[central_va]

The Unions Armies standing orders, especially in the Ga/SC campaign were to specifically target/destroy civilian means of farming and to demoralize/terrorize the civilian population. The stated purpose of the campaign was to target civilian means of support the Confederacy. So your post is total bull sh!t.

In contrast Confederate standing orders were to never harms civilians, pillage or destroy any non military thing. To do so the Rebel soldier would be subject to severe NJP. The two situations were exactly the opposite in every way. The reason why the Chambersburg incident was so widely publicized because it was totally out of character for the Confederate Army/Cavalry to do that.

Rewriting history is something that should be left for communists and fascists. Unless....

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "The stated purpose of the campaign was to target civilian means of support the Confederacy.
So your post is total bull sh!t."

Just as Lee's invasions of Union states also had political purposes -- to influence Northern voters and their political leaders into seeking terms favorable to the Confederacy.
Any suggestions otherwise, FRiend, is just, ahem, "bull sh!t"

In practical effects, every Confederate invasion of Union states & territories had the same results as Sherman's march, since the Confederate army always "lived off the land", taking what it needed and destroying anything of military value.

Indeed, Sherman's actual orders to his troops are the opposite of what has so often been alleged, for examples:

• "The army will forage liberally on the country during the march...
  Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp."

• "To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march..."

• "...horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly..."

• "In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance."

After the war, Congress paid reparations to Southern Unionists who suffered such losses in the war.

central_va: "The reason why the Chambersburg incident was so widely publicized because it was totally out of character for the Confederate Army/Cavalry to do that."

Not really.
The Lawrence, Kansas, massacre & burning was a year before either Chambersburg or Sherman's march.
And when Lee's army invaded Pennsylvania in June 1863, some of his commanders made demands for supplies from towns & cities using threats of violence & burning if their demands were not met.
Indeed, there was already significant destruction in Chambersburg, PA in 1862, when JEB Stuart invaded, destroyed railroad property and took supplies for the Confederacy.
Again in 1863 Confederate General Jenkins occupied Chambersburg, destroyed railroad property and burned down storage buildings.

In summary: the behavior or each side's army in the other's territory was roughly equivalent and by standards of any other war you'd care to name was, with few exceptions, both civilized and gentlemanly.