ITT: people who did nothing wrong

>When you're dead for 126 years and the south still curse your name.

>crazy incompetent alcoholic tasked with pillaging an already defeated, underequipped, and almost undefended country

wow so brave so tactical

>when Shermanfags don't realize he never actually fought a single pitched battle and try to use historical revisionism to attribute victories his subordinates did to him
Wew

You'll have to speak up. Fires are pretty loud when they're city size.

...

This is a really shitty attempt at being mirthful, user. I'll give you a second chance, but don't blow it.

They deserved it, though

>Can't make an argument
>Shitpost instead

wew

...

t. ass blasted southerners

Despite Sherman's battle record, the march to the sea was arguably the most successful campaign employed in the Civil War. It crippled the South more then Grant throwing hordes of Irishmen at Lee ever did. Not only was it wildly successful, Sherman was operating without supply lines and communications. it flew in the face of all conventional military thought and it succeeded wildly in not only capturing major Savannah, but breaking the South mentally.

Also, small battle don't mean shit if you're still successful in your campaign

Also I want to add that the March to Sea and the fact that it flew in the face of conventional military wisdom and succeeded wildly is what makes people consider him a decent General. Without that success, he wouldn't be much.

Also this thread was about people who never did anything wrong and Sherman was 100% correct to do what he did to the South.

t. retard

>tangent is about Sherman's inadequacy as a battlefield commander
>responds with a retarded response that doesn't address this topic at all

Please kill yourself.

t. Hood

I know the South has literacy issues, but if you read my post, I said his inadequacy as a battlefield commander doesn't mean shit since his March to the Sea was so successful,

by the way, Shouldn't you be raping your sister Jeremiah?

t. Sherman

>South

I'm not Southern either but you can keep projecting falsely all you want. The original topic is Sherman's inadequacy as the tactical and strategic level, you fucking monkey. That's the tangent and main line of discussion here. Your comprehension skills are garbage level.

Now you can keep roleplaying all you want but its not going to change reality that he was an ineffective commander in actual battle.

Also:

>posting image macros with watermarks

>it flew in the face of all conventional military thought and it succeeded wildly in not only capturing major Savannah, but breaking the South mentally.

Burning infrastructure isn't revolutionary and there was nothing Sherman did that was new. He didn't "break" the south considering the CSA continued to fight until Grant cornered and defeated Lee in Virginia.

>Sherman was operating without supply lines and communications

Kek

oh goody.
another thread about this dear fellow.
where do we go now?

>Sherman didn't have supply lines
Nice meme.

Start shit get hit, reb

How can Sherman compete?

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

...

>mfw Southerner
>mfw I can respect Sherman for what he did to his enemy and his reasons for doing so
>mfw so many of my brethren are such sore losers

Get over it. The South did plenty of cavalry raids burning shit behind Union lines too. They just weren't as good as it. This reeks of Goering whining that Bomber Harris was better at bombing than the Luftwaffe was. If Joe Johnston, the man who actually fought Sherman, could not only forgive him but become die-hard friends with him your 8-times-removed-from-the-war ass sure as shit can too.

And for all the whining done about Sherman, nobody seems to know who Philip Sheridan was or what HE did.

by winning the war.

Even after Forrest lost the war he was still more successful than Sherman. I ask again, how can Sherman even compete?

By winning. Ask all those Nazi generals the point of winning the battle if they lose the war.

he won the god damn war and was instrumental in doing so, waving your confederate flag around won't change the fact that the south got rekt hard.

>I failed but I had fun xDDD

>Even after Forrest lost the war he was still more successful than Sherman

Sherman was commanding general of the US Army for like a decade. What the fuck are you smoking?

Whats with the aggressive stereotyping? What the fuck do you have against the South
>hurr dumb farmers
>hurr incest
People like you are the reason Trump got elected.

Why is it always the northerners who start using memes and insulting southerners whenever we try to have a debate about the civil war. The southerners who try to start shit too are also reprehensible. People have opinions on generals and war, in any other scenario where people like a general considered to be a bad general they get called plebs but this one fucking scenario it's always confederacy memes n shiet. The north sucks their general's and lincoln's dicks way too fucking hard and the south tries to get every little victory they can just because they're ass blasted their retarded ancestors thought they could win a fight they were prepared for but didn't have the army or technology or soldiers to do it. Both of you do this dumb shit so stop it because otherwise what was the point of reconstruction.

...

They're traitors though.

>All americans not traitors to the British crown
They did it because slaves were a large economic force in the south and they were scared of losing them. Not justifying what they did, but they did it for a reason. Also they believed the founding fathers thought secession was a legal means of stopping the federal government from taking too much control. Whether that's what they actually thought is debatable (maybe it's not idk I haven't done extensive research in the founding fathers ideologies) And besides, you can't hang that big of a portion of the US

We can all agree that this guy was fucking retarded right?

...

t. Mohamed de Barcelona San Allah Cabeza de Cabra

Yes

>finally sat down and watched "Ken Burns: The Civil War"
>learn McClellan more than 1 chance to finish off Lee and end the war
how some people still defend him is beyond me.

McClellan wasn't a military genius, and he did mistakes, but he actually cared about his men and tried to spare them. And also, the Union only started to lose when McClellan was removed from his command. Then it took a long time and a lot of trial and error before the Meade-Grant team was made and the Union finally started winning again, but it took them two years and it wasn't without embarrassing blunders..

Had McClellan stayed in command, the war would have probably been won one or two years earlier.

His only mistake was liquidating all of them.

even after Lee lost over 20 thousand men and McClellan vastly outnumbered him, McClellan refused to attack. some union officers even secretly accused McClellan of treason for his cowardice.

These are McClellan's own words
>"I am tired of the sickening sight of the battlefield, with its mangled corpses and poor suffering wounded. Victory has no charms for me when purchased at such cost."

he obviously had the wrong fucking job.

just look at the battles in which he commanded soldiers in during the Peninsula Campaign

>Siege of Yorktown
Inconclusive
>Battle of Williamsburg
Inconclusive
>Battle of Seven Pines
Pyrrhic Union Victory
>Seven Days
Confederate victory
>Battle of Oak Grove
Inconclusive
>Battle of Beaver Dam Creek
Union Tactical victory
Confederate Strategic victory.
>Battle of Gaines's Mill
Confederate victory
>Battle of Glendale
Inconclusive
>Battle of Malvern Hill
Tactical Union victory

McClellan outnumbered the confederates, had better supply lines and weapons and he still lost.

He thought he was outnumbered the whole time because of bad scouts.
He wasn't a brilliant general. However, he at least didn't get crushed like the other union generals before and after him. He never had a great victory, but he never had a major defeat either. All his defeats hurt the confederates as much, if not more than the Union, because unlike the other generals, McClellan didn't get baited into attacking fortified defensive position. They would have eventually been bled dry after so many "victories" like that.

And by the way, you forgot Antietam.

nice no arguments

i know Veeky Forums is a shitpost board but c'mon, this isn't even trying :^)

>He thought he was outnumbered the whole time because of bad scouts
Lee only faced McClellan with half his army. Lee left the other half to defend Richmond from a possible attack. Now just imagine if McClellan faced Lee's entire army.

>And by the way, you forgot Antietam.
I didn't mention it because it was a part of the Maryland campaign not the peninsula campaign, but now that you mentioned it, McClellan outnumbered Lee by over FORTY THOUSAND MEN! and at best Antietam can be considered a minor Victory.

>They would have eventually been bled dry after so many "victories" like that.
Well no shit. The south never had a chance to win that war. But any claim people make as to it not taking as long as it did had they not gotten rid of McClellan is completely wrong. he let Lee retreat after Antietam even though he still outnumbered him by tens of thousands. That was just one if many changes McClellan had to defeat Lee. And let's not forget the time McClellan's scouts found Lee's battle plans and but McClellan did nothing for 17 hours.

>Now just imagine if McClellan faced Lee's entire army.
No reason to think that the result would have been much different. McClellan never got crushed when he was fighting with equal forces.

>I didn't mention it because it was a part of the Maryland campaign not the peninsula campaign
Oh, my bad. I didn't notice you were only listing peninsula campaign battles. Well, remember that Maryland was a Union victory. And it happened after McClellan was brought back because Pope had been crushed at the second battle of bull run, while he too outnumbered Lee.

>Well no shit. The south never had a chance to win that war.
They did. It was slim, but if they had kept winning like they did at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, they would have eventually won. It didn't happen because Lincoln replaced Burnside and Hooker since they were getting beaten down so hard, much harder than McClellan ever had been. I have to repeat this point because you never addressed it; McClellan never suffered a crushing defeat. Even Grant did at Cold Harbor, and he had numerical superiority too. The battle of the wilderness also went pretty damn badly considering that he had twice the numbers Lee did. Same with Spotsylvania Court House. All massive casualties without any victory and with a huge numeric superiority. For some reason, Grant never gets shit on for these blunders, yet McClellan is despised despite doing way better than that. Very unfair treatment.

>Grant never gets shit on for these blunders
Are you joking? On both sides of the war he was regarded as a butcher! Even Mary Lincoln hated Grant because of that.
He was called a butcher for his aggressiveness, but that's exactly what won the war. McClellan had no fight in him, he was a do nothing, but Grant knew he has to wear Lee's army down. McClellan constantly gave Lee enough time to regroup after battles. McClellan may have not gotten crushed but he never would have won the war quickly. If McClellan stayed as General they would have fought that war for several more years. The fact that when McClellan ran for president he basically garounteed to end the war and let the southern states go shows exactly how committed he was in restoring the Union.

And no the South had absolutely no chance to win.

>"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead Act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on. In the spring of '64, the Harvard-Yale boat races were going on and not a man in either crew ever volunteered for the army or the navy. They didn't need them. I think that if it had been more Southern successes, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war." - Shelby Foote

People also tend to forget the union had thousands of men fighting Indians in the western states and territories during the same time they were fighting the civil war.