In 1864, the Union army carried victories, but there was no evidence that the South was weakening. The Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee were still intact. Sherman’s war on non-combatants was an admission that the Union armies could not win on the battlefield.
>>18505815Would it be fair to say this was the first taste of “industrial total war” the world had seen? It sounds like a precursor to things like the air bombings of civilians in WWIII
>>18505820>WWIIIHopefully not prophetic, I meant WWII
>>18505815Sherman ran like a little bitch from Nathan Bedford Forrest. Begging the federal government to bankrupt itself if it meant stopping the wizard of the saddle.Sherman was only good for fighting women and kids, and disorganized feather injuns.
>>18505820Industrial, maybe. But total war had existed in the European mind since the thirty years war.
>>18505820>>18505821Pretty much, and to think it was against what the federal government would tell you 'its own people'This is 100% proof to me that the federal government would indeed drop bombs on their own cities if it meant rooting out some home grown resistance army.Course the war of northern aggression//war of southern independence was a just cause in fighting against proto commie dictator Abraham Lincoln, who sent men to die for his tariff money.
I feel like it is an admission that they couldn’t just win a big battle and then the war but that’s more a consequence of the changing nature of warfare. It was still possible under some circumstances I suppose but very unlikely for anyone, not just the union. Sherman was just one of the first to realize what needed to be done to actually end the conflict. He didn’t even like it, but it was necessary. Without his march to the sea the suffering would have just continued. Better to just do what needs to be done and end it. t. Southerner
>>18505821WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ANON
>>18505830Sherman was a cowardly little cuck who was only good at fighting women and kids, and the occasional disorganized feather injuns.
>>18505844And he was still a major reason for our defeat. Calling the man who beats you a cuck is bad form and it leads to the obvious question. How bad were we that a cowardly cuck defeated us?
>>18505815Yankees describe how the Union troops suffered at Cold Harbor."The lead and iron filled the air as the snowflakes in an angry driving storm" wrote Captain James McGinnis. Private Nelson Armstrong said "the army seemed to melt away like a frost in July." "They were cut down like mown grass" wrote chaplain Alistair Haynes. "Their destruction seemed like that of the hosts of Sennacherib, who's Syrian army was destroyed before Jerusalem in biblical times. So complete and so sudden, it was the most sickening sight in this arena of horrors." Source : Bloody Spring by Joseph Wheelan.
>>18505815What if Lincoln and Sherman began liquidating Southern towns SS style by locking them all in a barn and burning them?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjIiApN6cfg
>>18506041https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5fbYJMEyes
>>18505862>defeatYeah man, marching armed dudes on women and children is so hard. What a great general.
>>18506041Grant got two of my great great etc uncles killed at Cold Harbor.>t. Massachusetts anon.
>>18506041>>18506317Trying to coordinate assaults prior to battlefield radios (not a thing until WW2) was really hard.
>>18505815Why didn't CSA forces stop him?
>>18506350Too busy on other fronts. See, Sherman was a cowardly little rat that ran off to slaughter women and kids because Nathan Bedford Forrest put the fear of God into him. Sherman wrote that he didn't care if it bankrupted the Union, ever cent must be spent to kill Nathan Bedford Forrest.
>>18505815A simple, honest, straight to the point reason the South could not leave the Union."The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. . . It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose, No, we MUST NOT LET the South go.”~ Union Democrat, Manchester, NH, Feb. 19, 1861
>>18505815The Confederates should've marched on DC when they had the chance back in.. 1862 I want to say.
>>18506362No chance at taking D.C. after summer 1861. The capital was well-fortified early on.
>>18506360>enemy is breaking into the heart of your country and raping your women>"I have better things to do than stop him."Cuck mentality
>>18505815>Sherman did stuff to win, therefore it's proof he couldn't winAre you fucking retarded, IN A WAR you do whatever it takes to win. WAR IS NOT A FUCKING SPORTS GAME you retard, there is no fucking referee.
>In his memoirs, Grant remarked "Those officers who believed in creating new theories of state governments, issuing emancipation proclamations, and invading Canada came to grief almost as surely as the officers who believed their duty was mainly to safeguard Rebel property and keep the slaves working in the fields while their owners were off serving in the Rebel army."[3]
>>18505815 Cope and seethe, cletus. Your daughters will bear black kids
After taking Atlanta, Sherman was deep in enemy territory guarding a supply line that stretched back to Nashville and beyond. It made sense to just march to the sea and gut what was left of Confederate supply and logistics, after using similar tactics in Mississippi cutting loose from supply lines. He said something about giving Hood rations if he marched all the way to the Ohio River and he left enough troops in Tennessee to withstand Hood’s banzai charge. Other Union commanders with superior numbers shit the bed in 1864 driving into Confederate territory—Red River, Camden, Brice’s Crossroads, early Shenandoah valley campaign. Sherman didn’t want to keep chasing Hood around the same north Georgia hills he’d slogged through all year, possibly getting Chickamauga’d a long way from home.
