What do you think?
Rate this book
Demon of the Lost Cause: Sherman and Civil War History
At the end of the Civil War, Union general William Tecumseh Sherman was surprisingly more popular in the newly defeated South than he was in the North. Yet, only thirty years later, his name was synonymous with evil and destruction in the South, particularly as the creator and enactor of the “total war” policy. In Demon of the Lost Cause, Wesley Moody examines these perplexing contradictions and how they and others function in past and present myths about Sherman. Throughout this fascinating study of Sherman’s reputation, from his first public servant role as the major general for the state of California until his death in 1891, Moody explores why Sherman remains one of the most controversial figures in American history. Using contemporary newspaper accounts, Sherman’s letters and memoirs, as well as biographies of Sherman and histories of his times, Moody reveals that Sherman’s shifting reputation was formed by whoever controlled the message, whether it was the Lost Cause historians of the South, Sherman’s enemies in the North, or Sherman himself. With his famous “March to the Sea” in Georgia, the general became known for inventing a brutal warfare where the conflict is brought to the civilian population. In fact, many of Sherman’s actions were official tactics to be employed when dealing with guerrilla forces, yet Sherman never put an end to the talk of his innovative tactics and even added to the stories himself. Sherman knew he had enemies in the Union army and within the Republican elite who could and would jeopardize his position for their own gain. In fact, these were the same people who spread the word that Sherman was a Southern sympathizer following the war, helping to place the general in the South’s good graces. That all changed, however, when the Lost Cause historians began formulating revisions to the Civil War, as Sherman’s actions were the perfect explanation for why the South had lost. Demon of the Lost Cause reveals the machinations behind the Sherman myth and the reasons behind the acceptance of such myths, no matter who invented them. In the case of Sherman’s own mythmaking, Moody postulates that his motivation was to secure a military position to support his wife and children. For the other Sherman mythmakers, personal or political gain was typically the rationale behind the stories they told and believed. In tracing Sherman’s ever-changing reputation, Moody sheds light on current and past understanding of the Civil War through the lens of one of its most controversial figures.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published November 20, 2011
1 person is currently reading
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
January 12, 2013
I grew up in the north and learned of Sherman through my normal reading of history. I had the impression that he was a tough soldier, who fought to win. Most of the books written about Sherman - with which I was and still am familiar - are by writers sympathetic to the southern cause. Sherman has been vilified in the south for a very long time, but it did not start out that way. After I moved to the south, I learned really how hated is was and still is.
It is strange when one remembers that he spent a significant part of his life in the south that he loved the south, was not a supporter of abolition and was more generous than Grant when Johnson surrendered his army.
The books and writings about Sherman - I learned - are mostly by southern writers revising/excusing history, or his military and political enemies in both the north and the south.
At the end of the war he was actually well respected and admired in the south. The image of Sherman was and remains controlled by whomever does the writing and their particular agenda - who then select the facts (some made up) to support their view, be that south or north.
In 1955 a scholar by the name of D.J. de Labenfels - University of Georgia professor - used the journals and maps of Sherman's chief topographical engineer to trace Sherman's March to the sea. Labenfels wrote that it was relatively easy, since many of the buildings described by Captain Rziha were still standing in the 1950's. Further it was noted in the book that many of the mansions were left alone because the owners had left signs of membership in the Masonic Order. This was also true of many of the cities wherein the mayor and city council were Masons and made it known to Sherman.
I do a talk on what is labeled "The Atlanta Campaign/Or How Jefferson Davis re-elected Abraham Lincoln in 1864." In that talk, I discuss how Jefferson Davis allowed his personal animosity to color his view of Johnson and his strategy/tactics and to fire him and replace him with John Bell Hood - a disastrous decision. I also clarify a lot of southern folklore with hard irrefutable facts. It usually creates a vigorous question and answer session following the talk!
I would have given this book a 5 star rating had it included some photos to support the still existing mansions, along with some copies of specific writings of people who reported at the time what was really going on. Last some photos of Atlanta before Sherman and after to correctly reflect that anything of value was fired by the retreating confederates to deny to any use by the federals and how little real damage outside the downtown area was done. I use some of those photos in my talk.
