"The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War" by Dr. Donald J. Stoker

[@patavinity1262]

This is one of the best lectures I've heard on the American Civil War. Very insightful.

[@MrJoeyBoombotz]

Good to hear from someone who is not a Confederate apologist.

[@Bob.W.]

Have you seen Dr. Vinnie lately?

[@bf1255]

Bob W Can you direct one to his/her content? I’m interested.

[@kallekonttinen1738]

US civil war was hard to study from Europe. Several books about details and tactics but general view was left obscure to me. This lecture gives a good overview. Thanks!

[@bjorntorlarsson]

I agree completely! This is the best lecture about the civil war that I have ever seen, from my European perspective. Lots of loose pieces found their place in my mind now. Unfortunately, I only find a single other lecture by Dr. Donald Stoker on KZbin, and it is about Clausewitz.

[@captainmomeyer2237]

Watch Ken burns's documentary. It's on KZbin

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@captainmomeyer2237 Burns gives a rather distorted view of the war.

[@captainmomeyer2237]

@@michaelsommers2356 how so?

[@LEllis-ui3lx]

@@bjorntorlarsson Go learn ur own damn history

[@JohnnyRebKy]

Theres a big reaon Lee went north that nobody talks about. Their estimated 60 thousand horses were starving. Going North provided resources they didnt have in Virginia which largely included grazing area and hay. Each horse in the Army was supposed to have 14 pounds of hay EVERY DAY. That was becoming impossible and horses were reduced to a small ration of corn which decimated their health. No horses equals no Army. Lee went looking for " greener pastures" in a literal sense. Even for a short time it was critical that Lee find resources to maintain his stable. We often forget how important those thousands of horses were.

[@haroldk3913]

Horses don't just have to eat hay, they can eat grasses, and any number of soft plants that grow wild. I just saw a group of wild horses recently, and no one has ever given them hay. The reason Lee went north was to prevent having to send troops from his army to help prevent the fall of Vicksburg. He convinced the administration that large scale demonstration into Pennsylvania might become an embarrassment to the Lincoln Administration, which might then pull troops from other areas, such as Grant's command to chase Lee out of PA. It is true they did a lot of foraging in PA before the battle, but there was more to be gained by redressing the situation in Mississippi than invading Pennsylvania. The results of what happened at Gettysburg and Vicksburg prove this.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

The South lacked many resources, but fodder for horses and cattle shouldn't have been one of them. Poor logistics in that case.

[@board247]

Interesting argument, one I have not previously heard.

[@JohnnyRebKy]

@@board247 it’s not really a argument…it’s just a factor that most people don’t think about. We tend to focus strictly on battles and politics. But logistics wins wars. The point I bring up is just a factor among several. Of course the commenters above me automatically assume I’m saying the whole reason Lee went north was for the horses. I never said that. I’m only saying it was a important factor in the decision

[@JohnnyRebKy]

@@haroldk3913 the wild horses you saw were not living in a wasteland ravaged by war. Of course they eat grasses 🤦‍♂️. When the land is barren and muddy horses must have HAY. Land must have a break in order to grow grass back again. Going north fed the horses and allowed Virginia land to recover. It’s not the entire reason they went north, I never said that. It was simply a factor that many do not think about. Horses cannot graze on grass that doesn’t exist in a war torn wasteland full of mud and dust.

[@AKtothehouse]

This is a well-filmed event. The maps were up when the speaker was talking about it. A lot of presentations are lazy with the visuals that are being spoken about. Glad that wasn't a problem here. I am viewing this video a couple of years later and the compression has really degraded the video quality. Hopefully with your current uploads, the resolution at least starts at 720p. Great presentation.

[@michaelwoods4495]

"...sitting in his shoes..." Now there's an interesting metaphor.

[@ridgecrestrealty]

Fantastic view points; great form and clarity of analysis for such a complex event. Could you direct me to any references with regards to General McClellan proposing the possibility of Mexico assistance? Also, are aware of any communication between president Lincoln's administration with that of president Juarez?

[@uncletimo6059]

Agree with you except for this: "Lee is only honored as a good general because he fought for white supremacy. " No, Lee fought for black slavery. There is a difference.

