Sherman Wm. T. Sherman on "our enemies"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still thinking that shooting at boats didn't tick Sherman off? :O o:

As I said before, "Wilber, that ain't what ticked off Sherman. He thought because he occupied an area, all should bow to his power." All that occurred in the fall of 1862 and Sherman was in charge of the security of the river traffic. He insisted that the Mississippi must be open for traffic even though the war had only been going on a little over a year. He's talking like he'd already won it. I don't see him writing blustery messages to the Vicksburg defenders demanding they quit firing on boats or of any Union attempts to run transport ships by it.

HEADQUARTERS TRANS-MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT,
Little Rock, Ark., October 11, 1862.
Major General SAMUEL R. CURTIS,
Commanding, &c., U. S. Army:
GENERAL: It is understood that you have been assigned to the command of the Federal forces in Missouri and Arkansas. I have been placed in command of the Confederate troops in the same States, as well as in the Indian Territory, Texas, and that part of Louisiana west of the Mississippi River. The high duties devolved on us respectively make it proper that there should be a well-defined understanding between us as to the manner of carrying on hostilities where any doubts or differences of opinion exist. Ordinarily when civilized and Christian nations are the belligerents no special settlements of any rules of warfare would seem requisite. It is, however, one of the strange incidents of this most anomalous contest that in the interests of humanity some such arrangement ought to be entered into. This is not said to give offense. I hope to saw what needs to be said in my communication to you in words that will not be offensive and in a temper worthy of the subject. I protest to you that I desire nothing more sincerely than that in all respects this war shall be relieved of whatever tends to make it barbarous. I trust to be met by a similar disposition on your part.

Certain positions assumed and acts committed by commanding officers of Federal troops, if persisted in, must not only aggravate the evils inseparable from a state of war, but deprive it of every feature that mitigates those evils. It is insisted that persons not in uniform who may commit acts of hostility against the United States and are captured when operating singly or in small bodies will not be treated as prisoners of war, but as "guerrillas," and if found within the Federal lines "as spies." This ground is taken both by Major-General Sherman and Brigadier-General Totten in their letters to Major-General Hindman, copies of which are inclosed.* It is declared by your President in his late proclamation that the "Government of the United States," including the military and naval authorities thereof, will do no act or acts to repress "slaves in 'rebel States'" in any efforts they may make for actual freedom. With the evident purpose to enable slaves to make such "efforts" arms have been furnished them by Federal officers in Eastern Arkansas.

Looking at these matters as calmly as the facts will admit of, I can see but one result of the course which the Federal Government and its officers are thus adopting. That result is-a war of extermination. Such a war is declared against us when the privileges of prisoners of war are denied our people not in uniform and when the same discrimination is made against them when operating singly or in small bodies. We cannot be expected to allow our enemies to decide for us whether we shall fight them in masses or individually, in uniform, without, uniform, openly or from ambush. Our forefathers and yours conceded no such right to the British in the first Revolution, and we cannot concede it to you in this. If you go to the extreme which the British threatened, of putting our men to death for refusing to conform to your notions, we shall be driven, as Washington avowed that he would be, to retaliate man for man. The war of extermination thus declared against the men of the South is infinitely more such a war when extended to the women and children of the South. The proclamation of your President apparently contemplates, and the act of your officers in putting arms in the hands of slaves seems to provide for, even that extremity. It cannot in such a situation be expected that we will remain passive, quietly acquiescing in a war of extermination against us, without waging a similar war in return. But all the instincts of our nature, the lessons of our education, and the teachings of our religion are against an alternative so truly horrible. I conjure you not to force it upon us. The shedding of innocent blood, the outrage upon helpless women and children, the utter ruin of society that such a war must produce will render its authors eternally infamous and ought to call down the blighting vengeance of Heaven upon them.

