Was General Sherman and those who follow his war ethics right or wrong? "The purpose of the war is extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people.” Launching tens of thousands of artillery shells on civilians in Charleston and Atlanta?
Your question about the ethics of warfare, particularly in relation to General Sherman's Civil War actions, raises important considerations. Sherman's "total war" tactics, which targeted civilian infrastructure in Charleston and Atlanta, draw a parallel to modern conflicts, especially in the Middle East. Sherman's actions, justified by the harsh logic that "war is hell," are reminiscent of Israel's military operations in Gaza, which are defended as necessary for national security despite significant civilian casualties. This comparison brings us to a critical moral and ethical crossroads. If Sherman's tactics are viewed by some as war crimes or morally questionable, how should we evaluate similar actions today? The destruction of civilian areas and the heavy toll on non-combatants remain pressing issues, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, the role of powerful allies like the United States in supporting such tactics adds complexity. If the US has justified similar actions in its own history, it raises difficult questions about consistency and potential hypocrisy in international relations.
Inventor & Volunteer at US Inventor
2moAnd "In 1891, the year of his death, Sherman expressed his regrets that his army did not kill every last [American] Indian."