Why did generals grant and sherman use a total war strategy and how did that strategy contribute to the end of the war?

Grant and Sherman used the strategy of total war to shorten the war in their favor, using the many deaths of enemies to save lives on their side. We may never know if more would've died if they didn't use the tactic, but in my opinion civilian lives were not theirs to take. Soldiers agreed to die, but civilians didn't, making total war, in my opinion, not right. Others may say that their lives were a necessary sacrifice towards a common goal, but, in my opinion, if one side uses total war, can't the other side use it too for a horrible end? Form your own opinion, but that is mine.

Explanation:

Generals Grant and Sherman saw the Confederancy as an oppoent to be totally defeated if they wanted to stop the war once and for all.

Explanation:

American Civil war was a harsh confict for both parties. From the side of the Union, general Grant and Sherman were radicals with their intention of finishing the war. This is why they promoted a total war strategy to destroy the Confederacy backbone devastating cities. It was an effective strategy to weaken the Confederacy with the side effect of the death of civilans. For those two generals, it was worth it to end the war.

latin america is a region of racial and cultural diversity.  it is a group of countries and dependencies in the americas where romance languages are predominant. the term originated in 19th century france as amérique latine to consider french-speaking territories in the americas along with the larger group of countries where spanish and portuguese languages prevailed.

explanation: