2007-04-01 13:35:35 · 5 answers · asked by ? 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He was a brilliant general. He realized that the quickest way to win a war was to defeat the enemy's will to wage the war. He figured the best way to do that was to take the war to the people back home who were supporting it. It worked. The South pretty much quit.
His strategy is still being used. The United States won almost every battle in Vietnam. The Tet offensive was a disastrous defeat for the North Vietnamese. However, the US press somehow turned it into a defeat for the US and the people back home quit supporting the war.
The moral which Sherman knew - destroy the people's will to fight, the army will soon follow.
2007-04-01 15:16:15 · answer #1 · answered by Kevin C 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
General William Tecumseh 'Cump' Sherman realized that the war being fought at the time (the Civil War 1861-1865) was a horrible thing. He certainly saw enough of the destruction first-hand - brothers fighting against brothers and West Point classmates fighting each other - so he wanted to end the war as soon as possible. He also realized the Confederates were not going to seek any peaceful solutions to the conflict in 1864, and to him this meant the way to wage war was not only the defeat of the soldiers in the field, but the destruction of the support systems that kept them there. Since his time, total war has been waged in other countries in other wars with the same purpose - the destruction of the enemy and fast resolution of the conflict.
2007-04-01 13:55:45 · answer #2 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sherman was probably the best cavalry general in the Union Army. However, his tactics of a scorched earth policy will brand him as a destroyer and not a restorer of relations between north and South. He was considered a hero in the North and a villanous killer in the South.
2007-04-01 14:06:12 · answer #3 · answered by Dave aka Spider Monkey 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He's extremely interesting - tough childhood, interesting carrer before the war. He was not one to care about the details, and was considered personable. He seemed to have more successes than he gave himself credit for. He was also an effective General, even if he did sometimes throw convention by the wayside. He focused on the big picture, and big goals.
2007-04-01 13:57:52 · answer #4 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great general, lousy humanitarian?
2007-04-01 13:50:37 · answer #5 · answered by Monc 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