The policy of "total war" was Grant's idea, and was supported by President Lincoln. Sherman supported it, and also believed it neccessary. Sheridan too followed this policy, against his personal beliefs.

Just wanted to add something.

Good site: http://members.aol.com/x69xer/sherman.html

Ariel Sharon was a comlete loose cannon, but a great General...In 1973 he ignored all orders and went on attack, dragging the rest of the IDF behind him. In 1982 as Minister of Defence he invaded Lebanon and basically kept going, ignoring the Govronmnts decisions....

Just want to say that many people in the South were left homeless, temporarily. After the war the Federal Government rebuilt the South. And in NOT killing very many people Sherman, and Sheridan to a degree, ended the war and SAVED thousands of lives.

IrishWizard, much of my family (including Jesse James, hooah ) fought for the South, but the South WAS wrong, and those who seceded WERE traitors. It was of course a different world back then, and a different country, where state loyalties far outran national unity, but the Confederates did indeed commit treason. I believe that they did have several legitimate complaints, most notably the high tariffs on Southern agricultural good shipped through the dominant Northern ports, but these were not justifiable reasons to try to destroy our Union. Sherman's "March to the Sea," although brutal, was justifiable, and as Jamoni said, it very likely saved lives by forcing the surrender of the Confederacy, which was inevitable anyway, only a matter of how many more deaths it would cause. Just to throw in a trite saying, ever heard "mess with the bull, get the horns?"
Another note, if that farmland was left intact, it very likely would have become at one point or another a true battleground, like much of the rest of the South, and have been destroyed both by warfare and looting by both sides during the fighting, as well as swallowing up even more lives, both military and civilian.
And on the subject of "did the South do anything similar," my "Robin Hood" ancestor and other landlocked privateers ransacked, raped, and pillaged their way through areas sympathetic to the Union throughout the course of the war.


By the way, there will be no "flame wars" here, Irish, so don't worry about anyone starting any, because we will finish it.

See when talking about treason I just don't know. I know in a way they were wrong for seceding but as you said there views on state loyalty was far different than it is now. It is both sides fault that the Confederacy seceded. The North basically acted like they were there own nation because of the slave states and this is what drew the line between the two. I know they were a nation, but when I think about it they really weren't. They were controversial with each other in so many ways that it really was 2 different nations under 1 name. And it seems that many peoples view is the common one, "Does the end justify the means?" Which from what has been said, it does. I understand his mission was to make the South submit but the means of doing it was just not right I believe. Thats why I have a problem with people thinking he was a great General. I classify someone as a great General if they are a master in strategy or just a fine military man. Sherman didn't hold anything back, which makes me not respect him, because he would do anything to win the war even if it was wrong. No compassion. No mercy. This should be shown to enemy soldiers not women and children. The South weren't training women and children to fight and kill themselves to take out some Union soldiers as the Vietnamese did in Vietnam.

In case you missed it, war isn't pretty, Irish .
In my opinion, Sherman did what had to be done, it wasn't nice, it wasn't pretty, but it was effective, and it brought an end to the war much quicker than would have happened otherwise. I also believe that he WAS a master of strategy (it worked, didn't it?), and that he was much more responsible with his men's lives than, say, Grant by attacking the infrastructure if the South and therefore the ability of the Confederate army to refit and resupply rather than throwing poorly trained men against a (generally) much more determined enemy with homecourt advantage (there was no need for anymore Fredericksburgs).

Yes he did get the job done but I don't hold him as a master of strategy just because he did it. Majority of it was sweeping across the South and clearing out citys that were filled with women and children. Grant, as you said, is another good example of a person with the same thoughts as Sherman. He didn't hold anything back like he did at Vicksburg, which didn't work to well. Im not questioning him ending the war quicker because he truly did. Im just questioning him being a great General because in my opinion he was not. He did not pull off any miraculous thing in battle or do a heroic thing in my opinion. He made the South submit by destroying its citys and leaving women and children out for the coming winter. Doing that does not make him a great general at all. A great general I'd say would be Lee, Jackson, or even McClellan.

In retrospect on Sherman, im afraid that you are both right, and both are wrong.

What we are clearly over-looking was that the over all grand strategy was formulated by Grant, in that he had to split the southern areas off from their major commerce ports first along the missisippi, and then he arranged to split the southern areas into smaller, more easily controllable units. The big strategy of taking the confederate capital and winning the war wasnt working. So, by completing the strangelation of the southern supply lines, exhausting the incomming resources, then splitting and taking or destroying the resources in the smaller sections, Grant was going to drive the confederacy into more desperate acts.

Sherman was only one small part of that strategy. True, he has the more memorable part ( the people in Atlanta celebrated "Shermans Burial Day" for years) but there were other officers that pretty much did the same thing, in their smaller areas of responsibility.

But was Sherman the most contraversial general officer? In my opinion...based on just the discussion of the amount of distruction caused to civillians and resources Id have to say no...there have been plenty more that have occoured more contraversy than Sherman (one example was the general officers that ordered the burning of Richmond or the firing on the civillian part of the town of charleston by military batterys are two more examples).

really need to get back on topic, and get some more examples of contraversial generals...

Yeah thats true Conley, we strayed off topic real bad :P. LoL but yeah back to the actual subject. There's a few contraversial generals but I'd like to see what some other people have to say since I talk to much :P

McArthur, great general, but when you get on the heads bad side, your doomed