What Civil War Generals Thought Of Each Other - Unhinged Past Reaction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- See the original - • What Civil War General...
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
My other channels:
Stories of the Great War - / @storiesofthegreatwar
Stories of the Civil War - / @storiesofthecivilwar
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
Follow me on instagram - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook - www.facebook.c...
#history #reaction
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
Lincoln: he is the quietest little fellow you ever saw.
Abe you were 6’4, everyone was little to you.
Braxton Brag beefing with himself is crazy
He's my second cousin 4 times removed.
Sherman's words about Grant actually struck a heart string. That's the kind of friend who will literally die by your side in battle to the last bullet, and never waver. A true friend to the end.
Fun fact: Sherman was one of the pallbearers at Grant's funeral. Indeed, friends to the end. Some more pallbearers were General Sheridan and, a bit surprisingly, Joseph E. Johnston.
I believe his experience as a quartermaster made Grant more willing to work with what he had rather than demand what he wanted. He understood the difficulty of supply.
When was Grant a quartermaster? Mexican War?
@@bjohnson515yes
I guess the only good thing about these throwaway AI channels is you add a lot of information to something that is probably inaccurate or misleading.
I don't think that's an AI voice. Too many inflections in this human's voice. Also, words are pronounced correctly. AI doesn't and can't do this yet.
@coxmosia1 Those are definitely AI voices and its painful. I've heard these voices on other unrelated channels.
Totally disagree. I've heard the same voices connected to "human" faces and bodies, on public tv. Humans do have different tones of voice you know...
@@coxmosia1 lol these AI channels love you
@@coxmosia1oh the blissful ignorance you have
Ah yes. The most famous battle of the American war of Independence: 1776 at Little Bighorn!
I think Lee’s thoughts on Grant are more of a compliment than one might think. I see Lee’s comment about Grant using superior numbers as more of a “it took three years for someone in the opposing army to realize my biggest weakness and their biggest strength” I would see it as him more or less crediting Grant for realizing rather quickly what McClellan and others didn’t or at least were too scared to use.
That’s what I always think of when I hear someone say he only won because he had more “supplies and manpower”.
Like wtf, all the others, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, etc all had the EXACT same manpower and supplies and did nothing but fight for a draw…. At best. 😂
People completely ignore that.
@@marquisdelafayette1929 Lee's casualties and losses for the years and battles prior were not replaced. He lacked men and supplies at the point Grant showed up.
Lee an Grant were pretty similar in most aspects I feel like. As a southerner and someone who loves my Confederate General Robert E Lee I respect General Grant I may not care for the side he fought for but a man got to do what a man got to do.
@@marquisdelafayette1929 Meade should not be in that list, Meade was an insane commander. The rest were mediocre at best other than Hooker in the west.
@spiffygonzales5160 Haven't watched him in a couple years. Why would you say that?
McClellan reminds me of Captain Sobel in WWII. A great organizer, and trainer but had no grasp about tactical command at their level. Great analysis, Chris.
I was just going to comment the same thing.
@@coxmosia1 This is true.. for whatever his faults were as a tactician in actual combat, and how petty he could be in terms of his attitude, there would be no Easy Company in the history books without him molding those men into the true soldiers they came to be and all the heroic things they did during the last year of WW2 🙂
@@JohnSolo513 spot on.
@@JohnSolo513 Totally agree.
Sobel actually jumped on DDay and helped take out a german pillbox. Awarded a bronze star
I think my favorite of your videos is when you're covering the Civil War, I always learn something new. Thanks for the great videos!
I like that Grant mentions Thomas and Meade as great generals when discussing Jackson.
What you said about Jackson’s glorification could also be attributed to Erwin Rommel. We remember him as the “Desert Fox” but he was a good tactician but a terrible strategist (I’d argue seven worse than Jackson and Lee).
Great point.
Might have Rommel's strategy for placement of armoured divisions on D-Day saved the Nazi's a bit of a headache following the landings? I may be misrepresenting the scenario. I'm not certain it would have altered the outcome, of course.
@Nosliw He was hot and cold in terms of generalship. If the panzer divisions in France were closer to the beaches, I think they would have been a bigger problem than they were in reality. Of course they would not have altered what happened in the end, those panzers would have been obliterated by Allied fighter bombers (Typhoons, P-47s, and P-51s) and the naval support the ground troops had off the shore. The Allies would still have established a beachhead by the end of the first day and all Rommel’s plan would have resulted in was the destruction of most of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS panzer divisions in the Western Front.
