How did the American Civil War Actually Happen? (Part 2) - All Important Battles of 1861
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มิ.ย. 2023
- PART 1 - • How did the American C...
PART 3 - • Why did The Confederat...
How did the American Civil War Actually Happen? (Part 2) - All battles of 1861
At this point in time, neither side wanted the war to last long. In fact, some in the South had actually hoped that the attack on Fort Sumter would scare the Union into diplomacy instead of armed conflict. The Confederates knew they were greatly outnumbered and were smart enough to recognize the obstacles they’d need to overcome to beat the North, however, they weren’t the only ones with concerning weaknesses
♦Consider supporting the Channel :
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Script & Research :
Skylar J. Gordon
#History #Documentary #america
![BOWKYLION - ส่วนต่าง (do it without me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7x-pwcMopzE/mqdefault.jpg)
The next parts are in the making! What do you think it was the most important event in 1861 during The Civil War?
PART 1 -> th-cam.com/video/bYaYCltLsdk/w-d-xo.html
PART 3 -> th-cam.com/video/t56cwRxBtG8/w-d-xo.html
Hello there! You can help us increase production by Becoming a Member. Click on the Join Button for exclusive perks! Be the first to see videos, and parts of production and vote on topics : th-cam.com/channels/uCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Q.htmljoin
You can also support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Knowledgia . Thank you so much for watching, your constant support and consideration!
Battle of bull run
Spy in Washington who smuggled map to our Confederate generals in order to win First Manassas.
The female spy in WASHINGTON D.C. who smuggled a map to our generals so we would win the Battle of First Manassas.
McClellan takes all of West Virginia in a 4 Week Campaign. West Virginia is granted Statehood in 1863 ... *HOW'S THAT FOR STATES RIGHTS!*
Union Railroads now have an unlimited supply of coal and iron including coking coal with which to later mass produce *"Steel"* the first Nation upon this Earth to execute upon this tho this would be effected far after the conclusion of this "Hostility."
Part 3 is it nearly finished?
General Winfield Scott was such a great and under appreciated figure, he first routed Mexico, then gave Union an upper hand before retiring, and he was a Virginian. He gave union an upper hand and his genius led union to capture the largest city of confederacy New Orleans without even firing a shot. That crippled the confederacy from the get go!
Such a genius! Give him his credit due!
True, although I think when we discuss the capture of New Orleans, Admiral David Farragut deserves the lion's share of credit. Farragut, interestingly, was a native of Tennessee, another rebel state.
All so true!
Very True! Being a South Carolinian I can remember being taught about Gen. Scott and his plan. A true genius. I hat the comments I read that degrade both men on both sides of this conflict.
q
I assure you, thousands of shots had to be fired to capture New Orleans. No, there wasn't a battle at the city itself, but there was a naval battle fought at the forts guarding the river below the city.
I love learning about American history 🇺🇸. Here in Spain 🇪🇸, we study in History class especially the time of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War and the Spanish-American War of 1898.
If you like this stuff you should watch Ken Burns: Civil War if you haven't already.
i live in Canada, so we talk about their revolution in terms of Loyalists moving to Canada, then we hype up Brock, Tecumseh and War of 1812, then the Fenian Raids which saw American militants attacking Canadian territory. helped create the desire for our polite request for independence in 1867
@@beepboop204 Kind of interesting that America thought the Canadians would want to join America but the Canadians were content with British rule. Benedict Arnold went up there and found only Loyalists.
In America, Americans are taught about how Spain colonized the Americas and how Spanairds influenced a lot of American culture.
Keep in mind, many things on YT regarding US history are biased and incorrect.
Finally, after 86 years of waiting :D
Patience is always rewarded :)
Amen brother! 🙏 After eighty six years The south shall rise again
😂😂
@@corinthian2500ok racist
@@54032Zepol LOSE AGAIN!
Let’s get even more Civil War been wanting this era hit hard for a long time now!
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end". -William T Sherman when he heard the news Sumter was fired on.
“Why?”
-The South
@@Grafknar why what
@@firingallcylinders2949 Why fight? The south just wanted to leave.
@@Grafknar "Why fight? The south just wanted to leave." The world would descend into anarchy and instability if populations could just decide whenever they want to secede from their parent entity.
@@tsdobbiDude... That's literally how the US got started.
Imagine going on a picnic on an active battlefield to watch the fighting 😂
The Battle of Bull Run nicely illustrates the numerous significant advantages the rebels had early in the war...although those reasons have little to do with superior generalship or fighting prowess.
Both sides were building armies from scratch, but it was much more difficult to train an army to go on the march in enemy territory than to train an army to remain on the defense in friendly territory. That's why we hear phrases about McDowell's army "inching forward".
Tactically, it was also much more difficult to keep units in cohesive formation while moving across rugged terrain on the battlefield. Moving from column to line and advancing was hard enough, and became even more difficult under fire.
Tactically, the weapons of the day gave a significant advantage to the defender. Attackers crossing hundreds of yards of open ground came under cannon fire long before they could respond with muskets, and attacking artillery would have to unlimber and deploy within range of defenders already prepared to blast them with counter-battery fire.
Operationally, Bull Run is also illustrative of the advantage of interior lines of communication. It's no mistake that Beauregard was waiting for McDowell at Manassas Junction...that was precisely where he could receive reinforcements from Johnston by rail, giving the Confederates an enormous advantage of speed over the Union army which, as we noted already, was "inching forward" over dirt road while rebel reinforcements poured in by rail.
As the war goes on, we'll see one rebel offensive after another fall apart when it faces the same problems. Jackson's Romney campaign, Zollicoffer's Mill Springs campaign, Bragg's Kentucky campaign, Lee in Maryland in '62 and Pennsylvania in '63...all disasters, for all the same reasons that Union offensives floundered in '61.
Lots of good excuses.
Go ask Lincoln why he tried to hire REL. Then go ask him why he had to wait all the time till after Vicksburg until he finally found a general who could and would take full advantage of the superiority of yankee industry and manpower.
@@ziggystardust1122 I think it's pretty clear why Lincoln offered Lee command - Lee was one of the most senior officers in the army and had an excellent reputation.
The question we can never know the answer to is: How effective would Lee have been in command of the U.S. Army early in the war?
Lee did not have to build the Army of Northern Virginia. He did not have to go on the offensive in enemy territory...and when he did, he floundered. Would he have been able to take advantage of the Union's advantages early on? Maybe, but I don't see it as a sure thing.
@@aaronfleming9426 "I think it's pretty clear why Lincoln offered Lee command".
Now that, is straight up pure conjecture (load of horseshit). You have ZERO way of knowing Lincoln's mind in regards to his reasoning behind calling upon REL. Pure hubris on your part. Silly even.
Peach Cobbler.
The South lost New Orleans in one of the most incompetent displays of military blundering in American history. Robert E. Lee is overrated and was certainly not better than Sherman or Joseph Johnston.
@@aaronfleming9426I remember my History teacher is H.S. say that "If General Robert E. Lee took command of Union armies, the Civil War would've only lasted 2 years."
Speaks volumes of the man doesn't it?
I have been to the battle of Wilson's Creek. Also had many family members fight in the Civil War. Very interesting time period for our country.
“May you live in interesting times.”-Chinese curse
I take you to mean you went to the location of the battle. Right?! You didn’t go to the battle….your not Marty McFly or Doc Brown.
Been waiting on this one for awhile, appreciate it
Great video! See y’all in 4 months for part 3!
Super well produced I’m upset there’s no pt 3 up lol
Yoo finally, can't wait for part 3 for the first snow already :))
The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860-61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over slavery. Between 1815 and 1861 the economy of the Northern states was rapidly modernizing and diversifying. Although agriculture-mostly smaller farms that relied on free labour-remained the dominant sector in the North, industrialization had taken root there. Moreover, Northerners had invested heavily in an expansive and varied transportation system that included canals, roads, steamboats, and railroads; in financial industries such as banking and insurance; and in a large communications network that featured inexpensive, widely available newspapers, magazines, and books, along with the telegraph.
By contrast, the Southern economy was based principally on large farms (plantations) that produced commercial crops such as cotton and that relied on slaves as the main labour force. Rather than invest in factories or railroads as Northerners had done, Southerners invested their money in slaves-even more than in land; by 1860, 84 percent of the capital invested in manufacturing was invested in the free (nonslaveholding) states. Yet, to Southerners, as late as 1860, this appeared to be a sound business decision. The price of cotton, the South’s defining crop, had skyrocketed in the 1850s, and the value of slaves-who were, after all, property-rose commensurately. By 1860 the per capita wealth of Southern whites was twice that of Northerners, and three-fifths of the wealthiest individuals in the country were Southerners.
It's also important to note not all states internally were on board with secession. Sam Houston of Texas said it was foolish and was not in favor. Certain Virginia delegates wanted out as well, and that is why we have West Virginia.
Which benefited the federal government and the north, especially wealthy, northern bankers.
Thank you for explaining some Economics behind this conflict. That always gets left behind.
@@Grafknar the Norths population and economy was just something the South could not contend with. It's almost like a free economy was more efficient than a slave one.
@@firingallcylinders2949 Well you’re right on the first part. And I will point out that given search disparity, the only logical reason why the south seceded is because they didn’t think the north would try to stop them. After all, how can you form a country by an act of secession, write a Constitution that leaves secession to the states, and then claim the right to try to stop secession?
@@firingallcylinders2949 Also, since free labor is more efficient, slavery was destined to die out on its own - peacefully - as it did almost everywhere else in the west.
Do more of these civil war videos!
More to come!
yep!
The flag that flew over fort sumter during the bombardment is now housed in the museum in Charleston. It's amazing to think about what all that flag saw.
The early to mid union generalship is just a litany of incompetent general after incompetent general. With a few striking exceptions.
If you're referring to the eastern theater, yes. The western and trans-Mississippi theaters was a very different story, with a number of commanders rising to prominence.
Career officers vs Talent officers
Exaggerations. It was just massively harder to go on the offensive with newly formed troops. Lee learned this when he got his ass kicked pretty much every time he went into the offensive.
Their defeats are also exaggerated at times. Take the Peninsula campaign:
29.000 Confederate losses to 23.000 Union ones. With the Confederacy having a much harder time replacing their losses. How about the Maryland campaign? Everyone focuses on how McClellan didn't cruch Lee completely forgetting what a disastrous campaign it was for the Confederacy.causing high losses in little time for no reward.
@@OK-yy6qz good comment. The Maryland campaign was a disaster.
@@aaronfleming9426 you know it's a disaster when the only silver lining even Confederate simps could find was that Lee and his army weren't destroyed entirely
I really like all your content, it inspires me to do my work just like you.
Been waiting for so long for that!!!!!
This is the best american civil war documentary...precise ..simplified.. informative.
Fabulous presentations!
Fort Sumter battle dramatic but historically inaccurate. Where are the Union ships threatening the city of Charleston, where I live.
Truly was a different era. Crazy we had to fight this war.
Not crazy since the southerners could not imagine living without slavery.
@@donchampagne6211 right..... they didn't want to exercise freedom. Which is crazy why anyone wouldn't want freedom for everyone.
THIS IS LOOOOMG OVERDUE 🎉
Yeah, my great Uncle was at Wilson's Creek. Just 4 generations ago.
I understand the Civil War is a sensitive topic but lets try to keep the discourse civil.
Nice video
I though that only in 2023 war was a public spectacle, but apparently it is far from being the case, and it was already a spectacle back then for civilians on occasions.
Interesting video
Still great stuff! The struggles of non-Americans presenting American history shows up again here in Part 2 with the mispronunciation of a few words, most notably Lyon. An American would know to say "Lion," not "Leon." Using AI to present the voice over isn't a good idea unless you know where/how to correct it.
Still - as before - this is all really well done. Kudos! And thank you!
Part 3 please
No part 3 out yet?
Dear commenter, beware the comments: It is full of lost causers who are deeply angry that slavery is no longer legal.
On the contrary Women will be the new slaves! 13 year old brides and legal rape for them!
Has next to nothing, to do with slavery, Sir. We cannot tolerate meddling Yankees telling us how to live our lives; Much the same, Sir as we cannot tolerate the current Federal government, from practicing the same. The CSA Officers and leaders were no more treasonist than were Gen Washington and the Continental congress,except that the Continental Army WON their war.
Literally the only people who got away with stopping and boarding a British vessel oml
@bryceturner1822 They did not want war with Britian. They ended up apologizing and releasing the rebel representatives.
Part 3 plss
I'm quite excited. We're getting so close to 1863! I'm hoping you cover the burning of a certain bridge, marking a major defeat for the confederacy and what some consider the turning point of the war.
Will you continue the history of the Roman Empire?
06:00
East Tennessee actually wanted to do the same as West Virginia, and be called
the state of East Tennessee. 🇺🇸
No they didn’t or they would have
@@FlatEarthAdministrator Look it up
You say East Tennessee wanted to but East Tennessee didn’t so obviously it wasnt a very strong sentiment or large percentage of East Tennessee state or it would’ve become a reality as it did in Virginia therefor it’s basically a myth you are creating from almost nothing
@FlatEarthAdministrator
Actually, ....we were out voted by Middle and West Tennessee on the issue of even having a vote on secession.
We most definitely have been, are and always will be different from rest of the state. 🇺🇸 We were the last state to secede, and the first state to rejoin !
Research before making a fool of yourself again. 😉 I would suggest you read the definitive work on the civil war action in this region, "Divided Loyalties"
by Digby G Seymour. 🎓
@FlatEarthAdministrator
Something else you probably don't know...East Tennessee was under confederate martial law for the first 2 years of the 4 year war. 🤔 💥
Lincoln referred to East Tennessee as
"the keystone in the confederate arch",
and said that if it (East Tennessee) fell then the rest of the arch would crumble.
He also commissioned US
General O.O. Howard to "...do something nice for those loyal folks in East Tennessee". The result is LMU in Harrogate Tennessee. 🎩 📜
You DO know General Longstreet lost 800+ men in only 20 minutes at Fort Sanders, right ? ✅️ He was up against 🇺🇸 General Ambrose Burnside and the tables were certainly turned, just 10 days after President Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address.
part 3?
Let's see if this video discusses the impact of Plasmodium falciparum on the Union Army. Malaria (P. falciparum) was endemic in the South as far north as Washington DC. While P. vivax was endemic as far as the southern end of New England, P. falciparum has a higher mortality rate.
After 6 months finally.
about damn time
I was finally waiting for this video a sequel to first part.
My home town of Baker City, OR was named after Edward Baker.
Washington D. C. seems misplaced on the maps. It directly borders Virginia across the Potomac, doesn't it?
It's surprising. Confederation army was better if we look through the aspect of officers. They had better than North. But they didn't have enough man and industrial capacity for longer war duration. North had five times more man for recruitment and ten times stronger economy. That's like Bulgaria get into war with Spain.
The north still suffered less battle deaths
@@wilcowen No it's not. North had more dead and wounded. Because of Sautern success on the beginning of the war
We have numerous historical examples of economically and numerically inferior forces winning wars or at the very least forcing peace agreements that don't involve unconditional surrender because they simply made the war too costly for the stronger power (i.e. the Winter War). Or the myriad of post WW2 American wars.
The south absolutely could have forced peace and maintained their independence. The "we never had a chance" is just lost causer cope.
In the end their leaders failed them and they lost their will to fight on.
@@albertmisic3876 I said deaths very clearly
@@tsdobbi Winter War was defeat of Finland no matter of high Soviet casualties. Sauth wanted to surprise government in Washington. They thought that Linkoln, elite and people on North didn't ready for great cost of civil war. Southerners were wrong and lost the war. It was Davide against Goliath if we compared strength. South had to control a territory with size of four France with the population of Denmark.
Hey , make one on Nalanda Mahavihara
Or nah
Read Harry Turtledove's alternate history series on the Civil War through the end of the Civil War.
I did. It was nonsense. The South winning a crushing victory at Antietam? Please.
Any idea what the music is called at 11:00?
When does part 3 come out
no part 3?
The caption in the lower right says 1961 at 13:13. 😮
I can almost hear the European shipyards rubbing their hands at the thoughts of the coming contracts for vessels to watch the new world destroy itself and what a catastrophic war it came to be. 🇬🇧🙏🇺🇸☘️
The Northern Industrial might was so far and away more than than the South they were making ships for other armies such as Italy during the war.
@@firingallcylinders2949 yes and I am in England and we built ships for the Confederate states. 👍 🇬🇧🙏🇺🇸
The North was literally building ships for European countries throughout the war, lmao.
@@DaveSCameron And the British didn't join the Confederacy...hmm can't imagine why
@@firingallcylinders2949 Not officially as we are all aware but CSS Alabama came from Birkenhead. 👍
Where can I find part 1?
I'm not American so my knowledge is limited, but from what I saw in some videos and documentaries, although union forces were more, the South had a lot of very competent officers and generals, some even brilliant, which is odd because before the war, they all graduated in the same academy, West Point I believe? Correct if I'm wrong. So, why this disparity exist between them? In the end, the lack of manpower and industry was the South achilles heel.
The Union had plenty of competent officers, included several brilliant ones. The problem was building an army capable of going on the offense in enemy territory...that's much more difficult than building an army for defense.
@aaronfleming9426 but didn't the South at the start of the war went on the offensive? And with a pretty good success at most times.
@@sergiogamito7909 No, not really. The campaigns to try to control Kentucky all went badly. Jackson's Romney campaign went badly; Lee's attacks during the Seven Days battles were mismanaged and led to awful casualties and only appeared successful because McClellan ran away after winning repeated tactical victories. Shiloh was an offensive, that failed.
There may be a few examples to the contrary. Jackson's Valley campaign was very aggressive and successful, but he was fighting in his own back yard, not going on an offensive campaign. Same thing with 2nd Bull Run, which involved a lot of aggressive maneuvering, but the battle itself was fought largely on the tactical defensive until the final decisive assault late in the battle.
One of the biggest factors was the Mexican war not a couple of years before. The bulk of the forces involved in that war were Southern and thus part of the confederate which made their generals and soldiers much more experienced in the start of the war.
That said the Confederate tactical brilliance is greatly overplayed. Despite minor individual victories their overall strategy was bad: fighting a war of Attrition against a greater force
@@OK-yy6qz I generally agree with you. But fighting a war of attrition against a larger force is a time-honored strategy of independence movements. That's how George Washington beat the British in the American Revolution. The difference is that after the disastrous invasion of Canada and the battle of Long Island, Washington avoided offensive campaigns and pitched battles unless he knew he could win.
The Confederates didn't learn from Washington, for which we can all be grateful.
Seems like the aggressor almost always has early success in so many cases. Then stalemate, and losing it later.
Actually, the North was on the offensive at Bull Run and Wilson's Creek, the two biggest battles of 1861. The South always did much better when they stayed on the defense, and got creamed when they got aggressive.
@@aaronfleming9426 How it worked for Hitler even. Had momentum then stalemate and loss. Well, firing on Sumter was the opening aggression that the North was responding to.
@@aaronfleming9426 My great Uncle was at Wilson's Creek. He used the Arkansas Peace Society as a rouse to cover for preparing a militia that later joined the Arkansas Union 2nd Calvary. They engaged there in Springfield and then at Elkhorn's lodge in NW Arkansas then the unit renamed itself. Their batting average wasn't too hot.
@@aaronfleming9426 Momentum is difficult to maintain, but if you started the fight what else can you do often enough?
@@fomoyearsfofofiv8178 There have been plenty of aggressors throughout history who have won. Pretty much anyone who ever conquered anyone else, or any revolutionary movement that succeeded. The Israelites conquered Canaan. Assyria conquered Israel. Babylon attacked and conquered Assyria, and then Persia attacked and conquered Babylon, and then the Macedonians attacked and conquered Persia. Rome conquered just about everybody. Ghengis Khan was pretty aggressive, lol. The Patriots picked a fight with Britain in the American revolution. The USA picked a fight with Mexico and successfully grabbed a huge chunk of real estate.
Anticipating part 3
i like that you are staying truthful to the facts. too many these days say american civil war was started because of differences on slavery, politicising the matter
People "these days" don't have to say the civil war was started because of slavery. The people who actually started the war told us it was about slavery.
As a stated goal, the North's primary objective was the preservation of the Union. However, the primary goal of the Confederacy, as evidenced by their own articles of secession, state constitutions, and other legal documents, was the preservation of the institution of slavery. If the South was concerned about States' Rights, they wouldn't have spent the 1850s stepping all over the Northern states' rights like the Fugitive Slave Act.
If your enemy is fighting to maintain slavery, even if you don't state it out loud, you are fighting to end slavery.
@@zenever0 Well said.
HOW DID I NOT SEE THIS UPLOAD SOONER OMG AHHHH
Relax Charlie
After outlawing slavery Britain is willing to let other Countries to have slaves to fuel their economy.
In the end Britain almost certainly supported slavery so long as they do not own slaves themselves
Yes, the Gettysburg campaign. I don't understand why the artillery unit didn't know that the artillery was fired off mark. All they were killing was the deserter. If the artillery was firing on mark the war would have took a different outcome And if only we could have england's Navy
I needed a good laugh
Wow!
finally :D
Strange how many times they could predict things throughout their struggle. Almost as if we knew the whole story that would be told
omg that's not even the last part. another 6 months of waiting I guess
Gettysburg showed the union soldiers had to fight, that war was serious, rebels had to be stopped, the union now had a reason to fight back.
Lessons learned? Let's try again!
Ive always said if the confederates had won at pea ridge AK that could have won the war for them. They divided their forces and lost 2 generals within 20 minutes on the west side of battlefield. If the confederates could have won they could have pushed into MO and held it using regular confederate forces from several states. During 1861 the confederates forces in MO were staate guards and volunteer units for the most part. A few texans and Louisiana troops at eilson creek but they fell back into AK after wilsins creek.
If confederates held MO, Grant could not have taken ft donelson, shiloh or sieged vicksburg. He would have had to force confederate troops out of MO first .
I've always said Pea Ridge eas the turning point.
Its like Sparta vs Athens so far.. south winning on land, but north has the navy and economic might
No
@@wilcowen Why not? He said so far.
Well from what I understand, except Virginia but eventually it falls after years, the war is one sided in Union favour despite lasting 4 years ish.
Also ironically at the Fort Sumter battle (sorry bad speller) there are no deaths until the next day when it gives up and to show so, they do this cannon fire thing. The cannon instead blows up, taking at least one union soldiers life with it.
"One-sided but took 4 years."
Doesn't sound so one-sided.
@@bryguysays2948 i mean you need to realise armies of the time moved very slow. And The American South was pretty huge
10,240th viewer of this video!
Finallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Thanks for the patience and support!
@@Knowledgia You’re welcome
Dont make us wait for a part 3 lmao
If people only knew how much West Virginia played a part of the civalwar. Fighting against slavery
JUST BY SHOWING UP
The South started off with the better Generals. The North had far inferior Generals. This changed as the War went on. The Union Generals became better, the Southern ones Died.
The Union lost plenty of dead generals too. Something in the culture of the northern states seems to have created the capacity for developing more leadership as time went on.
The ones the South lost were more important. The ones the South lost were irreplaceable.
@@bladestar2322 What makes them any less replaceable than the Northern generals? Heck, the Army of the Potomac lost Kearney - arguably the best division commander in the army - at Chantilly, then lost Reno - arguably the best corps commander in the army - at South Mountain, just days later. Then Mansfield, another corps commander, went down at Antietam two days after Reno. But the AotP just keeps chugging along. Fire Burnside, fire Hooker, and Meade steps up for days later and creams Lee at Gettysburg DESPITE his best corps commander being killed in the early fighting, because guys like Warren and Hancock stepped up when the chips were down.
A.S.Johnston, a completely untested general, dies at Shiloh and the rebels are like, "irreplaceable, lost cause, no one else like him, it was all over then and there".
But WHY couldn't the south produce more quality generals?
I think just losing Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart definitely crippled the South.
@@bladestar2322 Well I think losing Kearney and Reno and Mansfield crippled the North at Antietam...but they were replaced.
You're still not answering the question: Why was the north able to replace generals, but the south was not?
The south & the USA would have been better off never having slaves or allowing those who could have been considered to become slaves ever entering the USA. Texas would have been better off staying a independent country of their own. Shalom
@@sonofthesouth2609 Truth~!
The so called slaves were already here.....they lied......
Yeah.....the so called idians were really the blacks
The so called transatlantic slave trade was really the South...Central....and North American slave trade
Where the heck is part 3???😉👍
There wasn't really a point where the Confederacy was winning tactically or strategically. Their only hope was that the Union would eventually get tired but they really sucked at fighting a war of Attrition
Did anyone else see Tenn joined CSA July 2 1961?
Any news regarding part 3? 😅
Part 3 is here: th-cam.com/video/t56cwRxBtG8/w-d-xo.html
Simply beautiful... my heart cries tears of joy to see our heritage still carried on by such . May the Lord bless every defense of freedom, the constitution, and the Confederate flag.
The traitors flag you mean
@@tsdocholiday8965 Yeah, the freedom BS is just the same BS! I live out west we have our cities and counties named after the union victors and true patriots! Seems they keep discounting the wests residents just has capable of being able to shoot and fight! Vicksburg was the turning point! South being stupid enough to invade Union territory gave up their homefield advantage and pretty much sunk having a peace deal!
@@tsdocholiday8965 One good southern man is a good as two dozen Yankees! In this case 600 , Dixie Forever!
@@olivia-nelson Really? Why did 350 Union soldiers beat 2,000 rebels at Athens, MO? Why did 4,000 Union soldiers beat over 6,000 rebels at Mill Springs, KY? Why did 35,000 Union soldiers hold off 55,000 rebels at Gaines Mill and then retire after sundown? Why couldn't 50,000 rebels crush 25,000 Union men at Horseshoe Ridge? Why couldn't 6,000 rebels defeat 3,000 Union men at Honey Springs?
Things that lasted longer than your "heritage": Party of Five (TV show), Ghostbusters cereal, Zune, the band LFO, any can of tuna (shelf life over 5 years), American Gladiators (TV show), Doritos Locos Tacos, etc
Where is part 3?
Jefferson Davis was West Point graduate, was Secretary of War earlier. Lincoln was lawyer and simple politician. So Jefferson Davis found the good generals quiclier as Lincoln!
Meh. Jefferson picked some real dogs too. Polk, Pemberton, Bragg...never could get past his personal friendship with those guys. Lincoln, on the other hand, figured out how to fire incompetent generals. Well, at least sometimes. Never did get rid of Banks and Butler. I can never figure those two out.
"Destroys enemy army"
"People in enemy country dont want to continue"
"General Staff is disorganized"
"Has a lot of advantages"
CSA: We are losing!
Where is Part 3?
Where’s part 3 mate
For all of the people saying the South had a right to leave.... It's over. They lost. If you currently live in the United States of America. You are living in the Country that Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan helped to preserve.. Get over it
un-reliable?!?! Large?!?
Stonewall Jackson vs Unconditional Surrender Grant
What about the Star of the West?????
Imagine President Abraham Lincoln's version of his Greenbacks. Yes or No
Winfield Scott’s strategy. The Anaconda Plan. Won the war for the Union
What would have happened if the South were allowed to secede?
They had no industrial economy- they would have been grabbed by the British
Slavery would have continued.
Boulder dash. As Shelby Foote said, “the north fought the war with one hand tied behind its back “. The South never had a chance. No industry, shortage of men, food, clothing, arms, and the north never went into full war mode. Just with immigrants alone they could draw on an endless supply of men
It takes some tunnel vision to say the confederacy was definitively winning at any point in the war. Like in this video ignoring the battle of Rich Mountain. Where they lost their entire militia (1300 for context about the same casualties as the North in Wilson's Creek).and as a result about half of what was then Virginia
Why is Kentucky and Tennessee in blue?
Within 6 hours!
❤