Were the generals of the CSA really that much better than those of the USA?

Yes he nearly annihilated the Souths economic base, creating a pattern that forced the union post war to continually pump money into the south up until the late 20th century.

How awesome would it be to be a union soldier fighting for McClellin
>he gives a shit about casualties and won't feed you into a meat grinder
>sit on the Potomac drinking with your buddies all day, occasionally exchanging insults with confederates on the other shore
>hoorah for little mac

The mission at the time was to end the war, which he did. The economic consequences weren't avoidable if they wanted to end the war as soon as possible. You can bitch about it all you want but he knew exactly how to accomplish his mission and executed it with discipline. The funniest thing was that all of the shit about his soldiers running amok is complete bullshit. His army was incredibly efficient and there are relatively few incidents of "war crimes" and they were punished pretty harshly.

You do realize that war crimes are defined by the victor? I'm not even a CSAcuck but to say he didn't commit war crimes is insane.

Oh yeah, you want to provide some examples that went unpunished by Sherman? Sherman's destruction had been grossly exaggerated by late 19th/early 20th century media. He hit infrastructure hard and burned shit that would have a real effect on the enemy force. His soldiers didn't rampage around raping everyone and stealing everything. There isn't any evidence of this happening outside of the normal isolated incidents that you get in any war.

>History is written by the victors.

Except there are a ton of southern sources that exist about the Union invasion of the South so that meme saying doesn't apply to this event.

That's true in older wars because there were so few people writing the histories, and none of those doing so for an enemy would survive to to do so. There were plenty in the south who lived, wrote, and provide their personal perspective on events. Falsifying history to that extent isn't a practical endeavor.

I thought it was universally accepted that the south had better overall leadership than the north

>Lurching from one colossal embarrassment to the next
>days on the Potomac turn into weeks which turn into months of sitting around in your shitty camp with nothing to do but drink yourself stupid every single day.
>Oh look, now the general is running for president on a platform of surrendering to the South. That's how much he cares about winning
I'd rather be slapping confederates up and down the Mississippi with General Grant

There was a reason Lee was asked to lead the Union Army, no?

youtube.com/watch?v=aeGBpTFZhh4

A lot of the Souths military skill was hyped up after the war by rebel leaders who wanted to keep themselves in power. In detail the Union did not destroy the aristocratic slave-owning class and let them continue to be in charge. We don't talk a lot today about how poor non-slave owning whites before the war hated the plantation aristocrats and were often against both secession and the war. The Union wasted a perfect opportunity to rally Whites against treasonous thinking by not holding up the plantation class as the instigators of the war and the true source behind their misfortune, like we did with the German and Japanese regimes after WWII for their respective populations. We let the aristocrats write the souths history of the war and frame it as "Northern Aggression" instead of "A minuscule class of slavers roped you all into installing them as old European style Serf masters for your loss and their gain". It's the same as if we had let the Nazi higher ups write Germanys post WWII textbooks.
In truth Lee was not that masterful of a general and was just as guilty of the supposed crimes of "Butcher" Grant. Jackson was the real military genius of the south, but he was also crazy and got shot by his troops on accident long before the war ended, making it more difficult to make him a Jesus figure as Lee was portrayed.

Thank God he didn't he would of fucked it up. No one can compete with US grant. This nigga invented modern warfare and absolutely cucked the south. Fuck dirty southern "generals"

My nigga

If we didn't have his personal papers proving otherwise I would honestly believe it if you told me McClellan was a sleeper agent trying to doom the United States.

>invented modern warfare
>zero regard for the lives of his men

Well then these great generals should have known they had zero to no chance of winning anyway

Grant=Zhukov

Most army officers were from the south and almost all navy officers were from the north. So the north had to quickly throw together an entire leadership structure, and the south was totally blockaded throughout the war.

Why do Yanks get so triggered by the mere mentioning of the south that it makes them insta-autistic?

This.

US Grant in the Overland Campaign is what Zhukov wanted to be when he grew up.

They lost, so obviously no.

>(historians do not agree that) Grant deliberately engaged in numerous attacks merely to defeat Lee solely through attrition, without regard for the losses to his army, needlessly throwing lives away in fruitless frontal assaults to bludgeon Lee...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign#Aftermath

BUT Veeky Forums AGREES

General Ulysses "Let's do Pickett's Charge Every Day for Three Months Straight" Grant

Yes. This is an objective fact.

Oh come on, he was in a pretty difficult position. One really big mistake and the army of northern Virginia is marching on Washington.

That said he was bad

Veeky Forums transcends pleb level history

yankee's most popular asswipe

>Were the generals of the CSA really that much better than those of the USA?

yes

Northerner here, this is an ignorant post. There was not a huge base of support in the North at the start of the war among the middle and lower classes. The South felt they just needed to last long enough and force the North to expend enough blood and treasure to give up and go home. Alternately, they hoped to last long enough to gain the advantage of a European intervention.

Basically they hoped to rope-a-dope the North but underestimated the willingness of Northerners to preserve the union by force.

He should have ended the war at Antietam. But he was too stupid to see the opportunity to kill the army of northern Virginia.

yeah, but he wouldn't read those

>History is written by the victors.

Nah. It's written by losers who can nurse a grudge long after winners stop caring.

Ignorant euro here.
Why did ordinary people fight for confederacy, was state affiliation that much important.
Especially since average joe didnt lose much by outlawing slavery.

The Confederate gov't spearheaded a pretty huge propaganda campaign, telling poor white southerners that Lincoln meant to reunite America with the British Empire (because Britain had abolished slavery 30-some years before, doing so would've done away with slavery in America). We'll never know how many of them bought it, but even though it was a ridiculous lie most contemporary accounts suggest it was pretty effective.

Not an argument.

Fuck you m8 General Grant was shit Lee bent him over a table 30 times. You'd be fed into a meat grinder charging headlong into prepared positions and flanked in the 40th wave of yanks.

Just like any other country the poor get called to the banner when attacked. Even if they didn't really like the cause the north still threatened to invade and crush the economy. You have to remember at the time states were more like European countries today. They wanted to be as independent as possible while together and the people took it personal when the north came attacking.

They came pretty close too if Lee didn't go full fucking retard at Gettysburg like his subgenerals told him not to he could have bypassed the battle entirely and threatened washington. 1 more big loss and the Union would be begging to truce.

;-;

>Fuck you m8 General Grant was shit Lee bent him over a table 30 times. You'd be fed into a meat grinder charging headlong into prepared positions and flanked in the 40th wave of yanks.

>Grant was less reckless with his soldiers' lives than his predecessors had been. No single day of Grant's pounding saw the magnitude of Union casualties that McClellan incurred in one day at Antietam, and no three consecutive days of Grant's warring proved as costly to the Union in blood as did Meade's three days at Gettysburg. ... Grant and Lee were about as evenly matched in military talent as any two opposing generals have ever been. Grant's strength was unwavering adherence to his strategic objective. He made mistakes, but the overall pattern of his campaign reveals an innovative general employing thoughtful combinations of maneuver and force to bring a difficult adversary to bay on his home turf. Lee's strength was resilience and the fierce devotion that he inspired in his troops. He, too, made mistakes and often placed his smaller army in peril. But each time—Spotsylvania Court House and the North Anna River come to mind—he improvised solutions that turned bad situations his way.

>Gordon C. Rhea, In the Footsteps of Grant and Lee

fuck off, cuckfederate revisionist

the one with more people, weapons, outside support, and more organized government

not necessarily better generals

Most of them, like your pic related, are seriously overrated. Including Lee himself.
However, they were obviously much more effective considering the South held out for 5 years when the North had virtually every single other advantage apart from leadership.
But considering the fact that based William "im not satisfied till the south is burnin" Sherman fought for the North, its hard to say the USA didnt have great generals too.

most people dont know what the fuck is going on. All they know is that even if they dont own slaves, slave economy is what keeps the South going.
On top of that, the souther states were invaded. Im not going to debate that the South didnt start the war, they certainly did, but the North was the invading army and locals obviously arent going to react well to that.
In Shelby Foote's Civl War series he cites letters from confederate soldiers that usually say something to the effect of "im fighting because they came down here".
Im sure the number who fought for slavery, whether they owned slaves or not, is not a small one. The following that Nathaniel Forest had after the war is proof enough of that. But its not like the high politics of washington is what drove the southern men to fight. The way they saw it, they were defending their home.

Jackson is objectively the best general of the war.

>Grant was less reckless with his soldiers' lives than McClellan

pls

Sherman didn't do shit to end the war. Grant ended the war at Appomattox.

Actually that's EXACTLY why Sherman did it.

