Sherman’s March

Sherman 2

The History Channel’s recent presentation of “Sherman’s March” has been rightly drawing a lot of criticism from those of us who care about such things. In theory, historical events should become clearer as time passes and the controversies they involved grow less heated. But that is not the case in regard to the War to Prevent Southern Independence—because the myth of a benevolent and righteous crusade against evil and its martyred saint is the essential base of American state worship. The myth also seems to be a deeply felt emotional necessity for the self-love of millions of Americans.

This TV docudrama is very peculiar. A whole team of third-string, half-baked carpetbagger “historians” of the type that now staff all Southern universities are presented to make the best possible case for the glory, brilliance, justice, and benevolence of Sherman’s operations in Georgia and the Carolinas in the winter of 1864–65. The peculiarity is that much of the actual evidence that manages to come through contradicts the rationale that is presented. Historians used to at least pretend to dig into the primary sources and examine all the evidence before making judgments, but now they are rewarded by how well they cherry pick bits to support the already established line.

Our scholars give us the official story, dressed up and paraded yet again.

Sherman’s March was a great military feat. A lie. An army of 60,000 men marched through territory undefended except for a few thousand cavalry and home guards. Even this opposition gave Sherman trouble whenever it became active. And he was checked whenever he met a real Confederate force, even one greatly outnumbered.

Sherman’s army only seized food on its march because of necessity and in keeping with recognized rules of foraging. A stupendous lie. One does not need to look at a single Southern commentary but only at the words of Sherman and thousands of his men. The expedition was deliberately intended and carried out as a campaign of terrorism against the noncombatant population. The recognized rules of foraging did not involve the wholesale burning of dwellings, schools, and churches, destruction of crops and livestock, theft of everything portable of value, molestation of women, brutality toward old men, boys, and slaves, both male and female. This had been federal practice since the first day of the war but had not been previously as systematized. But, Golly, Sherman should not be criticized for burning Atlanta. He actually destroyed only a third of it!

Sherman’s army brought benevolent emancipation to grateful slaves. A lie. Again, one need not consult a single Southern source to establish beyond a doubt that Sherman and his men overwhelmingly despised the black population of the South and preyed upon them as readily as upon white women and children. If it had been a question of being there to free the slaves they would have all gone home.

Any atrocities that Sherman ordered or allowed were only just retaliation against Southerners, because the Southerners for some unaccountable reason, perhaps their natural depravity, were “vicious.” This lie speaks for itself.

The deliberate sack and destruction of Columbia, after it had been peacefully surrendered, is no big deal and Southerners are emotional and deluded to resent it. This only works if you start with the assumption that Southerners are inferior beings and have no right to resent anything their betters do to them.

Much more could be said. But let’s finish by saying that it is a bad cause that has to be defended by lies. And it can only be defended by lies, then and now. Those who want to understand the facts have an invaluable new source, just published last week by Pelican Press: Walter Brian Cisco’s War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, a concise and factual survey of a large subject, such as has long been needed.

About Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina where he was the editor of the multivolume The Papers of John C. Calhoun. He is the M.E. Bradford Distinguished Chair at the Abbeville Institute. He is the author or editor of over thirty books and published over 600 articles, essays and reviews and is co-publisher of, a source  for unreconstructed Southern books. More from Clyde Wilson

You might also enjoy these articles...

4 thoughts on “Sherman’s March

  1. I have read “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians” which details the terror spread by Sherman’s army during its march through the South. Sherman and Grant’s lack of military ability was more than offset by their propensity to destroy property and terrorize civilians. In Grant’s case he was even insensitive to the massive losses his own army suffered in 1864 due to his mediocrity as a general.

  2. Sherman’s activities are deemed “war crimes” today. The Union War of Aggression was just that and even a pitiful student of history such as myself can destroy the jokes that are involved with PBS or most universities.

  3. How I wish that just ONCE in the many, many, too many years I attended schools that there had been a professor with the acumen, knowledge, and brain power of Clyde Wilson’s. I would have changed my major and our America would have had at least one more truth-filled historian.

  4. It was Sherman’s March to the sea that turned me against the Union and the Lincolnite settlement(the political order founded on the cult of personality around their martyred hero).

    What this politically correct assault on Southern heritage is really about is enforcing and defending the legitimacy of this political order.

    All the great issues of Civil Rights Era have been settled; so all that’s left for these sixties retreads to relive their youth, Mrs. Clinton and Barry Shabazz, is to attack a piece of cloth and respected, revered and honoured names.

    The other thing to understand is that no matter what design of flag that Southerners would use to represent them; the professionally outraged would make it their business to be offended by it.

Comments are closed.