March on Sherman
By: Jordan Nash
Sherman's march to sea was an appalling event that led to total warfare - What could be worse?
I don't think that Sherman's march to Sea was necessary. The action that was taken was cruel and irrelevant to the goal that Sherman wanted to obtain. The 62,000 man force cut a, 60-mile-wide line through Georgia: tearing up railroads, firing factories, destroying bridges, burning plantations, and seizing livestock. The army lived off the land, sacking the unfortunate homesteads and plantations that lay along the line of march. Just to free slaves
Compared to During the American Civil War, Union Army General Philip Sheridan's stripping of the Shenandoah Valley, beginning on September 21, 1864 and continuing for two weeks, was considered "total war". Its purpose was to eliminate food and supplies vital to the South's military operations, as well as to strike a blow at Southern civilian morale. Sheridan took the opportunity when he realized opposing forces had become too weak to resist his army. Total war is when there is little or no differentiation between combatants and non combatants. In Sherman's march he destroyed everything in his path which is unnecessary and cruel it is a time that he used his methods. However you could say that there was a "method to the madness" he wanted to ensure that the southern forces could not retaliate.