# William T. Sherman and 1864



## Milkman (Nov 16, 2010)

All of us who grew up in Ga. recognize the name of General William T. Sherman. 
I was educated in the Ga public school system from 1961-1973.  I remember having 2 teachers in 3rd and 5th grade who were old maid sisters. These dear old ladies are long ago passed away now. From all the teachings I remember from these ladies I think they had more respect for Satan than for General Sherman. 
 I think they fully believed that Sherman was soley responsible for all bad things that had happened in the state of Ga from 1864 until the present time.

What if Gen Grant had not ordered Sherman to invade Ga ?

What if Gen Sherman had not chosen to invoke the "scorched earth' policy.

What are your thoughts on the events in Ga from May until December of 1864 ?


----------



## Jranger (Nov 16, 2010)

I think the message he delivered was not very well recieved... I for one wouldn't have taken very kindly to it either.


----------



## Nicodemus (Nov 16, 2010)

He didn`t like us, or the Plains Indians, much.


----------



## fishfryer (Nov 16, 2010)

Those two fine old ladies were right,or at least more right than wrong.Kennedy and Johnson have a share too,with present company not excepted.


----------



## Resica (Nov 16, 2010)

Nicodemus said:


> He didn`t like us, or the Plains Indians, much.



I think he liked southerners Nic and disliked war. Had to do what he had to do.  He was superintendent of what became LSU before the war.


----------



## slightly grayling (Nov 16, 2010)

Both sides of my family are from rural areas in Georgia and have been there well before the Civil War.  The impression I get when it comes to Sherman, is that it is almost ancestrial memory/hatred among southerners.  Many farms and homesteads that took generations to build were raized and some Union Soldiers were given free reign to plunder and destroy.  These were rarely large plantations and few of these were built with slave labor; however, that isn't the popular notion. The hardships that followed scarred famlies and communities for generations.  If anything good came out of the plunder of the south, it may be that the population was better prepared for the great depression than most areas of the US.


----------



## Randy (Nov 16, 2010)

If we did in Iraq what Sherman did in Georgia we would all be crying foul.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 16, 2010)

If Shermans group in Ga and Sheridans group in the Shenandoah had not decimated all in their path what would have happened?

Would the resources destroyed in the scorched earth campaign have been enough to keep the Southern war effort going for longer?   

Would this have resulted in Union initiated peace settlements different than the Confederate surrenders did?


----------



## Milkman (Nov 16, 2010)

Nicodemus said:


> He didn`t like us, or the Plains Indians, much.



One documented fact is that Sherman had a total dislike for the southern black people. 

He was a soldier and a good one. Think if you will of taking an Army of 60,000 into enemy territory with no supply line whatsoever.  He was cut off from the Northern railroads after leaving Atlanta.  Much of what his troops pillaged was for forage for the 60,000 men and the animals it took to pull those wagon trains and cavalry.   They took time in the fall of 1864 to determine what counties had the best crop  harvests that fall and took full advantage of that. He supplied his Army fully and destroyed most of the rest. Sad but true.


----------



## Citiboy287 (Nov 16, 2010)

Milkman said:


> All of us who grew up in Ga. recognize the name of General William T. Sherman.
> I was educated in the Ga public school system from 1961-1973.  I remember having 2 teachers in 3rd and 5th grade who were old maid sisters. These dear old ladies are long ago passed away now. From all the teachings I remember from these ladies I think they had more respect for Satan than for General Sherman.
> I think they fully believed that Sherman was soley responsible for all bad things that had happened in the state of Ga from 1864 until the present time.
> 
> ...



