William T Sherman Informs Joe Johnston of Lincoln s Assassination

[@curtgomes]

Fascinating piece of history. It's hard to imagine the thoughts, anxieties and tension that existed at that time between these two men and what they thought future held for them and the country. Sherman's entreaty to Johnston regarding a foolish remark in Raleigh that might cause unnecessary violence was an obvious concern.... for both men.

[@althesmith]

Sherman and Johnston apparently became very good friends, often having dinner together and discussing former campaigns in the years after the war.

[@marksaucier]

One war criminal and one who had all the ammunition and food but would not fight.

[@althesmith]

@@marksaucier kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYHRopZqosalo7s

[@althesmith]

@@marksaucier Even Lee thought that the stories about Sherman were greatly exaggerated.

[@marksaucier]

@@althesmith Holding Lee in high regard now interesting. Waging war on defenseless civilians including rape, mutilation, and murder were detested by Lee.

[@althesmith]

Lee's troops seized free black civilians as "spoils of war" on the Gettysburg campaign. That's as clear a war crime as any attributed to Sherman.

[@FuzzyWuzzy75]

The shot from John Wilkes Booth that killed Abraham Lincoln was the worst possible thing that could have happened at the worst possible time for the South. Abraham Lincoln's views for a reconciliatory approach for the post war era was the best path forward, for the country as a whole, in the wake of the Civil War. One can't help but believe that this country would have been far better off in the long term had Lincoln never been assassinated and his vision for reconcile been allowed to move forward unmolested. With the death of Lincoln the radicals that had surrounded him within his administration were to be left unchecked which opened a can of worms we are still dealing with to this very day. There was to be no good to come from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln for either, the North or the South.

[@barryfleming8488]

The south lost greatly

[@jameskilcoyne1955]

100% agreement. One could say that Lincoln was the South's worst enemy during the war, at least as president and commander-in-chief Lincoln was going to prosecute the war all the way to the end. Lincoln did not give in to the peace movement or allow the terrible casualties (as much as they did trouble him very much) to sway his resolve. But, in the aftermath of the war Lincoln was going to be the South's best friend and supporter. If allowed to finish his second term President Abraham Lincoln would have reunited this nation like no other person could have. Having done some research on this topic, I am convinced race-relations would be far better today due to the political environment fostered by Lincoln. For instance, the KKK would never have been created and the hard feelings between the races would not have manifested like it actually did. Just one example of a much better post-war history had Lincoln been in charge.

[@christopherhardy8937]

​@@FuzzyWuzzy75I'd say poor commanders that really didn't do much for moral. McClellan, Burnside, Hooker. The Trinity of Foolishness. There was also alot of jealousy and distrust between leadership and often generals and corps commanders would not listen to leadership or with each other

[@FuzzyWuzzy75]

@christopherhardy8937 That jealousy you speak of was common on both sides, really. The egos involved in the officer's corps of both the Confederate and Union Armies could pretty much parallel that of modern-day pro sports. It's sad and comical at the same time, really. After the Civil War, there was so much finger pointing about who was to blame for this and that. There was so much glory seeking. It was common for former Confederate officers and Union officers to actually take sides with former enemies from the opposing side against one another in the finger pointing and so on. After Robert E. Lee died in Oct. of 1870, they very public finger pointing in the South for Gettysburg really began. In the South Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee was practically deified at that point, so you couldn't blame Lee, even though he never denied the blame lol.

[@StoptheHateJustDebate]

@@jameskilcoyne1955Excellent analysis regarding KKK and race relations. Lincoln wouldn’t have allowed that nonsense. Yes, the South would’ve been better off, had Lincoln not been killed. I know that he had even discussed economic investment that would’ve helped the South become much stronger economically.

[@joefaulkner4715]

New subscriber >> That’s the type of history a lot of people appreciate. Very well presented. Good job sir!!!!!!

[@daviddougan6961]

Johnston did not get along with Jeff Davis which is why he was relegated to minor roles until the end of the war but he was a senior officer in the US Army before the war and was well known and respected by all regular officers. He was a pall bearer at Grant's funeral .

