Sherman Sherman's March: Was It a War Crime? Video

There's a blog I get called whatwouldthefoundersthink.com which posts some interesting stuff now and then. In:
On June 22, 1807, the British 50 gun ship of the line Leopard1, blasted the United States frigate Chesapeake with multiple broadsides, wounding nearly a score of men and killing three. Two of the wounded lost arms.

I note we were supposedly at peace with Great Britain at the time. However the kicker was this:

"Ignoring American protests, the men taken from the Chesapeake were tried in Halifax in August 1807. Of the four men, only one was British-born, the others were Americans who had served in the British navy. The English deserter, Jenkin Ratford, was tried and hanged from the yardarm of a ship. The Americans, were sentenced to 500 lashes and prison, although they were later returned with some ceremony, a few years later, to the Chesapeake. On July 2, President Jefferson signed an official decree ordering all British ships from American waters, although he was powerless to enforce it. In October of 1807 King George III issued an order to step up the impressment of British sailors, while President Jefferson issued an embargo of all British Trade in December of the same year."

I post this in the context of war crimes. What was recognized and not recognized. I hear folks all the time yell about "context", well here is some, albeit some 50 plus years before the war of the rebellion. Judging from the newspaper articles, the Americans regarded this as a crime; the Brits as normal business.
 
There's a blog I get called whatwouldthefoundersthink.com which posts some interesting stuff now and then. In:
On June 22, 1807, the British 50 gun ship of the line Leopard1, blasted the United States frigate Chesapeake with multiple broadsides, wounding nearly a score of men and killing three. Two of the wounded lost arms.

I note we were supposedly at peace with Great Britain at the time. However the kicker was this:

"Ignoring American protests, the men taken from the Chesapeake were tried in Halifax in August 1807. Of the four men, only one was British-born, the others were Americans who had served in the British navy. The English deserter, Jenkin Ratford, was tried and hanged from the yardarm of a ship. The Americans, were sentenced to 500 lashes and prison, although they were later returned with some ceremony, a few years later, to the Chesapeake. On July 2, President Jefferson signed an official decree ordering all British ships from American waters, although he was powerless to enforce it. In October of 1807 King George III issued an order to step up the impressment of British sailors, while President Jefferson issued an embargo of all British Trade in December of the same year."

I post this in the context of war crimes. What was recognized and not recognized. I hear folks all the time yell about "context", well here is some, albeit some 50 plus years before the war of the rebellion. Judging from the newspaper articles, the Americans regarded this as a crime; the Brits as normal business.

The Americans were taking British deserters and protecting them. Weren't those 4 deserters? I remember they were
 
Take a look at what he was charged with doing. Do the actual charges say "war crime?"

CHARGE I. Maliciously. willfully, and traitorously, and in aid of the then existing armed rebellion against the United States of America, on or about the first day of March, A. D. 1864, and on divers other days between that day and the tenth day of April, 1865, combining; confederating, and conspiring together with John H. Winder, Richard B. Winder. Joseph White, W. S. Winder, R. R. Stevenson, and others unknown, to injure the health and destroy the lives of' soldiers in the military service of the United States, then held and being prisoners of war within the lines of the so-called Confederate States and in the military prisons thereof, to the end that the armies of the United States might be weakened and impaired; in violation of the laws and customs of war.

CHARGE II.-Murder, in violation of the laws and customs of war.

Although most historians are unaware of it, the United States Army actually tried hundreds of people during the Civil War for violation of the laws and customs of war. Not one, case, not two cases, over seven hundred cases. For the source, I refer you to page 267 of Lincoln's Code, written by John Fabian Witt. An engaging article which touches upon this subject may be found here (warning: pdf) in Military Law Review #203. And the phrase''in violation of the laws and customs of war'' is the precise manner in which US military courts have referred to offenses which are now called ''war crime'', from the Mexican War right down to the present.
 
Last edited:
Eric, I was responding to your statement; "War crimes exist when two sovereign countries go to war with each other. This was putting down a rebellion. Ergo, the concept of war crimes does not apply." The statement seemed to indicate that this is the case today.
Really? Do you see the words "war crime" in the charges?

Even now, when the US charges an individual with committing a war crime, the charge reads that the defendant is accused of violating the ''law of war'', or some variant thereof. The term ''war crimes'' is never used. Here is a very recent example, charging Omar Khadr with ''murder in violation of the law of war''. That usage actually dates from the Civil War.
 
