The Union War with Dr. Gary Gallagher

[@JB-wh3we]

Has Gallagher ever given a bad lecture in his life? Always a pleasure to hear him speaking on the Civil War

[@robertferguson533]

No. He’s batting a thousand

[@sup8857]

Yes, once, but he was four.

[@johnmartin7158]

He give a perspective that is little talked about.

[@paulmicheldenverco1]

He was often on the History Channel's shows about pawn brokers, I mean about The War Between the States. This makes more sense to me now. It was the states who raised the soldiers and people speak most often about the various units using the state of origin when explaining who they were. Even the Back Hats were understood to be a mostly WI brigade and The Stonewall brigade to hail from VA, plus the state regiments get the most discussion.

[@bearowen5480]

As we have come to expect from him, Professor Gallagher enlightens us about the historical nuances of the American Civil War. He wipes away mistaken concepts we have learned from an educational system that too often only teaches superficial history within the context of modern contemporary America. He is an historical superstar.

[@robertferguson533]

Great comment. You nailed it

[@bearowen5480]

@@robertferguson533 Thank you, Robert! Hats off to Professor Gallagher!

[@emonokari82]

Gary rocks. His 72 Great Courses Lectures are masterpieces.

[@melodymaker135]

Looking for this now. Available on KZbin?

[@craigc3682]

I’m a Gallagher fan, outstanding lecture and q&a. Thank you the challenging thoughts and pushing our understanding forward.

[@MatthewHall-e4o]

I would love to get Gary Gallagher in conversation with David Blight. They offer radically different views of northern politics during and after the Civil War.

[@davidspencer6384]

Very interesting. I'm going to read The Battlecry of Freedom again now.

[@alexander-xj2nn]

I would love a lecture on the music of the civil war.

[@stephenclark1732]

Wow! And finally a group discussion where no one asks about Jackson at Gettysburg!! Amazing!

[@avenaoat]

I think one of the most interesting question is the PROUNIONISM in the Southern states. The true border states as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware moreover the original West Virginia (West Virginia got a lot of proconfederate counties at the end of the Civil War as Greenbrier) were originaly prounionists. Missouri gave about 10% vote or Delaware gave 23% to Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Abraham Lincoln almost won Hancock county in Virginia (in the future West Virginia) in 1860. Kentucky remained in the Union for the strong (postmortem) effect of Henry Clay. Maryland remained for lower slavery system economy (Baltimore did not want to lost the maritime trade possibility). West Virginia was as Delaware a quasi Northern economical area minimal slavery system as the salt mines. St Louis was solid prounionist city to build the brown water fleet. The Unionist border states (without West Virginia) gave about 100 000 soldiers to the Confederacy, but about 300 000 soldiers to the Union! However the Union got about 100 000 white soldiers (32000 from Tenneessee and 22000 from West Virginia) and about 200 000 colored soldiers from the Confederacy. About 100 000 colored soldiers came from the Union as Kentucky or other unionist states. The most unionist white soldiers from the Confederacy came from areas and a minority were the lonely unionist volunteers. An example for a lonely volunteer unionist cavalry officer from Mississippi Colonel Benjamin F Davis at Harper Ferry in 1862! The majority arrived from prounionist communities as East Tennessee or Ozark region in Arkansas and from other areas in the Confederacy.

[@willoutlaw4971]

Thank you Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and all who fought to save the USA and eradicate African American slavery.

[@koltoncrane3099]

Willoutlaw It wasn’t a war about slavery. Ask yourself if the south banned slavery and seceded would the north allow it? No the war still would have happened if slavery was banned in the south. It was a war over secession. It wasn’t a civil war as the south didn’t want to rule the north. The revolutionary war was a real civil war as the traitor George Washington which commanded British troops against the French and Indians rebelled and fought to control the country’s government. George was British fighting British. It was a civil war.

[@dcgreenspro]

@@koltoncrane3099the articles of secession, the new state constitutions and most of the confederate senators speeches upon leaving the union will say otherwise.

