Many years ago I read that Sherman felt the north wasn't prepared and that the South would definitely fight for what they felt was their "right". I also read that Sherman and George Thomas either in 1860 or 61 took down a map from off a wall of the eastern states and picked out all the places or cities where major battles would be fought and they were exactly right! Thanks for the video Ron!!!
@@owensomers8572 um, because the south weren't "nazis"... our society was greatly intertwined ( from west point, on down) People in Union states were engaging in what you think the root of the conflict was about, as well as southerners. The south did not have intention to subdue union territory into its system of governance. And there are just as many examples that it was actually the north who was pressing for war, as opposed to the south. See "radical" republicans, see John Brown etc etc. People who wanted to free slaves, for their own self righteous purposes, and turn them violently against the whites in the regions they were in. All the while, having no plan for any type of mobility for these people, and also not wanting them in their states, in large part. kiss my grits.
@@Mr4autiger Stimpy, your wealth of ignorance is astounding! Churchill's rhetoric largely mirrored that of his father, which was in opposition to German nationalism, which in the previous generation was championed by the Hohenzollern dynasty of Prussia, but co-opted by Nazi forces by the 1930s. Those people in Union states "engaging in what you think the root of the conflict was about" didn't secede, and the criticisms of Sherman's ante-bellum views preceded future-Lost Cause revisionists' secession. The "south" had every intention of subduing Union territory that did have sizable holdings of enslaved peoples (Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri spring to mind), and tried repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to do so. Were there abolitionists in the "North" advocating violence, absolutely, but none of them seceded, or launched an artillery barrage on Fort Sumter. But you know as well as I that that group was a small minority, it was bellicose rhetoric and ignominious acts by the "south" that ignited the tinder box. But if it makes you feel better, keep hold of your fantasies of southern chivalry and righteousness, even if you have failed to demonstrate my original post lacks merit.
Sherman was well travelled in the US. He lived in Louisiana while superintendent of the Louisiana Military Academy, so he was well familiar with the Southern mindset.
I’ve always had a thing for red haired men. But Sherman was one of my favorite generals before I knew he was a redhead, when we studied the Civil War in 9th grade.
A particularly interesting - and gripping - episode this one today. Hearing Sherman in his own words - utterly cogent, utterly serious. Thank you. (I do wish this series were part of school curricula. Hearing common soldiers and generals and other people of the time in their own words clears away so much nonsense in circulation today about the American civil war.)
Will Rogers, a famous political satirist of the early 20th century, once said, “ We’re the only country that waits till we’re IN a war, before we get ready for it!”
Most interesting. 26 years or so ago , I happened upon a small antique shop in Greer, SC. Against a wall was a painting of a civil war cannon redied and loaded along a tree lined road. I asked the lady who had painted it? When was that, and what was the title? She replied it was by a local artist and was titled "Waiting for Sherman". "We still", she said, "hate that son of a bitch". I smiled and noted that I liked the colors and promptly left. General Sherman did leave an impression, even after all those years.
Most have heard of Sherman’s March across Georgia to the sea. The purpose was to destroy military and civilian infrastructure and thereby sap the will of the South to keep fighting. To avoid having to maintain a long logistics trail for food and supplies, Sherman methodically planned for his troops to survive by foraging. So they also ate up a lot of the harvest locals had stored. What’s less well known is that after reaching Savannah and resting and refitting a bit, his army turned northward into South Carolina where they continued the same practice as they had in Georgia. Many of his troops were well aware of South Carolina’s role in being the first belligerent in the war and as a result were a little “rougher” on the local populace. Sherman reportedly tolerated a fair amount of the troops working out their frustrations, shall we say. War is hell. Careful what you wish for.
Pusillanimous is the exact opposite description of Sherman. He even called out the Confederacy for their extreme miscalculation in seceding from the Union and committing to the resulting war of attrition. His tactics in the Georgia campaign really illustrated his thought process and attitude towards the Confederate civilians and soldiers alike. He would make them truly come to understand the magnitude of the mistake they had made in choosing to rebel from their government.
All good points. The question perhaps should be, "what was the mood and actions of the Congress after Lincoln was elected?" Many people in the North didn't care about the slaves, many didn't care that the South had left the Union; New York City for a short time even had its own secessionists movement. So, why would Congressmen from those districts bother with building up the military?
Excellent presentation. Thank you for sharing these gems. I suppose that most of these books/tomes unfortunately collect dust on library shelves somewhere.
