@kenny desee You bet I am. You are very bad at history and math. Do you understand how to reference historical claims? Please, start with the "over one million murdered". Who killed the 18,000 runaway slaves? I am just curious how far your derangement goes.
John Marshall Otey was assistant adjutant general under General P. G. T. Beauregard during the Civil War. The collection consists of one letter, 10 March 1865, from E. Willis to Colonel John Marshall Otey (J. M. Otey), discussing the difficulties facing railroad transportation and the movement of troops, artillery, and provisions at the time.
I LOVED this talk used to dislike Sherman when I was younger....thought he was an emotionally disturbed psycho perhaps But I've come to see he's right...REALLY right All these other generals, looking to meet enemy armies on the battlefield, endless fruitless frontal assaults DEAD and MAIMED by the TENS of THOUSANDS (The Wilderness, what 8 days and 61,000 casulties? Gettysburg 51,000, Antietam 22,000 casulties) I think he did More in his march to Atlanta then to the sea then through S Carolina than a dozen battles had done all together. He's more of a blessing than Grant In fact, I would have made the Army of the Potomac a Holding force and given Sherman 5 more corps and let him loose! He thrashed Hood's army severely, sacked Atlanta, cut a swath through Georgia, took Savannah, cut a swath through S and N Carolina, compelled the surrender of Johnston... I wish we'd had him in Vietnam....he's a regular Col. Kurtz
My favorite part is that his reputation for insanity came from two facts: he accurately predicted how many soldiers the south could raise (they thought he was overestimating) and he thought it was suspicious that all these southern belle prostitutes were asking for detailed plans and troop counts as part of their flirting. Turns out OpSec is enough to get you put out to pasture for a while.
It's not surprising that someone - who really understands the violence and horror of war - would be uncomfortable with having to practice the art. PTSD takes a lot of forms - and isn't new to our time just because we finally have a phrase for it.
On these last remarks you could very well argue that Grant by becoming President took on responsibility (again) in difficult times knwing that a political job would probably not help his future image (i think it didn't hurt and he did a decent job.). And Sherman for the very same reasons did not. And over all the Sherman Georgia/sc debate hangs a single fact of history: If you start a war, you have to bear the consequences. You can't expect for them to stay with some far away soldiers. That was pretty much Sherman's attidtude. If you are very lucky then some violations of warfare laws (defined later) my have consequences for those responsible, but that rarely happens to the victorious side.
According to Marion Lucas, author of Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, "the destruction of Columbia was not the result of a single act or events of a single day. Neither was it the work of an individual or a group. Instead it was the culmination of eight days of riots, robbery, pillage, confusion and fires, all of which were the byproducts of war. The event was surrounded by coincidence, misjudgment, and accident. It is impossible, he maintains, to determine with certainty the origin of the fire. The most probable explanation was that it began from the burning cotton on Richardson street. Columbia at this time was a virtual firetrap because of the hundreds of cotton bales in her streets. Some of these had been ignited before Sherman arrived and a high wind spread the flammable substance over the city." In 2015, The State identified "5 myths about the Burning of Columbia": Sherman ordered the burning of Columbia. All of Columbia burned. There was a "battle" for Columbia. Union soldiers burned the Congaree River bridge. First Baptist Church was saved by an African-American caretaker.
Chuckle...yeah, all cities of the South were burned by “accident” or misfortune. What noble Americans. As opposed to those savage racists of the South who paid for provisions taken, albeit in Confederate dollars. I love to play The Who’s who game with students...they always answer the glorious victors of the North. Then you remove the cover from the picture and now all of a sudden when it’s the Army marching natives, now and only now are they the brutal “oppressors”. Americans really need help.
@@marcuslaker5876 the south lost and can't get over it to this day. Funny considering you can't change history and the fact that the confederates are a lost cause. Go on and pick some cotton
Sherman said that by early July 1863--after the South's twin losses of Vicksburg and Gettysburg--it was obvious that they were going to lose. By inference, he meant obvious to England and France, who would not be coming in to save the Confederacy. His opinion was that the South got what they asked for. They started a fight that they could not finish and continued it way past the point of decency. Sherman and Grant invented modern war. They knew that this was a peoples' war, fought with peoples' armies; and that to win it they had to take the war directly to the Southern people themselves. Also, the amount of damage the Union caused in Georgia and South Carolina should give you an idea of how angry the North was for having this war drag on when it was already decided. Finally, Sherman's troops idolized and adored him; they called him Uncle Billy.
@@tinmanx2222 Booth killed the man who was committed to a peaceful reconstruction and who spared rebel leaders the noose. Allowing radicals to fill the power vacuum and dooming the south to a failed Reconstruction. He should have been on World's Dumbest Criminals.
@kenny desee Lincoln created the problem? Your statement shows an abysmal lack of knowledge about the Civil War and all the decades--centuries, really--of politics and social machinations that led to the war's inevitability. Read James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It will be the beginning of your education.
Confederate people keep wanting the United States of America to lose the Civil War. The slavery defending rebels were doomed to defeat from the beginning. They were battling against God, 200,000 African American Union troops, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S.Grant, and William Tecumseh Sherman.
It’s kinda boring studying the very end of the war like this since we all know what’s gonna happen. I mean we all always knew what happened finally, but the what ifs are more compelling earlier on, that said at this point I know basically everything about the civil war except for these final battles I was always bored by, so I’m getting into this
Yes, and those from SC are not “Hillbillies”. Also, please try to suppress the “ah” which is constantly repeated in your presentation. The presentation is ok but a little scattered.
Lots of information and a great history lesson but will someone please get that man some water so he will quit licking his lips 2 inches away from his mic.
The information was great but salacious in places. Obviously there were rogue troops from the north who were out of control. Sherman did bring those areas to their knees in every way. Sherman did as he was told. The war ended
I watch these 1865 videos and can see Davis was doing his best Hitler impression and assumed he would be executed. He should have submitted surrender terms and started negotiations in January, but like Hitler he would sacrifice to the last man to save his pathetic hide. In the end he was not executed, Lincoln was the high point and Davis the low point of human character during the war.
Davis was the absolute high point. Davis continued to fight because he believed the war could be won, not because he cared what would become of himself.
@@Luke-mg5uq Luke you are delusional, Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy was falling apart. Vicksburg,Nashville, New Orleans, Chattanooga, and Savannah, Atlanta and etc was in Union hands. Federal Army was moving East and moving into South Carolina and moving to North Carolina and moving to Virginia possibly at the time. I can go on!!
Sherman: Won a war like a boss M4 Sherman: Shiz armor,Wrong tank wrong war, Still won a way but there were a bunch, tankers hated him. OG sherman is better
The Sherman was a great tank, one of the three great medium tanks of the war, and one of two that really served their purpose strategically. People get obsessed with having the best tank that‘s always stronger than the enemy tanks. Hitler was obsessed with it, too. But in reality, fighting other tanks 1:1 was not the most common job for tanks on the battlefield. The most common job that tanks have to do is overrun infantry positions and support their own infantry. That‘s the bread and butter. Fighting other tanks is a thing that they do occasionally have to do, but not most of the time. One of the doctrinal takeaways from WWII was that the tank that was needed most was a multipurpose vehicle that were equipped for tank-vs-tank combat even if that wasn‘t their main job. The main requirement was having a decent-sized gun while being mobile enough and having the best armor that didn‘t impede the other jobs. But just as important was that it was mass-producible and that your army could be equipped with enough of them. Not only are numbers much more critical tactically than just having a better tank, having tanks at all made a huge difference if the enemy didn‘t and thus equipping a bigger part of your army with them was a huge priority. It‘s true that the Sherman wasn‘t able to beat the German late-war heavy tanks (Panther and Tiger) 1:1, but it didn‘t have to. The Sherman was available in huge numbers while being very reliable, agile and having a big enough gun for the late war that none of the German tanks were impervious to it. Even the Tiger II could be taken down by a Sherman or a T-34/85. Given that 9 times out of 10 the Shermans had not just numerical superiority, but also much stronger Infantry and Artillery support they could carry the day 9 time out of 10. So what if they lost more Shermans than the Germans lost Panthers. They also had a lot more of them, orders of magnitude more. Meanwhile tank losses pale in comparison to infantry losses. That‘s where the army bleeds, that‘s what you run out of and having more tanks available helps your infantry survive. That‘s what really matters in terms of losses.
Could'nt Sherman have ended the war sooner by persuing hood and destroying his army, between him and thomas at nashville they could have created a trap for him, then Sherman could have headed east and with Grant done the same to Lees army.
I dont know that this country has yet healed from the wounds caused by Civil War 1.0. In the grand scheme of things, the Romans had multiple periods of decades of civil war, one stemming from its predecessor. Why should 21st century Civilizations be any different?
@@johnqpublic2718 So many in this country has been fed on Texas school books, the Lost Cause and prejudice...AFTER the real history starts to be taught like in University, drunk uncles everywhere will hold sway.
The South was financially and physically wrecked by the war. In Texas public education ceased and only started again some 30 years after the war ended. How the South won anything after the war is a mystery to me . Many talented Southerners were forced to leave for the West or the North to have a career.
Sherman did what had to be done and thats from a South Carolina boy. I’ve lived here for all my life and my mother and great grandmother view him poorly. However a student of war and history as I aim to teach both. I can confidently say South Carolina earned the burning they received in 1865. The secessionist movement started here and was integral with the foundation of the confederacy. As the white carolina plantation owners were willing to send their sons to die for their ridiculous idea of property.
Damned Yankee because a lot of the news today is Propaganda. But it also was that way back then as well. What people need to do is look at primary sources. That we know are connected to the author or authors. Propaganda didn’t just begin in The 21st century but we seem to believe it does because we live in the 21st. There was a great bit of propaganda against Sherman as well. Mainly because they wanted someone to act against him. The south had a massive manpower shortage especially at this point of the war. They were using old men and boys to fill their frontline. They even gave slaves pikes but no guns at one point. Sherman was a tactician and his campaign was both tactical and strategic in everything he did. He treated the south exactly the way they wanted to be treated. As a warring country.
Pierre Tutant Gustav Beauregard also known as "Toot Toot" Beauregard, ran away from his responsibilites in South Carolina. We recall he was running things in 1861 when he was bombarding Fort Sumter. He turned coward as Sherman was about to tan his rebel hide in 1865. "Bad boy, bad boy, watcha gonna do when they come for you..."
The charles sumner incident I think is what your looking for, the funny part is after a week or two of the incident the senator received something like 30 new walking Cane's in the mail
@@ninurtathricemajestic7179 shoot man I tell ya, things were way better when senators and congressmen mayor's and governors alike could be challenged to duels, heck look up the duels of Andrew Jackson and Alexander Hamilton if you want a right good laugh.. duels kept people's mouths from running too much helped keep promises and more than that held men to a gentleman's code which governed their daily actions, codes and ways of life that people no longer understand and it's sad... Be easy man and happy reading!!
Sumner was correct about the Slave Power's hypocrisy of accusing Abolitionist of wanting to marry blacks, all the while raping at will, the slaves and selling their own offspring into bondage! ( which is why Brooks attempted to murder Sumner ) Preston Brooks would be dead in a few months after the attack ~ Sumner would live to see the start and finish of the war ~ and after that....another decade ! ( Justice )
I'm from Texas and had ancestors in Confederate army Chattanooga/look out mountain but I'm damn glad the south took a licking,Grant,Sherman, Thomas were real American heroes and knew exactly how to end this vile war South Carolina got off easy for what that state started, they got off easy.
Oof, yeah, the pronunciation of Native-based names in South Carolina were very poor and cringey. Coosawhatchie is pronounced “Coo-sA-hatch-ee” and Pocataligo…well it’s literally phonetic, don’t know how he turned that one into Italian 🤷🏻
Slave holding trash - that had been imprisoning, raping and mutilating African Americans for hundreds of years - shocked that a tiny fraction of their wretched brutality was revisited upon them. Zero sympathy for an utterly contemptible race from the south.
@@smiter57If he had fought alongside the north, he would have been fighting his own state. Regardless of the decision of the politicians, its hard to force a man to point a gun at his home
Those who complain of Sherman's atrocities, I think should be happy that the North was as lenient as it was with the South when you compare it to most other civil wars that ended up with the losers dead or in exile, their women and children taken into slavery and their leaders executed. Just for example the Russian and Spanish civil wars. Yep, they got off quite easy.
you don't even have to go that far. Just look up what some of the confederate troops did on northern soil and everything Sherman did was nothing but well deserved punishment.
So to the first post, well Mr educated idiot, forget other people's civil wars their governments are totally different and separate from the "United States" the fact that a US president raised an army to kill his own countrymen, that in it's self is a crime against humanity and unconstitutional in an American government
Southerners are really offended by what Sherman did (or more often what they think he did - his destruction is frequently exaggerated by Southerners) because he did it THEM - fellow white Americans. If Sherman did the exact same things to Native Americans or non-Americans then Southerners would have regarded Sherman as a great American hero. White Southerners burned entire black towns during Jim Crow at the slightest provocation, real or often imagined. Sherman's March sought to do the same things Allied bombing of Germany and Japan sought to do in World War II: destroy infrastructure and break civilian morale. However, since he had soldiers instead of high-altitude bombing he could discriminate between intended targets and everything else (hard war vs total war). Not every soldier followed those orders closely and sometimes unintended consequences resulted from following orders; that's what happens in a war. If you really want to see an army really rampaging across the countryside, look up Edward The Black Prince. His chevauchee in France makes Sherman look gentle by comparison. P.S. Unlike Clem below, I don't have a problem with the ranger's talk. Even if he's not exactly an electrifying speaker, this didn't seem Lost Cause to me.
Um original post, your a fool, the south had made Senate seats for natives and gave them a voice in their constitution also March 26 1865 the first desegregated American force since the revolution marched in Richmond to Dixie, two companies of blacks and three white all in the same battalion, would be 1947 before Uncle Sam did the same...
" If Sherman did the exact same things to Native Americans or non-Americans then Southerners would have regarded Sherman as a great American hero" Here in the real world, Sherman DID do the exact same things to Native Americans. Sherman was head of the Army during the period known as the "Plains Wars." The Winter Campaign, where he had indian villages attacked in the middle of winter, women and children killed indiscriminately, and the survivors driven out to die in the snow, was his idea. The slaughter and literal attempted extinction of the buffalo was part of his plan--specifically *because* the indians depended on the buffalo for a food supply. Wounded Knee, the capture of Chief Joseph, the Mud Lake Massacre, Washita, Marias, and more, were all under Sherman's command.
The Sand Creek Massacre wasn't under Sherman's command because he wasn't commander of the Army yet, but it was lead by a different Union officer. Like Southerners, they were invaded, attacked via terrorism, and their land looted and stolen--and like Southerners, assholes to this day tell them that they should be grateful, and that they were treated with mercy because they didn't experience total genocide. It's common to defend Sherman by trying to downplay his crimes, or trying to pretend that his soldiers just got out of control a bit. In reality, Sherman was able to gather up his troops and make them obey perfectly whenever he needed to pack up and move. He boasted that Southern generals--who were busy whipping Grant's army in Virginia--weren't home to protect their women (yeah, mocking rape victims--whatta guy!), and repeatedly told his subordinates that genocide would be necessary and that he expected "bloody results." The only substantive difference between Sherman and bin Laden is that Sherman's terrorists had uniforms and managed a lot more death and destruction.
I am not going to comment on the content. But... don't they have anyone who can actually deliver a talk? This man can not utter three words without running out of breath, constantly smacking his lips, is breathing overly loud into the microphone, unclear speech. That he seems to have problems with (place) names, needs to read everything - and is lost when he does not find the next line - and seems pretty unprepared, just adds insult to injury.
