war horse waving a sword while simultaneously smoking a peace pipe and wearing a bonnet. right? it is suppose to be saying a little something about his masculinity. and he is accompanied by the peace democrat riding a donkey whole idea to say this is a lied ludicrous combination. in the end nothing matters more than the fall of plant and nothing matter more than the belief that the war is being won and the result in the end was abraham lincoln's very comfortable electoral victory. he takes 91% of the electoral vote but the one thing i would want to stress is that it -- his opponent takes 45% of the popular vote. 45% of northerners cast a ballot for a party whose declared the war a failure and has unanimously repudiated

emancipation. it's important to us. because when we think about a reunified united states in the aftermath of civil war, what conclusion must we draw. clearly, a large majority of the american free population was not enthusiastic about emancipation. and to come back to a final theme that has been the bedrock of this course throughout, in a democratic society, where a large majority holds a particular value, that is inconsistent with the interest of minority, there's not much reason to be optimistic for the rights of that minority. remember james madison had said if majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. i think that is a foreshadowing of the history of reconstruction on end through the rest of the 19th into the 20th centuries.

so very fast whirlwind overview. next time, we're going to zero in on abraham lincoln and we're going to enter into conversation with him because what lincoln is trying to do more than anything else is shape how we remember him, how us today remember the meaning of the war. we think historically and christianly about what he had to say and i look forward to that. you guys have a great couple of days and we'll look forward to being together again next time zeroing in on discussion of those documents. all right? take care. >> thursday night, hillary clinton becomes the first woman to accept a major political party's nomination for president of the united states. and with c-span, you have many convenient options for watching the entire speech, without any interruptions. watch her historic acceptance speech live on c-span and listen

to it on the c-span radio app or watch live oreion demand at c-span.org. hillary clinton's historic acceptance speech thursday night on c-span, the c-span raid yes app and c-span.org. on the civil war, georgia historical society todd gross talks about william sherman's background, his march to the sea campaign and how sherman is remembered. he describes sherman's method as quote, hard war unrather than total war and argues the targets for destruction were carefully selected to diminish southern resolve to continue the conflict. shenandoah battlefield foundation hosted this 50-minute talk. >> thank you, terry for that brief introduction. i know everyone appreciates

that. welcome to georgia. i know many of you are traveling from other places and in our state today probably for the first time and we special ordered this wonderful weather for you. you've been out tram ping around on battlefields and i'm glad it's cooperated and delighted you're in our state and hope you will come back. i want to thank the battlefield association for asking me to come and speak today about somebody and something that i have absolutely no idea when i started out getting my ph.d. would be such an important part of my life. i can't get away from general sherman. the more i talk about it, the more people want me to come and talk more about it. but he is a fascinating person. and fascinating topic. i'm also delighted to see so many folks here and that you

care this much about the civil war and about battlefields and preserving those battlefields. one of my favorite thing to do is hike battlefields, it's wonderful to enjoy the outdoors and you can unite those two things, outdoors and study of the civil war on battlefield, there's nothing else like it. thank you for all you do and this association does to help us to preserve our battlefields and teach civil war history. well, he's been called the safe yor of the union and the ruthless destroyer of the south, a prophet of 20th century warfare and sadist who waged war on defenseless women and children, a brilliant modern soldier and terrorist. few names from the past evoke as much emotion as william sherman. if you think that history doesn't matter or sherman faded from modern memory, walk into any public place in georgia and

proclaim that sherman was a hero and atlanta got what it deserved and see what happens. this is a true story when i first moved to georgia, 21 years ago, i was on my way to atlanta from savannah. i passed an old pickup truck on i-16 and looked down and there was a pumper sticker that said general sherman, where are you now that atlanta really needs you? the other thing i wanted to show you, this wonderful piece of civil war memorabilia. for those of you in the back who may not be able to read this, this was given to any as a gift a few years ago, general will jum yum sherman, still wiping up the south. it comes with a dispenser so every time you tear a piece of the paper off it plays dixie.

