Why did the American Civil War last as long as it did?
I might understand if it was a low-intensity war, but you're looking at over 150,000 dead every year for four years.
With this many dead, why didn't the war finish sooner?
Unlike the revolutionary war, our enemies were fellow Americans, not some pussy redcoat sons of bitches
>>29774617
Because there were a lot of people in America then.
>>29774617
The northerners were not well led and the southerners were. The northerners had lots of production and men and the South didnt. South kept beating the north but the north could afford those defeats. After the south had worn through it's initial stock of manpower and materiel they could put up spirited but ineffective resistance and so were slowly pushed back all the way to Richmond by an aggressive if not imaginative general grant while having their base of support burned and looted by Sherman from their strategic flank.
>>29775503
Yeah, this.
It was just a total war of attrition too.
>>29775503
Yep. McClellan was a shit general and prolonged the war by several years.
Not to mention The Anaconda Plan. Winfield Scott came up with a plan that would choke out the south. It took a while but it worked.
>>29775503
This is the best summary. All of the Union Generals were noted as being far too cautious and slow in their actions. Several early successful Southern victories increased the North's hesitance to be aggressive. On top of that the average Southerner had been shooting and hunting since he was old enough to hold a rifle. They were fighting on their home turf and knew the woods, fields and rivers like the backs of their hands. Many of those fighting for the North were new immigrants, factory workers, and other general laborers. They were not as accustomed to handling firearms and generally being in the rugged outdoors as those fighting for the South.
The fighting spirit of both sides was also notably different. Soldiers from Maine were 850 miles from home, fighting for a cause that had little to no influence over their daily lives. Soldiers from Virginia were literally fighting in their own backyards for reasons many considered justified simply because Union soldiers were in their home States. (stating what THEY thought was justified, not what I thought.) One captured Southern soldier when asked by Union soldiers why he was fighting them simply said, " 'Cuz you're down here."
Logistics and Supply were also heavily in the North's favor. They had all of the industry, the weapons factories, ammunition plants, supply yards and thousands more miles of uniform rail roads than the South. The Southern supply lines consisted of at least 3 different sized rail way tracks. When trains reached different sized rails they had to be completely unloaded and put on the new train.
After the Union managed to successfully blockage the South's ports they were unable to resupply from Europe. As Grant marched on the South they continually lost land needed to supply food to their troops and their stockpiles dwindled. The South had the spirit and drive needed to carry the fighting on but lacked the resources with which to make a decisive victory possible.
>>29775790
>All of the Union Generals were noted as being far too cautious and slow in their actions.
Not all of them
>>29775862
Poor wording on my part, I meant Commanding Generals.
Winfield Scott: July 5, 1841 – November 1, 1861.
George B. McClellan: November 1, 1861 – March 11, 1862.
Henry W. Halleck: July 23, 1862 – March 9, 1864.
Ulysses S. Grant: March 9, 1864 – March 4, 1869.
Sherman and Grant were the driving forces that shortened the war's potential to last even longer. I think the best quote to sum up MajGen Sherman's aggressive nature was his reaction upon his ships coming into view of a Southern fort that the Union outnumbered. "For God's sake signal an immediate attack!"
Simple.
The North stupidly tried to hit the Confederacy, again and again and again, at its strongest point (its capital). This allowed the Confederates to compensate for their limited numbers and get to use their best minds in the same spot.
It's no accident the North had much better luck elsewhere in the South, when it actually tried. It's just the North attacked the Confederate capital area so often this gets overshadowed.
>>29775609
He did have a talent for organization, which is exactly what he should have been relegated to.
His only task should have been to organize the army, not to lead it.
>>29775790
>Logistics and Supply were also heavily in the North's favor. They had all of the industry, the weapons factories, ammunition plants
Yeah, that's an important point. But it's also something I wonder about...
In the runup to the war, why weren't southern leaders and planners saying "Look, we're a bit behind in terms of the industrial revolution. If a war comes our way, that could leave us pretty fucked. So let's shore up that weakness and get some modern factories going"?
