150 years on, Sherman's March to Sea still vivid

Pioneer Press ^ | 11-15-14 | Christopher Sullivan

[TurboZamboni]

MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. (AP) — At the heart of this well-preserved antebellum city, sunbeams stream through the arched windows of a grand public meeting room that mirrors the whole Civil War — including its death throes, unfolding 150 years ago this week when Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman launched his scorching March to the Sea.

The first major objective along Sherman's route, Milledgeville was Georgia's capital at the time, and this room was the legislative chamber. Crossing its gleaming floor, Amy Wright couldn't help recalling family stories of the hated "foragers" who swept through then. "They were just called 'Sherman's men,'" she said in a hushed voice.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

He got quite a surprise at Bentonville, North Carolina:

Who won that battle?

[central_va]

POTCS Davis sent SOS Toombs and a few other CSA officials to DC to negotiate with the USA in March. IMO The whole war could have been avoided if Lincoln recognized the CSA (7 states at that time) with reunification in the future.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The whole war could have been avoided if Lincoln recognized the CSA (7 states at that time) with reunification in the future.

It also could have been avoided if Davis hadn't ordered the shelling of Sumter to force the upper south to his side.

[RegulatorCountry]

Given your presence here I assume you can read, lol.

[central_va]

The people of Charleston were freaking out over Sumter, the thought of a fort blockading Chas’n harbor was unthinkable.

[rockrr]

Do you seriously think a single state would even contemplate reunification after Lincoln capitulating like that? Really?!

[central_va]

I think after a long time the seven states forming the CSA would have been in a tight mutual defense pact with the USA. As for reunification ala east/west Germany, probably not but maybe.

[rockrr]

Your optimism is, uhm impressive.

With the level of animosity that the south showed toward the north and their belligerent method of forcible withdrawal from the union, there was only two ways that the crisis could be resolved. Either the south returned to the fold or one side conquered the other.

Any other scenario would guarantee perpetual conflict.

[central_va]

There you go with the assumption there HAD to be a conflict. I don’t buy that.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The only blockading of the harbor up to that point had been done by the southerners.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Yet another southern defeat.

[Future Snake Eater]

Scorched earth was the way we did things for many years after the Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

Doctor 2Branins: "Sorry, I’ve just never read of the systematic, wholesale, wanton destruction perpetrated by the South that I’ve read of with Sherman.
This Chambersburg stuff is small potatoes to Sherman’s antics"

But Chambersburg is far from the only example of Confederate destructions in Union states.
Indeed, there were three separate assaults on Chambersburg -- 1862 (Stuart), 1863 (Jenkins) and 1864 (Early).
Each was consistent with Confederate forces behavior outside the Confederacy proper -- looting of military supplies, destruction of railroads & bridges useful to the Union, disregard for or deliberate destruction of Union civilian property, kidnapping & returning of blacks (regardless of status) to slavery.

In no case did these troops "pay for" their "requisitions".

And there were many similar invasions, including:

1. Maryland, 1862 thrice: Jackson at Front Royal, BT Johnson & Lee at Antietam
   1863 Stuart to Gettysburg
   1864 Early at Monocacy

2. Ohio & Indiana 1862 (Johnson & Jenkins) and 1863 (Morgan)

3. Kentucky, many invasions all during the war, from Polk's in 1861 through Forrest at Fort Anderson in 1864.

4. Missouri, from Wilson Creek in 1861 (McCulloch) through bushwhackers like Bloody Bill Anderson (Centralia Massacre 1864) and Quantrill's Raiders.

5. Kansas, several battles including Baxter Springs & Lawrence Massacre in 1863 (Quantrill) and Mine Creek in 1864 (Price, Marmaduke).

6. Oklahoma Territory, continuous fighting from the Battle of Round Mountain (Cooper) in 1861 to Stand Waite's final surrender in 1865.

