Sherman's March

by Burke Davis

s/t: The First Full-Length Narrative of General William T. Sherman's Devastating March through Georgia and the Carolinas
Sherman's March is the vivid narrative of General William T. Sherman's devastating sweep through Georgia and the Carolinas in the closing days of the Civil War. Weaving together hundreds of eyewitness stories, Burke Davis graphically brings to life the dramatic experiences of the 65,000 Federal troops who plundered their way through the South and those of the anguished -- and often defiant -- Confederate women and men who sought to protect themselves and their family treasures, usually in vain. Dominating these events is the general himself -- "Uncle Billy" to his troops, the devil incarnate to the Southerners he encountered.

"What gives this narrative its unusual richness is the author's collation of hundreds of eyewitness accounts...The actions are described in the words, often picturesque and often eloquent, of those who were there, either as participants -- Union soldiers, Confederate soldiers -- in the fighting and destruction or as victims of Sherman's frank vow to 'make Georgia howl.' Mr. Davis intercuts these scenes with closeups of the chief actors in this nightmarish drama, and he also manages to give us a coherent historical account of the whole episode. A powerful illustration of the proposition put forth in Sherman's most famous remark." -- The New Yorker

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American Civil War, War, American History, Military History

335 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1980

Reviews

[Joy D · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had recently read a novel of historical fiction about the end of the American Civil War and decided to find out more about it. This book starts after the capture of Atlanta and follows Sherman and his troops as they trek through Georgia and the Carolinas, attempting to cut off the supply lines to the Confederate troops and bring an end to hostilities. This meant taking the war to civilians, mostly women, children, and slaves. It ends with the final victory parade and a few words about the remainder of Sherman’s life. Although it contains biographical material, it is not a biography of Sherman; rather, it is a detailed examination of the “march” and related events that led to the end of the war.

The author has taken eye-witness accounts and woven them together with his narrative into a cohesive story depicting what life was like during this difficult time. His research and the inclusion of anecdotes and quotes from letters and diaries of participants on both sides, lends a feeling of authenticity, and it certainly helps that many people of the time tended to write eloquently of their experiences. The structure is chronological, and the storyline is focused. Enough detail is offered without being too verbose. Davis includes sights, sounds, smells, textures to bring the past to life: the appearance of the countryside, the weather, the clothing, the food (or lack thereof), almost like scenes in a movie. He does not shy away from describing the horrific destruction, lives shattered, and sense of “punishing” the south (especially in South Carolina, the seat of secession). Sherman is lauded as a fine military strategist, but his racism and mercurial temperament are not overlooked. He did not condone pillaging but did little to stop it. One of the most interesting parts, for me, was the backstory of the bad blood between Sherman and Secretary of War Stanton, and the controversy over the terms of surrender negotiated with Confederate General Johnston.

Content warnings include descriptions of war-related violence, looting, racism, rape, and executions. Recommended to readers interested in American Civil War history, especially how it came to an end. Overall, I found it vivid, readable, and informative.

[R. Jones · Rating 2 out of 5]

When it comes to reading about the Civil War, I always find that the authors have trouble separating their biases from the text. Northern authors tend to favor pro-Union narratives, and southern authors tend to lean a little more to the Lost Cause side of the fence. This phenomenon is especially magnified when William T. Sherman is the subject. I've talked about that before. I'm not going to get into which side I personally agree with right here (though you can probably guess), and I pride myself on confronting most literature with an objective mind. Still, though, I like to know what I'm getting into. A quick look at the author can tell me if I'm about to read a book about the tactical brilliance of Sherman's March - a campaign that literally ended the Civil War and changed the face of modern warfare - or if I'm about to read a book about the horrors of the war criminal who brought a war to innocent civilians. So let's check the About the Author section together:

"Burke Davis'... numerous biographies include three of Confederate commanders: They Called Him Stonwall; Gray Fox: R. E. Lee & the Civil War; and Jeb Stuart, the Last Cavalier. A native of North Carolina, he now lives in Williamsburg, Virginia."

sigh

OK, so Davis does deliver a well-written, well-researched book, here. It's intelligent and informative. But it only tells one side of a story. You don't have to agree or disagree with Sherman's methods or motivations, but it is patently disingenuous to leave out discussion about the importance of his March. Focusing a book on the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Southerners that his army rolled over, and the civilians who lose their homes and livelihoods, is an interesting story. But it also, and unfairly, only shows a bad side of an argument. There's no quicker way to undermine your own argument.

