@bobcanbeatyou Neither. He wasn't even born BUT he is from Arkansas,Arkansas is south so he might have stayed with his people in the south and fought for the south. U never know .
You realize that the "states' rights" were first and foremost about maintaining the institution of slavery. The concept of states rights emerged as a reaction to the idea that the federal government might enact laws that would outlaw slavery.
The War was about the States declaring independence from the Union [note "UNION" army]. Feds declared slaves/negroes to be citizens of the United States aka Federal Citizens. Feds attempts to make ALL State citizens dual citizens and relinquish sovereign State rights.The 1040 return is a US Individual tax return. Social S# [Federal Insurance Contributions Act] insists that you be declared a US Individual. Fed Reserve Notes[fiat] not GOLD or SILVER coin as promised in the Const at Art1 Sect10.
Abe Lincoln was a genius and a man of steel nerve. Beginning of the war: laughing stock of the country. After the war: most beloved man in the U.S.A. While his major goal during the war was to preserve the Union, I can't help but think that if his policy of gradual integration and equality were to be carried out that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's wouldn't have even happened.
Geez people, the Civil War happened and guess what, the North won. Get over it. We learn from mistakes. I can't believe people are still holding grudges.
Great music though. Glad some people are appreciating it. =]
To all the Confederate-wannabes today; you wanna leave the union? Find some politician who'll get your state out and vote. Or, here's a novel idea, LEAVE with the Mexicans you seem to hate so much.
@puredemoniczick even still, the only way is an honest politician, that realizes whats actually going on, and not consumed by the elite falsehoods, if you get my meaning.
@ stevepete61, sorry have been offline a long time personal stuff etc... ok your reply , the civil war fought without slavery? well my friend the slavery issue only came about when lincoln thought he was losing , his original plan was to send every black in his power to back to africa , he did not want slavery moving west as the usa expanded as that would curtail work for the european immigrants , that does not make slavery right and i dont condone it but lets be historically correct
As a citizen of the North, I have to state that the Civil War was NOT FOUGHT over slavery. The North was largely industrialized, the South was largely agricultural. The ways of life were different, and 90% of the Confederate Army were poor southern men who were in no way slave owners (although still economically connected to the slave trade, don't get me wrong, but so was the North). AFTER the war started Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed slaves IN REBELLING STATES ONLY)
well i have my personal views and objections on the fact of secession etc etc. but god bless johnny cash!!! and all those boys that fought a bloody civil war (both sides!!)
@vandal420 That's the vibe I try to maintain (as the moderator). I don't mind people expressing differences of opinion, but I insist on civility. And of all my clips, ironically, it's this Civil War clip that draws the most uncivil debate. Thanks for your comment. Always a pleasure to make the acquaintance of a gentleman, North or South.
@vandal420 I haven't and doubt I will read all the comments here, but if there is a push for another civil war I'll be damned if I miss out on killin me some liberals......
@vandal420 I agree. What's happened to the world? the young men that went through the civil war had a lot more misery and hardship and survived. They were tough men in those times. That's what the civil war is about just honoring those guys. Politics will be the same as always
At this very moment I'm working on a book about the Civil War. As a dutch boy of 17 it's quite hard to know how people felt at that time. This song really helps me. Thanks for posting. And thank you, Johnny!
War sucks. People die. Usually its the poor man fighting, and not the rich man telling them what to do who does the dieing. Look at it like this. Yes the Union was a bit oppressive but the Confederate states were also being a little beligirent (they did fire on ft. sumter first) and there is that slavery bit. The war was never truly about slavery, it was about succession.
Either way, both sides were wrong. And for that, thousands upon thousands died. And the financial debt mounted wasn't
only because we only get like a dozen or so of them at a time. We don't get droves and droves of prisoners like we did in WWII, WWI or the bigger wars. In the civil war, they expected the war to be over in the north in a few weeks. Months at most. They did not expect or set aside the food reserves needed to maintain their armies and the pow's. Remember, this isno where near the amount of food we're making now. There was no way either side could cope with the numbers they were receiving.
Good reason this, good reason that, either way, the war was going to be fought. No war should be fought, but this one was definitley going to be. As for the POW's, as a veteran and a former supply worker, I can tell you that NO one prepares for pow's, thousands of German's died in US hands at the end of WWII cuz we had no where to put them, and not enough to feed them, and the locals wouldn't help us. We have the ability to feed the insurgents we get in Iraq and afghanistan but only because,
The war was fought by the South for good reason. To overthrow the the tyrannic government that had formed. They raised taxes and abolished many peoples only means of income. The Declaration of Independence stated we had the right to do this. Nowadays, the US government is becoming the same way. Will the South rise again? The answer is no. But anyone who gives a damn about what this country USED to be about, and has a spine, will march up to the white house and take this country back.
Coming from a southerner trying to put some truth into this circle of talk, the Civil War was about the Confederate states not wanting anybody to fuck with their way of life. I'm not saying who was right or wrong, I just wanted to put the reasons out here. Now shut the hell up, and enjoy some Cash.
This war was about the south wanting to continue and expand the practice of ENSLAVING other human beings. No amount of southern revisionism will change this. States "rights", yes when they wanted the "right" to be pigs, fake christians, fake freedom lovers , and horrid exploiters of other peoples.
The rich in south was dependant upon cheap labor, and slave labor was the cheapest. You southern apologists should be ashamed of yourselves trying to cover up EXACTLY what the war was about.
In most class rooms now kids are taught that the civil war was about slavery. People seem to know less and less about the war the more time passes. It irritates me to hear people say it was about slavery, that was only a small part of it. It's hard fjor us now to understand the politics involved that started the war. For the most part it was states rights. People associate having southern pride with being racicist, which is not the case at all. Blacks fought for the south as well.
@DoctorHowitzer Thank Hollywood for a lot of those misconceptions. Yes, slavery was an issue mainly because the North did not want slave states to expand out west and shift the power to the South. It is always about power and money. Yes, there were true abolitionists in the South as well as the North" . As has been said time and again most boys in grey (or butternut) did not own a slave. They were fighting because the d*** Yankees were pillaging and destroying everything they held dear.
@lindygee Yes I know slavery in the west was one of many issues, i did not say slavery wasn't involved, I said there was a lot more to it than slavery.
@DoctorHowitzer My post agreed with you. Slavery was an issue, but most Confederates were in the war to protect their homes, families, and the South in general. The North wanted to preserve the Union, especially considering the close ties the South had with England.; The Yankees did not march down South with the idea they were freeing slaves; the Confederates did not take up arms to preserve slavery. It was much more complicated than that.
No, Slavery was the only issue. Other issues were off shoots of the slavery issue, but the core issue was slavery. The South sought to continue the institution. They cloaked that in the idea of state's rights and individual liberties---that is to say the state's right to maintain the institution of slavery and the individual's right to own another human being.
It is utter nonsense to claim the civil war was about anything other than slavery.
@nlmathomam It seems incredible to me that people can claime the war was fought over slavery when the Union did not bring slavery in to the war untill 1863.
Slavery we certainly the reason why the Union broke up but its stupid to say the war was fought over slavery.
Lincoln himself said the Union was fighting to preserve the Union.
You are trying to rewrite history.
Lincoln himself said what the Union was fighting for stop trying fix it so the north is the "good guys"
@lindygee Slavery formally entered the "cause" realm after the Second Emancipation Proclomation for 2 reasons - one, for Lincoln's political career, and second, to ensure England & France did not enter the war on the Southern side. All the while Lincoln buys Liberia in Africa and devised a plan to ship slaves back to Africa. In his first inagural speech he stated he did not care about slavery, only preserving the Union. Even Grant stated if it was about slavery he and his soldiers would go home.
@combatjm89 You are entitled to believe anything you, want no matter how unsubstantiated. There is plenty of documentation from those involved , and many on the North including Lincoln said otherwise. Slavery was ONE of the driving issues BUT people do not fight a horrible devasting war for 4 long years so some rich plantation owners can keep their slaves. It sounds very noble that the Yankees invaded the South to free slaves, but that is simply not true. Read what was said and you will see.
@combatjm89 I am agreeing with you and I apologize. I meant for this to be a reply to @nimathoman who wrongly states that slavery was the only issue. Common sense alone tells you that poor Southern boys (and they were the majority) did not leave their families and fight that horrible war so some rich man could keep his slaves. Yankees believed they were preserving the Union and did not (for the most part) trouble themselves about slaves. Plenty of diaries and accounts attest to that.
@combatjm89 Assuming, of course, that you want to know the truth. You have your mind nailed shut because it sounds so much better from the Yankee POV. However much you try, you cannot force a 21st century mindset on the people living in the 19th. The slavery issue had varied degrees of opinion on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. The slavery issue was used to keep the South in its place and the power in the North. I had g-g grandfathers on both sides, I honor both Johnny Reb and Billy Yank.
@lindygee Why are you talking like I'm a "Yankee sympathizer"? Let's work on the reading comprehension here. Where did I say slavery was the main reason for TWONA? Nowhere. I stated that slavery wasn't made an issue until it was politically expedient for Lincoln to do so. Before that it was not in the spotlight - money and power were. Preserving the Union was preserving income for the Union gov't. So save the condescending attitude for someone else that might not be in the SCV...
Slavery was an evil institution. As Lincoln said, 'if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." The confederacy would not exist were it not for their desire to defend that evil institution. The CSA were the ones that fired on Fort Sumpter--Lincoln was perfectly content to contain slavery in the Southern states, and allow it to die on its own accord. It was the SOUTH that did not accept that and instigated insurrection.
The CSA had no right to rebel ? So the 13 states had none either in 1776. It was just a third of the colonists that wanted to become "free". If that minority could be feasted today as founders of the USA, why not the men of the south that tried something similar? Few in 1776 freed a slave to fight, in fact more had been set free by the British "oppressors". Only few Yankees cared for slaves, Would you like your daughter to marry a ni..." was the question of the father of a General: Custer.
first the civil war was not about slavery , lincoln did not give shit about southern slaves he didnt want slavery moving west as the states expanded so bollocks to that point ... also when the states was formed every state had the right to leave the union any time and for any reason so when the 13 states succeeded the union forced the war illigally so any confederate haters learn your history its there in black and white
@truimphsrule My God, Southern revisionism is still alive! Sure state's rights played a large role, BUT there is no scenario possible wherein the Civil War is fought without slavery.
lets just call a spade a spade. The Civil War was about slavery. The south needed something to rally the troops and a war to save slavery would not be enough to urge the poor non slave holding farmers to arms. As for the north they would not come to arms for slavery either. States rights and keeping the union was merely a battle cry to get the people behind the war. and as for prison camps north and south was equally bad to the prisonors. the south did wrong but so did the union.
@Cassiebaby2007 Bat spit. One of my favorite moments from Burn's 'Civil War' was when Shelby Foote quoted the Southern soldier, who, when asked 'Why are you fighting us?' answered
Source, Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Point follows: the Civil War should not have happened. The Union was violating the South's right to institute a new government.
@ki1ng Source, history: The Civil War, The War of Northern Aggression, whatever one calls it, was about eliminating the human slave trade in America. I don't think the world would be a better place today if the U.S. had split in two and slave trafficking was still occurring in the Confederate States of America. The CSA would be a moral pariah in the world today, on a par with history's most despotic regimes.
@abargle No it wasn't. it was about states rights. Slavery was just one issue of many that happened to coincide with the debate. Besides slavery was a dying institution in the south. Had the slavery not been abolished legally there is little doubt that there would still be people enslaved in the US as early as 1880. Which would have eliminated a majority of the racial tensions faced by African Americans today. Only 6 percent of southerns owned slaves. Why do you think the other 94% was fighting?
@abargle i have tro agree with both of you...the south had the right to secede and the north needed to declare war because a divided america makes for a impossible future
@abargle I don't mean to be rude, but one common misconception about the war was that it was all about the slave trade. However, States' Rights was the real issue. Slavery was one problem, yes, but it wasn't the only or most important one.
@abargle Slavery would have died out of natural causes if the yankees had`nt showed aggresion agnest its own peoples rights to choose for themselves. To quote General Lee "We should have freed the slaves and than declared secession, but we didnt want to look like we was backing down. A mistake we will pay deerly for."
@abargle Don't be fooled by only one intrepretation of history. Freedom of the slaves is the easiest to reach for but it's not why most men fought. Most who fought for the South didn't own any slaves so why would they have fought for perserve it? the reason for a lot of them gave was because they felt the North was trying to impose their way of life on the South.
@abargle Slavery would not have survived in the south just as it did not survive in the north after the war. Slavery was an economic necessity of the day in both the north and south. However the violation of sates rites, those not specifically defined by the constitution as the role of the federal government, continues to this day. The loss of 3/4 million American lives has to be the only issue that keeps states from succession today. States are continually slapped down by the fed w/o cause.
@abargle Is that why the CSA, in it's established constitution, outlawed the slave trade? Yes, that's right. The Confederate States of America outlawed the slave trade before the United States of America. Historical fact. But please continue spouting the various Yankee lies you've been taught.
No... they did not. The CSA affirmed that the trade of FOREIGN slaves from Africa was to remain illegal, as it had for many decades previously. It did nothing to free the people that were currently in slavery. It maintained the institution of slavery for those that were native born.
i need to disagree if you closely read the CSA consitution it specifically states that the slave trade was banned in the CSA, they could keep the slaves that they had, but they couldn't purchase any from overseas.
@abargle if u think the civil war was over slavery u dont know 95% of confederates didnt own slaves and free and slave blacks fought for the confederacy throughout the whole war unlike the north that didnt let them fight till the end THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER ECONOMICS NOT SLAVERY I SEE U DIDNT LOOK TOO THE 10 YR BUILD UP P.S. THE NORTH THREW OUT THE CONSTITUTION AMERICA DIED AT THE END
Nonsense. The Civil War was about slavery, first and foremost. Yes, 95% of southerners did not own slaves. But they fought to preserve a way of life that was utterly dependent upon the institution of slavery. If you actually read through the history of America before the Civil War, you'd see that slavery was the paramount issue throughout the 1850s. The whole debate was around the expansion of slavery into the territories.
@nlmathomam wrong again i see u didnt learn about the revolutionary war much my 4 great grandfather fought in revolutionary war and raise my 2nd great grandfather since he was a child that fought in civil war until u look to the high tariffs and dictating that the north was doing on the south the same ol slavery this and slavery that comments is all u will come up with P.S. LAST SLAVE DOCUMENTED SHIP CAME IN 1808 52 yrs before civil war but im sure you forget too look that up
@nlmathomam also the instances in missiouri and kansas slavery is used yet no one sees that it was one people forcing its beliefs on another which is very anti american to do slavery was a scape goat lincoln didnt want to free slaves his statements from 1850 till 1863 prove that but he was losing the war and needed to use some reason to throw out the constitution HABEAS CORPUS and suspended all confederate veterans rights to vote which is against the constitution
@nlmathomam P.S SLAVERY FLEW UNDER AMERICAN FLAG FROM 1776-1865 AND WAS PROTECTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION YET THE SOUTH GETS THE BLAME AND IT WAS ONLY AROUND FOR 4 YEARS
@abargle also the last documented slaves ship to reach the american shore was in 1808 52yrs before civil war try again next time u shouldnt just listen to what was dicatated to u in school and learn about the other side then make your decision
@ki1ng I fought for the Red, White, and Blue in Vietnam and if anyone raised arms against her today, I would go to war again. I don't care about politics, I only love my country.
@ki1ng The Declaration of Independence has no binding legal power. It is overridden entirely by the Constitution. If that's the basis for the CSA's legal argument, you don't have very much. If you admire it, then bully for you but it doesn't mean anything in a court of law. Then and now.
Further, with the DoI as the basis for the CSA, they'd be breaking one of the "self-evident truths" that all men are created equal. Slaves aren't equal to free men.
MY GREAT GREAT UNCLE TOLD OF THE BLACK GUARDS IN ELMIRA SHOOTING AND PUSHING THE PRISONERS OF THE SOUTH WITH GUNS AND TREATING THEM BADLY.AFTER THE WAS THEY LET HIM GO AND HE WALKED A LOT OF THE WAY HOME TO JAMESVILLE,NC...GOD IS GOOD THOUGH,,,,GOD BLESS GENERAL LEE,,,GENERAL JACKSON.
MY GREAT GREAT UNCLE TOLD OF THE BLACK GAURDS SHOOTING AND PUSHING THE PRISONERS OF THE SOUTH WITH GUNS AND TREATING THEM BADLY.AFTER THE WAS THEY LET HIM GO AND HE WALKED A LOT OF THE WAY HOME TO JAMESVILLE,NC...GOD IS GOOD THOUGH,,,,GOD BLESS GENERAL LEE,,,GENERAL JACKSON.
