US Civil War-some thoughts

Great Debates
21

That tells me that unlike Lee, you’re a coward.

First of all this comment IMHO invalidates anything you have to say and I won’t respond other than to say because I do not agree with you I am a coward. BS

The reason I posted this was because with all the Civil War debates in this forum, I haven’t seen these issues addressed and thought it would be interesting. Granted summarizing them like I did leaves out a lot, but it was long enough as it is.

Economically the south was devestated by the war and came out a lot worse then the north. If you don’t know this then I think you need to learn history.

Of course I realize this and did not mean to imply the South did not suffer as a result of the war, however it is due to many reasons not just the because of the Norths "
despotic" rule.

as for the other points, I think others covered them better than I can and did.

22

Well, it seems rather unfortunate then, that you mixed in a rather baseless attack on Lee’s abilities as a general (and his moral character) with valid points about Longstreet.

Likewise with the burning issue. Everybody was burning everything. Regardless of the Confederate contribution, to say that Sherman didn’t have his hand deep into that honey pot is just absurd.

well then say that, instead of (from OP):

They was crushed. Some wrangling got them back to a tolerable state of affairs (no pun intended) within a rather impressive amount of time, but they was crushed but good–and the effects felt for a good, long time.

23

It would be wonderful if this bit of nonsense could be deleted from Civil War apologia, but I’m under no illusion that that’ll happen.

Lee, violating the terms of his father’s will, did not free 62 of his slaves until December 1862. 4 slaves inherited by Grant’s wife were freed in 1863. Perhaps the line about Grant’s family owning slaves “long after Lee freed his” comes from the delusion, oft repeated on the Internet and in printed sources, that Lee freed all his slaves before the Civil War. This is flatly untrue. Check the facts from a source that is hardly pro-Union..

A couple things regarding the OP: many of the diatribes repeated in this discussion about the Civil War should be accessible in previous debates on this subject in this forum. They’re not exactly new here.

In my view, Grant deserves the criticism of being too free with his soldiers’ lives through occasionally poorly thought out offensive maneuvers, far more than Lee does. Both were great generals.

I’m still happy with the way the war turned out.

24

Chimaera wrote:

You’d be bitter, too, if your house got turned into a national cemetary.

25

The main criticism you can level against Lee is that he prolonged the war by his superior generalship. If he had refused to join the South the Confederacy would have collapsed much sooner, sparing a lot of death and devastation. But, who knows? An early Northern victory might have been worse, setting up a second civil war. The south was totally beaten by Appomattox. If they had collapsed sooner, the “stab in the back” idea might have remained, much as WWI lead to WWII.

But even so, of course Lee wasn’t the plaster saint that some people believe in, no one is. That doesn’t mean he was a monster or even a jerk. Judged by modern standards he falls short of course, but to a lesser extent than almost all of his contemporaries.

Now, the devastation of the south. Of course the war devastated the south. But it was the war that devastated the south, not occupation and reconstruction.

Now, criticism of Grant. Well, Grant realized that he couldn’t match Lee head on. So, he decided to play to the North’s strength, superiority in manpower and manufacturing. Sure, a brilliant general could have outflanked Lee and won the war in one glorious stroke. But there were lots of northern generals who tried this and didn’t succeed. Grant realized that this wasn’t going to happen and decided to win the war the only way he could, through attrition.

Now, why wasn’t the Southern leadership lined up and shot after the war? Well, what would that accomplish? It would have re-ignited the war…if not right away then soon. Whether they deserved to be treated as traitors or not it would have been severely counter-productive. It would have destroyed the idea of re-union, the south would have to have been occupied like a foreign country rather than re-admitted into the union.

Oh, and slavery WAS the main cause of the war. Yes, it was state’s rights…the rights to own slaves. No slavery, no war. Jefferson and the founders realized that slavery was a blot on the republic, but they consciously decided to compromise on the issue to allow formation of the Union. They expected that slavery would wither away in a generation or two, and the promise of the founding would eventually be applied to all. As MEBuckner has ably pointed out they knew slavery was wrong but felt they could not tackle the issue in their time. Well, slavery didn’t wither away and it turns out that they miscalculated and their compromise allowed the entrenchment of a particularly brutal form of slavery.

26

I think that this is the sort of thing that the OP refers to as the “Gone with the Wind” version of history. Sherman’s purpose was to destroy the military capability of the South, so he demolished railroads and buildings that would be useful for the military. The stories of Sherman’s troops destroying private houses and property are greatly exaggerated. It may have happened a few times, but many of the plantation houses that Sherman allegedly destroyed are, in fact, still standing.

27

Where in the world did you get this idea? It didn’t happen just “a few times.” Every account I’ve read says that Sherman’s men left a broad swath of devastation behind them everywhere they went. “I will make Georgia howl,” Sherman is quoted as saying, and it was his deliberate plan to reduce as much of Georgia as possible to smoking ruins.

Your claim is nothing short of bizarre. Again, where do you find such revisionist claptrap?

28

Then I guess every account you’ve ever read was exaggerated a bit. You give one very brief quote to prove your point. Sherman did say that he wanted to make Georgia howl, but that quote doesn’t exactly prove that Sherman’s troops were guilty of all, or even most, of the acts that they have been accused of.

Here’s my “revisionist claptrap” (some of it, anyway):

http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/history/people/grimsley.1/myth/myth.htm

This is a good link that examines how the mythology surrounding the march grew.
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/order143.htm

This is a copy of a field order that Sherman gave his troops after they entered Savannah. Does this sound like somebody who wanted to reduce Georgia to smoking ruins?
Finally, I would recommend Tony Horwitz’s book Confederates in the Attack. It shows how Confederate apologists have distorted the facts about Sherman’s march and other parts of Civil War history.

29

Misleading, ITR Champion. Sherman gave his field order for his troops to behave themselves in Savannah because he had made a deal with the city fathers. The city would be surrendered peacefully if Sherman would spare Savannah the destruction that had been the norm.

The fact that Sherman issued this order, in fact, leaves the distinct impression that up to this point, his troops had not been behaving themselves.

Your other link is revisionist. That is its declared intent. It cites the tired old “Sherman apologist” argument that there is “little evidence” of widespread rape. Uh, what “evidence,” exactly would you expect to find? Given the shame attached to rape in that era, and the fact that most Southern men of fighting age were off fighting the war, to whom would you expect a Southern woman to report that she had been raped? To the commanders of the Union Army? Riiiight.

The evidence is in the oral histories of the victims. Pardon us if we believe the family stories that have been handed down from our great-great grandmothers.

Here’s a little story of Sherman’s kindly treatment of women.

30

More on Sherman’s treatment of the Roswell women here. The article also includes a couple of quotes from Sherman which seem to summarize his approach to war:

Good luck trying to whitewash Sherman’s legacy.

31

spoke:

The second link that you posted recites the old myth about Sherman and his troops being responsible for the destruction of Atlanta. Please go back and read what has already been written on the subject earlier in this thread.

MGibson claimed that “Sherman had a policy of burning and destroying everything he came across.” LonesomePolecat added that “Sherman’s men left a broad swath of devastation behind them everywhere they went.” I countered by saying that while there may have been a few examples of excessive cruelty by Sherman and his troops, the idea that the army spread total destruction everywhere it went, even on civilian property, is a myth with no basis in reality. Then you jumped into the discussion by telling us about an incident that occurred in just one town, and neither of your articles describes the general tactics of Sherman’s entire army, except for the misconception about the burning of Atlanta that I already mentioned at the top of this post. In fact, one of your articles admits that Sherman was “particularly vindictive” in the case of the Roswell Mills. So that leaves us with just one occurence in one town, which is a far cry from the widespread destruction that MGibson and LonesomePolecat want us to believe.

The link that I posted has the stated purpose of exposing myth and presenting the truth.

Confederate apologists have claimed that Sherman ordered his troops to invade and demolish private properetry, and that he condoned rape, all of which is completly untrue. Did rape sometimes occur? Yes. Does citing unnamed oral histories prove that it was widespread, or that it was considered acceptable by the Union military leaders? No.

My point is this: the version of Sherman’s march that has been taught in schools and that is believed by most Americans is completly untrue. Nobody has yet presented evidence of the “swath of destruction” that was cut through Georgia, nor of General Sherman having a policy of supporting such behavior.

32

I give you again Sherman’s own words:

Now what do you suppose he meant by that?

It was a campaign of terror and destruction fully intended as such- intended to break the will of Southern civilians.

Sherman didn’t condone cruelty? Are you mad? Did you not read the links on the treatment of the Roswell women? These actions were taken at Sherman’s express order.

And as for your discounting oral histories, consider that the city of Troy was considered a myth by many (being only a creature of “oral history”), until they dug it up. As for the absence of “evidence” of rape, I am still waiting to hear what sort of evidence you would expect to find. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes, and it is particlarly true in this case.

Furthermore, you will of course not find any “field order” advocating rape or pillage for that matter. But Sherman’s own words make it clear that he would merely wink at such things.

And what do you think he meant by this? :

His meaning is clear, if only implicit. And his troops took his lead.

33

I am no apologist for the Southern Confederacy. As mentioned before, my people served with Sherman’s army in the Atlanta Campaign and on the March Through Georgia. I am convinced that if there was ever a necessary war it was the Civil War and that the good guys won it. To demonize Sherman is just as dishonest as attempts to sugar coat him into a perfect gentle knight. Into the third year of the war with no real end in sight and with Lincoln’s reelection and the reaffirmation of the North’s determination to eliminate the Southern Confederacy and prosecute to war with full vigor to a reunification of the nation without slavery, Sherman embarked on a deliberate campaign to take Georgia out of the war. The March to the Sea was the realization of that policy. It called for the elimination of Georgia as a source of bread and meat for Southern armies, as a transportation hub and as a source of manpower for the Southern military establishment.

Atlanta was burnt the first time by the Confederates when they evacuated the city. That is the “Gone with the Wind” fire. When Sherman began his march to Savanna, he burnt every thing of commercial, transportation, manufacturing and public significance in Atlanta that Hood’s army missed. He also forcibly evacuated the city, turning the comparably few people who were left into refugees. Cruel? Of course. A legitimate measure in taking Atlanta out of the war? Probably. Did it work? Without question. Given the circumstances it was inevitable that when the industrial core of Atlanta was destroyed a lot of other stuff was going with it. The point was that the simple occupation of Atlanta was not the sort of thing that was going to hurt the Confederacy as much as leaving Atlanta as a non-factor and using the troops to destroy Hood’s still dangerous army (which Thomas did at Nashville and Franklin) and to destroy the agricultural heart of Georgia as a food and material source for the active Rebel armies.

As far as the March Through Georgia is concerned, the occupance of rape and murder was rare. Sherman’s 60,000 was not the Golden Hord. It was a collection of Midwestern farm boys and small town boys who were under some discipline. Sherman’s method of feeding his army off the land guaranteed that there would be a considerable amount of destruction done that was not strictly necessary to provisioning his army. For the men it was a wonderful vacation from the war, with minimal fighting, short marches, cool southern autumn weather and plenty of good things to eat as a relief for the usual diet of hardtack, salt pork and black coffee.

It did take Georgia out of the war. If Lee’s army and Hood’s army were going to eat, it was not going to be bread and meat from Georgia.

There was a tremendous amount of vandalism. If it wasn’t Sherman’s policy to make the civilian population feel the heavy hand of war, it certainly was the policy of the privates and company officers who did the actual heavy lifting, and Sherman did little to prevent it.

It is worth noting that one of the most damaging things Sherman did in Georgia was to precipitate a huge slave desertion. Once Sherman’s army went through a district there was nearly no Black labor left to work the land or put things back together. That the mobs of slaves trailing Sherman’s army were abandoned to Wheeler’s wholly ineffective cavalry and home guards was one of the most reprehensible events in the nation’s history.

It is more than a little silly to argue about isolated events of gratuitous cruelty and the particular take of various writers with their own ax to grind, or to rely on some web site. Try looking at something that looks like a primary source. Battles and Leaders is a good place to start, along with Sherman’s Memoirs.

34

Isolated and gratuitous?

Well, here’s what it says at http://www.civilwarhome.com/shermangeorgia.htm :

“Under Sherman’s orders Capt. O. M. Poe ‘thoroughly
destroyed Atlanta, save its mere dwelling-houses
and churches.’ The destruction was by fire
purposely applied to buildings, and permitted to
spread, as was expected, from house to house until
the defenseless city was almost entirely reduced
to ashes. No efforts were made to prevent the
spread of the conflagration, and scarcely any
structure was designedly spared. Only about 450
buildings escaped this ruthless burning, among
them many churches, which in those days generally
stood apart from other buildings. The thoroughness
of the destruction can be realized, when we
consider that by the census of 1860 Atlanta had a
population of 10,000, which in 1864 had increased
to 14,000. More than 4,000 houses, including
dwellings, shops, stores, mills and depots were
burned, about eleven-twelfths of the city. Capt.
Daniel Oakey, of the Second Massachusetts
volunteers, says: ‘Sixty thousand of us witnessed
the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band
and that of the Thirty-third Massachusetts played
martial airs and operatic selections.’ Sherman
himself noted the rising columns of smoke as he
rode away from the city. Considering that he had
been in possession of the city since the 3d of
September, he had had ample time to utterly
destroy everything in it that could be of
advantage to an enemy, without the wanton and
inexcusable method to which he resorted. It was no
more necessary from a military point of view to
destroy mercantile establishments than private
dwellings or churches. The destruction of Atlanta
can never be excused. The name of the Federal
commander will always be associated with this
barbarous act.”

Sixty thousand Union soldiers witnessed Sherman’s
destruction of Atlanta. But I suppose you will say
they all lied because they were all secretly
Confederate sympathizers.

If you want to dispose of self-delusion, I suggest
you argue with Yankees who insist the North
fought the war to “free the slaves.” Now, there’s
one hell of a lie.

35

spoke, I would have appreciated it if you would have taken some time to read my last post before you responded to it.

