Did it really help?

[Tank_Guy#3]

This is a question that occurred while looking over Godwynns "Sherman's March to the Sea" thread. Did the Union tactics of scorched earth, such as in the Shenandoah and Georgia affect the war? My answer would be yes, but let's hear your opinion, and why you think so if you are so inclined to answer.

=========================================================

Here's a link to Godwynn's thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189190

 

[Irish Caesar]

I don't think so (I would say that, right?!) because of the time in which they were used. By the summer of 1863, the Confederacy's hope was really pretty much over. The Union had control of the Mississippi and had the entire Southern coast blockaded. The only place where US and CS were on relatively even ground was along the Potomac, and after Gettysburg, another CS invasion attempt was unlikely.

In late 1864, when Sherman was burning my fair city, the CS was already out of it in this part of the country. Confederate forces had been running from Sherman since Tennessee--they knew they couldn't stand and fight. It may have sped the end of the war by a few weeks, but even that I doubt; the end of the war was marked by Lee's surrender to Grant (there were still Confederate forces fighting after April 9, although few and far between), which was going poorly for Lee. Sherman and Sheridan's campaigns didn't really change that.

What the March to the Sea did accomplish was plenty of ill will. Lincoln might have had a pretty sounding inaugural address about "malice towards none," and all that, but it was a load. CSA wanted to be an independent nation, and it lost that battle, but after such tactics as Sherman and Sheridan used, Southerners would have found rule by the Northern part of the country more oppressive than before. The thoroughness of destruction in the South followed by an ineffective occupation most likely was a key contributing factor to the rise of the KKK and assorted vigilante groups, and the South became a horrible place to live--for both blacks and whites--for a century to come. I'm not saying Sherman was responsible for all of that, but he played something of a factor.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I believe that the Confederates did have a little bite left in them, maybe for one last big battle, but other than that I believe they were lost.

I heard that Grant willingly walked into some tactically unsmart battles just because the losses that were inflicted on his troops were more easily replaced. Whereas it was nearly impossible to replace killed or deserted CSA troops.

I believe such acts were to annihilate any remnants of morale that they still had.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I believe that the Confederates did have a little bite left in them, maybe for one last big battle, but other than that I believe they were lost.

There wasn't much left of 'em in Georgia in 1864, though. Had the US resorted to scorched-earth a year or two sooner, it might have made a significant difference.

I heard that Grant willingly walked into some tactically unsmart battles just because the losses that were inflicted on his troops were more easily replaced. Whereas it was nearly impossible to replace killed or deserted CSA troops.

Grant was often called a "butcher" by other Union generals; he lost a lot of men. His strategy against Lee proved very effective, though, in bringing an end to the war.

 

[steviejay]

I would have to say yes, yes it did. The Confederates didn't have the Industrial base of the Union so any major damage to that sector was always going to cause it trouble. A prime example of this would be Sherman's neckties. The destruction of the south's rail lines caused a huge amount of damage not only becausethey were difficult to replace, but also for the transportation of supplies to the front.

I just realised I was questioning whether it was effective, rather than whether it was necessary..... i'm not sure, I suppose in thinking about it then it might have been a case of making it absolutely clear that the CSA couldn't win rather than suspecting they might be out of the fight. It might not have been completely necessary to end the war but it made certain it did

I heard that Grant willingly walked into some tactically unsmart battles just because the losses that were inflicted on his troops were more easily replaced. Whereas it was nearly impossible to replace killed or deserted CSA troops.

That's actually very similar to something I read once regarding World War 1. At the battle of the Somme the Brits lost around half a million men, the Germans lost slightly less (am I right in thinking around 300k?) but, being completely cold hearted about it, the British had their Empire behind them, they could afford, in terms of simple man power, to loose that many men, the Germans could not.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Here are the stats according to Wiki:

Spoiler :

Casualties:
419,654 British Empire
204,253 French
623,907 total (of which 146,431 killed or missing)
100 tanks & 782 RFC aircraft destroyed 434,500 total [1](of which 164,055 killed or missing)

Germans:
434,500 total [1](of which 164,055 killed or missing)

 

[Verbose]

That's actually very similar to something I read once regarding World War 1. At the battle of the Somme the Brits lost around half a million men, the Germans lost slightly less (am I right in thinking around 300k?) but, being completely cold hearted about it, the British had their Empire behind them, they could afford, in terms of simple man power, to loose that many men, the Germans could not.

But at the same time the German commander von Falkenhayn had argued in a similar vein when preparing the battle of Verdun. It was to be "the anvil upon which we beat the French nation to death". Unfortunately he was going to use the German people as the hammer, but since logically the Frenchmen would run out before the Germans did it would be a German victory of sorts.

You also get something similar with the US and British advance through France and the Low Countries in WWII. The British had come through a long war with significant casualties and took it slow and careful, avoiding casualties if they could, while the US army considered them slow and lacking comabtiveness, as the US commanders wanted to drive ahead as fast as possible and where prepared to trade lives for speed.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

You also get something similar with the US and British advance through France and the Low Countries in WWII. The British had come through a long war with significant casualties and took it slow and careful, avoiding casualties if they could, while the US army considered them slow and lacking comabtiveness, as the US commanders wanted to drive ahead as fast as possible and where prepared to trade lives for speed.

And in doing so the British missed out on chances to snatch up great strategic opportunities, such as the Falaise Pocket. But let's not get too much into that.

The faster you attack the less time the enemy has to plan a defense, and even less time to plan a counter attack, because if you're too busy running backwards to think of anything other than your own hide, then where's room in your thought process for striking back. I believe the war would have been shorter had Monty stopped crying and let Patton push forward as he had wanted to. But again, lets not stray off topic in discussion of this.

 

[Godwynn]

From what I understand from Wiki, the capture and burning of Atlanta helped secure Lincoln's re-election as president. Had George B. McClellen (who's victory was assured the summer before) won, peace would have been declared and the CSA let go.

I also understand that since he destroyed every rail in a line from Atlanta to Savannah, it cut off all reinforcement and supplies to Lee west of that line.

 

[Irish Caesar]

From what I understand from Wiki, the capture and burning of Atlanta helped secure Lincoln's re-election as president. Had George B. McClellen (who's victory was assured the summer before) won, peace would have been declared and the CSA let go.

The capture of Atlanta was important to Lincoln's re-election, but the March to the Sea began once Lincoln had already been re-elected (Sherman left Atlanta Nov. 15, 1864).