@MrAckwood: Very familiar with the infamous Camp Douglas. Hitler would have been proud of Col. Benjamin Sweet and his employment of medieval torture devices. 6000 buried in Confederate Mound.
The point I'm making is that the CSA simply hadn't the means to treat POW's well - largely due to the Union blockade. On the other hand, the Union had no excuse for starving and torturing POW's. The War wasn't about the Union good guys vs the CSA bad guys. The reasons for the War and the way it was conducted are much more complex than most American school children are led to believe. Anyway.. enough for now.
@mcsaurus Check a bit deeper on the history. The Confederate general given control of the Southern prison camps, one Gen. Winder, vowed to kill more Yankees than any combat unit. Unfortunately, he died of natural causes not long before the war ended. Neither side did very well taking care of its prisoners, but the South cannot be excused based upon the blockade, nor any other reason.
@flattop32355 : These words (Wiki) on Gnl John H. Winder..
...President Davis, Secretary Seddon, and Adjutant Cooper declared that he was a much-maligned man. He was set to perform a task made impossible by the inadequacy of supplies of men, food, clothing, and medicines.[10]
During the war, Winder was frequently derided in Northern newspapers, who accused him of intentionally starving Union prisoners. Military historian Ezra J. Warner believed these charges were without merit, saying "Winder adopted every means at his command to assure that the prisoners received the same ration as did Confederate soldiers in the field, scanty as that allotment was."[6]
@flattop32355 : BTW Andersonville's Wirz was tried as a war criminal to cover up the fact that the Union policy of starving the South, coupled with the Union's cessation of prisoner exchanges caused the starvation of Union POW's.
@mcsaurus the civil was is seen as treason by the US. the revolutionary was is seen as treason by the english.... guess it just depends what side youre on..... by the way. i am an american school child.
@AlakimSirrah : Yup, this is the tragic basis of human conflict - we tend to interpret things in ways that suit our own needs. Whoever's opposed to our needs we see as the "bad guys". This is not to say there aren't sometimes some genuinely evil people and political movements out there. WW2 was probably the low point in history; even the good guys were bad guys. All the leaders of the major powers, both sides, were guilty of crimes against humanity, but.. whatever. What can we little folks do?
"Approximately 2700 Confederate soldiers died while being held captive at Fort Delaware. One prisoner from Georgia wrote that the food was of such poor quality and so scarce that he shrank from 140 pounds to 80 pounds during his sojourn at Fort Delaware."
But why? There was no food shortage in Delaware.
And this on Elmira Prison, New York: "In the months the site was used as a camp, 12,123 Confederate soldiers were incarcerated; of these, 2,963 died during their stay". Again, why?
@mcsaurus the reason was the south was treating prisoners badly but why were they they had plenty of food in fact they had so much it was rotting in storehouses
@watcher792 : Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that the starvation of Union pow's began when the transporation infrastructure of the South had been broken down so that food couldn't be moved out of those storehouses.
There's no question that starvation amongst CSA troops was a major contributing factor in the South's defeat; if the CSA could have fed their troops surely they would have.
@mcsaurus Same reason POWs in all the prison camps died after the prisoner exchange system was ended in 1864--overcrowding, which bred dysentery. That's what killed most of the 2,963 who died at Elmira. Sure, there was no food shortage in the North and, like in the South, the POWs were neglected, both on purpose and due to incompetence. Looking at the photos of the 90-pound living skeletons at Andersonville, you can be sure the Rebel prison guards there didn't look like that.
You know whose fault the Civil War was? Those fucking AFRICANS!! If those douchebags would have fought harder to stay the fuck OUT of slavery, say fought back harder against the slave-traders, they never would have been brought here, and the whole issue of slavery would have been moot, because, as Southern men were all of a genius mind, someone in Georgia would have invented a magical cotton-picking machine. So fuck you, Slaves!!!
@nicodagger Your wrong sir, The African Warlords sold their own people to the slave traders. They were already slaves before the whites came. Whose fault was it for the civil war? His name was John Brown, he was a true American. You need to know your history son.
@elmwhitefield John Brown caused the Civil War? LOL what a joke. It couldn't possibly have been the violent in-bred Southern ruling class who rebelled at the democratic election of a Republican president!
LOL...sorry to tell you my Dixie-longing friend, but Kentucky was a border state and went with the North during the War For States' Rights and true Southerners have never forgotten it. Even the Jewish ones, like me. :)
@BullRun1861 Really, the South was probably the luckiest group ever to attempt a rebellion and fail. They started the war, attacked the union, committed multiple massacres of POWs, but then they were all allowed back into the Union. Only one Confederate was tried as a war criminal! That's actually incredibly lucky.
@borbo23 Absolutely right. Plus, with the "election" of Ruthe"fraud" B. Hayes, who sold out the African-Americans, and left the South to basically re-institute a type of slavey, i.e. Jim Crow, for more than 100 years. They got off easy.
@borbo23 : Kindly cite the "multiple massacres of POW's". The only Confed POW abuse I know of was at Andersonville where 12,000 died due to malnutrition. They died of malnutrition because the Union policy of waging war on civilians included destroying all food supply lines into unconquered areas. Wirz was hanged as a coverup for the fact that Union strategies had resulted in mass starvation (including POW's) in the South. For genuine POW abuse check out Camp Douglas (Chicago). You'll be shocked.
@mcsaurus You're forgetting that Confederate guards would also shoot Union POWs if they looked out windows, and the fact that thousands were starving in Andersonville before Sherman came through. Standard Confederate lying . . .
Let's look at Ft. Pillow as an example; Confed Gen Nathan B Forrest murdered and crucified and murdered 3/4 of the blacks he captured at the fort AFTER they surrendered. Forrest himself called it a massacre. It was not the only time such atrocities happened.
@borbo23 : Andersonville (Camp Sumpter) didn't exist before February 1864, long after the Union policy of blockading and starving the South into submission was having disastrous effects on the availability of food in the CSA. Given that the Confeds regarded Union troops as invaders it's understandable that they would apportion the meagre rations they had available to their own troops first and that many POW's would inevitably die from complications from malnutrition.
@mcsaurus The reason the South starved was not the blockade - the South had some of the most fertile land in the entire country. They starved because selfish landowners planted cash crops instead of food crops.
It's not "understandable", it's a crime to starve your prisoners. They also starved their own population - there were bread riots in Richmond even early in the war. The problem was that the Confederacy was designed to maintain an inefficient, immoral, and backwards system (slavery).
@borbo23: Surely the blockade crippled the CSA economy.
"it's a crime to starve your prisoners."
Yes, but if your own soldiers are dying of the effects of malnutrition.. surely it's a greater crime to let your own men die.
BTW have you checked out Camp Douglas (Chicago) the site of Confederate Mound where 6500 CSA POW's are buried in the largest mass grave in the western hemisphere? Those POW's were deliberately tortured and starved to death with absolutely no mitigating circumstances.
@mcsaurus Even bigger than the Anaconda plan was actually Confederate mismanagement of their own economy. They were idiots.
I know all about Camp Douglas; the reason the Confederate POWs did not have proper food was retaliation for Confederate crimes against Union POWs.
Union soldiers were being starved to death in prisons months before the South even attacked the Union at Ft. Sumter! Of 2000 who surrendered in Texas at the beginning of secession, something like 400 died of malnutrition.
@mcsaurus And about the mass graves, no. The largest mass graves in the Western hemisphere are probably mass slave graves from the slave trade.
On St. Helena, for example, the number of dead interred exceed 10,000. St. Helena is not in this hemisphere, but there are numerous mass slave graves in the western hemisphere (I don't have exact numbers, but they are probably not much smaller). Most of these are in places like Cuba, Brazil, or the US South.
@borbo23 : Confed Mound wasn't like the Nazi mass graves where thousands were killed then immediately buried together. The CSA'ers in Confederate Mound died one-by-one between Feb, '62 and the end of the War. Corpses that weren't tossed into Lake Michigan were buried in unmarked graves in various areas. Later the corpses that could be located were disinterred and buried mass-grave style in Confed Mound. Ugly, ugly business.
@mcsaurus No, they're the places dead slaves were tossed into after transportation or due to being worked to death in coastal plantations, or just from lack of care. Most of them are children under 12.
