Sunday, November 18, 2012

France’s New Political System


France’s New Political System
 After the French Revolution, France returned to a Bourbon monarchy led by Louis XVIII who was king of France from 1814 to 1824. During his reign a new political system was enacted in France. In this essay, I will discuss the Constitutional Charter of 1814 and King Louis XVIII’s role in the countries new government. 
            Before Louis XVIII was allowed back into his position, the Congress of Vienna required him to complete and submit a constitution for a new political system in France. The Congress of Vienna was a meeting between several European countries and provinces on November 1814 in Vienna, Austria. Their primary goal was to create a peace between the nations and a sense of equality between them so that no country would, or feel the need to, create such disarray in Europe as Napoleon had done in the name of France.
            This new constitution was the Charter of 1814. King Louis XVIII realized that the political, legal, and fiscal structures created by the Revolution had succeeded…and he had no desire to restore the provincial and corporate privileges, parliaments, and estates which has proved so aggravating to earlier French kings.[1] Instead, he decided to meld the two different practices creating a new French political system. Because of the revolution, many changes were implemented in the charter. Firstly, Freedom of Religion was granted, however Catholicism was considered the state religion. Secondly, the government was to be a constitutional monarchy that consisted of a bicameral parliament; the Chamber of Peers was appointed by the king and the Chamber of Deputies was elected by the people. Voting was restricted to the 110,000 wealthiest men.[2] Fourthly, the principal of careers open to merit and the sale of biens nationaux were recognized.[3] Basically this means, the careers Napoleon gave to people based on their merit rather than their class as well as the national property he bestowed upon them was recognized by Louis XVIII. Fifthly, the charter granted amnesty for all opinions held or votes cast prior to the restoration.[4] Lastly, all previously appointed Napoleonic personnel would hold on to their positions.[5] Some of these provisions would come back to haunt Louis XVIII, even though ironically, they were implemented to keep the peace at the time.
            As opposed to previous regimes the king no longer had absolute power, however, he still had many powers within the government. Firstly, he was still considered the executive leader. Secondly, he still controlled the armies and the ability to wage war and created peace. Thirdly, he appointed the Chamber of Peers. Lastly, he still proposed the laws of France. Louis XVIII’s reign was cut short for one Hundred Days when Napoleon who had escaped exile came back to France with a vengeance. Louis XVIII underestimated Napoleon who only had a handful of men in his army, however, because Louis XVIII left so many of Napoleon’s men in their previous positions, they flocked to their once great leader. Napoleon’s reign was ended at the battle of Waterloo where he was defeated. After this setback some “ultra-royalists” (comte d’Artois, the ducs d’Angouleme, and more) were so angry they unleashed what would be deemed the White Terror. They wanted revenge on anyone associated with the revolution, such as buyers of beins nationauxs, and former Jacobins and Bonapartists.[6] During this terror bands of royalist peasants and artisans killed around 200 people while 3000 were imprisoned without a trial and thousands more were put into flight.[7] During this time elections were held for the Chamber of Deputies and the seats were filled by mostly “ultra-loyalists” due to the fear incited by the White Terror. In 1816 Louis XVIII tried to reign in his government by dissolving the current parliament and holding elections for a new one. While animosities were low, they were not destined to be so for long. With the election of Henri’ Gregorie in 1819 and the assassination of due de Berry “ultras” were once again inflamed with the notions of the liberals. Towards the end of Louis XVIII’s reign he began to become even more passive in his politics than usual allowing the ministries of his government to take over. Once again the 1% of wealthy men were in charge of voting with the “double vote law”.[8] Louis XVIII died in 1824 and having no children of his own, his brother Charles X was put into power.
            France was going through a transition between conservatism and liberalism. This struggle went on for decades. It was the wealthy and the royal trying to keep hold over the overwhelmingly large middle class and lower class population. The French Revolution and its smaller subsequent revolutions and uprisings created a lasting impression that was impossible to dismiss. King Louis XVIII started his reign with a firm understanding of this but somewhere along the way he got tired. He was unable to fulfill his political duties, be it to his bad health, his compromising closed door activities, his growingly passive form of governing, or all of the above. In the end, France was on a path towards democracy. No amount of oppression was going to stop the road to that destination.


Bibliography
Rapport, Michael. Nineteenth-Century Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.


[1]Michael Rapport, Nineteenth-Century Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) 61.
[2] Ibid, 61.
[3] Ibid, 61.
[4] Ibid, 61.
[5] Ibid, 61.
[6] Ibid, 61.
[7] Ibid, 62.
[8] Ibid, 62. 

Unification of Germany

Unification of Germany

            Otto von Bismarck was the Minister-President of Prussia between the years of 1862-1873. He used wars to bring about the creation of a unified Germany. In this essay I will discuss the wars that Bismarck orchestrated as well as why he was successful in unifying Germany when the revolution of 1848 failed to do so.
            Bismarck was appointed as Minister-President of Prussia on 22 September 1862. Exhausting all other means of unification, Bismarck broke the liberal opposition by engineering a war to expel Austria from Germany.[1] Prussia signed an alliance with Italy that lasted only for the stretch of the war. The first spark of the war was when Prussia invaded Holstein after Austria had just been interested in their future. By a vote of nine to six, the smaller German states backed Prussia out of fear of Prussian expansion. Prussia invaded Saxony, Hesse-Cassel and Hanover for resisting joining a unified German state under the leadership of Prussia on 16 June.[2] Austria and Prussia went back and forth in battle with Austria defeating Italy at Lissa, and then Prussia defeating Austria on 3 July in Sadowa. In August, Prussia swallowed up Schleswig-Holestin, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Frankfurt and Nassau.[3] Austria surrendered to Italy in October. The war resulted in a new constitution that held a two-chamber parliament and universal male suffrage. Prussia had shown that it had the power-the blood and iron, as Bismarck had promised- to achieve German unity.[4]
            The four German states still independent were Bavaria, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Wurttemberg. Bismarck knew that he needed full German unification because without it, the four states left behind could rally with another country against Prussia. Complete unification would be possible only when France was weakened and when southern opposition was more muted…therefore in 1870, he provoked another war, this time against France.[5] Bismarck tried multiple times to infuriate France to the point of war. He leaked diplomatic matters that were humiliating to France and he even tried to get Prince Leopold to take the Spanish throne. When all matters seemed as though they were coming to an end, he edited a telegram from King William I of Prussia in a last attempt to create friction between the two countries. He made it seem as though King William had insulted France, and when France saw the published telegram, the country was enraged and on 15 July, they declared war.
            The war with France was a disaster for the French from the beginning. They had no allies to help enact a war with the Prussians. Austria had no desire to fight against the Prussians again and the Russians had no desire to fight alongside the French. The war was relatively short, lasting from July 1870-May 1871 and ended with French surrender.
            Bismarck knew now was the time to create a complete German State. He knew if the four states were going to join under Prussian leadership they could not be pushed into it. Through a mix of light threats and compromise they had come to an agreement. By the end of November all four southern [German] states had signed treaties joining the German Reich.[6] The King of Prussia [William I] was now ‘German Kaiser’.[7]
            Bismarck was more successful than the 1848 revolutions in unifying Germany for several reasons. The members behind the 1848 revolutions were divided and often had different aims than one another. Bismarck had a clear idea about what he wanted for the unification of Germany. His personality also contributed to his success. He was not only a strong figure in the Prussian government but he also used a means of fear and misdirection in a clever way to achieve his ends. Bismarck was also backed by William I and the entirety of Prussia to aid in German unification. For these reasons, Bismarck was much better suited to unify Germany than the 1848 revolutions.
            Bismarck used war, fear, and Prussian supremacy to unify Germany in 1860-1871. He was more successful that the revolution of 1848 for a number of different reasons. Overall, if it were not for Bismarck’s clear direction for the unification of Germany and his strong political presence, Germany could look very different today.         
 

Otto von Bismarck
(BBC-History URL)

Bibliography
Rapport, Michael. Nineteenth-Century Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.


[1] Michael Rapport, Nineteenth-Century Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) 184.
[2] Ibid, 184.
[3] Ibid, 184.                                                                                   
[4] Ibid, 185.
[5] Ibid, 185.
[6] Ibid, 187.
[7] Ibid, 187.

