Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Abraham Lincoln's Crimes

Again, Birdie, the knock on Sherman is that his men burned and looted on a 60 mile front from Atlanta to the Atlantic, not that they were physically attacking southern civilians. You're playing word games....is that "especially brutal" to strip the land of its livstock and personal property and burn the homes and barns? I don't know, I guess it depends on your definition. They certainly don't rate up there with the SS in the Soviet Union, or the Japanese in China. But if you lived in their path, I imagine you'd call it pretty damn brutal.

The intention of the wide front was to maximize the swath in which the army would destroy the abilty of Georgia to feed itself or contribute to the Confederate war effort, and to break the civilian's will to resist. There was no functional
CSA force in the neighborhood so Sherman had no need to keep his force concentrated for a fight.

Lee's men picked up some chickens and livestock in Pennsylvania, but were generally well behaved, according to the inhabitants, although dirty and ill-clad. But they were marching on roads, without knowledge of when they might be jumped by Meade with a superior force, and trying to concentrate for a battle, so they really didn't have the time or the inclination for arson, and Lee's orders forbade molesting the civilians or their property.

And by the way, if you had any writing where an American commander said he would make _________(fill in the name of any RoP country)howl, I doubt if you'd call the comment obtuse or unclear about his intentions. I think, old buddy, it is thee who is being obtuse, not Gen'l Sherman.

Ok, you made me drag out my copy of Sherman's correspondence. From a letter to the commander of the Army of Georgia, Henry Slocum "You need not be so careful of private property as we have been. The more of it you destroy the better it will be."

To General Grant, 9 Oct. 1864, from Allatoona, Ga. describing an early effort at ethnic cleansing:

"Until we can repopulate Georgia it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses and people will cripple their military resources."

To General Halleck, at the end of the March, as he moved on to waste the Carolinas, on board the gunboat "Dandelion" (odd name for a gunboat, appears to be really a converted tug):

"The whole army is crazy to be turned loose in Carolina; and with the experience of the past 30 days, I judge that a month's Sojourn (sic) in South Carolina would make her less bellicose. The Editors(sic) in Georgia profess to be indignant at the horrible barbarities of Sherman's army, but I Know(sic) the people don't want our visit repeated. We have utterly destroyed over 200 miles of Railroad, and consumed stores and provisions that were essential to Lee's & Hood's armies."

Letter to Grant, 16 Dec. 1864, in the field, near Savannah, brags that "I have no doubt that the state of Georgia has lost, by our operations, 15,000 first rate mules."

As for the organized looting, from the same letter: "The custom was for each brigade to send out daily a foraging party of about 50 men, on foot, who invariably returned mounted, with several wagons loaded with poultry, potatoes, &c., and as the army is composed of about forty Brigades, you can estimate approximately the quantity of horses collected. Great numbers of these were shot by my orders, because of the disorganizing effect on our Infantry of having too many idlers (nice name for horse thieves, editorial comment) mounted. Gen'l Easton is now engaged in collecting statistics in this line, but I know the Government will never recieve full accounts of our captures--although the result arrived at was fully attained---viz.: to deprive our enemy of them."


From letter to his wife, Ellen, same day:

"We came right along living on turkeys, chickens, pigs &c. bringing along our wagons to be loaded as we started with bread &c. I suppose Jeff Davis will now have to feed the People (sic) of Georgia, instead of collecting provisions of them to feed his armies."

Is that sufficiently clear and unobtuse as to his intentions and the effects of his orders? There's a lot more but you can read it as well as I can, and I'm tired of typing.


Oh, and before you add ol' Bill to your list of heroes, better read his letter of 12 Jan. 1865 to Halleck, giving his views on the n_ggers and "Samboes"....a letter which arose from a visit the week before by Secretary Stanton investigating reports of abuse of Negroes by Sherman's troops. Sherman's bummers were not civil rights crusaders, by a long shot.

Again with the murders...The Confederates who sacked Lawrence viewed all those old enough to bear arms within that city as murderers themselves. Thus they were not committing murder in their own eyes nor in the eyes of Missouri, they were exacting justice. I do not condone the killing of prisoners-yet the practice was started by the Union. The Partisan Rangers had no prison camps to keep these men in therefore paroles were the solution. The problem was that the Union in the west was not recognizing paroles AND was engaged in killing every guerrilla which fell into its hands. What else were they supposed to do? It is telling that not one Lawrence man sold his life dearly during the raid. Not one made a fight.




Are we discussing the IQ of Quantrill now? lol By most accounts the good Colonel saved several lives by offering protection that day. Even though the orders were his that the men be killed, there is no doubt they would have been killed had he not allowed them shelter. By all accounts, even those of his enemies, Quantrill was an intelligent commander. One need only read of some of the battles his command engaged in to see that.



pp.81 Grey Ghosts of the Confederacy,1958, Louisiana State Univ. Press.

