@Harvey Dustin You mean the most survivalable tank of the war, the most reliable tank of the war, one of the only ones to see every theater, the tank that later variants could quite happily take of Tigers/Panthers even through their frontal armor, and also proved itself superior to the T-34 during the Korean War?
@Harvey Dustin Red Army tank crew members were desperate in getting M4 tanks because they were having somewhere around the T-34 in terms of weapon s and armor, but far more comfortable. About the "sameness" - consider looking in Wiki for T-34-76 and T-34-85. They are exact "bigger gun and increased armor" kind of upgrades.
@@razerfish While rape and murder did happen (it's inevitable in a conflict where one army marches through another country, even today) it wasn't common and he didn't allow it. Its not as if he said "men,ill have you one extral dollar for every child beat, woman raped and murder commited".
@@atfyoutubedivision955 His reputation might have been sanitized since i read up on ole Sherman. You get better PR when you're the victor, but there's still enough about him to show him for the monster he was. He wanted to inflict terror on civilians and a type of total war that they South would remember for 50 years. He allowed his men to burn homes, farms, and kill livestock of civilians in their path, which were often occupied by women and children or even slaves. This is a war crime and even more unacceptable when done to fellow Americans. Seems like wikipedia cleanses Sherman's reputation because liberals seem to accept war crimes against those horrible "traitorous" Southerners. I wonder if they'll be so accepting of Sherman's treatment of the Indians he fought against. I have a feeling they won't.
"Looting houses and reveling in people's misfortune is the terrible, lowest form of terrible act. We're trying to have a nice clean fight so we can continue to own and trade black people".
Well put - Sherman was brutal, but it pretty much breaks down to the point that Sherman did what he did to people seceding because they wanted slavery to be a thing. And very brutal form of slavery too. The CSA was a nightmarishly unjust state.
I love the line in Union Dixie that describes the South as the place where “cotton’s king and men are chattel”. Seems to me there was a country on that continent that hated kings 😎
@@vidurbutalia2130 "Cotton's king" is referring to "King Cotton", a term used by southerners to refer to their economic policy. It has nothing to do with a hatred of kings, it's just using the enemy's own rhetoric against them, which is a classic propaganda tactic
@@looney9105 Jackson was born in Waxhaws between the borders of North and South Carolina, however his permanent residence was in Tennessee. So he is a Southerner.
@@looney9105 Andrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws region on the border of North and South Carolina. The exact location of his birth is uncertain, and both states have claimed him as a native son; Jackson himself maintained he was from South Carolina.
@@firebird4491 Of all the Union Generals I've read of, Sherman seemed the most to understand the hell of modern war over the horizon. While Grant was throwing handfuls of men at Southern defenses, Sherman was trying to get around them. Can't say too much for Sherman but I can say that at least.
The North had superior agricultural capabilities compared to the South due to their larger population and higher level of industrialization which led to more efficient farms.
@@JollyOldCanuck You can't feed an army on cotton and tobacco. Plus the majority of the midwest was in northern hands which is a breadbasket for the world.
My great x5 grandfather fought for the Confederacy. Upon his return at the end of the War, he found his farm had been usurped from him. Not by Yankees, but by fellow Southerners. Can confirm your points.
The South did surprisingly well for being so outmatched. I think they actually more union troops than they had killed.The number I saw at the end was 300K killed to 200K, but I see all kinds of figures about total death so I'm not sure of the final tallies.
@@dynamicworlds1 Also mass immigration which allowed for fresh recruits often right off the boat from Ireland. The South would have been better off fighting an insurgency I think, yet they did much better than you'd expect. They killed more union troops than the union killed of theirs.
After the war, Sherman and Johnston became such good friends that Johnston, as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral, refused to wear a hat in the bitter cold out of respect. Johnston then came down with pneumonia and died a few weeks later. *tl;dr: Even in death, Sherman killed a confederate.*
Lol that's kind of sweet.. Same thing happened in the scopes trial. The two lawyers battling it out over evolution vs. Creationism became life long friends. They often drank together.
@@willworkswood3215 Johnston was so dedicated to defending the CSA that he returned to lead its armies after taking a bullet at Seven Pines. How amusing to see someone calling him a boot licker from the safety of their computer screen.
Interesting that they Confederate defenders get mad about the raping of Southern women like it's an unspeakable and horrible crime (and yes it is), but don't say anything about the raping of black and enslaved women.
nah not even just the explicit rape, they had fucking breeding farms man, which yes, technically rape but most of the women probably wouldn't have called it as so as the farms took women from birth raised them and told them that if they had enough kids they could be free, you'd have to have 15-20 kids before freedom was given though, that is the type of shit we do to animals we farm and they did it to other humans, how the fuck am I supposed to care when they bring up southerners being raped but they don't care about the literal breeding farms for slaves, it's selective care and I simply don't care about their arguments, whine all you want that a few of your women were raped cause you started a war, those women got to exist happy normal lives their whole life up to it meanwhile the south has literal farms for girls to be enslaved and mass raped and I'm to care for the argument of a person who only cares about one? I wanna say, I'm not saying Idc they were raped, that is shitty, and those who did it are condemnable, but it's crocodile tears to care about one which is incredibly minor if compared (which we shouldn't, comparing these things is mostly irrelevant but the reality is the farms were worse) when I see southererners crying and talking about all the slaves who were raped and put into breeding farms etc then I'll believe that they actually care that women were raped, until then to me it's just another talking point they are throwing out they could care less that humans actually experienced that shit.
Well remember, from what I can garner from peoples arguments are that they recognize slavery is wrong, but this war wasn’t about slavery so there’s no point in revisiting the horrors of this clearly bad thing. But these poor white women who may or may not have been raped in the name of states rights is a tragedy. How could these poor women be subjected to such horror for simply wanting states rights, regardless of what rights they were concerned about keeping. Did I mention states rights? I may have forgotten to…….STATES RIGHTS!!!
"The sinews of war are infinite money." ~Cicero It's almost like having more resources than the opponent has been one of the single most helpful factors in winning wars throughout all of human history xD
@@kirkoscircus personally I liked the part were Atun-Shei pulled a gun to Confederate Atun-Shei for saying that Sherman was only good for burning the houses of widows. Almost made me feel sorry for the slavery apologist, almost. Your line is a great line though.
@@bbyjesus69 I can't get over the fact the leader of the most racist group in the US is literally called a 'grand wizard'. Like broooo...I'd hang myself if I unironically called myself a grand wizard.
well tbh, not ALL of southerners were slave owners but that didn't stop sherman or his boys, no im not a southerner I just have common sense, slaves were a comodity, the average working dirt poor southerner couldn't afford them but they were still affected, a war crime is a war crime, regardless if union or confederate forces did it.@@CorePathway
I guess my favorite Sherman quote was to a Columbia, SC woman who cried hysterically that he was to blame for its burning. Sherman denied ordering it but then said, "your husbands and sons started the fire when they fired on Ft. Sumpter. It's just finally caught up with you."
In first of all, English is not my native language, but I hope you understand. My favorite Sherman joke is this one. What is the difference between the CSA and Nazi Germany? It took more than one Sherman to defeat Nazi Germany.
@@Hunt-nu1pq it is. it’s just him going into union uniform saying his lines for the union guy. Then him going into his confederate uniform and doing his lines. then he edits its to make it look like a convo. i think at least
@@jameseverett5904 The problem with that statement is that there was no set process for secession. The constitution was basically a contract that binds all states to the Union. You wouldn't be able to null it without the consent of both parties. There's also the fact that the south acted like rebels rather than a sovereign entity when they attacked federal buildings and forts.
@@jameseverett5904 1. It was a contract between a state and the union. The U.S constitution. You are using technicalities for no good reason, but since you like using them : Article 7: _The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In WITNESS whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names_ 2. Even if the 10th amendment did apply to seceding, it wouldn't have i the south's case. Article 1 section 8: _the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions_
@@jameseverett5904 1. Article 3 section 3: _Treason against the United States, shall consist of levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court._ The confederacy raided Union facilities; would this not be levying war against them. Even if they seceded, they still willfully provided casus bellis. 2. No, the constitution was specifically between the states and the union. Why do you think that this particular contract is still valid today? The constitution was ratified by *states* it wasn't between senators or governors, but between states. The federal government proposed it, and the states ratified it. ps: I'm a Mississippian.
@@thewrustywrench21 To be fair, if you asked the Japanese why they did that, they probably would point out how fast they were able to take that massive amount of territory without having to worry about little things like war crimes.
To compare what the Imperial Japanese Army did to the people of Nanjing to what the Union did to the Confederacy is like comparing a compound fracture to a scraped knee
@@marknewton6984 you seem to be confused. We are discussing Sherman not Nathan Bedford Forest. Now Forest killed Black Union troops after they surrendered and founded the KKK.
Yeah, the Soviets lost up to around 15% of their total population in both military and civilian casualties in WWII. 20 million people is one of the lower estimates. The loss was so dramatic that for decades the Soviets had an actual tax for not having children in an attempt to regrow their population. The Confederates didn't have anything close to that percentage in the entire civil war, let alone just Sherman's activities.
The worse one in my opinion was the way they absolutely downplay the Japanese offensive into China. It’s one of the least talked about parts of the war, despite having some of the biggest armies in the entire war.
@@nukclear2741 That'll happen when nobody involved is white. I think this silence is one of the big reasons why everyone considers nuking Japanese cities a heinous war crime; while not giving two shits about what we did to Germany.
Pretty sure anyone who thinks that what Sherman’s boys did in the South is worse than the Japanese in East Asia or the Germans in Russia hasn’t read a damn thing about Nanking, the Eastern Front, or just WW2 in general.
or the history of Asia in the 30s, honestly a lot of the crimes in the second world war happened before with more regularity and scale than people realize.
NSFL - to anyone who thinks the Union soldiers were crueler to the South than Japan was to other nations in WWII, look up Unit 731. even as someone who's partially Japanese, it's... inexcusable.
@@ArchOwl Or the Bataan Death March. Unit 731 is chilling and makes the nazi experiments look like a fucking kid's party, but the Death March of Bataan and the Rape of Nanking were absolute atrocities and they fuck up Chinese x Japanese relationships to this day. EVEN NAZIS when faced with the abhorent siege on Nanking went "Jesus Christ, you idiots are going too far."
@Harvey Dustin it was passed by congress not ratified Lincoln supported it cause he wanted to prevent the rest of the south from secceding and escalating the situation he want to abolish slavery but he supported it as a last act hoping to repeal it later
Another radical California Supremacist I see. The East is.....Beast. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont etc. in the summertime will haunt your dreams forever calling you back. And during the winter, so beautiful it hurts.
@Razorgeist to be fair it wouldn't surprise me if the dogs were specifically trained to attack them, so I could imagine it being a self-defense or security measure on the part of the former slaves
The fact Johnny Reb has a semi-realistic, panicked, silent reaction after being threatened at gunpoint by Billy Yank definitely shows that this guy can do a lot more talented stuff.
The Union army developed the tactic of mass destruction in ga and South Carolina . Then they employed the same against the Indians ! Talk about war crimes Custer was king of it !
@@brucewhitehead2808 civilian casualties are a certainty for a losing nation that has been invaded. While some war crimes were very well committed, it brought the war to an end sooner. The real question is why do some doubt the necessity of Sherman’s March? He effectively scattered multiple Confederate forces and took many valuable resources for Union supply
"If Stonewall Jackson had been in charge, the south would have won the Civil War in weeks" Gotta love when people treat reality like a game of Risk, or Civilization, or HOI, as if Jackson had some kind of crazy OP Passive buff that made him win more.
Well Jackson was much more competent than many northern generals and was only ever defeated once in a campaign he ultimately won but he couldn’t win the war by himself
Most of Jackson's success was down to his superior knowledge of the local geography over his Union opponents in every battle he fought without that advantage his performance was unremarkable. Frankly what really did the south in was US Grant. His competence as a field commander combined with his masterful eye for strategy doomed the confederacy the moment he was given command of the union army.
@@Terminalsanity No one in the South really had a strategy for winning the war other than hoping the North to get tired of fighting. Lee and Jackson both won some impressive victories but neither really had a mind for grand strategy. They're in good company, though: Hannibal had the same fault.
Bruce Tucker Except even though Hannibal was undone by his own Senate’s lack of support, he ran wild across Italy for about fifteen years. Lee and Jackson managed to stave off defeat by about two Anyways, Hannibal was still far more impressive as a strategist than your comparison implies - the Alpine march, turning Rome’s allies against her, making alliances with Macedon and Gallic tribes, etc. Hannibal was really screwed due to the failure/unwillingness by the Carthaginian Senate to support the Italian war, instead sending reinforcements to Spain and attempting to conquer Sardinia and Corsica when they did make an effort
People often talk about Sherman’s march to the sea and tend to just start with Him already in Atlanta. This however ignores how he got there in the first place. Sherman spent weeks outmaneuvering and out flanking the confederate army forcing them to repeatedly give ground to his troops all throughout Georgia with minimal union losses. This campaign is still studied and taught at military academies worldwide. Sherman was arguably one of the most talented tacticians of the war.
Also strategic war if not total war became the (un?)official motto of all wars until VietNam, wich is a horrible thing but ig still shows that he was extremely influential as a general
honestly, people underestimate generals like Grant and Sherman because they were not great tacticians, they were great strategists, and there's a big difference. Lee was a great tactician, he was an expert at manuvering armies and controlling a battlefield... he won plenty of battles, but had no idea how to win the war. At Gettysburg he should have disengaged and marched towards Washington after the first day, but his focus was on the battle and not the objective. Sherman? mediocre tactician. certainly not the worst the Union had, but not the best when the armies actually clashed. What he was good at was staying focused on his objective, He wasn't there to win battles, he was there to be the biggest nuisance he could for as long as he could stay supplied. If southern armies wanted to chase him around Georgia instead of stopping Grants push on Richmond, he'd already won in every way that counted. You can't make a movie about that kind of general, but that's the people that win you wars.
Petrie W I agree that Lee should have disengaged after the first day of Gettysburg, but how exactly would he have moved towards Washington? The roads he would have used to disengage led away from Washington, and Meade, who turned out to be a pretty good general himself, was very nicely positioned between Lee and DC.
Connor Kennesaw Mountain was an absolute bloodbath that Sherman undertook primarily to get his name in the newspaper. He also repeatedly ignored Thomas, when Thomas’ advice would have ended the campaign in half the time. Grant was a great general but his biggest mistake was underestimating Thomas and not cutting him loose with an independent command. Thomas was twice the general Sherman was...Thomas never lost a battle, and Sherman never won a battle.
