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.