[tanknetter]

To bad the South didn’t have a scorched earth policy too. The South was to weak to make it very far into the North. But a good fantasy would be burning New York and DC to the ground. It would be such fun reading how it was the burned by vacating troops and how war is hell just get over it we won so shut up with the truth. I would love to see the same slough off of history but going the other way.

Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South.

The South wanted to establish itself as an independent, sovereign nation. It knew that following any victory it would have to share a LOOOOONG border with the independent, sovereign nation it had just defeated in winning that independence. The Southern leaders (particularly the senior Generals) knew this and were trying to balance winning with preventing as much post-war bitterness and animosity as possible. That's why Lee and other Southern generals at least put on the appearance of being magnanimous (and in many cases they were magnanimous).

The North wanted to bring the South back into the Union and do so under circumstances where it would never want to leave again. Yes, Lincoln was genuine with his "Charity towards all, malice towards none" statement and philosophy, but it was predicated upon the South first being unequivocally (and brutally) defeated. The theory being that you pound your enemy into the rubble - making sure they know that they have LOST - and THEN extend the helping hand of friendship to help them get back up on their feet. The bad policies of Reconstruction and later the Treaty of Versailles show the wrong way to do this. The continued military pacifism of Japan and Germany following WWII show the right way to do this. IMHO.

[central_va]

Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South.

The South fought a gentleman's war against a ruthless rapacious enemy. It should have been an eye for an eye.

[BroJoeK]

tanknetter: "Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South."

You give way too much credit to Confederate "chivalry" or good judgment, or whatever you might call it.

The truth is that Confederate troops typically did as much damage as they could whenever they invaded Union states.
Indeed, that was usually a main purpose of their raids -- to secure supplies for themselves and destroy the Union's facilities.

Sure, the example of Lee in Pennsylvania is often cited, but it was more the exception than the rule for Confederate forces operating in Union states & territories.

[x]

Salting the earth and burning Northern cities would have been directly contrary to the war aims of the South.

Well, there was that plan to burn down New York in 1864.

FWIW, "Copper" a not-very-good fictional TV series based on that event, is coming back for a second season next week.