Quote:At the very least it expedited it's exit.  War tends to be the fastest way to get results, even when it's not the original intent of the war.  

 

Maybe if diplomacy were faster, the world would be a better place.

That's the same type of consequentialist style of thinking that every ruthless dictator and general has ever used. From Alexander The Great to Julius Caesar, from Hitler to Stalin. War is hell; but even the most barbaric and despicable acts can be pardoned in a time of war. So long as the "ends justify the means". For instance: everyone here will agree that the destruction of personal property is a grievous offense in every circumstance imaginable, but in the case of Sherman's "March to the Sea" that's exactly what his men did. With the capitulation of most Confederate forces by the end of 1864, widespread looting occurred in most parts of the South; and the burning or "scorched earth" tactics of destroying major industrial cities such as Atlanta. 

 

With the South already in disarray after the Fall of Richmond, its acting Government no longer in control of things, and most of its military personnel having either surrendered or fled, one has to ask whether that was really necessary or not. Maybe the South might have fought on a little longer without that, but there were also no insurgencies (at least that I know of) that occurred in the South after the Civil War. The fact is, the South was already exhausted after 4 years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. As in most cases with long bloody conflicts: The war became unpopular, and it no longer had the will to fight against a more heavily industrialized North. The war was already lost.

 

 

Moral relativism really is the cancer of all mankind...

---