Stonewall Jackson hated Republicans War Profiteers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Confederacy should have returned to the United Kingdom. GOP has been screwing ALL Americans since the civil war. In Gods and Generals (Turner), General "Stonewall" Thomas Jackson tells Lt. Sandy Pendleton about the truth about the Republicans, "If the Republicans lose their little war... they go home fat with their war profits." Some things never change. North or South, we're all been tricked by war profiteers. Did you know that the Republican GOP (Grand Old Party) started as the the "No Nothing" nationalist "American" Party (yes like the NAZIs). Their platform in the 1850s was a racist, zenophobic, anti-Masonic, anti-Catholic agenda.
Interesting view points, all. However, General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was not expressing his hatred for the Northern Republicans, he was expressing who had the greatest to lose. If the North lost the Union would still be the Union. To most Southerners the South was fighting for liberty, their freedom. That is why Jackson said, "if we lose we lose our country."
Michael Walter my ancestors who fought during the civil war did not own any slaves. In fact, my ancestors came to America as indentured servants. To say that southerners fought to uphold slavery is idiotic and disingenuous. There are several counties in the southern states that seceded from their own states because of slavery, the free state of Winston county Alabama is an example.
Michayal Valder you’re an indoctrinated moron. The war had little to do with slavery.
Stonewall Jackson was my ancestor. And my name is Jack Thomas Ryan. Sometimes it makes me feel weird thinking he could have been racist. But then again I never met him and don't know a whole ton about him
I heard the south was fighting for their rats. It seems they can have their rats.
@Michayal Valder It was to fight and defend from the Northern aggressors like you who spout communist nonsense.
He was perhaps the civil war's most charismatic general. Today, as a matter of fact the "war profiteers" are worse than ever. They're doing the same thing, except in other countries.
And on a far more massive scale
Hey, what’s it called when your whole economic model is built around continued exploiting and expanding of the use of enslaved human beings, taken as the prize of conquest? Certainly not war profiteering - no, no, no, that would be craaazy.
Look, Jackson was a man of his time, so I’m going to at least give him a pass on seeing the practice as an unfortunate, but age old and intractable, part of life (even though he conveniently ignored the part in Exodus that says him and everyone involved in such practices deserves death), but let’s not be sanctimonious here: the CSA’s entire existence was built around exploiting the economic benefits of war.
And also a movie that is ruthless propaganda.
Are you kidding me, his soldiers hated him and he had so many executed for desertion, more than any other brigades.
This little scene is such a delusion, its really just meant to sugar coat the man who was in fact an awful psychopath.
Very much a fact and always has been and will be. People always jump on the first thing that comes to mind when responding and knee jerk react and very lack and control of emotions. So the problems will continue and history will repeat itself until we use takes aways from previous lessons. Propaganda? Ehh...
"You can sell anything you want to the Federal government for any price you have the guts to ask for" - Jay Gould, New York City banker.
Infantry boots that fell apart and then were explained to be for the Calvary 😂
@Mississippi4Clemson it still amazes me that even into World War 2 we had issues with supplying our infantry with proper footwear.
I visited at the Chancellorsville Battlefield Visitors Center yesterday. I saw where Jackson was shot and the memorial that’s there now to his memory. I felt a strong sense of heaviness there.
The wilderness is a really forbidding place
Ah yes. Celebrate treason.
Lol he died for nothing. shot by his own child soldiers didn't even die in battle no heaviness there my friend
@@thesciguy4823 So in your warped worldview, when a woman divorces her husband she is committing treason?
The "Great Tax Revolt of 1861" would be a more accurate name! Northern industrialists were bitter about the South having a profitable trading agreement with Europe, the South was the richest part of the country then, and they wanted that wealth under their control at all costs, especially following the Panic of 1857, which wasn't helped when the SS Central America sank off North Carolina with 30,000lbs of gold, estimated in today's money to be worth almost $800,000,000.
The war for southern slavery expansion thats the correct name, the south wanted to expand slavery to the West and to conquer Mexico and cuba to turn their territories into more slave states and the north opposed to that, the south is who has the fault
Jackson was the only Southern Commander who understood and had the ability to defeat the North.
and how did that end up goin for him?
He lost to Kimbell. So I doubt it.
Not really
@@__mindflayer__ Who?
@@T555BIRD Nathan Kimbell. He beat Jackson at the battle of Kernstown.
Stephen Lang is a tremendous actor. Great in all of his roles.
I didn't notices that was Colonel from Avatar.
I think the script made Jackson far more of an intellectual than he historically was.
@@VersusARCH Ah, got some deathly grudge against the intellect of a man you don't know? Cool stuff, keyboard warrior
He was General Pickett in Gettysburg
@@curtrupp4259 Yes, and I think I've read that Russell Crowe was supposed to play Jackson and Lang keep his role as Pickett. Crowe had to back out, wife pregnant in Australia, he wanted to be with her for birth.
No two men are created equal.
True, but all men should be treated equally under the law.
@@TheSeanoops the lefts identity politics flies in the face of that statement.
“ if the politicians lose their little war they’ll vote in the next election and return to their homes in New York and Illinois and Massachusetts fat with their war profits, but if we lose, we lose our country, we lose our independence....we lose it all”
So true
Lose our proprety
@@travisbickle4360 what property were they fearing to lose? I think I know
Except they didn’t lose it all... also the south had war profiteers as well. When Lee invaded the north he had troops rounding up any black people they found and selling into slavery down south to raise money for the war, and they got to keep a nice bonus for themselves
OP misquoted him. He specifically said "Republicans," not the more generic "politicians."
