essay about the total war

Total War of World War I Argumentative Essay

Introduction, the concept of total war, world war i as a total war, works cited.

War has always been a defining characteristic of human civilization. Since historical times, people have waged war against each other for various reasons. Before the First World War of 1914 to 1918, armed confrontations between nations were carried out in restricted manners and primarily against military targets. However, the First World War led to the emergence of a new kind of war.

The two main sides in the confrontation carried out attacks with an aim of defeating the belligerent at whatever cost. The paper will demonstrate that the First World War was a total war since it bore most the hallmark characteristics of the total war including unlimited warfare, prioritization of armament efforts, involvement of the civilian population, and the widening control of the economy by the government.

The concept of total war emerged in the years following the end of the devastating First World War. By definition, the total war is an engagement where each nation’s social and economic resources are impressed into the war efforts. During this war, all available national resources are mobilized and fully exploited to the single end of military success.

Whole nations became integrated fighting units with military personnel taking over aspects of production in some countries. Another defining characteristic of total war is that it leads to the blurring of distinction between civilians and soldiers.

All sectors of society are appropriately redefined as potential military targets leading to the abolition of the traditional distinction between military and civilian activities, and between combatant and noncombatant. In addition to the resource aspect of the total war, the total war is characterized by total unity among the leadership, army, and people.

This unity is necessary for the country to accept the huge financial and human costs associated with the sustained war efforts.

The First World War was a total war in that the warring parties were committed to an unlimited warfare. The idea of unlimited war is where the nations involved set out to fight to the end. The nations mobilized their resources and neither side was prepared to compromise and reach a peaceful resolution to the war. Complete victory by crushing the enemy was the only alternative open to the warring parties.

The end of the war would require the unconditional surrender or total destruction of the enemy state. In the First World War, all the warring parties were unwilling to compromise since they all had ambitious war aims. Each side predicted a decisive victory over the belligerent and encouraged its citizens to join in the glorious battle (Fritz 59).

Another characteristic of total warfare exhibited by the First World War was the large-scale involvement of civilians in the war. This war destroyed the ages-old distinction between civilians and soldiers by making every citizen a combatant and the object of attack. Each party in the war engaged in strategic bombing of civilian locations and large-scale starvation.

Junger documents that civilians were attacked using bombs and even chemical weapons by the belligerents (62). The civilians were turned into active participants of the war. Historians explain that the civilians are not spared in a total war since the home front is as important as the battlefields in influencing the outcomes of the war.

The civilians at home provide the economic and moral support needed by the military personnel to carry on their war efforts (Kealey 57). German war bond posters from 1917 reveal that the government pleaded for aid in both moral and material from the German civilians (Fritz 59). For the enemy, breaking the home front is a priority since it will directly influence the military.

The social lives of civilians in the warring countries were impacted by the war. The huge casualties suffered at the battlefronts transformed the society by creating a large number of single parent families and increasing the number of destitute children.

The war also led to social changes as women took on the roles of men in factories as the young men were conscripted into the army. Howard reveals that while Britain had relied on voluntary membership to the army, the government was forced to introduce compulsory military service in May 1916 (58).

An aspect of total war evident in the First World War was the prioritization of armament. In order to carry out an effective and sustained military offensive against the enemy, each nation needed to be properly equipped. The warring parties made significant investments in their weaponry development.

There developments were made since each side wanted to gain an edge over the enemy and therefore achieve total victory by breaking the deadlock that the almost equal military capability had resulted in.

The early Germany victories over France were in part enabled by the massive artillery superiority that Germany boasted (Howard 63). In addition to conventional weapons, both sides used banned weapons. Accounts by Junger from a village in France reveal that chemical attacks were used against villages during the war (62).

The war efforts led to food shortages in Europe as farms were abandoned by men who joined the army (Howard 56). The nations therefore had to import most of their food supplies and this led to shortages as each side took steps to prevent the other from acquiring food from outside sources.

