Did waging war upon civilians win the war for the Union?

[Scamp]

After a couple hundred thousand Union soldiers were dead, the Union changed tactics to waging war upon civilians. Did this stop the South's will to continue this war?

 

[Marion Morrison]

After a couple hundred thousand Union soldiers were dead, the Union changed tactics to waging war upon civilians. Did this stop the South's will to continue this war?

Yes. Lee couldn't stand the reports of the atrocities Sherman was committing.

 

[mikegriffith1]

After a couple hundred thousand Union soldiers were dead, the Union changed tactics to waging war upon civilians. Did this stop the South's will to continue this war?

I think this was a somewhat minor reason for the South's defeat, although I don't deny that Sherman and Sheridan's tactics were disgraceful. I think the main reasons for the South's collapse were absolutely terrible Confederate generalship in the West, highly skilled Union generalship in the West (especially by General Thomas), the increasingly effective Union blockade, and the South's loss of ports to receive supplies.

 

[harmonica]

it's [ was ] like this in a lot of wars ...civilians attacked/killed/driven out/etc--yet it does not stop the wars...in fact, in WW2 the Brits were more determined
...all of Japan's major cities were mostly destroyed--but they did not surrender
..the civilians are not in charge --do not have the power to stop the wars

...I think it was the Union that made a zone near the Kansas/Mo border where everyone had to leave and/or pledge allegiance to the Union
....the Kansas/Mo border war before and during the war ''targeted'' civilians

 

[Picaro]

..the civilians are not in charge --do not have the power to stop the wars

This is also the reason claiming that many Muslims are 'moderates' means nothing, for instance, since few will ever stand up to the radicals. Same for Nazi run Germany, and right wing run Japan. Those people still showed up for work in the factories and fields every day.

In most eras, wars targeted the peasants, and cities that refused to surrender were put to the sword. 'Total war' isn't new, it is just industrialized now. They can blow up lots more stuff.

 

[Picaro]

The South lost because it never developed an industrial base, a diversified economy; money followed the highest returns, which was cotton and slave capital. It's treatment of white labor was just as atrocious as the North's was, so with the added competition from slave labor the South attracted few waves of immigrants, plus the terrain made agriculture less conducive to modernization by machinery. They were out-produced and out-fed. Their only chance was early victory, and they didn't achieve that.

 

[Picaro]

After a couple hundred thousand Union soldiers were dead, the Union changed tactics to waging war upon civilians. Did this stop the South's will to continue this war?

No. the South was doomed after Gettysburg. They just waged war on civilians because they were vile drunken sociopaths and enjoyed it, is all, and the South had embarrassed them man times. Many of the same northern generals went on to preside over massacres of indians in the West, some deserved, some not.

 

[Lincoln1976]

it's [ was ] like this in a lot of wars ...civilians attacked/killed/driven out/etc--yet it does not stop the wars...in fact, in WW2 the Brits were more determined
...all of Japan's major cities were mostly destroyed--but they did not surrender
..the civilians are not in charge --do not have the power to stop the wars

...I think it was the Union that made a zone near the Kansas/Mo border where everyone had to leave and/or pledge allegiance to the Union
....the Kansas/Mo border war before and during the war ''targeted'' civilians

a bit off topic but your remark about the Brits is a bit silly...sure,we could talk about rationing, but if you refer to the Blitz than give me a break! the Brits whine and whinge about it like it was Dantes inferno...it wasn't...54 000 killed civilians is a mere foot note in the context of WW2...1 million killed civilians on the German side show far better, that the genocide (and that's what it was) did ZIP to stop the war efford of the Germans...bombing factories was the decisive factor together with the red army's sacrifice

 

[Lincoln1976]

as for the civil war: the Union clearly was out for vengeance,specially after the heavy losses and humiliation of the army of the Potomac.
The vengeance had a long echo after the war as well,where the South was long neglected and pushed aside, turning into a real back water for the next 60+ years

 

[harmonica]

it's [ was ] like this in a lot of wars ...civilians attacked/killed/driven out/etc--yet it does not stop the wars...in fact, in WW2 the Brits were more determined
...all of Japan's major cities were mostly destroyed--but they did not surrender
..the civilians are not in charge --do not have the power to stop the wars

...I think it was the Union that made a zone near the Kansas/Mo border where everyone had to leave and/or pledge allegiance to the Union
....the Kansas/Mo border war before and during the war ''targeted'' civilians

a bit off topic but your remark about the Brits is a bit silly...sure,we could talk about rationing, but if you refer to the Blitz than give me a break! the Brits whine and whinge about it like it was Dantes inferno...it wasn't...54 000 killed civilians is a mere foot note in the context of WW2...1 million killed civilians on the German side show far better, that the genocide (and that's what it was) did ZIP to stop the war efford of the Germans...bombing factories was the decisive factor together with the red army's sacrifice

what??? the Brits surrendered??? that's news to me