GERMAN reacts to Oversimplified CIVIL WAR Part 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- My Patreon: / chrisyt_
GERMAN reacts to Oversimplified CIVIL WAR Part 1
I do America Reaction, some call it Reaction US, Reaction USA. I love to get to know the USA, My videos arent British Reaction or Brit reacts videos. I am also very interested in the usa military reaction as well as us military reaction. I have a passion for us sports reaction, like nfl reaction or nba reaction. I am not brit reacts to america. I do European reacts videos. I also do reaction to america and reaction to us and reaction to usa videos. In this video we cover
Social Media
✬ Instagram: / chrisb.yt
✬ Discord: / discord
✬ Twitch: / chrisbreacts
Original Video:
0:00 Intro
#usa #reaction
The 'cigars with the battle plans in a field' 100% really happened.
War is crazy.
“That’s a joke, right? No one is that stupid.”
Americans: 😬
Confederates@@kate2create738
I strongly suspect there must have been a sympathizer who placed them there for that to happen.
@@Trifler500 Nope. Fell out of a dispatch riders pocket.
It's so comical to me because I can so see that happening. It reminds me of that Middle Eastern spy who started a "furniture exports business" and no one whatsoever noticed that he was wrapping the furniture in documents that weren't supposed to leave the country "to protect it from getting bumped and scratched."
Oh dude, European involvement could be its own video.
In Britain, our civil war nearly ignited a class war. The British rich (posh in their vernacular) wanted their southern American cotton and tobacco, but the lower classes sympathized with the plight of the slaves and hoped for a union victory. In at least one instance, British textile workers went on strike when they found out they were being made to use confederate slave-produced cotton.
State-side, British sailors set themselves up with blockade runners: fast ships that sat low in the water, painted gray and pale blue to blend in with the waves. They would slip through the union blockade and buy cotton, tobacco, and other agricultural products in the south, then go up north and either sell them directly to unscrupulous individuals, launder them through Canada, or ship them right to Britain. Then they'd load up with coal, steel, and other industrial products in the north to sell to the resource starved south. The sea floor off the coast of North Carolina is littered with British blockade runners sunk by the union navy during that time.
Meanwhile, our ambassador to Russia was a man named Cassius Clay. He was one of the most aggressive and outspoken abolitionists in the country, had a personal hobby of killing slave owners in duals, and he not only convinced Russia to stay neutral, but also got them to tell France and Britain that if they so much as RECOGNIZED the Confederacy, they would be going to war with Russia over it, and this was back when Russia was something to be scared of. Had Britain and France not backed down, this war really could have spilled over into Europe and become the first World War.
lol at russia going slavery bad, NOW GET BACK TO THE FIELDS SERF
😅 Damn....
The Russian Black Sea Fleet at the time even showed up and anchored off of Long Island for "assistance" in case we needed more ships.
Cassius Clay was an abolitionist so it’s ironic that the famous boxer who was born with the name Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali because Prophet Muhammad BOUGHT, OWNED and TRADED Sub-Saharan slaves. It’s like wow the ignorance is beyond belief!!
The Fat Electrician video on Casius Clay is awesome
You asked about our loyalty to our states vs. to our nation. The states are like siblings. We like to pick on people from other states and have good natured rivalries. But as soon as there's an actual threat, we are immediately unified and have each other's back.
I wished to God we never had to go through 9/11. But on 9/12 we all knew what it meant to be patriotic.
Unfortunately I’m not sure the everyday people know what that means anymore. And I pray it won’t take another attack to remind us!
That’s a great way to explain it!
@@captassassin5680 thats the cycle. Apart, together. Prepare for the next patriotic "unification". Its coming. Soon. All the signs are there. We want to deny it because its horrific, but many deny it purely because they dont wish to imagine the inconvenience. These are building blocks for domestic conflict. Strong ideology (now known as radical thought, because not being complacent means youre a threat) vs complacent herd-type personalities willing to turn over and become slaves themselves to "keep the peace". What happens when the majority of a population become cowards, which happens when a society suffers from its success, and is weakened by its own decadence.
@@captassassin5680 Also, in May 2011 when OBL was taken out, everyone came together and felt patriotic. Conservative and liberals alike.
Yeah we just have our disagreement. Which is natural in a free nation.
The anti-slavery crowd was not a monolithic bloc. Some were dedicated abolitionists who see slavery as evil. But others see slavery as a threat to their own interests (i.e. workers who fear losing their jobs to slave labor).
Eeyup. There are others that didn't like slavery, because of how much political power it held at the federal level (slave power). There were others like Andrew Johnson who didn't like slavery, because he was jealous at slave owners for being rich (He totally would've owned slaves if he were rich).
There was also contention on what to do with the slaves after emancipation. Integration into American society wasn't really popular. The main idea was to ship all the freedmen back to Africa (Liberia) or to a freeman's colony in Latin America.
Choo choo train ? 🤣
All American politics is really a story of coalition building even if the surface level view seems binary
@@michaelpurdon7032Michael that is an astute perspective/observation.
"Americans don't need plans. They just do."
😂😂😂 I can't deny it! Some of the most famous Americans "just did!"
One of the running jokes about American tactics in later wars often cite (from outsiders) that Americans thrive on chaos. If we don't know what the hell we're doing *no-one else can either*
@@Rixoli From The Fat Electrician RUclips channel: "Marines have three rules. 1. Bring a gun. 2. Bring friends with guns. 3. Get aggressive enough, fast enough, to overwhelm the enemy."
Funnily enough at the beginning of the Civil War it looked reminiscent of the napoleonic wars, by the end it was trench warfare with repeating guns like a mini WW1 which spelt out the future to come in about 65 years.
Fun fact about that: someone once asked why European countries didn't learn about the folly of trench warfare from the American Civil War. The truth is that most of Europe did send military observers to America, but they all concluded that nothing they learned was relevant to European warfare. They found that America waged war on a scale that just wasn't seen in Europe. At the time, the way wars there tended to progress was there would be a handful of small battles leading up to one, big, decisive showdown, and whoever won that battle would probably take the war. But the observers saw numerous skirmishes in America that would have conflict-ending in Europe, but that had basically no impact here.
Funny enough though, there is another war they could, and should, have learned from that happened just a few years before WWI broke out: the Russo-Japanese War
Not only that, but it also saw limited use of submarines by the South, as well as aeral reconnaissance by both sides from hot air balloons.
@@michealdrake3421 Organizational cultural differences as well. It wasn't until WWII that war as a gentleman's affair truly died its final death in countries like the U.K.
and then we gave Japan guns and were good friends until 1940s
Photos from late Civil War battles are very striking. Some look like pictures taken during WWI. A lot of those pictures told a thousand words on how warfare was going to be like in the early 20th century.
Ironclads were early armored battle ships. They would take a standard sailing ship, remove the sails, install a steam engine and cover the cabin and decks with iron plating.
That's really cool I didn't know exactly what they were I only seen the picture and thought of it must be some sort of ship but didn't know much about it. I'm also american so thank u this really helps me learn more about certain neat things I didn't know before.
@@kclovelypinky8561 I did a report on the two side's designs back in high school. All steel ships didn't come around until 2-3 decades later when Bessemer's steel process allowed for mass production of steel.
@@timmooney7528 that's really cool
The Monitor and her sister ships were designed from the beginning as ironclads. Never started as sailing ships.
@@reliantncc1864 Good point. Regardless they were wooden ships with armor plates added to their topside.
not a joke. Lee's plans were found wrapped around some cigars.
It's so bizarre that no one would have made it up due to its incredulity.
And McClellan STILL screwed up.
Yes, it’s true. A misplaced courier dispatch case containing some cigars wrapped in Lee’s invasion plan, were found by some Union soldiers. In our world. It was such a pivotal event that Harry Turtledove, a contemporary science fiction writer, wrote a blockbuster series of alternate history novels about what history would have been like if some Confederate soldiers had spotted it instead and called out to the mounted courier, “Your pardon, sir, but you dropped this!” This led to Lee fighting the Union to a stalemate, Lincoln scrapping the Emancipation Proclamation, Britain and France siding with the CSA and brokering a ceasefire. A defeated Lincoln is never assassinated and later, having read Marx, goes on to found the Socialist Party in the USA. Then in the 1880’s the CSA buys Sonora and Chihuahua from a cash-strapped Mexico, in order to build their own transcontinental railroad to the Pacific, which triggers another war with the USA, again with Britain and France siding with the CSA and leading to another stalemate, driving the USA to start looking for an alliance with the Kaiser in Germany. Then a generation later, the Great War sees the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the USA squaring off against the Quadruple Entente of Britain, France, Russia, and the CSA. Trench warfare and gas attacks along the Roanoke Front. With the US’s help, the Central Powers win and impose crippling war reparations on Britain, France, and the CSA, causing resentment and leading to Fascist movements in those countries, and when combined with the Great Depression, allows a Hitler-like figure named Jake Featherston and his “Freedom” Party to come to power in the CSA. Strange how brown-shirted goons shouting “Freedom” with raised fists can strike such terror. When WWII comes to pass, it’s Featherston’s CSA that starts it with a blitzkrieg through Ohio trying to cut the USA in half, and the Fascist Brits and French join in. Meanwhile the Kaiser still rules Germany and is still allied with the USA, but Jews aren’t persecuted so Einstein works on an atomic bomb for him. Jake Featherston perpetrates a genocide in the CSA, but against a different oppressed ethnic group, whom he blames for the CSA’s defeat in WWI, because they had tried to stage Red Socialist rebellions to gain their freedom. Extermination camps in Texas complete with “Cyclone B” gas chambers. He also builds a rocket works in Huntsville, Alabama and pummels the USA with the equivalent of V2s. But in the end with German atom bombs, the USA and Germany win WWII. The USA conquers the CSA as well as annexes Canada from the Brits. But then the former allies USA and Germany face off in a Cold War. Tragically, North America never gets Jazz, or Rock, or Soul, but Europe still retains a vibrant Jewish culture the like of which you and I will never know … Yeah, crazy stuff.
@@johnv3733 "Southern Victory" is a GREAT series of books! I love Harry Turtledove's stuff "Worldwar/Colonization" is another fantastic series.
A time traveler planted that and we are living on a split timeline.
General George McClellan must be given props for creating The Army of the Potomac from scratch. It was well trained and well equipped. He just would not fight, and if he did, he did so poorly.
Those are the only props he should be given for training. He was a politician general and had zero clue how to go into battle, so he just stayed back, and the Southern Generals took advantage of his indecision and caused heavy casualties with McClellan's indecision when they had to get involved. He was the most inept general of the war and there were many on the Northern side early on.
He was an organizer, you could also possibly label him as a bureaucrat, but definitely not a bold & decisive warrior.
Little Mac and Hooker were great at morale, organization and such, just not in combat.
Yes, he was clearly a brilliant administrative/organizational military man, but not a battle commander. If they had him building the army and someone like Grant/Sherman commanding it from the start, the war would have played out very differently.
Lincoln's biological mother died young, and his father remarried a woman named Nancy Hanks. The elder Lincoln was a harsh man, but he remarried a woman named Nancy Hanks, who loved and encouraged her stepson. Lincoln paid her a touching tribute, acknowledging her efforts on his behalf as a boy.
This guy's channel is underrated. I don't always go for reaction content, but I like his and I think each of his videos should be getting easily double the views they are. I probably learned more about German culture from watching his videos than I have watching any formal educational content about it. Thanks Chris and keep it up.
Most German immigrants to the United States were quite proud to become Americans and were quite loyal and ready to defend their new country. Many German immigrants were located in the Saint Louis, Missouri and Cincinnati, Ohio area and formed their own German speaking units.
Mosy of my German ancestors moved to Nebraska when they got here sometime in the mid 1800s -early 1900s, I wonder why they chose nebraska of all places (ik basically nothing about history so there's likely a historical reason as a lot of my ancestors moved into the midwest)
I am from Washington County, Maryland, where the Battle of Antietam took place. I’ve been to the battlefield and Harper’s Ferry several times (it’s just over the Potomac River). This area has so much historical significance, especially from the Civil War.
Yes, it is true that the plans were discovered wrapped around cigars. And there are a lot of interesting details about Antietam. Oversimplified glossed over most of it probably because of time, the battle deserves its own video. If you want to learn more, there are really good videos on it.
Also, fun fact for you: Western Maryland was primarily colonized by German settlers, and many of us have German ancestry. German culture is still here in a lot of ways. Our family traditions still include German food. We love pickled foods, we buy them from our Amish and Mennonite neighbors. And most other Americans don’t eat sauerkraut on Thanksgiving, but it’s a traditional side dish here. In Hagerstown, we have “Augustoberfest,” inspired by Oktoberfest, every August, and Christkindl Markt, an outdoor artisan market, in early December.
I am also a Western Marylander , Allegany County! This part of MD was known for Union Hospitals! Antietam battlefield is very interesting, and I believe it is also haunted ! Like Gettysburg Battlefield! Our beautiful MD flag represents the division of MD .The black and gold stripes represent the Calvert Family / UNION , and the red and white cross represent s the Crossland Family/ Confederate side!
German-Swiss American here!
What proole forget is that Progressive Thomas Paine, author of The Rights of Man & COMMON SENSE! Paine e wanted to free the slaves and give women the right to vote in 1776. The Southern colonies refused to sign the Declaration of Independence if those two things were accomplished! Paine's writings were very well known by the Founding Fathers! Watch Ken Burn's excellent video The Civil War to learn about the Civil War.
People
@@InnocentPotato-pd7wi Hello, neighbor! Yes, I have smelled gunpowder on Bloody Lane before I knew that was a thing. No reenactors or sounds of gunfire anywhere.
I was born in 1956. I remember as a kid there were several people still alive from the Civil War. They were kids during the war and they were all around 100 years old.
Oversimplified is the best history teacher. I learned more from his videos about world history than i did in school. 😂
The thing with Grace Bedell telling Lincoln to grow a beard really happened. Thought you might appreciate that :)
Some information you'll like. 215,000 union troops were born in Germany and another 250,000 were 2d and 3rd generaion German Americans. German units were noted for their discipline and good service.
Thats true
My 3x Great Grandfather was one of those born in Germany who fought in the Civil War.
German volunteers were respected and in many cases motivated. A good number of German immigrants had left Germany (Prussia at the time if memory serves since Germany didn't exist until the mid-1860s) after taking part in revolutionary activities and trying to spur change in the government at the time. They come to America where slavery is still a thing and people need a fire lit under their ass and German regiments were quick to stand to.
Same for the Irish. It stands to reason Irish immigrants were seeing everything going down and getting a very bitter taste in their mouth seeing people live in conditions very similar to the Great Famine they left home to escape (AKA the Irish Potato Famine). People in this case *very literally* slaved to the land to feed others while they are beaten and oppressed.
@@Rixoli Would have probably been a mix of Prussians, Austrians, and German minors. All considered "German". Though I also wouldn't doubt a lot coming from Prussia.
yes and then we put them in camps during ww1 and ww2 because they had a lot of loyalty to germany still.
Regarding loyalty to nation vs. state, I think this is largely an identity question. I'm originally from Texas, but have lived all over. Most places I've lived, you see the US flag everywhere, but not very many state flags, save for government buildings usw. Texas, though, to this day is a different story. In Texas, the saying goes, "Texan first, American second." And there are *far* more Texas state flags than US flags.
The saying goes "American by birth, Texan by the grace of God."
@@Mourning_Fox I’ve heard that version, as well.
Fun story, good friend of mine in high school, Kristy, her family and mine knew each other in Austin and we all ended up in Portland, Oregon. Kristy was born in Oregon, but her grandfather flew up there from Texas and brought a literal jar of dirt from his garden, which he placed under the hospital bed, officially making her, “Born over Texas soil.” Her mom, Susie, still has the jar of dirt to this day.
