Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Civil War 20140822 : comparemela.

Through the first thing i would say is there is this misconception that people say oh, shermans men cut a swath 50 miles wide or 60 miles wide. That is i always tell my students you dont want to think of it like a lawn mower strip. It is not 50 miles wide of lawn mower. It is 50 miles from the edge of one column through four columns to the furthest edge of the other. So in many ways it is very what is the word oim looking for. Not sporadic or episodic. But sometimes a house is targeting and other houses a mile away are not targeted. That being said, where shermans men and him and African American African Americans is a really interesting question. I love pauls that shermans army was probably one to great armies of liberation. They are not probably very willing liberators. Sherman was not certainly not a fan of racial equality or after the war according civil rights to African Americans. He did not he was perfectly content as they went on the to plantations to have his men liberate the slaves and announce they were free. But then he was always telling them to stay put. Because he doesnt want them following after his army. And of course hes unable to present African Americans from following his army. So by the time he gets from atlanta to georgia there are probably about 25,000 African Americans who have followed his army. And he doesnt want them. Hes perfectly willing, and actually there is a section in his orders to take ablebodied African American men and put them in his pioneer corps and have them work as teamsters and things like that. He does not want to have to feed women and children or elderly people. He tries to leave them behind. There is a horrific episode outside of savannah in a place called ebeneazer creek where shermans men or a section of his army under the command of shermans subordinate general, Jefferson Davis no relation and then you have the African Americans who are following them. And then you have wheelers confederate cavalry kind of behind that. And what happens is they use pontoon bridges to get through this river or swampy area. Its kind of a cypress swamp. And then davis orders the pontoon bridges pulled up so the African Americans cant cross. And they are being chased by wheelers cavalry. Hundreds of them wind up drowning in the swamp and hundreds end up being recaptured by the cavalry. And when the news gets out sherman is condemned for not condemning davis. So it is tangled, i guess is the short answer. One consequence is the rise in diversion rates from soldiers whose homes were in the area the army went through. Was this a circumstance or one of the goals . I dont think sherman was directly hoping to influence the army of Northern Virginia. Where i think sherman actually was directly trying to target the army of Northern Virginia was not through desertion but through supplies. That by, first of all, breaking the rail line from atlanta which had been a major supply line up to petersburg and then by just raiding through, you know, this relatively untouched area to deprive them of supplies. And i think also there was a sense he definitely was k cognizant of the psychological impact, that he wanted people to know that he could not be stopped. And in fact any kind of rumors that might have come out about how vicious they were or how violent, he was comfortable with that because he felt there would be this deeper psychological impact. 50 years before the event you are talki ing about we hand episode similar to here. Literally when the british came to washington after the battle of the braidanceburg and the sewell belmont house. Somebody took a pot shot another general ross as he arrived in the capital plaza. Killed his horse and general ross made a order of that house burned but made a point to not specifically damage other property. And contrasted that to the uncivilized behavior of americans at york and other canadian towns they burned and looted. He said far more civilized than those terrible americans he said. So is general ross ahead of his time . Was he unique at his time . Or what was going on then . Im far from an expert in the war of 1812. But i dont think that ross was ahead of his time. I mean, i think that ross ahead of his time . Do you mean in burning the civilian house or . Not burning everything else. No, i mean there is an argument to be made for only limiting your destruction to private buildings. I will also say that with sherman, the vast majority of buildings or structures that shermans men burned were not actually private homes. It was again, the sort of the places that gave Material Support to the confederacy. Barns, gin houses, cotton big bails of cotton. They burn remarkably few houses. And it is fascinating to me one of the areas that i explore in actually about the cultural memory of shermans march, is in fact the Different Reasons that houses along shermans route were saved. Because you cant have it both ways. You cant have sherman cutting this 50mile swath and have dozens and dozens of antebellum homes surviving. There were reasons this house was spared or that house was spared. Im also a tour guide. I take people past the statue of the horse, William Tecumseh sherman, the house. The revisionist history, i say, war is a pathway to a more perfect peace. And i wonder if this psychological effect, when he brought his children, when the family came to chattanooga, and his son died, another son named willie, how much of a psychological effect do you think it ha in making some say it made him manic and mean. What do you think . I think it was tragic for him, as losing a child would be for anybody. I think that i dont think sherman was mean. I think that sherman was cleareyed. Which is to say that i think sherman recognized that the way you stop a war is you make the war too costly. And that in so doing, he also really did believe that he was saving his men, because look, his men, they thought the march was great. They loved it. You