In other words, why didn't they do what Japan did once Admiral Perry sailed around and embarrassed them? They got together and said more or less, "You know, we're outmatched technologically, and outsiders can push us around as a result. So let's correct that."
And within a few years, they did.
>>29775945
Based Sherman.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman#Civil_War_service
When the Civil War started he was only a Colonel. He suffered two defeats (one disastrous), was relieved shortly after Lincoln promoted him to General and essentially had a nervous breakdown. Then he came back under Grant and became history's first "modern" general. All while offering pithy quotes for posterity.
The dude's life story (you can download an ebook of his memoirs) is begging for the biopic treatment.
>>29774617
Hard to keep men on the field when you have no concept of hydration and you think it's a good idea to outfit all of your men with thick, long sleeved, dark blue wool sack coats in the middle of a southern summer.
>>29776773
>In the runup to the war, why weren't southern leaders and planners saying "Look, we're a bit behind in terms of the industrial revolution. If a war comes our way, that could leave us pretty fucked. So let's shore up that weakness and get some modern factories going"?
You're ignoring the main driver behind the war in the first place. The South wasn't just fighting emancipation or throwing a hissy-fit about the results of the election. They were fighting creeping modernity. They didn't want modern factories, railroads, etc. That was going to be the downfall of the antebellum south just as much as a war. They were clinging to the agrarian, slave, plantation economy. Those modern factories and railroads that would have helped them win the war would also hasten the destruction of the plantation lifestyle.
>>29776836
>Sherman
A cowardly war criminal who's greatest military accomplishment was terrorizing civilians.
Lets look at the record...
Gets his ass kicked at Bull Run.
Gets his ass kicked at Shiloh.
Gets his ass kicked at Vicksburg.
Gets his ass kicked at Chatanooga.
Get his ass kicked at Kennesaw Mountain.
Then once the South runs out of men and material to fight against him he burns Atlanta to the ground and unleashes his men to rape and pillage their way across Georgia and the North deludes themselves into declaring him a hero even though he lost every single battle he ever fought.
The south lost the civil war because of General Winfield Scott's Anaconda plan which strangled the confederacy out of resources.
The south had already lost at that point and yet Sherman thought that slaughtering civilians, and unleashing his men to rape and pillage would encourage Southerners to want to surrender. If anything the hatred his butchery prompted helped to fuel the southern desire to continue the war.
If you prove to your enemy that you're a monster then they'll be all the more determined to fight you to their last breath. The concept of "total war" is intrinsically flawed a pathetic excuse created by a hate filled and evil man.
>>29776868
>If you prove to your enemy that you're a monster then they'll be all the more determined to fight you to their last breath.
Which is why the South continued an insurgency past 1865, yeah?
>>29776868
>muh rape and pillage
>his campaign just made the south hang on more bitterly
What a load of ass-blasted neo-confederate revisionism.
>>29776868
>The concept of "total war" is intrinsically flawed a pathetic excuse created by a hate filled and evil man.
>Implying Sherman created Total War in the sense of attacking civilians as military targets
>>29776886
The KKK does still exist to this day...
And it did take another 100 years, multiple court cases, and more federal troops for the traitors to accept negroes into their schools and allow them to vote.
>>29776903
>Implying the modern KKK cares about black people
It's about fucking jews, you ignorant fuck.
What do you guys think of Hooker (yeah I know the name didn't age well into modernity)?
I remember reading somewhere his plan was sound, but he lost faith in himself.
>>29776903
That just makes the cause sound more pathetic.
That's like saying Japan won because they still have cosplayers.
>>29776893
He burned a fucking city with no military garrison to the ground fucktard.
If you're defending Sherman then you've got to sign on to the concept that terrorizing civilians is a justifiable means of war; because he sure as fuck didn't win any actual battles.
>>29776896
>Implying Sherman created Total War in the sense of attacking civilians as military targets
Not at all; but we don't generally talk about people like Ghengis Khan in glowing terms these days.
>>29776936
>He burned a fucking city with no military garrison to the ground fucktard.
