Just agreeing that Lincoln was a tyrant and a heathen. The Southern cause for State's Rights was the last chance for freedom in this country. If the history of the USA was true and accurate, it would reflect that the current country began in 1865, not 1776. The original country that began in 1776 definitely ended with Lincoln, his army and the warped view of freedom they all shared.
I honestly don't know where the troll featured in this video got his "true history", but it sure wasn't any self-respecting history teacher, North or South. I've flagged all his recent comments as spam, because that's what they are. Historical debate, even impassioned debate, is one thing, but anyone posting here should at least have a basic sense of time. Said troll seems not to know that the Civil War was in the 19th century, Hitler lived in the 20th century, and Sherman is not God.
@TThorne931 Stop trolling videos and telling lies. Robert E. Lee didn't want a break up of the USA, but the Yankees under tyrant Lincoln were demanding money, land, and power to subjugate the Confederate people.
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."-Thomas Jefferson
@DeoVindiceDixie Thomas jefferson was the Worst President in United States History so to qoute him is as the same to Qoute Hitler. The south Faught for Enslavment . The Holy Abarham lincoln wanted peace in our union . But as the Barbaric legions of the Hunnic South rose up against the Father he swept them away with holy Fury. And LEE hated the United States and never searved a Single day in service or defense of the Homeland
@TThorne931 Lee served the USA in the Mexican-American war. Quoting Thomas Jefferson is not quoting Hitler. I am done with you, you are brainwashed, you idolize the tyrant Abraham Lincoln and call him holy when he is a man and sins. Hunnic? Wrong way to describe the CSA. The CSA only wanted the Status Quo, not to conquer other lands. I can 100% say that you do not know history and should not even have started any such arguments. I am done with your invalid arguments.
@DeoVindiceDixie Jefferson was a Coward And A RAPIST . The Holy Abraham hand Comes from the blessed hand of Adams whose blessed ideals spawned the United States. Lee was never in the US armies he was always plotting Treason and to Commit Mass Murder using Terrorists mercinaries he is guilty of Six hundread and twenty thousand counts of Murder and Treason. The CS wanted To conqour the Union and expalnd their Slaver Banner Why else would they occupy 14 US states if not for war .USA uber alles
You do know that Federal armies invaded the South right? Please tell me the name of a single Northern city or town that was sacked by a Confederate force. How many families in the North faced starvation because of marauding Confederate armies killing all the livestock and burning all the crops. Just name one instance sir.
@TThorne931 Fascist? Seriously? Are you really as ignorant as you sound? You have no concept of what you're even writing about. The world had a taste of fascism in the 20th century and the southern fight for independence can not even be considered in the same context. I just answered my own question. Yes, you are really as ignorant as you sound. As a matter of fact, I doubt you're even from the U.S.A. You really need to study your history a little more before you spout off.
@67forceman no i know the Treasnous Fascism of the Reich south . The south did not fight for independence for it had no right to leave the UNITED STATES to wage an illegal war to conquer the Free States of the Union their traitor nazi commanders should had been rounded up and slaughtered for Peace. and yes the south are as evil as the German nazis everyone know this
@TThorne931 You do know that Federal armies invaded the South right? Please tell me the name of a single Northern city or town that was sacked by a Confederate force. How many families in the North faced starvation because of marauding Confederate armies killing all the livestock and burning all the crops. Just name one instance sir.
@rabuliz No the United States Army Entered States of the Union under occupation By Terrorists . and the War of southern Agreesssion Waged War against the UNION nation by occupying 13 US States for their Illegal Rebbellion. And the Union never killed raped or looted the Homes Of Terrorists we broke war morale and devastated Traitors who Hailed Adolph Hitler as their Savior
@TThorne931 Hahaha. I laughed so hard. Are you really this brainwashed to believe this?! Who taught you the history of The War of Northern Aggression?
@DeoVindiceDixie The war was of Southern Aggression Remember who started the War who fired the first shot was the Facist Reich in the south . The Harsh dictator LEE Whose voice calling for racial eradication of all blacks rang on all their Nazi armies marches where they rought death to civilians and raped women . The south and all its evils set up death camps in its territory the premier death camp at andersonville. Then the Holy Sherman army swept away all Reich confederates
The great mortality among the prisoners arose from epidemics and chronic diseases which our surgeons had not the means of preventing. A large a proportion of the Confederate guard at Andersonville died as of the prisoners themselves. It is also true that while the CSA wanted to exchange prisoners the USA on the other hand refused.
@DeoVindiceDixie Because your nazi doctors were lazy and uneducated only knowing how to disect Allied Troops in their "camps" And who cares why your Traitor gaurd died of they should have all been stealing from the locals to Feed the Soldiers they were illegaly detaining in the Death camps . And We do not negotiate with Terrorists who demand Terrorsits be freed you have no right to Detain the peacekeepers . May sherman damm you to hell Facist
@TThorne931 WOW! The United States declared independence from Great Britain, yet you say Confederates are traitors? Lincoln was more of the dictator who declared war on the CSA without getting the approval from Congress, he didn't care about slaves at all. He wanted the money. The CSA was a freedom loving country, and because of the high tariffs on the South they declared their independence. The fascist ideal wasn't even thought about until the 1880-1900s?
@DeoVindiceDixie "I was orderly of Captain Fogler's company, Nineteenth Maine; was made prisoner at Petersburg in June, 1864, and was at Andersonville eleven months, or until the war ended. There was suffering among the men who were sick, from the lack of medicines and delicacies, but all had their rations as fully and regularly as did the Confederate guard.
@DeoVindiceDixie There were times of scarcity, when supply trains were cut off by the Federal forces; and at such times I have known the guard to offer to buy the prisoners' rations, being very short themselves. On these occasions the guards would take a portion of their scanty supplies from the people of the country to feed the prisoners.
@DeoVindiceDixie The Rebels were anxious to effect an exchange and get the prisoners off their hands, but it was reported and believed among the prisoners that the Federal authorities refused. At one time I was with a detail of three thousand prisoners who were marched two hundred miles to the coast to be exchanged, but it was declined by the Federal authorities, as was reported, and we marched back with no enviable feelings.
@DeoVindiceDixie I believe that the larger share of the responsibility for the suffering in that prison belonged to our own Government. Wirz was harsh and cruel to the prisoners, and deserved hanging. But I believe the Confederate authorities did as well as they could for the prisoners in the matter of clothing, provisions and medicines."
@DeoVindiceDixie The Suffering of the prisoners was due to the lazy and immature nature of the Confederate gaurds . The Gaurds didn't even Try to feed them . Why should the Holy Union goverment feed any Traitors. The gaurds should have been nude ,sick and starving to feed and clothe the Peace keepers
@DeoVindiceDixie The Trains were cut off to not allow Facist Jackboots of the Confederate Legionaries supplies to wage a war. The Gaurds should have shot the People and taken everything from the people
@DeoVindiceDixie So what of the War of Independence it is no precedent to levy war against the united States. Lincoln was Sent by Christ to Save the union . The CS attacked and slaughtered a Fort garrison en masse. the minute men of '61 Cared for the Slaves . We wanted National unity . The CS was Faicst Dictatorship with no free elections of Constition. To complain about tarrifs is to love England over America so shut your American hating mouth
Biographies of General Jackson cite several instances where he educated slaves owned by him and helped them to escape slavery by the Underground Railroad system.
Я на ютубе уже писал что четвёртого апреля памятная дата. Хочу и здесь об этом сказать: В этот день чёрные бойцы КША совершили подвиг: 4 апреля 1865 г. в графстве Амелия (Вирджиния) федеральная кавалерия атаковала южный обоз, полностью обеспечиваемый и охраняемый чернокожими пехотинцами из части майора Тернера. Они сопротивлялись до конца, отбили несколько атак, и не были смяты врагом до тех пор, пока не закончились боеприпасы.
@TheBlackSkif What you cite is true. Too bad General Patrick Cleburne's advice recommending this very thing, i.e., arming male slaves in the Confederate States, but much earlier in the war, about the Autumn of 1863 if I am not mistaken. General Johnson and President Jefferson Davis effectively shelved the idea because the major plantation owners felt threatened by the idea.
Конфедерация, в отличие от Севера, не знала ни судов Линча, ни концлагерей, и дикие погромы, типа июльского, 1863 г, в Нью-Йорке, когда недовольные введением обязательной воинской повинности громилы растерзали сотни цветных и сожгли множество домов, в т.ч. негритянский детдом (десятки несчастных сирот погибли в пламени), были совершенно немыслимы в КША.
Вот как воевали чёрные южане:Белые и черные милиционеры в равной степения дали отпор войскам Союза в сражении при Грисволдсвилле в Джорджии, при этом погибло более шести сотен стариков и подростков – и белых, и черных.Прославившиеся в той же Джорджии в конце 19 века священники-гуманитарии — верные друзья с юности Александр Харрис и Джордж Двелле доблестно сражались всю войну в рядах 1-го Добровольческого Полка родного штата.
The man was probably a paranoid schizophrenic, a sword in one hand and a Bible in the other, believing with the deranged "prophets" of old that if he slaughtered thousands, it was with the hearty approval and glad assistance of the Almighty. He was also what some Freudians call "a necrotic personality." In a curious way, he symbolized the violent insanity of "thuh glawruss cawze." No wonder the Secessionist crowd practically worshiped him.
The South requested many times for the Sumter garrison to leave. Buchanan refused. When a nation declares itself independent, they must make their sovereignty recognized. They had few options but to take action. And still, in the end, no lives were lost.
"Happy Birthday" 'Stonewall', today on the 187th anniversary of your birthday. Loved by all Southerners, God Bless You. You will not be forgotten! Red Roses for you gravesite....
I am a GREAT ADMIRER of T.J. Jackson! However, I find it interesting that BUT FOR the CW -- Jackson would have remained an obscure, eccentric professor of mathematics and artillery tactics at VMI.
Perhaps it is true that there no great men -- just ordinary men who rise to meet great challenges!
Stonewall jackson was probaly the best general in the civil war but he was shot on accident by one of his own men!Im pretty sure if stonewall hadent died so early on in the war then that shit sherman pulled with raping women and burning innocent peoples home down wouldnt have happend .
@Stalfos23 We cannot stand together as long as we are two completely different and incompatible cultures. It is only a matter of time before we secede again and, if need be, fight for our independence.
@TheBoberton would be nice if'n the fact that there would be a way so that we all could be compatible. There probably is just kindly hard to figure out a way not yet been seen.
@Stalfos23 As long as north and south are one, there will never be compatibility. The north may take over here with the millions that migrate down here every year, but as long as the southern culture lives, we will always want out.
@Stalfos23 Yes you are. I have nothing against the north. It's just that, to tell the truth, D.C. wants to control everything. They are just as bad as a monarch across the Atlantic.
@TheBoberton actually I'm neither north nor south even though I got bored and took a test for fun to find out what I am more. Reb or Yank. I'm mostly reb 166%. According to the first test I'm 66% Dixie and the other said 100% dixie. Plus I'm gonna have to say amen to that with the D.C. thing.
@Kerethuk No, no...you miss the point. Sure both sides had slaves. The war didn't begin because of slavery, admitted. But the war ENDED because of the stance that Lincoln took on it. It is immaterial that even slavery existed in the north. Once the mandate came down, it was ONLY the north that was going to respect the new edict, so you see, in that sense it was ALL about slavery. Either way...the right team won because it DID free the slaves.
@rickcee Would you like to tell me how the war ended because of the stance Lincoln took on slavery? The war started because the South fired on Ft. Sumter after illegal secession from the Union. Lincoln then went to war to preserve the Union. The emancipation proclamation was an after thought and a ploy to keep the Brits and French out of the war. The CSA had been lobbying both Countries for aid and recognition as an independent nation. Both refused primarily based on the slavery issue
@686204 All I can say is thank goodness European countries already had slavery in their rear-view mirrors by then, historically speaking. Had they still seen the efficacy of slavery perhaps they would have been more inclined to recognize the Confederate states as a new nation. Look...I don't expect that people had the same feelings about slavery back then as now, but I still don't see how it could ever be explained away. States' rights: "right to own slaves." Period. Glad the north won.
@686204 The war started because of the acts of war that Lincoln committed. He wasn't about preserving the union, but for preserving his agenda and he needed the southern states to remain in the union to preserve his agenda.
@littlewilma22 Tell me what acts of war Lincoln committed to start the war. Since you seem to know everything Lincoln was thinking back then tell me what was his agenda. I give you one point we did need the Southern states to remain in the Union I will not argue that point. I wouldn't mind hearing your views on what the agenda of the Southern aristocracy was when they had their states secede.
@686204 One act of war was the setting up of the blockades. The other was not only his refusal to remove his men from a fort on South Carolina soil, but sending in provisions accompanied by warships. Lincoln wanted the same things the Whig party had wanted-protectionist tariffs, a nationalized bank and subsidies for "internal improvements".
@littlewilma22 First off the blockades were set up after the war was started. The South started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter a Federal Fort located on Federal Land legally purchased from South Carolina. They had every right to be there. What someone wants and someone gets are two different things. The South seceded before Lincoln even took office how did they know what he would do. The south seceded base on the fear that the North would take steps to abolish slavery nothing more nothing less
@rickcee In Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation, slavery was only ended in the states that had seceded. He left slavery in place in the states that had remained in the union until the war was nearing it's completion. The war ended because the south did not have the manpower or industry that the north did. They were overwhelmed.
@67forceman Lincoln could not really end slavery in any of the southern states that were still occupied by Southern Troops he had no authority. However all slaves that escaped southern oppression when Northern troops entered their region were freed there were thousands of them that took advantage of it. All slaves both North and South were officially freed in June of 1865 with the implementation of the 13th amendment.
@686204 You're right. He had no authority to free the slaves so he implemented a tool of war and called them "contraband". Slaves were still regarded as property and as a confederate war asset, their labor was denied to the south by the emancipation proclomation. Lincoln used every tool at his disposal to meet his stated goals. His personal goal of maintaining the union was to make war on the south. There was never a law forbiding secession until after the war. The same with slavery.
@67forceman Technically there was never a law passed after teh war outlawing secession either. They probably didn't want to pass one b/c if they did they would be admitting that secession was legal before hand.
@FreiherrvonTersch There may not have been a law passed after the war outlawing secession but the Supreme court in 1869 ruled that secession was illegal. However on the same point after the war they arrested Davis and charged him with treason. They never brought him to trial I believe it never happened because they knew it would bring up the issue of whether or not secession was legal. The North did not want to open that can of worms in a court for obvious reasons.
@FreiherrvonTersch For that matter the Constitution had a built in remedy for resolving disagreements between States and the Federal Government. It was called the Supreme Court. Both sides had the opportunity to seek a ruling on the issue of secession from the Supreme Court and neither chose to take that road because they were afraid of the decision. Instead they went the way of war too bad a lot of good men died because of it.
@686204 First, Texas v. White was 1868, not 1869. Second, just because the Supreme Court says something doesn't make it correct. Both Lincoln and Andrew Jackson believed that each branch of the government could interpret the Constitution for itself. The Supreme Court's rulings were only to affect the Federal Courts. Bear in mind that the Court often overturns itself (Plessy one year, Brown v. Board 56 years later).
@FreiherrvonTersch I hate to disagree with your history professor but just what was so controversial about the Revolutionary war? I would like to point out that British subjects living in Canada at the time did not deem it necessary and they achieved their Independence later through peaceful means. Most wars are "Rich mans war and a poor mans fight", it was the case in the Revolutionary war and the Civil war both were unnecessary.
@686204 The Revolution was controversial b/c the Colonies claimed that the British had no right to do what they were doing, but the British Parliament claimed they had every right to do so. The British Constitution is based on custom and tradition, so when the British government began doing things they had never done before, it seemed like oppression, but Parliament claimed the ultimate power to interpret custom, givint it a blank check to do whatever it pleased.
@FreiherrvonTersch With regard to the American Revolution you said the Colonies claimed that the British had no right to do what they were doing yet at the beginning of that war approx 1/3 of the colonies population was still loyal to the Crown. Colonial militia battalions fought along side the Brits against the Revolutionaries. At the end of the war the United Empire Loyalists packed it up and left for Canada or went back to Britain.
@686204 Yes, 1/3. The Colonial Assemblies were controlled by the majority of voters. The majority of voters felt that the British violated the British Constitution hence why the assemblies voted for independence..
@FreiherrvonTersch In fact The United Empire Loyalists and their descendants were highly instrumental in Canada receiving her Independence through peaceful means. The Declaration of indecency stated all men were created equal but that only applied to white men right. The thing was that a good number of Revolutionists who drafted the Declaration were slave owners. The War was a case of the wealthy few influencing the majority and it was totally unnecessary.
@686204 Also, as my US Constitution and Legal history professor pointed out, some constitutional controversies are so great that the only way to solve them is to have a war. The Revolution for example was a debate about the exent of Britain's power over the Colonies and the only way to resolve that debate was to have a war.
@FreiherrvonTersch Both were were started because of wealthy influential peoples financial greed or quest for power. Google "War is a racket" and see what most wars are all about. As for the date for the Supreme Courts decision on secession when I went to school they told us it was made in 1869. Supreme Court cannot change a law either but it was designed to bring matters that need attention for government action. If the government ignores their recommendations they're open to public criticism
@686204 You're right about the date, I just checked my textbook. Maybe the case started in 1868, idk. But the Supreme Court kinda has changed law and gone outside its jurisdiciton. In Marbury v. Madison the Court never claimed to have the power to affect the actions of the other branches. Its decisions were only binding on the lower courts to follow. If a law was deamed unconstitutional, then the courts would refuse to hear lawsuits based on that law.