[@SouthernStorm_61]

Johnston contracted pneumonia from his exposure to the cold rain at Sherman's funeral and died soon after.

[@mattwilliam5522]

Very sensual And erotic yet very heartbreaking too

[@marksaucier]

Relegated rightly so

[@jeffclark7888]

@@SouthernStorm_61I didn’t know that.

[@SouthernStorm_61]

@@jeffclark7888 Yes, Joseph Johnson was so appreciative of how Sherman treated his defeated army in North Carolina, that he felt compelled to act as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral in New York. ✌

[@susanschaffner4422]

Thank you for reading the two excerpts. I haven't read either memoir, but extensively about Grant.

[@normanlathrop6533]

Thank you for this excellent video! You are appreciated!

[@josetomatostv5718]

Really enjoy your videos!

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

Thank you!

[@joep8787]

Civil wars are usually the most vicious wars; the combatants know each other very well and hate each other. Look at the wars in Northern Ireland, Spain and the Rwandan genocide between the Hutus and Tutsis. So the two generals were right in fearing atrocities between the North and South even after the surrender. Any expression of glee over the assassination might well have resulted in the northern army slaughtering southern civilians.

[@seandoyle2983]

The troubles was not a civil war. The Irish civil was near fifty years previous.

[@MrRAGE-md5rj]

@@seandoyle2983 Not to mention the Irish revolution way back when.

[@fredhall5038]

In war nothing is known for sure. We cannot measure the Civil War by modern standards. Battlefield communications would have been iffy and subject to factors such as weather and manpower. The use of railroad, river transport, and marching would have played havoc in the vast Western theater. In the East a lack of supplies and weaponry spelled the end for the South. Sherman and Grant both used superior numbers and a slide- to-the-side strategy to good advantage. And I have no idea as to the day-to-day workings of a Civil War army in the field! Add to that political pressure from home and you have a recipe for complete disaster or stunning victory.

[@kennethhamby9811]

Joe Johnson was one the most capable generals in the south. He was disliked by CSA politicians, for his out spoken views, and under used until the end was unchangeable.

[@JonJaeden]

My great-great-grandfather was surrendered in those negotiations.

[@markporter9421]

Mine too.....2nd Arkansas mounted rifles...company G. Severe County rifles

[@richiephillips1541]

Another cool video!

[@JudithChristmas]

Thank you for a very interesting video

[@edwardmurphy7792]

Joe Johnson was not only respected by the union soldiers he was loved by his own men ,, Johnson's wound AT seven pines ,and his reported comment that this wound was the best thing for the South for it gave the command to Lee,but Joe relegated to minor commands and not getting command of an army again until Grant gave the western sector to Sherman and only Joe was able to mount a defence, this he did by brilliant defensive strategy of entrench ,repel attack and skilful withdral when flanked, held up Sherman for months, and Johnson by the time he had to defend Atlanta, had preserved the lives of his soldiers ,and had still an effective army, ,hood his successor ,took the style of Lee as his example and threw his men into the fire without regard to what they were up against, and ruined the army in two disastrous campaigns one to lift the siege and the other to drive the federal out of Franklin, an even larger and more foolish, charge than pickets, and as usual ole Joe was left to pick up the pieces ,and reform the remnants into an army,one of the very few generals on the confederate side to be aware the accolade of a good general.. SUPPORT UKRAINE FREE AND AT PEACE BEIR BUA, victory.

[@dwseawell]

The fire just broke out in Columbia? Spontaneous combustion or what?

[@robrussell5329]

Washington D.C. was located on the border between slave and non-slave holding states. Delaware and Maryland had many Southern supporters. Virginia was right across the river! Spies for both sides were everywhere. Thousands of Confederate sympathizers, living within 25 miles of the city, were angry, despondent, and desperate. It seems unfathomable to me for a war President to go out in public, in such a place, without security. Unbelievable.

[@philmccracken7520]

Washington D.C was surrounded by VA and MD both slave states how can you say the city was located on Border of free state ? LOL look at a map !

[@avenaoat]

1.Delaware had 1.6% slaves and the only border state which did not have organized regiments in the Confederacy. Delaware was almost Northern state. Yes a very very few proconfederate were in Delaware 2. Maryland was divided, but the majority were prounionists same to Missouri and Kentucky. However you are right DC Washington was in center of the proconfederate region of Maryland. The Tobbaco belt of Maryland was strong proconfederate with high % slave population,

[@aaronjohnson2850]

Johnston actually got sick and died shortly after Sherman's funeral because he would not wear a hat while being a Paul bearer for Sherman at the funeral

[@jamesrobiscoe1174]

I'm sure you mean "pall" bearer. (He wasn't bearing a man named Paul.)

[@jeffclark7888]

“Actually”.

[@snocamo154]

I hate autocorrect sometimes. I type pall and it "corrects" me with Paul without warning.

[@crippledcrow2384]

The fire that "broke out in Columbia", yeah right.

[@daryllong4478]

Ellsworth died seizing the Confederate flag, staining it with his blood , while the keeper of the house, his killer, helped flood the ground with his own blood, leaving those remaining to mourn. What an ominous metaphor for Civil War, and so much for the war and bloodshed a senator once boasted could be cleaned up with a handkerchief.

[@earlyriser8998]

a very interesting moment and Sherman and Johnston did overstep their authority

[@brucevaughn2886]

Northern victor justice turned blind eyes to all federal criminal conduct.

[@TheLAGopher]

Northern political expediency also turned a blind eye to Confederate criminal conduct,otherwise it wouldn't have been the commandant of Andersonville who was the only Confederate officer to be executed for war crimes.

[@robertelder164]

@@TheLAGopher Certainly every officer of the United States Army who turned traitor in violation of their oath and warred on the United States should have been tried for that crime and danced Danny Deever.

[@keithbartlett9048]

​@robertelder164 the oath to the United States becomes null and void when a soldier resigns and leaves the army. It's hard to trie a person for treason when These United States was started by traitors to the lawful king and country of England. The reason they never tried Davis for treason was because by the constitution secession wasn't illegal. That's why the issue was argued in the Texas vs White case.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

​@@robertelder164an outrageous suggestion. They should simply have been transported to Africa, with their families, and left there.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

There wasn't much.

[@marksteele6682]

Closed Captions useless. Gray letters on a black background, what genius decided that was a good idea?

[@thoban1724]

Colonel Sanders? 🤯

[@marcusmarrs]

He was in charge of the "Chicken Wars" in Arkansas.

[@marksandor2830]

Sherman committed war crimes. There is always a group manipulating and guiding both sides of a situation. There are three sides to every coin.

[@tomjones2202]

LOL Always some bonehead to toss in stupidity . What war is with out war crimes? There was plenty on both sides,,

[@needsaride15126]

So did Nathan Bedford Forrest or doesn't that count?

[@robertelder164]

Bullshit. Lost Cause Kluxxers lie a lot

[@robertelder164]

We bring the Jubilee. Treason fled before us, for resistance was in veign.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fl7NpYyKaqiCrLc

[@Randy-nk2ne]

Yes he did.

[@Randy-nk2ne]

Retreating joe.Sherman was a very over rated commander. His performances at chattanooga and chickasaw bluffs were two of the worst of the war.

[@curious968]

If we judged every Civil War general by their worst battles, none of them would be any good. Malvern Hill comes to mind (and how seldom Lee's admirers remember it). It sticks in the southern craw to this day, but Sherman was very good. His force was not that much bigger than Johnston's. Yet, he compelled retreat after retreat. Subsequent events proved "retreating Joe" right, however. When "retreating Joe" was replaced by Hood, the more aggressive approach got Hood's army wiped out by Thomas in a single day, ending the Civil War in Tennessee. Sherman ignored Hood's move north, correctly figuring that Thomas would win as indeed he did. Sherman considered Hood's appointment a godsend to the Union, figured he'd be too aggressive, said so, and he was proven quite right. Not bad for an "overrated" commander. In truth, he had the measure of his opponents throughout, particularly in the deep south, whether it was Johnston or Hood.

[@Randy-nk2ne]

I know how dare I criticize a northern general. Can only do that with confederate commanders these days. They will call me a racists. So sorry.

[@curious968]

@@Randy-nk2ne What's that got to do with anything? I recited facts. Sherman won and there's a lot of southerners, possibly including you, that just decide out of I'm not sure what, to denigrate his accomplishments. And, in sharp point of fact, you're also down on so-called "Retreating Joe" who proved better than Hood (or anyone else as far as I know) that faced Sherman. So, he's not as bad as you suggest. Losing slowly beats the heck out of losing in a day. Instead of bringing up red herrings, why not back your opinion or at least tell me what's erroneous about mine.

[@jay-zeelterbilinsky3977]

Sherman's army was much larger than Johnston's as Grant's was over Lee's Destroying the army and throwing more bodies into the meat grinder

[@curious968]

@@jay-zeelterbilinsky3977 Do you have better numbers than these? I have 100,000 for Sherman and 60,000 for Joe Johnston. That is a sizable advantage, but it isn't even 2 to 1. There's a widely quoted rule of thumb that suggests an attacker wants a 3:1 advantage. This is, no doubt, like all rules of thumb, something violated often in practice (see Lee, Robert). It is also possible to gain a local advantage in that kind of range with a numerically superior force that is overall less as here. Still, the raw numbers suggest, as did the actual history, that Sherman just didn't walk all over Johnston and wouldn't be expected to do so. In the Overland Campaign, Grant had 120,000 and Lee 65,000, or so quickly googled sources remind me. So, roughly comparable to Sherman in Georgia. This whole "throwing bodies into the meat grinder" is often quoted, but disparaged by many historians. You should, after all, expect the attacker to lose more than the defender. Meanwhile, if this source is correct and complete: www.historyonthenet.com/civil-war-casualties-lees-battles#:~:text=Appendices%20I%20and%20II%20facilitate,enemies%20(240%2C322%20versus%20190%2C760). . . .then adding up the casualties after the "retreat from Gettysburg" shows that, despite Cold Harbor, the casualties between Lee and Grant were substantially equal. And, unlike Lee, Grant won (he did so in part by doing something amazingly neglected by union predecessors and Grant's detractors -- ordering attacks on all fronts at once, preventing the south from moving units around to help shore things up). Here also, Grant comes out as something other than the oft-proclaimed Butcher. www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill/ I can't find the total numbers for Sherman as readily, but he was no profligate either. In the battle for Atlanta, proper, he lost _less_ men than the Confederacy. And, he _did_ allow Hood to go North, unopposed, and let Thomas destroy Hood's army (the one Joe Johnston had recently commanded). So, Sherman knew how to deploy forces and not just be a W W I guy who threw men away. He also knew Hood for the glory seeking fool he was.

[@alexanderv7702]

If the Southern States did not have the right to secede from the Union then the 13 Colonies did not have the right to secede from King George.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

That makes Southerners doubly treacherous, which of course, can be seen today

[@avenaoat]

Had Great Britain and the 13 Colonies common Constitution????????

[@phillipbruce6280]

Exactly. And what about Texas, whose constitution expressly retained the right of succession should their sovereignty be challenged by the central government.

[@phillipbruce6280]

​@@avenaoatthe constitution of Texas retained the right to succeed before joining the union.

[@RichardSalvucci]

Mexico did not recognize the independence of Texas. You guys are fighting the wrong war

[@leeatterberry1239]

I'm beginning to think that the assassination of Lincoln really means the civil war was not over then. Sherman should have been able to come back 😁 because apparently the South just couldn't get enough of death and dying

[@nickriner]

JOHNSON NEVER WAS TAKEN PRISONER BY Sherman. Amd IT WAS AN OFFICIAL PEACE TREATY JOHNSTON SIGNED JOHNSTON NEVER SURENDRED TO Sherman.