Apparently William Tecumseh Sherman is new meme.
Mods are redditor kucks who think they're being intellectuals by posting le no racist le no /pol/ rules while posting racist leaders.
Trully disgusting swines they are.
An hour in and I'm already offended beyond repair
Only thing that pisses me off of the choice in Sherman is that I wanted Herodotus to be the face of this board. I suppose Sherman is suppose to represent the Union with /pol/ being the confederacy.
>I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and also about 25,000 bales of cotton.
Immediately after the war, Dodge proposed enslaving the Plains Indians and forcing them “to do the grading” on the railroad beds, “with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away”. Union army veterans were to be the “overseers” of this new class of slaves. Dodge’s proposal was rejected; the U.S. government decided instead to try to kill as many Indians as possible.
In his memoirs, Sherman has high praise for Thomas Clark Durant, the vice president of the Union Pacific Railroad, as “a person of ardent nature, of great ability and energy, enthusiastic in his undertaking”. Durant was also the chief instigator of the infamous Credit Mobilier scandal, one of the most shocking examples of political corruption in U.S. history. Sherman himself had invested in railroads before the war, and he was a consummate political insider, along with Durant, Dodge, and his brother, Senator John Sherman.
President Grant made his old friend Sherman the army’s commanding general, and another Civil War luminary, General Phillip Sheridan, assumed command on the ground in the West. “Thus the great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort,” writes Sherman biographer Michael Fellman, “formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by the 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as ‘the final solution of the Indian problem’”.
What Sherman called the “final solution of the Indian problem” involved “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.” “These men,” writes Fellman, “applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three [men] despised. . . . Sherman’s overall policy was never accommodation and compromise, but vigorous war against the Indians,” whom he regarded as “a less-than-human and savage race”
What a hero
Should be somebody like Aristotle or Socrates on the sticky
>implying that only a few makes it better.
Go read the declaration of independence you traitorous piece of shit. All men are created equal as soon as you make exceptions to the rule you invalidate it.
Implying the slavery wasn't one of the main reason. Who do you think was making king cotten?
>thousands of people were supposed to leave their lands or homes because half the country needed to invade to keep its centralized power
Slavery wasn't an issue until the South created a mass Yankee grave at Antietam.
I hope Sherman doesn't eclipse the other GOAT
Slavery was an issue even before Lincoln became president with southern wanting to spread it westward as more land was starting to be mapped. Don't act like it wasn't a big buisness and that the south just didn't want to give it up while the North started the process to end it
>People living in different times were racist
Wow, you're a bright one.
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.
>tfw the South will fall again
SOUTHERNERS JUST KEEP GETTING BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
THEY JUST CANT STOP LOSING HISTORY
No, slavery was not the issue. The issue was making new states free or slave states. The actual issue of slavery was still just opinion kicking around in the press/people.
The power to make states free vs slave was the real question, one which give slave states a signal that their rights could possibly be removed by a federal entity AND that their ability to rule their general region would weaken to the other states.
Yes, South Americans, South Africans, South Asians and practically everything South Northpole
We don't want this board to be a lot of FARBY Amerifat faggot who only care about thea civul wor
Sherman is named after Chief Tecumseh, a non-white anti-American terrorist
The South was the side fighting for the ideals of the American Revolution and Sherman was too cowardly to fight them in open battle
delet the sticky
In a nutshell, he ran a military campaign that completely crippled the Confederacy's ability to wage war. He ran a straight line west to east burning crops, slaughtering cattle, ripping up railroad lines, bringing down telegraph poles, freeing slaves, breaking bridges, and essentially capturing or destroying anything that could have helped the Confederates in the war, ultimately ending with the capture/destruction of the city of Atlanta.
Basically, the Civil War was two guys punching each other in the face for three hours, both getting increasingly bloody and tired but neither willing to give up. Sherman was one of those guys pulling out a gun and shooting the other in the kneecaps.