7. New Mexico Territory, Confederates invaded in 1862, defeated at Battle of Glorieta Pass (Pyron & Scurry).

8. California, Arizona, Colorado & New Hampshire, all suffered from Confederate forces operating in, or raiding through their states.
   Purpose of those forces was almost exclusively to loot and return to the Confederacy materials & money helpful to their cause.

Point is: what Sherman did in late 1864, in Georgia, was simply return to the Deep South the same form of warfare the Confederacy had practiced for years in Union states & territories.
Lawrence Kansas Massacre:

[Sherman Logan]

I’ve read many times that, at least during some of these raids/invasions, the CSA “paid” for what they took. Of course, payment was CSA “money,” or possibly simply a promise to pay after the war.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IZQHVS2Sq3gC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=did+confederates+pay+for+supplies+when+they+invaded+the+north&source=bl&ots=q60wSnYp-X&sig=lkalA5Z7_QHTYol82jH5r1hk3Ww&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BVyEVNi7O8OlgwTq2oDIAg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=did%20confederates%20pay%20for%20supplies%20when%20they%20invaded%20the%20north&f=false

It’s also pretty clear that the vast majority of requisitioning, looting, foraging or whatever you might want to call it was done by Union troops in the South. Simply because that’s where 90%+ of the fighting took place.

Therefore I think it’s a little disingenuous to claim that Unionists when they behaved the same or worse were simply imitating the CSA.

[BroJoeK]

wbarmy on Fort Sumter: "Are you saying Lincoln should have abandoned Federal property to keep the Peace?"

DiogenesLamp: "Perhaps not all is according to what you have been led to believe?
Read the article if you will."

I've read several books on this subject, and here is the important fact: Lincoln was willing to give up Fort Sumter, but he wanted something of value in return, and that was a pledge by Virginia not to secede -- a fort for a state was a good trade in Lincoln's mind.

Of course, Virginians would not pledge to remain in the Union, because, according to their Ratification of the US Constitution statement, they needed actual civil war to justify their own declaration of secession.
A Confederate assault on Fort Sumter would supply Virginians with the excuse they needed, so they were in no-way willing to promise loyalty to the Union in exchange for Lincoln's release of Fort Sumter.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

Your brother hates Sherman for something that happened during the civil war? Is he 150 years old? Give me a break.

[RegulatorCountry]

Do you actually believe I posted a link to a lengthy and fairly decent article describing that battle in order to hoodwink you into believing something that did not occur? What sort of propaganda mill has been messing with your head?

[Sherman Logan]

The final straw over which southern Democrats broke their party apart, ensuring Lincoln’s election, was the issue of southern and slave access to all the territories. this was based on the theory that slavery had to expand or die, believed by both sides.

Yet we’re supposed to believe that the CSA would simply have walked away from this issue had war not broken out and have accepted complete exclusion from all the territories.

It seems much more likely to me that had Lincoln supinely agreed to recognize independence of the initial seven-stae CSA, tacitly or de jure, additional demands would have been made: surrender of some territories, return of all fugitive sllaves, CSA supervision of such return, etc.

The goal would have been to force a fight, because the original CSA was not really viable. They needed to get some or all of the remaining slave states to join them. No choice.

The break came at Sumter, but had Lincoln abandoned Sumter, it would have happened somewhere else.

BTW, that same belief that slavery HAD to expend meant that CSA independence would not have meant peace. They would have believed they had to expand into the Caribbean and Latin America.

This was not going to happen for simple logistical reasons. Given the technology of the day, the only way to stage such invasions was by sea. The Union Navy and Royal Navy would simply not have allowed such an invasion.

[Sherman Logan]

Bentonville was a southern defeat. Gave Sherman a pretty good bloody nose first, but they still had to retreat to avoid being overrun. Actually had more casualties than the Union Army.

Not surprising when they were outnumbered 3:1.

[RegulatorCountry]

There was a worse and more evenly matched battle coming shortly thereafter at Raleigh, and both Johnston and Sherman knew it. That battle did not occur due to surrender at Appomattox, sparing many thousands of lives. It was over before Johnston ever took over from Beauregard, he told Lee as much, but he gave it his best.