Lincoln and Davis: War Presidents
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 08. 2014
- In this video, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson and University of Virginia history professor Gary Gallagher discuss Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis and the Civil War. This conversation is part of the Miller Center's Historical Presidency Series. More information is available at millercenter.org.
The two giants on one stage!
Over the past 30-40 years I've learned a lot of FACTS about our Civil War, but I'm still delightfully confused about many of the reasons for it. It's great listening to men like this.
It's even greater that you have the curiosity. Most people don't. I've never read McPherson, but I have read some of Gary Gallagher's books, and find them models of careful scholarship and impressive thought. He delights in challenging widely held assumptions. To me, this is striking in its display in his book, The Confederate War.
Thanks, as an Australian these speakers provide great insight into the American civil war.
Thank you for this.
I wish it had been an hour longer!
McPherson brought up a good point. At the beginning of the war it was more about getting the South to come back without having to go into the region and destroy the infrastructure. By summer of 1862 Lincoln realized that the South will not only have to be invaded but completely destroyed (scorched earth) the South and build it back up. The destruction of slavery was the first step. This is why, in my opinion, the first year of the war was not very effective for the North and once Vicksburg and Gettysburg was over, all bets were off. I always believed if Lincoln would have had this attitude at the beginning of the war, it would have been over by 1863.
Is it just me or is the sound quality of this really bad?
the sound of the camera shutter is NOT the problem.
the problem is the camera is recording the sound - iow - there is 0 direct mic; it's being recorded using house sound only ... hence the bothersome camera shutter which would NOT be detected by a direct mic.
Very interesting discussion.
Why does every lecture introducer imagine that they are wonderful stand-up comedians? Why can't they simply tell the audience to turn off their phones and welcome the speaker. They know who the speaker is, otherwise they wouldn't be there, would they?
i have to watch this for homework and i want to cry (still v interesting tho - thanks donnie)
This
is an interesting video; yet I would want to know more about Davis' decisions,
actions and attitude during the War. The problem with the CW was its’ initial
principal for the southern union; a Confederacy versus a Republic. The Southern
states were never really unified; nor would they ever could be. Whereas the
North could master all their resources against them.
Mr. Madey, You're correct, Sir, in your words in saying the North (Lincoln) had the benefit of being a republic (and a central government). Lincoln was able to make many of the controversial decisions he made at the beginning of the war (his raising of a volunteer army of 75,000, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, etc.) due to Congress being on recess. Davis, on the other hand, was a clear choice to lead the Confederacy, but what did that really mean? He was 'in command' of sovereign states (and therefore their governors) when he was asked to lead them against the Union invasion. If the South had somehow won, or had been permitted to secede, how would it had survived as one nation? Kinda interesting... I think they came together (as much as history has shown) only because they had a common goal (fighting the Union), but things would've been tough without that common goal.
Max Turner Interesting comment and something I never considered about the Confederacy (haven’t listened to entire video yet). The centralized, political unity of the North would have been a huge strategic advantage.
sounds like they are talking in an auditorium without a microphone???
The sound is terrible and the closed caption option is even worse. It would have been very good if not for these two problems!
can anyone tell me the 6 topics they discussed
Why not post their names here? The gentleman on the left is Gary Gallagher. The other is James McPherson.
Audio too uneven to listen to
I agree with professor Gallagher as in it wasn't a war between North and South-more like two nations-one supporting and continuing slavery, and the other not supporting slavery.
The sound quality is terrible.
Poor sound quality IMHO
I take Gallagher’s oft repeated point that if Johnsto had remained in command in the summer 1862 that the Confederacy probably would have collapsed. because Richmond would have fallen. predictions of events there after are impossible to evaluate. McCllellan would then have become the great war hero. Lincoln would then have been faced with a rival in 1864, because resistance in the South would probably not been immediately at an end, and the issue of slavery still to be faced. The radical pro-slavery Southerners would have been discredited, but the institution probably would have remained to be hung around the American neck for decades.
The final observation is something I’ve never heard before. How would slavery have ended had the rebellion been put down earlier?
A good question. As a CW historian myself, I am of the opinion that had the Confederacy been defeated, or simply decided to come back in the Union between 1862-1864, I believe slavery would have been unchanged. In fact, the original XIIIth Amendment that protected slavery as legal where it was legal had been ratified by 5 Northern states by 1862. If 11 Confederate states came back in the Union in 1862, I would imagine they would also ratify the amendment immediately. Then only a few more states would be needed to fully ratify it so that it was the newest amendment and made slavery legal where it was legal for all time. More states probably would have ratified it within a few years.