"Schofield's first action was to outlaw the Confederate partisan forces being released in the center of his command. On May 29, 1862, in General Order Eighteen, he stated,

'The time is passed when insurrection and rebellion in Missouri can cloak itself under the guise of honorable warfare.

The utmost vigilance and energy are enjoined upon all the troops of the State in hunting down and destroying these robbers and assassins. When caught in arms, engaged in their unlawful warfare, they will be shot down upon the spot.'

The 'extermination policy' toward Confederate partisans pronounced by Generals Halleck and Schofield was copied at once by their subordinates in the subdistricts of Missouri."

"General Ben Loan of the District of North Missouri directed that any person, regardless of Confederate commission, who attempted to assemble a force to act in opposition to Union authority was to be 'promptly executed by the first commissioned officer to whom he may be delivered.' Quantrill's men had received no quarter: Hindman's recruiting officers were not to be given any either."

If you want examples of the Union actually carrying out its own policies in the above instances, you need only read some of the historical texts. A good example of it being carried out in groups as opposed to being visited upon individuals would be the aftermath of the Battle of Mine Creek in Kansas where many Confederates were summarily executed.

I've learned more from this thread than I did in all my years of HS history combined. I wish I had this thread to plagiarize a HS history paper 30 plus years ago. I don't think I would have wanted our friend Ethan being the professor and grading it though...grin

Good God! I've been out of the net for over a week and this dialog is still going on. Maybe this thread will end by the 142nd anniversery of Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.

Nothing about the CSA is not going to rise from the cold ashes after 142 years, so why bother? This reminds me of the Type-A people who were frustrated by the crowds and slow pace of things at D-World. Why waste energy/emotion over something that you can't influence and have no control over? 'Seems like pissing into the wind to me.

Jeff

For me Jeff, it's been an interesting and informative refresher course for things once studied and basically forgotten. I enjoy it much like I enjoy the elders here teaching me from their war and life's experiences. There is no better teacher than from those who fervently studied a topic or, better yet, once lived it.

Although I know it's not the case for the Civil War and it's legend, but it's still a fascinating topic and one that's deeply entrenched into the history of the Commonwealth where I live.

Happy Easter Jeff!

My Father was a Civil War buff, so every summer we loaded the Buick or Olds and headed south. Before I graduated from HS, I'd walked all of the major Civil War battlefield that still exist east of the Mississippi River and have walked a few west of the Mississippi River since then. When I am standing on that hallowed ground, I feel a sort of kinship with the ghosts of the brave men who fought there, whether clad in blue or gray.

The greatest tragedy, as I see it, is that all who died or who were wounded were Americans.

Jeff

Jeff;

Beautifully said. Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Next time you find yourself in Appomattox, let me know. I'm related to about half that county, and had several ancestors who were with Lee at the Courthouse, and who walked home in time for dinner.

Before I graduated from HS, I'd walked all of the major Civil War battlefield that still exist east of the Mississippi River
=================================================================

You and me both Jeff. Back then we may have passed each other on those fields wondering why we had to do this on our Spring Break. Perspective is a whole lot different as we get closer to our dad's ages, ain't it?

No word games here, the original question to Ethan addressed the premeditated murder of non-combatants as occurred widely in Texas under the Confederates and possibly in Lawrence, Kansas also at the hands of Confederates.

The Union forces under Sherman in Georgia were indeed not on a par with the SS, neither were they a match for the British in Ireland nor the Japanese in the Phillipines. For that matter there were no aerial armardas of Union B-17's or B-29's systematically turning Southern cities to ashes at a cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives.

The reason I point that out is that my own Irish Catholic kin never set foot in this country until after WWI on my dad's side, after WWII on my mom's. My mom was sent to Canada on one of the hospital ships that wasn't torpedoed en-route after a German bomb destroyed her parents house in England (she was in it at the time), her father stayed on as a fireman in the Blitz. My Filipino mother-in-law actually WITNESSED the Bataan Death March, and subsequently spent the rest of the war hiding in the jungle while her father fought with the guerillas. My own father was a Marine on Okinawa, and could never speak of what he saw and did there.

My sister has since married a German, a very good man, whose own parents narrowly survived WWII. About ten years ago we hosted a Japanese exchange student who has since been back to see us twice. His parents in turn have harrowing stories from when they were children in Japan in WWII.

What stands out about all these people who survived these horrors is the lack of bitterness. Pretty much in agreement with that quote from that Confederate Veteran at a Fredericksburg reunion that I paraphrased earlier: "Many people today are still fighting that war, those of us who were actually in it are mostly just glad its over".

So, am I to understand that your buddies are still presuming to "hate Sherman" over a "burning and looting over a 60 mile front" with little immediate loss of life that occurred 142 years ago?