I read some of Sherman’s biography including his experiences in the years prior the Civil War. I found his description of California, where he was posted, quite descriptive and informative. Being born and raised in California I was surprised to learn that he had traveled through or near my hometown of Santa Clara. His description of the areas he visited and the Indians in the general area was quite fascinating. Other famous Civil War generals and officers were also posted to California after the Mexican American war. One notable figure was Gen. Braxton Bragg who joined the Confederacy. He was also assigned in Northern California at his namesake, Fort Bragg, today a beautiful tourist destination on the Pacific Coast.
I thought that when Sherman was assigned the Armies in Kentucky, he panicked, believing he was grossly out numbered. He froze with the responsibility. Then was mocked.
Before the war began Sherman wrote a sincere appeal to the people of the South, outlining why they were ultimately doomed to fail. His language is matter of fact, pointing out that the initial advantages they perceived to have could not prevail and that by underestimating the mettle of the Northerners quiet determination and the sheer advantage in industrial might, they were inevitably doomed to fail. Much blood and treasure could have been saved if they'd heeded his wise words.
General Sherman and General Sheridan I believe were the very best in General Grants command. President Lincoln was very fortunate to have these three and many others.
Throughout history, those clairvoyant individuals often warn and others do not heed. Sherman, though vilified throughout the South for his total war tactics, was perhaps the finest Federal general in the CIvil War, with of course the exception of US Grant. Great stories as always, Ron!
When we look past Sherman's undeniably well-written but often self-serving and factually flawed memoirs, and start looking at his actual combat record as a general, the picture changes dramatically. I must recommend Albert Castel's book "Decision in the West" as a counterpoint to the claims of Sherman's genius, as well as Castel's essay "Prevaricating Through Georgia".
@@markmaki4460 I'd say Sherman's record was worse than "spotty". Besides the better-known failures of Chickasaw Bayou, Chattanooga, and Kennesaw Mountain, his list of missed opportunities is deeply embarrassing.
@@Stilicho19801 That is true! And after reading Albert Castel's essay "Prevaricating Through Georgia: Sherman's Memoirs as a Source on the Atlanta Campaign", I'm convinced more than ever that we ought to take Sherman's "clairvoyance" with more than a grain of salt...
So he mumbled it a little. Sheesh. It's not like he stammers as badly as i do sometimes. In any event, not to be outdone, i shall offer "pedantic" - puh-DAN-tik or pe-DAN-tik.
@@markmaki4460 Words convey meaning. Words are important. The pronunciation of those words is an element in their importance. There is nothing pedantic in that, it was meant to instruct, nothing more. But I suspect you know that….
i read grants and shermans books. i thought grants book was better. it was very easy to read and flowed easily. shermans was hard to read because of the way he spoke. if anyone likes history read grants book. when i started i couldn't put it down. i read it twice.
There is a hilarious short parody of Grant's memoir out there... search for 'nuclearflatworms' and 'memoirs' in Google or Bing and you should find it. The fellow captured Grant's style perfectly.
Sherman had a hand in murdering innocent Native American women and children in the Baker's Massacre. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think he put much value on people he didn't care for.
I believe some Northern politicians wanted to de-populate the South. I am surprised at the animosity some Northern people still have towards the South.
Interesting analogy and advocacy - since the Romans KILLED all (or most) of the inhabitants of Carthage. So you think the North should have murdered ALL of the population of the South…
@@hamiltonconway6966 If you read Lee's congressional testimony, Northern politicians were already trying to figure out how to get the newly emancipated, as far away from their northern borders as possible.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
Many years ago I read that Sherman felt the north wasn't prepared and that the South would definitely fight for what they felt was their "right". I also read that Sherman and George Thomas either in 1860 or 61 took down a map from off a wall of the eastern states and picked out all the places or cities where major battles would be fought and they were exactly right! Thanks for the video Ron!!!
I was not aware of these military actions in Louisiana during January, 1861. Thanks for this enlightening video.
Plenty of politicians in the UK were calling Winston Churchill's concerns about Germany crazy in the mid 1930s.
not comparable, at all.
@@Mr4autiger Feel free to expound.
@@owensomers8572 um, because the south weren't "nazis"... our society was greatly intertwined ( from west point, on down) People in Union states were engaging in what you think the root of the conflict was about, as well as southerners. The south did not have intention to subdue union territory into its system of governance. And there are just as many examples that it was actually the north who was pressing for war, as opposed to the south. See "radical" republicans, see John Brown etc etc. People who wanted to free slaves, for their own self righteous purposes, and turn them violently against the whites in the regions they were in. All the while, having no plan for any type of mobility for these people, and also not wanting them in their states, in large part. kiss my grits.
