Sherman's March (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Drex -> Sherman's March (3/31/2007 6:15:01 AM)

History Channel has a documentary called Sherman's march coming in April. Butcher or hero?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Sherman's March (3/31/2007 8:05:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

History Channel has a documentary called Sherman's march coming in April. Butcher or hero?



REALIST...



Drex -> RE: Sherman's March (3/31/2007 6:20:08 PM)

I guess it depends on where you were born.



CSL -> RE: Sherman's March (4/1/2007 8:40:09 AM)

All generals in war are butchers. But he was ahead of his time in regards to thinking about total war.



Alan_Bernardo -> RE: Sherman's March (4/2/2007 2:12:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

History Channel has a documentary called Sherman's march coming in April. Butcher or hero?



Sherman was one of many possible things-- a butchered hero, a hero, butchered, a butchering hero, a heroic butcherer, a butcher who was a hero, or a heroic butchering, butchered hero who was butchered heroically by a bunch of heroes with butchers.

You'd think the History Channel could come up with something original.


Alan



Drex -> RE: Sherman's March (4/2/2007 3:26:05 AM)

I wasn't quoting the History Channel verbatim but butcher was in it. Anyhow I'm glad someone is doing a documentary on it. Don't think I;ve seen one doen cept for Burn's segment on it.



General Quarters -> RE: Sherman's March (4/2/2007 2:43:22 PM)

My own view is that Sherman went to "total war" just as the South was already on its last legs. So the more brutal aspects of the march were unnecessary and therefore unjustified. The devastation caused bitterness that lasted for generations and made healing the wounds of the war much more difficult.



Drex -> RE: Sherman's March (4/2/2007 6:16:05 PM)

I remember as a kid having square dance classes and one of the songs was "Marching through Georgia", still being sung after a hundred years.



spruce -> RE: Sherman's March (4/2/2007 8:23:54 PM)

being European, I think it's nice that documentary makers are trying to give an objective view on this historical fact. So having the view from both sides - and most interesting, Shermans own view on his "march".



sirduke_slith -> RE: Sherman's March (4/2/2007 11:59:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

My own view is that Sherman went to "total war" just as the South was already on its last legs. So the more brutal aspects of the march were unnecessary and therefore unjustified. The devastation caused bitterness that lasted for generations and made healing the wounds of the war much more difficult.


I really don't have a view, but to his defense the war had gone on long enough and total war was one of the ways it was able to finish off as fast as it did. Grant was sick of war and wanted it over. i can see why he had to implement this total war.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Sherman's March (4/3/2007 3:35:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

My own view is that Sherman went to "total war" just as the South was already on its last legs. So the more brutal aspects of the march were unnecessary and therefore unjustified. The devastation caused bitterness that lasted for generations and made healing the wounds of the war much more difficult.



The South had already lost the war militarily by the Summer of 1864..., it was simply holding on (and condeming thousands more men of both sides to death and injury) in hopes that Union "morale" might break. Sherman simply turned this view against the South with his devastation of the Confederate Economy during his "March". He was simply emphasizing the South's hopeless position in a very visable manner...., hoping to break Confederate "morale".



elcidce -> RE: Sherman's March (4/4/2007 3:46:20 PM)

Shermans lack of control over his troops or lack of concern for the civilian population was disgusting. He allowed by neglect or indifference the OPEN city of Columbia SC to be burned by uncontrolled looting troops. He should have been tried for that crime.



elcidce -> RE: Sherman's March (4/4/2007 3:46:20 PM)

dup.



elcidce -> RE: Sherman's March (4/4/2007 3:46:20 PM)

dup.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Sherman's March (4/4/2007 5:23:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elcidce

Shermans lack of control over his troops or lack of concern for the civilian population was disgusting. He allowed by neglect or indifference the OPEN city of Columbia SC to be burned by uncontrolled looting troops. He should have been tried for that crime.



Tell it to the citizens of Lawrence, Kansas. Stragglers and deserters and draft dogers on both sides wrecked havoc on the innocent. But if the South had accepted defeat when they were defeated instead of waiting to the "bitter end", the war would have been over in July of 1864. I also have no sympathy for the Japanese who died in the last year of the war denying the obvious and forcing further bloodshed.



elcidce -> RE: Sherman's March (4/6/2007 6:57:23 AM)

Sherman had reached the sea and turned north. He effectively gutted the Confederacy when he reached Sanannah. He turned north to Columbia for one reason only. To exact revenge on Columbia.

