Originally Posted by
Olympic Fan
So Lee's troops didn't burn towns, EXCEPT Chambersburg ... what courteous and chivalrous behavior!
The disagreement between you and I is fundamental -- you see the destruction wrought by Sherman and Sheridan as a terrible thing, a crime against these poor, innocent people who did nothing more than enslave thousands of black people for more than a century. I know the blacks liberated by Sherman's army didn't complain about the crimes of his army.
And, yes, not every home or farm destroyed belonged to a slave owner, but they belonged to people who supported and prospered from the slaveocracy. What happened to them was the logical consequence of the war the South started. Just as I don't shed tears over the victims of Allied bombings in WWII, I have little sympathy for the poor victims of the rebellion started to protect slavery.
And that destruction wasn't new or revolutionary at all -- very similar military destruction was long a part of warfare.
As for Grant's losses vs. Lee's losses, we obviously disagree over the word "wasted" -- Grant wasted troops by trying to take Vicksburg by assault and with his assault at Cold Harbor, but on the whole -- including the losses in the Overland Campaign -- the troops he lost weren't wasted -- they were sacrificed in the war-winning campaign, unlike Lee, who wasted his brave troops in a series of futile and pointless attacks that led nowhere ... well, they did lead ultimately to defeat.
BTW, I've read three of the four books you list -- all except the Akers book about Stuart (and Monte Akers is hardly a prominent historian). Longstreet obviously has a point of view (although h was more honest about Lee than most Southern historians) and the two Catton books offer a very favorable view of Grant.
Not sure where your contempt for the greatest general in American history (according to JFC Fuller, who is an esteemed military historian) is coming from.