General W T Sherman a war criminal?

Question

Gen Sherman did nothing wrong when he went through the South torching property and feeding his Army. The laws against these types of actions were not put into place until AFTER the Civil War. Why do Southerners still insist he is a war criminal?

Answer 1

The indiscriminate carpet bombing, incendiary attacks against cities and nuclear destruction of cities were not war crimes, even under the Geneva Convention in effect at the time of the attacks in WWII.

An opinion was rendered in international courts to wit:

"in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war"

At the time, "total war" meant the civilians on both sides faced indiscriminate aerial bombing, including incendiary attacks, nuclear attacks, and assaults on centers of culture/churches/schools, etc.

A change in the Geneva Conventions, beginning in 1949 were the results from the uproar of the fire bombing of Dresden, nuclear attacks on Japan, and other indiscriminate carpet bombing during WW II.

Therefore, in answer to your question, there were no specific treaties or conventions broken AT THE TIME of the March thru Atlanta and the South and therefore it was not a war crime, these prohibitions all came after the second world war.

Answer 2

Sherman was a Friend of the South even after the war but Jefferson Davis needed to have an excuse as to why the south lost the war and he began to point to the March to the Sea as against the Laws of War a thus was illegal. Some in the South, The Lost Cause believers, ate this up and began to call Sherman a criminal.

While Sherman's actions did ,technically, violate the Laws of War, See Laws of War 1863 a reprint from Stackpole Books, most of the generals on both sides, including R.E. Lee always stated that what Sherman's Army did in Georgia and the Carolina's was military correct and not illegal.

Answer 3

Most folks don't read enough history to understand all that Sherman did or did not do. Me personally, I hang my hat with the Confederacy. My ancestors fought proudly for the Confederacy and after the war in the Virginia Legislature. While my part of southwest Virginia did not incur Sherman's wrath, we did face Stoneman's Raid and further up the Valley learned what Sheridan thought of the South and it wasn't pleasant.

Sherman fought the war the way it needed to be fought. He understood that making war so terrible would help Southerners think twice before turning to again as a tool of political expediency. Sherman understood the nature of war.

His march across Georgia was actually less destructive than what he did to South Carolina and Charleston in particular.

It's peculiar to the South that we experienced the destruction of our homes, our farms, our cities at the hands of Federal Troops, who naturally were made up of men from Northern States.

As the Federal Soldiers destroyed the city of Fredricksburg, VA,... an observing CSA officer asked Jackson what he thought of the destruction. He replied, that they (the CSA) should kill them all...everyone of them.

So it really should not be strange to imagine that we Southerners still harbor some resentment and still cling to our separate historical identity as "rebels". It's a defining part of our culture. My grandfather remembered the stories of his grandfather's service in the Civil War and of riding with John S. Mosby (the Grey Ghost) on the raid to kidnap Gen. Stoughton.

Is/was Sherman a war criminal. I don't think so. Truthfully, I think he was a great American and I will take CSA Gen. Johnston's example as the proof. CSA Gen. Johnson (who resisted Sherman's advance on Atlanta and later surrendered to him in North Carolina) was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral. He removed his hat despite the pouring rain...insisting that Sherman would have showed him the same respect. He died a week later from pneumonia.

The war is long over now and our nation is whole and today Tennesseans and Ohioans are united as Americans and the pain of our great Civil War is past.

So let's honor the heroes both blue and gray, because men like Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, US Grant, Patrick Cleburne, and Robert E. Lee were great Americans who deserve our remembrance.

Answer 4

War criminal?
When did the winning side ever have to answer for war crimes...Real or imagined?....Never..
I am a devout Southerner...Always will be. But one has to look beyond all of this to see the bare facts of Sherman's famous march to the Sea. Everything that Sherman did was well thought out and nothing was intended by him or his commanders to be a raping and pillaging action...However some minor infractions did occour....

What he did was to put the most battle ready men on the field without manpower being "waisted"...So he did away with the mass of outfitters (Suttlers)...Field cooks...Teamsters and their supply wagons....And supplied his army with the fruit of the land...And in order for this to work the army had to keep moving because if it stopped the men would soon starve...

Although not supplying themselves, Other great leaders have employed the swift hard driving methodology with great success....Hitler's Blitzkrieg soon overran most of Europe...
George S. Patton found out that by always being on the attack
he could actually lower his battle field losses....

But only the lossing side can have war criminals....

Case in point look into the history of Civil war pow camps...
Although the North had as bad or worse conditions in their pow camps.... Heinrich Wirz , the Warden of Andersonville (C.S.A.) was the only man hanged for war crimes after the war...And it was found out that at least one of the men that testified against him had not even been in Andersonville...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0701_030701_civilwarprisons.html

http://www.windycreek.com/Andersonville.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/civilwar/20061103-090308-2015r_page2.htm

Answer 5

Sherman used methods that, while normal and not really sensational in a war, were morally reprehensible. It is the common trend in history for winners to find ways to justify their methods while dehumanizing the opposition. If Sherman had been a German general doing the same thing in WWII he would have been tried as a war criminal. Also, if Hap Arnold or Sir Arthur Harris had been on the losing side of WWII they also would have been tried as barbaric. War is the ultimate expression of "might makes right." So whoever wins apparently fought the war in the right way. Also, many Union generals found Sherman's methods reprehensible. As far as the "law" of war you refer to, no such thing exist in practical terms. When the aim is killing, most sides and people will do whatever it takes to win. If Lee had raped and pillaged his way through Maryland and Pennsylvania, I am sure the Northern press would have cried foul.

Answer 6

Well I would say by the actions of War he would have been okay using such means.
But in a moral or ethical way he allowed his men to behave like thugs, and terrorize people into submission, Makes me wonder if North would feel the same way if the shoe was on a different foot. I believe historians have referred to Sherman's method as "Total War" meaning what ever it takes to win then do it. But its still barbaric.

Answer 7

Technically, no. lights conflict refers to a motorized military. the only automobiles Sherman used have been the railroads, in the event that they weren't demolished. besides the undeniable fact that, inflicting optimal harm upon civilian became not an innovation in conflict. Burning each and all of the vegetation destroys the financial productiveness of the enemy, that's a severe count number. Medieval conflict became merely as undesirable in this admire. After the horror of the 30 twelve months's conflict there became a extra or much less gents's settlement between the ecu powers to purpose merely armed forces objectives. This became real until the French Revolution, while entire conflict became presented.

Answer 8

I read somewhere that Sherman told Lee and the other "American" generals that defected to the South that they were starting something they couldn't finish. He even said war is hell. No one listened so he showed them what he was talking about. Of course I could be wrong, but looking at Iraq I believe he was right about the hell part.

Answer 9

As a matter of fact, the Geneva Convention was created jsut before the burning of Atlanta, but that is beside the point. Just because something is not against the law does not mean it violates common law or moral decency, especially when the government can change the law at will.

Even Geoge Bush recognized this and issued orders legalizing torture so that Guatanamo Bay would be legal.

Answer 10

I am a southerner and I think Sherman was a great General. He had it right; he said War is Hell, he said the only way the war will end quickly is if we make it so bad that they capitulate. He never killed civilians purposefully. He also (besides war is hell) has one of my other favorite quotes;' I never met a good indian who wasn't dead'...this has been widely misquoted as 'The only good indian is a dead indian'.