it says in memory of veterans calling in a useless war. the implication is if you favor the democrats, what you are saying is that every sacrifice made to this point has been wasted. we have the veteran who has clearly given a great sacrifice. he's lost a limb. we have columbia, the embodiment of the united states, weeping by the grave, and what this artist is saying, a vote for george mcclellan is a vote to clasp hands with the southern traitors who have wreaked such untold suffering on our land. final image, and this is my favorite run from 1864 election. 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 simultaneous smoking a peace pipe and wearing a bonnet,

right? which is supposed to be saying a little something about his masculinity, and he is accompanied, of course, by the peace democrat riding a donkey. the whole idea is to say this is a ludicrous, ludicrous combination. in the end nothing matters more than the fall of atlanta. nothing matters more than the belief that the war is again being won, and the result in the end was abraham lincoln's very comfortable electoral victor. you will see here he takes 91% of the electoral vote, but the one thing i'd want to stress is that his opponent takes 45% of the popular vote. 45% of northerners cast a ballot for a party who has declared the war a failure and has unanimously repudiated emancipation. it's important to us because when we think about our 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 bedrock of this course throughout, in a democratic society where a large majority holds a particular value that is inconsistent with the interests 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 be united by common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure, and i think that is a foreshadowing of the history of reconstruction on in actually 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.

we're going to enter into conversation with him because what lincoln is trying to do more than anything else is to 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 a discussion of those documents. all right. take care. coming up this weekend on c-span3, saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history, virginia commonwealth university professor karen raider on student instructional film that is were made during the cold war out of fear the u.s. population was falling behind the soviet union in science education and sunday morning at 10:00 on "road to the white house rewind" the 1952 and 1948 national

conventions. in 1952 dwight eisenhower accepted the republican nomination and adlai stevenson received the democratic nomination on the third ballot. and in 1948 the first televised conventions where president harry truman accepted his party's nomination. >> the failure to do anything about high prices and the failure to do anything about housing. my duty as president requires that i use every means within my power to get the laws the people need on matters of such importance and you are sen ji. >> and at 6:00 we'll take a look at the new miami of african-american history and culture with its director lonnie bunch. >> we were able to get an amazing collection of movie posters such as the ones behind you. that's an early oscar movie poster from the 1920s and then this is part of our job is to

help people relearn history they think they know. that movie poster is from spencer williams. he's known by most people as playing in amos and andy, yet he was one of the most important plaque film directors in the late '30s and '40s. >> and sunday historians jon meacham and ron churnow talk about the process of writing a presidential biography. for our complete schedule, go to cspan.org. join us next saturday for c-span's issues spotlight. our focus will be on police and race relations. you will see president obama at the memorial service for five police officers shot and killed in dallas as well as republican senator tim scott of south carolina and his speech from the senate floor about his own interactions with police. our program also includes one family's story about an encounter with police in washington, d.c., followed by a panel with the city's police chief, cathy lanier.

that all gets under way next saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. with the national conventions in the rear-view mirror, road to the white house is on the campaign trail and heading toward the candidate debates. three are currently scheduled. monday, september 26th, at hofstra university. sunday, october 9th, at washington university in lous st. louis. and wednesday october 19th at the university of nevada-las vegas. you can watch them on our companion network c-span. on the civil war, georgia historical society president todd groce talks about union general william sherman's background. his march to the sea campaign, and how sherman is remembered. he describes sherman's method as, quote, hard war, unquote, rather than total war and argues that the targets for destruction were carefully slekted to diminish southern resolve to

continue the conflict.the shenandoah battlefield's foundation 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 have been out tramping around on battlefields, and i'm glad that it has cooperated and we've been able to provide you, i hope w a great experience. so we're delighted you are in our state, and we hope that you will come back. i also want to thank the shenandoah valley battlefield's association for asking me to come and speak today about somebody and something that i had absolutely no idea when i started out getting my ph.d. would become such 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 come and talk some more about it, so i'm going to have to change topics at some point and move into another area but he is a fascinating, 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 6 my favorite things to do is to hike battlefields. i think it's wonderful to get out and enjoy the outdoors. when you can unite the outdoors and the study of the civil bar on a battlefield, i think there's nothing else like it. thank you for all that you do and this association does to help us 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 prophet of 20th century warfare and a sadist who waged war on defenseless women and children, a brilliant modern soldier, and a terrorist.