Being born, bred, and cornbread fed...in Beaufort (Bew Fert) SC, ..... ...... I can attest to, and factually state...that this guy pronounced just about every single name of an area in SC...wrong. Really...wrong. I mean....like plumb embarrassingly stupid... wrong. Really...really...wrong. No where near...right. Not even close. But hey.... is what it is.😖
Does that mean you rejected what he said? I have suffered wrong pronunciations my entire life and I always viewed them with charity, having mispronounced a fair bit myself. I can't think of too many things that are more American.
He got William Tecumseh Sherman's name right. He got the dates right as to battles with the slavery defending traitors. Thank you for your service General Sherman. However, you didn't kill enough rebels.
@kenny desee Abbeville Institute, its mission is to promote a positive image of the CSA. Is that a clue that anything information that tarnishess it will be discarded.
Lincoln deliberately wanted a hard war, numerous generals like Porter and McClellan were removed and/or had their good name ruined by loyal Lincoln supporters. it is evident that Lincoln wanted to make statement; if you join the union then you can never leave. he didn't want any of the other states that joined later on to change their minds that would possibly lead to another civil war and so he made an example of the confederacy. Sherman only realised at the end that if they kept looting and destroying people's property that this would breed hatred in the South and could later on lead to a resurgence in the confederate idea and possibly another civil war that the next generation of young men would have to fight. similar to what happened in germany at the end of world war one in 1918
@@CFLsurfr what union exactly? The was no union until after the war, you know the one I mean, where Yankees decided to raise an army to KILL their own countrymen? Wow what a great country, liberty and freedom at least until you make the government mad, kinda sounds like why we said the hell with King George, speaking of that, the revolution and America was won solely by the southern campaign, the northern states sure got their asses handed to them and nearly lost the whole game until a few Southerners got pissed and the red coats..., Funny to a Yankee general practically slaughtered his own army then high tailed it back North and left it to Greene and Morgan
The side the held Slaves, whipped them, raped them, killed them are the victims and the side that LIBERATED the Slave is the war criminal. You Neo Confederates have messed up values......( I'm being polite )
Talks on Sherman's March are always sure to cheer me up.
@kenny desee You bet I am. You are very bad at history and math. Do you understand how to reference historical claims? Please, start with the "over one million murdered". Who killed the 18,000 runaway slaves? I am just curious how far your derangement goes.
The boys carrying hands full of gun powder to throw into the fire because they were delighted
@kenny desee idk were you got that info from but its bs XD
@Kyle Clark booth was gun down like a dog XD
@Kyle Clark and Sherman took care of the South X3
John Marshall Otey was assistant adjutant general under General P. G. T. Beauregard during the Civil War. The collection consists of one letter, 10 March 1865, from E. Willis to Colonel John Marshall Otey (J. M. Otey), discussing the difficulties facing railroad transportation and the movement of troops, artillery, and provisions at the time.
Thank you so much, wonderful delivery and very interesting!
Great lecture !! Tons of interesting info. Thank You !!
I agree Piesces, he is animated and informative.
This indeed a most interesting lecture filled with great information.
@@aaronm76544 jiikjjikioww5o6jkjjjoòiiiokjjkl
I LOVED this talk
used to dislike Sherman when I was younger....thought he was an emotionally disturbed psycho perhaps
But I've come to see he's right...REALLY right
All these other generals, looking to meet enemy armies on the battlefield, endless fruitless frontal assaults
DEAD and MAIMED by the TENS of THOUSANDS (The Wilderness, what 8 days and 61,000 casulties? Gettysburg 51,000, Antietam 22,000 casulties)
I think he did More in his march to Atlanta then to the sea then through S Carolina than a dozen battles had done all together.
He's more of a blessing than Grant
In fact, I would have made the Army of the Potomac a Holding force and given Sherman 5 more corps and let him loose!
He thrashed Hood's army severely, sacked Atlanta, cut a swath through Georgia, took Savannah, cut a swath through S and N Carolina, compelled the surrender of Johnston...
I wish we'd had him in Vietnam....he's a regular Col. Kurtz
My favorite part is that his reputation for insanity came from two facts: he accurately predicted how many soldiers the south could raise (they thought he was overestimating) and he thought it was suspicious that all these southern belle prostitutes were asking for detailed plans and troop counts as part of their flirting.
Turns out OpSec is enough to get you put out to pasture for a while.
It's not surprising that someone - who really understands the violence and horror of war - would be uncomfortable with having to practice the art. PTSD takes a lot of forms - and isn't new to our time just because we finally have a phrase for it.
Sherman was a psycho thug who looked homeless. Then he went West and hated Indians.
He targeted civilians.
More!
Interesting presentation about General Sherman
Very nice
At 40:40--47:20 has discussion of the battle at River's Bridge.....
The speaker is out of breath after 3 seconds of talking.
Fascinating however this mans way of speaking make this a hard listen
Agreed
On these last remarks you could very well argue that Grant by becoming President took on responsibility (again) in difficult times knwing that a political job would probably not help his future image (i think it didn't hurt and he did a decent job.). And Sherman for the very same reasons did not.
And over all the Sherman Georgia/sc debate hangs a single fact of history: If you start a war, you have to bear the consequences. You can't expect for them to stay with some far away soldiers. That was pretty much Sherman's attidtude.
If you are very lucky then some violations of warfare laws (defined later) my have consequences for those responsible, but that rarely happens to the victorious side.
The north didn't seek a reconning. The south always thought it was personal with Sherman
Every southern civil war memorial should be replaced by a Sherman statue.
