Total War: Mandatory or Destructive

In my opinion total war was needed, because the south wouldn't surrender any other way. This is because if they didn't lose what they love, than there wouldn't be any other point to surrender, except killing all the soldiers. Killing all the soldiers is effective, yet it is morally wrong, and could lead to more war. Yes you could talk your way out, but would that actually work, because the Union has tried it before, but has never worked ever. It is okay to left them suffer, because it is better than killing all of them. If you killed all of them, than there would be no reason to keep the country together.

Siege and Total War

I think that everyone in the Union and CSA wants this war to be over. The Civil War keeps getting worse and worse and I think everyone just wants it to be over. So in my opinion, using siege and total war was necessary because it would bring us closer to the end of the war and closer to the south surrendering. What I don't think is right, is that Sherman burnt down people's houses and innocent civilians were left living in caves, eating rats and horses. Although, like I said, I agree with this action of total war and siege because it will bring the war closer to the end.

Going too far

During hard times in the Civil War, many people suffered from savage fighting, especially during the battle of Vicksburg and Sherman's March to the sea.  Two things that happened during the battles were siege and total war. Both of these were extreme tactics the Union used to beat the Confederate soldiers.  Though the Union thought that these tactics were just, I think that they took the battles to more elevated levels than needed.  Therefore, I do not think that siege and total war were justified.  To not only make the soldiers suffer but to make entire towns, including civilians, suffer is going to far.  Yes, these people went against the Union and their cause, but they were not the ones fighting so they were not the ones that should have been in danger.  This is why I think that total war and siege were unjustified.

Was Siege and Total War necessary?

I think that siege and total war was not necessary to win the war because it was unfair to the people at Vicksburg, Siege means to cut of all supplies, and total war means to destroy all military and civilian resources. I think that total war and siege was not necessary in the war.

Siege and Total War. Are they Justified?

Siege is when you cut off all supplies from entering an area; forcing surrender. Total War is to destroy all civilian and military resources. So, are these tactics justified? I think they are not justified. I think this because both siege and total war made is so that the civilians were greatly punished, even though they were not involved in the war. Their houses got burned down, and they had to eat rats and other gross things. They did not deserve to be punished like this because they were not part of the war and they did nothing wrong. 

Siege or Fire? None or Both?

Yes, I think that siege and total war are necessary because without them there would be even more deaths and even more casualties. I see why some people think that they are bad. Even if they are, they are necessary to win the war. Siege and total war were necessary to win the war.

Siege And Total War, Is This Necessary?

So when people burn and destroy stuff now would you allow it? Well I wouldn't, but back then this was a war strategy, to destroy and burn down everything that is the confederates. I would think they took this thought just a wee little too far, but the union thought that this was a good tactic and that everyone should do it. But if you were general Ulysses S. Grant would you do it? If you were General William sherman would you do this? Well I certainly wouldn't do this, destroying and burning down people's houses is too far. If I was on the union I would want to win but I also don't want to destroy and tear apart our union. So I say that this is a bad idea and that it is tearing part the country.

Total War and Siege VS Justified

Total war is a stratagy where you burn down EVERYTHING.No mercy. kill everything that can help the enemy is that justified? Siege is where you cut off all supplies and wait until the enemy surrenders. Both of these are kinda cruel but siege at least gives them a little mercy. So in the civil war I think using siege is justified because after it never said that you can't give the civilians food after.  But total war is horrible and whoever does it is cruel.

Was Siege and Total War necessary?

I think that total war and siege was not necessary. It was not fair for the people who were living at Vicksburg. I thought that it was not right for them to use this strategy. There was women and children on at Vicksburg. Once the Union surrounded the area, they also blocked the way for supplies to come there and for them to get food supplies. Once they ran out of food the people were starving and had to start eating rats and horses. This was bad because people were starving.

Siege and Total War - Is It Necessary?

Siege and total war is not necessary. I think this because the union shouldn't do anything they want to win this war, and they shouldn't have to hurt people and their property.  Also, what did the South do so wrong to them besides slavery? There should be a reason the union is burning everything, otherwise, it should not be necessary.

Siege or Total War, Are They Justified Tactics? Should We Use Them Anymore?