I suggest you read Shermans Memoirs, Sherman was a friend of the South > Sherman had mapped the State of Georgia after leaving West Point Which gave me vast knowledge of the State and made contacts with the culture. He was commander of LSU until the war and then , returned to Ohio to form a regiment. He was kicked out about 2 years after the war began because it was believed he was Crazy, Sherman hated war but believed that what ever it took to end it was better than letting the Killing go on and on, His biggest mistake was Kennesaw mountain and he always regreted not flaking Johnson. The myth of him burning Atlanta has never been confirmed,  He insists that the burning of 5 point rail head resulted from southern soliders burning a freight train to avoid the union from taking the supplies and the fire got out of hand. Interesting fact - on north side drive in a small traffic island is a historical marker indicating that that was teh spot Atlanta was surrendered, He gave direct orders to not touch the capital near MLK Jr . He was wined and dined by the city of Atlanta Elite.  - Upon the departure from Atlanta, he gave orders for teh army to live off the land, His logic was carry no supplies and live off the land, This is where the burnt earth idea got again out of hand, Considering that the Majority of the landowners were the rich elite, it was his way of bringing the war home, actually there were only skirmishes all the way to Savanah, the plan was to get a port to accept additional supplies, Some writers suggest that the need for the port was to arrange for the slaves to be returned to Africa, but Lincoln never sent the ships and by the time Sherman got back to DC , Lincoln had been killed. When sherman marched at the Grand army of the republic victory prade ,  he marched with his Black road builder unit , so the  idea he was a racist was not proven.   After he retired  he made many trips to the South and again dined with the Elite and was the toast of the town and interesting fact was that when Sherman died , General Johnson acted as a pallbearer ( Johnson Died a few weeks later) ,,,,, Now in retro spec one must consider if Shreman had not Matched accross Georgia and caused the material distruction, How many more members for each sides military would have been killed?  Sherman invented the concept that when the civilian population feels the war , the end of the war will be near. 
There can be many many comparisons drawn from this concept. In ww2 every family was involved in the war effort , Today Iraq and Afganistan effects a small number of families , so there is not any realy investment in the outcome... By bringing the war to Georgia , the families felt the effect of the war -------- I beleive that this is an old rural saying , Ham and eggs, the chicken make a donation, the pig make a committment -----


----------



## 35 Whelen (Nov 16, 2010)

Just finished reading "Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea" by Noah Andre Trudeau.  Very interesting read.  According to the author, it was Sherman's idea to march from Atlanta to Savannah and had to sell the idea to Grant and Lincoln.


----------



## lagrangedave (Nov 16, 2010)

He read Sun Tzu.


----------



## CAL (Nov 16, 2010)

I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.


----------



## Jeff Raines (Nov 16, 2010)

Probably 15 years ago,I was in the uncle remus museum in Eatonton.While there I was talking with the elderly woman that was working .Man,the way she talked about Sherman you'd think he personally slapped her.
But uncle billy did what he had to do to make the war end.


----------



## Resica (Nov 16, 2010)

CAL said:


> I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.



I heard he knew the mayor or something along those lines.


----------



## chiefsquirrel83 (Nov 16, 2010)

My history professor in college stated that if Sherman didn't burn Atlanta...then Atlanta would probably be the size of Macon or Columbus.....so thank a yankee for all the traffic, pollution, and crime we have now....


----------



## Resica (Nov 16, 2010)

I thought Hood burned her.


----------



## rongohio (Nov 17, 2010)

CAL said:


> I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.



He did the same with Cheraw, SC, another beautiful town where some friends of mine used to live.  Other than that though, it's my understanding that SC got it a lot worse than Georgia did.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 17, 2010)

CAL said:


> I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.





Resica said:


> I heard he knew the mayor or something along those lines.



Sherman may have visited Madison Ga before the war, but his memoirs document that he was traveling with the right wing which never got closer than 20 miles to Madison. They went the route from Covington - Shady Dale - Eatonton  It may have been one of his commanding generals who made the decision. Some stuff was burned in Madison.

From the books I have read most of what was burned in the towns they passed through was governmental buildings and anything that could provide resources to the Confederate war effort. Things like warehouses, gins, depots, factories,
 However if the local Militia gave resistance the town suffered accordingly.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 17, 2010)

rongohio said:


> He did the same with Cheraw, SC, another beautiful town where some friends of mine used to live.  Other than that though, it's my understanding that SC got it a lot worse than Georgia did.



Ron,
The things the Union troops under Sherman did in SC were worse than in Ga from what I have read.  Whole towns were burned and werent rebuilt.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 17, 2010)

Citiboy287 said:


> I suggest you read Shermans Memoirs, Sherman was a friend of the South >  ---



I have read his memoirs and several other books related to 1864 in Ga.  Sherman was a soldier and a good one.  

IMO his biggest fault was allowing his commanding Generals and other officers too much free rein.  The result was the meylee that resulted in Ga and SC


----------



## Milkman (Nov 17, 2010)

Resica said:


> I thought Hood burned her.



You sir are correct. General Hood ordered all things that could be used by the enemy destroyed when the Confederate troops abandoned Atlanta.
 According to some accounts the explosions from the ammunition exploding could be heard in Macon.  Much of Atlanta burned then.

But it is my understanding that more was burned in November when the Union troops moved out.  
 "War like the Thunderbolt "  is a good book that covers much of the Atlanta disaster.


----------



## Jeff Raines (Nov 17, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Ron,
> The things the Union troops under Sherman did in SC were worse than in Ga from what I have read.  Whole towns were burned and werent rebuilt.



The reason being was SC was first to secede,Sherman wanted to make an example


----------



## rongohio (Nov 17, 2010)

Milkman said:


> I have read his memoirs and several other books related to 1864 in Ga.  Sherman was a soldier and a good one.
> 
> IMO his biggest fault was allowing his commanding Generals and other officers too much free rein.  The result was the meylee that resulted in Ga and SC



Here's an excerpt from Jefferson Davis' last address to the Confederacy, delivered 2 days *after *Richmond fell:

"We have now entered upon a new phase of a struggle the memory of which is to endure for all ages and to shed ever increasing luster upon our country. Relieved from the necessity of guarding cities and particular points, important but not vital to our defense, with our army free to move from point to point and strike in detail the detachments and garrisons of the enemy; operating in the interior of our own country, where supplies are more accessible and where the foe will be far removed from his own base and cut off from all succor in case of reverse, nothing is now needed to render our triumph certain but the exhibition of our own unquenchable resolve."

I think it's interesting that Hood's actions after Atlanta fell are very similar to what Davis is describing here.  It seems Sherman understood that and wanted no part of it.  I think Sherman's march was probably a good wartime strategy, as long as the damage could be limited to infrastructure and not to private homes and civilians.  After all, the goal was not only to win the war but to achieve reunification and a lasting peace.  I believe that's what Sherman set out to do in Georgia for the most part, although he obviously wasn't entirely effective at it.  In SC though, the "cradle of secession",  I get the impression he turned a blind eye to the destruction.  Once he got to Cheraw and entered into NC, he "lightened" back up.  It's also interesting that the surrender terms he gave to Joe Johnston in NC were extremely generous, and were angrily rejected by President Johnson.


----------



## Lindseys Grandpa (Nov 17, 2010)

Sherman knew how war was to be fought like him or hate him. When i look at the River below Atlanta sometimes i think he had a good idea.


----------



## polkhunt (Nov 18, 2010)

You can like him or hate but he was a good soldier and  he had to what he did to try to bring the south to its knees. I think they probably did go a little overboard in some cases but alot of civilians were helping the southern armies and he knew it. I think it was just a job to him. I think he was just cold hearted and that is the kind of General you need in war.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 18, 2010)

This is the letter written by General Sherman to the mayor and council of Atlanta after his order to evacutate the city in the fall of 1864. They had asked him to reconsider his order.

---------------------------------------------------------------

HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DIVISION of the MISSISSIPPI in the FIELD
Atlanta, Georgia,
James M. Calhoun, Mayor,
E.E. Rawson and S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta.

Gentleman: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in all America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible. 

      You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation. 

      You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. 

      We don't want your Negroes, or your horses, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it. 

      You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, bu the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. 

      But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter. 

      Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Atlanta. Yours in haste, 

W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding


----------



## Milkman (Nov 18, 2010)

This is cut from the above letter.............. I think it best describes the reasons for his total warfare approach in 1864-65.

"I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. "


----------



## GaBuckSlammer (Nov 19, 2010)

CAL said:


> I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.



Supposedly it is due to an old classmate friend of his from West Point having lived in that town. Or so says the historical tours given every weekend.


----------



## F14Gunner (Nov 19, 2010)

CAL said:


> I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.


He was ask by a congressman from Madison to please not burn the town. Also he like the Beautiful rual area as well. History Channel a few days ago


----------



## Kawaliga (Nov 22, 2010)

He ruined my ancestors on mama's side of the family. There was nothing left when they made it home after Appomattox.


----------



## JWF III (Nov 26, 2010)

> If we did in Iraq what Sherman did in Georgia we would all be crying foul.



I believe "THEY" would be crying foul. (They meaning Iraqies and liberals.)

I'm all for it. If we're not ready to fight a war to win it, we shouldn't be fighting the war.

