I'm already subbed and I wish I could do more, but the comments will have to suffice. Do note my first comment was before you posted it, but it showed up on my device. I don't know what the deal was, but it's also the very first time I've ever had the first post on any channel. Even if it was through the side door. LoL. Cheers from Tennessee
Lincoln invaded the neutral State of Maryland, arrested most of the Senate and House, with his troops taking over the entire Southern State. This was after Lincoln assured Maryland it could remain neutral. Lincoln is the dictator that destroyed the Republic.
I think this an excellent, comprehensive overview. It amazes me how terrible confederate losses of military leadership was under Lee and the amazing ability to find excellent replacements for so long
You know Lee knew almost all of them as commandant of West Point for so many years. After the war he did say Bedford Forrest was likely the best but he never had an opportunity to meet him. Interesting to me is that both Bragg and McClellan while serious failures in the field for opposite reasons were both superlative training officers
@@jonrettich5768 Bragg made his name and reputation during the Mexican-American war, even as a junior officer he stood out, and rightly or wrongly that positive reputation followed him his entire career.
@@fortusvictus8297 I read an excellent biography of Bragg many years ago. At one point he was, I think, company commander and supply officer and formally complained for not supplying his troops properly. His commander noted to him that he had argued with every other officer in his command and now was arguing with himself. The "a little more grape Mr Bragg" incident was saving the American army from, I believe a serious flank attack by the Mexicans, it did make his reputation. He was subject to migraines and likely depression and considered very harsh. During the Civil War he had inordinately high casualties, blamed others and when given the opportunity his Chief of Staff unexpectedly to Bragg himself moved on. Might have been McWhinney's(???) great Vol 1, was told he was so disappointed in Brag there was no Vol. 2.
@@jonrettich5768 The story about Bragg denying his own requisition is apocryphal (Grant calls it an "anecdote" in his Memoirs, Chapter 44), but the fact that it was even believable at all, by anyone, speaks volumes for how bad Bragg's reputation for argumentativeness was.
Lee not writing a memoir is probably one of the greatest omissions in US military history. His thoughts and campaign adages would have influenced many countries studying tactics around the world. But Lee had his reasons and moved on with his life without war after 1865.
hey Bub, just want you to know... I have watched every second of every video you've made. I cant speak of how much respect I have for you doing these. I cant tell you the days and nights during COVID where I laid in bed and just dove all-in on your channel. I have notifications turned on for one channel - yours. just want you to know how much your commitment to telling these stories is appreciated. always wanted to ask... where are you from!!!! im from East Tennessee and I think I hear some Virginia in that accent. long live Dixie and thank you!
Thanks Rabbit, I appreciate your kind words! I’m actually from Texas, I’m surprised you hear some virginia in my voice lol a little history about the channel, I started it because I was bored during the lockdowns haha
Antietam was such a suicide mission-- it's just astounding Lee got away with it. He left literally half his army straggling on the roads of Northern Virginia. Whole brigades were reduced to the size of battalions. By the end of the battle of Antietam Lee's army was down to less than 25,000 men, most of whom were so tired they could barely stand up straight. He knew his enemy, I guess, but as a campaign it was absolute madness. Even if he had somehow won at Antietam, he'd have had no army left to exploit a victory with. It was all downside and no upside. As usual, Longstreet was right...
Lee was intelligent enough to understand the South could not win a long war with the North, at least not without European intervention...so he gambled and gambled since to do what many consider the safe, correct military thing--husband one's resources and risk no more than necessary--amounted to suicide for the South.
@@michaelsale4256 Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but the level of risk vastly exceeded the potential rewards. The Union could always raise more men to replace the captured troops; Lee's veterans were irreplaceable.
As a Marylander I can speak to the issues facing Lee. Maryland d this day is a very divided state, but the vast majority of conservatives and southern leaning sympathizers were in eastern and southern MD. Most of the folks in the west and corridor, while not particularly friendly to Lincoln were either proud Unionists, or just preferred to be let the hell alone. But also generally do not like Virginia, particularly the upperclass elites ofRichmond. A lot of them have family from what is now WestVirginia across the river. They were ppl who were definitely going to feed McClellan intel on Lee’s movements if they could. The tale of Barbara Fritchie maybe apocryphal, but it speaks to the mood of the people of Frederick and Washington Counties. As far as habeas corpus is concerned, every family has at least one black sheep who makes it hard on the rest of us. We Marylanders have the Baltimorons. When you riot and threaten a POTUS, you get what you get.
Excellent! I can't see what happens next to Little Mac and the Union and the Confederates and the whole Civil War! Seriously, great stuff as always! ...and it is sooo fun to poke at McClellan, man, I am laughing right now.
Thanks! this video really helped my understanding of way the Maryland campaign happened. Given his lack of resources and with knowing the result in hindsight it was difficult for me to grasp Lee's decision making.
@@WarhawkYT I hadn't considered Lee's intention to influence the Unions elections. Sadly for him, he achieved the complete opposite effect of what he was aiming for.
Thank you for cataloging this. I’d be keen to see a video reviewing these five points in a retrospective, or even just a T/F format, at the end of the campaign or war. 🤔
McClellan was everything a general should be… Only problem is he had no feel for battle, and always overestimated his enemy. This caution although I think we’ll intended in thinking of the lives of his men was what made him been the field commander disastrous. At the Seven Days he should have seen His men were winning the contest and double downed instead of falling back. At Antietam he should have attacked on the 16th and taken advantage of Lees scattered forces. Or on the 17th used his reserve to renew efforts in the center, give Burnside reinforcements or probably both. The fact of the matter was he had that battle won if he just released his 40k reserve… His opinions of Lincoln although laughable in history’s eyes, at the time were not uncommon. If he he would have been second in command to Hancock, Reynolds, or even if I dare to say Joe Hooker perhaps things would have been different. Though as terrible as it was the preemptive fall of the confederacy may have lead to a longer conflict of guerrilla warfare. In 1865 when Lee had become the center of confederate nationalism he surrendered 30k starving and tired men. Some had the fire within left to fight but even they were beaten. Lee’s surrender allowed the war to come to a peaceful conclusion. Maybe that was the only and best way for it to occur. Upon Lincoln’s reelection the South had no political hopes left with military hope long lost… McClellan goes down in history as a fool, and in many eyes a border line traitor with his 1864 presidential bid promising a negotiated peace with the South. The simple fact is the war had to be long and bloody to achieve the end of slavery by law. Granted Blacks we’re treated horribly in the post war South and not much better in the North, but it was the first great step in becoming the nation our founders dreamed of. (Yes I know most of them were slave owners, but I believe they want a republic to evolve with time)… ramble ramble ramble…
Considering Mc was only just recently reinstalled and fought a major battle, no, he didn't deserve the discredit immediately after Antietam Creek. Mc was a great general, his downfall was his political allegiance. His inaction persisted, Lincoln wanted fighters.
@@timhand3380 I agree he had the trademarks of great generalship. No one could have reorganized the army like he did after the debacle of the 2nd Bull Run… Arm chair generals have the one great benefit that the men the judge didn’t… Hindsight… It’s easy for me to say these things because I’m looking back not living the moments as they came.
I'll only comment on your part about the 7 Days. In war, the most important thing is, "to seize the initiative," it is a hard concept to grasp. Think about the pit in your stomach when you are nervous. Now, make your enemy's stomach knot like that. Another way to categorize it is, fight or flight. Lee seized this concept. Mac did and anybody in '62 (even Grant) would have broke to the sheer repeated assaults of major battles hoisted onto them and another after another. As Longstreet wrote about Malvern Hill, "we were very lavish of blood in those days". Considering that Lee had this striking power, Mac did an outstanding job of an organized fallback. Lee bled himself and Mac into submission, but Lee turned North instead. The fact of only 40k with Lee at A. Creek shows how bloody he was willing to be. Mac did not possess that "initiative" or "lavishness". Mac won the field, protected Washington.
Great, you’re getting to the Maryland campaign. Have been waiting for this action for some time. Had these several advances into the Union been successful, the war may have been over by 1863.
The algorithm popped this in front of me this morning. Nicely done animation. I would suggest that the quotes presented be read aloud. Regardless, I just subscribed.
If I may ask at 18:03 out of curiosity, what was the verbatim way Lincoln referred to McClellan? Was it a nickname, or was it some other referral that could have been confusing?
While Lee's reasoning was sound, and there are generally great benefits to being on the offensive, he miscalculated. He never had enough resources to support a prolonged campaign in the North, and he knew it. His whole plan was, go North, fight a battle, defeat the Army of the Potomac, go back. He couldn't stay to destroy the Union army, or take any strategic objective. Just hope repeated humiliations would break Union morale, or bring foreign powers' support, neither of which was likely. This meant expending very real and finite resources, in pursuit of somewhat nebulous goals. But hey, hindsight is 20/20, and good guys won in the end, so huzzah.
One of the war's ironies is the closest the Union comes to victory, other than 1865, is in early 1862 with Confederates losing on all fronts and McClellan at the gates of the Richmond, ready to besiege it. And the closest the Confederacy comes to victory is in 1864 when the outcome of Lincoln's reelection was uncertain, also threatened by McClellan winning and negotiating a peace.
See, I would argue McClellan actually won the 7 Days, and could have easily pushed toward Richmond again at that point. It was Halleck who recalled him, which arguably is reminiscent of Halleck‘s actions during the Corinth offensive.
This Even Warhawk agrees that it was Halleck and Lincoln that made the Peninsula Campaign fail. Halleck didn't provide McClellan McDowell's corps and he pretty much told McClellan to take a hike and forget Richmond. Worse, Halleck could've provided McClellan with further reinforcements using Banks and Sigel's corps but instead was busy creating another army further from Richmond.
