Battle for the South ⚔️ How did the Union Strategy prevail in the American Civil War? DOCUMENTARY

15 Comments

1. 🎨 Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: https://masterworks.art/historymarche
   
   Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.
   
   🚩 The four-year long Civil War in the United States was America's bloodiest and most divisive conflict, pitting the Union Army against the Confederate States of America. But how did the Union manage to create and execute a military strategy that played into its strengths and Confederate weaknesses, to achieve final victory?
   🚩 This video was made in collaboration with Strategy Stuff https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJn_zQa80o1l8FgAfVofHRQ Check out their channel and give them the credit that they deserve.

   Reply

2. repeaters

   Reply

3. wouldn't major military action be more persuasive to the Union loyalist in the south to rise up? if there actually are loyalist in the south?

   Reply

4. 300,000 casualties? More like 700,000. You guys have a great channel and your content is superb. However this is a serious fuck up and you need to correct it.

   Reply

5. +1

   Reply

6. Nicely done video

   Reply

7. Around 13:50, you put 'Meade takes Atlanta…'

   Reply

8. 9:09 you marked these dates wrong, its 1862 not 1861

   Reply

9. Russia may have copied the union's strategy in Ukraine… 😀

   Reply

10. Ironic. The war was fought with a key issue being slavery. Yet which side was throwing away conscripts and drafting young people to die with near 6 to 1 ratio against a more elite core of soldiers? You noted correctly that it was the Union ultimately playing to their strength, but arguably they were the less honorable failures then who were using slaves and sending them to their deaths; even those black regiments who mostly died were attackers organized by the Union, tricked they were 'freeing the slaves' like themselves at the time; as a result of the war, almost all ideas that the south were the only slavers and as if they were all abusive terrible people really was what ended up written into the history books. The confederacy could have mobilized their so called 'slaves' and had a million black soldiers, instead they didn't, they fought their own war honorably, showing really the 'slave narrative' is likely exaggerated and made worse by after the Union defeating and justifying what they did after beating the Confederacy, to make them seem worse than they actually were. In the end the Confederate troops were irreplaceable and elite, but the Union were throwing away lives and drafting more like nothing. Once they realized they could conscript more, fail at every strategy, and simply replace troops and the general, and realize the South could not, they just pressed that advantage. It was obvious in the way how the South only really got to attack one time and likely made many mistakes that kept them succeeding at Gettysburg. I can relate with the southern ideals as it sucks to be elite and smarter only to have to conform to some cheater or corrupt group, which, is how Lee and other confederates likely felt: after winning decisive victories, defeating generals who were outnumbering them that were trying to surround them and were trying all these 'cheater' tactics with more numerous and better equipt men, yet always defensively the Confederates defeated the Union until the end when they took few ten thousand losses after killing about one hundred thousand and it became too high for them to sustain; perhaps it bears similarities to the Spartan culture where unfortunately, they really didn't succeed because they had better soldiers and discipline but it also sort of held them back in total war against empires. The Confederacy was always on the defensive, and couldn't afford to lose the men they had, always having to prepare for the next attack instead of attacking themselves, showing why they lost. They had many chances to attack; the one time they did, they didn't take it seriously enough and it cost them. The 'cheater' generals of the Union were of course, given a slap on the back, and just replaced with someone else, didn't matter if 60,000 men died to kill 10,000 confederates, they just went to the next general or the same general went to his next plan anyway. The general who took credit mainly Ulysses S Grant ultimately failed more than he succeeded, but then won at the last moment by throwing essentially slave soldiers at the Confederacy. It makes me wonder if there was not some history revisions (re-writing history) to blame the confederacy and make it seem like the Union was so flawless after the civil war; for all we know it could have been opposite; the Confederacy might have been the better idealists, giving better rights, but we just indoctrinated our children with 'what happened' shortly afterward, and the Union might have been more like the slavers and corrupt in reality, but with who won, and justified their war crimes, they didn't give any credit to the more peaceful society they destroyed and ransacked; and of course, people always justify being right, when they are wrong.

    Reply

11. Cool overview. Love your guys content.

    Reply

12. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in all of the Confederacy, just the parts of the Confederacy conquered by Jan 1, 1863. E.g. New Orleans: the largest slave city.

    Reply

13. McClellan may have been very timid but look at it from a different perspective…if he was too aggressive and took a major loss it would be worse than a half decent victory. His goal was to not take a major loss…in hindsight, we see that there was multiple engagements that could have ended the war early if he was more aggressive.

    Reply

14. Greater population, larger industrial base. Nuff said

    Reply

15. The USA lost alot more troops than the Confederates. If they hadn't had a huge advantage in resources and personnel we would have 2 different countries right now.

    Reply