Marriage in Later Life"Study pages 178-182 of your text on marriage in later life.Why do you think married men suffer from coronary heart disease less often than single men? Is isolation more difficult for men than women?What thoughts do you have about how to meet the social and intimacy needs of older unmarried persons?

Your assignment is to post to our discussion board your analysis of ONE of Sherman’s letters. Be sure to identify the letter you choose by date and the name of the person to whom he was writing (or, as the case may be, the name of the person who was writing to him).Using the 'reply' button below, submit a post (minimum 300 words), explaining:what the letter reveals about Sherman’s rationale/reasons for waging a “destructive war.”what clues does the letter provide us as to his reasoning for breaking with military tradition, both by cutting off from his army’s supply lines, AND his willingness to impose hardship on southern civilians.specifically, how does his reasoning seem influenced by the overall context of the war and the direction the war had taken (see our Landscape of Destruction lecture and Death and the Civil War video).Assessment:To receive a higher score you should refer to the specific language in the letter you’ve chosen.Your score will be based on the quality of your analysis AND how well you relate Sherman’s words to the overall context of the Civil War era as explained in our Landscape of Destruction lecture.Reply Post (minimum 50 words)Finally, reply and respond to ONE of your classmate’s posts by explaining how the letter you have chosen relates/compares to the letter your classmate has chosen (i.e. respond to someone who has chosen a different letter).This is the letter that need to be analyzedletter 2:In Europe, whence we derive our principles of war, wars are between kings or rulers through hired armies, and not between peoples . . . . Therefore, the general rule was and is that war should be confined to the armies engaged, and should not visit the houses of families or private interests. When men take up arms to resist a rightful authority, we are compelled to use like force, because all reason and argument cease when arms are resorted to. When the provisions, forage, horses, mules, wagons, etc., are used by our enemy, it is clearly our duty and right to take them also, because otherwise they might be used against us. In like manner all houses left vacant by an inimical people are clearly our right, and as such are needed as storehouses, hospitals, and quarters. But the question arises as to dwellings used by women, children, and non-combatants. So long as non-combatants remain in their houses and keep to their accustomed peaceful business, their opinions and prejudices can in no wise influence the war, and therefore should not be noticed; but if any one comes out into the public streets and creates disorder, he or she should be punished, restrained, or banished to the rear or front, as the officer in command adjudges. If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished according to law with death or minor punishment. These are well-established principles of war, and the people of the South having appealed to war, are barred from appealing for protection to our constitution, which they have practically and publicly defied. They have appealed to war, and must abide by its rules and laws . . . . A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences . . . .