The Hard Hand of War, Chapters 7-9

Burning of Atlanta

The policy of the United States toward the Confederate States of America during the Civil War moved from one of conciliation to pragmatism to hard war.  Conciliation made sense at the beginning of the war, but had to be abandoned.  Up to a certain point, it had worked.  The message of conciliation was not being understood clearly by the Confederates, partially due to certain contradictions, which caused the strategy to have to be abandoned.  Mark Grimsley, author of The Hard Hand of War, argues that "it is unlikely that the Southern people ever really understood the message of forbearance that Lincoln and other Northern moderates were trying to communicate" (Grimsley 211).  The war had already been destructive, but generally prior to the introduction of this new policy, war was not waged against civilians.  The Emancipation Proclamation officially brought about the hard war policy and Grant's ascension to command firmly established it.  The year 1863 marked the turning point in policy and the start of destruction at a wider scale.

Hard war had already been flirted with by other generals of the United States.  Grimsley claims that this was not hard war, but "a rigorous application of the pragmatic policy" (Grimsley 143).  Destruction of private property was usually in response to guerrilla warfare.  Other times it was pure vandalism, like the burning of private residences for no reason.  In Jackson, Mississippi, Major Thomas T. Taylor wrote that "the army acted more as a mob, than as disciplined soldiers" (Grimsley 161).  Destruction of railroads was considered legitimate by both sides.

Although hard war became the general policy by 1863, the severity varied from general to general.  Some generals carried out the policy indiscriminately.  Others disliked the hard war policy entirely.  Major General Henry W. Halleck was in favor in dealing with the South more harshly.  General Order No. 100 asserted "Sharp wars are brief" (Grimsley 149).  General William Tecumseh Sherman was never completely comfortable with the hard war policy.  Grimsley contends that "[i]t bothered him that soldiers would not confine themselves simply to authorized destruction" (Grimsley 193).

Most generals agreed that the hard war policy should be used with "appropriate discrimination" (Grimsley 180).  For the most part, property of those who supported the Confederacy was all that was targeted.  Few generals allowed for "wanton devastation" (Grimsley 150).  Sherman stated regarding the evacuation of Atlanta: "We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your lands, or anything you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States.  That we will have, and if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it" (Grimsley 188).  Generals understood that anything that made peace more difficult after the war was over would be counterproductive and wrong.  Sherman asserted during the Savannah Campaign that commanders should "order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless, according to the measure of such hostility" (Grimsley 175).

War-related factories and mills were often among the buildings destroyed.  Buildings that could be used in any way in the war effort were also often burned.  Not only did Union soldiers use Confederate crops and livestock to survive, they would destroy what they could not use in an attempt to cripple the Confederate army, guerrillas, and supporters.  Sherman reported on July 14, 1863, to Grant: "We are absolutely stripping the country of corn, hogs, sheep, poultry, everything, and the new-growing corn is being thrown open as pasture fields or hauled for the use of our animals" (Grimsley 159).  This devastation was practical, but also psychological, attempting a blow to the Confederate civilians and soldiers morale.

Soldiers were not allowed to enter private homes without permission or destroy anything that was not considered military necessity.  Theft was also greatly frowned upon.  General David Hunter witnessed soldiers breaking into homes and taking "dresses, ornaments, books, [and] money" (Grimsley 178).  He was furious at this scene.  Union soldiers became conditioned to the level of destruction with Grant in Mississippi.  It was hard enough to keep soldiers from vandalizing and stealing prior to the introduction of hard war policy.  It became more difficult after destruction and foraging were a normal part of their duties.

Some soldiers agreed wholeheartedly with the hard war policy.  Even so, they believed only those who deserved it should be affected and "only in rough proportion to the extent of their sins" (Grimsley 185).  Others felt disturbed by it.  One soldier wrote home to his wife saying that while the strategy was effective at weakening the enemy, he could not "but feel a kind of a sense of injustice connected with it" (Grimsley 158).  Some soldiers believed it turned Southern civilians into enemies.

Grant aimed for a two-pronged strategy - one of annihilating Lee's army, the other, destruction of the Southern resources.  Grant saw the destruction as nothing more than a military necessity, albeit an unfortunate one.  According to Grimsley: "Grant, although willing to inflict destruction on a large scale if necessary to defeat the enemy, was far from embracing a policy of indiscriminate devastation" (Grimsley 162).

According to Grimsley, hard war was key in defeating the Confederacy:

"By destroying railroads they had crippled the South's ability to transfer men and supplies from one theater to another.  By eliminating arsenals, foundries, lead mines, and other factories they had ended the South's ability to create the sinews of war.  And by taking livestock and burning or despoiling they had done great temporary harm to the South's ability to feed itself" (Grimsley 203).

He asserts that more important than all of this was the blows dealt to Southern morale.  They no longer had confidence they could keep up the fight and win their independence.  Grimsley argues that even after years of warfare, most soldiers "still maintained a basic morality" (Grimsley 185) which differs from wars in history that are considered "total wars."  This morality did not stop destruction, but "it channeled it in some directions and away from others" (Grimsley 185).  Hard war damaged much Southern property, but restraint was also exercised.