And while I do think it was wrong that any prisoners suffered, the Confederate prisoners were treated better than Union prisoners were, a lot of it had to do with just the poor medical care of the day, and still more Union POWs died than Confederate, so I don't get what point you're making.
@borbo23 "Let's look at Ft. Pillow as an example"
Forrest explained that many of those killed were killed during continuing fighting with Union troops fleeing Fort Pillow after it was taken and this is borne out by physical evidence. But yes, Forrest and his troops were openly determined to be especially vicious with black soldiers and undoubtedly murdered many of them while they attempted to surrender (not after their surrender had been accepted). This was done in the heat of battle.
@mcsaurus Sadly, you're wrong about Ft. Pillow. The men were shot in the back after surrendering. One of Forrest's officers, in a letter home, said he tried to stop the slaughter and Forrest ORDERED it to be continued. The massacre actually lasted over four hours, while the battle ended long before.
Modern historians do not argue whether a massacre happened; they only argue if it was pre-meditated or not, but regardless, Forrest was a disgusting war criminal.
@keithehlert Yo "Guud Ol' Boy" Get over it NORTH BEAT THE SOUTH rofl you idiot get over it you dumbass redneck North > South. Go drink a bottle of Moonshine you inbred redneck
@Gambler317 : You say "Get over it." and then launch into all the standard "inbred redneck" perceptions of Southorns that are still actively propegated from those who have a vested interest in discrediting the South. The American "Civil War" was arguably a war between 2 separate nations. The constitutionality of the Secession wasn't decided in the Supreme Court until 1869 - long after the war. Most Southorns believed because the Union was "voluntary" secession was legal.
@keithehlert : The War of the States was just another page in the centuries-old struggle by the Keltic peoples to free themselves from English domination. The Union was centered in "New England"; the South was a less oganized agrarian society populated mainly by Keltic Scots-Irish farmers. To this day it's crucial to the power brokers in New England and now New York (from 'York' - an English city) to discredit Southorns in order to justify their control of America's economy.
@smarzotais : The South didn't start the War. The firing on Fort Sumpter was to prevent the Union from carrying through with the plan to send thousands of troops to Sumpter in preparation for an invasion of South Carolina. Crafty Lincoln made sure his plans were known to the South because he wanted the South to fire the first shot.
the taliban claimed they attacked the us on 9-11 because they thought we were attacking their way of life. in reality their way of life was just getting in the way of ours... not out fault ^^
@smarzotais : Comparing the War of the States to War on Terror is a stretch. My main point is that the Union as it was in 1860 was generally understood to be voluntary - in other words if you wanted out it was constitutional. This point wasn't clarified in the Supreme Court for years after the War and even then it was a 3-2 split decision. When Lincoln made it known to South Carolina that he intended to use Sumpter to control SC's main port it was declaration of war.
@borbo23 Has never been a country, just a region, no flag, govt., Israel bought the land from someone, were invaded, fought back & won. To the winner the spoils!.
@SuperDennyo Agree. I thought Israel owned the land through God, BUT, after reading a few books on the subject I realise they won't get the land until they recognise their Messiah & call on Him. Then it is all theirs!
@nicodagger I see that you have used vowels when spelling YESHUAH. In case you are not aware, I will point out that there aren't any in the Holy Book, The Tanach. We guess what vowels are there. Just in case you are trying to be facetious.
@nicodagger Your question, or should I say the phrasing of, seems to infer that Yeshuah & Messiah are two different people. They are not. Yeshuah/ Jesus, fulfills all prophecy. So technically whether I say "Messiah," or "Yeshuah," or "Jesus," I am talking about the same person.
@mcsaurus By that point the Confederacy was already illegally holding 2000 Union soldiers in camps.
Lincoln had no intention of invading at that point, anyway. He was going to reinforce Sumter because it was federal property and therefore his DUTY to defend it.
There goes the last of his black followers. Lol
SharperShooting 1 month ago
Thank you for sharing this. I love teaching history, and I feel this video does Civil War history justice.
ChaoticHomeschooler 1 month ago
he said i was always for the underdog in the civil war does that mean hes for the south?
bobcanbeatyou 1 month ago
@bobcanbeatyou Johhny Reb is a name for Southern soldier.
smrt1111111111111 1 month ago
@bobcanbeatyou if you listen till the end, you'll clearly see ole' Johnny's for the other Johnny, that bein' Johnny Reb. God bless 'im.
legofanatic1 5 days ago
was he for the north or south?
bobcanbeatyou 1 month ago
@bobcanbeatyou South
smrt1111111111111 1 month ago
@bobcanbeatyou Neither. He wasn't even born BUT he is from Arkansas,Arkansas is south so he might have stayed with his people in the south and fought for the south. U never know .
imaStonesFan 2 weeks ago
GUYS! This is history! American history! Just let it be.
No hatin" the HISTORY!
coldheartedlies 1 month ago
....a true Son of the South.
Jrebindixie 1 month ago
2 words STATE'S RIGHTS
325aliceI 2 months ago
@325aliceI
You realize that the "states' rights" were first and foremost about maintaining the institution of slavery. The concept of states rights emerged as a reaction to the idea that the federal government might enact laws that would outlaw slavery.
nlmathomam 2 months ago
what is the song called that said jimmy joined the yankee blue and billy joined the rebs?
bobcanbeatyou 2 months ago
@bobcanbeatyou Ballad of the Blue and Grey,,,, good day sir
agbaune 1 month ago
Hell.I thoiught we did win...........
wrsipes1 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
The War was about the States declaring independence from the Union [note "UNION" army]. Feds declared slaves/negroes to be citizens of the United States aka Federal Citizens. Feds attempts to make ALL State citizens dual citizens and relinquish sovereign State rights.The 1040 return is a US Individual tax return. Social S# [Federal Insurance Contributions Act] insists that you be declared a US Individual. Fed Reserve Notes[fiat] not GOLD or SILVER coin as promised in the Const at Art1 Sect10.
Brandy13231 2 months ago
Abe Lincoln was a genius and a man of steel nerve. Beginning of the war: laughing stock of the country. After the war: most beloved man in the U.S.A. While his major goal during the war was to preserve the Union, I can't help but think that if his policy of gradual integration and equality were to be carried out that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's wouldn't have even happened.
Flaniman12 3 months ago
That awesome voice, the deep, natural resonance, there will never be another like it.
douglas787 3 months ago
great Lorena Only Waylon does it better.
minnowpd 3 months ago
Geez people, the Civil War happened and guess what, the North won. Get over it. We learn from mistakes. I can't believe people are still holding grudges.
Great music though. Glad some people are appreciating it. =]
xloveXghoulx 3 months ago
@xloveXghoulx we all do, and some of those stories are false, as they say to the winner goes the spoils.
UScalvery 3 months ago
To all the Confederate-wannabes today; you wanna leave the union? Find some politician who'll get your state out and vote. Or, here's a novel idea, LEAVE with the Mexicans you seem to hate so much.
puredemoniczick 3 months ago
@puredemoniczick even still, the only way is an honest politician, that realizes whats actually going on, and not consumed by the elite falsehoods, if you get my meaning.
UScalvery 3 months ago
Thats what happens if you fuck with Uncle Sam! Stupid CSA! Seceding from the United States is a Crime! Traitors! :/
holmesbinton 5 months ago
@ stevepete61, sorry have been offline a long time personal stuff etc... ok your reply , the civil war fought without slavery? well my friend the slavery issue only came about when lincoln thought he was losing , his original plan was to send every black in his power to back to africa , he did not want slavery moving west as the usa expanded as that would curtail work for the european immigrants , that does not make slavery right and i dont condone it but lets be historically correct
truimphsrule 5 months ago
As a citizen of the North, I have to state that the Civil War was NOT FOUGHT over slavery. The North was largely industrialized, the South was largely agricultural. The ways of life were different, and 90% of the Confederate Army were poor southern men who were in no way slave owners (although still economically connected to the slave trade, don't get me wrong, but so was the North). AFTER the war started Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed slaves IN REBELLING STATES ONLY)
820krx7 5 months ago
well i have my personal views and objections on the fact of secession etc etc. but god bless johnny cash!!! and all those boys that fought a bloody civil war (both sides!!)
ratten131 6 months ago
you know wut, every one stfu, and ride the train :)
OMBIC 6 months ago
Anyone know what the first song is called
MrMrMoto 6 months ago
@MrMrMoto it's "Ballad Of The Blue And Grey"
nubunator2 5 months ago
@MrMrMoto thanks
MrMrMoto 5 months ago
-_- I hate leftists, they make the rest of us city slicker yankees look bad.
