, from W.T. Sherman to U.S. Grant.

The army will forage liberally during the march."
--from Special Field Orders, No. 120, dated 9 November 1864, by order of Major-General Sherman
Vol II, p. 175
"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. 'Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.'"
--W.T. Sherman, describing his attitude in Savanna GA, Dec 1864
Vol. II, p. 249.




"We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."



Source of quotes listed above:
William T. Sherman, Personal Memoirs of Gen'l W. T. Sherman (written by himself, with an appendix, bringing his life down to its closing scenes, also a personal tribute and critiques of the memoirs, by Hon. James G. Blaine), Volumes I and II, Fourth Edition, revised, corrected, and complete; Charles L. Webster & Co., New York, 1892.


___________________________________________________________

"The Union soldiers had queer ideas of fun. On many plantations, in great merriment, they poured out barrels of syrup on the ground, and dumped into it bags of flour and grits and sugar so as to spoil the food. They treated the old men harshly and insulted the women. They stole the jewelry and silver and divided it among themselves. Special vengeance was wreaked on the homes of prominent South Carolinians. General Jamison's home, with its fine library; 'Woodlands' the home of William Gilmore Simms with another fine library; 'Millwood' the home of Wade Hampton, and other homes too numerous to name, were burned." --William Gilmore Simms in The History of South Carolina.
 
The article below was submitted by Camp member BILLY PARKER who is related to the Hardy's and was printed in the Camp Dispatch, Prattville Dragoons Camp 1524, May 2003, Volume 2 Number 5. (I have since seen it on the 'net' and have included the forward that I found there. It is listed below "The Letter".)
Burning of Columbia As Related in Yankee Letter

Edited by Carol Hardy Bryan

The following article was saved by Mrs. Bryan's fatherk, George Hardy. The interesting letter was submitted originally to the Macon Telegraph by J.T. Boifeuillet. There was no date but General Sherman's troops entered Columbia, South Carolina on February 16, 1865 and by February 17th the city was in flames. The article was written on the 42nd anniversary of the burning which would mean it was first published about February 1907.

"Camp near Camden, S. C., Feb 26, 1865. My dear wife--I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. The chivalry [meaning the Honourable & Chivalrous people of the South] have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., are as common in camp as blackberries. The terms of plunder are as follows: Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place--one-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief and staff; one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff; one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company. Officers are not allowed to join these expeditions without disguising themselves as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a suit of rough clothes from one of my men, and was successful in this place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old-time milk pitcher) and a very fine gold watch from a Mrs DeSaussure, at this place. DeSaussure was one of the F. F. V.s of South Carolina, and was made to fork over liberally.. Officers over the rank of Captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, subordinate officers and privates keep back every thing that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breast pins, &c., of which, if I ever get home, I have about a quart. I am not joking--I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond rings and pins among them. General Sherman has silver and gold enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five. But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers and many besides had valuables of every description, down to embroidered ladies' pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too. We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over. This, (the currency), whenever we came across it, we burned, as we considered it utterly worthless. I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the "Old Bay State". It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States. The damned ******s, as a general rule, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we only wanted the able-bodied men, (and to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women). Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of ******s, by way of repaying secessionists. But the useless part of them we soon manage to lose; [one very effective was to "shoot at their bobbing heads as they swam rivers" after the army units crossed over], sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways. I shall write to you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro', or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly. Love to grandmother and aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and children. Don't show this letter out of the family. Your affectionate husband, Thomas J Myers, Lieut., P.S. I will send this by the first flag of truce to be mailed, unless I have an opportunity of sending it at Hilton Head. Tell Sallie I am saving a pearl bracelet and ear-rings for her; but Lambert got the necklace and breast pin of the same set. I am trying to trade him out of them. These were taken from the Misses Jamison, daughters of the President of the South Carolina Secession Convention. We found these on our trip through Georgia." End of Letter. The letter was addressed to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, Boston, Massachusetts. end ___________________________________________________________

I tried to add the rest of this article, the pros and cons of the validity of it but found that it was too long. But you can view this for yourself at:
http://www.southernmessenger.org/yankee_letter.htm
 
I previously posted this in the thread entitled "Was Sherman Insane", but have deleted it from there and am re-posting it here, since I recognize other posts from that thread now posted here, and this post deals directly with the "March to the Sea." Please bear with me if you've already read it. This, of course, is my opinion only.
Sherman's march through Georgia is historic, no doubt. I've always admired Sherman and what I've read about him, his personal setbacks, his redemption in his performance as a regimental commander at Shiloh, and his subsequent elevation in rank and stature afterwards, and as a yankee I'm glad he was on the side of the north. I know he was practicing his philosopy of "total war" on the south, when his army destroyed much of Georgia in their march to the sea, but deep down I've always had a bit of a problem with the scope of destruction and utter devastation wrought on Georgia by that event. I understand the destruction of the rail system, and anything else that could be of possible use to the rebels, but was it necessary to destroy all the personal property of the residents, the killing of livestock and burning of homes, barns, the expressed intention of Sherman to make Georgia "howl"? I can't help but think that this calamity carried out by Sherman's bummers in Georgia did nothing more than instill in the people of that region a deep-seated and long-lasting hatred of the yankees and the North, and had little positive impact on the Union war effort.
Thanks .... Terry
 
Back
Top