U.S. Grant on West Point’s Confederates
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 гру 2022
- News of the decision by West Point to remove Confederate symbols from its campus reminded me of just how tightly intertwined Confederate military history is with America's story.
The news turned my research mind to the primary source for information about early West Pointers, the "Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the United States Military Academy." This book is commonly known as "Cullum's Register" after its author, Gen. George Washington Cullum.
Inside the 1868 volume I found an endorsement by the top general who received Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox. Here's Ulysses S. Grant's thoughts on those who resigned their commissions to join the Confederate army.
"Life on the Civil War Research Trail" is hosted by Ronald S. Coddington, Editor and Publisher of Military Images magazine. Learn more about our mission to showcase, interpret and preserve Civil War portrait photography at militaryimagesmagazine.com.
This episode is brought to you by Gettysburg Publishing, specializing in the American Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg. Pick up a great read today at gettysburgpublishing.com. - Розваги
At U S Grant's funeral in 1885 there were four pallbearers. "At Grant’s request, the pallbearers included an equal number of Southern and Union generals. Sherman and Sheridan marched with Joseph E. Johnston and Simon Bolivar Buckner. " As you will notice, all four were West Point graduates. If President Grant wanted them as his pallbearers it's hard for me to imagine that he would also want their names chiseled off of any monuments at the Military Academy.
People are trying so hard to chip away at the reconcilation efforts of the civil war Era. Wilk open up a pandoras box of evils.
So true! The "Rebs" deserve respect for their sacrifice too.
@@johnshacklett2265 The Rebs deserve nothing of the kind. They are traitors who fought to keep human beings in chains. What's next we celebrate the SS for the sacrifice while they committed human rights violations?
The same Grant who said the rebel cause was one of the most despicable he could think of? Many union veterans did not want to glorify traitors.
@@runtoth3abyss That same Grant. Grant hated the Rebel cause but not the men who fought for it. Grant's requesting former Confederates as pallbearers also demonstrates how any post-war animosity had cooled in twenty years time and also the respect he had for former adversaries.
There were Southern graduates from West Point who did NOT resign and join the Confederacy. Benjamin Franklin Davis, for example, a first cousin to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, graduated from West Point in the class of 1854 along with several other notables, including Jeb Stuart, Dorsey Pender, (both of whom joined the Confederacy.) In spite of his background, Davis stayed loyal to the Union and during Lee's 1862 invasion of Maryland was one of the few officers who refused to surrender to Stonewall Jackson at Harpers Ferry, escaping with his cavalry regiment, the 8th New York Cavalry to rejoin the Union forces. He was later killed in action at the Battle of Brandy Station while leading the 1st Brigade of Alfred Pleasanton's Cavalry Division of the Army of the Potomac. Two other Southern born Unionists, even better known than Davis were Admiral David Farragut (born in Tennessee) and General George Thomas "The Rock of Chicamauga," born in Virginia. Unfairly, Thomas was distrusted by Northerners in spite of his victories at Chicamauga, Franklin and Nashville, and openly hated in the South, rejected by his family and deemed a "traitor" by Jeb Stuart.
They had a right to resign.
@@johnschuh8616 And a reason.
It always amazes me is how many Kentuckians joined the Union side versus those who joined the Confederacy. It was like 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 as I recall. In regard to Thomas, he was under rated in importance in the war. He was a fine general, too. TY for the comment. Going to look up Benjamin Franklin Davis's history. I didn't know Farragut was born in Tennessee!
You don’t think of Navy men as being from landlocked states
Fremont didn’t go to West Point and he was a great Southern Unionist
Recently at West Point Museum there was a portrait of Robert E Lee from the time he was the academy's superintendent. It was taken down. Granted I don't believe in the southern cause - lost cause or otherwise - but Lee regardless of his politics was the Superintendent of West Point and this aspect of his history should not be altered for political correctness. Sorry if this is off the topic but regarding Lee and West Point it is something vital.
So was Bennedict Arnold. Where are his statues and portraits?
@@robertelder164 For that matter.....the ENTIRETY of theContinental Congress, Army andCitizens who favored,suppoerted and helped in gaining Idenpendence, are,likewise,Traitors to Great Britain, are they not? Regardless of the issues athand, there wasnothing in the Constitution that forbid any state from leaving the Union. Wouldn;t West Virginia be a traitor to Virginia, for seceding from that state? Noone seemed tohave a problem with that.
@@jason60chev Yes, they were traitors to King George. I have no fealty to King George, who cares? I, and the West Pointers involved here, swore loyalty to the Constitution. They betrayed that oath.
And the Confederates are traitors to the United States. Mind-the founding fathers had better reasons to revolt than supporting and spreading slavery.
@@robertelder164 George Washington at one time fought for the British and later against them when his duty to Virginia demanded it.
@@huddlechannel2932 George Washington fought for the British before the Declaration of Independence was written. After the Declaration he fought for the union created by the Articles of Confederation. He was then financially dependent to the Continental Congress not Virginia. Read some history and you won't seem so poorly informed.
I wonder how the updated version of such a document treats Joseph Wheeler, USMA graduate, Confederate cavalry general, who returned to federal service during the Spanish-American War, commanded the US cavalry in Cuba, and had Teddy Roosevelt under his command.
Longstreet became head of the Louisiana militia (today's National Guard) during Reconstruction.
I was wondering the same thing. Remember, though, Gen. George Washington Cullum died in 1892 which was long before Wheeler returned to Federal service.
It doesn’t matter cause once they surrender the war was over and all charges of treason were dropped !!!!! That’s why Davis are any of the other leaders were never taken to court cause the government knew they would lose the case in federal court !!!!!! They were all sovereign states at that time and they knew the law as it was written then was on davis side !!!!!!
As well as Fitz Lee, Thomas Rosser and Mathew Butler all became Major Generals but of Volunteers.
What a wonderful job you have done. I never would have considered this topic on my own. I enjoyed it immensely. Thank you.
Hello Keith I was just wondering if you have heard about the financial support program going on now
My brother graduated in 1971. He is ten years older than myself. I still remember the historic flags at Thayer Hall, the chapels & the dinner hall. I felt a tremendous since of awe & reverence. I felt that I was witnessing a part of American history that few see. In short, it choked me up then & It chokes me up now to think about it. It also infuriates me to see those symbols removed in order to accommodate those that haul down Old Glory & replace them with Rainbow flags or foreign flags.
@Dion Pryor Put somebody in prison for their attitude? To me, that belief is traitorous (isn't it treasonous?) to the Constitution & the right of free speech. I bet you have a statue of George Floyd in your home?
@Well, if it is acceptable to you to do harm to someone with different views than your own, I would say that you are a traitor to not only the Constitution, but to Civilization in general.
In the context of this video why aren't you ranting instead about the idiots who carried a Confederate flag into the Capitol and tried to overthrow the government? I have personally never seen anyone replace the US flag with a rainbow flag? I doubt if you have either.
@@jjhpor I fail to see what the idiots who trespassed into the Capital Building have to do with the context of this video? Maybe you have poor reading comprehension? As for the Rainbow flag replacing the U.S. flag, you have apparently never been to a college campus.
@Dion Pryor So you would outlaw the opinions & beliefs of people who disagree with you? I am the one who is evil?
Thanks for posting this. I wasn’t aware of this source until I saw this.
Thank you for sharing this video.
Thank you. That is the first time I have heard of Grant's notation to Cullum. I agree with him.
Most of all, thank you for the reminder that "The Cause" was not a thing until well after the war and not seriously considered by actual veterans.
not a thing in the north but it had always been a thing in the south because it was basically their point of view all along. One could say the same about the myth that the northern states (whose forces were called the Federals because they were fighting to establish the supremacy of the federal government over that of the states) were fighting some noble crusade to eradicate slavery - they were not. Yet this “Just Cause” narrative began to be pushed forward after the war as a way to justify their actions
@@ericwerner8316 Perhaps I was misunderstood. The Cause, in the sense that it has been known since about 1900, is The Cause as it is known nowadays. Very different from what the guys in the 1860s thought. The latter was used to justify actions of the children and grandchildren of Confederates, not the Confederates themselves.
@@ericwerner8316 They were fighting a noble crusade to keep the United States from being broken apart.
@@DennisMSulliva to assert the supremacy of the central government over the states and the people - the federal government was set up in concept and in fact as a government of severely limited powers. Raising an army to invade other states and kill people is unconstitutional obviously. The term Civil War is a fallacy - a civil war is a conflict in which 2 or more powers struggle for control of the government and to wield power. The seceding states didn’t ever want control of the federal government they merely wanted to remove themselves from the union and association with the federal government. They attempted to do it peacefully but were attacked and invaded by armies raised, funded, and controlled by the federal government. Is the EU raising an army to attack Great Britain and force them “back into the union”?
And if they did Great Britain would fight to resist that hostile act, right?
@@ericwerner8316 Thank you for the interesting discussion. The previous founding document: The Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL Union was not working , so the states representatives met and formed a constitution with a strong central government. (Eighth grade history class 60 years ago) RE definition of Civil War , Alexander Stephens made that argument. I think the meaning of the word changed. When one part of a country is in armed conflict to form a separate country, that is now known as a Civil War. They attempted to separate unilaterally. There is no constitutional provision for, or (to be fair) against that. They were attacked, and invaded based on the premise that unilateral secession was lawful. You end with a ridiculous analogy. They wouldn't today go to war just to reestablish a trade arrangement, with no other issues. Brexit? On the one hand, I'm not British, it's not my business. But if they asked my opinion, I'd have said they should stay. I believe in free trade.I'd have been on the southerners side on tariffs. But not secession. Have a nice weekend.
Wow! Thank you so
much sir for bringing us this fascinating information with your research.
"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
Ulysses S. Grant
The cause for a independent nation for the constitutional rule of law was not and is not lost.
