Did the CONFEDERACY Have BETTER GENERALS?!?!?! 

why did you rewrite this?

And in the Haitian revolution the side with the most men won. Not to mention that France was going through its own revolution at the time. They were , distracted.They were also supported by powerful countries, Spain and Britain.

@@francescodegregorio2824 I think the pinned comment that originally said this disappeared.

@@jonathannelson103 most men yes, but less advanced technology. The point was about both I believe.

@@danieldyson1660 but they also had the Spanish and British fighting the French in Haiti because of the wars going on in Europe. Surely you don't think that they were less advanced than the French.

citation?

It was a perfect message! A way to say "Yall are bitchin, but he's doing what we actually need so maybe you should start emulating him."

@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 1863 October 30, New York Times, Blair’s Bitters, Quote Page 4, Column 4, New York. Took me 30 seconds. Come on dude.

@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 and by come on dude, I mean grow up and google your own questions

@@mister_kaniela Lmao, no. The first person should have cited a source and not run around dropping quotes even if they are true. not a good way to keep knowledge, makes it more of a hearsay, or a readsay in this case.

I have it on good authority that chessboards are not immune to the solid shot of 11-inch Dahlgren guns.

My favorite opening is queen's gambit into shore bombardment.

Once you cross your opponent’s King’s T it’s checkmate.

lol well played

And the ICBM. Don't forget the ICBM, you don't recover from that mistake.

I was in stitches!

That wouldn't have helped, George Thomas was also at Chattanooga...although when Thomas took Atlanta, it's likely the city would not have been malevolently and evilly burnt as Sherman did, which paradoxically just might have made Reconstruction a lot easier...

If that had happened it could have saved the Union a lot of money post war during Reconstruction. Seriously the man did a number on the state of Georgia during his March into the Sea.

Fire cannot kill a dragon

"If only we could have cloned Jeb Stewart so he could be in both the western and the eastern theaters at the same time."

now tack on the fact that they were unequivocally proven to be fighting for slavery, it makes them even worst. Like were you honestly expecting a participation trophy when you fought to preserve an inhumane and immoral institution ?

_"Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”_ --Texas Governor Sam Houston, April 16, 1861

@@TheStapleGunKid It's interesting that he very accurately predicted the losses. No one could imagine there would be hundreds of thousands of dead.

Plenty of slave revolts were begun with the awareness that they faced incredibly long odds. Self-interest can be a powerful motivation

They were stupid.

😂

Lol

"If I close my eyes it is not there"

“What about the Shenandoah River Valley?”

Everyone always forgets about the brutal fighting in the Trans-Mississippi Theater. Though did not have the massive armies of the Eastern/Western Theaters, the Trans-Mississippi was just as, if not more than, brutal.

I thought he was going to go on about aliens next.

I wonder if that’s a reference to the ww2 tank?

I laughed my butt off at "If only Judah P. Benjamin had brought forth the power of the ark of the Covenant."

@@poke0043moto LMAOOOO

@@poke0043moto I hope not, that’s a myth in and of itself.

Grant sucked. His claim to flame is he doesn't flinch when he takes high casualties, he can live with the loss of his soldiers life. Lincoln wants it, i'll give it to him and never get replaced.

@@Rex-gu1bu Souds similar to a lot of confederate generals to me. Difference is, Grants method worked.

@@Rex-gu1bu Grant doesn't suck at all lmao. If you're only looking at the Peninsular Campaigns, it looks bad, but he took way less casualties in the Western theater than the Confederate generals he faced, as Andy says in this very video.

@@weirdofromhalo "Andy is high as a kite and it slipped passed you that this is a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the north and demonizing the south. The fact that it was comedy allows it to escape scrutiny. "Lee always took a higher percentage of casualties than anybody else in the war". Um, what? Yeah, he was usually outnumbered 2-1, so the loss of his 13000 is a higher percentage than the loss of 17000 of his opponent who has over twice the men he has. That proves that the North had a tremendous advantage in numbers and often relied on it. Yet he spins it as Lee loses more men. He makes no sense and he shows his dummy southerner frowning as if he made a point. The Northerner of course is sensible and no Northern stereotypes are poked at. I give this video a fail for what I could see he was going for. "Lee lost a higher percentage of men than anybody in the war". Wow, whata fail. I am the only one who called this out.

Who is "you"? Lee didn't get steamrolled and neither did I. Maybe the "you" that got steamrolled is the other poster?

“I’m not racist, my slaves think I’m pretty cool”

I forget; did he testify in his Grand Wizard outfit?

Is there a transcript available online?

@@user-lv1jk9qb9t excuse me

Lol

We know the series isnt over yet..... Somewhere between Black Confederates and Sherman, he stated that the series was only halfway over, and it would be VERY obvious when it was...

Hell is 2020 ;) We just left it.

i think he just quoted the movie gettysburg. Just watch the trailer and you will see the scene

Oh, but the post-credits scene put all of Marvels to shame. So get excited for Checkmate Amerikaners

@@Professor_Nixon maybe it's a Yahtzee nazi?

Also his offensive tactics, which the south barely used properly

A general crucial to the Union victory and given no credit is Quartermaster General Montgomery C Meigs. He basically ensured the Union outprivisioned the rebels. No point having a big industrial capacity and no way of getting it to the troops.

How did you comment this 2 days ago

@@bradysullivan4548 time travel

How is there a comment that’s 2 days old on a vid that released this morning?

@Velstadt Hekkleson also god: lets make all of europe declare war on HIM not his nation. And make him lose because the russians ran away faster.

@@justingick4218 bro 1 French man from a small island fucked up Europe and north and South America

@Velstadt Hekkleson That is true and all, but you can never deny the fact he fought 60 battles and only lost 8 most at the end of his career, fought 8 coalitions and still won most of it.

@Velstadt Hekkleson I have never denied this. Of course I am aware, his tactics got old, and it is evident. Duke wellington could tell he had some antics in waterloo. But again, I'm telling you that Napoleon was still a wise military leader. And spread a lot of revolutionary ideas across europe thanks to his empire. Again, never denied he did stuff wrong, but neither should you deny that he had an incredible military career.

@Velstadt Hekkleson Napoleon won a war that he lost it was him against shit ton of countries

An additional fun fact, when Garibaldi volunteered his services. But there was no real evidence that Lincoln actively courted him. Politically it would be suicide to put a foreigner in charge of Union armies. Moreover after the EP was passed, Garibaldi was the first to sign Lincoln's praises.

Another fact, San Marino praised Lincoln so much, that they offered him citizenship in their country and invited him over to discuss a diplomatic alliance. Lincoln denied the offer but thanked the nation for it's eager support for the union.

​@@vehx9316 you are in the wrong here, good ser. We know that the diplomat Henry Shelton Sanford went personally, on order of Lincoln, to seek out and deliver Garibaldi a letter wrote by Lincoln and the possible appointment of Garibaldi as a officer or even a general in the war. Now, i admit, details are misty, and said letter seen to have been lost to time, but the fact remain. Garibaldi did not volunteer his service, he refused it. All view on the facts agree that, in some measures, Lincoln sought Garibaldi, not the other way around, and why wouldn't it? Garibaldi was a general of incredible renown and a skilled tactician as well, with proved and tested military experience in numerous campaign in italy and around the world. He fought against official militaries and army, as well as proper military campaigns numerous times by that point, proving victorious most often than not. Not to mention, numerous italians lived and served in the Union, as well as in the Confederate, army, so to put such a famous national figure at the head of a brugade or platoon of such troops would have been a wise move, as well as a propaganda master stroke. I don't see it as an impossibility, and here i showed that your affirmations stands on no ground.

@@giacomoromano8842 "Henry Shelton Sanford went personally, on order of Lincoln, to seek out and deliver Garibaldi a letter wrote by Lincoln " If that is so, then surely we should have a copy of the said letter to been seen would we not ? It's a nice tale, but we have no real evidence proving it. Lincoln's government was a hodgepodge of individual actions at times which unfortunately clouds matters in whether Lincoln personally approves it or was even made aware of it. The perfect example was the offer to leave Fort Sumpter. Now it was made, but it was made by Seward, Lincoln wasn't even aware of it and he was pretty pissed about it against Seward.

@@giacomoromano8842 no that not true, there was an offer made yes. But there is no evidence that it came DIRECTLY from Lincoln. Its more likely someone in Lincoln's governmetn acting on their own accord.

Thats why napoleon has an era named after him, and lee hasnt, and lost a war betraying his country

@Fascism and violence are cool In some people's opinions, sure. There were nationalists and state rights guys in the past, i think you're oversimplifying here. Legally, I think treason against the federal government wasn't acceptable back then either.

@Fascism and violence are cool Sure! Lee was more loyal to his home state that promoted the slave system that gave him and his comrades power and privileges than to the federal government, which, just out of fear, believed it was going to take away those privileges.

Lee: logistics why you bully

@@thewampire4640 well Lee had a tank named after him But it was a shitty tank so nothing to worry about

Mr. Breast give me money

I loved how he showed that ridiculous statue of NBF when he was first mentioned

It's BeatMasterMatt...

Hey

Sup Mr beat

Anyone else love to see a series with this done by a British guy and a soldier from Napoleon's Grande Armee? THAT would be entertaining.

@@thunderbird1921 Checkmate Wellingtonites ?

@@thunderbird1921 I'd love to hear him do those accents

@@thunderbird1921 I would actually like to see him go at some of the myths about the revolutionary war, opposite a red coat...

Yeah I have to agree with that one too. "Checkmate, Davisites!" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

Meanwhile, Grant said: "[Jackson] and I were at West Point together for a year and we served in the same army in Mexico. He was a gallant soldier and a Christian gentleman, and I can fully understand the admiration your people have for him."

How many women and girls did he rape?

The Brits could not support the South. They outlawed slavery in 1807 and 1838. There is no way they could support the South. As for McClelland was wonderful at training the army but was a lousy field officer. He was just too cautious.

@@nbenefiel "The Brits could not support the South" They came quite close to doing so, especially since the Confederacy offered an emancipation plan. And McClelland's gotten something of a rehabilitation in recent years. Most of the mistakes he got blamed for were Lincoln's mismanagement, and the plan that Grant followed at the end was McClellan's plan. McClellan was a good choice for an invasion, because he had a reputation from the Mexican War of being kind to civilians. And THIS is why he got fired. Lincoln got tired of him whining about his terrorism.

​@@kenabbott8585 The Brits thought about that - but I don't think they'd want to step into another potentially messy and bloody war after the Crimean one. It might simply not worth it. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Southern emancipation plan was just about freeing slaves to draft them into the army. It looks like a desperate measure - not good for international relations. If you have to draft the men you despise - you're screwed. McClellan was a great strategist, but he blundered a lot himself. The main reason of it was lousy recon. Why did McClellan always think he was outnumbered? Because his army was always blind! I'd like to see McClellan's command with good recon - then we could honestly judge his actual tactical skills, not his thoughts and precautions. Let's look at Antietam - the essence of McClellan's blunders: 1. The cavalry didn't do anything. Why Hooker and Meade could put the same horsemen (with many of the same Generals) to good use (look at Gettysburg Campaign - it was good!), but McClellan couldn't? As the result, the Army of the Potomac was again completely unaware of Lee's army's positions and numbers and had to act blindly. That alone made Antietam the bloodiest day on Western Hemisphere. Hooker tried to flank the enemy but was flanked hinself by Stuart's artillery. After that... you know. 2. No general battle plan. It's just weird. I'd understand Pope or even Hood not having it - but McClellan was smarter that that. 3. McClellan dissolved the Wings before the battle, creating a mess. Who was the IX Corps Commander: Cox or Burnside who had no other troops under his command? Good that they were next to each other during the actual battle. 4. Burnside's Bridge... oh, man. - What was Burnside suppose to do in the battle? Create a diversion to weaken the Rebs at the north? Okay, then why did the order to attack come at 10 AM, four hours after Hooker's engagement? What kind of a diversion was it? - McClellan later said that he planned Burnside's attack as the main one. Hmm... by just one Corps? Through a narrow and well-defended bridge? Only a blockhead would plan that - and McClellan wasn't one. - The recon screwed up again by showing Burnside the wrong ford to cross. The flanking force by Rodman had to find the right one by themselves - that's why it took three hours to flank 700 Georgians who defended the bridge. - After Burnside crossed the bridge, he felt his position was insecure and asked for reinforcements. He got none - and was swept by A.P. Hill's Light Division. But I understand why McClellan didn't want to pursue Lee after Antietam. He didn't think his troops were good enough for that - and maybe he was right. No, Grant's plan wasn't McClellan's one. McClellan would never send the main army through the Wilderness - and Grant's idea of constant push wouldn't look good for McClellan. But I'd say Grant would be a perfect General for McClellan's strategy: he was brave, fast and accustomed to fleet support. So marching on Richmond while removing obstacles like forts, enemy troops and Magruder's circuses would be a good task for Grant :)

can you really mention the namedrop and a few frames of ... was that "Birth of a Nation" they showed him in? as "appearing in"??? also Forest Gump is okay. Not too historically accurate, but an impressive movie and keeping pretty well up for being 20 years old.

@@Ugly_German_Truths Umm... I think it was a joke.

@@Ugly_German_Truths 20 year check that math again....closer to 30

Crumbs - Forrest Gump is 30 years old and you youngsters think it's ancient history. Ouch. "Holding up pretty well" indeed! The cheek!

...what’s wrong with Forrest Gump? Or are you being a contrarian for the sake of it?

Sums both sides decently.

Well, Grant's tactics and strategy allowed him to win the war in roughly a year once he was put in overall command. Sherman's March was an excellent usage of having both, and also helped speed up the war's end.

"I'm going to murder a bunch of prostitutes slaves to prove some kind of flawed point on discipline" - Sun Tzu

"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage." "Cleverness has never been associated with long delays."

@@1337billybob there is no evidence that this story ever happened. Though it should be noted that the man we believe to be Sun Tzu did lose the war he fought in and his nation was destroyed

Or wherever there were some women and children.

@@kenabbott8585 cry more

@@averyn34 If I cried every time some Leftist celebrated rape, arson, looting, and cowardice, I'd have died of dehydration decades ago.

@@averyn34 WE BRING THE JUBILEE.

@@kenabbott8585 lol did he kill even a 10th as many women and children as were enslaved in Georgia? Like yea people in history suck, sorry bro

He certainly wasn't the only honest rebel in that regard: _"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was her cause for seceding."_ --Confederate Colonel John Mosby.

"We want him here among us, he is the only laboring class we have" is truly a breathtaking line

@@TheStapleGunKid Lost Cause Apologists: "It wasn't about slavery! It was about states rights!" The Confederate States and members of the Confederacy at the time: "This is about slavery."

@@averybishopmartin6964 I can only imagine if time travel was invented and these 2 groups got to meet face to face. Both sides would have viewed the other as crazy lunatics.

That isn't what he said, he said that the North was fighting for emancipation. Was he right? Not necessarily, but the quote had nothing to do with the Southern Cause.

That’s me. Couldn’t click fast enough!

Also been waiting for this for so long. In England.

@@matthewjames1114 croatia for me

literally made my day seeing this pop up, time to sit back and chuckle about our American cousins

Final one

imagine trying to take pride in being beaten that thoroughly by a drunk... makes you wonder about some people...

This reminded me about how I keep saying “Either Hillary Clinton is not this nefarious criminal you think she is, or the Republicans you keep electing are too stupid to prosecute her, which is it?”

@@BinaryVoodooDoctor She's a student of Kissinger. Avoiding prosecution is a learned art.

@@rangergxi For what crime? There is nothing. And you know her opponent looked for ANYTHING the last 30 years. There is nothing.

​@@Hdtk2024 I would consider American foreign policy to be quite criminal.

which is also funny considering McClellan played that game of chess with Lee and did so, according to Lee, brilliantly. We love to shit on McClellan because of his lack luster performance during the Civil War but it wasn't because he was a bad leader, no. In fact although his performance was lack luster he never actually suffered a massive defeat and always moved his army into the best position. He was in actuality a brilliant leader. The problem was again he was playing chess with Lee instead of fighting a war.

@@a-drewg1716 McClellan was a good staff officier but he wad terrible as a field commander.

@@a-drewg1716 McClellan is isn't criticized for never losing a major defeat, he's criticized for never pushing is advantages, even when they were clear he had them. Which is why he also never had a major win and the war dragged on. Contrast that to Grant who made a couple big mistakes, but he also won the war decisively. That's why Grant was far more impactful in the war than McClellan ever could be.

@@projectpitchfork860 McClellan is a textbook example of theoretical expertise without practical experience. He strikes me (knowing nothing about his career except what I've learned from Checkmate Lincolnites) as someone who studied the campaigns of Alexander, Caesar, Washington, and Napoleon until he could reenact the Battle of the Granicus beat for beat but put him behind a real army in a real battlefield and he choked

Ah yes the channel with a quarter quarter accurate history, conveniently presenting the most clean versions of their history (as much as possible with certain topics) all delivered with no sources whatsoever and some of the clearest bias this side a Mississippi

Writing an angry letter and then throwing it away is a time-honored method of relieving stress.

anyone who hace ever wrote a comment then deleted it will understand

​@@yourpalpalmetto979 *has *written

It's not "kinda like" therapy, it's literally a common component of therapy. By the way, speaking of taking two damn seconds to read what you wrote before sending it, *writing *respectable *and

@@joshyoung1440 took a lot of energy to reply to my comment because I mi$spelled words. You ok bro? Maybe you ahould start writing things and never send them... As therapy. You seem to have a lot of anger

Now I’m wondering if cats are religious and all water is holy to them. And this is why all house cats hate water, because they are little furry demons.

@@ComedicLetter holy shit………………….

@@ComedicLetter Nah. Some of my brattiest cats don't react much to getting sprayed.

@@paulastiles5507 they’ve become too powerful

@@joepetto9488 that man is made of flesh

Britain did the treason

S I L E N C E, R E D C O A T

Mad old King George committed the treason denying that the rights of Englishmen followed them to the ends of the earth.

It ain't treason if it's successful.

funny how the French never get mentioned as the ringers in that war

so we just will have to wait till he can get a Custer Mustache? :D

next episode Jackson's Beard is gonna look like a goatee.

I think that's actually what determines his upload schedule for these videos.

@@d.n5287 It is. It really is. All jokes aside, it makes sense because of what the beard entails.

That's actually a term you often see in actual Confederate propaganda of the time. For example, Jefferson Davis responded to the emancipation with his own proclamation, in which he denounced the Union army as "mercenaries for abolition".

@@TheStapleGunKid And somehow people can still think that the war wasn't about slavery........

Conservatives have always been the same.

@@vehx9316 Its not that they think the war wasn't about slavery, its that they lie about what they know.

Well, then. We made Neo-Confederate belief extinct!

Having superior numbers doesn't hurt, but it's HOW you use them that matters most. Look at Thermopylae. Numbers counted for nothing when they tried to charge a tiny bottleneck. The Persians only won because they were tipped off about an alternate route that allowed them to surround the Spartans. Grant had the numbers, the equipment, and the creativity to win important strategic victories, and all with lower casualties (both in percentage and numbers) than Robert E. Lee. He didn't just throw men at an enemy position until the rebels ran out of bullets.

@@pyromania1018 Were the Persians tipped off, or properly scouted out the alternate route? Don't blindly trust nationalistic propaganda. ;)

@@ElBandito they were tipped off by another soldierfighting alongside the spartans, as it wasnt just 300 spartans but an additional 2-4000 troops coming from other greek states. One thought the war was already lost, so let the persians in exchange for a more peaceful overtaking rather than a ransacking of Greece as the Persians promised when the Spartans acted like… well spartans

@N Fels True, it was 300 Spartans, over 1,000 slaves, and many others who don't get much focus against an army that certainly didn't number almost 2 million. And it may have indeed been a scout rather than a traitor. But you get what I mean, right? Under the right circumstances, numbers count for nothing. It's how you use them that matters. You are correct that the Spartans were not as formidable as they were portrayed as: once other Greek city-states started using proper tactics and strategy, they mauled the Spartans with hardly any losses, kind of like how Grant acted like a proper general instead of a wannabe movie star. They also spent considerable resources oppressing a slave population: that "wolf" was, in actuality, a random slave minding his own business.

@@pyromania1018 what you are saying about using superior numbers, I completely agree with. Look at McClellan, burnside, hooker they all have superior number and “merely failed to win!”

It makes me laugh every time I see this video

That's Southern Logic for you.

He was just a clash player

The real KKK not modern saved the South from being exterminated by the Radicals

@@edwardclement102 by radicals do you mean people who want a fair and equitable society?

Should'a worn the hat.

@@joepetto9488 idk they’re also kind of darkly comedic too, in the “this is terrible but I’m gonna laugh really loudly at it” way

How to achieve peak badass and peak dumbass in one action.

The one time he didn’t think about the big picture.

Even in death, Sherman killed a confederate.

The Union army was FULL of political generals, people who paid for officer commissions without any military experience. That is why they struggled so early in the war before the were able to oust them. Also McClellan was actually a decent commander but was too cautious which prevented the Union from pushing their advantage when they did get it. But when he did fight, he did quite well as compared to many other of the Union officers like McDowell or Burnside.

The game reflects almost exactly that. The Union spends the first one-third of the war fighting its own internal command structure politics almost more than it does the Confederacy.

