Was he in the wrong in the Atlanta Campaign?

It was strategically frivolous by that point in the war.

If the CSA had somehow won after the March to the Sea. Sherman and his officers would have been hanged for war crimes.

They did nothing wrong

I'm a southerner. Even I would've burned down half the south for starting a rebellion.

Total war is justified, Sherman was based.

No

That was the only thing he has going for him considering how incompetent he was in actual battles against his Confederate counterparts.

In a different time he'd be called a war criminal, so make of that what you will.

Reminder it took the vastly superior Union more then 4 years to beat the Confederacy and they had to do it mainly with human wave tactics.

>waaaaaahhh we picked a fight with a bigger stronger opponent and his superior size and strength eventually did us in no matter how well we fought

>waaahhh stop defending yourself!

Stay mad northerner.

But you did stop defending yourselves when you fucking surrendered. The CSA could have at least had the decency to actually fight to the last man so we'd never have to carry the burden of their dumbfuck white trash descendants to this day

Literally retarded.

He's not whining, he's bragging.

Still dumb though.

You are really dumb, my friend.

Should have kept Sherman as the sticky image for eternal southaboo butthurt 2bh.

>and they had to do it mainly with human wave tactics

The two sides didn't really use dramatically different tactics, though.

>start a fight
>lose

Just giving an account of what happened fellas

Classic "I'm mad but I can't figure out how you're wrong" response.

you guys still lost your only war

The Confederacy didn't suck ass at fighting unlike the federal government did.

What do dixieboos generally point to as the inciting incident that kicked off the war? What did the north do to provoke the south that would have made the attack on fort Sumter justified?

Actually, they did.

>you guys

Stop samefagging.

Electing a man who was going to outlaw slavery in the western territories.

Such horrible, despicable tyranny I know. I can barely type the words I'm so mad at the aggression and injustice of it all

The Confederates stayed in the war as long as they did because the general quality of their soldiers and especially the skill of their generals is what kept them going.

what do the western territories have to do with anything? they were full of harmless settlers and plains indians.

>The Confederacy didn't suck ass at fighting unlike the federal government did.

Except they lost, so, you know...

The South had most of the experienced army officers, veteran troops, and home field advantage. The north had basically the entire navy, manufacturing, railroads, and a larger population. They each tried to play to their strengths, but only the Northern strategy was realistic. So really, I think if anyone "sucked ass at fighting" it was the retards who didn't understand that logistics wins wars.

>we won a bunch of battles so even though we lost the war we actually won!

Dixie logic everybody

If the Western states were free states, free states would outnumber slave states, and slavery would become political untenable in the US.

Yeah, retarded generals tend to do that. It was only Sherman and U.S. Grant that actually knew how to fight a goddamn war.

>defending yourself
>after firing the first shot
topkek

Tecumseh was so incompetent when it came to being a military leader that he abandoned the actual purpose of his campaign in Georgia to commit heinous acts of violence against unarmed American settlers, the likes of which were noncombatant women and children.

Who do you think you're responding to? Are you just so mad that you're saying anti-yankee stuff at random?

As they became new states to be admitted to the union their non-slqvery status would tip the congressional balance of power against slavery eventually. Hence why there was so much vicious border fighting over slavery in places like Kansas and Missouri before the war

So yeah, you could make an argument that the north was gradually getting more aggressive towards the institution of slavery. What monsters, amirite?

>only war

we won the revolutionary war for you goofs

Are you France?

>I am French

no you're not

I'm responding the the topic of the thread, which is whether or not William Sherman was a war criminal or not.

Lincoln wanted to potentially send most of the slaves to Liberia as part of the American colonization effort their, which would have decreased the post-war Afro-American population drastically. Which seems like something a lot of the stereotypical "racist Southernern redneck" types would support nowadays, but back then it was a different story.

You see, Southerners are actually enthralled with black people and their entire culture is basically whites copying black habits, while (ironically) claiming to be disgusted with blacks themselves. The wealthy Southern plantation owners styled themselves European aristocrats, while the poor white substance farmers enjoyed the fact that, while they were poor, they weren't on the lowest rungs of the social ladder. This is why freed slaves owning businesses and such caused so much conflict, as it reminded Southern whites that they essentially lived in no better conditions as many slaves, and were only spared the wipe and chains by comparison and little else. Freed slaves was also a problem for the Aristocracy, as slavery was essential to the plantation economy that made many Southern aristocrats so wealthy in the first place.

So freeing the slaves was the perfect bogeyman for the Southern Aristocracy to use to garner support from the white lower class toward the Confederate cause, despite it still meaning they'd be living amongst niggers, freed or not.

