What’s your reaction to the Jim Loewen chapter on the burning of Columbia, SC? Do you agree with his conclusions? Do you disagree? Why? Argue with each other if you see someone who has posted a response that you disagree with.
Academic Writing
Iconic One Theme | Powered by Wordpress
Something I do agree with strongly from Loewen’s chapter about the burning of Columbia, SC is the fact that southerners used Sherman as a scapegoat. Towards the end of the Civil War as it became clear the south was losing, southerners’ egos were bruised badly. And in a time period and region that held white honor and masculinity in high regard, it isn’t surprising that southerners would be furious over losing a part of that along with the end of slavery. They blamed everyone but themselves for the loss, including prominent figures from enemy troops, such as Sherman. It was convenient for them to put a face to their struggles and then throw all of their hate upon it. However, I don’t like that the article puts the Union troops in such high regard. While Sherman and his troops may have been very civil and even polite, it doesn’t mean that all Union troops were this way. In fact, and it is briefly mentioned in the article, Union soldiers raped many of the enslaved women that they were essentially freeing. They did burn, damage, and destroy many properties, and even if it wasn’t Sherman’s troops that burned Columbia, that doesn’t erase all the other things that Union troops did. One of the main reasons that Lincoln wanted to use the war to free the slaves is because it would devastate the southern economy. Being morally correct and bettering the slaves’ lives was not his priority, and it wasn’t the priority of many of the Union soldiers either.
I completely agree with Choral. During the Civil War era, there was widespread rebellion and anger. The combination of these two emotions bred rash decisions. There were many troops in the South Carolina area aside from Sherman’s troops that could have easily burned Columbia. However, people need exact explanations of events in order to feel at ease; therefore Southerner’s used Sherman as the face of destruction. The South was facing a rapid decline; with the ending of slavery in sight, the southern economy was about to tank due to the relinquishing of their assets. They felt the need to pinpoint their problems on the North even if the conclusions they drew were not valid. As Choral stated, the Union soldiers were not all upstanding citizens – they did cause unspeakable harm and damage to not only the property, but also to the people around them. By saying that Sherman did not burn Columbia I am not excusing or validating the actions of his troops, I am simply believe that there a possibility that they could not have been involved in Columbia specifically. I think that history, especially events that have extreme biases, should be questioned in full and noticing these biases are useful to understanding people’s mindsets today.
This account is very different from what my former history textbooks have frequently referred to as Sherman’s “scorched earth” warfare. I think it’s reasonable to say that southern history largely glorifies confederates standing in opposition to sherman though I never realized the disparity between what occurred and what has been highlighted in history, and my initial reaction is alarm at the misrepresentation of information. I always considered Sherman and reconstruction policy somewhat responsible for the economic weakness of the south, but after reading this, it makes far better sense that cash crop economies, profitable only because of free labor, would falter without the cornerstone of slavery taking the rest of the southern economy with it. Regardless of reconstruction policy, with slavery removed from the equation, the south was doomed to fail, even with reparations for “lost property” being paid for former slave owners. I didn’t find anything in this article that I know I can disagree with based on my own knowledge or beliefs, and opposing sides weren’t really presented for me to form a contrary opinion.
First Impression: fascinated. I vividly remember my 8th grade South Carolina History teacher explaining and recounting “Sherman’s March to The Sea.” That was the first time I had heard the story, but I immediately accepted it. I went on to hear the same story every year from then on in my South Carolina public school education. I had never even thought about it not being true, and I’m sure this would be the same opinion as all of my classmates.
The South was definitely economically destroyed by the loss of slavery. There is no denying that, but Sherman’s march?? I’m so confused now. I have heard 2 stories now, and they reflect opposite views of Sherman: 1. A savage brute that destroyed everything in his path with fire…and now 2. a gentle hero that saved all he came in contact with. These are completely opposing views. However, this is the first time I have the 2nd view. Maybe it was my South Carolina education, but the 1st view was told to me so many times that it will be hard to erase from my memory.