[@u.sgrant7526]

@@koltoncrane3099 There probably would have been a civil war if the South had seceded, but I think that without slavery, secession is unimagineable.

[@u.sgrant7526]

​@@dcgreenspro Yeah, a lot of the ordinances/articles of secession just say "We're leaving. Adios", but I feel like all high-school students, especially in the South, should be made to memorize South Carolina's, Texas' and Mississippi's ordinances of Secession by heart. Those ordinances either strike a massive blow at any Lost Cause Sentiment or if they choose to reject them, by default puts ALL primary sources into question.

[@kubanpanzer]

@@u.sgrant7526bingo. Bingo. The war was about secession. Secession was about slavery.

[@JeffreyLang-j5i]

UVA is blessed to have Dr. Gary Gallagher!

[@carywest9256]

Don't you mean cursed, he is from Colorado, which isn't a Southern State!

[@GH-oi2jf]

@@carywest9256- Get a clue. The Civil War is over.

[@SalaciousBCrumb-md3lk]

​@@carywest9256ad hominem AND genetic fallacies. Well done!!😢😢

[@ColleenCupido]

At a Civil War re enactment, I purchased a quite authentic looking Civil War era dress copy. It really went over big when I wore it to my Civil War class at University.....I don't think that professor ever experienced That one before. And he himself baked a batch of homemade hardtack, and distributed it to the class of around 25. After class was over, I asked for the remainder in a baggie, and got it!

[@ColleenCupido]

LINCOLN: "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"

[@ColleenCupido]

Saint Paul, William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln (MY list).....All in the Family: Archie..it's the first name. My name is Smith, Isaac Smith. My name is Brown, Saul Brown. Meathead: Abraham Lincoln. Edith: I didn't know Lincoln was Jewish

[@davidlavigne207]

I am always impressed with Professor Gallagher's lectures. I don't always agree with his views, but on the idea of secession I am in agreement with his interpretation: it had to be decided by battle. Some people want to pillory President Lincoln for his views on the importance of the Union, but what alternative? If the Confederacy had succeeded what precedent would have established? I can only imagine that the first time there was a disagreement between say, Georgia and Alabama over some trivial political issue then one of the two states would say, "Well if we don't get our way, we'll just succeed from the Confederacy!" The same precedent could have similar results even in the "Loyal" states. Whenever a particular state or group of states decided that things weren't going their way by a majority rule vote, a successful Confederate separation from the Union would have almost guaranteed another secession. Interesting discussion and questions.

[@koltoncrane3099]

David U make good points. But so what if states were countries? The colonies were all different and even had different money. Personally I think it’d be better if each state was its own country. It would prevent California from forcing its views on another state. The current system we have lets bankers or New York force its will on all states and the world. The federal reserve is private paying a 6% dividend. If states were all different countries I guarantee you we wouldn’t have endless wars like we do today cause endless wars are only possible by fiat currency and a private central bank and big government. That way inflation is spread out upon all workers everywhere and even the world today in trade. Small governments prevent big fraud which is what money printing is. Europe would be much better off if they ended the EU. Sure there’s benefits from having a lose federal government or federation to protect states or countries in time of war. Europe all separate countries have nato which is basically like a federal government providing military protection but all countries are independent. Idk I think we could have a super small federal Government or something and have states act like their own country. There’d be way less waste or less theft by inflation that’s for sure. Remember the federal reserve is private paying a 6% dividend and around the same time the irs was made basically to force people ti use the federal reserve money.

[@koltoncrane3099]

Ya it definitely wasn’t a civil war but a war of secession yet schools teach it’s a civil war when in reality the revolutionary war was a civil war. The traitor George Washington was a British soldier that fought against the French and Indian war. But George won so he’s a hero. If he lost he would have been labeled a terrorist basically.

[@mustbtrouble]

Finally, the great gary gallagher speaks again!

