Cities in the American Civil War

[moustic]

The Civil War in Holly Springs

During the Civil War, the Holly Springs community was stripped of fighting-age men. Local schools shut down and the progress of the once-thriving community was put on hold. Near the end of the war, when a flank of the Union Army was sent to cut off retreating Confederate forces and then was recalled, the Union troop’s headquarters was established in the Leslie house.

“Legend has it that the lady of the house charmed the soldiers so that they didn’t burn the house down,” longtime Holly Springs resident Sylvian Brooks said. “They did get the chickens, though.”

The Leslie house was one of the more lucky local homes. Bummers, bands of renegade soldiers that scoured the countryside without supervision, raided other local homes.

Rebecca Jones Alford, mother of Colonel George Benton Alford who later bought the Leslie house, had a run-in with one of these bands as she was cooking a meal for Confederate fighters. The epitaph on her tombstone reads, “A devoted Christian mother who whipped Sherman’s Bummers with scalding water while trying to take her Dinner Pot which contained a hambone being cooked for her (Confederate) Soldier Boys.” The tombstone can be seen in the Pleasant Grove Baptist Church graveyard southeast of Town.

Another historic home that survived the Civil War and remains standing today is the Needham Norris house off Avent Ferry Road. Norris' nephew, Simpson Washington Holland, and his family lived in the house during the war. Holland's widow is said to have taken in a wounded Union officer and nursed him back to health during the encampment of Union troops in the area in April of 1865; consequently, the home was spared from destruction. John Norris, Jr., father of Needham and who most likely was one of the first English settlers of the community, was a veteran of the Revolutionary War. His home is located across the street. In 1935, the Daughters of the American Revolution erected a memorial stone for Norris on the west side of Avent Ferry Road, not far from where Norris is reported to be buried in the Norris Family graveyard.

http://www.hollyspringsnc.us/about/history.htm#civil

[moustic]

The Civil War in Memphis

At the time of the American Civil War, Memphis was already an important regional city because of its river trade and railroad connections. Tennessee seceded from the Union in June 1861 and Memphis briefly became a Confederate stronghold. Union forces captured Memphis from Confederacy in the Battle of Memphis on June 6, 1862, and the city remained under Union control for the duration of the war, except for a dramatic raid conducted by Nathan Bedford Forrest. Memphis became a Union supply base and continued to prosper throughout the war.

"After defeating the Confederates at the Battle of Island Number Ten, the Union fleet was able to steam downriver to threaten Memphis. Opposing them was a small flotilla of makeshift crafts. Confederate gunboats, some of them converted paddleboats armored with cotton bales (colloquially known as "cottonclads"), were pitted against Union ironclads and rams. The battle lasted one and a half hours and was watched by the civilian population from the Chickasaw Bluffs. The Union fleet quickly captured or sunk most of the Rebel forces, with the survivors retreating southwards down the river towards Vicksburg, Mississippi. Casualties were extremely lopsided with 180 Southerners killed or injured and only one casualty for the North. The battle ended with Union commanders landing at the city docks and taking control of Memphis, giving the Union army a port for moving supplies down the river.

Another Civil War military engagement also took place in Memphis, the Second Battle of Memphis in April 1864, when Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest led a nighttime cavalry raid on his hometown of Memphis with the intent of freeing Confederate prisoners and capturing Union generals encamped in Memphis. The raid failed in both goals, but forced the Union Army to guard the area more diligently."

[Dana]

Atlanta was ravage during the Civil war by General William Sherman and his troops. He was the man who made up the phrase "War is Hell"
in September 1864 he gave orders for the City of Atlanta to be evacuated and burned ignoring the plea's of the citizens and the reminders of there being pregnant woman and children in the city.
this blogger
Tells us all about it with the help of some very strong photos.
as he says -

a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Le Ricain]

Atlanta was ravage during the Civil war by General William Sherman and his troops. He was the man who made up the phrase "War is Hell"
in September 1864 he gave orders for the City of Atlanta to be evacuated and burned ignoring the plea's of the citizens and the reminders of there being pregnant woman and children in the city.
this blogger
Tells us all about it with the help of some very strong photos.
as he says -

I am afraid that you have perhaps exaggerated Sherman actions in Atlanta.