know, they had more to eat than they normally did. They marched less each day than they normally did. With very few exceptions, nobody ever shot at them. From shermans perspective, saving his mens lives while bringing the war to a more rapid close, so i i dont think hes mean. I think hes he has a job, and hes willing to do what it takes. Could you speak to how, in 1864, northern papers were covering the march, and were there lincoln opponents to pointed out anything different than had been happening . Thats a great question. Theres very little coverage of the march itself, because from november 15th, until hes right outside of savannah, theres almost no news coming out of the march. The northern paper ive looked at the most in terms of its coverage of the march has been harpers weekly, because i was looking for images, and it does have great images of the march. But its mostly celebratory. Ill be perfectly honest with you, ive not looked specifically at democratic newspapers. Theres not a sense at the time that sherman is doing anything beyond the pale, or anything radical radically nobodys thinking that shermans created this new kind of warfare. What sherman is doing of what, say, sheridan had done earlier in the valley in 1864. Grant, famously instructs sheridan, that a crow flying over will have to carry his own provender with him. They see in the progress of sherman that his progress is helping to win the war. I mean, the reason that he turns at savannah and goes up through the carolinas, hes trying to get to petersburg, ultimately, to help out grant. Not to steal any of matts thunder, but that was my problem with the movie lincoln is that there was no sherman in it. One of my favorite cities in america is savannah, georgia. Can you talk about his decision to save that beautiful city, and give it to president lincoln as a Christmas Gift . That is the nicest, most gentile description ive ever heard of that. Because normally, sherman didnt decide to save savannah, sherman said, look, you can surrender, or im going to shell you into submission. He gave them a choice. And savannahans said, were going to surrender. In fact, they earned the enmity of every other place in the south. Because they were weak and they gave up. Thats just the nicest way ive ever heard that played. Im just going to a quick question. Of course, natchez does the same thing. But i have another question. In 1863, confederate troops went out of their way, in fact, arrived late at gettysburg, because theyre busy burning down Thaddeus Stephens house. Chasing free blacks all over pennsylvania and rounding them up. Is there anything equivalent in shermans march that says does his army target politicians house, do they march out of their way just to seek revenge against particular politicians and are they rounding up any white confederates and enslaving them . No, i wouldnt say they go out of their way, but sherman takes a particular delight, and he has a long passage about it in his memoirs about camping for a night in georgia, and freeing cobbs slaves. And the next one that comes in for a lot of destruction, the South Carolina poet simms. They destroy his house. I read a diary that soldiers were dismayed, because its one thing if they sort of trash the house, but they burn a lot of the books in simms library, and he feels that thats beyond the pale. I think those are the two. The other thing is when they take millageville, shermans men actually go into the Georgia State house and they have a mock convention, where they bring georgia back into the union. Its really interesting. What they dont do, though, is they dont talk about emancipation at all in this mock convention. They just bring georgia back in. There were women and children from the south who were shipped via rail train to the north, who never made it back home again. Has any research been done to follow up on what happened to them after the war . Not that im aware of. And by i mean, they go willingly. Its not as if sherman is refugeeing women and children out to the north. No, ive not seen much on that. The only thing i can recall, a long time ago when i was working on my dissertation, i read a diary from a woman who had been from georgia and spent time with family in brooklyn and came back to georgia and was upset that the ministers wife wouldnt talk to her, that she was seen as having been sort of a traitor. But no, im not familiar with that. Theres a professor, i believe its mississippi state, who recently came out with a book on sherman. And advances that one of his motives, since he had taught school in louisiana, to a military school, knew many of the confederate officers. And had many friendships and personal relationships. Part of his motivation in the south certainly was to protect his own troops, certainly to break the will of the south, because it was obvious the war going on for four years, what we had been doing wasnt completely working. And then i think back after the overland campaign, grant hung on for almost a year, and all the loss and destruction and loss of life that went on there to take the approach to break the will of the south to continue to fig fight. And all that that entailed. But also but also to project his own troops. But he did not want to take on many of his friends and do battle on the field of battle. Ive not heard that theory, that he didnt want to take on his friends. Those friendships, of course, are legendary. Not so much because sherman had taught at lsu, but almost all of these officers had been at west point together over the years. I dont think that sherman that doesnt sort of ring true to me, personally. But im not familiar with the is it the the demon of the loss cause, is that the one . Thats the most recent one that i know of that came out. Id love to see it. Thank you. When the question arose about press coverage, did walt whitman cover anything having to do with sherman . Did he comment on it . And the other question i have is, can you address the mythologizing of sherman, when it began . I think