@@marksaucier As Grant said, a national cause based on the worst possible sentiments of the human heart. Yes Sir, I'm aware that evil still exists. It is the curse of humanity.
@@kyrenthang8633 The fact that slavery existed in the North as well as blacks being slave owners as well and in some cases owning whites which were slaves also what worse cause is being talked about.
@@marksaucier You commit a fallacy, specifically "An appeal to common practice", this one your Momma should have literally taught you. It has this form, attend:
1) X is a common practice.
2) Therefore X is good, moral, correct reasonable.
You mother tried to hammer this in when she said to you, "If X jumped off a bridge would you?"
From your previous reply I can guess that your answer to her was "Why Sure!" 🤷♂
Who fought a war to keep slavery? Those are the truly bad ones.
@@kyrenthang8633 yo momma yo momma bla bla bla what? Your mother should have taught you manners and humility, to intergect yo momma should means you got nothing. Good day.
My book written by a former West Point librarian is called "They lie forgotten" it's a paperback and is very informative about the issues leading up to, and who left West Point to become the officer corp of the Confederacy
May I ask you about your name, Powder River? I'm sure there are numerous Powder Rivers throughout the U.S. (of course assuming you are in the U.S.), which of them is your name a reference to?
In order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, we need to know about our past. Good, bad or indifferent; it's our history.
Sure. But understanding and remembering that history does not mean celebrating, memorializing, or romanticizing those men and women who chose to become traitors to our nation. We should recount exactly who and what they were...traitors.
Yes - identify the loyal solders and point out the traitors - without the traitors the war would have fizzled out quickly and saved our country such unnecessary losses and especially the tragedy to the people & businesses of the South who faced ruin for generations
We remember Hitler but we do not honor him with statues
It is not for nothing that General Grant was the most admired man in his lifetime, in Europe, in the Northern US AND in the Southern US.
[The landmark achievement of U.S. Grant’s administration was his] effort to crush the Ku Klux Klan. Grant’s Justice Department brought three thousand (3,000) indictments against the Klan. His efforts to protect the African-American community, the fact that he became the most important president to the African-American community between Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson, this as a country is much bigger and more important story." - Ron Chernow, ua-cam.com/video/-JCDwh_krQ4/v-deo.html
-------------
Grant signed into law the most comprehensive civil rights legislation the United States would experience for almost a century. His administration essentially invented civil rights enforcement. He was the last U.S. President until Lyndon Johnson a century later to pass aggressive legislation protecting the civil rights and delivering the right to vote for African-Americans. "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith is one of the best biographies of U.S. Grant ever written. "Incredibly well researched with profound insights - especially the enormous and largely unrecognized contributions he fought for to advance civil rights during the era between Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. One can only wonder how reconstruction may have been different had he won a third term instead of the Garfield/Tilden outcome. amzn.to/3fnAaln
-------------
The evidence clearly shows that [Ulysses S. Grant] created the most auspicious record on racial equality and civil rights of any president from Lincoln to Lyndon B. Johnson. He also formulated some remarkably humane and advanced ideas on subjects ranging from federal Indian policy to public education. Given the limitations imposed on executive power by the Constitution, it is all the more remarkable that he acted as boldly as he did. So Grant’s full vindication-which will render him one of the greatest presidents of his era, if not of all American history-still awaits. Sean Wilentz, The Return of Ulysses newrepublic.com/article/72699/the-return-ulyses-s-grant
-------------
"He was the single most important figure behind the Reconstruction process in the South and presided over the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, and landmark civil rights legislation outlawing discrimination in public accommodation. The imperishable story of Grant's presidency was his campaign to crush the Ku Klux Klan, which tried to overturn the Civil War's outcome and restore the prior status quo." Ron Chernow, author of the "Grant." www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-success/ulysses-s-grant-won-the-civil-war-then-battled-for-civil-rights/
-------------
"Grant was the only president to support civil rights until Lyndon Johnson." www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2012/11/02/the-man-who-saved-the-union-hw-brands-talks-us-grant?page=2
-------------
I dig this channel. Thank you for sharing. Please make a video doc about the various Old Soldiers Homes in the South, during the post-war years. Very informative and super interesting. Just a thought- and thanks again, mate!
Thanks for the story idea! And for subscribing. Happy New Year.
Southern graduates who remained loyal included George H. Thomas (Virginia), Edward O.C. Ord (Maryland), William H. Emory (Maryland), John Buford (Kentucky), and John Gibbon (North Carolina), to name only some of the most distinguished.
Montgomery Meigs, Georgia. US Quartermaster General during the Civil War gave us Arlington National Cemetery.
@@frankmiller95... Which He Stole from Robert E.Lee simply because he didn't like Lee's Politics. What a Jerk.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 I mean, Lee's politics did involve treason against the United States, so you gotta admit he got off pretty easy.
You got this Just BACKWARDS! Your lies is Accurately Titled SOUTHERN COWARDS!
General Robert Anderson of Kentucky - commander at Fort Sumter
It’s very easy to look back 160 years and say something is right or wrong, good or evil. Military actions, integrity and bravery are no less to be commemorated. True evil is when a person knows/believes something is wrong but does it anyway. Anyone who grows up in a specific environment will likely believe in it.
I’m sure it will be argued in the Trump camp that one can participate in an insurrection against the government and still claim to be a patriot. I see where all the confederate sympathizers are going with this.
Lee was against succession.
Lee was the officer in charge of Texas for a few years and knew Sam Houston.
Lee would travel to visit Houston in Austin.
They would discuss the political situation.
Houston was also against succession.
Then came the succession.
Lee left Texas and returned home.
Lee was offered the command of the Union Army.
He declined.
His father was an American Revolutionary war hero.
His father was on Washington's staff.
His wife's aunt was Martha Washington.
What pushed Lee away was that Lincoln, with Congress being out of town, created a levy for all the states to produce 75,000 men to serve.
They were going to take up arms against their family, neighbors, and friends.
Just like how King George III did to keep those British subjects in America in line.
This act shocked a whole lot of people.
And in addition Lincoln also had two more levies where each levy was for 45,000.
So in total that means 165,000 men would drafted to take up arms against their fellow Americans.
Again, just like King George III did, and then he brought in the Hessians.
Brought in foreign troops to fight his subjects.
With this order from Lincoln, four other states succeed from the Union.
They were: Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
After the war, Lee was brought before the US Senate.
Understand that the Senators were not elected by the people.
That came decades later after a 30 year struggle to let the American people choose their two US Senators.
The US Senators were chosen by state government.
So none of the Senators were elected by the people.
Lee was asked what he thought the cause of the war was.
Lee replied, "The failure of our elected officials to do their job."
very interesting to hear General Grant's opinion and thank you for sharing. For those who think those who fought for the south were traitors or violated their oath as an officer, remember they resigned their commission before joining the Confederate army, therefore they were private citizens. Obviously in the 1868 register feelings are still hard but even Cullum's notation for each officer shows "Resigned....." and the date of resignation along with the statement they fought against the United States - no mention of breaking an oath or being a traitor.
yes they WERE traitors...they made the choice.
I would remind you that before his resignation from the US Army, Lee had already finagle a command for himself in the CSA.
His elaborate and publicized squirming about being offered command of the US Army was nothing more than a ruse to give him some kind of honorable cover.
He didn't have it then. He doesn't have it now.
@@stevenm3823 Obviously, they didn't think so.
Curious what the legal status of resignation from the military carried then and now.
And if say California voted it join China, how would we feel about those of the military who resigned to fight with China.
Resigning is one thing, but taking up arms against the Constitution was traitorous.
Some argue that he was defending Virginia. Fine, then it became traitorous when Lee ordered the invasion of Maryland n 62, and definitely when he crossed the Mason Dixon Line, invading Pennsylvania in 63.
As i am from europe, and not familiar with the oaths US servicemen had and have to take when becomming soldiers i have a question:
When you become a soldier in most countries after some training you get "sworn in"/ taky your oath. In my case (as my country had and has conscription) that included ...to protect my country, the federal republix of ... and it's peoples and defend both with a weapon... . So joining an army fighting against that country would be breaking my oath.
Were there no such oaths in these times in the US?
I would have imagined that all of these graduates who resigned their posts had taken such oaths when they first became soldiers.
In 2007 I took a history class ,but I was told I could buy his revised book on U.S history. I asked him if it was indeed correct his words,”That eventually the left would rewrite history and that the history we knew would be erased from memory.” Of course this is a paraphrase of what he said. For many years I thought about what this liberal progressive professor said now fast forward to 2023 and his statement seems prophetic. The whole academic community seems to want to erase the facts that we had a past of civil war. The real harm is we haven’t learned any real lesson not repeat our mistakes from the past. I fear another civil war because of our forgotten history!!!!!
There is more history of the Civil War available than any one citizen can absorb in a lifetime. And thanks to the internet, its at everyone's fingertips.
Thanks for this. I graduated from USMA in 1978 and you can find me in the Register of Grads. When I was a cadet and then on faculty there was a Lee Gate, Lee Road, Lee Hall, Lee Barracks, Lee Housing Area, Lee Daycare Center, and probably more stuff named for Lee that I've forgotten. He was woven into the warp and woof of the Academy's culture. I can only imagine what pulling him out has done.
I'm not saying it's right he was so exalted, and I'm not saying it was wrong to dial it back. But there must have been some shock as Lee was always held up as a model cadet and a model Superintendent. It's a fair question though, whether someone is a model cadet or officer if they renege on their oath.
Well, I was in the army long enough to experience enough "we said it but we really didn't mean it so we're saying something else now" moments. Such moments generally lead to cynicism.
There are a few interesting articles by a civilian member of the USMA history department about West Point just before and during the Civil War; if you haven't seen them I commend them to you. Interesting stuff.
