Sherman Sherman and Roswell

[Carpetbagger]

I am starting this thread because I think this post from another thread could use some discussion...

Hey, is this Treason, Sherman thought it was
http://m.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/deportation-roswell-mill-women

First, some background... In early July, 1864 Union cavalry commander Brigadier General Kenner Garrard, under William Tecumseh Sherman, enter Roswell, Georgia (about 25 miles north of Atlanta), where three mills (two cotton, one wool), operated by hundreds of workers, mostly women, (the numbers aren't precise, but 300 women is often used) were making cloth for tents and uniforms for the Confederate army. Roswell was guarded by a small home guard of a "few hundred" men. They couldn't defend the mills as instructed to by the mill owner who had left Roswell on May 30 upon hearing that Sherman was likely to arrive. He left orders for the mill workers to keep working right up until the Union army arrived - so much for his concern for the women.

Sherman ordered the mills burned and the workers arrested for treason. Most were shipped by train from Marietta to Louisville, Ky, then on to southern Indiana where there were mills, but southern refugees were already crowded in there so finding work was probably very difficult. There aren't records of what happened to the large majority of the women, but of the couple dozen that could be tracked, most stayed in the North (many married northerners) and a small amount returned to Georgia (where the mill owner refused to employ them after the war). It is also known that a few elderly women died in transit before reaching Louisville.

So, to first answer the poster's original question, yes, legally the women had committed treason by making cloth for the Confederate army, as defined in the Constitution...

Article 3, Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now that that's resolved, I'll move on to what interests me...

It should be pointed our that Sherman never had any plans of having the women prosecuted for treason. It seems he had charged them in order to send them north (I can't figure out another reason for it.) But here is Sherman's dispatch on moving the women from a website for a book that doesn't give the full story...

""I had no idea that the factories at Roswell remained in operation, but supposed the machinery had all been removed. Their utter destruction is right and meets my entire approval, and to make the matter complete you will arrest the owners and employees and send them, under guard, charged with treason to Marietta, and I will see as to any man in America hoisting the French flag and then devoting his labor and capital in supplying armies in open hostility to the Government and claiming the benefit of his neutral flag. Should you, under the impulse of anger, natural at contemplating such perfidy, hang the wretch, I approve the act beforehand...I repeat my orders 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, whence I will send them by cars to the North...THE POOR WOMEN WILL MAKE A HOWL. Let them take along their children and clothing, providing they have the means of hauling, or you can spare them." (emphasis, the website's, not Sherman's) http://women-will-howl.com/roswell-civil-war.html

What is missing from this quote is the last line: "We will retain them until they can reach a country where they can live in peace and security." (emphasis, mine - full quote in Hitt, Michael. Charged with Treason, p. 22.) I've seen this line dropped from many website discussions of the incident. I can't think of a reason to just leave off that one line unless to hide what Sherman was thinking on the subject.

I've read the book in question and, except for the author's obvious disdain for Sherman, its pretty good for an amateur historian. Her main focus is on the hardships of the women, and she makes it clear that the women were being exploited by the mill owner - their paltry salaries for 75 hour work weeks were paid in script to the "company store. " (I was under the impression that only the North had white mudsills )

So when I evaluate this I try to put myself in Sherman's shoes. He has several hundred women with children and a smaller number of men, out of work with no cash, with most of the town's wealthier citizens evacuated to stay out of Sherman's way. Roswell was backwoods in the 1860s, and with Sherman targeting Atlanta, that seems like a very bad place to send the women. (in fact, the area north and east of Atlanta, like Marietta, would be getting an unwelcome visit from Sherman's troops in November.)

I've seen a lot of criticism about the incident, but I haven't heard a better solution than Sherman's (given that there was actually a war going on).

 

[kholland]

When are you going to write a book? Some awesome work.

Agreed.

 

[Carpetbagger]

In case anyone wants to review what's been said before on this topic:

Our Roswell Women, Sisters In the Mists
Was Sherman a war criminal?

I see the person who started the Sisters in the Midst thread pulled the same garbage I was just talking about by dropping the last sentence of Sherman's order....

Sherman back to Garrad;

"I had no idea that the factories at Roswell remained in operation, but supposed the machinery had all been removed. Their utter destruction is right and meets my entire approval, and to make the matter complete you will arrest the owners and employees and send them, under guard, charged with treason to Marietta, and I will see as to any man in America hoisting the French flag and then devoting his labor and capital in supplying armies in open hostility to the Government and claiming the benefit of his neutral flag.

Should you, under the impulse of anger, natural at contemplating such perfidy, hang the wretch, I approve the act beforehand... I repeat my orders 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, whence I will send them by [railroad] cars to the North... The poor women will make a howl. Let them take along their children and clothing, providing they have the means of hauling, or you can spare them. "

So that was not at all why Sherman had the women shipped away- because they were hungry. Sheer spleen.