Sounds like a prime example of those "fits of aggrieved historical narcisscism" I alluded to earlier. If so, might I suggest those guys collectively get a grip?

Ain't one of the worse disservices we can do to our children the passing on to them of our own hatreds?

Birdwatcher

Thank you for replying at length. You did leave the issue of how Quantrill was regarded by Richmond AFTER Lawrence unadressed. it seems possible then that the Confederate Government did indeed wish to distance themselves from his actions.



Absolutely, as it applies to his actions. It it hard to imagine the likes of a Forrest or a Mosby being swayed by the verdict of a fifteen or thirteen year old, even if he was sleeping with the older one as his wife (common at the time I know).

Likewise if he really DID protect an entire hotel full of people on a whim, because the hotel proprietors had been nice to him once, such capriciousness seriously calls into to question his judgement, intellect AND motives.

(I'm reminded of a line from a movie we both hold in high esteem; "Ride With the Devil" wherein the Irregular leader sidles up to Dutchy (played excellently by Toby Maguire) during the return from Lawrence and speaks to him of the incident where Dutchy had saved the proprieters of a restaraunt, saying words to the effect of "I heard bad things about you Dutchy. They say you spared, are you a traitor? Do not think you are a good man because you are not... I will deal with you later ...")

Also, are you suggesting that Quantrill bears no responsibilty in the killings that DID occur?



On first impression that tells ME they were likely killing non-combatants, much as were those Southerners hanging elderly Germans in Texas.

Why do YOU find it telling?

Birdwatcher

I would counter that our history is very important, and it is important to try and find out exactly what happened,and why, as best can be determined from this distance.

More than that, anything that has us all scrambling for our sources is a good thing. Heck, I've learned at least as much as Isaac has

Birdwatcher

"fits of aggrieved historical narcisscism"

=================================================================

Although I don't or couldn't find that apt in describing Steve or his buddies, I do love the quote.

I don't follow you, Birdie. Your original point was to cite some historian to say Sherman gets a bad rap and wasn't especially brutal. I said, I've never heard anybody really complain that he was physically murdering or raping white southerners. The problem is he wantonly detroyed a lot of private property. The killing came later, through starvation and disease afflicting those whose livelihoods had been destroyed. You said, basically, oh well that's not so brutal and anyway you don't have any orders directly from Sherman saying burn everything. I gave you several examples showing how he felt about it, in his own words, as well as his order not to respect private property.
Now your point is, well, anyway nobody should still be mad after all these years. Sherman's dead, so it doesn't much matter to him, and certainly not to me. But your attempt to minimize or excuse what he did is kind of laughable, given your usual exquisite sensitivity. How do you feel about the way he dealt with, ahem, indigenous peoples? Does that get you riled?

BTW, if Lee had burned Philadelphia and then marched to New York City burning on a 60 mile front, do you think they'd still think ill of him in the North? Bet they would.

My original point was to ask Ethan to cite an example of the Union leadership countenancing the murder of non-combatants. VAnimrod gave Sherman as an example. I said I thought so too except for coming across that reference.

You yourself stated that Sherman wasn't on a par with more recent examples, I agreed and cited some more, further stating that I was related to or knew personally some folks who had survived such things.

The point of my doing so being to observe that these people are or were singularly free of enduring bitterness, or at the very least, like those Hill Country Germans, do not make an art form of those fits of aggrieved histrionics I mentioned.

I said nothing about minimizing what Sherman did. I should add that persistent hunger was part of my mother-in-law's WWII Philipines experience, and that the general food shortage experienced in post WWII Germany as a deliberate punitive strategy by the allies was also a travail experienced by those Germans who are now family.



I dunno, start a thread on some and we'll see. Interesting that you should once again attempt to miscast me as some sort of bleeding heart. Instead, let us stick to the facts Counsellor, as I have attempted to do.



Bet they wouldn't, not nearly to the same degree, and I'll offer up my own relatives as evidence.

Part of what makes the South the South is that by and large nobody from outside has moved there much in about 150 years, until recent decades that is.

Up North most EVERYBODY is an immigrant or descendant of the same. Just like me, most everybody has their list of grievances from somewhere but by and large up North that and $1.25 will get ya a cup of coffee. IMHO a wonderfully healthy thing that (and no, not wearing such things on your sleeve as is common to the South is NOT the same thing as forgetting).

Birdwatcher

I am chuckling to myself trying to imagine your reaction if a US Army unit today conducted itself in any RoP, South American, African or other third world country the way Sherman's army did in Georgia and the Carolinas.