>> that gives you some idea of the fame of general sherman, indeed with the possible exception of robert e. lee, no civil war general is so well known by the public. certainly there is no soldier more associated with georgia than the man who became infamous as it's destroyer. what i would like to do during the time allotted to me this afternoon, cut through some of the myths and folk lor and outright distortion surrounding sherman and the march to the sea. to that end, i'm going to attempt to answer three broad questions about the man, the march, and the memory, the man and march and memory. first question, who was sherman and what were his reasons and motivations for waging what has come to be called hard war? secondly, what was the nature and impact of the march to the sea? how harsh was it and was it necessary? and thirdly, what is the legacy of sherman and the march to the

sea in modern america? what influence did he and the march have? what can we learn from the man and his march? so let's start with the man. not surprisingly, historians disagree about sherman. argue that it was sherman's search for order that defined his life as he tried to find stability as an adult following the loss of his father and separation from his mother in early childhood. another biographer intends that sherman's life was defined by the overwhelming fear of mental instability that plagued his mother's family. his maternal grandmother and maternal uncle and son tom all died in or spent years in insane asylums and one brother john died mentally unstable while another, jim, died an alcoholic. whatever the source of sherman's distinctive personality, there's

general agreement that he was as scherr shon says a brilliant but tormented soul who knew much sadness and only occasional happiness. no wonder. his earl life was chaotic and traumatic. his father died when he was 9 and mother turned him over to another family to raise. the combination of losing his parents along with the mental problems he inherited genetically from his mother's side undoubtedly contributed to the depression he clearly suffered from as an adult. although many bioographers ignore or reject the notion he was plagued by mental illness, he exhibited many of the symptoms of depression or mel kolly as it was called. he suffered a nervous breakdown early winter of 1862 when he was relieved from command after exhibiting acute paranoia over the confederate forces raid against him, greatly exaggerating their numbers.

charged with insanity by the newspapers, he was sent home a disgrace and almost committed suicide. sherman was essentially a conservative. he believed strongly in the rule of law, warning the mayor of atlanta in 1864 that the easiest way to end the war would be for those in rebellion to obey laws and constitution. he is an add mirror for southern planners and in the prewar army he spent a great deal of time in the south where he felt perfectly at home and truly happy for the first time in his life when on eve of the civil war he was appointed superintendent of a new military school in louisiana, which is today louisiana state university. sherman's racism made him comfortable with slavery but he had little patience with southerners who resorted to disunion in order to protect the

constitution. a deeply con sefb tif sherman success represented treason and anarchy, firing on american soldiers and american flag at fort sumter, a u.s. army installation was an attack on the constitution and insur recollection against the laws of the united states. once the united states conceded the right of states to break away, sherman feared the process would go on pe pet you'lly. if states were allowed to break away every time they lost a constitutional election, america would end up like mexico, continually in the grip of revolution and chaos. the united states must sur vaf and succession must be crushed or republicanism would fail discrediting the only example at that time of a successful democratic government. thus when 11 slave holding states declared their independence following lincoln's election, sherman looked upon them as seized by insurgent

forces that had to be suppressed. the country had an openly anti-slavery president for the first time since the founding of the republic but did not give southerners and slave holders one jot or at this timele of provocation, which were property of the united states and placed in the south for the benefit and protection of its people. by the original compact of government he wrote the mayor of atlanta in 1864, the united states had certain rights in georgia which have never been relinquished and never will be through its army, the united states had a right to put down rebellion to reclaim port and enforce laws throughout its territory and bring to an end unnecessary and evil war that it did not start sherman contended but it would finish. sherman's decision in the fall of 1864 to march an army from atlanta to the sea was an

evolution nar process. throughout the first years of the war sherman watched as battles became ever bloodier and seemed to resolve nothing. the search for the so-called battle of annihilation in which one would destroy each other was elusive, sherman came to believe. the bloodlettings at shiloh and great twin union victories of gettysburg and vicksburg did not bring confederates to their knees. their will to resist unbroken. sherman was not entirely surprised by this having lived in the south before the war he knew the southern people intimately and their spirit and pride and determination to fight. he decided that a new way of waging war must be developed, to demonstrate to supporters of the confederacy, especially the common folks who filled the rank of the armies that the cause was hope lgs and confederate government could not protect them from the power of the united states. this point was particularly

evident to him when he and his troops were called upon to garrison parts of the mississippi delta that had fallen to u.s. forces after battle shiloh. initially sherman went alon with the lincoln administration's policy of accepting the right of noncombatants, in the misguided belief that support was shallow among the common people for the new confederacy. if the federal government treated southerners leniently, they reasoned, then loyalty to the united states would simply reassert itself. but as the united states army advanced deeper into the south, the white population became even more determined to resist. many civilians defied federal authority by smuggling medicine through union lines and bush whacking u.s. soldiers and harboring guerillas, it was no longer a fight between armies where the lines between combatants and noncombatants was

