Rating: 
Summary: A Balanced Account of War's Terrible End Game
Review: When Lincoln won the election of 1864, any reasonable hope of winning the war, even of the most optimistic of Southerners, vanished. Yet still, they fought on, drawing out the bloody end game though its conclusion was already a certainty. General William T. Sherman had long considered that the war could not be won without completely breaking the will of the Southern people to continue fighting, and now, he was certain of it. His answer was to take war to the civilians - to pillage, burn, and destroy a large swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, mostly unopposed by any significant enemy resistance. Burke Davis' book, Sherman's March, grippingly tells the story of this dark chapter of American history.
The book opens with the fall of Atlanta, and ends with Sherman's army marching triumphantly through the streets of Washington in the Grand Review. In between, Burke deals with the battles of Averasboro and Bentonville, as well as various skirmishes and demonstrations, but this is not a campaign book, full of detailed military maneuvers. My copy doesn't have a single map other than the one on the inside cover of the book. Instead, this book concentrates on the march itself, using hundreds of eyewitness accounts, both of civilians, and soldiers of both sides, to bring to life this incredible and terrible event.
Though Mr. Davis is a Southerner, his account is largely a fair one. Sherman is neither presented as a devil or a hero, and a fair attempt was made to give an account that balanced the outrage of the Southerners with the reasons that Sherman believed his march to be necessary. Davis covers everything of significance, including the reactions of the politicians and generals to Sherman's bold maneuver, his capture of three Confederate State Capitols, and his burning of one of them. The greatest part of the book, however, is the story of the people who experienced the destruction, as well as those who brought it to them with the hope of ending the ongoing devastation of the war once and for all. This is a fascinating, well-researched and well-written account of Sherman's march through the South, and if there is any better, I don't know of it.
Rating:
Summary: Sherman's 'Shock and Awe' Campaign
Review: William T. Sherman considered himself the best strategist of the Civil War generals. His march to Atlanta succeeded with a single battle. He maneuvered his troops so the enemy withdrew. This very readable book tells about this later campaign. Burke Davis spent over ten years gathering eyewitness accounts fro obscure and forgotten sources. Fourteen pages in the Bibliography replace footnotes; this book is for reading as history.Atlanta was a major supply station for the Confederacy; it was targeted like railroad marshaling yards in WW II. Destroying railroad yards, an oil refinery, and warehouses was a military objective, but the fires spread (as in 1871 Chicago). Sherman was blamed for the destruction of private property (p.6). Sherman's army would live off the land; they could take what was in the open, but could not enter homes (p.8). Most of Sherman's troops were from the West: Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, one regiment of white Alabama Unionists (p.11). Sherman reduced formality to a minimum, and gained these troops affection. When war was declared Sherman volunteered. He turned down an appointment as brigadier general for a colonel of regular infantry (p.15). Sherman was put in command of the Western army, and began to develop his theory of total warfare with highly mobile forces (p.18). Sherman's capture of Atlanta helped Lincoln's re-election. His march to Savannah was planned using census reports of farm production for each county. Sherman had a flat hierarchy, officers reported to him directly (p.26). This foraging, or pillaging and destruction, was unique in American history (p.43). The looting and destruction of the Milledgeville statehouse library reminded one officer of the looting of Egypt (p.64). Sherman had a low opinion of newspaper reporters: they had earlier said he was insane, and published military news that was used by the Confederacy (no censorship then). Sherman was forever blamed for burning Columbia (p.161), but he intended to only destroy public buildings (railroad depots, factories). He said the fire was started by cotton bales burned by retreating Confederate cavalry. Others said it was caused by drunken troops (p.179), and the failure of the Governor to destroy the liquor supplies. His campaign was marked by unexpected cruelties, last seen in 17th century European wars. But not in North Carolina (p.216). Colonel Rhett was a symbol of the arrogant Southern ruling class (p.228). Sherman's focus was on winning the war rather than a victory, so he avoided a battle if possible (p.239) Sherman's "Memoirs" in 1875 assessed the roles of individuals and governments in a bluff and candid manner, without sentiment. Sherman had some Southern admiration because of his opposition to Negro voting rights, but lost this when he termed the Confederacy as an "idiotic, criminal conspiracy" (p.300). This made him more popular with the Northern public. His death in 1891 had this eulogy: "He never acknowledged an error and never repeated it" (p.302). Sherman said "War is Hell". Clausewitz correctly said "war is the continuation of business rivalry through non-diplomatic means". Destruction in a country eliminates competition for manufacturers, creates new business for merchants and new investments for bankers. War is paradise when you profit from it.
|