I am resolved that such infamy shall not justly attach to me. I am resolved that such infamy shall not justly attach to me. My Government is determined that no such stain shall be put upon it. Nevertheless, protecting against the necessity, the issue will be met as sternly as it is tendered if the doctrines and practices which I have referred to are not disavowed. Hoping such disavowal may be made by you, I have at the same time ordered all Federal prisoners in my hands into close confinement to await your answer to this letter. That answer will decide their fate and fix the character of the war so far as we are concerned. I send this letter under a flag of truce to Brigadier-General Steele at Helena, of whom I beg the courtesy to forward it to you. Please send your answer through him also.
I am, general, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

THE. H. HOLMES,
 
The takeaway I get from this book is that the Brits weren't the evil guys I grew up reading about. There was more in common between loyalists and rebels than sectional differences prior to the CW, and gasp, the King had a right to expect the Colonies to help pay for their protection by the imposition of modest taxes.

It has always amazed me how rabid Americans were/are about taxes. To this day, nothing gets them more excited. :O o:
 
It's always fun to watch people make flaccid analogies out of false equivalencies.....very compelling stuff.
 
The takeaway I get from this book is that the Brits weren't the evil guys I grew up reading about. There was more in common between loyalists and rebels than sectional differences prior to the CW, and gasp, the King had a right to expect the Colonies to help pay for their protection by the imposition of modest taxes. The Mass. Puritan stock was extremely independent, considering themselves so since the Pilgrim landing. And get this, Bostonians were very worried about slave revolts in the city as the British withdrew. Sound familiar?

You've probably noticed the number of foreigners on this board that are sympathetic to the South of 1861. Maybe they read and sense history differently than we are taught, but hey, the US won the war and determined how it's history was written.

As with many things, it wasn't so much the paying of taxes as in how it was asked. Pretty much from the establishment of the colonies, they were mostly autonomous, allowed to govern and tax themselves with only a little oversight from a royal governor. There were some fights but the colonies generally won because they owned the purse strings for the governor and so could challenge him on issues that they deemed important. All that changed after the Seven Years' War. Parliament began to see the colonies as strategic assets and wanted to take a more active role in their rule. They started decreeing what the colonies could do and overruled any objections by calling the colonists provincials who couldn't rule themselves. Understandably, this upset many in the colonies, which had been ruling themselves for decades if not more than 100 years. If Parliament had not looked down their noses at the colonists and invited their input in taxation and laws they would not have had a rebellion on their hands.

R
 
I'm on the farm this so limited by my iphone. On this I say you should know better, Wilber. I'm reading the new book 'Boston' by the author of 'Mayflower'. The Revolutionary War period was my fav as a kid and it's good to get back to it after seeing all the sectional bias **** associated with Civil War discussions. The detailed narrative of the British retreat from Concord are particularly brutal. Yes, shooting from behind walls, trees and buildings that you call cowardly. Even mutilation of redcoats by men we all call heroes. I guess that's why history is written by the victors, but you should at least try to be consistent.

Anyway, I'm trying to take care of things back here on the old family place. Things are a mess because I live several hundred miles away and can't get here often. I'd love to show you the swamps, bayous and magnificent Cypress sloughs. It's hot and there are lots of bugs so it's slow going but it gives me a chance to connect and reflect which to me is all worth it.
Consistent? I have been we are talking about the 1860's when both sides had regular field armies, and irregualars were called bushwackers and frowned upon. These men weren't considered heroes and even the Confederate high command didn't have a lot of use of them.But, going back to the Rev War, the colonists and Boston, they didn't have a standing army to face the British, and its was civilians shooting at them from Concord..Even then, it was looked down upon and no mercy was given to colonists they found firing that way..

I bet your land is beautiful, be careful around the swamps.. Thanks for the offer but this Yankee would probably melt in the heat and humidity...Around here we are used to going out in shorts when the temps hit 30 lol
 
Wilber, I confess that I'm slightly confused. The letters you posted referring to guerillas were penned in Oct. '62. The OP contained a Dec. '63 quote with Sherman expressing a desire to slay millions to clear the Mississippi. Hadn't the big river been flowing unvexed to the sea for six months by then? Was he just stir crazy in winter quarters or what?

The firing and sniping was still ongoing, I posted these letters to show how he felt about men shooting from the river banks at ships many carrying civilians and non-war related goods..
 
The firing and sniping was still ongoing, I posted these letters to show how he felt about men shooting from the river banks at ships many carrying civilians and non-war related goods..

What I see is Sherman trying to maintain order in a war zone under impossible circumstances. Those circumstances were forced on him by the enemy and his superiors in Washington. The Union wanted to keep the river open for trade, etc., as if it was business as usual but the Confederates were still active and sending transports up and down the river with civilians(merchants, profiteers, etc.) was asking for it. While going through the OR's, I noticed Southern citizens were purposely dispersed among the boats to place them under fire. As Mosby said, he'd fire on a train even if they put his mother on it. Was Mosby a coward? General Grant didn't think so.

I couldn't find the Hindman and Holmes letters sent to Sherman or Curtis on September 24th and 26th in the OR's, I only saw that Sherman mentioned them in his correspondence. I think they may be enlightening if found. I've already spent more time than I should've looking for them but they aren't in the place they ought to be. If you find the time, see if you can find them, please.
 
As with many things, it wasn't so much the paying of taxes as in how it was asked. Pretty much from the establishment of the colonies, they were mostly autonomous, allowed to govern and tax themselves with only a little oversight from a royal governor. There were some fights but the colonies generally won because they owned the purse strings for the governor and so could challenge him on issues that they deemed important. All that changed after the Seven Years' War. Parliament began to see the colonies as strategic assets and wanted to take a more active role in their rule. They started decreeing what the colonies could do and overruled any objections by calling the colonists provincials who couldn't rule themselves. Understandably, this upset many in the colonies, which had been ruling themselves for decades if not more than 100 years. If Parliament had not looked down their noses at the colonists and invited their input in taxation and laws they would not have had a rebellion on their hands.

R

Certainly nobody likes to pay taxes but I say in most cases you get what you pay for. People here in Louisiana have historically depended on either the French or Spanish - early days - to take care of them down to the later days of Huey Long - Edwin Edwards populism, which continues to this day. The state is expected to run things with very little burden from average citizens. Taxes are expected to be borne from the "rich" or greedy industry. If you like bad schools and bad roads that's fine, the food is good and the LSU Tigers are winning, so it's all good. That mindset has been here since the beginning and I see similarities with the Colonies. Yes they wanted to maintain their perceived independence but they still wanted the benefits and protection of English alliance without paying for it.
 
It's always fun to watch people make flaccid analogies out of false equivalencies.....very compelling stuff.
I'm glad you enjoyed it RR. I'll follow your deep thoughts more closely for enlightenment. The point of course was that words are just that, whether from a companion thread on Jeff Davis, a current one on Ms Deen or this one on Sherman. The responses are all predictable depending on the filter we read/hear them through. It's selective outrage, as is much of the discussion on this board. The ball has not been advanced one inch.
 
Certainly nobody likes to pay taxes but I say in most cases you get what you pay for. People here in Louisiana have historically depended on either the French or Spanish - early days - to take care of them down to the later days of Huey Long - Edwin Edwards populism, which continues to this day. The state is expected to run things with very little burden from average citizens. Taxes are expected to be borne from the "rich" or greedy industry. If you like bad schools and bad roads that's fine, the food is good and the LSU Tigers are winning, so it's all good. That mindset has been here since the beginning and I see similarities with the Colonies. Yes they wanted to maintain their perceived independence but they still wanted the benefits and protection of English alliance without paying for it.

As I said, it wasn't that they didn't want to pay taxes; the colonists wanted a say in on what and how they were taxed. If Parliament had gone to the colonies and asked them to raise X amount of money to support your defense, there would have been some b****ing and moaning but they probably would have gone along with it after some negotiation. Instead, Parliament called them ignorant provincials and haughtily declared what was going to happen. Frankly, it was a fight that didn't need to be had but for Parliament's arrogance.

R
 
I'm glad you enjoyed it RR. I'll follow your deep thoughts more closely for enlightenment. The point of course was that words are just that, whether from a companion thread on Jeff Davis, a current one on Ms Deen or this one on Sherman. The responses are all predictable depending on the filter we read/hear them through. It's selective outrage, as is much of the discussion on this board. The ball has not been advanced one inch.


Thank you for the clarification, I get it now; I don't know why I didn't see it before. It seems that Paula Deen is another tragic casualty of the ongoing culture war. The unfortunate victim of a misogynist conspiracy to destroy the credibility of a successful southern white woman. The crucifixion of Paula Deen has absolutely nothing to do with business decisions based on demographics and arithmetic.

