Total war and seige is this fair

Total war consists of two main details: one, burn everything so your opponent can't use it and two, take all the food and things useful to you. This was used by a Union General  William Sherman. This is super unfair and cruel because in the process of total war they  killed so many people and you should not be able to take others food and burn their stuff down. Siege is also wrong because you surround and then you don't let supplies enter the city or town. These are both wrong war tactics they are not good for the people. These are not fair war tactic no matter what.  

was total war and siege necessary?

I do not think it was ok that total war and and siege were used to make Vicksburg surrender. I think that siege and total war mad General Grant look bad because they kind of took the easy way out and cheated in the battle. I think that the union, the north, should win but I do not think this is the way they should've won the battle. Since they used total war and siege this made a ton of soldiers ill, which is why they had to surrender. Total war and siege is not justified. For this reason,  this is why I think it was a poor decision that siege and total war was used in the civil war.

Is Total War Necessary?

William Tecumseh Sherman was a man who used total war as a strategy. Total war is a strategy that involves destroying all civilian and military resources. During the Civil War, the Union thought that total war was a necessary and smart strategy. I don't agree with the North's choice of using total war as a strategy because many innocent civilians died from lack of resources or from burning building, crops, and railroads. All of these actions were not necessary because the Union could have successfully finished the Anaconda PLan without destroying innocent people's property. Also, the south would get very upset after the war was over because of the Union's strategy of using total war and siege. These two plans were not necessary. Siege is a blockade that blocks off resources and makes armies surrender because of it. These two acts weren't necessary and overall, they were very bad choices.

Siege, necessary or not?

I think, that in the Civil War, the siege wasn't necessary. Yes, I know that we could possibly not be the country we are today without it, but, was it really necessary to kill and suffer so many innocent people? I think that tearing apart the railroads was definitely necessary to win, because of transportation reinforcements for Richmond, but they really didn't need to burn everything in Atlanta, total war wasn't necessary. I think that these harsh tactics were used to win the war were not justified, people were starved to death! Imagine if that was you in Vicksburg, starving to death with no home, because the Union was blocking the Mississippi river, surrounding the town. I think that the siege and Total War were definitely not necessary.

Siege is wrong!

            I do not think that it was necessary to use siege and total war in order for the union to win this war. People were running out of food, they were starving. They also had to live in caves, since their houses were burnt down. I do not think it was okay that they allowed people to go through this, just because they wanted to succeed. They could have used other strategies such as using the anaconda plan, and just fighting to win.

Siege and total War.

I think that siege and total war wasn't necessary in order for the Union to win the war. The Union was attacking normal men, women and children. The southern people suffered by eating rats, mules and tree bark. They also had to sleep in caves because their houses were burnt down. The Union could have just won the war by using the Anaconda Plan and also fighting strongly. Even though the Union hurt and made innocent people suffer, I think they deserved to win the Civil War.

Was it necessary?

I think the siege and total war was not necessary. I don't understand why that would want to ruin towns and kill people. I don't think that they'll have ruined towns to get a victory and ill innocent people. Many people suffered and personally I don't think that this was necessary to siege. That's not necessary to kill so many people. I think it was not right to siege Vicksburg or use total war.

It may be necessary to use siege and total war if no other way will work and it is basically a plan z. I think this because if the union can't do anything else. I do not think that this is justified because they are destroying innocent people's homes and basically murdering them by cutting of their food so they cannot eat. The troubles that the union caused for the confederates and innocent people was just downright harsh and not justified however it may have been necessary.

The Total War tactic is a terrible idea

The Total War tactic was a terrible idea. This was a terrible idea because the civilians are already dying and eating rats. Also, what will this look like after the war? How will they build it back? This was not reasonable because this is not a way to treat people. They are not dead, but they are being tortured with no food or anything. This should be justified because this was not the right way to win or a fair fight.

Was it necessary or justified?

I personally do think using siege and total war was necessary to accomplish the Anaconda Plan, which would play a huge role in winning the war. It had a huge impact and definitely was close to breaking the will of the South. They were successful in controlling Vicksburg and stopping any resources from coming into the South. However, I do not think it was right. Families lost homes and possessions that were very dear to them. Innocent civilians were killed and STARVED TO DEATH. It was cruel and harsh, like torturing someone as they slowly die. I know I may sound confusing, but what I'm trying to say was that it was wrong, but was necessary to win the war.

Sherman Burnin' : Was It Justified?

There were many awful things in the civil war, but one of the worst in my opinion was Sherman's march to the sea. For some background information, he and the Union troops marched from Atlanta, all the way to the sea, burning everything in sight. They took food and crops from fields and burnt whatever they couldn't carry. They broke into homes and took whatever they wanted, and burnt those houses too. I do not think that these tactics were justified at all, because many many civilians died, and became homeless. Well, all of these things happened because of that march to the sea. I know that it is the civil war, and there is lots of violence, but this much is not valid. Although it did help get a Union victory, it was still a very bad strategy in my opinion. Do you think this was justified? I don't. Now, you have to remember the entire point of the Civil war. To bring America together. So to bring America together, they are just tearing it apart even more than it already was before this.

Is There a Better Way?

I think that using siege was not necessary because the Union harmed the civilians and not just the army. I think that it is not justified and that this is not how the won the war, I think that the south did not deserve what the Union did. The Union could have won without siege .I also think that the Union should of just hurt the army and not the civilians because the south did not deserve what the Union did to them. Maybe they should've just cut off the army's supplies so that the civilians would be able to eat and not be involved in the Civil war. I think that they should of not used the siege strategy.       

Justified?

I feel that civilians did not deserve to face siege and total war. Southern civilians are just people and should not of been kept in caves with very few resources. But, in order for the Union to win the war, the city had to be burnt down and civilians and soldiers had to suffer casualties. Then again, Southerners didn't do anything to influence the ways of the army and for that reason, I believe the civilians shouldn't of had to go through this.

Unjustified siege

I think siege and total war was not necessary, and it was not justified. Without siege, the union could have taken over and won the war and could have shown power. People from the south might join the union, but with siege you destroy everything, take from anyone, and that eliminates human rights. The people there have nothing, so they'll want revenge.

Was Siege and Total War Right?

General Grant decided to use siege. In my opinion using siege was a good idea for the position he was in, If you want to win a battle you have to do something big so no one could stop it. When he did that it stopped supplies, weapons, and soldiers from coming in to the south. It was a good idea because then how was the Confederates suppose to fight? It really helped them win the battle by using siege. General Sherman thought by burning everything after him then he would win the battle. He should not of burned everything because there are a lot of people who are residents of the south. Even if he wants to find a way to win the battle he shouldn't of made residents of the south starve because he wanted to win. There were a lot of people there who might of not liked the Confederates but does not have enough money to go to the South. He put a lot of people's life in danger.

There is no point to do a total war like not to  innocent people that is not even fair  

Was Total War, and the Siege bad?

The North put a Siege, and started to do Total War on the Confederates. Total War destroyed all civilian and military resources. I think that it was kind of necessary because I thought back then that the Confederates were terrible. I despised what they stood for. I do think that what the Union did was a little harsh. I wouldn't have killed all of those innocent people, but they got what they deserved. It was a good strategy to win the war. Maybe just dial it down next time. Kill the soldiers not innocent people. If I was a Union  general, I would do the same thing, but only to the Confederate soldiers.

Necessary or unnecessary?

I think that both tactics were unnecessary to win the war. I don't understand why the Union would use siege and total war if they were trying to bring the country together, but instead the Union was bringing the country farther apart. It makes me wonder why we are even fighting the war in the first place. Seige is to cut off off all supplies from entering an area. Personally, I don't think that it is okay to let civilians starve, and all they can eat is rats, tree bark, and other gross things. Total war was destroying all of the civilians resources, and they were left homeless, and possibly even severely injured. That is just not right to me at all if we are fighting this war to bring the country closer together.

Is Siege and Total War Okay?

I think it is not necessary to use Siege and total war because your killing innocent civilians and you don't know if they are even abolitionists or not. I do think that the tactic works because your breaking the whole city and eventually will burn almost all of the south and the union would win the war. The south kind of deserve it but not all of the south, just a little bit of it. Total war means to destroy all military resources and Siege is to cut off all supplies fro entering an area.

Was Total War And Siege Tactics Necessary

I believe that they shouldn't have used these tactics in battle especially total war. I feel total war was really wrong because they are attack people innocent people that are just be living in the south, and they are burning their valuables and houses to the ground without remorse.  This really affected the innocent  because they are making civilians suffer for a war they are not even fighting. Same with siege I mean they are cutting off their food supplies without caring about their lives and just caring about how this helps them in the war. So no its not okay to do this because they are harming innocent lives without remorse and just caring about how it helps them in the war effort.

Siege and total was

I think the siege and total war was necessary because they needed this to win the war. Although People where starving and getting killed the Union needed this to make the South come together again. It is so important for the Union to win because then there would be no slaves and we would be united again and will stay that way. The siege helped the Union because the won that battle of Vicksburg.