Total War?

[TerryB]

One of the questions we had to weigh in on in the college course I took in US Military History was the question of whether or not the ACW was a total war. I argued that it was, but the opinions of T. Harry Williams, Bruce Catton, James. M. McPherson are countered persuasively in one of the texts we were assigned. Mark E. Neely, Jr., wrote the argument in Major Problems in American Military History (Houghton Mifflin 1999), using Sherman's own words to show that "though not a systematic military thinker, General Sherman [in a letter] described his actual policies better than his frequently quoted statements of a more sensational nature." So long as non-combatants remain in their houses and keep to their accustomed peaceful business, Sherman was willing to let them be, argues Neely, quoting Sherman. It's the fact that the blurring of distinctions between civilian and soldier, in a war that targets the enemy population as well as his economic ability to wage war, that loosely defines "total war," a term never very well defined, according to Neely. I have to admit he has to be given some credence.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

..."total war," a term never very well defined, according to Neely. ...[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Yep. And there's your problem. The discussion on whether 'twas or 'twasn't has to wait until we argue over just what it was or wasn't.

 

[TerryB]

Yep. And there's your problem. The discussion on whether 'twas or 'twasn't has to wait until we argue over just what it was or wasn't.

I would start with the question of whether or not civilians were deliberately targeted, as a matter of policy. Federal policy seems somewhat diffuse, depending on the provost marshal. However, I come across name after name of "citizens" who were incarcerated by Federal authorities both North and South. To what extent dissent was stifled in the North is a part of the mix.


Here are some additional thoughts. 1) The industrial might of a nation is totally geared up for war in a total war. (You there Cadwallder! Stop beating swords into plowshears! We need swords, man! Swords! See that Amalgamated turns them out in three shifts! And you there, Scarlet! Stop wandering aimlessly around the depot searching the wounded for Ashly! Start sewing uniforms or change bed pans, and make yourself useful!)
2) A total war will gear up a propaganda effort to manipulate public opinion. Hard to make the case that if Sitting Bull isn't stopped, what's to prevent him from burning your town and taking your women and children captive. (Let's see . . . says here in the Sentinel that Custer's got himself in a jam out West somewhere. Where'd I put my map? Montana? Where the deuce is that?")
3) A total war will mobilize its manpower to the fullest. (You there! Callow youth! Stop shuckin' that corn and pick up a musket. Now is the time for every good man to, etc.)

 

[The Iron Duke]

1) The industrial might of a nation is totally geared up for war in a total war.

There was no WWII style rationing in the northern states.

2) A total war will gear up a propaganda effort to manipulate public opinion.

It obviously failed since a significant proportion of the northern populace was opposed to the war. The Democrats received 45% of the vote in 1864.

3) A total war will mobilize its manpower to the fullest.

The Union certainly didn't. Remember the one arm behind its back that Shelby Foote talked about?

 

[Severon]

The only situation in the Civil War that I see as total war is William Sherman's March to the Sea. He destroyed the enemy's ability to fight. He broke the backbone of the Confederacy.

 

[The Iron Duke]

My own opinion is that the ACW was a fairly clean war. The only real exceptions to this would be the Kansas/Missouri guerrilla war and what I would call revenge burnings, ie Alexandria in Louisiana, Chambersburg in Pennsylvania, and Columbia in South Carolina.

 

[Severon]

I have to agree with you Duke, that Kansas/Missouri guerrilla war was horrible, what with the burnings and lynchings and hangings. It was just bad.

 

[TerryB]

Iron Duke, WW II is certainly the template for America in total war. Historians originally made the leap that Lincoln, too, had demanded unconditional surrender, a hallmark of total war. Yet he never demanded any such thing.
Severon, Neely argued that Sherman's bark was worse than his bite. I get the feeling he was bipolar, and what he said or did depended on which Sherman was driving the car on that particular day. On a similar note, William C. Davis has argued that Sheridan hardly got off the main roads in his Valley Campaign in '64. I think he could well thank the guerrillas for keeping him on the straight and narrow.

 

[Severon]

I have to agree with you Terry, I do believe that Sherman was bipolar. I was by no means trying to turn the guy into a hero. I just wanted to mention that his march is the only even remote resemblance of Total War.

And yes, WWII is definitely American total war.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Historians originally made the leap that Lincoln, too, had demanded unconditional surrender, a hallmark of total war. Yet he never demanded any such thing.

Which I think reinforces the idea that the ACW was not total war.

 

[TerryB]

As to the lynchings, burnings, etc., I've studied the guerrilla war in Middle Tennesse for some time now. One of only two men hanged for war crimes (other than the Lincoln Conspirators) was Champ Ferguson, pro-Confederate guerrilla, who seemed to be out to turn Tennessee into another Bleeding Kansas. There were murders enough to go around, both of civilians and stragglers, and take no prisoners was the rule rather than the exception. Ferguson's nemesis was Tinker Dave Beatty, who would have been hanged in a Southern court, along with the infamous provost marshal Milroy. But the personal vendettas of a lawless few isn't the same thing as an avowed national policy.

 

[Severon]

I have to agree with you Duke. I think it does too.

Good stuff Terry B.

 

[johan_steele]

Posted this before, no need to reinvent the wheel.

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, Jerusalem 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 actually 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.

Glatthar, Joseph THe March to the Sea and beyond:Shermans Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Campaign

Trudea, Noah Southern Storm

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

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

 

[Severon]

Holy cow Johan!!! Great reading but wow!!! I am impressed.

 

[TerryB]

As to whether or not the North totally utilized its manpower, I'm not familiar enough with the context of Foote's quote. On the other hand, it had resorted to 90 day men, enrolling Confederate POWs, and just about every Dutchman or Irishman that stepped off the boat, as well as arming the slaves. I wonder who Foote thought was not in uniform?

 

[The Iron Duke]

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...

But some of it wasn't. The vandalization of the Milledgeville Courthouse and setting fires in Columbia was done purely out of revenge.

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?

What couldn't be carried off was abandoned.

On the other hand, it had resorted to 90 day men, enrolling Confederate POWs, and just about every Dutchman or Irishman that stepped off the boat, as well as arming the slaves. I wonder who Foote thought was not in uniform?

The north raised tens of thousands of militiamen when the Confederates invaded the border or northern states. There was a huge pool of manpower that was untapped.

 

[Severon]

But some of it wasn't. The vandalization of the Milledgeville Courthouse and setting fires in Columbia was done purely out of revenge.



What couldn't be carried off was abandoned.



The north raised tens of thousands of militiamen when the Confederates invaded the border or northern states. There was a huge pool of manpower that was untapped.

I strongly agree with these points.

 

[TerryB]

Iron Duke, while it's true that in 1863 during Morgan's Raid north of the Ohio, tens of thousands of militia were called up. But that sort of makes the point that they were serving in the military in some capacity. By the final months of the war, I think there was far more direct mobilization. One of the huge advantages in the North was that the McCormick reaper of 1838 was able to do the work of 20 men, thus freeing 19 up for military service. Kansas and Nebraska were truly the breadbasket of the Northern war effort.

Neely went on to say that T. Harry Williams backed off his original thesis, and later said something like, "almost total war."


Johan, if Sherman is the template for total war, yes he falls short. A few years ago I would have argued adamantly that the ACW was a total war, but, given the problem of defining that term, it almost seems more of an academic exercise. But that's why I posted the thread. I haven't been on the board long enough to know if this issue has been adequately dealt with here before. And dittos to the comments re your awesome research.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Iron Duke, while it's true that in 1863 during Morgan's Raid north of the Ohio, tens of thousands of militia were called up. But that sort of makes the point that they were serving in the military in some capacity.

I would consider these guys to be more like "weekend warriors" than anything else. They were used for purely defensive reasons and not to augment the main Union armies. I'm fairly certain, but I may be wrong, that the state governors could release them from service whenever they liked.

Neely went on to say that T. Harry Williams backed off his original thesis, and later said something like, "almost total war."

IMO, total war is where every single facet of the society is geared towards fighting the war.

Shelby Foote said, referring to the north, that there were all kinds of inventions being made and the Harvard boat races were going on. I would also add there was no rationing and men could get exempted from the draft. Lincoln passed the Homestead Act opening up the west. The Transcontinental Railroad was begun.

 

[Borderruffian]

Total War was waged in Missouri by the Union and State Goverments lack of control and oversight of the Militia organizations and the Kansas Volunteer troops.

It included the following:

1. Conscription of all able bodied males into the Militia organizations, those not of Union sympathy had to state this in front of the district Provost Marshal....guess what that meant?

2. Removal of a legally elected legislature.

3. Summary siezures of property without due process.

4. Imprisonment without due process.

5. Destruction of private property in massive proportions.

The list can go on and on, the argument can be made that the Southern Guerilla activities were the cause, however the charge can be releveled at the lack of control on the Kansas units, a corrupt militia system and an eqaully corrupt Provost system.