Abraham Lincoln To William Tecumseh Sherman, December 26, 1864
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2013
- This video is a close reading of President Lincoln's letter to General Sherman after the fall of Savannah in 1864. It is being published as part of my coursework for the Gilder-Lehrman Institute's Understanding Lincoln class.
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
Had Sherman liberated Andersonville there would not have been a stone left of Savannah.
A most excellent analysis of this bitter history. Rest in peace all who fought and suffered this terrible episode. Douglas Hugh Sherman.
Are you a descendent of WTS?
One week prior to Sherman's taking Savanna, George Thomas destroyed much of Hood's army in Franklin. Lincoln had a good Christmas that year.
It would be his last
In all honesty Thomas's destruction of Hood's army at Nashville was far more important then the capture of Savanah. Thomas mauled Hood and by the end of the battle and subsequent calvary sorties against the remnants of the Hood' s army there was only 9000 confederates troops left. Most of them elect to desert and go home!
Nashville! Franklin was a prelude to Hoods destruction at that battle by Thomas.
Sherman was a highly skilled military leader. He like Grant weren't afraid of taking actions with potential risks. He brought the total war concept that was new to American feelings and philosophyies. He made the confederacy realize for the first time that resistance was futile and that he was willing to take the fight from battlefield into the cities and make people pay for their attitudes.
highly debatable on every point. For example, consider his combat record: Caught with his pants down at Shiloh; creamed at Chickasaw Bayou; opposed Grant's plan at Vicksburg and ended up in the rear while McClernand and McPherson did most of the fighting; fought more poorly than McClernand in the second assault of Vicksburg; failed at Chattanooga while Thomas and Hooker succeeded; refused Thomas' advice in the Atlanta campaign and took far longer to bring Johnston to bay; got whipped at Kennesaw Mountain. In short, excelled at marching through undefended territory and burning stuff.
Total war, or "hard war", was not new at all. In fact, it's as old as warfare itself, with many examples from a wide variety of ancient literature. And Americans had practiced it regularly against natives.
Was burning the South necessary? What if Sherman had busied himself with crushing Hood's army instead of moving away from Hood and letting Hood romp all the way to Nashville?
And speaking of Hood and Nashville, George Thomas did to Hood exactly what Sherman had failed to do...in fact, what Sherman almost seems to have avoided.
Perhaps the war would have been shorter and reconciliation would have been easier if Sherman had been a better general.
@@aaronfleming9426 I agree with your analysis as Thomas was a far better General then Sherman by far! He was hounded by his detractors about his tactics both during and after the war and I truly believe all the criticism
contributed to his premature death from a stroke a few years after the end of the Civil Ear.
@@aaronfleming9426 Total war was an art fkr Gustavus Adolphus during the Thirty Years war so your observation is spot on!
@@chuckbuckbobuck Thomas obviously didn't stick to a good diet lol. One of the greatest for sure.
@@timmylee41 Yes Tim he was a stout man and went through a lot of stress after the war because of back-stabbers like Sherman who besmirched Thomas reputation even though Thomas thought of him as a friend! Shermans March to the Sea phooey. Thomas's decimation of Hoods Army at the Battle of Nashville was far more important! Hoid came into the battle with 33,000 fairly well trained soldiers but by the end of the battle there were only 9000 stragglers running for theirs life. The valance were either killed, wounded or taken prisoner.
The battle was a landmark for two reasons historians rarely point out. 1) An entire regiment was armed with Spencer Repeater rifles and formed the Anvil for the flanking hammer and 2) Black Union soldiers were deployed en masse for the first time and fought valiantly during the battle. Thomas so noted it in his after action report. Commendable!
I recall reading a story about a man from Virginia leaving his land to his son. With the provision that the son could not sell it to anyone named either William or Sherman.
Great job with this! Thanks for the history lesson.
Lincoln was the first American awakening, ending slavery with a little help from his Friends.
God Bless America 🇺🇸
Lincoln without a doubt the greatest president thus far and perhaps for all time.
Sherman toured Georgia in the 18880s and was cheered in Atlanta…Savannah was abandoned by Hardy …the Mayor of Savannah welcomed Sherman in a open city….
Bless Lincoln , Grant and Sherman.
Excellent research, excellent video. This is modern communication at its best!
Its lies a d propaganda.
I learned all these scriptures from our old family Bible from my mother in 1955 when i was 5 yrs. old RIP mom 1920 1993.
Tears of Joy run down my eyes watching this video
Thank You Don meaker..
Contrary to this, there's a great book called, "Lincoln the Unknown" in it, it delves into Lincoln's personal life and upbringing. He often cried after a battle hearing of the thousands of casualties that he believed it was all his fault; and often stayed up all night pacing the floor and crying, "All is lost, all is lost!" (As stated by Lincoln's personal secretary John Hays).
History with a bit of soul.
Brilliant reading. It shows the advantage of the much maligned value of a liberal arts degree.
