Was Total War necessary to win the Civil War?

Was Total War necessary to win the Civil War?

probally not but it would have taken longer. this is a good question id like to see other responces

It was necessary for the Union to win.

Without the intentional suffering inflicted on Southern women and children many if not most CS soldiers would have been willing to fight to the death. Many were NOT willing to do that if it meant innocents would die with them. Not if they could go home and do anything to prevent it. This is why there were more of Lee's troops at home on "french leave" than there were that surrendered with him at Appomattox.

This is also why lincoln's deliberate policies toward the Southern civilian population were so brilliant (though morally reprehensible)

Total annihilation of every white male in the South would have taken a bit longer. Had the war lasted even another few months lincoln would have been forced to negotiate.

fight to the death-maybe the die hards but the majority who deserted did so on their own behalf-its not fun starving,being sick,wounded,maimed,killed and knowing there no chance to win.fight to the death?yes with families sufferring at home yes it would be hard for me to stay but for all we know of human nature i bet the majority were fed up we look back on everyone being so gallent and chivalarous in those times gimme a break people were like today and in anytime,murder robbery,rape,dishonesty we think all this was invented in the last 50 years or so,there were good people,bad people-as they aged the lost cause took hold "the best years of their lives'come on look at the desertion rates for both sides. and why would lincoln have to sue for peace?in 1865 the union army and navy were second to none.if the south could wage war against the civilian populace like you claim lincoln did making him the villain, to win they would have ,they sanctioned plots to kill civilians in new york with smallpox and fire and what about that scientist in petersburg with his gases, so quit acting like lincoln was such a murderer- davis has blood on his hands

davis has blood on his hands

I assume you meant "had" here since Jefferson Davis died 120 years ago. Otherwise I won't argue the point.

in 1865 the union army and navy were second to none.

Army maybe (at least in numbers) but navy? Hardly:
Great Britain had the most powerful navy in the world, France was second, Russia was third.

why would lincoln have to sue for peace?

I assume you mean here had the war lasted another few months. For one thing the ocean going ironclad the CSS Stonewall was en route when the war ended. The federals had nothing that could have matched her. Two federal cruisers both of which were larger and with more guns than the Stonewall ran across her off the coast of Spain in March of 1865. They both turned tail and ran (very prudently) She would hulled both of them like peanuts and sailed on to break the blockade by herself.

like you claim lincoln did making him the villain

Not my claim at all. Simple historical fact. If you doubt that lincoln deliberately encouraged his officers to make war on the civilian population of the South you need to review the case of one John Basil Turchin. Turchin commanded a brigade of federal troops early in the war. At Athens Alabama he basically told his troops he would turn his back and allow them to do what ever they wanted to the people of the town and they proceeded to do so. Unfortunately these kinds of atrocities happen on all sides in most wars and there were certainly some that were perpetrated by CS troops in the WBTS. The relevance to this discussion though is lincoln's reaction to this episode. To their credit Turchin's superiors had him court martialed and drummed out of the US service. When lincoln got wind of it though he not only reinstated Turchin but had him promoted!(even AFTER General Buell telegraphed ole abe and told him that Turchin was "unfit for service".)

Now what kind of message do you think this sent to lincoln's other officers? It said of course that war on civilians was lincoln's deliberate policy and they not only would escape punishment for it they would be REWARDED for it!

BTW Please don't take my word for the above facts. You can pretty much get the whole story by going to the OR's (yankee sources to boot) and doing a search for Turchin.
http://digital.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.html

just one ship versus the us navy-might have turned out like the british hunt for the bismark in wwii but i will say that would have been interesting to see if the stonewall could turn the tide,the two ships that ran were wooden.did the us have any ships like the stonewall?why did the usn not use the stonewall when they had her in dc for two years?i would like to know more.and john turchin-totally did not know all the aspects of that story so i will resarch some more. i will say the last two weeks seems to be more great dialogue on this site then before on some great topics and i thank everyone.

when they had her in dc for two years?

Huh?

the two ships that ran were wooden.did the us have any ships like the stonewall?

As I said in my previous post the federals had NOTHING to match the Stonewall. None of the federal Ironclads were capable of operating on the high seas. Even with this being the case it is probably true that she would have eventually succumbed to overpowering numbers but if she destroyed half the federal high seas fleet(or simply drove them into port) and broke the blockade in the process it would have ended the war.

huh?the us goverment had the stonewall tied up at washington dc for two years before selling her.why didnt they put her into the us fleet if she was so mighty? anyone know?

After the war they had no use for such a ship (unless they were contemplating war with either France or Britain.)

how do you know they had no use for the stonewall.the most powerfull ship that could have won the war and made lincoln/johnson sue for peace

wow-douche and macrevverie you guys should go on a panel show and do a point -conterpoint thing.ones bias towards the north,ones bias towards the south re-fighting the civil war-i dont know if i have the energy

IMHO, yes, it was. I can go on at some length later. Excellent question that goes to the very heart of the whole meaning of the war.

