General shermans total war strategy during civil war involved attacking both the souths military and civilian resources to weaken their ability to keep fighting

Question

If you were a union supporter at the time how would you balance the ethical concerns of targeting civilians with the goal of ending war quickly

Answer 1

Balancing ethical concerns with military strategy during the Civil War, particularly regarding General Sherman's total war approach, is a complex issue. As a Union supporter at the time, one could consider several points to navigate this delicate balance:

1. Moral Justification: One could argue that the war was fought to preserve the Union and end slavery, viewing the conflict as a moral necessity. The suffering inflicted on civilians could be framed as a profound but unfortunate means to achieve a larger moral goal. Emphasizing that the ultimate aim was to save lives and bring about a quicker resolution could serve to justify these tactics.

2. Distinction Between Combatants and Non-combatants: The ethical principle of distinction—that combatants should be targeted while non-combatants should be spared—should ideally guide military actions. Advocating for strategies that minimize civilian casualties while still targeting critical infrastructure and resources could be a way to address ethical concerns.

3. Proportionality: If military actions disproportionately harm civilians in relation to the expected military advantage, it could be ethically problematic. Emphasizing the need for proportionality in attacks—targeting only resources directly contributing to the war effort and ensuring civilian displacement is minimized—could represent a more balanced approach.

4. Long-term Consequences: Encouraging a view that peace and stability post-war depend on a clear and decisive victory might support the argument for harsher tactics. The idea would be that a swift end to the war prevents longer-term suffering, even if that means accepting some civilian hardship in the short term.

5. Alternative Strategies: Advocating for strategies that prioritize military engagement over civilian disruption could provide a more ethical stance. Suggesting alternatives that focus on cutting supply lines or using less destructive means to achieve military objectives could offer a way to respect civilian life while still pursuing military goals.

6. Communication and Justification: Ensuring that the rationale for military strategies is communicated to both soldiers and the public can help in justifying actions taken during the war. Framing total war as a means of preventing future conflicts and protecting future generations may help assuage some ethical concerns.

In summary, it's crucial to acknowledge the tension between military effectiveness and ethical conduct. The ideal position would advocate for strategies that achieve military goals while striving to mitigate unnecessary harm to civilians, emphasizing that the ultimate aim is a lasting peace.