>Southerners mad as fuck that General "Just Burn all Their Shit" Sherman blew them the fuck out.
>Southerners claiming they seceded due to states' rights despite the fact that the South sought to infringe on states' rights before and only got butthurt when the tables turned.
It's solely to buttfluster the south. I can't think of another group of people who deserve to be globally and academically BTFO. Please argue with me, tell me a shittier group of people holding onto a 150 year old war about racism
It never amazes me how a cultureless group of people like Yankee Americans are so proud of being apart of a meat grinder.
>invade with a 5 to 1 advantage
>have way more railroads
>have way more money and infrastructure
>has uniforms and supplies
>controls all the media
>still lose a fuck ton of the first battles
>even when they win, they take heavy losses
>confederates have to retreat because out of ammo from laying blue bodies on the ground four hours
>have to bring up social justice shit so European powers don't join the CSA
>even on their final assault, Grant's attacks are a human wave meat grinder
>Sherman decides to rape and pillage like a savage
>Yankees cannot contain their excitement about how the only way to overcome their ineptitude is through war crimes
>all their cities are now nigger filled shitholes
>start a war they can't win
>'cause they can't imagine doing some honest labor themselves
>upset that they can't pass protectionist laws to prop up their failing and immoral agricultural industry
>don't want to change with the times
>get their shit slapped 'cause what did they expect
>don't get shot to a man or swing as traitors
>whine about it for more than a century
go rise again, faggot
What should Sherman have done?
If some slaves were starving due to the foraging of Sherman’s men, it did not stop thousands of other slaves from attaching themselves to his army. The presence of some of the slaves was welcome, especially strong, able-bodied men who served in the “pioneer corps” at the front of the columns clearing the army’s way by repairing and building-up roads for heavy wagons, removing obstructions placed by Confederate militia and cavalry that shadowed Sherman’s army, and any other tasks necessary to assisting its forward progress. Various of other slaves made themselves useful in camp and in other roles.
The problem from the perspective of Union forces were the hundreds, eventually thousands of refugee slaves that attached themselves to Sherman’s columns but did not labor for it. Some were the dependents of African Americans working for Sherman’s army. Others simply sought to secure their freedom and safety by attaching themselves to the white Northerners, not trusting what their owners or other white Southeners would do when the Yankees moved on. Still others, as Carole Emberton noted, were hungry as a result of Union foraging and sought food from the one place they could be reasonably sure had it–Sherman’s army. It also was the case that some slaves simply were curious to see the northern army, which they regarded as their liberators and once they located the Yankees were loath to return to their place of enslavement. The efforts of slaveholders and other whites to discredit Union soldiers in the eyes of the slaves prior to Sherman’s arrival had backfired, as Edmund L. Drago put it, with “stories of Yankees’ burning and drowning blacks, forcing them to fight, harnessing them to carts, or shipping them to Cuba seldom succeeded in engendering fear among the slaves.”
>no racism allowed in /his/
>except against Southern whites, of course
It's not like anti-kulak persecution hadn't killed enough people in the XXth century, we have to adapt it to the 21st, all under the guise of progressivism, of course, like the original version.
Some Union commanders wanted to get rid of the black hangers on, who they believed potentially imperiled the progress of the army and proved a drain on its resources. No officer felt this way more strongly than Brigadier General Jefferson C. Davis, the XIV Corps’ commander, who used his middle initial in vain attempt to avoid association with the Confederate President to whom he was not related by blood, but had caused him to be nicknamed uncharitably within the Union Army, “General Reb.”
On December 9, 1864, as the XIV Corps crossed swollen Ebenezer Creek about twenty miles north of Savannah, Davis acted ruthlessly to detach his army from the approximately 5,000 black refugees who had joined his column. The refugees were kept from crossing the creek until the army had passed over the pontoon bridge, which was then dismantled before the refugees could cross. The black refugees were left to the mercy of Confederate cavalry under Joseph Wheeler, who had been shadowing Sherman’s army throughout the march, much too weak to attack Sherman head on, but able to pick off stragglers and foraging parties that strayed too far from the main columns. Rather than allow themselves to be captured by Wheeler’s cavalry, hundreds of black refugees, mostly women, children, and the elderly, tried to ford Ebenezer Creek, where many drowned. The remainder were captured by the Confederate cavalry and faced an uncertain fate, with no doubt many being returned to slavery.
If some media needs a villain, a Nazi or a Southern White always work...
>implying the South didn't have victory in sight at times in the war
>implying the vast majority of the South participated in honest labor
>not wanting protectionism for your homeland
>implying Sherman's March was a slap and not pulling a flamethrower out on a gentleman's duel
>implying anyone whines opposed to mocking your "GLORIOUS VICTORY"
go learn how to barbecue, faggot
Cut off from communications with the North during the march, news of the incident at Ebenezer Creek initially was slow to spread, but after Sherman’s forces occupied the port of Savannah, Georgia, on December 21, 1864, accounts from appalled eyewitnesses in Davis’ army quickly made their way to the outside world and into the northern press, prompting Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton himself to travel down to Savannah to investigate, arriving on January 11, 1865. Sherman managed to convince Stanton that Davis had acted properly, and the furor over the incident quickly died away in the glow in the North over the general success of the March to the Sea. Jefferson C. Davis never faced any formal proceedings over Ebenezer Creek and was even later breveted to Major General.
You can frame any racist behavior as "criticizing people for their action".
Lynching was criticizing black people for their crimes. Pogroms were just Eastern European peasants criticizing Jewish moneylenders swindling then etc
>>implying the South didn't have victory in sight at times in the war
Name one time.
Literally, name one time. Victory was never realistically feasible at any time for the South.
>>implying the vast majority of the South participated in honest labor
Then maybe they shouldn't have fought to support the slavery practiced by their southern gentlemen, huh?
You notice how King Cotton did not get anyone else involved in the war. It was literally their entire diplomacy, funding, and cultural plan for the war. "Cotton". Sure worked out well.
>>not wanting protectionism for your homeland
>>>needing to suck government tits for money
Oh, right. Southern states receive money from the Fed, they don't give it.
>>implying Sherman's March was a slap and not pulling a flamethrower out on a gentleman's duel
>>>thinking war is a gentleman's duel
>>implying anyone whines opposed to mocking your "GLORIOUS VICTORY"
"sherman the butcher" "muh atlanta" "southern pride"
cry me the Mississippi.
How is an American inherently irrelevant?
I know you're not American and butthurt, but please grow up and acknowledge that, right or wrong, the United States and Americans are as relevant as anyone else (and probably more so).
Southern States receive more money from the federal government because they have the largest black populations in the U.S., and the entitlement programs disproportionately benefit blacks. It's not the stars-and-bars-flying rednecks in trailer parks that are getting most of that money.
Washington was a traitor for a good cause.
Southern fags were a traitor literally for "northerners gonna take muh slaves away".
Aside from the highly questionable legal basis, morally speaking, half your fucking population were human chattel with no say in anything, so it's pretty golden to see Southerners claiming they had moral right by popular sovereignty. Including the Unionists of the South, the people who wanted independence were most likely a minority of the total CSA population.
>It's not the stars-and-bars-flying rednecks in trailer parks that are getting most of that money.
Yeah, it's just that everyone else has to pay for their past and present efforts to keep blacky down.
No, the fact that a major figure from the American Civil War is on a sticky is nice.
Anyone catch Don H. Doyle on C-SPAN this evening? I've been meaning to read The Cause of All Nations for a while now.
Are you suggesting that blacks deserve a say?
