The American Civil War: A Case Study in Hard War, Not Total War

Is the American Civil War an example of ldquo;total warrdquo; as the term is understood in the 21st century? The concept of ldquo;total warrdquo; refers to a conflict where the use of unrestricted methods against the enemy extends beyond combatants to include civilians and non-military targets. While the Civil War certainly included hard war tactics, it does not meet the criteria for total war as understood today.

Hard War vs. Total War

Hard war, a concept notably used by William T. Sherman, involves targeting the enemy’s resources and population, disrupting their daily lives and war effort. This was particularly evident in Sherman’s infamous March to the Sea and General Philip Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah Valley. However, these actions did not extend to the large-scale killing of civilians or the intentional destruction of non-combatant property.

Confederate and Union Strategies

Neither side in the Civil War engaged in large-scale campaigns that targeted civilians for casualties. While March to the Sea involved burning farms and crops, the Union objectives were to disrupt the Confederate war effort by denying them supplies and breaking the will of the Southern populace. However, this was a strategic goal rather than an aim to inflict mass civilian casualties.

Historical Context and Misconceptions

Some historians and political commentators use the term ldquo;total warrdquo; to describe the Civil War, often due to the significant destruction and the unprecedented scale of conflict. However, this usage can be misleading. The term ldquo;total warrdquo; as it is understood today was not a concept during the 19th century. The Civil War was a ldquo;hard warrdquo; that aimed to break the Southern economy and will to fight, but not through the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Escalation and Impact

During the Civil War, there were escalations in the use of hard war tactics, such as Sherman's burning of crops and destruction of infrastructure in Georgia. However, these actions were limited to military targets and did not extend to mass killings of civilians. The same can be said for Sheridan's campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley, which were aimed at depriving the Confederacy of resources, not targeting civilian populations.

There are several misconceptions surrounding the Civil War, including the idea of Northern barbarism and the portrayal of Sherman's campaign as a genocidal event. While the effects of these campaigns were devastating, especially to the local populations, they did not meet the criteria for total war. The destruction of farms and infrastructure was part of a broader strategy to weaken the Confederate war effort, not to annihilate the Southern population.

The Lost Cause narrative, which romanticizes the Confederacy and vilifies the Union, often exaggerates Confederate actions and downplays Union efforts. This narrative has contributed to the misconception that the Civil War was a total war. Similarly, the portrayal of Northern forces as savages and the Confederate leadership as victims has further muddled the historical understanding of the conflict.

Conclusion

In summary, while the American Civil War involved hard war tactics aimed at breaking the enemy’s will and disrupting their war effort, it does not meet the criteria for total war. Hard war involves targeting military and economic infrastructure, but not the wholesale killing of civilians. The Civil War was a strategic conflict that aimed to weaken the Confederacy through deprivations of resources and disruption, not through the targeting of non-combatants. Understanding the difference between hard war and total war is crucial for a nuanced historical perspective.