A major wartime activity was the naval blockade carried out by Britain in the hope of starving the enemy populations into submission (Howard 56). This blockade stopped vital food supplies from getting to Germany leading to desperate food shortages and the introduction of rationing. In retaliation, Germany engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare aimed at preventing Britain from importing food supplies.

In the total war, the government exerts control over the social, political and economic life of the population. This was the case in the First World War where governments took complete control of their country and ensured that all aspects contributed to the attainment of victory in the war. The military influenced the economic production of the nation during the First World War.

During peacetime, Western governments left most of the aspects of economic production to the private sector. During the war, this changed as the government took on a more active role in the economy of the country with resources being distributed in such a way as to bolster military forces.

Howard documents that the First World War turned even liberal states such as England into states where the government had increased power and a great command of the country’s economy (57).

The First World War made extensive use of propaganda to bolster the unity of the nation. This led to the total political and moral unity of the population that believed in the ability of their country to win the war (Kealey 57).

Both sides in the war engaged in widespread propaganda leading to heightened nationalism. Each side justified its position in the war by demonstrating that the other side was in the wrong and therefore needed to be defeated.

Historians agree that the European war leaders did not manage to mobilize everyone and everything for war. Even so, the war led to the mobilization of as many people and a significant portion of the resources available to the State to the war efforts. The attempt to wage total war against each other led to many negative effects for the participants.

The attempt to achieve complete mobilization of people and resources by one side was countered by a similar attempt by the other side. This led to a prolonged conflict that was ruinous for all sides.

The use of extreme measures such as poison gas and naval blockades to starve the enemy was countered by equally extreme measures leading to high casualties in the war. The total war did not promote total victory since in the end; all the participants were exhausted hence unable to secure a decisive victory.

This paper has argued that the First World War was a total war since it exhibited the main features of the total war. It has shown how the war involved not just the military components of the warring nations but also their general population with civilians being active participants and targets in the war. The economies of Europe were mobilized for the war effort leading to a costly and long military engagement.

Even though the First World War did not end in the complete destruction of one side by the other, it can be classified as the world’s first total war since attempts were made at unlimited warfare, civilian population mobilization was widespread, and the government took control over the economic and social aspects of the society.

Fritz, Erler. German War Bond Poster: “Help Us Triumph!”. Stanford: Hoover Institute Library, 1917. Print.

Howard, Michael. The First World War: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Junger, Ernst. Storm of Steel . Penguin Books, 2004. Print

Kealey, Evans. British Recruitment Poster: Women of Britain Say – “GO!”. London: Department of Art, Imperial War Museum, 1915. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 28). Total War of World War I. https://ivypanda.com/essays/total-war-of-world-war-i/

"Total War of World War I." IvyPanda , 28 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/total-war-of-world-war-i/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Total War of World War I'. 28 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Total War of World War I." December 28, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/total-war-of-world-war-i/.

1. IvyPanda . "Total War of World War I." December 28, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/total-war-of-world-war-i/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Total War of World War I." December 28, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/total-war-of-world-war-i/.

• From World War One to Globalization
• America in World War I
• Role of Civilian Population in World War I
• Concept of Total War: The Most Known Examples
• Creativity and Innovation Mobilization in Business
• World War I as the Catastrophe of the 20th Century
• World War I Technological Advancements
• World War I, Its Origin and Allies
• Voter Mobilization and Participation in America
• World War I Technology
• The Western Front: First World War
• WWI: Germany's Secret Gambles
• “Understanding the Great War” by Audoin-Rouzeau and Becker
• The Greater War: Europe's Political Transformation
• The History of Great War

William Tecumseh Sherman and Total War

Written by: Mackubin Owens, Foreign Policy Research Institute

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the various factors that contributed to the Union victory in the Civil War

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative alongside the J.B. Elliott, Scott’s Great Snake (Anaconda Plan), 1861 Primary Source and the Images of Total War: Sherman’s March to the Sea, 1865 Primary Source to illustrate the tactics the Union used to win the war.

