"Sheridan’s Scorched Earth Campaign — The Union..." Topic

…Army's Forgotten War Crime.

"GEORGE ORWELL WROTE in 1945 that "the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." The same moral myopia has carried over to most Americans' understanding of the Civil War. While popular historians have recently canonized the war as a veritable holy crusade to free the slaves, in reality civilians were intentionally targeted and brutalized, particularly in the final year of the conflict.

The most dramatic forgotten atrocity in the Civil War occurred a little more than 150 years ago when Union Gen. Philip Sheridan laid waste to a hundred mile swath of the Shenandoah Valley leaving vast numbers of women and children at risk of starvation. Surprisingly, this scorched earth campaign has been largely forgotten, foreshadowing how subsequent brutal military operations would also vanish into the Memory Hole.

In August 1864, supreme Union commander Ulysses S. Grant ordered Sheridan to "do all the damage to railroads and crops you can… If the war is to last another year, we want the Shenandoah Valley to remain a barren waste." Sheridan set to the task with vehemence, declaring that "the people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war" and promised that, when he was finished, the valley "from Winchester to Staunton will have but little in it for man or beast."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Over the course of my lifetime, I've seen the concept "if only played by the proper rules, war can become a reasonable, civilized activity," gain credence. There's even a Star Trek episode about it. War, imho, is anything but--it's brutal, horrible and should be avoided at all cost. As long as war is "something that happens to just a few soldiers over there in a foreign country," then yes, you'll have civilian populations willing to support war to the hilt. And the war will never stop.

The man has an agenda. But then, don't we all.

Read the last paragraph in the article:

Since 1864, no prudent American should have expected this nation's wars to have happy or uplifting endings. Unfortunately, as long as the spotlight is kept off atrocities, most citizens will continue to underestimate the odds that wars will spawn debacles and injustices that return to haunt us.

I don't know what planet he lives on but the America press is not shy about publishing atrocity stories ("If it bleeds, it leads.").

The sad fact is NOT that the horrors of war are not published, but, rather that History, especially the wars, are not taught any more.

It seems to me that Sheridan used the same methodology that Sherman used in his march from Atlanta to Savannah – hit the economic home-front very hard to demoralize both the civilians and the military in order to shorten the war and reduce the total number of casualties in the long run.

War is, by definition, a brutal affair (as Jeffrey said above). Most soldiers do want it over as quickly as possible but realize that in order to do that the enemy must be so demoralized that they will end the fighting. That was Sherman's outlook as well as Grant's and Sheridan's. They had all been in it since the beginning and were wanting it to be over so they did what was necessary to finish it quickly.

You can see the same methodology employed by the Allies in WW2 – saturation bombing in Germany and Japan to try and break the morale of the military and civilians and the atomic bombs in Japan to break the morale of the political leadership and avoid the millions of casualties that would have resulted from an Allied ground invasion of the home islands.

Jim
(a 20-year US Army veteran whose father was on his way from European bombing missions to the Pacific and a descendant of Mississippi Confederate soldiers)

You must effectively destroy your enemy's ability to wage war. Is doing so considered a war crime? To the point of this article, how many civilians did, in fact, starve to death as a result of Sheridan's and Sherman's action? Did they experience hardship? Undoubtedly. But did they starve to death? Hardly.

Could an argument be made that these actions shortened the war and saved lives that otherwise would have been lost on the battlefield?

Attaching the term "war crimes" to these actions bother me at a very deep level.

Absolute and totally sensationalist reporting. The supposed 'unparalleled brutality' of Sherman's march exists mostly in the minds of Lost Cause propagandists and those who watched Gone with the Wind rather than historical fact. I'd recommend checking out "The Hard Hand of War" by Mark Grimsley for a much better analysis of Sherman's actual methods and the goals.

-Will

military necessity is one thing, wanton cruelty carried above and beyond that is entirely another thing surely?

i'm not saying for a moment that what Sheridan and Sherman did could really be described as war crimes (no mass shootings or similar), but obtaining any pleasure in the destruction wrought would surely be perverse?

On the flip side, imagine you're a long term vet, you've been fighting this war for three years, you've lost friends, and now you've finally gained the upper hand and are making sure it stays that way. I can see gaining satisfaction from that, and knowing that your actions are directly contributing to the end of the war.

-Will

I think that's all part and parcel of war. Once you open the gates to that kind of violence, a whole raft of things follows: basic inhumanity (roughing up prisoners; roughing up civilians, etc.) wanton cruelty and up (I'll spare the escalated details). Even the best-trained and well-intentioned troops are not immune.

GoodOldRebel,

If you believe for one minute that Sherman and Sheridan liked doing what they did in some sort of destruction 'lust' you are living in a dream world.

I don't know about Sherman and Sheridan personally, but I know for a fact many in the ranks DID enjoy the destruction they wreaked in Georgia and the Carolinas. I'm sure the Shenandoah was no different. There are plenty of memoirs and personal accounts from Union soldiers justifying their behavior and their lack of remorse. Either because they believed what they were doing would shorten the war, or revenge for their long years of hardship. Steve Davis' What the Yankees Did To Us if full of these accounts for just the destruction of Atlanta alone. And let's not kid ourselves. Young soldiers 18-25 years old love to blow up and break things. They did in the Civil War, they did in WW2, and they do now.

avidgamer I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than leaping to your erroneous conclusion sir.

Personally I think Sherman just wanted the war over with, I have no time for Sheridan but that is purely my own opinion and nothing to do with the man's talents as a soldier.