@@imgvillasrc1608 yeah, I mean at the end of the day McClellan is not irrational to ask for extra troops, Lincoln and Halleck have them, at this point. Even if they want to keep some of them to screen DC, since McClellan is essentially pinning Lee’s Army to Richmond, they don’t need a huge defensive force. Heck, in theory they can even do what they did and build an offensive force (maybe don’t give it to Pope), but only as long as McClellan is on the Peninsula. Then, Lee can‘t move in force and as long as the other force stays away from Richmond, it can badly wreck the Confederate war effort. Maybe they can even cut the Rail and Telegraph links, which might end the war. And that‘s only if McClellan doesn’t straight up take Richmond, which he probably can and definitely wants to. But removing McClellan throws everything into jeopardy: it frees Lee up to not only run rampant in Virginia, but also invade the North, twice. Which goes wrong for him, but still really didn’t need to happen. And it directly throws Halleck‘s new Army in jeopardy because Lee can definitely get there before McClellan‘s army gets back. Recalling McClellan is arguably the worst decision they could make, strategically. Second Bull Run is on Pope, tactically, but strategically it‘s hard to see how it isn’t on Halleck and/or whoever else is calling those shots.
@raylast3873 Tbf, it's only in hindsight that we see Pope as a terrible army commander. Before Second Bull Run, Pope seemed to be the man for the job. I don't really see the need to build up the Army of Virginia and act as a distraction. Just send McDowell's corps at the start as McClellan planned. If Lee was able to somehow breakthrough both McDowell and Porter's corps, send Sigel and Banks' corps directly up the James River to reinforce McClellan. Lee would be hard pressed to find another solution, with McClellan getting two new corps and likely retreat to the defenses of Richmond. Imo, McClellan wasn't as bad as people make him out to be. He can be successful if you give him a lot of resources. Sure, the man may be too resource demanding, but considering that it was still 1862, McClellan was still the best general the Union Eastern theater had at the time. Heck, the fact that he was able to best Lee multiple times, unlike his three successors before Grant, shows that he had the skill to best the Confederacy.
If Lee was hoping for something like the battles of Saratoga in the Revolution, he acted like he was trying to recreate the patriot invasion of Canada in the Revolution. And he got the same result as that invasion, both times he tried - debacle. The invasion of Maryland wasn't entirely misguided. From the perspective of victualling the army on northern soil it was well-conceived. It was an opportunity to raid in the north and embarrass the Lincoln administration. It was a fine opportunity to keep the operational initiative and create space between the AOP and Richmond. The capture of the whole Harpers Ferry garrison was a stunning coup - or would have been if Lee had been smart enough to retreat at that point.
I think option 2 (Longstreet's defensive plan) was the better option. Lee had seen the cost that the Union paid in Fredericksburg in their frontal assault. He later ordered a similar assault (Pickett's charge) in Gettysburg. This cost him soldiers he could not afford to lose. While neither plan made the war winnable for the south, at least the defensive option could make it so costly for the north that they could be forced to the negotiating table.
It would be really advantageous for McClellan if he could intercept a copy of Lee's battle plan so that he can anticipate Lee's movements through Maryland. ;)
Sets up nicely, Harper's ferry, South mountain, Antietam. But don't forget Moncacy battle in 1864, everyone seems to forget that Maryland battle field.
So, Lee was aware that the south couldn't win a defensive war, that it would only buy them time? I was under the impression that was the South's entire strategy from the get-go because they understood that the North had the men and resources. They were only hoping to Outlast the North, win enough victories to Tire the morale of the northern forces and hope politics would bring the North to the table.. Sounds like Lee had a different idea entirely?
Yes you are correct. Longstreet was right and it was the only hope they had. Europe was never going to back them because of the slavery issue and they knew it. Their only option was to outlast the north by staying on the defensive. It also would have fit the Northern aggression narrative. Instead Lee spent 18 months destroying his own army in pyrrhic victories.
Damn! This said it posted 5 hours ago, but no notification. Put the Indian Wars on the playlist next. The Algorithm? Right! All hail the Algorithm. Allegedly. Cheers from Tennessee
Yeah, no. I wasn't really sure that I watched this, but.....yep, it's on my history and I'm watching it again. Oooops. The YT gods have jumped the gun or it's next week already. Cheers .
Amused by first map. I go to church in Barnesville worked in Clarksburg for a few decades and live a 5 miles from Urbana. Feds marched through on way to South Mountain. Rebs crossed at Whites Ford and past my house marching to Frederick.
Great coverage of this moment. Definitely the Union's lowest moment. I didn't appreciate the reorganization McClellan did in the aftermath of two significant losses. Antietam is McClellan's high water mark, and it's important to appreciate it was not a given that he would be able to whip the army back into shape so it was ready to fight there.
I mean, arguably Lee was only triumphant against Pope. His campaign against McClellan was kind of a mixed bag *caugh Malvern Hill*. It succeeded in removing the immediate threat to Richmond, but McClellan didn‘t suffer any major defeat and his army remained largely as dangerous as it had before Seven Pines.
Actually, Lee lost most of the engagements of the Seven Days battles. Malvern Hill in particular was a spectacular failure for Lee. His saving grace was that he had accurately judged McClellan, who ran away after every successful engagement.
The big problem for Lee is, of course, that he‘s only actually beaten Pope. McClellan may have retreated from Richmond, but he‘s preserved his army extremely well in the process, whereas Lee has suffered massive casualties. And now with Pope humiliated, McClellan gets to add all of Pope‘s remaining troops to his giant army. The Army Lee has to fight from now on.
Partly correct. Porter was still with the army at Antietam, though he commanded the reserves and was not engaged. He was, however, blamed for 2nd Bull Run and cashiered.
After the battle of Second Manassas, Lee needed to rest, recruit, and refit his army which had been terribly reduced by the hard marching and fighting since the Seven Days. Lee couldn't remain where he was in Northern Virginia because the area had been picked clean and he was not near a railroad that could deliver supplies. Lee basically had four choices - to move in any of the compass directions. A move south to the line of the Rappahannock would enable Lee to resupply and refit but would surrender the initiative Lee had just won and signal that the ANV was unable to continue offensive operations. A move to the west into the Shenandoah Valley offered the same possibilities. A move to the east against DC was out of the question because Lee lacked the siege train and troops necessary to invest the city nor could he adequately supply his army's needs so far from a railhead. That left only a move north into Maryland which would keep the initiative in his hands. The move to Frederick placed Lee on the defensible line of the Monocacy River and threatened both DC and Baltimore. Lee probably understood that he would have to fight a defensive battle in Maryland before he could move off to the Shenandoah for the much needed respite. In the end, the drawn battle of Sharpsburg sufficed to give Lee the six weeks he needed in the Valley where he was able to recruit his army back to 60,000 men, as McClellan refused to move until he refitted the AoP.
There was no need for Lee to fight a battle in Maryland. He could easily have escaped across the Potomac with a dazzling victory in the capture of the whole garrison of Harpers Ferry. Instead he stood and fought with no chance of a strategically meaningful outcome in his favor. His men fought as well as could be expected, but Lee still lost all the political momentum he had generated in the last 90 days, on top of losing 10,000+ casualties he couldn't afford to throw away in bloody draws.
The Maryland Campaign cost Lee 16,000+ casaulties he couldn't afford to lose. While the Union lost 28,000, the difference is mainly due to prisoners taken. Lee actually lost more men killed in action than the Union did, while the number of wounded was only slightly in Lee's favor. The campaign also helped turn Maryland into a solidly anti-Confederate state, when before it was probably the most pro-Confederate state in the Union. Staying in Maryland instead of retreating after capturing Harper's Ferry turned out to be a terrible idea. Not only did it force Lee into a devastating battle, but it also resulted in him before forcibly driven out of Maryland instead of voluntarily leaving. Thus the Union was able to claim victory and issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which basically assured the Europeans would never come to the aid of the CSA.
@@TheStapleGunKid The video asked why Lee invaded Maryland and I provided a logical analysis of the decision-making that led to that course of action. Your comment addresses the consequences of that decision. Without a doubt Lee ran a great risk in accepting battle in Maryland. It's easy for armchair generals to say what Lee should have done, it's lots of fun for us to show off our military thinking. I'm just looking at what was actually done and trying to understand the decisions as the person making them did, and what military reasons justify doing so. I try to limit my personal opinions and stick to objective facts, what I can read in orders and see on a map, along with a little logic. When choosing to offer battle, a good general should always ask himself if this is the hill he wants to die on.
@@hvymettle The point is Lee had the chance to end the campaign after Harper's Ferry and call it a victory. Instead he stuck around in Maryland for a battle he had zero chance of winning, resulted in him losing a ton of men he couldn't afford to lose and turned the campaign into a clear Union victory. Just a bad call on his part. He himself admitted he didn't have the proper army for a prolonged offensive campaign and should have called it off the moment something happened that would make it a success.
It' s interesting to see how perceptive Lincoln was about McClellan. He was a very effective organizer and Administrator, but a poor field commander. McClellan would have made a good Chief of Staff if there had been a position at this time.
Yes but McClellan's ego and growing dislike of Lincoln meant he wouldn't have taken the 'promotion' well. Halleck, for all his faults, had few political ambitions. McClellan would have been more charismatic as a Chief of Staff but he had delusions of grandeur thinking only HE could save the Republic and believed Lincoln was an idiot who should have stayed out of the military decisions. These traits would not have translated well into the Chief of Staff role.
@@celston51 You are absolutely right about Little Mac, his ego would get in the way with just about anything. Lincoln was smart to move on from him as soon as he could after he had reorganized the Army.
Pope was a good general, despite that he was dwarfed by Lee & Jackson. The popular tradition tends to underestimate commanders defeated by Lee & Jackson. Pope is one such case; one only needs to look at his victory at Island Number 10 to see why.
Island Number 10 was a nice little victory. But Pope outnumbered his enemy 3:1, the rebels were in a very poor position, and the Union had an overwhelming naval advantage. It was a good start, but not an indication that Pope was up to the task of managing an army 3-4 times that size and of facing the rebels' most powerful army.
I hate the discourse of how brilliant Lee is for attacking the north. Oh, Lee knew he couldn’t win a defensive war with a numerically inferior army? Like the Americans in the revolution, or the Viet Cong, or the Taliban? The daughters of the confederacy really did a number on how us Americans think of that war.
The great difference is, they ya know, share a continent and long border.?And have industrial places key to their survival. CSA fumbled the bag and definitely could have done something else. But cmon, Taliban, Vietnam, American Revolution, fighting an offensive war from across the ocean, without being able to point out on a map “this industrial city is key” is different from this conflict. Sure they could have done the insurgency style thing and not traditional warfare, but ya know. Works a lot less well sharing a border with the enemy nation. With the enemy nation having superior emigration, population, quantity of troops. And where would funds come from? Things to consider
@@randomcomment5599 Gerilla movements had problem: 1. Appalachian region was prounionist area from East Tennesse, West North Carolina, North Georgia and North Alabama. Ozark region in Arkansas was prounionist. 2 Mississippi valey was high % slave population above 50% . After emantipation or abolition the exslaves did not assist any proconfederate white gerilla movement at all. Something white gerilla movement would have chance in the main proconfederate areas where the slave population was between 50-20%. The below 20% slave populated areas were prounionist white people and the above 50% slave populated areas could become prounionist exslave population. Prounionist white and exslaves majority territories too big in the Confederacy. The North would have concentrate the antigerilla action in about 1/3 őf the Confederacy only!
100 000 white soldier came from theConfederacy and 200 000 colored soldiers. It could have more unionist white and colored soldiers from the Exconfederacy territory to help the about 500-600 000 Northern invasion soldiers! 1-2 years later a gerilla movement could end in the Exconfederacy territory.
Remember Von Clauswitz's brilliance, from ON WAR. "War is politics taken to its extreme." And "you destroy either the enemy's will and/or means to make war." The North wanted to destroy the South's means and the South needed to destroy the North's will (they couldn't destroy their means). War is as much strategic politic as killing/destruction. Lee needed the North to feel the effect of war and to turn political opinion against Lincoln's administration. It was a long shot, but futile. Good overall picture presented.
Lee *thought* he needed the North to feel the effect of war, but what Lee *really* needed was for the northern public to see the war as futile. He didn't need to gamble on invasions of Maryland or Pennsylvania, he needed to pick his battles carefully and strike when he had advantages. Lee did not understand the political situation, which is why, despite his many advantages, he was unable to devise and execute a cohesive strategic plan. In all fairness, Jefferson Davis didn't have a grasp on strategy either, so it wasn't all Lee's fault.
Lee did not really believe that maryland was ready to join the confederacy the proclamation Lee addressed to the Marylanders was all Jefferson Davis idea not his. The marylanders who were for the confederacy had already joined the ANV.
Not really the right part of the state, either. But not a bad idea to try, along with resupplying on Northern soil and looking for battles of opportunity. Lee got his opportunity for a coup when he captured Harpers Ferry, but squandered the victory by staying to fight the senseless battle at Antietam.
See I‘m not totally sure Lee was right in wanting to fight an offensive war. Sure, in theory, beating the Union on it‘s own soil would be great, but I would suggest that actually, beating them in the South is also pretty good. The main thing is to beat them at all. Meanwhile, all of Lee‘s offensives undermine his most important resource: his army. Which he needs to keep beating the Union. Lee is the one who can‘t afford losses. Meanwhile, his job is actually (drumroll) to keep the Union from conquering the Confederate heartland for as long as possible. If a defensive strategy accomplishes that, great. The Union generals are a lot more traditional. They follow the old maxim of „preserve your army, win in the field, then go for the prize“. And this actually doesn‘t work as well for them, in part because winning in the field no longer neutralizes the enemy army as well as it used to, but also because grabbing Southern territory is actually realistic for them. It‘s Grant who is constantly moving to seize enemy territory and essentially reasoning that if the Rebel armies move to stop him, he can take them without too much risk and even if he loses, they‘ll still be fine and in any case grabbing strategic locations makes it all worth it. Which works great for the Union. But for Lee? Yeah, attacking recklessly was a good option (or perhaps the only option) when he had his back to Richmond and needed to dislodge McClelland at any cost. But after that, maybe he needed to be more McClellan than Grant. Keeping his army in tact and engaging the enemy on favorable terms was arguably not the worst proposition for him.
Uh hold on. Lee gets the entire army of Potomac back to the river, then turns and leaves them there to chase another army? And the army of Potomac just, got on their boats and left? After Lee left the way wide open for Richmond which is why they came there in the first place? You said that the Army was safe because of the gunboats in the river, okay that makes sense. So Lee can't attack and finish off the army of the Potomac, so.... He just leaves them there? What the hell. This makes no sense dude.
McClellan was safe with the gunboats protecting his army, Lee couldn’t attack him again with suffering even more casualties than his repulse at Malvern hill. This recap was a generalization of events that occurred as Lee sent Jackson first to deal with Pope in northern Virginia. When Lee got confirmed information that McClellan was leaving the peninsula, he went north to link of with Jackson to fight pope at second Manassas. McClellan was ordered to leave after Lincoln realized he couldn’t do anything more to turn the tide on the peninsula so he brought him back north to link up with pope that almost happened but pope was lured into a battle and defeated.
Time to replace those 1st generation CSA flags with the Rebel Battle Flag. It was developed SPECIFICALY not to look like the Stars and Stripes and avoid friendly fire when possible. Show the history as it was...
I am no professional historian, but after looking into the "Lost Cause myth", it really doesn't seem to be a myth at all. I see a lot of parallels between the American revolution, and the South secession. The northern states had all the power in the congress, because of population and resources, and seemed to make financial decisions at the expense of the south, and the South had insufficient representation to outvote the northern states. Having to pay the majority of the tariffs, because there was no income tax (ironically imposed by Lincoln to pay for this war) meanwhile the north wouldn't respect the South and their laws, most of the time showing outright hostility to them. Because they tell you it's slavery all the time, you don't question it, but it appears that slavery was already on its way out in the south anyway, buying New Slaves had been illegal for some time, they had already agreed that all new States would not be slave states, and there was no risk of the slaves being taken away that the South already had. So the logic that the South seceded because they were afraid of losing slavery is stupid, because there was no threat of anyone coming to take their slaves away. Even if there was, industrialization had started to make slavery obsolete. We see this with things like the cotton gin for instance. Also when you look at the delegations for some states, they had put slavery up to a vote and it was already on the verge of being voted out on its own. Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, he only abolished it in states that were currently in rebellion, he didn't do it because he felt bad for black people, he said himself if he could end this war without freeing slaves he would do it. Furthermore, I'm almost positive he also said he didn't intend to keep them here after he freed them, that he wanted to send them all back. So where does this logic come from that it was because of slavery, I don't see that. I know in the Articles of secession, a few States noted that the north hostility toward the Fugitive Slave Act was a primary example of the north hostility to the South, example of how the north never showed reciprocity in respecting laws, but still expected the South to uphold the tariffs to pay off the debt the Northern interests accrued. I also think of of the tiny proportion of people who actually owned slaves. An estimated 2% of the South had slaves, and the majority of that 2% owned one or two as house hands, in a small portion owned plantations where we get the Hollywood depiction of backwards white men whipping innocent blacks with a smile on their toothless face. So you're telling me these Southerners fought the most devastating War the US has ever known, endured hunger sickness the destruction of everything they hold dear, still fought to The Bitter End just so the richest men in the South could keep their free labor????? That seems against their own interest, those could be jobs that would need to be paid, potentially for them. Why did they line up and get shot at for 4 years just so a rich man could keep his Plantation workers? Makes no sense at all. Then I look at all the things Lincoln did during the war, in a sick irony his actions vindicated the souths anxieties about a federal govt over reach in northern hands.... he proved just how easy it was for a central authority to consolidate power. At the time the US was not how we have it now as one single nation. It was a bunch of small states that each saw themselves as essentially their own country, something as I understand similar to the EU, distinctively separate, but allied with each other for a common goal. They simply felt their states weren't benefiting from this Arrangement any longer, wanted to leave. Now I am sure that them being bullied into outlawing slavery, these laws being passed by voters in the north, definitely played an impact, I just don't see how slavery was the issue of the day. The reason the entire nation went to war. And additionally, the more you read about southern men, from first hand sources at the time, personal journals and letters to loved ones that were never intended to be read by the public, they all speak of Southern men as the classic gentlemen, fierce warriors, well read people. But we have this idea today, because of Pop culture, that they were a bunch of barefoot hill Billie's that picked lice out of each other's hair and ate it like monkeys do. Just these over the top, almost cartoonish representations of southerners. They show us slave shacks, and compared to homes today yes they are terrible, but when you consider what the average person back then lived in, it really wasn't much different. Living back then sucked. It was hot. Dirty. I just can't trust mainstream history anymore. Just consider this, look how easy it is for the people who make the narrative to lie about current situations. Now consider what they could do with history. I just remain skeptical of a lot of the "common knowledge" we are force fed everyday. And I'm not saying I'm right on any of this, I'm just wondering if it isn't worth considering.
Lincoln's inauguration was ultimately what set off the South secession. But Lincoln's inauguration speech didn't mention him wanting to pursue Banning slavery, he did mention that he was going to enforce the morill tarrif... The firing on ft sumpter didn't seem to be accidental as it was a federal fort where these tarrif would be collected.
@@frauleinhohenzollern The Morrill Tariff never would have passed the Senate if the southern states hadn't seceded. As a side note...Fort Sumter was a coastal defense fort, not a revenue office, and it had been ceded to the Federal government by the state of South Carolina long before secession.
1. After Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's cabin the Norther women society became against the slavery system. It may be the men voted, but at home every Northern women who read that novel was against the slavery. Lincoln way of saying to Harriet in the White House on November 25, 1862 was "so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." I think it is exaggeration, Harriet thought of a step by step abolution in his book! Stephen Douglas got 30 silver coin from Women during his travelling by train from Washington to Chicago after Kasas Nebraska Act! 2. The most important step was to the Civil War the Kansas Nebraska act by Stephen Douglas and Southerner supporting, they hoped Kansas could became slavery system state. The Missouri Little Dixie voters election fraud against the free work system majority settlers started a Pre Civil War (bleeding Kansas). The male voters of North wanted to stop the spreading of the slavery system, so the Republican party had the compromize to stop the spreeding of the slavery to the Western territories and they did not want any abolition. Lincoln won with this program. THE SOUTHERNER WANTED TO EXPORT THE SLAVERY SYSTEM, when UK in 1836 and France in 1848 banned the slavery! 3. Morell tariff was started under President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, after Texas, Lousiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina left the Union on February 8, 1861 and Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861! Georg Friedrich List (6 August 1789 - 30 November 1846) was a German and American economical professional who suggested the protective tariff for Germany and USA! The Industrial revolution assisted UK, France, Belgium to be Industrial nations List thought the chidren German and USA industry should protect. In 1861 UK, France and Belgian industry were better than USA or Germany industry, but the American textile industry became more productive than Lanchesire or American steel was used in the British Empire about 1890! The Protective tariff assisted the USA's industry well! '
Strategically I cannot see why wonder about in Maryland, doing nothing more than pick fights, does anything much. The Union has far more industrial rescources and of men. Why waste men and supplies crashing around in Maryland taking no communication lines, or industrial complexes? When your men already don't have food and clothing, weapons, and wasting/use what you do. What you save from Southern farming you expend in all other logistics and men.
Plenty of good reasons. Lots of resources to sustain his army, it was practicable, take the initiative, political reasons, propaganda, improve moral, upset Union forces, threaten Washington, prevent union moves into Virginia, an opportunity to use Napoleonic strategy, gain support of Marylanders, capture military supplies, and possibly win the war. Possibly catching Washington. Napoleonic strategy meant winning campaigns by rapid manoeuvres rather than costly battles. Also the Northern military leadership lacked effective initiative of it's leaders. Failing to make powerful and well coordinated operations. Lee could use his fast moving tactics with little risk of retaliation. Many Union units would need to be held in Washington rather than attacking Lee. Virginia had been ravished of food supporting the Army of Virginia. The weather and geography was suitable. Just holding Virginia would achieve little. A waist of resources. Grant had a similar philosophy when he came East to command all Union armies. . Not a Napoleonic General. He emptyed many defensive garrisons and wanted to attack the South on all fronts at the same time. And not holding back large reserves. Utilizing the Norths greater resources. This required some very deadly battles but ended the war sooner. Deaths by illness equalled battle deaths. Even when not fighting soldiers were dying. Keeping men moving can reduce diseases. Ending the war was costly. Grant could not command each battle. He commanded a number of armies over huge distances. Trains and the telegraph enabled this. Except for Sherman who cut himself off by marching through the South and living of the Souths resources. Just as Lees army fed on Maryland food. Lee needed to take care not to offend the Marylanders. Sherman intended to offend the South. Despite his bad reputation in the South he did not kill so many Southerners. The bloody fighting was in Virginia. Sherman did the same as Lee. But much more effectively. Destroying the Southern internal lines of communication. Also, transport, resources and economy. Using manouver in prepherence to fighting. Achieving goals with lighter casualties. While Grant pinned down Lee in Virginia. General Thomas also led a successful campaign with less public notice. Slower than Grant wanted, but at relatively low losses. Outmanouvering Southern forces.
Lee is a vastly overrated commander who destroyed his own Army over 18 months through pyrrhic victories. He waa good at tactics but horrible at strategy. He never followed up on a victory thus allowing the Union army to recover and rebuild thus wasting the man power lost in the effort.
@@texasforever7887 Yes and no. Lee had limited resources where the Union did not. Lee did what he could and ended up failing at Gettysburg and that was basically the end of the Confederate main effort. Then after Vicksburg and Atlanta, it was over, just a matter of time before the whole thing collapsed. I don't blame Lee for the shortcomings of the Confederacy itself. He did what he could with a bad situation. That being said, Pickett's Charge was a goddamn foolish mistake that I think he never lived down.
Except for Delaware the Border States were divided much less percentage between prounionist and proconfederate people. Deleware was almost 100% prunionist and the later new 35th state (from 1863) West Virginia was 50-50% prounionist and proconfederate. The more borter states were between West Virginia and Delaware. Frederick town was prounionist (Lee experienced) and the east of Washington counties (with 40-60% slave population) were the most confederate sentiment area in Maryland. Missouri's most proconfederate sentiment area was the central counties with 17-35% slave population, this was the Little Dixie. Mark Twain began as proconfederate militist in Hannibal (in Little Dixie) and he became prounionist in 1863 in Nevada. St Louis, the Iowa border counties and the Ozark region with low slave population were the pro unionist areas in Missouri.
@@aaronfleming9426 There are a few counties in East Tennessee where the slave population were low (as Sullivan county to the South West Virginia border) and proconfederate sentiment was, but the most prounionist counties in the Confederacy had low% slavery population. The Hollywood femouse Jones county had the lowest % slave population in Mississippi state. In Alabama the MOST PROUNIONIST County (Winston) had the lowest % slave population. Ozark region's counties were the most prounionist in Arkansas too with low% slave population! It is generaly right that there was + correlation between lower % slave population and prounionist sentiment in the Confederacy! The exception as Sullivan county in East Tenneessee was few. In the Border state Kentucky is the exception, because there were higher % slave population counties with pro unionist population. I think the Whig effect, Henry Clay's political effect was the main cause. However the low% slaves generaly connected to pounionism in Kentucky in the most case!
@@aaronfleming9426 I am interested in the prounionism in the Confederacy, so I am corious why Hoolywood did not start TV serial about this same to the "North and South" serial? East Tennessee's history from that time similar interesting as Missourian local Civil War in the Little Dixie.
@@avenaoat Great information, thank you! I never saw North and South so I can't comment on it, but since we're talking about Hollywood there was probably not a high premium on historical accuracy, ha ha! I'm an Iowan so the Civil War in Missouri is of interest to me. I most recently visited the Island Mound battle site, where the 1st Kansas Colored infantry saw there first action and became the first black troops in U.S. history to see combat. The nearest battlefield to me is Athens, Missouri, just across the Des Moines River from Croton, Iowa. Athens is a footnote to the war in most accounts, but 350 unionists - armed with new muskets procured by the state of Iowa - defeated a force of 2,000 rebels and secured north-east Missouri for the Union. A heck of a what-if lies in that battle though...what if that rebel force had won decisively, crossed the river, and destroyed the railroad and riverboat facilities in southeast Iowa?
Thanks everybody for watching, if you enjoyed this content and want to see more, consider liking and subscribing to help out the channel!
Yeeyuh now we know why 😀
You are the best!
I'm already subbed and I wish I could do more, but the comments will have to suffice. Do note my first comment was before you posted it, but it showed up on my device. I don't know what the deal was, but it's also the very first time I've ever had the first post on any channel. Even if it was through the side door. LoL. Cheers from Tennessee
Thanks very much and i am thinking about Subscribing to your amazing channel....l am in my 80's ans a former F-4 Phantom 2
fighter pilot...
Shoe🇺🇸
Thank you Warhawk! My home state of Maryland has so much awesome Civil War history. Nothing beats an autumn drive to South Mountain and Sharpsburg.
Lincoln invaded the neutral State of Maryland, arrested most of the Senate and House, with his troops taking over the entire Southern State. This was after Lincoln assured Maryland it could remain neutral. Lincoln is the dictator that destroyed the Republic.
As a Maryland native I’m excited to watch this
Awesome bro, I hope you enjoy it!
Same here man
I didn't even know Lee and invaded Maryland outside of going to Gettsburg, Pa.
I think this an excellent, comprehensive overview. It amazes me how terrible confederate losses of military leadership was under Lee and the amazing ability to find excellent replacements for so long
Yep Lee was pretty good at choosing good subordinates
You know Lee knew almost all of them as commandant of West Point for so many years. After the war he did say Bedford Forrest was likely the best but he never had an opportunity to meet him. Interesting to me is that both Bragg and McClellan while serious failures in the field for opposite reasons were both superlative training officers
@@jonrettich5768 Bragg made his name and reputation during the Mexican-American war, even as a junior officer he stood out, and rightly or wrongly that positive reputation followed him his entire career.
@@fortusvictus8297 I read an excellent biography of Bragg many years ago. At one point he was, I think, company commander and supply officer and formally complained for not supplying his troops properly. His commander noted to him that he had argued with every other officer in his command and now was arguing with himself. The "a little more grape Mr Bragg" incident was saving the American army from, I believe a serious flank attack by the Mexicans, it did make his reputation. He was subject to migraines and likely depression and considered very harsh. During the Civil War he had inordinately high casualties, blamed others and when given the opportunity his Chief of Staff unexpectedly to Bragg himself moved on. Might have been McWhinney's(???) great Vol 1, was told he was so disappointed in Brag there was no Vol. 2.
@@jonrettich5768 The story about Bragg denying his own requisition is apocryphal (Grant calls it an "anecdote" in his Memoirs, Chapter 44), but the fact that it was even believable at all, by anyone, speaks volumes for how bad Bragg's reputation for argumentativeness was.
I know I'm late, but great video love the break from the battles and the explanation for Lee's Campaign
Oh look it's another civil war channel.
Lee not writing a memoir is probably one of the greatest omissions in US military history.
His thoughts and campaign adages would have influenced many countries studying tactics around the world.
But Lee had his reasons and moved on with his life without war after 1865.
Great video as always. Your videos are the Ken Burns to all other animated battle documentaries.
I really appreciate u guys posting your source material. I think a lot of history channels on RUclips should do the same😎❤️
Great job! Very excited for the next campaign 😎
This is a video everyone needs to see in order to understand why Lee invaded the north. It’s a great summary of the lead-up to the Maryland campaign.
I agree, thanks Matthew. Its my favorite video so far!
hey Bub, just want you to know... I have watched every second of every video you've made. I cant speak of how much respect I have for you doing these. I cant tell you the days and nights during COVID where I laid in bed and just dove all-in on your channel. I have notifications turned on for one channel - yours. just want you to know how much your commitment to telling these stories is appreciated. always wanted to ask... where are you from!!!! im from East Tennessee and I think I hear some Virginia in that accent. long live Dixie and thank you!
Thanks Rabbit, I appreciate your kind words! I’m actually from Texas, I’m surprised you hear some virginia in my voice lol a little history about the channel, I started it because I was bored during the lockdowns haha
Fellow Marylander here I’m here for this! I’m excited keep it going!
Antietam was such a suicide mission-- it's just astounding Lee got away with it. He left literally half his army straggling on the roads of Northern Virginia. Whole brigades were reduced to the size of battalions. By the end of the battle of Antietam Lee's army was down to less than 25,000 men, most of whom were so tired they could barely stand up straight.
He knew his enemy, I guess, but as a campaign it was absolute madness. Even if he had somehow won at Antietam, he'd have had no army left to exploit a victory with. It was all downside and no upside. As usual, Longstreet was right...
Do you think Lee was doomed to lose at Gettysburg no matter what?
@@Stinger522 if you consider a phyric victory winning then no
Lee was intelligent enough to understand the South could not win a long war with the North, at least not without European intervention...so he gambled and gambled since to do what many consider the safe, correct military thing--husband one's resources and risk no more than necessary--amounted to suicide for the South.
The campaign also includes capturing Harpers Ferry, 13,000 soldiers, and loads of supplies at the armory.
@@michaelsale4256 Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but the level of risk vastly exceeded the potential rewards. The Union could always raise more men to replace the captured troops; Lee's veterans were irreplaceable.
As a Marylander I can speak to the issues facing Lee. Maryland d this day is a very divided state, but the vast majority of conservatives and southern leaning sympathizers were in eastern and southern MD. Most of the folks in the west and corridor, while not particularly friendly to Lincoln were either proud Unionists, or just preferred to be let the hell alone. But also generally do not like Virginia, particularly the upperclass elites ofRichmond. A lot of them have family from what is now WestVirginia across the river. They were ppl who were definitely going to feed McClellan intel on Lee’s movements if they could. The tale of Barbara Fritchie maybe apocryphal, but it speaks to the mood of the people of Frederick and Washington Counties. As far as habeas corpus is concerned, every family has at least one black sheep who makes it hard on the rest of us. We Marylanders have the Baltimorons. When you riot and threaten a POTUS, you get what you get.
Well, this was great. Foreshadowing things to come.
Thanks Zach!
Looking forward to these upcoming videos and the confederate offensive in Maryland, Kentucky and Northern Mississippi.
Lincoln really shows his judgement and farsightedness here, in understanding what McClellan was capable of despite his flaws.
I really liked the color coded strategic overview.
Excellent!
I can't see what happens next to Little Mac and the Union and the Confederates and the whole Civil War!
Seriously, great stuff as always!
...and it is sooo fun to poke at McClellan, man, I am laughing right now.
Thanks Tim!
Great video, I really enjoyed the why behind Lee's invasion.
A great video! Things sure could had evolved differently. But, it did not. Thank you for sharing ❤️💯👊
Thanks! this video really helped my understanding of way the Maryland campaign happened. Given his lack of resources and with knowing the result in hindsight it was difficult for me to grasp Lee's decision making.
Thanks Krostiman! Sometimes you gotta chose the most dramatic option like Lee, he couldn't stay in Virginia or retreat south, the only way was north.
@@WarhawkYT I hadn't considered Lee's intention to influence the Unions elections. Sadly for him, he achieved the complete opposite effect of what he was aiming for.
great deep overview of intrigues behind the civil war.
Thank you for cataloging this.
I’d be keen to see a video reviewing these five points in a retrospective, or even just a T/F format, at the end of the campaign or war. 🤔
Really love the format and level of detail for this.
McClellan was everything a general should be… Only problem is he had no feel for battle, and always overestimated his enemy. This caution although I think we’ll intended in thinking of the lives of his men was what made him been the field commander disastrous. At the Seven Days he should have seen His men were winning the contest and double downed instead of falling back. At Antietam he should have attacked on the 16th and taken advantage of Lees scattered forces. Or on the 17th used his reserve to renew efforts in the center, give Burnside reinforcements or probably both. The fact of the matter was he had that battle won if he just released his 40k reserve… His opinions of Lincoln although laughable in history’s eyes, at the time were not uncommon. If he he would have been second in command to Hancock, Reynolds, or even if I dare to say Joe Hooker perhaps things would have been different. Though as terrible as it was the preemptive fall of the confederacy may have lead to a longer conflict of guerrilla warfare. In 1865 when Lee had become the center of confederate nationalism he surrendered 30k starving and tired men. Some had the fire within left to fight but even they were beaten. Lee’s surrender allowed the war to come to a peaceful conclusion. Maybe that was the only and best way for it to occur. Upon Lincoln’s reelection the South had no political hopes left with military hope long lost… McClellan goes down in history as a fool, and in many eyes a border line traitor with his 1864 presidential bid promising a negotiated peace with the South. The simple fact is the war had to be long and bloody to achieve the end of slavery by law. Granted Blacks we’re treated horribly in the post war South and not much better in the North, but it was the first great step in becoming the nation our founders dreamed of. (Yes I know most of them were slave owners, but I believe they want a republic to evolve with time)… ramble ramble ramble…
Considering Mc was only just recently reinstalled and fought a major battle, no, he didn't deserve the discredit immediately after Antietam Creek.
Mc was a great general, his downfall was his political allegiance. His inaction persisted, Lincoln wanted fighters.
@@timhand3380 I agree he had the trademarks of great generalship. No one could have reorganized the army like he did after the debacle of the 2nd Bull Run… Arm chair generals have the one great benefit that the men the judge didn’t… Hindsight… It’s easy for me to say these things because I’m looking back not living the moments as they came.
I'll only comment on your part about the 7 Days. In war, the most important thing is, "to seize the initiative," it is a hard concept to grasp. Think about the pit in your stomach when you are nervous. Now, make your enemy's stomach knot like that. Another way to categorize it is, fight or flight. Lee seized this concept. Mac did and anybody in '62 (even Grant) would have broke to the sheer repeated assaults of major battles hoisted onto them and another after another. As Longstreet wrote about Malvern Hill, "we were very lavish of blood in those days". Considering that Lee had this striking power, Mac did an outstanding job of an organized fallback.
Lee bled himself and Mac into submission, but Lee turned North instead. The fact of only 40k with Lee at A. Creek shows how bloody he was willing to be. Mac did not possess that "initiative" or "lavishness". Mac won the field, protected Washington.
Come on, man he had the orders that Lee gave to his generals in advance.Please don't really live history.Mcclellan was a terrible general
Great, you’re getting to the Maryland campaign. Have been waiting for this action for some time. Had these several advances into the Union been successful, the war may have been over by 1863.
The algorithm popped this in front of me this morning. Nicely done animation. I would suggest that the quotes presented be read aloud. Regardless, I just subscribed.
thanks, however the quotes that arent read are transition scenes for the video.
Drove thru Frederick and ghmettysburg today for the first time, loving the in depth history here!
Thanks for your work.
Amazing video as always, Warhawk! Also, did you used to have a channel called Saris ?
Ummmm
If I may ask at 18:03 out of curiosity, what was the verbatim way Lincoln referred to McClellan? Was it a nickname, or was it some other referral that could have been confusing?
Awesome video! So excited you are going to cover Antietam
it was always planned :)
While Lee's reasoning was sound, and there are generally great benefits to being on the offensive, he miscalculated.
He never had enough resources to support a prolonged campaign in the North, and he knew it. His whole plan was, go North, fight a battle, defeat the Army of the Potomac, go back. He couldn't stay to destroy the Union army, or take any strategic objective. Just hope repeated humiliations would break Union morale, or bring foreign powers' support, neither of which was likely.
This meant expending very real and finite resources, in pursuit of somewhat nebulous goals.
But hey, hindsight is 20/20, and good guys won in the end, so huzzah.
It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?
@@Deckuras you mean like how nazi officers basically wrote their narrative of Ww2 for so long?
@@Deckuras thats not true
Great stuff, more strategy videos please
One of the war's ironies is the closest the Union comes to victory, other than 1865, is in early 1862 with Confederates losing on all fronts and McClellan at the gates of the Richmond, ready to besiege it. And the closest the Confederacy comes to victory is in 1864 when the outcome of Lincoln's reelection was uncertain, also threatened by McClellan winning and negotiating a peace.
Man i love this channel
Very good. Thank You.
See, I would argue McClellan actually won the 7 Days, and could have easily pushed toward Richmond again at that point. It was Halleck who recalled him, which arguably is reminiscent of Halleck‘s actions during the Corinth offensive.
This
Even Warhawk agrees that it was Halleck and Lincoln that made the Peninsula Campaign fail. Halleck didn't provide McClellan McDowell's corps and he pretty much told McClellan to take a hike and forget Richmond. Worse, Halleck could've provided McClellan with further reinforcements using Banks and Sigel's corps but instead was busy creating another army further from Richmond.
@@imgvillasrc1608 yeah, I mean at the end of the day McClellan is not irrational to ask for extra troops, Lincoln and Halleck have them, at this point. Even if they want to keep some of them to screen DC, since McClellan is essentially pinning Lee’s Army to Richmond, they don’t need a huge defensive force. Heck, in theory they can even do what they did and build an offensive force (maybe don’t give it to Pope), but only as long as McClellan is on the Peninsula. Then, Lee can‘t move in force and as long as the other force stays away from Richmond, it can badly wreck the Confederate war effort. Maybe they can even cut the Rail and Telegraph links, which might end the war.
And that‘s only if McClellan doesn’t straight up take Richmond, which he probably can and definitely wants to.
But removing McClellan throws everything into jeopardy: it frees Lee up to not only run rampant in Virginia, but also invade the North, twice. Which goes wrong for him, but still really didn’t need to happen.
And it directly throws Halleck‘s new Army in jeopardy because Lee can definitely get there before McClellan‘s army gets back. Recalling McClellan is arguably the worst decision they could make, strategically. Second Bull Run is on Pope, tactically, but strategically it‘s hard to see how it isn’t on Halleck and/or whoever else is calling those shots.
@raylast3873 Tbf, it's only in hindsight that we see Pope as a terrible army commander. Before Second Bull Run, Pope seemed to be the man for the job.
I don't really see the need to build up the Army of Virginia and act as a distraction. Just send McDowell's corps at the start as McClellan planned. If Lee was able to somehow breakthrough both McDowell and Porter's corps, send Sigel and Banks' corps directly up the James River to reinforce McClellan. Lee would be hard pressed to find another solution, with McClellan getting two new corps and likely retreat to the defenses of Richmond.
Imo, McClellan wasn't as bad as people make him out to be. He can be successful if you give him a lot of resources. Sure, the man may be too resource demanding, but considering that it was still 1862, McClellan was still the best general the Union Eastern theater had at the time. Heck, the fact that he was able to best Lee multiple times, unlike his three successors before Grant, shows that he had the skill to best the Confederacy.
Great video as always Sarsussy
He was out of fresh crabs?
Err, I'll be over here...
Lol
Nice work.
Thanks Wes!
So it begins… now we will see McClellan go after Lee in Maryland.
So it does
Great stuff as usual.
If Lee was hoping for something like the battles of Saratoga in the Revolution, he acted like he was trying to recreate the patriot invasion of Canada in the Revolution. And he got the same result as that invasion, both times he tried - debacle.
The invasion of Maryland wasn't entirely misguided. From the perspective of victualling the army on northern soil it was well-conceived. It was an opportunity to raid in the north and embarrass the Lincoln administration. It was a fine opportunity to keep the operational initiative and create space between the AOP and Richmond. The capture of the whole Harpers Ferry garrison was a stunning coup - or would have been if Lee had been smart enough to retreat at that point.
I think option 2 (Longstreet's defensive plan) was the better option. Lee had seen the cost that the Union paid in Fredericksburg in their frontal assault. He later ordered a similar assault (Pickett's charge) in Gettysburg. This cost him soldiers he could not afford to lose. While neither plan made the war winnable for the south, at least the defensive option could make it so costly for the north that they could be forced to the negotiating table.
Fredericksburg was after Antietam though, and was lucky to face burnside who decided to attack the most fortified position Lee had
you do awesome with these
thanks Matt!
Great stuff!!!
Chancellorsville , Perryville , brandy station , cold harbor, anthiem I can’t wait !!!
Thanks!
It would be really advantageous for McClellan if he could intercept a copy of Lee's battle plan so that he can anticipate Lee's movements through Maryland. ;)
Whoa there - where is your “spoiler warning”? 😉
@@fett333 I'm just speaking hypothetically, of course!
It may have been the Summer of '62 but it was springtime for Little Mac!
# It's Springtime, For L'il Mac, And Union... # (Don't be stupid, be a smartie, Come and join the Republican Party)!
@@johnpotts8308 Sign Me Up!
Sets up nicely, Harper's ferry, South mountain, Antietam. But don't forget Moncacy battle in 1864, everyone seems to forget that Maryland battle field.
We'll cover Monocacy when we get there! We're only in 1862 after all, only 2 years away.
So, Lee was aware that the south couldn't win a defensive war, that it would only buy them time? I was under the impression that was the South's entire strategy from the get-go because they understood that the North had the men and resources. They were only hoping to Outlast the North, win enough victories to Tire the morale of the northern forces and hope politics would bring the North to the table.. Sounds like Lee had a different idea entirely?
Yes you are correct. Longstreet was right and it was the only hope they had. Europe was never going to back them because of the slavery issue and they knew it. Their only option was to outlast the north by staying on the defensive. It also would have fit the Northern aggression narrative. Instead Lee spent 18 months destroying his own army in pyrrhic victories.
Damn! This said it posted 5 hours ago, but no notification. Put the Indian Wars on the playlist next. The Algorithm? Right! All hail the Algorithm. Allegedly. Cheers from Tennessee
I havent published this video yet lol it will be out next week
@@WarhawkYT Well.... I just finished watching it. LoL. I think I got ahead of the Algorithm or a treat from the Lizard Overlords.....? Cheers
Yeah, no. I wasn't really sure that I watched this, but.....yep, it's on my history and I'm watching it again. Oooops. The YT gods have jumped the gun or it's next week already. Cheers
.
Amused by first map. I go to church in Barnesville worked in Clarksburg for a few decades and live a 5 miles from Urbana. Feds marched through on way to South Mountain. Rebs crossed at Whites Ford and past my house marching to Frederick.
Nice new map graphics. 👌🏻
Great coverage of this moment. Definitely the Union's lowest moment. I didn't appreciate the reorganization McClellan did in the aftermath of two significant losses. Antietam is McClellan's high water mark, and it's important to appreciate it was not a given that he would be able to whip the army back into shape so it was ready to fight there.
I mean, arguably Lee was only triumphant against Pope. His campaign against McClellan was kind of a mixed bag *caugh Malvern Hill*. It succeeded in removing the immediate threat to Richmond, but McClellan didn‘t suffer any major defeat and his army remained largely as dangerous as it had before Seven Pines.
Its amazing how much of a difference 1 guy can make. Johnson gets clapped, Lee comes in wearing the carry pants and beats the Union like a dirty rug.
Actually, Lee lost most of the engagements of the Seven Days battles. Malvern Hill in particular was a spectacular failure for Lee. His saving grace was that he had accurately judged McClellan, who ran away after every successful engagement.
4:37 3rd Minnesota
3rd Minnesota
"MINNESOTA!"
The big problem for Lee is, of course, that he‘s only actually beaten Pope. McClellan may have retreated from Richmond, but he‘s preserved his army extremely well in the process, whereas Lee has suffered massive casualties. And now with Pope humiliated, McClellan gets to add all of Pope‘s remaining troops to his giant army. The Army Lee has to fight from now on.
Another well-done video. I believe Porter got blamed for Pope's loss at 2nd Manassas and got booted out of the army before the Antietam battle.
Partly correct. Porter was still with the army at Antietam, though he commanded the reserves and was not engaged. He was, however, blamed for 2nd Bull Run and cashiered.
After the battle of Second Manassas, Lee needed to rest, recruit, and refit his army which had been terribly reduced by the hard marching and fighting since the Seven Days. Lee couldn't remain where he was in Northern Virginia because the area had been picked clean and he was not near a railroad that could deliver supplies. Lee basically had four choices - to move in any of the compass directions. A move south to the line of the Rappahannock would enable Lee to resupply and refit but would surrender the initiative Lee had just won and signal that the ANV was unable to continue offensive operations. A move to the west into the Shenandoah Valley offered the same possibilities. A move to the east against DC was out of the question because Lee lacked the siege train and troops necessary to invest the city nor could he adequately supply his army's needs so far from a railhead. That left only a move north into Maryland which would keep the initiative in his hands. The move to Frederick placed Lee on the defensible line of the Monocacy River and threatened both DC and Baltimore. Lee probably understood that he would have to fight a defensive battle in Maryland before he could move off to the Shenandoah for the much needed respite. In the end, the drawn battle of Sharpsburg sufficed to give Lee the six weeks he needed in the Valley where he was able to recruit his army back to 60,000 men, as McClellan refused to move until he refitted the AoP.
There was no need for Lee to fight a battle in Maryland. He could easily have escaped across the Potomac with a dazzling victory in the capture of the whole garrison of Harpers Ferry. Instead he stood and fought with no chance of a strategically meaningful outcome in his favor. His men fought as well as could be expected, but Lee still lost all the political momentum he had generated in the last 90 days, on top of losing 10,000+ casualties he couldn't afford to throw away in bloody draws.
The Maryland Campaign cost Lee 16,000+ casaulties he couldn't afford to lose. While the Union lost 28,000, the difference is mainly due to prisoners taken. Lee actually lost more men killed in action than the Union did, while the number of wounded was only slightly in Lee's favor.
The campaign also helped turn Maryland into a solidly anti-Confederate state, when before it was probably the most pro-Confederate state in the Union.
Staying in Maryland instead of retreating after capturing Harper's Ferry turned out to be a terrible idea. Not only did it force Lee into a devastating battle, but it also resulted in him before forcibly driven out of Maryland instead of voluntarily leaving. Thus the Union was able to claim victory and issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which basically assured the Europeans would never come to the aid of the CSA.
@@TheStapleGunKid Yeah, that's what I said, except you said it way better :)
@@TheStapleGunKid The video asked why Lee invaded Maryland and I provided a logical analysis of the decision-making that led to that course of action. Your comment addresses the consequences of that decision. Without a doubt Lee ran a great risk in accepting battle in Maryland. It's easy for armchair generals to say what Lee should have done, it's lots of fun for us to show off our military thinking. I'm just looking at what was actually done and trying to understand the decisions as the person making them did, and what military reasons justify doing so. I try to limit my personal opinions and stick to objective facts, what I can read in orders and see on a map, along with a little logic. When choosing to offer battle, a good general should always ask himself if this is the hill he wants to die on.
@@hvymettle The point is Lee had the chance to end the campaign after Harper's Ferry and call it a victory. Instead he stuck around in Maryland for a battle he had zero chance of winning, resulted in him losing a ton of men he couldn't afford to lose and turned the campaign into a clear Union victory. Just a bad call on his part. He himself admitted he didn't have the proper army for a prolonged offensive campaign and should have called it off the moment something happened that would make it a success.
If you live in the DMV area, Civil War history is pretty interesting
It' s interesting to see how perceptive Lincoln was about McClellan. He was a very effective organizer and Administrator, but a poor field commander. McClellan would have made a good Chief of Staff if there had been a position at this time.
Yes but McClellan's ego and growing dislike of Lincoln meant he wouldn't have taken the 'promotion' well. Halleck, for all his faults, had few political ambitions. McClellan would have been more charismatic as a Chief of Staff but he had delusions of grandeur thinking only HE could save the Republic and believed Lincoln was an idiot who should have stayed out of the military decisions. These traits would not have translated well into the Chief of Staff role.
@@celston51 You are absolutely right about Little Mac, his ego would get in the way with just about anything. Lincoln was smart to move on from him as soon as he could after he had reorganized the Army.
Pope was a good general, despite that he was dwarfed by Lee & Jackson. The popular tradition tends to underestimate commanders defeated by Lee & Jackson. Pope is one such case; one only needs to look at his victory at Island Number 10 to see why.
Island Number 10 was a nice little victory. But Pope outnumbered his enemy 3:1, the rebels were in a very poor position, and the Union had an overwhelming naval advantage.
It was a good start, but not an indication that Pope was up to the task of managing an army 3-4 times that size and of facing the rebels' most powerful army.
interesting video, i never knew about this
I thought this was General Lees D Day invasion for like fivr minutes from the thumbnail
awesome
Chicken Hawkers distorting the truth again
*dies of death*
I hate the discourse of how brilliant Lee is for attacking the north. Oh, Lee knew he couldn’t win a defensive war with a numerically inferior army? Like the Americans in the revolution, or the Viet Cong, or the Taliban? The daughters of the confederacy really did a number on how us Americans think of that war.
The great difference is, they ya know, share a continent and long border.?And have industrial places key to their survival. CSA fumbled the bag and definitely could have done something else.
But cmon, Taliban, Vietnam, American Revolution, fighting an offensive war from across the ocean, without being able to point out on a map “this industrial city is key” is different from this conflict.
Sure they could have done the insurgency style thing and not traditional warfare, but ya know. Works a lot less well sharing a border with the enemy nation. With the enemy nation having superior emigration, population, quantity of troops. And where would funds come from? Things to consider
Ah, a breath of fresh air and common sense. Thank you for an excellent comment.
@@randomcomment5599 Gerilla movements had problem:
1. Appalachian region was prounionist area from East Tennesse, West North Carolina, North Georgia and North Alabama. Ozark region in Arkansas was prounionist.
2 Mississippi valey was high % slave population above 50% . After emantipation or abolition the exslaves did not assist any proconfederate white gerilla movement at all.
Something white gerilla movement would have chance in the main proconfederate areas where the slave population was between 50-20%. The below 20% slave populated areas were prounionist white people and the above 50% slave populated areas could become prounionist exslave population. Prounionist white and exslaves majority territories too big in the Confederacy. The North would have concentrate the antigerilla action in about 1/3 őf the Confederacy only!
100 000 white soldier came from theConfederacy and 200 000 colored soldiers. It could have more unionist white and colored soldiers from the Exconfederacy territory to help the about 500-600 000 Northern invasion soldiers! 1-2 years later a gerilla movement could end in the Exconfederacy territory.
Considering the Confederacy couldn't even feed their troops. Moving into Maryland might let his troops steal some food and supplies.
Remember Von Clauswitz's brilliance, from ON WAR. "War is politics taken to its extreme." And "you destroy either the enemy's will and/or means to make war."
The North wanted to destroy the South's means and the South needed to destroy the North's will (they couldn't destroy their means).
War is as much strategic politic as killing/destruction. Lee needed the North to feel the effect of war and to turn political opinion against Lincoln's administration.
It was a long shot, but futile.
Good overall picture presented.
Lee *thought* he needed the North to feel the effect of war, but what Lee *really* needed was for the northern public to see the war as futile. He didn't need to gamble on invasions of Maryland or Pennsylvania, he needed to pick his battles carefully and strike when he had advantages.
Lee did not understand the political situation, which is why, despite his many advantages, he was unable to devise and execute a cohesive strategic plan.
In all fairness, Jefferson Davis didn't have a grasp on strategy either, so it wasn't all Lee's fault.
Lee did not really believe that maryland was ready to join the confederacy the proclamation Lee addressed to the Marylanders was all Jefferson Davis idea not his. The marylanders who were for the confederacy had already joined the ANV.
Not really the right part of the state, either. But not a bad idea to try, along with resupplying on Northern soil and looking for battles of opportunity. Lee got his opportunity for a coup when he captured Harpers Ferry, but squandered the victory by staying to fight the senseless battle at Antietam.
Nice
See I‘m not totally sure Lee was right in wanting to fight an offensive war. Sure, in theory, beating the Union on it‘s own soil would be great, but I would suggest that actually, beating them in the South is also pretty good. The main thing is to beat them at all.
Meanwhile, all of Lee‘s offensives undermine his most important resource: his army. Which he needs to keep beating the Union. Lee is the one who can‘t afford losses.
Meanwhile, his job is actually (drumroll) to keep the Union from conquering the Confederate heartland for as long as possible. If a defensive strategy accomplishes that, great.
The Union generals are a lot more traditional. They follow the old maxim of „preserve your army, win in the field, then go for the prize“. And this actually doesn‘t work as well for them, in part because winning in the field no longer neutralizes the enemy army as well as it used to, but also because grabbing Southern territory is actually realistic for them. It‘s Grant who is constantly moving to seize enemy territory and essentially reasoning that if the Rebel armies move to stop him, he can take them without too much risk and even if he loses, they‘ll still be fine and in any case grabbing strategic locations makes it all worth it. Which works great for the Union.
But for Lee? Yeah, attacking recklessly was a good option (or perhaps the only option) when he had his back to Richmond and needed to dislodge McClelland at any cost. But after that, maybe he needed to be more McClellan than Grant. Keeping his army in tact and engaging the enemy on favorable terms was arguably not the worst proposition for him.
👍
So we skipped Shiloh?
ruclips.net/video/cAsr6HTELeQ/видео.html
No
No? We covered Shiloh 2 years ago lol it’s our most popular video
I had found it. It's a good one
Uh hold on. Lee gets the entire army of Potomac back to the river, then turns and leaves them there to chase another army? And the army of Potomac just, got on their boats and left? After Lee left the way wide open for Richmond which is why they came there in the first place?
You said that the Army was safe because of the gunboats in the river, okay that makes sense. So Lee can't attack and finish off the army of the Potomac, so.... He just leaves them there? What the hell. This makes no sense dude.
McClellan was safe with the gunboats protecting his army, Lee couldn’t attack him again with suffering even more casualties than his repulse at Malvern hill. This recap was a generalization of events that occurred as Lee sent Jackson first to deal with Pope in northern Virginia. When Lee got confirmed information that McClellan was leaving the peninsula, he went north to link of with Jackson to fight pope at second Manassas. McClellan was ordered to leave after Lincoln realized he couldn’t do anything more to turn the tide on the peninsula so he brought him back north to link up with pope that almost happened but pope was lured into a battle and defeated.
If they had gotten rid of slavery they would of had better chance of help from other nations
Shows you what their #1 priority was, doesn't it.
Time to replace those 1st generation CSA flags with the Rebel Battle Flag. It was developed SPECIFICALY not to look like the Stars and Stripes and avoid friendly fire when possible. Show the history as it was...
Cause if he didn’t, we wouldn’t have gotten WoR.
I am no professional historian, but after looking into the "Lost Cause myth", it really doesn't seem to be a myth at all. I see a lot of parallels between the American revolution, and the South secession. The northern states had all the power in the congress, because of population and resources, and seemed to make financial decisions at the expense of the south, and the South had insufficient representation to outvote the northern states. Having to pay the majority of the tariffs, because there was no income tax (ironically imposed by Lincoln to pay for this war) meanwhile the north wouldn't respect the South and their laws, most of the time showing outright hostility to them.
Because they tell you it's slavery all the time, you don't question it, but it appears that slavery was already on its way out in the south anyway, buying New Slaves had been illegal for some time, they had already agreed that all new States would not be slave states, and there was no risk of the slaves being taken away that the South already had. So the logic that the South seceded because they were afraid of losing slavery is stupid, because there was no threat of anyone coming to take their slaves away.
Even if there was, industrialization had started to make slavery obsolete. We see this with things like the cotton gin for instance. Also when you look at the delegations for some states, they had put slavery up to a vote and it was already on the verge of being voted out on its own.
Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, he only abolished it in states that were currently in rebellion, he didn't do it because he felt bad for black people, he said himself if he could end this war without freeing slaves he would do it. Furthermore, I'm almost positive he also said he didn't intend to keep them here after he freed them, that he wanted to send them all back.
So where does this logic come from that it was because of slavery, I don't see that. I know in the Articles of secession, a few States noted that the north hostility toward the Fugitive Slave Act was a primary example of the north hostility to the South, example of how the north never showed reciprocity in respecting laws, but still expected the South to uphold the tariffs to pay off the debt the Northern interests accrued.
I also think of of the tiny proportion of people who actually owned slaves. An estimated 2% of the South had slaves, and the majority of that 2% owned one or two as house hands, in a small portion owned plantations where we get the Hollywood depiction of backwards white men whipping innocent blacks with a smile on their toothless face.
So you're telling me these Southerners fought the most devastating War the US has ever known, endured hunger sickness the destruction of everything they hold dear, still fought to The Bitter End just so the richest men in the South could keep their free labor????? That seems against their own interest, those could be jobs that would need to be paid, potentially for them. Why did they line up and get shot at for 4 years just so a rich man could keep his Plantation workers? Makes no sense at all.
Then I look at all the things Lincoln did during the war, in a sick irony his actions vindicated the souths anxieties about a federal govt over reach in northern hands.... he proved just how easy it was for a central authority to consolidate power. At the time the US was not how we have it now as one single nation. It was a bunch of small states that each saw themselves as essentially their own country, something as I understand similar to the EU, distinctively separate, but allied with each other for a common goal.
They simply felt their states weren't benefiting from this Arrangement any longer, wanted to leave. Now I am sure that them being bullied into outlawing slavery, these laws being passed by voters in the north, definitely played an impact, I just don't see how slavery was the issue of the day. The reason the entire nation went to war.
And additionally, the more you read about southern men, from first hand sources at the time, personal journals and letters to loved ones that were never intended to be read by the public, they all speak of Southern men as the classic gentlemen, fierce warriors, well read people. But we have this idea today, because of Pop culture, that they were a bunch of barefoot hill Billie's that picked lice out of each other's hair and ate it like monkeys do. Just these over the top, almost cartoonish representations of southerners. They show us slave shacks, and compared to homes today yes they are terrible, but when you consider what the average person back then lived in, it really wasn't much different. Living back then sucked. It was hot. Dirty.
I just can't trust mainstream history anymore.
Just consider this, look how easy it is for the people who make the narrative to lie about current situations. Now consider what they could do with history.
I just remain skeptical of a lot of the "common knowledge" we are force fed everyday.
And I'm not saying I'm right on any of this, I'm just wondering if it isn't worth considering.
Lincoln's inauguration was ultimately what set off the South secession. But Lincoln's inauguration speech didn't mention him wanting to pursue Banning slavery, he did mention that he was going to enforce the morill tarrif... The firing on ft sumpter didn't seem to be accidental as it was a federal fort where these tarrif would be collected.
@@frauleinhohenzollern The Morrill Tariff never would have passed the Senate if the southern states hadn't seceded. As a side note...Fort Sumter was a coastal defense fort, not a revenue office, and it had been ceded to the Federal government by the state of South Carolina long before secession.
1. After Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's cabin the Norther women society became against the slavery system. It may be the men voted, but at home every Northern women who read that novel was against the slavery. Lincoln way of saying to Harriet in the White House on November 25, 1862 was "so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." I think it is exaggeration, Harriet thought of a step by step abolution in his book! Stephen Douglas got 30 silver coin from Women during his travelling by train from Washington to Chicago after Kasas Nebraska Act!
2. The most important step was to the Civil War the Kansas Nebraska act by Stephen Douglas and Southerner supporting, they hoped Kansas could became slavery system state. The Missouri Little Dixie voters election fraud against the free work system majority settlers started a Pre Civil War (bleeding Kansas). The male voters of North wanted to stop the spreading of the slavery system, so the Republican party had the compromize to stop the spreeding of the slavery to the Western territories and they did not want any abolition. Lincoln won with this program. THE SOUTHERNER WANTED TO EXPORT THE SLAVERY SYSTEM, when UK in 1836 and France in 1848 banned the slavery!
3. Morell tariff was started under President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, after Texas, Lousiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina left the Union on February 8, 1861 and Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861!
Georg Friedrich List (6 August 1789 - 30 November 1846) was a German and American economical professional who suggested the protective tariff for Germany and USA! The Industrial revolution assisted UK, France, Belgium to be Industrial nations List thought the chidren German and USA industry should protect. In 1861 UK, France and Belgian industry were better than USA or Germany industry, but the American textile industry became more productive than Lanchesire or American steel was used in the British Empire about 1890! The Protective tariff assisted the USA's industry well!
'
Strategically I cannot see why wonder about in Maryland, doing nothing more than pick fights, does anything much. The Union has far more industrial rescources and of men. Why waste men and supplies crashing around in Maryland taking no communication lines, or industrial complexes? When your men already don't have food and clothing, weapons, and wasting/use what you do. What you save from Southern farming you expend in all other logistics and men.
Cotton production in India didn’t help the “cotton cause” theory
Yeah. The embargo reflected a southern hubris they didn't get over until after Gettysburg.
LITTLE MAC IS BACK IN COMMAND!! LINCOLN PUT HIM THERE!!! POPE IS OUT!! LITTLE MAC IS IN COMMAND OF THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC!!!!
WHO THE HELL ARE YOU!!
ON TO RICHMOND BOYS!!
@@WarhawkYT Ah!! I see you’ve watched the Antietam documentary narrated by James Earl Jones too!!
Plenty of good reasons. Lots of resources to sustain his army, it was practicable, take the initiative, political reasons, propaganda, improve moral, upset Union forces, threaten Washington, prevent union moves into Virginia, an opportunity to use Napoleonic strategy, gain support of Marylanders, capture military supplies, and possibly win the war. Possibly catching Washington. Napoleonic strategy meant winning campaigns by rapid manoeuvres rather than costly battles. Also the Northern military leadership lacked effective initiative of it's leaders. Failing to make powerful and well coordinated operations. Lee could use his fast moving tactics with little risk of retaliation. Many Union units would need to be held in Washington rather than attacking Lee. Virginia had been ravished of food supporting the Army of Virginia. The weather and geography was suitable. Just holding Virginia would achieve little. A waist of resources.
Grant had a similar philosophy when he came East to command all Union armies. . Not a Napoleonic General. He emptyed many defensive garrisons and wanted to attack the South on all fronts at the same time. And not holding back large reserves. Utilizing the Norths greater resources. This required some very deadly battles but ended the war sooner. Deaths by illness equalled battle deaths. Even when not fighting soldiers were dying. Keeping men moving can reduce diseases. Ending the war was costly. Grant could not command each battle. He commanded a number of armies over huge distances. Trains and the telegraph enabled this. Except for Sherman who cut himself off by marching through the South and living of the Souths resources. Just as Lees army fed on Maryland food. Lee needed to take care not to offend the Marylanders. Sherman intended to offend the South. Despite his bad reputation in the South he did not kill so many Southerners. The bloody fighting was in Virginia. Sherman did the same as Lee. But much more effectively. Destroying the Southern internal lines of communication. Also, transport, resources and economy. Using manouver in prepherence to fighting. Achieving goals with lighter casualties. While Grant pinned down Lee in Virginia. General Thomas also led a successful campaign with less public notice. Slower than Grant wanted, but at relatively low losses. Outmanouvering Southern forces.
Confederates were the baddies, but just like Rommel, Lee gets an honorary great commander title due to his merits.
Lee is a vastly overrated commander who destroyed his own Army over 18 months through pyrrhic victories. He waa good at tactics but horrible at strategy. He never followed up on a victory thus allowing the Union army to recover and rebuild thus wasting the man power lost in the effort.
@@texasforever7887 Yes and no. Lee had limited resources where the Union did not. Lee did what he could and ended up failing at Gettysburg and that was basically the end of the Confederate main effort. Then after Vicksburg and Atlanta, it was over, just a matter of time before the whole thing collapsed. I don't blame Lee for the shortcomings of the Confederacy itself. He did what he could with a bad situation. That being said, Pickett's Charge was a goddamn foolish mistake that I think he never lived down.
Except for Delaware the Border States were divided much less percentage between prounionist and proconfederate people. Deleware was almost 100% prunionist and the later new 35th state (from 1863) West Virginia was 50-50% prounionist and proconfederate. The more borter states were between West Virginia and Delaware.
Frederick town was prounionist (Lee experienced) and the east of Washington counties (with 40-60% slave population) were the most confederate sentiment area in Maryland. Missouri's most proconfederate sentiment area was the central counties with 17-35% slave population, this was the Little Dixie. Mark Twain began as proconfederate militist in Hannibal (in Little Dixie) and he became prounionist in 1863 in Nevada. St Louis, the Iowa border counties and the Ozark region with low slave population were the pro unionist areas in Missouri.
So what you're saying is that secession was about slavery....
@@aaronfleming9426 There are a few counties in East Tennessee where the slave population were low (as Sullivan county to the South West Virginia border) and proconfederate sentiment was, but the most prounionist counties in the Confederacy had low% slavery population. The Hollywood femouse Jones county had the lowest % slave population in Mississippi state. In Alabama the MOST PROUNIONIST County (Winston) had the lowest % slave population. Ozark region's counties were the most prounionist in Arkansas too with low% slave population!
It is generaly right that there was + correlation between lower % slave population and prounionist sentiment in the Confederacy!
The exception as Sullivan county in East Tenneessee was few.
In the Border state Kentucky is the exception, because there were higher % slave population counties with pro unionist population. I think the Whig effect, Henry Clay's political effect was the main cause. However the low% slaves generaly connected to pounionism in Kentucky in the most case!
@@aaronfleming9426 I am interested in the prounionism in the Confederacy, so I am corious why Hoolywood did not start TV serial about this same to the "North and South" serial? East Tennessee's history from that time similar interesting as Missourian local Civil War in the Little Dixie.
@@avenaoat Great information, thank you! I never saw North and South so I can't comment on it, but since we're talking about Hollywood there was probably not a high premium on historical accuracy, ha ha!
I'm an Iowan so the Civil War in Missouri is of interest to me. I most recently visited the Island Mound battle site, where the 1st Kansas Colored infantry saw there first action and became the first black troops in U.S. history to see combat. The nearest battlefield to me is Athens, Missouri, just across the Des Moines River from Croton, Iowa. Athens is a footnote to the war in most accounts, but 350 unionists - armed with new muskets procured by the state of Iowa - defeated a force of 2,000 rebels and secured north-east Missouri for the Union. A heck of a what-if lies in that battle though...what if that rebel force had won decisively, crossed the river, and destroyed the railroad and riverboat facilities in southeast Iowa?
Makes me smile knowing someone wanted to shoot McClellan back than, a master at organization but terrible frontline commander.
Genarobielee
Greetings from The Algorithm!
welcome back! lol
Lee was a good at battle tactics, but bad with overall strategy.
54? Really?
Yeah, people looked older back then
Your map of the DC area sucks. I like in the area and can barely tell which river is the Potomac.
Care to make me a better map?
your mangling of the word "strategy" is inexcusable
ok and?
youtube commentors encountering people from different regions with different accents, lingo, and dialect for the first time
Hi
Hi
to answer your question because he was a sociopath
Excellent video! Glad their burning in hell!