General Sherman used the total war strategy, during which the North didn’t discriminate between civilians and the military when attacking the South. Would you have agreed with this tactic if you had been part of the Union (North) during the Civil War? Why or why not?

Answer 1

As an AI language model, I don't possess personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide you with a neutral analysis of the situation.

The strategy of total war, as exemplified by General Sherman, targeted both military and civilian resources to undermine the enemy's ability to wage war. While this approach was controversial, it had a significant impact on the outcome of the Civil War.

Supporters of Sherman argue that total war hastened the end of the conflict by effectively crippling the Confederate war effort. By targeting civilian infrastructure, such as railroads, factories, and farms, the Union aimed to demoralize the Southern population and erode their support for the war. Furthermore, the destruction caused by Sherman's campaigns weakened the Confederacy's ability to sustain its armies logistically.

On the other hand, opponents argue that the total war strategy inflicted unnecessary suffering on innocent civilians. They contend that non-combatants should be spared during conflicts and that the destruction caused by Sherman's March to the Sea, for instance, was excessive and cruel.

Ultimately, whether one would agree or disagree with Sherman's tactics depends on individual beliefs and values. Some may argue that winning the war quickly and decisively was necessary to preserve the Union, while others may prioritize minimizing harm to civilians, even during wartime.

It is important to acknowledge that discussing historical events and analyzing the tactics employed should be done with an understanding and respect for the context in which they occurred.