I love Grant’s simplicity and directness: “Did he say that? Well, let him go and do it.”

@dadsongs

3 күн бұрын

...and with, no doubt, a cigar clenched between his teeth.

@tigvi3429

3 күн бұрын

Me too. Grant is vastly underrateed as a soldier and a man.

Reminds me of Grants message to Lincoln in 65. “General Sheridan says he believes if the thing is pressed, Lee will surrender.” Lincoln replies “Let the thing be pressed.”

@historyfellow3684

Күн бұрын

Never heard this before, but good to learn of it.

Most impressive to me is Sheridan centralizing, supplying, then deploying a full corps of cavalry in roughly 24 hours. That is generalship.

@bartsullivan4866

10 күн бұрын

He did seem like he was one of the most competent and capable commanders for sure on the Union side brave as well. Reminds me a little bit of Napolean.

@ScottKent

8 күн бұрын

Grant considered him a part of his most trusted. Sheridan is often forgotten when the names of Grant and Sherman are brought up, but he was right there with them. His comments and actions out west after the Civil War did however do a lot to damage his character.

@johnpauljones9310

7 күн бұрын

There should be a monument to Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Farragut. Without them, the Civil War would have dragged on for years and the South may even have won.

@bartsullivan4866

7 күн бұрын

@@johnpauljones9310 That is true but there record on Native American's they would see it differently. As I see it as disgraceful to tear down the confederate leadership as well they were also brave men even if they fought for the side that had slavery. History is ugly warts and all that doesn't mean there were great leaders on both sides who inspired their men. The fools that destroy statues and history are doomed to repeat it.

@johnpauljones9310

7 күн бұрын

@@bartsullivan4866 Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, and Farragut never betrayed their oaths to the US Constitution, every Confederate officer that had been a Union officer did just that. And blame Presidents and Congress for Manifest Destiny that led to the Indian Wars post-Civil War, not the officers that were tools of that policy. As for the Natives, they were fighting and stealing each other's lands for centuries before Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Farragut were even born. See the Comanche and Utes for proof. The Natives just showed up to a shooting war with Stone Age weapons and lost.

We forget how young some of these men were. Even Lee’s “Old Warhorse,” the grizzled veteran Longstreet, was in his 30s.

@big58jazz

9 күн бұрын

Longstreet was born in 1821. He was in his 40s during the Civil War.

@CAROLUSPRIMA

9 күн бұрын

@@big58jazz You are of course correct. Apparently I’ve quoted some information without checking. Without (I hope) sounding defensive, he was still much younger than I have thought. I’m 63 and a 40 year old seems like a youngster. And Stuart seems a mere child. Thanks for simply stating a fact without getting excited at my error.

Great story, I've read about this. But I never tire of Sheridan's audacity.

Excellent videos. Thanks for keeping important historical figures alive. Great story !

My reenacting regiment was the 7th Michigan Cavalry, a rather elite group of horsemen. I had just purchased my uniform items including the magnificent Cavalry Shell Jacket. The shell jacket came without the buttons sewn on. We were having a late night operation where I worked and as these things always go, there would be several long night hours of waiting before the final countdown operations. So to pass the time, I brought the jacket to work to sew on the buttons. We had a bunch of visiting Florida engineers already in the office when I brought the jacket in and they intensely stared at it as I came in. One of the guys, in the most incredulous voice possible said "THAT'S A YANKEE UNIFORM!!!" I stupidly said, "yeah, I'm in the 7th Michigan Cavalry, you know, the guys who defeated and got Jeb Stuart killed." "THAT'S TERRIBLE, YOU SHOULDN'T BRAG ABOUT THAT!!" I really thought that there was going to be some serious trouble, those Southern boys were so violently offended by what I had said and the appearance of my uniform. I quickly left for my little lab in a back room along with my beautiful shell jacket and shiny brass buttons. By the time the operation started, we had many more serious things to do than to fight over the "Lost Cause." True story, that.

@Klonglechurgen

10 күн бұрын

You spelled everything correctly! What a pleasant post to read! Nice Job!

@JJNITROFAN

9 күн бұрын

Interesting how men who were no part of what happened and are at best distantly related to anyone who might have done, grew irritated or worse due to what was an historical fact - the death of J.E.B. Stuart. Your tactical retreat was likely the correct move.

@eddarby469

9 күн бұрын

My introduction to the Civil War was different. We moved to Massachusetts from S. Carolina when I was almost six y.o. The other kids came over to "meet us" in our yard one day shortly after we arrived. They had been told by their parents that we were from S. Carolina and Massachusetts had fight and defeat them in a war many years ago and you should make sure they don't forget that. Before I moved to Massachusetts I had never heard of the ACW. But, it's the Southerners that never let it go. Well, except that it's not.

@mpojr

8 күн бұрын

try real soldiering like Vietnam everbody wore pretty much the same uniform,no shiny buttons

@frankmiller95

8 күн бұрын

@@eddarby469 Whenever your experience happened, it's very different now. Very few of us in the North have any interest in renewing the CW. The South has many people who seem intent on doing exactly that.

From the moment Grant brought Sheridan with him and gave him the Cavalry of the army of the Potomac, J.E.B. was a dead man walking. Sheridan has the most remarkable combat record of the war.

@tcod3137

13 күн бұрын

You’re pushing it a bit their, I think Nathan Bedford Forrest has the best record of the civil war!

@rogersheddy6414

13 күн бұрын

​@@tcod3137 Moseby.

@bobnicholas5994

13 күн бұрын

This is called Meade putting a fire under Sheridans butt.

@andrewlayton9760

13 күн бұрын

This is called Meade being a prissy princess.

@philiphales2109

12 күн бұрын

Way oversimplified argument by assertion.

Ol Stonewall was only 39 at the time of his death. Grant and Meade were in their 40’s with Meade being the elder. Marse Robert was the oldest being in his mid fifties, roughly the same age as Honest Abe. I’ve been a Civil War enthusiast since I was 8 years old. Now at 59 I’m older than all of them at the time. Seems strange.

@TheJimmyidol

10 күн бұрын

Im Canadian snf I'm a Civil war history fanatic.

@pigmanobvious

10 күн бұрын

@@TheJimmyidol First: what is SNF? Second: My boss is Canadian! And a nicer fellow one could not meet!

@brianpeters5555

10 күн бұрын

​@@pigmanobviousI'm Canadian and you would not want to play hockey against us.. just saying is all

@rudolphguarnacci197

10 күн бұрын

​@@pigmanobvious Maybe it's a double typo. I think he meant "and."

Sheridan was not only instrumental in killing Stuart, but in Killing G K Warren’s career at 5 Forks… the tensions between the infantry and cavalry ended in often petty and unfair “politics”… JEB’s “luck” ran out in 1864, Custer’s in 1876… both were courageous beyond dispute. But as the saying goes: Live by the sword, die by the sword… By 1863, The dramatic decline in horse and man power within the CSA compared to the slow rise of the Union horsemen under Sheridan, Merrit, Custer, Lowell etc clearly turned the tide for the CSA in general and the hard math against the South in particular…

@patrickmiano7901

13 күн бұрын

Actually, Custer died by the arrow, several of them.

@cousinfester4621

13 күн бұрын

@@patrickmiano7901 The Native Americans had firearms. The firearms they had were better than what the Army was using. Custer's body was so mutilated it would have been hard to determine what killed him. Custer depended on brawn, not brains. That's what killed him.

@SHOE53

13 күн бұрын

yep it all come down to hard math still apply today.

@oldgeezerproductions

13 күн бұрын

@@cousinfester4621 A FEW of the N.A.'s had repeating firearms and for close-in, hand-to-hand fighting, the repeaters were somewhat better, but the 45-70 Springfield is a superior long range carbine compared to the Henry, Winchester and Spencer repeaters. In addition, the soldiers had 6 shot SAA .45 revolvers for close-in and mounted fire. I have seen the "trapdoor" in operation, firing live rounds; in the hands of a good shooter it can achieve a remarkable rate of fire not that inferior to a Henry, Winchester or Spencer. It is my opinion (subject to correction) that what defeated Custer's men was NOT inferior weapons, but the fact that they were, in essence, mobbed in overwhelming numbers with no chance to form a proper line of battle or any kind of defensive works.

@gruntforever7437

9 күн бұрын

@@oldgeezerproductions your fallacy as regards the Springfield is talking about a good shooter which was NOT a average shooter. and sorry but working a lever action will always be a great deal faster than a single shot that has to be reloaded. I have fired both and the rate of fire is ridiculously in favor of the lever action

Great story. Never knew that. Thanks for the personal side of history.

This is really good. Ya know, you have found a niche in this often talked about Civil War. Kudos to you for finding it. Keep up the good work sir. I often think of my ancestors who fought in this war.

Great reporting on events that have been largely overlooked by all but the scholars and civil war habitues.

OUTSTANDING : Outstanding exposition.

The personalities of those extraordinary men tend to get overlooked in favor of the details of logistics, tactics and strategy. Reports like this humanize these events and give us a better sense of the realities of decisions during war. Great stuff!

From a long line of military service. My Daughter and I are both 100%Disabled Veterans. (SC) The Civil War just breaks my heart.💔 All our beautiful young men killing each other. Veterans from the Vietnam War were treated atrociously.

Ralph Peters in HELL OR RICHMOND actually dramatizes that scene pretty well. Meade calls Sheridan to the woodshed in front of everyone and as soon as they get indoors, Sheridan absolutely laces into him. Phil is quite the weasel. He keenly knows his position as Grant's favorite lets him get away with stuff no one else could, but he backed it up. He looked small on Rienzi, but he needed a mount that big to carry his balls.

Love history ❤ I go to Gettysburg in PA every year

@conradnelson5283

13 күн бұрын

You are lucky. I’ve been to Vicksburg on my way to Florida. I’ve never made it to Gettysburg. Would love to go to Antietam.. can’t hardly go anywhere anymore

Thank you! ❤

This always brings parallels with James Doolittle loosing the fighters of the 8th Air Force to destroy the Luftwaffe rather than fly close protection of the bombers. Both Dolittle and Grant recognizing a more modern or aggressive use of their light, mobile units in an offensive disposition rather than the more traditional largely defensive deployment.

The Stuart descendants( JEBs 5 and 6, I believe) live in Richmond and I have had the privilege of meeting them and will say without hesitation that they are absolutely stellar people.

I am locked on Meade being short tempered. I think that gunshot wound he was dealing with made him irritable.

My favorite part of this video is Meade being referred by his troops as "ole snapping turtle." 😂

Really fascinating info - thanks.

JEB Stuart is not dead... exactly... His spectral presence is alive and well, advising all tank crews to this day!

@lonniemonroe2714

12 күн бұрын

Hell yes. Loved the Haunted Tank stories. Have most of Our Army At War. Sgt. Rock of Eady Co. Great

My favorite Grant story. The Union Army had just suffered a disastrous day and a younger and frantic officer rushed into Grant's headquarter. "General Grant!", he exclaimed, "What are the Confederates going to do tomorrow!?". "I don't know", Grant replied, "What are we going to do?".

Great Stuff sir!

Thanks for this and all your posts. I would love to hear part 2 of this. What was Meade’s and Grant’s reaction to the death of Stewart?

HistoryGoneWilder did an excellent explanation of the Overland Campaign. When he described what happened to Warren's Corp on the road, i couldn't help but notice how uninformed his brigades were as they moved on the road. They were completely(?!) surprised by a defensive line of infantry(Anderson) that had been organized by Stuart with orders directly from Lee. The "attack" by Warren was a fiasco. One brigade even mysteriously attacked perpendicular to the Confederate line and was swept end to end by the rebel firing, long after the attack had already begun. You might wonder (just as Meade obviously did) what in the world the Union cavalry was doing that day that prevented them from scouting the very road Warren was marching on. Perhaps Warren should have had skirmishers or scouts out front, or maybe the cavalry could've done their primary purpose of keeping the army informed? I'm of two minds on the memoirs and letter writing wars in newspapers post 1865. On one hand we get the remembered details of what each man was thinking and communicating at momentous historical events. On the other hand, we get lots of tiresome finger pointing, and glorious self promotion in the defense of personal legacy. Sheriden took the opportunity to write his side of the story. Meade did not. I'm undecided what that says about these two Generals as leaders and men.

@doritofeesh

10 күн бұрын

As a tactician, Sheridan was perhaps the best out of the Grant clique (including Sherman and Sheridan). Though, he was not as good as them or Meade as an operational artist or strategist. He could deliver skillful outflanking attacks and mass local superiority while doing it, unlike Grant, who rarely turned the enemy in battle and only did so operationally after suffering horrendous losses in frontal assault without achieving overwhelming concentration of force, or Sherman, who sucked at battles, but he knew it and did his best to outflank the enemy operationally rather than tactically. However, Sheridan did not use his cavalry optimally for the army as a whole. Yes, he did well in cavalry engagements and skirmishes, as well as in delivering the charge in pitched battle, something many mistakenly believe was not possible in the ACW until Sheridan showed that, yes, there's a reason cavalry hadn't died out as an arm yet in the 19th century. What he mostly failed to do, though, was the other very important role of cavalry, which was to conduct reconnaissance and screen the movements of the army. Spotsylvania CH is definitely one such moment, but people forget Wilderness, where the AotP was bereft screening forces along the Orange Turnpike and Orange Plank Road as a result of him refusing Meade additional cavalry. Grant also deserves blame for siding with Sheridan over Meade in this regard. This was a mistake and he should have took Meade's side in this matter, considering the superiority of Union armament at this point in time and the sheer numerical advantage in not only infantry, but also cavalry, which he possessed. Just a regiment or two would have gone a long way to preventing various surprises by Lee's forces. Sparing a couple more regiments which were not needed for the cavalry actions/skirmishes would have helped Grant and Meade to conduct their outflanking operations to turn Lee's right by masking their true disposition and movements. These should have been placed under the individual corps commanders for their uses and concentrated at the army chief's whim, rather than putting them all under Wilson's Division alone (who also deserves blame for the blunder in reconnaissance at Wilderness). This is what prevents Sheridan from becoming a truly good army commander and why he was simply an average cavalry commander, in my humble opinion. Perhaps I'm too harsh, but I've done nerded out over millennia of military history, including the development of cavalry warfare, so maybe Sheridan just don't seem so special to me when compared to his peers and when compared to those who became before him in previous eras. Being a good tactician is not enough and what's more important in positions of higher command is to have a more sound understanding of operations and stratagems.

Sheridan did not kill Stuart it was a dismounted Union private, 44-year-old John A. Huff, a former sharpshooter, turned and shot Stuart with his .44-caliber revolver, from a distance of 10-30 yards Battle of Yellow Tavern was not a union victory as Sheridan with 12 thousand man disengaged from the battle and left Stuart's 4500 hundred in control of the road leading to Richmond, Sheridan’s 'sideshow' did not achieve any of its other objectives. Sheridan's absence hurt Grant at Spotsylvania in much the same way that Stuart's absence from Gettysburg had handicapped Lee.

@kurtwicklund8901

13 күн бұрын

You think you were watching The Patriot? Where the main characters duke it out at the end? Now back to your inexplicable cope.

@danielkitchens4512

13 күн бұрын

@kurtwicklund8901 if you had taken time to read the comment section you would see that a few of the comments make it sound as if Sheridan had killed Stuart. Sorry to hear you are a fun of the Patriot the movie Braveheart was much better although the battle of Stirling was fought on a bridge and not in a open field.

With Sheridan taking the cavalry away, and showboating himself, Grant was blinded at Spotsyvania and North Anna, his performance crippled. Ironic how Sheridan is praised for doing the same thing that Stuart did at Gettysburg.

@bartsullivan4866

10 күн бұрын

I did think about that as well. When you give the calvary leave to go make trouble you blind your army moving on the battlefield unless you have reserve calvary. You make a great point.

@ArmenianBishop

9 күн бұрын

@@bartsullivan4866 Both Rhea and Trudeau criticize Sheridan for the reason that I mentioned, blinding Grant at Spotsylvania and North Anna. Rhea defined Sheridan's raid as "showboating". As we know, Stuart caused the same problem at Gettysburg. After Todd's Tavern, Stuart didn't take all his cavalry, which benefitted Lee's knowledge of the situation, but contributed to Stuart's defeat at Yellow Tavern. Stoneman's Richmond Raid did the same thing to Hooker, at Chancellorsville, with disastrous results; Grant got off easy, already out of the Wilderness, and able to find his way around better. Lack of cavalry contributed to Grant's blunder at North Anna, where Hancock's Corp walked into a trap, but illness and casualties disrupted Lee's staff communication work, and the ambush didn't happen.

What a bunch of grumpy old men. I would like to hear one of your accounts of yellow Tavern.

@rikk319

10 күн бұрын

They weren't old men. Meade and Grant were in their 40s. Even Lee was only in his 50s.

My great grandfather served in the tenth Minnesota. Could you cover the Minnesota Sioux war in your historical commentary.

Really enjoy your commentary and insights. Would you please "UnQuote" after you Quote. Carry on!

Unlike too many commanders when Sheridan gets the order to move he moves. And his aggression is rewarded .

I feel like we missed a major part of the story? Seems like we went from the set up to the end without much content to explain the battle. Enjoying your channel so far however.

@mirrorblue100

13 күн бұрын

I could certainly stand a breakdown of Yellow Tavern.

I dont think a single one of those brave warriors would prefer a "FAIR, SQUARE FIGHT" to favorable odds if they had the choice, though they would vehemently deny it in the presence of others. Rolling 6's was always better than skinny 3's.

Groovy

I am watching this on May 11, 2024 -- exactly 160 years later!

I would actually really like to see a film made about Sheridan the small man with a ton of balls. It would be interesting to hear from his troops what they thought of Sheridan. Custer seems to get all the glory on the Union calvary side but I think it was Sheridan who really deserves it. Wonder if Lincoln and Grant held Sheridan in high regard after the war.

@curious968

6 сағат бұрын

Custer was always overrated, but he did smashing good work at Gettysburg, at least.

Love the material - like more pictures vs watching your personal reading.

"Calvary" is a place. "Cavalry" is mounted soldiers.

@stephenrandoll9461

4 күн бұрын

In my hometown, Calvary is a cemetery. Cavalry are mounted warriors. Good post.

Sheridan's action hurt Grant. He wasn't there to scout and take positions ahead of Meade. Just like what happened to Hooker a year earlier.

Interesting that Sheridan would accuse Meade of casting blame. 😊 Oh, the personalities.

Good video. Thank you

Custer and Devin also commanded cavalry divisions. I wonder where they were?

It was the change Grant and Sheridan brought to the Army of the Potomac-they meant business and the grim reality was men had to be killed in order to win a war. Gone was the sort of romance that McClellan had implemented in the early days of grand reviews, gaudy flags and uniforms, the entire pageantry. Even the soldiers themselves were different; lots of the old 1861 regiments were shot up and whittled down and lots of them went home when their 3 year enlistment was up. They were replaced by bounty men, criminals, draftees and substitutes. This brought about drastically heightened Army discipline that had been so lose previously. Sheridan, Sherman and Grant knew the real dirty business of war-that men had to be killed until the other side ran out or gave up and that civilians caught up the fury were unfortunate victims. As Sherman stated "The crueler war is the sooner it'll be over."

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!

Gotta love Phil Sheridan. All the Dash of Stewart, but brains to back it.

So what happened at the Battle, other than the death of Stuart?

Sheridan goes on to fame and glory with Sherman and Grant. Meade....eh, appart from some credit at Gettysburg what was his true legacy ?

@rutlandfuel2637

13 күн бұрын

He built a killer lighthouse off the Florida Keys!

@garynorred4643

13 күн бұрын

Fort Meade in Maryland ??

@dylannotsor6955

13 күн бұрын

Does Meade really need more than Gettysburg to cement his legacy? He turned the tide of the war, and he did it decisively. His biggest mistake was not pursuing the advantage, but his men were exhausted and his assessment was that if he pursued, he wouldn't be able to press the advantage. Whose to say that any of us understood the situation better than him? When grant was made lieutenant general, he chose to let Meade continue to lead his army, while sacking a lot of other officers, grant saw him as a necessary part of his plan to defeat Lee, and Meade played a decisive role in almost every battle of the overland campaign, he even warned grant against the attack on cold harbor, but still followed orders. It's definitely unfair to understate his role in defeating the Confederate army.

@TheScourge-sg5vv

13 күн бұрын

@@dylannotsor6955 Well put. My initial response to the video came from wondering how strong a team would have been had Meade fit in with the other leaders under Grant. Teamwork, which was very strong at Gettysburg with so many crucial Union leaders contributing.

@frankmiller95

8 күн бұрын

@@TheScourge-sg5vv l made the comment but deleted it after seeing yours.

I have a hand written letter from Sheridan for apologizing for arresting my great,great grandfather for hiding gen Beauregard is brother in law.😢

So Warren complained that Sheridan's cavalry was impeding his march to Spotsylvania. Uh oh! Sounds like this may have been the initial spark that pissed off Sheridan re Warren and thus payback time at Five Forks.

They were out to get Stuart. And he knew it.

I believe Sheridan was instrumental in the naming of whale cove in Oregon. Funny story.

Sheridan kicked both JEB Stuart's and Jubal Early's asses, breaking the will of Virginia to fight, and cutting off Lee's retreat, forcing him to surrender. There is no greater cavalry officer of the Civil War than "Little" Philip Sheridan.

Little Phil had Stuart outnumbered & he knew it. 3 to 1. Easy to be an arrogant prick when you have numbers

@frankmiller95

8 күн бұрын

Rhetorical question: Why are Southern apologists always whining about the superior numbers and logistics of the North? lt's almost as if they wish the South had won the CW so they could be living in the Confederacy, a state (country) founded for the primary purpose of perpetuating slavery into the territories.

@wmschooley1234

8 күн бұрын

Quantity has its own quality. At some point numbers do count.

Sheridan is underrated. His strategy and leadership were critical to the Union victory and the end of slavery, the most disgusting thing in human history. Regarding Stewart, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person. Well, maybe Nathan Bedford Forrest.

@LuckysLair

21 сағат бұрын

".....the end of slavery, the most disgusting thing in human history". Slavery continues, just not in American

It's easy to be bold when you are fully supplied and out-number your opponent 3-to-1. J.E.B. Stuart was killed because he led by example and was shot with a pistol. A death of which Sheridan made sure could never happen to him; he directed - others led. Let's not forget that Sheridan would later, happily, become a war criminal. We know because Sherman admitted in his autobiography that he, Grant, and Sheridan were taught at West Point to NOT do what they did.

@johnking6252

13 күн бұрын

If you're referring to the indian campaign, then yes. Probably civil war too.

@frankrives9964

13 күн бұрын

Grant, Sheridan and Meade and the Civil War were so unfair. How dare the North capitalize on their superior numbers, transportation, economic strength, and technology to defeat the Confederates. Obviously, to be fair, the Union Army should have taken a count before every battle and made sure they didn't have too much ammunition, guns and men.

@lonniemonroe2714

12 күн бұрын

Little Phil. He could take shelter behind larger fellows. Odds 3 to 1 he can be a bragging sob. Stuart died by a lucky shot. Leading from the front Most Southern leaders did. It cost the South dearly.

@Hopdvil

10 күн бұрын

Generals shouldn’t be in the front ranks. They’re expected to be leading multiple units.

@1rjona

10 күн бұрын

@@lonniemonroe2714there lies the problem for the South. They have great generals like Stonewall and Jeb Stuart. Problem is they end up shot while leading from the front, never to lead again

Every one of these dudes looks like they were in a whiskey induced trance.

@curious968

6 сағат бұрын

Photography was in its infancy. People didn't smile much in photos, because you actually had to hold perfectly still for several seconds in those days. So, a lot of photos are stiff and unrealistic because "snapshots" didn't exist. Pictures in those days, were posed.

JEB Stuart vowed that he “had rather die than be whipped” Stuart got both. Stuart misunderstood General Sheridan’s mission. Phil Sheridan’ s mission wasn’t to harass Richmond. Phil Sheridan’s primary mission was to engage and destroy Stuart and his cavalry command. General Sheridan simply was on a decapitation strike against the ANV cavaly. And Sheridan's command was successful. JEB Stuart was eliminated a a Union threat at Yellow Tavern.

@michaelguice8941

12 күн бұрын

The only problem is Sheridan and his calvary lost the battle. So, he only achieved one of the two. He died but they weren’t whipped.

@wmschooley1234

12 күн бұрын

@@michaelguice8941 I do believe that the CSA in the War of the Rebellion LOST. That's being whipped. Mission accomplished.

@curious968

7 сағат бұрын

@@michaelguice8941 How effective was this unit after Stuart died? I don't remember hearing a lot about them after this death. The south had a lot of fruitless "victories" of this sort that are still celebrated. Why, I don't know. Losing JEB Stuart was _in itself_ a big loss and equivalent to the loss of many individual battles. He was not replaced by anyone of distinction, not that I ever heard.

The yankees had the luxury of a president that supplied them with a virtually unlimited supply of men, weapons, ammo and food, plus a general (grant) that was more than willing to send those men into the meat grinder without remorse(see Cold Harbor). The South was always out manned and out supplied but still managed to kill over 100k more yankees than they lost. Difference is, the South couldn't replace their losses like the north. Stuart was not one of my favorites. He let Lee down big time at Gettysburg and that was a major reason the South lost that battle.

@lonniemonroe2714

12 күн бұрын

Wade Hampton took over. He did a good job. But he was no Stuart. He had that awe & air about him. Just different

@wmschooley1234

8 күн бұрын

In the War of the Rebellion, the South went war out manned and out supplied. But it did finally manage to LOSE. CSA was then and still is the land of losers. Davis said it well: “”When it shall no longer be the common flag, it shall be folded up and laid away like a vesture no longer used." Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 1881

@presley881

8 күн бұрын

@@wmschooley1234 It was NOT a war of rebellion. It was a secession of states. As it was written in 1861,there was not a single syllable in the US. Constitution that said once a state, always a state. As a matter of fact, there were three states, Virginia, Rhode Island and New York, that refused to sign on to the new constitution unless they had an exit provision because smartly, nobody wants to be irrevocably hitched to a sinking ship. So they demanded the right to leave if the great experiment failed. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said when a government becomes tyrannical, it's not only your right, but your duty to throw off tyrannical government and form a new one. The war of northern aggression was not about slavery in the beginning, but economics. The north had been raping the southern states economically for decades as retribution for strong southern support for the Crown during the revolution. The violence was started by the north when they refused to leave Ft. Sumter, South Carolina, a Confederate state. Lincoln only made the war about slavery when he implemented the highly illegal emancipation proclamation in 1863.

@curious968

7 сағат бұрын

@@presley881 Only southerners say that. The north said "insurrection" as did just about every government in world history that faced anything comparable. Would-be nations whose parent says "no" can expect a fight under any system of government whatever. Meanwhile, James Madison, you know, the guy that largely _wrote_ the constitution, said secession wasn't allowed (and the history of the failed Articles of Confederation shows why). There were even some southern politicians that knew this and said so. Nobody outside of the South itself ever recognized the South as a nation. Not one. England flirted with it; that was it. It may rankle you, but the truth is, the South had the same status world-wide as Donbass. You don't get to be a nation until you win your war of independence. The south never did. So, they are failed insurrectionists by all standards of history. Better funded, lasted longer than most, but still just that.

@presley881

5 сағат бұрын

@@curious968 What James Madison, or anybody else SAID doesn't matter. What's written in the Constitution does. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say once a state, always a state. As I mentioned, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island refused to ratify the Constitution without an escape feature because if the great experiment failed, they didn't want to be tied to a dyin' horse. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said that if a government became tyrannical, it was not only the citizens' right, but their duty to throw off the chains of tyranny and replace it with a government more suited to liberty. The South did not engage in insurrection. That would've required them to overthrow the government in Washington. They didn't even attempt that. They just left. If you'll notice, the vast majority of the illegal war of northern aggression was fought in the South. Hardly something that would've happened if the South had been the aggressor. After the first battle of Manassas, when the yankees got their collective asses handed to them, it would've been a cakewalk for the Confederate Army to have continued on across the Potomac into Washington and really insurrected, but that was never their intention.

I've often wondered what Southern Lady that Sheridan stole the the hat from he wears in this "picture "...the wormy stinking Yankee that he was. 😊

I think it was old goggle eyed snapping turtle.

Cavalry yes Calvary no

CaVelry not caLvery

Cavalry not Calvary. Jeez this guy is a historian?

Worn out civil war ,159 years ago . We have lots of present issues to deal with .

One day ill find an American who can pronounce the word CAVALRY. not CALVARY.

Sheridan was a little bum that wanted to execute prisoners at the end of the War. By today's standards he would be considered and tried as a War criminal. He could not shine the boots of Stuart or Forrest - real cavalrymen that led from the front, not hiding in the rear of his forces. Little Phil was the kind of officer that most troops hated!

@mollymcguire1870

12 күн бұрын

Sheridan was one of the best officers the union had. Crushing confederates or Indians, he showed he could do both.

@azt69boyz72

10 күн бұрын

Forrest and Moseby were guerrillas who led bands cut throats who executed the unarmed. They had no influence on any major engagement of the war.