It was personal he went after the people of the south to crush any economy capturing personal items and burning homes .
According to Marion Lucas, author of Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, "the destruction of Columbia was not the result of a single act or events of a single day. Neither was it the work of an individual or a group. Instead it was the culmination of eight days of riots, robbery, pillage, confusion and fires, all of which were the byproducts of war. The event was surrounded by coincidence, misjudgment, and accident. It is impossible, he maintains, to determine with certainty the origin of the fire. The most probable explanation was that it began from the burning cotton on Richardson street. Columbia at this time was a virtual firetrap because of the hundreds of cotton bales in her streets. Some of these had been ignited before Sherman arrived and a high wind spread the flammable substance over the city."
In 2015, The State identified "5 myths about the Burning of Columbia":
Sherman ordered the burning of Columbia.
All of Columbia burned.
There was a "battle" for Columbia.
Union soldiers burned the Congaree River bridge.
First Baptist Church was saved by an African-American caretaker.
Thank you for the good info!
Chuckle...yeah, all cities of the South were burned by “accident” or misfortune. What noble Americans. As opposed to those savage racists of the South who paid for provisions taken, albeit in Confederate dollars. I love to play The Who’s who game with students...they always answer the glorious victors of the North. Then you remove the cover from the picture and now all of a sudden when it’s the Army marching natives, now and only now are they the brutal “oppressors”. Americans really need help.
@@marcuslaker5876 If only we'd burned all the Southern cities.
@@marcuslaker5876 bless your heart
@@marcuslaker5876 the south lost and can't get over it to this day. Funny considering you can't change history and the fact that the confederates are a lost cause. Go on and pick some cotton
Sherman said that by early July 1863--after the South's twin losses of Vicksburg and Gettysburg--it was obvious that they were going to lose. By inference, he meant obvious to England and France, who would not be coming in to save the Confederacy. His opinion was that the South got what they asked for. They started a fight that they could not finish and continued it way past the point of decency. Sherman and Grant invented modern war. They knew that this was a peoples' war, fought with peoples' armies; and that to win it they had to take the war directly to the Southern people themselves. Also, the amount of damage the Union caused in Georgia and South Carolina should give you an idea of how angry the North was for having this war drag on when it was already decided. Finally, Sherman's troops idolized and adored him; they called him Uncle Billy.
Other than William Tecumseh Sherman, were there any other hurricanes that effected South and North Carolina during the Civil War?
I don't think so but I do know that John Wilkes Booth put a bullet into lincoln's head. Maybe the hurricane went to Washington........
@@tinmanx2222 Booth killed the man who was committed to a peaceful reconstruction and who spared rebel leaders the noose. Allowing radicals to fill the power vacuum and dooming the south to a failed Reconstruction. He should have been on World's Dumbest Criminals.
@@briansheehan3430 My comment was a smartass reply to Will Outlaw's smart ass comment.
@kenny desee JWB was a moron who doomed the south to a failed Reconstruction before being shot in a burning barn and tossed in a shallow grave.
@kenny desee Lincoln created the problem? Your statement shows an abysmal lack of knowledge about the Civil War and all the decades--centuries, really--of politics and social machinations that led to the war's inevitability. Read James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It will be the beginning of your education.
Were they writing letter or telegrams?
There lucky they still had a state house.
Sherman glorious campaign from Atlanta to the Carolinas. I love to be a Park Ranger at Bentonville or Bennett Farm/ House or Shiloh.
The info was great, but something about the lecture became a droning sound.
Confederate people keep wanting the United States of America to lose the Civil War. The slavery defending rebels were doomed to defeat from the beginning. They were battling against God, 200,000 African American Union troops, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S.Grant, and William Tecumseh Sherman.
@@willoutlaw4971 And Godzilla.
@@1zeisele and Don Rickles
Savannah Georgia was gained. Am I right about it sir?
aao much 'other' information! thank you!!
One of my ancestors marched with him
Stevie G what State is from? do you know his unit number? His name? It is cool you have a relative that marched with Sherman.
I too had at least 3 march with Sherman
Too bad that your ancestor made it through the war.
@@billyank1864 Too bad your ancestors made it through the war.
@@carywest9256 Not all did. But they defeated the south nonetheless.
It’s kinda boring studying the very end of the war like this since we all know what’s gonna happen. I mean we all always knew what happened finally, but the what ifs are more compelling earlier on, that said at this point I know basically everything about the civil war except for these final battles I was always bored by, so I’m getting into this
Except there are very interesting things especially about Sherman and Johnston. They became very good friends at bennett place. Your missing a bunch
Someone please teach this man how to say Beaufort.
Yes, and those from SC are not “Hillbillies”. Also, please try to suppress the “ah” which is constantly repeated in your presentation. The presentation is ok but a little scattered.
I'm a son of magor general Jacob Cox and my entire life has been made a living hell because of it.
5:37: I've heard enough - a robotic voice with a little emotion. Really wanted to enjoy this presentation too.
What did Sherman say Merry Christmas President Lincoln Atlanta is ours and Savannah is ours and fairly won
Lots of information and a great history lesson but will someone please get that man some water so he will quit licking his lips 2 inches away from his mic.
Brandon Tube you just ruined the whole lecture now. FML
@@TheKmwdesign lmao sorry bud.
I've heard worse; it's the droners that get me and he doesn't drone. I had to watch in segments though, maybe 15 minutes at a time.