@@petriew2018 Thats a very solid assessment on the difference between tacticians and strategists. I do disagree about the movie thing, though. We've seen so many movies about a single battle or several battles, but how entertaining would it be to have a movie about Sherman's march from the view of a Union soldier where Sherman says "oh, the enemy is there, so lets move away from there and cause mischief elsewhere." and even make it comedic and have it both poke fun at people who think killing the enemy is the only way to win a war by showing Sherman burning down the plantations, factories and railways saying "a bullet will kill a man, a cannon will kill a line of men. These fires killed the confederate army." Too many hollywood movies cover a single battle, fantasy setting movies try to copy LOTR, how many have confused guys marching with a leader telling them things like "if war was just about killing the other person, then nations would settle on a place to meet and duke it out" and be done with it already." think it would be a welcome subversion and politely poke fun at people who fanboy over generals that are good tacticians and cite battles as the relevant information in their resume but not thing like how they solved logistics issues or caused problems for others. Make it clear that Grant was the better man to lead the nation's forces compared to Robert E. Lee who is good at conducting a battle rather than a war.
He had to stop because the Confederates gave up which was quite wise of them to do given that the heartland of the South was occupied and badly ravaged.
@bastiat4855 idk pretty sure my family’s not gonna be fighting for the rights to enslave people, so shouldn’t be an issue. If it us they have it coming
I agree but it doesn't help if most southerners remember the confederacy as a system that "stood up to oppression." When really they were the ones oppressing.
No. If they want to pretend that they didn't lose the Civil War but rather the War of Northern Aggression or that their loss gave them the right to act like Southholes towards everyone they deem necessary then I'll pretend the Civil War didn't properly end. Because obviously it didn't.
Man, I love the notion that one of the worst human tragedies in history, a series of events characterized by wanton slaughter intended at wiping out an entire group of people, an occupation which wiped out a quarter of Byelorussia’s entire population, campaigns which included large scale and widespread massacres and deportations aimed purely the annihilation of Slavic Jews, Romani, and many others, is at all comparable to Sherman’s March, a military action which destroyed a series of military infrastructural complexes in the south. Mistreatment of civilians occurred of course but I find the idea that nazis in Eastern Europe and Sherman in Atlanta are even in the same zip code, no forget zip code, the same galaxy, absolutely absurd.
Like an idiot, I bought Bloodlands years ago which is industrial genocide in Eastern Europe during WWII. It's a very depressing book. Modern people who have guns and are just itching for a fight because they disagree with others are just nuts.
Ikr? My family lived through that war (they were Jewish, most either got caught by the Nazis or fled into Siberia) and the brutality of the Nazis was purely genocidal. Sherman's March to the Sea is always presented as this unbridled terror and bloodshed against civilians, even in NJ classrooms. I genuinely didn't know about a lot of this before watching this video
@@kadecase7470 @Dad Ee I actually took a history course in college that was essentially structured around entire book. It's *fine* as far as pop history goes, but it isn't held in the highest esteem by actual historians. He emphasizes the geographical point more than he should, has some trouble with numbers, uses some anecdotes as more concrete than he should, throws in some fairly strange offhand conclusions, and does a good amount equivocating between the USSR and Nazi Germany (including the conflation of the Holodomor with the Holocaust which is pretty Not Great). It does, however, do an effective job of conveying the scale of destruction and death, which is overall the point of the book. If that's what you're looking for and can treat it as more of a guided tour of destruction than a comprehensive historical analysis, then it's probably worth a read. Just don't treat it as historical gospel.
The idea that "slaves had it good" is STILL prevalent in cities like St Louis. i've personally heard well educated people with fancy degrees talk about how "slaves didn't have it so bad." it's pretty sad. have a good education doesn't save you from ignorance
Yea, its fucking awful. I live near St. Louis and a lot of the rural / Small towns still wave confederate flags even though we're literally in a Union state. Its awful.
like bruh I can concede that SOME slaves had actually "good" masters who gave them educations, proper housing, proper food, never beat them, and didn't overwork them... but even regardless no man should EVER own another and neither should a man's master be anything or anyone but himself. Also the amount of slaves that were actually treated like humans were in the minority. It was also a privilege only allotted to the slaves of the extreme rich who could afford to treat them properly. The vast majority were instead treated horribly as nothing more than cattle. (we call it chattel slavery for a reason)
It depends a lot on the time period, the place, the master, and the slave is the thing. To say all slaves had it bad or all slaves had it good frankly does not do justice to the frankly fascinating complexities around the history of slavery. Not American slavery, but slavery as a global historical reality. To give you an example: in Ancient Rome, if you were an educated Greek slave, you had it pretty good. You were basically a glorified secretary and confidant of some rich Patrician, trusted with managing his affairs and generally living a fairly decent life, more as a trusted friend than a slave. And if you were an uneducated Thracian warrior captured in a campaign, you probably didn't have it as good. But most likely you were probably a gladiator. Which certainly meant a meager diet of porridge, hard hours of constant training, and painful (but not lethal contrary to popular belief) fights in the arena for the amusement of others. Humiliating, yes, degrading, absolutely. But if you did well, you lived relatively well. Loved by people, rewarded by your master with wine and gold. And if you were an uneducated Gallic farmer, captured by a Roman legion raiding your farm. Then... God help you. Because you were barely a beast of burden. if you were REALLY lucky, you'd be sold to a Latifundium and work long hours harvesting crops for some rich plantation holder. But if you were not lucky, then you'd likely be sent to the mines. With no daylight, locked in a damp, musty, tunnel, with little clean air, worked until your hands were bleeding, and you could no longer breath. Day after day after day until your body finally gave out and you died on the spot. Your body thrown to dogs to be devoured. The top most example was the reality for many slaves. Yes. But the overwhelming majority of slaves in Ancient Rome lived the reality of the bottom-most example. A harsh, brutal, horrible existence of suffering and cruelty. And so was it with American slavery. Yes, some slaves did well for themselves. Lived comfortably in the big house as secretaries or confidants, valued by their slave owners. But many worked long and brutal hours picking crops, from dawn to dusk, malnourished, tortured, raped, brutalized in horrific ways. Not even beasts of burden because no one treated their horses or their cows or their goats so horrifically.
@@Killzoneguy117 I see what you mean, however, this comment is on a video about the American Civil War, and the comment itself is about people living in St. Louis. People often talk in unspecific generalizations, what they probably meant by “slaves” was specifically slaves in the southern United States and Confederate States. I suppose it’s hypothetically possible for a slave to have been treated decently by their master in these conditions, but that would be extraordinarily unlikely, but if that were true, it wouldn’t mitigate the overall racism of the time, and if these slaves were imported from Africa, rather than the descendants of African slaves in the New World, then they would also have to bear being separated from their community, family, and life, and being placed in an unfamiliar, foreign land where they had to do intense agricultural labor. However, I’ve heard arguments against slavery that don’t have anything to do with their treatment, but specifically the state of being subordinate to another human being overall. I’m not sure if I agree, but you can argue that for a human being to be someone’s personal property, rather than merely working as an employee or servant, is to mistreat the dignity of that person by rendering them as your property, the same way you might do with an animals, plant, or item. *This* *argument* *isn’t* *about* *the* *treatment* *or* *conditions* *of* *the* *slaves* , *but* *about* *the* *inherent* *dignity* *of* *a* *person* *and* *the* *honor* *and* *respect* *their* *status* *deserves* . St. Gregory of Nyssa was a 4th century Christian who wrote against slavery argued (and I’m paraphrasing here) that since humans had a right to rule over the Earth and its animals, because humans were masters over the Earth and animals, that to master over a human being the same way you master over the Earth and its animals was to wrongly treat one’s human dignity as if they were the same of an animal or object, he writes: “How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself (a human being), to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures...?” I’d like to state I know very little about slavery, you seem like you know more about it than I do, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have opinions about the little I’m aware of, if I made any mistakes I’d like to be made aware of them. Edit: I made a mistake in this comment, in the first paragraph I had originally stated “St. Louis, an American city in the South.” But St. Louis is actually located is Missouri, not in the South, I somehow got in confused with New Orleans, a city in Louisiana, so my bad.
Having a degree in engineering does not make you a historian. Lots of intelligent people tend to think they can form a better opinion than an expert on a subject they themselves have no familiarity with.
Roman_Valdax I played yesterday man. Warhammer 2 is mechanically the best game in the franchise. Yeah I still love medieval 2 and empire but Warhammer is pretty great too.
Begon Genesis I had no idea people really felt this way. I’m not a fan of 3 kingdoms or Troy but Warhammer 2 is fantastic. They’ve put a lot of effort into it and it shows. And call me crazy but I loved Rome 2, although I admit I didn’t play it until many of the release bugs were patched out.
honestly the best shilling in videos like this are where they show that it is very obviously shilling and have fun with it, which makes me laugh and more likely to actually check out the product in the ad as opposed to some generic fake-enjoyment bullshit that I just don't pay attention to
There are a number of leaders in history who held a similar mindset. Some could say this even if the person themself has no written documents. Like Vlad the impaler a man who while acting in a way that was absolutely cruel cruel to both enemy and innocent. But yet he was a hero to many and still is within Romania. He likely knew what he did was wrong ways he saw it as necessity to protect his Realm and hold power.
@@squidward5110 my family is still in the Deep South. My girl and I moved near West Texas to settle on a ranch. Texas is Texas. I love Texas. Women, horses, bbq and beer. But I'm still Dixie* in the heart and blood
Calling out the assholes in your own fanbase...bold. I appreciate the integrity it takes to do that, not many groups/channels/organizations do that these days.
@@jamesharding3459 "it's almost as if that some people can't tell the difference between southern aristocrat slave owners and modern day southerners." 😐
@@jamesharding3459 ... yes just continue hating them and bashing them that will show them that they are wrong because that will work... or it will cause them to continue tightening the ranks until someone starts doing stupid shit like storming the Capitol again.
Sherman described himself as a man of “works” not a man of “faith.” He seems to have considered his wife’s and son’s devotion to preparing for the next life as a bit morbid.
@@deepseeshell8926 He's literally quoting a post on one of his videos. It's fair game to call that out. You may distance yourself from that position, but someone posted that fully believing it. It needed to be addressed.
@@deepseeshell8926 That was literally a comment someone posted on one of Atun-Shei's videos. He put it up on the screen so you can see that Johnny Reb is delivering the words of an actual viewer.
@@deepseeshell8926 No he doesn't portray them all like that, he just takes every talking point they have and explains why they are wrong, regardless of how many people believe them.
I love how Billy Yankee and Johnny Rebel here feel like they're actually friends. They have actual chemistry, and seem to properly enjoy one another's company and discussion, even if they disagree. Beyond being kinda hilarious, it also feels like some kinda message--something about making friends with your enemies. And occasionally sticking a gun in their face. Y'know, as you do.
Also a message if you hate to love reb ( cause let's face it we are all here to be entertained by him) that that's okay since even the guy who laws the verbal and moral smackdown on him is his friend and tries to talk him into changing rather than raging and shooting him......except you know....the time he shot him but we'll ..we'll just forget that
Georgia State Trooper after pulling over someone with a New York license plate: "Son, we don't let Yankees speed through the South." New York driver: "Really? Sherman did."
@@jesusobannon8557 I guess my point was more that these people are clearly exaggerating their personalities to make a point. And so like, they themselves are becoming the straw men. Now, some of them clearly have just been mislead and are trying to have a debate, but then there's also the guy who wrote out "rebel yell"
President Carter once visited a school in Arizona where they welcomed him by playing "Marching through Georgia". He winced and whispered to his aides, 'Don't they know that isn't a southern song?'
These comments in here are from people who think that war is team death match. They are the kind that are courted to sign their lives away army by recruitment ads mimicking videogames and comic books.
I will never understand Lost Causers pointing out that some Union Generals didnt support abolition or were racists to somehow say that the CSA didn't fight to preserve slavery. The Unions motivations dont change the CSA's motivations.
I know this was posted 5 months ago, but this is a very effective debating technique, called whataboutism. Basically, the idea is that by answering to your valid point with some unrelated incident from "your side", they change the subject and no longer have to defend their indefensible position AND forcing you to defend yours.
It's just 'Whataboutism". They had a " drinking game" over it in an earlier episode. Whataboutism is a " red herring" style argument intended to shift attention away from a particular point that is a source of embarrassment or cognitive dissonance. Whataboutism is nearly always an indicator that the person taking a particular position feels vulnerable and/or uncomfortable with some aspect of that position, and hopes that by shifting the focus to attacking the "other side", they can avoid confronting the point of shame or embarrassment.
@@fredrickfrederickson5246 If you remove your opening sentence, your Reply sounds plausible, rational, and reasonable. As it stands, however, it makes you sound like a reactionary right wing, WE-are-the-real-victims-here, they're-out-to-get-us, they-hate-us-because-we're-white, Tucker-style, MAGA-style idiot. I would _still_ wonder what you're basing your comments on, as I don't know how you could know all those factors in detail without providing any citations or source. I'm just saying that your argument _sounds_ plausible, aside from the first sentence. Regarding the first sentence, why do people on the political right (which I'm guessing you are) see conspiracies against white people everywhere. This, to me, is one of the really offensive aspects of right-wing politics, leading to so much of the b******* that's been working its way through Republican led legislatures over the past 2 years. Why taint an otherwise good answer with right wing conspiracy theory? Makes no sense to me.
and if the union did something bad to souther woman then it's doesn't make the south action against black or indian people right two wrong thing doesn't make it right or justify to make it right
Well, to be fair he is considered "the first modern general" by some historians because of his tactics of scorched earth. But scorched earth and foraging was not uncommon in warfare, I mean I just think of the Russian retreat in 1812. Although scorched earth was at the time a defensive tactic however it was done to stop foraging so.
be careful what you wish for, you just might get it... And Sherman really was one of the first of the modern generals, in the sense that he was a professional soldier who looked at war purely from a winning and losing perspective. Granted that's not new in the context of history, but this was at a time where most officers still came from the upper classes and war was still viewed in 'gentlemanly' terms. Generals like Grant and Sherman, who were more than happy to win through logistics than valor, were a stark change from the generals leading both armies at the beginning of the war.
Broke: Sherman wasn't a war criminal because he didn't actually commit all the atrocities he's said to have Woke: Sherman wasn't a war criminal because the Hague Convention hadn't happened yet and thus war criminals couldn't exist yet.
That's not the "Hague Convention", hague is the seat of the international court, which was established on june 26 1945. The international law of war, was established on the 22nd of August 1864, after the battle of solferino in 1859, which happened during during the second war of italian independence. That was the first geneva convention, and it was generally about the treatment of POW and the wounded. It was signed by 12 countries: Swiss Confederation Grand Duchy of Baden Kingdom of Belgium Kingdom of Denmark Kingdom of Spain French Empire Grand Duchy of Hesse Kingdom of Italy Kingdom of the Netherlands Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves Kingdom of Prussia Kingdom of Württemberg
Ciaphas Cain I see what you're getting at, but all I take from it is that the concept of a war criminal didn't yet exist in the United States. Checkmate, Lincolni- er, Europeanite.
@@superfish0012 it doesnt necceceraly means that the concept of war criminal didnt existed. There were soldiers in revolutionary france who were executed for "warcrimes", however the meaning of "war criminal" was neither a universally accepted/enforced term, nor defined internationally. It varied cuture to culture, nation to nation.
@@Cainthegodslayer There were multiple Hague Conventions (in 1899 and 1907) that set up all sorts of rules for war like declaring "unannounced" invasions or the use of chemical weapons illegal.
My fathers uncle used to tell him stories about the Southern officers he knew during WW1. That their common attitude (and they weren’t afraid to voice it loudly and often, but especially while drinking at the officers clubs) was that they were going to go ahead and pitch in to help the free world defeat the hun, but as soon as WW1 was over they were going to organize and finally finish the job of succession as a risen Confederate States of America’s. It’s hard to imagine how strong the Lost Cause myth and the, The South Will Rise again mythos was in the minds of many Southerners for long after the Civil War. Funnily enough, the whole, “the war wasn’t about slavery but taxes,” and the “war of northern aggression,” and basically everything you discuss in Checkmate... These things were these Southern officers most commonly repeated talking points.
I forget what book it was... Cold Sassy Tree maybe. But the turn of the century southern boy in it talks his southern public schools history curriculum. That the teacher would do a month on the ancient Egyptians. A month on the Indians. A month on the American Revolution. And the other half of the year on the Civil War. And you don’t have to strain very hard to imagine what exactly they taught the kids...
It is a fact that most bankers were in the North and thus wanted to expand their influence on our soil and by supporting the lincolnite and his federal government, we would lose our states rights. 90% of us Grays never had slaves.
It's fun for me to point out there were guys in the early 20th century with living memory of that time, it makes you see it all so differently. For example there was an artillery officer under Pershing who was an Antietam and Fredericksburg veteran. There's photos of him at the Western Front... still wearing the Union field coat and Shako over his field uniform. Just imagine living through those fights and being like, "Damn, it can't get any worse." Then you witness Verdun.
@@GerMFnU1848Sax 70%. And it is also a fact that most slave owners were Southerners, and thus wanted to expand their influence into other, new states, and also tried to use the Federal government to accomplish this. And a decent chunk of that 70% of non-slave owners supported this. It makes sense that they would do so, as people attempting to abolish it would be seen as attacking their society, their values, and so on. And so the state's rights they were most interested in protecting was the "right" to have more states who allowed for slavery, so that they could keep a good solid slavery-state voting block going, so they could keep their society as it was, and stop others from meddling with their slave-based society. And then, when they lost, they went out of their way to keep as much as that status quo as possible. You might not like it, but that's reality. They weren't the good guys.
I love how you have Marching Through Georgia at the end of the Sherman video. Also, random fun fact time, Sherman actually hated that song because it was all they would play around him.
If i remember correctly, he specifically requested that it not be played at his funeral because he hated it so much. Guess what they played at his funeral.
@@ramblinbob1918 the first shots fired were aimed at federal troops in fort sumter. that by definition makes it so that the south aggressed, meaning the north defended.
I love how much integrity and honesty this guy has, he’s willing to concede good points even when he doesn’t want to, accept hard truths for the sake of historical integrity, and he’s even okay with calling out radicals on his own side. It takes courage, commitment, and a high level of patience to do something like this and I respect it immensely
@@thatonefpsgamer1339 HE didn’t, but he apparently denied war crimes but stated that it’s impossible that his army made their full March without looting, blaming any other actions on stragglers that often committed the more heinous actions like rape and murder. He started the war like most northern officers thinking the Confederacy was more of a fringe movement and they could win hearts and minds like it’s the Afghanistan War 19th century Edition. Eventually he realized that was bullshit and then began destroying crops and other supplies that were being sent to the Greys, which isn’t really a war crime since that’s just denying the enemy supplies. Furthermore the seizure of Atlanta and subsequent chaos he said “they’ve brought it on themselves” So the TLDR of it is: ehhhhhhh some shady shit happened and he did some cold hearted shit but he wasn’t a hardened WAR CRIMINAL or anything, although some war crimes almost certainly happened
Exactly. What the nazis did was genocide hundreds pushing into Moscow. And Japan well. Did the stuff to Nanking. What Sherman did was push through the heartland of the south.
Grant cutting through the Mississippi: *To show you the power of the Union Army, we sawed this country in half* Sherman going to Atlanta: *Thats a lot of damage, how ‘bout a little more*
The long and very realistic part of Johnny regaining composure after having a gun pointed at his head was entirely needless and magnificent. i love this channel
@@duckyz6956 Given the Sherman tank’s reputation during World War II for readily burning (no matter how undeserved) there is some irony here. ...I’m about to be beaten with the going-off-on-a-tangent stick, aren’t I?
I love that bit about how Sherman's army would just... evade any concentrated defense. Because to me, that's something I noticed a lot of in the early Civil War. A lot of it was "The Rebels pull a massive army together from multiple units to try some big dick Jacksonian sundering of the enemy forces". And a lot of Union Generals just... let them. They never put the pressure on. They never tried to stop the Confederacy from fighting the war basically 1 (Or 2) battles at a time across the entire war. Sherman, and Grant, both understood that to leverage the industrial and manpower advantage the Union had, they had to stop it. Grant did it in the Overland Campaign, always punching at Lee's face, never letting him retreat, regroup, send troops to another front (like he did at Chickamauga, etc). And Sherman did it by just refusing to offer them battle. If you're going to gather for your big dick swinging decisive battle doctrine... he'd just turn around and sack another city instead. Same idea, two different executions, all existing to put the pressure on the Confederacy until it cracked.
And Sherman's strategy also prevented the towns and cities he was threatening from sending reinforcements to Lee, like a more aggressive land-bound version of a fleet-in-being.
1864 was an election year in the North. By avoiding direct confrontation, Sherman minimized casualties. Had the Atlanta campaign turned into a meat grinder it could have effected the election.
truly synthetic meat is less than a decade from being reliably producible as well as cheaper and more ethical than real meat. it’s a really exciting development in the fight against world hunger.
@@randomnameseventytwo1307 just recently singapore’s food administration gave regulatory approval for a synthetic chicken nugget brand. it’s being sold in restaurants over there so that’ll be the first we really hear of whether it’s good for the general consumer.
Can we talk for a minute about how the longer this series goes, Atun-Shei gets more into it on the Union side with "Billy Yank" becoming his own character as opposed to Atun-Shei just responding to comments.
@@smallpseudonym2844 I said the confederates wanting to preserve slavery is cringe? how is that parody. By Atun being anti slavery he's not being cringe?
@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 -- Then I misread. But, in my defense, it's probably because your phrasing might need a rewrite: "I mean Atun Shei genuinely believes the confederacy wanted to preserve slavery, which is cringe" means precisely the opposite of what you're trying to convey, and makes you sound like you're a lost-causer.
Love me some Royster's _Destructive War._ I watched a Civil War class have to reevaluate everything they thought about the whole "gentleman's fight" as they slowly got through it over the course of 4 weeks. One of the best things you can see as an instructor (or at the time a GA) is people realizing nuance and ambiguity isn't just a calling card, but a better way of interpreting history and therefore the world itself. Fun and revelatory stuff as always
"Coward" works, since he ran from other soldiers and attacked women and children instead. So does 'rapist'. So does "nutcase,' since he was verifiably insane. But overall "terrorist" pretty much covers it.
@@kenabbott8585 buddy his goal was to break the civilian industry as fast as possible he was not trying to spread fear he was trying to cut off vital supplies
@@cowbeanboi412 Vital supplies like homes, jewelry, families' winter food, women's and girls' virginity---y'know, stuff the soldiers really needed. Amusingly, the Augusta Arsenal was within easy reach throughout most of his "March to the Sea" and his "Carolina Campaign," churning out some 400,000 pounds of ammunition per day and woefully underdefended. The "confederate" in the video didn't mention that, but when you write your opponent's arguments for them they do tend to miss things like that. Somehow Sherman needed for his troops to rape women and burn homes for its military impact---but cutting off the Confederacy's only reliable source of gunpowder was such a secondary concern that he never bothered. Also, Sherman frequently stated that spreading fear was indeed his goal. One of his most telling quotes was that "Fear is the beginning of wisdom." If you're familiar with your Bible, you'll find that slightly, but only slightly, familiar. See, there's a verse like it, in Proverbs, that fear OF THE LORD is the beginning of wisdom..... but is it any surprise that a verifiably insane terrorist would have a God-complex?
I don't know why it's so hard to acknowledge that sometimes bad things are done in the name of good causes. And it's okay to point out the bad things while acknowledging the overall good cause and greater evil being fought against.
@@liljimmy8248 Right about what? Ethnically cleansing indigenous minorities and expelling them from their lands? That's what Nazis do. There is no comparison.
Attacking whole minorities because you think they're "inherently Nazis" or backwards or whatever BS logic Stalin used when they were fighting against his colonialism is not the same as attacking Confederate cities.
@@liljimmy8248 not necessarily. While I will not speak on North Korea as I don’t know it’s history well enough to judge, I will say that Stalin was not acting in good faith as far as I can tell.
4 года назад+588
"his problems were that we declared independence, not that we supported slavery.. errh I mean State's rights" LOOOOOOL
The states seceeded over slavery. The war was indeed fought over state's rights. Lincoln could have obeyed the Constitution and let the states go. He chose to ignore the law and force the southern states to remain in the union at gunpoint against their will. While I'm glad the country stayed together and slavery was abolished, I don't like modern progressive revisionists trying to ignore the facts when pontificating on the Civil War. They're no better than the lost cause myth makers who over glorify the south's actions.
@@possumverde By "modern revisionists" I think you mean the "contemporary Confederates themselves". Read their secession documents. There would have been no war but for their actions, and their actions were based solely on their desire to preserve slavery. We know this, because they explicitly told us exactly what they were doing and why. Please cite to me the clause in the Constitution that says a state may simply leave whenever it chooses. There is no Constitutional mechanism whatsoever by which a state can legally say "You know what? Fuck the United States, I'll see you guys later". And considering the fact that the South started the war, both ideologically and by actually attacking first. Yeah, Lincoln did a lot of unconstitutional things during the War, that weren't great. But telling the South that they don't get to just take their ball and go home because they were butthurt about losing an election is not one of them.
@@possumverde : Secession wasn't a dry legal dispute over the phrasing of the Constitution, and it wasn't contested as such at the time. Even if the Constitution had explicitly said "secession is allowed" it wouldn't have stopped the North, and if the Constitution had explicitly said "no leaving ever" it wouldn't have stopped the South. Matters like independence are too big for 80+ year old documents, you can see the same kind of thing today - neither Catalan separatists nor Spanish nationalists base their main arguments off the Spanish Constitution.
*what about Sherman's March where he burned everything in his path* Me: *imagining Sherman riding a dragon burning down Atlanta while the game of thrones theme plays*
You know what. I'm gonna play the theme and imagine Sherman riding a dragon burning down Atlanta ruclips.net/video/AdQ3JDLlmPI/видео.html Can't you see it?
Suggestion: The next episode should tackle misconceptions and lies about Ulysses S. Grant, particularly those dealing with his wartime drinking and his ability as a general. This would serve a natural progression from discussing Sherman and also continue to deal with some of the peripheral effects of Lost Causism (mainly, the myth of Grant the Drunken Butcher). Additionally, Grant is best waifu. Addendum: My prayers have been answered; blessed be the generous Lord and his servant the VVitchfinder General!
As someone who's a Grant buff (and who's great-great-great grandfather served in his Army of the Tennessee), I hope so too! But he may have to be mixed into a video about various figures, including Lee, Longstreet, McClellan, and the rest. Sherman's full of enough kickass memes on our side and able to generate enough salty Secesh tears on the other side to make this whole vid a half hour. :D
Grant does not get enough credit at all. He was actually a better president than most people give him credit for. His problem was he made some terrible decisions for who he put in power with him
8:28 The fact that this comment compared Sherman's March with Japanese warcrimes in SouthEast Asia completely offends me as a Chinese-American citizen.
It offends me as a reasonable being, and I am neither Chinese nor American. Sherman did bad shit, but Imperial Japan was five levels of terribleness above Sherman.
It needs to be remembered that Japanese brutality in Nanking offended *Hitler's personal representative* so much that he became a minor hero by sheltering many people from them. Let that sink in.
@@thebandage5422 and the thing is it's doesn't mean the south is right it's just mean that yeah it is bad but doesn't mean you are right two wrong thing can't not make a good on unless you're desperate and even so don't know the fallout of it
I feel like if someone took a tour of his home and having no knowledge of his RUclips channel, they would be pretty of confused with the confederate flag and nazi uniform.
It's actually really nice to see these two portrayed almost as old friends who just happened to be on opposite sides, or even even as friends who met because of their service.
Shame theres so many lies around, its so weird to see people openly displaying rebel flags that advocated for 10% of the population to be subhuman and naturally submissive to white people, its insane as an outsider that people deny that truth
Prophetic ShadeZ It gets even weirder when you see the rebel battle flag being displayed in a northern state that proudly sided with the Union during the Civil War. Some of my neighbors have gotten too caught up in “Lost Cause” narrative, and seem to have forgotten our State’s historical involvement in the war.
I'm sorry, but the idea of a Hitler time traveling to escape Berlin only to end up in the Salem witch trials sounds like a syfy 2 am b-rated masterpiece waiting to happen and I'm fully on board with it.
Your point about "industrial slavery" is an excellent one, and highly overlooked. During the Civil War, Confederate industry was highly dependent on enslaved industrial workers at basically every level, from raw materials to skilled workers. But let's focus in on skilled workers The Tredegar Works were the most famous and productive ironworks in the Confederacy. Both before and during the war, it employed large numbers of enslaved black laborers. It also employed free black and free white labor. Interestingly, the enslaved black labor got some of the same "perks" that free labor got - company housing, wages, etc. But unlike truly free labor, these enslaved Tredegar laborers could never switch jobs. It didn't matter if a competitor was paying more - even if paid wages, the Tredegar workers were still enslaved and thus worked for Tredegar ownership and nobody else Two major elements of Richmond's pre-war industry was tobacco and grain processing. Enslaved labor again played a major role in this. The major plantations of the Tidewater region of Virginia, a historical plantation region but one with exhausted soil and declining profits, often rented their enslaved workers to grain mills and tobacco processing plants in Richmond on a seasonal basis. There was less work to do on the plantations themselves as yields declined, and so enslavers either rented or sold down the river their excess enslaved labor One of the most impressive Confederate industrial achievements was the Powder Works in Augusta, Georgia. Before the Civil War there was essentially no mass gunpowder production in the South. By 1862-3, the newly built powder works in Augusta were the second largest powder works on the planet. This plant depended on enslaved labor at every level - particularly the dirty job of turning over outhouses to collect the nitrogen in urine - but as the war dragged on and more and more white labor was taken by the army, enslaved workers replaced those skilled white workers
This is a unique take. I do believe that Slavery was going to be on its way through a variety of means, but the South went kicking and screaming to emancipation for the country's entire history so war was the only path forward
Right, another example of how slavery was really only beneficial to the 30% who owned them. The rest of the South saw the pay for any type of labor, skilled or otherwise, severally reduced, how do you compete with room and board? This suppression of middle class entrepreneurship definitely restricted it's economy and resiliency. Of course to overcome this, the wealthy governor class just had to scapegoat the North for its anemic economy and stoke racial superiority as the right and proper ownership of other humans. The plantation class substantially invested in the stake it was burned at during the civil war
The majority of workers in Richmond were free workers, more foreign born than blacks in fact. There was more slave labor because of the war as you pointed out, as obviously to anyone who studies economics in an industrial setting slavery is patently inferior.
Was actually Britain who named the lee, grant, Sherman, and other civil war general named tanks. Britian used names only where America during the early period just used alphanumerics
@@jasonsantos3037 Your mind will explode if you find out what the Sherman was made for ... ... ... Infantry support! The M18, M10 and M36 were designed to deal with the german heavies, where as the Sherman was made to deal with infantry, though its modularity allowed for modifications which made the tank versatile. Adding to that is the Sherman's outrageously good survival statistic.
Oh my gosh, as a history fanatic, I thought this was a legitimate super pro-Confederate channel when I saw this in my recommendations, and everytime your videos were recommended I was immediately like "OH HELL NAWH." Well turns out, these videos are historical comedic masterpieces lol
Yeah, that was my reaction too when I saw this channel start popping up in my recommended videos. I was all ready to come charging in to the comments like "NO THE F#^% YOU DIDN'T" and then I actually started watching and was like, "Oh... neat."
What made you click on one of the videos? I had a similar experience when the almighty algorithm recommended Beau of the Fifth Column to me and I was like: Oh God, it's a bearded redneck in a bunker! But I was intrigued and watched, thankfully.
Buy some merch ya filthy bluebellies! teespring.com/stores/atun-shei-films
I can give you $30 Confederate
I'm now a fancy bluebelly thanks to this shop! *where's my paycheck*
YES
Just ordered me a dank checkmate Lincolnite tank to ride out the summer in historical style. Even cost me fewer than $30 confederate!
@@johnwall7968 Union or Confederate dollars?
The problem with the flamethrower variant of the Sherman tank is that they kept escaping the test range and heading for Georgia."
away down south in the land of traitors rattlesnakes and gatorade momento B)
And Grant tank crew was just getting drunk all the time.
@@cybubhm This is why we need prohibition.
@Harvey Dustin You mean the most survivalable tank of the war, the most reliable tank of the war, one of the only ones to see every theater, the tank that later variants could quite happily take of Tigers/Panthers even through their frontal armor, and also proved itself superior to the T-34 during the Korean War?
@Harvey Dustin Red Army tank crew members were desperate in getting M4 tanks because they were having somewhere around the T-34 in terms of weapon s and armor, but far more comfortable.
About the "sameness" - consider looking in Wiki for T-34-76 and T-34-85. They are exact "bigger gun and increased armor" kind of upgrades.
They didn't name the tank after him, Sherman heard the nazis were using slave labor and reincarnated in tank form.
Whats even better is there was a flame thrower version.
@@razerfish 1. Nodody said he did
2. No he didn't
3. Nobody said he didn't
@@atfyoutubedivision955 He allowed his troops to rape and abuse women and children on his march through Georgia.
@@razerfish While rape and murder did happen (it's inevitable in a conflict where one army marches through another country, even today) it wasn't common and he didn't allow it. Its not as if he said "men,ill have you one extral dollar for every child beat, woman raped and murder commited".
@@atfyoutubedivision955 His reputation might have been sanitized since i read up on ole Sherman. You get better PR when you're the victor, but there's still enough about him to show him for the monster he was. He wanted to inflict terror on civilians and a type of total war that they South would remember for 50 years. He allowed his men to burn homes, farms, and kill livestock of civilians in their path, which were often occupied by women and children or even slaves. This is a war crime and even more unacceptable when done to fellow Americans. Seems like wikipedia cleanses Sherman's reputation because liberals seem to accept war crimes against those horrible "traitorous" Southerners. I wonder if they'll be so accepting of Sherman's treatment of the Indians he fought against. I have a feeling they won't.
"If you could describe the Confederacy in one word what would it be?"
Lincoln:" Treasonous"
Robert Lee:' Righteous"
Sherman:" Flammable"
Flammable? Oh, I *like* flammable!
🤣🤣🤣
Agree
I'm not scared! My plantation is INflammable!
I'm southern and I find this type if sherman joke funny. Notice how it doesn't bash anyone.
"Looting houses and reveling in people's misfortune is the terrible, lowest form of terrible act. We're trying to have a nice clean fight so we can continue to own and trade black people".
Well put - Sherman was brutal, but it pretty much breaks down to the point that Sherman did what he did to people seceding because they wanted slavery to be a thing. And very brutal form of slavery too. The CSA was a nightmarishly unjust state.
Sherman is a total Chad
I love the line in Union Dixie that describes the South as the place where “cotton’s king and men are chattel”. Seems to me there was a country on that continent that hated kings 😎
@@vidurbutalia2130 "Cotton's king" is referring to "King Cotton", a term used by southerners to refer to their economic policy. It has nothing to do with a hatred of kings, it's just using the enemy's own rhetoric against them, which is a classic propaganda tactic
Wait...Sherman
Johnny Reb: No Southerner ever did anything bad to any Indian ever!
Andrew Jackson: Am I a joke to you?
I think he was referring to the Southerners during the Civil War, but regardless that statement was overly generalized.
@@looney9105 Jackson was born in Waxhaws between the borders of North and South Carolina, however his permanent residence was in Tennessee. So he is a Southerner.
@@looney9105 Andrew Jackson was born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws region on the border of North and South Carolina. The exact location of his birth is uncertain, and both states have claimed him as a native son; Jackson himself maintained he was from South Carolina.
@@netrolancer1061 hm. not the deep south I guess
@@eatmedrinkme9628 hm
Random note. Sherman HATED the song "Marching Through Georgia". Because they would play it every. Goddamn. Time. He showed up.
Even on his funeral...
To be fair, that sounds more like a loathing from overplaying it than any dislike of it's content or context...
DietrichvonSachsen He wasn’t a fan of glorifying war so he probably also took issue with the cheery tone.
I only know two tunes, ‘Yankee Doodle’ and ‘Marching Thro’ Georgia’ - that’s two more than Grant knew
@@firebird4491 Of all the Union Generals I've read of, Sherman seemed the most to understand the hell of modern war over the horizon. While Grant was throwing handfuls of men at Southern defenses, Sherman was trying to get around them. Can't say too much for Sherman but I can say that at least.
The South: "our military strength is backed by our agriculture."
Sherman: (lights a torch) "we can fix that."
The North had superior agricultural capabilities compared to the South due to their larger population and higher level of industrialization which led to more efficient farms.
@@JollyOldCanuck smaller farms that have the same yield; yes...
@@JollyOldCanuck You can't feed an army on cotton and tobacco. Plus the majority of the midwest was in northern hands which is a breadbasket for the world.
@@TheWhale45 This is why we always keep a Sheridan around.
"good luck eating cotton"
- U. S. Grant
My great x5 grandfather fought for the Confederacy. Upon his return at the end of the War, he found his farm had been usurped from him. Not by Yankees, but by fellow Southerners. Can confirm your points.
"They lost because the other side had overwhelming resources" That just sounds like losing to me.
And the resouces were from industrialization which seems to have had an inverse correlation with slavery....oops?
They should be grateful the USAF didn't exist back then or every major city in the South would smell like napalm and burning magnesium
"I lost the race because some other guy was faster!"
"I lost the chess game because the other guy was better at chess!"
The South did surprisingly well for being so outmatched. I think they actually more union troops than they had killed.The number I saw at the end was 300K killed to 200K, but I see all kinds of figures about total death so I'm not sure of the final tallies.
@@dynamicworlds1 Also mass immigration which allowed for fresh recruits often right off the boat from Ireland. The South would have been better off fighting an insurgency I think, yet they did much better than you'd expect. They killed more union troops than the union killed of theirs.
After the war, Sherman and Johnston became such good friends that Johnston, as a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral, refused to wear a hat in the bitter cold out of respect. Johnston then came down with pneumonia and died a few weeks later.
*tl;dr: Even in death, Sherman killed a confederate.*
lmao! and doesn't let friendship get in the way of traitor killing XD
That's hilariously tragic
Johnston the boot licker who was for sale from the womb! How surprising!
Lol that's kind of sweet..
Same thing happened in the scopes trial. The two lawyers battling it out over evolution vs. Creationism became life long friends. They often drank together.
@@willworkswood3215 Johnston was so dedicated to defending the CSA that he returned to lead its armies after taking a bullet at Seven Pines. How amusing to see someone calling him a boot licker from the safety of their computer screen.
I’m starting to realise that the release of this series is probably dictated by the rate of facial hair growth.
This man is a genius
Ya I realized that too
You just made my comment but better :(
Just realized that myself as well. It's great!
Yesssss!
Interesting that they Confederate defenders get mad about the raping of Southern women like it's an unspeakable and horrible crime (and yes it is), but don't say anything about the raping of black and enslaved women.
Nothing is sweeter to a "proper southern gentleman" than to bed the pretty daughter of his father's favorite servant girl.
What else do you expect from those bigoted idiots?
They don't see the slaves as human so it's okay. I gave you the reasoning, I never said it was good.
nah not even just the explicit rape, they had fucking breeding farms man, which yes, technically rape but most of the women probably wouldn't have called it as so as the farms took women from birth raised them and told them that if they had enough kids they could be free, you'd have to have 15-20 kids before freedom was given though, that is the type of shit we do to animals we farm and they did it to other humans, how the fuck am I supposed to care when they bring up southerners being raped but they don't care about the literal breeding farms for slaves, it's selective care and I simply don't care about their arguments, whine all you want that a few of your women were raped cause you started a war, those women got to exist happy normal lives their whole life up to it meanwhile the south has literal farms for girls to be enslaved and mass raped and I'm to care for the argument of a person who only cares about one? I wanna say, I'm not saying Idc they were raped, that is shitty, and those who did it are condemnable, but it's crocodile tears to care about one which is incredibly minor if compared (which we shouldn't, comparing these things is mostly irrelevant but the reality is the farms were worse) when I see southererners crying and talking about all the slaves who were raped and put into breeding farms etc then I'll believe that they actually care that women were raped, until then to me it's just another talking point they are throwing out they could care less that humans actually experienced that shit.
Well remember, from what I can garner from peoples arguments are that they recognize slavery is wrong, but this war wasn’t about slavery so there’s no point in revisiting the horrors of this clearly bad thing. But these poor white women who may or may not have been raped in the name of states rights is a tragedy. How could these poor women be subjected to such horror for simply wanting states rights, regardless of what rights they were concerned about keeping. Did I mention states rights? I may have forgotten to…….STATES RIGHTS!!!
“We only lost because the north had more recourses.” Yes, that’s a factor in war.
So was the South's antiquated concepts of how to make war that did not keep up with modern technology and mass conscription.
some thing to think of before you smack a 6 foot 6 man
"The sinews of war are infinite money." ~Cicero
It's almost like having more resources than the opponent has been one of the single most helpful factors in winning wars throughout all of human history xD
Jimbo Slice tell that to the North Vietnamese
@@armorsmith43 and Afghanistan.
"I'm a cartoon character, not an idiot!" *applause* Well played, suh. Well played.
That line got a good laugh out of me.
I've gone back to listen to his amazing delivery of this line so many times. Best part of the video.
@@kirkoscircus personally I liked the part were Atun-Shei pulled a gun to Confederate Atun-Shei for saying that Sherman was only good for burning the houses of widows. Almost made me feel sorry for the slavery apologist, almost.
Your line is a great line though.
i cant find it again aarrgggg time stamp me please!
@@GG-mi3bu at 0:24
When in Georgia, say "Look! It's Sherman!" and you have a guaranteed getaway distraction.
Ave Imperator Tigerstar
God I’ve got to try that
Bruh
Or a quick way to county jail.
EmperorTigerstar we need a map of this
It's great how lost causers call Sherman a war criminal but are perfectly happy to defend Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Slave owners bleating about war crimes is so ‘bless your heart’ 😂
Everytime I hear someone start whitewashing Grand Wizard Forrest's legacy, I start wishing Sherman had started the fires in Tenessee.
@@bbyjesus69 I can't get over the fact the leader of the most racist group in the US is literally called a 'grand wizard'. Like broooo...I'd hang myself if I unironically called myself a grand wizard.
I think they’re both War Criminals
well tbh, not ALL of southerners were slave owners but that didn't stop sherman or his boys, no im not a southerner I just have common sense, slaves were a comodity, the average working dirt poor southerner couldn't afford them but they were still affected, a war crime is a war crime, regardless if union or confederate forces did it.@@CorePathway
I guess my favorite Sherman quote was to a Columbia, SC woman who cried hysterically that he was to blame for its burning. Sherman denied ordering it but then said, "your husbands and sons started the fire when they fired on Ft. Sumpter. It's just finally caught up with you."
@@chainmail5886 I mean yeah if it's war it's war.
@@cade8702 Ok?
@@chainmail5886 nah cause the Cherokee won't enslaving their fellow man
@@cade8702 but the nazis didn’t have a reason to attack basically half of Europe other than their own gain
@@povotaknight2063 labeling murder and destruction "war" never makes it right.
I don’t want to talk about it...
lol
Its ok general
@@generallee4637 thanks for being understanding General
I respect both sides of the war :D
@@bobbrown5460 atun shei films is simply a righteous causer
civilwarchat.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/righteous-cause-mythology/
“It’s not a war crime if it’s funny”
-General Sherman
Based
“War crimes? I think you mean trolling the traitors.”
-Sherman
I agree
"Anything can look like a quote online if you use quotation marks"
- Julius Ceasar
You would say that with him as your avatar lol
In first of all, English is not my native language, but I hope you understand.
