Sherman's March to the Sea

So I hear that his soldiers raped slave women during his rampage through the South, but I have never heard or read anything about this before.

True?
Did his soldiers do it on their own, or did he overlook it?

I haven't heard anything about that personally but my American Civil War is rusty so it might have been.

From my understanding he raised holy hell with his scorched earth policy and that, as a result, makes him not the most favourite person in Georgia, rather than the conduct of his troops but I'm hoping someone a bit more versed in the conflict could set the record straight. Perhaps the stories of rape and rampage of Sherman's troops were propaganda as a result of the scorched earth policy?

steviejay said:

Sherman's troops were propaganda as a result of the scorched earth policy?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same, wikipedia has no mention of it.

Phlegmak posted a couple of links in the OT thread about Sherman and civ leaders.

But I found that wiki really doesn't have a whole lot to say about Sherman's march.

Steven Colbert

It seems doubtful. I've always heard the escaped slaves mobbed Sherman's Army for obvious reasons.

Irish Caesar said:

Phlegmak posted a couple of links in the OT thread about Sherman and civ leaders.

Click to expand...

I didn't find that site very trustworthy. I'm too tired to dig it up.

Godwynn said:

I didn't find that site very trustworthy. I'm too tired to dig it up.

Click to expand...

I agree; I don't think it had any references or anything.

Here's one that briefly mentions rape; it doesn't have citations, but it takes quotes from a book by an eyewitness: http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis19.html

This site also mentions rape, but it says that letters exist which attest to this instead of actually citing them: http://www.plpow.com/Atrocities_QuotesFromSherman.htm

I must admit, I'm not really up on the March to the Sea as I should be; I'll probably do some reading about that after the semester is over and I have a chance--I'll let y'all know what I find.

sydhe said:

It seems doubtful. I've always heard the escaped slaves mobbed Sherman's Army for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

Which would have made Slave women more obvious targets for rape by Union Soldiers. They certainly would have been easy targets.

Its certainly plausible that rapes took place. I'd say its almost certain.

Irish Caesar said:

Here's one that briefly mentions rape; it doesn't have citations, but it takes quotes from a book by an eyewitness: http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis19.html

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that articles an embarrasment. No sources, no citation, just re-writing of history by a Soutern apologist:

Gail Jarvis [send him mail] is a CPA living in Beaufort, SC, an unreconstructed Southerner, and an opponent of big government.

Click to expand...

As to the 2nd source...

but it says that letters exist which attest to this instead of actually citing them: http://www.plpow.com/Atrocities_QuotesFromSherman.htm

Click to expand...

Also, laughable, its says letters exist, but offers ZERO sourcing.

That said, given the size of the army, etc... I'm sure it happened, I'd be surprised if it didn't. What matters is what was the disposition of the leadership toward these actions if they were reported.

And please no more "thesouthwillrise.com"-type articles (a term I use very loosely here), assuming you're interested in a discussion and not an exercise in re-writing history.

I'm sorry, but your sources are the near equivalent of using the KKK for information on Martin Luther King.

Here's a quote from Sherman's autobiography:

I never heard of any cases of murder or rape; and no army could have carried along sufficient food and forage for a march of three hundred miles; so that foraging in some shape was necessary

Click to expand...

but, its an autobiography, so take that was a massive grain of salt. This work looks promising, let me see what I can find about the author...

Here's some info on the author. Seems credible and has a wide-ranging body of respected work.

Its not hard to find legitimates sources, if you're so interested. I'll try and dig more up later, its certainly an interesting question.

.Shane. said:

I'm sorry, but your sources are the near equivalent of using the KKK for information on Martin Luther King.

Click to expand...

I did a quick Google search and put the first two related links I saw; I noted that there weren't citations. I never claimed to stand by those sources.

I did read some from Sherman's letters, but I certainly wouldn't just take his word for it, either.

I was reading the book Lies My Teacher Told Me (a lovely read, really ) just today, and it happened to have a passage where it described that Sherman's army actually had to turn away escaped slaves from joining his army, and that the whites were far from united in their resistance against him, while at the same time the Confederates deserted in mass amounts opposing him. It is hard to understate the dislike of slavery that had begun to permeate all areas, including the South, at this time; it is mostly the rewriting of history by Confederate apologists who try to paint as noble a picture of the CSA and as horrible a picture of the Union as they possibly can.

