PING: Question for Civil War Buffs

[albionmoonlight]

To what extent was Lincoln involved in / responsible for Sherman's march to the sea?

(I could tell you why I want to know but it is a pretty boring story).

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

To what extent was Lincoln involved in / responsible for Sherman's march to the sea?

(I could tell you why I want to know but it is a pretty boring story).

Lincoln stayed out of direct military decisions once Grant took over.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Lincoln stayed out of direct military decisions once Grant took over.

Yup.

Okay, I'll bite. Why do you want to know?

[albionmoonlight]

I'm a big Lincoln fan. My fiancee is from Charleston and has a great appreciation for the Southern Costal culture. She ranks Sherman's march right up there with the great tragedies of history and thinks of Sherman himself as Lord Voldemort.

We had dinner last week with a know it all who mentioned that Linclon was behind everything that Sherman did. (This same guy also said that Sherman burned down Charleston, so he's not really the best source). My fiancee and I later had a somewhat involved discussion about the potential link between my hero (Linclon) and her enemy (Sherman). I'm glad that they do not have much to do with each other.

[WussGawd]

Lincoln was apprised of Sherman's plans by Grant. Grant's working relationship with Lincoln was unique. Lincoln did meddle in military affairs with many of his other generals (McDowell and McClellan in particular), though most of what he did was to try to prod McClellan and the others to attack.

By the time Grant came around, Lincoln realized that his meddling might not be helping, and he also trusted Grant based on Grant's track record in the West. Grant usually kept him apprised of things, but Lincoln rarely commented and never overrode.

Lincoln opposed Sherman's march, not because of what happened, but because he thought it risky to give up a base of supply and live off the land.

Like it or not, Sherman's march shortened the war, and saved lives on both sides. I recognize that those in the South (with some justification) feel differently, but Sherman's march really took very little in the way of life, and did much to end the South's remaining will to fight.

[WSUCougar]

Here is a direct quote from Ulysses S. Grant's Memoirs:

As there was some discussion as to the authorship of Sherman's march to the sea, by critics of his book when it appeared before the public, I want to state here that no question upon that subject was ever raised between General Sherman and myself. Circumstances made the plan on which Sherman expected to act impracticable, and as commander of the forces he necessarily had to devise a new one which would give more promise of success: consequently he recommended the destruction of the railroad back to Chattanooga, and that he should be authorized then to move, as he did, from Atlanta forward. His suggestions were finally approved, although they did not immediately find favor in Washington. Even when it came to the time of starting, the greatest apprehension, as to the propriety of the campaign he was about to commence, filled the mind of the President, induced no doubt by his advisers. This went so far as to move the President to ask me to suspend Sherman's march for a day or two until I could think the matter over. My recollection is, though I find no record to show it, that out of deference to the President's wish I did send a dispatch to Sherman asking him to wait a day or two, or else the connections between us were already cut so that I could not do so. However this may be, the question of who devised the plan of march from Atlanta to Savannah is easily answered: it was clearly Sherman, and to him also belongs the credit of its brilliant execution. It was hardly possible that any one else than those on the spot could have devised a new plan of campaign to supersede one that did not promise success.

I was in favor of Sherman's plan from the time it was first submitted to me. My chief of staff [Halleck], however, was very bitterly opposed to it and, as I learned subsequently, finding that he could not move me, he appealed to the authorities at Washington to stop it.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm a big Lincoln fan. My fiancee is from Charleston and has a great appreciation for the Southern Costal culture. She ranks Sherman's march right up there with the great tragedies of history and thinks of Sherman himself as Lord Voldemort.

We had dinner last week with a know it all who mentioned that Linclon was behind everything that Sherman did. (This same guy also said that Sherman burned down Charleston, so he's not really the best source). My fiancee and I later had a somewhat involved discussion about the potential link between my hero (Linclon) and her enemy (Sherman). I'm glad that they do not have much to do with each other.

You could also tell her that Lincoln's assassination actually caused the South much pain. He was very much in favor of painless reconciliation while other forces in the North wanted the South to feel more pain. Once he was out of the way, that horrible period of reconstruction occurred that still has things a bit screwed up today.

Of course if you want permanent peace, then you might also choose not to bring up that era of history at all. It's not an argument you'll win.

[MrBug708]

No matter how you look at it, Lincoln has a hand in the March. Whether or not he ordered Sherman to head to the sea is one question, but as President and "Commander-in-Chief" so to speak, he plays a part into consideration.

But Desnudo is right on Lincoln's death being awful for the South. Andrew Johnson was a democrat and Congress was very Radical, but Lincoln could have directed it with some backlash. Johnson was SOL as soon as he took over as president and Congress impeached him when he tried to carry out Lincoln's wishes.

[Bubba Wheels]

Man gets stopped for speeding by the Georgia State Police. "No one goes that fast through Georgia!" The cop tells him. His reply? "Sherman did!"

[Wolfpack]

It shortened the war, yes, but obviously if he tried to do it in today's circumstances, he almost certainly would have been replaced and tried for war crimes. A touch ironic in terms of what tactics will net you for reputation.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

God bless Bill Sherman, a great American.