Except this author is purposefully misleading the readers. At 2:41 is shown a broadside or handbill that portrays some issues of the day. Villwock has left the smaller sized type blurry for a reason. I believe his reason is to obfuscate the truth about Lincoln and sway the modern student into viewing Lincoln as good, or a "savior". In fact, the truth is much more complex. I do not malign a liberal arts degree . I have a liberal arts degree and it has allowed me to parse history honestly.
@@scottgoodman8993 Scott:This seems like a quibble to me. It was probably done for technical or aesthetic reasons. As for Lincoln, Our greatest president. he got the 13th Amendment passed ending slavery and he preserved the Union which in turn defeated Fascism and then Bolshevism. Of course now we may be destroying all that. Glad your defending liberal arts. or at least what liberal arts used to mean before the "woke" professors took over.
Typo of course. I should have said "you're" in the last line, and not capitalized "our in the first and capitalized "he in the second. Sister Mary James would have been displeased.
@@trajan75 If we allow strict rules of grammar to govern our internet chats, we can't communicate with ease. I got your drift the first time. Sister Mary James may have had a stick up her wazoo. Fo Sho.
@@scottgoodman8993Each era presents its own temptation. I think we should resist the temptations of the era. The temptation of this era is sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.
It is important to know that Sherman's men lived off the land from slave plantations. Because they were operating among a hostile people, his 'bummers' couldn't procure supplies in small groups from small farms. Sherman put reliable officers in charge, and gave them orders to procure stores, but not to burn property unless fired on from the building.
Southern deserters had no such restraint. They floated around the flanks and rear of Shermans forces, looting the small farms and burning them. After the war, nearly every southerner has false stories about Sherman burning their house. There just were not that many plantations that offered resistance.
DonMeaker source?
Ana Ale
As for Sherman's men, their behavior is described in Sherman's memoirs, and Sherman's orders describe the restrictions on their behavior. Wheeler's cavalry (so called confederate) followed Sherman across Georgia, hoping to pounce on small units if they became vulnerable, which Sherman prevented by keeping his men in larger groups. Wheeler also resorted to warcrimes: planing mines in roads. Sherman responded by having captured confederate soldiers march in the roads, and Wheeler stopped it. Southern desertion: Became a great problem, and was documented by Lee's infamous General Order number 4, which ordered his 'file closers' to shoot southern soldiers.
www.etymonline.com/cw/desert.htm
DonMeaker the "bummers" were not necessarily union men, they were confederate deserters, freed slaves and yes, some union men...with an army of hundreds of thousands, there are definitely going to be a few bad apples
Disco you dumbass don't you think God could have ended slavery before 200 years if he chose to?
@@andyowens1776 Sherman took about 65,000 men on his March.
once and for ever
amen
If this is about Sherman why was The picture of George Henry Thomas shown?
BTW What's the name of that tune?
"Ashokan Farewell"
ua-cam.com/video/uZmxZThb084/v-deo.html
@Tim Smith, In fact, I have a copy of it. Never figured out which it was in the credits because I'd thought it would have a more folksy title, like Tennesee Waltz. Which is why I asked about here, since it this played the same tune. It was because I have the Ken Burns documentary is why I asked.
@@Darthbelal Thanks
This picture is not General Sherman.
well, lets say Sherman had not taken Atlanta, Lincoln had been defeated and McClellan had been elected. Today, where there is one country there would be, not two but more likely at least 5. The Union, the Confederacy, Texas, California, and Alaska. Probably there would be more than just these.As soon as the first Secession had succeeded the others would have followed.
At least 3 anyway: the North, the South and the West. Slavery would have lasted another half a century until even the South would start using mechanical harvesters etc.
I Doubt that! the Industrial revolution was barely 20 years away. There is no way slavery could have competed with that!
Interesting theory. Very interesting indeed!
Alaska would be part of Russia as I don’t think Seward would have had the money on behalf of the union to purchase Alaska
McCellan promised to continue the war and restore the Union. He ran against the Democratic Copperhead platform. As he would not take office until March it would probably be too late for him to screw things up. Only a Democrat congress hamstringing Grant and Sherman and allowing slavery to continue could have saved the CSA.
Why are you showing a picture of George Thomas on the cover.
Shame we did not get to see/know-of Lincoln in his 70s or 80s. (Lt.Coln. Marcello Tullivio Conte-Luna, USMC/USMCR, Officer/Pilot/Commander, Heavy Helicopters; Vietnam, 1968-1971.)
Why are you posting a picture of George Henry Thomas when the video deals with William Tecumseh Sherman?
Well, Thomas is generally overlooked. But he smashed Hood,timing his moves perfectly even as Grant uncharacteristically lost his cool.
@@johnschuh8616 The sole reason why he defeated Hood was that Hood was obsessed with fighting another battle. Hood could have marched away from Nashville at any time and moved northward. Had he done so, Thomas (or rather his successor, as he would have been relieved of his command) would have been forced to pursue him- with an indifferently mounted cavalry force facing Forrest. Hood's army had been defeated repeatedly over the preceding months and simply needed to be engaged- something which Thomas was well able to do even with his indifferently mounted cavalry.
Finally, Thomas deliberately misled Grant. Grant's concern of Hood invading Union territory was warranted and was something which Thomas had been specifically tasked with preventing. After repeatedly urging Thomas to engage Hood, he ordered him to engage Hood at once. Thomas replied that he would do so, and then delayed doing so for days. A good case can be made that Thomas was the best defensive general of the war- but he had no business as the commanding general of an army, because he lacked a proper appreciation of the value of time.
If it were up to me, Generals Grant and Sherman would both be on Mount Rushmore.
There is no honor or glory in war. There is only suffering and death and destruction.
Opening picture
The Union army was far superior and they fought that war with one arm tied behind their backs, had the south had more victories the North would have simply brought that other arm out and demolished the South even more worse than they did!
Evil always wins in america and it did.
@@MrWatchowtnow Slavery is evil so evil lost.
Another American hero story
Today he would be called a racist and cancelled.
it was always god plan to eliminate human suffering
God??
If God wanted to he could certainly do it.
disco 07, have you even READ the Old Testament?
@@adamloverin231 No I have not. Why? Maybe many years ago. I have not even seen a copy in years.
O.O
......I thought the deification of Lincoln was a joke, now I'm getting the feeling there are at least some that would put him right up there with Mary.
*facepalms*
Instead of trying to rewrite the history of Sherman’s march to the sea, perhaps the “unreconstructed” southerners commenting here would have preferred to live on the western frontier of Missouri under Union General Order No. 11. (See www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org)
Robert Lee didn't believe in slavery but Sherman did , how ironic.
Lee kept quite a number of slaves tho his uncle’s will said to free them. On the raid into Pennsylvania 1500 colored people were rounded up and sent south into slavery. Lee believed in slavery alright.
Lee freed his slaves. Grant and Sherman did not.
To be fair Lee did not agree with secession. This was known. Which is why he was asked to lead the US Army by President Lincoln. However his loyalty was to Virginia. There were Southern officers who stayed loyal to the Union. General Buford, the hero of Gettysburg, for one. The civil war decided which loyalty was more important; to your State or to the USA. I’m hoping we don’t go through this again.
@@Idahoguy10157 we should never place any union above liberty. As Patrick Henry stated, "My first desire is for American liberty. My second is American Union." If the Union becomes tyrannical, than it should be abolished and new governments established. As the Declaration states, "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." If we do not protect liberty, we WILL loose it.
@@justfiddlinaround1128 I have always wondered how union of states by voluntary consent could be established by war . Isn't that a lot like telling your girl friend, who doesn't want to marry you, that she has no choice at gunpoint ?
Lincoln was a very intelligent man and undoubtedly an atheist. Stick to history..
He was a Baptist but not the sort common on the frontier.
So booth was a hero.
Well, if Lincoln was a tyrant, than yes.
War criminals.
Green Man -Lol
Like Nathan Bedford Forrest and all the Confederate commanders who killed Black Union soldiers after they surrendered?
@@neilpemberton5523 you mean like Grant who purposely used his black soldiers as cannon fodder?
@@justfiddlinaround1128 When was that?
@@neilpemberton5523 the battle of the Crater for one. The unexperienced IX Corp USCT's.
It was not a rebellion. The reasons the South seceded, were exactly the same reasons that the 13 colonies fought against Britain. And it was the grandsons of the heros of the Revolution who fought this war...
Read the declarations of secession from the confederate states. They make it clear the overwhelming reason was the defense of slavery. President Lincoln when inaugurated had neither the right nor the power to be a tyrant. The Confederacy handed that to him on a silver platter
The 13 colonies seceded from England because they had no representation in their own governance.
The Confederate states had plenty of representation in their own governance - in fact, because of the "3/5 rule", slave states were actually over-represented in Congress. They seceded to protect slavery.
The American Revolution was a step of progress in human freedom and self-government. The War of the Rebellion (as the "Civil War" was rightly called) was a regressive reaction against freedom.
@Karnell Reynoso and not just keep slavery, many of them hoped to conquer more land to expand slavery.
The famed Confederate cavalryman John S. Mosby said it himself that the South seceded because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln.
@@bleedingkansai9961 lots and lots of Confederates said that before the war. They suddenly discovered states rights when they lost the war and realized the rest of the world saw slavery as a disgusting moral stain on humanity.
In our times Lincoln and Sherman would both be hang for war crimes.
For "defending" the Union. I mean literally defending because the Confederates fired the first shot. Sherman did what was necessary to burn into the southern cause the scourge of war is not lightly to be entered upon.
In any other countries the Confederate leaders and head military staff would have been executed on sight! (ask the Russian Royals how losing civil wars work) ! The White Russian army leaders all killed and subordinates found themselves shipped to Siberia where they most likely worked to death ! Learn history before you open your mouth !
Is it a war crime to free the slaves????
Yep, people no longer have a moral compass to distinguish between angels and devils.
When I see the photos of Atlanta, Columbia and Savannah, I regret that Lincoln had only one life to give for his country. And I'm confident that Sherman is experiencing an unquenchable fire of his own in hell.