Dr. Mark DePue discusses the battles surrounding Sherman's March to the Sea and Dr. James Cornelius joins him to discuss the politics of the day and the 1864 Presidential election.
There's an old military adage: "Amateurs talk tactics,; professionals talk LOGISTICS". British Gulf War commander, Sir Peter be la Billierre used it on a number of occasions. Being "fustust with the mostest" is attributed to a Confederate general describing his cavalry unit’s consistent victories in the Civil War. And I vaguely recall that Soviet Marshall Timoshenko was an early user of, " Quantity has a quality all of its own".
@@sylviahacker6695 I was born and lived in the southeast most of my life and live now in Western North Carolina. I had the exceptional benifit of private schooling, traveling the U.S. and abroad, etc. I can tell you that things have not changed in this area in 35 years. The exception being large cities, but not in South Carolina, the dumbest state on our map.
@@hunterpursell1693 I beg your pardon. I wasn't speaking of you specifically. Maybe you are an exception to my generalizations, but my generalizations have stood the test of time, unfortunately.
Logistics is the winning hand. When they asked WW2 Nazi officer what general they feared the most. Their answer was General Motors, by that they meant the industralization of the US. They supported 2 fronts, Pacific, European, fed the Brits, supplied the Soviets.
Providing materiel to the Soviets is a small price to pay to keep the Soviets fighting the Germans before the most opportune time to open the second front.
@@davidweum the Soviet's had their own good reasons to want to fight the Germans. If anything its America coming to save Soviet Russia from thei neighbors. Other than that telegram to Mexico America didn't have a lot of reason to actually fight Germany other than to protect their allies. Paid our debt to France on a military scale twice over. But our homeland wasn't actually threatened, realistically.
@@ericjardine8210 :: The telegram to Mexico happened during WWI. You are confusing the 1st war with the 2nd. And your homeland would have been threatened if German Nazi had completed solidly its conquests. Germany would have triple its territory, and ten-folded its resources, by taken over the Ukrainian agricultural zones, the oil of the Caucasus. And all the European countries serving them. Germany ambitions were gonna be fueled by victory.
♾ Benjamin Franklin as a life-long Grand Master Mason believed in reincarnation and with just six months to live, he went public with his belief in a letter. When he was just 26, he wrote his epitaph which refers to his belief in the trans-migration of the soul. As America's greatest scientist, he performed a secret great experiment in the afterlife by writing his 'Autobiography' as a manual for himself in the future as a boy. Abraham Lincoln when a boy of 7+ on the frontier of Indiana had access to only five books for awhile: the Bible, 'Biography of George Washington', 'Aesop's Fables', 'Gulliver's Travels', and Franklin's Autobiography. He read it so much, he practically had it memorized! Franklin believed in reincarnation based on "energy is neither created or destroyed, although it can be transformed/ transferred in isolated systems." Also, "Why would GOD go to all the trouble of creating millions of new souls when he already has existing souls." 50 years ago, scientists referred to "everything is energy" (E=mc²). But for the last 20 years, scientists recognize that everything is energy and information. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matthew 6:19-21 Jesus son of Joseph taught reincarnation in Matthew 4:17, 6:19-21, 11:14-15, John 8:58, "born-again", "resurrection of the dead", etc. See Seal #7: Reincarnation Theory - 26 Principles at 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
@@BradWatsonMiami I let a fart build up earlier. I swear I rose about .5 to .75 inches off the couch when that SOB was loosed from it's colonic moorings. And then of course, my GF walks in a says she thinks her car keys are in the couch cushions. Asks me to move so she can look. I have the worst luck Brad. She was a hottie.
Stoneman's Calvary was based out of Knoxville Tennessee. They were mainly SOUTHERN men who tore up those tracks. They were given the task of putting out the last of the rebellion and came down hard on their Southern neighbors. Most of Eastern Tennessee voted to stay in the Union and never sympathized with the Southern cause.
Please post the rest of these! They are great lectures! I know for sure he has mentioned a talk he gave on Antietam which I have not seen posted and would love to listen to!
