Question

Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (C-E-R)
Student Graphic Organizer
Question: WAS SHERMAN’S MARCH TO THE SEA JUSTIFIED?
_______________________________________________
(Claim)
Write a statement that
answers the question.
(Evidence)
List the evidence from the
article and the images
provided that support your
claim. You may use bullet
points for this section.
(Reasoning)
Use your definition of
minimum wage to justify
why your claim (answer to
the question).
Summarize your thoughts in a complete paragraph in the space provided:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Answer 1

I’ll assume you meant to use a definition of “justified” (the mention of “minimum wage” looks like a typo). Below is a complete C–E–R organizer that answers the question with a clear claim, supported evidence, and reasoning. If you prefer the opposite claim (that the march was not justified) or want the organizer tailored to a specific article/images you have, tell me and I’ll revise.

Claim
- Yes. Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified.

Evidence (from standard historical accounts)
- Sherman’s objective was military: to destroy Confederate war resources and break Southern infrastructure and morale after the fall of Atlanta (September 1864).
- The march ran roughly 285 miles from Atlanta to Savannah (November–December 1864) with tens of thousands of Union soldiers living off the land.
- Troops destroyed railroads, burned military supplies, tore up track (so-called “Sherman’s neckties”), seized/destroyed food stores, and disrupted communication and supply lines.
- Sherman explicitly employed “hard war” tactics and wrote that civilians should feel the hardships of war (“War is hell”).
- The campaign helped cut the Confederacy in two, contributed to its shrinking operational capacity, and is widely credited with hastening the end of the Civil War.
- The march caused significant civilian hardship: property destruction, loss of food and shelter, and displacement — leading to strong contemporary Southern condemnation.

Reasoning (using a working definition of “justified”)
- Define “justified” here as: an action is justified if it is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, the expected military advantage outweighs foreseeable harm to noncombatants (proportionality), and it is not wantonly cruel or avoidable.
- Sherman’s march pursued a legitimate military goal: crippling the Confederacy’s ability to continue fighting by destroying logistics, supplies, and morale.
- The tactics prioritized destruction of infrastructure and supplies rather than mass killing of civilians; while civilian suffering was real and severe, Sherman’s campaign sought to shorten the war by removing the Confederacy’s means to resist. Shortening the war likely prevented additional large-scale battles and casualties on both sides.
- Given the context (a prolonged, destructive civil war) and the tangible military results, the march can be seen as a proportionate and necessary measure to end organized Confederate resistance.

Summary paragraph
Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified because it was a targeted military strategy aimed at destroying the Confederacy’s ability to wage war — not primarily to massacre civilians — and it materially weakened Confederate logistics and morale, helping bring the war to a quicker close. Although the campaign caused severe hardship and property loss for Southern civilians, those harms were the foreseeable consequence of a deliberate effort to end a brutal, ongoing conflict; under the definition of justification used here (necessity, proportionality, and legitimate military objective), Sherman’s actions meet the criteria.

Would you like a version that argues the march was not justified, or one that cites specific passages/images from an article you have?