THE BATTLE OF ATLANTA: Civilians were Sherman's targets

Not only was William Tecumseh Sherman guilty of many of the crimes that some apologists portray as "tall tales," but also his specter seems to haunt the scandal-ridden halls of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Sherman had a relatively poor record battling armies. His lack of preparation nearly destroyed Union forces at Shiloh. He was repulsed at Chickasaw Bluffs, losing an early opportunity to capture Vicksburg, Miss. The result was a bloody campaign that dragged on for months. He was blocked by Gen. Pat Cleburne at the Battle of Chattanooga and needed to be bailed out by Gen. George Thomas' Army of the Cumberland. His troops were crushed by rebel forces in the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain.

But Sherman knew how to make war against civilians. After the capture of Atlanta, he engaged in policies similar to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia by expelling citizens from their homes. "You might as well appeal against the thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war," he told the fleeing population. Today, Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for similar actions in Kosovo.

An article on Sherman in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last spring asserted that Sherman attacked acceptable military targets "by the standards of war at the time." This seems to assume that human rights were invented with the creation of the United Nations. But Gen. Grant did not burn Virginia to the ground. Gen. Lee did not burn Maryland or Pennsylvania when he invaded. Both sought to destroy each other's armies instead of making war against women and children, as Sherman did.

After promising to "make Georgia . . . howl," Sherman continued such policies in the Carolinas. Not only did he preside over the burning of Columbia, but he also executed several prisoners of war in retaliation for the ambush of one of his notorious foraging parties. While Andersonville's camp commander, Henry Wirz, was found guilty of conspiracy to impair the health and destroy the life of prisoners and executed, nothing like that happened to Sherman.

According to an article by Maj. William W. Bennett, Special Forces, U.S. Army, Sherman turned his attention to a new soft target after the Civil War: Native Americans. Rather than engage Indian fighters, Sherman again preferred a strategy of killing noncombatants. After an ambush of a military detachment by Red Cloud's tribe, Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

Bennett notes that Sherman carried out his campaign with brutal efficiency. On the banks of the Washita River, Gen. George Armstrong Custer massacred a village of the friendly Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle, who had located to a reservation. Sherman was quoted as saying, "The more we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or maintained as a species of paupers. Their attempts at civilization are simply ridiculous."

Such slaughter was backed by the extermination of the buffalo as a means of depriving the men, women and children with a source of food. Many Native Americans not killed by Sherman's troopers were forced onto reservations or exiled to Florida to face swamps and disease.

Now we have learned about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Such events may seem unrelated, were it not for reports that Sherman's policies are still taught to West Point cadets as an example of how to break an enemy's will to fight.

Are we therefore shocked by the acts of barbarity against Iraqi detainees? As long as we honor Sherman, teach his tactics and revise history to excuse his actions, we can expect more examples of torture and savagery against noncombatants we encounter in other countries.

John Tures is an assistant professor of political science at LaGrange College who was born in Wisconsin, opposes the 1956 Georgia flag and still has a low opinion of Sherman.

Did Lincoln talk to Baldwin about his revenue problems? It's certainly not proven, anymore than any account of a private meeting between two people can be taken for granted as being true. We have no way of knowing what was actually said, but somehow the questions and responses don't fit.

Baldwin testified under oath that he did. And Botts testified that Lincoln himself told Botts in 1861, not 1866 after hearing Baldwin's testimony.

Did Lincoln make the commment, "And what is to become of the revenue? "I shall have no government, no resources!" to the YMCA delegation. I don't know.

If he didn't, I'm certain that either the man of the cloth to whom those comments were addressed, or the man they are attributed to would have demanded an aplogoy.

One of the more repellent things about today's neoconfederates is how they begin with the line that they are just trying to defend the honor of their ancestors, and end by making monsters out of those on the other side, taking the radical line that it was "all about" money or malevolence.

Slavery was constitutional. Secession was not unconstitutional. Lincoln caused the death of over 1 million needlessly. He refused to abide by decisons of the courts, or to be a statesman and negotiate peaceful terms.