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman’s actions after the capture of Atlanta and his subsequent March to the Sea are sometimes seen as anticipating the pattern of total war in the twentieth century. Some have claimed that Sherman was a war criminal, authorizing plunder and looting of civilian property. But the matter is more complex than either of these charges indicate. In fact, Sherman’s actions were the culmination of a Union policy toward civilians that evolved during the course of the war.

Initially, the Union adhered to a policy of “conciliation,” waging a somewhat limited war based on the notion that the majority of individuals in the seceded states did not support the breakup of the Union and that the governments of these states were illegal and did not represent their people’s will. Thus, early in the Rebellion, Union generals ordered their soldiers to respect the private property, including slaves, of all civilians, even those who were actively working against them. Even such generals as Ulysses Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, who later advocated “hard war,” adhered to the policy of conciliation.

Conciliation seemed to be working until George McClellan’s stalemate on the Virginia peninsula in the early summer of 1862 and the emergence of Robert E. Lee, whose subsequent victories substantially strengthened the rebellion. As a result, Union generals such as Henry Halleck in Missouri and Benjamin Butler in New Orleans began to use what historians have called “pragmatic” policies, treating Unionists and those who were neutral better than they treated those who opposed the Union. The prominence of guerrilla warfare in Missouri and Tennessee meant that pragmatic policies took hold more quickly in the West than in Virginia.

Champ Ferguson, pictured here in an 1850s photograph, was a Southern guerrilla fighter. He and his company of men attacked civilians who held Union sympathies in Tennessee during the war. Upon his capture, Ferguson was executed for alleged war crimes.

By 1863, pragmatism began to give way to “hard war,” according to which Southerners who were identified as secessionists were the target of “directed severity,” a policy characterized by destruction of public property but also by a general unwillingness to harm civilians. Like pragmatism, hard war gained traction earlier in the West than it did in the East.

A milestone of sorts was reached in early 1863 when General Halleck published General Order 100, which provided “a generalized set of regulations” regarding the legal aspects of conducting war. The document, signed by President Lincoln in April 1863, authorized hard war but placed clear limits on its conduct.

The Vicksburg Campaign signaled the beginning of the Union’s hard war policy, permitting whatever was necessary including the destruction of civilian property to bring the conflict to an end. During the Vicksburg Campaign, Grant lived off the land for a time, allowing his army to take what it needed from civilians in its path. Approximately seven months after the fall of Vicksburg, Sherman applied the “hard hand of war” against central Mississippi during the Meridian operation.

This operation was different in that, for the first time, Sherman instructed Union troops to wage a war of destruction, leaving civilians with enough for survival but not enough to support military activity. The Meridian operation, which provided a blueprint for Sherman’s March to the Sea, was also an example of psychological warfare, meant to destroy any hope the people might have had of a Confederate victory.

In September 1863, Sherman laid out his emerging philosophy in a long letter to Halleck. He wrote that “every member of the nation is bound by natural and constitutional law to ‘maintain and defend the Government against all its opposers whomsoever.’ If they fail to do it they are derelict,” he maintained, “and can be punished or deprived of all advantages arising from the labors of those who do.” Sherman came to Georgia to command an army in that theater and put this policy into operation after the fall of Atlanta during his famous March to the Sea.

Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, pictured here in 1865 in uniform, led the destructive March to the Sea that caused millions of dollars in damages in Georgia.

It is sufficient for my Government to know that the removal of the inhabitants has been made with liberality and fairness; that it has been attended by no force, and that no women or children have suffered, unless for want of provisions by their natural protectors and friends. My real reasons for this step were, we want all the houses of Atlanta for military storage and occupation. We want to contract the lines of defenses so as to diminish the garrison to the limit necessary to defend its narrow and vital parts instead of embracing, as the lines now do, the vast suburbs. This contraction of the lines, with the necessary citadels and redoubts, will make it necessary to destroy the very houses used by families as residences. Atlanta is a fortified town, was stubbornly defended and fairly captured. As captors we have a right to it. The residence here of a poor population would compel us sooner or later to feed them or see them starve under our eyes. The residence here of the families of our enemies would be a temptation and a means to keep up a correspondence dangerous and hurtful to our cause.

