Preface: I'm hoping to keep this a Monastery topic...so let's not get into a nationalistic flame fest that discussions of war types can easily degenerate to.
Topic: I've been reading more about some aspects of the American Civil War that I had not explored as deeply before. One of these is "Total War" as attributed to Sherman and Sheridan. I've long felt this was a misnomer. Recently I came across a book about the Vicksburg campaign that used the term "Hard War." I believe this is a better description and would be interested in some discussion about it. In political discussions I've noted many who seem to be Napoleonic European military history buffs have thrown the ACW "Total War" theme out as a way of condemning the U.S. I'll admit I'm not as well versed in Napoleonic traditions as I would like, however I can find instances where there is not that much difference.
When I hear "Total War," I have images of indiscriminant, or at least wholesale slaughter of civilians and defenders, as well as condoned rape and atrocities versus individuals. The sack of a city was an element of "Total War." Certainly, the pre and post ACW campaigns in the American West vs. the Native Americans would at times be "Total War." This however, was not how the American Civil War was conducted--except by guerrilla's/irregulars, who were executed when caught.
What makes "Hard War" different? Hard War is brutal but directed against property, rather than persons. Not to sugar coat this, citizens suffer immensely as a result, but indirectly: lack of shelter, starvation, displacement, etc. Hence the description Hard War. It is more than just a fight against the military or govt. Hard War is like a form of siege warfare, meant to deprive the enemy of any form of logistical support from the countryside. It is also meant to make the enemy citizenry weary of the war by depriving them of their property.
So what were the typical tactics of "Hard War?"
- Destroying or pillaging homes and other private structures
- Burning public property of any logistical, military, or even propaganda (press) value
- Looting, stripping away any valuables from residences and stores
- Aggressive foraging along a wide track, siezing or killing all livestock and food/grains
- Freeing slaves
In essence, it is a war on property. Deprive the enemy of any means of support. Starve them out and make a region desolate so that it could not participate in the war effort. You know us Americans...logistics, logistics, logistics.
How did this concept come about? Various regions that had hosted field armies for any length of time had been stripped through both compensated procurement...and uncompensated procurement (foraging.) In devastated areas like Northern Arkansas, and Knoxville, only a few troops could even be maintained--horses, mules and men were all starving. It was very difficult for the North to support forays into the South, simply due to logistics. No major thrusts into the South had been maintained more than ~30 miles from a major navigable waterway or port by mid-1863. While the Union was preparing logistical support that would allow deeper thrusts, it also needed to find ways to sustain its field armies without full supply. In areas yet untouched by war, an army could feed itself substantially with aggressive foraging as it moved. This allowed it to detach for a time from its supply lines.
Interestingly, throughout the Vicksburg and Atlanta campaigns, Grant and Sherman had issued many orders to try to halt wanton property destruction. However, the troops largely ignored these orders...at least in a number of regiments. After this, Sherman adopted the policy directly in his March to the Sea. Sheridan did the same in the Shenandoah, which had been the Army of Northern Virginia's breadbasket; and it had been a backdoor for CSA raids toward Washington D.C. Once stripped of resources, it was no longer a feasible launching point for such rebel diversionary attacks.
Bookmarks