CORRECTIONS: Due to an unfortunate case of me being a damn fool, I confused Confederate casualty statistics at the Siege of Vicksburg with those of the entire campaign. To give a more balanced view of United States casualty rates, the graphic which appears onscreen at 37:15 should really have incorporated the approximately 2200 Union soldiers killed or wounded at the Battle of Champion Hill as well, which tallied to 8% of Grant's forces at that battle. Still a staggering victory, no doubt, but a dumb numerical error on my part, so sorry about that. Also, the Winter War did end in victory for the Soviets, but at a much greater loss of life.
And in the Haitian revolution the side with the most men won. Not to mention that France was going through its own revolution at the time. They were , distracted.They were also supported by powerful countries, Spain and Britain.
@@danieldyson1660 but they also had the Spanish and British fighting the French in Haiti because of the wars going on in Europe. Surely you don't think that they were less advanced than the French.
We know the series isnt over yet..... Somewhere between Black Confederates and Sherman, he stated that the series was only halfway over, and it would be VERY obvious when it was...
Ironic that the Confederates so admired Napoleon, whose possibly greatest, and most winning, attribute was that he constantly fretted over his logistics and manpower.
A general crucial to the Union victory and given no credit is Quartermaster General Montgomery C Meigs. He basically ensured the Union outprivisioned the rebels. No point having a big industrial capacity and no way of getting it to the troops.
now tack on the fact that they were unequivocally proven to be fighting for slavery, it makes them even worst. Like were you honestly expecting a participation trophy when you fought to preserve an inhumane and immoral institution ?
_"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”_ --Texas Governor Sam Houston, April 16, 1861
@@mister_kaniela Lmao, no. The first person should have cited a source and not run around dropping quotes even if they are true. not a good way to keep knowledge, makes it more of a hearsay, or a readsay in this case.
Fun italian fact: Lincoln tried to recruit Garibaldi as a general during the early stages of the war. The famous italian fighter though declined the invitation, obviously for reasons related to the italians conflicts at the time as well as personal motives, but he claimed the lack of a abolition act as a cause, as he was a fiery abolitionist, not happy by the ambiguous position of Lincoln on the matter at the time.
An additional fun fact, when Garibaldi volunteered his services. But there was no real evidence that Lincoln actively courted him. Politically it would be suicide to put a foreigner in charge of Union armies. Moreover after the EP was passed, Garibaldi was the first to sign Lincoln's praises.
Another fact, San Marino praised Lincoln so much, that they offered him citizenship in their country and invited him over to discuss a diplomatic alliance. Lincoln denied the offer but thanked the nation for it's eager support for the union.
@@vehx9316 you are in the wrong here, good ser. We know that the diplomat Henry Shelton Sanford went personally, on order of Lincoln, to seek out and deliver Garibaldi a letter wrote by Lincoln and the possible appointment of Garibaldi as a officer or even a general in the war. Now, i admit, details are misty, and said letter seen to have been lost to time, but the fact remain. Garibaldi did not volunteer his service, he refused it. All view on the facts agree that, in some measures, Lincoln sought Garibaldi, not the other way around, and why wouldn't it? Garibaldi was a general of incredible renown and a skilled tactician as well, with proved and tested military experience in numerous campaign in italy and around the world. He fought against official militaries and army, as well as proper military campaigns numerous times by that point, proving victorious most often than not. Not to mention, numerous italians lived and served in the Union, as well as in the Confederate, army, so to put such a famous national figure at the head of a brugade or platoon of such troops would have been a wise move, as well as a propaganda master stroke. I don't see it as an impossibility, and here i showed that your affirmations stands on no ground.
@@giacomoromano8842 "Henry Shelton Sanford went personally, on order of Lincoln, to seek out and deliver Garibaldi a letter wrote by Lincoln " If that is so, then surely we should have a copy of the said letter to been seen would we not ? It's a nice tale, but we have no real evidence proving it. Lincoln's government was a hodgepodge of individual actions at times which unfortunately clouds matters in whether Lincoln personally approves it or was even made aware of it. The perfect example was the offer to leave Fort Sumpter. Now it was made, but it was made by Seward, Lincoln wasn't even aware of it and he was pretty pissed about it against Seward.
@@giacomoromano8842 no that not true, there was an offer made yes. But there is no evidence that it came DIRECTLY from Lincoln. Its more likely someone in Lincoln's governmetn acting on their own accord.
My great great great great grandfather Robert R. Byers, who was a Union soldier during the American Civil War, remembered trying (and failing) to hold back laughter when he heard that Stonewall Jackson was gunned down by his own men.
Meanwhile, Grant said: "[Jackson] and I were at West Point together for a year and we served in the same army in Mexico. He was a gallant soldier and a Christian gentleman, and I can fully understand the admiration your people have for him."
The Brits could not support the South. They outlawed slavery in 1807 and 1838. There is no way they could support the South. As for McClelland was wonderful at training the army but was a lousy field officer. He was just too cautious.
@@nbenefiel "The Brits could not support the South" They came quite close to doing so, especially since the Confederacy offered an emancipation plan. And McClelland's gotten something of a rehabilitation in recent years. Most of the mistakes he got blamed for were Lincoln's mismanagement, and the plan that Grant followed at the end was McClellan's plan. McClellan was a good choice for an invasion, because he had a reputation from the Mexican War of being kind to civilians. And THIS is why he got fired. Lincoln got tired of him whining about his terrorism.
@@kenabbott8585 The Brits thought about that - but I don't think they'd want to step into another potentially messy and bloody war after the Crimean one. It might simply not worth it. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Southern emancipation plan was just about freeing slaves to draft them into the army. It looks like a desperate measure - not good for international relations. If you have to draft the men you despise - you're screwed. McClellan was a great strategist, but he blundered a lot himself. The main reason of it was lousy recon. Why did McClellan always think he was outnumbered? Because his army was always blind! I'd like to see McClellan's command with good recon - then we could honestly judge his actual tactical skills, not his thoughts and precautions. Let's look at Antietam - the essence of McClellan's blunders: 1. The cavalry didn't do anything. Why Hooker and Meade could put the same horsemen (with many of the same Generals) to good use (look at Gettysburg Campaign - it was good!), but McClellan couldn't? As the result, the Army of the Potomac was again completely unaware of Lee's army's positions and numbers and had to act blindly. That alone made Antietam the bloodiest day on Western Hemisphere. Hooker tried to flank the enemy but was flanked hinself by Stuart's artillery. After that... you know. 2. No general battle plan. It's just weird. I'd understand Pope or even Hood not having it - but McClellan was smarter that that. 3. McClellan dissolved the Wings before the battle, creating a mess. Who was the IX Corps Commander: Cox or Burnside who had no other troops under his command? Good that they were next to each other during the actual battle. 4. Burnside's Bridge... oh, man. - What was Burnside suppose to do in the battle? Create a diversion to weaken the Rebs at the north? Okay, then why did the order to attack come at 10 AM, four hours after Hooker's engagement? What kind of a diversion was it? - McClellan later said that he planned Burnside's attack as the main one. Hmm... by just one Corps? Through a narrow and well-defended bridge? Only a blockhead would plan that - and McClellan wasn't one. - The recon screwed up again by showing Burnside the wrong ford to cross. The flanking force by Rodman had to find the right one by themselves - that's why it took three hours to flank 700 Georgians who defended the bridge. - After Burnside crossed the bridge, he felt his position was insecure and asked for reinforcements. He got none - and was swept by A.P. Hill's Light Division. But I understand why McClellan didn't want to pursue Lee after Antietam. He didn't think his troops were good enough for that - and maybe he was right. No, Grant's plan wasn't McClellan's one. McClellan would never send the main army through the Wilderness - and Grant's idea of constant push wouldn't look good for McClellan. But I'd say Grant would be a perfect General for McClellan's strategy: he was brave, fast and accustomed to fleet support. So marching on Richmond while removing obstacles like forts, enemy troops and Magruder's circuses would be a good task for Grant :)
I won't lie to you: "If only Sherman would have spontaneously combusted at the battle of Chattanooga." Is one of the single funniest things I've ever heard.
That wouldn't have helped, George Thomas was also at Chattanooga...although when Thomas took Atlanta, it's likely the city would not have been malevolently and evilly burnt as Sherman did, which paradoxically just might have made Reconstruction a lot easier...
If that had happened it could have saved the Union a lot of money post war during Reconstruction. Seriously the man did a number on the state of Georgia during his March into the Sea.
At General Sherman's funeral, Joseph E Johnston kept his hat off as a mark of respect, despite the fact it was a cold wet February day in New York. Johnston argued "If I were in his place, and he were standing here in mine, he would not put on his hat." He died ten days later, of pneumonia.
which is also funny considering McClellan played that game of chess with Lee and did so, according to Lee, brilliantly. We love to shit on McClellan because of his lack luster performance during the Civil War but it wasn't because he was a bad leader, no. In fact although his performance was lack luster he never actually suffered a massive defeat and always moved his army into the best position. He was in actuality a brilliant leader. The problem was again he was playing chess with Lee instead of fighting a war.
@@a-drewg1716 McClellan is isn't criticized for never losing a major defeat, he's criticized for never pushing is advantages, even when they were clear he had them. Which is why he also never had a major win and the war dragged on. Contrast that to Grant who made a couple big mistakes, but he also won the war decisively. That's why Grant was far more impactful in the war than McClellan ever could be.
@@projectpitchfork860 McClellan is a textbook example of theoretical expertise without practical experience. He strikes me (knowing nothing about his career except what I've learned from Checkmate Lincolnites) as someone who studied the campaigns of Alexander, Caesar, Washington, and Napoleon until he could reenact the Battle of the Granicus beat for beat but put him behind a real army in a real battlefield and he choked
Ah yes the channel with a quarter quarter accurate history, conveniently presenting the most clean versions of their history (as much as possible with certain topics) all delivered with no sources whatsoever and some of the clearest bias this side a Mississippi
Grant sucked. His claim to flame is he doesn't flinch when he takes high casualties, he can live with the loss of his soldiers life. Lincoln wants it, i'll give it to him and never get replaced.
@@Rex-gu1bu Grant doesn't suck at all lmao. If you're only looking at the Peninsular Campaigns, it looks bad, but he took way less casualties in the Western theater than the Confederate generals he faced, as Andy says in this very video.
@@weirdofromhalo "Andy is high as a kite and it slipped passed you that this is a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the north and demonizing the south. The fact that it was comedy allows it to escape scrutiny. "Lee always took a higher percentage of casualties than anybody else in the war". Um, what? Yeah, he was usually outnumbered 2-1, so the loss of his 13000 is a higher percentage than the loss of 17000 of his opponent who has over twice the men he has. That proves that the North had a tremendous advantage in numbers and often relied on it. Yet he spins it as Lee loses more men. He makes no sense and he shows his dummy southerner frowning as if he made a point. The Northerner of course is sensible and no Northern stereotypes are poked at. I give this video a fail for what I could see he was going for. "Lee lost a higher percentage of men than anybody in the war". Wow, whata fail. I am the only one who called this out.
Lincoln weoting the letter and never sending it is kinda like therapy. He was upset and wrote his feelings then reread it and realized he should let his generals general. Thats rrspectable amd a sign of a good leader
It's not "kinda like" therapy, it's literally a common component of therapy. By the way, speaking of taking two damn seconds to read what you wrote before sending it, *writing *respectable *and
@@joshyoung1440 took a lot of energy to reply to my comment because I mi$spelled words. You ok bro? Maybe you ahould start writing things and never send them... As therapy. You seem to have a lot of anger
Well, Grant's tactics and strategy allowed him to win the war in roughly a year once he was put in overall command. Sherman's March was an excellent usage of having both, and also helped speed up the war's end.
"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage." "Cleverness has never been associated with long delays."
@@1337billybob there is no evidence that this story ever happened. Though it should be noted that the man we believe to be Sun Tzu did lose the war he fought in and his nation was destroyed
can you really mention the namedrop and a few frames of ... was that "Birth of a Nation" they showed him in? as "appearing in"??? also Forest Gump is okay. Not too historically accurate, but an impressive movie and keeping pretty well up for being 20 years old.
He certainly wasn't the only honest rebel in that regard: _"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was her cause for seceding."_ --Confederate Colonel John Mosby.
@@TheStapleGunKid Lost Cause Apologists: "It wasn't about slavery! It was about states rights!" The Confederate States and members of the Confederacy at the time: "This is about slavery."
@@averybishopmartin6964 I can only imagine if time travel was invented and these 2 groups got to meet face to face. Both sides would have viewed the other as crazy lunatics.
That isn't what he said, he said that the North was fighting for emancipation. Was he right? Not necessarily, but the quote had nothing to do with the Southern Cause.
@Velstadt Hekkleson That is true and all, but you can never deny the fact he fought 60 battles and only lost 8 most at the end of his career, fought 8 coalitions and still won most of it.
@Velstadt Hekkleson I have never denied this. Of course I am aware, his tactics got old, and it is evident. Duke wellington could tell he had some antics in waterloo. But again, I'm telling you that Napoleon was still a wise military leader. And spread a lot of revolutionary ideas across europe thanks to his empire. Again, never denied he did stuff wrong, but neither should you deny that he had an incredible military career.
I have been studying the Civil War for 40 years and this is one of the few times that I have heard someone give General George Thomas his due. Undoubtedly the best General on either side.
@@ITILII majority of the CSA generals were complete ass. Why the military named so many of their bases after some of the worst generals is beyond me. Yes there were a ton of shitty Union officers and general at the start. The USA military at the time was mostly a office of status and standing, similar to the issues plaguing the British military hierarchy. That said, the one thing old Abe did was firing and forcing the shit generals out of the military, relatively quickly. After he cleared out the shit tier generals, those who Abe HAD to relay on were great. The CSA just kept throwing their shit tier military generals out from end to end. General Bragg and Hood were terrible.
The only reason Thomas can't be compared to Grant or Sherman is due to his lack of influence; considering treatment towards him by his peers due to his heritage it's not surprising. I always look at Thomas as the biggest what-if; what could he have pulled off had he been given more influence?
There was a civil war strategy game called "AGEOD's American Civil War", and it had one interesting aspect to it that I never saw other historical war games try. Each general had 2 main stats: military (how good a general they were) and political (how well connected they were) Dismissing a general took a big political toll depending on their political rating. A killed or dismissed general would be replaced by the next highest political rank. McClellan had an awful military rating, but the highest political. A huge part of the Union strategy was maneuvering and building enough political capital to dismiss McClellan and replace him with someone better (Grant had the highest military, but a low political). Basically, the Union player spent the early war pulling your hair out trying to uproot all the nepo babies running the Army of the Potomac.
The Union army was FULL of political generals, people who paid for officer commissions without any military experience. That is why they struggled so early in the war before the were able to oust them. Also McClellan was actually a decent commander but was too cautious which prevented the Union from pushing their advantage when they did get it. But when he did fight, he did quite well as compared to many other of the Union officers like McDowell or Burnside.
The game reflects almost exactly that. The Union spends the first one-third of the war fighting its own internal command structure politics almost more than it does the Confederacy.
@@rexblade504 Both armies had a lot of political generals (it was easy for a politician to raise a regiment or two under his command). Not all of them were ousted in the early stages - for example, General Dan Sickles was pretty decent until he was wounded at Gettysburg. McClellan was a better strategist than a tactician. Also he had a very bad recon - that's why he had no solid knowledge on the opposing force and always thought he was outnumbered. Lee completely outgeneraled him at the Peninsula - but McClellan fully returned the favor in Maryland preventing Lee from achieving anything. McDowell was a good Corps commander. As an army commander he was... average, not so bad. The First Bull Run was a mess simply because everybody was inexperienced. Burnside was a lot better than people think :) North Carolina and Knoxville were his big achevements. The bridge at Antietam - it wasn't Burnside's fault that the recon screwed up and showed him the wrong ford. Fredericksburg - you should just trust the honest dude who declined THRICE and don't appoint him as an army commander :)
There's an old game from 1991 I used to play as a kid (and now play on DosBox) called No Greater Glory, which put you in Lincoln's or Davis' position. That game had generals with 3 stats: Initiative, Ability, and Prestige. Top 5 Union and top 3 Confederate generals in terms of prestige got mad if they weren't assigned the top 5 or 3 commands, and not doing that (or assigning a general to replace them with lower prestige) would result in losing loyalty in the political faction they belonged to and the region they came from. The trick was to manage your forces and your offensive and defensive assignments such that the generals with good ability rose in prestige while not damaging your loyalty. For the Union in particular this was tricky, since all the best generals were unknowns and all the high prestige ones (except for Halleck) had very low ability scores. It's also one of the few games that made McClellan useful. His ability of 4 (out of ten) meant that you could have him hold a position and reasonably expect it to be well defended, and his low initiative of 1 meant that you could order him to advance, pinning enemy forces in a location, but unless the troops had very high morale/experience, he wouldn't actually advance and risk losing a battle. His greatest liability, in other words, ends up being quite useful for feints. Really cool game that accomplishes a lot with very little.
26:47 For those who couldn't understand what Billy was saying during Johnny Reb's "hallucination", he said these words written by Ulysses S. Grant to General S.B. Buckner at Fort Donelson: Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of commissioners, to settle terms of capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works. I'm just saying this in case no one said this yet.
@Fascism and violence are cool In some people's opinions, sure. There were nationalists and state rights guys in the past, i think you're oversimplifying here. Legally, I think treason against the federal government wasn't acceptable back then either.
@Fascism and violence are cool Sure! Lee was more loyal to his home state that promoted the slave system that gave him and his comrades power and privileges than to the federal government, which, just out of fear, believed it was going to take away those privileges.
More about Grant and "his" slaves; all but one of the enslaved people that Grant managed *were not* his. They were his father-in-law's, only *loaned* to his wife specifically because his father-in-law suspected that Grant would free them if given the chance. He was regularly seen working in the field with them, which put off his more conservative neighbors, and refused to beat them (even when his wife prompted him to do so). As for William Jones (the one time his father-in-law actually gave him ownership)? When Grant freed him, he was in the deepest financial distress of his life, and he could have made a killing selling Jones at a slave market, money that would have supported him and his family when they were on the brink of destitution. Grant stood by his morals, even at great cost to himself and his family. One final note, about General Orders No. 11; Grant would spend the rest of his life atoning for that mistake, including by appointing a record number of Jewish Americans to office during his time as President (as well as a record number of African-Americans and other minority groups). His sincerity may well be judged by the fact that one of the pallbearers at his funeral was a Rabbi.
Hey Peter I have one question. I don’t fully because I’m still studying Grant but when he was president. The situation with the black hills with native Americans that led to Custer last stand. I’m the situation with the black hills did grant have good intentions for the Indians and was just naive because people took advantage of his trust or was he basically abused the Indians in every opportunity? Im just trying to understand
@@5552-d8b Grant's attitudes towards the native Americans were complicated. He was genuinely concerned for their well-being, but unfortunately he was still very much a product of his time and culture and believed that the best thing for them was to be "civilized." It puts him ahead of other generals of his time - such as, unfortunately, Sherman - who worked to violently expel the tribes from their homes, but still pretty backwards by our standards. The situation with the Sioux in the black hills was also complicated. Grant actually traveled to the Indian Territory to speak with them (the first president ever to do so) and invited tribal leaders to the White House. His proposal for them was still not exactly enlightened; he wanted them to resettle somewhere else and assimilate into American society. It is important to recognize that, at the time, this was still a very liberal policy as plenty of other people simply wanted to exterminate them (not justifying the actions, just putting them in context). However, he was backed into a corner by white settlers ignoring government orders and ultimately went along with his more belligerent officers. To quote Ron Chernow's stellar biography: "There was something profoundly contradictory about Grant's attitude toward the whole situation. In addressing Congress in December, he placed ultimate blame for what had happened to the Sioux on the white men: 'Hostilities there have grown out of the avarice of the white man who has violated our treaty stipulation in his search for gold.' All along he had ardently desired to bring justice to Native Americans. This raised questions of why Grant had caved in to greedy miners. To answer this, he invoked force majeure, saying that 'rumors of rich discoveries of gold' had drawn miners to the region and any effort to remove them would have led to desertion by the bulk of troops sent there. In other words, U.S. troops would have refused to thwart the miners, even under direct orders from the president. Thus Ulysses S. Grant, an advocate of a Peace Policy toward the Indians, found himself, willy-nilly, on the side of those raping their lands and violating a sacred treaty commitment. In the last analysis, Grant had to favor the American electorate and sacrifice the Sioux. It was a terribly ironic coda to a policy premised upon humane treatment of Native Americans." It's also worth noting that Grant didn't particularly like Custer and wanted to remove him from command of the expedition after Custer publicly criticized him, but he was persuaded to relent by Sheridan.
@@peterlepper5199 o ok so In his head he thought he was “helping”. But in reality is was just letting the Indians assimilate into society because he thought there lives would be better in a “civilized world” I do know that he prevented genocide attempts which is good on his part at least.
I always find it fascinating that lost causers likes to say that Grant killed Indians, while conveniently forgetting that Lee and the rest of the Confederates fought for a government that was formed to explicitly enslave people. Guess the whole "they were just fighting for hearth and home" does not apply when demonizing the North.........
This reminded me of my high school teacher talking about it. We didn't spend too much time going over it, but a rough approximation of what he said was "The southern military was focused on winning every battle and gaining personal accolades, the northern military was trying to win a war. So, yes, the south won a lot more battles, but they tended to be smaller-scale. Northern generals were more willing to retreat from positions that had little value if it meant keeping more soldiers and being in a better position to win the key battles."
Is kinda fitting how Davis compared the South to cavaliers and the North to Cromwell and in the end just like the royalists his army was commanded by a bunch of aristocratic fops more concerned with personal glory than with anything else
I think that the fairest thing one could say about this is that, especially early on, the Southern commanders tended to be superior tacticians relative to Union commanders. However, their many victories also tended to be sterile because they were having to wage largely defensive campaigns.
@@MollymaukT The Cavaliers were not fops but they were out for personal glory but that was the way of things then. Cromwell was a beastly man although King Charles 1 should have recognised Parliament from early on and had He done that Cromwell wouldn’t have had any thing to raise an army for.
I don't see how calling Grant a drunk makes your generals look better. If anything you've just owned up to the fact that they were so inept they couldn't even beat a drunk.
This reminded me about how I keep saying “Either Hillary Clinton is not this nefarious criminal you think she is, or the Republicans you keep electing are too stupid to prosecute her, which is it?”
Having superior numbers doesn't hurt, but it's HOW you use them that matters most. Look at Thermopylae. Numbers counted for nothing when they tried to charge a tiny bottleneck. The Persians only won because they were tipped off about an alternate route that allowed them to surround the Spartans. Grant had the numbers, the equipment, and the creativity to win important strategic victories, and all with lower casualties (both in percentage and numbers) than Robert E. Lee. He didn't just throw men at an enemy position until the rebels ran out of bullets.
@@ElBandito they were tipped off by another soldierfighting alongside the spartans, as it wasnt just 300 spartans but an additional 2-4000 troops coming from other greek states. One thought the war was already lost, so let the persians in exchange for a more peaceful overtaking rather than a ransacking of Greece as the Persians promised when the Spartans acted like… well spartans
@N Fels True, it was 300 Spartans, over 1,000 slaves, and many others who don't get much focus against an army that certainly didn't number almost 2 million. And it may have indeed been a scout rather than a traitor. But you get what I mean, right? Under the right circumstances, numbers count for nothing. It's how you use them that matters. You are correct that the Spartans were not as formidable as they were portrayed as: once other Greek city-states started using proper tactics and strategy, they mauled the Spartans with hardly any losses, kind of like how Grant acted like a proper general instead of a wannabe movie star. They also spent considerable resources oppressing a slave population: that "wolf" was, in actuality, a random slave minding his own business.
@@pyromania1018 what you are saying about using superior numbers, I completely agree with. Look at McClellan, burnside, hooker they all have superior number and “merely failed to win!”
That's actually a term you often see in actual Confederate propaganda of the time. For example, Jefferson Davis responded to the emancipation with his own proclamation, in which he denounced the Union army as "mercenaries for abolition".
The way Johnny Reb hissed at the mention of Grant's name was like a vampire being spritzed with holy water, or a cat being spritzed with regular water.
Now I’m wondering if cats are religious and all water is holy to them. And this is why all house cats hate water, because they are little furry demons.
Thing about Grant being “a drunk” something that often gets overlooked is how we’re now coming to understand alcoholism as a disease and one that can be passed down through the family. Plus in the end Grant beat his alcoholism, in an age where drinking was far more ubiquitous than it is today
@@vladdietheladdie7345 by what I’ve read Grant did have it pretty bad. He had a close circle who worked hard to help keep him clean, and throughout the war Grant didn’t go into the battle drunk. And eventually he beat his alcoholism…which I honestly find about as amazing as his time in the army and as President
@@vladdietheladdie7345 Actually, we're talking about a time when the Temperance movement had also picked up steam, so that makes it even harder to gauge how bad Grant's drinking was. Sure, a lot of people drank more and harder than we do today, but the people who didn't also had a more extreme reaction to anyone who was even visibly tipsy in front of others. (I do tend to believe the analysis that suggests that Grant didn't drink often but couldn't stop himself once he started, but do feel the influence of Temperance rhetoric gets overlooked regardless.)
@@erraticonteuse Especially when temperance, like anything else, was used as a political prop. At least some of the People accusing Grant of being a drunk were equally as fond of the bottle, and simply using the booze angle as a convenient character assassination vehicle.
Lee: I'm going to mount this gigantic raid into Pennsylvania and suffer huge casualties in order to mount a campaign of no strategic significance! I am the best general! Meade: Bring it.
Right before Forrest’s speech to the Black Civic’s Union part of the video. It said “Nathan Bedford Forrest said” then it cut to an Arby’s commercial saying “new chicken nuggets every day value” and now I’m just imagining him shouting about chicken nuggets to a crowd of black political leaders.
Makes me think of the Revolution and Washington's brilliance not in winning battles but in tactical retreat. He lost battle after battle but was winning the war. Not flashy and "honorable warfare" but the long view.
now WASHINGTON was a massively overrated general who was poor or mediocre in most aspects aside from intelligence gathering and personal willpower/tenacity.
@@nicmagtaan1132 a good reason for that was him knowing when to retreat and when to be cautious to not devastate his limited forces. Lee lost more men in 7 days than Washington did in 8 years. Taking big picture into account Washington lost very few battles in the sense he almost always had less casualties than his opposition (the British). His only real major defeat was Long island. Lee won very few battles for the same reason his only real victories were Bullrun, Chancellorvile and Fredericksburg
I continue to insist to this day that William Howe would've crushed Washington if he had been taking the war 50% more seriously. I for one used to believe the rebellion was the good guys and the British Armed Forces was the bad guys and since I know better than that, such a position is ridiculous.
Re: Forrest: That whole section illustrated a big issue I have with military history: divorcing battlefield exploits from the human, political and moral dimensions of their exploits ends up exalting monsters and excusing atrocities. Thank you for not doing that.
That is interesting since a small reaction channel understands bringing their issues when discussing a person but less relevant when discussing battlefield abilities. I do agree with this sentiment, when the Bin Laden comparison is brought up.
I actually disagree because we already know what these men did before and after the war and from a historians perspective if you are comparing them as generals the morality of the human being does not affect the strategy of these men and just because you don't talk about the horrible things these people did in a video that's supposed to talk about military achievements or the lack thereof doesn't mean you are honoring them it just means that you are talking about them as a general. People need to understand the difference. Now when morality crosses a line on the field of battle case in point the fort pillow massacre that absolutely belongs in this video. But taking fifteen minutes to talk about the morals of NBF as a Clan member and Lee as a slave owner just doesn't belong in this video. And to be clear Lee's morals do need to be talked about more, people nowadays have romanticized Lee as like this perfect individual well he is actually a incredibly horrible person, but it doesn't belong in a video about military achievements. I would suggest watching vlogging through history's reaction to this video he is a historian who specializes In American History during the civil war and makes some really good points in his video while also adding alot to it.
@@Cody435 You would be right, if this was a discussion between two well meaning martial history enthusiasts. But this was always about the whole debate surrounding these generals and the framing of the conflict. These videos began with the idea that it was "the war of northern agression" and such were always all about the way we think about these events, and never just about clean cut comparisons of certain aspects of the conflict.
@@Cody435 the problem is that most people are not divorcing the battlefield from the man. Sure, it would be great if we could discuss a perfectly spherical battle in a vacuum, but the human brain links "badass general" and "badass person" too readily to not put things in context.
Everyone always forgets about the brutal fighting in the Trans-Mississippi Theater. Though did not have the massive armies of the Eastern/Western Theaters, the Trans-Mississippi was just as, if not more than, brutal.
I love this series so much. I love how you break down misinformation without glorifying important figures. When Union commanders and/or soldiers do reprehensible things, you call them out on it. Plus you correct any mistakes you make!
I've rewatched this episode a couple of times now and the line "If only Sherman spontaneously combusted at the Battle of Chattanooga!" never fails to get a laugh out of me
@@Daedalus9393 Strategically - yes. Tactically - nah, a single Sherman's blunder was enough for Johnston to win the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. But that didn't change a thing, because Sherman learned the lesson and continued to flank Johnston, making him retreat.
@@kristaskrastina2863 fair enough, I wasn’t so much trying to imply that he was the greatest commander of all time more that the confederate mythologization of their own commanders is largely unearned
@@kristaskrastina2863Essentially, the best comparison to Sherman I've seen in media is Gamera. Occasionally loses, pretty frequently does something absolutely terrible, but never loses the same way twice and is very easy to project as a hero when he opposes something even worse.
For those who found the nightmare inaudible: "Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works."
My high school American history teacher had this to say about the Confederates: "The Southern ruling class was in many ways philosophical if not literal descendants of the Cavaliers during the English Civil War." And it's appropriate because Jeff Davis explicitly used the name "Cromwell" to describe the Union in a number of his speeches and writings. The Cavaliers were all about looking dashing while committing fancy, grandiose maneuvers... that failed to accomplish anything. The Roundheads, by contrast, were all about practicality, appearance be damned, and through this, they ultimately won. But the Confederates didn't seem to remember that.
@Jackson Attilio Good point. It's like, if there'd been any real substance to the Dixie they were defending, it might've worked. As it was, they stood to in the defense of personal aggrandizement. A place of such selfishness that it needed slaves to demonstrate its self-importance. This 'look at me' style of being might feel good and look good, but all that 'me' attitude in the south leaves little room for any 'us' solidarity; and a regiment of unified 'us' troops will always defeat a brigade of 'look at me' soldiers. The southerners failed to bank on the 'United' part of the country's name; in every way it was always poised to defeat a self-indulgent Dixie. They also willingly shed blood defending that last, most distasteful vice of humanity... slavery. Too selfish to just advance the 'self dying out' of the practice that some notable few of them could foresee. There'd have been nothing to fight over or secede over otherwise. Once the bid to maintain slavery was launched, it couldn't be unlaunched in case of defeat. To leave a legacy of not being the racist manipulators of humanity that they actually were, thus is spawned... the lost cause.
And they absolutely believed that: the sense of superiority came from the idea that they were Anglo Norman aristocracy rather than Puritan peasants and Continental immigrants
It’s also amusing that the southern accents are often so exaggerated (Gone With the Wind style) when in reality they were much closer to the British accent. Particularly those that were educated. There are actual recordings of confederate officers (made in the 1920’s) to prove this. I mean it’s only a generation or two since the War of Independence.
4:38 The argument that slavery wasn't THE issue for the South would have shocked the state governments that seceded. Every state that seceded, passed a resolution giving their reasons for seceding. Every one of them mentioned slavery in their reasoning. No exceptions.
Ehhhhhh except North Carolina, which didn't mention slavery in their documents, and Louisiana, who didn't have one. But their delegates sent to Texas showed the reason for secession was slavery.
But slavery was not the reason Lincoln went to war. Lincoln said he would allow the south to keep slavery. Lincoln waged war with the south because he disagreed with the states right to secede from the union.
@@henrysanders6544 wrong, the demand was to remove the institution of slavery at which point the south decided to succeed because they didnt want to be told what they can and can not do with their "property" I really can not fathom how you mouth breathers can look at words written by the very men talking of the refusal to not only relinquish their slaves but to give these poor men the rights to be seen as equals. then say "eRm iT aCtUaLLy wAsnT aBouT SlaVery" you're the real lost cause here.
@@henrysanders6544read carefully. Stop the whataboutism and deflection. We’re talking about the South. Not Lincoln. The South fought for their States’ rights to uphold and expand slavery. They seceded over slavery.
@@rileyknapp5318 Yours of this date proposing an armistice and the appointment of rommissioners to settle on the terms of capitulation is just received. "No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately on your works...."
So Hannibal Barca was a bad general simply because he lost the war due to logistics? Just say '"I dislike the confederates and will do anything to discredit them even if the implications I am making are false " instead of the mental gymnastics.
For those interested: "Norman C. Francis Parkway, formerly named Jefferson Davis Parkway or Jeff Davis Parkway, is a street in New Orleans, Louisiana."
@@maryaigler7651 First black president of Xavier University in New Orleans. He was a lawyer for civil rights protesters and chose to allow the Freedom Riders to stay at the university during his time as dean there.
I actually think that it is interesting to see how comparable "clean wehrmacht" types are. Same arguments, same behaviour, its like you can simply swap them out. >superiority myth >they only "lost because the enemy was more numerous" >hero worship >racism/warcrime denial >"but the war was forced on us" arguments This is pretty spot on.
Now that you mention it, these symptoms are found in all those who support some controversial side in a war. People wasn't kidding when they said history repeats itself.
@@nostur4984 Yeah, i also forgot the weapon statistics fetishism. I also have a strong interest in military history and equipment (Though the cold war and bronze age are my favourites), but im always shocked about their encyclopedic knowledge of stats, but them not being to able to understand those systems in a context. The Sherman tank (Funny coincidence) is a good example of this.
@@ArcAngle1117 Yeah, there are different revisionist narratives that claim that poland for example mobilized first, that poland forced germany to war because of the danzig situation, the Gleiwitz incident, because of the treatment of ethnic germans in poland. There are also narratives that proclaim that germany was forced to war by the british. Lots of stuff actually.
The issue with the Confederacies tactics reminds me as a World War II-focused Historian on the issue the Axis had particularly Japan. They thought they could win the in one big decisive battle which constantly led to them losing ships and resources they couldn't afford to lose. While the Allies almost fell into this trap with Operation Downfall, they mostly focused on achieving actual strategic objectives like seizing vital islands keeping the route to Australia open etc.
Well, Downfall would have been different; there was literally nothing else left to attack. Practically every island that Japan had held was either captured or blockaded; the navy was down to one old battleship, no cruisers, and a singe digit number of destroyers; and every single flyable aircraft was in the home islands.
@@Shaun_Jones But they could still turn Japan into Berlin or Leningrad. They had every citizen ready to fight off an invasion and had their best tanks (read: Ones that could actually counter the Sherman) on the home islands plus jets.
@@emberfist8347 you can’t just take a battle plan that worked for a single city and scale it up to a landmass the size of California. It would have taken years, possibly decades, to starve out Japan. Besides, both Leningrad and Berlin show that that doesn’t always work. Leningrad held out for years and was still standing when relieved; Berlin eventually had to be stormed, block-by-block, house-by-house; it was some of the most brutal and costly urban fighting of the entire war.
I wanted to say that as a Southerner you have changed my views on many subjects and I thank you for enlightening me with your fun and entertaining videos.
From what I read not too long ago, the Lost Cause thing and Jim Crow South actually had Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s believing it was a ripe spot for spreading their ideology (as they saw similarities between it and post World War I Germany). Their propaganda effort failed however, as the southerners at that time were primarily of Anglo descent and had strong anti-German sentiment from WWI and even many of them though the Nazis' antisemitism was highly controversial (at least one southern newspaper even awkwardly criticized Hitler for not congratulating American runner Jesse Owens in 1936, rather ironic considering what was going on there during that era). In the end, the frustrated Nazis focused as much effort as possible on the German American Bund.
@Leonard squirrel We will always have the southern states treasonous acts in our history books. Statues honoring traitors will be in the dumpster where they belong.
If you encounter anyone who tries to claim that the war wasn’t about slavery and the confederacy wasn’t a white suptemacist organization, direct them to the Cornerstone speech. Neo-confederates try to rewrite history, but the actual confederates didn’t beat around the bush when it came to talking about their white supremacist beliefs. Also the letters of secession are riddled with slavery talk, some of them outright say that slavery is the main cause of secession.
I wonder how many military achievements Grant had where he was fighting a hangover during it. I can just imagine, “Just do it this way and win the damn thing, all this gunfire is killer on my headache and on soldiers’ lives so make it stop.”
The timing of the ad break was perfect when talking about Nathan Bedford Forest: "... in 1875 he gave a speech to a black civics organization in which he said:" *points to camera and instantly cuts to an ad* "I RECOMMEND NATURE MADE VITAMINS!"
@@PhycoKrusk I suspect you're right because it's not the first of his videos where the ad break lines up perfectly with a setup like this. There's another video of his I was watching about Nazi crack pot archeology and he sets up a quote from Hitler and he's like "... Hitler told him:" *suddenly a car ad starts* "Question everything! We do."
Glad someone finally gave some recognition to George Thomas. What a badass with a badass nickname, "The Rock of Chickamauga". Also, I like the way my former Civil War professor put it: "Whereas Lee was the master tactician, Grant was the ultimate strategist. Tactics win battles. Strategies win wars."
I always love to rewatch this series, it still amazes me how nicely the dialogue and visuals fit. Also you pick up the small things on rewatches like the whiskey glass coming from off screen and it make it seem like there’s an actual conversation between two different people going on.
As a ranger at a Civil War battle field, I've had basically every part of this as an actual conversation with real people. Not the whole thing in one sitting with one set of visitors, but over time have been told pretty much everything Johnny Reb here said and tried to counter with many of the same arguments used by Billy Yank. Feels like beating my head against a brick wall sometimes...
Grant was an idiot and Lee was a genius. Railroads, telegraph, and cannon foddle won that war. I hate the shit happened, but if the north had better Generals the shit wouldn't have lasted 4 years. Hell they had to cut off Texas to even have a chance of winning... well that and allowing the middle states to keep slavery and join the union. Shit isn't rocket science the resources won and the north had that in spades. Lee could've ended the war if he would've marched on DC, but the war to him wasn't about what others were fighting for. To him it was a love for his state and he did not want to see the union fall, but he also did not want to see his home fall either.
@@coryflynn6391 Did you even watch the video? Also, if war is a simple matter of resources, explain how the colonies won the Revolution? Or how the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan?
@@kyleott6101 one of the best generals on either side, could even be argued that he was one of the best generals of the 19th century. i could go on im a big fan of Longstreet Beats lee, beats Jackson, beats Grant, Beats Sherman beats Sheridan etc etc
@@kyleott6101 after the war Longstreet became a Republican Politician in support of Grant who was his friend from the army before the civil war. He was also very critical of Robert E. Lee’s performance in the civil war. He also lead the Louisiana State Militia against the White League in the Battle of Liberty Place. Basically he tried to distance himself as much as he could from the confederacy after the war and Lost Causers hate him for that
@@were-owlinwisconsin4441 Ah yes, they can't shoot back because that would be unfair, instead they should just stand there and watch our army charge them. Of course.
@@burninsherman7196 I'd read that more as "they were better than us on that day and in that scenario" and not as "well d'uh, Meade made us do this crazy stunt that could not win".
I like how Billy Yank, whenever Johnny Reb says something bad the Union or Union general / politician did, doesn't argue nor does he say it was good, but rather fully accepts that it happened and even explains the events about it while trying to understand it, in contrast to Johnny Reb who whenever he's told the Confederacy did something bad, either justifies it, makes a whataboutism claim, or denies it
Why would they when Grant had to use twice as many soldiers to win and still lost a good portion of battles? Also Sherman was nothing compared to even the most mediocre Confederate general and that is just facts.
Finally George Thomas gets a shout out. His innovations such as engineering, medical and mapmaking units; plus his creation and use of the first truly mobile infantry ( us cavalry at the battle of Nashville) stand in comparison Stonewall Jackson.
I love how the relationship of these two started with one literally shooting the other to death, and now they’re close friends giving gifts, sharing drinks, playing chess, and occasionally debate each other over sometimes racist beliefs! What a pair!
I love when an ad plays at the perfect moment. “Now Billy Yank you know he gave a speech to a black civics organization in which he said…” YOU CAN NOW GET TWO SIZZLIES FOR $5
I really liked when the Confederate sympathizer said out loud he likes talking about military history divorced from other subjects because it's more comfortable and safe than the whole picture.
Honestly at this point Johnny Reb makes me think of an abused child who convinced himself his parents were great and nothing was wrong but is now being told how shit his life was and can’t handle it… is that why lost causers are so scared to let go they don’t wanna be seen as ancestors of slavers and rebels?
Well to s point: they were black and did serve the confederacy. So he was not wrong. While maybe not listed infantrymen, they did serve. Much like a cook, medic, or spy in the military of that time. Now were they listed regulars? Thats a different topic.
@@dustinjacks9087, Check out the Fold3 you can see thousands of Black Confederate enlistment cards as infantrymen and calvary men. Too many people assume that they were not given guns but thousands were and we still have the records of them as well.
He owned slaves who willingly joined his cavalry brigade and given their freedom and some money at the end of the war. Then he joins the klan😳 then he resigns because of the violence. When he got old he joined the fight for black civil rights. His story is amazing. A huge character.
@@asuperstraightpureblood I think today we would rightly call that a "grifter." He had whatever point of view benefitted him at the time. And as for "willingly," are you fucking serious? They didn't "willingly" do shit. THEY WERE SLAVES. Even if you ask a slave what he wants, he's not REALLY free to tell you anything but what you want to hear, or what he thinks you want to hear.
I know it may seem like no one is changing their minds no matter what, but this is still a very entertaining and informative series. I never realized how much lost cause mythology found it’s way into the history I was taught in school as a kid (in Pennsylvania, of all places). The civil war is a fascinating era in American History to learn about.
One thing we have to remember is that most American text books are published in Texas. That...has a lot of influence in what goes into them. One state's board of education has a huge influence on public school education for the entire nation simply due to where where the major publishing house for textbooks in the country is. Also, that this is not accidental, on the parts of the people founding it.
I was always confused why we learned so much about Picket’s Charge and other Confederate maneuvers that were left as isolated happenings in the curriculum. The true penetration of the Lost Cause in at least my Pennsylvanian education was the disparagement of Grant’s presidency. The accusations of his alcoholism, or at the very least abuse, were touched here for a moment, but they went on to mar his legacy as one of the best presidents in the history of the Union. Not to mention the fact we focus on the corruption surrounding him (which he fought), but the fact he did the most for Civil Rights until the modern era and the 1968 civil rights act. He was a legendary President and we need to restore his story. The South can lionize themselves all they want for what I care, but the North ought to Romanticize our history as well. There is no sense in believing the greatest American of his age was less than who he was.
@@alexdiaz155 thank you for posting this. I am from Philly and went to catholic school which compared to the public schools were a huge step up but it wasn’t til my junior and senior year of high school I really got into history. I was always good at retaining facts like that but even in an honors American History class I beat the teacher with on of those Brain Quest quiz card things (if I won everyone got an extra ten points on the test). It was actually my HR teacher, don’t laugh.. Mr. Weiners who got me heavily into current events and then I had him senior year for AP Gov which the class was more of an open discussion about things than “textbook says xyz”. I just recently got more into the Civil War by way of Chernow’s book on Grant. I was shocked to find most of my prior assumptions were based on the fake news of the south pushing “Lost Cause” mythology. But yes, Grant was a binge drinker but it was always alone with nothing going on for long periods of time, never during battle. He also had a much lower casualty rate than Lee but was called a “butcher “ while Lee was held up as a god. He also appointed the first Native American to a cabinet position, created the justice department that crushed the KKK (before the reformation in the 20s) because no white sheriff or juries would arrest and convict them. There are tons of other things like create the first national park instead of selling to investors, and there was corruption around him but never once was he personally implicated. In fact, the only reason he wrote his book while dying was because he’d been swindled out of his life savings at the time by the 19th century version of Medoff.
Upon further review: you went with "Davisites" and I can't help but feel "Secessionites" would've rolled off the tongue more smoothly, even if its not exactly following the nomenclature conventions of "Lincolnites".
@@General_Rubenski "Humble Pie" is a term people say to mean that you have to figuratively eat your own words. That you were wrong or embarrased about something. Say you brag that your local sports team is going to win the big game, the they get their asses kicked. You have to eat your humble pie. Also sometimes refered to as "eating crow" Making it a literal pie that the guy was literally eating was a funny little joke
I would argue that Sherman DID spontaneously combust in a way...his anger at the death of his favorite son due to disease from the war was, IMO, a serious motivation on his hardened views towards civilians and destruction in 1864 and 1865.
George H Thomas married a woman from Troy, NY where I was born. His wife had him buried there over West Point. I visit it and John Brown's grave whenever I visit NY. Thomas is an adopted New Yorker, we claim him. We stan for Thomas and John Brown.
@@danielcampion251 and his farm where he was buried is near Lake Placid NY. The township was bought by an abolitionist who wanted a community for liberated Blacks and White abolitionists.
@@HamSaladtv I visited JB's grave in Lake Placid in the early 90s. It's practically in the shadow of the Olympic ski jumps and the high peaks of the Adirondacks (Mt. Marcy) are clearly visible. It is a beautiful spot and the grave itself is marked by a large plaque on a huge glacial erratic boulder. Highly recommended to any Civil War buffs who pass by, a great place to break a road trip and have a lunch or rest under the shade of the trees. Next door in W. Mass. we stan for John Brown as well, he spent a number of years hustling wool in Springfield, Mass. before heading out to Kansas.
As I like to say as a proud Northerner: The Confederate flag might be their heritage. General Sherman turning Atlanta into an inferno is my heritage. And a proud one at that.
Best thing I remember from History class was how Grant accepted Lee's surrender in his battle uniform while Lee was in his dress uniform, since Lee was thinking this was an "important historical moment" while Grant was busy with more important shit than listening to Lee
It was actually a funny twist of history, as Grant hadn't expected to see Lee so early and had ridden ahead of his HQ wagon that contained his better clothes - but vain til the end, Lee had worn a brand new uniform that had been sent to him.
What’s funny is how if the opposite were the fact, the criticism would still be on the later: “Grant showed up dressed to the occasion while Lee showed up like an unkempt slob.” …Could you imagine if Hitler was fat? The field day people would have.
It was typical Grant. His uniforms would always be muddy and dusty because he led the men alongside them. Rarely putting on airs while getting his hands dirty.
That's pretty well right. Lee, for all his "brilliance", realized only too late that the way for his side to win is by digging in and inflicting casualties from a defensive posture. His victories were costly, and his side could not replace the numbers or equipment so easily. Perhaps the thought was smashing victories would end the war, but for all of the trouble Lee gave everyone before Grant came west, the war was being lost. The idea that Gettysburg was the turning point is overblown, after all. Not only was Vicksburg the key defeat, in both cases the outcome was almost certainly decided. Vicksburg was finished, whether it came on July 4 or sometimes after. And even if Lee had carried the day at Gettysburg, it would merely be a slightly higher peak before the decline that was already guaranteed by the war's years of casualties and destruction, which only one side could weather for years.
@@warlordofbritannia It also doesn't really reflect well on him that he chose to come gallivanting up here to Pennsylvania while Vicksburg was desperately in need of help (and begged him to send it) and had far more strategic importance to the Confederacy's objectives.
@@warlordofbritanniaAlso, had Lee tried to engage Meade at Pipe Creek (which would be necessary to march on D.C.), his army would have been destroyed.
It's worth pointing out for those unfamiliar that Atun-shei was (if i'm reading this correctly) a believer in the Lost Cause Fallacy. I encourage whole-heartedly the gentleman to correct me, but all the same it makes this content far more interesting. Realizing that once upon a time he may or may not of held some of these opinions close to his heart and realized after a time the insanity and absurdity of them. In a way it makes it less a metaphorical and yet also a literal mocking of his past self.
Nearly anyone his age or older that grew up in the south was. The Lost Cause mythology was (and often still is) taught as the "real and true history" in grade school.
From what I recall of a recent video of his, having an ass of a time remembering when that was I believe it was a qna, he goes into detail that he wasn't that big on it it was just a backdrop he often accepted as fact. It wasn't like today when you look at how some people see it as biblical or likewise as lies and such. Basicly he grew up with it as a constant white noise, he had things for it but he didn't really start going into it until he became interested in the topic beyond the veil of what he was taught. But again hope I am not misconstrued in saying this things since he even made a joke about it in his qua about trying to create a profile out of a few sayings lol.
I grew up with the lost cause ideology. That changed when I saw a war memorial I think in Camden Maine which referred to the war as the war of the rebellion. I never thought of it that way. I’m not really happy about taking down monuments but if the locals want it I acquiesce. It just leaves an eyesore in its place. History is much more complicated than is taught usually and the winner normally sets the tone except in the US civil war. That is an anomaly.
I stood up and cheered when Ben Grierson was mentioned. Was waiting for it and I was not disappointed. Great calvary officer despite having to overcome a lifelong fear of horses due to being sent to Narnia via horsekick as a kid. He's a commander who can claim a winning record vs Forrest (::meatloaf voice:: "because 2 outta 3 ain't bad..."). Additionally his postwar conduct was honorable towards the buffalo soldiers and the native Americans. A solid stand-up guy.
One thing that might have contributed to Grierson’s success in that raid was that he brought along a few extremely lightweight artillery pieces. They were 2-pounder guns, and only weighed 256 pounds; four strong men could pick it up, and 8 strong men could carry it some distance if needed.
“Native Americans should have just prepared to get invaded” “WELL THAT’S NOT FAIR THE UNION WAS INDUSTRIALIZED THE SOUTH WASN’T PREPARED TO BE INVADED”
Prepared by... developing immunity to a disease which emerged thousands of years after they were isolated before they knew the Old World existed. Yeah, fair bit more difficult than building a few factories.
Grierson is legit. He was not only an incredible commander, but he was known for his excellent reputation among his Black troops and sympathy with Indigenous tribes, at the detriment to the relationship with other white officers. He was unique among officers in either army.
@@bocchithean-cap3404 Ah yes, because you can boil down the dozens of tribes that fought in the civil war (or adjacent to it) as "natives", different tribes fought for both sides, even individuals of the same tribe were split in support. The Dakota fought the Union, but they didn't fight for the confederates, weren't even allies. The five civilized tribes were somewhat split (despite them all having slavery), a majority of the seminole fought for the union, and sizeable minorities amongst the other 4 fought for the Union as well, and even a majority of cherokee and their leader supported the union despite the tribe fighting for the confederacy due to the support of the land owning elite. More neutral tribes would often use the war as an excuse to launch raids on and fight rival tribes, or even members of the same tribe using it fight local civil wars.
@@tntsummers926Seeing the profile pic, prior comments, as well as the tone of this one should tell you that the degen that you're speaking to doesn't care about native peoples... Or facts... Lol.
@@TSmith-yy3ccmy guy he doesn’t have a profile picture. He’s being truthful about the various tribes. They various tribes and nations were not a single bloc, and they reacted to the war as you would expect anyone to: they used it to further their goals.
“The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics” - General Robert H Barrow (USMC) It wouldn’t have mattered if the Confederates had better Generals, if you couldn’t keep your soldiers properly armed, clothed, and fed you’ll lose the war. The Union had this in abundance and can replace soldiers and lost equipment faster than the Confederates can.
@@lrussell6032 the British had a communication and supply line spanning the Atlantic and requiring two months to traverse. They also had to fight in Europe and Asia and the sea at the same time, they won in the European theatre and the Asian one, but ultimately lost the American one due to Spanish and french support, Their own mistakes, being stretched thin and of course, American generalship and strategy.
@@lrussell6032 the US was fighting on their own territory while the British had to send all their supplies across the Atlantic. When the French navy defeated the British Navy at the Battle of the Capes, the British logistics was completely cut off. No more fresh Troops or equipment are coming from the British Empire. US did not only receive help from France, but also from Spain.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
CORRECTIONS: Due to an unfortunate case of me being a damn fool, I confused Confederate casualty statistics at the Siege of Vicksburg with those of the entire campaign. To give a more balanced view of United States casualty rates, the graphic which appears onscreen at 37:15 should really have incorporated the approximately 2200 Union soldiers killed or wounded at the Battle of Champion Hill as well, which tallied to 8% of Grant's forces at that battle. Still a staggering victory, no doubt, but a dumb numerical error on my part, so sorry about that.
Also, the Winter War did end in victory for the Soviets, but at a much greater loss of life.
why did you rewrite this?
And in the Haitian revolution the side with the most men won. Not to mention that France was going through its own revolution at the time. They were , distracted.They were also supported by powerful countries, Spain and Britain.
@@francescodegregorio2824 I think the pinned comment that originally said this disappeared.
@@jonathannelson103 most men yes, but less advanced technology. The point was about both I believe.
@@danieldyson1660 but they also had the Spanish and British fighting the French in Haiti because of the wars going on in Europe. Surely you don't think that they were less advanced than the French.
"See ya in hell, Billy Yank."
"See ya in hell, Johnny Reb."
I have no idea how these two lines could break my heart into so many tiny little pieces.
We know the series isnt over yet..... Somewhere between Black Confederates and Sherman, he stated that the series was only halfway over, and it would be VERY obvious when it was...
Hell is 2020 ;) We just left it.
i think he just quoted the movie gettysburg. Just watch the trailer and you will see the scene
Oh, but the post-credits scene put all of Marvels to shame. So get excited for Checkmate Amerikaners
@@Professor_Nixon maybe it's a Yahtzee nazi?
The biggest mistake people make when playing Chess is neglecting naval supremacy.
I have it on good authority that chessboards are not immune to the solid shot of 11-inch Dahlgren guns.
My favorite opening is queen's gambit into shore bombardment.
Once you cross your opponent’s King’s T it’s checkmate.
lol well played
And the ICBM. Don't forget the ICBM, you don't recover from that mistake.
Ironic that the Confederates so admired Napoleon, whose possibly greatest, and most winning, attribute was that he constantly fretted over his logistics and manpower.
Also his offensive tactics, which the south barely used properly
A general crucial to the Union victory and given no credit is Quartermaster General Montgomery C Meigs. He basically ensured the Union outprivisioned the rebels. No point having a big industrial capacity and no way of getting it to the troops.
How did you comment this 2 days ago
@@bradysullivan4548 time travel
How is there a comment that’s 2 days old on a vid that released this morning?
Arguing "we were doomed from the start" is basically admitting the secessionists were just stupid or suicidal.
now tack on the fact that they were unequivocally proven to be fighting for slavery, it makes them even worst. Like were you honestly expecting a participation trophy when you fought to preserve an inhumane and immoral institution ?
_"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”_ --Texas Governor Sam Houston, April 16, 1861
@@TheStapleGunKid It's interesting that he very accurately predicted the losses. No one could imagine there would be hundreds of thousands of dead.
Plenty of slave revolts were begun with the awareness that they faced incredibly long odds. Self-interest can be a powerful motivation
They were stupid.
When someone complained that Grant was a drunk, Lincoln said "find out what whiskey he drinks and send a case to each of my generals".
citation?
It was a perfect message!
A way to say "Yall are bitchin, but he's doing what we actually need so maybe you should start emulating him."
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 1863 October 30, New York Times, Blair’s Bitters, Quote Page 4, Column 4, New York. Took me 30 seconds. Come on dude.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 and by come on dude, I mean grow up and google your own questions
@@mister_kaniela Lmao, no. The first person should have cited a source and not run around dropping quotes even if they are true. not a good way to keep knowledge, makes it more of a hearsay, or a readsay in this case.
That's always how I assumed Nathan Bedford Forrest exactly sounded actually.
Mr. Breast give me money
I loved how he showed that ridiculous statue of NBF when he was first mentioned
It's BeatMasterMatt...
Hey
Sup Mr beat
Fun italian fact: Lincoln tried to recruit Garibaldi as a general during the early stages of the war. The famous italian fighter though declined the invitation, obviously for reasons related to the italians conflicts at the time as well as personal motives, but he claimed the lack of a abolition act as a cause, as he was a fiery abolitionist, not happy by the ambiguous position of Lincoln on the matter at the time.
An additional fun fact, when Garibaldi volunteered his services. But there was no real evidence that Lincoln actively courted him. Politically it would be suicide to put a foreigner in charge of Union armies.
Moreover after the EP was passed, Garibaldi was the first to sign Lincoln's praises.
Another fact, San Marino praised Lincoln so much, that they offered him citizenship in their country and invited him over to discuss a diplomatic alliance. Lincoln denied the offer but thanked the nation for it's eager support for the union.
@@vehx9316 you are in the wrong here, good ser. We know that the diplomat Henry Shelton Sanford went personally, on order of Lincoln, to seek out and deliver Garibaldi a letter wrote by Lincoln and the possible appointment of Garibaldi as a officer or even a general in the war. Now, i admit, details are misty, and said letter seen to have been lost to time, but the fact remain. Garibaldi did not volunteer his service, he refused it. All view on the facts agree that, in some measures, Lincoln sought Garibaldi, not the other way around, and why wouldn't it? Garibaldi was a general of incredible renown and a skilled tactician as well, with proved and tested military experience in numerous campaign in italy and around the world. He fought against official militaries and army, as well as proper military campaigns numerous times by that point, proving victorious most often than not. Not to mention, numerous italians lived and served in the Union, as well as in the Confederate, army, so to put such a famous national figure at the head of a brugade or platoon of such troops would have been a wise move, as well as a propaganda master stroke. I don't see it as an impossibility, and here i showed that your affirmations stands on no ground.
@@giacomoromano8842 "Henry Shelton Sanford went personally, on order of Lincoln, to seek out and deliver Garibaldi a letter wrote by Lincoln "
If that is so, then surely we should have a copy of the said letter to been seen would we not ?
It's a nice tale, but we have no real evidence proving it. Lincoln's government was a hodgepodge of individual actions at times which unfortunately clouds matters in whether Lincoln personally approves it or was even made aware of it.
The perfect example was the offer to leave Fort Sumpter. Now it was made, but it was made by Seward, Lincoln wasn't even aware of it and he was pretty pissed about it against Seward.
@@giacomoromano8842 no that not true, there was an offer made yes. But there is no evidence that it came DIRECTLY from Lincoln. Its more likely someone in Lincoln's governmetn acting on their own accord.
My great great great great grandfather Robert R. Byers, who was a Union soldier during the American Civil War, remembered trying (and failing) to hold back laughter when he heard that Stonewall Jackson was gunned down by his own men.
Meanwhile, Grant said:
"[Jackson] and I were at West Point together for a year and we served in the same army in Mexico. He was a gallant soldier and a Christian gentleman, and I can fully understand the admiration your people have for him."
How many women and girls did he rape?
The Brits could not support the South. They outlawed slavery in 1807 and 1838. There is no way they could support the South. As for McClelland was wonderful at training the army but was a lousy field officer. He was just too cautious.
@@nbenefiel
"The Brits could not support the South"
They came quite close to doing so, especially since the Confederacy offered an emancipation plan.
And McClelland's gotten something of a rehabilitation in recent years. Most of the mistakes he got blamed for were Lincoln's mismanagement, and the plan that Grant followed at the end was McClellan's plan.
McClellan was a good choice for an invasion, because he had a reputation from the Mexican War of being kind to civilians. And THIS is why he got fired. Lincoln got tired of him whining about his terrorism.
@@kenabbott8585
The Brits thought about that - but I don't think they'd want to step into another potentially messy and bloody war after the Crimean one. It might simply not worth it.
And, if I'm not mistaken, the Southern emancipation plan was just about freeing slaves to draft them into the army. It looks like a desperate measure - not good for international relations. If you have to draft the men you despise - you're screwed.
McClellan was a great strategist, but he blundered a lot himself. The main reason of it was lousy recon. Why did McClellan always think he was outnumbered? Because his army was always blind! I'd like to see McClellan's command with good recon - then we could honestly judge his actual tactical skills, not his thoughts and precautions.
Let's look at Antietam - the essence of McClellan's blunders:
1. The cavalry didn't do anything. Why Hooker and Meade could put the same horsemen (with many of the same Generals) to good use (look at Gettysburg Campaign - it was good!), but McClellan couldn't? As the result, the Army of the Potomac was again completely unaware of Lee's army's positions and numbers and had to act blindly. That alone made Antietam the bloodiest day on Western Hemisphere. Hooker tried to flank the enemy but was flanked hinself by Stuart's artillery. After that... you know.
2. No general battle plan. It's just weird. I'd understand Pope or even Hood not having it - but McClellan was smarter that that.
3. McClellan dissolved the Wings before the battle, creating a mess. Who was the IX Corps Commander: Cox or Burnside who had no other troops under his command? Good that they were next to each other during the actual battle.
4. Burnside's Bridge... oh, man.
- What was Burnside suppose to do in the battle? Create a diversion to weaken the Rebs at the north? Okay, then why did the order to attack come at 10 AM, four hours after Hooker's engagement? What kind of a diversion was it?
- McClellan later said that he planned Burnside's attack as the main one. Hmm... by just one Corps? Through a narrow and well-defended bridge? Only a blockhead would plan that - and McClellan wasn't one.
- The recon screwed up again by showing Burnside the wrong ford to cross. The flanking force by Rodman had to find the right one by themselves - that's why it took three hours to flank 700 Georgians who defended the bridge.
- After Burnside crossed the bridge, he felt his position was insecure and asked for reinforcements. He got none - and was swept by A.P. Hill's Light Division.
But I understand why McClellan didn't want to pursue Lee after Antietam. He didn't think his troops were good enough for that - and maybe he was right.
No, Grant's plan wasn't McClellan's one. McClellan would never send the main army through the Wilderness - and Grant's idea of constant push wouldn't look good for McClellan. But I'd say Grant would be a perfect General for McClellan's strategy: he was brave, fast and accustomed to fleet support. So marching on Richmond while removing obstacles like forts, enemy troops and Magruder's circuses would be a good task for Grant :)
I won't lie to you: "If only Sherman would have spontaneously combusted at the battle of Chattanooga." Is one of the single funniest things I've ever heard.
I was in stitches!
That wouldn't have helped, George Thomas was also at Chattanooga...although when Thomas took Atlanta, it's likely the city would not have been malevolently and evilly burnt as Sherman did, which paradoxically just might have made Reconstruction a lot easier...
If that had happened it could have saved the Union a lot of money post war during Reconstruction. Seriously the man did a number on the state of Georgia during his March into the Sea.
Fire cannot kill a dragon
"If only we could have cloned Jeb Stewart so he could be in both the western and the eastern theaters at the same time."
At General Sherman's funeral, Joseph E Johnston kept his hat off as a mark of respect, despite the fact it was a cold wet February day in New York. Johnston argued "If I were in his place, and he were standing here in mine, he would not put on his hat." He died ten days later, of pneumonia.
Should'a worn the hat.
@@joepetto9488 idk they’re also kind of darkly comedic too, in the “this is terrible but I’m gonna laugh really loudly at it” way
How to achieve peak badass and peak dumbass in one action.
The one time he didn’t think about the big picture.
Even in death, Sherman killed a confederate.
Oversimplified had a great metaphor for Grant's generalship. While Lee was playing chess, Grant was grabbing the sledgehammer.
which is also funny considering McClellan played that game of chess with Lee and did so, according to Lee, brilliantly. We love to shit on McClellan because of his lack luster performance during the Civil War but it wasn't because he was a bad leader, no. In fact although his performance was lack luster he never actually suffered a massive defeat and always moved his army into the best position. He was in actuality a brilliant leader. The problem was again he was playing chess with Lee instead of fighting a war.
@@a-drewg1716 McClellan was a good staff officier but he wad terrible as a field commander.
@@a-drewg1716 McClellan is isn't criticized for never losing a major defeat, he's criticized for never pushing is advantages, even when they were clear he had them. Which is why he also never had a major win and the war dragged on. Contrast that to Grant who made a couple big mistakes, but he also won the war decisively. That's why Grant was far more impactful in the war than McClellan ever could be.
@@projectpitchfork860 McClellan is a textbook example of theoretical expertise without practical experience. He strikes me (knowing nothing about his career except what I've learned from Checkmate Lincolnites) as someone who studied the campaigns of Alexander, Caesar, Washington, and Napoleon until he could reenact the Battle of the Granicus beat for beat but put him behind a real army in a real battlefield and he choked
Ah yes the channel with a quarter quarter accurate history, conveniently presenting the most clean versions of their history (as much as possible with certain topics) all delivered with no sources whatsoever and some of the clearest bias this side a Mississippi
I love how Forrest's testimony to congress was basically just the 1800's equivalent of "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"
“I’m not racist, my slaves think I’m pretty cool”
I forget; did he testify in his Grand Wizard outfit?
Is there a transcript available online?
@@user-lv1jk9qb9t excuse me
Lol
"Grant was just a drunk!"
Then you got steamrolled by a drunk... should probably stop saying that.
Grant sucked. His claim to flame is he doesn't flinch when he takes high casualties, he can live with the loss of his soldiers life. Lincoln wants it, i'll give it to him and never get replaced.
@@Rex-gu1bu Souds similar to a lot of confederate generals to me. Difference is, Grants method worked.
@@Rex-gu1bu Grant doesn't suck at all lmao. If you're only looking at the Peninsular Campaigns, it looks bad, but he took way less casualties in the Western theater than the Confederate generals he faced, as Andy says in this very video.
@@weirdofromhalo "Andy is high as a kite and it slipped passed you that this is a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the north and demonizing the south. The fact that it was comedy allows it to escape scrutiny. "Lee always took a higher percentage of casualties than anybody else in the war". Um, what? Yeah, he was usually outnumbered 2-1, so the loss of his 13000 is a higher percentage than the loss of 17000 of his opponent who has over twice the men he has. That proves that the North had a tremendous advantage in numbers and often relied on it. Yet he spins it as Lee loses more men. He makes no sense and he shows his dummy southerner frowning as if he made a point. The Northerner of course is sensible and no Northern stereotypes are poked at. I give this video a fail for what I could see he was going for. "Lee lost a higher percentage of men than anybody in the war". Wow, whata fail. I am the only one who called this out.
Who is "you"? Lee didn't get steamrolled and neither did I. Maybe the "you" that got steamrolled is the other poster?
“If only general Sherman had spontaneously combusted”
Holy shit dude
I thought he was going to go on about aliens next.
I wonder if that’s a reference to the ww2 tank?
I laughed my butt off at "If only Judah P. Benjamin had brought forth the power of the ark of the Covenant."
@@poke0043moto LMAOOOO
@@poke0043moto I hope not, that’s a myth in and of itself.
If Sherman spontaneously combusted I do believe he would run as fast as he could to get as much Georgia as he could
Or wherever there were some women and children.
@@kenabbott8585 cry more
@@averyn34
If I cried every time some Leftist celebrated rape, arson, looting, and cowardice, I'd have died of dehydration decades ago.
@@averyn34 WE BRING THE JUBILEE.
@@kenabbott8585 lol did he kill even a 10th as many women and children as were enslaved in Georgia? Like yea people in history suck, sorry bro
Lincoln weoting the letter and never sending it is kinda like therapy. He was upset and wrote his feelings then reread it and realized he should let his generals general. Thats rrspectable amd a sign of a good leader
Writing an angry letter and then throwing it away is a time-honored method of relieving stress.
anyone who hace ever wrote a comment then deleted it will understand
@@yourpalpalmetto979 *has *written
It's not "kinda like" therapy, it's literally a common component of therapy. By the way, speaking of taking two damn seconds to read what you wrote before sending it, *writing *respectable *and
@@joshyoung1440 took a lot of energy to reply to my comment because I mi$spelled words. You ok bro? Maybe you ahould start writing things and never send them... As therapy. You seem to have a lot of anger
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
- Sun Tzu.
Sums both sides decently.
Well, Grant's tactics and strategy allowed him to win the war in roughly a year once he was put in overall command. Sherman's March was an excellent usage of having both, and also helped speed up the war's end.
"I'm going to murder a bunch of prostitutes slaves to prove some kind of flawed point on discipline" - Sun Tzu
"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage."
"Cleverness has never been associated with long delays."
@@1337billybob there is no evidence that this story ever happened. Though it should be noted that the man we believe to be Sun Tzu did lose the war he fought in and his nation was destroyed
All that and you didn't even mention Nathan Bedford Forrest's worst crime of all.
Appearing in Forrest Gump.
can you really mention the namedrop and a few frames of ... was that "Birth of a Nation" they showed him in? as "appearing in"???
also Forest Gump is okay. Not too historically accurate, but an impressive movie and keeping pretty well up for being 20 years old.
@@Ugly_German_Truths Umm... I think it was a joke.
@@Ugly_German_Truths 20 year check that math again....closer to 30
Crumbs - Forrest Gump is 30 years old and you youngsters think it's ancient history. Ouch.
"Holding up pretty well" indeed! The cheek!
...what’s wrong with Forrest Gump? Or are you being a contrarian for the sake of it?
Honestly the only thing the rebel is right about is that “checkmate Lincolnites” sounds so much better lol
Anyone else love to see a series with this done by a British guy and a soldier from Napoleon's Grande Armee? THAT would be entertaining.
@@thunderbird1921 Checkmate Wellingtonites ?
@@thunderbird1921 I'd love to hear him do those accents
@@thunderbird1921 I would actually like to see him go at some of the myths about the revolutionary war, opposite a red coat...
Yeah I have to agree with that one too. "Checkmate, Davisites!" just doesn't have the same ring to it...
I just realized in rewatching this that Forrest straight up ADMITTED THE WAR WAS OVER SLAVERY. Welp, that's that I guess.
He certainly wasn't the only honest rebel in that regard:
_"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was her cause for seceding."_ --Confederate Colonel John Mosby.
"We want him here among us, he is the only laboring class we have" is truly a breathtaking line
@@TheStapleGunKid
Lost Cause Apologists: "It wasn't about slavery! It was about states rights!"
The Confederate States and members of the Confederacy at the time: "This is about slavery."
@@averybishopmartin6964
I can only imagine if time travel was invented and these 2 groups got to meet face to face.
Both sides would have viewed the other as crazy lunatics.
That isn't what he said, he said that the North was fighting for emancipation. Was he right? Not necessarily, but the quote had nothing to do with the Southern Cause.
“God fights on the side with the best artillery”
- Napoleon
@Velstadt Hekkleson also god: lets make all of europe declare war on HIM not his nation. And make him lose because the russians ran away faster.
@@justingick4218 bro 1 French man from a small island fucked up Europe and north and South America
@Velstadt Hekkleson That is true and all, but you can never deny the fact he fought 60 battles and only lost 8 most at the end of his career, fought 8 coalitions and still won most of it.
@Velstadt Hekkleson I have never denied this. Of course I am aware, his tactics got old, and it is evident. Duke wellington could tell he had some antics in waterloo.
But again, I'm telling you that Napoleon was still a wise military leader. And spread a lot of revolutionary ideas across europe thanks to his empire.
Again, never denied he did stuff wrong, but neither should you deny that he had an incredible military career.
@Velstadt Hekkleson Napoleon won a war that he lost it was him against shit ton of countries
Holy cow a 49 minute "Checkmate, Lincolnites" video on the 4th of July? This day can't get any better!
Yes, this was a wonderful Independence Day gift!
I have been studying the Civil War for 40 years and this is one of the few times that I have heard someone give General George Thomas his due. Undoubtedly the best General on either side.
He was fantastic, but I personally think Grant was the best.
Thomas was indeed great but I think the 2 best Union Generals were Grant and Sherman; and the 2 best Confederate Generals were Jackson and Forrest.
@@ITILII majority of the CSA generals were complete ass. Why the military named so many of their bases after some of the worst generals is beyond me.
Yes there were a ton of shitty Union officers and general at the start. The USA military at the time was mostly a office of status and standing, similar to the issues plaguing the British military hierarchy. That said, the one thing old Abe did was firing and forcing the shit generals out of the military, relatively quickly. After he cleared out the shit tier generals, those who Abe HAD to relay on were great.
The CSA just kept throwing their shit tier military generals out from end to end. General Bragg and Hood were terrible.
The only reason Thomas can't be compared to Grant or Sherman is due to his lack of influence; considering treatment towards him by his peers due to his heritage it's not surprising.
I always look at Thomas as the biggest what-if; what could he have pulled off had he been given more influence?
@@isaacsorrels4077 : Very insightful comment. Thank you for sharing it.
There was a civil war strategy game called "AGEOD's American Civil War", and it had one interesting aspect to it that I never saw other historical war games try.
Each general had 2 main stats: military (how good a general they were) and political (how well connected they were)
Dismissing a general took a big political toll depending on their political rating. A killed or dismissed general would be replaced by the next highest political rank.
McClellan had an awful military rating, but the highest political. A huge part of the Union strategy was maneuvering and building enough political capital to dismiss McClellan and replace him with someone better (Grant had the highest military, but a low political).
Basically, the Union player spent the early war pulling your hair out trying to uproot all the nepo babies running the Army of the Potomac.
The Union army was FULL of political generals, people who paid for officer commissions without any military experience. That is why they struggled so early in the war before the were able to oust them. Also McClellan was actually a decent commander but was too cautious which prevented the Union from pushing their advantage when they did get it. But when he did fight, he did quite well as compared to many other of the Union officers like McDowell or Burnside.
The game reflects almost exactly that. The Union spends the first one-third of the war fighting its own internal command structure politics almost more than it does the Confederacy.
@@rexblade504
Both armies had a lot of political generals (it was easy for a politician to raise a regiment or two under his command). Not all of them were ousted in the early stages - for example, General Dan Sickles was pretty decent until he was wounded at Gettysburg.
McClellan was a better strategist than a tactician. Also he had a very bad recon - that's why he had no solid knowledge on the opposing force and always thought he was outnumbered. Lee completely outgeneraled him at the Peninsula - but McClellan fully returned the favor in Maryland preventing Lee from achieving anything.
McDowell was a good Corps commander. As an army commander he was... average, not so bad. The First Bull Run was a mess simply because everybody was inexperienced.
Burnside was a lot better than people think :) North Carolina and Knoxville were his big achevements. The bridge at Antietam - it wasn't Burnside's fault that the recon screwed up and showed him the wrong ford. Fredericksburg - you should just trust the honest dude who declined THRICE and don't appoint him as an army commander :)
There's an old game from 1991 I used to play as a kid (and now play on DosBox) called No Greater Glory, which put you in Lincoln's or Davis' position. That game had generals with 3 stats: Initiative, Ability, and Prestige. Top 5 Union and top 3 Confederate generals in terms of prestige got mad if they weren't assigned the top 5 or 3 commands, and not doing that (or assigning a general to replace them with lower prestige) would result in losing loyalty in the political faction they belonged to and the region they came from. The trick was to manage your forces and your offensive and defensive assignments such that the generals with good ability rose in prestige while not damaging your loyalty. For the Union in particular this was tricky, since all the best generals were unknowns and all the high prestige ones (except for Halleck) had very low ability scores. It's also one of the few games that made McClellan useful. His ability of 4 (out of ten) meant that you could have him hold a position and reasonably expect it to be well defended, and his low initiative of 1 meant that you could order him to advance, pinning enemy forces in a location, but unless the troops had very high morale/experience, he wouldn't actually advance and risk losing a battle. His greatest liability, in other words, ends up being quite useful for feints. Really cool game that accomplishes a lot with very little.
@@TheLongTake Sounds cool. Is it playable by modern standards?
“Clan leader”
“Repentant clan leader”
“Well that’s ok then”
One of my favorite parts of the video
It makes me laugh every time I see this video
That's Southern Logic for you.
He was just a clash player
The real KKK not modern saved the South from being exterminated by the Radicals
@@edwardclement102 by radicals do you mean people who want a fair and equitable society?
26:47 For those who couldn't understand what Billy was saying during Johnny Reb's "hallucination", he said these words written by Ulysses S. Grant to General S.B. Buckner at Fort Donelson:
Sir:
Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of commissioners, to settle terms of capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I'm just saying this in case no one said this yet.
Unconditional Surrender Grant
thanks
Thank you for your service.
Whats most ironic out of all of this is that Buckner was named after a Latino
Basically;
Give up your shit, I'm fucking coming.
Napoleon: 'the amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics.'
Lee: Logistics are annoying.
Thats why napoleon has an era named after him, and lee hasnt, and lost a war betraying his country
@Fascism and violence are cool In some people's opinions, sure. There were nationalists and state rights guys in the past, i think you're oversimplifying here.
Legally, I think treason against the federal government wasn't acceptable back then either.
@Fascism and violence are cool Sure! Lee was more loyal to his home state that promoted the slave system that gave him and his comrades power and privileges than to the federal government, which, just out of fear, believed it was going to take away those privileges.
Lee: logistics why you bully
@@thewampire4640 well Lee had a tank named after him
But it was a shitty tank so nothing to worry about
More about Grant and "his" slaves; all but one of the enslaved people that Grant managed *were not* his. They were his father-in-law's, only *loaned* to his wife specifically because his father-in-law suspected that Grant would free them if given the chance. He was regularly seen working in the field with them, which put off his more conservative neighbors, and refused to beat them (even when his wife prompted him to do so).
As for William Jones (the one time his father-in-law actually gave him ownership)? When Grant freed him, he was in the deepest financial distress of his life, and he could have made a killing selling Jones at a slave market, money that would have supported him and his family when they were on the brink of destitution. Grant stood by his morals, even at great cost to himself and his family.
One final note, about General Orders No. 11; Grant would spend the rest of his life atoning for that mistake, including by appointing a record number of Jewish Americans to office during his time as President (as well as a record number of African-Americans and other minority groups). His sincerity may well be judged by the fact that one of the pallbearers at his funeral was a Rabbi.
Hey Peter I have one question. I don’t fully because I’m still studying Grant but when he was president. The situation with the black hills with native Americans that led to Custer last stand. I’m the situation with the black hills did grant have good intentions for the Indians and was just naive because people took advantage of his trust or was he basically abused the Indians in every opportunity? Im just trying to understand
@@5552-d8b Grant's attitudes towards the native Americans were complicated. He was genuinely concerned for their well-being, but unfortunately he was still very much a product of his time and culture and believed that the best thing for them was to be "civilized." It puts him ahead of other generals of his time - such as, unfortunately, Sherman - who worked to violently expel the tribes from their homes, but still pretty backwards by our standards.
The situation with the Sioux in the black hills was also complicated. Grant actually traveled to the Indian Territory to speak with them (the first president ever to do so) and invited tribal leaders to the White House. His proposal for them was still not exactly enlightened; he wanted them to resettle somewhere else and assimilate into American society. It is important to recognize that, at the time, this was still a very liberal policy as plenty of other people simply wanted to exterminate them (not justifying the actions, just putting them in context). However, he was backed into a corner by white settlers ignoring government orders and ultimately went along with his more belligerent officers. To quote Ron Chernow's stellar biography:
"There was something profoundly contradictory about Grant's attitude toward the whole situation. In addressing Congress in December, he placed ultimate blame for what had happened to the Sioux on the white men: 'Hostilities there have grown out of the avarice of the white man who has violated our treaty stipulation in his search for gold.' All along he had ardently desired to bring justice to Native Americans. This raised questions of why Grant had caved in to greedy miners. To answer this, he invoked force majeure, saying that 'rumors of rich discoveries of gold' had drawn miners to the region and any effort to remove them would have led to desertion by the bulk of troops sent there. In other words, U.S. troops would have refused to thwart the miners, even under direct orders from the president. Thus Ulysses S. Grant, an advocate of a Peace Policy toward the Indians, found himself, willy-nilly, on the side of those raping their lands and violating a sacred treaty commitment. In the last analysis, Grant had to favor the American electorate and sacrifice the Sioux. It was a terribly ironic coda to a policy premised upon humane treatment of Native Americans."
It's also worth noting that Grant didn't particularly like Custer and wanted to remove him from command of the expedition after Custer publicly criticized him, but he was persuaded to relent by Sheridan.
@@peterlepper5199 o ok so In his head he thought he was “helping”. But in reality is was just letting the Indians assimilate into society because he thought there lives would be better in a “civilized world” I do know that he prevented genocide attempts which is good on his part at least.
I always find it fascinating that lost causers likes to say that Grant killed Indians, while conveniently forgetting that Lee and the rest of the Confederates fought for a government that was formed to explicitly enslave people.
Guess the whole "they were just fighting for hearth and home" does not apply when demonizing the North.........
This reminded me of my high school teacher talking about it. We didn't spend too much time going over it, but a rough approximation of what he said was "The southern military was focused on winning every battle and gaining personal accolades, the northern military was trying to win a war. So, yes, the south won a lot more battles, but they tended to be smaller-scale. Northern generals were more willing to retreat from positions that had little value if it meant keeping more soldiers and being in a better position to win the key battles."
Is kinda fitting how Davis compared the South to cavaliers and the North to Cromwell and in the end just like the royalists his army was commanded by a bunch of aristocratic fops more concerned with personal glory than with anything else
Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan, proposed at the beginning of the war, anticipated the Union's eventual strategy very accurately.
I think that the fairest thing one could say about this is that, especially early on, the Southern commanders tended to be superior tacticians relative to Union commanders. However, their many victories also tended to be sterile because they were having to wage largely defensive campaigns.
Makes sense, I learned that Lincoln used the telegram to give orders to everyone, so a coordinated larger scale view of the war makes sense
@@MollymaukT The Cavaliers were not fops but they were out for personal glory but that was the way of things then. Cromwell was a beastly man although King Charles 1 should have recognised Parliament from early on and had He done that Cromwell wouldn’t have had any thing to raise an army for.
I don't see how calling Grant a drunk makes your generals look better. If anything you've just owned up to the fact that they were so inept they couldn't even beat a drunk.
imagine trying to take pride in being beaten that thoroughly by a drunk... makes you wonder about some people...
This reminded me about how I keep saying “Either Hillary Clinton is not this nefarious criminal you think she is, or the Republicans you keep electing are too stupid to prosecute her, which is it?”
@@BinaryVoodooDoctor She's a student of Kissinger. Avoiding prosecution is a learned art.
@@rangergxi For what crime? There is nothing. And you know her opponent looked for ANYTHING the last 30 years. There is nothing.
@@Hdtk2024 I would consider American foreign policy to be quite criminal.
Yes, Grant did win by having superior numbers. Part of winning a war is to know your advantages and use them.
Having superior numbers doesn't hurt, but it's HOW you use them that matters most. Look at Thermopylae. Numbers counted for nothing when they tried to charge a tiny bottleneck. The Persians only won because they were tipped off about an alternate route that allowed them to surround the Spartans. Grant had the numbers, the equipment, and the creativity to win important strategic victories, and all with lower casualties (both in percentage and numbers) than Robert E. Lee. He didn't just throw men at an enemy position until the rebels ran out of bullets.
@@pyromania1018 Were the Persians tipped off, or properly scouted out the alternate route? Don't blindly trust nationalistic propaganda. ;)
@@ElBandito they were tipped off by another soldierfighting alongside the spartans, as it wasnt just 300 spartans but an additional 2-4000 troops coming from other greek states. One thought the war was already lost, so let the persians in exchange for a more peaceful overtaking rather than a ransacking of Greece as the Persians promised when the Spartans acted like… well spartans
@N Fels True, it was 300 Spartans, over 1,000 slaves, and many others who don't get much focus against an army that certainly didn't number almost 2 million. And it may have indeed been a scout rather than a traitor. But you get what I mean, right? Under the right circumstances, numbers count for nothing. It's how you use them that matters.
You are correct that the Spartans were not as formidable as they were portrayed as: once other Greek city-states started using proper tactics and strategy, they mauled the Spartans with hardly any losses, kind of like how Grant acted like a proper general instead of a wannabe movie star. They also spent considerable resources oppressing a slave population: that "wolf" was, in actuality, a random slave minding his own business.
@@pyromania1018 what you are saying about using superior numbers, I completely agree with. Look at McClellan, burnside, hooker they all have superior number and “merely failed to win!”
I love how Johnny goes from “It wasn’t about slavery” to openly calling the Union Army the Abolition Army.
That's actually a term you often see in actual Confederate propaganda of the time. For example, Jefferson Davis responded to the emancipation with his own proclamation, in which he denounced the Union army as "mercenaries for abolition".
@@TheStapleGunKid
And somehow people can still think that the war wasn't about slavery........
Conservatives have always been the same.
@@vehx9316 Its not that they think the war wasn't about slavery, its that they lie about what they know.
Well, then. We made Neo-Confederate belief extinct!
The way Johnny Reb hissed at the mention of Grant's name was like a vampire being spritzed with holy water, or a cat being spritzed with regular water.
Now I’m wondering if cats are religious and all water is holy to them. And this is why all house cats hate water, because they are little furry demons.
@@ComedicLetter holy shit………………….
@@ComedicLetter Nah. Some of my brattiest cats don't react much to getting sprayed.
@@paulastiles5507 they’ve become too powerful
@@joepetto9488 that man is made of flesh
Honey wake up, new "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" epsiode just dropped
That’s me. Couldn’t click fast enough!
Also been waiting for this for so long. In England.
@@matthewjames1114 croatia for me
literally made my day seeing this pop up, time to sit back and chuckle about our American cousins
Final one
Thing about Grant being “a drunk” something that often gets overlooked is how we’re now coming to understand alcoholism as a disease and one that can be passed down through the family. Plus in the end Grant beat his alcoholism, in an age where drinking was far more ubiquitous than it is today
Its kinda funny. Literally everybody would be considered an alcoholic by todays standards as far as 19th century America goes.
@@rangergxi then wouldn't that make him worse? Being considered an alcoholic back then really meant you were *BAD*
@@vladdietheladdie7345 by what I’ve read Grant did have it pretty bad. He had a close circle who worked hard to help keep him clean, and throughout the war Grant didn’t go into the battle drunk. And eventually he beat his alcoholism…which I honestly find about as amazing as his time in the army and as President
@@vladdietheladdie7345 Actually, we're talking about a time when the Temperance movement had also picked up steam, so that makes it even harder to gauge how bad Grant's drinking was. Sure, a lot of people drank more and harder than we do today, but the people who didn't also had a more extreme reaction to anyone who was even visibly tipsy in front of others. (I do tend to believe the analysis that suggests that Grant didn't drink often but couldn't stop himself once he started, but do feel the influence of Temperance rhetoric gets overlooked regardless.)
@@erraticonteuse Especially when temperance, like anything else, was used as a political prop. At least some of the People accusing Grant of being a drunk were equally as fond of the bottle, and simply using the booze angle as a convenient character assassination vehicle.
Lee: I'm going to mount this gigantic raid into Pennsylvania and suffer huge casualties in order to mount a campaign of no strategic significance! I am the best general!
Meade: Bring it.
Right before Forrest’s speech to the Black Civic’s Union part of the video. It said “Nathan Bedford Forrest said” then it cut to an Arby’s commercial saying “new chicken nuggets every day value” and now I’m just imagining him shouting about chicken nuggets to a crowd of black political leaders.
🤣🤣🤣
Nothing better to defuse tensions than good old chicken nuggets.
Do you know how many likes I wish I could give you
I got a Papa John’s ad
@@PanzerLord ironic… isn’t it…
At last, Atun-Shei's beard has grown long enough for another Checkmate Lincolnites episode
so we just will have to wait till he can get a Custer Mustache? :D
next episode Jackson's Beard is gonna look like a goatee.
I think that's actually what determines his upload schedule for these videos.
@@d.n5287 It is. It really is.
All jokes aside, it makes sense because of what the beard entails.
Lincoln didn't send that letter to Meade, but it was nice of him to record it for us, knowing that TH-cam might need it in 2021. Classy indeed.
this is why you should always clear your browser history, one never knows when out of work actors will snap and get political
Makes me think of the Revolution and Washington's brilliance not in winning battles but in tactical retreat. He lost battle after battle but was winning the war. Not flashy and "honorable warfare" but the long view.
now WASHINGTON was a massively overrated general who was poor or mediocre in most aspects aside from intelligence gathering and personal willpower/tenacity.
@@Xian109 he was pretty good with logistics to both his side and using it against the British.
Washington like only advantage is him being unable to lose, despite defeats,
@@nicmagtaan1132 a good reason for that was him knowing when to retreat and when to be cautious to not devastate his limited forces.
Lee lost more men in 7 days than Washington did in 8 years.
Taking big picture into account Washington lost very few battles in the sense he almost always had less casualties than his opposition (the British). His only real major defeat was Long island. Lee won very few battles for the same reason his only real victories were Bullrun, Chancellorvile and Fredericksburg
I continue to insist to this day that William Howe would've crushed Washington if he had been taking the war 50% more seriously. I for one used to believe the rebellion was the good guys and the British Armed Forces was the bad guys and since I know better than that, such a position is ridiculous.
When we needed them the most Billy Yank and Johnny Reb returned
The Union is saved!
Re: Forrest:
That whole section illustrated a big issue I have with military history: divorcing battlefield exploits from the human, political and moral dimensions of their exploits ends up exalting monsters and excusing atrocities.
Thank you for not doing that.
That is interesting since a small reaction channel understands bringing their issues when discussing a person but less relevant when discussing battlefield abilities. I do agree with this sentiment, when the Bin Laden comparison is brought up.
I actually disagree because we already know what these men did before and after the war and from a historians perspective if you are comparing them as generals the morality of the human being does not affect the strategy of these men and just because you don't talk about the horrible things these people did in a video that's supposed to talk about military achievements or the lack thereof doesn't mean you are honoring them it just means that you are talking about them as a general. People need to understand the difference. Now when morality crosses a line on the field of battle case in point the fort pillow massacre that absolutely belongs in this video. But taking fifteen minutes to talk about the morals of NBF as a Clan member and Lee as a slave owner just doesn't belong in this video. And to be clear Lee's morals do need to be talked about more, people nowadays have romanticized Lee as like this perfect individual well he is actually a incredibly horrible person, but it doesn't belong in a video about military achievements. I would suggest watching vlogging through history's reaction to this video he is a historian who specializes In American History during the civil war and makes some really good points in his video while also adding alot to it.
@@Cody435 You would be right, if this was a discussion between two well meaning martial history enthusiasts. But this was always about the whole debate surrounding these generals and the framing of the conflict. These videos began with the idea that it was "the war of northern agression" and such were always all about the way we think about these events, and never just about clean cut comparisons of certain aspects of the conflict.
That's of course most egregious in the cases of the Second World War and the Civil War... Almost as if there is a certain thru-line between them...
@@Cody435 the problem is that most people are not divorcing the battlefield from the man.
Sure, it would be great if we could discuss a perfectly spherical battle in a vacuum, but the human brain links "badass general" and "badass person" too readily to not put things in context.
"General Lee, what about the Western theater?"
"There's a Western Theater?"
😂
Lol
"If I close my eyes it is not there"
“What about the Shenandoah River Valley?”
Everyone always forgets about the brutal fighting in the Trans-Mississippi Theater. Though did not have the massive armies of the Eastern/Western Theaters, the Trans-Mississippi was just as, if not more than, brutal.
I love this series so much. I love how you break down misinformation without glorifying important figures. When Union commanders and/or soldiers do reprehensible things, you call them out on it. Plus you correct any mistakes you make!
I've rewatched this episode a couple of times now and the line "If only Sherman spontaneously combusted at the Battle of Chattanooga!" never fails to get a laugh out of me
The rebs would have needed luck like that to win against him
@@Daedalus9393 Strategically - yes. Tactically - nah, a single Sherman's blunder was enough for Johnston to win the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. But that didn't change a thing, because Sherman learned the lesson and continued to flank Johnston, making him retreat.
@@kristaskrastina2863 fair enough, I wasn’t so much trying to imply that he was the greatest commander of all time more that the confederate mythologization of their own commanders is largely unearned
@@kristaskrastina2863Essentially, the best comparison to Sherman I've seen in media is Gamera. Occasionally loses, pretty frequently does something absolutely terrible, but never loses the same way twice and is very easy to project as a hero when he opposes something even worse.
I'd like to formally apologize for what he just said about Judah P. Benjamin.
For those who found the nightmare inaudible: "Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works."
Thank you.
Thanks for this.
A reference to Grant's first great victory at Fort Donelson.
My high school American history teacher had this to say about the Confederates:
"The Southern ruling class was in many ways philosophical if not literal descendants of the Cavaliers during the English Civil War."
And it's appropriate because Jeff Davis explicitly used the name "Cromwell" to describe the Union in a number of his speeches and writings. The Cavaliers were all about looking dashing while committing fancy, grandiose maneuvers... that failed to accomplish anything. The Roundheads, by contrast, were all about practicality, appearance be damned, and through this, they ultimately won. But the Confederates didn't seem to remember that.
@Jackson Attilio Good point. It's like, if there'd been any real substance to the Dixie they were defending, it might've worked. As it was, they stood to in the defense of personal aggrandizement. A place of such selfishness that it needed slaves to demonstrate its self-importance. This 'look at me' style of being might feel good and look good, but all that 'me' attitude in the south leaves little room for any 'us' solidarity; and a regiment of unified 'us' troops will always defeat a brigade of 'look at me' soldiers. The southerners failed to bank on the 'United' part of the country's name; in every way it was always poised to defeat a self-indulgent Dixie.
They also willingly shed blood defending that last, most distasteful vice of humanity... slavery. Too selfish to just advance the 'self dying out' of the practice that some notable few of them could foresee. There'd have been nothing to fight over or secede over otherwise. Once the bid to maintain slavery was launched, it couldn't be unlaunched in case of defeat. To leave a legacy of not being the racist manipulators of humanity that they actually were, thus is spawned... the lost cause.
And they absolutely believed that: the sense of superiority came from the idea that they were Anglo Norman aristocracy rather than Puritan peasants and Continental immigrants
@@jonnie106 Those slaves were not for demonstrating self-importance. They were for making money.
@@Sewblon Indeed. The money made via slavery may have been the defining attribute of their self-importance.
It’s also amusing that the southern accents are often so exaggerated (Gone With the Wind style) when in reality they were much closer to the British accent. Particularly those that were educated. There are actual recordings of confederate officers (made in the 1920’s) to prove this. I mean it’s only a generation or two since the War of Independence.
4:38
The argument that slavery wasn't THE issue for the South would have shocked the state governments that seceded.
Every state that seceded, passed a resolution giving their reasons for seceding. Every one of them mentioned slavery in their reasoning.
No exceptions.
Ehhhhhh except North Carolina, which didn't mention slavery in their documents, and Louisiana, who didn't have one. But their delegates sent to Texas showed the reason for secession was slavery.
But slavery was not the reason Lincoln went to war. Lincoln said he would allow the south to keep slavery. Lincoln waged war with the south because he disagreed with the states right to secede from the union.
@@henrysanders6544 wrong, the demand was to remove the institution of slavery at which point the south decided to succeed because they didnt want to be told what they can and can not do with their "property" I really can not fathom how you mouth breathers can look at words written by the very men talking of the refusal to not only relinquish their slaves but to give these poor men the rights to be seen as equals. then say "eRm iT aCtUaLLy wAsnT aBouT SlaVery" you're the real lost cause here.
Last part aged well
@@henrysanders6544read carefully. Stop the whataboutism and deflection. We’re talking about the South. Not Lincoln. The South fought for their States’ rights to uphold and expand slavery. They seceded over slavery.
That demonic monolith voice reading of Unconditional Surrender is probably one of the greatest things I've seen on TH-cam. My lungs are on fire.
I hope someone clips that
26:46
Do you have a transcript? It got a little hard to understand?
@@rileyknapp5318 it’s the unconditional surrender quote by Grant.
@@rileyknapp5318 Yours of this date proposing an armistice and the appointment of rommissioners to settle on the terms of capitulation is just received. "No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately on your works...."
They were SO good, they engaged in a highly advanced and intricate tactic known as losing.
Great quote, even for today.
So Hannibal Barca was a bad general simply because he lost the war due to logistics?
Just say '"I dislike the confederates and will do anything to discredit them even if the implications I am making are false " instead of the mental gymnastics.
@@abdurrahmanqureshi3030 it was a joke mate😂 Settle down
@@abdurrahmanqureshi3030 Hannibal lost because Rome was to stubborn not because of logistics.
@@jetcraneboyd4278 he lost because of logistics. The sheer amount of manpower they could field overwhelmed him
For those interested: "Norman C. Francis Parkway, formerly named Jefferson Davis Parkway or Jeff Davis Parkway, is a street in New Orleans, Louisiana."
Yes, I was wondering about that! Thanks for clearing it up!!
Just renamed this year.
Checkmate Davisites!
My question: who is Norman Francis?
@@maryaigler7651 First black president of Xavier University in New Orleans. He was a lawyer for civil rights protesters and chose to allow the Freedom Riders to stay at the university during his time as dean there.
Nathan Bedford Forrest saying "the n*gro is the only labouring class we have" is one of the best examples of saying the quiet part loud I've ever seen
Bro doesn’t have to censor negro. Its not the n-word
“Sherman is but the apprentice; He…He is the Master…” Perhaps my favorite line from all your videos.
I actually think that it is interesting to see how comparable "clean wehrmacht" types are.
Same arguments, same behaviour, its like you can simply swap them out.
>superiority myth
>they only "lost because the enemy was more numerous"
>hero worship
>racism/warcrime denial
>"but the war was forced on us" arguments
This is pretty spot on.
Now that you mention it, these symptoms are found in all those who support some controversial side in a war. People wasn't kidding when they said history repeats itself.
@@nostur4984 Yeah, i also forgot the weapon statistics fetishism.
I also have a strong interest in military history and equipment (Though the cold war and bronze age are my favourites), but im always shocked about their encyclopedic knowledge of stats, but them not being to able to understand those systems in a context.
The Sherman tank (Funny coincidence) is a good example of this.
Do people try to claim that Germany was forced to go to war against litterally all of its neighbors.
@@ArcAngle1117 you'd be surprised how often they do
@@ArcAngle1117 Yeah, there are different revisionist narratives that claim that poland for example mobilized first, that poland forced germany to war because of the danzig situation, the Gleiwitz incident, because of the treatment of ethnic germans in poland.
There are also narratives that proclaim that germany was forced to war by the british.
Lots of stuff actually.
Forrest: “Now I’m not a racist; I have many African American friends that agree with me…
“But-“
Forrest: I'm not racist. The people I own will vouch for me.
Forest 2024
"i just think they'd be happier if they all subjucated to us under thr3@t uh deth"
"sir as your lawyer you shouldn't have said that"
Forrest Gump is a saint you bastard!
“What do you mean they’re slaves”
The issue with the Confederacies tactics reminds me as a World War II-focused Historian on the issue the Axis had particularly Japan. They thought they could win the in one big decisive battle which constantly led to them losing ships and resources they couldn't afford to lose. While the Allies almost fell into this trap with Operation Downfall, they mostly focused on achieving actual strategic objectives like seizing vital islands keeping the route to Australia open etc.
Yamamoto was right; Imperial Japan was truly lost when they provoked the United States.
Well, Downfall would have been different; there was literally nothing else left to attack. Practically every island that Japan had held was either captured or blockaded; the navy was down to one old battleship, no cruisers, and a singe digit number of destroyers; and every single flyable aircraft was in the home islands.
@@Shaun_Jones But they could still turn Japan into Berlin or Leningrad. They had every citizen ready to fight off an invasion and had their best tanks (read: Ones that could actually counter the Sherman) on the home islands plus jets.
@@emberfist8347 you can’t just take a battle plan that worked for a single city and scale it up to a landmass the size of California. It would have taken years, possibly decades, to starve out Japan. Besides, both Leningrad and Berlin show that that doesn’t always work. Leningrad held out for years and was still standing when relieved; Berlin eventually had to be stormed, block-by-block, house-by-house; it was some of the most brutal and costly urban fighting of the entire war.
@@Shaun_Jones That was my point about having a conventional fight over the Home Islands would be a costly victory at best or a defeat at worst.
I wanted to say that as a Southerner you have changed my views on many subjects and I thank you for enlightening me with your fun and entertaining videos.
Thank you for having an open mind to things that were probably quite hard to swallow.
Thank you for understanding now you shall be granted enough money to go to TAHITI
Doesn’t Dutch have a grudge against southerners because his father died in the civil war?
@Leonard squirrel where did you get that atun shei is a commie? Is it because everyone that you don't like is a commie?
@@laciestein I NEED SOME FAITH, ARTHUR
Best 4th ever
Yes
Checkmate, Doucetteites!
"It's almost as if racism and the Civil War are interrelated." Simple and yet, frigging brilliant exposition.
From what I read not too long ago, the Lost Cause thing and Jim Crow South actually had Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s believing it was a ripe spot for spreading their ideology (as they saw similarities between it and post World War I Germany). Their propaganda effort failed however, as the southerners at that time were primarily of Anglo descent and had strong anti-German sentiment from WWI and even many of them though the Nazis' antisemitism was highly controversial (at least one southern newspaper even awkwardly criticized Hitler for not congratulating American runner Jesse Owens in 1936, rather ironic considering what was going on there during that era). In the end, the frustrated Nazis focused as much effort as possible on the German American Bund.
@Leonard squirrel Only people with water on the brain say that.
@Leonard squirrel Do you even know what genocide is?
@Leonard squirrel We will always have the southern states treasonous acts in our history books. Statues honoring traitors will be in the dumpster where they belong.
If you encounter anyone who tries to claim that the war wasn’t about slavery and the confederacy wasn’t a white suptemacist organization, direct them to the Cornerstone speech. Neo-confederates try to rewrite history, but the actual confederates didn’t beat around the bush when it came to talking about their white supremacist beliefs. Also the letters of secession are riddled with slavery talk, some of them outright say that slavery is the main cause of secession.
I wonder how many military achievements Grant had where he was fighting a hangover during it. I can just imagine, “Just do it this way and win the damn thing, all this gunfire is killer on my headache and on soldiers’ lives so make it stop.”
Grant never drank when on duty, so never. He saved the urge to drink for downtime-when on leave or for a day or two during a long siege.
The timing of the ad break was perfect when talking about Nathan Bedford Forest:
"... in 1875 he gave a speech to a black civics organization in which he said:" *points to camera and instantly cuts to an ad*
"I RECOMMEND NATURE MADE VITAMINS!"
You won't convince me that he didn't put the ad market there intentionally
@@PhycoKrusk I suspect you're right because it's not the first of his videos where the ad break lines up perfectly with a setup like this.
There's another video of his I was watching about Nazi crack pot archeology and he sets up a quote from Hitler and he's like "... Hitler told him:" *suddenly a car ad starts* "Question everything! We do."
I got an ad break right as he repeated a quote twice. Lol I enjoyed that creative editing
Mine was spa commercial. Made it sound like Bedford got up there and tried selling the crowd spa treatments.
I got Grubhub with mine
Confederate: “No sir no, we were doomed from the start!”
Tyrion Lannister: “A stupid rebellion then”
Exactly. some are still sore losers 200 years after...
So said king George
@@MonteKristof Case in point. ^
@@Mw-tr2oz moving an army across the Atlantic isn't the same as moving it across the Potomac
@@jefft5824 I was going somewhere else with that statement
Glad someone finally gave some recognition to George Thomas. What a badass with a badass nickname, "The Rock of Chickamauga".
Also, I like the way my former Civil War professor put it: "Whereas Lee was the master tactician, Grant was the ultimate strategist. Tactics win battles. Strategies win wars."
"Sledge of Nashville"
I always love to rewatch this series, it still amazes me how nicely the dialogue and visuals fit. Also you pick up the small things on rewatches like the whiskey glass coming from off screen and it make it seem like there’s an actual conversation between two different people going on.
As a ranger at a Civil War battle field, I've had basically every part of this as an actual conversation with real people. Not the whole thing in one sitting with one set of visitors, but over time have been told pretty much everything Johnny Reb here said and tried to counter with many of the same arguments used by Billy Yank. Feels like beating my head against a brick wall sometimes...
Fighting the good fight and beating your head against a brick wall are very similar tasks.
@@BradyPostma God's honest truth, amen :p
Grant was an idiot and Lee was a genius. Railroads, telegraph, and cannon foddle won that war. I hate the shit happened, but if the north had better Generals the shit wouldn't have lasted 4 years. Hell they had to cut off Texas to even have a chance of winning... well that and allowing the middle states to keep slavery and join the union. Shit isn't rocket science the resources won and the north had that in spades. Lee could've ended the war if he would've marched on DC, but the war to him wasn't about what others were fighting for. To him it was a love for his state and he did not want to see the union fall, but he also did not want to see his home fall either.
Well now you can just show them this video.
@@coryflynn6391 Did you even watch the video? Also, if war is a simple matter of resources, explain how the colonies won the Revolution? Or how the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan?
“Longstreet.”
“We don’t talk about him.”
And that’s The problem.
Serous question why don't they? Longstreet seems like a brilliant commander and resourceful tactician from what I've read.
He knew what was happening.
@@kyleott6101 one of the best generals on either side, could even be argued that he was one of the best generals of the 19th century. i could go on im a big fan of Longstreet
Beats lee, beats Jackson, beats Grant, Beats Sherman beats Sheridan etc etc
@@kyleott6101 after the war Longstreet became a Republican Politician in support of Grant who was his friend from the army before the civil war. He was also very critical of Robert E. Lee’s performance in the civil war. He also lead the Louisiana State Militia against the White League in the Battle of Liberty Place. Basically he tried to distance himself as much as he could from the confederacy after the war and Lost Causers hate him for that
@@kyleott6101 Because they wanna blame him for all of Lee's failures like the battle of Gettysburg
Why did your charge at Gettysburg fail?
"I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it" ~General Pickett
I love that quote.
Wait, what? Did Pickett actually say it was Meade's fault that Lee ordered a suicide charge?
@@burninsherman7196 The point is that the Union Army decided to shoot back, rather than just allow Pickett to walk across that field undisturbed.
@@were-owlinwisconsin4441 Ah yes, they can't shoot back because that would be unfair, instead they should just stand there and watch our army charge them. Of course.
@@burninsherman7196 I'd read that more as "they were better than us on that day and in that scenario" and not as "well d'uh, Meade made us do this crazy stunt that could not win".
I like how Billy Yank, whenever Johnny Reb says something bad the Union or Union general / politician did, doesn't argue nor does he say it was good, but rather fully accepts that it happened and even explains the events about it while trying to understand it, in contrast to Johnny Reb who whenever he's told the Confederacy did something bad, either justifies it, makes a whataboutism claim, or denies it
I now choose to believe that neo-Confederate war historians have nightmarish hallucinations about Ulysses S. Grant whenever someone brings him up.
They also have panic attacks whenever they see fire and scream "AH, IT'S SHERMAN! RUN!"
I think they focus on sherman so much as to avoid the mention of Grant's name.
@@WardudeProxies if they speak his name they might get his attention and nobody wants that.
Copium does that to your brain
Why would they when Grant had to use twice as many soldiers to win and still lost a good portion of battles? Also Sherman was nothing compared to even the most mediocre Confederate general and that is just facts.
Finally George Thomas gets a shout out. His innovations such as engineering, medical and mapmaking units; plus his creation and use of the first truly mobile infantry ( us cavalry at the battle of Nashville) stand in comparison Stonewall Jackson.
What did he do with rear arear stuff that was so innovative?
Go check out thersites the historian, him and Sean Chick regularly jizz out over Thomas when they talk about the civil war.
@@seanmac1793 everyone who pretends they didnt giggle at this question is a liar
@@Adamdidit what???????????? Oh nvm I get it heeehee
@@Adamdidit fun fact: I actually hate those jokes, so I did not.
I love how the relationship of these two started with one literally shooting the other to death, and now they’re close friends giving gifts, sharing drinks, playing chess, and occasionally debate each other over sometimes racist beliefs! What a pair!
It's like a metaphor.
Kind of like how the war/after war played out.
They’re going to bang...hard
@@fan9775 🤨
@@heliveruscalion9124 Haaaaaarrrrrddd
I love when an ad plays at the perfect moment.
“Now Billy Yank you know he gave a speech to a black civics organization in which he said…”
YOU CAN NOW GET TWO SIZZLIES FOR $5
Somewhat sadly and ironically, I got a fucking trump campaign ad.
I really liked when the Confederate sympathizer said out loud he likes talking about military history divorced from other subjects because it's more comfortable and safe than the whole picture.
Kinda gives the whole game away, huh?
"Why do we have to talk about this whole 'religion' thing when discussing the Crusades?"
‘’Why do we have to talk about warcrimes? i just want to talk about the Roman Empire! And how cool the romans were!”
"Why do we have to talk about the Holocaust or War crimes, I just wanna talk about the Wehrmacht and how cool the Tiger is!"
Honestly at this point Johnny Reb makes me think of an abused child who convinced himself his parents were great and nothing was wrong but is now being told how shit his life was and can’t handle it… is that why lost causers are so scared to let go they don’t wanna be seen as ancestors of slavers and rebels?
BLACK CONFEDERATES! BLACK CONFEDERATES!
Legit laughed when he did that.
Well to s point: they were black and did serve the confederacy. So he was not wrong. While maybe not listed infantrymen, they did serve. Much like a cook, medic, or spy in the military of that time.
Now were they listed regulars? Thats a different topic.
@@dustinjacks9087
Yes yes we've all seen his video on that topic.
@@dustinjacks9087 slaves working for an arm is very different to slaves serving in an army
There was a highly rated black Creole Militia in New Orleans that wanted to fight but were refused. New Orleans at the time had good race relations.
@@dustinjacks9087, Check out the Fold3 you can see thousands of Black Confederate enlistment cards as infantrymen and calvary men. Too many people assume that they were not given guns but thousands were and we still have the records of them as well.
“Just a minor hallucination”
“Do you…have hallucinations often?”
I’m DYING
Do you not??
Well, he's certainly subject to...
Delusions of grandeur 😎
*Pause*
"No."
Dude I just keep forgetting there’s only one person it’s so good
General Thomas deserves to be remembered. I appreciate your accolades of him.
The Rock of Chickamauga
Naming the abrams replacement after him would be a good way to honor him. The fearsome M2 Thomas tank.
@@jasonirwin4631 I am in favor of this comment chain becoming reality!! ^^
@@themaskedmysadaean8885 Agreed. ✌
Most definitely, sounds like a figure who has been heavily overlooked in terms of his successes.
"[Grant] believed that to wage war meant to bring it to a favorable conclusion as quickly as possible."
Sun Tzu says hello.
"I had black friends during the civil war how could I possibly be a member of the Klan?" Forrest.
He owned slaves who willingly joined his cavalry brigade and given their freedom and some money at the end of the war. Then he joins the klan😳 then he resigns because of the violence. When he got old he joined the fight for black civil rights. His story is amazing. A huge character.
@@asuperstraightpureblood I think today we would rightly call that a "grifter." He had whatever point of view benefitted him at the time. And as for "willingly," are you fucking serious? They didn't "willingly" do shit. THEY WERE SLAVES. Even if you ask a slave what he wants, he's not REALLY free to tell you anything but what you want to hear, or what he thinks you want to hear.
"I had black *employees* " :P
@@asuperstraightpureblood slaves?? Willingly?? Do you even hear yourself??
@@collinsagyeman6131 given the choice to remain on plantation or go out on cavalry raids they CHOSE....
Good generals think about tactics, great generals think about strategy, the best generals think about logistics.
Atun Shei’s beard is now at Jeremiah Johnson levels
so where will he go from there?....Ambrose Everett Burnside?
Maybe he's preparing for a John Brown episode.
What a brilliant video and just in time for America’s annual treason celebration!
Britain did the treason
S I L E N C E, R E D C O A T
Mad old King George committed the treason denying that the rights of Englishmen followed them to the ends of the earth.
It ain't treason if it's successful.
funny how the French never get mentioned as the ringers in that war
I know it may seem like no one is changing their minds no matter what, but this is still a very entertaining and informative series. I never realized how much lost cause mythology found it’s way into the history I was taught in school as a kid (in Pennsylvania, of all places). The civil war is a fascinating era in American History to learn about.
One thing we have to remember is that most American text books are published in Texas. That...has a lot of influence in what goes into them. One state's board of education has a huge influence on public school education for the entire nation simply due to where where the major publishing house for textbooks in the country is. Also, that this is not accidental, on the parts of the people founding it.
I was always confused why we learned so much about Picket’s Charge and other Confederate maneuvers that were left as isolated happenings in the curriculum. The true penetration of the Lost Cause in at least my Pennsylvanian education was the disparagement of Grant’s presidency.
The accusations of his alcoholism, or at the very least abuse, were touched here for a moment, but they went on to mar his legacy as one of the best presidents in the history of the Union. Not to mention the fact we focus on the corruption surrounding him (which he fought), but the fact he did the most for Civil Rights until the modern era and the 1968 civil rights act. He was a legendary President and we need to restore his story. The South can lionize themselves all they want for what I care, but the North ought to Romanticize our history as well. There is no sense in believing the greatest American of his age was less than who he was.
gotta love Checkmate Lincolnites!
@@alexdiaz155 thank you for posting this. I am from Philly and went to catholic school which compared to the public schools were a huge step up but it wasn’t til my junior and senior year of high school I really got into history. I was always good at retaining facts like that but even in an honors American History class I beat the teacher with on of those Brain Quest quiz card things (if I won everyone got an extra ten points on the test). It was actually my HR teacher, don’t laugh.. Mr. Weiners who got me heavily into current events and then I had him senior year for AP Gov which the class was more of an open discussion about things than “textbook says xyz”.
I just recently got more into the Civil War by way of Chernow’s book on Grant. I was shocked to find most of my prior assumptions were based on the fake news of the south pushing “Lost Cause” mythology. But yes, Grant was a binge drinker but it was always alone with nothing going on for long periods of time, never during battle.
He also had a much lower casualty rate than Lee but was called a “butcher “ while Lee was held up as a god. He also appointed the first Native American to a cabinet position, created the justice department that crushed the KKK (before the reformation in the 20s) because no white sheriff or juries would arrest and convict them. There are tons of other things like create the first national park instead of selling to investors, and there was corruption around him but never once was he personally implicated. In fact, the only reason he wrote his book while dying was because he’d been swindled out of his life savings at the time by the 19th century version of Medoff.
@@alexdiaz155 For some reason we just spent like 15 minutes on where I live. I don't even live that north (on the Ohio River).
Upon further review: you went with "Davisites" and I can't help but feel "Secessionites" would've rolled off the tongue more smoothly, even if its not exactly following the nomenclature conventions of "Lincolnites".
"How is that humble pie?"
"It's a little dry..."
KIlled me
Explain
@@General_Rubenski "Humble Pie" is a term people say to mean that you have to figuratively eat your own words. That you were wrong or embarrased about something.
Say you brag that your local sports team is going to win the big game, the they get their asses kicked. You have to eat your humble pie.
Also sometimes refered to as "eating crow"
Making it a literal pie that the guy was literally eating was a funny little joke
@@bigrigjoe5130 It's also a meat pie made of the cast off parts of an animal so is the lowest quality possible.
If Sherman had spontaneously combusted, I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have stopped running until he had personally burned Atlanta to the ground..
That is some fucking Fire Punch shit
William Tecumseh Sherman: the original Human Torch.
@@thomaskole9881 fun fact the robotic human torch was based off old blue prints made by général sherman himself
Billy Sherman, there human torch. Now that’s an anime I want to see.
I would argue that Sherman DID spontaneously combust in a way...his anger at the death of his favorite son due to disease from the war was, IMO, a serious motivation on his hardened views towards civilians and destruction in 1864 and 1865.
George H Thomas married a woman from Troy, NY where I was born. His wife had him buried there over West Point. I visit it and John Brown's grave whenever I visit NY. Thomas is an adopted New Yorker, we claim him. We stan for Thomas and John Brown.
John Brown was a Conneticuter though.
@@danielcampion251 and his farm where he was buried is near Lake Placid NY. The township was bought by an abolitionist who wanted a community for liberated Blacks and White abolitionists.
@@HamSaladtv I visited JB's grave in Lake Placid in the early 90s. It's practically in the shadow of the Olympic ski jumps and the high peaks of the Adirondacks (Mt. Marcy) are clearly visible. It is a beautiful spot and the grave itself is marked by a large plaque on a huge glacial erratic boulder. Highly recommended to any Civil War buffs who pass by, a great place to break a road trip and have a lunch or rest under the shade of the trees.
Next door in W. Mass. we stan for John Brown as well, he spent a number of years hustling wool in Springfield, Mass. before heading out to Kansas.
As I like to say as a proud Northerner:
The Confederate flag might be their heritage. General Sherman turning Atlanta into an inferno is my heritage. And a proud one at that.
yay war crimes!
We found Stuart's cavalry. They're hiding in Atun-Shei's beard.
They went in to catch a wagon train
Best thing I remember from History class was how Grant accepted Lee's surrender in his battle uniform while Lee was in his dress uniform, since Lee was thinking this was an "important historical moment" while Grant was busy with more important shit than listening to Lee
It was actually a funny twist of history, as Grant hadn't expected to see Lee so early and had ridden ahead of his HQ wagon that contained his better clothes - but vain til the end, Lee had worn a brand new uniform that had been sent to him.
What’s funny is how if the opposite were the fact, the criticism would still be on the later: “Grant showed up dressed to the occasion while Lee showed up like an unkempt slob.”
…Could you imagine if Hitler was fat? The field day people would have.
@@Garl_Vinland Hitler was shorter than his generals, and wouldn't have even met the height requirements to join the SS.
It was typical Grant. His uniforms would always be muddy and dusty because he led the men alongside them. Rarely putting on airs while getting his hands dirty.
@@luodeligesi7238 Dude was a trim man of average height
"See you in hell Billy Yank.."
"Cya in hell Johnny Reb"
had my heart on tears god damn.
"Naval Power? What board game were you playing?"
You have no idea how badly I wanted to see a world of warships sponsor right there.
Not only was Grant a great general, he was so handsome that my mom named her firstborn son after him.
Thanks Mom.
Okay but did she name you Hiram or Ulysses or Grant?
@@jeansmith4053 That is an important question.
I get it...
Ulysses was going to be my middle name until my parents realized my initials were IUD.
@@itsmannertime Jesus
"General Lee was a better tactician, General Grant was a better strategist " - General James Longstreet in his book "From Manassas to Appomattox"
That's pretty well right. Lee, for all his "brilliance", realized only too late that the way for his side to win is by digging in and inflicting casualties from a defensive posture. His victories were costly, and his side could not replace the numbers or equipment so easily. Perhaps the thought was smashing victories would end the war, but for all of the trouble Lee gave everyone before Grant came west, the war was being lost. The idea that Gettysburg was the turning point is overblown, after all. Not only was Vicksburg the key defeat, in both cases the outcome was almost certainly decided. Vicksburg was finished, whether it came on July 4 or sometimes after. And even if Lee had carried the day at Gettysburg, it would merely be a slightly higher peak before the decline that was already guaranteed by the war's years of casualties and destruction, which only one side could weather for years.
@@ElCrab
Even if Lee “won” at Gettysburg, it would have been such a tremendous cost that to call it Pyrrhic would be an understatement
My problem with Lee is that his accomplishments were all in Virginia his home state. As soon as he left he got killed twice
@@warlordofbritannia It also doesn't really reflect well on him that he chose to come gallivanting up here to Pennsylvania while Vicksburg was desperately in need of help (and begged him to send it) and had far more strategic importance to the Confederacy's objectives.
@@warlordofbritanniaAlso, had Lee tried to engage Meade at Pipe Creek (which would be necessary to march on D.C.), his army would have been destroyed.
It's worth pointing out for those unfamiliar that Atun-shei was (if i'm reading this correctly) a believer in the Lost Cause Fallacy. I encourage whole-heartedly the gentleman to correct me, but all the same it makes this content far more interesting. Realizing that once upon a time he may or may not of held some of these opinions close to his heart and realized after a time the insanity and absurdity of them. In a way it makes it less a metaphorical and yet also a literal mocking of his past self.
Yeah, he talked about it at the end of his video about Gods and Generals
And it wasn't (relatively) a long time ago; if I recall correctly, the even that made him change his mind was the Charleston church shooting
Nearly anyone his age or older that grew up in the south was. The Lost Cause mythology was (and often still is) taught as the "real and true history" in grade school.
From what I recall of a recent video of his, having an ass of a time remembering when that was I believe it was a qna, he goes into detail that he wasn't that big on it it was just a backdrop he often accepted as fact. It wasn't like today when you look at how some people see it as biblical or likewise as lies and such.
Basicly he grew up with it as a constant white noise, he had things for it but he didn't really start going into it until he became interested in the topic beyond the veil of what he was taught. But again hope I am not misconstrued in saying this things since he even made a joke about it in his qua about trying to create a profile out of a few sayings lol.
I grew up with the lost cause ideology. That changed when I saw a war memorial I think in Camden Maine which referred to the war as the war of the rebellion. I never thought of it that way. I’m not really happy about taking down monuments but if the locals want it I acquiesce. It just leaves an eyesore in its place. History is much more complicated than is taught usually and the winner normally sets the tone except in the US civil war. That is an anomaly.
I stood up and cheered when Ben Grierson was mentioned. Was waiting for it and I was not disappointed. Great calvary officer despite having to overcome a lifelong fear of horses due to being sent to Narnia via horsekick as a kid. He's a commander who can claim a winning record vs Forrest (::meatloaf voice:: "because 2 outta 3 ain't bad..."). Additionally his postwar conduct was honorable towards the buffalo soldiers and the native Americans. A solid stand-up guy.
One thing that might have contributed to Grierson’s success in that raid was that he brought along a few extremely lightweight artillery pieces. They were 2-pounder guns, and only weighed 256 pounds; four strong men could pick it up, and 8 strong men could carry it some distance if needed.
“Native Americans should have just prepared to get invaded”
“WELL THAT’S NOT FAIR THE UNION WAS INDUSTRIALIZED THE SOUTH WASN’T PREPARED TO BE INVADED”
Prepared by... developing immunity to a disease which emerged thousands of years after they were isolated before they knew the Old World existed. Yeah, fair bit more difficult than building a few factories.
@@warweasel2832 And the South also started the war. Starting a war when you're unprepared and then whining about it really is something
Dang it! Pick a lane!
Grierson is legit. He was not only an incredible commander, but he was known for his excellent reputation among his Black troops and sympathy with Indigenous tribes, at the detriment to the relationship with other white officers. He was unique among officers in either army.
There's a reason natives supported the confederacy
@@bocchithean-cap3404 Ah yes, because you can boil down the dozens of tribes that fought in the civil war (or adjacent to it) as "natives", different tribes fought for both sides, even individuals of the same tribe were split in support. The Dakota fought the Union, but they didn't fight for the confederates, weren't even allies. The five civilized tribes were somewhat split (despite them all having slavery), a majority of the seminole fought for the union, and sizeable minorities amongst the other 4 fought for the Union as well, and even a majority of cherokee and their leader supported the union despite the tribe fighting for the confederacy due to the support of the land owning elite. More neutral tribes would often use the war as an excuse to launch raids on and fight rival tribes, or even members of the same tribe using it fight local civil wars.
@@tntsummers926Seeing the profile pic, prior comments, as well as the tone of this one should tell you that the degen that you're speaking to doesn't care about native peoples... Or facts... Lol.
@@TSmith-yy3ccmy guy he doesn’t have a profile picture. He’s being truthful about the various tribes. They various tribes and nations were not a single bloc, and they reacted to the war as you would expect anyone to: they used it to further their goals.
I thought natives backed both sides.
“The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics” - General Robert H Barrow (USMC)
It wouldn’t have mattered if the Confederates had better Generals, if you couldn’t keep your soldiers properly armed, clothed, and fed you’ll lose the war. The Union had this in abundance and can replace soldiers and lost equipment faster than the Confederates can.
Yet, some how Americans did it against the British.
@@lrussell6032 the British had a communication and supply line spanning the Atlantic and requiring two months to traverse. They also had to fight in Europe and Asia and the sea at the same time, they won in the European theatre and the Asian one, but ultimately lost the American one due to Spanish and french support, Their own mistakes, being stretched thin and of course, American generalship and strategy.
@@lrussell6032 The French did help in that. Plus they're were events happening over seas
@@lrussell6032 the US was fighting on their own territory while the British had to send all their supplies across the Atlantic. When the French navy defeated the British Navy at the Battle of the Capes, the British logistics was completely cut off. No more fresh Troops or equipment are coming from the British Empire.
US did not only receive help from France, but also from Spain.
@UCNjdx9tHEJpXWcD7OD-wbow oh fuck you mean the county with the home advantage won