@686204 About secession itself, go to the Constitution and tell me where it mentions secession. The most you'll find is the goal in the preamble of making a "more Perfect Union," but if the government has to use force to keep that union together, I would say that the Constitution failed in its goal. General Lee hated secession, but then went on to say that he did not want to be in a union held together with rifles and bayonets.
@FreiherrvonTersch I view the Constitution as a legal contract between the States and the Federal Government. Under common law no party can unilaterally break a contract on its own authority unless specified in the contract. If you broke a legal contact with a bank do you not think they would be taking you to court over it. General Lee was a great soldier but he fought for the Southern aristocracy who's whole way of living was Dependant on slavery. In fact he was part of that aristocracy.
@686204 And the Southern states felt that the Federal Government and the Northern states had violated the Constitution, justifying them in seceeding. Also, as I said before, the Constitution is silent on secession, so one could argue that under the 10th Amd that makes secession legal since the "contract" gives states any power not given to the Fed Gov. When VA, MA, and NY ratified the Constitution, they even said that if the Fed abused its power, they would deratify the Constitution.
@FreiherrvonTersch It could be viewed that way except in a contract the fact remains that unless specifically specified no one can unilaterally break the contract. The power is in the contract between the states and the Federal government it is a joint power for both to live up to the intent of the contract. It all boils down to interpretation on the legality of secession and legal experts have been arguing for and against since the start of the CW.
@686204 My argument is that the south chose war to settle their differences with the Union rather than legal options available to it ie taking it to the Supreme Court for a ruling. For that matter the North could have done the same. I am against war and I gave my reasons when I asked to you google "war is a racket" because most wars fit into the category of "rich man's war and a poor man's fight". The Civil war was a prime example in my opinion.
@686204 I will agree that the war itself was an argument over the legality of secession. I actually don't think that the Supreme Court would be of much help since it can only rule on something when a law was brought into question. Since there was no law saying a state can't secede, the South really couldn't bring suit. All they could do is secede and hope that some lawsuit would arise which would eventually lead to the S.C.
@FreiherrvonTersch Well as I stated before I feel the Constitution is a legal contract between the Feds and the States. If it wasn't why have one in the first place. Under the terms of a legal contract as previously mentioned the North could have taken issue with the South for breaking the contract. It then would have been up to the South to justify their breaking of the contract. I personally feel that both sides were afraid to approach the Supreme Court in case they lost.
Texas v. White for example was over the validity of bonds bought during the CW, but such a suit was impossible until the War was over. I also agree that the war was a rich man's war, poor man's fight. When asked why he was fighting, the average Southern soldier would reply "because you're down here." Also, thank you for engaging me in a civil debate as opposed to other youtubers who are obnoxious and vulgar.
@FreiherrvonTersch The South's fatal error was firing on Ft. Sumter it forced the issue by gun and gave the North its justification to do like wise. Anyway we both see it differently and I also enjoyed our little debate, all the best.
@67forceman Again either I wasn't clear or you missed the point. He didn't have to end slavery anywhere BUT the states that had seceded. It was already dying of attrition in the north. There was no way slavery was going to be tolerated anywhere after the south finally lost. Lincoln was a genius. He deliberately soft-pedaled the Emancipation Proclamation just that way. The only parable I can think of is the way Communism ended in the Soviet...let it crumble under its own weight.
@rickcee I see the point you want to make but the fact remains that Lincon himself stated that if he could have preserved the union by keeping slavery intact, he would have left it stand. Lincoln never soft pedaled anything. He utilized the proclomation to legally (in the northern occupied territory) deprive the south of the use of slaves because up until then, UNION officers returned runaway slaves to their owners. It was a tool of war that fit his own beliefs. Coincidence?
@67forceman Horseshit. Lincoln was very much against slavery and you know it. But he was a realist and felt he couldn't ram emancipation down everyone's throat and win reelection. He felt he had to win reelection to hold the union together. But you are obviously a southerner still fighting the war. You should be more like Shelby Foote--a son of the south who KNEW that the Union cause was just and that Lincoln was a genius.
@rickcee Rickie! such foul language! This is forum not a bar. And for your information, I am a northerner! You make broad assumptions and slanders the same as you infer someone's beliefs without knowledge. I have never viewed Lincoln as anything but an intelligent man and I'm sure he didn't put his reelection campaign beside his beliefs in slavery. You get too personal buddy when someone puts up an alternative opinion. Calm down! You can voice an opion without getting foul, we'll here you out.
@rickcee no worries, we all get worked up from time to time, myself included. Everybody has an opion and a right to espouse it. The greatness of our country at work, no matter it's failings, we eventually get it right.
@rickcee "If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave I would" Lincoln. Lincoln on many occasions also declared that "people confuse me for a abolitionist". While I like Lincoln's kindness to animals and yes he was a genius (you had to be to get people believing the lying shit he said) . The Union course wasn't just but you are a great example of lies being believed.
No doubt, he was the tactician who made Lee great. Lee without him was never as great as he had been before the whacky godbot was killed at Chancellorsville. Great a tactician as he was, though, he fought for "states rights" and the "states rights" southerners were fighting for were the rights to own slaves. Sure, the north was aggressive and cruel. Sure it overtaxed and levied unfair tariffs on the south. But guess what? YOU CAN'T FUCKING OWN A SLAVE, SO TOO BAD. THE RIGHT TEAM WON.
@rickcee you have no idea what you are talking about. It is a matter of historical fact that Jackson established the first church for blacks in Lexington in the 1850's and personally looked in on them for their spiritual betterment. He went against the laws of the time that disallowed blacks to read to the point of nearly facing a court. He was the most pious man in the confederate army that believed wholly in God's will that the war must be fought. He cared only about serving God, not man.
@67forceman Hahaha....so you ADMIT that your belief is based on superstition! See, that's the thing about you religiosos. You cover your asses with this nonsense. Get in the game. Use the intelligence you were born with, not the fairytales Mommy and Daddy, out of love, thought best to teach you. They were doing what they thought was right, but let's face it. It's just crap that comes down through generations. It's nonsense. Hang onto heritage if you must, but please...belief in a god?
@rickcee Again, your choices are your own. I don't denigrate your beliefs or make sneering remarks about you. I can go that route too, but why? You obviously have a lot of anger about this issue which doesn't even affect you. The war was over long ago.
@686204 Yes, the side he fought on lost but you must remember that as long as he lived, Lee never lost a battle that he and Jackson collaborated in. When Jackson died, he was at the zenith of his fame and Lee never again won a decisive victory because no other commander could do so much with so little in the way Jackson could
@67forceman Politics and religion don't mix god does not take sides. He may have been a great commander but it had nothing to do with god. I hate it when people start bringing religion into political affairs. He have us free will and we are answerable to him when our time comes. That was my only point.
@686204 I understand. However in the context of the time, Jackson was deeply religious. He was a Presbyterian elder and his whole existence was in serving God. In his view, God decreed that the war must be waged and that was what sustained him throughout the war. His greatness as a field commander he attributed to God's blessings and he desired no recognition even to the point of writing letters to his pastor urging them not to give credit for his victories to himself.
@67forceman That's absolutely something I agree with. Jackson, crazy as he apparently was, was also very cunning and smart. Lee was not the same general without him, and he knew it. I doubt that the blunder of all blunders (Pickett's Charge) could have ever happened if Jackson hadn't bought it at Chancellorsville. He would have talked Bobby out of it in a second--something Longstreet couldn't do.
@rickcee Jackson always believed in separating a larger force and attacking the smallest part of it. He believed that by doing that, a larger force could be beaten in detail making the smaller army's morale soar and thus making it unbeatable. You're right, had he been at Gettysburg, he would probably have continued the attack of the first day through the town and onto cemetary ridge. He would not have given them time to prepare defenses.
@67forceman And by the same token, had Grant been the commander at Gettysburg for the north instead of Meade, it may have ended the war, because he probably would have pursued the ragtag remnants of the rebel army all the way back to, and across, the Rappahannock, and not simply let them lick their wounds after the failed Pickett's Charge only to regroup and fight on for another 18 months.
@67forceman Я полностью согласен вами! Официальная история утверждает что Север якобы за освобождение рабов воевал, но это ложь. Янки хотели отобрать у Юга его землю и богатства, душили Юг экономической политикой, пошлинами. Как говорит русская пословица: Драли по три шкуры!А народ Юга, чёрные и белые южане плечом к плечу сражались против агрессии севера, за свою родину, за свободу, за право самим выбирать свою судьбу и судьбу своих детей как подобает свободным людям.
@67forceman accept he was a traitor who committed treason and fought against the father and the nation he rose a blade against God blessed armies of the union he burns in hell for his treason god bless the soldier that took his arm away the fucker didn't deserve to die
@TThorne931 Ok stupid. You really need to proof read your post before you hit the "post" button. If you don't like confederate history you can go to any of the pro-union videos. But no, your dumb ass wants to put some childish and conflicting statement like you posted above for whatever reason only your simple minded ass can understand. Go back to the video games and let the grown ups discuss what you obviously can not fathom ( That means understand ).