Except, you know, he didn't, he only destroyed the military resources left in the city
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_in_the_American_Civil_War#Destruction_of_Military_Assets_.28Nov._7_-_16.2C_1864.29
>>29776948
Let's not bother the asshurt copperhead with facts and figures.
>>29776948
I heard Atlanta's burning was an accident. Confederates were trying to destroy some valuable military stuff, but the fire got out of control.
It's not unheard of. Fort Wagner fell into Union hands, intact, because the Confederate detonation fuses malfunctioned.
>>29776927
omg
mind blown
the japs actually won
horry sheet
>>29776948
Oh bullshit motherfucker.....
Here's a quote from your own link.
>On the evening of Nov 15, the engineering troops began applying fire to the heaps of rubbish they had created during the destruction of the military facilities. In his official reported, Capt. Poe noted that many buildings were destroyed by lawless persons, who, by sneaking around in blind alleys, succeeded in firing many houses which were not to be destroyed.[86] In his diary, Capt. Poe would bemoan the "destruction of Private property".[87]
So in other words Shermans men burned half the fucking city to the ground and the cocksucker washed his hands of responsibility by blaming it on "lawless persons".
>>29776989
>I'll only believe the parts of the historical record that agree with what I believe!
Where did you get your degree?
>>29776969
Yeah, of course the Southerners burned their own city to the ground, just like those crazy fucks in Waco who burned themselves alive.
The federal government denies any responsibility.
>>29776868
You southern vatniks crack me up.
>>29776996
What's the alternative, I believe the official records kept by a man I consider a war criminal and who is on the record for endorsing genocide? When he says that random unidentified "lawless persons" burned the city to the ground entirely coincidentally while his troops were burning military assets?
I'm not the one suspending disbelief here.
>>29776868
>Civil War thread on /k/
>Inevitable asshurt southerners show up bitching about Sherman
Every goddamn time.
>>29776996
I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me if that the Confederacy set a fire that got out of hand. They botched setting the fuses on Fort Wagner.
And why would the Confederacy admit that kind of fuck-up? It's pretty embarrassing if they did.
Failing to blow up a fort is one thing, accidentally burning a major city is another.
The big question is, did Sherman burn any cities before Atlanta to the ground? Or did he conveniently just happen to burn this one?
>>29777019
Again, please show me any first-hand record that states Sherman ordered the burning on non-military assets in Atlanta.
Because if not, you're simply ignoring the parts of the historical record that disagree with what you want to believe in.
>>29777037
Speaking as the guy arguing it's possible the South burned Atlanta down by accident, I am from South Carolina (incidentally where Fort Wagner used to be).
>>29776948
If Sherman had no prior history of burning cities to the ground, I suspect the Confederacy genuinely destroyed it by accident in their haste.
>>29777057
never thought of that. its so retarded it never even crossed my mind.
The way i see it as a Canadian is that the war was between two people; the north and the south. Two nation's peoples both bred and lived through harsh times fighting to no ends avail. It is civil war. The conflict of Syrian tribes has been going on for hundreds of years and now is reach a vast boiling point. The same could be said for the northern and southern united states in ideology, governance, and commerce.
>>29777069
It's the risk anyone takes when they destroy military assets to prevent them from falling into enemy hands.
There's always a chance the fire can get out of control, especially since you're doing it fast and once you're gone you can't control or monitor it.
Not to mention fires were a lot easier to become rampant back then.
>>29777094
but its common knowledge that sherman was the one cacheing his supplies in atlanta
>>29776868
Assmad reb detected
>>29776998
So you're saying you would leave behind all the ammo and rations you couldn't carry for the enemy to collect? You don't sound like a sound strategist
>>29776936
Actually many Chinese think highly of Ghengis Khan.
Because the North made enemies out of more, and more Southerners as they destroyed their land. And the North had a nearly unlimited supply of Irish to use as cannon fodder.
So more Southerners started fighting, and more Immigrants went to the North and were told "Hey, we'll give you a job just put on this blue uniform..."
>>29776868
>All the buttblasted yankee scum replying to this post
150 years later and both sides are still bitter towards each other
>>29779968
Except in the case of the previously mentioned cosplayers, it's just bantz.
>>29779968
I'm just sitting here as a west stater watching you easterners bicker like children.
>>29779914
How was Atlanta?
>>29780077
Man, fuck that place, it's like it's populated entirely by panhandlers.
>>29779968
That pic looks like they all put their ass power onto that one chick on the right
>>29776856
this post is retarded and you should feel bad
the south was fighting against the economic policies of the northern states that were PREVENTING the modernization of southern industry. If the south lost its ability to employ slaves it would have lost all ability to compete.
Several northern states were literally waging an economic war against several southern states like they were foreign countries and left the southern states no other alternative
>>29775790
Another key part about the railroads:
Not only did the north have magnitudes more railroad, not only were they in fewer gauges. The railroads simply made more sense in the north. Railroads in the north were about transporting goods from manufacturers to markets and seaports, meaning they went from large city to large city, with towns springing up in between. In the south the railroads were about moving raw materials to transport hubs, so they started in the middle of fucking nowhere and went into a city or port.
Also, very early in the war Lincoln struck a deal with the northern railroad barons to prioritize military cargo and freight over everything else, meaning that the north could mobilize equipment from as faw away as California with relative ease. The South was unable to procure such a deal, which meant that Confederate soldiers starved to death less than 40 miles from their capital city.
>>29775609
>>29776768
He believed he would always be outnumbered, so over-allocated troops to his campaign. Tidbit: private detective Allen Pinkerton (yes, that Pinkerton) was hired to be head of McClellan's intelligence, and Pinkerton employees conducted reconnaissance for the Potomac Army. Pinkerton had a hardon for McClellan (no homo, tho) and would make up some inflated, but reasonable-sounding bs Confederate troop counts based on what his agent's brought him, which McClellan promptly threw out and made up his own higher figures
>>29776910
I thought it was "Mexicuns"
McClellan wanted to be president more than win the war.
>>29783112
Hispanics did fight in the Civil War, as did Native Americans.
>>29781273
Very good points. It was often noted that the North was able to re-deploy troops using trains which allowed the soldiers to rest up instead of having to march for many miles then immediately go into battle. The different of having fresh troops vs already tired ones was greatly influential to many Northern victories.
>>29776903
Did you forget that the South enlisted Black soldiers and commissioned officers during the Civil War?
>>29780068
Enjoy the wholesale Federal encampment on your lands.
Actually don't, I want you to feel the same resentment the South feels. Get your governor & congress to call for a Convention of States.
>>29774617
>dat pic
Damn that was a good movie. I like how they have all the Union officers thugging it out with civil war swagger there.
>>29774617
They're still missing the guys that played Buford, Reynolds, Meade, Devin, and Gamble.
Still it's cool they have the late Brian Pohanka in the background as Webb.
>>29775503
>>29775512
>>29775790
>Le Union wasn't as good meme
This is a huge misconception prompted by most modern day Confederate revisionist. It's the Civil War equivalent of the Le you will lose 5 Sherman tanks to defeat 1 Panther bullshit during World War 2.
The Union actually fought the war sternly and aggressively in their overall handling. The way the Union fought the Civil War was like a proto version of how the United States fought the War in Europe during the Second WW; industrial and aggressive.
While the south was beating off on another flag to chose to hoist on their mast, Lincoln and co was busy sending dignitaries and emissaries all over the place.
Further more the Union caught the idea of strangling the Confederacy to death earlier. Such things as the Anaconda Plan, the control of the Mississippi, and blockage of enemy expansion to the west created early to mid war by the Union.
The only reason everyone spouts, "Durr Union was slow and didn't catch on till late hurrr" was because of Lee's successes in only one theater and McClellan's failures. The Union in reality won MORE battles than the Confederacy and destroyed much of her industry, material, and took control of her cities. The plan worked so well that by the end of the war, the Confederacy had to rely on blockade runners for supplies because the Union was on a blitzkrieg clearing out pockets of Confederate resistance all over.
