`Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

WIS TV ^ | Dec 05, 2014 | Renee Standera

[aomagrat]

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -

At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.

"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.

"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."

McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.

"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."

[stremba]

I think that was included in my statement that “he must nonetheless be held responsible for the actions of his men.” I certainly would include the intentional burning of civilian’s houses in the category of “targeting civilians”. I think the testimony you cite supports my position that while Sherman didn’t specifically order the burning of Columbia, he certainly did not do enough to prevent his men from doing it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for this quote. Interesting. And appalling.

[rustbucket]

I forgot to provide where I found that quote. I found it on a microfilm of old New York Times issues in one of my local libraries. That particular Sherman testimony was in a very long article in the May 10, 1873 edition. I later learned that the original article can also be found online at Link to New York Times article.

[x]

I guess Sherman’s original “Dine and Dash” strategy didn’t leave much of an impression ...

[rustbucket]

The laws of war are indeed fairly clear - it is impermissible to intentionally target civilians. Sherman’s army clearly did target civilians intentionally. The only question for Sherman’s personal responsibility is whether he specifically ordered such targeting. It certainly seems to me that he did not specifically order civilians to be targeted, but that he must nonetheless be held responsible for the actions of his men.

I'm returning to what you posted above because Sherman did, in fact, order the targeting of civilians and their houses and cities on occasion. I cite the following from the Official Records of the war, that massive collection of cables, orders, and reports issued during the war.

General Sherman to General Schofield, August 1, 1864: "You may fire from ten to fifteen shots from every gun you have in position into Atlanta that will reach any of its house. ... Thomas and Howard will do the same."

General Sherman to General Watkins, Calhoun, Ga., October 29, 1864: "Cannot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn about ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired on from Reseca to Kingston?

General Sherman to General George H. Thomas, November 11, 1864: "… Last night we burned Rome, and in two or more days will burn Atlanta ..."

General William D. Whipple to General D. S. Stanley, November 13, 1864: "General Sherman left Kingston yesterday morning; camped at Allatoona last night; will probably reach Atlanta to-morrow, whence he starts on his trip south. He has already burnt Rome, and says he is going to burn Atlanta and other towns south."

I also found the following in the History of South Carolina:

Sherman is reported to have said the following in Salem, Illinois, in July 1865 about a change in policy he made on his march to the sea. "Therefore, I resolved in a moment to stop the game of guarding their cities and to destroy their cities."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Targeting of noncombatant civilians is a disgrace to any real warrior. When I think of Sherman, anger and shame contend.

[stremba]

Thank you. I was unaware of those instances. In those cases, Sherman is certainly directly to blame for targeting civilians.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Freeper 4CJ posted some stuff about what Sherman’s men did to his ancestors neighbor it was awful.

[BroJoeK]

stgremba: "In those cases, Sherman is certainly directly to blame for targeting civilians."

Mrs. Don-o: "When I think of Sherman, anger and shame contend."

Sorry to interrupt this hate-fest on Uncle Billy Sherman, but it's important for somebody to point out that Sherman did nothing in Georgia against civilians that had not already been done by Confederate forces against Union civilians, and indeed against some of their own civilians.

Here is a representative listing:

1. August 10, 1862: Nueces massacre, Kinney County, Texas.
   
2. October 10, 1862: Chambersburg attacked by JEB Stuart, Pennsylvania, "destroying $250,000 of railroad property and taking 500 guns, hundreds of horses, and at least eight young colored men and boys"
   
3. January 18, 1863: Shelton Laurel Massacre, North Carolina.
   
4. June 1863: Chambersburg attacked by Jenkins, Pennsylvania: "occupied the town and burned several warehouses and Cumberland Valley Railroad structures and the bridge at Scotland".
   
5. August 21, 1863: Lawrence Massacre, Kansas.
   
6. April 12, 1864: Fort Pillow Massacre, Henning, Tennessee.
   
7. July 30, 1864: Chambersburg burned by Early/McCaulsand, Pennsylvania: "for failing to provide a ransom of $500,000 in US currency, or $100,000 in gold."
   
8. September 27, 1864: Centralia Massacre, Missouri.
   
9. October 2, 1864: Saltville Massacre, Virginia

Lawrence Kansas Massacre:

[Mrs. Don-o]

What a perfect tu quoque.

"You did it first!"

"No, you did it worst!"

Shame on all of them for these damnable deeds. They face the same Judge.

[BroJoeK]

Mrs. Don-0: "Shame on all of them for these damnable deeds.
They face the same Judge."

Nobody, least of all Sherman, denies that "war is hell."
But the Brigade of Lost Causers who post on these threads want us to believe that Yankees were uniquely devilish.
I'm merely here to say: that ain't necessarily so.

I would also remind you that, compared to any other civil war in history, ours was uniquely fought by good Christian soldiers on both sides, whose leaders usually prevented the kinds of atrocities we learn about in others.
Indeed, my list above, while somewhat lengthy, is most remarkable for the fact that it includes so few items, and numbers murdered were relatively few.

By contrast, the last century's civil wars in Russia and China each took the lives of tens of millions.
The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) in Germany killed eight million, including two-thirds of German civilians.