[@halporter9]

Eloy Rodriguez This is an excellent question. There had to be a normal diplomatic correspondence with Juarez, but I haven’t seen it directly quoted. Some of the communications must have been increasingly difficult as the French invasion progressed. I know that the Lincoln government was very upset with the French intervention but faced a delicate situation as they wished to avoid French intervention in support of the Confederacy. I also know that almost immediately after the war ended very high generals (I believe Sheridan for a period of time, and perhaps Sherman briefly also) went to El Paso to show support for Mexico and also to coordinate significant and, in time very large, arms shipments (surplused Springfield rifles, munitions, perhaps field artillery that I am aware of). You might look online for diplomatic correspondence in those years.

[@charlesthompson592]

@@halporter9 Millions of people agree that the outcome what was desired...

[@bjorntorlarsson]

​@@uncletimo6059 Would you develop that a bit? I suppose the South looked at slavery as an economic benefit and that any theories about race were secondary and only a way to justify the ongoing business. In nazi-Germany it was the other way around, a theory implemented at a high cost. Then there was the Haiti slave rebellion scare, making the option of freeing the slaves look like a bloody civil war (within the South) anyway.

[@ianjedi1282]

@@uncletimo6059 no you are wrong. They were fighting for white supremacy. You might even say that the belief in white superiority was the “cornerstone” of the confederacy (get it?)

[@jonrettich4579]

Lee as part of the Gettysburg campaign was stated as trying to relieve Virginia which had been devastated byh

[@secondstring]

Some good observations and analysis, however terribly amiss on two points: 1) Speaker's suggestion that McClellan should have remained in place, even in a different capacity is a terrible one. McClellan had to go. He was absolute poison to the Union cause and Lincoln finally realized this. His true motivations later became even more apparent, and they were not in alignment with maintaining the Union. 2) Speaker suggests that the Confederacy's best chance of winning the war was to draw it out as opposed to Lee's strategy of advancing north into Union territory: The Confederacy was having extreme issues supplying their armies and funding the war, with the troops suffering from a critical lack of shoes, clothing and food. Desertion was rampant, and both Lee and Stonewall Jackson had implemented executions of deserters to deter this. Jefferson Davis was perpetually begging state governors to allocate more funding to the war effort. They did NOT have the luxury of drawing out the war, quite the opposite was true, they were in a race to get the war over with before they could no longer sustain an army.

[@MrJoeyBoombotz]

So the South had to hurry up and win a war that was impossible for them to win. I agree. It was foolhardy from the start. They had no path to victory. They were impetuous, vainglorious, and degenerate fools much the same as Democrats today, building their houses upon the sand. And like fools, they chose to fight after a champion for Reason appeared. Dead wrong.

[@bigapplebucky]

Demoting McClellan was necessary. His point, perhaps not clearly stated, was that a replacement of him as general in chief should have been made at the same time.

[@davidmeehan4486]

@@MrJoeyBoombotz Given that McClellan gave Lincoln a serious run for his money in a presidential election, despite all of the progress being made by Union forces at the time, I don't agree with you. All that was needed for the South to win was for the North to give up. And even if McClellan was unwilling to let the South go, he was certainly willing to make great concessions to them.

[@MrJoeyBoombotz]

@@davidmeehan4486 Those that led the rebellion were in fact trying to steal land and other resources from the United States to preserve a degrading racist social order, they all had a stake in by using military tactics and politcal rhetoric. They were all basically thieves, from the poorest, dumbest country farmboy that enjoyed his privilege over blacks to the wealthy plantation owner. Those States were not theirs to take. The next time someone tries to rob you, just give up, even if it is by a 2 year old. What an absolute idiot response. Democrats are thieves at heart, back then and until this very day because their hatred of life and being disabled to enjoy work and the fruits of their OWN honest labor that serve others. Perverts, intellectual derelicts, antifamily, antiConstitution and antiChrist, then, now and forever.

[@davidmeehan4486]

@@MrJoeyBoombotz Damn, Son! Don't sugarcoat it, tell us how you really feel. Let's just say that, while I don't agree with your conclusion that Democrats are venomous subhumans subsisting on small children and the blood of puppies while working to usher in a new era of totalitarian darkness, I don't believe this is the appropriate venue for such a debate. So anyway, let's talk about the American Civil War. The robbery analogy doesn't fit well, because the Confederates were only stealing from the country as a whole by seceding. Now, there were acts of theft and extortion committed by Confederate forces as a part of the conflict, but the issue that kept the war going was secession. People are very concerned with theft of their own property. They're much less concerned with the theft of their government's property. They may decide that it isn't worth risking their own lives to protect resources from which they personally derive no discernable benefit. Even the politicians, who may be thought to control the country's resources, must realize that they only do so, as long as they remain in office. As for an individual being robbed, complying or "giving up" is often the wisest course of action. Right now, I don't believe I have any US currency in my wallet at all. I have some Canadian money that's been there for years. I may never get around to spending that. Anyway, let's say I have $100 in my wallet, and let's say my cell phone costs $250. I get robbed at gunpoint, I give up $350. I immediately cancel my credit cards, so I don't lose anything there. I may decide to get some more identity theft protection. Let's say I lose $500 all told. In a year I make a modest $50,000. So, the robbery cost me 1% of my annual salary. Whereas, if I fight and I am shot, I could lose all of my remaining working life. So, let's say that's 20 years at $50,000 a year. So, that's a loss of one million dollars. Which is 2,000 times more than in the first scenario. So, yeah. I might just give a robber my money.

[@mglenn7092]

Seem to me that the South did have a pretty good chance to win. However, that chance was something they had to fight in the "court of public opinion": the South couldn't defeat the North in a purely military fashion, but if they could hang on long enough, gain enough victories on the battlefield and spill enough Union blood to convince the North to give up because the Union cause just wasn't worth it, they would win. That was possible, something that they could have achieved... fortunately for the modern United States, they failed.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

The South did get alot of sympathy in the North after the war, I've heard historians argue in lectures like this. Maybe that was a reaction against the civilian devastation during the last part of the war. Although Ulysses Grant who was in charge of it became a popular president. Seems like the South really lost on the political front. My own loose speculation is that perhaps it was psychologically difficult to combine a "rebellion" with tempered diplomacy, political compromise and standoff. A rebellion opinion needs and desires momentum. Peaceful political negotiations within the federation had failed, the South had left the table, so more of the same might not have seemed like a good idea.

[@judithmaxfield4046]

Sorry: Wanted to hear this man IF he could know how to present the info as a teacher as a H.S. guy, with distinction and a bit slower. I love history and the story of Grant, the general who saved the Union. Try H. Brands for an comparison. I love history but.......?????

[@bobtaylor170]

​@@judithmaxfield4046 H.W. Brands is great.

[@SlimeSeason4]

Wow, great analysis.

[@jagsdomain203]

+Tommy Bertrand we you watching the same thing I was???? The Q and A was the worst I have ever heard. I hate "experts"

[@Chiller01]

If one places oneself as an expert on the Civil War one must, without exception be able to enunciate two key words. The first is Cavalry. Cavalry connotes mounted troops, Calvary, otherwise known as Golgotha, is the place in the Middle East where Christ was executed. The other required word is secede. To secede is to withdraw from a political or religious organization. A very different word than succeed which means to triumph, to meet one’s goals. It is obvious that South Carolina seceded it is equally obvious that in the end it did not, contrary to the speakers assertion, succeed. It’s one thing if your an average curious you tuber or even an undergraduate student studying the subject. But by the time you’ve completed your 2 year masters and your 5 year PhD and you self acclaim as an expert on this subject matter you need to appreciate the differences in these words and be able to use them correctly.

[@billhowes5871]

To be successful at ~WAR~. You have to have a solid overall plan which must be executed with sheer mastery. This same approach may be used by housewifes who wish to dominate their household. -Your Family Counselor, Bill Howes.

[@bjorntorlarsson]

The obvious plan is to raise your children biased for you, and corrupt your husband with good cooking and sex.

[@rafaelespinoza6530]

❤❤😂😮😮😅😊😅🎉🎉😂❤❤❤

[@davidsabillon5182]

Fascinating

[@lukaseichhorn4774]

I think both sides were *way* too focused on their capitals. Most of the stuff that happened between Richmond and Washington - two cities barely a hundred miles apart cost more in lives and achieved less than the stuff that Grant did in the West... Imagine what would've happened if Richmond had never become capital of the Rebellion...

[@carywest9256]

@Clem Cornpone Hey ''Cornditch''you never give up on your comments on a so-called insurrection. Tell me where did the South insurrect? That's what l thought. The South never talked about overthrowing the government of the North. They separated and wanted to be left alone.President Davis's own words. You have a deluded mind thinking that the Union was perpetual. In the War of 1812,the New England States talked secession.Dig me up something that any of the other States cited that it would be illegal for the States in New England to go ahead with their plans.I will wait for your response.

[@alecfoster6653]

@@carywest9256 Here-here! The "history" of the War of Southern Secession is one of the most egregious cases of the victors re-writing and distorting facts that I can think of.