Figtht it like it's Nazi Germany, 1940s Tokyo, or like Sherman treated the South. Our troops would have been home along time ago, Isreal would be much larger, and we might actually have some respect from the remaining countries of the region.

Wyman


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 2, 2010)

Dang Shame, I grew up in Oxford Mississippi. Grant wintered there (not sure which year) He ordered that none of the Homes be destroyed. I enjoyed seeing the homes (about 20 of them) and touring them on the yearly Antebellum celebration. Can you Imagine how grand Atlanta would be if the old Homes were still here.
Put me down for hating Sherman


----------



## wareagle5.0 (Dec 6, 2010)

right or wrong, i hate him. i cant help it. it is in my DNA. however, if he was still around today, i might pay him to burn Atlanta.


----------



## fishfryer (Dec 6, 2010)

If the soldiers in Hood's command had seen the future,there wouldn't have been a stick of firewood left.


----------



## westcobbdog (Dec 6, 2010)

I too must say I really do hate Sherman. Some yanks we decent men and had honor and character and would not harm women and children, but others were cruel and ruthless like Sherman, who indirectly caused things worse than the devastation of war on many with his leadership.


----------



## ADB (Dec 15, 2010)

He had a girllyfriend in madison, ga.


----------



## Slingblade (Dec 16, 2010)

I have often wondered what this country would be like if they had actually returned all the freed slaves back to their homeland?


----------



## Resica (Dec 17, 2010)

Slingblade said:


> I have often wondered what this country would be like if they had actually returned all the freed slaves back to their homeland?



What did you come up with?


----------



## GA DAWG (Dec 17, 2010)

I think he might need to come back and burn Atlanta again myself Got know use what so ever for the place!


----------



## Gary Mercer (Dec 17, 2010)

You know, based on his letter to the people of Atlanta, he sounds like Truman and the A-Bomb.  
the only real way to win a war is to so demoralize the enemy, (all of the enemy, including the wives and dids,) that the will to resist is gone.  This is what we did in Germany with the massive bombings.  Take a look at pictures of Dresden. And the fire bombing of Tokyo.
Guys the only way to wage a war is all out.  The reason we had troubles in Nam is because we weren't allowed to win the war.  It wasn't politically correct.  Same in Irag and some other places around the world.
the fact that it was visited upon our ancestors make us hate Sherman, but I think he was trying to end the conflict in the only way he know how.
Now, if he would just come back long enough to do some "Urban renewal" in Atlanta.


----------



## Bowyer29 (Dec 17, 2010)

Randy said:


> If we did in Iraq what Sherman did in Georgia we would all be crying foul.



If we did in Irag and Afghanistan as Sherman did to GA in 1864, there would be quite a few American service men and women alive and well , others unwounded and suffering today. The only way to win a war and gain "voluntary" compliance to the terms of surrender are to make sure there is no other worthwhil choice. That said, it sucks that Americans had to do that to other Americans. And there are always the scumbags that take things too far, as I am sure happened at certain times.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 20, 2010)

CAL said:


> I am told that because Madison,Ga. was such a beautiful city.Sherman ordered nothing to be burned or destroyed!To me it is a beautiful city today.



It probably looked like any other city back then.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 20, 2010)

Resica said:


> What did you come up with?



Soul Train wouldn't be nearly as good as it currently is.


----------



## Ole Fuzzy (Dec 20, 2010)

wareagle5.0 said:


> right or wrong, i hate him. i cant help it. it is in my DNA. however, if he was still around today, i might pay him to burn Atlanta.



I would pay him to burn Helen, a tacky, tasteless little tourist trap.


----------



## Ole Fuzzy (Dec 20, 2010)

Milkman said:


> What if Gen Grant had not ordered Sherman to invade Ga ?
> 
> What if Gen Sherman had not chosen to invoke the "scorched earth' policy.
> 
> What are your thoughts on the events in Ga from May until December of 1864 ?



The south would have lost anyway without the scorched earth policy.  That was just an additional measure that made reconstruction and reconciliation more difficult.

The timing of the invasion and conquest of Atlanta were important to the election of November 1864.  Sherman's success was important to the re-election of Lincoln and continued prosecution of the war rather than a compromise resolution.  At that time, the war had taken a toll on northern families and the treasury, and many wondered if it was worth it.

Having an incompetent Commander In Chief like Jefferson Davis did not help the Confederacy much, and his decisions and indecision with regard to the appointment of generals, their removal, and the overall strategy.

The real question with regard to Sherman's march is what would have happened if Davis had listened to Joe Johnston, Bedford Forrest, the governors of GA and other state when they implored him to give Forrest the resources, authority, and discretion to fully commit to TN during 1864 with the express purpose of disrupting all of Sherman's supply and communications and threatening his rear.  Davis failed to act on it and left Forrest to ostensibly guard cops in MS, and permitted the built up Union forces to come looking for him.  Forrest likely could have caused a lot of trouble at Vicksburg and Memphis too, and force the Union to commit more troops there or lose them.    

In their writings at the time, Forrest's location and activities were a constant concern to Sherman and Grant.  He was the CSA officer that they feared the most.  But Forrest was barely educated at all, and had no West Point pedigree, and Davis kept passing over him in favor of those that did.

If Forrest had been permitted to disrupt Sherman and threaten the Union grip on strongholds on the Miss. River, that would have gone right to the heart of the federal strategy to win the war.  The result might have been to drag the war out much longer, causing a defeat for Lincoln and compromised resolution of the war.  If you read Grant's memoirs, the thing that they were most concerned about was the CSA avoiding confrontation and destruction and dragging the war out to force a settlement.  From that standpoint, they thought that Joe Johnston was smarter and more effective in his strategy of delaying and harassing Sherman that Davis thought at the time.  Replacing him with a drug dependent John Bell Hood spelled disaster for Johnston's force and for the Confederacy.


----------



## Milkman (Apr 20, 2013)

bump for comments during Confederate history month


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 21, 2013)

Milkman said:


> bump for comments during Confederate history month



Thanks for this bump too. Those are some very good comments, not as negative as I thought. I can see comparisons to WWII where whole towns were bombed and destroyed. Now we would never do that. 
The spoils of war go to the victor.


----------



## billy62green (Jul 25, 2013)

Milkman said:


> All of us who grew up in Ga. recognize the name of General William T. Sherman.
> I was educated in the Ga public school system from 1961-1973.  I remember having 2 teachers in 3rd and 5th grade who were old maid sisters. These dear old ladies are long ago passed away now. From all the teachings I remember from these ladies I think they had more respect for Satan than for General Sherman.
> I think they fully believed that Sherman was soley responsible for all bad things that had happened in the state of Ga from 1864 until the present time.
> 
> ...



I have read that at the onset of the Battle of Shiloh (1862), Sherman and his escort rode out to check on reports of Confederates in the area, and he took a round of buckshot from a "buck & ball" load in the hand. What if that round had been a few inches over and permanently disabled or killed him? Who would history have had in his place, McPherson, Sheridan, Thomas, or someone else? Would that General have pursued the same course as Sherman did, and how would they have matched up against Johnston? Questions abound as to how things would have possibly changed. They say baseball is a game of inches. While not a game, war may also be decided by inches.


----------



## Milkman (Jul 26, 2013)

billy62green said:


> I have read that at the onset of the Battle of Shiloh (1862), Sherman and his escort rode out to check on reports of Confederates in the area, and he took a round of buckshot from a "buck & ball" load in the hand. What if that round had been a few inches over and permanently disabled or killed him? Who would history have had in his place, McPherson, Sheridan, Thomas, or someone else? Would that General have pursued the same course as Sherman did, and how would they have matched up against Johnston? Questions abound as to how things would have possibly changed. They say baseball is a game of inches. While not a game, war may also be decided by inches.



Very good question............ the same can be said of Jackson who was injured at the first battle of Manassas. If he had been killed would the war in Virginia have been as intense?


----------



## RBM (Jul 30, 2013)

Sherman or no Sherman in the WFSR, if the ANV had dug deep into the Smokies the Federals would never have gotten them out and Lee's general staff knew it. A Confederate equivalent of the IRA in America today? Guerrilla warfare. Its reverse attrition warfare. Remember Vietnam. It would have been a war the Federals could never win but Lee rejected it. America would not be the one we know today if Lee had accepted such a war.


----------



## Milkman (Jul 31, 2013)

RBM said:


> Sherman or no Sherman in the WFSR, if the ANV had dug deep into the Smokies the Federals would never have gotten them out and Lee's general staff knew it. A Confederate equivalent of the IRA in America today? Guerrilla warfare. Its reverse attrition warfare. Remember Vietnam. It would have been a war the Federals could never win but Lee rejected it. America would not be the one we know today if Lee had accepted such a war.



