Gary W. Gallagher, a Civil War military historian and professor at the University of Virginia, delivers Wednesday's address on the gritty details of how this war was fought. Read the recap here: chqdaily.com/2013/07/10/gallag...
Gary Gallagher is a great speaker and brilliant scholar! I have listened to him several times. Each time he shares his wealth of knowledge, I add to my own. I do think that Gettysburg was a turning point. Why? For medical reasons. Those of Robert E. Lee!♡ 1st, let me tell you that my studies of the Civil War began with medical and surgical aspects of the soldiers. What illnesses they had and they were many! How the doctors, with only 2 years of medical school, performed surgery using no "sterile" technique in hot, bug infested O.R.'s! Why this interest? I am an R.N. with many years experience. It appealed to me. I have learned many things. One story I would like to share is that of Stonewall Jackson. He didn't die from the bullet wound or amputation! He developed pneumonia because they KEPT HIM IN BED!!! Post-OP patients must be gotten out of bed quickly and often to prevent this complication! Stonewall's doctor didn't know that. Probably didn't know many things as was the standard of the day! I actually went to nursing school longer than a CivilWar doctor attended med. school! Now to General Robert E. Lee! I've read things by medical historians that claim Lee had a heart attack in March, 1863. He was very ill based on his symptoms. When someone develops♡ disease, it effects major systems in the body as they don't receive the oxygen that they need. Especially the brain! Is it possible that this effected his performance at Gettysberg? Pickett"s charge? His, out of character, apology to his men at end of day 3? He died at 63 with cardiovascular symptoms. To me it is a compelling thought. Norma Jean Morrissey. Historian in Training
Gary Gallagher is an absolutely brilliant academic historian, and I say that as a fellow professor myself. I've learned an amazing amount from reading his works and listening to his lectures. My only quibble with him is that he's failed to understand Shelby Foote, who was not an academic and who thought much more like Faulkner than he did like any academic who ever wrote about the war. Foote's a _character_ from southern literature, not someone you judge purely by his theory of the case.If you want to understand the war, you need to read both Gallagher and Foote. The former gives you highly sophisticated analysis and conclusions, while the latter gives you the soul of southern feeling. IMHO, as they say, FWIW.
Ha ha ha. I'm listening to Gallagher while reading the trilogy for the fourth time. Gary is the professor I wish I had 50 years ago. Mr. Foote is like my uncle telling me stories about WW2 while I sat at the foot of his rocker 60 years ago.
@@indy_go_blue6048 I like the analogy about Shelby. Ironically, he must have had some interesting WW II stories. I understand that he was a commissioned officer in the Army, but got into some sort of a problem with a missing/stolen jeep and was discharged. To his credit, he then enlisted in the USMC, where he served as a private. I wish I could have spent some time with him.
I have watched many lectures and presentations by Dr. Gallagher and I consider him to be the most intellectually honest and objective Civil War historian. His repeated focus on judging decisions of people based on what they knew and the situation at the time is the only way to accurately understand why particular decisions were made. Those people did not have a crystal ball to indicate the future results of their actions and neither do we today. The practical value of learning history is that we DO know the results of their decisions and understanding what they knew and why they made that decision instead of choosing another option provides some guidance for decisions we make today in similar scenarios. If we aren’t honest, however, in our assessment of their situation, their tendencies, their options, and the advice available to past leaders, then our opinions and understanding of their reasoning will be flawed and this might be more harmful than helpful to our knowledge.
especially objective as he has an especially long family history in the state of Colorado and has no familial ties to the American South, unlike Shelby Foote, who romanticizes this period to the point of inflicting nausea upon his listeners, i.e. those who endured his whistly accounts featured in Ken Burns’ Civil War.
Wow, this presentation was spectacular!... This was the first time I had the pleasure of hearing a talk by Jeffrey Gallagher, and I must say, I am made better for it. His well thought-out insights come directly from his deep understanding and knowledge of the people and events of the subject matter covered. His enthusiasm for the topic made me all the more interested. Great presentation!
I love Gettysburg! I'm a Gettysburg buff. But, I think that the Battle of Antietam was the greatest turning point of the war. Because it impacted all the major areas of the war: Military, political, social, cultural, and geopolitics as well. It ultimately changed the war from preserving the Union, to destroying slavery. I'm also starting to become an Antietam buff as well.
The Seven Days battles were more important than Antietam. They were the battles that caused Lincoln to write the Emancipation Proclamation, not Antietam.
@@travisjohn7044 Not sure I would agree they were the greatest turning point, but they also brought Lee to the forefront, which greatly impacted the course of the war.
@@travisjohn7044 My great great grandfather's kid brother was killed on the 6th day of the Seven Days. He was 20 years old. He had joined the First Pennsylvania at the very beginning of the war.
Once again Gettysburg and Vicksburg get all the attention: the real turning point in July of 1863 was the TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN AND SUBSEQUENT CAPTURE OF CHATTANOOGA. The main Confederate army of the west was roundly defeated and forced to flee back into the deep south, opening the gateway to the breadbasket of the Confederacy. Neither Gettysburg nor Vicksburg accomplished this. At Gettysburg the Union army avoided defeat, it did not defeat Lee; Grant's capture of Vicksburg was strategically important, but again, no substantial loss of territory and the Rebel troops who surrendered were soon exchanged and back in the front lines. General Rosecrans outmaneuvered and defeated in detail the Army of Tennessee and then, after reorganizing, crossed a mountain range and maneuvered the Rebels out of the vital rail and road hub of Chattanooga--without, it should be noted, a long siege. Rosecrans' advance was a knife thrust into the heart of the Confederacy and if he had just contented himself with consolidating his position, would have been THE general credited with winning the war.
Had Chickamauga not been such a (apparently) devastating defeat it probably would've gotten more recognition as a turning point. Also, as Lincoln might have said, if it didn't happen in the east, it didn't happen. I'm not sure "avoided defeat" is appropriate to the case; if so then Lee avoided defeat at Fredricksburg.
Losing the remainder of the largest river in the nation and its tributaries is critical. The Confederacy was cut off from valuable supplies Chattanooga/ Chickamauga merely cut off the Deep South All important but denying transportation and supplies trumps a border area between Tennessee and Georgia as well as kicking Lee out of the North
@@tylerjerabek5204 Capturing Chattanooga did cut off transportation and supply. The main direct line from the western theater ran from Virginia to Chattanooga; after its fall supplies could only be sent roundabout through GA, SC, and NC. Of course the fall of Atlanta and the March to the Sea pretty much ended supplies coming from the breadbasket and the fall of Chattanooga opened the door, as you know.
Learning is so much fun with Prof. Gallagher! Gettysburg was not an important battle strategically. Vicksburg was very important as it was the back door to the south.Lee never intended on taking the war to the citizenry of the north.So while Lee’s army was recovering from getting whipped, Sherman was burning down the south and eating all of their food while striking terror to all.So it was like Lee was beating down the fire on the front porch while the house was burning down.♥️
I may have misinterpreted, but what I heard was that Vicksburg was of limited strategic importance. It was a big victory, but the Mississippi was largely useless since New Orleans was already in federal hands by 1862. But yes, it did cut the confederacy in half and was of great moral effect, as far I know.
That's what Vicksburg meant to the South. But I disagree with respect to the North. I think Vicksburg was of tremendous importance because it make the whole Mississippi under Union control for transporting material. Plus it essentially frees up Grant to continue the war in the East. I believe Grant knew what was needed to win the war and he was determined to pay the price. That's where Lee underestimated him. He kept getting out flanked to the point of exhaustion. But Grant knew that's what he HAD to do, right?
