Sherman's March to the Sea

[Tank_Guy#3]

Tank Guy,

i've got no problem w/ the History Channel. i watch it myself. however, it's not that i think they're biased - not at all really. it's the partisan crap injected into this discussion that i think is BS. stuff like "Sherman and the North were a bunch of murderers and thieves". it's war for Christ's sake! not tiddly-winks! but my point was about the History Channel is that i just don't consider it a plausible source to cite, that's all.

I believe the information is good, it's just when they get all those so-called experts is when it slowly spirals to that partisan crap. I do agree it's not the most credible source to cite, but it is a lot more credible than some that are out there.

I had better end this conversation before it becomes irreversibly OT

 

[DBear]

Camp Douglas , in Chicago, was far worse. Their commanders got off scott-free.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I still believe that Andersonville was the worst of the worst during the American Civil War.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I still believe that Andersonville was the worst of the worst during the American Civil War.

In sheer loss of life yes it was worse. 13,000 died in Camp Sumter compared to about 8,000 to 10,000 in Camp Douglas.

But when it came to mortality rate Camp Douglas was on par with the worst of the worst Japanese Allied POW camp of WWII. Depending which estimates you believe 45% to 60% of the Confederates who entered Camp Douglas died there. In fact the American Red Cross labeled it an "extermination camp" after they inspected it. Which wasn't a bad description of it.

Also its pretty well established that the conditions in Camp Douglas were deliberate. In comparison Camp Sumter for the most part simply reflected the state of the South where thousands of Confederate soldiers and civilians starved to death themselves. There were certainly acts of cruelty and the guards could have made conditions there a little better. Where as the Union with its wealth and excess could have easily fed and clothed all of its Confederate prisoners.

The commanders of Camp Douglas certainly deserved the same fate of Wirz. More so even.

 

[sydhe]

I think if there was much cause for Sherman being guilty as charged Foote would have mentioned it in the documentaries. He's a fair Author who occasionally leans towards the South but mostly treats events and people fairly based on the facts.

Also the fact that one of his chief opponents - Johnson kept his respect for Sherman would seem to indicate that the excesses were not too... well excessive. Hood despised him though, I believe commenting that he would die a thousand deaths rather than surrender (or words to that effect).

Andersonville was just horrific, the photos in the documentary of survivors looked almost identical to those of survivors of the Boer War camps or Concentration camps of WW2.

Johnston (not Johnson) was one of Sherman's pallbearers. He came down with pneumonia as a result and died from it

 

[privatehudson]

That's what I meant about respect, I just forgot the spelling.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

But when it came to mortality rate Camp Douglas was on par with the worst of the worst Japanese Allied POW camp of WWII. Depending which estimates you believe 45% to 60% of the Confederates who entered Camp Douglas died there. In fact the American Red Cross labeled it an "extermination camp" after they inspected it. Which wasn't a bad description of it.

Well, that description really could fit any Civil War POW camp.

Also its pretty well established that the conditions in Camp Douglas were deliberate. In comparison Camp Sumter for the most part simply reflected the state of the South where thousands of Confederate soldiers and civilians starved to death themselves. There were certainly acts of cruelty and the guards could have made conditions there a little better. Where as the Union with its wealth and excess could have easily fed and clothed all of its Confederate prisoners.

I believe the Union did this because this is how their prisoners were treated. They did undoubtedly know that the Reb's weren't as well supplied as them, but they may have viewed it as "Eye for an eye".

 

[Irish Caesar]

I believe the Union did this because this is how their prisoners were treated. They did undoubtedly know that the Reb's weren't as well supplied as them, but they may have viewed it as "Eye for an eye".

The USA, I believe, refused any sort of prisoner exchange. I find this awful, that they would willingly subject CS prisoners and their own to such horrible conditions, but it fits in well with the Union idea of their troops being much more expendable than Confederate troops.

 

[privatehudson]

My understanding was that after Fort Pillow Lincoln called for the south to recognise the right of Black soldiers to be treated as POWs the same as their white colleagues. The refusal by the Southern leadership lead to the North calling a halt to prisoner exchanges. A refusal to treat POWs of different racial backgrounds the same, whilst entirely in keeping with Southern thinking was every bit as abhorent as the consequences of the refusal.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Hm, didn't know that, although I can believe it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, that description really could fit any Civil War POW camp.

Not really. The 45% to 60% mortality rate makes it the worst POW of the war in terms of mortality. Andersonville was 30%.

I believe the Union did this because this is how their prisoners were treated. They did undoubtedly know that the Reb's weren't as well supplied as them, but they may have viewed it as "Eye for an eye".

That is exactly how they viewed it, though Camp Sumter was no an excuse for starving and freezing 8,000 people to death especially when those people had nothing to do with what was happening at Andersonville.

 

[Stapel]

At first, I should say I have no evidence in whatever way to support Sherman's soldiers did, or did not rape women.

However, I can give some 'neutral' info.

-Various psychological studies have shown that not the punishemnt, but the chance of getting caught is what keeps men from crimes. Historically, if there is one thing that minimises the chance of getting caught, it is being in a victorious army.
-During the interrogations in Nürnberg in 1945-1946, German general Heinz Guderian testified that 'total war orders' could very easily lead to 'unwanted situations'. What he meant to say is that if soldiers are ordered to burn down entire towns and villages, it is only a very small step towards rape (in a war situation).
-Soldiers that have seen four tough years of war, are more likely to forget the moral values they have learnt at home.


Quite frankly, I think it is bloody likely many women were raped during Sherman's march!

 

[Godwynn]

Sunday April 22nd, 9p.m., 8p.m. CST 'Sherman's March' on the History Channel, I'm going to watch it. Or tape it.

 

[Elrohir]

I think it's quite likely that many women were raped by soldiers under Sherman's command in his "March to the Sea". Indeed, I would be astonished if none were, as rape, murder and pillage have historically been quite common in nearly every military campaign.

So it's not really an issue of "did atrocities happen", but whether the atrocities were officially sanctioned by Sherman or his officers, or whether they looked the other way, or if they tried to stop them, but were unable to in all of the chaos. I don't think there is nearly enough evidence to support the idea that Sherman himself actually supported the rape and murder of civilians, so personally i lean towards a mixture of the last two options. In some cases, officers probably looked the other way, and in others they tried to stop it, but were unable to.

Sherman was a soldier who fought a war. In war, lots of bad things happen. That isn't an excuse for atrocities, but it is an explanation. Myself, while abhorring many of the things that happened in Sherman's march, admire his determination to end the war so quickly and his tactical genius.

 

[Serutan]

I think it's quite likely that many women were raped by soldiers under Sherman's command in his "March to the Sea".

If so, they weren't white. Very, very few white women
were raped. Black women was probably a much different
story, but I doubt if reliable figures could ever be established, since there was little if any legal recourse for them. Not to mention a lot of Sherman's soldiers thought little more highly of blacks than the slaveholders did.