@67forceman no i shall remain on you videos supporting genocide and racial extermination of a people based soley on the color of the skin .. I will remain as long as idiots think the South fought for anything but an illegal war to conquer the Free states . I will remain as long as anyone wishes to revive a empire of nazi fascists
@67forceman Fuck your nazi belifs The War Of Southern agression truth needs to be told and the Unionist Flag Paraded over the Traitors . Remember how Sherman Spared Atlanta and columbia so kindly and did not en mass kill all traitorous miltia he found even after your side committed War Crimes and used landmines on children
@67forceman except he was a rapist and a racist forcing himself on his slaves and then shooting the men who tried to stop them . he was an Atheist profligating false religion called protostanism . The Confederate Army believed in the Defense of Enslavment and to Murder US army Troopers
Sherman was a murdering bastard that indiscriminately burned and raped. Truly a prolific war criminal that never had to answer to the horrible things he ordered done.
@rno5rno9 no isnt cause he didnt have kids his sister had babies but eventually the there was no more future generations after that so techincally no one is relatied to him
@killnuknow Jackson and his second wife Anna did have a baby girl that survived to adulthood. Her name was Julia in honor of his sister. Jackson died before the little girl was a year old and eventually when the girl reached adulthood she discarded the name Julia because of the way her aunt viciously scorned her father during the war. As for Jackson's daughter having children, I am unaware of any because the young woman died when she was about 25.
great man, a true hero, and brian, what would you have done if you heard horses coming from the yankee line and had no knowlage that jackson was preparing to begain a night assault??
Gen. Jackson was a great general. His tactics are still taught and used on the modern battle field. He was a man of great character far beyond his peers with the possible exception of Gen. Lee. If we had more men like Stonewall we wouldn't be on the verge of being a third world country. Freedom ended on April 09, 1865. By the way AWESOME video.
Um, no. The way he conducted his men in battle, and the way he strategized in AND out of the Valley made him a Genious. Should he had survived, Dixie would be its own country. He fought more battles and WON out of the Valley.
Selby Foote himself said the South were never going to win. Lincoln wanted a prolonged war so it didn't look like he was excising the South which was what he was really doing. Thousands of men died to make Lincoln look innocent.
0:26........that painting says it all. Jackson was totally focused on the objective. he had no time for whining. he was a true professional. consider youreselves fortunate he didnt go north!! you would have have been in a tangle for sure!
I am reading his biography, aside from being an interesting figure to studty, I get the STRONG impression that he was a lethally dangerous man and a rightly feared man to his enemies. mess with him and you will get bloodied bad. they feared him.
Stonewall was also a stupendous administrator. His units had the fewest deserters and by far the best marching discipline. He ran circles around Pope in the Valley with 1/3 the manpower. His logistical skills were also notoriously sound and he made efficient use of his artillery.
Stonewall had very few weaknesses as a infantry commander. Offensively I wouldn't take anyone over Stonewall.
Longstreet's defense formations on Mayre's Heights in Fredericksburg was flawless. Stonewall's 2nd Corps was designed for attacking. His largest division under A.P. Hill was considered Light Infantry. Light Infantry moved fast and carried less. They were not equipped well enough to undertake prolonged defense.
Stonewall was more or less the commander of shock infantry. Fierce and quick attacks on opponents flanks.
When the enemy was overrun the units could resupply with the dead left behind.
In a supportive role Jackson was singularly inept. Lee himself an exceptionally poor co-ordinator of his staff officers, eventually cut Jackson adrift by the end of 1862 to function as a more or less autonomous commander. In this capacity he was as much a murderous threat to his own troops as to Union. Both Lee and Jackson profited from the initial timidity of Northern forces that surrendered defensive positions too readily, but still at great cost to Southern strength.
@johnsammyanfal the fact is Jackson was superb on the offensive and defensive. His tactics in the Valley kept 52,000 reinforcements away from Richmond, he conducted sterling defenses at Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, and Fredericksburg, and the flank attack at Chancellorsville is still considered one of the great military successes of all time. Most of this he did in tandem with Lee. Pope and Burnside both tried aggressive tactics but they failed as much as Hooker and McLellan's timidity.
The misnomer of stonewall suggests a strong defensive commander. Jackson in fact gained his reputation in the aggressive and yet ultimately futile hit and run tactics in the Valley Campaign. The legendary convoluted flanking manoeuvres are essentially based on his own account, and accord fully with his adeptness for intrigue and self-aggrandizement that was evident throughout his career.
Stonewall Jackson was a blue eyed killer with a frightening lack of empathy and regard for those he killed and his own men that he impaled in slaughter. His professional conduct became increasingly reckless as his religious narcissism consumed him. The worst kind of military leader.
Stonewall was amazing he coul push his men harder than any other general with his men still loyal in the seven days battle he found himself too close to union pickets so instead of running away he spurred his horse into the middle of the picket and ordered them to lay down their arms and took them prisoner how many generals did that? Old Blue Light was daring and aggressive and planned on northern generals fears and succeeded extremely well because of his knowledge of the union and foresight
All you yanks that posted insults against this great general better pull yer heads out yer asses. The Confederacy was winning EVERY engagement it was in until General Jackson's death. The only General other than Robert E. Himself that was better then Jackson was General George S. Patton Jr.
Trying to quench secession (freedom, liberty and self government) is wrong and it is no wonder that we fought so hard. It is every free man's right. Just like 1776 the south like the colonists before fought with valor and bravery to protect the freedom and liberty of all the south.
Just agreeing that Lincoln was a tyrant and a heathen. The Southern cause for State's Rights was the last chance for freedom in this country. If the history of the USA was true and accurate, it would reflect that the current country began in 1865, not 1776. The original country that began in 1776 definitely ended with Lincoln, his army and the warped view of freedom they all shared.
bcartner 1 month ago in playlist Dixie land
I honestly don't know where the troll featured in this video got his "true history", but it sure wasn't any self-respecting history teacher, North or South. I've flagged all his recent comments as spam, because that's what they are. Historical debate, even impassioned debate, is one thing, but anyone posting here should at least have a basic sense of time. Said troll seems not to know that the Civil War was in the 19th century, Hitler lived in the 20th century, and Sherman is not God.
fearlessfred14 3 months ago
These are the words from Mr. John F. Frost. If anyone is even close to fascism it is the United States of America.
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie nice KKKonfederate propoganda
TThorne931 4 months ago
@TThorne931 Oh! Look! The KKK is holding an American Flag, well hmmmmm. Fascist?
w w w(dot)rulen(dot)com/k k k
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago 3
@DeoVindiceDixie Keep crying commie those boys in the Klan are Reich Confederates just like Colonel Robert E lee
TThorne931 4 months ago
@TThorne931 Stop trolling videos and telling lies. Robert E. Lee didn't want a break up of the USA, but the Yankees under tyrant Lincoln were demanding money, land, and power to subjugate the Confederate people.
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."-Thomas Jefferson
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago 3
@DeoVindiceDixie Thomas jefferson was the Worst President in United States History so to qoute him is as the same to Qoute Hitler. The south Faught for Enslavment . The Holy Abarham lincoln wanted peace in our union . But as the Barbaric legions of the Hunnic South rose up against the Father he swept them away with holy Fury. And LEE hated the United States and never searved a Single day in service or defense of the Homeland
TThorne931 4 months ago
@TThorne931 Lee served the USA in the Mexican-American war. Quoting Thomas Jefferson is not quoting Hitler. I am done with you, you are brainwashed, you idolize the tyrant Abraham Lincoln and call him holy when he is a man and sins. Hunnic? Wrong way to describe the CSA. The CSA only wanted the Status Quo, not to conquer other lands. I can 100% say that you do not know history and should not even have started any such arguments. I am done with your invalid arguments.
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago 4
@DeoVindiceDixie Jefferson was a Coward And A RAPIST . The Holy Abraham hand Comes from the blessed hand of Adams whose blessed ideals spawned the United States. Lee was never in the US armies he was always plotting Treason and to Commit Mass Murder using Terrorists mercinaries he is guilty of Six hundread and twenty thousand counts of Murder and Treason. The CS wanted To conqour the Union and expalnd their Slaver Banner Why else would they occupy 14 US states if not for war .USA uber alles
TThorne931 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You do know that Federal armies invaded the South right? Please tell me the name of a single Northern city or town that was sacked by a Confederate force. How many families in the North faced starvation because of marauding Confederate armies killing all the livestock and burning all the crops. Just name one instance sir.
rabuliz 6 months ago
Death is more acceptable then communism!!!
The patriot act is COMMUNISM!!!
Partyffs 6 months ago
God Bless The country DIXIE with her glory flag-WWE WILL WIN THIS TIME AMEN
Ree01 7 months ago
Had he lived to make it to Gettysburgh the civil war history would be taught allot differently.
MrJpn1996 7 months ago
@MrJpn1996 Man, you hit the ol' proverbial nail right on the head. lol.
FastPonyGT 7 months ago
@MrJpn1996 yes the south would have been devastaed truly and we would have had the right to decimate the Facist Traitors
TThorne931 6 months ago
@TThorne931 Fascist? Seriously? Are you really as ignorant as you sound? You have no concept of what you're even writing about. The world had a taste of fascism in the 20th century and the southern fight for independence can not even be considered in the same context. I just answered my own question. Yes, you are really as ignorant as you sound. As a matter of fact, I doubt you're even from the U.S.A. You really need to study your history a little more before you spout off.
67forceman 6 months ago
@67forceman no i know the Treasnous Fascism of the Reich south . The south did not fight for independence for it had no right to leave the UNITED STATES to wage an illegal war to conquer the Free States of the Union their traitor nazi commanders should had been rounded up and slaughtered for Peace. and yes the south are as evil as the German nazis everyone know this
TThorne931 6 months ago
@TThorne931 You do know that Federal armies invaded the South right? Please tell me the name of a single Northern city or town that was sacked by a Confederate force. How many families in the North faced starvation because of marauding Confederate armies killing all the livestock and burning all the crops. Just name one instance sir.
rabuliz 6 months ago
@rabuliz No the United States Army Entered States of the Union under occupation By Terrorists . and the War of southern Agreesssion Waged War against the UNION nation by occupying 13 US States for their Illegal Rebbellion. And the Union never killed raped or looted the Homes Of Terrorists we broke war morale and devastated Traitors who Hailed Adolph Hitler as their Savior
TThorne931 6 months ago
@TThorne931 Hahaha. I laughed so hard. Are you really this brainwashed to believe this?! Who taught you the history of The War of Northern Aggression?
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie The war was of Southern Aggression Remember who started the War who fired the first shot was the Facist Reich in the south . The Harsh dictator LEE Whose voice calling for racial eradication of all blacks rang on all their Nazi armies marches where they rought death to civilians and raped women . The south and all its evils set up death camps in its territory the premier death camp at andersonville. Then the Holy Sherman army swept away all Reich confederates
TThorne931 4 months ago
@TThorne931
The great mortality among the prisoners arose from epidemics and chronic diseases which our surgeons had not the means of preventing. A large a proportion of the Confederate guard at Andersonville died as of the prisoners themselves. It is also true that while the CSA wanted to exchange prisoners the USA on the other hand refused.
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie Because your nazi doctors were lazy and uneducated only knowing how to disect Allied Troops in their "camps" And who cares why your Traitor gaurd died of they should have all been stealing from the locals to Feed the Soldiers they were illegaly detaining in the Death camps . And We do not negotiate with Terrorists who demand Terrorsits be freed you have no right to Detain the peacekeepers . May sherman damm you to hell Facist
TThorne931 4 months ago
@TThorne931 WOW! The United States declared independence from Great Britain, yet you say Confederates are traitors? Lincoln was more of the dictator who declared war on the CSA without getting the approval from Congress, he didn't care about slaves at all. He wanted the money. The CSA was a freedom loving country, and because of the high tariffs on the South they declared their independence. The fascist ideal wasn't even thought about until the 1880-1900s?
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie "I was orderly of Captain Fogler's company, Nineteenth Maine; was made prisoner at Petersburg in June, 1864, and was at Andersonville eleven months, or until the war ended. There was suffering among the men who were sick, from the lack of medicines and delicacies, but all had their rations as fully and regularly as did the Confederate guard.
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie There were times of scarcity, when supply trains were cut off by the Federal forces; and at such times I have known the guard to offer to buy the prisoners' rations, being very short themselves. On these occasions the guards would take a portion of their scanty supplies from the people of the country to feed the prisoners.
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie The Rebels were anxious to effect an exchange and get the prisoners off their hands, but it was reported and believed among the prisoners that the Federal authorities refused. At one time I was with a detail of three thousand prisoners who were marched two hundred miles to the coast to be exchanged, but it was declined by the Federal authorities, as was reported, and we marched back with no enviable feelings.
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie I believe that the larger share of the responsibility for the suffering in that prison belonged to our own Government. Wirz was harsh and cruel to the prisoners, and deserved hanging. But I believe the Confederate authorities did as well as they could for the prisoners in the matter of clothing, provisions and medicines."
DeoVindiceDixie 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie The Suffering of the prisoners was due to the lazy and immature nature of the Confederate gaurds . The Gaurds didn't even Try to feed them . Why should the Holy Union goverment feed any Traitors. The gaurds should have been nude ,sick and starving to feed and clothe the Peace keepers
TThorne931 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie America Does not negotiate with Terrorists and Traitors . Why should we give any War Criminals to the South to fight against us .
TThorne931 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie The Trains were cut off to not allow Facist Jackboots of the Confederate Legionaries supplies to wage a war. The Gaurds should have shot the People and taken everything from the people
TThorne931 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie So the south was depriving htem of medacine . The guards should have turned to skelatons to feed the Troops .
TThorne931 4 months ago
@DeoVindiceDixie So what of the War of Independence it is no precedent to levy war against the united States. Lincoln was Sent by Christ to Save the union . The CS attacked and slaughtered a Fort garrison en masse. the minute men of '61 Cared for the Slaves . We wanted National unity . The CS was Faicst Dictatorship with no free elections of Constition. To complain about tarrifs is to love England over America so shut your American hating mouth
TThorne931 4 months ago
As a descendent of a veteran of the Jackson's brigade, thank you for sharing this.
macineskar 9 months ago 6
Biographies of General Jackson cite several instances where he educated slaves owned by him and helped them to escape slavery by the Underground Railroad system.
Cionaodh57 9 months ago
Я на ютубе уже писал что четвёртого апреля памятная дата. Хочу и здесь об этом сказать: В этот день чёрные бойцы КША совершили подвиг: 4 апреля 1865 г. в графстве Амелия (Вирджиния) федеральная кавалерия атаковала южный обоз, полностью обеспечиваемый и охраняемый чернокожими пехотинцами из части майора Тернера. Они сопротивлялись до конца, отбили несколько атак, и не были смяты врагом до тех пор, пока не закончились боеприпасы.
TheBlackSkif 10 months ago
@TheBlackSkif What you cite is true. Too bad General Patrick Cleburne's advice recommending this very thing, i.e., arming male slaves in the Confederate States, but much earlier in the war, about the Autumn of 1863 if I am not mistaken. General Johnson and President Jefferson Davis effectively shelved the idea because the major plantation owners felt threatened by the idea.
Cionaodh57 9 months ago
Конфедерация, в отличие от Севера, не знала ни судов Линча, ни концлагерей, и дикие погромы, типа июльского, 1863 г, в Нью-Йорке, когда недовольные введением обязательной воинской повинности громилы растерзали сотни цветных и сожгли множество домов, в т.ч. негритянский детдом (десятки несчастных сирот погибли в пламени), были совершенно немыслимы в КША.
TheBlackSkif 10 months ago
Вот как воевали чёрные южане:Белые и черные милиционеры в равной степения дали отпор войскам Союза в сражении при Грисволдсвилле в Джорджии, при этом погибло более шести сотен стариков и подростков – и белых, и черных.Прославившиеся в той же Джорджии в конце 19 века священники-гуманитарии — верные друзья с юности Александр Харрис и Джордж Двелле доблестно сражались всю войну в рядах 1-го Добровольческого Полка родного штата.
TheBlackSkif 10 months ago
The man was probably a paranoid schizophrenic, a sword in one hand and a Bible in the other, believing with the deranged "prophets" of old that if he slaughtered thousands, it was with the hearty approval and glad assistance of the Almighty. He was also what some Freudians call "a necrotic personality." In a curious way, he symbolized the violent insanity of "thuh glawruss cawze." No wonder the Secessionist crowd practically worshiped him.
shaneu1 10 months ago
@shaneu1 research before you post.
nagel133 9 months ago
The South requested many times for the Sumter garrison to leave. Buchanan refused. When a nation declares itself independent, they must make their sovereignty recognized. They had few options but to take action. And still, in the end, no lives were lost.
Gbpfbftw 1 year ago
"Happy Birthday" 'Stonewall', today on the 187th anniversary of your birthday. Loved by all Southerners, God Bless You. You will not be forgotten! Red Roses for you gravesite....
SoBelleofTN 1 year ago 10
Happy 187th birthday
General Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
January 21
smrt1111111111111 1 year ago 3
My nuts itch.
PuddlesMcNiggley 1 year ago
@PuddlesMcNiggley Scratch 'em!
67forceman 11 months ago
@PuddlesMcNiggley Too big, need a rake.
PuddlesMcNiggley 11 months ago
The Constitution died at Appomattox.
Ripley44mag 1 year ago 27
@Ripley44mag I think it actually died when Lincoln took office.
littlewilma22 1 year ago
@Ripley44mag No, precisely the opposite. It was vindicated.
shaneu1 10 months ago
@Ripley44mag wrong its Columbia South Carolina in 1860 and sumter
TThorne931 6 months ago
Man "Stonewall" Jackson was a American hero yankee & rebel.
