# US Civil War-some thoughts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2001, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430 "2001-07-13T23:28:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2001, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/41 "2001-07-18T18:18:46Z")
**ITR Champion** wrote: > [@](#): > > [Sherman]was very specific in his orders to his troops. He told them to not enter civilian homes and to not harm civilians. Sherman: “Now boys, don’t harm the civilians!” _wink_wink\* Sherman failed utterly to enforce his field orders (which were pretty clearly just window dressing). His troops took the lack of enforcement as a licence to pillage and plunder. Exactly Sherman’s intent, in my view. For an even-handed, scholarly look at Sherman’s march, try [http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/robisch.htmlthis](http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/robisch.htmlthis) link. Conclusion: Sherman would be a war criminal by today’s standards. The revisionist link you provided earlier lacks credibility. The author is trying to turn a buck. Rehabilitating Sherman is more controversial (and therefore a better revenue-generator) than writing a book or giving a lecture that confirms the vicious (or at least callous) nature of the man. By the way, have you ever studied Sherman’s post-war career in Indian affairs? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2001, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/42 "2001-07-18T20:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > > * * * > > For an even-handed, scholarly look at Sherman’s march, try [http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/robisch.htmlthis](http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/robisch.htmlthis) link. Conclusion: Sherman would be a war criminal by today’s standards.\*\* Well, or at least that some of General Sherman’s tactics would violate currently accepted international law. While I agree with the paper, there’s a part of me that says, “Well, yeah…” It would be anachronistic to expect him to do so. Those standards had not yet evolved. You’ll notice that the paper argues that, of the military standards at the time, the only one he violated was the shelling of Atlanta and Macon without advance warning. The other thing to note is that that essay looks at Gen. Sherman’s actions from the standpoint of international law. In this case, this was an internal rebellion…only one nation was involved. I’m not enough of a military lawyer to know how that changes the conduct of war. Another thing to keep in mind about the actions of Sherman’s army during the march to the sea, which, if it doesn’t mitigate them, at least is explanatory, is the attitude of his soldiers at the time. They were alone, in enemy territory, in the middle of a war that had been going on for three years. Also, it was hard for the average soldier to hate his counterpart in the confederate army. He was fighting out of a misguided sense of duty, honor, or patriotism, and for the most part didn’t have very much economic or political power. The average rebel soldier wasn’t “blamed” for the rebellion. It was different in Georgia. The residents, especially on the plantations, where the army’s hand fell most heavily, were seen in a different light. They were the ones who, though their greed, their selfishness, their stupidity, led the state to secede, led the state to rebellion. They were responsible for all the deaths, on both sides, of the conflict. Yet, they had up to that point, escaped unscathed. They had chosen treason and rebellion…fine, let them see the price of it. Let them see the results of their folly. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/43 "2001-07-18T21:14:05Z")
**Captain Amazing** wrote: > [@](#): > > You’ll notice that the paper argues that, of the military standards at the time, the only one he violated was the shelling of Atlanta and Macon without advance warning. Which is a pretty egregious violation, wouldn’t you say? Shelling civilians with no warning? Besides which, that makes the guy a war criminal (albeit an unindicted one) even in his own time and according to the standards then in place. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/44 "2001-07-18T22:24:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*Which is a pretty egregious violation, wouldn’t you say? Shelling civilians with no warning? Besides which, that makes the guy a war criminal (albeit an unindicted one) even in his own time and according to the standards then in place. \*\* Well, no it doesn’t, though. If you read the footnote, it gives the text of Article 19 of the Lieber Code > [@](#): > > [C]ommanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that noncombatants and especially the women and children, may be removed before bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity. The code section there states that while a commander should inform the enemy, he does not violate the rules of war if he does not. His shelling was certainly discourteous, but not criminal under the standards accepted at the time. Further, the shelling of Macon was done, not by the main body of the army, but by a cavalry unit. Sherman himself may not have given the order. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/45 "2001-07-19T00:20:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **GREAT BIG TREMENDOUS EARTHSHATTERING SIGH** _ Can you produce any quote from anything I have ever written which could reasonably be interpreted that way? I have never in my adult life insisted that there was only one cause of the war, nor have I ever insisted that the Union was fighting for one cause and one cause only. On the contrary, I have frequently argued against dullards, bigots and fools who insist that the Civil War was only about slavery. Well, in just what sense do you mean that the Civil War _wasn’t_ only about slavery? The South seceded to preserve slavery. The North refused to accept the secession, not because the North (at that stage in the war) was on a holy crusade to eradicate slavery, but because the North wanted to preserve the Union. So, in that sense, the war wasn’t “only” about slavery; the issue of national sovereignty also got mixed in. Nonetheless, the South seceded to defend slavery. The secession precipitated the war. There were other irritants–tariffs and what-not–but slavery was the overriding and fundamental factor. And, while the North may not have been “abolitionist”, it was “anti-slavery”, to the extent of electing an “anti-slavery” party to the Presidency. So, the Civil War was “about” slavery _and_ union, but the cause of the Civil War was slavery. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/46 "2001-07-19T01:11:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Now wait just a minute. First you accuse me of oversimplifying, then you turn around and insist that the Civil War was due to a single cause. \*\* Did I insist that the Civil War was due to a single cause? Nope. I said the exact opposite. Here are my exact words: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by ITR Champion_ > **Some Union soldiers wanted to preserve the country, others wanted to end slavery, others fought because they got paid to do so.** Of course, **you** insist that **I** am trying to misrepresent your positions. Are you familiar with the words pot, kettle, and black? > [@](#): > > **Anyone dumb enough to believe that Sherman didn’t burn Atlanta obviously has no respect for facts in the first place.** Did I say that I believe that Sherman didn’t burn Atlanta. Nope. Here’s what actually happened: General Hood, before abandoning the city, burned many building which he thought would be useful to the Union troops. Sherman, before leaving Atlanta, burned more buildings as part of his policy of destroying industry and commerce in the South. Confederate apologists, however, often seem unwilling to admit that Hood was in any way responsible for any of the destruction that took place. They are the revisionists. > [@](#): > > \*_Sherman: “Now boys, don’t harm the civilians!” winkwink_ > > Sherman failed utterly to enforce his field orders (which were pretty clearly just window dressing). His troops took the lack of enforcement as a licence to pillage and plunder. Exactly Sherman’s intent, in my view. \*\* You’ve obviously managed to convince yourself of this view, but you haven’t presented any solid evidence. You’ve given us some very brief quotes, not presented in their proper context. And needless to say, we still don’t have any evidence that there was widespread “pillaging” or “plundering”. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to suggest that Sherman could have just snapped his fingers and made every single one of his 60,000 troops obey his every word. A gigantic army on the march in hostile territory has never been an easy thing to control. > [@](#): > > **The revisionist link you provided earlier lacks credibility. The author is trying to turn a buck.** The link was to a copy of a presentation; there’s no reason to believe that he was paid for it. The author’s academic credentials are sound. The piece is well-written, and his claims are supported by quotes from a Southern civilian who saw the events firsthand. It seems that you are labeling him as a “revisionist” because he doesn’t say what you want to hear. On his homepage, you’ll note that some of his writings on the Civil War are now used by the U.S. Military Academy. That’s an impressive achievement for a “revisionist”. > [@](#): > > **By the way, have you ever studied Sherman’s post-war career in Indian affairs?** Briefly. However, I somehow came under the impression that this thread was about the Civil War. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/47 "2001-07-19T04:43:38Z")
OK, Friends. Lets go through this slowly. Does any one think that Sherman did not burn Atlanta, or a fair part of it in November 1864? Does any one think that Hood did not burn a fair part of Atlanta in August-September 1864? Does anyone think that Sherman did not compel the evacuation of Atlanta’s remaining civilian population following the Union occupation of the city in September 1864? Does any one think that in passing through the middle of Georgia in November and December 1864, Sherman did not cripple the economy of the region as well as feed his army? Any thinking and reasonably informed person must answer that each of those questions reflect events that did happen. As a result of events in those two months Georgia was effectively taken out of the war. It was done with a great deal of destruction that was not strictly necessary to provision the Union army and was not restricted to the destruction of Confederate government property. This does not make Sherman a good man or a bad man. It does make him a very good Mid-nineteenth Century general operating within the generally accepted standards of the time. It is simply intellectually dishonest to project on the participants of a civil war in 1864, the “rules” formulated for the conduct of international warfare in the 20th Century. As far as the bombardment of a city is concerned, Atlanta was a fortified post, occupied by the Confederate army in trench lines to which it had withdrawn after it was flanked out of its defensive lines along the Chatthoochee River. The rules about bombardment, as I remember them, deal with shelling (and later with aerial bombing) of unoccupied population centers. Hood’s/Johnston’s whole army was holed up in Atlanta. An argument that under these circumstances Atlanta was immune from attach is hardly rational. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/48 "2001-07-19T19:56:53Z")
From the **Lieber Code** : > [@](#): > > Art. 23. **Private citizens are no longer** murdered, enslaved, or **carried off to distant parts** , and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. > > (my emphasis) Sherman’s order concerning the Roswell women: > [@](#): > > Arrest all people, male and female connected with these factories, no matter what the clamor, and let them foot it, under guard, to Marietta, then I will send them by (railroad) cars to the North. And thus were the women of Roswell “carried off to distant parts.” As for the surprise shelling of the civilian populations of Atlanta and Macon, I cite the following from the [Robisch article](http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall95/robisch.html): > [@](#): > > With regard to the Union cavalry’s shelling of Macon and the federal army’s general bombardment of Atlanta, both of which were undertaken without advance notice to the inhabitants of those places, Sherman’s actions are questionable under both present international law and General Order No. 100 [the Lieber Code], the standard applicable at that time. The author goes on to note that because the shelling was not part of an assault, it did not fall within the “necessary surprise” exception of Article 19 of the Lieber Code. (Why would there be any need for surprise, unless the shelling were a precursor to an assault?) **ITR champion** wrote (regarding his revisionist source): > [@](#): > > The link was to a copy of a presentation; there’s no reason to believe that he was paid for it. Are you being purposely obtuse? The guy was promoting a book with the same thesis as that presented in his lectures. You do understand the connection between book sales and income? I note with interest that the author resides in Ohio, Sherman’s home state. Hmmm… **ITR champion** also wrote: > [@](#): > > And needless to say, we still don’t have any evidence that there was widespread “pillaging” or “plundering” Read the Robisch article again, and you’ll see an exmple of Sherman observing a looter in action and taking no disciplinary action against him (other than a “now you really shouldn’t do that” lecture). Failure of enforcement, just as I said. Which, by the way, is another violation of the Lieber Code. > [@](#): > > Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. > > If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity. > > …Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, **all robbery, all pillage or sacking** , even after taking a place by > main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, **are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense**. > > A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior. > > …Art. 47. **Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as** arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, **theft, burglary** , fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, **are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred.** > > (my emphasis) But then, when are the generals of a victorious army ever punished for their war crimes? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/49 "2001-07-19T20:00:51Z")
ITR champion wrote: > [@](#): > > And needless to say, we still don’t have any evidence that there was widespread “pillaging” or “plundering” Again from the Robisch article: > [@](#): > > [A]rson and looting became so common that a biographer sympathetic to Sherman characterized the march as a month-long Halloween celebration. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2001, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/50 "2001-07-20T04:08:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*The guy was promoting a book with the same thesis as that presented in his lectures. You do understand the connection between book sales and income? I note with interest that the author resides in Ohio, Sherman’s home state. \*\* Ok, so everybody who writes a book or lives in Ohio is automatically a revisionist. :rolleyes: As for the discussion about war crimes, stop and think about it for awhile. Clearly, if such standards had been applied throughout the twentieth century, a huge number of military commanders from the United States and many other countries would have been indicted. We have killed many civilians on many occasions, without giving advanced warning, and without a military need for surprise. This entire thread has reached the point of absurdity. This is going to be my last post unless someone finds something meaningful to say. ---
