Stauffenberg wrote:It was decimation, no other word for it. Furthermore, the Franco-Prussian War fought 15 years later, did not see either side stoop to the depths that Lincoln went to in giving Sheridan and Sherman carteblanche to pursue a complete scorched earth policy, pitilessly inflicted upon southern non-combatant civilians. The casualty figures for the South were horrendous. The precedent of "total war" was a pernicious doctrine unleashed; and therefore note Sheridan was sent out West after the war to visit genocide upon First Nation peoples, having learned his trade in the Shenandoah.
Lincoln's final victory was Pyrrhic. A very Yankee outcome: "NN had to be destroyed in order to save it."
I am sure this point of view will not be popular for some here, but there you have it.
Gray Fox wrote:Imagine if your own family were to endure slavery for "just a few decades longer" until an alternative to war could be arranged.
khbynum wrote:We both know it was a lot more complicated than that. Tariffs were stifling the Southern economy. Control of Congress was slipping away and with it the ability to steer the nation the way some Southerners wanted. Lincoln set about a war to restore the Union by force, not to free blacks from slavery. His own statements make that abundantly clear, if you bother to read them. I've made it repeatedly plain that, in my opinion, he was no more justified that George III. He only made the war a crusade against slavery when he saw public and Congressional support for his illegal war evaporating in the face of horrendous casualties and financial sacrifices. He was a politician, and a damned good one.
You want me to come right out and say it? No, it wasn't worth it. Slavery would have died on its own, without killing all those young men and devastating a third of the country.
Stauffenberg wrote: Shelling civilian homes and markets in Donetsk is no different than torching the Shenandoah or Georgia--it is an attempt to terrorize civilians into ceasing their bid for complete separation from YOU. It invariably fails.
Stauffenberg wrote: One needs to understand that he got the war he wanted, and almost lost it. He thought he had lost it in 1864, at least concerning his own political life. He had other options early on: he would not entertain them.
Keeler wrote:I must respectfully disagree with this for two reasons.
While the Shenandoah Valley Burning and March to Sea were brutal, spread fear
and lawlessness, and resulted in civilian deaths, both indirectly and
directly, neither was conducted for the sake of killing civilians, as the
indiscriminate shelling you refer to does.
And this is the second reason I disagree with you, because the plan
worked. In the winter of 1864-65, the letters pleading for Confederate
soldiers to return home and help plant the spring crop became more frequent
and desperate. Desertions increased rapidly in the late winter, not only
because the civilian population could no longer support the Confederate
military but also because the civilian population faced starvation if it had
to plant without its slaves and its adult male population.
Sherman could have easily destroyed Savannah. Yet he did not. Thus
there must have been more to his decision-making than spreading terror and
destruction. Such calculating behavior make may Sherman a better person or a
worse one. I'm not arguing one way or the other, only suggesting we should
interpret historical figures in the context of their own times.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Radicals camps on both sides,
whose ideology had become entrenched for at least a generation, may have
wanted, or at least did not wish to avoid, a war. Lincoln was not one of
them. As you yourself point out, Lincoln was a moderate on the issue of the
issue of containing and ending slavery. The problem was that, by 1860, a slim
majority of white Southerners saw any position which supported any limitation
of slavery as radical. Lincoln understood this. His words and actions
consistently sought to avoid, and later to end, the war.
Up to Sumter, he was careful to avoid provocative actions (although
later there were actions which might have been mistakes, such as the call for
volunteers which helped push Virginia and North Carolina into secession).
It was a group of South Carolinians, not Lincoln, who chose to
escalate the crisis by seceding. The only way Lincoln could have prevented
this would have been to refuse to serve as President. To do so would have
undermined the principle of American representative government. Lincoln can
hardly be blamed for choosing not to do so.
Lincoln wasn't a marble man. He made mistakes conducting the war. Late
in the war his generals led brutal, destructive campaigns which ripped up and
burned the South's agricultural economy but stopped short of wholesale
slaughter. Their goal was to end the bloodshed and end it as quickly as
possible, so that the process of healing could begin. In my opinion, the ends
justified the means.
How much harder would attitudes had been with another year of war? How much
more vengeance and hatred would another summer of Peterburgs and Atlantas have
breed in the American people? These are questions worth considering when we
evaluate the choices made in late 1864.
tripax wrote:I wrote a long post (so long I've given it a new thread) about the question of the proportionality of the horrors of the civil war to the horrors of slavery. I'm posting it mostly as a question and not as an answer. I'd love to hear people's comments about my excess mortality argument there. At the same time, I'm looking forward to seeing continued discussion here and and am glad to read Keeler and Grey Fox present arguments I tend more to agree with.
Stauffenberg wrote:I also take the view that slavery was as dead as the dodo, likely within decades anyway. If Lincoln had had a clear anti-slavery mandate in 1861, (he surely didn't, not by a long mile--and in fact was advocating blacks might be shipped back to Africa as an option) he might have applied Scott's Anaconda Plan and simply throttled the South economically with no attempted military invasions, gone ahead with immediate freedom and citizenry for those blacks who came to the North, financial incentives (and technology and workers) negotiated with southern agribusiness. political pressure for the Euros to boycott Southern slave cotton. Sort of an early embargo South Africa style... another historical what-if. But this is entirely moot anyhow as Lincoln chose a war of aggression and conquest long before he finally played the slavery card.
Rule by force, submit or be crushed, is about as anti-democratic as one could wish for if you are a federalist and don't care a jot for clearly fair democratic elections that see a huge part of the previous union massively reject your platform across the board, and not just some rebel movements in various areas--in fact a huge part of your previous union snapping off with 90%+ votes of the citizenry to do so. This surely puts the lie to your own claims of "democracy" and set a precedent, based upon errant hypocrisy, that continues to haunt you.
We went through something similar here in Canada with the Quebec referendum in 1995 and it was clear that if the people of Quebec had made that final vote for separation it would have happened. The final vote to secede was 49% YES, 51% NO: very close. But sending in the military to rule by force and "crush" the Quebecois majority voting to secede just wasn't in the cards.
Not relevant to contrast 1861 with recent history in this regard some might claim? History does not bear this out as the same scenario is playing out in Ukraine as we speak, where an aggressive federalist regime in Kiev not only refuses to negotiate with the "rebels" (or "terrorists" as they prefer to call them), it refuses to even acknowledge a duly elected leadership, just as Lincoln refused to recognize President Davis (but rushed to see his vacated office in Richmond asap after it was finally taken). Shelling civilian homes and markets in Donetsk is no different than torching the Shenandoah or Georgia--it is an attempt to terrorize civilians into ceasing their bid for complete separation from YOU. It invariably fails.
But no one doubts the canny abilities of Lincoln the politician. I might not entirely agree with Shelby Foote's claim that the war produced two sheer geniuses--Lincoln and Bedford Forrest--unless I can qualify the genius aspects of Lincoln as Machiavellian in nature. That said, a genius he surely was, and a brilliant rhetorician to boot. One needs to understand that he got the war he wanted, and almost lost it. He thought he had lost it in 1864, at least concerning his own political life. He had other options early on: he would not entertain them.
Stauffenberg wrote:Keeler, I'll attempt to clarify a few things that your very thoughtful response requires.
This is very true and I had not meant to equate the two in that way. No one
would suggest that Lincoln and his High Command sought to indisciminately kill
southern civilians in that manner. That said, however, both do amount to the
same thing in terms of overall aim: destroy civilian infrastructure, terrorize
the inhabitants, and create refugees.
Stauffenberg wrote:That's fine, and the logic of implementing it is sound to some degree... if
you consider the wholesale scorched earth assault on civilians to be an
acceptable tactic in a war waged upon your own people. I do not, but countries
in extremis must make their own choices.
I am not out to paint the major personalities of that war in black and white
terms (except perhaps Sheridan). Both Sherman and Grant went at war in a very
workmanlike manner and are not to be faulted for that for the most part.
Lincoln, who ordered the direct assault on civilian properties on a huge
scale, is another matter.
Stauffenberg wrote:Yes he did rhetorically as he knew perfectly well the issue of blame was
acute in the impending hostilities. But I think it buys too much into the
Lincoln legend to surmise that he did not personally feel and believe that only a war
of conquest would bring the southern states back, and was waiting for the
hotheads in Charleston, with Sumter as the perfect bait, to start it. They
obligingly took this and Lincoln had his war.
Stauffenberg wrote:Yes, as I said he was careful to appear the non-aggressor, precisely because
the ongoing "battle for hearts & minds" was acute in the border states and
others that had not seceded as you note. However, what you call a "mistake" in
calling for volunteers I would submit clearly indicates his intentions--an
armed invasion to put down the rebellion. Note Governor Letcher of Virginia's
response to Cameron, U.S. Secretary of War that he supply troops for this
purpose, sent April 17th, 1861. He nails it on the head:
[INDENT]In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of
Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or
purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States,
and a requisition made upon me for such an object -- an object, in my
judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 --
will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war,
and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has
exhibited towards the South. Respectfully, [/INDENT]
[my emphasis]
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law.
Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursdays the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
By the President:ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Secretary of State WILLIAM H. SEWARD
(Emphasis Added)
Stauffenberg wrote:But this stands the situation on it's head. The Washington government no
longer was "representative" for almost the entire South, that's the point. I
disagree that Lincoln did not have other options.