Been watching the Amazon series "the Man in the High Castle" the whole "Jahr Null" story arc reminds me of this
the lawyer Lincoln knew the weakness of his legal position. Being himself Kentuckian-born and married to a Kentuckian, with his best friend Speed being one, he once said that he knew that if he had been in their place he would have acted as they did, which was to divide on the issue of staying in the Union. I think that if you want to understand Lincoln, you have to read what Speed said. No one, even his wife, understood Lincoln as well as Speeds. But just read the 2nd Inaugural Address. The view of a hard fighter who would not give up unless beaten, and himself willing to lift up another hard fighter who had been beaten in a fair fight. America had lived half slave and half free. He was convinced that this could not continue to be the case. America would have to be one or the other. It could not survive in the modern world except as a free nation.
Three separate incidents help to sum up what kind of a fighter Grant truly was. During his first engagement with Southern forces, he was unsure of himself and what would occur. He came upon what had been their position, but found it empty. The enemy had fled during the night and he realized that they had been as scared of him as he of they. He said that he never forgot that lesson. At Shiloh his army had been sorely tested on the first day, but the Union held in front of Pittsburg Landing. Sherman said to him, "the Devil had his own today", to which Grant replied, "yeah...whoop 'em tomorrow though". Later in 1864, when his staff was stymied, concerned about what Lee was planning to do as they fought desperately through Virginia, Grant shut them down by saying, "stop fretting about where Bobby Lee was and what he was going to do and bring up some guns". Grant was relentlessly motivated, mentally tough, and sure of the abilities of his men, but was also grounded enough to understand how much it would cost to stop the bloodshed once and for all.
There's the other great Grant quote:
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where the enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Hit him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep movin' on."
Having superior numbers ammo and food does not make you a greater general
Yup the mentality of grant worked well unless you were one of the soldiers charging in frontal attacks. He would have been a great general in WW1 as long as he had a couple men more than the other guy. Didn't we learn that in Viet Nam Body Count Body Count.!!!
Grant only won battles that he greatly outnumbered the enemy. Whipped at Shiloh then waited for lots of reinforcements. The battles in Virginia were atrocious. Did he win a battle in Virginia till 5 forks?
Nothing more than worthless DRUNK
@@wayneantoniazzi2706Pretty much sums up U.S. Army war-waging doctrine from Grant’s time till now. Also, if you have a lot of ordnance, don’t be shy about using it.
If you are a Virginian, you are a Virginian first and an American second. No matter what state you are from, you are from that state first and an American second. What happens in your village, town, city, county and state is more important than what happens nationally.
Very true, and even more so today than when I was a kid, back when there was a real national consensus & identity on what America was and what was the proper relationship between the citizens and the government (masters and servant, respectively).
Exactly. VA especially. Home to 7 of the first 12 Presidents....and Lee had over 100 close relatives and a long family history in VA.
BTW, VA did NOT secede until forced to provide troops to fight the Deep South (also embargo and allow federal troops to use their ports and traverse the State) Until then, VA was 2:1 in convention AGAINST secession.
@@bjohnson515 Yeah, four of the eleven Confederate states were majorities for remaining in the union until Lincoln called for volunteers to invade and subjugate the seven states that had legally resumed the powers they had delegated to the federal government when they ratified the US Constitution.
Horseshit. Your most relevant and famous Virginians, Washington and Jefferson clearly felt otherwise.
That begs the question why all these officers were willing to swear oaths of loyalty to the entity of the United States of America, if they were really more loyal to their respective states and were willing to violate their oaths in 1861. As Samuel Lee said, he couldn’t find the word “Virginia” anywhere in his commission. Probably not men of good character if they were willing to so blatantly lie or betray oaths they had taken…
Somebody commented that if Grant wanted the seditious confederate generals as his pallbearers, then it's hard to imagine that Grant would want their names erased off off monuments.. well, Grant didn't want the seditious confederates to have slaves. Did they listen to his then?
when did grant free his slaves
Good !
Outstanding
You are incredibly knowledgeable, scholarly and articulate!
Great post!!!
There is a Cullum Hall founded by him at West Point. It has had many uses over the years and is now mainly a Social Hall. The Association of Graduates (only recently added the prefix West Point) continues to maintain a Registry of Graduates and their major life milestones. Much more can be said about West Point and it's troubled history with those graduates who "went South" as they said in those days. Remember that the southerners abandoned West Point (located in New York) and so only those who remained loyal to the Union remained as West Point's caretakers. "Oath breaker" and "traitor" were the usual adjectives of those graduates who joined the Confederacy. As a general rule Cullum's treatment of southern graduates was consistent with the way the Army and the Academy treated them. They ceased to exist after 1861. That was even mostly true for R. E. Lee. I was somewhat mystified about the big deal made out of removing Confederate symbols from West Point. There were hardly any at all. Portraits of many Confederate officers existed, but all wearing Union blue as Captains and Lieutenants from the Mexican War. There was a small memorial that I was never able to find about the reconciliation of the North and South (which I think was removed). Lee Hall has been renamed Jefferson Hall. And the portrait of Lee in Confederate uniform that used to face Ulysses Grant has been removed. I would be hard pressed to know of any others that had to be altered/ removed.
And...an act of Congress made CSA veterans US veterans.
If you were asked to revise "Cullum's Register", would you add in the history of Confederate officers after and during the Rebellion. Thank you for your post, Mr. Coddington.
Excellent question. I would not. I believe it should stand as intended. Cullum's original is a valuable primary source and reference that provides useful context.
Growing up in St. Louis General Grant was one of my heroes. Grants Farm was a place to go on Sunday afternoons to admire the Clydesdale horses and Jefferson Barracks was a nice place to visit. My Great Great Grandfather was a Company commander in the 47th Mo. and was present at Ironton for the impromptu ceremony giving Grant charge of the Union forces. My favorite Civil War General is General Thomas Ewing that my ancestor served proudly under. I wonder what General Ewing thoughts were on Cullum’s book.
Pres. Eisenhower said Gen. Lee was the greatest military man to be born in America ❤❤❤
General James Longstreet , Lee's ' old warhorse ' had been a close friend of Grant's since before the War.
How sad is the name - removal of soldiers , who fought on the now labelled ' wrong side ' , for the sake of current politics.
When was treason ever the right side??
@@rogerthat4545
FYI ( maybe you just do not know ) the states had the right to secede.
Compromises wete made on the slavery issue from the days of the Declaration of Independence.
President Buchanan's administration was a result of one of such compromises.
Am I dedending slavery. Absolutely not.
President Lincoln's contention since the days he travelled along the Mississippi was that slavery would die a natural death.
What made the conflict inevitable was the insistence of the Deep South states to take slavery to the new Southwestern territories.
There were showdowns along the border sates , especially in Kansas and Missouri.
@@fundamentos3439 I stopped at "the states have the right to succeed".
Yes, if it's voted on by congress, not with treason.
And it was all just so they could own other people.
Calling it 'rebellion' or 'treason' or 'wrong side' isn't 'current politics', it's straight out of mouths of loyal Americans from the 1860's. Did you even watch the video? The whole thing is about a book published in 1868 that finishes the careers of West Point graduates as soon as they enlist in the rebellion of 1861-66.
@@aaronfleming9426
Ever heard of States' Rights ?
Did you know how many small farmers - who had no slaves - enlisted willingly in the Confederate Army , because of their fear of big landowners ?
Ever heard of War Secretary Stanton and the Republican radicals , who conspired to eliminate President Lincoln , because they could not bear the just peace offered to the vanquished ?
Ever heard of the ' carpetbaggers ' who made sure there would be an everlasting animosity between victors and vanquished ?
Has it ever occurred to you that big industrial business prevailed over an agricultural social structure , and that gap never fully closed ?
Come on ! Get your history right !
You know Ron I never really thought about it but all them guys fighting against each other probably knew one another some of them pretty well in most wars you don't know your counterpart but this was entirely different keep up the good work you keep us all think n🍀🍀🍀
For several years at West Point they used a textbook "A View of the Constitution" that clearly and strongly taught that states had the right to withdraw from the Union. So Southerners could leave and join the Confederatacy with clear conscience because they knew they both a moral and legal right to do so.
And the South was not the first section of the nation to try to seceed...New England was during the War of 1812, which they referred to as "Mr. Madison's War."
@@donwild50 The correct spelling is secede!
Does that book mention anything about a clear conscience fighting for the right to keep other humans as Slaves? You seem to have missed the root cause of the war as called out by the Slave Holders in their constitutions in whatever point you were trying to make. I'm sure you didn't mean to sound apologetic and give cover to a group of people who fought for the "right" to keep other humans as slaves. Not sure how any human could have a clear conscience fighting for that. At least Longstreet seemed to recognize the error of his ways and try to make amends. Odd there aren't statues of him all over the South erected by the Lost Causers and the UDC. Very odd.
@@mcgibblets78 Slavery may have been a part of the decision - but there were other issues as well.
@@mcgibblets78 Slavery was not in jeopardy before the war. So how was that what he fought for?
Only reason the north did not have slaves, cotton would not grow up there. But they did have a child labor force.
That's called transferrence. It says more about you than about the subject at hand.
And industrialization was achieved by methods rightly called “wage slavery.” with the Pinkertons acting as a private police to suppress the claims of labor for a fair share of the new wealth.
@@jjhpor How you pronounce that handle of yourn ?
The North had SLAVES too... not as many...but they did have them!
Typical hypocrisy, never changes.
The opinion of Gen. Grant, as to the Confederates being "odious". It must be noted the "odious" individuals referred to did not allow their subordinates, to rape, murder, or pillage, innocent civilians, & steal, and or destroy private property. Their "proper" Union Counterparts could not say the same!
If you were wondering why 1866 was used instead of 1865. Per Wikipedia on the American Civil War “Legally, the war did not end until August 20, 1866, when President Johnson issued a proclamation that declared "that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America".
I took a tour of West Point in 2004. When we came to an area where the Commandants of West Point were listed I made a remark to the tour leader, "Robert E Lee was Commandant of West Point." His name was not listed. The tour leader replied to me, "He rebelled." You can not change history by removing a name. To do so is anti-history. Facts can not be changed even though some may attempt. I have ancestors who died on both sides in that horrible event in our history. Their disagreements still exist in our society today.
Hello Howard I was just wondering if you have heard about the financial support program going on now
Removing someone's name or statue from a place of public honor doesn't remove it from history, it removes it from public honor. Doing so isn't anti-history, it's a method of punishing someone by removing their honor. Think of it as breaking an officer's sword or tearing a sergeant's stripes off his tunic...it's not meant to change the past, it's meant to humiliate and punish. Given Lee's oath to the U.S. Army and his failure to discharge his duty - while many other southern graduates of West Point stayed loyal - some punishment and loss of honor seems fitting.
@@aaronfleming9426 I dont understand your statement about Lee and his failure to discharge his duty. He resigned, Went home and took over The Confederate Army where the Southern States Constitutionally Seceded And built a wall of defense as best he could to repel the Army that was already planning on killing its brothers as soon as it could ready that army. Our Constitution has in it how to Secede. They did just that. There is only punishment in our Laws, humiliation has no part in our Laws. Men with low understanding might use our Laws to humiliate, but they arent intended for that purpose. God doesnt even humiliate those that break his laws. Punish, yes. humiliate, no. Lee was due no punishment. If i were Lee, i would want my name off that wall.The audacity of them to ask him to march against his own people.
@@duckwalker1 Lee was well aware that unilateral secession was illegal and treasonous, as he wrote in a letter to his son Rooney:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
There is nothing in the Constitution about how to secede; as Lee said, it "can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled". The people who argued against ratifying the Constitution were against it precisely because they understood that states would be surrendering their sovereignty, as Patrick Henry eloquently argued at the Virginia Ratification delegation:
"Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"
The north and the south did not along. It was inevitable there would be a war. A war that started when the south fired on fort Sumter. The north didn't want war. The south did.
Upon reading of the removal of names, monuments, paintings etc. of past graduates from the academy campus the institution should be ashamed of itself. This is a direct insult to the grand history of a place of higher education, turning their backs on a great opportunity to teach history that should never be removed and forgotten. Lastly it is hard to believe the academy, in regards to this particular situation, has become a group of leaderless cowards for doing such activities during semester break and in the dead of night.
Leaderless cowards, perfect for training a post-modern military.
Learn the key of C on the fretboard and moved it up or down for the key you want
Arlington National Cemetery used to be Robert E. Lees farm.
But he hired and appointed a number of Confederate Generals in his administration. Wade Hampton in national railroads, Longstreet in railroads aswell as ambassador to the Ottoman empire, and Mosby to China and to clean up the Indian reservation corruption to name a few.
Somehow “The Grey Ghost” has been overlooked in recent years. Except for an old TV show, there is not much information about the best of the “special” force leaders of the civil war.
@@johnschuh8616 Mosby was a guerilla leader, but unlike most of his contemporaries tried very hard not to cross the line. And he was openly against secession, though like many, once Virginia left, he stuck with his state. Southern supporters in Missouri and Union supporters in several southern states were little more the butchers.
@@donwild50 Outlaw gangs. Operating as outsized versions of The James Gang.
Can someone please explain the difference between thirteen colonies declaring their independence from the British empire in 1776 and eleven states declaring their independence from the United States in 1861.
The CSA did not have a Tea party!
The south lost and the Colonies won it's just that simple.
After all Secssion was still LEGAL in 1860, they weren't "Traitors" all those who held Officers commissions and political office in the Federal govt resigned before they joined their native States in the Confederacy. As Jefferson Davis said "All we want is to be left alone"
No taxation without representation the reason for the revolutionary war, southern states had representation, probably in disproportionate amount to that of the northern states, due to the provision including slaves in the census.
The only difference ….the south didn’t win their independence.
Gibbon, a North Carolinian, wrote the book on artillery deployment and employment, was the "Iron " Brigade's first commander and then a division and corps commander. There are no statues of Gibbon in North Carolina. Nor to the 20% of white males, who like two of my descendants, fought for the Union. Or the African-Americans that also fought for the Union. The "healing" went one way. No statues of Thomas in Virginia or of Farragut. Only in South Carolina, where slaves outnumbered free whites did no white males enlist in the Federal forces. Every other state of the Confederacy had white males fighting in the Federal forces, along with 150,000 so African-Americans from the South, but you would be hard put to find statues to them.
As far as renaming posts, I would do Hood and Bragg anyway. Hood may have been a good division commander, but he was just average as a corps commander and a down-right disaster as an independent army commander. At the end of the Atlanta and Nashville campaigns, he had only 33% of the Army of Tennessee with him. Bragg was sure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, whether at Stone's River or Murfreesboro. During the Mexican War, a Soldier from his battery rolled a 6pdr shell into his tent in a "fragging" attempt. He was so disputatious, that during the pre-war, when he was a company commander and the regimental quartermaster, he sent a requisition in, denied the requisition, resubmitted the requisition and denied it again, until his regimental commander told him to stop, with the comment, that having argued with everyone in the Army, he was now arguing with himself. I would much have preferred to have Hood renamed after Patton and Bragg after Ridgeway.
BTW, if the war was about secession and the secession about slavery, why was it that the more slaves a state had the fewer white males enlisted in the Federal forces? South Carolina provided no white males to the Union forces, had the most slaves as a percentage of the population in the US in 1860. Georgia with the next largest slave population as a percentage, saw a few more than a thousand. In those areas where slaves were rare, like Appalachia, more white males served in the Union forces than the Confederate or state forces. West Virginia seceded from Virginia because those counties with few slaves refused to support the slave owners in Richmond.
Well said, though in my opinion they really ought to have renamed Fort Hood after George Thomas, the general who destroyed Hood's army.
Well said, but with one mistake. Murfreesboro and Stones River were the same battle. The Union referred to it as Murfreesboro, the Confederacy as Stones River.
History usually written how it was seen by the winning side.
Yankee Blue book,❤
Honor of their home (state) protector’s is neatly ”forgotten”
Wtf are you babbling about?? How else should we teach treason??
History is written by those who care to write it. Often times that is the victor; sometimes it’s not. Civil War history is a prime example of the losers’ history becoming a prevalent narrative with the Lost Cause myth that is still taught in many schools today.
The removal of southern history from places is wrong
Southern history is treason and surrender?
@@rogerthat4545 No.
@@Rebelmediainc then what are you talking about?
@@rogerthat4545 if your position is “treason and surrender“, then there is nothing to discuss. People that say things like that have not taken the time to study the actual history I am not going to waste my time discussing it any further with you when we both know it’s not going to get us anywhere. Have a good day.
@@Rebelmediainc the Confederates surrendered, and shortly thereafter were pardoned for treason.. you could find the historical document in the library of congress. if we can't agree on basic facts, you're right.
*The more I know about Grant, the more I admire him. Even in his Presidency, he was an honest man surrounded by thieves.*
I was taught he had the most corrupt administration ever.
@@thereaction18 Grant himself was scrupulously honest. The problem with his administration was that he was surrounded by thieves, as I wrote above. Moreover, he considered his presidency as a "sinecure" for what he accomplished during the war. So, his biggest "sin" was in being naive. If you are interested in my "take" on Grant, search online bookstores for my book, "Dreams and Responsibilities" (1993). It was only through the intervention of Mark Twain that Grant was able to save his family from absolute poverty, by writing his memoirs in his dying days.
@@519djw6 Check out Ron Chernow's excellent biography of Grant. After almost a century of being reviled as a butcher, from a historical point of view I am glad to see Grant is now being given a rebirth of celebrity. Immediately after the war and his Presidency he was quite rightly considered the most popular American not only in the nation but around the world. A good number of former Confederates, particularly Johnston and Longstreet considered him an excellent man. (And although they worked well together during the war, Sherman was not that impressed with Grant's actions after the war.)
@@donwild50 There are so many biographies of Grant already. I appreciate your suggestion of Ron Chernow's book,, but the one that like best is "Lee and Grant," by Gene Smith.
Lee served his country, Virginia instead of the Union that his state / country, having voluntarily left a union that they voluntarily joined, and the 10th amendment states that all powers not specifically given to the US Government, those powers are reserved to the states. The Yankees destroyed the original Union and replaced it with the one we have today; they didn’t just fight a war to end state sovereignty in the confederate states, they fought to end sovereignty of their own countries and turn almost all power over to the District of Columbia. The United States and the union survived in name only and came out of the war not at all like the union it was before the war. It was a power grab, and the District of Columbia snatched away the majority of what had been power reserved for the states. How’s that working out today?
Grant, the best. I love him more as I read everything I can about his life.
A lousy President...
Not true. Read Jean Edward Smith's bio of Grant.@@marknewton6984
You do know he was an alcoholic, right !!!!
@@jimmyanderson2988 He was, but like other alcoholics through the ages, he eventually overcame his addiction and remained sober for the last decades of his life.
They made various choices, but those who resigned their commissions in advance of taking up military service to their states fully discharged their professional and moral obligation to the US Army.
Why does the book say 1861 to 1866?, the war ended in 65
I had the same questions.....
@@johnrandolph6121 the war was officially over in 1866.
Good question. The war and fighting effectively ended in 1865, but the rebellion wasn’t officially or legally over until President Johnson issued a proclamation on August 20, 1866 declaring the rebellion to be over throughout the whole of the United States of America.
I adore Robert E Lee and i am living in Baltimore where he built two dams.
The biographical register handled the matter correctly, I think.
When President Lincoln ordered the states to raise troops to invade the South many cadets and graduates of West Point had little choice but to defend their homes, families and communities from invasion and the horrors of an invading army. When what you hold dear is threatened by an outside force it’s no longer about politics or prior loyalties.
The fact that many West Point graduates stayed loyal to the United States demonstrates that those who didn't stay loyal certainly had a choice.
@@aaronfleming9426 Of course, all the West Pointers had a choice, free men always do. Honorable men must follow their conscience and a honorable man does not fault others for following theirs.
@@jackdelvo2702 It's honorable to follow your conscience, but what if your conscience has been led astray? Then one honorable person might say to another, "Dear friend, I admire your dedication to your conscience, but your cause is terribly flawed. Your state is in rebellion because a cabal of slave holders has railroaded your state government. Perhaps those of you who don't own slaves ought to join the president in his constitutional duty to suppress insurrection instead of supporting the traitors in your midst."
@@aaronfleming9426 I’m sure this was the civil conversation before and after the conflict amongst West Pointers. However when Lincoln decided to raise troops to invade the South this effectively put an end to all civil discourse until the dispute was settled on the battle field. Many Southerners did agree with the arguments of the North but felt it necessary to protect their homes from the in pending invasion. The Southern states had succeeded in their opinion legally by each state having an elected convention following the example of the Continental Congress in their Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention. Slavery was immoral yet legal even until after the war was concluded and only ended with a Constitutional Amendment. A more reasonable end to slavery would have been gradual emancipation as the Northern States had done earlier. Many Northern slave owners sold their slaves into Southern States rather than taking a loss, and while important Slavery was by far not the only matter of contention.
@@jackdelvo2702 I agree that a gradual emancipation would have been preferable to war. I think many people, north and south, thought that same thing, but couldn't see a clear path to emancipation.
But let's also be clear, Lincoln did not raise troops to invade the south as if he was invading a foreign nation. Lincoln raised troops because it was his constitutional duty to clear rebel forces out of American territory.
It was very interesting to me to learn recently that even Robert E. Lee knew that secession was not legal, but he chose to go with his home state anyway. Allen Guelzo argues convincingly that when Lee resigned from the U.S. Army he hoped that Virginia would be able to stay neutral and he wouldn't have to fight on either side. That strikes me as wishful thinking, but hey, most of us fall prey to wishful thinking from time to time.
Very Good!... #559 ✝ {1-7-2023}
The Lost Cause hit West Point as encompassingly as anywhere. It’s proud heritage to be sure, but we are talking Treason and renouncement of an oath. Rarely is it a case of maintaining their ownership of slaves. The issue revolved around the preemince of allegiance to their state. It should be recorded as such. They put their country second.
Neo-Confederates say we shouldn't negatively judge people who were pro-slavery because they were a product of their time but what about the abolitionists? Shouldn't we exalt them even higher for being moral and having the balls to stand up against slavery?
Only the black abolitionists. Many of the white ones did not lift a finger to help blacks acquire the skills they needed to thrive in American society. As an aside, I must say that I do not understand why the textbooks seldom mention William Wilberforce and the American evangelical Charles Grandison Finney, the founder of Oberlin, despite their groundbreaking work in the freeing of slaves. This although Lincoln characterized Wilberforce as the greatest man of the century.
Yes.
@@unbroken7189 Some were, like John Brown. But fanatic is hardly a word that applies to someone like Harriet Beecher Stowe. It is amazing in how people bought her book, though. It is interesting, though, that Uncle Tom” is taken by black activists as a term of derision. Maybe because on the stage he was always portrayed as a white haired old man. Her “Tom” is young and strong, a Christ figure.
I'd say that depends on ones point of view.
@@unbroken7189 Not all the abolitionists were religious fanatics while most if not all of the slave owners were "Christians" doing "God's Will"
When George Washington resigned and returned to Williamsburg VA he told the crowd that he was thankful he could serve his country and the empire. The country was Virginia and the empire was These United States. He viewed Virginia like we view the USA And he viewed the USA as we view the United Nations.
Washington was more of a nationalist that many of his contemporaries. He was the only president until recent times to have set to foot in every region of the country.
It was still much the same in 1861; loyalty to state first was not the foreign concept it would be today.
@@redhawk7002 Today it was rare for a person who is wrong in a small town to live his whole life there,. In 1861, most people did. The only federal official that had an impact on their daily lives was the Post Office. Which is why Lincoln spent so much time choosing the local postmaster,
@Ricketts, you may give such credence to the UN, but this American doesn't. Damn the UN and all of its "noble" aspirations. Rotten to the core because most of mankind (yes, mankind, not some woke nonsensical word) on the whole, are rotten to the core. Nothing but a complete waste of time, resources and energy.
As slavery, inevitably, enters the discussion, it is worth noting that 4 (later 5) Union states were slave states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and after 1863 West Virginia).
Slavery was also legitimate in the Union capital, Washington D.C. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the slaves in the Confederate states that the Union had not defeated. If Lincoln had tried freeing the slaves (who remained slaves throughout the Civil War) in Union territory he would have risked a rebellion that may have caused a Confederate victory.
At stake was whether the Union would continue. Technically every state is an independent nation, just as the original 13 colonies were separate. At the time your first loyalty was to your state. The Confederates were not traitors any more than Brexit makes the United Kingdom a traitor.
Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union.
In a letter dated August 22, 1862 he wrote:
"As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.
"The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.
"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that".
I absolutely HATE the world we live in...this divisive garbage will cause another war at some point.
Ignore those you walk on just because you can at your own peril.
Lincoln, Grant and a few others in the victorious understood that better than anybody.
i thought it was a powerful statement that Grant and Lee barracks stood side by side and across the street from Reconciliation Plaza. I dislike that they've changed that.
Why give people that fight to keep humans as slaves the same honor as one of the best Generals in history? Not to mention it's a participation trophy, as he was ultimately, in the scales of history, a loser.
@@mcgibblets78 Because in 1865' there was a good number of Confederates who wanted to carry on the war through guerilla warfare against the occupying troops but it was Lee's voice against that, that allowed peace to flourish and the war to truly end.
@@randomperson8695 Don't see how admitting the USA won and that further bloodshed is useless means a person that fought to support slavery should get anything good named after them. I just don't understand who would look at someone fighting for slavery and go....yeah, slap up some monuments for that dude, he risked his life in the cause of....checks notes....keeping other humans as slaves.
Those closest to those events should have the first and only say. Always believed all the monuments and military bases honoring confederate soldiers spoke to both the honor, respect and forgiveness accorded to former belligerents.
Those monuments were funded by UDC and Lost Causers that made up a reason that wasn't slavery for why they rebelled and lost horribly against the United States of America. Read the cornerstone speech, or the articles of secession and tell me it wasn't slavery that the south fought for as their Cause.
This could be more succinct.
Summary: when people I agree with Delete History - it is OK - because we are doing it. There is a word for this general philosophy about everything "agreeing" - it is Gleichschaltung.
Odd, are you saying we should venerate people's who's purpose for fighting, as laid out in their secessionist documents, was to keep other humans as chattel slaves? Why would we memorialize them with monuments?
The declaration of Independence states: "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the will of the governed". That being the case, if the legislatures of the southern states voted to secede, how can that be unlawful? It wasn't treason because there was no attempt to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to separate as the 13 colonies did from the British Empire. Of coarse the victor gets to write the history.
and the 10th Amendment would be the authorization!
Which would you rather live in right now. The United States or the Confederate States of America. Want to see what the Confederate States of America might have looked like today? Look at Mississippi.
What other nation has erected and maintained monuments extolling the virtues of the losing side of its civil war(s)?
Well, it was a good way of reconciling with the descendants of the losing side.
Just so everyone knows, those monuments to Confederate heros in Southern cities were all paid for by private subscription. No city, state, and certainly no Federal money paid for them, Southern citizens did.
Quite different from what's happening now. There's those who wanted those monuments taken down, and they were, but wanted OTHERS to pay for the removal. Says something, doesn't it?
Diversity is our strength.
that is exactly what makes america so great, no other nation could "erect and maintain monuments extolling the virtues of the losing side of its civil war"...
Did you know there is a statue of Gen George Washington in London, England!
Could Grant’s statement lie behind Lee’s opinion that it was McClellan, not Grant that Lee considered the Union’s greatest general? I have never understood that rather odd appraisal, given McClellan’s modus operandi of overestimating enemy strength, refusing to advance and his propensity to retreat despite numerical superiority, while Grant was the only Union commander who refused to be psyched out by Lee, who refused to retreat from Lee, who seized and kept the strategic initiative and even tactically outfoxed Lee a couple of times, unlike all of his predecessors.
just saw this site so forgive my delay in responding....Lee thought McClellan better than Grant for probably the following reasons: it was McClellan who virtually turned vagabonds into a real army...Grant, in effect, inherited the army that McClellan had created...Lee also knew of McClellan from their Mexican-American War days and of McClellan's strong record in that struggle...McClellan was also an excellent artillery commander....as for McClellan always thinking he was outnumbered; he received his intelligence reports from the Pinkerton Agency, which inflated the numbers of Confederates considerably...there is more to it than this but i wanted to say this much.
Thank you for you reply. Everything you pointed out is true and factual. But none of those observations are sufficient to show any superior generalship from McClellan on the field of battle, upon which McClellan never, as far as I know, "out-generaled" Lee tactically or strategically, (except perhaps in retreat) whereas Grant, in my view, did do that, once on the way to Petersburg, tactically, and strategically by coordinating effectively all of his armies, while Lee failed to utilize the Confederacy's two other armies, even after he was authorized finally to do so. They were effectively off the board, although it would have been difficult to use them with Sherman out there. It seems to me that Lee over-emphasized tactical generalship, and that may be the reason he argued to himself and others that it was only overwhelming numerical advantage that gave Grant victory. @@user-ff4lr2jj5r
@@user-ff4lr2jj5r I'm not saying Lee didn't think those things, but if he did, he displayed faulty reasongin on at least two counts:
1. Grant also turned vagabonds into an army in the West, albeit on a smaller scale, and "inherited" McClellan's army because he had repeatedly demonstrated that he knew what to do with an army whether he had built it himself or not.
2. McClellan had only himself to blame for hiring the Pinkerton Agency and then swallowing whole their preposterous intelligence reports...and, in some cases, of inflating their already-inflated estimates.
@@aaronfleming9426 I am suggesting McClellan did a better job molding an army together, at a critical point in the war from the point of view of the North. To the end of the war, his men held him in high esteem, and that includes the time they were led by Grant. As for hiring the Pinkerton Agency, they were about as well known as any intelligence gathering group at that time...the North at this time did not really have good numbers on the size of Confederate forces so it was easy to get edgy and inflate the numbers, with or without the Pinkertons. In Grant's own words, McClellan lacked 'seasoning' and if he had had time to mature as a commander the way Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman did, he would have left as high a reputation as any of the western generals.
@@user-ff4lr2jj5r Grant's comment about McClellan needing "seasoning" may well be true. Obviously we'll never know, since he didn't have the seasoning and fumbled his chance.
Grant - and others - did perfectly fine jobs of building armies. The difference is that Grant and others molded armies and then went on the attack: Thomas, for example, was thrashing Crittenden at Mill Springs in January of '62, and Grant would capture Forts Henry and Donelson just a few weeks later. Many of the units and officers involved in those battles - units Grant and Thomas molded - would serve with distinction throughout the war, and with far more success than the Army of the Potomac.
The Pinkertons were railroad detectives, not military intelligence experts. One may fairly criticize McClellan for failing to look to his cavalry officers and other West Point men to develop an intelligence gathering service instead of relying on a railroad detective with no military experience.
The Union did not have good numbers on Confederate forces, but to estimate them at 100,000 and more, when the U.S. couldn't even field an army that size, was simply preposterous on its face.
Mao would be proud of the USMA and USMC work this past couple of weeks. Tear it down one piece at the time. What other names are wiped clean when attention is turned to the Indian Wars and the West Pointers that fought it. Who was President during a good part of that era?
Hello Antonio I was just wondering if you have heard about the financial support program going on now
The West Pointers who resigned to serve the Confederacy were patriots who chose their homeland over their oath of allegiance. How differently would they be remembered had the Civil War come to a different conclusion.
Yes, they might be remembered as the “Heroes” who fought for and Won! the “Right” to own Slaves up to this very Day!…Hallelujah! Their “Truth” is Still Marching On!… 😳😵💫
Hello Eloise I was just wondering if you have heard about the financial support program going on now
@@padre4306 Actually it was states rights - and besides slavery would not last that long. BTW do you know what the COTCS stated about slaves?
And now Gen. Grant is a five star general.
Well there are some who like to impersonate and parade around as the Famous I stopped watching his charade after the first forty seconds or so, and resigned myself to reading the comments here, much more interesting IMHO.
Actually, as General of the Armies he outranks 5 stars.
General of the Army = 5 stars
General of the Armies (plural) is one rank above that. Only Washington, Pershing, and Grant have that rank.
@@CJ87317 Neither Washington or Grant were 5 star generals. And l don't believe Pershing was either. The first two were 3 star generals, there was no rank above 3 star Lieutenant General until probably WWI or after.
The first 5 star was Eisenhower when took command of all Allied Forces in Europe. FDR promoting him over any other Generals in any other Countries also.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Armies
@@carywest9256 ...Right...they Didn't have 5 star Generals in the 1860's.
The rebellion was more against the "federal government" than against the United States. The States "united" was the reference at that point in history, and this is nothing but a victorious historical word game. The South was united as well as the North was, wasnt it? Why was one unification cursed while one was honored?
The Northeasterners were free to fiddle with their federal experiment, the South chose not to be involved.
The bottom line, which all Southerners choose to ignore, is that there is a word in the language to describe when a military officer abrogates his oath of allegiance to the Constitution and bears arms against his own country. Consequently, any such officer should not be memorialized as "heroes" when they are, by definition, "traitors". Oh, and to try to rationalize such treason by insisting that such individuals owe their allegiance to their individual states rather than to their country is pure nonsense. "Virginia", Georgia, North or South Carolina, Alabama, etc were NOT the countries to which those officers swore an oath to protect and defend, the United States of America was, so that argument does not hold water.
This country is turning so incredibly small-minded, but the people who are most small-minded are the losers who are lashing out at everyone for having a sense of history and a perspective on life. We have toddlers throwing tantrums instead of adults in this country. I'm ashamed.
So you want adults throwing temper tantrums? If so you warped. If not, proofread before sending text.
Starts at 5:24. Unlike Grant, this guy is verbose.
Hello Joe I was just wondering if you have heard about the financial support program going on now
Yeah,he likes to run his head,never knew a yankee that didn't!
It was against the Northern Aggression that the South were forced to defend themselves. Perhaps, we have different views. Today, people don't really understand history very well due to a blurred media. America's democracy became a multi-democracy, no longer a democracy, in Platonic terms a form of riot-like paranomosic, inter-racial ochlocratiac diversity and multi-democracy. This was seen through the loss of sovereignty of the white citizens in their homelands and persecutory laws favoring prosperity (Afffirmative Action) and protection (HB 1076) of other races and cultures instead of the indigenous founder-heir.
War became a tool to divide a nation from love of its former Christian religion and homogeneous race. Eventually, apartheidic post-slavery, Jim Crow came about as the last remainder of democracy and the sovereign white. Now, the white male children have last choice of opportunity through "legal" manipulation of an overthrown nation.
Today, America has its proponents of pseudo-humanitarianism and haters of biblical institution (slavery and release), self-haters and non-whites who lift up opponents with unproven gender, Dr. Rachel Levin for instance, and those contrary to democracy and the founding republic to replace those it has attempted to erase from its history. Erasure and bad replacement -- that's how Russia influenced its constituents. The components of global tyranny are running neck and neck with the same tactics. As KJB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, related to Ed Griffin in an interview "crisis" and "normalization", it seems the US may not be far from not being able to see the truth.
If General Grant and the many other fine, northern military cadets had known what their progeny adversaries deluded and visioned, they may have gladly resigned and joined Lee's army.
@hesedken Yeah right! They were forced to defend themselves against the horrible fate of remaining American citizens. Give me a break.
First, the values of "Christian religion" and "homogeneus race" are incompatible.
Second, it's not that we have different views on history, it's that we have different facts. For example, you call it the war of "Northern Aggression" because you're unaware that southern rebels were making war on the United States before Lincoln's inauguration, and in fact, in some cases, even before holding votes of secession!
Of course secession is illegal, as Robert E. Lee himself knew full well, but even if it were, most of the votes were taken under duress, with armed criminal bands intimidating voters and delegates in multiple states.
Finally...it must be sad to be so bitter about life. You get to live in a nation with more wealth and opportunity than any nation at any other time in the history of the world, and yet you can't enjoy it because hatred of other humans - for the most superficial reasons possible - has made you so miserable.
You are correct sir well put.
So the history of the officer's service ends with the end of their' service in the U.S. Army. Makes sense. BUT NOTICE THAT THEY WERE NOT ERASED. Some today should take a lesson from that.
If you read Madison's Notes on the formation of the US Constitution of 1787, it is clear that the States are soverign and the Federal government (which is a difficult concept for most to unerstand) was intended as a mere vehicle to allow the Stated to work together. Several States (including VA, NY and RI) explicitely stated in their radification documents that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union if they believed it to be contrary to their best interest (it was implicitely understood by all the joining states). In addition, the IX and X ammendments to the Bill Of Rights (given by God, not by the Federal government or any State government) codified the limited power granted to the Federal government. These principles were respected anong the British founders and long remembered in the Southern States where where the demographics were not much affected by the influx of immigrants as a result of the famine in Europe (1845-1860) which brought many new immigrants directly from Monarchys to the US where they lived on land Administered by the Federal government. These new immigrants (Germans, Irish, Scandinavians) had no understanding of the concept of the Federal governermt and and this ignorance was often shared by people that were born and raised with little education west of the eastern Mountains (including most notably Abarham Lincoln). Regardingthe issue of "slavery" these people retained all the White Supremacist notions of Europeans and had no problem with slavery as long as the freeds slaves (and Native Americsns) did not stand in the way of their goals of establishing a White Only territory where they could have land (Free Soil) and recreate the European culture. Public education (driven by Northern biases) generally ignores the fact that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas were still in the union at the time of the exchange of cannon fire at Fort Sumter and history completely obscures the plans of G. V. Fox and A. Lincoln to capture Ft Pickins (Pensacola simultaneously with the reenforcement of Ft. Sumter) which precipitated the original Confederacy to shell Fort Sumter. At no time were the Confederate states attempting to overthrow the US (Federal) government. Read the comments by the govenor of Virginia and you will realize that (1) the original Cinfederacy had no hope of defeating the remaining Union and (2) that the war goals of the Confederte states were defensive and merely attempting to avoid Unconstitutional policies of the Lincoln administration. I call your attention to the Corwin ammendment (endorsed by Lncoln in his 1st Inaugral Address as the presumptive law of the land). I have pointed out that slavery was by 1860 generally unprofitable and would have necessarily been abandoned with in a generation as economically unsustainable. The WAR and Reconstruction precipitated most of the racist feelings in the South and it (along with the "Indian Wars" [also fought by Custer, Sherman, Sheridan and Grant] were fought to enforce a White supremacist and European culture on the United States. Today's attacks of Confederate iocons is a gross mischarriage of history.
Hello George I was just wondering if you have heard about the financial support program going on now
Among your many errors I'll just point out two:
1. Statements like "public education ignores this or that" are generally false and mere victim-mongering. I don't have a copy of a high school text book with me, but I've never seen a decent treatment of the Civil War that ignored the late arrivals to the Confederacy.
2. Your attempt to cast aspersions on Lincoln for capturing Fort Pickens and reinforcing Fort Sumter are more of the same ignorant victim-mongering, implying that somehow presidents of the United States don't have the duty and right to defend U.S. military bases from armed aggression. The fact is that the legislature of South Carolina duly ceded Fort Sumter to the United States, and from that moment in time it became property of the United States, with Congress having full control over the sale of disposal of that property. As such, even if we accept South Carolina as a legitimate sovereign nation, it had absolutely no claim to Fort Sumter and the attempts by its armed forces to capture that fort by force of arms was nothing less than an act of war.
It is worth further noting that although Fort Sumter was built by the federal government for the express purpose of protecting the people of South Carolina in case of war, it was built with Vermont granite; and 80% of the taxes spent in its construction were levied in northern states.
@@aaronfleming9426 1. Regarding textbooks...I was shocked when I learned that NC and VA were not in the Confederacy "when the war started" I impression is that virtually every presentation of The War to general audiences identifies Fort Sumter as the "start of The War" and then goes on to later to define the Confederacy as 11 states. By the way, I was entirely educated in NC and GA. I would assume that scholarly text would provide more detail...perhaps you are a history major or professor.
2. If you take the time to read Madisons Notes and the Constitutional ratification documents of the states it is clear that (i) VA, NY and RI explicitly reserved the right to leave the union, (ii) NC left (1861) by withdrawing its ratification, (iii) not all the states needed to be part of the union in order for the Constitution to apply to those that ratified it, (iv) implicitly the other states accepted this as the common understanding of the union versus the states. Lincoln invented the idea that the union was indivisible (or more likely he was just ignorant). Regarding the ownership of Fort Sumter...being federal property it was owned by all the states. Olso all the territories and all the forts around New York harbor and Boston harbor.....which were mostly paid for by tariffs extracted from the agricultural states. Once South Carolian et al had seceded from the union, and sent emissaries to Washington to negotiate a fair and equitable division of the federal property, it was incumbent upon the federal government to respond ...they did not and (I suggest you read my book Sumter) Lincoln plotted to reinforce Sumter and occupy Pickens knowing full well that those actions would result in military response. BTW Amderson's forces were originally not at Sumter...indeed they took it by force in December 1860 (read Doubledays book).
When SC signed over the rights to the island that Ft Sumter stood on, there were some conditions regarding the occupation. I think it is fairly clear that the Confederacy would have happily relieved the federal forces to protect the people of SC. Do you want to talk about Ft Monroe, VA.
The point is that (unreported in any test book I have seen) SC and then the Confederacy was actively trying to negotiate a just division of federal assets which they certainly and contributed to. Can you give me a citation for your claim that 80% of the cost of building the fort came from Northern States. Once money went into federal coffers it is hard to identify what states it came from and most federal revenue was clearly coming from tariffs that were most burdensome on the agricultural states and protected the industrial states. Indeed, if you read all of the speech by Andrew Stevens you will find that the number one change in the Confederate Constitution was the tariff.///it should be called the "Tariff speech" ua-cam.com/video/2d10Ya94egA/v-deo.html
@@georgeparris8293 Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I do apologize if my first comment was impolite in tone. I will attempt to address your reply point by point.
1. I suspect it will be difficult for us to come to a conclusion about what is normally taught. It's been almost 30 years since I was in public school, ha ha! I'm a college dropout but I've never seen any book of even moderate depth that didn't give mention to the process of 11 states seceding over the course of a number of months. Anyway, Fort Sumter is of course a very convenient starting point, but the deeper we dig the more we find that rebel states were using armed force before that point, having fired on at least two U.S. ships before Sumter; despite there being no bloodshed, southern militias also stole a wide range of Federal property, including besieging U.S. forts and taking U.S. soldiers as prisoners at gunpoint. Much of those armed robberies occurred before Lincoln was inaugurated, which means he can hardly be blamed for what was essentially already a state of war when he took office.
2. I'm aware of Madison's position on unilateral secession. I'm also aware that many other notable statemen, including Washington himself, disagreed strongly with Madison. If Lincoln was unfamiliar with those debates - which I seriously doubt since he was a successful constitutional lawyer - his arguments against secession closely mirror Washington's. As a matter of fact, Robert E. Lee's antebellum letter to his son Rooney make the same argument too! That letter, which you can find in the Lee Family Online Archive, reads in part:
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
3. Regarding Fort Sumter, I can only repeat that the Constitution does not give foreign powers the right to dispose of Federal property; that power is reserved to Congress. It was wise and good of South Carolina to attempt to negotiate for it, but as soon as it seceded it had no right to the property of the United States; further, Anderson could not have taken Sumter by force any more than I can take my living room by force: if I'm in my kitchen and I wish to move to my living room I have every right to do so, and if I have to do so "by force" it can only be because a trespasser is attempting to deprive me of my rights.
4. As to tariffs: tariffs were paid at the port of entry, and records were well kept as of course the government is always eager to keep track of its revenue! We know that over 60% of federal tariffs were collected in New York City alone. Roger Lowenstein's outstanding book "Ways and Means", on the financing of the Civil War, cites the statistic that federal revenues fell by 25% following secession, when the rebel states stopped collecting revenue and commerce in the loyal states contracted as a result of the instability. That indicates the only about 20% of tariffs were paid in southern states, which seems reasonable and fair since the southern states had about 20% of the U.S.' free white citizens (slaves of course did not purchase goods of any sort, let alone taxable imports).
Interestingly, I was personally shocked when I learned that the notorious Morrill Tariff was written by a Vermont senator whose primary concern was with protecting Vermont timber and butter interests from Canadian imports. I'd always thought the tariffs were about protecting industry from British manufacturers - and there's a good deal of truth to that, but Morrill proposed protections for a wide range of southern agricultural products including tobacco, sugar, and indigo.
It's also worth noting that there were many agricultural states in the north, and none of them joined the Confederacy; quite to the contrary, the heavily agricultural 'western' states were staunchly opposed to secession.
I have to go work out, but I'll be happy to watch the UA-cam video in a couple of hours.
@@aaronfleming9426 Loving the thoughtful, polite debate you two are having. Please keep going, I am learning a lot! If only more people could discuss topics they disagree on without getting nasty the world would be a better place.
U.S. Grant was right.
Odious, indeed.
“Odious” . I’m going to start dropping that word in conversation.
James Longstreet was his best friend at west Point and best man at Grant's wedding in fact Longstreet was Julia Dent's (Grant's wife') cousin. People are lost to the fact that the people on both sides were related and friends within life there were southern born Generals in the Union army, etc... The war was literally brother against brother.
imho... Hiram Ulysses Grant was the best general of the civil war, likely one of the top generals in history.
Should the slave holding union officers be removed
I am not for the removal, but I think the justification has more to do with participating in the rebellion aganst the US government than slave ownership.
@@Scrapmanluke1 it wasn't a rebellion it was the states rights to leave the union and we are told the only reason for the war was slavery and I think removing any of the names is wrong
The civil war was not a rebellion.
That's exactly what it was lol. They even called themselves Johnny Reb and screamed the Rebel Yell
As a Southerner I would call it a failed revolution. I add that even if the Union effort had failed that slavery would failed as an institution after the war. The Confederacy would;d probably have gone the same way as Brazil, although I hope with more stable government. That said, as a Texan, my guess is that we would have gone out own way because the British would have invested heavily in our state because the French would have stayed in Mexico, I say “MY” but this was what McKinley Kantor speculated.
@@michaelhauser6440it was not a war of rebellion it was just a failed war of secession for the CSA, and a victorious war of conquest for the USA.
It was a rebellion against the authority of the United States Government. And don’t forget that had not Massachusetts managed to get troops into Washington, Maryland would have seceded and Washington itself taken by Confederate troops. Then it would have been the Confederate Congress sitting in the Capitol, not the United States Congress and Jeff Davis in the White House.
@@johnschuh8616 it was not a rebellion. They were not two factions fighting for control over the same government that’s what a rebellion or civil war is. The CSA already had it’s own congress, president and capital. It was just a failed war of secession. The CSA strategy was almost entirely defensive unless the situation called for it to be aggressive.
The Civil War was not a moral issue. The tariff to support northern industry pushed the southern to leave the United States. The northern states responded with aggression. The slave issue was an after thought.
Thank you to the American Taliban. Let's destroy everything that irritates our sense of rightness.
We live in a highly diverse country. Why would people who are non-white want racism constantly pushed in their face? If you support the Confederacy, more power to you but you can do that at home like most other things in life. It doesn't seem realistic to have government sanctioned pro slavery monuments everywhere
The leader of the American Taliban is TRAITOR Trump.
Would you honor murdering traitors?
They are not destroying, just asking that we don’t honor them. Remove the statues. Teach the history, truthfully, warts and all.
@@miguelservetus9534 Right. Teach the history by destroying it.
Think of it this way. The articles of confederation consisted of 13 different countries. The constitution came about to unify the country as a political and trading block. Now, we have 50 little countries fighting for cultural control. Look at the abortion issue. This should be a federal issue, not a states issue. Women are being hurt by these draconian laws.
Removing monuments makes me ill. It's Soviet revisionist history. Are we going to remove the pictures ones who shan't be named from history books?
Cullum was generous
Cullum compared the percent of resignations of West Pointers to members of the U.S. Congress and ex-Presidents found the military fared better.
@scottchaney4573
.. Cullum was just another typical Lying yankee who knew nothing about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic is the oath every officer takes. The simple truth is that every officer who rebelled violated that oath. It has always been a mystery to me as to why we honored them. While many of my friends and fellow officers are upset by this, in some ways, I believe it is long overdue!
That was not the oath they used back then, and if you were or still an officer you should know that. The oath didn’t change to be loyal to the federal government until 1862 while the war had already been going on. Before that the oath was to the states.
Each West Pointer that fought for the Confederacy made a point to resign their commission before joining the Confederate army. Therefore they did not violate their oath as an officer, as they were not commissioned officers, they were private citizens.
Each officer resigned his commission from the army before leaving for the South. therefore, they were civilians when they offered their services to Confederacy.
As a european i was interested in the oath they had taken, and it seems the US army war college provides the wording for the oath of US soldiers and officers between 1790 and 1862: _bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies_
To my understanding, you can resign from a position, but not an oath. An oath is not like a phone contract or magazine subscription.
No oath would be worth anything if you could just resign from it when the time to fulfill it comes!
If someone takes an oath to serve a specifically named country and then takes up arms against said country (as far as i know), that is usually considered treason.
As outside viewer i would think that the reason those officers and soldiers weren't prosecuted for treason, was a plain political decision to not further fuel tensions and to not make them into public matyrs.
@@unbroken7189 Baloney. The south fought for the "right" to keep their slaves, and that is it. Have you ever read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession? It says "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery". Other confederate states had similar writings. Have you heard of the Cornerstone Speech by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens? "Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
I have friends from Kazakhstan. This has been some years, but I remember moaning about the post Soviet countries taking down the statues of Soviet heroes. I am American. I thought and think that destroying those relics was a terrible idea, even though I am not a fan of the CCCP. One may not fancy them, but those monuments remind us of things.
Those reminders may be complicated because even people one wants to believe was 100% evil probably had some fine qualities. Also, you don't want to forget the evil part, either, and if you don't have reminders scattered about, one will forget.
The Kazakhs agreed -- and the Soviets were not their favorites, either.
Then there's the practical part. Can't stand James Longstreet? Okay. Then you must forget he was supportive of reconstruction and integration. Don't care for Robert E Lee? Okay, then don't bother with his quandary of liberating slaves into an environment where they could not earn livings, just time travel on back and dump them on the streets.
I get it that Benedict Arnold's name is not on the black crest in the chapel. However, the crest is still there, I think. So, generations learn about him. Remove all reminders and what do you get?
@chipcook And of course you were not looking at the Kazakh. situation with an American gias.
And yet, no one has forgotten Lenin and Stalin. So I don't think we need to worry about anyone forgetting about Lee or Forrest.
@@aaronfleming9426 Are you sure? Maybe you live somewhere other than the United States. I know a lot of Gen Zs.
They don't know where their state is on a map.
They can't name who was president when they were born.
They have no idea what that stupid term Greatest Generation refers to.
They can't explain compound interest, the 8th Wonder of the World that's the 8th Devil of All Time if you are on the reverse slope which they are.
They don't understand that support for Ukraine means their boots with their feet in them on that ground.
I could ask them just about any question about Lenin or Mao or communism or how things actually were regarding it in the USA during the first eighty years of the 20th Century, and they would have no clue at all.
I can ask them about how the TVA or the Corps of Engineers made their personal lives where they live right now different and hopefully better than they would have been otherwise.
Both of those, in spite of having all the information of electronically published world on their phones and in spite of having cars to drive around and just look at stuff.
But they can tell me all about acrylic nails and Superhot.
I heard somewhere that Lee and other West Point southern generals, excelled in the classroom by learning the popular military battlefield theories. Grant and others, who were nearer the bottom of the classes, eventually won the war by being very pragmatic and less rigid.
It'd be interesting to see an in-depth analysis of whether or how West Point grades correlated with Civil War success.
@@aaronfleming9426 agree
Lee broke his solemn oath to defend the USA against all enemies, both foreign and domestic
Lee left the Union. Defended against the invasion.
You and I may disagree with Lee, but from his perspective the Federal government was that enemy you speak of, both domestic and foreign. It's good for us to have sixteen decades of hindsight, but for them it made sense at the time.
Lee acted in the only way he knew how, by defending his home state against an invading army bent on conquest. It was a horrible choice he was forced to make, through no choice of his own. I feel certain that Lee was not in favor of secession, but when it happened he made the difficult choice of joining his countrymen in defending his homeland. He made the wrong choice, but being who he was, where he came from, and the time he lived in, there was no other honorable choice. And when I say he made the wrong choice, I mean that instead of joining the Confederacy he should have opted out entirely. It is unthinkable that he would have taken the proffered post as commander of the invading Union forces, to wage war against his own people.
@@ewbradshaw I understand that point of view. Yet the invasion as you call it was to preserve the Union, as not a temp voluntary-in-and-out. The 'nullification' and "States Rights' the Confederates insisted on was the 'Right' to keep people enslaved and abused, for the benefit of a few rich white people. The South seceded at the idea that slavery would be restricted in any way! And the "More perfect Union" was a clever spin on the concept, true throughout US History that America would and should strive to live up to its ideals, improving.
@@wolfetom10 {the war was not about secession. IT WAS ABOUT FINALLY GETTING RID OF SLAVERY‼️
nazis did this sort of thing, you are a good company
Confederates were more in line with Nazis than the Union. Let's be real
Comparing Confederates to Nazis is simply wrong. The Nazi used slave labor but what else they did was more horrid by an infinite magnitude.
@@michaelhauser6440Confederates were not like nazi at all. And since you want say stupid slogans I guess we can say that the Union was like Marxist since Carl Marx was a Lincoln fan. Or are we just not gonna talk about how Hitler himself admired Lincoln and the union for forcing the south to obey the central authority.
@@therambler3055 Take it a step further. The Union Army then moved westward under Grant and waged war on the Indians as the US Cavalry under the Stars and Stripes!
@@99Michael Exactly! one of the main differences with that is that most of the Native American tribes didn’t have the population like the south did to recover. And that’s saying something because it took the south forever to recover population wise, I just went on a Fredericksburg battle tour and they said that the town didn’t hit pre war population until the 1950s. That battle was in 1862. Also parts of the south still hasn’t economically recovered.
Fun Fact: It was Russia who saved The Union during the American Civil War as they sent their Navy to San Francisco and New York when England and France were just about to enter the war on the side of the Confederates since London created the Confederates. France was already in Mexico making a spear head movement to resupply the Confederates and to open up a Pacific Theatre and create a port in California. England already amassed 11,000 troops stationed at their Northern Confederacies border now called Canada ready to open a Northern Theatre then to attack The Unions naval blockade. The Union would have been completely destroyed and annexed by those two great powers leaving the Confederates to exist as a puppet state of London.
Tsar Alexander wrote a letter to Queen Victoria saying “If you enter in this war it will be a casus belli for all out war with the Russian Empire”. The stage was set for the 1st World War and Russia stopped it.
Fun fact: Britain never wanted to enter that war; they sent those troops to Canada over the insult of the Trent affair, not a genuine interest in getting involved.
Mexico ended slavery without bloodshed. They first gave freedom to children of slaves and offer to buy the existing slaves from owners. Mexico did not have the funds to buy them all outright. The gradual phasing out of slavery over 3 decades gave time for plantation owners to transition without being financial ruin. After 3 decades there were only a few aging slaves left and the plantation owners accepted the law to free all the remaining slaves. Mexico is influenced by the corporate knowledge of the old Spanish Empire in dealing with issues. The US was young and idealistic and tend to think absolute good vs absolute evil. That is why Northerners had blinders on when they escalated the slavery issue till they were shocked that the south left the Union. If they approached the issue more rationally and less emotionally they could have resolved slavery with no bloodshed like Mexico.
As for slavery, it still exists today. Brazil did not outlaw slavery until almost 20 years after the US did. The last nation to "outlaw" slavery was Mauritania in 1981! And although several nations consider slavery to be "criminal" there are a fair number who do not enforce their own anti-slave laws to this day.
The Republican party was a mixed party and the abolutionists were a minority in it. The free soil movement was the the strongest fraction in it. The free soil movemrnt said the new territory should be free of slavery system, but the south wanted to increase the slavery system area in the USA. The free soil movement thought similar step by step abolution and Lincoln was Hanry Clay's followe. Henry Clay was slave holder with 52slaves but he fought for a step by step abolution in the border states as Kentucky and Missouri. I think the southerners acted like offended children after Lincoln won, by not wanting to export slavery to the western part of the USA.
Remember to always point out the term Confederate is, even today, interchangeable with the term Democrat. This is a key legacy from the Civil War that many have forgotten.
At the time of the war between the states some americans had family roots going back almost 250 years. Most held more reverence and loyalty to the area of their birth and history than the federal government, a fairly new entity and distrusted by many. It was a question of honor and allegiance for them and they could not in good conscience be part of a military force bent on invading their home states with the intention to do violence to their families. They believed (as really any rational logical thinker would) that their recent ancestors had had joined this experiment called “the union” willingly as free people, and had every right to remove themselves from this association with the other states and resume their sovereignty when they so desired. Same as England removing itself from the EU recently…
Actually, blue-bloods like Robert E. Lee were perfectly away that secession was illegal and treasonous. As Lee wrote to his son:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
Men like Lee were probably well aware that men like Patrick Henry had strenuously opposed ratification of the Constitution precisely because they understood that they could *not* resume their sovereignty:
"Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?" - Patrick Henry, from the Virginia ratification debates
And of course the difference between the Revolution of '76 and the rebellion of '61 were radically different. The first was undertaken with the rallying cry "No taxation without representation!" The rebels of '61, who enjoyed *over*representation due to the 3/5 clause, seceded with the rallying cry of slavery:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union." - Mississippi Declaration of Causes
Bump