"...howevert Sherman's men did commit war crimes and they were sanctioned by him. I honestly think you are letting Sherman off easy."

We should try to establish what a "war crime" was during this period. Which actions fell under that title and how?

I am not trying to let Sherman off of anything, as I believe his campaign through the South shows both the benefits and the problems of conducting an aggressive action within enemy territory. Instead, my main point is that people need to keep his main actions in context and not compare them so quickly to other, vastly different strategic and tactical actions.

Sherman's campaign in the South was rough, but it was not "total war." Despite many random accounts of murder, Sherman's army did not actively kill as many Southern civilians as they could find. And despite the shock that many Americans then and now will express at Sherman's destructive march, American history is full of examples of brutal warfare. Military campaigns against Native Americans since European immigration was brutal. Around thirty years before the Civil War, thousands of Cherokee Indians were forcibly removed from parts of the South to Oklahoma on the infamous "Trail of Tears" for white land interests. That wasn't even during a war!

White Americans celebrated their Northern and Southern Indian fighters during the 19th century (before and after the Civil War) and their destructive raids against Indian villages and civilians. Perhaps the only "shocking" thing about Sherman's destruction of property in 1864-65 was that he did it to white people!

The war Sherman waged in Georgia and South Carolina was destructive and shocking, but it was not an actual war of extermination or war in its absolute totality (as demonstrated many times in human history). His actual campaign through the South likely preserved more lives (both Union and Confederate) than had he slugged it out with Hood for many more months, such as seen in Virginia between Grant and Lee.

Sherman's success during his "March" was not seen by its actual destruction, for even as large as his army was, his men could only cut a relatively minor path compared to the geographical size of Georgia and South Carolina. Instead, it was the psychological effect of his march that brought the most success. His unchecked campaign across the South not only terrorized Southern civilians who had supported a war that had not yet come to their doorstep, but proved the inability of the Confederate government and the Confederate armies to protect the Southern population (a big blow to the morale and support behind the government), and helped expand a divide between state governments like that in Georgia and the Confederacy. In short, he cut at the Confederacy's ability to continue to wage war by trying to destroy its will, not simply its military strength.

And he was very successful. This is proven by the vast evidence of Confederate desertions during this time. In fact, my g-g-g-grandfather served in a Georgia regiment throughout most of the war. He fought at Vicksburg and resisted Sherman's men at Kennesaw Mountain. For three years he served the Confederacy. In October 1864, after the fall of Atlanta, and when Union soldiers had overrun his neighborhood, he threw in the towel. He deserted, went home, packed up his rather large family that had suffered during this period, and swore loyalty to the Union. The records from his regiment show dozens of others like him, who deserted in the final months of 1864 and early months of 1865. They weren't cowards. They had come to believe that the cause was lost and that the protection of their family was worth more than fighting for the Confederacy. It was extremely hard on my family, and they grew tired of the war. This is exactly what Sherman wanted --- what every military commander wants --- the enemy to give up.

Overall, I am not trying to excuse anything Sherman did. As I have just explained, my only personal connection to this whole affair was through a Southern family uprooted by Sherman's men. Instead, I am trying to look at this as an outside observor --- as a historian. I am trying to understand his actions, not excuse them. And to understand Sherman's actions requires placing them in proper context, and analyzing documented evidence.

I have no doubt that Sherman's men committed some excesses during their campaign. But I also do not doubt that many of these excesses have become exaggerated. Yet, that too served his purpose . . . because even the fear or rumor of his destructive tendencies served a strategic and tactical role in suppressing secessionist sentiment.