maybe reston i think theres a big mythology in america surrounding sherman. So when did that begin . Okay. As to the poetry question, walt whitman has one poem that obliquely references sherman, saluting the colors. From the perspective of an africanamerican woman watching shermans men marching through north carolina. Actually, melville, her man melville in battle pieces has two poems about shermans march. I think theres two that are pretty powerful. In terms of the mythologizing of sherman, i think it begins as the war concludes. I mean, hes seen as just such a hero of the war, and they march in the grand review. At the very end of the war, they march, and they have all these, like, captured cows and sheep and stuff marching behind them. Certainly when sherman dies in 1891 or 2 now, i cant remember, but when sherman dies, theres the outpouring, national outpouring of grief. Its tremendous. During the 1870s, 1860s, and 1870s, hes not reviled in the south. He makes a tour of the south in 1879, he goes back to atlanta, actually. Hes welcomed with open arms. Theres balls in his honor. The papers are funny because theres people like ha, ha, ha, shermans coming. But hes really hes welcomed by white southerners because of the fact that he did not support equality for africanamericans. And he wanted in fact a very soft piece for the south. Going back to his time at lsu and his time earlier when he had been in the army in the south, he loved the south. He loved southerners. Southern whites, let me be more clear. Thank you all very much. [ applause ] friday night on American History tv, slavery and the cinema, with a look at the depiction of slavery and films since the 1930s. Then the 2012 movie lincoln and its portrayal of the debate and passage of the 13th amendment. And a discussion about the 1939 movie gone with the wind and its depiction of southern society, friday night, beginning at 8 00 eastern, here on cspan3. This weekend on American History tv, we take a look back 200 years ago this week, when British Military forces set the white house and capitol on fire. Well also hear about british admiral coburn used the waterways to invade and burn the city. Coburns idea is to make use of several different waterways in an attack on washington. If the British Force simply sailed up the potomac, everybody would know that washington was the ultimate target. Coburn decides that or recommends that the force be split up. That one squadron sail up the Potomac River and threaten the capitol and the city of alexandria, the main force is going to go up the potungset river in maryland. And it would kind of shield the ultimate british intention. Because a move up the potungsset could mean anything. It could mean an attack on washington, but it could also mean an overland attack on baltimore, or attack on annapolis. Or it could mean that the british were simply chasing after commedore joshua barney, who was the american commander of the chesapeake flotilla, who had a flotilla of shallow draft barges that were perfectly suited for navigating the shallow waters of the chesapeake and the Rivers Feeding into it. Barney, by the summer of 1814, had been trapped in the patuksin river. The british could use barneys presence in the river to more or less shield their movement for the capital. And thats exactly what coburn recommended. And its what the british commanders, general ross and admiral alexander cochran, who was in charge of the entire fleet here in north america, agreed to do. This weekend live coverage of the panel of authors and historians, as they discuss the 1814 british burning of washington. Live saturday at 1 00 p. M. Eastern. Then more from author steve vogel on how the british used washingtons waterways during the invasion, 6 00 and 10 00 p. M. , all here on cspan3. Next, historian jim ogden talks about weapons manufacturing in Central Georgia. Sherman destroyed much of this infrastructure, crippling the Confederate Armys ability to wage war. This hourlong talk was hosted by the Civil War Center at Kennesaw State university in georgia. As many of you all know from coming to some of my programs over the years, i have a tendency to use a few props of one sort or another. So i couldnt resist that opportunity today as well. To help illustrate a few points. Mike and some of the staff are oh, my goodness, we even recruited craig into distributing handouts. I should get a picture of this. I have a historian friend who once had trace adkins as a sound man at an event. I have a Naval Academy professor as a map handerouter. Thats kind of like bob creek as an easel in the western theater. Bob brian, i do thank you for the introduction. As brian noted, my day job is staff historian at chickamauga military park. Even though im here today, just as a selfinterested historian and citizen, and learner, because ive enjoyed making a few notes about things already yet again from richard and now craig. And look forward to hearing steves talk in a few minutes. And im not here today as a National Military park employee, but because i think the place that i work is an important Historic Site in the shaping of our nation, i couldnt miss an opportunity of hawking my day job. Chickamauga and chattanooga military park. I know a lot of you have discovered out in the lobby there are piles of brochures for chickamauga and chattanooga military park. The old one is currently in use, and the new one which some day will be in use. And so you can pick these up at some point, and i hope to see you on the ground studying those battlefields frequently and often. Also, coming around is that handout, which hopefully everybody will get a copy of pretty soon. And i also have a power point. And lets see, mike okay. Lets try this. Aha there we go. Oh, no. There we go. Okay. Well, ill only use the advance button. For the events that were, and would be unfolding in the year we are considering today in this symposium, the year now a century and a half ago, this past week of march, 1864, would prove to be a momentous one. Not