Sherman's Men

[johan_steele]

Ever since the Lost Cause got a foothold into US history there has been an eager attempt to slander the men of Sherman's command during the 1864 -end of war period.

Is this a legitimate complaint or one blown all out of proportion by those who would distort history?

No flaming, trolling, visceral hate filled posts. Lets keep this to honest to god literature, academic works, period documents (not I saw somewhere's) w/ suggested readings and references. If you cannot do that then don't bother to post.

 

[cash]

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

 

[Vareb]

Ever since the Lost Cause got a foothold into US history there has been an eager attempt to slander the men of Sherman's command during the 1864 -end of war period.

Is this a legitimate complaint or one blown all out of proportion by those who would distort history?

No flaming, trolling, visceral hate filled posts. Lets keep this to honest to god literature, academic works, period documents (not I saw somewhere's) w/ suggested readings and references. If you cannot do that then don't bother to post.

From the man himself.

Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.
William Tecumseh Sherman

 

[Vareb]

"Having succeeded Anderson at Louisville, Sherman now had principal military responsibility for a border state (Kentucky) in which Confederate troops held Columbus and Bowling Green and were present near the Cumberland Gap.[40] He became exceedingly pessimistic about the outlook for his command, and he complained frequently to Washington, D.C., about shortages and provided exaggerated estimates of the strength of the rebel forces. Very critical press reports appeared about him after an October visit to Louisville by the then Secretary of War, Simon Cameron, and in early November Sherman insisted that he be relieved.[41] He was promptly replaced by Don Carlos Buell and transferred to St. Louis, Missouri. In December, however, he was put on leave by Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck, commander of the Department of the Missouri, who considered him unfit for duty. Sherman went to Lancaster, Ohio, to recuperate. Some consider that, in Kentucky and Missouri, Sherman was in the midst of what today would be described as a nervous breakdown. While he was at home, his wife, Ellen, wrote to his brother Senator John Sherman seeking advice and complaining of "that melancholy insanity to which your family is subject."[42] Sherman himself later wrote that the concerns of command "broke me down," and he admitted contemplating "suicide."[43] His problems were further compounded when the Cincinnati Commercial described him as "insane."[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

 

[diddyriddick]

Johan,

While I don't have chapter and verse, I do have a new perspective on Sherman since moving to North Carolina. There is a visceral reaction to him in these parts, and he was really comparatively mild here. So my point is that it is largely perception, and not history.

 

[Glorybound]

Ever since the Lost Cause got a foothold into US history there has been an eager attempt to slander the men of Sherman's command during the 1864 -end of war period.

Is this a legitimate complaint or one blown all out of proportion by those who would distort history?

No. It's not a valid, fact-based complaint, based on what I've read, most notably by Shelby Foote, James Mcpherson, Bruce Catton. As mentioned in the earlier thread in articles posted by Cash, the march through Georgia and the Carolinas was unprecedented for those times, capturing the attention of most of the US and the Confederacy. The sheer size of the army and the brazenness of the march itself (straight though hostile territory on it's own power) was the type of event ripe for exaggeration for anyone from either side, correspondents, reporters, civilians, and soldiers, hence because the march was so unprecedented and enormous in scope the stories of pillaging, murder, etc, were easy to swallow by those who were prone to swallowing such.

Many of the stories of the march grew into legends in the south, and where they were nurtured by a few sore losers with prolific pens and lots of paper after the war.

Read some about Lee's 2nd invasion into the north,(I recommend "Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign") and the tons of property, goods, thousands of head of livestock taken and sent south. There was also burning and destruction there as well.

It was done by both armies in the context of, and within the boundaries of war,

And no, Sherman's army were seasoned veterans of the western theater, not criminals, although in both armies (northern and southern) there were rogue elements, as there always seem to be, who did bad things.


Lee

 

[CChartreux]

I think I recall in the History Channel's two-hour special on Sherman's March (last year...the year before sometime?) - Marszalek mentioned something about the mythology as well. Something along the lines of people claiming that Sherman (and/or his army) had burned their property etc., and so forth, and then Marszalek would ask them where the old family homestead was and it would some place where Sherman wasn't.







CC

 

[johan_steele]

First let us discuss what is a Total War? If it is defined as the novel approach of taking the war to the civilians as a first time ever as is often charged against Sherman... Well Sherman was neither the first or most brutal by any stretch of the mind. Such a charge requires either a willful ignorance of military history or not bothering to look at the last 2000 years or so of history.

