ACW: Battle of Wilson's Creek - "The Bull Run of the West"

Thanks for watching, if you would like to see more videos like this, please like and subscribe!
Discord: / discord
While the eastern forces on both sides have clashed in the first major battle of the American Civil War with the Battle of First Manassas, the opposing forces in Missouri finally meet at a creek southwest of Springfield, Missouri to decide who will be in control of this important border state. This clash will result in the first major battle to be fought west of the Mississippi called the Battle of Wilson's Creek between the Union Army and the allied force of the Missouri State Guard and the Confederates. The winner will be one step closer to establishing their dominance over the slave and border state of Missouri.
Music from Flimstro: filmstro.com/music/
Sources:
Wilson’s Creek - The Second Battle of the Civil War and the Men who Fought It by William Garrett Piston and Richard W. Hatcher, III
U.S. Army Center of Military History Staff Ride Guide - The Civil War Begins: Opening Clashes, 1861 by Jennifer M. Murray
National Park Service Article - Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield
American Battlefield Trust Article - Battle of Wilson’s Creek Facts & Summary
Script written J. Woody
#americancivilwar #wilsonscreek #civilwar

[@codyweaver7546]

This happened literally 2 miles from my home. Hooray for history.

[@NefariousKoel]

You must be down the street from me! Howdy, neighbor.

[@user-yw5jl2wf6h]

I grew up really close to you both 😮

[@pinkmail6841]

Brig. Gen. Lyon: Ride in front of the line and get fatal shot Brig. Gen. Lyon: Dying Surprised Pikachu

[@mattmuller3756]

haha

[@bcreech17]

Same meme but also with General Lyon with “galvanizing a population to hate you” and “literally shooting an infant in its mothers’ arms”

[@tameturtle6600]

The intro refers to Missourians as Jayhawkers. I believe red leg and Jayhawk is synonymous with Kansas.

[@richardlindquist5936]

Yes, and Missourian guerillas were called bushwackers.

[@Momusinterra]

@@noname-qf8jg Two states. I'm sure Missourians don't enjoy being called Jayhawkers.

[@Momusinterra]

Bad error.

[@marknishimoto1333]

Jayhawkers were from Kansas.

[@jamesharper4671]

Definitely jayhawkers are from Kansas. "Rock chalk Jayhawk" is Kansas University's battle cry.

[@custerkiller7670]

My ancestor was in the Missouri State Gaurd. He was at the battle of Mine Run

[@theequalsgamer2074]

keep it up this will take off

[@WarhawkYT]

will do!

[@aaronbrown6890]

Some of the best Civil war animated battle material out there. Nice details and content speed. Nice vocal qualities and unit movement. Cheers!!! Keep them coming!

[@grimdiannabones4361]

I love your attention to detail hope to see more of your work

[@Demensemen]

Gotta say being born in and living in Missouri my whole life it’s cool to see all the things that have happed here and we’ve always been a mess

[@The_Unrepentant_McClellanite]

Amazing video, keep up the good work! The aftermath of this battle has been highly debated as some have said that McCulloch should have pushed into Missouri while some have said that his decision to stay where he was was correct. I am of the opinion that McCulloch was right to stay near the Arkansas-Missouri border, his Arkansas and Louisiana troops didn't have the support of the Missourians and without a supply line his force would've been slaughtered by Fremont. Price's push towards Lexington succeeded because he had the support of the people. It is however a shame what happened to McCulloch less than a year later at Pea Ridge.

[@WarhawkYT]

Thanks bro!

[@raaven616]

Well, McCulloch was really an outsider compared to Price. Price had been a govt. figure head in MO so he commanded the respect of a lot of pro southerners of MO. Had McCulloch followed price and recruited along the way, I believe they both as a team would have succeeded in keeping the Union at bay in that state.

[@forrestgreene1139]

I wouldn't bet the house on the Pathfinder...

[@clevermcgenericname891]

The real problem is that McCullach was not one of the very few truly aggressive civil war generals; Grant, Forrest, Jackson or Sheridan would likely have shot their shot and pressed ahead regardless, but that drive wasn't common.

[@simenonhonore]

Very clear explanation of a complex situation - thanks!

[@michaelcarlin9153]

Excellent video. Really enjoyed that.

[@jameswatson5011]

Rolla Pronounced RAW-LA. During the war a very key rail station with two forts. A major Frisco Rail Yard even up until and for a while after WWII with a HUGE switching round about station at modern day Newburg. Home to the Missouri School of Mines, University of Mo Rolla (Raw-la), and now known as Missouri Science and Technology. Or also known as the MIT of the Midwest. There were many pro Southern folks around Rolla as well, and a lot of "Bush Wacking" happened throughout the war. Couldn't tell I lived there for a while huh?