I would also disagree about the extent to which any significant portion of the population in the former Confederate states gives a particular hoot about Sherman in particular or their heritage in general. They may bristle if you slap them in the face with it or call their ancestors Nazis, but WBTS history is not a hot topic with Gen X southerners. And that migration you sort of dismiss, as being of recent decades, has been going on for about thirty-some years now with the result that, outside some insular provinces like New Orleans, say in Georgia or Texas, there is an alarmingly large portion of the population who really have no real historical or emotional ties to the CSA at all. And probably would have a tough time telling you who Robert E. Lee was, much less Sherman. A majority have probably never seen that fine documentary Gone With the Wind.

BTW I try to give Sherman as much slack as possible, since he was president of the predecessor of LSU before the unpleasantness.

And I'm wondering why you are reduced to attacking me personally... again.

Currently I'm browsing around trying to get an estimate of the havoc actually wrought by Sherman with an eye to estimating a number of subsequent famine deaths. On a "SonoftheSouth" site I came up with this quote...
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/shermans-march-to-the-sea.htm


Assuming a 65,000 man Union Army (from the site), that translates to perhaps one assorted domestic animal and less than three bushels of corn pilfered per man during the march.

Just to cut ya off at the pass, I am not "minimizing" these things but rather trying to measure the actual depredations in the context of Georgia's annual agricultural productivity at that time.

I did find the following passage interesting...


Just edited this in... the anonymous authors at Wikepedia have it that Sherman's swath of destruction affected somewhat less than 10% of the land area of that State, which may be why I'm drawing a blank on subsequent famine deaths. 'Course, not all 10 percents are equal, but still, it weren't by any means the whole State apparently.

Also, turns out the text of Sherman's "Special Field Orders, No. 120" issued prior to the march, are readily available...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_Special_Field_Orders%2C_No._120

Now granted, Wikipedia ain't the best of sources, but IS generally reliable on simple facts (rather than intepretations) like these posted.

Birdwatcher

The issue of Partisan Rangers in general and not just Quantrill's particular Regiment, was always one which caused division amongst the Confederate High Command. One faction felt that they should be utilized to the maximum whereas others felt they were undisciplined and could not be brought under proper control. These are the same arguments you will hear about militias from many long-time military men versus those who have actually served with or in effective ones. If I remember correctly, Quantrill's blow against the Yankees was highly regarded until the shrill cries of war crimes and also the turning tide in the west-which would have been in the latter part of 1864-about a year after the battle. The Confederate government or parts of it, wished to disavow itself from many actions which it considered distasteful-such as Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow. In the end, the effectiveness of the Partisan Rangers is what ruled the day. That is why they were allowed to come into and continue in their existence.

I repeat, I know of no such incident. I have never read of either girl accompanying Quantrill. This is the first I have heard of the younger and I do not recall Kate King accompanying Quantrill on the raid. Certainly I have never read of them pronouncing any judgment upon anybody. I state for your benefit once again Birdy, once Quantrill charged into town, he spent the day within the confines of the Eldridge House. I don't think he came out and moved any appreciable distance until it was nearly time to depart. Again, it has been awhile since I read any books on the subject-but I have several and have read them fully. My opinion, as subject to a deteriorated memory as it may be, is based upon the reading of many full books on the subject including two specifically about the Lawrence incident. It ain't just coming from some Frontier Times article I read on a Walter Pigeon movie in 1968.

As far as non-combatants...Lawrence was THE capitol of the Jayhawkers. General Jim Lane himself was present. He was THE Grim Chieftan-probably the most powerful Jayhawker and their leader if Quantrill was the nominal leader of the Bushwhackers. It went down from there. I am sure that there were some males killed who'd never set foot in Missouri. But there were regular Union troops killed as well as many (no doubt) Union guerrillas who had pillaged and murdered across the line.

Well, all bloody mahem aside, there sure was a bunch of drama surrounding Quantrill.

Apparently him and Bloody Bill had a falling out down here in '63 after they got chased out of Missouri. William chased Bloody Bill, in return Bloody Bill fingered William to the law about William preying upon fellow Confederates, and Confederate General Henry McCullough (not to be confused with General Ben McCullough) ordered Quantrill taken "dead or alive", Bloody Bill then helping to chase Quantrill out of Texas.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/QQ/fqu3.html
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/AA/fan2.html



It would appear that Mr Quantrill did not comport himself well down here... quite often when your own side orders you taken "dead or alive" that is not a good thing.

Birdwatcher

Quantrill's command degenerated during the winter of 1863-64 and split into basically three factions. Quite a few followed Capt. William Anderson (Bloody Bill) back to the border in the spring and another contingent was led by Lt. George Todd. Most of the crimes in Texas were perpetrated by individuals within these two splinter groups as opposed to Quantrill's core command. Col. Quantrill seemed to have lost the will to fight during much of 1864, preferring to camp with his new wife, Kate King instead. He left her in Missouri for the ill-fated ride to Kentucky in 1865.