Most Southerners only rallied to the independence cause after Lord Dunmore's Proclamation and fear that this meant the British would take their slaves away
Do you also hate the founding fathers because they fought for the same cause as Robert E Lee
Meet me in front of Lee's statue at midnight, anon. I'll Burr the shit out of your Hamilton.
how the hell are people butthurt about this sherman's march? it was dirty modern warfare --the civil war was a modern war. this is like being bitter about rifled barrels. sorry, the days of gentlemanly duels were over in 1864. (i'm from tennessee, by the way)
Why would I hate them?
They fought for a generally positive and laudable cause.
Some of them happened to have politics I don't agree with.
Some of them didn't.
Some of them threatened to throw a tantrum and leave unless they got votes for people they refused to acknowledge as people.
Some of them were a little more responsible.
But they don't have anyone around today going "Boy, I do miss being able to own people. Those sure were the days, back with Jefferson and the boys. Better put a thirteen-star flag on my license plate!"
Whereas Johnny reb explicitly fought for slavery.
Sure, a lot of the poorer whites were told guff about it being state's rights and the same illustrious struggle of our fore-bearers. Maybe they should have done a little more research before deciding to die for a cause.
The fought against the tyranny of the federal government, just like Washington fought against the crown
And the fought for the same ideals, the only difference is we like to downplay slavery in the revolution and play it up in the civil war
Sherman a best. On Sherman's march to the sea, Confederate General Joe Johnston said "When I learned that Sherman’s army was marching through the Salk swamps, making its own corduroy roads at the rate of a dozen miles a day, I made up my mind that there had been no such army in existence since the days of Julius Caesar
>n hour in and I'm already offended beyond repair
>every Civil War thread some yankee pulls Sherman out of his ass
Yeah, Sherman might as well be a meme.
>Northerners get absolute BTFO for years
>Send hundreds of thousands of pampered yankee kids to their deaths
>Still lose battles despite having twice the manpower and infinitely more supplies/money
>"BUT MUH SHERMAN, B-BUTTHURT SOUTHERNERS"
It's pathetic honestly
Tbh sherman was a total asshole, whole war in general makes the north look really bad. Theres a definitive amount of proof the first shots at sumpter were union and the south was fighting a defensive war, if they wanted they could have invaded in the start and D.C would have been in ashes but they didn't want to fight an offensive war. Then sherman comes along invades deep into the south and kills mostly women and children will burning homes and farms causing large scale starvation.
Good but not great. A very respectable human being.
But hey, it took so long for the Union to get a merely adequate general he spent half the war looking like a genius by comparison.
> Theres a definitive amount of proof the first shots at sumpter were union
Have you guys read Shelby Foote's civil war narrative. I started it a few weeks ago, haven't had much time to read it though.
>The true measure of mastery is to defeat your enemies by avoiding them and instead killing women and children
Fixed that for you, Yankee bootlicker
>attacks a Indian camp
>dies like a bitch
>loses his scalp
>still salty that crazy horse killed him
The fight was an overwhelming victory for the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho, led by several major war leaders, including Crazy Horse and Chief Gall, inspired by the visions of Sitting Bull (Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake). The U.S. 7th Cavalry, including the Custer Battalion, a force of 700 men led by George Armstrong Custer, suffered a severe defeat. Five of the 7th Cavalry's twelve companies were annihilated; Custer was killed, as were two of his brothers, a nephew, and a brother-in-law.
lol they wiped out most of his family too
Slavery spurred the civil war as the north had been using its profits to industrializs for years and once they were set they got high and mighty wanting to abolish it and leave the south in the dust as a undeveloped agrarian shithole. Slavery in political discussion brought up the power imbalance between the north and the south and how little northern politicians cared for their southern brothers. Slavery became the reason to seceed but the south never wanted to keep it forever rather just make sure it couldn't be abolished untill the south was no longer dependent on the norths manufacturing, this is arguable but when attempting to seek help from european powers the south did offer to remove slavery in return for military assistance and loans to spurr southern industrialization.
Reason for secession was slavery but that wasn't what the war was about.
>Win one battle against a one legged general
>Chimp out and destroy civilian buildings all the way to the sea
>Reason for secession was slavery but that wasn't what the war was about.
Read your goddamn articles of secession.
The south was fighting tooth and nail to keep a backward, dying, impractical economic system in place. One, might I add, that benefited mainly the very wealthy.
The civil war was them being dragged kicking and screaming away from slavery as an economic model and into the 20th century.
Oh, that's pretty nice. A bit better lyricism than most of the other confederate songs I've heard.
Confederate side, I happen to like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdIGFOGzjJ8
Hard to go wrong with the tune of Whiskey in the Jar though; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQL_EQi3M3o
>SERIOUSLY? IT'S 1865! I MEAN COME ON SOUTHERNERS!
>Muh indentured servitude
>No Irish need apply
>Muh child laborers
>Muh Company scrip
>Name one time.
>proximity of DC after BOTH battles of Bull Run
>Antietam could have brought the UK to CSA's side
>Then maybe they shouldn't have fought to support the slavery
Most of them didn't. Fucking General Lee didn't, he voiced this many times. He fought to defend his home, much like 99% of the soldiers of the South did. For good reason, the moment they stopped resisting, the Yankee nigger swarm raped and pillaged Atlanta.
>You notice how King Cotton did not get anyone else involved in the war.
It almost got the UK in the war. It's only issue was that it sort of competed with cheap Egyptian cotton. Also you're an idiot if you think the ONLY thing that happened in the South for an economy was cotton. They still had miners, they still had fisheries, indigo, other crops, etc. Literally read a book.
>Oh, right. Southern states receive money from the Fed, they don't give it.
Completely irrelevant to history, and not 100% factual.
>we couldn't win until the South was completely out of manpower, and even then we were so scared of the occasional farmboy with a rifle that we burned, killed, and raped literally everything for miles
Yeah, you won, but it's embarassing to think it took any tact and cunning strategy over desperation and donning a hood of a cossack. You can be proud of being a barbarian all you want, but it makes it more difficult to demonize the South at that point.
The grand defense was always that freedom reigned. The northern factory worker arguably lived worse than a southern slave, but he had freedom right? Now look at today and the swarms of people begging for government handouts. They don't care about profits if they can get a free roof over their head and free food. Slavery. Nothing changed, and your pride means jack shit, Yankee.
Now learn how to fucking cook barbecue.
>into the 20th century
>still largely agrarian and one of the poorest regions in the nation
Wew laddy I guess your right, those edumacated northerners sure did know what was best for the south after all ;^)
Southern bros, have you hoisted the Bonnie Blue today?
>The Southern cause was a continuation of the Revolutionary cause
> Revolutionary cause
No taxation without representation!
> Southern Cause
I mean yeah, we're represented, disproportionately so thanks to the 3/5 compromise and all, but our shit opinion is still a minority so fuck US, we quit!
Well, let's begin.
>Tbh sherman was a total asshole, whole war in general makes the north look really bad.
Good so far! That's the nice thing about opinions; not only does everyone have one, but it's hard to prove them objectively 'wrong'. Because they're opinions! They don't have to be based in fact!
>Theres a definitive amount of proof the first shots at sumpter
Combo breaker, I'm afraid.
"At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James, fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson. (James had offered the first shot to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war.") The shell exploded over Fort Sumter as a signal to open the general bombardment from 4003 guns and mortars at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, the floating battery, and Cummings Point. "
It's 2015, chaps. Get with the times.
>were union and the south was fighting a defensive war,
>if they wanted they could have invaded in the start and D.C would have been in ashes but they didn't want to fight an offensive war.
Absolutely wrong. They wanted to take DC to force a peace. If they could have, they would have in an instant.
>Then sherman comes along invades deep into the south and kills mostly women and children will burning homes and farms causing large scale starvation.