Also, can I just offer one bit of advice to every southern author who wants to tackle Sherman's March? Maybe tone down the racism a little. You do realize that when you quote a freed black slave, you don't have to pretend to channel Mark Twain's dialogue, right? This isn't Huckleberry Finn. Making the decision to decorate your historical Civil War-era text with quotes like "Lawsy, massas, i'se so glad to see you!" (pg. 62) kinda makes it hard to emphasize with the South.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lincoln’s 1864 election victory destroyed any reasonable hope of the South winning the Civil War. Yet still, they fought on, drawing out the bloody end game though its conclusion was already a certainty. General William T. Sherman had long considered that the war could not be won without completely breaking the will of the Southern people to continue fighting. Now he was certain of it. His answer was to take war to the civilians - to pillage, burn, and destroy a large swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, mostly unopposed by any significant enemy resistance. Burke Davis' book, Sherman's March, grippingly tells the story of this dark chapter of American history.

The book opens with the fall of Atlanta, and ends with Sherman's army marching triumphantly through the streets of Washington in the Grand Review. In between, Burke deals with the battles of Averasboro and Bentonville, as well as various skirmishes and demonstrations, but this is not a campaign book, full of detailed military maneuvers. My copy doesn't have a single map other than the one on the inside cover of the book. Instead, this book concentrates on the march itself, using hundreds of eyewitness accounts, both of civilians, and soldiers of both sides, to bring to life this incredible and terrible event.

Davis presents Sherman neither as a devil nor a hero. He made a fair attempt to give an account that balanced the outrage of the Southerners with the reasons that Sherman believed his march to be necessary. Davis covers everything of significance, including the reactions of the politicians and generals to Sherman's bold maneuver, his capture of three Confederate State Capitols, and his burning of one of them. The greatest part of the book, however, is the story of the people who experienced the destruction, as well as those who brought it to them with the hope of finally ending the ongoing devastation of the war. This is a fascinating, well-researched and well-written account of Sherman's march which made “Georgia howl” and brought the rebellion to its knees.

[Donna Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Strong,fair, accurate, well-researched, citations complete.

I didn't even know this book existed till I visited my favorite used bookstore, and there it stood, like a gift. Would I read an entire book about Sherman's march through Georgia to the sea? Oh, HELL yes!

To read this, you need a genuine interest in detail and research, and of course, the Civil War. I had read Sherman's memoirs, which were much lengthier, but thought it would be interesting to get an outside scholar's take on it. The writer is a Southerner but has no drum to beat, no particular interest in pretending the South really won, or had the moral right. He plays it straight up the middle and combines meticulous research that took him ten years into a well-written, engaging narrative.

He speaks accurately of Sherman as a man who promoted and carried out, with Grant's approval and nominal leadership, the end of the war by hard war, total warfare on the South. He inaugurated the notion of traveling fast and with little to carry, even taking the bold initiative of cutting himself off from communication and supplies provided by the North in order to sever the Southern railway supply lines. He led the way the best leaders do, in full sympathy with his soldiers, living as they did, sleeping on hard ground instead of selecting a mansion and becoming comfortable. Generally when a dispute arose between a civilian and his soldiers, Sherman would not punish his own troops to make locals happy. This was, of course, a rule to which exceptions were made in dire cases. Any soldier known to have raped a Caucasian woman was either executed or exiled. In one instance, a soldier of the 48th Illinois was court-marshaled and found guilty of such a crime. His eyes were blacked; his head was shaved; his forehead was painted D R to show that he was both a deserter and a rapist; and he was literally drummed out of the army by the musicians in the percussion section. Thus did Sherman prevent excesses when he feared his soldiers were getting out of hand. If the reader thinks this was too light a punishment, s/he must bear in mind that to be drummed out on the spot meant to be turned loose into a largely hostile populace, assuming he could make his way from the wilderness to the town without being killed or starving.

Sherman wanted to make an example of Georgia because it was the stronghold where Davis had been holed up, and more importantly, from which the munitions were manufactured and the food stored. Thus, by cutting his own rail supply, he demoralized the Confederate soldier by cutting off his food supply; reducing his access to weapons and ammunition; and also by causing him to worry about the very family that he in many cases signed up to defend. With no letters coming from home, or letters of distress saying that Yankee soldiers had either taken the food or been in the area and were feared, desertions rose among Confederate soldiers. Sherman knew it would be so and planned his campaign for that purpose. "I can make Georgia howl," he said, and he did it.

