This month is the 150th anniversary of Sherman’s infamous March across Georgia to the Sea. After years of war, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman had the opportunity to strike through the heart of Confederacy. His goal was to undermine the Confederate war effort by breaking the civilians’ will to fight. As he wrote after the march to Henry Halleck, the Union’s Chief of Staff:

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience.1

Today many, especially in the south, remember Sherman as a cruel man who burnt the homes and crops of Georgians, forcing them into poverty and starvation. Debates continue to rage today whether he should be considered a war criminal, or simply as a general who knew now to end the war. In this article, we will consider the legend that has grown up around Sherman’s march, and how we can separate the myth from fact.

Sherman’s men twisting railroad ties

How Bad Was it?

First, what did the Union troops actually do? How bad was it? Before the march began, Sherman issued Special Orders No. 120. In it he gave strict instructions for how his men were to conduct themselves on the march. They were allowed to “forage liberally” from the countryside, and were given nearly free reign to take or destroy food, horses and livestock. However, they were not to enter homes or burn any buildings without express orders from the corps commanders.2 These orders were often violated with impunity, and the Federal generals did little, if anything, to stop it. The problems began even before the army even left Atlanta. Sherman had ordered that military targets, such as the railroad depot, be destroyed. But the men disregarded regarded these orders, and about half the town was burnt. “Can’t save it,” Sherman commented to a staff officer, “Set as many guards as you please, [the men] will slip it and set fire.”3

The Federal troops, Bummers as they were called, routinely violated orders along the march and burnt many houses along the way. However, they did not destroy everything in their path in a scorched earth policy as many believe today. In the 1930s a survey found that many, if not most, houses were left standing in the wake of the Yankee march.4

Foragers plundering a southern farm
Foragers plundering a southern farm

This does not mean there was no suffering for the civilians involved. Sherman and his men were determined to make the southern people feel the cost of the war, to “make Georgia howl,” and they were successful. One woman’s experience was typical:

Happening to turn and look behind, as we stood there, I saw some blue-coats coming down the hill. … I hastened back to my frightened servants and told them that they had better hide, and then went back to the gate to claim protection and a guard. But like demons they rush in! My yards are full. …

To my smoke-house, my dairy, pantry, kitchen, and cellar, like famished wolves they come, breaking locks and whatever is in their way. The thousand pounds of meat in my smoke-house is gone in a twinkling, my flour, my meat, my lard, butter, eggs, pickles of various kinds – both in vinegar and brine – wine, jars, and jugs are all gone. My eighteen fat turkeys, my hens, chickens, and fowls, my young pigs, are shot down in my yard and hunted as if they were rebels themselves. Utterly powerless I ran out and appealed to the guard.

‘I cannot help you, Madam; it is orders.’ …

As night drew its sable curtains around us, the heavens from every point were lit up with flames from burning buildings. … My Heavenly Father alone saved me from the destructive fire.5


Sherman's "Bummers"
Sherman’s “Bummers”in South Carolina

Was it Unusual?

How unusual was the March through Georgia, versus any other Civil War era army marching past? No Civil War era civilian would have wanted an army to march through his property, even if he sympathized with their side. He could still expect to have animals go missing and his fences be turned down and used for firewood. Some commanders, such as Robert E. Lee, tried to stop this. When invading Pennsylvania he reminded his troops they made, “war only upon armed men,” and exhorted them to “abstain with most scrupulous care from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property.”6 Other armies used harsher tactics were also used. Chambersburg, Pennsylvania was burned by Confederates after the townspeople failed to pay a $500,000 ransom.

What distinguished Sherman from most other armies was the intentionality of his destruction. His actual orders were not far from the ordinary, but in his correspondence made his intentions clear. Although other armies wrought similar kinds of destruction, Sherman was different. He launched a campaign for the sole purpose of making war on civilians and turning them against the war. Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.


Was He a War Criminal?

Some today argue that Sherman was a war criminal. He was, of course, never prosecuted for his crimes – victors rarely are. In 1863 Lincoln had signed what is called the Lieber Code – the laws of war for the United States armies in the field. This order required that private property be respected, and if military necessity required it to be seized, that the owners be given receipts so they could be indemnified.7 Sherman may have technically been in a gray area. But he said he intended to bring “the sad realities of war home to those who have been … instrumental in involving us in its attendant calamities.”8 He clearly was in violation of the spirit of the Lieber Code, the intention of which was to preserve private property whenever possible, not destroy it. If Sherman did the same thing today he could be considered a war criminal. The 1977 Geneva Conventions, which the United States has not ratified, prohibits targeting civilian food, livestock or water.9

Francis Lieber, author of the Lieber Code

What about Other Wars?

It would be easy to condemn Sherman’s actions against the southern people, but it is important to remember how they fit into the future actions of the US Military. The March to the Sea is considered to be one of the first instances of modern warfare, where a scorched earth policy is used and the enemy civilians are a valid and legal military target. Sherman’s actions were child’s play compared to the United State’s policy during World War II, where the enemy countryside was freely bombed. The attacks on Germany and Japan were not, like Sherman’s, on only the supplies and infrastructure of the country. The attacks, culminating in the atomic bombings were intended to kill as many noncombatants as possible. It is ridiculous to even think of comparing Sherman’s march, where the civilians had a few years of hardship while recovering from the destruction, to the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki, where hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were killed. Rejecting what Sherman did requires the rethinking most of the United State’s wars in the 20th century.

Charred bodies of Japanese civilians killed in the firebombing of Tokyo during World War II


1. Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, series I, vol. XLIV, part 1, p. 798.
2Memoirs of General William T. Sherman, by William T. Sherman (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1875), p. 174-176.
3. Marching with Sherman by Henry Hitchcock (University of Nebraska Press, 1995) p. 53.
4Rethinking Sherman’s March by W. Todd Groce, (New York Times)
5A Woman’s Wartime Journal by Dolly Sumner Lunt (New York: The Century Co., 1918) p. 21-23, 30-31.
6Official Records, vol. XXVII, part 3, p. 943.
7Instruction for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field by Francis Lieber section, 2, paragraph 38.
8. Official Records, vol. XLIV, p. 13.
9Geneva Conventions, Protocol I, Article 54.


  1. As an ancestor of a Yankee soldier, I agree that Sherman was a war criminal. We can try to rationalize his behavior and actions, but in the end we can only judge what happened. He did not follow the law of the time and he sought out to hurt women and children. You cannot compare actions of WWII with his actions as you are comparing apples to oranges. Different time, different means, an existing law, and not American against American. Shame on Lincoln for supporting him.

    1. Shame on you. Sherman was NO hero. For example, his troops burned down mills near Roswell, GA. The young, naive and illiterate women who worked at the mills were sent 12 miles away to Marietta, GA. There the 400 young women were put on railcars and sent to Kentucky and Indiana. Then, they were abandoned. Many were unable to find jobs, return home and some had to give up their children as they could not care for them. READ the book “The women will Howl” (Mary Deborah Petite) which documents this kidnapping. The comment “The women will Howl” was a cruel and insensitive remark made by Sherman. His troops also burned down hundreds of homes, churches, businesses, schools, and stole silver, jewelry and anything of value. They destroyed crops and stole livestock. They threw dead animals into wells, so as to cause death or illness to others who drank the water. I’m sure Sherman is playing scrabble with Lucifer.

  2. Sherman was a War Criminal and should have been hung. My grandmother told me stories, passed down by her mother, about having to eat rats, boiled roots, acorns and hickory nuts. She said not a squirrel or anything remained after Sherman’s men came thru. There were also stragglers that came thru, raping and robbing, afterward that were even more dangerous than the main army. Take a ride thru Georgia some day and try to find an old plantation house,, there’s a few, but most were burned.
    I do believe, when Lee was in the north, he gave strict orders not to harm anything that was not a military target
    The winners write the history books.

  3. Sherman came through parts of Bryan County…farms were only the women, children and elderly stayed. Their homes and any form of shelter burned, all food destroyed or taken and anything of any value for that matter. Sherman even sent scouts out to throw the killed livestock down every water well. Old timers still speak of haunted roads were weaker people by the thousands fled and died upon in search of food and shelter. Criminal to say the least.

  4. War as grant said is hell, but sherman went above and beyond to make it worse than hell. Today sherman would be tryed for war crimes and rightfully so.

  5. Sherman fought the war the way it needed to be fought.By making war so terrible it would help Southerners think twice before turning to it again as a tool of political expediency. The story of one southern woman’s experience in Georgia that was said to be typical, in losing all her fated turkeys, pigs, chickens and thousand pounds of meat in her smoke-house showed her and fellow southern citizens just how horrible war actually is.

  6. We condem him for his actions, but he helped bring a quicker end to a war that the Confederacy started. The only rule in war is winning. Putting rules on it is like trying to put in a new ten commandements. People do what the have to do to win. And if it is demoralizing the civilian population so bed. Notice please that I said demoralize and not murder. But the USA has done eay worse since then.

    1. The only rule in war is winning?
      You, sir, are a cad, as well as a coward.
      War by Sherman, if Really studied, was an outright war on civilians, whom most had no part in the war. They had no slaves. The government of the US would have you believe that Lincoln was freeing the slaves. Poppycock.
      The US government sold us up the river to communist China, where most products are made by forced adult and CHILD labor.
      Do your homework before opening your piehole.

      1. really now, I’m in China but I see 0 child labor and paid labor, you idiot. know your facts before you type online, and truly open your eyes as well, they are deceived by biased news, which, all news is biased, you cannot trust anyone but yourself. so next time, don’t rely on your pathetic daily news to your sources, **** use your own brain.

  7. If you’re going to view the Civil War through a modern era lens and classify Sherman as a war criminal for waging war in a manner that made the South “feel the cost of war” in order to hasten the South’s surrender, you might as well classify President Truman as a war criminal, as well, because hastening WWII’s Pacific theater war’s end and saving American lives were a couple of major motivations for his decision to drop the bomb. Just saying.

    1. It has been argued that Truman did not use not one, but two, atomic bombs against the Japanese to save American/Allied troops’ lives, but to show the Soviet Union what the United States had in its arsenal.

  8. As a southern born American,taught in southern schools. Sherman has been recused a criminal in all southern teachings. Upon my own research, Sherman was ahead of his time by causing the Concederacy to want an end to war. But on the same hand he did nothing to control his men in the field from destroying targets without due orders from ranking officers. Or those officers freely and knowingly disobeying Sherman’s own directive. Turning a blind eye made him a war criminal in his own time.Truman had his own demons and should be judged by rules at that time. We should forget about justifying causes by today’s standards. Hindsight is NOT 20/20, it is written by the victor.

    1. Britain’s “Bomber” Harris and US General Curtis LeMay…and Truman…war criminals? Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. War criminals.

      As we have read so many times, history is written by the victor.

  9. If you’re going to contemplate whether Sherman is guilty of war crimes, it should also be pointed out that he – as Commanding General of the Army – used those same methods against Plains Indians in the years following the Civil War.

    Buffalo were slaughtered wholesale in order to force starving Indians onto reservations, the government violated countless treaties when mines, railroads, or settlers desired the land, and Native Americans were coerced into abandoning their language, religion, and semi-nomadic ways – all at the point of a gun.

    Despite being a southerner, I have very little sympathy for the Confederacy and I think that using such tactics against the indigenous inhabitants of this land was a far worse crime than anything Sherman did during the Civil War.

  10. Many of these posts reflect a great ignorance of history and a moral inconsistency in life. Most Americans would probably agree that “victory at all costs” is a legitimate philosophy in combat. As a former colonel and combat veteran, I can assure you that this is not how the American military fights wars. We protect civilians, despite the added risk. This philosophy is not new, but has always been part of Judeo-Christian armies from the earliest days of Western Civilization. The application of these principles depends on leadership, as Lincoln aptly demonstrated. The most destructive, brutal, and vicious generals were the ones Lincoln most quickly promoted, time and time again. (These facts are easy to research yourself.) Sherman was no exception. The plain fact is that the destruction of the South cannot be wrapped in “punishment” language, “quickly finish the war” language, or “teach a lesson” language. The Ends never justify the Means in combat, politics, or life. Any person or army that takes the war to civilians is immoral, shameful, and deserving of judicial trial and punishment for war crimes. In short, there is no moral justification for warfare against civilians… Period.

  11. To save time and space let me say that I basically agree with Rich. Comparison with the intense retaliatory bombing raids of WWII is senseless and unfair to the allied commanders. As for the Civil War, most posters seem to believe historical myths rather than historical fact. The real war criminal here was Abraham Lincoln who started an illegal and immoral war, pursued it in spite of the terrible human cost…and did indeed always support the most ruthless, brutal and destructive generals as well as abuse the U.S. Constitution at every turn. In 1864 you could have asked presidential candidate George McClellan! For Rich, though: are you aware that the incredibly criminal war against Yugoslavia waged in 1999 by “Bomber Bill” Clinton and NATO also attacked principally civilian targets? U.S. forces violated, at least for this writer, every respectable norm of human conduct. One last point. During the Civil War the distinction between civilian and soldier were clear. Today our military faces “civilians” armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and explosives, “civilians” who cut the throats of their neighbours for differences in religious beliefs. To judge conduct one must be aware of all the facts of the particular conflict under study…and not compare apples and oranges as Lisa correctly states.

      1. The NATO bombing of Serbia was certainly a war crime, and involved the USA bombing Serbia, a traditional ally of the USA. The only reason for the bombing was retribution for Srebernica.

  12. What Sherman did, is nothing if we compare it with what the Habsburgs did in the middle of the 19th century during the 1848-49 revolutions against the Hungarians.
    They “hired” Romanian and Serbian irregulary troops, which pilleaged, murdered in the most barbaric way tens of thousands of civilians, regardless to their gender, starting with the babies and finishing with the elderly people.
    For example when the Serian troops entered in the city of Zenta, they killed 3000 people, cut their heads, and put them in the center of the town in piramids.
    The Romanians did even more horrible things then this, because they killed people in very barbarical and sadistic ways, trying to make the sufferance of the people they had killed to be as long as possible, causing also inimaginable horror in those who survived.
    – killed men, and put the women from the house to cook their fleash and eat from them.
    – bind people on stakes, and cut their limbs, genitalias, breasts one by one, untill they died.
    – put people infront of plows, and ploughed the earth until they died
    – they threw the sister of the great Hungarian writer Imre Madách, and her 13 years old son, infront of faminguished pigs, which eat them alive.
    – they burned tens of cities and villages to the ground (Nagyenyed, Marosújvár, Abrudbánya, Zalatna, Négyfalú, Magyarigen, etc.), massacring the Hungarian population from them.
    All these cruelties were made with the knowledge of the Austrians generals and state, who ordered these massacres in order to put terror in the hearths of the Hungarians, to convince them to stop the resistance against the Habsburg empire. And this was not one mans policy but the empires state policy.
    Similar cruelties were made with the order of the Habsburgs in Transylvania in 1783-84 by the Romanians against the Hungarians, or in 1846 by the Ukrainian peasants against the Polish revolutionaries in Galicia.

  13. I have no sympathy for the rebel households that Sherman looted, burned, or pillaged. The civilian population supported the cause of the traitors.

    And the notion that “modern warfare” invented the damage to civilians is simply the stupidest and most ignorant thing that I have read re the Civil War. Since time immemorial, war has been visited upon the civilian population. A sack of a town during the pre-modern era would result in the deaths of all the men, the rape of all women between the ages of 10 and 70, and the enslavement of able-bodied adults. Children would be killed.

    In every age, in every war, in every country, civilians were involved, killed, and raped. The modern war notion of “civilized” warfare is new since 1945. It’s mostly not observed, and USA troops are just as likely to commit atrocities as those of other countries.

Leave a Response