Yes I did. But it seems that you did not. You claim that this one single incident proves all that nonsense about Sherman ordering his troops to make widespread attacks against civilians. But the links that you posted admit that this was an isolated occurence that was not representative of most of Sherman’s orders or of the behavior of the Union army. (I said that in my last post.)

That is completly irrelevant to the situation we are talking about. Troy was an ancient city. The question of its existence is completly different from questions of how often certain incidents occurred during Sherman’s march.

My father and grandfather both study the Holocaust and WWII. They have done a great deal of research with firsthand accounts from survivors, soldiers, and civilian onlookers, and I have read their research and talked with them frequently about their work. One problem that has sprung up for them frequently is the unreliability of testimony. Even if it is a direct, firsthand account, they frequently find that the person “remembers” traumatic events that cannot possibly have happened. Needless to say, the problem only grows when you move on to stories that have been passed down through several generations.

It’s not evidence of presence, either.

Agreed. In fact, he was very specific in his orders to his troops. He told them to not enter civilian homes and to not harm civilians. Needless to say, there were no human rights groups around at the time to demand that he exercise such politeness; he chose to do it.

I’m a great deal less impressed with these brief, out-of-context quotes than you are. Maybe he did say that everyone, young and old, rich and poor, needed to feel the hand of war. That doesn’t mean that he advocated violence against civilians. Obviously, everyone living in the South would be affected by his destruction of railroads and other institutions related to the South’s military efforts. But it’s a big leap to go from that one little snippet of speech to saying that he wanted to harm individual civilians.

36

“ln the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.” – last stanza, The Battle Hymn of the Republic

There’s also “John Brown’s Body”, set to the same tune, which was very popular with the Union troops, and which commemorated one of the most radical abolitionists. And I rather imagine the motives of the almost 200,000 black Union soldiers and sailors might have had something to do with ending slavery.

Of course the North didn’t start out fighting to “free the slaves”. But that’s what it wound up doing by the end of the war.

37

Well said. What LonesomePolecat wants is an oversimplification of the issue. He insists that there must have been exactly one cause that everyone in the Union supported as a reason for entering the war. Then when we say that the cause was the end of slavery, he’ll jump in with a boatload of facts to prove that statement wrong. Reality, of course, is much more complicated. Some Union soldiers wanted to preserve the country, others wanted to end slavery, others fought because they got paid to do so.

But at least these Confederate apologists are consistent. His account, like all the others, doesn’t bother mentioning
the damage that General Hood and the Confederates inflicted on Atlanta before they retreated.

38

As I have been following this debate for the last few years this has always seemed to be a red herring brought up by supporters of the south. In my view it appears that the motivations of the North could almost entirely be ascribed to a desire to preserve the union. There even seems to have been, leading up to the war, significant willingness to allow slaveholding to continue in the Southern States while having no tolerance for it in the rest of the country.

On the other hand the south could see that they would quickly become a minority without the political clout to maintain their plantation economy in the future. I doubt they saw it quite like this but their primative slave based economy couldn’t compete with the growth of the industrial north. The tarrif’s that many like to blaim as the reason for succession were hard on the south because of that same slave based economy. They could not maintain their slave based economy and stay ion the union.

So it isn’t that the North fought to end slavery so much as the South fought to preserve it.

Disclaimer: I am a canadian and far from an expert but I am fascinated by the subject and still learning. Be gentle :slight_smile:

39

No, what LonesomePolecat wants is an honest discussion. So far I haven’t gotten one.

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.

But it is a simple fact that the emancipation of the slaves simply was not a major issue for Northerners. If you doubt this, read What They Fought For 1861-1865 by James McPherson, an overview of the letters, journals and diaries kept by soldiers on both sides of the war.

(However, I am pleased to see that you can’t assail my position honestly and so resort to strawmen and personal attacks. On some level you surely must know that you are wrong.)

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.

And, no, I won’t jump in with a “boatload of facts.” Anyone dumb enough to believe that Sherman didn’t burn Atlanta obviously has no respect for facts in the first place. Beliefs such as that are in the same league as Holocaust denial and creationism, and there is no point in trying to reason with those who hold them.

40

Am I missing something here?

To a great extent it looks like we are reinventing the wheel and engaged in an exercise in contradiction. If we are talking about what happened in the Atlanta/ March to the Sea Campaign, fine, let’s do that. If we are arguing about some sort of comparison of the righteousness of the contending views of what this country was about and where it was going, then this is an exercise in futility and we aren’t going to accomplish any thing but producing a lot of smoke.

It would be very helpful if the people in this thread would make an honest effort to avoid misconstruction of the submissions. It is a tired old trick to demolish a straw man instead of dealing with the real issues. Congress can get away with it, but it has no place in an honest debate.