@@rexblade504 Both armies had a lot of political generals (it was easy for a politician to raise a regiment or two under his command). Not all of them were ousted in the early stages - for example, General Dan Sickles was pretty decent until he was wounded at Gettysburg. McClellan was a better strategist than a tactician. Also he had a very bad recon - that's why he had no solid knowledge on the opposing force and always thought he was outnumbered. Lee completely outgeneraled him at the Peninsula - but McClellan fully returned the favor in Maryland preventing Lee from achieving anything. McDowell was a good Corps commander. As an army commander he was... average, not so bad. The First Bull Run was a mess simply because everybody was inexperienced. Burnside was a lot better than people think :) North Carolina and Knoxville were his big achevements. The bridge at Antietam - it wasn't Burnside's fault that the recon screwed up and showed him the wrong ford. Fredericksburg - you should just trust the honest dude who declined THRICE and don't appoint him as an army commander :)

There's an old game from 1991 I used to play as a kid (and now play on DosBox) called No Greater Glory, which put you in Lincoln's or Davis' position. That game had generals with 3 stats: Initiative, Ability, and Prestige. Top 5 Union and top 3 Confederate generals in terms of prestige got mad if they weren't assigned the top 5 or 3 commands, and not doing that (or assigning a general to replace them with lower prestige) would result in losing loyalty in the political faction they belonged to and the region they came from. The trick was to manage your forces and your offensive and defensive assignments such that the generals with good ability rose in prestige while not damaging your loyalty. For the Union in particular this was tricky, since all the best generals were unknowns and all the high prestige ones (except for Halleck) had very low ability scores. It's also one of the few games that made McClellan useful. His ability of 4 (out of ten) meant that you could have him hold a position and reasonably expect it to be well defended, and his low initiative of 1 meant that you could order him to advance, pinning enemy forces in a location, but unless the troops had very high morale/experience, he wouldn't actually advance and risk losing a battle. His greatest liability, in other words, ends up being quite useful for feints. Really cool game that accomplishes a lot with very little.

@@TheLongTake Sounds cool. Is it playable by modern standards?

Yes, this was a wonderful Independence Day gift!

Forrest: I'm not racist. The people I own will vouch for me.

Forest 2024

"i just think they'd be happier if they all subjucated to us under thr3@t uh deth" "sir as your lawyer you shouldn't have said that"

Forrest Gump is a saint you bastard!

“What do you mean they’re slaves”

Exactly. some are still sore losers 200 years after...

So said king George

@@MonteKristof Case in point. ^

@@Mw-tr2oz moving an army across the Atlantic isn't the same as moving it across the Potomac

@@jefft5824 I was going somewhere else with that statement

now WASHINGTON was a massively overrated general who was poor or mediocre in most aspects aside from intelligence gathering and personal willpower/tenacity.

@@Xian109 he was pretty good with logistics to both his side and using it against the British.

Washington like only advantage is him being unable to lose, despite defeats,

​​​​@@nicmagtaan1132 a good reason for that was him knowing when to retreat and when to be cautious to not devastate his limited forces. Lee lost more men in 7 days than Washington did in 8 years. Taking big picture into account Washington lost very few battles in the sense he almost always had less casualties than his opposition (the British). His only real major defeat was Long island. Lee won very few battles for the same reason his only real victories were Bullrun, Chancellorvile and Fredericksburg

I continue to insist to this day that William Howe would've crushed Washington if he had been taking the war 50% more seriously. I for one used to believe the rebellion was the good guys and the British Armed Forces was the bad guys and since I know better than that, such a position is ridiculous.

He was fantastic, but I personally think Grant was the best.

Thomas was indeed great but I think the 2 best Union Generals were Grant and Sherman; and the 2 best Confederate Generals were Jackson and Forrest.

@@ITILII majority of the CSA generals were complete ass. Why the military named so many of their bases after some of the worst generals is beyond me. Yes there were a ton of shitty Union officers and general at the start. The USA military at the time was mostly a office of status and standing, similar to the issues plaguing the British military hierarchy. That said, the one thing old Abe did was firing and forcing the shit generals out of the military, relatively quickly. After he cleared out the shit tier generals, those who Abe HAD to relay on were great. The CSA just kept throwing their shit tier military generals out from end to end. General Bragg and Hood were terrible.

The only reason Thomas can't be compared to Grant or Sherman is due to his lack of influence; considering treatment towards him by his peers due to his heritage it's not surprising. I always look at Thomas as the biggest what-if; what could he have pulled off had he been given more influence?

@@isaacsorrels4077 : Very insightful comment. Thank you for sharing it.

Unconditional Surrender Grant

thanks

Thank you for your service.

Whats most ironic out of all of this is that Buckner was named after a Latino

Basically; Give up your shit, I'm fucking coming.

Its kinda funny. Literally everybody would be considered an alcoholic by todays standards as far as 19th century America goes.

@@rangergxi then wouldn't that make him worse? Being considered an alcoholic back then really meant you were *BAD*

@@vladdietheladdie7345 by what I’ve read Grant did have it pretty bad. He had a close circle who worked hard to help keep him clean, and throughout the war Grant didn’t go into the battle drunk. And eventually he beat his alcoholism…which I honestly find about as amazing as his time in the army and as President

@@vladdietheladdie7345 Actually, we're talking about a time when the Temperance movement had also picked up steam, so that makes it even harder to gauge how bad Grant's drinking was. Sure, a lot of people drank more and harder than we do today, but the people who didn't also had a more extreme reaction to anyone who was even visibly tipsy in front of others. (I do tend to believe the analysis that suggests that Grant didn't drink often but couldn't stop himself once he started, but do feel the influence of Temperance rhetoric gets overlooked regardless.)

@@erraticonteuse Especially when temperance, like anything else, was used as a political prop. At least some of the People accusing Grant of being a drunk were equally as fond of the bottle, and simply using the booze angle as a convenient character assassination vehicle.

Hey Peter I have one question. I don’t fully because I’m still studying Grant but when he was president. The situation with the black hills with native Americans that led to Custer last stand. I’m the situation with the black hills did grant have good intentions for the Indians and was just naive because people took advantage of his trust or was he basically abused the Indians in every opportunity? Im just trying to understand

@@5552-d8b Grant's attitudes towards the native Americans were complicated. He was genuinely concerned for their well-being, but unfortunately he was still very much a product of his time and culture and believed that the best thing for them was to be "civilized." It puts him ahead of other generals of his time - such as, unfortunately, Sherman - who worked to violently expel the tribes from their homes, but still pretty backwards by our standards. The situation with the Sioux in the black hills was also complicated. Grant actually traveled to the Indian Territory to speak with them (the first president ever to do so) and invited tribal leaders to the White House. His proposal for them was still not exactly enlightened; he wanted them to resettle somewhere else and assimilate into American society. It is important to recognize that, at the time, this was still a very liberal policy as plenty of other people simply wanted to exterminate them (not justifying the actions, just putting them in context). However, he was backed into a corner by white settlers ignoring government orders and ultimately went along with his more belligerent officers. To quote Ron Chernow's stellar biography: "There was something profoundly contradictory about Grant's attitude toward the whole situation. In addressing Congress in December, he placed ultimate blame for what had happened to the Sioux on the white men: 'Hostilities there have grown out of the avarice of the white man who has violated our treaty stipulation in his search for gold.' All along he had ardently desired to bring justice to Native Americans. This raised questions of why Grant had caved in to greedy miners. To answer this, he invoked force majeure, saying that 'rumors of rich discoveries of gold' had drawn miners to the region and any effort to remove them would have led to desertion by the bulk of troops sent there. In other words, U.S. troops would have refused to thwart the miners, even under direct orders from the president. Thus Ulysses S. Grant, an advocate of a Peace Policy toward the Indians, found himself, willy-nilly, on the side of those raping their lands and violating a sacred treaty commitment. In the last analysis, Grant had to favor the American electorate and sacrifice the Sioux. It was a terribly ironic coda to a policy premised upon humane treatment of Native Americans." It's also worth noting that Grant didn't particularly like Custer and wanted to remove him from command of the expedition after Custer publicly criticized him, but he was persuaded to relent by Sheridan.

@@peterlepper5199 o ok so In his head he thought he was “helping”. But in reality is was just letting the Indians assimilate into society because he thought there lives would be better in a “civilized world” I do know that he prevented genocide attempts which is good on his part at least.

I always find it fascinating that lost causers likes to say that Grant killed Indians, while conveniently forgetting that Lee and the rest of the Confederates fought for a government that was formed to explicitly enslave people. Guess the whole "they were just fighting for hearth and home" does not apply when demonizing the North.........

Do you not??

Well, he's certainly subject to... Delusions of grandeur 😎

*Pause* "No."

Hehe

**looks at General Grant* Oh boy...

Epic Knockout

Sherman if nukes were a thing: Nuke Atlanta

@@joepetto9488 Once again a neo-con twisting unverifiable events to fit their narrative. Imagine my surprise.

🤣🤣🤣

Nothing better to defuse tensions than good old chicken nuggets.

Do you know how many likes I wish I could give you

I got a Papa John’s ad

@@PanzerLord ironic… isn’t it…

Exactly, one hell of a grudge

HE WASN'T DRUNK ALL THE TIME lol, Grant drank some but who doesn't? Lee? Guy was a marble monument,, so straight-laced even his own officers thought he was crazy, and Jackson - a teatotaller AND a general who'd have his own troops not just executed for dubious instances of desertion, but actually blown apart by 57 caliber minie balls from 24 executioners in one case? Jackson didn't need to drink to be insane....

They also have panic attacks whenever they see fire and scream "AH, IT'S SHERMAN! RUN!"

I think they focus on sherman so much as to avoid the mention of Grant's name.

@@WardudeProxies if they speak his name they might get his attention and nobody wants that.

Copium does that to your brain

Why would they when Grant had to use twice as many soldiers to win and still lost a good portion of battles? Also Sherman was nothing compared to even the most mediocre Confederate general and that is just facts.

Is kinda fitting how Davis compared the South to cavaliers and the North to Cromwell and in the end just like the royalists his army was commanded by a bunch of aristocratic fops more concerned with personal glory than with anything else

Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan, proposed at the beginning of the war, anticipated the Union's eventual strategy very accurately.

I think that the fairest thing one could say about this is that, especially early on, the Southern commanders tended to be superior tacticians relative to Union commanders. However, their many victories also tended to be sterile because they were having to wage largely defensive campaigns.

Makes sense, I learned that Lincoln used the telegram to give orders to everyone, so a coordinated larger scale view of the war makes sense

@@MollymaukT The Cavaliers were not fops but they were out for personal glory but that was the way of things then. Cromwell was a beastly man although King Charles 1 should have recognised Parliament from early on and had He done that Cromwell wouldn’t have had any thing to raise an army for.

NOT LIKE THAT! /S

@@joepetto9488 ouch

Bro doesn’t have to censor negro. Its not the n-word

Well to s point: they were black and did serve the confederacy. So he was not wrong. While maybe not listed infantrymen, they did serve. Much like a cook, medic, or spy in the military of that time. Now were they listed regulars? Thats a different topic.

@@dustinjacks9087 Yes yes we've all seen his video on that topic.

@@dustinjacks9087 slaves working for an arm is very different to slaves serving in an army

There was a highly rated black Creole Militia in New Orleans that wanted to fight but were refused. New Orleans at the time had good race relations.

@@dustinjacks9087, Check out the Fold3 you can see thousands of Black Confederate enlistment cards as infantrymen and calvary men. Too many people assume that they were not given guns but thousands were and we still have the records of them as well.

The rebs would have needed luck like that to win against him

@@Daedalus9393 Strategically - yes. Tactically - nah, a single Sherman's blunder was enough for Johnston to win the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. But that didn't change a thing, because Sherman learned the lesson and continued to flank Johnston, making him retreat.

@@kristaskrastina2863 fair enough, I wasn’t so much trying to imply that he was the greatest commander of all time more that the confederate mythologization of their own commanders is largely unearned

​@@kristaskrastina2863Essentially, the best comparison to Sherman I've seen in media is Gamera. Occasionally loses, pretty frequently does something absolutely terrible, but never loses the same way twice and is very easy to project as a hero when he opposes something even worse.

I'd like to formally apologize for what he just said about Judah P. Benjamin.

I hope someone clips that

26:46

Do you have a transcript? It got a little hard to understand?

@@rileyknapp5318 it’s the unconditional surrender quote by Grant.

@@rileyknapp5318 Yours of this date proposing an armistice and the appointment of rommissioners to settle on the terms of capitulation is just received. "No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately on your works...."

12:56

If I may confess, I don't get it. If someone would be so generous as to explain to me, I would be most grateful!

@@JinwooYoon1217 for a while, Dixie Brewing Company operated out of New Orleans, brewing Dixie Beer. It recently rebranded as Faubourg this year. It is a bit if an inside joke.

@@TheWillage93 Ah, I see, interesting! Thank you for explaining!

He owned slaves who willingly joined his cavalry brigade and given their freedom and some money at the end of the war. Then he joins the klan😳 then he resigns because of the violence. When he got old he joined the fight for black civil rights. His story is amazing. A huge character.

@@asuperstraightpureblood I think today we would rightly call that a "grifter." He had whatever point of view benefitted him at the time. And as for "willingly," are you fucking serious? They didn't "willingly" do shit. THEY WERE SLAVES. Even if you ask a slave what he wants, he's not REALLY free to tell you anything but what you want to hear, or what he thinks you want to hear.

"I had black *employees* " :P

@@asuperstraightpureblood slaves?? Willingly?? Do you even hear yourself??

@@collinsagyeman6131 given the choice to remain on plantation or go out on cavalry raids they CHOSE....

That is interesting since a small reaction channel understands bringing their issues when discussing a person but less relevant when discussing battlefield abilities. I do agree with this sentiment, when the Bin Laden comparison is brought up.

I actually disagree because we already know what these men did before and after the war and from a historians perspective if you are comparing them as generals the morality of the human being does not affect the strategy of these men and just because you don't talk about the horrible things these people did in a video that's supposed to talk about military achievements or the lack thereof doesn't mean you are honoring them it just means that you are talking about them as a general. People need to understand the difference. Now when morality crosses a line on the field of battle case in point the fort pillow massacre that absolutely belongs in this video. But taking fifteen minutes to talk about the morals of NBF as a Clan member and Lee as a slave owner just doesn't belong in this video. And to be clear Lee's morals do need to be talked about more, people nowadays have romanticized Lee as like this perfect individual well he is actually a incredibly horrible person, but it doesn't belong in a video about military achievements. I would suggest watching vlogging through history's reaction to this video he is a historian who specializes In American History during the civil war and makes some really good points in his video while also adding alot to it.

@@Cody435 You would be right, if this was a discussion between two well meaning martial history enthusiasts. But this was always about the whole debate surrounding these generals and the framing of the conflict. These videos began with the idea that it was "the war of northern agression" and such were always all about the way we think about these events, and never just about clean cut comparisons of certain aspects of the conflict.

That's of course most egregious in the cases of the Second World War and the Civil War... Almost as if there is a certain thru-line between them...

@@Cody435 the problem is that most people are not divorcing the battlefield from the man. Sure, it would be great if we could discuss a perfectly spherical battle in a vacuum, but the human brain links "badass general" and "badass person" too readily to not put things in context.

LOL. Lee danced his forces around several larger armies with minimal losses, and we're supposed to call this a "masterclass of maneuver" by his enemies?

@@kenabbott8585 🙄

@@kenabbott8585 🤡

@@balabanasireti Is that your substitute for actual facts or argument?

@@Me-yq1fl "Ken Abbott It is easier to maneuver a smaller army than a larger one" LOL. So your argument is that the smaller army is more likely to win? Sadly, that's not the dumbest argument you've made today. "Except that the massacres, mass rapes, looting, and oppression were greatly exaggerated, and Union soldiers were much more well-behaved than most armies would be" LOL no. Absolute bullshit. "And slavers cannot complain about being 'oppressed'. You cannot oppress oppressors." You mean like the side that had more slave states when the invasion began? The side whose president tried to make slavery a permanent part of the Constitution? The side whose terrorist generals supported and took part in slavery? Or were you just throwing out some race-card bullshit because you're not smart enough to effectively defend terrorism and you're not decent enough to not try?

His presidency was marred with corruption.

He is the most underrated president.

Generals: "Grant is reckless, a drunkard, and a butcher. He is unfit to lead!" Lincoln: "I can't spare this man. He fights."

@@skinflutey I mean, all American politics was corrupt back then.

I think to remember something like this happened. Not exactly... But - and pleas correct me if I am wrong here - wasn't there something that some other generals were about to bad mouth Grant as a drunk to president Lincoln and he just shrugged it of and was like 'Now - in that case send HIM a keg of his favorite poison'

I cackled

Best line in the series

"An honorable organization," like that somehow makes the racially-based terrorism better.

Interestingly, Hitler and Nazi Germany tried to stir up pro-Nazi sentiment in the 1930s South because they thought the prejudice and bitterness there would be ripe for spreading their ideology. It failed however because of anti-German sentiment from World War I (the Southerners were mostly of Anglo descent) and because even Southerners of that era thought that the Nazi antisemitism was highly controversial. Basically, hate canceled out hate.

@@thunderbird1921 It was from a comic special, but I think it was put best when the Joker teamed up with the Red Skull and then backstabbed him when he learned he was a Nazi: 'I may be a insane criminal, but I'm an AMERICAN insane criminal!' Paraphased from memory but still.

Serous question why don't they? Longstreet seems like a brilliant commander and resourceful tactician from what I've read.

He knew what was happening.

@@kyleott6101 one of the best generals on either side, could even be argued that he was one of the best generals of the 19th century. i could go on im a big fan of Longstreet Beats lee, beats Jackson, beats Grant, Beats Sherman beats Sheridan etc etc

@@kyleott6101 after the war Longstreet became a Republican Politician in support of Grant who was his friend from the army before the civil war. He was also very critical of Robert E. Lee’s performance in the civil war. He also lead the Louisiana State Militia against the White League in the Battle of Liberty Place. Basically he tried to distance himself as much as he could from the confederacy after the war and Lost Causers hate him for that

@@kyleott6101 Because they wanna blame him for all of Lee's failures like the battle of Gettysburg

Fighting the good fight and beating your head against a brick wall are very similar tasks.

@@BradyPostma God's honest truth, amen :p

Grant was an idiot and Lee was a genius. Railroads, telegraph, and cannon foddle won that war. I hate the shit happened, but if the north had better Generals the shit wouldn't have lasted 4 years. Hell they had to cut off Texas to even have a chance of winning... well that and allowing the middle states to keep slavery and join the union. Shit isn't rocket science the resources won and the north had that in spades. Lee could've ended the war if he would've marched on DC, but the war to him wasn't about what others were fighting for. To him it was a love for his state and he did not want to see the union fall, but he also did not want to see his home fall either.

Well now you can just show them this video.

@@coryflynn6391 Did you even watch the video? Also, if war is a simple matter of resources, explain how the colonies won the Revolution? Or how the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan?

@Jackson Attilio Good point. It's like, if there'd been any real substance to the Dixie they were defending, it might've worked. As it was, they stood to in the defense of personal aggrandizement. A place of such selfishness that it needed slaves to demonstrate its self-importance. This 'look at me' style of being might feel good and look good, but all that 'me' attitude in the south leaves little room for any 'us' solidarity; and a regiment of unified 'us' troops will always defeat a brigade of 'look at me' soldiers. The southerners failed to bank on the 'United' part of the country's name; in every way it was always poised to defeat a self-indulgent Dixie. They also willingly shed blood defending that last, most distasteful vice of humanity... slavery. Too selfish to just advance the 'self dying out' of the practice that some notable few of them could foresee. There'd have been nothing to fight over or secede over otherwise. Once the bid to maintain slavery was launched, it couldn't be unlaunched in case of defeat. To leave a legacy of not being the racist manipulators of humanity that they actually were, thus is spawned... the lost cause.

And they absolutely believed that: the sense of superiority came from the idea that they were Anglo Norman aristocracy rather than Puritan peasants and Continental immigrants

@@jonnie106 Those slaves were not for demonstrating self-importance. They were for making money.

@@Sewblon Indeed. The money made via slavery may have been the defining attribute of their self-importance.

It’s also amusing that the southern accents are often so exaggerated (Gone With the Wind style) when in reality they were much closer to the British accent. Particularly those that were educated. There are actual recordings of confederate officers (made in the 1920’s) to prove this. I mean it’s only a generation or two since the War of Independence.

Great quote, even for today.

So Hannibal Barca was a bad general simply because he lost the war due to logistics? Just say '"I dislike the confederates and will do anything to discredit them even if the implications I am making are false " instead of the mental gymnastics.

@@abdurrahmanqureshi3030 it was a joke mate😂 Settle down

@@abdurrahmanqureshi3030 Hannibal lost because Rome was to stubborn not because of logistics.

@@jetcraneboyd4278 he lost because of logistics. The sheer amount of manpower they could field overwhelmed him

Ehhhhhh except North Carolina, which didn't mention slavery in their documents, and Louisiana, who didn't have one. But their delegates sent to Texas showed the reason for secession was slavery.

But slavery was not the reason Lincoln went to war. Lincoln said he would allow the south to keep slavery. Lincoln waged war with the south because he disagreed with the states right to secede from the union.

@@henrysanders6544 wrong, the demand was to remove the institution of slavery at which point the south decided to succeed because they didnt want to be told what they can and can not do with their "property" I really can not fathom how you mouth breathers can look at words written by the very men talking of the refusal to not only relinquish their slaves but to give these poor men the rights to be seen as equals. then say "eRm iT aCtUaLLy wAsnT aBouT SlaVery" you're the real lost cause here.

Last part aged well

⁠@@henrysanders6544read carefully. Stop the whataboutism and deflection. We’re talking about the South. Not Lincoln. The South fought for their States’ rights to uphold and expand slavery. They seceded over slavery.

The Union is saved!

Yes, I was wondering about that! Thanks for clearing it up!!

Just renamed this year.

Checkmate Davisites!

My question: who is Norman Francis?

@@maryaigler7651 First black president of Xavier University in New Orleans. He was a lawyer for civil rights protesters and chose to allow the Freedom Riders to stay at the university during his time as dean there.

Now that you mention it, these symptoms are found in all those who support some controversial side in a war. People wasn't kidding when they said history repeats itself.

@@arkle519 Yeah, i also forgot the weapon statistics fetishism. I also have a strong interest in military history and equipment (Though the cold war and bronze age are my favourites), but im always shocked about their encyclopedic knowledge of stats, but them not being to able to understand those systems in a context. The Sherman tank (Funny coincidence) is a good example of this.

Do people try to claim that Germany was forced to go to war against litterally all of its neighbors.

@@ArcAngle1117 you'd be surprised how often they do

@@ArcAngle1117 Yeah, there are different revisionist narratives that claim that poland for example mobilized first, that poland forced germany to war because of the danzig situation, the Gleiwitz incident, because of the treatment of ethnic germans in poland. There are also narratives that proclaim that germany was forced to war by the british. Lots of stuff actually.

"...Our BEST commander was an alcoholic".

More soldiers More gear More supplies Used terrorism. "One arm tied behind our back." Uhhhhhh yeah.

Bruh the South absolutely used terrorism as well. 21:13. At least watch the video before trying to frame the North as "the big meanies who used tactics like being better and terrorism" when the South were literally racists using blacks as cannon fodder and committing terrorism as well. Just laugh about the North beating the South with an alchohalic because the South fucking sucked lmao

​@@kenabbott8585ah yes another southern hypocrisy. Accused one another of terrorism while slaving millions of people just because they were born of a different skin color. Like how idiot you could be, you seems to forgot that even before the civil war your pro slave state responded with violence against abolitionist. Like harrassment and burning down their property. The Fugitive Slave Act ironically violate the state right's of the free state. Seems like the South only main contribution to the US is their never ending hypocrisy.

​@@kenabbott8585also you will have more soldier if half of your population aren't slaves.

Always two there are, No more, no less. a master and an apprentice. :D

Was most of that supposed to be intelligible? I was basically only able to understand the same that Google was with the subtitles.

@@zeroone8800 it was Grant's order for unconditional surrender.

AAAAAAWAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS

@@hussamgunter7381 Rattlesnakes and alligators, Right away! Come away! Right away! Right away, come away!

I see and hear, despite how entertaining your video is , that the revisionist have gotten to you too. I'm 60 years old and no I'm not even from the Southern U.S. so you cant say I'm biased. I've studied this war practically all my life. No doubt Grant and Sherman were competent but they are in no way in the same echelon as Lee or Jackson or Forrest. What about Belmont. What about Shiloh. Grant wired Halleck that he had no indication or the faintest idea of being attacked. Sherman was warned repeatedly but ignored it. The next day Sherman was wounded in the hand with buckshot while his aide was killed. Grant was forced back on the Tennesse River. If Buells fresh 40000 troops had not arrived that nite , it's almost a given Grant and Sherman would have been killed or captured. That would have changed everything. The South probably would have lost the war . You simply contradict yourself constantly. Grant lost more men in 30 days during the Overland campaign than all the Union Generals who had fought him before. What about all the European immigrants who fought for the North so they could receive Freeland in the homestead act. Poor Bobby Lee. He had smashed Army after army despite overwhelming odds. Even Bonaparte lost eventually. I've studied him for years. He had comparable numbers at Waterloo and look at the result. Only an idiot would invade Russia the way he did. He led 700,000 troops into Russia and about 30,000 made it out. Back to Lee. If Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond had fallen the war would have virtually ended then and there. But go ahead with your version of history and educate these young folks if you can. I'm sure you'd try to argue with me and I'd welcome it. No offense brother yank. It probably is well that this Nation was not separated permanently. I think we are now facing the gravest threat we have ever had to deal with and if you are half as intelligent as I think you are you know what I mean... God bless you. Enjoyed it. Peace Out...

Mister, Please Stop taking Normal Pills before venting into Bed (In Susmogus?!?!! 😳😳😳). Because if you would do so without such input, you would realise that this is a Joke. I don't get how a 60 Year old Adult can't even discern this obvious Joke from some weird take, but here we are. I'm not even from the USA.

@@feragosmyxixarashtra7948 You are definitely correct Sir. I humbly apologize. And I love this guys videos. Just been having a terrible couple of years. 🕊

@@jamesgodwin7215 No Problem. Take care of yourself.

@@jamesgodwin7215 god this is brilliant.I couldn't agree more

What did he do with rear arear stuff that was so innovative?

Go check out thersites the historian, him and Sean Chick regularly jizz out over Thomas when they talk about the civil war.

@@seanmac1793 everyone who pretends they didnt giggle at this question is a liar

@@Adamdidit what???????????? Oh nvm I get it heeehee

@@Adamdidit fun fact: I actually hate those jokes, so I did not.

Yamamoto was right; Imperial Japan was truly lost when they provoked the United States.

Well, Downfall would have been different; there was literally nothing else left to attack. Practically every island that Japan had held was either captured or blockaded; the navy was down to one old battleship, no cruisers, and a singe digit number of destroyers; and every single flyable aircraft was in the home islands.

@@Shaun_Jones But they could still turn Japan into Berlin or Leningrad. They had every citizen ready to fight off an invasion and had their best tanks (read: Ones that could actually counter the Sherman) on the home islands plus jets.

@@emberfist8347 you can’t just take a battle plan that worked for a single city and scale it up to a landmass the size of California. It would have taken years, possibly decades, to starve out Japan. Besides, both Leningrad and Berlin show that that doesn’t always work. Leningrad held out for years and was still standing when relieved; Berlin eventually had to be stormed, block-by-block, house-by-house; it was some of the most brutal and costly urban fighting of the entire war.

@@Shaun_Jones That was my point about having a conventional fight over the Home Islands would be a costly victory at best or a defeat at worst.

Kinda gives the whole game away, huh?

"Why do we have to talk about this whole 'religion' thing when discussing the Crusades?"

‘’Why do we have to talk about warcrimes? i just want to talk about the Roman Empire! And how cool the romans were!”

"Why do we have to talk about the Holocaust or War crimes, I just wanna talk about the Wehrmacht and how cool the Tiger is!"

Honestly at this point Johnny Reb makes me think of an abused child who convinced himself his parents were great and nothing was wrong but is now being told how shit his life was and can’t handle it… is that why lost causers are so scared to let go they don’t wanna be seen as ancestors of slavers and rebels?

You won't convince me that he didn't put the ad market there intentionally

@@PhycoKrusk I suspect you're right because it's not the first of his videos where the ad break lines up perfectly with a setup like this. There's another video of his I was watching about Nazi crack pot archeology and he sets up a quote from Hitler and he's like "... Hitler told him:" *suddenly a car ad starts* "Question everything! We do."

I got an ad break right as he repeated a quote twice. Lol I enjoyed that creative editing

Mine was spa commercial. Made it sound like Bedford got up there and tried selling the crowd spa treatments.

I got Grubhub with mine

Somewhat sadly and ironically, I got a fucking trump campaign ad.

so where will he go from there?....Ambrose Everett Burnside?

Maybe he's preparing for a John Brown episode.

From what I read not too long ago, the Lost Cause thing and Jim Crow South actually had Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s believing it was a ripe spot for spreading their ideology (as they saw similarities between it and post World War I Germany). Their propaganda effort failed however, as the southerners at that time were primarily of Anglo descent and had strong anti-German sentiment from WWI and even many of them though the Nazis' antisemitism was highly controversial (at least one southern newspaper even awkwardly criticized Hitler for not congratulating American runner Jesse Owens in 1936, rather ironic considering what was going on there during that era). In the end, the frustrated Nazis focused as much effort as possible on the German American Bund.

@Leonard squirrel Only people with water on the brain say that.

@Leonard squirrel Do you even know what genocide is?

@Leonard squirrel We will always have the southern states treasonous acts in our history books. Statues honoring traitors will be in the dumpster where they belong.

If you encounter anyone who tries to claim that the war wasn’t about slavery and the confederacy wasn’t a white suptemacist organization, direct them to the Cornerstone speech. Neo-confederates try to rewrite history, but the actual confederates didn’t beat around the bush when it came to talking about their white supremacist beliefs. Also the letters of secession are riddled with slavery talk, some of them outright say that slavery is the main cause of secession.

That's pretty well right. Lee, for all his "brilliance", realized only too late that the way for his side to win is by digging in and inflicting casualties from a defensive posture. His victories were costly, and his side could not replace the numbers or equipment so easily. Perhaps the thought was smashing victories would end the war, but for all of the trouble Lee gave everyone before Grant came west, the war was being lost. The idea that Gettysburg was the turning point is overblown, after all. Not only was Vicksburg the key defeat, in both cases the outcome was almost certainly decided. Vicksburg was finished, whether it came on July 4 or sometimes after. And even if Lee had carried the day at Gettysburg, it would merely be a slightly higher peak before the decline that was already guaranteed by the war's years of casualties and destruction, which only one side could weather for years.

@@ElCrab Even if Lee “won” at Gettysburg, it would have been such a tremendous cost that to call it Pyrrhic would be an understatement

My problem with Lee is that his accomplishments were all in Virginia his home state. As soon as he left he got killed twice

@@warlordofbritannia It also doesn't really reflect well on him that he chose to come gallivanting up here to Pennsylvania while Vicksburg was desperately in need of help (and begged him to send it) and had far more strategic importance to the Confederacy's objectives.

​@@warlordofbritanniaAlso, had Lee tried to engage Meade at Pipe Creek (which would be necessary to march on D.C.), his army would have been destroyed.

Unless you are the Wampanoag apparently.

Oh, well then! Brutal but he wouldn’t have had to go to war if the English actually respected their end of the treaty they signed with Metacomet’s daddy Ousamequin and earlier Chief Massasoit.

I thought the Mongols founded the city of Beijing? And they did a lot of legitimately cool stuff...Baghdad was not one of them.

@@mitchellwright5478 Huh. Must have gotten that mixed up with a different city. True very true. Granted some of the claims against the Mongols/Genghis Khan were exaggerated or just plain false but still.

Yes

Checkmate, Doucetteites!

Thank you.

Thanks for this. A reference to Grant's first great victory at Fort Donelson.

I love that quote.

Wait, what? Did Pickett actually say it was Meade's fault that Lee ordered a suicide charge?

@@burninsherman7196 The point is that the Union Army decided to shoot back, rather than just allow Pickett to walk across that field undisturbed.

@@were-owlinwisconsin4441 Ah yes, they can't shoot back because that would be unfair, instead they should just stand there and watch our army charge them. Of course.

@@burninsherman7196 I'd read that more as "they were better than us on that day and in that scenario" and not as "well d'uh, Meade made us do this crazy stunt that could not win".

this is why you should always clear your browser history, one never knows when out of work actors will snap and get political

Winners don't always end up writing the history books, this may be true when it comes to the Indian Wars, but all too often, the losers develop a huge part of their identity complex over memories of a lost war or battle. Look at how Serbs view Kosovo, or how German anti-Semites laid the groundwork for Nazi anti-Semitism with the "Stab in the Back" myth right after WWI, which was the myth that Germany only lost The Great War because of Jewish subterfuge assisting the Allies (Despite the facts that the Allies had clearly overwhelmed the Central Powers with far superior resources, and the fact that a disproportionate number of German Jews fought for Germany directly on the Front Lines.). Distorted war memories can be an extremely dangerous thing if they are not properly addressed.

Unless you’re American, then the losers apparently get to write their own history lol

@@Wasserkaktus not only that, but much of the popular understanding of the Eastern Front of WWII in the eyes of the West was directly shaped by the accounts various Nazi generals wrote in their memoirs, resulting in a lot of myths of Soviet "asiatic hordes" which still persist to this very day. The whole "clean Wehrmacht" myth is yet another example of this and is basically WWII's version of everything brought up in this video

when your family loses a soldier to battle, you want to lionize the enemy, to make the loss more of a noble death, than admitting they died needlessly.

@Leonard squirrel Sweetie, do you even know what genocide means?

Grant never drank when on duty, so never. He saved the urge to drink for downtime-when on leave or for a day or two during a long siege.

Explain

@@General_Rubenski "Humble Pie" is a term people say to mean that you have to figuratively eat your own words. That you were wrong or embarrased about something. Say you brag that your local sports team is going to win the big game, the they get their asses kicked. You have to eat your humble pie. Also sometimes refered to as "eating crow" Making it a literal pie that the guy was literally eating was a funny little joke

@@bigrigjoe5130 It's also a meat pie made of the cast off parts of an animal so is the lowest quality possible.

That is pretty quick for a correspondence game.

@@1brianm7 especially for one in the 1800s

Excuse me if I'm wrong here but weren't Chinese immigrants mostly just a bit after the war and further west than most confederates?

Yeah I think so.

@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat Further west, yes. Bit after the war, no. The first significant wave of Chinese immigrants came during the 1849 Gold Rush.

Meanwhile in reality, the vast majority of the American labor force was White but they don't need to prove their contribution to this country

@@springheeljak145 No, they don't, since that's pretty much the only thing that's been taught for a long time.

"Sledge of Nashville"

That is some fucking Fire Punch shit

William Tecumseh Sherman: the original Human Torch.

@@thomaskole9881 fun fact the robotic human torch was based off old blue prints made by général sherman himself

Billy Sherman, there human torch. Now that’s an anime I want to see.

I would argue that Sherman DID spontaneously combust in a way...his anger at the death of his favorite son due to disease from the war was, IMO, a serious motivation on his hardened views towards civilians and destruction in 1864 and 1865.

yay war crimes!

Okay but did she name you Hiram or Ulysses or Grant?

@@jeansmith4053 That is an important question.

I get it...

Ulysses was going to be my middle name until my parents realized my initials were IUD.

@@itsmannertime Jesus

There's a reason natives supported the confederacy

@@bocchithean-cap3404 Ah yes, because you can boil down the dozens of tribes that fought in the civil war (or adjacent to it) as "natives", different tribes fought for both sides, even individuals of the same tribe were split in support. The Dakota fought the Union, but they didn't fight for the confederates, weren't even allies. The five civilized tribes were somewhat split (despite them all having slavery), a majority of the seminole fought for the union, and sizeable minorities amongst the other 4 fought for the Union as well, and even a majority of cherokee and their leader supported the union despite the tribe fighting for the confederacy due to the support of the land owning elite. More neutral tribes would often use the war as an excuse to launch raids on and fight rival tribes, or even members of the same tribe using it fight local civil wars.

​@@tntsummers926Seeing the profile pic, prior comments, as well as the tone of this one should tell you that the degen that you're speaking to doesn't care about native peoples... Or facts... Lol.

@@TSmith-yy3ccmy guy he doesn’t have a profile picture. He’s being truthful about the various tribes. They various tribes and nations were not a single bloc, and they reacted to the war as you would expect anyone to: they used it to further their goals.

I thought natives backed both sides.

They went in to catch a wagon train