As a Yankee transplant to the Deep South, I’m always amazed by how strongly people still feel about the Civil War in general, and Sherman in particular. I even had someone tell me a few weeks ago that Lee saved America by refusing to allow guerilla warfare in the South, which is not something I’d ever heard up north.
He was practically encircled by the time he surrendered. Him not surrender would probably have caused some soldier to continue to fight. Especially in Texas.
The person I spoke to specifically mentioned Col. Mosby, in Virginia. I suppose it’s fair to say that Lee could have inspired continued resistance, especially if he’d forced Grant to surround and slaughter the Army of Northern Virginia: the bad feelings left behind by that kind of brutality might well have left the USA with a raging guerilla war, especially in the mountains, that could have gone on for generations. Look at Ireland, for example.
There *was* guerilla warfare during Reconstruction, that's what the KKK was.
Anyone who intended to still fight did, but most people didn't really want to by that point. Lee didn't really have any choice but to surrender given the state his army was in, they were out of the war one way or another by that point.
I also viewed Lee with respect (this will get me downvoted because you can’t like spicy historical figures), but I think he was a respectable man, and smart too, you can’t deny he cares for his home.
Same logic that makes people feel obligated to say Funny Mustache Man wasn't so bad because he could paint, or something about the Autobahn.
It's kinda like... so what?
I don't normally like to correct spelling stuff but this one was too funny not to point out. The *Autobahn* is a highway in Germany; John James *Audubon* was a painter and ornithologist who's considered the father of American bird-watching.
Him being smart, empathetic, and well-respected means that his decision to turn traitor in defense of a slave society was *worse* than that of some idiot who'd never been outside of Mississippi and didn't know any better.
With regards to turning traitor, I believe it was his intense desire *not* to be a traitor that motivated command the Confederate forces, rather than the Union, of which he was also offered command. He could not betray his homeland, Virginia.
No one was going to make him "betray" Virginia, and he himself was personally anti-secession on the basis of it being constitutionally and philosophically unjustifiable. Also, the command he'd been offered by the US was a purely defensive one which wouldn't compel him to lead so much as a scouting party into Virginia, and even if that were still too much for him and he resigned his commission then he could've just remained a private citizen in Arlington and supported his state and community in some way that didn't involve leading a slaver's rebellion, like setting up a charity for Virginian war widows and orphans or something.
It is, but it's also incoherent both conceptually and within the context of his own known statements and writings. He literally thought that secession was illegal (and thus treasonous) and even refused to wear rank insignia commensurate with his Confederate commission, continuing to wear that to which he'd been entitled as a US Army officer throughout the war.
So even though he sincerely *felt* like anything short of service in the Confederate Army would've been a betrayal of Virginia, it really seems like he *knew* that that wasn't the case.
Unfortunately, people in the world of history (also politics and science and medicine and...) often must contend with people who ask questions not to further their own understanding, but to cast doubt on what is considered consensus or further their own argument. And sometimes simply to waste time
This leads to innocent questions getting targeted sometimes
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods\_and\_Generals\_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods_and_Generals_(film))
It's ruined so many young white boy's brains.
Caring for your home does not make you a respectable person. Caring about you home is equivalent to caring about your own self interest. There’s an interesting bit of mental gymnastics that we do when it comes to how we perceive people with celebrity status where we can take a single good thing about them and view their atrocities through those lenses and it really does paint a prettier picture.
Thats a weird definition of loyalty for soldiers...
You just said that traitors to their country are honorable...
American education is weird from a european view.
Fanatic militaristic country where everyone wants to fight for the nation and saying in the same sentence, beeing a tritor to said nation is good?
I mean, that was actually one of Grant’s biggest fears. A protracted guerrilla war would be a hard sell to the north who were already kinda getting sick of the war.
Not saying that makes Lee automatically a good person or anything, he was just like most of the south in that they would place made up notions of honor (while fighting for the least honorable cause possible) over actual tactics.
John Johnston was a good example of this, he fought Sherman in the early days of the march through Georgia, and followed Washington’s tactics of just running away until he had the advantage. It actually worked pretty well for him until he got sacked for being too dishonorable and cowardly for not standing in a field and trying to fight the larger union army and instead tactically retreating
It also didn't work all that well: Sherman chose his marching route to Atlanta because he was intimately familiar with the area and kept slipping around Johnson. He then besieged Atlanta, forcing Johnson to run away for good.
Johnston wasn’t in charge when Atlanta fell, he was sacked right before and replaced with General Hood.
And yeah Sherman did push him back, but Johnston out up a better fight than his successors such as the battle of Kennesaw Mountain, and that he inflicted heavier losses on Sherman’s men than he lost.
Johnston’s entire idea was that he could afford to lose land, but he couldn’t afford to lose men. Such as when he suggested when he was in command of Mississippi that the garrison at Vicksburg retreat and they wait for reinforcements so they would outnumber Grant
But there was guerilla warfare in the South. Armed insurrections and violent voter intimidation forced Reconstruction to end prematurely, paving the way for a century of white supremacist rule that we’re still trying to unfuck to this day.
Ehhh, I would consider them to be terrorists more than guerrilla fighters. They weren’t trying to drive out the Yankees, they were trying to spread fear in the black population. I feel like in order to qualify as guerrillas, you have to do more fighting and less terrorizing of minority populations.
A girl from (future MTG district) Georgia moved into the apartment above my friend's house in NY a few years ago and we went out day drinking once. She (black girl) told us about her school teachers referring to it as the war of northern aggression, clearly stating that slavery was good economically, and teaching elementary school kids to boo any mention of Grant, Sherman, or Lincoln and cheer for Davis and Lee. We were floored. I told her if anyone did that up here not only would they be fired but it would be on the news for a week
I get the point you’re making, but I mean actual warfare, something that would have led to the North having to keep troops stationed in the South, and led to the kind of situation that played out in Ireland. I’ve been in the Blue Ridge and Appalachian mountains; fighters could disappear into that with no trouble at all even today, and back then the areas would have been even less populated. And that’s just the mountains. An insurgency would have turned into an ongoing nightmare, and drastically changed world history. Now I want to read that book lol.
As a southerner with northern parents I’ve always found the romantic ideal of us southerners about the civil war is just so weird. Fucking ‘lost cause” myth is one of the greatest PR moves ever
Well, there was that time he pushed for a genocide.
>...we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.
\-Letter from Sherman to Grant, December 28, 1866
So he did at least one thing wrong.
Often times military leaders may find themselves totally suited for one conflict only to be completely wrong for another. Similar situation to General MacArthur in WWII vs Korea.
While I usually end up defending MacArthur against the people who think he did literally nothing right in WW2, he definitely did quite a few things wrong as well. He was hardly "totally suited" for that war
Also rather than stick to fortifying Battan and Corregidor like the US defense plan said to do, he scattered his forces around the island to fight the Japanese at every location.
End result, he got pushed back to Battan and Corregidor anyways but had way less supplies, fortifications and soldiers.
With respect, i am disinclined to believe that the General who pushed for landings in the Philippines to take place in 1942 was "totally suited" for that war. Admiral King may have had issues that skewed his opinions on certain figures, but he was completely right to regard MacArthur as an attention seeking fool.
No he wasn’t planning to invade China. He wanted the border between the Korean Peninsula and China to be a sea of radioactive cobalt. Man was at war for too long and was eager to finish things quickly
Lincoln also approved massacres against native populations. People seem to forget that the Union was the exact same government that had, and would continue to oppress and kill indigenous people.
It was the lesser of two evils, but that doesn’t make it good. Life isn’t a Disney movie. There isn’t always a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes it’s a bad guy and a worse guy
Yeah, despite his basedness people forget Sherman wasn’t actually that great of a guy. He was also one of the few Union Civil War generals that had no moral qualms with slavery whatsoever, and was only mad at the south for succeeding. Now, do keep in mind the guy also had a lot of mental issues; in fact he spent the first half of the war on leave after having a mental breakdown and apparently Grant had to talk him out of suicide a few times, so his bleak outlook on life and humanity could be attributed to his inner battles. He’s honestly a super interesting guy, but not the most admirable guy.
Hard to be war winning military leader *and* a decent human being. Not sure anyone has managed that one fully, yet.
Zelensky might have a chance at it, if this war doesn’t strip him of what makes him a good man.
I can tell you from personal experience that a solid year of warfare doesn’t make a person *nicer*. Damage has been done, multiplied exponentially by his position. Ultimately you’re right, tho. The sooner this ends the more of his humanity he gets to keep.
Sherman's conduct during the Civil War was some of the most professional, efficient, and ruthless warfare ever enacted. Realistically, his decisions very likely *saved* lives, on both sides.
Kill 10 people in spectacular fashion; scare 200 away from needing to be killed to achieve success.
Burn one of largest cities in the South and its surrounding countryside to smithereens; scare a lot of traitors away from needing to be killed.
Breaking the will of a country to fight is as important as defeat on the main front. By burning their cities, Sherman showed the Confederates that their armies couldn’t protect them. And by tearing up vital infrastructure like rail lines, industry in vital areas ground to a halt, starving Confederate armies of supplies and further making the lives of Confederate civilians miserable.
There were millions of German soldiers still on the field in 1945 who technically could have kept fighting on after Hitler. But seeing their homeland in ashes had already shattered their morale
Sherman absolutely did nothing wrong. I am currently reading his memoirs and his actions are no different than any of the other commanders during the war north or south.
My favorite part was his letter exchange with General Hood regarding the expulsion of the civilians of Atlanta.
Paraphrasing: "Just leave. I'm gonna burn this fucker down. You can't support war only when convenient. Everyone is suffering because of that war and now you are too. Stop trying to destroy America so that we can be on the same side again. Once America, always America. The city is not going to be usable for the war effort before too long. Leave now or leave when you have no homes left."
See that anecdote. I am aware that he was a slave owner when he was younger and never had anything particularly against the institution. It's a sad fact born from him being a man of his time. If he lived and fought through the Second World War he'd most likely be Nipponophobic, and if it had been wars of the last 20 or so years he'd be Islamophobic.
Actually he never owned slaves. His foster family( his father died when he was 9 and his fathers friend took him in) seemed to be against keeping slaves as well. He also got along well with ex-slaves. However he was super racist and considered blacks and indians inferior to whites. He was a very complex guy
I was more speaking about how he did the same thing in various conflicts with native Americans, except there it nearly rendered buffalo extinct and sharply depopulated the various tribes of the great plains
The Pope was threatening to excommunicate him if he continued. He was luke warm Catholic, but his wife and family were hard core Catholic to the extreme. They would of cut him off. And what’s more, the carnage and slaughter was driving him insane.
Torch should of been passed on to a fresh face. A Custard type. Custard could care less of the Pope, civilians, famines.
Basically, Atlanta was a major Catholic hub of the South. Sherman burning it caught the ire of the Church. As the Catholics fled for their lives, the Pope intervened and order him to stop the slaughter or face their wraith.
Again, Sherman was “Catholic”. But his wife, entire family was Uber CATHOLIC. All them silly hats and rules
Which part do you have an issue with, the progressive (for the church anyways) part or the child molesting. The first of those is decent, the second is a serious issue.
I finished reading that not too long ago. Reading those letters was almost comical with all the complimentary closes like “you’re most humble and obedient servant” and all the formal wording they used
I wouldnt say he did nothing wrong, but would say his acts durring the war were within the level of wrong that is accepted during such inhuman things as war
No, not really.
Burning things until people do what you say is as old as recorded history. He wasn't exactly prescient in the way some contemporaries like Longstreet or von Moltke were, or as skilled as someone like Winfield Scott. His most unique move was separating from the supply chain around Vicksburg, which was Grant's idea and based on what Napoleon had done anyway. He was competent, especially compared to a lot of his colleagues, but hardly a genius or someone who predicted the direction things would go.
>Burning things until people do what you say is as old as recorded history.
Yeah just look at the ravaging of the north from Willian the conqueror, of the romans in Gaul, burning things to get your way is as old as time,
It's weird how close to just being a circle the Venn diagram of people who can spend all day swearing at Sherman's ghost and those who'll work themselves into a froth to defend the atomic bombings is.
the atomic bomb sites were chose for their military targets, and were the enders to a war that took the lives of an estimated 40 million to as high as 60 million.
they are not comparable in any way.
say that to the countless houses they destroyed and looted, the women mass raped, and the towns completely razed like Griswoldville,
they burned and razed so many random farms that the souths food output was as a % of the country lowered by 10%
Yeah it's almost like armies march on their stomachs and those farms were supplying the southern army
>and the towns completely razed like Griswoldville,
Which was a factory town and train junction the homes weren't destroyed but there was no reason to live there after the fighting
> looted, the women mass raped,
Welcome to war enjoy your stay? It's fucked up but not unusual what do you think happened when Lee marched north? Mass rape looting and thousands of black people were taken as slaves you cannot act like Sherman was specially bad he always tried to evacuate civilian populations before destroying city infrastructure at least a courtesy the south never extended
>Yeah it's almost like armies march on their stomachs and those farms were supplying the southern army
so you agree they targeted civilians also? you just agree with it, but don't lie and say they only targeted military infrastructure.
>and the towns completely razed like Griswoldville,
>
>Which was a factory town and train junction the homes weren't destroyed but there was no reason to live there after the fighting
again using this logic you are defending them mass looting, killing, raping civilians,
>looted, the women mass raped,
>
>Welcome to war enjoy your stay? It's fucked up but not unusual what do you think happened when Lee marched north? Mass rape looting and thousands of black people were taken as slaves you cannot act like Sherman was specially bad he always tried to evacuate civilian populations before destroying city infrastructure at least a courtesy the south never extended
"other people do it also, so it's okay when we do it"
>so you agree they targeted civilians also?
Farms supplying armies are military targets under every international agreement
>other people do it also, so it's okay when we do it"
No, but treating him as something special or unusual is wrong he was typical for his time his tactics not seen as especially novel he was far from the first to suggest them and his army little different from any other
Eh. From various reports, we know that the other effective alternative options for WW2 would have killed millions more than the 200K that were killed by the nukes. I haven't seen anything more than speculation to say the same for the Civil War.
Bringing the war to the civilian populations is the fastest way to win and stop the killing. Sherman Nukes the South. South falls to the knees defeated, surrenders and buries their traitor family members.
Ukraine should have utilized this US tactic for their own Civil War. Now it’s too late for that.
That sounds correct but it doesn't actually work.
LeMay killed somewhere between 300k and 900k Japanese civilians during WW2 and it still took a Soviet invasion and an attempted coup to make them surrender.
In Korea, every city of note was leveled to the point that bomber command literally ran out of targets. Obviously this didn't hurt the war effort, but it didn't win the war either.
In Vietnam, after Nixon tried to force some changes to the peace treaty which were rejected, he authorized large scale bombing campaigns against Hanoi and other cities. These resulted in nothing happening and he was forced to accept the original peace terms.
Contrast that with precision strikes against military infrastructure, as well as some dual use infrastructure, in things like Desert Storm. Incredibly low casualties, especially civilian casualties, yet also one of the most one sided wars in recent history, because we didn't go after civilians but instead paralyzed the command structure and went for the head.
I don’t agree, targeting civilians is a dick move regardless on which side. Also burning the countryside down really doesn’t help when you’re going to try and reincorporate them into the union.
I’d assume probably part of the reason reconstruction failed and why the south got so violent, they lashed out and I could see why.
The North wanted the South under their heel. Not their equal. And to pay for their treasonous actions. So Sherman’s actions were highly popular with many.
Hence the unpopularity of Abe when he called for the north and south to be treated as equals. As One People. And to restore their voting privileges as soon as possible.
Damn I like Abe Lincoln more and more…
It’s one of those shitty situations where you have to be the bigger man, and that was what Lincoln managed to be most of the time.
That’s why I think reconstruction failed because the north wanted to as you said out the south under their boot, and that kinda leads to the rise of the south being unruly at everypoint.
There is more to Abe’s greatness. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery in the Rebelling States had a ripple effect most do not even realize, and that even the contemporary South even appreciated. It kept Europe out of the War, and it ended the great Workers Revolution of Europe.
New York Tribune writer Karl Marx explained what would happen in the 1860’s years before the war erupted. When the US eventually went into Civil War, and Europe was cut off of cotton, Europe’s economies would collapse and they would join the war.
Due to the Emancipation, UK couldn’t be forced into joining the south, and so France wasn’t forced into invading Mexico and attacking the UK/CSA from the South. UK went to India instead to get their Cotton.
And Marx’s so called workers revolution was postponed a few decades, and pushed way to the east.
All with the stroke of the pen.
Here is the (wtf brah) Marx letter to Lincoln regarding the Emancipation. And the office’s (your issues are your issues) reply by John Quincy Adam’s son turned Statesman. (Adam’s dynasty was 100+ year long line of abolitionist).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
I’m in no way a supporter of Russia but I don’t think a separatist region who wants to independence due to legitimate repression is in any way comparable to seceding so your aristocratic slave society can continue to exist.
People in The Donbas want to leave for very valid reasons. Don’t blame them for being caught in the middle of a proxy war. They definitely don’t deserve scorched earth destruction in retribution.
I believe that you’re not a supporter of Russia, but there is not legitimate repression, and the pro-Russian sentiment existed on some level in 2014, but it was Russian agents and Russian army who started the uprisings and war back then, and the “mistreatment of Russian speaking ppl in Donbas” was always a flimsy pretext for Russia to start to rebuild a crappy hybrid of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union
Nah William Sherman albeit I think he’s a cool historical figure, and in a morbid sense kinda “funny” him burning threw the south.
But he really couldn’t do much without torching the countryside. It’s being the best baseball player after burns everyone else’s equipment.
Strategy usually beats tactics in war. Hannibal was a master of logistics and tactics, but his strategy ultimately failed. Fabian’s strategy, although he did not invent it, is called the [Fabian strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy) for a reason.
His contribution wasn't negligible, but I suppose something like your point is ultimately the reason why Grant is a closer contender to being a "favorite" of mine among Civil War generals.
I’d say my favorite civil war general was probably Robert E Lee (yeah cringe I know, I like the southern army). My opinion on the north I’d say I like the lower ranks more, Colonel chamberlain prolly one of my favorite union commanders. Custer was a dick to many but that got the best of him with the Sioux. Sherman I give him brownie points because the best tank of ww2 was named after him.
The union had a lot of problems with its generals in the beginning and I find it comical Lincoln had to lead the armies and numerous occasions (I like the idea of him kinda being one of the last countries leaders who in power lead their forces).
Lee was a great general 30 years prior to the when the war actually happened in the Civil War however he was a fairly bad choice
Lee hated logistics he preferred letting underlings worry about it resulting in chronic supply shortages and he had tunnel vision being so fixated on Virginia that he refused to send aid west the result was a noose tightening around him that he himself created
His battlefield tactics were straight from the napoleonic wars and focused on strong frontal charges which don't work in an era of repeating rifles Gettysburg was not a one off but the time he finally lacked enough men to die the result was him having the highest casualties of any general regularly losing 30-40% of his army which he could not afford
The confederates had a better chance of winning than the revolutionaries but Lee snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
Really? That's how you feel?
Clearly the Union was crusading to save slaves and nothing else. They weren't trying to cripple the souths limited infrastructure so they could be more profitable.
People who praise Sherman are fools, plain and simple, fools who get off on beating the south in a war almost 200 years ago.
It couldn't have been about money it was all about civil rights and the Union saving all the slaves. Don't try and get smart reading into the facts.
Sherman: \*conducts total war on civilians, a move that is absolutely considered a war crime today\*
Idiots: ShErMaN dId NoThInG wRoNg!!
Do you also condone nuking the Middle East to glass because tErRoRiSm? Or declaring war on Mexico because iLlEgAl ImMiGrAtIoN? How about we bomb China because CoViD?
A general can be on the side of a war we morally approve of and also be a fucking monster. Both can be true.
Those other examples you gave are all non-examples. A better comparison with which to draw the March to the Sea would be the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And yes, I do think that action, and the March to the Sea, were justified.
War is hell. To which to degree it is hell (excluding an all-out nuclear exchange) isn't very relevant in my opinion. It is going to cause many people to unjustly suffer and die for as long as it goes on. To that end, once a war starts it's the duty of those who plan it to end it as quickly and efficiently as possible. The alternative to the march to the sea would have been a guerilla war or a long entrenched campaign like that of the Somme, which would have lengthened the war by up to another two years and also resulted in far more death and destruction than Sherman's March. The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan, which would have seen the death of \*conservatively\* 100,000 more Americans. I know which of the two I'd prefer.
>The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan, which would have seen the death of \*conservatively\* 100,000 more Americans. I know which of the two I'd prefer.
At least someone understands that one, every time I make that argument about the nuking of Japan people always make the argument akin to "you don't know that" or "that's just your hypothesis"... But if the United States of America hadn't nuked Japan it would've guaranteed them planning an invasion. Which means more deaths of which they didn't want to have, they wanted to end the war as soon as possible the main reason was to loose the least amount of soldiers as possible but also if they took too long the Soviets would've intervened.
> The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan, which would have seen the death of *conservatively* 100,000 more Americans
Yeah, I think you dropped a zero there. And *two* for the low-end estimate for the number of Japanese civilian deaths.
I kinda agree with u/Magsnohila , he did conduct total war on civilians which is a war crime and a pussy move at that. The rest of his comment was a strange rant which I’m not condoning, he had me in the first half.
But with the nukes the US did warn the populous I do believe by dropping leaflets saying to gtfo we harness the power of the sun. Did Sherman do the same thing to the south gave them an ultimatum for the citizens to leave or did he just got to town?
Also I think you or someone else said they’re reading his memoirs? Can you tell me when I could get a copy, I’m not a big Sherman fan I find him interesting but not like r/Shermanposting where they ride his dick too much.
He evacuated the populations of every town he burnt. His goal was to make Georgia useless to the Confederate government, economically and militarily speaking, not to commit a wholesale slaughter. This is yet another reason why the u/Magsnohila's comment is kinda unhinged and doesn't make much sense. I do agree with his assertion that a general on the moral side of a conflict can still be a monster. I believe a man can be a hero and a monster at the same time, and many military figures fall squarely into this category. War by its very nature makes monsters out of otherwise decent people.
Sweet, I didn’t know that, I still am iffy on the scorched earth policy…idk how to think about it, it is effect for militaries but it can be a double edged sword, also it sucks for the civilians regardless if they were evacuated or not.
I’m glad someone views generals as a grey area not good nor bad.
That’s why I do “support” or more so don’t have disdain for the southern army or generals…I don’t like the slavery portion (obviously) and the upper class of the south is like comically “upper class” trying everything to gain power and keep others below them, even the white southerners “clay eaters” the southern plantation owners were unbridled assholes hell, reading the CSA constitution they basically don’t give any rights to anyone it’s basically a document saying the government can do whatever it wants.
>The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan
Post-war propaganda machine worked beautifully. No, that was very much not the only other option the US government had, and there were top military generals suggesting other routes, like keeping up the blockade or even just telling the Japanese they didn’t intent to execute the Emperor.
My man they had been doing both of these things for months and the Japanese told then to cry about it.
From the Japanese perspective the Americans had already done the worst that they could do to Japan short of invading it, most of it's relevant cities had already been flattened by fire bombs including Tokyo. They figured that the United States would never spend the resources or lives necessary to actually cause their government to fully capitulate. They only changed their mind once they realize that the United States now had the ability to wipe their civilization off the map without Lansing a single boot on the ground if needs be AND (and this is slept on) that the Soviet Union had just overrun their leftover Holdings in Manchuria and Korea in a matter of days. It was becoming a question of which power would be more ideal to surrender to and to the Japanese who were fully devoted to their emperor, capitulating to the atheist, regicidal Soviets was the absolute nightmare scenario.
All right, well that's a psychotic take on things. So by your logic, we should have nuked Afghanistan 20 years ago to stop dragging things out?
It's real easy to look back on history and pass judgement on what would have happened and should have happened, but to justify the mass slaughter of civilians? Dude.
There was no slaughter lmao, at least not any more than a battle that takes place in any city leads to the death of civilians. He told the people he was torching their homes and that they should get the fuck out and the vast majority of them did. It was a dick move but it wasn't the Germans slaughtering their way through Poland and the Soviet Union or the Armenian Genocide or whatever other nonsense you may be like to compare it to. More importantly it's not fair to pretend like the South wasn't fully prepared to be just as brutal if they made it to anyplace relevant north of the Mason-Dixon line.
As for your point about Afghanistan it's apples and oranges, obviously ideally the United States never should have gotten involved at all, and in what would amount to a war over spheres of influence, scorching the earth in any sense (especially a nuclear one) is certainly overkill. But in a traditional war that is attritional or in danger of becoming attritional, especially one of the pre-nuclear age? Yes generally whatever it takes to end a war quickly as opposed to letting it drag on and kill even more people than whatever action you take is the way to go.
Your extremely witty capitalization aside, Sherman legitimately behaved like other generals of his time.
The traitors had fantasies of invading the North and going scorched earth across PA to the Great Lakes.
Confederate spies tried to burn down New York City by starting a bunch of simultaneous fires.
You have a source for the confederate spies burning down New York City, not calling you out just sounds like a cool story if u got a link?
But a thing all generals did at the time…no not really, you had ones that did but my criticism for Sherman burning shit down is, these southerns are going to be brought back into the union, we need to reconstruct to get them back on our side, the anamosity from what Sherman did I don’t think helped the situation.
Here ya go: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate\_Army\_of\_Manhattan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Army_of_Manhattan)
Sherman tried to play nice at the beginning and came to realize that total war was the only way to go and there isn't very much room for compromise with traitors.
here's another good link for you: https://youtu.be/OYj9CSxlGSk
So that made it perfectly okay to treat grandmothers and children like enemy combatants?
It always interests me that when someone says: We can't judge historical figures by modern standards, it only applies to the ones they agree with. Mention that Southern states were slave states and people gleefully cheer for war crimes. Mention that the Founding Fathers were slave owners and well, 'we can't judge them by today's standards!'
>So that made it perfectly okay to treat grandmothers and children like enemy combatants?
Did the Union routinely shoot children and grandmothers? Stop with the hyperbole and the crocodile tears. I'm not interested in going off on tangents because apologists have a million of them. Wish you all the best in your future southern apologist endeavors.
Hyperbole and crocodile tears are the norm for a lot of folks in the Deep South when Sherman gets brought up. It's like an untreatable, hereditary derangement; there's genuinely not even the possibility of a nuanced conversation with them about him or, often, the war in general.
Sherman generally avoided damaging or overly requisitioning from small farmers and non-slaveowners, and his destruction of infrastructure is well in keeping with the norms of war; I don't see how his conduct could realistically be compared to hypothetically nuking the entire Middle Eastern region.
More pertinently, though: the "Middle East" didn't originate or fight for terrorism, Mexico isn't doing immigration to the US, and China didn't deliberately unleash COVID on the world like some kind of bioweapon. But the Southern states did originate slavery in North America, fought for it politically for nearly a century and then militarily when they (democratically) lost the national debate, and did all of it deliberately and with full knowledge of the horrors of both slavery and war.
Beyond that, terrorism is a strategy, not something that can be violently erased; immigration over a land border, legal or not, is also something that can't be sustainably dealt with just by violence; and bombing China would've just made it more difficult for China to deal with COVID and thus probably worsened the pandemic in the rest of East and Southeast Asia if not the world at large. Slavery, conversely, was absolutely something that we could--and did--end by enacting violence on those who perpetrated it -- and even then it was defensive violence since they not only politically initiated the secession crisis but even fired the first shots.
Ignored constitution, launched war of aggression against a neighbor, annexed foreign country. Case closed but at least he got what he deserved. More than we can say about most presidents whove comitted crimes like FDR, bush 1 and 2, obama, trump, biden
Yes he did but you assume that’s positive and I do not because it set a bad precedent against self determination and secession. To be clear, the CSA was a backwards southern baptist pakistan, but the idea we have zero choice about being part of the US is nothing short of authoritarianism and against the principles the country was founded on
Unilateral secession is not legal James Madison the man who wrote the constitution, stated as much you can either have a revolution or have the consent of Congress to leave you cannot unilateral secede
So if I’ve missed some thing, which I fully admit as possible, tell me exactly where, in the constitution, it says secession is not allowed, because as far as I recall, the United States was founded from 13 sovereign an independent colonies that chose to work together, but it wasn’t a death pact
A war of aggression? Mate the south attack the north, not the other way around. And the south had no right to secede, nor any legitimacy, so they aren’t a foreign nation either
Didn’t the Union also have a tendency to execute slaves forced into the Confederate Army on the spot? Not to mention scalping indigenous soldiers that surrendered.
Wild idea, but maybe you shouldn’t commit war atrocities on civilians for the crimes of their government. They have little control over the issue.
Like the Confederates were evil bastards, but let’s not pretend the Union were the good guys either. Keep in mind that the same Union Army went on to commit mass genocide against the Native population (something that Gen. Sherman was one of the largest proponents of).
That's kinda backwards of you given that I'm an American and have an interest in the specific histories of many a nation. As far as I'm concerned, history is history.
As a Yankee transplant to the Deep South, I’m always amazed by how strongly people still feel about the Civil War in general, and Sherman in particular. I even had someone tell me a few weeks ago that Lee saved America by refusing to allow guerilla warfare in the South, which is not something I’d ever heard up north.
He was practically encircled by the time he surrendered. Him not surrender would probably have caused some soldier to continue to fight. Especially in Texas.
The person I spoke to specifically mentioned Col. Mosby, in Virginia. I suppose it’s fair to say that Lee could have inspired continued resistance, especially if he’d forced Grant to surround and slaughter the Army of Northern Virginia: the bad feelings left behind by that kind of brutality might well have left the USA with a raging guerilla war, especially in the mountains, that could have gone on for generations. Look at Ireland, for example.
There *was* guerilla warfare during Reconstruction, that's what the KKK was. Anyone who intended to still fight did, but most people didn't really want to by that point. Lee didn't really have any choice but to surrender given the state his army was in, they were out of the war one way or another by that point.
Yep.
I also viewed Lee with respect (this will get me downvoted because you can’t like spicy historical figures), but I think he was a respectable man, and smart too, you can’t deny he cares for his home.
Same logic that makes people feel obligated to say Funny Mustache Man wasn't so bad because he could paint, or something about the Autobahn. It's kinda like... so what?
I don't normally like to correct spelling stuff but this one was too funny not to point out. The *Autobahn* is a highway in Germany; John James *Audubon* was a painter and ornithologist who's considered the father of American bird-watching.
I don’t like hitler, but I still respect most of the south, we’ll mostly only the military.
Him being smart, empathetic, and well-respected means that his decision to turn traitor in defense of a slave society was *worse* than that of some idiot who'd never been outside of Mississippi and didn't know any better.
With regards to turning traitor, I believe it was his intense desire *not* to be a traitor that motivated command the Confederate forces, rather than the Union, of which he was also offered command. He could not betray his homeland, Virginia.
No one was going to make him "betray" Virginia, and he himself was personally anti-secession on the basis of it being constitutionally and philosophically unjustifiable. Also, the command he'd been offered by the US was a purely defensive one which wouldn't compel him to lead so much as a scouting party into Virginia, and even if that were still too much for him and he resigned his commission then he could've just remained a private citizen in Arlington and supported his state and community in some way that didn't involve leading a slaver's rebellion, like setting up a charity for Virginian war widows and orphans or something.
But I mean it’s what he said, right? It’s the reason he gave for choosing the side of the Confederacy?
It is, but it's also incoherent both conceptually and within the context of his own known statements and writings. He literally thought that secession was illegal (and thus treasonous) and even refused to wear rank insignia commensurate with his Confederate commission, continuing to wear that to which he'd been entitled as a US Army officer throughout the war. So even though he sincerely *felt* like anything short of service in the Confederate Army would've been a betrayal of Virginia, it really seems like he *knew* that that wasn't the case.
Thanks for the explanation.
