Asked by kenneth
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 don’t have the article or images you mentioned, and I think the worksheet’s instruction to “Use your definition of minimum wage” is a typo. I’ll assume you meant to use a definition like “military necessity” or a moral standard to justify your claim. Below are two complete Claim–Evidence–Reasoning (C-E-R) examples you can pick from or adapt (one arguing Sherman’s march was justified, one arguing it was not). Tell me which you prefer or send the article/images and I’ll tailor it to those sources.
Option A — Claim: Yes, Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified
- Evidence (common historical points you can match to your article/images):
- Sherman’s forces cut supply lines and destroyed Confederate railroads and factories that supported the Southern war effort.
- The campaign began after the fall of Atlanta (Sept 1864), with Sherman ordering a march from Atlanta to Savannah to cripple Confederate logistics.
- Sherman aimed to destroy supplies, cotton, and infrastructure rather than slaughter civilians; many orders sought to limit unnecessary violence against people.
- The march freed enslaved people in the path of the army and hastened Confederate collapse; it is widely credited with shortening the war.
- Contemporary Union supporters (including Lincoln’s reelection in 1864) viewed hard-hitting strategies as necessary to end the rebellion.
- Reasoning (using “military necessity” as the standard):
- If we define “military necessity” as taking actions reasonably necessary to defeat an enemy’s military capacity while trying to limit civilian harm, Sherman’s march fits that standard. The Confederacy depended on rail lines, crops, and factories; destroying those resources reduced the South’s ability to fight and resupply. By targeting infrastructure and supplies, Sherman aimed to break Confederate will and avoid prolonged battlefield slaughter. Because the march accelerated the end of the war and ultimately spared lives that a longer conflict would have cost, it can be judged justified under the principle of military necessity.
Option B — Claim: No, Sherman’s March to the Sea was not justified
- Evidence (common historical points you can match to your article/images):
- The campaign used scorched-earth tactics that destroyed civilian property—farms, homes, food stores—causing widespread civilian suffering.
- Accounts and images from the march show burned buildings, looting, and displaced civilians; civilians often lacked resources after the army passed.
- Sherman’s tactics intentionally aimed at Southern civilian morale (“make Georgia howl”), which crossed a line between military targets and noncombatants.
- The economic devastation lasted long after the war and punished many civilians who were not directly responsible for Confederate military decisions.
- Critics at the time and since have argued these methods were cruel and violated principles protecting civilians.
- Reasoning (using “military necessity” / moral standard):
- If military necessity must still respect the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, Sherman’s deliberate destruction of civilian property and efforts to break civilian morale fail that test. Destroying crops and homes directly harmed civilians’ survival and targeted the civilian population to achieve political ends rather than strictly military ones. Even if the campaign weakened Confederate forces, the scale of civilian suffering and long-term damage makes it unjustified under a standard that requires limiting harm to noncombatants.
Short paragraph you can use for your organizer (pick A or B):
- A (justified): Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified because it directly attacked the Confederacy’s ability to wage war by destroying rail lines, supplies, and factories while aiming to avoid unnecessary killing of civilians. The campaign helped bring the war to a quicker end, freeing enslaved people and reducing the overall bloodshed that a longer conflict would have caused.
- B (not justified): Sherman’s March to the Sea was not justified because its scorched-earth tactics deliberately targeted civilian property and morale, causing widespread suffering and long-term economic damage to noncombatants. Even if it weakened the Confederate war effort, intentionally inflicting such harm on civilians violates moral limits on warfare.
Tell me which option you want to use, or upload the specific article and images and I’ll produce a CER tied exactly to those sources. If the worksheet really meant “minimum wage,” tell me how you want that term used and I’ll adapt the reasoning.
Option A — Claim: Yes, Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified
- Evidence (common historical points you can match to your article/images):
- Sherman’s forces cut supply lines and destroyed Confederate railroads and factories that supported the Southern war effort.
- The campaign began after the fall of Atlanta (Sept 1864), with Sherman ordering a march from Atlanta to Savannah to cripple Confederate logistics.
- Sherman aimed to destroy supplies, cotton, and infrastructure rather than slaughter civilians; many orders sought to limit unnecessary violence against people.
- The march freed enslaved people in the path of the army and hastened Confederate collapse; it is widely credited with shortening the war.
- Contemporary Union supporters (including Lincoln’s reelection in 1864) viewed hard-hitting strategies as necessary to end the rebellion.
- Reasoning (using “military necessity” as the standard):
- If we define “military necessity” as taking actions reasonably necessary to defeat an enemy’s military capacity while trying to limit civilian harm, Sherman’s march fits that standard. The Confederacy depended on rail lines, crops, and factories; destroying those resources reduced the South’s ability to fight and resupply. By targeting infrastructure and supplies, Sherman aimed to break Confederate will and avoid prolonged battlefield slaughter. Because the march accelerated the end of the war and ultimately spared lives that a longer conflict would have cost, it can be judged justified under the principle of military necessity.
Option B — Claim: No, Sherman’s March to the Sea was not justified
- Evidence (common historical points you can match to your article/images):
- The campaign used scorched-earth tactics that destroyed civilian property—farms, homes, food stores—causing widespread civilian suffering.
- Accounts and images from the march show burned buildings, looting, and displaced civilians; civilians often lacked resources after the army passed.
- Sherman’s tactics intentionally aimed at Southern civilian morale (“make Georgia howl”), which crossed a line between military targets and noncombatants.
- The economic devastation lasted long after the war and punished many civilians who were not directly responsible for Confederate military decisions.
- Critics at the time and since have argued these methods were cruel and violated principles protecting civilians.
- Reasoning (using “military necessity” / moral standard):
- If military necessity must still respect the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, Sherman’s deliberate destruction of civilian property and efforts to break civilian morale fail that test. Destroying crops and homes directly harmed civilians’ survival and targeted the civilian population to achieve political ends rather than strictly military ones. Even if the campaign weakened Confederate forces, the scale of civilian suffering and long-term damage makes it unjustified under a standard that requires limiting harm to noncombatants.
Short paragraph you can use for your organizer (pick A or B):
- A (justified): Sherman’s March to the Sea was justified because it directly attacked the Confederacy’s ability to wage war by destroying rail lines, supplies, and factories while aiming to avoid unnecessary killing of civilians. The campaign helped bring the war to a quicker end, freeing enslaved people and reducing the overall bloodshed that a longer conflict would have caused.
- B (not justified): Sherman’s March to the Sea was not justified because its scorched-earth tactics deliberately targeted civilian property and morale, causing widespread suffering and long-term economic damage to noncombatants. Even if it weakened the Confederate war effort, intentionally inflicting such harm on civilians violates moral limits on warfare.
Tell me which option you want to use, or upload the specific article and images and I’ll produce a CER tied exactly to those sources. If the worksheet really meant “minimum wage,” tell me how you want that term used and I’ll adapt the reasoning.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.