Cheers Randy! I'm with you although I think there was a bit of judgemental opinionising near the front of the vid, to wit: where the narrator speaks of a "demoralized" Army of the Potomic. While I very much doubt the Union forces were happy campers after Fredricksburg the AofP was never unwilling to fight and it's probably fair to say their spirit was never broken . . . they were simply wanting a competent commander. Cheers!
Couple of things wrong with your assessment there. One, Fredricksburg happens AFTER Antietam; Antietam was fought in September '62, Fredricksburg in Dec '62. Secondly, the AoP certainly WAS demoralized, after their losses at Cedar Mountain and 2nd Manassas.... and although the return of McClellan did improve morale (he was better than Pope, certainly), it didn't improve the battlefield leadership of the Union army. Most historians will say that it was McClellan's tentative "leadership" that prevented Antietam from being a DECISIVE Union victory. He knew Lee's plan, and had 2:1 manpower advantage, plus an enemy with its back to the Potomac, and still couldn't seal the deal. Little Mac was an able administrator, but a disaster on the actual battlefield.
Hmmm, a response is called for I think. I am well aware of the chronology of the battles being discussed here, so -- I did not make clear that what I was emphasizing was that if Union morale wasn't broken after the Fredricksburg disaster (and it wasn't) then the clumsy half-victory at Antietam wasn't going to seriously impact it either. My bad for the clumsy wording. I'm with you on the slack and utter hopelessness of AoP pre-Grant 'leadership' (I'm on the fence re: Meade . . .). There were no mass desertions after Frericksburg but Burnsides' truly moronic January Mud March drove home to the Union veterans just how incompetent the men deciding their futures were.
kw19193, I don’t think it’s an opinion to state that the Army was demoralized after 2nd Bull Run, but its morale supposedly soared after McClellan regained command, so who knows.
Very comprehensive summary of an incredible battle. The narration, tactical maps, and glimpses of reenactments all work well despite the limited time to tell it.
I'm halfway through John Keegan's "The American Civil War", and just finished the chapter that touches on Antietam. This video is a concise summary of the battle for those that want to know more of the proceedings of the battle.
"As we went over them in crossing the road, a wounded reb made a thrust at me with his bayonet; turning my head to look at him, I saw that he was badly hurt, and continued on." ~Corporal Charles A. Hale, 5th New Hampshire Infantry Regiment. Source: The Story of My Personal Experience at the Battle of Antietam ____
How long did the battle last? What is the Battle of Antietam known as? (Mention how many died) 11.5 hours, known as the bloodiest battle in American history, 23,000 casualties
These Men fought and died in American soil so that our future of going to school , work and fun on weekends is secured... May the fallen union soldiers and confederates ALL rest in peace...
Jeff Guzman ...they would live to fight again? The whole southwest had just been acquired (ten years earlier) with Texas being confederate and northwest was still populated by America’s natives. West coast was open for civil unrest until loyalties were established. Good question...
We need to be mindful at Antietam most of the worst casualties were caused by buck and ball rounds and buckshot rounds fired from percussion cap smoothbore muskets. The Minie ball from a rifled Emfield and Sprimgfield musket were used at Antietem. At this stage of the Civil War, many Union and Confederate regiments were almost entirely equipped with percussion cap smoothbore muskets. These smoothbore muskets were vastly improved with the percussion cap making them highly reliable. Green soldiers had a much easier time training with the percussion cap. The .69 caliber ball fired from a smoothbore musket had an effective range of about 150 meters. Buck and ball rounds with a .69 caliber ball and three buckshot rounds had an effective range of a hundred meters but were highly effective at 50 to 70 meters. Much of the fighting in the cornfield and especially at the Bloody Lane saw both Union and Confederate regiments firing buck and ball rounds or buckshot rounds from smoothbore muskets with a mixture of Minie balls fired from rifled muskets. At close quarters fighting ranges of 50 meters or closer the buck and ball rounds from percussion cap muskets were devastating causing horrendous casualties. Most of the terrible casualties at Antietem appear to have been caused by buck and ball rounds and buckshot rounds fired at close range from regiments equipped with smoothbore muskets. A lesser portion of the Antietam casualties came from Minie balls fired from rifled muskets. The deadly canister rounds from smoothbore Napoleon 12 pounder cannon also added greatly to the butcher's bill. I think the rifled musket with the Minie ball was important. However, at Antietam the old percussion cap smoothbore musket with buck and ball rounds did the bulk of the killing and maiming at close quarters causing horrendous casualties, carnage, and suffering. We should not overestimate the Minie ball while underestimating the buck and ball rounds or buckshot rounds from reliable percussion cap smoothbore muskets. At close range on a smoke filled low visibility often in heavy brush or forested Civil War battlefield, the percussion cap smoothbore musket with buck and ball rounds or buckshot rounds were more effective. These percussion cap smoothbore muskets with buck and ball rounds at close quarters combat ranges had a much higher probability of actually hitting a human enemy target than the Minie ball. www.davide-pedersoli.com/rivista-dettaglio.asp/l_fr/idne_89/69-ball-buck-and-ball-and-buckshot-cartridges-of-the-us-army.html
You're half right. McClellan treated tactical draws as defeats in the Peninsula campaign, and interpreted Lee's behavior as evidence of his own misunderstanding of Confederate troop strength. As for the so-called advantage he had at Antietam, that is greatly exaggerated.
Doesnt mention the union had 20% more casualties than the South and that M hesitated AGAIN and let Lee slip away and prolong the war for years. Like Gettysburg, though, it was a victory for the union because they drove Lee from the field and because the South had no replacements. Glad slavery was ended in any case.
Great summary of the battle, but Garry Adelman's speaking style is too hyper. Makes it difficult to absorb the information. I've seen him in another Civil War battle info video where he narrates in a calm voice.
An amazing and telling truth... Yes, a very important victory -- that even though breaking from the Union was something all the states were capable of doing if they disagreed with the centralizing authority by which they were brought into this union, what was Law of GOD stood first above this... as its -- true -- purpose, this conflict, rose to the voice of GOD. And that all must someday abide by, "Man shall not enslave man."
Typically the victor was decided by who held the ground and the defeated were decided by who left the field. This is a technicality that may have been left over from the Napoleonic war, or it may be a European view that persisted in the textbooks and mentality of the Union and Confederate generals. A lot of times the Confederates felt like the won battles by generating more casualties on the other side, but they were still losing in a lot of perspectives. They won in some aspects but not in others. At Antietam/Sharpsburg the Confederates left the field the next day and the Federals followed them so by technicality the Union won. The difficulty is understanding the mindset of so many Union commanders not pressing the advantage of attacking fleeing armies when the opportunity came up over and over in many theaters of the war.
The South had a smaller force, but inflicted more casualties on the larger Union army. At the end of the day, the one holding the field is the victor. Same with the Revolutionary War battle of Guilford Courthouse, the British troops were shot down in great numbers, but the American troops retreated after they had done damage and the British army held the ground and were considered the victors. Cornwallis said that another such victory would ruin the army.
LilyLotusPad ...the inevitable flanking maneuver. In the last years after grant took charge, rebs always held the best defensive position with lesser manpower. Reb troops had great earthworks protecting their vulnerabilities plus they had good insight to where union troops were headed. Grant would hold battle in each confrontation til no give was given at huge cost to life, then move down toward Richmond, until he finally flanked lee beyond what Lee could match. Each move was a costly union adventure in human life and not much different for confederates limited resources. But Rebs didn’t retreat as union kept flanking them, forcing rebs to follow. Confederates by this time had lost a lot of their army without replenishing. In the end, Union ranks had superiority in numbers, supplies, firepower and put Lees army of Virginia under siege. Lee’s army had little to work with, food, powder... Lees army was finally surrounded making a last attempt to escape from Richmond. Grant was dogged, Lee was cunning. The end. Each side fought hard, each side had good and bad leadership. Each side used tactics that are still used today. Each side had respect for their adversary. Resources to keep the battle going being the underlying weakness of south.
Some of the commenters - both ways - need to see how the great majority of the survivors embraced each other in "brotherly love and affection" as it says in Ken Burns' documentary. (re: the Gettysburg 75th anniversary re-enactment)
Yes, once white Northerners gave up on Reconstruction and allowed the South to implement Jim Crow segregation and unleash Klan terrorism, whites reconciled as evidenced by the Gettysburg reunions. Heck, Woodrow Wilson didn't even mention slavery at the 50th reunion, and back in D.C. he was busy resegregating the federal civil service.
It was never about freeing the slaves. It was to invent "wage earners" by re-naming slaves, "Share Croppers". That way, the new Federal Income Tax (created by Lincoln) could extort more money from the South. The minimum earning requirement to qualify for the tax was $800/yr. Northern factory workers only made $450 per year. But the New law regarded 1/3 of a plantation's earnings as the worker's share. So the math goes: A plantation profits $150,000. One third (or $50,000) goes to the sharecroppers. If a plantation had 50 slaves (now called sharecroppers), that comes to $1000 per man. That is above the $800 cutoff. So the South paid Federal Taxes, while the North did not. Some might argue that the slaves were free to migrate North, but the Union also held them in the South through "Sharecropper's Debt Laws" (Formerly called "The Fugitive Slave Act"). That way, The North could tax blacks without having to pay them $800 for working in their factories. General Robert E. Lee was fighting on the black's behalf, so they wouldn't be subjected to these immoral taxes. And people want to tear down his statue, because they believe the "It was all about slavery" lie. Did you know that Dred Scott sued for his freedom, because he lived in the north and his master died, but the Federal Courts claimed he wasn't a citizen, and didn't have that right. So he remained enslaved. Meanwhile, black people in the South were permitted to buy their freedom, and run their own business. Slavery was dying off on its own, but the North seized the opportunity to extort money from the South, which paid for the weapons and war ships they used against the South.
Not true. For the north it wasn't about slavery but the north didn't start the war. It's pretty obvious that the south started the war and any reliance on what the north did afterwards implies you have no evidence from the south to support your argument
Harry Paul Garcia it's also a fact that 2+2=4. Doesn't mean that 2+2 factors into this. It's pretty simple, the people who start the war are the ones that decide what it's being fought over
McClellan was one of the lousiest and useless war strategists ever existed. He got all conditions on him (having enemy's intel is one of the rarest and the best war privileges a commander ever have) and still could not make any striking decisions ! Hes worth only as a logistic and administrative drill officer really, much like Cpt. Herbert Sobel. The only good Union commander of this battle was LUCK.
How refreshing to hear a summary of Antietam without the usual judgements. Thank you. To me, that's how history should be.
Cheers Randy! I'm with you although I think there was a bit of judgemental opinionising near the front of the vid, to wit: where the narrator speaks of a "demoralized" Army of the Potomic. While I very much doubt the Union forces were happy campers after Fredricksburg the AofP was never unwilling to fight and it's probably fair to say their spirit was never broken . . . they were simply wanting a competent commander. Cheers!
Couple of things wrong with your assessment there. One, Fredricksburg happens AFTER Antietam; Antietam was fought in September '62, Fredricksburg in Dec '62. Secondly, the AoP certainly WAS demoralized, after their losses at Cedar Mountain and 2nd Manassas.... and although the return of McClellan did improve morale (he was better than Pope, certainly), it didn't improve the battlefield leadership of the Union army. Most historians will say that it was McClellan's tentative "leadership" that prevented Antietam from being a DECISIVE Union victory. He knew Lee's plan, and had 2:1 manpower advantage, plus an enemy with its back to the Potomac, and still couldn't seal the deal. Little Mac was an able administrator, but a disaster on the actual battlefield.
Hmmm, a response is called for I think. I am well aware of the chronology of the battles being discussed here, so -- I did not make clear that what I was emphasizing was that if Union morale wasn't broken after the Fredricksburg disaster (and it wasn't) then the clumsy half-victory at Antietam wasn't going to seriously impact it either. My bad for the clumsy wording. I'm with you on the slack and utter hopelessness of AoP pre-Grant 'leadership' (I'm on the fence re: Meade . . .). There were no mass desertions after Frericksburg but Burnsides' truly moronic January Mud March drove home to the Union veterans just how incompetent the men deciding their futures were.
kw19193, I don’t think it’s an opinion to state that the Army was demoralized after 2nd Bull Run, but its morale supposedly soared after McClellan regained command, so who knows.
I really appreciate the how fast this was without being hard to follow
Very comprehensive summary of an incredible battle. The narration, tactical maps, and glimpses of reenactments all work well despite the limited time to tell it.
At last, a quick concise explanation of a very chaotic situation. Thank you!
Very useful, very well explained, thank you!
Per
This is one of the best summaries ever. So much info so quick
Excellent summary! Thank you very much.
This was very interesting and well done. Kudos. Will search for more of these clips.
Thank you this helped me with my final project
:D
hAVe a GrEat DaY
Love this channel
Thank you best description of Antietam yet! And I live in Maryland near the battlefield.
I'm halfway through John Keegan's "The American Civil War", and just finished the chapter that touches on Antietam. This video is a concise summary of the battle for those that want to know more of the proceedings of the battle.
Extremely well done
4 min video has the information of a 10 min video. Good job!
Or an hour on the History or Discovery channels
"As we went over them in crossing the road, a wounded reb made a thrust at me with his bayonet; turning my head to look at him, I saw that he was badly hurt, and continued on."
~Corporal Charles A. Hale, 5th New Hampshire Infantry Regiment.
Source: The Story of My Personal Experience at the Battle of Antietam
____
This is very useful! thank you!
Sid Meier's Gettysburg game was excellent to fight this battle
These are great
my teacher told me to watch this and answer the questions soooo...
Robert E. Lee crossed which river? Explain what Robert E. Lee was trying to accomplish. 0:24
Who chased / pursued Robert E. Lee? 0:32
How many troops did the Union and Confederates have? Explain who had the best advantage in battle. 1:24
How long did the battle last? What is the Battle of Antietam known as? (Mention how many died) 11.5 hours, known as the bloodiest battle in American history, 23,000 casualties
After the battle Abraham Lincoln issued what speech /decree? Explain what it did 4:10
These Men fought and died in American soil so that our future of going to school , work and fun on weekends is secured...
May the fallen union soldiers and confederates ALL rest in peace...
Vincent F what would’ve happen if south won
@@jeffguzman6497 there are too many variables to decide the outcome if the confederacy had won the war...
Jeff Guzman ...they would live to fight again? The whole southwest had just been acquired (ten years earlier) with Texas being confederate and northwest was still populated by America’s natives. West coast was open for civil unrest until loyalties were established. Good question...
@J D It appears that accomplishment is solely yours. Congratulations.
This was great.
This should be required watching
Ayoo Brunswick junior high school 😩🥶💯
okay h e n r y
Enjoyed the video =^.^=
The proclamation did not free slaves in the Union states (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri).
a1081042 and Tennessee.
Almost every soldier was wounded in this battle. Bloodiest day in American History.
We need to be mindful at Antietam most of the worst casualties were caused by buck and ball rounds and buckshot rounds fired from percussion cap smoothbore muskets. The Minie ball from a rifled Emfield and Sprimgfield musket were used at Antietem. At this stage of the Civil War, many Union and Confederate regiments were almost entirely equipped with percussion cap smoothbore muskets. These smoothbore muskets were vastly improved with the percussion cap making them highly reliable. Green soldiers had a much easier time training with the percussion cap. The .69 caliber ball fired from a smoothbore musket had an effective range of about 150 meters. Buck and ball rounds with a .69 caliber ball and three buckshot rounds had an effective range of a hundred meters but were highly effective at 50 to 70 meters. Much of the fighting in the cornfield and especially at the Bloody Lane saw both Union and Confederate regiments firing buck and ball rounds or buckshot rounds from smoothbore muskets with a mixture of Minie balls fired from rifled muskets. At close quarters fighting ranges of 50 meters or closer the buck and ball rounds from percussion cap muskets were devastating causing horrendous casualties.
Most of the terrible casualties at Antietem appear to have been caused by buck and ball rounds and buckshot rounds fired at close range from regiments equipped with smoothbore muskets. A lesser portion of the Antietam casualties came from Minie balls fired from rifled muskets. The deadly canister rounds from smoothbore Napoleon 12 pounder cannon also added greatly to the butcher's bill. I think the rifled musket with the Minie ball was important. However, at Antietam the old percussion cap smoothbore musket with buck and ball rounds did the bulk of the killing and maiming at close quarters causing horrendous casualties, carnage, and suffering. We should not overestimate the Minie ball while underestimating the buck and ball rounds or buckshot rounds from reliable percussion cap smoothbore muskets. At close range on a smoke filled low visibility often in heavy brush or forested Civil War battlefield, the percussion cap smoothbore musket with buck and ball rounds or buckshot rounds were more effective. These percussion cap smoothbore muskets with buck and ball rounds at close quarters combat ranges had a much higher probability of actually hitting a human enemy target than the Minie ball.
www.davide-pedersoli.com/rivista-dettaglio.asp/l_fr/idne_89/69-ball-buck-and-ball-and-buckshot-cartridges-of-the-us-army.html
Thank you for pointing out the devastating nature of the casualties and the artillery responsible for them.
Well done indeed
Lee and Jackson didn't really beat McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign. McClellan beat himself. Just as he didn't press his advantage at Antietam.
You're half right. McClellan treated tactical draws as defeats in the Peninsula campaign, and interpreted Lee's behavior as evidence of his own misunderstanding of Confederate troop strength. As for the so-called advantage he had at Antietam, that is greatly exaggerated.
Doesnt mention the union had 20% more casualties than the South and that M hesitated AGAIN and let Lee slip away and prolong the war for years. Like Gettysburg, though, it was a victory for the union because they drove Lee from the field and because the South had no replacements. Glad slavery was ended in any case.
I’m in Antietam watching this
Yo wuts good Brunswick
Passionate energetic
wow, i wish this could be 8 minutes!
why do you wish this video could be 8 minutes?
How bout 15?
I just realized two of the corps commanders in this battle would become leaders of the Army of the Potomac.
I wonder which Europeans powers he refers to at the end? And on who's side?
Great summary of the battle, but Garry Adelman's speaking style is too hyper. Makes it difficult to absorb the information. I've seen him in another Civil War battle info video where he narrates in a calm voice.
nice
Who's watching in history?
Can't imagine anybody is at this point
An amazing and telling truth... Yes, a very important victory -- that even though breaking from the Union was something all the states were capable of doing if they disagreed with the centralizing authority by which they were brought into this union, what was Law of GOD stood first above this... as its -- true -- purpose, this conflict, rose to the voice of GOD. And that all must someday abide by, "Man shall not enslave man."
Wait a minute this isn't Captain America: Civil War
Who’s that young guy narrating?
👍
The union that ran to the towns shouldn’t run that fast they should’ve take it by surprise that’s why they lost in the battle
too fast, I put it in 0.7 speed
The Union was preserved due to dumb luck
ReyJusuf, the luck of having greater manpower and productive capacity?
@@kevin6293 "But guys, we have le industry and manpower!" - Abraham Lincoln, after the Fall of Philadelphia.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 that’s why Philadelphia was never taken by the confederates.
@@kevin6293 Because McClellan had a stopped clock moment?
I am confused how the Union basically won
Typically the victor was decided by who held the ground and the defeated were decided by who left the field. This is a technicality that may have been left over from the Napoleonic war, or it may be a European view that persisted in the textbooks and mentality of the Union and Confederate generals. A lot of times the Confederates felt like the won battles by generating more casualties on the other side, but they were still losing in a lot of perspectives. They won in some aspects but not in others. At Antietam/Sharpsburg the Confederates left the field the next day and the Federals followed them so by technicality the Union won. The difficulty is understanding the mindset of so many Union commanders not pressing the advantage of attacking fleeing armies when the opportunity came up over and over in many theaters of the war.
The South had a smaller force, but inflicted more casualties on the larger Union army. At the end of the day, the one holding the field is the victor. Same with the Revolutionary War battle of Guilford Courthouse, the British troops were shot down in great numbers, but the American troops retreated after they had done damage and the British army held the ground and were considered the victors. Cornwallis said that another such victory would ruin the army.
It’s like the War of 1812. Everyone seems to think it was a draw, but if you actually look at it in detail you can see that the US certainly lost.
Kevin Ellington Not true at all
LilyLotusPad ...the inevitable flanking maneuver. In the last years after grant took charge, rebs always held the best defensive position with lesser manpower. Reb troops had great earthworks protecting their vulnerabilities plus they had good insight to where union troops were headed. Grant would hold battle in each confrontation til no give was given at huge cost to life, then move down toward Richmond, until he finally flanked lee beyond what Lee could match. Each move was a costly union adventure in human life and not much different for confederates limited resources. But Rebs didn’t retreat as union kept flanking them, forcing rebs to follow. Confederates by this time had lost a lot of their army without replenishing. In the end, Union ranks had superiority in numbers, supplies, firepower and put Lees army of Virginia under siege. Lee’s army had little to work with, food, powder... Lees army was finally surrounded making a last attempt to escape from Richmond. Grant was dogged, Lee was cunning. The end. Each side fought hard, each side had good and bad leadership. Each side used tactics that are still used today. Each side had respect for their adversary. Resources to keep the battle going being the underlying weakness of south.
*Sharpsburg. It’s okay not everyone can be %100 correct
Not 4:00. It’s 4:44 lies
4:43
How tf was that four minutes? Took forever!*
McClellan and persue two words that always make me doulbe take. Ha
Some of the commenters - both ways - need to see how the great majority of the survivors embraced each other in "brotherly love and affection" as it says in Ken Burns' documentary. (re: the Gettysburg 75th anniversary re-enactment)
Yes, once white Northerners gave up on Reconstruction and allowed the South to implement Jim Crow segregation and unleash Klan terrorism, whites reconciled as evidenced by the Gettysburg reunions. Heck, Woodrow Wilson didn't even mention slavery at the 50th reunion, and back in D.C. he was busy resegregating the federal civil service.
shrek wazoski
*The Third War of Independence.*
Ansley212 Isn't that the second?
War of 1812 is considered to be the second war of independence.
nah,try- The war of preserve slavery
Battle of Sharpsburg during the war of Northern aggression on the peaceful country folks of the confederated states.
what led the confederate and union to fight here?
Jordan Tanu Lee invaded, saw he was in a bind, and decided to make a stand anyway.
It was never about freeing the slaves.
It was to invent "wage earners" by re-naming slaves, "Share Croppers". That way, the new Federal Income Tax (created by Lincoln) could extort more money from the South.
The minimum earning requirement to qualify for the tax was $800/yr.
Northern factory workers only made $450 per year.
But the New law regarded 1/3 of a plantation's earnings as the worker's share.
So the math goes:
A plantation profits $150,000.
One third (or $50,000) goes to the sharecroppers.
If a plantation had 50 slaves (now called sharecroppers), that comes to $1000 per man.
That is above the $800 cutoff.
So the South paid Federal Taxes, while the North did not.
Some might argue that the slaves were free to migrate North, but the Union also held them in the South through "Sharecropper's Debt Laws" (Formerly called "The Fugitive Slave Act").
That way, The North could tax blacks without having to pay them $800 for working in their factories.
General Robert E. Lee was fighting on the black's behalf, so they wouldn't be subjected to these immoral taxes.
And people want to tear down his statue, because they believe the "It was all about slavery" lie.
Did you know that Dred Scott sued for his freedom, because he lived in the north and his master died, but the Federal Courts claimed he wasn't a citizen, and didn't have that right. So he remained enslaved.
Meanwhile, black people in the South were permitted to buy their freedom, and run their own business.
Slavery was dying off on its own, but the North seized the opportunity to extort money from the South, which paid for the weapons and war ships they used against the South.
"General Robert E. Lee was fighting on the black's behalf"🤣🤣🤣
Wow you’re a new level of delusional 😂😂😂
top 10 rappers eminem was too afraid to diss
peepee poopoo
inpaindaily
Unionists? I think they are called US troops.
Eh. They were also often called Federals or Yankees, so...
Damned yankees is the proper term.
Fun fact: Historians say the civil war was over slavery. This vid, again, proves, the civil war started well before any mention of slavery.
Not true. For the north it wasn't about slavery but the north didn't start the war. It's pretty obvious that the south started the war and any reliance on what the north did afterwards implies you have no evidence from the south to support your argument
@@francisluglio6611 you said a whole lot of nothing
Harry Paul Garcia let's just agree that your comprehension of basic logic is weak and let anyone who reads our comments decide
@@francisluglio6611 you still said nothing! Read the first statement, all facts
Harry Paul Garcia it's also a fact that 2+2=4. Doesn't mean that 2+2 factors into this. It's pretty simple, the people who start the war are the ones that decide what it's being fought over
First person to ask who Joe is gets a subscriber
He had as much resolve as he had courage to INVADE THE NORTH...
Lee Parker I mean it’s not like he had a choice
Gettysburg had a higher death toll.
but in three days
Yes, but over 3 days
Talking way too fast!
A lot to tell in just 4 minutes.
Yo this like fortnite
Doo doo
McClellan was one of the lousiest and useless war strategists ever existed. He got all conditions on him (having enemy's intel is one of the rarest and the best war privileges a commander ever have) and still could not make any striking decisions ! Hes worth only as a logistic and administrative drill officer really, much like Cpt. Herbert Sobel. The only good Union commander of this battle was LUCK.
He talked to fast couldnt understand a thing
Play it at 0.5 speed
Mans be talking faster than my teachers when I'm tryna take notes