Absolutely. Happy you dig it.

@@datesanddeadguys loving it man! Absolutely loving it!

There are rumors that different countries back either side. I heard that England and France backed the Confederates and Russia backed the Union.

@@jaysonraphaelmurdock8812 The reason the Emancipation Proclamation was so powerful, even though it really didn't free a significant number of slaves at the time, is that it forced the hand of England, particularly. While England considered supporting the south early on, they had already abolished slavery. So once the United States was on record as also freeing slaves, England could no longer consider any support for the south without compromising their own stand on slavery.

Great examples.

Uk and France absolutely did not back the confederacy. The union was a major supplier of food, fish, and manufactured goods for the Uk and France. The union had debt and financial ties to them too. Union had a huge population, a navy big enough and military big enough plus huge manufacturing output that supporting the confederacy would result in the union taking Canada and waging a naval war in the Caribbean that France and Uk would loose. In addition the union navy was strong enough that it was impossible to break their southern blockade of ports. The confederacy choose to cause a cotton shortage by not exporting enough cotton in 1860-1861. The uk knew the civil war was going to happen so they stocked up on cotton and managed the inventory for the shortage. This resulted in the uk to quickly switch over to developing their cotton industry in Egypt, Middle East and India. Basically the confederacy destroyed their monopoly on the cotton industry which was becoming less lucrative before the war anyway. The confederacy had zero international support and legitimacy. Once the emancipation proclamation was read, it meant they were internationally hated and isolated. Confederacy was completely illegitimate and had no shot at winning the war. They lost control of all their costal harbors and Mississippi like in a year. They had basically no manufacturing industry, barely any rail, terrible soil from poor agricultural practices, no major roads like the north, agriculturally they couldn’t grow enough food for themselves because they specialized in cotton and tabacco production. Europe and the international community did not like the south. France and Uk and foreign diplomats thought the southern population were extremely stupid, lazy, entitled and not hardworking with no drive to improve themselves or innovate. Their population was very uneducated and ignorant. They had tons of churches but no schools, stores, factories or businesses comparatively. There were barely any schools. Wealthy southerners in politics sat on their ass drunk all day chain smoking. Slavery that was going on in the south was disgusting to Europe. Remember Europe outlawed slavery by 800-1000 ad. There was serfdom but even that started to decline by like 1200-1400. Serfs had many more rights compared to slavery. Uk banned slavery and the slave trade by the early 1800’s. France had their revolution and Napoleon. Prussia and German states were modernizing. Spain and Europe also we’re anti slavery because of the ottomans and Islamic Barbary state’s kidnapping European Christians forcing them to be gally slaves on ships or to be castradated laborers. So no the confederacy had zero international backing. They had no valuable currency or money that was worth anything so trade was pointless with them. In a nutshell no one liked the confederacy.

False, England only thought about continuing trade for cotton but the confederacy made a cotton shortage to force international recognition which caused the Uk to develop and switch over to Egypt as their cotton supplier. ​@@jaysonraphaelmurdock8812

Was about to say that! The name of the team was taken from that event.

Slave owners like Grant? Look it up.

@@marknewton6984 Did Grant start an uprising against the United States? Did Grant used to be on the side that was rebelling?

Until you realize New Jersey was the last state to give up their slaves... 😁

@@kingkoi6542 And your point is the south didn’t have slaves? The South lost their slaves by force of arms. Then decided to treat them like slaves for the next few decades until the civil rights marches in the 60s. And even though the Republicans are doing everything they can to try and cheat the descendants of those slaves out of the right to vote. So no, your factoid is not very interesting

@@marknewton6984grant was gifted a slave and immediately turned around and freed him (while being almost bankrupt and with the ability to sell the slave for a decent amount of money) grant also worked pushed civil rights and destroyed the kkk in his presidency

That’s a good comparison and one I think about a lot. In 1945 the US was actively firebombing japan. The death toll and destruction was staggering. In just a few months as japan held out, the death total would have absolutely been higher than what was caused by the Atomic Bombs. But they are visually terrifying and more immediately destructive and dropping them shocked Japan into surrendering. More Japanese would have died if the Atomic bombs were not dropped. That doesn’t even factor in the possibility of mainland invasion. Does it make it right? Or the kinder option? I am prepared yet to say. But it’s not an easy choice. I don’t know that Sherman was in the exact same boat but it’s not far off.

War or no war nineteenth century American cities almost all had large fires, then after burning their old lumber cores, rebuilt with masonry firewalls at property lines. During the war Charleston had a conflagration that burned much of the city. No Union Army anywhere in sight. Except for mining burgs with mined out lodes, rebuilding quickly was kind of an American tradition.

I'd hope that after a hundred and sixty years, Atlanta would be rebuilt🙄🤦🏽

😂😂😂😂

Abe was the one who started the war.

@@ChickenPermissionOG ended it too

@@jackmerrideww And? he's still a tyrant, but lefties love being oppressed.

@@ChickenPermissionOG lefties? Lol this is about north south.

I cut it out because the video is already long but there is an interesting school of thought that proposes being as cruel as possible in the immediate it more kind because it is more likely to end war. I’m not sure it’s right but I think about that a lot with Sherman.

@@datesanddeadguys , that premise is illustrated by a direct quote from Sherman. "The crueller [war] is, the sooner it will be over".

Atlanta certainly didn’t deserve to be burned but to quote William Muney “Deserves got nothing to do with it.”. When Hood went west to attack Sherman’s lines of supply and communications Atlanta’s fate was sealed. Sherman really had no choice but to destroy the city as he couldn’t leave it in his rear to threaten him. Though Sherman’s Idea to turn east from Atlanta and march to Savanna then swing north through the Carolinas to attack Lee’s ANV destroying Confederate infrastructure along the way and destroying Confederate citizens moral to support the war was a brilliant idea that dove tailed nicely into Grants grand strategy it should be remembered that cutting loose from his lines of supply and communications to do so was an idea he borrowed from Grants Vicksburg campaign of which at the time of the Vicksburg campaign Sherman was very critical of until Grant demonstrated that by living off the enemies land, taking and keeping the initiative and using speed and deception to defeat the Confederate armies in detail was highly affective. That Sherman subordinated his plans to Grants grand strategy also demonstrated his devotion to winning the war as Sherman severely lacked Grants political acumen and thus was devoted to supporting Grants grand strategy. Sherman also caught a lucky break when Jeff Davis relieved Joe Johnston from command. Sherman knew that to as when Hood abandoned Atlanta to move west to attack Sherman’s lines of supply and communications Sherman jokingly offered to supply Hoods Army. So no Sherman wasn’t a monster. He had clearly learned from Grant, the first modern era General, that tacking the war to the Confederate Citizens who supported the Confederate Armies was a critical step that needed to be taken to destroy the Confederate Field Armies which was Grants main strategy. Keep in mind how important a decision this was as initially Grant wanted Sherman to attack Mobile which was an important strategic location as it was one of the last two ports available to the Confederacy to import supplies and arms. Sherman convinced Grant that his idea to sweep east across Georgia then north through the Carolinas to attack Lee from his rear while bringing the war to the Confederate population would reek havoc in the ANV when its soldiers discovered their homes and families were under attack. A notion which turned out to be right. Sherman’s march had a devastating affect on the ANV. It is a great measure of the respect that Grant had for Sherman that he changed his strategic plans and adopted Sherman’s idea to make Georgia howl (and though Sherman made Georgia howl he made South Carolina scream in terror). He trusted Sherman to seize the initiative and execute the plan with the haste and speed required to make it work. Sherman pulled it off brilliantly and thus, after Grant, was the next best General on either side of the American Civil War. Grant was absolutely right when he said of Sherman’s campaign that the world had not seen an Army like this since Julius Caesar invaded Gaul.

@@Mottleydude1 You are wrong! This was said by the Confederate general Joseph E Johnston: "the world had not seen an Army like this since Julius Caesar invaded Gaul." Johnston and Sherman met in North Carolina when South East War was over and Johnston went to the funeral of Sherman.

@@avenaoat I stand corrected. Thank you.

Weird way to excuse war time rape and killing slaves tbh

​@@FiveofHearts1 You're talking about the south, cause yeah...

​@@FiveofHearts1❄️❄️❄️

Thank you

he committed war crimes. Abe caused the civil war not the south.

​@@ChickenPermissionOG It is apparent that killing woman and children Indians and removing them from their homes was not a crime them. Sp what laws where there to make it a crime? Do you really thing that only one side raided, stole and burn the sides supplies? Freaking war is death and destruction, should it not be illegal all together?

@@tangle70 War crimes have been a thing for a long time, are you really cheering on that butch and rapist?

@@ChickenPermissionOG Show me the law(s)

Ye it's a great video because it was an objective stance about the events.. so many youtube "historians" love to praise Sherman no matter what just because they think everybody in the south was evil. Refreshing take to hear actual accounts on bkth sides.

And thank “god” for him.

"There is an old saying that "In times of war, laws are silent". " Unless you watch Ukrainian war coverage. " Because of this, there is no guarantee that decency or moderation on the part of one of the combatants will be reciprocated" Being the first to do it would be an indicator that reciprocation had in been in place until then.

@@wisenber I'm honestly not sure exactly what you're trying to say.

@@manilajohn0182 Are people being silent about war crimes now?

@@wisenber I said laws are silent, not people.

@@manilajohn0182 Laws are only silent if the people are.

This is an excellent joke.

Psychopaths become slave owners

The psychopaths were the ones that started a war over wanting to own people.

😂😂😂

The psychopaths owned slaves. Sherman made sure they died. 💪

And modernity really sucks!

Not exactly true. His men were not completely disciplined, and burn things that they were not told to.

Confederate’s but one’s Atlanta to destroy the stores of cotton, weapons, food, fuel so the union couldn’t use them. The fires got out of hand and spread burning the city. Sherman did burn some buildings but the southerns started them. They also failed to burn all the cotton.

​@@neilkurzman4907Damn sucks to suck. Guess you can call it divine punishment

@@TheAztecGamer123 You can call it war. And not having well-trained troops makes war worse.

Awesome. New one is done. Dropping Saturday.

HAIL GRANT HAIL SHERMAN HAIL THE NORTH, WE SEE ALL

Sure he was bud

The History on Fire podcast did a good series on the war for the Black Hills. They give excellent insight on Custer. Generals have tendencies and Grant likely chose him because he would push the action out west. There is an odd amount of people who predicted his recklessness would get him killed. It’s a good series.

@@datesanddeadguys Thanks for suggesting the History on fire podcast! What a wealth of information, very comprehensive. I listened to parts 2 and 3 but part 1 is missing. Fascinating!

You realize you can’t just cherry pick individual events to prove your point. The Germans attack the civilians in England. The English and the US attacked the civilians in Germany. You forgot the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities in Japan long before the dropping of the atomic bomb.

War will do that to a person. As a general, his responsibility was the lives of his troops. And to his mission. He destroyed a lot of property, but he didn’t kill every civilian he met

​@@neilkurzman4907I disagree, maybe in the stone age but after the Renaissance man developed rules for war. Even in the US revolutionary war there was a time where both sides needed to share a spot to dump waste, and guess what? They did so and to my knowledge without incident. Actions like Sherman's reduce a man to nothing greater than a beast...

@@kingkoi6542 I guess you didn’t see World War I and World War II. Or Andersonville prison. Or the trench warfare during the Civil War. War, as a gentlemanly thing didn’t last very long. The technology changed.

@@neilkurzman4907 Ernst Junger was a German Officer during WW1 who was witness to moments of gentlemanly warfare, at least there was cavalry and swordfighting. But in WW2, he was more disappointed and described the whole ordeal as much more like fighting on a concrete runway, however there were still glimpses of gentlemanship, isn't that what they call the African campaign after all? The Gentleman's war? Then there was that German pilot that escorted a damaged allied plane to safety... The technology might be more advanced, but we are regressing in spirit...

@@kingkoi6542 If all he saw in world war, one was gentlemanly sword fighting and cavalry then he missed most of the war didn’t he? I guess he missed the hand to hand fighting in the trenches with hand, grenades, and people being beaten to death with rifle, butts and bayonets. But I’m sure the people who were gentlemanly slash and stabbed to death with swords felt a lot better about it. You really need to break up with a history book. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from.

My people are just better at war.

I don't remember Lee's army wanted to free slaves

@@xavierb5120 Neither did Sherman. The war had nothing to do with freeing slaves. As a matter of fact Sherman caused the death of a lot of slaves by destroying a bridge trapping slaves behind him.

@@xavierb5120 Lee's army didn't drown hundred of slaves like Sherman's did.---look up Ebeneezer creek.

Some Union soldiers were bitter that Sherman did not the prisoners at Andersonnville. See John Ransom's "Andersonville Diary."

BULL

@@marknewton6984 Nope it was proven successful in World War II

By that token, does any nation initiating military actions deserve a nuclear bombing or other overblown massacre of its civilian populace, just so peace would look exactly like the other side wants it? You'd likely find your own nation deserving exactly the same fate many times over, yet I'm sure you'd decry much smaller-scale terror attacks when the target happens to be a "civilized" and "peaceful" western country that keeps its foreign involvements looking good and heroic in its domestic and allied media.

@@Selderij Sherman didn’t massacre the civilian population. But during World War II, it was not seen as an issue. Not by the Italians, not by the Germans, not by the allies, and not even by the Japanese. Sherman had a quote about war didn’t he?

​@@neilkurzman4907Yes. He did.

the war was not to free slaves as a matter of fact Sherman stranded a bunch of slaves behind a river.

@@ChickenPermissionOG But he was shaken badly by that episode because many of them drowned, and after that he integrated them into his columns. Sherman didn't sign up to free slaves, but in an ironic twist he ended up freeing more of them than anyone.

Aw, the slave owners went from living hundred times better lives than slaves to fifty times better lives. Boo fucking hoo. Sherman’s only crime was that he didn’t go far enough.

Wouldn’t say he was a “hero” since a lot of people who weren’t soldiers died, but I can see an argument being made it was necessary for the union to win the war. The confederate didn’t have many “capital cities” with large amounts of industrial like the north did. The south was more rural with less industrial power while the north was going through basically revolution after revolution. Them burning Atlanta, one of the important industrial if not the most important of the confederate is what cause them to lose the war. They should have recouped forces to protect Atlanta, but it never happened. I don’t imagine the confederate would of won in the long run, but instead of the north and south joining back as one country, it is possible it could of ended in a stale mate with two, or more countries being formed.

It’s one of the things most people can agree was sad, but regardless of who you would want to win (doesn’t matter anyways was a long time ago) we can all agree we may of done similar things.

It makes sense that your channels title ignant media, cause you ignant.

@@johnwayne9828 And you’re ignorant so

In this quote Sherman also said "The country will be drenched in blood". I guess they should have listened a little closer.

Thank you

"Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!" "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Stellar logic that any narcissist would find reasonable. Their reactions are a force of nature that nobody can help unless their demands are met, while anyone else's actions are based on choice, subject to righteous punishment by the narcissist.

I can.

@@marknewton6984 interesting. Please expand upon that, sir.

@@marknewton6984 Sherman's stated goal was to end the war. Period. He was successful in that. Mean and cruel, ? ABSOLUTELY.

@@nancyswass119 No.

Pyongyang.

Surely they would have just changed their capital/headquaters?

Good thing all those slave owning children got what they deserved. After the war, after the north defeated racism. What did they do? Continue to be racist af to the Native Americans. This is why Natives sided with the South, they saw through the virtue signaling and saw Washington DC for what it truly is.

New Jersey still holding slaves after the civil war: 🤐

Sherman was a crazy bully!

He was a hero!

Are you kidding or just illiterate?

You’re excusing the systematic looting, burning, r**ing, and killing of Southerners way of lives.

" He made a very good point in the letter too: he did not start the war, he's a general in it," Lots of generals have used that excuse substituting " just giving orders for "just following orders".

Hardly. By the time Sherman started his March to the Sea the Confederates were already practically out of men to send to the meat grinder and out of supplies to feed their populace or their soldiers. Pointless cruelty that maybe quickened the war's end by a few months at most- but left generations of resentment for the North in the Southern Population. Which is pretty counterproductive when your goal is to reunite the country.

abe started it.

You mean like the colonies declaring independence? You would've supported the British apparently.

Who goes there today?

Do you mean secession?

@@marknewton6984 yes oops

bro scorched earth so toxic

Sherman remains a hero. Only racists will claim otherwise.

@@ogrehaslayers605 shut up communist it like if a robert e lee burnt washington phili and new york would you hate him because of that?

Bro dude was totally for slavery lol.

​@Ogre Has Layers dude he was racist though. He straight let hundreds of slaves drown once. He was a bad guy

Chambersburg PA would say otherwise. Also wanna talk about the fort pillow and saltsville massacres?

Or the obvious fact that the south left to kept millions of innocent men women and children as slaves

You may want to read Life and Deeds of Uncle Sam by Oscar Ameringer. The civil war's background has a bit more nuance to it, but it condenses into the (later realized) threat of southern states' economical subjugation by the north and northern industrialists who abolished slavery only when they knew they could buy up the south with the ensuing north-favoring economical impact. The north wanted to give no concessions to protect the southern economy post-abolition.

@@Selderij My first inclination towards an insurrectionist group would be to dismantle their entire culture to send all future, violent and outside legal parameters, opposition a candid portrayal of the consequences. Also, as result of an agreed upon 'Unconditional' surrender their pergotive was null and void.

@@JonBrown-po7he Are you then of the opinion that if Britain had quelled the American rebellion, any wholesale massacres and atrocities that they would've committed so as to force the Americans to surrender unconditionally would've been justified, no matter how big?

@@Selderij If the British had received an unconditional surrender the perogative is solely theirs, yet that's with employment of 'international rules of war'. Your question presumes malicious intent, which is invective. Reformation, had it been undertaken with the goal of eliminating American apartheid culture, would likely have reduced, not eliminated, a great deal of the racial tensions America suffered, and suffers, from. All the best.

Lysander Spooner is another one who would disagree with you...

History is written by the literate. Cope harder old man.

​@@CourtneyNelson-bd3dcIf we are forcefully sent to Ukraine or Taiwan for war, I hope it's zoomers like you who are used for cannon fodder 😊

Lincoln would be Bush.

WRONG BUSH ATTACKED THE NORTH

Had nothing to do with slavery. Abe started the civil war.

@@ChickenPermissionOG You ought to read constitution of the Confederacy.

@@yourmotherisshameful why would I read something that has no power. Thats like telling me to read the articles which no longer mean anything.

"Some people in here are more mad about destruction of property than slavery" Most people didn't own slaves. How upset would you be if the house your grandparents left you was burned and looted while you were driven off into the woods with your children? Or maybe you think they had insurance for that?

@@yourmotherisshameful "You ought to read constitution of the Confederacy." It mirrors the US Constitution with the exception that States were not compelled to come to the aid of other States. The US Constitution did not mention the possibility of banning the importation of new slaves, while the Confederate constitution did.

Good ole abe caused the war not the south.

That’s pretty neat. Hadn’t run into that before.

@@datesanddeadguys The tune was later pirated by Madison Avenue into the Chorus for Lavoris, a mouthwash. Secessionist revenge, I guess.

Those lyrics are from memory. A good version exists on KZfaq under the title: Marching Through Georgia. Notably, "Hurrah, Hurrah From Atlanta to the Sea Hurrah, Hurrah for the Flag That makes you free..." My father once told me we are distantly related to Gen Sheridan. My mother's grandfather was a young Canadian military cadet. He had Abolitionist leanings, and emigrated to Chicago where he was warmly received. He was appointed to the Quartermaster Corps. [He's likely the one who taught my grandfather. ] My father 's grandfather was with the US Army and killed by Souix in Minnesota, either in 1861 or before.

He killed a lot of widows and Indians. Was he crazy?

@@marknewton6984 Yes, he was crazy, but he got better.

The monument to him was the Sherman tank, which went on to achieve victory in other US conflicts.

"and I am sure if things were reversed we would have seen the same from the South. " ...except the Confederates never did that, even though they had the same opportunities. We do know that.

Shame he didn't finish the Indian tribes then

"They weren't fighting for their rights." Everyone one of the States used the same reason the Colonies gave King George in the Declaration of Independence.

@@wisenber nice try. Go reread them. They specifically named slavery as one of their reasons for trying to leave. Sherman didn't burn enough.

@@EternalEmperorofZakuul ok, racist

@@ogrehaslayers605 "nice try. Go reread them." Odd, I was about to suggest you do that if you missed that fact. "They specifically named slavery as one of their reasons for trying to leave. " See above. Can you find an example of the word "slave" or "slavery" being included the secession letter from Tennessee? Florida? Texas? How about Georgia? North Carolina? Tell us you didn't ready any of the secession letters without telling us you didn't read them. Tennessee said "We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State. "

Thank you. There was at least 1 regiment from each Southern state that fought for the North.

Traitors. Lucky we don’t really consider Idaho a State, or of any importance.😉

lol sell some potatoes and buy a book.

Damn these northerners got a special kind of hatred and stupidity. They are so alike their English counterparts, completely willing to do the bidding of their masters 😂 even at their own destruction...

Big Deal. 3 to 1 odds.

And there’s a lot of people like you that worship the war crimes at the south did. Sherman had a quote about war. As far as what happened after the war, that’s not a Soldiers job, it’s a Politicians, and they failed

Bro actually defended raping slaves and said i was pro war crime 💀 i didnt say i was pro either side but you are the one who came to Mr. “Let the boys have thier fun with them” when he saw slaves during the war 💀

Based. If only Sherman finished the job against the Indian tribes.

You could be right, but his side won and historically war crimes are prosecuted by that side of the table.

Sherman was a war hero and an alpha male, you bitches are just a bunch of sore losers.

He was fighting the enemy of his nation. An enemy that had betrayed their nation all so they could continue to own other human beings as property. The confederacy deserved no mercy and absolutely no kindness.

And Yankee odds 3 to 1. Only way you could win.

get rekt and fukd @@marknewton6984

Sad? It's a great event

@@xavierb5120 Look where we are today. The side of evil and terror won the American Civil War

Tfffff

Yes those noble slavers trying to destroy the nation to ensure they could continue to literally own other human beings.

Everyone knew Abe was a tyrant even those across the pond. Kings lost their head for less than what abe did.