war democrat and peace democrat. mcclellan, even earlier in the war, he staked out his position to regard with abraham lincoln. so mcclellan's position, continue the war, absolutely repudiate slavery. now the democratic party is closely enough divided between it's peace and war wings there are a lot of peace democrats at chicago, not very happy mcclellan is the nominee because he's a democrat. the party lets them write the platform, which is utterly bizarre, but they're going to have a war democrat lead the democrats. this is what they come up with. after four years of failure, to restore the union by the

experiment of war, we demand that immediate efforts made for a cessation of hostilities, peace may be restored on the basis of the federal union. what the platform is saying immediately ceasefire negotiation with the south, the only issue, union. emancipation completely off the table. this then is the two sides. the two sides are drawn, but one very significant thing happens before the general election. the momentum on the field of battle turns. if there's single critical

event, it is the fall of atlanta, which had been the object of union attention since the spring, fall of atlanta on the second of september. this is immediate greeted with jubilation across the north, and may have been the single thing what turns the tied of the northern opinion. in the election that follows, you see two very queer strategies. if you are a democrat, you're going to emphasize race. what northern democrats are going to do throughout the election of 1864 is constantly remind northern voters this is an unnecessary war fought to establish racial equality. in the interest of time i'm

going to pass over one image here and just move to another one really quickly. this is a drawing that appears in the summer of 1864 that is picking up on a theme that emerges in democratic strategy at the end of 1863. at the end of 1863, a democratic journalist for "the new york world" anonymously authored a pamphlet, when he said the agenda of the us, what this author called miscegenation. that term is not much used anymore. it's invented in 1863. it comes from two latin root words which mean it's the verb for to mix, and you guys would recognize the latin word genous. so it means to mix species almost literally, or as typically used here to talk about mixing of the races. this particular author is saying the republican party wants not

only total racial equality, it aspires to the inner mixing of races. here we have a drawing of the miscegenation ball. this is what it's going to be like after abraham lincoln is reelected. at the inaugural ball celebrating his re-election, you will have this gathering and what jumps out at you? can you see it well enough to pick up on the message of the artist? kyle? >> yeah, all of the -- lots of white people dancing with african-americans. >> i think if i haven't missed something, every single couple there is inter racial.

the whole idea is this is what we're moving for and if you don't believe in that you have no business supporting anyone other than george mcclellan and the democratic ticket. if you are a republican, in 1864, you're going to do everything you can to deflect the emphasis on race. you cannot win the election defined in terms of racial equality. you must win the election if you're going to win at all, defining the issue in terms of union. so what the republicans are going to stress above all is the disloyalty of the democratic party. they're going to link the democratic party with the south. they're going to emphasize the democratic party's support for a ceasefire, at least according to its platform. and so you have other images. again i'm going to skip over. there are other images about miscegenation here. here's one particular republican car too that shows the democratic party in 1832 and

1864. this should resinate to some degree. 1832 is the midst of what's called the nullification process, stanch advocate of the union, forcing the south ultimately to submit to federal authority. but in 1864, what does the democratic party look like? you have a union general, not thundering the union must be preserved cringing and cowering before benjamin davis. in other words this is how much the party has declined. it is now quivering in its boots against the threat of the confederacy. a couple more images really quickly. this is a campaign drawing done by artist nast. we have jefferson david, president of the confederacy, clasping hands with a union veteran. they're clasping hands over a

grave and the tombstone says following a hero in a war, and if you favor the democrats, what you are saying is every sacrifice made to this point has been wasted. we have the veteran who's clearly given a great sacrifice. he's lost a limb. we have colombia, the embodiment of the united states weeping by the grape, and what this artist is saying, vote for george mcclellan, is a vote to clasp hands with the southern traitors who have reeked such unsold suffering on our land. final image. this is a republican lampooning this kind of ludicrous combination of commitments in the democratic party. so, you have mcclellan, the war democrat, riding a war horse waving a sword while simultaneously smoking a peace pipe and wearing a bonnet, right, which is supposed to be

saying a little something about his masculinity. and he is a company of the by the peace democrat riding a donkey. the whole idea is to say this is a ludicrous, ludicrous conversation. nothing matters more man the belief 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'd like to stress is that his opponent takes 45% of the popular vote. 45% of northerners cast a ballot for a party who's declared the war a failure, and has unanimously reputed emancipation. it's important to us because

