Aerial photos of Sherman's March

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Agreed, sir. In point of fact, Sherman's men have been given credit for a degree of destruction in Georgia that did not take place in that state. They did not hit full stride until the Carolina Campaign.

[David Fox]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Interestingly, Sherman himself was invited back to Atlanta by the City Fathers (I don't know if the City Mothers had much imput in those days) and feted handsomely. Much of the rancour expressed against him in the 20th Century by those who did not live through the war is (like the term 'War Between the States') hard to find in the late 19th Century among those who did.

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

OK. So the destruction by Sherman's men on the march to the sea never happened. Just like the Holocaust. Sherman never "made Georgia howl". That stuff only happened in someone's imagination.
It is true that much of Atlanta burned as a result of Hood's Confederates blowing up the ordinance trains. It is also true that many Southerners said they would rather see Sherman's Bummers coming than Wheeler's cavalry.
If War Between the States is not a proper term, neither is Civil War. At the time of the late unpleasantness the north and south were two separate countries. The south had no interest in overthrowing the north. The War in the official records of the U.S. government is referred to as The War of the Rebellion.
Tom Dodson
47th Ga

[David Fox]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

I'm content for folks to call The War by whatever name they like. I mean no disrespect to individual cultural memories. Over the past several decades, however, I've amassed a body of Southron quotations, from Jefferson Davis himself through the Southern veterans' dedication of the Lee Chapel at Washington & Lee College, calling it the Civil War. I've yet to find anyone contemporary to the 1860s terming it a war between the states, though I'm always open to being educated.
Sherman himself was a southernophile, if there is such a word. And he wanted to bring a swift end to the killing. His march hastened the War's end as surely as descendants of Yankees and Confederates did in bombing Germany and Japan. To win a war, one breaks eggs. If not willing or able to break enough eggs (as in my particular war in Southeast Asia), one does not prevail. One may burn Atlanta, as Sherman selectively did, or burn Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (the largest northern city ever in Confederate grasp), as the South did, or try to burn teeming New York City, as Confederate agents attempted. Had they been successful, the loss of civilian life would likely have made 9/11 pale in comparison. One is at a loss to find a distinction.
I tell you, as one who participated, that war is hell. You'll recall who famously opined this unromantic, modern sentiment almost exactly a century before my humble rediscovery of its sage veracity.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

I'm curious exactly what signs of Sherman's march one would expect to see in aerial photos decades later.

Most of the noticeable features from the air would be the crazy-quilt of fields and woodlots, larger buildings, the straight lines of railroads, the network of roads, etc.

So what effect did Sherman's march have on these features that would change its look in the subsequent decades?

The kinds of things that come to mind are:

--Landowners abandoned their farms and let them grow up in woods, so there would be a swath of woodland rather than open fields. But whether the original owners, neighbors or carpetbaggers controlled the land, I can't see that there would be a unique difference only where Sherman passed. After a few decades, economics of farming would affect everyone, in and out of Sherman's path.

--Houses were burned. But old houses are torn down and new ones rebuilt everywhere over the years. I'd think that would only be a visible change for a decade at most.

--Fences were torn down. But unless farms were therefore consolidated and fields/woodlots enlarged to remove any sign that there had been a barrier, the fences would be rebuilt and the boundaries would remain. Like fields vs. woods, the consolidation or subdivision of farms tends to be a trend based on larger economic forces.

Are those the kinds of things that people are expecting to see? If not, what?

When I first read the initial post, what I pictured was that one could see the path of his march, meaning one could see why he chose that path--old roads had become highways but they still led from place to place for easy marching, railroads had been abandoned or expanded but one could still see the straight line of the bed that had been cut across the landscape. One could see the mountains that he avoided or the rivers that he followed or whatever, because he was choosing the most logical route on a greater geographic scale that was visible from the air. But apparently that's not it, and the point is supposed to be that his destruction affected the landscape for decades.

