Sherman's Match to the Sea

How did Sherman do it where he suffered minimal casualties while burning a path through the heart of the Confederacy industrial power?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because there was no force willing to engage him after he had captured Atlanta.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He legitimately had better intelligence about the area and it's geography than the CSA did. He was on survey crews in that area before the war. The only ones who would've been better was local militia getting raised, but they were led by idiots.

      This too for the most part.

      >organic thread
      What got bombed?
      Another oil refinery?
      Another ballistic missile boat?
      A sub?

      "Organic" posters need to be gassed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. They didn't want any part of what he was serving up at that point. It was an inversion of the usual caution between Union/Confed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There were 12000 confederate forces in the AO. There was no point in trying to stop him.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They weren't moving as a mass. Forage parties and dispersed forces would always have been at risk.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but they had an entire Cav division with them. You skirmishing with some foragers would simply result in your being ridden down by cavalry. Further, you irritating their skirmishers would not stop his march and could easily be countered by him beefing up his foraging parties. It would also require you to disperse your forces even more, which would amplify your problem of him having the critical mass.

            The sensible decision is (and was) to avoid contact, concentrate and conserve own forces and await re-enforcement.

            If you look at the map there are key railway junctions in the south of Georgia that you will have to defend if you want to be able to retake Savannah and eventually Atlanta.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              how did Sherman supply his forces? did they just live off the land?

              if they could harass him and force him to use up his ammo they would have cut short his campaign. but then there's nothing much 12,000 fellas can do against 60,000 anyway

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >did they just live off the land?
                Yes. Their rout was specifically chosen based off pre-war census data on crop yields.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I guessed, which is why I said
                >force him to use up his ammo

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >use up your men (cant replace)
                >so he uses up ammo (can replace)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he uses up ammo (can replace)
                no, he can't, that's the point

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Look where his going: ports

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                well, the gamble is that if the constant harassing action can make them use up their ammo, they'll never reach the sea

                I'm not saying it's a brilliant plan, I'm saying it's one of the few alternatives the defenders have in that situation

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not saying it's a brilliant plan, I'm saying it's one of the few alternatives the defenders have in that situation
                The rate of fire was simply too low for 60.000 men to be in critical shortage of ammunition before they could neutralize 12.000 skirmishers acting with communication delays measured in days.
                The columns went between 5 and 10 miles per day. That's fast if you have to fight, secure and loot every village and town along the way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                depends how you fight, doesn't it?
                like I said, it's a gamble; nobody can be sure how much ammo they'd blaze away if they were harassed

                ultimately it doesn't matter of course; one way or another they didn't have what it takes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >depends how you fight, doesn't it?
                Could you elaborate, please ?
                I'm sure you got a nugget of knowledge here but I'm not what it is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no that's about it
                5:1 odds are terrible for a stand up fight but should be alright for harassment
                you can eat off the land but you can't get gunpowder and bullets
                how much ammo can a cavalry troop on a chevauchée carry with it? not unlimited

                the thing about battles is that nobody can predict the outcome, we really do roll the dice every time
                and in this case the harassers aren't playing to win, but to delay progress and use up ammo

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Also, why are people poo pooing Sherman's track record of having very few casualties for his campaign? Do the Battles of Fort McAllister, Honey Hill, Buck Head Creek, Griswoldville and Waynesboro not count, or do they need to need to be Gettysburg tier for things to matter as some sort of crazy goalpost move?

              >You skirmishing with some foragers would simply result in your being ridden down by cavalry.
              Not the case, the Bummers were mainly on their own when they were foraging for supplies, this lead to the Confederates being exceptionally cruel to the Bummers where they were being executed on the spot rather than being taken prisoner. It got so bad, Sherman was forced to order retaliation and execute Confederate prisoners of war he had to stop the Confederates from executing the Bummers they capture.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The battle of Griswoldville was less a proper battle and more a bunch of poor Home Guards with Muskets going up against the first semi-autos

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >willing
      *able
      Traitor scum lost the war the moment they fired on Ft. Sumter

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They lost the moment the seceded. Had they remained in the Union, Lincoln would have had a far harder time getting his policies through.
        They were also woefully unprepared for a real war. Hoping on King Cotton was a terrible idea when Europeans would just plant it elsewhere and the Union blockade all their shipping.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah. Slavery would not expand in a noticeable way beyond the states it was already in, but could have remained as an institution into the 20th century I am confident in saying. That shit would be extremely hard to root out without a civil war.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Slave states wanted to explicitly force newer states to be admitted 1:1 slave:free. You're right that it wasn't viable everywhere, but there would be attempts from Southern slaveholders to forcibly "colonize" the new slave territories with plantations or other slave-labor-driven enterprises. They may not ever reach the density of the old South, and it would not have been effective, but I don't think that we can say that it would not have "noticeably expanded" had the civil war not happened.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The parity was already broken in 1858 with the admission of California and Minnesota.
              They did try to make Kansas into a slave state but it failed.
              But they only needed to have a third of the states in order to block any amendments in the senate.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        300k dead in Southern dust