My favorite Sherman joke is this one.
What is the difference between the CSA and Nazi Germany?
It took more than one Sherman to defeat Nazi Germany.
😂 Good one!
Your English is good!
Keep going!
I have never heard this one and it's freaking hilarious
Shermans and Grants!
ruclips.net/video/1o7jYORkmf4/видео.htmlsi=mFaB-95Pytde3ked
He plays the two different characters so well I actually view them as two legitimately different people at this point.
tbh I cant even tell if he is playing two different people due to the beards.
Is it two different ppl or not
@@Hunt-nu1pq it is. it’s just him going into union uniform saying his lines for the union guy. Then him going into his confederate uniform and doing his lines. then he edits its to make it look like a convo. i think at least
@@targetdawg yep,at one point the flags differ
Honestly, edited and acted so well that I wouldn't bat an eye if you told me he was acting against his twin brother like in Terminator 2.
The South seceded from the Union.
This enraged General Sherman, who punished them severely.
Smh you guys are all over the place lmao.
@@DarkestKnightshade We see all...
@@jameseverett5904 The problem with that statement is that there was no set process for secession. The constitution was basically a contract that binds all states to the Union. You wouldn't be able to null it without the consent of both parties.
There's also the fact that the south acted like rebels rather than a sovereign entity when they attacked federal buildings and forts.
@@jameseverett5904 1. It was a contract between a state and the union. The U.S constitution. You are using technicalities for no good reason, but since you like using them :
Article 7: _The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In WITNESS whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names_
2. Even if the 10th amendment did apply to seceding, it wouldn't have i the south's case.
Article 1 section 8:
_the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions_
@@jameseverett5904
1. Article 3 section 3:
_Treason against the United States, shall consist of levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court._
The confederacy raided Union facilities; would this not be levying war against them. Even if they seceded, they still willfully provided casus bellis.
2. No, the constitution was specifically between the states and the union. Why do you think that this particular contract is still valid today? The constitution was ratified by *states* it wasn't between senators or governors, but between states. The federal government proposed it, and the states ratified it.
ps: I'm a Mississippian.
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." - W.T. Sherman
World War 2 doesn't exactly follow that logic, but other than that is checks out
@@drewstaser9726 the Japanese called atomic bombs “cruel bombs” in their surrender letter I think it checks out.
@@sparetime2475 Yeah and imperial japan raped and murdered thousands of Chinese but that cruelty didn’t really make the war progress faster
@@thewrustywrench21 To be fair, if you asked the Japanese why they did that, they probably would point out how fast they were able to take that massive amount of territory without having to worry about little things like war crimes.
@@TheSpaceship2nowhere Maybe but rape and infanticide wasn’t what made them take the place over faster.
To compare what the Imperial Japanese Army did to the people of Nanjing to what the Union did to the Confederacy is like comparing a compound fracture to a scraped knee
The killing of innocent people will always be comparable, he never once tried comparing the number of people who died
@@jonasastrom7422 I never said I was comparing the amount of people who died either. You clearly have no idea what the IJA did in Nanjing.
@@ShellyTheSeal They murdered innocent people, that's the main takeaway, and yes I do know they were more brutal
@@jonasastrom7422 understatement of the century
@@jonasastrom7422Not comparable at all
It needs to be stated that Sherman's post-war conduct against Native Americans unquestionably rose to the level of genocide.
So what you're saying is that Lincolnite bootlickers love a war criminal of TWO wars running?
Yeah, sounds about right.
Fair enough but not his Civil War conduct.
He was a sadist who liked to kill, especially unopposed .
@@marknewton6984 no more so than any other solder through out history.
@@marknewton6984 you seem to be confused. We are discussing Sherman not Nathan Bedford Forest. Now Forest killed Black Union troops after they surrendered and founded the KKK.
"what Sherman did to the South make what the nazis did to Russia sweet and pleaseant"
That nearly had me fall off my chair
Yeah, the Soviets lost up to around 15% of their total population in both military and civilian casualties in WWII. 20 million people is one of the lower estimates. The loss was so dramatic that for decades the Soviets had an actual tax for not having children in an attempt to regrow their population. The Confederates didn't have anything close to that percentage in the entire civil war, let alone just Sherman's activities.
Germany was going for a second Holocaust of the Slavic peoples; as Hitler considered them little better than Jews.
@@mysteriiis yep and the people who made that comment have no idea of what the nazis did to Russia
The worse one in my opinion was the way they absolutely downplay the Japanese offensive into China. It’s one of the least talked about parts of the war, despite having some of the biggest armies in the entire war.
@@nukclear2741 That'll happen when nobody involved is white. I think this silence is one of the big reasons why everyone considers nuking Japanese cities a heinous war crime; while not giving two shits about what we did to Germany.
Pretty sure anyone who thinks that what Sherman’s boys did in the South is worse than the Japanese in East Asia or the Germans in Russia hasn’t read a damn thing about Nanking, the Eastern Front, or just WW2 in general.
Exactly. And there’s nothing bad about killing traitorous confederates.
Well Thanos I must defer to you on the subject of decimating populations. You are the expert.
or the history of Asia in the 30s, honestly a lot of the crimes in the second world war happened before with more regularity and scale than people realize.
NSFL - to anyone who thinks the Union soldiers were crueler to the South than Japan was to other nations in WWII, look up Unit 731. even as someone who's partially Japanese, it's... inexcusable.
@@ArchOwl Or the Bataan Death March. Unit 731 is chilling and makes the nazi experiments look like a fucking kid's party, but the Death March of Bataan and the Rape of Nanking were absolute atrocities and they fuck up Chinese x Japanese relationships to this day.
EVEN NAZIS when faced with the abhorent siege on Nanking went "Jesus Christ, you idiots are going too far."
To be fair, whatever they did to that John C. Calhoun statue was almost certainly an aesthetic improvement
I'd have blown it up with a cannon.
I hope they gave it the Louis XVI treatment
Wait the North wasn't perfect? Well dang, I guess we have to bring back slavery then
@Harvey Dustin it was passed by congress not ratified
Lincoln supported it cause he wanted to prevent the rest of the south from secceding and escalating the situation he want to abolish slavery but he supported it as a last act hoping to repeal it later
@Harvey Dustin he always wanted to preserve the union first
With abolitionist of slavery second
Your damn right the west is best!
Another radical California Supremacist I see.
The East is.....Beast. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont etc. in the summertime will haunt your dreams forever calling you back. And during the winter, so beautiful it hurts.
@@AJNpa80 California supremacist? All the supremacists in California are in those small militia groups along the border and in white prison gangs
The last comment: "I'm escaping to the ONE place that hasn't been corrupted by the North...
SPACE"
Legendary red alert 3 reference, i tip my hat to ya mister.
@@miriton1133 SPAAAAAAAACCEEEEE
@@okie1011 buddy
Legendarily underrated comment
Honestly? Former slaves capturing and flogging their former enslaver should really make anyone smile.
Yep though the fact that they killed the dogs made me cringe.
@@Razorgeist it's unfortunate, but people swept up in rage do some stupid shit. Even if the rage is righteous.
@@Razorgeist The dogs were probably racist too.
@@goofygoober779 well considering who trained them yes
@Razorgeist to be fair it wouldn't surprise me if the dogs were specifically trained to attack them, so I could imagine it being a self-defense or security measure on the part of the former slaves
The fact Johnny Reb has a semi-realistic, panicked, silent reaction after being threatened at gunpoint by Billy Yank definitely shows that this guy can do a lot more talented stuff.
“You talk a lot of shit for someone in burning distance”-Sherman to the CSA probably
The Union army developed the tactic of mass destruction in ga and South Carolina . Then they employed the same against the Indians ! Talk about war crimes Custer was king of it !
"You talk a lot of shit for someone in bombardment and warcrime distance".
-Democrats to Libya,probably
@@brucewhitehead2808 civilian casualties are a certainty for a losing nation that has been invaded. While some war crimes were very well committed, it brought the war to an end sooner. The real question is why do some doubt the necessity of Sherman’s March? He effectively scattered multiple Confederate forces and took many valuable resources for Union supply
And to Native Americans
@@bruhmoment-wq5cy Or Republicans to Iraq. Warmongering and war-profiteering are among the few things with 100% bi-partisan support in Washington.
"If Stonewall Jackson had been in charge, the south would have won the Civil War in weeks" Gotta love when people treat reality like a game of Risk, or Civilization, or HOI, as if Jackson had some kind of crazy OP Passive buff that made him win more.
Well Jackson was much more competent than many northern generals and was only ever defeated once in a campaign he ultimately won but he couldn’t win the war by himself
+20 attack
+35 speed
+50000 To friendly fire
Most of Jackson's success was down to his superior knowledge of the local geography over his Union opponents in every battle he fought without that advantage his performance was unremarkable. Frankly what really did the south in was US Grant. His competence as a field commander combined with his masterful eye for strategy doomed the confederacy the moment he was given command of the union army.
@@Terminalsanity No one in the South really had a strategy for winning the war other than hoping the North to get tired of fighting. Lee and Jackson both won some impressive victories but neither really had a mind for grand strategy. They're in good company, though: Hannibal had the same fault.
Bruce Tucker
Except even though Hannibal was undone by his own Senate’s lack of support, he ran wild across Italy for about fifteen years.
Lee and Jackson managed to stave off defeat by about two
Anyways, Hannibal was still far more impressive as a strategist than your comparison implies - the Alpine march, turning Rome’s allies against her, making alliances with Macedon and Gallic tribes, etc.
Hannibal was really screwed due to the failure/unwillingness by the Carthaginian Senate to support the Italian war, instead sending reinforcements to Spain and attempting to conquer Sardinia and Corsica when they did make an effort
People often talk about Sherman’s march to the sea and tend to just start with Him already in Atlanta. This however ignores how he got there in the first place. Sherman spent weeks outmaneuvering and out flanking the confederate army forcing them to repeatedly give ground to his troops all throughout Georgia with minimal union losses. This campaign is still studied and taught at military academies worldwide. Sherman was arguably one of the most talented tacticians of the war.
Also strategic war if not total war became the (un?)official motto of all wars until VietNam, wich is a horrible thing but ig still shows that he was extremely influential as a general
honestly, people underestimate generals like Grant and Sherman because they were not great tacticians, they were great strategists, and there's a big difference.
Lee was a great tactician, he was an expert at manuvering armies and controlling a battlefield... he won plenty of battles, but had no idea how to win the war. At Gettysburg he should have disengaged and marched towards Washington after the first day, but his focus was on the battle and not the objective.
Sherman? mediocre tactician. certainly not the worst the Union had, but not the best when the armies actually clashed. What he was good at was staying focused on his objective, He wasn't there to win battles, he was there to be the biggest nuisance he could for as long as he could stay supplied. If southern armies wanted to chase him around Georgia instead of stopping Grants push on Richmond, he'd already won in every way that counted. You can't make a movie about that kind of general, but that's the people that win you wars.
Petrie W I agree that Lee should have disengaged after the first day of Gettysburg, but how exactly would he have moved towards Washington? The roads he would have used to disengage led away from Washington, and Meade, who turned out to be a pretty good general himself, was very nicely positioned between Lee and DC.
Connor Kennesaw Mountain was an absolute bloodbath that Sherman undertook primarily to get his name in the newspaper. He also repeatedly ignored Thomas, when Thomas’ advice would have ended the campaign in half the time. Grant was a great general but his biggest mistake was underestimating Thomas and not cutting him loose with an independent command. Thomas was twice the general Sherman was...Thomas never lost a battle, and Sherman never won a battle.
@@petriew2018 Thats a very solid assessment on the difference between tacticians and strategists. I do disagree about the movie thing, though. We've seen so many movies about a single battle or several battles, but how entertaining would it be to have a movie about Sherman's march from the view of a Union soldier where Sherman says "oh, the enemy is there, so lets move away from there and cause mischief elsewhere." and even make it comedic and have it both poke fun at people who think killing the enemy is the only way to win a war by showing Sherman burning down the plantations, factories and railways saying "a bullet will kill a man, a cannon will kill a line of men. These fires killed the confederate army."
Too many hollywood movies cover a single battle, fantasy setting movies try to copy LOTR, how many have confused guys marching with a leader telling them things like "if war was just about killing the other person, then nations would settle on a place to meet and duke it out" and be done with it already." think it would be a welcome subversion and politely poke fun at people who fanboy over generals that are good tacticians and cite battles as the relevant information in their resume but not thing like how they solved logistics issues or caused problems for others. Make it clear that Grant was the better man to lead the nation's forces compared to Robert E. Lee who is good at conducting a battle rather than a war.
"Sherman did nothing wrong"
"Yes he did... He stopped"
Love it
I agree, he should have wiped out the native Americans.
Facts
BASED!!!!!
He had to stop because the Confederates gave up which was quite wise of them to do given that the heartland of the South was occupied and badly ravaged.
@bastiat4855 idk pretty sure my family’s not gonna be fighting for the rights to enslave people, so shouldn’t be an issue. If it us they have it coming
Remember, don't hate Southerners hate Confederates.
I agree but it doesn't help if most southerners remember the confederacy as a system that "stood up to oppression." When really they were the ones oppressing.
No. If they want to pretend that they didn't lose the Civil War but rather the War of Northern Aggression or that their loss gave them the right to act like Southholes towards everyone they deem necessary then I'll pretend the Civil War didn't properly end.
Because obviously it didn't.
Why choose?
@★ Froggie Animation ★ No confederates should be put in camps as traitors!
I'm a Southerner, not Black, and i hate Confederates.
“I’m a cartoon character, not an idiot.”
😂😂😂
He's my favourite strawman :D
@@tinnagigja3723 I'd put him just behind Ray Bolger personally, but its close.
@@tinnagigja3723 a strawman is a misrepresentation. If anything his depiction makes confeds seem intelligent.
@@CommieApe Good point.
@@CommieApe especially since he uses actual comments his videos get
Man, I love the notion that one of the worst human tragedies in history, a series of events characterized by wanton slaughter intended at wiping out an entire group of people, an occupation which wiped out a quarter of Byelorussia’s entire population, campaigns which included large scale and widespread massacres and deportations aimed purely the annihilation of Slavic Jews, Romani, and many others, is at all comparable to Sherman’s March, a military action which destroyed a series of military infrastructural complexes in the south. Mistreatment of civilians occurred of course but I find the idea that nazis in Eastern Europe and Sherman in Atlanta are even in the same zip code, no forget zip code, the same galaxy, absolutely absurd.
AjaxTheMediocre Word
Like an idiot, I bought Bloodlands years ago which is industrial genocide in Eastern Europe during WWII. It's a very depressing book. Modern people who have guns and are just itching for a fight because they disagree with others are just nuts.
langhamp8912 Should I get Bloodlands?
Ikr? My family lived through that war (they were Jewish, most either got caught by the Nazis or fled into Siberia) and the brutality of the Nazis was purely genocidal. Sherman's March to the Sea is always presented as this unbridled terror and bloodshed against civilians, even in NJ classrooms. I genuinely didn't know about a lot of this before watching this video
@@kadecase7470 @Dad Ee I actually took a history course in college that was essentially structured around entire book. It's *fine* as far as pop history goes, but it isn't held in the highest esteem by actual historians. He emphasizes the geographical point more than he should, has some trouble with numbers, uses some anecdotes as more concrete than he should, throws in some fairly strange offhand conclusions, and does a good amount equivocating between the USSR and Nazi Germany (including the conflation of the Holodomor with the Holocaust which is pretty Not Great).
It does, however, do an effective job of conveying the scale of destruction and death, which is overall the point of the book. If that's what you're looking for and can treat it as more of a guided tour of destruction than a comprehensive historical analysis, then it's probably worth a read. Just don't treat it as historical gospel.
The idea that "slaves had it good" is STILL prevalent in cities like St Louis. i've personally heard well educated people with fancy degrees talk about how "slaves didn't have it so bad." it's pretty sad. have a good education doesn't save you from ignorance
Yea, its fucking awful. I live near St. Louis and a lot of the rural / Small towns still wave confederate flags even though we're literally in a Union state. Its awful.
like bruh I can concede that SOME slaves had actually "good" masters who gave them educations, proper housing, proper food, never beat them, and didn't overwork them... but even regardless no man should EVER own another and neither should a man's master be anything or anyone but himself. Also the amount of slaves that were actually treated like humans were in the minority. It was also a privilege only allotted to the slaves of the extreme rich who could afford to treat them properly. The vast majority were instead treated horribly as nothing more than cattle. (we call it chattel slavery for a reason)
It depends a lot on the time period, the place, the master, and the slave is the thing. To say all slaves had it bad or all slaves had it good frankly does not do justice to the frankly fascinating complexities around the history of slavery. Not American slavery, but slavery as a global historical reality.
To give you an example: in Ancient Rome, if you were an educated Greek slave, you had it pretty good. You were basically a glorified secretary and confidant of some rich Patrician, trusted with managing his affairs and generally living a fairly decent life, more as a trusted friend than a slave.
And if you were an uneducated Thracian warrior captured in a campaign, you probably didn't have it as good. But most likely you were probably a gladiator. Which certainly meant a meager diet of porridge, hard hours of constant training, and painful (but not lethal contrary to popular belief) fights in the arena for the amusement of others. Humiliating, yes, degrading, absolutely. But if you did well, you lived relatively well. Loved by people, rewarded by your master with wine and gold.
And if you were an uneducated Gallic farmer, captured by a Roman legion raiding your farm. Then... God help you. Because you were barely a beast of burden. if you were REALLY lucky, you'd be sold to a Latifundium and work long hours harvesting crops for some rich plantation holder. But if you were not lucky, then you'd likely be sent to the mines. With no daylight, locked in a damp, musty, tunnel, with little clean air, worked until your hands were bleeding, and you could no longer breath. Day after day after day until your body finally gave out and you died on the spot. Your body thrown to dogs to be devoured.
The top most example was the reality for many slaves. Yes. But the overwhelming majority of slaves in Ancient Rome lived the reality of the bottom-most example. A harsh, brutal, horrible existence of suffering and cruelty. And so was it with American slavery. Yes, some slaves did well for themselves. Lived comfortably in the big house as secretaries or confidants, valued by their slave owners. But many worked long and brutal hours picking crops, from dawn to dusk, malnourished, tortured, raped, brutalized in horrific ways. Not even beasts of burden because no one treated their horses or their cows or their goats so horrifically.
@@Killzoneguy117 I see what you mean, however, this comment is on a video about the American Civil War, and the comment itself is about people living in St. Louis. People often talk in unspecific generalizations, what they probably meant by “slaves” was specifically slaves in the southern United States and Confederate States.
I suppose it’s hypothetically possible for a slave to have been treated decently by their master in these conditions, but that would be extraordinarily unlikely, but if that were true, it wouldn’t mitigate the overall racism of the time, and if these slaves were imported from Africa, rather than the descendants of African slaves in the New World, then they would also have to bear being separated from their community, family, and life, and being placed in an unfamiliar, foreign land where they had to do intense agricultural labor.
However, I’ve heard arguments against slavery that don’t have anything to do with their treatment, but specifically the state of being subordinate to another human being overall. I’m not sure if I agree, but you can argue that for a human being to be someone’s personal property, rather than merely working as an employee or servant, is to mistreat the dignity of that person by rendering them as your property, the same way you might do with an animals, plant, or item. *This* *argument* *isn’t* *about* *the* *treatment* *or* *conditions* *of* *the* *slaves* , *but* *about* *the* *inherent* *dignity* *of* *a* *person* *and* *the* *honor* *and* *respect* *their* *status* *deserves* .
St. Gregory of Nyssa was a 4th century Christian who wrote against slavery argued (and I’m paraphrasing here) that since humans had a right to rule over the Earth and its animals, because humans were masters over the Earth and animals, that to master over a human being the same way you master over the Earth and its animals was to wrongly treat one’s human dignity as if they were the same of an animal or object, he writes: “How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself (a human being), to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures...?”
I’d like to state I know very little about slavery, you seem like you know more about it than I do, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have opinions about the little I’m aware of, if I made any mistakes I’d like to be made aware of them.
Edit: I made a mistake in this comment, in the first paragraph I had originally stated “St. Louis, an American city in the South.” But St. Louis is actually located is Missouri, not in the South, I somehow got in confused with New Orleans, a city in Louisiana, so my bad.
Having a degree in engineering does not make you a historian.
Lots of intelligent people tend to think they can form a better opinion than an expert on a subject they themselves have no familiarity with.
“Total War” by definition is actually a great PC strategy game series.
You obviously haven’t played total war in awhile.
Such a shame how the franchise has changed... makes a man miss the Total War Empire and Total War Napoleon days.
Begon Genesis Rome 2 is miles ahead g
Of what we have now. Sorry I can elaborate more, I have to go defeat a whole army with 1 unit.
Roman_Valdax I played yesterday man. Warhammer 2 is mechanically the best game in the franchise. Yeah I still love medieval 2 and empire but Warhammer is pretty great too.
Begon Genesis I had no idea people really felt this way. I’m not a fan of 3 kingdoms or Troy but Warhammer 2 is fantastic. They’ve put a lot of effort into it and it shows. And call me crazy but I loved Rome 2, although I admit I didn’t play it until many of the release bugs were patched out.
I love how Union Guy and Johnny Reb have to be forced to promote Atun-Shei's merchandise _at gunpoint_
Billy Yank I believe his name is
@@Autumnlight91 Thanks!
I wonder why he was fine when he was held at gunpoint the first time but not the second time.
Random Boy 3 m He couldn’t show that we was scared the first time.
honestly the best shilling in videos like this are where they show that it is very obviously shilling and have fun with it, which makes me laugh and more likely to actually check out the product in the ad as opposed to some generic fake-enjoyment bullshit that I just don't pay attention to
Really I find it fascinating how Sherman viewed himself. It was like he was ok with being the necessary evil.
He was a fist
He followed the maratha war strategy.
He had no qualms about his job. He was a soldier and his job was to end the war. He needed to weaken the south and he did.
He relished in this fact
There are a number of leaders in history who held a similar mindset. Some could say this even if the person themself has no written documents. Like Vlad the impaler a man who while acting in a way that was absolutely cruel cruel to both enemy and innocent. But yet he was a hero to many and still is within Romania. He likely knew what he did was wrong ways he saw it as necessity to protect his Realm and hold power.
"Victors write the history"
Well the Dixie states proved this wrong
This happens when you have complacent victors and very sore losers. The losers write history.
@True Dixie boy, Texan Texas isn't dixie lmao 😂 brisket eating cowboy desert dwellers are NOT dixie boys
@@GerMFnU1848Sax If the Confederacy is never outmatched, then how did they lose so quickly? I have nephews who have lived longer than that country.
@@squidward5110 my family is still in the Deep South. My girl and I moved near West Texas to settle on a ranch. Texas is Texas. I love Texas. Women, horses, bbq and beer. But I'm still Dixie* in the heart and blood
@@mguy5923 I wouldn't find a 4 year war losing quickly.
Calling out the assholes in your own fanbase...bold. I appreciate the integrity it takes to do that, not many groups/channels/organizations do that these days.
@HeerKommando I feel like it was real when people were first doing it, but now everyone is following the ritual to maintain appearances.
A lot of it is just shitposting, but some of it is definitely hating on the South, as it should be.
@@jamesharding3459 "it's almost as if that some people can't tell the difference between southern aristocrat slave owners and modern day southerners." 😐
@@DreadPirateRoberts121 If they’ll stop idolizing the aforementioned then maybe I’ll bother to make the distinction.
@@jamesharding3459 ... yes just continue hating them and bashing them that will show them that they are wrong because that will work... or it will cause them to continue tightening the ranks until someone starts doing stupid shit like storming the Capitol again.
Fun fact: Sherman while not religious, was a baptized Roman Catholic and his son became a catholic priest.
Good ole Shermey was pretty anti-religion from what I heard. So this must have pissed him off something fierce.
Sherman described himself as a man of “works” not a man of “faith.”
He seems to have considered his wife’s and son’s devotion to preparing for the next life as a bit morbid.
general sherman was a papist and an idolator
@uncletigger Dude... It's okay to be antireligious, but advocating for forced "re-education" is pretty fucked up.
uncletigger so parents who raise their kids religious or baptize their kids or send their kids to religious education are child abusers?
Oh man. Suggesting what Sherman did was worse than the Nazis in Russia? That's a take spicier than a mouthful of wasps.
Or the Japanese in China.
@@deepseeshell8926 He's literally quoting a post on one of his videos. It's fair game to call that out. You may distance yourself from that position, but someone posted that fully believing it. It needed to be addressed.
@@deepseeshell8926 That was literally a comment someone posted on one of Atun-Shei's videos. He put it up on the screen so you can see that Johnny Reb is delivering the words of an actual viewer.
@@deepseeshell8926 No he doesn't portray them all like that, he just takes every talking point they have and explains why they are wrong, regardless of how many people believe them.
@@deepseeshell8926 All the ships they sail are inherently wrong
"I'm a cartoon character, not an idiot." For whatever reason, that killed me 🤣🤣
I love how Billy Yankee and Johnny Rebel here feel like they're actually friends. They have actual chemistry, and seem to properly enjoy one another's company and discussion, even if they disagree. Beyond being kinda hilarious, it also feels like some kinda message--something about making friends with your enemies. And occasionally sticking a gun in their face. Y'know, as you do.
I think it could also be used to show how the civil war was one thar divided families and friends.
Also a message if you hate to love reb ( cause let's face it we are all here to be entertained by him) that that's okay since even the guy who laws the verbal and moral smackdown on him is his friend and tries to talk him into changing rather than raging and shooting him......except you know....the time he shot him but we'll ..we'll just forget that
@@striker8961 I'm think you'll find that was some other handsom Confederate officer. We have it on the authority of Johnny Reb himself.
@@joshcain1032 Oh my sincerest apologize my good sir my sincerest apologize for my mistake
It almost feels like it isn't the same guy greenscreened in next to himself.
Georgia State Trooper after pulling over someone with a New York license plate: "Son, we don't let Yankees speed through the South."
New York driver: "Really? Sherman did."
*proceeds to write $1000 ticket, like Georgia State Troopers are apt to do.*
@@edgarblackwell1474 *Proceeds to set it on fire, like Union boys are apt to do.*
@@DrMFoster7 Calm down kiddo it's a joke
@Rusty Shackleford Nothing will happen, but mainly because almost no one will get the references
He took his time actually
I love how you are using actual comments, instead of using straw man arguments of confederacy supporters.
I'd argue that these are just living breathing straw men
So just men then
I don’t think saying burning civilians alive being wrong is a straw man
@@jesusobannon8557 I guess my point was more that these people are clearly exaggerating their personalities to make a point. And so like, they themselves are becoming the straw men. Now, some of them clearly have just been mislead and are trying to have a debate, but then there's also the guy who wrote out "rebel yell"
@@mastermonke1177 When did this happen?
President Carter once visited a school in Arizona where they welcomed him by playing "Marching through Georgia". He winced and whispered to his aides, 'Don't they know that isn't a southern song?'
Jesus 😅
Who cares if that school was offended?
@@hannahdyson7129 I think you’ve missed the point …
The only good thing about Carter...
@@marknewton6984 too real
Real enough!
“We only lost bc the union has overwhelming resources”
Winning is winning, cope.
What war ever had both sides get together and balance troops out before fighting?
@@tlee51ftw exactly, war is never balanced
These comments in here are from people who think that war is team death match. They are the kind that are courted to sign their lives away army by recruitment ads mimicking videogames and comic books.
In war if your not cheating, than your not trying. Playing fair is for games not war.
@@graceneilitz7661 agreed 👍
I feel like the fact that the Yankee is drinking a wine called Inferno while discussing this subject is not a coincidence.
Pothic Inferno Whiskey Barrel Red to be exact. A california wine if I’m not mistaken.
@@fumarc4501 Ypu are mostly correct, but it's Apothic. I find it quite tasty myself.
The Johnny Reb is also drinking a beer called Dixie.
@@DrHotWarLove fitting. Dixie+Inferno=Sherman
@@dorkmax7073 imagine a video game based on sherman's march to the sea named
"D I X I E - I N F E R N O"
Johnny Reb’s full name is Jonathan Rebellion.
And Bill Yank is William Yankee
Kristine Oh. I could have sworn it was “Unusual” William Yankovic.
@@IdliAmin_TheLastKingofSambar lol
@@bigsiskrishere no you idiot, it's BILLIAM Yankee
Sounds French, he must be from N’awlins!
I will never understand Lost Causers pointing out that some Union Generals didnt support abolition or were racists to somehow say that the CSA didn't fight to preserve slavery. The Unions motivations dont change the CSA's motivations.
I know this was posted 5 months ago, but this is a very effective debating technique, called whataboutism. Basically, the idea is that by answering to your valid point with some unrelated incident from "your side", they change the subject and no longer have to defend their indefensible position AND forcing you to defend yours.
It's just 'Whataboutism". They had a " drinking game" over it in an earlier episode.
