Brief Thoughts on Sherman

[unforth]

As I keep mentioning, I'm currently reading W.T. Sherman's memoirs. They are excellent. I've just reached what has to be the most interesting thing in them yet (even more interesting than his stories about California before and during the gold rush, which were awesome). Sherman reprints in full a four way exchange of letters between himself and Halleck (who was Sherman's superior, stationed in Washington DC, and therefore the voice of what the president et al wanted) on the one hand, and between Sherman, Confederate general J.B. Hood, and the mayor of Atlanta on the other hand. Sent just after the fall of this city, I think I could probably write a book on the intricacies of these 10 pages or so of letters, which contain some of the most famous Sherman quotes of the war (multiple passages that were familiar to me). It's great to get to read the entire exchange in full, and it speaks to a lot of issues that I think we still face - in particular, a question I think echoes through the last one hundred and fifty years - whose fault was it, really, that the war took place?

Being a northern girl meself - raised in NYC, and a descendant of a (granted rather pathetic) Union soldier - I'm inclined to think that Sherman has the right in these letters, and that the South is to blame. Indeed, from the point of view of a historian, despite my biases, I find it difficult to see how any other case could be made. Reading Hood's letters to Sherman feels like reading the first salvos of the battle that starts after the war, and ends in the development of the "Lost Cause" mythos that still drives so many Southerners even today.

I'd love to get the opinions of my friends on this matter, but I haven't the time or energy to go into the depth that would really be necessary to elucidate the many layers of this - like I said, I think I could write an entire book about it and still not really do it justice. Deep stuff. And still very relevant.

Comments

[nekomata.livejournal.com]

I am not in a deep and conversational mood due to being Nyquil-ed out of all good sense but! I just remembered a picture I took when we drove down to catch out flight out of Atlanta this June. This is a very large plaque in the first rest stop you encounter upon entering Georgia.

http://pics.livejournal.com/nekomata/pic/0016fsaf

http://pics.livejournal.com/nekomata/pic/0016g6k5

And my in-laws still think I'm a Yankee. *sigh*

[unforth.livejournal.com]

Neat picture...

I visited Chickamauga Battlefield, which is in Georgia just over the border from Tennessee, and got some very interesting reactions to my very obvious yankee-ness. They particularly didn't like when I owned that I was most interested in Sherman - they were nice about it, but strongly suggested I not go around saying that to Georgians.

[nekomata.livejournal.com]

Oh, have I ever heard rants on Sherman...

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I used to say things like "The South was wrong to keep slaves and the North was wrong to keep the South." Since AFAICT the initial motivation of the North was "Union!" not "Emancipation!" I'm probably still sympathetic to that, as a libertarian I was secession-friendly and as a liberal... well, it's complicated.

But I also like james_nicoll's Slavers' Rebellion, which pretty much sums it up.

Also "Texas! The only state to secede in defense of slavery -- twice!" (First time from Mexico. Though there were other issues, like forced Catholicism and illegal immigration -- from the US.)

[unforth.livejournal.com]

The initial motivation of the north was definitely "Union!" but, having started to read primary sources from the time, it's becoming clear to me that even at the time, many people - including those with no interest in abolition themselves - thought that it was really more about slavery. After all, many of the conflicts that prompted the south to cry "nullification!" and "succession!" related to the admission of free vs. slave states into the Union.

The key thing to remember, is that the South was trying to use succession as a threat - my understanding is that many felt that the northern industrialists would have to parley with them to get cotton (they thought the Europeans would have to do the same). As it turns out, they were very, very wrong...

A kind of cynical part of me really thinks that we should have just let them fricken go. If they really don't want to be part of our liberal, pansy ass union, fine. It certainly would have simplified politics in the future. Ultimately, though, I don't feel at all qualified to try to sort through the morass of what-if's that such a question would really bring up, and I'll content myself to examining what DID happen, and try to keep separate questions of whether or not it SHOULD have happened, at least on the big things. :)

[ozziel.livejournal.com]

Oooh, Deep historical investigation, I can't stop myself...If I was going to start a paper with your question as the topic, I'd being my first meaty paragraph discussing the idea of Popular Sovereignty imagined by the Founding Fathers, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and furthermore, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Declaration of Independence)

Slavery was instrumental for the South to continue to function economically and psychologically. Any attempt to muck with the right of a State's self-governing, such as the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, would fundamentally weaken a southern State's ability to provide Safety and Happiness for itself. Southern fears to this would only be aggravated when presented with the proxy conflict of Bleeding Kansas and the popularizing of John Brown. Here was a potential future for every Slave state unless a balanced agreement for the steady expansion of slavery could be agreed upon. With the election of someone who refused to compromise on the expansion of slavery, the only viable alternative to secure Safety and Happiness is to absolve it and start again.

Whee! Went a bit more formal than I wanted to =3

[unforth.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long response to this, but LJ ate it when it went down for an hour this morning. :( I'll try to reconstruct later when I have more time...

[ozziel.livejournal.com]

You can just tell me in person in a week! =)