a few names from the past evoke as much emotion as william tecumseh sherman. if you think that history doesn't matter or if sherman has faded from modern memory, just walk into any public place in georgia and proclaim that verman 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, i was on my way to atlanta from savannah. i passed an old pickup truck on i-16. i looked down, there was a bumper sticker and the bumper sticker 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 me as a gift a few years ago. 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 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 its destroyer. what i would like to do during the time that's been allotted to me this afternoon is to cut through some of the myths, the folklore, and outright distortions surrounding sherman and it's marthe march to the se. 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

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 and what can we learn from the man and his march? so let's start with the man. not surprisingly, historians disagree about sherman. biogra fer john marzalak has determined it was sherman's search for order that defined his life following it's loss of his father. another biographer contends his life was defined by the overwhelming fear of mental instability that plagued his mother's family. his maternal grandmother, his

maternal uncle, and his 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 is general agreement that he was as hershon says a brilliant but tormented soul who knew much sadness and only occasional happiness. well, no wonder. his early life was chaotic and traumatic. his father died when he was only 9 years old and 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 ignore or even reject the notion that he was plagued by mental illness, sherman exhibited many of the symptoms of depression or melon colonel ya as it was

called in the 19th century. on at least two occasions he suffered a nervous breakdown, most notably during the early winter of 1862 when he was relieved from command after exhibiting acute paranoia over the confederate forces arrayed against him 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. 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 against the united states to simply obey the laws and the constitution. he was an admirer of southern planters for whom he felt a great affinity and felt no moral revulsion over the institution of slavery. while in the pre-war army, he spent a great deal of time in the south where he felt perfectly at home and he was truly happy for 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 him comfortable with slavery, but he had little patience with southerners who resorted to disunion in order to protect the institution. for the deeply conservative sherman, secession represented treason and anarchy. breaking up the country and firing on the american soldiers and the american flag at if the sumter was to him an attack on the constitution and an insurrection 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 perpetually. if states were allowed to break away every time they lost a constitutional election, america would end up, he said, like mexico, continually in the grip of revolution and chaos. the united states must survive

and s and secession must be crushed. thus, when 11 slave holding states declared their independence following lincoln's election, sherman looked bon them as seized by insurgent force that is had to be suppressed. the country had an openly anti-slavery president for first time since the founding of the republic, but it did not give southerners and slaveholders, quote, one jot or tidle of provocation sherman contended to destroy the government. they had no right to seize the forts, arsenals and mints which were property of the united states and which had been 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, reclaim its property

enforce its laws throughout his territory, and bring to an end an unnecessary and evil war 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 every bloodier and yet seemed to resolve nothing. the search for the so-called battle of annihilation in which one army would destroy the other in an all-out decease sif engagement was elusive, sherman came to believe. the bloodlettings at shiloh and antietam and chick mug ga and even vicksburg and gettysburg did not bring the confederates to their knees. their armies seemed resilient. their will to resist unbroken. sherman was nots entirely surprised by this having lived in the south before the war, he knew the southern people int matly. he knew their spirit, their pride, their determination to fight.

he decided a new way of waging war must be developed to demonstrate to supporters of the confederacy, especially the common folk who fill the ranks of the armies, that their cause was hopeless and that the 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 the battle of shiloh. initially sherman went along with the lincoln administration's policy of respecting the right of noncombat ents issuing receipts for destroyed or confiscated 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, bush whacking u.s. soldiers and harboring guerillas. the war was no longer a fight strictly between armies where the lines when combatants and noncombatants was clr. indeed, it took on many of the characteristics of the type of insurgency waged during the 20th and 21st century waged in places like iraq and afghanistan. this is one of the place where is sherman in his legacy has not really been explored. we talk a lot about the march to the sea. was it an innovation, was it modern war, but sherman dealing with what we would call an insurgency and his attempts at counter insurgency. something that would be incredibly relevant to modern america after what we've been through in the middle east is an area i think ripe for historians to explore. confronted with this type of hostility and intransigence on the part of noncombatants,

sherman's attitude began to harden. he came to the conclusion that those in rebellion, both soldiers and sill icivilians, m 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. interesting they use that term frequently, insurgency and insurgent forces, something then that we understand today. the confederacy's continued resistance justified this. it makes no difference whether it be one year or two or ten or 20, he proclaimed with his usual hyperbole. we will remove and destroy every obstacle, if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper, and we will not cease until the end is attained, that all who oppose us are enemies and that we will not

account to them for our actions. sherman was not the only one who was 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 permissible and what was not. called the libra cold after francis lieber special field order number 100 codified for first time the rules of war. the code prohibits torture, the use of poison, execution of prisoners, assassinations, and the breaking of flags of truce and agreements between warring parties. in short, the code prohibited, as historian john fabian wit has put it, the infliction of suffering for its own sake. on the other hand, the code authorize the u.s. army to destroy civilian property,

starve noncombat ents, shell towns, keep enemy civilians in besieged cities, free slaves, and summarily execute guerillas if such measures 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 pair mouparamount to all oth 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 flant 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 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 undermine confederate morale on the home front, trigger a wave of desertions from insurgent armies, destroy the confederate's aability to wage war and prove the confederate government was impotent to protect them and their property. the history of war had demonstrated there could not be peace without making it azha ash as possible. 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 negroes or your horses or your houses or your lands or anything you 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. , close quote. it is important to remember the context in which sherman put lieber's code into action. it was no longer the gentleman's conflict of 1861. by the tim 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 routinely bush whacked soldiers while others robbed, tortured, and even murdered southern civilians. regular confederate forces had

burned to the ground like hampton, virginia, and chambers. officials had executed southern civilians for suspected disloyalty 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 accordance with official confederate policy, rebel authorities sent those black soldiers they did not kill back in slavery rather than to p.o.w. camps. thousands of prisoners were suffering and dieing in hell holes like andersonville. the war had taken an ugly turn. both sides, united states and confederate states, you were struggling for their very existence. it was life or death. actions that would have been considered atrocities at the beginning of the war were becoming commonplace on both

sides, and sherman thought it was hypocritical for confederates who, quote, had plunged the nation into war, he said, to appeal to god and humanity when the tide turned against them, 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 achieve by widening the destruction to include none combatants. the long term security of the united states demanded 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 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 who having lost a presidential contest, excuse me, which having lost a presidential contest sought to overturn the will of the majority by resorting to secession 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 even 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 usually with the hyperbolic sherman, his bark turned out worse than his bite. his rhetoric harsh than his actions. as his troops set out for atlanta in 1864, sherman swore to, quote, make georgia howl, but the historical evidence reveals he was neither as destructive nor as barbaric as he was confused of by former confederates seeking to detract from his success. in his special field order 120 he 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 industrious who are usually neutral or friendly. now, to be sure, there was more destruction than allowed by these orders, and officers were not always present to control their men. sherman's soldiers, as the historian joseph gladhar has written saw this as, quote, a golden opportunity t teach the people of georgia the hardships and terror of war which they blamed the confederates for starting and continuing despite repeated defeats on the battlefield. some homes, especially 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 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 gins, warehouses, train depots, bridges and railroads. especially railroads. hundreds of miles of trap were tore up, heated in the middle, and wrapped around trees so they would require a rolling mill to make them usable again. at least in georgia and north carolina. the march to 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 howell

cobb, former u.s. secretary of the treasury, whom sherman considered a traitor, guilty of bringing on the rebellion. barnes, cotton gins were all put to the torch but rarely a private home. one study conducted in georgia in the 1950s comparing wartime maps with existing antebellum structures found that 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 reinforced by the move inquire "gone with the wind" that sherman reduced the intire city of atlanta to a smoldering ruin, only the business and industrial sections were put to the torch. the residential areas and the courthouse district were compared. 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 or infamous march to the sea.

the 40% of atlanta completely destroyed was less than what the confederates had burned of sh e chambersburg, pennsylvania, the previous july. sherman also proved merciful and forgiving when 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 his headquarters. he described the mayor, richard arnold, as completely, quote, subjugated and the citizens as orderly and well behaved. thus savannah escaped the fate of the other major cities along the route of the march. according to university of texas historian jacqueline jones, who conducted extensive research in primary sources like diaries and letters, from the period savannah welcomed the united states army as liberators. sick of war and on the verge of starvation, they were ready to throw off the yoke of the confederacy. secession had brought nothing but death and privation and the