The price paid in their physical death for a vision they hoped for uall, their descendants to relish and enjoy freedom, liberty fully yet the cycle begins again because many have lost the original intent and the reverence of GOD in how YOU treat another.. Revisit YOUR inner thoughts and fundamental beliefs... YOU are never more appreciative about the freedom YOU have unless you've participated in the process of its retention... Destruction is not an option either to achieve "reset" or "reconciliation" that works for ALL... Not just a select few. Consider this...: ALOHA...PEACE
My 3rd great-grandfather was a private in the 57th Illinois Infantry Regiment, which took part in the Atlanta Campaign, the March to the Sea and the Carolinas Campaign.
Maximilians brother was Emperor Francis Joseph I. There has never been a Francis Joseph II. Her name was Charlotte, and she only became known as Carlota of Mexico later on.
Oh god yeah, thats dedication alright. And the courage to fight after the loss of limbs. Not like they put him under to do surgery like we have it today. Tough as nails, dont think i would be man enough to walk in his shoes.
@@brianl1813 I remember seeing a study on the behavioral changes and aggressiveness of military leaders after surviving such injuries. Richard Ewell went into Gettysburg minus a leg. Maybe it affected his decision to not take that hill on Day 1?
Why not? Just position yourself behind his remaining limbs. Have you ever seen a Civil War quadruple amputee? Probably the safest place on the battlefield.
Cavalry (ˈkavəlrē) soldiers on horseback. Calvary (kal-vuh-ree) a hill near Jerusalem. A lot of the guides at Gettysburg say it the same way. Excellent, excellent series of lectures!!!!
I think someone wrote or said about General Howard 'If he isn't fighting, he'd probably start preaching to his troops.' Howard wasn't exactly a great general and his troops really didn't care about his religious fervor. But what was important to Sherman was that he knew Howard could be trusted not to scheme behind his back for his own purposes and advancement.
I seriously doubt Sherman worried about anyone scheming behind his back to assume the mantle of leadership he bore. He and Grant were best friends and Grant was the only military man Lincoln trusted.
@@davidkoloc1313 Regardless his relationship with Grant it would still be a factor on Sherman's mind, if not for his leadership position, then for for smoothness and uniformity for command. Every military history I've read touches on the fact that big-wigs have opposing agendas with either their civilian counterparts or military superiors/equals. Winfield Scott, during the Mexican-American War, wasn't given the troops or supplies he was promised simply because congress (which voted for the war) was afraid he would win public favor for his victories and then seek office. George Washington and Lafayette often hamstrung each other's efforts initially because they had different, conflicting agendas until Washington condescended to work with 'Fayette. Erwin Rommel aggravated the German High Command because of his aggressiveness, he blew off orders not to attack leading to defeats that cost Germany Africa. Even Napolean had to change his order of battle when his field marshals acted in opposition to his wishes.
@@Doughplay I appreciate your knowledge and take on this matter but disagree in part with some of the assertions and parallels you draw. Despite a tendency on the part of some (particularly Americans) to mis-categorize it, the relationship between the French and the colonial Americans was (politically speaking), very much the old ‘an enemy of my enemy is my friend’ kind of situation. The French were, and had been, fighting the British across the globe for years. The notion the French just showed up because they were asked to, and unquestionably or explicitly followed the orders of an inexperienced upstart like Washington is silly. It ignores reality and context... that being the existing geopolitical situation during which the American revolution had emerged. Washington’s desires dovetailed temporarily with the active, longstanding strife between the French and the British. Much the same thing occurred when the United States joined the fight in World War One and Pershing wisely decided (in large part) to disregard France’s request that US commanders sit by and their forces simply be folded into the ranks and strategy of the French military command. As for Rommel. It was neither his tactics or their results which irked Hitler. It was his (necessarily) being left out of the loop for the first time by Rommel’s evolved actions. Rommel was the first General in the blossoming realm of mechanized warfare to recognize the tactical prudence of both leading from the front and the indisputable advantage and necessity of real time decision making in the face of ever quickening warfare. In short, the state of communications at the time could not keep pace with the kind of timeliness this new mode of warfare, in such a remote location, demanded to succeed. It’s true Hitler wasn’t keen on this reality initially but he grew to accept it. Indeed, his trust in Rommel’s savvy as a General was probably second only to Model’s, and continued to grow until Rommel’s implication in the plot to kill Hitler and end the war in 1944.
