So much details would be overlooked if he attempted to make a 24 minute video on the entire conflict.

@@theawesomeman9821 make a whole series

As much as I love Simon and his whole team, I’m not sure they could approach Ken Burns on this scale. (Though seeing Sam give it a shot would CERTAINLY be worth the effort.)

Ohhhhh.... Away down South in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators Right away! Come away! Right away! Right away, come away! Where cotton's king and men are chattels Union boys will win the battles Right away! Come away! Right away, come away!

Only if they pepper his narration a lot zingers like"...he decided to nuke the whole poultry farm".😂😂😂!

"By God sir, you've lost your leg!" "By God sir, you're right!"

They, most likely, sounded more similar to Simon than they did any modern Americans.

@@negativeindustrial Depends on how recently their families had emigrated. The non-rhotic accent (not pronouncing the R's) didn't really start to propagate England until the early 19th century, and even then it was mostly in the major cities for many decades. Before that, the English accent likely sounded like some mixture of modern day Irish and rural East Anglian.

Reminds me of Zulu

"Mary Seymour and Jonathan Doubleday we're overtaken, by the bishop, in the midst of intense intercourse." At the time this meant, among other things, serious conversation or debate.

You can still see mortars embedded in the wall

eh...close. The South knew that eventually newly formed non-slave states in the plains and west would remove all power that they had in the house and senate.

@@mathewm7136 Yes. Because for Slavery to continue to hold power, it needed to be expanded. If you can't expand you power, do it my separating from the United States and building your own slave autocracy. Any period work goes over this and explains that Southern leaders were oligarchs. Exact wordage.

Bunker Sumpter just doesn't have the same ring I guess

Was able to visit it a few years back. I still don't understand how they lifted those massive cannon up with a wooden lift. The guy working there showed me the picturs. It still seems impossible.

@@cliffordgallegos6155 Wood and pulleys are amazingly strong, think about it, the pantheon in rome had massive concrete blocks raised the same way.

If that Irishman had had some alcohol, the civil war would’ve ended the day it started.

Its like a beginning of a joke. A Swede, Italian and an Irishman walk into a fort together.

And now today, people try and tell us all sorts of bullshit about immigrants in our country.

I'm sure the Nordics will have ordered things under some middle man system that avoided any unpleasantness that could arise in that situation.

An now they bomb us with I Kia

Civilwarographics...

Pretty typical when you think about it.

Israel killed more US sailors in the USS Liberty attack and still no war.

My take on battles are if you win the battle you get to name it. So instead of Sharpsburg we should say Antietam. Instead of bull run we should say mannasass

Hero of the comments section 👏

Same with the battle of picacho peak the furthest west battle of the civil war.

@@xenawirtz1303 I've reenacted that battle as well as Glorieta Pass.

That campaign should be made into a movie.

@@xenawirtz1303 I read that as pikachu. I may need glasses.

The battle was in the background of the Good, Bad Ugly movie.

Good.

Coward

Love a story with a happy ending.

So if they were tougher there wouldn’t be any school shootings or sex trafficking rings

As a present day Charlestonian, l agree! Neoconfederates are a disgrace to our country!!

The president before and after The US Civil War were both terrible.

*Wilson, Carter, Clinton, and Biden cough and slowly sneak out the back door*

@@Dank-gb6jn cough cough sleeping joe is leaving the room

@@hansdelbruck8286 your not wrong

@@Dank-gb6jn Wilson and Clinton weren't entirely useless. Carter was too nice and small scale for the office. And Biden shows NO ONE over 70 should be in power.

"Underrated" is a REALLY weird choice of words when it comes to describing macro scale violent conflicts...

Whenever a confederate apologist brings up states rights I bring up the fugitive slave act. Southern states LOVED the federal government when they could use it to force free states to hand over enslaved people back to their owners... what about the Northern states rights?

@@matthews8580 yeah, it's sad to me, even now everyone talks about their rights but only care about those rights that apply to them. Secession was literal treason, they were traitors. People simultaneously celebrate the confederacy while calling themselves patriotic. Patriotism doesn't mean leaving the country when you don't like what it's doing. Patriotism means standing up for what's right, and sticking around through the negative parts to work to make the country a better place

Thank God Im not the only one who thinks the exact same thing.

@KILL SHOT Ohhhhh.... Away down South in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes & alligators Right away! Come away! Right away! Right away, come away! Where cotton's king & men are chattels Union boys will win the battles Right away! Come away! Right away, come away!

You sound like a Californian who moved to Texas in the last couple of years. That's your opinion, they have a different one. That's how conflicts happen. And how many leftist protest today have burned the US flags? All of them. Nobody calls them traitors.

Russo Japanese war was covered a few months ago

Why would the Victor be bitter about victory.

@@johnq5284 The history after WW I has a lot to say on that. Lingering feelings of bitterness is understandable but never letting it go is gonna lead to a bad time.

@@johnq5284 Not bitter about the victory but maybe bitter about the causes, attitudes and the carnage brought about by the war.

There are absolutely folks up north who are bitter about the betrayals in reconstruction. The Klan was basically allowed to reestablish southern social aristocracy unabated by federal intervention. This failure allowed for every modern political disaster from Nixon to Trump to take place.

"Starting the war"

Just like he burned down Atlanta...no, wait...the Rebs did that to deny any useful resources.

@@thrawn_wave4927 Because attacking a fort just exudes a sense of peace and cordiality

@@britisharmedforcesmilsim3015 Not to mention just abandoning your nation and betraying the point of democracy because a fair presidential election didn’t go there way.

this.

Or the siege of Vicksburg.

@@pyromania1018 as long as we cover the brutality that civilians faced inside the city; specifically the overwhelming starvation and bombardment; which violated paragraph 25 of the Leiber Code, as that protected civilians, “especially women and children” from bombardment.

He explained that in the video

I was going to comment the same thing. I grew up a few miles from Ruffin’s farm in Hanover, VA. I was in Boy Scouts with some of his direct descendants when I was a teenager. His name used to show up all over the place around here.

What happened to him after that?

@@paulfrancistorres7144 Unfortunately, Union troops burned down his precious library. That, plus the fact that his "loyal" slaves failed to do anything to prevent it, led him to commit suicide.

@@jackmason5278 “hey don’t touch the library” “We’re here to free you” “On second thought, I don’t think we have a library”

@@jackmason5278 Why should his slave had been loyal to him? that thinking doesn't make any sense.

What's amazing history is that John Booth's brother once saved the life of Lincoln's son by keeping him from falling in front of a train.

Yes at Bull run people from Washington came to watch and when the Union troops went into a fanatic retreat they ran with them

@@christopherturner240 *facepalm*

It was also common during the Napoleonic wars

Yes, at First Manassas people came out to watch. The battleground was not that far from Washington DC. Once the Federals were routed, those civilians spread more panic and generally got in the way. A Confederate officer caught one of these civilians, who happened to be a member of the House of Representatives, he threatened to shoot the fool because he held him responsible for the mess. The Rep was released, probably with a change of underwear.

@@punksoab It seems to me that 19th century people had a peculiar taste in entertainment.

Same could be said about US troops not leaving Sumpter. They left one fort and sat in another. Perhaps, there would have been no war, but if this wouldn't have happened Lincoln couldn't have declared war and restore the union. Lincoln knew what he was doing.

To be fair it isn't until 1865 that Lee is given any semblance of command of all armies. And that's when the war is basically over by that point. Grant is a better overall general, but his tenacity is his greatest skill. He makes several deadly blunders and has the option of going further because of the supplies and manpower.

@@als3022 I'd say Lee abandoned Vicksburg in 1863, which pretty much cost the South the war, for his failed Gettysburg campaign. He could have easily moved those troops to Mississippi to relieve Vicksburg. The Army of the Potomac wasn't a immediate threat after the Wilderness. He was practically forced to transfer Longstreet to Bragg which resulted in Chickamauga. Lee had his fair share of bloody repulses like Cold Harbor. Malvern Hill during the 7 days and Pickett for example. He never willingly detached troops to defend anything but Virginia and Richmond. Ps they still stood a pretty good chance in April of 63 of not losing. Check out Grants Vicksburg campaign. He didn't have a supply line, was surrounded by Confederate forces larger than his own, and no place to retreat won every battle, and captured an entire Confederate army, because Lee was off to Pennsylvania.

Honestly, while I give Grant more credit as a tenacious and I guess more motivated(?) General; Lee would’ve likely been better served had he held supreme command earlier in the war. He relied too heavily upon men like Jackson (who was stellar in his own right), Longstreet, and Bell-Hood. Further, Grant just had more supplies all around. While in later conflicts, numerically and technologically superior forces were sometimes beaten by lower skilled, less well equipped forces (Vietnam, and Afghanistan (multiple times)); by the later stages of the war, it was almost inevitable that without the necessary supplies; Lee would lose.

@@Dank-gb6jn only During the Overland campaign. He had none of those advantages during his Vicksburg campaign. It wasn't until Johnson had been driven off and Pemberton was trapped, did that apply. Lee never willingly detached troops outside of Virginia, he could have relieved Vicksburg. If Jackson had been at Gettysburg, the war would have a different ending, but he wasn't. Lee's best campaign, the Seven Days, he lost 4 of 6 battles tactically, Johnson lost 1. But he faced McLellan and won a strategic victory since he fell back despite what his staff advised.

@@scottkrater2131 oh I’m not doubting you. I think the Vicksburg campaign was a major blunder for Lee, along with Gettysburg. Lee’s decision to let his subordinates lead was his undoing imo. Grant delegated sparingly, along with his belief in the doctrine of total war; but that’s a can of worms for another day.

It IS a nice aquarium, tho

I keep being stunned that they haven't covered Lincoln yet. Covering Buchanan first, I get, but...Taft? Before Lincoln? Bold choice.

Saving the best for last?

Worst president? Andrew Johnson wants a chance to speak before the nominating committee.

And? It's a US port, there is no Confederate nation, only states involved in an illegal insurrection. The Federal government never recognized the Confederacy as an independent entity.

@@scottkrater2131 Technically aren't all insurrections illegal unless they succeed. I am sure King George III saw the revolution as an insurrection against British sovereignty. What makes it different is who wins and who loses.

@@als3022 that's the truth, we'd all be Tories if the Crown won. Not so with other groups. Doesn't justify the Confederacy. It's been tried in court in Texas I believe, some time after the war.

Exactly how does an a US fort hold a US harbor (with ships conducting US trade to serve US citizens) hostage?

Yes ironic especially since the Union is eliminating private ownership of single family homes so that most Americans will be enslaved renters living in multifamily housing owned by super wealthy corporate owners. I peacefully (for now) oppose the union (USA) and proudly fly the Bonnie Blue Flag and the 13 star 1st National Flag of the Confederate States of America in celebration of the July 4 1776 revolution and to also celebrate that other revolution against Federal tyranny. Though the South lost the war of secession happily 365,000 Union Soldiers and Sailors were killed along with the assassination of tyrant Lincoln. I prefer global thermonuclear war to a tyrant nation (USA) of enslaved renters

You are right about that. People don't have any empathy or compassion for each other. Both sides trying to dehumanize the other.

Sincerely recommend reading up on Bleeding Kansas. People were literally killing each other in a full on war. You had senators beating the s**t out of each other on the Floor. They even started carrying guns when they convened, because they feared their fellow senators. Political killings, towns being irreparably torched, opposing political enemies fighting in the streets in real battles. Not riots. Battles. Shooting guns at each other. Slicing each other's necks with swords and knives. Executions. Massacres. This was all YEARS before the civil war even started. We aren't even close. What we have right now is a couple tiny ragtag militias waiting for an order from their prince, and a bunch of boomers on TikTok calling for civil war from the easy chair. It's utterly pathetic. None of them even know where to start. The country is so different today, with a far stronger federal government, and a much higher population. The North/South divide is essentially gone with red and blue states scattered and intertwined across the country. Will there be violence and riots? You bet. But an actual war? Sincere doubt.

@@Deadener It's pretty much the same. I had a police officer (Tacoma Police Department CLO) tell me that if I ever harmed any gang thug kids that were merely using deadly weapons on me in multiple assaults,robberies and several attempted murder attempts that I suffered injuries, that I would go to prison for defending myself (lawfully). I now view that specific LEO has committed treason against me and the Country denying and alienating my unalienable right of life as contracted in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and also the U S Constitution. That specific Law Enforcement Officer violated his sworn oath of office as he swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as a civil servant. I also view that as an agent of the USA ,the USA has also violated my unalienable rights as defined and violated the contract. I was also nearly murdered in the year 2019 with multiple injuries in a hospital for over a weeks time. Not good for a 60 year old disabled heart patient at that time. Even so at age 63 I recognize the ugly face of tyranny.

Then the federal government should start withholding over 10% of the social security payments, veterans benefits, highway funds, Medicare, federal retirement payments, etc., etc., to residents of South Carolina, until they can all make it out of the 4th grade and begin to understand the concept of reality.

"YOU YELLOW BELLIED HORSE THIEF"😂

The Federal government (Lincoln) wanted to levy control over and taxation upon the Southern states for they constituted the fourth largest economy on Earth (superseded only by the three colonial empires). P.S. This YT creator is wrong in all regards.

@@DerSchleier two points. First wasn’t southern officials diverting money from federal government to their own coffers before the war. Second who fired the first shot, we can debate additional factors it’s just calling it a war of northern aggression like some revisionists call it doesn’t have doesn’t line it with up the reality.

@@DerSchleier Lincoln wasn’t even president yet when the south left. Jefferson Davis was officially a president before Lincoln was and been allowed to actually do anything. Sounds like to me they just had a hissy fit a fair election didn’t go there way.

Maybe tactics but not strategy. Ignitng the powder keg wasn't a great idea for his side.

Was going to happen eventually.

@@als3022 Even if true, there was value in not being viewed as the aggressor. Lincoln successfully goaded the Confederacy into taking the first shot, which was a huge propaganda win. The war wasn't all that popular and had the Union made the first aggressive actions it would have given dissenters in the North more ammunition to undermine the Union War effort. So regardless of if the war was inevitable, the taking of the fort was a strategic blunder from the Confederate perspective.

@@calexander7495 True, but that wasn't Beauregard's call. Generals are subordinate to politicians. Or at least are supposed to be. In PGT's case, he was. Strategy is the realm of politicians. Generals and colonels deal in operational matters and logistics. Junior officers deal in tactics.

Actually, yes it does happen. Watch enough porn and you'll see it. Though I'm not sure it was the real pope.

It was the stars and bars. You’re picturing the battle flag. The 7-star “stars and bars” was already the flag of the confederacy for a month or so by then.