The Civil War Battle Series: Chancellorsville 

8k8i888⁸kkkkkkiiiii>i8k88k888i>iiiiiiik7iiil7lil😅😅l7i😅iiil777kk8k8kiili888888888ik8k😅i😅ii😅😅ii8kl7l7ik7k7k7ikiil8kkk8k8k8i8888888⁸88ki8i9i9iioki8kil8klikkklilkiiik88kiii88k8ik88i88888⁸8kik8888k88i8k88k88kk888kk88888i8888k8k8888kii8888i88kk88888888kkkkkkkkkkk8ii8kikiiiil8kk88kkk8k8k8888k9k8i😮😮😮😅 26:53

😅😮i😅I l😮(the ikkkk8iikkkm7illllliliiii😅iiiiikkoki😅illioliiilokik😅are a very important 👌 👌 🙌 😉 😉 kikiiiiiki8ikimkkii8mkiikik I k it as I u knew kli888ikiik7kikiiikki😅but you and he kind (isik8k8😅Ikiik8😮kind to it to ok😮😮k8😮 27:16 😅

Ok k(kii)😅li😅

Utilize your ioo(i😅o98oililllll7😅llllokokk9l8l8llllokk k using this k8k😅😅ik8l8llli8lil8llillll8lllllll88kil8iuuu7😅(i8l ooooo99ooiiioi8kko i8lilok k karen I l that 😅k888i8ki8uiul8kloo😅o8l8lilll8l77😅88lllli8klll8l89iok8kkioiok(8l8lllk(kik(8lik87ll😅l8ili8looo8ill8lloo9oi7😅llll is an k(looko(klilll7😅88l k i karen k8kl7😅😅😮k8l😅8😅the lillk😮😅😅😅😅😅😅

It iiki😅8l898l8li88l7😅l

Eh, I don't know if I'd go that far, in praising Meade. Even though he triumphed at Gettysburg, that Union victory was, honestly, more attributable to Lee's stupidity than anything else. Anyone who has ever been to Gettysburg, and has surveyed the Union position, from Seminary Ridge, can see how utterly absurd Lee's gameplan for that battle actually was. To attack a numerically superior foe, who happens to hold the high ground, is suicide.

@@MatewanMassacreHad a slightly different course of events taken place, you could have just as easily been saying that about Chancellorsville too though

BUT the focus should haver been on what was on the screen.NOT the speaker.

Clem Cornpone "Fought a war for white supremacy". Don't cut yourself on that edge, fucking sperg.

Clem Cornpone well look who's here mister nutcase. Lmao get help.

Colton King don’t worry about that guy, he copies and paste that same shit everywhere. His liberal earned dogma.

This was a Long Battle.

Stonewall Jackson was brilliant at getting himself killed by his own so called "troops". The brilliant liter bearers even dropped him twice on the way to an aid station.

@@Dom_510 He was a General and died for a Country that no longer exists

@@chrisfoye1574 he died for his state.

@@willoutlaw4971 Maybe the street lights weren’t working. Or their flashlight batteries were dead

Lee was always willing to take tactical risks in pursuit of what was ultimately an impossible gosl (destroying an army in a field battle with black powder rifles). This is the same thinking that resulted in Pickett's Charge. If Hooker had stood at Union Ford that would have happended 2 months earlier. You can throw in the Seven Days as well. Lee's gift for the tactical offensive won him a lot of battlefields, but at a huge cost. For all the "Butcher Grant" talk, Lee bled the South dry in Virginia.

Hooker lost the battle before he was injured. Grant tried going through the Wilderness a year later and suffered about the same number of casualties as did Hooker. Lee had less casualties against Grant than Hooker. The big difference is Hooker retreated to safety but Grant realized his predicament and backed off his battle at the Wilderness. Grant continued his campaign and didn't retreat to safety as did Hooker.

@Robert Bonneau Hooker had a good plan except that he sent his cavalry away to sever Lee's supply lines. It didn't work and Hooker left himself with no eyes or ears, or no means to screen his movements. I don't follow the "he lost his nerve" explanation. It makes it seem as if Hooker didn't even try to advance. Hooker had no idea of knowing what Lee was doing because he sent his cavalry off on a wild goose chase. Hooker reasoned that Lee's only option was to retreat to protect Richmond. He didn't think Lee would divide his army and fight on two fronts. Hooker had planned to fight defensively in battles before the campaign began. He wanted to avoid a repeat of Antietam/Sharpsburg and Fredericksburg. His intentions were to make Lee have to attack him. Once it was known that Hooker had crossed into the Wilderness, Lee sent Stonewall Jackson and 4/5 of his army to check the situation at Chancellorsville while leaving 10,000 men at Fredericksburg to oppose any river crossings there. When Jackson arrived he found Anderson already digging in but he told them to drop the shovels and pick up their muskets. Jackson began his advance about the same time Hooker ordered his men to advance. Jackson attacked aggressively, while the Union advance was uneven leaving the leading units exposed. Hooker ordered them back to consolidate his lines. Jackson continued his attacks and Hooker decided to fight his battle as he had already planned, defensively. At the point of first contact, Jackson actually outnumbered Hooker because Hooker's forces were spread out. Jackson had his men concentrated and well at hand. By the end of the day Hooker appeared to have a strong defensive line set up. It would've been suicide to attack it head on. However, the weakness was discovered by Confederate cavalry, his right flank was in the air. The rest is well known.

@@dvrmte Lee is grossly overrated. He did not “win” the battle of Chancellorsville so much as Joe Hooker lost it. Hooker stopped his advance after driving deep into the Wilderness on the first day. That allowed Jackson to make his famous march around Hooker’s army to attack as the sun was going down. Jackson was then wounded; wounds from which he would die eight days later. His senior division commander, Alvin Powell Hill, would then have taken charge of the Second Corps, but he was wounded also, less than an hour after Jackson was wounded. When the Second Corps attacked on May 3rd, it was in the command of J. E. B. Stuart, the commander of the cavalry division, for Dog’s sake! Thereafter, one sees the standard performance of Confederate armies throughout the war. They attacked headlong or fiddle-f*cked around and did nothing. Lee’s casualties, apart from the loss of Jackson, were about 22% of the effective force he had on hand. Hooker’s casualties, although greater, amounted to about 12% of his effective force. More than that, 4000 of Hooker’s casualties were troops who were captured. Remove them, and the casualties were about equal. People make a big deal about the fact that Hooker’s army outnumbered Lee’s by two-to-one. But Hooker left 40,000 idle during the campaign, a force equivalent to about two-thirds of Lee’s entire effective force. The disparity in forces was partially mitigated by the dense forest and broken terrain-but it would have mattered not at all if Hooker had pressed the attack as relentlessly as the Confederates were wont to do so often, with much less reason. A year later, fighting over the same ground, Meade’s army attacked relentlessly, and drove Lee back, all the way to Richmond in about a month’s time. Nothing that Lee did on May 1st stopped Hooker’s advance. Had Hooker continued to press the attack, there was little Lee could have done about it. The whole point was to drive Lee out of the Wilderness into open ground. Hooker, for reasons that have never been explained, simply stopped after making great progress on the first day. It’s sort of like saying that you’re a great boxer because your opponent inexplicably stops hitting you.

@@drdoom1756 Hooker had to concentrate in order to advance. He was advancing when his men were met by advancing Confederates. Lee had 40,000 men at hand and you believe there is little Lee could have done about Hooker advancing? Hooker was blind, he sent his cavalry away. Lee was well served by his cavalry who were active. Lee had the advantage. Superior numbers can't help if there's no space for them in the firing lines. Lee stopped Grant from doing exactly what you think Hooker could've done against Lee. Ewell's 2nd Corp stopped Grant's attempt to break out of the Wilderness quickly. My ancestor was in Gordon's Georgia Brigade that crushed the Yankee Iron Brigade and broke its center in a vicious counterattack. After breaking through, Gordon turned his regiments and rolled up both sections of the Iron Brigade. Yes, that's what Lee could do. Hooker didn't do any better than Grant did. Grant was allowed to strip the defenses of Washington to continue his campaign after getting stopped cold by Lee in the Wilderness.

@Robert Bonneau you sir, summed it up perfectly.

Well said

Prove it. Where's your support for this poppycock?

I guess bad camera coverage did not Bother You?

@@edwardweaver1467 Other than being a bit far back and having any close-ups of Dr. DePue, what was wrong with it, Mr. Weaver??

@@michaelvaughn8864 well, the cameraman did Not Move the camera enough. He should Have aim for at least two angles.

@@edwardweaver1467 Good point on the second angle, Mr. Weaver

@@michaelvaughn8864 thank you very much.

So she got to see those brave Confederate soldiers kill the enemies? An amazing sight she saw.

@@wildestcowboy2668 then those brave surrendered.

@@ChadIsAmazingMakeADifference false! Robert E Lee surrendered to help both sides! I wish I could go back and give him a few AR 15's and ALOT of rounds!

@@wildestcowboy2668 you re a yankee right. I can tell that your solution to every problem is to shoot someone. You were a cheerleader at columbine right. How many times did you vote for trump

Even Grant said Lookout Mountain was overrated and fortified thinly.

The young jobless love tearing down statues

yes lets not forget the south lost and the confederacy was a bunch of scum.

@@basshuntet607 Well, right after the end of the Civil War Lee, as the visionary man he really was, suggested to not to embrace Confederate statues anyway. So Lee and the "young and jobless" are in the same team on this one.

I honor the AMERICAN soldiers who destroyed a treasonous insurrection designed to preserve and expand chattel slavery. I also don't believe in participation trophies, so I don't think ever human in history is worthy of being honored with statues and monuments.

@@jessewright2319 Being born in Germany and still living there, I agree 100% coz I can see on site how it's done properly. It seems that this collective approach to preserve and honor historical "heroes" via statues and symbols, such as flags, is more a way to suppress a weakness or a feeling of guilt. Probably mostly subconsciously plus out of ignorance. People don't need these intangibles from the past and should rather honor the problems of today's people by trying to solve them. It was too ironic how self-proclaimed patriots swung Confederate flags and beat cops on Capitol Hill. The term "patriotism" feels like a threat these days, beyond America too.

At Fredericksburg Burnside attacked too

I think you're missing the point, he's not arguing it means certain victory. But if any enemy *only* defends, as Hooker was doing, then the offense can do whatever it wants to concentrate force on a weakpoint. None of those other battles did that like Jackson at Chancellorsville.

1q

Now that two generals that President Lincoln used comparisons to describe, the Other Being general McClellan. I wonder what He said about general Burnside.

Op

Great presentation of the battle, but I offer some minor criticisms....it's cavalry, not Calvary, it's Heth as in Heath, not as in help, and it's Mary's Heights as in Marie's. Those corrections would polish the authenticity of your otherwise outstanding historical knowledge.

@@edwardweaver1467 Burnside is the only General who can snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory.

@@bearowen5480 That's pedantic nonsense entirely. Usage of a different pronunciation doesn't take away any credibility to anyone that knows anything. What a pathetic attempt to assert some sense of authority.

According to Sears' "Chancellorsville", Rev. Lacy and Jed Hotchkiss were sent to find a man named Charles C. Wellford, who operated a forge in the area. Wellford led the two on various roads leading to the intended area on Howard's flank. They brought a map back to Lee and Jackson with the routes marked. When they passed the Wellford home, his son, Charles B. joined them as a guide. Sears makes no mention of another/other "boys." (pp. 234, 242.)

Lee actually made an invasion of the north before Gettysburg but he got stopped at Antietam...Which turned out to be a draw.

Also Lee was opposed to fighting a defensive war from the time he took command.

You got it, but it was the operational level not the tactical.

Operational.

grant butchered his own men

You're very mistaken.

@@zachnorman2477 alright, what did I get wrong? Area? Engagement length?

The battle lasted a week. Apr 30-May 6, 1863.

@@howardclegg6497 oh, thank you. He Mentioned that during the video. The first day would Have coincided with the defense Of hacienda Cameron In Mexico.

More efficient weapons only result in more loss of lives

Plus,,,,,,,,,,,,,the microphone was not working!!

Mo

Yeah it's awful.

Yeah, Lee's officers would not cross the Rappahannock River to pursue Hooker, as if they would be invading the North if they did that. Lee soon taught them where the North was (Gettysburg), and if Lee had chosen to defend at Westminster, MD instead of Gettysburg, he would have stumbled upon 3,500 tons of supplies that had been mis-shipped there for the Union Army.

That was just Lee being Lee. Getting a lot of valuable men, who couldn't be replaced, killed. That's how he ran his army - attack, attack, attack ... even though our opponent outnumbers us, 2-1, has more ammunition, better artillery, etc.

7 BATTLES THERE ALEAST TOWN TURN SIDES THEY SAT 20 SOME TIMES......

@@johnwayneeverett6263 did you just have a stroke

Be puzzled.

michellejean11 What did the Confederacy win at Chancellorsville?

@@MichaelJDargan Simply put the BATTLE but lost the war.

lol so what?

Shelby Foote was a 20th Century purveyor of the Confederate Grand Lie called "The Lost Cause". Foote didn't know jack when it came to the Civil War. The Confederates thought they could preserve and expand African American slavery by declaring their independence and firing on Fort Sumter.

@@willoutlaw4971 If you ever took the time to READ Shelby Foote's books, you wouldn't be Posting such Rubbish. Ignorance runs in your family, or is it just stupid?

Lee wasn't worth a teaspoon of warm spit. A mythological cretin. A loser. Wasn't it Lee who surrendered his army to General Grant at Appomattox in April, 1863.

@@johnadams5489 Wasn't it Lee who told Jeff Davis to put on his wife's panties, dress and wig and sneak out of Richmond because they were about to lose the war. Davis was captured shortly after; still wearing the panties, dress and a wig.

The north had more irish in new york city than the south had ammunition

Why would the U.S.A. study Lee at West Point? Lee lost. Lee surrendered. Lee's army was starving at the end. Lee's army was deserting at the rate of 800 men a week in early 1865. Does the U.S.A. also study other losers like: Von Paulus losing in Russia? Yamamoto losing in the Pacific? Hitler losing WW2? JEB Stuart losing at Gettysburg? Hood losing at Atlanta?

@@willoutlaw4971 Your type attitude resulted in First Bull Run, Cedar Run, and Second Bull Run...all Runs. LOL Yes an intelligent man would study everything available even when the bad guys win. Simpleton...

@@dvrmte what a northern fanatic right?

@@randyjenkins8743 It's ignorance at its worst, Mr. Jenkins. Some ppl like that moron wallow in making asinine commentary

Outlaw losing at life.

Lee was the one who lost the war, for the South. The Confederacy's most capable general, the one who saw the overall Big Picture, and who understood the logistics of warfare, was Joseph E. Johnston. He understood that the Confederacy couldn't sustain offensive warfare against a much larger and better-equipped opponent. He, also, seemed to be one of the only Southern generals who knew that their only real hope was to outlast the North, and Northern public sentiment, and somehow win a war of attrition. Another notable Southern general, who might have also been one of their best, although he was killed too early in the war to know, was another man by the name of Johnston - Albert Sidney Johnston. Had he not been killed, at Shiloh, the war in the Western Theater might not have gone so abysmally for the South.

Really?

No. Constantly shooting other people is the american spirit Unless it s jack daniels

I'm from a non-English speaking country and I guess it's ,cavalry' because In Germany it's ,Kavallerie' not ,Kalvallerie'.

@@vinny4411 It's actually Calvary Hill. Just saying 🤷🏿

@@tyronevaldez-kruger5313 we have books called dictionaries that decide these things

@@vinny4411 i can tell jesus means a lot to you What state are y all from

@@davidhallett8783 Nope. It's people who decide these things because dictionaries are dictionaries

@@madder9166 I can agree that both sides saw good and bad officers, but very generally speaking the Union was failed more significantly by it's commanders than the Confederacy as I see it. The Union had superior resources in practically every significant engagement, not just Chancellorsville, and repeatedly allowed armies to escape or failed to push advantages obvious to others miles away from the front. McClellan and Mead both had Lee at their mercy and refused to attack or pursue while all around them were begging them to act. That is why I consider the generalship generally better on the confederate side.

@@madder9166 I dont know if I agree 100% on that ,yes General Lee was outnumbered sure ,but what was the alternative? ..quit?.....

@@terryrampey617 The alternative? Fight a defensive war using guerilla tactics until Union morale was so low that Lincoln gets voted out of office in 1864. Or you could not start a war when you know the other side has vastly more men and resources than you. 🤔

@@krevin543 I'd say it's unfair to compare McClellan and Meade in the same way. Yes, McClellan should have destroyed the AVN at Antietam. However, after Gettysburg, the situation was not exactly the same for Meade. For instance, I believe 20,000 soldiers of the AOP were held in reserve on September 17 while every Corps of the AOP was battered in the Battle of Gettysburg. Additionally, other factors such as the weather, the Draft Riots, and Lee's anticipation of another attack, hampered any attempt by Meade to pursue Lee.

@@krevin543 Julius Ceaser would have been ashamed of the union.

Two African American slavery defending cretins. Great to learn Stonewall Jackson was shot 3 times by rebs of the 18th N. Carolina Regiment.

Hooker lost confidence in himself and his plan which is why he went on the defensive. If he would carried through with his plan and adapted counter moves against Lee's movements, Hooker would have won the Battle of Chancellorsville with a great victory.

@@Christianmusic001 Hooker was knocked senseless suffering a possible concussion when a cannonball hit a porch column he was leaning against. Historian, Stephens W Sears, says the story of Hooker losing confidence was a myth. From Wiki: "Sears's research has shown that Bigelow was quoting from a letter written in 1903 by an E. P. Halstead, who was on the staff of Doubleday's I Corps division.[74] There is no evidence that Hooker and Doubleday ever met during the Gettysburg Campaign, nor was there any chance of them meeting-they were dozens of miles apart. Finally, Doubleday made no mention of such a confession from Hooker in his history of the Chancellorsville Campaign, published in 1882.[75] Sears concludes: It can only be concluded that forty years after the event, elderly ex-staff officer Halstead was at best retailing some vaguely remembered campfire tale, and at worst manufacturing a role for himself in histories of the campaign ... Whatever Joe Hooker's failings at Chancellorsville, he did not publicly confess them.[7

@@Christianmusic001 There are alot of what ifs, the biggest one being if Stonewall had not been accidentally shot, and what would have happened instead.

@@TheTacfour countries are a myth.

How would you like to go up against those two?

I’m an animal lover and the thought of that makes me sad. I will say (and to to troll) that between 1 and 2 million is like me telling you my height is somewhere between 4ft and 8ft tall. You know what I mean? It kind of comes off as a wild ass guess

If true, Ms. Adams, it's saddening and horrific😔😳

i’m going i😅i’m using our 😅😢😅😅😅 i😅o

I can hardly get any magnification of the strength for each of the Union army corps you have 130.5761 I came to little over 125.000 can you please increase the light on the numbers for the Union corps?

What does Jeff Davis being arrested in late Spring 1865 have to do with the Battle of Chancellorsville? What the fuck are you talking about?

Robert DuBois Idiot alert 🚨

Nice bit of information, thanks Robert I never would have known.

You are correct sir on all points.I bet that idiot Clem ''Cornditch''Cornpone will not make a comment on your subject.God Save The South

For all Davis' faults I understand this to be true. The Feds could not find a lawyer willing to try him because he would likely have been found innocent and secession found Constitutional. There would have been no way around the fact that war itself had been illegal. It's too bad that Davis made so many other mistakes or the Confederacy might have won.

😆 😆 lol

He wasn't, Hooker lost his nerve. Lee lost a shit ton of men

Luck

It was his greatest victory in the sense that he managed to defeat an army more than twice his size. The greatness of the victory comes from his win against seemingly impossible odds, not the outcome of the victory, which yes Lee himself admitted was not very significant for the Confederate cause.

I would argue that his greatest victory was won, the year prior, at Second Manassas. But, regardless, Lee is one of the most overrated military minds in all of history. It's a shame, for the Army of Northern Virginia, that Jefferson Davis didn't leave Joseph E. Johnston in command; because he truly understood the Big Picture. He understood logistics, and the problems posed by the North's sheer advantage in manpower, as well as their ability to produce armaments which the South could not produce. Johnston foresaw that the only prayer the South had, was to sustain a defensive war, try to preserve the life of its soldiers, whenever and wherever it could, and to hopefully just outlast the desire of the North to continue such a costly engagement. I think that Lee's other, less notable Corps Commander, James Longstreet, also understood the Big Picture. He plead with Lee, to no avail, after the first day at Gettysburg, to maneuver around Meade's left flank, and establish a defensive position somewhere in Central Maryland. He asked Lee, and I paraphrase, "Sir, certainly you aren't going to fight here?" But, Lee "The Butcher" was, and did.

@@MatewanMassacre Yeah, 2nd Manassas was at least one of Lee's greatest victories if not the greatest. Fredericksburg has a claim from a "casualties suffered vs. inflicted" standpoint. As for Gettysburg- Longstreet's idea of a flanking maneuver around the Union left was not a viable option after 1 July. Lee's plan of campaign was predicated on not attacking, but rather being attacked (see his after- action report), which is right in line with Longstreet's statement in his memoirs regarding defensive tactics. The unexpected meeting engagement of 1 July ruined his plan of campaign because the AoNV assumed the tactical as well as the strategic offensive. After 1 July, there was next to no chance that the AotP would go over to the attack- particularly with a new C- in- C at the helm. As the strategic objective of the campaign was to relieve pressure from the Confederate defenders at Vicksburg (which had been placed under siege before Lee's campaign even began), time was critical. This was made worse by the fact that the AoNV was foraging and couldn't remain in any one area for more than 3- 5 days- and they hadn't foraged (the operational objective of the campaign) since Lee's concentration order of 29 June. After 1 July, Lee had to either attack or abandon the campaign in failure. That said, Lee was in that position because of errors which he- and not his subordinates- made. They are: 1. He believed that he could decisively influence events approximately 1,000 miles away. 2. He believed that the AoNV could both forage and move northward in good time. 3. He violated the axiom of "One force, one objective" and gave his cavalry commander two objectives for one force. As a tactician, Lee was a superb commanding officer; as a strategist or grand strategist, he was less able. He was after all, human. Davis was a strategic dunce who allowed his personal feelings to interfere with his professional judgment regarding Johnston- and it was Davis who ignited the war over land which the Confederacy had no legal claim to. Cheers...

And it s c a v a l r y professor

That's a pure fantasy. The CSA was founded specifically to preserve slavery forever. Without slavery there would have been no secession.

rectum?? HELL! It Killed him.

Correct.

Just about every video lecture has bad camera work. Stationary on a tripod on the same position. We all want to see the maps and slides in full!

Yeah you’re right for the most part

He hoped to destroy Hooker’s Army. With jackson out of the picture, the chance off that vanished.

I think lee was trying to force a union surrender by defeating the union army(that was defending D.C.), he also was constantly afraid of overextending his army. In my humble opinion lee knew after Chancellorsville that the southern army just didn’t have the size or logistical capacity to compete, and from then on he was fighting for an honorable surrender for his men.

I 100% agree, Lee is credited with a great victory but he's fortunate Hooker only mauled the A.N.V. , it could have been much worse. Lee lost a great many irreplaceable soldiers.

it's an immense tactical victory

Greg it's IQ, not EQ. And what is your source of Abe's IQ?

The South was insanely afraid of a servile revolt ever since Nat Turner’s uprising.

Gregoryt700 Who is trying to justify slavery?

I think that was General McLean that said that after finding the three cigars and caught Lee off guard at Antietam,. I think this is right maybe not.

hooker was a joke

@@davidtidwell9126 The name McClellan is who you mean,McLean was the homeowner at Manassas Junction,then moved to Appomattox Court House.

