 |
| Sherman's bummers (foragers) in S.C. (Library of Congress) |
(Part 3)
Today we wrap up our three-part look at Maj. Gen. William
T. Sherman’s March to the Sea, the bold move away from a military base and
supply lines to accomplish an objective. The Picket asked Civil War experts, historians, an
archaeologist and a living historian/re-enactor about their thoughts on myths
and realities of the November and December 1864 march, what associated sites
should be visited and the campaign's legacy today. Here are their responses to
the third question.
Q. What is the
march's legacy, seen through the lens of today?
ANNE SARAH RUBIN, history professor at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County and author of “A
Shattered Nation: The Rise and Fall of the Confederacy, 1861-1868”
The March has come to symbolize the impact that the war as a whole had on
civilians. But I also think that we forget that the march was one of
liberation -- Sherman’s soldiers brought freedom to hundreds of thousands of
African-Americans. The problem was that, first the soldiers, and Sherman
himself, were not always comfortable with that role, nor did they care very
much about African-Americans. And second, all Sherman’s soldiers brought was
freedom, but no way to hold on to it.
ANTHONY WINEGAR, chief ranger, Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield Park
The legacy today is mostly military in nature in my mind.
Sherman was able to leave a stronghold (Atlanta) and march through the heart of
enemy held terrain to destroy their infrastructure and prove to the rest of the
country and world that the South was finished and did not have the means to
keep up the war effort. It is often dubbed "Total War" but in true
definition, it was not. Sherman did not execute Southerners or totally destroy
towns, homes, etc. Also, under previous definitions of total war, such as in
Europe, rape and other unorthodox strategies were not used as weapons. Perhaps
what is lost on history now is the fact that some people could not believe that
Lincoln would allow a general to go completely "off the grid" during
the march. Lincoln's trust for Sherman had to be deep. Lincoln responded at one
point by stating that, "I know what he went in at, but I can't tell what
hole he will come out of."
Lastly, the quote that summed up the western Federal
soldiers that participated in the march described them best. A German
ambassador watching the Grand Review in Washington after the war, as the first
divisions passed, reportedly said, “An army like that could whip all Europe.” A
half-hour later he said, “An army like that could whip the world.” An hour
later: “An army like that could whip the devil.”
 |
| Union Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman |
CHARLIE CRAWFORD, president of the Georgia Battlefields
Association
The march’s legacy is its influence on the American Way
of War. Rather than taking strategic points (McClellan and his “on to Richmond”
approach), Sherman showed that destroying infrastructure and reducing the
enemy’s will to fight (consider strategic bombing to destroy German factories
in WWII, even though it meant civilian casualties) could be important
components to a successful strategy. Grant showed that destroying the enemy’s
armed forces was another important component. Remember that Grant’s plan for
the spring of 1864 was for the Federal forces in Virginia to destroy Lee’s army
and for the Federal forces in Georgia to destroy Johnston’s army. The plan did
not call for the capture of Richmond or Atlanta. These beliefs still influence
American strategy, which is one reason why we have such trouble fighting
non-state opponents.
TALLEY KIRKLAND,
park ranger, Fort McAllister State Park (near Savannah, taken by Sherman’s
troops near the end of the march)
It pretty much demonstrated that the Confederacy was
truly done for. If you could let an army completely cut its supply line and go
through enemy territory pretty much unopposed you have a real problem.
They talk about him burning personal property: I try to
explain and often people take exception that it was war. I point out what was
done by World War II during the carpet bombing of Germany. You are going to
destroy personal property. War is not a pretty thing. Which is worse: Dropping
things from the stratosphere or burning stuff? They did not destroy everything,
they did not burn all the plantation houses. They would burn cotton houses and
presses, anything that could produce revenue for the Confederacy. If foraging
parties were shot at by irregulars they would destroy personal property in the
area knowing those guerrillas were being supported in the area. There were some
(properties) burned maliciously.
 |
| (Library of Congress) |
DAN ELLIOTT, president of the LAMAR Institute, which
conducts archaeological research from its base in Georgia
Sherman's March through Georgia was the final nail in the
coffin of the Confederacy. At the beginning of the march in May 1864, the
outcome was uncertain and the tide could have shifted back in favor of the
South. By early September and the end of most fighting around Atlanta, the
outcome was pretty clear. The South's transportation and supply hub had been
broken. The final leg of the march to Savannah (and then on through the
Carolinas) was more vindication than strategy. Major General Hood's forces left
the state for Tennessee and the reduced Confederate force left to defend
Georgia was woefully inadequate. The stories of Yankee and Bummer depredations
on the defenseless plantation families remain fodder for debate, as do the
stories of Sherman's treatment of the newly freed enslaved. Unlike Virginia,
which also boasts many Civil War engagements on its landscape, many of Georgia's
battlefields have been lost to development and modern land use. Those that
survive promise to tell real stories -- stories that may contradict or confirm
many Georgia history myths and unverified claims. These hallowed places that
remain need to be remembered for all times.
DAVID EVANS, historian and author of "Sherman's Horsemen"
The main legacy of "The March" is the beginning
of the concept now known as "Total War," the idea that modern warfare
is not just a conflict between opposing armies, but an all-inclusive clash that
pits one society against another, economically, politically, and spiritually,
as well as militarily. Sherman believed the best way to end the fighting
quickly was to make war terrible, by making it all-inclusive, for soldiers and
civilians alike. At that time, this was a quite a departure from accepted practice
and this helped forge Sherman's reputation, in the eyes of many Southerners, as
a "barbarian."
HERB COATS, living historian/re-enactor living in Georgia
It is a tactical masterpiece that is still taught in
military academies, and discussed by historians still. You can’t think of
Sherman without the “March to the Sea.” It is a larger-scale version of what
Winfield Scott did in Mexico, but with no supply line, and more men. It is was
the North’s flexing of their military power through the lower south, and showed
that no one was safe from their reach. Native-born Georgians with long family
histories within the state still to this day speak of Sherman with contempt.
I’ve seen it firsthand.
No comments:
Post a Comment