Chancellorsville, 1863 - Robert E. Lee's Greatest Battle - HistoryMarche Reaction
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 11. 2023
- See the original here - • Chancellorsville, 1863...
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - profile.php?...
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2lMCaIT...
Apple - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
#history #reaction
Hey man, thanks so much for checking out the video and offering nuance that I hadn't covered! Listening to your commentary, I regret not including a few things and also rearranging some of the info better. I wish all reaction videos were this good!
Fantastic work as always. Keep making great historic content!
“It’s good to have confidence; it’s not good to be stupid.” Truer words were never spoken.
As a northerner I always joke with my southern friends that a 2nd southern invasion of the north could never happen since modern southerners would take winter attrition in 40 degree weather.
@RDA000 same reason the north could never invade the south, the humidity would be a death knell to any union army 2.0
@@fullcircle8231We can handle 105 degrees way better than a southerner could handle -10
@@RDA000as someone from the Deep south, im not so sure about that
@@RDA000 yep 100% true
Depends on what part of the North. Corn Country gets super hot and humid in the summer. And super cold in the winter.
Seeing VTH finally doing a reaction to this is gold. Then seeing it is one hour plus is god level enjoyment.
Sickles' attorney who successfully argued temporary insanity was Edwin Stanton who is now Lincoln's Secretary of War.
I love those types of connections
You always manage to put out a banger when I need it most. My Grandfather with a love of history (mostly relating to theatre) passed away yesterday. I am currently hundreds of miles away with nothing I can do and videos like this help me a lot. Keep up the phenomenal work.
I'm so sorry to hear that. Glad you inherited his love of history.
Historymarche is great! One of my all time favorite history channels🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
they always do a research on the topic, and then throw a video, it's not something that they schedule or made for clickbaits, it is a high quality channel,
I want to see more content like this video of the civil war. I’d love to see epic history do a full series like the Napoleonic wars for the civil war
You have reinvigorated my love for history. Love the content man! Keep up the great work 👍🏻
Doing a checkup on my family’s civil war history and as of now I had 10 ancestors and 6 uncles at the Battle of Chancellorsville (all Southern side)
Congrats on the discoveries there, hope you get to visit their potential (or definite) resting places some day.
I don't think many things can make you have new perspectives on your history more than discovering direct ancestors!
@@ChargingStag always loved history but I never started absorbing it as much or learning so much as to when I started doing family history! Hope to go to all the gravesites and battlefields!
I love History Marche...you guys are awesome and having VloggingThroughHistory who is awesome makes this an awesome video:)
This video was pretty good. I lived on this battlefield for about 15 years. The end of my driveway was McLaws line as I lived on “McLaws Drive”. Oh and it is 45 minute drive from the Stone Wall of Fredericksburg to the Wilderness and then down to The Bloody Angle of Spotsylvania
These guys have some GREAT content. I've been making my way through their Civil War playlist and plan on continuing to watch them. They have some really interesting stuff.
Great presentation. Awesome graphics‼️
Your extra anecdotes were worthwhile. I’m going to subscribe.
As a Civil War fanatic, I have been binging all of your content lately. I visited Manasass last month and it sent me spiraling into a wormhole of Civil War content. Thanks for what you do!
One thing I told my wife as we passed through Virginia was that you can literally throw a rock in any direction and hit a battle site.
This is the area I am from and In addition to the battlefields Chris mentions toward the beginning, if you’re visiting Chancellorsville, Brandy Station (largest cavalry engagement in North America), Kelly’s Ford, and Cedar Mountain are all nearby as well and have fascinating stories. As always, another well-done reaction from VTH!
both the original video and your reaction video are top notch. Subscribing to both.
Ok as the resident Kuntucky Civil War Nerd, I have to defend Bragg at Perryville
He took 16,000 men up against 40% of the Union force in Kentucky (Buell had roughly 55,000 total men, 22,000 were on the field at Perryville). He attacked on all 3 fronts, pushed the Union force backwards over 1 mile in 7 hours and only gave up ground because Don Carlos Buell finally started moving his remaining corps into the area because he didn't know a battle had been raging all day until Union troops started falling back from the field in droves.
Bragg knew with a force of that size, Buell could easily swing around and cut off the Cumberland Gap and eliminate Bragg's entire supply lines. He also realized that he could no longer obey Richmond's orders to wait for Kentucky infantry volunteers because no one was coming and the Kentucky Confederate Capitol at Bowling Green had been captured and taken out of the picture.
The incompetent general at Perryville was Don Carlos Buell not Braxton Bragg, His incompetence would show up at Stones River two months later though
The battles in 1864 in this area of the wilderness, they said the shallow buried dead, bones, skulls and rib cages from the yr before were coming out if the mud they were fighting in. A serious moral blow and mental affliction on the men...imagine trying to understand what it was for at that point, and they too are gonna end up in a muddy un marked grave??. Sad.
An hour long VTH video so I have an excuse to take a break from studying for finals. Thank you
I LOVE history marche amazing channel
I will say, while son of Lees fame comes from his skills as a general, a lot of his fame comes from the fact that he was one of the most beloved generals in history, no army loved their general as much as the Army of Northern Virginia loved Lee
A lot of Lee's military prowess is overhyped. He was an excellent tactician in the Civil War, but his inability to adapt to the evolving battle tactics of the war as Grant did, such as siege warfare and the use of lightning strikes by cavalry combined with infantry and naval power, was a major cause of his downfall. Yes, the South did not have the military resources the North had, but Lee insisted on using obsolete Napoleonic tactics in several battles that prevented him from achieving decisive victory, such as not destroying the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville and losing the Confederate initiative on the first day at Gettysburg. Lee had no real strategy for defeating the Union in the war, as he was merely prolonging Union victory by achieving flashy victories that gradually chipped away at the Army of Northern Virginia.
thanks for throwing the VMI info in there.
Lee’s real masterpiece for me is Second Bullrun hands down. Chancellorsville was his most unlikely victory tho.
Speaking of Meade, if anyone is interested in a look at how he fared at Gettysburg, try reading Meade at Gettysburg, a study in command by Kent Masterson Brown. It made me a big fan of the old snapping turtle after reading it.
Read it a few months ago, and I agree. His stock went way up for me after that book.
@@VloggingThroughHistory
It's interesting how Meade receives relatively little attention or credit for the Battle of Gettysburg. I notice that the narrative focuses more on the poor, or at the very least, controversial decisions of the ANV's commanders (Lee, Longstreet, Stuart, Ewell etc.) and the heroic actions of subordinates in the AOTP (i.e. Buford, Reynolds, Chamberlain, Custer), while Meade has been left out. He deserves more credit for his victory. The general public views him as simply the commanding general on the field for the Union, rather than the general who outmanuevered and defeated Lee only days after taking command.
@@VloggingThroughHistory
As always, great reaction video!
The combination of the video itself in addition to the input based on your knowledge on the topic are very informative and thus, greatly appreciated.
@@gabeallum2865 To quote Meade from a letter to his wife: ''I suppose after awhile it will be discovered i was not at Gettysburg at all''
HistoryMarche my favorite CZcams military history channel, not to toot my own horn they know I follow.
I watched this yesterday and thought to myself "god i would LOVE a VTH reaction to this". This is gonna be good
This really shows intelligence reports are your greatest ally as a commander.
I swear I opened my phone and said I’d love some VTH civil war and here it is
It’s good to have confidence it’s not good to be stupid has been in my mind since this video released
I see they used the wrong Smith for the Confederate Heartland Offensive section, should be Kirby Smith not Gustavus Smith
Why am I not surprised that an American Civil War video is over an hour long?
PS: Have been subscribed to them for years, can't help you there :D
As a native Spotsylvania, I can confirm all 4 of those battlefields are within about 20 miles of each other. Amazing historical area for sure
Indeed, most unlikely upset victories in military history aren't due to the brilliance of the winner, but due to the ineptitude of the loser. But it seldom gets portrayed or remembered that way, since neither side has an interest in it being so.
