Was William T. Sherman a War Criminal? A Historical Analysis
The question of whether William T. Sherman was a war criminal has long been debated. This analysis delves into historical records and the context of the American Civil War to determine if Sherman’s actions were justified or if he truly violated the rules of war.
Understanding War Crimes and the American Civil War
A war criminal is characterized by the violation of internationally agreed rules of war. During the American Civil War in the 1860s, no such agreements existed. Sherman's actions, while morally questionable by some contemporary standards, were not considered war crimes because the rules of modern warfare had not been fully established.
His destruction of infrastructure and living off the land was common practice at the time. Lee's actions in Pennsylvania were also not markedly different in terms of strategy and morality. Both campaigns can be compared to the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII, with Sherman’s approach often being considered more humane.
The Geneva Convention and Modern Standards
The Geneva Convention, which outlines the rights and protections of civilians and combatants during war, was not established until the 20th century. Thus, by the standards of the 19th century, Sherman's actions were not considered war crimes.
However, from a modern perspective, Sherman’s policies towards Native Americans were akin to the treatment of Russians by Germany during World War II. Even though Sherman was not technically a war criminal under the 19th-century context, if held to the standards of the Geneva Convention, he would be regarded as one.
Historical Context and Trial Possibilities
As a victorious general, Sherman could never be considered a war criminal since winners generally try losers. Joe Johnston, the Confederate commander, would have been the logical suspect. However, Sherman pardoned Johnston and granted him the same treatment as Lee. The Confederate Secretary of War, John C. Breckenridge, was not covered by the same parole and was not tried for war crimes.
Hague conventions and international laws have historically put war criminals on trial by the victorious parties. This pattern continues to the present day, where winners try and often convict the losers.
Conclusion
William T. Sherman's actions during the American Civil War were complex, and judgments about his status as a war criminal depend deeply on the context and the standards used to evaluate those actions. By the 19th-century standards, and given the historical context of the time, Sherman cannot be classified as a war criminal. However, when viewed through the lens of modern international law, his actions towards Native Americans would certainly be considered morally reprehensible and potentially criminal.