Stauffenberg wrote:Many thoughtful points and I very much appreciate it. I would simply rephrase
your last rhetorical questions: What possible initiatives were available in
1860 and '61 to avoid the war entirely? Possibilities that Lincoln did not
wish to entertain? Slavery was going the way of the dodo. The South had their
temper tantrum and just wanted to be left alone. A slow phasing out of the
slave-based Southern economy, combined with economic incentives, and above-all
a federal level set of negotiations between the US and CSA with a view towards
eventual reuinion was one option. There were others I am sure, that might
have had the same chance to avoid the historical bloodbath that ensued.
Keeler wrote:I must respectfully disagree with this for two reasons. While the Shenandoah Valley Burning and March to Sea were brutal, spread fear and lawlessness, and resulted in civilian deaths, both indirectly and directly, neither was conducted for the sake of killing civilians, as the indiscriminate shelling you refer to does. By the fall of 1864 the infrastructure of the Shenandoah and the Deep South, including railroads, farms, and plantations, were the only thing keeping Confederate armies in the field- armies that were inflicting and suffering tens of thousands of casualties.
dinsdale wrote:I disagree with this logic. Although not directly shooting civilians, condemning them to starve to death either through directly destroying their crops or destroying the economic fabric needed in order to buy food, it amounts to the same thing. Britain used the same excuse for their bombing campaign; we didn't directly bomb civilians, we were bombing their houses and factories. While there are some differences between first and second degree murder, both are murder.
dinsdale wrote:Further, if one accepts indirect civilian death as a means to lower casualties on the front line, where is the limit? What ratio of civilians killed to soldiers saved is acceptable? Don't we end up with the rationale to engage in a first strike nuclear attack to destroy an enemy and make their army irrelevant?
dinsdale wrote:All
Finally, after the Georgia and Virginia campaigns, tens of thousands continued to die. The Confederacy did not immediately implode, the killing went on for months. Rather than the collapse of Confederate food production, I thought it was Grant finally surrounding Lee which was the most proximate cause of surrender. Had Grant been able to achieve this during the Wilderness campaign the year prior, the war would have been over without wholesale attacks on civilian property and infrastructure.
I'm not an expert on the period like some on the forum, is there information on the Union's economic destruction bringing the war to an earliar conclusion?
Keeler wrote:I would agree with you if the Union troops had destroyed the food and infrastructure, and then prevented the civilians from leaving the area by rounding them up in camps or otherwise keeping them tied to a man-made wasteland. As it was, they were free to leave and take their chances elsewhere. In both cases, the majority of homes were not destroyed. Buildings of a military value, or which belonged to individuals who resisted occupation were destroyed. This practice also began to be used by retreating Confederates, for what that is worth. This sort of displacement isn't pleasant, and it certainly led to hardships and likely to some deaths.
Keeler wrote:...I think addressing it in the context of the Civil War is difficult because the direct impact of the war on civilians is nebulous. Without knowing more specifics, it is hard to even start such a discussion. The only estimate I have seen about how many civilians who died because of the war comes from James McPherson, who estimated about 50,000 non-combatants died. I don't know how McPherson reached this conclusion, and if he delved into causes such as starvation, disease, unsanctioned partisan activity, and direct battlefield death (although this number has to be extremely small). What I would say is the field armies bred diseases, produced sick, wounded, and dead soldiers who needed varying degrees of care, and (whether intentionally designed to wreck civilian infrastructure or due to the exigencies of battle) wrecked fences, fields, roads, bridges, and railroads...
Keeler wrote:I would agree with you if the Union troops had destroyed the food and infrastructure, and then prevented the civilians from leaving the area by rounding them up in camps or otherwise keeping them tied to a man-made wasteland. As it was, they were free to leave and take their chances elsewhere. In both cases, the majority of homes were not destroyed.
What I am saying it is an error to make analogies between actions towards civilians during the Civil War and later wars, and that the Union leadership was motivated by a desire to end the war, not punish the civilian population. For the the record, I haven't seen this last idea floated in this discussion.
But whether it was justified or not is hard to determine without more solid data.
As I said in my first post, the destruction of the Shenandoah and parts of Georgia and South Carolina not only deprived the armies of food, it forced the civilians to put pressure on soldiers to return home for the spring planting. Thousands of soldiers began to desert, and while this did not change the fate of Lee's army, it weakened the ANVs defenses enough to finally allow a breakthrough at Petersburg,
Stauffenberg wrote:Ahem. And what do you suppose Grant's direct order to turn the valley into a “barren waste” had on a person like Sheridan who later stated in the midst of his depredations out West after the war with respect to hunters slaughtering the buffalo the First Nation peoples relied on: "Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated." Or perhaps this is more to the point from him: “The only good Indians I ever saw were dead" (later, under pressure, changing this to 9 out of 10).
