Laid-back Sherman

[kenjcruz]

Thanks to a pointer from K. Hale, I found the passage where Sherman accurately predicts the eventual outcome of the Civil War. It was in a letter (?) written to Professor David K. Boyd after South Carolina's secession.

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

He was spot on.

 

[K Hale]

David F. Boyd. Actually it was not a letter from Sherman, but a reminiscence of a spoken conversation with Sherman, written by Boyd.

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not sure whether this is a sign Sherman was a prophet or predicting doom because he saw the glass as half full of yellow liquid.

 

[K Hale]

Sherman was always predicting doom. Always. He was convinced that Grant's plan to run the boats down past Vicksburg would be a disaster even as he got into one of the little rowboats himself to personally supervise it as closely as possible. Wrote a CYA letter to the authorities disavowing that he had anything to do with coming up with this idea. The fact that this crazy plan worked was what finally got Sherman entirely on board with Grant.

 

[kenjcruz]

David F. Boyd. Actually it was not a letter from Sherman, but a reminiscence of a spoken conversation with Sherman, written by Boyd.

If it was a reminiscence then we probably can't be positive about Sherman's clairvoyance.

Aside from his fevered prose which is delightful, two things struck me in the passage. First, he understood the fundamental importance of the North's manufacturing and resource advantages and how that would evenutally doom the Confederacy. Secondly, he understood that the North had the will to win. I think the leaders of the Confederacy thought (hoped) that the Northers didn't have the stomach to fight - but they were wrong.

 

[K Hale]

Yeah, I believe Sherman said this stuff in its basic element to Boyd, but I don't know how many details have been shaded by Boyd's hindsight in knowing how things worked out.

 

[ole]

David F. Boyd. Actually it was not a letter from Sherman, but a reminiscence of a spoken conversation with Sherman, written by Boyd.

My recollection is that it was a letter from Sherman. Have you a source that contradicts?

 

[K Hale]

My recollection is that it was a letter from Sherman. Have you a source that contradicts?

My fav Sherman source is the Marszalek book but it's at home. I'll check tonight. It's probably in Fighting Prophet too, or any of the Sherman bios. The reason I am sure that it's a reminiscence and not a letter is that I recall Boyd putting in details about Sherman walking back and forth with tears in his eyes.

 

[ole]

You're probably righ. I'd have to dig through multiple books to find it, but I need a nap.

 

[K Hale]

I think it may have been a letter from Boyd to someone else, which got the idea started that it was a letter. That, and the fact that it sounds like something Sherman would have written. I totally believe its veracity in general, if not every specific detail. Boyd is pretty reliable, he wrote a reminiscence about Stuart too that was so full of detail that Flora told him to quash it.

 

[dvrmte]

The thing that bothers me most about Sherman is his lying. He first called the bombardment of Atlanta overshots because the Confederate line was so close to the city. When Hood called him on that he changed his tune to not needing to inform anyone that he was going to bombard the city because it was fortified and held magazines, public stores, etc. Then told Hood, "See the books."

Let's look at the books, "Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the non-combatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity."



Surprise wasn't a necessity. Everyone knew where Sherman was.

As far as him purposely targeting the city, this book has many references from the OR's indicating he deliberately fired into the heart of the Atlanta. Bottom of page 493 and on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=u0...&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


dvrmte

 

[kenjcruz]

dvrmte -

What's the "right" thing for a general to do when an army you have been fighting for months, retreats into a city?

 

[dvrmte]

dvrmte -

What's the "right" thing for a general to do when an army you have been fighting for months, retreats into a city?

Around not into.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

Around not into.

This is a real problem.
If there were no CS soldiers or supply depots in Atlanta, then maybe there's a case. But my understanding of the situation was that the CS Army was making use of the rail network and warehouses inside Atlanta to support the army.
It's a very peculiar view of war when supply depots are not targets. In fact, all through the last half of the twentieth century, American military philosophy held that transportation and communication infrastructures were valid and high priority military targets.

I'm interested in what makes Atlanta different than Chattanooga, Vicksburg, or Gettysburg. Those cities were shelled, two of them by both armies if I recall correctly.
Anyway, two armies met; between the hammer and the anvil is a very bad place to be.

 

[K Hale]

I'm interested in what makes Atlanta different than Chattanooga, Vicksburg, or Gettysburg.

Also Fredericksburg and Carlisle.

If Hood knew Sherman was there, then it was on Hood to get civilians to safety without Sherman having to tell him to do it.

 

[Elennsar]

What K Hale said. And I wish the book Dvrmte mentioned gave footnotes of where in the OR these are.

 

[K Hale]

I think of that scene in Jaws. "You knew there was a shark in the water, and you let people go swimming anyway?"

 

[wilber6150]

The thing that bothers me most about Sherman is his lying. He first called the bombardment of Atlanta overshots because the Confederate line was so close to the city. When Hood called him on that he changed his tune to not needing to inform anyone that he was going to bombard the city because it was fortified and held magazines, public stores, etc. Then told Hood, "See the books."

Let's look at the books, "Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the non-combatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity."



Surprise wasn't a necessity. Everyone knew where Sherman was.

As far as him purposely targeting the city, this book has many references from the OR's indicating he deliberately fired into the heart of the Atlanta. Bottom of page 493 and on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=u0...&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


dvrmte

Defense lines are not just a single line there are paths and supply depots and troop muster points, all these are away from the main line and are legal targets...Also, Atlanta was a major supply and transportation hub for the Confederacy there would have been many legitamate targets for the Union army to attack...
Why didn't Hood evacuate the city or knowing he couldnt hold leave himself and let it be captured as an open city..Did he ask Sherman for a chance to evacuate the citizens?
Theres nothing that proves that he was lying...What are they supposed to do ride up and tell the Confederates what parts of the city they were going to bombard?

 

[wilber6150]

Yeah, I believe Sherman said this stuff in its basic element to Boyd, but I don't know how many details have been shaded by Boyd's hindsight in knowing how things worked out.

But in letters to other people he pretty much summed it up the same way how the war would turn out...

 

[K Hale]

Why didn't Hood evacuate the city or knowing he couldnt hold leave himself and let it be captured as an open city..Did he ask Sherman for a chance to evacuate the citizens?

Not only did he not ask Sherman for a chance, he did not want to evacuate them at all even when Sherman told him to. Almost feels like using civilian "shields." Except of course it failed.