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.