Poor mistreated southerners. They were actually already starving because their economy was in flames, their infrastructure under siege (Grant on the Mississippi and the naval blockade) and their currency worthless. So Sherman comes on down, targets more of the infrastructure the south needs to support its war effort, quite effectively and ruthlessly, but with as much mercy as he can practically afford- see, for instance, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~josephkennedy/Sherman_1864.htm
He fought to end a war.
How many of those ships that brought those slaves over flew the confederate flag? :3
The civil war wasn't necessarily about slavery. It was more about state rights and taking away the labor for agriculture which was basically the entire southern economy. Northerners were just as racist as anyone else at the time.
Give it a while, we will make this guy the new face of /his/
> The civil war wasn't necessarily about slavery.
> t was more about state rights
> labor for agriculture which was basically the entire southern economy.
Seriously why even split hairs like this. Yes, everyone who paid attention in history class for 5 minutes knows that the North didn't go in guns a blazing to liberate the negro. That doesn't change the fact that the war was still about slavery. If anything that makes it even worse for the South, because they were so afraid of losing their slaves in the future that they started one of the bloodiest wars in American history.
Lee was a fucking asshole who was directly responsible for the war. If it had not been for him the war probably would have been over in like a year or less just like everyone though was going to happen back then.
If it hadn't been for Lee there would have been no need for hundreds of thousands of young men to die before they even had a life.
It wasn't about slavery because that would imply the average southerner was fighting to keep slavery legal
The average southerner then is the ancestor of the average southerner today, who are the people most likely to defend the CSA
They had no economic reason to defend slavery because they were not slaveowners, confederate soldiers were fighting for their states not for the rights of slave owners to own slaves
You can't deny the war would have never gone on for anywhere near that long if it had not been for Lee. Because he could not bear to have his widdle feeling hurt by staying loyal to the Union instead of shitty-ass Virginia a half a million young men had to die.
>Thoughts on the face of this board?
DERPI DERPA DEEERPPPRRR!!!!!11
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
DOOODLU DOODLY DOO
HISTORY STARTS IN MERICA!!!!11
SUCK ON THAT EROPEENS
>no chance of taking D.C
In the beginning of the war after bull run, the north got rekt pretty hard but so did the south. Lee stalled and didn't request more men soon enough, if he had as the battle came to a end they could have held the ground with a better defensive position or marched forward. There were a couple other points in the war when a southern victory culminated in a lost oppurtunity but because were speculating on something that for all we know was between highly plausible and impossible it is a little asanine to nit pick and talk about what could have been but it is almost equally so to make broad statements about what could have never happened. Either way it doesn't justify sherman in his actions and
>he just wanted to end the war and stop the suffering
Doesn't either, especially since even as you admitted one of the souths main goals was to capture dc to force peace. Peace was always an option but sherman chose to instead butcher his way across the south.
>implying the face of this board isn't pic related
Not the guy you're replying to but people always tend to forget how unpopular the war actually was in the North prior to late 1864.
Riots occurred in several Northern cities, one of the biggest riots in American history hit New York City over the draft (and had to be suppressed by troops literally fresh from Gettysburg), there was a huge minority of Northern democrats who wanted an immediate peace (Copperheads), Lincoln almost lost the 1864 election over the war, and Maryland actually almost voted to secede at one point. I would venture to guess that if the South had sacked DC any time prior to basically Gettysburg/Vicksburg, anti-war sentiment in the North would have been more than enough to force a cease-fire. It may have been enough to get the Brits involved as well.
That being said, it would have been crazy hard for the Confederates to actually attack DC any time prior to like mid-1862 due to the extensive fort system built around the city by McClellan after First Bull Run.
This is all speculation of course.
I remember he said that Ken Burns' Civil War Documentary made him a millionaire, and after watching some of it I can see why. I want to pick up his books sometime, though I'm currently working through James McPherson's seminal tome (Battle Cry of Freedom).