[@theodoresmith5272]

Washington was never under threat. Lee went north twice and got beat very quickly in both attempts. Richmond was very important not only as the capitol, but also had like half of the industrial and production output of entire South combined. Grant did not really care about Richmond. Hos goal was to tie down Lee while Sherman marched through the south and to then destroy Lee's army. Grant understood as long as Lee had an army the war would go on. Lee's army was going awol at an alarming rate. He banned news papers in camp because the news of shermans March made it worse. Southerners knew the war was lost.

[@antonihardonk8970]

@@alecfoster6653 what are you talking about… No conflict in modern history has had an post war propaganda effort as this one. Only recently people start to see thought the Lost Cause bs.

[@granskare]

I head read that the army was there but the problem was that McClellan had brought himself :)

[@MichaelDeutschman]

20:00

[@Backhand77]

No. Talk about all the points. Make a multi video series

[@avenaoat]

Confederacy consisted of 7 states only in April of 1862, so Fort Sumter was important to test Lincoln government: 1. If Lincoln had not stepped strong (75 000 volounters (but Stephen Douglas would have asked for 200 000)), Union would have showed to be a weak country. 2. (this happened) If Lincoln had stepped strong (75 000 volounters) the border states (except for Delaware with 1.6% slaves) would have joined to the Confederacy. Only Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina joined the Confederacy. So I think Confederacy could not wait, they wanted Fort Sumter for the border states. 3. However the leaders of the Confederacy lived in 1850 in their mind. Only Kentucky lost 5% of the slaves population between 1850 and 1860. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her book about Kentucky slaves whom transported to Deep South King Cotton territory. Missouri became pro unionist majority, Lincoln got 10% vote in Missouri and the Missouri slaves were only 9.7%. St Louis became big industrial city and strong prounionist. Maryland was the most important road and railroad connection between Washington and the North + only 12.7% slaves. Moreover Virginia lost West Virginia soon (4.6% slaves). The upper border states became less slavery dependent between 1850 and 1860. Missouri was special for the bleeding Kansas era to be West Missouri a buchwacker territory from 1854.

[@VegiKid]

I sincerely question the belief that keeping a semi-insubordinate general of the entire union army even if his general plan was even an ok idea. The defense of Lincoln’s decision and when he did so has been extensively researched and the defense is well bolstered for good reason. I do also want to note that the extents of the confedrate railways was much more expansive even in 1861 was much more expansive than what is represented in this map and taking away Chattanooga while useful only takes away imports from Atlanta (and the west) to Virginia. Transporting war material through the rockies was a risky business for the south regardless of who was in charge - just because he had a good “general strategy”does not mean he should have been in charge of honestly anything and he wouldn’t have accepted anything of the sort - I mean he ran for President for goodness sake.

[@board247]

From my understanding, the issue was partially how well liked McClellan was by the army. Poltics came into play, as it did in the case of many of the North's Civil War generals. Also, he wasn't entirely incompetent as a general, he was very competent at raising and training an army. It was in the taking action and risks area he proved ineffective. Also, there was the question of with whom to replace him. The other generals that Lincoln raised to that position before Grant proved equally incompetent in their commands.

[@jorymil]

Didn't McClellan offer to resign several times before Lincoln accepted?

[@NjK601]

The Ottoman Turks could have taken lessons from Lee.. They attacked The Russian held Caucasus in Winter with no winter gear and only preserved dates to keep them going

[@davidmeehan4486]

Yeah. Early in WWI, right? It seemed like the Turkish troops barely needed help from the Russians to die.

[@DJS11811]

Are really saying "succeeded' instead o "seceded"?

[@punkrawker06]

Kinda nuts that a guy who lives in a van down by the river knows so much about the Civil War.

[@thomaslinton1001]

"subservient" ? subordinate.

[@MrROTD]

My plan would have been to have two big fronts in the east and just sit back out west, send two big armies south one through virginia toward Richmond, and another big army down the Shenedoah valley , choosing battles carefully the Union could try to destroy the Confederates from attrition or even just taking territiry while keeping most of thier forces too busy for any maneouvering, The union didnt take the initiative even when they had enough military force, the war went on way too long considering the balance of forces

[@uncletimo6059]

@Rex Horrible plan. Union should have done the opposite - sit in the East (where there were greatest armies, i.e. greatest casualties from battles), fix Lee in place (like McClellan was doing), and let the West generals do their thing. Which is what happened. This was the plan of the best general of the war, the genius, Winfield Scott - the 'Anaconda' plan.

[@thomaslinton1001]

"succeeded"? A "calvary"-level error.

[@bobtaylor170]

It is embarrassing, isn't it? And it cost this guy his credibility with me, and a possible book sale.

[@ColonelCharisma]

This man really said "succeeded."

[@dvt6778]

Yup😩😂Stopped me in my tracks

[@bobtaylor170]

Yes, things like that make it hard for me to take someone seriously.

[@scotta6823]

Pretty insightful lecture. for you to drag the man down for a mispronunciation is quite petty

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Williams Kimberly Garcia William Thomas Melissa

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Lee Sandra Lee Mary Martinez Lisa

[@SerikPoliasc]

Jones Thomas Clark Joseph Young James

[@jaywinters2483]

This guy needs an outline.

[@bernardfinucane2061]

Secede, not succeed.

[@MrDavePed]

"Succeeded"???????? Are you kidding me? ..

[@jaywinters2483]

The guy Is Interesting but he is not a good public speaker

[@bjorntorlarsson]

I think he's a great speaker. But I'm used to watching history lectures daily since streamed video became feasible. It's maybe not so much intended for the beginner on this topic, but all lectures can't be for the beginners.

[@tomtonkyro7209]

There's no such thing as the "U.S. Civil War." The United States was one of the sides in this conflict. You name civil wars after the country, that's why we call it the American Civil War-- the belligerents were all American. You might as well call it the Confederate Civil War. Therefore we avoid misnomers like the Bolshevik Civil War, the Kuomintang Civil War, the Parliamentarian Civil War, the Franco Nationalist Civil War, etc.

[@lukaseichhorn4774]

Well if you follow Lincoln there never was such a thing as the Confederacy, there were only US states in Rebellion... Of course while Lincoln and the US won the war, the interpretation that secession never happened and the Confederacy never existed is rarely expressed any more...

[@TayMac-qr4ol]

Clem Cornpone good job on being educated of the history of the era endanger of being rewritten or erased.

[@blaisevillaume2225]

The country is the "United States of America" so what in the hell is your point exactly? By your logic, "American Civil War" should be reserved for a hemisphere wide conflict of North and South America. Take your point about the "Bolshevik Civil War", the country and the government would be referred to as "Russia" so even including that as an example shows how shallow your thought process is.

[@jasonmuller7074]

That is incorrect. The confederacy was in fact a group of US States acting in rebellion. There was no legal basis for secession, nor were the Confederate States of America ever recognized by other world governments. There were unionist southerners, and there were copperhead northerners who did not support the war effort. "U. S. Civil War" is the most accurate, proper name for this conflict.

[@johnries5593]

The closest recent comparison was probably the Nigerian civil war, which was like our conflict, was a war over secession. The problem with "American Civil War" is that America has always been a lot a lot more than the USA.

[@karlburkhalter1502]

Nonsense! Ft was primarily tariff collection point on East coast. With fleet at mouth of harbor. City could not defend against attack with Ft in Union hands. So not going to waste my time with this.

[@nora22000]

Karl Burkhalter Taking Ft Sumter was more ego than need. I've always thought that the SEVEN secessionists were trying to get the remaining slave states to secede and that's why they fired on the fort.

[@janis317]

You were not at war with the Union at the time so why did the city need to be defended? If Sumpter wasn't fired on, Lincoln could not have raised 5,000 troops much less 50,000 and he would have been forced over time to negotiate a settlement and allow the Succession to succeed.

[@nora22000]

@@janis317 No. Other Republicans wanted him to issue warrants for the ringleaders and hang them all. That would have resulted in far less bloodshed. In no scenario would the Union have allowed secession or recognized a rogue government to the south of the Mason-Dixon Line; it would be constant agitation and hostilities and raids by abolitionists. The confederates wanted to bring in 8 more slave states so Jefferson Davis fired on the fort to trigger secession of the other slave states. He succeeded in getting 4 states to secede from the Union.

[@Ccccccccccsssssssssss]

@@nora22000politically it seems like a bad call to attack first in such a spectacular manner. Surely an unavoidable fight was coming, but wouldn’t the South have gained a great deal of political capital if the North was seen to be the agressor?

[@nora22000]

@@Ccccccccccsssssssssss Nobody on the confederate team was a Ben Franklin. They were Fire Eaters who embargoed their own cotton, divided their own armies and refused to grow food crops to save their own rebellion. Not one of them understood any kind of capital--financial, diplomatic, business or political--so they led with what they knew: hubris, greed, cruelty and violence.