people of the city wanted peace. greeted by contrition rather than continued defiance, sherman completely changed course. as he had said to james calhoun, the mayor of atlanta, if those in rebellion would once again, quote, acknowledge the authority of the national government, i and this army will become at once your protecters and supporters shielding you from danger, close quote. atlanta's mayor calhoun didn't heed 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 zes destroyed during the march to the sea was sheriff slavery. the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in the rebellious states. 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, women, and children, followed in the wake of sherman's march. i imagine it must have been sort of like trying to tell people who had been 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 drowned attempted to swim ebenezer creek after the 14th u.s. army corps took up the pontoon bridge stranding the fugitive slaves on the north bank. for his part, sherman saw emancipations a useful not because he compared about the plight of african-americans but because it damaged the confederate war effort. still, the fact remains that 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 as winter approach, but the fear sherman created was as powerful as his acts of destruction. the sight of federal troops marching across the state destroying property and pillaging virtually unopposed had a demoralizing effect on white georgians who supported the confederacy. excuse me. by waging war against the minds of his opponents, sherman's march achieved its creator's dole of hastening an end to the conflict. it's wives of confederate soldiers along the route of the march or feared they lay in the path of sherman's advancing legions begged their husbands to come home and desertions increased dramatically during the fall and winter. this hemorrhaging from lee's earth depleted his already thin ranks and allowed grant to deliver the knockout throw 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 to character it as the birth of modern total war but hard war was not total war. while 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 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 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 warfare in breaking down an enemy's will to resist. this concept would come into full bloom during world war ii when both axis and allied powers, british and americans, deliberately and indiscriminately bombed civilians in order to create terror and win the war by any means at their disposal, including dropping two atomic bombs. it would be seen again during the vietnam war when america cash pet bombed hanoi and other parts of vietnam dropping on a single small country more ordnance than we dropped in the entire pacific theater during world war ii. indeed, america in the 20th

century waged total war to such a frightening extend that one cannot help but wonder if sherman had commanded in world war ii or vietnam, would his detractors be so repelled by him, especially those of us white southerners who had been caught to hit him as a war criminal? if he had served in the same army after all the so-called uniarmy was officially the united states army, look at any order that it issued, if he had served in the same army but a century later and had worn khaki or green rather than blue and if his targets had been germans, japanese, vietnamese rather than confederates, would we still loathe him to the same extent? from sherman's perspective the confederates represented justice much if not more of a threat to the united states than did the nazis or the communists. the doctrine he helped to develop for dealing with his country's domestic enemies anticipated how americans in the 20th century would fight their

country's foreign foes, strike violent aand boldly at your enemy's armed forces, 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. hard war, soft peace. it is no wonder that such distinguished generals as john pershing, george patton, and norman sha wars kof would come to revere and emulate sherman. schwarzkopf even kept on his desk during the first iraq war 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 foe but then offered lenient terms of surrender.

sherman has been demonized for waging war against noncombat ebts but his hard hand of war established a model for how america could and would win the peace in future conflicts. robert o'connell has described sherman's army as, quote, the first truly archetypal american ground force. with some modifications and additions, lieber's code which was put into practice is still used today by the armed forces of the united states and continues to govern how we fight. as word war 2 and vietnam brutally demonstrated, americans have no problem wreaking destruction on their enemies when the existence of the nation is at stake. mcarthur's admonition to congress in 1951 was lifted right out of sherman's playbook. once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. war's very object is a victory, not prolonged indecision.

francis lieber's words written in 1862 to save the country is paramount to all other considerations could have been spoken by general omar bradley or george patton as they smashed their way through another german town. or curtis lame as he ordered the firebombing of japanese cities. history has deemed them heroes because their actions were against their country's foreign foes while sherman has vilified in many areas as a terrorist because his actions, though less severe, were against this country's domestic enemies. rightly or wrongly, sherman did what he deemed militarily necessary within the rules laid down by his government to win the conflict and save his country. rather than an aberration, his hard hand of war fits well within the american military tradition. like the total war tactics of his 20th century successors and the enhanced interrogation techniques employed more

recently, sherman's march to the sea reveals the moral i am b ambiguity of war and the extent to which americans are willing to go when 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 we have time for questions. 3:48. we are back on track. okay. we have just a few minutes. yes, sir. >> one question. why was augusta left out of the consideration -- on taking a path that would have taken him through there or did he know or did the union know about how important the powder mill there was to confederate efforts? >> yes, they did know how important the powder mill was, and it's interesting, many people in augusta today are strangely disappointed that 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 off balance. even though he greatly outnumbered the forces that were opposed to him, arrayed to him, remember hood had gone on to tennessee and sherman had sent enough horses to deal with him under george thomas. he still wanted to throw them off balance. so what he did and he did this repeatedly throughout not only the march to 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. i mean, most of the burning that we think of happens in south carolina. they cross into north carolina, and sherman says, okay, back to your best behavior now, so to speak. best behavior is don't burn down everybody's house. but they limited the destruction. to come back to your question, what sherman did was he fainted towards macon to the rate.

