The Civil War

[striker42]

Sherman did not sugarcoat what he was doing. He said he was going to "make Georgia howl."

He also understood that the war was against the people of the South: "This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."

He had little use for romantic notions about war: "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

He also gave fair warning to the South about the folly it was embarking upon: "The North can make a steam engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth - right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with."

Sherman's talk of fighting a hostile people smells of an attempt to justify overly harsh tactics. He could have broken the South's ability to wage war and fighting spirit by targeting the South's industry and confining his harshness to leaders and others with influence.

Terror tactics levied against small, subsistence farmers or helpless mill workers did nothing but further engender resentment in the South after the war.

I would argue that the hard war tactics of Sherman ultimately had little impact on the outcome of the war. His destruction of Southern supply lines and infrastructure (railroads, mills, and the like) while capturing Southern territory choked Confederate forces and had a real impact. But what good did destroying the crops of subsistence farmers actually do?

 

[nsacpi]

Sherman's talk of fighting a hostile people smells of an attempt to justify overly harsh tactics. He could have broken the South's ability to wage war and fighting spirit by targeting the South's industry and confining his harshness to leaders and others with influence.

Terror tactics levied against small, subsistence farmers or helpless mill workers did nothing but further engender resentment in the South after the war.

I would argue that the hard war tactics of Sherman ultimately had little impact on the outcome of the war. His destruction of Southern supply lines and infrastructure (railroads, mills, and the like) while capturing Southern territory choked Confederate forces and had a real impact. But what good did destroying the crops of subsistence farmers actually do?

The phrase we are looking for is scorched earth. Food is fungible. When Lee surrendered he had to ask Grant to feed his army.

 

[striker42]

The phrase we are looking for is scorched earth. Food is fungible. When Lee surrendered he had to ask Grant to feed his army.

The lack of food and supplies for the Confederates was far more because of the destruction of infrastructure and capture of supply centers. Sherman destroyed a large swath but had no chance of actually destroying all the food the agrarian South could produce.

But food production does little good if it can't be moved to the army. The destruction of the the railroads and capture of places like Atlanta, Savannah, Nashville, and Chattanooga kept the supplies from being able to be moved.

Destroying farms did nothing to end the war. It did, however, contribute to post war bitterness.

 

[nsacpi]

It is an uncomfortable thing to contemplate but one of the reasons the "reconstructions" of Germany and Japan after World War II were successful was because their populations were thoroughly broken and traumatized, rendering them docile and open to a radical break with the past. There is a memoir written by a German woman titled "A Woman in Berlin" that describes life at the end of the war and early months of the Soviet occupation. It explains better than any account by an historian could possibly do what happened, both from a psychological and physical perspective.

The South got off easy by comparison, which might be why reconstruction was not as successful there. No one in Japan or Germany has contemplated writing a romanticized account of pre-war life such as Gone With the Wind.

 

[zitothebrave]

The lack of food and supplies for the Confederates was far more because of the destruction of infrastructure and capture of supply centers. Sherman destroyed a large swath but had no chance of actually destroying all the food the agrarian South could produce.

But food production does little good if it can't be moved to the army. The destruction of the the railroads and capture of places like Atlanta, Savannah, Nashville, and Chattanooga kept the supplies from being able to be moved.

Destroying farms did nothing to end the war. It did, however, contribute to post war bitterness.

No southern pride is the contribution to post-war bitterness. Listen what Sherman did was horrible. But it wasn't even close to as horrible as Lee capturing runaway slaves and free blacks in the north and bringing them to Virginia. Or the confederacy declaring that captured Black Troops were insurrectionists and liable to automatic death sentences.

What you fail to consider that was by 1864 the Confederacy was desperate. Before Sherman marched to the sea we had Fort Pillow, Centralia, Saltville, and many other atrocities. The Civil War was a violent and bloody bought. To put the blame on Sherman is stupid. He was one actor who did one nasty campaign, but one that may have been necessary to break the will of the common southerner to fight. It was harsh, but it wasn't uncommon. It wasn't like he was killing people just because he considered them traitors, like Pickett. The casualties caused by the March to the Sea to the South were minimal. It wasn't like the plan to burn New York by Kennedy where they intended to overwhelm the fire brigade and burn large portions of Manhattan causing massive casualties.

 

[zitothebrave]

The South got off easy by comparison, which might be why reconstruction was not as successful there. No one in Japan or Germany has contemplated writing a romanticized account of pre-war life such as Gone With the Wind.

I would largely agree. To me it was like the South got knocked out in a fight but still claimed a stake of the championship belt. The fact they didn't have to pay reparations baffles me.

 

[striker42]

No southern pride is the contribution to post-war bitterness. Listen what Sherman did was horrible. But it wasn't even close to as horrible as Lee capturing runaway slaves and free blacks in the north and bringing them to Virginia. Or the confederacy declaring that captured Black Troops were insurrectionists and liable to automatic death sentences.

What you fail to consider that was by 1864 the Confederacy was desperate. Before Sherman marched to the sea we had Fort Pillow, Centralia, Saltville, and many other atrocities. The Civil War was a violent and bloody bought. To put the blame on Sherman is stupid. He was one actor who did one nasty campaign, but one that may have been necessary to break the will of the common southerner to fight. It was harsh, but it wasn't uncommon. It wasn't like he was killing people just because he considered them traitors, like Pickett. The casualties caused by the March to the Sea to the South were minimal. It wasn't like the plan to burn New York by Kennedy where they intended to overwhelm the fire brigade and burn large portions of Manhattan causing massive casualties.

Not putting all the blame on Sherman at all. He's just a controversial figure where, as I said earlier, it's difficult to separate the man from the narrative. While others undoubtedly committed atrocities, none have a statue on the National Mall while while being reviled by a segment of the population. It's a unique situation and a fun historical debate to have.

 

[striker42]

It is an uncomfortable thing to contemplate but one of the reasons the "reconstructions" of Germany and Japan after World War II were successful was because their populations were thoroughly broken and traumatized, rendering them docile and open to a radical break with the past. There is a memoir written by a German woman titled "A Woman in Berlin" that describes life at the end of the war and early months of the Soviet occupation. It explains better than any account by an historian could possibly do what happened, both from a psychological and physical perspective.

The South got off easy by comparison, which might be why reconstruction was not as successful there. No one in Japan or Germany has contemplated writing a romanticized account of pre-war life such as Gone With the Wind.

I would disagree to a point. Look at Germany after WWI. They lost an entire generation and had draconian measures placed on them. Did that cause them to never contemplate waging war again? No. It caused an economic and cultural crisis that contributed to the rise of Hitler and led directly to WWII.

It wasn't punishment that made successful reconstructions of Germany and Japan, it was giving them an olive branch and turning them into allies.

In fact, I'd say the thing that prevented a second Civil War wasn't the brutality of Sherman but the mercy shown at the end of the war. If the Union had rounded up Confederate leaders en masse and executed them for treason, confiscated the rifles of Confederate soldiers, and levied massive reparations there's a chance you'd have seen a call for a second attempt to secede.

 

[striker42]

Oddly enough, Sherman caught flack for giving generous surrender terms. In hindsight it was probably the wisest thing he did.

 

[Runnin]

Oddly enough, Sherman caught flack for giving generous surrender terms. In hindsight it was probably the wisest thing he did.

Why? It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to use phrases like post war bitterness and harsh tactics considering all the South was guilty of. It displays a lack of moral objectivity and remorse that lasts still to this day. It's no wonder the wounds still fester.

I assume you would have no problem arguing that dropping the bomb on Japan was right because it ended the war. Sherman was doing the same thing - trying to end the war.

 

[zitothebrave]

Not putting all the blame on Sherman at all. He's just a controversial figure where, as I said earlier, it's difficult to separate the man from the narrative. While others undoubtedly committed atrocities, none have a statue on the National Mall while while being reviled by a segment of the population. It's a unique situation and a fun historical debate to have.

I don't really consider it much of a debate. The south's entire strategy was to break the morale of the North through guerrilla warfare. Sherman went on to prove that he coudl raze the south without even supply lines. He decimated the south and caused minimal actual civilian casualties. He did the thing that white land owners hate the most, destroy property.

 

[nsacpi]

I don't really consider it much of a debate. The south's entire strategy was to break the morale of the North through guerrilla warfare. Sherman went on to prove that he coudl raze the south without even supply lines. He decimated the south and caused minimal actual civilian casualties. He did the thing that white land owners hate the most, destroy property.

Sherman had some keen psychological insights into the vanity of southerners. He turned those insights against them.

"The young bloods of the South: sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will... They are splendid riders, first-rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace."

There is another quote about the men of the west (which back then meant Illinois) and how they would be more than a match for the men of the south. Not sure if it was from Sherman or Grant. But both of them thought southerners to be all hat and no cattle. Both were well acquainted with a certain class of southern gentleman (and their sons). I think that both took a certain pleasure in sticking it to those "young bloods" whom they held in contempt.

 

[striker42]

Why? It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to use phrases like post war bitterness and harsh tactics considering all the South was guilty of. It displays a lack of moral objectivity and remorse that lasts still to this day. It's no wonder the wounds still fester.

I assume you would have no problem arguing that dropping the bomb on Japan was right because it ended the war. Sherman was doing the same thing - trying to end the war.