So, long story short, what specific features is one expecting to see from the air that would mark Sherman's route decades later?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Mgreer]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

So the destruction by Sherman's men on the march to the sea never happened

At the time of the late unpleasantness the north and south were two separate countries

Mr. Dodson,

I do not believe that anyone is saying that Sherman’s march never happened. If so that would be asinine. Secondly there were never two countries. There was the US and a rebelling portion of the nation. No nation publicly recognized the rebels as an independent nation. This comes from the Museum of the Confederacy:

Did any foreign countries recognize the Confederacy?
In effect, no. The closest thing to foreign recognition that the Confederacy achieved was when the German state of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha appointed a consul to Texas in July 1861 and the Confederate government accepted his credentials (all other foreign consuls operating in Southern states had applied to the U.S. government before the war). Although the appointment of the consul could be interpreted as de facto recognition of the Confederacy, Confederate officials did not make that claim during or after the war. Confederate diplomatic efforts concentrated on seeking recognition from Great Britain and France. Influential Britons and French were sympathetic to the South, but their governments did not recognize the Confederacy and the Confederacy never attained official status among the nations of the world.

http://www.moc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=abt_faq_main

Hank,

I do believe what Marissa is talking about was having that amount of people moving through a relatively small area and what that effect that would have on the land plus the foraging. You had the Confederates, refugees, Federals, and contrabands all taking a very similar path. Pleas correct me if I am wrong but I think that is the basis of her question.

Marvin

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Mr. Dodson-

All I said was that the damage done by Federal troops during the Carolina Campaign was worse, particularly in South Carolina, than it was during the Savannah Campaign. I did not say or imply that there was no damage done during the Savannah Campaign.

Mr. Trent-

Thank you for your post. This is what I attempted to say, and you stated it much more eloquently.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

I do believe what Marissa is talking about was having that amount of people moving through a relatively small area and what that effect that would have on the land plus the foraging. You had the Confederates, refugees, Federals, and contrabands all taking a very similar path. Pleas correct me if I am wrong but I think that is the basis of her question.

Yes, definitely, I think it would have an affect something akin to a swarm of locusts at the time, and would most likely show up in (hypothetical) aerial photographs that year, with crops being trampled, fences torn down, and so forth.

But I'm curious what changes one would expect to see decades later, that would still be visible.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Mgreer]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Point well taken Hank

Marvin

[David Fox]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

As to what traces of war might be visable from an aerial perspective decades later, one presumes areas of eastern German cities especially might yet show the effects of bombing and fire. At least one French town, razed by the Waffen SS in 1944, has not been restored. One also suspects large bomb and artillery shell craters in the countryside anywhere might perservere in aerial shots. I recall some years ago, perhaps in "National Geographic", the outlines of burnt American and British gliders could still be seen in modern aerial photographs of Normandy.
World War I has left readily identifiable scars across France and Belgium. Roman camps and siege works surround the Jewish 1st Century mountain fortress of Mesada. In North African deserts the tracks of WW II tanks and other vehicles persist as do wrecks of such vehicles and aircraft, which also dot the Pacific (see: www.pacificwrecks.com).
These evidences of actual fighting and war's distruction visable from the air are what come readily to mind. Doubtless there are many others...such as the earthworks at Spottsylvania and Petersburg.

[yeoman]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Sir and Ma'am, I would expect to find nothing.
In my post # 3, I stated I'm using these photographs, modern maps and old "records" as I might find and relate both army's lines, forts whatever to my experience.
Yes, I think it interesting to use known sources, maps or whatever with aerial photos to follow the course of Sherman's army through Georgia. Truly, I expect to find nothing.
I do find I must have thin skin, as words put together as "the lost cause mentality" are fairly pointed.

Respectfully,
Mel Hadden

[Gallinipper]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Didn't much of Sherman's "principal" route from Atlanta to Savannah roughly cover the area where Interstate 16 was later built, or is that just another ol' wive's tale? The 1950s were the interstate system building years (thanks Ike!) I haven't seen any of the aforementioned aerial photos, but might that be what started some of those rumors?