@@Garrett1986 I'm from Austin
@@Mourning_Fox oh nice! I haven’t been back in ages…my uncles still live out there, been meaning to visit when budget allows.
The John Brown Farm?
Trust the German to laugh at the dumbest joke in the video.
😂
Here’s some history I think you would like in my state Texas there was an anti-slavery partisan group who’s make up was comprised primarily of German immigrants also my great grandfather was one of the few Texans that fought for the Union and I’m proud of it
That's really cool I didn't know that even though I'm an American thx for sharing ur amazing story.
Thank u for ur amazing family in helping us stop slavery and help our country come back together.
@@kclovelypinky8561 it wasn’t really my family just my great grandfather, his wife and in-laws that were abolitionist the rest of my family at the time were pretty pro confederacy and were heavy lost causers even to this day I only found out about him because me and my siblings tore apart our grandparents basement to find memorabilia that we either kept or auctioned off my sister found my great grandfather’s diary in an old desk in the far right of the basement covered in dust and she gave it to me because I was the history buff of the family
@@JohnShepherd117 that's still amazing despite that portion of ur family and I still want to say thank u but that is too bad some of them were still that way but at least ur great Grandfather was an abolitionist.
@@JohnShepherd117 I am also a history buff person I love to learn about all sorts of things. But I also love learning about the other things too. I love to find out the truth behind things and know the reason of why ppl are like this and that and why something happened in the first place. So thank u for sharing ur wonderful story and history it's really amazing to learn about someone else's family history.
I have two 4th great-grandfathers and one 3rd great-grandfather who fought for the Union Army (the North) in this war. One 4GGF, Martin Crispell, survived the three years he fought in it, but returned home with what looks to be lifelong PTSD. He never settled on the farm in upstate New York with his wife and surviving children (his 17-year-old son died from typhoid fever serving in the same company as Martin-his death was just ten days after Lee surrendered), but he would go on years-long wanders. His family was forced to try and find him at least once after not hearing from him for over three years. He spent most of the 1880s in the famous frontier town Deadwood, Dakota, before dying in the Old Soldiers Home in Milwaukee.
It was a hard, brutal time. My Southern ancestors all fought for the Union! Three died in POW camps. While another one was gone, his wife heard he had been killed and married a relative's slave. When he came home, he married a former slave. All four lived happily until, unfortunately, since they didn't get an official divorce, they were sued for bigamy by the state. You can find the whole crazy story in the Florida archives. Also, my 2nd Great-grandmother's family was given one hour to leave their home in Virginia when they voted against succession. My Northern ancestors have similar stories. Only about half of my ancestors on both sides survived the war. Many of them left their homes and moved west. I'm sure my family isn't unique. (And, yes, I'm really old.)
These family stories are so great. I love reading these because my family doesn't have any of these stories. None of my family had immigrated until after the end of the Civil War. These stores are precious, as part of our history. Thank you for sharing.
That slavery is evil is a fairly recent stance for humanity. It was once widely practised and felt acceptable. This teaches us that what is now found abhorrent wasn't always so seen and that felt acceptable today may be seen abhorrent in the future.
Absolutely. Humanity is a species of change, and it is our values that arguably experience the most change.
But that’s the issue. People don’t stop to understand the context and reasoning. They’re instead focused on “always” being right.
It's been observed that the invention of the wooden horse collar made the institution of human slavery obsolete. Fastening a heavy burden such as a plow to a horse by means of straps or ropes around its neck will obviously choke the poor beast. Even so, under those circumstances the horse can still do about five times as much work as a human slave. The thing is, though, a horse eats five times as much as a human, and costs about five times as much to maintain. Given that, a human slave's greater intelligence and versatility make slavery the viable choice. A proper horse collar, however, takes that choking stress off the horse, allowing it to do ten times as much work as a human, and yet it still only eats five times as much. Hence, humans cease to be the best choice for performing heavy labor, and the only reason to continue using slaves is because one faction views another faction as naturally inferior and undeserving of anything better than enslavement. (My fellow science fiction fans may recognize I'm getting this argument from a novel called King David's Spaceship, by Jerry Pournelle, who did some in-depth research on the topic.)
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Horse drawn carriages existed for hundreds of years BEFORE chattel slavery. I understand the improved collars were a technological wonder, but they had nothing to do with slavery. Horses can't pick crops dude. They can only plow the dirt. Nobody in the history of America, even one time, hooked a plow blade up to a human. That's not real. That never happened.
American slavery was not the same as slavery in other some parts of the world. In America enslaved Africans were kidnapped from their families and forced into unpaid labor for the rest of their lives. They were tortured (whipped until flesh flailed, limbs cut off if they ran away) and considered property -- like livestock and furniture -- in wills and census record. And their children were slaves from birth and, like property, could be sold by the slave owner to someone else. Reading and writing was forbidden to slaves and women were raped.
In some cases, soldiers captured during a war might become slaves to the conquering army. In other places, slavery might be more like indentured servitude -- working for free to pay off a debt or for a specific period of time -- and children were not slaves from birth. In some cases, a slave could get paid for work they did for someone other than than the slave owner. In America, the slave owner decided if an enslaved person got to keep what they earned as well as take credit for whatever an enslaved person crafted or created.
People didn't move west to vote on slavery. They moved west into new territories because the government offered them free or cheap land deeds. The government did this because it's one thing to claim territory, it's another thing to have people living there and infrastructure.
This is why Israel gives benefits to "settlers" in the West Bank. It's difficult to remove people once they're living somewhere.
They seem to be removing people very easily.
NO it is not a joke, they actually found his plans wrapped around cigars lol.
The sad thing about the slaves being freed is how long it takes for them to get equal rights. =(
I find it a little ironic that the freed slave men were given the right to vote before women of ANY persuasion.
The Demicrats make surevthey STIL DON'T HAVE THEM!
@@bwilliams463 you used to have to be eligible for the draft to be able to vote, some women didn't even want the right to vote because of it
We should have let those poor people go back home to Africa 😢
@@SGlitz you are just confirming what Europeans already think about us... that we are uneducated and stupid.
28:24 Yes, the president has the power to do that, and Lincoln did it multiple times throughout the war. But a major issue was that prior to the war, many of the US' best military officers were Southerners, and they joined the Confederacy at the onset of the war. This is part of why the South was so successful and the North so unsuccessful and seemingly incompetent, especially in the beginning.
@1:31 So this speech that baby Lincoln is giving is a rephrased version of The Gettsysburg Address, a very famous speech Lincoln would give later on in his life.
It great you learned english, you speak very well!❤❤
Yeah, better than most Americans, actually. LOL.
Why don’t you become fluent in another language? It’s liberating!
Before the Civil War, Americans viewed the federal government a lot like Europeans view the EU today. You are German, and Germany is part of the (European) Union. Each state was like a little country. After the civil war, the federal government very much took the lead, and the states became secondary (analogous to Prussia or Bavaria).
And it’s a damn shame to. I’ve taught my kids to treat our State first and federal government second as it should be.
The Civil War was the first modern war in many respects. It was the first war that saw a ship sunk by a submarine, The Hunley, and battles between iron clad ships. The gattling gun was invented during the war but it saw very limited use in the west. Breech loading rifles with self contained ammunition was also used. Balloons were also used for observation and directing artillery. There were many European observers during the US Civil War.
About Lincoln being a Republican, here's as short as I can make the story:
Before the Republican Party was founded, the two main parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Democrats were conservatives and their voting base was the South. The Whigs were mostly Northerners, and they were... well, to put it bluntly, completely inept. They weren't quite conservatives, they weren't quite liberals, they couldn't agree on anything, and they weren't able to govern when they had power. Eventually, the Whig Party failed and divided themselves into the Native American Party (nothing to do with Native Americans) and the Republican Party. The Native American Party were nicknamed the "Know-Nothings," because they didn't want their policy positions to be known lest nobody vote for them. That obviously didn't work, because people WANT to know what they're voting for. THEY eventually failed and mostly merged into the Republican Party, who were liberals. So you now had the liberal Republicans in the North, pushing to end slavery, and the conservative Democrats in the South, who wanted to keep their slaves.
