Essay, Research Paper: John Walters: Merchant Of Terror General

The Civil War is one of the most trying times in American history. The country is di-vided; brothers fight their fathers and other brothers. During this troubling time, the North wants to bring the war to a swift end. To help accomplish this, General William Tecumseh Sherman implements a strategy of total war. His army destroys anything that can be considered something of strategically value. He is the most effective general at this act in the history of war. Sherman indiscriminately destroys any southern building his army comes across. John Walters gives a descriptive and horrific account of Sherman's march through the South.
In this novel, the author shows how Sherman's ideas are born, evolve and eventually mature. He begins before the Civil War with Sherman's life as a general at a Louisiana military school. Here, Sherman is for supporting the Constitution above everything. This is one of the main reasons he decides to fight for the north and not the south. The author then chronologically moves from battle to battle, until the Civil War is finally over. In the beginning of the Civil War while in Mississippi, Sherman discovers the advantage the small southern militias have against a large army. They can move quickly and fero-ciously. To stop these acts, Sherman decides to destroy the land of its value, removing all food, possessions, and clothing, which forces the rebels away. As well as removing the threat, he also observers this has a negative effect on the civilian population. As he moves through Mississippi, he develops, almost to a science, how to effectively destroy towns. His army burns and pillages all the towns the come across. They strike fear into the eyes of southerners. Although the action is exciting, it is also during this time that the novel becomes boring. Walters meticulously writes about almost every town that he army comes across and gives detailed data about each. Most of these were not vital cities to the south and their inclusion in the book only made the book drag along. The story behind the people that Sherman affected would have been more effective if these specific facts were omitted.
Even though Sherman is a strong military leader, it is surprising when Walters de-scribes how easily Sherman gives up. Walters effectively depicts several accounts of Sherman quitting or almost quitting the army. Prior to the Civil War when Sherman is stationed in Louisiana, he gets bored because he is not seeing any action and quits. He joins the army again when the Civil War starts in hope of seeing combat. Also, when President Lincoln does not listen to the information Sherman believes is vital, he gets up-set and threatens to quit they army. He only stays because someone convinces him not to quit. On the other side of Sherman's personality, though, is a very demanding person. He expects the south to be totally compliant to an invading army. This surprises me be-cause people have a right to defend their land, and also it is such a contrast to his willing-ness to quit. If anyone attacks his army, he destroys the nearest town in retaliation, even if they had nothing to do with it. This practice of his was unfair to the southern popula-tion.
Perhaps the most disturbing act of Sherman is his ruthlessness to the southern popu-lation. Walters vividly describes how Sherman's army robs, burns, and destroys the towns of the south. They rape, kill, and emotionally scar the people. Even when the army leaves, the people have no supplies to rebuild their towns or any food to eat. Many people die of starvation after the army departs. "No army can exist during this season without hauling in wagons all his supplies" because all the food was destroyed. People also have to stand and watch as their houses are looted and burned by the overbearing army. They are forced to stand there and watch as the army takes away any pride they had left. I could almost feel the pain that the southerners experienced as I read through this novel. Sherman is well aware of his army's acts; he even unofficially supports them. Supporting them outright could compromise his career, so he does this to protect himself. He uses the excuse that he cannot totally control such a large army. However, this was not the case. Several times, he prevents his army from destroying towns that he wanted kept. His violence against the innocent inhabitants of the South is too extreme. His vio-lence should have been reserved for the battle field.
Walters also surprises me by showing the hypocrisy of Sherman's ways. Before the Civil War, he says that he supports the Constitution. He is fighting the Civil War to in-stitute the influence of the Constitution in the South. However, he does not always obey the Constitution. He breaks it in order to accomplish his goal of destroying the south. How can he justify these horrible, unconstitutional acts in order to save the constitution? He cannot. This book enlightens me about Sherman's true character. I never knew the true horrors that his army committed and that he endorsed. His "accomplishments" in the South should not be taught as heroic, or even good. He murders innocent people and de-stroys their property. Sherman may have helped to win the war for the Union, but he is no war hero.
One disturbing act of the author is his prejudice towards the northern army. The author lives in Alabama, so he probably has a tendency towards the south. Still, at sev-eral times during the novel, he actually sounds as if he is criticizing the north for emanci-pating the slaves. "Women and children [were] left alone on the farms and plantations" when the northern armies came through. He sounds like the slaves should have been left there to help the people of the South. The purpose of the war at that point is to free the slaves. The southern had enslaved people, and the author sounds like they should have been allowed to continue that. The major benefit that the Civil War had was the libera-tion of the slaves, and the author should have been more careful of his diction on this subject.
The book falls short of excellent because of the amount of much detail the author puts into each section of the book. To most people, the most famous part of Sherman's quest is his march through Georgia. Also, the most brutal part of his trip is when he was in South Carolina. However, the author writes the most about when the army is in Missis-sippi. The entire first half of the book deals with this. It seems almost as if the author spends great care and detail writing the first half of the book, and then hurries to finish it. Also, the author uses many statistics. Whenever he describes a town Sherman destroys, he gives specific numbers on how much the arm destroys. This information would be helpful in research, but it takes away from the actually effect of the story. His derives his statistics from mainly primary sources. Personal diaries of the generals and civilians are used. He quotes their diaries, giving a remarkable account of the events that actually transpired. Although convincing sources are used, the novel needs to be more balanced in its description of the destruction of the South.
Should Sherman have done what he did? Walters gave a complete account of Sherman's actions in the South to help me answer this question. It may have had the war draw to an earlier close, but probably not by much. The lives saved from the eliminated battles are probably made up for in the form of innocent southern civilians. His methods are too extreme, especially since the point of the war is to reintegrate the south into the Union. He cuts deeps scars that will last for many generations. Total war may be an ef-fective way to win a war, but it goes against all moral judgement. "War is hell," but it should only be fought on the battle field. The people of a country just live there and do not necessarily support the views of the government. Even if they do, they are unarmed and do not pose a threat to the army. John Walters gives an accurate and stunning ac-count of the atrocities that Sherman's army commits.