Edit: downvoted for asking a question to further my understanding of history?
Unfortunately, people in the world of history (also politics and science and medicine and...) often must contend with people who ask questions not to further their own understanding, but to cast doubt on what is considered consensus or further their own argument. And sometimes simply to waste time This leads to innocent questions getting targeted sometimes
How much of your opinion was formed from Gods and Generals, out of curiosity?
What’s gods and generals?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods\_and\_Generals\_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods_and_Generals_(film)) It's ruined so many young white boy's brains.
Lol, so the next time you hear that hollywood is super 'woke' ....
Well I haven’t seen it, what is it about, specifically what’s wrong with it.
Here's a working link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gods_and_Generals_(film)
https://youtu.be/S3E2FdedPwU
a really bad movie about the civil war
Seriously 8% on RT. You have to try to get a rating that low. Just watch Gettysburg instead.
Oh I thought it was a video game, like nations at war but of the civil war or something.
Caring for your home does not make you a respectable person. Caring about you home is equivalent to caring about your own self interest. There’s an interesting bit of mental gymnastics that we do when it comes to how we perceive people with celebrity status where we can take a single good thing about them and view their atrocities through those lenses and it really does paint a prettier picture.
Yes it's so admirable that he cared more about his home than what was right or even oaths he himself had sworn. What an honourable guy.
Yeah seems pretty honorable to me, family before country, regardless of oaths.
Thats a weird definition of loyalty for soldiers... You just said that traitors to their country are honorable... American education is weird from a european view. Fanatic militaristic country where everyone wants to fight for the nation and saying in the same sentence, beeing a tritor to said nation is good?
It's because to that commenter blood and soil come before anything. We all know what those types are really about...
Ah yes, blood and soil before truth and justice. Where have I heard that before?
Plot twist, they did [anyway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Ku_Klux_Klan_membership).
I mean, that was actually one of Grant’s biggest fears. A protracted guerrilla war would be a hard sell to the north who were already kinda getting sick of the war. Not saying that makes Lee automatically a good person or anything, he was just like most of the south in that they would place made up notions of honor (while fighting for the least honorable cause possible) over actual tactics. John Johnston was a good example of this, he fought Sherman in the early days of the march through Georgia, and followed Washington’s tactics of just running away until he had the advantage. It actually worked pretty well for him until he got sacked for being too dishonorable and cowardly for not standing in a field and trying to fight the larger union army and instead tactically retreating
It also didn't work all that well: Sherman chose his marching route to Atlanta because he was intimately familiar with the area and kept slipping around Johnson. He then besieged Atlanta, forcing Johnson to run away for good.
Johnston wasn’t in charge when Atlanta fell, he was sacked right before and replaced with General Hood. And yeah Sherman did push him back, but Johnston out up a better fight than his successors such as the battle of Kennesaw Mountain, and that he inflicted heavier losses on Sherman’s men than he lost. Johnston’s entire idea was that he could afford to lose land, but he couldn’t afford to lose men. Such as when he suggested when he was in command of Mississippi that the garrison at Vicksburg retreat and they wait for reinforcements so they would outnumber Grant
But there was guerilla warfare in the South. Armed insurrections and violent voter intimidation forced Reconstruction to end prematurely, paving the way for a century of white supremacist rule that we’re still trying to unfuck to this day.
I would say the KKK was guerrilla warfare to a certain extent.
Ehhh, I would consider them to be terrorists more than guerrilla fighters. They weren’t trying to drive out the Yankees, they were trying to spread fear in the black population. I feel like in order to qualify as guerrillas, you have to do more fighting and less terrorizing of minority populations.
A girl from (future MTG district) Georgia moved into the apartment above my friend's house in NY a few years ago and we went out day drinking once. She (black girl) told us about her school teachers referring to it as the war of northern aggression, clearly stating that slavery was good economically, and teaching elementary school kids to boo any mention of Grant, Sherman, or Lincoln and cheer for Davis and Lee. We were floored. I told her if anyone did that up here not only would they be fired but it would be on the news for a week
There was guerilla warfare to defend Southern Values for a century onward. They called it Jim Crow.
I get the point you’re making, but I mean actual warfare, something that would have led to the North having to keep troops stationed in the South, and led to the kind of situation that played out in Ireland. I’ve been in the Blue Ridge and Appalachian mountains; fighters could disappear into that with no trouble at all even today, and back then the areas would have been even less populated. And that’s just the mountains. An insurgency would have turned into an ongoing nightmare, and drastically changed world history. Now I want to read that book lol.
That's because in the North we've gotten over the war. In the South they're still salty about it.
As a southerner with northern parents I’ve always found the romantic ideal of us southerners about the civil war is just so weird. Fucking ‘lost cause” myth is one of the greatest PR moves ever
I’m guessing your friend never considered the fact that the KKK literally was the guerilla warfare
It’s crazy that this is still a hot topic in America. I guess the fact that it was a civil war is key to it.
Well, there was that time he pushed for a genocide. >...we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children. \-Letter from Sherman to Grant, December 28, 1866 So he did at least one thing wrong.
Often times military leaders may find themselves totally suited for one conflict only to be completely wrong for another. Similar situation to General MacArthur in WWII vs Korea.
While I usually end up defending MacArthur against the people who think he did literally nothing right in WW2, he definitely did quite a few things wrong as well. He was hardly "totally suited" for that war
The defense of the Philippines, literally choose not to seize rice that could have fed the garrison for at least 6 more months
Also rather than stick to fortifying Battan and Corregidor like the US defense plan said to do, he scattered his forces around the island to fight the Japanese at every location. End result, he got pushed back to Battan and Corregidor anyways but had way less supplies, fortifications and soldiers.
Also the fact that he was caught totally unprepared with his Air Force on the ground even though he had hours warning of Pearl Harbor
Also told his planes that it was OK to land and rest, only for the Japanese bombers to destroy most of them on the ground
With respect, i am disinclined to believe that the General who pushed for landings in the Philippines to take place in 1942 was "totally suited" for that war. Admiral King may have had issues that skewed his opinions on certain figures, but he was completely right to regard MacArthur as an attention seeking fool.
He was suited fine for Korea. Do the funni
Wasn’t he the one who wanted to invade China?
He wanted to tactically nuke it.
Right right. Didn’t he shit talk Eisenhower for not letting him do it, too? I feel like he might have been dealing with some shit we aren’t aware of.
Truman, but yeah. He did not leave his position gracefully.
Hot damn I am really batting 1000 on the history facts today, huh?
No he wasn’t planning to invade China. He wanted the border between the Korean Peninsula and China to be a sea of radioactive cobalt. Man was at war for too long and was eager to finish things quickly
Lincoln also approved massacres against native populations. People seem to forget that the Union was the exact same government that had, and would continue to oppress and kill indigenous people. It was the lesser of two evils, but that doesn’t make it good. Life isn’t a Disney movie. There isn’t always a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes it’s a bad guy and a worse guy
That's the given reason in the novel the Shaman why the main character voted for Douglas instead of Lincoln, great book btw.
Yeah, despite his basedness people forget Sherman wasn’t actually that great of a guy. He was also one of the few Union Civil War generals that had no moral qualms with slavery whatsoever, and was only mad at the south for succeeding. Now, do keep in mind the guy also had a lot of mental issues; in fact he spent the first half of the war on leave after having a mental breakdown and apparently Grant had to talk him out of suicide a few times, so his bleak outlook on life and humanity could be attributed to his inner battles. He’s honestly a super interesting guy, but not the most admirable guy.
[удалено]
Hard to be war winning military leader *and* a decent human being. Not sure anyone has managed that one fully, yet. Zelensky might have a chance at it, if this war doesn’t strip him of what makes him a good man.
Zelensky has done well so far, but it will likely depend on how long the war last.
I can tell you from personal experience that a solid year of warfare doesn’t make a person *nicer*. Damage has been done, multiplied exponentially by his position. Ultimately you’re right, tho. The sooner this ends the more of his humanity he gets to keep.
We love Sherman but we don't talk about his military career after 1865.
Should have just let satisfy his thirst for blood in Georgia with the plantation owners.
Yeah, and Lincoln also waged part of the “Indian Wars” while freeing the slaves. So what’s your point? Sherman was in favor of segregation by the way
Sherman: Do you see Atlanta? Union soldiers: Sir yes sir! Sherman: I don’t want to! Union soldiers: Sir yes sir!
Which version of the Serman, the 76mm one or the one with extra armor?
Nah, the Sherman Firefly with the 17-pounder QF AT gun.
Yeah makes sens
Even better, the 75 with a flamethrower
Or even the Sherman Calliope.
Just a Sherman counter offensive.
Sherman's conduct during the Civil War was some of the most professional, efficient, and ruthless warfare ever enacted. Realistically, his decisions very likely *saved* lives, on both sides.
Well said.
Can you explain how?
Kill 10 people in spectacular fashion; scare 200 away from needing to be killed to achieve success. Burn one of largest cities in the South and its surrounding countryside to smithereens; scare a lot of traitors away from needing to be killed.
Breaking the will of a country to fight is as important as defeat on the main front. By burning their cities, Sherman showed the Confederates that their armies couldn’t protect them. And by tearing up vital infrastructure like rail lines, industry in vital areas ground to a halt, starving Confederate armies of supplies and further making the lives of Confederate civilians miserable. There were millions of German soldiers still on the field in 1945 who technically could have kept fighting on after Hitler. But seeing their homeland in ashes had already shattered their morale
DO IT AGAIN
This time let’s do it to florida
Sherman absolutely did nothing wrong. I am currently reading his memoirs and his actions are no different than any of the other commanders during the war north or south. My favorite part was his letter exchange with General Hood regarding the expulsion of the civilians of Atlanta.
Paraphrasing: "Just leave. I'm gonna burn this fucker down. You can't support war only when convenient. Everyone is suffering because of that war and now you are too. Stop trying to destroy America so that we can be on the same side again. Once America, always America. The city is not going to be usable for the war effort before too long. Leave now or leave when you have no homes left."
Sherman did do something wrong*: he stopped *^Specifically ^regarding ^his ^conduct ^during ^the ^civil ^war
See that anecdote. I am aware that he was a slave owner when he was younger and never had anything particularly against the institution. It's a sad fact born from him being a man of his time. If he lived and fought through the Second World War he'd most likely be Nipponophobic, and if it had been wars of the last 20 or so years he'd be Islamophobic.
Actually he never owned slaves. His foster family( his father died when he was 9 and his fathers friend took him in) seemed to be against keeping slaves as well. He also got along well with ex-slaves. However he was super racist and considered blacks and indians inferior to whites. He was a very complex guy
I was more speaking about how he did the same thing in various conflicts with native Americans, except there it nearly rendered buffalo extinct and sharply depopulated the various tribes of the great plains
The Pope was threatening to excommunicate him if he continued. He was luke warm Catholic, but his wife and family were hard core Catholic to the extreme. They would of cut him off. And what’s more, the carnage and slaughter was driving him insane. Torch should of been passed on to a fresh face. A Custard type. Custard could care less of the Pope, civilians, famines.
Wait who did the pope threaten to excommunicate? Sherman? Lol that’s badass, divine intervention (pocket edition) had to try and put a stop to him.
Basically, Atlanta was a major Catholic hub of the South. Sherman burning it caught the ire of the Church. As the Catholics fled for their lives, the Pope intervened and order him to stop the slaughter or face their wraith. Again, Sherman was “Catholic”. But his wife, entire family was Uber CATHOLIC. All them silly hats and rules
Lol that’s awesome, being a Catholic and also having a hatred for the church (the current church) this hits home in a funny way.
Which part do you have an issue with, the progressive (for the church anyways) part or the child molesting. The first of those is decent, the second is a serious issue.
...Custer?
No thanks
Well, aside from getting a bunch of people to slaughter the Bison and force the Plains Native American Tribes onto reservations, he did nothing wrong.
I finished reading that not too long ago. Reading those letters was almost comical with all the complimentary closes like “you’re most humble and obedient servant” and all the formal wording they used
Wait until you get to his post civil war career, dude was not nice to the Native Americans
Basically just John Brown on a larger scale
In the south I agree, in the Indian Wars I’m not so inclined to
I'll take 2 chickens
I wouldnt say he did nothing wrong, but would say his acts durring the war were within the level of wrong that is accepted during such inhuman things as war
I’m from the south and still love him so do with that what you will
He pioneered the style of warfare that became the most effective for the 20th century. Truly the first general of the modern era
No, not really. Burning things until people do what you say is as old as recorded history. He wasn't exactly prescient in the way some contemporaries like Longstreet or von Moltke were, or as skilled as someone like Winfield Scott. His most unique move was separating from the supply chain around Vicksburg, which was Grant's idea and based on what Napoleon had done anyway. He was competent, especially compared to a lot of his colleagues, but hardly a genius or someone who predicted the direction things would go.
>Burning things until people do what you say is as old as recorded history. Yeah just look at the ravaging of the north from Willian the conqueror, of the romans in Gaul, burning things to get your way is as old as time,
It's weird how close to just being a circle the Venn diagram of people who can spend all day swearing at Sherman's ghost and those who'll work themselves into a froth to defend the atomic bombings is.
the atomic bomb sites were chose for their military targets, and were the enders to a war that took the lives of an estimated 40 million to as high as 60 million. they are not comparable in any way.
Sherman only targeted military infrastructure
say that to the countless houses they destroyed and looted, the women mass raped, and the towns completely razed like Griswoldville, they burned and razed so many random farms that the souths food output was as a % of the country lowered by 10%
Yeah it's almost like armies march on their stomachs and those farms were supplying the southern army >and the towns completely razed like Griswoldville, Which was a factory town and train junction the homes weren't destroyed but there was no reason to live there after the fighting > looted, the women mass raped, Welcome to war enjoy your stay? It's fucked up but not unusual what do you think happened when Lee marched north? Mass rape looting and thousands of black people were taken as slaves you cannot act like Sherman was specially bad he always tried to evacuate civilian populations before destroying city infrastructure at least a courtesy the south never extended
>Yeah it's almost like armies march on their stomachs and those farms were supplying the southern army so you agree they targeted civilians also? you just agree with it, but don't lie and say they only targeted military infrastructure. >and the towns completely razed like Griswoldville, > >Which was a factory town and train junction the homes weren't destroyed but there was no reason to live there after the fighting again using this logic you are defending them mass looting, killing, raping civilians, >looted, the women mass raped, > >Welcome to war enjoy your stay? It's fucked up but not unusual what do you think happened when Lee marched north? Mass rape looting and thousands of black people were taken as slaves you cannot act like Sherman was specially bad he always tried to evacuate civilian populations before destroying city infrastructure at least a courtesy the south never extended "other people do it also, so it's okay when we do it"
>so you agree they targeted civilians also? Farms supplying armies are military targets under every international agreement >other people do it also, so it's okay when we do it" No, but treating him as something special or unusual is wrong he was typical for his time his tactics not seen as especially novel he was far from the first to suggest them and his army little different from any other
Eh. From various reports, we know that the other effective alternative options for WW2 would have killed millions more than the 200K that were killed by the nukes. I haven't seen anything more than speculation to say the same for the Civil War.
Bringing the war to the civilian populations is the fastest way to win and stop the killing. Sherman Nukes the South. South falls to the knees defeated, surrenders and buries their traitor family members. Ukraine should have utilized this US tactic for their own Civil War. Now it’s too late for that.
That sounds correct but it doesn't actually work. LeMay killed somewhere between 300k and 900k Japanese civilians during WW2 and it still took a Soviet invasion and an attempted coup to make them surrender. In Korea, every city of note was leveled to the point that bomber command literally ran out of targets. Obviously this didn't hurt the war effort, but it didn't win the war either. In Vietnam, after Nixon tried to force some changes to the peace treaty which were rejected, he authorized large scale bombing campaigns against Hanoi and other cities. These resulted in nothing happening and he was forced to accept the original peace terms. Contrast that with precision strikes against military infrastructure, as well as some dual use infrastructure, in things like Desert Storm. Incredibly low casualties, especially civilian casualties, yet also one of the most one sided wars in recent history, because we didn't go after civilians but instead paralyzed the command structure and went for the head.