clear. indeed it took on many of the characteristics of the type of insurgency waged during the 20th and 21st centuries in places like vietnam and iraq and afghanistan. i think this is one of the areas with sherman really and his legacy is not really been explored. we talk a lot about the march to the sea, was it an innovation, modern war, but sherman dealing with what we would call today a insurgency and his attempts at counter insurgency, incredibly relevant to modern america is ripe for historians to explore. confronted with this type of hostility and intrans jens, sherman's attitude began to harden. he came to the conclusion that those in rewe bell onmust feel the hard hand of war as he called it and that the united states had the power to

penetrate every part of its national domain in order to re-establish its authority and destroy insurgent forces. interestingly they used that term frequently, insurgency and insurgent forces, something we understand today. the continued resistance justified this. it makes no difference whether it be one year or two or ten or 20, pro claimed with his usual hyperb hyperbole, we'll take every life, every acre of lapped and article of property and not cease until the end is attained that all who oppose us are enemies and we will not account to them for our actions. sherman was not the only one coming to the conclusion that if it were to be won, the war needed to be harsher. in the spring of 1863 the lincoln administration issued special order number 100 entitled instructions for the

government of the armies of the united states in the field, a set of rules for the u.s. army that delineated what types of conduct by soldiers was per missible and what was not. called the lieber code after its compiler, francis lieber, special field order 100 codified for first time the rules of war. the code prohibited torture, use of poison and execution of prisoners and assassinations and the breaking of flags of truce and agreements between warring parties. in short the code prohibited as historian john fabian whit has put it the infliction of suffering for its own sake. on the other hand the code authorized the u.s. army to destroy civilian property and starve noncombatants and keep enemy civilians in we sieged cities and execute guerillas if such measures were deemed necessary to winning the war and

defending the country. to save the country is paramount to all other considerations. i want to repeat that. lieber said, to save the country is paramount to all other considerations. like other war time chief executives right down to the present day, lincoln was willing to take drastic measures to ensure the survival of the united states. of course, sherman could not have agreed more and by the time he captured atlanta in september 1864, his thoughts on the matter had fully matured. once again, a rebel army had been defeated and another major city had fallen and still the confederates would not give up. so, rather than continue the futile war against people, he would now wage war against property. a shift in object i have beens fully sanctioned by the united states government as expressed in the new lieber code. this approach he reasoned would not only bring victory with a minimum loss of life on both sides, but it would undermine confederate morale on the home

front and trigger a wave of desert gss and prove to the rebels that the confederate government was impotent to protect them and their property. the history of war demonstrated there could be no peace without making it as harsh as possible. war is cruelty and you cannot refine it, sherman wrote to the mayor and alderman of atlanta when they protested against the removal of the citizens from their city. you might as well appeal against the thunder storm as against these terrible hardships of war. they are inevitable and only way the people can hope to live in peace and quiet at home is to stop the war. we don't want your negroes or horses or houses or lands or anything you have. but we do want and we will have a just obedients to the law of the united states and if it

involved your destruction of your improvements, as he called property, we cannot help it. close quote. it is important to remember the context in which sherman put lieber's code into action. the civil war of 1864 was no longer the gentleman's conflict of 1861. by the time sherman's columns headed to savannah, approximately 1 million u.s. and confederate soldiers had been killed wounded or died of disease. graveyards and hospitals covered the land from washington to texas. the country was literally drenched in blood. confederate guerillas bush whacked federal soldiers and other home guard robbed tortured and even murdered southern civilians. regular confederate forces burned to the ground hampton virginia and chambersburg, pennsylvania, one of the enemies. they executed civilians for suspected disloyalty, including a mass hanging of 40 texans in october of 1862, for nothing

more than than failing to show up for the draft. confederate soldiers murdered hundreds of black prisoners at the battle of the crater and fort pillow. rebel authorities sent those black soldiers they did not kill back into slavery rather than p.o.w. camps. thousands of white u.s. prisoners of war were suffering and dying in hell holes. in short, the civil war like all other wars had taken an ugly turn. both sides, united states and confederate states were struggling for their very existence. this was life or death. actions that would have been considered atrocities at the beginning of the war were becoming common place on both sides. sherman thought it was hip critical for confederates who quote plunged the nation into war, to appeal to god and humanity when the tide turned against him, especially given their own brutal actions and harsh policies. no one could attack the united states especially from within he

reasoned and not expect to suffer the consequences. sherman also believed there was a broader goal to be achieved by widen the destruction to include noncombatants. long term security of the united states demanded that the war become as brutal and painful as possible, he said. in this way the enemies of the united states would never again attempt to break up the country or resort to war to achieve political ends. the war sherman said was not the choice of the united states but of a minority of disaffected citizens which having lost a presidential contest sought to overturn the will of the majority by resorting to succession. but now that the united states were at war, they must prosecute it quote until those who appeal to it are sick and tired of it and come to the emblem of our nation and sue for peace. i would not coax them or meet them halfway but make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it.

close quotes. those were tough words indeed. but as usual with the hyper bolic sherman, his bark turned out worse than his bite. his rhetoric harsher than his actions. as his troops set on in 1864, sherman swore to make georgia howl but the historical evidence reveals the general was neither as destructive as he threatened to be or as barbaric as he was accused of by confederates. his special field order number 120, sherman laid out the rules of destruction and conduct for the march. the army was to quote forage liberally on the country with details of men and officers sent out each day to gather food for the army. soldiers were instructed not to enter private homes and to discriminate between the rich, who are usually hostile, sherman observed and the poor and dus

industrious who are neutral and friendly. there was more destruction than allowed by orders and officers were not always present to control their men. sherman's soldier as the historian joseph gladhar has written, saw this as a golden opportunity to teach people of georgia the hardships and terror of war. some homes of wealthy, guilty of bringing on the war were burned and private dwellings were entered and personal property were taken and civilians were stripped of more food than the army needed or could possibly consume. sherman called this eating out the country. the worst destruction of private property occurred after the march to the sea in south carolina. largely because sherman and his men considered the state responsible for bringing on the war. but even there as in georgia, the primary targets of the

destruction were infrastructure and anything that could be used by the confederate army to continue the struggle. factories, mills, cotton g ins, train depots and ridges and railroads. hundreds and miles of track were torn up, heated in the middle and wrapped around trees and telegraph poles so they would require a rolling mill to make them useable again. at least in georgia and north carolina, the march to the sea is savannah to south carolina. we're talking about georgia, at least in georgia and north carolina, few private homes were burned and those that were belonged to men like howell cobb, former u.s. secretary of the treasury, whom sherman considered a traitor, guilty of bringing on the rebellion, barns and corn cribs were all put to the torch but rarely a private home. in fact one study conducted in georgia during the 1950s,

comparing war time maps with existing anty bell lum structures most along the route of the march were still in existence and the few that were gone were lost to post war accidents. despite the commonly held belief reinforced by "gone with the wind" that sherman reduced the entire city of atlanta to a smoldering ruin, only the industry sections were put to the torch, the residential and courthouse district were spared. some houses were destroyed but in general the residential areas survived, although battered, fully 60% of the city was still standing when sherman set out on his famous are infamous march to the sea. the 40% of atlanta completely destroyed was less than what the confederates burned of chambersburg, pennsylvania the previous july. sherman proved mer sheful when the enemies submitted to the authority of the national

government. savannah is a prime example. upon his arrival in savannah, he was offered one of the finest mansions in town as his headquarters. he described the mayor, richard arnold, as completely sub ju gated and citizens as orderly and well behaved. thus according to university of texas historian jacqueline jones who conducted extensive research in diaries and letters from the period savannah welcomed the army as liberators. sick of war and on the verge of starvation, they are ready to throw out the yoek of -- the people of the city wanted piece. greeted by contrition rather than continued defiance, sherman completely changed course. as he said to james calhoun, if those once again acknowledge the authority of the national

government i and this army will become your protectors and supporters shielding you from danger. atlanta's mayor calhoun didn't heed the warning but savannah's mayor did and the fate of the city where the great march ended was different than that of the city where it began. another kind of property that was destroyed during the march to the sea was slavery. the emancipation pro clamation issued two years earlier freed the slaves in the rebellious states. so as they advanced deeper into the south, sherman and the united states army became an instrument of liberation. despite being ordered to stay put on their master's plantations and farms, thousands of newly liberated african-americans, men and women and children, followed in the wake of sherman's march. i imagine it must have been like trying to tell people intered in a concentration camp, stay here, don't leave right now.