I understand Vicksburg to be important in relation to the resources that the Confederacy could muster on the west side of the Mississippi. I believe this was strategically an important consideration since just having New Orleans didn't mean you could not move resources from west to east
Loved this lecture, and I love to hear Gary Gallagher talk. He does a good job of simultaneously bringing the war to life while at the same time demystifying it. That having been said, the loss at Vicksburg and Gettysburg cannot be underestimated for two reasons: 1) The Confederacy was effectively split into two. In practical terms this meant two things for both the Western and Eastern theaters of operation. Any hope of reinforcement from the Trans-Mississippi region was largely gone. That meant no fresh troops from Texas, Western Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and the Indian Territory (Oklahoma). Given the manpower shortage the Confederacy was already experiencing by 1863 that cannot be understated. It also meant no hope of resupply from the Trans-Mississippi region. This meant no sugar and salt from Louisiana, no beef and corn from Texas, no pork and sorghum from Arkansas and no lead and iron from Oklahoma and Missouri. A lot of the resupply issues, specifically the lack of food, that the Confederacy experiences in 1864-1865 occur as a result of Vicksburg falling. Also, the fall of Vicksburg meant the Union could use the Mississippi to ferry troops down south and attack the states of the deep South, which the North did in 1864 by invading Western Louisiana and Arkansas as well as moving further into Mississippi. 2) Vicksburg and Gettysburg were psychological blows to the Confederacy, and morale boosts to the Union. We know that from the letters and journals of many people at the time. While issues were still contentious in the North (the draft riots and similar incidents showcase those problems quite vividly), there was a shift in terms of mindset of many Northerners. The War not only didn't seem unwinnable, but something that might actually occur quickly with the right application of effort. The opposite was true of many Southerners. There were people who were openly talking about having peace talks with the North after the week of July 4th, 1863. That had not been the case even a week before. Also, Lee pretty much had a nervous breakdown brought on by Gettysburg and the death of Stonewall Jackson a month earlier in the latter part of July 1863 and actually tried to resign his commission after the loss (he cited ill health and we know he was having heart trouble by then). Gallagher quoted Lee about the Army of the Potomac not going on the offensive, but Lee never regained the initiative either. He just sat across the Rapidan and licked his wounds and waited for the Union to attack him again. Vicksburg and Gettysburg were also huge blows to the Confederacy in terms of manpower. Depending on whose estimates you believe, the Confederacy lost something around 55,000 to 60,000 men killed, wounded missing and captured in one week of fighting, and they couldn't afford those types of losses. This was after all the previous bloodbaths like Shiloh, Antietam, Perryville, and the Seven Days. They couldn't take those kinds of losses, especially when they really had nothing to show for it. People forget that one reason Lee invaded Pennsylvania (another was food, again they were running into supply issues) was to force Union troops North from Vicksburg and Eastern Tennessee to defend Washington and alleviate the siege (that was a bad idea in my opinion but it was at least plausible). Gettysburg was especially harsh because Lee lost a large number of capable field officers and brigade commanders (men like Armistead, Garnett and Kemper were all killed and others like Trimble and Hood were seriously wounded). Again, they couldn't take those kinds of losses, especially of some of their best troops. Finally, the defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg convinced both the French and the British that it wasn't worth backing the Confederacy against the USA. The loss of any hope of British aid was especially harsh for the Confederacy because they desperately wanted help from the British breaking the Union naval blockade. You cannot downplay the significance of those losses because they had the opposite effect of the Battle of Saratoga, which helped win the U.S. French support in the American Revolution. Without foreign recognition there was very little hope of the Confederacy actually mounting a winning offensive against the Union (although there were other ways to win the war, as we saw in 1864).
My thoughts exactly, it was not one particular battle or another. It was Grant's promotion and his determination to push the war through to a conclusion.
“Lee must have been perplexed with Longstreet’s performance at Gettysburg” Except, he never wrote that nor are there any records of him saying anything to that effect. He spent most of the time at Gettysburg at Longstreet’s side. He spoke and wrote kindly of him after the war as well. If Longstreet were so terrible and so much at fault, why remain silent about it?
I’m all my time learning about the civil I believe that September 1864 when Atlanta fell was when the war became unwindable and thus the greatest turning point it all went extremely down hill for the south after that
Did Grant deliver the victory at Chattanooga? I thought he wanted to know who ordered the attack up Missionary Ridge, after the infantry carried on of their own accord?
I enjoy Gallagher's lectures, but I'm not sure I understand his arguments related to 'turning points.' I don't agree that hindsight is any sort of disadvantage in discussing the overall course of a war. Obviously it can obscure the thoughts and decision-making processes of those involved, but I'm not sure how the two points overlap.
I think he's referring to the contemporary viewpoint of Gettysburg, which he reiterates in a lot of his presentations. It's interesting to think about how contemporaries thought about the three allied victories of late '42-early '43 at Stalingrad, Alemein and Guadalcanal other than Churchill's "end of the beginning" statement.
I would add that retrospective views often result in conclusions about history that are contradicted and disproven by the opinions of people expressing the common views of the time. It’s like people who are influenced by the “memory” that the south fought the civil war in support of states rights. Any review of documents written at the the time (eg Mississippi’s Articles of Secession) clearly demonstrate that the South fought to protect slavery. Or Robert E. Lee being an opponent of slavery; you can believe that or read what he actually wrote and thought about slaves and slavery. “Memory” allows us to remember history in a way that may provide a more honourable explanation for the actions of ancestors and provide a way to whitewash the harsher parts of our past.
@@peterrobertson2580 Memory? When does memory start? The second time we run specific-thoughts through our brain (First time was when it happened, LIVE!) and now we remember these specific-thoughts 2 seconds later and tell BS here and do the same 15 yrs later as is implied here,,, Some of us just have have low morals and tell lies as we please Sounds to me like rebumpkins are gonna lie often (as far back as the 1800s here) or they actually have a comprehension\IQ issue with the inner workings of their skull bones? -- And yes, hindsight should help better understand any issue, ESP understanding times before any issue starts that you actually want to understand the why\how an event happens,
Porter Alexander believed Vicksburg to be vitally important, as did most at the time. Prof. Gallagher seems to be going against his view a bit that what's most important is what they thought at the time.
Gary makes quite a few controversial statements. Agree that as an "offensive" weapon the loss of New Orleans was important, but the North couldn't use the Mississippi either as long as Vicksburg was held (and Port Hudson to a lesser extent), not to mention the supplies coming across from TX, AK and western LA.
I love to see historical lecturers slowly unravel like this and get pissed at how histroy is treated in the mainstream. Stephen Kotkin has a few shaking fists at the air lectures like this I love every one of them.
YES, INDEED! This is reflective of Brilliant historical "spadework", by truly inspired, and brilliant Historians! Gary Gallagher - yes indeed! - Stephen Kotkin - even more so, and brilliantly anslytical on Russia, right up unto present day!
The only real way in which the battle of Gettysburg was a *turning point* in the Civil War was that it reduced the Confederate cause to a purely defensive one, strategically speaking. Never again could Lee's Army of Northern Virginia entertain thoughts of winning it offensively -- not that it really had a reasonable chance of so doing, anyway. Otherwise, I agree with Professor Gallagher that the qualified Union victory at Gettysburg in nowise guaranteed ultimate victory: the only thing it guaranteed was the POTENTIAL for it.
Whole strategy of the Confederacy-make the North hurt so much that they would sue for peace. Nearly got there too, except for Sherman capturing Atlanta leading to Lincoln being re-elected. Talk about a turning point!
@@josephinewheeler7074 Well yes: Lee's military tactic has been called offensive-defensive. That is: he may have been fighting a strategically defensive battle (because it was on his home turf); but the tactics he employed were typically offensive. That's what made his battles so costly, even if victorious (Lee, and not Grant, was the true *butcher* of the Civil War). But even though they were only on the defense, they were nevertheless strategic victories. So for that reason, they seemed at first to give the Confederacy SOME chance of winning the war: if nothing else, France and Great Britain (unlike other European countries) paid some attention to the conflict, and came close to granting diplomatic recognition to the Confederate cause. But the southern strategy of winning the war by not losing it could not hold against the likes of Grant and Sherman. If not for them (as well as Thomas and Sheridan), I doubt the North would have prevailed in the war, militarily or politically. That being said, suppose the South HAD won the war and gained independence. Do you suppose the new Confederate nation (founded upon the principle of states' rights and secession) would have endured? Or do you suppose there would have been permanent peace between an independent North and South? Do wars between sovereign nations never happen? Would there not have been conflict over control of the western territories, which had been the pre-war battleground over slavery and freedom?
In the movie Lincoln. The importance of the peace treaty was that House Democrats wouldn't sign the or pass the Amendment if there was a delegation from the South looking for a peace deal. According to the film, there was no delegation in Washington. So the Amendment passed. And here we are.
I must disagree with him about the movie "Lincoln" and the depiction of the Confederate peace delegation. He said it was pointless but I saw an important point: that President Lincoln wouldn't consider anything other than restoring the Union. In the movie, the character of Grant makes that explicit in his discussion with Alexander Stephens. The script writers used the occasion of the peace delegation to make that clear about President Lincoln.
Simple overview, probably the first few chapters of McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom." In depth from the South's pov I think Douglas S. Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants" (3 vols) is an outstanding look at the eastern theater. For an in depth view of events 1857-1860 Allen Nevin's "Emergence of Lincoln" (2 vols.)
Application of power had a formula: Power x will to apply that power = application of that power. If a group doesn't have the will, the amount of power it can wield doesn't matter. If the South had won the battle at Gettysburg the North would probably had dropped out and let the South succeed. However, strategically, the fall of Vicksburg began nailing the coffin shut for the Confederacy.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord He is trapling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored He have loosed the faiteful lightening of his terrible swift sword His truth is marching on
I disagree on one point. Pickett's charge was based on Lee's emotions at the time. His "blood was up" according to Longstreet. A man with great successes will make that one great mistake. If Lee thought his infantry was invincible, why take it all the to Gettysburg? He should have/would have just marched on DC.
I assume you're referring to the entire summer campaign? By 1863 Washington was the most fortified city on earth. I think you need to do some more reading as to why the ANV ended up at Gettysburg and why the battle was fought there.
Speaking in front of a hard floor to ceiling surface will always get you an unpleasant echo. Thank you for confirming this well-known truth -- but you didn't really need to, you know. Perhaps you both deepened our understanding by demonstrating the art of shouting into an amplifying microphone.
nah-the capture of vicksburg seriously disrupted the logistics of the south -causing widespread famine and inflation east of the mississippi and wore down the will to keep fighting,Even lee himself admitted that grant would steadily grind him down in the east in 1864-lee.s reputation is part of what shelby foote calls the marble man myth
Easy enough for me to see now how great Grant really was,,, He kicked the west side of war around, got in charge of the entire USA armies, and went after Lee in the east,,, This was one obvious set of events that lead to the end of this conflict, -- I'll agree it would hard to get a real grasp on what people at that time were thinking on this but one thing is for sure,, BOTS were not their influencing their written thoughts,, The idea of thinking all your wealth gone is not good and from the soldiers point of view, everything was on the line almost,, -- News traveled so slow then that most were clueless on events unless it was a large city falling or some great victory,,
'turning point' is put fwd as though there was a magical one, with only union victory after it! Vicksburg was the worst confederate defeat of the war, but there were many other 'turning points' that shifted balance/forces in union direction. shiloh wounded the western csa dramatically. fort henry/donelson shifted balance twd union, pushed csa out of tennessee river valley. emancipation p assured confederate defeat, slavery's end
Gettysburg may not be the turning point - the defeat of Pickett's charge merely cost 6000 rebel casualties in a war with 600,000 casualties. The invasion was the largest successful livestock rustling in US history and actually fueled the rebel army to hang on another 21 months. Gettysburg was a huge opportunity that began with Milroy's loss at Winchester forcing Lincoln in desperation to install Meade as commander (who Like Lee was good on defense) and ended up being squandered by Meade. The turning point of the war was the reelection of Lincoln by the very troops he was sending into horrific destruction. Lincoln's failure to avoid a war destroyed 600,000 lives and left a legacy of inequity and despair that is so starkly evident in the US inner cities to this day. If the issue of slavery had been resolved economically the civil war might never have happened.
He failed to forge a political solution and avoid war. He was reelected maybe because his running mate Andrew Johnson offered balance to the ticket. Johnson also rescinded Sherman's field order 15. Sending 600K to their death is maybe OK to some if you follow through with reparations to to back up your ideological largesse. That did not happen. It does not matter what anyone thinks of Lincoln. It matters how we fix the mess started by the civil war. Lincoln supporters must mandate that Sherman's Field orders no. 15 must be restored and a further 10% minimum of U.S. land belongs permanently to the heirs of slaves. @@bartlettbigx
One major difference I remember learning is the south used sound money but the north or Abraham Lincoln did actual modern monetary theory. He printed money rather than borrow from banks with high interest. What’s interesting to me is banks at that time still did fractional reserve banking or something. Murray rothbards book US monetary history corrupt banks had laws passed that let banks lend out loans on paper that were equivalent of specie but were notes but banks forced depositors and those that repaid loans to only pay in specie gold money. Talk about hypocritical. Anyways some in the finance community think it’s more likely Abraham Lincoln was killed by bankers. To me that makes more sense. They showed an article from the UK that banks and nations were worried about the U.S. fiat currency cause it could create a boom time and a brain drain from other countries. UK during the 1812 war they quite using silver and used fiat currency. Murray rothbard talked about that showing how it creates a boom economy and then a bust economy with how credit is expanded and contracted. But is that true? Did Lincoln print fiat currency or script to fund the war but the south continued to use sound money? If that’s true it’s a huge difference as the north was able to extract way more purchasing power from people by inflating or debasing their currency.
