Logistics is the winning hand. When they asked WW2 Nazi officer what general they feared the most. Their answer was General Motors, by that they meant the industralization of the US. They supported 2 fronts, Pacific, European, fed the Brits, supplied the Soviets.
Providing materiel to the Soviets is a small price to pay to keep the Soviets fighting the Germans before the most opportune time to open the second front.
@@davidweum the Soviet's had their own good reasons to want to fight the Germans. If anything its America coming to save Soviet Russia from thei neighbors. Other than that telegram to Mexico America didn't have a lot of reason to actually fight Germany other than to protect their allies. Paid our debt to France on a military scale twice over. But our homeland wasn't actually threatened, realistically.
@@ericjardine8210 :: The telegram to Mexico happened during WWI. You are confusing the 1st war with the 2nd. And your homeland would have been threatened if German Nazi had completed solidly its conquests. Germany would have triple its territory, and ten-folded its resources, by taken over the Ukrainian agricultural zones, the oil of the Caucasus. And all the European countries serving them. Germany ambitions were gonna be fueled by victory.
@Brad Watson I let a fart build up earlier. I swear I rose about .5 to .75 inches off the couch when that SOB was loosed from it's colonic moorings. And then of course, my GF walks in a says she thinks her car keys are in the couch cushions. Asks me to move so she can look. I have the worst luck Brad. She was a hottie.
@@sylviahacker6695 I was born and lived in the southeast most of my life and live now in Western North Carolina. I had the exceptional benifit of private schooling, traveling the U.S. and abroad, etc. I can tell you that things have not changed in this area in 35 years. The exception being large cities, but not in South Carolina, the dumbest state on our map.
@@hunterpursell1693 I beg your pardon. I wasn't speaking of you specifically. Maybe you are an exception to my generalizations, but my generalizations have stood the test of time, unfortunately.
Stoneman's Calvary was based out of Knoxville Tennessee. They were mainly SOUTHERN men who tore up those tracks. They were given the task of putting out the last of the rebellion and came down hard on their Southern neighbors. Most of Eastern Tennessee voted to stay in the Union and never sympathized with the Southern cause.
Oh god yeah, thats dedication alright. And the courage to fight after the loss of limbs. Not like they put him under to do surgery like we have it today. Tough as nails, dont think i would be man enough to walk in his shoes.
@@brianl1813 I remember seeing a study on the behavioral changes and aggressiveness of military leaders after surviving such injuries. Richard Ewell went into Gettysburg minus a leg. Maybe it affected his decision to not take that hill on Day 1?
Why not? Just position yourself behind his remaining limbs. Have you ever seen a Civil War quadruple amputee? Probably the safest place on the battlefield.
There's an old military adage: "Amateurs talk tactics,; professionals talk LOGISTICS". British Gulf War commander, Sir Peter be la Billierre used it on a number of occasions. Being "fustust with the mostest" is attributed to a Confederate general describing his cavalry unit’s consistent victories in the Civil War. And I vaguely recall that Soviet Marshall Timoshenko was an early user of, " Quantity has a quality all of its own".
The price paid in their physical death for a vision they hoped for uall, their descendants to relish and enjoy freedom, liberty fully yet the cycle begins again because many have lost the original intent and the reverence of GOD in how YOU treat another.. Revisit YOUR inner thoughts and fundamental beliefs... YOU are never more appreciative about the freedom YOU have unless you've participated in the process of its retention... Destruction is not an option either to achieve "reset" or "reconciliation" that works for ALL... Not just a select few. Consider this...: ALOHA...PEACE
My 3rd great-grandfather was a private in the 57th Illinois Infantry Regiment, which took part in the Atlanta Campaign, the March to the Sea and the Carolinas Campaign.
I’m from Tennessee and i live in georgia so i despise Sherman. However, he was right about the fact that war is cruelty. We would be well served to understand this is modern conflict.
What is interesting to me is that Sherman was opposed by no Army after Atlanta. Hood took off and wrecked the hard-luck Army of Tennessee at Franklin. Maybe the Confederate hierarchy should take some of the heat for allowing Sherman's freedom of Action.
Hood was aggressive, but he used up his army attacking entrenched Union soldiers. Johnson was more conservative about attacks that would decimate his own army. The battles of Franklin and Nashville epitomised Hood's approach to fighting. The result was that his army was destroyed.
That McPherson didn't give himself up when he knew to flee was certain death is a hell of alot of courage. He knew he'd be exchanged and the confederates would demand a whole division for him. That said Thomas was better than McPherson. Sherman and Grant just didn't want to admit it.
MacPherson was almost like a son to Sherman; he was very fond of him personally(don't know about Grant's feelings) but that's why Sherman took it so hard.
I think someone wrote or said about General Howard 'If he isn't fighting, he'd probably start preaching to his troops.' Howard wasn't exactly a great general and his troops really didn't care about his religious fervor. But what was important to Sherman was that he knew Howard could be trusted not to scheme behind his back for his own purposes and advancement.
I seriously doubt Sherman worried about anyone scheming behind his back to assume the mantle of leadership he bore. He and Grant were best friends and Grant was the only military man Lincoln trusted.
@@davidkoloc1313 Regardless his relationship with Grant it would still be a factor on Sherman's mind, if not for his leadership position, then for for smoothness and uniformity for command. Every military history I've read touches on the fact that big-wigs have opposing agendas with either their civilian counterparts or military superiors/equals. Winfield Scott, during the Mexican-American War, wasn't given the troops or supplies he was promised simply because congress (which voted for the war) was afraid he would win public favor for his victories and then seek office. George Washington and Lafayette often hamstrung each other's efforts initially because they had different, conflicting agendas until Washington condescended to work with 'Fayette. Erwin Rommel aggravated the German High Command because of his aggressiveness, he blew off orders not to attack leading to defeats that cost Germany Africa. Even Napolean had to change his order of battle when his field marshals acted in opposition to his wishes.
@@Hominid.11 I appreciate your knowledge and take on this matter but disagree in part with some of the assertions and parallels you draw. Despite a tendency on the part of some (particularly Americans) to mis-categorize it, the relationship between the French and the colonial Americans was (politically speaking), very much the old ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend’ kind of situation. The French were, and had been, fighting the British across the globe for years. The notion the French just showed up because they were asked to, and unquestionably or explicitly followed the orders of an inexperienced upstart like Washington is silly. It ignores reality and context... that being the existing geopolitical situation during which the American revolution had emerged. Washington’s desires dovetailed temporarily with the active, longstanding strife between the French and the British. Much the same thing occurred when the United States joined the fight in World War One and Pershing wisely decided (in large part) to disregard France’s request that US commanders sit by and their forces simply be folded into the ranks and strategy of the French military command. As for Rommel. It was neither his tactics or their results which irked Hitler. It was his (necessarily) being left out of the loop for the first time by Rommel’s evolved actions. Rommel was the first General in the blossoming realm of mechanized warfare to recognize the tactical prudence of both leading from the front and the indisputable advantage and necessity of real time decision making in the face of ever quickening warfare. In short, the state of communications at the time could not keep pace with the kind of timeliness this new mode of warfare, in such a remote location, demanded to succeed. It’s true Hitler wasn’t keen on this reality initially but he grew to accept it. Indeed, his trust in Rommel’s savvy as a General was probably second only to Model’s, and continued to grow until Rommel’s implication in the plot to kill Hitler and end the war in 1944.
