Civil War - Union Army "The Vermont Brigade" - A Short History

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 61

  • @williamm374
    @williamm374 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    The 11th Vermont should be cited. They were the only Union Regiment to stand its line through the Battle of Cedar Creek. Heroes every one of them.

    • @Grunt802VT
      @Grunt802VT ปีที่แล้ว

      Thats brilliant information!! Much appreciated.

  • @sunnyquin
    @sunnyquin 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    My 2xgreat grandmother's cousin Fabean Desrosiers from Philipsburg Quebec, fought and died in the Civil War. He listed his residence as Burlington, Vt. Unit(s): 5th VT INF
    Service: enl 9/9/62, m/i 9/15/62, Pvt, Co. E, 5th VT INF, pr CORP, kia, Spotsylvania, 5/12/64

  • @davidbowman4259
    @davidbowman4259 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Stannard's Vermonters were among the heroes at Gettysburg, enfilading the Rebels during Pickett's Charge.

  • @Ifoundnohappinesshere
    @Ifoundnohappinesshere 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    The Green Mountains Boys V.2*

  • @j.a.emmanueltemplemann5627
    @j.a.emmanueltemplemann5627 ปีที่แล้ว

    What an Amazing Doco. Thank you for uploading it. The commentray is the best of its kind.

  • @Grunt802VT
    @Grunt802VT 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Green Mountain Boys!!
    802VT
    Point Blank Period!!
    Semper FI

  • @sesfilmsllc
    @sesfilmsllc ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I didn’t lose, I merely failed to win.

  • @PrinceChaloner
    @PrinceChaloner 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    8:38 The reason why they fought the Civil War.

  • @TrentSimpson
    @TrentSimpson ปีที่แล้ว

    The Brigade gained its real fame at the Battle of Cedar Creek, look into it.

  • @1LSWilliam
    @1LSWilliam 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I wish you had started with the Vermonters, and then used their various exploits to tell the rest of the story/

    • @stevewixom9311
      @stevewixom9311 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      i so agree, almost a 10min video and only the last 3min even mention the brigade

    • @TheatreofPhil
      @TheatreofPhil 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yeah, this is incredibly disappointing for anyone who actually wants to know about the Vermont Brigade, as opposed to a general overview of the Army of the Potomac.

  • @steveofthewildnorth7493
    @steveofthewildnorth7493 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Brave little state!

  • @1LSWilliam
    @1LSWilliam 6 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    You missed it. VT above all hated slavery,

    • @02091992able
      @02091992able 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Was the first nation in the world to ban the institution of slavery and was the first state whos constitution banned it.

    • @armorsmith43
      @armorsmith43 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      02091992able I think Achemenid Persia banned slavery in its empire.

    • @stevewixom9311
      @stevewixom9311 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@02091992able not true. slavery was already illegal in all of western Europe. That's why England and France would assist the Confederacy (for profit) but the governments would not officially recognize it because it was a pro slavery country and they didn't want to anger their own citizens.

    • @stevewixom9311
      @stevewixom9311 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      the vast majority of all Northern troops (especially in the early years) went to war to restore the Union and no other reason.

    • @02091992able
      @02091992able 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@stevewixom9311 In 1777 it was not. England and France still used slaves at that time. It wouldn't be til some time after the Napoleonic Wars that England and France did away with it. Industrialization and the switch from agriculture based economies to Industry is what caused it.

  • @kevindecoteau3186
    @kevindecoteau3186 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    AKA, Green Mtn. boys!

  • @sloanchampion85
    @sloanchampion85 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    thank goodness we had strong men to stand up to these invaders

  • @jrg7951
    @jrg7951 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It is good the Union had so many men, no Confederate Brigade could handle that kind of slaughter.

    • @ASE_Avenue
      @ASE_Avenue 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Jared Hunnicutt i agree

    • @MrJoebrooklyn1969
      @MrJoebrooklyn1969 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@jaredhunnicutt42 you had one half, not one quarter and if we had Grant and Sherman from the beginning it would've taken 4 minutes. Yes, only 2% of Whites had slaves but almost all the fighting age men fought for slavery. As for the 27% of free blacks who owned slaves many were buying their family members, they weren't truly slaves.

    • @Bailey4President
      @Bailey4President 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Vermont's population in 1860 was 315,000.

  • @chrisjones7594
    @chrisjones7594 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Im gonna get mad if you keep setting those precushions off, and I learned how to make some nifty chemicals... so your choice.

  • @davidcrocker9544
    @davidcrocker9544 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Meaning great differents.

  • @rplpalacio1920
    @rplpalacio1920 6 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    thank god we had strong loyal men to defend the union against those traitorous secessionist

    • @carywest9256
      @carywest9256 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      You watch that traitorous lip senor palace.'Er you a Hispanic?

    • @tomcockburn653
      @tomcockburn653 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Rpl, who were traitorous secessionists?

  • @jrg7951
    @jrg7951 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Tennessee sent almost just as many men to fight for the Union as Vermont did.

    • @sloanchampion85
      @sloanchampion85 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Vermont isn't very big

    • @adksherm
      @adksherm 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Vermont is probably a third the size. Thier population To THIS DAY hasn't recovered....

    • @MyersHunter
      @MyersHunter 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      adksherm barely twice the population. The population in the 1860’s, according to Wikipedia, was 350,000. Its 623,000 as of 2019, also according to Wikipedia. It’s nuts man.

    • @stevewixom9311
      @stevewixom9311 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@adksherm i think it has it's just alot of them just moved to Fla and Az where it's warmer

    • @adksherm
      @adksherm 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Fyi my comment wasn't to "take away" from any American's military service, just to help illustrate the massive debt and dedication the Vermonters had during this time, and that they continue to learn from the experience today through thier continuing tradition and uncorrupted law.

  • @DOMFRMDA_800
    @DOMFRMDA_800 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    On April 2nd 1864 they destroyed the confederate army
    So not only was I born in Vermont but they won on my birthday

  • @jamiewest5357
    @jamiewest5357 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Sharpshooters from Vermont and Kentucky respected and feared each other. Witch is Ironic cause now Vermont sends it's prisoners to Kentucky.

    • @hosedragger-204
      @hosedragger-204 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      So, what exactly does that have to do with this?

    • @adksherm
      @adksherm 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      No idea lol.

  • @sloanchampion85
    @sloanchampion85 6 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Union generals ability was an absolute second thought...it was nothing more than overwhelming numbers and the ability to take more casualties

    • @jamess7576
      @jamess7576 6 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Yep like Pea Ridge? Then there were Union brigades like Minty's brigade that fought outnumbered against commanders such as Forrest and Wheeler and beat them? You also ignore the inherent advantage of being on the defence in the terrain of Northern Virginia. Once Lee was forced out of that location you see what happened in the Appomattox campaign which is the most overlooked of the Eastern campaigns.

    • @sloanchampion85
      @sloanchampion85 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +James S not hardly...whatever happened anywhere during the war it all came down who could sustain the most casualties...Grant figured it out and Lincoln knew it....if you know anything about combat and war...the outcome was decided by who could put more men in the field...it's just the way it was...the area that sustained the most battles has no affect..the federals had more of everything...it's was basic mathematics..

    • @jamess7576
      @jamess7576 6 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@sloanchampion85
      Except the Union force at Pea Ridge could not afford to take more casualties than their opponents, Minty and Wilder could not afford to take more casualties than Forrest and Wheeler while they screened the Army of the Cumberland. Ability to take more casualties has its place, but it is not everything.

    • @grenzer45
      @grenzer45 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Well, yes and no. The Union had some horrible generals and some good ones, just like the Confederates. Lee was a good defensive general, especially against some really crappy generals. But in the West the Union generally outfought the rebels hands down. But in the end I guess it was a question of who could endure their losses better. Even though casualties were roughly even the rebels had no way of replacing their’s. 1863 was really bad for the South. In four major actions, Vicksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Chickamauga Confederate losses exceeded Union, totaling over 100,000, with close to half dead or captured. This couldn’t go on long.

    • @carlwilson5339
      @carlwilson5339 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      That high death and injury rate changed down much by 64 and 65 as Grant and Sherman progressed to a lower casualty strategy, the moral of the men under their command improved and so did the respect they had for Grant and Sherman. Grant lived with his men, he stayed in tents often when he could have picked the best mansion close by. Sherman was called Uncle Billy .......by his troops