Putting George McClellan in command of anything. He was an even bigger disaster than Ambrose Burnside. Everything Little Mac attempted ended abject failure. He had more troops, better equipped, better fed and supplied, in better health and condition. Didn't matter. This moron turned everything he touched into ****. McClellan alone perhaps added two years duration to a horrible war. Proper leadership matters deeply. Grant and Sherman between them smashed the Confederacy militarily in 18 months.
Their are inaccurate....The south had no hope of winning, yet just about all historians said a southern victory was touch and go at least twice.....We are not sure if Lincoln wanted war...he wanted to avoid war at all cost except the dissolution of the Union. He gave the south an option either allow the supplies to reach Sumter or fire the first shots of the war. It was a brilliant win, win. Apparently blaming Burnside for the entire debacle of Antietam, McClellan is to blame for that debacle, including not giving Burnside the plan or orders to attack in a timely manner....The union concentrated their forces at Chickamauga, the Confederates were the aggressors. "Hood was amputated only once." Centralia? Union losses were 127 men in the most insignificant theater of operations. In the battle of Franklin only two brigades had repeating rifles. Grant was forced into the siege of Petersburg....he was already in the siege....they mined the trenches.
Shiloh was a church, not a town. The closest town was Savannah, Tennessee, across the Tennessee River. Visit the park today and you can see why it was a horrible place to fight a battle.
Just Visited the Shiloh Battlefield. It was a bad place for a fight, and the Confederate army plagued by the presence of Bragg, lost the battle by focusing on the Hornet Nest and not pinning the Hornet Nest and striking straight for Pittsburg Landing early in the battle. Bragg repeated the mistake at Murfreesboro. What I have learned since is that knowledge of the battlefield was poor, and Johnston thought he was close and thought that he was turning the left flank of the Union army. To quote the phrase , "it was a clash of the amateur armies."
Another blunder was Union colonel Dixon S. Miles's 'defense' of Harper's Ferry in September 1862. He basically allowed the rebels to surround his force and left the commanding heights open all while ordering retreats. After all attempts to drive the rebels away failed he declared surrender, only to get killed by a shell that was likely fired by his own troops. It was the largest surrender of US troops until 1942.
Yes, he was an idiot, but as things turned out it had no effect on the overall course of the war. His stupidity was matched by that of Gideon Pillow who flubbed the defense of Fort Donelson. Pillow deserted his whole army allowing some 13,000 to be taken prisoner. This immediately resulted in Union conquest of Tennessee and deprived the South of at least 13,000 men who would have been available for Shiloh and the attempt to regain Tennessee. Pillow was not just an idiot; he was also a coward who took the first step to ensuring that the South would lose the war.
General James Ripley who was Quartermaster of the Union Forces (a veteran of the War of 1812 )would not let the men have Repeating Rifles because they would waste ammo .Units had to buy their own rifles -like the Spencer Rifle.The advantages of repeating rifles ? You could fire and reload while kneeling or laying down ...The Rifled muskets like the Enfield you had to stand to load.Think of the lives wasted this. Pickett's Charge needs to be on this list.
My only objection is the description of Albert Sydney Johnston as one of the best generals. Though highly regarded I can't think of anything that he did right. I also disagree with your description of Grant marching on Richmond. He marched toward Lee. His goal was to destroy the enemy army.
The south had no hope of winning, yet just about all historians said a southern victory was touch and go at least twice.....We are not sure if Lincoln wanted war...he wanted to avoid war at all cost except the dissolution of the Union. He gave the south an option either allow the supplies to reach Sumter or fire the first shots of the war. It was a brilliant win, win. Blaming Burnside for the entire debacle of Antietam, McClellan is to blame for that debacle, including not giving Burnside the plan or orders to attack in a timely manner. The union concentrated their forces at Chickamauga, the Confederates were the aggressors. "Hood was amputated only once." Centralia? Union losses were 127 men in the most insignificant theater of operations. In the battle of Franklin only two Union brigades had repeating rifles. Grant was forced into the siege of Petersburg....he was already in the siege....they mined the trenches at the Battle of the Crater
Full agreement that McClellan, not Burnside, was responsible for the debacle at Antietam. Burnside was actually the only Union general to achieve his objective! If McClellan had supported him the battle would have been won.