Good summary. I'd be more willing to accept the southern assertion that the north started it if they'd just admit that the primary root cause of the war was fucking slavery

>I'm responding the the topic of the thread,

Ok, so then not the post you linked to. Just checking.

Fort Sumter was somewhat of a complex issue. It was an unfinished empty fort that guarded the port of Charleston. Six days after SC seceded, union soldiers moved into and occupied the fort under the cover of darkness. The SC authorities saw this as an act of aggression instead of just holding onto previous forts. However their was no immediate attack on their fort for about 3-4 months. They warned the Federal government that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression. Buchanan never attempted to resupply them for fear that other southern states would secede afterwards, however Lincoln did and Confederate forces captured Sumter and the remaining southern states seceded.

>Lincoln wanted to potentially send most of the slaves to Liberia

jesus can Veeky Forums stop spouting this meme. He mentioned it once. Liberian colonization was an ongoing movement that had many supporters north and south, but was never feasible on a massive scale. There is no way Lincoln would have every sent the slaves back to Africa.

Who got the french involved?

>I rescued you, Ma'am
>the police heard my screaming and crying and fought off the bear

I'm not saying it was feasible, but it was an option that was considered when talking about what to do with the Freed slaves in the post-war.
Even if the South had won the war, I've never heard even the most vehement Dixieboo give me an idea how the CSA would remain relevant post war. It would have still been an underdeveloped economy based on a cash crop. It would have had massive problems as conflict between industrialists and plantation owners would have stalled economic growth, the already shaken confederation would have also most likely deteriorated even further, the Golden Circle is utterly deluded Althistory bullshit that's basically "Ancient Finnish Empire" tier except some people actually shilled for it in real life. How would it have turned out any differently from "Brazil in North America"?

>Who got the french involved?

The French got themselves involved. The American Revolution was in many ways just another front in a much larger war between Britain and France.

>You see, Southerners are actually enthralled with black people and their entire culture is basically whites copying black habits

lol, last time I checked it was the yankees that were obsessed with minstrel shows and exotic black performers.

>We beat you by losing 50 men for every 1 of your own
>Totally owned!
Russian logic

Minstrel shows satirized blacks, but they weren't necessarily pro or anti black. They were performances put on to show a stock character in various situations, these types of shows existed for centuries and it was one small example of that.

In contrast, things like food, music, language etc. in the South are all heavily influenced by blacks and vice versa in a way that you don't see in the North.

I don't get why this event is such a scar on the South's psyche. By 20th century standards Sherman's campaign was incredibly mild

>In contrast, things like food, music, language etc. in the South are all heavily influenced by blacks and vice versa

Obviously, as there was a huge black population. That's a little different than being "enthralled with blacks" or "copying". Same as arabs having a huge impact on Spanish Culture.

>language

I actually agree with Mcwhorter who says black English is actually traced from whites not africa.

It's really not. I'm not from Georgia though, maybe it's just a microcosm for the Civil War at large. The Civil War is important in the south because it was the turning point from being integral to the American Republic and giving us Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and Monroe to being an irrelevant section that gets shit on by the rest of the country.

>50-1
ebin

The difference is that there was still this, at the very least patronizing, attitude towards the black population at the best of times. There was still great objection, if not outright hostility, to the idea of blacks having equal rights from the white population. It didn't matter that they were essentially identical culture wise.

Maybe because similar culture has nothing to do with it? Southerners never really despised blacks the way the Nazis hated Jews/Slavs. They just treated them as inferiors, similar to sexism imo. A sexist guy might share many things with women and be very closely emotionally with some, but he still believes they aren't the same as him and/or should stay in their place.

>There was still great objection, if not outright hostility, to the idea of blacks having equal rights

because they've viewed blacks as a fifth column who are used by northerners to undermine the south.

This is all historically speaking.

I mean it obviously was a ploy by the central government to gain justification, but South Carolina gave it to them. If the union invades with provocation they probably lose Kentucky and Missouri which would be huge blows.

Well, you could look at it one of two ways from the Confederate's point of view.

#1. Letting the Federal Government refortify Sumter would have completely delegitimize the Confederacy. You can't claim yourself a sovereign state and then let a now foreign government repeatedly break that sovereignty.

#2. Only the deep south left at this point and the upper south could've just remained with the union while #1 took place. Capturing Fort Sumter would galvanize support and lead to the upper south joining. After all, VA, NC, and TN were the most populous southern states and later gave the most men to the confederate war effort. If the Confederacy needed legitimacy, those three states would have given them it.

>ebin
Fuck off.