Although he was a native of Ohio, the name of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman remains inextricably linked with Georgia. Born Feb. 8, 1820 in Lancaster, Ohio, he graduated from West Point as a second lieutenant in 1840. His first tour of duty was in Florida in a campaign against the Seminole Indians. In 1844, Sherman was stationed for six weeks in Marietta, Ga. (click here for more information). He later served an aide to a commanding general during the Mexican War. After three years of administrative duty in Washington D.C., Sherman resigned his commission and became a partner in a failed banking venture. In 1859, he accepted a position as superintendent of a new military academy in Baton Rouge (which later became Louisiana State University), but after Louisiana seceded in 1861, he resigned and offered his services to the U.S. Army. He was commissioned as an infantry colonel. His first action was in Battle of First Manassas (Bull Run) in July 1861. In July 1863, Sherman was promoted to brigadier general and named commander of the Army of the Tennessee. In this capacity, he contributed to the Union victory at the Battle of Chattanooga. On Nov. 26, 1863, as Confederate forces retreated into Georgia, Sherman was one of several commanders to briefly lead their corps across the Tennessee state line into Georgia in pursuit of the Confederates. His more noted foray, however, came on May 5, 1864, when he marched his army of close to 100,000 men into Georgia. With a force roughly half that size, Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston did what he could to slow Sherman's advance. For three months the Confederate army tactfully engaged and retreated before Sherman's far superior numbers, until Johnston was replaced July 17 by Gen. John Bell Hood. Within six weeks, Confederate casualties had doubled, and on Sept. 1 Sherman occupied Atlanta. Intending to burn only buildings used for military purposes, his army set fires that raged out of control and destroyed much of the city. Sherman then launched his March to the Sea, with 60,000 of his most seasoned soldiers foraging off the land and cutting a swath of destruction through the heart of Georgia. On December 23, Sherman's forces occupied Savannah. After giving his army a rest, Sherman then proceeded on a path of destruction through South and North Carolina. Three weeks after Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Gen. Joseph Johnston -- who was in command of all Confederate forces in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida -- gave his formal surrender to Sherman at Durham Station, N.C. on April 26, 1865. Though foes in battle, the Union and Confederate generals had earned each other's respect -- so much so that Johnston would later serve as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral.

After the war, Sherman served as commander of the U.S. Army's Division of the Mississippi. In this role, he helped in the building of the transcontinental railroad by protecting the workers and trying to maintain peace with the Indians along the railroad's path. Under Pres. Grant, Sherman was named commanding general of the Army (1869-1883). After his retirement, Republicans tried to persuade him to run for President, but he repeatedly declined, noting, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve." Sherman spent his final years in New York City, where he died on Feb. 14, 1891.



(c) Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia

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

What the bio does not mention is that Johnston had such respect for Sherman that when serving as pallbearer he refused to wear a hat during a fierce winter storm. He caught a bad cold and then died as a result.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

It shortened the war, yes, but obviously if he tried to do it in today's circumstances, he almost certainly would have been replaced and tried for war crimes. A touch ironic in terms of what tactics will net you for reputation.

For which war crimes do you think he'd be tried?

[bamcgee]

War criminal? Gen. Sherman did not commit genocide or mistreat prisoners of war. True war is not like the volunteer force, "no civilian damage" battles that we're waging today - those are a luxury of vastly superior force and technology. Total War is ultimately aimed at the destruction of the opponent's means of production and consequently his will to fight, as in WWI and II.

General Sherman was no war criminal - he was trying to win the war. And he did. In the process he accomplished the added bonus of completely destroying the South's morally decrepit and economically backward plantation system. Hooray for Tecumseh!

[Wolfpack]

Okay, perhaps war crimes would be a bit harsh, but today's world wouldn't stand for a guy who razes cities to the ground to prove a point. If the US tried to burn down Fallujah or Najaf, the outcry would be tremendous.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

It shortened the war, yes, but obviously if he tried to do it in today's circumstances, he almost certainly would have been replaced and tried for war crimes. A touch ironic in terms of what tactics will net you for reputation.

Actually, other than enormous property damage, Sherman's march was pretty peaceful. It was a lot tamer than similar scorched-Earth tactics used in the 1812 Campaign in Russia (or 1808-1814 in Spain) during the Napoleonic Wars, and it was absolutely dwarfed by WWI, WW2, and a lot of conflicts of the 20th Century.

It is doubtful even by 21st Century standards that what Sherman's men did would have qualified as a war crime.

[Fritz]

she can't be much of a Belle if she will take up with some northern lawyer

[GoldenEagle]

I have a 10 page research paper on Sherman's March to the Sea if anyone wants to see it.

[bamcgee]

If we were to fight a fully industrialized, comparably armed nation - that's exactly the kind of war you should expect. I wouldn't make the assumption that "today's world" is any more civilized than 60 years ago.

Where do you stand on Hiroshima?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Fritz

she can't be much of a Belle if she will take up with some northern lawyer

I was going to throw in the term "carpetbagger" but I figured he'd already been called that.