Yet I'm told that my ancestors were traitors and deserved death????? My and other families somehow deserved to have their women raped and killed by "noble" yankees, our homes burned, our cherished possesions stolen, our lands seized, simply because we desired freedom?

"I do deny that he ever used those words".

I read your reply to 4CJ. You offer speculation but no proof. All you have is your bias.

You speculate on who had what political opinions and motivations. You discount everyone but yourself.

Just to remind you what was said:

[ONE]

The picturesque hills of New England were dotted with costly mansions, erected with money, of which the Southern planters had been despoiled, by means of the tariffs of which Mr. Benton spoke. Her harbors frowned with fortifications, constructed by the same means. Every cove and inlet had its lighthouse, for the benefit of New England shipping, three fourths of the expense of erecting which had been paid by the South, and even the cod, and mackerel fisheries of New England were bountied, on the bald pretext, that they were nurseries for manning the navy. The South resisted this wholesale robbery, to the best of her ability. Some few of the more generous of the Northern representatives in Congress came to her aid, but still she was overborne; and the curious reader, who will take the pains to consult the "Statutes at Large," of the American Congress, will find on an average,-a tariff for every five years recorded on their pages; the cormorants increasing in rapacity, the more they devoured. No wonder that Mr. Lincoln when asked, "why not let the South go?" replied, "Let the South go! where then shall we get our revenue?"

Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, During the War Between The States, Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co., 1869, p. 59.

[TWO]

When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.

[THREE]

Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.

"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"

"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!"

Robert Reid Howison, History of the War, excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.

[FOUR]

"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?" "Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."

"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."

Evert A. Duyckinck, National History of the War For the Union, Civil, Military and Naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861, Vol. I, p. 173.

[FIVE]

In 1861, if the erring sisters had been allowed to go in peace, was not the disturbing question of the hour: Whence is to come national revenue? Had not this very consideration much to do with the policy of coercion?

"Thus," said Mr. Lincoln, "if we allow the Southern States to depart from the Union, where shall we get the money with which to carry on the Government?"

James Battle Avirett, The Old Plantation: How We Lived in Great House and Cabin Before the War, New York: F. Tennyson Neely Co., 1901, p. 18.

[SIX]

It seems obvious that Lincoln's concern over secession, "What then will become of my tariff?" was a serious matter.

When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams, 2000, p. 27.

Footnoted to: Robert L. Dabny, Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, in Secular (1897; reprint, Harrisburg, VA.: Sprinkle, 1994), 94, 100.

[SEVEN]

Reported in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition.

[EIGHT]

The quote from Lincoln re: Revenues (meeting with Dr. Fuller) is also substantiated by Benson Lossing, in his "Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War: Journeys Through the Battlefields in the Wake of Conflict", Johns Hopkins Univ Press (Reprint edition), 1997, Vol. 1, p. 420 (reprinted 1997)

Still another embassy, in the interest of the secessionists of Baltimore, waited upon the President. These were delegates from five of the Young Men's Christian Associations of that city, with the Rev. Dr. fuller, of the Baptist Church, at their head. The President received them cordially, and treated them kindly. He met their propositions and their sophisms with Socratic reasoning. When Dr. Fuller assued him that he could produce peace if he would let the country know that he was "disposed to recognize the independence of the Southern States -- recognize the fact they they have formed a government of their own; and that they will never again be united with the North," the President asked, significantly, "and what is to become of the revenue?"

I repeat, most of these are second- or third-hand citations. They aren't consistent in their wording and don't give the time and place where such comments were allegedly made. They are folklore rather than fact.

You've asked me to show you where you make unsupported jumps or leaps in reasoning. And here's one: when the subject was first discussed Lincoln's military advisors counseled against using force to reinforce Sumter or remove the danger to it. They also did not support reinforcement, but advised evacuation. Knowing that Lincoln attempted resupply and the result was war, you assume 1) that the military advised against resupply because it would bring war and 2) that Lincoln sent supplies to the fort because he wanted war. But neither one of these leaps of assumption is proven to be true, and both may be false. From what I've read, both are false.

Do I disagree with your "authorities"? Obviously. I question whether they really have much authority in this particular question. What's right or wrong doesn't depend on majority opinion or on credentials, but it may not hurt my case to say that most of the respected scholars who've written about Sumter take a dim view of neoconfederate conspiracy theories.

Once again, Botts testified as to the existence of an offered bargain, not that Lincoln mentioned his revenue problems to Baldwin, and Baldwin and Botts disagreed about whether or not such a bargain existed. Botts wrote an account of what he was told about the meeting in 1861. It differed from what Baldwin would later maintain, and the testimonies and controversy date from 1861. What Lincoln might have said about the tariff wasn't a subject of the debate. Botts neither confirms nor denies Baldwin's representation. It's worth noting that the idea that Lincoln spoke to Baldwin about the tariff first appears in Baldwin's 1866 testimony and pamphlet, after the Baltimore Sun quote had been in circulation in the Confederacy for four or five years.

Whether the Sun quote is true or false isn't established. Those who use the quote may not interested in verifying it. I simply point out that the paper was quite ill-disposed to Lincoln. And of course, in times of crisis presidents have far too many pressing things to deal with to write letters to every paper that maligns them. For one thing, it doesn't pay to give those who are hostile the attention. And their may be so many critics or attackers that the country's work would never get done.

In sending out Secession Commissioners and calling for a large army, Davis gave a clear signal to Northerners that he wanted to break up the Union and get as many pieces for his own government as he could. He couldn't claim to simply be an unconcerned and innocent bystander in the dissolution of the nation.

Your thinking precedes from the assumption that unilateral secession was constitutional. But this is precisely what was at issue. There were real differences of opinion on this issue, and where such differences of opinion exist, it's up to those who want to change things not to behave provocatively.

FWIW, my comments on age weren't addressed to you. Perhaps it wasn't the best way to put the issue either: after 911 even the youngest among us who lived through 911 ought to be able to remember the uncertainty and chaos and terror of the moment and better understand previous historical crises.

"Sumter wasn't a revenue collection place, and holding Sumter wouldn't bring a penny into the treasure."

That statement is really stupid, x, more characteristic of whiskeypapa than you. But maybe you are taking his place as the fact obliterator of record.

Of course he wanted to hold onto Sumter. Holding that harbor hostage would prevent direct trade with Europe. If the ships came in, he could forcibly collect tariffs. More likely, they would not try entrance, thus strangling the port.

You offer that quote to attempt to deflect from the fact that Lincoln was very concerned with tariff collection.

Contrary to your twisting the facts, Sumter WAS a revenue collection place. The Customs house in Charleston had been in operation since the inception of U.S. tariff laws.

What you fail to acknowledge are two facts:

1. The city completed a major dredging project in 1860. Now, deep draft oceangoing cargo ships could sail directly to Charleston from Europe.

2. Just after Lincoln took office, the Confederacy announced its tariff rates which were less than 50% the rates at Northern ports. All of the newspapers and businessmen got wind of this and began to demand that Lincoln close Southern ports.

And if you still think that Lincoln was not concerned with the tariffs he needed, consider the following:

"Sir: I shall be obliged if you will give me your opinion in writing whether under the Constitution and existing laws, the Executive has power to collect duties on ship-board, off-shore, in cases where their collection in the ordinary way is, by any cause, rendered impracticable. This would include the question of lawful power to prevent the landing of dutiable goods, unless the duties were paid." - Abraham Lincoln to Edward Bates, March 18, 1861

"Sir I shall be obliged if you will inform me whether any goods, wares and merchandise, subject by law to the payment of duties, are now being imported into the United States without such duties being paid, or secured according to law. And if yea, at what place or places? and for what cause do such duties remain unpaid, or [un]secured? I will also thank you for your opinion whether, as a matter of fact, vessels off shore could be effectively used to prevent such importation, or to enforce the payment or securing of the duties. If yea, what number, and description of vessels, in addition to those already in the Revenue service would be requisite?" - Abraham Lincoln to Salmon P. Chase, March 18, 1861.

He quickly began to understand the magnitude of the problem.

"What will become of my tariffs". Abraham Lincoln, 1861.

But of course, you digress from the topic at hand. What was Davis doing that was risky?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.