Battle for the South ⚔️ How did the Union Strategy prevail in the American Civil War? DOCUMENTARY
🎨 Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/historymarche
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
🚩 The four-year long Civil War in the United States was America's bloodiest and most divisive conflict, pitting the Union Army against the Confederate States of America. But how did the Union manage to create and execute a military strategy that played into its strengths and Confederate weaknesses, to achieve final victory?
🚩 Consider supporting my work on Patreon and enjoy early access ad-free videos for as little as $1: / historymarche
🚩 This video was made in collaboration with Strategy Stuff / @strategystuff Check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve.
📢 Narrated by David McCallion
🎵 Music:
EpidemicSound
00:00 Start of the video
03:34 Sponsored Ad
05:25 Main video
#AmericanCivilWar #documentary #history
🎨 Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/historymarche Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. 🚩 The four-year long Civil War in the United States was America's bloodiest and most divisive conflict, pitting the Union Army against the Confederate States of America. But how did the Union manage to create and execute a military strategy that played into its strengths and Confederate weaknesses, to achieve final victory? 🚩 This video was made in collaboration with Strategy Stuff kzhead.info/tools/Jn_zQa80o1l8FgAfVofHRQ.html Check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve.
@HistoryMarche, how much "blue-chip art" have YOU personally invested in?
The Union couldnt find Americans to fight the south: so Lincoln mass imported Irish and Germans to fight the war that the big oligarchs wanted, against the Confederacy. Hundreds of Thousands of Foreigners were enlisted to destroy the South; and it eventually succeeded. 100,000 + Irish and 100,000 +Dutch Soliders used by the Union. Absolutely shameful.
Nicely done video. I wouldn't mind seeing you do a video like this one but for the Revolutionary War. I would love to see you explain the respective strategies of George Washington and John Howe.
Will we ever see part 3 of Battle of Keresztes, 1596 AD,for God's sake?
@@hh8575 Yes sir. Sorry about the delay. Expected next weekend
That segueway into the commercial was so smooth I'm not actually sure when it began. For a moment there I was trying to understand how investments in art connected to the Northern plan to blockade the South. I had a Rick and Morty "Oh my God! It's still the commercial!" moment there, but in reverse.
I was the same. Why are they mentioning this in the modern world..........Oh wait I see what you did there lol
😅 Yeah, some sponsors want smoother integration. But in my defense, I placed the "Sponsored by Masterworks" text in the bottom left corner as soon as the promo bit started.
@@HistoryMarche I was distracted by the art though!🤣
@@HistoryMarche Oh yes no harm no foul. I was so focused on the presentation I did not even see that lol
Great work🤣🤣🤣
McClellan was entirely too timid as a frontline commander, but he was a genius at logistics, organization and training the forces he commanded. He laid the solid foundation of the professional fighting force that Grant successfully ground Lee down with. The Anaconda Plan was also pivotal for strangling the South. This combined with Jefferson Davis favoritism of Braxton Bragg's incompetence and personal grudge against Joseph E. Johnston directly lead to the loss of Atlanta and the virtual annihilation of the Army of Tennessee as a viable fighting force while ensuring the crippling of what little ability the South had to continue the war.
Should be noted tho, his men were still starving and lacked a lot of basic kit. A common problem, but there's the misconception he solved it by being static
& Was an illegal act of war! The Southern Confederacy was an independent country
@@lekebbles1392 initially yes. Particularly for the first few months he took over. The army was still operating under many of the prewar policies on foraging and logistics. He did largely remedy that by the time of his departure however and was one of the reasons for his popularity with the soldiers.
@@catherinekelly532 that's somewhat murky. While it's true that Virginia had a clause that it had only joined the Union on condition it could leave whenever it wished, most of the CSA members did not. Nor historically do centralized governments usually tolerate the exit of parts of the country. Under the initial Articles of Confederation, yes the Southern States would have had much more of a claim to the right to simply leave, the strengthening of the Federal government with the reforms following the Articles of Confederation failing definitively put the Federal government in primacy over the States.
@@catherinekelly532 Oh shut up about it already.
“Unwilling to risk a head-on battle with the confederates with only 150k men. . .” - McClellan didn’t lose though, he merely failed to win.
"But, what if they have 200,000 men?!?"
Failing to win is the same as losing if you are fighting an offensive war.
@@kennethkellogg6556 For an oversimplified explanation to my quotation; look up Oversimplified KZhead videos on the Civil War.
Oversimplified reference? There’s a tax for that.
@@Magnus_Opus you know what, old buddy, old pal? You're fired.
I found this video to be pretty decent. It ends up demonstrating what Grant said was the reason for the union victory. In July of 1865 Grant wrote a summary of why they won the war and he said: “The enemy had far inferior resources and so I determined to make the war one of attrition so that there be no other recourse to them but surrender.” His strategy was to grind them down, as this video demonstrated.
Same thing happened in both world wars. The allies had more troops, guns, and resources.
@@geoffreyprior8931 To a point, it happened in the Napoleonic Wars as well. France was steadily worn down over years of endless conflict despite Napoleon's victories. The Grande Armee that invaded Russia was much weaker than its raw numbers suggested. In the end, even Napoleon's genius couldn't overcome the combined strength of the entire continent, as France had been horribly worn down by then.