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then why did it go on for 5 years?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >ww2 took 6trs for the allies to win therefore the axis lost

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, they lost before Gettysburg, but definitely could have done enough damage early on to secure secession if there was an actual plan to be had by either side.
        If the NYC draft riots got any worse that too could have done something for them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They needed Copperheads to win the 1864 election. But by that time they had already been beaten badly and Sherman capturing Atlanta not only showed that the Union had the upper hand but that swift victory was in sight.
          Postponing the actual secession to 63 would have given them more time to prepare and achieve a better position for the election.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All the traitorous South needed to do was not betray the United States and just threaten to secede. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, but he was willing to sacrifice even that to keep the union together. Instead the typically moronic south jumped the gun and committed treason rather than force Lincoln into submission.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I confess I'm less knowledgeable on the Civil War, so you may be right, but I hesitate to immediately agree with you that waiting would have been better. This is mostly because I've seen to many "Hitler should have waited until 1940-41-42 etc." arguments, and those are universally wrong. The Axis generally had to go when they did, the time was never going to be better for them than when they actually launched their respective wars. They were at numerical, logistical, and arguably technological disadvantages that mandated going while they had any edge in war-readiness and surprise. Given the Confederacy's overall agrarian disposition pre-war, it was in a similar jam, which makes me wonder if it was 1861 or never.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There was no chance the Confederacy could have won in a head to head battle against the Union, the only way they had to win was outlast the Union and have the Union population give up and want peace. Which would have happened until Grant and Sherman started kicking ass and taking names.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did you read any accounts? They were fielding superior weaponry against old men and boys hastily and desperately thrown together

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >against old men and boys hastily and desperately thrown together
      Only for Smith, Wheeler had trained Cavalry and got reinforced by Jackson. Meanwhile Hardee made attempts.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >minimal casualties
    >about 2% of your men lost in 1 battle
    >another 3% of your men lost in about 1 month without a single major battle

    By this logic, the Union and its 2 millions men would have won the whole Civil War with "minimal casualties" if it had lost "only" 2 millions men in battles and then "only" another 3 millions through attrition over 4 years.

    The feat of Sherman was less about casualties and more about the fact that it achieved result quickly, with minimum troops and without needing to crush enemy armies.
    It played on the Union's strength : manpower.
    If you can wreck roughly 14.000 square miles of enemy territory in 1 month with 1 army corps, then imagine what dozens of cavalry brigades could do ?
    Sure, the enemy could deploy troops to oppose that but can he really afford to stretch its own forces on garrison duty along a large front when you got twice as many men as he has and can potentially muster up to four times as many ?
    If the Union could fix most of Confederate troops with one or two armies to give local superiority to "flying columns" elsewhere to achieve defeat in details while pillaging the population, it would simply not be sustainable for the Confederacy from an logistical and economical stand point, if the population didn't simply revolt before.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Go directly into the heart of enemy territory with zero support, logistics and ability to give meaningful medical care to the wounded.
      >Only lose 4.84% of your forces while decimating the enemies fighting power.
      Considering the sitution, yes, that would be 'minimal casualties'

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      5% casualties over a month isn't light for a civil war campaign? 2% isn't light for a battle?
      Look up the Overland campaign or literally any other campaign and your head will spin

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Screw the "battles" : they had such numerical superiority that losing more would have been gross incompetence on their part (look Honey Hill) or both suicidal bravery and tactical genius from their enemies (which had no illusion about the outcome when opposing at anywhere between 1:2 and 1:5)

        The attrition level over so few days is enormous, yes, and that's the real sticker here.
        Hence the absurd extrapolation : if that kind of losses had occured on the same pattern for the rest of the Civil War, it wouldn't have been "light" by any definition.

        It doesn't make the campaign any less of a success. You just have to not delude yourself into thinking it was a bloodless thing. Given the achieved results, it was an excellent exchange for the Union but it wasn't a sustainable kind of war.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Show me one Union campaign of similar length and size in the ACW that suffered a lower rate of casualties, just one. Surely if the Atlanta campaign casualties weren't light, there should be one with fewer casualties, right? Logically?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are the one pointing to the global casualties while I pointed at attrition (that's it : casualties outside of the battles) but if you want to fixate on it...

            >Show me one Union campaign of similar length and size in the ACW that suffered a lower rate of casualties, just one.
            I'll play along :
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_campaign

            The campaign lasted longer : a little less than 5 months.
            The Union gathered about twice as many men.
            They lost the campaign. Though the outcome isn't relevant to our current discussion, we would expect a higher percentage of losses for a defeat than for a victory with "light casualties".

            Its main aim was an 70 miles advance on Richmond, starting from the sea.
            They had to operate in Confederate territory and rely on naval supply chain at a time where naval supremacy was not garanteed so logistics weren't easy, especially for supporting so many men over such a long period with clear bottlenecks.

            Over the course of the campaign, the Union lost 23.000 men out of roughly 100.000 men.
            That's including battles and comes down to about 4,6% per month.
            Out of this, 16.000 men were lost in the very last battle alone, over barely 7 days.

            If we remove them from the losses and generously assume that ALL the rest were attrition (they were not), we have a 1,4% monthly attrition for the campaign.
            If we remove the rest of the losses of the various battle, that percentage drops even more.
            But I don't need to lower the monthly percentage of casualties : 1,4% is already lower than 4,8%.
            And it is an even better performance from the Union since, in that campaign, they didn't enjoy as large a numerical local superiority and didn't win.

            I let you explain why "this campaign isn't comparable !"
            You will be right : it is not, in that there are no campaign exactly similar to the March to the Sea.
            A more accurate rebutal from your part would be to give me what you consider would be a fine comparison point and to analyse from there.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >5 months.
              Advance up the Peninsula set off April 4th
              Concluded July 1st
              3 months
              23,000/100,000
              7.7% a month for the campaign
              See? Didn't need 500 words for that
              >If we remove them from the losses
              Bizarre that you would remove part of a campaign because it had too many casualties for you

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >3 months
                I conceed the 3 months rather than 5 months.
                My bad.

                >Bizarre that you would remove part of a campaign because it had too many casualties for you
                As I pointed, my point is about the attrition, not the total losses.
                For this reason, I did remove the casualties of this battle, the same way I removed the casualties of battles for the March to the Sea.
                Since the losses occured in a very small laps of time during which fighting was intense (we are talking about one of the most costly battles of the Civil War), it seemed appropriate.
                Nevertheless, I gave you the rate for both with and without this battle.
                Up to you to judge which of us is being honest here.

                Adapting for 3 months rather than 5 means we go from 1,4% monthly "attrition" (with the generous inclusion of all other battles) up to 2,3%.
                This is still inferior to the March to the Sea, though I'll give you that it is less impressive a difference.

                Given that we are talking about the level of casualties sustained by the Union in what amounted to a protracted amphibious campaign which ended in defeat and retreat, it seems to me reasonable to not consider this as "light".

                I gave you what you asked :
                A rather short campaign where the attrition casualties were lower than the March to the Sea.
                I didn't take an easy campaign where the armies would have just taken a walk with overwhelming numerical superiority and easy logistics.
                I tried to fit into something close, though I didn't search for hours for an exact match either.

                If this isn't to your liking, please point a campaign you feel would make a more fitting exemple to frame the March to the Sea as "light casualties".
                Typically, "light casualties" means that casualties were much lower than for other operations.
                It can also means that the casualties were low for what was expected but I don't think that is what you meant. Am I wrong ?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >As I pointed, my point is about the attrition, not the total losses.
                Brother, nobody cares about the attrition by itself. If that's your point then take it and leave, yes the attrition wasn't immensely lighter. I don't know how fricking autistic one has to be to consider battle casualties in a campaign to be irrelevant to overall casualties. Holy shit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >3 months
                I conceed the 3 months rather than 5 months.
                My bad.

                >Bizarre that you would remove part of a campaign because it had too many casualties for you
                As I pointed, my point is about the attrition, not the total losses.
                For this reason, I did remove the casualties of this battle, the same way I removed the casualties of battles for the March to the Sea.
                Since the losses occured in a very small laps of time during which fighting was intense (we are talking about one of the most costly battles of the Civil War), it seemed appropriate.
                Nevertheless, I gave you the rate for both with and without this battle.
                Up to you to judge which of us is being honest here.

                Adapting for 3 months rather than 5 means we go from 1,4% monthly "attrition" (with the generous inclusion of all other battles) up to 2,3%.
                This is still inferior to the March to the Sea, though I'll give you that it is less impressive a difference.

                Given that we are talking about the level of casualties sustained by the Union in what amounted to a protracted amphibious campaign which ended in defeat and retreat, it seems to me reasonable to not consider this as "light".

                I gave you what you asked :
                A rather short campaign where the attrition casualties were lower than the March to the Sea.
                I didn't take an easy campaign where the armies would have just taken a walk with overwhelming numerical superiority and easy logistics.
                I tried to fit into something close, though I didn't search for hours for an exact match either.

                If this isn't to your liking, please point a campaign you feel would make a more fitting exemple to frame the March to the Sea as "light casualties".
                Typically, "light casualties" means that casualties were much lower than for other operations.
                It can also means that the casualties were low for what was expected but I don't think that is what you meant. Am I wrong ?

                Not to mention your initial point in the first fricking place of the attrition being "enormous" when you've JUST DEMONSTRATED it wasn't

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't know how fricking autistic one has to be to consider battle casualties in a campaign to be irrelevant to overall casualties.

                It become a point when more than half the casualties aren't from battles.
                And it becomes especially relevant when there are nearly no battle worth speaking during the campaign.
                Losing 1.500 dudes out of 60.000 in a single battle while conquering a city and burning a whole country is nice.
                Losing the same amount of dudes while simply advancing for a month without serious opposition is worrying.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So losing 1500 men to a battle makes sense to you, but losing the same number of men to smaller skirmishes and disease over the course of a month is blowing your mind.

                You do not read military history, let alone ACW history. You haven't even read the history of this campaign despite writing about it. You have no idea of normal ACW campaign casualties. Stop posting.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You have no idea of normal ACW campaign casualties
                As asked, provide your exemple of a normal campaign.
                We'll see if the March to the Sea had light casualties in comparison.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Literally
                Any
                Campaign
                You just went through the Peninsular campaign, which was even in the less intense early years, and found it had a higher casualty rate even with your bizarre fixation on excluding major battles from the casualties of a campaign. You are incapable of comprehending even your own words.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So you do not have an exemple and are just trolling.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Here's my example: the Peninsular campaign

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your exemple of the March to the Sea having lighter attrition casualties proportion than a normal campaign is a campaign where attrition was lighter than the March to the Sea ?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >where attrition was lighter than the March to the Sea ?
                Except it wasn't, by your own numbers.
                Do I really need to read your own posts back to you? This is sad

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                By the way riddle me this
                With your logic, if a campaign has a major battle we exclude those casualties. On the other hand, if a campaign has a dozen smaller battles we include those casualties. It's a very logical method.

                You got to learn this is not a fricking discord chat, newbie

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                By the way riddle me this
                With your logic, if a campaign has a major battle we exclude those casualties. On the other hand, if a campaign has a dozen smaller battles we include those casualties. It's a very logical method.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your postulate is wrong here :
                I did not simply excluded the battle.
                I gave and compared both numbers.
                It's a question of comparing apples with apples.
                Playing dumb does nothing to further your demonstration.
                Neither does making affirmations without providing the same level of detail you requested from others.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's a question of comparing apples with apples
                Right so if a union soldier is shot in a skirmish with 50 soldiers we don't count it, but if he's against 5,000 it's a battle and we include it. A campaign of nothing but large battles would have 0% attrition, because battles don't count. Logical.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >A campaign of nothing but large battles would have 0% attrition, because battles don't count. Logical.
                Please provide an exemple of a campaign with only large battles without pause in between.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >attrition (that's it : casualties outside of the battles)
              nobody uses that definition, ESL-kun

              >I don't know how fricking autistic one has to be to consider battle casualties in a campaign to be irrelevant to overall casualties.

              It become a point when more than half the casualties aren't from battles.
              And it becomes especially relevant when there are nearly no battle worth speaking during the campaign.
              Losing 1.500 dudes out of 60.000 in a single battle while conquering a city and burning a whole country is nice.
              Losing the same amount of dudes while simply advancing for a month without serious opposition is worrying.

              >Losing the same amount of dudes while simply advancing for a month without serious opposition is worrying
              but they weren't "simply advancing" you colossal homosexual, they were wrecking the enemy supply base
              you act as if they did nothing

              >didn't read
              >or failed at math
              2% monthly for 48 months is nearly 100%
              Doesn't matter much since the post is just to show how absurd it is to speak of light casualties here.
              Also, there's a mistake, as the % should be against peak strength and not against the total of soldiers who served.

              if the Union was constantly in battle and advanced 250 miles through Confederate territory every month, the war would be over in 3 months and yes casualties would be very light

              before uttering a further word, look up the non-battlefield casualties of the ACW and present your findings

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >before uttering a further word, look up the non-battlefield casualties of the ACW and present your findings
                You post it homie
                I aint doing your homework for you lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, because you don't know.

