Sherman Bummers total war? Corruption what do you think.

[kholland]

The ACWwas a redefining war. Nepoleantic style fighting still employed but fastly being replaced by more modern tactics. Hale the King of Spades.

And look at the trenches around Petersburg and they don't look much different then France, 1918.

 

[War Horse]

And look at the trenches around Petersburg and they don't look much different then France, 1918.

I have been there. Very impressive. I don't believe I ever would have understood an abertise until I saw one with my own eyes.

 

[War Horse]

If I recall correctly, the term "bummers" is one that Sherman's troops proudly used to describe themselves. I don't agree that it was anything near "total war", and from all of the documented evidence I've seen, I don't think they "crossed the line" as a whole in Georgia (although there certainly were exceptions). But I do believe they crossed the line in South Carolina. Here's an excerpt from a letter home written by a colonel of a USCT regiment during the Carolina part of that campaign:

"I confess I have been disappointed in the action of our army while marching through the enemy's country. The plundering and pillaging have been fearful - it seems to me disgraceful. The army of course has lived on the country as far as possible. This is right. Contributions would be demanded from the civil authorities and in case they failed to make them then there should be a system of foraging organized.

But the people should in no case be stripped of the means of subsistence. I fear Sherman's army has impoverished the whole country which he has traversed. For thirty miles in rear of Sherman's army, the country is full of "foragers". They have stripped everything from the people. I do not see how the people can live during the summer. Now I am not at all sure but the people merit this and it is perhaps the just retribution of the Almighty. Still, I believe it is cruel and wicked on the part of our army.

I have prevented this sort of action in my own regiment and have gained the ill will of many officers and men in doing so. While on the march the men in the regiments next to ours would break from the ranks and rush into houses and strip them of every particle of provisions. Of course it seemed surprise to my men that they should be made an exception, while rations were short and they were worn out with hard marching. I detailed men - placed them under an officer and sent them to plantations away from the road with instructions to leave all that was necessary for the subsistence of families. In this way I obtained all that was necessary for my men and injured no one - while I maintained discipline of my regiment. In many cases hundreds of country cured hams would be found buried on plantations."

- Union Colonel Giles Shurtleff, commanding officer 5th USCT, March 29, 1865

Source: Catherine Durhant Vorhees, The Colors of Dignity, pp. 186-188 (Nookbook version)​

That is excellent

 

[johan_steele]

US ACW 600,000 and no genocidal victories or genocidal actions against civilians. There are no mass graves full of CS civilians, no mass or systematic rapine across the countryside. No elimination of southern political influence or generations & no scorched earth policy that flattened every town, village and city of the rebellious people. That kind of Total War was known at the time to anyone who had studied military history. It had been waged by the French, English, Russians, Turks and the US against various Native American tribes. Total War was in no way waged against the CS; there were too many CS soldiers and civilians that lived and far too few blue coated fathers coming out of the former CS.

Total War is brutally prejudicial, ruthlessly efficient and horrific far beyond the love tap received by the CS populace and thank you Christ for that. Despite the stay behinder bitter piller types the US emerged from the ACW rather whole and intact. There was no need to repopulate the south; the south recovered and the south survived. A true Total War would have left no one here to argue in favor of the CS or to even praise it.

 

[War Horse]

US ACW 600,000 and no genocidal victories or genocidal actions against civilians. There are no mass graves full of CS civilians, no mass or systematic rapine across the countryside. No elimination of southern political influence or generations & no scorched earth policy that flattened every town, village and city of the rebellious people. That kind of Total War was known at the time to anyone who had studied military history. It had been waged by the French, English, Russians, Turks and the US against various Native American tribes. Total War was in no way waged against the CS; there were too many CS soldiers and civilians that lived and far too few blue coated fathers coming out of the former CS.

Total War is brutally prejudicial, ruthlessly efficient and horrific far beyond the love tap received by the CS populace and thank you Christ for that. Despite the stay behinder bitter piller types the US emerged from the ACW rather whole and intact. There was no need to repopulate the south; the south recovered and the south survived. A true Total War would have left no one here to argue in favor of the CS or to even praise it.

