There is a statue of Benedict Arnold, sort of, called the Boot Monument. He was a war hero who was wounded in battle against the British, the leg wound essentially ended his career as a fighting soldier. But then he turned traitor, so he got no honors for his service, but his leg has a monument built to honor the part of Arnold that fought for America. And his name does not appear on the monument, because he was a traitor.
Gavlick Apthesycerski West Point was not a minor asset. The Hudson Highlands in both the French and Indian war and the Revolution were and actually still are considered a vital defense spot for our country. If you capture West Point and Anthony's Nose, the mountain on the other side of the current Bear Mountain bridge, you can successfully cut New England off from the rest of the nation. Arnold was a hero, that is why this major betrayal was so devastating to the new country. The whole length of the Hudson from Governor's Island and the Battery in the lower New York city bay to Ft Ticonderoga especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, but really until the 1960's was considered to be a vital area to defend and a lot of money and thought were spent on that defence. That is one of the reason the Military Academy was located at West Point.
@Gerry C There is a reason wars are fought despite the deaths. Our founders felt independence justified the carnage. We had a lot more to justify the civil war (and honestly another civil war today) than the American Revolution back then. But since I believe in their ideals (government of the people that actually represents them unlike Britain) I support American Revolutionaries. Benedict Arnold simply backed the wrong side and suffered the historical consequences. I don't doubt that everything you say is correct from Benedict Arnold & British perspective but this is simply loyality to my own side that I support the American Revolutionaries.
One myth that isn't brought up as a myth is the idea of Northerners being opposed to slavery because they were abolitionists and anti-racist. This isn't true at all. The North was plenty racist. Oregon, for instance, had it written into its state constitution that blacks couldn't establish permanent residence in the state up until 1929, despite slavery being outlawed. The New York Draft Riots resulted in the murder and lynching of 11 black men. Blacks not lynched were straight-up chased out of New York after their neighborhoods were burned to the ground. While California was a Union State during the war, many Californians went to Texas to fight on behalf of the Confederacy. Make no mistake, the Union States had no problems with slavery as an institution establishing a racial hierarchy of white supremacy. The myth is the Union was abolitionist for moral reasons. The truth is the Union was opposed to slavery for economic reasons. Had slavery been allowed to expand to New England, U.S. Territories, or the newly formed states of Oregon, Nevada (who became a state in 1864...part way through the war), and California, whites would have to compete with slave owners who used slaves to work in factories, mines, and plantations. Why worry about your factory workers going on strike when you can lock slaves inside and let them all die in a fire with zero fuss? Or worry about a mine collapsing? The ugly truth is Union states don't want to recognize their role in creating racism in the United States. Their mistreatment of black Americans by Northerners got swept under the rug after the war was over and the 13th., 14th., and 15th. amendments were ratified.
Thank you, this is probably the most overlooked facet of the civil war. Although I think it was even more basic. Slavery and capitalism are two fundamentally different economic structures. A single economy can't have conflicting foundations. Essentially an economy based on returning some of the wealth created to the laborers so they can exchange it for goods doesn't work with a significant portion of the workforce not getting paid. That's what "a house divided" refers to.
Michael Ellis "Slavery and capitalism are 2 fundamentally opposed structures" Please what? Owning, selling and using people as workers is opposed to capitalism? That sounds like the wet dream of a capitalist. Sorry I don't want to be rude, but that is close to the dumbest thing I've read in a while. We live in a capitalistic world and many of our products are often (at least indirectly) produced by child and (de facto) slave labour. Clothes or cellphones produced in the 3rd world and the materials needed to produce them are partly build on slavery and close to slavery conditions. The stadiums for the soccer world championship in quatar are literally build with slave labour, payed for by oil money from us and to the entertainment of the capitalistic world. And our capitalism isn't opposing it, a lot of our wealth is actually build on it. Capitalism has worked hand in hand with slavery in the past and still does today. I guess I know what you mean, that capitalism can't work if you don't have people able to buy things, but the way you stated it is just totally wrong.
Michael Ellis "Doesn't work with a significant portion of the work force not getting paid" But the owners get paid. Why does it matter if a person has 10 slaves that work, if the owner gets paid and spend the money or he pays wages and the "slaves" spend the money? Look at the discussion about minimum wage. Some what to get ready d of minimum wage and argue that the less they have to spend on wages, the more money they have and the more jobs they can create and the more they can invest and put back into the economy.
I appreciate these kinds of videos, not being American. However, I find the "boom! hashtags!" kind of humour to be weirdly dissonant as opposed to humorously contrasting (which I guess was the intention). I understand that inserting random hashtags is sort of a joke these days, but, I mean, it's just disruptive. That ice cream joke was leagues better.
LOL! I had the same question. Read the plaque, friend! The sculptor was covertly protesting Lenin, showing him as a war monger. Lenin wanted the statue destroyed, but someone believed it to be historically significant and moved it to Fremont. Someone also took the liberty of painting his hand red. And that is why you don’t tear down statues unless you’re in a third world country and the statue is of a recently toppled dictator. A statue doesn’t automatically mean that the subject is being celebrated and revered for their every action in life. It means they’re a significant figure that we should discuss, so we don’t repeat our past mistakes.
Trustworthy McLegitimate Or how muggle is a racist term. Now before you go and say that “wizards come in all races”, bear in mind that sensitivity to magic (the necessary ingredient for becoming a wizard) is essentially a genetic mutation; one they try to close off from intermarriage. So essentially they form their own race. And they’ve built an apartheid system around that racist ideology.
merican Gamer Seeing as you would be muggle in such a world, how would YOU feel knowing magic exists? Like any branch of science (which is what it would be), do you really think an entire planets worth of humans would want to be in the dark about it? Who speaks for the billions who would benefit from the technology?
PW Bue ....Where did you go to school where you were taught a 'censored' history lesson? You seriously didn't understand the civil war until.....Now? You had to have a middle school teacher explain it to you on RUclips? Sad....
rd0676 white is all colors before being broken up and not a color on its own (no wonder you liked this video..you must have failed middle school, so there is a lot for you to learn on youtube)...and im not white, so nice try.
Zack Helton if you learned something in that video...At your age....Go find your school teachers and tell them they failed. Really...Tell them "I was your student. I'm an adult now... *_(pause for laughter)_* anyway, I am and I didn't know why the civil war was fought or started. You failed at your job." They deserve the introspection and self awareness.....
"you don't name highways after traitors you put that in a museum." Huh. I mean, that isn't saying hide the gory past, or Disney-fy it in any way, with both extremes doing harm. I like it.
I am from Norwich, Connecticut. We have a museum about Benedict Arnold and we understand that his story is more complicated than just deciding to switch sides. But you will find no statue there. The only memorial that exists is the boot memorial in Saratoga, New York, commemorating the leg that was shot and wounded in the Saratoga Battle in defense of the United States of America. Because that's how Norwich, Connecticut do. We'll build a statue to commemorate the only piece of you that earned it and throw the rest away. Traitors get no statue, no matter their reasons.
I think it's really cool that you guys have a museum about Arnold. He was really important to our fight against England. It's too bad we didn't treat him well, because he was a great asset. Makes me wonder what would be different if we had rewarded him and he hadn't turned traitor.
+William Aden. you hate America ? leave. you don't like what we stand for.? leave. your not a prisoner .you can just leave. go to Africa. go to Europe. go to Russia. Mexico go anywhere. you want.if you hate the way this country became what it is. and you hate what it is. just leave.obviously there must be better places with a better history that you approve of. go there. live there. just leave.
FaithOriginalisme to be fair, a fascist argument would be, "Agree with us or die" but I understand the point you're trying to make. Unfortunately you're probably a little misinformed on what fascism actually is. Fascism doesn't give you a choice of staying or leaving. They make the decision for you. And a person saying that you have a right to leave if you don't like the way something is, is not fascist. Are they right for telling you to get out? Not necessarily. But it's not like they're forcing you from your home or forcing you to agree with their ideas.
