Answer to Question 1: No one "intended" to fight at Gettysburg - the battle happened unexpectedly, and both armies had to react to unexpected situation. Question 2: Meade, whether or not he wanted to retreat, heard his officers out and agreed to stay on at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. Question 3: Counterattack with what? He had seven (7) infantry corps - 1st, 3rd and 11th were out of commission due to heavy losses; 2nd and 5th and 12th had been heavily engaged and also had suffered significant losses; 6th Corps would have been best candidate to lead the attack with 13,000 men BUT - BUT was scattered all over the battlefield, filling gaps and strengthening the other corps. Thus, I ask again, attack with what? Cavalry? Question 4: Army of the Potomac had suffered terribly in winning the battle of Gettysburg - remember Wellington's comment on Waterloo. Meade needed some time to consolidate and rest his army so they could carry out the pursuit. Meade, NOT GUILTY, ALL COUNTS.
Good points. Not to mention the fact that it also rained like hell for a week turning the roads to sloughs, and that when the AoP finally caught up with Lee he was as well entrenched as the Mule Shoe-Spotsylvania and an attack would have been another Fredricksburg or Pickett's charge. Lincoln was an ass to Meade, although I can understand his disappointment.
@Ernest---can not believe all these armchair generals who can't understand just how decimated the union army became after this battle. A huge loss of human capital.
Excellent points, in summation you can say that General Meade was prudent. Prudency however doesn't always win wars, after 2 years of McClellan's, Burnside and Hooker, Lincoln and the North desperately needed someone with tenaciousness. Remember Fredrick the Great, "l'audace l'audace toujours l'audace."
I’ve always wondered why the Gettysburg movie didn’t have more of Meade. It’s what...10 seconds of him?? Kinda disrespectful in my opinion. They should have at least covered Meade going out to confront Sickles about his position on the line. Instead we get Chamberlains brother calling him Lawrence and a confederate debate about Darwinism around the fire. Precious time wasted on nonsense instead of one of the most important characters. Poor Meade gets it from all directions it seems
Ummm, cuz both 'Gettysburg' and 'Gods & Generals' were both made mainly to expound Lost Cause rhetoric. Showing more of Meade would have taken away from all the focusof the Southern officers.
@@wendeln92 I have always hoped a director like Stephen Spielberg or James Cameron would make an authentic showing of the Gettysburg battle, and not a neo Confederate shit show like we have now.
Both General Mead (who should have won the Congressional Medal of Honor) and General Longstreet were made into scapegoats. Counterattack with what? With who? How? Thousands upon thousands of Union soldiers were already killed and the ones still alive were exhausted, hungry, thirsty and suffered tremendous casualties. How was General Mead supposed to know exactly how many Confederates were left in reserve, waiting for a counterattack? The question in itself is a joke!
After the repulse of Pickett's Charge, Meade understood that after three days of hard fighting, what he had was position power, not striking power. He prudently decided against throwing away victory by repeating Lee's mistake. Seminary Ridge was a formidable position. He was also prudent in not attacking Lee's fortified position in front of Williamsport. Grant's assault at Cold Harbor is indicative of what that result might have been.
Fascinating and informative lecture delivered by someone who is both knowledgeable and engaging. His passion for the subject is clearly evident and this was anything but a dry boring lecture. His description of key scenes involving key personalities brought the whole battle to life. What a difference to the usual dry pompous historians that we are so used to. I could listen to him all day, Impressive
CSA Calvary Jeb Stewart had captured 125 supply wagons with horse and mule fodder before the battle. Meade had 100,000 horses and mules that hadn't been fed for two or three days on the day after the battle July 4th. They were feed on July 4th & 5th. 12,000 horses & mules died during this time, with only 1,200 died in the battle; the rest died because they weren't fed. Meade simple didn't have transportation.
A very good lecture. One thing that I don't think was mentioned was that Butterfield's feud with Meade actually predated Hooker's replacement. Just prior to the Battle of Fredricksburg, Butterfield was promoted to command of V Corps. Meade quietly protested this to Burnside (then in command of the Army of the Potomac) as Meade was senior to Butterfield. Burnside replied that he hadn't known that Meade was senior to Butterfield & promised to rectify the problem soon. Only a few days after the battle, Meade replaced Butterfield in command of V Corps. Meade tried to smooth things over with Butterfield, but it was quiet clear that Butterfield still held a grudge for the perceived slight.
Just some small inputs all from other sources: Meade had a severe distrust of Pleasanton and kept him out of the way (I believe from a magazine article in Blue & Grey) Either Doubleday or Butterfield admitted that they thought Meade a McClellan man and that that shaded they're attitude (from Meade's memoirs) Meade had lost his most trusted generals among them Reynolds and Hancock by 3 July leaving him with much command chaos I read that Reynolds demanded carte blanche if given AoP command and that was unacceptable to Washington I understand Reynolds and Meade were good friends -- fellow Pennsylvanians etc. There is a book on Chancellorsville by a retired US General who references Sickles having to give up his Katherine's Furnace position therefore enabling Longstreet to put his guns there and dominate the field as a reason for Sickles unauthorized Gettysburg advance -- moving to a still slight but more dominating ridge One major question of mine is that there was some allusion to Meade being unaware of General Greene's heroic defense of the Culp's Hill area. I would like clarification I consider General Meade a brilliant general and citizen, one of this country's greatest heroes and most shamefully maligned I would very much like to thank Mr. Harmon for the revelatory talk and sharing his written account of the intended counterattack
I read that Pleasanton was a showboater who gained his command over the much more qualified Buford because he made the most noise, and chose to hang with the army commander instead of taking active command where the guns were flaming. Possibly both are true to some degree. He certainly didn't accomplish much later. Update 8/21. I just read that Meade's official report ignored the accomplishments of Greene's brigade at Gettysburg. Greene wrote him a scathing letter, but AFAIK he never amended his report. Just for the record, Longstreet's corps wasn't at C'ville, they were down in NC foraging and didn't return until the battle was over. Jeb Stuart replaced Jackson and directed his corps on May 3. From what I've read Porter Alexander moved some 40 cannons onto the heights outside of C'ville (damned if I can remember the site name) and shot the hell out of the army retreating from the mansion. I agree with Meade being maligned by a butthurt press. After watching the video "Lee's Retreat from Gettysburg: I think he basically did alright.
Reynolds wasn't passed over, he WAS offered the command but declined due to having to serve under Hallack (the dispise of Hallack was the ONLY thing that all of the AOP could agree upon)
Meade did have the pipe creek position but the war council was to get all of the Generals on the record so that no one could come back later and say "well if I were in charge..."
I noticed that too, but I figured what he meant was that the perception existed that Meade had passed over others for the promotion. Maybe it was not publicly known that the others turned down the offer. Fake news really started during this time so could have been stated that the others were passed by for Meade.
@@stevenrichards1539 "Fake news" started well, well before this time. Politicians would write anonymous editorials for newspapers way before the time of civil war posing as random citizens.
I'm confused regarding Reynolds. When was he offered command of the AOP? After Burnside's relief? I always thought he refused the offer as he wouldn't be given a free hand to lead the army without interference from Washington and not because he questioned the administration's policies.
I have watched many lectures my own conclusion is Meade after 3 days of command made great success. By moving troops from the rear closer to the front saved thousands of troops from Lee's cannonade. Was a critical move by Meade. The union cannons stopped knowing Lee's cannons were over shooting. All the smoke Lee couldn't see union guns he thought they wiped out union guns, not to be. If JEB STUART was where he was supposed to be he could have informed LEE. July 2 the 1st Minnesota's with only 262 men left did a bayonet charge down Cemetery Hill lost 215 men repulsed the attack and captured battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Flag is still in Minnesota historical Society. July 3rd JEB STUART was ordered to take his cavalry 4000 men around union rear and was cutoff by Gen. CUSTERS CAVALRY and turned back. Meades decision to move RESERVE troops closer to front saved thousands of union troops out smarting Lee, 1st Mn. bayonet charge to save flank, CUSTER turning back STUART were 3 major turning points of GETTYSBURG.
The story of the 1st Minnesota is awe inspiring. And I tend to agree Meade doesn't get enough credit. That moment Troy talked about after the general's council on day 2 says it all - Meade knew exactly where Lee was going to strike. The more I've researched the more I think that Sickles move out front may have actually saved the battle - obviously at great cost to himself and his corp. It disrupted Longstreet's attack and forced Meade to reinforce that area. Without it Longstreet's men would have hit the union left at full force and may have succeeded at rolling up the flank. At the very least they would have probably taken the rocky tops and the battle lines would have looked very different for day 3.
Fantastic presentation, thank you for all the hard work you performed in putting it together. The Civil War's military story, as far as the assessment of generals' performance, has been skewed significantly by various factors like politicking and PR. Meade's performance at Gettysburg was MUCH better than he is given credit for IMO. (It's similar to the question of Longstreet's performance, was MUCH worse than popularly held).
+Francisco T I'm a younger millennial and I eat this stuff up in great detail. I was present for the sesquicentennial July 1st - 3rd on the field, "In the Moment," for my third trip to Gettysburg, but I couldn't make the lecture series due to schedule conflicts. I'm just ecstatically happy that the NPS posted this channel, so I can hear all the tours and lectures. So, be not afraid that there is at least one millennial that takes the "War Between the States" seriously and will do his utmost to preserve the legacy of those brave men who fought and died for ideas so much greater than themselves.
Francisco T, I'm 29 and the only reason I care is because Meade was my great great great grand father. They never taught Meade in HS and it always bothered me. I love these lectures.
+Peter Widitz. God bless you son; my own son is a Gen X (Hate those gen labels!) and he loves history as well. I think Meade was the second general to call the "modern" press "Fake News." Sherman was quoted as having said that if all the journalists were murdered in the morning we'd have news from hell by nightfall.