The point about Hooker freezing in place and giving up the initiative is all too true. As a recreational wargamer, I see this all the time with less skilled players who lack confidence: When not knowing what to do, they just freeze in place, doing slight counter-maneuvers but ultimately just give the opponent time to maneuver around and set up the perfect attack on their position. Sometimes the specific scenario is such that defending is sufficient to win, and then it's viable to just counter-maneuver, but more often than not that's not the case.
24:19 In my opinion you're right that Lee and Jackson aren't the best Generals of the Civil War. What they are however, once again in my opinion, is the best tactical command duo of the war. I also think that Grant and Sherman are better strategists tough they also had a lot more resouces to work with.
what other strategy could Lee have? he had to roll the dice. Grant wouldnt have done as good as Lee in Lee's position possibly and sherman likely wouldnt either
They are not even the best generals of the CSA... but they are the best available for the Army of Northern Virginia and especially Jackson's maneuvering in the valley was outstanding.
Both had significant weaknesses that the Union slowly learned to exploit. Lee's loss rate for example was atrocious (and Pickett's charge was not the only time he threw more troops into fight despite no longer having any hope of winning) as was pointed out repeatedly when poeple complain about Grant and Sherman being such butchers... they do not really lose the same percentage of troops regardless how high the numbers may look on paper. And that alone is what Lee couldn't afford and should have avoided at all costs. Protecting his fighting strength was his most important target. And he didn't.
That's called pyrrhic victories... reducing your hopes of winning the war with every single time you win as you use up all your troops before anything important was won.
As they say in sports, you can only beat the team you're up against. You can be brilliant even if you're up against plodders (or incompetents). You might even say that exploiting your opponents' weaknesses is an element of being brilliant (certainly that would be the case at Antietam, where Lee managed to drive off McLellan, despite having only half his numbers).
@35:25 I wish you dug into this matter a bit deeper, but I guess there is no time for that ;-)
I HAVE TOLD YOU THERE IS NO TIME....haha, it took me a minute to get it but I did.
I absolutely love your American Civil War content! If you plan on doing another quiz video in the near future, here's a American Civil War quiz for you to check out: czcams.com/video/wjnn1lgeOlc/video.html
YES!! This one's a good one for sure
The Eleventh Corps was called Howard's Cowards as they kept getting routed. However, when they were sent West, they absolutely excelled under Sherman.
At 5:55 the map shows Gustavus Smith having a command in Tennessee. Gustavus Smith never held an independent command in that area. That should actually be E. Kirby Smith, who had yet to be transferred to the Trans-Mississippi.
I was hoping that somebody else would notice that 😂
Sound is out of sync. It is good CZcams came into being. This video shows how much information and others how much I more I have learn then through books. Thank you. Based on your comments around 14:12 was Burnside a good commander, I have read he was not?
People say Gettysburg was the largest because of the size of force engaged. At both Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville there are major portions of the army of the Potomac that do not participate in the battle. This was a major frustration for Lincoln
Sedgwick has always been an interesting case. Aggressive on brigade and divisional command. Wounded by Sumner being overly aggressive at Antietam and sees his division shot to pieces in minutes. Then becomes the very reliable corps commander that always performs well, yet never really gets another chance after Fredericksburg to be aggressive. Does he get a bad rap for following Hooker’s orders where maybe he is told he is to be the anvil to Hooker’s hammer and meant to hold and harass? If those are Hooker’s explicit orders, he follows and exceeds. Does his story change if Meade uses his corps to attack at or after Gettysburg when Lee is pinned to the river?
I lay try and clean up and lay flowers at Reynolds' grave once a year.
Our city's greatest son.
One thing I never really looked too deeply into was Reynolds. Was he really that good of a general? I always assumed he received the Stonewall Jackson treatment of being memorialized since he was killed early. Any battles I can look to to really see Reynold’s prowess shine through?
Thats a valid point. Even Jackson had some major blunders that dull some of the shine based on his best move, followed immediately by his death.
Reynolds has a brief record. Part of it is as you say he gets killed in action at the front. He was captured at Gaines Mill, was not an Antietam and was engaged very little at Chancellorsville.
Vive le History Marche!
The North got a medium general humiliated. The South lost one of their best generals. This sounds like a long term strategic victory for the Union.
I'm reading Shelby Foote's Civil War books and just got done with Chancellorsville. 48:38: is why Jackson's death made me sad. He was the most eccentric character of the war. Probably crazy in some respects. But if I'm a general in the 1860's and I need a hammer to lead a corps, Stonewall is my guy. I often wonder about what would have happened if he had survived Chancellorsville. He would have been on board with the Gettysburg campaign and almost certainly have performed better than Ewell. But if all stayed the same on day 3 I REALLY wonder what the outcome would have been. Longstreet advised against an attack on day 3, but Longstreet generally advised against an attack anywhere. If Stonewall advised against an attack on day 3, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. It's one thing to overrule your anvil (Longstreet) that advises against attack, he always does. But if your hammer (Stonewall) advises against an attack you've got to take that into account.
thats right, stonewall was a key player
I still say that if you wanted to win a single battle you take Robert E Lee. If you wanted to win an entire campaign you take Ulysses S Grant.
if you want to win one battle give a decent defensive position to George Thomas and you're done.
(I wish I could find the video)
I Saw a video a few years ago that according to Longstreet - second manassas was Lees greatest victory. Letting the enemy exaust themselfs before launching a devestating counter attack.
32:29 Howard is also replacing Sigel who is very popular with the troops of 11th Corp, the phrase "I goes to fight mit Sigel" became known for a reason
Yep. A German general they could connect with and support. Tough situation for Howard and for his men.
To be fair, that's a tough call either way. Do you sack a popular but militarily incompetent general or do you keep him on? Sigel returns to the "Valley" in 1864 and loses at the Battle of New Market. His performance at Harpers Ferry left him without a command for the rest of the war and his political influence had long run its course by then.
Always a good day when I see VTH reacting to Civil War content.
My view of Lee is that his greastest strength was too allow his generals to use their strengths a good general surrounded by good genrals made him a great one
6:05 I love how he laughs as he says Braxton Bragg was in command. Man was part of the unholy trinity of the civil war's worst generals (the other 2 are John Bell Hood and McClellan).
Disagree on Hood. He was a really good general until the fall of 1863 after he lost the use of his arm and took an artillery shot to the femur, losing his leg. After that and his promotion to army command he was bad. The other two were never good.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Hmm, interesting.
The Emancipation Proclamation was also a message to Britain and any other European power.
10:30 on this I disagree. Yes he did order the pontoon bridges to be brought up and weren’t but the lack of initiative to find another way across like a bridge or fordable portion of the river is entirely on Burnside.
Which touches on his underlying problem as a general, that being he is unable or unwilling to adapt to the situation as it changes. It’s the same problem we see at Fredricksburg with him ordering frontal charges up a hill against a entrenched enemy the entire day.
Or him having his subordinates draw straws at for the assault at The Crater, rather than choosing his best general
Fun fact: I have a relative who served in the 18th NC, but he was not part of the pickets that shot Jackson.
Chancellorsville is probably not counted as bigger than Gettysburg as the "real" fight at Chancellorsville only had 120,000 soldiers in the fight, with the other 60-70k fighting at Fredericksburg... had the two union groups linked up it would maybe be seen as one battle, but as it is, it defnitely feels like two battles right next to each other.
Not convinced rushing across the river is the best move for burnside. It feels a bit like an aspern situation.
Before fighting each other a lot of the battles Grant and Lee fought were against generals who were not that great at army command
Historymarche is every bit as good as epic history tv. highly recommend their content.
And then Lee made the biggest and costliest mistakes in his career at Gettysburg. Quite a year he had in 1863.
You mentioned that the XI Corps had German immigrants in it and I think them getting a bad rep is something to look more into (mainly because its an interesting topic). I've done some reading and it seems like a lot of their bad reputation comes from their time in the Army of the Potomac. They also were very important in the Western theatre (their organisation right at the start of the war and later Peter Osterhaus or August Willich would be great examples). The XI Corps also was not entirely made out of immigrants but had a higher percentage of them in their ranks. The press which had a pretty nativist slant just as American had of course did not care about that at all. So reading the German perspective would be really helpful. Carl Schurz, German born divison commader in the XI Corps, talked about how he couldn't get the generals to listen at Chancellorsville when he figured that there was a flanking about to happen or how they did what they were ordered to perfectly well but got horribly shot up from the flank because another division under Gen. Barlow did not do their job of covering the flank as ordered.
That said, a lot of Germans and German officers did a lot of drilling and made their troops extremely well disciplined. Something that seems tk come from prior military training back in Germany and even more so from Prussia. They sort of had a reputation for that.
I think that should be mentioned because them getting a bad rep seems pretty unfair at times and leads to narratives in our historiography that make suggestions about immigrants being the weakest link in the chain when our sources say might lead you to something else.
Couch and Hooker were NOT friends. Couch actually hated Hooker and begged Halleck to transfer him after the battle
Hey Chris, I sincerely recommend you to look more of HistoryMarche, especially the "Why Napoleon lost Waterloo", it gives you an almost unheard but important clue about the problems faced by the French, and the confusions, without even going to the battle or the campaign itself but the previous manouvers
any information about performance of 58th NY so called Polish Legion in this battle?
A video request: Channel called “Top5s” has two pretty good videos on the second world war, “full history of the second world war part 1 and 2”
Has anybody played out this battle in a game as the Union but this time made sure his right flank was well secured? How did it go?
I hope to try it out with Wargame Design Studios' PC wargame, for a detailed simulation-ist approach. However, their Antietam version (with both Bull Runs, Cedar & South Mountains, and Antietam) currently has my attention.
I only have one tabletop game with Chancellorsville in it, but that one isn't detailed enough to be a good representation for my tastes.
Hooker was concussed on the third day at Chancellorsville. It paid no part in his decision on the first day to relinquish the initiative and remain in defense.
I live on Old Plank Rd. It makes me cringe that in this video it’s called, “orange Plank rd.” It’s in Spotsy
The road you live on was called Orange Plank Rd in 1863. The map is correct. stonesentinels.com/chancellorsville/tour-battlefield/auto-tour/stop-5-lee-jackson-bivouac/chancellorsville-campaign-orange-plank-road/
So my question is, why do so many list Burnside as a bad general, when we know the problem wasn't his plans did him in. I know he wasn't liked, but i think that is more of him taking over for Meade who was loved. Less on him.
So… can someone explain to me where Lee’s so-called strategic brilliance factors in? From what I deduced, the flank attack was both Jackson’s idea and execution, while Lee had an overly cautious and reactionary approach to this battle throughout. Not to mention he was up against an overconfident, at best semi-competent, enemy general who literally got concussed during the fight. Combined with the serious miscalculations he makes at Gettysburg, would it be safe to re-evaluate how good of an army commander he was in comparative context with some other generals/corp commanders? I think arguments could be made that Jackson and Longstreet were much better commanders with considerably better strategic instincts
My father and I enjoyed visiting CW battlefields on the days they were fought so that the weather could be similar. When we visited Chancellorsville, it was a 90+ May Day and humping Jackson's frontal envelopment was excruciating. I was home in Virginia from the Armor Officer Advanced Course that weekend. Still in shape back then, it was easier on me than Pops. This battle always stood out to me as a large risk and large reward for defending interior lines.
Hey VTH, that Aquia Landing is very close to Aquia Creek, where the 3rd ACW battle after Fort Sumter (Apr. 12-13, 1861) and Sewell's Point (May 18-19, 1861) took place between May 29 and June 1, 1861.
Maybe this is just me and obviously I wasn't there during the battle so I can't attest to if this was even possible but I'm looking at the map at 51:05 I see that you have III XII at the southern most point of the union battle I and V corps on and western flank but then you have XI corps on the eastern flank, a corps which was just got rushed by Jackson's charge and I would imagine is either in poor morale or has taken noticeable casualties if not both. What I'm wondering is if a concentrated attack by the division's of of the first corps could route XI Corps and force a redeployment of troops from I and V corps seeing how III, XII and to lesser extent II corps can't easily rush to a breach in the area without taking fire from Confederate units uninvolved in the breach. If a redeployment is forced would then be possible to break through the weakened positions on the western position and either force a general Union retreat which could possibly result in heavy losses for III and XII corps or use the momentum to capture U.S ford and cut of Union lines of retreat for any who couldn't make it there in time, forcing a surrender of said units ( III, XII, and maybe II Corps, I and V corps would likely escape as would XI but with heavy losses) seems unlikely but stranger things have happened and the possibility of such is hard to dismiss out of hand.
Minor scrutiny here, but its not accurate to say McClellan was replaced by John pope and then reinstated. Pope took command of 'The Army of Virginia.' Which was separate from The Army of The Potomac. McClellan and Pope were both in command of their respective armies at the same time, but when 2nd Bull Run unfolds so terribly for Pope, the Army of Virginia dissolves and those troops join The Army of The Potomac.
I’ll correct your correction. Yeah they were separate armies, but McClellan was NOT in a command at that time. Lincoln offered the AoP to Burnside while pope took command of the Army of Virginia. Lincoln only gave McClellan command again because of Pope’s defeat and Burnside’s refusal to command the AoP. Otherwise, McClellan would have been done.
So McClellan replaced McClellan. No splitting hairs here. @@VloggingThroughHistory
Yeah, the Generals of the big Armies in the east have always caught a lot of flak, probably more than they deserved. I think the biggest issue, overall, was how often Lincoln would boot one out for another. They were veteran commanders before the war, but new to managing such massive armies they'd find themselves suddenly thrust into commanding. They each had to quickly learn on-the-job, by trial and error. Having them constantly switched in and back out of that role didn't help things overall and, I'd venture, didn't give most of them time to learn & get acquainted before the same thing would happen to the next guy suddenly put in the same position.
I mean.. other than McClellan. It's apparent that he only wanted the job for the prestige and a future political career, and prioritized that over actually pursuing an aggressive winning strategy. Plus he was left in charge much longer than needed just because Lincoln was afraid he'd alienate the Democrats still in the Union if he sacked Mac. A mistake realized too late.
While McClellan was not successful tactically, logistically and strategically he was phenomenal. He really was the father of the Army of the Potomac. He just didn't want anything to happen to his creation.
The Peter Principle in action; you are promoted to your level of incompitence. Good private makes a good specialist makes a good sgt and then he becomes a 1st Sgt where the job is more desk work and less yelling at people and now he sucks. What happened? He was promoted based on his performance in the current job, not how he'd perforn in his next job. This is a huge problem in Hollywood and the news media, btw.
Not many Tennessee boys are represented. I'd love to know what my people did. Maybe we're from Alabama? Daniels.
I went to Chancellorsville several years ago. The guide brought up an interesting theory involving Jackson's death. She said that when he was shot he was wear multiple layers of thick clothing despite the beautiful spring weather. So she made the suggestion that Jackson may have already been sick when he was shot. Do you think there is any credence to this theory?
I thought that he had some form of fever which plagued him for at least 2-3 days during the march to Chancellorsville and the Flanking March and contributed to him being overtired (which might have been a reason fro the carelessness when returning from reconnaissance that lead to his being shot) was well known.
The american Battlefield Trust talked a lot about it during their Chancellorsville 160 series... like 46-47 minutes in in the Flank March video
Who would you say were the best generals in the war?
I think I disagree with your opinion on A.P. Hill not being a good Corps commander.
He was OK at Gettysburg, bad at Mine Run but I think he did just fine at Wilderness and Petersburg.
I used to believe like you that he didnt measure up as a corp cmdr until I watched Have History Will Travel's 3 hour biography. I'd even argue he outclassed Jackson.
Didn't mean to jump on your opinion just couldn't hold it in :)
Better than Jackson is quite a stretch. He was better than Ewell though
I did 3 of the 4 in one day
I don't know much about the American Civil War and found this content interesting. Is it fair to say that Hooker was found out in the fog of war?
While it was Lee's greatest victory, it was also the beginning of the end for the south, because Lee lost his most trusted commander. He never felt that trust with other generals and it showed. Despite Jackson's aura, he was a very good commander and his men responded to him unlike many others in the war. His loss before Gettysburg is maybe the most important turning point for the Union forces. Lee lost his right arm and then went north and the end followed that fateful trip.
Its not just jackson's loss that matters. Lees army got mauled. Casualty figures between the two are pretty much equal, when lees army is half the size. It doesnt take away from the victory but its losses he couldnt really afford.
A bit like eylau only more decisive on the field, thats a lot of experienced troops lost from the army, which is really the confederate advantage, they start the war with a lot of experienced troops. Losing those veterans leaves the experience level of the soldiers closer to parity only with a significant numbers advantage on the union side.
I've heard some arguments that the issue with McClellan was that he was a Democrat, in a time in which Lincoln (and Hallack to some extent) were looking for a Republican to lead the army to victory. The person that one that war would be a war hero, and likely get elected to the Presidency, so the idea is that they wanted to ensure it was a Republican who won, and not Democrat. There might be some truth to that, as while union troops during the 1864 election were allowed to vote by mail, except those for NJ, as those troops were (at least the view is at the time) more likely to support McClellan. Troops from NJ, if they voted to vote, had to go all the way back to NJ in order to vote. Many troops from NJ were bitter about that.
wich Confederate general was the best according to you? and wich union general after Grant Sherman and Sheridan was?
Longstreet and Joe Johnston were their best. Union after Grant and Sherman id say Meade and Thomas.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Thanks,
@VloggingThroughHistory Joe Johnston is the best union General after Grant, Sharman, Meade, Thomas.
@@VloggingThroughHistory It is Lee in my opinion. Although Johnston had a better strategic scope on things, Lee's only real defeat in 4 years was Gettysburg until he got overwhelmed at Petersburg, with the numbers he had thats really, really impressive
@@Lakitu886 its doubtful johnston was even a better strategist than Lee. Lee knew the situation required daring and rolling the dice. Some people say johnston wouldve fought more defensive and slowed the casualty rate and that was better or would lead to winning, but i think the south was doomed to lose and the only strategical option they had was rolling the dice and who was better at the tactical level to do that than Lee? Especially since he showed pretty good restraint when it came to stonewall's more aggressive suggestions. I think whereas Lee used to be said to be overrated, hes severely underrated now by people beating him down and all the contrarians.
28:25 This is where I think Hooker starts to lose things. Consolidating the army at this point makes sense, but I don't think you need to be as aggressive about it as Hooker is. The army can be divided into 2 wings that both outnumber the Confederates, I personally think moving Couch to Fredrecksburg to allow a Corp from their to move would be wise but I think any more diversion of forces that that really defeats the point of the whole maneuver to some extent. The whole idea is to have a knife at Lee's throat while you move around his flank. I think Hooker got too focused on fighting a battle here as opposed to the operational objective of pushing the Confederates off and away from the Rappahannock. Obviously, a decisive victory is desirable, but it's not nessicary. Personally, I think Hooker pushing slowly is entirely defensible because, at this point, the biggest operational obstacle has been passed. There is no line the Confederates can take up that is more difficult go outflank than the line on the Rappahannock except for the literal trenches around Richmond. At this point, all you have to do is just squeeze Lee and until Lee can't justify holding any longer. The problem is that at this point Hooker becomes too passive. He stops trying to shape the battlefield and waits for Lee to make a move. He doesn't really impede anything that Lee does from this point on in the Battle. The opening operational scheme was brilliant only surpassed in conception for me at least by the 63 Vicksburg campaign and the original conception of the Petersburg campaign, but Hooker here manages to drop the ball basically after he has won. I mean tactically Howard very much screwed up, but Hooker didn't impede Jackson like at all in getting to that position and also didn't fix Howard's deployments when he saw them.
yea, its really imexcusable and onexplicable how Hooker managed to screw this up. He didnt have the greatness gene.
Eehh, I disagree. Hooker showed exceptional ability in planning the initial movements. Like I said I think it was the 3rd best plan by initial conception in the entire war, with the proviso that I haven't studied Tullahoma, but that puts him in contention with some of the best of the war. Sherman, Grant, Jackson, the opening moves are impressive enough to put him in that conversation. He just drops the ball. I mean, he didn't have a signature campaign after this, but even the greatest generals have bad battles. Grant and Sherman have Shiloh, Lee and Jackson have the 7 days, Napoleon has Aspern Essling. Ceasar has Dyrrachium.
