[PeaRidge]

You said: "Sherman didn't want the war, didn't want to 'destroy the south' which he in fact dearly loved prior to the war.

That idea was concocted by someone.

In fact, any discussion of Sherman should mention his pre-war opinions of Southerners, especially South Carolinians; opinions he formed while stationed there in 1843.

"This state, their aristocracy, their patriarchal chivalry and glory-all trash."

But Sherman was alarmed by what he called South Carolina "young bloods" who were "brave, fine riders, bold to rashness and dangerous in every sense."

His solution was, incredibly, that "the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."

The person that said that was employed by the President and people of the Union states.

[Badeye]

"You said: "Sherman didn't want the war, didn't want to 'destroy the south' which he in fact dearly loved prior to the war.

That idea was concocted by someone. "

Sherman's view of the South itself, not the aristocrats, is what I was referring to. He especially loved his time in the deep south. Its true, he had no time for "blue bloods" but that extended to those of the North as well. The only "social" group he destested more than the rich aritocrats was reporters....I can relate to that.....LOL!

You can't just discount the dozens of letters he wrote to various family members prior to, during, and after the war. You can take a phrase here...a phrase there, out of context, and display any viewpoint you wish.

Sherman believed in Union, above all else. Once the die was cast, he did what he thought was the right thing to do. In the end, he understood that if the "heartland" of the South remained "untouched by war" it might continue for decades, not just years. I'll also add his infamous "terms of surrender" of which he was almost courtmartialed over, undermines your viewpoint in my humble opinion.

btw, I don't "take sides" on this. I find the whole era facinating, both North and South.