those following the army would have fatal consequences, for many of those who drown attempting to swim ebenezer creek after the army core took up upon tomb bridge stranding the fugitive slaves on north bank. sherman saw emancipation as useful, not because he cared about the plight of african-americans but because it damaged the confederate war effort. the fact remains sherman and his march helped to end slavery and brought freedom to millions of black southerners. as this author intended, the march to the sea was harsh on civilians, losing crops, food stores and livestock left noncombatants with little to eat as winter approached. but the fear that sherman created was as powerful as his acts of destruction. the site of federal troops marching across the state detroying property and pillaging unopposed had a demoralizing

effect on white georgians to supported the confederacy. by waging war against the minds of his opponents, sherman's march achieved its creator's goal of hastening an end to the conflict. the wives of confederate soldiers along the route of the march or fear they lay in the path of sherman's advancing legions begged husbands to come home. and decembsertions increased dramatically. the knockout blow in the spring of 1865. from the van teenage point, sherman's way of war seems a dramatic departure from earlier methods and prompted historians to describe it as the birth of modern total war. but hard war, hard war was not total war. while the march was destructive

of public property and infrastructure it lacked the massive wholesale destruction of home an life that characterize d world war ii and other 20th century conflicts. sherman's primary targets, food, livestock, government and industrial and military property were carefully chosen to create the desired effect and never included killing civilians. sherman always claimed his war on property was more humane than traditional methods of conflict between armies. he even told one south carolina woman that the reason why he was ransacking her plantation was so that her soldier husband would come home and general grant would not have to kill him in the trenches at petersburg. he was fighting to bring rebels back into the union, not to anile late them. as the treatment of savannah demonstrate, an end to resistance mitigated any further need for destruction. nevertheless, sherman has demonstrated for first time in

the modern arera, the power of psychological war fare in breaking down a will to resist. this concept comes into full bloom during world war ii, when axis and allied powers, british and americans, deliberatery and indiscriminately bombed civilians nofrd in order to create terror and win the war by any means, including two atomic bombs. it would be seen again during the vietnam war when america carpet bombed hanoi and other parts of vietnam dropping on a single small country more order nants that dropped in the entire pacific theater during world war ii. indeed america in the 20th centu century, waged total war to such a frightening extent, one cannot help but wonder, if sherman commanded in world war ii or vietnam, would his detractors be so repeld by him, especially us

white southerners who were taught to hate him. the so-called union army was officially the united states army, look at any order it issued, if he served in the same army a century later and worn khaki or green rather than blue and if his targets had been germans and japanese or vietnam ease rather than confederates, would we still loathe him to the same extent? from sherman's perspective, the confederates represented just as much if not more of a threat to the united states than the nazis or communists. the doctrine he helped to develop for dealing with this country's domestic enemies anticipated how americans in the 20th century would fight their country's foreign foes, strike violent a and boldly at your arms forces and destroy his ability to wage war and undermine the will of his civilian population to resist. once your enemy sues for peace, treat him no longer as an enemy.

a doctrine which historian robert o'connell calls hard war, soft peace. it is no wonder that such distinguished generals as john pershing, george patton and norm an schwartz kof would come to revere and emulate sherman. schwartzkof kept a quote, war is the remedy our enemies have chosen and i say let us give them all they want. and just like his hero, stormen norman destroyed his foe but offered lenient term of surrender. he has been demonized for waging war against noncombatants but the hard hand of war established a model for how america could and would win the peace in future conflicts. indeed robert o'connell described sherman's armies the first truly architypal american

force. lieber's code put into practice is still used today by the arm the forces of the united states and continues to government how we fight. americans have no problem wreaking destruction on their enemies when the existence of the nation is at stake. douglas mcarthur's -- was lift out of sherman's playbook. once war is put upon us, there's no other alternative than to apply every means to bring it to a swift end. war's very object is a victory, not prolonged indecision. franc francis lieber's words, to save the country is paramount to all other considerations could have spoken about george patton as they mashed through another german town or curtis la may as

he ordered the fire bombing of japanese cities. history deemed them heroes because their actions were against their country's foreign foes and sherman has been vilified as a terrorist because his actions, less severe, were against his country's domestic enemies. rightly or wrongly, sherman did what he deemed militarily necessary within the rulsz laid down by his government to win the conflict and save the country. the hard hand of war fits well within the american military tradition. like the total war tactics of the 20th century successors and enhanced interrogation techniques employed nor recently, sherman's march to the sea reveals the moral a.m. big gut of war and extent americans are willing to go when our national existence is at stake. thank you very much.