when we think about a reunified united states in the aftermath of the 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 bed rock of this course throughout, in a democratic society, where a large majority holds a particular value, that is inconsistent with the interest of a minority, there is not much reason to be optimistic for the rights of that minority. remember, as james madison had said, if majority would be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be in secure. and i think that is a foreshadowing of the history of reconstruction on in actually through the rest of the end of the 20th centuries. so very fast, whirl wind overview, next time we're going to zero in on abraham lincoln. we're going to enter into a conversation with him, because what lincoln is trying to do

more than anything else is shape how we remember -- i mean us today, remember the meaning of the war. we're going to try to think historically and christianly about what he had to say and i look forward to that. so you guys have a great couple days and we'll look forward to being together again next time, zeroing in on the discussion of those documents. all right? take care. on the civil war, georgia historical society president todd gross talks about union general william sherman's background. his march to the sea campaign and how sherman is remembered. he describes his method as hard war rather than total war. and argue that's the targets for destruction were carefully

selected to diminish southern resol to have continue the conflict. the shenandoah battlefield hosted this 50-minute talk. thank you, terry, for that brief introduction. i know everyone appreciates that. well, welcome to georgia. i know many of you are traveling from other places and are in our state today probably for the first time and we special ordered this wonderful weather for you. i know you've been out traveling around on battlefields and i'm glad that it has cooperated and we've been able to provide you i hope with a great experience so we're delighted that you are in our state and we hope that you will come back.

i want to thank you the shenandoah battlefield foundation for asking me to come speak today about somebody and some thing i had no idea when getting my ph.d would be an important part of my life. i can't seem to get away from general sherman and the more i talk about it, the more people want me to talk about it. i'm going to have to move topics and move into another area, but he is a fascinating person and a fascinating topic. i'm also delighted to see so many folks here and that you cared this much about the civil war and about battlefields and preserving those battlefields. one of my favorite things to do is hike battlefields so i think it's wderful, to get out and unite those two things, the

outdoors and the study of the civil war, there's nothing like it. so thank you for all you do and this association does to preserve our battlefields and to teach civil war history. well, he's been called the savior of the union and the ruthless destroyer of the south, a profit of 20th century warfare and sadist, who waged war on defenseless women and children, a brilliant moderate soldier and terrorist. few names from the past evoke as sherman. just walk into any public place in georgia and proclaim that sherman was a hero and atlanta got what it deserved and see what happens. i'm going to tell you, this is a true story. when i first moved to georgia 21 years ago, was on my way to atlanta from savannah. i passed an old pickup truck on i-16. i looked down. it was a bumper sticker and the bumper sticker said, general sherman, where are you now that atlanta really needs you. the other thing i want 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 as a gift, it says general william t. sherman, still wiping up the south. and it comes with a dispenser, so every time you tear a piece of the paper off, it plays "dixie." that just gives you some idea of the fame of general sherman. indeed with the populous of general e. lee, there is no man known more to georgia. what i would like to do during the time that's been allotted to me this often is cut through some of the myths, the folklore to 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, the march, and the memory. first question, who was sherman and what were his reasons and motivation 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 and what can we learn from the plan and his march? so let's start with the man. not surprisingly, historians disagree about sherman. biography john marszalek argued 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 biography, stanley herson said his life was defined by the overwhelming fear of mental instability that plagued his mother's family. his maternal grandmother and uncle all spent years in insane asylums and one brother john died mentally unstable and another, jim, died an alcoholic. whatever the source of sherman's distinctive personality, he was as hershon says, a brilliant

but tormented soul who knew rarely happiness. his 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 biographers, sherman admitted many of the symptoms or melancholia. he suffered a breakdown when he was relieved from command after exhibiting acute paranoia over the confederate greatly exaggerating their numbers. charged with insanity by the newspapers, he was sent home in disgrace and almost committed suicide. sherman was essentially a conservative and believed strongly of the rule of law, warning the may are of atlanta in 1864 the easier way to end the war would be for those to be in rebellion in the united states to simply obey the laws and constitution. he was an admirer of southern planters and felt no revolution

of safely in the south. he was truly happy for the first time in his life when on the 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 his comfortable with slavery, but he had little patience with southerners who resorted to disunion in order to protect the institution. breaking up the country, and firing on american soldiers and the american flag at fort sumter, a u.s. early installation was to him an attack on the insurance constitution and an insurrection of the laws of the united states. once the united states conceded the rights to break away, sherman feared the process would go on perpetually. american would end up he said like mexico, continually in the grip of revolution and chaos.

the united states must survive and secession must be crushed or the republicanism would fail discrediting the world's 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 by siege as insurgent forces that had to be suppressed. the company had an open anti-slavery president for the first time since the founding of the republican, but it did not give southerners and slave holders quote one jot or tittle of provocation and which had been placed in the south for the benefit and protection of its people. by the original compactive government he wrote the mayor of atlanta in 1864. the united states had certain rights in georgia and have never been relinquished and never will be through its army, the united

states had a right to put down rebellion, reclaim its property and forced lawing throughout its territory and bring to an end an 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 evolutionary process. throughout the first years of the war, sherman watched as battles became ever bloodier and yet seemed to resolve nothing. the search for the so-called battle of annihilation in which one army would destroy all other in an all out decisive engagement, and even the great twin union victories of vicksburg and gettysburg, their armies seemed resilient, their

will to exist was not broken. sherman was entirely surprised by this. he knew the southern people intimately, their spirit, their pride, their determination to fight. he decided a new way of waging war must be developed to demonstrate supporters of the confederacy, especially the common folk who fill the rank of the armies their cause was hopeless and the federal 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 fall tone u.s. forces after the battle of shiloh. initially, he went along with the policy of noncombatants,

issuing receipts for confiscated or destroyed property 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 bushwhacking guerillas. the line between combatants and noncombatants was clear. indeed it took on the conservancy in places like vietnam and iraq and afghanistan. sherman and his legacy has not really been destroyed. we talked about the march to the

sea, was it an innovation, was it moderate war, but sherman dealing with what we would call an insurgency, something that would be incredibly rev haven't to america after what we went through in the middle east is right for historians to explore. confronted with this type of hostility on the part of noncombatants, sherman's attitude began to harden.

he came to the conclusion those in rebellion, both soldiers and civilians, must feel the hard hand of war as he called it, and that united states had the power to penetrate every part of its national domain in order to reestablish its authority and destroy insurgent forces. interesting they use that, insurgency, and insurgency forces. the confederates justified this, whether it be one year, or two, or ten, or 20, he proclaimed his

hyperbole, we will take every life, every article of land, every particle of property, and we will not cease that all who oppose us are enemies and we will not account to them for our actions. sherman was coming to the conclusion 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 was permissible and what was not." called the lieber code, special order number 100 codified the use of torture, execution of prisoners, assassinations and the breaking of flags of truce between agreements and parties. in short, the code prohibited as 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 property, starve combatants, shell towns, keep enemies in besieged cities, 76 execute guerrillas, if such were deemed necessary to winning the war and defending the country. to save the country, lieber stated, is paramount to all other considerations. i'm going to repeat that. lieber said to save the country is paramount to all other considerations. like other wartime 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 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 objectives 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 under mine confederate moral on the home front, trigger a wave of desertions. the history of the 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. you might as well appeal against

the thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war. they are inevitable and the only way the people of atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home is to stop the war. we don't want your negros, or your horses, or your lands but anything we have, but we do want and we will have a just obedience to the laws of the united states. that we will have and if it involves the destruction of your improvements as he called property, we cannot help it, closed quality. it is important to remember the context in which sherman put lieber code into action. the civil war was no longer the gentleman's conflict of 1861. by the head sherman's columns headed toward savannah, approximately one million solders had been killed.

the country was literally drenched in blood. confederate guerrillas bushwhacked other soldiers and robbed, tortured and murdered southern civilians. regular confederate forces burned to the ground towns like hampton, virginia, one of their own, and chambersburg, pennsylvania, one of the enemies. southern civilians were executed including a mass hanging of 40 texans in october 1862 for nothing more than failing to show up for the draft. confederate soldiers had murdered hundreds of black prisoners at places like the battle of the crater and fort pillow, and in official with the policy, authorities sent those black soldiers they did not kill back into slavery, rather than p.o.w. camps. in short, the civil war, like all other wars, had taken an ugly turn. both sides were struggling for their very existence. it was life or death. actions that would been considered atrocities at the beginning of the war were becoming commonplace on both

sides. and sherman thought it was hip critical for confederates who quote plunged the nation into war, when the tied turned against them, especially given their own brutal actions and harsh policies. no one could attack the united states and not expect to suffer the consequences. sherman believed there was a wider goal to include combatants. the ultimate long-term security of the united states demanded that war become as brutal and painful as possible, he said. in this way, the enemies of the united states would never again attempt to breakup the country or resort to war in order to achieve their 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, sauce to

overturn the will of the majority by resorting to succession to those who are sick and tired of it and sue for peace. i would not coax them, or meet them halfway, but generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it, closed quotes. those were tough words indeed. but as usual with the hyperbolic sherman, his bite turned worse than his bite. has his troops set out from atlanta, 1864, sherman swore to quote make georgia howl. but the historical evidence reveals the general was neither as destructive, or as barbaric by former confederates seeking to detract his success by

importuning his methods and his special field order number 120, sherman laid out the rules of destruction and conduct for the march. the army was to quote forage literally on the country, with details of men 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, and the poor who are usually neutral or friendly. now to be sure there was no destruction than allowed by these orders, and officers were not always present to control their men. shermas soldiers as the historian joseph gladhar has written saw this as quote a golden opportunity to teach the people of georgia the hardships and terror of war, which they blamed the confederates for starting and continuing to repeated fights on the battlefield. some homes especially of the wealthy that were considered guilty of bringing on the war were burned. private dwellings were entered and personal property was taken and civilians were stripped of

more food than the army needed or consumed. sherman called this eating out the country. the worst destruction or private property occurred after the march to the sea in south carolina largely because his men considered the state responsible for bringing on the war. even there as in georgia, the primary targets were infra~ structure and anything that could be used by the confederate army to continue the struggle, factories, mills, cotton gins, bridges and railroads -- especially railroads. hundreds of miles were torn up, heated in the middle and wrap around trees and telegraph polls so they would require a rolling mill to straighten and make them useable again. at least in georgia and north carolina, the march of the sea is savannah to atlanta. a lot of people want to talk about what happened in 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 howl cobb, former u.s. secretary of the treasury, who sherman considered a traitor, guilty of bringing on the rebellion, barns, cotton gins were all put to the fire, rarely homes. one study compared wartime maps with exist antebellum structures found most along the route of the march were still in existence and the few that were gone had been lost to post-war accidents, and despite the commonly held belief, "gone with the wind," sherman reduced the entire city of atlanta to a smouldering ruin, only the business and industrial sections were put to the torch. the residential areas and the 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 sat out on his famous march to the sea. completely destroyed was less than the confederates burned of chambersburg in pennsylvania in july. his enemies submitted to the authority of the national government. savannah is a prime example. upon his arrival in savannah, sherman was offered one of the finest mansions in town as head his headquarters. he described the mayor as subrogated, citizens orderly and well behaved, and escaped the cities of the other march. according to university of texas historian jacquelyn jones, from the period savannah welcomed the ited states army as liberators. sick of war and on the verge of starvation, succession nothing and the city wanted peace. sherman completely changed

course. as he had said to james calhoun, if they would acknowledge the authority of the national government, i will become your protectors and supporters shielding you from danger, closed quote. atlanta's mayor calhoun didn't he'd the warning but savannah's mayor arnold did and the fate of the city where the great march ended was very 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 proclamation freed the slaves in the rebellion states so as they advanced deeper into the house, sherman and his army became a liberation. despite being ordered to stay put on their plantations and arms, thousands of newly liberated african-americans, men, women and children, followed in the wake of sherman's march. i imagine it must have been like

