iamjwal.com – web design, history, philosophy, theology and sports

Sherman is usually considered one of the most polarizing figures of the civil war. He was both loved and hated by many. As Jordan said, it is very difficult to put Sherman into a group of hero or villian. However, I believe Sherman’s heroic traits often times outweighed his villainous ones.

Sherman is today known as a great liberator, and one who led his army of men strongly through the south freeing slaves along the way. Sherman lead the march to Atlanta, GA where his men destroyed and burned factories and stores. Sherman showed the south he was in control and proved this through his many accounts. Sherman did whatever it took for him to be successful and lead the Union to a victory.

In conclusion, Sherman was a hero because he lead the Union successfully and used many tactics and strategies to prove himself a force to be dealt with. He ultimately ended the war through his campaigns by diminishing fighting among the north and south as quickly and effectively as possible.

Sherman’s objective, and orders, were to compromise the Confederate forces in the South so there would be no resistance once Lee surrendered in Virginia, which was the Union’s strategy. By accomplishing his mission, he was a hero; his tactics and strategy surpassed that of any Confederate force he faced. However, as he advanced toward his objective, he left much of the countryside in ruins by burning cities and destroying structures and other things of that nature that might aid the Confederate. The question is, was that necessary?

It was necessary, because during the American Revolution, the British won many battles in the southern theater, but they failed to completely suppress resistance. If they had destroyed cities, taken resources, and prevented the Patriots from recovering resources, the British may have been more successful in the South. The main objective of war is to win; if that means burning cities and even being ruthless, than it is justified to do such actions. The only action that cannot be justified is harming the innocent, with the intent of harming them.

Because Sherman was “ruthless” in his strategy, he was able to successfully complete his campaign. He may have been slightly immoral at times (like preferring to risk younger, and sometimes weaker, soldiers than veterans), but that’s war- the best strategy wins, plain and simple. Therefore, Sherman was a hero; he certainly wasn’t a villain, because he was simply doing his job. The fact that he was successful in his campaign and improved the odds of overall victory justify his status as a hero.

General Sherman’s march has been made famous because of the amont of destruction he and his troops brought throughout Georgia and South Carolina. Though a large amount of civilian property was completely ruined, Sherman’s actions are justified.

Sherman’s march was part of a bigger plan between he and General Grant that aimed to finally put an end to the war. Sherman’s march was a strong and strategic effort that had become the Union’s best chance at ending the war. It was apparent at that point that Southern minds would not be changed, therefore Sherman led his army in a way that would make the southerners despise war in and of itself. Without a strong attack on the citizen’s lives directly, the fighting probably would have continued.
Contrary to popular belief, Sherman was not just a mindless destroying machine. He took what his troops needed for themselves and rid of the rest so that his enemies were put at a disadvantage. Atlanta was the primary resource for Confederate supplies at the time. It only makes sense that Sherman would march there when given the opportunity with little opposition and destroy what he knew the Confederates would need for the war effort.
It is sad that so many civilian’s lives were uprooted by the destruction caused by Sherman, however, the nation had little hope of reuniting without some major changes in southern minds about continuing the war.
Sherman can be seen as heroic for taking such a dramatic risk for his cause. Lincoln himself admitted to being fearful of what Sherman was doing at first, but he soon recognized the positive extent to which Sherman’s march contributed to reuniting the not-so United States.

William Tecumseh Sherman was a hero. HIs stratigic and bold efforts along with Ulysses S. Grant’s overrun of Roanoke is what put the Union in a winning position. Although barbaric, his destruction on economics, land, and homes caused the south to lose all hope in their chances of winning the war.

However, Sherman went to extremes by taking so many civilian lives. He ravaged everything in his path including crops and livestock, leaving the people helpless. This does NOT make him a villain though. It needed to be done in order for the Union to put the South on its limbs.

People’s view on William Tecumseh Sherman during the Civil War was determined on where they lived. The Union believed Sherman was a hero, but the Confederacy thought otherwise.

Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant knew what had to be done in order for the Union to be victorious in the war. They both needed to take great action with their troops and lead the Union to success. By Sherman marching from Atlanta to Savannah, and destroying everything in between, the Union was put in perfect position to win the war. Although several lives were lost in this march, Sherman was just doing his job. There was no chance that the south could come back after such a defeat. Shortly after Sherman’s march to the sea, General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, ending the Civil War.

Overall, the necessary steps were taken in order for the war to end. Sherman’s heroic actions outweight his villianous ones. He led the Union to victory over the Confederacy, which eventually set all slaves free.

As viewed by many in the North, Sherman was a hero who helped secure the Union victory in the Civil War. On the other hand, he was deeply hated and viewed as a villain in the South for burning cities, killing livestock, and upturning miles of railroad.

Sherman was following Lincoln’s orders and also by focusing on Atlanta and the rest of his “March to the Sea”, Grant was able to focus on the Confederate capital, Richmond. The defeat of Atlanta, the munitions capital of the South, was vital to the Union’s final campaigns of the war. As stated in the song “Marching Through Georgia”, the slaves were very happy to see the Union soldiers come through. The soldiers were also very well fed while they were marching along with Sherman, which was not a common occurrence during the War. Also, in defense of the Union soldiers, the destruction became much worse after they became aware of the torture that their fellow soldiers were undergoing in Confederate prisons. The damage done to the Southern land was partly avenging the Union prisoners.

On the other hand, the common people of the South suffered greatly from Sherman’s campaign to the sea. Women and children were made homeless, their possessions taken, their livestock killed, and land made barren. The people of the south held grudges against the north for years to come and Sherman’s March caused much discontent in the South. Lincoln’s entire goal in starting the Civil War was to preserve the Union, but by giving the South such a burden as a result of the War, they were not content being back in the Union. Because of the destruction caused by Sherman’s March, there was much disdain held by the South towards the North, making a truly united nation an especially hard task. Sherman was most definitely a villain in the South and the effects were also felt by the northern states.

Sherman was not a hero or a villain.
In his letter to Atlanta, he stated that war was cruel and whoever brought it to the country deserved all curses and maledictions. He could have said ‘an eye for an eye’ and meant the same thing. It’s not heroic to make total destruction the only option. Even if this were the case, since some historians believe the Civil War could have only ended this way, Sherman’s conduct such as leaving murdered bodies in animal pens is certainly not heroic.
He was also not villainous. He was undeniably brave and strong willed. The Union viewed him as the hero like a sports team would view the player who made the winning point. He won for the Union, but were his tactics necessary?
He was not a villain of the war, nor did he maintain his dignity. Asking whether or not Sherman was a villain or a hero is like asking if the United States were heroic or villainous for ending World War II by bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Sherman stated that war cannot be refined. That doesn’t mean the only choice is to add to the callousness. He was neither a hero nor a villain.

After consulting the video and the above links, I can understand why this is such a debatable question. Both sides have valid arguements.

Sherman can easily be considered a villian for his cruel methods of detruction. Not only did he burn the homes of innocent civilians, but he took anything valuable. The information above showed that he even killed their livestock. It, of course, was not worth anything to him, but he wanted to make his opponents suffer. Taking the homes of women, children, and slaves-people that have no right to choose a side in the war- is just unnecessary. So for that, Sherman is a villain.

Sherman can also be considered a war hero for his countless victories and perserverance. Torwards the end of the youtube video, it stated that Sherman made the Confederates so sick of war that they would not even think the idea of war was appealing for many generations to come. I believe that a strict, non-forgiving person needs to take charge in that kind of situation. Sherman did just that. He destroyed everything in his sight and truly made the South sick of fighting. So for that, he is a hero.

My personal opinion, however, is that Sherman is a War Hero. My reasoning is as follows:
-In a war, both sides are angry and destructive. During the Civil War, innocent people were hurt on BOTH sides of the war. It wasn’t just Sherman.
-Can you really be TOO destructive in a… war? There is no specific set of guidelines created for how ‘nice’ the army has to be.
-Sherman was confident and succeeded. In some ways, he was more of a war hero than Grant, who was a little too careful.

In my opinion, Sherman is definitely a hero. By taking the drastic measures that he took, he ensured the Unions victory. By raiding the towns and derailing the Confederacy’s infrastructure, he weakened the morale of the southern soldiers, and retained a constant supply of provisions for his own troops. This was essential – and incredibly resourceful – for the war because it benefited the Union while it diminished the south.

The Confederacy started the war by attacking the provisions Lincoln sent to Fort Sumter, so they essentially asked for a counterattack. As the old saying goes, you reap what you sow, and the South had NO idea what kind of seeds they had just planted.

At this point in time, there weren’t any solid rules for war, so the South took a huge risk when they started it. Sherman did nothing “wrong” in the war, he was just more hardcore about his methods of gaining victory than most generals were willing to be. Sherman should be considered a war hero is because he was an expert when it came to war and the tactics necessary to win.

As a side note, I laughed when “Letter from Sherman to Grant, Dec. 1864 (primary source)” mentioned Waynesboro [Waynesburg? Haha]

General Sherman was no doubt a very effective leader of the Union army, and undoubtedly fulfilled the duties expected of him. It’s difficult to label someone with such extremes as a hero or a villain, and it most definitely depends on who is judging the situation. In my opinion, Sherman did what would be expected of any General in war; he effectively depleted the resources of the enemies and destroyed the moral of the South.

Having said this, there are still arguably two sides to this question which both have very valid points. From the perspective of the North, Sherman’s number one goal was to protect his people and to lead them to victory. It was left to his discretion how exactly he would, and should go about accomplishing this. There aren’t many ways to fight in a war and your actions not be seen as brutal to at least one party of people. As Sherman said, war is a cruel thing, and those responsible for it are the people who brought war into the country to begin with.