@@davidkoloc1313 I meant to convey that Washington's plans conflicted with Lafayettes at the operational level of war. I think my using the term 'agenda' was bad writing on my part because it does connote an overarching goal. And I agree with you about Rommel but I did not mention Hitler specifically as his counterpart in the parallel. He was at the top of the command structure but I really meant other German generals who had competing interests elsewhere. Anyway, I appreciate your comment because I am not that privy to ww2 history, especially the African theatre, so the anecdotes were good reading.
This guy is a great speaker and has a great vibe. The only problem is he relies on these audio recordings of the most unspeakably BAD SOUTHERN ACCENTS! His presentation would be better if he simply read the quotes. Whoever he got to record those quotes would do well to speak in their natural accents because right now they're mimicking some bad version of Gone With The Wind. Being from the South I recoil at bad Southern accents. Worse than rancid milk.
@@shitoryu8 For those who may be unaware that there is no such thing as "a" Southern accent, your sentiment might seem to mean something, it really doesn't, though, for the reason given. Nice example of regional exceptionalism though.
Try being Scottish. Nothing worse than an American attempting a Scottish accent. Sounds like they have rabies and COVID at the same time. Makes my ears bleed.
Thing is it's a group effort and if it's done in a school then the performing arts people get involved and eager young hopefuls jump at the chance to read historical writings in accents
He might be a good speaker but he is woefully ignorant of North Georgia geography and dialect. Do your dang homework. You are on the USG payroll from goodness sake.
Cavalry (ˈkavəlrē) soldiers on horseback. Calvary (kal-vuh-ree) a hill near Jerusalem. A lot of the guides at Gettysburg say it the same way. Excellent, excellent series of lectures!!!!
How is it ironic that George Thomas and Sherman roomed together at West Point? Even in the bastardized use of ironic as "an odd coincidence", the US Army officer corps was a pretty small group. Everybody knew everybody in one way or another.
That's a major part of why the war was such a bloodbath (apart from the technological developments). All these people roomed together, studied together, served together in Mexico and the peace time army, and it would be extremely hard to outwit or outmaneuver people who knew you that well and had spent so much time together. How do come up with something new when there were people who'd known you since college on the other side of the field?
@@pittland44 The American civil war was not a "bloodbath" except for the large number of deaths due to disease. The actual battlefield losses where relatively small compared compared to contemporary wars in Europe.
@@Sphere723 I think that's very dismissive of all the soldiers who died as a result of their wounds (of which there were many). Same thing with soldiers who were disabled, maimed or lost limbs. Do those not count?
@@pittland44 I am just saying that a couple years later in the Franco-Prussian war, the French would enlist a slightly smaller army than the Union and yet suffer more battlefield losses in a war that lasted Half-a-year where the American Civil war lasted 4 long years. Most soldiers who died during the American Civil war died of disease. What made it so bloody wasn't Generals and rifled muskets, but typhoid and cholera. The battlefield was actually safer than the campsite.
@@Sphere723 I'll agree with that. In comparison to the number of dead from battle versus disease in camp, yes. The Civil War wasn't a bloodbath in that sense (and nothing compared to what was to come in WWI). However, in comparison to earlier conflicts (American Revolution, various conflicts with Indian tribes, Mexican War, etc.) the Civil War was a blood bath in comparison.
Please post the rest of these! They are great lectures! I know for sure he has mentioned a talk he gave on Antietam which I have not seen posted and would love to listen to!
Maximilians brother was Emperor Francis Joseph I. There has never been a Francis Joseph II. Her name was Charlotte, and she only became known as Carlota of Mexico later on.
1:26:41 I really doubt they use their ramrods to dig up train tracks. lol This guy clearly has never handled a muskets. Because you would clearly ruin the ramrod, making it no good for the rifle, therefore making your weapon useless. That wouldn’t be good in enemy country.
Soon the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4 will take place: "He will render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore." We will enjoy absolute peace, for all the tragical events will be forgotten, according to Isaiah 65:17: "For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart." And there is more.
to put things into perspective: Prussia did not 'take over' a 'southern part of Denmark'. Schleswig&Holstein were always united. And every treaty about those two underlined that fact. Schleswig was ruled by the danish king, but was not(!) a part of Denmark. Schlweswig&Holstein were by law, treaty and history German states. So when the danish parliament decided to incorporate Schleswig into Denmark, this was in clear violation of several treaties. Accordingly Prussia was not the only state to respond - so did Austria. Also, all the potential allies of Denmark - France, England and others, saw this as well, and refused to aid them. This was not an aggressive move of Prussia trying to expand - this was an aggressive move by Denmark trying to expand, rebuked by Prussia&Austria with either open support or consent of ALL european powers.
So, by treaty an ambiguity certain to lead to adversarial relationships was built into the agreement, we have territorial rights [Germany/Prussia, ] whilst Danes can make legislation regarding the northernmost part of the territory Schlessweig...
This is all blatantly untrue, written by someone who knows nothing of the area's history and who have only read propaganda. Prussia was trying to expand and it used Schleswig-Holstein as a pretext. It wanted to show the rest of the German speaking countries that it was the predominant power in the german area - especially concerning Austria. After the war Prussia annexed Schleswig-Holstein. The areas weren't "ancient German speaking territories", but Danish and Slavic speaking areas that Germans had moved into since Charlesmagne - starting with Hamburg. Why do you think some of the most important Danish archaelogical sites are in the area? Dannevirke? Hedeby? Even the name "vig" is Danish for a harbor friendly coastal area. And Lübeck's original name is Lubice. What is true is the Danish government tried to separate the Danish speaking Schleswig area from the German speaking Holstein area, leaving a large minority of Germans in possible legal limbo in Schleswig. One war had already been fought over it and had been won by Denmark because Russia had forced Austria and Prussia to back off. Noone came to the aid of the Danish in 1864, because what they had done was nationalistic and blatantly stupid - without the backing of any allies.
@@jonbojsenkvrndrup8180 read again what I wrote. Schleswig Holstein were part of the HRE. Population or languages are not important AT ALL. They were 'German' states under the King of Denmark (and not part of Denmark). When the parliament moved to take Schleswig, it broke several ancient treaties. So noone to blame but danish nationalists who wante to expand their borders (something you blame on Prussia). Was that war playing into Prussia's hand? Sure, but they did not start it. They did not even politically maneuver Denmark into a trap. Denmark did it all by itself. For no better reason than to annex in the name of nationalism.
@@methanbreather "Ancient treaties" was the excuse the nationalists in SH used to break free from the Danish kingdom in 1848. In reality nothing of the sort existed, as SH had been under a variety of different rulers over the previous 2 centuries, from Sweden to semi-independent to the Danish crown. It was a litteral patchwork of control. The story repeated itself in 1864 at the death of the Danish king. And Prussia swooped in to show the german states how powerful they were. And now you're talking about DK attacking SH... DK tried to separate Slesvig politically from Holsten and took up position in the Danish fortress of Dannevirke in Slesvig to prevent the invading Austro-Prussian army from invading DK. Which failed, one reason being the frozen Slien. The immediate aftermath of this war underlines just how aggressive Prussia were in pursuing their agenda of uniting the german states under their crown. Attacking Austria in 1866 and France in 1870. But yeah, please keep living in your "Holy Roman" fantasy. The Prussians under Bismarck were major aggressors of the time, which led straight to WW1 - this isn't news to anybody but you!
Thank you for your service General Sherman. Thanks also to Union Generals Meade, Grant, and Sheridan. Confederate armies surrendered to all of you. And you didn't kill enough Confederates.
