Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
He might have done what other Union generals did and fought the other side’s army. But he didn’t want to, not least because his fighting prowess was far below his current reputation.

Oh, he did plenty of fighting during the war, and he was pretty good at it too. Remember, he had to take Atlanta from Hood's army just to have the opportunity to do what he did later.

But he realized that victory would not be measured in the amount of blood spilled. It would finally be decided when one side or another either lost the will, or the ability to continue the war.

His plan for the March through Georgia was to destroy the supplies and transportation that supplied Lee and the other Southern armies that allowed them to continue fighting.

72 posted on 03/22/2010 11:58:22 AM PDT by Ditto (Directions for Clean Government: If they are in, vote them out. Rinse and repeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Ditto

“His plan for the March through Georgia was to destroy the supplies and transportation...”

...and the PEOPLE...


74 posted on 03/22/2010 12:02:29 PM PDT by jessduntno (Obama in complete control of your health care and mine. What could possibly go wrong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Ditto

“Oh, he did plenty of fighting during the war, and he was pretty good at it too.”

For the first three years of the war, his contribution was nil. He would have been out of the war entirely after he botched the planned invasion of Tennessee had he not been buddies with Grant. After Grant saved him, he contributed to the union almost losing when he was surprised at Shilo. he failed at Chickasau Bayou. He couldn’t secure victory at Chattanooga. Where, might I ask, is the evidence of his being pretty good, when he wasn’t fighting civilians?

“Remember, he had to take Atlanta from Hood’s army just to have the opportunity to do what he did later.”

As I recall it, the Army of Tennessee was destroyed by General Thomas in the Battle of Nashville. It was gone by the time Sherman took Savannah. That left Lee’s army, which was being ground down by Grant, as the only capable fighting force in the South. With or without Sherman capturing Atlanta and marching to the Sea, it was only a matter of time, then.

Sherman’s march itself has been vastly overrated by historians and military analysts for various reasons. Most importantly, it was dramatic. Also, people like B.H. Liddell Hart had their own theories to prove. In his case, it was that the “indirect attack” was preferable (and what’s more indirect than avoiding the enemy entirely?).

“It would finally be decided when one side or another either lost the will, or the ability to continue the war.”

What sucked more will from the South, really? Sherman beating up railroads or Hood vanishing and Lee digging in for a war of attrition?


84 posted on 03/22/2010 12:42:27 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson