*Note: This post is part of an assignment for my AP US History students. You are welcome to comment even if you are not a student.
In 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was named Supreme Commander of the Union Army. This move left William Tecumseh Sherman as Union commander in the western theater of the Civil War. These men had a special bond, and Sherman would later remark:
“We were as brothers. I the older man in years, he the higher in rank.”
With a new strategy in place, Grant would focus his attention of the Confederate capitol of Richmond, and Sherman would lead a force of about 100,000 men from Chattanooga, TN toward Atlanta, GA.
Sherman’s courage can hardly be questioned. In the Battle of Shiloh, Sherman lost two of his horses and was shot in the hand, but he continued to fight. His actions and excitable personality led some to believe he was crazy. In fact, his plan to march through Georgia was doubted by many. Sherman and his army proved the naysayers wrong as they marched to Atlanta and destroyed virtually everything in their path. Dr. Frank Clark tells us that
“Sherman was not content simply to use what food and supplies he needed, but boasted that he would ‘smash things to the sea’ and make Georgia howl. His men entered dwellings, taking everything of value that could be moved, such as silver plate and jewelry; and killed and left dead in the pens thousands of hogs, sheep and poultry. Many dwellings were burned without any justification. Sherman in his own Memoirs testifies to the conduct of his men, estimating that he had destroyed $80,000,000 worth of property of which he could make no use.”
And he didn’t stop there. In November of 1864, Sherman and his men marched all the way to Savannah, Georgia then on to South Carolina…finally ending in North Carolina.
In a letter to the city of Atlanta, Sherman said:
“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.”
Some historians have argued that Sherman’s campaign was too destructive. Others have argued that the infrastructure of the South had to be destroyed in order for the Civil War to come to an end.
So what do you think? Was William Tecumseh Sherman a hero or a villain?
Resources you may want to consult:
- Civil War Photos (from the Library of Congress – highlight the destruction from Sherman’s campaign)
- Explore Sherman’s March (from the History Channel)
- Letter from Sherman to Grant, Dec. 1864 (primary source)
- Lyrics to Marching through Georgia (lyrics in their original format – sheet music here)
- Sherman’s March: Final Revenge (an online documentary of Sherman’s march through South Carolina)
- Sherman’s March to the Sea (from a Southern perspective)
From PBS
In my opinion General Sherman was a hero. In a time of war he acted as he was told, followed directions and succeeded. Though he may have been brutal- Sherman gained what was expected of him: victory. There are Southern heroes who who used sheer brutality and cruelty towards the Union who were considered heroes in the South. Discerning whether Sherman was a hero or a villain depends on your perspective. As I was not involved in the Civil War- I see Sherman as a man who was doing his job and who did it well, thus I view him as a hero.
General Sherman was a villain, though that is not to say that his acts weren’t thoroughly successfu in demolishing the South’s inflated self-esteem. The South was suffering and losing for a long time by the end of the war, stated our textbook. Nevertheless they continued to fight because of their pride. Sherman’s attack late in the war helped to kill much of that pride and demolish the moral of the confederate armies, who were tired, hungry, and reluctant to leave their families defenseless.
However, I stand by my reasoning that he was a villain. His acts of brutality toward civilians were uncalled for and morally reprehensible. Additionally, the fact that he boasted about his “success” is equally disgusting to any normal person. Though his attack was successful, I personally believe that there were other ways to achieve the same results. If they’d driven the animals into the field without killing them and merely captured the civilians as war prisoners, threatening death to anyone who rose a hand against them until their countrymen made peace, many deaths and much destruction could have been avoided, while the animals wouldn’t have died and destroyed the southern economy by the end of the war. Considering previous chapters were about how essential the southern economy was to the United States, this burning of fields and murdering of livestock would have been detrimental to the entire country. Sherman had lost his way. The war was about reuniting the country, not destroying the enemy, and that is what makes Sherman a villain.
Can we look at this issue from a modern standpoint?
Let’s assume the US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan decide to take a “total” approach to war. In doing so, they move from city to city and encounter women and children, as most men are at war. In these cities they enter the homes and take whatever they want from the civilians. They eat all of the food in the homes and storehouses, kill all of the livestock, pull up and burn all of the crops growing, destroy all home furnishings and then leave the inhabitants with only the clothes on their backs and no way of providing for their next meal. In addition, they burn most of the homes they enter thus leaving the women and children homeless as well….as winter approaches.