Contrary to the belief of many, however, he did not intentionally fire civilian homes unless shots were fired from their windows or roofs. A post-war court of inquiry found British claims of cotton purchased but not delivered were burned neither at the fault of Union nor Confederate troops.

Sherman was a true friend to Lincoln, and was appalled when the traitorous McClellan sent him a couple of friendly letters when he ran against Lincoln, attempting to curry Sherman's favor after ignoring him for the entire war previously. In any case, Sherman was a Lincoln man, and nothing proved it more than the hideous way in which Stanton, who took over after Lincoln's assassination and Secretary of War Seward's attempted assassination and injury, treated him. Suddenly he was the villain in the piece. One can only wonder whether paranoia had taken over Washington, DC and the hysteria there perhaps caused the leaders there to turn on Sherman badly after all his brave accomplishments.

He had, by Burke's account "sacked and burned one state capital and taken two others, seized and reclaimed a great seaport, taken a fort by storm, fought one pitched battle, overwhelmed the enemy in two lively skirmishes that passed as minor battles, and endured months of constant bushwhacking. The pioneer corps--labor battalions, many of whom were Negroes--had laid more than four hundred miles of corduroy roads in the swampy country, and engineers had strung countless miles of pontoon bridges.

"By official count the army had lost almost 5,000 men--nearly 600 dead, 2,700 wounded and 1,600 missing (though Confederates set the toll much higher; Hampton said he had wounded 3,000 to 4,000 blue coats alone)."

As the war drew to a close, Sherman, sunburnt and brick-hard from his lengthy, arduous campaign, brought his veterans to the official review by the president, which was a series of parades held in the nation's capitol. He made a point of repaying Stanton's unforgivable lack of trust and gratitude by using the newspapers he had so hated during the war (they had interecepted his battle plans and published them in advance at least once!) to spread the word of how he felt about Stanton. He went to the review stand, formally made his way down the line of outstretched hands, from the newly minted president on down the line...and then stood for a full minute before Stanton's outstretched hand, unmoving, with his hands at his sides before moving on. I thought this was a beautiful revenge.

Meade's men from the Army of the Potomac, who had led soft lives after Gettysburg under Meade's relatively timid leadership, were decked out in new, fancy uniforms and marched well fed, but their steps were not entirely together and Sherman winced as he saw them turn their heads "'to gawk to look at the big people on the stand.' He resolved no such unsoldierly breaches tomorrow.

"Sherman turned to the grizzled George Meade:'I'm afraid my poor tatterdemalion corps will make a poor appearance tomorrow when contrasted with yours.'

"Meade's air was condescending. 'The people in Washington are so fond of the army that they will make allowances,' he said. 'You needn't be afraid'."

He goes on to recount the story near and dear to any Sherman buff's heart, how Sherman's men could not all have new uniforms, and therefore he did not distribute them to any, since only a few dozen soldiers in new uniforms among the ragged, sometimes barefoot troops would have stood out badly. Regimental flags were sometimes mere shreds.

Burke quotes an eye witness (and he has scoured the earth to find them):"'For a mile you could see it...a moving wall of bright blue tipped with glittering steel, every man keeping step, the whole looking like one connected body.'" Eyes were forward, though one soldier heard the voice of a young woman calling and remarked that he hoped she was pretty.

Your humble reviewer concludes that ultimately, this was the gift they gave in parting to their commander, "Uncle Billy", who had led them so far and through so much. No one could have done better.

