Member Review Total War

[Bentonville]

Total War on Who's Terms?

Total war started in Missouri.

In Missouri General Ewing, Sherman's brother in law, used the total war concept before Sherman did himself. I'm pretty sure, and I feel safe saying, that total war started there. I will also say that Sherman and Ewing didn't start it but adapted to it, learned it and then used it on Georgia as a test platform.

The idea of Total war was, IMHO, taken from Native American tactics and used in the Border Wars.

The tactics make so much sense now; there but flexible enough to suit almost any sort of fight. I'd say pragmatism in that manner is and was uniquely American.

Quantril aside, as he should be honestly, Anderson's actions, the killing of a whole regiment sans one, seems the amplified version of John Brown amd Sons hacking at people with short swords. The only difference I can really see was leaving someone alive to tell the Federal authorities about it. Live men tell better tails than the dead alone. Backfired as the union has the numbers.

Ewing ran people out of their homes and burned those homes. If they did or didn't 'pull put all the stops' on the building is St. Louis housing captured mothers, wives, sisters ans sweethearts of soldiers I would leave to some one more qualified.

Total war has grown into modern entity but it was born in this war. That might make Anderson and Ewing the first to use it. One may factor in the scalps as a psychological tactic in the form of trophy hunting that was on the same level around a hundred years later in south east Asia. Just the horses wore them on there bridal. Amd it wasn't ears of course.

If Sherman had say past 'do what you will' or was just observing and taking detailed notes I have no idea. Does it show tactically skill that casts a light on what Anderson did? Could he have been Forest with a better troop of men? Or was he in the right place at the right time? If sso did it make his death part of the experiment taking place and therefore an inevitability?

I might just be several years too late om this topic. If I am I apologize in advance.

@archieclement too.

 

[Taylin]

I think burning houses, infrastructure and outright slaughter doesn't hold water for being total war. It's simply harsh war, if not murder.

 

[Bentonville]

I think burning houses, infrastructure and outright slaughter doesn't hold water for being total war. It's simply harsh war, if not murder.

Wasn't "Sherman's March' leaving burned houses, torn up train tracks and a host of other things that at the time would not gave been above board as far as the era's war was?
One thing that sticks in my mind was making prisoners look for torpedos on roads. That is pretty harsh war too.

You may well be right though. But was it the scale or the way the war Missouri was fought? Or by whom?

 

[archieclement]

Total War on Who's Terms?

Total war started in Missouri.

In Missouri General Ewing, Sherman's brother in law, used the total war concept before Sherman did himself. I'm pretty sure, and I feel safe saying, that total war started there. I will also say that Sherman and Ewing didn't start it but adapted to it, learned it and then used it on Georgia as a test platform.

The idea of Total war was, IMHO, taken from Native American tactics and used in the Border Wars.

The tactics make so much sense now; there but flexible enough to suit almost any sort of fight. I'd say pragmatism in that manner is and was uniquely American.

Quantril aside, as he should be honestly, Anderson's actions, the killing of a whole regiment sans one, seems the amplified version of John Brown amd Sons hacking at people with short swords. The only difference I can really see was leaving someone alive to tell the Federal authorities about it. Live men tell better tails than the dead alone. Backfired as the union has the numbers.

Ewing ran people out of their homes and burned those homes. If they did or didn't 'pull put all the stops' on the building is St. Louis housing captured mothers, wives, sisters ans sweethearts of soldiers I would leave to some one more qualified.

Total war has grown into modern entity but it was born in this war. That might make Anderson and Ewing the first to use it. One may factor in the scalps as a psychological tactic in the form of trophy hunting that was on the same level around a hundred years later in south east Asia. Just the horses wore them on there bridal. Amd it wasn't ears of course.

If Sherman had say past 'do what you will' or was just observing and taking detailed notes I have no idea. Does it show tactically skill that casts a light on what Anderson did? Could he have been Forest with a better troop of men? Or was he in the right place at the right time? If sso did it make his death part of the experiment taking place and therefore an inevitability?

I might just be several years too late om this topic. If I am I apologize in advance.

@archieclement too.

Actually total war originated with Union policies.

It started both sides including irregulars paroled prisoners on oaths. Union adopted policy irregulars would be treated as outlaws and shot, irregulars followed suit with prisoners.

First year of the war irregulars were rare, Union out of frustration of not being able to stop MSG starting implementing "assessments" on citizens for the Union troops inability to prevent attacks, causing resentment......Out of state troops which were used initially, too often treated southern settlers or slaveowners as disloyal, whether they were or not. So in 1862 after a year of rather unfair occupation, support for Confederate recruiters and irregulars grew dramaticly. In response to the increased dissent from the blundering occupation, Halleck commissions Leiber to write Leiber Code to specifically allow even harsher occupation policies, again increasing dissent and same harsh treatment being reciprocal by irregulars.

The thing with total war policies is they are not in a vacuum......You kill prisoners or treat a populace unfairly, there will be a response.

The closest to effective "total war" by the US wasn't in ACW, but Indian wars where race allowed taking it to bordering on genocide. As for total war to be truly effective, have to suspend moral ethics.....total has to be actually total......

 

[JackADriscoll]

To me total war is universal conscription and a war of annihilation. We didn't get there thank god

 

[archieclement]

To me total war is universal conscription and a war of annihilation. We didn't get there thank god

Best explanation of total war I've read was from a later war. And the officer explained for total war to be effective, you have to make the neutrals (non-combantants) fear you more then the other side...............so they then sabotage and inform for you, and not against you.

Doesn't really fit US public psyche. So we do win "hearts and minds".............

 

[JackADriscoll]

That makes one think of Vietnam but not in the United States is good guy perspective. The most total war I ever read on was anything involving the Mongols besieging your home or the eastern front in ww2

 

[thomas aagaard]

In Missouri General Ewing, Sherman's brother in law, used the total war concept before Sherman did himself.

Sherman never used total war... if he had we would stil be fining massgraves with thousands of dead (white) civilians.

And what was done, was nothing new. Marching true enemy territory and destroying infrastructure, and the means of production and undermining the faith in local authorities is nothing new, For one thing it was how the english normally did things during the 100 year

In short this topic is pure American mythmaking.

 

[JerryD]

Sherman never used total war... if he had we would stil be fining massgraves with thousands of dead (white) civilians.

And what was done, was nothing new. Marching true enemy territory and destroying infrastructure, and the means of production and undermining the faith in local authorities is nothing new, For one thing it was how the english normally did things during the 100 year

In short this topic is pure American mythmaking.

I find a surprising number of students of the ACW have little to no concept of world history, sadly.

 

[7thWisconsin]

I think using the term ¨total war¨ to describe the process of destroying an enemy´s infrastructure rather than just targeting his military forces in the field may be a reaction against the fairly limited manner of warfare of the 18th century and Napoleonic period. I think Europe shocked itself with the brutality of the 30 years war, and when it was concluded, sort of determined to wage war on a more genteel note. The War of Spanish Succession wasn´t about destroying the land, since the sides were fighting over it, and who wants to get stuck being ruler of a devastated dungheap. Even the Seven Years War was still largely fought out as the ¨sport of kings.¨ Napoleon´s massive campaigns were designed to knock an opponent out cleanly in the field. Then comes the American Civil War - devatation that hadn´t been seen in over a hundred years, beyond living memory really, and photographed so it could be seen everywhere. The Americans may not have invented ¨total war¨ but may have rebranded it for a new generation.

 

[jackt62]

Rather than trying to define "total war," a term that has been used in relation to the CW is "hard war." It offered a contrast to "soft war," which was the original Union concept and was advocated by the likes of McClellan and Buell, and meant that federal armies would simply fight rebel armies and not engage with the civilian population and/or infrastructure, and would not attempt to hurt the enemy's economic way of life. That approach proved unsuccessful after the first 2 years of war; Grant and Sherman shifted Union strategy in the direction of a hard war in which both military and civilian resources were legitimate targets. Like it or not, it won the war for the north.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I think using the term ¨total war¨ to describe the process of destroying an enemy´s infrastructure rather than just targeting his military forces in the field may be a reaction against the fairly limited manner of warfare of the 18th century and Napoleonic period.

Nothing limited about the later Napoleonic wars... especially not in Spain and in Russia.
(I can agree to it for the early wars in central Europe)

And by 1814 Napoleon was basically mobilizing all manpower available to him. (and just as importantly all "horsepower")
Prussia went true an outride revolution of both army and society... And it had very clear progressive or even proto socialistic elements... despite being a revolution from the top and down.

"Germany" was in 1815 a very different place than it had been 25 years earlier... with some sort of elected representation having become common, German nationalism becoming a clear idea and the creation of the germen federation with a parliament.

If one focus on the total mobilization of the entire recourses of a nation and the idea that its a fight for the survival of the nation (and not just a dynasty) then the last years of the war against Napoleon is a better case for a total war... than the civil war is.

---
Oh, also if we compare the civil war to rebellions instead of wars between kings/states, then the rebellion in the south was actually suppressed with remarkable restraint from the government forces.
When European governments suppressed rebellions it was not rare to do mass executions, with little or no legal process.
And the loosers who where not executed ended up in prison for years or where deported.
And rollbacks of any civil rights was common.

After the civil war very few where punished. The worst that happened was some loosing their right to be elected to office... until everyone where pardoned... and basically the same group of people ended up in political control of the south.

 

[Bentonville]

Best explanation of total war I've read was from a later war. And the officer explained for total war to be effective, you have to make the neutrals (non-combantants) fear you more then the other side...............so they then sabotage and inform for you, and not against you.

Doesn't really fit US public psyche. So we do win "hearts and minds".............

Hearts and Minds have always been one of my favorite concepts.

 

[archieclement]

Hearts and Minds have always been one of my favorite concepts.

The counter to it is total war...........

To people trying to survive in a divided area, the help us or we will kill you and your family can carry some weight. To then choose heart and minds instead requires rather large ability for them to be able provide protection.

 

[Bentonville]

Sherman never used total war... if he had we would stil be fining massgraves with thousands of dead (white) civilians.

And what was done, was nothing new. Marching true enemy territory and destroying infrastructure, and the means of production and undermining the faith in local authorities is nothing new, For one thing it was how the english normally did things during the 100 year

In short this topic is pure American mythmaking.

As a codified way of fighting now or then. It was a test for it which has become doctrine if things get to that point.

I was thinking looking at these posts here about where I was (am( coming from. Best explanation I can think of is Callie command. I'm not saying it's right but the Bear was poked to too many times. was that right? No. Is the good guy, white hat mentality only goes so far.

Sherman, Sheridan, Ewing, even Grant wad a butcher. Wanna make an omelet break eggs. Wanna win a war make it terrifying.

Maybe it's just me. I think war is dialectic in thought and action. It's an is or isn't. That's how you can turn a civilian into a killer in 16 with training an secondary training afterwards.

I should just keep my opinions to myself. And yes, on certain things in real IRL I'm absolutely honest badger, so long as I win.

 

[Bentonville]

The counter to it is total war...........

To people trying to survive in a divided area, the help us or we will kill you and your family can carry some weight. To then choose heart and minds instead requires rather large ability for them to be able provide protection.

Very true.
I don't know if this is the right place to say what I really want to say. DM me and I'll tell you. I can sum it all up in one sentence.

 

[Doc_Ralph]

Total War on Who's Terms?

Total war started in Missouri.

In Missouri General Ewing, Sherman's brother in law, used the total war concept before Sherman did himself. I'm pretty sure, and I feel safe saying, that total war started there. I will also say that Sherman and Ewing didn't start it but adapted to it, learned it and then used it on Georgia as a test platform.

The idea of Total war was, IMHO, taken from Native American tactics and used in the Border Wars.

The tactics make so much sense now; there but flexible enough to suit almost any sort of fight. I'd say pragmatism in that manner is and was uniquely American.

Quantril aside, as he should be honestly, Anderson's actions, the killing of a whole regiment sans one, seems the amplified version of John Brown amd Sons hacking at people with short swords. The only difference I can really see was leaving someone alive to tell the Federal authorities about it. Live men tell better tails than the dead alone. Backfired as the union has the numbers.

Ewing ran people out of their homes and burned those homes. If they did or didn't 'pull put all the stops' on the building is St. Louis housing captured mothers, wives, sisters ans sweethearts of soldiers I would leave to some one more qualified.

Total war has grown into modern entity but it was born in this war. That might make Anderson and Ewing the first to use it. One may factor in the scalps as a psychological tactic in the form of trophy hunting that was on the same level around a hundred years later in south east Asia. Just the horses wore them on there bridal. Amd it wasn't ears of course.

If Sherman had say past 'do what you will' or was just observing and taking detailed notes I have no idea. Does it show tactically skill that casts a light on what Anderson did? Could he have been Forest with a better troop of men? Or was he in the right place at the right time? If sso did it make his death part of the experiment taking place and therefore an inevitability?

I might just be several years too late om this topic. If I am I apologize in advance.

@archieclement too.

arguments today. It brings into sharper focus that eternal question: "Do the ends justify the means?" and creates further questions. What does total war

What does the phrase total war mean? Perhaps, a definition will bring this concept into more precise focus through the "fog of war."

Oxford Languages Dictionary defines total war as: "a war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded." (My emphasis) So, total war is unrestricted war, and the rules are ignored.

This brings up the next question. What are the rules of war?

IMHO These have evolved over humankind's history of conflict. A classic example of a universal symbol and significance is that the white flag indicates surrender or time for parlay. The International Committee of the Red Cross state that: "The rules of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Protectthose who are not fighting, such as civilians, medical personnel, or aid workers. Protect those who are no longer able to fight, like an injured soldier or a prisoner. Prohibit targeting civilians." (My emphasis) https://www.icrc.org

While this is a modern definition, one can argue that they were developed by the founder of the Swiss Red Cross, businessman Henry Dunant. This gentleman was active during American Civil War (starting in1863), and his ideas - on countries adopting an international agreement to serve the wounded in armed conflicts – were inspired by the Battle of Solferino (1859).

During the Enlightenment (18th and early 19th Century), Western warfare attempted to control some of the more egregious aspects of war regarding civilians and civilian property.

As Lance Janda writes: "… the attempt to provide some protections to civilians stemmed from the Enlightenment desire 'which stressed that violence against non-combatants was barbaric and unworthy of modern military forces.'" Shutting the Gates of Mercy: The American Origins of Total War, 1860 – 1880, The Journal of Military History #59, no. 1 (January 1995)

These concepts changed during the Civil War and became a part of the USA policy for conducting the war. The Articles of War of 1806 established the Code of military conduct until it was replaced in 1863 by the Lieber Code (General Order 100.) The key to understanding this (and perhaps this is where the difference of opinion arises) with this Code is the concept of "Military necessity." Military necessity was defined by General David Hunter in 1862 as "those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war."
My emphasis (Burrus M. Carnahan, "Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity" – The American Journal of International Law 92, no.2 April 1998, page 215)

This USA government's "necessity" (both in theory and application) "covers" all the criminality and atrocities that may occur from time to time. It dovetails neatly with the concept of total war and states (in essence) that the primary objective is to achieve a complete and total victory over the enemy. It was, furthermore, defined as the annihilation of the enemy.

In addition to the Lieber Code/General Order 100, other standards of war should be mentioned.

Customary usage of long-standing. The criteria are that it must be a custom practiced by nations. Nations have an unwritten agreement that such practice is mandated by custom.The white flag is an example.

The Geneva Convention of 1862 was narrowly focused on "The Amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field." The USA did not sign the Convention and was not bound by it.

The Law of Nations, an international proper code of war developed by the Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67). In 1862, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Vattel's " Prize Cases. However, as importance on the protection of non-combatants was its primary concern, the Law of Nations was rejected by President Lincoln, who issued a new law governing warfare that lacked international standing.

Adam Badeau, on General Grant's staff and who was present at Appomattox, notes:
"It was not victory that either side was playing for, but for existence. If the rebels won, they destroyed a nation; if the government succeeded, it annihilated a rebellion." (My emphasis)


Turning to war crimes, it might be helpful to state the obvious and apply those that may be pertinent to this discussion.

Types of War Crimes (Crimes against humanity)

• Murder
• Mutilation
• Cruel treatment and torture
• Taking of hostages
• Intentional directing attacks against the civilian population
• Intentional directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art
• Extermination
• Enslavement
• Deportation
• Mass Systematic rape and sexual enslavement in a time of war
• Other inhumane acts
• Persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds
My emphasis for current discussion(https://www.met.police.uk)

{During the research for this discussion topic, the author has read several articles about Civil War massacres, atrocities, USA religious discrimination against Jews, rape of white and black girls and women, war crimes, and Military orders regarding civilian populations. To be fair, only those that apply to Sherman's March to the Sea will be discussed. However, the author believes that war crimes were committed by both sides during the war. For a thorough exploration of this topic, please see the references below.}


Sherman's March to the Sea

"War is Hell." No truer words have been spoken than these three words by USA General Sherman in a speech a number of years after the war. The swath of destruction and winnowing was widespread throughout Georgia and later the Carolinas. It is still spoken of today across the South as a watershed moment.

Grant wrote to Sherman and Sheridan that the South was getting what it deserved and that "We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and we must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war

The strategy and tactics of Sherman and the Army of the Tennessee were bold, audacious, and effective, risky. Instead of being tied to railroads/roads and lengthy and vulnerable supply lines, the army ventured forth with two thousand plus wagons. They were loaded with some forage for the horses, ammunition for the cannons, extra rounds for the men's guns, and not much else.