Total War was waged, quite effectively, by the Romans & Mongols to name just two of the more effective practitioners of the ancient world. Then of coarse there were the French in Spain, English in India, Russians etc in a more 19th Century light.

The Romans gave us the idea of "abject lesson" w/ places like Carthage, Juerselum and the temple mount to name just two. We get the term decimate and depopulate from the Romans. Sowing salt on fertile ground and leaving no stone upon another as well as leaving a city or region empty of inhabitants. That is total war. Later putting a city to the sword was outright common and giving a city to the army for a couple days was how some armies of the Dark & Middle ages were paid! Noble Knights of the Crusades? Posh.

The Mongols took mobility & psychological Warfare to a whole new level... one that has never been surpassed; truly epitomizing the idea that wars are fought in the will. They encouraged the belief in the supernatural and demonic and scared the wits out of opponents... destroying EVERYTHING that resisted them. Total War? Absolutely and the standard by which the premise should be judged.

The French in Spain did everything Shermans men are accused of doing... and actually did it. By what definition were these Total Wars? Well Total War equals treating enemy civilains as combatants and treating them as such. No quarter asked and none given... more like what happened to the Native Americans in the US or upon the battlefields of the Pacific in WWII than to the citizens of Georgia, SC & NC at the hands of Shermans men.
Frankly, NOT fighting a total war is a relatively new concept. We must remember that history does not happen in a vacuum. What Shermans men did pales when compared to quite a few Armies prior; whether it be the French in Spain during the Napoleanic Wars or even the British in Denmark in that same time frame.

Polite conduct towards the civilians of an enemy simply did not exist. The idea that Sherman and his men were the first to turn "Total War" loose upon the world flies in the face of reality and of history. This was not history to the men of West Point, they were current events with many a nasty event as recent as the 1840's and 50's conducted by "civilized" nations.

Shermans men were relative saints when compared to the French, Germans or even Brits. Politness towards civilians is a relatively recent phenomenom in warfare... the evidence is simply the lack of mass graves or piles of bones throughout Georgia & the Carolinas. I guarantee that few descendents of those civilians in the above mentioned area have blue coated ancestors...

When looked at in a purely military sense the destruction wrought upon Georgia and South Carolina was largely of legitimate nature. Mills, RR's, barns, livestock, bridges etc...

Much of the charges of mass looting is pure rhetoric with little foundation in reality. Simply put where did the loot go, how was it carried and where did it end up? The men did not carry it, if there were large amounts it never left Savannah (the records of postal shipments are available) and the men certainly didn't carry it w/ them through to the Grand Review. In short tons of loot never left Georgia & the Carolinas.

Why did General Sherman feel his campaign through Georgia and the Carolina's was needed? I suppose the one thing that Sherman knew beyond a shadow of a doubt was that the CS did not think they were beaten when he began his March to the Sea. By the time he was done... it was over. At the end the whole world knew it was over and there was no doubt in the mind of any foreign power either. When Sherman began that campaign the CS was still viable; no matter the reality of economics or strategic situation. While we in the 21st may easily conclude that the CS was beaten; the CS in 1864/65 certainly didn't believe it... and there was some question in the mind of the average Union soldier as well.

What Sherman and his men did was prove to the world and to the CS that the War was over. The armies of the CS were no longer capable of defending anything and certainly no longer capable of stopping 60,000 men from rolling through the middle of their country.

Without that campaign through Georgia and the Carolinas the CS may well have held on. Grant was stymied by Lee outside Petersburg and that was where the press saw and reported the war. Much as today the press were the eyes of the nation; they saw the war through their eyes and in their eyes the war was still front page news with Grant and Lee at Petersburg. The war was ended through that march by Sherman and his men.

What was the cost? There were less than a thousand CS casualties prior to North Carolina; among both the military and civilian population. Sherman lost less than 200 men. There is, of course, no figure on the dead and wounded freed slaves at Ebeneezer Creek. But because they were black men, women and children attacked by Wheeler they are overshadowed by Sherman. Although Jeff Davis (the Union General) was as much at fault for ordering the pontoons pulled.

