I'm not familiar with Atlanta personally, but I've heard that the aftermath of Sherman's march can still be seen today. Is this true? Are there still areas of the city that have not been rebuilt?
You can see the scars of the war all over the south, if you know where to look. There is still a good bit of resentment of Sherman's character, and it was with good reason he had a tank named after him. I don't think there are still-ruined areas, as cities recover, but there may be historical sites set aside. I'm from Mississippi myself, and haven't seen enough of Atlanta the one time I passed through to really say definitively, but it's my estimation that people during Reconstruction would have tried hard to bury those painful memories by building anew.
I've been through Atlanta only twice, and I didn't pay that much attention to it, but, aside from historical places that couldn't afford to fix up at the time (and have been preserved since), I think that Nemo's pretty well on. If you look hard enough, there are a lot of reminders of the war throughout the South (as well as Gettysburg). The urban areas have been more recovered than the rural areas though because people who live through something like that usually don't want a visible reminder of it day in and day out if they can help it.
Yeah, I'm assuming that some of the landscape in the more rural areas hasn't recovered, especially after Sherman's burn-it-all total war mentality.
It would look like large, empty grass fields, or modern cotton, soybean or corn fields. The only places that would really be similar are the sites that are being preserved.