Patriot5251 1 year ago
I am a GREAT ADMIRER of T.J. Jackson! However, I find it interesting that BUT FOR the CW -- Jackson would have remained an obscure, eccentric professor of mathematics and artillery tactics at VMI.
Perhaps it is true that there no great men -- just ordinary men who rise to meet great challenges!
Pillboxesghost 1 year ago
The north had barely any good generals, unlike the south Lee,Jackson, Longstreet, Picket, Stuart, and many more brave men
confederate21181 1 year ago 2
Stonewall jackson was probaly the best general in the civil war but he was shot on accident by one of his own men!Im pretty sure if stonewall hadent died so early on in the war then that shit sherman pulled with raping women and burning innocent peoples home down wouldnt have happend .
254core1 1 year ago 3
You know I've always wanted to put up a certain commonwealth oh yea.....UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL!!! God bless both yun rebels an' yankees.
Stalfos23 1 year ago
@Stalfos23 We cannot stand together as long as we are two completely different and incompatible cultures. It is only a matter of time before we secede again and, if need be, fight for our independence.
TheBoberton 1 year ago
@TheBoberton would be nice if'n the fact that there would be a way so that we all could be compatible. There probably is just kindly hard to figure out a way not yet been seen.
Stalfos23 1 year ago
@Stalfos23 As long as north and south are one, there will never be compatibility. The north may take over here with the millions that migrate down here every year, but as long as the southern culture lives, we will always want out.
TheBoberton 1 year ago 2
@TheBoberton Want out? You mean seperate into two individual places rather than keep together as one country. Am I right?
Stalfos23 1 year ago
@Stalfos23 Yes you are. I have nothing against the north. It's just that, to tell the truth, D.C. wants to control everything. They are just as bad as a monarch across the Atlantic.
TheBoberton 1 year ago 2
@TheBoberton actually I'm neither north nor south even though I got bored and took a test for fun to find out what I am more. Reb or Yank. I'm mostly reb 166%. According to the first test I'm 66% Dixie and the other said 100% dixie. Plus I'm gonna have to say amen to that with the D.C. thing.
Stalfos23 1 year ago
Only fools talk of slaves. . . The war was more about representation and taxes. As both sides had slaves at the time.
Kerethuk 1 year ago 2
@Kerethuk No, no...you miss the point. Sure both sides had slaves. The war didn't begin because of slavery, admitted. But the war ENDED because of the stance that Lincoln took on it. It is immaterial that even slavery existed in the north. Once the mandate came down, it was ONLY the north that was going to respect the new edict, so you see, in that sense it was ALL about slavery. Either way...the right team won because it DID free the slaves.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee Would you like to tell me how the war ended because of the stance Lincoln took on slavery? The war started because the South fired on Ft. Sumter after illegal secession from the Union. Lincoln then went to war to preserve the Union. The emancipation proclamation was an after thought and a ploy to keep the Brits and French out of the war. The CSA had been lobbying both Countries for aid and recognition as an independent nation. Both refused primarily based on the slavery issue
686204 1 year ago
@686204 All I can say is thank goodness European countries already had slavery in their rear-view mirrors by then, historically speaking. Had they still seen the efficacy of slavery perhaps they would have been more inclined to recognize the Confederate states as a new nation. Look...I don't expect that people had the same feelings about slavery back then as now, but I still don't see how it could ever be explained away. States' rights: "right to own slaves." Period. Glad the north won.
rickcee 1 year ago
@686204 The war started because of the acts of war that Lincoln committed. He wasn't about preserving the union, but for preserving his agenda and he needed the southern states to remain in the union to preserve his agenda.
littlewilma22 1 year ago
@littlewilma22 Tell me what acts of war Lincoln committed to start the war. Since you seem to know everything Lincoln was thinking back then tell me what was his agenda. I give you one point we did need the Southern states to remain in the Union I will not argue that point. I wouldn't mind hearing your views on what the agenda of the Southern aristocracy was when they had their states secede.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 One act of war was the setting up of the blockades. The other was not only his refusal to remove his men from a fort on South Carolina soil, but sending in provisions accompanied by warships. Lincoln wanted the same things the Whig party had wanted-protectionist tariffs, a nationalized bank and subsidies for "internal improvements".
littlewilma22 1 year ago
@littlewilma22 First off the blockades were set up after the war was started. The South started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter a Federal Fort located on Federal Land legally purchased from South Carolina. They had every right to be there. What someone wants and someone gets are two different things. The South seceded before Lincoln even took office how did they know what he would do. The south seceded base on the fear that the North would take steps to abolish slavery nothing more nothing less
686204 1 year ago
@rickcee In Lincoln's Emancipation Proclomation, slavery was only ended in the states that had seceded. He left slavery in place in the states that had remained in the union until the war was nearing it's completion. The war ended because the south did not have the manpower or industry that the north did. They were overwhelmed.
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Lincoln could not really end slavery in any of the southern states that were still occupied by Southern Troops he had no authority. However all slaves that escaped southern oppression when Northern troops entered their region were freed there were thousands of them that took advantage of it. All slaves both North and South were officially freed in June of 1865 with the implementation of the 13th amendment.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 You're right. He had no authority to free the slaves so he implemented a tool of war and called them "contraband". Slaves were still regarded as property and as a confederate war asset, their labor was denied to the south by the emancipation proclomation. Lincoln used every tool at his disposal to meet his stated goals. His personal goal of maintaining the union was to make war on the south. There was never a law forbiding secession until after the war. The same with slavery.
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Technically there was never a law passed after teh war outlawing secession either. They probably didn't want to pass one b/c if they did they would be admitting that secession was legal before hand.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch There may not have been a law passed after the war outlawing secession but the Supreme court in 1869 ruled that secession was illegal. However on the same point after the war they arrested Davis and charged him with treason. They never brought him to trial I believe it never happened because they knew it would bring up the issue of whether or not secession was legal. The North did not want to open that can of worms in a court for obvious reasons.
686204 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch For that matter the Constitution had a built in remedy for resolving disagreements between States and the Federal Government. It was called the Supreme Court. Both sides had the opportunity to seek a ruling on the issue of secession from the Supreme Court and neither chose to take that road because they were afraid of the decision. Instead they went the way of war too bad a lot of good men died because of it.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 First, Texas v. White was 1868, not 1869. Second, just because the Supreme Court says something doesn't make it correct. Both Lincoln and Andrew Jackson believed that each branch of the government could interpret the Constitution for itself. The Supreme Court's rulings were only to affect the Federal Courts. Bear in mind that the Court often overturns itself (Plessy one year, Brown v. Board 56 years later).
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch I hate to disagree with your history professor but just what was so controversial about the Revolutionary war? I would like to point out that British subjects living in Canada at the time did not deem it necessary and they achieved their Independence later through peaceful means. Most wars are "Rich mans war and a poor mans fight", it was the case in the Revolutionary war and the Civil war both were unnecessary.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 The Revolution was controversial b/c the Colonies claimed that the British had no right to do what they were doing, but the British Parliament claimed they had every right to do so. The British Constitution is based on custom and tradition, so when the British government began doing things they had never done before, it seemed like oppression, but Parliament claimed the ultimate power to interpret custom, givint it a blank check to do whatever it pleased.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch With regard to the American Revolution you said the Colonies claimed that the British had no right to do what they were doing yet at the beginning of that war approx 1/3 of the colonies population was still loyal to the Crown. Colonial militia battalions fought along side the Brits against the Revolutionaries. At the end of the war the United Empire Loyalists packed it up and left for Canada or went back to Britain.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Yes, 1/3. The Colonial Assemblies were controlled by the majority of voters. The majority of voters felt that the British violated the British Constitution hence why the assemblies voted for independence..