Shermans actions at the very least shortened the War by a year if not ended it. It is a fascinating campaign, as to it being the first time such tactics were used. It was not; the US actions during the Seminole War, French in Spain, English in India and China. In other words there was ample precedence within the 60 years prior to 1864 of much more brutal actions by European Armies against a civilian populace. Sherman's march was nothing new to the world and hardly as brutal as a myriad of European campaigns.

Sources:

Fellman, Michael Citizen Sherman: A LIfe of William Tecumseh Sherman

Lewis, Lloyd Sherman, Fighting Prophet

Marszalek, John A Soldiers Passion for Order

same author Shermans Other War, The General and the Civil War Press

His own memoirs are interesting and not too self serving...

As to the March to the Sea there are quite a few books out there some of them better than others. While I don't agree w/ the conclusions of all listed below I think they are reputable and fairly intellectually honest.

Trudeau's recent work; Southern Storm is a must read on the subject.
Glatthar, Joseph THe March to the Sea and beyond:Shermans Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaign

Neely, Mark "Was the Civil War a Total War?"

Royster, Charles THe Destructive War: Sherman, Jackson and the Americans
Cist, Henry M., Campaigns of the Civil War.-VII. The Army of the Cumberland, Castle Books, 2002.

Cox, Jacob D., Campaigns of the Civil War.-X. The March to the Sea-Franklin and Nashville, Castle Books, 2002.

 

[Glorybound]

As mentioned in the earlier thread in articles posted by Cash, the march through Georgia and the Carolinas was unprecedented for those times,...

I should have been more clear here. I meant that Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas was unprecedented in the US civil war, up to the date his men set out from Atlanta. If I'm wrong on this someone please correct me. Shane is correct in his post that this type of campaign had occurred in other countries, at earlier times, with much deadlier results for civilian populations. Thanks.



Lee

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

I should have been more clear here. I meant that Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas was unprecedented in the US civil war, up to the date his men set out from Atlanta. If I'm wrong on this someone please correct me. Shane is correct in his post that this type of campaign had occurred in other countries, at earlier times, with much deadlier results for civilian populations. Thanks.



Lee

Morgan on his famous raid threatened to burn down a couple of towns. Salem, Indiana comes to mind. I think he might have actually burned a couple. Naturally he took food & forage off the land and swapped out (and no doubt killed through exhaustion) a number of horses. I once had an aged one-eyed acquaintance with spheres of steel (all of these were technically accurate - RIP Clarence) who used to fly a small biplane. Every once in a while he'd open up about how his grandfather lost some horses to Morgan when he passed through Harrison, Ohio.

But really, you sort of expect that from cavalry. Then later on they have the Number Six dance, of course.

 

[Elennsar]

While not exactly the same thing, the treatment Jackson (Mississippi) got in mid May 1863 seems to be intended the same way - smash the infrastructure.

I'm afraid I don't have a source to point to details on offhand, though.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

To JS's original topic.
I think there is more than leaps off the page.

There is one documented atrocity on an aged woman in NC. I've seen it in first person accounts by both northern and southern sources. IIRC, they both end with the offender getting a court martial and a bullet. The southern account (again, IIRC) went on to describe the capture and trial of six foragers or bummers in connection with this. There may be others, but it struck me that one was represented by reports from both sides.

As for the burning, I am certain there was some, but I've not been able to find a good source for how much was by Sherman, how much was by the normal chaos that attends two forces in conflict, how much was by Wheeler & the home guard, and for that matter how much there was overall.

Given the miles traveled per day, there wasn't much time available for gratuitous arson, so from a purely practical viewpoint, I'm forced to raise an eyebrow.

I do have reason to believe there were some things that impacted the frame of mind of the soldiers. A number of the freed men joined Sherman's "Pioneer Corps" and no doubt the stories of abuse they related to the privates and sergeants lost nothing in the retelling. I have read (and saw in the Ken Burns film) that the soldiers did not react well when they were shown the backs of slaves with welts raised a half inch or more from the skin. Again, from a purely human-nature point of view, it would be hard for a person to react abstractedly to this when coming to the next plantation. In an ideal world, of course, discipline would be absolute, but in this ideal world, there would be no whippings or other cause for war.

 

[The Iron Duke]

For every Columbia, there is a Chambersburg. For every Lawrence, there is an Osceola. For every Andersonville, there is an Elmira. The list could go on and on forever...