What I enjoyed about this is that Atun has very cleverly and very slowly moved his Southern Johnnie Reb persona from a "character" to a more fully realized "Person" in a way. He's far less reactionary, far less angry and more willing to listen to Billy Yank. And Billy is far more patient with his compatriot. It's a neat progression.
I love how he goes from the Nazi comments being part of Johnny Reb and shooting him, to a later Nazi character temporarily possessing Johnny Reb and having Vvitchser General performing an exorcism.
If you've seen the post-credit scene (with the sword of Beauregard) I have a theory the last episode will have a redemption arc and Johnnie will be the "true patriot" that can wield the sword and will kill Klaus with it For those who don't know, Atun-Shei's different videos have a bit of a shared universe thing going.
He’s become a lot more like how most people who believe or believed in the lost cause myth actually are. Their not bad people, their fellow history buffs who got fed bad, racist information as a kid and now feel like defending that idea is apart of their identity.
Fitzhugh was a real psycho. He not only wanted the expansion of slavery but he wanted to eliminate its racially based structure. In his view, slavery was not simply a necessary evil, as many at the time argued, but an active positive good. Sinister indeed.
35:30 I agree that the existence of the editorials and speeches doesn't necessarily mean that they were widely accepted by the population. However, that they were reported on and published then, and are known of now, and available in archives shows that they were likely not the belief of a radical fringe of the most radical groups. That they found enough traction with the population, and specifically with those in positions of power and influence that they were recorded for posterity shows that they had significant influence. They were not viewed as we would view someone on a street corner insisting that we should 'repent because the end is nigh', but were instead taken seriously enough to be noteworthy.
Do a quick search into the subject of "Christian Dominion" and you will find an internet rabbit hole that will help you understand that J.H. Thornwell's idea of a potential american state religion that leads into a Protestant Theocracy is very much alive and still kicking around 160 years later. The only thing preventing this "Y'all Queda" from coming into being is the question "Out of the dozens of potential options, which particular Christian sect is going to be the orthodox norm?" Because under such a system there con be only one true and correct interpretation of Christ's Dominion upon this earth. All others must therefore lie somewhere in the spectrum of apostate to heretical. And be treated as such.
Also to note, Wasn't Frederick Douglass helped to convince Lincoln to move from his Anti-Slavery position to further Emancipation of the Freed slave? Douglas wasn't a part of the Union Government at the time the Civil war broke out, yet he helped the president to move from the accepted norm at that time to the more fringe idea of Emancipation, cementing Abolitionism in Northern discussion. And it's really hard to argue if not by speculation due to the length of when the Confederacy lived, But I can easily imagine people as Influential as a Church Minister from South Carolina's main Seminary (James H. Thornwell) and a well-known Philosopher from Virginia, their "capital" state (George Fitzhugh) to also sway Jefferson Davis further into more fringe Autocratic measures, Either into the White Christian theocracy Thornwell wishes or the Oligarchic Republicanism powered with plantation owners immense influence Fitzhugh envisioned... Just like what Douglas did with Lincoln
Fun fact. One of the organized militias in Virginia had a uniform paying homage to the continental army uniform. I can't remember their specific designation but they were known as the Continental Morgan Guard. I'm much more jealous of their uniforms than Johnny Reb's cape tbh.
Always love the Atun Shei reactions. Each time he uploads I always think of, “God I can’t wait to see what Chris says” thanks for being such a great source for historical info! And inspiring myself and many others to learn more!
What Atun Shei is trying to say by quoting those characters isn't to prove those were the predominant ideas in the CSA, but rather that the ideological bases were there to be so in the future, in the case they would have won. Most probably, the Confederacy could have become some form of authoritarian republic with a strong government intervention in economy and civil society. Something like today's China (what a twist). And I don't care if I offend anyone, but God bless Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and the Union for kicking their asses.
I get what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t compare the staunchly Classicalist government of the Confederacy to a totalitarian Communist state, if anything they were headed long-term in the polar opposite direction, that being either a totalitarian Fascist state or some type of strong or absolute Monarchy
@@TheLocalLt China is in now way communist. They call themselves communist but they are actually a state capitalist country. It is close to facism but a bit different in the way that society is organized.
@@GageEakins state capitalism is an economic system not a political system. In any case, regardless of what structure the PRC’s economy follows at a given time (and they’ve tried them all at some point), the political system of the regime remains that of a very stereotypical Marxist-Leninist state, with one vanguard Communist Party enshrined by constitution, and a small “Politburo” advising an all-powerful Party Chairman who also heads the Party-owned People’s Liberation Army. The CCP also covertly supports and tries to radicalize left-wing movements around the world (just as Russia does on the global right) to sew division and distrust in much of the Classical world (though obviously they spare archconservative Russia) as they engage in this new Cold War, or Great Power Competition as the American State Department calls it.
@@TheLocalLt What would have probably happened is the Confederacy would mirror the late Russian Empire, complete with a run of leaders not too dissimilar from the Nicholas I → Alexander II → Alexander III → Nicholas II line, where you saw a Totalitarian replaced by a Reformer, replaced by another Totalitarian, who was replaced by a botch-job that led to full Revolution. They don't have to be Emperors in practice, could be Authoritarian Presidents, but I can easily see a situation where the master/slave relations in a country that was late to industrialize could lead to a full scale governmental breakdown like 1917 Russia.
Maybe you could have Mr. Beat introduce you to Atun-Shei. I feel like the two of you could have great informative conversations about the Civil War and other historical topics. Even if you guys don’t do cross overs together, I’m sure that you both could learn a lot from one another.
@@ROUGHSEES I don't know about that, his actual documentary-type videos are great. His silliness can be limited to videos like this, otherwise he can be very very on point. That said, I'd love to see a VTH "From the Battlefield" video series down in the New Orleans area with Atun-Shei acting as a guide/special guest. Guy knows his local history.
As a North Virginian I can confirm the Earthquake did in fact happen. Now please excuse me as I chase down a man for trying to steal my latest hunt spoils.
I'd never actually heard much about Fitzhugh before but reading his words here just made me immediately think "That sounds beat for beat like Thomas Carlyle's ideology"... and low and behold a quick google search later shows Fitzhugh was a massive supporter of Carlyles proto-fascist works.
That would explain why he called out Adam Smith specifically. Smith, like basically all the early economists was anti-slavery, and this offended Carlyle so greatly that he dubbed economics "The Dismal Science".
I am surprised that Giovanni Gentile didn't just copied Fitzhugh's work and change anything about Slavery into Totalitarianism because both of their ideals are eerily similar
The fact that he got you to say "How long does he plan to keep going with this?" seconds before ending the bit shows how good his instincts were on how to run it. Literally got you to 'disbelieving how long the silence was' then ended it. Masterful.
@35:46 You are absolutely correct Chris. That being said, we still have the glimpse of those who do not YET hold those positions of power. They were "saying the quiet part out loud" if you will.
Having seen this whole series (Checkmate Lincolnites) it has very much inspired me to learn more about the Civil War and American history. I never was a believer in the lost cause myth - and was not taught it in school, as I live in western Washington. The entertainment value and the information taught is something I find very engaging and I hope to learn more about more eras in the history of our nation.
Edward H. Bonekemper III. has some nice Books. I've read/listened to his Myth of hte Lost Cause - Why the South fought and why the North won, as well as his 10 biggest Civil War Blunders book, and recently started with his book on US Grant. Then there's also The Myth of hte Lost Cause and Civil War History by Gary W. Gallagher. The Grand Design by Donald Stoker and John Keegan's American Civil War
Hey I live in Western Washington too, now while I wasn’t taught that either I do remember being told Slavery wasn’t the cause of the war. Well now I know that is just completely misleading because either way you cut it, whether it be about taxes or state rights it was always affecting the south’s economy and way of life which included… slavery.
Atun Shei is funny, cool of Chris to give us more context, fact-check and evaluate arguments. Been studying history for a decade, U.S. can have some contentious interpretations and debates so I always appreciate the objectivity of this channel
While I understand that it's important to remember that an opinion of a few autocratic Confederates don't represent the majority (necessarily), it's also important to point that that even a small minority of autocrats can pull the direction of a society hard in that direction, no matter what the majority thinks. That's what Atun Shei, I think, is working with in his arguments. It's one thing to believe in democratic or republican ideals, it's another to live it and (as paradoxical as it can be) take up a huge burden by those ideals. That's true for all time, including now. Despite thinking that they've held that burden against Lincoln, the Lost Causers will have to forgive me in denying that the moderate Confederates (a phrase I never thought I would say before this video) would actually take up that burden against someone like Fitzhugh. And I don't believe I am irrational in that denial.
Excellent point! Is there any doubt that those in power would have expanded slavery? Was there any doubt they would have been pulled by those with even more extreme views on race relations to embrace the full belief system? When the "moderate" view is, "slavery is so good it should expand" then there can't be a lot of doubt of what the Confederacy represented?
11:47 I think Atun Shei honestly could have used the example of the Indian Wars fought after the Civil War where one really saw the dark side of America. The same celebrated union officers (george armstrong custer got his start in the civil war) and african-american soldiers (the buffalo regiments were a good example of this) and others who defeated the south were turned to the task of forcibly dislocating native tribes.
“. . . The governor of Georgia was now threatening to secede from the Confederacy. The Governor of North Carolina refused to permit any but his own troops to wear the 92,000 uniforms he was hoarding.” In response, Jefferson Davis said privately, “If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: ‘Died of a Theory.'”
North Carolina Governor Zebulon Vance was a former Southern Whig turned know nothing while Davis had been a Democrat and unlike Stephens, Vance was a border state Southern Whig and thus far less reactionary and militant. He clashed frequently with Jefferson Davis during the war. Also a number of North Carolina planters refused to stop growing tobacco when the Confederacy was desperately short of food. Combine that with the reality that NC barely voted to secede and it's not a surprise that NC would be a problem area.
@@David-fm6go NC was fairly divided as well. The planter class was located in the eastern part of the state, and the further west you went, the poorer and less slave-reiant the state became. As you rightly pointed out, it barely seceded, and even then, most likely because of the reality of being surrounded by Confederate states. Quite lucky for NC that the western region didn't pull a West Virginia and leave on its own. Course it would have been somewhat funny to see Franklin become a state somehow.
1:55 Yes, in a technical de jure sense, it is the case that the Declaration is just an unrelated document that has no bearing on the laws and government of the United States… except it’s really kind of the moral and philosophical foundation of the entire country. Lincoln referred to it as the “apple of gold” around which was the “frame of silver,” by which he meant the Constitution. So it would be entirely possible to have the frame, but there’d be nothing of value that it was holding. Indeed, this was why a lot of Southern slave owners before the Civil War outright dismissed the Declaration as flowery language but nothing that should inform how the Constitution should be interpreted as they were aware that the seeds of thought implanted in it necessarily led to the abolition of slavery. So from a purely legalistic framework, the Declaration is not relevant to the discussion but the reality is that it was intended to be the moral and philosophical foundation of all American law, as this was intended to be the dream and moral standard to which the fledging republic was to hold itself.
Agreed The Declaration of Independence does fundamentally lend legitimacy to the government, in that sense yes it is important But also it’s ignored from a constitutional scholar’s/legalistic perspective because, obviously, it’s not part of the constitution You can say a law is unconstitutional because you think it violates some clause or amendment of the constitution, you never ever hear anyone argue a law needs to be overturned since it’s somehow ‘against’ the Declaration of Independence And this applies to all other declarations of course
You know it’s funny. Had the revolution failed the declaration would be nothing more than some “manifesto” written by a bunch of rebellious traitors. History is crazy.
The main thing is that the Declaration is frequently quoted to interpret or justify existing law, which should not be the case. At its core it is a long speech and nothing more. It is the Constitution and Bill of Rights that is the real source of legal interpretation. The Constitution is meant to be eternal, the Declaration one for its time-which is why one may amend the Constitution but not the Declaration.
@@SantomPh I'd argue that you can't amend the Declaration because the only legal thing it does is to create the United States as a political entity. It "declares" the colonies as a new, independent, autonomous nation-state. Amending it is impossible because the only way one could truly amend it would be to dissolve the United States.
Loved the reaction when Mr. Beat showed up. Seeing content creators in each other's channels and reactions by others that have done cross-content previously is really cool.
That ending near killed me when I saw it. Laughed till I couldn't breathe. I will say, as is obvious Atun-Shei is telling a story as well as doing a historic examination here, so I'd recommend at least watching the after credit scene because, at least in my view? He's a good filmmaker, both making very funny, and entertaining stuff. Good additional content and I'll say he *did* note this wasn't the prevailing theory, but it was becoming more popular, which from an alternate history scenario is terrifying to consider. Especially when one is aware the Nazis based their garbage race laws on US law up to the civil war, and some of those quotes would not be far afoul of the thought leaders of the fascist movements of Italy, Spain and Germany. Which is I think the point that this seed of thought did blossom into some pretty horrendous shit.
@@jeffreyheronemus1917 true, I misspoke, as shown by the amazing video by Knowing Better, we didn't free the last chattel slave in the US till the 40's. Our Jim Crow laws were indeed a big part of Nazi tenets with their laws.
@@riverroth3688 I agreed with everything you wrote except the Civil War date instead of WWII date. Can thank the Brits for modern concentration camps from the last Boer War. Global society has evolved a lot the last 100 years.
Always enjoying those reactions! I hope you'll do his Episode on "Black Confederates" at some point, amusingly that one was in my reccomendations for the next video after this :D
Since Mr. Beats appeared in this video, time for Vlogging Through History to make an appearance in one of Atun Shei's videos. :D Edit: Look at the naturalization act of 1790, only white persons could become citizens. Edit 2: So, could the Democrats have won in 1860 if there was one candidate they could've supported? In the 1860 election, a candidate need 152 Electoral votes in order to win the Presidency. Lincoln's total vote total for the electoral college was 180. If we combine the Southern Democratic Party, the Constitution Union Party, and the Democratic Party, we get 123 votes. The Democrats (which I'm going to refer to the three combined Parties total from now on) only needed to win 29 electoral votes in order to get 152 and win the election. The Democrats could've won California and Oregon (Lincoln won both by less than 40% of the vote). This would've increased their vote total to 130 (4 for California and 3 for Oregon). The Democrats could've won all the votes from New Jersey (Stephan Douglas only won 3 of the 7 electoral votes with Lincoln winning 4). This would've given them 134 electoral votes. They would only need 18 electoral votes to get to 152. However, getting those last 18 electoral votes would be tricky. The Democrats would have to win both Illinois and Indiana, the next two closes states, to get 24 electoral votes, and win the Presidency. Lincoln won Illinois by 50.69% and he won Indiana by 51.09%. It would be tough to win both states, however, in 1856, Democrats did win both states against the Republican Party. In other words, it's not unlikely for the Democrats to win in 1860, but they would be winning by the skin of their teeth. Having some fun, what if no one reached 152 needed to elected the President, for whatever reason? Well, in the Senate, the Democrats control 30 seats, the Republicans control 29, and the Know Nothing Party controls 1 seat. The Know Nothing Party would be able to control who would be Vice President. In the House, they vote in a bloc based on the state (so Alabama would count as one vote, California would be one vote, etc). As there were 33 states in 1860, the Candidate would need to win a majority of the states. This means they would need to win 17 states. It appears that Republicans control enough states to elected a President. Interesting enough, there could be a Republican President and a Democratic Vice President.
It would also largely depend on which candidate of the opposition was Lincoln's opponent. Douglas could possibly have won if the South managed to keep it's shit together long enough to rally behind him, but Breckinridge would have been absolutely slaughtered in a 1v1 against Lincoln in the North.
Having some Cherokee ancestry the treatment of the native tribes is palpable at best. I descend from one of those relationships between a chiefs daughter and an English settler which makes it much more apparent of the differences in treatment in various places between colonizing powers and natives tribes peoples.
31:30 "I want my slaves, and if I have to use state's rights or any other issue to argue that, that's what I'm gonna do" -VloggingThroughHistory, 2022 😂
Chris, your second reaction to Atun's video about Gods and generals was my first video I ever saw of you (I'm a subscriber to Atun first) and I was so impressed by your character and your clear and thoughtful critique of the issues at hand. It didn't take long for your faith and character to shine through and be visible to everybody.
Most Americans can't count to three when it comes to amendments to be honest. The only big ones I think most Americans will be able to tell you is 1st, 2nd, and 13th. Some might know what the 5th is, and a few may even be able to tell you what the 4th is. I doubt many will be able to tell the first 10 without looking it up.
@@jonsmith590 They might not know which is which, but they'll probably be able to tell you some of the rights enumerated in them. Also, I think you're confusing 13th with 14th with how prevalent they are in current jurisprudence. Both important, but 13th is less likely to come up because we're well past slavery now. Meanwhile 14th covers a TON of recent cases that made national and international news. 14th is how we got gay marriage legalized in all 50 states, for example.
@@wordforger I said which ones they would know, not which ones are most relevant. Most Americans would know the 13th Amendment on account of most schools teaching that one as the one that ended Slavery. I didn't even know the 14th was how we got Gay Marriage legalized across the US. I just knew it was and thought it was a congressional thing.
@@jonsmith590 The 13th and 14th are often taught as a pair, in my experience, and most high school history classes tend to at least touch on the doctrine of incorporation.
That's just the 13th Amendment. The 14th and 15th Amendments went even further in restricting a state's right to: - determine citizenship - implement white supremacy - establish religion (1st Amendment only restricted the Federal Congress prior to the 14th Amendment) - restrict voting rights on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude Don't stop at the 13th Amendment. State's rights go beyond slavery.
The South fought to preserve state's rights... to own slaves. The South seceded to preserve state's rights... to own slaves. (It's literally stated in the Southern decelerations for secession)
Yes, it sounded pretty fascist (even though fascism didn't exist back then). Or at least very close to fascism. There were many dictatorships in the 20th century which functioned in a similar way: Franco's Spain, Slovakia during WW2, the Dominican Republic in the 30s and 40s (outright genocidal), Pinochet's Chile, etc. (The last one is an ironic example because Pinochet came to power with the help of the USA, overthrowing a democratically elected government).
@@untruelie2640 To the contrary, Thomas Carlyle was more or less contemporary and his works are pretty easily described as proto-fascist. Sort of in the same way that Marx's works (also contemporary) might be considered proto-communist.
Alright, so I'm not a historian and I don't know about all the nuances of post-civil war American politics. I might get a lot of flak for this, but I firmly believe that the confederate GOVERNMENT(Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephen's, governor's and legislators etc.) and possibly the military high command should have been prosecuted for treason in a fair trial. Moreover, confederate symbols and statues should have NEVER been legally allowed on/in public spaces. Obviously private property and persons would be protected by the 1st amendment, I'm talking about court houses, public squares etc. I honestly feel like Reconstruction would have been more successful, and Civil Rights would have progressed far quicker and less violently. Instead we keep sweeping our sins under the rug and whitewash everything, and the sins of the past continue to haunt us too this very day.
The war aim of most republicans at the time (not radical republicans) was just reconciliation. I think the concern with prosecuting confederate leaders was that they would've become even greater martyrs to the south. They didn't want to treat the south like a nation that was to be conquered and colonized by northerners, but as fellow Americans. And as much as reconstruction helped ensure the rights of freedmen, it did in some ways treat the south like a colony, which allowed organizations like the KKK to portray themselves as freedom fighters fighting northern carpetbaggers.
I generally agree with you, but it's one of those "what if" things. Most people just wanted reconciliation - I don't think there was significant enough political will to punish people. A lot of people blame Hayes for the death of reconstruction, but the reality is the political will to maintain reconstruction was already dead by that point. MAYBE you could argue that what should have happened after the war is all lands owned by Confederate officers above the rank of Captain should be seized and redistributed to former slaves, and in an ideal world that would have been great, but like... again, the political will to do something like that just wasn't there.
@@PalmelaHanderson it was a tight rope...if they had confiscated land from high ranking confederate officers and given them to freed slaves (or anything that extreme), you would have had bands of Confederate Guerillas roaming the south murdering every former slave they found and you would have had to send in union troops to put them down. But a lot of the union officers that were friends and west point classmates of those Confederate officers might not have even been willing to do that. Much like post WWI Germany too harsh of treatment would result in civil war 2.
I have to disagree on one thing is that Lincoln would have lost if the vote had been united. Even if every single vote against Lincoln had been for one candidate, Lincoln would still have won due to the Electoral College. The 1860 election, there were 303 electoral votes, which means that there would have needed 152 electoral votes. Lincoln got an absolute majority in the following states: CT(6), IL (11), IN (13), IA (4), ME (8), MA (13), MI (6), MN (4), NH (5), NY (35), OH (23), PA (27), RI (4), VT (5), and WI (5). That's If you add up the electoral votes from those states. You can see from this that the North was basically United behind Lincoln. The only electoral votes it would have affected was CA (4), NJ (4 for Lincoln), and OR (3). Lincoln got a total of 11 electoral votes out of those states that he didn't get an absolute majority in. He still would have won the electoral college by 169-134. That's still 17 more electoral votes than what he needed in the electoral college. I think people see his overall popular vote total (around 40%) and go, "See, he would have lost" without actually taking a look at the state-by-state breakdown. The Northern support for Lincoln gave him absolute majorities in all but a few states, which would have ensured his victory.
Yes if you do nothing but change the 1860 election results to Lincoln vs all the other votes to all the other candidates, then Lincoln still wins. But fielding a single unified candidate on the democratic ticket would have done more than just move the numbers around. It would have possibly taken some votes away from Lincoln, by fielding a candidate that both Northerners and Southerners could accept, as oppose to the entirely Northern supported Lincoln. Lincoln could have been defeated if the democrats could field such a unified candidate. The problem was they couldn't, because the South wanted someone who was 100% pro-slavery. Even someone who was largely neutral on slavery, like Stephen Douglass, wasn't good enough for the South. This was fatal to their election hopes, because anyone who was 100% pro slavery wasn't going to get votes in the North.
12:05 So basically "For there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Ecclesiastes 7:20 31:30 Reminds me of a lot of UN member states' arguments at the UN, they use whatever argument that will give them what they want, like China arguing that it's treatment of Uighurs is national security while it simultaneously objects to the National Security actions of other nations
One thing I wished he mentioned in this video the cornerstone speech given by the Confederate vic president Alexander H. Stephens which Stephens just straight up says that the "natural state" for blacks was for them to be enslaved and the purpose of the Confederate government was to ensure that
It's been mentioned in at least one episode and I think more. I think here the conversation focuses more on whether the south was focused on expansion rather than having slavery at all. His speech has more to do with the latter.
@@Adamdidit I thought it might have but wasn't sure. I agreed with Chris that the quotes use do make his point but it would've been better to follow up with a quote from someone actually in charge of the Confederacy if anything to cover all the bases
The final few quotes are why this is my new favourite episode. While it's technically true that this wasn't explicitly expressed in the norm yet (Atun Shei points that out in the comments), it was becoming evermore prevalent and so I agree that it could very much have gone towards some kind of Autocratic Regime. But regardless of how speculatory, these sentiments basically blow the entire LCM out of the water. It's a real jaw dropper, even for the most anti-Confederate folks
@@hrodebertcoad9848 Because no one thinks lessons can be gleaned from the losing side. It's why we study the abuses of Nazi Germany and its failures on the battlefield rather than its economic and domestic policy, which more powered its downfall than its ideology on racism.
28:17 Chris look at the numbers. It was not a four way race nationwide. Bell and Breckenridge completed for the South, while Douglas and Lincoln competed in the North. Lincoln had a majority of the vote in every free state except CA, OR and NJ, which gives him an electoral college majority even if the popular vote is unified against him.
28:17 to add to what I said yesterday. In a number of states Lincoln faced unified opposition. In NY and CT I think there was a unified slate of coalition electors facing Lincoln. Lincoln beat this slate 53-46 or so in NY. In PA most of the opposition unified around Breckenridge thanks to James Buchanan. Lincoln defeated Breckenridge by a massive 56-37 margin in PA, and this was a flip from 1856 when Buchanan won it. In Illinois, another key state most of the opposition to Lincoln voted for Douglas, but Lincoln still got over 50%, likewise for Indiana. Lincoln held Ohio, which Fremont had won and was over 50% again. In most of the upper Midwest and New England, Lincoln was over 60%. The only plurality wins were CA, OR, and NJ. Lincoln lost NJ 51-48 to Douglas got some of the electors anyway. Bell was a Southern Whig. The militant and even moderate anti slavery Whigs bolted to the GOP in 1854 and most of the remaining Whigs in the North who had joined the Know-Nothings in 1854 (Massachusetts 1854 elections results) joined the Republicans once the Know Nothing Convention produced a pro-Southern Fillmore ticket in 1856. Bell had virtually no support in the free states in 1860 thus. Think about it, how do you keep the most militant plantation elites in a party with virtually any Northerners in the late 1850s, plus Lincoln was an ex Whig running on Clays economic plan, there was literally no base for Bell in the North since Lincoln assuage fears of the GOP by Northern conservative Whigs with his moderation. . Bell had Libertarian Party levels of support in the North and did not pull Lincoln below 50 in any free state. Breckenridge only did well in PA thanks to Buchanan and how Southern/Scots-Irish the Democratic base in the state was. Douglas held the Catholic Irish in most states and even in the South Douglas got most of that immigrant vote. He held most of the traditional Jacksonian base in the North except for New England and the Upper Midwest where that support imploded and led the drive to create the GOP even. Plus a unified opposition doesn't change the dynamics: 1. Dred Scott decision 2. Fugitive slave act 3. Panic of 57-58 4. Lincoln's more moderate approach to opposing slave power. Douglas' doctrine was completely dead after 1857 and unworkable. He only beat Lincoln in 58 bc of how the state legislative seats were apportioned, a direct election like now would led to his defeat. Buchanan was deeply hated in the North, and Breckenridge was like their worst nightmare. Democrats had won complete control in 56 but got destroyed in the House in 58.
So he has different characters for each of his series. Johnny reb, Billy yank, witch finder general, time traveling nazi, 1950s man, Leif Ericson day dude. The post credit scene is linking another of his series to this one.
There is no defending what was done to native Americans in almost any age. I'm on the fence about our behavior this decade. What about ism isn't a good argument though.
A rich man's war is a poor man's fight. The poor thought they were fighting for independence from a foreign power, the rich wanted the right to expand they're economic beliefs
My main gripes with slavery reparations is this: ...how do we determine how far back it goes? Do only black descendants of slaves get repetitions, or do white descendants get them too?
Don't read about Weimar Germany then because the parallels are significantly more stark and concerning. 2024 might see yet another fascist government ushered in to power by ignorant centrists worried about the economy and fearmongering about leftists.
@36:00-ish: While no the idea of a "Christian" Theocracy was likely not held in the majority of the actual Confederate government it must be admitted that the US in general and the south specifically have been and still do hold a large percentage of people who would not be opposed to such a change. The main issue is that once you start to change the 'doctrine' and basis of the foundational documents of the United States, (as the CSA did specifically, and as many do want to see done today) that 'slippery slope' becomes both steeper and "easier" to go down. If current events and residual "Trumpism" have shown us nothing else it has clearly shown that 'thread' and 'threat' is alive and well even today.
13:45 its' basically like the Americans would take all the lands they thought were good for farming or ranching, and leave the Natives with land they thought was useless, when those are the same areas rich in gold mines. That of course leads to more land being taken, with only the most desolate areas remaining under Native control. I believe alot of our national parks in the Western areas were taken from Native American reservations.
I like to refer to The Declaration of Independence as the most famous Dear John letter in politics (A gross undersale of it's value, but in a political sense, imo, pretty accurate.)
Here's an idea for a VTH video: Reading and comparison of the constitution of the CSA, and that of the USA at the time of secession. Because they are mostly the same, with that of the CSA having been written by starting with the US constitution as a template, then changing out the parts they wanted to change. Which makes comparing the two quite straightforward. That would be a proper deep dive into whether the CSA was really into states' rights.
As Muskogee...raised on a reservation. My paternal grandfather refused to ever carry a $20 bill, either in his pocket or in his wallet.....because Andrew Jackson was the face of the $20 bill and he and my grandmother HATED Jackson. HATED him in a all caps kind of way.
Atun-Shea (Andy?) is an impressively talented individual. Over the years his projects have only grown in ambition to the filmmaker that he is today. (Filmmaker = writer, actor, director, producer, historian and who knows what else.)
If my memory serves me correctly, Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in a lot of southern states. So, even if there were several candidates beside him, splitting the vote, the fact that he still managed to win without being on the ballot in some states is highly impressive.
My great great great grandmother was half Seminole Native American. Meaning runaway or wild one. The Seminole ppl r the only native tribe that wasn’t fully conquered by the US government. I believe they call themselves the unconquerable cuz of this.
Which is idiotic. The fact that the U.S. never bothered to finish them off is probably the biggest insult that they could be paid, and make no mistake if the U.S. felt any need they could have crushed them just like all the others.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the post credits scene. Think he's building up to a video about how the confederacy inspired racist laws in Nazi Germany?
Jackson has often reminded me of King George in his view of subjects, and that image has been with me since I first studied Jackson in my 5th grade history class
Ironically, the side where this was slightly about state's rights is the north. Lincoln took a clear stance that the Union is perpetual and that state's did not have the power to secede from the Union. The south was in a state of rebellion. They were not a foreign nation. "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself." From Lincoln's inaugural address. Keep in mind that when he gave that speech, several states had already seceded and were in open rebellion. This was a clear enough statement. The war aims did expand and the reason for secession is directly tied to slavery. That is the only point that I can see a realistic argument of state's rights...
Regarding the hypothetical southern excursions into Mexico discussed in "alternative histories" mentioned in this video, well, they actually did try that. There were multiple attempts made by small bands of southern adventurers who made expeditions to Central America and Mexico intending to seize territory to convert to pro-slavery territories belonging to the USA. In 1854, William Walker from Tennessee led a band into northern Mexico from San Diego in an attempt to seize the Baja region. After his failed attempt here, he later in 1855 seized the former Spanish colonial city of Granada in Nicaragua and declared himself president of that country. He was forced out less than a couple of years later and received a hero's welcome when he returned home to Tennessee. In 1860, he made another attempt, this time in Honduras. He was captured by a Royal Navy vessel, turned over to the Honduran government, and executed by firing squad. Long was the most famous and successful of these folks, but there were others. And, these efforts are one of the reasons that Central and South American countries are, to this day, still suspicious of the motivations of America in the region (coupled with other, later interferences that continued for the better part of two centuries).
Good reaction/desimplification as always, Chris! Its interesting to hear a more neutral but still well educated viewpoint on topics that Andrew covers.
13:30 And then after it all we had the guts to build a monument to our Presidents on their land, most of whom were aggressively anti-Indian both in word and deed!
Just out of curiousity: Can a Potus be impeached (and actually removed from office ) for ignoring a Scotus Verdict the way Jackson did? Or can the still just ignore what ever scotus has to say to a given issue?
The president can really be impeached for any reason really. For this Jackson should have been impeached. The decision to impeach rest solely in congress so it’s up to them to punish the president or not.
The problem with the Confederates plans with the Caribbean was that at the time, most of the Caribbean were under European rule with the French, Spanish, British and Dutch. So if the South had actually won the war and wanted to get into the Caribbean, how would they go about it without getting into conflict with the Europeans?
European opinions would not matter in the slightest. Their ability to project power across the seas to squash native uprisings is one thing. Doing so against white men with modern weapons is another. (see the Boer wars) The Dutch French and Spanish during the 1800s are non contenders here. Factor in that in order for the Confederacy to make this scenario happen would require them to have a navy of their own means that even the British would face issues. With that said ...it is irrelevant. There just arent enough people within the South's Ruling Protestant Planter class to effectively rule what could have been the Golden Circle the way that they ruled the Deep South. Latin america already had a Planter elite using a social and economic model very similar to what the South was using. And they had no intention of co-operating after the whole Texas and California thing. In point of fact the southern economic model was based entirely on duplicating the Spanish success at extracting wealth from whatever natives are available. And when that was unfeasable in the north american continent they resorted to imported blacks. But even before the Civil war Latin America was Far to numerous, and Far too Catholic, and far too racially mixed for Confederate Apartheid to gain any real ground whatsoever. As for the islands of the Caribbean ... They could be taken individually, sure enough. But in the end when another Haitian revolution happens all the white people on the island that didnt escape by boat on the first night are dead. And after that happens a few times you arent going to find many of the planter class willing to send their sons back to such an island to make their fortunes. And what sort of family of quality would consider allowing their daughters marry such sons if doing so would have them be at the mercy of such wild places?
To further add to the other (very good) response you got: the Confederacy ran the entire war on an ever-escalating soup of fear, fanaticism, and willful ignorance. Any doubt in their "holy mission" would have faced an uphill struggle given how much of a (hah) "cornerstone" the idea was that theirs was the most righteous possible society. Reminds me of another fanatically right-wing and hyper-militaristic group which held slavery and extermination near and dear to its heart which cropped up most of a century later...
One of the most understudied parts of the civil war by me personally was definitely southern attitudes to the constitution. The more they lost, the more they drifted towards white Christian theocracy. Kind of crazy that part of the USA really did come close to being a Christian extremist dictatorship, and not just a separate country with a similar constitution but restrictions based on race. By the end the confederacy essentially equated the southern cause to what can plausibly be called proto-fascism.
This video definitely makes an interesting case that the entire civil war was pretty much a giant power play like most civil wars which is definitely something interesting enough to keep a lot of stuff in my mind. I am native Georgian so the civil war has always interested me and typically I've been sympathetic to the South. I like to learn all sides of this though and perspectives and interests me that even though this is probably the most discuss topic in American history that we are still kind of looking at it from different angles.
I think one of the best if not the very best perspectives on the war was that of the northern abolitionist George Bassett. He wrote a couple essays/pamphlets, one in early 1861 before the Battle of Fort Sumter and one about a year later. You can find them online if you're interested. Here are a couple quote for teasers: "It is constantly said... that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government-the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government... "The true strength of a free government-and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls. "A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism. "Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of the past." "But in the great issue of the present war, it is evident that the question of slavery is not principally involved. Both the United States government and that of the Confederate States are equally involved in the guilt of slavery. "I have been publicly answered on this point, that the right of secession or national self-government, depends on the 'motive or object of secession.' But it might just as logically be argued that the right of *personal liberty* depended on the 'motive or object' of the aspirant, which would evidently annihilate the right, and naturally reduce every wicked man to chattel slavery."
New to the channel and have really been loving it! do you do any other reactions to other stuff like History channel specials or videos and movies not on youtube?
it was custer or at least his expedition did leaked the discovery of gold in the black hills so the fact he got wiped out like his men serves them right
This is how i first wathced the new checkmate licolnites and this is brilliant. Not only with your reaction being funny and insightful as always, but Mr Beat making a cameo, you and him having the same idea for a great joke, and Joe Biden calling and seemingly having a mental breakdown at his frustration at how slow congrss is, was all brilliant. Seeing this new episode makes me wonder if he watches you reactions because a lot of your previous criticisms, seem to have been fixed.
i agree with what you said about the DoI the issue is while does not have the force of law domestically, it has been used to help provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws which is why SCOTUS has cited it many times
Hello I found your channel a couple months ago while I was riding out an illness a couple a months ago and just want to say keep up the great work. Also I was wondering if you've ever read Robert K. Massie's book Dreadnought? It goes into a lot of the run up to WW1 and deals with the Anglo-German Naval rivalry, it's long but I would highly recommend it.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I'd be interested to see you react to some of Drachinifel's videos. One specifically I'd like to see you to react to is called 'Failure is Like Onions' about the Mk 14 torpedo or 'The West Africa Squadron' about the Royal Navy anti-slave trade patrols.
It was not uncommon for mid-19th century leaders to have religious fervor. Douglas Southall Freeman paints a picture of T.J. Jackson, believing that all is "God's Will", rather that strategy, tactics, or the efforts of men. Jackson also delegated tasks to subordinates, not based on abilities, but, in a belief that Presbyterianism was enough to make a subordinate a skilled leader or engineer, as his reliance on Robert Lewis Dabney, as Chief of Staff, demonstrated. (BTW....In the video, the quoted Thornwell, was also a notable Presbyterian)
Right around the time of the second great awakening. Largely, I believe, a reaction to the overly non denominational, deist, enlightenment based sentiments held in high esteem by the likes of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, etc.
24:11 Agreed and it's the south's extremism and threatening of northern anti slavery laws via the Supreme court that created a region unifying coalition against the expansion of slavery.
The south was somewhat split on abolition, there were several abolitionist groups in the south in the 1830s so it wasn't just northerners that wanted an end to slavery.
VTH I know you have your old video plan but could you do a video on John Paul Jones? The man is a total badass and played a big part in the revolutionary war.
What I enjoyed about this is that Atun has very cleverly and very slowly moved his Southern Johnnie Reb persona from a "character" to a more fully realized "Person" in a way. He's far less reactionary, far less angry and more willing to listen to Billy Yank. And Billy is far more patient with his compatriot. It's a neat progression.
In a way, Billy and Johnny are brothers considering they are physical representations of the Northern and Southern US.
I love how he goes from the Nazi comments being part of Johnny Reb and shooting him, to a later Nazi character temporarily possessing Johnny Reb and having Vvitchser General performing an exorcism.
If you've seen the post-credit scene (with the sword of Beauregard) I have a theory the last episode will have a redemption arc and Johnnie will be the "true patriot" that can wield the sword and will kill Klaus with it
For those who don't know, Atun-Shei's different videos have a bit of a shared universe thing going.
He’s become a lot more like how most people who believe or believed in the lost cause myth actually are.
Their not bad people, their fellow history buffs who got fed bad, racist information as a kid and now feel like defending that idea is apart of their identity.
Johnny Reb is a strawman. Nothing more.
Fitzhugh was a real psycho. He not only wanted the expansion of slavery but he wanted to eliminate its racially based structure. In his view, slavery was not simply a necessary evil, as many at the time argued, but an active positive good. Sinister indeed.
@@gordonhuskin7337 I agree and we should start the experiment with people like you.
@@gordonhuskin7337????
@@gordonhuskin7337 Wtf? That's based
@@gordonhuskin7337 True Inshalah brother! I'm glad you agree to become a slave to the neoliberal/bolshevik project.
@@gordonhuskin7337 cringe.
35:30 I agree that the existence of the editorials and speeches doesn't necessarily mean that they were widely accepted by the population. However, that they were reported on and published then, and are known of now, and available in archives shows that they were likely not the belief of a radical fringe of the most radical groups. That they found enough traction with the population, and specifically with those in positions of power and influence that they were recorded for posterity shows that they had significant influence. They were not viewed as we would view someone on a street corner insisting that we should 'repent because the end is nigh', but were instead taken seriously enough to be noteworthy.
Also someone giving an editorial response shows it wasn't a fringe belief
Do a quick search into the subject of "Christian Dominion" and you will find an internet rabbit hole that will help you understand that J.H. Thornwell's idea of a potential american state religion that leads into a Protestant Theocracy is very much alive and still kicking around 160 years later.
The only thing preventing this "Y'all Queda" from coming into being is the question "Out of the dozens of potential options, which particular Christian sect is going to be the orthodox norm?" Because under such a system there con be only one true and correct interpretation of Christ's Dominion upon this earth. All others must therefore lie somewhere in the spectrum of apostate to heretical. And be treated as such.
Also to note, Wasn't Frederick Douglass helped to convince Lincoln to move from his Anti-Slavery position to further Emancipation of the Freed slave?
Douglas wasn't a part of the Union Government at the time the Civil war broke out, yet he helped the president to move from the accepted norm at that time to the more fringe idea of Emancipation, cementing Abolitionism in Northern discussion.
And it's really hard to argue if not by speculation due to the length of when the Confederacy lived, But I can easily imagine people as Influential as a Church Minister from South Carolina's main Seminary (James H. Thornwell) and a well-known Philosopher from Virginia, their "capital" state (George Fitzhugh) to also sway Jefferson Davis further into more fringe Autocratic measures, Either into the White Christian theocracy Thornwell wishes or the Oligarchic Republicanism powered with plantation owners immense influence Fitzhugh envisioned... Just like what Douglas did with Lincoln
These weren't just some fucks on QAnon, this guy was closer to an Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro in terms of popularity.
Look. Let's all say what no one wants to say.
We are all jealous of Johnny Reb's cape.
Fun fact. One of the organized militias in Virginia had a uniform paying homage to the continental army uniform. I can't remember their specific designation but they were known as the Continental Morgan Guard. I'm much more jealous of their uniforms than Johnny Reb's cape tbh.
Oh yeah, it's cool :)
Always love the Atun Shei reactions. Each time he uploads I always think of, “God I can’t wait to see what Chris says” thanks for being such a great source for historical info! And inspiring myself and many others to learn more!
What Atun Shei is trying to say by quoting those characters isn't to prove those were the predominant ideas in the CSA, but rather that the ideological bases were there to be so in the future, in the case they would have won. Most probably, the Confederacy could have become some form of authoritarian republic with a strong government intervention in economy and civil society. Something like today's China (what a twist).
And I don't care if I offend anyone, but God bless Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and the Union for kicking their asses.
I get what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t compare the staunchly Classicalist government of the Confederacy to a totalitarian Communist state, if anything they were headed long-term in the polar opposite direction, that being either a totalitarian Fascist state or some type of strong or absolute Monarchy
@@TheLocalLt China is in now way communist. They call themselves communist but they are actually a state capitalist country. It is close to facism but a bit different in the way that society is organized.
@@GageEakins Just look at Shanghai and government buildings in Beijing, no way anyone can convince me that China's communist.
@@GageEakins state capitalism is an economic system not a political system. In any case, regardless of what structure the PRC’s economy follows at a given time (and they’ve tried them all at some point), the political system of the regime remains that of a very stereotypical Marxist-Leninist state, with one vanguard Communist Party enshrined by constitution, and a small “Politburo” advising an all-powerful Party Chairman who also heads the Party-owned People’s Liberation Army. The CCP also covertly supports and tries to radicalize left-wing movements around the world (just as Russia does on the global right) to sew division and distrust in much of the Classical world (though obviously they spare archconservative Russia) as they engage in this new Cold War, or Great Power Competition as the American State Department calls it.
@@TheLocalLt What would have probably happened is the Confederacy would mirror the late Russian Empire, complete with a run of leaders not too dissimilar from the Nicholas I → Alexander II → Alexander III → Nicholas II line, where you saw a Totalitarian replaced by a Reformer, replaced by another Totalitarian, who was replaced by a botch-job that led to full Revolution. They don't have to be Emperors in practice, could be Authoritarian Presidents, but I can easily see a situation where the master/slave relations in a country that was late to industrialize could lead to a full scale governmental breakdown like 1917 Russia.
Maybe you could have Mr. Beat introduce you to Atun-Shei. I feel like the two of you could have great informative conversations about the Civil War and other historical topics. Even if you guys don’t do cross overs together, I’m sure that you both could learn a lot from one another.
I feel like the two of them wld make interesting videos
@@xdeanxi2445 i think atun and vth would clash honestly . Atun is too silly and out there for vth. I love them both but… idk lol
@@ROUGHSEES I don't know about that, his actual documentary-type videos are great. His silliness can be limited to videos like this, otherwise he can be very very on point.
That said, I'd love to see a VTH "From the Battlefield" video series down in the New Orleans area with Atun-Shei acting as a guide/special guest. Guy knows his local history.
@@Scaryhusky When did this happen?
That does not seem consistent with how VTH acts.
@@Adamdidit I believe it was in the first Gods and Generals video. I might be wrong here.
As a North Virginian I can confirm the Earthquake did in fact happen. Now please excuse me as I chase down a man for trying to steal my latest hunt spoils.
How do you still have access to the Internet?
@@samrevlej9331Because he uses...
NORDVPN
@@samrevlej9331 Amazon has it's data centers up here. Do you think they were going to let the internet be down for very long?
@@samrevlej9331 Space X
I'd never actually heard much about Fitzhugh before but reading his words here just made me immediately think "That sounds beat for beat like Thomas Carlyle's ideology"... and low and behold a quick google search later shows Fitzhugh was a massive supporter of Carlyles proto-fascist works.
That would explain why he called out Adam Smith specifically. Smith, like basically all the early economists was anti-slavery, and this offended Carlyle so greatly that he dubbed economics "The Dismal Science".
I am surprised that Giovanni Gentile didn't just copied Fitzhugh's work and change anything about Slavery into Totalitarianism because both of their ideals are eerily similar
The fact that he got you to say "How long does he plan to keep going with this?" seconds before ending the bit shows how good his instincts were on how to run it. Literally got you to 'disbelieving how long the silence was' then ended it. Masterful.
@35:46
You are absolutely correct Chris. That being said, we still have the glimpse of those who do not YET hold those positions of power. They were "saying the quiet part out loud" if you will.
Having seen this whole series (Checkmate Lincolnites) it has very much inspired me to learn more about the Civil War and American history. I never was a believer in the lost cause myth - and was not taught it in school, as I live in western Washington. The entertainment value and the information taught is something I find very engaging and I hope to learn more about more eras in the history of our nation.
Edward H. Bonekemper III. has some nice Books. I've read/listened to his Myth of hte Lost Cause - Why the South fought and why the North won, as well as his 10 biggest Civil War Blunders book, and recently started with his book on US Grant. Then there's also The Myth of hte Lost Cause and Civil War History by Gary W. Gallagher.
The Grand Design by Donald Stoker and John Keegan's American Civil War
Hey I live in Western Washington too, now while I wasn’t taught that either I do remember being told Slavery wasn’t the cause of the war. Well now I know that is just completely misleading because either way you cut it, whether it be about taxes or state rights it was always affecting the south’s economy and way of life which included… slavery.
Read Sear's books about the battles, they're all pretty good.
I’m in pretty much the exact same boat, right down to living in western Washington. Nice to hear from a neighbor.
Atun Shei is funny, cool of Chris to give us more context, fact-check and evaluate arguments. Been studying history for a decade, U.S. can have some contentious interpretations and debates so I always appreciate the objectivity of this channel
While I understand that it's important to remember that an opinion of a few autocratic Confederates don't represent the majority (necessarily), it's also important to point that that even a small minority of autocrats can pull the direction of a society hard in that direction, no matter what the majority thinks. That's what Atun Shei, I think, is working with in his arguments.
It's one thing to believe in democratic or republican ideals, it's another to live it and (as paradoxical as it can be) take up a huge burden by those ideals. That's true for all time, including now. Despite thinking that they've held that burden against Lincoln, the Lost Causers will have to forgive me in denying that the moderate Confederates (a phrase I never thought I would say before this video) would actually take up that burden against someone like Fitzhugh. And I don't believe I am irrational in that denial.
Excellent point! Is there any doubt that those in power would have expanded slavery? Was there any doubt they would have been pulled by those with even more extreme views on race relations to embrace the full belief system? When the "moderate" view is, "slavery is so good it should expand" then there can't be a lot of doubt of what the Confederacy represented?
Heck we are still seeing *today* how a small minority of autocrats can pull the direction of a society
A little cancer, is still a cancer.
11:47 I think Atun Shei honestly could have used the example of the Indian Wars fought after the Civil War where one really saw the dark side of America. The same celebrated union officers (george armstrong custer got his start in the civil war) and african-american soldiers (the buffalo regiments were a good example of this) and others who defeated the south were turned to the task of forcibly dislocating native tribes.
“. . . The governor of Georgia was now threatening to secede from the Confederacy. The Governor of North Carolina refused to permit any but his own troops to wear the 92,000 uniforms he was hoarding.”
In response, Jefferson Davis said privately, “If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: ‘Died of a Theory.'”
North Carolina Governor Zebulon Vance was a former Southern Whig turned know nothing while Davis had been a Democrat and unlike Stephens, Vance was a border state Southern Whig and thus far less reactionary and militant. He clashed frequently with Jefferson Davis during the war. Also a number of North Carolina planters refused to stop growing tobacco when the Confederacy was desperately short of food. Combine that with the reality that NC barely voted to secede and it's not a surprise that NC would be a problem area.
@@David-fm6go NC was fairly divided as well. The planter class was located in the eastern part of the state, and the further west you went, the poorer and less slave-reiant the state became. As you rightly pointed out, it barely seceded, and even then, most likely because of the reality of being surrounded by Confederate states. Quite lucky for NC that the western region didn't pull a West Virginia and leave on its own. Course it would have been somewhat funny to see Franklin become a state somehow.
Tfw you want to secede from a already secession State.
1:55
Yes, in a technical de jure sense, it is the case that the Declaration is just an unrelated document that has no bearing on the laws and government of the United States… except it’s really kind of the moral and philosophical foundation of the entire country. Lincoln referred to it as the “apple of gold” around which was the “frame of silver,” by which he meant the Constitution. So it would be entirely possible to have the frame, but there’d be nothing of value that it was holding.
Indeed, this was why a lot of Southern slave owners before the Civil War outright dismissed the Declaration as flowery language but nothing that should inform how the Constitution should be interpreted as they were aware that the seeds of thought implanted in it necessarily led to the abolition of slavery.
So from a purely legalistic framework, the Declaration is not relevant to the discussion but the reality is that it was intended to be the moral and philosophical foundation of all American law, as this was intended to be the dream and moral standard to which the fledging republic was to hold itself.
Agreed
The Declaration of Independence does fundamentally lend legitimacy to the government, in that sense yes it is important
But also it’s ignored from a constitutional scholar’s/legalistic perspective because, obviously, it’s not part of the constitution
You can say a law is unconstitutional because you think it violates some clause or amendment of the constitution, you never ever hear anyone argue a law needs to be overturned since it’s somehow ‘against’ the Declaration of Independence
And this applies to all other declarations of course
You know it’s funny. Had the revolution failed the declaration would be nothing more than some “manifesto” written by a bunch of rebellious traitors. History is crazy.
The main thing is that the Declaration is frequently quoted to interpret or justify existing law, which should not be the case. At its core it is a long speech and nothing more. It is the Constitution and Bill of Rights that is the real source of legal interpretation.