Columbia had surrendered to the Union army. The mayor met them at the river to surrender the city and declare it open. After the Union occupied it they began looting it and burned it to the ground. The Confederates were no longer resisting and no where to be found. Sherman should have been tried and made responsible for his incompetence/ indifference toward the civilian population. His armys actions in Columbia typify what we call today war crimes.



Joram -> RE: Sherman's March (4/6/2007 7:11:56 AM)

Sounds like your still a little sore it happened. [:D]



Drex -> RE: Sherman's March (4/6/2007 7:12:06 AM)

it hardly compares to what we call war crimes. I am not familiar with the Columbia outrage but I'm sure it did not involve the mass execution of civilians like what was perpetrated in WWII. Mass destruction of property while deplorable can still be replaced through reconstruction. Just my opinion.



tevans6220 -> RE: Sherman's March (4/6/2007 7:29:14 AM)

Things that would be considered war crimes today were committed by both sides. Sherman's men took revenge on Columbia but Forrest's men massacred prisoners at Fort Pillow. Almost everyone has heard of Andersonville but the North's Elmira prison was just as bad and the South's Libby prison was equal to both of them. Makes you wonder why they call it 'civil' war.



christof139 -> RE: Sherman's March (4/6/2007 1:12:49 PM)

Sherman wasn't a butcher but rather a burner, and at times he provided aid to the Southern civilians.

Chris



sirduke_slith -> RE: Sherman's March (4/7/2007 7:11:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elcidce

Sherman had reached the sea and turned north. He effectively gutted the Confederacy when he reached Sanannah. He turned north to Columbia for one reason only. To exact revenge on Columbia.

Columbia had surrendered to the Union army. The mayor met them at the river to surrender the city and declare it open. After the Union occupied it they began looting it and burned it to the ground. The Confederates were no longer resisting and no where to be found. Sherman should have been tried and made responsible for his incompetence/ indifference toward the civilian population. His armys actions in Columbia typify what we call today war crimes.

I believe that no person no matter the circumstance should be allowed to burn a city to the ground. But you have to consider that the war had dragged on for 4 long years and everyone wanted the war to end. He had no right to attack the civilian population of the south, this is a similar situation to the bombing of Japan during WWII. Both sides can find good arguments to if Sherman's March was unesassary brutality or a necessity to win the war much quicker. The answer will never be agreed upon no matter how much anyone argues about it.



Greyhunterlp -> RE: Sherman's March (4/7/2007 9:26:47 AM)

Its easy to look on it with hindsight, but think of it from Shermans point of view, could he 100% sure that the war was over? he could sit there and do nothing, or move to "total war" and make sure that the confedarecy broke. he could have done nothing and the war could have dragged on into '66 causing many more thousands of casualties. rember that up until his conquest of Atlanta, the war had stalemated, Sherman didn't want to see that happen again, so he made his march to the sea, did he use to much force? Not have enough control over his men? maybe, but he belived it was nessersary, so he did it.

This one one thing that only the none americans can really talk about in an unbiased matter, Its plain to see by elcidces posts that hes a southerner, maybe from one of the states that Sherman marched through. so of course he feels strongly about it, but people with strong views are incapible of seeing the other side, and if your an american, then (for the most part) you will have some feelings about it, even if their nearly subconcious.  It also seems to be quite high in the souths memories. for something that happened over a hundred years ago. but I think it kinda comes back to the quote "Americans Think 100 years is a long time, Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance"





christof139 -> RE: Sherman's March (4/7/2007 10:57:24 AM)

Sherman did not at first if ever deliberatly burn Atlanta, although the fire was caused by a few of his troops and possibly a few Atlanta citizens themselves that were out of hand. However, both the USA troops and Atlanta civilians worked together furiously to try and put out the blaze with no success. Atlanta in its entirety was never completely burned.

When Quantrel burned Lawrence, Kansas it was in retaliation for USA troops including Missourians and Kansan Jayhawkers under Jim Lane etc. burning the pro-CSA town of Osceola (?), Missouri.  However, prior to both of these events back to the 1850s, both the pro-slavery 'Border Ruffians' and anti-slavery 'Jayhawkers' and 'Free-Staters' had been burning each others' property for years, not to mention shooting and hanging each other, and who started it may be a mystery that will never be revealed.