Last edited:
The Americans were taking British deserters and protecting them. Weren't those 4 deserters? I remember they were

Yes, they were. Unfortunately, the British dearly loved to impress Americans - and it was a major problem. For example, almost a third of the crew of the Victory at Trafalgar were Americans. They were always hard pressed for manpower. Nelson once ran down a British merchant ship with cannon to take off some of her sailors as he was short handed - he had to explain to the Admiralty why he had found it necessary to fire on his own nation's ship!
 
Yes, they were. Unfortunately, the British dearly loved to impress Americans - and it was a major problem. For example, almost a third of the crew of the Victory at Trafalgar were Americans. They were always hard pressed for manpower. Nelson once ran down a British merchant ship with cannon to take off some of her sailors as he was short handed - he had to explain to the Admiralty why he had found it necessary to fire on his own nation's ship!

I trust your integrity, but do you recall where either of those examples are from?
 
I trust your integrity, but do you recall where either of those examples are from?

I do! Alam Schom's Trafalgar: Countdown to Victory and Sugden's A Dream of Glory. Sugden stops at 1797, when Nelson loses his arm - the incident of firing on a British ship happened while he was still a captain. Schom's work, if you haven't read it, is very good. It points up the people, like Cornwallis patrolling the Channel, who made Nelson's victory possible - but nobody knows them!
 
I do! Alam Schom's Trafalgar: Countdown to Victory and Sugden's A Dream of Glory. Sugden stops at 1797, when Nelson loses his arm - the incident of firing on a British ship happened while he was still a captain. Schom's work, if you haven't read it, is very good. It points up the people, like Cornwallis patrolling the Channel, who made Nelson's victory possible - but nobody knows them!

A hundred thanks and a hat. The Royal Navy of the late 18th/early 19th century is something I love reading about when I get the chance, so it's always nice to have books to add to the list.
 
A hundred thanks and a hat. The Royal Navy of the late 18th/early 19th century is something I love reading about when I get the chance, so it's always nice to have books to add to the list.

I think you'll enjoy Sugden's. He's done a lot of sifting and searching and questioning of accepted Nelson saga stories. He's a big fan of Nelson and it's a real labor of love, but he's not afraid to point out Nelson's faults. I'm hoping he'll do the same for the rest of Nelson's life! Schom is really good but - I'd skip his Napoleon. I'm not a fan of Napoleon but I'm pretty sure he wasn't a raving maniac...!
 
Was Sherman's tactics barbaric ?


William T. Sherman Flames.jpg

Respectfully,
William
 
Although one trio of sisters kept the Yankees out - they dressed all in black with heavy veils and walked up and down their front porch moaning and crying and praying. It worked - the bummers thought they were crazy and left them alone!

What is your source for this anecdote?
 
This question is based on a flawed premise.

War crimes exist when two sovereign countries go to war with each other. This was putting down a rebellion. Ergo, the concept of war crimes does not apply.
And in comparison to how other countries put down rebellions, it was mild.
 
It occurs to me that several people from Africa and the former Yugoslavia have been or are being tried for war crimes at the Hague, for conflicts which did not involve two sovereign nations. In the Yugoslav cases, the issue was one party trying to make itself a sovereign nation, like our Civil War.
And when was that? Remember, we're still talking about the 1860s here....
 
So, Henry Wirz was innocent?
"Innocent"? No. Not guilty, maybe.
There seems to be general agreement that he violated the contemporary rules of warfare. At the same time, there is still debate over the process under which he was convicted and hung.
 
Last edited:
IIRC many were drowned due to the Union Army taking up the pontoon bridges and leaving the slaves behind during kerosene Billy's march through the Carolinas. The slaves jumped into the river, trying to follow the liberating Union Army, only to drown.
Respectfully,
William
So Sherman should have stopped everything and turned his military operation into a humanitarian effort? Or did he make a difficult but necessary decision?
 
The army was certainly the priority but that doesn't mean Sherman escapes culpability in the affair. He should have found a way to set aside these people when they became a dragging weight. He was totally unprepared for the mass exodus and had made no plans about this aspect of his enterprise. He had figured on a lot but never imagined thousands.
Perhaps someone here-with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight and knowledge of the situation Sherman didn't have- can suggest just how Sherman "should have found a way to set aside these people".
 
Maybe it was a war crime. To prevent war crimes against your citizens, defeat the offending army or surrender.
Jefferson Davis accepted war as the means to decide political disputes. He then continued the war after Abraham Lincoln had won the 1864 election.
Sherman's army, and the deserters surrounding it, was a human construct, responding directly to political and military actions take by Jefferson Davis. It was not an act of nature, or a divine judgement. It was direct and immediate consequence of Davis' action in continuing an armed conflict he had 0% of winning.
Jefferson Davis preferred that a significant part of Georgia be subject to anarchy rather than he, Davis, take responsibility for his actions.
 
Back
Top