It is said, “The victor writes history.” In most history books Sherman is touted as nothing less than a hero. It is often said he was the first modern general because of his use of total war. To many in the southern United States, Sherman was no hero. In the State of Georgia, many people even in present day revere William Tecumseh Sherman as the most hated man in history. Now the main reason for this is because of Sherman's March to the Sea in 1864. The campaign began with Sherman's troops leaving the captured (and burnt to the ground) city of Atlanta, Georgia, on November 16 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. It inflicted significant damage, particularly to industry and infrastructure and also to civilian property. Sherman strategy applied the principles of scorched earth: he ordered his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, consume supplies and destroy civilian infrastructure along his path of advance. Cotton gins and storage bins were to be destroyed because Southerners used the cotton to trade for guns and other supplies. The twisted and broken railroad rails that the troops heated over fires and wrapped around tree trunks and left behind became known as "Sherman's neckties."
What do you mean? What do you want a thread about Tony Blair being a war criminal? Why don't you just make one than?
Yea don't think the two are comparable. I'm from the north, but have family from Bama so we always have to watch what we say when we're down there. Personally I'd say he was somewhere in between. He wasn't the first to invent scorched earth tactics, but I firmly believe he was the most instrumental northern general in ending the war. If it was just Grant without Sherman you would have had hundreds of thousands of more deaths as he just threw more union soldiers into the meat grinder.
Now that I think about it I should of added a some where in between answer to the poll. Is there an way from me to add that option to the poll?
It matters what history book you've read, however, most that I have said that he's somewhere in between.
Well I'm from the North so most of the history books I have read don't really make him out to be evil. Anyway for the most part I think he's somewhere in between and more towards hero than criminal. He was really only one of the only good Union General of the hole war. Grant was ok as a General because atleast he was willing to fight unlike some of the Generals before him but is very well know for sending his men into the "meat grinder".
Well, I live in a Southern community, and most of my neighbors are proud Confederates, so they hate him. I believe he was essential to a Union victory, mainly because when he took Atlanta he got Lincoln re-elected. The war would have been longer without him. So do I think some of his acts were criminal, yes, but they were necessary to win the war for Lincoln, and the Union.
Well I think for the most part we all agree that some of the things he did are criminal but it was necessary for a Union Victory.
Yeah, but he did much more than that. He knew that Lee could not afford to come out and fight him. Lee took losses he could not afford at places like the Wilderness. It's rather sad really, that now Grant is being seen only as a butcher. Just look at the Vicksburg campaign, and that will tell you a much different story. Back to the subject at hand, Sherman only did what was common sense. Destroy anything that was of use to the enemy. He just was willing to take it farther than many had been before. Destroyed farms, factories, railroads, anything of use, and many things that his men just felt like burning. He didn't order many of the more well known burnings (Atlanta, Columbia) but he probably didn't particularly care.
Sherman was the only general from the war who knew that to beat the south you would have to break them both physically and mentally and thats what he did
