English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

His goal was to vanquish an enemy beyond the scope of a simple treaty. He cut the telegraph wires as he moved so that he could say he never got the message that the war was over because he wanted to finish his march to Savannah and send the south back to the stone ages. Yes, he was successful.

2007-12-14 03:41:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

President Lincoln had come to believed that the Confederacy could only be beaten by whipping the entire culture including the civilians. General Sherman agreed with President Lincoln and was given the job to destroy the fiber of the civilian culture. This he accomplished with the march through Georgia. Here he attacked not only the foundations for military support but the old men, women, and children of the South. Some were even taken away to the North and never returned to the South. It was war against the people.

2007-12-14 04:24:34 · answer #2 · answered by Randy 7 · 0 0

Sherman wanted to drive General Hood and the Confederate Army out of Georgia. He also wanted to prove that and army could move fast, independently and supply itself along the way. Sherman's troops made it to the sea with no problem.

2007-12-14 03:49:11 · answer #3 · answered by staisil 7 · 0 0

To divide the Confederacy and demoralize the population and let his soldiers have a little R&R.

He destroyed Georgia from Atlanta to Savannah, so I'm sure he and Lincoln considered it a success because they both enjoyed destruction.

2007-12-14 04:35:18 · answer #4 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 0 0

To cut the Confederacy in half and destroy the economic capacity of the south to make war.

It was extremely successful and its effects lasted until the 1960's or 70's

2007-12-14 03:47:20 · answer #5 · answered by booster11373 2 · 0 0

Simply put, destroy what was left of the South to perpetuate a quick end to the Civil War.

Yes, he was successful and critics claim he was more brutal than necessary, but if he hadn't been, the war might have dragged on for several more years.

2007-12-14 03:50:42 · answer #6 · answered by Gordon P 3 · 0 0

To cut the Confederacy in half. It ended the war. I guess that means that it was successful.

2007-12-14 03:40:47 · answer #7 · answered by halefarmboy 5 · 0 0

Since the war was already over it should be called a massacre

2007-12-14 03:48:02 · answer #8 · answered by frank 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers