Civil War Economics and Total War Total Essay

Civil War Economics and Total War

Total war strategies target and destroy the homes and livelihoods of civilians, from houses and farms to factories and railroads. They are never an acceptable, regardless the cause for which an army is fighting. Civilians, whether friend or enemy, should be excluded as targets, because no matter their allegiance, they have not chosen to actively take part in combat.

While total war may bring an earlier end to a conflict, the speed with which a war is conducted does not define the damage it does. While total war may reduce the duration of a war, it also produces a long-term reduction in quality of life for the remaining population. In tallying the cost of war, one does not simply count how many lives were lost, nor the length of the conflict, but also the long-term impact. One also does not dismiss the actions of an army because of their motives. Intent is not an excuse. That is, even if one is acting with honorable motives, using dishonorable means to achieve them taints the purity of the original reason for fighting.

Strategies which destroy crops and factories have a dramatic effect on an areas economy and the lifestyles of the individuals who live there. During the Civil War, total war strategies were implemented with particular effect by the Union army against Southern civilians, especially as a means of reducing production of both manufactured goods and foodstuffs.With the South's lower industrial capacity, any strike against the means of production was powerful.

There is never an acceptable reason to use total warfare, nor any other type of war that strikes out against a civilian population. Reducing the amount of casualties is an admirable goal, however no goal or intent justifies targeting individuals who are not part of an active fighting force. The Union's use of total war tactics was powerful, but deplorable. One cannot fight a war without cost, but one should never assume the involvement of civilians in any conflict.

Question 2

With its significantly lower industrial capacity, population, and infrastructure, the South was at a disadvantage before the beginning of the Civil War. Lower population resulted in fewer soldiers, a lower base of production meant fewer supplies for those soldiers, and less available capital, both in terms of funds and material goods, provided less support for the army and the civilian population. The North, with higher amounts of all of the above, had an advantage before the war began.

It is said that an army marches on its stomach. That is, an army is only as good as the supplies with which it is provided. To this end, the lesser resources of the South severely hindered their forces. Without horses, clothing, food, or sufficient useable funds, the army could not fight effectively. Finally, without sufficient soldiers, the army itself could not exist. In….....