Sherman's March Through Georgia

I was in Social Studies class today and I started to think...

During the Civil War of America, William Sherman led a March all the way through Georgia... with a 60 mile path of soilders destroying everything in their way... burning down homes and tearing down EVERYTHING.

But was this really necessary? It was near the end of the war and they were really low on ammo... I think it was just a waste of their supplies and was completely unnecessary... what do you think?

 

In my opinion I think it was to get a message acrost to the southern states that if you attempt to secede from the Union you will be brought back even if force is necessary....however they probably ended up using their own money to rebuild it after the Civil War...ironic.....

 

got to go with last

 

hmm...true... the southern states had already seceded and formed the Confederacy... so the march might have been to say that they would be brought back even if force was needed... and maybe even to show the Union's strength? maybe that helped to encourage Lee to surrender soon after... but it was still a huge loss for the Union because they used alot of supplies and they ended up paying for the damages in the end... so it was quite a waste...

 

Maybe it was a way for them to compensate for the fact they lost or something...

I dunno, I hardly remember anything from the Civil War...

 

The point was total war.It not only meant destroying supplies and animals.It really was meant to fight against the soilder's will. It was necessary.The south seceded the union had to get them back into the U.S.The war of course wasn't about the slavery but to bring them back.They had to do anything.

 

Sherman was actually against 99.9% of the attrocities that happened during that march.

Yes, he wanted to burn down the crops and steal a bunch of things, but he did it to hurt the South. The soldiers mob mentality unfortunately got in the way of it working.

Sherman was disappointed with the soldiers work because they actually in a lot of cases did a lot more harm than good. The soldiers did most of the damage done to the South. Also, what happened is that the south was winning the war.

The only part that I am against was the way they treated the blacks. Who basically thought Sherman was their god descending and rescuing them. They followed a long time and was a burden to the soldiers because they needed supplies and slowed down the march. He basically cut off access at a river so they couldn't get across after his men went across.

That's basically the only part I consider wrong if you will.

 

The south wasn't winning? The union was winning they had the battle of Vicksburg that stopped supplies coming to the south.Also the north had the african americans that fought there.

 

It wasn't african men... Sherman liked African men to help the war. It was African FAMILIES that were following him.

He would've let the men march to hell and back with him, not the families. In any case... He did what he thought would work. It's war, things will happen that are going to be ugly.

 

They never allowed the families to fight only the men.The women had to stay behind.They never allowed women to fight,but disguised.

 

I'm saying they FOLLOWED... They didn't fight. They followed the soldiers. Kindly stop twisting my words around to find an argument about it.

The families followed the soldiers at the end of the line. Sherman tried to discourage them, but they wouldn't listen.

 

I didn't think they let the women follow... O.o

some women did fight as soilders, DA...

but if the families followed... didn't some of them end up getting hurt?

 

Sry I thought you said they fought ok now I get you ok.Thats why I said they were disguised

 

I think they knew what to do during fights. But a lot got hurt when Sherman abandoned them. They tried to cross the river in sheer desperation to get free, some of them drowned, some actually made it, some just watched.

And who knows what happened them if they were caught.