DukeofUSA 6 months ago
god bless ya uncle johnny rest in peace
500markiemark 7 months ago 4
I hope the people raging in here don't start another civil war. Just relax and enjoy some Johnny Cash like the rest of us?
vandal420 7 months ago 15
@vandal420 That's the vibe I try to maintain (as the moderator). I don't mind people expressing differences of opinion, but I insist on civility. And of all my clips, ironically, it's this Civil War clip that draws the most uncivil debate. Thanks for your comment. Always a pleasure to make the acquaintance of a gentleman, North or South.
abargle 7 months ago 8
@vandal420 I haven't and doubt I will read all the comments here, but if there is a push for another civil war I'll be damned if I miss out on killin me some liberals......
bravo723 7 months ago
@vandal420 I agree. What's happened to the world? the young men that went through the civil war had a lot more misery and hardship and survived. They were tough men in those times. That's what the civil war is about just honoring those guys. Politics will be the same as always
Ms2blackcats 6 months ago
@vandal420 I was fixin to start up on the Yankee's ,but your right,lets relax and fight another day.God bless you my friend
rebelprovost 4 days ago
I love it
14elgrosjean 8 months ago
Simply the greatest C & W artist who ever lived. What a voice.
vince33x 8 months ago
At this very moment I'm working on a book about the Civil War. As a dutch boy of 17 it's quite hard to know how people felt at that time. This song really helps me. Thanks for posting. And thank you, Johnny!
MrCashlover 8 months ago
wasn't paid off fully until near 1918 - if my memory serves correctly. And we still sit here and argue about it like two feuding brothers.
Gwyogurt 9 months ago
War sucks. People die. Usually its the poor man fighting, and not the rich man telling them what to do who does the dieing. Look at it like this. Yes the Union was a bit oppressive but the Confederate states were also being a little beligirent (they did fire on ft. sumter first) and there is that slavery bit. The war was never truly about slavery, it was about succession.
Either way, both sides were wrong. And for that, thousands upon thousands died. And the financial debt mounted wasn't
Gwyogurt 9 months ago 2
only because we only get like a dozen or so of them at a time. We don't get droves and droves of prisoners like we did in WWII, WWI or the bigger wars. In the civil war, they expected the war to be over in the north in a few weeks. Months at most. They did not expect or set aside the food reserves needed to maintain their armies and the pow's. Remember, this isno where near the amount of food we're making now. There was no way either side could cope with the numbers they were receiving.
Gwyogurt 9 months ago
Good reason this, good reason that, either way, the war was going to be fought. No war should be fought, but this one was definitley going to be. As for the POW's, as a veteran and a former supply worker, I can tell you that NO one prepares for pow's, thousands of German's died in US hands at the end of WWII cuz we had no where to put them, and not enough to feed them, and the locals wouldn't help us. We have the ability to feed the insurgents we get in Iraq and afghanistan but only because,
Gwyogurt 9 months ago
The war was fought by the South for good reason. To overthrow the the tyrannic government that had formed. They raised taxes and abolished many peoples only means of income. The Declaration of Independence stated we had the right to do this. Nowadays, the US government is becoming the same way. Will the South rise again? The answer is no. But anyone who gives a damn about what this country USED to be about, and has a spine, will march up to the white house and take this country back.
xThompson89 9 months ago
Without the spirit of tolerance for diviisty and respect for ones fellow man there will always be a war someplace on this earth. Take care ADonovan43
ADonovan43 11 months ago
What a great storyteller!
DJacqu8351 11 months ago
Coming from a southerner trying to put some truth into this circle of talk, the Civil War was about the Confederate states not wanting anybody to fuck with their way of life. I'm not saying who was right or wrong, I just wanted to put the reasons out here. Now shut the hell up, and enjoy some Cash.
jtl0411 11 months ago 2
This war was about the south wanting to continue and expand the practice of ENSLAVING other human beings. No amount of southern revisionism will change this. States "rights", yes when they wanted the "right" to be pigs, fake christians, fake freedom lovers , and horrid exploiters of other peoples.
The rich in south was dependant upon cheap labor, and slave labor was the cheapest. You southern apologists should be ashamed of yourselves trying to cover up EXACTLY what the war was about.
vonKressenstein 11 months ago
In most class rooms now kids are taught that the civil war was about slavery. People seem to know less and less about the war the more time passes. It irritates me to hear people say it was about slavery, that was only a small part of it. It's hard fjor us now to understand the politics involved that started the war. For the most part it was states rights. People associate having southern pride with being racicist, which is not the case at all. Blacks fought for the south as well.
DoctorHowitzer 11 months ago 5
Comment removed
lindygee 8 months ago
@DoctorHowitzer Thank Hollywood for a lot of those misconceptions. Yes, slavery was an issue mainly because the North did not want slave states to expand out west and shift the power to the South. It is always about power and money. Yes, there were true abolitionists in the South as well as the North" . As has been said time and again most boys in grey (or butternut) did not own a slave. They were fighting because the d*** Yankees were pillaging and destroying everything they held dear.
lindygee 8 months ago
@lindygee Yes I know slavery in the west was one of many issues, i did not say slavery wasn't involved, I said there was a lot more to it than slavery.
DoctorHowitzer 8 months ago
@DoctorHowitzer My post agreed with you. Slavery was an issue, but most Confederates were in the war to protect their homes, families, and the South in general. The North wanted to preserve the Union, especially considering the close ties the South had with England.; The Yankees did not march down South with the idea they were freeing slaves; the Confederates did not take up arms to preserve slavery. It was much more complicated than that.
lindygee 8 months ago
@lindygee
No, Slavery was the only issue. Other issues were off shoots of the slavery issue, but the core issue was slavery. The South sought to continue the institution. They cloaked that in the idea of state's rights and individual liberties---that is to say the state's right to maintain the institution of slavery and the individual's right to own another human being.
It is utter nonsense to claim the civil war was about anything other than slavery.
nlmathomam 7 months ago
@nlmathomam It seems incredible to me that people can claime the war was fought over slavery when the Union did not bring slavery in to the war untill 1863.
Slavery we certainly the reason why the Union broke up but its stupid to say the war was fought over slavery.
Lincoln himself said the Union was fighting to preserve the Union.
You are trying to rewrite history.
Lincoln himself said what the Union was fighting for stop trying fix it so the north is the "good guys"
TexianPride 4 months ago 3
@lindygee Slavery formally entered the "cause" realm after the Second Emancipation Proclomation for 2 reasons - one, for Lincoln's political career, and second, to ensure England & France did not enter the war on the Southern side. All the while Lincoln buys Liberia in Africa and devised a plan to ship slaves back to Africa. In his first inagural speech he stated he did not care about slavery, only preserving the Union. Even Grant stated if it was about slavery he and his soldiers would go home.
combatjm89 7 months ago
@combatjm89 You are entitled to believe anything you, want no matter how unsubstantiated. There is plenty of documentation from those involved , and many on the North including Lincoln said otherwise. Slavery was ONE of the driving issues BUT people do not fight a horrible devasting war for 4 long years so some rich plantation owners can keep their slaves. It sounds very noble that the Yankees invaded the South to free slaves, but that is simply not true. Read what was said and you will see.
lindygee 7 months ago
@lindygee What I believe is based on written proof, as I wasn't there. It sounds more like you're agreeing with me than arguing...
combatjm89 7 months ago
@combatjm89 I am agreeing with you and I apologize. I meant for this to be a reply to @nimathoman who wrongly states that slavery was the only issue. Common sense alone tells you that poor Southern boys (and they were the majority) did not leave their families and fight that horrible war so some rich man could keep his slaves. Yankees believed they were preserving the Union and did not (for the most part) trouble themselves about slaves. Plenty of diaries and accounts attest to that.
lindygee 7 months ago 2
@combatjm89 Assuming, of course, that you want to know the truth. You have your mind nailed shut because it sounds so much better from the Yankee POV. However much you try, you cannot force a 21st century mindset on the people living in the 19th. The slavery issue had varied degrees of opinion on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. The slavery issue was used to keep the South in its place and the power in the North. I had g-g grandfathers on both sides, I honor both Johnny Reb and Billy Yank.