I don't argue this but both Sherman and Jackson favored it. Least war be so terrible that no one relish its.

 

[Pat Young]

I don't think the term total war is correct, but there were acts carried out by Sherman's men that would be crimes today.

 

[War Horse]

I don't think the term total war is correct, but there were acts carried out by Sherman's men that would be crimes today.

Bad choice of words I guess.

 

[Pat Young]

Here is info on modern law regarding internal conflicts:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/civilian-immunity/

 

[War Horse]

Here is info on modern law regarding internal conflicts:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/civilian-immunity/

Thanks Pat excellent article

 

[kepi]

I understand Sherman's army had to sustain themselves. There is line and I think it was crossed.

Absolutely

 

[hanna260]

I always understood total war to be purposely killing civilians as we did in WWII with bombs as a way of demoralizing the populace and breaking the back of the war effort. If we use that definition, than I don't think that Sherman's bummers qualify. Then again, that may not be the definition.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I don't think the term total war is correct, but there were acts carried out by Sherman's men that would be crimes today.

And these post 19th century modifications of the laws of war are ex post facto for warfare waged 150 years ago. The rules of warfare involving civilians have changed since the mid 1970s which if applied to Viet Nam would make many of our commanders and soldiers in that conflict war criminals.

 

[marinegrunt]

I think the civilian populace of any territory that is being reduced as part of a military objective suffers. There's no doubt that there were atrocities committed by Union soldiers on southern civilians, but I don't believe that to be the normal behavior of disciplined troops. Having been in an invading force myself, I can tell you that the desire to make people pay for you being put in harm's way is a bit of a tough urge to put down, although it must be done if you're going to go home with your humanity intact. There's no way one commander can enforce orders upon 60,000 men, especially when the company and field grade officers were just as mad as the soldiers. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it goes.

 

[Pat Young]

And these post 19th century modifications of the laws of war are ex post facto for warfare waged 150 years ago. The rules of warfare involving civilians have changed since the mid 1970s which if applied to Viet Nam would make many of our commanders and soldiers in that conflict war criminals.

Which is what I said.

Slavery was also legal.

 

[M.Warren]

I think the civilian populace of any territory that is being reduced as part of a military objective suffers. There's no doubt that there were atrocities committed by Union soldiers on southern civilians, but I don't believe that to be the normal behavior of disciplined troops. Having been in an invading force myself, I can tell you that the desire to make people pay for you being put in harm's way is a bit of a tough urge to put down, although it must be done if you're going to go home with your humanity intact. There's no way one commander can enforce orders upon 60,000 men, especially when the company and field grade officers were just as mad as the soldiers. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it goes.

True words and that's a turning point you don't want to take. Once done there's no going back or forgetting it. A choice you'll live with for life or be driven over the edge like many in the past. I like to sleep at night personally.

On the subject. I have little doubt that in many instances, especially from this area that the civilians were far more ruthless toward one and other than either army ever was.

 

[Pat Young]

Here is the law in effect at the time of Sherman's March:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp

 

[Pat Young]

Here are some relevant parts of the Lieber Code:

Art. 36.
If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace.

In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured.

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.

This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses

Art. 38.
Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States.

Art. 42.
Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, (that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions.

Art. 43.
Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service.

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. 45.
All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor.

Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.

Art. 46.
Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

 

[Pat Young]

Clearly, some of the acts of Sherman's men were in violation of the laws covering their conduct.

 

[hanna260]

Clearly, some of the acts of Sherman's men were in violation of the laws covering their conduct.

Not surprising. Bound to be a few or more than a few bad apples, especially in raging armies destroying civilian resources.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Everytime the term bummer comes up the first image that pops into my head (and I'm sure many many other's) is of this guy. Not very easy to have sympathy for him in context of the movie, but this is what the vast majority think of when they hear the word bummer.

I do not doubt that such incidents occured, but consider the number & extent of them exaggerated. But being a member of The Most High Shrine that is required.