                Which all of us knew because you made the ridiculous claim that
                >3% attrition on campaign isn't light!!
                If you could say that then you should know what the figures are. You don't, because you made a baseless claim on gut feel and now you're being called out.

                >before uttering a further word, look up the non-battlefield casualties of the ACW and present your findings
                No u

                go back

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >before uttering a further word, look up the non-battlefield casualties of the ACW and present your findings
                No u

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The attrition level over so few days is enormous, yes, and that's the real sticker here.
          More than a month? While hundreds of miles deep in enemy territory? Whatever helps you cope.
          >You just have to not delude yourself into thinking it was a bloodless thing.
          Nobody implied this.
          >but it wasn't a sustainable kind of war.
          How was the attrition long-term unsustainable? And why are you equivocating an entire war process to a campaign hundreds of miles deep in enemy territory? No war was sustainable like that until USA 20th Century Global Logistics.
          Sounds like you're butthurt dixiephile perpetually mad about Sherman's March and nitpicking any positive spin on it using shitty semantics and strawman arguments.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >By this logic, the Union and its 2 millions men would have won the whole Civil War with "minimal casualties" if it had lost "only" 2 millions men in battles and then "only" another 3 millions through attrition over 4 years.
      I can't even begin to respond to this comment

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus Christ autismo, the 3K is a COMBINED figure for both sides, Sherman lost ~1300 of 62K

      Some people just don't read

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >2% of 2 million is 2 million
      homie wut

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >didn't read
        >or failed at math
        2% monthly for 48 months is nearly 100%
        Doesn't matter much since the post is just to show how absurd it is to speak of light casualties here.
        Also, there's a mistake, as the % should be against peak strength and not against the total of soldiers who served.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You do know that just by standing still a mid-19th century army of that size would suffer dozens per week from desertions and disease, right?
          2% is probably as low as one could ever hope for in enemy territory.
          >48 months
          Worthless comparison. They didn’t fight for 48 months, they fought for 1 month and took the lightest of light casualties. Are you fricking dumb or something?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not my argument : I explain the math to you, that's all.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Maybe learn English first.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What is your definition of light casualties for a month of campaigning in the context of the American Civil War?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >1-nx neq (1-x)^n forall n
          Anon-kun, even if we go by your moron assumption and assume a 2% casualty rate for 48 months straight, that's still only 62% casualties overall, not anywhere close to 100%.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if the population didn't simply revolt before.
      They were already revolting.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don't be rude, anon, it's not their fault they were so inbred.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          VERY underrated poast

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >organic thread
    What got bombed?
    Another oil refinery?
    Another ballistic missile boat?
    A sub?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shut the frick up tourist we're talking about war

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe you should go to the political board, or the history board? Because this isn't weapons related.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          /k/ has a tradition to talk about past conflicts, to discuss the equipment used but also the tactics and strategies it allowed.
          Also, what kind of moron waste time replying to a thread that does not interest him ?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          go back to your gear queer or ar gay thread, homosexual

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ok vatnik apparently your helo got friendly fired

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is what you get for suffering uisraelites and uisraelite shills semitizing your board son. Enjoy it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          he slaughtered women and children. the slaves put up a defense in atlanta after the confederates burned it to keep him from their supplies. he then slaughtered every black and white male over the age of 10 he found, was a worse brute than forrest or john bell hood and slaughtered entire counties in rape and torture and of course that is the only thing to get a damnyankee hard.

          who knows, i'm shocked there hasnt been ranting about how a ukraine thread died for this so they can get their SJW 2 minutes hate in. .

          >"I'm angry about propaganda on /k/!"
          >Posts propaganda on /k/

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      he slaughtered women and children. the slaves put up a defense in atlanta after the confederates burned it to keep him from their supplies. he then slaughtered every black and white male over the age of 10 he found, was a worse brute than forrest or john bell hood and slaughtered entire counties in rape and torture and of course that is the only thing to get a damnyankee hard.

      who knows, i'm shocked there hasnt been ranting about how a ukraine thread died for this so they can get their SJW 2 minutes hate in. .

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Consequences to our actions? That's a warcrime!
        It wasn't.
        It should have been.
        It will be next time.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Almost got a bingo. You immigrants really do run off a script.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Imagine making this and end up being the only one using it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That pic
            >The south is the reason for the Black person problem.