>>29776924
>color civil war pics
Do you know which site to get more of those anon? They look amazing.
>>29780109
I noticed her too. Incredible.
>>29783091
The stigma that he had for that perk of "They outnumber me" mostly came when he fought Lee on the Peninsula. That's back when Lee had a whopping 100,000 troops at his full potential. To the point that Robert E Lee could do Zerg rushes at Union Troops.
It went downhill for Lee in manpower but the idea of Lee having so many troops stuck with McClellan even until Antietam. There he actually had Lee out trooped 2:1 but didn't act on that advantage.
>>29783309
>Did you forget that the South enlisted Black soldiers and commissioned officers during the Civil War?
I know blacks fought (both voluntarily and involuntarily) but a source on the officers would be nice.
>>29783309
>Posts a unit the South got butthurt over because "muh niggers with guns" and disbanded in 1862
>Posts a unit the majority of its members joined the Federal Army when New Orleans was taken
>Posts a unit that was made up of Free blacks
Most "black" Confederate units were labourers impressed for a battle then immediately disbanded.
>>29777019
>"I believe"
cool.
>>29785818
The battle of and charge down Little Round Top is probably one of my favorite war movie scenes of all time.
>>29786090
It was literally my favorite "Triumphant over the impossible" scene in movies in general. Up until Neo killed Agent Smith in the Matrix 1.
>>29786090
Yeah, badass movie. Shame the third will never get a good treatment.
>>29786126
Indeed, it seems they'll never make The Last Full Measure. Gods and Generals was too much of a self righteous cluster fuck.
There wasn't even an Antietam/Sharpsburg scene in the final edit of G&G.
>>29786147
That ain't right, Antietam would truly be a sight to behold.
>>29786231
Even the Lincoln miniseries with Mary Tyler Moore had a short Antietam cornfield battle scene in it.
>>29786270
Damn shame.
Honestly I was expecting this thread to last longer and get a lot more hostile than it really did.
>>29781040
>If the south lost its ability to employ slaves it would have lost all ability to compete.
>northern states were literally waging an economic war against southern states
Are you implying that the south didn't have literally decades of warning that slavery was going to be prohibited?
Are you trying to argue that treating an entire race of people as subhumans is something that people should support?
Are you saying that slavery is ethical and acceptable?
I'm actually mad right now
>>29786915
He never even said the latter two claims though, however I'll agree to some degree with your first. I'm sure the south had warning, but I think it devolved into a matter of principle before the human rights aspect could take over. The south was afraid of the overstep of the federal government into a matter of legislation that was originally understood to be within the jurisdiction of the states. Especially with vocal abolitionist groups to the north and the association (falsely so) of Lincoln with said groups, honestly there was fearmongering on both sides.
Also, we have a completely different view of slavery now than most did back then. A lot of northerners didn't give a fuck because it didn't effect them, and southerners and slaveowners rationalized it for years as the fact that they were property and not people, removing guilt.
The north was definitely applying economic heat to the south though, they didn't want all their business being done with Europe and so the north put a lot of legislation on the south to keep trade domestic, but the demand just wasn't the same as it was in Europe.
>>29786915
>Are you saying that slavery is ethical and acceptable?
Depends on your ethics.
>>29786969
>civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about state's rights!
If the South truly was concerned about the overreach of federal power instead of slavery, why would the South be perfectly fine with the federal government enforcing laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act.
>he never said the latter two claims
he never explicitly said them, but you would have to be deluded if you didn't think that the "economic war" that the north "waged" against the south is referring to anything except slavery, which was probably the most vital part of the southern economy.
The northern states were not able to increase trade barriers until 1861, after the Civil War was starting. Before that point, there South was actually consistently lowering trade barriers, which actually hurt the fledgling industries of the North. Ignoring the issue of slavery, there was no economic war between the North and the South.
>>29785909
All good info. The western campaign and its Union victories are largely forgotten.
General George Thomas completely encircled and destroyed a confederate field army in one of the largest victories of the war.
>>29787158
>Why were they okay with the fugitive slave act
Probably a little bit of hypocrisy, probably by the fact that the fugitive slave act wasn't a restriction on the state's rights to actually have slavery. Also, the fugitive slave act had more emphasis on slaves that crossed state borders, which came under the jurisdiction of the federal government because it has authority to regulate interstate commerce, and technically at the time slaves crossing borders was movement of property.
>no economic war
There was definitely pressure on the south to deal only domestically and not send as much of its business to England and the rest of Europe. The south may have ignored some/a decent amount of the legislation where it could, but it was still pressure that they felt was unfair due to the differences in economy.
>>29776936
How many wars has attacking only military targets won over attacking civilian targets, though? Making civilians suffer is the most effective method of war.
I love America's approach to Mexico.
>for decades have pissing contests with salty as shit neighbor
>their Grover Cleveland is removed from office
>Mexico obtains a progressive president, seeking to fix their system so crooked fuckers can't keep their asses in the seat of power, fix infrastructure, get rid of foreign petroleum companies (lol)
>America declares, "No"
>We not only remove him, we get him executed
>Get a free pass to smack beaners around and stomp their capital
>Mexico never recover
>Becomes a region where our government agencies can grind out merit badges and a place for our children to get shitfaced
No nation will ever match our ability to get shit done proper.
>>29786915
>Are you implying that the south didn't have literally decades of warning that slavery was going to be prohibited?
The South had a reasonable, constitutional right to enjoy their property and the products their property produced. The North trying to tie the South's arm behind their back economically, while perhaps subjectively moral, was not in any way constitutional. Let's not whitewash the Federal overstepping while we discuss the history of the North-South divide.
>Are you trying to argue that treating an entire race of people as subhumans is something that people should support?
Obviously not. Benjamin Banneker was an eloquent man and a proponent of ending slavery as he saw it, that being an oppression of an equal race of men. (AND YET he still owned slaves)
>Are you saying that slavery is ethical and acceptable?
Depends on the basis for the selection of the slaves. Slavery has existed as long as humanity has recorded history. If there's no racial or ethnic bias in the selection or retention of slaves, then I'm actually for it. It's a human institution.
>>29787369
I've never understood this. Doesn't it benefit the US to have a stable neighbor at the southern border? Mexico is a huge liability right now, and has been at various times since the early 20th century. Meanwhile, what trouble has Canada ever given the US? In any conceivable fashion?
>>29789811
That is a shitload of mental hurdles you just jumped through, Johnny Reb. All that in justification of an inherently immoral system which deprived humans of the dignity and rights promised to them in the constitution which you claim the north ignored.
0/10.
>>29789873
Think of any great historical figure who pondered about the rights of man. They all owned slaves or lived in a culture that cultivated a slave trade. Slavery doesn't have to be for life. Greece and Rome? You know, the cultures that the United states patterned themselves after? Yeah.
Get fucked, Yank.
>>29787158
>Before that point, there South was actually consistently lowering trade barriers, which actually hurt the fledgling industries of the North. Ignoring the issue of slavery, there was no economic war between the North and the South.
lmao the fuck? Did you only delve into the Civil War in High School?
Look up the Tariff of Abominations. Then look up the Nullification Crisis.
>>29789941
You're fooling yourself if you're comparing the two systems.
>>29790181
>You're fooling yourself if you're comparing the two systems.
Not him, but how. You can't just go "no" without giving any example of why it's not so.
You're just making yourself look like a retard if you can't properly argue.
>>29790219
Read my original post fuckface.
Did I defend racism or racially motivated-slavery in any form? No. But slavery as a economic framework for free labor and therefore greater economic output? Absolutely. Which is something that both the slavery systems in the antebellum South and Greece/Rome shared.
Sorry if I offended your liberal arts major way of thinking about Roman and Greek antiquity. They had economic systems too. And what were they built on? Slave labor.
I say again: get fucked Yank.
>>29787158
>If the South truly was concerned about the overreach of federal power instead of slavery, why would the South be perfectly fine with the federal government enforcing laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act.
Now simply as a matter of consistency, The Fugitive Slave Act could be seen as the federal government simply enforcing the individual's right to private property.
>>29790629
Whoops, sorry that was meant for >>29790181
>>29789830
Spoiler: Canada isn't America's hat, we're Canada's pants. We don't want them burning our capital again, but now with the added bonus of Devil Dogs.
Canada does not offer us a venue for narcodollars, their country isn't fucked to the point that street gangs can sell us Canadian oil for bargain basement prices, Canada does not offer us a venue for narcodollars, we didn't get to lay the ground works for utterly fucking up their entire political system, Canada does not offer us a venue for narcodollars, we probably wouldn't want to deal with their crazy ass still hostile indian tribes if we set up Canada to fail in the 1900s.
You leave a country as fucked as Mexico, you've got yourself a geo-political beaten wife. Any aid during disasters we give, any time we assist in their infrastructure, anytime we send in people to "strike" at the cartels, etc. we get to enforce our narrative of being the pinnacle of liberty, democracy, and benevolence.
While on the flipside, we get to have political talk point about DEFENDAN OUR BORDERS to swing votes as we see fit.
But ultimately.
If Mexico was an actual functioning country in the 1890-1940s, Papists would probably still be overtly trying to fuck over our country.
>tfw our nation completely forgot about dirty fucking Irish immigrants committing treason against us on behalf of Mexico
>tfw our nation completely forgot "No Irish Need Apply" was a thing
>tfw large chunks of our citizens probably aren't aware how bomb happy these potato pieces of shit were
>tfw we let them infiltrate our law enforcement
>tfw we let them have parades every goddamn year, we let them pinch our children, we let them pollute our beer with dyes
>>29793218
Know nothing scum get out and stay out
>>29793218
>Irish
>White
>>29774617
Because the Union were being cunts and taking away right, and giving them to other people. The right was to secede from the Union, and Lincoln went against that lawful right, and got shot for it, rightly so. When your rights are on the line, and you care so much for them, you tend to fight harder than a bunch of dick sucking brits
>>29793218
>America is Canada's pants
Meaning we cover their ass and keep centipedes out of their vagina?
Sounds about right...
>>29793833
This is bait, but point out where the Constitution gives anyone the right to secede.
>>29774677
fpbp
>>29793833
I lived in Appomattox for a couple of years, and have never heard such butthurt. Fuck off Cletus, your sister is getting away.
>>29793921
Right next to the part with states rights.
>>29779968
Only when people praise war criminals. Coming from a western stater too.
>>29794049
Yep. Bait. Fuck off and learn something before trying to participate and make claims you know absolutely nothing about.
>>29776868
>rape and pillage their way across Georgia
they literally only destroyed property
They didn't kill random civilians or rape women
>>29794155
They literally did.
>>29794179
>Indeed relatively few charges of rape were made, and military medical records showed little sexual disease.
>In short, the March to the Sea demonstrates not that Sherman was a brute, but that he wanted to wage a war that did not result in countless deaths. He saw destruction of property as less onerous than casualties. It is estimated that during the six-week March to the Sea fewer than 3,000 casualties resulted. Compared to the 51,000 killed, wounded and missing at Gettysburg in the three days of fighting there or the 24,000 in the two days at Shiloh, the month-long March to the Sea was nearly bloodless.
Almost all of the dead were from engagements with the Georgia militia.
Le ebil rapist Sherman is a meme created by angry Southerners
http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/fall-2014/scorched-earth.html
>>29777070
Shut the fuck up.
>>29776868
Dude I am right now sitting in Athens, GA. I married a girl who has lived in this state her whole life. And I am telling you now:
Sherman was a badass who knew exactly what was required to decisively conclude the war.
>>29793218
underrated post
>>29793713
>Irish Catholic
>White
Let's be more precise. This country was founded by Irish an Scots-Irish Protestants.
>>29789941
Not the guy you're replying to, but if you're admitting that moral relativism is a thing, then I'm alright with you.
