Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sherman's March to the Sea

Gotta do something to get away from the Roy Clark threads!

Sherman's March began on this date in 1864.
Although the history books (written by the winners) give credit to Sherman for shortening the war, I have my doubts.

"Grant was to go for Lee, and I was to go for Joe Johnston." Sherman's description of the Cincinnati conference before Grant left for the east.

In my mind, the power of the Confederacy's resistance to Federal Authority rested on the Confederate armies. Joe Johnston was replaced by John Bell Hood, who's fumbling tactics lost Atlanta and started the Army of Tennessee on the short road to destruction.
When Hood tried to lure Sherman into Tennessee, Sherman instead led his army of 60,000 to burning a 40 mile wide swath through the farms and plantations of civilian Georgia.

Had he, with the help of Thomas and Schofield, pinned down and destroyed Hood's army there would have been zero resistance between Virginia and the Trans Mississippi. Uniting the western armies with the AOP would have forced Lee to surrender much sooner than April of 1865.
Thoughts?
7mm

He burned down the aluminum radiator plant in milledgeville

Now that you mention it, One of the plantations Sherman burned belonged to Roy clark’s Family

Fck Sherman!

I'm not a huge fan of Uncle Billy but if he wanted to burn Atlanta to the ground today I'd give him a case of matches and a couple hundred gallons of diesel.

Whuppin' Hood in TN wasn't gonna make GA howl.

Winner ,winner, chicken dinner

To All,

Sherman "The Destroyer" & arch WAR CRIMINAL was much better at committing atrocities against unarmed civilians than he was at fighting CSA troops in actual battles. = Sherman should have been HANGED for his WAR CRIMES against unarmed civilians.

In point of fact, about 6 months before he died he, in response to a reporter's questions from the NEW YORK POST & specifically in response to the question, "General, did your troops free a great many slaves during your famous March to the Sea?" said, "Indeed my troops did free multitudes of slaves but we freed a great many more slaves from being ALIVE."

yours, tex

Im no fan of Sherman either(Doraville transplant here...) but if you provide the diesel, I'll light the match.

It’s like the Japanese saying they would have used the bomb if they had it.

If lee had the troops he would have done the same thing.

He might get lost in Atlanta traffic if he tried it today.

There is no way to know for sure, since those were not the circumstances. However, General Lee's character gave no indication that he would have. Both President Davis and General Lee were gentlemen of the highest order and in all probability would NOT have cut a swath through the farmland of the North. When General Lee invaded Pennsylvania he avoided destroying civilian property and causing casualties amongst the populace. This is the exact opposite of Sherman who intentionally did these things. Later on Sherman did the same thing to the Indians after the war. The North specifically targeted civilians. Colonel William Quantrill gained an audience with President Davis and suggested the type of warfare being practiced in Missouri and Kansas and the President would not hear of it. FWIW the Yankees started this type of warfare in the west and Quantrill and many other partisans were only responding in-kind.

If one would actually take the time to read and study both the events leading up to, and during the War Between the States, it quickly becomes apparent that it was the North who committed the lions share of atrocities and the killing of innocent civilians. The South merely wanted to secede, and be left alone, whereas the North was determined to punish the South for seceding and leaving the Union.

The guerilla side of the war was another matter, as both sides killed each other in the name of the Union and Confederate army, even though in most cases they were not legitimate soldiers. But even here, while the North frequently gave it's blessing and aid to it's local guerillas, the South usually did not.

Was Roy Clark there?

Yeah... Sherman was a monster. Hes name is STILL a bad word around here. Lee and Davis were gentlemen of the highest order and would NEVER have encouraged or have permitted the atrocities of the Union Army.

Let me just chime in here as a fellow who has read both Grant's and Sherman's memoirs.

First off, while everyone wants to castigate Sherman as a war criminal, remember that the South allowed the march to happen. What I mean is this: if I don't want to bring the horrors of war against my own populace, I don't go poking an overwhelmingly superior neighbor. The South had no business prosecuting the war beyond the fall of Vicksburg and Gettysburg. By allow themselves to become so weak, they opened up the way for Sherman's unopposed march.

Second: Grant's memoir is very explicit in his assertion that the South was losing its army after July 1863 due to desertion at the rate of one regiment per day. Folks were just walking away from the fight and going home to work their farms-- very few were ever prosecuted. You may want to dispute Grant's number, but understand that this was a statistic he used to calculate his own strategies. After mid-1863 the war had become this unpopular in the South. People were starving. Civillians far away from the fighting were dying of deprivation. Everyone in the South were deeply affected by the War.

Meanwhile, both Sherman and Grant remark on how unaffected the North was. It was prospering. Daily life was largely unaffected. Nobody was being exceptionally put out by the war. The North was barely breaking a sweat.

Third: Both Grant and Sherman were innovators. Grant brought the raw calculus of attrition into modern warfare. Sherman's innovation was attacking the means of production rather than the army. It is therefore rather useless to talk about the war after mid-63 in the terms of war before this time. The South was living in a wholly different world. Y'all want to castigate Sherman as a war criminal. However, the real crime as I see it was the ideals of guys like John C. Calhoun who wanted to build a world based on the model of the Greek city state where you were judged on how many slaves you owned and much individual power you related in relation to your peers. To me, the American Civil War proved this was a wholly antiquated and morally bankrupt culture in comparison with the way the North had implemented the original ideals of the founders.

And one other thing: About 60% of the US is of German ancestry. I'm half-German. There are about 5% of folks with German ancestry living in the South. Y'all did a pretty good job of keeping us "ferners" out. Look where it got you. I don't resent you folks for the way y'all are. However, I got to scratch my head a little. When my family chose where to settle, it was north of the Ohio. The Germans who came to America looked for the best chance of raising a family and being prosperous, and they almost all picked the North. We were looking for people that would welcome our commitment to work, to prosper, and to live as free men and take part in our local community. The pattern has kept up for 300 years.

I cannot imagine living in a world of chattel slavery with angry eyes looking at me at every turn. I cannot fathom why y'all would import millions of people you loathed and then make them work for you, and then bring your country to ruin trying to protect that way of life. To guys like us who grew up in a German-American world, hard work is its own reward. We don't want others to do for us what we can do. Furthermore, we surround ourselves with our friends and family and keep those we keep those we despise away.

Holy schit.

Shaman wrote something worthwhile. Great post shaman.

Agreed. Anybody that has read anything about Lee knows he would have never done any such thing.

Matter of fact, neither would a lot of generals in the north. Grant was selected because of his willingness to proceed with "total war." Up to that point Lincoln couldn't find anyone with the stones.

Ultimately, the south brought what transpired onto themselves. Their war was impossible to win yet they continued on. You will find no instance in history where that ends well.

I believe Lee had the opportunity to take Washington DC, but passed on it. Or was it some other Southern general?

Thank you.

In short: if the South had just hired Germans instead, none of this would have happened!


BTW: just for a bit of cultural incongruity, where I'm at in the Trans-Bluegrass region of KY is a fascinating place. Yes, it's below the Ohio, but this section of Kentucky had a large influx of Germans before the Civil War. KY was a border state. Most of the folks around here did not own slaves, but you could and a few did. The Germans lived mostly off by themselves. Berlin KY, about 10 miles from my farm was 100% German speaking in its day. We're on the last day's march for an excaping slave trying to reach the Ohio. Things were wild around here. A free black settlement at Neave KY mustered a regiment and sent it to Cincinnati. The commandant there remarked on their excellent deportment. Meanwhile bounty hunters were roaming the roads looking for escaped blacks to take back south.