Sherman's destruction, Sheridan's in the valley and Grant's overall strategy of destroying Confederate war materials to impair their ability and will to fight.
Looking back, is there an argument that this was the wrong strategy?
Premise as follows:
1) Even if Sherman fully respected Southern property rights, Hood and Johnston wouldn't have been able to properly harvest these undestroyed materials and even if they had, they were unlikely to make a difference in stopping Sherman or the Union's Western armies. Union superiority was too much by this point in the war. As such, Sherman ends up at the coast anyway and marching North to meet Grant.
2) Without this wake of destruction, spares some civilian suffering, and maybe Southern sentiment towards the USA is a little better as the country heads into Reconstruction. Maybe not
Asked another way - if Grant's orders were to fully respect Southern property rights to Sherman, does the war pretty much end the same way?
Looking back, is there an argument that this was the wrong strategy?
Premise as follows:
1) Even if Sherman fully respected Southern property rights, Hood and Johnston wouldn't have been able to properly harvest these undestroyed materials and even if they had, they were unlikely to make a difference in stopping Sherman or the Union's Western armies. Union superiority was too much by this point in the war. As such, Sherman ends up at the coast anyway and marching North to meet Grant.
2) Without this wake of destruction, spares some civilian suffering, and maybe Southern sentiment towards the USA is a little better as the country heads into Reconstruction. Maybe not
Asked another way - if Grant's orders were to fully respect Southern property rights to Sherman, does the war pretty much end the same way?