@@davidkoloc1313 I meant to convey that Washington's plans conflicted with Lafayettes at the operational level of war. I think my using the term 'agenda' was bad writing on my part because it does connote an overarching goal. And I agree with you about Rommel but I did not mention Hitler specifically as his counterpart in the parallel. He was at the top of the command structure but I really meant other German generals who had competing interests elsewhere. Anyway, I appreciate your comment because I am not that privy to ww2 history, especially the African theatre, so the anecdotes were good reading.
That McPherson didn't give himself up when he knew to flee was certain death is a hell of alot of courage. He knew he'd be exchanged and the confederates would demand a whole division for him. That said Thomas was better than McPherson. Sherman and Grant just didn't want to admit it.
MacPherson was almost like a son to Sherman; he was very fond of him personally(don't know about Grant's feelings) but that's why Sherman took it so hard.
What is interesting to me is that Sherman was opposed by no Army after Atlanta. Hood took off and wrecked the hard-luck Army of Tennessee at Franklin. Maybe the Confederate hierarchy should take some of the heat for allowing Sherman's freedom of Action.
Hood was aggressive, but he used up his army attacking entrenched Union soldiers. Johnson was more conservative about attacks that would decimate his own army. The battles of Franklin and Nashville epitomised Hood's approach to fighting. The result was that his army was destroyed.
I’m from Tennessee and i live in georgia so i despise Sherman. However, he was right about the fact that war is cruelty. We would be well served to understand this is modern conflict.
This guy is a great speaker and has a great vibe. The only problem is he relies on these audio recordings of the most unspeakably BAD SOUTHERN ACCENTS! His presentation would be better if he simply read the quotes. Whoever he got to record those quotes would do well to speak in their natural accents because right now they're mimicking some bad version of Gone With The Wind. Being from the South I recoil at bad Southern accents. Worse than rancid milk.
♾ Benjamin Franklin as a life-long Grand Master Mason believed in reincarnation and with just six months to live, he went public with his belief in a letter. When he was just 26, he wrote his epitaph which refers to his belief in the trans-migration of the soul. As America's greatest scientist, he performed a secret great experiment in the afterlife by writing his 'Autobiography' as a manual for himself in the future as a boy. Abraham Lincoln when a boy of 7+ on the frontier of Indiana had access to only five books for awhile: the Bible, 'Biography of George Washington', 'Aesop's Fables', 'Gulliver's Travels', and Franklin's Autobiography. He read it so much, he practically had it memorized! Franklin believed in reincarnation based on "energy is neither created or destroyed, although it can be transformed/ transferred in isolated systems." Also, "Why would GOD go to all the trouble of creating millions of new souls when he already has existing souls." 50 years ago, scientists referred to "everything is energy" (E=mc²). But for the last 20 years, scientists recognize that everything is energy and information. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matthew 6:19-21 Jesus son of Joseph taught reincarnation in Matthew 4:17, 6:19-21, 11:14-15, John 8:58, "born-again", "resurrection of the dead", etc. See Seal #7: Reincarnation Theory - 26 Principles at 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
@@shitoryu8 For those who may be unaware that there is no such thing as "a" Southern accent, your sentiment might seem to mean something, it really doesn't, though, for the reason given. Nice example of regional exceptionalism though.
Try being Scottish. Nothing worse than an American attempting a Scottish accent. Sounds like they have rabies and COVID at the same time. Makes my ears bleed.
Thing is it's a group effort and if it's done in a school then the performing arts people get involved and eager young hopefuls jump at the chance to read historical writings in accents
to put things into perspective: Prussia did not 'take over' a 'southern part of Denmark'. Schleswig&Holstein were always united. And every treaty about those two underlined that fact. Schleswig was ruled by the danish king, but was not(!) a part of Denmark. Schlweswig&Holstein were by law, treaty and history German states. So when the danish parliament decided to incorporate Schleswig into Denmark, this was in clear violation of several treaties. Accordingly Prussia was not the only state to respond - so did Austria. Also, all the potential allies of Denmark - France, England and others, saw this as well, and refused to aid them. This was not an aggressive move of Prussia trying to expand - this was an aggressive move by Denmark trying to expand, rebuked by Prussia&Austria with either open support or consent of ALL european powers.
So, by treaty an ambiguity certain to lead to adversarial relationships was built into the agreement, we have territorial rights [Germany/Prussia, ] whilst Danes can make legislation regarding the northernmost part of the territory Schlessweig...
