In light of the recent posts about "war crimes" and destructive warfare during the Civil War, I thought of a different approach to the question. Sherman believed that mass destruction of property and spreading of fear within the South was acceptable for Union victory. Some have praised the fact (hear and elsewhere) that Lee and most Confederates did not engage in mass destruction of civilian property. In my earlier post comparing Lee's and Sherman's tactics, I pointed out briefly why Confederates largely did not destroy civilian property.

But, what if it could have helped the Confederate cause? What if Confederates were capable of conducting a massive campaign across some northern states that legitimately could have weakened the northern war effort and turned people against the Lincoln administration? Would Confederates have been justified in destroying northern property and spreading fear to achieve Confederate independence?

Maybe another way to ask the question is, was Southern success and Confederate independence worth destroying civilian property and waging an aggressive war?

These questions obviously draw upon personal perceptions and the tricky realm of "what if." But, my purpose here is to provide some perspective about war and destruction.