1864 Shenandoah Valley Campaign

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
August 7, 1864 - The Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, Campaign, as Maj. Gen. Philip Henry Sheridan, USA, moves against the Confederates under Lieut. Gen. Jubal Anderson Early, CSA, and his cavalry commander, Maj. Gen. Lunsford Lindsay Lomax, CSA. (Aug 7-Nov 28)

August 7, 1864 - The Middle Military Division (Middle Dept. and the Dept. of Washington, of the Susquehanna, and of West Virginia) is constituted, and Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan, USA, is assigned to its temporary command, as Lieut. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, USA, orders Maj. Gen. Sheridan to clear the Shenandoah Valley of Rebels.

 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,737
Reaction score
4,570
Sheridan committed war crimes in the valley... it was called "the burning"... If I remember right 10 miles wide and 100 miles long... He spent the winter in the valley...
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
It's only war crimes if you lose.
War crimes are inexcusable. So in your reasoning of it's only a crime if you lose so what about Nazi Germany and they horrible things they did. Would you be fine with that if say they won.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,737
Reaction score
4,570
Would you be fine with that if say they won.
Yes, if the Nazi had won none of their the soldiers would have ever been tried for war crimes but we(American) soldiers and leaders would have been tried for war crimes like fire bombing cities , bombing cities and whatever else the Nazi victors thought was a war crime.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
Yes, if the Nazi had won none of their the soldiers would have ever been tried for war crimes but we(American) soldiers and leaders would have been tried for war crimes like fire bombing cities , bombing cities and whatever else the Nazi victors thought was a war crime.
True, my point I was making is that it's wrong and a crime regardless of Loss or Victory. Winning just means you weren't punished for your crime but it's still a crime.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
War crimes are inexcusable. So in your reasoning of it's only a crime if you lose so what about Nazi Germany and they horrible things they did. Would you be fine with that if say they won.
They lost. We punished them. There are still foreign troops in their country. I don't worry about things that never happened and I'm really not a fan of what-if questions.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
They lost. We punished them. There are still foreign troops in their country. I don't worry about things that never happened and I'm really not a fan of what-if questions.
Those what if questions put things into perspective. If anyone in our military commits a war crime it must not go unpunished and should have been dealt with in Sheridans case. Regardless of winning it's still wrong, a sin, a crime and our government or military shouldn't have let things like that slide.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Those what if questions put things into perspective. If anyone in our military commits a war crime it must not go unpunished and should have been dealt with in Sheridans case. Regardless of winning it's still wrong, a sin, a crime and our government or military shouldn't have let things like that slide.
Your legal assessment is wrong. General Grant gave Sheridan a lawful order. In a rebellion, our armed forces, to put down the rebellion, are allowed to confiscate or destroy anything that aids the rebels. It ain't pretty, but it ain't illegal.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
General Grant gave Sheridan a lawful order. In a rebellion, our armed forces, to put down the rebellion, is allowed to confiscate or destroy anything that aids the rebels. It ain't pretty, but it ain't illegal.
Really ? So what about the deaths of civilians and their homes being burned, what did they do ?
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Really ? So what about the deaths of civilians and their homes being burned, what did they do ?
In the words of our Constitution, which I highly recommend you read, they were giving "aid and comfort" to those levying war against the United States. Therefore, they were casualties of war - just like the civilians caught up in the war everywhere else.Sheridan burned barns and cotton gins and workshops but he didn't deliberately burn homes. Some homes were burned down, but that was not intentional. Sometimes when you start a big fire, stuff gets burned that wasn't targeted. Sherman also had a policy of not burning homes, though many did get burned down - some unintentionally and in some cases Sherman's "bummers" got a little carried away.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
In the words of our Constitution, which I highly recommend you read, they were giving "aid and comfort" to those levying war against the United States. Therefore, they were casualties of war - just like the civilians caught up in the war everywhere else.Sheridan burned barns and cotton gins and workshops but he didn't deliberately burn homes. Some homes were burned down, but that was not intentional. Sometimes when you start a big fire, stuff gets burned that wasn't targeted. Sherman also had a policy of not burning homes, though many did get burned down - some unintentionally and in some cases Sherman's "bummers" got a little carried away.
So if Sherman was so nice and not his soldiers then why would he give orders and say things like the following: June 23, 1864: “If torpedoes (mines) are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by a wagon load of prisoners, or if need be a citizen implicated in their use. In like manner, if a torpedo is suspected on any part of the road, order the point to be tested by a carload of prisoners, or by citizens implicated, drawn by a long rope.”

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brigadier General Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: “Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston.”


Special Order no. 127, “In case of…destruction (of bridges) by the enemy,…the commanding officer…on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby….Should the enemy burn forage and corn on our route, houses, barns, and cotton-gins must also be burned to keep them company.”
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
So if Sherman was so nice and not his soldiers then why would he give orders and say things like the following: June 23, 1864: “If torpedoes (mines) are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by a wagon load of prisoners, or if need be a citizen implicated in their use. In like manner, if a torpedo is suspected on any part of the road, order the point to be tested by a carload of prisoners, or by citizens implicated, drawn by a long rope.”

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brigadier General Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: “Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston.”


Special Order no. 127, “In case of…destruction (of bridges) by the enemy,…the commanding officer…on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby….Should the enemy burn forage and corn on our route, houses, barns, and cotton-gins must also be burned to keep them company.”
Okay. Take the first quote. What Sherman called torpedos were land mine booby traps that were killing his men. He made prisoners of war dig them up because he didn't want his own men to get blown up.

The second one, to General Watkins was in response to bushwhackers firing at his troops from houses in those communities. Burn a few houses down and the bushwhacking will stop.

The third one was an effort to stop guerrillas from burning bridges and burning crops to keep them from his troops. If the people in the neighborhood where sabotage occurs are punished, they will stop helping the guerrillas.

I didn't say they never burned houses. I said it was not general policy. Doing it to punish or deter sabotage was accepted policy in the 19th century. There was no Geneva convention until the 20th century.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
Okay. Take the first quote. What Sherman called torpedos were land mine booby traps that were killing his men. He made prisoners of war dig them up because he didn't want his own men to get blown up.

The second one, to General Watkins was in response to bushwhackers firing at his troops from houses in those communities. Burn a few houses down and the bushwhacking will stop.

The third one was an effort to stop guerrillas from burning bridges and burning crops to keep them from his troops. If the people in the neighborhood where sabotage occurs are punished, they will stop helping the guerrillas.

I didn't say they never burned houses. I said it was not general policy. Doing it to punish or deter sabotage was accepted policy in the 19th century. There was no Geneva convention until the 20th century.
I never said you said they didn't burn houses, well clearly this was a violation of his own policy don't you think
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
I never said you said they didn't burn houses, well clearly this was a violation of his own policy don't you think
No. Learn something here. It was a necessary exception to the policy, not a violation. No policy can possibly cover all possible circumstances.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
No. Learn something here. It was a necessary exception to the policy, not a violation. No policy can possibly cover all possible circumstances.
Alright so a policy which you would consider lawful right ? can have exeptions say burning down homes and harming civilians when those are war crimes. Here's more I think you may find interesting about Sherman's bummers getting a little carried away.

“I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State, Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. The chivalry have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., &c., are as common in camp as blackberries. The terms of plunder are as follows: The valuables procured are estimated by companies. Each company is required to exhibit the result of its operations at any given place. One-fifth and first choice falls to the commander-in-chief and staff, one-fifth to corps commander and staff, one-fifth to field officers, two-fifths to the company. Officers are not allowed to join in these expeditions, unless disguised as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a rough suit of clothes from one of my men, and was successful in his place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old milk pitcher), and a very fine gold watch from a Mr. DeSaussure, of this place (Columbia). DeSaussure is one of the F. F. V.’s of South Carolina, and was made to fork out liberally. Officers over the rank of captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, the subordinate officers and privates keep everything back that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breastpins, &c., &c., of which, if I live to get home, I have a quart. I am not joking. I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond pins and rings among them. General Sherman has gold and silver enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches and chains alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five.



“But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers, and many besides, have valuables of every description, down to ladies’ pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too.
“We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over. * * * I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the Old Bay State. It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States.
“The damned niggers, as a general thing, preferred to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we wanted only the able-bodied men, and, to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women. Sometimes we took them off by way of repaying influential secessionists. But a part of these we soon managed to lose, sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways. I shall write you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro, or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly.
“Love to grandmother and Aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and the children. Don’t show this letter out of the family.
“Your affectionate husband, “THOMAS J. MYERS,”Lieutenant, &c.


“You permitted, if you have not ordered, the commission of these offences against humanity and the rules of war. You fired into the city of Columbia without a word of warning. After its surrender by the mayor, who demanded protection to private property, you laid the whole city in ashes, leaving amid its ruins thousands of old men and helpless women and children, who are likely to perish of starvation and exposure. Your line of march can be traced by the lurid light of burning houses, and in more than one household there is an agony far more bitter than death.”

On the 31st of July, 1865, Captain E. J. Hale, Jr., of Fayetteville, N. C., who had been on General James H. Lane’s staff, and who is vouched for by General Lane as “an elegant educated gentleman,” wrote to General Lane, telling him of the destruction and devastation at his home, and in that letter he makes this statement:
“You have doubtless heard of Sherman’s ‘bummers.’ The Yankees would have you believe that they were only the straggling pillagers usually found in all armies. Several letters written by officers of Sherman’s army, intercepted near this town, give this the lie.
“In some of these letters were descriptions of the whole bumming process, and from them it appears that it was a regularly organized system, under the authority of General Sherman himself; that one-fifth o£ the proceeds fell to General Sherman, another fifth to the other general officers, another fifth to the line officers, and the remaining two-fifths to the enlisted men.”
Now, compare this division of the spoils with that set forth in the Myers’ letter, published, as we have said, eighteen years later, and it will be seen that they are almost identical, and this statement was taken, as Captain Hale states, from “several letters written by officers of Sherman’s army,” intercepted near Fayetteville, N. C., and as we have said, they confirm the statements of the Myers’ letter, and its consequent genuineness, to a remarkable degree. It is proper, also, to state, that we have recently received a letter from Dr. Jones, in which he states that after carefully considering this whole matter again, he is now satisfied that he was mistaken in his editorial comments on Colonel Stone’s letter, that he is now satisfied of the genuineness of the Myers’ letter, and that in his opinion we could use it in this report “with perfect propriety and safetey".
(Captain E. J. Hale, Jr.)

It seams to me from these accounts Sherman was behind it all and his policy was nonsense.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Alright so a policy which you would consider lawful right ? can have exeptions say burning down homes and harming civilians when those are war crimes. Here's more I think you may find interesting about Sherman's bummers getting a little carried away.

“I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State, Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. The chivalry have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., &c., are as common in camp as blackberries. The terms of plunder are as follows: The valuables procured are estimated by companies. Each company is required to exhibit the result of its operations at any given place. One-fifth and first choice falls to the commander-in-chief and staff, one-fifth to corps commander and staff, one-fifth to field officers, two-fifths to the company. Officers are not allowed to join in these expeditions, unless disguised as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a rough suit of clothes from one of my men, and was successful in his place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old milk pitcher), and a very fine gold watch from a Mr. DeSaussure, of this place (Columbia). DeSaussure is one of the F. F. V.’s of South Carolina, and was made to fork out liberally. Officers over the rank of captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, the subordinate officers and privates keep everything back that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breastpins, &c., &c., of which, if I live to get home, I have a quart. I am not joking. I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond pins and rings among them. General Sherman has gold and silver enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches and chains alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five.



“But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers, and many besides, have valuables of every description, down to ladies’ pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too.
“We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over. * * * I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the Old Bay State. It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States.
“The damned niggers, as a general thing, preferred to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we wanted only the able-bodied men, and, to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women. Sometimes we took them off by way of repaying influential secessionists. But a part of these we soon managed to lose, sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways. I shall write you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro, or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly.
“Love to grandmother and Aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and the children. Don’t show this letter out of the family.
“Your affectionate husband, “THOMAS J. MYERS,”Lieutenant, &c.


“You permitted, if you have not ordered, the commission of these offences against humanity and the rules of war. You fired into the city of Columbia without a word of warning. After its surrender by the mayor, who demanded protection to private property, you laid the whole city in ashes, leaving amid its ruins thousands of old men and helpless women and children, who are likely to perish of starvation and exposure. Your line of march can be traced by the lurid light of burning houses, and in more than one household there is an agony far more bitter than death.”