I think in part, Meades plans for a counter on his left is vindicated by Jubal Earlys defense of Lee's unwillingness to blindly move to the right as later asserted by some of Longstreet's defenders. Early said it would have been foolish to move south in thst direction without knowing what lay in and among the hills to the east with no defense in depth available for an army trying to move due south. As the presenter makes clear here, Meade had placed a 10,000 man reserve placed below those very hills.
Army of the Potomac corps commanders had a tendency to get hit, didn't they? Of the seven at Gettysburg, we have Reynolds KIA, Hancock WIA, Sickles WIA, Sedgwick KIA. For the ANV, if you count Chancellorsville & later: Jackson KIA, Longstreet WIA, Hill KIA. The list of division commander casualties is even worse. Nobody led from behind, and high-ranking generals paid a high price.
Sedgwick was not killed at Gettysburg, he was shot by a sniper at Spotsylvania the following year. For the Confederates, the price of victory at Chancellorsville was defeat at Gettysburg. The attrition in officers could not be made good and the army failed to perform to Lee's expectations.
I think MCCLELLAN was a good general but too timid, at the time his army was raw and the confederates had the upper hand. He knew Lee was good and was cautious. I think Lincoln may have been a bit rash in removing Meade not understanding how bloody and hard that fighting was and that and break was needed instead of pursuing Lee. After so many failures in command Meade's had a a short leash.
Lincoln wrote a blistering letter directed to Meade. Lincoln expressed his deep disappointment at Meades failure to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. Had Meade received this highly critical letter,he would have been humiliated and forced to submit his resignation. Lincoln wrote” unsigned and not sent “ across the bottom of the letter. It was found by Nikolay years later. Lincoln vented his frustration and preserved for the Unions service a valuable asset In Meade.
To quote an article I read recently in an old copy of "Civil War Times": "The people of the North had a choice between reconciliation [with the South] or Reconstruction. They chose Reconciliation and the battle for American equality continues to this day." (11/65.) And it continues to 4/22/2018.
I understand Meade did not trust Pleasanton and kept him by him and that his concerns were well justified. In fighting the battle Meade lost generals he could trust, knew of the dislike for him and by the third day many units were inextricably mixed needing time to sort out. I also understand Sedgwick whose corps was mostly intact found the pass they tried to go through in the pursuit too well defended. Meade is quoted as saying Lee is the finest counter puncher and could not tell how much damage he had done to the confederates. Lee.is quoted that Meade will make no mistake in front of his lines. When Meade finally got to Sickles he is said to have told him that the ridges get higher all the way to the mountains. In volume two of his memoirs either Doubleday or Butterfield subsequently apologizes for thinking Meade was a McClellan man. The speed of the Union advance threw Stuart off, I believe. Meade is my hero and I emphasize that he faced Lee with the best parity of troops in any AOP battle, with Lee’s officer corps at about its height and a sudden commanded elevation he was certainly unprepared for with enemies and unknown quantities to deal with. I think Meade presents an interesting fine line between caution and aggressiveness. Thank you so much for your presentation it stimulated this entry
I have to question the Reynolds command consideration analysis. Still stinging after the defeat at Chancellorsville, the outcome of the war was still in doubt, and foreign intervention was still on the table. In mid June, any consideration for destruction of the south, occupation, and reconstruction was not even a thought, or topic of conversation, until after the capture of Vicksburg - at the earliest!! Only then when conversations began between Grant and Lincoln, regarding a new axis spearheaded by Sherman in the direction of Atlanta were such conversations remotely plausible.
This has so much alternate history in this misrepresentation of truth as to be ridiculous in its outcome. Meade did not act aggressively. There were many good reasons for this perhaps but, it’s a fact. Meade was reticent to even take the field. He exercised little command over the line aside from plugging holes using the Sixth Corps, which made his ability for a flank attack impossible. Meade survived the attacks of Lee-and he did this with a steely resolve. That makes him a victor but, not a true commander.
Meade didn't intend to fight at Gettysburg on June 30th. He resolved to fight the battle at Gettysburg the end of the first day.. Sickles was lying to save his sorry reputation.
The arming of former slaves and freed black men was the profound political consideration in 1863. Causing concern that Democratic Generals would so oppose a harsh war policy they would "pull their punches" in battles. Many Republican politicians considered Union Democrats just a notch above traitors. I am surprised these issues weren't mentioned.
The general who gave them their most important victory after Hooker gave them their worst defeat was faulted... because Lincoln wanted to put Grant in charge.
I think it looks like Meade was demoted to a desk job and Grant was the real commander. I can't claim to have the knowledge to fully understand everything related to this. However, "that goggle eyed snapping turtle" displayed extremely unprofessional behavior in his dealings with Sickles. He completely neglected his left flank. Sickles repeatedly told Meade about his difficulty, and asked for help in deploying his corps according to the order he received. He was rebuffed each time, and was even ridiculed for reporting the presence of the enemy in his front. Consequently, Meade's army was attacked by surprise. We all know that Sickles disobeyed Meade and moved his corps 3/4 mile ahead on July 2. What isn't often mentioned is the fact that he also had to disobey Meade on July 1 to go to Gettysburg at all. Whatever Sickles was guilty of, Meade allowed his own personal feelings to have a detrimental effect on the army. I doubt if he was much nicer to Butterfield. What was so special about Brown to get him promoted from brigade commander to corps commander over all the generals of the 1st corps? Why do they call him a "snapping turtle"? No doubt, he only snaps at subordinates. I'm no expert, but I suspect that through all this investigation, they came to doubt not just his brains and courage, but also whether he has temperament and charisma to be the leader they were looking for.
Who was Brown? No idea who you are referring to. While in the corporate world I might agree with a supervisor displaying servant leadership with subordinates it probably isn't going to be effective in the military. Sickles was not a professional military man and exposed the entire army to destruction with his wanton disregard of orders. The only thing that saved him from being court-martialed was having his leg blown away.
@@hvymettle Oops. Brown was obviously an error on my part. I'm pretty sure it was Newton who was the sixth corps brigadier who was put in charge of the first corps. Mea culpa. Right or wrong, I don't believe Sickles will ever get a fair shake because if he did right, it would make him the hero of Gettysburg, This was the first, and maybe the most important Union victory of the war, and Sickles wasn't even a professional soldier. All those West Point generals would have been outdone by a politician. All of them. It would suggest that a WP education is pretty much worthless. So every general and subsequent military historian whose status is tied to the prestige of West Point has a vested interest in vilifying Sickles. But even if Sickles did wrong and deserves all the vitriol that's been poured on him, Meade still doesn't get off the hook. Meade was attacked by surprise, even though Sickles tried to warn him. Sickles repeatedly told Meade he was having difficulty complying with the order for deployment of his corps. Meade already considered Sickles to be the least able of his generals, yet he refused to investigate the deployment problem reported by Sickles. Meade completely neglected his left flank even while Sickles repeatedly reported his difficulty and asked for help. And if Sickles hadn't disobeyed Meade on July1, who knows when the 3rd corps might have gotten to Gettysburg? If Sickles had been court Marshalled, Meade would have been on trial too. Everything Sickles did was in reaction to what Meade did and didn't do. Whether Sickles did right or wrong is still being debated, but Meade wouldn't have come away unscathed. He shouldn't have been so oblivious to what Longstreet had been doing on his left, and he wouldn't have been if he paid any attention to his own general. I think that the only reason Meade wasn't fired is that Lincoln had already fired so many of his predecessors. It would have been bad politically, and for the morale of the army.
@@dinahnicest6525 Yes, it was Newton. Disagree with the rest of your analysis. Sickles blundered into that position without orders and Meade had to send half the army to retrieve the position on the left. Kind of silly that you are actually blaming Meade for not knowing what Longstreet was up to while on a concealed march. Meade had no worries about his left flank if Sickles had stayed in the position he was assigned, Longstreet's right flank would have been moving across Sickles' front, subject to enfilade fire and counterattack. As it was, Sickles did his worst to hurt Meade and none of it stuck. You seem to enjoy inserting your own opinions and feelings into the narrative rather than focusing on the actual facts of what did happen. That can be lots of fun to do but it's not really history.
@@hvymettle This can go on forever. I don't want to go that long. Stuart has been vilified for leaving Lee blind, specifically in regard to the Union left. Buford should have been there too, looking for the confederate right. But he was sent home! And I repeat: Sickles reported to Meade that his skirmishers engaged Reb skirmishers. That definitely should have been investigated. But Meade just ridiculed Sickles and disregarded his report. If Meade had paid any attention at all to his left, he wouldn't have been surprised by either Longstreet or Sickles. No one, not even Longstreet would have been stupid enough to have moved his right across anyone's front in a way that would subject his whole line to enfilade fire. What would such a line be facing? Any besieger would move his line to face the enemy. Has Longstreet ever done differently? If Sickles stretched his line out to cover Little Round Top, the 3rd corps would still have been the thinnest spread of the entire Union line, with no good positions for artillery anywhere south of the McGilvery line. Hazlett's battery was only good for long range fire. He put it there mainly for morale. LRT can't be defended with its own artillery because muzzle-loading guns tend to dismount themselves in their recoil when their barrels are depressed more than 10 degrees. A lot of people have been debating "What if: Sickles stayed put" since 1863. You and I aren't likely to settle it. I doubt if Sickles can be completely exonerated, but he can be defended to at least earn some mitigation. Ultimately, the commanding general is responsible for everything that happens on the battlefield. Sickles repeatedly asked for help deploying his corps and got rebuffed. Sickles tried to alert Meade to the presence of the enemy and got ridiculed. Sickles had to rely on his own initiative to come to Gettysburg on July 1. Sickles certainly wouldn't have done what he'd done if he had gotten some of the help he'd asked for. This doesn't make it Meade's fault, but it wouldn't have happened with a better commanding general.