This is all blatantly untrue, written by someone who knows nothing of the area's history and who have only read propaganda. Prussia was trying to expand and it used Schleswig-Holstein as a pretext. It wanted to show the rest of the German speaking countries that it was the predominant power in the german area - especially concerning Austria. After the war Prussia annexed Schleswig-Holstein. The areas weren't "ancient German speaking territories", but Danish and Slavic speaking areas that Germans had moved into since Charlesmagne - starting with Hamburg. Why do you think some of the most important Danish archaelogical sites are in the area? Dannevirke? Hedeby? Even the name "vig" is Danish for a harbor friendly coastal area. And Lübeck's original name is Lubice. What is true is the Danish government tried to separate the Danish speaking Schleswig area from the German speaking Holstein area, leaving a large minority of Germans in possible legal limbo in Schleswig. One war had already been fought over it and had been won by Denmark because Russia had forced Austria and Prussia to back off. Noone came to the aid of the Danish in 1864, because what they had done was nationalistic and blatantly stupid - without the backing of any allies.
@@jonbojsenkvrndrup8180 read again what I wrote. Schleswig Holstein were part of the HRE. Population or languages are not important AT ALL. They were 'German' states under the King of Denmark (and not part of Denmark). When the parliament moved to take Schleswig, it broke several ancient treaties. So noone to blame but danish nationalists who wante to expand their borders (something you blame on Prussia). Was that war playing into Prussia's hand? Sure, but they did not start it. They did not even politically maneuver Denmark into a trap. Denmark did it all by itself. For no better reason than to annex in the name of nationalism.
@@methanbreather "Ancient treaties" was the excuse the nationalists in SH used to break free from the Danish kingdom in 1848. In reality nothing of the sort existed, as SH had been under a variety of different rulers over the previous 2 centuries, from Sweden to semi-independent to the Danish crown. It was a litteral patchwork of control. The story repeated itself in 1864 at the death of the Danish king. And Prussia swooped in to show the german states how powerful they were. And now you're talking about DK attacking SH... DK tried to separate Slesvig politically from Holsten and took up position in the Danish fortress of Dannevirke in Slesvig to prevent the invading Austro-Prussian army from invading DK. Which failed, one reason being the frozen Slien. The immediate aftermath of this war underlines just how aggressive Prussia were in pursuing their agenda of uniting the german states under their crown. Attacking Austria in 1866 and France in 1870. But yeah, please keep living in your "Holy Roman" fantasy. The Prussians under Bismarck were major aggressors of the time, which led straight to WW1 - this isn't news to anybody but you!
ATLANTA 1864 CIVIL WAR BORN 6 JULY 1964. 100 YEARS LATER GLORY TO GOD GOD BLESS AMÉRICA CUBAN LOVE FROM MIAMI FLORIDA THANKS GEORGIA STATE ALWAYS IN MY HEART 11 MARCH 2021
Soon the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4 will take place: "He will render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore." We will enjoy absolute peace, for all the tragical events will be forgotten, according to Isaiah 65:17: "For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart." And there is more.
How is it ironic that George Thomas and Sherman roomed together at West Point? Even in the bastardized use of ironic as "an odd coincidence", the US Army officer corps was a pretty small group. Everybody knew everybody in one way or another.
That's a major part of why the war was such a bloodbath (apart from the technological developments). All these people roomed together, studied together, served together in Mexico and the peace time army, and it would be extremely hard to outwit or outmaneuver people who knew you that well and had spent so much time together. How do come up with something new when there were people who'd known you since college on the other side of the field?
@@pittland44 The American civil war was not a "bloodbath" except for the large number of deaths due to disease. The actual battlefield losses where relatively small compared compared to contemporary wars in Europe.
@@Sphere723 I think that's very dismissive of all the soldiers who died as a result of their wounds (of which there were many). Same thing with soldiers who were disabled, maimed or lost limbs. Do those not count?
@@pittland44 I am just saying that a couple years later in the Franco-Prussian war, the French would enlist a slightly smaller army than the Union and yet suffer more battlefield losses in a war that lasted Half-a-year where the American Civil war lasted 4 long years. Most soldiers who died during the American Civil war died of disease. What made it so bloody wasn't Generals and rifled muskets, but typhoid and cholera. The battlefield was actually safer than the campsite.
