William T. Shermans strikes me as so overwhelmingly based.

>based
your post is so "overwhelmingly" reddit

also prepare to piss off some dixiefags who will liekly cry about warcrimes

>>546154

>your post is so "overwhelmingly" reddit

I doubt you could even define what you mean by that.

Name a reason for liking Sherman other than him burning down the south. He wasn't even a great general and never faced an army larger than his. He couldn't catch Johnston's army so he burned down every city in sight, that is not tactical genius.

Sherman's great if you like a butcher of civilians who never beat an army stronger in strength to his own forces.

By 1864 the vast majority of CSA forces were shoeless, starving, running desperately low on ammo, and demoralised. Sherman's well supplied, well equipped troops riding high on the fact the end of the war was in sight beat them. And by beat them I mean burnt down their homes and farms, not on the battlefield.

Great job Sherman, you're a military genius.

>>546433
>>546594
>I am a damned sight smarter man than Grant. I know more about military history, strategy, and grand tactics than he does. I know more about supply, administration, and everything else than he does. I'll tell you where he beats me though and where he beats the world. He doesn't give a damn about what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell. … I am more nervous than he is. I am more likely to change my orders or to countermarch my command than he is. He uses such information as he has according to his best judgment; he issues his orders and does his level best to carry them out without much reference to what is going on about him and, so far, experience seems to have fully justified him.
>It will be a thousand years before Grant's character is fully appreciated. Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not all time... he fixes in his mind what is the true objective and abandons all minor ones. He dismisses all possibility of defeat. He believes in himself and in victory. If his plans go wrong he is never disconcerted but promptly devises a new one and is sure to win in the end. Grant more nearly impersonated the American character of 1861-65 than any other living man. Therefore he will stand as the typical hero of the great Civil War in America.

Now, because you're a couple of butthurt southaboos, I'll start this off for you: You were murderous, sentimental, worthless, victorian swine fighting to preserve the most disgusting social order since Sparta. You raided and pillaged and enslaved every free man you encountered on the way to Gettysburg and when someone paid you back in kind, you continued to whine and moan about how it wasn't fair for the next hundred.

Sherman spent the years before the war telling any of you who would listen that this was a folly and that you would fail. When you did fail, it was for the reasons that he'd cited. No Union officer did more to save your lives and property than Sherman.

>>546433
>>546594

muh rising again

>>546686

1.Who are you quoting?
2. I'm not Southern, I'm not even American, so *I* never did anything "to preserve the most disgusting social order since Sparta". The CSA might but I didn't. All I said was that Sherman was a Butcher. "THE CSA WERE MONSTERS!" is not a rebuttal to the chance that Sherman was also a monster.

Now, regardless of what the CSA forces did, how was Sherman a great general?

>>546710
The March to the Sea.

After Burning Atlanta (A move any other commander would have done) he kept going, cutting the heart out of the south's supply lines. It's generally credited with shortening the civil war.

Also, if you don't want to be mistaken for a whiny southerner, don't act like a whiny southerner. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

File: 1445549932222-0.jpg (259KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 2048x1536px

robert e lee was very good and i think he was the best general in the civil war, that my opinion. i base it on the fact that even with limited resources he was able to win victories and had he not lost Gettysburg i think he would have gained a settlement for the south.

pic unrelated

>>546717
>After Burning Atlanta (A move any other commander would have done)

If razing cities was the best way to win the war then why wasn't New Orleans burnt to the ground? Instead it was taken and held.

>It's generally credited with shortening the civil war.

Not everything done to shorten wars should be done. I don't agree with dropping nuclear bombs, as was done in WW2, either.

Civilians aren't combatants. Yes, you can ruin their lives and that will sap their support for war, but it doesn't mean you should do it. They're people not directly involved in the war without any capacity to fight, and most often don't want to be involve in the war.

If Lee had snaked North on his northern invasion and burnt Philadelphia to the ground, would that have been justified?

>Also, if you don't want to be mistaken for a whiny southerner, don't act like a whiny southerner. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Outstanding. I point out the CSA forces weren't up to snuff by 1864 and that counts as "playing stupid games".

>>546433
>Implying burning down the south isnt a good enough reason

They wrote a check they couldn't cash. He should've rubbed his massive balls over Mrs. Jefferson Davis's face.

>>546594
>Who is Forrest

He did the exact same thing and failed like southerners always do. Don't bitch about being second best

>>546762

I'm /not/ Southern, nor American. So "my side" didn't lose because I don't have a side.

And Nathan Forest was a bastard of a high order. That doesn't make Sherman a saint. Two wrongs don't make a right.

File: LaughingZeons.png (420KB, 900x699px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 900x699px

>>546723
>had he not lost Gettysburg i think he would have gained a settlement for the south
>people unironically think the South had any chance after Antietam

>>546433


> "You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success."


It is the year of our lord two thousand and sixteen and southerners are still booty blasted that Sherman preferred to burn their fields, barns, and houses rather than the bodies of their sons.

Daily reminder that YOUR Union is responsible for bombing Kosovo, the Middle East, invading Vietnam, and a million other belligerent atrocities committed in the last 100 years

File: 1428341631248.gif (981KB, 1064x589px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1064x589px

>>546744
>I don't agree with dropping nuclear bombs, as was done in WW2, either.

HERE WE GO

>>546723
>Had he not lost Gettysburg

Lee was fucked the moment he Heth ran into Buford's calvary, and he stupidly decided to try and bludgeon an army far larger than his to death.

He took an Army that hadn't lost a fight it had been in and let it bleed all over Pennsylvania so that all he could do for the rest of the ACW was sit behind trenches while Grant pushed the attack.

But General Lee went on to become the noble image of the Lost Cause, and got a man like Longstreet hated in history for speaking out against him.

Also, the most based part of Sherman was he called the outcome of the war before it even began:

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

He wrote this in 1860.

>>547063

You got to "I don't agree with dropping nuclear bombs" and stopped reading there didn't you? Literally next sentence I outline I don't think war should exploit civilians.

I guess I just need to make the blanket statement I NO LIKE WAR CRIMEZ, regardless of who's committing them, just in case I'm not making myself clear. I don't think "I'm war criming him because he war crimed me" is a good path to go down.

What the Japanese did in China and Korea was obviously horrible. But nuking people is also horrible. Again, in my view two wrongs don't make a right.

Which is why I'm not a fan of Sherman's methods. The CSA was crumbling anyway, he could have have achieved his military goals of defeating the enemy without doing what he did to civilians.

So, one thing that needs to be understood is Sherman didn't actively target civilians. He went after railroads, telegraph lines, industry, crops, and infrastructure. His orders before the March to the Sea explicitly state anyone who robs or steals from homes will be punished severely. He also explicitly state to go after the wealthy and not to middle and lower classes, as he saw the Civil War as driven by the South's Aristocratic class and not the common citizenry.

Atlanta was burned by Hood's orders when they evacuated; Savannah was spared; only Milledgeville and Columbia really suffered, and that was because of their status as Capitals.

Really, though, the greatest damage came from the over 100k ex-slaves who started following Sherman's Army. Unlike the soldiers, the Union troops couldn't really hold and discipline over them, nor could they afford to feed them. Add in criminals, rebel deserters, and other refugees and it created a massive swarm that gobbled up anything behind Sherman's army. This is what caused most of the damage of personal property & lives on the March.

>>546723
A settled peace for the south was a literal impossibility for the entirety of the war. The only way it could've even been possible is if Lincoln hadn't been reelected and someone sympathetic to the South had taken office. While the Union was engaged in the south, they were simultaneously fighting natives in the West and keeping a massive garrison along the Canadian border for fear of British intervention.

>>547168
>The only way it could've even been possible is if Lincoln hadn't been reelected and someone sympathetic to the South had taken office. While the Union was engaged in the south

Which could have happened in the 1864 election if the Democrats had beaten the Republics out of the North become too war weary.

But of course by 1864 it's not like the CSA was going to romp home with all the states it wanted in a settlement, it probably would have limped away with the deep south and little else. It probably wouldn't have even gotten New Orleans, which would have been crucial to the economy of a prospective CSA state.

>A settled peace for the south was a literal impossibility for the entirety of the war.

Highly unlikely but not impossible. If there were more McClellan type tactics by the federal army past 1862 and into 1863 or even 1864, the voters in the North may feel "This war is going fucking nowhere; All the good generals from the Mexican-American War are in the CSA" and voted Democratic to get themselves out of a war they didn't want anymore. Basically the CSA grinding out the USA (which would be a high cost to itself).

Also if Johnson had never been taken out and Lee sent West instead of replacing Johnson in the Army of Northern Virginia, could that held the Western theatre together? That's another HUGE if/maybe and I'm not saying that alone would be war changing, but it could have played a factor

Again, was a settlement ever likely? Probably not; but impossible isn't a word we should jump to quickly when discussing history. All it takes is a few small issues to become a big issue.

File: image.jpg (123KB, 498x541px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 498x541px

>>547109
Alright, since you're clearly one form of bong or another, I have to assume that you're a panicky animal that is incapable of processing large numbers.

So let me enlighten you. Shortening the civil war saved lives. The longer a conflict drags on, the more ancillary casualties that accrue. Starvation, disease, etc. to say nothing of the casualties that are generated by two large armies that continue to attrit one another. Sherman wrote about this and lots of people payed attention to his thinking, such as the German high command in WWI who were not nearly as monstrous as their sons would go on to be. In that aim, he was successful.

Now I'm going to lay some deep knowledge on you: The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Japanese lives. The alternatives were a continued blockade or an invasion which was estimated to cost 10 million lives. You have moral principles but no one has yet told you that we're only as good as the world allows us to be.

This is why Sherman stands out: a rare, cold, bright mind in a sea of Romantic 19th filth. He hated war and because he hated it, he attempted to limit the damage that it caused by concluding it decidedly. One way to do that is to destroy your enemy's supply base. And before you set out to do that, you'll destroy a center of resistance and rally point like Atlanta rather than March with it at your back. Napoleon or Sir Thomas Lawrence would have done the same.

>>547225
McClellan wasn't anywhere near as incompetent as most people like to portray him. His men were fantastically well trained, his only real flaw was his unwillingness to commit them. While that may have caused a few embarrassing situations, the sheer difference in manpower and industrial capability between the North and South made anything but Southern defeat functionally impossible.

>>546142
The only reason you like Sherman is because it got the Southerns all butthurt.

But Southern butthurt is what I live for.

>>546433
You're not wrong, but it is strategic genius

>>546142
He was not a tactician of any great skill, but command of strategy and in particular logistics was high.

>>546594
>Sherman's great if you like a butcher of civilians

Get a load of this faggot. Casualties among Confederate civilians were quite light, it was civilian property (in particular, property that had some export or other value to the war effort) that was destroyed. In no sense was Sherman a "butcher."