![]() |
On this day in 1865, William Tecumseh Sherman’s troops, having already made Georgia howl, took the city of Charleston, South Carolina. Given that, and also because it’s President’s Day, it might make sense to consider how close the cult of Abraham Lincoln — of which I am a member in good standing — came to never having been founded. And also, how much our collective memory of Lincoln actually owes to the field tactics, good timing, and daring of William Sherman.
I recently published an essay in the Times Literary Supplement, which doesn’t have much of an online presence, unfortunately, or I’d link to my work. Anyway, I reviewed two goods books: Adam Smith’s No Party Now: Politics in the Civil War North and Jennifer Weber’s Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North. After reading those volumes, I was struck anew by how close Lincoln came to being remembered not as the nation’s greatest president — and no, I’m not trying to relitigate the bestest-president-evah dispute — but as the man who didn’t save the Union. The key was the 1864 election. And there’s an argument, albeit too simple and tenuous, to be made that the key to that contest was William Sherman.
In August 1864, Lincoln teetered at the edge of history’s dustbin. The war, which both Northerners and Southerners had believed would be short and glorious, dragged into its third year. The press likened U.S. Grant, Lincoln’s handpicked commanding general, to a butcher because of his bloody tactics in Virginia. Further south, Sherman’s siege of Atlanta made for lousy political theater. And on the home front, urban insurrections and catastrophic inflation deepened war fatigue. So, with the presidential election months away, Henry Raymond, editor of the New York Times and chair of the Republican Party, suggested removing Lincoln from the top of the ticket: “We need a change,” wrote Raymond. Although Lincoln quipped that it was “best not to swap horses when crossing streams,” he agreed that he would not win a second term. The president asked his cabinet to sign a document guaranteeing support for the presumptive incoming administration of his opponent, George McClellan.
Through August of 1864, McClellan, though as lame a candidate as he had been a general, seemed destined for victory. But then Sherman took Atlanta. At nearly the same time, the Democrats built a peace plank into their party platform, making themselves appear disloyal and foolish. Lincoln then pulled off the most presidential of moves: he made his administration synonymous with the nation. In November, he became the first president since Andy Jackson to win a second term, capturing all but 3 states for a 212-12 electoral landslide. Lincoln’s victory helped secure his legacy.
But, the Union’s prospects, though certainly brighter than they would have been under McClellan, rested in Grant’s and Sherman’s hands. Upon hearing the news of Atlanta’s fall, on September 2, 1864, Jeff Davis responded with bravado, offering portents of doom for Sherman and his men. Davis suggested, “the fate that befell the army of the French Empire in its retreat from Moscow will be re-enacted.” Grant apparently scoffed at this misplaced bluster, retorting: “Who is to furnish the snow for this Moscow retreat?” He later authorized Sherman to begin marching to the sea.
Which he did, first cutting a swath through Georgia — in the middle of December he offered Lincoln a “Christmas gift, the city of Savannah.” — and then, in February, turning his attention to South Carolina. If Georgia had been business, South Carolina, the birthplace of nullification and cradle of secession, was personal. “The truth is,” Sherman admitted at the time, “the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina.” By this date in 1865, Sherman’s men had done just that. Their work, though punitive, also served the Union’s war aims, demoralizing the South and buying time for Grant in Virginia.
Grant needed that time, because his army moved forward in fits and starts — when it moved forward at all. Lincoln, though, buoyed by Sherman’s successes and his own massive electoral victory, insisted that Congress pass the 13th Amendment in January and then, in February, categorically rejected the Confederacy’s peace overtures at Hampton Roads. Appomattox was not far off. And Ford’s Theater just a bit beyond that. So, as we remember Lincoln today, it would be just to recall also Charleston and Sherman, the man who helped secure the president’s reelection and the Union.



32 comments
February 18, 2008 at 6:34 pm
urbino
I find I often burn with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina, myself, for various wrongs it has done me. Usually, it passes.
February 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm
ari
You should try indulging yourself; you might feel much better.
February 18, 2008 at 6:57 pm
eric
I feel compelled to note that despite services rendered to the republic (services military and literary) Sherman was a nasty piece of work. I know, I’m a greasy thug.
February 18, 2008 at 7:00 pm
ari
No, I was hoping you’d note that. Really. I almost put in a postscript to that effect.
February 18, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Galvinji
And South Carolina is plotting its revenge. I am perhaps naive, having studied the wrong continent and all, but I was surprised, when I lived in SC, at how people there talk and think about the Civil War (which name they, of course do not use) as if it happened yesterday.
There was much less attention paid to that portion of our nation’s history in Northern Ohio.
