There is also another question -- could Sherman have stopped his troops from burning houses? In the case of the wholesale burning of Columbia, South Carolina, he did not stop his troops. Here is his testimony before an 1873 commission:
Q. -- You testified, a little while ago, that it was very likely they [Sherman's own men] might burn Columbia, and you permitted them, or your officers did -- permitted them to go about the town?
A. -- I could have had them stay in the ranks, but I would not have done it, under the circumstances, to save Columbia.
Q. -- Although you knew they were likely to burn Columbia, you would not restrain them to their ranks, even to save it?
A. -- No, Sir. I would not have done such harshness to my soldiers to save the whole town. They were men, and I was not going to treat them like slaves. ...
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.
Thanks for this quote. Interesting. And appalling.