@@Mr4autiger Stimpy, your wealth of ignorance is astounding!
Churchill's rhetoric largely mirrored that of his father, which was in opposition to German nationalism, which in the previous generation was championed by the Hohenzollern dynasty of Prussia, but co-opted by Nazi forces by the 1930s.
Those people in Union states "engaging in what you think the root of the conflict was about" didn't secede, and the criticisms of Sherman's ante-bellum views preceded future-Lost Cause revisionists' secession.
The "south" had every intention of subduing Union territory that did have sizable holdings of enslaved peoples (Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri spring to mind), and tried repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to do so.
Were there abolitionists in the "North" advocating violence, absolutely, but none of them seceded, or launched an artillery barrage on Fort Sumter. But you know as well as I that that group was a small minority, it was bellicose rhetoric and ignominious acts by the "south" that ignited the tinder box.
But if it makes you feel better, keep hold of your fantasies of southern chivalry and righteousness, even if you have failed to demonstrate my original post lacks merit.
@@Mr4autiger And I vouch I speak for all of "these" people when I say, "Bless your heart"!
Sherman was well travelled in the US. He lived in Louisiana while superintendent of the Louisiana Military Academy, so he was well familiar with the Southern mindset.
That institution later became known as Louisiana State University and Sherman is credited as being the first head of LSU.
The more I watch,the more I like your channel ❤
Brilliant analysis by Sherman.
I’ve always had a thing for red haired men. But Sherman was one of my favorite generals before I knew he was a redhead, when we studied the Civil War in 9th grade.
Keep up the good work Ron all the best ! 🇬🇧🏴🇺🇸
A particularly interesting - and gripping - episode this one today. Hearing Sherman in his own words - utterly cogent, utterly serious. Thank you. (I do wish this series were part of school curricula. Hearing common soldiers and generals and other people of the time in their own words clears away so much nonsense in circulation today about the American civil war.)
Will Rogers, a famous political satirist of the early 20th century, once said, “ We’re the only country that waits till we’re IN a war, before we get ready for it!”
It seems nothing has changed.
Sherman was spot on
Most interesting. 26 years or so ago , I happened upon a small antique shop in Greer, SC. Against a wall was a painting of a civil war cannon redied and loaded along a tree lined road. I asked the lady who had painted it? When was that, and what was the title? She replied it was by a local artist and was titled "Waiting for Sherman". "We still", she said, "hate that son of a bitch". I smiled and noted that I liked the colors and promptly left. General Sherman did leave an impression, even after all those years.
Most have heard of Sherman’s March across Georgia to the sea. The purpose was to destroy military and civilian infrastructure and thereby sap the will of the South to keep fighting. To avoid having to maintain a long logistics trail for food and supplies, Sherman methodically planned for his troops to survive by foraging. So they also ate up a lot of the harvest locals had stored. What’s less well known is that after reaching Savannah and resting and refitting a bit, his army turned northward into South Carolina where they continued the same practice as they had in Georgia. Many of his troops were well aware of South Carolina’s role in being the first belligerent in the war and as a result were a little “rougher” on the local populace. Sherman reportedly tolerated a fair amount of the troops working out their frustrations, shall we say. War is hell. Careful what you wish for.
Great insight. Thank you.
Pusillanimous is the exact opposite description of Sherman. He even called out the Confederacy for their extreme miscalculation in seceding from the Union and committing to the resulting war of attrition. His tactics in the Georgia campaign really illustrated his thought process and attitude towards the Confederate civilians and soldiers alike. He would make them truly come to understand the magnitude of the mistake they had made in choosing to rebel from their government.
Fun channel I look forward to it every day.
All good points. The question perhaps should be, "what was the mood and actions of the Congress after Lincoln was elected?"
Many people in the North didn't care about the slaves, many didn't care that the South had left the Union; New York City for a short time even had its own secessionists movement. So, why would Congressmen from those districts bother with building up the military?
A brilliant man.
I found Sherman's memoirs to be very eye opening. Thanks for your excellent video.
Excellent presentation. Thank you for sharing these gems. I suppose that most of these books/tomes unfortunately collect dust on library shelves somewhere.
I read some of Sherman’s biography including his experiences in the years prior the Civil War. I found his description of California, where he was posted, quite descriptive and informative. Being born and raised in California I was surprised to learn that he had traveled through or near my hometown of Santa Clara. His description of the areas he visited and the Indians in the general area was quite fascinating. Other famous Civil War generals and officers were also posted to California after the Mexican American war. One notable figure was Gen. Braxton Bragg who joined the Confederacy. He was also assigned in Northern California at his namesake, Fort Bragg, today a beautiful tourist destination on the Pacific Coast.