@@Sphere723 I'll agree with that. In comparison to the number of dead from battle versus disease in camp, yes. The Civil War wasn't a bloodbath in that sense (and nothing compared to what was to come in WWI). However, in comparison to earlier conflicts (American Revolution, various conflicts with Indian tribes, Mexican War, etc.) the Civil War was a blood bath in comparison.
Sherman beat Johnson , why , cause it was Johnson lol Maybe Johnson should be called I like a running and when I make my plans the first thing I write down is ....exit plan !!! is there more that needs said ! Was Johnson not on Davis's (I do not like list lol but I got no one else lol)
@Doug Bevins Well said, I must admit, It's been a sad two days for me...after new reading.... to abruptly come to my very own, stark realization of just how bluudy disastrous the war was conducted by R.E. Bobby Lee was my hero, ever since I was about 6. So an older dog can be taught, new history tricks. Slain te'
1:26:41 I really doubt they use their ramrods to dig up train tracks. lol This guy clearly has never handled a muskets. Because you would clearly ruin the ramrod, making it no good for the rifle, therefore making your weapon useless. That wouldn’t be good in enemy country.
27 minutes in and there seems to be an excruciating level of detail with much less emphasis on the big picture. I guess I need an introductory overview before attempting this finer-scale dissertation.
Thank you for your service General Sherman. Thanks also to Union Generals Meade, Grant, and Sheridan. Confederate armies surrendered to all of you. And you didn't kill enough Confederates.
I have so much respect for Hood. He knew he was fighting an existential war as it was ending. But, he was so outnumbered and fighting battles of attrition. What would we do fighting an existential war?
Hood was awful. Heavily “medicated” because of his wounds, he was out of his mind and killed MANY of his own troops and generals out of spite. Arguably the worst General on the South.
@@mstaples2989 I've heard all that. I saw photos of 12 year olds dead holding the line. In an existential war where do you draw the line? Hood may have been doped up, but he had to break out to the West so as to continue the fight. He may have been wrong, granted, but what would you do as a commander?
@@mstaples2989 I'm tempted to say, " What would you do in an existential war? Hood had to break out. Offensive after offensive in order to break out to the west. That war was technically over, but he had to try. I feel sorry for the Confeferates and their cause. Regardless of their cause, they had to fight on with the only option available. As an American, what would you do? Surrender is not in your mentality nor your vocabulary, nor your mindset. I'm sorry, but I could not surrender either. If you have an open mind, perhaps you will agree.
@@davidweum I have a open mind and any general knows everything’s a lost cause is ethically and morally wrong to just kill people and he murdered thousands of Confederate soldiers including some very good generals because he was angry
@@mstaples2989 He was leading his country in an existential threat. He was surrounded by a powerful Union force. His attacks were designed to break though the enemy lines and to the west. Yes, many good generals and young soldiers were killed, but he commanded the only fighting force remaining. He had to try. And the enemy forced him to make one assault after another. He had no choice ( and he had no hope we know that now), he had to fight on! His was the only force remaining to take on the Union to defend his Country.
It seems to me that if they were going to give up Atlanta anyhow Johnson's forces should have somehow moved North to merge with Lee's. Let Sherman do what he's going to do while you attempt to defeat the unions army in the North. Of course it's easier to say it than to do it but I know that Lee was trying to merge his forces by going south it might have been easier if Johnson joined him by going north.
@@adammartin180 probably so. I guess I'm just saying it was one possible bad decision in a world of only bad decisions. They were beat but I think joining the army's might have extended it more which was a big part of the Southern plan at that point. Sort of like the Japanese idea that if there's too much blood shed than the Americans will want out. In this case the northerners and the northern press.
I think by that time there weren't enough supplies to get him to Virginia and certainly not enough to feed his army if he got there. Plus, we think about food for the men; the horses needed it more than the men did. Without horses to pull cannon, caissons, and supply wagons with ammunition the army was worthless. By 1864, the southern supply of fit horses was non existent. That's why Sheridan could so effectively raid the Shenandoah Valley; his opponent's mounts were breaking down.
Sherman drank for 3 days. Because he knew there would be death ! It played on his mind. Like all of us YOU DO WHAT YOU Have TO DO . He did not just get belly rolls. he would drink to the men he lost. That is why he would throw up on his horse. HE LOVED HIS MEN !!! It was very tough on Billy.i would follow uncle billy here and far away
@@josephcockburn7524 You can lie all you'd like, but it will never change the following facts: 1.)The CSA was treasonous and anti-American 2.)The CSA seceded over slavery and admitted as much in their declarations of secession. 3.)The CSA lost. 4.)The "Lost Cause" has fooled nobody but those who willfully ignore the fundamental facts of the war.
Yes he loved his men because they did his bidding with the murder, rape and pillage of Southern civilians. Those were the only people in the south that Sherman had the guts to annihilate.
Agreed. Lost Cause boo-hooing will carry on till the end of time but will change nothing about the well-known, well-documented fundamental facts of the war. Lee's army kidnapped and sent south to slavery some 1500 free blacks. The CSA deserved precisely what it got, and Lee's anti-American traitor army should have been grateful they weren't prosecuted for the treason in which they bloodily indulged. Read the declaration of the reasons for secession and then tell me it wasn't about slavery. State's rights to do what, by the way? Also, since the CSA constitution federally banned its states' abolition of slavery, there is proof positive state's rights is a cheap, thin band-aid stuck on a gaping wound. But keep up your boo-hooing, won't change the war's outcome.
If the North or should I say Union had lost the war all these people talking about the south being butthurt and crying about losing would change their tune. The Liberals were telling the conservatives to get over it even before the election of Trump but after the right person won the election the liberals cried and cried and are still crying.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory Really? I thought that since Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln were Republicans the south would honor them more than Lee and other Democrats
@@dgoins6 The south was mainly democrat until the 80s when northern migration changed the demographics. The hatred for Sherman is more personal to many Georgians because their ancestors suffered through the destruction of Atlanta and his march to the sea. There isn't the same hatred for Grant and Lincoln.
@@MrNiceGuyHistory modern conservatives claim to be the party of Lincoln. He fought the south against Lee, a Democrat. I'm not sure why modern conservatives are defending statues of Lee when he was on the opposing side of Lincoln. They should honor Sherman.
After Atlanta Sherman took the best men and the best horses in order to engage in a March to Savannah where he knew he’d be unopposed, and left Thomas with the lesser troops, lesser horses, and the wounded to fight the confederate army which Sherman totally ignored. Once again Thomas proved himself a genius at war while Sherman got the glory for taking a city unopposed
Sherman understood by this time that the war was not about taking cities. It was about destroying the south's ability to continue the war. George Thomas was very good at what he did. Sherman was very good at what he did. Grant was very good at what he did. I don't think any of them thought much about "glory".
@@hisxmark actually, Savannah was Thomas’s idea, he had previously mentioned to Sherman his desire to March to Savannah, only for Sherman to then do it himself. When it came to strategy and tactics Thomas was heads above either Grant or Sherman. Thomas’s ability to win a battle with minimal losses was extraordinary, while Grant’s losses were at times staggering,
@@pyromania1018 please reread my comment and show me where I ever stated that Sherman and Grant weren’t geniuses, as well as how the supposed comment that I never made was wildly inaccurate. I’ll wait for
FOCUS on slides .. he refers to them constantly .. get a camera that blows them up from where the camera is shooting from .. love the topics .. but cannot watch these .. speaker is just a voice .. info in is on the slides ..
I was an itinerant piano tuner. I worked Middle Georgia since the late 1970's. A lady in Louisville had her great, great (?) grandmother's four-poster bed. When Sherman's men approached the area, a square chunk of wood was cut out of a bed post and jewelry was placed inside. The wood was replaced and varnished over. The soldiers didn't notice and the jewelry was saved. I was able to see that the block of wood had sunk into the bed post a very slight bit. I am a Yankee and the people were always very nice to me.
He was a better general early in the war before his injuries. After Gettysburg he should have called it quits. Davis was stupid to give him such important commands.
What Sherman did was no different than what Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila did. Sherman changed nothing about war. What do you think all those other guys did when they invaded the enemies territory? Arguably worse!