This strategy called for foraging teams (bummers) to collect food for their unit from the countryside (farms, fields, orchards, shops, warehouses, homes, towns, etcetera.) The army was, in effect, moving to forage to eat or fighting the CSA.

The army had to move, or soon starvation would set in. So, as a Biblical plague of locusts, Sherman and his men moved across the Georgia landscape. The unstoppable blue wave moved closer to the first target of Atlanta. CSA General Joe Johnston attempted to stop this advance, but as a strong flow of water eventually floods all – his actions were just delaying the inevitable. Word got out about what was happening, and the desertion level in Johnston's army increased as soldiers rushed home to defend their families and farms.

Johnston's replacement, General John Bell Hood, could not defend Atlanta and surrendered the city. The Gone with the Windscene of the city burning may well have been from Hood's cannon bombardment of supply warehouses and other buildings during his army's withdrawal.
This campaign was successful because the army movement was highly mobile along several fronts. Unburdened by a long supply line, the army concentrated on finding food and destroying the enemy.

 

[Rhea Cole]

arguments today. It brings into sharper focus that eternal question: "Do the ends justify the means?" and creates further questions. What does total war

What does the phrase total war mean? Perhaps, a definition will bring this concept into more precise focus through the "fog of war."

Oxford Languages Dictionary defines total war as: "a war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded." (My emphasis) So, total war is unrestricted war, and the rules are ignored.

This brings up the next question. What are the rules of war?

IMHO These have evolved over humankind's history of conflict. A classic example of a universal symbol and significance is that the white flag indicates surrender or time for parlay. The International Committee of the Red Cross state that: "The rules of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Protectthose who are not fighting, such as civilians, medical personnel, or aid workers. Protect those who are no longer able to fight, like an injured soldier or a prisoner. Prohibit targeting civilians." (My emphasis) https://www.icrc.org

While this is a modern definition, one can argue that they were developed by the founder of the Swiss Red Cross, businessman Henry Dunant. This gentleman was active during American Civil War (starting in1863), and his ideas - on countries adopting an international agreement to serve the wounded in armed conflicts – were inspired by the Battle of Solferino (1859).

During the Enlightenment (18th and early 19th Century), Western warfare attempted to control some of the more egregious aspects of war regarding civilians and civilian property.

As Lance Janda writes: "… the attempt to provide some protections to civilians stemmed from the Enlightenment desire 'which stressed that violence against non-combatants was barbaric and unworthy of modern military forces.'" Shutting the Gates of Mercy: The American Origins of Total War, 1860 – 1880, The Journal of Military History #59, no. 1 (January 1995)

These concepts changed during the Civil War and became a part of the USA policy for conducting the war. The Articles of War of 1806 established the Code of military conduct until it was replaced in 1863 by the Lieber Code (General Order 100.) The key to understanding this (and perhaps this is where the difference of opinion arises) with this Code is the concept of "Military necessity." Military necessity was defined by General David Hunter in 1862 as "those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war."
My emphasis (Burrus M. Carnahan, "Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity" – The American Journal of International Law 92, no.2 April 1998, page 215)

This USA government's "necessity" (both in theory and application) "covers" all the criminality and atrocities that may occur from time to time. It dovetails neatly with the concept of total war and states (in essence) that the primary objective is to achieve a complete and total victory over the enemy. It was, furthermore, defined as the annihilation of the enemy.

In addition to the Lieber Code/General Order 100, other standards of war should be mentioned.

Customary usage of long-standing. The criteria are that it must be a custom practiced by nations. Nations have an unwritten agreement that such practice is mandated by custom.The white flag is an example.

The Geneva Convention of 1862 was narrowly focused on "The Amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field." The USA did not sign the Convention and was not bound by it.

The Law of Nations, an international proper code of war developed by the Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67). In 1862, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Vattel's " Prize Cases. However, as importance on the protection of non-combatants was its primary concern, the Law of Nations was rejected by President Lincoln, who issued a new law governing warfare that lacked international standing.

Adam Badeau, on General Grant's staff and who was present at Appomattox, notes:
"It was not victory that either side was playing for, but for existence. If the rebels won, they destroyed a nation; if the government succeeded, it annihilated a rebellion." (My emphasis)


Turning to war crimes, it might be helpful to state the obvious and apply those that may be pertinent to this discussion.