The Constitution is meant to be eternal, the Declaration one for its time-which is why one may amend the Constitution but not the Declaration.
The Declaration is the why and the Constitution is the how.
@@SantomPh
I'd argue that you can't amend the Declaration because the only legal thing it does is to create the United States as a political entity. It "declares" the colonies as a new, independent, autonomous nation-state. Amending it is impossible because the only way one could truly amend it would be to dissolve the United States.
Loved the reaction when Mr. Beat showed up. Seeing content creators in each other's channels and reactions by others that have done cross-content previously is really cool.
That ending near killed me when I saw it. Laughed till I couldn't breathe.
I will say, as is obvious Atun-Shei is telling a story as well as doing a historic examination here, so I'd recommend at least watching the after credit scene because, at least in my view? He's a good filmmaker, both making very funny, and entertaining stuff.
Good additional content and I'll say he *did* note this wasn't the prevailing theory, but it was becoming more popular, which from an alternate history scenario is terrifying to consider. Especially when one is aware the Nazis based their garbage race laws on US law up to the civil war, and some of those quotes would not be far afoul of the thought leaders of the fascist movements of Italy, Spain and Germany. Which is I think the point that this seed of thought did blossom into some pretty horrendous shit.
Not up to the Civil War sadly, but up to WWII. Jim Crow and Eugenics were in full force and possibly as powerful as they had ever been in US history.
@@jeffreyheronemus1917 true, I misspoke, as shown by the amazing video by Knowing Better, we didn't free the last chattel slave in the US till the 40's. Our Jim Crow laws were indeed a big part of Nazi tenets with their laws.
@@riverroth3688 I agreed with everything you wrote except the Civil War date instead of WWII date. Can thank the Brits for modern concentration camps from the last Boer War. Global society has evolved a lot the last 100 years.
It's no surprise that Lost Cause apologetics is full of straw-man arguments, since it's all about skirting around the sensitive issue of slavery.
Had to laugh out loud at "we're running a professional operation here." Love the channel. Don't change (too much... we all evolve)
Always enjoying those reactions! I hope you'll do his Episode on "Black Confederates" at some point, amusingly that one was in my reccomendations for the next video after this :D
Since Mr. Beats appeared in this video, time for Vlogging Through History to make an appearance in one of Atun Shei's videos. :D
Edit: Look at the naturalization act of 1790, only white persons could become citizens.
Edit 2:
So, could the Democrats have won in 1860 if there was one candidate they could've supported?
In the 1860 election, a candidate need 152 Electoral votes in order to win the Presidency.
Lincoln's total vote total for the electoral college was 180. If we combine the Southern Democratic Party, the Constitution Union Party, and the Democratic Party, we get 123 votes.
The Democrats (which I'm going to refer to the three combined Parties total from now on) only needed to win 29 electoral votes in order to get 152 and win the election.
The Democrats could've won California and Oregon (Lincoln won both by less than 40% of the vote). This would've increased their vote total to 130 (4 for California and 3 for Oregon). The Democrats could've won all the votes from New Jersey (Stephan Douglas only won 3 of the 7 electoral votes with Lincoln winning 4). This would've given them 134 electoral votes.
They would only need 18 electoral votes to get to 152. However, getting those last 18 electoral votes would be tricky. The Democrats would have to win both Illinois and Indiana, the next two closes states, to get 24 electoral votes, and win the Presidency. Lincoln won Illinois by 50.69% and he won Indiana by 51.09%. It would be tough to win both states, however, in 1856, Democrats did win both states against the Republican Party. In other words, it's not unlikely for the Democrats to win in 1860, but they would be winning by the skin of their teeth.
Having some fun, what if no one reached 152 needed to elected the President, for whatever reason? Well, in the Senate, the Democrats control 30 seats, the Republicans control 29, and the Know Nothing Party controls 1 seat. The Know Nothing Party would be able to control who would be Vice President.
In the House, they vote in a bloc based on the state (so Alabama would count as one vote, California would be one vote, etc).
As there were 33 states in 1860, the Candidate would need to win a majority of the states. This means they would need to win 17 states. It appears that Republicans control enough states to elected a President. Interesting enough, there could be a Republican President and a Democratic Vice President.
Wow imagine a world where that happend. President Lincoln and vice President Douglas.
It would also largely depend on which candidate of the opposition was Lincoln's opponent. Douglas could possibly have won if the South managed to keep it's shit together long enough to rally behind him, but Breckinridge would have been absolutely slaughtered in a 1v1 against Lincoln in the North.
That whole bit with Fitzhugh is a RARE time my jaw drops at history XD
Yeah, the fact that he calls moronic the author of the Declaration of Independence.... No wonder Jefferson turned over in his grave.
Having some Cherokee ancestry the treatment of the native tribes is palpable at best. I descend from one of those relationships between a chiefs daughter and an English settler which makes it much more apparent of the differences in treatment in various places between colonizing powers and natives tribes peoples.
31:30
"I want my slaves, and if I have to use state's rights or any other issue to argue that, that's what I'm gonna do"
-VloggingThroughHistory, 2022
😂
Chris, your second reaction to Atun's video about Gods and generals was my first video I ever saw of you (I'm a subscriber to Atun first) and I was so impressed by your character and your clear and thoughtful critique of the issues at hand. It didn't take long for your faith and character to shine through and be visible to everybody.
Thanks Ryan! Glad to have you here.
Given how “holy” the first and second amendments are treated, imagine what a mess US politics would be if a pro-slavery amendment had been added.
One difference would be it not being in the Bill of Rights. All other amendments can be repealed.
Most Americans can't count to three when it comes to amendments to be honest. The only big ones I think most Americans will be able to tell you is 1st, 2nd, and 13th. Some might know what the 5th is, and a few may even be able to tell you what the 4th is. I doubt many will be able to tell the first 10 without looking it up.
@@jonsmith590 They might not know which is which, but they'll probably be able to tell you some of the rights enumerated in them. Also, I think you're confusing 13th with 14th with how prevalent they are in current jurisprudence. Both important, but 13th is less likely to come up because we're well past slavery now. Meanwhile 14th covers a TON of recent cases that made national and international news. 14th is how we got gay marriage legalized in all 50 states, for example.
@@wordforger I said which ones they would know, not which ones are most relevant. Most Americans would know the 13th Amendment on account of most schools teaching that one as the one that ended Slavery. I didn't even know the 14th was how we got Gay Marriage legalized across the US. I just knew it was and thought it was a congressional thing.
@@jonsmith590 The 13th and 14th are often taught as a pair, in my experience, and most high school history classes tend to at least touch on the doctrine of incorporation.
"This must be the weird part"
Oh, no. No no no no no.
To sum it all up:
The civil war WAS all about state’s rights………
To have slavery 🤷🏼♂️
That's just the 13th Amendment. The 14th and 15th Amendments went even further in restricting a state's right to:
- determine citizenship
- implement white supremacy
- establish religion (1st Amendment only restricted the Federal Congress prior to the 14th Amendment)
- restrict voting rights on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
Don't stop at the 13th Amendment. State's rights go beyond slavery.
TL:DR version
The South fought to preserve state's rights... to own slaves.
The South seceded to preserve state's rights... to own slaves.
(It's literally stated in the Southern decelerations for secession)
@@gayanudugampola8973hell they put in their constitution that emancipation was a no no
It got so sinister towards the end that even the Confederate guy was spooked.
I am beginning to think some of those guys in the A.T. video were actually the one and the same people...
Yes, it sounded pretty fascist (even though fascism didn't exist back then). Or at least very close to fascism. There were many dictatorships in the 20th century which functioned in a similar way: Franco's Spain, Slovakia during WW2, the Dominican Republic in the 30s and 40s (outright genocidal), Pinochet's Chile, etc. (The last one is an ironic example because Pinochet came to power with the help of the USA, overthrowing a democratically elected government).
@@untruelie2640 To the contrary, Thomas Carlyle was more or less contemporary and his works are pretty easily described as proto-fascist. Sort of in the same way that Marx's works (also contemporary) might be considered proto-communist.
Alright, so I'm not a historian and I don't know about all the nuances of post-civil war American politics. I might get a lot of flak for this, but I firmly believe that the confederate GOVERNMENT(Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephen's, governor's and legislators etc.) and possibly the military high command should have been prosecuted for treason in a fair trial. Moreover, confederate symbols and statues should have NEVER been legally allowed on/in public spaces. Obviously private property and persons would be protected by the 1st amendment, I'm talking about court houses, public squares etc. I honestly feel like Reconstruction would have been more successful, and Civil Rights would have progressed far quicker and less violently. Instead we keep sweeping our sins under the rug and whitewash everything, and the sins of the past continue to haunt us too this very day.
The war aim of most republicans at the time (not radical republicans) was just reconciliation. I think the concern with prosecuting confederate leaders was that they would've become even greater martyrs to the south. They didn't want to treat the south like a nation that was to be conquered and colonized by northerners, but as fellow Americans. And as much as reconstruction helped ensure the rights of freedmen, it did in some ways treat the south like a colony, which allowed organizations like the KKK to portray themselves as freedom fighters fighting northern carpetbaggers.
I generally agree with you, but it's one of those "what if" things. Most people just wanted reconciliation - I don't think there was significant enough political will to punish people. A lot of people blame Hayes for the death of reconstruction, but the reality is the political will to maintain reconstruction was already dead by that point.
MAYBE you could argue that what should have happened after the war is all lands owned by Confederate officers above the rank of Captain should be seized and redistributed to former slaves, and in an ideal world that would have been great, but like... again, the political will to do something like that just wasn't there.
@@PalmelaHanderson it was a tight rope...if they had confiscated land from high ranking confederate officers and given them to freed slaves (or anything that extreme), you would have had bands of Confederate Guerillas roaming the south murdering every former slave they found and you would have had to send in union troops to put them down. But a lot of the union officers that were friends and west point classmates of those Confederate officers might not have even been willing to do that. Much like post WWI Germany too harsh of treatment would result in civil war 2.
In other words, the US chose the japanese way of dealing with its past, not the german way.
