Sherman should have finished the job.the best is when you get Lost Causers arguing how the Union's use of unnecessary force in the war exemplified by Sherman combined with the illegality of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus = the real tragedy of the 1860's, i.e. Reconstruction and the stripping of the landed gentry from their glorious old way of life
Sherman should have finished the job.the best is when you get Lost Causers arguing how the Union's use of unnecessary force in the war exemplified by Sherman combined with the illegality of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus = the real tragedy of the 1860's, i.e. Reconstruction and the stripping of the landed gentry from their glorious old way of life
oh, and state's rights. because of course
dat feel when you live in the south and you're talking to your friends about the war and they're like "man, there's a whole bunch of stuff you just don't know about _______________ " (slavery/reconstruction/the civil war) and you get hit with these arguments from people you think are normal :fbmthey are all built off of slavery apologia. all of them. whether it's state's rights, Klan apologia, the unconstitutionality of Lincoln's administration, The War of Northern Aggression, the economic landscape was already well under change by 1861 etc. They are all meant to cope with the cognitive dissonance that arises from their idyllic picturesque scenes of Gone With the Wind containing an economic mode of production of chattel slavery legitimized by institutional racism and systematic dehumanization. It's the great irony in the Lost Cause argument; no matter which way you slice it, it's Transatlantic turtles all the way down.
The General's memoirs are worth a read if you haven't read them. He strikes me as the leader Americans think George Washington was but wasn't.marginally related
Are Zhukov's memoirs any good?there's a guy on r/askhistorians who's an ENORMOUS Zhukovphile, has read every document in his name, can tell you what he thought about [insert contemporary political leader here] and yet can't read the primaries because he never took Russian :dead
Nah I'm good :hitler(http://i.imgur.com/f6qLbmf.png)
got something to share with the rest of the class, friend? :hitler
Nah I'm good :hitler(http://i.imgur.com/f6qLbmf.png)
got something to share with the rest of the class, friend? :hitler
I like how pretty much all the people who like the Confederates are also hardcore super patriots too. #dualities
Your banter grows tiresome :boloNah I'm good :hitler(http://i.imgur.com/f6qLbmf.png)
got something to share with the rest of the class, friend? :hitler
(http://i.imgur.com/QisCIqM.gif)
Did the South lose though?
He was unconcerned about the likelihood of high casualties among noncombatants, once remarking that "If a village is attacked and women and children killed, the responsibility is not with the soldiers but with the people whose crimes necessitated the attack."
The key engagement in this successful campaign was George Armstrong Custer's surprise attack on Black Kettle's encampment along the Washita River, an attack that came at dawn after a forced march through a snowstorm. Many historians now regard this victory as a massacre, since Black Kettle was a peaceful chief whose encampment was on reservation soil, but for Sheridan the attack served its purpose, helping to persuade other bands to give up their traditional way of life and move onto the reservations.
. He once declared that all Indians not on reservations "are hostile and will remain so until killed off."
Professional hunters, trespassing on Indian land, killed over 4 million bison by 1874, and Sheridan applauded: "Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated". When the Texas legislature considered outlawing bison poaching on tribal lands, Sheridan personally testified against it, suggesting that the legislature should give each of the hunters a medal, engraved with a dead buffalo on one side and a discouraged-looking Indian on the other.
He perceived clearly the devastating effectiveness of striking at the economic basis of the Plains Indians' lives, once commenting to General Philip Sheridan that "it would be wise to invite all the sportsmen of England and America... for a Grand Buffalo Hunt, and make one grand sweep of them all." And he endorsed Sheridan's innovation of attacking Indian encampments during the winter, when their supplies and mobility were both severely limited.
Comanche Chief Tosawi reputedly told Sheridan in 1869, "Me, Tosawi; me good Injun," to which Sheridan supposedly replied, "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." Sheridan denied he had ever made the statement. Biographer Roy Morris Jr. states that, nevertheless, popular history credits Sheridan with saying "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." This variation "has been used by friends and enemies ever since to characterize and castigate his Indian-fighting career."[46] Political scientist Mario Marcel Salas, in quoting and extrapolating information from Dee Brown's book, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, a Native American view of American history, indicates that Sheridan's statement was confirmed by Tosawi. Salas argues that regardless of which variation of the statement is correct, it taints Sheridan as a racist mass killer. Sheridan's job, according to Brown, was to hunt down and murder all Indians that would not agree to giving up their lands."
“All the congresses on earth can’t make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man,” Sherman wrote his wife in 1860. “Two such races cannot live in harmony save as master and slave.” In a letter to his antislavery brother-in-law about plans to bring his family to Louisiana, Sherman crassly joked about becoming a slave master himself. Making light of the problems he anticipated in keeping white servants, he wrote that his wife Ellen “will have to wait on herself or buy a distinguished black fellow. What will you think of that — our buying distinguished black fellows?”
Pretty interesting when you look through the scope of time. The Civil War compelled America to forge this killing machine and we've been wielding it ever since. An organism that needs to feed every 10-20 years.
The Civil War?
America has been a murderous killin' machine since the pre-alpha development phase. Columbus was :gun :gun :gun at the first possible opportunity :patel
Did the South lose though?
Not only did the South lose, you could make the argument that the political influence of the Northern states held them down for the next 80 years thereafter. The south was forever lagging in population growth, job growth, economic growth, education. Unless the state had access to natural resources or tourism, it remained stuck in time.
You mean like when they were beating the shit out of each other with their canes in congress?Did the South lose though?
Not only did the South lose, you could make the argument that the political influence of the Northern states held them down for the next 80 years thereafter. The south was forever lagging in population growth, job growth, economic growth, education. Unless the state had access to natural resources or tourism, it remained stuck in time.
Pre-war the south and north had a very carefully constructed balance of political power. That's something they never got back.
The Civil War?
America has been a murderous killin' gestalt since the pre-alpha development phase. Columbus was :gun :gun :gun at the first possible opportunity :patel
Did the South lose though?
Now I'm not claiming to be an expert just because I have a bachelor degree in History and redid the American History course like 2 times, but what I got from my education is that the South surrendered but that they actually succeeded in most of their political goals.
One could argue that even though Germany lost the war twice, they have succeeded in their plans of "gleichschaltung and lebensraum" now by establishing the EU, in which they are the de facto leader, in which the european curreny is actually the DM (as the euro was 1-1 with the DM at conversion) and opening up every country for trade and free travel of capital and people (cheap labour). So the winners of the war had to establish a future in which many of the ideas of the losers where incorporated.
Typical Americans using guns to try and solve a problem rather than peacefully abolishing social injustices like in Europe.
(http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-coprnfederate-flprags.jpg?73a888)Where's the Confederate flag? I just see the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia?
(http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-coprnfederate-flprags.jpg?73a888)Where's the Confederate flag? I just see the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia?
(http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-coprnfederate-flprags.jpg?73a888)Where's the Confederate flag? I just see the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia?
(http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/black-confederate-16.jpg)*BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG*
Making light of the problems he anticipated in keeping white servants, he wrote that his wife Ellen “will have to wait on herself or buy a distinguished black fellow. What will you think of that — our buying distinguished black fellows?”
You pretty much have to be a monstrous little shit to cheerlead for employing scorched earth tactics against civilians (and of course, as already noted, these same tactics were used by the same army, same officers against native Americans).
So, it's not surprising to see Triumph doing so.
Remember that time the Republican Party denied people and entire states the right to vote or have Congressional representation and then made a restoration of such rights contingent on the acceptance of certain Amendments and long-term Republican political rule but offered no possibility of turning this down.
Good times.
You pretty much have to be a monstrous little shit to cheerlead for employing scorched earth tactics against civilians (and of course, as already noted, these same tactics were used by the same army, same officers against native Americans).
So, it's not surprising to see Triumph doing so.
Remember that time the Republican Party denied people and entire states the right to vote or have Congressional representation and then made a restoration of such rights contingent on the acceptance of certain Amendments and long-term Republican political rule but offered no possibility of turning this down.
Good times.
See, there were people, lots of them, who didn't agree with the secession, or slavery, but had to continue living there, because people in SC circa 1862 probably just couldn't pack their shit and get the fuck out of dodge. Lots of those people were killed in the course of the war, or had their homes destroyed, just for living there. Should have just wiped them all out, though. Not taken any chances. Like nowadays in the middle east, you know? Better to just wipe it off the earth. So there won't be any more terrorists, or oppression of women and minorities. Gotta break a few eggs, right?I would suggest that they should have had far more responsible fathers.
Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson >>>>>> Grant and Sherman FYI
Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson >>>>>> Grant and Sherman FYI
Not according to results
:umad
Sherman tho :hitler
As a country, we're pretty good at mass murder. It's nice to have a marketable skill.
if there were only some way to combine the two
Sherman tho :hitler
And the point he got going he was fighting dudes were melting their belt buckles to make bullets.
Sherman tho :hitler
And the point he got going he was fighting dudes were melting their belt buckles to make bullets.
He also had the wherewithal not to fight as often as possible.
Sherman tho :hitler
And the point he got going he was fighting dudes were melting their belt buckles to make bullets.
He also had the wherewithal not to fight as often as possible.
Still don't understand the scorched earth policy though. I mean the German's tried it and we know how well that went for them.
Sometimes you don't need to just win a military objective; you need to inflict a psychic scar on a region so profound they're still butthurt over it 150+ years later.All Sherman's March led to was the world's worst airport.
Sometimes you don't need to just win a military objective; you need to inflict a psychic scar on a region so profound they're still butthurt over it 150+ years later.All Sherman's March led to was the world's worst airport.
They're getting their revenge in spades.
Sherman tho :hitler
And the point he got going he was fighting dudes were melting their belt buckles to make bullets.
He also had the wherewithal not to fight as often as possible.
Still don't understand the scorched earth policy though. I mean the German's tried it and we know how well that went for them.
Hey, you can get a Cinnabon at that airport
Cinnabons, guys
Hey, you can get a Cinnabon at that airport
Cinnabons, guys
Like anybody ever has time to do anything but say "fuck, I gotta hurry" at the atlanta airport :ufup
Also everyone should watch thisYaleCourses :blessed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXXp1bHd6gI
great class
the union's very origin and purpose is based around genocide and conquestimo, it's more about economic plasticity* and enfranchisement to ensure the former*
:miyamoto
I think his initial estimate of the number of Soviet tanks was like one tenth of what it actually was.
ON April 9, 1865 — Palm Sunday — Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Gen. Robert E. Lee negotiated their famous “Gentlemen’s Agreement” of surrender. In the ensuing celebration, a relieved Grant told his men, “The war is over.”
But Grant soon discovered he was wrong. Not only did fighting continue in pockets for weeks, but in other ways the United States extended the war for more than five years after Appomattox. Using its war powers to create freedom and civil rights in the South, the federal government fought against a white Southern insurgency that relied on murder and intimidation to undo the gains of the war.
And yet the “Appomattox myth” persisted, and continues today. By severing the war’s conflict from the Reconstruction that followed, it drains meaning from the Civil War and turns it into a family feud, a fight that ended with regional reconciliation. It also fosters a national amnesia about what wars are and how they end, a lacuna that has undermined American postwar efforts ever since.
Appomattox, like the Civil War more broadly, retains its hold on the American imagination. More than 330,000 people visited the site in 2013. In Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” as in many other popular portrayals, the meeting between Lee and Grant suggests that, in the words of one United States general at the surrender, “We are all Americans.”
Although those words were allegedly spoken by Ely Parker, a Tonawanda Seneca Indian, and although hundreds of thousands of African-Americans fought for the nation, the “we” in the Appomattox myth all too often is limited to white Americans. In fanciful stories of Grant’s returning a ceremonial sword to Lee, or of the United States Army’s saluting its defeated foes at the laying-down-of-arms ceremony, white Americans fashioned a story of prodigal sons returning for a happy family portrait.
Grant himself recognized that he had celebrated the war’s end far too soon. Even as he met Lee, Grant rejected the rebel general’s plea for “peace” and insisted that only politicians, not officers, could end the war. Then Grant skipped the fabled laying-down-of-arms ceremony to plan the Army’s occupation of the South.
To enforce its might over a largely rural population, the Army marched across the South after Appomattox, occupying more than 750 towns and proclaiming emancipation by military order. This little-known occupation by tens of thousands of federal troops remade the South in ways that Washington proclamations alone could not.
And yet as late as 1869, President Grant’s attorney general argued that some rebel states remained in the “grasp of war.” When white Georgia politicians expelled every black member of the State Legislature and began a murderous campaign of intimidation, Congress and Grant extended military rule there until 1871.
Meanwhile, Southern soldiers continued to fight as insurgents, terrorizing blacks across the region. One congressman estimated that 50,000 African-Americans were murdered by white Southerners in the first quarter-century after emancipation. “It is a fatal mistake, nay a wicked misery to talk of peace or the institutions of peace,” a federal attorney wrote almost two years after Appomattox. “We are in the very vortex of war.”
Against this insurgency, even President Andrew Johnson, an opponent of Reconstruction, continued the state of war for a year after Appomattox. When Johnson tried to end the war in the summer of 1866, Congress seized control of his war powers; from 1867 to 1870, generals in the South regulated state officials and oversaw voter registration, ensuring that freedmen could claim the franchise they had lobbied for. With the guidance of military overseers, new biracial governments transformed the Constitution itself, passing the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
The military occupation created pockets of stability and moments of order. Excluded from politics before the war, black men won more than 1,500 offices during Reconstruction. By 1880, 20 percent of black families owned farms.
But the occupation that helped support these gains could not be sustained. Anxious politicians reduced the Army’s size even as they assigned it more tasks. After Grant used the military to put down the Ku Klux Klan in the Carolinas in 1871, Congress and the public lost the will to pay the human and financial costs of Reconstruction.
Once white Southern Democrats overthrew Reconstruction between the 1870s and 1890s, they utilized the Appomattox myth to erase the connection between the popular, neatly concluded Civil War and the continuing battles of Reconstruction. By the 20th century, history textbooks and popular films like “The Birth of a Nation” made the Civil War an honorable conflict among white Americans, and Reconstruction a corrupt racial tyranny of black over white (a judgment since overturned by historians like W. E. B. DuBois and Eric Foner).
Beyond the problem of historical accuracy, separating the war and the military from Reconstruction contributes to an enduring American amnesia about the Army’s role in remaking postwar societies. Many of the nation’s wars have followed the trajectory established at Appomattox: Cheers at the end of fighting are replaced by bafflement at the enduring conflict as the military struggles to fill the defeated government’s role, even as the American public moves on. After defeating Spain in the Spanish-American War, the Army undertook bloody campaigns to suppress rebellions and exert control over the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. After World War II, a state of war endured into the 1950s in the occupation of Japan and Germany. And in the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States military’s work had barely begun when the fighting stopped — and the work continues, in the hands of American-backed locals, today.
While it is tempting to blame the George W. Bush administration for these recent wars without end, the problem lies deep within Americans’ understanding of what wars are. We wish that wars, like sports, had carefully organized rules that would steer them to a satisfying end. But wars are often political efforts to remake international or domestic orders. They create problems of governance that battles alone cannot resolve.
Years after the 1865 surrender, the novelist and veteran Albion Tourgée said that the South “surrendered at Appomattox, and the North has been surrendering ever since.” In so many wars since, the United States won the battlefield fighting but lost ground afterward.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can learn, as Grant did, the dangers of celebrating too soon. Although a nation has a right to decide what conflicts are worth fighting, it does not have the right to forget its history, and in the process to repeat it.
Years after the 1865 surrender, the novelist and veteran Albion Tourgée said that the South “surrendered at Appomattox, and the North has been surrendering ever since.”
And who better to take down a bunch of racist scumbag plantation owners than a bunch of racist scumbag generals?
See, there were people, lots of them, who didn't agree with the secession, or slavery, but had to continue living there, because people in SC circa 1862 probably just couldn't pack their shit and get the fuck out of dodge. Lots of those people were killed in the course of the war, or had their homes destroyed, just for living there. Should have just wiped them all out, though. Not taken any chances. Like nowadays in the middle east, you know? Better to just wipe it off the earth. So there won't be any more terrorists, or oppression of women and minorities. Gotta break a few eggs, right?
Did the South lose though?
Now I'm not claiming to be an expert just because I have a bachelor degree in History and redid the American History course like 2 times, but what I got from my education is that the South surrendered but that they actually succeeded in most of their political goals.
One could argue that even though Germany lost the war twice, they have succeeded in their plans of "gleichschaltung and lebensraum" now by establishing the EU, in which they are the de facto leader, in which the european curreny is actually the DM (as the euro was 1-1 with the DM at conversion) and opening up every country for trade and free travel of capital and people (cheap labour). So the winners of the war had to establish a future in which many of the ideas of the losers where incorporated.