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.