Conversations with History - James M. McPherson
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2024
- "Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief"
James M. McPherson, Professor of History Emeritus, Princeton University, October 27, 2008, 60 minutes
Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Princeton Professor Emeritus James M. McPherson for a discussion of his new book, Trial by War. Their discussion focuses on the
qualities that defined Abraham Lincoln's leadership, how he came to define the role of commander in chief, the evolution of his thinking on national policy with regard to slavery, how his goal of saving the Union shaped the politics of the war, his relationship to his generals, and the thinking and circumstances that led to his suspension of habeas corpus and the initiation of military tribunals. Professor McPherson reflects on the lessons to be learned from Lincoln's conduct of the civil war and its implications for today's wars.
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/iis/...
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conv...
@jrewert I feel the same in a way, but I did like how he mentioned that Lincoln defended his overuse of power beyond the Constitution because he felt as Commander in Chief his primary duty was to save the country at all means. I do love the quote at the end of the book where McPherson says "The Civil War destroyed the old Union and built a new and better one on its ashes"
Appreciated this expert's lecture; thanks for taping & posting.
To preserve, protect, the Constitution of the United States. 🇱🇷
Time was precious because Lee didn't have the resources necessary to maintain a prolonged campaign in the north. Going north meant no southern railways and supply lines to resupply his army. His army only had what it brought with it and the little that it could steal from the north.
Missionary Ridge appeared equally impregnable, and yet Thomas and Sheridan took the position in a half hour. Cemetary Ridge was partially taken on Day 2. It was not IMPOSSIBLE.
Given the Union soldiers credit.
@KayBeeEee1983 The Union fits that discription perfectly.
Mr Chrysler was a fantastic interviewer.
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war." Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
I know Lincoln went through some generals! A question is who should he have gotten? To what extent was it Lincoln's poor leadership as Commander and to what extent was it plain bad luck in getting mediocre or poor generals against RE Lee? There is also the issue of contradictory war aims or different views on what the Union is fighting for as well as different views on how to squash the rebellion which cause problems initially.
"But the record of the North-South conflict during the 40 or so years before the war shows unmistakably that slavery was central to it. And the leaders of the secession movement said as much in 1860-61. They left the Union because they believed that Lincoln’s election imperiled the security of slavery, an institution that they considered essential to their own happiness and prosperity." - Professor Bruce Levine, Apr. 8, 2011
@KayBeeEee1983 Your talk about strategy has me interested. The Battle of Gettysburg, had Lee of listened to Longstreet and pulled out of the area to a defensive position on ground of their own choosing, they could have easily of fought back the Union, the south up to that point had always done good with defending. Had Stonewall Jackson been alive he would have taken Culps Hill when it was defenseless, and not of delayed in action like Ewell. Had Buford not of hunkered down at Gettysburg, the
"It's all about slavery. But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all.… And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate." - Edna Medford, Howard University
@KayBeeEee1983 It doesnt say that the president can do it. And article 1 is all about describing the powers of the legislative branch.
@KayBeeEee1983 only some 12000 troops in front of the Hookers lines which could have been a grave defeat for Lee had the Union of attacked, but Jackson was able to suprise the Union in the rear, and pushed them all the way across the Potomac. Probably the greatest victory the Confederacy ever had, in my opinion anyway. Of course it was bitter sweet with the loss of Jackson, but still one superb attack, still studied today.
@KayBeeEee1983 There are a lot of things wrong with TX v White. The unconstitutional act of judicial activism was used, I cant find the reasons why the "unilateral secession" was deemed unconst, its like they just said that because the majority were Republicans, the ruling, which was completely unrelated to the actual topic at hand in the case, goes against the tenth amendment and the VA Const, but those two still remained untouched. With the suspension act of... it goes completely against the
"When the people of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, seceded from the Union of the United States, they put forth in justification of their course, as its proximate or immediate cause, the various acts of the people of the Northern States, interfering with their institution of slavery." - Secessionist Robert Barnwell Rhett.
@KayBeeEee1983 Your right, excuse me. I got my rivers mixed up. Its not that bad though, here at Historic Jamestowne there are always tourists calling the three ships that landed in 1607 the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie. Columbus' ships. Of course its supposed to be the Discovery,the Godspeed, and the Susan Constant. There was also one lady who tried telling her child that the large monument on Jamestown Island was the Washignton Monument, of course its the Jamestowne Monument.
@KayBeeEee1983 in ex parte merryman, which Lincoln completely disregards. It was said in merryman that the president can not suspend habeas corpus, the suspension acts gives the pres that ability, which goes entirely against the previous ruling. The suspension act was unconstitutional.
@KayBeeEee1983 Indeed, he gave him the order to attack if practicable, historians agree that is was practicable and Ewell should have taken it. Ewell himself regreted not taking it when he had the chance. Jackson would have taken that hill, his fierceness is not to be underestimated.
@KayBeeEee1983 Yeah he should have listened to Winfield Scott, it was Scott who advised Abe that he should not resupply Ft Sumter and that he should pull the troops out.
@KayBeeEee1983 Ive never read anywhere that Buford went to Culps Hill....
Yes the hill was occupied, but on the first day when Ewell was given the order to take it, it was less occupied and little defenses set up.
I think Jackson would have, he was known to take risks and pursue the enemy with all due speed. And he is not one to disregard an order from Lee. Longstreet was the cautious one who did not want to attack until Stuarts return. Actually he would have rather not of fought at all
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes Lee was reckless at Gettysburg, he should have listened to Longstreet and pulled out.
@KayBeeEee1983 Good summary of the incredible position Lincoln was in. When we look at the portraits we see the toll. Btw, I didn't know till yesterday actually that Lee had mostly black hair in '60, early '61. By '65 all white and by various accounts his health had declined substantially.
I admire Grant but the Overland Campaign is too horrible, just too horrible to feel much of anything but regret about. I wonder what Grant could have done otherwise.
(2/3)
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."
Henry L, Benning, Commissioner from Georgia - "Address Delivered Before the Virginia state Convention. February 18, 1861
I've had trouble understanding why Lincoln put up w/ McClellan for so long, so you make a good point about Lincoln's incompetence as Commander in Chief. But Lincoln patiently tolerating McClellan's refusal to actually fight the damn war seems to undercut the idea that he micromanaged the war, at least in that case.
McClellan was considered a expert.wrote books on tactics and invented saddle that was used by military.
@KayBeeEee1983 battle probably wouldnt have been fought. Had the strategy been for Hood to go to the right and flank the Union at Little Round Top, they could have taken that hill and it would have been Chancellorsville all over again. And had Chamberlain not of made that bayonet charge, and instead retreated, the same outcome as with Hood. Had Staurt of been in the area in time for the first attack and give the where abouts of the Union positions, the attack could have gone better.
@S2Cents Its clearly obvious, he proclaims that he is one.
@KayBeeEee1983 So McClellan took over after Scott left. To what extent was McClellan calling the shots? He clearly wasn't doing well tactically as point out.
Sorry to disappoint the lost causers here, but Battle Cry of Freedom is generally considered to be among the best single volume works on the war...
And that has nothing to do, I'm a pro confederate and I hate liberals but I read Battle Cry Of Freedom, because I want to know all the points of view, even the point of view of the antiamerican liars.
@KayBeeEee1983 Grant seemed to have been held back by some mediocre commanders in the AoTP or perhaps blame Grant for not dealing w/ them better? In any case if you look at Grant in Tennessee and Mississippi, particularly Vicksburg his creativity is evident. I just read "A Victor not a Butcher" and a big bio simply called "Grant" which made a positive impression.
Yeah hard to believe Lee had black hair in 60. Gary Gallagher says it a talk "Remembering Robert E Lee" on CZcams.
@KayBeeEee1983 Had any of those things happened, its likely the outcome of the war would have been much different.
Splitting your army is never a wise descision, like when Santa Anna split his Mexican forces in an attempt to capture Houston's Texans, which ultimately failed and led to the capture of Santa Anna, of course he became a further nuisance during the Mexican War. But when Stonewall Jackson pulled his entire core out and around the Union lines at Chancellorsville, leaving Lee with
(3/3)
So:
“Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” Dr. James Loewen
But to the individual soldiers who fought for the confederacy, it was about many things; to hang every individual's motivation on slavery is lazy history
"Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery. And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery." Drew G Faust, Harvard
@KayBeeEee1983 What? Why is it that I'm always debating little boys? Grow up kid.
"I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery...." - John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861 "Journal of the Virginia Secession Convention, Vol. II, p. 139"
@RevBillyRayCollins Why do you think McPherson is "left-wing"?
@KayBeeEee1983 Fair enough. Very messy business, battles in war, esp. the Civil War in some ways. I dont mean to pick on McClellan esp. I just don't believe Lincoln to be the failure you think he is, but I'm not passionate about it either.
Lee was reckless in many occasions. He had little choice if he wanted to defeat the forces arrayed against him. He had to be.
Lee nearly won Gettysburg on Day 1 and Day 2. It was reasonable for him to believe it could be won on Day 3.
The Army of Northern Virginia could only remain in northern territory for so long. Longstreet's suggestion to maneuver would have wasted precious time. Lee was right to fight the army where it was.
Sometimes, you just get beat.
@KayBeeEee1983 Its you who thinks that we dont need declarations of war from Congress, its you who thinks secession is illegal, though think the secession of WV from VA is legal, which it wasnt. Its you who doesnt think the tenth amendment should be followed. Its you who thinks that Habeas Corpus can be suspended, an act which Chief Justice Roger Taney said was unconstitutional. When do I ever display actions against common sense. I would hope it would be common sense for you to read the Const.
@KayBeeEee1983 Burnside shoulda been permanently fired. McDowell was rightly removed. After McClellan replaced Scott I take it you think McClellan should have been left alone?
"Having swept away the counterfactual Myth of the Lost Cause, a historian may briefly state the history of the Civil War as follows.
The eleven states that seceded and became the Confederate States of America did so in order to protect the institution of African slavery from a perceived political threat from the majority of the people of the United States who disapproved of the institution."
- Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History" p29
@KayBeeEee1983 So Lincoln should have left McClellan alone. Who knows, maybe it would have worked out better...
@KayBeeEee1983 Code of ethics? Your going into an area that is different for everyone. You however cant grasp the fact that there are other people out there with different views that you. You must believe that anyone who doesnt think like yourself is the "enemy" and they need to be delt with. Thats why you are a socialist. We should take pride in the fact that people are different, and not everyone is the same.
Nonsense
another politically correct historian, just what we need. What a load of crap he writes.