Civil War arguments

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]

- there is no response to the total war concept initiated by the North on the South, a modern American military precedent making its way felt all the way to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki


[/ QUOTE ]

Total War is really nothing new...read the Herodotus... and to blame Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the civil war is quite a stretch.

[Peter666]

Total war in modern times was unprecedented. To use ancient examples to justify barbarism is silly. The Civil war and its deployment of new technologies was keenly observed by European powers and adopted. WWI and WW2 are well known to have deployed this military strategy. It is the Civil War which made them "acceptable" or inevitable in society.

[BluffTHIS!]

Peter, you are historically and militarily misinformed if you believe that other than Sherman's march through a limited area of the South, anything like total war took place in the Civil War, i.e. involving targeting the civilian population and centers of economic production (ok add in the naval blocade). There were 3 things that contributed to the bloodiness of the Civil War:

1) The Minet Ball
2) Field Fortifications
3) Stupid Generalship.

And regarding #3, this includes Lee and Grant IMO. If either or both Stonewall Jackson or Sherman had been in charge of their respective sides' military operations, then the war would have ended sooner.

[Peter666]

Certainly the bloodiness of the Civil war can be attributed to the:

"1) The Minet Ball
2) Field Fortifications
3) Stupid Generalship."

But it is specifically Sherman's March which was the first real implementation of the total war concept. And this concept is absolutely immoral. It is more immoral than slavery, and has since contributed to more death and destruction than American slavery ever did or possibly could have.

The total war concept was also implemented against the Plains Indians by destruction of the Buffalo.

It is an example of using a greater evil to stamp out a smaller evil.