Alan's message does raise some interesting questions. Can you really classify a war, or is war just hell and all the same for the people caught up in it? Do the ends justify the means in something as important as the life and death of a country (or of a country to be)? Did men like Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant make the war meaner than it should have been, or did the war make them meaner? Can you really separate the homefront from the battlefield when the war is fought in your backyard?
While both sides had regulations for dealing with civilian populations during the war, those regulations changed over time, especially with the Union forces. Occupying Union forces went from a position of restraint in 1861 to hard intervention by late 1862. As Mark Grimsley points out in his book, "The Hard Hand of War," the North had a policy of "directed severity and not indiscriminate fury." They looked to identify different classes of Union and Confederate supporters, and to enforce a policy of treatment towards each particular group. It looked good on paper, but the policy was pretty much what the local commander in charge of the occupation wanted it to be- and local commanders who were under fire saw things differently.
An occupying army has a difficult time maintaining control or even security for its own forces in a hostile environment. Northern Alabama was a "homefront" that was also a battlefield. The Union army had to defend against local guerrilla units, as well as regular cavalry and infantry who raided the towns and attacked military fortifications and the railroads. How much can we blame some of these generals for their policies and their effects on civilians? Was Sherman smart in burning Atlanta...was Grant wise in stopping the exchange of prisoners...was Sheridan out of line when he hung several of Mosby's raiders, or when he burned the Shenandoah Valley?
No commander was immune from subordinates and individual soldiers having their own way with a civilian population. Even Lee had a hard time enforcing his no-plunder policy during the Antietam and Gettysburg Campaigns. War comes to a community without any good set rules. While it's not about Alabama, it would be good to read Daniel Sutherland's "Seasons of War- The Ordeal of a Confederate Community" (Culpeper, VA) where he shows the Virginia version of what northern Alabama went through. He also shows that the local population also suffered when the Confederate armies passed through or camped near the town. Sutherland has also edited a new book: "Guerrillas, Unionists, and Violence on the Confederate Homefront." Had the Confederate forces occupied Union territories for any length of time, I have no doubt that they would have had their Turchins and Shermans as well.
Do the ends justify the means? If Grant doesn't sacrifice more men in constantly attacking Lee in 1864 and 1865, does the South eventually win the war? How many more men could Grant have lost before public outcry forced him to stop? Did the end: winning the Civil War and preserving the Union justify the means: winning at any price? George McClellan wouldn't have paid that price- Grant would and did. Robert E. Lee surrendered rather than continue the fight through guerrilla warfare: is that an example that the Confederacy was not willing to pay any price to win? That "price" seemed to be constantly going up throughout the war.
Are we in a "just" war now with the terrorists and the Afghanis (who are currently in a holy war with us)? If we killed 4,000 Afghani civilians in attempting to destroy the terrorists and the Taliban, and to save our country from further death and destruction; does that end justify the means? If you had the terrorist leader targeted inside a mosque and failed to bomb it because it was a house of God- did you do the right thing? Are we as guilty searching Afghani homes for terrorists and hunting down possible terrorists in this country as the Union soldiers were in looking for guerrillas in northern Alabama?
Personally, I think war is just war, and that's bad enough. Classifying it just tries to "lend dignity to what otherwise is a vulgar brawl." While Presidents and generals set policies in the Civil War, individuals carried those policies out in day-to-day contacts with civilians. Fortunately you did have some men like Chamberlin and Lee who were far above the average officer in their dignity and respect for humanity, who balanced off the Turchins and Shermans. However, a civilian's experience with the Civil War, on a daily basis, was probably only as good as the character of the man and the soldier currently standing in front of him.
John