@@dinahnicest6525 Sickles violated his orders. Nothing you can argue justifies his flagrant disregard of orders. Nice of you to empathize with him that his commanding general wouldn't listen to his reports. Every corps commander on the field had their skirmishers engaged. From the Union position on Cemetery Ridge, the Peach Orchard was no man's land and Sickles moved into it because he thought it offered a military advantage of higher ground without understanding that he had too few men to occupy the position and the salient created was a distinct military disadvantage. But yeah, if Meade had been a little more patient with Dan Sickles and not so dismissive maybe he could have prevented Sickles from disobeying his orders. Let's criticize Meade for his lack of servant leadership and emotional intelligence in dealing with a problematic subordinate.
Just one immediate pursuit of the retreating attackers from pickets charge would have forced Lee to dig in allow Meade to set up a siege. Lee could not withdraw under pressure and risk being routed and he could no longer attack. And he could not feed his stolen livestock indefinitely.
This lecture was a good one. We need to recall the Union Army had been on the move with forced marches on the way to Gettysburg just prior to the battle. Gettysburg started out as a meeting engagement between Union cavalry and parts of the Confederate infantry. The call went out to congregate quickly to keep the Confederates from capturing the highground. The Union Army lost numerous Corps commanders wounded including General Reynolds, Sickles, Hancock and others over a period of a three day battle. Many Union regiments had lost large numbers of men with 30 percent or in the case of the 1st Minnesota an 80 percent casualty rate. We need to remember many Union regiments made forced marches in the day before the battles with little or no sleep then went straight into battle or dug entrenchments etc so sleep and rest were a premium for the Union Army at Gettysburg. The Confederates had well over a 100 plus cannon used on the 3rd day of Gettysburg with the state of ammunition supply unknown to the Union. So here are a couple points after a bitter battle with over 53,000 casualties on both sides: 1. Meade's Army of the Potomac was exhausted, beat up, and had suffered heavy losses of Noncoms, Junior officers and many Corps commanders. Meade needed time to reorganize his Army, resupply and reset with new commanders fit for duty. 2. The Confederate Army was far from broken. General Lee had some decent defensive ground with well over a hundred guns available but may have been very low on ammunition. However, Lee was still strong enough to stop or inflict heavy losses on any counterattack. 3. Meade did take some steps to pursue Lee with his cavalry. But the rains made it difficult for Mease to follow. Plus, the Army of the Potomac was too exhausted and disorganized to mount an aggressive pursuit. The bottom line here is had Meade made an aggressive pursuit, he could have been beaten back or even had regiments that disbanded themselves from too many casualties. Meade was in a much less strong position to pursue Lee than critics of Meade think. Go carry a loaded pack on your back with a 9 lbs rifle on a 24 mile road march. You soon start to realize how ridiculous the "woulda, coulda, and shoulda" crowd of critics are when they have not had these experiences themselves. Go have the blood blisters pop on the heels of your feet for a while on a long road march. Pain makes you realize how ridiculous the critics of Meade really are. We need to remember most bloody two or three day Civil War battles resulted in a stalemate of mutual exhaustion with no decisivie result caused by heavy casualties to both sides. Shiloh, Chickamauga, and Antietem come to mind. After a hard fight men fall asleep standing up because they haven't slept for days on ened prior to getting to the battle with all the skirmishing, patrolling, scouting and forced marches.
You forget the SPIRIT of the men, they had just soundly thrashed Lee and the FACT is that Lee was EXTREMELY short on ammunition, so a hard attack COULD EASILY have succeeded, GRANT would have attacked, so would Sherman!!
Butterfield and Sickels should be shamed for time and eternity for their dishonorable conduct. Cleary, they exaggerated the truth or flat out lied to discredit Meade.
Echoing the implied sentiments of some below and noticing the small viewership here, I am reminded that if you wish for people to watch something it must be presented as a riveting documentary which due to time constraints and storyline can do little more than present one invariably short-sighted and deficient point of view. The real tragedy is that it leaves the rest of us to contend to our everlasting horror with those whose entire knowledge of the event consists of the documentary and what they remember from high school. Yet these are convinced beyond risk of contrary persuasion that they are equipped to discuss intelligently the event. And if you really want people to watch, throw away the facts and make a great movie, all but assuring that the thoughtful among us will be forced to listen to exponentially increased hordes of dimwits who think they've become expert.
Troy Harman has several errors in the beginning of his presentation, but what really stands out is that these officers were LOYAL to Hooker or McClellan, instead of being LOYAL to the US Government!! DO your job the best you can, no matter whom the President puts in charge!
Sickles lost his "rabbi" in Hooker, when Hooker was made commander, Sickles surely thought he had it made only to see him removed three days before a major battle which at the time he would still be upset
He seems to be quite narrow in his research and appears to be judgmental & self-righteous because "everybody" knows all of truth in war between the states
Big mistake not REALLY savaging Lee after July 3rd....NB Forrest would NEVER have let that happen...EVER Meade=TOO CAUTIOUS, no guts it's interesting that this guy attributes ALL of Meade's detractors motivations as some kind of political games when there are PLENTY of reasons for MANY people to be righteously and seriously PISSED
forest never came within a cunts hair of being an army commander, nor would such a command been anything but a disaster. To compare meade to forrest is beyond ridiculous
Regarding the South being "middle age agricultural": the GDP of every Southern state was greater, some even three times greater, than any northern state. 1 in 200 went into higher education compared to 1 in 700 in the north, the South provided a greater number of statesmen, was actually more emancipated before the war in it's treatment of slaves than the north, and let it not be forgotten that Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only applied to those Southern states not already in Union hands, and not to northern states
NO, the south was NOT more emancipated before the war then the north, that is a remarkably idiotic thing to say. In the north, every state had freed the slaves, some were immediate and some were gradual, but every northern state had emancipated the slaves. The southern states NEVER emancipated any of their slaves, in fact, their intention was to expand slavery throughout the country, North and South and West! Lincoln only freed those slaves in those states that were in REBELLION against the government, for those few 1000 slaves in Northern states, he had no CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take away their property, which is why he quickly pushed the 13th amendment to remove slavery EVERYWHERE for all time! Yes, the SOUTH was richer than the NORTH at the time, mostly because of KING Cotton and despite the LIES of the Lost Cause myth, the southerners would NOT end slavery while it remained profitable. The SOUTH was backward, not because they were poor, but because instead of investing in railroads, canals, manufacturing plants, they continued to reinvest in slaves, the MOST VALUABLE asset in the world at the time!
I support your viewpoint . The south apparently was so impoverished that the southern states paid Almost 70% of the federal revenues of 1860 (tariffs). The other revenue source was land sales . Wonder Why Lincoln invaded Virginia ?
Army is an odd outfit. McClellan could keep screwing the pooch repeatedly, and just got new commands. After all, the opponent was Lee --- you ain't gonna out-general him but in a dream. Grant won because he knew this; don't match yourself against your betters. Just attack, get your butt stomped, and attack again. Repeat the cycle endlessly. Your vastly superior numbers of men and guns will win by attrition.
mnpd3, OBVIOUSLY not a scholarly approach to the Civil War! Lee lost 5 of his first 6 battles against McClellan for gods sake! He then won 2nd Bull Run, because Pope ordered the unit defended against Longstreet to move and Longstreet cut a hole right through the line! No serious generalship done by Lee at all and it was against Pope! Lee lost Antietam because of his lost orders and only the fact that it was McClellan caused there to still be a ANV! The veritable genius Burnside stole a march on the great Lee and reached Fredricksburg unopposed, but political infighting in the army command caused the pontoon boats to not arrive as scheduled and the first units failed to cross at the fords when they had an opportunity and take Fredricksburg, so the AoP waited until the pontoons were built and Lee eventually arrived on Maryes Heights to defeat Burnside. Again, the MYTH of Lee strategic and tactical ability is overblown! Hooker came in charge and even HE stole a march on Lee, so much for Lee's supposed knowledge of what the enemy would do. The AoP got through the wilderness and then stopped for the nights, some units outside were told to withdraw back into positions inside! Then, stupidly, they put Howard on the flank, ANY TIME Howard was stopped, there was a chance that he would be overrun, because he was JUST that horrible of a commander. Hooker saw Jackson march across his front and march south, he ASSUMED that Jackson was retreating, had ANY COMPETENT GENERAL been in charge, they would have attacked Jackson from the rear as he was marching away and rout him and then turn on Lee's force with his full army and destroyed Lee right there! But Hooker grew cautious of Lee's reputation and sat through the night doing nothing, only to be flanked by Jackson's attack on Howard, which caused the entire army to flee! Lee was overcome with pride and arrogance at Gettysburg and it cost him yet another defeat! The great Lee was 4 and 7 against mediocre AT BEST Union Generals before he faced Grant and was out-generaled over and over again until he lost the war!
Jordan S I will reframe from answering your insipid comments regarding redistribution of wealth and how you have conflated the issue with respect to the NPS. This is a place for learning and not trading acid tonged snipes at one another. Indeed I regret making the comments earlier that you are commenting on.
Interesting approach on politics of military activity; however very poor in neutrality of perspectives. 21st century man looking at 19th mindsets w/ only one viewpoint of a collectivist ideology!
The Emancipation did not change the direction of the war. Neither did the Emancipation end slavery. In fact, the Emancipation didn't free a single slave; not one. Look it up. To hear a Park Ranger involved in history revisionism is sickening. The people who fought the war left their words about why they fought; it isn't necessary to listen to the words of a modern pseudo-historian. Sidenote: The official term for slaves encountered by the Federal army was "contraband." Know any wars fought over contraband? And, the slaves were put to work, even completing the Capitol Dome during the War in D.C.; a city not only capitol, but having the largest slave market on the eastern seaboard. Not to mention that a number of slave states never seceded, and fought Federally. How does that work?
😆 The proclamation served many purposes. It strengthened the position of abolitionists in England who didn't want the UK to assist or acknowledge the CSA. It caused further turmoil and division within the CSA politically for Davis who did not have full support of his governors. It signaled the increasing power of the Republican Radicals in chipping away at Lincoln's aversion to immediately ending slavery. Emancipation was a big step towards forcing the 13th Amendment 2+ years later. Yes, no slaves were freed (does that make you feel better? Or would rescinding the 13th, 14th, and 15th only make you happy?), but it was a major signal that an important pivot point had taken place.