 

[Allie]

Okay, just quickly reading through this... One contemporary article describes the mill workers as "poor negroes," were these women black or white? Or is this single article just confused?

Also, in going over many compiled service records of Comfederate soldiers, I have noticed one type of record that is very reliable and easy to find is the Union record for shipping a Confederate prisoner. If a prisoner got transported, there were multiple records on both ends. But I don't know where similar records for civilians would be found. Does anyone know how these are filed?

 

[Carpetbagger]

Okay, just quickly reading through this... One contemporary article describes the mill workers as "poor negroes," were these women black or white? Or is this single article just confused?

Hi Allie, the mill workers were white.

Also, in going over many compiled service records of Comfederate soldiers, I have noticed one type of record that is very reliable and easy to find is the Union record for shipping a Confederate prisoner. If a prisoner got transported, there were multiple records on both ends. But I don't know where similar records for civilians would be found. Does anyone know how these are filed?

Apparently, there were no records kept. See post #47.

 

[uaskme]

I read North Across the River by Cook

Cook makes a reference to a letter Sherman wrote to Stanton during June 64: Sherman asked Stanton for permission to send "all males and females who have encouraged or harbored guerrillas" out of the country-perhaps to places like Hounduras, British or French Guiana, San Domingo, or ever Loeer California. "Our armies traverse the land, and waves of disaffection, sedition, and crime close in behind and our track disappears," wrote Sherman. "But one thing is certain, there is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before we can hope for peace and order even as far South as Tennessee."

Washington denied Shermans request. This in on page 58.
The ladies were imprisioned for a spell and then dumped on the street. Locals befriended many of them giving them food clothes and eventually helped to find them shelter. I don't think the humanistic side of Sherman could be found during this period. Shortly evacuated Atlanta and burned it then the famous March.
Shermans letter to his wife Ellen, last day of June about his plans for ATL. "I begin to regard the death and mangling of a couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash-and it may well that we become so hardened." pp49

 

[Carpetbagger]

I read North Across the River by Cook

Cook makes a reference to a letter Sherman wrote to Stanton during June 64: Sherman asked Stanton for permission to send "all males and females who have encouraged or harbored guerrillas" out of the country-perhaps to places like Hounduras, British or French Guiana, San Domingo, or ever Loeer California. "Our armies traverse the land, and waves of disaffection, sedition, and crime close in behind and our track disappears," wrote Sherman. "But one thing is certain, there is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before we can hope for peace and order even as far South as Tennessee."

Washington denied Shermans request. This in on page 58.
The ladies were imprisioned for a spell and then dumped on the street. Locals befriended many of them giving them food clothes and eventually helped to find them shelter. I don't think the humanistic side of Sherman could be found during this period. Shortly evacuated Atlanta and burned it then the famous March.
Shermans letter to his wife Ellen, last day of June about his plans for ATL. "I begin to regard the death and mangling of a couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash-and it may well that we become so hardened." pp49

Yes, Sherman despised guerillas and those that supported them (as did many union military leaders). And guerrilla warfare was illegal and guerillas could be executed.

But Roswell had nothing to do with guerrillas. You can claim you can't find Sherman's "humanistic side," but can you answer the question I asked? What would you have done with the women and children?

 

[uaskme]

Yes, Sherman despised guerillas and those that supported them (as did many union military leaders). And guerrilla warfare was illegal and guerillas could be executed.

But Roswell had nothing to do with guerrillas. You can claim you can't find Sherman's "humanistic side," but can you answer the question I asked? What would you have done with the women and children?

Union Troops first told them they were going to move them west for Safety and then latter arrested them for Treason. You don't have to charge someone with Treason to help them. These Ladies husbands were in the GA Guard or were CSA Troops. Many were closer to being Girls than Ladies. If he wanted to make sure they were safe, he could of moved them to Chattanooga. Moving them across the Ohio River was a punitive move. He would of de-populated the South if he could of. He viewed these people as enemy and wanted them to suffer. ATL didn't submit so he burned it. He was bringing War to the Civilian Population. That was his stated Military Goal for his March across GA, SC and NC.

 

[Carpetbagger]

Union Troops first told them they were going to move them west for Safety and then latter arrested them for Treason. You don't have to charge someone with Treason to help them. These Ladies husbands were in the GA Guard or were CSA Troops. Many were closer to being Girls than Ladies. If he wanted to make sure they were safe, he could of moved them to Chattanooga. Moving them across the Ohio River was a punitive move. He would of de-populated the South if he could of. He viewed these people as enemy and wanted them to suffer. ATL didn't submit so he burned it. He was bringing War to the Civilian Population. That was his stated Military Goal for his March across GA, SC and NC.

Nonsense. the first burning of Atlanta was done by the Confederates. The second burning Sherman ordered was to destroy the military capacity of Atlanta (it was second only to Richmond) which is completely justified in times of war (you'll notice nothing in Roswell was burnt accept the mills. Even the workers' housing still stands today).

And no, it was not just "punitive" to relocate them further north, it was known there were mills and possible employment further north. But, its good to know you would be OK with Sherman relocating them to Chattanooga. I thought you were completely against their relocation.

 

[Podad]

What would you have done with the women and children?

The burning of the mill could be considered an act of war due to the purpose the factory was being used for. But why did he have to do anything with the women and children ? He could have left them be. They were not criminals. They were no different than the people who farmed, or sewed, or cooked, etc, etc. all over the south to support the Southern war effort.

Union troops under Sherman's Command left countless thousands of people destitute during the Atlanta campaign and March to the Sea without shipping them Northward. Sherman was evil IMO.

 

[uaskme]

Nonsense. the first burning of Atlanta was done by the Confederates. The second burning Sherman ordered was to destroy the military capacity of Atlanta (it was second only to Richmond) which is completely justified in times of war (you'll notice nothing in Roswell was burnt accept the mills. Even the workers' housing still stands today).

And no, it was not just "punitive" to relocate them further north, it was known there were mills and possible employment further north. But, its good to know you would be OK with Sherman relocating them to Chattanooga. I thought you were completely against their


He treated them as POWs. They signed the Oath or went to prison which some did. I guess he was trying to turn them into good Yankees.

 

[18thVirginia]

I see the person who started the Sisters in the Midst thread pulled the same garbage I was just talking about by dropping the last sentence of Sherman's order....

@JPK Huson 1863 and I originally started that thread-Sisters in the Midst--to provide a place where information would focus on the Roswell women without the usual back and forth about Sherman and the invasion of Georgia, which was common to so many threads on this topic.

 

[Carpetbagger]

The burning of the mill could be considered an act of war due to the purpose the factory was being used for. But why did he have to do anything with the women and children ? He could have left them be. They were not criminals. They were no different than the people who farmed, or sewed, or cooked, etc, etc. all over the south to support the Southern war effort.

Union troops under Sherman's Command left countless thousands of people destitute during the Atlanta campaign and March to the Sea without shipping them Northward. Sherman was evil IMO.

Again, leaving them be would leave them in a potential war zone and they were unemployed with no one to assist them. How do you think they were going to feed themselves and their children?

 

[Carpetbagger]

@JPK Huson 1863 and I originally started this thread to provide a place where information would focus on the Roswell women without the usual back and forth about Sherman and the invasion of Georgia, which was common to so many threads on this topic.

She engaged in a lot of childish naming calling of Sherman. And, for whatever reason she started the thread, posting a truncated quote that hides Sherman's intentions towards the women is lousy history.

 

[Podad]

Again, leaving them be would leave them in a potential war zone and they were unemployed with no one to assist them. How do you think they were going to feed themselves and their children?

I fail to understand your defense of his actions regarding these people vs the other thousands left in the wake of the Union Army. ??

 

[18thVirginia]

Once again, the focus of that thread--Sisters in the Mists-- was to be on the Roswell women themselves, as there were numerous other threads where individuals spent their time bashing Sherman. If you wish to engage in defending or bashing Sherman, please feel free to do so on this thread.

 

[Podad]

@JPK Huson 1863 and I originally started this thread to provide a place where information would focus on the Roswell women without the usual back and forth about Sherman and the invasion of Georgia, which was common to so many threads on this topic.

My apologies ladies. I will let this one lie. Thanks for the reminder. (tip of the hat emoticon)

 

[Chattahooch33]

In case anyone likes then and nows as much as me....

 

[uaskme]

They were taken far from their home. Some
Were confined and they released onto the streets. Jobs were not provided. They lived on the street until some fine Citizens helped them. I would think it was a traumatic experience for all of them. After the war many did come back to the area and reconnect. Many of their husbands and family members had no way of finding them. They were removed against their Will. Treason was used as they wished. The definition was changed to fit the circumstances. They were never going to be charged to begin with.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Union Troops first told them they were going to move them west for Safety and then latter arrested them for Treason. You don't have to charge someone with Treason to help them. These Ladies husbands were in the GA Guard or were CSA Troops. Many were closer to being Girls than Ladies. If he wanted to make sure they were safe, he could of moved them to Chattanooga. Moving them across the Ohio River was a punitive move. He would of de-populated the South if he could of. He viewed these people as enemy and wanted them to suffer. ATL didn't submit so he burned it. He was bringing War to the Civilian Population. That was his stated Military Goal for his March across GA, SC and NC.

Was not Atlanta already burned thoroughly by rebel troops on the way out?