I'm not out of line saying Sherman used harsh tactics. That was Sherman's stated goal. He wanted to brutalize the South. He wanted to "make Georgia howl" and admitted to taking punitive action in South Carolina as he viewed it to be the State most morally responsible for secession. Citing what others did is engaging in the two wrongs make a right fallacy. Sherman doesn't get a break because others might have committed treason or war crimes.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan aren't a good comparison. The goal of the US wasn't to cause civilian casualties but to destroy infrastructure. The US actually even dropped warning leaflets telling people to get out. There was an intention to use them to force Japan into surrendering but it wasn't based on terrifying the civilian population. It was based on showing Japan's leadership that they had no chance. That the US had a new super weapon that ensured their defeat. Continuing to fight would only cause more harm.

I think the bombing of Dresden is a much better parallel and I do have problems with that. While there were plenty of legitimate targets in Dresden, carpet bombing the city to the point where people were getting sucked into fire tornadoes crossed a line. I don't care if it broke the spirit of the populace, it was wrong.

 

[striker42]

Sherman had some keen psychological insights into the vanity of southerners. He turned those insights against them.

"The young bloods of the South: sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will... They are splendid riders, first-rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace."

There is another quote about the men of the west (which back then meant Illinois) and how they would be more than a match for the men of the south. Not sure if it was from Sherman or Grant. But both of them thought southerners to be all hat and no cattle. Both were well acquainted with a certain class of southern gentleman (and their sons). I think that both took a certain pleasure in sticking it to those "young bloods" whom they held in contempt.

I don't disagree that he was effective in accomplishing his stated goal of bringing pain to the civilian populace of Georgia. The fact that people in the south still view Sherman with contempt is evidence of just how effective that was. But to what end? There's an assumption that his targeting of civilians made a significant contribution to the end of the war but the reasoning on how is a little fuzzy. It's like people reason that because the South collapsed shortly after, targeting civilians must have been successful. That's not good logic.

I'll say again that Sherman's march was incredibly effective in destroying the South's ability to wage war but it had almost nothing to do with his targeting of civilians. The capture and destruction of the industry and railroads in Atlanta was a massive blow as was the capture of cities like Savannah and Columbia. The destruction of railroads along the way paralyzed the Southern supply lines. The targeting of Southern leadership also had an effect.

But what effect did burning houses have? How did destroying crops that the foragers were too loaded to carry off help the North when the ability to transport the crops to the front lines was gone? How did deporting mill workers aid the Union cause? That was the stuff that did more harm than good. It causes psychological trauma but psychological trauma to civilians doesn't often help a war effort. More often it hinders it by enraging your enemy and giving them more reason to fight.

 

[nsacpi]

The continued romanticization of the antebellum south tells me that Grant, Lincoln, Sherman, etc were in fact not successful in bringing home how the confederacy had been a disaster for the south. I would contrast that with the collapse of support for the Nazis in the last weeks of World War II. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it was the sheer amount of suffering that caused the Germans to start questioning their support for Hitler.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I think the difference is because of the time period it happened. For the Confederactly they just went home and continued passing on their hate to the next generation. With how little people traveled in those days the next generation only met people that reinforced their beliefs. After WW2 you had many of the old Nazis still in power until the younger generation rebelled and blamed them for the consequences of the war. Kids that grew up during the civil war probably blamed black people for their family member dying or their farm being burned.

 

[nsacpi]

What happened in the South after the war was more like what happened in Germany after World War I. They didn't consider themselves defeated. They went home and sulked, blaming traitors for their defeat. There was no honest appraisal of what happened. Old ideological and nationalistic beliefs remained intact. That's why maybe Sherman should have been a bit more thorough in his devastation.

 

[striker42]

What happened in the South after the war was more like what happened in Germany after World War I. They didn't consider themselves defeated. They went home and sulked, blaming traitors for their defeat. There was no honest appraisal of what happened. Old ideological and nationalistic beliefs remained intact. That's why maybe Sherman should have been a bit more thorough in his devastation.

More thorough devastation would just have bred more resentment. History shows time and again that one of the best ways to make a current enemy a future enemy is to exact retribution upon them when they are defeated. If Sherman had murdered tens of thousands of civilians I think there's a good chance there would have been a second Civil War. Meanwhile, by allowing people to return home in peace and even keep a rifle for hunting while not rounding up people and hanging them as traitors probably kept the country together.

Waging war on a people doesn't cow them, it seeds resentment. Reconciliation is how you prevent future conflict.

 

[nsacpi]

More thorough devastation would just have bred more resentment.

Waging war on a people doesn't cow them, it seeds resentment. Reconciliation is how you prevent future conflict.

I offer Germany and Japan after World War II as data points to consider.

 

[striker42]

I offer Germany and Japan after World War II as data points to consider.

As do I. I point you to the Marshall Plan and other foreign aid handed out after WWII along with other coordinated attempts to make allies out of former enemies.

I point you to Germany after WWI as a data point to. Draconian punishment led to resentment that festered.