@@orgillmathew at the beginning it wasn’t really, but over the course of the war it kind of shifted into a war about slavery since Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed the Union to take the confederacy’s slaves and set them free, as the Constitution allows the US to take an enemies property in wartime (slaves were considered property at the time).
Confederacy was not poor. The very reason American Civil War happened is rich South had low representation in the government while paying way more taxes. The South wanted right to trade directly with Europe.
@@definitely_not_Hirohitothe war was about slavery. It's literally a stated issue in many states reasons for secession and it 100% became an issue of slavery once Abe said it verbtaim.
@@Kevbing9825Yes because it was a running gag for around 2 minutes in the video and not everyone is willing to fact check a silly little nickname they heard in an informational history channel video.
Note the confederacy didn’t have better generals… they were decent but they operated better as field officers and would score tactical victories but those tactical victories came at a strategic cost which Sherman and grant would exploit.
@@I_am_bacon._. Fun fact Bob E Lee took a total of 209,000 casualties over the course of the entire civil War with his one Army General Grants three different Army's only suffered a total of 153,642 casualties Meaning that technically Lee was a worse general than Grant... The commonly called butcher and drunk
@@Justjunniee For some strange reason my reply got deleted. However, West Virgina was still apart of Virgina Dejure. (Especially when at first, they had succeeded) so my point stays true none the less.
All of the eastern part of wva was all Confederate. Stonewall winter camp was in Romney and the state was divided by Lincoln not the people. You must be from near Ohio. I drive the whole eastern part of the state and to this day see more Confederate flags than American flags just last week in Berkeley springs counted 11 Confederate flags 2 American flags 16 TRUMP FLAGS AND NONE FOR OLD POOPY PANTS BIDEN.😂
I live near Kennessaw Mountain, near Atlanta. A major battle occured there, people still find grapeshot. I've even found a minnie-ball, deformed at the rear.
@@blurredlights5235 we find them all over Texas thanks to the great people of Tennessee coming down and help making this place a state. They brought it down here lol
the confederacy didn’t have better generals, they had flashier ones. more reckless and aggressive ones. makes fun military history and makes nerds jizz their pants over a Union Corps getting demolished here and there, but when you’re fighting a war against a numerically superior opponent you can’t be aggressive. The British also had more manpower, a stronger economy, etc. than the Americans during the Revolution, but America legitimately had better generals who could harass and outmaneuver their enemy until they fought them on favorable terms. If the South had better generals, they would’ve won in 1862 or 63. They didn’t.
I mean half truths. More so there was a lot of british political infighting at the time, not helped by the lack of resources focused on america due to multiple wars being thought.
If you're outnumbered you absolutely have to be aggressive. Why would you engage in a war of attrition if you are outnumbered basically 4:1? Jesus Christ use your head lmao
@@Pancasilaist8752Can’t disband the conventional army and engage in Guerrilla unless you have been occupied, and letting the North occupy the South as the first step towards secession is sure an interesting strategy.
The confederacy did almost win the war, only losing through bad decisions. However in a war of attrition, which the civil war quickly turned into after Gettysburg, the confederacy loses every time as their losses are not easily replenished.
Many think the confederacy winning would be the whole country being called the csa when that could be further from the truth. It would just be the USA and CSA and even than the south would’ve either collapsed or just replaced their slave economy with something better
"Almost winning"? At what point? Lee spent his entire involvement chasing a rainbow of "foreign intervention" that never looked even close to coming to pass even when Mason and Slidell were basically kidnapped from the "Trent"! And Braxton Bragg spent his entire Civil War career turning potentially decisive Southern victories into strategic retreats. Joe Johnston was too cautious to be effective in the strategic situation. After being wounded at Seven Pines, he spent the rest of the conflict looking forward to getting his old job back as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, a situation that became more and more unlikely as Lee went from tactical success to tactical success but could never quite grasp the need for a strategic solution. The Confederacy had very little chance of prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion the longer it dragged on. And as for Gettysburg being some kind of "turning point", it just wasn't anything of the sort. It changed nothing. The real turning point was the appointment of U.S. Grant as Commander and his transfer to supervise the push southward to Richmond, something others had tried but without having the gumption to simply press on regardless and keep moving South. So, the real "turning point" of the entire conflict was the aftermath of the Battle of the Wilderness, as Grant shrugged off a defeat and just moved steadily south, bottling Lee in and getting Phil Sheridan to finally put an end to all the sheer dicking about in the Shenandoah Valley and destroying the resupply area of food for the ANV , bringing the situation in Virginia past the point of Lee being able to bounce back
I believe generals like Harder, Cleburne and Forrest are underrated. Had they been given command of the Western forces, they Confederates wouldn't have done so poorly in the west.
They had WAY better generals. The unions generals dident do anything half of the war. The confederate generals actually used smart tactics winning battles outnumbered. The union generals just sent in the soldiers and hoped to win. The union just had more to win the war. If the north and the south had the same amount of money, guns, food, ships and things like that. The south would had won.
@@AmericanStatesofAmericait's a decently common meme. The "states' rights to do what?" is just a pretty simple way to poke holes into the "the civil war was about states' rights" narrative often pushed by confederate apologists. Since, y'know, the whole thing about states' rights was very explicitly about the right to vote of if they want slavery or not.
@@AmericanStatesofAmerica so, you want states to be able to just decide they wanna bring back slavery? Idk, I feel like there are some things that shouldn't be able to be decided on by anyone.
States rights to operate on a much more autonomous level, to the likes of the article of confederation during the early years of the United States .Whether it be better or worse, that was what it was.
To anyone talking about the Lost Cause myth, the simple thing to ask that shows you the main cause of the civil war is this: "Would the south have still seceeded if slavery didn't exist in the U.S.?"
Good question and i believe the answer is no, it is well written and documented that the south reasoning for leaving the union was slavery. Ppl live to say no it was over states rites which is 100% true but it was over states rites to have slaves lol
@@anitatreco7625 (From South Caronlina's Articles of Seccesion) "On the 4th day of March next, [Republicans] will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . ." They frame it about states rights, but the only "right" they were fighting for was slavery.
@MarcoCaprini-do3dq The part that confused me is what he means by listening to Johnny rebel, as it was never Jonathan Rebel or William Yankee, just Johnny Reb and Billy Yank. Also what he means by listening to them.
It wasn't "doomed" by any means, they fumbled the bag and lost. The odds of the Confederacy winning the civil war were honestly way better than the colonies winning the independence war, the difference being the revolutionaries actually knew how to fight defensive asymetical warfare. The south didn't have better generals, sure some of them won flashy battle field victories but that doesn't make you a good general, pretty much every famous battle the south won during the war did very little to actually advance their position, that's not being a good general. If they truly were better, they would of won
Im virginian and can see why some people sided with the confederacy because where they lived but me personally love the union since i love my country and could never secede from my country
@@naturelovervirginiaAgreed, I'm not southern but love the south. I am curious though, what do you mean by understanding why they sided with the Confederacy? Serious questions by the way
@@definitely_not_HirohitoMany soldiers and generals joined the Confederacy for loyalty to their state, since at that time in ameican history a lot of people were more loyal to their state than to the central government.
Not really sure how to explain how wrong you are. But I'll give it a shot. Southern Generals weren't bad Generals, as most of them had experience from the Mexican-American war and also having graduated from West-Point. Some of them had arrogance issues which led to some poorly timed advances which cost them troops and resources, just as you stated. But at the same time many were like Lee and understood they had defensive positions that could be used in offensive matters, and the only Union general to effectively counter that was Grant.
@@Greebo-ne1sc that's what colleges and other media sources want you to think, but Lee was actually pushing straight to DC. And he made it to Gettysburg before he started to lose. If he had won the battle at Gettysburg the war would've been lost to the Confederates because the capture of DC was an immediate surrender under capitulation.
I suggest Atun Shei's video on this but the Union genuinely did. Confederate generals rarely capitalized on victories and lost vital men they couldn't replace in efforts to get a few decisive victories.
The North had an overwhelming advantage and failed on multiple occasions to capitalise on this. Their better "strategy" boiled down to, "hey we have a massive advantage so let's just abuse this to force the South to over commit their limited resources and therefore force a decisive victory" They didn't do anything better strategically, the south just never had that much of a chance.
@@flapajack3215 not all right, not all wrong. The Eastern campaign was an utter joke for the Union. While the Western campaign was much better off, this is due to Ulysses S. Grant cutting through enemy lines and cutting off Confederate supply lines by capturing a fork in the Mississippi.
The Confederacy did have a chance to win. They had all of the Unions best generals, but the Union had better infrastructure, and more people, so we just out produced them in the naval front, and strangled there economy because they didn't have the natural resources the Union had at the time since they were primarily a agricultural region
@@definitely_not_HirohitoI would disagree there. You got to remember, he had a cabinet that didn’t really like him (see William Seward) and he had to get about 20+ state governors and legislatures to agree to send supplies, troops, and money, get a government that was divided (need to remember the Northern Democrats had some power still, even if there were both War Dems and Copperheads) to pass laws to carry out some of these war plans (income tax, sell western lands), keep European nations out of the war via diplomacy, and had to decide on various commanders for armies and develop a strategy with his military officials like Winfield Scott and Henry Halleck. That’s a lot Lincoln and his administration had to deal with to secure victory.
The turning point of the Civil War was the Battle of Gettysburg.... Next if the North had not cut off supply lines from the main oceans plus the Mississippi River the confederacy may have won because the Union was actually losing more battles than they could handle... So General Sherman and General Grant had to act quickly in some instances...
Mostly in the Eastern campaign,the Confederate kicked ass but failed in both Gettysburg and Antietam but in the Western campaign, The Union kicked ass when both Sherman and Grant were in charge in the West before they commanded the whole Union military and let's not forget with Sherman's March to the Sea.
@@jasonpalacios2705 Honestly the Union would win in the end without suffered a massive casualties if Lincoln and Congress listen Winfield Scott plan. Secure the border state then march troop down into the west to the sea and cut the Confederate in half. Although i like Lincoln he is a terrible leader during war time. Took a lot of suffer and defeat for him to give in to Grant plan.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 Actually they did that in the Western campaign with the Mississippi River especially Admiral Farrugut's seize of New Orleans but the Union kept losing in the Eastern campaign until Antietam,Gettysburg and Sherman's March to the Sea.
@@jasonpalacios2705 and that what i mean i still can't believe in the end they implement Scott plan. Cutting the Confederate in half and then moving into Richmond later. Eventhough Lincoln and his cabinet could have done that in the first rather then wasting time of Capturing Richmond.
All true points! However it is important to note that while the Union had more railway mileage, the Souths was much more condensed. Meaning they could transfer troops more efficiently in their interior compared to the Unions ability to project strength to the South ! This was actually such a big concern for the North that many commanders of the time thought that single advantage could lead to Southern victory ! Think that's overstating the importance ? Well let's look at the Franco Prussian war just some years later, where railways was one of if not the deciding factor of the war ! The war was not a forgone conclusion. Union defeats in the election year of 1864 could've led to the North seeking terms
They actually came close twice The first during the first battle of bull run where if they chased the union they could’ve destroyed them And at little roundtop at Gettysburg where a desperate last minute charge pushed back the Alabama infantry and protected the flank
No. The Confederacy was in no position to follow up 1st Manassas and The Siege of Centreville was a rear guard action by Union troops which successfully delayed any pursuit. Little Round Top is extremely over-rated as a tactical point during Gettysburg as Longstreet had no intention of reinforcing that single regiment's attack as he committed already to the Peach Orchard. Even the Union losing LRT wouldn't have changed Lee's mind as to his July 3rd attack. Henry Steele Comager gives an economic and material synopsis of this video's premise. A more telling statistic was banking capital. Besides real estate property and slaves the North possessed an over 20-1 advantage over the South. The North possessed every advantage in the war and as long as the North waged war it would prevail. The South's only hope of success was for the North to give up. Lee's gamble at Gettysburg was the South's last chance to win a victory, to inflict a demoralizing loss on their own soil to force the North to give up. Hurrah
My country Argentina had an economic upswing during that time because of the blockade on the Confederacy, cotton became scarce in Europe so Argentine wool became a suitable alternative. Of course the demand for wool decreased once the civil war ended and cotton started flowing again
After the second battle of the bull run the south could’ve won had their generals marched into dc which was unguarded as union troops literally ran away to other neighboring states, but bc the generals at the time were just rich guys they wanted to parade around their victories which ended up costing them dearly
@@LoneWolf-wv4fg union could have done the same thing at Antietam if they’d given chase to the fleeing confederates instead of sitting around doing nothing
@@LoneWolf-wv4fg the losses to the confederate army would have been so great as well as the capture/death of general Lee would have led the confederates to surrender
@@TurboDoesStuff general Lee was to far back for that to happen and the confederate soldiers knowing he would be captured would’ve fought even harder and and threw everything they had left into protecting Lee causing the north to lose much more troops, also at the end even tho it was a stalemate the north had 2000 more casualties than the south
@@Commonwealth_Of_Pennsylvania because God it’s always involved in human affairs read your bible God his always involved in wars it’s like saying why would my son care about his father
The south also miscalculated on the international relations and diplomacy. The only diplomatic relation they had was an asylum in the Brazilian empire after the war ended.
Sherman was sorta over hyped, as he himself didn't have much under his belt since he was stuck to Grant nearly the whole war (besides his Georgia campaign) and Meade only had Gettysburg so not much there, he was also stuck to Grants hip after that. So Grant carries the MVP no matter.
Small clarification. As we know the southern fleet was surprisingly better off than one would expect, it should be noted that the genius of Admiral David Farraguat (first official admiral, father of the modern american navy) was how the union could somehow pull off thinly stretched offensives lead mostly by small wooden mortar ships against more concentrated confederate ironclad bulks (like aroud new orleans and mobile) and still win easily.
It was alot more about norths ability to wage strategic war than just materials. You can have all the guns and logicstics but without leadership they would simply not win by themselfs.
Sometimes I wonder how different things would be with 4 nations in North America...and how closely allied would the u.s. and confederate states be over time? If at all?
It probably would've been similar to the Relationship between the U.K. and the I.S. had after the revolution. Cold at first but realizing through time that we are all brothers.
Looking at precedent chances are a loose confederation would cause European powers to convince our “friendly” neighbors to halt trade. Raise import taxes or just go on military conquests. It’d definitely make our little imperial ambitions a lot harder to obtain.
@@dazednotconfused1503 Trade would've never been halted in this post war scenario. The northern and southern economies were too interwoven. States like WV and KY had railroads that were connected to Ohio, hence why they stayed loyal to the Union even though they are culturally southern. Not to mention that most natural resources especially in agriculture were shipped North to the different industries then sold through a northern port. They needed each other. As for me, I like power being in the hands of the state not the central government. The American Republic was never meant to be an empire and our government was never supposed to be this big.
I know people clown on them but I’ll say this. Most of the Soviet dickriders here are probably mad they didn’t kill as many Americans the confederates did. Seriously the only ones who still buy into the modern faux civil war rivalry are either Drank the kool aid, or they hate this country but need a reason to justify their hate that seems more justifiable and who better than the ones who took out more of us than any other country
@@NerfAutist so imagine you’re a commander of an army in a war, now imagine saying to your soldiers, “charge at the enemy regardless of who dies because I will just be drinking over your graves” does that sound like a good commander? No, but grant does it and he’s this amazing hero
@@FollowerOfJesus54 i’m going to talk very slowly so you and the people at your IQ bracket can understand Attackers, loose, more, men, than, defenders. And also the confederate army had a 100% loss statistic, because after the war ended, there was no fucking country no CSA, nothing and the union was still strong. And by the percentage, the confederates lost more in battles if you don’t count the total outcome of the war, (100% confederate losses) The union could replace casualties and grant knew that, And he knew he probably would. Now now stop defending a slave state founded on the ideals of preserving slavery and find something better to do with your life. Go outside, touch grass, and read a goddamn book.
Ye I mean fair points but it is important to state that the unifiers of countries usually come from the less developed, peripheral, even isolated areas because they tend to produce harder soldiers, better tactics and leaders. Think Prussia to Germany, Savoy to Italy, upper egypt to lower egypt. Yes the advantages for the union were severe but as you said they mostly applied for the longer war. If the war had a shorter span perhaps caused by even more competence on the side of the confederacy or rather more incompetence from the union they had a good shot at winning
"Better navy" >Confederates first to produce monitors. >First to create functional semi-modern submarine designs. >Attacked Union's trade all across the world. >Britian sold many ironclads and ships to the confederates anyways.
@@E.V.A.N-COProductionsWrong on the 1,2, the confederates 90% of the time got their shit canned when they fought the union navy. For every 1 the Confederacy could get 3 were produced in the union
@@Justjunniee I would be correct on 1, and 2. They *_were_* the first to produce the Monitor Ironclads. And were the first to produce the Hunley submarine (which scored one kill I believe) But that was a numbers game, not a better navy. The Union sent out the navy like war dogs, masses, not quality. Besides, the main war was on land. And the "blockade" (which really didn't affect them as the Confederate privateers did.) was a issue they were looking to solve at a later date. Not entirely true. For every 1 the confederates produce. They bought 5 from other powers (France, England, so on so fourth.) *_HOWEVER_* They did not use them to combat the blockade. And instead attack American shipping elsewhere. See example the Alabama.
@@E.V.A.N-COProductionsYeah, and the germans produced the first jet fighter, but still got their ass handed to them. None of the elements you listed actually matter to a navy except the submarines, which barely did anything but ok
@@combineconformist Why are you comparing the second World War to the American civil war? They're first of all, two different conflicts in two wildly different times. Second of all, the Confederates had a greater chance of winning unlike the Axis. And third off, *_It's a civil war... Not some kind of international showdown against the WORLD._* Also... No? In 1861, most of the world *_STILL_* used wooden ships. Ironclad Monitors were *_UNABLE_* to be sunk. Not by any ship a decade before. *_THATS_* innovation. And created the basis of the Dreadnought. The Confederates *_DID_* attack Union trade outside of the Blockade. That was a big issue for the US, especially with nations like Britian selling the Confederates ironclads, and frigates like hotcakes. They disrupted the limited trade the Union already had. Absolutely every part of my elements listed actually matted to a Navy.
the South was literally being carried by General Robert E. Lee in the first 2 years of the war, and Aberham Lincon was firing and hiring Generals all because they couldn't defeat Robert E. Lee except General Ulysses S. Grant at the end of the war
@@somethingelseidk1035 "Better" is a relative measure. The South's generals were "better" at their jobs then the officers the Union had left after the Confederate officers joined the rebellion.
They really only had victories until '63 and only in the East. After the West fell to Grant in the West he had moved him and Sherman to the East in '63 which saw the quick collapse of the Confederacy and ofc after Lee was defeated and the Confederate army was given parole (no jail time for crimes against the Union).
Theres actually a movie about this. Its called "CSA: The Confederate states of america" Its a satire so its not super serious Its even got in universe commercial breaks and stuff, its not bad
The Civil War was such a waste of men, materials and resources. And it probably didn't need to be fought either. Mechanization would've taken over agriculture in the south sooner or later. Slave labor might have been cheap but a tractor and farm implements are even cheaper and a tractor doesn't need to be fed, housed nor trained. Fighting the Civil War probably only hastened the end of slavery by a few decades or even a few years.
Also, in the south, only ~21% of people owned slaves. Yet, supposedly, 13 states seceded to fight to preserve something that less than a quarter of the population had. Only rich people in that era could own slaves & slavery was also in the north as well excluding Massachusetts because they banned it outright. I'm from Alabama & here in the south, we have to constantly give out a fact or perceptive that slavery wasn't the sole & root cause of the war. Slavery is bad & should be abolished. Even Lincoln, during the early years of the war, said the war wasn't about slavery. He wanted to stop the expansion of slave states advancing westward. I believe it wasn't until 1863/64 that the war was made all about slavery. I'm sure that the tariffs on our cotton & agricultural economy & government overreach, among other things, had nothing to do with the war. Solely slavery that only 21% of the southern population owned. We shouldn't have fired on Ft Sumpter. With that aside, if we seceded peacefully without war conflict, do you think that Lincoln would have ordered to invade us & destroy our homes & land? Or just let us be our own country & let slavery end on its on in time? I agree with what you said. Slavery was on the way out & it wouldn't have lasted much longer, anyway. Maybe up until the early 1900s, if that. 21% of the southern population isn't a large majority or a number of people owning slaves as it is. The civil war wasn't solely based on ending slavery, either. The majority of the south views Lincoln as a government over reaching tyrant. We don't like him down here. Lol
@@Bluegill_BoyAll your points are just wrong. First of all the civil war was about slavery. A majority of the declarations of succession made it clear they were succeeding because they wanted to keep there slaves. But you made a very interesting and wrong point, you said that only 21% of the south owned slaves and this is just wrong. According to the 1860 census 1 in 3 southern families owned a slave. This is a massive amount, and while not a majority, it is still a large amount. And even though a majority of southerners didn’t own slaves, this doesn’t mean a majority of southerners didn’t support slavery. It was the exact opposite and so many southerners who didn’t own slaves still supported the succession because they wanted there to still be slaves. You also brought up that there were still slaves in the northern states. That is true, but it was not even close to the amount of slaves in the south. In fact slavery in the north was practically fazed out by the beginning by the civil war. You also bring up that many southerners thought that lincoln was a tyrant, this is true. By guess what, they thought he was a tyrant because they thought he was gonna take there slaves. I mean in every way the civil war was about slavery. From the very start it was about slavery, the only reason that the emancipation declaration was signed so late was because Lincoln wanted to ensure that a majority of the north was in support of the war.
@@Bluegill_Boyyeah Lincoln would have ordered invasion because secession would not have been accepted. Southerners couldn’t accept having less power than the northerners as they feared northerners who opposed slavery would try abolish it. Lincoln didn’t want abolish it but there was no guarantee the next president wouldn’t try do it. Most Southerners didn’t own slaves but southern economy depended on slavery so a lot of peoples lively hood also indirectly were affected by it. Not to mention the southern army consisted of a lot of conscripts. If the war was about tariffs why did they not secede during the nullification crisis? The lost cause is still peddled by people because otherwise they have to admit the people confederacy were traitors and they were defending a oppressive institution.
@@Bluegill_Boy Fucking Cry about it some Childrens Video Games have been online longer than the confederacy States didn't have to right to Remove Slavery or succeed from the confederacy if it was so much about "States Rights" and "Not all people owned slaves"
The south had one thing the union didn't. The determination to build a new country in which there sate rights would be adequately defended. Please like this comment if you agree.
Don't get me wrong slavery is an abomination but if you look at what is happening today where states can't even defend there borders because of government intervention this is simply one example of way the states should have more power than they currently have. Remember it's the united states not the united government
The south had better generals AND was getting military supplies FROM AN UNNAMED EUROPEAN COUNTRY. I can't even tell you who was arming the confederacy. *It was the UK Aristocracy.* But also the south had a defensive front line where as the north had an offensive front line they could box the south in and push from there unless the south could take all the way to Canada, which would have been impossible as they were already stretched thin.
Industry, man power, schools, rail, sympathy from abroad And they didnt have better generals their good generals were just in a higher rank at the start. Rober E Lee had the highest cassualty count of the war and captured nothing important. Meanwhile grant effectively cut the south in half at vicksburg capturing 47 thousand southerners a 100% cassualty rate for the army of the Tennessee. Then he took control of the army of the potomac and led it to the defeat of Robbert E Lee
If it was reported by the confederacy that they had 9 million people, they had more than four million slaves because didn’t they only count 2 in 5 slaves as a person (I think I remember learning that in US history)
Much of the imports to the Confederacy were luxury goods, not goods for the war effort. State’s Rights ideology often limited southern states and the Confederate government from assisting states.
The Confederacy also had to commit a substantial portion of it's forces to garrisoning the home front, the war was unpopular enough that loyalist uprisings were a concern (though it never materialized) also, other than vanguard forces the CSA army was largely made up of conscripts, so they had a limited time window to 'win' the war if they were ever going to, before morale plumeted and mutiny spread, basically the way union forces secured victory was by cornering confederate leadership in a situation where they had jo practical choice but surrender.
another argument for the confederacy: They did not need to defeat the union. They only needed to hold on for long enough to drain the morale of the unions population which I think they got actually close to in 1862/1863.
Also because sllavery is economically worse than wages
@orgillmathew what do you mean it wasn't about slavery
@@orgillmathewyes it was
Should have just let them leave would have been better for everyone
@@Ihavelowbattery a lot of north generals have slaves. It was abount Union survival and not abount slavery.
@@orgillmathew at the beginning it wasn’t really, but over the course of the war it kind of shifted into a war about slavery since Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation, which allowed the Union to take the confederacy’s slaves and set them free, as the Constitution allows the US to take an enemies property in wartime (slaves were considered property at the time).
West Virginians are offended by that map. All 33 of them with internet
Fun Fact: Despite what some people may tell you, fallout 76, which takes place in West Virginia, is actually before the nuclear bombs fell.
@@Model3140digitalalarmclock what?
@@Kyber_Rex I’m joking and saying West Virginia is a nuclear wasteland IRL
@@Model3140digitalalarmclock oh ok
@@Model3140digitalalarmclocknuh uh
Basicaly the United states versus the United states but more poor and have slavery
Confederacy was not poor. The very reason American Civil War happened is rich South had low representation in the government while paying way more taxes. The South wanted right to trade directly with Europe.
@@grigoriykhilko9472no the rich southerners wanted to keep slavery and was afraid Abe was gonna take their slaves
@@grigoriykhilko9472That's not why it happened
Also the CSA wasn't united, and I don't just mean the name.
@@definitely_not_Hirohitothe war was about slavery. It's literally a stated issue in many states reasons for secession and it 100% became an issue of slavery once Abe said it verbtaim.
Hey atleast the union had "unconditional surrender grant"
Yet he only made one unconditional surrender.
@@Kevbing9825it’s a joke from the oversimplified video
@@dabred Nahhhhh ain’t no way bro said oversimplified video💀 That was his actual nickname. Did you think oversimplified made it?
@@Kevbing9825Yes because it was a running gag for around 2 minutes in the video and not everyone is willing to fact check a silly little nickname they heard in an informational history channel video.
@dabred No it's not. It's a real nickname.
Note the confederacy didn’t have better generals… they were decent but they operated better as field officers and would score tactical victories but those tactical victories came at a strategic cost which Sherman and grant would exploit.
He probably just meant that robert e lee was a good general.
@@I_am_bacon._. Shame people have NO Respect for him! 🙁🙁🙁
@@darkdragon7210 because he is a traitor?
@@darkdragon7210now why might people be unwilling to respect a traitorous slavery defender? 🤔
@@I_am_bacon._. Fun fact
Bob E Lee took a total of 209,000 casualties over the course of the entire civil War with his one Army
General Grants three different Army's only suffered a total of 153,642 casualties
Meaning that technically Lee was a worse general than Grant... The commonly called butcher and drunk
West Virginia was not part of the CSA it left Virginia and became its own state just a West Virginian talking
West Virginia was "officially" owned by the confederate. As it did not exist until after the civil war. It was a split state for most of its life.
@@E.V.A.N-COProductionsIand formalized by West Virginia's admittance to the Union as a new state in 1863.
@@Justjunniee For some strange reason my reply got deleted. However, West Virgina was still apart of Virgina Dejure. (Especially when at first, they had succeeded) so my point stays true none the less.
They were still part of Virginia when Virginia seceded, they broke off in 63.
All of the eastern part of wva was all Confederate. Stonewall winter camp was in Romney and the state was divided by Lincoln not the people. You must be from near Ohio. I drive the whole eastern part of the state and to this day see more Confederate flags than American flags just last week in Berkeley springs counted 11 Confederate flags 2 American flags 16 TRUMP FLAGS AND NONE FOR OLD POOPY PANTS BIDEN.😂
"Slavery is gay, for it means owning another man."
-Abraham Lincoln, on the carriage to the theater
😂 cannons
Cam 😂📷
canons
And the Gatling gun
I live near Kennessaw Mountain, near Atlanta. A major battle occured there, people still find grapeshot. I've even found a minnie-ball, deformed at the rear.
@@blurredlights5235 we find them all over Texas thanks to the great people of Tennessee coming down and help making this place a state. They brought it down here lol
the confederacy didn’t have better generals, they had flashier ones. more reckless and aggressive ones. makes fun military history and makes nerds jizz their pants over a Union Corps getting demolished here and there, but when you’re fighting a war against a numerically superior opponent you can’t be aggressive. The British also had more manpower, a stronger economy, etc. than the Americans during the Revolution, but America legitimately had better generals who could harass and outmaneuver their enemy until they fought them on favorable terms. If the South had better generals, they would’ve won in 1862 or 63. They didn’t.
I mean half truths. More so there was a lot of british political infighting at the time, not helped by the lack of resources focused on america due to multiple wars being thought.
If you're outnumbered you absolutely have to be aggressive. Why would you engage in a war of attrition if you are outnumbered basically 4:1? Jesus Christ use your head lmao
I love Atum-Shei films
@@jerkysasquatch9256you can always engage in guerilla warfare. Is that so hard to do?
@@Pancasilaist8752Can’t disband the conventional army and engage in Guerrilla unless you have been occupied, and letting the North occupy the South as the first step towards secession is sure an interesting strategy.
The confederacy did almost win the war, only losing through bad decisions. However in a war of attrition, which the civil war quickly turned into after Gettysburg, the confederacy loses every time as their losses are not easily replenished.
You explained it perfectly my friend.
Many think the confederacy winning would be the whole country being called the csa when that could be further from the truth. It would just be the USA and CSA and even than the south would’ve either collapsed or just replaced their slave economy with something better
"Almost winning"?
At what point?
Lee spent his entire involvement chasing a rainbow of "foreign intervention" that never looked even close to coming to pass even when Mason and Slidell were basically kidnapped from the "Trent"!
And Braxton Bragg spent his entire Civil War career turning potentially decisive Southern victories into strategic retreats.
Joe Johnston was too cautious to be effective in the strategic situation. After being wounded at Seven Pines, he spent the rest of the conflict looking forward to getting his old job back as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, a situation that became more and more unlikely as Lee went from tactical success to tactical success but could never quite grasp the need for a strategic solution.
The Confederacy had very little chance of prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion the longer it dragged on.
And as for Gettysburg being some kind of "turning point", it just wasn't anything of the sort. It changed nothing.
The real turning point was the appointment of U.S. Grant as Commander and his transfer to supervise the push southward to Richmond, something others had tried but without having the gumption to simply press on regardless and keep moving South. So, the real "turning point" of the entire conflict was the aftermath of the Battle of the Wilderness, as Grant shrugged off a defeat and just moved steadily south, bottling Lee in and getting Phil Sheridan to finally put an end to all the sheer dicking about in the Shenandoah Valley and destroying the resupply area of food for the ANV , bringing the situation in Virginia past the point of Lee being able to bounce back
Its because the Union are the main characters, "Good ol Abe" is the Main Character
The south didn’t have better generals, many like stonewall were one trick ponies
I believe generals like Harder, Cleburne and Forrest are underrated. Had they been given command of the Western forces, they Confederates wouldn't have done so poorly in the west.
They had WAY better generals. The unions generals dident do anything half of the war. The confederate generals actually used smart tactics winning battles outnumbered. The union generals just sent in the soldiers and hoped to win. The union just had more to win the war. If the north and the south had the same amount of money, guns, food, ships and things like that. The south would had won.
@@CamdenIrwinYeah the confederate generals was a good amount better.
@@MonkeyAndToastLoverthe union's only good general was grant
Ok sorry i suck at american history
@@Aducky9291 Yeah lol. While the confederacy had Robert E Lee, Thomas Stonewall Jackson beacuse no one could move him, James Longstreet and so on.
States rights to what exactly?
To own slaves, of course. Did you happen not to understand anything at all?
@@AmericanStatesofAmericait's a decently common meme. The "states' rights to do what?" is just a pretty simple way to poke holes into the "the civil war was about states' rights" narrative often pushed by confederate apologists.
Since, y'know, the whole thing about states' rights was very explicitly about the right to vote of if they want slavery or not.
@@ukkisragee9983 I wish it was still practiced
@@AmericanStatesofAmerica so, you want states to be able to just decide they wanna bring back slavery? Idk, I feel like there are some things that shouldn't be able to be decided on by anyone.
States rights to operate on a much more autonomous level, to the likes of the article of confederation during the early years of the United States .Whether it be better or worse, that was what it was.
Its honestly kinda impressive hey even lasted 4 years
Annoying orange lasted longer than the confederacy
To anyone talking about the Lost Cause myth, the simple thing to ask that shows you the main cause of the civil war is this: "Would the south have still seceeded if slavery didn't exist in the U.S.?"
Good question and i believe the answer is no, it is well written and documented that the south reasoning for leaving the union was slavery. Ppl live to say no it was over states rites which is 100% true but it was over states rites to have slaves lol
@@badazzl5oc625 when people say that I ask “states right to do what?”
Slavery wasn’t the main reason why the original seceded states left the Union so yeah it probably would still have happened
You do realize there were slaves in the north
@@anitatreco7625 (From South Caronlina's Articles of Seccesion) "On the 4th day of March next, [Republicans] will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . ."
They frame it about states rights, but the only "right" they were fighting for was slavery.
I still listen to johnny rebel
?
Look him up at your own risk.@@definitely_not_Hirohito
@@MarcoCaprini-do3dq No, Atun Shei didn't invent them. Billy Yank and Johnny Reb just mean generic union and rebel soldiers.
@MarcoCaprini-do3dq The part that confused me is what he means by listening to Johnny rebel, as it was never Jonathan Rebel or William Yankee, just Johnny Reb and Billy Yank. Also what he means by listening to them.
The racist one?
It wasn't "doomed" by any means, they fumbled the bag and lost.
The odds of the Confederacy winning the civil war were honestly way better than the colonies winning the independence war, the difference being the revolutionaries actually knew how to fight defensive asymetical warfare. The south didn't have better generals, sure some of them won flashy battle field victories but that doesn't make you a good general, pretty much every famous battle the south won during the war did very little to actually advance their position, that's not being a good general. If they truly were better, they would of won
Im virginian and can see why some people sided with the confederacy because where they lived but me personally love the union since i love my country and could never secede from my country
Ps I love the south and it's very pretty with the beaches and it's more fun but I just dislike the confederacy and kkk
@@naturelovervirginiathe kkk was formed after the civil war
@@naturelovervirginiaAgreed, I'm not southern but love the south. I am curious though, what do you mean by understanding why they sided with the Confederacy? Serious questions by the way
Some people probably only sided with the confederacy because where they lived and wanted to protect their homes @@definitely_not_Hirohito
@@definitely_not_HirohitoMany soldiers and generals joined the Confederacy for loyalty to their state, since at that time in ameican history a lot of people were more loyal to their state than to the central government.
Yes except, southern generals had little concept of strategy and lost men an materiel, they couldn’t afford to lose, for no strategic purpose
Not really sure how to explain how wrong you are. But I'll give it a shot.
Southern Generals weren't bad Generals, as most of them had experience from the Mexican-American war and also having graduated from West-Point. Some of them had arrogance issues which led to some poorly timed advances which cost them troops and resources, just as you stated. But at the same time many were like Lee and understood they had defensive positions that could be used in offensive matters, and the only Union general to effectively counter that was Grant.
@@brokengamer9675 yes but Lee still unnecessarily attacked union forces and failed to consistently to achieve strategic success
@@Greebo-ne1sc that's what colleges and other media sources want you to think, but Lee was actually pushing straight to DC. And he made it to Gettysburg before he started to lose. If he had won the battle at Gettysburg the war would've been lost to the Confederates because the capture of DC was an immediate surrender under capitulation.
I own a canon 📸
In D?
"Better Generals" riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
I suggest Atun Shei's video on this but the Union genuinely did. Confederate generals rarely capitalized on victories and lost vital men they couldn't replace in efforts to get a few decisive victories.
@@FoxySodathat guy is pure Union propaganda
@@tubeguy4066 He cites his sources brother. He also has openly criticized the union for their conduct, performance, and what they did after the war
@@tubeguy4066 Confederate Only started the civil war for slavery and slavery only.
They lose
The north said get yo money up, not yo funny up.
Actually the North had better generals. The south was focused on tactical victories, the north was focused on strategic victories.
How original.
The South had more Generals who actually got victories. The Union only had the handful who did the most they could and it was barely enough
The North had an overwhelming advantage and failed on multiple occasions to capitalise on this. Their better "strategy" boiled down to, "hey we have a massive advantage so let's just abuse this to force the South to over commit their limited resources and therefore force a decisive victory"
They didn't do anything better strategically, the south just never had that much of a chance.
@@flapajack3215 not all right, not all wrong. The Eastern campaign was an utter joke for the Union. While the Western campaign was much better off, this is due to Ulysses S. Grant cutting through enemy lines and cutting off Confederate supply lines by capturing a fork in the Mississippi.
@@brokengamer9675 Slaving Lee had 30-50K more dead and wounded than Unconditional Surrender Grant.
The Confederacy did have a chance to win. They had all of the Unions best generals, but the Union had better infrastructure, and more people, so we just out produced them in the naval front, and strangled there economy because they didn't have the natural resources the Union had at the time since they were primarily a agricultural region
Also they have Abraham Lincon
True, but he wasn't that big of a factor in the war itself.
@@definitely_not_HirohitoI would disagree there. You got to remember, he had a cabinet that didn’t really like him (see William Seward) and he had to get about 20+ state governors and legislatures to agree to send supplies, troops, and money, get a government that was divided (need to remember the Northern Democrats had some power still, even if there were both War Dems and Copperheads) to pass laws to carry out some of these war plans (income tax, sell western lands), keep European nations out of the war via diplomacy, and had to decide on various commanders for armies and develop a strategy with his military officials like Winfield Scott and Henry Halleck. That’s a lot Lincoln and his administration had to deal with to secure victory.
@mjvajda Yes, but by the war itself I mean the fighting and strategy, the logistics you have a good point, but diplomacy is separate.
Lincoln was a yankee interloper ..John Wilkes Booth was the true hero
@@Flapatriot1776 It's sad if you think that
The turning point of the Civil War was the Battle of Gettysburg.... Next if the North had not cut off supply lines from the main oceans plus the Mississippi River the confederacy may have won because the Union was actually losing more battles than they could handle... So General Sherman and General Grant had to act quickly in some instances...
Mostly in the Eastern campaign,the Confederate kicked ass but failed in both Gettysburg and Antietam but in the Western campaign, The Union kicked ass when both Sherman and Grant were in charge in the West before they commanded the whole Union military and let's not forget with Sherman's March to the Sea.
@@jasonpalacios2705 Honestly the Union would win in the end without suffered a massive casualties if Lincoln and Congress listen Winfield Scott plan.
Secure the border state then march troop down into the west to the sea and cut the Confederate in half.
Although i like Lincoln he is a terrible leader during war time. Took a lot of suffer and defeat for him to give in to Grant plan.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 Actually they did that in the Western campaign with the Mississippi River especially Admiral Farrugut's seize of New Orleans but the Union kept losing in the Eastern campaign until Antietam,Gettysburg and Sherman's March to the Sea.
@@jasonpalacios2705 and that what i mean i still can't believe in the end they implement Scott plan.
Cutting the Confederate in half and then moving into Richmond later.
Eventhough Lincoln and his cabinet could have done that in the first rather then wasting time of Capturing Richmond.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 Well it's because the majority of the Union Generals in the Eastern Campaign were no match for Lee until after Gettysburg.
So basically in population terms, the CSA in 1861 had a comparable population to modern day new york city.
The south thought their slave-powered economy can defeaf Machine💀
All true points! However it is important to note that while the Union had more railway mileage, the Souths was much more condensed. Meaning they could transfer troops more efficiently in their interior compared to the Unions ability to project strength to the South ! This was actually such a big concern for the North that many commanders of the time thought that single advantage could lead to Southern victory !
Think that's overstating the importance ? Well let's look at the Franco Prussian war just some years later, where railways was one of if not the deciding factor of the war !
The war was not a forgone conclusion. Union defeats in the election year of 1864 could've led to the North seeking terms
They actually came close twice
The first during the first battle of bull run where if they chased the union they could’ve destroyed them
And at little roundtop at Gettysburg where a desperate last minute charge pushed back the Alabama infantry and protected the flank
No. The Confederacy was in no position to follow up 1st Manassas and The Siege of Centreville was a rear guard action by Union troops which successfully delayed any pursuit.
Little Round Top is extremely over-rated as a tactical point during Gettysburg as Longstreet had no intention of reinforcing that single regiment's attack as he committed already to the Peach Orchard. Even the Union losing LRT wouldn't have changed Lee's mind as to his July 3rd attack.
Henry Steele Comager gives an economic and material synopsis of this video's premise.
A more telling statistic was banking capital. Besides real estate property and slaves the North possessed an over 20-1 advantage over the South.
The North possessed every advantage in the war and as long as the North waged war it would prevail. The South's only hope of success was for the North to give up. Lee's gamble at Gettysburg was the South's last chance to win a victory, to inflict a demoralizing loss on their own soil to force the North to give up. Hurrah
Oh way down south in the land of traitors
southern songs are waaaay better
Rattlesnakes and alligators
@@savenamecope
@@cantthinkofagoodname6939right away (right away) right away, right away, right away
@@combineconformist cope? lol
its almost as if centuries of history have shown us that relying on slavery as your biggest economic factor will only damage you in the end
"Don't get yo Monkeys up get yo Money up"
-ion know the Union probably
?
My country Argentina had an economic upswing during that time because of the blockade on the Confederacy, cotton became scarce in Europe so Argentine wool became a suitable alternative. Of course the demand for wool decreased once the civil war ended and cotton started flowing again
After the second battle of the bull run the south could’ve won had their generals marched into dc which was unguarded as union troops literally ran away to other neighboring states, but bc the generals at the time were just rich guys they wanted to parade around their victories which ended up costing them dearly
Taking DC wouldn't have won the war, it would have just moved the capital to new york for a bit. Countries don't give up after losing a city
@@LoneWolf-wv4fg union could have done the same thing at Antietam if they’d given chase to the fleeing confederates instead of sitting around doing nothing
@@TurboDoesStuff they could’ve destroyed a much larger portion of the confederate army but they wouldn’t have been able to take out their capitol
@@LoneWolf-wv4fg the losses to the confederate army would have been so great as well as the capture/death of general Lee would have led the confederates to surrender
@@TurboDoesStuff general Lee was to far back for that to happen and the confederate soldiers knowing he would be captured would’ve fought even harder and and threw everything they had left into protecting Lee causing the north to lose much more troops, also at the end even tho it was a stalemate the north had 2000 more casualties than the south
So underrated youtuber
Secondly, they had God on their side(I don’t give a fuck about atheist feelings)
Catholic here. Why would God care about the American Civil War?
@@Commonwealth_Of_Pennsylvania because God it’s always involved in human affairs read your bible God his always involved in wars it’s like saying why would my son care about his father
@@Aine-b4r Then maybe he should hurry up and get Russia out of Ukraine.
@@Commonwealth_Of_Pennsylvania yes and not only that many of the people who are enemies are Christians fighting each other
So yes the Lord God is always concerned for the well-being of his creatures, especially his followers and unbelievers
Remove WV from the south
That was technically apart of the south when they first seceded.
@@Kevbing9825 They overwhelmingly voted against succeeding and broke off as it was the last straw
@@dulguunjargal1199 They were still technically apart of Virginia until 1863.
The south also miscalculated on the international relations and diplomacy. The only diplomatic relation they had was an asylum in the Brazilian empire after the war ended.
I would argue the south did NOT have the better generals, as we say with how the war played out. Grant, Sherman, and Meade kinda carried
Sherman was sorta over hyped, as he himself didn't have much under his belt since he was stuck to Grant nearly the whole war (besides his Georgia campaign) and Meade only had Gettysburg so not much there, he was also stuck to Grants hip after that. So Grant carries the MVP no matter.
Small clarification. As we know the southern fleet was surprisingly better off than one would expect, it should be noted that the genius of Admiral David Farraguat (first official admiral, father of the modern american navy) was how the union could somehow pull off thinly stretched offensives lead mostly by small wooden mortar ships against more concentrated confederate ironclad bulks (like aroud new orleans and mobile) and still win easily.
He did the borders wrong when Virginia left the union West Virginia stayed with Union so the two split apart
Technically it wasn’t until 1863 that WV split from Virginia proper
@@YourVintageStick They still split though
@@daitengainey1439I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to a map of the initial borders so he kept WV with Virginia in the map
It was alot more about norths ability to wage strategic war than just materials.
You can have all the guns and logicstics but without leadership they would simply not win by themselfs.
Me looking at the map😢 WV separated from Virginia and declared independence from the Confederate
Well that wasn’t until 1863 so this could just be a map from before that
@@FrFrijolethat was during '81
@@Justjunniee Abraham Lincoln official recognized West Virginia as a state on June 20th, 1863
@@FrFrijole but it was still Separate from the Confederacy and union allied
@@Justjunniee the map in the video is a states map
The Union had Grant.
That's true
Sometimes I wonder how different things would be with 4 nations in North America...and how closely allied would the u.s. and confederate states be over time? If at all?
Without the nation being united, some of the other nations would most likely attack.
It probably would've been similar to the Relationship between the U.K. and the I.S. had after the revolution. Cold at first but realizing through time that we are all brothers.
Looking at precedent chances are a loose confederation would cause European powers to convince our “friendly” neighbors to halt trade. Raise import taxes or just go on military conquests. It’d definitely make our little imperial ambitions a lot harder to obtain.
@@dazednotconfused1503 Trade would've never been halted in this post war scenario. The northern and southern economies were too interwoven. States like WV and KY had railroads that were connected to Ohio, hence why they stayed loyal to the Union even though they are culturally southern. Not to mention that most natural resources especially in agriculture were shipped North to the different industries then sold through a northern port. They needed each other. As for me, I like power being in the hands of the state not the central government. The American Republic was never meant to be an empire and our government was never supposed to be this big.
Also the north had a lot of telegraph lines set up making the flow of intel and commands far faster than in the south.
Bro used the wrong flag for the Confederacy
That's the actual confederate flag, not their army flag.
Headless is correct
Confederate had little numbers but they fought like hell.
especially when they changed with the rebel yell
I know people clown on them but I’ll say this. Most of the Soviet dickriders here are probably mad they didn’t kill as many Americans the confederates did. Seriously the only ones who still buy into the modern faux civil war rivalry are either Drank the kool aid, or they hate this country but need a reason to justify their hate that seems more justifiable and who better than the ones who took out more of us than any other country
I know down the street from me is a Civil war era factory now a home to a guy in our town, was producing guns for the war and kept going till 1951
The north also had better generals.
The mc boat was diabolical lmao😂
Grant and Sherman are way better then lee
Definitely
No, not at all
@@FollowerOfJesus54 L take
@@NerfAutist so imagine you’re a commander of an army in a war, now imagine saying to your soldiers, “charge at the enemy regardless of who dies because I will just be drinking over your graves” does that sound like a good commander? No, but grant does it and he’s this amazing hero
@@FollowerOfJesus54 i’m going to talk very slowly so you and the people at your IQ bracket can understand
Attackers, loose, more, men, than, defenders.
And also the confederate army had a 100% loss statistic, because after the war ended, there was no fucking country no CSA, nothing and the union was still strong.
And by the percentage, the confederates lost more in battles if you don’t count the total outcome of the war, (100% confederate losses) The union could replace casualties and grant knew that, And he knew he probably would.
Now now stop defending a slave state founded on the ideals of preserving slavery and find something better to do with your life. Go outside, touch grass, and read a goddamn book.
Ye I mean fair points but it is important to state that the unifiers of countries usually come from the less developed, peripheral, even isolated areas because they tend to produce harder soldiers, better tactics and leaders. Think Prussia to Germany, Savoy to Italy, upper egypt to lower egypt. Yes the advantages for the union were severe but as you said they mostly applied for the longer war. If the war had a shorter span perhaps caused by even more competence on the side of the confederacy or rather more incompetence from the union they had a good shot at winning
Oh that's good Pennsylvania was blue
Better generals would have told them they don't got the logistics for a war.
The reason for the better navy was because the war became about slavery, without that factor, the south may have been aided by Europe
"Better navy"
>Confederates first to produce monitors.
>First to create functional semi-modern submarine designs.
>Attacked Union's trade all across the world.
>Britian sold many ironclads and ships to the confederates anyways.
@@E.V.A.N-COProductionsWrong on the 1,2, the confederates 90% of the time got their shit canned when they fought the union navy.
For every 1 the Confederacy could get 3 were produced in the union
@@Justjunniee I would be correct on 1, and 2. They *_were_* the first to produce the Monitor Ironclads. And were the first to produce the Hunley submarine (which scored one kill I believe)
But that was a numbers game, not a better navy. The Union sent out the navy like war dogs, masses, not quality. Besides, the main war was on land. And the "blockade" (which really didn't affect them as the Confederate privateers did.) was a issue they were looking to solve at a later date.
Not entirely true. For every 1 the confederates produce. They bought 5 from other powers (France, England, so on so fourth.) *_HOWEVER_* They did not use them to combat the blockade. And instead attack American shipping elsewhere. See example the Alabama.
@@E.V.A.N-COProductionsYeah, and the germans produced the first jet fighter, but still got their ass handed to them. None of the elements you listed actually matter to a navy except the submarines, which barely did anything but ok
@@combineconformist Why are you comparing the second World War to the American civil war? They're first of all, two different conflicts in two wildly different times. Second of all, the Confederates had a greater chance of winning unlike the Axis. And third off, *_It's a civil war... Not some kind of international showdown against the WORLD._*
Also... No? In 1861, most of the world *_STILL_* used wooden ships. Ironclad Monitors were *_UNABLE_* to be sunk. Not by any ship a decade before. *_THATS_* innovation. And created the basis of the Dreadnought.
The Confederates *_DID_* attack Union trade outside of the Blockade. That was a big issue for the US, especially with nations like Britian selling the Confederates ironclads, and frigates like hotcakes. They disrupted the limited trade the Union already had.
Absolutely every part of my elements listed actually matted to a Navy.
The north also had a wayyy more efficient telegraph system, the south barely had one
FOOL the truth is no Giant Steam Powered Spiders
The right side of history won🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🦅
States rights for what
To trade with foreign powers directly
They also had a general who was willing to throw soldiers into a meat grinder
South didnt have better generals.
the South was literally being carried by General Robert E. Lee in the first 2 years of the war, and Aberham Lincon was firing and hiring Generals all because they couldn't defeat Robert E. Lee except General Ulysses S. Grant at the end of the war
@@dylanthemylan Ok, and the in the west the north had its way, taking forts and major cities and rail junctions.
@@aaronpaul9188 same as for the south during the first 2 years
@@dylanthemylanincompetent generals don’t make their rivals good ones.
@@somethingelseidk1035 "Better" is a relative measure. The South's generals were "better" at their jobs then the officers the Union had left after the Confederate officers joined the rebellion.
I like that canon part😂
But the Confederacy dominated in 1861-1863 and had pretty frequent wins until 1864
No they didn't.
No becuase your air headed and so were them will yes they did have so victories they were tiny compared to the north's victories
@@zippy8250 Fredericksburg wasn't tiny
Bull run wasn't tiny @@zippy8250
They really only had victories until '63 and only in the East. After the West fell to Grant in the West he had moved him and Sherman to the East in '63 which saw the quick collapse of the Confederacy and ofc after Lee was defeated and the Confederate army was given parole (no jail time for crimes against the Union).
Kind of sounds like a conflict that's going on now doesn't it??
Sometimes I wonder.....what IF ??
Answer: You"re a Traitor.
Keep on creature adventurin', bro!
Alternate History Hub channel!
Theres actually a movie about this. Its called "CSA: The Confederate states of america" Its a satire so its not super serious Its even got in universe commercial breaks and stuff, its not bad
@@whitepaws60 Cool.
The Civil War was such a waste of men, materials and resources. And it probably didn't need to be fought either. Mechanization would've taken over agriculture in the south sooner or later. Slave labor might have been cheap but a tractor and farm implements are even cheaper and a tractor doesn't need to be fed, housed nor trained. Fighting the Civil War probably only hastened the end of slavery by a few decades or even a few years.
Also, in the south, only ~21% of people owned slaves. Yet, supposedly, 13 states seceded to fight to preserve something that less than a quarter of the population had. Only rich people in that era could own slaves & slavery was also in the north as well excluding Massachusetts because they banned it outright. I'm from Alabama & here in the south, we have to constantly give out a fact or perceptive that slavery wasn't the sole & root cause of the war. Slavery is bad & should be abolished. Even Lincoln, during the early years of the war, said the war wasn't about slavery. He wanted to stop the expansion of slave states advancing westward. I believe it wasn't until 1863/64 that the war was made all about slavery. I'm sure that the tariffs on our cotton & agricultural economy & government overreach, among other things, had nothing to do with the war. Solely slavery that only 21% of the southern population owned. We shouldn't have fired on Ft Sumpter. With that aside, if we seceded peacefully without war conflict, do you think that Lincoln would have ordered to invade us & destroy our homes & land? Or just let us be our own country & let slavery end on its on in time? I agree with what you said. Slavery was on the way out & it wouldn't have lasted much longer, anyway. Maybe up until the early 1900s, if that. 21% of the southern population isn't a large majority or a number of people owning slaves as it is. The civil war wasn't solely based on ending slavery, either. The majority of the south views Lincoln as a government over reaching tyrant. We don't like him down here. Lol
@@Bluegill_Boycheckmate davidites. It’s slavery
@@Bluegill_BoyAll your points are just wrong. First of all the civil war was about slavery. A majority of the declarations of succession made it clear they were succeeding because they wanted to keep there slaves. But you made a very interesting and wrong point, you said that only 21% of the south owned slaves and this is just wrong. According to the 1860 census 1 in 3 southern families owned a slave. This is a massive amount, and while not a majority, it is still a large amount.
And even though a majority of southerners didn’t own slaves, this doesn’t mean a majority of southerners didn’t support slavery. It was the exact opposite and so many southerners who didn’t own slaves still supported the succession because they wanted there to still be slaves.
You also brought up that there were still slaves in the northern states. That is true, but it was not even close to the amount of slaves in the south. In fact slavery in the north was practically fazed out by the beginning by the civil war.
You also bring up that many southerners thought that lincoln was a tyrant, this is true. By guess what, they thought he was a tyrant because they thought he was gonna take there slaves.
I mean in every way the civil war was about slavery.
From the very start it was about slavery, the only reason that the emancipation declaration was signed so late was because Lincoln wanted to ensure that a majority of the north was in support of the war.
@@Bluegill_Boyyeah Lincoln would have ordered invasion because secession would not have been accepted. Southerners couldn’t accept having less power than the northerners as they feared northerners who opposed slavery would try abolish it. Lincoln didn’t want abolish it but there was no guarantee the next president wouldn’t try do it. Most Southerners didn’t own slaves but southern economy depended on slavery so a lot of peoples lively hood also indirectly were affected by it. Not to mention the southern army consisted of a lot of conscripts. If the war was about tariffs why did they not secede during the nullification crisis?
The lost cause is still peddled by people because otherwise they have to admit the people confederacy were traitors and they were defending a oppressive institution.
@@Bluegill_Boy Fucking Cry about it some Childrens Video Games have been online longer than the confederacy
States didn't have to right to Remove Slavery or succeed from the confederacy if it was so much about "States Rights" and "Not all people owned slaves"
The crying sound from Work at a Pizza Place brings back so many memories...
The south had one thing the union didn't. The determination to build a new country in which there sate rights would be adequately defended. Please like this comment if you agree.
Best comment ever!!!
A state’s right to what?
I’m confused as to what you are trying to imply with this, please answer the question.
Don't get me wrong slavery is an abomination but if you look at what is happening today where states can't even defend there borders because of government intervention this is simply one example of way the states should have more power than they currently have. Remember it's the united states not the united government
@@CiasFettmore power to the is how you create a holy roman empire situation
The south had better generals AND was getting military supplies FROM AN UNNAMED EUROPEAN COUNTRY. I can't even tell you who was arming the confederacy.
*It was the UK Aristocracy.*
But also the south had a defensive front line where as the north had an offensive front line they could box the south in and push from there unless the south could take all the way to Canada, which would have been impossible as they were already stretched thin.
Nothing has changed north still beats south in almost everything
They were dumb, horrible, wrong, and over all evil people who are still to this day completely oblivious to how contradicting they are to themselves
Sadly... their people keeps asking to negotiate to end the war quickly.
You forgot the north has better communication because of the telegrams or whatever they call
The Telegraph, yes. Lincoln could order his generals from Washington.
Guns and ships lol
It’s actually solely because Missouri played both Sides of the war
Industry, man power, schools, rail, sympathy from abroad
And they didnt have better generals their good generals were just in a higher rank at the start. Rober E Lee had the highest cassualty count of the war and captured nothing important. Meanwhile grant effectively cut the south in half at vicksburg capturing 47 thousand southerners a 100% cassualty rate for the army of the Tennessee.
Then he took control of the army of the potomac and led it to the defeat of Robbert E Lee
They also had help from other countries
And they didn't even have better generals
The first turreted ship entered the fray during this time by the Union aswell
Union also had Morse code and ways they could communicate from D.C and all the way onto battle field
As someone from the Hatfield and McCoy family I had ancestors fight on both sides.
Run it back turbo
I Imagined how much the confederacy will hold if lee was union general
"Canons" 📸😂
That's why they tried to win early in the battle of Bull Run. Where they tried to attack Washington DC.
If it was reported by the confederacy that they had 9 million people, they had more than four million slaves because didn’t they only count 2 in 5 slaves as a person (I think I remember learning that in US history)
Canon camera?
Much of the imports to the Confederacy were luxury goods, not goods for the war effort. State’s Rights ideology often limited southern states and the Confederate government from assisting states.
North carolina was part of the union
The Confederacy also had to commit a substantial portion of it's forces to garrisoning the home front, the war was unpopular enough that loyalist uprisings were a concern (though it never materialized) also, other than vanguard forces the CSA army was largely made up of conscripts, so they had a limited time window to 'win' the war if they were ever going to, before morale plumeted and mutiny spread, basically the way union forces secured victory was by cornering confederate leadership in a situation where they had jo practical choice but surrender.
"The South had better Generals" ......yeah until The Unconditional Surrender G showed up!
Union had also the high ground
And the south did not have better general just flashy ones
BRO THE ROBLOX NOISE THE MEMORIES
when was West Virginia apart of the South
West Virginia used to be a part of Virginia
Better generals?
Failure is its own demonstration
I hate how much people forget logistics. Just because your generals are better doesn’t mean anything if your logistics suck
The union had generals as good an possibly better than the confederacy
another argument for the confederacy: They did not need to defeat the union. They only needed to hold on for long enough to drain the morale of the unions population which I think they got actually close to in 1862/1863.