As Moderator jgoodguy. This post is off topic for this thread. Please post to Paula Dean Fired for discussions of that.
 
Thank you for the clarification, I get it now; I don't know why I didn't see it before. It seems that Paula Deen is another tragic casualty of the ongoing culture war. The unfortunate victim of a misogynist conspiracy to destroy the credibility of a successful southern white woman. The crucifixion of Paula Deen has absolutely nothing to do with business decisions based on demographics and arithmetic.

As moderator: We have a wonderful thread about Paula Dean: Paula Dean Fired. Please post there.
This is Off topic for this thread.
 
Is that the only post about Shermans atrocities in North Carolina that you can think of? How many times have you posted that? Twenty plus? Oh and by the way, did Sherman order this, or was this actually against his written orders?

Whether Sherman ordered the Wadesboro atrocity or not, the question arises what action did he take against the perpetrators if any? I’m not aware of Sherman taking any action against them -- are you? The only input that I seen here was whining about retaliatory action taken by the Home Guard and Confederate cavalry against Sherman’s men and especially those from Kilpatrick’s command in neighboring Richmond County a few days later.

"They left no living thing in Smithville [North Carolina] save the people. One old hen played sick and thus saved her neck, but lost all her children. The Yankees would run all over the yard to catch the little things to squeeze to death. Every nook and corner of the premises was searched and the things that they didn't use were burned or torn into strings. No house but the blacksmith shop was burned but they threw every tool, plow, etc. that was on the place....Gen. Slocum and two other hyenas of his rank rode up and introduced themselves with great pomp....Sis Susan was sick in bed and they searched the very pillows she was lying on, keeping up such a noise, tearing up and breaking to pieces, that the Generals couldn’t hear themselves talk, but not a time did they try to prevent it. They got all of my stockings and some of our collars and handkerchiefs. If I ever see a Yankee woman, I intend to whip her and take the clothes of her back."
Janie Smith







 



 
 
 
Whether Sherman ordered the Wadesboro atrocity or not, the question arises what action did he take against the perpetrators if any? I’m not aware of Sherman taking any action against them -- are you? The only input that I seen here was whining about retaliatory action taken by the Home Guard and Confederate cavalry against Sherman’s men and especially those from Kilpatrick’s command in neighboring Richmond County a few days later.

"They left no living thing in Smithville [North Carolina] save the people. One old hen played sick and thus saved her neck, but lost all her children. The Yankees would run all over the yard to catch the little things to squeeze to death. Every nook and corner of the premises was searched and the things that they didn't use were burned or torn into strings. No house but the blacksmith shop was burned but they threw every tool, plow, etc. that was on the place....Gen. Slocum and two other hyenas of his rank rode up and introduced themselves with great pomp....Sis Susan was sick in bed and they searched the very pillows she was lying on, keeping up such a noise, tearing up and breaking to pieces, that the Generals couldn’t hear themselves talk, but not a time did they try to prevent it. They got all of my stockings and some of our collars and handkerchiefs. If I ever see a Yankee woman, I intend to whip her and take the clothes of her back."
Janie Smith







 



 
 
Did he even know about the incident?
 
As moderator: We have a wonderful thread about Paula Dean: Paula Dean Fired. Please post there.
This is Off topic for this thread.


My apologies for posting inappropriately. Some very interesting speculation and historic parallels being drawn here. Begs the question: What if Sherman had written a cook book? How might this have changed the outcome of the Civil War?
 
My apologies for posting inappropriately. Some very interesting speculation and historic parallels being drawn here. Begs the question: What if Sherman had written a cook book? How might this have changed the outcome of the Civil War?


I'd much rather the American Civil War had been decided by a cook off. I wonder how Lee was with a skillet.
 
I'd much rather the American Civil War had been decided by a cook off. I wonder how Lee was with a skillet.


If Lee had watched Paula Deen he would certainly know how to use a frying pan. The possible historic scenarios on this one are endless.
 
My apologies for posting inappropriately. Some very interesting speculation and historic parallels being drawn here. Begs the question: What if Sherman had written a cook book? How might this have changed the outcome of the Civil War?
Any Sherman cookbook would of necessity include a section of Flambe' recipes! His little buddy Hiram could supply the hooch, if there was any left over. :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top