Stauffenberg wrote:Your careful parsing of verbal palliatives to downplay the real effect of Sheridan in the Shenandoah doesn't do justice to some heinous actions against civilians on a grand scale, ordered from the top (and of course Lincoln gave Grant the nod, or more likely the direct order as he was getting pretty desperate with the war he unleashed): "they were free to leave and take their chances elsewhere," you state (!), as well as: "This sort of displacement isn't pleasant, and it certainly led to hardships and likely to some deaths." --"isn't pleasant" (!) . Even his soldiers detested what he was doing. I might have done a more diligent research but it is Friday night and late. From militaryhistorynow.com. :
Because residents of the region lived within the borders of a state that had seceded from the Union, Sheridan acted as if they had automatically forfeited their property, if not their very lives. Yet some Union soldiers were aghast at the marching orders. A Pennsylvania cavalryman lamented at the end of the fiery spree: “We burnt some 60 houses and all most of the barns, hay, grain and corn in the shocks for 50 miles [south of] Strasburg… It was a hard-looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year.”
An Ohio major wrote in his diary that the burning “does not seem real soldierly work. We ought to enlist a force of scoundrels for such work.”
A newspaper correspondent embedded with Sheridan’s army reported: “Hundreds of nearly starving people are going North. Not half the inhabitants of the valley can subsist on it in its present condition.”
After one of Sheridan’s favourite aides was shot by Confederate soldiers, the general ordered his troops to burn all houses within a five mile radius. After many outlying dwellings had been torched, the small town at the center – Dayton – was spared only after one Federal officer outright disobeyed Sheridan’s order. The homes and barns of Mennonites – a peaceful sect who opposed slavery and secession – were especially hard hit by that crackdown, according to a 1909 history of Mennonites in America.
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/0...ten-war-crime/
Sheridan argued with his superior that if they did not destroy the Valley’s harvest and everything that supported it, they would have to deal in the future with other Confederate armies using the Valley to threaten the North. For a while Grant held rigid. He wanted Sheridan to follow the original orders, but Sheridan was persistent. Eventually Grant gave in and told his subordinate to perform a retrograde movement back to Strasburg, burning as he went, and then to send some of his troops on rail cars there and at Front Royal to be returned to the Union lines at Petersburg.
Grant did not realize Sheridan had already started his campaign of devastation.
Grant quickly responded to this stinging defeat by ordering Sheridan to send troops ‘through Loudoun County, to destroy and carry off the crops, animals, Negroes, and all men under fifty years of age capable of bearing arms. In this way, you will get many of Mosby’s men.’ He also ordered Sheridan to hunt down the families of Mosby’s men. ‘I think they should be taken and kept at Fort McHenry, or some other secure place, as hostages for the good conduct of Mosby’s men.’ Grant then ominously added ‘When any of Mosby’s men are caught, hang them without trial.’
dinsdale wrote:I don't think it's a reasonable assumption that people would have survived any better if they had to march away and hope to find food elsewhere. While I agree, this is not the systematic executions practiced in the 20th century, or the ethnic cleansing carried out by the US against the indigenous population, I still believe that Lincoln bears responsibility. I think his character could take criticism without diminishing his positives.
Fair enough, I think we disagree on the severity. However, it does not matter whether Sheridan, Sherman, Grant and Lincoln deliberately wanted to punish civilians, it matters that their actions directly caused the suffering.
Let's imagine the British army burnt Boston, New York and Philadelphia in 1784, to try and deny the Continentals the economic means of waging war, how would history remember them? I'd imagine we'd have a trilogy of Mel Gibson films
I agree, though I suppose I would take the position that 1 death is too many in this war. It should have been over by 1863 if not for the utter incompetence and short sightedness of the Union.
Thats a good point, though I think we are going to have to disagree that it is justifiable.
I admire Sherman, and wish he'd been with Grant in 1864 instead of on his own, but I can't ignore what he did and how it stains his legacy and the legacy The Union. Sheridan I find to be little more than a psychopath who was lucky to be born in a place and time which contrive to temper and diminish his atrocities.
Keeler wrote:Should I take offense to that, or has something been deleted
Stauffenberg wrote:The spam was deleted and my regrets for not responding to your detailed response , which surely deserves the same. A RL move has seen me buried alive in boxes that needed sorting, deleting, given away etc.
Will respond soon, although I have to also admit that their Davai! RUS game has grabbed me by the ears too.
Cheers
Straight Arrow wrote:Interesting piece gentlemen; it expanded my mind.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests