I too live in Vicksburg. White Vicksburg didn’t celebrate July 4. Black Vicksburgers celebrated July 4 as well as January 1 as emancipation days regularly except when White Vicksburgers intervened to suppress those celebrations. For that reason many Black Vicksburgers celebrated July 4 away from the city. So in some ways it’s true that “the city” didn’t celebrate July 4, but it’s a lot more complicated than that.
@@msspi764 yes and no I also take with a huge grain of salt a lot of the recent criticism because they come from the work types who only want their version taught
7. Grant was helped out considerably by Confederate short-sightedness, ineptitude, and disfunction. Grant found the plantations and farms surrounding Vicksburg bursting with food and supplies, just sitting there waiting for the Union army to plunder. Meanwhile, Vicksburg was left starving. While Pemberton had pleaded with civilian authorities to gather up and supply him with as much as possible, his pleas fell on deaf ears. Neither the county or state officials felt it was within their authority to requisition supplies from private citizens, and those private citizens were unwilling to share their hoards. In the end, they all lost. Another little tidbit: after taking Vicksburg, Grant discovered warehouses in the city full of rice, beans, coffee and other foodstuffs, again just sitting there untapped. It seems the merchants of the city were too greedy to feed their own defenders or help fellow civilians trapped in the siege.
The confederates had no grand strategy. They were bound to loose because their only hope was that the union would give up. Never based your strategy on your opponent doing what you want him to do.
Grant is considered the first modern General. When the war started, it was commonly believed it would be a short conflict with relatively few casualties. That changed quickly when the two sides realized the others resolve and they saw the deaths being inflicted. Grant was the first to see that simply winning battles wasn’t going to be enough to win the war. You had to completely cripple the South economically and crush the will to resist. Grant used all the armies of the North in a coordinated strategy to finally achieve victory. This Vicksburg Campaign is considered textbook. It’s literally still studied a West Point.
@@user-cg6nc5ip8cUnion troops attacked Southern infrastructure such as railroads, factories and farms while living off the land and freeing tens of thousands of slaves. They were ordered not to harass civilians directly. If Grant is a war criminal, then every general since is also.
@@user-cg6nc5ip8csouthern generals were no better. They burned northern towns, forced civilians to pay ransoms, etc. let’s not forget there summary executions of Black troops, even if they surrendered.
They fought for a hope perhaps Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election. The end was when Lincoln won against McClallen! The results: 23% of the 18-45 years old white male people dead in the Confederacy! Important for all 3 dead soldiers in battle were 5 dead soldiers in campsites from illnesses. Longer war more dead from illnesses in campsites! The numbers are 12% in the Border states and ONLY 7 (SEVEN) % in the North! The result was a lot of Southern girls did not find any good husband candidates and a lot of widows with orphans!
You left a huge part of the surrender conditions out. The Confederate soldiers could keep their personal property, except for slaves. That was huge for that time.
I thought Vicksburg was more important and I had this discussion with my kids history teacher the teacher insisted that Gettysburg was more important because it stopped the south from advancing North. I still think that maybe Gettysburg they might not have been able to really capture Philadelphia for them to have Victory they would have had to get up to New York where there was a lot of people opposed to the war. The flip side was that once Vicksburg was taking the South no longer had any real control of the Mississippi River and it really damaged their supply lines and their ability to keep resupplying the Army and fighting
@@ladyagnes9430 I'd say that while Vicksburg was _more_ important, Gettysburg was still important in its own way. I wanna say that Lee's objective was to cut off Washington, DC from the rest of the Union and force the North to sue for peace. Gettysburg was the battle that thwarted what may have been the South's last best chance to win. What Vicksburg did was to cripple the South's economy and ability to supply their troops, which was more important in the long term, but Gettysburg stopped an immediate threat that might have put the North in an untenable position. Just because you're building a devastating attack on one side of the board, doesn't mean you can ignore the checkmate threat from the other. This is why both victories were important.
You're nuts. "Good luck" had virtually NOTHING to do with Grant's genius plan to take Vicksburg. Grant's eventual winning strategy is studied in military colleges throughout the world now.
The CSA did not have a boss in the west. Pemberton mostly stayed in Vicksburg while Grant whupped the Confederates' scattered forces from a central position. Pemberton should have been ordered out of Vicksburg by somebody so the army could be united as one force. If Jackson fell, Vicksburg was untenable. How Pemberton could not understand that, is a great mystery.
In this case it's not really fair to blame Johnston. He didn't have enough men to do anything, and Davis kept undermining his authority by giving contradictory orders to Pemberton.
#1. SECRECY. One book I read on Abraham Lincoln said Lincoln didn’t know where Grant’s army was for six weeks prior to Grant crossing the Mississippi south of Vicksburg.
Such is the inherent flaw with confederacies, ESPECIALLY when trying to wage a war. It’s part of the reason the US federalized after it gained independence.
I would boil Grant’s victory at Vicksburg down to three reasons: 1. Grant had more men than the Confederates and could make up any losses. 2. Grant was better equipped and supplied than the Confederates. 3. Grant had a large inland navy, commanded by a competent admiral.
According to Bruce Catton. Gen CF Smith at Shiloh coined the term immediate and unconditional surrender after Buckner sent a note through Smith asking Grant what his terms would be. Grant asked Smith what do you recommend and Smith said “. Immediately and unconditional surrender”
In hindsight, after the Vicksburg surrender, Grant should have kept the officers for a couple extra weeks to allow the regular Confederation soldiers to disperse back to their homes and farms.
Funny, because he said that Grant was only without a supply line for 3 days until he captured Grand Gulf. If you are going to critcize a video you might want to watch it first. Obviously you didn't.
Grant had better supply, more men, more weapons, heavier weapons, more ammunition. Im other words his victory is not surprising, but was to be expected.
If you knew anything about the Vicksburg campaign, you'd know that Grant was outnumbered 55,000 to 35,000, yet cut loose from his supply lines and marched into the heart of enemy territory. Yet he outmaneuvered his enemy so deftly that he was able to beat them in detail.
History has many tales of outmanned, outgunned independence movements winning. I mean, have you ever heard of this country called The United States of America? They had less men, less supplies, less everything than the British...yet they won.
@@Andrewmichealsmith actually the logistics were a bit of a problem for the British. 5,000 miles. Also, the Americans had more men in most of the battles, certainly towards the end. Camden, 2:1. Yorktown 2:1, saratoga, 2:1, cowpens, 3:2
Grant was never without a supply line. It began at Grand Gulf. if you’re going to publish something you need to know what you’re talking about. You don’t.
He massively outnumbered and out supplied an enemy that was undermanned and poorly supplied. The only thing he needed to do was not massively screw up and throw away a won.
Yah, Grant won only because he had more men, and more supplies. That's what Southerners have been saying since they had their butts handed to them by their arch enemies. The fact is, the South had the worst leaders because they were stupid enough to think they could fight a war against a country that had a lot more men and manufacturing power. And what is even worse, they were motivated to engage in that war because they feared they would lose the right to own other human beings. The South was lucky at the beginning of the war because the Union had generals who were not dedicated to beating the South. Many of them had other motives that diluted their ambition to actually crush the rebels. And most were unwilling to sacrifice as many of their own men that it would take to do that. Grant was given the task of crushing the South's ability to fight and he did what had to be done to do it. Grant may not have been a Napoleon, or an Alexander, but he was definitely a skilled general.
@@Mericaball No. That is not Leftist drivel, but thanks for saying that because I was expecting that response. I am a hard right conservative and have been for over 40 years. I am a member of the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was the first Republican to be elected president, and the party was established with abolition of slavery as its chief goal. The majority of states that seceded, did so BEFORE Lincoln was even sworn in. That's how much they feared that Lincoln was going to take their slaves. Nearly all White Southerners refuse to recognize that their ancestors were filthy beasts. They lost the war and then went for 100 years after that oppressing the people who the war was meant to free. That is utterly sick and completely evil. The only thing that comes close to that level of evil is the Lefts never ending lust to murder unborn children. And now, White Southerners have joined my party, Lincoln's party, GRANT'S party, and claim to be Republicans. Their votes are so important to the party now that Republican leaders actually listen to them. It is sickening that people worship their evil ancestors and refuse to see them for what they are, would be given any respect whatsoever. Lincoln and Grant would be enraged.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Port_Hudson Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, 1864, but Port Hudson did the same on July 9, so there is a mistake in the presentation.
Grant was by far the superior general. He understood the bigger picture which Lee did not. Grant was also just as good as Lee in thinking on his feet and quickly adapting to changing battlefield situations. If greater resources was all that was needed then why was every previous Union General, save Meade, defeated and unsuccessful? The fact is Grant was really the best army commander of the American Civil War.
Grant was always willing to lose the first day of battle in order to learn the enemy defenses. Then he would pounce on the second day and win.
If Ken Burns is to be believed, the city of Vicksburg didn’t celebrate the 4th of July again until 1942
I have family in and around Vicksburg. It is true that they didn't celebrate Independence Day until 1942.
I too live in Vicksburg. White Vicksburg didn’t celebrate July 4. Black Vicksburgers celebrated July 4 as well as January 1 as emancipation days regularly except when White Vicksburgers intervened to suppress those celebrations. For that reason many Black Vicksburgers celebrated July 4 away from the city. So in some ways it’s true that “the city” didn’t celebrate July 4, but it’s a lot more complicated than that.
And you have to take Ken Burns’s documentary on the Civil War with a huge grain of salt.
@@msspi764 life usually is
@@msspi764 yes and no
I also take with a huge grain of salt a lot of the recent criticism because they come from the work types who only want their version taught
We just need coffee, salt, and bread. What a badass.
Is that why he went broke? Ask Ferdinand Ward and the ponzi scheme. 😮
Great Presentation! I would have loved to see some maps interspersed with it.
7. Grant was helped out considerably by Confederate short-sightedness, ineptitude, and disfunction. Grant found the plantations and farms surrounding Vicksburg bursting with food and supplies, just sitting there waiting for the Union army to plunder. Meanwhile, Vicksburg was left starving. While Pemberton had pleaded with civilian authorities to gather up and supply him with as much as possible, his pleas fell on deaf ears. Neither the county or state officials felt it was within their authority to requisition supplies from private citizens, and those private citizens were unwilling to share their hoards. In the end, they all lost. Another little tidbit: after taking Vicksburg, Grant discovered warehouses in the city full of rice, beans, coffee and other foodstuffs, again just sitting there untapped. It seems the merchants of the city were too greedy to feed their own defenders or help fellow civilians trapped in the siege.
The confederates had no grand strategy. They were bound to loose because their only hope was that the union would give up. Never based your strategy on your opponent doing what you want him to do.
Bovina was the disaster. I live right down the road.😮
That culture of exploitation seems to sum up the whole ethos of the confederacy
@stephenandersen4625 They also hung on to the fantasy that England and France would intervene.
Excellent insight most people don't know. I have never seen these facts emphasized in popular discussions about the Vicksburg campaign.
Grant is considered the first modern General. When the war started, it was commonly believed it would be a short conflict with relatively few casualties. That changed quickly when the two sides realized the others resolve and they saw the deaths being inflicted. Grant was the first to see that simply winning battles wasn’t going to be enough to win the war. You had to completely cripple the South economically and crush the will to resist. Grant used all the armies of the North in a coordinated strategy to finally achieve victory. This Vicksburg Campaign is considered textbook. It’s literally still studied a West Point.
In other words, Grant was a war criminal .
@@user-cg6nc5ip8cUnion troops attacked Southern infrastructure such as railroads, factories and farms while living off the land and freeing tens of thousands of slaves. They were ordered not to harass civilians directly. If Grant is a war criminal, then every general since is also.
@@user-cg6nc5ip8csouthern generals were no better. They burned northern towns, forced civilians to pay ransoms, etc. let’s not forget there summary executions of Black troops, even if they surrendered.
War has never been fought by Marquis of Queensbury rules or to your standards. Wize up!
@@user-cg6nc5ip8c CSA generals did some pretty reprehensible things as well and would be war criminals in your eyes.
Once the confederates lost Vicksburg they lost at Gettysburg as well they should of just surrendered right there
They fought for a hope perhaps Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election. The end was when Lincoln won against McClallen! The results: 23% of the 18-45 years old white male people dead in the Confederacy! Important for all 3 dead soldiers in battle were 5 dead soldiers in campsites from illnesses. Longer war more dead from illnesses in campsites! The numbers are 12% in the Border states and ONLY 7 (SEVEN) % in the North! The result was a lot of Southern girls did not find any good husband candidates and a lot of widows with orphans!
Southerners, unlike Northeners don't give up that easily. Ever heard of anyone retiring to the North?
You do not surrender easily when you are fighting an ideological war.
I have @@user-cg6nc5ip8c
…they should have just surrendered…
You left a huge part of the surrender conditions out. The Confederate soldiers could keep their personal property, except for slaves. That was huge for that time.
It proved to be a huge mistake.
Thought they had to give up their rifles as well, keeping just pistols?
Grant was intimidated by Lee at Appomattox. Wouldn't you be? 😮
Almost as important a battle as Gettysburg.
both finished up on the same day
I thought Vicksburg was more important and I had this discussion with my kids history teacher the teacher insisted that Gettysburg was more important because it stopped the south from advancing North.
I still think that maybe Gettysburg they might not have been able to really capture Philadelphia for them to have Victory they would have had to get up to New York where there was a lot of people opposed to the war.
The flip side was that once Vicksburg was taking the South no longer had any real control of the Mississippi River and it really damaged their supply lines and their ability to keep resupplying the Army and fighting
@@ladyagnes9430 You are right. After Vicksburg the South was sure to lose. After Gettysburg the situation returned pretty much to what it had been.
@@ladyagnes9430 I'd say that while Vicksburg was _more_ important, Gettysburg was still important in its own way. I wanna say that Lee's objective was to cut off Washington, DC from the rest of the Union and force the North to sue for peace. Gettysburg was the battle that thwarted what may have been the South's last best chance to win. What Vicksburg did was to cripple the South's economy and ability to supply their troops, which was more important in the long term, but Gettysburg stopped an immediate threat that might have put the North in an untenable position.
Just because you're building a devastating attack on one side of the board, doesn't mean you can ignore the checkmate threat from the other. This is why both victories were important.
In 1864 the North was scared that Jubal Early took Washington DC in his assault, I think the South could have still won in 1864 @@stephennewton2223
You're nuts. "Good luck" had virtually NOTHING to do with Grant's genius plan to take Vicksburg. Grant's eventual winning strategy is studied in military colleges throughout the world now.
So are Lee and Jackson at Chancellorville...😮
General Grant .!!! Great Humanitarian
Ferdinand Ward liked him. Look it up. 😮
The CSA did not have a boss in the west. Pemberton mostly stayed in Vicksburg while Grant whupped the Confederates' scattered forces from a central position. Pemberton should have been ordered out of Vicksburg by somebody so the army could be united as one force. If Jackson fell, Vicksburg was untenable. How Pemberton could not understand that, is a great mystery.
Three of them are John Pemberton, Joe Johnston and Jefferson Davis.
In this case it's not really fair to blame Johnston. He didn't have enough men to do anything, and Davis kept undermining his authority by giving contradictory orders to Pemberton.
#1. SECRECY. One book I read on Abraham Lincoln said Lincoln didn’t know where Grant’s army was for six weeks prior to Grant crossing the Mississippi south of Vicksburg.
This would be more informative with more maps and troop movements, less random photos and re-enactors.
Sherman was taking notes for his march to the sea
The Confederacy would not send troops from all states. So only troops from local States helped.
Not a good strategy to try to win a war.
Such is the inherent flaw with confederacies, ESPECIALLY when trying to wage a war. It’s part of the reason the US federalized after it gained independence.
I would boil Grant’s victory at Vicksburg down to three reasons: 1. Grant had more men than the Confederates and could make up any losses. 2. Grant was better equipped and supplied than the Confederates. 3. Grant had a large inland navy, commanded by a competent admiral.
Plus, starvation...
I think the second surrender offer from was not actually from Grant but one of his officers.
According to Bruce Catton. Gen CF Smith at Shiloh coined the term immediate and unconditional surrender after Buckner sent a note through Smith asking Grant what his terms would be. Grant asked Smith what do you recommend and Smith said “. Immediately and unconditional surrender”
In hindsight, after the Vicksburg surrender, Grant should have kept the officers for a couple extra weeks to allow the regular Confederation soldiers to disperse back to their homes and farms.
Unconditional Surrender Grant
dziękuję
Pemberton times 6?
Shivaji Maharaj biography please make video
Funny, because he said that Grant was only without a supply line for 3 days until he captured Grand Gulf. If you are going to critcize a video you might want to watch it first. Obviously you didn't.
I stand corrected!
Did the Union run supplies up-river from New Orleans?
No. The Mississippi was also blocked at Port Hudson, between Vicksburg and New Orleans.