In some towns, the forces come upon women working in factories. In these cases, the women are rounded up, along with their children and sent away by train to another country and are never heard from again. (Roswell Mills incident).
US soldiers enter the homes of the citizens and steal whatever they need, or want, and collect souvenirs (jewelry, silver, art, etc) to take home to their loved ones back home.
Tell me. Would we regard these to be acts of heroes or villains?
With regards to Ledley Swain’s comment: What acts of brutality did Confederate troops wage against Northern civilians?
Some point to the terrible conditions at Andersonville prison as mistreatment against POW’s. What these people fail to admit, or understand, is that the guards received the same rations as the prisoners due to the South’s supply lines and food sources being destroyed.
Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I think modern analogies are helpful, and I certainly understand what you’re trying to convey with the Afghanistan example.
I intentionally don’t share my view on Sherman in this post (or with my students), but here are a few questions that I think everyone needs to consider as they “choose” a side.
1. What is war? Are there any limits to what can/should take place during war? If so, where should the line be drawn?
2. Can someone still be a hero in spite of their atrocities? Is taking a life an atrocity?
3. Did the South get what they asked for? Would the South have acted the same way, given the chance? If so, does that justify the actions of the North?
4. Are there universal standards for right and wrong? If so, can they be proven?
JWAL
JWAL….
Thanks for responding to my post. As a former history teacher myself I also tried to get my students to see both sides of an issue and was careful to not share my own personal views.
As a current school principal (and Civil War buff) I admire the means by which you gave students an opportunity to share their views online. Good show!
To answer your questions….
1. I think there are limits to war, though I have always thought it curious that it is okay to kill enemies by shooting them, but not okay to kill them using mustard gas, or other “outlawed” means. Certainly the treatment of POW’s has its limits as defined by the Geneva Convention.
2. Can someone by a hero even if they kill someone? Yes, I suppose someone can still be a war hero by killing the enemy. The mistreatment of civilians, however, would be over the line and make that person more of a war criminal.
3. Did the South get what it asked for? Perhaps in some respects, but it depends on the viewpoint. What the South asked for was independence…so it did not get that. I know that is not what you meant but it is important to remember the viewpoint. If you meant did the South get what it deserved because they rebelled for independence, then I could argue, as I have above, that Sherman went way over the line. In punishing women, children and the 75 percent or more of Southerners who had nothing to do with slavery, Sherman caused many years of hardship.
The second part of your question: I believe the South did have the opportunity to invade the North just after the Battle of Bull Run. And, no, I cannot see Lee allowing his men to commit the same atrocities.
4. Universal standards? I suppose there are some in place already though they seem to frequently get ignored.
Do you ever tell your students about Sherman’s actions against the Native Americans after the Civil War? That might help some of them make up their minds. I personally think he was insane and never fully recovered from his stay in the asylum in the years before the Civil War.
Thanks for the discourse. Again, I admire your teaching methods and your encouragement to get kids to think beyond the stories in their textbooks.
I think Sherman was a villain. Although he made a huge difference for the Union and helped to guarantee the Union a win, his actions were too brutal. I see no reason why, even in war, people should be taken from their homes and whole cities should be burned. I also think it’s unnecessary to burn peoples homes and take all of their food. The point of the war wasn’t to annihilate the southern population, it was a war, and war should be fought on the battlefield. Cities and peoples homes aren’t a battlefield. The southerners were still people, just people with differing livelihoods and opinions, that doesn’t mean Sherman had the right to destroy everything they had and take away their food so they starved. Sherman may have been successful and a huge help from the union standpoint, but it doesn’t excuse his brutality towards other peoples lives and property.
Sherman was a villain. Wars are supposed to be for settling a dispute between people, not pillaging everything in your path. If he had about $100,000,000 worth of supplies that served no purpose to him, why did he feel the need to destroy it? He could have taken it with him or at least show a little mercy and leave the Southerners stuff they needed. Also, he stated that the south could not survive without the destruction of their infrastructure, which to me seems redundant. That just caused serious problems and possibly even an increased desire to fight back. Finally, the war was between the Northern soldiers and the Southern soldiers, not the civilians. They didn’t deserve to die in a war that they weren’t fighting in.