[@distantanion6742]

thank you for sharing those pieces of information, interesting stuff. didn't even know rolla existed before today and i live in an adjacent state.

[@JG-hr8rl]

Great video, but I believe Jayhawkers we’re actually anti slavery Kansas fighters. Even today with the Kansas “Jayhawks” being a nod to their past with the “Border Rivalry” with the University of Missouri. But I’m still subscribing, loved the battle maps. Hopefully you and “Have History will Travel” can collab

[@rooseveltbarfield3167]

You're correct. KU got it's name from the Jayhawkers

[@faithlessberserker5921]

I know that this is kind of a bootleg epic history but you cover topics they wouldn’t have the balls or interest to cover so I salute you. Thanks for teaching us about this.

[@yqking2497]

I am late, but this is excellent. Great work.

[@raaven616]

As a friend of an author (RET. Maj Scott Price)..(No relation to Sterling Price) who wrote about Nathanial Lyon, There was speculation that he may have been shot by his own people because he was such a psychopathy. (No evidence to prove it but it was heavily speculated) He flogged his own men who would pass out in the heat while on parade ground duty. He really was not well like by his own men. I've walked that battlefield. So many trees now where probably there wasn't any in line with cannons.

[@rickstalentedtongue910]

He was a real prick according to the accounts I have heard.

[@mikestone1815]

The Kansas free state troops where the Jayhawks the Missouri side where called Bushwackers.

[@sgtstedanko7186]

Not sure if you mentioned it but Jesse James supposedly fought in this battle with Missouri guerrillas

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

Awesome, can't wait to watch the next one.

[@jeroenkoopman3368]

Great job explaining the battle.

[@jamesbranum1062]

Good video, didnt hear about this until now

[@andrewbowles9753]

The animation is very helpful. Ty

[@toastnjam7384]

Like your coverage of smaller battles.

[@c.w.johnsonjr6374]

Great video. Keep up the good work. And hurrah for The Third Louisiana! Looking forward to seeing them covered on your video (s) about Vicksburg.

[@Aquadoc1962]

Animated maps sure make a difference on how such battles were previously presented with still map images and so accessible to everyone on KZbin.

[@thomaslawson801]

Would love to see a video made about the Battle of Jacksons crossroads in Louisiana. Your videos are great.

[@davidread352]

The only troops with rifles were the U.S. Regulars. All other troops in this battle were armed with .69 Cal. Smoothbore muskets. Both sides were armed primarily with the Model 1842 Springfield smoothbore or the U.S. model 1816 smoothbore some still in flintlock. A few shotguns and even pikes were the other weapons.

[@troidva]

The 1st Iowa Regiment was not known as the "Kansas Greyhounds"; they were of course the "Iowa Greyhounds." Also, there were no railroads beyond Rolla in 1861 in southwestern Missouri as the map erroneously shows. That would be a major impediment to offensives by either the Union or the Confederacy during the war.

[@alancoe1002]

That was the Wire Road. Quite right.

[@cal4837]

Lyon had balls, you gotta give him that. Attacking a larger force the way he did to free his men to retreat had some merit to it. Sigel performed about as poorly as someone could, completely blowing the attack’s chances. Fremont should’ve reinforced him. 50 thousand soldiers and he doesn’t send a single man?

[@Ryuko-T72]

They threw rocks at soldiers and yelled slurs at them and shot at them, but when they retaliated, it became a controversy??

[@trevdestroyer8209]

The same happened at the Boston massacre

[@seanheaney8303]

When analyzing the battle though a defeat for the Federal Troops/Union, it is easy to say in someways it was a victory. With 2/1 odds for the Union Troops to bascially inflict the same number of casualties on the opposing force some would consider that a victory. The casualties taken by the southern force most likely kept from from progressing further into Missouri. Making this battle some what of a successful delaying action and in terms of casualties also a victory. Excellent video!

[@forrestgreene1139]

That was my first thought too. The stats AND the eventual fallout down the road tell a different story indeed.

[@scottanos9981]

I'd say the loss of a general makes this a union defeat, on top of the loss of the field, morale and manpower they proportionally needed

[@mattmuller3756]

The Union army may of given up the ground at the end of the day. However there fight and sacrifice stopped the Confederate/Missouri guard invasion of Missouri. Or at the minimum knocked the more experienced officers and better suppied troops out of the campaign. That and Freemont's reinforcement not to far after put Missouri in the Union's pockets for most if not the remainder of the war. Pea Ridge and poor strategy and bad breaks when there divided force was beaten when near an entire division was taken down by two gun shots ending organized attacks or orders of any kind. In the mean time Price and Van Dorn were unnerved and the next day beaten by the concentrated Union army. The guard/Confederate invasion and the stopped Van Dorn campaign were there best chances in Missouri. And for doing a bunch in the Trans Mississippi and perhaps anywhere in the West? I have to wonder in the Guard may of been better used as a bunch of tiny groups of hit and run. Attack and disperse irreg. troops and not in or as a major invasion force attempting to fight pitched fights with a better equiped and more experienced Union force? They may of been effective at tying down troops for much of the war in that manner if used as they were in some other areas. Jackson may of changed the war in the East with his Shen. Campaign, keeping the Yankees guessing and getting in there heads. If there was the right training and execution of partisan groups in the Missouri/Trans Miss. theatre who knows how different the entire war may of gone? The Confederates needed to do something to take pressure off the West and East areas east of the Mississippi. An that may of changed how things stacked up in the Norths favor in the war?

[@jwv5540]

Try adding statistics of deaths wounded ect.. great job man wish u would make more

[@johnsydow4852]

Very cool, my great-great-great-grandfather fought w/ the 1st MO, Company I

[@Joeys-Channel]

Very good

[@admiralsnackbar2811]

Fremont should have sent the reinforcements Lyon requested. Fremont's force was 50,000 strong and wouldn't spare anyone to an army in need that already had their enemy desperate and on the run. But I guess that's why they say hind sight is 20/20.

[@jeddkeech259]

That’s what happens when politically appointed generals take command I reckon

[@Rex-gu1bu]

Freemont didn't have 50,000 in one place. He was generally in charge of two theaters, the Trans-Mississippi and the Western theater in General. Lyon rushed out unprepared and had no plan other that to attack confederates wherever they were. He was rash and should have considered his next move after Jefferson City. When the recruits went home, he should have fell back and tried to secure men for his next enterprise. Pride that he couldn't be seen falling back cost him the battle and his life. His fault, not Freemonts.

[@avenaoat]

I think Sigel and Lyon first steps were succesful to hold Missouri in the Union, but later both Army leaders should have waited for the reinforcments from Iowa and Illionois. The Reinforcments won later under Fremont, but it was pity, because the Mississipi and the Arkansas campains started later under Halleck. This also was a step to became the Civil War so long and so seriouse (approx 600 000 dead people).

[@Notacoolguy1863]

Much love from Missouri!

[@scalisque5403]

Would like to see Perryville my great great grandfather was in the 41st Mississippi till the end of the war. He was 18 at Perryville

[@jimhoward4312]

In Missouri Confederate counties were not necessarily southern. Most of them bordered the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers.

[@rc59191]

Remember this battle from the book Rifles for Watie.

[@alancoe1002]

A major reason for the Union retreat was low ammunition. The 1st Iowa, at least had no enemy before them, according to Ware. Some units of the confederate army thought the battle had been lost and had retreated almost to the Arkansas border before being informed and brought back. Good job spelling out the basics.

[@Snarkapotamus]

Live just down the road from the battlefield. Go by it all the time when going to Republic, MO from Battlefield, MO...it's a really interesting place to visit. But, I'd NOT recommend it in the dead of summer...

[@bryanwiedeman3154]

Great Video.I believe your RR is 1875. Cheers

[@Fireheart1945]

Great video! Also, what's the name of the intro song?

[@brt-jn7kg]

My fifth grade granddaddy was there at Wilson's Creek with the second Arkansas Calvary.

[@xjuliussx]

i don't understand why the cavalry regiments in reserve were not used to pursue the routed enemy ?! they could cut and capture a lot of enemies.

[@danwelch9667]

I'm sure this took a lot of work, unfortunately there are couple of major inaccuracies in this video to go along with a number of smaller ones. Would be great if you would fix them and we'd have an excellent visual aide to help in understanding what happened to go along with great books like Piston & Hatcher's "Wilson's Creek" I can try to help. Biggest one by far is all the info you have regarding what is generally known as the "Fight in Ray's Cornfield." You have important details of both the story and its timeline in the bigger picture of the battle way off. It wasn't Sturgis that ordered the 1st U.S. Infantry across Wilson Creek after Lyon's death and they weren't ordered across to attack Pulaski's battery. The order and movement occurred in the very early stages of the battle, after Colonel Hunter's patrol retreated back off of the Northern spur of Oak/Bloody Hill (to join Cawthorne) and before Lyon's fight with Colonel Cawthorne's full mounted brigade on the crest of the hill. It was Lyon who made the order. He was simply taking steps to secure his left flank, probably largely due to the fact that the southern army was actually closer to Springfield (his escape route) at that moment than either Lyon or Sigel's force. Before moving against Cawthorne, Lyon ordered Captain Plummer to take not only the 1st U.S. regulars but also both mounted Missouri Home Guard units and move to the east side of Wilson Creek to "carry forward the left flank of the attack". It wasn't until Lyon's main force had pushed Cawthorne's off of the southern slope of Oak Hill that Pulaski's battery became "unmasked" (although it was never intentionally hidden) by the 1st Kansas & 1st Missouri coming up out of the ravine between the northern spur and hill's main crest. So again, Plummer's force was never ordered to attack the Pulaski light battery as they had left with their orders before Lyon or anyone else knew of the battery's presence. Plummer's force tried to cross over to the east side of Wilson Creek at an inopportune spot (between two dams made by farmer Gibson for his millrace) and fell behind. Eventually they made their way through Gibson's fields and into John Ray's neighboring ones. It was only when they were nearing the center of Ray's cornfield that Plummer observed the Pulaski Light Battery delivering enfilade fire against the main Union line across the valley atop Bloody Hill and (Plummer) responded by leading his command toward the battery "with the intention of storming it should the opportunity offer." From the southern side, McCulloch was alerted to Plummer's threat before he took action against Sigel's force (although he was aware of Sigel before Plummer). Plummer's threat was more immediate than Sigel's. He helped organize the force to meet Plummer before he returned his attention to Sigel. At one point you say "Bloody combat ensues from 10 to 10:30 in the Ray Cornfield. This timing is way off. The fight took place much earlier. Its of course almost impossible to pinpoint exact times but something like 6:30 AM is when that fight took place. By 7:30 AM the 1st U.S. regulars and Plummer are back on Oak/Bloody Hill. Like I mentioned, there are a number of other problems. The federal retreat did not happen during a southern attack. The federals had repulsed the fourth attack and it was during a lull, when Price and McCulloch were rallying for yet another charge that Sturgis called the retreat and it was completed in good order. Southerners didn't realize they had left the field till they finally made their next attempt.

[@danwelch9667]

Here are some of the other inaccuracies I noticed: · The video presents the May 10th Camp Jackson affair as Lyon marching into St. Louis to capture a garrison of secessionists. In reality, it was Lyon and Sigel each leading a separate federal column out from the city to the outskirts (at the time) converging on Lindell Grove, where Camp Jackson was located. The sequence of events here is also off. The secessionists weren’t paroled, then the riot occurred. The violence occurred as they were being marched through the city streets to the arsenal. It was only afterwards that they were herded into the arsenal, held overnight and paroled/released the next day. · You end the Camp Jackson affair saying “Lyon pushes on as riots break out in St. Louis the next day. Lyon didn’t go anywhere and I can’t find any reports of riots the next day. It seems like you just made that up although maybe you can point to a source for that? Lyon doesn’t leave St. Louis with his army until a month later, after the Planter’s House meeting on June 11th. Reaching Jefferson City on June 15th. · There was no rail line to Springfield in 1861. The line ended in Rolla, MO. The map shows the railroad extending not only to Springfield, but continuing right on to Neosho. (Neosho had no rail service either). There was no rail service to Southwest Missouri, Northwest Arkansas, or the Northeastern Indian Territory in 1861. This could be seen as a minor inaccuracy, but the fact that the rail line ended in Rolla, was critical in explaining the what & why of Wilson’s Creek. Lyon had serious difficulty in maintaining an army at Springfield due to no railroad service. Sending supplies to the army from the Rolla railhead down to Springfield was a massive logistical task. You do at least state that Lyon’s army marched from Rolla to Springfield, but need to remove that section of railroads from the map or don’t show railroads at all, rather than mislead in showing them. · You state that Price molded the Missouri State Guard into a “well trained, well disciplined army” at Cowskin Prarie. This gets into some subjectivity, but that is at the very least misleading. They got some training. They were better trained thanks to Cowskin, but McCulloch himself was appalled at the very lack of discipline and training of the Missouri State Guard after Cowskin. He was incredulous at the amount of lax discipline Price allowed in the State Guard. It was unauthorized Missouri State Guard foragers that sounded the alarm of Lyon’s surprise attack at Wison Creek. You allude to this yourself after first making that statement. · John C. Fremont’s headquarters (as part of the newly created “Western Department” were in St. Louis, MO, not Cairo, IL. All documented communication between Lyon and Fremont went to/from St. Louis, including Captain John S. Cavender’s important trip to talk to Fremont (Cavender left Springfield for St. Louis on July 15h, returning on August 5th.).