            It is though, like unequivocally so. There wouldnt be millions of blacks int the US without the southern slave plantations.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just let us split amicably, there's nothing you'd want here anyway. It's hot, swampy. Mosquitoes and poisonous things everywhere. You really don't want anything we can offer, just let us be a friendly buffer state against the Mexicans, we'll even let your old people retire in Florida still.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there's nothing you'd want here anyway
            I want to watch you seethe. I want to rub your face in it every chance I get.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why would I be seething when yankee money is making me richer?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon you are trying to reason with a rabid dog. He doesn't care about nuance or ethics or morality. He and those like him and self-loathing misanthropes who find meaning in attacking whatever target is socially acceptable at the time. The only reason they like Sherman is because he waged indiscriminate war on people you are related to. That's it.
            Just remember that when you train and go to the range. These people would murder your family and rape the corpses.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, I know, luckily most of them are rentoid nogunz cucks though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >. he then slaughtered every black and white male over the age of 10 he found, was a worse brute than forrest or john bell hood and slaughtered entire counties in rape and torture and of course that is the only thing to get a damnyankee hard.
        Based should have done it to the rest of the South too

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon none of that happened. This was the US Civil War, not the German conquest of Belgium.
        Got a source?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He's a warm criminal and we should tear down his statue

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      “no.”
      >DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I chuckled.
        Thx anon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He'd probably consider his own statue a joke. It's shiny and gold and war is anything but.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >warm criminal
      Now that right there is a plain unfortunate mistype.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sherman had a shitload of camp followers comprised of freed slaves that he got to "confiscate." They knew the area we'll and had an axe to grind for some unknown reason.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      almost every single recording of slaves had them loving their masters family, outside of the "leased" slaves who were the troublemakers and rapists.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Who the frick genuinely thinks someone wants to be free labor

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Who the frick genuinely thinks someone wants to be free labor
          Sounds like the average american
          >mmmhhhh yes daddy corpo buttfrick me harder!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because they give you housing, food, clothing, etc. in exchange for your labor, and you've likely been metaphorically whipped into thinking that it's out of their sheer benevolence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        No they didn't. Virtually all slaves left overnight the moment they found out they were freed after the war. And any account of a loving relationship between slave and master is just Uncle Tom's Cabin level of cope. You wouldn't love someone that stole you from your home, bought you, and forced to to work until you died while raping your women and whipping you.

        Clearly you're an obese historically illiterate butthurt belter so let's clear some other myths up. The war started almost entirely because of slavery. You lost because you deserved to lose, because your strategy and tactics were inferior. Reconstruction was a heart-swelling act of kindness on the part of the civilized states, which you repaid us by screeching about oppression for hundreds of years. Sherman was incredibly based, and the South deserved much worse than he gave them. And finally, the reason the modern-day South is a third-world level shithole compared to the north is because you decided to wallow in your failure for 250 years instead of moving on, not because we didn't let you. Southerners are stupider, lazier, and more spiteful than any other part of the country and always have been, and this has been shown through virtually every large scale study of obesity, teen pregnancy, infant mortality, state GDP, education level, and overall quality of life. Cope trailer trash.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >250 years
          *150

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The war started almost entirely because of slavery.
          Wrong, it was the reason southerners got buttmad, but the North started the war because they wanted to do more trade with the non-slaver nations. It was basically the first time the US pulled the "yeah we do it for humanitarian reasons, not for resources" they have been pulling ever since anytime they started a war
          > Reconstruction was a heart-swelling act of kindness on the part of the civilized states
          Also wrong, Reconstruction - or rather the way it was conducted - is a huge reason why the south is like it is and why people are still butthurt about the Confederacy losing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Reconstruction was a heart-swelling act of kindness on the part of the civilized states, which you repaid us by screeching about oppression for hundreds of years
          First off, who is "us" here? But the Reconstruction was horribly enacted across the board; you could argue the shitty assassination of Lincoln was a cause for that.
          >And finally, the reason the modern-day South is a third-world level shithole compared to the north
          This comment in particular is bullshit, as the northern formerly industrial cities are decaying shitholes while the city centers of the Piedmont-Atlantic are experiencing positive growth trends on every metric more than any other region east of the Mississippi.

          >The war started almost entirely because of slavery.
          Wrong, it was the reason southerners got buttmad, but the North started the war because they wanted to do more trade with the non-slaver nations. It was basically the first time the US pulled the "yeah we do it for humanitarian reasons, not for resources" they have been pulling ever since anytime they started a war
          > Reconstruction was a heart-swelling act of kindness on the part of the civilized states
          Also wrong, Reconstruction - or rather the way it was conducted - is a huge reason why the south is like it is and why people are still butthurt about the Confederacy losing.

