I agree completely. In fact I think the psychological aspect was the
It raises the question of whether Sherman could have held short with the
threat implied, but I can't imagine a military commander, now or then,
willing to turn over initiative like that. Sherman's march was basically
the 'nuclear option'.
>From: Tom Gilbert <tomgilbert68@...>
>Well said .. it had become "total war" .. war on Southern society as well
>as Confederate armies .. and yes, the psychological aspect was an important
> ..Tom Gilbert..
>joey sallee <perrihistorian35@...> wrote:
> I may be off-base here, but I do not believe there was a revenge factor
>involved with Sherman. Revenge for what? He had lived in the South, and
>was certainly no abolitionist. Given these facts, I don't see that there
>was anything in the way of revenge involved here.
>Yes, the Confederacy was technically beaten. However, there did not appear
>to be much inclination to surrender. Sherman carried out a plan that
>brought the war to a close that much sooner.
>I think there were certain psychological factors involved as well. (I
>mean to get into a bunch psychology garbage, but think about it.) The
>Army of Northern Virginia sits penned in, while a Union Army marches right
>thru the middle of the Confederacy. If I wasn't convinced that I was beat
>already, this would help convince me that it was time to consider
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Norm Mikalac" <789@...>
>Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 6:25 AM
>Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Sherman's devastation necessary?
> > So, for both Sheridan and Sherman, the reason was purely military:
> > destroy the CSA food supply and associated transportation of it via
> > the RRs. That's it? No revenge involved for this costly revolution?
> > Norm