Sherman’s correspondence with Halleck also included the letters he exchanged with the Confederate commander General John Bell Hood. Sherman wrote:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.

After the fall of Atlanta, Sherman asked for and received permission from Grant to march to Savannah. On this march, Sherman deployed 62,000 troops in two wings. He departed Atlanta on November 15 and, for the next month, he cut a swath of destruction 60 miles wide from Atlanta to Savannah, systematically destroying anything that could benefit the Rebel military effort.

This 1864 photograph shows Union forces destroying a railroad in Atlanta by pulling up the railroad ties.

Sherman’s goal was to “make Georgia howl.” “We are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and we must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.” The hard war was here for Georgia. “We cannot change the hearts and minds of those people of the South, but we can make war so terrible . . . [and] make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it.” Sherman contended that the United States and its representatives had the right to “remove and destroy every obstacle if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper [and] that all who do not aid are enemies, and we will not account to them for our acts.”

Some still believe Sherman’s army burned every home in its path. In fact, although the men destroyed public buildings, they largely left individual homes intact. But the myth of terrible destruction, rather than the truth of directed severity, has persisted.

The March to the Sea was meant to demonstrate to Southern civilians that “they could be hurt” and that “the Confederate government was powerless to protect them.” It was also meant as a policy to end the horrific Civil War, which had killed more than 600,000 soldiers.

Review Questions

1. Under the Union policy of pragmatism

• it was safer for the Union army to attack and kill civilians than to confront the Confederate army
• Union generals ordered their soldiers to respect private property in the Confederacy, including slaves, of all civilians
• the Union destroyed any public and civilian property that could aid the war effort
• Unionists and those who were neutral were treated better than those who supported the Confederacy

2. The use of “hard war” by the Union army was

• meant to accelerate the end of the war by ending any Confederate hope for victory
• a new military strategy developed by General Ulysses S. Grant
• a precursor to “conciliation” that would be used in the world wars of the twentieth century
• considered a “crime against humanity” and never used again by the U.S. military

3. The strategy of hard war was first used during the Battle of

4. In General Sherman’s use of hard war, the Battle of Atlanta included the destruction of

• all useful structures
• public buildings that could be useful to the Confederate cause
• private homes that could be used as housing or supply depots by the Confederate army
• military installations only

5. What was the Union’s initial policy toward civilians and Confederate territory?

• Limited war
• Total, massive destruction
• Conciliation

6. The conduct of hard war was made possible when

• General Ulysses S. Grant used it in Vicksburg
• President Abraham Lincoln issued an executive order for the hard war strategy
• General Henry Halleck issued General Order 100
• General William T. Sherman captured Meridian, Mississippi

Free Response Questions

• Explain how the Union policy toward civilians evolved during the Civil War.
• Explain why General Sherman used hard war tactics on his March to the Sea.

AP Practice Questions

“I attach more importance to these deep incisions into the enemy’s country, because this war differs from European wars in this particular: we are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying newspapers to believe that we were being whipped all the time now realize the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience. . . . But I think faith in him [Jefferson Davis] is much shaken in Georgia, and before we have done with her South Carolina will not be quite so tempestuous. . . . When I move, the Fifteenth Corps will be on the right of the right wing, and their position will naturally bring them into Charleston first; and, if you have watched the history of that corps, you will have remarked that they generally do their work pretty well. The truth is, the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel that she deserves all that seems in store for her.”

General William T. Sherman, “Letter to General Henry Halleck,” December 24, 1864

1. The most significant reason for General Sherman’s explanation of hard war in the excerpt was that

• until 1864, the Confederacy had been winning the Civil War
• it was necessary to make the entire Confederate population, not just the military, feel the pain of war in order to defeat the rebellion
• the Confederate army had used the same strategy in its invasion of Maryland and the Union wanted revenge
• the nonmilitary population in the South needed to be rescued from Confederate oppressors

2. Which of the statements is the most accurate paraphrase of General Sherman’s statement, “Thousands who had been deceived by their lying newspapers to believe that we were being whipped all the time now realize the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience”?