The information was great but salacious in places. Obviously there were rogue troops from the north who were out of control. Sherman did bring those areas to their knees in every way. Sherman did as he was told. The war ended
I watch these 1865 videos and can see Davis was doing his best Hitler impression and assumed he would be executed. He should have submitted surrender terms and started negotiations in January, but like Hitler he would sacrifice to the last man to save his pathetic hide. In the end he was not executed, Lincoln was the high point and Davis the low point of human character during the war.
What would you consider Sherman?
Davis was the absolute high point. Davis continued to fight because he believed the war could be won, not because he cared what would become of himself.
Lincoln was dead when Davis' was taken into custody
@@lelouchvibritannia2300 I consider Sherman to Naploean.
@@Luke-mg5uq Luke you are delusional, Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy was falling apart. Vicksburg,Nashville, New Orleans, Chattanooga, and Savannah, Atlanta and etc was in Union hands.
Federal Army was moving East and moving into South Carolina and moving to North Carolina and moving to Virginia possibly at the time. I can go on!!
Sherman: Won a war like a boss
M4 Sherman: Shiz armor,Wrong tank wrong war, Still won a way but there were a bunch, tankers hated him.
OG sherman is better
Yeah, great man's name put on the wrong thing. The Sherman may have been good if it was in 1939/1940 when there were mostly panzer 2 and 3s
The Sherman was a great tank, one of the three great medium tanks of the war, and one of two that really served their purpose strategically.
People get obsessed with having the best tank that‘s always stronger than the enemy tanks. Hitler was obsessed with it, too. But in reality, fighting other tanks 1:1 was not the most common job for tanks on the battlefield. The most common job that tanks have to do is overrun infantry positions and support their own infantry. That‘s the bread and butter. Fighting other tanks is a thing that they do occasionally have to do, but not most of the time.
One of the doctrinal takeaways from WWII was that the tank that was needed most was a multipurpose vehicle that were equipped for tank-vs-tank combat even if that wasn‘t their main job.
The main requirement was having a decent-sized gun while being mobile enough and having the best armor that didn‘t impede the other jobs. But just as important was that it was mass-producible and that your army could be equipped with enough of them. Not only are numbers much more critical tactically than just having a better tank, having tanks at all made a huge difference if the enemy didn‘t and thus equipping a bigger part of your army with them was a huge priority.
It‘s true that the Sherman wasn‘t able to beat the German late-war heavy tanks (Panther and Tiger) 1:1, but it didn‘t have to. The Sherman was available in huge numbers while being very reliable, agile and having a big enough gun for the late war that none of the German tanks were impervious to it. Even the Tiger II could be taken down by a Sherman or a T-34/85. Given that 9 times out of 10 the Shermans had not just numerical superiority, but also much stronger Infantry and Artillery support they could carry the day 9 time out of 10.
So what if they lost more Shermans than the Germans lost Panthers. They also had a lot more of them, orders of magnitude more. Meanwhile tank losses pale in comparison to infantry losses. That‘s where the army bleeds, that‘s what you run out of and having more tanks available helps your infantry survive. That‘s what really matters in terms of losses.
Like on election night? SMH
Could'nt Sherman have ended the war sooner by persuing hood and destroying his army, between him and thomas at nashville they could have created a trap for him, then Sherman could have headed east and with Grant done the same to Lees army.
Maps are important. A park ranger waving his pointer/remote around … ??
"the confederacy lost the war, but was allowed to win the peace"
I dont know that this country has yet healed from the wounds caused by Civil War 1.0. In the grand scheme of things, the Romans had multiple periods of decades of civil war, one stemming from its predecessor. Why should 21st century Civilizations be any different?
...by stomping the faces of the Freedmen ....and so much worse!
@@johnqpublic2718 So many in this country has been fed on Texas school books, the Lost Cause and prejudice...AFTER the real history starts to be taught like in University, drunk uncles everywhere will hold sway.
The South was financially and physically wrecked by the war. In Texas public education ceased and only started again some 30 years after the war ended. How the South won anything after the war is a mystery to me . Many talented Southerners were forced to leave for the West or the North to have a career.
not sure ypu ever made a point
Sherman did what had to be done and thats from a South Carolina boy. I’ve lived here for all my life and my mother and great grandmother view him poorly. However a student of war and history as I aim to teach both. I can confidently say South Carolina earned the burning they received in 1865. The secessionist movement started here and was integral with the foundation of the confederacy. As the white carolina plantation owners were willing to send their sons to die for their ridiculous idea of property.
@Derrickonater ~ What do you think could be done to educate the American people as to what the primary sources say?
When some folks these days don't like what is in the News / History books etc, they say it's ' fake ' or propaganda etc etc....
Damned Yankee because a lot of the news today is Propaganda. But it also was that way back then as well. What people need to do is look at primary sources. That we know are connected to the author or authors. Propaganda didn’t just begin in The 21st century but we seem to believe it does because we live in the 21st. There was a great bit of propaganda against Sherman as well. Mainly because they wanted someone to act against him. The south had a massive manpower shortage especially at this point of the war. They were using old men and boys to fill their frontline. They even gave slaves pikes but no guns at one point. Sherman was a tactician and his campaign was both tactical and strategic in everything he did. He treated the south exactly the way they wanted to be treated. As a warring country.
@@damnedyankee946 that education should start with you because you don't have a f****** clue
@@Pandacous you are the definition of a true traitor. I'll be damned if I side with an invading force that's trying to kill my family.
"War is hell were it not we might grow fond of it". Wm T Sherman
Lee actually said:
"It is Well that war is so terrible,
else we should grow too fond of it."
Pierre Tutant Gustav Beauregard also known as "Toot Toot" Beauregard, ran away from his responsibilites in South Carolina.
We recall he was running things in 1861 when he was bombarding Fort Sumter. He turned coward as Sherman was about to tan his rebel hide in 1865.
"Bad boy, bad boy, watcha gonna do when they come for you..."
Kristine mcvie
Didn’t a South Carolina senator beat the hell out of a northern senator in the senate house.
The charles sumner incident I think is what your looking for, the funny part is after a week or two of the incident the senator received something like 30 new walking Cane's in the mail
Hissy Honker haha there it is, thanks.
@@ninurtathricemajestic7179 shoot man I tell ya, things were way better when senators and congressmen mayor's and governors alike could be challenged to duels, heck look up the duels of Andrew Jackson and Alexander Hamilton if you want a right good laugh.. duels kept people's mouths from running too much helped keep promises and more than that held men to a gentleman's code which governed their daily actions, codes and ways of life that people no longer understand and it's sad... Be easy man and happy reading!!
Sumner was correct about the Slave Power's hypocrisy of accusing Abolitionist of wanting to marry blacks, all the while raping at will, the slaves and selling their own offspring into bondage! ( which is why Brooks attempted to murder Sumner ) Preston Brooks would be dead in a few months after the attack ~ Sumner would live to see the start and finish of the war ~ and after that....another decade ! ( Justice )
Sumner was nearly a decade OLDER then Brooks to start with ! Die Brooks Die !
I'm from Texas and had ancestors in Confederate army Chattanooga/look out mountain but I'm damn glad the south took a licking,Grant,Sherman, Thomas were real American heroes and knew exactly how to end this vile war South Carolina got off easy for what that state started, they got off easy.
Lincolns boy
The brutality of the Union defines the War of Northern Aggression
Oof, yeah, the pronunciation of Native-based names in South Carolina were very poor and cringey. Coosawhatchie is pronounced “Coo-sA-hatch-ee” and Pocataligo…well it’s literally phonetic, don’t know how he turned that one into Italian 🤷🏻
Sherman in South Carolina. Best Sherman.
Imagine if Lee did this up north. Thank you General Lee for not making war on innocent people and being honorable.
Slave holding trash - that had been imprisoning, raping and mutilating African Americans for hundreds of years - shocked that a tiny fraction of their wretched brutality was revisited upon them. Zero sympathy for an utterly contemptible race from the south.
LMAO, an honorable man would have stayed loyal to his country.
@@smiter57 Exactly, Sherman didn’t go far enough.
@@smiter57If he had fought alongside the north, he would have been fighting his own state. Regardless of the decision of the politicians, its hard to force a man to point a gun at his home
THIS GUY TALKS LIKE A BATTERY OPERATED MACHINE. AND I'M GOING TO STOP READING COMMENTS UNTIL THEY LEARN THE LANGUAGE.
I'm with you, Lawrence; I left a similar comment...
So you understand, what americans do, if they bombed other countries.
Sherman sad
We need another Sherman to clean house in the slave States today....
Those who complain of Sherman's atrocities, I think should be happy that the North was as lenient as it was with the South when you compare it to most other civil wars that ended up with the losers dead or in exile, their women and children taken into slavery and their leaders executed. Just for example the Russian and Spanish civil wars. Yep, they got off quite easy.
you don't even have to go that far. Just look up what some of the confederate troops did on northern soil and everything Sherman did was nothing but well deserved punishment.
Guessing you're still a staunch racist.
So to the first post, well Mr educated idiot, forget other people's civil wars their governments are totally different and separate from the "United States" the fact that a US president raised an army to kill his own countrymen, that in it's self is a crime against humanity and unconstitutional in an American government
methanbreather like putting fires out when the Yankees accidentally set their town ablaze. You never heard of that have you.
There would have been many more dead Yankees instead of 120000 more casualties it might I have been doubled for the north.
Southerners are really offended by what Sherman did (or more often what they think he did - his destruction is frequently exaggerated by Southerners) because he did it THEM - fellow white Americans. If Sherman did the exact same things to Native Americans or non-Americans then Southerners would have regarded Sherman as a great American hero. White Southerners burned entire black towns during Jim Crow at the slightest provocation, real or often imagined.
Sherman's March sought to do the same things Allied bombing of Germany and Japan sought to do in World War II: destroy infrastructure and break civilian morale. However, since he had soldiers instead of high-altitude bombing he could discriminate between intended targets and everything else (hard war vs total war). Not every soldier followed those orders closely and sometimes unintended consequences resulted from following orders; that's what happens in a war. If you really want to see an army really rampaging across the countryside, look up Edward The Black Prince. His chevauchee in France makes Sherman look gentle by comparison.
P.S. Unlike Clem below, I don't have a problem with the ranger's talk. Even if he's not exactly an electrifying speaker, this didn't seem Lost Cause to me.
Um original post, your a fool, the south had made Senate seats for natives and gave them a voice in their constitution also March 26 1865 the first desegregated American force since the revolution marched in Richmond to Dixie, two companies of blacks and three white all in the same battalion, would be 1947 before Uncle Sam did the same...
" If Sherman did the exact same things to Native Americans or non-Americans then Southerners would have regarded Sherman as a great American hero"
Here in the real world, Sherman DID do the exact same things to Native Americans.
Sherman was head of the Army during the period known as the "Plains Wars." The Winter Campaign, where he had indian villages attacked in the middle of winter, women and children killed indiscriminately, and the survivors driven out to die in the snow, was his idea. The slaughter and literal attempted extinction of the buffalo was part of his plan--specifically *because* the indians depended on the buffalo for a food supply. Wounded Knee, the capture of Chief Joseph, the Mud Lake Massacre, Washita, Marias, and more, were all under Sherman's command.
The Sand Creek Massacre wasn't under Sherman's command because he wasn't commander of the Army yet, but it was lead by a different Union officer. Like Southerners, they were invaded, attacked via terrorism, and their land looted and stolen--and like Southerners, assholes to this day tell them that they should be grateful, and that they were treated with mercy because they didn't experience total genocide.
It's common to defend Sherman by trying to downplay his crimes, or trying to pretend that his soldiers just got out of control a bit. In reality, Sherman was able to gather up his troops and make them obey perfectly whenever he needed to pack up and move. He boasted that Southern generals--who were busy whipping Grant's army in Virginia--weren't home to protect their women (yeah, mocking rape victims--whatta guy!), and repeatedly told his subordinates that genocide would be necessary and that he expected "bloody results."
The only substantive difference between Sherman and bin Laden is that Sherman's terrorists had uniforms and managed a lot more death and destruction.
Are you praising Sherman???
Damn. Matt Atkinson runs rings around this joker. zzzzzzzz
Listening to Matt Athinson we can't tell if he is related to Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, or Bozo the Clown.
This "joker"? Nice...that comment speaks more about who YOU are. 😒
I am not going to comment on the content. But... don't they have anyone who can actually deliver a talk?
This man can not utter three words without running out of breath, constantly smacking his lips, is breathing overly loud into the microphone, unclear speech. That he seems to have problems with (place) names, needs to read everything - and is lost when he does not find the next line - and seems pretty unprepared, just adds insult to injury.
Being born, bred, and cornbread fed...in
Beaufort (Bew Fert) SC,
.....
...... I can attest to, and factually state...that this guy pronounced just about every single name of an area in SC...wrong.
Really...wrong.
I mean....like plumb embarrassingly stupid... wrong.
Really...really...wrong.
No where near...right.
Not even close.
But hey....
is what it is.😖
Does that mean you rejected what he said? I have suffered wrong pronunciations my entire life and I always viewed them with charity, having mispronounced a fair bit myself. I can't think of too many things that are more American.
@@jamesjacocks6221
No, I didn't reject it.
I dismissed it.
AFTER...watching the entire video.
Is what it is.
@@_rob_. Come on up to Michigan and try to pronounce Charlotte! :)
He got William Tecumseh Sherman's name right. He got the dates right as to battles with the slavery defending traitors.
Thank you for your service General Sherman. However, you didn't kill enough rebels.
@@jamesjacocks6221 Well said. And a very valid point.👍
Poor speaker
took the Yankees 3 months to get past my great uncle
@William Howard ~ it's taken the Neo Confederates 150 Years to get over Jim Crow, Racism, Hatred, Damned Lies , and they STILL ain't over it !
@@damnedyankee946
Put down the race-card and pick up a real argument....
....if you can.
@kenny desee So what do you think would happen?
@James Richardson Hear, hear!
@kenny desee Abbeville Institute, its mission is to promote a positive image of the CSA. Is that a clue that anything information that tarnishess it will be discarded.
I've never hurt anyone in my life but the Federal government has hurt me really bad.
Lincoln deliberately wanted a hard war, numerous generals like Porter and McClellan were removed and/or had their good name ruined by loyal Lincoln supporters.
it is evident that Lincoln wanted to make statement; if you join the union then you can never leave. he didn't want any of the other states that joined later on to change their minds that would possibly lead to another civil war and so he made an example of the confederacy.
Sherman only realised at the end that if they kept looting and destroying people's property that this would breed hatred in the South and could later on lead to a resurgence in the confederate idea and possibly another civil war that the next generation of young men would have to fight. similar to what happened in germany at the end of world war one in 1918
Rangers national park. You'll have 24 go rs tell the truth. Or you all pay wages of sin.
24 hours.
I consider the north to be war criminals . Might is right though . Not a war criminal then , a war hero. This is how it works.
Then you should leave the USA. We don't need traitors to the Union.
@james crowe Odd coming from someone who was fighting to keep 4 million slave in bondage...Ironic isn't it?
@james crowe 78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Mythology_of_-Shermans_-March.pdf
@@CFLsurfr what union exactly? The was no union until after the war, you know the one I mean, where Yankees decided to raise an army to KILL their own countrymen? Wow what a great country, liberty and freedom at least until you make the government mad, kinda sounds like why we said the hell with King George, speaking of that, the revolution and America was won solely by the southern campaign, the northern states sure got their asses handed to them and nearly lost the whole game until a few Southerners got pissed and the red coats..., Funny to a Yankee general practically slaughtered his own army then high tailed it back North and left it to Greene and Morgan
The side the held Slaves, whipped them, raped them, killed them are the victims and the side that LIBERATED the Slave is the war criminal. You Neo Confederates have messed up values......( I'm being polite )