Be careful what you wish for, because many times behaving as a ‘monster’ only creates a bigger ‘monster’ and if the South didn’t suffer enough as it was after losing just imagine what would have happened if they lost after using such tactics.
Agreed. Many people have lambasted the series of Northern commanders who lost battle after battle until Grant took over. However, I would point out that the prior losses of battles were not significant losses in terms of replaceable manpower. This had the overall effect of “preserving” the North’s army until a point in time where significant loses could be inflicted on the south. Further, these later southern losses were not replaceable as were the North’s.
Perhaps unintentionally, but effectively, the North drew the South into a war of attrition. This is why I believe the ONLY way for the South to have won, would have been the utter destruction and decimation of the Norther Army early in the war.
>>Be careful what you wish for, because many times behaving as a ‘monster’ only creates a bigger ‘monster’ and if the South didn’t suffer enough as it was after losing just imagine what would have happened if they lost after using such tactics.<<
Why don’t you enlighten us on Sherman’s “bummers.” Or the outright theft that took place during reconstruction. There’s your “monster’s”, sir.