I don't agree, they were very different, people tend to compare them when they were very, very different.
I'm amazed Atun-Shei didn't quote Lee's opinion if Sherman in his video on "Was Sherman A War Criminal?" It takes a massive piss on Johnny Reb's fireworks.
Clint Eastwood would not have needed any makeup to play Sherman in a movie.
So true. I was thinking every time his face showed up that he looks like he just walked directly out of a coal mine.
19:44 Sooo they tried to "frag Bragg!" Too funny!
Grant had a mental breakdown after the first day in the Wilderness. To his credit, he continued on. Yet I wonder, did he actually have more anxiety with Joseph E. Johnston in his front? I highly doubt it.
Great reaction, as always.
Had never read that. Can you tell me a bit more.
You’ve slowly become my favorite channel over the last few years! That somewhat pains me to say, as a Michigan (U.P.) native and loyalist…but your content is fantastic!
Much appreciated. You can still hate me for my choice in football team though.
As a die hard Penn State fan, I hate you both.....just kidding, I only hate your states.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hey fellow Yooper!
I’m a troll but I agree
@@VloggingThroughHistory
Another great and informative video!
Reaction video suggestion for you, Chris: Would love for you to do Epic History's video on the battle of Salamis 480 BC ("Salamis 480 BC: The Battle for Greece"). Definitely one of the most consequential battles in history, and it could have gone the other way.
I wonder tho, Grant's comment about Lee and comparing him to Johnston, could it be due to when Grant was facing Lee, the rebels had lost at Gettysburg, losing all momentum and was on a clear downward spiral? So Grant wasn't all that scared of him since he knew all he had to do was keep going after Lee. Johnston he fought when the rebels was still doing well hence have a more positive opinion about him?
Certainly something to consider.
Possibly but Johnston's army hovering in Mississippi never outnumbered Grant's by any stretch during the Vicksburg campaign. Grant's fears probably stemmed from the logical assumption that Johnston's movement would have delayed or forced him to call off the siege which he'd worked so hard for. I'm of the opinion the possibility of Johnston's attacking kept him up at night because of how risky the gamble he'd played.
I was thinking about that Joe Johnston comment also. I couldn't for the life of me remember where Grant ever faced Johnston. I guess Jackson Mississippi might count, but Johnston fled. Perhaps Grant is talking mostly about Johnston's defense of Atlanta against Sherman?
@@spacehonky6315 I thought Grant did face Joe Johnston but I thought of the wrong Johnston. I thought of Albert Johnston at Shiloh.
But my hypothesis still remains about Grant's lower opinion of Lee then of Joe Johnston due him facing him when the momentum had shifted and just didn't see the hype.
I just think that Grant was more afraid of Jo Johnston because he would be harder to shift. Lee was always on the move and loved to bob and weave while Johnston was better at the rope a dope thing. when Sherman was moving toward Atlanta Johnston stood in his way at every step and made Sherman pay for it before falling back. It was only when Hood got the nod to take over that he gave sherman the battle he wanted, and the Confederates were smashed. Grant probably wanted the same kind of battle, but Lee wouldn't give him one so Grant would just fight as long and inflict as much damage as he could then move on forcing Lee to move with him rather than the other way around.
I really don't get the idea that using your advantage of overwhelming numbers and recourses to win is somehow a poor reflection upon Grant. It was a strategy that won and gave very little chance for the confederacy to do much about it. People seem to think there is some sort of unwritten rule that you have to be sporting and give your opponent a chance to win. Grant did not play by that rule. He saw he could roll over Lee and the south and did it. The south was powerless to stop it. If you want a fair match, go watch a sports game.
Grant was one of the few individuals during the war that saw it as total war. The longer it took, the less glorified it was.
Well, we see Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery getting similar criticisms too, waiting until he had thorough advantage before attacking the Germans while meanwhile the Germans would conduct reckless, self-destructive attacks that were considered daring and brave. And to a certain point, that's how military politics goes, sound boring strategies are looked down upon.
@@Edax_Royeaux Montgomery cam be criticized for being too cautious. The German army got out of both the falaize pocket and the Ardennes when Monty had the opportunity to press the advantage and encircle them.
I think it's the result of the losers of the war getting to write a little too much in the history books.
Of course it was unfair, because they lost.
It's such a gift to history that the writings of these men were preserved so well.
Much of history is clouded in mystery or interpretation, but we have the direct thoughts & feelings expressed in writing from these generals.
Everything being digital today should theoretically preserve our history for future generations, but if something ever happens to the internet or massive databases, we'd be out of luck.
Didn't expect these figures to be so civil towards one another
The most insightful one is, I think, this one by Sherman about Grant:
"I am a damned sight smarter man than Grant. I know more about military history, strategy, and grand tactics than he does. I know more about supply, administration, and everything else than he does. I'll tell you where he beats me though and where he beats the world. He doesn't give a damn about what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."
All the ability in the world is of limited use if you don't dare to act, and all the insight you might have is wasted if it results in analysis paralysis. Some just freeze up when they don't know what to do, and in doing so, surrendering all initiative to the enemy. Grant didn't have the problem, he did what seemed to him to offer the best chance of victory without fear. During the Overland Campaign, he even told his subordinate generals to think less about what Lee might do and more about what they themselves should do. Sherman was, for the most part at least, able to overcome his fear and act despite it, and even take huge risks like the March to the Sea. Other generals just froze up at critical moments and squandered them when not knowing what to do, like Hooker at Chancellorsville.
As a hobby wargamer, this is something I see all the time with less experienced players playing against more experienced ones. Not knowing what to do, the less experienced player ends up adopting a defensive posture, almost passively so, just doing little adjustments to their position. Which lets the other guy just move around freely and only engage after having set up the perfect attack.
Grants comments were always very balanced for the most part
Plucked from his edited Memoirs
Grant power ranking Lee is not something I expected 😂
Sherman was a sharp cookie. Grant was a logical level headed pragmatist.
Mcclellen was a staff officer. He was marvelous at logistics and supply, organization and training, and no idea what to do in a battle. Every army needs Mcclellens to make it work not lead it on the battle field. He was out of his element.
@user-ld4xx1el6q . I wonder how he would have done as Chief of Staff of the Army, or it's equivalent at the time. He would run the Army, while the individual army commanders fought the war. Sort of Marshall in a blue suit. Grant Being commander of Army Group East. Probably not. Who he really reminds me of is McArthur. Micromanager with a God complex and political aspirations.
@Darth.Fluffy As big of an ego he had, at least MacArthur was willing to do what must be done to win the war against Japan, unlike McClellan against Johnston and Lee in 1862.
Few people that met Grant disliked him. The only exception I can think of his was his early army days when there was so much backbiting and maneuvering
Lee spent 2 years destroying his own army.
I think you’re right. Grant was generous because he knew failure. It’s hard to criticize people if you remember your own shortcomings
This was honestly such a dope video. It gave me a new perspective on a few generals like Forrest and stonewall.
I think MacClellan lacked the killer instinct, had too high an opinion of himself, and to quick to judge others harshly.
McClellan had two big personal faults. 1. He had a messianic complex (it wasn't just that he had a high opinion of himself, he really thought he was destined to save the Union and that only he could do it). 2. He was very paranoid, which manifested itself in two ways. He believed everyone who didn't bow down to him was out to destroy him. And he always thought the enemy had more troops than him. This seemed to haunt him as he cried almost non stop for more reinforcements in every one of his campaigns.
I just finished reading Grant's memoirs great book.
Read Sherman's next...just as good
I am presently reading a book about Booker T. Washington and Theodore Roosevelt, after which I have books about Truman, Lincoln, Garfield,and another one on Grant, so I'll be busy for a while, but I will keep Sherman in mind for future reading.
It seemed to me that McClellan was more arrogant than competent. Like his disrespecting Lincoln his commander in chief the way he did.
Can't state it better if I tried.
Your civil war reactions are superb, the amount of knowledge & context you insert is a golden standard. You have so much to say its almost as if this is more original content than it is a reaction, and I'm here for it.
Ulysses WOULD NEVER be dishonest or speak like a politician. lol🤣
19:40 they tried to frag Bragg?! 😂that's wild
This was fascinating. What do you think of the almost cult-like fascination that those who refuse to use the term, "Civil War," preferring, "The War of Northern Aggression," have toward Stonewall Jackson? I have a friend, a solid Reformed pastor, who falls into this category (and who'd be horrified that I consider his fascination with Jackson to be almost like that of a supplicant toward a cult leader) and has scathing things to say about Lincoln, Grant and others.
Big fan, and really student, of your historical reactions. I learn so much. Thank you and keep them coming! From Nairobi 🇰🇪
So, the artillery shell that almost murdered Braxton Bragg... would that be a "Bragg frag"?
The best union general you didn't even mention was George Henry Thomas, who ironically was from Virginia. If he had been at Antietam instead of the politician goof McClellan and had the information McClellan did about Lee's plans it would have most likely been the end for Lee's army. He was a brilliant strategist who didn't just throw men into battle like Grant did at Cold Harbor or the Wilderness. He planned them out meticulously first before moving winning nearly every battle he fought in. He was so good southern generals called him a traitor while Grant and Sherman were obviously envious of him. Lincoln missed his chance by not giving him full command early on.
That's because I don't think Thomas was on the same level as Grant or Sherman. There's a reason he was about to be removed from command when his job was saved by Hood hurling his men into disaster at Franklin (and Thomas finally attacking a few weeks later) He was a great general but too passive at a time when aggression was needed. I'd put him in a tier just below those two though.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Agreed Thomas was slow at times but I still think him at Antietam instead of McClellan would have ended the Army of Northern Virginia. Even if not winning the battle outright he would have followed up afterwards which McClellan refused to do and why he was finally dismissed. Most likely Grant or Sherman would have as well so I'm not downplaying their willingness to take on Lee.
Hey my friend great Channel like always is your good friend from the U it was me who recommended the channel and thanks for taking time to look at it like always the best Channel on RUclips
Agree with you on McClellan. Risk aversion and lack of initiative. He also lacked tactical competence which was shown in how he arrayed his forces for the Battle of Antietam. Successful as an engineer and governor of New Jersey.
I always love learning more about America's history, great video choice as always!
Might i recommend LoreDad?
I always felt as skilled as McClellan was, he showed a lack of initiative. He may well have won the war, if he had been a little bit more aggressive.
I've always perceived that one of the great tragedies of this war was that McClellan could have done in 1862 - he was right on the outskirts of Richmond, after all, with a similarly overpowering advantage in troop numbers - what Grant eventually did in 1864-65. How many hundred thousands of lives on both sides might have been saved?
It’s hard to be aggressive when the War Department vetoes your decision to maneuver against Richmond and Petersburg and sends the Army to John Pope.
Keep up the great work! I enjoy learning from your videos.
A farmers son from Gascony, he quit his job as a dyer’s apprentice to join the local militia..
Grant was super kind to McClellan and it's likely due to the fact that Grant did build his way up and saw Lee at his worst in 64-65 which was still very formidable.
McClellan fought Lee when the army was new and not a well run machine.
But McClellan was a nepotism hire because he served under Scott in Mexico and his commander was best friends with his dad. McClellan was hand picked by an aging man who was still the ranking officer of the pre-war army.
Jacksons purpose in the valley campaign was first to punch at the top of the valley and scare Washington. They were about to resupply McClellan but this punch drew those troops towards Jackson. From there is main goal was to keep them occupied in the valley. So he would punch then retreat and regroup. He did that all the way down to the cross keys area where he was about to get trapped. So he crossed a river and burnt the bridge then beat one army. Then come back and beat the other. Amazing. His main purpose was to keep those troops from resupplying McClellan. And that he achieved and more.
All these Generals have something to offer. Good vid.
This video as a whole reflects well upon Grant. Cool guy.
Always complementing someone before you criticize them is actually modern leadership strategy. Compliment, then lay down your criticism and end with another compliment. This shows it's not personal and they are valued so they don't get defensive and are more likely to take the criticism to heart.
Very true. I use this strategy in teaching as well, works great for providing constructive criticism while building a good relationship. Grant’s words drip with leadership ability, quiet charisma. Dignity paired with humility is a true power combo. He seems like he would have been such an interesting person to be around and observe.
My 3x Great Grandfather with was Stuart when he died and was the first doctor to get to him when he died. I am also directly related to Wheeler.
I think these comments also need to be put into perspective of when and under what circumstance they are being made. For example I think Grant's critical remarks on Lee are more to criticize the lionization of Lee after the war rather than of Lee himself. It may appear Grant is being critical of Lee but I think he is trying to downplay the demi-god status Lee was approaching after the war than saying Lee was a poor commander. I can relate, as a Virginian the first people in US History I learned about in school were Lee and Jackson before Washington and Jefferson.
I do feel bad for Burnside.
Imagine knowing you're just not at that level, but you're being pushed into that role anyway.
And now men will die because of your failings, which you yourself are all too keenly aware of.
I disagree with grants thought on Jackson adapting to the conditions. The only reason I say that is how he taught at the Academy. He taught word for word from the book, and if the question was asked, he would repeat word from words from the book. makes me believe he was like this throughout his life
Yeah, that's a good point! Jackson doesn't strike me as all that flexible either.
I was first upset as a Denver citizen, then you immediately started to defend big Sean verses and I realized not to take these things too seriously, thank you
Hood was given command, yes. But that happened after he wrote many letters to his personal friend, Jefferson Davies, slandering Johnston, his superior at the time, and begging the CSA president for command of that army.
And while his wounds surely hindered his performance as he was in constant pain while riding and often had stop for a break or to take anesthesics, meaning he frequently was either absent or not in the best state of mind when needed; I don't think his philosophy on war had changed.
As Grant said, Hood thought of war as something grandious and had a mentality of fighting the enemy as soon as they were spotted, never mind the bigger picture, and rellying too much on morale and "guts" to achieve it. A method shared by many of his Southern peers.
Hood's commitment to that way of war was already shows when he was a healthy division commander and remained when he was a handicaped army commander. That's why I don't think he would've been more succesful had he not been severely wounded.
Even still McClellan did not have the temperament for command in any way. He would have excelled as a staff officer though IMO
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Very astute IMHO.
For review, I would HIGHLY recommend the RUclips series’ “The Turkish Century,” and “The Mexican-American Border,” from RUclipsr Kraut.
Another wonderful and interesting video. Thank you.
21:35 - So I was listening to an interesting episode of Addressing Gettysburg where they discuss Hood's arm wound with a former doctor who got ahold of the official medical records. Apparently fhe wound was not nearly as debilitating as we've always been told. More or less by the time Chickamauga comes around he had like 80% use of his arm back. Check it out sometime, it was a good episode.
That's an interesting story about Bragg.
17:07 , You mean 1876
You should watch some of Sunless Maximus’s videos. I think his ‘Top 10 most important battles in history’ is well made.❤
The common look on grants face always makes me wonder if he was suffering with PTSD tbroughout much of the war. I'm sure a lot of these guys were.
Like my 4th of 5th grandfather was a Captain for the Confederate in Louisiana and the now tiny Village got its name from his last name because he settled here. His regimens flag is in the Civil War museum in New Orleans
John Bell Hood is the definition of the Peter Principle
There is a MUCH better quote that Sherman gives about Grant ... basically saying I'm 10x smarter than Grant, but Grant had supreme confidence in his own plan and went about executing it without fear
P.S. Found it
"I'm a damned sight smarter than Grant; I know more about organization, supply and administration and about everything else than he does; but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight but it scares me like hell."
Hey Chris, if you want to look at some naval history (Napoleonic era) I would suggest Penguin History - When Denmark's Navy Ruled the Seas
I love your channel Chris. You do an amazing job
Wilson's cavalry destroyed Forrest's troopers and in a letter exchanged from George Thomas, Forrest got the wind that if he pursued Wilson into North Carolina, he will instead burn entire state of Mississippi. Wilson's cavalry caught the runaway Jefferson Davis and Forrest crossed the Mississippi into Arkansas as war ended
Re lack of evidence; my favourite general remains George Thomas - and he ordered his private paper destroyed in his will and the executors complied.
From the available evidence, George Thomas was excellent! You picked a good one - there are too MANY that were far worse than he.
George Thomas was the only general, north or south, to practically wipe out an enemy army in battle. He was a little slow, but he struck like a sledgehammer when he attacked. I rank him only behind Grant and Sherman among union generals.
24:20 Lee simply did not had enough troops
Well Lee was a great tactician. You would absolutely want him in your army. Less manpower, combined with union blockade. If Lee had the same numbers as Grant The war might not have ended in 1865. I see a bias towards union generals. Lee and his defensive tactics put extreme pressure on North. So he still was very succesful in years after 1862.Lee kept his Army supplied (through many months of siege) until the end, which ought to tell you something about his skill in logistics. Having superior access to resources never made someone an "expert" in logistics. Resupply the Confederacy in 1863 with foreign intervention and then ask yourself how much longer it takes the Union to win, if it can be done at all?