Tuth of the matter the Lee and the army of northern Virginia beat the union army down so bad at Gettysburg that it would be nearly a year before they were able to invade the South again in Virginia.
He allowed Lees entire army to walk back to the south. He should have tried for treason. General Sickles disobeyed meades orders and saved the union cause at Gettysburg. He won the medal of honor for it. Yet today general sickles is remembered for all the wrong reasons. Lincoln was furious that meade did not pursue and end the war. Instead it dragged on for another 2 years. Meade stood down on orders from rome. General Sickles saved the union, not meade.
SassyHershey, no offense intended, but you remind me too much of those people screaming today that "ALL WHITES ARE RACISTS!" All groups of people have racists, sadly, but never forget that it is that generation of whites who soundly rejected their parents' racism and supported civil rights for black Americans.
So quickly it went from General Meade and his actions at Gettysburg to slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation, do we have to be so politically correct and every lecture?
Politically correct? Are you sure you know what that means? I've only listened to the first 12 minutes so far and it seems to me like the speaker provides good context about what was at stake after the Battle of Gettysburg. You have to admit the Emancipation Proclamation was an important turning point in the war in its own right, and the speaker makes a good case as to why.
Bravo116 and OCMJ Up until Meade, generals were promoted based on pecking order. They were all Democrats. The lecturer is pointing out that this time, due to the emancipation proclamation, generals had to support total war to get the job.
Also this talk of Meade is really no different than all the talks about George Washington during the fight for our Independence! Gates, Charles Lee, Arnold, etc all thought they should be in charge of the Army & that Washington was an incapable leader! See thats why Lee should be so respected in my opinion even if u dont believe in what he was fighting for... Everyone knew Lee was a bad ass General who deserved to General even the Union Generals & troops knew this! & no other southern General where most of the Good Generals at the time all joined the CSA! They never questioned the leadership of Lee! Again I noted below the mistakes i believe he made at Gettysburg... But overall no one questioned the leadership of Lee!
Lee was NOT unquestioned, his decisions were often questioned by many people including Lee himself! He was a mediocre general at best, he only defeated McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker, not exactly cream of the crop generals for the AoP.
I also believe Reynolds was correct when he talked about freeing the slaves & all it would take to do it... I wrote this on another video about the Civil War as well! I dont believe they needed war to end slavery! What was the biggest issue as to why France or Britain wouldn't join the CSA when Lee was driving the Union back into PA? Because countries like France & Britain who didnt have slaves were not going to ally with a rebel army with an institution of slavery! I believe if the Northern Republicans along diplomats from France & Britain saying we will not trade nor be allies with a country who still has an institution of slavery! I believe the Southern states would have eventually came around & free'd the slaves with all that would be lost if they didnt! But the firing on Fort Sumter then raising of 75k troops that invaded the South... There was no more room for political talks to end the war! Then Lincoln made it a war about freeing the slaves... What if we could have ended slavery politically over the next 5-10 yrs instead of 5 yrs of war & over a million deaths?
Interesting idea for an alternative history story. How would the south had been different if they had come to emancipation on their own instead of forced on them by a humiliating defeat?
jason robbins The Southern planters were intractable and overconfident by 1860. Boycotts may have worked in 1820 or 1830, but perhaps arresting the ringleaders and court-martialing all the military ones and holding the political ones for evaluation of treason while freeing the slaves. Trashing the fake honor and reputation of Lee, Davis and the rest of the confederate generals and imprisoning them without a war would have definitely taken the wind out of the sales of the whole flawed confederacy idea.
Many Generals in the south wanted to free the slaves b4 firing on fort sumter... Its why I always say the Civil Wasn't just about the fight for slaves... Many CSA Generals didnt own slaves & wanted them free to join the ranks of the confederate army... Longstreet wanted the slaves free'd! Yet dont forget that many Union Generals owned slaves as well... So its not just a black & white issue... There is a grey area.... The CSA lost... But it wasn't humiliating... They fought for what they believed... & they mainly kicked the shit out of the Union army despite having no navy, no shoes, lack of adequate weapons... The union was very close to losing! If Lee wasn't turned back at Gettysburg, Lincoln would've been forced to surrender or some sort of truce... It was that close...
Lee didn't fight to keep slaves! Generals like Lee, Longstreet, Thomas Jackson etc wanted to end slavery... Yet they also believed it was the states rights to choose whether or not to end it... Its like Thomas Jefferson... He owned MANY slaves yet he spoke out against slavery all the time... Back then there really was no simple way to just end slavery... The CSA didn't end slavery because it was more of the politicians of the democratic party like Jefferson Davis.... Generals like Patrick Cleburne pleaded with Davis to free the slaves! There were some CSA generals who fought of course to keep slaves... Like Nathon Bedford Forrest who went on to create the KKK! Fuck that guy... Yet main Generals like Lee, Longstreet, Jackson etc were all smart enough to know that if they kept slaves that France nor Britain would ally with the CSA as long as they had an institution of slavery! Its why many top generals pleaded with Davis to free slaves!
I'd say it takes a lot of faith/optimism to believe that Southern planters would give up their most valuable "property" (with some $2B in 1860) without a fight anywhere in the near future. Although mechanization would eventually kill slavery, it wouldn't be in 10 year, perhaps in 40 years. Remember that sharecropping more the less kept black in peonage well into the 1930s.
I'm about 10 minutes in to this and I see that this park ranger is taking vast liberties in the interpretation of the emancipation proclamation. Moreover it seems that he is attempting to insert race relations as perceived in the modern era in to a set of events in which they do not belong. Had I been at this lecture I would certainly have interrupted his game with dozens of questions about the basis of his assertions. Let's see if his disingenuousness continues further.
+SassyHershsey SassyHershey you've obviously never been on a tour with him. one of the smartest, well researched historians of the battle I've ever met. There's a reason his lecture is in a giant lecture hall and not just the small auditorium most of these are in. Also note the number of people at the beginning who raise their hands that know him or been on a tour with him... there is a reason for this and it's not his status as "just a federal employee."
mak52580 My apologies. Sorry for my statement. No I haven't. I am studying Shelby Foote's first volume almost finished and have just in the past 3 years studied this subject -which I have avoided my whole 59 year life. First time my mother took me to Gettysburg I was 4 1963, The Western Wars are never really discussed I find in popular culture, nor the Peninsula Campaigns of 1862 long before "Fredericksburg". I was a Federal employee Maritime Lawyer for 15 years - therein lies my prejudgment of working in D.C. my hometown.
what a load of cow dung! The one thing America has never had is a large peacetime standing army. We have been at war for the past 15 years with no end in sight, and even the army we have now would have a hard time "occupying" the Confederate states.The proof is in the news, of how great a job we are doing at keeping the insurgency of Iraq and Afghanistan in check... lol Too much politics and BS in this presentation. This story would have fit perfectly in Jubal Early's book. Please, just do the civil war stuff
MEADE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED MEDAL OF HONOR FOR HIS PERFORMANCE AT GETTYSBURG AMEN 🙏
Wtf...
Lol, not hardly.
@@jcksnghst SCREW U
He got the Medal of Mediocrity. Lincoln did not like him
lol...I love old people and the internet.
Answer to Question 1: No one "intended" to fight at Gettysburg - the battle happened unexpectedly, and both armies had to react to unexpected situation. Question 2: Meade, whether or not he wanted to retreat, heard his officers out and agreed to stay on at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. Question 3: Counterattack with what? He had seven (7) infantry corps - 1st, 3rd and 11th were out of commission due to heavy losses; 2nd and 5th and 12th had been heavily engaged and also had suffered significant losses; 6th Corps would have been best candidate to lead the attack with 13,000 men BUT - BUT was scattered all over the battlefield, filling gaps and strengthening the other corps. Thus, I ask again, attack with what? Cavalry? Question 4: Army of the Potomac had suffered terribly in winning the battle of Gettysburg - remember Wellington's comment on Waterloo. Meade needed some time to consolidate and rest his army so they could carry out the pursuit. Meade, NOT GUILTY, ALL COUNTS.
Good points. Not to mention the fact that it also rained like hell for a week turning the roads to sloughs, and that when the AoP finally caught up with Lee he was as well entrenched as the Mule Shoe-Spotsylvania and an attack would have been another Fredricksburg or Pickett's charge. Lincoln was an ass to Meade, although I can understand his disappointment.
@Ernest---can not believe all these armchair generals who can't understand just how decimated the union army became after this battle. A huge loss of human capital.
@@sofly7634 Yes, there are both Union and Confederate graves in the Gettysburg Cemetary where Lincoln gave his address.
@ernestspencer4879. What was Wellington's comment on Waterloo?
Excellent points, in summation you can say that General Meade was prudent. Prudency however doesn't always win wars, after 2 years of McClellan's, Burnside and Hooker, Lincoln and the North desperately needed someone with tenaciousness. Remember Fredrick the Great, "l'audace l'audace toujours l'audace."
Thank you for this excellent lecture and the hours of research that made it possible!
I’ve always wondered why the Gettysburg movie didn’t have more of Meade. It’s what...10 seconds of him?? Kinda disrespectful in my opinion. They should have at least covered Meade going out to confront Sickles about his position on the line. Instead we get Chamberlains brother calling him Lawrence and a confederate debate about Darwinism around the fire. Precious time wasted on nonsense instead of one of the most important characters. Poor Meade gets it from all directions it seems
Ummm, cuz both 'Gettysburg' and 'Gods & Generals' were both made mainly to expound Lost Cause rhetoric. Showing more of Meade would have taken away from all the focusof the Southern officers.
@@wendeln92 I have always hoped a director like Stephen Spielberg or James Cameron would make an authentic showing of the Gettysburg battle, and not a neo Confederate shit show like we have now.