Traitors to their oath to the constitution as federal officers shoulbe called that in us history books.
Once again nicely done
Sherman also had a bit of a nervous breakdown in Kentucky in late 1861. Military rivals played this up 😂
People in that era wore capes. How cool is that?
Not the most familiar photo of Sherman but appropriate to the post and Sherman's post war career.
Fascinating
Waiting for the Netflix Sherman adaptation.
I thought that when Sherman was assigned the Armies in Kentucky, he panicked, believing he was grossly out numbered. He froze with the responsibility. Then was mocked.
The powers that be - should have listened to Sherman about a lot of things. Especially what he wanted to do after the "March to the Sea".
Before the war began Sherman wrote a sincere appeal to the people of the South, outlining why they were ultimately doomed to fail.
His language is matter of fact, pointing out that the initial advantages they perceived to have could not prevail and that by underestimating the mettle of the Northerners quiet determination and the sheer advantage in industrial might, they were inevitably doomed to fail.
Much blood and treasure could have been saved if they'd heeded his wise words.
General Sherman and General Sheridan I believe were the very best in General Grants command. President Lincoln was very fortunate to have these three and many others.
They still do !
Can you please do us some quality history on Winfield Scott Hancock 🔥🙏🏽👍🏼❤️🏆🙌🏾🙏🏽
Sherman’s mental illness saved our union!! His friendship with Grant saved our nation! Two kick ass men!! Who knew what it would take to win 🏆
This same scenario is happening again but in the Western Pacific.
Throughout history, those clairvoyant individuals often warn and others do not heed. Sherman, though vilified throughout the South for his total war tactics, was perhaps the finest Federal general in the CIvil War, with of course the exception of US Grant. Great stories as always, Ron!
When we look past Sherman's undeniably well-written but often self-serving and factually flawed memoirs, and start looking at his actual combat record as a general, the picture changes dramatically. I must recommend Albert Castel's book "Decision in the West" as a counterpoint to the claims of Sherman's genius, as well as Castel's essay "Prevaricating Through Georgia".
I think Sherman and Grant were certainly the best strategists of the war; but their records as tacticians were a bit spotty.
@@markmaki4460 I'd say Sherman's record was worse than "spotty". Besides the better-known failures of Chickasaw Bayou, Chattanooga, and Kennesaw Mountain, his list of missed opportunities is deeply embarrassing.
Sherman's clairvoyance was helped by writing in 1875 and from a winning position.
@@Stilicho19801 That is true! And after reading Albert Castel's essay "Prevaricating Through Georgia: Sherman's Memoirs as a Source on the Atlanta Campaign", I'm convinced more than ever that we ought to take Sherman's "clairvoyance" with more than a grain of salt...
“Ignominiously” is pronounced “igg-no-min-ee-us-lee.” All six syllables.
So he mumbled it a little. Sheesh. It's not like he stammers as badly as i do sometimes.
In any event, not to be outdone, i shall offer "pedantic" - puh-DAN-tik or pe-DAN-tik.
@@markmaki4460 Words convey meaning. Words are important. The pronunciation of those words is an element in their importance. There is nothing pedantic in that, it was meant to instruct, nothing more. But I suspect you know that….
i read grants and shermans books. i thought grants book was better. it was very easy to read and flowed easily. shermans was hard to read because of the way he spoke. if anyone likes history read grants book. when i started i couldn't put it down. i read it twice.
There is a hilarious short parody of Grant's memoir out there... search for 'nuclearflatworms' and 'memoirs' in Google or Bing and you should find it. The fellow captured Grant's style perfectly.
Ads for FJB make me want to skip this vid.
Sherman had a hand in murdering innocent Native American women and children in the Baker's Massacre. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think he put much value on people he didn't care for.
Amen
The biggest mistake the north made is not treating the south like Roman treated Carthage at the end of the third Punic war.
I believe some Northern politicians wanted to de-populate the South. I am surprised at the animosity some Northern people still have towards the South.
@@hamiltonconway6966 i am from Texas.
Interesting analogy and advocacy - since the Romans KILLED all (or most) of the inhabitants of Carthage. So you think the North should have murdered ALL of the population of the South…
@@hamiltonconway6966 If you read Lee's congressional testimony, Northern politicians were already trying to figure out how to get the newly emancipated, as far away from their northern borders as possible.