@@seanmac1793 So you think given the chance, Hooker couldve proven to be on the level of grant? I agree that it was a masterful setup, but then again Mac displayed some amazing strategum also. You can have the best plan but if you manage to let it fail or accomplish less than spectacular results then youre missing half of the requirements of being a great general
Fighting Joe xD
Hey Chris, I know that you normally react to videos, but would you consider delving into "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" and for the benefit of Brit, who doesn't have your depth of knowledge on the Civil War, expand on the events oulined in the lyrics. I strogly suspect thet there is a lot to unpack fron this song.
P.S. I am familiar with, and love Joan Baez's version of this song.
I would love to see your reaction to Grazed by the Apocalypse by Lemmino and would like to see your thoughts on the events he goes over
Unfortunately I won’t be doing any more of his videos. He’s spoken out pretty vocally against reactions.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Ouch!
Hooker may have been concussed by the near miss.
Lee's quote to General McLaws on the eve of the battle of Chanslorville, being completely surrounded and outmanned 3 to 1, Lee says "It must be Victory or Death for defeat will be reuioniuis!" Lee ends up winning his greatest battle!! This southerner and proud Tennessean, salutes General Lee for forever!!
Question regarding the grand divisions: what was the rationale for their formation? It seems like an unnecessary extra layer of administration and command, but I assume there was some reason that they were formed up before Fredericksburg.
No the only reason the south could not win is because of southern cooking. After the southern women would come out and feed all the men biscuits and gravy and bacon, they had to lay under a tree for a couple hours, so they would combat ineffective for the rest of the day. I can prove this because of the two theme songs of the different armies. The northern army’s theme song was the battle hymn of the Republic which starts with the line my eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord! The confederate theme song was Dixie! Dixie Dar buckwheat cakes and Indian batter make you fat or a little fatter! lol 😂 😊
I wonder how long the Confederates would have lasted if Jackson didn't doe when he did?
About the same I’d say. I don’t see how his presence changes the outcome.
@@VloggingThroughHistory A lot of Southerners say that the Confederates would have won if he survived longer but who knows?
@@VloggingThroughHistory I would propose that to be an "wearing blinders" take. A huge factor in Lee's inability to make decisions at Gettysburg are due to having lost Jackson. Jackson was the "aggression" right brain to Lee's "tactics and defense" left brain. It may not have been a whole lot longer perse, but the path you take to get there pretty drastically frames differently.
I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the war. And I know that you regard both Lee and Jackson as not really that good. But together they were a force because they saw things differently. With Longstreet the trio was powerful. I think that at Gettysburg, either Jackson takes the initiative that Lee expected of Ewell on Day 1, OR they likely have a more well rounded approach to day 2. I have always thought that after Chancellorsville and the loss of Jackson, Lee thought it was now or never, and that's why he forced Gettysburg that way. But at the end of the day, I don't think Lincoln was ever going to accept peace, even if Lee had taken DC. And Meade was good enough to last long enough to run the confederates out of resources by the end of 65.
McClellan made a great Training general. Terrible army commander.
But the Armies later success can be strongly attributed to the training and discipline they received under him.
So as a adjutant general I think he would have done fine. His men loved him either way.
But hands down the worst co. Of the war next to Bragg who was basically a union General in confederate clothes...
That's the sense I get from him. He is excellent at organizing and training, essentially the paperwork. But actual command he couldn't be more of a big failure.
@@zombieoverlord5173 dude wasnt built for it, he didnt have the self confidence, that "i want the ball on the final play" intangible. He pissed his pants thinking of having to actually engage in a battle that might expose him as a fraud. Then contrast that with say a napoleon's attitutde. Mclellan had it upstairs, he just didnt have it inside.
I unsubscribed from HistoryMarche because they use AI art too much and their video style changed so much to a more detail intensive kinda boring style rather than their old style, which often include pretty funny animations and still have good enough details.
9:30 wow Democrats sound awful