For the North, total war in my opinion was necessary. Not necessarily the ill treatment of civilians, but they needed to invade the South and break her will. And as far as a romantic side to the behavior of the day, yes there were bad people and atrocities committed but on the whole, historically, society was more pure. Why? Because 1860 is a heck of alot closer to when the country was founded and the country was founded on Christian principles. Every decade the U.S. distances itself farther and farther away from that. Look at Europe... they have full nudity on bill boards where anyone can see them. In the U.S. that's illegal. Why? Because its past is rooted in a moral high ground. Back on topic. The atrocities by the North are more sanctioned than that of the South. When Lee moved north, his troops were under specific orders to take only what they needed to survive. Compare that with Sherman's March to the Sea... and tell me that there's no difference..

I believe the South indeed could have won the war by fighting completely defensively. The goal being that the North would soon grow tired of the fight and run out of steam. They came very close to this several times, however each time they either snaked off a victory or through politics(Emancipation Proclamation) were able to seep some semblance of vigor into their populace.

Your point about the relative levels of depredation visited on the civilian population is well taken. Metaphorically, Lee's soldier knocked on the door, said, "Excuse me ma'am, but I do believe I'd like that ham there. Here's a piece of paper promising to pay you back for it someday." Sherman's soldier pounded on the door and bellowed, "You people have one minute to clear out, then we're taking everything. I don't care if you starve!" Of course, this is only a metaphor, a handy image to broadly compare the two methods of "foraging" employed by each commander's army.

It is important to remember that Sherman very specifically intended to wreak havoc on the southern population, to starkly show them the suffering involved in total war. His was the 19th century version of the Strategic Bombing campaign of WWII (and, I might add, a true example of "modern" war innovation arising in the CW). Right or wrong? That depends on your viewpoint. If you were a Confederate, it was an example of the brutal inhumanity of war, an evil to be denounced for all time. If you were a Federal, it was a vital step in ending the war sooner, thus preventing an even worse slaughter. It's a debate that cannot be empirically "proved" one way or the other, much as the atomic bomb debate has no provable right or wrong answer. It's all opinion, and visceral at that.

Could the south have won if they adopted a purely defensive posture? Again, there are no easy, glib answers. With the Union constantly hammering away with offensive operations, how long could the CSA have held out on such a broad front. At best, the theory depends on the CSA being able to prolong the war until the north experienced terminal war weariness. Would that have happened? In the summer of 1864, Lincoln sure thought so. But even if the CSA had won on those terms, how much of a victory would it have been? The populations of Europe were increasingly horrified by the concept of slavery, and its highly unlikely their governments would have welcomed the CSA into the brotherhood of nations with open arms as long as slavery remained in place.

What you say is true about Southern integration with European nations even if they had won "that way." My contention is that it would have been like that no matter which way they won. Except a Southern invasion of the North would have hurt their public relations in Europe. The entire platform that the CSA was running on is that they were trying to peaceably leave the Union and form their own sovereign country, as was their Constitutional right, without loss of life.

However, I do believe that very shortly after the Civil War, technological advancements would have rendered slavery unecessary and even not profitable. Already, there were movements in the South to begin the slow freeing of slaves. As well, you will notice in the Southern Constitution they banned the international slave trade. That is one more step in the direction of abolishing slavery completely.

Now another intriguing idea is that, in many wars, some "neutral" nations are feeding other countries material and money necessary to wage wars and etc. without being formally associated with that country. Britain did it in the Civil War very much even after the Emancipation Proclamation. I would say that it would not be a far cry for the same to have happened if the South had been victorious. Though European nations would not have formally accepted the CSA into their "clique" they would have wanted to get the benefits of her cotton and trade and there for done behind the scenes dealing with her and in the meantime urging the emancipation of her slaves. Once that had been done they could go through with the formal handshake and say hi to their "new" friend. That's one possibility that I see that would seem to match the behavior of many European countries both before and after the Civil War.

Good and valid points. Lincoln, no abolitionist, especially before 1862, observed that slavery would eventually be exterminated by the mere natural friction of unavoidable events; it was the argument he used in pushing his compensated emancipation plan. If you haven't already, you'd do well to read a collection of Lincoln's speeches and writings. You'll find his persuasive arguments for the unconstitutionality of secession. In addition you will read some of the cleanest, finest writing ever in the American English style -- clean, concise, not a wasted word, most words of one or two syllables, yet the whole is at times beautiful and moving, others didactic, and still others with a quiet passion. I think the Gettysburg address is the best example of writing in American letters, the example we should all aim for (as you can see, I tend to be anything but concise).

The European issue of trading with the CSA has much merit. There were ways of getting around the neutrality restrictions, and it was clearly done all the time. But, first of all, in the mid-19th century there was a much stronger sense of following the rules of warfare by the Western powers. Secondly, the common populations of Europe were by and large horrified by slavery -- ironically, these same people lived lives about one step above slavery. The liberal democracies of England, and to a lesser extent France and Italy, would have faced a crisis and may have been brought down if their governments openly recognized a slave-holding state. In addition, Britain especially used the Civil War period to build-up the cotton growing in their African and Indian colonies (and ironically, British subjects had no particular problems tolerating the near-slavery imposed on many British colonial subjects). All in all, the CSA in the best of circumstances had a very steep hill to climb before becoming a recognized Sovereign state.