[@miketaylor5212]

there were a lot of people in the south that didnt support secession there were many people in the north that supported the secession of the south. when conscription started it didnt matter what you supported you were forced to fight.

[@avenaoat]

I think Warhawk's videos are very knowledge expanders for the for those interested in the American Civil War in all the World. But I think to be interesting to know more about the Trans Mississippi Theater or the Western Theater. It is right both parts North and South thought the most importan theater for the two Capitals and concentralted more and more soldiers there. Texans fought there! After Gettysburg the Northern leadership (Halleck, Lincoln, Stanton?) changed the main theater to West. Slocum, Howard corps were sent to Western Theater, Burnside liberated East Tennessee, But This it might forced by Longstreet Western Theater appearence.......Perhaps Longstreet expedition brought the Western Theater to be the most important? BTW Here a timetable about the Missouri' battles kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4emnJZtitWlfqc For me the most interesting battle was in Kansas in 1864 I hope Warhawk will show Battle of Mine Creek. I have just discovered this very interesting battle from the Trans Mississippi.

[@lukepeters5683]

This is a weird question, but I am curious as to what ethnic slurs were shouted at the german volunteers @2:30? I have tried researching what ethnic slurs existed for germans during the ACW, but the only things I can find are from World War 1 or later. I am very interested in etymology and linguistics., and I would greatly appreciate it if you could possibly link me to the source you found for that piece of information. I am having no luck and It would be a big help. I'm sorry for the inconvenience of commenting on a 2-year-old video, but I hope this message finds you well. I really enjoy your content.

[@WarhawkYT]

the video might be old but this comment isnt. I'm not sure exaclty but might be the same or similar to other words the germans were called later in the war after Chanceollersville and Gettysburg.

[@lukepeters5683]

@@WarhawkYT Thank you for the quick response I appreciate the help. Keep up the great content, and I believe you deserve more recognition for this near Masterclass-level presentation of the ACW.

[@colbymitchell1137]

can we get you guy's to put on here smaller engagement Battles or skirmishes? I am in Forsyth, Missouri and we had a Skirmish called Sweeny's Raid on Forsyth. I am interested on smaller engagements. Missouri was one of the most fought over states in the Civil War. Also Siegal had a Battle in Carthage, Missouri if you have not done one. Springfield , Missouri also had a Battle of Forts.

[@colbymitchell1137]

Shelby's Raid on Missouri would also be a Good one. Shelby was the last leader to not Surrender. Took his guy's to Mexico and through his sword in the Rio Grand i believe.

[@Ureconstructed]

Actually, after watching this again, there is quite a bit wrong. The opening positions of the Arkansas state troops is off completely. The order of events is off, and some other details.

[@ragnarlundin1579]

yes it will . a lot !!!

[@sonsofliberty75]

As a former history teacher, these videos are a treasure trove of information and understanding of events in our history.

[@landanjaeger6849]

My great great grandpa fought there for the Union

[@VolokArtyom]

a question for a US geography nerd, how many confederate springfields were there compared to union springfields? i mean cities with the name, i know there's a bunch everywhere so it made me wonder, i feel like probably most were unionists, but i'm not good enough at US geography to know for sure, not that it even matters, just one of those random musings.

[@VolokArtyom]

for context i'm better than average at US geography than most people from outside the US but i know people from there must know it better, obviously, i might look it up but i feel like someone might have had the same random musing and already knows

[@NefariousKoel]

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Springfield in every continental US state. It's probably close to that, at least. Many towns were founded in a relatively short span of time. There were quite a few re-used ones while spreading further west.

[@aworldwithoutsin6384]

The Union lost but damn, they inflicted some serious casualties. going up against a force twice its size took some balls on the part of Lyon and Sigel.

[@cretene1]

did u not understand ? ammo , was better in union side? no bit and spit?

[@muhammadirfanjalaluddin1018]

@@cretene1 No need to be rough on the man. We're just here to learn.

[@aworldwithoutsin6384]

@@cretene1 guess not

[@thecocktailian2091]

@@cretene1 Superior ammo or not, attacking a force twice your size is not something that was done.

[@Rex-gu1bu]

@@thecocktailian2091 It was stupid and Lyon was killed and his army defeated. He did not make good decisions, just attack!. His party did not last long. He could have immediately fell back when he saw his recruits go home and was denied reinforcements. Could have planned another attack under better circumstance. Nope!

[@renaissongsmann8889]

Video was engaging, thank you. Map work would suggest cavalry didn't play a significant role ... thoughts on that?

[@WarhawkYT]

Wilson's Creek was the 2nd major battle in the war, nobody really understood how cavalry would work in the new age of rifles that could easily destroy mounted soldiers.

[@thoughtfulpug1333]

Nathaniel Lyon's death was probably the biggest tragedy for the Union in 1861. He was an aggressive commander, decisive, and would have probably been a perfect fit for an army commander. Imagine, as an example, this man was given command of the armies in the east, rather than McClellan. I doubt the war would have lasted past 1862. But that is speculation.

[@danwelch9667]

Certainly debatable but this is an example of how someone gets lionized (pun intended) after they die tragically. By almost anyone's standards, Lyon performed brilliantly in the early stages of the campaign that culminated in Wilson's Creek. But in his first (and only) large-scale battle he committed blunder after blunder, much of it due to his complete lack of aggressiveness that morning, when aggressiveness was of vital importance. He acted cautiously when meeting token resistance from Hunter's patrol, losing vital time. He did the same after defeating Cawthorne and gaining Oak Hill, choosing to stay on the hill, when the only chance he had for success was to press the enemy before they had time to get organized. He lost the initiative and gave Sterling Price time to organize the Missouri State Guard at the base of the hill. Time was what Price and McCulloch needed and Lyon gave it to them. That doesn't even get into his complete lack of political awareness. His decision to march his Camp Jackson prisoners back through St. Louis to make an example of them leading to the "massacre" was a major miscalculation and a major boon to the growth & formation of the Missouri State Guard. His decision not to move back from Springfield to the rail-head at Rolla was also illogical. What was he trying to gain? He was making emotional decisions, not logical ones. You can also make an easy argument that the Union gained more by his death than they would have in a victory. He was martyred in his death and the United States prioritized the Trans-Mississippi much more than they had prior to it. Lyon was replaced (in a round-about way) by someone just as capable as himself if not more so in the under-rated Samuel Curtis who gained a much more strategically important victory at Pea Ridge, AR.

[@Rex-gu1bu]

McClellan's being replace was a political decision and he had the best strategy of the War. Lincoln thwarted him at every turn. But I could see Lyon leading in the East for sure. But he also had no restraint or foresight, so we will never know.

[@bcreech17]

He was also a notable psychopath and literal “baby-killer,” quite possibly the first notable case of such in the US military.

[@avenaoat]

Lincoln's success to hold the border states in the Unio was the first step to win the conflict. Moreover Lincoln could found a new border state as West Virginia 1863 too. I knew East Tennessee was strong unionist (Faragut was born here!), but I learn nowdays, that interesting information, that West part of North Caroline was also strong unionist and they gave soldiers to the Federals! I knew the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Delewar and Maryland) gave soldiers to both parts of the confict and I knew the East Tennesseens pro unio behavioral, but West part of North Carolina is new information. I had information about a little area in Mississipi (but the Deep South!), where the people (not slaves) were strong unionists and they did not give soldiers to the Confederals.

[@thehistoryexpert82]

I think you might have gotten something backwards, the Jayhakers were anti-slavery and the Bushwackers were pro-slavery

[@VolokArtyom]

was this battle strategically decisive? because from the numbers it seems like an almost pyrrhic victory, the day was won but the CSA couldn't afford this kind of casualty ratio, i wonder if in the long run it was really a decisive victory or another example of generals who were focused on making land progress at any cost, which was the norm for both armies, but i'd argue the USA had more, even if still few, strategically minded generals, notably sherman and grant, in the CSA i guess a case could be made for a few, including beauregard imo, but i'm not entirely sure on him, johnston comes to mind as a good one, lee might come to mind but i find it harder to make that case for him when at times he seemed too focused on defending virginia to the detriment of the CSA as a whole, not to mention the jacksonian charges which the CSA just didn't have the manpower for, though eventually he did adapt a more defensive stance, i guess i don't think he was very creative strategically, tactically it's undeniable, but he seemed to either not care or not have a good grasp of the larger situation i do absolutely believe lee was loyal to the CSA so it just seems kind of weird to me how focused he was on virginia even when troops could be used better elsewhere and such, maybe he was afraid of a possible union attack at any time, which isn't unfeasible, but the union couldn't really threaten virginia that much until, partly due to lack of help from lee, sherman's march would basically put into action the unionist strategy for the overland campaign of squeezing lee. i'm not taking sides here or anything, i'm honestly curious about things i overlooked and such, thanks for your time if you read this.

[@christurner6854]

I subscribed because i love your video/s but this format of war video is a copy of the style of other channels down to the music and the red highlight on the quotes of men who took part in the battle... its a great format though

[@trussell8510]

jayhawkers were from Kansas fighting to make Kansas a free state. Not the other way around.

[@Ureconstructed]

The end of that battle was a little off.

[@garou0893]

Donde está iron man y el cap america ?

[@cal4837]

Lmaoooo

[@jason200912]

Jackson looking like a snake oil salesman.

[@SN-xk2rl]

Missouri was not split 50/50. The numeric majority of people were pro-union. The narration first mis-characterizes the views of Missourians in 1821, suggesting the population was heavily pro-slavery, it was not. The powerful were pro-slavery, but not the numeric majority. Mo entering the union as a slave state was controversial in Mo itself. The narration then proceeds to pretend the composition of the population of Missouri did not change from 1821 to 1860, ignoring the Missourians of Irish and German descent who added significantly to the population of the state from 1840s. Irish Missourians were largely lower-income, working-class and though racist, were far from enamored with the slave economy that udnermined their ability to make a decent wage when they had to compete against a slave in the labor market. Germans as a whole were Republican, pro-union, and anti-slavery. And Missouri still has a significant German cultural influence today. German Missourians were strongly pro-union, and anti-slavery, and pro-Republican as they were often associated with the migrants from German speaking regions of Europe who fled to the US in the wake of the defeat of the Republican revolutions of 1848 that swept across Europe. Later in the war, during Price's last raid, Price's "army" was known to kill any military aged male they captured who spoke German or spoke with a german accent on the grounds that the man was a "Black Republican" and supporter of abolition.

[@dhoover5480]

Pretty accurate. However - the state voted overwhelmingly for the 3 democrats when Lincoln won by a simple majority over any of the 3. The southern democrats really screwed up by having 3 candidates - it split their party voting block

[@kasper7574]

@@dhoover5480 Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet...

[@hissyhonker220]

You are not all wrong at all.. but conveniently leave out quite a bit and never even mentioned several key things.. plus as a descendent of native "Wurttembergers" lol as I like to say.. you're presentation kinda polishes up and almost blatantly "generalized" or portrays the Germanic nations as almost one people which as I'm sure you know is quite amusing! and closer to preposterous... Anyway I'm not trying to or would even be tempted to debate this as I am getting old and tire of these things when people should do their own research thoroughly from both sides ignoring propaganda and focusing on fact and the reality of life in the day .. hind sight is 20/20.. considering slavery was as old as time and every nation and race is responsible and took part throughout history. I just think it's sad to make the slaves the center of contention for literally generations to come causing countless trouble for political reasons many of which were used to sway views of intervention in what is essentially a family feud, detracting from the true causes of the war.. the slavery issue was just an easy way to take moral high ground in an argument over government control and individual freedoms and infringements that had been brewing since we ran the British out.. slavery was just the final straw.. could you blame them anyway? You cannot simply destroy the lives of entire states and completely change a institution that was seeded 200 years before the south became "the evil south" in an effort to make money and colonize a new land for exploit, I say we rather inadvertently fixed what the old world tried to establish permanently here and then expect whole communities to voluntarily give up their whole lives causing much more pain and hate.. it's a cheap but effective strategy. It may sound harsh but life is harsh and even worse then .. so you want to take away the whole economy of a whole section of the country that the government established in the first place.. typical politics.. I say the lives were wasted when real advancements could have been made .. people conveniently "forget" the south had nearly abandoned slavery by the 1790's when suddenly one invention literally took a market from modest to the space age overnight causing a rebirth of slavery and harsh treatment simply in the name of easy and more money.. it's basic economics.. I'm done, have a good day

[@spencerross5159]

Can we critique a video or others without degrading them?

[@michaelpriesendorf9598]

Couple of things wrong. Lincoln didn't get a single Clay County vote. The Missouri railroad only went as far as Sedalia the entire war

[@seamusmchooligan9212]

The "Jayhawkers" were anti-slavery militants from Kansas not pro slavery Missourians. Which is why Kansas collegiate athletic teams are known as "Jayhawks" today. If you are going to make educational history videos, accuracy is important.

[@HSMiyamoto]

Missouri was where Unionists realized that only harsh measures would succeed with the Rebels. Three counties near Kansas were depopulated of slavery supporters, to help guarantee peace in Missouri.

[@zurgesmiecal]

ethnical cleansing...oh wait it's called "spreading democracy"

[@lemmiwinks7191]

One mistake is made here, Jayhawkers or "redlegs" were the anti-slavery fighters in Missouri. At 0:29 you refer to pro-slavery Missourans as "Jayhawkers".

[@thehaus6998]

Why not paint all the CSA units as either red or gray and the union as blue,it's annoying

[@WarhawkYT]

those are the colors of what the specific units wore during the battle

[@thehaus6998]

@@WarhawkYT Wow,I never actually thought of that,maybe just make it a bit more clear ? I struggle to understand which are Lyon's Fleeing men and which are confederate chasers

[@WarhawkYT]

@@thehaus6998 I've been working on that, this video is one of my oldest.

[@thehaus6998]

@@WarhawkYT Ok,But overall I really like your content and you really educated me on the civil war,thanks for that

[@adamhenrywalker]

Yeah! General Frémont!

[@mizzoupatriot8814]

My Great Great Great Grandfather Elias Bates Short's farm was on Wilson's Creek National Battlefield during the civil war and some of the women and children were kidnapped by confederates during the battle and forced to cook and accommodate the Confederate soldiers. Granddad was furious as our family was pro Union.

[@mwhitepop]

The Jayhawkers were 2:25 Terrorists from KANSAS not Missouri!!! Get your facts straight man.

[@bennrubinr3865]

sounds djt 01/06 th

[@antoniopinto1579]

The U.S - Army (federals) plan could have worked. But that german dud mistook the Confederates for Federal/Union troops. On account both sides wearing same coloured uniforms. Personally in that period of war " shoot first, ask questions later" is a good idea.

[@Rex-gu1bu]

Risking killing your own men is a better reason to hold your fire.

[@tra-viskaiser8737]

The way I hear is that lyon illegally arrested the missouri militia after being called by the legal and elected governor for yearly training... but who can or is allowed to stand against the federal mafia?

[@NefariousKoel]

Basically Missouri's political leadership, with it's populace being split in sympathies, told the Federals the state would be neutral in the conflict. Somewhat similarly to how Kentucky did. They claimed the State Guard would form in order to keep it that way. The hot-headed Union General Lyon decided it was treason and that they were rebels. So he marched in to seize the troops and weapons, then unwisely paraded the state prisoners through the streets in that same state resulting in hostile civilians, riots, and his troops killing civilians. He made quite a mess and ensured more troops would join the Confederacy by his early actions there and, in part, cost him his own life among others.

[@hissyhonker220]

@@NefariousKoel the original post was in essence correct, and your answer combined with his show the truth and historical fact of the matter, however I think it should be noted that Lyon was as you stated very correctly hot-headed and wanted to "rattle the sabre" and went looking for a fight, while at the same time it needs to be stated his actions were indeed illegal and unconstitutional and that's a major point that gets overlooked because it played in Lincoln's favor and Lincoln himself had no issue with his actions in fact it was a god send for Lincoln and he exploited it, making it even worse! because Missouri was within it's legal and government protected rights this infringing on the whole states individual freedoms and condoned by the nations president in direct violation and intentional disregard for the people of the country he was supposed to be the protector of... Argue slavery is wrong and immoral all you want which is technically and to put it bluntly irrelevant at this point when the head of the government willingly breaks its own sacred oaths against his own people when you are just conveniently ignoring the grievous vile betrayal of office violating all Americans rights and by allowing it as a nation set ourselves up to be the very thing we less than a hundred years prior vowed never to allow... It's disgraceful. Now you can argue the rights and wrongs of an institution that would not have lasted another 30 years 40 tops and forever drive a wedge and foster lasting resentment for the whole country, hurting us all... It's so clear to me I never could understand why it's so hard for people to see .. if you are so set on race, well doesn't that make you the racist or at least the one who speaks without real knowledge of what they speak.... Eh food for thought, have a great day

[@hissyhonker220]

@@NefariousKoel hehe furthermore on a lighter note I personally think the states should have let the elected politicians hotly debate face to face and argue among one another confining the violence to the politicians in D.C until it became either irrelevant or so overly annoying to the whole county that the people would decide to abandon the institution and clean house with and start all over... Would have saved many lives sadly lost on both sides...

[@psilocybemusashi]

tyrants

[@maeghanrose1872]

What slurs would you cast at German volunteers in 1861? Couldn't call them Nazis yet.

[@seanmac1793]

probably called them Swarthy or something like that

[@Shadowman4710]

@@seanmac1793 The common reference was "Dutch" which is a corruption of the German "Deutch."

[@carmichael3594]

I don't know if it's just me but I've noticed the confederate's army is pretty good and most videos I've watched this far have won more battles than the union.

[@sevenft3]

Propaganda

[@davidbowman4259]

Sad that we're still fighting Confederates and Nazis 160 and 80 years later.

[@WarhawkYT]

dang thats crazy, i didnt know some people are over 160 years old

[@davidbowman4259]

@@WarhawkYT Crazy indeed. History repeating itself.

[@brandonstanley9125]

Non-attachment - Kindle edition by Stanley, Brandon. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.