[Jeff Dawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

How would one describe Sherman? The only word I can come up with is enigma.
Being from the North, I’d heard about this great military campaign and the strategic brilliance Sherman initiated with this 1000-mile march. I decided it was time to read about it.
Burke Davis does an excellent job in telling the tale to the point I was ready to fire off a fiery letter to Grant and Lincoln asking them what in the hell they were doing letting Sherman run roughshod through the south! I was furious with his deliberate and unconscious able decimation of Georgia. I understand that Georgia was a fervent and staunch supporter of session and it also housed the notorious prison of Andersonville. I also understand that when rebellions are put down, they must be swift and hard. But in this case, what was gained by ransacking, pillaging and burning everything in their path?
I compare his march to the allied campaign of bombing Germany during World War Two. While the Americans were interested in a strategic campaign targeting military targets, with the exception of Dresden, the British’s, Bomber Harris wanted to wipe out city in Germany on the premise the populace would rise and oust the leaders of the Third Reich. We know what happened there. It only hardened the populace and drove a deep resentment to the liberating parties. In my opinion, this is the same result of Sherman’s march. Grant wanted to eliminate the enemy army’s wholesale. Sherman on the other hand wanted those states that caused the Civil War to suffer under the auspice they would never, ever, try it again, at least in that century.
That was his driving cause and the result of his troops running rampant through the country with no reigns. How those people survived is beyond me. No food, clothing, livestock or housing was left. Store houses burned. Livestock that couldn’t be brought along, slaughtered in the fields. And what of the slaves? Well, they were left to their own devices because he had neither the time, resources or patience to deal with them.
So why the enigma part? During his devastating drive, there were many times when he would stop and visit with Southerners and their children and spend hours talking with them and ensuring their property would meet no harm. These moments of sympathy and compassion were completely out of place for what he had sanctioned, or were they?
When eighty percent of Columbia burned to the ground, why would he keep moving his headquarters and at times assisting in trying to suppress the conflagration that was consuming the once proud city? This is where the seed of secessionism started. This is the state that fired on Fort Sumter and led the country into the most horrific four years of bloodshed every seen on the continent, yet he vowed when he rode in, he would not destroy the town or the countryside, yet he ravaged Atlanta and Savannah. Why? Why the change of heart? Yes, that is the question and that is why this is such an engrossing read. It will have you asking more questions than the author can provide.
As his troops moved to Raleigh, the rough behavior continued but not on the scale Georgia and South Carolina were shown. To me, it appeared Sherman was in the act of cleaning up the atrocities his troops were committing and possible preparing them for the peace that could only be months away for Grant had Lee tied down around Richmond and Petersburg and the on glorious armies of Tennessee were nothing but shells of their former selves. You decide.
` When I finished the book, I started reflecting back to a trip I took with parents to Silver City, around the early 70’s, in Arkansas. I remember at the end of one of the shows they actors/ hostesses were taking up a collection under the chant of the ‘The South will Rise Again.” I asked my dad if they were serious. He never replied.
Today, I believe one hundred percent, they were serious. Sherman’s march might have been necessary back then, but I still have my reservations, but the reconstruction policy under President Johnson did nothing but fuel a growing hatred for the victors.
This is an excellent work and recommended for all Civil War enthusiast.

Five stars

[Dave/Maggie Bean · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Jamison heard the band of a regiment from the XX Corps playing in the
red light, surrounded by cheering soldiers who taunted nearby civilians. One
young soldier shouted to an old man whose store was wrapped in flames: 'Did
you think of this when you hurrahed for Secession? How do you like it, hey?'"

"The Reverend Mr. Connor, a Methodist minister whose parsonage was burned,
emerged with a sick child wrapped in a blanket. A soldier seized the
blanket. 'No!', Connor said, 'he's sick'. The soldier tore off the blanket
and threw it into the fire. 'Damn you,' he said, 'If you say one more word,
I'll throw the child in after it'."

"Much of the town, at least thirty houses, went up in flames. The
Episcopal Church was burned to the ground after soldiers had removed the
organ so they could play 'the devil's tunes' on it. Calling upon the dead to
witness the fun, the pranksters dug a coffin from the graveyard, split it
open with an axe and stood it on end so its recently dead occupant could
take in the ceremony."

"There were no reports of raped white women, but black women of the city
[Columbia] suffered terribly, Simms claimed: 'The poor Negroes were
victimized by their assailants, many of them...being left in a condition
little short of death. Regiments, in successive relays, subjected scores of
these poor women to the torture of their embraces...' "

A few excerpts from my latest bit of reading, Burke Davis's Sherman's
March (Vintage, 1988; Orig. Ed. Random House 1980, ISBN 0-394-75763-7).

The book, the title of which should (one hopes) unambiguously describe its
content, contains numerous other stories of Union atrocities -- given the
sheer number, it would be impossible not to include them - but unlike other
"histories," neither demonizes nor deifies Sherman or his men.

It's an honest, hard-nosed look at the actions of the "forgotten army"
and their enemies, from the battle of Kennesaw Mountain to the capture of
Durham and the aftermath of the Confederate surrender. It's not a pretty
read, but it is quite informative, and a fairly unbiased look at the "players" in what
was undoubtedly our country's most influential drama.

Rather than present an armchair analysis, Davis lets the facts - and
the men on both sides of the conflict - speak for themselves. There is
scarcely a page in the book that does not contain a first-hand account of
the events of the march. Davis's use of first-hand sources is almost unheard
of in this day and age, and is one of the reasons I heartily recommend this
book.