Perhaps the best example of piratical behavior and graft during the ACW period is 'Beast' Butler and his brother and the mafia-like system of economic control they setup for themselves in New Orleans. Those two fellows really knew how to steal and wheel and deal!!! They even sold supplies to and traded with the Confeds. in western Louisiana and Mississippi. The ultimate crooks, and a bad example followed by the post-war Carpetbaggers.

Chris







christof139 -> RE: Sherman's March (4/7/2007 11:02:22 AM)

The other thing is this, 'Shoulda, woulda, coulda.' IOTW, what happened happened and you can't go back and change history, and you should also relaize that those things occur in all wars, if you haven't noticed yet!!

War is not a game. Terrible things occur, whether 'right or wrong or indifferent', and all sides commit atrocities of various sorts for various reasons or 'non-reasons'.

Chris




shenandoah -> RE: Sherman's March (4/9/2007 9:25:18 PM)

Sheridan began his march Nov 64 which makes his total war campaign the second. Sheridan was the first in Shenandoah Valley during Sept and Oct 64. They were both doing what Grant wanted them to do. Take the war to a new level. They could have done a lot worse to the civilian population, but they didn't.

Now what they did to the native tribes of the plains wars was much worse! They had no problem killing men, women and children. What they did during that time is what we know today as ethnic cleansing(nothing cleansing about it; civil war, nothing civil about it) or genocide. Maybe not genocide since they did let a lot of natives live(just never where they wanted to live). They should have been held accountable for their actions during the ACW and Plains Wars. But as what usually happens in these cases, when you are on the winning side... you get away with it.

I will watch the show on the history channel if I have the oppurtunity. I hope it is objective showing him from both sides as I will view it objectively. I have no ill feelings for Sherman or Sheridan(even though I am a Shenandoah Valley Virginian). They were men of their times and at war whereas I am a man of my times usually living in the present creating photographs and changing diapers and not at war, personally. Besides there are enough bad people in the present times to feel ill about.

Shenandoah



shenandoah -> RE: Sherman's March (4/9/2007 9:26:44 PM)

Sorry, correction.  Sherman began his march to the sea Nov 64.



Drex -> RE: Sherman's March (4/9/2007 11:07:03 PM)

you must be a Sheridan fan. :)



christof139 -> RE: Sherman's March (4/10/2007 10:42:18 AM)

quote:

Sheridan began his march Nov 64 which makes his total war campaign the second. Sheridan was the first in Shenandoah Valley during Sept and Oct 64. They were both doing what Grant wanted them to do. Take the war to a new level. They could have done a lot worse to the civilian population, but they didn't.

Now what they did to the native tribes of the plains wars was much worse! They had no problem killing men, women and children. What they did during that time is what we know today as ethnic cleansing(nothing cleansing about it; civil war, nothing civil about it) or genocide. Maybe not genocide since they did let a lot of natives live(just never where they wanted to live). They should have been held accountable for their actions during the ACW and Plains Wars. But as what usually happens in these cases, when you are on the winning side... you get away with it.

I will watch the show on the history channel if I have the oppurtunity. I hope it is objective showing him from both sides as I will view it objectively. I have no ill feelings for Sherman or Sheridan(even though I am a Shenandoah Valley Virginian). They were men of their times and at war whereas I am a man of my times usually living in the present creating photographs and changing diapers and not at war, personally. Besides there are enough bad people in the present times to feel ill about.

Shenandoah


Hunter burned the Valley very bad before Sheridan did and before Sherman began his march through the Deep South. Hunter devastated the Valley, but it was mainly the Upper Valley area. Hunter may have been the first to do this on a large and protracted scale in the ACW.

Books on the subject: 1) Lee's Endangered Left, the Civil War in Western Virginia Spring of 1864, by R.R. Dugan; 2) Season of Fire, the Confederate Strike on Washington, by J. Judge; 3) Storm in the Mountains, Thomas' Confederate Legion of Cherokee Indians and Mountaineers, by V.H. Crow. 4) Various Civil War Times magazines, a good number from the 1960's.

