This is coolbert:
From the New York Times you need to read the whole article.
The historical account of Sherman's March to Savannah by the sea continuously under investigation and a consensus having been gaining ground as to the actions of the Army of the West during the advance across Georgia.
"150 Years Later, Wrestling With a Revised View of Sherman’s March"
Hard YES, cruel NOT!
"Sherman’s plan for the systematic obliteration in late 1864 of the South’s war machine, including its transportation network and factories, was destructive but not gratuitously destructive. Instead, those experts contend, the strategy was an effective and legal application of the general’s authority and the hard-edged masterstroke necessary to break the Confederacy."
And has been the observation of Colonel Austin Bay:
"Remaining in Atlanta also entailed serious danger. For supplies, Sherman's troops depended on the single rail line connecting Atlanta to Chattanooga. On a daily basis, Confederate cavalry under Nathaniel Bedford Forrest snapped Union telegraph lines and ripped up railroad track. If Sherman tried to winter in the city, his army might starve."
That danger to the Union supply lines most exemplified by the Battle of Franklin. That Confederate army of John Bell Hood pursuing a retreating Yankee army into Tennessee with the intention of capturing Nashville and making the supply situation for Sherman EVEN THAT MORE ACUTE!!
Franklin from one hundred and fifty years ago now resulting in catastrophic secessionist defeat, THE ONLY TIME DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR WHEN THE TROOPS OF THE CONFEDERACY LEFT THE BATTLEFIELD IN ROUT AND DISARRAY!!