Siege and total war!!

I think the siege and total war were horrible things. The siege was a horrible thing because people had to eat their pets and eat rats. They also had to make caves and making it. In the total war, I think that was crazy how Sherman was going through towns and burning them down. Both were totally horrible. 

Is total war wrong or right?

I think that siege is okay if it only affected the soldiers and not the civilians. I think total war is not good but they still needed to slow down the Confederate Army somehow.  If the Union did not use the strategies they would lose the war. I think it is justified to use these strategies on the army.

Total War and Siege.. Is it right?

Total war and siege are not good tactics to use. They killed civilians and children. Would you want to be killed? Siege was to surround and block off everything until they surrendered. That was a harsh tactic that starved most civilians. Total war was also not a good tactic because it destroyed peoples homes and everything they lived off of. Total war and Siege are harsh tactics that shouldn't have been used.

Was Siege the way to Win the Civil War?

Siege was a terrible thing. It made people starve and lose their supplies. But, the Union needed it to win the war. Even though I would never agree with the idea of siege I think it was necessary to help the Union win the war. The Union needed to end the fighting and take power. The Union surrounded the Confederates cutting off their ability to get food and other necessary resources for the civilians and soldiers. In the Battle of Vicksburg, Ulysses S. Grant used siege to make the Confederates surrender. Despite the fact that siege is a terrible thing the Union needed it to help them get closer to winning the war.

Is Siege the Key to Peace During War?

Siege is right because, in order to win, you need to take power. In order to minimize fighting, you need to end the fighting. So in that case, one side needs a forced surrender. If no one surrenders, then there will be more fighting to make one another surrender. Siege is force surrender. When one group of people surround another, one group will run out of supplies because that is the point of siege, it is force surrender. The Civil War is one example. In the battle of Vicksburg, they needed to siege the Confederates because then the battle could end. There are many reasons why you need to siege in order to stop fighting

Is Siege Necessary?!?

I don't think that using siege is necessary because they killed innocent people and when you think about with all of the presidential issues we are not salving it with battles or starvation or seating a whole town on fire. They could have salved it in a better or different way.

Total war or siege...

I think they are both bad tactics. A siege is not a good tactic because the way to win a war is to make another side surrender, and surrounding a place makes them surrender. But it is bad because most people starved or had eat rats and their horses dies. A siege is to cut off all supplies from entering an area; forcing surrender. The total war was destroying all civilian and military resources. I think they are both bad.

siege and total war

Yes, i think that siege and total war is necessary because they have to get their point across. I think that this is acceptable because it is smart but they are killing a lot of people, but i still think that it is smarter to tech them a lesson about slavery, The north had to do this because they cant just use words they have to get their point across.

Fair or Unfair

I think that they were not justified to bur the entire place down because then a lot of people are going to die and that doesn't help America or anything else. I just don't think that it helps anyone when you kill everyone. But I just don't think it it's that your justified to kill all these Innocent civilizes who don't have a say in was happening to there country I just don't think its  fair.

The Necessities of Total War and Siege

I think it was necessary for William Sherman to use total war and Ulysses to force Georgia under siege, they wanted to win and they had to, so they took an unbelievably forceful approach and forced the south to surrender.

Was it Justified?

Civilians are just normal people, they are women and children who did not deserve to be killed. In both of Grants and Shemerans, kill civilians to get the Confederates to surrender. Yes, it is a terrible thing keeping civilians in a cave, having them live off of there own pets and animals, or burning down their houses making them evacuate their homes. Even though the Union did terrible things to the instant people it was necessary to be able to win the war, blocking off and sieging the Vicksburg it was able to cut off supplies to enter the area.

Civil War: Total War and Siege

     Total War is necessary in the attack to end the war and have the union win. This step they had to do to end the confederates because siege was also necessary so the confederates couldn't ship supplies to other confederates in the battle of Gettysburg and the union has supplies so the union will win. They had to let civilians die to win the war. This was a huge tactic of Siege so people on the confederates in Gettysburg couldn't get food or supplies. It was necessary  and a tactic because there were no laws against it and it was an all out war which they had to win.

-Zach

Total War or Siege...

Total war shouldn't of happened and siege shouldn't of happened either in the Civil War. Total war was to destroy all civilian and military resources. Siege was to cut off all supplies from entering an area; forcing surrender. I never think that violence is the answer. They could've figured out a different way of handling it because they could of just surrounded them with the siege but they could still let them have let them have some food.

Is siege and total war ok?

No, the Union is hurting innocent people. I think that they should have battles instead of getting children involved. I think that siege was ok because it was just one town, but total war was a little much. Total war affected tons of civilizations and their homes. It is not fair for children to be killed from this but siege is ok because it is not a big part of the South like total war.

Siege and Total War, is it Okay?

I think it is not okay. I think this because, innocent people were being killed, and they didn't do anything to impact the war. Besides, houses were being burned, people slathered, and people scared. This is why I think this isn't okay.

Total War and Siege: Strategy or Tragedy?

War strategies like total war or siege, are inhumane.  When there is war, the civilians should not be harmed. That is the soldier's job. They have to go out and fight, and not the citizens. The civilians are just people, they don't deserve to get hurt. Of course in the Civil War, Southern citizens had slaves. Even though it's terrible. They shouldn't get the outcome of all this violence, they just deserve to have their slaves taken from them. So in my opinion, war strategies like siege and total war are not necessary.

Is Total War Necessary?

I don't think that Total War was necessary and I believable that they could have made them surrender in a different way. Maybe Sherman could have threatened instead of just done it. Maybe they could have tried to burn less land. Maybe they could have burned just Georgia. I don't think that this was a wise choice on Sherman or the Union's part.

The South Chose Their Side!

You may be saying it is inhumane to kill all those people. But, is it inhumane to have slaves. Yes. When Sherman burnt Atlanta, and Grant sieged Vicksburg, civilians died. But, they chose their side. The south knows a thing or two about being inhumane. Slavery, cough cough. So why is it bad when the north gets revenge. Sherman made a great choice. Let the south burn to the ground.

Siege/Total War: Justified?

I think that siege and total war is justified. The confederates started this stuff. The Union didn't. They wanted a fight, the Union gave them a fight. They don't need their supplies. Also they have trashed the Union before, haven't they? So that's it. I think this is necessary. Also the Union needs to take control to win. If they didn't do this, they may not have won.

Siege

a better way to make the south surrender is to just fight until one of the sides surrender. instead of burning everything that could help the south in the war. then everything would be good and they could still use the factories to make resources and send resources.

Siege and Total War

Siege and total war were necessary tactics in order for the north to win the war. If the north would have not burnt all railroads and military supplies then the south would have gotten re-enforcements ad the south could keep fighting. Civilians are worth the cost because it both teaches them a lesson about slavery and since they technically live in the south and some might be in the army both make them support the south.

Siege is NOT right

I think that Siege is barbaric. There is a better way like use hostages to make them surrender and I and not saying that's the right thing to do but people where forced to eat rats. Rats caused some of the most deadly plagues ever and you had to eat them to survive.