The American Civil War Every Day using Google Earth 

the game is acutally good chat play it

Tbh cow is better

How do i claim the gold and membership

Your casualties are off again 642,427 Union casualties 483,026 Confederate casualties. Source national park services

Y Peru y Chile luchaban contra España en la guerra hispano-sudamericana(1865-1866)

Germany during WW2 was getting invaded by america Russia UK France Romania Ukraine etc the whole world was fighting Germans

And?

European empires started taking over the Western Hemisphere when the US was no longer able to enforce Monroe Doctrine. France left immediately after the Civil War ended.

America in 1860s: 💀

There are ships in this war. But I am not aware of a class of warship called a "battleship" in this era. I think anything that would be called a battleship is still a couple decades away at this point.

I think they were to prevent Europe from supplying the Confederate States

ironclads

Hello I am Norway the USA is in trouble and us European are at war so subscribe to him 😢 *we need help*

This is because supplying troops via water is more reliable than rail which were often the target of sabotage. The guy who took down new Orleans went rogue into the South and was supplied with the Northern supply route along the coast. Please correct me if I'm wrong though

Tank you

thx

Useful

100% useful

Thxx

But they were lethally close to Washington.

Gotta give them that.

​@RaoulDuke141 You can win despite lines on maps not being in your favor. Looking at the casualties the union lost more men overall for having twice the manpower. The south faught for lack of a better word "harder" than the union despite less industry that could do anything in war time and being blockaded navaly. That is in itself admirable from a warfare perspective. The one thing that makes the south hard to swallow as something to look at with "nostalgia" historically is the fact that they were trying to uphold slavery. Feel free to retort to anything I might have said.

@@ARandomUser6969 The confederacy was on the defensive for most of the war and by 1864 had stuck to an attritional mindset, so obviously it was going to lose significantly less men than the Union.

@@flyingsquirrell6953 good point

agree!

That occurs at the 10:10 mark. You'll see Hood going up central Tennessee.

@@truthteller9154 thanks!

She uses Adobe Premiere Pro

@@rayquaza8674thanks

agree!

idk probably After Effects

Yes

Beside General Grant, Stanton and a few other notable general, the north have alot of weak and super cautious generals that more or less tend to get their mens killed (Mcclellan). The south however have General Lee, which was one of the best general at the time. Don't forget about Stonewall Jackson too. While the north got the supplies and men, the south got good generals

Yeah I think overall the south had better generals plus I think the confederates had more of a will to fight for their cause. Plus, Abraham Lincoln was throwing out generals like piles of paper from a beginning writer.

Because the north was on the offensive. And it’s easier to defend than attack.

@@blitzattack567This. It was inevitable that the Union would have higher killed/wounded being on the offensive the entire war. Although Confederate casualties are also considered very much incomplete because they burned their records when Richmond fell.

@@bunnitomoe3866 so good the Lee ordered an assault across a mile wide open field surrounded on three sides by guns.....masterful generalship. Southern Generalship failed once the Federals allowed competent commanders to the fore.

and at the end 💀

Napoleon Wars already ended by 1814

Are you joking?... You don't know what the numbers even mean?? Lol Troop populations.. comon man

hurrah!!

In americas.

First casualties were Union soldiers who died in Alexandria, VA taking down a Confederate flag from an inm's rooftop. Google Elmer Ellsworth.

I thought it was fort Sumpter.

its the anoconda plan or something to split the confederates into two

Mississippi Valley Campaign

Sherman's march to the Atlantic

Not sure but the plan it was apart of was the Anaconda Plan

​@@arty5876that was in Georgia, not along the Mississippi River.

They did, it legit was so brief due to it being crushed that the history books don’t bother mentioning it with how unimportant the event was.

Those six people dying at the beginning were not the reason the Civil War started lol. There were no casualties in the first battle of the Civil War other than one guy whose cannon misfired, so I'm actually really curious who the other five people are.

Bro thinks that's why the Civil War started😂 learn American history please. Oversimplified has a very good 2 parter about it.

yes unless you are part of a white slave owning family

Yes, significantly.

The US did a lot more wrong than the Confederacy such as child soldiers, violating women and burning down Atlanta just to win the 1864 election.

@LandonLilly-sb4fg No ! The South claimed it was about States Rights .......in other words , they claimed it was a right to do what is clearly WRONG .

@@tolik5929lmao the guy u tagged his acc got deleted

Someone's been studying APUSH 👀

"this war started over the issue of slavery" Only for the radicals on both sides like abolitionists and fire-eaters. For everyone else it was over the issues of federal government, interpretation of the constitution, social order, land ownership and most importantly: would these questions be answered within the Union (coöperation) or outside it (secession). From the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 up until the 1860 presidential election the South and North were competing for control of the White House and Congress as well as the status of new states forming in the West, with both sides threatening to secede at various stages, New England during the Hartford Convention and South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis. Whoever won would get to impose their idea of federal government upon the nation. To this end, uniting the various Northern factions such as Whigs, Free-Soilers and Know-Nothings, who used to engage in pork-barrel politics with their constituents up until the 1850's, the Republican Party was formed. In 1860, Lincoln, a Republican, won the presidency, and so New England business and Western free-soilers got their way. It seemed the North was inevitably going to seize control of Congress as a confederation of particular regional interest, isolating and gradually reducing Southern agriculture. This in turn radicalised the South, with coöperationists giving in to secessionists and fire-eaters in South Carolina, the most pro-secessionist state, whose secession opened the door to 7 more states. Lincoln was against Southern notions of popular sovereignty or states rights and for big government, so he used the issue of Fort Sumter, a federal garrison which was ordered to remain on South Carolinian ground, as a pretext to instigate war. When, despite promising not to reinforce the fort in prior negotiations, the 'Star of the West' came in with guns and supplies on deck, the Southern militia seized the fort. He then called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. Upon these news 4 border states decided to secede, while clashes between Unionists and Southern sympathisers broke out in Maryland and Missouri. This is a brief political history of the prelude to the American Civil War, which certainly favours the South, seeing as its struggle, the fight against federal encroachment under the motto "Sic semper tyrannis" is not a 'lost cause' but quite alive and enduring. That's not to say this is all there is to say about the War of Separation, it's just to say there's more than slavery. If you want to discuss African slavery in the South, you need to talk about race, and if you talk about race in the 1850's and early 1860's, you'll see that both sides justified their actions from a viewpoint of strengthening white hegemony and accused each other of failing that purpose. Southerners accused the North of trying to instigate slave revolts like in the Caribbean, giving blacks citizenship and promoting miscegenation, while the North accused Southerners of undercutting free labour in the North and South while stealing free soil from free white men in the West with cheap slave labour and promoting the growth of the black race. While the war is key to interpreting America's present, it also left gaping wounds that the nation has not recovered from til this day. Talk of slavery distracts from the fact that this was a brother's war between white men of good character who just few years prior were brothers-in-arms during the Mexican expedition, a river of blood apt to dye the Mississippi scarlet, and a devastating trauma to the US just 80 years after its founding. That the score was not worth the game is becoming more and more apparent by the increasingly immense efforts required to ignore its long-term consequences, after 100 and further near 200 years. America is a sick man, and the War of Separation was a botched operation due to assigning the wrong cause, the wrong procedure and the wrong remedy, governed by doctors repeating these wrongs, grown out of a fear to admit to their own error into a shamelessness with which they deceive the patient. Finally, it is left to us faithful witnesses and keepers of written history to, if we cannot be so ourselves, raise and edify men who may devise cures to the diseases caught by earlier generations as it played out. For that let us pray to the Lord. Amen.

@@Pik180 It’s impressive how you could know so much yet be so wrong.

​@@flyingsquirrell6953 My friend, the way you answered me I stand neither corrected nor victorious, when I would love to be either. If you are right, I would love to hear if you could point out how or where you think I am wrong or if you are wrong, I would love to know why you think your degree of knowledge would render you being right more likely. If "being wrong" refers to facts, then one of us could help the other approach the truth, and if "being wrong" refers to attitude, then one of us could help the other approach morality. Your silence punishes me while I remain oblivious of my supposed guilt, which leaves me with no other defence but to go on the attack. In your post you portrayed it as though Washington and Jefferson were opposed to slavery. You sugarcoated it by saying they thought it a "barbaric system", but this is in absolute distortion of the lives of these men who, moral qualms withstanding, would have never conceived of their overseeing of plantations as barbaric. They certainly wanted it gone in the long term, but mainly kept that thought to themselves, Washington more so than Jefferson. By the time Jefferson was president, the Haitian Revolution was in full swing, which instilled in the new generation of Americans, mainly Southerners, quite the opposite of the optimism regarding gradual emancipation held by the founders. It would take a while to properly reflect the nuance of their views in writing. Jefferson certainly felt blacks were innately inferior to whites, and even if emancipated, could not survive on their own in American society, hence he saw the solution in the colonisation of freedmen in Africa. Washington did not view blacks as inferior but nonetheless preferred to keep the races separated based on practical experience as, for example, on his Mt. Vernon estate. What they, along with all founders, were certainly unanimous about, was regarding America as a nation for white men. In founders' intent, "All men are created equal" did not refer to slaves or other non-citizens, and that only whites could be citizens was clearly reaffirmed in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and in Charles Pinckney's speech to the House of Representatives regarding the admission of Missouri, 13. Feb. 1821. The easiest answer is to say the two felt ambivalent about slavery: opposed to it in the long-term, to their friends in private and to us who were born after them, but silent in public, toward their contemporaries. They co-authored the constitution, yet did not object to Pinckney's and Butler's submission, Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, that "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor". It also reflects their origins: Pinckney and Butler were South Carolineans (Lower South), opposition to the clause came from Wilson of Pennsylvania and Sherman of Connecticut (North), Washington and Jefferson, being Virginians (Upper South), remained indifferent. The clause, along with the 10th Amendment, clearly subjected slavery to state law. Furthermore, it was at request of Washington that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was passed. Of course, he also restricted slavery via the Slave Trade Act of 1794. This combination of moderate anti- and pro-slavery positions was fashionable both in North and South roughly until the Missouri Compromise. Most of all the Founding Fathers tried to preserve national concord and prevent sectional interest from dissolving the union. Yet it was this type of sectional interest which undermined the very basis of the compact which was agreed upon during the 1787 Constitutional Convention as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. The failure to point out these most elementary observations regarding the founders in a historical extract weighs heavily against arguments or objections proceeding from it. Now to ask which side or what issue of the sectional divide was responsible for the outbreak of hostilities is superfluous, and my pointing out of this superfluity can in and of itself not be wrong. The point of contention, I imagine, whose acceptance is unappealing, is the substantial reason I forward for the hostilities. And this can only be the differing opinion regarding government, limited vs. unlimited, soluble vs. insoluble. The South, believing no government to be above the purpose of the compact which formed it, seceded. The North, believing the preservation of the compact of government to be a purpose unto itself, invaded. As said, discussing the purpose of the compact, even if it informed the decision to dissolve or enforce the union, is rendered superfluous by the question of sovereignty. If the Union was indeed the commonwealth of a sovereign people, then the withdrawal of a section of shareholders should, as with all other ventures, have produced no worry, if not rather satisfaction, in the party of proprietors who maintained the asset for themselves without sharing the risks or paying the dividends of their former associates any longer. On the other hand, if the Union was the sovereign, then of course, it should be anxious to remain in control over its subjects, just as the failing entrepreneur is desperate to keep his investors engaged. Theories on the matter of slavery were firmly entrenched at least 20 years before any shot was fired, yet even in 1860 and early 1861, as the Deep South was seceding, hardly a Congressmen had the stomach to put them to the test with cannon roars and battle cries. Only following the Fort Sumter affair - when both sides claimed to fight for their view of sovereignty - did men line up in rank and file. Then New York City, long deemed a stronghold of Southern sympathy in the North, rallied around the federal cause, and Richmond, indecisive til then, declared for the Confederacy. In fact, this entire elaboration would be unnecessary if one could only bear in mind that in 1861, not a single US soldier marched south with the goal of freeing slaves or abolishing slavery in the South and not a single CS soldier marched north with the intent of spreading slavery in the territories in the West or enforcing fugitive slave laws in the North. Nothing in the US constitution prohibited secession and most of all, nothing in it impelled the federal government to use force to maintain the Union. The reasons for war and secession were entirely separate. After all, the border states of the Upper South that remained in the Union did so with the intent of remaining slave states too. It was only after Lincoln ordered an invasion of their Confederate sisters that half of them seceded, while the other half remained in the Union hoping to maintain neutrality, but failing. Theirs is a tragedy that is too often overlooked, despite its emblematic character for the war as a whole. The war was concocted by a gang of generals, secretaries and congressmen surrounding Lincoln in the District of Columbia, and the issue of slavery was eventually brought up by the North as a fig leaf to cover the massive policy blunder that led to tens of thousands of deaths. The emancipation proclamation was a military stratagem in reaction to the Battle of Sharpsburg. The South, by contrast, put the issue of slavery in the background as its expansion to the north and west was discarded, only setting its sights on Mexico and Cuba after the war, and increasingly saw independence as meaningful unto itself. The culture war preceding the War of Separation was certainly heavily influenced by questions surrounding slavery, but the beginning of the war was distinct from it. To bring the whole argument home, let me give you a modern analogy: Imagine if Trump got re-elected and blue states started seceding prior to his inauguration. Then the Californian state guard went to a stand down over some federal garrison on CA territory and the commander-in-chief called for volunteers to put down an insurrection. More blue states seceded and Civil War 2.0. broke out. How did arguments over the spread or abolition of transgender bathrooms and Pepe the Frog factor into this? They didn't. But in this hypothetical scenario, they, along with many other themes of the modern culture war, would have certainly played a role in motivating the blue states to secede. And if Trump, in the midst of the war, decided to pass an "emancipation proclamation" to abolish gender neutral restrooms and liberate Pepe the Frog from being an ADL-hate symbol, mentally challenged historians would certainly argue "The Second Civil War was about non-binary water closets and amphibian memes" while debilitated Democrat-defending apologists would helplessly talk about "states' rights". In this case, disregarding any ideology, the obvious cause of war was governmental invasion and the obvious cause of secession a deep-seated antipathy. Just so, the original civil war happened because the South was by all means and in all aspects of life so utterly disgusted with the North, and Lincoln was the punching bag that embodied everything they hated about it so perfectly, that it felt forced to secede. And it doesn't matter whether that hate grew out of Bloody Kansas, Harper's Ferry, the Morrill Tariff or codfish and potatoes. As my Georgian friends like to say: "TOTAL YANKEE DEATH". And what do you know, Old Abe's aggressive policy just further nurtured their aversion. Thus the spark of hatred met the timber of power to ignite the flames of war. May the Lord bless this discussion.

@@Pik180 I’m going to quote Vlogging Through History here “If it takes you an hour to try and convince people of your point of view, I think you probably are trying too hard.” These long ass comments aren’t going to convince people, they are just gonna say “TLDR”

maybe i will

@@countyballfan are u a mapper?

...

Glowy

That's how you feel about the Mexican American war Mr Miguel.

Si el sur hubiera ganado USA sería un país agrícola y esclavo de Reino Unido, nunca hubiera sido la potencia que es hoy, ya que nunca hubieran utilizado el proteccionismo que les protegió de la industria británica, el sur era liberal y queria aranceles bajos..

No, if the Confederate States of America had won, the US remaining would still have its flag, just with less stars. The Confederacy would have just kept their flag

no, the south did not want to take over the northern states, they wanted to be a separate country

They would most likely make the Union pay war reparations, and not annex them. If they DID annex them, they will most likely change their flag.

The war was about slavery it's not people talk about slavery 300 years after only as the main reason

​@@ShubhamMishrabro la guerra fue porque el norte (proteccionista e industrial) y el sur (liberal y agrícola) no estaban de acuerdo a los aranceles altos de EE.UU en ese momento q favorecia a la industria del norte para q no puedan ser superados por la industria británica dentro de su propio país.

@@ShubhamMishrabro if the war was about slavery then the north would have freed their slaves first...

@@davestevenson9080 well they stopped taking slaves which South didn't. And yes the war was about slavery. It has been debunked that it wasn't

Neat idea, but the Civil War was still about Slavery.

Same

Better than Biden and trump

I don't. He was a tyrrant

They kinda did. The navy took all of the key confederate ports. It just wasn’t practical to take other cities like that because they were so much farther inland, and closer to supplies.

Pft the French could never stop us.

@@GenericRU-vidGuy keep dreaming

@@webosXD the American dream defeated three empires. British, Mexican, and Spanish. Likely the German Empire also.

@@GenericRU-vidGuy The USA was in a civil war, that was USA vs USA + French Empire + Second Mexican Empire at once.

@@webosXD no… not really. The us couldn’t participate much in the war in Mexico until the south was defeated, and the Mexican empire and French Empire barely ever fought the US. Also, it was the CSA vs the USA. Maybe think before you write.

Troll

no one asked

no one asked

This is one of the shocking & intriguing reveal ever O_O

no one asked based of unhumanity

Thx for telling im the guy who asked

Obvious troll is obvious

slavery

Anime gooner

You do know that the annoying orange has lasted 3 times longer than the entire confederate existance

@@Fantaiscool Canada lasted longer than the United States itself. The northern dominion is still free to this day. The south shall rise again. ❤

Boo! My microweiner is longer than the Confederates time on earth.

@@thecollector6392 the average confedarate sympathiser penis is about 2-3 mm long

@@thecollector6392 Lol! You’re a funny guy. That’s jokes.

Go free it then

@@JesusisGod.. In the process, smart man, there is what is called established boundaries and recognition

@@vqziks buddy my reply just meant that u were off topic. This is a video about the Civil War not Ukraine. If you want to comment that do it under videos that are talking about the war

@v1rusok14 Bruh, this is not Ukraine war, this is Amerikan civil war. You're out of topic in this video

Dude, that's a real fact, but you're still out of the topic!

U on the south side or the union side?

the south had slaves bruv

​@@AIRWAY26 the north had segregation and such harsh capitalism that the only difference between slavery was that the boss didnt had to take care of the worker

@@AIRWAY26 While true, the Union didn't fight to free the slaves. Abolishing slavery was actually not a majority opinion in 1860. They fought to get the states back. Had the civil war ended in the first year or two, the south would have been allowed to continue using slave labor. Eventually, Lincoln decided that there was no scenario where that was going to work, and that's how we got the emancipation proclamation in 1863. Circling back to OP's comment, technically yes, letting the south secede would have avoided the war. Not fighting a war typically avoids war. There are some scenarios where they still would have fought anyway, like land disputes over the West, or if the Confederacy had invaded Cuba like they apparently eventually planned to, the Union might have came to Spain's aid. There's a lot you can debate about what would have happened if the Confederacy succeeded in becoming its own country, but pretty much everyone agrees that both the North and South would have been worse off.

war still likely would have started, maybe just a few years later

And that would be a good thing… why?