What the Yankees Did to Us: Sherman's Bombardment and Wrecking of Atlanta

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Publication Date: December 4, 2012
Like Chicago from Mrs. O Leary s cow, or San Francisco from the earthquake of 1906, Atlanta has earned distinction as one of the most burned cities in American history. During the Civil War, Atlanta was wrecked, but not by burning alone. Longtime Atlantan Stephen Davis tells the story of what the Yankees did to his city. General William T. Sherman s Union forces had invested the city by late July 1864. Northern artillerymen, on Sherman s direct orders, began shelling the interior of Atlanta on 20 July, knowing that civilians still lived there and continued despite their knowledge that women and children were being killed and wounded. Countless buildings were damaged by Northern missiles and the fires they caused. Davis provides the most extensive account of the Federal shelling of Atlanta, relying on contemporary newspaper accounts more than any previous scholar. The Yankees took Atlanta in early September by cutting its last railroad, which caused Confederate forces to evacuate and allowed Sherman s troops to march in the next day. The Federal army s two and a half-month occupation of the city is rarely covered in books on the Atlanta campaign. Davis makes a point that Sherman s wrecking continued during the occupation when Northern soldiers stripped houses and tore other structures down for wood to build their shanties and huts. Before setting out on his march to the sea, Sherman directed his engineers to demolish the city s railroad complex and what remained of its industrial plant. He cautioned them not to use fire until the day before the army was to set out on its march. Yet fires began the night of 11 November deliberate arson committed against orders by Northern soldiers. Davis details the burning of Atlanta, and studies those accounts that attempt to estimate the extent of destruction in the city.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881463981/?tag=civilwartalkc-20 image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
 
Sherman ought to have been hung as a war criminal. The senseless murder and destruction that he was responsible for is unforgivable.
Backers of the Confederacy are going to have to acknowledge that it wasn't Lincoln who chose the path of war.

Kevin Dally
 
Backers of the Confederacy are going to have to acknowledge that it wasn't Lincoln who chose the path of war.

Kevin Dally
It was the Union who chose total war. Destruction of civilians' homes, animals and means to survive. In many cases they were left to starve with only the clothes on their backs. All their personal personal valuables were confiscated by the Union. I have read the accounts written by southerners and union soldiers alike about Sherman's march to the sea. Am I mistaken if so where is the documented evidence? I would like to see it.
 
C
It was the Union who chose total war. Destruction of civilians' homes, animals and means to survive. In many cases they were left to starve with only the clothes on their backs. All their personal personal valuables were confiscated by the Union. I have read the accounts written by southerners and union soldiers alike about Sherman's march to the sea. Am I mistaken if so where is the documented evidence? I would like to see it.
Cry me a river...

Look, devotion to a people who were wrong is your business. Sherman made it plain that they appealed to war, they brought the consequences on themselves. The South's cause of slavery was about the worst one that anyone could choose. They gambled poorly on "King Cotton", and thought the Union folk would knuckle under to them, neither gamble paid off. What freedoms they thought they were fighting for, they had in the Union. They had the Constitution at their disposal in the union, they forsook it for war.

Me, I have learned from their experience...be careful what fights you choose, I learned theirs wasn't worth it.

Kevin Dally
 
It was the Union who chose total war. Destruction of civilians' homes, animals and means to survive. In many cases they were left to starve with only the clothes on their backs. All their personal personal valuables were confiscated by the Union. I have read the accounts written by southerners and union soldiers alike about Sherman's march to the sea. Am I mistaken if so where is the documented evidence? I would like to see it.
Sure are a lot of antibellum houses left through out the path of his march...:unsure:
 
Any of you critics have a better book on the occupation of Atlanta?
There are scads of them. I have about eight.

Atlanta, like Vicksburg, was a city occupied by enemy troops. You'd have Sherman not drive them out by military action?

The civilians always get the mooky end of the stick when they're stuck between two opposing armies.

Atlanta and it's industry and rail connections was a war objective. I can't blame Hood for fortifying it, nor can I blame Sherman for taking it.

For some historical fact, a good portion of the city was destroyed when Hood blew up his accumulated powder and munitions and decamped. Another good portion of it was destroyed due to collateral damage when Sherman instructed his men to destroy all industries of military value. Vicksburg was not destroyed presumably because there was little of military value to destroy.

The questionable feature was when Sherman demanded that all civilians leave Atlanta. He didn't care if they went north or south, he just didn't want the mix in the military depot he was constructing.

I think those who understand war can find sound reasoning therein.

Now. Can we get back to the books touted in the OP? I've not read them, and I probably wouldn't if they were free. Having been on this board for longer than most, I could write them. BooHoo. He didn't play fair.

I don't know where we get the idea that there is honor in a war. And that one can tippy-toe around a guy you've just knocked down. Seems that the prevalent, contempory attitude was to make durn sure he didn't get up.

"What the Yankees Did to Us." Crock.
 
C
Cry me a river...

Look, devotion to a people who were wrong is your business. Sherman made it plain that they appealed to war, they brought the consequences on themselves. The South's cause of slavery was about the worst one that anyone could choose. They gambled poorly on "King Cotton", and thought the Union folk would knuckle under to them, neither gamble paid off. What freedoms they thought they were fighting for, they had in the Union. They had the Constitution at their disposal in the union, they forsook it for war.

Me, I have learned from their experience...be careful what fights you choose, I learned theirs wasn't worth it.

Kevin Dally

At first I wanted to debunk the above. However, I realized that Sherman was one of the first "modern generals." He also stated that "War is Hell." That's about as pragmatic as one can get. If little babies and old women are killed, so be it. When America bombed Dresden in Germany, we didn't sit around thinking that we were killing babies and older folks or middle class workers in factories. No, these babies and middle class workers brought the consequences on themseleves. The same thing goes for the "Japs" in Hiroshima. All those folks -- old, young, babies, in Japan and Germany -- brought it on themselves.
Again, as Sherman stated, "War is Hell," and there ain't no way around it! "Kill 'em all" is the order of history.

The only problem is such pragmatism does not seem to work when you or your babies are on the killing end. But, as Tin cup stated, the little babies and old folks better be careful of the fights they choose. Well said.
 
The title is causing problems. It may have all kinds of first hand accounts, and document-able facts. But the title smacks of an attitude that is Dilorenzo styled.

Kevin Dally
 
At first I wanted to debunk the above. However, I realized that Sherman was one of the first "modern generals." He also stated that "War is Hell." That's about as pragmatic as one can get. If little babies and old women are killed, so be it. When America bombed Dresden in Germany, we didn't sit around thinking that we were killing babies and older folks or middle class workers in factories. No, these babies and middle class workers brought the consequences on themseleves. The same thing goes for the "Japs" in Hiroshima. All those folks -- old, young, babies, in Japan and Germany -- brought it on themselves.
Again, as Sherman stated, "War is Hell," and there ain't no way around it! "Kill 'em all" is the order of history.

The only problem is such pragmatism does not seem to work when you or your babies are on the killing end. But, as Tin cup stated, the little babies and old folks better be careful of the fights they choose. Well said.[/quote
===========================================================
I call TRASH on your post.

Kevin Dally
 
The quality of the contents (or lack of it) is irrelevant. The title alone marks it as a piece of hate literature that all persons of good will should avoid.

Not at all. It's a study of the burning through the newspapers of the time. So whether Sherman was to be held responsible or not, I think this title is appropriate because the southern people saw it as his fault, and that is part of what he is looking at. It is endorsed by Gordon Jones, a well regarded historian.
 
Back
Top