The American Civil War (no spam)

[Bloodstalker]

@Weasel...you hate Grant, and I'll hate Sherman

[fable]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
@Weasel...you hate Grant, and I'll hate Sherman

Why Sherman? He was a fine strategist, and probably the only general in the war to realize that the best way to make the enemy come to you was to destroy his land. (Well, that, and have Jefferson Davis on hand to remove a fine general like Johnston and appoint a disaster look Hood.) I hate what he did, but his comprehension of what war entails absolutely clear and unhampered by romantic notions. I suppose what his views palatable to me is the knowledge that he wanted to invoke war at its worst only to end it the quicker.

[Bloodstalker]

Originally posted by fable
Why Sherman? He was a fine strategist, and probably the only general in the war to realize that the best way to make the enemy come to you was to destroy his land. (Well, that, and have Jefferson Davis on hand to remove a fine general like Johnston and appoint a disaster look Hood.) I hate what he did, but he comprehension of what war entails absolutely clear and unhampered by romantic notions. I suppose what his views palatable to me is the knowledge that he wanted to invoke war at its worst only to end it the quicker.

From a military standpoint, Sherman was right. Cutting at the heart of the south and making the war seem like Hell did exactly what he wanted it to do. But IMO, it also made the aftermath of the war a lot more complicated. Grant it, reconstruction was handled in a way that bred resentment and contempt, but this didn't help. It left a lot of scarrs that took a long time to heal. I just think it cost more in the long run than it benefitted. He could have moved to Atlant and taken it without the actions he took. By that time, the south was well on it's way to losing the war anyway. Even if the population hadn't been touched the way it was, the south was running out of resources and manpower anyway.

[fable]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
From a military standpoint, Sherman was right. Cutting at the heart of the south and making the war seem like Hell did exactly what he wanted it to do. But IMO, it also made the aftermath of the war a lot more complicated.

No question, though Sherman was following Grant's orders to the letter, to ""create havoc and destruction of all resources that would be beneficial to the enemy." And a scorched earth policy would not have worked earlier in the war. It might have even had the opposite effect, causing Southern forces to completely abandon all show of civilized behavior in the face of what could be seen as barbarism.

But it should be remembered that Sherman's terms of surrender, offered to Joe Johnston, included the retainment of full citizenship for every soldier in the Confederate army, and ten days' rations for the journey home. He went further. This is what he wrote in his memoirs. Note, I don't quote them for accuracy, but because they show understanding of the issues, which changed little from the period in question until the end of his life:

"Mr. Lincoln was full and frank in his conversation, assuring me that in his mind he was all ready for the civil reorganization of affairs at the South as soon as the war was over; and he distinctly authorized me to assure Governor Vance and the peoples of North Carolina that as soon as the rebel armies laid down their arms and resumed their civil pursuits, they would at once be guaranteed all their rights as citizens of a common country; and that to avoid anarchy, the State governments then in existence, with their civil functionaries, would be recognized by him as the government de facto till Congress could provide others."

In other words, the South would put down its arms, and the Confederate government at the state level would in effect be enfolded back into the Union, at least until the US Congress had its say. This was anathema to some members of Congress, who called for Sherman's removal from command. IMO, Sherman meant to inflict the horrors he did simply to end the war as quickly as possible, and that the extraordinary terms he provided the South were designed to efface all damage, and bring what might have been called at the time "the American family back together." What we have as it stands, then, isn't the full Sherman plan of war and peace, but only the implementation of the first part. It seems perhaps unreasonable to blame the man for being a monster, as some have, when his efforts at reestablishing peace, however misguided (and I think they were), were rebuffed.

In any case, I don't realy think Sherman's acts in the field contributed as much to the conflagration as the terms the US Congress gave the South, forced abolition, and the fat cat Northern merchants who rode in and bought up communities with Northern specie. Treated like a conquered nation, the South responded as conquered nations everywhere do, with a tradition of sulleness and hostility for the victors.

[Bloodstalker]

Posted by Fable

But it should be remembered that Sherman's terms of surrender, offered to Joe Johnston, included the retainment of full citizenship for every soldier in the Confederate army, and ten days' rations for the journey home. He went further.

This is true enough, And I understand the motives behind affering such lenient terms for surrender. But by the same token, of what real value was it to give a man ten days rations, and send him back home, when in many cases, as a result of the actions taken by Shermans army, there wasn't anything to go back to?

In any case, I don't realy think Sherman's acts in the field contributed as much to the conflagration as the terms the US Congress gave the South, forced abolition, and the fat cat Northern merchants who rode in and bought up communities with Northern specie. Treated like a conquered nation, the South responded as conquered nations everywhere do, with a tradition of sulleness and hostility for the victors.

As I said, the entire process of reconstruction was handles badly. But I can't see how returning to your home, only to find it burned, and your crops destoyed, could not have a significant impact of the the perceptions of the people returning home. In many cases, the returning confederate soldier had no home, no econimic prospects of being able to rebuild, and in the eyes of many of them, they would hold the Union to blame. The outcome of the Altlanta campaign would not have been altered if the Union forces had not destroyed everything in their path, and in all likelyhood, the outcome would have come about much quicker if they hadn't stopped and taken the time to burn houses and lands on the way.