Was the total war that Lincoln ordered against the Confederacy justifiable? Why or why not?

''Total War' Doesn't Justify Killing Civilians. ... 9 letter that the Allies' World War II bombing of Dresden was justified because ''the logic of total war, wherein civilians contribute vitally to the war effort, excludes, by definition, their immunity from attack.

Explanation:

Lincoln’s “total war” strategy, carried out near the end of the war. It was considered to be unethical (and still is) to attack property or people who are not directly a part of the war. For example, it is okay to bomb an ammunition factory since it produces war materials, but it is not okay to bomb a person’s house or some other private property. But Lincoln reasoned that attacking civilians and their property was necessary because:  a) civilians contribute to the war effort by growing food etc., and b) destroying the morale of Confederate soldiers and their families would bring a quick end to the war. Lincoln believed that what the nation really needed was an end to war, so he authorized attacks like these. The capture of Atlanta had a huge impact on the war and on the country. Due to Lincoln’s renewed popularity, he was re-elected. His opponent, George McClellan, had pledged to end the war by allowing the South to secede. After Sherman and his troops set fire to what was left of Atlanta, they marched through Georgia to Savannah on what is now known as the “March to the Sea.” The effect of the march on civilians along the way was particularly brutal (crops burned, animals slaughtered), but it did help bring about the end of the war. Five months after leaving Atlanta, the Confederacy surrendered. How many more lives would have been sacrificed if the war had lasted longer?

Explanation:

"germany's geographic location was an advantage when it was on the offensive in the war because it was situated next to an extremely wide river, the rhine, which was difficult for the allies to cross."