          >but the North started the war because they wanted to do more trade with the non-slaver nations
          This is complete fricking bullshit. Which are these "non-slaver nations" that wouldn't be trading with the USA anyway because of slave states? This might be the dumbest statement in this shitty ass thread. Holy frick where do you even get that? Think about what you said for two seconds and just consider how stupid that concept even is.
          Southern Slave states seceeded from the Union and openly caused the war when they attacked Federal positions. Simple as.
          But seriously,
          >but the North started the war because they wanted to do more trade with the non-slaver nations
          What markets were restricted to the USA because of the slave states here? List a single fricking one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What markets were restricted to the USA because of the slave states here? List a single fricking one.
            Bong Empire. There. Now go read a book you dumb Black person. And then go frick yourself you moronic piece of shit.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >tells someone else to read a book while insisting that Reconstruction was le wholesome chungus
              Figures.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The main trading partner of the USA before the war was England, though.
              And most of the export of the USA to England came from the Southern States.
              It stopped with the war mostly because the Union blockaded the Confederacy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And most of the export of the USA to England came from the Southern States.
                Not true, the British heavily invested in American railways and the Union was the main importer of not only luxury and manufactured goods for Britain and France, but almost half of Britain and France's wheat imports came from the Union. So while you had Napoleon III chomping at the bit to weaken the US and reclaim territory, he wasn't about to lose one of his chief food importers and have the French population starve, since that strategy caused Louis XVI to lose his head. This is the big reason the French stayed out of the war.
                And while the Confederacy was the main exporter of cotton to the world and the price was at an all time high when the Confederates started the Civil War, their attempt to leverage this was comically inept. Like even though confederates had the wind at their back with both The Trent Affair and Prime Minister Palmerston being sympathetic to them, the Confederates used the crony system to send highly incompetent diplomats who thought they could bribe the British into an alliance if they waved enough cotton into the faces. Meanwhile the Union diplomats ran circles around their Confederate counterparts by pointing out, correctly too, that the Civil War was about slavery and the Union was fighting to end the institution of slavery. As for cotton, the British and France had a surplus of it when war broke out, and by the time their supplies were depleted, they found alternate sources from Egypt and Indian which totally destroyed any leverage the Confederates could have.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you for proving that this anon

                >What markets were restricted to the USA because of the slave states here? List a single fricking one.
                Bong Empire. There. Now go read a book you dumb Black person. And then go frick yourself you moronic piece of shit.

                is wrong.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >assert that the biggest export market of United States goods (especially slave state export products), was restricted by slaver enough that the North had to start a civil war to open up the markets for
              >telling anyone else to read a book

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The British were more than happy to trade with the US and the South in particular for cheap cotton and didn't give two shits how it was grown. The only reason they didn't intervene on the side of the Confederacy was because they had alternate sources of cotton in India they could get without having to get involved in an overseas war.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They didn't intervene because while their antislavery position was primarily rooted in geopolitics, to frick over French and Spanish colonial economies, there was enough genuine antislavery positions in the population and government to make it politically unviable and because the North was one of its its largest export markets making it economically unviable.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          based moderate

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/VNACtxZ.jpg

          based moderate

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do it again, uncle billy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The war was fought because nigs were needed in factories and they were people who could be taxed, millions slaving away on plantations as property was just incredibly inefficient and hurtful to the economy at that point.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because he emulated Genghis Khan: surrender or die with your town razed to the ground. Being surrender monkeys, the South obliged.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because after Atlanta there were no local forces to oppose him and having small detachments of men try resist the swarm of 62,000 Yankees would only result in further degradation of own forces. The smart decision is to avoid the enemy and await reinforcement.

      >How did Sherman do it where he suffered minimal casualties
      Because southerners are actually pansies who talk shit but run at the first sign that someone fights back.

      Baaait

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Southerns are literally the most timid and cowardly people the entire united states, I’ve met corn husking bumpkins from Iowa with more backbone than the braindead front lifted truck morons I’ve met in South Carolina

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          South Carolinians are an inferior people. They have always been and will always be degenerate savages. They started the damn war and then did absolutely FRICK ALL during it, instead leaving the fighting up to the naturally superior Virginians and North Carolinians. Both of us were reluctant to join the war in the first place, but their ape out forced our hand.

          I'm actually from Mississippi and I only drove through it one time but that was enough to make me hate it lmao. Then again I am a Mississippian so I'm morally and spiritually obligated to dislike other Southern states for being more propsperous than us.

          As much as I hate SC, your state is even worse. You are the Southern equivalent of the Untouchables. At least SC had some achievements over their history.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >At least SC had some achievements over their history.
            More than being the birthplace for Stephen Colbert, what else has SC done?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's a net negative and SC needs to give us an apology for that.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's a net negative and SC needs to give us an apology for that.

              Independent 3rd party vote:

              I visited Savannah, Charlestown and Hilton Head and I gotta say its one of my favorite spots on the coast.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How did Sherman do it where he suffered minimal casualties
    Because southerners are actually pansies who talk shit but run at the first sign that someone fights back.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yeah it's crazy how much damage you can do when all your enemy's armies are preoccupied and hundreds of miles away.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Confederacy
    >Industrial Power
    anon. The south had almost no industry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The most obvious samegay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        samegay

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Confederacy
    >industrial power
    lol, lmao even

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Grant trapped Lee. Grant kept poking lee, lee kept freaking out and pulling troops away. Sherman would just surround confederates then burn down everywhere they were hiding. They went home to protect their shit from other attacks, panic spread.

    Grants entire plan hinged on him engaging lee in attrition warfare in the wilderness then trapping him in trench warfare
    Lee refused to go guerilla and those he could *teleport behind you*
    16 months later Grant wiped out 10% of the Confederacy males.
    That's why there will never be another American civil war.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just realized how similar Saudi Arabia and Georgia look

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Southern redditor being this butthurt about Sherman

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no u
      The Ellis Islander/post-1965er can try to be an American, but in the end he is still just an immigrant trying to graft himself to a legacy that will never accept him. The South and north were reconciled after 1877, you are aping patriotism to try and make up for you ancestry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yet you still haven't gotten over the South losing and slavery being abolished

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          For now. For now. Poland was lost for centuries under foreign rule. Ireland over 700 years. Serbia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, all under the heel until one day they weren't. So long as Southern nation exists your victory is only temporary.
          You can crow about the war "you" won, but all we have to do is survive until the time comes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What, you're going to make another pro-slavery revolt?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't reply to troony avatargays.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can't march with tank tracks. That's called driving.
    God Americans are so stupid.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can, however, "match" with tank treads. I understand your confusion, but OP was quite clear in his post.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >They're so mad they created a bingo sheet

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My dear anons, we all know the army of General Lee was never truly defeated.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >reddit frog

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Sherman only won because he had superior numbers.
    >Ignores the battle of Battle of Jonesborough where the Confederates had superior numbers when they engaged the Union forces

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    An evil war, started by rich men who did not want to give up their slaves. Then the poor die in their place, a story that repeats.

    The worst of it is that slavery was never abolished, that was the entire goal of the war. It was codified into law via the 13th Amendment as legal punishment, many former slaves rounded up and put in prisons.

    That means, to this day, the zionist federal government is the largest slave owner in the world, as the US prison system is the largest in the world. Men fought and died as they considered it as a holy struggle for God to end slavery, yet here we are.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Dixieboos and redditors shitflinging
    The only people who care about the civil war to this day and are butthurt about it or do the cringe gloating are west coast liberals and inbred degenerates. No one on the East Coast north of the Mason Dixon line gives a shit.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People like to meme that Sherman did nothing wrong ala Bomber Harris memes, but I can still drive to Atlanta today. Seems like a pretty big blunder to me, I hate Atlanta so much it's unreal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hello fellow Georgian. You think it's bad to visit, imagine living there.
      >t. one year down, two to go

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm actually from Mississippi and I only drove through it one time but that was enough to make me hate it lmao. Then again I am a Mississippian so I'm morally and spiritually obligated to dislike other Southern states for being more propsperous than us.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So you had everyone other than Alabama and Florida.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *hate

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No actually I hate Alabama the most. We keep fighting over who's the fattest state in the Union, at least let us have something.

            South Carolinians are an inferior people. They have always been and will always be degenerate savages. They started the damn war and then did absolutely FRICK ALL during it, instead leaving the fighting up to the naturally superior Virginians and North Carolinians. Both of us were reluctant to join the war in the first place, but their ape out forced our hand.
            [...]
            As much as I hate SC, your state is even worse. You are the Southern equivalent of the Untouchables. At least SC had some achievements over their history.

            Hey we can claim rock and roll, and the 101st Airborne by technicality. And Stennis Space Center. That's it though. We have Ingalls too but it's not even their main shipyard.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    He was also one of the few civil war generals that realized fighting on the defensive tactically coupled with an aggressive attitude on the strategic level is the way to fight wars in the late 19th century. Putting your enemy into a position where he is forced to attack your prepared positions in a location of your choosing was how to win battles and campaigns. Ironically General Lee did the opposite and attacked at Gettysburg, against protests from Longstreet.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Johnny Cash said "God bless Robert E Lee" so I'm afraid all you non-original stock Yankees are homosexual and moronic, sorry.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Southerners are still so comically moronic that they still have the three dot system for liquor stores.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw Texas
    >just chillin watching the shitflinging

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *