That Sherman burned and foraged his way through Georgia? That poor widdle plantation owner traitors got a little taste of the war they started? Yeah, I learned all about that in school. It's not a secret.
the USA the only place where the losing side of a Civil War gets to keep there ill gotten gains ! Didn't happen in russia,Russia, China Cuba ! Usually the leaders are executed and foĺowers forced to flee like those who resettled in Brazil! And those who write in support of the rebels are jailed! Now tell that story ! Ask Some of the Cubans in Miami how it went. @@jacksons1010
@@Danjan1208 You’re 180° from reality. Florida passed education guidelines that effectively make it illegal to teach about slavery. This video would be forbidden.
How do you feel about the north? Like, since your ancestors warred with ours? And how do you feel about all those southern bands with their rebel music? I ask because im honestly wondering. Like the hype is so large all around. Festivals, government, culture, all exists and is a direct response to the war. A lot of what the south does seems very, ill make it here and call it southern. For instance, i got some "Louisiana Sauce" at the pantry. Its literally Buffalo Sauce (invented in Buffalo, NY the North). So its stolen. And now Louisiana says its theirs. Kinda fucked up. But if we did that i feel the South would sneer. (Which im doing, ik.) i hope you respond.
@louispeddiltton47 first of all if it ain't made in Opelousas Louisiana it ain't Louisiana Hot Sauce and Buffalo Wings were first made in Buffalo Mew York with real Louisiana hot sauce not to be confused with Tabasco Hot Sauce made at Avery Island Louisiana. To answer your questions, I served in the US Military and I have friends all over the country including the Philippines and Puerto Rico. All I ask of my countrymen is to get into the fight or go home if you don't want any smoke. Your opinion is not necessary....
My 4th great grandfather was in the Iron Brigade of Wisconsin and guarded President Lincoln towards the end of the war. He was at Gettysburg and Antietam, I'm proud that he freed the slaves - however I'm not so thrilled about the resulting federal government which was cemented further into history by the civil war. Of course that all started back with Hamiltonian's taking reign over Jeffersonian ideology.
What do you mean? Taking provisions from the slave plantations and punishing the slave-owning class was exactly what Sherman set out to do. “Make Georgia howl”.
@@telbon8869 My, what a classy argument from a classy gentleman. Allow me to retort: You fail at punctuation, as is no surprise coming from an apparent Confederate apologist. God passed judgement upon the Confederacy; none other than Robt. E. Lee said as much.
.... 2:34 this is precisely The lesson Sherman wanted to teach The slaver plantation class in Georgia... He wanted to bring the consequences of to those who supported secession at profited off of slavery... He wanted to bring the devastation to their homes and property and land that could somehow get close to the tens of thousands of Union dead battle after battle after battle after battle.... Carnage for Carnage... Make Georgia how... He's America's greatest general... Most innovative was thoughtful. Most knowledgeable... Most deliberate.... And he loved his men and valued their life and knew that they were worth a thousand times more alive than if he just threw them wave after wave after wave on fixed the Confederate defensive positions... He was not Grant... He was not a butcher... I think he had too much empathy and too much connection with his men... And that led him to reintroduce mobile offensive operations and be the first general since Napoleon to cut his supply lines... Divides army into three equ al mobile resourceful and mutually supporting cores.... And never give up the initiative... He never let a Confederate Force him into making mistakes... He was on levels of keeping his enemies off balance out, maneuvering them, putting them into a position that would be so untenable that they were forced to retreat....
well I wouldn't call Grant a butcher . . . Grant's mission was to go after the armies while Sherman's the food. Also the two were best friends so I don't this Sherman would want you to call him that.
@@FingerstoFight .. Yeah I understand the position he was put in in spring of 64... My issue with is not his resolve or his determination or his overwhelming presence of command... No issue at all I take issue with the strategy and above all the tactics... Northern Virginia had been a bloodbath up till then... And it was almost drained to the last drop by mid-summer... Grant's army suffered 50 or 60,000 dead wounded in the span of a couple of months... Sherman's army suffered a few thousand during the entire Atlanta and March to the Sea campaigns... Sherman would almost always apply the indirect approach to any of his campaigns ... focusing on his army's ability to outmarch outflank outbuild maneuver.. instead of just throwing wave after wave at the entrenched Confederate frontlines.... So in that regard, I believe it's clear... Yes, Greg was determined. Yes Grant had steely resolve... He had zero imagination, zero creativity, zero understanding of the operational environment and how to apply pressure and maneuver to force his enemy to make a mistake or become unbalanced... Conversely... The things that Grant did not focus on are the The aspects Sherman felt mimos important.... He was relentless on logistics and planning and an understanding of the geography and terrain and farms county assessment maps... He understood the land... And he knew what his armies were capable of... Because he built them... They were the same men that had been with him since The Tennessee campaign... Sherman knew his men... And did everything He was capable of to limit or minimize the risks that he was putting them in when advancing through the campaigns.. Grant had no such concerns... Not in Northern Virginia...
"A Unapologetic, Unreconstructed and Unrepentant Southerner!". Did you miss the part where this woman referred to Black men as "cowardly"? She thought so much of her "boys", that she called them "cowardly". Now, are you proud of that?
And we Yankees aren't sorry for what we did . . . nor are the decedents of those slaves sorry for what we did . . . nor should it go unsaid that southerns raided the north in much the same way, even planed things worse like setting 10 NY hotels on fire! how many civilians could have been killed by that?!?!?! and for the record you may not have apologized . . . but "Yall" did surrender . . . .
Out of your own confession, admission and testimony, you condemn yourself for openly supporting the evil institution of slavery. Beware,... You have to give an account of yourself one day .
"Leaving me a much stronger rebel." and listening to your words has left me a much stronger Yankee . . . it did not escape me that she referred to the black boys as "cowardly" as if she thought them unfit to fight. the 54th Massachusetts would have something to say about that! or any of the colored units for that matter.
I've never heard many reports from slaves complaining about their treatment in old newspapers from the 1800s and early 1900s which I read all the time. What good is a beaten, sickly slave? Slaves didn't have it as bad as they teach us now. Some had quite good lives (relatively speaking, pretty much everyone then white and black had a tough life) and after the UNION ARMY REPUBLICANS won them their freedom, many returned to the farms where they were previously slaves.
@@redwatch1100 The absence of complaints from slaves in old newspapers isn't evidence of mild conditions; rather, it reflects the severe restrictions on slaves' ability to read, write, or publicly express themselves. Newspapers of that era, largely controlled by the interests of slaveholders, rarely conveyed the enslaved perspective. Often, these publications would promote the narrative of slaves having 'quite good lives' to minimize the perceived severity of slavery for the benefit of slaveholders. Historical records, including the brutal realities documented in slave narratives and later testimonies collected by the Federal Writers' Project in the 1930s, contradict the notion that slavery was not as harsh as taught today. These testimonies provide firsthand accounts of the violence, deprivation, and exploitation that were fundamental to slavery. The argument that a 'beaten, sickly slave' was economically impractical ignores the systemic and routine use of physical abuse and intimidation to maintain control. After the Civil War, some former slaves returned to work on the same farms out of economic necessity, not contentment or good treatment. This era was marked by oppressive systems like sharecropping, which perpetuated inequalities and economic dependency akin to slavery. Some may have even returned due to Stockholm Syndrome which is a noteworthy psychological response where captives form sometimes extreme bonds with their captors. By the way, I don't quite understand why you capitalized 'UNION ARMY REPUBLICANS'? I don't want to assume you're drawing a line to modern day parties.
@@redwatch1100 Yeah . . . but if they don't have a choice . . . it's kidnapping! well worse, it's slavery! also enplane to me how enslaved people can publish grievances in a newspaper? wouldn't the tyrant presiding over them naturally keep any malpractice under wraps?
You do realize that those newspapers were censored by the state governments? And that a slave could be harshly punished for soeaking out against his owners? You ask what good is a beaten, sickly slave. On a large plantation, he was an example of what happened to those who disobeyed in even the smallest way. On a smaller plantation or farm, a disobedient slave was a direct threat to his owner. Valuable as slaves were, a troublemaker had to be dealt with severely. The daily life of a plantation slave was probably pretty quiet. For the same reason that 90% of Russian voters support Putin. They know what will happen to them if they resist. @@redwatch1100
@@redwatch1100-- yeah… and not all rape victims are traumatized, right? There’s some who ‘really’ are comfortable and delighted by it, right? That is your ‘ point’, right?
Guess they let those "bastards" Grant and Sherman off way too easy as well..., along with 4 union States that practiced slavery duting the War. 🤫 Bet you didn't know that both Sherman and Grant were slave owners and Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves after the war, through his presidency until he died. Bet you didn't know that the original 13th Ammendment was called the 'Corwin Ammendment' which was designed to make negro slavery permanent in the U.S as a bribe to keep the South in the union. The bill was written by none other than Abraham Lincoln himself and he named it after his political colleague. The bill was a bribe to keep the South in the union so they would comply with Lincoln's demand that Southern States pay a higher rate on imported goods as an indirect tarriff than northern states as punishment for not paying higher prices on Northern manufactured goods. Thus corporate monopoly was called the (Morrill Tarriff). The South was not interested in this because their motivation was not about slavery nor it's perpetuation. However, one of the Southern complaints that was written in the bills od Secession was that the North was using unlawful agitation of the institution of slavery as a political tool to weaken certain sects of Southern economy to carry out Corporate/political motivations contrary to Constitutional practice The tarriff was unjust because it essentially set the South up as tax cattle to supply to northern industry a territorial monopoly on coercion over States and Citizens. In other words, Empire.
sobering. It's sad in total. The Civil War in general. But, frightening how bad it got, and how fast it got bad. Between Americans, countrymen. She illustrates the Union armies actions in the south as they moved thru. It is not pleasant. i don't doubt it is accurate. this is mankind after all. the south, as a region, the confederacy, as a foreign government neighboring the USA and making war on it by the way, and the southerners themselves, as enemies or at least supporting the enemy cause had to be defeated finally. sorry. The southern American Rebel, by her own description, didn't offer this point in her diary: It was the southerners who left the UNION, who fired on The Union troops, who made WAR on the UNION. I find that unbelievable these many years later. It's somehow glossed over since. These fellow Americans left the USA to form their own country.. largely based on keeping the institution of slavery legal and profitable for them, their society, culture and new country. f'ing crazy considering slavery was being renounced by that time through out western civilization. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, created a military in nothing flat and seized all ports, forts, camps in their jurisdiction, like you do. Then fired on Ft. Sumpter, filled with prior to that season, their former brothers in arms! She does state that "this separation was only supposed to last 60 days". um who separated? I'm anglo and from Florida. I'm an American.
The North was urban and industrial. The South was rural and agrarian. And the latter had no monopoly on mistreatment of humans. Northern factories ran on child and immigrant labor, who were treated no better than slaves.
Wonderful to hear from the perspective of those rarely given a voice
You certainly would never hear this inside an American classroom.
That Sherman burned and foraged his way through Georgia? That poor widdle plantation owner traitors got a little taste of the war they started? Yeah, I learned all about that in school. It's not a secret.
Not in Florida, certainly, but in most of America there is no prohibition against the truth.
the USA the only place where the losing side of a Civil War gets to keep there ill gotten gains ! Didn't happen in russia,Russia, China Cuba ! Usually the leaders are executed and foĺowers forced to flee like those who resettled in Brazil! And those who write in support of the rebels are jailed! Now tell that story ! Ask Some of the Cubans in Miami how it went.
@@jacksons1010
@@jacksons1010 you’re joking right? You can’t honestly believe that? Florida is probably the only state you might hear this
@@Danjan1208 You’re 180° from reality. Florida passed education guidelines that effectively make it illegal to teach about slavery. This video would be forbidden.
Very good
The March to the Sea was felt by the Southern Gentry for over 50 years. Until WW1 they refused to celebrate the 4th of July in most of the South.
So
@@elifield7149. Bet u didn’t know that, did u?
How do you feel about the north? Like, since your ancestors warred with ours? And how do you feel about all those southern bands with their rebel music? I ask because im honestly wondering. Like the hype is so large all around. Festivals, government, culture, all exists and is a direct response to the war. A lot of what the south does seems very, ill make it here and call it southern. For instance, i got some "Louisiana Sauce" at the pantry. Its literally Buffalo Sauce (invented in Buffalo, NY the North). So its stolen. And now Louisiana says its theirs. Kinda fucked up. But if we did that i feel the South would sneer. (Which im doing, ik.) i hope you respond.
@louispeddiltton47 first of all if it ain't made in Opelousas Louisiana it ain't Louisiana Hot Sauce and Buffalo Wings were first made in Buffalo Mew York with real Louisiana hot sauce not to be confused with Tabasco Hot Sauce made at Avery Island Louisiana. To answer your questions, I served in the US Military and I have friends all over the country including the Philippines and Puerto Rico. All I ask of my countrymen is to get into the fight or go home if you don't want any smoke. Your opinion is not necessary....
Splendid.........
War is Hell.
Says every war criminal.
Patton knew.
Very interesting
My 4th great grandfather was in the Iron Brigade of Wisconsin and guarded President Lincoln towards the end of the war. He was at Gettysburg and Antietam, I'm proud that he freed the slaves - however I'm not so thrilled about the resulting federal government which was cemented further into history by the civil war. Of course that all started back with Hamiltonian's taking reign over Jeffersonian ideology.
I have often stayed at Burge Plantation.
My three x great grandfather was a brave confederate soldier and I’m proud to be his grandson
They'll put their modern standards on slavery but never things like this...
Sherman was a criminal. Most of his victims were not slave holders, just southern
That was enough!
Called total war
@@rileymod6541called war crimes
@@iviekicklighte673 Bullsh*t !!! Still trying to rewrite history !
Southerners who supported slaveholders.
So much for the great "Sherman's" march through Georgia!!!
What do you mean? Taking provisions from the slave plantations and punishing the slave-owning class was exactly what Sherman set out to do. “Make Georgia howl”.
War is war. There should be nothing gentlemanly about it. Especially during that war.
@@jacksons1010
You are an ignoramus
Sherman had to hurry up his war crimes in the South so he could take time commiting genocide against the Native Americans.
@@telbon8869 My, what a classy argument from a classy gentleman. Allow me to retort: You fail at punctuation, as is no surprise coming from an apparent Confederate apologist. God passed judgement upon the Confederacy; none other than Robt. E. Lee said as much.
.... 2:34 this is precisely The lesson Sherman wanted to teach The slaver plantation class in Georgia... He wanted to bring the consequences of to those who supported secession at profited off of slavery... He wanted to bring the devastation to their homes and property and land that could somehow get close to the tens of thousands of Union dead battle after battle after battle after battle.... Carnage for Carnage... Make Georgia how...
He's America's greatest general... Most innovative was thoughtful. Most knowledgeable... Most deliberate....
And he loved his men and valued their life and knew that they were worth a thousand times more alive than if he just threw them wave after wave after wave on fixed the Confederate defensive positions... He was not Grant... He was not a butcher... I think he had too much empathy and too much connection with his men... And that led him to reintroduce mobile offensive operations and be the first general since Napoleon to cut his supply lines...
Divides army into three equ al mobile resourceful and mutually supporting cores.... And never give up the initiative... He never let a Confederate Force him into making mistakes... He was on levels of keeping his enemies off balance out, maneuvering them, putting them into a position that would be so untenable that they were forced to retreat....
what a moron - Sherman was nothing more than a war criminal who terrorized women and children, most of whom had nothing to do with bringing on the war
well I wouldn't call Grant a butcher . . . Grant's mission was to go after the armies while Sherman's the food. Also the two were best friends so I don't this Sherman would want you to call him that.
@@FingerstoFight .. Yeah I understand the position he was put in in spring of 64... My issue with is not his resolve or his determination or his overwhelming presence of command... No issue at all
I take issue with the strategy and above all the tactics... Northern Virginia had been a bloodbath up till then... And it was almost drained to the last drop by mid-summer... Grant's army suffered 50 or 60,000 dead wounded in the span of a couple of months... Sherman's army suffered a few thousand during the entire Atlanta and March to the Sea campaigns...
Sherman would almost always apply the indirect approach to any of his campaigns ... focusing on his army's ability to outmarch outflank outbuild maneuver.. instead of just throwing wave after wave at the entrenched Confederate frontlines....
So in that regard, I believe it's clear... Yes, Greg was determined. Yes Grant had steely resolve... He had zero imagination, zero creativity, zero understanding of the operational environment and how to apply pressure and maneuver to force his enemy to make a mistake or become unbalanced...
Conversely... The things that Grant did not focus on are the The aspects Sherman felt mimos important.... He was relentless on logistics and planning and an understanding of the geography and terrain and farms county assessment maps... He understood the land... And he knew what his armies were capable of... Because he built them... They were the same men that had been with him since The Tennessee campaign... Sherman knew his men... And did everything He was capable of to limit or minimize the risks that he was putting them in when advancing through the campaigns..
Grant had no such concerns... Not in Northern Virginia...
Sherman was a war criminal. Period.
@@telbon8869false... He's an American hero.. And America's best general...
Yet they wonder why there is still a deep seeded resentment. I am and remain, an Unapologetic, Unreconstructed and Unrepentant Southerner!
"A Unapologetic, Unreconstructed and Unrepentant Southerner!". Did you miss the part where this woman referred to Black men as "cowardly"? She thought so much of her "boys", that she called them "cowardly". Now, are you proud of that?
@@oldgysgt Cowards come in all shape and sizes, and color. There are cowards today as there were then.
And we Yankees aren't sorry for what we did . . . nor are the decedents of those slaves sorry for what we did . . . nor should it go unsaid that southerns raided the north in much the same way, even planed things worse like setting 10 NY hotels on fire! how many civilians could have been killed by that?!?!?!
and for the record you may not have apologized . . . but "Yall" did surrender . . . .
@@oldgysgt PREACH!
Out of your own confession, admission and testimony, you condemn yourself for openly supporting the evil institution of slavery. Beware,... You have to give an account of yourself one day .
The Yankees destroyed my ancestor's home and then hung Mr. Feldor their neighbor from a tree. His loyal slaves cut him down before he died.
"Leaving me a much stronger rebel." and listening to your words has left me a much stronger Yankee . . . it did not escape me that she referred to the black boys as "cowardly" as if she thought them unfit to fight. the 54th Massachusetts would have something to say about that! or any of the colored units for that matter.
Agree 100%
They were robbing people home
Are you a thief when you stole live stock back then there's a good chance the people would starve
"American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God"! 🇺🇸 👍☕
And don’t forget, ‘loser’ by historical record.
@@i.m.9918 Rust Belt much? Lol
@@i.m.9918 Yeah, the north wins Chiraq, Detroit, Washington D.C., and all the other Sanctuary Cities. Lol
@@i.m.9918just like Vietnam and Afghanistan
Not far south enough!
They took her wine 🍷 also 😂
Ugh 😑
War sucks. They shouldn’t have started one
I knew people from around Statesboro, the real word is Sherman's destruction was highly exaggerated
Well Dolly, if you really believe slavery was so great for the slaves, it's too bad you didn't get to experience it from the slave's point of view.
I've never heard many reports from slaves complaining about their treatment in old newspapers from the 1800s and early 1900s which I read all the time. What good is a beaten, sickly slave? Slaves didn't have it as bad as they teach us now. Some had quite good lives (relatively speaking, pretty much everyone then white and black had a tough life) and after the UNION ARMY REPUBLICANS won them their freedom, many returned to the farms where they were previously slaves.
@@redwatch1100 The absence of complaints from slaves in old newspapers isn't evidence of mild conditions; rather, it reflects the severe restrictions on slaves' ability to read, write, or publicly express themselves. Newspapers of that era, largely controlled by the interests of slaveholders, rarely conveyed the enslaved perspective. Often, these publications would promote the narrative of slaves having 'quite good lives' to minimize the perceived severity of slavery for the benefit of slaveholders.
Historical records, including the brutal realities documented in slave narratives and later testimonies collected by the Federal Writers' Project in the 1930s, contradict the notion that slavery was not as harsh as taught today. These testimonies provide firsthand accounts of the violence, deprivation, and exploitation that were fundamental to slavery. The argument that a 'beaten, sickly slave' was economically impractical ignores the systemic and routine use of physical abuse and intimidation to maintain control.
After the Civil War, some former slaves returned to work on the same farms out of economic necessity, not contentment or good treatment. This era was marked by oppressive systems like sharecropping, which perpetuated inequalities and economic dependency akin to slavery. Some may have even returned due to Stockholm Syndrome which is a noteworthy psychological response where captives form sometimes extreme bonds with their captors.
By the way, I don't quite understand why you capitalized 'UNION ARMY REPUBLICANS'? I don't want to assume you're drawing a line to modern day parties.
@@redwatch1100 Yeah . . . but if they don't have a choice . . . it's kidnapping! well worse, it's slavery!
also enplane to me how enslaved people can publish grievances in a newspaper? wouldn't the tyrant presiding over them naturally keep any malpractice under wraps?
You do realize that those newspapers were censored by the state governments? And that a slave could be harshly punished for soeaking out against his owners?
You ask what good is a beaten, sickly slave. On a large plantation, he was an example of what happened to those who disobeyed in even the smallest way. On a smaller plantation or farm, a disobedient slave was a direct threat to his owner. Valuable as slaves were, a troublemaker had to be dealt with severely.
The daily life of a plantation slave was probably pretty quiet. For the same reason that 90% of Russian voters support Putin. They know what will happen to them if they resist.
@@redwatch1100
@@redwatch1100-- yeah… and not all rape victims are traumatized, right? There’s some who ‘really’ are comfortable and delighted by it, right? That is your ‘ point’, right?
They let these bastards off waaay too easy!!
Don't let that worry you none. What they did is nothing compared to what 0Biden's overloards have in store for you & your family.
@capoislamort100 Agree 100%
The luckiest black people on Earth are the descendants of slaves in the US.
Guess they let those "bastards" Grant and Sherman off way too easy as well..., along with 4 union States that practiced slavery duting the War. 🤫
Bet you didn't know that both Sherman and Grant were slave owners and Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves after the war, through his presidency until he died.
Bet you didn't know that the original 13th Ammendment was called the 'Corwin Ammendment' which was designed to make negro slavery permanent in the U.S as a bribe to keep the South in the union.
The bill was written by none other than Abraham Lincoln himself and he named it after his political colleague. The bill was a bribe to keep the South in the union so they would comply with Lincoln's demand that Southern States pay a higher rate on imported goods as an indirect tarriff than northern states as punishment for not paying higher prices on Northern manufactured goods.
Thus corporate monopoly was called the (Morrill Tarriff).
The South was not interested in this because their motivation was not about slavery nor it's perpetuation. However, one of the Southern complaints that was written in the bills od Secession was that the North was using unlawful agitation of the institution of slavery as a political tool to weaken certain sects of Southern economy to carry out Corporate/political motivations contrary to Constitutional practice
The tarriff was unjust because it essentially set the South up as tax cattle to supply to northern industry a territorial monopoly on coercion over States and Citizens. In other words, Empire.
the south . traitors to this very day
Wow, you are ignorant
sobering. It's sad in total. The Civil War in general. But, frightening how bad it got, and how fast it got bad. Between Americans, countrymen. She illustrates the Union armies actions in the south as they moved thru. It is not pleasant. i don't doubt it is accurate. this is mankind after all. the south, as a region, the confederacy, as a foreign government neighboring the USA and making war on it by the way, and the southerners themselves, as enemies or at least supporting the enemy cause had to be defeated finally. sorry. The southern American Rebel, by her own description, didn't offer this point in her diary: It was the southerners who left the UNION, who fired on The Union troops, who made WAR on the UNION. I find that unbelievable these many years later. It's somehow glossed over since. These fellow Americans left the USA to form their own country.. largely based on keeping the institution of slavery legal and profitable for them, their society, culture and new country. f'ing crazy considering slavery was being renounced by that time through out western civilization. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, created a military in nothing flat and seized all ports, forts, camps in their jurisdiction, like you do. Then fired on Ft. Sumpter, filled with prior to that season, their former brothers in arms! She does state that "this separation was only supposed to last 60 days". um who separated? I'm anglo and from Florida. I'm an American.
The North was urban and industrial. The South was rural and agrarian. And the latter had no monopoly on mistreatment of humans. Northern factories ran on child and immigrant labor, who were treated no better than slaves.
How can i not see this crap