@@aaronfleming9426 And Port Hudson didn't fall until after Vicksburg did, albeit only a few days later.
@@MarsJenkar That is true!
Did he get there the firstest with the mostest?
Grant had better be glad Forrest did not help defend Vicksburg.
It's not the Union....it's the United States
Grant had better supply, more men, more weapons, heavier weapons, more ammunition.
Im other words his victory is not surprising, but was to be expected.
And he knew how to coordinate them.
If you knew anything about the Vicksburg campaign, you'd know that Grant was outnumbered 55,000 to 35,000, yet cut loose from his supply lines and marched into the heart of enemy territory. Yet he outmaneuvered his enemy so deftly that he was able to beat them in detail.
U S Grant was a true soldier. He obeyed orders all through the war.
Well, lessee. You have more men, more supplies, more of everything...kind of inevitable.
The supplies were there for the insurrectionists, but they failed to use them.
But as every good general knows, logistics wins wars.
History has many tales of outmanned, outgunned independence movements winning. I mean, have you ever heard of this country called The United States of America? They had less men, less supplies, less everything than the British...yet they won.
You could have said the same thing about the British army during the Revolution!
@@Andrewmichealsmith actually the logistics were a bit of a problem for the British. 5,000 miles. Also, the Americans had more men in most of the battles, certainly towards the end.
Camden, 2:1. Yorktown 2:1, saratoga, 2:1, cowpens, 3:2
Grant was never without a supply line. It began at Grand Gulf. if you’re going to publish something you need to know what you’re talking about. You don’t.
He massively outnumbered and out supplied an enemy that was undermanned and poorly supplied. The only thing he needed to do was not massively screw up and throw away a won.
He outnumbered the confederates by over 2:1. That tends to help.
Yah, Grant won only because he had more men, and more supplies.
That's what Southerners have been saying since they had their butts handed to them by their arch enemies.
The fact is, the South had the worst leaders because they were stupid enough to think they could fight a war against a country that had a lot more men and manufacturing power.
And what is even worse, they were motivated to engage in that war because they feared they would lose the right to own other human beings.
The South was lucky at the beginning of the war because the Union had generals who were not dedicated to beating the South. Many of them had other motives that diluted their ambition to actually crush the rebels. And most were unwilling to sacrifice as many of their own men that it would take to do that. Grant was given the task of crushing the South's ability to fight and he did what had to be done to do it. Grant may not have been a Napoleon, or an Alexander, but he was definitely a skilled general.
True; it helps. But other factors involved as well.
@@deezynar lol wow that is some leftist drivel right there
@@Mericaball
No.
That is not Leftist drivel, but thanks for saying that because I was expecting that response.
I am a hard right conservative and have been for over 40 years. I am a member of the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was the first Republican to be elected president, and the party was established with abolition of slavery as its chief goal. The majority of states that seceded, did so BEFORE Lincoln was even sworn in. That's how much they feared that Lincoln was going to take their slaves.
Nearly all White Southerners refuse to recognize that their ancestors were filthy beasts. They lost the war and then went for 100 years after that oppressing the people who the war was meant to free. That is utterly sick and completely evil. The only thing that comes close to that level of evil is the Lefts never ending lust to murder unborn children.
And now, White Southerners have joined my party, Lincoln's party, GRANT'S party, and claim to be Republicans. Their votes are so important to the party now that Republican leaders actually listen to them. It is sickening that people worship their evil ancestors and refuse to see them for what they are, would be given any respect whatsoever. Lincoln and Grant would be enraged.
3:1 is what is considered necessary when attacking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Port_Hudson Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, 1864, but Port Hudson did the same on July 9, so there is a mistake in the presentation.
He had far greater resources that's all
Lee left rations for his troops in Richmond to be burned when he passed through to appomattox. Would grant have allowed that to happen.
Grant was by far the superior general. He understood the bigger picture which Lee did not. Grant was also just as good as Lee in thinking on his feet and quickly adapting to changing battlefield situations.
If greater resources was all that was needed then why was every previous Union General, save Meade, defeated and unsuccessful? The fact is Grant was really the best army commander of the American Civil War.
He did not. He was actually out numbered by the confederates.
@@Neneset 70,000 Union 33,000 Confederate troops. Grant definitely had numerical superiority.
@@patrickporter1864 Lee couldn't carry everything.