'the difference is that confederate leaders chose region over country and committed treason' but didn't the likes of Washington choose colony over empire and commit treason too? The only difference is that the confederacy lost their war. The confederacy was abhorrent for trying to maintain slavery but that's just not a valid argument against them
RonPaulHatesBlacks given that the US established a system that maintained slavery for decades longer than the empire they left I'd say that's a slightly hollow argument
RonPaulHatesBlacks you've missed my point entirely. Slavery is an abomination and I'm glad the South lost in your civil war. I was arguing that calling confederates traitors who put region above country and saying that makes them any different to the American revolutionaries is a poor argument, I was making no point at all about slavery
RonPaulHatesBlacks and the revolutionaries fought to expand west and slaughter the natives in direct contradiction to British law. The 'why' is still abhorrent in both
RonPaulHatesBlacks I would suggest you do a little research on colonial history, it's very well documented. Treaties such as that of Fort Stanwix and Lochaber prevented settlers expanding over the Apalachian mountains and contributed to the outbreak of the revolution
RonPaulHatesBlacks or perhaps that's because I spend my days at work, not on RUclips. I'm quite well aware of where they are and I don't see a spelling error on a mountain range half way across the globe as being a serious error, especially as you've clearly misspelt it yourself. I'm not in the habit of debating in RUclips comments so I suggest you either read a book on why the American revolution occurred, why the vast majority of native American tribes in the relevant areas remained allied to the British for decades after American independence or how colonists treated native tribes in the Eastern states . It's really not my job to educate you, but you really do live up to the reputation of Americans for being completely ignorant of history, even of your own country
I remember as a child moving from Michigan to Atlanta some 55 years ago my father commenting, "They're still fighting the civil war" and shaking his head. Some things never change.
1st most of what he says about the American Civil War is correct except when it comes to the information he gives concerning Robert E. Lee. Lee never owned slaves, his father-in-law George Washington Parke Custis died in 1857, and in his will he decreed that all his slaves were to be FREED within 5 years of his death and that they were to be secured financially by the sale of George Washington Parke Custis ' properties, since Virginia State Law required that "No freed slave maybe release into a state of vagrancy. " meaning that no freed slave would be freed without a means of providing for themselves weather that be in the form of money, land or a trade by which they could sustain themselves. In the will he named his son-in-law the executor of his will, he did not own the slaves, technically the slaves were still owned by Lee's father-in-law even though he was dead, and Lee was required by law as the executor to see that the stipulations of the will were carried out, which they were the last of George Washington Parke Custis ' slaves were freed in early 1861. Next him saying that Lee whipped 3 runaway slaves is a myth. the first accounts of this myth are published in a abolitionist newspaper in Boston in 1866 a year after the end of the war, the supposed letters written by an anonyms author only appear once in any writings or publications. The perceived event is supposed to have taken place in 1859, when U.S. Army Records and Lee's own correspondence prove that he is in Texas commanding the U.S. 2nd Cavalry fighting along the border with Mexico in the "Cortina War." These rumors only resurface in the book "Reading the Man" which author Elizabeth Brown Pryor claimed she processed these letters, and refused to produce them and later admitted that the letters never existed to begin with. And all reputable historians on the American Civil War agree that the claim of Lee whipping slaves is an attempt to smear Lee in hopes of forcing the federal government to put him and other former confederates on trial, and is not supported by any evidence, in fact all the evidence contradicts the claim, even those slaves supposed to have been there for the the whipping, say that no such event ever took place, and state that Lee was rarely ever at the properties, spending most of his time involved with his Army duties. As a historian and professor of history I hate it when "part time historians" fail to do actual research and use unreliable sources for their evidence. Historians have a saying for this "A thing is true because of common knowledge, and not because a actual evidence."
The majority of the people fighting for the south didn't own slaves--the rich slave owners didn't want to lose their slaves, so they fed all the uneducated hicks propaganda about leftist agendas, states rights, and conservative moral values. And here we are today, where all the rich sweatshop owners are getting the uneducated hicks to vote for the party of tax-breaks and bail-outs by spreading propaganda about leftist agendas, states rights, and conservative moral values. Moral of the story: you're a dumb hick
Tyler V "But from my perspective the jedi are evil!" Actually the Galactic Empire was about the Lincoln Administration: think about it: an evil overlord agitating for increased taxes, to create a separatist movement to justify the use of "The Grand Army of the Republic" against it, and creating a rebel alliance in response, resulting in an empire... ring any bells yet.
Not really most people have a pretty clear understanding of what was going on, it is that there is a minority who want to lie about it and gaslight the impressionable in order to justify their political beliefs and maintain their power base.
Because it was unnecessary and we've been brainwashed to believe it wasn't. Slavery was already being phased out. It was proving inefficient and wasteful. Humans have so much more potential when educated and liberated.
If you read up on the actual history of Benedict Arnold, he's kind of a sympathetic character. I'd rather have statues of Arnold instead of Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK (yes, we have statues of him).
+Benjamin Perry Wow, how did you even know what I wrote? I didn't know you make a computer out of Coors Light cans, chicken gibbets and rusted out car parts. I'm so excited to make first contact with _Hillbillus Appalachius._
Forrest was a Traitor and killed more Americans than Arnold - Arnold was betrayed by his country before he turned on it. Forrest was a murderer that fought like a coward and got defeated by real patriots.
Good one? Not really, it’s idiotic and ignorant really. They are memorials to soldiers left on the field. Money raised by families to honor and remember soldiers, their family members, who answered their states call to protect their homeland from invasion and takeover. Yet no one slams states today that what to secede for financial reasons. Which was the reason for the CW. New England Yanks started and controlled the transatlantic slave trade up until 1858 even though illegal. It built the northeast US! They sold them south to expand agriculture esp cotton for northern factories. They had the population thus votes to control the legislature. The south even tried to get slaves counted for more equal congressional representation but the north would only allow slaves they sold the south to be counted as 3/5’ths a person to keep the congressional control. Senator Daniel Webster was their PR speech giver to hide their slaving past and shake the shameful finger at the south. What a con job. Classic diversionary tactic. Narcissistic northerners. Read a northern historians book “Disowning Slavery.” She was shocked at the BS she was taught. Did anyone on here read the Lincoln Douglas Debates? Slavery was started by the north for money people, period. And Africans sold Africans up to 10 for a $2 barrel of New England Rum netting up to 10k for the traders. All the “Holier than Thou” Ivy League Institutions made money off of slavery. Then the north voted tariffs on southern ports only who paid up to 90 percent of the Federal Income with no investment back to the south, only the northern controlled congress got the roads, bridges, schools, the south paid to build. They don’t tell you that. If it was about slavery why weren’t all the slaves freed? Just the ones where the Union had no control. They used the slaves they controlled themselves as slaves to send the cotton up north. They also put thousands of slaves into concentration camps. Most people have been hoodwinked so bad it’s ridiculous. And the “Jim Crow” north separated races on rail cars for the first time in Boston in 1838! So much more I could tell you and prove with facts but just chew on those basics for a while. slavenorth.com/profits.htm time.com/5527029/jim-crow-plessy-history/ blackmainstreet.net/never-forget-devils-punchbowl-20000-freed-slaves-died-forced-post-slavery-concentration-camp/ ruclips.net/video/-zy9D-0IkQM/видео.html
Hence why the south were traitors.....the war eventually became about ending slavery for the north and slavery was one of the reasons but it was mainly about preservation of the union, also why do confederate sympathizers hang on lincolns every word when it fits their narrative but totally ignore those southern states who said in their session statement it was about the preservation of slavery...
@@lesterjohnson2621 Not to mention they like to ignore that Lincoln said that his only goal was to preserve the union and he was fine with maintaining slavery so long as it saved the union. Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
My grandparents used to love visiting old southern mansions, and they picked up souvenir postcards at all of them. Cards from the 1960s and 70s often feature images of slaves doing their work - a product of the lost cause ideal. By the time we reach the 90s, slaves vanish from these postcards, and we're left with huge, well-manicured yards, fields of crops, and huge mansions with absolutely nobody in them. It's more comfortable to erase slavery than to defend it.
Yeah let’s ignore the fact that slavery existed. Let’s forget all those 1,000,000 men who died fighting for freedom of slaves, or in some people’s opinion, fighting for state rights. LEtS ErASe SlAVeRy, your being racist as shit. Pointing out slavery is not racist.
1st of all the Civil War was NOT about slavery. Robert E Lee was against slavery, he simply stood with his state Virginia. While Lincoln only freed the Southern Confederate slaves to weaken their Army. He did NOT free the Northern or Union slaves... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. Abraham Lincoln.
@@alwaysuseignocito3402 With all due respect, I think you completely missed the point of my comment. I'm not making a value judgment as to which version of these postcards is "better" or "worse", I'm observing a historical difference and pondering on how history should be depicted, preserved, and celebrated. There's no such thing as a neutral depiction of American slavery, and refusing to depict it is a form of erasure. So what should be done? I'm intentionally asking a question to which I don't know the answer.