• Georgia citizens who had believed the South was winning the war were beginning to understand the strength of the Union army.
• Newspaper editors who published false reports had been whipped in the streets as an example to others.
• Southerners had experienced such severe shortage of food and consumer items that they had come to have no appetite.
• This war was similar to European wars in that all the fighting was carried out by organized armies.

3. Which of the following would have supported General Sherman’s strategy?

• John C. Calhoun
• Thomas Jefferson
• Frederick Douglass

Primary Sources

Sherman, William T. “Letter of William T. Sherman to James M. Calhoun, E.E. Rawson, and S.C. Wells, September 12, 1864.” Civil War Era NC. https://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/items/show/23

Suggested Resources

Caudill, Edward, and Paul Ashdown. Sherman’s March in Myth and Memory . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008.

Grimsley, Mark. The Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy Toward Southern Civilians, 1861 1865 . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

McDonough, James Lee. William Tecumseh Sherman: In the Service of My Country: A Life . New York: W. W. Norton, 2016.

Owens, Mackubin. T. “From Atlanta to Durham Station and Spring Hill to Nashville.” http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-09-sherman/

Witt, John Fabian. Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History . New York: Free Press, 2013.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

Total War: a Comprehensive Exploration

This essay about total war provides an in-depth examination of the strategy that involves mobilizing all of a nation’s resources—economic, societal, and military—for the war effort, eliminating the distinction between combatants and civilians. It highlights how total war emerged as a recognized strategy during the 20th century, notably in World Wars I and II, where conscription, the conversion of industries for military production, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure were key features. The essay discusses the ethical and legal implications of targeting civilians, the profound societal changes induced by such mobilization, including advancements in women’s rights and technological innovation, and the strategic and ethical dilemmas it presents in the contemporary geopolitical context. It concludes by stressing the importance of seeking peaceful conflict resolutions and the relevance of lessons learned from the era of total war in minimizing civilian casualties and upholding human dignity in modern warfare.

How it works

The notion of absolute warfare, pivotal in the chronicles of military history, signifies a mode of conflict where nations marshal all accessible resources—economic, societal, and martial—toward the war endeavor, obliterating the demarcation between combatants and civilians. This tactic entails a thorough dedication to the conflict, harnessing every asset within a nation’s grasp to secure triumph. It is a method of warfare that acknowledges no constraints on the nature or scale of mobilization, frequently resulting in substantial repercussions for civilian populations and the natural ecosystem.

This exposition delves into the definition, historical exemplars, and ramifications of total warfare, furnishing a nuanced comprehension of its influence on shaping contemporary warfare and global relations.

Absolute warfare emerged as a recognized tactic in the 20th century, with World War I and World War II serving as archetypal illustrations. These conflicts witnessed unparalleled levels of national mobilization, technological advancements for military purposes, and the dissolution of boundaries between the home front and the battleground. The implementation of conscription, the repurposing of industries for military production, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure and populations epitomized this approach. The aim was to deplete the adversary’s capacity to maintain military and economic resistance, frequently resulting in widespread devastation and casualties.

One of the pivotal features of absolute warfare is the strategic targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, a maneuver aimed at undermining the adversary’s morale and ability to sustain the war endeavor. The bombardments of cities such as London, Dresden, and Tokyo during World War II exemplify this tactic, demonstrating the catastrophic consequences of absolute warfare on non-combatants. This facet of absolute warfare raises substantial ethical and legal inquiries, particularly regarding the safeguarding of human rights and the regulations of engagement in armed conflict.

The ramifications of absolute warfare extend beyond the immediate devastation and casualties it inflicts. The mobilization of society and economy toward the war endeavor engenders profound alterations in social frameworks, gender roles, and international relations. For instance, the necessity of involving women in the labor force during World Wars I and II significantly contributed to the progression of women’s rights and their societal roles. Similarly, the reliance on scientific research and technological advancement for military purposes has spurred innovation, albeit frequently at significant human toll.