Whataboutism is a " red herring" style argument intended to shift attention away from a particular point that is a source of embarrassment or cognitive dissonance. Whataboutism is nearly always an indicator that the person taking a particular position feels vulnerable and/or uncomfortable with some aspect of that position, and hopes that by shifting the focus to attacking the "other side", they can avoid confronting the point of shame or embarrassment.
@@fredrickfrederickson5246 If you remove your opening sentence, your Reply sounds plausible, rational, and reasonable. As it stands, however, it makes you sound like a reactionary right wing, WE-are-the-real-victims-here, they're-out-to-get-us, they-hate-us-because-we're-white, Tucker-style, MAGA-style idiot.
I would _still_ wonder what you're basing your comments on, as I don't know how you could know all those factors in detail without providing any citations or source. I'm just saying that your argument _sounds_ plausible, aside from the first sentence.
Regarding the first sentence, why do people on the political right (which I'm guessing you are) see conspiracies against white people everywhere. This, to me, is one of the really offensive aspects of right-wing politics, leading to so much of the b******* that's been working its way through Republican led legislatures over the past 2 years. Why taint an otherwise good answer with right wing conspiracy theory? Makes no sense to me.
and if the union did something bad to souther woman then it's doesn't make the south action against black or indian people right two wrong thing doesn't make it right or justify to make it right
I didn't know that about the drunk Union soldiers deciding to hold a vote to repeal secession in the state capital. That's fucking hilarious.
It really is. I want that in a civil war movie.
"YOU GUYS WANNA JUST UNCONFEDERATE THE CONFEDERACY AND GO HOME? SAY AYE. AYES HAVE IT. GONNA GO TO BED."
I wouldn’t mind being one of those Union soldiers
I would give my soul to go back in time and be one of those drunk soldiers. I'd LOVE to the guy running the meeting.
@@williamlancaster5136 to be that guy, ummm right?
Confederates: Hey, let's go to war.
Also Confederates: Hey, Sherman's doing a War. How dare he!
Cops: Hey let’s go to war also cops: AAAH A WATER BOTTLE RUN AWAY
One reason Sam Houston advised Texans to avoid Secession and war was the North's greater population and industry.
CSR Official you aren’t a confederate
Well, to be fair he is considered "the first modern general" by some historians because of his tactics of scorched earth. But scorched earth and foraging was not uncommon in warfare, I mean I just think of the Russian retreat in 1812. Although scorched earth was at the time a defensive tactic however it was done to stop foraging so.
be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...
And Sherman really was one of the first of the modern generals, in the sense that he was a professional soldier who looked at war purely from a winning and losing perspective. Granted that's not new in the context of history, but this was at a time where most officers still came from the upper classes and war was still viewed in 'gentlemanly' terms. Generals like Grant and Sherman, who were more than happy to win through logistics than valor, were a stark change from the generals leading both armies at the beginning of the war.
"The north only won because of overwhelming resources"
Found the guy whose butthurt his mates beat him in Starcraft cus he didn't expand.
when the 2 basing protoss complains about losing to a 7 base zerg at 20 minutes
Interestingly enough, Marines in Overwhelming numbers is my main strategy
@@toastpuppy3491 sound like WH40k tactic lmao
Well Iron Warriors at least
@@user-lj5zc7kq2h nah, the Iron Warriors are seige masters. Sending in people to be slaughtered for no good is a distinctly Imperial Fist strategy
I will never get tired of how enthusiastically Johnny Reb says “checkmate Lincolnites!”
Broke: Sherman wasn't a war criminal because he didn't actually commit all the atrocities he's said to have
Woke: Sherman wasn't a war criminal because the Hague Convention hadn't happened yet and thus war criminals couldn't exist yet.
That's not the "Hague Convention", hague is the seat of the international court, which was established on june 26 1945. The international law of war, was established on the 22nd of August 1864, after the battle of solferino in 1859, which happened during during the second war of italian independence. That was the first geneva convention, and it was generally about the treatment of POW and the wounded. It was signed by 12 countries:
Swiss Confederation
Grand Duchy of Baden
Kingdom of Belgium
Kingdom of Denmark
Kingdom of Spain
French Empire
Grand Duchy of Hesse
Kingdom of Italy
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves
Kingdom of Prussia
Kingdom of Württemberg
Woke:Sherman was a war criminal because he didn't burn enough racist
Ciaphas Cain I see what you're getting at, but all I take from it is that the concept of a war criminal didn't yet exist in the United States. Checkmate, Lincolni- er, Europeanite.
@@superfish0012 it doesnt necceceraly means that the concept of war criminal didnt existed. There were soldiers in revolutionary france who were executed for "warcrimes", however the meaning of "war criminal" was neither a universally accepted/enforced term, nor defined internationally. It varied cuture to culture, nation to nation.
@@Cainthegodslayer There were multiple Hague Conventions (in 1899 and 1907) that set up all sorts of rules for war like declaring "unannounced" invasions or the use of chemical weapons illegal.
Thank you for touching on William T Sherman after the war.
Few men have decimated the Lakota people as much as Sherman had.
Sherman looks homeless.
I mean, he was a lot less homeless than the people who lived in the places he burned down :D@@marknewton6984
@@marknewton6984 Ironicly he kinda looks southern
Ouch, that hurts!
Yeah the Lakota were used to doing the wiping out of weaker tribes. Not fair giving them their own medicine!
Between the Sherman memes, the merch ad at gunpoint, and the confederates from space....best damn episode yet. Please keep it up!
My fathers uncle used to tell him stories about the Southern officers he knew during WW1. That their common attitude (and they weren’t afraid to voice it loudly and often, but especially while drinking at the officers clubs) was that they were going to go ahead and pitch in to help the free world defeat the hun, but as soon as WW1 was over they were going to organize and finally finish the job of succession as a risen Confederate States of America’s. It’s hard to imagine how strong the Lost Cause myth and the, The South Will Rise again mythos was in the minds of many Southerners for long after the Civil War. Funnily enough, the whole, “the war wasn’t about slavery but taxes,” and the “war of northern aggression,” and basically everything you discuss in Checkmate... These things were these Southern officers most commonly repeated talking points.
I forget what book it was... Cold Sassy Tree maybe. But the turn of the century southern boy in it talks his southern public schools history curriculum. That the teacher would do a month on the ancient Egyptians. A month on the Indians. A month on the American Revolution. And the other half of the year on the Civil War. And you don’t have to strain very hard to imagine what exactly they taught the kids...
We will free Dixieland one day. And I will face the yankee horde. Proud Dixie boy.
It is a fact that most bankers were in the North and thus wanted to expand their influence on our soil and by supporting the lincolnite and his federal government, we would lose our states rights. 90% of us Grays never had slaves.
It's fun for me to point out there were guys in the early 20th century with living memory of that time, it makes you see it all so differently. For example there was an artillery officer under Pershing who was an Antietam and Fredericksburg veteran. There's photos of him at the Western Front... still wearing the Union field coat and Shako over his field uniform.
Just imagine living through those fights and being like, "Damn, it can't get any worse."
Then you witness Verdun.
@@GerMFnU1848Sax 70%. And it is also a fact that most slave owners were Southerners, and thus wanted to expand their influence into other, new states, and also tried to use the Federal government to accomplish this. And a decent chunk of that 70% of non-slave owners supported this. It makes sense that they would do so, as people attempting to abolish it would be seen as attacking their society, their values, and so on. And so the state's rights they were most interested in protecting was the "right" to have more states who allowed for slavery, so that they could keep a good solid slavery-state voting block going, so they could keep their society as it was, and stop others from meddling with their slave-based society. And then, when they lost, they went out of their way to keep as much as that status quo as possible.
You might not like it, but that's reality. They weren't the good guys.
I love how you have Marching Through Georgia at the end of the Sherman video. Also, random fun fact time, Sherman actually hated that song because it was all they would play around him.
If i remember correctly, he specifically requested that it not be played at his funeral because he hated it so much. Guess what they played at his funeral.
He also hated them glorifying his march to the sea, which he considered a necessary thing to win a war, but not something to be glorified.
@@nottherealpaulsmith Marching through Georgia 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well obviously you know that, you are him afterwards
@@Polavianus Straddlin’ Through South Carolina
Confederacy: WE SHALL LAY WASTE TO THE NORTH
Union: *Lays waste to the south*
Confederacy: *surprised Pikachu*
i dont think that justifies it. none should have happened
@@dylan5113 what was the alternative?
@@dylan5113 but luckily it did.
Lol the civil war was not a defensive war for the north
@@ramblinbob1918 the first shots fired were aimed at federal troops in fort sumter. that by definition makes it so that the south aggressed, meaning the north defended.
I love how much integrity and honesty this guy has, he’s willing to concede good points even when he doesn’t want to, accept hard truths for the sake of historical integrity, and he’s even okay with calling out radicals on his own side. It takes courage, commitment, and a high level of patience to do something like this and I respect it immensely
I'm too lazy but did he commit war crimes or not.
@@thatonefpsgamer1339 HE didn’t, but he apparently denied war crimes but stated that it’s impossible that his army made their full March without looting, blaming any other actions on stragglers that often committed the more heinous actions like rape and murder.
He started the war like most northern officers thinking the Confederacy was more of a fringe movement and they could win hearts and minds like it’s the Afghanistan War 19th century Edition. Eventually he realized that was bullshit and then began destroying crops and other supplies that were being sent to the Greys, which isn’t really a war crime since that’s just denying the enemy supplies.
Furthermore the seizure of Atlanta and subsequent chaos he said “they’ve brought it on themselves”
So the TLDR of it is: ehhhhhhh some shady shit happened and he did some cold hearted shit but he wasn’t a hardened WAR CRIMINAL or anything, although some war crimes almost certainly happened
ATF being based?
@@DeathDealer_1021 🅱️ased
@@truenorthgames to soon man to soon
When they both turn to the audience, that's just pure magic. Well done.
"Sherman's march made what the Nazis did to Russia and what the Japanese did to everyone look sweet"
Does he has ANY knowledge of WW2 history?
Exactly. What the nazis did was genocide hundreds pushing into Moscow. And Japan well. Did the stuff to Nanking. What Sherman did was push through the heartland of the south.
The Imperial Japanese Army threw people in pits to do bayonet practice on them.
Literally no knowledge of ww2
@@Immafraid and worse. They use babies on poles and also they would throw the babies into the air and stick them on the bayonet
Yeah that's a horrible quote and a horrible comparison.
Grant cutting through the Mississippi:
*To show you the power of the Union Army, we sawed this country in half*
Sherman going to Atlanta:
*Thats a lot of damage, how ‘bout a little more*
*Phil you make me angry, Phil*
Sherman when he arrives in Atlanta and heads north: *HOLY SH*T look at all this damage*
Not enough Flex products in the world
“SHERMAN HAS SNIFFED TOO MUCH NAPALM, AND NOW ALL HE CAN SEE IS TRAITORS.”
@@Frostyman452 didn't he go East? From Atlanta, to Savannah, right?
Me: "Ugh my day is terri-" *RUclips: "hey there's a new episode of Check-Mate Lincolnites"*
ME: GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!
@J E
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!
Gabe Peterson GOLY GOLY HALLELUJAH!
@Gabe Peterson
HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!
REBEL YEEEeEEeeELL
@Joe M
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps.
The long and very realistic part of Johnny regaining composure after having a gun pointed at his head was entirely needless and magnificent. i love this channel
"REbeEl yYeeEEEeeeEEeeeEEEEll!!!111"
- Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg, 3rd of July 1863
@@xotl2780 Sad
@@xotl2780 Lol, why? It's not like they had anything else to do during their hike across a death field.
@@LykosShadowmane aside from the dying, of course.
I like how instead of actually yelling he just screamed the words "rebel yell" 😂
"Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!"
-Union soldiers at Gettysburg, 3rd of July 1863
he attac
he attac
but most importantly,
he attac
He burn a shacc
I'm born and raised in Alabama but HELL YEAH BRING THE MAN BACK TO LIFE. We need him back
Too homophobic here too
And burn
@@duckyz6956 Given the Sherman tank’s reputation during World War II for readily burning (no matter how undeserved) there is some irony here.
...I’m about to be beaten with the going-off-on-a-tangent stick, aren’t I?
@ALSO-RAN ! I know it sucks
Johnny Reb: "Stop smiling!'
Billy Yank" "I wasn't. I wasn't"
Me: "Ok... you caught me."
Johnny Rebel?
_I_ was
I love that bit about how Sherman's army would just... evade any concentrated defense.
Because to me, that's something I noticed a lot of in the early Civil War. A lot of it was "The Rebels pull a massive army together from multiple units to try some big dick Jacksonian sundering of the enemy forces". And a lot of Union Generals just... let them. They never put the pressure on. They never tried to stop the Confederacy from fighting the war basically 1 (Or 2) battles at a time across the entire war.
Sherman, and Grant, both understood that to leverage the industrial and manpower advantage the Union had, they had to stop it. Grant did it in the Overland Campaign, always punching at Lee's face, never letting him retreat, regroup, send troops to another front (like he did at Chickamauga, etc). And Sherman did it by just refusing to offer them battle. If you're going to gather for your big dick swinging decisive battle doctrine... he'd just turn around and sack another city instead.
Same idea, two different executions, all existing to put the pressure on the Confederacy until it cracked.
And Sherman's strategy also prevented the towns and cities he was threatening from sending reinforcements to Lee, like a more aggressive land-bound version of a fleet-in-being.
It's like the invading version of Fabian Tactics. Yes I'm invading, no I won't fight you.
1864 was an election year in the North. By avoiding direct confrontation, Sherman minimized casualties. Had the Atlanta campaign turned into a meat grinder it could have effected the election.
General “Plantation in sight, set it alight” Sherman
If Georgia wasn't meant to be burned why is it flammable?
Arthur “Plantation in sight, set it alight” Morgan
“See their farm and do them harm” -Sun Tzu
General "Native village in sight, set it alight" Sherman
@@teamcastro9187 Arthur is just Sherman reincarnated
"You can't commit war crimes if they haven't been invented yet!"
- General Sherman
Sherman admitted that he and the other Union generals were guilty of warcrimes.
@@kenabbott8585 ok
Ken Abbott his only crime was he didn’t burn every southern state
@@ericbrown175
Wow, a Leftist calling for acts of terrorism. I haven't seen that since...
Oh yeah. last time a Leftist spoke.
@@kenabbott8585 lmao, get that left vs right attitude out of here
Billy Yank: "Bread isn't grown in a lab."
Scientists: "Yet."
it depends on what you define a lab, which could technically be a bakery.
bread with yeast does grow under heat or smthg....
I have done nothing but teleport bread for three days
truly synthetic meat is less than a decade from being reliably producible as well as cheaper and more ethical than real meat. it’s a really exciting development in the fight against world hunger.
@@bg5469 if it has the same taste (or an equally good taste) im willing to try it
@@randomnameseventytwo1307 just recently singapore’s food administration gave regulatory approval for a synthetic chicken nugget brand. it’s being sold in restaurants over there so that’ll be the first we really hear of whether it’s good for the general consumer.
"I'm a cartoon character, not an idiot."
Golden. 👌
Can we talk for a minute about how the longer this series goes, Atun-Shei gets more into it on the Union side with "Billy Yank" becoming his own character as opposed to Atun-Shei just responding to comments.
Billy Yank murdered Atun Shei and is now just pretending to be him in "OOC" videos
I mean Atun Shei genuinely believes the confederacy wanted to preserve slavery, which is cringe, and Atun isn't so...
@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 -- Are you _trying_ to be parody? Because you're parody.
@@smallpseudonym2844 I said the confederates wanting to preserve slavery is cringe?
how is that parody.
By Atun being anti slavery he's not being cringe?
@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 -- Then I misread. But, in my defense, it's probably because your phrasing might need a rewrite:
"I mean Atun Shei genuinely believes the confederacy wanted to preserve slavery, which is cringe" means precisely the opposite of what you're trying to convey, and makes you sound like you're a lost-causer.
Love me some Royster's _Destructive War._ I watched a Civil War class have to reevaluate everything they thought about the whole "gentleman's fight" as they slowly got through it over the course of 4 weeks. One of the best things you can see as an instructor (or at the time a GA) is people realizing nuance and ambiguity isn't just a calling card, but a better way of interpreting history and therefore the world itself. Fun and revelatory stuff as always
Oh hey what’s up
Yep, and Grimsley’s “Hard Hand of War.”
H A H A For me it was a grad school course on Total War taught by the late legendary Dennis Showalter.
I used Royster and Grimsley to write my essay to get into grad school. They were both very good books.
Ebic
The best way I can describe Sherman, for better or worse, is a fist. He wasn’t gentle or subtle but he got the job done.
More like a hammer to a particularly stubborn nail but I can respect a man that does what he's good at
This is a good analogy
"Coward" works, since he ran from other soldiers and attacked women and children instead.
So does 'rapist'.
So does "nutcase,' since he was verifiably insane.
But overall "terrorist" pretty much covers it.
@@kenabbott8585 buddy his goal was to break the civilian industry as fast as possible he was not trying to spread fear he was trying to cut off vital supplies
@@cowbeanboi412
Vital supplies like homes, jewelry, families' winter food, women's and girls' virginity---y'know, stuff the soldiers really needed.
Amusingly, the Augusta Arsenal was within easy reach throughout most of his "March to the Sea" and his "Carolina Campaign," churning out some 400,000 pounds of ammunition per day and woefully underdefended. The "confederate" in the video didn't mention that, but when you write your opponent's arguments for them they do tend to miss things like that.
Somehow Sherman needed for his troops to rape women and burn homes for its military impact---but cutting off the Confederacy's only reliable source of gunpowder was such a secondary concern that he never bothered.
Also, Sherman frequently stated that spreading fear was indeed his goal. One of his most telling quotes was that "Fear is the beginning of wisdom." If you're familiar with your Bible, you'll find that slightly, but only slightly, familiar. See, there's a verse like it, in Proverbs, that fear OF THE LORD is the beginning of wisdom..... but is it any surprise that a verifiably insane terrorist would have a God-complex?
I don't know why it's so hard to acknowledge that sometimes bad things are done in the name of good causes. And it's okay to point out the bad things while acknowledging the overall good cause and greater evil being fought against.
Because to do that you have to admit Stalin was right for this exact reason
@@liljimmy8248 Right about what? Ethnically cleansing indigenous minorities and expelling them from their lands? That's what Nazis do. There is no comparison.
And also North Korea
Attacking whole minorities because you think they're "inherently Nazis" or backwards or whatever BS logic Stalin used when they were fighting against his colonialism is not the same as attacking Confederate cities.
@@liljimmy8248 not necessarily. While I will not speak on North Korea as I don’t know it’s history well enough to judge, I will say that Stalin was not acting in good faith as far as I can tell.
"his problems were that we declared independence, not that we supported slavery.. errh I mean State's rights" LOOOOOOL
The states seceeded over slavery. The war was indeed fought over state's rights. Lincoln could have obeyed the Constitution and let the states go. He chose to ignore the law and force the southern states to remain in the union at gunpoint against their will. While I'm glad the country stayed together and slavery was abolished, I don't like modern progressive revisionists trying to ignore the facts when pontificating on the Civil War. They're no better than the lost cause myth makers who over glorify the south's actions.
@@possumverde By "modern revisionists" I think you mean the "contemporary Confederates themselves". Read their secession documents. There would have been no war but for their actions, and their actions were based solely on their desire to preserve slavery. We know this, because they explicitly told us exactly what they were doing and why.
Please cite to me the clause in the Constitution that says a state may simply leave whenever it chooses. There is no Constitutional mechanism whatsoever by which a state can legally say "You know what? Fuck the United States, I'll see you guys later". And considering the fact that the South started the war, both ideologically and by actually attacking first.
Yeah, Lincoln did a lot of unconstitutional things during the War, that weren't great. But telling the South that they don't get to just take their ball and go home because they were butthurt about losing an election is not one of them.
@@possumverde : Secession wasn't a dry legal dispute over the phrasing of the Constitution, and it wasn't contested as such at the time. Even if the Constitution had explicitly said "secession is allowed" it wouldn't have stopped the North, and if the Constitution had explicitly said "no leaving ever" it wouldn't have stopped the South. Matters like independence are too big for 80+ year old documents, you can see the same kind of thing today - neither Catalan separatists nor Spanish nationalists base their main arguments off the Spanish Constitution.
When people say states' rights, I ask them which particular right was threatened to cause them to leave the union.
@@Stevie8654 And what you're expecting is "the right to own slaves", however that's not what the term "states rights" refers to.
*what about Sherman's March where he burned everything in his path*
Me: *imagining Sherman riding a dragon burning down Atlanta while the game of thrones theme plays*
Dracarys
You know what. I'm gonna play the theme and imagine Sherman riding a dragon burning down Atlanta
ruclips.net/video/AdQ3JDLlmPI/видео.html
Can't you see it?
Or this ruclips.net/video/93dH_uNOimo/видео.html
If they actually cut that in Season 8 would have been better.
Ha 😃. Instead of yelling dracarys it would be Manassass!
Suggestion: The next episode should tackle misconceptions and lies about Ulysses S. Grant, particularly those dealing with his wartime drinking and his ability as a general.
This would serve a natural progression from discussing Sherman and also continue to deal with some of the peripheral effects of Lost Causism (mainly, the myth of Grant the Drunken Butcher).
Additionally, Grant is best waifu.
Addendum:
My prayers have been answered; blessed be the generous Lord and his servant the VVitchfinder General!
as a descendant of grant thank you
And the answer to Groucho's gimme question on "You Bet Your Life".
As someone who's a Grant buff (and who's great-great-great grandfather served in his Army of the Tennessee), I hope so too! But he may have to be mixed into a video about various figures, including Lee, Longstreet, McClellan, and the rest.
Sherman's full of enough kickass memes on our side and able to generate enough salty Secesh tears on the other side to make this whole vid a half hour. :D
Grant does not get enough credit at all. He was actually a better president than most people give him credit for. His problem was he made some terrible decisions for who he put in power with him
Yes he best waifu
8:28 The fact that this comment compared Sherman's March with Japanese warcrimes in SouthEast Asia completely offends me as a Chinese-American citizen.
It offends me as a reasonable being, and I am neither Chinese nor American. Sherman did bad shit, but Imperial Japan was five levels of terribleness above Sherman.
It offends me as a casual history nerd. That guy had no idea what they were talking about.
It needs to be remembered that Japanese brutality in Nanking offended *Hitler's personal representative* so much that he became a minor hero by sheltering many people from them. Let that sink in.
Asian Nazis enough to make Sherman look like a saint.
@@thebandage5422 and the thing is it's doesn't mean the south is right it's just mean that yeah it is bad but doesn't mean you are right two wrong thing can't not make a good on unless you're desperate and even so don't know the fallout of it
I feel like the "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" shirt might get misinterpreted.. maybe I'm just self-conscious. It's a lovely blue anyways.
Yeah, I have a feeling I would be swaddled in a confederate flag and be invited to live amongst the deluded to be raised as one of their own.
@@WastedTalent- sleeper agent time
@@WastedTalent- undercover spy
Yeah either that or I'd be shot. Depending where I wander to
@@WastedTalent- excellent then its time to destroy them from within
I feel like if someone took a tour of his home and having no knowledge of his RUclips channel, they would be pretty of confused with the confederate flag and nazi uniform.
Doesn't everyone have those things just in case?
He does a really good video of that where you can see the Nazi uniform hanging up. He then freaks out, grabs it, and throws it on the floor.
You just watched social studs watch review didn't you? He said the exact same thing.
It's actually really nice to see these two portrayed almost as old friends who just happened to be on opposite sides, or even even as friends who met because of their service.
Shame theres so many lies around, its so weird to see people openly displaying rebel flags that advocated for 10% of the population to be subhuman and naturally submissive to white people, its insane as an outsider that people deny that truth
@@PropheticShadeZ a lot of those people are ignorant of the fact.
Prophetic ShadeZ It gets even weirder when you see the rebel battle flag being displayed in a northern state that proudly sided with the Union during the Civil War. Some of my neighbors have gotten too caught up in “Lost Cause” narrative, and seem to have forgotten our State’s historical involvement in the war.
@attackmaster555 You mean the display of a flag for the destruction of the union?
Alex McBride my favorite is seeing them in West Virginia, which only became a state to join the union 💀
I'm sorry, but the idea of a Hitler time traveling to escape Berlin only to end up in the Salem witch trials sounds like a syfy 2 am b-rated masterpiece waiting to happen and I'm fully on board with it.
Also, I'm mad now cause this was for the last episode, but it went onto this one while I was still typing XD
Your point about "industrial slavery" is an excellent one, and highly overlooked. During the Civil War, Confederate industry was highly dependent on enslaved industrial workers at basically every level, from raw materials to skilled workers. But let's focus in on skilled workers
The Tredegar Works were the most famous and productive ironworks in the Confederacy. Both before and during the war, it employed large numbers of enslaved black laborers. It also employed free black and free white labor. Interestingly, the enslaved black labor got some of the same "perks" that free labor got - company housing, wages, etc. But unlike truly free labor, these enslaved Tredegar laborers could never switch jobs. It didn't matter if a competitor was paying more - even if paid wages, the Tredegar workers were still enslaved and thus worked for Tredegar ownership and nobody else
Two major elements of Richmond's pre-war industry was tobacco and grain processing. Enslaved labor again played a major role in this. The major plantations of the Tidewater region of Virginia, a historical plantation region but one with exhausted soil and declining profits, often rented their enslaved workers to grain mills and tobacco processing plants in Richmond on a seasonal basis. There was less work to do on the plantations themselves as yields declined, and so enslavers either rented or sold down the river their excess enslaved labor
One of the most impressive Confederate industrial achievements was the Powder Works in Augusta, Georgia. Before the Civil War there was essentially no mass gunpowder production in the South. By 1862-3, the newly built powder works in Augusta were the second largest powder works on the planet. This plant depended on enslaved labor at every level - particularly the dirty job of turning over outhouses to collect the nitrogen in urine - but as the war dragged on and more and more white labor was taken by the army, enslaved workers replaced those skilled white workers
Tbh Im not gonna read all that but you probably made a good point.
This is a unique take. I do believe that Slavery was going to be on its way through a variety of means, but the South went kicking and screaming to emancipation for the country's entire history so war was the only path forward
One thing to add is that their owners were often paid their wages.
Right, another example of how slavery was really only beneficial to the 30% who owned them. The rest of the South saw the pay for any type of labor, skilled or otherwise, severally reduced, how do you compete with room and board? This suppression of middle class entrepreneurship definitely restricted it's economy and resiliency.
Of course to overcome this, the wealthy governor class just had to scapegoat the North for its anemic economy and stoke racial superiority as the right and proper ownership of other humans.
The plantation class substantially invested in the stake it was burned at during the civil war
The majority of workers in Richmond were free workers, more foreign born than blacks in fact. There was more slave labor because of the war as you pointed out, as obviously to anyone who studies economics in an industrial setting slavery is patently inferior.
Sherman was so good they named a tank after him.
Yes, they even named a decent tank after him. Unlike Lee...
Was actually Britain who named the lee, grant, Sherman, and other civil war general named tanks. Britian used names only where America during the early period just used alphanumerics
Yeah how many times Sherman tanks getting blown up by German made tanks
@@jasonsantos3037 Your mind will explode if you find out what the Sherman was made for
...
...
...
Infantry support!
The M18, M10 and M36 were designed to deal with the german heavies, where as the Sherman was made to deal with infantry, though its modularity allowed for modifications which made the tank versatile. Adding to that is the Sherman's outrageously good survival statistic.
@@jasonsantos3037 Also Hans the transmission broke again
Oh my gosh, as a history fanatic, I thought this was a legitimate super pro-Confederate channel when I saw this in my recommendations, and everytime your videos were recommended I was immediately like "OH HELL NAWH." Well turns out, these videos are historical comedic masterpieces lol
He's one of the best Civil War era history youtubers. He gives the best context and really good comedy in every "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" video.
Damn it's like you should stfu and watch it first before coming to a conclusion
Yeah, that was my reaction too when I saw this channel start popping up in my recommended videos. I was all ready to come charging in to the comments like "NO THE F#^% YOU DIDN'T" and then I actually started watching and was like, "Oh... neat."
Funny how history "fanatics" usually just subscribe to the grade school level bullshit they were indoctrinated with.
What made you click on one of the videos? I had a similar experience when the almighty algorithm recommended Beau of the Fifth Column to me and I was like: Oh God, it's a bearded redneck in a bunker! But I was intrigued and watched, thankfully.
"YOU... WILL FALL... BY THE SWORD!"
Dude, I already fell laughing, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?!
I died at that point also... jesus.
I support confederate statues as long as we construct larger statues of Sherman that breathe fire on them
had me in the first half ngl
If we're going to put up statues to terrorists, let's go whole-hog and put up some statues of bin Laden.
😄😄😄😄😍
...you know what? I'm on board with this.
Shame about your morality, or lack thereof.
When the Confederate has to take a call from his girlfriend Scarlet and he frankly doesn't give a d-n.
I understood that reference.
The Medjay of Fayium He’s referencing a line from the 1939 film “Gone with the Wind”.
Ah I see what you did there, here’s a like
"I'm a cartoon character, not an idiot!". If only I could upvote it more :D