Firstly, when Hood retreated from the city on the 1st September, he ordered the burning of military supplies and installations. These fires soon got out of control and burned down much of the city. In the 1939 film 'Gone With the Wind', the burning of Atlanta scene depicts this event.

Sherman arrived in the city on the 2nd September. Later that month he ordered the evacuation of the civilian population because of concerns over food supply and disease.

In November, when Sherman left the city on his march to the sea, he ordered the burning of those military targets that Hood had not had time to destroy. He did not order the burning of the city. When these fires got out of control, Sherman employed his men as firefighters and was able to save the city center and the main residential areas. However, it is true that some of his soldiers did set fires on civilian properties, but without authorisation. It is also true that when Sherman departed, much of the city was in ruins.

Sherman, himself, is responsible for the story of Atlanta being burnt to the ground, despite the pleas of pregnant women. He promoted the story in an attempt to break Southern morale. In this he was successful. The desertion rate increased dramatically in Lee's army once the news on Atlanta was announced.

[Pemberton1]

Odd that you treat Sherman's order for the city's evacuation so lightly. Hood's correspondence with Sherman on the subject is quite illuminating, I think. He, an experienced man of war, contends that the evacuation itself was exceptionally severe and cruel, as does the Mayor of Atlanta, Mr. James Calhoun. Here follow two excerpts from that correspondence. One has to love the eloquence of these times.

First, Hood:
"And now, sir, permit me to say that the unprecedented measure you propose transcends, in studied and ingenious cruelty, all acts ever before brought to my attention in the dark history of war. In the name of God and humanity I protest, believing that you will find that you are expelling from their homes and firesides the wives and children of a brave people."

Second, Calhoun:
"How is it possible for the people still here (mostly women and children) to find any shelter? And how can they live through the winter in the woods? No shelter or subsistence, in the midst of strangers who know them not, and without the power to assist them much, if they were willing to do so. This is but a feeble picture of the consequences of this measure. You know the woe, the horrors and the suffering cannot be described by words; imagination can only conceive of it, and we ask you to take these things into consideration. We know your mind and time are constantly occupied with the duties of your command, which almost deters us from asking your attention to this matter, but thought it might be that you had not considered this subject in all of its awful consequences, and that on more reflection you, we hope, would not make this people an exception to all mankind, for we know of no such instance ever having occurred; surely none such in the United States, and what has this helpless people done, that they should be driven from their homes to wander strangers and outcasts and exiles, and to subsist on charity? We do not know as yet the number of people still here; of those who are here, we are satisfied a respectable number, if allowed to remain at home, could subsist for several months without assistance, and a respectable number for a much longer time, and who might not need assistance at any time. In conclusion, we most earnestly and solemnly petition you to reconsider this order, or modify it, and suffer this unfortunate people to remain at home and enjoy what little means they have."

Sherman responded to Hood, rebuking him for appealing to God, and insisting, as he was known to do, that the Southerners warranted such punitive and extrordinary treatment because they bore the guilt of the war. Sherman here made the outline of his philosophy of war: that cruelty was good because it ended the war more quickly than decent behavior.

[Brochgale]

I think Sherman was wrong - cruelty never finishes a war more quickly - it only stiffens the resolve of the other side to fight on. I am trying to think of a war from my own reading on the history of warfare where any side finished a war more quickly by being more cruel in its actions. It is perhaps a debatable point though.

[Le Ricain]

Odd that you treat Sherman's order for the city's evacuation so lightly. Hood's correspondence with Sherman on the subject is quite illuminating, I think. He, an experienced man of war, contends that the evacuation itself was exceptionally severe and cruel, as does the Mayor of Atlanta, Mr. James Calhoun. Here follow two excerpts from that correspondence. One has to love the eloquence of these times.

First, Hood:
"And now, sir, permit me to say that the unprecedented measure you propose transcends, in studied and ingenious cruelty, all acts ever before brought to my attention in the dark history of war. In the name of God and humanity I protest, believing that you will find that you are expelling from their homes and firesides the wives and children of a brave people."

Second, Calhoun:
"How is it possible for the people still here (mostly women and children) to find any shelter? And how can they live through the winter in the woods? No shelter or subsistence, in the midst of strangers who know them not, and without the power to assist them much, if they were willing to do so. This is but a feeble picture of the consequences of this measure. You know the woe, the horrors and the suffering cannot be described by words; imagination can only conceive of it, and we ask you to take these things into consideration. We know your mind and time are constantly occupied with the duties of your command, which almost deters us from asking your attention to this matter, but thought it might be that you had not considered this subject in all of its awful consequences, and that on more reflection you, we hope, would not make this people an exception to all mankind, for we know of no such instance ever having occurred; surely none such in the United States, and what has this helpless people done, that they should be driven from their homes to wander strangers and outcasts and exiles, and to subsist on charity? We do not know as yet the number of people still here; of those who are here, we are satisfied a respectable number, if allowed to remain at home, could subsist for several months without assistance, and a respectable number for a much longer time, and who might not need assistance at any time. In conclusion, we most earnestly and solemnly petition you to reconsider this order, or modify it, and suffer this unfortunate people to remain at home and enjoy what little means they have."

Sherman responded to Hood, rebuking him for appealing to God, and insisting, as he was known to do, that the Southerners warranted such punitive and extrordinary treatment because they bore the guilt of the war. Sherman here made the outline of his philosophy of war: that cruelty was good because it ended the war more quickly than decent behavior.

The point remains that Sherman ordered the exacuation of the city as a means of avoiding starvation or outbreak of disease.

[wyrmm]

I think Sherman was wrong - cruelty never finishes a war more quickly - it only stiffens the resolve of the other side to fight on. I am trying to think of a war from my own reading on the history of warfare where any side finished a war more quickly by being more cruel in its actions. It is perhaps a debatable point though.

Start with all of the Mongol wars and work from there. Do not let modern sensiblilties interfere with evaluation of policy.

[Brochgale]

Start with all of the Mongol wars and work from there. Do not let modern sensiblilties interfere with evaluation of policy.

Have not really acquainted myself with mongol wars. I do know that Genghis was not short of going for a diplomatic solution to conquest first - I think also that Genghis was particualrly brutal to those who double crossed him?Stopping to slaughter a population only slowed him and Mongol forces down - hence his desire to achieve his goals by more civilised diplomatic means first?

[Jabberwock]

Tamerlane had the same philosophy. Making an example at the first opportunity often meant avoiding problems later.

[Spharv2]

It's all a question of timing, and who your opponent is. If a Federal general had done this early in the war, when things were going badly or seemed stalemated, the South would have responded much differently. As it was, it ended up being just what Sherman wanted, the proof that the CS could no longer defend one of it's most important cities and was crumbling completely.

Some opponents can be shocked into passivity with such a display early, but it's usually combined with an overwhelming military superiority also. In the Mongol example, they were so superior to the other armies of the time, that an example of the brutality that could occur when, it wasn't a question of if but only when, your armies were defeated could break any resistance quickly. If they were facing an equal force, the results would likely have been much different.

[Pemberton1]

Le Recain,

My point is that Sherman evacuated Atlanta after passionate protest from men of stature who obviously saw the thing to be horrible and cruel. I post this to suggest that Sherman's actions, whatever his intentions, were very severe and of dire consequences. Mayor Calhoun's testamony is quite weighty, I think, for he would know of the well-being of his citizens better than any general.

[Pemberton1]

Brochgale,
I'm very pleased to hear a word from Scotland on this point: another land with a history of war against civilians.