Inquiring minds, and devil's advocates, want to know....

[jwoodli]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

There is simply no need for aerial photos to show a physical mark of Sherman and his 'boys' march to Savannah and the Carolinas, because while the route from Macon to Savannah along I-16 lacks any wonderful scenic reprieves for the highway traveler, the route is dominated by pine barrens belonging to timber companies, and once prominent socio-economic centers are now depressed and relatively abandoned towns (a mark left across much of the South); the route of Sherman is cursed, as evidenced by the shear multitudes of state patrol and local speed enforcement officers in numbers not encountered along other major routes in the region. Maybe this is simply my bad luck, but I, as a Southerner, feel no remorse in relating such an affliction upon the insufferable acts of Sherman and his lot.
It also seems improbable that the several thousand cavalry troopers under Wheeler could inflict comparable damage and destruction as the tens of thousands of needy men under Sherman.

[Coatsy]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

The vegetation around Georgia in the spring and summer time tends to grow very quickly if let unchecked. Most of the destruction, if there was indeed a large acre up acre area of destruction would have been "repaired" by general nature or reclaimed as farmland. Not that I was around in 1860s, but I do have a clue how fast plant life can grow in the Peach State. I don't think the "Swath Of Destruction" in linear form would have been present at all. It was a figure of speech. Even with the advent of Aerial Photography after WWI there is no way to see something that just was not there as larger "destruction trails". The chimneys are still around BTW here and there.

Folks the Carolinas got the worst of Sherman's Men Bumming and that is a fact. Read a book if you think I am wrong, don't go on myths. What Sherman's men did in Georgia and the Carolinas is the same as what McCausland and Brad Johnson did to Chambersburg in 1864. Hey at least the Civilian populace were not as unlucky as the USCT troops captured or wounded after the Battle of Saltville in 1864. As "Southerners" we may not like what Dave Hunter, Phil Sheridan, or Uncle Billy did to the country side and civilians, but ultimately who won?

The I-16 question about Sherman's march... Well some of the interstate is where portions of Sherman’s “Blue Horde” marched. A large portion of Sherman's army was marching north of where I-16 is now. The army actually went east to Milledgeville. Continuing east as if to strike at Augusta, they then went south east after getting as far as Waynesboro (Kilpatrick's Cav supported by Baird's Infantry division) It looks like the Right Wing (Howard and Co) got near where I-16 is east of Statesboro. At the Ogeechee River the men went south towards Ft. McAllister or along the RR towards Savannah. The Left Wing (Slocum) was of course further north of Howard.

In Atlanta, Tom is correct. There is next to nothing that was there during the war. There are a few churches near Five Points and the state capitol building that survived, but the ATL has a knack for tearing down the old and bringing up the new. The Oakland Cemetery and a portion of a ravine near where the Troup Hurt house stood are the only things physical links for the Battle of Atlanta. Peachtree Creek has less than that. The creeks are still near enough in the same place. The Ezra Church battlefield is pretty much gone. Trenches along Utoy Creek still exist only because it they are in protected wetlands.

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Aerial photos of Sherman's March

Another vestige of the War in Atlanta is Fort Walker at Grant Park near the Cyclorama. It was part of Atlanta's outer defenses. In the days of my youth it was well maintained with at least two cannon and limbers. Then it was allowed to deteriorate into just an overgrown hill. I am told it has at least been cleared again but have not been by in quite some time. The Cyclorama itself came dangerously close to passing into history. It was in such bad condition that it was closed for a few years in the late 70's. Fortunately for all, the city decided to repair and restore it.
I am sorry I had to miss the Atlanta LH this year. The reactions of the passers by when the salute is fired at the General Walker marker are priceless.
Tom Dodson
47th Ga
P.S.
I saw a bumper sticker a few years back that was interesting. It read :
General Sherman, where are you now that Atlanta needs you?