Revolutions in France, Austria and Prussia


Revolutions in France, Austria and Prussia 
            There were several outcomes of the Revolutions of 1848-1849. Some major changes occurred in France, Austria, and Prussia; however, remnants of the revolutions could be seen throughout the silhouette of Europe. In this essay, I will discuss some of the major issues that led to the revolutions as well as the major outcomes of the revolutions for France, Austria, and Prussia.
            What happened in 1845-1847 was not an isolated event but part of a broader range of economic difficulties, occurring over a fifteen-year period, running from the early 1840’s through the second half of the following decade. [1]  In the years of 1845-1847 especially, major issues began to occur that would result in a widespread call for revolution. A run of very poor harvests, a recession type economy, financial unpreparedness and unrest, unemployment, debt and credit issues, political imbalance, among other problems were the start of a continent wide panic.[2] During these years, there was an underlying process of transition in place working behind the scenes of each nation. Unaware of the prospect of future decades of economic expansion, [those who were starving, cold, unemployed, and heavily in debt] were ready to take violent and drastic action to improve their condition.[3]
            Starting in January 1848, uprisings began to explode all over Europe. In France, banquets gave way to street demonstrations; clashes between demonstrators and soldiers followed that day and the next.[4] Crowds invaded and disrupted the session of parliament and King Louis-Philippe was forced to flee the country.[5] Mass meetings, followed by street demonstrations demanding a change in regime led to serious clashes between crowds and the authorities, beginning in Munich on 4 March 1848, continuing in Vienna on the thirteenth, Budapest on the fifteenth, Venice and Cracow on the seventeenth, and Milan and Berlin on the eighteenth.[6] Regimes and empires all over Europe began to replace conservative members of government with liberals or react with force and repression to subdue writhing nations.
            France, Austria, and Prussia were each led by a particular personality. France was led by King Louis Philippe. While he was a milder king than some, his policies began to grow more conservative with his reign. Austria was led by Clemens von Metternich. .  Metternich wanted to ‘restore order’…and brushed off the suggestion that the best way to avoid revolution was by making concessions.[7] Instead he resorted to more drastic measures to retain control over his empire. Censorship and police harassment were never as stringent as the liberals claimed, [however] they were still exasperating.[8] The political police were neither numerous nor efficient, but their very existence – and the fact that they were not above using intimidation against people suspected of harboring ‘dangerous’ ideas – made them despised.[9] Clerical influence in education was taken as a sign that the monarchy was trying to bolster its power with the moral authority of Catholicism. [10] Overall Metternich kept control over his empire with less than desirable methods. His actions resulted in direct uprisings. Prussia was led by Frederick William IV. Firstly he tried to quell the revolution with military force and when that failed he decided to get on board with political changes. While he seemed to be working for the better of the country, he soon returned to a conservative regime once the threat of revolt seemed distant. He was committed to unification but his dream was never realized. Each of these leaders had their own way of dealing with the revolution that was at hand, and each one of them played their part in creating that necessary revolution.
            While a true radical revolution never really occurred, each event that took place during this time left a lasting impression on Europe. Most importantly, while most constitutions and other legal documents did not survive the quell of the revolution, many monarchies retained some form of parliamentary government as a result of actions taken during that time.[11] Prussia remained a constitutional monarchy which had a direct impact on the future of Italy and Germany.[12] In France, universal male suffrage was reintroduced in 1848 and this time, bar the brief interlude in 1850-1851, it was here to stay.[13] Another important result was the abolition of serfdom and seigneurialism in central Europe.[14] During these years of “near” revolutions, many people had their first tastes of politics. The events that took place during this time allowed people hands on opportunities to get involved with their countries and their futures. This is probably one of the most important results of the revolutions because it was a sentiment that has lasted throughout history: people have a say. Political clubs and workers’ organizations also flourished for a short time.[15] In Germany, 1848 is taken as the traditional birth-date of the German labor movement.[16] The revolutions did not do much for women’s rights; however, they planted a seed for them. Some politician’s eyes were opened during this time. A Hessian democrat declared that depriving women of the right to vote was unfair.[17] Many women’s clubs were created during this time. A women’s club in Prague was so successful, one of their meetings resulted in a delegation being sent to Vienna to secure the release of some prisoners as well as resulting in the creation of a Czech school for girls. Overall, the revolution left imprints of constitutionalism, nationalism, and other social questions behind to be further recognized in the future. It also showed liberals, nationalists, and radicals how to change their tactics and ideas for further progression of their aims.[18] European politics in the second half of the century were concerned with the shadows and legacies of 1848.[19]
            The Revolutions of 1848-1849 stemmed from a large amount of problems within the heart of Europe at the time. While the revolutions were never fully realized, they still produced a legacy for the continent, especially for France, Austria, and Prussia.