trying to tell people who had been in a concentration camp, stay here, don't leave right now. those following the army would have fatal consequences, for many of those who drowned, attempting to swim ebenezer creek accident after the corps of army engineers took up the pontoon bridge stranding the slaves on the north bank. sherman saw emancipation as useful, not because he cared about the plight of african-americans are. sherman and his march helped to end slavery and brought freedom to millions of black southerners. as its author intended, the march to the sea was harsh on civilians, losing crops, food stores, and livestock left noncombatants with little to eat with winter approach, but the fear that he created was as powerful. destroying property, and pillaging virtually unopposed had a demoralizing effect on

white georgians who supported the confederacy. by waging war against the minds of his opponents, sherman's march achieved its creator's goal of hastening an end of conflict. the wives on the march fear they lay in the path of sherman's advancing region ors, begged them to go home. this hemorrhaging from lee's army further depleted his already-thing ranks and allowed grant to deliver the knockout blow in the spring of 1865. from the vantage point of the 21st century, sherman's way of war seems a dramatic departure

from earlier methods and has prompted some historians to characterize the march to the sea and beyond as the birth of modern total war. but hard war, hard war, was not total war. wile the march was destructive of public property and infrastructure it lacked, the massive wholesale destruction of human life that characterized world war ii and other 20th century conflicts. sherman's primary targets, food, livestock, government, industrial and military property, were carefully chosen to create the desired effect and never included killing civilians. indeed sherman always claimed his war on property was more humane than traditional methods of conflict between armies. he even told one south carolina woman the reason he was

ransacking her farm, is because he was ransacking his home. he was fighting to bring rebels back into the union, not to annihilate them. as the treatment of savannah demonstrated an end to resistance mitigated any further need for destruction. nevertheless, sherman has demonstrated for the first time in the modern era, the power of terror and psychological cal warfare in bringing down an enemy's will to exist, coming into full bloom when axis and allied powers, british and americans, deliberately and in discriminately, including dropping two atomic bombs, when america carpet bombed hanoi, dropping on a single small company, more ordinance that we did on the whole country in world war ii. america, waged such a total war

one cannot help but wonder if sherman had commanded in world war ii or vietnam, what his tractors be so repelled by him, especially those white southerners who had been taught to hate him as a war criminal. if he served in the same army after the union army was officially the united states army -- look at any order it issued -- if he served in the same army but a century later and had worn khaki and green rather than blue and if his targets had been germans, japanese, vietnamese, rather than confederates, would we are still loathe him to the same extent? from sherman's perspective, the confederates represented if not more of a threat than did the nazis, the japanese imperialists or the communist. the doctors her felt for the

domestic enemies, anticipated how americans would fight their foreign foes, destroy his ability to wage war, and undermine the will of his civilian population to resist. but 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," and such distinguished generals, john peyton, and norman schwarzkopf, kept on his desk a quote from sherman, and this is the quote "war is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and i say, let us give them all they want" and

just like his hero, storming norman destroyed his faux, and offered lenient terms of surrenderer. er is man has been demonized by combatants but his hard hand for war established how america could and would win the peace in future conflicts. robert o'connell described sherman's army as the first truly archaical. the code is still put in forces today by the armed forces of the united states and continues to governor how we fight. americans have no problem reeking destruction on their enemies when the existence of the nation is at stake. in 1951, was lifted right out of sherman's play book. once war is placed upon us there is no other alternative than apply no other means than bring it to a assist end. war is a victory, not prolonged indecision.

lieber's words in 1862, to save the country is paramount to all other considerations, could have been spoken by omar bradley, or george peyton as they smashed their way to another town, or cutis lemay, as he ordered the fire bombing of japanese cities. history deemed their heroes because their actions were against the foreign foes, while sherman has been vilified in many areas because his actions, though less severe, were against his country's domestic enemies. rightly or wrong three, sherman did what he deemed militarily necessary within the rules laid down by his government to win conflict and save his country, rather than aberration, his hand of war fits in the military tradition, like the total war tactics like his 20th century

successors and the enhanced tech sneaks employed more recently, sherman's march to the see reveals the moral ambiguity of the war, and the extent to which americans are willing to go which our national existence is at stake. thank you very much. [ applause ] and i have no idea what time it is. >> if we're on track, or if we have time for questions. 3:48. we've got just a few minutes. yes, sir? >> on taking a path that would have taken him through there, or did he know, did the union know about how important the powder mill was there to the efforts? >> yes, they did know how important the powder mill. many people in augusta are strangely disappointed sherman didn't come to their town.