[ applause ] i have no idea what time it is, if we're on track or have time for questions. 3:48, we're back on track. we've got just a few minutes. yes, sir. [ inaudible ] >> taking a path that would have taken him through there osh or did the union now how important the powder mill was there to confederate efforts? >> yes, they did now how important the powder mill was. people are strangely disappointed sherman didn't come to their town. when you go there, you always hear by why didn't he come here? why didn't he come here? part of what sherman was doing during the march was keeping confederates off balance, even though he greatly outnumbered the forces arrayed to him. the hood had gone on to tennessee and sherman had sent enough forces back to deal with

him under george thomas. he still wanted to throw him off balance. what he did and did this repeatedly throughout -- not only the march of the sea but then later on in the campaigns beyond, i want to make sure we understand. there's the march to the sea, savannah to atlanta, which is fought a certain way then south carolina really gets kicked. most of the burning that we think of happens in south carolina. they cross into north carolina, and they sherman says back to your best behavior now, don't burn down everybody's house. but they limited the destruction. come back to your question, what sherman did was he fainted towards macon and fainted towards the left towards augusta and went right up the middle. he could probably tell me exactly what play that is. then go right up the middle. [ inaudible ]

[ applause ] >> that's right, as long as her shell got the ball. in this case sherman had the ball and they went right through them. they live milledgeville, same thing again, they faint and two directions and head directly towards savannah. when he leaves savannah and goes to north carolina, he faints back towards augusta, now he is coming this way and goes where, up the middle to columbia. he's keeping them off balance. didn't know how important it was. i think at that point it was also imperative for him to keep moving. he had a map that he looked at, planning the march where they were going to go and was able to see according to the 1860 census, the crops produced in these counties and how many hogs and corn and wheat, et cetera. he's going to try to go to the bread basket because he's living off the land, an idea he got

from grant in the vicksburg campaign and he went wow it work and tested it at meridian and saw it would work. when it came time to march across georgia, he implemented it on a much grander scale. by the time they get past mi milledgevil milledgeville, you're going towards the pine baron s, wearing out shoes and uniforms and one of the first things they requested when they got to the coast were shoes. part of it too, they keep moving as much as a straight line as possible. but that would be the best explanation that i could get, to give in terms of why they skipped augusta. march to the sea, not to augusta, that's right. towards the sea. there was some question was he going to go to mobile. there was some wondering where he was going, even lincoln said i'm not exactly sure where he's going. he's like a rat, i know what

hole he went in, just don't know what hole he's going to come out. lincoln always had a way with words. other questions, yes, sir. >> wait for the mic. >> as sherman's men got down into the rice belt of georgia, they actually i guess didn't know what rice was or hadn't eaten much of it and didn't know how to eat it. there was an account that i read just don't know if i can believe it so -- about the union soldiers putting gun powder on rice to eat it to spice it up, to give it some flavor. i mean, maybe they didn't have salt and pepper -- >> i prefer shrimp or gravy on mine. i've never tried gun powder. it might help though with the

bad case of constipation i would think. i have read those accounts too, don't know if they are accurate or not. rice does require some seasoning. i think it froblly tasted better -- what we have today that refined white rice was not the same as the kind of rice they were eating at that time. might have had a little bit more flavor. it does get old. the people in savannah were eating the white population of savannah and black too, eating a lot of rice and they were getting very tired of it. they were very tired of eating seafood, fish for breakfast, which some people still do today. and that was getting pretty old too. the diet was getting monotonous, it's kind of like if you -- first time you try grits, if you're from the north and you try grits for first time, the first thing you say what's a grit? then when you see them on a bowl and your immediate instinct, you want to put sugar and things on it where all it needs is salt