he feinted to the left to augusta and then went right up the middle. vince is sitting out here. he could probably tell me exactly what play that is. feint to the left, feint to the right, and then go right up the middle. [ inaudible ]. >> okay. that's right. so long as herschel got the ball. in this case sherman had the ball and they went right through them. okay. they leave milledgeville. they feint and feint. two directions, they head directly to savannah. when he leaves from savannah and goes into south carolina, he feints towards charleston. he feints back to augusta. they think now he is coming this way and he goes to where? right up the middle to columbia. so he's continually doing this. 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. you know, he had a map that he looked at planning the march exactly where they were going to go. he was able to see, according to the 1860 census, the crops that

were produced in all these counties. how many hogs, how much corn, wheat, et cetera, so he's going to try to go through the bread basket because remember he's living off the land. an idea which he got from grant and the vicksburg campaign. you may know he told grant, don't try it, it won't work and then he it did and sherman went, wow, it worked. and he tested it in the meridian in february of '64 and saw it would work. when it came time to march across georgia, he implemented it on a much grand er scale. you're starting to move into an area in georgia called the pine barrens. food is scarce. you're wearing out shoes, wearing out the uniforms. one of the first things they requested when they got to the coast was shoes. part of it was to keep moving in as much of a straight line as possible. but that would be the best explanation that i could give in terms of why they skipped augusta.

>> march to the sea. >> that's right. march to the sea, not augusta. towards the sea. and there was some question about was he going 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 closet as the british called it. when he came out, the british host said -- did you see general washington, sir? and he said yes, i did. and he said, aren't you offended that 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 the bathroom like seeing a picture of general washington, maybe that's the place where it should go. i tried to clean that up as much as i could. we are on tgs, after all. yes, sir? >> 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 he 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. >> well i think one thing, you need to make sure what i'm saying. it was bad. it was bad. mass murder? no, but it was bad enough as it was. it had, if the confederates were going to get demoralized, and they were demoralized for that to have happened. i think a lot of it has to do

with post-war accounts. sherman was not demonized during the war, if you were to come into georgia and see the way the land looked after the march, it wouldn't look a whole lot different than northern virginia would have looked behind the lines in fredericksburg and that area. after an army passes through, things are going to look pretty bad. so it wouldn't have looked a whole lot different. even after the war, sherman made two visits to atlanta and both times he was greeted as a hero. many atlantaens said for taking the torch to our downtown business area and getting rid of it. now we've been able to rebuild. the phoenix has risen. the symbol of atlanta is the phoenix rising. he was greeted as a hero by many people. it wasn't until the lost cause and the development of that narrative really kicks in in the late 19th century, early 20th century that sherman becomes demonized to the extent that he was. there's a great book, in fact i have my list of books. i figured somebody would ask me about what's good to read. one of them that i would recommend to you is a book by ann sarah reuben, called "through the heart of dixie." it looks at sherman's march and the memory, how it develops on both sides. but another great book is one by caudle and ashdown, called "sherman's march in myth and memory." and they explore this

phenomenon, of what sherman comes to represent. from their argument sherman comes to represent everything that's the antithesis of the cavalier society. the industrial north. it's doing everything to destroy and win on a grand sort of scale. as caudle and ashdown said, grant killed a lot more people than sherman did. but sherman becomes the great villain. they said that sherman, grant defeated an army. but sherman killed a culture. there's something in terms of that as the scale.

sheridan has got the shenandoah valley. you've got all of this from atlanta to saf gnaw and back up to south carolina. south carolina, i think, 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. probably the thing that popularized sherman's march the most was "gone with the wind." both the movie and the book. it presented sherman as the wind that came through that destroyed the culture. it gets back to what caudle and ashdown said, it's sherman that destroys the culture and that