He admits, in the beginning of the video, to having been a Middle School History teacher, and we wonder why we are turning out students who only parrot a revisionist and skewed view of history. The reality is that all states entered into a "Compact" with each other to form the Federal Government and each state had the right under it's own Sovereignty (Chisholm v State of Georgia) to remove themselves from that Compact. That is exactly what the Southern states wanted to do, be it right or wrong. I am not here to debate the issue of slavery as I believe the very idea of one human claiming the right to own another human is morally wrong. Lincolns on concern was maintaining a strong tax base by forcing the Southern States to remain in a Compact that they chose to separate from. This would have effectively created two Countries out of one. Lincoln was quoted as follows: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to force the Southern States into remaining in a Compact that they no longer wished to be part of. This is one of American histories first and most egregious usurpation of power by the Executive Branch and it has only gone downhill from there. Lincoln was solely responsible for the future he cleared a path for, a future of legislation by Executive Order thus circumventing Congress and the very Constitution itself. We have now entered into illegal wars without the consent of Congress although it is enumerated in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. Thanks "Honest" Abe, for laying the foundations for a full and complete dictatorship by the Executive Branch without the Checks and Balances of Congress or the Judiciary. It is propaganda like this that will continue leading people down the path of believing that our Constitution is just some dusty old piece of paper from a bygone era and has no place in modern society.
7 states Seceded before Lincoln took office. Also, that's not the "Confederate Battle Flag". It is a Battle flag, specifically the Battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia. Always just a bit off on the details, but as they say, the Devil's in the details
@Maniac, you're playing identity politics by presuming "North" and "South" were monolithic ideologies.... it was vastly more complex than your statement would seem to suggest. Make no mistake: ALL states had been previously warned that Secession would be viewed as an act of war against the United States of America. Therefore, the simple act of defiance by seceding showed that at least some of the leadership, while not eager, were more than willing to start a war to see their cause through.
The constitution at the time allowed succession and Lincoln knew, but he needed the war so no one would notice him and his railroad buddies pilfering the federal treasury and getting rich selling land they had bought before Lincoln moved the transcontinental railroad from a southerly route to a northern route. The civil war was a sham.
james pond are they really angry? It’s impossible to determine ones emotions through typed text. They may have written it calmly and rationally, but in your mind you are reading it as angry.
I've heard there was a financial war going on between the factory sweatshop north and the agrarian slave owning south-that the north had been treating the south as it's third world colony. That a business battle occurred in the north in New York (the real capital from whence the major players would coach to DC to find the nearest mild winter) leading to a unified team who then set their sights on the south by agreeing to not overbid each other on the raw product. Story goes the south figured it out in due coarse as the prices started tanking and got their clan together to agree no one would sell for so cheap. Northern businessmen fire back by buying politicians and creating some aggressive laws to target and thus pressure the south. None of this has to contradict the Mason/Dixon Missouri Compromise and I don't know if it's true. I tend to think follow the money. The US didn't start with the revolutionary war but the French and Indian war- wanted by colonial businessmen more than England-suppose to be a short little affair-lead to the first truly global war-The Seven Years War and when done costing a lot more than anticipated so England upped the taxes to pay back costs. A thriving black market in Tea and other product occurred in the colonies (like a McDonald"s franchise selling to Burgerking) undercutting EnglishTea (from India) causing a stockpile to build and new management to get hired and fired to sell the damn stuff. Finally England says sell our tea cheaper and undercuts the colonial black marketeers which starts working and so they dress up like Indians and cry "HeyHo Taxation without representation and toss the tea of their competitors (England) overboard. or ...the Indian wars-follow the money...Afganistafollow the money
In short the US civil war had a myriad of causes, the south didn't just spring up and attack because of slavery. Nor did poor white southerners fight just to stay above blacks.
Well duh, things can always be better, just as they can always be worse. Must be one of those glass half empty people, I still think it's twice as large as it needs to be.
If we are to have public statues of Confederate traitors to commemorate Southern history, how about a proportional number of statues depicting the slaves cruelly tortured by them? We don't want to deny history, right?
DoubleGoon because this video is just as full of crap as you are. No wonder you like it. Ever hear "truth is stranger than fiction"? each American state is a sovereign nation state unto itself. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, where it says that the colonies were a "free and independent states, with the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states May by right do." And then the Articles of Confederation said that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence, and every right, jurisdiction, and power that is not delegated to the Congress in the articles. And then the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each state by name as free, Sovereign, and independent states. And the Constitution did not unite the states as a single nation-state, it simply established the voters of their respective State as the final Authority therein. So when a state seceded, that was a brexit. Each state was simply looking out for its own economic interest, just like with the Hartford Convention of 1814 considering secession to prevent other states from acting to jeopardize it. Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the European Union is a single Sovereign nation state and that no member State can secede from it, and that the European Union should have engaged in civil war against it. Because that's exactly what happened in 1861, with the North American Union.
This nation has always carried the flame of rebellion against govt power... We bow only to the Lord God and he will make sure this flame never fades away I promise U fools kill me with the willingness to give up rights, in my opinion it's because you Yankees are primarily English, Scotts, and Brits who have notoriously small dicks and u wreak havoc on the rest of the world due to having to sift through the rest of the world's leftovers to find a women willing to let u clang ur pelvises against theirs trying to penetrate a lip I'll have my pastor put in a word with the Lord that y'all could use just a hair more length bud
Robert E Lee didn't necessarily fight for slavery, he fought for Virginia which was his home. He was even given the oppurtinity to fight for the union which wouldn't have been offered to every other slave owner and the sole reason why he rejected the offer was so he could protect his home, not attack it.
Nope, it's just folks who don't like left-winged revisionist History. Among the right, there are those who believe that slavery was the main reason for secession but not the reason why the Southern states fought against the North, those who believe that Slavery was a major reason but not the sole reason, and those on the right who would agree with you that Slavery was the soul Issue, because that way, they can continuously bring up the racist history of the Democrats while excusing the war crimes of early Republics like Sherman. So there is plenty of debate about that on the right. Meanwhile, accepting the very worst revisions of American history to paint the whites as sinful seems to be a litmus test for the left. The latter definitely sounds more like an echo chamber.
@@snakey934Snakeybakey actually the republicans' southern strategy was meant to win over white voters when democrats were popular with white voters. They basically did what democrats did back then by playing to white peoples' fear of blacks. It was definitely about race(also democrats were already becoming more popular with blacks around the same time)
@@BeaverChainsaw Only, the Republicans probably never did that. There is simply so little evidence to support that Narrative, and so much against it. Today and every Southern State Virginia; white Southerners are more likely to vote for a black Republican than a white Democrat.
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 and he was not standing up for the constitution or states rights he fought to maintain the status quo the status quo that kept men women and children in bondage
More student than teacher, but in part yes, the biggest problem I have is it's not universally accurate, I never heard this stuff when I went to school, either of it, but my stay in school was brief, most of my education was slashed and burned, not just the facts entire subjects, so I didn't even start learning until utube. The place we each need to start though is "world view", we will never know just how much we have been straight up lied to until we look at how we view the world, and once we do we realize that this is an actual war, a cold war, still active and far more Intense than we were ever told, between the globalists, and the nationalists, or if you prefer "national Patriots", Patriots of what ever nation or country you care to name, globalists are basically traitors of the country that birthed Them, they betray country, borders, cultures, national identities, for a grab of perceived power, I said perceived because there is always a bigger shark, a bigger Hitler, out there, basically we either recognize and acknowledge other cultures by engaging them as they are in conversation, or we engage them in war, and the track record of the globalists has always been world war, we haven't had world war since Rome, until the Rothschild's came.
Garrett Hinshaw this comment is the scariest thing ever you talk about learning off RUclips when there are thousands of nut jobs and apparently being against Hitler pins you as a bad guy. Also the fucking deafening dog whistling talking about globalists taking over.
Mao's World each American state is a sovereign nation state unto itself. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, where it says that the colonies were a "free and independent states, with the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states May by right do." And then the Articles of Confederation said that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence, and every right, jurisdiction, and power that is not delegated to the Congress in the articles. And then the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each state by name as free, Sovereign, and independent states. And the Constitution did not unite the states as a single nation-state, it simply established the voters of their respective State as the final Authority therein. So when a state seceded, that was a brexit. Each state was simply looking out for its own economic interest, just like with the Hartford Convention of 1814 considering secession to prevent other states from acting to jeopardize it. Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the European Union is a single Sovereign nation state and that no member State can secede from it, and that the European Union should have engaged in civil war against it. Because that's exactly what happened in 1861, with the North American Union.