**Author:** ![A\_Friend\_of\_the\_Devil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f0a364/32.png) [@A\_Friend\_of\_the\_Devil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_Friend_of_the_Devil)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2001, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/51 "2001-07-20T04:13:42Z")
[QUOTE 1. General Lee was not the Saint he appears to be in movies, novels and history books. \*\* His offensive battle tactics plans cost the army massive and irreplaceable casualties. \*\* Also after the war he was very bitter towards the North and not magnanimous as he is portrayed to be. He did not have to join the Confederacy but willfully became a traitor to the US. He also believed in slavery. [/QUOTE] Sorry to divert away from the Sherman discussion for a minute, but I’d like to offer a few comments on the line above. It can be seen that nearly every major engagement in the war resulted in “massive and irreplaceable” casualties. One root cause of this is that the Civil War came at a time when the very nature and technology of warfare was changing. The arms and technology outpaced the tactical ability of the leadership on both sides. This war saw the introduction of mass-produced firearms, interchangeable parts, self-contained metallic cartridges, repeating rifles, explosive shells, and many more innovations that most students of firearms history will remember. The battles were more lethal and involved more men than ever before. Another factor was that medical science HAD NOT advanced in any significant respect. IIRC, more soldiers were killed by disease and as a result of wounds than were killed outright on the battlefield. In effect, it was the first war fought with modern equipment, using outdated tactics. It would be unfair to criticize General Lee without also recognizing that nearly every other major military leader in the war also experienced appalling losses. With respect to General Sherman, it’s probable that a little of what has been said on both sides is true. My own take is that Uncle Billy was one of the few on either side who recognized that the nature of war was changing and tried to adapt to it. His later campaigns in the war had more of a strategic element to them than the immediate tactical one that most other generals pursued. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/52 "2001-07-20T05:25:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\* > …Art. 47. **Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as** arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, **theft, burglary** , fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, **are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred.** > > (my emphasis) \*\* [/QUOTE] A difficulty is that the Lieber code doesn’t exactly cover the situation. The code was designed to regulate American activity in fighting a war against a sovereign nation, not, as this was, a domestic insurrection. Tempers were much higher on both sides, and under circumstances like that, looting was inevitable, and in fact, it’s remarkable to me that the army was so restrained. Lt. Col. Charles Morse, with the 2nd Massachusetts Infantry, which was part of Sherman’s army, wrote (regarding the march through S. Carolina, that while he had given his men orders against looting, > [@](#): > > stragglers, wagon-men, and the various odds and ends that always accompany an army on the march pick up whatever they want or think they want, and scatter about and destroy > the rest, and by the time the last column 5 oor 6 miles long gets by, the house is entirely gutted; in 9 cases out of 10, > before night all that is left to show where the rich, aristocratic, chivalrous, slave-holding South Carolinian lived, is a heap of smoldering ashes. . . Pity for these inhabitants, I have none. They have rebelled against a > Government they have never felt; they lived down here like so many lords and princes; each planter was at the head of a > little aristocracy in which hardly a law touched him. This didn’t content these people; they wanted ‘their rights,’ and now they are getting them. It also seems a fair question to ask, if you were Gen. Sherman, what would you have done? Sherman’s goal was to destroy the infastructure of Georgia and South Carolina…if you know of some way to do that without causing the inhabitants to suffer, I’d like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2001, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/53 "2001-07-20T13:49:54Z")
**Captain Amazing** wrote: > [@](#): > > Sherman’s goal was to destroy the infastructure of Georgia and South Carolina…if you know of some way to do that without causing the inhabitants to suffer, I’d like to know. You could start by executing looters and rapists and making examples of them, just as the Lieber Code suggests. Sherman didn’t do that because he wanted to do more than just “destroy the infrastructure.” He wanted to terrorize the civilian population, just as his quotes cited earlier suggest. And in the absence of penalties for looting, his troops were left with the tacit understanding that they were expected to pillage. Destruction of infrastructure is a legitimate military goal. Terrorism is not. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2001, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/54 "2001-07-21T05:59:54Z")
spoke- If, as you suggest, nearly all Southern women who may have been raped weren’t going to come forth and admit it, it’d be kinda hard to enforce the anti-rape provision(s) of the Lieber Code, now wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Rossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@Rossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rossarian)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2001, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/55 "2001-07-21T08:00:52Z")