I do suppose such brutal behavior is a debatable point in war, but there certainly cannot be a question about the eternal consequences of such wickedness. What does it profit a man to win a war, however efficiently, and sell his soul to do it? I am very sympathetic to Lee's view on war against civilians. He ordered that any of his soldiers caught molesting civilians in Maryland or Pennsylvania to be shot. Lee's famous quote, "the duty is ours: the results are in God's hands" is another part of this philosophy. This is a logical extension of the moral doctrine in Plato's Gorgias: that to do wrong is the worst of all evils. One's personal responsibility is right and moral conduct. If right and moral conduct will not win the war, then at least one will not be damned. Nevertheless, it is better to behave justly than to embrace victory by any means. This was the philosophy and policy of most Southern generals, perhaps with the exception of Jubal Early and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Therefore, it seems to me a mute point whether or not brutality is efficient or not.

[Brochgale]

Brochgale,
I'm very pleased to hear a word from Scotland on this point: another land with a history of war against civilians.

I do suppose such brutal behavior is a debatable point in war, but there certainly cannot be a question about the eternal consequences of such wickedness. What does it profit a man to win a war, however efficiently, and sell his soul to do it? I am very sympathetic to Lee's view on war against civilians. He ordered that any of his soldiers caught molesting civilians in Maryland or Pennsylvania to be shot. Lee's famous quote, "the duty is ours: the results are in God's hands" is another part of this philosophy. This is a logical extension of the moral doctrine in Plato's Gorgias: that to do wrong is the worst of all evils. One's personal responsibility is right and moral conduct. If right and moral conduct will not win the war, then at least one will not be damned. Nevertheless, it is better to behave justly than to embrace victory by any means. This was the philosophy and policy of most Southern generals, perhaps with the exception of Jubal Early and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Therefore, it seems to me a mute point whether or not brutality is efficient or not.

There is no question that the Plantagnet rule of Scotland was brutal in the extreme and the method of execution of William Wallace had the opposite effect to what Edward 1 intended.

Perhaps the Scorched Earth policy that Robert the Bruce adopted for much of his war was part of later military strategy - especially when Napoloen invaded Russia but that wa a policy of self inflicted wounds to strave out invading Armies in theory - Sherman adopted a scorched Earth policy in advance and not retreat?

Did it shorten war? Not as far as I can see - defeating the Confederate Armies is what did that. If Lee had managed to join up with Johnston and Beauregard who knows how long the war would have lasted?

Ultimately it was Bruces military victory at Bannockburn that turned the war of Independence in Scotlands favour - I believe it is military victory and that alone that wins wars?

[boboneilltexas]

English rule has always been brutal. The killing of women and children during the March upon Concord in the American Revolution. The camps they threw the Germans into in Africa. The treatment of the Irish and Scots are just a few among many.

[Le Ricain]

Brochgale,
I'm very pleased to hear a word from Scotland on this point: .

Pemberton1,

I assume you meant to say 'another' word from Scotland.

[Pemberton1]

You must forgive me, Le Ricain. I did not notice where you were from.

[Le Ricain]

No problem. With regards to America, we in Scotland have tended to support the wrong side and today hope that no one has noticed. In the AWI, Scotland supported the government as atonement for the 1745 revolt. The exception was Glasgow which supported the Americans. Of the thirteen regiments raised for the war, ten were raised in Scotland.

During the ACW, which divided the United Kingdom, Scotland, apart from those perky Glaswegians again, supported the South.

[Brochgale]

No problem. With regards to America, we in Scotland have tended to support the wrong side and today hope that no one has noticed. In the AWI, Scotland supported the government as atonement for the 1745 revolt. The exception was Glasgow which supported the Americans. Of the thirteen regiments raised for the war, ten were raised in Scotland.

During the ACW, which divided the United Kingdom, Scotland, apart from those perky Glaswegians again, supported the South.

I concur. Scots have the annoying habit of choosing the wrong side which in most cases is the losing side. It goes hand in hand with our other unfortunate talent of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. However we do have the trait which tells us we are beaten but refuse to see it?

[captainmatt]

I note that Milledgeville, Georgia is not on the map, yet it was the capital of the state of Georgia during the ACW.

Atlanta didn't become the capital until after Sherman burned it

"Milledgeville is the seat of Baldwin County in central Georgia. It served as the fourth capital of Georgia (1804-68) and was the seat of the state government throughout the Civil War (1861-65)."

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-769

- Capt. Matt