Bibliography
Rapport, Michael. Nineteenth-Century Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Sperber, Jonathan. The European Revolutions, 1848-1851. Cambridge: Cambridge University       Press, 2007.


[1] Jonathan Sperber, The European Revolutions, 1848-1851, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 109.
[2] Ibid, 109.
[3] Ibid, 109.
[4] Ibid, 116.
[5] Ibid, 116.                                                                                   
[6] Ibid, 117.
[7] Michael Rapport, Nineteenth-Century Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) 114.
[8] Ibid, 127.
[9] Ibid, 127.
[10] Ibid, 127.
[11] Ibid, 156.
[12] Ibid, 156.
[13] Ibid, 156.
[14] Ibid, 156.
[15] Ibid, 157.
[16] Ibid, 157.
[17] Ibid, 157.
[18] Ibid, 158.
[19] Ibid, 158.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Sherman's March to the Sea


Sherman’s March to the Sea
            Sherman’s March to the Sea was integral part of the Union’s plan for victory during the Civil War as well as a prime example of total war.
            Sherman’s March to the Sea, also known as the Savannah Campaign, was led by Major General William Tecumseh Sherman; Commander of the Union Army during the Civil War. The march was conducted through the state of Georgia and began in Atlanta on November 15, 1864, and concluded in Savannah on December 21, 1864.[1] Sherman had a group of almost 62,000 men. Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston later said, "There had been no such army since the days of Julius Caesar."[2] The Union Army brought devastation to the southern landscape in a way never before seen. They destroyed the South’s infrastructure, industry, and even civilian homes and property. Not only did Sherman destroy the South’s ability to continue the war by destroying their ability to survive by their own means of industry and production, he destroyed their hope and created a rift in the mindset of the people that the South could actually win against the North. David J. Eicher summed it up when he said that Sherman “defied military principles by operating deep within enemy territory and without lines of supply or communication. He destroyed much of the South's physical and psychological capacity to wage war.”[3] It is debatable what the true motivations were for Sherman’s actions in Georgia throughout the campaign. Sherman wrote a letter to his brother John a little after the march that read, “The South is whipped and submissive…”[4] He also wrote that he and the 62,000 Union soldiers would be “smashing things…to the sea.”[5] Did he truly want to end one of the United States bloodiest wars because he wanted the two halves of the country reunited? Or was there a more sinister motivation lurking deep beneath the surface?
            It has been said that Sherman’s March to the Sea was an integral part of the Unions plan for victory. As I stated in my introduction, not only did it devastate the South’s ability to survive on their own, it put fear into the hearts of Southerners everywhere. Another important point about the march was that with Sherman’s victory, it put Lincoln in a good place for re-election. This is important because Lincoln was the one fighting so hard to keep the country together while Lincoln’s opposition, if they gained election, were likely to just end the war for the sake of it and break up the country altogether. It is possible that if Sherman had not made such a display of aggression and power that the war could have raged on much longer than it did, not to mention the fact that the result of war could have been much different than it was as well as the geography of the modern day United States. The question you have to ask yourself is, does the end truly justify the means?
            The Civil War was the United States first total war, in fact, Sherman is perhaps the originator and the first practitioner of what the twentieth century came to know as "total war."[6] There are two types of war: total war and limited war. Total war is when both sides go all out and use all the available resources and population to win. A few examples of total wars would be the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII. In contrast limited wars are when the country uses only a small amount of their resources and population. A few examples of this type of war are the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War. More recently in our countries history there have been mostly limited wars. There are various reasons for this, mostly because they don’t want to risk going into total war because of how tragic it can become. For example, during the Vietnam War the US didn’t want to risk upsetting China and creating a total war. Sherman’s March to the Sea is a prime example of total war. He used all of the men at his disposal and created havoc to the fullest degree in hopes that it would result in total southern submission and surrender. According to Sherman, the Yankees were “not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people,” Sherman explained; as a result, they needed to “make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”[7]
            There were a few important battles/skirmishes that took place during Sherman’s march. Firstly, on November 22 the Georgia militia fought back at the town of Griswoldville and it ended as a decisive Union victory with 650 Georgia men dead and only 62 casualties for the Union soldiers.[8] The second was when the Union army captured Fort McAllister which in turn liberated a group of slaves. Before the slaves could cross the river, Jefferson Davis removed the bridge and men, women, and children plummeted into the water, many drowning before they could reach the safety of the shore. Sherman backed this action claimed David had done what was military necessary.[9]
            Where was the confederate army while Sherman was marching around the South destroying the state of Georgia? General John Bell Hood had decided that if he attacked Tennessee, it would draw Sherman back out of Georgia. Instead, Sherman anticipated this move and sent General George H. Thomas to meet Hood in Nashville. With only militia and cavalry standing in his way, Sherman was free to continue his march through Georgia[10].
            Personal accounts of Sherman’s March to the Sea are often hard to find because Sherman did not want Journalists to be a part of the march. Historians are not really sure why this is. Perhaps he was afraid of spies or afraid of giving away too much information. Maybe he wanted the soldiers to focus on their work, or perhaps he didn’t want the country to know what he was up to, or the acts he was planning on doing. We are lucky however to have a few good personal accounts of Sherman’s March to the Sea.
            Firstly, we are introduced to a woman named Dolly Sumner who lived in Covington, Georgia. She was left alone to manage a plantation when her husband Thomas Burge died in 1858.[11] Her story, I believe, is most similar to thousands of southerner stories about Sherman’s march. Sherman himself drove by her home with his army. They took all of her food, “To my smoke-house, my dairy, pantry, kitchen, and cellar, like famished wolves they come, breaking locks and whatever is in their way. The thousand pounds of meat in my smoke-house is gone in a twinkling, my flour, my meat, my lard, butter, eggs, pickles of various kinds - both in vinegar and brine - wine, jars, and jugs are all gone. My eighteen fat turkeys, my hens, chickens, and fowls, my young pigs, are shot down in my yard and hunted as if they were rebels themselves.”[12] She was powerless to the Union Army as they pillaged all of her belongings. They also took all of the boys in her home with them, perhaps to induct them into the army. She was thankful she was left with her life, but ended her journal entry with, “this ended the passing of Sherman's army by my place, leaving me poorer by thirty thousand dollars than I was yesterday morning. And a much stronger Rebel!”[13]
            Our second Georgia account comes from a women named Nora Canning. She lived in Savannah Georgia and recalled the night Sherman’s army rolled into town, “That night the heavens looked as if they were on fire from the glare of hundreds of burning houses.”[14] Her story is a little more tragic than that of Dolly Sumner. Sherman’s soldiers set fire to all of her cotton and hay bales. They cut the well ropes and stole their buckets so they had no water to drink. When her husband had told them he had no gold they hung him and cut him down just before he could smother. When they saw a newly dug grave, they dug it up and when they found no treasure they left the casket open of a young boy who had died only days before. Nora Canning mentions the seen the following day, “The Yankees had cut all the well ropes and stolen the buckets, and there was no water nearer than half a mile. Saturday morning we looked out upon a scene of desolation and ruin. We could hardly believe it was our home. One week before it was one of the most beautiful places in the state. Now it was a vast wreck. Gin-houses, packing screws, granary -- all lay in ashes. Not a fence was to be seen for miles. The corn crop had not been gathered, and the army had turned their stock into the fields and destroyed what they had not carried off. Burning cotton and grain filled the air with smoke, and even the sun seemed to hide its face from so gloomy a picture.”[15]
            After Sherman captured Savannah he presented it to Lincoln as a Christmas gift. He then continued the march toward a destination he thought was vital to the surrender of the south: Columbia, South Carolina. A soldier named Private John C. Arbuckle recalls the burning of Columbia, “In all of our campaigns, no other city in the South awakened our interest and bad feeling as did this city of Columbia; and now, here it was, with all of its beauty and attractiveness, in full view; but, withal, this was the trouble, there attached to it the bad eminence of having been the first of Southern Capitols to lead off in unleashing the dogs of war...The sacrifice, blood and carnage of four years of war through which we had passed, were due to what first took place here in the city of Columbia. Judging from the temper and feeling of the men in the ranks, it was evident that a terrible day of retribution had at last come to this beleaguered and doomed city.”[16] A woman named Mary Boykin Chestnut, a South Carolinian, said, “I have felt as if…we are going to be wiped off the earth.[17]