Which makes the quote in the film extra hilarious as Jackson in later life became a Republican and served in a later Republican administration as a political ambassador and lived off his notoriety. He became exactly what he railed against in this scene.
@@7bootzy Did the south not have politicians?
Both the Democrats, and Republicans are now about the same party. The all talk as though they are going to do something spectacular if you elect them ,but as soon as they get to Washington they forget about the people. So I'm glad I am a Independent. Both parties love to keep us fighting, so we forget about everything they are not doing. The Civil War has been over a long time, everybody saying it was fought for this reason, others say it was fought for another, it was fought and it ended badly for both the north and the south because Nearly One million Americans died fighting and believing in their causes, right or wrong.
they're concerned with keeping their establishment, the republican-democrats. Trump is fixing it.
two sides of the same coin.
I vote strictly 3rd party.
@Quarantined Goy
The IWW (Wobblies) said "if voting workt, it would be illegal". The Wobs are written out of history, as the puppet masters do not want YOU or anyone else to know that the "people" when united, cannot be denied, therefore, any time that the people do get effective, (rare indeed), they are written out and marginalized. Even tho' voting is NOT effective, as too many peeps are stupid sheeps and respond to the electric beeps like pavlov's dogs, it is still a tool to use. I myself, never vote d-word or r-word but I always vote. I vote for ANY third party.
The North's Victory in the "War of Northern Aggression" made the South's actions "unconstitutional.", But, Revolutionary War victory made the original secession of 1776 "legal." We both know that there is no moral way for making the case that a free union of free people should be held together by force..which is why the reason needed changing over time to "we did it to free the slaves." Slavery was around 'before the Union' and was an established way of life. It would have died out soon enough.
Yes, that is true. But when would that have happened? The delegates at the 1st Constitutional Convention rejected Liberty for the slaves. Why? The Southern States threatened to secede, or worse, before America could even happen. Reading the transcripts on the freedom for slaves issue illustrated that very few had the stomach to tackle the issue of freedom for slaves. Washington, Jefferson, and many others thought slavery repugnant, but they couldn't convince the other delegates. Jefferson then put forth his 20 year plan. Simply stated the Congress would address the issue again in the early years of 1800, I think around 1810. That never happened. The Northern States were all abolishionists, the Southern States were predictably slave States.
Over the next 40 plus years each side tried to one up the other. Neither side could, or would, compromise with the other. The position of the South has only become more hardened. Then entered John Brown. A reverend who was also a cold blooded killer, and a rabid abolishionist, terrorized Kansas and beyond. But it was his raid at Harper's Ferry
Yes John, you are absolutely right and make a lot of sense. I'm going to try to memorize what you posted so I can share it in conversation.
Well, some of our chief ones:
loyalty to kith and kin, tradition, limited government, a society built upon Christian virtues, safe neighbourhoods, protection of unborn children, the rights of a native population to their country, root identity found in one's home State (I, for instance, and a Virginian above all else), non-interference in foreign lands (as in, we don't want to be constantly invading other countries the way the US is often wont to do). Things like that.
you mean like those natives deported on the trail of tears and the christian virtue of slavery
"Yes sir"
(Turns to go)
"I'm not done yet!"
Funniest bit in the whole film.
Hearing the deserters were from his old command had to feel like a slap in the face to Jackson. You can kind of see it in how he initially takes the news.
From the earliest, the war between the states was not a "civil" war in the true meaning of the term as the confederacy was not seeking to take control of the nation....Theirs was a struggle for the rights as sovereign states with framework of a Constitutional Republic..
Granted. But given that Northerners typically don't like having blacks anywhere near them, I'd say they don't have any right to moralise to us about our past, present, or future.
Oh I understand an oath perfectly. I also understand the concept of higher duty. If two duties are conflicting, the higher duty takes priority. A Virginian is a Virginian first, United-Statesian second. Should he be forced to choose between Virginia and the USA, any true son of Virginia will know that his duty lies to his homeland first and foremost, above any union. Lincoln was determined to watch Virginia burn, and the sons of Virginia met him with admirable resistance.
Resistance is futile
@@MaceAhWindu Only to the extent that the rulers and lawmakers are true to the Constitution and values of The founders of the nation. When it forsakes these for foreign ideologies, to remain loyal is to share in their treason.
And we lost it all...
Jackson: We lose our slaves
Fire2wmd, there's an ancient proverb you would do well to apply: "Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
"We lose our Country, we lose our Independance, We lose it ALL" Keep the Color's A'Flyin
We lose it ALL (including your human property).
God's and Generals is Confederate lost cause porn. The confederacy fought for the right to own people. They deserved to lose.
@@michellejean11 Slavery not an issue. Slavery was not threatened. Read Lincoln's first inaugural speech. South Carolina hotheads got the ball rolling. Slavery was not threatened. "...fought for the right to own people" is just pure nonsense but I'm sure you won't understand. Only 1.6% of Southerners owned slaves. And the united States Army had soldiers from slave states. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland. What were these soldiers fighting for? By your logic they should have been in the Confederate Army since that army was fighting for the right to own people. Or are you just saying that only the states that remained in the Union could own slaves?
