Was The Total And Siege Necessary Or Not???

A Siege is to cut off all supplies from entering an area, forcing a surrender. A Total War is to destroy all civilian and military resources. I think the total war and siege were necessary for the the Union to use because the war would never come to an end and the war would keep going on.

What was a siege and total war, did it affect the war

 A siege was a major part of the unions strategy.  A siege is blockading all of the supplies from coming in. Total War was also a very big part of the Unions strategy.  Total War was going full on war and destroying anything the opponent has in your sight. The big question about these two strategy was, was it fair. In my opinion it was fair cause without it the war would continuously keep going on. Battle after battle and if the war never ended we might have slavery. That why Total War and a Siege is important to American History.

Was Siege and Total War really Necessary

I think using siege was necessary but using total war wasn't. I feel like the siege was a tactic to help the Union win the war because it stopped the Confederates from getting their kind of advantage. But I don't think that using total war was the best tactic to help win the war, it did kill innocent people too, but it was too harsh for the Union to burn down there houses while they're already poor and leave them homeless, injured, sick, or killed. This is what I feel about the siege and total war, the siege helped them and gave them a huge victory in Vicksburg. But the idea of using total war was unnecessary and even though it did help the Union have more of an advantage, I feel like they've gone way too far an shouldn't have used that strategy at all, killing innocent women, men, and children was just causing murder. This is what I think about the siege and total war.

Was Sieging Necessary? Your Choice?

In my honest opinion, I feel that it was necessary to siege, in this instance. Although the innocent people of Atlanta had to suffer very badly, like eating rats and horses, the South treated African Americans very poorly and gave them bad food and bad living conditions. This whole war started because the South was treating their slaves horribly, so maybe the people of the South should have a taste of there own medicine.

Total War and Siege: Was It Necessary?

I think that everyone in the Union and CSA wants this war to be over. The Civil War keeps getting worse and worse and I think everyone just wants it to be over. So in my opinion, using siege and total war was necessary because it would bring us closer to the end of the war and closer to the south surrendering. What I don't think is right, is that Sherman burnt down people's houses and innocent civilians were left living in caves, eating rats and horses. Although, like I said, I agree with this action of total war and siege because it will bring the war closer to the end.

Total war and siege

I think that total war and siege was not necessary. I think that because it sounds so harsh. People not having any food or not having a house. If you lived in a war area and you had to eat rats and horses what would you think. I would not be happy. If you were used to eating nice food and you lived in a nice house I wouldn't want to live in a cave eating rats. Especially when it is total war because then you don't know what will happen will you run out of food water. You also wouldn't know what was going on because you would be hiding. I think that siege and total war was not necessary.

Yes I kind of think it's nessecer

First they won the war. It was good that they turned up the north got rid of the train tracks because now the south can't get materials. I do also think that having fires on houses that's not good and getting rid of houses and killing people I don't like this, but i'm glad that they won the war.

Total War and Siege? Fair?

I think that total war and siege is fair because it is not the Union's fault that the people who were civilians who live in the south are for the Confederate. Total war and siege is fair because the southerners picked their side and they are going to get what they asked for. Also Sherman and Grant did what was right because if they wanted to win the war they would do what they thought was right. Also the southern civilians are doing what they think is right but that doesn't always mean safe. Also sometimes playing it safe doesn't mean its the right thing.

Siege And The Total War Is It Justified

Do I think using siege and total war was necessary? siege is to block off all the supplies from going somewhere. I do think it was necessary because If you think about it how would have the war ended. If the south won the war would we still have slaves because they think it's still fine to have them. I also really do think it was justified to do this tactics.You have to do anything to win battle.

Killing Innocent Families in Siege? Is This Justified?

I don't think that using siege and total war is completely necessary. They were already cut off from the Mississippi River because of the Anaconda plan, so I don't think they needed total war to win. They were burning innocent people's houses, and taking families food! They were killing innocent people, just to make the South surrender. The Union was making children and their families eat rats because they didn't have any more food. William Tecumseh Sherman vowed to "make everything from Atlanta to Savannah an example of total war." This pretty much meant burning houses, stores, factories, and anything that they thought would help the confederates win. I don't think Sherman was a very good person, and I don't think it was justified.

Total War and How it Effected Civilians

In the south during the Civil War the Union soldiers decided to use strategies for example a siege which blocks off all the souths resources which also let's nothing leave or come in. I think this was bad but it was necessary to win the war. They also used a total war strategy which meant burning their houses and everything around it. This affected everyone at it was very bad and hardcore. I think they should of not have used the total war strategy at all and use the siege strategy but less hard core. In my opinion these war tactics aren't justified but sometimes you have to sacrifice things to win wars. In my opinion it is not justified to let woman and kids starve or die but maybe the Union could of targeted just the army camps instead which would justified in my opinion.

Is Siege Necessary?

I think that siege in total war is not necessary. The reason why I think that is because civilians that live there, don't need to go through that pain. There were thousands of people on the ground waiting for a doctor to come to them. There were only so many doctors, and they had to wait in the hot sun with no water or food while being sick. The North invaded the South and took all their food and necessary things, then they burned down their house. The Southerners then had to walk with no food or water to get to Virginia after all of the disaster happened. This is the reason why I think the Northerners didn't have to do all of this damage to the South and the people living there. 

Siege and total war in the civil war?

I think that the Union using total war, and siege is definitely not fair to all of the civilians peacefully living near battlefields, and the action of the war. From the people in the movie I saw that what Sherman did was really not fair to all of the innocent people in the Southern towns when you look at it from the south's point of view. Sherman could have just blocked all of the ports and took of train tracks, but they definitely didn't have to set houses on fire and leave civilians homeless. Doing all of this was good for the Union though because after all of the things Sherman and his troops were doing, the Confederates surrendered. I don't think this is justified, with burning houses.

Is using siege and total war justified? Yes it is.

There are many reasons why siege and total war are justified, but there is one big one. In war, you have one goal, to win. Anyone on the enemy side is enemy. The tactics may be gruesome, but the succeeded at winning the war. There is no such thing as civilised war.

No rules of real war

Yes, I think using siege and total war was necessary. People claimed "this is violating the rules of war" but in my opinion, there are no true rules of war. Maybe setting fires on everything was a little over the top it still got confederates to leave and that upped the union chances of winning the war because of the lack of food supplies. The siege did affect the entire war because the union was able to take control of the Mississippi river. This cut off all supplies and recourses from the confederates.  This was basically payback for slave owners because slave owners treated their slaves worse then war treated them.

Siege and total war: Necessary or not?

Siege and total war: Necessary or not?

I think that the siege and total war is unnecessary for ordinary civilians to go through. At least Sherman could have set the military camps on fire, instead of setting ordinary people's homes on fire. It is not fair to them, especially if they don't want anything to do with the war. Another option for Sherman to do could be to plan a surprise attack, involving soldiers, not innocent people. 

Siege made it unfair for civilians as well, because they were starving, and if they were lucky, they could eat a rat. Ew! 

Overall, in my opinion, I don't think that siege and total war is right, nor fair.

Total War and Siege: Is it war strategy or murder and stealing?

I think siege and Total war are not justified because you should not make civilians suffer. Siege is when you make sure no supplies can get in or out of a city. total war is burning everything and taking all enemy supplies . If you were going to make a siege, only siege supply depots with nobody in them. that means you will not kill people and you will still be destroying enemy supplies