Conversations with History - James M. McPherson

[colll78]

YOU FAIL FAIL FAIL GET A LIFE YOU MAKE .00001 penys a year gtfo kid goml

ty for homework help =D

[KayBeeEee1983]

The failure of Lincoln's strategy can be clearly seen during the Peninsula/Valley Campaigns. A splitting of the Union army allowed Stonewall Jackson to deal with the Union Armies in the Shenandoah Valley, and then when they were dealt with, he moved south to help Lee deal with McClellan in the Seven Days.

[KayBeeEee1983]

[cont'd] is breached, the Union Army could then switch to a defensive position and wait for the Confederacy to try to push the Union back across the border, which would cause great losses for the Confederacy, and open other spots in the line that the Union could exploit. That's the only way to negate the advantage of interior lines.

[KayBeeEee1983]

[cont'd] strength of interior lines. Since no attack could truly be simultaneous, the defenders can deal with one part of the attacking army, and then shift forces to deal with the 2nd part. This can be seen in the Cimbrian War of Rome around 100 BC. 3rd, the Confederates had to stretch their relatively small forces along a 1,000 mile front, like the Germans before D-Day. The Union should have concentrated the mass of their troops onto 1 small spot in the Confederate line. Once the line [cont'd]

[KayBeeEee1983]

@38:30 - Lincoln coming up with the idea to attack the Confederacy on two different fronts simultaneously is completely wrong and shows his ineptitude. 1st, primitive communication methods made it incredibly difficult to coordinate several attacks just miles apart on the same battlefield, let alone hundreds of miles apart in different states. The battle of Antietam is a perfect example of the difficulty of coordinating disconnected attacks. 2nd, splitting your army plays right into the [cont'd]

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Your talk about strategy has me interested. The Battle of Gettysburg, had Lee of listened to Longstreet and pulled out of the area to a defensive position on ground of their own choosing, they could have easily of fought back the Union, the south up to that point had always done good with defending. Had Stonewall Jackson been alive he would have taken Culps Hill when it was defenseless, and not of delayed in action like Ewell. Had Buford not of hunkered down at Gettysburg, the

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Defenders always did well during the civil war. That was the theme. An army in a trench, or behind a wall, or on a hill was extremely difficult to dislodge.

After Buford withdrew his men through town, he positioned them on Culp's hill. It wasn't defenseless.

I don't think Jackson would have attacked Culp's hill because he didn't have proper intelligence. It's not good to attack a hill if you don't know how many men the enemy has.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Ive never read anywhere that Buford went to Culps Hill....

Yes the hill was occupied, but on the first day when Ewell was given the order to take it, it was less occupied and little defenses set up.

I think Jackson would have, he was known to take risks and pursue the enemy with all due speed. And he is not one to disregard an order from Lee. Longstreet was the cautious one who did not want to attack until Stuarts return. Actually he would have rather not of fought at all

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Buford positioned his men on cemetery hill and culp's hill. Where do you think Buford took his men?

Lee didn't order Ewell to attack. Telling him to attack "if practicable" isn't an order.

Jackson took calculated risks. He wouldn't have sent his men running blindly up a hill.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Indeed, he gave him the order to attack if practicable, historians agree that is was practicable and Ewell should have taken it. Ewell himself regreted not taking it when he had the chance. Jackson would have taken that hill, his fierceness is not to be underestimated.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Well if "historians" say Ewell should have attacked, I guess he should have attacked. "Historians" never speak from hindsight....

Of course Ewell regretted not attacking. It was the defining battle of the war and they lost the battle (and the war).

Please give an example of a time Jackson attacked up a hill without knowing the strength of the enemy. Fierceness doesn't mean reckless. Lee was reckless.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Let me clarify that I'm not saying that I think Ewell would have failed if he had attacked. I'm just saying that given the situation, and not receiving a direct order from Lee, he did the right thing.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Union troops were on Culp's hill, even if Buford's men weren't.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Yes Lee was reckless at Gettysburg, he should have listened to Longstreet and pulled out.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

McPherson is a left-wing liberal who follows in the footsteps of The Lincoln Cult. He perverts history to show light upon Abraham Lincoln and downgrades the confederacy to a bunch of racist rebels who would have destroyed the entire nation. He knows nothing beyond bullshit. A clueless dumbass who treats southernors with disgust.

[S2Cents]

@RevBillyRayCollins Why do you think McPherson is "left-wing"?

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents RevBillyBob is a Reactionary/Libertarian, so everyone is to the left of him.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@S2Cents Its clearly obvious, he proclaims that he is one.

[S2Cents]

I've had trouble understanding why Lincoln put up w/ McClellan for so long, so you make a good point about Lincoln's incompetence as Commander in Chief. But Lincoln patiently tolerating McClellan's refusal to actually fight the damn war seems to undercut the idea that he micromanaged the war, at least in that case. 

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents Between March and July 1862, the Union Army had no general-in-chief, Lincoln acted as defacto general-in-chief. But even after he appointed Halleck (who was an administrator, not a strategist) to general-in-chief in July, Lincoln still determined strategy. In July 1862, after the Peninsula Campaign, Lincoln replaced McClellan for Pope. In September, he replaced Pope for McClellan. In November, he replaced McClellan for Burnside. In January, 1863, he replaced Burnside for Hooker.

[S2Cents]

I know Lincoln went through some generals! A question is who should he have gotten? To what extent was it Lincoln's poor leadership as Commander and to what extent was it plain bad luck in getting mediocre or poor generals against RE Lee? There is also the issue of contradictory war aims or different views on what the Union is fighting for as well as different views on how to squash the rebellion which cause problems initially.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents He should've listened to his 1st general-in-chief, Winfield Scott, from the start, & focus on the Mississippi River rather than Richmond. Like the British in the Revolution, Lincoln thought the Confederacy could be beaten just by capturing their important cities, but, like the colonies, the southern states were almost entirely rural. A huge area had to be conquered. Also like the colonists, the Confederates had virtually no navy, so the Union should've used rivers to divide & conquer

[S2Cents]

Lincoln, I thought, did believe control of the Miss. vital and that the Anaconda Plan was implemented but I guess you're arguing for a more singular focus on the river and mostly ignoring Richmond. And I've read where Lincoln repeatedly urged his generals to attack, to bring the fight to the rebels and detroy their armies.. Seems Lincoln basically wanted guys like Grant and Sherman and all three wanted to destroy rebel armies. Hindsight is a bitch.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents Everyone knew the Mississippi was vital. The Anaconda plan, at the start, wasn't implemented the way Scott wanted it. He didn't want an aggressive land invasion because he knew lots of people would die. I'm not saying IGNORE Richmond because then the confederates could focus their defense on the Mississippi. Just don't be so reckless. Don't attack north to south across rivers. I think McClellan had the right strategy, moving cautiously up the peninsula, but his tactics were terrible

[S2Cents]

@KayBeeEee1983 So McClellan took over after Scott left. To what extent was McClellan calling the shots? He clearly wasn't doing well tactically as point out.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents Like you say, hindsight is a bitch, but I don't think destroying the army was the right strategy. Of course, I'm not an expert, and Lincoln had advisers telling him that the war needed to end soon or else the economy would be ruined. He had to choose between the risk of killing a lot of people or the risk of destroying the economy, and underlying both of those options was also the risk of destroying the entire country, socially and politically. Add to that stress, the death of his son

[S2Cents]

@KayBeeEee1983 Good summary of the incredible position Lincoln was in. When we look at the portraits we see the toll. Btw, I didn't know till yesterday actually that Lee had mostly black hair in '60, early '61. By '65 all white and by various accounts his health had declined substantially.

I admire Grant but the Overland Campaign is too horrible, just too horrible to feel much of anything but regret about. I wonder what Grant could have done otherwise.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents McClellan was general-in-chief AND commander of the Army of the Potomac, though when he actually took command on the peninsula he wasn't general-in-chief anymore. In a way, I think Lincoln gave McClellan TOO MUCH control. Lincoln appointed him general-in-chief, he shouldn't have allowed McClellan to also make himself the commander of the Army of the Potomac.

One thing Lincoln did was appoint McClellan's subordinate commanders for him, which seems like a bad idea to me.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents Attacking in the civil war was always a big disadvantage. Communication in and coordination of attacks were difficult with the large armies. The rifle had a longer range and better accuracy than the older musket. The size of the armies also made them harder to destroy. At Appomattox, Grant needed 4x as many men as Lee. McClellan never had that many men. Capturing/destroying Lee's army at that stage of the war was almost impossible, especially since Lee knew the land and McClellan didn't

[S2Cents]

@KayBeeEee1983 Fair enough. Very messy business, battles in war, esp. the Civil War in some ways. I dont mean to pick on McClellan esp. I just don't believe Lincoln to be the failure you think he is, but I'm not passionate about it either.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents I don't think Lincoln was that big of a failure. A president who had a better military mind wouldn't have been nearly as smart politically

Lee had black hair before the war? He looks so old.

I don't know what Grant could've done. Maybe something like Sherman on his march to the sea, i.e. destroying industry and agriculture so it was harder for Lee to supply his army, rather than directly engage him. Maybe try to entice Lee into attacking him, but Grant didn't seem like a creative person

[S2Cents]

@KayBeeEee1983 Grant seemed to have been held back by some mediocre commanders in the AoTP or perhaps blame Grant for not dealing w/ them better? In any case if you look at Grant in Tennessee and Mississippi, particularly Vicksburg his creativity is evident. I just read "A Victor not a Butcher" and a big bio simply called "Grant" which made a positive impression.

Yeah hard to believe Lee had black hair in 60. Gary Gallagher says it a talk "Remembering Robert E Lee" on YouTube.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents "Lincoln's Generals" is a good read.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents I think, as a general rule (no pun intended), Lincoln should have left his generals alone. Like a NFL owner, hire the best general manager (general-in-chief) and let him make all the football (military) decisions. Lincoln should just worry about politics and administration. Instead of working closely with his generals and effecting strategy, he should've been working closely with his war secretary and making sure the army was well supplied and wasn't waiting weeks for pontoon bridges

[S2Cents]

@KayBeeEee1983 So Lincoln should have left McClellan alone. Who knows, maybe it would have worked out better...

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Yeah he should have listened to Winfield Scott, it was Scott who advised Abe that he should not resupply Ft Sumter and that he should pull the troops out.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@S2Cents He shouldn't have chosen ANY of the generals. He should've let his general-in-chief make those decisions. Lincoln had no military background and he didn't know any of these men. He also got rid of each of them after a defeat, so they could never learn from their mistakes. What do you mean by "contradictory war aims or different views on what the Union is fighting for"? I think one thing Lincoln did well was making it known that the war was for Union.

[S2Cents]

@KayBeeEee1983 Burnside shoulda been permanently fired. McDowell was rightly removed. After McClellan replaced Scott I take it you think McClellan should have been left alone?

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins "downgrades the confederacy to a bunch of racist rebels who would have destroyed the entire nation."

That's exactly what they were. Worst Americans ever.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 No the worst Ameicans are these neo-conservatives and socialistic Democrats. 

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins So, basically, you mean modern Americans who you don't agree with.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 And clearly you dont agree with the confederates, you think they are the worst americans for the simple reason you dont agree with them. Your the biggest hypocrite I know.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins I don't agree with slavery, theft, or treason, so you're right.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 The Union fits that discription perfectly.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins How were they treasonous, idiot?

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Lincoln did not recognize the CSA govt. But still he levied war against those states. Thats treason.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Only a libertarian/anarchist would consider the enforcement of federal law "treason". You have warped ethics.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Only a socialistic left wing liberal democrat would not follow the Constitution. You have no understanding of why there are rules and laws for the govt to follow.... 

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Clearly false considering that you're not a socialistic left wing liberal democrat and you don't follow the constitution. You also don't follow any code of ethics in society or even simple common sense.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Its you who thinks that we dont need declarations of war from Congress, its you who thinks secession is illegal, though think the secession of WV from VA is legal, which it wasnt. Its you who doesnt think the tenth amendment should be followed. Its you who thinks that Habeas Corpus can be suspended, an act which Chief Justice Roger Taney said was unconstitutional. When do I ever display actions against common sense. I would hope it would be common sense for you to read the Const.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins "Its you who thinks that Habeas Corpus can be suspended"

Solid proof you're totally ignorant of the constitution. I don't have a problem with people who think differently than me. I used to think secession was legal until I discovered the mountains of direct evidence showing that the concept runs counter to what the founding fathers intended. I absorb info and base my opinions on the totality of the evidence presented. You only absorb info that fits your preconceived notion

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Why dont you look up 'Ex parte Merryman,' Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was ruled unconstitutional and that only Congress has the authority to do such actions.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Why don't you look up "Texas v White". Unilateral secession was ruled unconstitutional. Why don't you look up the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 while you're at it.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 There are a lot of things wrong with TX v White. The unconstitutional act of judicial activism was used, I cant find the reasons why the "unilateral secession" was deemed unconst, its like they just said that because the majority were Republicans, the ruling, which was completely unrelated to the actual topic at hand in the case, goes against the tenth amendment and the VA Const, but those two still remained untouched. With the suspension act of... it goes completely against the

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Your ability to think critically is nil. Taney is far more guilty of judicial activism. The Constitution never says that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. You assume only Congress can because it's in Article I. Your ignorance of the constitution shows once more.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 It doesnt say that the president can do it. And article 1 is all about describing the powers of the legislative branch.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Do you know where the President's power of veto is? That's right. Article I.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 battle probably wouldnt have been fought. Had the strategy been for Hood to go to the right and flank the Union at Little Round Top, they could have taken that hill and it would have been Chancellorsville all over again. And had Chamberlain not of made that bayonet charge, and instead retreated, the same outcome as with Hood. Had Staurt of been in the area in time for the first attack and give the where abouts of the Union positions, the attack could have gone better.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins If Jackson had been alive, he probably would have agreed with Longstreet about maneuvering instead of attacking. Lee might have actually listened if it were both of them. I don't think a confederate victory at Gettysburg would have drastically changed the outcome of the war. The Union was still dominating the Western theater, and Grant took Vicksburg at that time and gained control of the entire Mississippi.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Had any of those things happened, its likely the outcome of the war would have been much different.

Splitting your army is never a wise descision, like when Santa Anna split his Mexican forces in an attempt to capture Houston's Texans, which ultimately failed and led to the capture of Santa Anna, of course he became a further nuisance during the Mexican War. But when Stonewall Jackson pulled his entire core out and around the Union lines at Chancellorsville, leaving Lee with

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 only some 12000 troops in front of the Hookers lines which could have been a grave defeat for Lee had the Union of attacked, but Jackson was able to suprise the Union in the rear, and pushed them all the way across the Potomac. Probably the greatest victory the Confederacy ever had, in my opinion anyway. Of course it was bitter sweet with the loss of Jackson, but still one superb attack, still studied today.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins The Union got pushed back across the Rappahannock, not the Potomac.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Your right, excuse me. I got my rivers mixed up. Its not that bad though, here at Historic Jamestowne there are always tourists calling the three ships that landed in 1607 the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Marie. Columbus' ships. Of course its supposed to be the Discovery,the Godspeed, and the Susan Constant. There was also one lady who tried telling her child that the large monument on Jamestown Island was the Washignton Monument, of course its the Jamestowne Monument.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 in ex parte merryman, which Lincoln completely disregards. It was said in merryman that the president can not suspend habeas corpus, the suspension acts gives the pres that ability, which goes entirely against the previous ruling. The suspension act was unconstitutional.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Code of ethics? Your going into an area that is different for everyone. You however cant grasp the fact that there are other people out there with different views that you. You must believe that anyone who doesnt think like yourself is the "enemy" and they need to be delt with. Thats why you are a socialist. We should take pride in the fact that people are different, and not everyone is the same.

[KayBeeEee1983]

The fact that most of Lincoln's Generals were incompetent is just more proof that Lincoln didn't know what he was doing. McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, they were all big talkers. Lincoln would just replace one arrogant jackass with another. He made the same mistakes over and over again.

[KayBeeEee1983]

Lincoln was a terrible war president. No military experience whatsoever, but he micromanaged the civil war. He's the reason why so many people died and why it took so long.

[parafleet]

THANKS FOR WRITING "BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM" MEESTER MCPHERSON!!!

This book is my Civil War bible.  It's a great tool for idiotic-rebel-refutation.

[lildwayne21]

Shelby Foote's three volume book on the Civil War is much better than McPherson's. McPherson's book is great too, but while reading the book at several points in the book, I felt like I was going to fall asleep.

[flogeon]

@lildwayne21 Maybe its not the book....just saying

[maceain]

another politically correct historian, just what we need. What a load of crap he writes.

[janedoe1024]

@channelislander

"one of the greatest historians of all time "

channelislander : You're a dimwitted dork! You know nothing of the Civil War. Try "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies" for God sakes! You're a dork! Try Bruce Catton for God sakes, birdcraphead!

[janedoe1024]

one of the worst:

During a radio interview in 1999, Princeton University historian James M. McPherson, a scholar [so-called] of the Civil War, associated the (UDC) with the neo-Confederate movement and described board members of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia as "undoubtedly neo-Confederate". He further said that the UDC and their male counterparts, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), have "white supremacy" as their "thinly veiled agendas."

[janedoe1024]

Some members of the UDC and the SCV said they were outraged and stated that the two organizations do not have a racist agenda. Some SCV and UDC chapters urged their members to boycott McPherson's books and engage in letter-writing campaigns of protest. In response, McPherson stated that he did not mean to imply that all SCV or UDC chapters, or everyone who belongs to them, promote the white supremacist agenda. [What a lie] He further stated that [only] some of these people have a hidden agenda.

[gkatta]

@janedoe1024 Why do we need organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy? To celebrate their ancestors support of slavery? Isn't that by extension, supporting their aim to defend the institution of slavery? The defense of american slavery and those who fought to keep it intact is by definition white-supremacist, and only those with southern delusions would be able to convince themselves otherwise.

[janedoe1024]

@gkatta

Well, I suppose if you don't like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy you ought to write them and tell them so. As it turns out I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the War Between the States, as well as several ancestors that were abolitionists.You might also want brow beat Confederate Civil War reenactors too! Matter of fact, write the Museum Of The Confederacy and tell them what you think !! You go, girl !!

[gkatta]

I don't have any need to browbeat Civil War cosplayers, nor do I have to contact the neo-confederate institutions you have such a hardon for. These are people that long for and cherish the days of slavery, and their position of glamorizing a defeated party in a war is as rational as supporting the Nazis. You don't talk to crazy people, because they have so little going on in their lives that they actually take to youtube defending their ancestors' actions defending slavery. Lame dude.

[janedoe1024]

@gkatta

YOU'RE A PUSSY ASS RETARD.

[OneWorldHistory]

@gkatta *chuckle* Rather amusing that that your well-presented contextual reasons for the existance of the SCV and UDC are met with "pussy ass retard" as a response. Of course these institutions exist to celebrate a romantic vision of the antebellum south and concomitantly the confederate soldiers, in fact, their charters even say so. "we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought." They tip-toe around the issue of slavery... but there it is, right in their charter.

[gkatta]

@OneWorldHistory I know, I kind of liked seeing that "pussy ass retard" response. Arguing with an uneducated person who clings to a revisionist history is pretty pointless, but as much as one can possibly "win" on the internet, it's by getting that sort of comment. Because he obviously "lost". That's when somebody says when they don't have anything to back it up. Obviously the SCV's and UDC's only cause for which they fought was the enslavement of black americans. Thanks for the compliment!

[lildwayne21]

Tried By War. Damn good book.

[channelislander]

A nearly one-year-old interview with one of the greatest historians of all time garners a measly 2000 views, whereas Fred and the other puerile (if sometimes funny) fools garner millions of views per month. Somehow this means something.

[jrewert]

It was a good book, but I did not feel a new perspective was really added to Lincoln's legacy.

[rockndude87]

@jrewert I feel the same in a way, but I did like how he mentioned that Lincoln defended his overuse of power beyond the Constitution because he felt as Commander in Chief his primary duty was to save the country at all means. I do love the quote at the end of the book where McPherson says "The Civil War destroyed the old Union and built a new and better one on its ashes"