Asked by ken
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:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
I think the instruction to “Use your definition of minimum wage” is a mistake. I’ll assume you meant “Use your definition of justified (or of total war/military necessity)” and fill the C–E–R organizer that way. Tell me if you really meant something else.
Claim
- Yes — Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified as a military strategy to hasten the end of the Civil War by destroying Confederate capacity and will to continue fighting.
Evidence (from typical articles and images)
- Sherman captured Atlanta (September 1864), an important rail and supply hub, and then marched to the sea (November–December 1864).
- His troops destroyed railroads, tore up tracks (Sherman’s “neckties”), burned supply depots, and cut Confederate lines of communication.
- Troops seized or destroyed crops, livestock, and supplies so the Confederate army could not resupply.
- Sherman explicitly described the goal as breaking the Confederacy’s will to continue fighting (quotes such as “make Georgia howl” are often cited).
- Contemporary images and reports show widespread property destruction but comparatively few direct civilian fatalities.
- Many historians argue the campaign shortened the war by undermining Confederate logistics and morale, likely reducing overall casualties and length of hardship.
Reasoning (use your definition of “justified”/military necessity)
- Definition used: an action is justified in war if it is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, is proportionate (harms caused are not excessive relative to the military advantage), and is aimed primarily at military targets or capabilities rather than deliberately exterminating civilians.
- Sherman’s March targeted Confederate military capacity: railroads, supply stores, and crops the army depended on. That made continued Confederate resistance more difficult and costly.
- The campaign sought to break the South’s will to fight rather than to slaughter civilians; destruction of material, while harsh, was directly linked to military objectives.
- Because the march helped collapse Confederate logistics and morale, it likely shortened the war, which can be seen as reducing the total duration of violence and overall loss of life. By the criteria above (necessity, proportionality, military focus), Sherman’s actions can be judged justified, though they caused hardship for civilians and raise important moral questions about the limits of total-war tactics.
Complete-paragraph summary
Sherman’s March to the Sea can be considered justified because it was a deliberate military strategy aimed at crippling the Confederacy’s ability and will to continue fighting. By destroying rail lines, supplies, and food sources, Sherman directly attacked the South’s military infrastructure rather than seeking to murder civilians; contemporary evidence and images show extensive property destruction but relatively few civilian deaths. The campaign’s effectiveness in undermining Confederate logistics and morale helped hasten the war’s end, which likely reduced total casualties overall. While the suffering it caused for Southern civilians was severe and raises moral concerns about the limits of total-war tactics, measured by military necessity and proportionality, Sherman’s march meets common criteria for justification.
If you want a version that argues “not justified,” or if you meant a different definition (for example “minimum wage”), tell me and I’ll revise.
Claim
- Yes — Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified as a military strategy to hasten the end of the Civil War by destroying Confederate capacity and will to continue fighting.
Evidence (from typical articles and images)
- Sherman captured Atlanta (September 1864), an important rail and supply hub, and then marched to the sea (November–December 1864).
- His troops destroyed railroads, tore up tracks (Sherman’s “neckties”), burned supply depots, and cut Confederate lines of communication.
- Troops seized or destroyed crops, livestock, and supplies so the Confederate army could not resupply.
- Sherman explicitly described the goal as breaking the Confederacy’s will to continue fighting (quotes such as “make Georgia howl” are often cited).
- Contemporary images and reports show widespread property destruction but comparatively few direct civilian fatalities.
- Many historians argue the campaign shortened the war by undermining Confederate logistics and morale, likely reducing overall casualties and length of hardship.
Reasoning (use your definition of “justified”/military necessity)
- Definition used: an action is justified in war if it is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, is proportionate (harms caused are not excessive relative to the military advantage), and is aimed primarily at military targets or capabilities rather than deliberately exterminating civilians.
- Sherman’s March targeted Confederate military capacity: railroads, supply stores, and crops the army depended on. That made continued Confederate resistance more difficult and costly.
- The campaign sought to break the South’s will to fight rather than to slaughter civilians; destruction of material, while harsh, was directly linked to military objectives.
- Because the march helped collapse Confederate logistics and morale, it likely shortened the war, which can be seen as reducing the total duration of violence and overall loss of life. By the criteria above (necessity, proportionality, military focus), Sherman’s actions can be judged justified, though they caused hardship for civilians and raise important moral questions about the limits of total-war tactics.
Complete-paragraph summary
Sherman’s March to the Sea can be considered justified because it was a deliberate military strategy aimed at crippling the Confederacy’s ability and will to continue fighting. By destroying rail lines, supplies, and food sources, Sherman directly attacked the South’s military infrastructure rather than seeking to murder civilians; contemporary evidence and images show extensive property destruction but relatively few civilian deaths. The campaign’s effectiveness in undermining Confederate logistics and morale helped hasten the war’s end, which likely reduced total casualties overall. While the suffering it caused for Southern civilians was severe and raises moral concerns about the limits of total-war tactics, measured by military necessity and proportionality, Sherman’s march meets common criteria for justification.
If you want a version that argues “not justified,” or if you meant a different definition (for example “minimum wage”), tell me and I’ll revise.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.