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch In fact The United Empire Loyalists and their descendants were highly instrumental in Canada receiving her Independence through peaceful means. The Declaration of indecency stated all men were created equal but that only applied to white men right. The thing was that a good number of Revolutionists who drafted the Declaration were slave owners. The War was a case of the wealthy few influencing the majority and it was totally unnecessary.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Also, as my US Constitution and Legal history professor pointed out, some constitutional controversies are so great that the only way to solve them is to have a war. The Revolution for example was a debate about the exent of Britain's power over the Colonies and the only way to resolve that debate was to have a war.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch Both were were started because of wealthy influential peoples financial greed or quest for power. Google "War is a racket" and see what most wars are all about. As for the date for the Supreme Courts decision on secession when I went to school they told us it was made in 1869. Supreme Court cannot change a law either but it was designed to bring matters that need attention for government action. If the government ignores their recommendations they're open to public criticism
686204 1 year ago
@686204 You're right about the date, I just checked my textbook. Maybe the case started in 1868, idk. But the Supreme Court kinda has changed law and gone outside its jurisdiciton. In Marbury v. Madison the Court never claimed to have the power to affect the actions of the other branches. Its decisions were only binding on the lower courts to follow. If a law was deamed unconstitutional, then the courts would refuse to hear lawsuits based on that law.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@686204 About secession itself, go to the Constitution and tell me where it mentions secession. The most you'll find is the goal in the preamble of making a "more Perfect Union," but if the government has to use force to keep that union together, I would say that the Constitution failed in its goal. General Lee hated secession, but then went on to say that he did not want to be in a union held together with rifles and bayonets.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch I view the Constitution as a legal contract between the States and the Federal Government. Under common law no party can unilaterally break a contract on its own authority unless specified in the contract. If you broke a legal contact with a bank do you not think they would be taking you to court over it. General Lee was a great soldier but he fought for the Southern aristocracy who's whole way of living was Dependant on slavery. In fact he was part of that aristocracy.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 And the Southern states felt that the Federal Government and the Northern states had violated the Constitution, justifying them in seceeding. Also, as I said before, the Constitution is silent on secession, so one could argue that under the 10th Amd that makes secession legal since the "contract" gives states any power not given to the Fed Gov. When VA, MA, and NY ratified the Constitution, they even said that if the Fed abused its power, they would deratify the Constitution.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch It could be viewed that way except in a contract the fact remains that unless specifically specified no one can unilaterally break the contract. The power is in the contract between the states and the Federal government it is a joint power for both to live up to the intent of the contract. It all boils down to interpretation on the legality of secession and legal experts have been arguing for and against since the start of the CW.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 My argument is that the south chose war to settle their differences with the Union rather than legal options available to it ie taking it to the Supreme Court for a ruling. For that matter the North could have done the same. I am against war and I gave my reasons when I asked to you google "war is a racket" because most wars fit into the category of "rich man's war and a poor man's fight". The Civil war was a prime example in my opinion.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I will agree that the war itself was an argument over the legality of secession. I actually don't think that the Supreme Court would be of much help since it can only rule on something when a law was brought into question. Since there was no law saying a state can't secede, the South really couldn't bring suit. All they could do is secede and hope that some lawsuit would arise which would eventually lead to the S.C.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch Well as I stated before I feel the Constitution is a legal contract between the Feds and the States. If it wasn't why have one in the first place. Under the terms of a legal contract as previously mentioned the North could have taken issue with the South for breaking the contract. It then would have been up to the South to justify their breaking of the contract. I personally feel that both sides were afraid to approach the Supreme Court in case they lost.
686204 1 year ago
Texas v. White for example was over the validity of bonds bought during the CW, but such a suit was impossible until the War was over. I also agree that the war was a rich man's war, poor man's fight. When asked why he was fighting, the average Southern soldier would reply "because you're down here." Also, thank you for engaging me in a civil debate as opposed to other youtubers who are obnoxious and vulgar.
FreiherrvonTersch 1 year ago
@FreiherrvonTersch The South's fatal error was firing on Ft. Sumter it forced the issue by gun and gave the North its justification to do like wise. Anyway we both see it differently and I also enjoyed our little debate, all the best.
686204 1 year ago
@67forceman Again either I wasn't clear or you missed the point. He didn't have to end slavery anywhere BUT the states that had seceded. It was already dying of attrition in the north. There was no way slavery was going to be tolerated anywhere after the south finally lost. Lincoln was a genius. He deliberately soft-pedaled the Emancipation Proclamation just that way. The only parable I can think of is the way Communism ended in the Soviet...let it crumble under its own weight.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee I see the point you want to make but the fact remains that Lincon himself stated that if he could have preserved the union by keeping slavery intact, he would have left it stand. Lincoln never soft pedaled anything. He utilized the proclomation to legally (in the northern occupied territory) deprive the south of the use of slaves because up until then, UNION officers returned runaway slaves to their owners. It was a tool of war that fit his own beliefs. Coincidence?
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Horseshit. Lincoln was very much against slavery and you know it. But he was a realist and felt he couldn't ram emancipation down everyone's throat and win reelection. He felt he had to win reelection to hold the union together. But you are obviously a southerner still fighting the war. You should be more like Shelby Foote--a son of the south who KNEW that the Union cause was just and that Lincoln was a genius.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee Rickie! such foul language! This is forum not a bar. And for your information, I am a northerner! You make broad assumptions and slanders the same as you infer someone's beliefs without knowledge. I have never viewed Lincoln as anything but an intelligent man and I'm sure he didn't put his reelection campaign beside his beliefs in slavery. You get too personal buddy when someone puts up an alternative opinion. Calm down! You can voice an opion without getting foul, we'll here you out.
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Wow, what are you in the seminary? Never heard the term "horseshit" before? Sheesh.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee LOL, no not in the seminary but I just don't get foul if I can help it. Sometimes that takes a lot of effort!
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Well, I never mean to offend, but I guess I do get a little hot under the collar.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee no worries, we all get worked up from time to time, myself included. Everybody has an opion and a right to espouse it. The greatness of our country at work, no matter it's failings, we eventually get it right.
67forceman 1 year ago
@rickcee "If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave I would" Lincoln. Lincoln on many occasions also declared that "people confuse me for a abolitionist". While I like Lincoln's kindness to animals and yes he was a genius (you had to be to get people believing the lying shit he said) . The Union course wasn't just but you are a great example of lies being believed.
Colton8646 9 months ago
Dude, the song you put in...weird sound. Can you fix it somehow?
Oh, and by the way, STONEWALL JACKSON FTW! And this is someone from Illinois, a Union state.
TheCursedChosen1 1 year ago
Thank you for the tribute to a great man
TonyRomo719 1 year ago 2
i dont like the confederate army put i have to give props to stonewall Jackson for being a great technician
TheSquirrrleboy 1 year ago
No doubt, he was the tactician who made Lee great. Lee without him was never as great as he had been before the whacky godbot was killed at Chancellorsville. Great a tactician as he was, though, he fought for "states rights" and the "states rights" southerners were fighting for were the rights to own slaves. Sure, the north was aggressive and cruel. Sure it overtaxed and levied unfair tariffs on the south. But guess what? YOU CAN'T FUCKING OWN A SLAVE, SO TOO BAD. THE RIGHT TEAM WON.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee you have no idea what you are talking about. It is a matter of historical fact that Jackson established the first church for blacks in Lexington in the 1850's and personally looked in on them for their spiritual betterment. He went against the laws of the time that disallowed blacks to read to the point of nearly facing a court. He was the most pious man in the confederate army that believed wholly in God's will that the war must be fought. He cared only about serving God, not man.
67forceman 1 year ago 31
@67forceman Serving who? What's a god?
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee 67 is Right and you just a pig ignorant asshole
TootsyJackson 1 year ago
@rickcee If you don't believe in God, you have that choice, but you had better be right!
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Hahaha....so you ADMIT that your belief is based on superstition! See, that's the thing about you religiosos. You cover your asses with this nonsense. Get in the game. Use the intelligence you were born with, not the fairytales Mommy and Daddy, out of love, thought best to teach you. They were doing what they thought was right, but let's face it. It's just crap that comes down through generations. It's nonsense. Hang onto heritage if you must, but please...belief in a god?
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee Again, your choices are your own. I don't denigrate your beliefs or make sneering remarks about you. I can go that route too, but why? You obviously have a lot of anger about this issue which doesn't even affect you. The war was over long ago.
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Yet the side he was on lost the war, Go figure.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 Yes, the side he fought on lost but you must remember that as long as he lived, Lee never lost a battle that he and Jackson collaborated in. When Jackson died, he was at the zenith of his fame and Lee never again won a decisive victory because no other commander could do so much with so little in the way Jackson could
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman Politics and religion don't mix god does not take sides. He may have been a great commander but it had nothing to do with god. I hate it when people start bringing religion into political affairs. He have us free will and we are answerable to him when our time comes. That was my only point.
686204 1 year ago
@686204 I understand. However in the context of the time, Jackson was deeply religious. He was a Presbyterian elder and his whole existence was in serving God. In his view, God decreed that the war must be waged and that was what sustained him throughout the war. His greatness as a field commander he attributed to God's blessings and he desired no recognition even to the point of writing letters to his pastor urging them not to give credit for his victories to himself.
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman That's absolutely something I agree with. Jackson, crazy as he apparently was, was also very cunning and smart. Lee was not the same general without him, and he knew it. I doubt that the blunder of all blunders (Pickett's Charge) could have ever happened if Jackson hadn't bought it at Chancellorsville. He would have talked Bobby out of it in a second--something Longstreet couldn't do.
rickcee 1 year ago
@rickcee Jackson always believed in separating a larger force and attacking the smallest part of it. He believed that by doing that, a larger force could be beaten in detail making the smaller army's morale soar and thus making it unbeatable. You're right, had he been at Gettysburg, he would probably have continued the attack of the first day through the town and onto cemetary ridge. He would not have given them time to prepare defenses.