On the 31st of July, 1865, Captain E. J. Hale, Jr., of Fayetteville, N. C., who had been on General James H. Lane’s staff, and who is vouched for by General Lane as “an elegant educated gentleman,” wrote to General Lane, telling him of the destruction and devastation at his home, and in that letter he makes this statement:
“You have doubtless heard of Sherman’s ‘bummers.’ The Yankees would have you believe that they were only the straggling pillagers usually found in all armies. Several letters written by officers of Sherman’s army, intercepted near this town, give this the lie.
“In some of these letters were descriptions of the whole bumming process, and from them it appears that it was a regularly organized system, under the authority of General Sherman himself; that one-fifth o£ the proceeds fell to General Sherman, another fifth to the other general officers, another fifth to the line officers, and the remaining two-fifths to the enlisted men.”
Now, compare this division of the spoils with that set forth in the Myers’ letter, published, as we have said, eighteen years later, and it will be seen that they are almost identical, and this statement was taken, as Captain Hale states, from “several letters written by officers of Sherman’s army,” intercepted near Fayetteville, N. C., and as we have said, they confirm the statements of the Myers’ letter, and its consequent genuineness, to a remarkable degree. It is proper, also, to state, that we have recently received a letter from Dr. Jones, in which he states that after carefully considering this whole matter again, he is now satisfied that he was mistaken in his editorial comments on Colonel Stone’s letter, that he is now satisfied of the genuineness of the Myers’ letter, and that in his opinion we could use it in this report “with perfect propriety and safetey".
(Captain E. J. Hale, Jr.)

It seams to me from these accounts Sherman was behind it all and his policy was nonsense.
So the evidence of the crime condists of some soldiers' letters with bullshit stories about Sherman having "gold enough to start a bank." Let me guess. The citations come from a neo-confederate web site. A very wise old man once said, "It ain't true just 'cause it's on the internet." Please cite primary sources that show categorically that William T. Sherman profited in stolen jewls and gold from his military operations. Show me those and we can talk. In the meantime, don't post rumors and wild tales as evidence. Remember what I said about rumors and confirmation bias.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
So the evidence of the crime condists of some soldiers' letters with bullshit stories about Sherman having "gold enough to start a bank." Let me guess. The citations come from a neo-confederate web site. A very wise old man once said, "It ain't true just 'cause it's on the internet." Please cite primary sources that show categorically that William T. Sherman profited in stolen jewls and gold from his military operations. Show me those and we can talk. In the meantime, don't post rumors and wild tales as evidence. Remember what I said about rumors and confirmation bias.
Your skirting around the primary evidence, these letters clearly add up to Sherman basically being a war criminal
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Your skirting around the primary evidence, these letters clearly add up to Sherman basically being a war criminal
Those letters may be real letters, but they have zero value as evidence. Anybody can write any BS they want to in a letter. Prove that they are true by providing evidence of actual stolen goods in Sherman's possession. I don't know who Lieutenant Myers was but I will bet any amount you want that he actually had no idea what Sherman did or did not have. Ya think Uncle Billy or one of his immediate staff called the lieutenant over and whispered in his ear about the great stolen gold caper? The lieutenant was repeating stupid rumors in a letter home. End of story. And the North Carolina captain you quoted could not possibly have any idea what was going on in his enemy's commander's headquarters. Just how do you think these junior officers, one definitely being a rebel, could know what Sherman was up to? Like I said, rumors are not evidence.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
Those letters may be real letters, but they have zero value as evidence. Anybody can write any BS they want to in a letter. Prove that they are true by providing evidence of actual stolen goods in Sherman's possession. I don't know who Lieutenant Myers was but I will bet any amount you want that he actually had no idea what Sherman did or did not have. Ya think Uncle Billy or one of his immediate staff called the lieutenant over and whispered in his ear about the great stolen gold caper? The lieutenant was repeating stupid rumors in a letter home. End of story. And the North Carolina captain you quoted could not possibly have any idea what was going on in his enemy's commander's headquarters. Just how do you think these junior officers, one definitely being a rebel, could know what Sherman was up to? Like I said, rumors are not evidence.
They're primary sources from witnesses of the time. Here, you can take it from Sherman about how he felt.

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources.” – Sherman

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources.” – Sherman

That sounds like a war criminal to me, Death is mercy, burning homes, he or she is disposed of so clearly women were lumped into his sights on things to kill and I doubt children were spared in many cases. So if this is your so called exception to his own policy you claim he stuck to then that's one hell of an exeption.
 
Top