Basically the goal was to force the Confederacy into a War of Attrition. With more people and an industrial structure, if it came down to it, the Union could outlast the Confederacy. It was actually taken from Fabien's strategy to deal with Carthage.
Union generals Grant and Sheridan began conducting military operations in 1863 that have erroneously been termed "total war". The use of this term is not based on a clear definition of the term at all. Because the goals of the Union and Confederate forces were different, "total war" is often applied to the Union's type of warfare. This requires further explanation and leads back to the reason the South believed it could win the war against what its leaders already knew was a vastly larger group of armies the North had the ability to raise.Southern leaders and high level generals understood that to win its independence, it required a sound and effective defensive war. The South had no intention of destroying the Union. It did have the intention of destroying the North's will to continue the war.
In doing so, Confederate General Robert E. Lee fought conventional battles on the two major incursions into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Lees main target was the armies the Union sent to oppose him. His soldiers did not seek to win battles by destroying the North's infrastructure.
Whatever criticisms that were and have been leveled against General Lee, none claim that he ordered the wantonly destruction of civilian property in Maryland or Pennsylvania. Lee has been criticized for "military and strategic errors". In any war, even the best of plans can fail.
On the other hand, even before anyone in the nation ever heard of US Grant, it became clear, even to General George B. McClellan, that the Union could only be successful by either destroying the Southern armies and also capturing major cities.
In doing this the South would be defeated because the North either forced an early surrender of the South, or it no longer had the ability to field major armies, based on losses of its soldiers. The South had to be defeated before the Union could claim victory and end the Southern rebellion.
The Union had every chance to have been successful in this but they failed to do so time and time again.
With that said, yes, total war meant the destruction of the Confederacy. This could have been done in the conventional methods of the times. Total, however, can be scaled or measured in more than one way.
The best way to describe the total war initiated mainly by Grant, Sherman and President Lincoln, is to first have a look at what total war actually is. To do this World War Two is the prime example.
There came a point in WW 2 that the Allies required the end of the Axis governments.
And, based on the potential technological advances by German scientists to create an atomic bomb, major force was required to end Axis power in any way possible.
The Allies did what Hitler and Tojo did, namely win by terror. The differences, however are major and need not be explained.
Hitler used terror in Europe and Tojo did the same in China and the Philippines.
The "Rape of Nanking" and the "Death March of Bataan" are prime examples of terror with an unjust cause. This is "Total War". For the Allies the Firestorm of Dresden and the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also total war with a good cause.
This type of total war was not Union strategy as 1863 began.
The new Union strategy of destroying supplies that could help Confederate armies remain fighting in the field is best described as a strategy of "exhaustion".
Certainly this was not conventional warfare, and Sherman's March to the Sea for example is still under dispute.
Grant's tactics in the 1864 Overland campaign were criticized not for the cruelty imposed on Lee's army, but criticized on the basis of the unnecessary losses of Union troops.
Lincoln came to the point of telling Grant that there could be no more Union frontal assaults that killed so many Union troops at Cold harbor or Spotsylvania.
During the US Civil War, Union generals Grant and Sherman employed what was called total war and /or scorched earth tactics.
For a major part of the US Civil War, General Sherman reported to General US Grant. They did not always agree on tactics. For example, Sherman thought it was foolish of Grant to order him to dig a canal to change the course of the Mississippi River in order to capture Vicksburg. Also, Sherman believed that Grant was over worried about news reporters in their camps.
It was General Sherman's decision. This was based on the fact that the mayor of Savannah quickly surrendered when Confederate troops evacuated the city. Lieutenant General Grant was busy in Virginia dealing with Lee and gave a relatively free hand to his distant commanders. Sherman consulted frequently with Grant during his campaigns and received guidance, but Grant very rarely intervened in the operational decisions of his trustworthy generals, especially Sherman with whom he developed close relationship during the Vicksburg Campaign. The critic by Sherman of Grant's initial policies towards Vicksburg had softened and both generals were on the "same page" so to speak.
Gen Ulysses Grant was one of the most famous Union Generals. Others were Gen William Tecumseh Sherman, Gen George McLellan, Gen Ambrose Burnside, Gen George Meade and Gen Joseph Hooker.
shermanSherman
Union - Grant, Sherman, Thomas Confederate - Bragg
Grant. Sherman. Sheridan.
The two victorious Generals were U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman.
Grant, Sherman, and Meade (among many others).
During the US Civil War, Union generals Grant and Sherman employed what was called total war and /or scorched earth tactics.
The union generals are as follows: Grant, Sherman, and Buell. The confederate generals are as follows: Johnston, Hardee, Bragg, Polk, Beauregard, Ruggles, and Wheeler. I hope this helps. *This spelling is ALL CORRECT*
The main Union generals were, Winfield Scott, George McClellan, Henry Halleck, Ambrose Burnside, George Armstrong Custer, Philip Sheridan, Joseph Hooker, George Meade, in the east; and Grant, Sherman, and Thomas in the West; with Grant eventually becoming the overall commander.
For the union, two of the most powerful generals were Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman. For the confederacy, three powerful generals were Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, and Stonewall Jackson.
The campaigns of Union generals Sherman and US Grant in 1864 had significant differences. The public in the North had no great expectations for Sherman's operations. He was under no pressure to win battles. In contrast, US Grant was expected to win important battles in Virginia and bring the war closer to an end.Secondly, Sherman had to advance more slowly than Grant because he lacked water communications. Grant had complete lines of communications and supplies. He was able to maneuver and always have his supply lines secure.
Winfield Scott, George McClellan, Philip Sheridan, William Tecumseh Sherman, George Meade, and Ulysses S. Grant …
Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Hooker, Burnside are the best known. There were many generals since various state militias would elect a general.
(Union) Grant Sherman Slocum McLellan McDowell (Confederate) Lee Jackson Bragg Joseph E. Johnston Sidney Johnston