I had the same experience as Sid reading this chapter. In South Carolina schools, we learned that Sherman marched through the state and pretty much burned everything to the ground. Without much perspective, this always seemed like an act of terrorism to me, regardless of the circumstances. But now, I understand that Sherman’s march was a bit skewed by the South Carolina Public school system. I think it comes to show that history classes use education as a way to persuade people to join a patriotic cause in a way. The same can be seen with Christopher Columbus. Through grade school, he is taught as an American hero, but the more you learn about him, the more you realize he was kind of a terrible person to look up to. Same principle with Sherman, just reversed. The South Carolina history courses in public school sure are interesting.
When I first read Lowen’s chapter, I found it to be a bold statement because numerous textbooks written by authors, with their doctorates, say otherwise. I believe that Sherman did burn down Columbia because I have been taught that repeatedly ever since the 3rd grade when I first learned about South Carolina history, but I agree with the idea that Sherman was not the main reason for the economic decline of the south. The Confederacy was losing towards the end of the Civil War, slavery was on the verge of being eradicated, thus their source of labor was weakening, and the south was not as technologically advanced as the north, so the Union had the upper hand. Sherman only solidified the Confederacy’s downfall in the war
From what I read in this chapter, I believe that it is possible that Sherman did not burn South Carolina. The facts that the houses were standing before the date that they were supposedly burned and that all areas that he marched through had a trail, but not nearly as destructive as in Columbia, indicates that there might have been added causes in that area. There is no doubt that Sherman and the Union troops destroyed the areas that they marched through; this was a time of war, and they were fighting to preserve the country. Lowen presents us with an idea that some historians have looked into, but it is simply impossible to ever be sure as to what happened. I am not from South Carolina, and have never been particularly interested in history, so I have no prior knowledge on this event. From the text, it seems as though Sherman helped so many African Americans, and to do that, his troops had to engage in destructive warfare.
Being from the north, I learned the Civil War differently. I did not hear about Sherman’s march until high school, and even then, it was a brief topic of discussion. After reading this article, I believe Sherman did not burn down all of Columbia, or even most of the South. The Confederacy was desperate for “Burnin’ Sherman” not to reach supplies he needed, and it is incredibly plausible that they destroyed their own lands to stop him. The South consisted of many people who did not agree with secession or slavery, but because of their choice location of establishment, they were stuck in a war they did not want. With Sherman, a Union leader and fighter, marching through the South, it gave those people the opportunity to flee and help the troops. I found it fascinating that Sherman was welcomed so warmly by the slaves, but that there are few historic markers to commemorate their appreciation – even to this day. It makes sense that the oppressed blacks would want to help Sherman, and it seems ignorant that nothing is setup to honor the slaves who went out of their way to help the Union troops today.
Loewen attempts to decriminalize General Sherman’s march to the sea. He concludes that while many neo-confederates blame Sherman for burning Columbia, Sherman and his troops were not the actual perpetrators. While Loewen rightly concludes that Sherman did not actually light the fires that burned the city, he is mistaken in believing that Sherman himself was not the root cause. Confederates did indeed set the fires that burned Columbia, but they set these fires only because Sherman’s invasion was imminent, and because it was necessary for the protection of their army. When an enemy army is approaching and your army lacks the resources to make a legitimate defense, you burn whatever may be of use to them to prevent them from becoming more powerful. Confederate soldiers had to burn the railroad stations and supplies as a last ditch effort to fend off Sherman. It is the nature of war. If Sherman were not on his way to wreak havoc on the city, confederates would have had no need to set these fires. Sherman’s imminent arrival and notorious reputation sparked the burning of Columbia. By the time he reached Columbia, Sherman had developed a notorious reputation. Although Loewen gives anecdotal evidence of acts of kindness along the way, there is no disputing the terror he brought on Atlanta. From Sherman’s own journal the day he left Atlanta, he writes “Behind us lay Atlanta, smouldering and in ruins, the black smoke rising high in air, and hanging like a pall over the ruined city.” Sherman himself admits to torching Atlanta. His reputation forced the confederates to burn strategic places in Columbia. They saw what he did to Atlanta, and they greatly feared what he could have done to them. Although he did not light the match, it is unfair and inaccurate to say that Sherman did not burn Columbia.
Although geographically I am from the south, southern culture does not reach into Northern Virginia, so the southern viewpoint on the Civil War is not really present. Having said that, Sherman’s March to the Sea was always a topic of discussion when the Civil War came up, and Sherman was indeed portrayed as the perpetrator for all of the destruction. After reading this article however, I find it entirely plausible that Sherman wasn’t technically at fault for all of the burning of the South. But as Wilson touched on, the nature of war is one of give-and-take. In order to prevent Sherman from causing destruction, the Confederacy beat him to it and destroyed any possible supplies he could have used. I think Sherman has definitely been used as a scapegoat of blame for much of the destruction of the South, but you could go back and forth blaming different parties for every part of the war. Depending on which side you are, you are going to present facts that benefit you and spin ones that don’t so they don’t seem as contradictory. The South blames the North for the war, and the North blames the South. History can be very subjective, and it’s important to lay out the unbiased facts in order to come to an informed conclusion. The Union was portrayed in a very good light in Loewen’s article, but not every Union soldier was a “good guy,” just as every Confederate soldier wasn’t a “bad guy.”
After reading the chapter, “Who Burned Columbia?”, I agree with Loewen’s conclusion. All throughout school I was taught that Sherman burned Columbia and other cities in the South, but I never thought to question this information until now. After reading about how the confederate cavalry burned buildings and resources that may have been useful to Sherman’s troops, I was surprised at how bad South Carolina’s public education really is. I mean I knew it wasn’t that great in the first place but to alter the South’s own history just to make the Union look bad is really cheap. It makes total since that confederate supporters would use Sherman as a scapegoat for what the confederate troops did; they would do anything to make their opinions seem just. Loewen provides us with unbiased information about the burnings that took place and allows us to see what really took place.
After reading Lowen’s chapter, I am starting to realize how subjective history is. Even though we all live in the same country, the history of civil rights and the civil war have two almost opposite viewpoints taught to you whether you grew up in the North or the South. Like Sid, I was taught that Sherman was a harsh union oppressor seeking nothing but to destroy the south and everything in it. This was just part of the history in that time period that we learned about, accepted, and moved on without any question. At first I was a little confused because now Sherman is being illustrated as a gentle union general who was trying to save the south rather than destroy it which gives a totally different spin on the story. Either way, Sherman’s march caused extreme trauma and damage to the South physically and economically. As Wilson mentioned, there is no disputing his role in Atlanta, and if that holds true then there is nothing saying that he couldn’t also be responsible for Columbia whether it was him who set it on fire or someone else. Sherman may be the scapegoat in the instance of Columbia, but if it were not for him and his notorious reputation in the South, Columbia probably would not have been burned. So if to shorten a page in our history textbooks by saying that he torched Columbia rather than his notoriety with other instances in his march, the tenor is pretty consistent.
The topic of the burning of Columbia had never been a question in my middle school and high school years; it was just a fact. I had learned that General Sherman had burned all of Columbia and that was that. I never realized how biased the north and south still are to this day. I grew up in the south and I learned all about Sherman’s burning, but some of the student’s blogs before mine who were raised in the north were hardly introduced to this event. Reading this chapter, I was amazed with the evidence in favor of Sherman not burning the whole city. I do not completely agree with the author’s position though. My previous schooling has had such a great impact on me that it is hard for me to change the “facts” I have learned. This has brought more light to the topic, but I will need more evidence and convincing to completely change what has always been instilled in my mind.
