One of the problems I have with most examinations of Sherman’s March is the almost complete lack of discussion about Rebel destruction. While trying to figure out – house by house, as it were – who was responsible for every act is impossible, the responsibility that Wheeler’s cavalry must bear is usually mentioned only in passing, if at all.

In fact, Wheeler destroyed vast amounts of public property. He was ordered to. In addition, however, his command was among the most undisciplined of all ACW regular troops (excepting guerrilla bands) and they commited widespread personal destruction & looting as well. One of my favorite examples? A letter from an officer in Terry’s Texas Rangers sending home a set of silver candlesticks he ‘foraged.’ he wrote this letter in late 64, outside Savannah. Where do you suppose he found those candlesticks?

The conduct of Wheeler’s men at the time drew such outrage from the locals that it prompted CSA congressional investigations and similar efforts from Confederate military authorities. Col. Roman, Beuaregard’s chief of staff, wrote a damning report in Jan 65 on the lack of discipline in Wheeler’s ranks.

There are similar stories from earlier in the war: the sack of Cleveland Tenn by Rebel cav in Sept 1863, for example.

This is all not to say that we should not look at the realities of Federal “hard war;” far from it. But it is also time to despel a lot of the romantic notions surrounding Confederate troops defending their homes and hearths.

War is a brutalizing affair. Just as in the middle ages, when an army came by, whether on Chevauchee or not, it usually mattered little to the unfortunate civilians caught in the path which ’side’ visited.

Dave Powell

Thanks for the comments. I look forward to checking out some of the other literature out there on the subject. Ash’s book mentioned in the entry just arrived in the mail the other day, so I’ll probably start with that. Anyobdy else have any suggestions for follow-up books?

That said, it is a very fine book that fully deserves its many accolades. My main beef is with how other readers and historians often treat it as a comprehensive last word, when it would better be considered an excellent general starting point from which to delve deeper.

I need to buy my own copy and read it again.