Total War?

[Nathanb1]

Of course, being from Texas, I always have to try to "top this":laugh1: In 1862 41 suspected unionists were hung in Gainesville, TX for putting together a plot to take over the Confederate Armory at Sherman. More were hung in surrounding counties. (see Handbook of Texas Online-The Great Hanging). In Nueces, 34 Germans who were unionists were hung as they tried to leave Texas for Mexico. Before the great hanging, another 20 or so whites and 30-50 blacks were hung around North Texas. Amazing for a place so far from what folks consider the "main war." My own family of unionists fled Gainesville and Sherman and hid out among quite a few others on the frontier near Comanche TX, where they served in the militia and happily chased Indians and got their horses stolen. A couple went back to Gainesville and apparently exacted a little revenge.

 

[ole]

Border has made a good point: total war was practiced in some areas. But for the whole? Naah.

Civilians always get caught up when the battlefield is in the south pasture. I like Johan's definition: total war is when no one is left alive and no stone rests upon another.

WWII came close.

The CW was no where near making war on civilians. Sherman's March has been described as a war on civilians, therefore, it was total war. Bosh.

The March was to demonstrate the inability of the Confederacy to field an army to stop him. His targets were those things that might support the Confederate armies: grist mills, weaving mills, smithies ... Unfortunately, one's root cellar and smoke house might also qualify.

I think it a stretch to call The March a war on civilians. They were in the way, to be sure, but they were not the target.

Super thread. It wasn't here this morning and we're two pages into it.

Ole

 

[Borderruffian]

You also had quite a number of Unionist's who deserted from the CS forces hunted down and killed thru drum head Court Martial or shot out of hand in the Sherman and Denton areas in the Winter of 63 - 64 and again winter of 64-65. Alot of that operation was done by Anderson and Quantrills Guerillas wintering in Sherman.
Gen. H.E. McColluch, Brother of Gen. Ben McCulloch.

 

[Borderruffian]

I think it a stretch to call The March a war on civilians. They were in the way, to be sure, but they were not the target.


Ole

I prefer to think of the March as a scorched earth policy, with the intent to deprive the Southern Military of material needed for furthering their war effort. Were Civilians effected yes,but not as a primary design.

 

[Nathanb1]

You also had quite a number of Unionist's who deserted from the CS forces hunted down and killed thru drum head Court Martial or shot out of hand in the Sherman and Denton areas in the Winter of 63 - 64 and again winter of 64-65. Alot of that operation was done by Anderson and Quantrills Guerillas wintering in Sherman.
Gen. H.E. McColluch, Brother of Gen. Ben McCulloch.

Yeah, we're quite intolerant of others here in Texas. And one of the reasons I have a hard time stomaching the McCullochs, although I live in that same named county. Not only were unionists deserting...a lot of men had a problem with leaving their families unprotected in an area that was still vulnerable to Indian raids (the frontier was pushed back about 100 miles during the war, to a line roughly north and south of Ft. Worth). Of course, they wanted to serve in the militia, the state wanted to send them East, and there had to be some kind of solution.

 

[ole]

Scorched earth, Border? Not even close.

Scorched earth was burning everything you own to deprive the enemy. Kinda worked in Russia about twice, but in America?

There was an "order" issued for burning everything to deprive Sherman of the werewithal to feed his troops. Didn't work. So he burned everything that might help Johnny. Saved them the trouble of scorching the earth.

Just a thought.

Ole

 

[TerryB]

I'll only reiterate that I agree that Sherman's March falls short of total war. Yet in Georgia and South Carolina the troops did go after civilians while many officers and NCO's either aided and abetted or looked the other way. But to reiterate another point I made--that sort of behavior was not an avowed national policy. I find it telling that, though many accusations were leveled at Wheeler's Cavalry for reprisals, Kilpatrick did a whole lotta "Why, I oughta!" but never really followed through. He well knew who was doing the burning and looting.

 

[ole]

Excellent point, TerryB. **it happened. It was not Sherman's, Grant's nor Lincoln's policy.

Ole

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

There was an "order" issued for burning everything to deprive Sherman of the werewithal to feed his troops. Didn't work. So he burned everything that might help Johnny. Saved them the trouble of scorching the earth.

Just a thought.

Ole

Somehow Sherman never gets credit for being more effective in carrying out the Confederacy's orders on that point than Shelby and Wheeler combined.

It's an amazing world.

 

[TerryB]

Somehow Sherman never gets credit for being more effective in carrying out the Confederacy's orders on that point than Shelby and Wheeler combined.

It's an amazing world.

Wheeler had no intention of carrying out those orders, unless under protest. Yet, even now the rumor campaign that dogged him in the Carolinas is still being touted as gospel on some websites. It's a far more murky picture, but Wheeler's troops are not totally blameless either.

 

[Borderruffian]

Scorched earth, Border? Not even close.

Scorched earth was burning everything you own to deprive the enemy. Kinda worked in Russia about twice, but in America?

There was an "order" issued for burning everything to deprive Sherman of the werewithal to feed his troops. Didn't work. So he burned everything that might help Johnny. Saved them the trouble of scorching the earth.

Just a thought.

Ole

Point taken I retract my Scorched earth Statement.

However part of his plan was to deny the South materials of war and commerce. He did that very well whether he burned or took possession or forced the retreating CS forces to.

 

[PINCKNEYUSMCRET]

War is a nasty brutal business, I always thought it odd that you could be shot at from a place blow it up and be criticised for it. As for civilians, they should not be slautered, but as far as property goes, I don't see a problem with destroying it.

Pinckney

 

[K Hale]

Somehow Sherman never gets credit for being more effective in carrying out the Confederacy's orders on that point than Shelby and Wheeler combined.

It's an amazing world.

Hampton was also helpful in getting the party started in Columbia.

 

[johan_steele]

-War is sweet to those who have never experienced it. Erasmus IMO he was talking of armchair generals.

...before these weapons of the Gods you must have seen how the proudest palaces and the loftiest trees fall and perish. Herodotus IMO he wasn't talking about gentle war.

 

[OpnOlympic]

Total War

I think the closest, Regular Union forces came to waging total war was Sherman's campaign through SC(and it was still not 'total' in 20th or 23st century terms).
Sherman trembled at the thought of the fate, in store for that state, from his army.
As Bruce Catton noted the Army had '..it in' for that state and would take matters in their own hands, no matter thoughts of their leaders.
In Ga. few homes were burnt, in SC, few escaped.

P.S. even then the destruction was only along the armys track, not statewide.