On the other hand, from the view of the South, I would say that Sherman would be viewed as cruel beyond reason. No one can argue with the fact that as a general fighting in a war, the object is to defeat the enemy. The debatable portion of this is by what means it is done. It can be argued that Sherman was unnecessarily cruel in the way he destroyed and pillaged the South’s land, but in all fairness, it was a WAR. Any argument made against Sherman can also be made for many previous Generals of many different countries. The fact of the matter is, war isn’t fair, and it isn’t right no matter how ‘kindly’ you go about it.

Although Sherman’s war strategies were more brutal and destructive than most, he was successful in his mission and effectively defended his country. Through Sherman’s success, he helped to end the war, and reunite the ‘United’ States of America.

It seems to me that perhaps the more important deciding factor in whether Sherman should be celebrated or decried as a ruthless destroyer is the period of history which one examines. When looking at the Civil War, it seems to make sense that Sherman did what he did; he crippled the South, providing a quick end to the war. If, however, one considers it in retrospect from the reconstruction era, it is noted once again that Sherman crippled the South. In the peace that followed the war, however, this was a horrible problem, for the center of Southern sea trade (Savannah) had been pillaged and burned, and the fairly recently-built routes of land trade, the railroads, had been dismantled effectively with the intent of not allowing them to be reconstructed.
I think, in war, one must understand that the armies are the front for the entire citizenry, acting as a shield for the rest of the population. Traditionally, wars had been fought army versus army, and that was normally sufficient to decide upon a winner. In the deeply embittered moral and philosophical conflict that was the Civil War, however, the people of the South were not so willing to let their way of life die. Thus, the war could not end once the Union had showed the Confederacy that they had more soldiers. So, then the question remained of whether the war should be fought in a way that left the citizens behind their army with the assumption that they would eventually realize their inferiority to the opponent and surrender (this was what Grant was essentially doing in his Wilderness campaign), or whether the civilians themselves should feel some of the destruction first-hand, and thus be pressured into submission. Sherman chose the latter in a time when everyone else preferred the former, and thus was vilified for it.

Neither a hero or a villian, William T. Sherman was a man who was passionate about his endeavours. He was very much a goal orriented leader who wanted the success for the Union, no matter the price. If that meant distroying everything in his path then so be it. Sherman saw the big picture in his well thought out plan. He recognized the damage he could do with things like, his Sherman “bowties” that permanently distroyed the steel for the railroad and his burning of Shavannah, the main supply source for the Conferderacy. He did what he had to to win. He was a good, strong general who understood the importance of each soilder but also understood that one of his troops lives lost could mean victory for the Union. He was respected by his men and devoted to his cause and to me that is the best way to measure a man’s worth not by his vicious or heroic actions.

It was tough to decide whether William Sherman was a hero or a villain. I would have to say as a military leader he was a hero but morally he was a bit on the brutal side. However, war requires brutallity and to show no mercy in order to get victory. Sherman had clear orders basically just to compromise all of the south and to make sure they were completely crippled not just beaten. He destroyed railroads and even burned countrysides and homes. Sherman was willing to do anything to make sure the union prevailed and the South suffered for its choice to leave. I believe Sherman was a hero because he was the main reason for the union’s victory and for putting an end to the civil war.

War is cruel. As the US dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the second World War, so did Sherman cut a bloody swath through the South. The utter annhilation of the Confederate infrastructure was a key point in the disillusion of the rebel government, but one would certainly need justification for the wanton slaughter of so many.

The basic truth is that war will result in death, of both military and civilian, no matter how surgical an operation is. The primary goal of a commander should be to keep as many people alive as possible by ending the conflict swiftly. In this case, Sherman was justified. His destruction and terror did condemn the lives and property of many innocents to be forever lost, but the overall goal of preserving the most lives possible was achieved. As fear is a powerful force when properly weilded, Sherman cowed the conquered states into submission through an inhuman march of death. To see the North resort to such tactics would imply that they were willing to do anything, even murder the entire populace, to acheive their goal.

As war is, by definition, the slaying of other humans in an open way, there can be no true glory to be won on the battlefield. Sherman recognized this and committed a “dishonerable” act by killing civilians, but the truth is that no battle ever is heroic. A pragmatic but seemingly bloodthirsty course of action would be the best way possible to save the most people. South Carolinas lust for combat condemned and needlessly slaughtered far more people than any general could.

Whether or not Sherman was a hero is ultimately irrlevant. Though he should be condemned for taking his actions too far, and for taking pride in it, the fact that he prevented the deaths of many more should be condemned. The individual should be judged for atrocities committed, such as the guards at Abu Gahrib, but the lives lost to any war are the fault of the aggressors. The Confederate states, by engaging in open warfare, made certain that lives would be lost. The only quesion would be how many and which side they were on.

To me William T. Sherman is a hero not a villain. He did what he was told and he lefted his mark. He wanted people to remember who he was but not what his did. Maybe destroying everything in his pass was kind of wrong, its just he wanted to end the civil war. He didn’t want anyone else to die because over slavery. TO ME SHERMAN IS A HERO!!!!