[@jonrettich-ff4gj]

Grant though very capable of military politics seemed to do all he could to have a very low key presence publicly and privately. Lee was automatically extremely patrician, successful militarily and recognized by the whole army and lauded publicly he was even able to retain respect in the North despite Confederate depredations in Pennsylvania. McClellan writes his wife about his horror of casualties during the seven days, a great training and organizing officer but fatally for many lacking in meeting the utter aggressiveness he was faced with. The theory of anti slavery, as you said, has nothing to do with bigotry which was endemic north and south. I read the Southerners were training slaves to take over more complex jobs and I wonder what Southern tradesmen would have done. I also understand there were 450,000 free blacks in the South some with elite professions. A book referencing the South as representing the last Celtic war has some fascinating observation about many of that ancestry. Saddest perhaps is when two subsistence classes tangle the results are horrific as with the Irish and black in New York City. Thank you for your presentation it is very difficult to see history as a contemporary would but invaluable.

[@JPW3]

Gary Gallagher loves to shatter Civil War myths.

[@ziggystardust1122]

And...right there it is, again.

[@butchb4577]

@@ziggystardust1122i🎉😮🎉😢probably gonna 🎉y🎉🎉po🎉😢🎉😢😢😂🎉😮❤🎉😢u😂😊🎉😂😅i😊😮rest 🎉 a really cool young woman 😢😢😮😮😅😢😂 q😂 😂❤

[@johnmartin7158]

It’s more that he’s talking about this perspective. Most Professors and Doctorates are saying the same as Dr Gallagher.

[@SalaciousBCrumb-md3lk]

​@@johnmartin7158Name them!!

[@johnschuh8616]

Careful, He also demolishes the argument for pulling down at the statues of confederate leaders. Lee was until thirty years ago was a symbol of reconciliation. Remember that the Union invasion of the South was in 1944 as close in time as close to us as D-Day is to us today. My great-grand mother whom I knew was a child who remembered her sin at losing her favorite uncle in the Battle of Vicksburg and hiding from Union soldiers. Gone with the Wind was in many respects as real for many people as Savings Private Ryan is for us.

[@TheGazaMethodChannel]

Dr. Gallagher, is there a chance you could address some of the oddities of the Civil War, such as the Russians, supplying their navy to assist the union or the fact that the confederates never surrendered the army did, but the government didn’t-and what that means legally, how much gun running the Brits did for the confederacy, how much of Europe back the confederacy. Thank you

[@teresacastro1263]

In the end not one foreign nation recognized the sovereignty of the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation changed the tone of the war and after that England was not going to recognize the South secession after that. Workers in England sent Lincoln a thank you letter after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The populace in England was very much opposed to slavery. Articles of Secessions and the Conerstone speech make it clear that the South seceded to preserve and expand slavery.

[@GirardNicolasQc]

A great lecture, but horrible audio quality.

[@ColleenCupido]

MAD magazine: Lincoln saying Gettysburg Address to a crowd "..that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth".....wit in crowd: No, it'll just be a little hard to find

[@johnschuh8616]

I go along with most of what Dr. Gallagher says, but demure on some of his comments about the Lost Cause and Lee as representative of it, He tells his British colleague to his country is to blame for our aversion to a professional Army.as a consequence of the Revolution. But Britain had an equal aversion to large professional forces. dating from the struggles with the Stuarts. The use of Red Coats in Boston famously became a symbol of oppression. In the South, the use of even small numbers of Union troops during Reconstruction became likewise as a part of the Redeemers campaign propaganda. Withdrawal of troops as part of the deal in 1877 was thus a part of the deal that would find support even in the North. That the small residual force existed mainly for one other purpose, which was to suppress the wild Indians on the frontier was unacceptable as an expression of Yankee domination. Which it was even at the time "Gone with the Wind was made.

[@rubydog2]

Too bad the sound is terrible

[@chesterpinkney107]

The answer to the question at 1:12:30 is spot on! Small percentage owned slaves but all had a stake in it!

[@noahbachmann5323]

Yeah, you can look at something like the coal industry in West Virginia. A handful of people actually own coal mines in West Virginia. And only about 3% of the workforce is employed at coal mines. Yet the politics of the area is massively connected to protecting coal mining.

[@avenaoat]

The abolutionists were a minority wing in the Republican party, but some important protagonists as Chase, Sumner, Stevens had big role. Sumner was succesful when West Virginia want to join in the USA he requested a legal article in the West Virginian constitution about the gradual abolution and West Virginian constitution assembly fullfilled! Lincoln was in the center of the Republican party, but he was in good (friendly) connection with the republican abolutionists as brother of Elijah Parish Lovejoy. The hard abolutionists were outside of the Republican party as Gallagher said. John Brown group and others for example. However the seccessionist propagators tried the mix Abraham Lincoln with the John Brown group from 1859.

[@GeorgeLowrey]

The union was to be "perpetual." On the issue of whether the States reserved the right to leave the Union it is interesting to note the following from the Articles of Confederation: "Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

[@cliffpage7677]

The original Confederation and the Second Confederation use the term "perpetual" Union, but the US Constitution does not.

[@GH-oi2jf]

@@cliffpage7677- True, but likewise the Constitution does not say that it replaces the original Articles in their entirety. Clearly, the Constitution prevails where the Articles are incompatible with it, but the Constitution is silent on whether the Union is “perpetual.” It was the intent of the original states, which included South Carolina and Virginia, that the Union be perpetual.

[@cliffpage7677]

@@GH-oi2jf Virginia was the last state to ratify the Constitution. Already sufficient signatories had put it in force. Virginia was not a part of that Union until it ratified the document. Ratifications are agreements between sovereign states. The State of Virginia specifically stated in its ratification agreement the right of the Commonwealth to remove itself from the Union if it felt abuse. Four other States also ratified the Constitution under such provisos. The Constitution has the "equipoise clause" which guarantees to all states the same rights as any other. Therefore, all States had the right to secede. When New England States threatened to secede in the War of 1812, over the US trade embargo with England and fishing rights, Jefferson encourage such secession. Both Jefferson and Madison the authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, engendered to protest the illegal Alian and Sedition Acts imposed by President John Adams, the argued for State nullification, the illegality of this law which violated the Bill of Rights, the right of State interposition, and that the Constitution was a compact amongst the States. The Constitution is a compact which limits the Federal government to very specific enumerated matters and all others are left to the states as defined in the10th Amendmendment. "Property" was the cornerstone of the Constitution, as understood by all from the writings of John Locke. Lincoln seriously violated the Constitution repeatedly. The 14th Amendment is focused on "Freedom" an idea of Rousseau, while the 15th Amendment expanded voting rights and citizenship to former slaves. Prior to this voting rights was a State prorogative and only certain men (in many states property owners) could vote and Women, Negros, Indians, children were not citizens, nor could they vote. Immegrants in some states had to own property before they could vote.

[@frankmiller95]

Umm....what about the St Alban's raid?

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Lee Cynthia Garcia Kevin Martinez Mark

[@jmiller1977]

I thought Mississippi was the richest state I. The country before the War

[@tremendousbaguette9680]

1:06:12 Great Britain had an election during world war 2. After V-E day, granted, but it did.