lindygee 7 months ago
@lindygee Why are you talking like I'm a "Yankee sympathizer"? Let's work on the reading comprehension here. Where did I say slavery was the main reason for TWONA? Nowhere. I stated that slavery wasn't made an issue until it was politically expedient for Lincoln to do so. Before that it was not in the spotlight - money and power were. Preserving the Union was preserving income for the Union gov't. So save the condescending attitude for someone else that might not be in the SCV...
combatjm89 7 months ago
@lindygee
Slavery was an evil institution. As Lincoln said, 'if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." The confederacy would not exist were it not for their desire to defend that evil institution. The CSA were the ones that fired on Fort Sumpter--Lincoln was perfectly content to contain slavery in the Southern states, and allow it to die on its own accord. It was the SOUTH that did not accept that and instigated insurrection.
nlmathomam 7 months ago
The CSA had no right to rebel ? So the 13 states had none either in 1776. It was just a third of the colonists that wanted to become "free". If that minority could be feasted today as founders of the USA, why not the men of the south that tried something similar? Few in 1776 freed a slave to fight, in fact more had been set free by the British "oppressors". Only few Yankees cared for slaves, Would you like your daughter to marry a ni..." was the question of the father of a General: Custer.
crematio 1 year ago
first the civil war was not about slavery , lincoln did not give shit about southern slaves he didnt want slavery moving west as the states expanded so bollocks to that point ... also when the states was formed every state had the right to leave the union any time and for any reason so when the 13 states succeeded the union forced the war illigally so any confederate haters learn your history its there in black and white
truimphsrule 1 year ago
@truimphsrule My God, Southern revisionism is still alive! Sure state's rights played a large role, BUT there is no scenario possible wherein the Civil War is fought without slavery.
stevepete61 1 year ago
lets just call a spade a spade. The Civil War was about slavery. The south needed something to rally the troops and a war to save slavery would not be enough to urge the poor non slave holding farmers to arms. As for the north they would not come to arms for slavery either. States rights and keeping the union was merely a battle cry to get the people behind the war. and as for prison camps north and south was equally bad to the prisonors. the south did wrong but so did the union.
Cassiebaby2007 1 year ago
@Cassiebaby2007 Bat spit. One of my favorite moments from Burn's 'Civil War' was when Shelby Foote quoted the Southern soldier, who, when asked 'Why are you fighting us?' answered
'Because y'all are down here.'
hrothgleas 1 year ago
Source, Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Point follows: the Civil War should not have happened. The Union was violating the South's right to institute a new government.
ki1ng 1 year ago 17
@ki1ng Source, history: The Civil War, The War of Northern Aggression, whatever one calls it, was about eliminating the human slave trade in America. I don't think the world would be a better place today if the U.S. had split in two and slave trafficking was still occurring in the Confederate States of America. The CSA would be a moral pariah in the world today, on a par with history's most despotic regimes.
abargle 1 year ago
@abargle No it wasn't. it was about states rights. Slavery was just one issue of many that happened to coincide with the debate. Besides slavery was a dying institution in the south. Had the slavery not been abolished legally there is little doubt that there would still be people enslaved in the US as early as 1880. Which would have eliminated a majority of the racial tensions faced by African Americans today. Only 6 percent of southerns owned slaves. Why do you think the other 94% was fighting?
ki1ng 1 year ago
@abargle i have tro agree with both of you...the south had the right to secede and the north needed to declare war because a divided america makes for a impossible future
libertarian93 1 year ago
@abargle I don't mean to be rude, but one common misconception about the war was that it was all about the slave trade. However, States' Rights was the real issue. Slavery was one problem, yes, but it wasn't the only or most important one.
justXaXdreamer 1 year ago
@abargle Slavery would have died out of natural causes if the yankees had`nt showed aggresion agnest its own peoples rights to choose for themselves. To quote General Lee "We should have freed the slaves and than declared secession, but we didnt want to look like we was backing down. A mistake we will pay deerly for."
Valdrag 11 months ago
@abargle Don't be fooled by only one intrepretation of history. Freedom of the slaves is the easiest to reach for but it's not why most men fought. Most who fought for the South didn't own any slaves so why would they have fought for perserve it? the reason for a lot of them gave was because they felt the North was trying to impose their way of life on the South.
redhotpepper37 11 months ago 2
@abargle Slavery would not have survived in the south just as it did not survive in the north after the war. Slavery was an economic necessity of the day in both the north and south. However the violation of sates rites, those not specifically defined by the constitution as the role of the federal government, continues to this day. The loss of 3/4 million American lives has to be the only issue that keeps states from succession today. States are continually slapped down by the fed w/o cause.
Gatorshitz123 9 months ago
@abargle Is that why the CSA, in it's established constitution, outlawed the slave trade? Yes, that's right. The Confederate States of America outlawed the slave trade before the United States of America. Historical fact. But please continue spouting the various Yankee lies you've been taught.
BlakeTXHC 8 months ago
@BlakeTXHC
No... they did not. The CSA affirmed that the trade of FOREIGN slaves from Africa was to remain illegal, as it had for many decades previously. It did nothing to free the people that were currently in slavery. It maintained the institution of slavery for those that were native born.
nlmathomam 7 months ago
@abargle
i need to disagree if you closely read the CSA consitution it specifically states that the slave trade was banned in the CSA, they could keep the slaves that they had, but they couldn't purchase any from overseas.
ljones121 7 months ago
@abargle if u think the civil war was over slavery u dont know 95% of confederates didnt own slaves and free and slave blacks fought for the confederacy throughout the whole war unlike the north that didnt let them fight till the end THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER ECONOMICS NOT SLAVERY I SEE U DIDNT LOOK TOO THE 10 YR BUILD UP P.S. THE NORTH THREW OUT THE CONSTITUTION AMERICA DIED AT THE END
Southernjuggalo63 2 months ago
@Southernjuggalo63
Nonsense. The Civil War was about slavery, first and foremost. Yes, 95% of southerners did not own slaves. But they fought to preserve a way of life that was utterly dependent upon the institution of slavery. If you actually read through the history of America before the Civil War, you'd see that slavery was the paramount issue throughout the 1850s. The whole debate was around the expansion of slavery into the territories.
nlmathomam 2 months ago
@nlmathomam wrong again i see u didnt learn about the revolutionary war much my 4 great grandfather fought in revolutionary war and raise my 2nd great grandfather since he was a child that fought in civil war until u look to the high tariffs and dictating that the north was doing on the south the same ol slavery this and slavery that comments is all u will come up with P.S. LAST SLAVE DOCUMENTED SHIP CAME IN 1808 52 yrs before civil war but im sure you forget too look that up
Southernjuggalo63 2 months ago
@nlmathomam also the instances in missiouri and kansas slavery is used yet no one sees that it was one people forcing its beliefs on another which is very anti american to do slavery was a scape goat lincoln didnt want to free slaves his statements from 1850 till 1863 prove that but he was losing the war and needed to use some reason to throw out the constitution HABEAS CORPUS and suspended all confederate veterans rights to vote which is against the constitution
Southernjuggalo63 2 months ago
@nlmathomam P.S SLAVERY FLEW UNDER AMERICAN FLAG FROM 1776-1865 AND WAS PROTECTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION YET THE SOUTH GETS THE BLAME AND IT WAS ONLY AROUND FOR 4 YEARS
Southernjuggalo63 2 months ago 2
@abargle also the last documented slaves ship to reach the american shore was in 1808 52yrs before civil war try again next time u shouldnt just listen to what was dicatated to u in school and learn about the other side then make your decision
Southernjuggalo63 2 months ago
@ki1ng I fought for the Red, White, and Blue in Vietnam and if anyone raised arms against her today, I would go to war again. I don't care about politics, I only love my country.
jimtraner 11 months ago
@ki1ng the declaration of independence doesn't establish rights, the constitution does.
@abargle only after a year of fighting did lincoln decide to add abolition to the cause, so as to help with recruiting.
but who cares we're alright now right? wars are always stupid on both sides....
devonriley415 10 months ago
@ki1ng The Declaration of Independence has no binding legal power. It is overridden entirely by the Constitution. If that's the basis for the CSA's legal argument, you don't have very much. If you admire it, then bully for you but it doesn't mean anything in a court of law. Then and now.