Actually the LA purchase was land owned by Spain at the time and France was its steward. The sale was technically beyond Napoleon's power to do, but Spain was in no position to complain or fight France for it.
The Civil War was a war to prevent a States' right to secede, period. The argument now is that states have no right to secede, even though no agreement can be enforced by the dead (past generations) upon the living. As for your ancestors being better in Uganda, I suggest you do a video on Idi Amin.
I obviously can't tell your genealogy, but Uganda is 3,000 miles from the nearest slave ports on the west coast of Africa (about the distance from Maine to Los Angeles). It would seem unlikely that slavers would travel that far inland since it would be cost-prohibitive. Also, one correction: Lee repeatedly stated he joined the Confederacy only because he couldn't fight against his home state of Virginia, not to support states' rights. As a history teacher, I'm sure you're aware that at that time, many citizens identified more with their states than with the nation. Otherwise, your video was well made, and you presented it in a very interesting manner.
Do you think a picture in a book is the same as the flags you honor? Does flags and statues not have the same meaning in america? We put heroes and honors to monuments, statues and flags.
"invasion" is kind of a stretch in this context plus, it was a treasonous secession by a bunch of states who wanted to own human being as property. Invading them would have been wholly appropriate and justified because they're traitors.
“ there is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the south, for I would set them free to avoid this war.” -General Robert E Lee
The well informed dude forgot to mention that General Lee, the Southern general freed his inherited slaves when he went off to war, whereas General Grant, the Northern general didn't free his bought slaves until after the war.
This guy is a middle school teacher. I'm guessing a public school middle school teacher which means he would have to teach history as the government wants him to
RonPaulHatesBlacks Oh but I believe I do as I have been in public school for most my life. I don't know if you have or not or where your from but I am from the U.S
RonPaulHatesBlacks not sure if you know how age works here in the U.S but by being 18 deffently don't not make you a baby in fact it makes you a adult legally so you may want to change what you say
There is a statue of Benedict Arnold, sort of, called the Boot Monument. He was a war hero who was wounded in battle against the British, the leg wound essentially ended his career as a fighting soldier. But then he turned traitor, so he got no honors for his service, but his leg has a monument built to honor the part of Arnold that fought for America. And his name does not appear on the monument, because he was a traitor.
Andrew Edwards Dat loyal leg tho.
Gerry C How exactly does the loss of an asset as minor as West Point result in ending the war. Entire states were lost without ending the war.
Andrew Edwards he wasn't really a traitor, he was a spy working AGAINST THE traitors... the colonists were the traitors
Gavlick Apthesycerski West Point was not a minor asset. The Hudson Highlands in both the French and Indian war and the Revolution were and actually still are considered a vital defense spot for our country. If you capture West Point and Anthony's Nose, the mountain on the other side of the current Bear Mountain bridge, you can successfully cut New England off from the rest of the nation. Arnold was a hero, that is why this major betrayal was so devastating to the new country. The whole length of the Hudson from Governor's Island and the Battery in the lower New York city bay to Ft Ticonderoga especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, but really until the 1960's was considered to be a vital area to defend and a lot of money and thought were spent on that defence. That is one of the reason the Military Academy was located at West Point.
@Gerry C There is a reason wars are fought despite the deaths. Our founders felt independence justified the carnage.
We had a lot more to justify the civil war (and honestly another civil war today) than the American Revolution back then. But since I believe in their ideals (government of the people that actually represents them unlike Britain) I support American Revolutionaries.
Benedict Arnold simply backed the wrong side and suffered the historical consequences. I don't doubt that everything you say is correct from Benedict Arnold & British perspective but this is simply loyality to my own side that I support the American Revolutionaries.
This guy obviously didn't do any research at all. If he did he would know the civil war was started over vampires using slaves as food.
And Abe Lincoln needed to put those sparkly Mofos down like the emo dogs they were.
Tru dat. If God didn't want vampires to eat slaves, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Exactly. I watched the Lincoln documentary that showed this. Cracked is off it's mark
I got that reference. +1
That, and the crushing tariffs.
One myth that isn't brought up as a myth is the idea of Northerners being opposed to slavery because they were abolitionists and anti-racist. This isn't true at all. The North was plenty racist.
Oregon, for instance, had it written into its state constitution that blacks couldn't establish permanent residence in the state up until 1929, despite slavery being outlawed. The New York Draft Riots resulted in the murder and lynching of 11 black men. Blacks not lynched were straight-up chased out of New York after their neighborhoods were burned to the ground. While California was a Union State during the war, many Californians went to Texas to fight on behalf of the Confederacy.
Make no mistake, the Union States had no problems with slavery as an institution establishing a racial hierarchy of white supremacy. The myth is the Union was abolitionist for moral reasons. The truth is the Union was opposed to slavery for economic reasons.
Had slavery been allowed to expand to New England, U.S. Territories, or the newly formed states of Oregon, Nevada (who became a state in 1864...part way through the war), and California, whites would have to compete with slave owners who used slaves to work in factories, mines, and plantations. Why worry about your factory workers going on strike when you can lock slaves inside and let them all die in a fire with zero fuss? Or worry about a mine collapsing?
The ugly truth is Union states don't want to recognize their role in creating racism in the United States. Their mistreatment of black Americans by Northerners got swept under the rug after the war was over and the 13th., 14th., and 15th. amendments were ratified.
THANK you for an unbiased comment
and then they all made laws to separate the newly freed blacks from their "pure" white children
Thank you, this is probably the most overlooked facet of the civil war. Although I think it was even more basic. Slavery and capitalism are two fundamentally different economic structures.
A single economy can't have conflicting foundations.
Essentially an economy based on returning some of the wealth created to the laborers so they can exchange it for goods doesn't work with a significant portion of the workforce not getting paid. That's what "a house divided" refers to.
Michael Ellis
"Slavery and capitalism are 2 fundamentally opposed structures"
Please what?
Owning, selling and using people as workers is opposed to capitalism? That sounds like the wet dream of a capitalist.
Sorry I don't want to be rude, but that is close to the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
We live in a capitalistic world and many of our products are often (at least indirectly) produced by child and (de facto) slave labour.
Clothes or cellphones produced in the 3rd world and the materials needed to produce them are partly build on slavery and close to slavery conditions.
The stadiums for the soccer world championship in quatar are literally build with slave labour, payed for by oil money from us and to the entertainment of the capitalistic world.
And our capitalism isn't opposing it, a lot of our wealth is actually build on it. Capitalism has worked hand in hand with slavery in the past and still does today.
I guess I know what you mean, that capitalism can't work if you don't have people able to buy things, but the way you stated it is just totally wrong.
Michael Ellis
"Doesn't work with a significant portion of the work force not getting paid"
But the owners get paid. Why does it matter if a person has 10 slaves that work, if the owner gets paid and spend the money or he pays wages and the "slaves" spend the money?
Look at the discussion about minimum wage. Some what to get ready d of minimum wage and argue that the less they have to spend on wages, the more money they have and the more jobs they can create and the more they can invest and put back into the economy.
Well, the comments section is quite friendly here.
Ikr. I hate Ni-
@@roach2110 cotine. Me too, it's terrible for your health.
I appreciate these kinds of videos, not being American. However, I find the "boom! hashtags!" kind of humour to be weirdly dissonant as opposed to humorously contrasting (which I guess was the intention). I understand that inserting random hashtags is sort of a joke these days, but, I mean, it's just disruptive. That ice cream joke was leagues better.
"haha black people were slaves and suffered for decades! BEW BEW POW POW But seriously guys let's have a civil discussion"
I agree that the modern hashtag trend is dumb and should go away.
Enthused Norseman I love history and really don't mind having statues of traitors up. As long as it's portrayed acuratly
Agree 100%
hehe sker der
My one question. WHY DO WE HAVE A STATUE OF LENIN IN SEATTLE?!?!?
Jewss...____.__...
Because Abe Lincoln sold us out to Marxist conspirators
@@ashleyfromresidentevil4618 the communists slaughtered jews
LOL! I had the same question. Read the plaque, friend! The sculptor was covertly protesting Lenin, showing him as a war monger. Lenin wanted the statue destroyed, but someone believed it to be historically significant and moved it to Fremont. Someone also took the liberty of painting his hand red. And that is why you don’t tear down statues unless you’re in a third world country and the statue is of a recently toppled dictator. A statue doesn’t automatically mean that the subject is being celebrated and revered for their every action in life. It means they’re a significant figure that we should discuss, so we don’t repeat our past mistakes.
@@spartanx9293 Fascists: Wew! That was close!
I like this new guy. Make more videos here, new guy.
Not new, he has plenty of videos
Charmanderaznable what's his name
He's made a few, but I agree he needs to make more. :)
Zora Bikangaga
Charmanderaznable thank you. He needs to put that name in text at the beginning of an episode.
Also robert E lee didn't want a statue of himself
How to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and get a statue of yourself in America. #logic
@@CalvinJary You really don't get it. 🤦♂️
I'm glad. That. Eye. Sore. Is. Damn. Gone
AND he freed his slaves when u war broke out, did not say that did he.
Not just him he didn't want statues of ANY Confederates
Speaking of Harry Potter, you should discuss whether or not House Elves slavery should be abolished.
Trustworthy McLegitimate Or how muggle is a racist term. Now before you go and say that “wizards come in all races”, bear in mind that sensitivity to magic (the necessary ingredient for becoming a wizard) is essentially a genetic mutation; one they try to close off from intermarriage. So essentially they form their own race. And they’ve built an apartheid system around that racist ideology.
Though I dont think muggles too much fancy the magic world or its people.
merican Gamer Seeing as you would be muggle in such a world, how would YOU feel knowing magic exists? Like any branch of science (which is what it would be), do you really think an entire planets worth of humans would want to be in the dark about it? Who speaks for the billions who would benefit from the technology?
Mr. W good sir, I merely am saying what I see. Besides..... who said I was muggle?
merican Gamer :facepalm:
Please keep this show going. Nice to have an uncensored history lesson.
PW Bue ....Where did you go to school where you were taught a 'censored' history lesson? You seriously didn't understand the civil war until.....Now? You had to have a middle school teacher explain it to you on RUclips? Sad....
KandaPanda what's your favorite color?
creshiell spoiler alert it's white
rd0676 white is all colors before being broken up and not a color on its own (no wonder you liked this video..you must have failed middle school, so there is a lot for you to learn on youtube)...and im not white, so nice try.
green. why would that be applicable?
I'm enjoying the new videos ! Appreciate the information! Can we keep this series alive ? :)
Zack Helton if you learned something in that video...At your age....Go find your school teachers and tell them they failed. Really...Tell them "I was your student. I'm an adult now... *_(pause for laughter)_* anyway, I am and I didn't know why the civil war was fought or started. You failed at your job."
They deserve the introspection and self awareness.....
Also, your ears look fucking stupid.
I Rosencrantz
How bored is this dude?
Appreciate the back up, haha.
The PEW PEW PEW parts made it kind of cringey to watch.
PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW
it made me chuckle a little bit, but yeah. he did it too many times
What drove me nuts was every 5 second he has to say some stupid hastag blah blah blah, i like his style mostly but the hashtag thing drove me nuts
Just tried to make it funny yet it failed
@@ishaiahguyton64 bang bang bang
...is he shooting Star Wars blasters at the confederates?
are you that dense?
Apparently you don't like Star Wars.
aceous99 calm down bud
Yeah, isn't that special? Star Wars SUCKS (pretentious, derivative, self-aggrandizing Space Opera v. Real SF)
This guys is so damn funny even talking about a serious topic. PLEASE Cracked we need more of him.
the humour didn't really fit in this video, but it's nice to see cracked make stuff that isn't a minute long clickbait statement
yay new contenet!!! two minutes what the fuck??? kinda like that?
It's a 7 minute 6 sec statment.
I learned something today...general lee was a terrible person
He said he was a middle school teacher so he's prolly used to giving out info dosed in some quick laugh fodder...
I thought it was funny as FUCK! and sounds all legit to me...
As a middle school history teacher, I'm sure you're guilty of perpetuating some myths too
Like?
"you don't name highways after traitors you put that in a museum." Huh. I mean, that isn't saying hide the gory past, or Disney-fy it in any way, with both extremes doing harm. I like it.
This was great. Thanks for making it. :)
I am from Norwich, Connecticut.
We have a museum about Benedict Arnold and we understand that his story is more complicated than just deciding to switch sides.
But you will find no statue there.
The only memorial that exists is the boot memorial in Saratoga, New York, commemorating the leg that was shot and wounded in the Saratoga Battle in defense of the United States of America.
Because that's how Norwich, Connecticut do.
We'll build a statue to commemorate the only piece of you that earned it and throw the rest away.
Traitors get no statue, no matter their reasons.
I think it's really cool that you guys have a museum about Arnold. He was really important to our fight against England. It's too bad we didn't treat him well, because he was a great asset. Makes me wonder what would be different if we had rewarded him and he hadn't turned traitor.
Sarah Krupa I lived in Norwhich back in the day lol
+William Aden. you hate America ? leave. you don't like what we stand for.? leave. your not a prisoner .you can just leave. go to Africa. go to Europe. go to Russia. Mexico go anywhere. you want.if you hate the way this country became what it is. and you hate what it is. just leave.obviously there must be better places with a better history that you approve of. go there. live there. just leave.
John Knope Seriously the most un-American and fascist argument you could make. To hell with democracy, get with how we do or get out.
FaithOriginalisme to be fair, a fascist argument would be, "Agree with us or die" but I understand the point you're trying to make. Unfortunately you're probably a little misinformed on what fascism actually is. Fascism doesn't give you a choice of staying or leaving. They make the decision for you. And a person saying that you have a right to leave if you don't like the way something is, is not fascist. Are they right for telling you to get out? Not necessarily. But it's not like they're forcing you from your home or forcing you to agree with their ideas.
'the difference is that confederate leaders chose region over country and committed treason' but didn't the likes of Washington choose colony over empire and commit treason too? The only difference is that the confederacy lost their war. The confederacy was abhorrent for trying to maintain slavery but that's just not a valid argument against them
RonPaulHatesBlacks given that the US established a system that maintained slavery for decades longer than the empire they left I'd say that's a slightly hollow argument
RonPaulHatesBlacks you've missed my point entirely. Slavery is an abomination and I'm glad the South lost in your civil war. I was arguing that calling confederates traitors who put region above country and saying that makes them any different to the American revolutionaries is a poor argument, I was making no point at all about slavery
RonPaulHatesBlacks and the revolutionaries fought to expand west and slaughter the natives in direct contradiction to British law. The 'why' is still abhorrent in both
RonPaulHatesBlacks I would suggest you do a little research on colonial history, it's very well documented. Treaties such as that of Fort Stanwix and Lochaber prevented settlers expanding over the Apalachian mountains and contributed to the outbreak of the revolution
RonPaulHatesBlacks or perhaps that's because I spend my days at work, not on RUclips. I'm quite well aware of where they are and I don't see a spelling error on a mountain range half way across the globe as being a serious error, especially as you've clearly misspelt it yourself. I'm not in the habit of debating in RUclips comments so I suggest you either read a book on why the American revolution occurred, why the vast majority of native American tribes in the relevant areas remained allied to the British for decades after American independence or how colonists treated native tribes in the Eastern states . It's really not my job to educate you, but you really do live up to the reputation of Americans for being completely ignorant of history, even of your own country
PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW!
I remember as a child moving from Michigan to Atlanta some 55 years ago my father commenting, "They're still fighting the civil war" and shaking his head. Some things never change.
The like to dislike ratio is surprisingly good.
I mean... most people that disagree won't be watching this channel to begin with...
Alex Kerley- People who disagree are the type to go out looking for arguments.
It's sad so many liked this drivel
Ed McKenzie lol what are you whining about you ugly little white supremacist bitch?
batwingedloony
Swing and a miss. I hate the federal government not black people.
1st most of what he says about the American Civil War is correct except when it comes to the information he gives concerning Robert E. Lee. Lee never owned slaves, his father-in-law George Washington Parke Custis
died in 1857, and in his will he decreed that all his slaves were to be FREED within 5 years of his death and that they were to be secured financially by the sale of George Washington Parke Custis
' properties, since Virginia State Law required that "No freed slave maybe release into a state of vagrancy.