In the contemporary geopolitical milieu, the notion of absolute warfare presents both strategic considerations and ethical quandaries. The emergence of nuclear armaments and the potential for mass devastation necessitate a reassessment of absolute warfare as a viable strategy. Moreover, the ascent of non-state actors and asymmetric warfare challenges traditional conceptions of absolute warfare, necessitating adaptations in military tactics and international law to address these evolving threats.

In conclusion, absolute warfare epitomizes a comprehensive approach to conflict that mobilizes all of a nation’s resources and blurs the distinction between military and civilian targets. While it has been a decisive factor in the outcomes of major conflicts, it also poses significant ethical, societal, and environmental challenges. The legacy of absolute warfare underscores the importance of seeking peaceful resolutions to conflicts and the necessity for international collaboration to prevent the escalation of warfare to such an all-encompassing scale. As we navigate the intricacies of modern warfare, the lessons gleaned from the era of absolute warfare remain profoundly pertinent, guiding endeavors to mitigate civilian casualties and uphold human dignity in times of conflict.

Cite this page

Total War: A Comprehensive Exploration. (2024, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/total-war-a-comprehensive-exploration/

"Total War: A Comprehensive Exploration." PapersOwl.com , 25 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/total-war-a-comprehensive-exploration/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Total War: A Comprehensive Exploration . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/total-war-a-comprehensive-exploration/ [Accessed: 2 May. 2024]

"Total War: A Comprehensive Exploration." PapersOwl.com, Mar 25, 2024. Accessed May 2, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/total-war-a-comprehensive-exploration/

"Total War: A Comprehensive Exploration," PapersOwl.com , 25-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/total-war-a-comprehensive-exploration/. [Accessed: 2-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Total War: A Comprehensive Exploration . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/total-war-a-comprehensive-exploration/ [Accessed: 2-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

"Total War": The Civil War's Effect on the Home Front

The American Civil War has been classified by some historians as a “total war." Total war is defined as “a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued.” The war was not only fought on distant battlefields in which soldiers remained widely separated from the rest of the population. It was also fought on peoples’ farms and in towns, where civilians were forced to experience the war first-hand, especially throughout the South.

The Confederacy mobilized large numbers of men into the army, leaving many White women and children to fend for themselves, many ultimately becoming widows or orphans by the war’s end. In the countryside, armies destroyed or appropriated property, seized food, burned fences, and turned houses into hospitals. While this short essay will focus on the effects of the Civil War on the White population throughout the South, African Americans were also impacted by the war. Free and enslaved Blacks were separated from their families to labor for the army and free Blacks saw their freedom further restricted as White southerners questioned their loyalty to the Confederacy. The effects of the Civil War on African Americans are covered in a different article.

Some of the most immediate effects during the Civil War were seen in food shortages and property damage. As early as 1861 with the First Battle of Manassas civilian’s property was damaged. Homes were destroyed not only during battle, but from the subsequent encampments in which soldiers needed living quarters, firewood, and food. One of the most famous examples of property being damaged at the beginning of the war is Judith Henry’s house located on a prominent portion of the Manassas (Bull Run) battlefield. On July 21, 1861, the home was located between Union and Confederate lines, changing hands multiple times during the fighting. Over the course of the battle, Confederate sharpshooters used the upstairs rooms for cover and an elevated firing platform.  Major General James Ricketts ordered the house shelled by nearby Federal artillery to drive the sharpshooters away. Unbeknownst to Ricketts, he did not know that Judith Henry was still inside, bedridden and refusing to be removed from her home. Over the course of the battle, a shell finally burst through the ceiling of Judith’s room and exploded resulting in “the bed on which Mrs. Henry lay was shattered, she was thrown to the floor, being wounded in the neck, side, and one foot partly blown off. She died later that afternoon or early evening.”

Battles were not the only time when families experienced property damage. After most fights, many of the nearest homes were commandeered as hospitals, headquarters, or encampments. Shortly after the Battle of First Manassas, homes and other farming buildings were quickly taken over leading to property damage as blood ran on the floors, personal property was used by medical personnel and yards became burial grounds. Fannie Ricketts described the scene at one hospital at Portici at Manassas when she wrote, “downstairs there are some forty men in various stages of death or possible recovery. Blood runs on the floor, the smell is dreadful, but no language can describe it…” Not only was personal property taken for use in hospitals, but during encampments or when soldiers were just passing through. When firewood became scarce in the wintertime, fences were quickly taken down and burned. After the fencing was gone wood paneling from walls went into flames and even bricks were removed to build chimneys.

Personal property from animals, foods, supplies, furniture, and more were also commandeered by both armies. At the end of the Civil War, thousands of claims for property damage against the U.S. Army were submitted to the Southern Claims Commission for reimbursement. Claimants had to prove continued loyalty to the United States throughout the war, resulting in few claims being approved by the commission.

The most pressing problem for many civilians in the Confederacy was the threat of starvation. Food shortages throughout the south stemmed from many sources including a drought in 1862 that drove down food supplies, a reduced workforce on farms and plantations as enslaved people fled to Union lines, and Federal troops gaining control of more parts of the Confederacy. Since the Confederate army had priority in terms of transportation, what little food was earmarked for civilians often went bad before it could be shipped from warehouses. When the government tried to rectify the situation by impressing food, farmers responded by hiding their crops and livestock. Hyperinflation sent the price of food skyrocketing while the value of the Confederate dollar cratered. Soon, food riots broke out in several cities, including the Confederacy’s capital at Richmond. Over the course of the “Richmond Bread Riots” in April 1863, Confederate  President Jefferson Davis ordered the militia to open fire on several hundred women if they did not go home. Fortunately, bloodshed was adverted when the women finally went home. By the end of 1863, the cost of flour in Lynchburg, Virginia rose to $275 a barrel. Civilians had to find substitutes for items such as coffee, sugar, meat, or go without. As a result of food shortages over the course of the Civil War, families were forced to make ends meet any way they could. Towards the end of the Siege in Vicksburg, Mississippi , when sources of food outside the city were cut off, Dorra Miller recounted in her diary:

I am so tired of corn-bread, which I never liked, which I eat it with tears in my eyes. We are lucky to get a quart of milk daily from a family near who have a cow they hourly expect to be killed. I send five dollars to market each morning, and it buys a small piece of mule-meat. Rice and milk is my main food; I can’t eat the mule-meat. We boil the rice and eat it cold with milk for supper. Martha runs the gauntlet to buy the meat and milk once a day in a perfect terror.

When conditions became too dangerous, many families throughout the Confederacy were forced to leave their homes to find safety as refugees. The decision to leave home and give up one’s home and the ease of knowing where food and shelter were was not one taken likely. Many refugees over the course of the Civil War left their homes out of extreme fear or distaste for the Union Army. All throughout the Confederacy, newspapers, and rumors spread alarming notions of what might happen when the Union Army arrived. When Fort Donelson fell in February 1862 and the Cumberland River was opened to the Union Army, Nashville was in a panic. One spectator wrote that Nashville “became perfectly paralyzed… panic stricken” and local newspapers reported that the panic “had never been equaled since Bull Run…all who could do so packed up and fled…”

The same panic occurred in Richmond in 1862 when the city was threatened during the Seven Days Campaign . When Port Royal, off the coast of Charleston, South Carolina, was captured hundreds of residents from the nearby islands fled to Charleston, including one eighty-five-year-old woman who hadn’t made the trip in over fourteen years “for fear the trip would kill her, but was now willing to tempt fate when the Yankees were abroad in the land.”

