I have no problem referencing Cump. His methods of war were designed to inflict maximum punishment on his enemy and break its will to fight. His success hastened the end of the war and the bloodletting. Unlike General Lee who sacrificed men on both sides for honor and a cause that was lost the moment Grant moved South after The Wilderness and it became a war of attrition. As to your reference material. None of it is unfamiliar to me, and I do not run from it. In fact I, as the descendant of a warrior of the Army of the Potomac, wish those sentiments had informed the strategic vision of its generals. As to making it an issue, read my “so be it” comment. Opining about the issue and insisting that others agree are two entirely different things. If you want to fly your color I’ll support no effort to prevent you.
Apologies for double post.
You present an interesting commentary, but you include failures in logic and facts.
You must remember the premise of the entire war, and that was what Lincoln said it would be: “...hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts...”. It was that premise that motivated him to send Federal troops to Charleston and to declare war with blockade.
Remember that the Civil War was unlike any other war ever fought by the United States...it was a trade war unprovoked by attack on the Union states either by land or sea.
You reference Sherman and state that “His methods of war were designed to inflict maximum punishment on his enemy and break its will to fight.”
Lincoln knew Sherman's style of mass destruction before he was sent into Tennessee, and Lincoln knew what Sherman would do.......deliver successes to cement his reelection.
The war was prolonged by Lincoln's reelection and Lincoln's unwillingness to negotiate terms, despite Davis’ efforts to bring about peace.
Thus any effort of yours to rationalize Sherman's abuses by tying it to shortening the war is pure nonsense.
Rationalization of Sherman is at best the end justifies the means falacy, and support of genocide at worse. You seem to apprecitate Sherman's tactics to the point of comparing him to General Lee, who unlike Sherman did not bring about destruction in the name of victory, but fought against the enemy soldiers. In Sherman's thinking, as shown in my posted comments, he had a severe failure in rationality in being unable to differentiate between people and combatants.
I have thought for many years that Sherman developed the “total warfare” concept to rationalize his own need to inflict pain as would a true sadist. Had there been an early resolution, perhaps at Hampton Roads, it is likely that Sherman would have been charged with war crimes.
I think your great failure in logic is to not understand that Lincoln used Sherman as a tool for his own need to completely subjugate the South, its people, its infrastructure, and competitive advantages to the point of total compliance to Federal statist regulations.
That totally flies in the face of the very document that empowered Lincoln in the first place.
As to the color “I fly”, it is the flag of truth.