It might surprise you to learn that after the slaves were freed, those Blacks who became politically active were almost entirely Republicans!
HOWEVER...
As the years went by, the Republican Party gave up on the process to reform the South (known as Reconstruction), and eventually just kinda took the Black vote for granted, not really doing any more work to protect their rights, instead focusing on geopolitical and economic issues. As the Black cries for civil rights protections became louder, the Democrats, who were already disagreeing with the Republicans on the other issues, realized "hey, there's a big voting bloc to be had here!" So they started courting Black voters by advocating for their civil rights. Many of the old-guard Democrats from the South, known as the Dixiecrats, had big problems with that and started to move to the Republican Party, who started welcoming them. That set the stage for the Democrats becoming the liberal party while the Republicans became the conservative party.
Today, the issues are a bit different. The only way the Republicans could be considered liberal is in their desire to tax the middle and lower economic classes and spend like crazy. The Democrats are now actually the **fiscally conservative** party by comparison (though only in that they want to tax the rich and not everyone else; they still want to spend like crazy, too), but are socially and politically liberal.
Fun fact: I live just about 25 miles south of where the Republican Party was founded, "under the oaks" in Jackson, Michigan! The city itself is... not so proud to be the founding place of the party anymore, given their current positions, and I can't say I blame them. But in the sense that it was founded by abolitionists who were standing up for what's right, there **is** a certain pride to be had in that.
Oh, and by the way, in Part 2, we should get to my favorite Union military leader, General William T. "Burnin'" Sherman. Just wait until you see the message he sent to Lincoln when he took Savannah, Georgia. The guy wasn't only a brilliant strategist, he was also a hilarious smartass 😆
I'm sorry but you don't have your information right, about Republicans, they continued to vote and protect black citizens if you look at ANY bill related to the rights of colored folk you will find Republicans have the majority of the votes in favor of said bill including the civil rights act of 1964, and they were always conservatives, you have "Classic Liberalism" confused with Liberals of today Classic Liberalism = Free Market, laissez-faire economics, Civil Liberties, Limited Government, Economical Freedom, Freedom of Speech and political freedom, I don't remember the last time the Liberals in the USA today supported capitalism or a small federal government.
You do know a higher percentage of republicans voted for civil rights than democrats right?? Democrats had a majority in both the senate and congress, and only roughly 60% of democrats voted in favor of civil rights while around 80% of republicans did the same.
There is so much bullshit in your post it’s not even funny.
The only “switch” that happened when it comes to the 2 parties is the size of government each wanted. Republicans moved to wanting a smaller government and democrats moved to wanting a larger government.
To this day, high schools and colleges have Debate Teams. Some are just public speaking, like telling a story, but the most famous is the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. One on one. Named after the one that really happened. Defend your side at all costs.
On ironclads, they are literally what they sound like, ships clad in iron armor which made them impervious to cannon fire and were devastating to the wooden warships of the period.
That said, crude submarines _were_ used in the war by the South in attempts to break the blockade. They were highly ineffective and essentially death traps as the technology just wasn't ready quite yet.
The C.S.S. Hunley being the crude submarine in question which was restored
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Is actually a statement straight from the Bible.
Matthew, 12:25: “And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”
Everybody knows. Lincoln used it in his speech.
Funny how? That's a line from the movie Goodfellas. Which you should watch!
Funny like a clown? I'm here to amuse you? I'm here to make you lauggh? Funny how
Chris I Love Your Reaction Videos. I Hope Someday You will come to America 🇺🇸. Sending Love from Pensacola Beach Florida USA 🇺🇸. 😉👍❤️
Hello, fellow Pensacolian
Arguably, we were divided even worse than we are now.
Obviously. Hence the war.
all by design... wait till folks learn who owned those slave ships... it'll all make sense.
@@cigarsgunsanddiesel8032 Oy vey, stop noticing.
@@cigarsgunsanddiesel8032 or who sold the slaves originally (other Africans)
Also the first military submarine ever used in history was by the confederacy, the USS Hunley I believe
CSS
The first submarine that was used in war was during the American Revolution. In the Long Island and New York Harbor area. The Civil War had the first Ironclad Ships on the Mississippi River near Memphis, Tennessee.
@@Tannerys Hunley was the first recorded Submarine to sink a ship. I believe you're referencing The Turtle which was designed to submerge and attach explosives but all attempts failed.
@@Lechuga1815 Yeah, I was referring to the Turtle. I was unaware of the Hunley being the first successful submarine to sink a ship. I thought the Ironclads were the only naval warfare innovation from the war.
The Hunley managed to sink a blockading Union warship but also itself sank in the attack but it did point the way toward the future of naval warfare.
Americans didn't start slavery. It was set up by the British from colonial times, but Americans had to deal with it after independence. After the War Of Independence, the North part of America started changing. They started industrializing, slavery in the North died out, and immigrants from Germany and Ireland came over in mass numbers. Even then, the North started evolving into what they are now.
The South had not changed since colonial times. They continued in agriculture, and since most of the German and Irish immigrants settled in the North, the South's white population remained white Anglo-Saxon protestant. Even dueling sometimes happened.
The railroads in the North standardized their track, and connected them city to city. The Southern railroads didn't connect from state to state, and weren't even universal standard track width.
Another problem was money. The North overall had become rich, and wars are expensive. The South had little gold and silver. They seized whatever gold and silver there was in two Southern mints, but that didn't go far.
The North had all that it needed to fight a war. The South could only win if they won quickly. If the South succeeded, there would now be a United States Of America and a Confederate States Of America.
I love oversimplified
it got so heated that one congressman was beaten nearly to death on the floor of congress. physical fights were breaking out over it in the legislatures. we were at a boiling point.
also, I would like to correct something that got oversimplified. while the north was not slave holding for the most part, we did have all the manufactiing including textiles. so we were making money off of the slave trade while also opposing it. New York City threatened to secede during the civil war because so much of their money was coming from the export of cotton.
I can explain why South Carolina had to attack Fort Sumter.....and why they couldn't just leave it alone. Fort Sumter is/was built on an island in the middle of Charleston, SC harbor. The fort controlled (via cannon installations) naval and shipping access to this VERY important southern port during that time: Charleston, South Carolina. South Carolina couldn't allow such a Northern (Union) dagger at their throat to remain in Union hands. The Union troops in the fort, all had to go.
It's refreshing to see someone has already correctly answered the question which means there is no need for me to type out a reply. Yay, me.
The North had no legal basis to cry havoc and loose the dogs to defeat the insurrectionistas in battle until Confederate hotheads bombarded Fort Sumter.
bullshit. they constructed their own difficulty by rebeling. If they had behaved properly, they would have no problems. they knew they couldn't win, it was just stupid to start. you are just making excuses.
i am so thankful my family managed to escape the south without losing intelligence. too bad I cant say the same for you.
I'm so glad to see you react to this. I look forward to seeing you react to part 2.
The way that he asks for us to like and subscribe is perfect...
Yes, there is still State affection and loyalty, but not to the degree of the mid 19th century. Local Militias -- the National Guard -- are state run. Most all states have their own land grand universities and college systems.
After the Civil War, and for the next hundred years or so, many immigrants from Europe moved to America, seeking a better life. Most of these immigrants settled in the North, because factories required unskilled labor, jobs that newly arrived immigrants could get. Today, it's rare to find anyone in the North who can trace his lineage in America back more than three or four generations. Also - in the North, it was common to move from place to place, seeking new opportunities, as more industry arose. This was less so in the South, where people were often tied to the land, their families passing down land from one generation to the next. And, after the Civil War, there was a period of Reconstruction, when Northerners moved to the South, to tell Southerners what to do, in their transition from Slave State, to Free State; naturally, this led to much resentment. In the South, therefore, it's much more common to harbor a prejudice against Northerners, even to this day.
16:15 Nah, most people don't even realize that the state and federal government are different and have to be reminded that they even have a state congress, etc. Many don't even bother voting for anything other than the president
Interesting fact: Benjamin Franklin invented bifocal glasses.
And got an std from French 304's. My references, the office
Electricity
Yeah, you can all thank me
Took some lightning, a kite, and a fat brass key
And they're putting up streetlights in Gay Paris
You're welcome from our young nation
I'm the only American the French wanna see
They call me a genius, I can't disagree
They have guns, they have funds
They can set us free
Invest in my reputation
And do you know who the fuck I am?
Yeah, do you know who the fuck I am?
Do you know who the fuck I am?
I am Poor-Richard's-Almanack-writing Benjamin Fuckin' Franklin
I said, early to bed, bitches, early to rise
They make a man healthy, wealthy, and wise
Soldiers are fighting for freedom, they have no supplies
So diplomacy happens at night
John Adams debates at the gates of Versailles
He whines and parades and awaits a reply
As I stay up late with a succulent breast or a thigh
Alright, diplomacy happens at night
And do you know who the fuck I am?
Yeah, do you know who the fuck I am?
Do you know who the fuck I am?
I am 76-and-I'll-Still-Kick-Your-Ass Fuckin' Franklin
One pain that lingers, the hitch in my stride
Is my son back at home who I could not guide
Who sits all alone in a prison cell on the wrong side
Stands against our young nation
So I play my ambassador part with pride
I am known in the world, and the world is wide
To my children, my sins may be magnified, but I'd
Do it all again, no hesitation
And do you know who the fuck I am?
Yeah, do you know who the fuck I am?
Do you know who the fuck I am?
I am Poor-Richard's-Almanack-writing Benjamin Fuckin' Franklin
Who the fuck I am?
(Do you know who the fuck I am?) Who the fuck I am?
(Do you know who the fuck I am?)
I am Poor-Richard's-Almanack-writing
Polymath, bifocal-wearing
Hardened glass-harmonica-playing
Benjamin Fuckin' Franklin
8:14 They did not move their whole families to vote. A lot just moved long enough to try to stuff the ballot boxes and then go home to places like Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas. They weren't willing to move permanently, just temporarily, to try to manipulate the vote.
This cigar story is true. Also, this vlog only addresses the first half of the Civil War. You may want to react to Part 2 to finish out the war.
When I was growing up it was common to call the "Civil War" the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession," because that's what it was. A civil war is a war between factions seeking to gain control over the country. The South wanted to secede from the Union, not take it over. In fact, the states that eventually formed the Confederacy did not secede all at once.
Bro, you need to react to Cassius Clay by the fat electrician. A true national hero and the most gangsta politician
Dude for real. Honestly that video makes a really good companion to this one. Nic throws in a lot of context that Oversimplified glosses over
At the beginning of the Civil War, most naval vessels were still wood sailing ships. Not long after, early steam boats made of iron entered the war called "ironclads". This was the beginning of modern metal ships.
Lee is an interesting case.
He geneally seemed to approve of Union ideals, but unfortunately, Virginia and by extension, the Confederacy was where his loved ones lived and fought.
He chose his loyalty to his homeland, which was part of the South.
he chose to be a traitor. he chose to own slaves. he chose to kill thousands.
he chose disloyalty. he deserves to be forgotten.
you need to find better role models. the ones you have suck.
I've been to Harper's Ferry. They had the old armory stuff used to make the rifles and much of the town was either preserved or recreated and they split us up to represent the different groups of combatants and move through the town with fake rifles made of wood as they explained how it happened. I've been to the Lincoln birthplace museum a bunch of times and they have the cabin he was born in preserved as well as the family spring. We still have family heirlooms that were given by the governor and his wife upon being freed. Those ancestors were also given a good chunk of land that is now where a school and a hospital and my church.
Lincoln was thought to have a specific type of "gigantism" called acromegaly, which would cause his enlarged facial features and his well above average height
I had heard a theory that it was Marfan Syndrome, as well.
@@panurge987 I forgot about that, but yes; i remember that theory too and thinking about it now, that may be more likely even. Good addition!
I'm from the deep south in Mississippi on the gulf of Mexico proud southern gentleman we still get judged about the civil war but we love everyone everyone now and will protect all of are people I'm a new subscriber love your show please keep it up thanks buddy
Oh, yes, I'd love to hear your perspective on WWI.
Related to that, you should check out Extra History's The Seminal Tragedy which talks about the months leading up to the war.
to answer your question about the south shooting first. Lincoln told the confederates at Charleston that he was going to send unarmed boats to the fort with supplies. The confederates refused this. Then Lincoln said he was going to send them anyway. The confederates then said they would open fire on any attempt to reach the fort. Lincoln sent the boats, and the southerners opened fire on them and the fort. So he kind of tricked them into shooting first. I suppose they could have not done anything and let the fort be resupplied, but I think they were getting restless and wanted the fort to surrender.
It's important to understand that in the 1800s, the Republican party was a progressive party and had specific ideas about business and the abolition of slavery. Democrats were split between pro and anti slavery wings, and those by north and and south divides, and were absolutely the pro-slavery party.
This changed in the years leading up to 1968; Dems were still the party of racists, but with the signing of the Civil Rights Act, many of the Southern (anti-black) voters and politicians switched over to the Republican party, swearing never to vote Dem again. This has led to a flip flop in the character of the Republicans and Democrats, and is a big proponent of why the Republicans are now most often on the wrong side of racial issues, as compared to Democrats. Not that it's never the other way, just much less frequently and severely nowadays. But historically, between the KKK, Segregation, Slavery, the Japanese Internment camps of WWII, and native cultural and literal genocide, Democrats have a lot of sordid history to account for. Thankfully, in recent decades that seems to be happening, so hopefully that progress continues.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
This is the Democrat Party LIE designed to cover up their past sins. Only one Dem congressmen switched parties, and many KKK leaders/members stayed on with the Dems. Political attitudes changed after WW2 and the educational reforms and industrialization of the South changed things over the decades.
15:11 in the early 1900s the parties switched ideologies, the republicans were originally the liberals and the democrats the conservatives, but now the democrats are liberal and republicans are conservative
Not So Fun Fact: the #CivilWar still holds the record for "Most American Casualties" in war.
Not the 20 year "War on Terror" ... not Vietnam, or either World War ... ... that time that we fought eachother over "States Rights" ... and "Government Overreach"
Republicans were originally quite liberal, but over time they drifted into supporting big business. When the stock market crashed in 1929, republican president Herbert Hoover chose not to intervene. Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic promising intervention, assistance, and welfare. He won the presidency in 1932, making Democrats the progressive / liberal party.
As far as connecting more to state than country, that depends largely on the person and the state. Texans, for example, lean the most to being loyal to their state over their country, even proposing secession in recent history. Most other places see their state mostly as a subdivision of the country they live it, rather than as a separate entity.
The racist southern Americans were also largely Democrats until the Civil Rights era of the 1960s when Democratic President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and they all stomped off in a huff to the Republican Party where they remain.
The Republican Party was originally founded, or at least its founding was largely financed, by wealthy Northern liberals, and yes, they were very strongly motivated by abolitionist feelings. In later decades, though, the reactionary, conservative, narrow-minded, thoroughly spoiled, and utterly self-interested children of those liberals came into control of the party's pursestrings.
and FDR's plans didn't nothing. the depression neded because of WW2
Looks like your liberal teachers convinced you of the “party switch” nonsense. They make up stories to deny their awful history.
8:26
So think about this for a second; why are companies today pouring so much into automation and AI? It's, among other things, because the robots won't need to be paid. They can just keep working (near) endlessly and don't need to be compensated for it. The results? More people lose their jobs to automation every year. Just like robots don't need to be paid, neither do slaves because they're, well, slaves. The concern was that the little man yeoman farmers and their hired hands in the north were going to get outcompeted by southern slave plantations because less money going towards workers is more money going towards expansion and/or into the pockets of the land owners in both cases. There's also concern that, if slavery dominates society, nobody has any incentive to innovate. The guys owning the slaves don't want to cause this works, the slaves don't want to because slavery, and the little man potential entrepreneur don't want to because "well if I do this the slave owners are just going to use their slave force to outcompete me anyways".
So yes, slavery is very bad for the economy, especially for a Capitalist economy like the US. And yes, the South has historically been much poorer than the rest of the country and slavery is a major factor why.
Yup. That's why I've heard even to this day jokes about "southerners not being able to afford shoes"
first! love your vids! from ireland x
Lincoln and Bismarck were and are considered the greatest orators of their age. Fort Sumter controlled Charleston harbor, itwould be like a British fort in Keil harbor. The rifles were still muzzle loaders.
Lincoln was an oddity in his day. When the average height for a man was about 5'5" tall, Lincoln was 6'5" tall. He's still our tallest President. He literally stood head and shoulders about everyone else.
The average male was more like 5'7", and Lincoln was 6'4". It's thought he may have been born with Marfan's Syndrome, which results in the subject growing up with a naturally tall, thin, lanky build and big hands and feet. It can also result in clinical depression, of which Lincoln showed clear symptons.
@@user-mg5mv2tn8q Lincoln was 6'5".
Average 5'5" to 5'6"
@@George-ux6zz An inch means more to your wives, than it does to the height of Lincoln. Silly argument.
@@Tijuanabill Why did you bring it up then
@@George-ux6zz I didn't bring it up. You did. You are the one disputing an inch when you don't actually know either. You are just citing a different, possibly also incorrect source. It's not like he had a driver's license, or ever stood for a police line up.
No joke. One of the northern cavalry soldiers found the battle plans wrapped around 3 cigars. I've heard different theories as to this. 1. One of the confederate generals somehow dropped it. 2. A spy grabbed them and was being chased, so he threw them into the field, and never returned to get them. 3. Other.... But they were a copy of the confederate battle plans leading up the battle of Antietam, Maryland.
The Republican Party and Democratic Party had an ideological shift slowly over time after the civil war. The Republican Party had become wealthy from the industrial era and started to become more conservative because they became more focused on big business and keeping the government from interfering with their interests, while the Democrats were focused on welfare programs especially because of economic problems. The shift had slowly begun but it became really apparent in the 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement began. By then it was clear that the Political sides had switched.
Absolutely correct. The Republicans had a winning hand for a long time, but Democrats found their steam once they brought social issues to the political stage. I wouldn't exactly call it a switch, but the point remains.
You are correct, except for the Civil Rights movement. The republicans never really shifted positions, they were the party of Lincoln. MLK was a Republican. The Democrats, however, were the party of the KKK and racism right up until the 60s, where there was major internal conflict over which side of the Civil Rights movement Democrats would side on. President LBJ was the one to really push the progressive side of the Democrats, enough so that a majority of Democrats joined the Republicans in passing the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Essentially, the parties didn't "switch," the Democrat party exclusively flipped. Although notable racists who opposed desegregation like KKK member Robert Boyd and his best friend Joe Biden remained in the Democrat Party...
Someone sold you a lie and you bought it. People pushing the lie can’t stand to think their side might have been so terrible. The notion of a switch was made up to help them push the “bad guy” label onto their opponents.
don't say that too loud the uneducated modern Trumplicans will come for you and call you FAKE NEWS 🤣🤣
My Great Great Uncle, William Pittenger fought in the Civil War on the Union side. He volunteered as part of Andrew’s Raiders and was involved in “ The Great Locomotive Chase “, an interesting raid you might want to cover for your program. 22 Union volunteers, led by James J . Andrews and Union spy , crossed the lines and traveled over a hundred miles into enemy territory to STEAL a TRAIN!!! The General, a locomotive from Kennesaw Georgia and try to take it all the way to destroy the single rail linChattanooga Tennessee to disrupt Confederate reinforcements! Tearing up the rails, burning bridges and cutting the telegraph.
The conductor of the train , Fuller chased them , first by foot, then handcar and finally by train ( the last being “ The Texas “ another locomotive from the same railroad and finally caught up with them only 18 miles from Chattanooga!
John Brown's capture and death turned him into a bit of a martyr among hardcore abolitionists. They even came up with a song: "John Brown's Body [lies a-rotting in his grave"...it was a bit baudy and meant to convey that his death did not end the overall movement. They borrowed the tune from earlier hymns, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.
Once the war broke out soldiers could be heard singing it as the tune was a good marching tune. Disgusted at the lyrics, a woman re-wrote the song to be "Mine eyes have seen the glory..." as a battle hymn about ending slavery. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is now among the most patriotic/iconic songs.
The direct lyric is relatively late in the song: "...As He died to make men Holy let us die to make men free!..."
16:06 The stereotypical "AMERICA! *EXPLOSIONS*" Would start after The Civil War. Before that, all the states considered themselves more like allies.
For your confusion between Republicans and Democrats, they effectively swapped ideological positions and roles around the 1930s and 1940s, I'm not sure exactly when it happened but it happened around the early-mid 20th century.
no they didn't that is a lie
No, The Big Switch is a lie. Black voters switched sides during the Great Depression, during the PEAK of Democrat racism; they did it for the poverty programs being espoused, that they were later excluded from. Southerners did not sent a fully Republican delegation to Washington, until 1980, with Ronald Reagan's "Compassionate Christian" movement. Many of the issues these parties have espoused, have wandered from side to side, and even back again, in some cases. But at no point in human history, has the Republican party EVER espoused the hateful, racist views, of the pro slavery Democrat party.
@@Revkor Look over here we got a "democrats supported slavery!" guy over here
Your teachers learned a myth and passed it along to you. There was no party switch. The notion is silly. Imagine two groups of politicians agreeing to abandon their positions and swap them with each other.
@@Tux.Penguin You act like things have to be that simple in order it happen, the party switch was a slow process that occurred over years, and most certainly was not a concerted process.
The cigar thing is absolutely true.
You asked why the south couldn't just be independent without fighting a war? One reason the north was fighting for the whole country to stay unified was because the south was a huge economic force with its rich land and agriculture. The north was more industrial but that was newer and not as developed. The entire country relied on all the states contributing taxes and economic activity because the U.S. was still paying off massive war debts. Not to mention the need for a military population, protection of the coastline, etc. If the south had seceded and the north didn't fight to keep it, they'd have a very large, populated, and economically rich enemy directly to the south and along a huge part of the east coast of North America.
And slavery would still exist today! Because the democrats were for slavery and the republicans were against it! Republicans were in the north not south! People really should have paid more attention in school and read history books outside of school and not believe lies democrats are telling them!
Now the vast majority of Americans hold loyalty to the whole country over their own states. Although there are still some people that do hold their own state above the Union, primarily in Texas, however even they are actually not that common in Texas. I would say even in Texas probably less than 1% of Texans are actually like that now. I am wondering if Germany still has people that hold their own states over the whole of Germany, or are they not called the equivalent of states over there, because I know Germany was also a union of smaller countries.
Love oversimplified!
Man, Man(kind), and (wo)man are different words with different etynologies. Just an FYI to the humankind folks.
A lot of Europeans have the same reaction about Republican vs. Democrats. The explanation is that the Republican and Democratic Parties have essentially swapped sides regard racial equality in the 100 or so years between the Civil War (1860s) and the Civil Right movement (1960s).
That's oversimplified, too. Conservative factions within the Democratic Party opposing Civil Rights persisted in the South until the 1960s. It was the party of Black Code and Jim Crow laws.
@@poeticpaint5957 Agreed, I was tailoring the comment for a European who probably doesn't have an interest in the fine details of US politics. So there's a lot packed into the word "essentially"... And the dates are also very approximate. And I would also argue attitudes in the two parties have evolved considerably since the 1960s. But that's all too much for someone from a different country. So I keep it simple.
@@INTPMann1957 thank you for the clarification. There have always been ideoligacal splits and factions within the existing parties themselves and - due to the simple existence of human nature - will continue to be.
@@poeticpaint5957 The Democratic Party only just recently lost its most notable conservative senator from WV.
FYI- funny how? Is a quote from the Movie "Good Fellas". Also, the Military units were.raised by State Governments, because the standing Army was a few thousand men. This is why the units are named such as 54th Massachusetts.
15:00 The current parties do not have the same platform as in 1860. Back then, the Republican Party was anti-slavery and the Democrat party was pro-slavery. They’ve changed their agendas numerous times over the decades
I think also the Republicans were more about government being used to stimulate growth, which is why Lincoln did a lot to get the trans continental railroad built and signed the College Land Grants Act which created a good part of the state colleges and universities that we have today, all while fighting the Civil War. The Republican party changed a lot after Teddy Roosevelt left office.
Agendas certainly shift, but they never swapped places with one another. The Democrats of the 1800s were for slavery and their descendants, the Democrats of the 1900s insisted on segregation.
100% - democrats are now the progressives and republicans are the conservatives
Wow, your revisionist history is just what the D party expects. You remember all the Republicans that voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments? Or didn’t elect any black ppl to Congress until the 1900’s? Or the Republicans that started the Klan? Or were pro-segregation? Or did the Tuskegee Experiment? Or enacted Jim Crow? Or opposed the Civil Rights legislation? Or that Republican President LBJ who said “I’ll have these ni$$ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years”? Or maybe those republicans who started the Great Society of welfare that destroyed the Black family by replacing fathers with Govt.? Or that republican Woodrow Wilson who showed “Birth of a Nation” in the White House? Yeah, those darn Republicans and their anti American, anti Constitution, anti Capitalist views and policies…..
There is no party in the US by the name of "Democrat Party" .
So a fun fact for you Chris. The US had a lot of German immigrants at this time. Many fleeing after the failed 1848 revolutions. There were so many that during the Civil War, the North had an entire Army Corps (about 30,000 soldiers) of native Germans. The members all spoke German and had various traditions brought with them from the different German states they originated in. Other Union officers and generals disliked working with them because so few of the German Corps’ officers spoke good English.
Texas fought a war for independence from Mexico in 1835 (Remember the Alamo!). It won, and was an independent republic until 1845 when it was (agreeably) annexed by the US as the 28th state. The Mexican-American War 1846-1848, was a result of the fact that Mexico did not recognize the statehood of Texas, and sent it's army into Texas. President James Polk sent in the US Army, and defeated Mexico by taking the capitol of Mexico City. Mexico had to cede a lot of territory to the US as retribution. On a positive note, many US Army Officers got a lot of combat experience, which they used in the Civil War on both sides. ** The difference between a slave and "Enemy Contraband" was that they were paid to work.
It wasn't a war for independence so much as a conspiracy. White Americans flooded into Texas and began antagonizing Mexico. When Mexico finally retaliated the Americans living in the area petitioned the government. This was what had been intended from the start. Manifest destiny, my guy.
@@ElyonDominus Yeah. It's ALWAYS the white people's fault. Gawd save me from "Conspiracy Theorists".
2:00 Licoln has the dubious honor of being one of our more... visually distinct, presidents.
Its important to note that the progressive party used to be the Republicans, and Democrats were the conservative party. But at some point they flipped and now Democrats are progressive and Republicans are conservative.
The ideological shift between the parties started in the 30's during the Great Depression and finished in the 60's during the Civil Rights movement. I always annoys me to hear a modern Republican boast that they are in the party of Lincoln.
Sadly, there never really was any change in the parties, in spite of what we were taught growing up.
In general, the Republican Party was the anti slavery party while the Democratic Party was the pro slavery party. There were no "conservative" or "progressive" tags then. Terms like "conservative" and "liberal" and "progressive" have become worthless because we can find any reason to apply them anywhere. A case could be made that the Republicans were the conservative party as they fought to preserve the union (keeping to the way things had been, conservative) instead of allowing the Democrats to break away and form their own country where they could do what they thought was best for themselves (changing things for a new and presumably better way, progressive). By the same token, it could be said that the Republicans were progressive for their opposition to slavery while the Democrats were conservative for their support of it. The terms are meaningless.
But that racist opposition didn't really change either. Only 61% of Congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 80% of Republicans did. Republicans helped the pro Act Democrats break a Democratic filibuster that was opposed to the Act and trying to prevent its passage. Though the Democrats had an easy majority in Congress, if so many Republicans hadn't been for Civil Rights that Act might never have been passed into law.
But don't trust me. Go to the U.S. Senate's page referring to the Civil Rights act. It's a government page and not some sketchy "Some guy told me so" page. It's all there.
In spite of what I was told all through my youth as a punk, hardcore Democrat, and frequent protestor of government overreach and waste, after investigating, working with, and spending a lot of time listening to what the Dem leadership said and did when the microphones and cameras were off, I became disgusted and have been an independent ever since the mid 90s. But don't trust what some random guy on the internet tells you, and sure don't trust the crap you've been told over the years. Go look it up in reputable places for yourself and find out for yourself.
I still believe that a lot of everyday Democrats mean well, they're just misguided and misinformed by the professional politicians who will do and say anything to stay in power. The ruination of America is professional politicians who have no concept of real life, real work, or real struggles. And that means all of them, regardless of affiliation or, in Bernie's case, non affiliation or momentary affiliation.
@@thatpatrickguy3446 Get outta here with that Bullshit. Clearly the shift was with the voting demographics than just the politicians in the parties. The same demographic that still proudly wave confederate flags, were against the civil right's acts, argue for State's Right's, and protest the confederate statues being taken down are the exact ones that were seceding from the union in the 1860s. The new politicians that were coming into Washington after 1964 were falling more in line with the demographics of their areas.
@@thatpatrickguy3446 Nice fanfic, bro.
The American civil war was mainly about the question of slavery and if it was the state’s choice to allow it or the federal government’s decision to abolish it. It also had a lot to do with money. The slave owners were the richest people in the country. Rich people have a lot of power over the government and don’t like change.
The Republican and Democrat Political parties broadly swapped their political stances within the 20th century. It was a gradual change that most people didn't realize it until around the 1960s
This is absolute BS. The parties have never “swapped “. Please do your homework before you start spewing talking points.
@@Flamingo79295I’m going through the comment section. SO MANY people have been taught the party switch myth. I’m happy to see you’re here.
I have seen a general change in political parties with their views and stances change every freaking year.
It is a political party, to join a political party a person signs some paperwork to say they belong to a party, that's it no test or initiation ritual. The member of the party had no obligations or responsibilities to that party.
So as culture changes people may switch parties, or vote in primaries people they want. Which leads to the party leadership often changing their tactics and stances so they can attract the votes to win.
Is the Lincoln Republican the same as Biden Democrats. No not at all, however Lincoln Republican attracted the Culture and values of the more Urban north while The Democrats at the time attracted value of the more Rural South.
Then over time the Republicans tried to get more Rural votes by putting less emphasis on Urban needs and more in rural ones, and the Democrats tried to get more Urban votes by trying to get more of the urban ideals and taking emphasis off some rural ones.
@@toddfraser3353 naturally party platforms may tend to drift over time. If anything we might say both of the major parties have drifted left. But the notion that they’ve traded places is merely a way to blame today’s Republicans for the awful history of the Democrats.
@@Tux.Penguin Drifted left??? Please. And which side currently wave confederate flag's at their rallies? With side is currently being endorsed by the Klan? Which side currently supports State's Rights? Which side is currently against the removal of confederate statues? It isn't the Democrats, that's for sure.
21:50 Fort Sumter was a fort in Confederate territory but was still manned by Union forces. They demanded the surrender of the fort because it was in their space; but the troops inside refused because it was a Union fort. Stupidly they chose to attack the fort rather than seek any other route and well....here we are.
Your confusion is understandable, the 2 major parties have swapped political positions over the last 50 years. Back in Lincolns time, the Democrats supported slavery and "tradition", while the Republicans supported liberty for all. Today it's the exact opposite.
You think Republicans support slavery?
@@krillin876ridiculous, that remark about Republicans being anti-liberty. I'm Hispanic and Native American and don't buy that blatant lie at all.
In particular, it's my understanding that it was President Lyndon B. Johnson's support for civil rights in the 1960s that led many of the racist southerners to switch their allegience from the Democratic to the Republican Party.
For sure, the civil rights movement really triggered the flip, this is something sadly seems to be forgotten. It leads to a huge misrepresentation of american political history.
@@Steve_StowersPresident Johnson was against civil rights, and he was very racist.
23:05 - All of the Napoleon Wars were fought by standing in rows and firing. They just didn't really have much concept of taking cover at the time. They would use a wall if one was there, but if there wasn't, they didn't worry about cover.
On the Lincoln being a Republican thing, the Republicans and Democrats basically changed names at some point. The Democrats used to be situated in the south and the Republicans in the north, but they sorta swapped.
In simple terms, and I'm cutting a lot of details out, a person who would have been a democrat at this time would today be a republican and vice versa.
Bull. That is the liberal interpretation of history. The Republican Party was always about treating human beings as individuals, and not as members of a group. More Republicans than Democrats voted to end Jim Crow a century after the Civil War. White supremacists were always traditionally Democrats.
And that is incredibly oversimplified. Neither party looks anything like the historical parties of the past.
@@poeticpaint5957 Conservatives haven't changed though. Whew boy.
15:15 one thing that is very important to keep in mind is that you can NOT compare the modern Democratic and Republican parties to what they were like back in their early years. For the Democratic Party, I think the furthest back you can go and fairly compare to what is modern times, is LBJ. For the Republican party...well I'm not sure it even is a political party at the moment...
As for the picnicking civilians. It's worth noting that people at this time had a much more romantic outlook on war. Kind of like what Europe had before WWI. The Civil War did a lot to disprove such notions for us.
@15:10 Regarding the political parties, people will often say the Republicans and Democrats "switched" in the 1960s. This is an ok simplification, but let me explain it as I learned in history class. Keep in mind that due to how elections usually work in the US (50% majority wins all) it's hard to have more than 2 parties. So the parties that exist tend to change and adapt to gain new coalitions to be competitive nationally, even if that means they become unrecognizable over decades. If you want to know more, look up the "Fourth Party System" and compare it to the Fifth (1932-1980) or Sixth (1980-present). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Party_System
The lead-up to the civil war (1820s-1850s) saw the collapse of the Whig party (more conservative, federalist) and the dominance of the Democratic party (more populist) but then the Democratic party split regionally instead of ideologically, over support or opposition to slavery (and post-war civil rights). In the South, Democrats were dominant from 1850s to 1960s. In the more populous North and the West, Republicans formed in the 1850s from former Whigs and abolitionists. The Republicans in ~ 1860-1920 tended to be politically dominant and became a party of business, of industry, and also retained the overwhelming support of black voters. The Democrats in the south were segregationist and often racist whites, but in the north Democrats tended to be seen as the party of immigrants (Irish, Polish, Italians, etc) who were shunned by the upper class in Northern cities. In the 1930s the Great Depression hit and Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) was very popular. He was a Northerner, but he was very populist, enacted a lot of popular welfare, etc. Democrats were popular nationwide. In the 1960s civil rights was a pressing issue and Northern Democrats (like Kennedy), Republicans (like Eisenhower), or Southern supporters of civil rights (like LBJ and Jimmy Carter) helped enact civil rights. The thing is, a lot of racist whites tended to hate that and gradually stopped voting Democrat. The "Southern Strategy" in the 1970s by Nixon explicitly aimed for the votes of southern Whites which is why they went from solid Dem to solid Republican voters in federal elections by the 1970s and then local elections by the 1990s. Clinton (from the southern state of Arkansas) was the last Democrat to win in the "Deep South" until Biden in 2020 won Georgia. Beyond that, in the 1980s and beyond cultural/social issues have surpassed economic issues for populists which is why rural areas (less diverse, suffering more from globalization, etc) have tended to go Republican while cities and suburbs have tended to go Democrat.
This is a generalization and a quick intro to a complex topic. Hope it helps though.
You link to Wikipedia. Hasn’t that site been discredited on a wide range of subjects?
After the Civil Right Act and the Voting Rights Act, most Southern Democrats switched to Republican and are more like Pre Civil War Democrats in their views on Freedoms for certain Americans
To answer your question at 16:21:
As a Southerner it is inconceivable to me that anybody ever owned another human being. I think it is most wise to be equal in loyalty to your state AND the federal government, but you must always question the motives and actions of each.
This is the only way to ensure freedom and not be enslaved.
Slavery still exists legally in the USA through prison labor, unfortunately. It’s expressly allowed as a punishment. This is why the US has a higher percentage of people imprisoned than any other country
That is not the reason.
People who take it too far, beyond the truth, hold back the movements they espouse. Prison workers is an ethical problem, but it's 100% a volunteer program, and they are paid. It's just factually NOT slavery. There is more nuance to it, than that. The issues arise when they make the choice a false choice, by taking time off their sentences for doing it, and other factors. Slaves were not convicted of crimes. So these are not the exact same thing.
@@craigplatel813It literally is. Nixon's War on Drugs was explicitly intended to send Black American men to prisons for labor and to deprive their families of the stability of two parents.
Originally, the Texas territory that Mexico owned extended all the way up to the present-day State of Wyoming. For about ten years after Texas won its independence from Mexico, Texas was its own country. It was called the Republic of Texas. In about 1845, when Texas wanted to be annexed into the United States as a state, it had to give up the part of its territory that was above the 36th parallel, because the law in the United States was that no slavery could exist north of the 36th parallel. For a while, that forfeited land was a no-man's-land, full of outlaws and such, but eventually it became part of such states as Oklahoma.
The republicans and democrats switched sides over the 1900’s
A Republican, Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909), a distant cousin of FDR, actually set aside federal lands for wilderness conservation. He actually took on the big Monopolies (equivalent to today's Big Tech, Big Pharma, etc) called "Trusts". That was a "liberal" move in those days. The conservative move was to represent the "trusts" interests and have less regulation of the economy. It was the 1960s when the "liberal" Democrat / "conservative Republican split was strongly clear, increasingly solidified through the 70s. By 1980, it pretty much got very solid, and became even more so in the 1990s (when the "white Southern Democrats" either died out or switched to the Republican Party).
The only “switch” that happened was the size of government the parties wanted. Republicans started wanting a smaller government and democrats started wanting a bigger government.
@@jjc5871 less bad there be a big government for the people than a small government based on social darwinist dog-eat-dogism.
That’s been a disproven myth
The Civil War was a turning point in regard to how we viewed ourselves as residents. Prior to the Civil War, people viewed themselves as residents of their states first. Thus, you will hear Civil War combat troops being referred to by unit and state; ie, “second Alabama” or “third New York”. After the Civil War we became Americans first.
The civil war was not about our independence, it was state vs state. The revolution and war of 1812 were our wars for independence.
The war of 1812 was not a war of independence but a war over fair trade and Britain's interference with shipping of goods. They also were taking American sailors and making them serve in the British military.
@@daricetaylor737 soooo... independence
From the Confederate perspective, the Civil War (or the 'War of Northern Aggression') was absolutely a war for independence. Not saying I agree with that with that view, but that's how they saw it.
@greymalkin9228 I live in a southern state. I see the Civil War as one about rights, not indepndence
@@jasoncordial4730true but the problem was the biggest right they were fighting for was slavery. Btw for clarity I'm white and from GA.
Its probably a good thing that the Maxim machine gun wasn't invented till 6 years after the civil war ended. Or this could have been a lot worse. Also I find it funny that the machine gun was invented 7 years before the bolt action rifle was.