"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."

How does Texags consider Sherman's March to the Sea?
Terrorism? Necessary evil? Justifiable part of war?

Are the opinions split across the Mason-Dixon Line?

Believe I read Sherman worked in the South after the war.

tmaggies said:

---

War criminal

---

Care to elaborate?

Lieber code…

I'll just drop this here.

"Article 17 for example provides that it is lawful to starve civilians:

War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy. [Emphasis added]"

From this article….

https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2018/04/the-lieber-code-the-first-modern-codification-of-the-laws-of-war/

tmaggies said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

tmaggies said:

---

War criminal

---

Not even close.

---

Coming from you your comment and OPINION is exactly what I expect

---

I don't really have a comment, except to say that when I saw the OP, I expected the usual posters would take their usual positions.

I was not disappointed.

one safe place said:

---

I would not have shed a tear if a Confederate sniper had put a musket ball in his forehead.

---

i thought in the Ken Burns series Shelby Foote had a story about the Confederates using land mines to slow down the march and Sherman releasing some prisoners telling them to go tell their leaders that Confederate solders would be leading the columns if the kept mining the roads. And the mining stopped.

Not sure why I quoted your post.

I have not clue if my post is true, just what i remember, it might be wrong. Figured it applied to this thread

That is all true, except the mining stopped part. Confederates still used them, even with their prisoners leading the way.

F4GIB71 said:

---

Ignoring Lieber code adopted by Union after two years at war. Targeting civilians. Looting, burning homes. 85% of white males were in the Army so no resistance by women and children. South Carolina got it even worse than Georgia. Extensively documented in book, Union Terror.

---

It wasn't ignored. The property of civilians aiding the war effort were legitimate targets. Sherman's columns predominantly targeted rail and communication infrastructure. Reliable claims about attacks on civilians ordered by Sherman are staggeringly rare, though it's true the "Bummers" looted at times. And sorry, but I'm not interested in another Neo-Confederate take on Sherman's campaign.

Does the burning of Chambersburg, PA by the Confederates change anyone's opinion?

Burning of Chambersburg

Sherman was NOT a Southern gentleman.

I'll need to find it but one of my books on Hoods Texas Brigade mentions Union troops being especially hostile to confederate troops from SC. I believe the anecdote was during the siege of Petersburg where the Texans and other CS troops were allowed a more live and let live policy across from the Federals but no such invitation was extended to SC troops, as they were who the Fed. troops blamed for starting the war
(not Petersburg but around Chattanooga) so some the same
Men who would be with Sherman during the March to the sea.

"The Texans ignored official policy altogether, arranging truces with Federal pickets along their section of the line. They agreed not to shoot at one anotherso as not to waste powder and shot and force the inconvenience of a round-the-clock alert on anyone. Jenkins' South Carolinians, posted to the immediate left of the Texans, had no such truce with the Federals. Thus the peculiar sight of Carolinians hiding in their rifle pits or behind trees, while not more than 50 feet away, Texans stretched out on blankets enjoying the sunshine or playing poker in the open, within 100 yards of their enemy."

From "The Bloody Fifth; The Fifth Texas Infantry Regiment, Hoods Texas Brigade, The Army of Northern Virginia" by John M Schmutz

JABQ04 said:

---

I'll need to find it but one of my books on Hoods Texas Brigade mentions Union troops being especially hostile to confederate troops from SC. I believe the anecdote was during the siege of Petersburg where the Texans and other CS troops were allowed a more live and let live policy across from the Federals but no such invitation was extended to SC troops, as they were who the Fed. troops blamed for starting the war
(not Petersburg but around Chattanooga) so some the same
Men who would be with Sherman during the March to the sea.

"The Texans ignored official policy altogether, arranging truces with Federal pickets along their section of the line. They agreed not to shoot at one anotherso as not to waste powder and shot and force the inconvenience of a round-the-clock alert on anyone. Jenkins' South Carolinians, posted to the immediate left of the Texans, had no such truce with the Federals. Thus the peculiar sight of Carolinians hiding in their rifle pits or behind trees, while not more than 50 feet away, Texans stretched out on blankets enjoying the sunshine or playing poker in the open, within 100 yards of their enemy."

From "The Bloody Fifth; The Fifth Texas Infantry Regiment, Hoods Texas Brigade, The Army of Northern Virginia" by John M Schmutz

---

No different than when USCTs were in the lines. White units on either side of them caught hell with no respite. The white units hated them for that reason alone.

NM. I got what you were saying.

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

Is Lee a war criminal, because his army extorted money from every town and city his armies marched through in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

---

This part is not true of Lee in 1862 or 63 but true for Early in 1864. Lee did not extort money and had his men pay for everything they confiscated with promissory notes for collection in Confederate dollars by the possessor in Richmond after the cessation of hostilities.

The slave and freedman part is true.

---

1863 York Pennsylvania Gettysburg campaign..

Quote:

---

Early's chief quartermaster, Maj. C.E. Snodgrass, called for clothing to aid the soldiers in their long marches: 2,000 pairs of shoes or boots, 1,000 pairs of socks and 1,000 felt hats. Snodgrass concluded his list with a demand that would cause residents to gasp: $100,000 ... The $100,000 demand could not be met, Early persisted. "Then I shall have to take the hats from your heads, and shoes from your feet, and the coats from your backs,"

---

The promissory notes (payable after the war) were worthless and Lee's army leaders knew it.

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/history/blogs/york-town-square/2009/07/09/requisition/31607557/

BQ78 said:

---

Did they?

In 1863 they thought they were going to win.

---

I agree Jeff Davis thought the south could win the war up until he was captured. But in 1863 hope was rapidly fading. The best quote I have read is "The southern cause was always one victory away from defeat."

Jumping back into this thread to say thank y'all for all the responses!

Rabid Cougar said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Does the burning of Chambersburg, PA by the Confederates change anyone's opinion?

Burning of Chambersburg

---

Nope. They should have paid the ransom. Several other towns did so when McCauslan showed up. I don't believe ransom was an option in Georgia and South Carolina.

---

So polite stealing and destruction of private property is what Sherman should have done?