@@davidtidwell9126 McClellan said, "Here is a little paper with which if I cannot whip Lee, I am willing to go home."

Well, actually, I would agree with the OP. Even if the Union army lost a battle, they'd win the war since the CSA couldn't match losses. In other words, the thing was a war of attrition. Grant figured this out for sure.

1. Using percentages is a false narrative. The Union always had a larger force, therefore, even though Lee had a higher casualty percentage, it's dishonest on it's face. 2. There wasn't a single bill before congress to abolish slavery in 1860, nor 1861. In fact, while Lincoln had won the election, and still a US Senator, the Corwin Amendment was passed. Enshrining for all time slavery where it still existed. 3. You completely ignore the "Black codes" in Northern states. The Illinois Constitution made it illegal to bring a slave into the state. If a person did, they had 6 months to sell or remove the slave to Southern slave holding states. Indiana had a complete ban on any black people entering the state whether slave or free. New England passed slave codes purposely to protect white jobs of all kinds. There most certainly was "white supremacy" in the North. 4. You also ignore Lincoln's true motivation for actually beginning the war, which was economic. The Morill Tariff, which was in the works in 1860 prior to Lincoln's election, was directly targeted against the South. While the South made such declarations of holding their slaves in bondage in their various Constitutions after secession, even the North acknowledged in their newspapers it was an economic war. If you were to know the factual events, and orders that came from Lincoln, which I'm too tired to cite here, he started the Civil War by tricking General P.T.G. Beauregard into firing on Ft. Sumter so as not to be seen nationally, and internationally as the aggressor. 5. The North never had a victory of any real significance until Gettysburg. Before that Lee had been seen as the greatest general the US had ever produced. He was outnumbered at every battle, was never defeated. Lee's Army always held the ground on which they stood. Lincoln had to continually replace his generals time and time again. 6. The North had a constant and steady influx of bodies to throw at Lee, which Lee could not produce. Immigrants from Europe were constantly drafted into service as soon as they stepped foot on US soil in the North. The South was blockaded and had no such influx of men. 8. Even to this day, Lee's victory is taught at the US Army War College, the British Army War college, and the War Colleges of Europe. Lee was out numbered more than two to one at Chancellorsville. Union forces were 133,868. Lee had 60,298. He did what no commander would ever think of. He divided his army in half. He sent "Stonewall" Jackson on a day long march to the Union right flank that was unprotected. Jackson attacked and forced an army far more superior to retreat. It should have never worked, but it did. 7. Had it not been for the loss of Jackson at Chancellorsville, Lee would have prevailed at Gettysburg. 8. At Gettysburg Maj. General Isaac R. Trimble saw that Culp's Hill was unoccupied on the first day of battle. Trimble had served under "Stonewall" Jackson and was as aggressive as Jackson. He had no command, but had caught up with Lt. Gen. Ewell. Trimble informed Ewell that Culp's Hill was unoccupied and commanded the field and town from all directions including Cemetery Hill. Trimble implored Ewell to take the hill. Ewell, having had orders not to engage in any major battle allowed Culp's Hill to be taken and occupied by the Union without a shot being fired. That decision cost the Confederacy the war. 9. Had Ewell taken Culp's Hill the Union would have been in an untenable position. They could not have held Cemetery Hill and their left flank would have been completely exposed to unrelenting cannon fire and infantry attack. They would have had to withdraw from the field. 9. Had they done so, Washington would have been exposed to attack. Lee would have moved on Washington, outflanked Meade, and sue for peace. 10. The North was weary of the war and was quite willing to let the South go. Had Lee won at Gettysburg, the North would have demanded peace and Lincoln would have lost to McClellan.

Sonny boy. I've been studying actual Civil War History for most of my life. I've been to the Virginia Library/Archives and the National Archives. And here is the evidence of Lincoln's war being an economic one when it began. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia had proposed a requirement for a 2/3 majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. George Mason of Virginia stated "The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states". Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of securing adoption of the Constitution, but ratification was with the proviso that it could be rescinded whenever the powers granted to the Union were used to oppress, and Virginia could then withdraw from the Union. True to George Mason's prediction, the high tariff of 1828 did bring the South to the verge of rebellion, leading Senator John C. Calhoun to unsuccessfully champion the concept of Nullification and the doctrine of the Concurrent Majority in 1833 to ensure that the South could have a veto power over commercial acts passed by a simple majority in Congress and the Senate. "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel". Charles Dickens, 1861. the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." Texas Congressman Reagan, January 1861 "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". London Times, No. 7, 1861 "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation". North American Review (Boston) 1862. "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury Nov. 4, 1860, two days before the election. "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." New Orleans Daily Crescent, Jan. 21, 1861 When South Carolina seceded in December 1860, followed by the other Confederate states, all the powerful moneyed interests in the North were in favor of appeasing the South over slavery in order to preserve the Union. If the South were to be a sovereign nation with low tariffs, it could undermine Northern business and trade. The South believed that it did not need the North, since it could buy the goods it needed from Europe, but the North needed the South as a market for Northern goods. Europe wasn't buying northern manufactured goods, because they could produce their own cheaper than the US North. "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls." The Philadelphia Press, Mar. 18, 1861 The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war and demanded a blockade of Southern ports.

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." Chicago Daily Times, Dec. 1860 Similarly, the economic editor of the NY Times, who had maintained for months that secession would not injure Northern commerce or prosperity, changed his mind on 22 March 1861: "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." In late March 1861, over a hundred leading commercial importers in New York, and a similar group in Boston, informed the collector of customs that they would not pay duties on imported goods unless these same duties were collected at Southern ports. This was followed by a threat from New York to withdraw from the Union and establish a free-trade zone. Prior to these events, Lincoln's plan was to evacuate Fort Sumter and not precipitate a war, but he now determined to reinforce it rather than suffer prolonged economic disaster in a losing trade war. That reinforcement effort was met with force by the South, and the dreadful conflict was upon us.

Also, Davis was not prosecuted by the north because he was a skill lawyer and the north was afraid he would prove that secession was in fact legal. They let him out on a technicality so they wouldn't have to face him in court.

Yours is not the academic consensus. Don't paint it as such.

Clem Cornpone your nothing more than a pitiful snowflake

@@sloanchampion85 Jackson's peculiarities are well documented. He might have been praying at times, but he himself made outlandish statements and was also known to be a hypochondriac.

+indy_go_blue60 everybody has peculiar things about them...what does that have to do with anything?

God did not like Confederates. They prayed and they lost. Bigly.

Will Outlaw Well that is a tricky situation. We know that black people also served the South faithfully as well. Even Fredrick Douglas showed that black people were serving the confederate army long before they were in the union. And they were serving with “muskets on their shoulders and shot in their pouch”. The question becomes how many served where? Comparing them is very difficult because while the union identified people by skin color in their army the confederate army only identified someone as a minority or not. So how many were black or Indian is completely debatable. Also, the union did not consider slaves as people so they were never counted. The slaves that built the pontoon bridges for Sherman and the ones that built the fortifications for Grant were never counted and if any died they were seen as no different then loosing a rifle or a horse and were not registered. Also, the black codes of the North were horrible so most black people that felled the South went to Canada. The Underground Railroad ended at Niagara because that is on the Canadian border and as much as black people did not want to live in the South, understandably, they certainly didn’t want to live in the North either so they went to Canada. Also, Indians overwhelmingly supported the South. Just because a minority likes one side or another doesn’t mean squat.

So did the sound guy.

Give em the bayonet!!

You trollin' bro?

Sshooter444 Nope. Don't you know the three levels of warfare? They are tactical, operational, strategic. Nothing Lee did here was at the strategic level. Here, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level_of_war

You are truly a buffoon.

Trevor Chichester You don't understand a fucking think about military theory do you?

A flanking manouver...isn't that a tactic? So then shouldn't it be tactical level instead of "operational"? The strategy was find a way to defend against a superior force without losing your entire force. Operationally Lee risked dividing his forces, the flanking tactic succeeded resulting in the strategy win.

Only if it's in the right context, which it wasn't in his comment. Basic stuff sir. Thank you and have a nice day.