Total War

[Count of Cannae]

Hi guys i have a paper to write on how the Civil War was a Total War and what the meaning of that means. Such as what uses of warfare and what measures were taken in order to make the war a full scale Total War. I am not asking anyone to do my paper for me, I would just appreciate advice on the subject and if anyone has any trusted documents online that would help me on the subject i would be most grateful. I also promise that no plagiarism will take place if I am provided with websites.



Yours deeply,
Count of Cannae

[Charger]

First you have to define "total war" and work from there.

[Count of Cannae]

Well its like a justification of the use of total war in the civil war

[mikeck]

Well, who says the use of that word is appropriate? Not sure what it means. I suppose you could use it to refer to the inclusions of civilian targets at which case you might want to discuss Sherman's march to the sea and his destruction of farms and such. When I think total war I think WW2 when the entire economy was geared for war. May discuss the conversion of factories to producing war supplies and civilian conscription

[Twitter3]

^ To build on that you must also include the economic impact on businesses (like Southern cotton and how it dropped in value + food shortages = bread riots in Richmond). I would also include the fighting and its impact in Missouri/Kansas. I believe four whole counties in MO were affected by having those civilians who were believed to be helping Confederates were forced to relocate.

As stated above, it is a must to define total war in the sense of 19th century terms and go from there. Total war could mean different things depending on what time frame you are studying.

[PhilipLaos]

This definition of 'total war' seems on the mark to me:

Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of all their available resources and population.

In the middle 19th Century, “total war” was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

From: http://associatesmind.com/2011/03/29...on-litigation/

[PhilipLaos]

Originally Posted by Count of Cannae

I also promise that no plagiarism will take place if I am provided with websites.

Good comment.

But that doesn't mean you can't quote statements and information (such as the definition of total war I posted above). Just make sure you reference the source.


Philip

[Charger]

What may be of greater value is to trace the lineage of the "rules" of warfare for conflicts, pre, post, and contemporary to the ACW. 18th century -> Napoleonic -> etc

Not sure what your project entails but it's much more complicated than a simple "total war" aspect because everything must be put into historical context.

Edit: a book to check out might be "The First Total War" since it seems up this alley. I read it years ago and don't recall much about it but it's worth a look.

[Count of Cannae]

Yeah, i failed it the first time because i didn't get the concept of it and i couldn't find any reasons(besides shermans march of course and perhaps vicksberg) that total war was used and noted, i tried to read civil war books on it, but this topic is not the easiest to find in a book

[Rojik]

Originally Posted by mikeck

Well, who says the use of that word is appropriate? Not sure what it means. I suppose you could use it to refer to the inclusions of civilian targets at which case you might want to discuss Sherman's march to the sea and his destruction of farms and such. When I think total war I think WW2 when the entire economy was geared for war. May discuss the conversion of factories to producing war supplies and civilian conscription

That would be where I would be going. It's been called the first industrialised war (I've never really thought about it deeply enough to know if that is correct) so maybe could be one avenue to explore. The economic war waged on the south perhaps. The scope of the fighting. The almost continual fighting. What % of GDP did both sides allocate to the military? Can it be said to be total when only one side is fighting to destroy the other? Can a war be total in an economic sense and still have limited aims?

[Selous]

Originally Posted by Count of Cannae

Yeah, i failed it the first time because i didn't get the concept of it and i couldn't find any reasons(besides shermans march of course and perhaps vicksberg) that total war was used and noted, i tried to read civil war books on it, but this topic is not the easiest to find in a book

If it's an academic piece then you'd be expected to use material from a relevant field to define total war. A primer textbook such as these
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Strateg.../dp/0198782519
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandin.../dp/0521700388
have definitions of total war which should be quite clear. see if you can get them or some other simple text for your basic definition (you don't need a great historical treatise for standard definitions)
'The grand design' by Stoker might also be of some utility.

Wikipedia also has a few references you might be able to get from your academic library which seem to discuss (I've not read any of them) the Civil War in the context of Total War as understood in security studies ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#References

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by Count of Cannae

Hi guys i have a paper to write on how the Civil War was a Total War and what the meaning of that means. Such as what uses of warfare and what measures were taken in order to make the war a full scale Total War. I am not asking anyone to do my paper for me, I would just appreciate advice on the subject and if anyone has any trusted documents online that would help me on the subject i would be most grateful. I also promise that no plagiarism will take place if I am provided with websites.



Yours deeply,
Count of Cannae

I realize that these are not online sources, (perhaps you could find kindle versions), but historian Archer Jones has a number of works that I have no doubt would be of value to you then: http://www.amazon.com/Archer-Jones/e/B000APVA8Q

From that list:
How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War (coauthored with Hattway)
Civil War Command And Strategy: The Process Of Victory And Defeat
The Politics of Command: Factions and Ideas in Confederate Strategy (coauthored with Connolly)

But most importantly:
The Art of War in the Western World

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

I realize that these are not online sources, (perhaps you could find kindle versions), but historian Archer Jones has a number of works that I have no doubt would be of value to you then: http://www.amazon.com/Archer-Jones/e/B000APVA8Q

From that list:
How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War (coauthored with Hattway)
Civil War Command And Strategy: The Process Of Victory And Defeat
The Politics of Command: Factions and Ideas in Confederate Strategy (coauthored with Connolly)

But most importantly:
The Art of War in the Western World

I also highly recommend "How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War[/I] (coauthored with Hattway)" Pay attention to the Meridian campaign & to Samuel Curtis' campaign in North Arkansas following Pea Ridge for good precursors to Sherman's "March to the Sea". I would also look at Hindman in Arkansas for the Confederate side of things.

[guthrieba]

See p 207 ff in Edward Hagerman's The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare. The section beginning on that page is entitled Sherman and the Origins of Modern War.

It's a very interesting book.

[Count of Cannae]

Thank you all for all of the references, and for the insight on the matter.