HEADQUARTERS DEPT. OF
THE TENN.,
VICKSBURG, Jan.
31,1864.
MAJOR R. M. SAWYER,
A. A. C. Army of the Tenn.,
Huntsville, Alabama.
Dear Sawyer: In my former letters I have answered all
your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known
or suspected to be hostile or "Secesh." This is in truth the most
difficult business of our army as it advances and occupies the Southern
country. It is almost impossible to lay down rules, and I invariably leave the
whole subject to the local commanders, but am willing to give them the benefit
of my acquired knowledge and experience. In Europe, whence we derive our
principles of war, wars are between kings or rulers through hired armies, and
not between peoples. These remain, as it were, neutral, and sell their produce
to whatever army is in possession.
Napoleon when at war with Prussia, Austria, and Russia
bought forage and provisions of the inhabitants, and consequently had an
interest to protect the farms and factories which ministered to his wants. In
like manner the Allied Armies in France could buy of the French habitants
whatever they needed, the produce of the soil or manufactures of the country.
Therefore, the general rule was and is that war is confined to the armies
engaged, and should not visit the houses of families or private interests. But
in other examples a different rule obtained the sanction of historical
authority. I will only instance one, where in the siege of William and Mary the
English army occupied Ireland, then in a state of revolt. The inhabitants were
actually driven into foreign lands, and were dispossessed of their property and
a new population introduced.
To this day a large part of the north of Ireland is held by
the descendants of the Scotch emigrants sent there by William's order and an
act of Parliament. The war which now prevails in our land is essentially a war
of races. The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government with
us of the North, but still maintained through state organizations a species of
separate existence, with separate interests, history, and prejudices. These
latter became stronger and stronger, till at last they have led to war and have
developed fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are beyond all question
right in our cause, but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of
the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannot
throw off without an effort of reason or the slower process of natural change.
The question then arises, Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South
who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we
give them time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to
the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their
country?
When men take up arms to resist a rightful authority, we are
compelled to use like force, because all reason and argument cease when arms
are resorted to. When the provisions, forage, horses, mules, wagons, etc., are
used by our enemy, it is clearly our duty and right to take them also, because
otherwise they might be used against us. In like manner all houses left vacant
by an inimical people are clearly our right, and as such are needed as
storehouses, hospitals, and quarters. But the question arises as to dwellings
used by women, children, and non-combatants. So long as non-combatants remain
in their houses and keep to their accustomed peaceful business, their opinions
and prejudices can in no wise influence the war, and therefore should not be
noticed; but if any one comes out into the public streets and creates disorder,
he or she should be punished, restrained, or banished to the rear or front, as
the officer in command adjudges. If the people, or any of them, keep up a
correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished
according to law with death or minor punishment. These are well-established
principles of war, and the people of the South having appealed to war, are
barred from appealing for protection to our constitution, which they have
practically and publicly defied. They have appealed to war, and must abide its
rules and laws. . . .
It is all idle nonsense for these Southern planters to say
that they made the South, that they own it, and can do as they please to break
up our Government and shut up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse, and commerce.
We know, and they know, if they are intelligent beings, that as compared with
the whole world they are but as five millions to one thousand millions, that
they did not create the land, that the only title to use and usufruct is the
deed of the United States, and that if they appeal to war they hold their all
by a very insecure tenure. For my part, I believe that this war is the result
of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people more or less
responsible, and I would give all a chance to reflect, and, when in error, to
recant. I know the slave-owners, finding themselves in possession of a species
of property in opposition to the growing sentiment of the whole civilized
world, conceived their property to be in danger and foolishly appealed to war,
and that by skilful political handling they involved with themselves the whole
South on this result of error and prejudice. I believe that some of the rich
and slave-holding are prejudiced to an extent that nothing but death and ruin
will ever extinguish, but I hope that as the poorer and industrious classes of
the South realize their relative weakness and their dependence upon the fruits
of the earth and good-will of their fellow-men they will not only discover the
error of their ways and repent of their hasty action, but bless those who
persistently have maintained a constitutional government strong enough to
sustain itself, protect its citizens, and promise peaceful homes to millions
yet unborn.
If the people of Huntsville think differently, let them
persist in this war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted.
Three years ago, by a little reflection and patience, they
could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war.
Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late, — all the
powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves any more than their dead
grandfathers. . . .
A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit
ought to know the consequences. Many, many people, with less pertinacity than
the South has already shown, have been wiped out of national existence.
My own belief is that even now the non-slave-holding classes
of the South are alienating from their associates in war. Already I hear
crimination and recrimination. Those who have property left should take warning
in time.
Since I have come down here I have seen many Southern
planters, who now hire their own negroes and acknowledge that they were
mistaken and knew not the earthquake they were to make by appealing to
secession. They thought that the politicians had prepared the way, and that
they could part the States of this Union in peace. They now see that we are
bound together as one nation by indissoluble ties, and that any interest, or
any fraction of the people that set themselves up in antagonism to the nation,
must perish.
Whilst I would not remit one jot or tittle of our nation's
rights in peace or war, I do make allowances for past political errors and
prejudices.
Our national Congress and the Supreme Court are the proper
arenas on which to discuss conflicting opinions, and not the battle-field.
You may not hear from me again for some time, and if you
think it will do any good, call some of the better people of Huntsville
together and explain to them my views. You may even read to them this letter
and let them use it, so as to prepare them for my coming. . . .
We are progressing well in this quarter, but I have not
changed my opinion that although we may soon make certain the existence of the
power of our national government, yet years must pass before ruffianism,
murder, and robbery will cease to afflict this region of our country.
Your friend,
WM. T. SHERMAN,
Major Gen'l Comd.
SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The
Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837
to 1891, p. 228-33