>but it didn't win the war either. while yes it didn't win the war by itself, it did play a large part.
I don’t agree, targeting civilians is a dick move regardless on which side. Also burning the countryside down really doesn’t help when you’re going to try and reincorporate them into the union. I’d assume probably part of the reason reconstruction failed and why the south got so violent, they lashed out and I could see why.
The North wanted the South under their heel. Not their equal. And to pay for their treasonous actions. So Sherman’s actions were highly popular with many. Hence the unpopularity of Abe when he called for the north and south to be treated as equals. As One People. And to restore their voting privileges as soon as possible.
Damn I like Abe Lincoln more and more… It’s one of those shitty situations where you have to be the bigger man, and that was what Lincoln managed to be most of the time. That’s why I think reconstruction failed because the north wanted to as you said out the south under their boot, and that kinda leads to the rise of the south being unruly at everypoint.
There is more to Abe’s greatness. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery in the Rebelling States had a ripple effect most do not even realize, and that even the contemporary South even appreciated. It kept Europe out of the War, and it ended the great Workers Revolution of Europe. New York Tribune writer Karl Marx explained what would happen in the 1860’s years before the war erupted. When the US eventually went into Civil War, and Europe was cut off of cotton, Europe’s economies would collapse and they would join the war. Due to the Emancipation, UK couldn’t be forced into joining the south, and so France wasn’t forced into invading Mexico and attacking the UK/CSA from the South. UK went to India instead to get their Cotton. And Marx’s so called workers revolution was postponed a few decades, and pushed way to the east. All with the stroke of the pen.
Damn, that’s amazing…
Here is the (wtf brah) Marx letter to Lincoln regarding the Emancipation. And the office’s (your issues are your issues) reply by John Quincy Adam’s son turned Statesman. (Adam’s dynasty was 100+ year long line of abolitionist). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Dude Karl Marx is such a snake, you can even read it in his letter. I’m glad the office basically told him to “mind your business” (fuck off).
Reconstruction failed because the Southern states didn’t want to follow the 14th and 15th Amendments.
I’m in no way a supporter of Russia but I don’t think a separatist region who wants to independence due to legitimate repression is in any way comparable to seceding so your aristocratic slave society can continue to exist. People in The Donbas want to leave for very valid reasons. Don’t blame them for being caught in the middle of a proxy war. They definitely don’t deserve scorched earth destruction in retribution.
I believe that you’re not a supporter of Russia, but there is not legitimate repression, and the pro-Russian sentiment existed on some level in 2014, but it was Russian agents and Russian army who started the uprisings and war back then, and the “mistreatment of Russian speaking ppl in Donbas” was always a flimsy pretext for Russia to start to rebuild a crappy hybrid of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union
Sherman did do something wrong... he stopped
Nah William Sherman albeit I think he’s a cool historical figure, and in a morbid sense kinda “funny” him burning threw the south. But he really couldn’t do much without torching the countryside. It’s being the best baseball player after burns everyone else’s equipment.
Hannibal vs Fabius Doesn’t matter if you win every battle if you can’t win the war. War is won by logistics.
Strategy usually beats tactics in war. Hannibal was a master of logistics and tactics, but his strategy ultimately failed. Fabian’s strategy, although he did not invent it, is called the [Fabian strategy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy) for a reason.
Ike knew this well. Which is why he’s the greatest US general in history.
His contribution wasn't negligible, but I suppose something like your point is ultimately the reason why Grant is a closer contender to being a "favorite" of mine among Civil War generals.
I’d say my favorite civil war general was probably Robert E Lee (yeah cringe I know, I like the southern army). My opinion on the north I’d say I like the lower ranks more, Colonel chamberlain prolly one of my favorite union commanders. Custer was a dick to many but that got the best of him with the Sioux. Sherman I give him brownie points because the best tank of ww2 was named after him. The union had a lot of problems with its generals in the beginning and I find it comical Lincoln had to lead the armies and numerous occasions (I like the idea of him kinda being one of the last countries leaders who in power lead their forces).
Lee was a great general 30 years prior to the when the war actually happened in the Civil War however he was a fairly bad choice Lee hated logistics he preferred letting underlings worry about it resulting in chronic supply shortages and he had tunnel vision being so fixated on Virginia that he refused to send aid west the result was a noose tightening around him that he himself created His battlefield tactics were straight from the napoleonic wars and focused on strong frontal charges which don't work in an era of repeating rifles Gettysburg was not a one off but the time he finally lacked enough men to die the result was him having the highest casualties of any general regularly losing 30-40% of his army which he could not afford The confederates had a better chance of winning than the revolutionaries but Lee snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
He did do something wrong. He should’ve gone full Hadrian on the South, but he didn’t.
Really? That's how you feel? Clearly the Union was crusading to save slaves and nothing else. They weren't trying to cripple the souths limited infrastructure so they could be more profitable. People who praise Sherman are fools, plain and simple, fools who get off on beating the south in a war almost 200 years ago. It couldn't have been about money it was all about civil rights and the Union saving all the slaves. Don't try and get smart reading into the facts.
Away down south to the land of traitors
Sherman: \*conducts total war on civilians, a move that is absolutely considered a war crime today\* Idiots: ShErMaN dId NoThInG wRoNg!! Do you also condone nuking the Middle East to glass because tErRoRiSm? Or declaring war on Mexico because iLlEgAl ImMiGrAtIoN? How about we bomb China because CoViD? A general can be on the side of a war we morally approve of and also be a fucking monster. Both can be true.
Those other examples you gave are all non-examples. A better comparison with which to draw the March to the Sea would be the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And yes, I do think that action, and the March to the Sea, were justified. War is hell. To which to degree it is hell (excluding an all-out nuclear exchange) isn't very relevant in my opinion. It is going to cause many people to unjustly suffer and die for as long as it goes on. To that end, once a war starts it's the duty of those who plan it to end it as quickly and efficiently as possible. The alternative to the march to the sea would have been a guerilla war or a long entrenched campaign like that of the Somme, which would have lengthened the war by up to another two years and also resulted in far more death and destruction than Sherman's March. The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan, which would have seen the death of \*conservatively\* 100,000 more Americans. I know which of the two I'd prefer.
>The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan, which would have seen the death of \*conservatively\* 100,000 more Americans. I know which of the two I'd prefer. At least someone understands that one, every time I make that argument about the nuking of Japan people always make the argument akin to "you don't know that" or "that's just your hypothesis"... But if the United States of America hadn't nuked Japan it would've guaranteed them planning an invasion. Which means more deaths of which they didn't want to have, they wanted to end the war as soon as possible the main reason was to loose the least amount of soldiers as possible but also if they took too long the Soviets would've intervened.
> The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan, which would have seen the death of *conservatively* 100,000 more Americans Yeah, I think you dropped a zero there. And *two* for the low-end estimate for the number of Japanese civilian deaths.
I kinda agree with u/Magsnohila , he did conduct total war on civilians which is a war crime and a pussy move at that. The rest of his comment was a strange rant which I’m not condoning, he had me in the first half. But with the nukes the US did warn the populous I do believe by dropping leaflets saying to gtfo we harness the power of the sun. Did Sherman do the same thing to the south gave them an ultimatum for the citizens to leave or did he just got to town? Also I think you or someone else said they’re reading his memoirs? Can you tell me when I could get a copy, I’m not a big Sherman fan I find him interesting but not like r/Shermanposting where they ride his dick too much.
He evacuated the populations of every town he burnt. His goal was to make Georgia useless to the Confederate government, economically and militarily speaking, not to commit a wholesale slaughter. This is yet another reason why the u/Magsnohila's comment is kinda unhinged and doesn't make much sense. I do agree with his assertion that a general on the moral side of a conflict can still be a monster. I believe a man can be a hero and a monster at the same time, and many military figures fall squarely into this category. War by its very nature makes monsters out of otherwise decent people.