♾ Benjamin Franklin as a life-long Grand Master Mason believed in reincarnation and with just six months to live, he went public with his belief in a letter. When he was just 26, he wrote his epitaph which refers to his belief in the trans-migration of the soul. As America's greatest scientist, he performed a secret great experiment in the afterlife by writing his 'Autobiography' as a manual for himself in the future as a boy. Abraham Lincoln when a boy of 7+ on the frontier of Indiana had access to only five books for awhile: the Bible, 'Biography of George Washington', 'Aesop's Fables', 'Gulliver's Travels', and Franklin's Autobiography. He read it so much, he practically had it memorized! Franklin believed in reincarnation based on "energy is neither created or destroyed, although it can be transformed/ transferred in isolated systems." Also, "Why would GOD go to all the trouble of creating millions of new souls when he already has existing souls." 50 years ago, scientists referred to "everything is energy" (E=mc²). But for the last 20 years, scientists recognize that everything is energy and information. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matthew 6:19-21 Jesus son of Joseph taught reincarnation in Matthew 4:17, 6:19-21, 11:14-15, John 8:58, "born-again", "resurrection of the dead", etc. See Seal #7: Reincarnation Theory - 26 Principles at 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce that. It's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
TOO TOUGH FOR A SUSTAINED LISTEN. SOME LECTURES AND CLASSES ARE TOO DETAILED AND HARD TO HEAR FOR AN ENJOYABLE ABSORPTION OF INFO. AFTER A WHILE IT'S LIKE LISTENING TO PAINT DRY.
This man needs to learn the correct pronunciations of names of rivers, towns, etc. Also you can tell he did not do any "On Location" research. If he had journeyed to Jonesboro Ga. he would have learned how confederates held off the Union for a day with a brass parade cannon!
im glad they quit making videos... these are almost as intetesting as listening to a person read a book with your eyes closed! they keep putting the camera on the speaker, instead of keeping the camera on the slideshow. imo, i can hear the speaker, no matter where the camera is pointing. i cant see what he is talking about, when the camera is not pointed at the screen he is pointing at. just my opinion
When "the devil" went down to Georgia, he knew exactly what the war was all about. He was there to get Southern cash crops (cotton, etc.) to "preserve the Union Treasury!" 22 December 1864 His Excellency President LINCOLN: I beg to present you, as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah, with 150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition, and also about 25,000 bales of cotton. W.T. Sherman, Major General. No mention of freed slaves! How about that!
@@petermullins2991 I'm not! There are still people who support the destruction of the South, calling us traitors and everything else because they believe the "False Causes" of the Yankee propaganda that are still pushed 160 years later! We have had protests, monuments destroyed, street names altered, etc, because the anti-Southern hatred still abounds with those who need to keep the hatred alive!
Northern states had actual industry. They weren't a bunch of planters who used slave labor. If Southern cash crops were so lucrative to the modern world, the British would have backed the Confederacy.
@@tomace4898 Between the war and Union blockades of Southern ports not allowing Southern products to leave the country, how is anyone going to support the CSA? With the Industial Revolution going on, the North needed raw materials and the South had them!
Veiwpoints of the people of the southern USA are not affected so much about losing the US Civil War. The problem was the Reconstruction Period after the hostilities of the Civil War. Corrupt financier's from New York City were buying out land owners for pennies on the dollar. If these northern banksters opened a business then wages were extremely low, often as low as .25¢ per day. Share cropping was the norm for a long time. Tge share cropper had to rent the land, buy the seeds from the northern landowner. Then maybe a 60%/40% split of the value of the harvested crop. That means the New Yor City banker took 60% or more as his take. The sharecropper was left with left with significantly less. The share cropper share paid for the seed, housing rent, whatever was bought as groceries or other items from the landiwners store. This all lasted until the Great Depression. What the Civil War didn't destroy the Great Depression finished. The Unionists amongst you in RU-vid land better be thankful that the suggestion of a generational gurella warfare by Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy didn't take hold. There would still be hostilities. Most if the Confederate Generals told the men under their command yo go home and live your lives in peace. Another little tidbit of the Civil War is sweet potato pie. Union soldiers would desimate farm crops. One of which was pumpkins. All plants that had the fruit or seeds growing above ground were destroyed. Sweet potatos grow underground so the Union soldiers could not destroy the sweet potatoes. The sweet potatoes began to be the holiday dessert. Even today most southerns, white or black, have sweet potato pie for dessert.
It’s disgusting what the union did in Georgia. Anyone who has ever owned a bloodhound knows they are one of the coolest and friendliest dogs in the world. The south treated Pennsylvania and Maryland with much more respect.
@@tomace4898 actually most of them stayed with their plantation owners and took on their last name. How did the north treat their slaves? Don’t act like they didn’t have them too.