That is his actual justification for all the shit he did.

outlawing slavery did impact the average joe. Slavery kept blacks on the plantation away from competing with whites for better jobs. Also whites didn't think having free blacks roam the countryside was good for society. This wasn't a distinctly southern thing, almost all americans thought free blacks and whites couldn't live together.

>“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…” - A. Lincoln
>“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.” - A. Lincoln

Can I get a date on those quotes?

The confederate armies were already nonexistent in Georgia when Sherman started his march to the sea. Hood was up in Tennessee and Johnston was in the Carolinas. The only theater that mattered the entire war was Virginia. Lee's army was going to fight, die, or surrender in Virginia.

Sherman was not a good general, he was ineffective at Bull Run, incompetent in Kentucky, and only invaded Atlanta when Lincoln ordered him to, and he still got bogged down in north georgia by a much smaller force.

first quote

virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas-hius366a/lincoln.html

I can't find the source for the second one, I just had it saved. So disregard it if you like. However here is another quote from Lincoln during the Douglas debates that reinforces the same belief.

>I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

The idea that blacks and whites couldn't live together is a very old idea in American society going back to Jefferson's Note on State of Virginia.

In regards to your first quote, from 1857, Lincoln, as a lawyer, is commenting on the court's ruling of the Dredd Scott case in the language of the law.

>I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness---and that is the case of Judge Douglas' old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [3] [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made, (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]
It seems you misinterpret the context of speaking to a crowd of Kansas citizens in 1858

Why the FUCK was one of his nicknames CUMP?

William "Confederated Under My Penis" Sherman

And fuck you, you nigger lover

Johnny Reb was too chicken to fight him.
Read a book, rebel scum.

He wasn't trying to crush a big confederate force, he was trying to crush popular southern support for the war by bringing the war to the south, while also fucking up any infrastructure they had to support the war effort.That's what he said he was going to do when he did it. I'm actually reading sherman ' memoirs right now, they're really interesting if a little over-dramatized.

Imagine if Lee and Grant were both on the Union side. The war would have been over in 6 months like everyone besides sherman thought it would be at the outset.

That's a good thing. The idiotic obsession modern US has with K/D ratio and preserving lives is one of the reason they lose wars today.

>>zero regard for the lives of his men

Grant probably cared more about the lives of his men than any other commander in the Union. At no point did he funnel them into the meat grinder in such numbers that McClellan did at Antietam or Burnside did at Fredericksburg or Meade did at Gettysburg.

Is 25 too old to join the Army in hopes of becoming a General?

No. It's much easier to defend your homeland than it is to invade a foreign land. Both of Lee's invasions of the North ended in heavy casualties and quick retreat. The war was deeply unpopular in the North between 1861 and 1863. This likely contributed to McClellan's overly careful approach.

Lee's big mistake was trying the bring the war to the North. All he had to do was exhaust the Union will to fight, which almost happened after Chancellorsville. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania ended up being a "Pearl Harbor" moment for the Union. From that point on, the people of the North were prepared to go "all in" to subdue the South.

The south also had better firearms than the north for the first two years, most of the preexisting army and leadership, and still no hope of winning.

I'm just impressed that the rich whites managed to convince the poor whites it was about state's rights and in their self interest to fight for slaves that they couldn't afford and the existence of which economically hurt them.

> up until the late 20th century.
> implying the south still isn't a special needs child railing against big government and spending while suckling greedily from the Federal tit.

I'm imagining Lee in an A6M2 Zero with the CSA Navy Jack on it strafing Pennsylvania.

KEK

Well duh. When your wealth depends on owning people, you think of all sorts of reasons to justify it. Raise your hand if you're surprised.

>Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania ended up being a "Pearl Harbor" moment for the Union.
More like its Midway. It was the battle with the most at stake, when America dealt its enemy a blow from which they never recover

>sherman
>the guy who had a meltdown and asked to be taken off active duty because he was so scared to face the confederates in kentucky

wew

True, but you can't underestimate the psychological effect that the invasion had on the slumbering Northern people. Lee mistakenly thought invading PA would embolden the Peace Movement. It actually did the opposite: it alienated Confederate sympathizers and emboldened the Republicans.

The result of that campaign was probably the best case scenario for the Army of Northern Virginia. Union managed to entrap Lee's retreating army in Maryland, but Meade failed to strike in time.

Do you have a college education?

Yep

I heard the General Hooker had hookers with him to boost morale.