| ||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Well Worth Considering,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Merchant of Terror General Sherman and Total War (Hardcover)
There's been a good deal of debate in recently years about whether the Civil War can be legitimately called a "total war." A good deal of the debate revolves around how one defines "total," and some historians either outright deny that the war was encompassing enough to be called "total," or that other, more moderate terms (such as Mark Grimsley's "hard" war) are more descriptive. But despite the rather disconcerting trend these days for some historians to return to romanticized whitewashings of the Civil War, there's little doubt that it inflicted damage on civilians, the environment, property, morale, and troops that we're only just now beginning to comprehend. The war was encompassing in its destruction and its trauma, regardless of whether or not it's called "total."
John Walters' (no relation of mine, by the way) Merchant of Terror, first published some 25 years ago, is a favorite target of the-war-wasn't-total school. There's some room for criticism. Walters is a bit repetitious, and his prose is sometimes a bit purple. Moreover, the conclusions that he draws from the passages he quotes don't always seem to fit. But his book still offers excellent documentation of the rise and practice of total war by General Sherman, beginning with the latter's "theory of collective responsibility," first formulated in Memphis, and its practical policies of reprisal and hostage taking, and culminating in the better-known scorched earth policies practiced by Sherman in Georgia and South Carolina. Moreover, it's clear that Sherman's eagerness to make the South "howl" wasn't peculiar to him. He had the backing of both Grant and Lincoln. "Old Brains," General Halleck, Chief of Staff, was in on the plan too. Sherman wrote Halleck that his whole army burnt "with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina." Halleck responded with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge telegram that said "should you capture Charleston, I hope that by some accident the place may be destroyed..." It's good that Walters reminds us of all this, lest we slip into that romanticized glorification of the Civil War that not only whitewashes its excesses, but tends to legitimize war in general as a thing of valor and heroism.
10 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Pig of a Man,
By Confederate (Bethesda, MD) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Merchant of Terror General Sherman and Total War (Hardcover)
General Sherman, by all accounts, even those who knew him best, have confirmed what John Walters concludes: that he was a monster. As did Lincoln, Sherman believed the easiest way to win the war was to cut wherever the blade could. Only through sheer ferocity and terror could the war finally come to an end.
It had gone on far too long for Lincoln. His popularity had plummeted and the general U.S. population was so terrorized by its own government that even the Republic was on the verge of collapse. Habeas corpus had been suspended and the Lincoln administration had arrested thousands of people on sheer suspicion of being secessionists. It wasn't supposed to be a long war, but it was. It wasn't supposed to have the horrendous casualties, but it did. Lincoln and his generals were determined to bring it to a close as quickly as possible, even if they had to resort to Nazi-like tactics. These tactics weren't hearsay or rumors; they didn't go unnoticed by the commanding officers. They had one purpose. End the war before the war ended the Northern nation. Even Caligula did some things that were kind-hearted, such as freeing the polical prisoners of the demented Tiberius; even Nero loved and revered his mother...right up to the time he had her murdered. So it's no surprise that Sherman had his good points. Hitler liked animals. Sherman's problem is he was honest. He just didn't hide his atrocities behind flowery language as did Lincoln. This book will bring you closer to an accurate view of the so-called "Civil War" than any you have studied in school. I also recommend DiLorenzo's excellent, THE REAL LINCOLN. You'll never view the U.S.'s first undeclared war the same.
9 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A poor attempt to discredit a great Union general,
By bixodoido (Utah, USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Merchant of Terror General Sherman and Total War (Hardcover)
This book alleges to be an analysis of Sherman's total war policy of the late Civil War. In fact, it is more of a chronicle of crimes, real and imaginary, supposed to have been condoned, even encouraged, by General Sherman. It is Walters' contention that Sherman began using total war in Memphis, and developed a policy of plunder and anarchy, completely disregarding the rules of warfare and of civilization, and perpetuated an unprecedented reign of terror and barbarity against the poor, defenseless people of the South. Sherman's motives are always construed as the worst possible, and his virtuous and good deeds are always given an alterior motive. An example: when Columbia, SC, was burned (and not by Sherman), Sherman himself helped fight the fires for most of a night. Walters conveniently forgets this fact. Later, Sherman gave over 500 head of cattle to the city for the relief of those left destitute by the fire. This Walters admits, but insists that they were the poorest the Union had.My objection to biographies, such as this one, that do nothing but attempt to debase the character of the subject is simple. Generally they are written to satisfy some personal vendetta felt toward the subject, as is clearly the case with Walters. Like many biographies of this type, he takes things out of context and uses them as evidence, is completely one-sided in his approach, tells part of the story without attempting to round out the narrative, and ignores much in the way of evidence that would not support his argument (as, for example, the evidence of Sherman helping to fight the fires of Columbia). The cruelty attributed to Sherman by Walters is unrestrained and monstrous. Such ridiculously strong sentiments such as that Sherman "had hardened his heart and shut out the voice of conscience" (page 74), that Sherman's men spread terror through "sheer joy" (126), and that Sherman "set himself up to judge what constituted right and wrong" (128) are ludicrous for the strength of their language, yet this is how Walters would have us see Sherman. There are a number of problems with his argument. If Sherman was so barbarous, so cruel, why did his army (and several very good high-ranking officers) follow him with such dedication? Surely SOMEONE must have had a conscience among them. Also, if Sherman was such a monster, why is it that many Southerners, including Generals Hood and Johnston (whose armies were opposing Sherman during this time), remained or became good friends of Sherman's after the war? If Johnston hated Sherman as much as Walters implies he did, I doubt he would have served as pall-bearer at Sherman's funeral. The solution is simple. Walters uses mostly Southern testimony to establish that Sherman was a monstrous barbarian. He also makes use of the testimony of newspaper correspondents, who had much reason to taint their stories about Sherman. He even goes so far as to say that Sherman had several newspaper correspondents on his staff! Anyone acquainted with the life of Sherman will laugh at this ridiculous assertion.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