Further, with the DoI as the basis for the CSA, they'd be breaking one of the "self-evident truths" that all men are created equal. Slaves aren't equal to free men.
FieryCheeze 9 months ago
@FieryCheeze I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.
ki1ng 9 months ago
@ki1ng look at it this way, if there where two american countries...you would be speaking German by now.
nognilk 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MY GREAT GREAT UNCLE TOLD OF THE BLACK GUARDS IN ELMIRA SHOOTING AND PUSHING THE PRISONERS OF THE SOUTH WITH GUNS AND TREATING THEM BADLY.AFTER THE WAS THEY LET HIM GO AND HE WALKED A LOT OF THE WAY HOME TO JAMESVILLE,NC...GOD IS GOOD THOUGH,,,,GOD BLESS GENERAL LEE,,,GENERAL JACKSON.
SuperJOHNWELLER 1 year ago
MY GREAT GREAT UNCLE TOLD OF THE BLACK GAURDS SHOOTING AND PUSHING THE PRISONERS OF THE SOUTH WITH GUNS AND TREATING THEM BADLY.AFTER THE WAS THEY LET HIM GO AND HE WALKED A LOT OF THE WAY HOME TO JAMESVILLE,NC...GOD IS GOOD THOUGH,,,,GOD BLESS GENERAL LEE,,,GENERAL JACKSON.
SuperJOHNWELLER 1 year ago
awesome
TheAlice1865 1 year ago
Bla, bla, DXIE forever
StaffanGoldschmidt 1 year ago
What is the name of song at 1:00?
smrt1111111111111 1 year ago
Ok Ok, children. But isn't Johnny Cash the bomb!
ThePretzelHead 1 year ago
Do either of you know of Camp Douglas ? google it.
MrAckwood 1 year ago
@MrAckwood: Very familiar with the infamous Camp Douglas. Hitler would have been proud of Col. Benjamin Sweet and his employment of medieval torture devices. 6000 buried in Confederate Mound.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
Happy Veteran's Day 2010 from Charleston, SC
Ladysensei 1 year ago
The point I'm making is that the CSA simply hadn't the means to treat POW's well - largely due to the Union blockade. On the other hand, the Union had no excuse for starving and torturing POW's. The War wasn't about the Union good guys vs the CSA bad guys. The reasons for the War and the way it was conducted are much more complex than most American school children are led to believe. Anyway.. enough for now.
mcsaurus 1 year ago 32
@mcsaurus Check a bit deeper on the history. The Confederate general given control of the Southern prison camps, one Gen. Winder, vowed to kill more Yankees than any combat unit. Unfortunately, he died of natural causes not long before the war ended. Neither side did very well taking care of its prisoners, but the South cannot be excused based upon the blockade, nor any other reason.
flattop32355 1 year ago
@flattop32355 : These words (Wiki) on Gnl John H. Winder..
...President Davis, Secretary Seddon, and Adjutant Cooper declared that he was a much-maligned man. He was set to perform a task made impossible by the inadequacy of supplies of men, food, clothing, and medicines.[10]
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@flattop32355 : Also...
During the war, Winder was frequently derided in Northern newspapers, who accused him of intentionally starving Union prisoners. Military historian Ezra J. Warner believed these charges were without merit, saying "Winder adopted every means at his command to assure that the prisoners received the same ration as did Confederate soldiers in the field, scanty as that allotment was."[6]
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@flattop32355 : BTW Andersonville's Wirz was tried as a war criminal to cover up the fact that the Union policy of starving the South, coupled with the Union's cessation of prisoner exchanges caused the starvation of Union POW's.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@flattop32355
"the South cannot be excused based upon the blockade, nor any other reason."
So they were supposed to give more food to the prisoners than the soldiers? As it was, they both got the same rations.
TheBoberton 1 year ago
@mcsaurus the civil was is seen as treason by the US. the revolutionary was is seen as treason by the english.... guess it just depends what side youre on..... by the way. i am an american school child.
AlakimSirrah 1 year ago
@AlakimSirrah : Yup, this is the tragic basis of human conflict - we tend to interpret things in ways that suit our own needs. Whoever's opposed to our needs we see as the "bad guys". This is not to say there aren't sometimes some genuinely evil people and political movements out there. WW2 was probably the low point in history; even the good guys were bad guys. All the leaders of the major powers, both sides, were guilty of crimes against humanity, but.. whatever. What can we little folks do?
mcsaurus 1 year ago
"Approximately 2700 Confederate soldiers died while being held captive at Fort Delaware. One prisoner from Georgia wrote that the food was of such poor quality and so scarce that he shrank from 140 pounds to 80 pounds during his sojourn at Fort Delaware."
But why? There was no food shortage in Delaware.
And this on Elmira Prison, New York: "In the months the site was used as a camp, 12,123 Confederate soldiers were incarcerated; of these, 2,963 died during their stay". Again, why?
mcsaurus 1 year ago 15
@mcsaurus the reason was the south was treating prisoners badly but why were they they had plenty of food in fact they had so much it was rotting in storehouses
watcher792 1 year ago
@watcher792 : Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that the starvation of Union pow's began when the transporation infrastructure of the South had been broken down so that food couldn't be moved out of those storehouses.
There's no question that starvation amongst CSA troops was a major contributing factor in the South's defeat; if the CSA could have fed their troops surely they would have.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus Because the Yankees didn't give one shit about our loved ones... read family memoirs....
huffdawgs8 10 months ago
@mcsaurus Same reason POWs in all the prison camps died after the prisoner exchange system was ended in 1864--overcrowding, which bred dysentery. That's what killed most of the 2,963 who died at Elmira. Sure, there was no food shortage in the North and, like in the South, the POWs were neglected, both on purpose and due to incompetence. Looking at the photos of the 90-pound living skeletons at Andersonville, you can be sure the Rebel prison guards there didn't look like that.
galoon 9 months ago
@mcsaurus Thank You
Alabama991 8 months ago
You know whose fault the Civil War was? Those fucking AFRICANS!! If those douchebags would have fought harder to stay the fuck OUT of slavery, say fought back harder against the slave-traders, they never would have been brought here, and the whole issue of slavery would have been moot, because, as Southern men were all of a genius mind, someone in Georgia would have invented a magical cotton-picking machine. So fuck you, Slaves!!!
nicodagger 1 year ago
@nicodagger Your wrong sir, The African Warlords sold their own people to the slave traders. They were already slaves before the whites came. Whose fault was it for the civil war? His name was John Brown, he was a true American. You need to know your history son.
elmwhitefield 1 year ago
@elmwhitefield John Brown caused the Civil War? LOL what a joke. It couldn't possibly have been the violent in-bred Southern ruling class who rebelled at the democratic election of a Republican president!
borbo23 1 year ago
@nicodagger I can't tell if you're trolling or what.
borbo23 1 year ago
Understand how we destored a country
King Louis
RonRepublican 1 year ago
I love how people are still fighting the Civil War!
nicodagger 1 year ago
LOL...sorry to tell you my Dixie-longing friend, but Kentucky was a border state and went with the North during the War For States' Rights and true Southerners have never forgotten it. Even the Jewish ones, like me. :)
LukaShalom 1 year ago
i hate a dam yankee
smizerene 1 year ago
@BullRun1861 Really, the South was probably the luckiest group ever to attempt a rebellion and fail. They started the war, attacked the union, committed multiple massacres of POWs, but then they were all allowed back into the Union. Only one Confederate was tried as a war criminal! That's actually incredibly lucky.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 ever hear of camp douglas in chicago Hmmm?
30inchcoal 1 year ago
@borbo23 Absolutely right. Plus, with the "election" of Ruthe"fraud" B. Hayes, who sold out the African-Americans, and left the South to basically re-institute a type of slavey, i.e. Jim Crow, for more than 100 years. They got off easy.
nicodagger 1 year ago
@borbo23 : Kindly cite the "multiple massacres of POW's". The only Confed POW abuse I know of was at Andersonville where 12,000 died due to malnutrition. They died of malnutrition because the Union policy of waging war on civilians included destroying all food supply lines into unconquered areas. Wirz was hanged as a coverup for the fact that Union strategies had resulted in mass starvation (including POW's) in the South. For genuine POW abuse check out Camp Douglas (Chicago). You'll be shocked.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus You're forgetting that Confederate guards would also shoot Union POWs if they looked out windows, and the fact that thousands were starving in Andersonville before Sherman came through. Standard Confederate lying . . .
Let's look at Ft. Pillow as an example; Confed Gen Nathan B Forrest murdered and crucified and murdered 3/4 of the blacks he captured at the fort AFTER they surrendered. Forrest himself called it a massacre. It was not the only time such atrocities happened.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 : Andersonville (Camp Sumpter) didn't exist before February 1864, long after the Union policy of blockading and starving the South into submission was having disastrous effects on the availability of food in the CSA. Given that the Confeds regarded Union troops as invaders it's understandable that they would apportion the meagre rations they had available to their own troops first and that many POW's would inevitably die from complications from malnutrition.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus The reason the South starved was not the blockade - the South had some of the most fertile land in the entire country. They starved because selfish landowners planted cash crops instead of food crops.
It's not "understandable", it's a crime to starve your prisoners. They also starved their own population - there were bread riots in Richmond even early in the war. The problem was that the Confederacy was designed to maintain an inefficient, immoral, and backwards system (slavery).
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23: Surely the blockade crippled the CSA economy.
"it's a crime to starve your prisoners."
Yes, but if your own soldiers are dying of the effects of malnutrition.. surely it's a greater crime to let your own men die.
BTW have you checked out Camp Douglas (Chicago) the site of Confederate Mound where 6500 CSA POW's are buried in the largest mass grave in the western hemisphere? Those POW's were deliberately tortured and starved to death with absolutely no mitigating circumstances.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus Even bigger than the Anaconda plan was actually Confederate mismanagement of their own economy. They were idiots.
I know all about Camp Douglas; the reason the Confederate POWs did not have proper food was retaliation for Confederate crimes against Union POWs.
Union soldiers were being starved to death in prisons months before the South even attacked the Union at Ft. Sumter! Of 2000 who surrendered in Texas at the beginning of secession, something like 400 died of malnutrition.
borbo23 1 year ago
@mcsaurus And about the mass graves, no. The largest mass graves in the Western hemisphere are probably mass slave graves from the slave trade.
On St. Helena, for example, the number of dead interred exceed 10,000. St. Helena is not in this hemisphere, but there are numerous mass slave graves in the western hemisphere (I don't have exact numbers, but they are probably not much smaller). Most of these are in places like Cuba, Brazil, or the US South.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 : Confed Mound wasn't like the Nazi mass graves where thousands were killed then immediately buried together. The CSA'ers in Confederate Mound died one-by-one between Feb, '62 and the end of the War. Corpses that weren't tossed into Lake Michigan were buried in unmarked graves in various areas. Later the corpses that could be located were disinterred and buried mass-grave style in Confed Mound. Ugly, ugly business.
Are these slave mass graves reinterment things?
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus No, they're the places dead slaves were tossed into after transportation or due to being worked to death in coastal plantations, or just from lack of care. Most of them are children under 12.
And while I do think it was wrong that any prisoners suffered, the Confederate prisoners were treated better than Union prisoners were, a lot of it had to do with just the poor medical care of the day, and still more Union POWs died than Confederate, so I don't get what point you're making.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 "Let's look at Ft. Pillow as an example"
Forrest explained that many of those killed were killed during continuing fighting with Union troops fleeing Fort Pillow after it was taken and this is borne out by physical evidence. But yes, Forrest and his troops were openly determined to be especially vicious with black soldiers and undoubtedly murdered many of them while they attempted to surrender (not after their surrender had been accepted). This was done in the heat of battle.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus Sadly, you're wrong about Ft. Pillow. The men were shot in the back after surrendering. One of Forrest's officers, in a letter home, said he tried to stop the slaughter and Forrest ORDERED it to be continued. The massacre actually lasted over four hours, while the battle ended long before.
Modern historians do not argue whether a massacre happened; they only argue if it was pre-meditated or not, but regardless, Forrest was a disgusting war criminal.
It is just the fact.
borbo23 1 year ago
what are the names of these songs?
Slash2776 1 year ago
do anyone know the name of the song that starts 0.55
bipbopbom 1 year ago
@bipbopbom Ballad of the Blue and Grey
tamababy101 1 year ago
it was NOT a ''civil war'',it was the war of NORTHERN aggression!
keithehlert 1 year ago
@keithehlert Yo "Guud Ol' Boy" Get over it NORTH BEAT THE SOUTH rofl you idiot get over it you dumbass redneck North > South. Go drink a bottle of Moonshine you inbred redneck
Gambler317 1 year ago
@Gambler317 : You say "Get over it." and then launch into all the standard "inbred redneck" perceptions of Southorns that are still actively propegated from those who have a vested interest in discrediting the South. The American "Civil War" was arguably a war between 2 separate nations. The constitutionality of the Secession wasn't decided in the Supreme Court until 1869 - long after the war. Most Southorns believed because the Union was "voluntary" secession was legal.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@keithehlert : The War of the States was just another page in the centuries-old struggle by the Keltic peoples to free themselves from English domination. The Union was centered in "New England"; the South was a less oganized agrarian society populated mainly by Keltic Scots-Irish farmers. To this day it's crucial to the power brokers in New England and now New York (from 'York' - an English city) to discredit Southorns in order to justify their control of America's economy.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@keithehlert which the south started... yeah, right. Learn your history mate...
smarzotais 1 year ago
@smarzotais : The South didn't start the War. The firing on Fort Sumpter was to prevent the Union from carrying through with the plan to send thousands of troops to Sumpter in preparation for an invasion of South Carolina. Crafty Lincoln made sure his plans were known to the South because he wanted the South to fire the first shot.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@mcsaurus yeah, but they still did it.
the taliban claimed they attacked the us on 9-11 because they thought we were attacking their way of life. in reality their way of life was just getting in the way of ours... not out fault ^^
smarzotais 1 year ago
@smarzotais : Comparing the War of the States to War on Terror is a stretch. My main point is that the Union as it was in 1860 was generally understood to be voluntary - in other words if you wanted out it was constitutional. This point wasn't clarified in the Supreme Court for years after the War and even then it was a 3-2 split decision. When Lincoln made it known to South Carolina that he intended to use Sumpter to control SC's main port it was declaration of war.
mcsaurus 1 year ago
@smarzotais No, actually the reason for 9-11, which they stated, was because we support Israel and their genocide of the Palestinians.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 Has never been a country, just a region, no flag, govt., Israel bought the land from someone, were invaded, fought back & won. To the winner the spoils!.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow just read the Bible folks......no matter what Israel will end up with the land God wants it to have.
SuperDennyo 1 year ago
@SuperDennyo Agree. I thought Israel owned the land through God, BUT, after reading a few books on the subject I realise they won't get the land until they recognise their Messiah & call on Him. Then it is all theirs!
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Who is the Messiah? Do you mean Yeshuah?
nicodagger 1 year ago
@nicodagger I see that you have used vowels when spelling YESHUAH. In case you are not aware, I will point out that there aren't any in the Holy Book, The Tanach. We guess what vowels are there. Just in case you are trying to be facetious.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow right, I was. Trying. Well aware of the lack of vowels, as I read Hebrew. But my question still stands.
nicodagger 1 year ago
@nicodagger Your question, or should I say the phrasing of, seems to infer that Yeshuah & Messiah are two different people. They are not. Yeshuah/ Jesus, fulfills all prophecy. So technically whether I say "Messiah," or "Yeshuah," or "Jesus," I am talking about the same person.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow No, sorry if it seemed that I don't recognize Yeshuah and Moshiach as one and the same, because I do! I'm with you 100%.
nicodagger 1 year ago
@nicodagger Well we finally got there anyway, so God bless you & yours. Have a great day.
Did you get the video I forwarded?
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@mcsaurus By that point the Confederacy was already illegally holding 2000 Union soldiers in camps.
Lincoln had no intention of invading at that point, anyway. He was going to reinforce Sumter because it was federal property and therefore his DUTY to defend it.
borbo23 1 year ago
@keithehlert Who attacked Fort Sumter? oh yeah the Southeren war of Agression...
BlixsemFleerSneuw 1 year ago
Are you thinking of "Two Little Boys"
44phil1 1 year ago
nope and best songs
Gman0314 2 years ago
does anyone now what song that he sings about Jimmy choosed the yankee blue and brother billy joined the rebs?
bipbopbom 2 years ago
@bipbopbom : 2 Brothers
mcsaurus 1 year ago
Loved Johnny's singing....
RoseShattuck 2 years ago