Replies

As one who is not particularly sympathetic to the Confederate cause, I must say that Sherman was morally culpable in many respects for the actions of Union troops. I do not believe, however, that he intentionally ordered his troops to misbehave. There were certainly civilian casualties during the “March to the Sea”. It is also true that Sherman did not order his troops to commit acts of violence against civilians. He did not, however, maintain discipline enough to stop such violence.

I also find it difficult to believe that Sherman intentionally ordered the city of Columbia burned. It is contrary to his behavior upon the occupation of other cities during the campaign. True, he did order Atlanta burned, but only after evacuating the civilian population. If he was engaged routinely in acts of terrorism against the civilian populace, why then did he not burn Savannah or Charleston? Sherman was no angel, and he does bear some of the moral responsibility for the actions of his troops, but it does seem that the burning of Columbia was not part of a terror campaign.

Well, the reason he didn’t burn Charleston is that he didn’t go there.

Some believe, not without evidence, that Columbia was burned because it was the city where secession started. Even without Sherman ordering it, many soldiers wanted revenge for the war.

As one who is not particularly sympathetic to the Confederate cause, I must say that Sherman was morally culpable in many respects for the actions of Union troops. I do not believe, however, that he intentionally ordered his troops to misbehave. There were certainly civilian casualties during the “March to the Sea”. It is also true that Sherman did not order his troops to commit acts of violence against civilians. He did not, however, maintain discipline enough to stop such violence.
I also find it difficult to believe that Sherman intentionally ordered the city of Columbia burned. It is contrary to his behavior upon the occupation of other cities during the campaign. True, he did order Atlanta burned, but only after evacuating the civilian population. If he was engaged routinely in acts of terrorism against the civilian populace, why then did he not burn Savannah or Charleston? Sherman was no angel, and he does bear some of the moral responsibility for the actions of his troops, but it does seem that the burning of Columbia was not part of a terror campaign.

You cannot be serious.

Sherman actually liked the South, having lived and served as Superintendent of a military academy in Louisiana prior to the war. He said he had enjoyed his time there, and had hoped to return to the South to live after the war. He wasn’t anti-slavery, but was against dissolution of the Union.