Yes, some people claim 50,000 civilians died in our Civil War, including 1,000 on Sherman's march, but those numbers are strictly statistical extrapolations, based on the pre-war population growth-rate.
In fact, as my list above proves: the actual numbers known to be killed are in the dozens, or hundreds at most.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for these thoughts, which do provide a realisic perspective.

"But the Brigade of Lost Causers who post on these threads want us to believe that Yankees were uniquely devilish. I'm merely here to say: that ain't necessarily so."

• I'm not a Lost-Causer --- if it matters, I'm Great Lakes born and bred --- and I do not make this argument of unique Yankee depravity. There's always depravity enough to go around.
• On the other hand, there are "War Is Hellions" who argue that if any commit a war crime, then others may do so; and then it's not even a war crime, it's just, well, "War is hell."
• War is not hell. War is war. Hell is hell. Honorable soldiers do not murder, and they serve the cause of justice by repelling the aggressor. In contrast, men who murder are the lawful prey of hell, and that means a horror that does not end.

[Brass Lamp]

History does not consider Sherman a “war criminal” and those who shout it only look foolish to the rest of us.

Of course, if one REALLY wants to look foolish to genuine historians, one need only employ "History" as a grammatical subject which "considers" an historical object.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Since when is freeper rustbucket a lost causer? Last time I checked he was of the most objective person on here.

[stremba]

Certainly atrocities abounded on both sides of the Civil War. That being said, it does NOT excuse Sherman. Two wrongs don’t make a right. (BTW: I am certainly not a “lost causer” either.) The question of war crimes committed during the fighting of a war is logically independent of the validity of the overall cause. A soldier fighting for a perfectly justified cause can commit war crimes. A soldier fighting in an illegal war of aggression is likewise entitled to certain protections per the laws of just war, such as being allowed to surrender without being killed and being treated in humane fashion if taken prisoner. Civilians on ANY side of a conflict are generally entitled to be free from being intentionally targeted.

Bottom line: one need not believe in the fundamental rightness of the Confederate cause (and I do not) to hold Sherman responsible for intentionally targeting civilians during the campaign in Georgia and S. Carolina. The fact that Confederate leaders also targeted civilians does not mitigate this responsibility; I would condemn those leaders as much as I do Sherman.

[rockrr]

If forced to choose between a little verbal shorthand and being a Grammar Nazi I’ll stick with the former ;’)

[Brass Lamp]

My real point is that History doesn't consider (or do) anything. It's not a person, but rather a field within which a person may study.

"History considers" sounds to a historian much like "science says" to a scientist (and much like 'the science is settled').

[BroJoeK]

Mrs. Don-o: "War is not hell.
War is war.
Hell is hell.
Honorable soldiers do not murder, and they serve the cause of justice by repelling the aggressor."

Well, of course, if you are making a principled pacifist-Christian argument against all war, one can easily respect that.
My Dad fought in the Pacific during WWII, but some of my other relatives were pacifists, and did alternate service, in hospitals, etc.
No dishonor or disrespect there, in matters of principles and conscience.

But if, on closer look, it turns out that your Christian principles only apply to Union troops, and not to Confederates, then we have a disagreement.
If you've bought into pro-Confederate propaganda, asserting an unprovoked "war of northern aggression", it may be that you never learned how the Confederacy provoked, started & formally declared war on the United States, while sending military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union States.
You may not know that, once it started, there was no possible way, short of Confederate unconditional surrender, to end both the war and slavery.

Finally, you should understand that the actual record of civilian deaths is quite small -- dozens or hundreds, not thousands or millions.
That tells me our ancestors on both sides were in a class not equaled by any other civil war in history.

[BroJoeK]

StoneWall Brigade: "Since when is freeper rustbucket a lost causer?
Last time I checked he was of the most objective person on here."

Yes, rusty is a credit to himself and Free Republic.
His posts are a delight and serious education to read, always appreciated.
As for who might be, or might not be a "lost causer", surely that's like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

But rest assured, rusty is not "objective", he is firmly committed to the pro-Confederate perspective, and will seldom if ever post anything opposing it.

[BroJoeK]

stremba: "The fact that Confederate leaders also targeted civilians does not mitigate this responsibility; I would condemn those leaders as much as I do Sherman."

If we are talking about genuine atrocities on both sides, then the list is rather short, including items in my post #169 above.
Yes, some claim 50,000 civilians died total, but actual records of such numbers are non-existent.
Actual records support a few dozen here, maybe a hundred there, nothing remotely close to the total suggested.

All this in stark contrast to the millions killed in other civil wars.

As to what, exactly, was or was not considered a "war crime", we can surely judge what our ancestors thought "criminal" by the men they tried and executed for war crimes after the war.
There was one: a Confederate guerilla named Champ Ferguson, of Nashville, Tennessee who was hanged on 53 counts of murder, many said to be arbitrary & gruesome.

Those were murders he personally committed, not that he ordered, or wink-winked the other way as his men committed.

Here's my point: angry as the Union was at Confederates after the war, they did not hunt down & hang mass numbers for real or alleged "war crimes".
Just one man, Champ Ferguson.

Of course, if you wish to apply today's standards, that's a different subject, but then, what are you going to do about hundreds of thousands of WWII Allied bomber crews who destroyed Axis power cities?