George T William'S March (Essay Sample)

An Analysis of General William T. Sherman's Infamous March through Georgia and South Carolina, and How It Devastated the Confederacy's Economy and War-Making Capabilities
Name:
Course:
Code:
Institution:
Date:
Introduction General William T. Sherman
Civilization has taken man through the worst and best times, and lessons from the past service as guidelines for future generations. Some lessons from some experiences are hard to classify as typical and beneficial. The atypical nature of the march is what historians and academicians have mulled and debated about, with focus on the actions and outcomes of the 285-mile march by General William T. Sherman, (The general. The lawlessness blanketing the present day US is viewed as a product of capitalism and greed, fueled by the lack of a centralized governance systems, and the unfathomable vision of having a united North and South. The end of slavery was long overdue, although no one was prepared for the influx of free men and women, who increased the demand for resources and structure. The gap left in terms of labor and order was viewed as the responsibility of the previous slave masters, who had enriched themselves over the years when slavery was allowed.
The march by The General was the product of the buildup tensions and the misdirected power, coupled with the mind of capitalist and pseudo-bureaucratic citizens suffering from preference of the greater good and a ‘ no apologies’ mentality. The perceived complacency of the cities that were affected has been attributed to their assumed cooperation with enemies to the General. In some instances, the actions were aimed at retro-terrorist purposes, in order to ensure that the various towns were pre-warned.[Ashdown, Paul G. and Caudill, Edward "The March to the Sea" Essential Civil War Curriculum. July 2012. /assets/files/ECWC%20TOPIC%20Shermans%20March%20to%20the%20Sea%20Essay.pdf] [Lisa M Brady. The Wilderness of War: Nature and Strategy in the American Civil War. Environmental History. July 2005. /Publications/EH/Brady.pdf]
The March
The period between November 15th and December 21st 1864 are prominent in warfare, and the use of terror to achieve barbaric objectives. The march to sea was designed to cower the residents of Georgetown to vacate the ideologies of confederation. However, the activities leading to the war can be traced to April 1864, when the campaign against Johnston in started in Georgia. The campaign started off with 100,000 troops, which were later reduced to 62,000 when the march to the sea started, in the company of General McPherson. Atlanta was the first to fall, with the retreating targets providing the impetus for The General to forge forward. The march was fronted along locations where division of the confederacy would be most effective.
The soldiers were instructed not to destroy the towns in the path, but were allowed to forcefully acquire valuables which would enhance their survival in the poor planned and executed campaign. Subsequently, the soldiers took advantage of the situations and plundered the towns and settlements, stealing the best livestock, food stocks and stealing whatever valuables they could muster. Any form of resistance was met with an equal measure of force and preemptive attacks aimed at ensuring that the resistance and blowbacks from civilian uprising did not compromise the progress. In a move aimed at solidifying the power of The General, the soldiers were provided with rules of engagement similar to battle field conflicts.
Capture of Atlanta on September 2 1864 was aimed at curtailing the confederations economic and industrial capacity.
The General had 60,000 troops, comprised of persons who were sympathetic of his cause and a large number of persons who were persuaded by the excesses and freedoms offered by the association. The military-based organization of the group provided most individuals with the benefits that can only be classified through the association of perils of obedience. At a time when President Lincoln was keen on solidifying the birth of a Nation (the USA), the General prioritized his resources and time between upstream and downstream disruption of the activities of the Southern Whites. The primary imperatives of these Southern Whites rests in their wealth in terms of farm produce and factories, and their joint ownership of the railway line. By crisscrossing the savannah at opportune times, The General was able to run interference and campaign against the successful trade by these individuals.
The most potent opposition was drawn from 8000 soldiers in Georgetown, who did nothing to slow down the progress. The opposition was met with an equal measure of destruction on their plantations, towns and wealth, serving as an example for future resistance, and further reducing the economic capacity of confederation. Overall, the damage by the march was estimated $100 million, not accounting for the numerous bridges, railway lines and other t communication infrastructures. The opportunity and indirect costs were even higher, since the loss of human life could not be estimated. Most of the damage was wastage through destruction of property, and the murder of the most productive members of the families.
Effects on Confederacy’s Economy and war Making Capacity
Economic Effects
The march targeted to frustrate efforts at the confederation, and as a way of ensuring that he unification of America covered both the north and the south. In a time when slavery was ending in the North and the South was still stuck with decision making, the possibility of a unified America was growing bleak. Most of the 11 states which formed the Southern Confederacy were economically empowered. Their access to the sea ports provided access to international trade which was starting to take shape. Although their support for the central government was unfaltering, the desire to retain discretions on the matter of slavery was viewed as an outdated perception of the empowerment of America.[Ashdownand Caudill, 13] [Jamet. T. Palmer. "Battle Command in the 1864 Campaign for Atlanta: The Emergence of William Tecumseh Sherman as a Strategic leader”. US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks. PA. 1996]
As a result, the march was instituted. By targeting the economic fabric, which was founded on the socio-cultural tendencies of the southerners, the general sought to rely on conflict backed campaigns in order to tear the fabric of the association. The highly stratified southern region was a bleak reflection of the North. The aristocratic wealthy slave owners has solidified their grip through mirror legitimacy and documented their prospects of a bright future in the agrarian civilization. Through the extensive factories and production units, the power of the few southern oligarchs spanned across a number of nations, with the social fabric closely designed to protect their wealth and power.
Although the states in the south were wary of the oligarchy and the aristocratic power brokers, the existing system was the only one they were assured of. As a result, persuasive approaches were bound to fail, or take longer than was visibly necessary. Although most individuals view the actions of the general as barbaric, and they were barbaric, they effectively broke down the limitations that accentuated the power of the South, and led to the expected outcomes. By the time the march reached savannah, the economic effects were momentous and the confederation was crippled. It is logically and linearly acceptable that more effective and less destructive ways were capable of achieving the same results.[Barton, A. Myers. "Rebels Against a Rebellion: Southern Unionists In Succession, War and Remembrance. 2009. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/myers_barton_a_200905_phd.pdf]
The Emergence of Novel Approaches to War and Roles of Engagement
Armed conflict is normally targeted against resistances, based on the inability of diplomatic channels to avert disaster. In 19th century, wars were rarely structured in any manner, and all approaches were deemed strategic and necessary to overcome enemies. Most wars involved battles which were situated in locations were protection of civilians and noncombatants was possible, since most nations were aware of the contribution of civilians in the post war era. In addition, the ability of civilians to enhance troops through supplies and military resources implied that civilians were an imperative tools in winning wars. To the enemy, civilians were a bargaining chip, and threats to the civilians normally resulted to surrender.[Lisa M Brady, 5] [James, M. Bartek, The Rhetoric of Destruction: Racial Identity and Noncombatant Immunity in the Civil War Era. 2010. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=gradschool_diss]
However, in the South, the corporate magnates bore no responsibilities to the civilians, except for family members. Since most of the residents were slaves, the Southerners were more concerned about protecting their wealth. As a result, The General focused on tearing the fabric of society, by targeting what they loved and revered most. This introduced strategic war fare in the art of fighting. Although most of the guidelines were flouted, the original strategy by The General rested on destruction of the economic systems of the South, adversely affect production and manufacturing and the existence of any capitalistic tendencies. Through divide and rule laced with terror, preemptive warfare technique were used.[Jamet. T. Palmer20]
In addition, the general was fully aware of the fact that any resistance represented a threat to his objective. Although there was the option of overrunning such resistance and forging forward, they stood the risk of back blows from the reorganized tools. As a result, every form of resistance was viewed as a current and future t...