I agree with the speaker that neither Vicksburg or Gettysburg was an actual turning point, because, as he says, not a whole lot changed on the ground. I would say those battles represented more of a high water mark, like Tours, France or Guadalcanal. There was still a long way to go, but nevertheless the Confederacy continued to shrink after that point in time and proved unable to stop the United States forces.
Completely wrong about Vicksburg. Speaker says Miss. not a confederate river after New Orleans was captured by the union. That only considers N-S travel, not E-W crossings. Hogs, salt, molasses, soldiers could no longer cross the Mississippi in quantity, making the job of feeding the ANV and the cis Mississippi confederacy generally, boosting inflation. Ohio farmers could again send produce down the river to be exported. So it is a turning point!
@@josephinewheeler7074 believe what you want to believe. I don't believe you understand much about the Civil war if you think that farmers in Ohio being able to send their exports down the Mississippi was conclusive to ending the war.
@@clconstruction3072 That is not what I said at all. I talked about E-W movement over the Miss. Ohio was becoming restless because the cost of shipping their produce by rail to the coast-another complication for Lincoln removed by the capture of Vicksburg. The destruction of rail at Jackson before the siege of Vicksburg and at Meridien after the capture of Vicksburg meant the state of Mississippi could no longer support Confederate armies. Also the question of “contraband” or escaped slaves to Union lines became a factor weakening the South and strengthening the North. This question arose because of the invasion of Miss. and the victory at Vicksburg.
I gotta disagree with Mr. Gallagher about the importance of completing cutting the Mississippi; his point that the river was already plugged at the end was important, but holding the river completely cut the Confederacy in two and prevented supplies going across the river through any regular point. Inland transportation across and up and down the Mississippi is just as important as having access to international trade through New Orleans.
Exactly. It's not just about closing the river to the enemy. It's also about opening the river for your own side. Specifically there were a lot of voters in the Midwest who appreciated the ability to sell their goods down the river after Vicksburg.
After Gettysburg, Lee never went on the offensive. He had lost his elite troops. He wasted them on stupid charges. He should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg. By the time 1864 rolled around, things were pretty much decided. So what if Lincoln pushed the panic button in August. That's what politicians do to motivate their base. Sheridan was burning the Shenandoah, Jubal Early had been destroyed and Atlanta was close to falling. Grant was continually pushing Lee back. Lee couldn't hold. I hate to say that I disagree with such an esteemed historian as Gary Gallagher, but I do disagree.
And as for Vicksburg, Pemberton lost an entire army at Vicksburg, 30000 troops. Of course it was important. Granted, New Orleans had fallen much earlier, but Vicksburg was the fortress on the Mississippi. Losing both Gettysburg and Vicksburg almost simultaneously was the 1-2 punch that the South never recovered from. A case could be made that Second Manassas was the high water mark for the Confederacy. Antietam was the bloodiest single day of the war, Lee having almost lost the army to McClellan. Fredericksburg was a great victory, but a comparatively small battle, tenth biggest, I believe. Chancellorsville was a bloody mess, with Lee losing Jackson. Hooker should have stayed south of the Rappahannock. He had two corps that had not been used in the battle.1863 was the year that the South lost the war. Certainly not 1864.
I disagree Vicksburg and Gettysburg was the military turning point of the Civil War. The South had no major victories after this. Like he said the South was always going to fight till the bitter end to keep slavery.
He explains his feelings about Hollywood USCW movies in his Darden talks. For example that Joshua Chamberlain isn't just A hero of Gettysburg, but THE hero thanks to the movie and Shaara book.
Oh calm down, would you? You can't count on Americans to know the entire alphabet. They certainly cannot differentiate between "they're", and "their", and "there", and here's this guy ranting endlessly because they aren't so astute about the timeline of historical events?
@Tim Smith I think the OP was referring to Josiah Gorgas, the Confederate chief of ordinance. Alexander never held that post except perhaps within the ANV.
I've tried to listen to three of his lectures and gave up. He often goes into a semi- humerous "telling off" at the audience.Who cares about a Lincoln fantasy film? I mean non- academic people do have some sense to know the difference . Don't like the style, content or pace. After the prolonged ranting and snorting, I've moved on....
Oh no, not at all. There'd be plenty of young people in the audience if they gave a fying fluck about their history or could get off their phones and e-toys for an hour... or minute.
"The problem might have been Southern women". This really, REALLY made me angry, because it reminds me of Nazi Germany blaming the German defeat in WWI on defeatists and the Jews. But wait, there are two more reasons that it really pisses me off: 1- It´s not the women, the Jews or the defeatists making decisions, and therefore making mistakes. It´s the government and the military. If the government and the military screw up in waging a conventional war, you are going to lose it no matter how much the women believe in your invincibility. It is extremely childish to start a war, lose it, and then blame your defeat on whoever happens to be within eyesight that looks slightly different to you, instead of on your own short-sightedness when starting a war you cannot win, or making mistakes that cost you time and resources you could not afford to lose. 2- If your side is losing a war, you have every right to feel bummed out about it, and even demand that the war stops. Why the hell should women shut up about their properties´ taxes going up, their homes being destroyed, their fields being set on fire, and the men of their family being killed or, also tragic, receiving them back home with wounds that left them too crippled to fight, and possibly even too crippled to work after the war ends? I cannot imagine why women should not protest on seeing their husbands, brothers and sons drafted, then returned in coffins, or missing arms or legs (and in an agricultural society, mutilation can easily mean poverty given that these people are mostly field workers who NEED THEIR LIMBS TO EARN A LIVING). Women don´t have to stay silent when their side is losing. No one has to. In a democracy, you should be free to express disagreement and disappointment at your government´s actions. Silencing such opposition goes against the most basic virtues of a democracy, but then, I suspect that the kind of people that would espouse the idea of Southern women being responsible for the Confederacy´s defeat are also the kind of people that truly believe that being a slave was not all that bad.
Katamari Roller - You seem to be projecting. He drew no comparisons to events in WWII. All he said was that the women were as committed to the Confederate cause as the men, or more so.
There's the old truism that the first thing lost in war is the truth. If so then the second thing has to be freedom, esp. of opinion. I would assume that in every country in every war ever fought dissent is suppressed one way or another, be it Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus in MD, or the Confederacy's arrest and seizure of dissident life and property in eastern TN and western VA 1861-63... and many other examples too numerous for this little post.
I have to say that no one talks about the 445,000 slaves in the the United States (Union) at the beginning of the war. The three million slaves in the Confederacy is accurate. This is all backed by the 1860 census. There were around 350,000 in the tobacco fields of Kentucky. The other 100,000 slaves were in western territories or in coastal states in the North. How does this go along with, “the Civil War was about slavery?”Wikipedia even starts this way. Absolutely, if General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson had survived his amputation, the ending would have been very different. He was the best artillerist anywhere and taught artillery at VMI. Before and during the conflict, General Jackson funded a school for negroes to learn to speak in English plus others skills. Does that sound like a racist General? No. I am related to him. My other third great grandfather served around Kentucky at first then he went to Northern Virginia to join General Lee’s army. He was wounded so badly that he spent twenty years after the war in a Richmond hospital. I have the Sons of Confederate Veterans materials completed in order to join! I have to respect my heritage. People need to understand that you respect the dead on both sides. My grandfather’s middle name is Lee after the General. He was bound to the Army in WWII through the end of the Vietnam conflict. He received so many medals. I have total respect for his service. Why is it so difficult to respect the Confederate and United States casualties? If France had joined the Confederacy, I believe the outcome would heavily favor that collaboration over the United States. Napoleon was offered an enormous amount of cotton bales. It was not to the be. No French and Confederate alliance.
Why should France do that? What was in it for them? Nothing. The delusions that any European country took interest to spent million by helping either side is baseless.
the last answer was just a pathetic cheap shot. people would have definitely stayed under the confed for sure. its like asking if we would be willing to join the taliban after 9/11 and we refused because of racism. we wouldn't even consider accepting the rule of the taliban. it is unimaginable. the people attacking us? allow them to rule us? no matter how unracist you are you will never choose that if you have any other option. emancipation basically happened after the end of the war. the campaigns on the west and mississippi were the key and emancipation happened after that. oh and also it only happened in the confederate states. emancipation didn't happen in the union slave states until after lincoln was dead.
It seems this man has gotten too focused in detail. Obviously, the fall of Vicksburg & loosing Gettysburg was the turning point. Gallagher’s own words say:” the Confederates didn’t realize the war was over”. Why? Cause Gettysburg was a huge defeat.
I got a bored with this too much of it simply reiterates the same points, themes and anecdotes that he's used before in other lectures, even and ouch; the same jokes not that they aren't still funny the second time.
