Robb Stark
King in the North
I didn't mean for the entry to excuse it. It's not an action that can be excused, and I'm not trying to. Before I went out earlier, I reread my post and wanted to clarify, and I wish I'd done it before you posted. I'm not trying to say that civilian loss of life is ever "okay". It's not. But the gravity of the War was very different than most people understand American warfare today. It should also be pointed out that Sherman wasn't mowing down children in the streets. His actions caused unbelievable hardship that led to death, but it wasn't as simple as him lining up women and children and executing them.
Today, American engagement involves sending out troops to distant lands with very little chance of American way of life being altered one way or another. If America had "lost" in Iraq, it would have been a blow to national pride, but it wouldn't have changed the way we live here. The same applied to Vietnam. America did lose, and America continued. There have been very few wars in U.S. history where peace couldn't be had with anything less than the total destruction of the enemy. The Civil War was one of them. There couldn't be "peace" with the Confederacy, just as 80 years later there could be no peace with Nazi Germany or Japan (and no, not for a second am I comparing the Confederates to the Nazis. I'm not. I'm saying the gravity of importance was similar to America in both the Civil War and WWII).
Sherman striking the Confederate heartland in the manner he did was cruel, it was cold and it was brutal. No question. But without Sherman's March, the war would have continued to drag on. No, he did not need to inflict anywhere the level of damage he did, and as you say, there's no excuse for that. But he succeeded in breaking not only the Confederate economy, but much of their will to fight as well. Could the North have pressed the South in a war of attrition and have worn them down? Unquestionably. But that would have meant an extension of the war, and more American lives lost. The circumstances were similar when Truman forced Japan into nuclear submission. I'm not saying it was right, but it achieved Truman's goal of ending the war with as few American casualties as possible. By marching to Savannah, Sherman was able to reinforce Grant, which eventually pressed Lee to much to hold. Sherman was then able to finish the last of the Confederate forces led by Johnston.
The March was a terrible, terrible thing, I will never dispute that. But let me pose something else. Had Sheridan not arrived in time to stop him, General Early would have burned Washington to the ground and sacked the city. War creates desperation, especially when it involves the protection of your own country. The rage that the Northern (and I'm sure Southern as well) leadership felt was is difficult to fathom today. Please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm really not trying to say that it was fine and dandy. I'm just trying to explain the context I see it from (and it's worth nothing, sadly, that the details of the March to the Sea aren't sorely neglected in contemporary Northern history teachings. Much of this I learned through my own effort, and the official conveyance very much glosses over the horror of the March, emphasizing only the strategic importance of it).