Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Sherman's devastation necessary?

Expand Messages
  • Ken Gordhamer
    I agree completely. In fact I think the psychological aspect was the primary aspect. It raises the question of whether Sherman could have held short with the
    Message 1 of 32 , Dec 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree completely. In fact I think the psychological aspect was the
      primary aspect.

      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
      >factor
      > ..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
      >don't
      >mean to get into a bunch psychology garbage, but think about it.) The
      >great
      >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
      >surrender.
      >
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: "Norm Mikalac" <789@...>
      >To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      >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
      > >
    • Stanley Balsky
      This was in reference to why the southern leaders prolonged the war and the casualties that ensued. Stan ... __________________________________________ Yahoo!
      Message 32 of 32 , Dec 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        This was in reference to why the southern leaders
        prolonged the war and the casualties that ensued.
        Stan
        --- keeno2@... wrote:

        > In a message dated 12/29/2005 10:16:08 PM Central
        > Standard Time,
        > balsky@... writes:
        > Think that Meade & Thomas also had armies in the
        > field.
        > I admire Sherman,but do not think he won the war by
        > himself.
        > Sorry. I thought the topic was Sherman and Sheridan.
        > Ken
        >




        __________________________________________
        Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
        Just $16.99/mo. or less.
        dsl.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.