Відео

Yes, it quite clearly demonstrates the odiotic hypocrisy of being a 'good christian' while at the same time owning human beings as property. Notice the angelic choir music playing during Jacksons prayer. That's some classy shit right there...

Watch your mouth son cause your going to be in big trouble yall.

Your ignorant to handle the truth.

Sounds like you're seeing what you want to see and expecting black people to have to act a certain way and hold certain beliefs and are angry you're seeing one that doesn't. That says more about you than it does the film. The only one spreading propaganda here is you. Aside from the fact that the idea of slavery being a bad thing is barely 150 years old - it was practiced by literally every civilization in history and was accepted as normal in every one of them, so if anything it can be argued *we* are the ones with questionable ideas about it, the fact is there was nothing propaganda related about this film. It was written from the confederate point of view, just like the intended sequel would have been written from the union one. Yet somehow I doubt you would be accusing that film of being pro union propaganda and you're forgetting that plenty of free black people lived in the south and supported the confederacy. It was their home too, but people like to forget that

@@JS-wp4gs HOLY Shit! ... What you had to say was SO remarkably stupid, I Can't really tell if your post was Satire, or just plain trolling. "Aside from the fact that the idea of slavery being a bad thing is barely 150 years old - it was practiced by literally every civilization in history and was accepted as normal in every one of them, so if anything, it can be argued we are the ones with questionable ideas about it," So, you are literally making an argument FOR SLAVERY. You are basically saying "HEY, who are WE to say that slavery was SUCH a bad thing?! Maybe those black folks didn't mind at ALL seeing their brethren IN CHAINS." You are one embarrassing, sick F*ck, and a clear reminder of the kind of people that like this movie.

Are you SLAVERY APOLOGIST??? DO you think that this STUPID film- that avoids showing actual slavery and instead gives us this happy go lucky "HELP"- is an honest depiction of what happened? Listening to Neackbeards like you only solidifies my belief about what TRASH this movie is and the embarrassing idiots it appeals to.

What? No this is an amazing film

@@TheRealMediaMan This movie was absolute trash. It was terribly written and come across as neo-confederate propaganda. A romanticized take on the antimbellum South is far from unheard of, but the happy-go-lucky and almost grateful demeanor of the "help" here - while IGNORING the horror of SLAVERY- is incredibly offensive and dishonest.

Too many are enslaved by the past that advancement is futile.

Now both black and white are being enslaved by an out-of-control and illegitimate federal government. Time for both ethnicities to band together to ward off the current invasion of the fedgov into the states!!!

Agreed. Doing so, necessitates remembering the past, so we don’t repeat it.

Was Nate Cole a real person or someone the author made up?

@@bradcouch457 I’m pretty sure he’s a fictional character

@@charleskimball7058 Have you read all of Jeff Shaara history novels?

@@bradcouch457 I’ve read most of them.

@@charleskimball7058 I've read all his novels, including his dad's novel about Gettysburg, The Killer Angels.

Why?

@@infinitecanadian because people are believing this shit actually happened 🤦🏾‍♂️. That slaves where all supporters of the confederates and thought the Union was a invading force plus confederate slave owners being all “kind and nice” to their slaves 🤮. That might be true in a *very few instances* but hardly in all 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@intello8953 It did happen.

@@infinitecanadian what happened? This specific interaction? Or slaves *genuinely* believed in the good of the confederates and considered the Union actual invaders and supporters of tyranny of something? *when ironically they are literal cattle slaves to their confederate slaves masters* haha. Btw when this John Lewis character was praying “Lord how is it a good Christian man, like some folks I know, can tolerate their black brothers in bondage? How is it Lord they don’t just break them chains”. Which is what the Union eventually did and the confederates *never* wanted to do and wanted to keep slavery forever I guess, especially how they viewed black people in those times as less then human or not even human at all but a different “species” then humans 🤦🏾‍♂️

@@intello8953 Either way, you do not speak for them.

Well you could've signed his freedom papers

@@johndenver373 I would have if it be my place to do so.

Who taught your slave to read and write? Isn't that illegal?

That's just all Atun-Shei Films' cronies and Northern liberals. People like him will take any movie that doesn't depict Confederate soldiers as evil racists and deems it pro Confederate propaganda.

@@stonewalljackson5692 yeah I used to listen to him but once I realized he was full of crap I stopped listening, the sad thing is many see him as the authoritative voice on the Civil War on UA-cam. It’s pathetic

@@GretaVanZeppelin1996 his video on which side had the better generals was complete garbage. Bedford Forrest he doesn’t assess militarily but morally He blames Lee for losing a larger fraction of his army, despite inflicting more casualties against a much bigger opponent , whilst trying to argue the point the north’s win wasn’t about numerical advantage. Massive contradiction, if a general inflicts more damage than he takes against a large force but still lost a bigger percent of his own army you’re LITERALLY proving numerical advantage was the main reason. Can’t watch his stuff after that video

@@archivesoffantasy5560 That video was so full of nonsense. He referred to me as a "one trick pony" but didn't say anything about Grant. All Grant did was throw lines of his men at enemies.

@@archivesoffantasy5560 Forrest.........ah yes.........he was the man I had the 3rd highest respect for after my brothers Lee and Stuart.

That’s why so many Free Black Men from Canada,Europe, Africa and United States of American ran the blockade or crossed the battle lines to fight for the Confederacy…

@@bryanwiedeman3154 you are trolling, aren't you?

@@blaugranisto yes, I was making fun of the absurdity of the Black Confederate myth

@@bryanwiedeman3154I had to ask because apparently, a lot of people do believe in it! Blows my mind to even have to ask about it if I'm honest

Well..... yes. Most know this.

It tells a bigger picture than your slavery narrative.

@@MeadeSkeltonMusic 'your slavery narrative'...like the entire point of the war wasn't the about the future of slavery.

That is just the History they want you to know. Any Intellectually honest Historian will tell you Lincoln didn't love the slaves and he didn't invade the South to free the slaves. Twice Lincoln was willing to sell the slaves out for revenue. Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address three important things. First, Lincoln stated that he would not bother slavery in the States where it already existed. He said he had no Authority or Legal Right to do so. Secondly Lincoln stated that their doesn't have to be bloodshed if the States paid their Taxes and Duties. That was a threat Lincoln made good at the Cost according to new studies conservatively 850,000 Americans Deaths. Last and this is very important. Lincoln said he supported the Legislation that would allow slavery to continue in States where it already existed. It was called the Corwin Amendment or Lincoln's First 13th Amendment. At the end of the Buchanan Administration Buchanan wanted to help the incoming Lincoln Administration keep the remaining Southern States. He asked his Legislators to come up with something that may do that. They came up with the Corwin Amendment. It was only Voted on by Northern Representatives. The Congress Voted on the Amendment on February 28,1861 and the Senate on March 2,1861 two days before Lincoln was Sworn in as President. Lincoln offered the Amendment to the Southern States about 10 days before Beauregard fired on Ft. Sumter. If the Southern States would Ratify the Amendment it would secure slavery in the Constitution. The South declined. If the South Seceded for slavery why fire a shot? The Second time Lincoln was willing to sell the slaves out for Revenue was actually the Emancipation Proclamation. In the Original Emancipation Proclamation read on September 22,1862 Lincoln stated that if the Southern States would come back to the Union by January 1,1863 they could keep their slaves. Slaves would only be Emancipated in the States that continued to Rebel. If the South was fighting the war to keep slavery that meant the South won the war and all those Union Soldiers died in vain. All the Southern States had to do was come back. When not one Southern State came back Lincoln omitted the offer. This is how they sorta lie in History Books. They usually say Lincoln Signed and Issued the Proclamation on January 1,1863 which Lincoln did. Also Lincoln didn't free slaves in Northern States which some like New Jersey had slavery. Lincoln didn't free slaves in Border States and parts of Louisiana and Tennessee where the Union Army was Occupying. Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves where he had Authority to do so? Then there are Official Documents that never stated one word about slavery. Lincoln repeatedly stated in his War Proclamations and his Letters and Addresses to Congress that his war was over a Tax Rebellion and a Tax Revolt not one word about slavery. The Congress issued a Official Statement on July 22,1861 telling the World that Lincoln's War was not over freeing the slaves. This is their Official Statement Word for Word. Resolve that this war is not a Prosecuted upon our part as of a mean Spirit of Oppression or Subjugation or purpose to overthrow the Right's or Established Institutions of those States. How could the war be about something that was mentioned for almost two years into the War. It was a good thing that in the end the slaves were freed but that had nothing to do with Lincoln's illegal Invasion of the South. You have to remember four Southern States didn't Secede until Lincoln started raising a Army to invade the South. Virginia and Tennessee were two of them and they raised the two biggest armies for the South. Stonewall hinself said it perfectly in his First Speech to the Army of the Shenandoah. This isn't word for word but it is close. We would not raise Armies to invade the States of others and terrorize their citizens nor will we allow the States of others to raise Armies to invade our States and terrorize our citizens. That is why the Southern Soldier's fought. They fought to defend their homes and neighbors and state against a raping, murdering, burning and pillaging invading Army.

Not true.

@@kurtsherrick2066 Isn't history interesting, when you manage to find things that made it past the narratives? Pesky little things...facts and evidence...

@@kurtsherrick2066 wall of text

@@kurtsherrick2066 Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong. Lincoln always wanted to free the slaves. We know he did, it's an indisputable fact. Second, you clearly know nothing about politics. If Lincoln had gotten up during his inauguration and said that he wanted to free every slave, which wasn't even within his authority to do so, the border states would have gone over to the Confederacy and the war would have been lost. Freeing the slaves would have been a moot point. He'd be sitting idly by while slavery spread into the West and into Central America. Do you even know what the Corwin Amendment said? Have you read it? It said that slavery would protected "within the States". It made no mention of the territories. If you knew anything of antebellum politics, which again you clearly don't, you'd know that this was the Republican plan all along. To limit the spread of slavery into the territories and quarantine slavery as one does a disease. The slave states knew this was their and that's why they refused to accept the Corwin Amendment. Not to mention the fact that amendments can be repealed. Clearly you've never read the Constitution either. And clearly you haven't read the Preliminary EP either. Because it didn't say anything like that. You literally just made it up. "Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves where he had Authority to do so?" Because he didn't have the authority to do so! The President does not have the authority to take citizens property. He has the authority to take property from enemies. Which is how the EP legally worked. And again, no. What you're referring to is the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution. It was put forward by two slaveholders from slaveholding states that remained in the Union. It's purpose was less to actually give a cause of the war and more to calm their constituents that their slaves were not under threat. You really need to learn some real history. Everything you said was wrong. I'd start by reading the US Constitution.

Nope

Please do more research on Jackson's history before making stupid statements like this. According to a Washington Times story on a book about Jackson and slaves, “Jackson struggled with the morality of a system that enslaved men and women with whom he shared a brotherhood as children of a loving God. Yet those same Scriptures that taught salvation also recorded centuries of slaveholding all over the world, which provided Jackson with the simplistic rationale that if it was condoned by the Bible, it must be acceptable.” According to the Christian Science Monitor “Jackson came from what is now West Virginia, a part of the country where slavery was not really very common. He had slaves when he grew up, his uncles had slaves and he had slaves of his own, but he acquired three to help them avoid worse fates.” Jackson also taught a black sunday school back home in Virginia. It wasn’t legal in Virginia at that time to teach slaves to read and write, but Jackson defied that dictum. “Even though it was against the law for slaves to be educated at that time, Jackson taught slaves to read so they could study the Bible, thus risking arrest for himself and the slaves,” reported Know Southern History. “During the war, Jackson occasionally sent money back home to support the black Sunday school class he had established.” Jackson “broke the prevailing law of Virginia to conduct a weekly Colored Sabbath School, where slaves were taught to read and write while also being brought to a personal knowledge of the Christ of Jackson’s heart and soul,” “Interspersed are anecdotes and stories by and from former slaves and their families, as well as free blacks, all pointing to the fact that Jackson not only broadened their literary knowledge, but also worked to save their souls,” reported The Times. According to History.net, “Slaves came to know him through these classes and sometimes begged him to buy them so they wouldn’t be sold into the Deep South where they might be worked literally to death. In 1906, long after Jackson’s death, Reverend L. L. Downing, whose parents had been among the slaves in Jackson’s Sunday school, raised money to have a memorial window dedicated to him in the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church of Roanoke, Virginia-likely making ‘Stonewall’ the only Confederate general to have a memorial in an African American church.” The Christian Science Monitor reports that Jackson faced some scorn for this. “He taught slaves to read, and he was accosted in the street by people who said, ‘You can’t do this,'” the news site quoted an author of a book on Stonewall Jackson. “There’s even a church near Roanoke with a stained-glass window portrait of Jackson put up by one of his students in the Sunday school.”

He only owned 4 slaves.

Is Jim Lewis a real, historical person? This isn't meant as a "gotcha" question, I've just never heard of him and I'm curious.

@@finrodbrs Yes he was a real person. You can Google Jim Lewis Thomas or Stonewall Jackson and there is some information on Jim. There is a writing by one of Jackson's Officers that told of how Jim was. Kind, good hearted, obedient, patient and other great things about Jim. They don't know for sure but they think Jackson hired Jim through a agreement with the White Lewis for Jim to be put on loan to Jackson. That isn't for sure but a good chance that is correct.

@@finrodbrs I Googled it and I said Jim Lewis Thomas Jackson's cook during the Civil War. Jackson taught Black Sunday School mainly the children. He took up money for writing utensils and Bibles for the Children. He sent back money for the School during the war. The rare times Jackson was able to return home he was asked about his underdog victories and the first thing Jackson wanted to know was how his black children were doing. There is a Church in Virginia that has stuff about Jackson in the Stained Glass and the Church now is mostly a Black Congregation. The Preacher was asked why they kept the stuff about Jackson in the Stained Glass. The Preacher replied his Congregation knew what Jackson did for blacks and Jackson was the example of Complete Faith in Christ. He said they know the History of Jackson and they are proud to have Jackson in the Stained Glass. There is a fantastic Book about the life of Jackson. It is called Rebel Yell by S.C. Gwynne. It has amazing Accounts of Jackson's Heroic Role I. The American/ Mexican War. Jackson and a handful of men Chased for three days 1,200 Mexican Soldiers with two Canons the first day and one Canon for two days under fire. It has been years since I read the Book and I believe that is correct. It has accounts of relatively unknown Southern Heroes. The Account of the First Battle of Manassas/ Bull Run in detail. Lewis may have been meantioned in the Book I can't remember and I am getting old. But the Book Rebel Yell is hard to put down. The History is amazing.

@@kurtsherrick2066 Thank you!

Thomas Jackson respected his slave has to be the stupidest UA-cam comment ever