February 18, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Levi Stahl
I won’t ever forget the bit from Sherman’s memoirs that Edmund Wilson highlights in Patriotic Gore, when, having discovered mines in the road ahead, he goes ballistic:
The fact that I remain grateful for Sherman’s service despite such episodes is yet another reminder–which we as a nation seem to need far too often–that war is horrible and makes us horrible, and is to be averted whenever possible.
February 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm
David Carlton
Actually, it was *Columbia* that fell to Sherman–he passed on Charleston–and it fell yesterday. Charleston did fall on February 18, but to a different commander. Today is also the anniversary of the *burning* of Columbia.
February 18, 2008 at 8:18 pm
ari
David, weren’t they Sherman’s troops? In other words, wasn’t Schimmelfennig under Sherman? Regardless, I’m quite certain — or as near as I can be — that the surrender of Charleston happened on the 18th in the morning. The evacuation of the city, however, took place on the 17th, which may be what you’re thinking of.
February 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm
matt
Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
February 18, 2008 at 9:36 pm
urbino
You know, a military officer once quoted that at me when I raised some questions about the real Guantanamo. He was dead serious. I was like, “Dude, you do realize that little speech was meant to be taken as bullshit, right?”
As for Sherman, hasn’t he been retro-diagnosed as manic-depressive or some such? I’ve always been kind of surprised he lasted in the military. He seems like the type who would periodically, in a black mood, tell a superior officer to do something anatomically improbable.
You should try indulging yourself; you might feel much better.
I’ll ask my medical team. By and large, they discourage me from the wreaking of vengeance. Gives me the vapors.
February 18, 2008 at 10:40 pm
ari
You should really get a new medical staff.
February 18, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Gene O'Grady
I thought the troops that captured Charleston (after trying to for a couple of years) were from the Department of the South rather than Sherman’s forces per se. The Department of the South covered the parts of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida that were occupied from the water starting in 1862; it’s parent unit for the troops in the movie Glory. I could, however, be wrong about this.
San Franciscans may be interested to know that the general Sherman put in charge of Savannah was the Geary after whom the street is named, who, in addition to his responsibilities in the war, had been mayor of San Francisco and governor of Kansas, and would later be governor of Pennsylvania. Apparently the Kansas job was the one he couldn’t handle, though perhaps nobody could have at that time.
February 18, 2008 at 11:31 pm
ari
Thanks, Gene. I thought they were under Sherman by that point in the war. But I can check tomorrow when I’m near my books.
February 19, 2008 at 3:18 am
Ben Alpers
I’ve always thought that the statue of George Washington in front of the South Carolina statehouse is one of the best symbolic representations of the (neo-)Confederate view of the Civil War. As you’ll see by clicking the link above, the statue, which dates back to the antebellum period, is missing half its walking stick. The plaque informs the visitor that the statue was defaced by Sherman’s troops.
Sitting as it does in the center of a park filled with monuments to the Confederacy and Redemption (including an enormous equestrian statue of Wade Hampton), the Washington statue is a way for South Carolina (and by extension the “Lost Cause” itself) to lay claim to the legacy of 1776, and to suggest that it was Sherman (and by extension the Union) that threatened that legacy.
Like so much else in official Southern public memory, this is bad history, but great political theater.
February 19, 2008 at 7:43 pm
JE
It is right and just to give Sherman credit, but wrong to charge Grant with moving slowly or ineptly. Lee was a much better defensive general than offensive general. The rivers of Virginia gave him excellent lines of defense. Grant’s wing commanders were incompetent political appointments so the flanking strategy originally conceived failed and was abandoned. The Army of the Potomac was a much different, and largely inferior, army than that of 1862-3. Grant did what he could with what he had. Lee knew that he was beaten long before he surrendered but persisted. Who was really the “butcher”?
February 19, 2008 at 7:53 pm
ari
JE, I agree, which is why I said in the post that others called Grant a butcher. Not me, in other words. And I also agree that Grant deserves little blame for moving slowly. He faced an entrenched enemy, a foe, as you say, well-versed in defensive tactics. All of that said, he moved slowly. That’s not me laying blame, so much as stating the facts. And Grant’s slow progress cost Lincoln politically, while Sherman’s spectacular success helped.
February 19, 2008 at 8:01 pm
urbino
Speed was never Grant’s big selling point, was it? What Lincoln liked about him was his tenacity — that, unlike his predecessors, when given an army, he’d use it. Or am I wrong?
February 19, 2008 at 8:04 pm
ari
You are right. Grant always — well, not always, but most of the time — went one direction: forward. And Lincoln liked that, even if the bodies piled up.
February 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm
urbino
There are exactly 2 CW battles I know anything at all (read: almost nothing) about: Gettysburg and Vicksburg. It took Grant forever to get to and take Vicksburg, but the whole time, he was trying one strategy or another to get the job done.