" meaning that no freed slave would be freed without a means of providing for themselves weather that be in the form of money, land or a trade by which they could sustain themselves. In the will he named his son-in-law the executor of his will, he did not own the slaves, technically the slaves were still owned by Lee's father-in-law even though he was dead, and Lee was required by law as the executor to see that the stipulations of the will were carried out, which they were the last of George Washington Parke Custis
' slaves were freed in early 1861. Next him saying that Lee whipped 3 runaway slaves is a myth. the first accounts of this myth are published in a abolitionist newspaper in Boston in 1866 a year after the end of the war, the supposed letters written by an anonyms author only appear once in any writings or publications. The perceived event is supposed to have taken place in 1859, when U.S. Army Records and Lee's own correspondence prove that he is in Texas commanding the U.S. 2nd Cavalry fighting along the border with Mexico in the "Cortina War." These rumors only resurface in the book "Reading the Man" which author Elizabeth Brown Pryor claimed she processed these letters, and refused to produce them and later admitted that the letters never existed to begin with. And all reputable historians on the American Civil War agree that the claim of Lee whipping slaves is an attempt to smear Lee in hopes of forcing the federal government to put him and other former confederates on trial, and is not supported by any evidence, in fact all the evidence contradicts the claim, even those slaves supposed to have been there for the the whipping, say that no such event ever took place, and state that Lee was rarely ever at the properties, spending most of his time involved with his Army duties. As a historian and professor of history I hate it when "part time historians" fail to do actual research and use unreliable sources for their evidence. Historians have a saying for this "A thing is true because of common knowledge, and not because a actual evidence."
The majority of the people fighting for the south didn't own slaves--the rich slave owners didn't want to lose their slaves, so they fed all the uneducated hicks propaganda about leftist agendas, states rights, and conservative moral values.
And here we are today, where all the rich sweatshop owners are getting the uneducated hicks to vote for the party of tax-breaks and bail-outs by spreading propaganda about leftist agendas, states rights, and conservative moral values.
Moral of the story: you're a dumb hick
This was a great video! I hope you do more!
But from my perspective the jedi are evil!
Isn't mind raping people with force powers a form of slavery?
The Jedi creep me out.
the jedi is a movie..this is real life..do you know the difference
Luke Keeling Yeah. The confederates were still cartoonishly evil.
Tyler V "But from my perspective the jedi are evil!"
Actually the Galactic Empire was about the Lincoln Administration: think about it: an evil overlord agitating for increased taxes, to create a separatist movement to justify the use of "The Grand Army of the Republic" against it, and creating a rebel alliance in response, resulting in an empire... ring any bells yet.
I was hoping this was about the Avengers' reaction to the Hero Registration Act.
*ba dum tiss*
Bro you just did my whole six grade report in 7:06 minuets and it took me weeks.
150 years later and we still are still trying to analyse wtf wuz goin on!
Not really most people have a pretty clear understanding of what was going on, it is that there is a minority who want to lie about it and gaslight the impressionable in order to justify their political beliefs and maintain their power base.
Because it was unnecessary and we've been brainwashed to believe it wasn't. Slavery was already being phased out. It was proving inefficient and wasteful. Humans have so much more potential when educated and liberated.
pew pew pew
@Joey Pastrana except for that double negative. Reads better as 'It was not necessary and we've been brainwashed to believe it was'.
Dont wast. Ur. Time. The. Stupid. War. Sucks. To. Much. And. Is. To. Stupid to. Be. Anilised
"Pew Pew Pew. No that we have an understanding..." was the last thing I heard.
Thank you for clearing that up for me....let's face facts, the truth considered dangerous in the eyes of those who would benefit from a lie.
I had USHistory teacher like this cat in middle school. They changed my life.
If you read up on the actual history of Benedict Arnold, he's kind of a sympathetic character. I'd rather have statues of Arnold instead of Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK (yes, we have statues of him).
Livid Imp Benedict Arnold was more of a double agent. We are the traitors
Would rather have statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest rather than a fuckin traitor, get the fuck outa here, you fuckin yankee
+Benjamin Perry
Wow, how did you even know what I wrote? I didn't know you make a computer out of Coors Light cans, chicken gibbets and rusted out car parts. I'm so excited to make first contact with _Hillbillus Appalachius._
Benjamin Perry the confederates were traitors tho....
Forrest was a Traitor and killed more Americans than Arnold - Arnold was betrayed by his country before he turned on it. Forrest was a murderer that fought like a coward and got defeated by real patriots.
Yeah dude, you made history kinda fun and interesting. Good job.
And fictitious.
Colin Silver- Dude; suppress your gag reflex and do to him what you long to do! Cause, you know Dude, history should be kinda fun, huh?!
Confederate flags and monuments are the ultimate participation trophies.
Jim Simandle lol good one
Good one? Not really, it’s idiotic and ignorant really. They are memorials to soldiers left on the field. Money raised by families to honor and remember soldiers, their family members, who answered their states call to protect their homeland from invasion and takeover. Yet no one slams states today that what to secede for financial reasons. Which was the reason for the CW. New England Yanks started and controlled the transatlantic slave trade up until 1858 even though illegal. It built the northeast US! They sold them south to expand agriculture esp cotton for northern factories. They had the population thus votes to control the legislature. The south even tried to get slaves counted for more equal congressional representation but the north would only allow slaves they sold the south to be counted as 3/5’ths a person to keep the congressional control. Senator Daniel Webster was their PR speech giver to hide their slaving past and shake the shameful finger at the south. What a con job. Classic diversionary tactic. Narcissistic northerners. Read a northern historians book “Disowning Slavery.” She was shocked at the BS she was taught. Did anyone on here read the Lincoln Douglas Debates? Slavery was started by the north for money people, period. And Africans sold Africans up to 10 for a $2 barrel of New England Rum netting up to 10k for the traders. All the “Holier than Thou” Ivy League Institutions made money off of slavery. Then the north voted tariffs on southern ports only who paid up to 90 percent of the Federal Income with no investment back to the south, only the northern controlled congress got the roads, bridges, schools, the south paid to build. They don’t tell you that. If it was about slavery why weren’t all the slaves freed? Just the ones where the Union had no control. They used the slaves they controlled themselves as slaves to send the cotton up north. They also put thousands of slaves into concentration camps. Most people have been hoodwinked so bad it’s ridiculous. And the “Jim Crow” north separated races on rail cars for the first time in Boston in 1838!
So much more I could tell you and prove with facts but just chew on those basics for a while.
slavenorth.com/profits.htm
time.com/5527029/jim-crow-plessy-history/
blackmainstreet.net/never-forget-devils-punchbowl-20000-freed-slaves-died-forced-post-slavery-concentration-camp/
ruclips.net/video/-zy9D-0IkQM/видео.html
@@lilolmejusayin8671 bruh did u really type that thinking people were gonna read it?
Sam Doesn’t matter to me in any case. Ignorance is a choice and lazy.
Not to mention that Lincoln literally said that if he could keep the union together he would have allowed slavery.
Hence why the south were traitors.....the war eventually became about ending slavery for the north and slavery was one of the reasons but it was mainly about preservation of the union, also why do confederate sympathizers hang on lincolns every word when it fits their narrative but totally ignore those southern states who said in their session statement it was about the preservation of slavery...
@@lesterjohnson2621 Not to mention they like to ignore that Lincoln said that his only goal was to preserve the union and he was fine with maintaining slavery so long as it saved the union.
Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
My grandparents used to love visiting old southern mansions, and they picked up souvenir postcards at all of them. Cards from the 1960s and 70s often feature images of slaves doing their work - a product of the lost cause ideal. By the time we reach the 90s, slaves vanish from these postcards, and we're left with huge, well-manicured yards, fields of crops, and huge mansions with absolutely nobody in them.
It's more comfortable to erase slavery than to defend it.
Yeah let’s ignore the fact that slavery existed. Let’s forget all those 1,000,000 men who died fighting for freedom of slaves, or in some people’s opinion, fighting for state rights. LEtS ErASe SlAVeRy, your being racist as shit. Pointing out slavery is not racist.
You're trash
1st of all the Civil War was NOT about slavery. Robert E Lee was against slavery, he simply stood with his state Virginia. While Lincoln only freed the Southern Confederate slaves to weaken their Army. He did NOT free the Northern or Union slaves...
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. Abraham Lincoln.
@@alwaysuseignocito3402 With all due respect, I think you completely missed the point of my comment. I'm not making a value judgment as to which version of these postcards is "better" or "worse", I'm observing a historical difference and pondering on how history should be depicted, preserved, and celebrated. There's no such thing as a neutral depiction of American slavery, and refusing to depict it is a form of erasure. So what should be done? I'm intentionally asking a question to which I don't know the answer.
He admits, in the beginning of the video, to having been a Middle School History teacher, and we wonder why we are turning out students who only parrot a revisionist and skewed view of history.
The reality is that all states entered into a "Compact" with each other to form the Federal Government and each state had the right under it's own Sovereignty (Chisholm v State of Georgia) to remove themselves from that Compact. That is exactly what the Southern states wanted to do, be it right or wrong. I am not here to debate the issue of slavery as I believe the very idea of one human claiming the right to own another human is morally wrong.
Lincolns on concern was maintaining a strong tax base by forcing the Southern States to remain in a Compact that they chose to separate from. This would have effectively created two Countries out of one. Lincoln was quoted as follows:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to force the Southern States into remaining in a Compact that they no longer wished to be part of. This is one of American histories first and most egregious usurpation of power by the Executive Branch and it has only gone downhill from there. Lincoln was solely responsible for the future he cleared a path for, a future of legislation by Executive Order thus circumventing Congress and the very Constitution itself.
We have now entered into illegal wars without the consent of Congress although it is enumerated in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. Thanks "Honest" Abe, for laying the foundations for a full and complete dictatorship by the Executive Branch without the Checks and Balances of Congress or the Judiciary.
It is propaganda like this that will continue leading people down the path of believing that our Constitution is just some dusty old piece of paper from a bygone era and has no place in modern society.
7 states Seceded before Lincoln took office. Also, that's not the "Confederate Battle Flag". It is a Battle flag, specifically the Battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia. Always just a bit off on the details, but as they say, the Devil's in the details
Ted Logan another thing is the south didn't want war we wanted to be left alone the north pushed for war to " to keep the union togther"
@Maniac, you're playing identity politics by presuming "North" and "South" were monolithic ideologies.... it was vastly more complex than your statement would seem to suggest. Make no mistake: ALL states had been previously warned that Secession would be viewed as an act of war against the United States of America. Therefore, the simple act of defiance by seceding showed that at least some of the leadership, while not eager, were more than willing to start a war to see their cause through.
The constitution at the time allowed succession and Lincoln knew, but he needed the war so no one would notice him and his railroad buddies pilfering the federal treasury and getting rich selling land they had bought before Lincoln moved the transcontinental railroad from a southerly route to a northern route. The civil war was a sham.
And im glad they did
the supreme.court rulled that no state could seccede
I obtained this knowledge outside of high school. Shame
I wish you had mentioned the Haitian Revolution as a catalyst to the selling of Louisiana territory.
Now THAT's some great reference. Thanks!
Wow... wierd how angry people get over some information.
james pond are they really angry? It’s impossible to determine ones emotions through typed text. They may have written it calmly and rationally, but in your mind you are reading it as angry.
a lot of it was cleaned up. There quite a few "unintelligent" comments earlier
james pond By cleaned up, you mean censored.
LOL, look at the president.
Cause it's not all facts, much of it is liberal propaganda.
I've heard there was a financial war going on between the factory sweatshop north and the agrarian slave owning south-that the north had been treating the south as it's third world colony. That a business battle occurred in the north in New York (the real capital from whence the major players would coach to DC to find the nearest mild winter) leading to a unified team who then set their sights on the south by agreeing to not overbid each other on the raw product. Story goes the south figured it out in due coarse as the prices started tanking and got their clan together to agree no one would sell for so cheap. Northern businessmen fire back by buying politicians and creating some aggressive laws to target and thus pressure the south. None of this has to contradict the Mason/Dixon Missouri Compromise and I don't know if it's true. I tend to think follow the money. The US didn't start with the revolutionary war but the French and Indian war- wanted by colonial businessmen more than England-suppose to be a short little affair-lead to the first truly global war-The Seven Years War and when done costing a lot more than anticipated so England upped the taxes to pay back costs. A thriving black market in Tea and other product occurred in the colonies (like a McDonald"s franchise selling to Burgerking) undercutting EnglishTea (from India) causing a stockpile to build and new management to get hired and fired to sell the damn stuff. Finally England says sell our tea cheaper and undercuts the colonial black marketeers which starts working and so they dress up like Indians and cry "HeyHo Taxation without representation and toss the tea of their competitors (England) overboard. or ...the Indian wars-follow the money...Afganistafollow the money
In short the US civil war had a myriad of causes, the south didn't just spring up and attack because of slavery. Nor did poor white southerners fight just to stay above blacks.
I wish I had this guy as my history teacher growing up, I would have LOVED history if so
Wait, I’ve cream existed in the 18th century?
Yep
It's super easy to make
I wish you had been my history teacher. Great video, both informative and funny. A statue to Peter Pettigrew? Ha! XD
Nice faceover, accurate.
Early enough to not see a bunch of racist comments angry over facts.
Username then learn facts. The Civil War was NOT OVER SLAVERY. WAS OVER CONTROL.
Chris Brown did you watch the video?
I love how you do history! I honestly didn't know that stuff about Lee.
Inb4 hurr dur cracked isn't what it used to be hurrrrdurrr
lmao, when was cracked ever not political?
"Former Middle-School History Teacher" Yeah, this guy sure has a lot of qualifications
Says the guy named "Santa Claus."
At least I get respected by children.
DAMNNNNN
Damn
Abraham Lincoln always owned slaves
Hmm, for some reason I just remembered that song right now. "I-Im the Cult of Personality..." (Ban nah nah, bah nah nah, bah nanananah!)
Been to Uganda before, trust me you are definitely blessed to live here.
But it could've been better, it can get better, and it just may get better.
Well duh, things can always be better, just as they can always be worse. Must be one of those glass half empty people, I still think it's twice as large as it needs to be.
You’re telling the truth! No offense to Ugandans but it’s terrible.
Are you gonna stand for it?
Why should we accept it, it ain't right.
If we are to have public statues of Confederate traitors to commemorate Southern history, how about a proportional number of statues depicting the slaves cruelly tortured by them? We don't want to deny history, right?
pop5678eye
Confederate memorials are the ultimate Runner-Up/Participation award.
I'm so proud of myself for already knowing all of this. Thanks Cracked!
the only thing i learned in high school about the civil war was how they amputated limbs...that is all the teacher was stuck on..
DoubleGoon because this video is just as full of crap as you are. No wonder you like it.
Ever hear "truth is stranger than fiction"?
each American state is a sovereign nation state unto itself. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, where it says that the colonies were a "free and independent states, with the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states May by right do."
And then the Articles of Confederation said that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence, and every right, jurisdiction, and power that is not delegated to the Congress in the articles.
And then the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each state by name as free, Sovereign, and independent states.
And the Constitution did not unite the states as a single nation-state, it simply established the voters of their respective State as the final Authority therein.
So when a state seceded, that was a brexit. Each state was simply looking out for its own economic interest, just like with the Hartford Convention of 1814 considering secession to prevent other states from acting to jeopardize it.
Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the European Union is a single Sovereign nation state and that no member State can secede from it, and that the European Union should have engaged in civil war against it. Because that's exactly what happened in 1861, with the North American Union.
Dude, you're wrong as HELL about everything..........but you sure are entertaining. This was fun to watch. PEW PEW PEW.
I would have loved having this guy as a history teacher.
True cognitive dissonance: Southerners who scream about being patriots while flying the flag of a group of traitors and calling themselves rebels.
Frank Martin u cant be a traitor to a group u didnt belong to.
Frank Martin the union was quite literally becoming a tyrannical government. They pretty much did the same thing Britain did to us
@@uvscuti2047 how was union becoming tyrannical? cause they wanted free the slaves?
This nation has always carried the flame of rebellion against govt power... We bow only to the Lord God and he will make sure this flame never fades away I promise
U fools kill me with the willingness to give up rights, in my opinion it's because you Yankees are primarily English, Scotts, and Brits who have notoriously small dicks and u wreak havoc on the rest of the world due to having to sift through the rest of the world's leftovers to find a women willing to let u clang ur pelvises against theirs trying to penetrate a lip
I'll have my pastor put in a word with the Lord that y'all could use just a hair more length bud
@BLiTZ Galaga you said nothing right. If you are jew doesnt mean that you cant be dumb. Get the fuck off my face.
Every time he says hashtag a little part of me dies inside
As an American living in Canada, what you just said about American history is pretty much what has been taught in Canadan schools for a hundred years.
Uh oh. This won't go well
The narrator has an exceptionally soothing voice.
I would be more willing to listen to this guy if he spoke like an adult.
Pay Attention class, this is going to be on the final.
Good info , just don't joke that often about a serious subject
History is not lost, it's still misinterpreted to this day... #Seriousresearch
Pretty sure you were supposed to have learned all this in middle school. Did everyone forget?
NekoChanSenpai not everyone lives in the US
NekoChanSenpai, of course, and other lies... starting with the one that says the USA is a nation.
Robert E Lee didn't necessarily fight for slavery, he fought for Virginia which was his home. He was even given the oppurtinity to fight for the union which wouldn't have been offered to every other slave owner and the sole reason why he rejected the offer was so he could protect his home, not attack it.