Simply because he doesn’t get mentioned in the novel in which the movie is based
Meade is never studied at West Point. Stonewall is.
Both General Mead (who should have won the Congressional Medal of Honor) and General Longstreet were made into scapegoats. Counterattack with what? With who?
How? Thousands upon thousands of Union soldiers were already killed and the ones still alive were exhausted, hungry, thirsty and suffered tremendous casualties. How was General Mead supposed to know exactly how many Confederates were left in reserve, waiting for a counterattack? The question in itself is a joke!
After the repulse of Pickett's Charge, Meade understood that after three days of hard fighting, what he had was position power, not striking power. He prudently decided against throwing away victory by repeating Lee's mistake. Seminary Ridge was a formidable position. He was also prudent in not attacking Lee's fortified position in front of Williamsport. Grant's assault at Cold Harbor is indicative of what that result might have been.
Agree.
Once Lee retreated across the Potomac, Meade would have suffered another Fredericksburg.
Fascinating and informative lecture delivered by someone who is both knowledgeable and engaging. His passion for the subject is clearly evident and this was anything but a dry boring lecture. His description of key scenes involving key personalities brought the whole battle to life. What a difference to the usual dry pompous historians that we are so used to. I could listen to him all day, Impressive
Conniving political enemies almost as dangerous as Military enemy. Situation Normal. Absolutely outstanding lecture.
My Dad was from Meadeville Pensylvania. I saw statues of Meade in the park when I was a youngster.
How'd my great great great great grandad look?
CSA Calvary Jeb Stewart had captured 125 supply wagons with horse and mule fodder before the battle. Meade had 100,000 horses and mules that hadn't been fed for two or three days on the day after the battle July 4th. They were feed on July 4th & 5th. 12,000 horses & mules died during this time, with only 1,200 died in the battle; the rest died because they weren't fed. Meade simple didn't have transportation.
Excellent presentation! It's motivated me to read more about this aspect of the Civil War.
I wish there was more Troy harman on RUclips.
Very informative and the speaker of this seminar did a Great Job!!!
A very good lecture. One thing that I don't think was mentioned was that Butterfield's feud with Meade actually predated Hooker's replacement. Just prior to the Battle of Fredricksburg, Butterfield was promoted to command of V Corps. Meade quietly protested this to Burnside (then in command of the Army of the Potomac) as Meade was senior to Butterfield. Burnside replied that he hadn't known that Meade was senior to Butterfield & promised to rectify the problem soon. Only a few days after the battle, Meade replaced Butterfield in command of V Corps. Meade tried to smooth things over with Butterfield, but it was quiet clear that Butterfield still held a grudge for the perceived slight.
Even more curious is George Stoneman, a Brigadier General, who was in charge of the III Corps at Fredricksburg.
Fantastic lecture, mr. Harmon!
Troy is the best they have. He paints a complete picture usually invisible to all our faculties
Just some small inputs all from other sources:
Meade had a severe distrust of Pleasanton and kept him out of the way (I believe from a magazine article in Blue & Grey)
Either Doubleday or Butterfield admitted that they thought Meade a McClellan man and that that shaded they're attitude (from Meade's memoirs)
Meade had lost his most trusted generals among them Reynolds and Hancock by 3 July leaving him with much command chaos
I read that Reynolds demanded carte blanche if given AoP command and that was unacceptable to Washington
I understand Reynolds and Meade were good friends -- fellow Pennsylvanians etc.
There is a book on Chancellorsville by a retired US General who references Sickles having to give up his Katherine's Furnace position therefore enabling Longstreet to put his guns there and dominate the field as a reason for Sickles unauthorized Gettysburg advance -- moving to a still slight but more dominating ridge
One major question of mine is that there was some allusion to Meade being unaware of General Greene's heroic defense of the Culp's Hill area. I would like clarification
I consider General Meade a brilliant general and citizen, one of this country's greatest heroes and most shamefully maligned
I would very much like to thank Mr. Harmon for the revelatory talk and sharing his written account of the intended counterattack
I read that Pleasanton was a showboater who gained his command over the much more qualified Buford because he made the most noise, and chose to hang with the army commander instead of taking active command where the guns were flaming. Possibly both are true to some degree. He certainly didn't accomplish much later.
Update 8/21. I just read that Meade's official report ignored the accomplishments of Greene's brigade at Gettysburg. Greene wrote him a scathing letter, but AFAIK he never amended his report.
Just for the record, Longstreet's corps wasn't at C'ville, they were down in NC foraging and didn't return until the battle was over. Jeb Stuart replaced Jackson and directed his corps on May 3. From what I've read Porter Alexander moved some 40 cannons onto the heights outside of C'ville (damned if I can remember the site name) and shot the hell out of the army retreating from the mansion.
I agree with Meade being maligned by a butthurt press. After watching the video "Lee's Retreat from Gettysburg: I think he basically did alright.
thanks for uploading these lectures
Fantastic lecture. I always thought Meade hard done by.
Love your use of the language. Keep it interesting.
Fantastic presentation! I've studied the civil war as an amatuer historian for decades and never knew any of this.
Excellent briefing. Mick from London.
Grant did not replaced.Meade as commasnder of the army of the Potomac meaning he believed in the leadership.of Meade
I just love civil war lectures (thank you ''GettysburgNPS'', from a Greek mate)
GREAT presentation Sir !!!
Reynolds wasn't passed over, he WAS offered the command but declined due to having to serve under Hallack (the dispise of Hallack was the ONLY thing that all of the AOP could agree upon)
Meade did have the pipe creek position but the war council was to get all of the Generals on the record so that no one could come back later and say "well if I were in charge..."
Great presentation. Like I have always said, the civil war was far more complicated than people think or have been told.
Wonderful presentation!!!
If they all declined, Meade did not jump "over" them.
I noticed that too, but I figured what he meant was that the perception existed that Meade had passed over others for the promotion. Maybe it was not publicly known that the others turned down the offer. Fake news really started during this time so could have been stated that the others were passed by for Meade.
@@stevenrichards1539 "Fake news" started well, well before this time. Politicians would write anonymous editorials for newspapers way before the time of civil war posing as random citizens.
Two of his main detractors were transferred South, Butterfield and Slocum.
I'm confused regarding Reynolds. When was he offered command of the AOP? After Burnside's relief? I always thought he refused the offer as he wouldn't be given a free hand to lead the army without interference from Washington and not because he questioned the administration's policies.
Great presentation
I have watched many lectures my own conclusion is Meade after 3 days of command made great success. By moving troops from the rear closer to the front saved thousands of troops from Lee's cannonade. Was a critical move by Meade. The union cannons stopped knowing Lee's cannons were over shooting. All the smoke Lee couldn't see union guns he thought they wiped out union guns, not to be. If JEB STUART was where he was supposed to be he could have informed LEE. July 2 the 1st Minnesota's with only 262 men left did a bayonet charge down Cemetery Hill lost 215 men repulsed the attack and captured battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Flag is still in Minnesota historical Society. July 3rd JEB STUART was ordered to take his cavalry 4000 men around union rear and was cutoff by Gen. CUSTERS CAVALRY and turned back. Meades decision to move RESERVE troops closer to front saved thousands of union troops out smarting Lee, 1st Mn. bayonet charge to save flank, CUSTER turning back STUART were 3 major turning points of GETTYSBURG.
The story of the 1st Minnesota is awe inspiring. And I tend to agree Meade doesn't get enough credit. That moment Troy talked about after the general's council on day 2 says it all - Meade knew exactly where Lee was going to strike.
The more I've researched the more I think that Sickles move out front may have actually saved the battle - obviously at great cost to himself and his corp. It disrupted Longstreet's attack and forced Meade to reinforce that area. Without it Longstreet's men would have hit the union left at full force and may have succeeded at rolling up the flank. At the very least they would have probably taken the rocky tops and the battle lines would have looked very different for day 3.
Yes J.E.B. Stuart fucked up huge, but I don't think it was his fault entirely
@@traviserickson3603 I though that as well yesterday looking at an overview of the battle that maybe that stupidity actual won the battle.
Fantastic presentation, thank you for all the hard work you performed in putting it together. The Civil War's military story, as far as the assessment of generals' performance, has been skewed significantly by various factors like politicking and PR. Meade's performance at Gettysburg was MUCH better than he is given credit for IMO. (It's similar to the question of Longstreet's performance, was MUCH worse than popularly held).
Actually very sad to see so few young faces in the audience. Everyone there looks like a senior citizen.
+Francisco T Only the GOP base relives the civil war.
+Francisco T I'm a younger millennial and I eat this stuff up in great detail. I was present for the sesquicentennial July 1st - 3rd on the field, "In the Moment," for my third trip to Gettysburg, but I couldn't make the lecture series due to schedule conflicts. I'm just ecstatically happy that the NPS posted this channel, so I can hear all the tours and lectures. So, be not afraid that there is at least one millennial that takes the "War Between the States" seriously and will do his utmost to preserve the legacy of those brave men who fought and died for ideas so much greater than themselves.
Francisco T, I'm 29 and the only reason I care is because Meade was my great great great grand father. They never taught Meade in HS and it always bothered me. I love these lectures.
+Peter Widitz. God bless you son; my own son is a Gen X (Hate those gen labels!) and he loves history as well. I think Meade was the second general to call the "modern" press "Fake News." Sherman was quoted as having said that if all the journalists were murdered in the morning we'd have news from hell by nightfall.
Why are you here? You are not a GOP individual so are you trolling? What a jerk that statement you said concerning this group
Mr Harmon thank you for doing my family name justice.
I think in part, Meades plans for a counter on his left is vindicated by Jubal Earlys defense of Lee's unwillingness to blindly move to the right as later asserted by some of Longstreet's defenders. Early said it would have been foolish to move south in thst direction without knowing what lay in and among the hills to the east with no defense in depth available for an army trying to move due south. As the presenter makes clear here, Meade had placed a 10,000 man reserve placed below those very hills.
Army of the Potomac corps commanders had a tendency to get hit, didn't they? Of the seven at Gettysburg, we have Reynolds KIA, Hancock WIA, Sickles WIA, Sedgwick KIA. For the ANV, if you count Chancellorsville & later: Jackson KIA, Longstreet WIA, Hill KIA. The list of division commander casualties is even worse. Nobody led from behind, and high-ranking generals paid a high price.
Sedgwick was not killed at Gettysburg, he was shot by a sniper at Spotsylvania the following year. For the Confederates, the price of victory at Chancellorsville was defeat at Gettysburg. The attrition in officers could not be made good and the army failed to perform to Lee's expectations.
Pickett led from behind.
@@hvymettleEwell was no Stonewall.
Troy? Who we doubt has colorized pictures? :)
I feel like such a nerd - not only for getting this reference but laughing a little too long at it :)
I think MCCLELLAN was a good general but too timid, at the time his army was raw and the confederates had the upper hand. He knew Lee was good and was cautious. I think Lincoln may have been a bit rash in removing Meade not understanding how bloody and hard that fighting was and that and break was needed instead of pursuing Lee. After so many failures in command Meade's had a a short leash.
Lincoln wrote a blistering letter directed to Meade. Lincoln expressed his deep disappointment at Meades failure to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. Had Meade received this highly critical letter,he would have been humiliated and forced to submit his resignation.
Lincoln wrote” unsigned and not sent “ across the bottom of the letter. It was found by Nikolay years later.
Lincoln vented his frustration and preserved for the Unions service a valuable asset In Meade.
Grant knew he was a computent Gen. I am glad he kept him as AoP.
To quote an article I read recently in an old copy of "Civil War Times": "The people of the North had a choice between reconciliation [with the South] or Reconstruction. They chose Reconciliation and the battle for American equality continues to this day." (11/65.) And it continues to 4/22/2018.
Reynolds was offered command but turned it down.
Well done...excellent
Meade was basically forced to keep Butterfield. He couldn't get the people he wanted, so he was forced to keep him until he could replacement
I understand Meade did not trust Pleasanton and kept him by him and that his concerns were well justified. In fighting the battle Meade lost generals he could trust, knew of the dislike for him and by the third day many units were inextricably mixed needing time to sort out. I also understand Sedgwick whose corps was mostly intact found the pass they tried to go through in the pursuit too well defended. Meade is quoted as saying Lee is the finest counter puncher and could not tell how much damage he had done to the confederates. Lee.is quoted that Meade will make no mistake in front of his lines. When Meade finally got to Sickles he is said to have told him that the ridges get higher all the way to the mountains. In volume two of his memoirs either Doubleday or Butterfield subsequently apologizes for thinking Meade was a McClellan man. The speed of the Union advance threw Stuart off, I believe. Meade is my hero and I emphasize that he faced Lee with the best parity of troops in any AOP battle, with Lee’s officer corps at about its height and a sudden commanded elevation he was certainly unprepared for with enemies and unknown quantities to deal with. I think Meade presents an interesting fine line between caution and aggressiveness. Thank you so much for your presentation it stimulated this entry
Great teacher!
I have to question the Reynolds command consideration analysis. Still stinging after the defeat at Chancellorsville, the outcome of the war was still in doubt, and foreign intervention was still on the table. In mid June, any consideration for destruction of the south, occupation, and reconstruction was not even a thought, or topic of conversation, until after the capture of Vicksburg - at the earliest!! Only then when conversations began between Grant and Lincoln, regarding a new axis spearheaded by Sherman in the direction of Atlanta were such conversations remotely plausible.
Who is the 5th? First is Grant, second is Sherman, Third is Thomas, fourth is Sheridan and.....................
@ 38:00
he needs Ray Narvaez to say that:
"COME FROM BEHIND!!!!"
This video is not where I expected to see a brownman reference in the comments lolol
This has so much alternate history in this misrepresentation of truth as to be ridiculous in its outcome. Meade did not act aggressively. There were many good reasons for this perhaps but, it’s a fact.
Meade was reticent to even take the field. He exercised little command over the line aside from plugging holes using the Sixth Corps, which made his ability for a flank attack impossible.
Meade survived the attacks of Lee-and he did this with a steely resolve. That makes him a victor but, not a true commander.
Read Meade at Gettysburg and learn. Stop relying on old history told by his a biased media and his detractors.
Meade didn't intend to fight at Gettysburg on June 30th. He resolved to fight the battle at Gettysburg the end of the first day.. Sickles was lying to save his sorry reputation.
Best Civil War lecture EVER. At least one Ranger at Gettysburg National Military Park has common sense. Usually, they are all Confederate apologists.
The arming of former slaves and freed black men was the profound political consideration in 1863. Causing concern that Democratic Generals would so oppose a harsh war policy they would "pull their punches" in battles. Many Republican politicians considered Union Democrats just a notch above traitors. I am surprised these issues weren't mentioned.
Meade said lets stay and fight, issue over
The general who gave them their most important victory after Hooker gave them their worst defeat was faulted... because Lincoln wanted to put Grant in charge.
👍. Seems like Meade was pretty good
Meade was lucky. Lincoln couldn't stand him.
I think it looks like Meade was demoted to a desk job and Grant was the real commander.
I can't claim to have the knowledge to fully understand everything related to this. However, "that goggle eyed snapping turtle" displayed extremely unprofessional behavior in his dealings with Sickles. He completely neglected his left flank. Sickles repeatedly told Meade about his difficulty, and asked for help in deploying his corps according to the order he received. He was rebuffed each time, and was even ridiculed for reporting the presence of the enemy in his front. Consequently, Meade's army was attacked by surprise. We all know that Sickles disobeyed Meade and moved his corps 3/4 mile ahead on July 2. What isn't often mentioned is the fact that he also had to disobey Meade on July 1 to go to Gettysburg at all. Whatever Sickles was guilty of, Meade allowed his own personal feelings to have a detrimental effect on the army. I doubt if he was much nicer to Butterfield. What was so special about Brown to get him promoted from brigade commander to corps commander over all the generals of the 1st corps? Why do they call him a "snapping turtle"? No doubt, he only snaps at subordinates. I'm no expert, but I suspect that through all this investigation, they came to doubt not just his brains and courage, but also whether he has temperament and charisma to be the leader they were looking for.
Who was Brown? No idea who you are referring to. While in the corporate world I might agree with a supervisor displaying servant leadership with subordinates it probably isn't going to be effective in the military. Sickles was not a professional military man and exposed the entire army to destruction with his wanton disregard of orders. The only thing that saved him from being court-martialed was having his leg blown away.
@@hvymettle Oops. Brown was obviously an error on my part. I'm pretty sure it was Newton who was the sixth corps brigadier who was put in charge of the first corps. Mea culpa.
Right or wrong, I don't believe Sickles will ever get a fair shake because if he did right, it would make him the hero of Gettysburg, This was the first, and maybe the most important Union victory of the war, and Sickles wasn't even a professional soldier. All those West Point generals would have been outdone by a politician. All of them. It would suggest that a WP education is pretty much worthless. So every general and subsequent military historian whose status is tied to the prestige of West Point has a vested interest in vilifying Sickles.
But even if Sickles did wrong and deserves all the vitriol that's been poured on him, Meade still doesn't get off the hook. Meade was attacked by surprise, even though Sickles tried to warn him. Sickles repeatedly told Meade he was having difficulty complying with the order for deployment of his corps. Meade already considered Sickles to be the least able of his generals, yet he refused to investigate the deployment problem reported by Sickles. Meade completely neglected his left flank even while Sickles repeatedly reported his difficulty and asked for help. And if Sickles hadn't disobeyed Meade on July1, who knows when the 3rd corps might have gotten to Gettysburg?
If Sickles had been court Marshalled, Meade would have been on trial too. Everything Sickles did was in reaction to what Meade did and didn't do. Whether Sickles did right or wrong is still being debated, but Meade wouldn't have come away unscathed. He shouldn't have been so oblivious to what Longstreet had been doing on his left, and he wouldn't have been if he paid any attention to his own general. I think that the only reason Meade wasn't fired is that Lincoln had already fired so many of his predecessors. It would have been bad politically, and for the morale of the army.
@@dinahnicest6525 Yes, it was Newton. Disagree with the rest of your analysis. Sickles blundered into that position without orders and Meade had to send half the army to retrieve the position on the left. Kind of silly that you are actually blaming Meade for not knowing what Longstreet was up to while on a concealed march. Meade had no worries about his left flank if Sickles had stayed in the position he was assigned, Longstreet's right flank would have been moving across Sickles' front, subject to enfilade fire and counterattack. As it was, Sickles did his worst to hurt Meade and none of it stuck. You seem to enjoy inserting your own opinions and feelings into the narrative rather than focusing on the actual facts of what did happen. That can be lots of fun to do but it's not really history.
@@hvymettle This can go on forever. I don't want to go that long. Stuart has been vilified for leaving Lee blind, specifically in regard to the Union left. Buford should have been there too, looking for the confederate right. But he was sent home! And I repeat: Sickles reported to Meade that his skirmishers engaged Reb skirmishers. That definitely should have been investigated. But Meade just ridiculed Sickles and disregarded his report. If Meade had paid any attention at all to his left, he wouldn't have been surprised by either Longstreet or Sickles.
No one, not even Longstreet would have been stupid enough to have moved his right across anyone's front in a way that would subject his whole line to enfilade fire. What would such a line be facing? Any besieger would move his line to face the enemy. Has Longstreet ever done differently? If Sickles stretched his line out to cover Little Round Top, the 3rd corps would still have been the thinnest spread of the entire Union line, with no good positions for artillery anywhere south of the McGilvery line. Hazlett's battery was only good for long range fire. He put it there mainly for morale. LRT can't be defended with its own artillery because muzzle-loading guns tend to dismount themselves in their recoil when their barrels are depressed more than 10 degrees. A lot of people have been debating "What if: Sickles stayed put" since 1863. You and I aren't likely to settle it.
I doubt if Sickles can be completely exonerated, but he can be defended to at least earn some mitigation. Ultimately, the commanding general is responsible for everything that happens on the battlefield. Sickles repeatedly asked for help deploying his corps and got rebuffed. Sickles tried to alert Meade to the presence of the enemy and got ridiculed. Sickles had to rely on his own initiative to come to Gettysburg on July 1. Sickles certainly wouldn't have done what he'd done if he had gotten some of the help he'd asked for. This doesn't make it Meade's fault, but it wouldn't have happened with a better commanding general.
@@dinahnicest6525 Sickles violated his orders. Nothing you can argue justifies his flagrant disregard of orders. Nice of you to empathize with him that his commanding general wouldn't listen to his reports. Every corps commander on the field had their skirmishers engaged. From the Union position on Cemetery Ridge, the Peach Orchard was no man's land and Sickles moved into it because he thought it offered a military advantage of higher ground without understanding that he had too few men to occupy the position and the salient created was a distinct military disadvantage. But yeah, if Meade had been a little more patient with Dan Sickles and not so dismissive maybe he could have prevented Sickles from disobeying his orders. Let's criticize Meade for his lack of servant leadership and emotional intelligence in dealing with a problematic subordinate.
Just one immediate pursuit of the retreating attackers from pickets charge would have forced Lee to dig in allow Meade to set up a siege. Lee could not withdraw under pressure and risk being routed and he could no longer attack. And he could not feed his stolen livestock indefinitely.
Sickles was a viper
Even the North thought he was crazy.
This lecture was a good one. We need to recall the Union Army had been on the move with forced marches on the way to Gettysburg just prior to the battle. Gettysburg started out as a meeting engagement between Union cavalry and parts of the Confederate infantry. The call went out to congregate quickly to keep the Confederates from capturing the highground. The Union Army lost numerous Corps commanders wounded including General Reynolds, Sickles, Hancock and others over a period of a three day battle. Many Union regiments had lost large numbers of men with 30 percent or in the case of the 1st Minnesota an 80 percent casualty rate. We need to remember many Union regiments made forced marches in the day before the battles with little or no sleep then went straight into battle or dug entrenchments etc so sleep and rest were a premium for the Union Army at Gettysburg. The Confederates had well over a 100 plus cannon used on the 3rd day of Gettysburg with the state of ammunition supply unknown to the Union. So here are a couple points after a bitter battle with over 53,000 casualties on both sides:
1. Meade's Army of the Potomac was exhausted, beat up, and had suffered heavy losses of Noncoms, Junior officers and many Corps commanders. Meade needed time to reorganize his Army, resupply and reset with new commanders fit for duty.
2. The Confederate Army was far from broken. General Lee had some decent defensive ground with well over a hundred guns available but may have been very low on ammunition. However, Lee was still strong enough to stop or inflict heavy losses on any counterattack.
3. Meade did take some steps to pursue Lee with his cavalry. But the rains made it difficult for Mease to follow. Plus, the Army of the Potomac was too exhausted and disorganized to mount an aggressive pursuit.
The bottom line here is had Meade made an aggressive pursuit, he could have been beaten back or even had regiments that disbanded themselves from too many casualties. Meade was in a much less strong position to pursue Lee than critics of Meade think. Go carry a loaded pack on your back with a 9 lbs rifle on a 24 mile road march. You soon start to realize how ridiculous the "woulda, coulda, and shoulda" crowd of critics are when they have not had these experiences themselves. Go have the blood blisters pop on the heels of your feet for a while on a long road march. Pain makes you realize how ridiculous the critics of Meade really are.
We need to remember most bloody two or three day Civil War battles resulted in a stalemate of mutual exhaustion with no decisivie result caused by heavy casualties to both sides. Shiloh, Chickamauga, and Antietem come to mind. After a hard fight men fall asleep standing up because they haven't slept for days on ened prior to getting to the battle with all the skirmishing, patrolling, scouting and forced marches.
You forget the SPIRIT of the men, they had just soundly thrashed Lee and the FACT is that Lee was EXTREMELY short on ammunition, so a hard attack COULD EASILY have succeeded, GRANT would have attacked, so would Sherman!!
In the spring 1864 Grant had turned the tide of the war by taking overall command .........Hooker had resigned ....
Butterfield and Sickels should be shamed for time and eternity for their dishonorable conduct. Cleary, they exaggerated the truth or flat out lied to discredit Meade.
Echoing the implied sentiments of some below and noticing the small viewership here, I am reminded that if you wish for people to watch something it must be presented as a riveting documentary which due to time constraints and storyline can do little more than present one invariably short-sighted and deficient point of view.
The real tragedy is that it leaves the rest of us to contend to our everlasting horror with those whose entire knowledge of the event consists of the documentary and what they remember from high school. Yet these are convinced beyond risk of contrary persuasion that they are equipped to discuss intelligently the event. And if you really want people to watch, throw away the facts and make a great movie, all but assuring that the thoughtful among us will be forced to listen to exponentially increased hordes of dimwits who think they've become expert.
Troy Harman has several errors in the beginning of his presentation, but what really stands out is that these officers were LOYAL to Hooker or McClellan, instead of being LOYAL to the US Government!! DO your job the best you can, no matter whom the President puts in charge!
Sickles lost his "rabbi" in Hooker, when Hooker was made commander, Sickles surely thought he had it made only to see him removed three days before a major battle which at the time he would still be upset
Hooker resigned, he was not removed!
Excellent!
Emancipation and the US Governments commitment to "social change" is really paying off!
Sickle was given orders to cover the left flank. He fucked that up they had to scamble to cover the mistakes. It was good in the end though!
Pipe Creek. Pipe Creek. Not Pipe Clay Creek. WTH
I liked this very much, but was the 666th like! Am I in toruble?
He seems to be quite narrow in his research and appears to be judgmental & self-righteous because "everybody" knows all of truth in war between the states
Hernandez Christopher Hernandez Amy Clark Amy
Big mistake not REALLY savaging Lee after July 3rd....NB Forrest would NEVER have let that happen...EVER
Meade=TOO CAUTIOUS, no guts
it's interesting that this guy attributes ALL of Meade's detractors motivations as some kind of political games when there are PLENTY of reasons for MANY people to be righteously and seriously PISSED
forest never came within a cunts hair of being an army commander, nor would such a command been anything but a disaster. To compare meade to forrest is beyond ridiculous
Regarding the South being "middle age agricultural": the GDP of every Southern state was greater, some even three times greater, than any northern state. 1 in 200 went into higher education compared to 1 in 700 in the north, the South provided a greater number of statesmen, was actually more emancipated before the war in it's treatment of slaves than the north, and let it not be forgotten that Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only applied to those Southern states not already in Union hands, and not to northern states
NO, the south was NOT more emancipated before the war then the north, that is a remarkably idiotic thing to say. In the north, every state had freed the slaves, some were immediate and some were gradual, but every northern state had emancipated the slaves. The southern states NEVER emancipated any of their slaves, in fact, their intention was to expand slavery throughout the country, North and South and West! Lincoln only freed those slaves in those states that were in REBELLION against the government, for those few 1000 slaves in Northern states, he had no CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take away their property, which is why he quickly pushed the 13th amendment to remove slavery EVERYWHERE for all time!
Yes, the SOUTH was richer than the NORTH at the time, mostly because of KING Cotton and despite the LIES of the Lost Cause myth, the southerners would NOT end slavery while it remained profitable. The SOUTH was backward, not because they were poor, but because instead of investing in railroads, canals, manufacturing plants, they continued to reinvest in slaves, the MOST VALUABLE asset in the world at the time!
I support your viewpoint . The south apparently was so impoverished that the southern states paid Almost 70% of the federal revenues of 1860 (tariffs). The other revenue source was land sales . Wonder Why Lincoln invaded Virginia ?
Army is an odd outfit. McClellan could keep screwing the pooch repeatedly, and just got new commands. After all, the opponent was Lee --- you ain't gonna out-general him but in a dream. Grant won because he knew this; don't match yourself against your betters. Just attack, get your butt stomped, and attack again. Repeat the cycle endlessly. Your vastly superior numbers of men and guns will win by attrition.
This is a terrible assessment of grant vs Lee.
mnpd3, OBVIOUSLY not a scholarly approach to the Civil War!
Lee lost 5 of his first 6 battles against McClellan for gods sake! He then won 2nd Bull Run, because Pope ordered the unit defended against Longstreet to move and Longstreet cut a hole right through the line! No serious generalship done by Lee at all and it was against Pope! Lee lost Antietam because of his lost orders and only the fact that it was McClellan caused there to still be a ANV! The veritable genius Burnside stole a march on the great Lee and reached Fredricksburg unopposed, but political infighting in the army command caused the pontoon boats to not arrive as scheduled and the first units failed to cross at the fords when they had an opportunity and take Fredricksburg, so the AoP waited until the pontoons were built and Lee eventually arrived on Maryes Heights to defeat Burnside. Again, the MYTH of Lee strategic and tactical ability is overblown! Hooker came in charge and even HE stole a march on Lee, so much for Lee's supposed knowledge of what the enemy would do. The AoP got through the wilderness and then stopped for the nights, some units outside were told to withdraw back into positions inside! Then, stupidly, they put Howard on the flank, ANY TIME Howard was stopped, there was a chance that he would be overrun, because he was JUST that horrible of a commander. Hooker saw Jackson march across his front and march south, he ASSUMED that Jackson was retreating, had ANY COMPETENT GENERAL been in charge, they would have attacked Jackson from the rear as he was marching away and rout him and then turn on Lee's force with his full army and destroyed Lee right there! But Hooker grew cautious of Lee's reputation and sat through the night doing nothing, only to be flanked by Jackson's attack on Howard, which caused the entire army to flee! Lee was overcome with pride and arrogance at Gettysburg and it cost him yet another defeat! The great Lee was 4 and 7 against mediocre AT BEST Union Generals before he faced Grant and was out-generaled over and over again until he lost the war!
My, my, my! So we "applaud" redistribution of wealth do we?
Jordan S I will reframe from answering your insipid comments regarding redistribution of wealth and how you have conflated the issue with respect to the NPS. This is a place for learning and not trading acid tonged snipes at one another. Indeed I regret making the comments earlier that you are commenting on.
There is a strong whiff of revision in Harmon's presentation.
Nope.
Interesting approach on politics of military activity; however very poor in neutrality of perspectives. 21st century man looking at 19th mindsets w/ only one viewpoint of a collectivist ideology!
The Emancipation did not change the direction of the war. Neither did the Emancipation end slavery. In fact, the Emancipation didn't free a single slave; not one. Look it up. To hear a Park Ranger involved in history revisionism is sickening. The people who fought the war left their words about why they fought; it isn't necessary to listen to the words of a modern pseudo-historian. Sidenote: The official term for slaves encountered by the Federal army was "contraband." Know any wars fought over contraband? And, the slaves were put to work, even completing the Capitol Dome during the War in D.C.; a city not only capitol, but having the largest slave market on the eastern seaboard. Not to mention that a number of slave states never seceded, and fought Federally. How does that work?
😆 The proclamation served many purposes. It strengthened the position of abolitionists in England who didn't want the UK to assist or acknowledge the CSA. It caused further turmoil and division within the CSA politically for Davis who did not have full support of his governors. It signaled the increasing power of the Republican Radicals in chipping away at Lincoln's aversion to immediately ending slavery. Emancipation was a big step towards forcing the 13th Amendment 2+ years later. Yes, no slaves were freed (does that make you feel better? Or would rescinding the 13th, 14th, and 15th only make you happy?), but it was a major signal that an important pivot point had taken place.
Tuth of the matter the Lee and the army of northern Virginia beat the union army down so bad at Gettysburg that it would be nearly a year before they were able to invade the South again in Virginia.
He allowed Lees entire army to walk back to the south. He should have tried for treason. General Sickles disobeyed meades orders and saved the union cause at Gettysburg. He won the medal of honor for it. Yet today general sickles is remembered for all the wrong reasons. Lincoln was furious that meade did not pursue and end the war. Instead it dragged on for another 2 years. Meade stood down on orders from rome. General Sickles saved the union, not meade.
Northerners were just as racist if not worse than the South. I noticed this going to boarding schools in Connecticut and Maine! Get real!
obviously not all.
SassyHershsey Indeed. Lincoln wanted to essentially deport all freed slaves back to Africa. Hence the nation of Liberia.
Angela Coleman Agreed.I was speaking of my own experiences as a student 40 years ago.
SassyHershsey SassyHershey d
SassyHershey, no offense intended, but you remind me too much of those people screaming today that "ALL WHITES ARE RACISTS!" All groups of people have racists, sadly, but never forget that it is that generation of whites who soundly rejected their parents' racism and supported civil rights for black Americans.
So quickly it went from General Meade and his actions at Gettysburg to slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation, do we have to be so politically correct and every lecture?
Politically correct? Are you sure you know what that means? I've only listened to the first 12 minutes so far and it seems to me like the speaker provides good context about what was at stake after the Battle of Gettysburg. You have to admit the Emancipation Proclamation was an important turning point in the war in its own right, and the speaker makes a good case as to why.
Bravo116 and OCMJ Up until Meade, generals were promoted based on pecking order. They were all Democrats. The lecturer is pointing out that this time, due to the emancipation proclamation, generals had to support total war to get the job.
Also this talk of Meade is really no different than all the talks about George Washington during the fight for our Independence! Gates, Charles Lee, Arnold, etc all thought they should be in charge of the Army & that Washington was an incapable leader! See thats why Lee should be so respected in my opinion even if u dont believe in what he was fighting for... Everyone knew Lee was a bad ass General who deserved to General even the Union Generals & troops knew this! & no other southern General where most of the Good Generals at the time all joined the CSA! They never questioned the leadership of Lee! Again I noted below the mistakes i believe he made at Gettysburg... But overall no one questioned the leadership of Lee!
I see. Just like Rommel.
Lee was NOT unquestioned, his decisions were often questioned by many people including Lee himself! He was a mediocre general at best, he only defeated McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker, not exactly cream of the crop generals for the AoP.
I also believe Reynolds was correct when he talked about freeing the slaves & all it would take to do it... I wrote this on another video about the Civil War as well! I dont believe they needed war to end slavery! What was the biggest issue as to why France or Britain wouldn't join the CSA when Lee was driving the Union back into PA? Because countries like France & Britain who didnt have slaves were not going to ally with a rebel army with an institution of slavery! I believe if the Northern Republicans along diplomats from France & Britain saying we will not trade nor be allies with a country who still has an institution of slavery! I believe the Southern states would have eventually came around & free'd the slaves with all that would be lost if they didnt! But the firing on Fort Sumter then raising of 75k troops that invaded the South... There was no more room for political talks to end the war! Then Lincoln made it a war about freeing the slaves... What if we could have ended slavery politically over the next 5-10 yrs instead of 5 yrs of war & over a million deaths?
Interesting idea for an alternative history story. How would the south had been different if they had come to emancipation on their own instead of forced on them by a humiliating defeat?
jason robbins The Southern planters were intractable and overconfident by 1860. Boycotts may have worked in 1820 or 1830, but perhaps arresting the ringleaders and court-martialing all the military ones and holding the political ones for evaluation of treason while freeing the slaves. Trashing the fake honor and reputation of Lee, Davis and the rest of the confederate generals and imprisoning them without a war would have definitely taken the wind out of the sales of the whole flawed confederacy idea.
Many Generals in the south wanted to free the slaves b4 firing on fort sumter... Its why I always say the Civil Wasn't just about the fight for slaves... Many CSA Generals didnt own slaves & wanted them free to join the ranks of the confederate army... Longstreet wanted the slaves free'd!
Yet dont forget that many Union Generals owned slaves as well... So its not just a black & white issue... There is a grey area....
The CSA lost... But it wasn't humiliating... They fought for what they believed... & they mainly kicked the shit out of the Union army despite having no navy, no shoes, lack of adequate weapons... The union was very close to losing! If Lee wasn't turned back at Gettysburg, Lincoln would've been forced to surrender or some sort of truce... It was that close...
Lee didn't fight to keep slaves! Generals like Lee, Longstreet, Thomas Jackson etc wanted to end slavery... Yet they also believed it was the states rights to choose whether or not to end it... Its like Thomas Jefferson... He owned MANY slaves yet he spoke out against slavery all the time... Back then there really was no simple way to just end slavery... The CSA didn't end slavery because it was more of the politicians of the democratic party like Jefferson Davis.... Generals like Patrick Cleburne pleaded with Davis to free the slaves!
There were some CSA generals who fought of course to keep slaves... Like Nathon Bedford Forrest who went on to create the KKK! Fuck that guy... Yet main Generals like Lee, Longstreet, Jackson etc were all smart enough to know that if they kept slaves that France nor Britain would ally with the CSA as long as they had an institution of slavery! Its why many top generals pleaded with Davis to free slaves!
I'd say it takes a lot of faith/optimism to believe that Southern planters would give up their most valuable "property" (with some $2B in 1860) without a fight anywhere in the near future. Although mechanization would eventually kill slavery, it wouldn't be in 10 year, perhaps in 40 years. Remember that sharecropping more the less kept black in peonage well into the 1930s.
Poor speaker
I'm about 10 minutes in to this and I see that this park ranger is taking vast liberties in the interpretation of the emancipation proclamation. Moreover it seems that he is attempting to insert race relations as perceived in the modern era in to a set of events in which they do not belong. Had I been at this lecture I would certainly have interrupted his game with dozens of questions about the basis of his assertions.
Let's see if his disingenuousness continues further.
Interrupting a lecture is moronic. Perhaps if you disagree with someone giving a park sanctioned lecture maybe an adult thing to do would be to leave😂
@@smizdeazy interrupted? Earth to Smiz... Earth to Smiz... come in Smiz!
@@causam2508 yes, he said he would interrupt if he were there. Hello? Earth to Causam..you there?
@@smizdeazy you mean the way you are interrupting me? Asking questions? Calling out? God forbid.
@@billisaacs702 your words not mine. You said you would’ve interrupted his lecture because you disagreed, am I misunderstanding what you posted?
Shelby Foote is more honest than this employee of the Federal Government!
+SassyHershsey SassyHershey you've obviously never been on a tour with him. one of the smartest, well researched historians of the battle I've ever met. There's a reason his lecture is in a giant lecture hall and not just the small auditorium most of these are in. Also note the number of people at the beginning who raise their hands that know him or been on a tour with him... there is a reason for this and it's not his status as "just a federal employee."
mak52580 My apologies. Sorry for my statement. No I haven't. I am studying Shelby Foote's first volume almost finished and have just in the past 3 years studied this subject -which I have avoided my whole 59 year life. First time my mother took me to Gettysburg I was 4 1963, The Western Wars are never really discussed I find in popular culture, nor the Peninsula Campaigns of 1862 long before "Fredericksburg". I was a Federal employee Maritime Lawyer for 15 years - therein lies my prejudgment of working in D.C. my hometown.
Foote writes with an agenda.
T. Davis What writer does not?
''Emancipation unarguabley the right policy from a human rights standpoint''
Haha what? xD You taken a look around you lately?
@BMode32 common sense
what a load of cow dung! The one thing America has never had is a large peacetime standing army. We have been at war for the past 15 years with no end in sight, and even the army we have now would have a hard time "occupying" the Confederate states.The proof is in the news, of how great a job we are doing at keeping the insurgency of Iraq and Afghanistan in check... lol Too much politics and BS in this presentation. This story would have fit perfectly in Jubal Early's book. Please, just do the civil war stuff