@@kwaii_gamerWell, yes, if he had supported anyone he would have crushed Lee! Or coordinated his attacks...I mean, the best laid battle plans are subject to change as soon as the bullets start flying, but to not have a plan at all and to not hold a council of war with your corps commanders so they can TRY to coordinate with one another...criminal incompetence.
Albert Sydnye Johnston was the Confederacy's best general? I can't think of anything he did right. He was, apparently, a battlefield leader, but, his army had plenty of those and needed a commander. He didn't even make the plan of battle. His decisions in the previous months look pretty shaky, too.
@@KennethMachnica-vj3hf Albert Sidney Johnston's was at the time the south's most experienced general. This technically he was their best. Although debatable his ability is like your view of Jackson's ability to destroy the Army of the Potomac easily in a few weeks. Its more mythical than fact, it gets better with age, and it is an ingrained fixture in the lore of the Lost Cause narrative. I would summarize the entire debate as Woulda Coulda Shoulda
@@kwaii_gamer I'll get back to you. I'm a Yankee. Before I get back to you, some British dude mentioned the FIVE BEST ENGLISH SPEAKING GENERALS OF ALL TIME, three were from Virginia. WASHINGTON, JACKSON and LEE
Their military leadership was overall better than the Union's but in a war of attrition which is what it ultimately became, the Confederates did not stand a chance as they could not replace their losses in both men and materiel.
@@WhiteNoise493 - No the Union had better generals, The south was not stupid enough to start a war they knew they could not win. This overwhelming Union advantage is just a cover for poor leadership, those lives lost that they could not replace was a direct result of it
The South had no chance of winning. The Union had all of the industry, most of the population, control of the Atlantic thus cutting off trade by the South, and a connected, comprehensive railroad capable of supplying the armies needed. The South ahd none of these things are were doomed from the get-go.
@@colinhunt4057 And the American colonies had no army and no navy....well its a lose lose for the south either they were dumb enough to start a war they could not win or they messed up. The reality is it was touch and go at a few points, had their attempt to blackmail England or had they triumphed at Antietam...the American colonies got aid from France. The difference was nobody in Europe would support the owners of slaves. The south could have won if they freed the slaves, but as slavery was the entire point of the conflict
@@kwaii_gamer The Union had a navy. The South had none. All it could equip was a few pirate ships which simply infuriated European commercial interests and further alienated the South. There was no chance of Britain joining the war. As Prime Minister Lord Palmerston may have had some sympathies with the South but he hated their status as slave states, and Palmerston was stauchly abolitionist. And he was not going to allow Britain to go to war against the Union which did most of the trading with Britain. Britain didn't need Southern cotton anyway, as it was getting more and more cotton from India. Hence the blackmail over cotton failed because England's textile mills were getting all the cotton they needed from India. Worse, Palmerston had no intention of involving Britain in a new war. It was still recovering from the assorted disasters of the Crimean war 1850-53. That showed that the British army was wholly obsolete in technology, leadership, and tactics and would take at least another two decades to recover from. It was also still recovering from the bloody disasters and massive bloodshed of the Indian Army mutiny of 1857-8. Finally, Britain had no way in its state of weakness at that time of defending British North America. Its garrison was tiny and poorly armed and fortified. The South had no chance of winning at Antietam. Lee's army was heavily outnumbered and badly short of supply and ammunition. It was also close to starving. If it had been any other general than McClellan, Lee's army would have been destroyed, trapped as it was on the wrong side of the Potomac. It was only because the Union army was commanded by generals as incompetent as McClellan and Burnside that Lee was merely defeated and not annihilated. Given such an opportunity, Grant or Sherman would have ground him into paste. Instead, Lee managed a miraculous escape from an otherwise certain death-trap. You are right: the South could not free the slaves. Retaining slavery was what the war was all about. The Southern Confederacy is an object lesson in political stupidity. Sherman warned them in cold print that they would destroy themselves and why. They didn't heed the warning and as a result they sentenced tens of thousands of their young men to death in a succession of futile battles. More Americans died in the Civil War than in all the rest of the USA's wars combined.
First, it was two different countries. Not all Americans. Sense Lincoln-loving, here. No mention of Peninsula Campaign? Really? Whole Union Army stuck on a sand barge, the Confederates could have just marched on Washington. Game. Set. Match. Also, Confederates should have captured Baltimore. Lincoln would have had to abandon Washington. Game over.
Agreed that the Peninsula was a major blunder, but only in execution, not in theory. If McClellan had the guts of a sick chipmunk he could have captured Richmond. But could the rebels have "just marched on Washington"? Well, the Union had tens of thousands of troops guarding Washington on high alert for exactly that move. So many, in fact, that it got in McClellan's head and he believed he didn't have enough to take Richmond. Which was stupid, of course, but my point here is that Washington was not sitting helpless and devoid of defenses.
@@aaronfleming9426 It took over two weeks, to ferry like 90,000 men, or whatever, to that stupid sand bar, or swamp, or whatever. All they had to do was put a blocking force of like 10 or 12 thousand, to keep them there. They could have sent over 60 or 70 thousand to Capitol. Meanwhile, they could have been transporting other troops to area.
Yes, Jackson had Lee's ear, and when Jackson and Lee got together, they did reckless things. Staying to fight at Antietam, for one. Ridiculous waste of 10,000 casualties, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Possibly the biggest mistake of the war. And then there was the wild gamble that got lucky at Chancellorsville, another tactical draw they couldn't afford. Jackson and Lee were blood-thirsty battlefield commanders, and highly effective at what they did best, but they both fundamentally misunderstood the nature of their strategic position. @@KennethMachnica-vj3hf
Which of these would you rank as the biggest blunder of them all?
Putting George McClellan in command of anything. He was an even bigger disaster than Ambrose Burnside. Everything Little Mac attempted ended abject failure. He had more troops, better equipped, better fed and supplied, in better health and condition. Didn't matter. This moron turned everything he touched into ****. McClellan alone perhaps added two years duration to a horrible war.
Proper leadership matters deeply. Grant and Sherman between them smashed the Confederacy militarily in 18 months.
The evil bad side won
@@m9078jk3 That's a good one. You are correct. The southerners were refined Christians and the northerners were uncultured heathens.
@@KennethMachnica-vj3hf Nothing like calling on Jesus to justify evil.
Not sure why your videos dont get more views. They're very well put together. ✌
Their are inaccurate....The south had no hope of winning, yet just about all historians said a southern victory was touch and go at least twice.....We are not sure if Lincoln wanted war...he wanted to avoid war at all cost except the dissolution of the Union. He gave the south an option either allow the supplies to reach Sumter or fire the first shots of the war. It was a brilliant win, win. Apparently blaming Burnside for the entire debacle of Antietam, McClellan is to blame for that debacle, including not giving Burnside the plan or orders to attack in a timely manner....The union concentrated their forces at Chickamauga, the Confederates were the aggressors. "Hood was amputated only once." Centralia? Union losses were 127 men in the most insignificant theater of operations. In the battle of Franklin only two brigades had repeating rifles. Grant was forced into the siege of Petersburg....he was already in the siege....they mined the trenches.
Shiloh was a church, not a town. The closest town was Savannah, Tennessee, across the Tennessee River. Visit the park today and you can see why it was a horrible place to fight a battle.
Just Visited the Shiloh Battlefield. It was a bad place for a fight, and the Confederate army plagued by the presence of Bragg, lost the battle by focusing on the Hornet Nest and not pinning the Hornet Nest and striking straight for Pittsburg Landing early in the battle. Bragg repeated the mistake at Murfreesboro. What I have learned since is that knowledge of the battlefield was poor, and Johnston thought he was close and thought that he was turning the left flank of the Union army. To quote the phrase , "it was a clash of the amateur armies."
Another blunder was Union colonel Dixon S. Miles's 'defense' of Harper's Ferry in September 1862. He basically allowed the rebels to surround his force and left the commanding heights open all while ordering retreats. After all attempts to drive the rebels away failed he declared surrender, only to get killed by a shell that was likely fired by his own troops. It was the largest surrender of US troops until 1942.
Yes, he was an idiot, but as things turned out it had no effect on the overall course of the war. His stupidity was matched by that of Gideon Pillow who flubbed the defense of Fort Donelson. Pillow deserted his whole army allowing some 13,000 to be taken prisoner. This immediately resulted in Union conquest of Tennessee and deprived the South of at least 13,000 men who would have been available for Shiloh and the attempt to regain Tennessee. Pillow was not just an idiot; he was also a coward who took the first step to ensuring that the South would lose the war.
Hood was amputated only once. His right leg.
Hood lost an arm at some point too.
@@dolorusedd2586 lost the use of his left arm.
@zach7193 okay. But could we agree that it amounts to the same thing. The guy had to be strapped to his saddle every morning.
@@dolorusedd2586At Gettysburg, I think!!!!
AT THE BATTLE OF CHICKAMAUGA??
General James Ripley who was Quartermaster of the Union Forces (a veteran of the War of 1812 )would not let the men have Repeating Rifles because they would waste ammo .Units had to buy their own rifles -like the Spencer Rifle.The advantages of repeating rifles ? You could fire and reload while kneeling or laying down ...The Rifled muskets like the Enfield you had to stand to load.Think of the lives wasted this. Pickett's Charge needs to be on this list.
Good one! Not a battlefield blunder, but an enormous blunder indeed.
So many new history sites.
I TRUST YOU
THANKS
Letting McClellan anywhere near the Leadership of the Union Army!
My only objection is the description of Albert Sydney Johnston as one of the best generals. Though highly regarded I can't think of anything that he did right. I also disagree with your description of Grant marching on Richmond. He marched toward Lee. His goal was to destroy the enemy army.
The south had no hope of winning, yet just about all historians said a southern victory was touch and go at least twice.....We are not sure if Lincoln wanted war...he wanted to avoid war at all cost except the dissolution of the Union. He gave the south an option either allow the supplies to reach Sumter or fire the first shots of the war. It was a brilliant win, win. Blaming Burnside for the entire debacle of Antietam, McClellan is to blame for that debacle, including not giving Burnside the plan or orders to attack in a timely manner. The union concentrated their forces at Chickamauga, the Confederates were the aggressors. "Hood was amputated only once." Centralia? Union losses were 127 men in the most insignificant theater of operations. In the battle of Franklin only two Union brigades had repeating rifles. Grant was forced into the siege of Petersburg....he was already in the siege....they mined the trenches at the Battle of the Crater
Full agreement that McClellan, not Burnside, was responsible for the debacle at Antietam. Burnside was actually the only Union general to achieve his objective! If McClellan had supported him the battle would have been won.
@@aaronfleming9426 Hear, hear! If McClellan had supported anyone. besides his own ego he would have crushed Lee
@@kwaii_gamerWell, yes, if he had supported anyone he would have crushed Lee! Or coordinated his attacks...I mean, the best laid battle plans are subject to change as soon as the bullets start flying, but to not have a plan at all and to not hold a council of war with your corps commanders so they can TRY to coordinate with one another...criminal incompetence.
Albert Sydnye Johnston was the Confederacy's best general? I can't think of anything he did right. He was, apparently, a battlefield leader, but, his army had plenty of those and needed a commander. He didn't even make the plan of battle. His decisions in the previous months look pretty shaky, too.
He was at the time their most experienced....saying that I agree with you.
Well said.
Did the narrator say that? Holy mackerel. Never heard of Jackson? He was the best of the war. Even some English guy said something about it.
@@KennethMachnica-vj3hf Albert Sidney Johnston's was at the time the south's most experienced general. This technically he was their best. Although debatable his ability is like your view of Jackson's ability to destroy the Army of the Potomac easily in a few weeks. Its more mythical than fact, it gets better with age, and it is an ingrained fixture in the lore of the Lost Cause narrative. I would summarize the entire debate as Woulda Coulda Shoulda
@@kwaii_gamer I'll get back to you. I'm a Yankee. Before I get back to you, some British dude mentioned the FIVE BEST ENGLISH SPEAKING GENERALS OF ALL TIME, three were from Virginia. WASHINGTON, JACKSON and LEE
How about putting braxton bragg in command of an army also putting John bell hood in charge of the army of tennesee
In fact, the South did have a fair prospect of winning. Poor leadership doomed them. Not sure who did your research.... many inaccuracies.
Their military leadership was overall better than the Union's but in a war of attrition which is what it ultimately became, the Confederates did not stand a chance as they could not replace their losses in both men and materiel.
@@WhiteNoise493 - No the Union had better generals, The south was not stupid enough to start a war they knew they could not win. This overwhelming Union advantage is just a cover for poor leadership, those lives lost that they could not replace was a direct result of it
The South had no chance of winning. The Union had all of the industry, most of the population, control of the Atlantic thus cutting off trade by the South, and a connected, comprehensive railroad capable of supplying the armies needed. The South ahd none of these things are were doomed from the get-go.
@@colinhunt4057 And the American colonies had no army and no navy....well its a lose lose for the south either they were dumb enough to start a war they could not win or they messed up. The reality is it was touch and go at a few points, had their attempt to blackmail England or had they triumphed at Antietam...the American colonies got aid from France. The difference was nobody in Europe would support the owners of slaves. The south could have won if they freed the slaves, but as slavery was the entire point of the conflict
@@kwaii_gamer The Union had a navy. The South had none. All it could equip was a few pirate ships which simply infuriated European commercial interests and further alienated the South. There was no chance of Britain joining the war. As Prime Minister Lord Palmerston may have had some sympathies with the South but he hated their status as slave states, and Palmerston was stauchly abolitionist. And he was not going to allow Britain to go to war against the Union which did most of the trading with Britain. Britain didn't need Southern cotton anyway, as it was getting more and more cotton from India. Hence the blackmail over cotton failed because England's textile mills were getting all the cotton they needed from India.
Worse, Palmerston had no intention of involving Britain in a new war. It was still recovering from the assorted disasters of the Crimean war 1850-53. That showed that the British army was wholly obsolete in technology, leadership, and tactics and would take at least another two decades to recover from. It was also still recovering from the bloody disasters and massive bloodshed of the Indian Army mutiny of 1857-8.
Finally, Britain had no way in its state of weakness at that time of defending British North America. Its garrison was tiny and poorly armed and fortified.
The South had no chance of winning at Antietam. Lee's army was heavily outnumbered and badly short of supply and ammunition. It was also close to starving. If it had been any other general than McClellan, Lee's army would have been destroyed, trapped as it was on the wrong side of the Potomac. It was only because the Union army was commanded by generals as incompetent as McClellan and Burnside that Lee was merely defeated and not annihilated. Given such an opportunity, Grant or Sherman would have ground him into paste. Instead, Lee managed a miraculous escape from an otherwise certain death-trap.
You are right: the South could not free the slaves. Retaining slavery was what the war was all about.
The Southern Confederacy is an object lesson in political stupidity. Sherman warned them in cold print that they would destroy themselves and why. They didn't heed the warning and as a result they sentenced tens of thousands of their young men to death in a succession of futile battles. More Americans died in the Civil War than in all the rest of the USA's wars combined.
"leaving almost" 600,000 should be "leaving over"
Burnsides bridge. Storming Maryes Heights.
Gettysburg and Pickett’s charge in particular is the biggest blunder of the civil war, and somehow it’s not on this list
First, it was two different countries. Not all Americans. Sense Lincoln-loving, here. No mention of Peninsula Campaign? Really? Whole Union Army stuck on a sand barge, the Confederates could have just marched on Washington. Game. Set. Match. Also, Confederates should have captured Baltimore. Lincoln would have had to abandon Washington. Game over.
Agreed that the Peninsula was a major blunder, but only in execution, not in theory. If McClellan had the guts of a sick chipmunk he could have captured Richmond.
But could the rebels have "just marched on Washington"? Well, the Union had tens of thousands of troops guarding Washington on high alert for exactly that move. So many, in fact, that it got in McClellan's head and he believed he didn't have enough to take Richmond. Which was stupid, of course, but my point here is that Washington was not sitting helpless and devoid of defenses.
@@aaronfleming9426 It took over two weeks, to ferry like 90,000 men, or whatever, to that stupid sand bar, or swamp, or whatever. All they had to do was put a blocking force of like 10 or 12 thousand, to keep them there. They could have sent over 60 or 70 thousand to Capitol. Meanwhile, they could have been transporting other troops to area.
@@aaronfleming9426 I don't know about the taking of Richmond by that barn burner, your referring to. Jackson was alive, then, and he had Lee's ear.
Yes, Jackson had Lee's ear, and when Jackson and Lee got together, they did reckless things. Staying to fight at Antietam, for one. Ridiculous waste of 10,000 casualties, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Possibly the biggest mistake of the war. And then there was the wild gamble that got lucky at Chancellorsville, another tactical draw they couldn't afford.
Jackson and Lee were blood-thirsty battlefield commanders, and highly effective at what they did best, but they both fundamentally misunderstood the nature of their strategic position. @@KennethMachnica-vj3hf