67forceman 1 year ago
@67forceman And by the same token, had Grant been the commander at Gettysburg for the north instead of Meade, it may have ended the war, because he probably would have pursued the ragtag remnants of the rebel army all the way back to, and across, the Rappahannock, and not simply let them lick their wounds after the failed Pickett's Charge only to regroup and fight on for another 18 months.
rickcee 1 year ago
@67forceman Я полностью согласен вами! Официальная история утверждает что Север якобы за освобождение рабов воевал, но это ложь. Янки хотели отобрать у Юга его землю и богатства, душили Юг экономической политикой, пошлинами. Как говорит русская пословица: Драли по три шкуры!А народ Юга, чёрные и белые южане плечом к плечу сражались против агрессии севера, за свою родину, за свободу, за право самим выбирать свою судьбу и судьбу своих детей как подобает свободным людям.
TheBlackSkif 10 months ago
@67forceman accept he was a traitor who committed treason and fought against the father and the nation he rose a blade against God blessed armies of the union he burns in hell for his treason god bless the soldier that took his arm away the fucker didn't deserve to die
TThorne931 6 months ago
@TThorne931 Ok stupid. You really need to proof read your post before you hit the "post" button. If you don't like confederate history you can go to any of the pro-union videos. But no, your dumb ass wants to put some childish and conflicting statement like you posted above for whatever reason only your simple minded ass can understand. Go back to the video games and let the grown ups discuss what you obviously can not fathom ( That means understand ).
67forceman 6 months ago
@67forceman no i shall remain on you videos supporting genocide and racial extermination of a people based soley on the color of the skin .. I will remain as long as idiots think the South fought for anything but an illegal war to conquer the Free states . I will remain as long as anyone wishes to revive a empire of nazi fascists
TThorne931 6 months ago
@67forceman Fuck your nazi belifs The War Of Southern agression truth needs to be told and the Unionist Flag Paraded over the Traitors . Remember how Sherman Spared Atlanta and columbia so kindly and did not en mass kill all traitorous miltia he found even after your side committed War Crimes and used landmines on children
TThorne931 6 months ago
@67forceman except he was a rapist and a racist forcing himself on his slaves and then shooting the men who tried to stop them . he was an Atheist profligating false religion called protostanism . The Confederate Army believed in the Defense of Enslavment and to Murder US army Troopers
TThorne931 4 months ago
down with federalism rise confederacy did you know general pattons battle plans based mostly on general jackson and general lee
conservativegreen 1 year ago
Sherman was a murdering bastard that indiscriminately burned and raped. Truly a prolific war criminal that never had to answer to the horrible things he ordered done.
ItNice26 1 year ago 3
Stonewall was a true American badass. I would follow Stonewall into the jaws of hell.
ItNice26 1 year ago 2
he is my great great uncle
rno5rno9 1 year ago
he is my great great uncle
rno5rno9 1 year ago
@rno5rno9 no isnt cause he didnt have kids his sister had babies but eventually the there was no more future generations after that so techincally no one is relatied to him
killnuknow 1 year ago
@killnuknow Jackson and his second wife Anna did have a baby girl that survived to adulthood. Her name was Julia in honor of his sister. Jackson died before the little girl was a year old and eventually when the girl reached adulthood she discarded the name Julia because of the way her aunt viciously scorned her father during the war. As for Jackson's daughter having children, I am unaware of any because the young woman died when she was about 25.
67forceman 1 year ago
great video and song. thanks for putting it together
goose246 1 year ago
great man, a true hero, and brian, what would you have done if you heard horses coming from the yankee line and had no knowlage that jackson was preparing to begain a night assault??
johnnyreb1863 1 year ago
curse the guys that killed him
brianlamlf 1 year ago
@brianlamlf He died of pneumonia, which he got because he was shot by his own soldiers. The guy who shot Jackson, was doing his duty.
I think Jackson himself would had said: "This is what God wanted, nobody is guilty of anything"
ViccardXViccc 1 year ago
Gen. Jackson was a great general. His tactics are still taught and used on the modern battle field. He was a man of great character far beyond his peers with the possible exception of Gen. Lee. If we had more men like Stonewall we wouldn't be on the verge of being a third world country. Freedom ended on April 09, 1865. By the way AWESOME video.
Keliken 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Take Stonewall out of the valley and he was no mean a genius. Some say, that his early death assured his status as a great general.
keystonethomas1962 1 year ago
Um, no. The way he conducted his men in battle, and the way he strategized in AND out of the Valley made him a Genious. Should he had survived, Dixie would be its own country. He fought more battles and WON out of the Valley.
Viggorn 1 year ago 2
@keystonethomas1962 If he didnt die, historians say the south would have won.
BigSlimJimmy 1 year ago 2
@BigSlimJimmy
Selby Foote himself said the South were never going to win. Lincoln wanted a prolonged war so it didn't look like he was excising the South which was what he was really doing. Thousands of men died to make Lincoln look innocent.
wikiriwhi 1 year ago
0:26........that painting says it all. Jackson was totally focused on the objective. he had no time for whining. he was a true professional. consider youreselves fortunate he didnt go north!! you would have have been in a tangle for sure!
acerb45666555 1 year ago 2
I am reading his biography, aside from being an interesting figure to studty, I get the STRONG impression that he was a lethally dangerous man and a rightly feared man to his enemies. mess with him and you will get bloodied bad. they feared him.
blumenthol 2 years ago 2
I think Stone Wall Jackson was a very good man and james Longstreet.
And this is coming from a black man.
LordofThegoonies 2 years ago 3
Stonewall was also a stupendous administrator. His units had the fewest deserters and by far the best marching discipline. He ran circles around Pope in the Valley with 1/3 the manpower. His logistical skills were also notoriously sound and he made efficient use of his artillery.
Stonewall had very few weaknesses as a infantry commander. Offensively I wouldn't take anyone over Stonewall.
But defensively I would take Longstreet.
ItNice26 2 years ago 2
I would take Stonewall in either situations, he was a great general, defensive or offensive.
MiniInloesteam 2 years ago 3
Longstreet's defense formations on Mayre's Heights in Fredericksburg was flawless. Stonewall's 2nd Corps was designed for attacking. His largest division under A.P. Hill was considered Light Infantry. Light Infantry moved fast and carried less. They were not equipped well enough to undertake prolonged defense.
Stonewall was more or less the commander of shock infantry. Fierce and quick attacks on opponents flanks.
When the enemy was overrun the units could resupply with the dead left behind.
ItNice26 2 years ago 2
In a supportive role Jackson was singularly inept. Lee himself an exceptionally poor co-ordinator of his staff officers, eventually cut Jackson adrift by the end of 1862 to function as a more or less autonomous commander. In this capacity he was as much a murderous threat to his own troops as to Union. Both Lee and Jackson profited from the initial timidity of Northern forces that surrendered defensive positions too readily, but still at great cost to Southern strength.
johnsammyanfal 2 years ago
@johnsammyanfal the fact is Jackson was superb on the offensive and defensive. His tactics in the Valley kept 52,000 reinforcements away from Richmond, he conducted sterling defenses at Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, and Fredericksburg, and the flank attack at Chancellorsville is still considered one of the great military successes of all time. Most of this he did in tandem with Lee. Pope and Burnside both tried aggressive tactics but they failed as much as Hooker and McLellan's timidity.
Braincase43 2 years ago
The misnomer of stonewall suggests a strong defensive commander. Jackson in fact gained his reputation in the aggressive and yet ultimately futile hit and run tactics in the Valley Campaign. The legendary convoluted flanking manoeuvres are essentially based on his own account, and accord fully with his adeptness for intrigue and self-aggrandizement that was evident throughout his career.
johnsammyanfal 2 years ago
johnsammyanfal...either you don't know your history, or you have an agenda. He was one of the greatest of all our generals.
elcash53 2 years ago
Stonewall Jackson was a blue eyed killer with a frightening lack of empathy and regard for those he killed and his own men that he impaled in slaughter. His professional conduct became increasingly reckless as his religious narcissism consumed him. The worst kind of military leader.
johnsammyanfal 2 years ago
Stonewall was amazing he coul push his men harder than any other general with his men still loyal in the seven days battle he found himself too close to union pickets so instead of running away he spurred his horse into the middle of the picket and ordered them to lay down their arms and took them prisoner how many generals did that? Old Blue Light was daring and aggressive and planned on northern generals fears and succeeded extremely well because of his knowledge of the union and foresight
civilwaronezeroone 2 years ago
happy birthday!
REfanboys1 2 years ago
A great tribute to a man who is too often overlooked.
PompousFlea 2 years ago
I do sincerely "Thank You" for this awesome video of a Real American Hero. Thank you so very much,well done.
whipkeys 2 years ago
All you yanks that posted insults against this great general better pull yer heads out yer asses. The Confederacy was winning EVERY engagement it was in until General Jackson's death. The only General other than Robert E. Himself that was better then Jackson was General George S. Patton Jr.
confederatewerewolf 2 years ago 4
Trying to quench secession (freedom, liberty and self government) is wrong and it is no wonder that we fought so hard. It is every free man's right. Just like 1776 the south like the colonists before fought with valor and bravery to protect the freedom and liberty of all the south.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
I agree. Technicly the Union marching troops to Bull Run was unconstitutional. There wasn't a congress consent at that point, if I remember right.
confederatewerewolf 2 years ago 13