.Shane. said:

Its not hard to find legitimates sources, if you're so interested. I'll try and dig more up later, its certainly an interesting question.

Click to expand...

Please do, I am very interested. I'm sure that rapes did happen, but I am more concerned if Sherman overlooked them, did not know about them, or if he did, was punishment given.

North King said:

it is mostly the rewriting of history by Confederate apologists who try to paint as noble a picture of the CSA and as horrible a picture of the Union as they possibly can.

Click to expand...

Of course the white washing and dismissal of Union atrocities and the highlighting of Confederate atrocities have been more successful than the vice versa.

I always read that Sherman was a brutal man who burned Atlanta to the ground.

I think it's silly to dismiss the obvious and plentyful attrocities commited by the Union. We all know that the Confederates were slave-owning aristocrats, but that doesn't give the Union carte-blanche to behave like Mongols the way they did.

Bugfatty300 said:

Of course the white washing and dismissal of Union atrocities and the highlighting of Confederate atrocities have been more successful than the vice versa.

Click to expand...

Oh, those poor Southerners, having an invading army marching through, who take away their precious slaves. The statistics are there--The Confederate army facing Sherman was having mass desertion. That doesn't sound like people enraged to fight a brutal enemy to me.

luiz said:

I always read that Sherman was a brutal man who burned Atlanta to the ground.

I think it's silly to dismiss the obvious and plentyful attrocities commited by the Union. We all know that the Confederates were slave-owning aristocrats, but that doesn't give the Union carte-blanche to behave like Mongols the way they did.

Click to expand...

Sherman apparently evacuated the civilian population, while the Confederates burned their own supply depots. It's fairly ridiculous to compare that to the Mongol campaigns.

Sherman did what he had to do to hasten the war's end. The slaves welcomed him as a liberator, and the aristocrats were usually allowed to leave in peace--hardly the most brutal behavior ever displayed by an invading army. When the Confederates invaded the Union, they took captured blacks and pressed them into slavery back down south.

The supposition that the war was a noble Southern populace fighting for states' rights against the evil Union oppressor is a myth invented by Confederate apologists. The plain and simple truth is that the CSA was a declaredly racist and slaveholding nation, who was forced to reanalyze their convictions after it became clear that black soldiers could fight just as well as whites. It eventually was a war of survival, but mainly because they knew they'd be harshly punished if captured by the Union. At the beginning, the war was simply about slavery, and once it became clear that slavery was wrong--which was evident to Confederates after a while, they lost popular support, and the whole Confederate edifice collapsed like a house of cards.

Comparing Sherman's men to the Mongols is like comparing Patton to Attilla. It simply does not work. There were, undoubtedly, some rapings and pillaging going on. There's always raping going on in warfare up to the modern day, and pillaging is usually the only way an army can stay alive. Yes, Sherman ordered the destruction of southern infrastructure--to pull them apart and win the war. It would be foolish to blame him for that.

North King said:

Oh, those poor Southerners, having an invading army marching through, who take away their precious slaves.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that when compared proportionately to the CSA population, 95% of the 50,000 to 100,000 civilians who perished in the Union's rampage through the Southeast were not slave owners.

And if compared proportionately to the CS Army, 97% of the 30,000 Confederates who died in Union prison camps were not slave owners.

I know it must gives make you tingle all over to think about how baddly the Union punished those evil aristocrats but the unfortunate fact is that over 95% of their victims were lower-class regular American farmers and soldiers who did not diserve to die like that at the hands of their American brothers.

Godwynn said:

Please do, I am very interested. I'm sure that rapes did happen, but I am more concerned if Sherman overlooked them, did not know about them, or if he did, was punishment given.

Click to expand...

I think these 2 would make a nice contrast of perspectives. One is from the perspective of the Northern soldier in Sherman's army. The other, from the perspective of the Confederates who witnessed and were affected by this.

Confederate view...

Northern soldier's view...

Its not hard to find credible works on Amazon of academic quality.