Was Sherman’s Use Of “Total War” Justified? Demba H.Y. Ex President Abraham Lincoln, among many others propagandized that “total war” was a strategically maneuvered tactic in order to quickly put an end to the civil war. However, although “total war”did indeed put a faster end to the civil war, it was a selfish, sneaky, unethical, vindictive and unscrupulous use of military empowerment which cost the lives of countless number of innocent civilians. The use of “total war” also brought forth long term repercussions on how worldwide militaries operate in battles. First of all, Sherman’s us of “total war” was cruel, selfish and neglected the true aim of war which was to unite both the Union and the Confederacy in order to form …show more content…
one nation. For example, during capturing of Atlanta in 1864, Sherman and his army lobbed 100,000 shells into the city. He and his troops then burned what was rest of the city, killing innocent southern civilians, and depriving the survivors from their homes and infrastructure. Earlier that day, Sherman had told his men (based on an article on encyclopedia.1914-1918): “No consideration must be paid to the fact they are occupied by families, but the place must be cannonaded.”President Lincoln justified these actions as a necessity to quickly put an end to the war. He also stated that eliminating southern civilians was a necessity because they contributed to the war by providing food, shelter, clothes etc, and because this would demoralize the southern forces and ultimately indoctrinate them into putting and end to the war. Lincoln’s “total war” strategy not only devalorized the importance of preserving innocent human life, but also went against Art.22-23 of the Lieber Code, which states that the property of an unnamed civilian should not be harmed/damaged in a anyway- and that a civilian should not be murdered, enslaved or carried off to far away lands. In addition, although many believe that Sherman’s use of “total war” was strictly for the benefit of terminating the war, many historians including Joseph Glatthaar believe that Sherman and his army’s use of “total war” was also partly revengeful.
Based Joseph Glatthaar writings: as a way being sure that more damage had been caused then permitted, Sherman and his men perceive this “as a golden opportunity to teach the people of Georgia … the hardships and terrors of war” Sherman and his troops blamed the confederates for starting the war and continuing the war. He and his troops burned wealthy slave holding homes, because they were accused of bringing on the war. Sherman’s army also deprived the civilians from more food then the army could consume. Also, based on a letter Sherman had sent to James M. Calhoun, Mayor, E.E. Rawson and S.C. Wares which are representatives of the Atlanta City Council: ...You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. This shows Sherman’s vindictive intentions towards the southern forces which justifies his counterproductive horrific and cruel maneuvers carried onto southern
civilians. Although Sherman’s horrific use psychological warfare in destroying the enemy’s persistence to resist helped the Union put an end to the civil war, it brought forth a new era in which nations would incorporate “total war” strategies in order to summon terror and win battles by any means necessary in their power. For example, this idea fully flourished during World War 2, where countries such as Germany, Italy, and Japan would openly drop bombs on civilians. The “total war” strategy was also carried out when the United states dropped a bomb (with more destructive power then any bomb the US had ever dropped in WW2) on the city of Hanoi, Vietnam. In conclusion, although Sherman did indeed succeed in quickly ending the civil war, his measures taken were cruel and vindictive, and often surpassed the Union’s initial objectives. Sherman’s use of “total war” also brought forth an era of terror and fright of how military forces handle major conflicts in 20th century.
General Richard Sherman’s march to the sea has just finished. After successful capturing Atlanta, Georgia, General Sherman directed his Union army to Savannah, Georgia. Along the way, northerners wreaked havoc on Southern cotton mills and destroy train tracks while completely uprooting 20 percent of Georgian plantations. This effectively halted the Confederate’s means of transportation and economic structure subsequently w...
At the end of his “March to the Sea”, MG William T. Sherman led Union forces from Georgia to the north through the Carolinas to unite with LTG Ulysses S. Grant in Virginia. By doing so, he believed he would be able to cut Confederate forces General Robert E. Lee’s supply lines. In February 1865, MG Sherman captured Columbia, the state capital of South Carolina. The commander of Confederate forces was LTG Wade Hampton who led the force under the command of General P.G.T Beauregard. MG Sherman succeeded in defeating Confederate on the basis of the principles of mission command.
The American Civil War is one of the biggest turning points in American history. It marks a point of major separation in beliefs from the North and the South and yet somehow ends in a major unification that is now called the United States of America. It still to date remains the bloodiest war in American history. The book “This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War” by Drew Gilpin Faust better explains the change in thought from the American people that developed from the unexpected mass loss of soldiers that devastated the American people. Throughout this review, the reader will better understand the methods and theory of this book, the sources used, the main argument of the book, the major supporting arguments, and what the author did well and what the author didn’t do well.
... to win war. The Union blockade of Charleston is when the enemy fleet took over the Charleston harbor. Sherman’s march through South Carolina was a path of destruction from ransacking people and homes to burning down buildings. When Sherman set fire to Columbia that marked the end of this gruesome war. After Sherman had set fire to the city, the Confederacy was in such despair over there lost town. This caused the Confederacy to finally surrender to the union. The Civil War was a very dark time in American history. One of the bloodiest wars this country has ever experienced. South Carolina was a big player during this war, from battles to their ports, and then the burning of the capitol. This war was a very traumatic time for Americans but in my opinion I believe that if this war hadn’t happened we wouldn’t be the strong, free willed and brave country we are today.
A numerous amount of generals and soldiers of the south had a predisposed idea regarding what every person was fighting for, and from the looks of it, they were more so on the same page. When referring to what the war was being fought over, Englishmen Pickett used an analogy that gives reference to a “gentlemen’s club”, and not being able to maneuver out of it (Shaara 88). The men believed that the war conceived out of the misinterpretation of the constitution in regards to what or what not they had the right to do. In all, a large number of those fighting believed that the confederate army fought to protect the southern society, and slavery as an integral part of
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
Several factors played in to the American Civil War that made it have the outcome that it did. Although the South had better trained officials due to their military school, the North was far more advanced than they. The North had the advantage over the South in several ways. However, the outcome of the Civil War was not inevitable: it was determined as much by human decisions and human willpower as by physical resources, although the North’s resources gave them an edge over the South.
Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail." While Sherman's statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the South's ability to stage a successful campaign.
As the Civil War came underway the South’s military, smaller than the North’s, would take heavy blows from the decisions of the Confederacy. First of all they knew that if all their plantation owners fought in the war, their crops would possibly die out or not produce as much. To combat this problem they decided in the Conscription law that if someone had twenty or more slaves, they didn’t have to fight in the war. This caused the price of slaves to increase and caused crops from small slave holding plantations and yeoman farmers to do terrible. Since most Southerners fell into that category, the South would really feel the damage. Also the Impressment Act would take food from farmers to help feed the armies. This would demoralize the small Southern farmers and cause desertions, poor riots and ultimately put a negative face on the new confederacy. These internal divisions weren’t only a Southern problem, in fact the North had bitter divisions over conscription, taxes, suspension of habeas corpus, martial law and emancipation. “If anything, the opposition was more powerful and effective in the North than in the South.” (Why Did the Confederacy Lose?, pg 120) However the powerful opposition in the North w...
In conclusion, it is imperative to observe that not many people could have foreseen the outcomes of the war. In fact, for many people who actually lived during the time that this war took place; the civil war to them was a thing that would just happen and end after a short while. The northerners on the other hand did not expect that the south would chose to put up a very spirited defense and the people from the south knew exactly the weaknesses of the northerners that they really felt they could face Washington and coerce the authorities to identify the confederacy. Sadly, both warring sides had an impractical outlook into the war which turned out to take a very long time that any of the factions had wanted it to last.
Henry Steele Commager’s essay “The Defeat of the Confederacy: An Overview” is more summary than argument. Commager is more concerned with highlighting the complex causality of the war’s end rather than attempting to give a definitive answer. Commager briefly muses over both the South’s strengths
...iduals plotting conspiracy and selling out their promises for a considerable length of time before 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their objectives. The main thing that might have avoided war might be the acknowledgement of bondage by the United States or the surrender of the United States of every last one of states and regions it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that might not have finished subjugation, then the response is that there was no elective however to have a clash, a war. Subjugation was the issue, it was the reason. It was an ascertained arrangement by the individuals who decided to ensure servitude by selling out their kinsmen and turning rebellious--to secure subjugation, and not a legendary thought of "state's rights" on the grounds that the main right they thought about was the right to subjugate an alternate race.
First, the South couldn’t have won the civil war because state’s rights prevented unification of the South. The very issue that created the Confederacy helped to destroy it. In waging war, the South faced problems of politics and government that greatly complicated its problem of economic mobilization. No one would deny the troublesome effect of the conflict generated by differing ideas of how best to protect liberty and to organize southern society for the war effort. Southern people insisted upon retaining their democratic liberties in wartime, which proved fatal for the South. They had to struggle with a “confederacy formed by particularistic politicians [that] could hardly be expected to adopt promptly those centralists polices which victory demanded” (Donald, p. 26). Individual state governors fought bitterly with Jefferson Davis to prevent him from consolidating power to fight the war. They withheld troops and supplies while the Confederate Congress spent its time arguing over the rights of the states instead of prosecuting a war of national survival. Many internal conflicts within the South were acquiring and weakening the South’s unity. Internal conflicts caused confederate officials to choose between moving troops from the coasts and strengthening their armies, or leaving the...
The power of the federal government can also be seen during Lincoln’s presidency at the time of the Civil War. He swayed the entire purpose of the war to something far off from what had been the initial purpose. From fighting for the preservation of the Union, Northerners readily began to accept that the abolition of slavery was the cause of the war for them, not the Union. Lincoln and his power made this happen.
Abraham Lincoln (12 Feb. 1809-15 Apr. 1865) the 16th president (civilwar.org) of the United States of America was one of the main public persons that influence the civil war in many aspects. Even though the civil war may have been the last resource the nation had, it could be argue that Lincoln’s governments try its best to find a different solution. The civil war was a conflict that destroyed the nation; it perhaps could have been avoided if the second party had work for a solution. But it is true that maybe both parts could have looked out for the benefits of the people as a whole instead of their personal benefits. Lincoln principal positive effect on the civil war was actually before and during the war when Lincoln’s government had many attempts to prevent the confrontation, and when this one began he took the right decisions to win the war. One of the biggest effects on the civil war was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which gave the slaves their liberty. Many would agree is that Abraham’s Lincoln effect on the civil war was positive but Lincoln made many mistakes or misjudgments during the war as well. Perhaps the biggest mistake Lincoln did was underestimating the South what caused many unnecessary deaths. He also did had misjudgments that cause many causalities. Since the beginning of time humanity has fought for what they thought was right. In April 12 of 1861(civilwar.org) The US would begin a fight for civic and moral rights, a civil war that perhaps was the last option for a country to reunite its values. Abraham Lincoln was the president of the time and the person the influence the most the course the war took. I strongly believe that Lincoln’s decisions influence or had more positive effects on the country. Being the president at times like the civil war is without doubt it is one of the toughest jobs, and one way or another there is going to be correct and incorrect decisions but I can agree president Lincoln did what he thought it was the best at that moment.