The fifteen-page bibliography alone is worth the cover price.

Also noteworthy and surprising from a Southern author (Davis hails from
North Carolina), Sherman's March examines the incomptence, indecison,
corruption, ego-battles and outright silliness that plagued the Confederate
government during the last months of the war, as well as the despicable acts
committed against their own people by the Confederate rear.

I have little doubt that revisionists (who should more properly be called
"omissionists" or simply "historians" ) on both sides will find the book
infuriating, and herein lies its value.

Aside from the fact that I'm a garden-variety weirdo, a few things
prompted me to recommend this book: Recent events in Iraq; The 2006 SCV debacle
on the steps of the State Capitol Building; and Ecclesiastes 1:9
(NIV): "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."

[Josh Bramlett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Compelling narrative, reads like a novel. This book about Sherman's November 1864-April 1865 from Atlanta to Chapel Hill is an in-depth history full of eyewitness diary accounts from soldiers on both sides as well as Southern citizens from the towns visited by Sherman's army. I recommend this book because it is an uncensored account of Sherman's march. His soldiers did commit crimes along their march and these aren't left out or whitewashed. However, the march was revolutionary in military history and the logic of Sherman's strategy is explained as well. Was very interesting to read about how Sherman justified events in his own mind, and also to read individual accounts from soldiers who had moral issues with total warfare. On the other hand, a lot of soldiers were vandals and you definitely won't think the Union army was a bunch of angels after reading this book. I do think total warfare was the only way to end the war because, as documented in this book, even after the Confederate cabinet fled Richmond they still wanted Johnston to keep fighting. Johnston convinced Davis they had no supplies or morale or infrastructure, and that was a direct outcome of Sherman's army's destruction of Georgia and South Carolina. "War is hell."

[Joanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published in 1980, this book was the first factual account of Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's march from Atlanta to Savannah during the Civil War.

Having read an abundance of works, fictional and non-fiction, set during the Civil War, I had never really read anything on Sherman specifically. The book encompasses the burning of Atlanta and the continued destruction of Southern industry and personal property as Sherman's army marched towards the sea.

I found the story choppy. Burke Davis ,along with telling Sherman's story, includes snipets of the personal stories of civilians. They were just tossed in willy-nilly, in separate paragraphs, through out the book. Theses personal accounts were interesting, but how they were formed into the story was distracting to me.

[Sean Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book which encompasses nearly all facets of Sherman's final and most famous Civil War campaign

[Lynn Diane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! I've always liked Sherman best of the Union generals. Ulysses S. Grant needed Sherman's enterprising genius.

[Marcus McCollom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written, a true testament to a hero of the Republic.

[Penelope · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here was much i.in this book I haven't read before. Great!

[Maurice A. Rhodes · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book was about Sherman's March, obviously, it also tried to cover other ground but for some reason it fails to even mention his postwar exploits in opening the West for safe construction of railways (which put him into unabashed conflict with Indians - I hesitate to quote him: "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". Also a lot of heavy stuff is in this book about the lack of control of troops in the March whereas a previous book I read, while stressing his generalship also stresses his concern that while the "bummers" had to find food they also had to behave themselves in respect to homes and families. The case was quite different in this book and he did nothing to control his troops, strongly suggesting the South deserved all it got (which it probably did). I have found that accounts about the Civil War are sometimes highly biased by where the author is from. I have also experience in some trips to the US that in some places the Civil War does not seemed to have settled anything. But I remain a buff and my preferred writer is Bruce Catton. That he was proud of his Arnmy and they of him, it reminds me of another great general who had the love and affection of those who served under and with him: Lt. Gen. Chesty Puller of the USMC.

[Laurie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This vibrant narrative of Sherman's march uses the stories of actual eyewitnesses and participants to illustrate the sweeping devastation done to the South by the Union troops. Although I was aware that Union troops stole valuables and destroyed homes, I don't think I fully realized the totality of all that they did. It was shocking to hear about the churches, homes, and governmental buildings burned, food and everything that wasn't nailed down stolen. This also provided enlightenment about the end of the Civil War and how difficult the conditions were for the troops as they kept pushing through to the end of the war. Sherman was very popular after the war was over and his name came up multiple times as President candidate but he was not interested in running, stating that "It would kill any man of sensibility in a year." (And that was back then!) I really enjoyed reading this although it did seem somewhat repetitive with what happened in each town along the way, as one might expect. Still a marvelous reference book for the Civil War!