> [@](#): > > General Lee was not the Saint he appears to be in movies, novels and history books. His offensive battle tactics plans cost the army massive and irreplaceable casualties. I think this statement is a little flawed. A simple fact of war is that there will be casualties. And a simple fact of the Civil War was that the South could not rely on overwhelming manpower to bring victory. In many of Lee’s battles, the Union losses were higher or drastically higher than the Confederate losses. I don’t think Lee was perfect, but I don’t think the Army of Northern VA could have hoped for anything more. Another point is that Lee’s offensives were hurt less by his failures than by those minor events that mean so much in war. A lost set of plans blew the first invasion of the North, setting up the battle of Antietam, the bloodiest single day of the war. And in the second invasion, a small number of CSA troops went to Gettysburg to get shoes because they had none. They encountered Union troops, skirmishes started, more troops came in to reinforce, and Lee ended up having to fight a battle on ground that was not of his own choosing. Thus the turning point of the war. Times when Lee fought on the ground of his choosing like Cold Harbor turned out much better for his troops. Rossarian ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/56 "2001-07-22T21:45:36Z")
You will please excuse my absence from this post for the last few days. I have been fully occupied with marrying off my younger daughter. We may well have reached the point of futility in this post if not the point of absurdity. A few things have come up that do scream out for a response. Concerning the so called Roswell Women, a web search turns up some stuff about a guy named Sherman who seems to sell real estate in Roswell, Georgia, and a scattering of pretty hysterical pages that make some obvious historical errors and provide no citations to sources primary or secondary. Going to Albert Castel’s Decision in the West: the Atlanta Campaign of 1864 (U of Kansas Press, 1992), there is only the briefest reference to the incident. Castle says only that when Garrard’s cavalry captured Roswell it was too late to stop Wheeler’s Rebel cavalry from burning the bridge over the Chattahoochee but the Yankees did destroy textile mills there and take some 400 female mill workers into custody. Castel goes on: “…Sherman, on being advised of the presence of these females, has them sent to Marietta, where they are quartered in the Georgia Military Institute pending shipment north, where he believes they ‘can find employment in Indiana.’” As authority for this Castel cites articles in Civil War Times Illustrated, Blue and Gray Magazine and the Georgia Historical Review, with the comment that the women from the Roswell mills and others from Sweetwater were sent on to Indiana and few of them returned to Georgia. The Time/Life series on the Civil War, in the volume on the Atlanta Campaign says little more except that most of the women had come from the North and that Sherman sent them on first to Marietta to pick up rail transportation and then on to Indiana for safety. Unfortunately the Time/Life book is scanty on authority even though it has a pretty good bibliography. Let me suggest that no matter what Sherman’s views on the mill manager and his use of false colors may have been, the transportation of the mill workers may represent a preliminary effort to deal with populations displaced by the war. If that is what is going on here it was a measure that was not pursued. The remaining population of Atlanta was sent South not North. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/57 "2001-07-23T03:24:51Z")
**Spavined Gelding** , you seem to be in denial. Sources? Are you ignoring the two links I provided? The [article from Creative Loafing](http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2001-01-06/cover2.html), one of the links I posted earlier, provides you with references to “primary sources,” including Sherman’s letter to headquarters regarding the deportation, and the exact wording of Sherman’s order to General Garrard. (Creative Loafing, by the way, is Atlanta’s independent weekly paper, akin to our kind host, The Chicago Reader. Creative Loafing is known in these parts for its thorough investigative reporting, and for the progressive views of its editors. I assure you that it is just about as far from a Confederate apologist source as you can get.) Here’s [another link](http://www.rootsweb.com/~gamacon/roswell.htm) with scads of citations to sources. For example, a contemporary article from the Patriot and Union, a Pennsylvania newspaper, including this quote: > [@](#): > > …It is hardly conceivable that an officer bearing a United States commission of