and some pepper and some butter. i've had people take instant grits and eat them and go these are terrible. why would you eat these? terrib. you didn't fix them the right way. same with rice. other questions. hang on. here comes the microphone. hang on. it's a little disconcerting with that in your mouth, but go ahead. >> for everybody here, i've got a signed autograph pictures hanging in your living room after today. that reminds me of a joke which i don't know that i should tell. george washing wash and american going to england and finding a picture of general washington in the water closet as the british called it. when they came out the british

would say did you see general washington. aren't you offended that we put his picture in the bathroom. no, just like during the revolutionary war there's nothing that would scare someone into going to the bathroom than a picture of general washington. so maybe that's the place where it should go. i tried to clean that up as much as i could. we are on television, after all. yes, sir? >> so, i could be wrong about this, but my observation is that sherman is reviled more in georgia than sheridan is in the valley. so i'm wondering, is there a reason that you're aware of or that you think especially given that the evidence is that it wasn't that bad that that might be, and if i'm wrong about that, maybe the folks in the valley can say no, you're wrong. >> it was bad. i mean, it was bad. mass murder?

no, but it was bad enough as it was. if the confederates were going to get demoralized and they were demoralized it had to have been pretty bad for that to have happened. i think a lot of that has to do with the post-war accounts. remember, sherman was not demonized during the war. if you were to come into georgia and see the way the land looked it wouldn't looked that much different than northern virginia would have looked behind the line. the army passes through and things are going to look pretty bad so it wouldn't r looked a whole lot different. sherman made two visits to atlanta and both times he was greeted as a hero. many atlantans had said thank you for taking the torch to the downtown area and the phoenix has risen and the symbol of atlanta is the phoenix rising. and so he was greeted as a hero

by many people. it wasn't until the lost cause and the development of that narrative that really kicks in in the 19th century and early 20th century that sherman becomes demonized to the extent that he was. there was a really great book, and i have my list of books and i figured someone would ask me what's good to read? one that i would recommend to you is a group by ann sarah ruben called "through the heart of dixie." it looks at sherman's march and how it develops on both sides, but another great book is one by coddle and ashdown called sherman's march in myth and memory, and they really explore this phenomenon of what sherman comes to represent. from their argument is that sherman comes to represent everything that's the antithesis of the cavalier society. it's the industrial north. it's not roamant sizing war in

any way. it's doing what has to be done in order to destroy and to win on a grand sort of scale, and as coddle and ashdown said, grant killed a lot more people, a lot more than sherman did, but sherman becomes the great villain because they said that sherman -- grant defeated an army, but sherman killed a culture, and so there was something in that in the scale of it for one thing and sheridan's got the shenandoah valley and we have atlanta to savannah and south carolina. the images of sherman's march, the georgia thing, but south carolina still remembered it, too. a lot of what we know today about it is filtered through movies and books, and it probably, the thing that popularized sherman's march the most was "gone with the wind"

both the movie and the book and it presented sherman as the wind that came through that destroyed the culture. it's sherman that destroys the culture and that becomes -- the term they used was the fire and wind that came through georgia. sarah ruben made an interesting point about the destruction itself, and i left it out of my talk, but she said i had a sense of the march to the sea as being this sdwriegiant tidal wave, th tsunami, 60 miles as it goes out to the sea. in reality it was more like fingers of destruction. stitches through the landscape because the army was advancing down roads and in most places they would stay a day if that much. so the destruction is limited to how far off the road they can go

so there were vast areas in between those roads that were untouched by it and those people supplied food and help to the other people who had lost so much during the march. it's interesting because i had not thought about this and we had the tsunami of fire going across and they were fingers of destruction going across georgia. yes, sir. >> excuse me. people in the valley recognized that sheridan not only planned, organized and carried out destruction so this was an order of destruction, and it was very thorough although there were many other phases to it, but that's different from what happened in georgia. well, at georgia there was the order to destroy. sherman's order was to destroy certain types of property. the same thing as you pointed

out, sheridan in the valley and it's interesting. the myths continue on both places as to what was destroyed. a very distinguished historian that you and i know was telling me about the fact that he was with a group of people and this man swore that every mill in the shenandoah valley had been burned and after the program, he said we're going in this wonderful restaurant a civil war-era mill has been converted to a restaurant. so there is this image that again, that everything gets wiped out and destroyed and i don't know in terms of the differences there because sherman had set out and these were orders to destroy, as well. grant knew what was going on. all of this happened with his full consent. we had this feeling of sherman that convinced 60,000 other people to go on this binge of destruction and he's