@@ingenuitas Got it. You are a confederate apologist and accusing me of statements I did not make or imply.
The only issue was slavery. It is in the confederate constitution, it was in a speech by the confederate vice president. it was stated in 4 of the secessionist states as the cause for succession.
By my logic, no by the Historical facts. Lincoln was willing to let slavery continue in all southern states if it would save the Union. His emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states that had rebelled against the Union. All slavery did not end until Dec 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Lincoln's proclamation was primarily done to keep Britain and France from recognizing the confederate states and a secondary effect to punish the rebellious states. Sadly ending slaver was of secondary importance to him.
@@michellejean11 If the USA had invaded the Southern States to free the Southern slaves they also would have invaded the northern States to free over 432,000 slaves working in "the northern States." Lincoln was working over 500 Negro slaves in building the U.S. Capital Building when he ORDERED the invasion of the Southern States. He never freed them.
It is not true that the USA fought a war to free slaves, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is true. In that case Negroes would owe the USA a great deal of gold to pay for their noble effort in freeing them from bondage. For Negroes being sold into slavery initially they would have to travel to Africa and hold the Blacks there accountable for the actions of their ancestors who first sold their ancestors into slavery. Then there were the Yankee traders who resold them in the western hemisphere as slaves. Then there are the Lincoln Military Orders that commanded the USA Army to kill "all Southern Whites and their niggers" which resulted in death of 800,000-1,200,000 Southern Negroes. Of course, truth is a bit more complex than the current simplistic sentimentalistic notions given to Blacks by their current Zionist-socialist masters.
"Confederacy should have returned to the United Kingdom." I seriously doubt that. But my opinions is the same as Thomas Jackson's and Robert E. Lee's opinions. It's simple. The Confederacy was fighting for their individual and the southern states rights.
"The right to keep slaves, moron." Coming from a dumbass liberal who's probably against the Second Amendment. Run back home little boy.
The "State's Rights" argument is very vague and is not the best argument. But the re cause of the civil war was that the Union was placing heavy tax burdens upon the South's exports of cotton. The liberals themselves ( who *love* to call everyone else fascists ) have become fascists by burning and rewriting history books to fit their narrative of demonizing the south and the valiant men of the south. They demonize southern soldiers by illegally toppling monuments ( which is vandalism ) because it "oFfEnDs" like a handful of people who fail to do research. With that being said, I am sure you'll say that I have not done my research. I am happy to clarify that I did think that the Civil War was about slavery, but as time went on I studied many many hours into the Civil War as a whole. And I would also like to clarify that I am *not* a white supremacist. I believe that all men are created equal. Slavery was a terrible thing. But Lincoln used it to boost morale when the war was going for the Confederates. And speaking of Lincoln, he was a blatant racist as well. Sure he freed the slaves, but he believed that they were still an inferior race and shouldn't marry those who were not of african american descent. So to clarify once more,
1.) I am not a liberal, I am a conservative
2.) I am not a white supremacist
3.) I believe with all my heart that slavery was horrible
4.) Idk what else I just wanna make this list an even number
Like RE Lee, Jackson was a visionary. Seeing 100 years ahead.
100 years ahead? Yet they couldn’t see that they were gonna lose so badly and thus have killed thousands for nothing?
@@matthewdavid6134 they had to try anyway right? 🤦♀️
@@TheGeoCheese
With which justification
And...no man shall have to answer to a political party.
We the people will rise up with such power and flatten you.
After viewing many of your extensive postings on an abundance of videos(mostly Civil War variety), you have perfectly described to the world who and what you are; for your reaction above, as well as in every other posting I have read, meets, in fact exceeds, your criteria!
strange, the same is said of the Southern democrats.
Grant captured three entire Confederate armies. First, at Fort Donelson. Second, at Vicksburg. Third, at Appomattox. Number of entire armies Lee and Jackson captured? Zero.
-------------
"[The Southern] cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse” - Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Volume II
-------------
The evidence clearly shows that [Ulysses S. Grant] created the most auspicious record on racial equality and civil rights of any president from Lincoln to Lyndon B. Johnson. He also formulated some remarkably humane and advanced ideas on subjects ranging from federal Indian policy to public education. Given the limitations imposed on executive power by the Constitution, it is all the more remarkable that he acted as boldly as he did. So Grant’s full vindication-which will render him one of the greatest presidents of his era, if not of all American history-still awaits. Sean Wilentz, The Return of Ulysses newrepublic.com/article/72699/the-return-ulyses-s-grant
-------------
"He was the single most important figure behind the Reconstruction process in the South and presided over the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, and landmark civil rights legislation outlawing discrimination in public accommodation. The imperishable story of Grant's presidency was his campaign to crush the Ku Klux Klan, which tried to overturn the Civil War's outcome and restore the prior status quo." Ron Chernow, author of the "Grant." www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-success/ulysses-s-grant-won-the-civil-war-then-battled-for-civil-rights/
-------------
"Grant was the only president to support civil rights until Lyndon Johnson." www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2012/11/02/the-man-who-saved-the-union-hw-brands-talks-us-grant?page=2
-------------
Mark Twain said that U.S. Grant was "The greatest man I have ever had the privilege of knowing personally. And I have not known a man with a kinder nature or a purer character. He was called the Silent Man -- the Sphynx -- and he was that, in public, but not in private. There he was a fluent and able talker -- with a large sense of humor, and a most rare gift of compacting meaty things into phrases of stunning felicity." - Mark Twain "Frank Fuller and My First New York Lecture," published in 2009 in Who Is Mark Twain?
-------------
[The landmark achievement of U.S. Grant’s administration was his] effort to crush the Ku Klux Klan. Grant’s Justice Department brought three thousand (3,000) indictments against the Klan. His efforts to protect the African-American community, the fact that he became the most important president to the African-American community between Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson, this as a country is much bigger and more important story." - Ron Chernow, ruclips.net/video/-JCDwh_krQ4/видео.html
-------------
"Man proposes and God disposes. There are but few important events in the affairs of men brought about by their own choice." - Ulysses S. Grant. Military historian Ethan S. Rafuse of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, "My Earnest Endeavor": Grant Takes Command, 1864, The Kansas City Public Library, March 13, 2014, ruclips.net/video/MPgZnlbqpxY/видео.html
-------------
In some ways this is reflective of Grant’s generalship, his ability to accept that he may make plans but if the plans don’t work out, that’s just something that’s going to happen and he does not get flustered or flummoxed by this. His ability to adapt, to cope with problems as they come, not lose his cool and this is one of his great qualities as a general. - Military historian Ethan S. Rafuse of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, "My Earnest Endeavor": Grant Takes Command, 1864, The Kansas City Public Library, March 13, 2014, ruclips.net/video/MPgZnlbqpxY/видео.html
-------------
Grant: The Legacy of Ulysses S. Grant. ruclips.net/video/Km4K8S5RlxM/видео.html
-------------
Grant signed into law the most comprehensive civil rights legislation the United States would experience for almost a century. His administration essentially invented civil rights enforcement. He was the last U.S. President until Lyndon Johnson a century later to pass aggressive legislation protecting the civil rights and delivering the right to vote for African-Americans. "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith is one of the best biographies of U.S. Grant ever written. "Incredibly well researched with profound insights - especially the enormous and largely unrecognized contributions he fought for to advance civil rights during the era between Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. One can only wonder how reconstruction may have been different had he won a third term instead of the Garfield/Tilden outcome. amzn.to/3fnAaln
-------------
'Lincoln on Euclid, Slavery, Civil Rights and Equality', the beliefs he was killed for. ruclips.net/video/SPiw7bKwL2M/видео.html
-------------
According to historian Brooks Simpson, Grant was on "the right side of history". Simpson said, "[w]e now view Reconstruction ... as something that should have succeeded in securing equality for African-Americans, and we see Grant as supportive of that effort and doing as much as any person could do to try to secure that within realm of political reality." John F. Marszalek said, "You have to go almost to Lyndon Johnson to find a president who tried to do as much to ensure black people found freedom." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reputation_of_Ulysses_S._Grant, 4 March 2020
-------------
Grant sought during Reconstruction to protect the Civil Rights of African Americans in the South in a more sustained manner than other politicians of his day. In that respect, Grant comes across as a forceful and effective chief executive at a time of national retreat from the promise of racial justice. The same is true for Grant’s policy toward Native Americans in the West. The president’s “peace policy” looked to more equitable treatment of Indians in contrast to the callous exploitation of so many whites in and out of politics. www.enotes.com/topics/grant
-------------
Historian Jean Edward Smith, Ulysses S. Grant. Grant was magnanimous in victory. The Grant presidency is one of the most under appreciated and overlooked. Ushering in equality was one of Grant's chief accomplishments. Grant was a beautiful and influential writer. ruclips.net/video/seE4RPyb1uk/видео.html
-------------
"I don't underrate the value of military knowledge, but if men make war in slavish obedience to rules, they will fail." - Ulysses S. Grant, quoted in A History of Militarism: Romance and Realities of a Profession (1937) by Alfred Vagts, p. 27
-------------
A decorated war hero, Ulysses S. Grant was the U.S. Army's first four-star general and the first Gilded Age President to serve back-to-back terms. Though he struggled as a young cadet, Grant returned to the military after a string of civilian business failures. His successes on the battle field brought him a wave of popularity that swept him into the Presidency in 1868. Credited with maintaining stability in the era of Reconstruction and for fostering the continued unity of the nation, he is perhaps most remembered for his second term which was marred by financial scandals and an ineffective cabinet. In 1885, Grant died nearly broke, as a victim of a swindle. His memoirs were published posthumously by friend and literary giant, Mark Twain. Jean Edward Smith is a senior scholar in the History Department at Columbia University and professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto. He is the author of Grant, a 2002 Pulitzer Prize finalist, as well as biographies of General Lucius D. Clay (1990), John Marshall (1996), Franklin D. Roosevelt (2007), and most recently, Dwight D. Eisenhower (2012). FDR, his biography of Roosevelt, won the 2008 Francis Parkman Prize of the Society of American Historians for the best nonfiction book on an American theme published the previous year. He is presently at work on a biography of George W. Bush. No Businessman How President Grant Saved the Economy but Lost His Own Shirt, Flagler Museum, Jul 24, 2014 ruclips.net/video/2w3wLOW2Ea8/видео.html
-------------
In 1878, U.S Grant and his wife met with Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of the German Empire. One of the subjects they discussed was slavery’s role in the American Civil War. To Grant, Bismarck lamented, “What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so hard.”
Grant replied, “But it had to be done.”
“Yes,” Bismarck replied, “you had to save the Union, just as we had to save Germany.”