It seems to me that if they were going to give up Atlanta anyhow Johnson's forces should have somehow moved North to merge with Lee's. Let Sherman do what he's going to do while you attempt to defeat the unions army in the North. Of course it's easier to say it than to do it but I know that Lee was trying to merge his forces by going south it might have been easier if Johnson joined him by going north.
@@adammartin180 probably so. I guess I'm just saying it was one possible bad decision in a world of only bad decisions. They were beat but I think joining the army's might have extended it more which was a big part of the Southern plan at that point. Sort of like the Japanese idea that if there's too much blood shed than the Americans will want out. In this case the northerners and the northern press.
I think by that time there weren't enough supplies to get him to Virginia and certainly not enough to feed his army if he got there. Plus, we think about food for the men; the horses needed it more than the men did. Without horses to pull cannon, caissons, and supply wagons with ammunition the army was worthless. By 1864, the southern supply of fit horses was non existent. That's why Sheridan could so effectively raid the Shenandoah Valley; his opponent's mounts were breaking down.
27 minutes in and there seems to be an excruciating level of detail with much less emphasis on the big picture. I guess I need an introductory overview before attempting this finer-scale dissertation.
Sherman beat Johnson , why , cause it was Johnson lol Maybe Johnson should be called I like a running and when I make my plans the first thing I write down is ....exit plan !!! is there more that needs said ! Was Johnson not on Davis's (I do not like list lol but I got no one else lol)
@Doug Bevins Well said, I must admit, It's been a sad two days for me...after new reading.... to abruptly come to my very own, stark realization of just how bluudy disastrous the war was conducted by R.E. Bobby Lee was my hero, ever since I was about 6. So an older dog can be taught, new history tricks. Slain te'
Sherman drank for 3 days. Because he knew there would be death ! It played on his mind. Like all of us YOU DO WHAT YOU Have TO DO . He did not just get belly rolls. he would drink to the men he lost. That is why he would throw up on his horse. HE LOVED HIS MEN !!! It was very tough on Billy.i would follow uncle billy here and far away
@@josephcockburn7524 You can lie all you'd like, but it will never change the following facts: 1.)The CSA was treasonous and anti-American 2.)The CSA seceded over slavery and admitted as much in their declarations of secession. 3.)The CSA lost. 4.)The "Lost Cause" has fooled nobody but those who willfully ignore the fundamental facts of the war.
Yes he loved his men because they did his bidding with the murder, rape and pillage of Southern civilians. Those were the only people in the south that Sherman had the guts to annihilate.
I was an itinerant piano tuner. I worked Middle Georgia since the late 1970's. A lady in Louisville had her great, great (?) grandmother's four-poster bed. When Sherman's men approached the area, a square chunk of wood was cut out of a bed post and jewelry was placed inside. The wood was replaced and varnished over. The soldiers didn't notice and the jewelry was saved. I was able to see that the block of wood had sunk into the bed post a very slight bit. I am a Yankee and the people were always very nice to me.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory Really? I thought that since Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln were Republicans the south would honor them more than Lee and other Democrats
@@dgoins6 The south was mainly democrat until the 80s when northern migration changed the demographics. The hatred for Sherman is more personal to many Georgians because their ancestors suffered through the destruction of Atlanta and his march to the sea. There isn't the same hatred for Grant and Lincoln.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory modern conservatives claim to be the party of Lincoln. He fought the south against Lee, a Democrat. I'm not sure why modern conservatives are defending statues of Lee when he was on the opposing side of Lincoln. They should honor Sherman.
FOCUS on slides .. he refers to them constantly .. get a camera that blows them up from where the camera is shooting from .. love the topics .. but cannot watch these .. speaker is just a voice .. info in is on the slides ..
ATLANTA 1864 CIVIL WAR BORN 6 JULY 1964. 100 YEARS LATER GLORY TO GOD GOD BLESS AMÉRICA CUBAN LOVE FROM MIAMI FLORIDA THANKS GEORGIA STATE ALWAYS IN MY HEART 11 MARCH 2021
Agreed. Lost Cause boo-hooing will carry on till the end of time but will change nothing about the well-known, well-documented fundamental facts of the war. Lee's army kidnapped and sent south to slavery some 1500 free blacks. The CSA deserved precisely what it got, and Lee's anti-American traitor army should have been grateful they weren't prosecuted for the treason in which they bloodily indulged. Read the declaration of the reasons for secession and then tell me it wasn't about slavery. State's rights to do what, by the way? Also, since the CSA constitution federally banned its states' abolition of slavery, there is proof positive state's rights is a cheap, thin band-aid stuck on a gaping wound. But keep up your boo-hooing, won't change the war's outcome.
If the North or should I say Union had lost the war all these people talking about the south being butthurt and crying about losing would change their tune. The Liberals were telling the conservatives to get over it even before the election of Trump but after the right person won the election the liberals cried and cried and are still crying.
What Sherman did was no different than what Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila did. Sherman changed nothing about war. What do you think all those other guys did when they invaded the enemies territory? Arguably worse!
I have so much respect for Hood. He knew he was fighting an existential war as it was ending. But, he was so outnumbered and fighting battles of attrition. What would we do fighting an existential war?
Hood was awful. Heavily “medicated” because of his wounds, he was out of his mind and killed MANY of his own troops and generals out of spite. Arguably the worst General on the South.
@@mstaples2989 I've heard all that. I saw photos of 12 year olds dead holding the line. In an existential war where do you draw the line? Hood may have been doped up, but he had to break out to the West so as to continue the fight. He may have been wrong, granted, but what would you do as a commander?
@@mstaples2989 I'm tempted to say, " What would you do in an existential war? Hood had to break out. Offensive after offensive in order to break out to the west. That war was technically over, but he had to try. I feel sorry for the Confeferates and their cause. Regardless of their cause, they had to fight on with the only option available. As an American, what would you do? Surrender is not in your mentality nor your vocabulary, nor your mindset. I'm sorry, but I could not surrender either. If you have an open mind, perhaps you will agree.
@@davidweum I have a open mind and any general knows everything’s a lost cause is ethically and morally wrong to just kill people and he murdered thousands of Confederate soldiers including some very good generals because he was angry
@@mstaples2989 He was leading his country in an existential threat. He was surrounded by a powerful Union force. His attacks were designed to break though the enemy lines and to the west. Yes, many good generals and young soldiers were killed, but he commanded the only fighting force remaining. He had to try. And the enemy forced him to make one assault after another. He had no choice ( and he had no hope we know that now), he had to fight on! His was the only force remaining to take on the Union to defend his Country.
After Atlanta Sherman took the best men and the best horses in order to engage in a March to Savannah where he knew he’d be unopposed, and left Thomas with the lesser troops, lesser horses, and the wounded to fight the confederate army which Sherman totally ignored. Once again Thomas proved himself a genius at war while Sherman got the glory for taking a city unopposed
Sherman understood by this time that the war was not about taking cities. It was about destroying the south's ability to continue the war. George Thomas was very good at what he did. Sherman was very good at what he did. Grant was very good at what he did. I don't think any of them thought much about "glory".
@@hisxmark actually, Savannah was Thomas’s idea, he had previously mentioned to Sherman his desire to March to Savannah, only for Sherman to then do it himself. When it came to strategy and tactics Thomas was heads above either Grant or Sherman. Thomas’s ability to win a battle with minimal losses was extraordinary, while Grant’s losses were at times staggering,
@@pyromania1018 please reread my comment and show me where I ever stated that Sherman and Grant weren’t geniuses, as well as how the supposed comment that I never made was wildly inaccurate. I’ll wait for
He was a better general early in the war before his injuries. After Gettysburg he should have called it quits. Davis was stupid to give him such important commands.
im glad they quit making videos... these are almost as intetesting as listening to a person read a book with your eyes closed! they keep putting the camera on the speaker, instead of keeping the camera on the slideshow. imo, i can hear the speaker, no matter where the camera is pointing. i cant see what he is talking about, when the camera is not pointed at the screen he is pointing at. just my opinion
TOO TOUGH FOR A SUSTAINED LISTEN. SOME LECTURES AND CLASSES ARE TOO DETAILED AND HARD TO HEAR FOR AN ENJOYABLE ABSORPTION OF INFO. AFTER A WHILE IT'S LIKE LISTENING TO PAINT DRY.
This man needs to learn the correct pronunciations of names of rivers, towns, etc. Also you can tell he did not do any "On Location" research. If he had journeyed to Jonesboro Ga. he would have learned how confederates held off the Union for a day with a brass parade cannon!
Veiwpoints of the people of the southern USA are not affected so much about losing the US Civil War. The problem was the Reconstruction Period after the hostilities of the Civil War. Corrupt financier's from New York City were buying out land owners for pennies on the dollar. If these northern banksters opened a business then wages were extremely low, often as low as .25¢ per day. Share cropping was the norm for a long time. Tge share cropper had to rent the land, buy the seeds from the northern landowner. Then maybe a 60%/40% split of the value of the harvested crop. That means the New Yor City banker took 60% or more as his take. The sharecropper was left with left with significantly less. The share cropper share paid for the seed, housing rent, whatever was bought as groceries or other items from the landiwners store. This all lasted until the Great Depression. What the Civil War didn't destroy the Great Depression finished. The Unionists amongst you in TH-cam land better be thankful that the suggestion of a generational gurella warfare by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy didn't take hold. There would still be hostilities. Most if the Confederate Generals told the men under their command yo go home and live your lives in peace. Another little tidbit of the Civil War is sweet potato pie. Union soldiers would desimate farm crops. One of which was pumpkins. All plants that had the fruit or seeds growing above ground were destroyed. Sweet potatos grow underground so the Union soldiers could not destroy the sweet potatoes. The sweet potatoes began to be the holiday dessert. Even today most southerns, white or black, have sweet potato pie for dessert.
The Brazil was the south who won war after historic visit the emperor Brazil Pedro ii beyond phone the immigration american confederates till today's keep our tradition and flag up in Brazil the queen music Brazilian is descendent american
Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brasil was visiting the US, attended one of the great exhibitions/world fairs. He knew Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, and decided to continue his tour by one more stop. He was so impressed bi the telephone that it gave Bell the boost he needed to "go commercial".
I had the opportunity to work with Mark Depue. He is a very intelligent man.
My great great great grandfather and his three brothers fought in the 34th Illinois Company F.
Do it again Uncle BIlly!
Sherman’s bowties. Grant cutting Sherman loose was genius.
Logistics is the winning hand. When they asked WW2 Nazi officer what general they feared the most. Their answer was General Motors, by that they meant the industralization of the US. They supported 2 fronts, Pacific, European, fed the Brits, supplied the Soviets.
M
Providing materiel to the Soviets is a small price to pay to keep the Soviets fighting the Germans before the most opportune time to open the second front.
@@davidweum the Soviet's had their own good reasons to want to fight the Germans. If anything its America coming to save Soviet Russia from thei neighbors. Other than that telegram to Mexico America didn't have a lot of reason to actually fight Germany other than to protect their allies. Paid our debt to France on a military scale twice over. But our homeland wasn't actually threatened, realistically.
@@ericjardine8210 :: The telegram to Mexico happened during WWI. You are confusing the 1st war with the 2nd. And your homeland would have been threatened if German Nazi had completed solidly its conquests. Germany would have triple its territory, and ten-folded its resources, by taken over the Ukrainian agricultural zones, the oil of the Caucasus. And all the European countries serving them. Germany ambitions were gonna be fueled by victory.
@@powerdriller4124 I tried to reply with a long 5 paragraph answer but TH-cam deletes my comments when I type Z I 0 N I S M .-.
Please have Dr. DePue do a presentation on the Battle of Antietam.
@Brad Watson The question was about someone's interest in seeing Dr. DePue give a presentation on Antietam.
"A great and a terrible day."
-Governor John Andrew; Massachusetts
@Brad Watson I let a fart build up earlier. I swear I rose about .5 to .75 inches off the couch when that SOB was loosed from it's colonic moorings. And then of course, my GF walks in a says she thinks her car keys are in the couch cushions. Asks me to move so she can look. I have the worst luck Brad. She was a hottie.
157 years later, and middle Georgia still hasn't gotten over it.
Middle Georgia, North Georgia, Western North Carolina, Eastern Tennessee. Rebel flags everywhere. Dumb as dishwater and all Trumpettes.
@@desidaru1118 So you've lived in those areas or perhaps have family ties?
@@sylviahacker6695 I was born and lived in the southeast most of my life and live now in Western North Carolina. I had the exceptional benifit of private schooling, traveling the U.S. and abroad, etc. I can tell you that things have not changed in this area in 35 years. The exception being large cities, but not in South Carolina, the dumbest state on our map.
@@desidaru1118 you sound as ignorant as the people you speak of lol im from N. GA so sincerely f you bud
@@hunterpursell1693 I beg your pardon. I wasn't speaking of you specifically. Maybe you are an exception to my generalizations, but my generalizations have stood the test of time, unfortunately.
Virgil Kane is the name
And I served on the Danville train
'Till Stoneman's cavalry came
And tore up the tracks again....
Stoneman's Calvary was based out of Knoxville Tennessee. They were mainly SOUTHERN men who tore up those tracks. They were given the task of putting out the last of the rebellion and came down hard on their Southern neighbors. Most of Eastern Tennessee voted to stay in the Union and never sympathized with the Southern cause.
If my superior is missing his right arm, and left leg... i dont like my odds following him into battle.
I think Hood deserves respect for continuing to serve in any capacity after losing his limbs. That is a fighter
Oh god yeah, thats dedication alright. And the courage to fight after the loss of limbs. Not like they put him under to do surgery like we have it today. Tough as nails, dont think i would be man enough to walk in his shoes.
@@brianl1813 I remember seeing a study on the behavioral changes and aggressiveness of military leaders after surviving such injuries. Richard Ewell went into Gettysburg minus a leg. Maybe it affected his decision to not take that hill on Day 1?
Why not? Just position yourself behind his remaining limbs. Have you ever seen a Civil War quadruple amputee? Probably the safest place on the battlefield.
@@brianl1813 Shoe. Walk in his shoe.
There's an old military adage:
"Amateurs talk tactics,; professionals talk LOGISTICS".
British Gulf War commander, Sir Peter be la Billierre used it on a number of occasions.
Being "fustust with the mostest" is attributed to a Confederate general describing his cavalry unit’s consistent victories in the Civil War.
And I vaguely recall that Soviet Marshall Timoshenko was an early user of, " Quantity has a quality all of its own".
many in my family tree were in Union 15th corps (Logan), 4th division (Harrow). 2 were KIA and another died non-combat.
My two 4x over great uncles fought under Burnside and Hooker at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Both survived those bloodletting battles.
The price paid in their physical death for a vision they hoped for uall, their descendants to relish and enjoy freedom, liberty fully yet the cycle begins again because many have lost the original intent and the reverence of GOD in how YOU treat another.. Revisit YOUR inner thoughts and fundamental beliefs... YOU are never more appreciative about the freedom YOU have unless you've participated in the process of its retention... Destruction is not an option either to achieve "reset" or "reconciliation" that works for ALL... Not just a select few. Consider this...: ALOHA...PEACE
My 3rd great-grandfather was a private in the 57th Illinois Infantry Regiment, which took part in the Atlanta Campaign, the March to the Sea and the Carolinas Campaign.
My family were Ohio sharpshooters on Sherman's March his personal gaurd.
I’m from Tennessee and i live in georgia so i despise Sherman. However, he was right about the fact that war is cruelty. We would be well served to understand this is modern conflict.
Please post Sherman in South Carolina, thank you!
What is interesting to me is that Sherman was opposed by no Army after Atlanta. Hood took off and wrecked the hard-luck Army of Tennessee at Franklin. Maybe the Confederate hierarchy should take some of the heat for allowing Sherman's freedom of Action.
Hood was a worse general than Bragg by a good margin. He had a few bad options after Atlanta and managed to choose the worst one.
Hood was aggressive, but he used up his army attacking entrenched Union soldiers. Johnson was more conservative about attacks that would decimate his own army. The battles of Franklin and Nashville epitomised Hood's approach to fighting. The result was that his army was destroyed.
@@gkelly941 Poor Uncle Joe. Got the remnants back after Hood destroyed his little army. Davis was an idiot!
True but also credit Sherman for splitting his army and masking his movements. They didn't know where he was heading until it was too late.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory Ahh too true, it's easy to see in hindsight sight but would have been unexpected at the time
That McPherson didn't give himself up when he knew to flee was certain death is a hell of alot of courage. He knew he'd be exchanged and the confederates would demand a whole division for him.
That said Thomas was better than McPherson. Sherman and Grant just didn't want to admit it.
MacPherson was almost like a son to Sherman; he was very fond of him personally(don't know about Grant's feelings) but that's why Sherman took it so hard.
At 22:50 Oostanaula River Pronounced Aus Tuh Gnaw La or Aus Tuh Naw La.. The Aus sounds like someone saying Aus - tralia with a short A
It's probably a bad sign for your army if some of your Generals are "mortal enemies".
I think someone wrote or said about General Howard 'If he isn't fighting, he'd probably start preaching to his troops.' Howard wasn't exactly a great general and his troops really didn't care about his religious fervor. But what was important to Sherman was that he knew Howard could be trusted not to scheme behind his back for his own purposes and advancement.
Which made him very rare indeed in ACW.
I seriously doubt Sherman worried about anyone scheming behind his back to assume the mantle of leadership he bore. He and Grant were best friends and Grant was the only military man Lincoln trusted.
@@davidkoloc1313 Regardless his relationship with Grant it would still be a factor on Sherman's mind, if not for his leadership position, then for for smoothness and uniformity for command.
Every military history I've read touches on the fact that big-wigs have opposing agendas with either their civilian counterparts or military superiors/equals. Winfield Scott, during the Mexican-American War, wasn't given the troops or supplies he was promised simply because congress (which voted for the war) was afraid he would win public favor for his victories and then seek office. George Washington and Lafayette often hamstrung each other's efforts initially because they had different, conflicting agendas until Washington condescended to work with 'Fayette. Erwin Rommel aggravated the German High Command because of his aggressiveness, he blew off orders not to attack leading to defeats that cost Germany Africa. Even Napolean had to change his order of battle when his field marshals acted in opposition to his wishes.
@@Hominid.11 I appreciate your knowledge and take on this matter but disagree in part with some of the assertions and parallels you draw.
Despite a tendency on the part of some (particularly Americans) to mis-categorize it, the relationship between the French and the colonial Americans was (politically speaking), very much the old ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend’ kind of situation. The French were, and had been, fighting the British across the globe for years. The notion the French just showed up because they were asked to, and unquestionably or explicitly followed the orders of an inexperienced upstart like Washington is silly. It ignores reality and context... that being the existing geopolitical situation during which the American revolution had emerged. Washington’s desires dovetailed temporarily with the active, longstanding strife between the French and the British. Much the same thing occurred when the United States joined the fight in World War One and Pershing wisely decided (in large part) to disregard France’s request that US commanders sit by and their forces simply be folded into the ranks and strategy of the French military command.
As for Rommel. It was neither his tactics or their results which irked Hitler. It was his (necessarily) being left out of the loop for the first time by Rommel’s evolved actions. Rommel was the first General in the blossoming realm of mechanized warfare to recognize the tactical prudence of both leading from the front and the indisputable advantage and necessity of real time decision making in the face of ever quickening warfare. In short, the state of communications at the time could not keep pace with the kind of timeliness this new mode of warfare, in such a remote location, demanded to succeed. It’s true Hitler wasn’t keen on this reality initially but he grew to accept it. Indeed, his trust in Rommel’s savvy as a General was probably second only to Model’s, and continued to grow until Rommel’s implication in the plot to kill Hitler and end the war in 1944.
@@davidkoloc1313 I meant to convey that Washington's plans conflicted with Lafayettes at the operational level of war. I think my using the term 'agenda' was bad writing on my part because it does connote an overarching goal. And I agree with you about Rommel but I did not mention Hitler specifically as his counterpart in the parallel. He was at the top of the command structure but I really meant other German generals who had competing interests elsewhere. Anyway, I appreciate your comment because I am not that privy to ww2 history, especially the African theatre, so the anecdotes were good reading.
I sure hope this professor talks about Sherman as a military genius and hero that he is
I love these videos!
This guy is a great speaker and has a great vibe. The only problem is he relies on these audio recordings of the most unspeakably BAD SOUTHERN ACCENTS! His presentation would be better if he simply read the quotes. Whoever he got to record those quotes would do well to speak in their natural accents because right now they're mimicking some bad version of Gone With The Wind. Being from the South I recoil at bad Southern accents. Worse than rancid milk.
Its a shame, a proper Southern accent is very pleasant to hear.
@@shitoryu8 For those who may be unaware that there is no such thing as "a" Southern accent, your sentiment might seem to mean something, it really doesn't, though, for the reason given. Nice example of regional exceptionalism though.
Try being Scottish. Nothing worse than an American attempting a Scottish accent. Sounds like they have rabies and COVID at the same time. Makes my ears bleed.
Thing is it's a group effort and if it's done in a school then the performing arts people get involved and eager young hopefuls jump at the chance to read historical writings in accents
He might be a good speaker but he is woefully ignorant of North Georgia geography and dialect. Do your dang homework. You are on the USG payroll from goodness sake.
Please post talk on battle of Shiloh
Cavalry, not Calvary. Right?
WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THROUGH GEORGA. THE UNION FOREVER
Cavalry (ˈkavəlrē) soldiers on horseback. Calvary (kal-vuh-ree) a hill near Jerusalem. A lot of the guides at Gettysburg say it the same way.
Excellent, excellent series of lectures!!!!
Lol
KAV-ull-ree vs. KALV-uh-ree.
It's funny, bugs me too. It's not hard to say CAVALRY, just like REVELRY.
@@notmyrealname608 Cavalry .
Chevalier
We needed Sherman in Afghanistan
A Sherman in Afghanistan would have exacerbated the situation and caused the Taliban to be stronger.
Great presentation so far, but the Tennessee thing would be way less confusing if he didn’t keep mixing them up.
My great grandfather once gave a donut to Sherman’s aide-de-camp, who passed it to the general. High on the sugar buzz, Sherman laid waste to Georgia.
The Hootchee-Coochee river?
How is it ironic that George Thomas and Sherman roomed together at West Point? Even in the bastardized use of ironic as "an odd coincidence", the US Army officer corps was a pretty small group. Everybody knew everybody in one way or another.
That's a major part of why the war was such a bloodbath (apart from the technological developments). All these people roomed together, studied together, served together in Mexico and the peace time army, and it would be extremely hard to outwit or outmaneuver people who knew you that well and had spent so much time together. How do come up with something new when there were people who'd known you since college on the other side of the field?
@@pittland44 The American civil war was not a "bloodbath" except for the large number of deaths due to disease. The actual battlefield losses where relatively small compared compared to contemporary wars in Europe.
@@Sphere723 I think that's very dismissive of all the soldiers who died as a result of their wounds (of which there were many). Same thing with soldiers who were disabled, maimed or lost limbs. Do those not count?
@@pittland44 I am just saying that a couple years later in the Franco-Prussian war, the French would enlist a slightly smaller army than the Union and yet suffer more battlefield losses in a war that lasted Half-a-year where the American Civil war lasted 4 long years. Most soldiers who died during the American Civil war died of disease. What made it so bloody wasn't Generals and rifled muskets, but typhoid and cholera. The battlefield was actually safer than the campsite.
@@Sphere723 I'll agree with that. In comparison to the number of dead from battle versus disease in camp, yes. The Civil War wasn't a bloodbath in that sense (and nothing compared to what was to come in WWI). However, in comparison to earlier conflicts (American Revolution, various conflicts with Indian tribes, Mexican War, etc.) the Civil War was a blood bath in comparison.
Too bad only a few of those lectures are online.
I'd love to see one by Dr. DePue about Antietam.
Very well presented. You have a new subscriber.
When you lose you never forget when you when you when you win you forget when you lose you never forget when you win you forget
Please post the rest of these! They are great lectures! I know for sure he has mentioned a talk he gave on Antietam which I have not seen posted and would love to listen to!
WWZ
WAwwaswzwsaw saw wwes
B B. B C B. WZe B
Most of my ancestors died freeing the slaves from the Democrats. Now these same idiots call me a racist for having white skin.
@@The_Cyber_Nomad That's not very crescent fresh.
Audio really messed up
Maximilians brother was Emperor Francis Joseph I. There has never been a Francis Joseph II.
Her name was Charlotte, and she only became known as Carlota of Mexico later on.
Should be "The Alabama 1st Cavalry in Georgia" but other than that spot on.
1:26:41 I really doubt they use their ramrods to dig up train tracks. lol This guy clearly has never handled a muskets. Because you would clearly ruin the ramrod, making it no good for the rifle, therefore making your weapon useless. That wouldn’t be good in enemy country.
I wonder if he meant to say Bayonet, that makes more sense as a makeshift shovel.
@@iwritechecksatthegrocerystore Got to be. Solders definitely didnt use ramrods for digging. But they did use them for cooking.
Maybe he meant the ramrod of an artillery piece?
Soon the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4 will take place:
"He will render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore."
We will enjoy absolute peace, for all the tragical events will be forgotten, according to Isaiah 65:17:
"For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart."
And there is more.
Three worst Dramatic Southern Accents 1) Keanu Reeves in The Devil's Advocate 2) Cage in Con Air 3) Whoever did these
LMAO
Cage in Con Air deserved an Oscar.
They are probably pretty spot on for the period. Look at early 1900s southern accents, more similar to this than today’s southern accents.
Sherman: Takes Atlanta.
The South: Why do I hear boss music?
to put things into perspective:
Prussia did not 'take over' a 'southern part of Denmark'.
Schleswig&Holstein were always united. And every treaty about those two underlined that fact. Schleswig was ruled by the danish king, but was not(!) a part of Denmark. Schlweswig&Holstein were by law, treaty and history German states.
So when the danish parliament decided to incorporate Schleswig into Denmark, this was in clear violation of several treaties. Accordingly Prussia was not the only state to respond - so did Austria. Also, all the potential allies of Denmark - France, England and others, saw this as well, and refused to aid them.
This was not an aggressive move of Prussia trying to expand - this was an aggressive move by Denmark trying to expand, rebuked by Prussia&Austria with either open support or consent of ALL european powers.
So, by treaty an ambiguity certain to lead to adversarial relationships was built into the agreement, we have territorial rights [Germany/Prussia, ] whilst Danes can make legislation regarding the northernmost part of the territory Schlessweig...
This is all blatantly untrue, written by someone who knows nothing of the area's history and who have only read propaganda.
Prussia was trying to expand and it used Schleswig-Holstein as a pretext. It wanted to show the rest of the German speaking countries that it was the predominant power in the german area - especially concerning Austria. After the war Prussia annexed Schleswig-Holstein.
The areas weren't "ancient German speaking territories", but Danish and Slavic speaking areas that Germans had moved into since Charlesmagne - starting with Hamburg. Why do you think some of the most important Danish archaelogical sites are in the area? Dannevirke? Hedeby? Even the name "vig" is Danish for a harbor friendly coastal area.
And Lübeck's original name is Lubice.
What is true is the Danish government tried to separate the Danish speaking Schleswig area from the German speaking Holstein area, leaving a large minority of Germans in possible legal limbo in Schleswig. One war had already been fought over it and had been won by Denmark because Russia had forced Austria and Prussia to back off. Noone came to the aid of the Danish in 1864, because what they had done was nationalistic and blatantly stupid - without the backing of any allies.
@@jonbojsenkvrndrup8180 read again what I wrote. Schleswig Holstein were part of the HRE. Population or languages are not important AT ALL. They were 'German' states under the King of Denmark (and not part of Denmark). When the parliament moved to take Schleswig, it broke several ancient treaties.
So noone to blame but danish nationalists who wante to expand their borders (something you blame on Prussia).
Was that war playing into Prussia's hand? Sure, but they did not start it. They did not even politically maneuver Denmark into a trap. Denmark did it all by itself. For no better reason than to annex in the name of nationalism.
@@methanbreather "Ancient treaties" was the excuse the nationalists in SH used to break free from the Danish kingdom in 1848. In reality nothing of the sort existed, as SH had been under a variety of different rulers over the previous 2 centuries, from Sweden to semi-independent to the Danish crown. It was a litteral patchwork of control.
The story repeated itself in 1864 at the death of the Danish king. And Prussia swooped in to show the german states how powerful they were.
And now you're talking about DK attacking SH... DK tried to separate Slesvig politically from Holsten and took up position in the Danish fortress of Dannevirke in Slesvig to prevent the invading Austro-Prussian army from invading DK.
Which failed, one reason being the frozen Slien.
The immediate aftermath of this war underlines just how aggressive Prussia were in pursuing their agenda of uniting the german states under their crown. Attacking Austria in 1866 and France in 1870.
But yeah, please keep living in your "Holy Roman" fantasy. The Prussians under Bismarck were major aggressors of the time, which led straight to WW1 - this isn't news to anybody but you!
@@methanbreather Also your so-called HRE was officially disbanded by Napoleon 60 years before. So yeah... What was your argument again?
So what war crimes are you guys in the comments talking about exactly? Because it was fairly conventional
Does anyone do audio checks prior to Mark getting onstage? Seriously ~
Thank you for your service General Sherman. Thanks also to Union Generals Meade, Grant, and Sheridan. Confederate armies surrendered to all of you. And you didn't kill enough Confederates.
When was the Gatling gun introduced in the Civil War? Anybody?
The Gatling was patented in 1862. It saw limited use at the siege of Petersburg 1864-1865, but was ahead of it's time.
@@timothycunningham7352
Thanks for that info, Timothy.
When complaints about grants drinking reached Lincoln Lincoln said find out what he is drinking and give it to the rest of the generals
It seems to me that if they were going to give up Atlanta anyhow Johnson's forces should have somehow moved North to merge with Lee's. Let Sherman do what he's going to do while you attempt to defeat the unions army in the North. Of course it's easier to say it than to do it but I know that Lee was trying to merge his forces by going south it might have been easier if Johnson joined him by going north.
They would have ran out of supplies pretty quickly if two huge Union armies were roaming free behind their lines unchecked.
@@adammartin180 probably so. I guess I'm just saying it was one possible bad decision in a world of only bad decisions. They were beat but I think joining the army's might have extended it more which was a big part of the Southern plan at that point. Sort of like the Japanese idea that if there's too much blood shed than the Americans will want out. In this case the northerners and the northern press.
I think by that time there weren't enough supplies to get him to Virginia and certainly not enough to feed his army if he got there.
Plus, we think about food for the men; the horses needed it more than the men did. Without horses to pull cannon, caissons, and supply wagons with ammunition the army was worthless.
By 1864, the southern supply of fit horses was non existent. That's why Sheridan could so effectively raid the Shenandoah Valley; his opponent's mounts were breaking down.
Not Rebels Confederates...disturbed me in the video
27 minutes in and there seems to be an excruciating level of detail with much less emphasis on the big picture. I guess I need an introductory overview before attempting this finer-scale dissertation.
Sherman beat Johnson , why , cause it was Johnson lol Maybe Johnson should be called I like a running and when I make my plans the first thing I write down is ....exit plan !!! is there more that needs said !
Was Johnson not on Davis's (I do not like list lol but I got no one else lol)
@Doug Bevins
Well said,
I must admit, It's been a sad two days for me...after new reading.... to abruptly come to my very own, stark realization of just how bluudy disastrous the war was conducted by R.E.
Bobby Lee was my hero, ever since I was about 6.
So an older dog can be taught, new history tricks.
Slain te'
Your Army is more important than a City
Sherman drank for 3 days. Because he knew there would be death ! It played on his mind. Like all of us YOU DO WHAT YOU Have TO DO . He did not just get belly rolls. he would drink to the men he lost. That is why he would throw up on his horse. HE LOVED HIS MEN !!! It was very tough on Billy.i would follow uncle billy here and far away
Todd Davis. I am not aware of WT’s drinking. Help me out, please.
Todd Davis safe bet you would have survived since Sherman only fought women and children.
@@josephcockburn7524 You can lie all you'd like, but it will never change the following facts:
1.)The CSA was treasonous and anti-American
2.)The CSA seceded over slavery and admitted as much in their declarations of secession.
3.)The CSA lost.
4.)The "Lost Cause" has fooled nobody but those who willfully ignore the fundamental facts of the war.
Yes he loved his men because they did his bidding with the murder, rape and pillage of Southern civilians. Those were the only people in the south that Sherman had the guts to annihilate.
@@josephcockburn7524 I guess the Confederate army that was in his path could be counted among them.
I was an itinerant piano tuner. I worked Middle Georgia since the late 1970's. A lady in Louisville had her great, great (?) grandmother's four-poster bed. When Sherman's men approached the area, a square chunk of wood was cut out of a bed post and jewelry was placed inside. The wood was replaced and varnished over. The soldiers didn't notice and the jewelry was saved. I was able to see that the block of wood had sunk into the bed post a very slight bit. I am a Yankee and the people were always very nice to me.
Ft Benning should be renamed Ft Sherman. Georgia needs to honor Sherman more.
Lol he is the last person Georgia would honor. There is still a lot of hatred for Sherman there.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory Really? I thought that since Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln were Republicans the south would honor them more than Lee and other Democrats
@@dgoins6 The south was mainly democrat until the 80s when northern migration changed the demographics. The hatred for Sherman is more personal to many Georgians because their ancestors suffered through the destruction of Atlanta and his march to the sea. There isn't the same hatred for Grant and Lincoln.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory modern conservatives claim to be the party of Lincoln. He fought the south against Lee, a Democrat. I'm not sure why modern conservatives are defending statues of Lee when he was on the opposing side of Lincoln. They should honor Sherman.
@@dgoins6 I think conservatives are defending the right to preserve historical statues and monuments regardless of agreement with the subject.
R.I.P. All the eardrums that died of headphone overdose at 1:37
To those who remember remember who fired the first shot at Sumter
FOCUS on slides .. he refers to them constantly .. get a camera that blows them up from where the camera is shooting from .. love the topics .. but cannot watch these .. speaker is just a voice .. info in is on the slides ..
1s Soupy salesales alive!?
ATLANTA 1864 CIVIL WAR
BORN 6 JULY 1964. 100 YEARS LATER GLORY TO GOD
GOD BLESS AMÉRICA
CUBAN LOVE FROM MIAMI FLORIDA
THANKS GEORGIA STATE ALWAYS IN MY HEART 11 MARCH 2021
This video would be much better if it focused more on the maps and slides, and less on the distant view of the lecturer.
A statue ought to be raised to Uncle Billy in the central square of every county seat in in the Rebellion States.
Wayne Arrington Try it.
Wayne Arrington why?
Absolutely!
Agreed. Lost Cause boo-hooing will carry on till the end of time but will change nothing about the well-known, well-documented fundamental facts of the war. Lee's army kidnapped and sent south to slavery some 1500 free blacks. The CSA deserved precisely what it got, and Lee's anti-American traitor army should have been grateful they weren't prosecuted for the treason in which they bloodily indulged.
Read the declaration of the reasons for secession and then tell me it wasn't about slavery. State's rights to do what, by the way? Also, since the CSA constitution federally banned its states' abolition of slavery, there is proof positive state's rights is a cheap, thin band-aid stuck on a gaping wound. But keep up your boo-hooing, won't change the war's outcome.
If the North or should I say Union had lost the war all these people talking about the south being butthurt and crying about losing would change their tune. The Liberals were telling the conservatives to get over it even before the election of Trump but after the right person won the election the liberals cried and cried and are still crying.
worddunlap the south lost the day the war started.
pretty ignorant point of view
Jim Mckee You're not much of an historian.
Typical
@Jim McKee: I see people are having a hard time with your point of view but I think you are correct.
@@andrewo.b.7638 pointy heads in agreement
It is McFURson.
Ugh, "cal-vary" ..... it's CAV-AL-RY .... Calvary is where Our Lord Jesus Christ died. Please get it right.
Just want to add that it is death by a thousand counts every time I hear this. Thatisall.
What Sherman did was no different than what Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila did. Sherman changed nothing about war. What do you think all those other guys did when they invaded the enemies territory? Arguably worse!
When GEORGIA HOWLED
Still howling.
Seek and Destroy
Would have could have really should have oh well pass the beans please
Away down south in a land of traitors rattle snakes and alligators
can't believe ish anymore.
I can still get a laugh from my buddies anytime we look at a diagram or a map.
Didn't you get snuffed at Yellow Tavern? I could have sworn Sheridan took care of you......
@@paghal11 he missed
I have so much respect for Hood. He knew he was fighting an existential war as it was ending. But, he was so outnumbered and fighting battles of attrition.
What would we do fighting an existential war?
Hood was awful. Heavily “medicated” because of his wounds, he was out of his mind and killed MANY of his own troops and generals out of spite. Arguably the worst General on the South.
@@mstaples2989
I've heard all that. I saw photos of 12 year olds dead holding the line.
In an existential war where do you draw the line?
Hood may have been doped up, but he had to break out to the West so as to continue the fight.
He may have been wrong, granted, but what would you do as a commander?
@@mstaples2989
I'm tempted to say, " What would you do in an existential war? Hood had to break out. Offensive after offensive in order to break out to the west.
That war was technically over, but he had to try.
I feel sorry for the Confeferates and their cause.
Regardless of their cause, they had to fight on with the only option available. As an American, what would you do?
Surrender is not in your mentality nor your vocabulary, nor your mindset.
I'm sorry, but I could not surrender either. If you have an open mind, perhaps you will agree.
@@davidweum I have a open mind and any general knows everything’s a lost cause is ethically and morally wrong to just kill people and he murdered thousands of Confederate soldiers including some very good generals because he was angry
@@mstaples2989
He was leading his country in an existential threat. He was surrounded by a powerful Union force. His attacks were designed to break though the enemy lines and to the west.
Yes, many good generals and young soldiers were killed, but he commanded the only fighting force remaining.
He had to try. And the enemy forced him to make one assault after another. He had no choice ( and he had no hope we know that now), he had to fight on!
His was the only force remaining to take on the Union to defend his Country.
After Atlanta Sherman took the best men and the best horses in order to engage in a March to Savannah where he knew he’d be unopposed, and left Thomas with the lesser troops, lesser horses, and the wounded to fight the confederate army which Sherman totally ignored.
Once again Thomas proved himself a genius at war while Sherman got the glory for taking a city unopposed
Sherman understood by this time that the war was not about taking cities. It was about destroying the south's ability to continue the war. George Thomas was very good at what he did. Sherman was very good at what he did. Grant was very good at what he did. I don't think any of them thought much about "glory".
@@hisxmark actually, Savannah was Thomas’s idea, he had previously mentioned to Sherman his desire to March to Savannah, only for Sherman to then do it himself.
When it came to strategy and tactics Thomas was heads above either Grant or Sherman. Thomas’s ability to win a battle with minimal losses was extraordinary, while Grant’s losses were at times staggering,
Thomas WAS a genius, but was too modest; however, trying to claim that Grant and Sherman weren't geniuses themselves is wildly inaccurate.
@@pyromania1018 please reread my comment and show me where I ever stated that Sherman and Grant weren’t geniuses, as well as how the supposed comment that I never made was wildly inaccurate.
I’ll wait for
You should have been faster then William Tecumseh Sherman..
Lesson of the day: Don't piss off Minnesotans and Ohioans.
Oh yeah man Minnesota and Ohio. Totally not after thoughts. Don’t forget those Rhode Islanders too lol
@@colino5056 The Rhode Island State Police uniforms are the bomb.
You forgot the great State of Illinois, was the heart and soul of the Western Theater Army.
Yeah look at Fox News talk about phony reporters they're a joke and I wouldn't want them talking about me either
Hood was a fool and Texas has Fort Hood?
He was a better general early in the war before his injuries. After Gettysburg he should have called it quits. Davis was stupid to give him such important commands.
Don’t forget there is a Fort Bragg too!
7
Not the Blue Ridge AND the Appalachians. The Blue Ridge is a range in the Appalachians. And for God's sake, it is CAVALRY, not CAL-va-ry.
im glad they quit making videos... these are almost as intetesting as listening to a person read a book with your eyes closed! they keep putting the camera on the speaker, instead of keeping the camera on the slideshow. imo, i can hear the speaker, no matter where the camera is pointing. i cant see what he is talking about, when the camera is not pointed at the screen he is pointing at. just my opinion
Your opinion blows
So many of these generals look like they're the victims of cruel photoshopping.
You try sitting still for a minute to get your picture taken ☺️
hadn't thought of it that way...lol.
grenville dodge, builder of the union pacific rr.
TOO TOUGH FOR A SUSTAINED LISTEN. SOME LECTURES AND CLASSES ARE TOO DETAILED AND HARD TO HEAR FOR AN ENJOYABLE ABSORPTION OF INFO. AFTER A WHILE IT'S LIKE LISTENING TO PAINT DRY.
Every ex-Confederate state needs its own General Sherman to beat it into submission. They lost the war, and they will always lose, so get in line.
Nothing fascist to see here, folks
@@crimsonking440just don’t confuse America First with fascism
A professor are the black people counted in those population figures you where reciting
This man needs to learn the correct pronunciations of names of rivers, towns, etc.
Also you can tell he did not do any "On Location" research. If he had journeyed to Jonesboro Ga. he would have learned how confederates held off the Union for a day with a brass parade cannon!
Those aren't real southern accents.
DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY
Sherman didn't burn enough of the Confederacy.
@@willoutlaw4971 Yes he did more than enough.
don't know why them Yankees had shoot my hounds
Good God those Confederates were fanatics who the hell does he think he is
It was also Sherman who ordered the "final solution" genocide of Native Americans following the Civil War.
Why does history have to be so bad and full of blood and slaves and pain it feels like we are so underdeveloped as humans to avoid this from happening
Because the world is broken.
At Shiloh Sherman almost got dead
He almost dead got at Shiloh?
@@Bravo-Too-Much death by Forrest
The
Yng
This narrator is butchering simple names, video by video
There’s Nothing like a video praising a war criminal like Sherman. Thanks for the confirmation.
Lol. Southern generals did the same things to their towns and their people when they needed supplies...
Amen
If you are sensitive about history, don’t watch history videos.
@@Bravo-Too-MuchSensitive? LOL This isn’t history.
Derp.
Veiwpoints of the people of the southern USA are not affected so much about losing the US Civil War. The problem was the Reconstruction Period after the hostilities of the Civil War. Corrupt financier's from New York City were buying out land owners for pennies on the dollar. If these northern banksters opened a business then wages were extremely low, often as low as .25¢ per day. Share cropping was the norm for a long time. Tge share cropper had to rent the land, buy the seeds from the northern landowner. Then maybe a 60%/40% split of the value of the harvested crop. That means the New Yor City banker took 60% or more as his take. The sharecropper was left with left with significantly less. The share cropper share paid for the seed, housing rent, whatever was bought as groceries or other items from the landiwners store.
This all lasted until the Great Depression. What the Civil War didn't destroy the Great Depression finished.
The Unionists amongst you in TH-cam land better be thankful that the suggestion of a generational gurella warfare by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy didn't take hold. There would still be hostilities. Most if the Confederate Generals told the men under their command yo go home and live your lives in peace.
Another little tidbit of the Civil War is sweet potato pie. Union soldiers would desimate farm crops. One of which was pumpkins. All plants that had the fruit or seeds growing above ground were destroyed. Sweet potatos grow underground so the Union soldiers could not destroy the sweet potatoes. The sweet potatoes began to be the holiday dessert. Even today most southerns, white or black, have sweet potato pie for dessert.
The Brazil was the south who won war after historic visit the emperor Brazil Pedro ii beyond phone the immigration american confederates till today's keep our tradition and flag up in Brazil the queen music Brazilian is descendent american
Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brasil was visiting the US, attended one of the great exhibitions/world fairs. He knew Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, and decided to continue his tour by one more stop. He was so impressed bi the telephone that it gave Bell the boost he needed to "go commercial".
DAVENPORT IOWA DAD JOKE of the day (23 DEC 2024)
[Q] How much,does SANTA have to PAY, to park his SLEIGH?
[pA] NOTHING, because, it is, on the HOUSE