Post on 10-Apr-2018
8/8/2019 Danny O'Donohue - History Civil War
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/danny-odonohue-history-civil-war 1/4
Total WarDanny ODonohue
Military History
The Civil War was not a total war, and those that believe otherwise have bought into
Confederate propaganda and not truly examined all that a total war entails. A grasp on the
definition total war and all the factors it includes is necessary to both understand and to make the
case that the Civil War cannot be categorized as totalitarian warfare. The distinction between
combatant and noncombatant remained in place from the assault on Fort Sumter in 1861, up to
General Lee¶s surrender to General Ulysses S. Grant in 1865. Abraham Lincoln¶s objectives in
waging war against the South, never matched the ultimate purpose intrinsic to waging total war.
The Civil War simply does not meet the criteria of a total war and should not be classified as one.
Total war was a term first used by Giulio Douhet in 1921 and defined by him as when
³the entire population and all the resources of a nation are dragged into the maw of war.´ Those
waging total war did so to achieve unconditional surrender and with the goal to destroy an enemy
nation and reshape its society. During World War II a further characteristic of total war was that
the economy of a nation shifted direction in order to fuel the war effort. The idea of total war
came to constitute a war ³without scruples or limitations´ that made no distinction between
civilians and soldiers. James Turner Johnson elaborates on the dissolving of barriers in his study
of Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War where he writes, ³total war bears hardest on
noncombatants, whose traditional protection from harm according to the traditions of just and
limited warfare appears to evaporate here.´1
By comparing the characteristics of a total war to
how civilians were treated by Union generals and the intent of Union political leaders it becomes
evident that the Civil War simply does not match up to the definition.
1Mark E. Neely, Was the Civil War a Total War?Civil War History, (Kent State University Press 2004), 30.
Comment [D1]: There is something to this (a
as Grimsley shows, much of the modern
understanding of the CW is built around myth), b
this is a pretty strong statement that does not
recognize the validity of the counterargument
You can make a case for dismissing the
counterargument, but try to be a bit less polemic
Comment [D2]: Simply give your definition a
work it into the text without the extra intro to it
Comment [D3]:No comma
Comment [D4]: until
Comment [D5]: no comma
Comment [D6]: clear thesis
Comment [D7]: in which he writes
Comment [D8]: nice discussion of total war agood working definition
8/8/2019 Danny O'Donohue - History Civil War
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/danny-odonohue-history-civil-war 2/4
The policy that Lincoln favored was to have no policy which meant no standardized set
of rules in dealing with civilians. It is important to note that interpretation was open to Union
commanders. While there were vast differences in doctrines ranging from draconian and brutal to
understanding and lenient, at no point in the Civil War was the distinction between civilians and
soldiers ignored. As the policy went from conciliation, to pragmatic, to hard war citizens were
still recognized as just that, even if punishment for active secessionists became harsher. When
General Halleck was general-in-chief during the pragmatic stage, supporters of the enemy had
their property confiscated but civilian lives were never threatened.2
Even when Grant assumed the position of general-in-chief and ³took off the kid gloves´
with his operations beginning in 1863, citizens were still treated with distinction from soldiers.
The significant shift from pragmatic is seen in the systematic, routine, large-scale destruction
carried out by large bodies of troops to achieve a military advantage.3
However, as specific
examples will show, this destruction of property and supplies were for military purposes and
civilians were still held distinct from combatants. Philip Sheridan¶s mission was to lay waste to
the Shenandoah Valley but his operation orders read that ³no villages or private houses will be
burned´ and that enough food be left for civilians¶ personal use.4
Hardships and injustices were
undoubtedly inflicted on civilian secessionists but the Union army never broke the barrier
separating combatants and noncombatants.
Lincoln and the Union did not hope to achieve unconditional surrender from the South or
destroy the states that seceded. Civilians who supported secession were, at least in the beginning
of the war, regarded as fellow brethren who were merely misguided. For the first fifteen months
2Mark Grimsley, Hard Hand of War , (Cambridge University Press, 1995), 51
3Mark Grimsley, Hard Hand of War , 141
4Mark Grimsley, Hard Hand of War , 171-175
Comment [D9]: policy,
Comment [D10]: was
Comment [D11]: purposes,
Comment [D12]: Valley,
Comment [D13]: Your interpretation of no
harm to civilians more or less means intentional
bodily harm and you classify destruction of
goods/property as not fitting in this category. (t
key being whether civilians are classified as
combatants ) You might consider refining your
earlier definition to make this distinction. The
counterargument would say that while this does
result in civilian death/harm, it fully involves them
the conflict.
8/8/2019 Danny O'Donohue - History Civil War
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/danny-odonohue-history-civil-war 3/4
of the war, conciliation warfare was the policy. The reoccupation of government positions
wrongfully taken from the Union was Lincoln¶s primary objective for the war.5
On July 9, 1864
Lincoln¶s conditions for surrender were that the Confederacy accepts both the restoration of the
Union and the abolishment of slavery.6
Granted, these conditions would completely reshape the
South¶s economy which was currently dependent on slavery, but that is the only link found
between the outcome Union leaders desired and the outcome resulting from total war.
Additionally, the Federal government initially had no intention of getting involved with slavery
in the fear that it would legitimize the South¶s secession, a policy that only changed when it
became evident that a quick and decisive victory was not feasible.7
The ultimate goal in waging
the Civil War was to restore the Union, not to destroy the Southern nation or receive
unconditional surrender.
Brutal tactics were resorted to by the North in order to bring an end to the Civil War but
the policies and actions of Union leaders never escalated to the level of total war. Citizens were
never classified as combatants and viewed as fair game as objects of attack by the Federal army.
Lincoln and the North¶s ultimate goal were to restore the Union of the states. The Emancipation
Proclamation ended up transforming the South¶s society and economy but it was not the primary
intention of the Federal government. The civil war, although ruthless and bloody in many
instances, never crossed the distinguishable line separating a hard war, which employed strategic
punitive tactics on disloyal citizens in order to restore the Union from a total war, which viewed
civilians as combatants in order to destroy the South.
5Grimsley, Hard Hand of War , 23.
6Neely, Was the Civil War a Total War? 30
7Grimsley, Hard Hand of War , 121
Comment [D14]: But a pretty significant link
see the next comment
Comment [D15]: One could argue, though, t
the end of slavery and restoration of the Union t
were unconditional. As you say, this would resh
the Souths economy, but also its culture and
society. To accept reunion and emancipation wa
in a way, asking the South to commit political an
cultural suicide.
However, you make a good case that the Norths
intentions are key to evaluating these actions. T
Unions purpose was not to destroy the South b
achieve reunion.
Comment [D16]: War,
Comment [D17]: Economy, but
Comment [D18]: Civil War
Comment [D19]: the Union, from
Comment [D20]: Overall a strong paper. You
make a good case for the CW not qualifying as a T
and the success of your argument is rooted in a
good concept of TW. You make effective use of
varied sources as well as those quoted and used
Grimsley and Neely.
My one point of criticism is in regards to your
treatment of the counterargumen t. While you m
recognize and dismiss the counterargument, you
sometimes a bit too dismissive of its validity . Fo
instance, your comment that those who argue th
CW was a TW have bought into
Confederate/Sou thern propaganda. Th ere is an
element of truth to this, as Grimsley points out,
one could also make a very valid argument for th
point of view. To qualify those who take that sta
as dupes is a bit strong and puts your own argumat risk.
Great effort.
A- 18.5/20
8/8/2019 Danny O'Donohue - History Civil War
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/danny-odonohue-history-civil-war 4/4