What If The South Won At Gettysburg? Slavery Could Continue Until The 20th Century

[@johnboxler8989]

I don’t think it would have changed the outcome. Everyone seems to forget that the union took Vicksburg on the same day. Vicksburg is a much more strategic city.

[@justin97410]

Actually it was the following day the confederates surrendered Vicksburg

[@ArmenianBishop]

Yes, Vicksburg was a strategic blow, and more serious than what happened at Gettysburg. But, a Confederate Victory at Gettysburg could've moved Great Britain abandon neutrality, and step into the conflict, on the side of the CSA. It wasn't a done deal, but it certainly would've been an influential victory.

[@curious968]

@@ArmenianBishop Very doubtful. The thing to remember is that the importance of Gettysburg was not immediately apparent. It was a great victory for the union, and there had been few enough of them. At the time, that was about it. But if a big union defeat would have moved Britain, then Fredericksburg would have already done it. If the south had won at Gettysburg, it would have just been another Chancellorsville or Manassas. None of those wins did anything for the south, either. The only way it would have mattered is if the union blundered badly enough to lose the Army of the Potomac altogether. But that sort of thing almost never happened on either side. Incompetent as Meade's predecessors were, they never really were in danger of being wiped off the map as Bell Hood was in Tennessee. Meade wasn't going to be the first, either. Nor do I think a win at Gettysburg makes the conquest of Washington DC a foregone conclusion for precisely the reason I just gave. Both sides had a way of reforming their forces even after losses of 10s of thousands.

[@Revkor]

@@curious968 I see gettysburg was the confederate chance of a Yorktown victory. the morale blow of yet another loss would push the peace process to the fore

[@robinstevenson6690]

True, a victory at Gettysburg paired with a defeat at Vicksburg, would have been a kind of "phyrric victory" in some respects.

[@pjeverly]

This is my favorite new KZbin series. Keep up the great work James and company.

[@flintlockhomestead460]

What if the south had won at Gettysburg? We probably would not be as concerned with that battle as we are. If the south was going to win at Gettysburg it would have had to do it on the first day. On the first day the south had the advantage of numbers, position, and of momentum. The failure of the attacks on the second day were contributed to by federal troops still coming up from Maryland and being snatched by Governor Kimble Warren to defend Little Round Top. By the third day too much of the federal army is on site for the Confederates to succeed. If the Confederates had gained the high ground of Cemetery Ridge on the first day Meade already had a position prepared in Maryland along Pipe Creek where the defeated portion of the Union forces could retreat to and be reinforced. Further reinforcements were available from Washington, D.C. if needed. Lee would then have had three choices. He could have continued north but that would have left the Army of the Potomac in his rear. He could have turned south and attacked the consolidated Union army in the Pipe Creek defenses where he would be at a disadvantage in both numbers and position. Thirdly, he could have attempted to retreat behind South Mountain and return to Virginia without further engaging the union army which would have probably have been his best choice. Meade could have attempted to cut him off before he reached the Potomac but probably would not have succeeded. In any of these scenarios Gettysburg would not have near the relevance it does the way it occurred.

[@junkjunk81]

A bit nit-picky, but an error that bugs me quite a bit: the video confuses casualties and deaths. Gettysburg did not "claim the lives" of over 51,000 people. The actual number of fatalities is about 7000. The rest of the 51,000 are wounded or captured.

[@larryraco7829]

A really unforgiveable error. Unfortunately, people who should know better frequently confuse casualties with deaths.

[@ArmenianBishop]

That's True, and I understand the frustration. Just one thing: Some of those counted as wounded were mortally wounded, and didn't survive their wounds. Others were put out of action permanently by amputations, and other kinds of serious wounds.

[@drfred85]

Funny enough, I took issue with an error as well that isn’t really mainstream: he said 13 states seceded… it was actually only 11. Missouri and Kentucky were coveted by the CSA but never seceded… the Confederate even put stars on their flags to represent them, but they never officially seceded (though large portions of their populations sympathized with the South or downright supported them).

[@ArmenianBishop]

@@drfred85 Leonidas Polk's generalship has best been criticized for his misunderstanding of the political climate in Kentucky, when he invaded the Neutral State, in September, 1861. That established a precedent to counter the Confederate advances, and move into the State; and, from that, the vulnerable Confederate positions in Tennessee were open to invasion.

[@1rwjwith]

Exactly correct and videos on Gettysburg repeat this error constantly. There were NOT 50k battle deaths there that is total casualties.

[@forgetmeshots]

As a Pennsylvania resident, Gettysburg is certainly worth a visit. It has been very well preserved, and walking the battlefield makes it quite clear how imposing some of the hills can be for an attacking army. Especially on the Union left.

[@markaxworthy2508]

No change. Lee won lots of battles but never destroyed the Federal army. Washington was well fortified and defeat at Gettysburg would just have led to it falling back within them and building up again there.

[@TheLucanicLord]

You're forgetting political effects. One, the peace faction at home may have convinced people the was was too costly. Two, other countries might have decided it was expedient to help the side that looks like it will win.

[@bucksdiaryfan]

Lee knew the South couldn't carry on in the field forever, so he went for the knockout blow -- similar to Billy Conn in his fight against Joe Louis. But like what happened to Conn, it was the South that took a crippling right cross that put it on the canvas

[@robinstevenson6690]

Another correction: General Hood's right arm was blown off and Hood was nearly killed - - not on some "long march," but in a key position just to the southwest of Little Round Top (we're talking about the distance of perhaps two football pitches or cricket field, maybe 1 or 1.5 kilometers). Hood was very much in the thick of the battle, and an airburst cannon shot took his arm off, throwing enough confusion that the strike on Little Round Top lost it's vital leader at a pivotal moment.

[@wpankey57]

Interesting stuff. Great moderator and experts.

[@ssymelongstreetSyme]

Lee was losing by attrition. Win the battle but lose to many troops to continue as he was. Using up his means to fight over the long run. Two more weeks of Vietnam and North Vietnam was about to negotiate according to one of their top generals.

[@ssymelongstreetSyme]

The Union was not nessessarly in the position that the south was as they drew from a larger population thus more troops.

[@davidrobertson5996]

Great episode guys. Very interesting.

[@craiglarge5925]

The CSA army really lacked the resources to pull off a viable invasion of the northern states to perhaps taking cities such as Baltimore, Washington DC, and Philidelphia.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania was a desperation move. Lee’s army had defeated inept Union generals on it’s home turf. But none of the Union invasions had been destroyed. Rather the Union forces retreated back to Washington DC. President Jefferson Davis understood if Lincoln was reelected the Confederacy would lose their bid for independence

[@Powerule23]

Great jobs guys. It's tough to tackle a fascinating aspect of history and you did an excellent job.

[@toddschofield725]

If I'm not mistaken the confederacy did not believe in a strong central government and that they're federal government was subservient to that of the states. It is known at the time that some individual states hoarded supplies and were reluctant to share with other southern states. So if they had become a nation would they have been able to maintain a union

[@Revkor]

they ran into the same problems as the articles of Confederacy

[@scottpankonin1068]

A wargaming channel (Mark's Game Room) wargamed the Hood swings south scenario. Hood is quite effective but it takes too long to get in position to be decisive. The vid was very good. They do it in Gettysburgh and dirve the routes involved with umpires that decide on the movment timings.

[@RPknight101]

I believe LittleWarsTV did a Gettysburg scenario that was quite interesting, it was done over the course of a couple of days and was entirely audience based, quite fun to watch and see.

[@Vasyla77]

Great channel lads keep it up.

[@BigYouDog]

If the North lost, and the country did eventually divide, would the reduced USA have been in a political position to buy Alaska from Russia? In today's political climate, having Russia on it's doorstep would be an "interesting" situation.

[@daviddavenport9350]

Yeah...probably...Seward was still Sec. of State. and the North was very rich compared with the South or Europe.....

[@craiglarge5925]

USA Today would have its act together meaning a robust manufacturing sector, thriving shipyards, a far reaching military draft, barely any non-military spending, minimal debt, and protectionist trade practices, etc.

[@curious968]

Russia probably sells Alaska to Britain (aka Canada) in that case. They sold it because they couldn't figure out what to do with it or how to hold it.

[@jeffbybee5207]

The deal had a nice side that at least half the price was spent buying railroad trains and rails in america and sending that to russia. Sorta like soending money on space yes the hatdware takes a trip but the money stays on earth creating jobs

[@robinstevenson6690]

Good show...well-done.

[@genes.3285]

Lee was full of himself. The Army of Northern Virginia would have been better off if he had stayed on the defensive at Gettysburg. Let Meade attack on the second and third days. The first day was a victory. Lincoln would have been all over Meade to attack, regardless of casualties.

[@Revkor]

agreed.

[@sgregg5257]

The real problem that command had was that the strategy and tactics they were taught were out dated by the technology they were employing on the battlefield. This happens a lot in military history.

[@Anaguma79]

Starting off perpetuating the States' Rights argument is a bold choice. States' Rights to what, pray tell?

[@deepcosmiclove]

Just off hand, I think it is the 9th (or is it the 10th) amendment that clarifies the rights of the states vs the Federal governemnt; namely those power not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states.

[@loucaribou7765]

Here we go😂

[@aquila3958]

@@deepcosmiclovethe states right to do what?

[@chrismiller9987]

I believe the supremacy clause, as well as the necessary and proper legislation clause(s), kind of negates the states’ rights arguments.

[@jessel3621]

States' rights to own slaves is correct. So saying it's about states' rights isn't incorrect or a myth.

[@alainrouleau]

Sun Tzu... "Every battle is won or lost before it is fought” That's Gettysburg!

[@tomau3946]

A key factor in the second day's battle on Little Round Top and Culp's Hill was the absence of the Confederate cavalry under Jeb Stuart until the third day. Hannibal had cavalry. Lee did not.

[@philipcone357]

No change would have happened. The Anaconda Plan was working very well and the Eastern Theater is paid far to much attention. If Gettysburg is lost does it effect Grant taking Vicksburg? No. Does it effect the upcoming Tennessee campaign? The March to the sea? The continuing blockade?

[@robinstevenson6690]

It was Longstreet (not his subordinate Hood) who advocated defending a line to the south of the Union position. And it was Lee (!), not Longstreet, who prevented confederate forces from occupying a line to the south. Lee's reason for not moving south to put confederates between Meade and Washington D.C. was that confed. Gen. Ewell (up at Culp's Hill) refused to abandon their positions in Gettysburg proper and around Culp's Hill. The reason Ewell gave is that his men had given everything to assault Culp's Hill and would have been morally devastated to abandon their positions. Of course, Ewell was tragically mistaken, because his men had to abandon Culp's Hill the very next day, regardless, but they did it so late in the game that their only way out was to retreat ignominously to the southwest to save themselves. If General Stonewall Jackson hadn't died and been replaced by (the somewhat feckless and legless) Ewell, he probably would have far less "clingy" to Culp's Hill. Jackson was a brilliant strategist, and almost certainly would have obeyed Lee's order to swing all around the battlefield to the south, which would have been a far superior defensive position!

[@robinstevenson6690]

I lived about three city blocks from Culp's Hill, and it was a truly formidable defensive position! However, not mentioned is the fact that Southern General Rhodes had an entire division that failed to support Ewell's attack on Cematary Hill on BOTH July 2nd and 3rd! Had Rhodes done so, they might well have destroyed the core of the "fish hook" at the northern end of the battlefield. Doing so would have completely undone the Union defense. Can you imagine, an entire confederate division on the northwest side of Culp's Hill, lead by Gen. Rhodes, doing absolutely nothing with his men on the 2nd and 3rd days of the Battle of Gettysburg? Even on the 1st day, his men were routed!

[@duaneleavesley3778]

Interesting topic and conclusions. I really liked your historian expert's points. Thx

[@daviddavenport9350]

You forget that Lee tried a desperate frontal attack at Malvern Hill during the Peninsular campaign of June 1862 against a prepared Union position not unlike Gettysburg... and lost over 3000 men in less than a hour! It was something he repeated on the third day at Gettysburg.

[@melissapollom427]

The reason why Mead did not go after Lee on the 4 July was the Army of the Potomac was in just as bad shape as Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. As for Hood's attack, he wanted to make Longstreet did not have his whole corp up. Picketts division was guarding the wagon train. Pickett did not make it up until that evening

[@scottbeall2212]

Which is also part of why the pursuit wasn't as quick/decisive as Lincoln wished. Add in the weather. Lee's defenses at Williamsport were very formidable, attacking them could very well have been disastrous for the Union. I enjoyed this video, but they parrot a lot of talking points that have been challenged and discounted.

[@IndianaDiecastRacing]

i love the topic and the input of both experts, but the audio quality from the virtual call is absolutely painful to listen to

[@babyseals4872]

Great video gentlemen. Don’t listen to the weirdos in the comments. Well done!

[@benkenobi4937]

Man than dial-in audio was rough. Wanted to hear more, but stopped about 8 mins in. Maybe choose an expert with a better internet connection or headset? Not sure which was causing the audio issue, but in this day and age surely we can do better...

[@volleybiggs]

A better question would be what if the South had an overwhelming victory Antietam or if Lee’s special order 191 was not lost. This battle was the end of South’s chance for victory not that had really had a chance

[@wpatrickw2012]

2:09 the only “right” they were interested in was the right to own slaves in that state.

[@forgetmeshots]

42:18 Most of the concessions of reintegration were a result of the Hayes disputed election in 1876. Democrats essentially conceded the election, and reconstruction loosened up on southern states in turn.

[@chrisdfx1]

This battle should've never happened. If Lee had his cavalry, he would've known where the Union Army was, and he would've consolidated his forces somewhere he could defend and waited. If the Confederates would've pushed the Union off of the high ground on day one, the Union withdraws, and Gettysburg would just be a footnote to the larger battle that would've happened somewhere else.

[@davepangolin4996]

Was Lee overrated?

[@Philly_bruv]

Very much so. He only saw the set piece battle as mattering. Any thought of a larger strategy, or incoporating individual battles into a plan for overall victory was beyond him. That is what made Grant a better general. On top of that ..... Lee was an awful human being, an absolutely brutal slavemaster.

[@Revkor]

no, he just was not perfect

[@Revkor]

@@Philly_bruv any proof of that?

[@scottbeall2212]

Points about Little Round Top - if the Confederates had taken it, the Union likely would have taken it back with the 5th, and then the 6th Corps. They had reinforcements nearby, and the Confederates did not. Little Round Top was not a great artillery platform, the Union did get one battery up there, which was effective on the 3rd against Pickett's charge, but Confederate guns could not have fired on the rest of the Union lines. LRT was key for some of the reasons you said, anchoring the flank, protecting the Taneytown Rd, but it's capture would not have won the battle on it's own for the Confederates.

[@curious968]

Yes, but having been there, I can state that the improvement in the southern position would have been enormous. Its criticality was not really immediately apparent. G. K. Warren did figure it out and if you stand where his memorial statue is, you will see exactly what he saw. A lot of Gettysburg was about who had the better ground. Little Round Top was not the best ground, or the only ground, but the south's owning it would have made the union position much more risky and exposed.

[@sacradotjoannes]

The question remains, what if Thomas Jackson had not been shot? How would he have done during this campaign? Equally, regarding taking Washington, The following year, Jubal Early invaded with what can only be seen as a large raiding party, whose firing on the out defenses of the capital nearly hit Lincoln, who came to observe the fighting!

[@jafr99999]

One of the best visual descriptions of the actions leading up to the battles and the lost opportunities for the Confederate Forces I've ever seen. Great explanations by both of your experts as to the positions of both Army's leading up to the actual battle. Well done!!

[@jimshort942]

There interesting 3 book series written by Gingrich and Forstchen where Condederates won at Gettysburg

[@kevinlewallen4778]

I've read those books. They're basically neo-Confederate pornography.

[@chrisschepper9312]

It wouldve been tragic for over 4 million humans.

[@jovianmole1]

I heard no mention of the calvary battle 5 miles east of Gettysburg. It has been hypothesized that Lee wanted Stewart to attack the Union center's rear when he heard the canon bombardment. Custer and his Wolverines and others stopped Stewart cold. I believe "Old Snapping Turtle's" Army may have been sliced in two if Stewart's 5000 cavalry broke through. Any thoughts?

[@JeffDavies-i8q]

Sorry to nitpick- it is Stuart not Stewart. Yes Custer was there but he was competent-not spectacular. I think Lee saw Jeb Stuart's role as a mopping up exercise after a victorious "Pickett's charge and breakthrough the Federal centre. That didn't happen of course. If the Confederate cavalry had been victorious they would have had a hard time against unbroken infantry and steady deployed artillery batteries. A breakthrough by Pickett would have demoralised the Federals and led to routing units- easy pickings for cavalry.

[@jovianmole1]

Thanks for your reply.

[@taelorwatson9822]

I don't see this one but how about if general Lee commanded the North. He couldn't have believed that the South had any chance. it would have been more merciful to have made quick work of the South

[@petertlusty3343]

General Winfield Scott was well aware off Lees talent from his Mexican campaign and did all he could to enlist Lee to command The Northern forces But he failed due to Lees strong love and commitment to his Native State of Virginia For an in depth narrative of this issue check out Robert E Lee A Life by Allan C Guelzo

[@michaelmitchell4989]

In addition to these two scholars, perhaps you should have added the author Harry Turtledove to your panel for this episode.

[@PhantomOfManyTopics]

Jake Featherston is born.

[@jameshaxby5434]

Or what if they hadn't done Pickett's charge ? Would the South have won and emerged with a much larger army ?

[@willhovell9019]

The English civil wars were based on religious freedom, royal dictatorship. There are few if any parallels between the two civil wars either side of the Atlantic

[@Dav1Gv]

Thanks for another great video. Two comments 1 Surely Lee's problem was caused by his letting Stuart go on his ride roung the Union Army plus his failure to use the cavalry with the main army to recconnoitre so the meeting engagement on the 1st was not planned? 2 Longstreet seems to have suggested moving round the Union left on 2nd July and then taking a position and awaiting an attack. I can't see this as a practicable operation. It wound have meant breaking conact and then moving into enemy ground with no way to find out what was ahead and Lee's army could not hold a position for long because they would not have been abale to forage. I would welcome nay thoughts on this argument.

[@VinceNeil-sg9nq]

It did not claim the lives of 51k troops

[@forgetmeshots]

49:14 Let's do 1812 all over again! Who's with us? Probably a seriously bad idea. Especially considering Britain still had a formidable navy.

[@crankyinvestor]

newt's fantasy-history even accepts the fact that Lee would have been destroyed by the other union armies that were within a 2-day march of G'burg if anything, one more "victory" in Pa, and the South would have been down to eating their horses

[@BrianJones761-wc4hu]

The interesting bit on the actual what if starts at 31:00.

[@kennethhendrickson2865]

Well they lost Vicksburg on the same time. So the North would just concentrate on Lee. It was going to end the same.

[@gumdeo]

The CS needed British support to have a realistic chance.

[@jackz166]

Audio is so bad

[@bryanmixer6248]

Possible future topic: what if the U.S. had demanded Canada and all British Colonies in the Atlantic/Carribean as payment or Lend Lease? Maybe Australia and the rest of the Pacific holdings as well?

[@paulgregory3985]

The Yanks got them anyway.

[@billdb8854]

What IF everything that happened in History didn't, But it did happen so we will really never Know What IF didn't????

[@Trecesolotienesdos]

The USA had the bulk of resources, plus also better leadership. Davis wasn't involved in strategy as Lincoln was. Even if the CSA won at Gettysburg, it woldn't have chasnge the outcome that much. It was states' rights to own slaves, Adm. Parry.

[@Revkor]

yes it would you forget morale.

[@vitocorleone3764]

Having someone perpetuate more than one Lost Cause myth really tarnishes the credibility of this show. I mean to start the show with “states rights” the same week you uploaded a video dispelling that racist myth shows incredible carelessness and disrespect

[@loucaribou7765]

Settle down Vito settle down

[@scottstambaugh8473]

It’s incredible! INCREDIBLE!!!

[@cwcsquared]

Except it’s not a myth

[@cwcsquared]

You voted for Obama and Biden? Two of the worst racists in politics.

[@maryannasweet6496]

….to completely discredit states rights as a reason to is simply turn a blind eye on actual historical fact. The truth is states rights, and with it… the right to keep slaves where major reasons as where the burgeoning industrial power of the north….

[@benh9164]

You might want to edit out the bit about 51,000 lives being claimed

[@daviddavenport9350]

I would question as to whether the Western theater trans Appalachia, was just as significant a theater....here the North pretty much had its way...and by early 1862 was already in Northern Mississippi, had New Orleans, took Missouri out of the fight, and controlled western Tennessee, soon to control all of Tennessee (and KY)....

[@rmhouser19861]

It was likely more important

[@H.G.Wells-ishWells-ish]

It could have actually been worse for the Confederates had Lee won Gettysburg. With an additional corps (22nd) in Washington and the Pipe Creek line established, I doubt he would have gone too much farther. But Vicksburg would be gone, and what would have happened with the Chickamauga Campaign with Longstreet tied up with Lee? Atlanta may have fallen even earlier without Longstreet's troops. I suppose it depends on the status of the AotP and AoNV, and whether the Confederate victory was too Pyrrhic or not, but it may have actually been worse for the Confederacy had Lee "won".

[@RoyEgan54]

General Lee was best when he was on the defense. On July 3rd, General Lee should have backtracked towards Washington D.C., fighting a defensive battle all the way since the Confederate Army would have been situated between Meade and the Capital. The Army of Potomac would probably have been destroyed with the South occupying Washington D.C. Maryland might have also then succeeded. (PS - What would have happened if the South had not attacked Fort Sumter?)

[@cassivellaunushonestus4927]

Blacks had the right to vote in 1870

[@anathardayaldar]

Much has been said about why didn't RELee agree to shift to the south and get between the blues and Washington. But no computer game of this battle makes that an option. They don't leave enough room or time in the southern edge of the map to try it out. Or is there?

[@cwcsquared]

It’s was East not South

[@scottbeall2212]

Such a shift would have exposed Lee's supply trains, captured livestock, etc. His supply lines ran back though South Mountain range to Chambersburg. Union cavalry would have exposed such a move (without Stuart to screen), and Meade could have struck Lee and split the army in two.

[@jameshaxby5434]

Could they have gone one to take DC ?

[@jameshaxby5434]

Actually, I think Antietam was a much bigger battle.

[@samelioto476]

It would have delayed their loss.

[@forgetmeshots]

Antietam is three syllables.

[@LEEboneisDaMan]

A STATE’S RIGHT TO WHAT SIR?

[@deepcosmiclove]

Maryland is not in the north. The Mason-Dixon line is Maryland's northern border.

[@scottpankonin1068]

If they're using "The North" as a synonym for "The Union", as I believe they are, then yes it was. However, geographically you are correct.

[@andywomack3414]

@@scottpankonin1068 I grew up in Maryland. At least when I was there some Marylanders would consider themselves "southern," but most would have consider themselves Union all the way all the time.

[@loucaribou7765]

Only a true hillbilly would say this

[@ThreeZeroOne]

​@andywomack3414 incorrect The line was clearly demarcated and ran almost perfectly straight between Washington and Baltimore. All areas north and west (eg Montgomery, Frederick, Carrol) were Union. Anything south of Washington or near the Chesapeake was pro southern. Exceptions always exist but this was the rule. It was nearly 50-50.

[@user-lw8ly2pg6r]

What if the South HAD won at Gettysburg?

[@michaelaustin310]

It got very turtledove at the end

[@anathardayaldar]

Christ Parry sure got to talk alot this time. :)

[@chrismiller9987]

Wow. Was not expecting an embrace of Lost Cause ideology from this channel.

[@blackbird_actual]

Some viewers when a guest expresses a view that runs against the Commonly Accepted Historical Narrative™ on a show which is dedicated to alternative history: ☝️😡

[@Crissy_the_wonder]

The states rights argument was not put forward as alternative history but a flawed understanding of actual history

[@hungarygator]

@@Crissy_the_wonder Right. The Southern states' real concern was over being unfairly taxed for the benefit of the Northern states.

[@logicsconscience]

An-tee-tum BTW

[@christopherrabaldo3377]

WHERE IS THE NEVADA TERRITORY?

[@stevenrowlandson9650]

A genuine white supremacy would mean that society is 100% white European and governed in the interests of the same. No multi racialism, no non white immigration and no miscegenation what so ever.

[@CowboyAdama23]

On-tee-ay-tum? Hahahahahahahhaa. You mean Ann-tee-tum?

[@Spooky1862]

@mattmang07 We refer to that one as the Battle of Sharpsburg.

[@CowboyAdama23]

@@Spooky1862 who is we?

[@Spooky1862]

@@CowboyAdama23 Southerners. The two sides adopted different names for many of these battles. The Southerners typically named a battle after the nearest town, and the enemy usually named it after the nearest body of water-i.e. Manassas/Bull Run, Olustee/Ocean Pond, &c.

[@CowboyAdama23]

@@Spooky1862 True. But I don’t recognize traitors, so it’s Antietam.

[@Leon-bc8hm]

@@CowboyAdama23 This. Traitors have no opinion.

[@jewsco]

it wasnt about states right unless you say its about states rights to have slaves. as near every southern state that succeed said so in their succession papers

[@marcvenot1332]

Please made the sound less awful.

[@rathchain3287]

The admiral has really disappointed me for the first time. Giving the southern apologist mantra of "states rights". Their was one and only one right in dispute which was big enough to lead to war. A specific property right, owning other people like they are farm animals. Slavery. The root cause of the US civil war was slavery. Follow any thread and they all lead back to slavery in some way. Slavery was inevitably going to be abolished, and it could have been done an easier way. The secessionists chose the hard way. What would an independent confederacy have been anyway, either after winning the war or if the union had let them go peacefully? At best a second rate power. The un-stated territories would have been a serious bone of contention, potentially leading to a war over them. Does a southern slave nation try to expand south? Do they industrialize in an attempt to compete and lose the southern character they were hoping to preserve anyway?

[@dave4882]

Delete comments here that are truth, but not popular. Thats the way to hide the parts of history that the popular opinion doesn't like.

[@hungarygator]

Yes. Its really laughable the way they delete comments that run against the government narrative.

[@gradylloyd3502]

You didn't mention the absence of Stonewall Jackson who would have led the assault on Culp´s Hill instead of Ewell.

[@rowdy5557]

If Jackson were still alive, Lee would not have restructured the ANV into 3 Corps meaning the position of troops would have been very different. There's no telling where Jackson's Corps would have arrived from and when. This comes up a lot but too many variables to give it credibility.

[@chrismiller9987]

Begins with one Lost Cause screed; has an interesting discussion of the actual battle; ends with another Lost Cause screed.

[@riotus4246]

The guy on Ft was kinda unnecessary and out of his wheel house it seemed

[@riotus4246]

But great episode thank y'all a ton for more content!!

[@dirtydub7960]

Antietem was the bloodiest battle in American history, not Gettysburg.

[@scottbeall2212]

Antietam was the bloodiest day, not battle.

[@360Nomad]

*Confederates would have saved pregnant Anne Frank. That's a fact.* *Also, FIRST*

[@andywomack3414]

Not if she were black. "Saved" maybe as property producing property. "Saved" as in saving a horse or cow.

[@loucaribou7765]

🤡

[@cheesecrackers3928]

"States Rights?" Lol. I'ma out.

[@Andandand25]

A good case of lost cause mythology here

[@riotus4246]

?

[@FLThunderbird1]

as opposed to PC Revisionist mythology?

[@chrismiller9987]

All history is revisionist.

[@kulio1214]

Your emotional arguments mean nothing to actual historians.

[@chrismiller9987]

“The whole system was decaying very rapidly.” The largest and most substantial capital investment in the US at that time was the investment in slaves, and that investment was almost entirely localized in the Southern states. It outpaced the cost of all railroads, factories, and shipping interests combined. The value of individual slaves had never been higher. The institution wasn’t dying, it had never been stronger. By the late 1850s, slaves were being introduced into mines, factories, in addition to agriculture. There’s no reason to believe that if slaves had been removed from commercial agriculture, they wouldn’t have been moved into industry, or any other workforce where menial labor dominates.

[@TorianTammas]

Interesting claim, do we have study on that from economists? Or is that more a guess so claim.

[@michaelhall7546]

Love hearing the englishman telling us about US history. July 4th MF 🤣🤣🤣

[@jackaubrey8435]

He’s not English.

[@h.w.barlow6693]

Fail.

[@jamesg9468]

The fireplace at their local pub is older than your nation.

[@genenoud9048]

It would not matter. Because the president would have called Grant . Just a little sooner

[@Gianniutah]

This would have been a wonderful country

[@kelleighohara83]

For whom?