It is strange when one remembers that he spent a significant part of his life in the south that he loved the south, was not a supporter of abolition and was more generous than Grant when Johnson surrendered his army.
The books and writings about Sherman - I learned - are mostly by southern writers revising/excusing history, or his military and political enemies in both the north and the south.
At the end of the war he was actually well respected and admired in the south. The image of Sherman was and remains controlled by whomever does the writing and their particular agenda - who then select the facts (some made up) to support their view, be that south or north.
In 1955 a scholar by the name of D.J. de Labenfels - University of Georgia professor - used the journals and maps of Sherman's chief topographical engineer to trace Sherman's March to the sea. Labenfels wrote that it was relatively easy, since many of the buildings described by Captain Rziha were still standing in the 1950's. Further it was noted in the book that many of the mansions were left alone because the owners had left signs of membership in the Masonic Order. This was also true of many of the cities wherein the mayor and city council were Masons and made it known to Sherman.
I do a talk on what is labeled "The Atlanta Campaign/Or How Jefferson Davis re-elected Abraham Lincoln in 1864." In that talk, I discuss how Jefferson Davis allowed his personal animosity to color his view of Johnson and his strategy/tactics and to fire him and replace him with John Bell Hood - a disastrous decision. I also clarify a lot of southern folklore with hard irrefutable facts. It usually creates a vigorous question and answer session following the talk!
I would have given this book a 5 star rating had it included some photos to support the still existing mansions, along with some copies of specific writings of people who reported at the time what was really going on. Last some photos of Atlanta before Sherman and after to correctly reflect that anything of value was fired by the retreating confederates to deny to any use by the federals and how little real damage outside the downtown area was done. I use some of those photos in my talk.
August 18, 2016
Excellent research and insight on what the post Civil War sentiment was on both sides of the Mason Dixon and not just about W.T. Sherman. Moody offers a detailed discussion on how the south felt about CSA generals after the war as well. Outstanding research notes bibliography as well for future reading and your own research. Very readable and engaging.
December 24, 2025
Excellent book with a very balanced (and researched) look at William Tecumseh Sherman and his actions during the Civil War. Moody lays out how much of the histories written about his campaigns, especially Atlanta and then the March to the Sea, by newspapers at the time, accounts and memoirs immediately following the war, the Lost Cause proponents, and even contemporary historians are shaped by misinformation. They were interpreted/shaped by people, Confederate and Yankee, with their own biases. The worst of which were the Lost Causers, who make Sherman out a demon of total war, and that view (though certainly wrong) continues to stick to this day.
January 30, 2025
I love history, and Civil War history in particular, but this was a bit dry and lengthy for me. I learned a lot about Sherman and his place in the strategy and outcome of the Civil War, and the book put a good deal of Sherman's activity and leadership into better perspective. Overall, a good read.
November 8, 2019
Interesting thesis, which comes off as essentially correct, but not as well presented as one might hope for.
December 26, 2021
Great book!! Intellectual history is a favorite topic of mine. I was disappointed in the way too often occurrence of grammatical errors by the University of Missouri Press.
January 24, 2013
Was intrigued to see this pop up on the new books shelf at my local library. Unfortunately, it's very uneven. The writing itself is spotty (tense shift is really irritating, and not something that should pop up in a serious work- this is what editors are for) and the treatment of Sherman during the Civil War ends abruptly after the March to the Sea. I guess the author assumes the reader is conversant with the subsequent march through the Carolinas, but at the same time, the author later discusses the controversy over the burning of Columbia and the surrender terms Sherman offered Johnston without having introduced them earlier. The author seems to argue that Sherman is both better and worse than he's given credit for- that he didn't pioneer total war as he's usually credited with, and the subsequent smearing of his reputation for the marches through Georgia and the Carolinas was purely a product of the Lost Cause mythology.
What I did take away from the book is that Sherman, although a bit tone-deaf to politics and prone to missteps in that arena, was actually very much ahead of the curve in matters military. His early reputation for 'insanity' was down in large part to being one of the few people who saw clearly the scope of the war from the outset and took a realistic view of what would be necessary to win it. In military matters, he was often a good predictor of what was to come in terms of how wars would be fought and innovations in military technology and training. He was relatively popular in the South in his own lifetime, but posthumously fell victim to the new religion of the Cause and its veneration of the holy trinity of Davis, Jackson, and Lee. The book was at its best discussing the post-war political jockeying as both North and South fought a war of words over how the Civil War would be remembered- a war in which the side that fought for their right to own other human beings has long had the upper hand.
What I did take away from the book is that Sherman, although a bit tone-deaf to politics and prone to missteps in that arena, was actually very much ahead of the curve in matters military. His early reputation for 'insanity' was down in large part to being one of the few people who saw clearly the scope of the war from the outset and took a realistic view of what would be necessary to win it. In military matters, he was often a good predictor of what was to come in terms of how wars would be fought and innovations in military technology and training. He was relatively popular in the South in his own lifetime, but posthumously fell victim to the new religion of the Cause and its veneration of the holy trinity of Davis, Jackson, and Lee. The book was at its best discussing the post-war political jockeying as both North and South fought a war of words over how the Civil War would be remembered- a war in which the side that fought for their right to own other human beings has long had the upper hand.
August 20, 2012
Not a nuts and bolts look at W.T.Sherman. Oh it talks of the Atlanta campaign and the March to the Sea but this seems to be more of an exploration of how Sherman fit into the times. His place with contemporay journalists, former enemies, anecdotal stories and one memoir vs another. Perhaps he wasn't the demon as portrayed.
I've come to the place where the 2nd generation, the sons and daughters of soldiers after the war, is writing the history. There was a group of Northeners that claimed Sherman was soft on the South and let Jefferson Davis escape with 2500# of gold. That he had secret sympathies and ideologies with the South. He was vilified by some Northern newpapers and politicians to a greater degree than Southerners.
If you are interested in the Civil War and would like to dig deeper into one personality that had a profound effect on events of the day, then you might find this an interesting read. If you are willing to consider that current historians can, and are willing to, rewrite interpretations of historic events and people then you may be interested in this book. If you are willing to consider that special interest groups such as the Daughters of the Civil War, Lost Causers, D.W. Griffth and Robert E. Lee deifiers have an aggenda that may not be so hidden, you may find this an interesting book. I did.
I've come to the place where the 2nd generation, the sons and daughters of soldiers after the war, is writing the history. There was a group of Northeners that claimed Sherman was soft on the South and let Jefferson Davis escape with 2500# of gold. That he had secret sympathies and ideologies with the South. He was vilified by some Northern newpapers and politicians to a greater degree than Southerners.
If you are interested in the Civil War and would like to dig deeper into one personality that had a profound effect on events of the day, then you might find this an interesting read. If you are willing to consider that current historians can, and are willing to, rewrite interpretations of historic events and people then you may be interested in this book. If you are willing to consider that special interest groups such as the Daughters of the Civil War, Lost Causers, D.W. Griffth and Robert E. Lee deifiers have an aggenda that may not be so hidden, you may find this an interesting book. I did.
September 1, 2016
I'm always fascinated by the way history becomes mythology so a story of how Sherman's reputation became that of the bloody butcher who destroyed everything in his pass (which was how I understood myself, but I was wrong) intrigued me. Unfortunately I also hate books that dig down into every jot and tittle of a debate (with a few exceptions) and that's this one--Moody examines pretty much every argument about Sherman, pro and con, in excruciating detail, and as the arguments don't vary a lot that becomes repetitious.
September 11, 2014
A biography of a reputation, and one doesn’t see many of those. Interesting to learn General Sherman wasn’t always Dixie’s bogeyman, and the effects of his march, just a change of base in Sherman’s thinking, weren’t as devastating as many think. Chapter 6, “Sherman versus the Lost Cause,” summarizes how the Lost Cause mythology came about.
December 30, 2012
Interesting look at the making of the demonic myth and reputation of the Civil War general as the "religion" of the Lost Cause grew.
February 25, 2016
The attempt at a corrective to the dominant Sherman narrative is appreciated, but the author is always losing the forest for the trees. Though short, it became a slog.
August 21, 2020
I will probably come back to read this again. And I, afterwards, will likely change yo 5 starts. I just feel that it's fair to read Sherman's memoirs first
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews