My Grandfather was a WWII vet born in 1912. When I was a child, he told me about his experiences talking to old Civil War Vets when HE was a child. It made it all seem not so long ago. It seems like a very long time ago now.
I mean...we are talking about the later 1800s. It wasn't THAT long ago. I was in rehab last year and got a book from their library called The Bride of Texas. It was a romance novel about Slavs serving the Union (under Sherman during his March up the coast and thru the Carolinas) in the Civil War after they left their home due to their war. Reading all this about guys like Sherman and Burnside...I became fascinated, and alot of the reason is that upon reading the dates, it became clear that this was relatively recent in regards to history. I know the country is divided right now, but it was amazing how both side were at each other's throats only about 150 years ago...things have changed drastically.
And we act like racism, bigotry and hate somehow went away after the war. And now we refuse to acknowledge the damage done. I wonder if the conscious is loud or absent in their minds.
@@braxtonmoore9246 sound like you are the racist! Just let it go and let us live like Americans! Not cxyyzz-Americans! Study hard, don’t break the law, and live life the best you can! Don’t show up in police blotters!
My great-great grandfather was a member of the W.Va. 7th Infantry. The story he related to his son, years later, was that during day two, a shell blast had burst one of his ear drums, which put him on "easy" duty for day three. His "easy" duty was action as a stretcher man, carrying wounded soldiers off of the field. He said that General Hancock had given the order that there would be no more than two men per stretcher. However, when he arrived to carry Gen. Hancock off the field, Hancock called for a couple guys to come and help. At that point my g-g grandfather and his companion placed the general and stretcher back on the ground, and told him that if they weren't good enough for him, they'd go elsewhere to do their work, which they did. His companion, a man named Suters, was killed an hour later, but Gen. Hancock did eventually track down my grandfather, and commended him for his firmness in sticking to his orders.
I've been to Gettysburg several times as a kid (parents are History buffs). I would recommend it to anyone. The tour guides drove us all over the battlefield. Their credentials are outstanding. They are a wealth of knowledge and riveting story tellers.
We took a class trip to the battlefield and went through a tour of the battle. Each student was assigned a name and various names were called out as we marched to signify a casualty. Was pretty incredible to march a (unstable) line across an old battlefield. My name was called during the first few seconds of the retreat, shot in the chest as the soldier retreated facing forwards, as to not have a bullet hole in his back as a sign of cowardice. I am not sure of the validity of the statement, but it’s something I remember very clearly
Would love to see Simon cover the attempts by the confederates to take California and the fighting in New Mexico and Arizona. One of the least talked about theaters of the war and involved the confederates trying to use a troop of lancers, and showed why no one else would use lances in the war.
The History Guy did a great episode on the Confederate attempts to take Colorado and New Mexico. And the utter failure that it was. Including the thoughts by the Confederate general in charge that the New Mexicans would rise up in revolt and back the Confederacy... spoiler... they didn't. As a matter of fact. The residents of New Mexico all but slammed doors in the faces of the Confederate soldiers.
@@ag7898 I've seen that one and always love the History Guy's content. There's a great book called "The Three Cornered War" that goes into the New Mexico campaign and my favorite fact from it is that when Sibley got permission to invade New Mexico the Confederate government was like "go for it, but we don't have money or weapons to give you" so Sibley had to buy most of the firearms in Texas and a bunch of the men went off to fight with shotguns and high end sporting rifles.
1:15 - Chapter 1 - And on the 3rd day 5:05 - Chapter 2 - A hard rain falls 9:10 - Chapter 3 - Into the inferno 13:25 - Chapter 4 - The south's highwater mark 17:35 - Chapter 5 - High & dry
Interesting tidbit. During the cannon duel between the Union and Confederate batteries, the Union artillery also overshot their targets as well, but those shells just wound up smashing into the infantry that was amassing behind the lines. And to conserve ammo, the Union artillery began to slow its fire. But instead of stopping all at once, they stopped each gun individually at random intervals to give the confederates the impression that they were knocking out the union guns.
This battle demonstrates the importance of Cavalry and Field Artillery in modern war. COL (CSA) Alexander's inability to meet Lee's commander's intent for fire support determined the outcome. Porter Alexander knew he did not have the ammunition to both win the counterfire battle against the Union Artillery and to shape the battle. It was a shame Alexander was not able to convince Lee he could not meet his intent. If (Union Cavalry BG) J.N.O. Buford had shaped the battlefield by his economy of force operation on the first day, Alexander's inability to meet his commander's intent for fire support.
@@johnminehan1148 Cannon were far less effective in an offensive role during the Civil War than they were in the Napoleonic Wars. Even the exploding shells (when they worked) of the former had less effect than grapeshot in the latter- which was often used to batter infantry formations from 300 yards, which was outside smoothbore musket range but inside rifled musket range. By 3 July, Lee had to attack or abandon the campaign in failure. The AoNV was foraging and couldn't remain in any one area for more than 3-5 days. They couldn't forage in the immediate presence of enemy forces and they hadn't foraged since Lee's concentration order of 29 June. The clock was ticking at Vicksburg (lifting the siege of which was the strategic objective of the campaign), and Lee lacked the time to carry out Longstreet's suggestion of an envelopment- which was unlikely to draw the AotP into attacking anyway, since the Confederates had already been saddled with the tactical initiative by attacking on 1 July. Lee's idea of attacking the Union center was in line with the Napoleonic concept of the "strategic battle"- in this case, of attacking one flank of the opposing army and then the other in an effort to draw forces from the center. Meade however, understood this as well. He told Gibbon that if the Confederates attacked on 3 July, it would be on Gibbon's front (in the Union center). The attack didn't fail for lack of artillery support. It failed because: 1) the Confederates had to cross approximately a mile of open ground and took heavy casualties, so that only a few hundred men reached the Union line, and; 2) Meade saw the attack coming, so that approximately 20,000 Union reinforcements began to converge on the Confederates. Lee's decision to attack on both 2 and 3 July was sound. It was his decisions prior to the battle which ruined the campaign. Cheers...
@@manilajohn0182 No his decision to attack on the 3rd wasn't sound. He should have just called the whole thing off and taken the minor loss. A minor loss didn't devastate the Confederacy at Antietam, and it wouldn't have done so at Gettysburg, certainly not in comparison to what crushing defeat he suffered did. The idea that throwing away more than 6,000 lives is a better alternative to just conceding defeat is kind of baffling, especially in an army where every man was irreplacable.
@@TheStapleGunKid Lee's decision to attack was sound because his only other alternative was to abandon the campaign in failure. The primary reason for Lee's movement north was to achieve a great enough success to lift the siege of Vicksburg. Abandoning the campaign in failure would have been a strategic disaster, and not a minor loss. Without a doubt, the assault had a poor chance of success- and the reason why Lee was in such a position on 3 July was because of multiple errors made by him prior to the onset of the campaign and during the march north to Gettysburg. Having said that, he couldn't simply about face, march back to Virginia, give up the campaign because two wing attacks had failed, and write off Vicksburg.
@@manilajohn0182 Abandoning the campaign would have been the more sound choice than ordering an attack with virtually no chance of success. Vicksburg fell the following day, so nothing that happened at Gettysburg would have made any difference. Even if Lee had been able to magically delete the army of the Potomac from existence, that would not have saved Vicksburg. The only thing Lee had control over on July 3 was the ability to save his army, which he could have done realizing it was time to call off the campaign and get back to Virginia with his army mostly intact, as he had done at Antietam.
Loving all of this 19th century focus. It’s so interesting to see conflicts play out without rapid fire weapons. An age of horse, howitzer, and single action fire arms. Hope we see more spotlights on 1800s military actions from the US perspective. Maybe the Boxer Rebellion. The prequels to WWI.
Arguably, the American Civil War was THE prequel to World War I. Because while Americans were brutally killing each other with brand new weaponry, and updated tactics, Europe was quietly sitting on the sidelines, and taking notes. Notes that would finally see implementation in 1914, and would result in the deaths of millions of Europeans!
@@jacob4920 They didn't take very good notes then because they still believed that massed men and charges at the enemy were the way to win a battle and a war. They were very wrong.
@@jacob4920There was a gap of almost 50 years between the end of the American Civil War and the start of WWI. During that period machine-guns, rifles with magazines holding a dozen rounds or more, vastly improved artillery and mortars, aerial reconnaissance and attack were all developed. The nature of warfare was totally changed and cavalry became irrelevant. There was nothing for the European combatants to learn from the American Civil War.
Me and my dad have been watching “The Civil War” together, and I showed him this video in my feed. What perfect timing! We watched the episode on the battle of Gettysburg two days ago!
The problem with that series is that Ken Burns relies too much on Shelby Foote, a journalist whose works have been dismissed as Lost Cause propaganda, and largely ignored actual historians
Ever since I saw the movie Gettysburg I’ve wanted to go to that battlefield. I still watch that once in a while. Pickett’s charge is one of the coolest scenes in film history, to me in anyway. Thousands of extras marching in formation is pretty impressive. You can’t make a movie like that today.
Get to the battlefield if you can. Walk the route of Pickett’s Charge. See Little Round Top, Devil’s Den, Culp’s Hill, etc. Walk around the historic town itself. It’s truly moving. I live exactly 4 hours away and go at least twice a year. Once you go, you’ll never be the same.
I had the privilege to visit the battlefield at Gettysburg when I was 12 as part of a class trip and I walked across the field as the Confederate army did. It's a *looooong* walk for just taking a leisurely stroll. Between the heat, shelling, and gunfire I don't even want to try and comprehend the hell those men were put through on that hot July day.
My great grandfather was part of Vermont 2nd brigade if front of Pickets charge. The most impressive part was did 135 mile force march in 5 days the last 35 non stop just in time to get in possion a little before attack. So tired slept when cannons were firing the Officers and NCO'S had to wake them up when attack began. Not bad for troops in Army less than 9 months.
You should do an episode on Balaclava, not only the Light Brigade being sent down the wrong valley to their doom, but also the less disastrous Heavy Brigade and Thin Red Line.
Also, in a similar vein of "how can it possibly get worse?" 73 Easting would be a fun one to hear Simon talk about, if only for the couple of instances where a lightly-armoured scout vehicle happened to cross between a tank and its target and nobody noticed the holes through both sides of it until afterward.
I don’t get the big deal about the Light Brigade; literally MOST of the brigade survived. It’s made to sound like a massacre to the man; there have been COUNTLESS battles where a brigade took far higher casualties. 🤷🏼♂️
@@CorePathway That so many of them made it back when the intent was to cut down a retreating enemy and were instead sent into 50 active artillery pieces and their supporting infantry is the impressive thing. Less than a third of the horses made it back, though.
One thing to note about the Union Artillery, the commander ordered the Union guns to cease fire one by one, which gave the confederates the idea that they were hitting the Union guns. Another thing to note even if the confederates won at Gettysburg, the Union did have a massive victory at Vicksburg, which gained control of the Mississippi River and cut the land held by the confederacy in half. They probably would of had to give up Gettysburg and return back south, since it would be difficult to hold without good supply lines.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Because Lee was too focused on his precious Virginia, instead of realizing the type of war that he was fighting. The Confederacy needed to pick their battles VERY carefully, and needed to give up on the knockout punch they kept going for.
I live only about 30 miles from Gettysburg and toured the battlefield multiple times. Its a very solemn place, the weight of those lives lost is always heavy in the air
Shout-out to all of the brave Union soldiers that day -- especially those of the 8th Ohio, the 19th Massachusetts, the 71st and 72nd Pennsylvania and Stannard's Vermonters.
Incorrect. He actually was a genius up to this point. It was in summer of 1863 that he started getting cocky, arrogant, and believing in his own invincibility.
When compared to his contemporaries, he definitely passes muster. The difference is his side didn't have the population or industrial capacity to replace any losses, and his opponents possessed both, giving them the ability to learn from their mistakes rather than succumbing to them.
Lee has been over hyped by Lost Causers and the antebellum south. Lee gave a lot of odd open ended indirect orders that if his men prevailed he would gain the credit but if they failed he kept his own plausible deniability intact. He had a weakness of being too aggressive and wasting his men that he wouldn't be able to replace on securing ground that may not be important strategically in the bigger picture of the war, more so than any of that he was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery for rich plantation owners and politicians in the south and he believed that the Bible and God justified slavery and the CSA defense of it. What he was fighting for was wrong and he obviously wasn't an outstanding tactical general because if he was he would have won the war. He lost, he unconditionally surrendered. That's the definition of an ineffective commander.
It probably doesn't get as much attention as the French occupation because of how short it was, and the fact that American occupation came with as much good as it did bad. American occupation of Haiti may have brought unrest within the elite and a pair of revolts, but it also came with massive improvements in infrastructure and a revamping of the educational system. It also came with the added effect of shattering the hold Germany had on Haiti at the time. While the American occupation did come with its fair share of horrors, it is also directly responsible for helping establish Haitian independence.
One of the brigades in Pickett's division was lead by brigadier general James L. Kemper. One of the regiments in Kemper's brigade was the 7th Virginia, which was commanded by a lieutenant colonel named Waller Tazewell Patton, who was mortally wounded in the charge and died a few weeks later. Lt. colonel Patton had a number of relatives who fought for the Confederacy, including his brother George, a colonel who would be killed the next year leading his regiment at the Third Battle of Winchester. George Patton left behind a few children, including a namesake son who would go on to name his own son George. That particular George S. Patton had a rather notable career as a general in WWII.
the great montgomery thought patton was profligate with the lives of his men. maybe his ancestors' mixing with lee and other knobs was passed on as a meme.
I got to reenact Gettysburg at the 150th anniversary. I was right at the angle for a nearly 1-to-1 recreation of Pickett's charge. It was the single coolest thing I've ever seen.
I’ve been to Gettysburg many times. I’ve walked the same fields the Confederates had to cross. And I’ve seen where the Union positions were. It really shows what a terrible idea the charge was to begin with.
the terrain have unfotunally changed a lot, thanks to it being used for military training, ink with tanks in the early 20th century. It is simply more level today than back then. The csa infantry line where only visible for about half the march across. Going down into depression where they would be in cover, then up over a raise taking missive artillery fire, and then down again.
Thats as good a description of Picketts Charge as I have seen, excellent at covering off all the main points, very good stuff Simon. What I always have thought about it (and as a Scot I dont have a dog in this fight) was that it should never have needed to take place. The Rebels had the opportunity to sweep the Union off Cemetery ridge/Culps Hill before the conclusion of the first day when the line was not firmly established and the Union forces were far less in number and in far poorer shape. Then on day 2 at various times they were an inch away from victory, both on Culps hill and on the Union left by Little Round Top, one more push on either point may have cracked the line but they were not to know this. By the time of Picketts charge the Union line was reinforced, dug in and practically impregnable. As you say Simon, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it shows just how little a battle of this size can spin on. Then of course, there was the absence of Jeb Stewarts calvary for most of the first 2 days.......if he had been in contact with Lee prior to the battle, would it have ever happened? A fascinating subject, thanks for the content SImon.
Lee had two regiments of cavalry at his command while Stuart was off playing games. He chose to not use them, which isn't doing anything to support that claim that he was a brilliant general. He allowed the Union to take the best defensive position, with the shortest lines of communication and reinforcement and had no clue that he was outnumbered. Little Round Top made for a great movie moment, but the 12000 Union soldiers within a mile of it who were never put into combat guaranteed that even if it was taken, the South would never be able to keep it. Same for Culp's Hill. There were plenty of Union soldiers which could have been sent to reinforce or retake any position if it was deemed necessary, but part of the issue was that communication had to be done face to face, so situations that were dire weren't known until afterwards and unit commanders had some leeway to act on their own without always waiting for the overall commanders to find out what was happening. That Stuart was allowed to go glory hunting while deep in enemy territory was irresponsible on his part, and also on Lee for giving him that freedom of command.
@@nobodyspecial4702 you are right about the calvary, it always seemed odd to me that in the absence of Stuart, Lee did not utilise his other mounted regiments to provide the screen and the situational reports which he so badly needed. I can only think that he trusted Stuart so much and put so much faith in him, he was prepared to keep waiting and waiting until he returned, By the time he did, it was too late to significantly impact the battle. Also, in keeping with my assertion that the whole battle should never have happened, there is also the matter that if Henry Heth`s boys had followed Lees order and not brought on a general engagement by going after Bufords dismounted calvary, then there was a very good chance the battle itself would not have taken place at Gettysburg. Meade himself favoured an engagement further south but when battle was brought on he was prepared to take Hancocks on the spot advice and committ his forces. Lee was clearly always up for a fight, but after failing finish off the Unioin forces on the first day, his chances of a Rebel victory decreased expidentially in each of the subsequent days for the reasons you give.
@@lefin3730 Lee had no faith in the militia cavalry to perform even basic scouting, so he never bothered to have them do any. He chose to march deep into enemy territory blind.
Capt. George Pickett was a big player in the start of a near war over the killing of a pig; on disputed islands between Washington State (The US) and Vancouver Island (the UK). He came in dead last, in a class of 59 candidates in the military academy.
A couple notes about Longstreet's artillery: 1. The gun carriages did not have recoil devices at this point. After the first shots, the tail of the carriage dug into the mud and the barrels elevated, turning the shells into "quartermaster killers", flying over the front lines and crashed into the baggage trains. 2. Smokeless powder had not been invented and, as a result, the gunners could not see that their shells were going high. I believe both these details came from the Shelby Foote series.
There was a running joke, amongst Union soldiers, that Confederate Artillery "always overshot their targets." The Union Army, especially under US Grant's command, took advantage of this bad habit. Clearly, it was one of the reasons the South ultimately crumbled under Grant's ceaseless assaults on Virginia.
To your points, while True they did have elevation screws to make up for this however. At Fredricksburg 7 monthe earlier the Confederate Artillery was devastating. The fact was artillery at the time was not accurate or heavy enough to support infantry over a mile away. Closer in and 600 meters or so they remained the "King of Battle".
Lee was applying Napoleonic tactics.....having attacked both flanks of the enemy, he reasoned that the center would be weaker, having transferred troops to the flanks.
@@michalpavlat3943 From the *Confederate* side of the battlefield, the terrain looks do-able for a charge with even minimal covering fire. From the Union side, however, the terrain is *clearly* suicide ground, where a charge from the Southern positions could *only* succeed if the Union defenders were completely shattered and disorganized.
The twin union victories one at Gettysburg and the other at Vicksburg were the key turning points in the Civil War for the Union. You can argue which was more important. I would say politically Gettysburg since it was fought in the East, and it was the 2nd time Robert E. Lee had been checked invading the North. It really took the wind out of their sails. Vicksburg matters strategically since it split the Confederacy in two. It also showed that in US Grant, Lincoln had a competent general. I have visited Gettysburg. I would encourage all to visit.
No, you cannot, Gettysburg demoralized, The, South, and, killed many soldiers, Vicksburg turned the victory of, The, North, from, likelihood, to, certainty.
The Union victory at Vicksburg might well have never happened if Bedford Forrest had been properly used. An earlier move against Vicksburg by Grant had failed due to the disruptions caused to Union communications and supplies by Confederate cavalry. This forced the Union forces to retreat. The same thing could have happened again had the South used the same tactics.
@@julianmarsh1378 He was far too busy venting his racist frustrations to be an effective leader, while, most of the generals were honorable men that fought for an evil cause, he was a monster that would later start the KKK following the Civil War.
@@matthewdaley746 Both Lee and Jefferson Davis said after the war that one mistake they made was in not better utilizing Bedford....and at one point in his frustration, a famous Union general said, "I don't care if it cost 10,000 men and bankrupts the Treasury; I want Forest dead!" Not the sort of comment one makes of an ineffective leader, yes? And while he played a significant role in starting the KKK he also later called for its disbandment and later urged Southern whites and blacks to learn to live together....
@@julianmarsh1378 Nathan Bedford Forrest, also, was, responsible, for, The, Fort Pillow Massacre, and, took his hatred of the enemy too far, repentance was commendable, but, it only makes one wonder what he could have done had he stayed out of his own way, alas, unknowable, he was ineffective in the sense that he treated war as a campaign of annihilation, which led to his defeat.
@@als3022 He once said that if the cause for which he had fought, so, hard, was lost, he'd prefer to die, he got his wish, were he in charge, rather, than, John Bell Hood, things would have, possibly, been less of a massacre.
@Unbroken Nathan Bedford Forrest, was, probably, the most hated general in the entire Civil War, he was, "A, Sadist, With, A, Rank," caused, The, Fort Pillow Massacre, and, later, helped found the KKK.
I'm glad you mentioned the insults on Meade and how unfair they were. He didn't want to charge into dug in lines of confederacy to have the exact reverse happens to him, and a lose meant Washington D.C. falling. Insults on him were contemporary, not understanding how war had been changing from Victorian style to proto WW1 style. Confederacy had fantastic Victorian Generals but to union Generals credit they understood war was changing
@marknewton6984 Meade was never demoted, he remained Commander of Potomic for the rest of war. His role simply deminished in importance when Grant became Commander of all US forces. Lincoln was very upset at Meade at the time for not pursuing Lee, which was actually pretty unfair when Meade was under strict orders to defend DC and Baltimore. He expected Meade to break orders to gamble on an attack that could have ended the war but also could have easily ended in disaster and fall of DC.
Check out the photo of the 50th anniversary of Gettysburg on wikipedia, showing surviving veterans of the charge shaking hands with their northern counterparts.
The non fiction book "The Killer Angels" won the pulitzer prize in 1975. The entire book covers the three day battle of Gettysburg. Told in brutal detail.
Great work, Simon and team. Your next Warographics video should be the Battle off Samar (a WWII naval battle that was part of the bigger battle of Leyte Gulf) and how that engagement was one of, if not thee, greatest naval battles in history. I'll leave you all to the research but I guarantee that you will find it absolutely incredible.
Bingo. There were several occasions, far earlier than Gettysburg, where the North stood a good chance of ending the war, but various generals (most notably McClellan) were overly cautious and squandered opportunities that were practically gift-wrapped for them.
You should cover the charge at Franklin, just prior to the Battle Of Nashville in 1864. Hell, cover the entire Nashville campaign. You not only get to see one of the only times an ENTIRE ARMY was thoroughly beaten, but the final battle features one of my favorite Generals: George Henry Thomas. Also, I consider July 3rd of 1863 to be Confederate Double Face Palm Day. Around the time Pickett's Charge was happening, the Confederates at Vicksburg were asking for terms from Ulysses S Grant, as he had them under a Julius Caesar styled siege for quite some time. Sorry for the grammar/typos, vodka🍸
Most people don't know there was a fire at the Ordnance depot that usually supplied the Army of Northern Virginia and they got their ammo from an inferior factory that was having problems with their shell fuses. Hope you cover The Battle of Wilson's Creek later.
The difference between the Charge of the Light Brigade and Pickett's Charge is, that at Crimea there was a miscommunication of a correct order, as a result of which, a body of men charged the wrong battery of guns and were mown down. At Gettysburg there was no miscommunication - the order itself was fatally flawed.
My great-grandfather was in the charge: Lt. Andrew B. Anderson, commanding Company F, 53d Va. Infantry, Armistead's Brigade, Pickett's Division. He made it to the top of Cemetery Ridge, where he was wounded: a Minié ball passed under his right shoulder blade, exited his armpit and went through his biceps. He was soon back in the line. He had seen the war coming, joined the militia early, and fought through the whole thing until paroled at Appamattox. He lived on into his nineties and, before he died, came to the realization that it had all been "a big mistake". This comment is dedicated especially to all you Stars-and-Bars-waving nostalgia queens out there.
@Griffin Anderson I have a story about my great great grandfather that was told to me. He was a farmer in Tennessee and joined the confederate army. He, like most confederate soldiers, was no slave owner, he joined because the Yankees were coming. So the story goes he fought at Antietam. The carnage and death was so bad, that after the battle he packed his gear and went back to his farm. He figured if the Yankees wanted come down, he’d find room for them. Must of been horrific.
Hear-hear! "Gettysburg" is one of only FIVE war movies ever made that I actually personally own! The other four all have something to do with World War II. But "Gettysburg" was so well done that I actually deviated from my obsession for the sake of it. I've never had occasion to regret it.
It is tragic only if you support the racist Confederacy. It is a bit like saying that it was tragic that the 6th Army was lost when it attacked Stalingrad. Well, only if you supported the racist Nazis.
@@minsapint8007 many abolitionists fought for the racist Confederacy and plenty of racists fought for the Union who thought Lincoln would deport black people to Liberia.
You should make a video about the Gettysburg of the west, aka Glorieta's pass, It was a man vs wild situation as much as it was man vs man, and thank you for this spectacular content, the civil war is so interesting because they used napoleonic era formations and tactics during an era when it started to become obsolete, Thank you for being the king of TH-cam!
General Lee (after the battle ended): "General Pickett... You must go see to your Division." General Pickett (with tears in his eyes): "General Lee... I have NO Division!"
Yes poor General Meade has been given the short end of the stick by history. But here's what General Lee said about him when he learned Meade would be commanding the army of the Potomac, "Meade will make no mistake in front of me and if I make one he will quickly take advantage of it." What sealed Meades reputation was not his fault but that of his predecessor. General McClellen after the semi victory at Antietam (and numerous other times) refused to move against Lee and gave all manner of excuses for not doing so. After Gettysburg Meade too refused to pursue Lee. Except Meades reason for not doing so wasn't an excuse, the army of the Potomac was utterly spent after the battle, the troops were exhausted, with a mountain of dead and wounded and dangerously low on ammunition, it really was in no shape to mount a major pursuit of the Confederates. But since McClellen had cried wolf about this so many times, when Meade did it, even though the "wolf" was real this time, it was his undoing.
I think Meade is a severely under appreciated general. In addition to everything you said, Meade was also under orders to keep his army between Washington and Lee. He also had to rebuild the army because the majority of his officers had been killed at Gettysburg. By the time Meade was ready to move on Lee, Lee was waiting for him and wanted Meade to attack him. Meade saw this and didn’t take the bait.
@@xTheGamingGhostx he was the best they had till grant came in. but as exhuasted his men were the confederaes were so a pursuit could have still worked.
For years I've been under the impression that Lee's initial plan for the 3rd was a continuation of July 2nd with attacks continuing on both flanks. However, he was unaware that the condition of Longstreet's Corps was considerably weakened by the heavy casualties it suffered the day before and was really in no condition for another heavy push. On the opposite flank, Meade beat Ewell to the punch by attacking Culp's Hill about 4:30 that morning to regain the lower Hill lost in the fighting on the evening of the Second. This forestalled the latter's assault planned for later that morning. It was sometime early that morning that he decided to tackle the Union center, not the night before.
Rightfully it should be called Lee's charge. He is the one who ordered it. But since it was a failure; people decided that it couldn't be the fault of the great leader.
I feel most forgot about the other significant battle in the west, Vicksburg, the true turning point of the war. Lee knew this and pushed for Gettysburg before Grant can take Vickburg and divide the Confederacy.
There was never really an "if" as one source put it "The Union fought the war essentially with one hand behind it's back." Lee knew what Japan would eventually know in WWII, that a protracted war would end in defeat as the Union/Americans held a massive advantage in both industrial capacity and sheer manpower, meaning only a massive blow that turned the soft tempered civilian population again the war could win.
@@Rammstein0963. Vicksburg was the decisive blow, that, The, South, shall, not, recover from, The, North, may, not, have won immediately, but, once, The, North, did this, it became evident that they would win eventually, period.
15:20 come on give them the cold steel! Simon, come to america just on vacation, forget about work! G-burg is a great place they'd love to have you. I had a AirBnB at the very base of cemetery hill and had the whole weekend to explore. The whole city is a tourist trap and i say that in the best way! Nice varied terrain you have plains, hills, woods, and rocky crags. Biggest shout out goes to the reenactors even whose buttons are accurate, costumed living historians giving you walking tour through town, and park rangers who walk with you through the actual ground the men fought and died in their thousands
If you go to Gettysburg make sure to walk the field of "Pickett's Charge" start from the Lee Statue and make for the "Copse of Trees". It's a long way....longer while under shot, shell and rifle fire I'm sure.
I absolutely love all of your videos. Cannot wait to see what you cover next on this channel. I've learned so much about history on many of your channels. Thank you for your knowledge and wisdom.
Thanks for a great presentation! I have been studying the American Civil War for decades, and I always enjoy picking up new details from any source. This had several things I did not know.
The one picture with the cannon at the stone wall pointing at trees in the distance at 14:48 shows just how far the confederates had to march. The trees in the distance is where the troops waited during the bombardment, then formed their lines in front of the trees and marched towards that stone wall. All while getting shot at by cannonballs, then canister fire (essentially turning the cannon into a massive shotgun) then musket fire. Some places had Union men lined up several men deep, with the men in front firing a musket, passing it back to be reloaded as a fresh musket was passed up to them.
Yosemite Sam was the artillery commander for the Confederates with Sylvester the Cat and Elmer Fudd as Longstreet and Lee; on the Union side was Tweety, Bugs, and Daffy Duck taunting the others. I guess this is a good allusion.
When Pickett was asked by a reporter why the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg, he replied "I've always believed the Yankees had something to do with it."
I've read a great deal about the Civil War over the years. But I only realized the true horror when I stood at the bottom of the hill where Pickett's men had stood, and imagined myself having to walk across that open field while the Union army opened up on me. Just terrifying. Why do we humans keep doing this, I wonder.
One correction: Meade ordered the early morning attacks at Culp's Hill on July 3rd. The fighting there was not a badly timed Confederate attack staged as a diversion for the charge on Cemetary Ridge. These attacks were meant to recover positions the rebs had taken late in the evening of July 2nd. Meade wanted his right secured to be ready for the expected action at the center.
It wasn’t the turning point. It was the ending point of Gettysburg. The turning point was either day 1 when confederates did not take culps/cemetery hills or day 2 when they were blunted on the other end of the battlefield at little round top.
My Great Great Grandfather James McPeake volunteered for the 69th PA Company D and fought at Gettysburg. It was the 69th PA which faced Pickett's charge and actually engaged in hand to hand combat when the charge breached the Union wall as several Union units fled in panic. The decisive role they played is recognised by the placement of the monument to the 69th PA which is placed further in front of any other monument and this measure of recognition was upheld by Congress. The 69th PA were one of 300 units awarded the title or moniker of 'The Fighting ' out of over 3000 combating brigades which is one of the possible origins of the term 'The Fighting Irish' . My Great Great Grandfather returned to Ireland after the Civil War and is buried in Newbridge Co. Derry. I think only two members of the 69th PA made it back to Ireland (My GG Grandfather and a fellow by the name of Maynes who is buried outside Ballyronan Co Derry). I think General Lee commented that the Union only won the war because they had more Irish ☘️☘️☘️ I also have relatives that fought for the Confederate side for a Texas artillery unit - guess the Irish just love a good war 😁 Brilliant video Simon - you should research the 69th PA - the proper Fighting Irish 😁☘️☘️☘️
Again requesting Simon's team's take on the pig war between the US and Britain, a military conflict preceding the Civil War in which Pickett was in charge
7,700 men stepped off under Pettigrew/Trimble 5,400 came back. 30% casualties. The majority of men under Trimble/Pettigrew failed to ever get to Cemetery Ridge. Running back to the safety of the woods on Seminary Ridge rather than charge like Pickett's men. THAT'S why it is called Pickett's Charge.
Lee was overconfident in his Army , after the defeat of the Union at Chancellorsville , lee thought they were unbeatable . Lee to Pickett , General reform your Division , Pickett to Lee , General I have no Division
Why wouldn't he be though? He had already scored several wins against a larger, better equipped force. His confidence wasn't the problem. It was the fact that he chose to engage in open battle, rather than using the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics that had been so efficient. General Lee was so good that he is still studied at West Point to this day. He wouldn't be used as an example for our modern military officers if he was an inept fool.
@@dangreene3895 sure, but that doesn't mean it was the reason. His confidence was based upon past victories. He had every reason to be that confident. That isn't to say that his confidence didn't lead to bad decisions, but any military leader knows that you have to have absolute confidence in any decision you make. Those decisions involve countless lives and the shaping of nations. They are not the kind of thing to be tossed about, on a whim. Even bad decisions start with the best of intent.
@@SkunkApe407 I said that did you not see Chancellorsville where his army was out number about two to one , and he won , that had happened about three months before , lee was overconfident that cost him , he thought his army could attack and beat a larger entrenched army , ie Overconfident , I am not throwing around anything , I am stating a fact about a battle, I am not talking about the cause and effect of the Civil War
@Dan Beech that's a blatant lie. There were several Confederate units made up of black volunteers. Not every black person in the Antebellum South was a slave, and some of them actually wanted to preserve tgeir way of life. The truth of the American Civil War is far more nuanced than many people realize.
Vicksburg was more *objectively* significant to the South's ultimate defeat, Gettysburg was more important *subjectively*, particularly in *Europe*. It was Gettysburg that convinced Europeans who might want to stir the pot for their own advantage that the Union was going to win and that European meddling on behalf of the CSA (even full diplomatic recognition) would be disadvantageous in the long run.
@@matthewdaley746 The North was in a superior position from the very beginning, if only from a logistics basis. But, the South *could* have pulled it off in muchbthe same way the United States won the Revolution - by making it too costly (in both blood and treasure) for the people.of the Northern states to be willing to continue. Vicksburg made the situation logistically so much worse for the South as to make Union victory inevitable, and Gettysburg not only was huge victory in terms of the effect on each side's civilian morale, by effectively slamming the door on any possibility of foreign support (even if only pressure to lift the coastal blockades) made that inevitable Union victory much swifter. Had Lee succeeded at Gettysburg, even if only to pull off a tactical, operational, and strategic draw that could be spun to the respective civilian and political populations as a Southern victory, it was entirely possible for the South to feasibly pull off a *political* settlement that left the CSA intact and recognized - which would have been a complete victory for the South (and was, in fact, the entirety of Southern war aims from the very beginning - after all, they wanted to be separated from the Northern states, not conquer them). Even a stalemate at Gettysburg could have been the Confederscy's Tet... a military failure that nonetheless was perceived as major victory that ultimately helped win the war by convincing the more powerful party the war was "unwinnable".
@@geodkyt Possibly, but, his disastrous failure, at Gettysburg, combined, with, the crushing victory of, The, North, at Vicksburg, meant that this, simply, could no longer come to pass, things were finished, the final blow would be Abraham Lincoln's reelection in 1864.
@@geodkyt The problem was that Bobby was too aggressive and didn't understand the value of a defensive game. LC folks like to call Grant a butcher, but Bobby suffered more casualties than Grant did, and had less to show for it. The casualties from Gettysburg would have been so damaging that Lee would not have been able to besiege, much less take, Washington. He would have attempted to do so, anyway, I think, and such a move would have led to inevitable failure and retreat, which would have given the Union a HUGE morale boost--in addition to the refreshing news that Grant had taken Vicksburg, thus splitting the Confederacy in two and leaving Bobby and his men isolated and with little to no supplies. Union papers would hail it as a miracle, as proof that God was on their side. I'm sounding too much like I'm summarizing that alternate history trilogy, aren't I?
@@pyromania1018 Worse, The, North, could replace its losses, The, South, could, not, which meant that even a disastrous massacre at Cold Harbor was far more of, A, PR, Disaster, than an actual military turning point.
My Grandfather was a WWII vet born in 1912. When I was a child, he told me about his experiences talking to old Civil War Vets when HE was a child. It made it all seem not so long ago. It seems like a very long time ago now.
Do you recall anything he said?
I mean...we are talking about the later 1800s. It wasn't THAT long ago. I was in rehab last year and got a book from their library called The Bride of Texas. It was a romance novel about Slavs serving the Union (under Sherman during his March up the coast and thru the Carolinas) in the Civil War after they left their home due to their war. Reading all this about guys like Sherman and Burnside...I became fascinated, and alot of the reason is that upon reading the dates, it became clear that this was relatively recent in regards to history. I know the country is divided right now, but it was amazing how both side were at each other's throats only about 150 years ago...things have changed drastically.
My father did as well
And we act like racism, bigotry and hate somehow went away after the war. And now we refuse to acknowledge the damage done. I wonder if the conscious is loud or absent in their minds.
@@braxtonmoore9246 sound like you are the racist! Just let it go and let us live like Americans! Not cxyyzz-Americans! Study hard, don’t break the law, and live life the best you can! Don’t show up in police blotters!
I went to Gettysburg recently and it really gives a scale of just how big this battle was. The relics there as well were beautiful.
I haven't been there since a school trip back in the 90's
Same here! It's an amazing experience.
I only have an idea of what Gettysburg was because of the movie, "Gettysburg" which featured Jeff Daniels as Joshua Chamberlain.
Ll
Gettysburg is a bigger battle field than most people think. I've been there a few times. Very nice town and land.
My great-great grandfather was a member of the W.Va. 7th Infantry. The story he related to his son, years later, was that during day two, a shell blast had burst one of his ear drums, which put him on "easy" duty for day three. His "easy" duty was action as a stretcher man, carrying wounded soldiers off of the field. He said that General Hancock had given the order that there would be no more than two men per stretcher. However, when he arrived to carry Gen. Hancock off the field, Hancock called for a couple guys to come and help. At that point my g-g grandfather and his companion placed the general and stretcher back on the ground, and told him that if they weren't good enough for him, they'd go elsewhere to do their work, which they did. His companion, a man named Suters, was killed an hour later, but Gen. Hancock did eventually track down my grandfather, and commended him for his firmness in sticking to his orders.
I've been to Gettysburg several times as a kid (parents are History buffs). I would recommend it to anyone. The tour guides drove us all over the battlefield. Their credentials are outstanding. They are a wealth of knowledge and riveting story tellers.
I went once in 8th grade and REALLY want to go back.
We took a class trip to the battlefield and went through a tour of the battle. Each student was assigned a name and various names were called out as we marched to signify a casualty. Was pretty incredible to march a (unstable) line across an old battlefield. My name was called during the first few seconds of the retreat, shot in the chest as the soldier retreated facing forwards, as to not have a bullet hole in his back as a sign of cowardice. I am not sure of the validity of the statement, but it’s something I remember very clearly
Would love to see Simon cover the attempts by the confederates to take California and the fighting in New Mexico and Arizona. One of the least talked about theaters of the war and involved the confederates trying to use a troop of lancers, and showed why no one else would use lances in the war.
Yes, please Simon, let’s promote all the failures of the Confederate state!
The History Guy did a great episode on the Confederate attempts to take Colorado and New Mexico. And the utter failure that it was. Including the thoughts by the Confederate general in charge that the New Mexicans would rise up in revolt and back the Confederacy... spoiler... they didn't. As a matter of fact. The residents of New Mexico all but slammed doors in the faces of the Confederate soldiers.
@@ag7898 I've seen that one and always love the History Guy's content. There's a great book called "The Three Cornered War" that goes into the New Mexico campaign and my favorite fact from it is that when Sibley got permission to invade New Mexico the Confederate government was like "go for it, but we don't have money or weapons to give you" so Sibley had to buy most of the firearms in Texas and a bunch of the men went off to fight with shotguns and high end sporting rifles.
The Channel "Civil War: Wild West Edition" has some GREAT stuff on that for you!
There are much more interesting war stories than that.
1:15 - Chapter 1 - And on the 3rd day
5:05 - Chapter 2 - A hard rain falls
9:10 - Chapter 3 - Into the inferno
13:25 - Chapter 4 - The south's highwater mark
17:35 - Chapter 5 - High & dry
Interesting tidbit. During the cannon duel between the Union and Confederate batteries, the Union artillery also overshot their targets as well, but those shells just wound up smashing into the infantry that was amassing behind the lines.
And to conserve ammo, the Union artillery began to slow its fire. But instead of stopping all at once, they stopped each gun individually at random intervals to give the confederates the impression that they were knocking out the union guns.
This battle demonstrates the importance of Cavalry and Field Artillery in modern war.
COL (CSA) Alexander's inability to meet Lee's commander's intent for fire support determined the outcome. Porter Alexander knew he did not have the ammunition to both win the counterfire battle against the Union Artillery and to shape the battle. It was a shame Alexander was not able to convince Lee he could not meet his intent.
If (Union Cavalry BG) J.N.O. Buford had shaped the battlefield by his economy of force operation on the first day, Alexander's inability to meet his commander's intent for fire support.
@@johnminehan1148 Cannon were far less effective in an offensive role during the Civil War than they were in the Napoleonic Wars. Even the exploding shells (when they worked) of the former had less effect than grapeshot in the latter- which was often used to batter infantry formations from 300 yards, which was outside smoothbore musket range but inside rifled musket range.
By 3 July, Lee had to attack or abandon the campaign in failure. The AoNV was foraging and couldn't remain in any one area for more than 3-5 days. They couldn't forage in the immediate presence of enemy forces and they hadn't foraged since Lee's concentration order of 29 June. The clock was ticking at Vicksburg (lifting the siege of which was the strategic objective of the campaign), and Lee lacked the time to carry out Longstreet's suggestion of an envelopment- which was unlikely to draw the AotP into attacking anyway, since the Confederates had already been saddled with the tactical initiative by attacking on 1 July.
Lee's idea of attacking the Union center was in line with the Napoleonic concept of the "strategic battle"- in this case, of attacking one flank of the opposing army and then the other in an effort to draw forces from the center. Meade however, understood this as well. He told Gibbon that if the Confederates attacked on 3 July, it would be on Gibbon's front (in the Union center).
The attack didn't fail for lack of artillery support. It failed because: 1) the Confederates had to cross approximately a mile of open ground and took heavy casualties, so that only a few hundred men reached the Union line, and; 2) Meade saw the attack coming, so that approximately 20,000 Union reinforcements began to converge on the Confederates.
Lee's decision to attack on both 2 and 3 July was sound. It was his decisions prior to the battle which ruined the campaign.
Cheers...
@@manilajohn0182 No his decision to attack on the 3rd wasn't sound. He should have just called the whole thing off and taken the minor loss. A minor loss didn't devastate the Confederacy at Antietam, and it wouldn't have done so at Gettysburg, certainly not in comparison to what crushing defeat he suffered did.
The idea that throwing away more than 6,000 lives is a better alternative to just conceding defeat is kind of baffling, especially in an army where every man was irreplacable.
@@TheStapleGunKid Lee's decision to attack was sound because his only other alternative was to abandon the campaign in failure. The primary reason for Lee's movement north was to achieve a great enough success to lift the siege of Vicksburg. Abandoning the campaign in failure would have been a strategic disaster, and not a minor loss.
Without a doubt, the assault had a poor chance of success- and the reason why Lee was in such a position on 3 July was because of multiple errors made by him prior to the onset of the campaign and during the march north to Gettysburg. Having said that, he couldn't simply about face, march back to Virginia, give up the campaign because two wing attacks had failed, and write off Vicksburg.
@@manilajohn0182 Abandoning the campaign would have been the more sound choice than ordering an attack with virtually no chance of success. Vicksburg fell the following day, so nothing that happened at Gettysburg would have made any difference. Even if Lee had been able to magically delete the army of the Potomac from existence, that would not have saved Vicksburg. The only thing Lee had control over on July 3 was the ability to save his army, which he could have done realizing it was time to call off the campaign and get back to Virginia with his army mostly intact, as he had done at Antietam.
Loving all of this 19th century focus. It’s so interesting to see conflicts play out without rapid fire weapons. An age of horse, howitzer, and single action fire arms. Hope we see more spotlights on 1800s military actions from the US perspective. Maybe the Boxer Rebellion. The prequels to WWI.
Arguably, the American Civil War was THE prequel to World War I. Because while Americans were brutally killing each other with brand new weaponry, and updated tactics, Europe was quietly sitting on the sidelines, and taking notes. Notes that would finally see implementation in 1914, and would result in the deaths of millions of Europeans!
@@jacob4920 They didn't take very good notes then because they still believed that massed men and charges at the enemy were the way to win a battle and a war. They were very wrong.
@@michaelb1761 In the end, you have to win the counterfire fight and then suppress the enemy defenses.
If the bean counters hadn't resisted adoption of the Spencer rifle so adamantly, there's no telling how it may have turned out.
@@jacob4920There was a gap of almost 50 years between the end of the American Civil War and the start of WWI. During that period machine-guns, rifles with magazines holding a dozen rounds or more, vastly improved artillery and mortars, aerial reconnaissance and attack were all developed. The nature of warfare was totally changed and cavalry became irrelevant. There was nothing for the European combatants to learn from the American Civil War.
Me and my dad have been watching “The Civil War” together, and I showed him this video in my feed. What perfect timing! We watched the episode on the battle of Gettysburg two days ago!
Ken Burns is a national treasure
The problem with that series is that Ken Burns relies too much on Shelby Foote, a journalist whose works have been dismissed as Lost Cause propaganda, and largely ignored actual historians
When Lee told Pickett told him to attend to his division, Pickett told him “General, I have no division”.
Ever since I saw the movie Gettysburg I’ve wanted to go to that battlefield. I still watch that once in a while. Pickett’s charge is one of the coolest scenes in film history, to me in anyway. Thousands of extras marching in formation is pretty impressive. You can’t make a movie like that today.
Get to the battlefield if you can. Walk the route of Pickett’s Charge. See Little Round Top, Devil’s Den, Culp’s Hill, etc. Walk around the historic town itself. It’s truly moving. I live exactly 4 hours away and go at least twice a year. Once you go, you’ll never be the same.
Oh wonderful! Simon in time for coffee and he brings our most glorious loss ever. Cheers from Tennessee.
I had the privilege to visit the battlefield at Gettysburg when I was 12 as part of a class trip and I walked across the field as the Confederate army did. It's a *looooong* walk for just taking a leisurely stroll. Between the heat, shelling, and gunfire I don't even want to try and comprehend the hell those men were put through on that hot July day.
thats really interesting ^_^
I am a National Park Service employee mowing on Seminary Ridge as I watch this on my lunch
My great grandfather was part of Vermont 2nd brigade if front of Pickets charge. The most impressive part was did 135 mile force march in 5 days the last 35 non stop just in time to get in possion a little before attack. So tired slept when cannons were firing the Officers and NCO'S had to wake them up when attack began. Not bad for troops in Army less than 9 months.
You should do an episode on Balaclava, not only the Light Brigade being sent down the wrong valley to their doom, but also the less disastrous Heavy Brigade and Thin Red Line.
Also, in a similar vein of "how can it possibly get worse?" 73 Easting would be a fun one to hear Simon talk about, if only for the couple of instances where a lightly-armoured scout vehicle happened to cross between a tank and its target and nobody noticed the holes through both sides of it until afterward.
I don’t get the big deal about the Light Brigade; literally MOST of the brigade survived. It’s made to sound like a massacre to the man; there have been COUNTLESS battles where a brigade took far higher casualties. 🤷🏼♂️
@@CorePathway That so many of them made it back when the intent was to cut down a retreating enemy and were instead sent into 50 active artillery pieces and their supporting infantry is the impressive thing. Less than a third of the horses made it back, though.
I believe he did already
One thing to note about the Union Artillery, the commander ordered the Union guns to cease fire one by one, which gave the confederates the idea that they were hitting the Union guns.
Another thing to note even if the confederates won at Gettysburg, the Union did have a massive victory at Vicksburg, which gained control of the Mississippi River and cut the land held by the confederacy in half. They probably would of had to give up Gettysburg and return back south, since it would be difficult to hold without good supply lines.
In other words, a victory would have been absolutely Pyrrhic, and, that's, seriously, putting it mildly.
Lee knew Vicksburg was under siege, but instead of reinforcing it he decided to invade Pennsylvania. Overall, not the smartest choice.
@nobody special Absolutely, an, indescribable, error.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Because Lee was too focused on his precious Virginia, instead of realizing the type of war that he was fighting. The Confederacy needed to pick their battles VERY carefully, and needed to give up on the knockout punch they kept going for.
@Domesthenes Precisely, it's absolutely horrendous-devastating.
I live only about 30 miles from Gettysburg and toured the battlefield multiple times. Its a very solemn place, the weight of those lives lost is always heavy in the air
I live in Harrisburg, about 30 miles from there and have been many times. You're right: it is a solemn place.
I've only been there once, and while it is a solemn place, the town is absolutely lovely.
Shout-out to all of the brave Union soldiers that day -- especially those of the 8th Ohio, the 19th Massachusetts, the 71st and 72nd Pennsylvania and Stannard's Vermonters.
Lee has an unearned reputation as a genius. His charge here illustrates a tendency to flush away men and material on northern invasions.
Incorrect. He actually was a genius up to this point. It was in summer of 1863 that he started getting cocky, arrogant, and believing in his own invincibility.
When compared to his contemporaries, he definitely passes muster. The difference is his side didn't have the population or industrial capacity to replace any losses, and his opponents possessed both, giving them the ability to learn from their mistakes rather than succumbing to them.
Lee broke his hands at the second battle of mansas and from the on was an opium fiend. It's all recorded by caa doctors but never mentioned
Lee has been over hyped by Lost Causers and the antebellum south. Lee gave a lot of odd open ended indirect orders that if his men prevailed he would gain the credit but if they failed he kept his own plausible deniability intact. He had a weakness of being too aggressive and wasting his men that he wouldn't be able to replace on securing ground that may not be important strategically in the bigger picture of the war, more so than any of that he was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery for rich plantation owners and politicians in the south and he believed that the Bible and God justified slavery and the CSA defense of it. What he was fighting for was wrong and he obviously wasn't an outstanding tactical general because if he was he would have won the war. He lost, he unconditionally surrendered. That's the definition of an ineffective commander.
I’d like Simon to cover the 20 year US occupation of Haiti not a very well known topic but I think it’s interesting enough to get views
It probably doesn't get as much attention as the French occupation because of how short it was, and the fact that American occupation came with as much good as it did bad.
American occupation of Haiti may have brought unrest within the elite and a pair of revolts, but it also came with massive improvements in infrastructure and a revamping of the educational system. It also came with the added effect of shattering the hold Germany had on Haiti at the time.
While the American occupation did come with its fair share of horrors, it is also directly responsible for helping establish Haitian independence.
My great-great grandfather was at Pickett's Charge fighting for the US. He was wounded but recovered enough to finish his 3 years of service.
Followed Simon for years and studied civil war history for years. Well Done
My great great grandfather and his son, my great grandfather both died in picketts charge. 🙏 RIP
One of the brigades in Pickett's division was lead by brigadier general James L. Kemper. One of the regiments in Kemper's brigade was the 7th Virginia, which was commanded by a lieutenant colonel named Waller Tazewell Patton, who was mortally wounded in the charge and died a few weeks later. Lt. colonel Patton had a number of relatives who fought for the Confederacy, including his brother George, a colonel who would be killed the next year leading his regiment at the Third Battle of Winchester. George Patton left behind a few children, including a namesake son who would go on to name his own son George. That particular George S. Patton had a rather notable career as a general in WWII.
I had a Patton cousin in my squad as a Corporal at VMI in 1981 . . . . He wound up a Commander in the Navy . . . .
the great montgomery thought patton was profligate with the lives of his men. maybe his ancestors' mixing with lee and other knobs was passed on as a meme.
I got to reenact Gettysburg at the 150th anniversary. I was right at the angle for a nearly 1-to-1 recreation of Pickett's charge. It was the single coolest thing I've ever seen.
i live above gettysburg. to drive through it everyday and just be memorized in what happened is the best part of being a local
Been listening to Sabaton again and now holding out for Winged Hussars in the 1683 Siege of Vienna
I’ve been to Gettysburg many times. I’ve walked the same fields the Confederates had to cross. And I’ve seen where the Union positions were.
It really shows what a terrible idea the charge was to begin with.
I have been there as well quite memorable.
I have too and yes they they had no chance
the terrain have unfotunally changed a lot, thanks to it being used for military training, ink with tanks in the early 20th century.
It is simply more level today than back then. The csa infantry line where only visible for about half the march across. Going down into depression where they would be in cover, then up over a raise taking missive artillery fire, and then down again.
Thats as good a description of Picketts Charge as I have seen, excellent at covering off all the main points, very good stuff Simon. What I always have thought about it (and as a Scot I dont have a dog in this fight) was that it should never have needed to take place. The Rebels had the opportunity to sweep the Union off Cemetery ridge/Culps Hill before the conclusion of the first day when the line was not firmly established and the Union forces were far less in number and in far poorer shape. Then on day 2 at various times they were an inch away from victory, both on Culps hill and on the Union left by Little Round Top, one more push on either point may have cracked the line but they were not to know this. By the time of Picketts charge the Union line was reinforced, dug in and practically impregnable. As you say Simon, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it shows just how little a battle of this size can spin on. Then of course, there was the absence of Jeb Stewarts calvary for most of the first 2 days.......if he had been in contact with Lee prior to the battle, would it have ever happened? A fascinating subject, thanks for the content SImon.
Lee had two regiments of cavalry at his command while Stuart was off playing games. He chose to not use them, which isn't doing anything to support that claim that he was a brilliant general. He allowed the Union to take the best defensive position, with the shortest lines of communication and reinforcement and had no clue that he was outnumbered. Little Round Top made for a great movie moment, but the 12000 Union soldiers within a mile of it who were never put into combat guaranteed that even if it was taken, the South would never be able to keep it. Same for Culp's Hill. There were plenty of Union soldiers which could have been sent to reinforce or retake any position if it was deemed necessary, but part of the issue was that communication had to be done face to face, so situations that were dire weren't known until afterwards and unit commanders had some leeway to act on their own without always waiting for the overall commanders to find out what was happening. That Stuart was allowed to go glory hunting while deep in enemy territory was irresponsible on his part, and also on Lee for giving him that freedom of command.
@@nobodyspecial4702 you are right about the calvary, it always seemed odd to me that in the absence of Stuart, Lee did not utilise his other mounted regiments to provide the screen and the situational reports which he so badly needed. I can only think that he trusted Stuart so much and put so much faith in him, he was prepared to keep waiting and waiting until he returned, By the time he did, it was too late to significantly impact the battle. Also, in keeping with my assertion that the whole battle should never have happened, there is also the matter that if Henry Heth`s boys had followed Lees order and not brought on a general engagement by going after Bufords dismounted calvary, then there was a very good chance the battle itself would not have taken place at Gettysburg. Meade himself favoured an engagement further south but when battle was brought on he was prepared to take Hancocks on the spot advice and committ his forces. Lee was clearly always up for a fight, but after failing finish off the Unioin forces on the first day, his chances of a Rebel victory decreased expidentially in each of the subsequent days for the reasons you give.
@@lefin3730 Lee had no faith in the militia cavalry to perform even basic scouting, so he never bothered to have them do any. He chose to march deep into enemy territory blind.
Capt. George Pickett was a big player in the start of a near war over the killing of a pig; on disputed islands between Washington State (The US) and Vancouver Island (the UK). He came in dead last, in a class of 59 candidates in the military academy.
A couple notes about Longstreet's artillery:
1. The gun carriages did not have recoil devices at this point. After the first shots, the tail of the carriage dug into the mud and the barrels elevated, turning the shells into "quartermaster killers", flying over the front lines and crashed into the baggage trains.
2. Smokeless powder had not been invented and, as a result, the gunners could not see that their shells were going high.
I believe both these details came from the Shelby Foote series.
There was a running joke, amongst Union soldiers, that Confederate Artillery "always overshot their targets." The Union Army, especially under US Grant's command, took advantage of this bad habit. Clearly, it was one of the reasons the South ultimately crumbled under Grant's ceaseless assaults on Virginia.
To your points, while True they did have elevation screws to make up for this however. At Fredricksburg 7 monthe earlier the Confederate Artillery was devastating. The fact was artillery at the time was not accurate or heavy enough to support infantry over a mile away. Closer in and 600 meters or so they remained the "King of Battle".
Lee was applying Napoleonic tactics.....having attacked both flanks of the enemy, he reasoned that the center would be weaker, having transferred troops to the flanks.
Not an unreasonable assumption.
"There are times when the life of a corps commander doesn't matter." Winfield Scott Hancock.
"Find me a tourniquet, before I bleed to death!!" lol
If you've ever seen the battlefield, and the area of the charge in particular, it really drives home how hopeless the charge really was.
Especially if you walked it.
It is such a big battlefield , its a walk
It's mindblowing how could Lee even consider such a thing after seeing what happened at Fredericksburg earlier..
@@michalpavlat3943 From the *Confederate* side of the battlefield, the terrain looks do-able for a charge with even minimal covering fire.
From the Union side, however, the terrain is *clearly* suicide ground, where a charge from the Southern positions could *only* succeed if the Union defenders were completely shattered and disorganized.
Lee was not thinking right about that charge!
Thank you so much for this. By combining the facts with the words of the men who lived it, you have brought to life the chilling reality of that day.
Great video! Walking the ground in Gettysburg is an amazing experience. Love the "MacBeth" quote too!
The twin union victories one at Gettysburg and the other at Vicksburg were the key turning points in the Civil War for the Union. You can argue which was more important. I would say politically Gettysburg since it was fought in the East, and it was the 2nd time Robert E. Lee had been checked invading the North. It really took the wind out of their sails. Vicksburg matters strategically since it split the Confederacy in two. It also showed that in US Grant, Lincoln had a competent general. I have visited Gettysburg. I would encourage all to visit.
No, you cannot, Gettysburg demoralized, The, South, and, killed many soldiers, Vicksburg turned the victory of, The, North, from, likelihood, to, certainty.
The Union victory at Vicksburg might well have never happened if Bedford Forrest had been properly used. An earlier move against Vicksburg by Grant had failed due to the disruptions caused to Union communications and supplies by Confederate cavalry. This forced the Union forces to retreat. The same thing could have happened again had the South used the same tactics.
@@julianmarsh1378 He was far too busy venting his racist frustrations to be an effective leader, while, most of the generals were honorable men that fought for an evil cause, he was a monster that would later start the KKK following the Civil War.
@@matthewdaley746 Both Lee and Jefferson Davis said after the war that one mistake they made was in not better utilizing Bedford....and at one point in his frustration, a famous Union general said, "I don't care if it cost 10,000 men and bankrupts the Treasury; I want Forest dead!" Not the sort of comment one makes of an ineffective leader, yes? And while he played a significant role in starting the KKK he also later called for its disbandment and later urged Southern whites and blacks to learn to live together....
@@julianmarsh1378 Nathan Bedford Forrest, also, was, responsible, for, The, Fort Pillow Massacre, and, took his hatred of the enemy too far, repentance was commendable, but, it only makes one wonder what he could have done had he stayed out of his own way, alas, unknowable, he was ineffective in the sense that he treated war as a campaign of annihilation, which led to his defeat.
The charge at the battle of Franklin, Tennessee in 1864 put Pickett’s charge to shame in terms of scale and bloodshed. I hope Simon covers it!
Shiloh tends to overshadow everything else that happened in Tennessee.
Poor Cleburne
@@als3022 He once said that if the cause for which he had fought, so, hard, was lost, he'd prefer to die, he got his wish, were he in charge, rather, than, John Bell Hood, things would have, possibly, been less of a massacre.
@Unbroken Nathan Bedford Forrest, was, probably, the most hated general in the entire Civil War, he was, "A, Sadist, With, A, Rank," caused, The, Fort Pillow Massacre, and, later, helped found the KKK.
Cold Harbor!
I'm glad you mentioned the insults on Meade and how unfair they were. He didn't want to charge into dug in lines of confederacy to have the exact reverse happens to him, and a lose meant Washington D.C. falling. Insults on him were contemporary, not understanding how war had been changing from Victorian style to proto WW1 style. Confederacy had fantastic Victorian Generals but to union Generals credit they understood war was changing
Meade was demoted by Lincoln after the battle. No follow up?
@marknewton6984 Meade was never demoted, he remained Commander of Potomic for the rest of war. His role simply deminished in importance when Grant became Commander of all US forces. Lincoln was very upset at Meade at the time for not pursuing Lee, which was actually pretty unfair when Meade was under strict orders to defend DC and Baltimore. He expected Meade to break orders to gamble on an attack that could have ended the war but also could have easily ended in disaster and fall of DC.
Your way of narration is awesome, great vid , thank you
Another great video Simon and crew. Happy to see this channel taking off.
Check out the photo of the 50th anniversary of Gettysburg on wikipedia, showing surviving veterans of the charge shaking hands with their northern counterparts.
The non fiction book "The Killer Angels" won the pulitzer prize in 1975. The entire book covers the three day battle of Gettysburg. Told in brutal detail.
Great book. Wish I'd written it!
Great work, Simon and team. Your next Warographics video should be the Battle off Samar (a WWII naval battle that was part of the bigger battle of Leyte Gulf) and how that engagement was one of, if not thee, greatest naval battles in history. I'll leave you all to the research but I guarantee that you will find it absolutely incredible.
The last stand of the tin can sailor is a fantastic book about taffy 3 during the battle off Samar.
When (among other amazing things) a destroyer escort armed with two 5" guns beat up a heavy cruiser.
Let’s hear it for General Buford, who picked out this “gorgeous field of fire” when he wrote up on July 1. 1863.
The Union fought the war with 1 hand tied behind its back. Shelby Foote was correct about that 1 thing at least.
Bingo. There were several occasions, far earlier than Gettysburg, where the North stood a good chance of ending the war, but various generals (most notably McClellan) were overly cautious and squandered opportunities that were practically gift-wrapped for them.
You should cover the charge at Franklin, just prior to the Battle Of Nashville in 1864. Hell, cover the entire Nashville campaign. You not only get to see one of the only times an ENTIRE ARMY was thoroughly beaten, but the final battle features one of my favorite Generals: George Henry Thomas.
Also, I consider July 3rd of 1863 to be Confederate Double Face Palm Day. Around the time Pickett's Charge was happening, the Confederates at Vicksburg were asking for terms from Ulysses S Grant, as he had them under a Julius Caesar styled siege for quite some time.
Sorry for the grammar/typos, vodka🍸
Grant at Cold Harbor?
Most people don't know there was a fire at the Ordnance depot that usually supplied the Army of Northern Virginia and they got their ammo from an inferior factory that was having problems with their shell fuses. Hope you cover The Battle of Wilson's Creek later.
I love Gettysburg. I lived in Pennsylvania for a while and I used to visit and walk around.
The difference between the Charge of the Light Brigade and Pickett's Charge is, that at Crimea there was a miscommunication of a correct order, as a result of which, a body of men charged the wrong battery of guns and were mown down. At Gettysburg there was no miscommunication - the order itself was fatally flawed.
My great-grandfather was in the charge: Lt. Andrew B. Anderson, commanding Company F, 53d Va. Infantry, Armistead's Brigade, Pickett's Division. He made it to the top of Cemetery Ridge, where he was wounded: a Minié ball passed under his right shoulder blade, exited his armpit and went through his biceps. He was soon back in the line. He had seen the war coming, joined the militia early, and fought through the whole thing until paroled at Appamattox. He lived on into his nineties and, before he died, came to the realization that it had all been "a big mistake".
This comment is dedicated especially to all you Stars-and-Bars-waving nostalgia queens out there.
@Griffin Anderson I have a story about my great great grandfather that was told to me. He was a farmer in Tennessee and joined the confederate army. He, like most confederate soldiers, was no slave owner, he joined because the Yankees were coming.
So the story goes he fought at Antietam. The carnage and death was so bad, that after the battle he packed his gear and went back to his farm. He figured if the Yankees wanted come down, he’d find room for them. Must of been horrific.
The movie, Gettysburg, really does a good job at showing how tragic Pickett's charge actually was.
Hear-hear! "Gettysburg" is one of only FIVE war movies ever made that I actually personally own! The other four all have something to do with World War II. But "Gettysburg" was so well done that I actually deviated from my obsession for the sake of it. I've never had occasion to regret it.
Longstreet not being able to talk but just motion to order the attack is heartbreaking
It is tragic only if you support the racist Confederacy. It is a bit like saying that it was tragic that the 6th Army was lost when it attacked Stalingrad. Well, only if you supported the racist Nazis.
@@minsapint8007 Hate to break it to you but the USA was just as racist as the Confederacy ay least by todays standards
@@minsapint8007 many abolitionists fought for the racist Confederacy and plenty of racists fought for the Union who thought Lincoln would deport black people to Liberia.
Fun fact, the cannon fire could be heard all the way in Philadelphia that day.
Longstreet tried to talk Lee out of making that charge several times that day and redeploy the army further south on more favorable ground.
You always do such a good job of narration. Thanks
Simon, you gotta cover the Battle of the Crater. One of the greatest f-ups in military history.
Somehow, I get the feeling its reputation is completely different, were the sides reversed.
You should make a video about the Gettysburg of the west, aka Glorieta's pass, It was a man vs wild situation as much as it was man vs man, and thank you for this spectacular content, the civil war is so interesting because they used napoleonic era formations and tactics during an era when it started to become obsolete, Thank you for being the king of TH-cam!
General Lee (after the battle ended): "General Pickett... You must go see to your Division."
General Pickett (with tears in his eyes): "General Lee... I have NO Division!"
Yes poor General Meade has been given the short end of the stick by history. But here's what General Lee said about him when he learned Meade would be commanding the army of the Potomac, "Meade will make no mistake in front of me and if I make one he will quickly take advantage of it."
What sealed Meades reputation was not his fault but that of his predecessor. General McClellen after the semi victory at Antietam (and numerous other times) refused to move against Lee and gave all manner of excuses for not doing so. After Gettysburg Meade too refused to pursue Lee. Except Meades reason for not doing so wasn't an excuse, the army of the Potomac was utterly spent after the battle, the troops were exhausted, with a mountain of dead and wounded and dangerously low on ammunition, it really was in no shape to mount a major pursuit of the Confederates. But since McClellen had cried wolf about this so many times, when Meade did it, even though the "wolf" was real this time, it was his undoing.
I think Meade is a severely under appreciated general. In addition to everything you said, Meade was also under orders to keep his army between Washington and Lee. He also had to rebuild the army because the majority of his officers had been killed at Gettysburg. By the time Meade was ready to move on Lee, Lee was waiting for him and wanted Meade to attack him. Meade saw this and didn’t take the bait.
@@xTheGamingGhostx he was the best they had till grant came in. but as exhuasted his men were the confederaes were so a pursuit could have still worked.
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
yeah, well, seeing those 19th century "terminators" getting shredded by cannon fire was probably a good way to make fear dissipate
It's quite something to stand at the Angle and look across that field.
For years I've been under the impression that Lee's initial plan for the 3rd was a continuation of July 2nd with attacks continuing on both flanks. However, he was unaware that the condition of Longstreet's Corps was considerably weakened by the heavy casualties it suffered the day before and was really in no condition for another heavy push. On the opposite flank, Meade beat Ewell to the punch by attacking Culp's Hill about 4:30 that morning to regain the lower Hill lost in the fighting on the evening of the Second. This forestalled the latter's assault planned for later that morning. It was sometime early that morning that he decided to tackle the Union center, not the night before.
The Gettysburg movie is still among my top warmovies ever made. Highly recommended
"General Pickett, you must look to your division."
"General Lee...I have no divison."
Rightfully it should be called Lee's charge. He is the one who ordered it. But since it was a failure; people decided that it couldn't be the fault of the great leader.
Lee didn't lead the charge, Pickett did.
Heard it's typical of virginians to name offensives after the most senior Virginian officer present...
considering Picket's division was practically detoryed I think it's to honor them
I feel most forgot about the other significant battle in the west, Vicksburg, the true turning point of the war. Lee knew this and pushed for Gettysburg before Grant can take Vickburg and divide the Confederacy.
Vicksburg turned, The, North's, victory from, "if," to, "when," actually amazing that the war, somehow, lasted nearly two more years.
There was never really an "if" as one source put it "The Union fought the war essentially with one hand behind it's back."
Lee knew what Japan would eventually know in WWII, that a protracted war would end in defeat as the Union/Americans held a massive advantage in both industrial capacity and sheer manpower, meaning only a massive blow that turned the soft tempered civilian population again the war could win.
@@Rammstein0963. Vicksburg was the decisive blow, that, The, South, shall, not, recover from, The, North, may, not, have won immediately, but, once, The, North, did this, it became evident that they would win eventually, period.
15:20 come on give them the cold steel! Simon, come to america just on vacation, forget about work! G-burg is a great place they'd love to have you. I had a AirBnB at the very base of cemetery hill and had the whole weekend to explore. The whole city is a tourist trap and i say that in the best way! Nice varied terrain you have plains, hills, woods, and rocky crags. Biggest shout out goes to the reenactors even whose buttons are accurate, costumed living historians giving you walking tour through town, and park rangers who walk with you through the actual ground the men fought and died in their thousands
If you go to Gettysburg make sure to walk the field of "Pickett's Charge" start from the Lee Statue and make for the "Copse of Trees". It's a long way....longer while under shot, shell and rifle fire I'm sure.
I absolutely love all of your videos. Cannot wait to see what you cover next on this channel. I've learned so much about history on many of your channels. Thank you for your knowledge and wisdom.
Lee; General pickett you must reform your division
Pikett; general Lee sir I have no division
Thanks for a great presentation! I have been studying the American Civil War for decades, and I always enjoy picking up new details from any source. This had several things I did not know.
Great content, thanks. BTW, the much under-appreciated CSA charge at the battle of Franklin, TN, resulted in more casualties than Pickett’s charge.
The one picture with the cannon at the stone wall pointing at trees in the distance at 14:48 shows just how far the confederates had to march. The trees in the distance is where the troops waited during the bombardment, then formed their lines in front of the trees and marched towards that stone wall. All while getting shot at by cannonballs, then canister fire (essentially turning the cannon into a massive shotgun) then musket fire. Some places had Union men lined up several men deep, with the men in front firing a musket, passing it back to be reloaded as a fresh musket was passed up to them.
Thank you for this. It was very insightful.
This was an awesome video maybe the next should be about
Desert Storm
Been a long time since I've seen someone post "Desert Storm" my generation refers to it as the First Gulf War, or the First Iraq War.
I believe that Longstreet had ordered Col Alexander to assign some guns to accompany the assault, to defend the right flank, but they never advanced.
After the charge:
Gen. Lee: "General Pickett, you should be with your division."
Gen. Pickett: "Sir, I have no division."
Armistead was a Brigade Commander within Pickett's division, along with Gen'ls Kemper and Barnett
Yosemite Sam was the artillery commander for the Confederates with Sylvester the Cat and Elmer Fudd as Longstreet and Lee; on the Union side was Tweety, Bugs, and Daffy Duck taunting the others. I guess this is a good allusion.
Loved this video and great presentation!
The Gettysburg sequence of events at Little Round Top on the afternoon before Pickett’s Charge deserves the same
wonderful treatment
Bayonets!
"Double Canister, No Swabbing!" - my favorite Gettysburg quote. ;)
OH that SICK burn at the end!!!
"That old man... had my division massacred at Gettysburg!" - George Pickett about Lee
When Pickett was asked by a reporter why the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg, he replied "I've always believed the Yankees had something to do with it."
I've read a great deal about the Civil War over the years. But I only realized the true horror when I stood at the bottom of the hill where Pickett's men had stood, and imagined myself having to walk across that open field while the Union army opened up on me. Just terrifying. Why do we humans keep doing this, I wonder.
telling Lee "no 15,000 men who ever lived could take that position." - Lieutenant General James Longstreet
One correction: Meade ordered the early morning attacks at Culp's Hill on July 3rd. The fighting there was not a badly timed Confederate attack staged as a diversion for the charge on Cemetary Ridge. These attacks were meant to recover positions the rebs had taken late in the evening of July 2nd. Meade wanted his right secured to be ready for the expected action at the center.
It wasn’t the turning point. It was the ending point of Gettysburg. The turning point was either day 1 when confederates did not take culps/cemetery hills or day 2 when they were blunted on the other end of the battlefield at little round top.
Walked Gettysburg when I was a younger lad in the scouts. It's an amazing theater of war in a mixed setting.
My Great Great Grandfather James McPeake volunteered for the 69th PA Company D and fought at Gettysburg. It was the 69th PA which faced Pickett's charge and actually engaged in hand to hand combat when the charge breached the Union wall as several Union units fled in panic. The decisive role they played is recognised by the placement of the monument to the 69th PA which is placed further in front of any other monument and this measure of recognition was upheld by Congress. The 69th PA were one of 300 units awarded the title or moniker of 'The Fighting ' out of over 3000 combating brigades which is one of the possible origins of the term 'The Fighting Irish' . My Great Great Grandfather returned to Ireland after the Civil War and is buried in Newbridge Co. Derry. I think only two members of the 69th PA made it back to Ireland (My GG Grandfather and a fellow by the name of Maynes who is buried outside Ballyronan Co Derry). I think General Lee commented that the Union only won the war because they had more Irish ☘️☘️☘️ I also have relatives that fought for the Confederate side for a Texas artillery unit - guess the Irish just love a good war 😁 Brilliant video Simon - you should research the 69th PA - the proper Fighting Irish 😁☘️☘️☘️
Its fascinating that the sons and grandsons of the Civil War veterans would fight with machine guns and tanks a generation later in Europe.
Again requesting Simon's team's take on the pig war between the US and Britain, a military conflict preceding the Civil War in which Pickett was in charge
7,700 men stepped off under Pettigrew/Trimble 5,400 came back. 30% casualties. The majority of men under Trimble/Pettigrew failed to ever get to Cemetery Ridge. Running back to the safety of the woods on Seminary Ridge rather than charge like Pickett's men. THAT'S why it is called Pickett's Charge.
Lee was overconfident in his Army , after the defeat of the Union at Chancellorsville , lee thought they were unbeatable . Lee to Pickett , General reform your Division , Pickett to Lee , General I have no Division
Why wouldn't he be though? He had already scored several wins against a larger, better equipped force.
His confidence wasn't the problem. It was the fact that he chose to engage in open battle, rather than using the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics that had been so efficient. General Lee was so good that he is still studied at West Point to this day. He wouldn't be used as an example for our modern military officers if he was an inept fool.
@@SkunkApe407 Lee said he was overconfident
@@dangreene3895 sure, but that doesn't mean it was the reason. His confidence was based upon past victories. He had every reason to be that confident.
That isn't to say that his confidence didn't lead to bad decisions, but any military leader knows that you have to have absolute confidence in any decision you make. Those decisions involve countless lives and the shaping of nations. They are not the kind of thing to be tossed about, on a whim. Even bad decisions start with the best of intent.
@@SkunkApe407 I said that did you not see Chancellorsville where his army was out number about two to one , and he won , that had happened about three months before , lee was overconfident that cost him , he thought his army could attack and beat a larger entrenched army , ie Overconfident , I am not throwing around anything , I am stating a fact about a battle, I am not talking about the cause and effect of the Civil War
@Dan Beech that's a blatant lie. There were several Confederate units made up of black volunteers. Not every black person in the Antebellum South was a slave, and some of them actually wanted to preserve tgeir way of life. The truth of the American Civil War is far more nuanced than many people realize.
Thank you! Love the Civil War! Antietam is probably my favorite!
Yeah, bloodiest battle, without, a winner, the most savage item, of many.
Vicksburg was more *objectively* significant to the South's ultimate defeat, Gettysburg was more important *subjectively*, particularly in *Europe*. It was Gettysburg that convinced Europeans who might want to stir the pot for their own advantage that the Union was going to win and that European meddling on behalf of the CSA (even full diplomatic recognition) would be disadvantageous in the long run.
The, North, probably, was winning it, before Vicksburg, after, it was, simply, a question of when.
@@matthewdaley746 The North was in a superior position from the very beginning, if only from a logistics basis. But, the South *could* have pulled it off in muchbthe same way the United States won the Revolution - by making it too costly (in both blood and treasure) for the people.of the Northern states to be willing to continue.
Vicksburg made the situation logistically so much worse for the South as to make Union victory inevitable, and Gettysburg not only was huge victory in terms of the effect on each side's civilian morale, by effectively slamming the door on any possibility of foreign support (even if only pressure to lift the coastal blockades) made that inevitable Union victory much swifter.
Had Lee succeeded at Gettysburg, even if only to pull off a tactical, operational, and strategic draw that could be spun to the respective civilian and political populations as a Southern victory, it was entirely possible for the South to feasibly pull off a *political* settlement that left the CSA intact and recognized - which would have been a complete victory for the South (and was, in fact, the entirety of Southern war aims from the very beginning - after all, they wanted to be separated from the Northern states, not conquer them). Even a stalemate at Gettysburg could have been the Confederscy's Tet... a military failure that nonetheless was perceived as major victory that ultimately helped win the war by convincing the more powerful party the war was "unwinnable".
@@geodkyt Possibly, but, his disastrous failure, at Gettysburg, combined, with, the crushing victory of, The, North, at Vicksburg, meant that this, simply, could no longer come to pass, things were finished, the final blow would be Abraham Lincoln's reelection in 1864.
@@geodkyt The problem was that Bobby was too aggressive and didn't understand the value of a defensive game. LC folks like to call Grant a butcher, but Bobby suffered more casualties than Grant did, and had less to show for it. The casualties from Gettysburg would have been so damaging that Lee would not have been able to besiege, much less take, Washington. He would have attempted to do so, anyway, I think, and such a move would have led to inevitable failure and retreat, which would have given the Union a HUGE morale boost--in addition to the refreshing news that Grant had taken Vicksburg, thus splitting the Confederacy in two and leaving Bobby and his men isolated and with little to no supplies. Union papers would hail it as a miracle, as proof that God was on their side.
I'm sounding too much like I'm summarizing that alternate history trilogy, aren't I?
@@pyromania1018 Worse, The, North, could replace its losses, The, South, could, not, which meant that even a disastrous massacre at Cold Harbor was far more of, A, PR, Disaster, than an actual military turning point.
Nearly did a spit take when Simon said “cluster beep” lol