[Gerard Costello · Rating 5 out of 5]

A riveting, detailed and important text. Those who claim that the destruction and pillage wrought by Sherman's army upon the people of the south was unjust have no historical insight. Sherman could not occupy the areas he conquered or maintain lines of supply as he moved deeper into rebel territory. Pillaging food and supplies, and destroying enemy assets was the only way to maintain his march and damage enemy morale and war making capabilities. He would also have been unable to maintain morale and prevent desertion unless he incentivized the men under his command to stay in the ranks. He did this by allowing them to keep and profit from the spoils of their plunder. It was all Sherman could do to prevent rape of southern women, and on occasion he was forced to execute his own soldiers for rape, which ensured that his army kept their depridations within the limits of debatable morality. The march to the sea was good and just.

[Drew Zagorski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Davis delivers a very readable history of Sherman's march to the sea and up through the Carolinas. The thing that really set this rendition was the use of first hand accounts, that helps to humanize the story and to put the reader on the ground. As a history of a military campaign, of course there are details regarding strategy and troop movements, but not to the extent where it becomes a technical read. This book is a great follow up to Fierce Patriot, a Sherman biography by Robert O'Connell. Overall a pretty engaging and quick read of the brutal Civil War campaign that served as much as any other to break the back of the Confederacy.

[James Bowman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A valuable conTribution to civil war history

The author seems to be overly critical of Grant so as to boost his argument that Sherman deserves preeminence as both a commander and strategist, ignoring that during the Vicksburg campaign Grant had detached his army from its supply lines in order to flank and beseige the Rebel army defending Vicksburg. Sherman's March was not so much an innovation as it was an extended demonstration that an army could sustain itself by foraging if it continued moving aggressively through an agricultural heartland, previously shown by Grant in his Vicksburg campaign.

[Suzanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sherman's March is an excellent account of William T. Sherman's devastating sweep through Georgia and the Carolinas during the last days of the U.S. Civil War.  In addition to the thorough and engaging narrative, Davis includes eyewitness accounts from hundreds of soldiers and civilians that serve to make history come alive in this work of non-fiction.  Author Davis doesn't gloss over anything.  War is ugly and the truth about the action of soldiers and citizens alike isn't hidden here.  Sherman's March is a real gem. 4 1/2 stars.

[Robert M. Galbraith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating story of this march. This is a well balanced documentary from correspondents on both sides. In the last three years i have traveled through the country where the march took place and I now have a much greater understanding of what happened. Again i am blown away by the strength and endurance of the solders and people of both sides. It also shows that in 150 politics in Washington DC and the press have not changed at all.

[William Morton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended for all Civil War buffs

This is a very balanced, well-written account of a tragically necessary part of our American history, I would highly recommend I it to anyone interested in the history of the American Civil War.

[Michael Pearson · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a recent transplant to the South, I sometimes pass neo nazis on my way to and from work. Instead of violence, i chose to pop this book on instead.

Cathartic.

[Jodi C · Rating 4 out of 5]

William Tecumseh Sherman is a complicated historical figure, and many people have already made up their minds about how they feel about his massively destructive March to the Sea through Georgia and South Carolina in the late Fall of 1864, but his importance within the scope of the Civil War in the United States is always worth examining further. At least it is if you were first in line for your Geek Badge, which I was.

Sherman's March comes down to the balance between morality and strategic military tactics. This topic has, unfortunately, stayed relevant throughout the decades as we are still seeing civilians around the world being killed indiscriminately in the name of winning a conflict. The United States and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Palestine, are just a few examples.

Sherman adopted a scorched earth policy on his campaign through Georgia and South Carolina after beginning the trek by burning huge swaths of Atlanta. He was doing something that was a maverick move for the time, leaving behind his supply lines to go deep into enemy territory without support. This meant all supplies would need to be gathered along the way, mostly from civilians, and those civilians were primarily women, children, and the elderly.

Sherman wanted to end this war and gave the order to leave nothing behind that could aid the Confederacy. This meant that supplies beyond what the Union troops could consume or carry would be destroyed. It quickly became apparent that supplies were not the only thing taken or destroyed, as town after town saw homes and businesses burned.

It was Sherman himself who once said, “War is hell,” and he proved that on his march. The author, Burke Davis, does a great job of documenting the campaign while remaining impartial. The supporting resources in this book are pretty amazing, and firsthand accounts that I had never read before were especially riveting. The only downside to that is that in places the information gets so thick that it is easy to get bogged down in an avalanche of remembrances.

