Did the CONFEDERACY Have BETTER GENERALS? - Atun-Shei Reaction Part 2

See the original Checkmate Lincolnites video here - • Did the CONFEDERACY Ha...
See part 1 of my reaction here - • Did the CONFEDERACY Ha...
Links:
patreon - / vth
merch store - vth-store-3.cr...
Instagram - / vloggingthroughhistory
travel gofundme - www.gofundme.c...
Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: [e-mail]
my history/strategy gaming channel - / @thehistoryguy
Special Thanks to the following who are the official sponsors of this channel:
Tier 6 - Elijah Norrick, Finn Haines, Han Pol, Jack the Lad, John Molden, Ziv
Tier 5 - Edward Guest, Austin Powell, Grant Nystrom
YT Sponsors: Insane, Scar 22, Griffen, that one guy, Driftiest follower
Tier 4 - Adam Telladira, Anthony DeFedele, Charles Grist, Derek Wohl, Graham Brown, Kelly Moneymaker, Kryštof Kotásek, Odins_Martyr, Samuel Enns, Shoulder Devil, Sándor Nagy
Tier 3 - Rafal Dubas, Matthew Calderwood, Kyle Hosea, Brandon Grams, Qethsegol, Robin Svensson, Austin White, Chris Curtis, John Molden, Peter Gadja, Raoul Kunz, Typhon, SGTMcAllen, David Storey, Cabo, Tactical Bear, Sephiroth94, Mikael Elevant, Andreas Christensen, Nate Dogg, Mathew Schrader, Nash Zahm, Jared Mackowski, Logan Cale, Velfeeda, Kevin Mackenzie, Stefan Garza, Zyndel Payne, Bran Flakes, Trunks, Brently Roberson, not me, Leo Strato, James Guyett, Michael Wisebaker
#History #CheckmateLincolnites #Reaction #CivilWar

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Just a response to the common theme of many of your comments: 1) Yes it is a fair point to make that I am taking a much narrower view of the topic than Atun-Shei. My disagreements with him in this video stem largely from that differing viewpoint. You all correctly point out that all of his Checkmate Lincolnites stem from his upbringing in the Lost Cause mythology and these are his attempts to repudiate that. I understand that, though I think it occasionally takes over to the point where I feel he loses the power of the argument he's trying to make. 2) It is also fair to say that I am taking a narrower view of the concept of "Better Generals" than he or many of you. I believe that character matters immensely in life. I also believe that the character of historic figures matters, and should be considered when discussing them. I just disagree that it matters when strictly discussing a person's ability in a particular area. Again, that's just my narrow view of the topic.

[@amberfuller16]

the format is a conversation when having one to make it realistic he has to drift a bit

[@jackreaper30]

I think that you are correct in saying that character should not apply , when analizing objectively in an academic setting the qualities of generals in the civil war , however , because of his format he cannot do that , him even not bringing up character would be seen by lost causers as a win . And again I get what you are saying I just think that those kinds of discussions about generals , and civil war generals even more so , are kind of impossible to do in an unbiased way on the internet , so atun shei is not even trying to and to be honest , good for him , as long as his information is good , then I'm fine with it ; there might come a time when a serious unbiased discussion about the civil war could be had , but sadly now it is not that time .

[@PilgrimEnge]

There’s no doubt from your response to the video that you also value character immensely in life. I watched first the original video, and then watched your reaction - and I learned almost just as much by your reaction as I did from the original video. Thank you for that.

[@funkboy14]

I really appreciate that you want to keep the issue topical. I agree that we should have that conversation about the morality and aims of historic people as well, but arguments seems to devolve and lose clarity as we keep adding variables to them. I feel like judging everything from the past by today’s standard of ethics is becoming standard for any topic we discuss in 2021 And I’m not sure if it’s helpful to use that as a template for every discussion. As you said, we SHOULD have that conversation on character. But it’s not easy to do that while maintaining an organized intellectual argument. I think human brains come up against a cognitive limit once we start adding in the complexities of today’s social norms on top of the history itself. As an aside, I noticed a Tolkien reference as well as a bible verse referenced in Atun Shei’s video, and enjoyed them both. Great video! Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

[@GregoryGeilman]

I don't think you can separate the two. The same argument has been made about a lot of German generals in WWII yet they allowed and condoned the butchery of Jews and pows in their areas. A general is responsible for more that what happens on the battlefield. They are also responsible for the administration of the men's actions in their command and the civilians they have under their control. If they are brilliant on the battlefield, but allow atrocities, this is part of what goes into being a "good" general. IMHO, you view is far too narrow here.

[@chettajohnson5261]

I think while divorcing military tactics from character is an interesting academic exercise, the vast majority of Southerners who revere Lee and Jackson are idolizing them on AND off the battlefield. His channel isn't aimed at historians necessarily, but at people he's known in real life and that show up in his comment section (I.e. why he displays those comments as Johnny Reb reads them, to show he's not arguing strawmen but real arguments that real Southerners make today). Separating tactics from character isn't something Lost Causers ever do, so he is anticipating that and addressing it. I think you're both doing good work bringing the truth to bear on history :)

[@chettajohnson5261]

I should note it's encouraging to go in his comment section to see many commenters that used to subscribe to the Lost Cause that thank him for changing their mind!

[@cfnsRD]

Well said, kind of what I was trying to say but better said

[@funkboy14]

Yeah, you speak the truth. I wish it was possible to reach through with facts only, but for some the emotional attachment that they hold to their “justified true belief” makes that impossible without undermining their assumptions about the “rightness” of those assumptions.

[@jokermage]

As I recall the Checkmate Lincolnites began as a way for him to respond to Lost Cause commenters on his other videos. Many of the off topic digressions that happen in this series don't necessarily originate from him.

[@Dischingo]

@@jokermage @Chetta Johnson I think Atun shei knows how lost causes feel as he was one a long time ago.

[@generalfred9426]

"Grant was a drunkard general!" "So your great generals got beaten by a drunk?"

[@MollymaukT]

CHECKMATE LEENITES!

[@afriendlyrebel5709]

*Checkmate Lincolnites theme start playing*

[@brandonarmienti7734]

That is such a great comeback!!😄

[@Jechti307]

CHECKMATE DAVISITES

[@Grant25]

He made three different rebel armies surrender. Doesn’t say much for their leadership

[@HorFell]

His closing statement that you cut it off at, kind of ties it all together. He goes over that HOW people choose to remember these generals skews how they're viewed and so why people will overhype Lee but underestimate Grant.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

VTH HAD to find something wrong with the Atun Shei videos as most of his comments are historically sound ;) if that only big thing of disagreement is about if the title should reflect 100% of the video, then so bei it.

[@markgrehan3726]

Yeah, it was odd that he became frustrated and unfortunately cut the video short especially as he mentioned things in his commentary that are so-called off-topic. Also, 75% agreement seemed a little low?

[@aboutthat1440]

I think you underestimate how southerners use the so called morality arguments. To buttress the generalship of southern generals. Him being in the south I can fully understand that he would respond the way he did. I am a black man from Vicksburg. I have heard that crap all my life. The constant trying to make southern officers as some kind of gentle southern gentleman. It's impossible to have a discussion with them without them trying to use their lies or distortions. Of the 'character' of those southern officers. I for one am very glad he brings this up. Because there seems to have been renewed interest to repeat this nonsense lately.

[@wesleywilkinson6629]

^This. I went down here to say this but you beat me too it. Well done

[@MollymaukT]

He also was heavily involved in the Civil War reenactment scene and was a tour-guide in Gettysburg. So he has seen first hand the Lost Cause myth in action and had discussions similar to what Billy Yankee has with Johnny Reb

[@gmatgmat]

He lives in NO but I believe that he (Andrew Rakich) is originally from MA up north. . Either way, he does provide food for thought.

[@taloob493]

@@philmccracken7520 he literally has multiple videos about how king Philips war, if you've actually watched his content you'd know he has no bias towards the north or mass in particular

[@drewdurbin4968]

Except men like lee were men of exceptional character and principle within the context of the time in which they lived . The south had plenty of POS officers, but so did the North... Sheridan for example. Lee Chose His home and Family over The United states, he literally believed that Virginia was his country....which is pretty common for that time period. He didn't want secession or the war for that matter he was very public with that, however once that was no longer possible He had to choose. He saw his loyalty to Virginia as superior. and did his duty as a soldier as he saw it.

[@amir-ng6jv]

As a dude who has never stepped foot in US, I have to admit Atun Shei is the biggest reason I became very interested in the Civil War and 19th century US history. A topic that I naturally didn't know and care about much. He is really great at what he does

[@secondpath5148]

That was a dark time In US history, but I'm honored that you are/were interested in learning about our history here.

[@shronkler1994]

surprised that people study OUR history

[@thehandoftheking3314]

​@@shronkler1994 studying the history of other nations and continents is illuminating

[@The_Honourable_Company]

@@thehandoftheking3314 yeah true lol Even as an Indian, I find colonial history MUCH more interesting and fascinating than my own country :p

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

How about 16th and 17th Century Massachusetts history then? :D He also made videos about a lot of that (King Phlips War, Witchfinder General ;))

[@jackreaper30]

I think that the reason he included their characters, is that usually people like to idolize these people and to pretend they were perfect human beings and generals . When they ask who were the best generals in the civil war , they are arguing mostly in bad faith . I think he is able to separate the men from the generals , but the lost causers are not or are trying to argue in bad faith , and he is basically responding to these people , not to unbiased historians like yourself.

[@Ozai75]

Exactly. This video is more about how people use the morality and character of the Generals to influence how they're viewed today and less how a Historian views them. One of the things VTT has to remember is that Atun isn't a historian, and he doesn't speak in a neutral tone. He highlights what he sees as false Lost Cause myth and goes out to debunk it. That's the whole point of Checkmate Lincolnites

[@jackreaper30]

@@Ozai75 yep , he is literally responding to a confederate soldier

[@zmanjace1364]

You said what I was thinking far better than I'm able to articulate it.

[@PilgrimEnge]

Very well put, Jack.

[@TB688]

Indeed. Seen a few civil war documentaries where the south are often portraited has having the best generals and the best characters I guess you can say. Gettysburg the southern generals often come across as friendly gentlemen just eager for freedom and less said about Gods and Generals the better. So I do think it's right for Atun to go after the personalities as well even tho they really have nothing to do with who is a better general.

[@mollywantshugs5944]

An important thing to keep in mind with both his Gods and Generals review and Checkmate Lincolnites, the stated goal is to pick apart lost cause myths. The generals as commanders and the generals as people are intertwined in the romanticized depictions of the Civil War, so they kind of have to be discussed together in this context.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

That it is almost blindly repeating Lost Cause "arguments" is basically Andy's whole point why he loathes Gettysburg and Gods and Generals so much. He has said a lot of complimentary things about the cinematography and stuff like uniforms and likenesses, but the spin on the "noble Southerners defending their poor attacked homes" is something that rubs him the wrong way and which he vehemently opposes. And i don't think he's wrong there.

[@Sparrows1121]

I also dont know how much Civil War movies cover "Total war tactics used by North either" now one can talk about the horrors of war this way. Civil lives and such, but also not neglect the horror of slavery etc. I havent seen Glory 1989 movie, but heard its good.

[@patavinity1262]

That doesn't really make any sense. The title of this video is "Did the Confederacy have better generals?" not "Are romanticized depictions of Civil War generals accurate?". So no, they definitely don't *have* to be discussed together in this context, and in fact placing too much emphasis on the latter subject is detrimental if the whole premise of the video was discussing generalship.

[@gaybowser4967]

​@@patavinity1262ok but, again, this series is about the Lost Causers and trying to proge their points wrong. It's not really for teaching people about the Civil War as much as it is correcting the falsehoods spread by Lost Causers. And the fact Lost Causers use the character of specific generals to bully them makes it so you HAVE to address them in tandem, lest they pull out the 'Sherman was insane', 'Grant was a drunk' issues to try and demoralise people arguing against them, bcs even if they conceeded that Union general did a better job, it just means they did a better job bcs they go lucky and were butchers, ravenous, vile, evil, disgusting, throwing lives away in wanton slaughter. And then when you mix that with the noble view of the South at the time, it really reinforces the idea that the South were victims and not (as a nation, not individuals) aggressors who chose to start a war. If the points were made separately I'd agree with your comment but they aren't. The character of and military prowess of the civil war generals are used in tandem to discredit Union forces. You cannot tackle one without tackling the other, lest Lost Causers come up with more bs and accuse you of ignoring x, y, or z.

[@patavinity1262]

@@gaybowser4967 No, I think that's totally irrelevant. If I were to make a video attempting to ask the question 'which side in the Civil War had the best generals?', there is absolutely no requirement to assess the moral character of those generals, and in fact it distracts one from answering the question posed.

[@brandonarmienti7734]

The reason that he brings up character is that for over a 150 years people have been demonizing Grant and making a hero out of Lee. Because of the Lost Cause myth many people believe that Lee was the better General and character. Like I was even convinced that Lee was a better man and general for a while before I started reading books about both men. I believe that maybe this video should have been a Grant vs Lee because we need to talk about why Grant was a superior General and a better person in character and not Lee who has become a martyr for the Lost Cause myth. We need to have this type of discussion to end the popular belief that Grant was a butcher and a alcoholic while Lee is described as a hero of the nation.

[@jamesmoniz5263]

Well that and this video series is also just his way of responding to comments so he’s not 100% choosing the topics he’s talking about(it’s actually remarkable how he responds to comments so well just looking through it seems like he responds to a sizable chunk of them[though this series is where he responds to ones that challenge topics he’s brought up in passed videos typically])

[@kristopherriemer4807]

100% And the point of the show, "Checkmate, Lincolnites!", is to refute the Lost Cause mythos. Something that I was brought up in as a child. I have family in Tennessee and Georgia and loved history from a young age. Until High School I firmly believed that the Confederacy was fighting for states rights, that the Union were just bullies and oppressors and that the leaders of the Southern armies were all both military geniuses and of impeccable character. To this day, anytime I disagree with family or friends from the south these are the exact arguments they use. To cut out half of the arguments that neoconfederate apologists use because it's not the exact point you think we should be discussing misses the point of these videos entirely. When VTH made the point about cherry picking battles, I agreed because it wasn't an honest portrayal of the data. But his only arguments against looking at the Generals' character was that he didn't think we should discuss that, not that any of it was factually untrue. And I'm sure if you're giving a lecture to fellow historians that makes sense, but that's not who this video is for and I personally have yet to have a disagreement with someone who was pro-confederacy in which they refrained from making character an important part of the discussion. Almost every single instance has included, "Grant was an alcoholic, Lee freed his slaves." If these things were not addressed in the video they would have made of 95% of the rebuttal in the comments. I'm not sure why VTH thinks we should all pretend as if we live in a vacuum, we do not. This is the real world and these videos' purpose is to confront dishonest historical discourse in the real world.

[@jamesmoniz5263]

@@kristopherriemer4807 ya I didn't mean to discount that sorry just that I wanted to point out that the video wasn't going too off topic given what the series is about

[@jellybeanjuggler7474]

If people look at a man fighting for slavery as a hero then that says a lot

[@funkboy14]

I agree with this. I Love Atun Shei’s work, but to me it does tend to be a bit less focused than it could be, and (sometimes) the end product suffers for it. That said, I have deep respect for him as a person who wants to tear down a seriously flawed Lost Cause theory.

[@oldmandeath]

While I agree it's not strictly necessary to discuss a person's character in something about generalship but when it comes to Grant and Lee it almost always devolves into a discussion about character between the two as for many people it's hard to separate the two from one another. I feel like the idea behind these videos is more about how laymen would discuss the topic and most laypeople would add character into the discussion of who was the better general.

[@Hailfire97]

It also comes back to the arguments he gets from his comments sections. Atun-Shei Films basically just complies complaints to his videos and themes them to a topic that enough of them follow to make a video out of it. I understand that it doesn't come back to the direct topic at hand, but it does talk about the generals (if not the generalship) between the Unions and Confederates.

[@NatalieJ22]

I agree and I do think it’s important to bring up because when discussing history character is important even if it’s not directly relevant. Plus when discussing who is the “greatest” of anything, character pretty much always comes into play particularly when you’re talking about someone that did things as horrific as Nathan Bedford Forrest or owning slaves. Personally I think that aspects of character including owning slaves is too often left out of discussions about American history

[@LinusE]

I also think it comes from the idea that both were the imagery of their sides. Grant, the grand hero of the North, and Lee, the Southern gentleman. When these images turn up, it always will come to character.

[@odysseus1660]

@@NatalieJ22 I respectfully disagree, I think it entirely depends on what you're discussing, if a general owning slaves affected his ability to command then it is absolutely valid to discuss it, however I dont think discussing Forrest's post war life is relevant to a discussion on his military ability during the war. I think when discussing history its really important to be specific otherwise discussions tend to drift away from the initial question and nothing is gained

[@coronin8587]

I may be incorrect on this analysis, but I think that when talking about the 'better' general of either side, the caricatures that Atun uses for North and South represent those that usually back up and bolster character when in a losing argument. Off topic for military strategy? Yes. Off topic for what these videos analyze (lost causers)? I don't think so.

[@DoubleGoon]

Exactly! This is a part of a series of videos called “Checkmate Lincolnites!”. It’s a play on the pro-Confederate views of today. This is why he features pro-Confederacy comments made on his videos. We all need to understand who these people were before looking at their military prowess. The Lost Cause myth that inundated our history lessons throughout the 20th century highlights the Confederacy’s military achievements while whitewashing their moral and martial failings.

[@AdmiralHistory]

The title is still misleading however. I got excited when I clicked on the video to see almost 50 minutes of discussing if the confederacy did actually have better generals. Instead most of it was discussing the generals pre-war and post war lives. A better title would’ve been “Debunking Lost Cause Myths about Confederate Generals” or something along those lines

[@coronin8587]

@@AdmiralHistory Whilst I don't disagree that a better title may have dissuaded the preconceptions associated with it, I think that given the channel's MO, if you could call it that, it was a safe bet that it would deviate a bit to not only talk about who was generally better as a military commander, but also as a better person to boot. I wrote this out and only now realized I made a pun. Oh well, not deleting it.

[@jamesmccrea4871]

True, but most people who watch these are longtime viewers like myself. He only does CL every few months, and I'm sure it's in response to his typical viewership, his videos often reflect the character rather than battles themselves, in part channels that focus on battles are a dime a dozen, but not nearly as many delve into character and lives.

[@mycaleb8]

@@AdmiralHistory This video was easily the most "biased" Atun Shei video. While he majes his point clear enough to not be dishonest, 8t still feels like moving the goalposts in order to deny a "victory" to southern stans. And I get it. I do understand, but it starts feel actually biased to me. A better title and thesis might have been "It's not as clear cut who was better, but that's ultimately a small point anyway, and shouldn't be used to lionize these flawed men who were on the wrong side of history"

[@sirboomsalot4902]

I think the reason he tends to go off subject in his debates is he tries to cover as many subjects in a video as possible. In the last Checkmate Lincolnites about Sherman, he put forward a few debate ideas with Johnny. I believe he covered 3 of those ideas in this video alone, I think he wanted an excuse to talk about the myth of Lee’s personality and Grant the Butcher but didn’t want to dedicate a whole video to them.

[@bransonwalter5588]

It is also because of the fact that when analyzing you ask who, what, where, when, why, and how much. He is literally including who had the better generals from a personality stand point and a values stand point.

[@jeffreyallen3461]

🎶 We'll all go down to Dixie, away! Away! 🎶Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam! 🎶Away, away! Away, away! We'll all go down to Dixie! 🎶Away, away! Away, away! We'll all go down to Dixie!

[@megelizabeth9492]

I also like Tom Lehrer’s Dixie. 🎵I I wanna go back to Dixie 🎵Take me back to dear ol' Dixie 🎵That's the only li'l ol' place for li'l ol' me 🎵Ol' times there are not forgotten 🎵Whuppin' slaves and sellin' cotton 🎵And waitin' for the Robert E. Lee 🎵(It was never there on time)

[@Icesong]

I realize that if you see a video titled something like "Was the war REALLY about TAXES?" you might think it's just going to be about taxes, but this series from the start was mainly about responding to however many Confederate apologist comments were made on his channel up to that point. The past few have started to get more focused, yes, but responding to crazy user comments is part of the charm of the series, and that's going to mean some degree of meandering off topic. Not to mention that these comments usually glorifying their military capabilities go hand in hand with glorifying their character. We can separate it in our analysis, but the people usually making these comments online don't. In fact, it's because they don't that they tend to say the things they do-they glorify their character, so they glorify their achievements. So I don't think it hurts to tackle both at the same time. If he were just attacking character maybe I'd find it more objectionable.

[@denroy3]

In other words, he's full shit and can't make a decent argument. It's revisionist and dumb.

[@northchurch753]

@@denroy3 No he's far from being a "revisionist" because otherwise he would be a Lost Causer

[@ODSTGeneralYT]

@@denroy3 He is a revisionist because he makes his content in response to arguments people make in his comments, or because he meanders? That has nothing at all to do with being a revisionist. If you don't like the guy that is fine, but saying he can't make a decent argument and he is dumb is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[@denroy3]

@@ODSTGeneralYT then his video should be labeled as political response to CSA Generals that has no relevance to whether they were very good military Generals. His response means nothing. When I read about military accomplishments and prowess...who's side they were on isn't a valid argument at all. Rommel, Zhukov, Villa, Grant, Custer, Sherman. Your concern is merely a political swipe at the CSA, and not legitimate. It is politics and has no place in the assessment of military generalship.

[@denroy3]

@@northchurch753 lol, you mean you are too juvenile to make a mistake assessment without namecalling and using the lame ass argument that "they was on the wrong side". He's trying to change the definition of generalship into politics...moronic. childish.

[@herbertbisdorf2717]

All the historic facts and opinions aside, this is a very well written, directed, and edited video by Atun - Shei.

[@firingallcylinders2949]

These are so well done you forget it's the same person.

[@cajdoesstuff9454]

Yeah and I feel like the person who made this video’s criticism was a little bad. This series was made for lost causers and trying to show them how what they have been told isn’t true. It is also supposed to replicate the conversations with a lost causer

[@jasonpeacock9735]

@@firingallcylinders2949 some of his earlier ones when he had two different facial hair styles made figuring it out difficult

[@MollymaukT]

@@jasonpeacock9735 Think he stopped doing that cause it meant he couldn't do reshoots

[@trevorminyard8885]

His editing and performances are always great. Hilarious and informative and just overall entertaining.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

Also, you stopped right before this conversation where Johnny brings up what you were talking about: Johnny: “You know, why is it that everything comes back to race with you?” Atun: “Because it’s almost as if the Civil War and race are intimately connected”. (I might have paraphrased a bit) I kinda wanted to see what you thought about that. I think he also said in another video that he wants to try to be more fair with his debates after the Gods and Generals video, which I think he did for a while but it seems he’s getting out of it.

[@calicocash7596]

Yeah I don’t understand why he didn’t just watch the last like 5 minutes of it. The whole video is to tear down the arguments General Leeaboos and Neo Confederates make to explain why they’re not racist, but the Confederacy was actually superior to the Union.

[@Wake-Less]

Yea it is unfortunate as the last bit of the video explains the reasoning for the entire video.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

@@calicocash7596 Yeah, honestly I think this video was just titled wrong

[@yashjoseph3544]

@@calicocash7596 Apparently, he said he didn't react to it on video because it didn't change his mind for some reason.

[@yashjoseph3544]

@@sirboomsalot4902 The video wasn't titled wrong because it never said he was going to talk about just military achievements. It was just who were the better generals, not better military generals.

[@Strauss-]

I am very glad i watched this and got corrections where they were due, but I don't quite get the focus on 'keeping to the topic' like it's a school debate. The video's structured in a way where the flipping between topics is enjoyable and fits. It does not disrupt the flow and doesn't muddle the argument. In fact, it specifically seems to be responding to comments actual people left on his channel. it's not a thesis, it's an informative play.

[@cajdoesstuff9454]

Yeah it is meant to be like a real conversation with a “lost causer” this also isn’t made for historians it is made for “lost causers”

[@KaceyRepublic]

Yup. In many ways it's an entertaining mailbag video replying to comments.

[@watchingtheworlduk5253]

It's because lost causes know that if you frame it as a purely military engagement then it looks like an underdog fight. Something we inherently gun for. The military framing IS the way of keeping it off topic from what the war was really about which functionally was a battle of character (racist or moderately less racist). I would have thought the reactor would know this given he is a historian so he's either naive or pushing something. I'd optimistically assume the former.

[@ignatzmeyer1978]

@@watchingtheworlduk5253 He isn't against judging the character's but he is against mixing the military vs the morally and political stuff in one video. It kinda ruins the pacing a bit, especially the 10 minutes he only talks about Foster's after war live. I think it would have been better if this is split in two seperate videos.

[@watchingtheworlduk5253]

@@ignatzmeyer1978 but it's from the civil war.... the whole reason they were fighting is because a group of peoples character dictated that it was OK to own humans because they looked different... and that's the point of checkmate Lincolnite. It's literally about debunking misconceptions of the civil war it's supposed to follow a conversation you would have with a friend who hold racist beliefs. Also it's a bit rich to criticise the video production as a person who makes nearly exclusively reaction videos. But fine you want to go that route OK sure people's motive for fighting goes a long way to explain how they fight. Showing their character is important to explaining their motive. You wouldn't talk about Ted kaczynski without talking about his early life social isolation and abuse suffered in his early life. It would be insanity rhe field of psychoanalytical forensics is founded on the idea that situations lead to motives. Historians look at after war events to so if you can understand motive. I don't want to sound mean but it's delusional to thing the two aren't link and that is used by lost causes to frame the war in their favour.

[@TheGerudan]

Honestly I find the casualty rate much more important than the raw casualty numbers, if both opponents have unequal numbers to begin with. For example: If you have three times the numbers of the enemy, but you lose twice as many, you still coming out ahead. Cruel, but that is how warfare works. Lee's biggest failure was, that he was a mediocre strategist. He was an amazing tactician, but his two big strategic offenses failed utterly and outside of those two offenses he was often just reacting to the initiative of the Union. This becomes pretty clear during the Overland campaign. He predicted and countered Grant's move on a tactical level pretty much at every turn, but he really had no strategic plan to actually change his strategic situation. He strategy for most of the war was just inflicting a defeat on the Union army that was on the offense and then said army would retreat, solving the strategic crises. As soon as that wasn't happening anymore by Grant "marching right", he had no idea how to solve his situation.

[@browncoat697]

This is exactly it. Lee was like many of the Nazi generals the Wehraboos so love to play up as military geniuses, particularly Rommel. They were dashing, daring, and successfully executed high risk, high reward maneuvers like that at the Ardennes. However, they were only thinking about the problem immediately in front of them and didn't think about the big picture, leading to operational and strategic failures like Overland or Barbarossa.

[@yankeeyankee5]

What I’d say is, based on Lost Cause criticisms of Union generals, they usually attack the man as well as the battlefield tactics. What Atun-Shei means by “better generals” is not only a better commander but a better person, as Lee is typically revered as a archetypical man while also a better commander. Atun-Shei attacks both. It is an effective video for that purpose, and that’s why I’d contend he talks about character so much. We look at Washington as such a good general mostly because of the person he was, he wasn’t really that effective of a commander in the start of the war, but he kept his army together, and he became a better commander as time went on.

[@yankeeyankee5]

@@philmccracken7520 The Chinese Exclusion Act was signed by President Chester Arthur. If you're going to comment something, can you at least do a modicum of research first? AND EVEN IF Grant did actually "help pass" the exclusion act, he was still 100x the man Lee was.

[@drewdurbin4968]

@@yankeeyankee5 Based on what exactly. I mean i know its the PC thing to say...but try to be objective..what made Grant a better man?

[@yankeeyankee5]

@@drewdurbin4968 His work on Reconstruction, the fact that his generalship led to the end of Slavery, the fact that when Grant was nearly penniless and was given a slave, he emancipated him instead of selling him for $500-$1000 he could’ve fetched for him at the slave market. Grant routinely acted honorably and was a truly kind a good hearted person. His Presidency and time as General -in-Chief reflect both of those things. Don’t insult my intelligence by insinuating I only have a belief because it’s “PC”. I’m 600 odd pages into “Grant” by Ron Chernow, and I highly recommend you read it to see the kind of man he was.

[@EthanDyTioco]

@@yankeeyankee5 I think Drew meant that he was the one being PC by saying "try to be objective" [he almost sounds apologetic], instead of accusing you to be PC. But, nonetheless you gave a good backing to the original question of "based on what?", and I got to learn a bit more about Grant, so thank you

[@Carlton-B]

You wanted raw numbers. The best raw number I can think of is that general Grant compelled the surrender of three armies. Lee compelled the surrender of none. Regarding generalship, I don't think there is a better comparison.

[@MollymaukT]

The *Unconditional Surrender* of 3 armies

[@jeffreygao3956]

@@MollymaukT Checkmate Neoconfederates!

[@dernwine]

This. What this historian guy is missing is that Grant achieved victories, and then exploited them to force the surrender of his enemies, and achieve strategic effects on the battlefield. Lee could maul a corps here or there and make a timid Union general back off for a bit, but he never exploited his victories, and caused a shift in the war, just delayed the inevitable, and once a general (Grant) came along who would go "Okay, you mauled one of my corps, but I have 8 more so: So what?" Lee's wind went out of his sails.

[@Carlton-B]

I think that's a good way to put it. @@dernwine

[@zuikasa4503]

The thing I take from this series is that while he will discuss the topics at hand regarding the civil war, in the end he is taking the Lost Cause on overall. Which is why he deviates from talking just about Generalship throughout

[@TheMightyKent]

Definitely that’s what he’s doing. Being in Louisiana, I’m sure he’s seen a lot of genuine Lost Causers. I was born and raised in Texas and currently live in Nashville and these kind of people are around and have such a rose-tinted glasses look of the confederacy and their leaders. It’s annoying at the very least, and rage-inducing most of the time.

[@DurosKlav]

@@TheMightyKent He was a lost causer for awhile himself, as he's admitted to.

[@Bluebelle51]

@@DurosKlav I never heard that, I thought I'd seen all of his videos

[@PaulMcElligott]

@@Bluebelle51 He goes into it in his review of _Gods & Generals._

[@TheMightyKent]

@@DurosKlav you know, I totally forgot about that! That makes even more sense as to why he’s so determined to destroy it. Good for him, for coming around though.

[@Que98PL]

The Checkmate Linconites series is about dismanteling the Lost Cause - obviously he is going to talk about racism. His characters bring up various myths about the Civil War and discuss them, in my opinion you got too hung up on the episode title :)

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

It isn't just the title. It's the premise of the video as stated at the beginning. He got way too off track. If you want to talk about the generals as human beings then do that. If you want to tear down the lost cause myth then do that. Don't sell it as something different.

[@marcgalus824]

@@VloggingThroughHistory you need to check the description. the first line is: Checkmate, Lincolnites! Debunking Lost Cause myths

[@PaulMcElligott]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I think you’re being way too OCD about the title. The entire premise of “Checkmate Lincolnites” has always been responding to Lost Cause arguments, specifically the revisionist argument that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. You could say that’s the purpose of all the Civil War content on his channel. For him to suddenly confine himself to strictly military history would be off-brand for him. This series and channel are about history in general, not military history. Even within the strict confines of military history, discussions about a general’s personal life and character can help illuminate the “why” behind his decisions. History is not just about who, when, where, and how. Understanding that Sir Bernard Law Montgomery was an egomaniac and a control freak can help explain his decisions. Finally, you go into the personal life of John Bell Hood to explain his failings as an army commander, so what exactly are your objections to Atun-Shei doing exactly the same thing, just more broadly?

[@zootnoison5967]

@@VloggingThroughHistory Checkmate Lincolnites! Episodes aren't meant to be focused on 1 specific topic. The whole point is that it is a long winded argument between 2 polar opposite views that get off track. Overall, the video is about who the better general is, comparing the stats of the "best" general on both sides and discussing their tactics and views on war. After doing so, they then begin to discuss faults on them as people, which is brought up by the Confederate character. That is a common theme throughout the series, the Confederate character derailing the argument and bringing it to a whole different topic. I understand you not liking that, but I still think it would've been better if you finished the video.

[@tooki3698]

@@VloggingThroughHistory The premise of the Checkmate, Lincolnites series has always been about addresses some of the more ridiculous comments that Atun Shei gets in his comments sections, as well as lost cause related myths in general. Your insistence that he focus exclusively on generalship completely misses the point.

[@Cathmoytura]

I'll throw in with the people who say that because Lost Causers so often conflate the topics of military prowess and moral character it's important to touch on both when discussing the Civil War generals. One of the first jokes I remember hearing in my life is: "The South didn't lose the War of Northern Aggression. General Grant stole General Lee's sword, and General Lee was too much a gentleman to ask it back." The joke clearly implies the moral superiority, and thus the moral victory, of the Southern military leadership. A Lost Causer once said to me that the North used the South's morality against it.

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

And the Lost Causers are quick to point out that Grant owned a slave but leave out how he worked side by side with said slave, that they became fast friends and when Grant’s farm failed, instead of selling said slave, he freed him. Lee, on the other hand, when commanded by his uncle’s will, since Lee was the executor of the estate, to free his uncle’s slaves held onto them as long as possible because he wanted to profit off of their labor. Lee punished the slaves under him while there is no record of Grant ever punishing his slave.

[@Jay-yw3nr]

its a really bad defense to something but i feel like you don't get his videos. He's using peoples comments from his videos and using those as a spring board to talk about subjects, and can usually loosely wrap some into one title, that doesn't 100% pertain to every comment, but has some connection to the main idea. If you already know that they don't strictly stick to the topic of the title, I would say just don't review it, or if people request it and want to see it maybe approach it with the knowledge that he doesn't follow the main topic that closely. My 2 cents.

[@Cythil]

Yes. The deductions he has is more about the arguments often put forward by the different sides. Especially deconstruct lost cause narratives. That is why it goes off-topic in a sense. Though, it actually follows the great meta topic of the series. I am sure there are quite a few of use that have actually been in internet discussions where someone as a way to defend their argument uses a non-sequiturs. The classical Whataboutism defence. That is why the moral character become an important thing. Checkmate Lincolnites is not where you should go for a deep analysis of the battles and overall strategy. But a series you see to gain a new perspective and help deconstruct Lost Cause narratives. To question narratives. And I do hope that people that watch the series also question the narrative of Checkmate Lincolnites. Even if I often agree with Atun-Shei on many things. But it still a crafted narrative with an agenda.

[@tlm6494]

Agreed. He also seems really combative whenever he reviews Atun's videos, as if he already made up his mind not to like them. Just skip them if you are truly bothered by the content or his layout of said content.

[@yashjoseph3544]

@@tlm6494 I think he might be combative because of Atun-Shei's Gods and Generals video, which he did a reaction to and had to remove it because of how nasty the comment section was getting.

[@tlm6494]

@@yashjoseph3544 That video actually proves my point. In the first 10 minutes of that reaction, he had already paused several times to comment, and he seemed more concerned with disagreeing with AS's viewpoints than actually reviewing the video. It's like he already has his opinions and viewpoints and will not deviate from those, which for a historian can be wildly dangerous.

[@MollymaukT]

VTH is being True Neutral to the point of stupidty. Like "He doesn't seem to be able to separate his outrage of the Confederacy's defense of slavery" almost as if that wasn't the case for the bloody war to happen in the first place!

[@albinahlsen8928]

I see where you're coming from regarding the personal morality of generals and in the stricter sense you are of course correct. But what i see and have encountered regarding people defending or arguing for Robert E Lee is based as much on his personal characteristics as his tactical ability. People tend to bring in points regarding how he slept, ate, his treatment of women, how he lived his life after the war etc. All things strictly irrelevant to the argument but if Atun Shei didn't bring them up the comment section would probably be nothing but stuff about how Lee was nice to children and Grant an incompetent drunk.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

The way to counter the argument that character = better general isn't to use the character argument yourself, it's to point out the irrelevance of that argument in discussing military ability.

[@jacobcoady8852]

@@VloggingThroughHistory so really, your main problem is more with the title than what he's talking about. Misleading titles and all being common on KZbin. The title should mention their personality as well. I would like it if he split the personality of the generals and the tactics they employed a little more. Have the first half talk purely about the tactics, statistics, etc. And have a small break (banter between the two characters), then talk about their personalities.

[@celtwarrior]

@@VloggingThroughHistory Since you're so concerned with the subject matter not 100% matching the title of Atun Shei video. Maybe you should rename this video "A Civil War Historian Reacts as much as I feel like of - Did the CONFEDERACY Have BETTER GENERALS? (Checkmate Lincolnites)" because you definitely didn't react to the whole video.

[@seanassociateproductions1691]

@@celtwarrior this is part 2 bud

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@seanassociateproductions1691 , So... is there a part three where he watches the last minute or two of the video?

[@luckyluciano5726]

I think he’s trying to destroy the myths of the generals, not just who is the best military general but who is the best mythical general. Therefore in the video he has to talk about the personal life and politics of Lee, Forest and Jackson as well as Grant and the other union generals he mentioned. We can’t talk about these people with talking about there legacies.

[@gobstomperbow3517]

@@philmccracken7520 how much time do you want to waste? should we go through every confederate general as well? this video is about lost causers always bringing up pointless shit to discredit union generals, like your doing now or the others with grants drinking and sherms "crimes". which atun addressed in another video about Sherman. we can waste the time but for every general in the north we will find 5 from the south worse and you do not want to see that.

[@edwardmeade]

I always love the idea that Northern logistics 'just happened'. Gen. Meigs and his quartermaster corps made that happen. Meigs went out and hired some corporate badasses to organized the western riverboats, the railroads, coastal shipping and the overland supply corps. He standardized the supply chain and established fiscal controls that gave him the best bang for the buck. The Confederacy not only started out behind but then mismanaged what the did have. At the end of the war southern riverboat owners were working for Meigs because they could at least get paid. By the way, next time you visit Arlington Cemetery or gaze at the Capitol Dome, think of Montgomery Meigs,. He did that too.

[@TonyGModesto]

Actual Badass

[@fritzwittmann2907]

In the case of southern war generals i think tactics and military skills are intertwined because lost causers will say that they are both morally and militarily superior Besides, the whole series is targeted at lost causers

[@fearlessfosdick160]

Well, Lee was overall a superior tactician and Grant was a superior strategist, and both were very fine gentlemen by any reasonable standard. Sherman committed war crimes but so did Pickett. People are people.

[@undertakernumberone1]

38:00 i think the point is that a lot of Lost Cause narrative has Lee as that nearly deified, kind soul that loved and respected everyone and hadn't had one bit of racism in his nody. It's not "Lee (and Confederate Generals) thought that and so they are bad and no Union man ever would've had those opinions." And more "Unlike the deification of Lee by Lost Causers and fanboys, Lee wasn't an all loving gentle soul. He shared most, if not all, of the common racist views of his time and area." And I think part of the issue with "keeping the stuff apart" is, for Atun Shei, that it's often interconnected, especially in regards of Grant and Lee. Especially stuff like what he used as example: "Grant was a Slave owner while Lee was an abolitionist!" (as misleading/wrong the statement is) It has nothing to do with their Military Record as such, but it's stuff that is often used when a person wants to move the goal post from "Better General" to "Better person" (often while still using it as flat "is better" statement). Atun Shei, I think, tries to argue against at least hte most common stuff in regards of the Civil War generals. Though I also have to say... I'd kinda like to see you and him do a video together where, maybe, you could exchange opinions and discuss them.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

@@philmccracken7520 why can't you separate racism from institutionalized slavery? Everyone know there was a lot of racists in both the North and South. But only the South fought to preserve slavery

[@BuhLooZeR]

Thanks for all the feedback on the last video. I have made slight improvements on the design based on feedback (It's not being used in this video FYI) -Andrea

[@GalacticDragon05]

Question, what did you change? because i dont see much different.

[@Ozai75]

@@GalacticDragon05 She just said it wasn't on this video. It'll be on a newer one

[@BuhLooZeR]

@@GalacticDragon05 Maybe I should have explained it better. This video was recorded before he got the new one. Because he is gone for the week and has already recorded a couple of other videos he won't have the new one until next week. As for what the new one looks like it's small changes to make it look a little better and be less distracting.

[@GalacticDragon05]

@@BuhLooZeR ah ok sorry i misunderstood, cant wait to see what changed there are. And i just want to say, your design is really cool

[@BuhLooZeR]

@@GalacticDragon05 Thanks

[@jeffreygao3956]

I did use to think the CSA did have better generals for sure but I reevaluated the Union side and realized the gap wasn't so big after all.

[@bgremgrem8775]

How can you do end it there, 10 seconds before he brings up what you are complaining about? Is it really too much to ask that you watch the video to the end and see what his conclusions are? It seems like everytime you criticize him for leaving something out he has a response a few seconds later to your exact criticism, so I am disappointed you would cut him off at the end before having the chance to defend himself and make his point.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I watched the rest. Doesn’t change my opinion or decision at all. He spent way too much time in this video making irrelevant arguments and when he did focus on the actual generalship, he made poor arguments to make his point. I agree with his premise but disagree strongly with the way he backed it up.

[@xXSPADEGG]

@@VloggingThroughHistory But it changes the perception of your viewers who might not watch the whole video. You have a responsibility to show his entire argument if you are publicly critueqing it.

[@benjamincretsinger1198]

I think the point about Chancellorsville is that while he won on the field and did end the Union Campaign it did nothing towards ending the war and that is the point being made. I also think that he is making the point that we shouldn't separate the men from their morals.

[@celston51]

Same problem with Antietam/Sharpsburg. Technically Lee 'won' on a tactical level as he was still standing at the end of the day. Lee's campaign (or 'raid' depending on your sources) did not achieve most of his strategic goals except for living off of Northern supplies for a few months and the capture of Harpers Ferry. The North gained more for it as it ended any hope for European intervention (Emancipation Proclamation draft) and Lee took heavy losses and ended his campaign early.

[@benjamincretsinger1198]

@@celston51 precisely in general these were often pyric victories for the south as they ended up losing both men and officers they couldn't afford to replace. In the end Lee could have won a dozen Chancellorsvilles and he would have lost the war by winning the battles assuming the North would continue to fight.

[@Unlitedsoul]

First, Chancellorsville drove the Army of the Potomac back across the Rappahannock River with their backs against the Potomac. That alone is a major win, and holds major value to what was, at that time, a defensive strategy of attrition. Add to the fact that the defeat at Chancellorsville was followed by a surge of anti-war sentiment in the North, with some estimates of half of the population calling for an end. This was the entire goal of the Confederates, to wear down public morale to the point that Lincoln would be forced to come to terms of peace. Not to mention that the defeat at Chancellorsville lead to Joseph Hooker being replaced by George Meade. This meant a great chance at temporary disorganization in the Army of the Potomac, something that Lee was counting on when planning his final assault into Pennsylvania. Of course, Lee's impatience at Gettysburg cost him all of the strategic value he'd gained from the previous campaigns and essentially turned the tide of the war for good... as this defeat was timed precisely with Vicksburg's surrender. However, this failure to capitalize on gains obtained does not devalue those gains. As for your second point, if the subject is their ability of military command, everything else is moot. We can absolutely discuss the merits of Hitler's military strategies (some good, others incredibly awful) without bringing up the political motives and his personal beliefs. Just as we often discuss the genius behind Julius Caesar's military tactics and ability to command, without once uttering how horrible of a human being he was. The same is done with Genghis Kahn, Attila, Qin Shi Huang, Ho Chi Minh, Alexander the Great, etc. etc. If it is possible to overlook the immorality and outright cruelty of these historic figures in terms of discussing their military brilliance, why is it not the same for Civil War generals? Now, if we we talking about the men in general... then yes, bring up all the dark baggage with the light as well as their military achievements. Unfortunately, Atun-Shei's video basically makes a mockery of itself by not sticking to the original pretense and only going on the immorality tangents when it suits the argument for one particular side.

[@benjamincretsinger1198]

@@Unlitedsoul go and study the Pyric Wars and get back to me on how much value there is in winning the battles. Lee won that battle sure but he couldn't afford to win that battle again (I would argue he couldn't afford to win that battle at all). While you are correct that being defeated in the eastern theater once again certainly degraded Northerners support for the war it ultimately didn't matter as Lincoln was still able to conduct the war as he desired. While true that the reorganization of the Army under Meade after Hooker was relived of command created some disorganization within the Union Army Meade was also a far better general than Hooker and did manage to defeat Lee so I would say that whatever advantage gained in the chaos of the switch was outweighed by the increased ability of the new commander. As for your point about other famous military leaders two things. First, excellent use of whataboutism aka what about all these other historical monsters? The answer is that we are talking about Civil War Generals and it would be rather strange to discus Ceaser in that context. Second, sure we should also mention their atrocities when discussing their military campaigns. The problem when it comes to the Civil War Generals is ironically often similar to myths about a clean German Wehrmacht or a clean Imperial Japanese Navy in WWII and we need to take every effort to cut down these myths and remember that the southern generals fought for an evil cause and in the case of the overwhelming majority owned other people and treated human beings as property.

[@ihrfer]

Yes, the reaction is very weak. If we distinguish between strategic, operational and tactical success, then Chancellorsville was an operational victory, but nothing more.

[@PilgrimEnge]

Just want to be "that guy" to point out that "BETTER GENERALS" does not necessarily restrict or limit the definition of "better" to military accolades and achievements. There's a case to be made for "better" also including 'Character'.

[@Hailfire97]

The title/topic is just a framing device to address his comments sections and discussions he's a part of. It's just *generally* (heh) a constraint of what they'll discuss in the video.

[@VersusARCH]

So Genghis Khan, Subutai and Shunroku Hatta suck as generals?

[@jstevinik3261]

He had his confederate character push back on the racism comparisons. His union character replied, "it seems that racism was an integral part of the Civil War", or somewhere around those lines. I can see tge racism diolouge since Lost Causers would bring up the supposed hypocracies of union to muddy the waters, especially those in YT comments.

[@GageEakins]

Yeah it really rubbed me the wrong way that he stopped the video right before that part. The video had less than a minute left of content.

[@jstevinik3261]

@@GageEakins Atun Shei Films is an indie filmmaker, so he can write a decent ending.

[@dm3402]

@@GageEakins I feel you on that, but it's mainly for the series continuity, Johnny Reb still cannot come to terms and remains ardent in his Lost Cause beliefs. Despite all the good points he's still of the 'Union generals are murderers' bit so.. See Ya in Hell, Billy Yank lmao

[@blankeon6613]

The racism argument does not exactly hold water. Just because the Union was against slavery does not mean they were against racism. Even Lincoln did not believe black people should have equal rights, he wanted them sent back to Africa.

[@jstevinik3261]

@@blankeon6613 Exactly. It is that lost causers bring it up, demonstrating that racism is connected to the war.

[@ThorgrimThorvaldsson]

He addresses the non-military aspects of genrals' personalities because proponents of the "southern generals were better" argument often bring the subject up, even though they argue with erroneous information. He doesn't separate the military from non-military because his detractors don't. His purpose isn't to propose the notion that Union generals were better just militarily, but to expose the falsehoods of "Lost Causers," which includes the notion that southern commanders, Lee in particular, were also morally superior. He doesn't make dry, historically neutral videos. He makes videos to answer the nonsense that modern-day "Johnny Rebs" post on his comments and elsewhere on the internet. It's similar to the culture that's out there posting on WWII videos about how Germany had the "best equipment, best soldiers, best generals, etc" and that Germany only lost because of "industrial might and numbers," and also makes excuses for the vile things the Third Reich was responsible for. Confederate fanboys and Nazi fanboys have a lot in common.

[@ThorgrimThorvaldsson]

​@@philmccracken7520 So... reading, writing, and historical knowledge aren't your strengths, then?

[@ThorgrimThorvaldsson]

@@philmccracken7520 I'll take that as confirmation that reading comprehension, writing, and historical knowledge are not your best strengths.

[@edge1247]

@@philmccracken7520 lmfao this comment would probably be in one of his videos

[@goodknightunited5918]

I love the videos, but sometimes I wished he would comment until after they made their full points. There are times when he disagrees or offers contrary points only for it to be addressed like a minute (or even less than a minute) later. I think the mentions of stuff outside of the war (like their racial views, slave owning status etc.) is just to dispel a lot of Southern glorification around the generals. Yeah, it might not be relevant to their generalship, but when people always say stuff like "Lee was an abolitionist" in the same discussion about generals, you kind have to address it.

[@grandson_0623]

This is the superior method of reacting to videos, where it doesn't make the other guy look like an idiot and allows someone to criticize parts that deserve it and nothing else. Although, this is arguably more entertaining.

[@Jechti307]

It was definitely hard to watch at times when you had seen the video first and he's starts to correct attun and you know like 2 frames later in this video attun is going to cover just that argument.

[@GageEakins]

Not reacting to the whole video is a little disingenuous. You didn't let him finish his argument for why he was talking about that. He basically gives the thesis statement for the video right after you cut off. Not talking about what a general did outside of military command gives people a distorted view of the person.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I disagree. The whole premise of this video (and the title) is about better generals. Not better people. If he wants to talk about who had the better people, that's fine. His argument is about generals. What they did pre or post war is irrelevant to that conversation.

[@404Dannyboy]

@@VloggingThroughHistory Not really. His videos are only loosely centered around the title argument. They are really a series of attacks on lost cause myths in general rather than some honed debate style argument.

[@jasonhill2879]

@@VloggingThroughHistory that is heavily wrong and it seems to stem from your borderline obsession with the titles and thinking that it outlines the entire video, even after seeing what like 4 of his videos where it should be clear as day that’s not the case...... Anyway what you forgot this is a video to lost causers who very much idolize these generals and not just use military and tactical accomplishments but their very being as a person often glorifying them as saints, which you seem to fail to understand, also another thing of note I do find it very hypocritical that you somehow use the notion and excuse John bell hood with outside causes that has nothing to do with him being a general but then say it’s not ok for atui to do the same thing

[@Unlitedsoul]

@@404Dannyboy And this makes his videos disingenuous. I get what he's trying to do, but he's also skewing history in the opposite direction in a false manner. Why is it that he glosses over Union victories without adding a second of honest context, and fails to point out their immoral beliefs and activities... but does not treat Confederate generals the same way? Oh, he lightly touches on some minor issue Grant had with a handful of Jewish merchants... that he quickly reversed. Wooo! I wonder why he overlooked the entire Sioux War that was begun by Grant. Where's the mention of continued genocide against the Comanche and Modoc peoples at Grant's behest? What, he left off any statement regarding the laws to kill off the bison in the Great Plains to irrevocably destroy the way of life of several native peoples? Also, why is there not a single utterance of Grant's plan to conquer the Dominican Republic to send all of the freed slaves and free black citizens there? I mean, he only called the Dominicans a "turbulent, treacherous race that required true dominion to correct them." Sounds an awful lot like what Robert Lee was saying about the freed slaves, and guess what most Dominicans were at that time... This doesn't even get into the level of corruption he allowed to take hold in his administration. It's also funny that the vast majority of Americans in 1880 still felt the same way about the former slaves that Robert E Lee did in 1850. Not just southerners, but those who'd called themselves abolitionists in the north. Heck, William Sherman was every bit as much of a racist and horrible human being as Nathan Bedford Forrest was. In his own memoir, Sherman wrote, "I never gave a damn if any single slave was freed or managed to survive during or after the war. My part in the war was simple. I was there to punish the Confederacy for daring to dishonor this great nation by succeeding from it. By most accounts, this sentiment was shared with the majority of the men and boys I had the honor of serving with and commanding during that grim time." But, Atun-Shei is going to disingenuously paint the facts by removing them from full context. How is this supposed to be taken seriously by any observer of history? How is it nothing but a lie aimed at dissolving a myth? In the battle comparisons, why does he fail to mention that Grant basically sat with his army 50 miles outside of Vicksburg for two weeks waiting for the city to starve, protected by the Chickasaw Bluffs while the navy bombarded the city from afar? Yet, this is somehow supposed to directly compare to pitched combat on an open battlefield? Then in the end, he sums up estimated casualties for both generals, all the while ignoring the fact that Grant lead fewer battles, faced relatively untrained and untested opponents, and not once failed to outnumber his opponents by at least 2 to 1. The fact is, Atun-Shei is doing one-sided, and short-sighted historical analysis from the scope of debunking a myth. In doing so, he cherry picks facts, ignores the majority of the context, and does nothing but place yet another false narrative on history while attempting to use it to replace another. How is this beneficial in any way, shape, or form?

[@404Dannyboy]

@@Unlitedsoul Yea, it is biased because it is made to counter lost cause myths. If you spend your whole time rebutting points made by people who still idolize the confederacy they will get more mentions and focus than the Union. If you are countering the deification of southern generals some have created then you will focus on rebutting those points as well.

[@ronaldofrias2176]

Was waiting the entire day for the second part. And I never clicked so fast after seeing the notification. Good job Sir. Hopefully you have good time in your family vacation.

[@amalone6]

Disagree with your last take. “Why are you fighting?” is an important question to answer in any assessment of a military leader.

[@fangsabre]

I think the reason he constantly talks about the moral character of the generals themselves is because of the audience this series is trying to reach. Lost Causers will always fall back on "But Lee was a gentleman warrior who's loyalty was as unquestionable as his honor" and things like that. If you give them facts about military performance, they will go back to their defense of the south as actually being more honorable than the north, a haven for those seeking liberty. You cannot ignore questions of moral character with these people because their entire goal is to muddle the moral character of the south to portray them as being wrongfully demonized by the north

[@zachsanchez587]

You seem to be very interested in having a purely military analysis of these generals, separate from character and racism. I think Atun-Shei argues often in his videos that the brutal truth of slavery or racism should NOT be separated when talking about the civil war. He constantly makes fun of the fact that cold, indifferent, analytical analysis of the conflict is inherently a bit ridiculous. Instead, viewing the war through a very human lens is a great way of lending context to systemic problems that exist in the United States to this day.

[@s9660]

The whole point of percentages is to allow for comparison between different quantitative differences. Comparing raw data can lead to the misconception that one side consistently lost more or less than the opposing force.

[@austinlittke5580]

percentages can be tricky, though. Say the Union had 130,000 men, but kept 50,000 in reserve or never substantially committed them, those 50,000 men would still be included in the percentage considerably lowering it even though they didn't really participate in the battle in a meaningful way

[@s9660]

@@austinlittke5580 if one side of battle won without committing every available soldier to battle I would argue that those men should count. Even if they were in a force set aside as reserves those soldiers still came and were prepared to fight. The fact that were not used actually points out the the winning side was able to win without using every available soldier and maintain fresh troops for the next engagement while the soldiers that did fight are able to build up their fighting strength.

[@austinlittke5580]

@@s9660 sure, i suppose there's an argument to be made. But when you keep reserves back with the message "stay and guard the supply base 5 miles away" or "stay in the woods here in case the enemy sends a detachment to try to flank us" or "stay here and guard the supply lines" then the reserves are necessarily pinned down and shouldn't be included as having taken place in the battle as they were never committed and including them doesn't give an accurate picture of the strength of the armies involved in the battle. I find this to be a common problem as many battle assessments will include these pinned reserves in the numbers and make it seem like 50,000 men were going up against 90,000 men and somehow pulled out a miraculous victory when in fact 45,000 (and im just pulling numbers out of the air) of the enemy army were reserves never committed. So I think there could be nuances and you just have to use your judgment but i find your argument would be more of an outlier.

[@s9660]

@@austinlittke5580, putting aside the reserves argument. My original point is still valid. When comparing two forces of unequal strength a comparison of percentages provides a better analysis than the raw data. Say one army is 50,000 strong and another is 25,000 strong and this only counting the troops that fought. If the the first army loses 10,000 and the smaller army loses 7,500. It may seem like the larger army lost more, but the percentage lost for the bigger army is only 20%, meanwhile the smaller army lost 30% of its soldiers. The percentages show that while the smaller army may have lost fewer men it still lost more of its fighting force than the other army and was significantly weakened more by the battle than the larger army.

[@austinlittke5580]

@@s9660 yes i agree

[@michaelsinger4638]

He includes character because so many Lost Causes want to argue that the Confederate Generals were paragons of virtue and chivalry while also demonizing Unioners like Grant and Sherman for example. They’re not arguing in good faith and that is what he’s highlighting. He has no issue with unbiased historians such as yourself.

[@MrMOd3RnW4rF4R3]

I was born in the South and my family who fought in the Civil War were in the North. It has played little to no bearing on any of my viewpoints on the subject matter, as that of someone who is interested in history. I don't whole heartedly take one side or the other, I look at it for what it is, the good the bad, and both sides right and wrongs. Nowaday too many people want to muddy history or forget it. How dangerous that will be if society maintains the path of historical ignorance. It's 100% important and needed to discuss in good faith and not on hunch or irrevocable bias.

[@anthonyboatner7286]

This may just be a bad series for this channel to react too. Checkmate Lincolnites exists as an excuses to dispel lost cause mythology 1st and foremost that means the videos are explicitly political and you take care avoid that.

[@alexandersturnn4530]

The bit where he channels the Spirit of Grant had me rolling with laughter.

[@Bluebelle51]

same

[@DamonNomad82]

I have always thought John Bell Hood's epic failures as an army commander were due to a combination of being promoted beyond his level of competence, and his being higher than a kite on laudanum, which was the only pain medication available that was strong enough to take the edge off the agony from his many severe battle injuries, most notably his arm (from Gettysburg) and his amputated leg (from Chickamauga).

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Yeah I would expect that losing use of an arm and then losing a leg in the span of 2 1/2 months while fighting in the two bloodiest battles of the war would mess with anyone’s ability to think and perform clearly.

[@starwarzchik112]

And they let him return to service after that!?

[@DamonNomad82]

@@starwarzchik112 They did. Both sides in the Civil War were so desperate for generals that they let individuals who had no business even being in the war at all not only be in service, but lead troops. Hood was the South's prime example of this, but the North had a general who, while not as insane as Hood was by the end of the war, had murdered his own commander and got off scot-free because the higher-ups felt they couldn't afford to lose him as a general. That Northern general also had the same name as the Confederate president, which is why his middle initial is always included when he's mentioned: Jefferson C. Davis.

[@PopeSixtusVI]

The Peter Principle in full effect. He was promoted to his level of incompetence based on his performance in his current role, not his future role.

[@FreshTea2411]

While I agree that the original video tends to veer off the main topic for longer than I would like. What people have to understand when watching the checkmate series is that the author is primarily trying to reach or argue against lost causers and confederate sympathizers not general history enthusiasts who know how to separate history from contemporary values. Lost causers tend to deify the confederacy and its popular leaders so he has to break down both their deeds and character to make his point about the Lost Cause myth. Not really interesting for anyone who knows this already but for people who never were aware of any of this it can be quite informative.

[@mind_onion]

My favorite part of this is all the times vlogging: *raises concerns* *presses play* Atun-Shei: *concerns immediately addressed*

[@rafisanders]

The problem is with the definition of better. Napoleon was the best general in the world. But in the end he still lost. Also I still think Ulysses S Grant was the best general of the civil war. I'm just trying to raise a point that victories shouldn't be the only variable in deciding who's a great general.

[@raigarmullerson4838]

Napoleon is not the "best" general in the world.

[@rafisanders]

@@raigarmullerson4838 for his time he was. If the question who is the best of all time, my personal answer would be Hannibal or subutai (Mongolian general under Genghis Khan)

[@Framsky]

@@raigarmullerson4838 Napoleon was absolutely the best general in the world during his time. He changed the military on a profound level. There is a reason why Napoleonic tactics are still taught throughout the world in military schools. He revolutionized everything from artilleries to how the actual structure of an army is set up. Napoleon defeated six coalitions, and the only reason he eventually lost was because of a lack of soldiers, and even then he still won battles while embarrassingly outnumbered. France stood alone against the strongest united European powers. Put some respect on Napoleon's name.

[@Highway-Hobo]

Hence the expression "won the battle but lost the war"

[@adamlubben2504]

@@Framsky well his shortage of men was due his failed invasion of russia

[@seanmcloughlin5983]

You’ve talked a lot about how Lincoln may have expected too much from his generals to get overwhelming crushing victories, but Grant was genuinely the perfect general for him, being able to make use of his men like his predecessors couldn’t and making those aggressive crushing attacks that Lincoln always wanted.

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

Lincoln went through several generals to find Grant ! 🇺🇸

[@caseyd9471]

I get your frustrations but I also agree with many that it's an issue of Atun-Shei's format. He posts these videos as a literal conversation/debate, not an historical documentary, and many times in conversations and debates, the goalposts shift. The comment he was responding to about Grant/Lee's personalities is clearly someone doing just that, saying if you're going to compare them, "look no further than how Grant and Lee [treated] their slaves". THIS person was including personality in the discussion, and Atun-Shei mirrors that in his conversations between Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. The Lost Cause Myth supporters do love to paint their generals as perfect examples of humanity while demonizing northern generals, and Union supporters bring up racism and slavery, and so Johnny and Billy follow that line. I go into Checkmate, Lincolnites! knowing that whatever the topic of the video is, the argument is going to shift and become personal just like if two passionate people were discussing it.

[@MollymaukT]

Also Atun-Shei's isn't a channel about history, he's an independent film-maker and "Chekmate Lincolnites" is him responding to Lost Causer comments that are left on his videos

[@jonsmith590]

@@MollymaukT So all the videos covering American history, including stuff about King Philip's war, various historically small stories from around Louisiana, and other I guess history themed but somehow not historical in nature, videos aren't about history?

[@darthvendar6841]

One cannot separate the person from their accomplishments. You can't bring up one without the other. While I may like Rommel as an honorable and skilled commander, it doesn't change the fact he was a Nazi and best friends with hitler. He was a complicated and deeply flawed individual. In the same way we can't separate the two when we talk about other great generals and commanders. And often times when people claim that Confederacy had better generals they mean both Militarily and Morally. Such a myth NEEDS to be shut down completely and not in piecemeal.

[@MollymaukT]

Also Rommel became like the poster-boy of the "clean Wehrmacht myth"

[@funkboy14]

Nuance, as always, is hard to find. I appreciate your point. I still contend that we should be able to speak of things like this without feeling that in every case we must point out the problematic parts. But that’s just me. I don’t have an issue with the video other than that I wish the title simply noted that character would also be judged in the balance when rating these men.

[@libraryofpangea7018]

29:49 He is pointing out case studies. You are asking for meta-analysis. For a short example I think the case study works, and leaves room for a longer and deeper conversation under a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is one of the highest form of evidence, but, it depends on other forms of evidence to be presnted First. Which then later can be followed up with meta-analysis. As well; Right after he talks about percentages he also gave the raw numbers. It isn't one or the other that's going to give you a more accurate infrence for who was the more effective commander. It's in contrasting Both percentages and raw numbers, as this gives you more information to examine, that you can see trends and patterns in their generalships. Atun wasn't cherry picking. And he doesn't seperate Generalship from Character because the point he is making is that the South did not have any glorious cause. Their cause was slavery. The context for why the war was fought does impact the effectiveness of the commanders because it provides motivation and impacted the moral of those they commanded. So most people, who are not military historian's dont segragate the two. Atuns Johny Reb character represents the arguments in comments made in support of the confederacy. In those comments Character is regularly brought up. So it becomes a relevant point to adress because Atun is talking to those people making these comments and arguments. He isn't talking to a military historian. If he was talking to You, Then that criticism would be valid. However you are failing to recognize the audience he is talking to. Thank you for the video.

[@MollymaukT]

If anything he "cherry-picked" before when just showing individual battles. ethanarsht.github.io/military_rankings/ If you looking at this Wins-Above-Replacement chart Grant has the 7th biggest WAR score *in history* while Lee has a negative score while being a huge outlier in terms of number of battles (chart also shows why Napoleon is considered the GOAT)

[@libraryofpangea7018]

@@MollymaukT Even that isn't cherry picking...people keep using that term wrong. He is showing isolated bits of information, but that doesn't discount *other* sources of information. It isn't in isolation of information for misrepresentation. He leaves it open enough to have room for futher discussion. He was showing a general ( no pun intended) trend. We could say he under sold Grants achievements, but that isn't the same as cherry picking. He isn't just responding to someone elses content, he put this together with an audience in mind and narrative flow & time to consider. Atun himself in his videos says numerous times that he budgets for time constraints on his videos and that the history is more complex and a video could spend hours on the subject and still not do it full justice. If he was cherry picking he would be talking in absolutist terms to support his rhetoric. Which he doesn't.

[@MollymaukT]

@@libraryofpangea7018 that’s why I put it in quotation marks, cause he got accused of underselling Lee’s achievements to make Grant look better when in reality is barely a competition, Grant is waaaaaay better than Lee

[@libraryofpangea7018]

@@MollymaukT Gotcha, that articulation didn't come across to me- I got the impression that you were saying he was cherry picking. It's been driving me nuts lately when people misuse that term. I apologize I agree with you when it comes to Grant, Lee knew how to fight a battle but didn't know how to conduct a war imo.

[@stevereed2472]

Id appreciate it if you would at least watch amd react to the whole video if your going to do this guys vids. Its just more honest and often he answers your questions or disagreements right after you voice them.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I watched the rest afterward. Nothing changes my view that he was completely off base from his original premise. it seems every one of his videos devolves into trying to tear down the lost cause myth and the confederacy rather than staying on topic.

[@argel1200]

@@VloggingThroughHistory That's the whole point of the Checkmate Lincolnites series!!!

[@CommissarRoach]

@@VloggingThroughHistory thats the entire premise of the series.

[@Nosliw837]

@@VloggingThroughHistory It's more than a little troubling that you are doubling down on the "staying on topic" argument in every single comment. I suppose the question more lands in the area of, do you understand the premise of "Checkmate Lincolnites!"? Needless to say, here is one more comment about how you used similar and hypocritical hyperbole arguing for John Bell Hood's acts during his generalship and that the title of your own video is disingenuous to the supposed premise considering you couldn't be bothered to finish the last thirty seconds of content. On the whole, though, I really do enjoy your content! Thank you!

[@TheStephaneAdam]

@@VloggingThroughHistory You really shouldn't react to his videos then, you're VERY obviously not interested in what they actually do and why. You're doin both of you a disservice.

[@dragoninthewest1]

If the Civil War had been a fictional novel, it would have been obvious that Ulysses S Grant was going to have the strategy that won the war. The author clearly had had him named (latinized) after the Greek hero Odysseus: winner of the Trojan War known for his cunning strategy

[@NeoAguni]

Defeating and Army is not a strategic advantage. As he points out despite the win at Chancellorsville it DID NOT Yeild a strategic advantage. Taking Vicksburg yielded a strategic advantage because it put the Mississippi in Union hands. Atlanta and Petersburg were strategic advantages because those where rail hubs. A strategic advantage gives one side an edge in a contest

[@Out_Beyond_The_Heliopause]

Really good reaction but I would like to add to your discussion of the focus of this episode of Checkmate wandering from the stated title. Please do bear with me here, I think its important to show where my thoughts are coming from. A major part of studies during my history degree was in the discipline of Public History, which essentially deals with how history is portrayed/communicated and how to do so in clear and un-warped fashion. Thereby with regards to the American civil war separating any aspect or factor of the conflict from another risks warping popular perception. And whilst it can be fun to to look at the pure tactical side of the conflict, the end result is not helpful as a piece of historical content to better understand the events of that time. With this in mind it is worth remembering that Atun-Shei's thesis for the whole checkmate series is to combat the pervasive influence of the lost cause myth in the popular perception of the civil war and clear discussions of the character of the participants is a critically important thing to include. A concerted effort needs to be made in all historical work to show as three dimensional a picture as possible and whilst definitely not perfect Atun-Shei does a pretty good job of this whilst still bringing the entertainment factor into play. Really enjoy your content and can't wait for more! Safe travels! & can absolutely recommend the extra credits series on the fight against cholera in victorian London. Its very much underrated. 😊

[@JohnReedy07163]

Honestly, I’m going back a year and watching this back again, the genius of this video is that he’s arguing the way people generally talk about the Civil War. We don’t often get wrapped up on who was exactly the better general. It always comes down to who supported slavery, and who didn’t and why that makes them a better general it’s very rare, that these conversations involve talking about tactics and campaigns, instead of feelings about a topic that we have no understanding of in the 21st-century, because it simply hasn’t happened that way since the Civil War. His characters argue, the way, people argue and honestly I think that makes these videos worth watching because it makes you point out the fact that we’re not actually talking about history we’re talking about opinion

[@drrakw2432]

Hearing you talk about civil war related stuff is so fascinating, which, in combination with the original video, makes these videos so good. Thanks for posting!

[@kellygreenii]

Being a war criminal does reflect on his legacy as a commander.

[@willywhonka]

You can't separate the civil war from the arguments around slavery. No matter how many people claim it was a war about 'states rights', the rights in question pertain to slavery. The civil war was fought over slavery, this is undeniable.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Absolutely. You can however separate a persons views on slavery from their ability on the battlefield.

[@markgrehan3726]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I don't think so a person's character and beliefs can't help but leak into their battlefield performance. A person is defined by their experiences after all and those experiences affect them and their decisions. It was a shame to see you become so frustrated at the end but I can see your point if not fully agree with it but it was an enjoyable video overall and thank you for the added commentary.

[@hitomisalazar4073]

I actually think the Percentages is fair, based on the point Atun-Shei was making. That Lee wasn't fighting like his men mattered and that they were outnumbered. That Southern Generals were always trying to go for some big, heroic victory and not thinking strategically. If Lee really was the better general and less of a butcher as the Confederate talking point there was claiming compared to Grant? He would have been doing everything he could have to preserved as much of his army as possible. He should have known (Did in some ways), that the CSA couldn't win by just going: "I killed a little more enemies than I lost of my own men". It had to be truly monumental moments where they picked their battles and really jacked up the ratios. But that's a recurring theme I saw in CSA leadership outside of... dammit what was that General's name in Jackson Mississippi during hte Vicksburg campaign? It's escaping me right now. They thought "If I can kill 20 thousand feds at the cost of 15 thousand Confederates, I'll win!". When no. You really couldn't do that in a war set up like that. You won tactical victories, but you strategically slaughtered your men for minimal, if any, gain. If they were ever going to win, it had to be a political win. They couldn't achieve a military victory with the dispersion of forces. They had to instead bleed out the Union, make it look like they were gaining nothing of importance, and have political will work against the war in the North. Defending cities to the bloody last was only going to favor the union. Getting a lot of men killed, possibly winning a "glorious" victory... and absolutely losing the war. As they did. Grant meanwhile was always operating on the idea of "How does what I'm doing right now work in the context of putting down this rebellion?" Be it demadning Unconditional Surrender to giving out Pardons, to pinning down the Confederate Army or working on his logistics, or finding excuses to fire inept politically appointed officers.

[@ericveneto1593]

Most of Grant's heavy drinking was when he was stationed in the West pre-CW.

[@markgrehan3726]

And considering how the video ended oddly this part of Grants' non-military conduct went by without a peep.

[@johnmcmanus2447]

New drinking game: take a drink every time Chris makes a point during the pause, mere seconds before the original video makes that same point, double drink if he gets it word for word. Godspeed

[@argel1200]

The problem is he didn't define "better general" and you're assuming he meant just the military aspects.

[@argel1200]

@@philmccracken7520 He could have exactly the discussion he did and it's still a discussion of who the better general was, just a more well rounded discussion than *you* expected. It's still a valid use of the word "better", just not the criteria you would use. He should have explained what his intent was at the beginning of the video, but that doesn't change that you also made an incorrect assumption of his criteria for "better".

[@joseph4501]

@@argel1200 Yes but his criteria for better included many modern and progressive beliefs and characteristics that is up to interpretation. For example if I saw slavery as a good thing, which many people around the world still do hence why slavery is still happening, then his arguments would fall short and you could make the argument that the confederate generals were well grounded in their moral beliefs which would be missing his point of what it means to be a good general this is why his criteria needed to be more narrowly defined and not reliant on the viewer being morally progressive and upstanding.

[@worstelldaniel]

@@joseph4501 if you argued based on the premise that slavery is a good thing, you would be wrong. It is as simple as that. That's not a "moral relativism" thing.

[@argel1200]

@@joseph4501 How narrow or broadly something should be defined is your opinion. It's his channel, his series, and his criteria. Given the series is about responding to Lost Causers, expectations should be fairly obvious. Complaining that he's not following your criteria is embarrassing.

[@bobbydipasquale5381]

You were so much better in the 1st video of this 2-parter. You added color to whatever arguments were being discussed about these generals on or off the battlefield. It was cool to learn some extra things about these men even if it wasn't exactly by the letter "on-topic." That in itself is history too and we should never shy away from discussing history - even if it doesn't fit in a neat little box - especially on a channel that repeatedly talks about "learning together" and where the bulk of the content centers around reaction videos that aim to add context to whatever another creator presents. The you in Part 1 is why I regularly return to your channel because you really do great work. In this video though...oof. I feel like you went away from what you do best because it seems - based on your opening - you were swayed by some comments in your 1st video that basically told you (and by-proxy Atun-Shei) to "stick to sports." That has and always will be a terrible argument that ends up teaching us very little and can even allow for incorrect or bad faith ideas to continue to be perpetuated (Like Confederates being good people who were genteel with their slaves - which is an argument made by many "lost causers" to make it seem like Confederate ideals were honorable and not largely driven by the wish to continue the imprisonment and torture of other human beings for profit.) I feel like because you got salty about your own definition of a video title - that didn't seem to bother you in the first video - you missed opportunities to maybe teach us more. It was also really bad form to cut this off early. It's a slap in the face to the creator and is even worse when this channel has been largely built off the backs of other creators' work. If you wish he would have talked more about "on the battlefield" a simple one sentence comment at the end would have been fine. Something to the effect of "it felt to me like he strayed a bit off topic on what I would consider makes someone a good general but I agree with about 75% of what he presented." Or if you really feel so strongly that a video you react to is so far down the wrong path, you're more than welcome to do your own video on the topic your own way. I do very much enjoy this channel and will keep coming back, but I hope for reaction videos you will continue to do what you normally do - discuss the history wherever the creator takes us.

[@leahunverferth8247]

Old comment I know but perfectly stated. He kept agreeing but still had so many criticisms. It felt incongruous. And they were unfair criticisms. He's dealing with lost causers who once they lose the military aspect turn to character evaluation as a last defense and so it's very relevant. In other words, the question of who had the better generals was not meant to only analyze military tactics but who had the best generals in every sense. I was disappointed he can't see how understandable that is.

[@lextella5952]

"better" is such a broad term to begin with, though. And not only that, generals are not just military figures existing in a vacuum, especially when the moral consequence of their actions is very much a crucial part of any generalship. Literally, there is a thing called "rules of engagement" revolving much around the concept of acceptable moral behavior on a battlefield. Massacre of captured enemy combatants has always been MORALLY condemned throughout history whether it be by contemporaries or by future generations regardless of the excuses used to try and justify the action (literally, if you'd divorce morality from any generalship, then no quarter is the only way to go because keeping prisoners is a resource waste, liability and security concern, as well as a strategic hindrance to any campaign). The same goes for civilian casualties etc. So I really don't get the concept of divorcing the morality/character of a general from his performance in a theatre when we assess a general especially when we do it to compare and contrast two opposing ones.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I agree that morality/character matters when discussing actions during the war. That's why, for example, I agreed that the Fort Pillow massacre was absolutely relevant in discussing Forrest as a general. What does not matter is his postwar life. Again, that is relevant in discussing him as a historic figure and a human being, but not relevant to whether he was a better general during the Civil War.

[@haroldsandahl6408]

@@VloggingThroughHistory but the question wasn't limited to the civil war. The question was did the confederates have the better generals. You just decided it was militarily focused AND limited to the duration of the civil war.

[@haroldsandahl6408]

@@philmccracken7520 if part of being a better general is their character than it does matter what they believe in or stood for.

[@zachjones6944]

Morality in warfare is a luxury.

[@dylaneagen880]

@@zachjones6944 Morality in war is a necessity, as it is fought by human beings.

[@tombo6245]

Happy Monday, hope you all celebrated your American Independence Day safely and responsibly.

[@johnmurphy7250]

Had a great day grilled wings and shot fireworks

[@casandraleff4462]

Gary Gallagher also likes to throw out some numbers when talking about Grant and Lee. His go-to is their casualties before they start facing off against each other, but his conclusion seems to be something not mentioned here but which one can infer by Atun-Shei’s breakdown: When does Grant become “bloody”? When he comes into contact with Lee. I’ve never really looked into it, so I don’t know if it holds up with other generals, but Atun -Shei apparently isn’t the only one who looks at numbers and says Grant isn’t as much of a “butcher” as his opponents say.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I agree Grant isn’t the butcher people say. I just disagree with the methods used here to make that point. There are far better ways to do so.

[@casandraleff4462]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I’d love to hear/read more discussion on this topic. It wasn’t talked about here, but I’d guess Shiloh also counts towards Grant’s “bloody” reputation in critics’ minds. What are your thoughts?

[@christiandharma4116]

I appreciate getting additional perspective on Atun-Shei Films videos from your channel. , Atun-Shei clearly adds a heavy layer of entertainment. At times I too felt the arguments strayed from the question, but neither you nor him really took a step back & re-evaluate. At no point was the groundwork for 'better generals' properly laid out. And it's clear you want to focus on just the military accomplishments, which I think is largely correct. But it begs the question, is a general's success judged only on his military accomplishments in war? Despite that being the large majority in my opinion, I find it hard to answer yes to my question, specifically since the groundwork for how to evaluate 'better' is absent. To me, that is the biggest criticism of Atun-Shei Films video. But overall, I still have to give him high marks on the video, and I enjoyed yours as well, thanks.

[@markcorneliuslau]

Better (adj.): comparative form of good Good (adj.): virtuous The arguments that Southern generals were better never revolve around just military operations but their “Southern charm” and claims that they were of better character, not just that they were better at generaling.

[@Pandaemoni]

You seem to be incapable of understanding that the titles of the video in this Checkmate, Lincolnites series are not intended to imply "And this is the one and the only topic we will discuss today". As a result. you spend a lot of time whinging when he goes "off topic," but he clearly never intended the topic to be as rigid and inflexible as you'd prefer.

[@raigarmullerson4838]

true

[@LethalByChoice]

Yeah VTH was in the wrong here. He needs to understand the video he's reacting to so he doesn't misunderstand things. What annoys me even more is how defensive he is in the comments, rather than take responsibility that he was wrong.

[@death5244]

Great video. Just found your channel and I'm very glad I did. One criticism I have is that when you talk about him focusing on matters other than military history I think you missed the fact that his point with the video was (like with his other "checkmate Lincolnites" videos) to combat lost cause myth and in this case its glorification of confederate generals. Direct quote from end of the video (after you stopped reacting): "I'm just course correcting against generations of hero worship".

[@feartheamish9183]

For the "show me the raw numbers" argument. Which army would you put yourself into? If you have a 1 in 5 chance of dying or a 1 and 8... we both know which you would choose

[@whensomethingcriesagain]

Rather than a butcher, I always categorize Grant as a slugger, unlike commanders like McClellan or Burnside, he could take a tactical mauling or a major strategic hit and recover from it immediately, striking back all the harder. Rather than wasteful, he was relentless, and that was the exact quality needed to put the Confederacy in the dirt. Not only that, he was completely unafraid of striking where previous commanders had been cautious to a fault, and was thus able to seize opportunities and pin down Lee in a way none of his predecessors had. As Lincoln himself said, "I cannot spare this man. He fights."

[@PopeSixtusVI]

George Patton clearly took some plays from his book.

[@captainthorrek262]

Go back and watch the rest, if you haven't yet; there's a credit cookie!

[@MrMexicanarmy]

I feel like no number atun gave could have made you happy with the loss ratio.

[@DSzaks]

VTH - "Show me the raw numbers, that the only thing I'd be concerned about in a situation like this. CL - Shows raw numbers VTH - No comment :P

[@snakehead4213]

Personally I have more of with the raw numbers than the percentages because one general could have suffered more causalities because most their battles were larger and/or fought more battles. For example Napoleon vs. Wellington

[@michaels2747]

Hi I was an American history major at LaSalle college class of 72. I still read an occasional civil war history. Just finished a book on grants campaign at vicksburg. Love love love your analysis.

[@TheDraconnian]

I am from Europe where the American Civil War is only superficially taught in schools. Not even that much has been done in college unless US history is chosen as a special field of study. And that period is very interesting to me and thank you for being able to learn something in an interesting way through your channel.

[@undertakernumberone1]

I'd have some recommendations for you, if you're interested. "The myth of the Lost Cause - Why the South fought the Civil war and why the north won" by Edward H. Bonekemper III. And "The American Civil War" by the Great Courses. "The Grand Design" by Donald Stoker, "American Civil War" by James Keegan and "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.

[@jackreaper30]

Same here , I'm from Italy and it was not taught all that much here , then again european history is not taught that well in America , and Asian history is taught poorly in most places ; we all teach only our history . It is understandable , given the limited hours of histoty we have in school , but I have learned more about hisory on my own than in school .

[@404Dannyboy]

I always say that the American Civil War had the psychological effect on the nation that WW1 had on Europe to show how significant a conflict it was in our history. The proportional losses weren't too different either.

[@edwardmeade]

Don't feel bad. We are taught nothing about the Thirty Years War. If you want to learn about that you have to do it on your own time. Also, the American Civil War was not even the biggest civil war at the time it was being fought. The civil war happening in China involved way more people and resulted in many, many more casualties.

[@joshuawells835]

•The John Wayne film The Horse Soldiers is based on Grierson's Raid. •Grant was actually looked highly upon by the former Confederates because of his mercy, allowing them to return home and also keep him men in check and not rubbing in the Union's victory. •I saw and now own the History Channel's docuseries Grant, in which they go over how Grant got this reputation. In particular, newspapers claimed that the high casualties at the Battle of Shiloh was because Grant was drunk. They also go over how at Appomattox, you see the old and new coming together; Lee, the son of a Revolutionary War hero, a member of Virginia's patrician class, and a Southern gentleman wearing his best uniform with sash and sword, vs. Grant, the son of an Ohio tanner who rose through the ranks despite personal setbacks in his life. I also learned that Grant developed the habit of smoking because a photo of him with a cigar was taken and people just started sending him more. He would smoke 20 cigars a day (for comparison, Churchill smoked 10 cigars a day). •There's a reason the Union wanted Lee to command the Union Army and there are those who believe the war would have ended sooner had Lee accepted Union command. •Grant also came from a very radical abolitionist family, while Lee was of the Lees of Old Virginia (I recently discovered the musical 1776 and that song in particular has been listened to on car rides to and from work. Who knew George Feeney could sing?) •I think the Africa quote may be in reference to questions about what to do with freed slaves. Lincoln himself did not believe that white people and freed slaves could peacefully live in the same country and so looked at possible relocating them back to Africa (specifically the nation of Liberia) and even entered negotiations with the Dutch government to relocate them to the Dutch Caribbean or South America. Lee also did argue for arming slaves to fight for the CSA in exchange for freedom, but as a military necessity. •I think the better general think comes from the fact that Grant was preceded in his command of the Army of the Potomac by a series of more incompetent commanders, who had specific victories that proved vital to the Union's survival, while Lee, even with his greatest failures, maintained his command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

[@MollymaukT]

Also the Union tried to get Lee to join their side specially for the propaganda of having a stereotypical southern gentlemen siding against the Confederacy, it'd be a terrible blow in moral, specially in Virginia

[@tscream80]

Regarding your last point, it's often forgotten that Grant was *not* the immediate commander of the Army of the Potomac. Oh, he commanded it by virtue of being the overall commander of Union forces, and he was in the field from the start of the Overland Campaign up to Appomattox (by virtue of taking Sherman's advice and getting out of Washington before the politics overwhelmed him). No, it was George Meade who commanded the Army of the Potomac, carrying on his role from the Battle of Gettysburg and doing so up to the end of the war. It should also be noted that the Army of the Potomac was joined on the campaign by Burnside's IX Corp (which operated independently from the Army of the Potomac during most of the campaign) along with the XVIII Corps from the Army of the James for the latter part of the campaign.

[@reeseseater12]

So, in my reading of these videos, I think that he focuses in on the character issues because they're pre-emptive responses to his comment section, which he shows, always brings that stuff up. It's not like he avoided their competency of the generals in this video, just did a lot of the character stuff, most likely to respond to commenters who he knows will bring it up. Also, you missed the end credits scene, which shows what, I presume is, a preview of his next video.

[@succulentsoccer43]

Hey Vlogging through history! As someone who’s been a big Atun Shei Films fan for several years now and recently a new subscriber of yours I’m commenting because I’m hoping to give some context on way he frequently speaks about these men’s morals as well as military history. Checkmate Lincolnites is a series that Atun started as a rebuttal of the fervent lost cause mythology that seems to plague online internet civil war discussions. Each episode is supposed adress a different facet of the mythology and also discuss a verity of topics related to said discourse. Such as the Sherman a war criminal episode. Well that’s a huge topic and that requires several other things to be answered, what does it mean to be a war criminal? Is destroying literal slavers property an immoral act etc. On a personal note I agree with Atun’s statement that we can’t really study the military history without studying these men in the context in which they took these military actions and often, that can inlude their morality and actions as people. As students of history we have to remember that things don’t happen in vacuum. Anyway, I hope I’ve contributed something at least. I also hope you’ll continue to engage with his content. All that being said excellent videos! Cheers!

[@fighterck6241]

32:40 You didn't comment in his summation on the overall outcome of the war being ultimately determinate by Southern general's lack of a strategic plan and being overly focused on winning individual battles vs the North's general understanding that every engagement had to be weighed against whether or not that engagement ment fit into the bigger picture. I believe that this summary very much underlines the tactical underpinnings of Sherman's March were much of the criticism of that action highlighted the lack of actual troop engagements whereas he appeared to avoid that in favor of his "Scorched Earth" policy. However I would have liked to hear from you as an alternative opinion whetherbor not this fact actually superceded the material advantage inherent to the Union position in your own opinion. I say this as a modern progressive and, like you a definite supporter of the Northern political position, however also like you I do wantt to see the historical perspectives that can be laid out concerningthe military objectivesand how they were executed. So I'm disappointed that you cut short before addressing that once Atun-Shei dovetailed back into the moral comparisons because it seemed that you missed the opportunity to address the key argument of the entire video. Btw I probably also am in the camp that it is important to also include character judgements in any evaluation of military figures since that alsi relates to their responsibilities in upholding the integrity of liberal institutions and the nation-state as a whole. There's a readon why it was reassuring to hear the likes of General Mark Milley call Confederate Generals traitors and guilty of trason and such a viewpoint reassures me of his understanding of his responsibilities as a military commander without even knowing his personal politics. I believe that that is part of an evaluation of any US General and an insight into how well they understand their job. But that is beside the point, I really just want to hear your views on 32:40, please. I was happy to hear your alternate take on the statistical breakdown on troop casualties between Lee and Grant despite personally taking it as one of his best points but was able to appreciate your rebuttal and had hoped to see whether or not you had any interesting perspective regarding his summary as well. It makes the overall reaction very incomplete. Hopefully you see this and hopefully you go back into that section of the video and give us a viewpoint on that. Thanks and cheers. Look forward to see what you have for us once you get to Boston.

[@chrisclark6161]

Speaking of the frame, this is the best one yet. I think this should be format that sticks.

[@alexheady7887]

I agree with almost everything you say, but I must say(though I know nobody asked me) that I don’t agree the raw numbers are what matters when you compare casualties under generals. Unless both generals have the exact same size army, for the exact same amount of time, you have to use percentages to compare. It’s like… it’s like batting average. If you compare a player that has played ten years to a guy who has been playing for five, you can’t just bring up how the player with ten years has more strike outs. Well of course he does, he has many more at bats. but his batting average is .310 while the other guy has a .200 average. Who do you want on your team?

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Here’s why I made the point. Remember this is all his context of arguing who is a better general. If general A wins a battle with 150,000 men and suffers 20% casualties (30,000 men) his argument is that general is better than general B who wins the battle with 80,000 men, outnumbered 2 to 1 but who suffered 25% casualties (20,000 men). That is ridiculous to me.

[@alexheady7887]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I see what you are saying and you’re absolutely right. He’s hooking at it in a way that’s too simplified. There are many factors that determine who is the better general. The amount and percentage of your army that is acceptable to lose differs based on many different variables, like whether you’re on the offensive, defensive, how outnumbered you are. He really should have listed all the numbers, because grant ends up looking pretty good that way too.

[@kgrafs91]

I'm confused as to why raw casualty totals are more valuable than casualty percentages when reviewing the effectiveness of a general? Wouldn't losing a greater proportion of troops matter more in a battle as it can hamstring future war efforts?

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

How bout not picking a fight with a bigger s.o.b. ?!? 🤔 ❓️ That would'VE really helped his numbers.

[@kylarietes]

I think that sometimes you stop one of these types of videos to comment or critique a little too quickly, before you fully understand the point he is trying to make. Point in case, the comparison between the battles of Chancellorsville and Vicksburg. He isn't choosing two random battles to compare, he picked the two battles that are widely considered to be the greatest victories of Lee and Grant, respectively. As such, it is a very valid comparison. Grant's victory at Vicksburg had wide-reaching consequences that were extremely detrimental to the South, all with a relatively low loss of life. Its' effects were felt greatly throughout the rest of the war. On the other hand, Chancellorsville, while a brilliant victory, did nothing to bring the South closer to victory. Sure, Lee bloodied the Union nose a bit, but at the cost of many of his own dead, which he could not afford to lose. Lee may have boosted the morale of his troops with the victory, but other than that, neither he, nor the South, gained anything for the war effort. That is Atun-Shei's point. Grant is the better general because he thought more of the overall conduct of the war than single, flashy victories, like Lee. If I might offer a suggestion, perhaps it would be better for you to watch these types of videos first, then record your comments during a re-watch. That way, there will be enough time for you to process the information presented before your critique. I think most of us are more interested in your educated opinion than seeing first reactions.

[@snakehead4213]

Personally I think Lee did a better job at battles like Second bull run Than Chancellorsville only reason why it’s considered his greatest is because the size of the army he had to face

[@davidhonaker519]

well clearly I dont need to pile on but ya I think you missed the mark in quite alot of your arguments. Atun never limited himself to the strictly military in his definition of "best".

[@Littleryan16]

Enjoy these amazing videos! Keep them up just had history at school, working at one of the highest in my class! Also hope you are doing well as well as your family

[@stratagama]

I am incredibly disappointed that you didn't finish the video there were some things that I think were well worth continuing to keep the video on

[@jimbo2227]

I think the point of bringing up their post-war activities maybe to show that their perception as grand generals was contrived by confederate veterans and the old social order.

[@JABRIEL251]

I went to school in the South and I still remember how much Grant was downplayed and treated as nothing more than a mindless drunk. That was like 15 years ago, so I hope it's better, but probably not.

[@user-ie9jm9fe4t]

Two years later but I went to school literally a few blocks from where grant is buried in nyc and our school didn’t really mention him much. It’s wild he doesn’t get the attention he deserves even here

[@Kasamira]

You cut it off right when he was about to close everything together and say what you were saying- that the lost cause myth is about how people choose to remember the generals. That their perceptions of their character colors their abilities and makes them see them as better/worse Its a performance and you’re not letting him finish his point before deciding what he’s saying

[@Taskicore]

Yeah, it's irritating as fuck.

[@Kasamira]

@@Taskicore I admit, I found myself really frustrated too. Because Atun only presented the first part of his argument, without any opposition and it’s like….. idk I felt pretty disappointed. If you won’t even watch the full video what’s the point of reacting?

[@Taskicore]

@@Kasamira That's why I don't watch VTH anymore. I genuinely, no offense to him, have better things to do. I put his videos on in the background sometimes but I prefer to watch the actual content he reacts to. Uses up less time and I have more free minutes in my day.

[@FWAMUG]

I think you should have listened to the end of his argument. I really must agree with the things that were said after you stopped listening to the argument. The final points he was trying to make is that the Civil war was fought over slavery and that General Grant was a better general than General Lee was. I must tell you that I went to school in the 70s and 80s and I was taught that the primary reason for the Civil War was states rights and taxes. I was also taught the Grant was a drunk and a terrible general who threw away the lives of his men like trash and the Lee was on of the greatest and most brilliant tactical offices the US produced up to that time. (I went to school in Indiana). What I have learned in my onw research as an adult is that while the reasons for the Civil war are somewhat complicated, it is complete "B*$&#$!$#" that it was not about slavery. It most definitely was. I also learned that while Lee was a good general, he was not superior to Grant but that Grant was a significantly better general.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

If you didn't notice, he is responding to comments made on his channel from Lost Cause supporters. That's why the moral issue is talked about. The lost causers think the Confederacy was both more moral and better in battle.

[@derickfrabottaa4699]

I get where you're coming from with thinking he put too much time on character but I don't think he was wrong to. After all I believe his video's are to rebut the beliefs of people who actually believe in things like the lost cause of the confederacy. So to do so he needs to quash the belief that the Confederate Generals were decent people.

[@BushnoSkillzz]

Really disappointing take. You said yourself 75% is him criticizing purely military performance. Why is it a big deal that the other 25% is a reminder of their character? Especially when their semi deifyication and overstated ability is a direct result of the lost cause myth and the rewritten morality of the confederacy. Reminding people who these generals actually were and what they fought for is literally the least of our problems when it comes to civil war history.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

As I stated in the video, I also took issue with some of his military arguments. I agree with the overarching premise, just felt he made a mess of trying to prove the point.

[@BushnoSkillzz]

@@VloggingThroughHistory Alright? You took issue with some military arguments. Thats fair. You spent much more time complaining about the morality segments, and I think many in these comments are immensely confused as to why? He stated his arguments on their positive and negative attributes as military leaders and then delved into why they were bad morally, and you seemed to take great offense to that second part. Why would you think educating people on the personal morality of the generals is a bad thing?

[@LethalByChoice]

@@BushnoSkillzz Yeah I don't get VTH with the Atun-Shei reactions anymore, he clearly doesn't understand these videos and proceeds to be a close-minded prick in the comments who will fight and die on the hill rather than simply entertain the possibility that he may have been in the wrong and he's done this in multiple comments where he deflects and generally doesn't understand what people are saying. There's not a single comment where he takes responsibility even a LITTLE bit for being wrong and it pisses me off.

[@pdxbohica]

The last 2 minutes of the Checkmate video are the best part. Start at 44:50 or so.

[@stevenm2722]

Wait. Am I the only one who caught the Lord of the Rings reference? 13:04 "The army of the Tennessee was laid low. It's ruin smote upon the mountain side." That's most definitely a reference to Gandalf defeating the Balrog.