James McPherson’s historical work from 1988, *Cry of Freedom*, has been translated into Persian. It might be a good read for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard leaders, particularly its sections covering General William Tecumseh Sherman’s notable marches.
The first march, “March to the Sea,” moved from Atlanta to Savannah, and the second, less famous but more extensive, went from Savannah to North Carolina. This latter journey was particularly devastating for South Carolina, a state steeped in secessionist fervor, as it traversed areas most wouldn’t think an army could cross due to the difficult terrain.
Historically, the U.S. has engaged in wars against tyranny, but there’s a hesitance towards war itself. We haven’t been an empire seeking expansion, yet when the need arises, our leaders have showed a fierce resolve.
Sherman sought to persuade both President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant. He stressed that, “If we can march a well-organized army through Jefferson Davis’s territory, it will show our strength both at home and abroad.” He believed he could shake Georgia to its core, and his approach was groundbreaking—abandoning traditional supply lines and essentially living off the land they would breakdown.
Like Lincoln, Sherman understood tough war tactics could lead to softer resolutions later. McPherson notes that once Sherman received the green light, he engaged in brutal strategies. “War is cruel, and you can’t refine it,” he stated.
In another conflict, an American general highlighted that “It takes simple, direct, and ruthless people to wage war.” Another historian, Rick Atkinson, refers to General George Patton’s candid observations during World War II, and it’s fascinating that Sherman’s mindset almost foreshadowed Patton’s strategies by a good 80 years.
Sherman insisted that “men and women, young and old, rich and poor, must confront the harshness of war.” He aimed to instill such exhaustion in Confederate elite that they’d reconsider going to war for generations.
Ultimately, he claimed, it’s about mercy.
Through these marches, Lincoln was eager to establish peace on his own terms. He made a surprise visit to General Grant’s camp in February 1865 to discuss peace with Southern leaders. Lincoln, determined to maintain the Union and free the slaves, had his offer rejected by Jefferson Davis when presented back to him. He even suggested compensating Southerners to facilitate the freedom of their slaves; sadly, that didn’t sway the entrenched mindset in Richmond.
By then, the South was already in a downward spiral. The Confederate dollar’s value had plummeted, making it nearly impossible for Lee’s army to sustain itself. Yet, the Confederate leadership seemed to be in denial.
Davis, addressing the Confederate Congress shortly after Lincoln’s offer, projected defiance, insisting, “We will never submit to the humiliation of surrender.” However, the South did yield on April 9, 1865, with Lee surrendering to Union forces. A needless two-month conflict ensued from Lincoln’s overtures to the actual surrender, allowing Sherman’s army to ravage South Carolina, where it all started. Even as he acknowledged the tragedy of war, Sherman released his forces to continue their harsh mission.
McPherson notes that “the war in South Carolina was neither pretty nor glorious,” but Sherman remained convinced of its effectiveness. His aim was to beat the rebels into submission and instill fear.
Grant similarly pursued Lee with unwavering resolve, just as Lincoln guided the entire war effort from Washington with extraordinary vision. In the beginning, Lincoln was widely misjudged, and he only leaned into emancipation when separatists threatened a vast slave empire.
He set out to dismantle the will of Richmond’s leaders. Much like his presidential successors—Wilson, FDR, and Truman—Lincoln understood that he wouldn’t accept anything other than his terms.
As casualties rose among Union troops, so did Lincoln’s understanding of what peace would demand. Few, if any, in the 20th century matched Lincoln’s clarity or wisdom. Wilson, though intelligent, struggled with peace negotiations after World War I, which ultimately sowed the seeds for World War II.
FDR had his own flaws yet led effectively during World War II, exhibiting ruthless pragmatism. Truman’s decisions in using the atomic bomb, while controversial, aimed to save countless lives.
During conflicts, presidents justify their choices as best as they can. History evaluates their actions, often second-guessing, but they act under urgent circumstances. Lincoln was a complex man, battling inner turmoil while displaying unwavering spirit during a time of immense strife, even as a formidable peace faction emerged in the North.
We can only speculate over the next steps following President Trump’s ultimatum for the Revolutionary Guard; one could argue that the mullahs don’t fully control Iran anymore. Yet, there’s a consistent essence within the American experience that one can hope resonates with the Revolutionary leadership. It’s entirely possible Trump might decide to target Iran’s infrastructure in a similar way to Sherman’s strategies in the Civil War. This could, in theory, lead to liberation for oppressed populations.
Critics of Trump abound, especially those offended by his provocations. The long-term impact of his statements on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard remains unclear, but the Iranian populace desires freedoms that may necessitate tough measures.
