`Flame and Blame` uncovers Sherman's strategy of war on civilians

WIS TV ^ | Dec 05, 2014 | Renee Standera

[aomagrat]

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS-TV) -

At this time in December 150 years ago, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman and his army were advancing on Savannah, leaving a wake of destruction behind. But the true wrath of Sherman's army was being reserved for South Carolina.

"He wanted to cripple the Confederacy," said retired University of South Carolina journalism professor Patricia McNeely. Since the campus survived the burning of Columbia, the Horseshoe was an appropriate place for our interview.

"He wanted them to give up fighting. He wanted them to lose faith in their leadership in the Confederacy. But most people have overlooked this. Because, when, when Columbia was burned, he blamed it on General Wade Hampton and the Confederates leaving cotton burning in the streets."

McNeely's book, Sherman's Flame and Blame Campaign explains a strategy that she says previous historians overlooked.

"This is a flame and blame campaign that I have found," McNeely said. "Sherman was providing all this disinformation early and during the Civil War and did not admit until 1875 in his memoirs that he had blamed the Confederates, namely General Hampton. For these reasons, everybody believed what he had said, the disinformation that he had spread, the propaganda that he'd deliberately used so nobody actually went through and saw the pattern of the burning and blaming."

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree that the USAF policy of daytime military site-targeted bombing, which expresses the traditional American ethic of war, was not upheld for the duration of the conflict. By the end of the war the USAF and the RAF were both doing carpet-bombing.

Guernica in the Spanish Civil War, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Sherman's scorched-earth policy: although different in scope and in total impact, they had an intention in common: to target civilians areas deliberately, in order to shock the enemy into surrender. In this aspect --- the targeting of civilian areas as a means to an end --- these were not acts of legitimate warfare, soldier-against-miltary-targets, or soldier against soldier, but rather, war crimes.

[DoodleDawg]

The Supreme Court said Lincoln couldn’t do it.

The Supreme Court did not. Only Chief Justice Taney issuing his ruling from the Circuit Court bench said Lincoln could not. The entire court never took the matter up.

[PeaRidge]

“Where did it state that forts are to protect the states”?

Search the Congressional Record for the legislation passed on March 24. 1794. It became known as the “First Coastal Defense System."

Congress passed this act and a subsequent second act in 1807,with the same stipulations, to provide for the defense of certain ports and harbors of United States. The sites of forts, arsenals, navy yards were to be managed by the federal government. State lands were ceded or assigned by the States within whose limits they were, and subject to the condition, either expressed or implied, that they should be used solely and exclusively for the purpose for which they were granted.

It was agreed that ultimate ownership of the soil, or eminent domain, remained with the people of the State in which it lay, by virtue of their sovereignty. This was specified in state documents allocating a property ceed. "or that the Feds cannot take territory"? If you are serious about that question, it appears it is time for you to read the Constitution. " the official date for the start of the war was Ft. Sumter" Please cite your official that makes that statement.

[PeaRidge]

“The Harriet Lane was besieged by Confederate forces.”

When and how? Looking at your last paragraph, I think you are contradicting your self,

[PeaRidge]

“How could the federal government tell state governments how they should use their land for anything, much less defense? “

You misread my comment.

The blockade began when the Harriet Lane's cannon fire turned shipping away from Charleston docks on the evening of the 11th.

[rustbucket]

The Supreme Court did not. Only Chief Justice Taney issuing his ruling from the Circuit Court bench said Lincoln could not. The entire court never took the matter up.

You are correct that the entire Supreme Court did not hear this case, but I think you are wrong that Chief Justice Taney issued the ruling from the Circuit Court. One of the lawyers who used to post on FreeRepublic noted that it was issued as an in-chambers ruling, not a district court ruling. Our lawyer friend said the following in a post:

"The famous opinion in Ex Parte Merryman, the one delivered to President Lincoln, issued from the Supreme Court. In was an in-chambers opinion of Chief Justice Taney acting in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. ,,, Technically, he did not issue it in his capacity as a judge "on circuit" but rather as an "in chambers" opinion of the chief justice."

Whichever way it was, a district court order or an order issued as chief justice, it was a valid court order that Lincoln ignored. If Lincoln wanted it overturned, he could have appealed to one court or the other. He didn't. I suspect he knew he would lose.

At the time this was being discussed on FreeRepublic years ago, another lawyer poster who is now dead, I believe, sent me the following by Freepmail"

In HIS decision, Taney writes:

"Before THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT of the United States, at Chambers."

"The application in this case for a writ of habeas corpus is made to ME..."

"I resolved to hear it in the latter city..."

"...a habeas corpus is served on the commanding officer, requiring him to produce the prisoner before A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT..."

"As the case comes before ME ..."

"I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with MY opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland..." "CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT of the United States..."

District Court Judge Giles had already had a habeas corpus writ turned down by Lincoln's military, Perhaps Giles suggested to Merryman's counsel to go discus the case with Taney. Anyway, Taney showed up in the District Court.

My first lawyer friend then posted the following and gave a reference:

"As he took his place he announced that he acted alone rather than with Judge Giles because of the fact that he was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States. One reason for the distinction, undoubtedly, was the belief that it would lend added weight to the decision."

"-- Carl Brent Swisher, Roger B. Taney, The MacMillan Company, published October 1935, reprint June 1936, pp. 551."

In another old newspaper covering the case, I later found mention of Taney saying in court during the proceedings that Judge Giles had no say in the case or something to that effect.

[DoodleDawg]

In was an in-chambers opinion of Chief Justice Taney acting in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. ,,, Technically, he did not issue it in his capacity as a judge "on circuit" but rather as an "in chambers" opinion of the chief justice.

But in the ruling itself, Chief Justice Taney writes, "In such a case my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him. I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the President of the United States."

If he was speaking for the Supreme Court then why did he file it in the circuit court?

If Lincoln wanted it overturned, he could have appealed to one court or the other. He didn't. I suspect he knew he would lose.

Appeal to where? The only place to go after the circuit court was the Supreme Court itself and it currently was not in session, and wouldn't be in session until the fall. Lincoln was in the middle of an insurrection. Perhaps Lincoln should have abided by Taney's circuit court decision. Perhaps he should have taken the case to the Supreme Court in the fall, where I suspect you're right and the whole court would have ruled against him. But by that time Congress had already acted and Lincoln was preoccupied by the war. So we can argue whether Lincoln was right or wrong until the cows come home. But the underlying claim, that the Supreme Court said Lincoln couldn't do it, is still wrong.

[rustbucket]

If he was speaking for the Supreme Court then why did he file it in the circuit court?

He also forwarded it to President Lincoln, which was not the act of a Circuit Court Judge. He was acting under his powers as a Justice of the Supreme Court referring a valid order of a Supreme Court Justice to the Executive Branch of government. It was now up to the Executing Branch to follow the order or appeal it to the entire Supreme Court. Lincoln punted and ignored it. It was during this time that, according to Lincoln's associate Ward Lamon, that Lincoln had had an arrest warrant for Taney prepared that in the end was never executed.

Taney may have filed in the District Court because that court was open, and he could get it into the public record more quickly that way. Time was of an essence.

Taney had gone to Baltimore to issue the writ so that General Cadwalader in Baltimore could not use the excuse that he couldn’t leave Baltimore to go to Washington to appear before Taney because his military duties kept him in Baltimore.

I remember the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout (1807). The first sentence in the Syllabus is, "This Court has power to issue the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum." The opinion of the Supreme Court in this case (which, as an aside, was issued by my blood cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall) cited US law as follows:

"That all the before mentioned courts of the United States shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court as well as judges of the district courts shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. Provided that writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol unless where they are in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or are committed for trial before some court of the same or are necessary to be brought into court to testify. "

As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Taney had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus. As the writ says, he issued it as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and response to the writ was answerable to Taney acting as Chief Justice, not Taney acting as a Circuit Court Judge.

The military had previously refused a writ issued by District Court Judge Giles in a May 4, 1861 habeas corpus case. They had thus already rendered the District Court impotent. In that circumstance, Taney was right to elevate it to the Supreme Court level.