@@untruelie2640 ooooohhhh 😬. That’s a good one
I have to disagree on one thing is that Lincoln would have lost if the vote had been united. Even if every single vote against Lincoln had been for one candidate, Lincoln would still have won due to the Electoral College. The 1860 election, there were 303 electoral votes, which means that there would have needed 152 electoral votes. Lincoln got an absolute majority in the following states: CT(6), IL (11), IN (13), IA (4), ME (8), MA (13), MI (6), MN (4), NH (5), NY (35), OH (23), PA (27), RI (4), VT (5), and WI (5). That's If you add up the electoral votes from those states. You can see from this that the North was basically United behind Lincoln. The only electoral votes it would have affected was CA (4), NJ (4 for Lincoln), and OR (3). Lincoln got a total of 11 electoral votes out of those states that he didn't get an absolute majority in. He still would have won the electoral college by 169-134. That's still 17 more electoral votes than what he needed in the electoral college.
I think people see his overall popular vote total (around 40%) and go, "See, he would have lost" without actually taking a look at the state-by-state breakdown. The Northern support for Lincoln gave him absolute majorities in all but a few states, which would have ensured his victory.
Yes if you do nothing but change the 1860 election results to Lincoln vs all the other votes to all the other candidates, then Lincoln still wins. But fielding a single unified candidate on the democratic ticket would have done more than just move the numbers around. It would have possibly taken some votes away from Lincoln, by fielding a candidate that both Northerners and Southerners could accept, as oppose to the entirely Northern supported Lincoln.
Lincoln could have been defeated if the democrats could field such a unified candidate. The problem was they couldn't, because the South wanted someone who was 100% pro-slavery. Even someone who was largely neutral on slavery, like Stephen Douglass, wasn't good enough for the South. This was fatal to their election hopes, because anyone who was 100% pro slavery wasn't going to get votes in the North.
12:05
So basically
"For there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Ecclesiastes 7:20
31:30 Reminds me of a lot of UN member states' arguments at the UN, they use whatever argument that will give them what they want, like China arguing that it's treatment of Uighurs is national security while it simultaneously objects to the National Security actions of other nations
One thing I wished he mentioned in this video the cornerstone speech given by the Confederate vic president Alexander H. Stephens which Stephens just straight up says that the "natural state" for blacks was for them to be enslaved and the purpose of the Confederate government was to ensure that
It's been mentioned in at least one episode and I think more. I think here the conversation focuses more on whether the south was focused on expansion rather than having slavery at all. His speech has more to do with the latter.
@@Adamdidit I thought it might have but wasn't sure. I agreed with Chris that the quotes use do make his point but it would've been better to follow up with a quote from someone actually in charge of the Confederacy if anything to cover all the bases
@@vareckthehistoricaldemon196 The Alexander Stevens quote was used in his God and Generals review at least.
@@inovakovsky ok thanks I thought it might have been used before but I wasn't sure
also known as the "Seriously I can't make it any more obvious that we are the bad guys" speech
Atun-Shei VS VTH: Civil war general drafts. Like Mr. Beat and VTH fantasy drafting presidents, but with 100% more facial hair.
Haha, Mr Beat killed it with that cameo!
The part people were talking about at the end was a post-credits scene. It's not tied into Civil War history, but it's part of another project of his.
We joke about the galactic empire but it appears that the confederacy was seriously turning into one
37:29 I take back every criticism I had for Mr. Beat. This segment had me on the floor.
Concerning the bit about Native Americans and such, Atun-Shei made a fantastic video about Hannah Duston you should totally check out.
When the US join the anti slavery patrol the first ship we send was USS Macedonian named after HMS Macedonian which we captured in the War of 1812.
The final few quotes are why this is my new favourite episode. While it's technically true that this wasn't explicitly expressed in the norm yet (Atun Shei points that out in the comments), it was becoming evermore prevalent and so I agree that it could very much have gone towards some kind of Autocratic Regime. But regardless of how speculatory, these sentiments basically blow the entire LCM out of the water. It's a real jaw dropper, even for the most anti-Confederate folks
Yeah I had never known it myself and I was just appalled... Why aren't we learning this stuff in school?
@@hrodebertcoad9848
Because no one thinks lessons can be gleaned from the losing side. It's why we study the abuses of Nazi Germany and its failures on the battlefield rather than its economic and domestic policy, which more powered its downfall than its ideology on racism.
You brought up the anti-slavery patrols. Have you seen Drachinifels video on the West Africa squadron?
28:17 Chris look at the numbers. It was not a four way race nationwide. Bell and Breckenridge completed for the South, while Douglas and Lincoln competed in the North. Lincoln had a majority of the vote in every free state except CA, OR and NJ, which gives him an electoral college majority even if the popular vote is unified against him.
28:17 to add to what I said yesterday. In a number of states Lincoln faced unified opposition. In NY and CT I think there was a unified slate of coalition electors facing Lincoln. Lincoln beat this slate 53-46 or so in NY. In PA most of the opposition unified around Breckenridge thanks to James Buchanan. Lincoln defeated Breckenridge by a massive 56-37 margin in PA, and this was a flip from 1856 when Buchanan won it. In Illinois, another key state most of the opposition to Lincoln voted for Douglas, but Lincoln still got over 50%, likewise for Indiana. Lincoln held Ohio, which Fremont had won and was over 50% again. In most of the upper Midwest and New England, Lincoln was over 60%. The only plurality wins were CA, OR, and NJ. Lincoln lost NJ 51-48 to Douglas got some of the electors anyway.
Bell was a Southern Whig. The militant and even moderate anti slavery Whigs bolted to the GOP in 1854 and most of the remaining Whigs in the North who had joined the Know-Nothings in 1854 (Massachusetts 1854 elections results) joined the Republicans once the Know Nothing Convention produced a pro-Southern Fillmore ticket in 1856. Bell had virtually no support in the free states in 1860 thus. Think about it, how do you keep the most militant plantation elites in a party with virtually any Northerners in the late 1850s, plus Lincoln was an ex Whig running on Clays economic plan, there was literally no base for Bell in the North since Lincoln assuage fears of the GOP by Northern conservative Whigs with his moderation. . Bell had Libertarian Party levels of support in the North and did not pull Lincoln below 50 in any free state.
Breckenridge only did well in PA thanks to Buchanan and how Southern/Scots-Irish the Democratic base in the state was. Douglas held the Catholic Irish in most states and even in the South Douglas got most of that immigrant vote. He held most of the traditional Jacksonian base in the North except for New England and the Upper Midwest where that support imploded and led the drive to create the GOP even.
Plus a unified opposition doesn't change the dynamics:
1. Dred Scott decision
2. Fugitive slave act
3. Panic of 57-58
4. Lincoln's more moderate approach to opposing slave power.
Douglas' doctrine was completely dead after 1857 and unworkable. He only beat Lincoln in 58 bc of how the state legislative seats were apportioned, a direct election like now would led to his defeat. Buchanan was deeply hated in the North, and Breckenridge was like their worst nightmare. Democrats had won complete control in 56 but got destroyed in the House in 58.
So he has different characters for each of his series. Johnny reb, Billy yank, witch finder general, time traveling nazi, 1950s man, Leif Ericson day dude. The post credit scene is linking another of his series to this one.
There is no defending what was done to native Americans in almost any age. I'm on the fence about our behavior this decade. What about ism isn't a good argument though.
Great video, I love your style of commentary :-).
21:29 I would argue that the British blockade of Africa to end the slave trade is a strong contender for The Empire's finest hour.
I don't have another epistle to write today, so I'll just say you're rocking the stache!
I liked the fact that you didn't realize that Joe felt asleep 😂
A rich man's war is a poor man's fight. The poor thought they were fighting for independence from a foreign power, the rich wanted the right to expand they're economic beliefs
Those scrolling news bites at the end, good lord those made me laugh
I love the Star Wars reference in there
the republic will be Re-organized into the firST GAIACTIC EMPIRE
My main gripes with slavery reparations is this: ...how do we determine how far back it goes? Do only black descendants of slaves get repetitions, or do white descendants get them too?
Watching this makes me feel history is rhyming itself right now in the USA. Lot of similar language from back then is being used right now
Don't read about Weimar Germany then because the parallels are significantly more stark and concerning. 2024 might see yet another fascist government ushered in to power by ignorant centrists worried about the economy and fearmongering about leftists.
@36:00-ish: While no the idea of a "Christian" Theocracy was likely not held in the majority of the actual Confederate government it must be admitted that the US in general and the south specifically have been and still do hold a large percentage of people who would not be opposed to such a change. The main issue is that once you start to change the 'doctrine' and basis of the foundational documents of the United States, (as the CSA did specifically, and as many do want to see done today) that 'slippery slope' becomes both steeper and "easier" to go down.
If current events and residual "Trumpism" have shown us nothing else it has clearly shown that 'thread' and 'threat' is alive and well even today.
I know this isn't related to the video but will you be playing the armchair historians game fire and maneuver on your gaming channel when it comes out
Yes. I was watching Pixelated Apollo’s gameplay of it today.
13:45 its' basically like the Americans would take all the lands they thought were good for farming or ranching, and leave the Natives with land they thought was useless, when those are the same areas rich in gold mines. That of course leads to more land being taken, with only the most desolate areas remaining under Native control. I believe alot of our national parks in the Western areas were taken from Native American reservations.
I like to refer to The Declaration of Independence as the most famous Dear John letter in politics (A gross undersale of it's value, but in a political sense, imo, pretty accurate.)
Liked Mr Beat cameo
Yeah that was unexpected! I texted him right after to tell him how much I enjoyed it.
I love how you included all the exclamation and question marks in the video's title. that's dedication to quality
Time-stamps
31:20, 31:45, 32:20, 33:20 - Principle
Here's an idea for a VTH video: Reading and comparison of the constitution of the CSA, and that of the USA at the time of secession. Because they are mostly the same, with that of the CSA having been written by starting with the US constitution as a template, then changing out the parts they wanted to change. Which makes comparing the two quite straightforward. That would be a proper deep dive into whether the CSA was really into states' rights.
What is that song at 18:07? I’ve been looking for it, but I can’t find it.
I learned a lot. Love the content as usual.
As Muskogee...raised on a reservation. My paternal grandfather refused to ever carry a $20 bill, either in his pocket or in his wallet.....because Andrew Jackson was the face of the $20 bill and he and my grandmother HATED Jackson. HATED him in a all caps kind of way.