            The last personal account from a victim of Sherman’s march I want to give is perhaps the most unsettling of the bunch. It took place in Columbia, South Carolina. The true brutality of Sherman’s soldiers can only be seen with the full account. A summary would not do it justice.
            “The Yankees' gallantry, brutality and debauchery were afflicted on the negroes.... The case of Mr. Shane's old negro woman, who, after being subjected to the most brutal indecency from seven of the Yankees, was, at the proposition of one of them to "finish the old Bitch," put into a ditch and held under water until life was extinct....
Mrs. T.B.C. was seized by one of the soldiers, an officer, and dragged by the hair and forced to the floor for the purpose of sensual enjoyment. She resisted as far as practical- held up her young infant as a plea for sparing her and succeeded, but they took her maid, and in her presence, threw her on the floor and had connection with her....
They pinioned Mrs. McCord and robbed her. They dragged Mrs. Gynn by the hair of her head about the house. Mrs. G. told me of a young lady about 16, Miss Kinsler, who... three officers brutally ravished and who became crazy from it....”[18]
            If the burning and pillage of houses wasn’t enough, there are countless stories of sexual abuse from Sherman’s soldiers. There are accounts of white women left alone whose husbands were killed or at war, African American women who were slaves, and even children. It is unclear if Sherman knew the extent his soldiers were going to, to break the South’s will to fight.
            I was able to find an account from one of Sherman’s soldiers named Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers. According to Myers the rules of plundering are, “Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place -- one-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief and staff; one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff; one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company.”[19] He mentioned that officers were not allowed to plunder outright; they had to disguise themselves as privates. He talked about all of the gold and silver he had collected for his wife and daughters. He mentioned specifically, “General Sherman has silver and gold enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five.”[20] This letter shows the greedy mindset of a Union soldier. With loot being handed out so freely it was sure to draw a most undesirable crowd.
            Despite the mixed feelings about Sherman’s true intentions on the march to the sea, I have tried to keep an open mind, free of biases. Being from South Carolina you can never get a clear picture of Sherman as he is often seen a ruthless murderer, however, it’s not fair to judge unless we first get all of the facts. Through my findings I personally think Sherman was a harsh man who sought means to end the bloodiest war the United States had ever seen. His methods are questionable and actions often went unpunished, but without them, the war could have lasted many more years. Not only this, but Sherman is only one man who had control over 60,000 men. Some officers did whatever they wanted without consent of Sherman himself. We can never be sure if this would have affected Sherman’s mood negatively. This is only my opinion, and we will never truly know Sherman’s intentions, motivations, or expectations of the march to the sea. Sherman is quoted as having said War is Hell. In studying the many tragedies of United States military history, I would have to agree with him.
Bibliography
Bailey, Anne J. Sherman’s March to the Sea. New Georgia Encyclopedia. 2011. URL.
CSAnet. Eyewitness Accounts of William T. Sherman's Destructive March to the Sea. URL.
Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon &     Schuster, 2001
Knapp Agency. Sherman’s March: Final Revenge. Video. 2003. URL.
Sherman, William. Letter to his Brother John. Familytales. URL.
Sherman’s March. History.com. URL.
Sumner, Dolly. Personal Journal Entry. Eyewitness to history. URL
Wicker, Tom. William Tecumseh Sherman. History.com. 1996. URL. 

[1] Anne J. Bailey, Sherman’s March to the Sea, New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2011, URL.
[2] Knapp Agency, Sherman’s March: Final Revenge, Video, 2003, URL.
[3] David J Eicher, The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001) 739.
[4] William Sherman, Letter to his brother John, Familytales, URL.
[5] Sherman’s March, History.com, URL.
[6] Tom Wicker, William Tecumseh Sherman, History.com, 1996, URL.
[7] Sherman’s March, History.com, URL.
[8] Anne J. Bailey, Sherman’s March to the Sea, New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2011, URL.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Dolly Sumner, Personal Journal Entry, Eyewitness to history, URL.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Nora Canning, Oh! The Horror of the Night, Eyewitness Accounts of William T. Sherman's
Destructive March to the Sea, URL.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Knapp Agency, Sherman’s March: Final Revenge, Video, 2003, URL.
[17] Sherman’s March, History.com, URL.
[18] Dr. Daniel Trezevant, Debauchery…Afflicted on the Negroes, Eyewitness Accounts of William T. Sherman's
Destructive March to the Sea, URL.
[19] Thomas J. Myers, A Souvenir of Sherman’s Bummers, Eyewitness Accounts of William T. Sherman's
Destructive March to the Sea, URL.
[20] Ibid.