Merryman’s lawyers applied to Taney for the writ. As I said above, Taney had it in his power to issue the writ as a Justice of the Supreme Court, which is what he did. I did find my old newspaper account of what Taney said to the court. From the Baltimore Sun in its May 29, 1861, issue:

“Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case.”

If the writ had been issued by Taney acting as a Circuit Court judge, then Judge Giles could have acted with him.

I am reminded too of Taney citing Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout (1807):

If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this Court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws.

In that opinion, Chief Justice Marshall was agreeing with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (authors of the Federalist Papers whom I cited above) in what the Constitution meant with respect to habeas corpus, i.e., “…that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

It is refreshing these days, is it not, to hear of a Justice of the Supreme Court following the Constitution.

Unlike Confederate President Jefferson Davis who convened his Congress less than three weeks after Fort Sumter. Lincoln could have done the same given the momentous events that had occurred. However, Lincoln did not convene his Congress until months after Fort Sumter. During that time before the July date that he had specified for Congress to reconvene, Lincoln violated the Constitution on several occasions, usurping the powers of both Congress and the Courts without Congress in session to object.

If Lincoln did have the power to suspend the writ, why did Congress in 1863 finally pass a law that authorized him to suspend it from that point on? If Lincoln legitimately had the power to suspend the writ on his own without Congress acting, then Congress’s 1863 action was unneeded and superfluous.

[rockrr]

If Lincoln did have the power to suspend the writ, why did Congress in 1863 finally pass a law that authorized him to suspend it from that point on?

Belts and suspenders. You may call it superfluous but in view of the partisan stink taney started I see it as prudent.

[rustbucket]

You may call it superfluous but in view of the partisan stink taney started I see it as prudent.

"Partisan stink?" LOL. I've never heard adhering to the Constitution and the rule of law called that before. Come on, rockrr.

Lincoln could have quickly convened his Congress like Jefferson Davis did. They could have given him the authority to suspend habeas corpus (or not, if the case didn't justify it). But, Lincoln chose not to do that and essentially ruled without checks and balances while he kept Congress out of session.

BTW, Lincoln's minions also put another judge under house arrest to prevent him from going to court and ruling against the administration on another habeas corpus case. Which side was being "partisan?"

[rockrr]

taney was more of an ideological partisan than he was a judge. Think Ruth Bader Ginsburg. His foremost objective was opposing Lincoln and the Republicans. He merely used the cover of law to carry out his agenda.

[rustbucket]

taney was more of an ideological partisan than he was a judge. Think Ruth Bader Ginsburg. His foremost objective was opposing Lincoln and the Republicans. He merely used the cover of law to carry out his agenda.

Does support for the Constitution make one an ideological partisan? Not necessarily. I would have opposed Lincoln for violating the Constitution, but I would have done it because I'm more of an originalist than a living Constitution guy. Perhaps Taney is an originalist also in that he quotes Marshall and Story who are closer to the period when the Constitution was written (and Marshall was a member of the Virginia ratification convention). Perhaps anyone who takes a stand one way or the other can be labeled an ideological partisan. Are you an ideological partisan, rockrr?

I'm more like Antonin Scalia with his originalist arguments than like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is a partisan. That's the ticket. Me and Scalia. Peas in a pod. Cough, cough. I'm not qualified to shine his shoes.

Actually, I don't like Taney's historical arguments supporting his position in Dred Scott, but parts of Taney's Ex parte Merryman give me goose bumps -- it is a brilliant piece of writing. From Ex parte Merryman:

Yet, under these circumstances, a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the district attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the district of Maryland; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if indeed he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without a hearing, even before himself, to close custody, in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.

The constitution provides, as I have before said, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." It declares that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.

These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.[3]

In such a case, my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him; I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the president of the United States. It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfilment of his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced.

Hmmm. I hadn’t noticed it before, but the last paragraph indicates why he filed HIS opinion (which was written as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) at the Circuit Court. He does provide an explanation, such as it is, for filing his opinion there. His explanation does not say his opinion is a Circuit Court opinion, just that it was filed there in Baltimore to help General Cadwalader in Baltimore understand the ramifications of what he (Cadwalader) had done.

[rockrr]

Does support for the Constitution make one an ideological partisan?

No, but being an ideological partisan can certainly lead to being an ideological partisan. And taney used the constitution to further his ambitions not out of any sense of altruism.

[StoneWall Brigade]

I hope someday you write a book on the war between the states with your wealth of knowledge and resources I bet it would top shelby foote or the author of Real Lincoln.

[rustbucket]

I hope someday you write a book on the war between the states with your wealth of knowledge and resources I bet it would top shelby foote or the author of Real Lincoln.

Interesting idea that has crossed my mind too. Thank you.

[stremba]

Unless it was an “Animal House” reference :)

[stremba]

You make a valid point. Just war theory involves two logically separate components, jus in bello and jus ad bellum. The first governs conduct of soldiers during wartime, and the second governs acceptable reasons for engaging in warfare. They are logically independent in the sense that a soldier fighting in a war that was illegitimate in its conception still can fight in a manner that is honorable and legitimate. That soldier is still entitled to the protections of the laws of war (such as those codified in the Geneva Conventions, for instance).

Conversely, a soldier fighting for a country that was legitimately justified in going to war can commit war crimes. The question of whether Sherman committed war crimes, then, is completely independent of any justification for fighting the war. The laws of war are indeed fairly clear - it is impermissible to intentionally target civilians. Sherman’s army clearly did target civilians intentionally. The only question for Sherman’s personal responsibility is whether he specifically ordered such targeting. It certainly seems to me that he did not specifically order civilians to be targeted, but that he must nonetheless be held responsible for the actions of his men. He failed to do enough to maintain discipline to prevent widespread targeting of civilians and he should have realized that his plan for the “March to the Sea” had great probability of resulting in civilian casualties.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "Throughout the war the Union had few if any armament advantage qualitatively."

There were at least three repeating rifle/carbines which could have made a huge difference, and did on at least one occasion -- the Battle of Franklin.
They were

1. Sharps (10 rounds per minute, max),
2. Spencers (20 rpm) and
3. Henrys (28 rpm).

None were built in large quantities, all expensive (at least 3X std muzzle loaders) & had to be purchased, typically with a Union soldier's reenlistment bounty, and all took special ammunition.

Union cavalry often carried them, one reason they usually defeated Confederate cavalry.
But JEB Stuart was not killed at Yellow Tavern by a 5th Michigan Cavalry Spencer carbine, but rather by a 44 cal revolver.

Henry's were also used by some Confederate cavalry, in Texas & Louisiana, and also by personal bodyguards of Jefferson Davis.

So it strikes me as very, very odd that more leaders of the time never figured out that increased soldiers' fire-power could mean increased probabilities for victory.

[Sherman Logan]

Had the Union jumped on the Gatling gun as soon as it became available, the war might have been a lot shorter. Pickett’s Charge, for example, would not have come anywhere near success. With such weapons in Union hands, it would probably not have been launched.

The reluctance of officers to bring in new weapons is not at all difficult to understand. Such weapons were very often unreliable and all required massively greater supplies of ammo, which was a challenge.

Integrating new weapons systems into tactics was also challenging and many officers, not unreasonably, felt that the battlefield was no place for experimentation.

Union cavalry often defeated Confederates, towards the end of the war. The situation was quite the reverse in early years.

[rustbucket]

The only question for Sherman’s personal responsibility is whether he specifically ordered such targeting. It certainly seems to me that he did not specifically order civilians to be targeted, but that he must nonetheless be held responsible for the actions of his men. He failed to do enough to maintain discipline to prevent widespread targeting of civilians ...

There is also another question -- could Sherman have stopped his troops from burning houses? In the case of the wholesale burning of Columbia, South Carolina, he did not stop his troops. Here is his testimony before an 1873 commission:

Q. -- You testified, a little while ago, that it was very likely they [Sherman's own men] might burn Columbia, and you permitted them, or your officers did -- permitted them to go about the town?

A. -- I could have had them stay in the ranks, but I would not have done it, under the circumstances, to save Columbia.

Q. -- Although you knew they were likely to burn Columbia, you would not restrain them to their ranks, even to save it?

A. -- No, Sir. I would not have done such harshness to my soldiers to save the whole town. They were men, and I was not going to treat them like slaves. ...