Major General should have so far forgotten the commonest dictates of decency and humanity…As to drive four hundred penniless girls hundreds of miles away from their homes and friends to seek livelihood amid strange and hostile people. We repeat our earnest hope that further information may redeem the name of General Sherman and our own from this frightful disgrace. Or this from the New York Tribune: > [@](#): > > Only think of it! Four hundred weeping and terrified Ellens, Susans, and Maggies transported, in the springless and seatless army wagons, away from their lovers, and brothers of the sunny south, and all for the offense of weaving tent cloth and spinning stocking yarn. The cite contains yet another reference to a primary source: > [@](#): > > An eyewitness account of the burning of the Roswell mills was left by Union Captain David P. Conynham in his book Sherman’s March Through the South: > > > [@](#): > > > > There were at the time about three hundred female operators employed in it, and it was feeling to witness how they wept, as this, their only means of support was consigned to destruction. > > Conynham wrote it was probable that their tears were shed not only because their means of livelihood had been destroyed but also because their homes had been reduced to ashes. Well that can’t be right. I mean Sherman’s troops didn’t burn any private residences did they? That no-good lying Confederate apologist Union officer!!! You want more? Hey, here’s a whole book: [Charged with Treason; Ordeal of 400 mill workers during military operations in Roswell, Ga., 1864-65]([http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0912526556/shootersbookshelA/107-6610963-3](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0912526556/shootersbookshelA/107-6610963-3) 829316) (Michael D. Hitt, _Library Research Associates, Inc._, 1992.) Of course, I imagine Mr. Hitt’s book is not so detailed in it’s account as (_snicker_) the Time/Life series (_snicker_). But hey, maybe you’re right. Maybe (as you seem to be implying) the whole thing was just trumped up by a bunch of Confederate apologist yahoos. (Man, there aren’t enough rolleyes in cyberspace for that one.) And Sherman was sending these women north “for safety”??? Gee, that’s not what Sherman said. (Or didn’t the Time/Life editors bother to consider Sherman’s own words on the subject?) Sherman said he was “arresting” them for “treason” and that they were being sent north “where they won’t do us any harm.” The welfare of the women was hardly a concern. Sherman was simply lashing out. And then there are the women of the mill at New Manchester, who received similar treatment. (Roswell was not an aberration.) > [@](#): > > Monroe W. King wrote in _Destruction of New Manchester, Georgia_, that “not one of the New > Manchester women ever returned and only a handful of the men. Most of the men never saw their families again, most died never knowing the whereabouts of their wives and children”. > Roswell survived the War and continued to thrive, bur on that one fateful day, the town of New Manchester vanished with its several hundred inhabitants. **Spavined Gelding** , I know you had relatives who were with Sherman, and I know you want to think the best of them, and hey, maybe they comported themselves with the utmost civility and chivalry while visiting the fair state of Georgia, but as for Sherman, the man would have been hanged as a war criminal were he not on the winning side. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/58 "2001-07-23T14:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*but as for Sherman, the man would have been hanged as a war criminal were he not on the winning side. \*\* I dunno…Forrest was on the losing side, and nobody hanged him as a war criminal, in spite of his tendency to slaughter troops that had surrendered. But then, as for Davis, Lee, and the rest of that nest, all of them would have been hanged as traitors, if the United States had been less forgiving, and more just. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/59 "2001-07-23T15:19:48Z")
Here’s a rhetoricaal question for you: If Lee had conducted himself in Maryland and Pennsylvania the way Sherman did in Georgia and South Carolina, do you think Lee would have still escaped the hangman’s noose after the war? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430/60 "2001-07-23T15:36:22Z")
**Captain Amazing** wrote: > [@](#): > > Forrest was on the losing side, and nobody hanged him as a war criminal, in spite of his tendency to slaughter troops that had surrendered. I assume you’re talking about the Ft. Pillow incident. I’m going from memory here, but if I recall correctly, there was an inquiry into Forrest’s actions at Ft. Pillow, and the evidence that he encouraged the slaughter just wasn’t there. In fact, I believe there was evidence that he rode between his troops and the Union troops with his sword drawn in an effort to stop his men from killing the Union soldiers, and that most of the slaughter that did occur occurred below a river bluff, out of Forrest’s view. But hey, if you want to talk about killing surrendering troops, then remind me to tell you about a little incident between Sherman’s men (surprise, surprise) and surrendering Confederates in Clayton County, GA. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-civil-war-some-thoughts/72430.md?page=4)