Types of War Crimes (Crimes against humanity)

• Murder
• Mutilation
• Cruel treatment and torture
• Taking of hostages
• Intentional directing attacks against the civilian population
• Intentional directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art
• Extermination
• Enslavement
• Deportation
• Mass Systematic rape and sexual enslavement in a time of war
• Other inhumane acts
• Persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds
My emphasis for current discussion(https://www.met.police.uk)

{During the research for this discussion topic, the author has read several articles about Civil War massacres, atrocities, USA religious discrimination against Jews, rape of white and black girls and women, war crimes, and Military orders regarding civilian populations. To be fair, only those that apply to Sherman's March to the Sea will be discussed. However, the author believes that war crimes were committed by both sides during the war. For a thorough exploration of this topic, please see the references below.}


Sherman's March to the Sea

"War is Hell." No truer words have been spoken than these three words by USA General Sherman in a speech a number of years after the war. The swath of destruction and winnowing was widespread throughout Georgia and later the Carolinas. It is still spoken of today across the South as a watershed moment.

Grant wrote to Sherman and Sheridan that the South was getting what it deserved and that "We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and we must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war

The strategy and tactics of Sherman and the Army of the Tennessee were bold, audacious, and effective, risky. Instead of being tied to railroads/roads and lengthy and vulnerable supply lines, the army ventured forth with two thousand plus wagons. They were loaded with some forage for the horses, ammunition for the cannons, extra rounds for the men's guns, and not much else.

This strategy called for foraging teams (bummers) to collect food for their unit from the countryside (farms, fields, orchards, shops, warehouses, homes, towns, etcetera.) The army was, in effect, moving to forage to eat or fighting the CSA.

The army had to move, or soon starvation would set in. So, as a Biblical plague of locusts, Sherman and his men moved across the Georgia landscape. The unstoppable blue wave moved closer to the first target of Atlanta. CSA General Joe Johnston attempted to stop this advance, but as a strong flow of water eventually floods all – his actions were just delaying the inevitable. Word got out about what was happening, and the desertion level in Johnston's army increased as soldiers rushed home to defend their families and farms.

Johnston's replacement, General John Bell Hood, could not defend Atlanta and surrendered the city. The Gone with the Windscene of the city burning may well have been from Hood's cannon bombardment of supply warehouses and other buildings during his army's withdrawal.
This campaign was successful because the army movement was highly mobile along several fronts. Unburdened by a long supply line, the army concentrated on finding food and destroying the enemy.

A couple of points re: The March to the Sea.

archive.nytimes.com. "Sherman's Maps"

If you scrape off the thick froth of counterfactual hyperbole that began in Southern papers within days of Sherman's army group leaving Atlanta, there is a rock solid contemporary document that shows exactly what Sherman was doing.

The map described in the article I cite is in the National Archive. It was so secret that only (+/-) 12 copies were made. It was something that had never been done before.

Just to set the stage, when Lee went into PA not even the governor had a map of the state. Today, it is incomprehensible that there was no accurate road map. The lack of maps hampered both armies.

Sherman's map is a political map of Georgia with 1860 census data for each country listed on it. Sherman wrote his orders to his columns with specific economic targets as the objective.

Once again in contrast to Lee in PA, Sherman knew exactly when his army would enter the pine barrens. A CSA article of faith was that Sherman would lay siege to Savannah [or other port city] with a starving army as has been done so many times down the ages. Because of his map, Sherman carefully escorted a convoy of supply wagons all the way across GA to prevent repeat of history.

Comparing the March to the Sea with historical "total war" is a false equivalence. Where were the huge pyramids of skulls? Where was an entire town, man-woman-child put to the sword & every structure raised? Where were all the fruit trees cut down & the fields salted? Most telling of all, where did systematic mass rape occur? There is a simple one word answer, nowhere.

There is also a one word that sums up the intended & achieved objective of the March to the Sea, night-blindness.

At Petersburg the A of N VA was not receiving enough protein to maintain muscle mass. Night blindness, a symptom of scurvy, was rampant among Lee's men… including my wife's 3rd great grandfather. That is what Sherman's March based on the extraordinary map was all about.

 

[Doc_Ralph]

Yeah he did not totally cut himself off … two thousand wagons.

This was for research I did on a grad school question having to do with war crimes. Maybe I should quoted myself.

 

[Doc_Ralph]

Total war to me is like Walls of Jericho, Stalingrad, Russian-Ukraine war, and number one total war dudes-Huns.