Unlike many books about the Civil War that contain battlefield maps, this book only has one map in the very beginning and it isn’t detailed. For anyone who doesn’t have the towns and cities of Georgia and the Carolinas memorized, this campaign could be hard to follow. What is easy to follow is the destruction that is repeated in town after town. Government buildings burned, civilian homes and crops burned, railways destroyed, livestock slaughtered, domestic pets killed, and even the ropes in civilian wells used for retrieving water were cut.

Burke does an excellent job of laying out facts through the first-person accounts of what those people witnessed and endured. Burke also leaves it open to the reader's interpretation as to whether those same people got what they deserved based on their place of residence and a need to bring the South to its knees.

This book does not dwell much on Sherman’s contributions to the war before his infamous march. He saw heavy action in the Western Theater, especially at Forts Donelson and Henry, and the Battle of Shiloh, which were all Union victories (the first day at Shiloh notwithstanding) that led to the eventual capture of Vicksburg and the complete control of the Mississippi River. Burke instead concentrates solely on Sherman’s March and lets us decide how that falls into the bigger picture of his legacy.

One negative about this book is the recreation of dialogue from the slaves the Union troops encountered along the way. The attempt to phonetically sound out the words of African Americans is distracting, and very off-putting, and should have been left out.

Beyond that, a solid read. 3.5 stars rounded up.

[Charles Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had heard a lot about Sherman's campaign and am interested since much of my family is from Georgia, and the march went through that area. As it turns out the march went East of where my family is (mostly) from, but did go through Atlanta and Savannah.
The book was very interesting and informative, it does describe how US soldiers did steal from people, burn houses often against orders, etc. It does describe how the officers were often only loosely in control of their units. Apparently even Confederate units looted and burned buildings, trying to keep supplies out of the hands of the Union forces or even for personal profit. So this was a very low point in the US military's history, the books says how the officers on both sides admitted that their units were committing crimes.
All military campaigns cause enormous destruction to the land where they are conducted, and military members have always "lived off of the land" or looted the areas where they passed through. They also, especially if they are withdrawing, destroy what they cannot use so that their enemies cannot use it. But we have seen militaries commit much worse crimes than either the Federal or Confederate forces did in this campaign - an example is the terrible crimes committed on the Eastern Front in World War II by both sides.
Military units are trained to fight other combatants, this campaign was not against enemy units, it was to prevent the enemy's rear areas from being able to support combat in other areas. I would hope that units from the leaders to the junior people would be dispersed and retrained after a campaign like this, they should not be allowed to pass on the idea that a military unit is here to destroy civilian infrastructure.
General Sherman did what he was needed to do, destroy an area's ability to support conflict.
Hopefully US military members will be trained (as I was when I was in the US Air Force) on our responsibility to win conflict while minimizing destruction of civilian infrastructure and the ability of civilians to support themselves.

[Mike Cuthbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always been curious as to the true nature and rationale for Sherman’s March to the Sea. It has always seemed irrational to me that a Union general, with the troop advantage he had, would have to be so vicious for so long. Davis’s book explains why: Sherman hated the Confederacy for being disloyal and, especially, South Carolina for being the fomenter of the Civil War. That explains why North Carolina was spared so much of the rampant destruction and why South Carolina was almost wiped off the map. This is an engaging read, based as it is on actual writings of the period. One of the advantages of Civil War research is that the men and women of the time were such inveterate writers and readers! The book starts in Atlanta as Sherman and his troops leave that city burning. The army was large—30,00 or more for most engagements—and rapacious. They foraged for food, yes, but for jewelry and gold and silver as well as any cash they could find. They found plenty. Davis often quotes women of the time, some of which defended their families and property with a noble bravery, others of whom, such as the notoriously beautiful Maria Boozer, found traditional routes for protection: the arms and wagon of a leading general of the time, Kilpatrick, who frankly ugly visage was outweighed by his power as a leading general. She clearly had other skills as she married French nobility and became a noted diplomat. The march to the sea turned north, toward Washington, and the story slowed, ending with a magnificent and long parade down Pennsylvania Avenue before Grant, the new Pres. Johnson, and thousands of rapt spectators. The account of the march is remarkable as Davis finds good and bad troops as his witnesses. Sherman himself seems at times above it all, especially when it came to overlooking some of the worst of the depredation of the South, but he regretted little and often seemed to excuse the behavior of his troops as reaction earned in the battlefield. He certainly spent no regret for the destruction of towns along the way.

[Noah Goats · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sherman was one of the Civil War's greatest strategic thinkers. He understood that taking the fight into the heart of the Confederacy would be the key to success, and he realized that when he sent the rebs running for the hills at Atlanta, the way was open for him to do what he wanted. So he plunged into the heart of Georgia, wreaking destruction everywhere he went with very little resistance from the available Southern troops. In the words of Lincoln, "Grant has the bear by the tail, while Sherman takes off it's hide." Sherman demonstrated to the Confederacy that it had been defeated, demoralizing Lee's troops trying to protect Richmond, and helping to topple the structure that had been hollowed out by years of war.

Living off the land was nothing new in the history of war, Hannibal had lived off the land for years in Italy while getting little or no support from the Carthaginian leadership, but armies had gotten out of the habit and had become used to the idea that military action required massive logistical support and the protection of long supply lines. Sherman realized before anyone that because he would be travelling through fertile lands guarded by inadequate defenders, he could dispense with the logistics and supply lines. He could march through enemy territory in the old style.

In taking this approach Sherman took an ominous step towards modern warfare, using terror and deliberately inflicting hardship on civilian populations. Everywhere Sherman's armies went, they met only women and children, and they routinely stole everything they could and then left nothing but charred homes and barns in their wake. Sherman did not order these depredations, but he winked at them.

Sherman's March is a highly readable account of this important historical event.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a detailed chronicle of General William Sherman's campaign against the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It relates the entire progress of Sherman's army from Atlanta through North Carolina using eyewitness accounts as well as official histories, and relates many anecodtal incidents that occurred. Of course, it focuses on Sherman, but also gives insight into many other personalities, both military and civilian, and both Northern and Southern, which gives context to Sherman's decisions and actions. Although there were no major battles fought during the campaign, since the South could mount no effective resistence, there were many skirmishes - some with considerable loss of life. The book, in sum, is a tale of depradation on a monumental scale. Sherman's campaign illustrates almost perfectly Clausewitz's two main principles of absolute war: act with the utmost concentration, and act with the utmost speed. There was no - or at least very little - mercy in his army's actions, and his actions led directly to the end of the war. We can see more modern applications of this philosophy in, for example, the Allied Italian campaign in WWII, and in the IDF's campaign in Gaza. Basically, you rip the heart out of your enemy, and thereby defeat him.

[Paul Decker · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always been intrigued by Sherman in the many roles he played in our country's history. When Grant was running the western Army, Sherman was his right hand man. But when Grant was called to fight Lee in the east, Sherman was placed in charge. Many have faulted his methods as his army devastated the south, but he wanted the war to be over. I am not sure the south could have or would have given up any other way. It is, of course, a "what if" that no one will never know the answer. Davis has given a positive view of Sherman, but does not enter into the debate. He just tells us the story of the march to the sea and beyond. Recommended for those interested in the personalities of the Civil War.

[Mikki · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book hit all the marks for me. It was fairly brief, but was full of true happenings, quotes from many types of people who were there, and good hints as to Sherman’s inner mind. I have little interest in battle plans, strategies, etc. I had just returned from a trip to South Carolina and Georgia when I read this. It was wonderful to have witnessed so many places mentioned in the book. The author also impressed me with what a messy, brutal war it was. Sherman issued orders about treating locals fairly, but there were always so-called “bummers” who did whatever they wished. That, of course, only deepened locals’ resentment of northern troops.

[Austin Barselau · Rating 4 out of 5]

SHERMAN’S MARCH is historian Burke Davis’ narrative of Sherman’s scorched earth campaign through the south in late 1864 into early 1865. From the attack and capture of Atlanta, the thrust to Savannah and the Atlantic, and the upward turn into the Carolinas, Davis documents how Sherman’s icy, inflexible resolve to cripple Southern resistance translated into a rout as Union forces trampled through that part of the country almost unimpeded in the twilight days of the war. Less an account about battlefield tactics, this book is both a drama of the march and a character exposé of the man leading that charge.

[Samuel Steffen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Burke Davis’s Sherman’s March is a masterfully crafted narrative that brings to life one of the most pivotal and controversial episodes of the American Civil War—General William T. Sherman’s relentless campaign through Georgia and the Carolinas. I appreciate the book’s meticulous synthesis of hundreds of eyewitness accounts, which Davis weaves together with remarkable clarity and eloquence. This approach not only provides a vivid, multi-dimensional view of the march but also ensures that the human experience—whether it’s the Union soldiers’ determination, the Confederate civilians’ anguish, or Sherman’s own complex persona—remains at the forefront.