Is Uganda really that chill?
We need this kind of content to help set records straight.
This content is a lie
I've got every reason to believe you, but could you include links to sources for the racists who feel like antagonizing?
I miss you cracked
Informative and cringey, well done!
"My right wing echo chamber told me the civil war was NOT about slavery!" - Everyone who disliked.
Nope, it's just folks who don't like left-winged revisionist History. Among the right, there are those who believe that slavery was the main reason for secession but not the reason why the Southern states fought against the North, those who believe that Slavery was a major reason but not the sole reason, and those on the right who would agree with you that Slavery was the soul Issue, because that way, they can continuously bring up the racist history of the Democrats while excusing the war crimes of early Republics like Sherman.
So there is plenty of debate about that on the right. Meanwhile, accepting the very worst revisions of American history to paint the whites as sinful seems to be a litmus test for the left.
The latter definitely sounds more like an echo chamber.
@@snakey934Snakeybakey dude, political realignment happened about....80 years ago. Go read about it.
@@stevenclark1662 yes, but not for racial reasons.
@@snakey934Snakeybakey actually the republicans' southern strategy was meant to win over white voters when democrats were popular with white voters. They basically did what democrats did back then by playing to white peoples' fear of blacks. It was definitely about race(also democrats were already becoming more popular with blacks around the same time)
@@BeaverChainsaw Only, the Republicans probably never did that. There is simply so little evidence to support that Narrative, and so much against it.
Today and every Southern State Virginia; white Southerners are more likely to vote for a black Republican than a white Democrat.
According to Southern logic, Germany should still have roads and statues of Hitler
XxrawrXDxX- My God, you are one stupid bitch, aren't you.
fantastic contribution to discussion, Alec Foster. well done. please, take a bow
That's an idiotic comparison.
The South didn't kill 16 million people, nor started a global conflict.
according to liberals everybody should not have to work
Great job!
#putthosefuckingstatuesinmuseums
Don't just destroy artifacts of shameful past.
Why do we have statues of Lincoln he owned slaves too
General lee released his slaves in 1862
And ? Did that justify his treason
the O.D.S.T spartan, how is standing up for the Constitution and the state rights and sovereignty treason????
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 the rights of the individual which the south failed to protect were and are more important
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 and he was not standing up for the constitution or states rights he fought to maintain the status quo the status quo that kept men women and children in bondage
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 go watch atun shie films videos on the civil war he explains it better than cracked
Often found it funny when it comes to the silver war all sides has a narrow point of view that they state is facts
Funny how he mentions Benedict Arnold, and Cracked ALSO made a video about how that guy was actually pretty awesome so yeah he DOES deserve a statue.
left out all the union war crimes conveniently xd
I'm from the country I'm a Confederate from Mississippi but I'm against the slavery bs and hearing people bitch about the past that didnt affect them.
Alot of confederate soldiers fought to defend their homes not for slavery
Brian Glover well shit you could do your own video with all the information you have written here. You also happen to be right
smith iovy. The south did compel men to fight under conscription. And they passed the first conscription law in America in order to do so.
Gerry C The confederate regime was evil that's why it was destroyed by God himself.
What were they defending their homes from ? Democracy? The unobtrusive federal govt ? The rule of law ? Basic human dececency ?
smith lovy how many people do you think actually owned slaves. The rich owned slaves. The poor barely could afford to eat. Most fought for a paycheck
Cool vid dude. Truth is truth
Well I was subscribed, no longer. #This teacher is why our students are mislead.
More student than teacher, but in part yes, the biggest problem I have is it's not universally accurate, I never heard this stuff when I went to school, either of it, but my stay in school was brief, most of my education was slashed and burned, not just the facts entire subjects, so I didn't even start learning until utube. The place we each need to start though is "world view", we will never know just how much we have been straight up lied to until we look at how we view the world, and once we do we realize that this is an actual war, a cold war, still active and far more Intense than we were ever told, between the globalists, and the nationalists, or if you prefer "national Patriots", Patriots of what ever nation or country you care to name, globalists are basically traitors of the country that birthed Them, they betray country, borders, cultures, national identities, for a grab of perceived power, I said perceived because there is always a bigger shark, a bigger Hitler, out there, basically we either recognize and acknowledge other cultures by engaging them as they are in conversation, or we engage them in war, and the track record of the globalists has always been world war, we haven't had world war since Rome, until the Rothschild's came.
Garrett Hinshaw this comment is the scariest thing ever you talk about learning off RUclips when there are thousands of nut jobs and apparently being against Hitler pins you as a bad guy. Also the fucking deafening dog whistling talking about globalists taking over.
What a nice little history lesson,kudos👏👏
Mao's World each American state is a sovereign nation state unto itself. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, where it says that the colonies were a "free and independent states, with the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states May by right do."
And then the Articles of Confederation said that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence, and every right, jurisdiction, and power that is not delegated to the Congress in the articles.
And then the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each state by name as free, Sovereign, and independent states.
And the Constitution did not unite the states as a single nation-state, it simply established the voters of their respective State as the final Authority therein.
So when a state seceded, that was a brexit. Each state was simply looking out for its own economic interest, just like with the Hartford Convention of 1814 considering secession to prevent other states from acting to jeopardize it.
Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the European Union is a single Sovereign nation state and that no member State can secede from it, and that the European Union should have engaged in civil war against it. Because that's exactly what happened in 1861, with the North American Union.
History is written by the victors. Or the losers who stubbornly refuse to admit they were wrong in the first place.
Alex Ernst you can’t talk about the civil war in right/wrong terms more like a wrong/little less wrong way
Nope, definitely right and wrong. One side treated black people like people (usually), the other didn't.
sorry to say........ no side treated black folks fairly.
Actually the LA purchase was land owned by Spain at the time and France was its steward. The sale was technically beyond Napoleon's power to do, but Spain was in no position to complain or fight France for it.
The Civil War was a war to prevent a States' right to secede, period. The argument now is that states have no right to secede, even though no agreement can be enforced by the dead (past generations) upon the living.
As for your ancestors being better in Uganda, I suggest you do a video on Idi Amin.
#allthingsleadtoharrypotter
GOD BLESS ROBERT E LEE!!!!!
I obviously can't tell your genealogy, but Uganda is 3,000 miles from the nearest slave ports on the west coast of Africa (about the distance from Maine to Los Angeles). It would seem unlikely that slavers would travel that far inland since it would be cost-prohibitive. Also, one correction: Lee repeatedly stated he joined the Confederacy only because he couldn't fight against his home state of Virginia, not to support states' rights. As a history teacher, I'm sure you're aware that at that time, many citizens identified more with their states than with the nation. Otherwise, your video was well made, and you presented it in a very interesting manner.
I love this video. I hate when I see the confederate flag, and I live in GA so it's often. It's just ridiculous.
Brnadon Haddock then you don't understand it.
If we forget (or chose to not remember) our history... we will be doomed to repeat it.
Does your mommy still wipe your butt, too Brandon?
Move to California.
Do you think a picture in a book is the same as the flags you honor? Does flags and statues not have the same meaning in america? We put heroes and honors to monuments, statues and flags.
Great info, just not feeling your presentation style. Thanks for the good information though
Wow...a history teacher that doesn’t acknowledge that the South was invaded...
RonPaulHatesBlacks omg what did he say i wanna know how bad he got rekt
+RonPaulHatesBlacks You showed him what for.
Ryan Woodard When the South shot guns at Fort Sumnter they started the War. Mic drops
"invasion" is kind of a stretch in this context plus, it was a treasonous secession by a bunch of states who wanted to own human being as property. Invading them would have been wholly appropriate and justified because they're traitors.
You can't invade your own country.
“ there is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the south, for I would set them free to avoid this war.” -General Robert E Lee
Great video man!
The well informed dude forgot to mention that General Lee, the Southern general freed his inherited slaves when he went off to war, whereas General Grant, the Northern general didn't free his bought slaves until after the war.
Lee didn't free those slaves until 1862. And he only did it because of a court order.
This guy is a middle school teacher. I'm guessing a public school middle school teacher which means he would have to teach history as the government wants him to
RonPaulHatesBlacks Oh but I believe I do as I have been in public school for most my life. I don't know if you have or not or where your from but I am from the U.S
RonPaulHatesBlacks you do not need to be a teacher to know whats happening
RonPaulHatesBlacks not sure if you know how age works here in the U.S but by being 18 deffently don't not make you a baby in fact it makes you a adult legally so you may want to change what you say
A former middle school history teacher? Well, that explains some things!