There was really no effort in the Congress in the mid war to even consider abolition, so that as well would most likely leave slavery unchanged if the southern states came back into the Union earlier.
Most likely as the industrial North got richer and the agricultural South didn't, the North could have eventually bought out the slaveowners with compensated emancipation as the British did in the West Indies. Probably would have taken until the 1930s though. At that point between the boll weevil, the mechanization of agriculture, and the Depression the plantation owners would be begging the North to buy their slaves.
Grant knew that if he threatened Richmond, he could bring Lee to battle. Once they met in the Wilderness... Lee, Richmond and the Confederacy were doomed.
Tim Podhorn Cannot deny Sherman’s part but it was Grant’s plan to apply pressure on all parts of the Confederacy at once. Confederate morale perhaps may have survived either losing Richmond or Sherman’s March but no way could it survive both, especially at the same time. Thanks for your reply.
The USN and Sherman defeated Lee, Grant was a waste of space.
Karl Burkhalter - Now that’s a revisionist analysis if ever there was one! You won’t convince many people of that.
@@GH-oi2jf The capture of NOLA doomed Southern Industry. The Fall of Fort Fisher doomed Lee. Grant never won anything without Naval support. From Shiloh to Chattanooga to Appomattox.
Guarding Richmond defensively would impair Lee's mobility. And Lee knew that mobility allowed him to deal with a superior force.
Prof.Gallagher misses a point, Jefferson Davis felt he had another competent 'General' in Albert Sidney Johnston before he was killed at Shiloh, also Davis was acutely aware of the critical importance of the Western theatre, that's why he put A.S. Johnston there in the 1st place, also wanted to fight to the last to keep Vicksburg uncaptured, but Grant foiled that goal. In addition, the other Johnston, Joseph, was not bad as a commander, just didn't get along w Davis much of the time. Davis traveled to the Western theatre 3 times to assess matters, but made bad decisions after regarding matters there.
My believe is that the scale of the terrain made defence of the west impossible. They had a free chance with a neutral Kentucky that could have helped them but they insisted to occupy a bit of Kentucky. They had to few men at a to large land out there.
I disagree about Joseph Johnson's abilities. His default response to any military situation were to either:
A. retreat, or
B. bellyache about how he should have been senior to Lee.
As usual : a constant chorus of coughing all through this
fascinating talk. ! What is with events like this that attracts
those among us who simply
CANNOT stop coughing / clearing their throats just for
one hour !?!? Why aren't they asked to leave !!!?
etc
Image that. Well I guess the victor can write history
Prof Gallagher is wrong about the Revolution. The French and it's professional army any navy made success possible. The South had no such assistance.
I like his style. I find him humorous as well as informative. I'm sorry that you don't find him to your liking.
The Brits did assist with warships and we're stepping up production until Russia intervened with both her fleets. Webster Tarpley has a very informative talk about it you should watch. If the British had came in it would have been over for the Union and they were very close to doing so (most likely forcing an armistice was all they needed to do). Just because we know now that the Russian fleets stopped this doesn't mean they knew that then and it was a major factor.
@Leonardo's Truth Ain't it funny how people find it so easy to ridicule to cover up the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.
@@mattmischnick2926 and you do?
wolverineeagle - I didn’t find anything in here about the American Revolution. What is the time stamp?
Says no flowery intro and then proceeds with flowery intro.
Davis was a lousy leader leading a lousy cause.
----------------Jefferson Davis's exemplary Presidency was exhibited by Davis prioritizing Southern defensive tactics rather than offensive actions saved multitudes of lives on both sides of the conflict, that stands in stark contrast to Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression that's responsible for the deaths of over, 500,000, Americans is one of the greatest evils and atrocities ever perpetrated by any national leader!
--------------The blame for the North's misuse of military power with invasion of the South lies squarely upon the shoulders of Abraham Lincoln's War Of Northern Aggression with Lincoln's Presidency destroying half the nation bringing unimaginable death and suffering upon Southerners is among the most heinous acts ever perpetrated in human history, is an undeniable an unjustifiable reality by any standards of decency or morality!
Hahahaha.
The confederate states had no right to leave the Union. Secession was unconstitutional. Every drop of blood spilt rest solely on the hands Jefferson Davis and the legislatures of the seceding states. No way around this argument.
@@constantine8279 I read it daily.
@@johnj.baranski6553 - but clearly not well.
Revisionist non-sense. Davis and Lee are responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, Northern and Southern. No amount of you being butt-hurt because the traitors you worship got their asses kicked will change that. Confederacy = a nation of traitors and losers who fought for one of the worst causes in history.