Atun-Shea (Andy?) is an impressively talented individual. Over the years his projects have only grown in ambition to the filmmaker that he is today. (Filmmaker = writer, actor, director, producer, historian and who knows what else.)
Unrelated, but his impression of Andrew Jackson sounds a lot like Zapp Brannigan from Futurama, does it not?
Can you do the checkmate lincolnites video on Black Confederates someday. It's a video that I feel anyone can learn alot from.
Specially after Jesus comes to enlighten Johnny Reb
I literally went and watched the end an it’s just Star Wars, The CSA, and Nazis. You know America stuff.
If my memory serves me correctly, Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in a lot of southern states. So, even if there were several candidates beside him, splitting the vote, the fact that he still managed to win without being on the ballot in some states is highly impressive.
completely unrelated to the video, but you're rockin that facial hair
My great great great grandmother was half Seminole Native American. Meaning runaway or wild one. The Seminole ppl r the only native tribe that wasn’t fully conquered by the US government. I believe they call themselves the unconquerable cuz of this.
Which is idiotic. The fact that the U.S. never bothered to finish them off is probably the biggest insult that they could be paid, and make no mistake if the U.S. felt any need they could have crushed them just like all the others.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the post credits scene. Think he's building up to a video about how the confederacy inspired racist laws in Nazi Germany?
Jackson has often reminded me of King George in his view of subjects, and that image has been with me since I first studied Jackson in my 5th grade history class
Ironically, the side where this was slightly about state's rights is the north. Lincoln took a clear stance that the Union is perpetual and that state's did not have the power to secede from the Union. The south was in a state of rebellion. They were not a foreign nation.
"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."
From Lincoln's inaugural address. Keep in mind that when he gave that speech, several states had already seceded and were in open rebellion. This was a clear enough statement. The war aims did expand and the reason for secession is directly tied to slavery. That is the only point that I can see a realistic argument of state's rights...
Regarding the hypothetical southern excursions into Mexico discussed in "alternative histories" mentioned in this video, well, they actually did try that.
There were multiple attempts made by small bands of southern adventurers who made expeditions to Central America and Mexico intending to seize territory to convert to pro-slavery territories belonging to the USA. In 1854, William Walker from Tennessee led a band into northern Mexico from San Diego in an attempt to seize the Baja region. After his failed attempt here, he later in 1855 seized the former Spanish colonial city of Granada in Nicaragua and declared himself president of that country. He was forced out less than a couple of years later and received a hero's welcome when he returned home to Tennessee. In 1860, he made another attempt, this time in Honduras. He was captured by a Royal Navy vessel, turned over to the Honduran government, and executed by firing squad.
Long was the most famous and successful of these folks, but there were others. And, these efforts are one of the reasons that Central and South American countries are, to this day, still suspicious of the motivations of America in the region (coupled with other, later interferences that continued for the better part of two centuries).
Good reaction/desimplification as always, Chris! Its interesting to hear a more neutral but still well educated viewpoint on topics that Andrew covers.
Now that Checkmate Lincolnites! Is all but over may I suggest his content over King Phillip's War and his collab documentary on the puritans
13:30 And then after it all we had the guts to build a monument to our Presidents on their land, most of whom were aggressively anti-Indian both in word and deed!
Just out of curiousity: Can a Potus be impeached (and actually removed from office ) for ignoring a Scotus Verdict the way Jackson did? Or can the still just ignore what ever scotus has to say to a given issue?
The president can really be impeached for any reason really. For this Jackson should have been impeached. The decision to impeach rest solely in congress so it’s up to them to punish the president or not.
The problem with the Confederates plans with the Caribbean was that at the time, most of the Caribbean were under European rule with the French, Spanish, British and Dutch. So if the South had actually won the war and wanted to get into the Caribbean, how would they go about it without getting into conflict with the Europeans?
European opinions would not matter in the slightest.
Their ability to project power across the seas to squash native uprisings is one thing. Doing so against white men with modern weapons is another. (see the Boer wars) The Dutch French and Spanish during the 1800s are non contenders here.
Factor in that in order for the Confederacy to make this scenario happen would require them to have a navy of their own means that even the British would face issues.
With that said ...it is irrelevant.
There just arent enough people within the South's Ruling Protestant Planter class to effectively rule what could have been the Golden Circle the way that they ruled the Deep South.
Latin america already had a Planter elite using a social and economic model very similar to what the South was using. And they had no intention of co-operating after the whole Texas and California thing.
In point of fact the southern economic model was based entirely on duplicating the Spanish success at extracting wealth from whatever natives are available. And when that was unfeasable in the north american continent they resorted to imported blacks.
But even before the Civil war Latin America was Far to numerous, and Far too Catholic, and far too racially mixed for Confederate Apartheid to gain any real ground whatsoever.
As for the islands of the Caribbean ... They could be taken individually, sure enough. But in the end when another Haitian revolution happens all the white people on the island that didnt escape by boat on the first night are dead. And after that happens a few times you arent going to find many of the planter class willing to send their sons back to such an island to make their fortunes.
And what sort of family of quality would consider allowing their daughters marry such sons if doing so would have them be at the mercy of such wild places?
To further add to the other (very good) response you got: the Confederacy ran the entire war on an ever-escalating soup of fear, fanaticism, and willful ignorance. Any doubt in their "holy mission" would have faced an uphill struggle given how much of a (hah) "cornerstone" the idea was that theirs was the most righteous possible society.
Reminds me of another fanatically right-wing and hyper-militaristic group which held slavery and extermination near and dear to its heart which cropped up most of a century later...
One of the most understudied parts of the civil war by me personally was definitely southern attitudes to the constitution. The more they lost, the more they drifted towards white Christian theocracy. Kind of crazy that part of the USA really did come close to being a Christian extremist dictatorship, and not just a separate country with a similar constitution but restrictions based on race. By the end the confederacy essentially equated the southern cause to what can plausibly be called proto-fascism.
Makes it funny that the result of the Civil War was for states to lose the state right to establish religion
@@gordonhuskin7337 Because he's not insane & has common sense.
This video definitely makes an interesting case that the entire civil war was pretty much a giant power play like most civil wars which is definitely something interesting enough to keep a lot of stuff in my mind. I am native Georgian so the civil war has always interested me and typically I've been sympathetic to the South. I like to learn all sides of this though and perspectives and interests me that even though this is probably the most discuss topic in American history that we are still kind of looking at it from different angles.
I think one of the best if not the very best perspectives on the war was that of the northern abolitionist George Bassett. He wrote a couple essays/pamphlets, one in early 1861 before the Battle of Fort Sumter and one about a year later. You can find them online if you're interested. Here are a couple quote for teasers:
"It is constantly said... that if our government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no government at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government-the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government...
"The true strength of a free government-and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls.
"A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism.
"Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of the past."
"But in the great issue of the present war, it is evident that the question of slavery is not principally involved. Both the United States government and that of the Confederate States are equally involved in the guilt of slavery.
"I have been publicly answered on this point, that the right of secession or national self-government, depends on the 'motive or object of secession.' But it might just as logically be argued that the right of *personal liberty* depended on the 'motive or object' of the aspirant, which would evidently annihilate the right, and naturally reduce every wicked man to chattel slavery."
New to the channel and have really been loving it! do you do any other reactions to other stuff like History channel specials or videos and movies not on youtube?
it was custer or at least his expedition did leaked the discovery of gold in the black hills so the fact he got wiped out like his men serves them right
This is how i first wathced the new checkmate licolnites and this is brilliant. Not only with your reaction being funny and insightful as always, but Mr Beat making a cameo, you and him having the same idea for a great joke, and Joe Biden calling and seemingly having a mental breakdown at his frustration at how slow congrss is, was all brilliant. Seeing this new episode makes me wonder if he watches you reactions because a lot of your previous criticisms, seem to have been fixed.
i agree with what you said about the DoI the issue is while does not have the force of law domestically, it has been used to help provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws which is why SCOTUS has cited it many times
Company towns are just another one of those things that sounds great on paper but in practice is an absolute nightmare
You should have reacted to the After Credits scene, it's great.
Hello I found your channel a couple months ago while I was riding out an illness a couple a months ago and just want to say keep up the great work. Also I was wondering if you've ever read Robert K. Massie's book Dreadnought? It goes into a lot of the run up to WW1 and deals with the Anglo-German Naval rivalry, it's long but I would highly recommend it.
I haven’t but sounds like a book I’d definitely enjoy.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I'd be interested to see you react to some of Drachinifel's videos. One specifically I'd like to see you to react to is called 'Failure is Like Onions' about the Mk 14 torpedo or 'The West Africa Squadron' about the Royal Navy anti-slave trade patrols.
@@VloggingThroughHistory When i saw the reccomendation, I checked it on Amazon for my Kindle. Was 7€ where i live, a steal for a 1300pg book I'd say.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Castles of Steel (also Massie) is also a very good book detailing the First World War's oceanic theaters.
the 10 minutes after is channel lore
It's pretty good acting as well
33:02 Imma have a real long word with this Fitzhugh-character
It was not uncommon for mid-19th century leaders to have religious fervor. Douglas Southall Freeman paints a picture of T.J. Jackson, believing that all is "God's Will", rather that strategy, tactics, or the efforts of men. Jackson also delegated tasks to subordinates, not based on abilities, but, in a belief that Presbyterianism was enough to make a subordinate a skilled leader or engineer, as his reliance on Robert Lewis Dabney, as Chief of Staff, demonstrated. (BTW....In the video, the quoted Thornwell, was also a notable Presbyterian)
Right around the time of the second great awakening. Largely, I believe, a reaction to the overly non denominational, deist, enlightenment based sentiments held in high esteem by the likes of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, etc.
Great commentary buddy!
24:11 Agreed and it's the south's extremism and threatening of northern anti slavery laws via the Supreme court that created a region unifying coalition against the expansion of slavery.
29:30 My 6th-great uncle Henry.
The south was somewhat split on abolition, there were several abolitionist groups in the south in the 1830s so it wasn't just northerners that wanted an end to slavery.
VTH I know you have your old video plan but could you do a video on John Paul Jones? The man is a total badass and played a big part in the revolutionary war.