when you go there, you always hear about, why didn't he come here? why didn't he come here? part of what sherman was doing during the march was keeping the confederates all balance, even though he greatly outnumbered the forces that were opposed to him. remember they had gone on to tennessee, and sherman sent enough forces to deal with him under george thomas. he still wanted to throw him off balance, so what he did, and did this repeatedly throughout not only the march of the sea, but 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. i mean, most of the burning that we think of happens in south carolina. they cross into north carolina, and they -- sherman says, okay, back to your best behavior now, so to speak.

don't burn down everybody's house, but they limited the destruction. so what sherman did was he fainted towards macon to the right. he fainted to the left towards augusta and he went right up the middle. vince duly sitting here could probably tell me what play that is. think to the left, and go right up the middle. [ inaudible ] that's right, so long as herschel got the ball. in this case, sherman had the ball and they leave right through them. they leave milledgeville, and faint, and they head directly towards savannah. when he leaves and goes into south carolina, he faints towards charleston, and up the middle to columbia.

he's continually doing this, keeping them off balance. i think it was also imperative for him to keep moving. he had a map that he looked at planning the march exactly where they were to go, he was able to see the crops produced in all of these counties, how many hogs, how much corn, wheat, et cetera. ise he's going to try to go through the bread basket because he's living off the land. he told grant don't try it, it won't work and then it did and sherman went, wow, it worked and tested it at meridian, in february of 64 and saw that it would work, so when it became time to march across georgia, he implemented it on a much grander scale. when they get past milledgeville, you're starting to move into an area of georgia that is what we call the pine barrens. food is scarce so they've got to keep moving. you're wearing out shoes, you're

wearing out the uniforms. one of the first things they requested when they got to the coast was shoes. so, part of it, too, was to just keep moving in as much of a straight line as possible. that would be the best explanation that i could give in terms of why they skipped augusta. march to the sea, not to augusta, that's right. towards the city. and there was some question about was he going to go to mobile. there was some wondering -- even lincoln said i'm not sure where he's going. he said i know he's like a rat, i know what hole he went in, i just don't know what hole he's going to come out. lincoln -- he always had a way with words. other questions? yes, sir. gotta 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, didn't know how to eat it. there was an account that i read. i just don't know if i can

believe it -- 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 or -- >> well, i prefer shrimp or gravy on mine. i've never tried gun powder. it might -- it might help though with a bad case of constipation, i would think. but i have read those accounts, too. i don't know if they're accurate or not. rice does require some seasoning. i think it probably tasted better, you know what we have today that really refined white rice they were eating. it does get old. i can tell you right now that the people in savannah were eating the white population of savannah was -- and black, too, was eating a lot of rice and they were getting very tired of t. 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 pretty monotonous. i can see how they thought it wasn't all that good. it's kind of like the first time you try grits, you know, if you're from the north and you try grits. >> for everybody here, i've got signed autograph if you want to hang them in your living room today. we make him look pretty good. >> that reminds me of a joke i don't know i should tell, but it has to do with george washington and the british.

and the -- an american going to england and finding a picture of general washington in the water as the british called it. when he came out, the british host said, did you see general washington, sir? he said i guess i did. he said aren't you offended we put his picture in the bathroom? he said no, i figured just like during the revolutionary war there's nothing that would scare somebody into going to the bathroom room like a picture of an general washington. maybe that's a place where it should go. we are on television, after all. >> so i could be wrong about this, but my observation is that sherman is reviled more in georgia than sheridan is

vall valley. so i'm wondering, is there a reason that you think especially given that the evidence is he wasn't that bad, that that might it be? and if i'm wrong about that, maybe the pokes in the valley can say no, you're wrong. >> it was bad. i mn it was bad. mass murder, no. but it was bad enough. if the confederates were going to get demoralized it had to have been bad for that to have happened. i think a lot of it had to do with post-war accounts. remember, sherman was not demonized during the war. if you were to come into georgia and see the land looked after the march, it wouldn't look a lot different than northern virginia would have looked. army passes through, things look pretty bad. it wouldn't have looked a whole lot different.