Is siege and total war justified tactics of war? Yes they are. The battles of the civil war were ruthless and bloody. Many civilians were affected anyway, so since these tactics affected them greatly it did not matter as much. Many civilians may have died or were put in terrible places from these strategies they still work. One side of an army in the civil war had to do all they could to win. Also, since people were in those specific territories they supported the enemy, technically making them the enemy. Since they were in the way and these strategies were somewhat aimed towards them, it didn''t matter. The South did awful things like slavery, and they deserve it. The North had to be ruthless to win and these tactics were justified.

Siege and Total War, but could there be more?

I know i'm not supposed to do this but I like Siege but don't like Total war. I don't like total war because burning down a whole area that you could take over is not good for the Union. THEY COULD OF HAVE MORE LAND!!! I like Siege because they did it the right way and took over the mississippi river instead of BURNING IT, C'mom William T. Sherman. That's what I think.

Siege And Total War Were Useful?

Siege and total war were very helpful and useful. Siege helped the confederate army starve and lose power. Total War put an official stop to railroads shipping in goods and other things the army needed. This was the ending of the war because the confederate army was basically being tortured and could not handle it much longer. I don't find this fair because it put other people who were not fighting in torture. However, the war did not have rules so they were aloud. There for they had the right to win because they fought fairly.

Total War: Was it necessary?

Siege and Total war was kind of necessary. I mean in order to return the south to the Union I guess it was necessary. In order to make everything right again it was totally necessary. Now, was it right of course not, but for the cause  yes it was.

The Siege and Total War Aren't Neccassary

I don't think using siege and total war is necessary because there are some innocent Confederates who don't deserve for their belongings and resources to be destroyed and to have to eat mice, horses, and tree bark. I don't think it is right because I think the Union is going a little too harsh on the Confederates to make them starve and to burn all of their belongings.

Are Total War and Siege a Good War Tactic?

I think that using siege and total war is a good millitary tactic because it is a war and the civillians have to face the consequences. In other wars many civillians died. It is a war and these tactics are good idea for trying to win the war. These tactics gave the Confederate army trouble defending Vicksburg. The point of the battle was to keep America together and if this is what they had to do then you got to do it.

Was siege and total war necessary?

I don't think using siege and total war is necessary because I don't think that innocent women and children should have to starve and possibly burn. They used this tactic to win the war, but I thought it was a lot more brutal than it should have been. I bet they could have figured out ways to win instead of this. I'm sure they could have figured something else out rather than possibly killing children.

Are the Unions Tactics Justified?

I think it is justified though to use these tactics to win the war because you gotta do what you gotta do. They could have just sieged on the troops not the helpless civilians. They deserved this because they had slavery and hurting the helpless slaves.

Siege and total war

I don't think that the soldiers in the north are not aloud to break down homes and kill the some innocent people in the south. Some of the southerners didn't have slaves and they shouldn't be killed if they are just living a normal life in a cottage with a couple of children. I think that it is not a better way for the southerns to surrender because some of the southerners were just people that were not in the war and they have never had slaves. Some Southerns.

Super-Duper Siege

I believe that siege is a very smart and necessary war strategy. There are no rules of war, there for siege is a great, efficient way to capture enemy troops and territory. Siege worked well, since the Union ended up gaining land while using it in Georgia and Vicksburg. Siege worked well and there for it was both smart and creative to use siege against the Confederates.

Was It Neccesary

I think it is not ok for the union to struggle because I don't think that people deserve fr their homes to explode and struggle in homes also many people don't deserve to get shot and other things like that.  I think overal things were crazy in the south back then and they id not get the  respect they should have gotten.

Was It Necessary To Use Siege And Total War Against The Confederates In The Civil War.

Personally I think that it was very much so necessary and justified to use siege and total war in the war. I think that it was necessary or it was going to get done to themselves. It was a very scary time for the Confederates and the Union. They had to go to desperate measures so less Union soldiers died. It was the only way.

Total War and Siege Justified?

I don't think that Total War and Siege was justified because it affected all the civilians. I don't think that the civilians should have been affected because they were starving too. I don't think that using siege and total war is necessary. I think that they could have used a different tactic, so the civilians weren't affected. The civilians also starved. Everyone is human and has feelings. I thought that the Union could have used a different tactic instead.