If Lee went on more failed invasions because he was armed by foreign intervention, it could go worse for the CSA. More chance for Lee to squander what was left of CSA manpower and leave their defenses unmanned.
This to me puts a way more personal touch on these guys we read about. They aren’t just machines acting in a vacuum. They are people and “coworkers” if you will. I want to see versions of this for more modern conflicts
Some of the stuff you said about Jackson’s valley campaign is true for other campaigns throughout history including Vicksburg where most of the USA victories where against smaller CSA forces
I’m pretty sure that Mead quote was about in contacts when Ulysses S Grant was put in charge of the entire army and he felt like Grant was just going to take complete control of the army of the Potomac which worried George
Chris your Jackson comment reminded me of Kennedy and also Alexander Hamilton and what if he had lived because Hamilton was the only founding father to die young. Jackson was born about 20 years after Hamilton’s death and it’s interesting that some of the generals he faced like Joe Revere for example were famous descendants of Revolutionary War patriots. That’s why I really am fascinated with the what if’s in history
I like that you also add stuff to your videos. I learned a lot from your channel so thank you.
I'm distantly related to George Armstrong Custer
My great aunt whom was 101 at the time in 2001 showed me in a family lineage how we was related.
I love your videos keep up the good work
Also Civil War is my passion so I usually watch those more.
Idk how unhinged past doesn't have more followers
This might be an interesting video idea, "historical" figures who might not have existed e.g. William Tell, St. Christopher, Pope Joan, Lycurgus etc
So I was watching Sean Chick (he is an historian who has written books about the Civil War). He notes that the Bragg and the Quartermaster incident is only mentioned in Grant's Memoir. He said he couldn't find any reference to it anywhere else, and he thinks that Mark Twain might've added it.
Time-stamps
8:30 - Oh wow, I didn’t know Meade broke Jackson’s line at Fredericksburg!
29:20 - Sherman opposed Grant’s Vicksburg plan
Grant on Bragg 😂
100% deserved. Bragg was prickly. No wonder he had so much trouble getting his officers and men in a row at every battle. He won Chickamauga(with help from Longstreet) at great cost for very little gain.
To me, McClellan was a great organizer and logistical mind. But he was a poor tactician and field commander, especially for being overly cautious and easily deceived.
Please do more videos like this. I really enjoyed it.
There’s one on what WW2 general’s thought of each other
Why is naval leadership ignored in these comparisons? With an aging 90 ship fleet, and despite significant manpower losses to the Confederate Navy after secession, a massive ship construction campaign embracing technological innovations. Civil engineer James Buchanan Eads; naval engineers like Benjamin Fisherwood and John Ericsson were brilliant. Can someone do a video on naval officers from both north and south?
Lee was also an old officer… when officers were gentlemen and would not public bash one of his own officers nor another officer at all.
awesome content man!
Good point on JFK and the assassination. A history class I took on the American Presidency at Cincinnati, we had to write a paper on who we thought was the most overrated and underated Presidents. I choose JFK as my overrated, and Nixon as my underrated (excluding watergate).
You and and your channel are wholesome enough to make such a lazy ass like me who always wanted to study history finally learn through lashing on couch and watching some videos.
Since we’re on the topic of civil war it’s kinda long but I think the infographics video on Lincoln’s assassination the full story would be interesting to get your reaction to
Can you do a video on Confederacy's constitution and their style of government
@VloggingThroughHistory Grant didn't have much positive to say about George Custer because when testifying about corruption in the Indian Bureau involving Secretary of War Belknap, Custer accused Grant's brother Orville of being involved in the kickback scheme that he was testifying about, and Grant got mad, ordering Custer to remain in Washington, nearly preventing him from going on the Little Bighorn Campaign.
Its nice with some ACW content as well, though I am looking forward to the next instalment of Napoleons Marshals series. Soon you need to get to some medieval content as well
This video should have been titled, what Grant thought of civil war leaders
Excellent presentation and commentary. T H A N K S ~!
This channel has a similar video about what WWII generals thought of each other
I always thought the lot cause narrative was a 20th century phenomenon. It surprised me to hear it was already so entrenched during Grant’s lifetime.
It begins with Jubal Early and also included the absolute slander of Longstreet.