The reason for the union victory was that Lee foolishly invaded union territory twice and suffered defeats at Antietam and Gettysburg. Yes he had fewer resources, but he did not need to win a decisive battle to win the war either. Washington also had inferior resources, but he won by avoiding decisive defeats like the ones Lee suffered. Then of course also the problem is that the confederacy is based on an evil idea, and there were a lot of foul people in places of authority.
Yes and that’s the problem. He knew they were on the ropes and still decided to let his armies pillage, rape, and burn everything in the south.
The South couldn't even afford most of its victories, given how costly they often were. On the other hand, Grant could afford some of his losses, given that they further wore down southern manpower while he could compensate his losses to a far greater degree.
My great-great-great grandfather signed up for the 10th West Virginia infantry in 1863 at just 16 years old. He wanted to fight for the Union, which WV had chosen to join. I also just realized that Lee’s surrender and Lincoln’s assassination took place in the same week.
You should find the interview done of Lee a few weeks after his surrender. I can’t remember what paper it was for but a NY reporter sat with him and interviewed him and they talked about Lincoln’s assassination.
Wow that's cool about your great great great Grandfather.. I just watched a really really good movie about President Lincoln it was awesome I see it in Netflix or maybe KZhead shit I forget the name but if you never seen it the movie was made not that long ago
Brilliantly done! I did a Civil War Battlefield tour a few years ago of the eastern battlefields . This brought me back.
Thanks so much!
Two of my favourite history channels giving each other props. It means that I have a good taste in KZhead channels. Keep up the good work @HistoryMarche and @FlashPointHistory!!!
@@curranlakhani HM is run by an awesome guy
this is copied line by line from the channel 'strategy stuff'
I live a mile away from a battle field. In nc it is fascinating to learn about the history of our civil war.
While Grant did wear down Lee what I think is really overlooked is how each battle threatened Lee’s position and forced him to keep retreating to Richmond until he had nowhere to go, trapping him. It was surrender the Capitol or die
Yes, Grant was making reasonable attempts to maneuver, rather than slog it out. Lee enjoyed significant advantages playing defense on that ground. Grant forced a few errors, but none big enough that they could be effectively exploited before Lee recovered.
@@ComradeOgilvy1984 The Overland Campaign was a hard-fought series of battles, but consider the Union had fought the Confederacy for three years and suffered severe losses for little gain. Grant suffers large loses in troops too, but by mid-June 1864, Lee's Army is under siege at Petersburg. His army surrenders the following April to Grant. Grant did exactly what Lincon asked, he took the field and he and his subordinates defeated the Confederacy by destroying its armies in approximately one year.
Very interesting decisions and circumstances led to the CSA downfall. Lee split Grant after the wilderness and almost wiped him out but by by then had lost too many experienced officers and his orders weren’t followed in time. After Chickaumaga Johnston dismissed Forrest and several others who had demanded he push on and retake Chattanooga, which hindsight showed would’ve been the correct decision. Wilder doesn’t receive enough credit in ACW history. He took out loans from Indians businessmen to buy his unit repeating rifles which played a big part in the battles around Chickamagua.
@johnfleet235 You'd think someone could have pitted Union strengths against Rebel weaknesses effectively before Grant but not really.
The Union Late war strategy was brilliant: “We win by just not retreating, if we can’t lose, then we have to win.”
As a History Teacher I love using History Marche in the classroom. Keep up the great work!
So you're letting KZhead do your teaching for you?
@@Lawlzinator i agree, but some videos could be very useful for students as a source.
@@speeden7553 Yes these videos are extremely good primers to introduce a topic.
@@Lawlzinator Showing a KZhead video to introduce a topic or teach a historic battle is a lot better than other options available
@@Lawlzinator that's like saying the text book teaches for you.
"General Pickett, why did your charge at Gettysburg fail?" General Pickett replied, *I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.*
A 3 foot tall fence
Because Lee pulled a stupid.
@@huntclanhunt9697 to be fair lee was pretty consistently stupid
@@huntclanhunt9697 Actually it wouldve been a resounding success. Unfortunately the unexpected clash meant that JEB Stuart and his cavalry were not present as they were away raiding and harrying the Union flank. Had they been present or had Pickett's charge succeeded, the Union army would've been shattered and DC would've been forced to either evacuate or seek terms. It was a gamble but a good one and the Union only narrowly escaped with a victory.
@@changlouriousbasterd9524 I'm not talking about just Gettysburg. Stuart was a glory hog that abused the cavalry and crippled it with raids that for the most part were not helpful.
Wow!! What a change of pace from European history. I am not complaining!!! This is so awesome please make some more!!!!👏👍
so unexpected.
@@s4rtre IKR!!!!! I love it!
Same war, different land mass. euro tendencies prevailed. And are continuing to this day.
@@friedrice2912 this. I don’t know why some people act as if this war isn’t the same as those in Europe, it’s HWite people running around with cannons and guns shooting eachother just like in the motherland (europe) this is supposed to be unique? I guess the addition of blks and natives change the politics a bit but In europe we just called them catlonians, Irish, Flemish and Scott’s
@@makeytgreatagain6256 not the same because the civil war brought new military tactics that EU weren't using
As an amateur U.S. Civil War buff, I’m so happy to see an excellent overview of how the strategy played out. Superb video!
Another way to say it is that Grant finally pointed out that there were more of them than there were rebels.
"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make." - Grant probably
Grant was a big picture guy and a meticulous tastmaster. At some point he realized fighting Lee and the battle hardened Army of Northern Virginia head on was a sure road to suffering more defeats, and while the Union had the resources and manpower to continue the war, shouldering more defeats would only damage the moral of the soldiers and bring public sentiment against the war. So instead he opted to grind the Confederacy down slowly and meticulously rather than giving Lee more glorious victories to boast about.
@@averyisaiah1 More like 'MANY of you will die horribly or be maimed for life' but yeah XD
@@barbiquearea exactly, a bit like the strategy against napoleon post russia, just grind him down
There comes a point where trying to beat someone in a great setpiece battle just becomes asking for defeat. The more experienced they are, the more battle-hardened their soldiers are, the better they are at fighting those huge battles.
Please please please do a whole series on the American Civil War! The way y’all make content makes me miss the old Civil War history books that had battle maps and extreme detail of every fight. This would be an AMAZING series.
THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!
@@GandalftheWise the Union isn’t afraid to go 2-0, you don’t really have a great record.
@@Xennercarr if Johnson had held Sherman at Atlanta till after the election of 1864 without a major yankee victory, the south would have most likely prevailed. Numerical and economic superiority is made null by incompetent commanders.
Its neccessary to comprehend that having a big population and industrial capabilities it's not as in a videogame, in real life it is also requires to administrate such economical forces, and then be able to supply the army, and then make plans to coordinate the movements and logistics of the army. Logistic and strategic geniuses tend to be overshadowed by flashy tactical masters, however they are arguably more important and decisive.
Definitely much more important to be a master of supplies than a master of strategy. I think to Marc Antony, his failed invasion of the east through Armenia. Leaving his baggage train behind to be caught was the most costly decision of the era imo. He may not of been successful in his invasion but he wouldn't have become so politically weak.
Amateurs study tactics. Pros study logistics.
The south's flashiest victories, ex. Chancelloresville, didn't capture any strategic positions or resources either.
Aye. This exact point is why the CSA could have never won the war. It was a lost cause from the start
Yeah but you don't have to do it by yourself as in a videogame. You have subordinates that made that job. Ministers of various functions that have subordinates of their own that follows orders, rules etc. There's a hierarchy and the job is organized with a task for everyone. It's more likely play a game in multiplayer rather than a single player campaign. Of course if you decide to neglect the help of your subordinates, that's really becomes a single player campaign. And so you have to face the efforts of more than a single person, alone. In any case, even if you lead a strong nation, the result is clear. That's also why past dictatorial regimes failed. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperialist Japan, communist Russia had the great lucky to have the US to back and support everything they was doing. The Trump administration was another example. The idea of the "Strong man at the lead" always leads to a failure.
My great great grandfather fought in the 30th Indiana K company. He was at a large amount of battles including Chicamaugua, Shiloh, and Stones River. He burned down Georgia with Sherman. Respect to any soldier who fought.
Exaggerated. If Georgia was "burned down" as you yankees fantasize the North would've had to face a reinvigorated South that would fight to the last soul. In reality, strategic assets in limited quantity were chosen to be burnt.
Too bad he had to fight the south and burn down Georgia. Seems like the freed slaves did not get what was promised anyway.
It was the transition to the ad for me. When I noticed that it was an advertisement, it was already too late. 🤣
In my defense, I did display "Sponsored by Masterworks" in the bottom left corner AS SOON as the transition started :)
A good summary of the war. Some quibbles: The date for Perryville is wrong. The Battle of Spotsylvania Court House lasted significantly longer than the three days you have shown. The Battle of Franklin should have come before Nashville. General Thomas deserved a portrait because he destroyed the Army of Tennessee as a fighting force. Grant’s second plan shows Meade taking Atlanta, maybe a copy and paste error. “Grinding Lee down” wasn’t Grant’s idea. Grant wanted to fight Lee out in the open in a conventional manner but Lee, the king of spades, chose to entrench his smaller army. Lee was responsible for the high casualties of the Overland Campaign, not Grant.
Thomas was one of the very best generals of the Civil War - he might have been the best on the union side.
There were a lot of wrong dates in there. Uncharacteristically sloppy.
Thank you for pointing this out. Grant's reputation as a butcher is so undeserved. If you are looking for consistent, unsustainably high casualty rates in the Civil War, look no further than R. E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.
Also, it gets Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge mixed up in date; Chickamauga was Bragg’s counterattack after Rosecrans maneuvered him out of Chattanooga, and later Sherman and Grant arrived to assist the Army of the Cumberland in pushing out from their position on the Tennessee River, resulting in Missionary Ridge.
Arkansas is spelled "Arkansasa" as well at 2:52
0:20 Actually a numerical advantage of 3 or 4 to 1 is only needed at the tactical level, to take individual positions (and even that is only a recommendation, and you can make do with just 2 to 1). At the operational and strategic layers of war you can shuffle your troops around to get those local 3:1 numerical advantages with only a moderate global numerical advantage (sometimes with no numerical advantage (in Italy Napoleon was outnumbered overall, but always managed to fight individual battles with a numerical advantage (a lot of people think Napoleon was a tactical genius, but I think he was really an operational genius))). Of course that is difficult to do if the enemy is constantly mirroring your troop shuffling with shuffling of their own, which is why deception is often so important.
What's the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic levels?
@@benjaminmorris4962 Mostly scale. The exact differences and boundaries between the levels are not universally agreed on. But as you zoom out from the smallest scales to the largest scales different considerations become dominant. At the smallest scales (the scale of small units such as platoons or companies) you are concerned with things which are pretty much universally agreed to be "tactics". Things such as finding cover, achieving fire superiority, and flanking the enemy are dominant considerations on the "tactical" level. At the largest scale (the scale of entire countries at war) you are concerned with things which are pretty much universally agreed to be "strategy". The economic health of your country, industrial output, the efficiency of military recruitment, and military alliances with other countries are all strategic considerations. In the middle you have the operational layer. The existence of the operational layer is a fairly modern idea, and 19th century military publications only recognize the tactical and strategic layers. Neither the lower boundry of the operational layer (where tactics end and operations begin) nor the upper boundry of the operational layer (where operations end and strategy begins) are universally agreed on. But in general issues of logistics and sustainment will be greater considerations at this scale than anything that would be considered either tactics or strategy. You are managing much larger masses of troops at the operational layer, and are thinking on longer timescales (on the tactical layer you are thinking about the next few minutes to the next few hours that it will take you to complete your immediate objectives, while on the operational layer you are thinking about the next few days, weeks, or months that it will take you to complete an operation), than on the tactical layer, but you aren't managing the entire military or economy over the course of the entire war like you are at the strategic layer.
I’ve learned about all this before, but seeing it depicted in maps really helps understand the underlying strategy of the combatants more.
As a fan of Historymarche, it is cool to see unique videos like these about different conflicts than normal.
Interesting video. Several battle dates are wrong Shiloh Antietam and Perrysville to start with.
Civil war reenactor here for the 20th Maine volunteer infantry. Hearing your voice and the history you’ve covered its crazy to hear it narrate on our history which is modern in comparison
Chamberlain was cool. A Southerner
One of the major factors in the South's defeat was they lacked the very thing they were fighting against, a central government. Some southern states took their state rights to such a point that they failed to support troops from other states. Best example was, I believe Georgia, in that they had enough uniforms to meet the entire demand of the southern armies but held them for only their own state troops. Meaning a lot of southern troops were in rags by wars end because of this.
Finally a great Battle map KZhead channel does the American Civil War! I hope there is more to come in the future!
Crazy good video as always! Probably the best American Civil War video I’ve seen.
Last year I stood on the grounds of Gettysburg and it was the most humbling feeling I’ve ever felt. Just staring out into the field where brother vs brother bled makes me sad and honored for the sacrifices made that day.
Gettysburg could have been the battle where the war have ended if General Meade actually pursued Lee after the battle thanks to General Meads in activity and refusal to pursue Lee the war had to go on for another two years
@@redseagaming7832 While Gettysburg was a well earned victory, Meade and the army of the Potomac were given good lickings by the Confederates. Meade was also dealing with disorganized command, and he lost a few corp commanders in combat, John Reynolds and Winfield Hancock, some of his best, he figured it would break under pressure from pursuing the Confederates. Furthermore, on the 4th of July, it rained, roads would've been boggy and muddy, the caution and steadiness is what was perfectly needed to ensure the army of the Potomac wasn't annihilated. Finally, Lee had a head start on Meade, so he'd have to play catchup with Lee.
I felt the same thing when I visited. As for the reply to your comment about Meade failing to pursue, 4 of his 7 infantry corps had suffered 39% or higher casualties and were, for all intents and purposes, useless until they could refit and resupply. It is easy to know what to do when you know the force balance years later. Meade knew that he had won a great victory, but he had also lost more men in one battle than anyone else in US history. He had no true idea of what Lee had left, but he knew that if he had to pursue he had less than half of his army to do so with. In addition, one of the deciding factors in the battle was that the Confederate artillery had essentially shot itself out of long range ammunition, as happens in offensive operations. They still had a huge supply of cannister and grapeshot. An attack against them would have been incredibly risky, and had the chance of undoing the first truly decisive loss for Lee.
@@stevepowell6503 hindsight is 20/20. it's easy for us and for all the senators in their cushy seats in washington d c at the time, to point dirty finger at meade. i'm sure if an angel of god had come down and told meade what to do next, he would have done it. as it was he did the 2nd best thing, made the best decisions he could at the time, and stood by them like a man.
A very good high-level summary! I have not seen the entire war presented so succinctly.
This is hands-down one of the best strategic overviews of the Civil War condensed into an easily digestible format. Probably one of the strongest caveats is the justification as to why slavery, albeit the most prominent of the root-causes, was not an immediate strategic objective in the early years of the war. The subject remains a heated discussion for debate then as it does today. Regardless of stance (moral or realistic), Lincoln had a firm grasp of the strategic situation, and the video breaks down his rationale perfectly and how it evolved over the war's progression.
Very interesting video. It's nice to see how these things play out on a grand scale.
Awesome!!! Don’t know when civil war military history went out of style but I love this stuff. Thank you sir!
It didn't go out of style, politics have driven it out of style. At least in the US. Basically if you analyze the war and come up with any answer but "we fought to free the slaves" and "Lee was a racist monster" then you get demonized despite both of those statements lacking any historic fact.
A clear and concise overview. Well done your efforts are appreciated
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
The Ad was a smooth transition, that was really well edited I must say.
Thank you sir. Some sponsors want a smoother ad integration. But I did insert A) chapters, which makes the ad visible on the timeline bar and B) text in the bottom left "Sponsored by Masterworks" as soon as the promo segment started :)
@@HistoryMarche I wasn’t fully aware of the seperated segments of the video. I was fully immersed with the video presented and it shocks me how well the Ad was presented due to the editing. Regardless I still watch the full length of the video including the Ads for further support for the channel. Have a good one! 👍
Wow, now this is how you transition in sponsor commercial 👏
In my defense, I did display "Sponsored by Masterworks" in the bottom left corner AS SOON as the transition started :)
3:50 that Sponsor spot Segway was the smoothest I have ever heard. Nice work.
An excellent overview! Thank You!
this video is AWESOME 👏 the animation is wonderful thu glad to be always from the first 100 to watch your vids :)
Thank you so much 😀
This man voice is so good it makes me want to start a war so he can talk about me in the future lol
The pre-battle narrative could go something like this: "But... miraculously, general Rodriguez descended into the valley, having marshalled his army across the mountain chain in mid-winter. Now he faced the much larger enemy host... but he had the element of surprise..."
@@HistoryMarche you are a legend my friend lol
13:36 *BRING THE GOOD OLD BUGLE, BOYS WE’LL SING NOTHER SONG!*
This is my first experience with this channel and holy COW is this enchanting. The animations and visuals are top notch, and that sponsor transition was so clean I didn't even skip it. The only other channel that made me feel this way is when I discovered Kings and Generals many years ago. That being said, I have a few minor notes. 2:52 Arkansas is spelled with an extra a throughout the whole video on the map. Delaware and Missouri are missing borders. Overall the map detail is beautiful and very accurate. 7:45 Cincinnati is misspelled as "Cincinatti." Although the placement of cities aren't perfect, they would be in the way of the state names, which is understandable. The Indian Territories in Oklahoma are called "Indiana Territory." Overall, don't take these nitpicks as criticism, I'm just trying to help you improve if you decide to reuse this map or make corrections.
history Marche an Excellent Historical Channel always sharing excellent coverage Videos
excellent stuff look forward to more
you are really amazing historyMarche!❤
Great video! Looking forward to the next one. I must personally say Shearman's March to the Sea is my favorite military operation of the war.
Why is that? Do you think it’s cool to wage war on civilians? Wouldn’t it have been faster and better for the reunification of the country for Sherman to destroy Hood’s army instead of taking vengeance on civilians?
@@mjfleming319 I have no mercy for my enemies. So yes I think it is cool. Because it breaks the will of the enemy. Plus, Sherman's march destroyed the South's will to fight. Showing mercy to your enemies is a weakness. You only show mercy to your enemies if they are utterly broken.
@@thecrusaderhistorian9820 but did it destroy the south’s will to fight? Looks to me like they kept fighting until their field armies were destroyed. And then, even after surrendering, they almost immediately began violent resistance to reconstruction. Mercy requires far more strength than brutality. Anyone can fly into a rage, live in bitterness, nurture hatred, steal and kill and destroy. Loving, building, reconciling....these require far more wisdom and strength than the brutish impulse to vengeance.
@@mjfleming319 It forced the South to surrender. That is all I care about. Do me a favor, give your speech about mercy to someone who cares.
@@thecrusaderhistorian9820 not giving a speech, just stating the facts.
Sherman made Georgia howl and I love it to this day
This is great! Thank you
A great contextual overview of this defining war.
nice work brother🖒
Another great video as always!
Thank you KHK! Cheers!
That transition to the ad was so smooth 😄 🤣 thanks for the video!
Another great video from HM. I'd be very interested to see more videos on specific Civil War engagements.
Sherman's campaign through Georgia and the Carolinas deserves to be looked at more in depth because it displayed one of the most brilliant series of operations in history. In order to make his army as mobile as possible and be able to march all across the South's territories, he broke away from his supply lines and chose to live off the land. Then he split his army into 3-4 widespread marching columns, when one column was engaged by the Confederate army assigned to stop Sherman, the others would keep moving forward and force the Confederates to withdraw or be surrounded. It also had the effect of confusing the defenders into guessing which objective Sherman was really after, so they were always kept off balance and could not fully commit to defending an area without thinking of possibly withdrawing due to the other Union columns marching past their strategic flanks and threatening other objectives. This strategy applied a constant mental strain on the defending Confederate Army and forced them to conduct a series of costly direct attacks against his columns or be outflanked and allowed him to march all across the country at will. Using this strategy, Sherman inflicted greater casualties on the defenders than he received, in contrast to Grant's costly failures in the wilderness battles. In both method and effect, Sherman's army were the forerunners of the panzer forces that overran Europe in 1940 and after marching over 400 miles all over enemy territory unchecked, Sherman could justly claim as much as Napoleon did, that he had defeated his enemy simply by marching.
Almost like he'd read up on Napoleon's army organisation and thought about whether it would still work a few decades later.
Sherman burns in Eternal Hell! Murderer of Southern civilians which included children and pets
It was a pleasure to piss on shermans grave.
How come Ulysses grant became president? Read nothing about Sherman in school textbooks, they just talk about grants war of attrition.
@@Believer1995ofGod Sherman was not as well known probaby because he was mainly in the western theatre of war, while the eastern theatre received more attention because of the larger armies and center of politics, population, etc but the most decisive operations that impacted the war all took place in the west.
As American and a southern gentleman this video was brilliantly done I do declare .
Thank you sir.
Thanks for the video.
Thank you for this
Battle of mezokeresztes part 3 Hannibal part 19 Rise of Augustus Caesar part 4. Can't wait for these videos that you will upload.
Your historical perspective is spot on. In these times of hyper- misinformation it is quite amazing to listen to the truth narrated. It's pronounced "Mobeel", btw. Thank you for this. A very succinct history lesson
Glad you enjoyed it! Apologies for Mobile :)
Highly recommend TIKhistory if you don't already watch his videos. He's fighting a constant battle against misinformation and propaganda and more people need to see his videos. He's one of the few historians who still remembers that studying history is to study how people think. He also uses an insane amount of sources and cites them all as they're used. He's mostly focused on WW2 and the 20th century in general.
no worries. The French established Mobile and thus the name. It was their capitol when the region was known as Louisiana
Great narration, graphics, research, everything.
Cool overview. Love your guys content.
On a new continent. Great video on this topic.
Glad you liked it!
Hurrah, hurrah! They bring the jubilee!
Hurrah hurrah the flag that sets you free
I would LOVE if you did more on some of these battles
Fantastic stuff 👏
So, the Southern Confederation was too weak on foreign allies, unprepared to keep their sea-trade open, and completely unable to invade northward at all. Sounds, as if they did not realize what was at stake.
By "they," you are referring to the elite planter class and politicians. Almost all of the Confederate high-command was opposed to secession in the first place, only fighting for their home. The war and secession are intertwined but also separate.
I think like many the thought was the war would be over quickly and they had hoped for no war at all.
They just didn't want the federal government continue like pirates by illegally boarding ship and collecting tolls.
@@WestTNConfed that's horseshit. They knew what they were fighting for.
@@WestTNConfed Almost all the Confederate senior officers were politically connected slave owners. That is why many fellow officers wanted Patrick Cleburne hung from a tree for seriously suggesting that some slaves could be freed for agreeing to take up arms for the Confederate cause.
The Crittenden Compromise was also rejected by the seceding southern states as too little, too late. As the civil war was beginning, while many people and leaders thought it would be short, some had a clearer outlook. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, for example, predicted "I think it's going to be a long war... Very long... Much longer than what the politicians think."
The politicians could not afford to be pessimistic. A collapse of the public will to carry on would have been catastrophic.
Great summary of a very complex war!
My school literally just started a civil war unit today and then you released a video on it! HAHA
The won cause while the south was better at insignificant battles the north truly understood the war in a large scale sense . Lee was a great field commander but an abysmal war leader . Stonewall Jackson was only good on the offense but ended up getting a huge portion of his troops killed and during the 7 days he froze leading to huge loses . Lee and Jackson tried time and time again to 1 shot the Union not understanding the actual strength of the Union . The Union utilized its production and its manpower better than the traitors ever did and once vicksburg was captured , a massive win and amazing leadership by grant , the war was pretty much over . Lee was playing to lose and got trapped between grant (who understood Lee was looking for breathing room and strangled him ) and Sherman who came and rammed a boot up Lee’s ass. The south has field commanders the north had war leaders . The traitors failed and the emancipation proclamation ended any chance they had at foreign support .
I compare Lee to Hannibal. He could win battles but did not know how to win the war.
More American Civil War, please!
The partnership with Strategy stuff is really magnificent! When will the video about Machiavelli's strategy come out?
Thanks for the video, american history is always welcomed.
A sacrifice to the algorithm and against human cruelty
We hope that you will make a video on the battle of Uhud and Keresztes part 3
Wow, that was one smooth transfer to the sponsor 👏
I never knew much about the american civil war besides the name of some ppl and battles. This was a perfect way to finally learn about this historical event!
Love the overview, big fan of Sherman. Heard Sherman tanks can't drive through Atlanta to this day, because the houses there burst into flames, as a reflex.
Sherman was a joke. His vaunted march to the sea took place when there was no strength left to resist him. He couldn't catch Hood, so he decided to take out his frustration on civilians. Took all the best troops, all the best cavalry, all the best transport, and left Thomas to face Hood with the leftovers. There were less than 15,000 rebels - mostly old men, boys, and irregular cavalry - to oppose Sherman's army of 60,000. I bet I can name two Sherman blunders for every victory you can name.
@@aaronfleming9426 did you just say the south prolonged the war when there was no more chance of winning it? And Sherman taught them that, by brilliantly taking the war to those that started it? Such a genius move, he was to nice to the civilians, but otherwise, and this is undisputed: Shermans march to the sea helped to end the war, and made Georgia howl. You are confusing tactics with strategy btw, a problem (ironically) Lee faced from day one, because he understood what most people didnt: war is not about flashy victories, you win by taking away the enemies and the resources to fight.
@@alexandermarquardt597 The view that Sherman's march to the sea helped end the war is widely accepted, but it is not undisputed. It has been disputed before, and I am disputing it right here and now. The assumption that Sherman's march helped end the war is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation. His march coincided with Grant's continued neutralization of Lee's army, and Thomas' destruction of Hood's army, which left the rebels with almost no military capacity to continue the war. In the flush of victory, and the emotional catharsis of Sherman's punitive destruction, the nation at large accepted his actions as necessary and wise and even "brilliant". Historians have generally followed suit, but I argue that those conclusions have been assumed, not established by thorough examination and sufficient proof. I'm certainly not confusing tactics with strategy - I'm noting their interplay. The strategic goal of the Lincoln administration was to reintegrate the rebel states into the Union. In such a war of reunification, Sun Tzu's maxim has rarely been more appropriate: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good." Sherman's tactics of shattering the enemy's country demonstrably worked against the administration's goal: 160 years later his actions still provoke bitterness and antipathy rather than the unity and brotherly affection between citizens of different regions of the United States. I further argue that Sherman's operational and tactical deficiencies necessitated the strategic movement toward 'hard war' and the tactics of shattering and destroying civilian infrastructure. The two most egregious errors of his career were, in my opinion, his two failures to destroy the Army of Tennessee during the Atlanta campaign. First, at Snake Creek Gap, Sherman himself admitted that he had lost "a once in a career opportunity". Second, at Jonesboro, he inexplicably let Hood's army escape and reorganize. After Hood's initial escape, Sherman failed repeatedly to bring Hood to heel and destroy him; only then did Sherman set off on his punitive March to the Sea, making that storied campaign look less like a stroke of strategic genius and more like a fit of personal pique reminiscent of his insane decision to assault Johnston's dominating position at Kennesaw Mountain. These are only my most prominent criticisms of Sherman's competence, though his mental breakdown in Kentucky and gross negligence at Shiloh are well worth mentioning. The primary question, though, is this: If Sherman had possessed the tactical and operational capacity to destroy the Army of Tennessee, would his strategic goals have required that he cut a 50-mile swathe of destruction through the south that would embitter its citizens for generations to come? Or would there have been another path to victory that would allow him to capture the enemy country whole and intact? The question is vital even today in terms of American military policy. Over the last 70 years we've demonstrated an unsurpassed capacity for destroying our enemy's economic systems...and yet the list of wars we lose from a strategic standpoint continues to stretch and grow. Vietnamese peasants and Afghani tribesmen, among others, have been able to resist our strategic goals despite the awesome power of our military machine. It does not seem to me a foregone conclusion that 'hard war' brings about strategic success. All for now. Thanks for pushing back on my comment, it's helped me sort through and articulate these thoughts.
@aaronfleming9426 Attacking where the enemy can't resist you is actually good strategy.
@@jdotoz Sure. My larger point is that it didn't take a lot of skill. And destroying a country you don't care about isn't a problem. But when you're trying to bring a separatist movement back into the fold, wholesale destruction of civilian property might not be the best technique. That means if you're competent you might want to defeat the enemy armies when you have the opportunity, not repeatedly let them get away, thus "necessitating" hard war against the civilians whose loyalty you wish to regain.
I disagree that Grant only sought to grind down Lee through sheer numbers. He sought to outflank him but was caught by Lee in the Wilderness. However instead of turning back after the first big battle he continued to flank. That it became so bloody was not because Grant decided to send human waves but because Lee was very good in moving troops to meet challenges head on and could entrench. However Lee made mistakes too which lead to his army also suffering large casualties. For the Overland campaign basically Grant had one spare cops and artillery advantage but had to go through unknown and hostile terrain. Lee kept him at check but at great cost, rarely achieving the initiative. The war was won basically when Grant finally outflanked Lee one more time across the Potomac and basically pinned him down in Petersburg and Richmond. He also counted on generals to pin down forces near Peterburg and the Valley but was let down. Only when Sheridan took over eventually was Grant's strategy successful in the sense of not only pinning Lee down but making their defeat unavoidable. For a quick summery this vid is alight but it glosses (necessarily) over many nuances and even who commanded what army when. Battle Cry for Freedom by Mpherson is a good place to start if you want to know more.
Grant pursuing an attrition strategy is one of the great myths of the Civil War. His actual plan was to keep constant pressure on Lee through maneuver warfare, fight when he had to, and always seek to keep Lee moving. Outside of a couple miscalculated fights (notably Cold Harbor), this strategy worked almost perfectly.
@@FollowMe1789 Exactly. He chased Lee all over Virginia and fully exploited Lee's inability to wage an actual campaign
Thank you for video sir 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼💐💐💐
I got to admit the way you slid into the ad was slick as hell, I didn't even know it was a promotion for a few seconds LOL
Union military leadership was terrible at the beginning of the Civil War. It was industrialization and the Union blockade that ultimately won the war. Grant was also a big reason.
and then you have cases like nathan bedfield forest and other confederate commanders who are inept in there own ways. especally forest who is inept at leading with a corps and other reasons to. also most brutal and then some in personal disputes and in the field.
The Union command corps in Virginia was terrible in the first two years of the war. Out in the Western Theatre, however, the quality of military leadership was considerably better and that was where the war was really being determined. The Union's strategic gains in the Cumberland River Valley and the Trans-Mississippi were vital toward setting up the conditions for the eventual Union victory. Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans (up until Chickamauga) and Ellet for the Army, and Farragut and Porter for the Navy, achieved far greater success than the Army of the Potomac managed up until Meade's command of that force and markedly advanced Union war aims through their campaigns.
@@LordZontar No, there was just far less political interference plus more room for maneuver, allowing better utilization of the superior numbers. Attacking in the East was a fools game for the first few years of the war.
@@Gustav_Kuriga Attacking in the East was a fool's game because it was being played by fools, at least on the Union side. Nothing underscores that better than the prime opportunity McClellan had at Antietam to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia which he utterly failed to take advantage of.
@@LordZontar Do you know how far his army marched that day just to initiate the battle in question? Again, you show your narrow view of what war entails by only focusing on the tactical. Let us look at the opposite to your supposed McClellan then. Lee was an aggressive, fast-paced general with an amazing tactical mind. Did all those Southern victories in the East prevent the West from falling? He was so blinded by the White Whale that was taking Washington, he never considered the idea of the rest of the Confederacy needing defending in the meantime. Lee's obsession with the East in large part doomed what chances the Confederacy had. On top of that his aggressive campaigns bled the Confederacy dry through excessive casualties. Meanwhile the Union mainly met disaster in the East when more overly aggressive commanders were put in command. Those like Pope. Such casualties in disastrous losses in the East, already a politically charged theater, made pressure for peace from the civilian populace far greater. That was the main threat for the Union's war effort, public opinion.
Nicely done video
A very good strategic overview
hahaha some Grant and Lee civil war video by one of my favourites how can I resist?
When is Hannibal part 19 coming bro? Btw great work
At the end of his great work ,,THE CIVIL WAR,, shelby foote said that more than 190000 confederates were absent from the rolls . Deserters, one very important factor in why the south lost... a rich mans war ,apoor mans fight..
I love the narrator voice!! its so smooth it grips you and takes you on a epic ride threw history!! What a great story teller..
The economic disparities reveal what an incredible commander Gen RE Lee was. He not only endured the staggering pressure, but defeated larger, better-equipped forces repeatedly, and advanced into the North twice.
He was a strong field commander but a weak strategic commander. At the end of the day, he lost sight of his goal. The CSA couldn't hope to conquer the USA. They just had to make the invasion so slow and painful that the Union breaks. But his quest for grand victories would be his undoing. While he might win his grand victories, it would cost him very critical resources with no strategic gains. Its worth noting that, despite being mostly on the defense, Lee lost far more of his men than Grant did.
And each time Lee advanced into the North he exposed all his weaknesses as a general. Perhaps the greatest weakness was his inability to grasp the strategic situation, but he also demonstrated an unhealthy dose of hubris and romanticism, and disastrously poor staff work.
Each time he advanced into the North he suffered decisive strategic losses.
Kentucky did fight for the North eventually, but not before the “Orphan Brigade” left to join the South.
A good thumbnail of the war!! I am impressed!!!
Wow that was a smooth Masterworks plug.
8:49 The entire mess in Virginia in 1862 was a combination of multiple factors: 1. McClellan’s plan to assault up the Shenandoah Valley was thwarted by Thomas J. Jackson’s numerically inferior army - outnumbered 3 to 1 - that resulted in Shields and Fremont retreating passed Winchester, Virginia and back towards around Harper’s Ferry. 2. McClellan had successfully advanced up the peninsula towards the gates of Richmond. However, Robert E. Lee, who was in charge of building the defenses around Richmond, had heavily fortified the eastern approaches, having Fort Darling, Fort Harrison, Fort Lee, and numerous other forts built along the eastern approaches. These defenses halted McClellan’s advance and eventually gave the south the initiative. 3. When Lee assumed command of the Army of Northern Virginia, he amassed his forces - including the returning forces from the Valley campaign - for a major counter-attack against the Army of the Potomac by assaulting the 5th Corps on the northern side of the Chickahominy River, which threatened McClellan’s supply depot at White House Planation on the Pamunkey River. This forced McClellan to withdraw his forces to the south along the James, resulting in the entire campaign collapsing. McClellan’s main issue was the complexity of his plan, which relied on all points to succeed in order to present to him the opportunity to seize Richmond. He needed Shield’s and Fremont’s men to secure the valley and reunite with his forces to provide a decisive numbers advantage. He relied on the confederates to not heavily fortify their positions. He also banked on the confederates not uniting their forces again to amass a major counter-assault. All of these things did not come to pass, resulting in the absolute disaster that was the Seven Days Battles.
I also feel like Virginia was a smaller front and easier to defend by the Confederates versus the broad front in the West that gave the Union more maneuverability. Taking those two forts early on really opened up the West and helped the Union win the entire war.
I think another factor (that isn't given the attention it deserves) is Magruder delaying McClellan for nearly 2 weeks with less than 15k men at his disposal. He marched men back and forth behind his lines but in full view of the enemy, and had his artillery fire off lengthy barrages. Both of these convinced McClellan (not that he ever needed much convincing) that he faced a far larger force. A frontal assault at that point would have rolled over his lines and all the way to Richmond.
Yeah alot of war happened in america too not just the Old World, simon bolivar single handedly beat the spanish empire and freed all its colonial holdings in south and central americas.
The Stars and Bars was the very first Official Participation Trophy in the US.
This is like my 2nd or third time watching this video. I wish it was longer. Please more
Sherman and Grant's finally understanding what new war ment is what won the war. That battles dont win wars but massive supplies and mobilizing a whole nation do. The soviet union found this out in WW2. No matter how many battles you lost as long as you out produce the enemy Also if you think this war was about state rights, your a moron. It started because of slavery. Every confederate statesman and general said it was. The lost cause view was a rewriting of history after the war. This is why people say it was about state rights to this day
I know a lot about WWII, WWI and The War of 1812 but not as in depth about the US Civil War. However now I am very interested in learning how the North won because I discovered that General Winfield Scott, the Head of the US Army from 1841-1861 and one of the greatest American Generals ever, was a close cousin of mine. I've read a bit about him like the reason he resigned was because Lincoln didn't listen to his strategy and promoted the wrong Generals which prolonged the War. After many losses Lincoln ended up doing the same strategy through General Grant. General Scott figured he could defeat the Confederates within two years but Lincoln thought he knew better than one of the most military men in America at that time.
Right on time...we are on pace for civil war 2
What an extremely great seque of commercial. Im not even mad. Thank you!
Your map shows Las Vegas as if it was a major city, it wasn't founded until 1905. Carson City was the main settlement in Nevada territory and later the capital when it was made a state