But Grant then added, “Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery.”
Bismarck persisted, “I suppose. However, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment.”
Grant did not relent. “We all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain on the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle…There had to be an end of slavery.” tinyurl.com/ybyd4a3m
-------------
The part about Johnson supporting civil rights is bullcrap. He didn't give a flip about civil rights and the only reason he signed the 1964 civil rights bill is because it had been approved by Congress and he knew it would make him look bad if he vetoed it. As he signed it he said "This'll keep those n#@*%rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years."
So far, he's been right.
IMO Grant was a drunk, a turd, and a hypocrite. He was not the military genius that Lee and Jackson were. He won a war of attiction with massively larger numbers and rescoures.
I didn't realise that independence was bull-shit. Tell that to the Founding Fathers. Tell that to the Scots. Tell that to the Catalans. Tell that to the Belgians. Need I go on?
Im a conservative, i see no reason to profit from a war and people who do so sicken me
Normally i side with republicans and oppose modern dems but both suck either way
Truer words have never been spoken than by General Jackson on the future of the US!!!!! And those prophetic words are becoming facts every single day.
we lost it all....
I can tell you right now that the last thing the Confederacy would of wanted would be to return to the UK. I'm speaking as a proud southerner and Texan. Confederates wanted freedom, not tyranny from royals. Back then, the Republicans were in wrong doing, but the Democrats of today are far worse than our modern Republicans. It doesn't matter what party you're from, it matters on the individuals running the party at the time.
This had nothing to do with his hatred for Republicans. 3 men had deserted and where caught
the Confederacy's claimed goal of "freedom" and "independence" is great. I would support a second CSA IF IT HELD TO THOSE IDEALS AND APPLIED TO ALL. meaning all men, women, children, regardless of race, creed, religion, be treated as equal. But their defense of slavery is why I will always detest the Confederacy
This movie is clearly neo-confederate propaganda addressing all the worst awful bits about those people and twisting it around to make them look good.
They didnt care about freedom, not for the slaves anyway.
I think I can compare France to Virginia, because both are of rights sovereign countries. The fact that the EU and the US are not 100% identical is irrelevant. Both are unions which sovereign countries joined. Both are unions whose members are by rights sovereign countries. You can no more deny Virginia's right to sovereignty than France's.
Jackson's first loyalty by rights was to his country. He kept that loyalty.
Also, in defending the South, he *was* supporting the Constitution...
Sorry dude, the states were never sovereign countries; they were colonies of Great Britain and parts of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. And btw, the preamble doesn't read "We the states..." it reads "We the people of the United States of America..."
So prophetic
This movie gives the most inaccurate representation of the south.
*accurate**
Kind of ironic that you say everyone is to blame (a fair sentiment) but then go on to say that the blame ultimately rests with Africans.
That's quite stupid.
Jackson was the most brilliant commander in the conflict surpassing lee, grant, Sherman, Albert Sydney johnston etc....he was arguably the most brilliant army commander on earth at the time. He died at the absolute height of his career. Would we have 2 nations had he lived? Who knows, its one of those great unanswered questions tgst makes History fascinating.
No doubt about that. Lee's one great fault was his love of the European "frontal assault." It cost him a great victory in the Seven Days Battles. Jackson has weened Lee off the frontal assault beginning with Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Jackson brought something to the civil war that neither side practiced much..."Manuevering." Jackson hated the frontal assault. He believed it to be nothing more than "intentional suicide." When Jackson was killed at Chancellorsville, Lee returned to his Achilles Heal In his very next battle at Gettysburg. The frontal assault on the Union positions at Little Round, and Culp's Hill cost Lee dearly. General Hoods suggestion to Longstreet about getting into the Union lines on Little Round Top from the rear was solid tactically. Hood was a disciple of Jackson's no frontal assault policy. Jackson had whipped McDowell and Pope in the Valley Campaign using manuever. Had it been Jackson making that request to Lee instead of Hood, it probably would have occurred. Lee, with Jackson gone, reverted back to the frontal attack on July 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and the results were devastating for his Army.
Never again would Lee take the offensive. Never again would he invade the North. The morale of the Army of Northern Virginia was still high after Gettysburg. But lines of communication were cut. Supply lines were stretched to the limit, the Union controlled just about every mile of train tracks, and recruiting efforts were exhausted. After The Battle of the Wilderness, Lee's only options were a siege in and around Richmond, or try and link up with General Johnston. For the South after Gettysburg, the war was lost. It could be delayed, and it was, but not won. He could join with Johnston, but he couldn't. The Union saw to that. All that was left was surrender, and his army got closer and closer to Appomatox Courthouse and the McClean home. The war would end in April 1865. Lee and Grant would meet to discuss terms. These terms given by Grant, were very generous as Lee said. He accepted them and the long bloody civil war came to an end.
Do you by chance call your dog by hollering, "Oh Belvedere, come here boy!" Drop the Southern gentleman act. The antebellum South was a fetid and festering society, and is a black mark on our national history. And no, I'm not a Yankee, I'm from Texas, so spare me the obligatory screed about carpetbaggers and liberals. God bless Sherman for burning the Old South to the ground so we could start over.
What relevance does this have to modern Southern Nationalism? Are we seriously the only people to have gotten beyond 1860? Why can nobody else figure this out?
@AlabamaSoldier thats true, im a proud southerner( from south carolina) and i despise when i talk to people from other states they assume im in the klan because im from the deep south. no one should trample on anothers heritage thats wrong
Yeah, don't trample on my rights to own slaves! Down with the feds!!!!
@@mmjahink or they can go back to their home country and quit their whining.
@@cassconner6023 You misunderstand the point of being a progressive society. Your old man rhetoric is a thing of the past, dinosaur.
@@mmjahink I’m 26 douchebag.
Of course he hated abolishinists. He was a Major General, commanding officer, 2nd Corps of the Army of Virginia. What he is referring to is how he must maintain discipline within the ranks.
The South wasn't about small government. In the Declarations of the Causes of Secession a good deal of their complaints revolve around the Federal Government not doing enough to impede the attempts of northern states to resist the Fugitive Slave Law.
Why were they looking to establish their own country? They said why when they left: Slavery.
And no, Lincoln was deeply morally opposed to slavery and had been his entire life. Any serious history of the man makes that abundantly clear.
As much as I like Stephen Lang’s performance here (in fact it’s the only entertaining thing in this movie), this is not really an accurate portrayal of Stonewall as he was. The real SJ was more soft spoken and socially awkward. He definitely was a thin-looking gentleman like he is shown here, but he didn’t give many charismatic speeches and his words didn’t really inspire his men. In fact he didn’t really have any strong relationships with his soldiers, and the men serving under him all thought he was odd, and even a tad crazy. What Stephen Lang portrays here is a very idealized version of the man, pulled from myth and legends that spread after his death.
Stonewall was not the anti social introvert you’re believing him to be. He was much, much more quirky for sure in real life than what this movie portrays. However, very much so he was charismatic. You can be both. Look at David Lee Roth for Christ sake. Probably the best living example today. Besides, stuff like that is mainly subjective most of the time. He was stern in his voice, maybe not loud but stern and where did you hear that about the soldiers? His men were in love and in awe of him.
@@Wadiyatalkinabeet_ I don’t doubt that as a general and a respected member of the upper class he would be able to compose himself and adhere to the standards of southern society. I’m just saying that it didn’t come naturally to him like it seems to do for Stephen Lang in this movie. He remains the same both in public and behind closed doors.
Why did Lincoln not want it to expand? He supported a "free soil" stance in the territories and did not want slave labor undercutting free white labor there. No humanitarian reason. Why was secession a crisis? The South was looking to establish their own country just as had taken place under the original secession document, the Declaration of Independence. For the "other side".. the anti-centralized, anti government taught Jeffersonian side, read, Lincoln Unmasked, by Tom Dilorenzo for starters.
"we loose...we loose...we loose....OUR SLAVES!" should have been the right sentence
Stonewall Jackson was a man of great character, but his one flaw from todays point of view would be seen as his greatest admirable trait. That would be his devotion to the Bible. He was a devote Christian, and took the words of the Bible literally. This included Leviticus 25:44-46, which condoned Slavery. People today who use the bible as a crutch to support their arguments against others are unable to move into the future, and get past bigotry and hate.
They also loose their slaves
Less than 6% of southerners owned slaves moron.
The United Kingdom had no truck with slavers.
In 1848 Lincoln supported an amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state. In 1853 the Illinois Black Code WAS extended to a "complete prohibition" against black immigration into the state! Lincoln supported a myriad laws and regulations in his career in Illinois that deprived the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship....Yeah right 1819...10 years old...right...wasn't he building log cabins about then too...
''If we lose, we lose our country, and independence'' except if you are part of the 2/3rd of such country who was a slave, for them, losing meant freedom.
Nonsense. Lincoln believed slavery was only "on the way out" if it could be contained to the states where it already resided. Secessionists agreed with him; it's why they seceded. Once they did so they felt that they had preserved slavery for all time. If you're not gonna read the history, I'm not sure why you're going to participate in the debate. They weren't exactly coy in 1861 about why they were seceding.
And yes, unilateral secession from a constitutional union is unconstitutional.
I like how he says that, but then you look at actual history and realize most of what he said happened to the Confederates. They went home with pensions and lived happily ever after.
Yeah because if they didn’t receive a thing from the government the Civil War would’ve just continued and turned into brutal gorilla warfare and possibly the first glimpses of semi Trench Warfare long before WW1 until the population of the South quite literally had no sizable population of men of age to fight
The only problem with ricknati's assertion is the south was not a country. It was a civil war with armed rebellion. That is the essential fact. Further to the point is Britain outlawed slavery in, or around 1830. No country recognized the southern rebel states. The rebels were brave and courageous individuals. They also betrayed their oath to the constitution and that is a traitor's act.
A "civil war" is one in which two sides fight to control one nation. Such was not the case here. The south wanted to form their own nation...which they did in fact do. It was called a "civil war" to make it seem legal. It was a rebellion, that is true. As it was when the American Colonies rebelled against England. We must remember two things: Slavery was legal in the U.S. and there was no clear constitutional prohibition for secession in 1860. So, who was the true aggressor? If the reason for the war was to end slavery, why we're the slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky freed before hostilities started?
@@carlcrisp8700 what a pile a shite.
Untrue. Slaves who lived in the home (such as butlers) often lived rather well. Better than some poor whites, in fact (especially when compared to the indentured servitude and child-labour of Yankee industry)
Great actor
Republicans were more liberal back then and Democrats were more Conservative. But they were not the complete opposite of what we know today.
but he was okay with slave traders and slave owners? That's an interesting ethical POV.
It is, however, important to note that Lincoln, from the beginning of the secession crisis, was never willing to cave to Southern demands regarding slavery in the territories. Was he willing to let slavery exist if it saved the Union? Sure. But was he willing to allow slavery to expand and become permanent for the Union? Never. He was only willing to tolerate slavery where it already existed, with the belief that it would die with time as long as it was contained.
Lincoln cared VERY much.
That argument ignores the difference between African slavery and slavery as practiced in the antebellum South. African slavery (much like that of several pre-columbian native tribes) was a vastly different beast, much more similar to indentured servitude. It wasn't uncommon for families to allow their children to marry their slaves, and slavery was almost never for life.
Compare that to the South, where you had race based slavery for life, with children being sold off to Louisiana.
Micael Kohler represents a pseudo religious orthodoxy. Breaking entrenched paradigms is never easy, especially when academic careers and grants are based on the "party line." To totally dismiss the arguments, when I present the "other side" to his orthodoxy, sums up his objectivity. I used to think like him when I had a cursory understanding of history based on what the Federal Government taught me. Start with Pauline Maier's, Ratification, and find any discussion of a "perpetual union."
What a respectable rebel... but a rebel none the less and he got his just reward. God save the Union.
@Halfmoon26 Yea... so... I've since had my opinion changed on this. I regret this comment.
Seceede. Free the south
Did I say that I believed one race was above the other? No. I explained to you that this was the prevailing belief in times past. My claim is that no two men are created equal. We are inherently unequal beings. One is given greater intelligence, another greater ability. One is fast, one is slow. One is weak, one is strong.
It's called finding the root cause. Do you understand the difference between a murderer and an accessory to murder? Similar principle. The ones responsible for actually *enslaving* the blacks were their fellow blacks. The Yankee slave-traders and Southern plantation owners can be seen as "accessories" but are not ultimately responsible for the enslavement itself.
What a hateful slanderous political message to put in the movie clip description section.
I love civil war history. This movie is civil war mythology. Using it to make a point about current affairs is the proverbial building of a house on sand. Before we get too carried away with Gen. Jackson and his condemnation of republican profiteers, let's remember that there were scads of profiteers who were democrats. And as for taking instruction from Jackson, he sold out his country over the right of one man to enslave another ... not exactly the moral high ground. Let's just leave it at the fact that the Democrats and Republicans of 1863 have next to nothing to do with those of 2020.
In Gods and Generals, Robert Lee in 1863 at Gettysburg said there are no more cowards or deserters, there all gone 🤔🤔🤔
Such a shame this performance was lost in this bloated mess of a movie. Also having a speech attacking war profiteers whilst leading an army defending a slave economy is about as cringe as you can get. It's like having a Nazi general say he hopes Germany win so the communists don't lock up all the protestants.
To this day, those who hold power are the ones still making money off of blood, sweat, and tears while everyone else suffers.
And so shall it be, until the Common people find it within themselves to turn to God and see honor in life, no revolution is worth the blood and sorrow if those who win are as godless as those before them, no price is fit the human suffering unless purchased for the glory of God.
That's not the other "side". DiLorenzo is history made up by a hack who's trying to use history to talk about modern day politics. He's not a historian, and he's actually used in history grad programs as a good example of what a scholar shouldn't do (take stuff totally out of context, make a thesis and bend the facts to fit your thesis instead of letting the facts form your thesis, etc).
If you got your "facts" about Lincoln from DiLorenzo, just forget them, as they're almost certainly wrong.
Can someone explain the context here?
Yeah, somehow Confederates are good guys for decrying the big banks (read: Northern States) while the North...well, they're the bad guys. They wanted to impose their will on the South!
And I'm a southerner too. I just don't define myself primarily by my region, 'cause welcome to the 21st century. Irish used to kill each other over clan or county. Not every tradition is worth keeping. We have ancestors who fought for slavery and white supremacy. Thankfully, they lost. Get over it, and move on.
A question to ask is would Gen. Jackson, being a good Christian man, support the democrats of today?
No he wouldn't. He probably would have been Libertarian.
Which is why it is ridiculous for modern "conservatives" to try to claim the Lincoln legacy.
GusTheWriter agreed, I’m conservative and i don’t want the Lincoln legacy. He was a piece of shit tyrant who was the first imperial president. He committed countless unconstitutional acts against the southern states. The problem with a lot of modern republicans when arguing about this topic is they don’t realize that Lincoln was a tyrant and that the South were in the right. They were fighting for their independence from an overtaxing and overreaching unconstitutional government. Same as the Founding Fathers. Since they fail to realize that and that Lincoln didn’t give two shits about the slaves, they try to claim his legacy.
For the record, this is an argument I see a LOT from neo-confederates, and it's simply nauseating (and wildly ahistorical. "Yankees" were pretty minor in the slave trade, which was dominated by European powers. Some Southerners, however, were still engaging in an illegal trans-Atlantic slave trade up to the start of the war, and South Carolina was talking about reopening it after secession.). The whole tone of the argument is, "I didn't want to do evil. They MADE me. They FORCED me to profit."
Hello? The antebellum South was one of the wealthiest societies on earth.