If a small Army such as you describe were dug in, in such an isolated spot as those mountains it probably would not have changed much.  The Yankees already occupied our entire country (the south).  They would probably have gone ahead with full occupation and take over without the surrender of the ANV  in my opinion.


----------



## RBM (Jul 31, 2013)

Milkman said:


> If a small Army such as you describe were dug in, in such an isolated spot as those mountains it probably would not have changed much.  The Yankees already occupied our entire country (the south).  They would probably have gone ahead with full occupation and take over without the surrender of the ANV  in my opinion.



I agree that it would not have changed the occupation of the South. The war would have continued though (both militarily and civilian) to be waged against the Federals wearing them down over time and forcing Southern Independence and States Rights sooner or later. Just like Ireland or any other "occupied" nation as history has shown.


----------



## billy62green (Jul 31, 2013)

Milkman said:


> If a small Army such as you describe were dug in, in such an isolated spot as those mountains it probably would not have changed much.  The Yankees already occupied our entire country (the south).  They would probably have gone ahead with full occupation and take over without the surrender of the ANV  in my opinion.



I agree. It would be hard to make the comparison of the South in 1865 with Vietnam in 1965. The VC and NVA had sanctuary countries (Laos & Cambodia) they could run back to for rest and refitting and knew they wouldn't be followed there. They also had a type of mother country (North Vietnam), from which they continually received further supplies and more men. While North Vietnam was being bombed, there was little or no chance that the US and South Vietnam were going to invade, and they knew that. Further, they had two large countries, the Soviet Union and China, supplying them with endless amounts of equipment.  The South had none of that. The ANV would have essentially been hemmed up in the mountains with no hope of resupply.


----------



## RBM (Jul 31, 2013)

Vietnam was a poor example. I prefer the comparison to Ireland. The IRA was in the civilian Irish and English populations and they did eventually gain independence from England. Of course they were not in uniform in an Irish national military.


----------



## billy62green (Jul 31, 2013)

Maybe they could have, but it would have been a tough, tough haul. Entire regions in the South were in complete ruin by 1865. Belfast in no way ever got into the condition of Atlanta or Columbia, SC after they were visited by Sherman. The Irish countryside had not been ravaged like states such as Georgia and SC, or the Shenandoah Valley. The IRA was melted into the civilian population. The Southern Army would have had to somehow done that as well, but with a civilian population that was basically by that time demoralized, penniless, with many on the verge of starvation, if they did not get some type of agriculture back up and running.   No disrespect at all meant to your post or ideas. All of this is interesting to discuss. They might could have pulled it off.


----------



## Milkman (Jul 31, 2013)

Very interesting scenarios indeed.   Please continue with any other ideas.

As someone else stated much of the South was devastated due to war and terrorist activity from the likes of Sherman and Sheridan.  Many folks at home on the farm didnt have food. I dont know how long an Army in hiding with no supply line could have survived.


----------



## westcobbdog (Aug 2, 2013)

Gen Lee was presented with this idea just before the surrender. He felt like a guerilla war would only divide the country further and chose to surrender instead. Many of his men and staff had not eaten in days and were starving.


----------



## Milkman (Aug 2, 2013)

westcobbdog said:


> Gen Lee was presented with this idea just before the surrender. He felt like a guerilla war would only divide the country further and chose to surrender instead. Many of his men and staff had not eaten in days and were starving.



The officer making that suggestion was 30 year old Edward Porter Alexander from Washington, Ga.  He was willing to press on and scatter into the hills to fight another day.  The older and more seasoned officers seemed to know it was over. Even hard nosed officers like JB Gordon were ready to surrender.  I for one am glad they didnt fight to the last man.  I wouldnt be here if they hadnt.  My Great Grandfather was there with the 24th Ga.

There were individuals and small groups within the Confederates that did guerrilla type warfare during and after the war.  One such example was Jack Hinson. 

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Hinsons-...898&sr=1-1&keywords=jack+hinson's+one-man+war


----------



## billy62green (Aug 2, 2013)

Milkman said:


> The officer making that suggestion was 30 year old Edward Porter Alexander from Washington, Ga.  He was willing to press on and scatter into the hills to fight another day.  The older and more seasoned officers seemed to know it was over. Even hard nosed officers like JB Gordon were ready to surrender.  I for one am glad they didnt fight to the last man.  I wouldnt be here if they hadnt.  My Great Grandfather was there with the 24th Ga.
> 
> There were individuals and small groups within the Confederates that did guerrilla type warfare during and after the war.  One such example was Jack Hinson.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Hinsons-...898&sr=1-1&keywords=jack+hinson's+one-man+war



All or most of the James-Younger Gang (Jesse and Frank James, Cole and Bob Younger) were former Confederate raiders/guerillas in Missouri. It seems that they mainly targeted Northern interests such as banks and railroads, and I read somewhere they specifically targeted the bank in Northfield, Minnesota because they believed Union General Benjamin Butler was a major shareholder in it. I also read that at one of the bank holdups, possibly their first one, Jesse shot down one of the employees in the bank who he recognized as a former Union Officer involved in the slaying of Captain "Bloody" Bill Anderson. Reckon these guys considered themselves still conducting  ongoing guerilla operations, or were they simply just robbers? Keep in mind that they were apparently able to operate so long 1866-1881 due to a sympathetic population in the area supporting them.


----------



## Bigtimber (Nov 6, 2013)

Local elders will still comment about what he did around the  Bryan County area when asked... on his way to the sea. No military postitions,,,just farms and such with the elderly, women and children. Took all the food, money and anything of value...burned the rest. All homes and shelter of any kind....and worst yet poisoned (and sent scouts out to poison) every known water well by killing livestock and throwing them in it.  Many stories still float around of some haunted roads...because so many young, old and weak died trying to get to food and good water. Sounded more like a criminal than a solider.


----------



## Walker44 (Nov 6, 2013)

Question :   Sherman allowed Hardy and 30 K Confederate troops out of Savannah  over one night when he was ready to take the city   -------------


----------



## Milkman (Nov 6, 2013)

Walker44 said:


> Question :   Sherman allowed Hardy and 30 K Confederate troops out of Savannah  over one night when he was ready to take the city   -------------



What is the question ?


----------



## westcobbdog (Nov 6, 2013)

Walker44 said:


> Question :   Sherman allowed Hardy and 30 K Confederate troops out of Savannah  over one night when he was ready to take the city   -------------



The accounts I have read say Hardee actually slipped away when he realized it was hopeless to defend her. Sherman approached with his main forces from the south as the quickest way to get sea supplies for his marauders, er soldiers was from the south. Bet many of the 30k men were old men, young boys, shop keepers,etc...


----------



## Milkman (Nov 7, 2013)

westcobbdog said:


> The accounts I have read say Hardee actually slipped away when he realized it was hopeless to defend her. Sherman approached with his main forces from the south as the quickest way to get sea supplies for his marauders, er soldiers was from the south. Bet many of the 30k men were old men, young boys, shop keepers,etc...



Hardee was ordered to evacuate and save the garrison. It would have been futile to make a stand against well supplied Union forces on the land and sea. Beauregard knew it.

Also, Union troops did not yet control the area across the river from Savannah where Hardee evacuated across.


----------



## Walker44 (Nov 7, 2013)

Answer :   Sherman  and Hardy both were at West Point at the same time   Harlee graduated in 1838 , Sherman in 1840, Both fought in the Second Siminole  War together
Sherman on 12/20/64 was inside the then City Limits of Savannah. Sherman sent an officer to request , Harlee"s surrender. Harlee  said that he would respond in the AM. That night under cover of darkess  Harlee and 30 K troops , ( mostly young boys and elders ) went down what is now bay street and crossed over into SC near where the current Port of is located .
Sherman with 60K troops could have stopped the the escape but chose not to based upon his offer to Harlee ( West Point Code of Honor ) and his desire to avoid further deaths and also his desire to keep Savannah intact...... The next morning 12/21/64 after the escape was completed , The city surrendered  Sherman took a lot of " heat " about the escape from the northern press

Sherman has had large groups of freed slaves following him through the march from Atlanta.  He upon arrival in Savannah requested and was approved that ships be sent to the Port to take that slaves back to their home land.  Since the ships were being used to keep the supply line open the final approval from the Department of War was never sent to the ships Capts.  As a result the free slaves waited on the costal islands for ships that never arrived and Sherman moved north
You can hold what ever feelings you have about the man however he was an excellent leader , Taking a force of 60K without any supply line through Georgia and living off the land arriving in Savannah in 2 and 1/2 months later, Building road all along the way .
Also there were only minor engagements during the march , unlike the TN to Atlanta action.
I wonder just how much of the reports are now just old timers stories .


----------



## Milkman (Nov 7, 2013)

The link below is to Amazons offering of what I think is the most complete chronicle of Sherman's march. It compiles documents from the OR, Sherman's memoirs, letters from Union Soldiers, Confederate soldiers, newspapers, etc.  It gives a day by day history from mid November until Savannah is occupied.

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Stor...29853&sr=8-2&keywords=southern+storm+in+books


----------



## Bigtimber (Nov 7, 2013)

Walker44 said:


> You can hold what ever feelings you have about the man however he was an excellent leader , Taking a force of 60K without any supply line through Georgia and living off the land arriving in Savannah in 2 and 1/2 months later, Building road all along the way .
> .



One could call Hitler a great leader as well I suppose if you wanted to look at it that way. I kind of always agreed with the old saying...those that win the war get to write the history. I remember in school being drilled about Andersonvillie. How horrid and terrible those men were treated by the rebels. Never a mention of Camp Douglas or Rock Island. I would call him effective....he did do alot with alittle. On the other hand...when fighting monsters...its important not to become one.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 7, 2013)

Bigtimber said:


> One could call Hitler a great leader as well I suppose if you wanted to look at it that way. I kind of always agreed with the old saying...those that win the war get to write the history. I remember in school being drilled about Andersonvillie. How horrid and terrible those men were treated by the rebels. Never a mention of Camp Douglas or Rock Island. I would call him effective....he did do alot with alittle. On the other hand...when fighting monsters...its important not to become one.



The especially inhumane aspect of the Union prisons was that they had the resources to properly clothe, house, and feed the Confederate prisoners and chose not to. I had a great great uncle who died in Elmira prison in New York where the death rate was 25%.  Andersonville's death rate was 28%


----------



## westcobbdog (Nov 8, 2013)

Yep the ratio of Southern boys held captive who perished in northern prisons was higher than yankees held captive down here with much less medicine, clothing, food and supplies.


----------



## LTZ25 (Nov 16, 2013)

Madison was saved because Sherman had a boy friend that lived there .


----------



## Walker44 (Nov 16, 2013)

Well we had reached a new level in this discussion


----------



## Milkman (Nov 17, 2013)

A lot of people who haven't read much about the march don't realize that the d'yanks didn't get into massive holocaust mode until they got past Madison


----------



## Walker44 (Nov 17, 2013)

While many believe that Sherman spared the town because it was too beautiful to burn during his March to The Sea, the truth is that Madison was home to pro-Union Senator Joshua Hill. Hill had ties with General Sherman's brother at West Point, so his sparing the town was more political than appreciation of its beauty


----------



## westcobbdog (Nov 18, 2013)

Walker44 said:


> While many believe that Sherman spared the town because it was too beautiful to burn during his March to The Sea, the truth is that Madison was home to pro-Union Senator Joshua Hill. Hill had ties with General Sherman's brother at West Point, so his sparing the town was more political than appreciation of its beauty



Walker keep in mind these different historical events you are stating the answer to as "fact"are one persons opinion or account or perspective on the subject. Kind of like stating the very reason the war of northern aggression started as fact; its very hard to do. Also, welcome aboard. Where were you when we played civil war trivia, we could have used you.


----------



## Resica (Nov 19, 2013)

westcobbdog said:


> Walker keep in mind these different historical events you are stating the answer to as "fact"are one persons opinion or account or perspective on the subject. Kind of like stating the very reason the war of northern aggression started as fact; its very hard to do. Also, welcome aboard. Where were you when we played civil war trivia, we could have used you.



We could play it again.


----------



## westcobbdog (Nov 19, 2013)

Resica said:


> We could play it again.



Well we wore out 100' s of questions! Maybe so resic, I am old with memory loss so many of the formerly posed questions would be completely new to me.


----------



## Milkman (Nov 19, 2013)

westcobbdog said:


> Well we wore out 100' s of questions! Maybe so resic, I am old with memory loss so many of the formerly posed questions would be completely new to me.



Me too, my memory is so bad now I can hide my own Easter eggs.


----------



## Milkman (Apr 10, 2021)

Bump this old thread for Confederate History month.


----------