As for Sherman, I heard he was so mean, he once shot a man just for snoring.
February 19, 2008 at 8:14 pm
ari
Meaner even than that.
February 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm
urbino
He’s a baaaaaaaad man!
February 19, 2008 at 8:17 pm
ari
They’re not overly fond of him in Georgia and South Carolina, I’m told.
February 19, 2008 at 8:20 pm
urbino
I’ll be darned.
What became of Sherman after the war, anyway?
February 19, 2008 at 8:39 pm
charlieford
I deeply dislike South Carolina, all that it stands for, and all it contains.
February 19, 2008 at 8:41 pm
teofilo
He commanded the army for another twenty years or so.
February 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm
urbino
I wonder why I find that so surprising.
February 19, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Hemlock
Many historians describe Grant as a butcher and then conclude (insert fallacy here) that his strategical skills paled in comparison to Lee. I believe that Grant intended to hole up Lee in Petersburg and have Sherman tear up the South in the meantime. That is, Grant diverts Lee while Sherman destroys the Confederacy. If anyone finds evidence of this strategy (and concomitant evidence that the “Grand Strategy” was apocryphal), let me know…don’t tell anyone else, though.*
Someone should do an environmental history of Sherman’s March to the Sea. For example, examine soldiers’ accounts as well as personal records of townspeople to determine changes in the landscape as well as shifts in private/public spaces wrought by the March. That’d be really awesome.
*Disclaimer: I’m not a big advocate of war in general. But hey, it’s there, so historians need to analyze it.
February 19, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Hemlock
I know that the order came down during the Siege…but I have a sneaking suspicion that Grant planned it all along. BTW, all those Civil War generals are pyschos. Grant and Lee? Dude, Stonewall was like King of the Civil War Psychos.
February 19, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Hemlock
sorry, i mean psychos, like Hannibal the Cannibal psychos.
February 20, 2008 at 12:16 am
Hemlock
The racial landscapes of Indians deserves more attention in general, but the most promising analyses come in the form of political culture studies (see Richard White’s comments at the AHA-PCB Conference)…but if someonwe used the Civil War as a prism to analyze the political culture of the southern Indian “Nations” ….well, that would encompass the black-Indian color line, slavery, cultural categories of analysis, and slavery.
February 20, 2008 at 5:17 am
silbey
Lee was a much better defensive general than offensive general. The rivers of Virginia gave him excellent lines of defense. Grant’s wing commanders were incompetent political appointments so the flanking strategy originally conceived failed and was abandoned. The Army of the Potomac was a much different, and largely inferior, army than that of 1862-3. Grant did what he could with what he had. Lee knew that he was beaten long before he surrendered but persisted. Who was really the “butcher”?
Hoo boy. I agree with your overall point, but not with the specifics. It’s not so much that Lee was a better defensive general than offensive one (in fact, he was a spectacularly good offensive *and* defensive general), it’s that the era favored the tactical defensive over offensive.
Grant’s subcommanders were certainly a mix, but there were a large number of highly competent and experienced folks under his command. The Army itself was actually much better in 1864-5 than previously: it was more experienced, better equipped, and organized, and had lost that sense that the Confederates were always going to win.
The question one has to ask about Grant’s strategy is: what do you do when you’re opposing an army commanded by the closest America has ever had to Napoleon Bonaparte? Other generals had tried to maneuver against Robert E. Lee and they had suffered heavy casualties and lost. Before Grant, only one Union general had won a major battle against Lee: Meade at Gettysburg. That one was notable for (among other things) the fact that Meade hadn’t tried to maneuver with Lee, but had let the Confederates spend themselves in attacks against the Union line.
Grant didn’t have the luxury of enticing Lee northward to attack him. Lincoln (rightly) wanted an invasion of the South. So what do you do? You don’t want to get into a campaign of maneuver against Lee because he’s going to eat your lunch. What’s left is a slugging match. That plays to your advantage in men and supplies, and neutralizes his abilities.
Lee, of course, doesn’t want to do this. So you have to pick a target that he *has* to defend. The Petersburg-Richmond area is it: Richmond makes it a political target, and the Petersburg rail axis makes it an economic/strategic target. There’s the strategy: move south, aiming for Richmond/Petersburg and when Lee interposes his army, hammer them and keep hammering them. That’s what Grant did and that (in conjunction with Sherman) is what won the war.
(By the way, those who want to argue that Grant didn’t know any better have to deal with the Vicksburg campaign, where Grant pulled off one of the most daring maneuvers of the war to get behind the Confederate army and force the fortress’ surrender)
Grant was a terrible businessman and a worse President, but he may be the best general in American history.
January 26, 2009 at 11:44 am
lee armistead
ATTENTION: I am writing a book on the tuth about the Confederacy and this site helped me out a bit