I vividly remember being fascinated about the Civil War era when learning about it in Michigan. I have always been curious as to the differences in how they teach it depending on geography. The controversy surrounding Sherman’s “March to the Sea” is new information to me, and very interesting. Sherman’s march has always been presented as a hard fast fact that one memorizes. After the majority of the fighting was over and Lincoln was elected, Sherman led an army which wrought mass destruction through the South. This would explain the economic disparities during Reconstruction. However, as Loewen argues in the chapter, this was not the true story, but the popular one. The way he writes about it, Sherman was nothing more than a glorified figure which one could place blame, hatred, or maybe even awe. The way it is portrayed in history books, Sherman was opposed by a large crowd of whites and blacks who try to fight him off unsuccessfully. Conversely, Loewen states that blacks were actually happy to see Sherman in order to escape being recaptured and forced back into slavery. Many of the whites were not present because they either joined the Confederate Army, or had previously evacuated. Finally, he contradicts the common notion by providing evidence that many whites actually joined Sherman’s forces in order to either be on the winning side or because they were never supporters of slavery and this was their first way to show it. All in all, I agree with Loewen’s views to a large extent. It is very believable that people and historians alike played up the Sherman figure for emphasis. However, I still have some doubt due to the subjectivity which history is built from.
The history surrounding the Civil War is a topic of great interest in South Carolina. Whatever city you are in, whether it be Charleston, Columbia, or Clemson, you’re bound to see monuments to the war/soldiers, or hear about how the war effected that specific area. Loewen touched upon the subject of Sherman’s march; which impacted the Columbia area. Loewen dives into what he believes to be the inaccuracies in the history books regarding this event. I tend to agree with Loewens assertion that Sherman was made a scapegoat. Much of the destruction that occurred in Columbia was not the fault of Sherman at all. “Much of the damage now credited to Sherman was done by Confederate cavalrymen under Major General Joseph Wheeler.” Some of the inaccuracies pointed out include the notion that African Americas were afraid of Sherman and his forces. However, African Americans were actually pleased to see Sherman. They joined his forces so that they would not be recaptured and forced into slavery. I also agree in part with Hunters conclusion that Loewen provides a presentation of what he believes the facts to be that is relatively unbiased.
Just like other people from the North, I did not learn about Sherman’s march to its full extent. When Sherman was mentioned in history class, it was stated that he burnt South Carolina, but did not go into much further detail. As an unbiased reader of “Who Burned Columbia?,” I found the chapter surprisingly convincing. Loewen’s chapter highlighted on points that I hadn’t considered, such as the Confederates inflicting damage to the South, and Sherman’s friendly relationship with blacks. Ultimately, I agree with Loewen’s contention that Sherman is not the only one to blame. I believe that Sherman did in fact burn some of the South, but I don’t believe that all of the accusations against him are true. Sherman may have intended to only set a few fires, but these fires may have spread, causing unintended damage. Again, some of the burnings can be attributed to the Confederates’ “protection” from the enemy. Also, certain personal recollections involving Sherman become unreliable, as it is difficult to choose sides based on merely words. Therefore, it is unfair to place all of the blame on Sherman, especially when neglecting to consider other situations.
I found this article quite interesting. What it says is quite different than what many of my history text books said, saying that Sherman came through and basically burned down the entire state. To my knowledge and perception, this article is right and I agree with what he is saying. I know I saw some of my fellow class mates say that they don’t like that the article put Union Troops in such high regard, but doing things like that are necessary in war and I, like I’m sure all of my classmates, agree with the Union. The soldiers burning the houses and looting occasionally does not compare to bombs we’ve dropped on other counties, so I do not think that what they’re doing was too much at all and agree with the author’s glorification of the Union troops. Overall what they were doing was freeing slaves, and trying to win freedom for all humans.
History is so subjective. It is not possible to have a clear cut way of looking at the past. The first impression that I got from this article was how different it was. I am from the north, and I have always learned about the fights from the Union’s perspective. I truly enjoyed how different this article was. Honestly, my high school did not spend so much time discussing Sherman’s march of destruction. The only thing really touched upon was that it happened. So this chapter was very convincing to me, simply because I had no former opinion. However, I do agree that someone cannot fully blame Sherman for the burning and complete decay of the Southern homes and economy. I think that during the time with so much political unrest, it is easy to have one sole enemy. If a tragic event has a face to blame it on, it allows people to get closure. There is no better way to unite a group of people that to have them have a similar enemy. Maybe Sherman was not responsible for all the fires. But having a public figure to hate really inspired a lot of feelings of unity that the people of South Carolina desperately needed. Although maybe not justified, it is possible that it was healthy to have a figure to blame. If not, there could be mass feelings of doubt and distrust.