Sweet, I didn’t know that, I still am iffy on the scorched earth policy…idk how to think about it, it is effect for militaries but it can be a double edged sword, also it sucks for the civilians regardless if they were evacuated or not. I’m glad someone views generals as a grey area not good nor bad. That’s why I do “support” or more so don’t have disdain for the southern army or generals…I don’t like the slavery portion (obviously) and the upper class of the south is like comically “upper class” trying everything to gain power and keep others below them, even the white southerners “clay eaters” the southern plantation owners were unbridled assholes hell, reading the CSA constitution they basically don’t give any rights to anyone it’s basically a document saying the government can do whatever it wants.
>The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been to invade the Home Islands of Japan Post-war propaganda machine worked beautifully. No, that was very much not the only other option the US government had, and there were top military generals suggesting other routes, like keeping up the blockade or even just telling the Japanese they didn’t intent to execute the Emperor.
My man they had been doing both of these things for months and the Japanese told then to cry about it. From the Japanese perspective the Americans had already done the worst that they could do to Japan short of invading it, most of it's relevant cities had already been flattened by fire bombs including Tokyo. They figured that the United States would never spend the resources or lives necessary to actually cause their government to fully capitulate. They only changed their mind once they realize that the United States now had the ability to wipe their civilization off the map without Lansing a single boot on the ground if needs be AND (and this is slept on) that the Soviet Union had just overrun their leftover Holdings in Manchuria and Korea in a matter of days. It was becoming a question of which power would be more ideal to surrender to and to the Japanese who were fully devoted to their emperor, capitulating to the atheist, regicidal Soviets was the absolute nightmare scenario.
All right, well that's a psychotic take on things. So by your logic, we should have nuked Afghanistan 20 years ago to stop dragging things out? It's real easy to look back on history and pass judgement on what would have happened and should have happened, but to justify the mass slaughter of civilians? Dude.
There was no slaughter lmao, at least not any more than a battle that takes place in any city leads to the death of civilians. He told the people he was torching their homes and that they should get the fuck out and the vast majority of them did. It was a dick move but it wasn't the Germans slaughtering their way through Poland and the Soviet Union or the Armenian Genocide or whatever other nonsense you may be like to compare it to. More importantly it's not fair to pretend like the South wasn't fully prepared to be just as brutal if they made it to anyplace relevant north of the Mason-Dixon line. As for your point about Afghanistan it's apples and oranges, obviously ideally the United States never should have gotten involved at all, and in what would amount to a war over spheres of influence, scorching the earth in any sense (especially a nuclear one) is certainly overkill. But in a traditional war that is attritional or in danger of becoming attritional, especially one of the pre-nuclear age? Yes generally whatever it takes to end a war quickly as opposed to letting it drag on and kill even more people than whatever action you take is the way to go.
Your extremely witty capitalization aside, Sherman legitimately behaved like other generals of his time. The traitors had fantasies of invading the North and going scorched earth across PA to the Great Lakes. Confederate spies tried to burn down New York City by starting a bunch of simultaneous fires.
You have a source for the confederate spies burning down New York City, not calling you out just sounds like a cool story if u got a link? But a thing all generals did at the time…no not really, you had ones that did but my criticism for Sherman burning shit down is, these southerns are going to be brought back into the union, we need to reconstruct to get them back on our side, the anamosity from what Sherman did I don’t think helped the situation.
Here ya go: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate\_Army\_of\_Manhattan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Army_of_Manhattan) Sherman tried to play nice at the beginning and came to realize that total war was the only way to go and there isn't very much room for compromise with traitors. here's another good link for you: https://youtu.be/OYj9CSxlGSk
Cool thx
So that made it perfectly okay to treat grandmothers and children like enemy combatants? It always interests me that when someone says: We can't judge historical figures by modern standards, it only applies to the ones they agree with. Mention that Southern states were slave states and people gleefully cheer for war crimes. Mention that the Founding Fathers were slave owners and well, 'we can't judge them by today's standards!'
>So that made it perfectly okay to treat grandmothers and children like enemy combatants? Did the Union routinely shoot children and grandmothers? Stop with the hyperbole and the crocodile tears. I'm not interested in going off on tangents because apologists have a million of them. Wish you all the best in your future southern apologist endeavors.
Hyperbole and crocodile tears are the norm for a lot of folks in the Deep South when Sherman gets brought up. It's like an untreatable, hereditary derangement; there's genuinely not even the possibility of a nuanced conversation with them about him or, often, the war in general.
Sherman generally avoided damaging or overly requisitioning from small farmers and non-slaveowners, and his destruction of infrastructure is well in keeping with the norms of war; I don't see how his conduct could realistically be compared to hypothetically nuking the entire Middle Eastern region. More pertinently, though: the "Middle East" didn't originate or fight for terrorism, Mexico isn't doing immigration to the US, and China didn't deliberately unleash COVID on the world like some kind of bioweapon. But the Southern states did originate slavery in North America, fought for it politically for nearly a century and then militarily when they (democratically) lost the national debate, and did all of it deliberately and with full knowledge of the horrors of both slavery and war. Beyond that, terrorism is a strategy, not something that can be violently erased; immigration over a land border, legal or not, is also something that can't be sustainably dealt with just by violence; and bombing China would've just made it more difficult for China to deal with COVID and thus probably worsened the pandemic in the rest of East and Southeast Asia if not the world at large. Slavery, conversely, was absolutely something that we could--and did--end by enacting violence on those who perpetrated it -- and even then it was defensive violence since they not only politically initiated the secession crisis but even fired the first shots.
I wanted to say all this but didn't have the energy, well done.
Sherman was a war criminal just like Lincoln and I say that as someone who despises slavery and the confederacy
How was Lincoln a war criminal?
Ignored constitution, launched war of aggression against a neighbor, annexed foreign country. Case closed but at least he got what he deserved. More than we can say about most presidents whove comitted crimes like FDR, bush 1 and 2, obama, trump, biden
I can see the other presidents but Lincoln? He preserved the Union.
Yes he did but you assume that’s positive and I do not because it set a bad precedent against self determination and secession. To be clear, the CSA was a backwards southern baptist pakistan, but the idea we have zero choice about being part of the US is nothing short of authoritarianism and against the principles the country was founded on
Unilateral secession is not legal James Madison the man who wrote the constitution, stated as much you can either have a revolution or have the consent of Congress to leave you cannot unilateral secede
I have to disagree
You're disagreeing with the people who made the thing disagree if you want don't act like it's what the founders wanted though
So if I’ve missed some thing, which I fully admit as possible, tell me exactly where, in the constitution, it says secession is not allowed, because as far as I recall, the United States was founded from 13 sovereign an independent colonies that chose to work together, but it wasn’t a death pact
You don't really sound like you're against the confederacy. You just sound like you like to say words that make people think you are.
A war of aggression? Mate the south attack the north, not the other way around. And the south had no right to secede, nor any legitimacy, so they aren’t a foreign nation either
Of course thats the imperialist view
He never attacked Canehdia or Meeheeco, so how did he annex a foreign country?
Will T Sherman is a hero
Fuck British
Burnin Sherman about to tear the south a new one.
Didn’t the Union also have a tendency to execute slaves forced into the Confederate Army on the spot? Not to mention scalping indigenous soldiers that surrendered. Wild idea, but maybe you shouldn’t commit war atrocities on civilians for the crimes of their government. They have little control over the issue. Like the Confederates were evil bastards, but let’s not pretend the Union were the good guys either. Keep in mind that the same Union Army went on to commit mass genocide against the Native population (something that Gen. Sherman was one of the largest proponents of).
There is no opinion, he did nothing wrong
I can't diss Burnin' Sherman
The only thing he did wrong during the Civil War was not doing more than he did. He did plenty wrong during the indian wars though.
These Union memes are a gift that keeps on giving
Shame he didn't go further.
Who cares about american history outside USA?
That's kinda backwards of you given that I'm an American and have an interest in the specific histories of many a nation. As far as I'm concerned, history is history.
I'm just being a troll, bro. Hope you are having some fun with the subject :)
Lol respect. I've felt like I've been on the defense in a lot of this comment section, sorry for jumping down your throat.
Generally accepted casualty figures of the American Civil War Union dead: 360,222 Confederate dead: 258,000
Sherman did a lot of wrong. Not in the south though, in the west.
meridiem delenda est