[@avenaoat]

1. The wrong school teaching in the USA. First the American Constitution said any Amend or Change of the Constitution needed 75% majority of the States (plus 67% vote in the Congress). There were 15 slave holding states and 18 free work states in the USA about November 1860 this meant 54.5% majority only instead of 75%. No politician or party could say before the Civil War any whole USA abolution at all% First the USA schools should teach this Constitution fact before the Civil War lessons. Too many people (from the YT samples show well) do not understand why the Republican party and Lincoln wanted only the Western future territories (future states) to be free of slavery territorry in 1860 and 1861. Lincoln had to hold the low % slave populated border states in the union (Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri) to win the War and he avoided the abolution question and a lot of democrat party generals/soldiers were in the unionist Army, whose priorities were not the totall abolution. What a exception (democrat) Butler's contraband idea! I think the best politician was in the XIXth Century Abraham Lincoln. He stepped almost that step in the most cases what had to do. So he understood the best Constitutional possibility the 11 Confederation states, because the 25 USA states (Kansas, West Virginia and Nevada newer states) could give that the 75% of States majority! USA could say the 11 Confederate states were traitor with the Civil War so their veto őossibility disapeared. So the 13th Amend was introduced by January of 1865! First Lincoln emancipation proclamation was for France and UK not to help a Slavery Civilization by 1862, but it was an important promise IF LINCOLN HAD REELECTED in 1864 HE WOULD HAVE STARTED ABOLUTION MEASURES! Mc Clallen and the Democrats did not want whole USA abolution! Lincoln kept his promise with the 13th Amend! 2. Funny but the Constitution of the Confederacy violated states' rights! The most abolutions were local state decisions from the end of the XVIIIth Century. From New England to New Jersey the local states abolished slavery system! Interesting the Dred Scott decision violated the Northern STATES' RIGHTS earlier from the Southern Connected judges! The Constitution of the Confedercy said in the whole territory of the Confederacy the slave holders could bring their slaves freely. This meant the States of the Confederacy was not allowed to abolish the slavery system in own states! (Effect of the Dred Scott decision for the Constitution of the Confederacy) (BTW the free speech was forbidden in the Confederacy too, because the free speech about abolution was forbidden! The first abolution newspaper was founded in (EAST) Tennessee in the beggining of the XIXth Century!) 3. Stephen Douglas the presidency candidate of the Northern Democrats in 1860 wanted 200 000 volunters instead of the 75 000 volunters of Lincoln. Douglas had enormous effect Lincoln was succesful to do a Democrat and Republican national unification untill 1864 election., moreover in the Army and Navy to the triumph. Douglas had plantation with slaves in Mississippi (he inherited from his first wife) and he wanted the intact USA. (Buchanan was bad president, but he dis not recognize the Confederacy and held the federal forts he helped the Lincoln administration.

[@johndeboyace7943]

The rebels were traitors and should have been punished more severely, and not allowed to vote. I’m much older than Gallagher and never understood the respect given to Lee. They used to call it the” solid south”, they were nearly 100% Democrats and pushed white supremacy. Most whites in the 1950’s thought nothing about civil rights. It was always apparent that preserving the Union was the driving force of the war, though fear of losing control of blacks was the reason the rebels pushed secession. States rights was their shield against criticism. The scars were still apparent 75 years after the war. My father was in the Army in early 1941 in the 13th Infantry Regiment and the southerners joining the regiment complained about the motto of the regiment “First at Vicksburg”.

[@ziggystardust1122]

And...again.

[@cliffpage7677]

@@ziggystardust1122 President Lincoln was a traitor, dictator, and gross violator of the US Constitution and rules of war, and created a war, which killed around 650,000 soldiers - North and South, and caused between 1-1.25 million Negros to die of starvation, deprivation, or disease, and transformed our republic into a nation-state more like other European nations of the time and created something the United States never had before and is still prohibited in the Constitution - a standing army. Lincoln was sworn to uphold the Constitution and he violated it like no other individual holding Presidential Executive power before or after.

[@NathanDean79]

Bill Clinton also wrote his own stuff.

[@johnmartin7158]

Does Genius Trump write his own.

[@BuckleGeoffrey]

Martinez Patricia Harris Paul Robinson Linda

[@ДмитрийДепутатов]

Walker Larry Wilson Barbara Williams Linda

[@henryburby6077]

God's footstool? What a strange term for the earth.

[@navy7633]

Dr. Gallagher, The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, has everything to do with the right of the people to take up arms against a tyranical National Government. And, it is a very good thing that it is in the Constitution as the National Government has been treating its citizens with disrespect for a long, long time. Our right to bear arms is always in the minds of politicians; and this is why so many laws are passed by both parties to curtail or dissolve this right. Politicians, for the most part, are not moral or upstanding men and women.

[@nanouli6511]

The whole point is to continue the Constitution? Let's have a chat about Lincoln's Constitutional abuses...

[@timothymeehan181]

You’ve obviously never read Lincoln’s Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861. A clearer, more concise statement of the federal government’s duty & obligation in the secession crisis doesn’t exist….🎩🙏🇱🇷

[@MichaelJDargan]

Terrible acoustics

[@paulmicheldenverco1]

Sadly, the 10th Amendment gave the states the right to secede. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[@paulmicheldenverco1]

I'd aIso never argue that to a Confederate apologist.

[@Malcolm.Y]

For some reason, I find virtually everyone's opinions exteremely and fundamentally inaacurate. Gallagher argues that only 11 of 15 southern states seceded. Really? Does any serioius student of this war think that Missouri, Maryand and Kentucky would not have seceded, where they not invaded and stopped from doing so by Linoln's army? Gallagher says the south had a different idea of "union." Yeah, the southern view was the union created by the Csontittutioin, which they copied basically word-for-word as the CSA Constitution. The nothern view of union of that of the abusive and possissive husband, who after divorce, stalks his smaller, weaker ex-wife forcing back into marriage, making her even less of a second-class citizen.

[@teresacastro1263]

Well in that analogy. The woman abused the children(slaves) depriving them of basic rights and needs.

[@benmorris5591]

Now shatter the righteous northern cause myth.

[@JPW3]

Ed Ayers and Robert Penn Warren have done that.

[@u.sgrant7526]

Didn't he literally do exactly that in the video?

[@jmiller1977]

I’m not to sure if I like Gary or not , He has a lot of good points but I would have to know why he brings slavery i. The mix so much . I agree with his causation and reason to fight , and the importance to the union . But if he drags the slavery issue In as a virtue signaling issue suggesting that he or others would have been on the right side of history I have a problem. If he is just doing it factually I have no problem.

[@teresacastro1263]

In several of the articles of secession states like South Carolina and Mississippi among others said they were leaving to preserved slavery.

[@disturbersrow9346]

You might want to read the articles of secession. Easy to find on line.

[@PMMagro]

Slavery was key. It is very hard to compromise on ("slave 3 months a year" is not realistic) and it was important in the southern economy but not in the north. It also had been a long term divide between slave states and non slave states. To gice up slavery was just evry hard for teh South and escpially it's domiante rulers just as it was for politicans of the North.

[@nanouli6511]

For a historian to claim the second amendment is about the army means he doesn't know what he is talking about or he is a liar.

[@nanouli6511]

The North invaded the South because secession meant economic loss, including a 50% unemployment in the northern states and a bankrupt federal government. Loss of southern markets and the difference between a 10% CSA tax vs a 26% US tax would cause trade to flow to the south. Gallagher is wrong. The US needs to explain why they invaded. Read the Corwin amendment, the Crittenden-John resolution. The US fought for economic reasons, not to free anyone.

[@danic_c]

If you compare the Crittenden Resolution and the Crittenden Ammendment, then it becomes very clear that the war was started over essentially the issue of slavery. Now, granted the North was not looking to abolish slavery when the war started, you are right about that, however they still did want to limit it's spread to the states where it was already established. This is what was proposed in the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution AFTER the war began as an attempt to try and assuage the fighting from Southern states escalating any further after Bull Run. It was however rejected in congress later in December of 1861. However, this was not good enough for the Southern states who were not satisfied with simply the guarantee that slavery as it existed would not be interfered with. They wanted the institution of African slavery to be permanently enshrined and protected in the Constitution and given every right to expand to newly formed states. This was outlined in the Crittenden Compromise which was proposed in 1860 to make African slavery a permanent part of the American constitution and to allow it to spread to any new Western states. THIS is the issue that caused the Northern states to overturn it. Lincoln and the Northern Republicans were willing to compromise by maintaining the institution of slavery as it existed in the Southern states, but they were not prepared to give it room to expand to new states. And this was unacceptable to the Southern states, as they wanted to expand the institution of slavery, hence why they went off to try to form their own separate nation that would be explicitly founded on the basis that African slavery and racism towards Africans was morally just. Read Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's infamous "Cornerstone Speech." He pretty explicitly spells out that the reason why the Confederacy was seceding and forming their own nation was to enshrine slavery and protect it from the North. So, ultimately you are partially right. In the beginning years of the secession crisis and the war, the North was not necessarily fighting to abolish slavery in its entirety, only to limit it's spread and to preserve the Union. However, the Southern states were always, from the very beginning, fighting to maintain and expand the institution of slavery.

[@PMMagro]

During this period the USA expanded and kept adding new states, half of Mexico was coquered 20 years earlier. It was just unacceptable to lose such a big part of the Union. Imagine if that new state allies with a big foreign power or even gets conquered by one? France was in Mexico 1861-1867 so the risk was real. 1861 the Confederate states was at most 1/3 of the USA population and a big part off the South was slaves even. It was to much to lose but still given the economical realties always posible to force back into Union need be.

[@westnash]

He is so jealous of Shelby Foote

[@TM-vq1bf]

He just points out that Foote is wrong sometimes , which he most certainly was

[@GH-oi2jf]

Nonsense. Mr. Gallagher is a professional historian. Foote is not.

[@johnmartin7158]

Why should he be. It’s 2 different fields.

[@SalaciousBCrumb-md3lk]

Ignore this bot. He says the same thing on every video.

[@Guitcad1]

He's irritated by Shelby Foote, and he's not alone. Foote was FoS.

[@ziggystardust1122]

Guys a partisan hack. No, he's not dumb, he just refuses to tell the ENTIRE knowledge he knows to be TRUE...very disrespectful to the intellect of his audience.

[@JB-wh3we]

@ziggystardust1122 care to cite an example? Gallagher is about as honest a historian as I've ever found.

[@ziggystardust1122]

@@JB-wh3we Never said he wasn't honest. But he is partisan. And yes, the evidence is abundant, no cite needed. Just look at the name he uses for battles. That's a conscious choice...every single time.

[@historify.54]

What do you mean by “entire knowledge”?

[@ziggystardust1122]

@@historify.54 When an individual makes a choice, willingly takes on the responsibility of teacher, instructor, the sharing, the passing on of knowledge that he knows well his audience often isn't as well-versed in as himself, a portion of that greater position is to respect the intellect of the listener (audience) by passing on to them the whole of your knowledge of the story/issue/subject. When an individual knows well there exist a strong argument that would refute in part or, in whole, the one chosen and shared, this practice is not only a disservice to the student/listener/audience, its a disservice to the profession. Above all, it's pandering and disrespectful to the intellect of all who hear. The stroking of egos or pandering to people's emotional reactions should never be masqueraded as scholarship. Give the audience the knowledge you possess on the subject. Let them be real adults and form their own opinions, free from one-sided, manupulitve practices. Respect them...their abilities, judgment and intellect.

[@jamesmccrea4871]

​ @ziggystardust1122 You made the claim, now back it up. Otherwise, near as I can tell, you're just a hack wo has nothing better to do than pretend at knowledge you don't actually have. 1. Show that he's partisan in some way. Claiming the names he uses for battles doesn't cut it. 2. Just how much knowledge on a subject can someone share in a 40 minute lecture? Yes, 40, the rest of the video was Q&A. Especially when he's been studying the subject for decades and has thousands of books on the subject at home?