Sherman: Hero or Monster

Was Sherman a hero or monster? That has haunted the Civil War historian for nearly 2 centries. Let us look at the facts:

1. According to Rules of War established, Sherman was actually permitted to "borrow" from the natives. When an invading army entered enemy territory, they were suppose to write a long letter to the local authorities, describing thier needs, and the authorities were suppose to give them all the food and items they needed. When none was found, the invaders were allowed to take as much as needed. Sherman followed this.

2. The rule of combat is for every defender, 3 attackers will die. This is true with the Civil War. If Lee had over 40,000 men when Grant attacked, it's probable that 15,000 would be shot in a vigoruos assualt. By scaring and harassing the locals, many men felt compelled to leave the front lines to protect thier famalies. Desertions were rampant in both the ANV and AOT. Many thousands were saved, and maybe a couple months of war was skimmed off.

3. Most of the destruction was done by vagabonds and deserters. Sherman was not really for too much wanton destruction, but, the bummers (deserters who wanted to loot and plunder) did. Only 40% of the damage was really Sherman evoked. The rest was lawlessness.

4. If a family was present, thier homes didn't get burned down.

5. Of course, many things were entirely Sherman's fault, as not putting out the fire in Charleston until a little while after the fact is a big example.

Conclusion: Sherman did what he needed too. Was there a better way? There always is. But, he ended the Civil War sooner then any other general on either side.