Chris




shenandoah -> RE: Sherman's March (4/10/2007 10:49:25 PM)

That is correct. Hunter did do a lot of burning in the Valley during May and June 64. But it was selective burning not "total war". Hunter burned here and there but left many farms, barn, mills, etc alone. One story is that as Hunter approached Harrisonburg and hearing he was doing some burning, the towns people loaded many court records into a wagon and sent it south. Hunter's men caught up with the wagon and burned it. But big, thick books do not burn well and the records remained mostly intact(these books are located in the Rockingham County Clerk's office know as the "Burnt Records".) However, the records that were left behind survived also. Because Hunter did not burn the courthouse, even though everyone thought he would. Now when Hunter came to Lexington, that is a different story. He burned and pillaged VMI(because of the cadets participating in the battle of New Market), Washington College, Gov Lechter's house and many town homes. One note, he did leave Stonewall's home alone. He did burn a lot just not "total war". More like "20% maybe 30% total war".

Sheridan's "total war" was more devastating. He began his burning of the lower Shenandoah in August and then continued the burning starting in Oct around Harrisonburg and then worked his way back down the Valley. One of Sheridan's staff, Lt Meigs was killed by some Confed. cavalry. Sheridan heard that it was civilians that killed him. He began to burn every house within a 5 mile radius of where Meigs was killed. The town of Dayton was within the boundry and was about to be burned but one of the men that was with Meigs was captured and paroled told Sheridan that it was cavalry that killed Meigs. Sheridan did not burn Dayton. And then there is the one mill he did not burn in Edinburg(between Mt. Jackson and Woodstock) after the towns ladies beg him not to burn it or they would all starve from the oncoming winter. Sheridan's total war is more like 90% - 95% total war. But he was a good general. He saved the army at Cedar Creek from almost certain defeat.

Now Sheridan's war against the tribes of the plains in late 60s and 70s was a total war. Men, women and children were all enemies and were killed as such. War against two armies (brother against brother) is one thing. War against people who were just defending their way of life(not to be confused with states' rights) and land that was supposed to be legally theirs through treaties is something else. As an american, this was a very shameful period. Government sanctioned ethnic cleansing and genocide. ACW lasted 4 years. The native wars lasted 300 years. Since this all about bad people, I will add Custer's name this also. He is guilty of a lot more.

Shenandoah



christof139 -> RE: Sherman's March (4/11/2007 1:20:48 PM)

quote:

That is correct. Hunter did do a lot of burning in the Valley during May and June 64. But it was selective burning not "total war". Hunter burned here and there but left many farms, barn, mills, etc alone. One story is that as Hunter approached Harrisonburg and hearing he was doing some burning, the towns people loaded many court records into a wagon and sent it south. Hunter's men caught up with the wagon and burned it. But big, thick books do not burn well and the records remained mostly intact(these books are located in the Rockingham County Clerk's office know as the "Burnt Records".) However, the records that were left behind survived also. Because Hunter did not burn the courthouse, even though everyone thought he would. Now when Hunter came to Lexington, that is a different story. He burned and pillaged VMI(because of the cadets participating in the battle of New Market), Washington College, Gov Lechter's house and many town homes. One note, he did leave Stonewall's home alone. He did burn a lot just not "total war". More like "20% maybe 30% total war".


'Selective burning!??!' You haven't read much of the accounts of Hunter's burning, it was total war and homes were also burnt along with barns, mills, shops, forges, blacksnith's shops, even a few churches I do believe etc.

Some homes that were ordered to be burnt by Hunter weren't because the USA troops refused to burn them down.

Hunter was near obsessed, perhaps actually a bit mad, in his desire to save the Union and inflict harm upon the Secessionists in any way he could. he ordered the destruction with a near mad or zeal.

When Early's troops drove up the Valley through the areas that Hunter devaststaed they were shocked, saddened, and enraged, and many Union troops were equally displeased with Hunter's wanton destruction that did indeed include homes of known Secessionists etc.

***Neither Sherman nor Sheridan ever ordered the wholesale burning of every home or town they passed, and neither did Hunter, but Hunter almost did. All three of them were practicing total war. IMHO, Sheridan and Sherman were more humane than Hunter and Hunter was simply nuts IMHO.***

Yes, I know of Sheridan and Sherman and the havoc they wreaked on the Plains Indians, and the phrase 'The only good Indian is a dead one.', that either Sheridan or Sherman said.

Chris



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.046875