Sherman Sherman's Other War

Joined
May 29, 2018
Sherman's other war


It was once said by Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman that "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." This would turn out to be one of Sherman's kinder remarks about the press. Throughout much of his pre and post war life Sherman would not only battle against his enemies on the battlefield but with the press as well. Though he reviled reporters in general, there are two occurrences that stand out as his own private war against the press.

Sherman's issues with the press began all the way back to the 1850's while running a bank in San Francisco for Lucas, Turner & Co. because he felt the local press was helping to create an undue financial crisis. But his real animosity started during the Civil War with the press announcing to the nation that he was crazy after he suggested to members of the War Department that it would take over 200,000 troops to suppress the Confederates in the west. Though Sherman's remarks would ultimately be prophetic, nonetheless in 1861 they seemed outright insane. Sherman was at the time greatly exaggerating what the Confederate's strength was, and he had worked himself up almost to the point of a nervous breakdown, but he was not crazy.

After taking a much needed leave of absence, Sherman returned to field duty in time to put in a good performance at the April 6&7th Battle of Shiloh. After Shiloh, Sherman would begin his part in the campaign for the Confederate stronghold at Vicksburg, and Sherman's every attempt was thwarted in that effort, most notably at Chickasaw Bayou. At the beginning of the campaign Sherman would issue his General Order No. 8, prohibiting reporters from following his forces or sending dispatches from his field of operations. Furthermore, any correspondent giving out news that could aid the enemy would be arrested and treated as a spy. The obvious reason for the order was to keep his battle plans out of the papers and subsequently out of the hands of the Confederates that also had access to northern newspapers.

Thomas Knox, a correspondent for the New York Herald, defied the orders of Sherman and quickly found out what consequences that could bring. Within Knox's dispatch to the Herald he had made some wild assessments based on second hand accounts, as he himself was not there, of the Battle of Chickasaw Bayou as well as bringing up once more the claims that Sherman was insane. Statements like "failure has dashed the hopes of the nation" and "insanity and inefficiency have brought their results" suggested that the only way to capture Vicksburg was for Sherman to be relieved of command. Knox also insinuated that the battle was just a smaller scale Fredericksburg, where the Army of the Potomac in Virginia under Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside suffered a staggering loss to Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

After reading the Herald, Sherman had Knox court-martialed for being a spy, disobeying orders, and giving intelligence to the enemy. Knox was found guilty, but only to the charge of disobeying orders, and his sentence was that he be removed from Sherman's lines and not to return. However Knox made an appeal all the way to President Lincoln. Lincoln, not wanting to get tangled up in the whole mess, kicked it back to be decided by Maj. Gen. Grant. Grant stated that he could return only if General Sherman agreed. He did not; Sherman stated to Knox, "You may come as a soldier, but come as you do now as a representative of the press, and my answer is Never". Certainly Sherman's actions in court-martialing a civilian and the implications that the censorship could have on the 1st Amendment rights of the press would, and did, create debate. However, Sherman would state that because he was operating behind enemy lines in a "foreign nation" that the 1st amendment fell to military discretion.


The next highly publicized dust up with the press would come well after the cessation of hostilities between the north and south. A very powerful Washington D.C. correspondent by the name of Henry Van Ness Boynton, would be the next to draw the ire of the powerful General. Boynton was a Civil War veteran, Medal of Honor recipient, and a brevet Brig. General that would lead his regiment, the 35th Ohio, at both the Battles of Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge. In the latter he would be seriously wounded in the groin and would never return to action. However, Boynton would return to the theatre of war as a correspondent attached to Sherman's Army at Savannah. Post war he would also be well known for his attacks on the scandal ridden Grant administration and the father of the modern day National Military Park. The Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park would become the first of such parks with many more to follow in that model.

The trouble between the two esteemed veterans began with the release of Sherman's memoirs in 1875. Boynton took Sherman to task for what he considered inaccuracies in the record of his campaigns, as well as what he considered the downplaying of Sherman's subordinates for his own self-aggrandizement. Boynton would even go to the extent of publishing a point by point rebuttal to Sherman's memoirs, going so far as to have them bound the same as Sherman's memoir, and meant to be sold side by side. In an interview with Sherman after the release of Boynton's rebuttal he told the reporter that, "you could hire him to do anything for money" and "for a thousand dollars he would slander his own mother". In a letter to Sherman, Boynton asked the General if he had been quoted accurately by the reporter. Sherman's response was curt and to the point, "I said I thought you were capable of doing anything for pay; that slander was your daily vocation, and as you had deliberately falsified as to me, I believed you capable of slandering your own mother for pay. This is a hard thing to say of any man, but I believe it of you."

Obviously this response didn't sit well with Boynton. Boynton would go on to attempt a military court-martial of Sherman for conduct unbecoming, but President Rutherford B. Hayes declined to move forward with the matter and it was dropped. Sherman in other interviews would admit to making errors in his first edition, and that they would be corrected in a future edition. For the remainder of his life Sherman would continue to hold the press in very low esteem, and made no attempts to hide his feelings on the matter. Sherman may not have been the first notable American figure to call out the press and win but certainly one of the most charismatic.

T. Siprelle

References:

Sherman: Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman

The New York Times: The Sherman-Boynton Case Published February 2, 1880

The National Park Service: Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park

William Tecumseh Sherman by James Lee McDonough

HistoryNet: The Laws of War| The Trial of Thomas Knox

Sherman's Historical Raid. The memoirs in the light of the record. H.V. Boynton

A Chickamauga Memorial: The Establishment of America's First Civil War National Military Park Timothy B. Smith
 
Have a source for this quote..?

However, Sherman would state that because he was operating behind enemy lines in a "foreign nation" that the 1st amendment fell to military discretion.

I'd be interested in seeing that, if true.
 
McDonough
Sherman had actually overstepped his bounds by hauling Knox before a court-martial. It was not that he didn't have the authority to charge a civilian with criminal activities and bring him to trial—he did. The problem was that he tried Knox before the wrong kind of court. As a civilian, Knox was not subject to the conventional military law represented by a court-martial. And since Sherman was campaigning in Confederate territory, where no U.S. civil courts had jurisdiction, there was no recourse to a civilian court. With court-martial or civil court out of the question, the only legal option was a trial by military commission.

In the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1847, Major General Winfield Scott had created military commissions so that the U.S. Army would have a way to handle cases that fell outside the reach of courts-martial. An unorthodox and slightly field-expedient idea at first, military commissions gained a new legitimacy and codified structure in the first year of the Civil War. In 1862, just a few months before Knox ran afoul of Sherman, the U.S. government legislatively recognized them as courts of law. Major General Henry Halleck, the foremost legal scholar of the Union army during the Civil War, pointed out at the time that "many classes of people cannot be arraigned before [courts-martial] for any offense whatsoever, and many crimes committed cannot be tried under the 'Rules and Articles of War.' Military commissions must be resorted to for such cases." The Knox case clearly fit that definition.
 
Sherman had actually overstepped his bounds by hauling Knox before a court-martial. It was not that he didn't have the authority to charge a civilian with criminal activities and bring him to trial—he did. The problem was that he tried Knox before the wrong kind of court. As a civilian, Knox was not subject to the conventional military law represented by a court-martial. And since Sherman was campaigning in Confederate territory, where no U.S. civil courts had jurisdiction, there was no recourse to a civilian court. With court-martial or civil court out of the question, the only legal option was a trial by military commission.

In the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1847, Major General Winfield Scott had created military commissions so that the U.S. Army would have a way to handle cases that fell outside the reach of courts-martial. An unorthodox and slightly field-expedient idea at first, military commissions gained a new legitimacy and codified structure in the first year of the Civil War. In 1862, just a few months before Knox ran afoul of Sherman, the U.S. government legislatively recognized them as courts of law. Major General Henry Halleck, the foremost legal scholar of the Union army during the Civil War, pointed out at the time that "many classes of people cannot be arraigned before [courts-martial] for any offense whatsoever, and many crimes committed cannot be tried under the 'Rules and Articles of War.' Military commissions must be resorted to for such cases." The Knox case clearly fit that definition.
I'm looking specifically for the claim that, Sherman stated, he was: "in a foreign nation". If that is an exact quote, & verifiable... it's significant. Which is why I would love to see a source for it.
 
I'm looking specifically for the claim that, Sherman stated, he was: "in a foreign nation". If that is an exact quote, & verifiable... it's significant. Which is why I would love to see a source for it.
It will certainly be seen as significant for those trying to show that the so-called Confederate States was an independent nation. Beyond that, it has little relevance.
 
Sherman had actually overstepped his bounds by hauling Knox before a court-martial. It was not that he didn't have the authority to charge a civilian with criminal activities and bring him to trial—he did. The problem was that he tried Knox before the wrong kind of court. As a civilian, Knox was not subject to the conventional military law represented by a court-martial. And since Sherman was campaigning in Confederate territory, where no U.S. civil courts had jurisdiction, there was no recourse to a civilian court. With court-martial or civil court out of the question, the only legal option was a trial by military commission.

In the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1847, Major General Winfield Scott had created military commissions so that the U.S. Army would have a way to handle cases that fell outside the reach of courts-martial. An unorthodox and slightly field-expedient idea at first, military commissions gained a new legitimacy and codified structure in the first year of the Civil War. In 1862, just a few months before Knox ran afoul of Sherman, the U.S. government legislatively recognized them as courts of law. Major General Henry Halleck, the foremost legal scholar of the Union army during the Civil War, pointed out at the time that "many classes of people cannot be arraigned before [courts-martial] for any offense whatsoever, and many crimes committed cannot be tried under the 'Rules and Articles of War.' Military commissions must be resorted to for such cases." The Knox case clearly fit that definition.

Sherman showed bad temper and bad judgement in the Knox affair. Neither Sherman nor Grant had the legal authority to banish Knox, and both were wrong to do so. But at that late stage in the war, and the exalted positions of the two men, who was going to rein them in over such a small matter?
 
We have both Meade and Sherman feuding with the press. Any others- on either side?
 
Sherman and Halleck had a conversation about this when Sherman went home for a month early in the war. I'll find it and post it when I get to my computer. Those two have some of the best letters back and forth in the O.R.. Shame that Stanton killed that friendship. They were closer than either was to Grant.
 
Sigmund Freud would've had a high old time psychoanalyzing Sherman... likely would've used him for case studies, published results for today's psychiatrists, only Freud was just a child during the War.
 
A reporter needs to know his boundaries. It can be easy to cross the line. I know seeing as I was a reporter for a daily. You have know you're limitations. Crossing the line can have a price. Knox obviously crossed one. It was wartime, in an age when you could get shot for much less. Knox printed basically printed a lie, and decided he knew enough about Sherman to say what he wanted. People cite the First Amendment, was this card played very often in the war, or was it used as a refuge for printed slander. During the war the First while an important part of the constitution, speeches and printed matter could still get you into deep trouble, even banishment.
 
A reporter needs to know his boundaries. It can be easy to cross the line. I know seeing as I was a reporter for a daily. You have know you're limitations. Crossing the line can have a price. Knox obviously crossed one. It was wartime, in an age when you could get shot for much less. Knox printed basically printed a lie, and decided he knew enough about Sherman to say what he wanted. People cite the First Amendment, was this card played very often in the war, or was it used as a refuge for printed slander. During the war the First while an important part of the constitution, speeches and printed matter could still get you into deep trouble, even banishment.
I agree. I think what people need to remember is that this had real consequences for the Army. When soldiers read this they get demoralized and lose faith and even worse things can happen when your enemies get hold of it and people die because of it. It's definetly a fine line.
 
Sherman showed bad temper and bad judgement in the Knox affair. Neither Sherman nor Grant had the legal authority to banish Knox, and both were wrong to do so. But at that late stage in the war, and the exalted positions of the two men, who was going to rein them in over such a small matter?

It wasn't Sherman or Grant that banished Knox; it was the sentence imposed by the court-martial board. Sherman was ok with it but feared Lincoln would not sustain the punishment once Knox's newspaper, the Herald, as well as others made appeals to the president.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top