Instead of assuming that people who identified with the title(republican/democrat) then believed the same thing as those who identify with the same title now, you should actually study history to find what the people believed. You would find that republicans then were more similar to the democrats of today and that the democrats then are more similar to the republicans of today. It would also benefit you to know the definitions of the words "republic" and "democracy".
They all deserved a much better.movie
Recommend reading the Official Confederate Records of the Rebellion, as well as Stonewall Jackson's Reverend 's accounts. Sadly, Ted Turner (Democrat) has put his $ and his opinion on history. Southern Historical Society, the original series written by Veterans, as well as "Under Both Flags," written by veterans do not support the lines in this scene.
Highly recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War."
No, just segregation. Even today.
Birds of a feather flock together friend. The lazy dont mix with the hard workers. Its not about skin color
WTF? That's a really, really bizarre argument. You're saying that the Constitutional definition for what constitutes the crime of treason means that the United States government has no power to put down a rebellion against itself? "Them" is standard terminology at the time; it was considered grammatically correct to refer to the United States as a plural. If they had said "levying war against her" would you be saying, "AHA! It's only treason if they attack a woman!"?
The CSA, like the USA, was a union of sovereign States. It was merely a less restrictive one. But remember that it was formed *after* seven States had seceded and were operating as completely independent countries. When they formed the CSA, like with the USA, they voluntarily sacrificed small amounts of individual sovereignty, but with the full understanding that said sovereignty could be resumed at any time.
As for Clarksburg, it is not a sovereign State, and so cannot secede.
Established? Well, in our territory, under the St. George's Cross. It continued under Union Jack, Stars and Stripes, & Stars and Bars. (Saint Andrew's Cross doesn't appear on CSA flag)
Taxed? Not aware of any slave tax, except local or state taxes.
Protected? All of the above, but mostly under the Stars and Bars, considering the entire country was founded to do just that.
Are you trying to convince me that the free, northern states were more pro-slavery than the slave south? Really?
I am a Proud Southerner and it will probably surprise you that I think slavery is wrong. But answer me this Mr. Thang...under which flag was the institution of slavery established, taxed, and protected? Was it the Saint Andrews Cross or the Stars and Stripes? A brief answer will do quite well; I have no interest in your pseudo-intellectual essays thru which you seek to establish your scholarly superiority which is, at face value, mundane at best!
This movie is as well made as its predecessor Gettysburg, with its decent battle scenes and the actors bringing the past and its characters pretty much back to life; and it reaches almost the level of epic poems or tragic plays, being the eulogy of Stonewall Jackson, whose untimely dead may have caused the South to lose to war; and of course in it the Southerners are showed as brave and pious folks defending their homeland against the treacherous banking lackeys from the North.
But some of that was true.
It was a rich man's war fought by poor men.
They don't look the least bit like people from the 19th century.
The South shall rise again.
everything switched w Reagan. The old South was Dems until
they were smugling burbon probably
...and so it was. So it came to be. Right now everything is sitting at a great crossroads. Which way to travel?
Also, teaching them to read and write was necessary for his purposes in giving them a proper religious education.
The only slave he made literate who did not attend his sunday school was his uncles slave who he taught to read and write in exchange for goods the slave was in possesion of.
Nor can you blame secession on Lincoln. Most of the states seceded before he was even inaugurated, and despite him desperately repeating that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it was. Southern newspapers either ignored him altogether or just made up pretty much the opposite statements. Quotes made by far more radical Republicans and abolitionists were printed as Lincoln's.
The fireeaters pulled a fast one on the South, and they fell for it.
I also continue to find the neo-confederate "slavery would have died out soon enough" flippant and unserious. Why should we conclude that slavery didn't have long to live in an independent CSA when those who led the charge to secession were talking about eternal slavery and a slave empire extending south (some saying as far as Tierra del Fuego)? I find the argument entirely unpersuasive and even ahistorical.
Unilateral secession was always unconstitutional. Even many fire-eaters thought so.
Got a source for any of that besides Tom DiLorenzo (who I don't regard as credible, and who has been thoroughly debunked by several scholars.)? The history I know of Lincoln in Illinois is of a guy who didn't publicly challenge the hugely popular Black Codes, but didn't publicly do anything to support them either. You write as if Lincoln was instrumental in their passage; doubtful, as they were a Democratic darling. In 1853 Lincoln wasn't even in politics, but was just practicing law again.
You had a supreme court ruling 1857, that said slaves were property. Immoral, but in league with the thinking of the times and the Corwin amendment (1861), passed by 2/3rd's of the Republican "Northern" congress and ratified by 3 "Northern" States, including Abe's Illinois. Rather than killing 750,000 people, would it not have made more sense to try to get it overturned in the future "peacefully" mean while obeying the law of the land.
Lincoln wasn't even pushing for emancipation when he was first elected, as he didn't believe he had the Constitutional authority to do so. The South, however, seceded to preserve the future of slavery. When a country is formed specifically to preserve slavery in perpetuity, expecting that country to abolish slavery a few years later seems pretty naive, if not outright idiotic. The CSA made it impossible for states to become free states at any time in the future right in their constitution.
Soon many sighs, it's the little things that make this movie so awkwardly boring and dull
I don't know why people even have political parties, I for example think Republicans care about the rich sometimes but i still vote Ron Paul. political parties are what keeps people from really thinking, for example your dad was a republican, well your more then likely going to be one to but if he voted for one person you could vote for another so you wouldnt be influenced just because your dad was one