Others held such a disdain for the Union Army that after fleeing their homes they refused to return to Union held territory unless absolutely necessary. After wandering Louisiana for months, Sarah Morgan was forced to make the decision to stay a refugee or stay with her brother in New Orleans, she was so averse to the thought that she reflected in her journal:

Whether tis nobler in the Confederacy to suffer the pans of unappeasable hunger and never-ending trouble, or to take passage to a Yankee port, and there remaining, end them. Which is best? I am so near daft that I cannot pretend to say; I only know that I shudder at the thought of going to New Orleans.

There were several reasons that families of men, women, and children left their homes besides fear or hatred of the Union army. The threat of conscription, fire, disease, and many other circumstances forced many out of their homes. However, in many cases, leaving home was a risky and expensive endeavor and not everyone had the luxury to do so.

As soon as people decided to leave their homes, they were confronted with numerous other challenges that would affect their decisions. How would they get away? Where would they go? What would they take with them? What would they do with the possessions they couldn’t take? Because of these questions and more, the majority of those who left homes over the course of the Civil War were upper-class families with the network and the means to travel. Especially towards the latter part of the war, as the Federals progressed into the Confederacy, shortages of transportation, food, made the option of fleeing less and less available to the general population.

One Tennessee refugee, Mrs. McDonald, remarked “during most of the war, and always in areas being evacuated, everything that had wheels was in demand and even a cart was deemed a prize.” People took every mode of transportation available from “every conceivable style of conveyance, drawn by horses, mules, oxen and even a single steer or cow.” Trains were another source of travel for those who tried to flee for safety. One soldier remarked seeing a train passing through eastern Tennessee full of passengers and that “seats, aisles, platforms, baggage cars…and tops of cards were covered with passengers… and thousands had been left at the depot begging to come.” Prior to the fall of Atlanta in 1864 trains were flooded with refugees trying to get out of the city. One train was estimated to have approximately 1,000 passengers and “people who could not get inside were hanging on wherever they could find a sticking place; the aisles and platform down to the last step were full of people clinging… like bees swarming around the hive.” Walking was another option. Diarist Sarah Morgan remarked one overcrowded roadway outside of Baton Rouge, Louisiana:

Three miles from town we began to overtake the fugitives. Hundreds of women and children were walking along, some bareheaded and in all costumes. Little girls of twelve   and fourteen were wandering on alone. I called to one I knew and asked her where her mother was; she didn't know; she would walk on until she found out...it was a heart-rending scene. Women searching for their babies along the road, where they had been lost; others sitting in the dust crying and wringing their hands.

With the reduced availability of transportation, the cost of using the trains or finding a cart became increasingly high. In 1863, Jorantha Semmes and her relatives were only able to move from Mississippi to Gainesville, Alabama by purchasing horses for between $500-$1,000 apiece. Another Louisiana family was able to rent a horse and buggy to travel four miles for $3,000.

Fear, uncertainty, and deprivation was a common feeling for Civil War refugees. Forced to abandon their homes as occupying forces approached, civilians fled with limited household goods and only modest amounts of clothing and personal items. Forced to leave Memphis with only 24 hour’s notice, Elizabeth Merriwether put into words what many families were feeling during the war:

I seemed all of a sudden to realize the desolateness of my position, alone in the world with two children, driven from pillar to post, my husband off in the army, I knew not where - surely it was a pitiable situation. I became filled with self-pity and cried as if my heart would break.

When they returned, they were greeted with destroyed crops, ransacked homes, and beleaguered communities. Called a "nation of nomads," 175,000 to 200,000 Confederate sympathizers were on the move during the war, the largest wartime flight in U.S. history.

Further Reading

• Sarah Morgan: The Civil War Diary of a Southern Woman By: Charles East
• Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding South in the American Civil War By: Drew Gilpin Faust
• Diary of a Southern Refugee during the War by a Lady of Virginia By: Judith W. McGuire
• Refugee Life in the Confederacy By: Mary Elizabeth Massey
• Driven from Home: North Carolina's Civil War Refugee Crisis By: David Silkenat

When Life Surrounds You With Death

Medical Miracle: The Science of General Henry A. Barnum

Ancestral Operation: Telling a Civil War Surgeon’s Story

You may also like.