Why do historians debate whether Sherman's March to the Sea was an example of total war?

Historians debate whether Sherman’s March to the Sea qualifies as total war or "hard war" primarily because of the distinction between the destruction of property and the targeting of human life.1

While the campaign is frequently cited as an early example of total war due to its focus on crippling the South's economic capacity and psychological morale, it differed from 20th-century conflicts—such as the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima—in that William Tecumseh Sherman did not systematically kill civilians.1

The debate centers on the definition of total war, which typically involves the total mobilization of resources and a willingness to sacrifice any lives to achieve victory. Because Sherman’s forces focused on destroying infrastructure like railroads and warehouses rather than direct mass violence against noncombatants, some scholars argue the term "hard war" is more accurate. Nevertheless, many military historians maintain that his use of psychological warfare to crush the civilian will to fight remains a foundational precursor to modern total war tactics.213