Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2002 8:50 pm
@Weasel...you hate Grant, and I'll hate Sherman 
The Internet's authoritative role-playing game forum.
https://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/
Originally posted by Bloodstalker
@Weasel...you hate Grant, and I'll hate Sherman![]()
Originally posted by fable
Why Sherman? He was a fine strategist, and probably the only general in the war to realize that the best way to make the enemy come to you was to destroy his land. (Well, that, and have Jefferson Davis on hand to remove a fine general like Johnston and appoint a disaster look Hood.) I hate what he did, but he comprehension of what war entails absolutely clear and unhampered by romantic notions. I suppose what his views palatable to me is the knowledge that he wanted to invoke war at its worst only to end it the quicker.
Originally posted by Bloodstalker
From a military standpoint, Sherman was right. Cutting at the heart of the south and making the war seem like Hell did exactly what he wanted it to do. But IMO, it also made the aftermath of the war a lot more complicated.
Posted by Fable
But it should be remembered that Sherman's terms of surrender, offered to Joe Johnston, included the retainment of full citizenship for every soldier in the Confederate army, and ten days' rations for the journey home. He went further.
In any case, I don't realy think Sherman's acts in the field contributed as much to the conflagration as the terms the US Congress gave the South, forced abolition, and the fat cat Northern merchants who rode in and bought up communities with Northern specie. Treated like a conquered nation, the South responded as conquered nations everywhere do, with a tradition of sulleness and hostility for the victors.