Indians REACT to The American Civil War - OverSimplified (Part 1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Hello guys, here is our reaction on The American Civil War - OverSimplified (Part 1)! Watch&Share!
Our Movies based channel, TheLoudGuys Movies-
/ @theloudguysmovies
If you like our videos then you can also support our channel via Patreon (Thanks in Advance!) -
/ theloudguys
THANK YOU TO OUR PATREON SUPPORTERS -
Gainz 4 Dayz
Will Hemmann
Justin Credible
Daniel L Bruns
Jehuty112
Ronny Boss
Robert Ahrendt
Justin Singree
Clever name games
Don't Forget to Subscribe to TheLoudGuys Channel and Share your views in the comments!
Follow us On-
Instagram - / parbrahm
/ kaursamardeep
Disclaimer: No Copyright is intended in this video. All rights belong to the rightful owner !!
Shortly before firing McClellan, a frustrated Lincoln quipped “If General McClellan isn’t going to use his army, I’d like to borrow it for a time.”
Fucking bars
These events caused the UK to shift their importation of cotton almost entirely to cotton produced in India. A good example of how we are one interconnected world despite the distances, and differences that separate us.
Lincoln actually wrote an open letter to Mill Workers in Manchester personally thanking them for helping to make emancipation a reality.
Uh huh
Nice reaction guys. If you really want to learn more watch the mini series "The Civil War" by Ken Burns.
McClellan was a skilled commander, his problem was is that he just had an imperfect understanding of the mission. If he was a Confedetate general, working with fewer troops and less supplies, he would have done a lot better. That was the kind of war effort he was more skilled to lead. Grant was the opposite. He knew how to take advantage of his strengths.
McClellan was a skilled trainer of men but he was pretty useless at making use of them and wouldn't go try to engage the enemy even if it was to save his own life. He had nothing but insults to say about the President and other leaders in DC and was an egotistical narcissist. He ran for president on his ego and lost because he was generally a big loser who never proved he could command in battle and adapt to win battles. Robert E Lee and US Grant were two men who knew how to command men in the heat of battle and how adapt and an offensive. It was the tag team of US Grant and his right hand man and best friend William Tecumseh Sherman that won the war for the Union.
@@maxpeck7382 I agree with you. My point was that history should be more charitable to McClellan, because he wasn't a bad general or leader, he just had a different skill set than what the mission called for. Putting McClellan in charge of the Union Army was like putting the commander of the Viet Cong in charge of the US Army there. He was better suited to lead a smaller, less well-equipped force, employing a LESS battle-centric strategy. Putting a greater emphasis on force protection and denying the enemy resources and less of an emphasis on direct engagement. That's why he said he would have made a better Confederate general. Grant, on the other hand, was a master of a more-aggressive, battle-centric strategy, and that's what the mission called for.
If you want to see a fantastic documentary on the Civil War, you have to check out "Ken Burns: The Civil War" miniseries.
The framers of the Constitution that wanted to abolish slavery were in an impossible situation. There was no garuntee that the 13 states would form a single nation at the time. There was talk of them forming as many as 4 separate nations. But, the southern slave states made it crystal clear, they would not join the union, if there was a clause in the Constitution banning slavery. So with that in mind, banning slavery wouldn't have resulted in any slaves being freed, because the slave states wouldn't have joined, and the ban wouldn't apply to them. It would only apply to states that had already banned slavery, or were in the process of phasing it out. On top of that, now you would have a competing southern nation that you were almost certain to repeatedly find yourself at war with.
The only option they had, was to allow slavery, and hope that the next generation would be able to deal with the issue.
In 1787, Slavery dying out in the southern states, was not just a realistic possibility, it seemed an inevitability. It was a dying institution. So putting off the issue of slavery 20 years, wasn't that crazy, and seemed like a good compromise to create a union.
What changed, was the 1794 invention of the cotton gin. That injected life into slavery that the founders of 1787, couldn't have foreseen.
What was a dying institution, suddenly became a growth industry because of a technological innovation that didn't exist, when the initial debates over slavery were taking place.
In 1787 the cash crop of the south, was Tobacco, not Cotton. And Tobacco, was losing its profitabilit, because other places were replacing the southern US in tobacco cultivation. That's why Slavery was dying in the south. Cotton, was a secondary crop. It was difficult to farm and harvest outside of Georgia.
The Cotten Gin, suddenly made Cotten profitable through out the formerly Tobacco growing south. Between the signing of the Constitution and "the next generation " the south switched from a tobacco economy, to a Cotton economy, and became more dependent on slaves than they had been in the time the Constitution was signed and ratified.
The entire dynamic changed because of that single invention of the Cotton Gin.
Exactly
The Gettysburg movie (1993) would be an excellent film to react, a reel deep dive on the war.
i used to live in Gettysburg. it still had a bunch of civil war stuff. including cannons, muskets, pistols, and grave sites.
A couple things that even Americans get wrong. The emancipation Proclamation did basically nothing. If the south had won, then the slavery would continue as before. It also only "freed" slaves in the states that rebelled. The slave states that decided to remain faithful to the federal government would be allowed to continue slavery no matter who won. It was the 13th amendment to the US constitution that outlawed slavery, but there is still a loophole. Federal prisoners are still allowed to be considered slaves and be forced to work for next to nothing. While technically it isn't racial, in practice people of color are far more likely to be charged and convicted of such a crime than a white person for the same crime. Also for decades, the US has been number one in the number of prisoners in relation to population size.
The "Slave Trade" was a bit understated. The prisoners from inter-tribal wars in Africa were sold to Arab slave traders. Who in turn marched them to the west coast of Africa, where they were sold to slave ships, mostly British. The slave ships would sail either to Brazil, for the Portuguese plantations. Or to the Caribbean, for the French plantations. Ships from the US would go to the Caribbean and buy slaves for the southern plantations.
You know that doesn’t matter slavery is still bad doesn’t matter who and what we are acting like the us was doing in for kindness
@@Steelix371 WTF?!
21:54 Lincoln commited acts that were not only impeachable, but tyrannical.
He imprisoned Francis Scott Key's (the national anthem writer) grandson, and roughly about 30 legislators.
The beard story actually happened.
Manassas is what the Confederates named that first battle, it is known by the name the battle of Bull Run by Union side.
So the Winfield Scott guy who was the commander when the war began was from Virginia but he stayed loyal to Union and United States and had won many great battles in the past however before being too old to command an army in the civil war, he proposed the Anaconda plan which helped the Union win the war and made things real detrimental for the south
I would suggest the book "The History of Slavery", by Dr. Thomas Sowell.
I can’t believe they skipped over that sumner almost died from the caning by brooks. It was so vicious is took more than a year for him to recover.
I've really enjoyed watching your reaction, and i hope you react to part 2 soon! Do you have any recommendations for similar videos about the history of your country? I would very much like to learn more.
One thing not addressed in more detail is Eli Whitney's 1793 invention of the Cotton Gin mentioned at 5:02 . Cotton was always labor intensive because of two manual steps picking the cotton fibers off the plant and removing seeds from the fibers seed by seed. The need for this labor, even with unpaid slaves, an owner still had to feed and shelter them thus reducing profit. Had this continued, slavery might have died out due to unprofitability. The cotton gin UNFORTUNATELY allowed the slavery economic model to remain profitable as it reduced seed removal time, thus reducing labor times/costs. This in turn meant larger fields and more slavery diverted to the fiber picking task.
To get the full picture you have to watch Part 2 of this episode.
surprised to see that bit at 15:06 was true. "if you will let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you you would look a great deal better for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husband's to vote for you and then you would be President."
I’m the great, great, great, great, great granddaughter of John Brown. He was definitely not afraid to go to the extreme to end slavery. He truly believed it was evil & unlike many people who were also against slavery he treated slaves as equals. I admit I’m not impartial but I often wonder if the violence he caused in Kansas was exaggerated by pro-slavery people to gather support for war. After being caught in Harpers Ferry no one in the south would doubt anything the pro-slavery press printed about him. Either way in the end he was right when he said slavery would never end without violence.
I don't know whether you know about dred scot case, But that was like which directly indirectly start the changes
I especially enjoyed your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case. I could see you both expected a just decision, and something inspirational; but it was one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court would ever render. It was made moot by the passage of the 14th Amendment. Slavery was a cancer and I know the video is meant to be cute and funny while being informative, simplified, and short; but a quick reminder that 5% of slaves went to North America, that African kingdoms captured and enslaved their own people Europeans did not, and that slavery in East Africa with the Muslims far outpaced the Atlantic slave trade wouldn't be bad to include to put things in perspective.
It should be noted that slave trade was outlawed. No new slaves where coming into the US. At this point slavery was something you were born into
that's true a little girl told him he was ugly and should grow a beard so he did lol
anyone else wonder why McClellan never had any clothes on? unlike every other figure in the video? 😆
2 weeks no part 2?
Yep
The ironclad Were the first metal ships And I believe they had The first rotating guns but I don't know if that's true
They follow the flesh of the dead ones against life Mama's bleed to give. The living envy the dead, whose elevator is the false light. Re a drop of golden sun.
when part 2??
Some other entertaining videos that deal more with the African American slaves themselves are also available. Drunk History Robert Smalls is a really good video about a slave doing an amazing thing during this time. Can't remember if it's in part 2 of this video.
*can't remember if Robert smalls is mentioned in part 2
Slavery was awful but there wasn't just black slaves as well as no one wants to admit that the slaves from Africa were sold by African slavers that sold them. Meaning African tribes took other tribes and sold them. The war was also about states rights. Either way its a bad and dark past and I'm glad we are past it.
Indian accent is beatifull
One of the sticky points of the war, even to today, is that it does seem that the Confederate states DID have the right to secede. Our Declaration of Independence is literally our document of secession. This still causes many problems today when fighting over States rights vs Federal rights.
The Supreme Court never got to rule on the issue (and people didn't want it to, because it was conservative then). And yet no amendment to the Constitution was made, before or even after the war, to prevent secession from happening again.
This is drastically exaggerated, there is nothing explicit in the United States Constitution that supports either viewpoint. There is no so-called “right” to secession. Legally it’s been debated since before the Civil War, but even at that, there is no majority consensus, though everyone seems to agree that unilateral secession is illegal.
@@verygood7698 The federal government is formed by the authority of the states. The federal government didn't create the states but the other way around. If authority can be granted, it can be withdrawn.
We do have the right, if we find our government has become tyrannical and does not represent us, to dissolve that government or our association with that government, and form a new one. That was our entire justification for dissolving our association with the British government and forming our own.
@@chago4202000 You can quote the preamble to the DOI all you like, still doesn’t change the fact that unilateral secession is widely considered to be illegal. There is no right to break the union, if you can find the clause of the constitution that says otherwise - I will eat crow.
@@verygood7698 There doesn't need to be a clause in the constitution. Any powers or authority not specifically given over to the federal government is, by default, the powers of the states. You need a clause which specifically forbids the states from doing something, not the other way around.
It makes sense to you that shortly after the founders justify our revolution with the DOI, they turn around and declare that very revolution illegal?
My great-great grandfather served alongside Stonewall Jackson in the Mexican War ,where they were both Lieutenants in the artillery . When the civil war came ,he raised and commanded the 37th Virginia Regiment CSA . His regiment was put into his old comrade Stonewall Jackson's command and he then commanded one of Stonewall Jackson's 3 brigades when they gained fame in the Shenandoah Valley campaign early in the war . He was killed while leading his brigade in the Battle of Gaines Mills in 1862 when Robert E. Lee ran Mc Clellan off the Peninsula in front of Richmond in the Seven Days battles .His two younger brothers ,commanding the 19th and 63rd Tennessee Regiments CSA were both wounded and captured at the Battle of Chickamauga . His youngest brother ,who was color sergeant of the 19th Tennessee was killed at the Battle of Franklin ,where he was the first man over the Union barricade and was shot 11 times .
God bless you and God bless the CSA
@@justindyches5510 Thank you Justin ,it looks like we may need another revolution now
@@justindyches5510 traitorous slaver
@@b127ritter2 tyrannical fascist
@@rodneysisco6364 did you lnow that the new orleans mint is the only usa mint to have had 3 different governments [iirc from research at least TECHNICALLY running/operating it] the usa, the Lousianna state givernment/lousiana
I'd prefer you watched Ken Burns.
Unfortunately slavery is still practiced many places in Africa and the Middle East.
Hey!
Please also react to World war 2, Cold war and French Revolution by Oversimplified
:D
Democrats versus Republicans is still happening
I hope you watch the awesome Civil War movie, Glory, which stars Morgan, Denzel, and Matthew Broderick. And the guy from Princess Bride.
Thumb Up #380! 👍 Thanks for your fun, digital video recording! 🎬🖖👍🖐️🖐️🙏😸🤠😎🧐🤓
Notes: The narrator always leaves out that a, British guy, unable to establish, Slavery, in Great Britain, once it was banned there, went elsewhere to establish his form of it. Ergo, it existed here as a, British Colonial Institution, way before there was ever any talk of our, Independence. So the, "national bad habit", or "sin", was a leftover problem.
There's a, Time Travel, story about some, Modern Day Americans, at a strip mall with a, Sporting Goods Store, that gets transported back in Time, to not only help win the, Revolutionary War, early but they insist that, Slavery, be abolished right away too! What they don't know, was that some Racists had been with them all along! They see the opportunity as a chance to win the, Civil War, early and.....
Expel the Africans back to Africa, so that they no longer live here!
While some thought that they were going to keep, Slavery! The author only let me read that much of his manuscript. 🤔
This question may seem ignorant, but I promise, it is genuine... as a member of the Sikh religion, I dont funny understand the reason for the wrap on your head, but most ofmindia is a hot place, doesnt that head wrap make you feel uncomfortably hot? Or do you live in northern India? Just curious. It looks like a lot of material around the head, and I get warm when I wear a baseball hat. It it made out of some super cool material or something?
Oversimplified is just as the channel name denotes. They’re very good at giving solid summaries of events that gives viewers a basic, nutshell idea of how things transpired, without getting into the truly minute details that don’t matter at all, like what a general might have had for breakfast one morning.
We’re not the only nation to have a civil war, obviously. One thing that I don’t think too many people know, though, is that Spain had their own civil war in the 1930s. They managed to remain neutral throughout the Second World War.
That said, the United States is not the only nation to engage in slavery or the slave trade. It was pretty much worldwide throughout history. But I don’t really see Brits demanding 1,200-year-old justice against the Norse for the Viking raids. Do you?
No but everyone in the USA acts like it never happen or that it wasn’t bad Rome enslave nations Alexander the Great
Indeed
Quite some text you typed. I agree, the US is not the only nation to have a civil war. Almost every country had some civil war, but you don't often see people talk about stuff like the Ivorian civil wars or Laotian civil war, do you? Slavery has been practiced worldwide, but does that mean it was the same everywhere? I think reparations for slavery in the US has credibility for some because its legacy could arguably still be felt for those affected, and it's much more recent, and relevant as a part of US history, than the Viking Age, which mainly concerns Europe.
This should be called misinformation history
The majority of the South was anti-slavery because most people could not compete with the plantation's slaves. Southern soldiers did not fight for slavery. They fought against an invasion! Self-interest made subsistent farmers opposed to slavery. Huge money was the overwhelming reason to have slaves. Small farm families did not have huge money. The result was "federal supremacy". Huge "state" armies and autonomy were taken by the "federal" government.
*Please recognize this: WHATEVER group of PEOPLE that are on "top" of the order of powerful countries, will treat anyone NOT them as lesser and not equal.*
Maybe that says more about how you think and feel because not everyone is as sadistic to think that way.
This history is meaningful to me, as the history of your country is to you. I have ancestors in N America since early colonial days, so I had ancestors in the American Revolution, but also on both sides of the US Civil War. My rebel ancestor, who was at Ft Donaldson, against Grant, was saved, because the rebels surrendered so quickly (because of Grant's effective strategy). That ancestor was imprisoned (as an officer) but then furlowed (released under condition of not fighting any more). So I literally owe my existence to what happened to him. Men who stayed in the war tended to not survive to the end ;-(
28:09 a battle not mentioned here is the battle between the confederate ironclad ship Virginia (commonly called by its former name the Merrimack), which attacked vulnerable union ships and was sent to attack Washington, against the union ironclad Monitor, (sent to stop the Merrimack from reaching Washington). Before, the Merrimack only fought wooden sides battleships, which it commonly sunk. Now, for the first time, two iron clad ships would fight each other. In the end, neither ship was able to damage the other, so the battle ended in a draw (though since the Merrimack never got to Washington, I guess it’s technically a union victory). While the battle is today commonly thought of almost as a joke, it had a pretty big effect on history. In London, when the leaders of the British Royal Navy, the largest navy on earth at the time, learned of the battle between the monitor and the Merrimack, they immediately cancelled all their orders for constructing wooden sides battleships; they realized that the age of wooden war ships, which mankind had experienced for thousands of years, had finally ended.
Other similar inventions from the civil war include primitive submarines (crank-powered vessels used by the confederates to ram at high speeds into the sides of union ships) and the first United States Air Force (three hot air balloons used to spy on confederate troops).
Great explanation. First submarine was the Turtle in the Revolutionary War, but the Confederates took it to a WHOLE new level with the Hunley. It was unbelievable that they were able to find some remains in the sunken hull after all this time, and was happy that they buried them with full military honors.
A lot of other inventions came out of this, war, too: canned goods (which were used in the Crimean War, but made up a HUGE amount of the supplies of the armies in the Civil War), rudimentary IEDs made from artillery shells, more modern hand grenades (like the Ketchum Grenade employed by the Union, which looks, to my eye, like a modern mortar), the use of break action rifles with rudimentary cartridges over ball-and-powder muzzleloaders, rifled artillery, and machine guns, but also logistical planning based around railroads (also railroad weapons, which was say the mother -- or father -- of modern armored fighting vehicles) to quickly move troops and supples, to say nothing of the advances in trench warfare -- and of besieging and breaking those trenches -- which would be seen twenty years later in the Franco-Prussian War (and, of course, WWI).
Troop deployment (in rows, lines, or en masse) is one thing which I don't think really advanced too far from the Napoleonic form from the beginning of the War to the end, and we didn't see much difference in either the Franco-Prussian War or the First World War, either. Once the lines became static, it became a war of throw men in lines against defended positions, and hope you have enough men to absorb all the punishment the enemy is dishing out.
John Brown is a massively underappreciated hero. He’s often either not taught about in the North or he’s portrayed as a terrorist in the South, even in the present day. He was willing to sacrifice everything to do what was right, even if he wasn’t a great tactician.
One of the only true "white allies"
I agree to an extent. I mean, him helping slaves escape was a good deed, and also trying to take down slavery. But you also need to actknowledge how many innocent people he killed. Some didin't even own slaves. He should be taught in schools but we also need to actknowledge his worse side. Both sides, South and North did unjustifiable acts of violence on eachother during Bleeding Kansas.
@@Polishman69420 Unfortunately the actions and mentality of the few are attributed to the many. We are creatures of emotion, of a black and white mental lens, and we need to look more for the gray hiding between the lines that can bring us together.
The Lincoln beard story is actually true. A little girl wrote to Lincoln saying he'd look better with a beard so he decided to grow one.
Alway a great take and perspective!
At some point check out Band of Brothers - you'll love the series.
It's arguably the greatest miniseries ever made.
There is a movie about African-Americans joining the US Army during the Civil War: Glory. It has a lot of stars you might recognize. The soldiers were relegated to minor work until a major battle to take a fort. They all volunteered. There is also a PBS tv series in several episodes directed by Ken Burns called The Civil War. In each episode, famous actors would read the diaries and letters from both sides.
We need part 2!
you 2 are awesome
The bone I have to pick with this video it describes the Underground Railroad as only being in the non-slave states. My ancestors ran a station in KY. Keeping something like this secret was impossible, but apparently, my ancestors must have been part of a large Abolitionist community, because whatever law enforcement they had in those days didn't act. During the Civil War, the people who were losing their "property" took the law into their own hands. You're reading this, because my ancestors had guns, too!
Slaves in Africa were mostly prisoners of war, caused by tribal warfare ... only some were "free range". Originally Arabs bought the slaves, but later the Europeans bought them too. Arabs actually treated their African slaves worse (all males were castrated, so no slave children, just lower caste children of slave women). The movie Glory in 1989 is the best movie about the fighting in the American Civil War. "Lincoln" 2012 is about the politics (ugh). When GB wanted to intervene with the rebels, it is true but not much told, that two Russian fleets (allies of Lincoln) were sailing nearby, one off the East coast and the other off the West coast. This is part of the "Great Game" that GB and Russia were waging in Afghanistan (and the two recent wars in Afghanistan are a continuation of that same "Great Game".
Very wrong. The Congo and Dahomey frequently raided peaceful central American tribes. It was their primary income source.
You are not superior for your skin color. Slavery was objectively wrong in every way. Your ancestors supported it. They were not misunderstood, they were not products of their time, they were evil soldiers in the army of the slave master and deserved the noose. Watch yourself nazi, your mask is drooping.
Trying to defend the negatives of western slavery are we
@@rhythmkhandelwal2940 Refusing to virtue signal. Not "me-tooing" either. I consider all virtue to be hypocrisy, and all humanity to be predatory. Realism, not apologetic or polemic.
@@williambranch4283 When did you embrace being evil btw? When you decided all humanity was predatory? When 3 people were mean to you so you decide to support the enslavement of other races? What a coward.
@@williambranch4283 virtue signaling another meaningless buzzword. Even if someone is virtue signalling it in no way invalidates their point
You know everybody gets on America for having slavery in its history, but if you guys take a look at Africa still currently today there is slavery over there and it's very racial
Well, the United States didn't create slavery in the Americas, because the US didn't exist when slavery in the Americas began. Several European nations (Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark) were the main slave-trading countries, forcibly bringing millions of Africans across the Atlantic in ships and depositing them in the Caribbean, North America, and South America. And by the way, the largest number of African slaves was not brought to what became the United States, but to the Caribbean islands and Brazil.
Because the US is the only country that makes excuses for it instead of just owning the fact.
@@stewrobb2329 Excuses for what, slavery? Where did your voluminous research find that "the US" makes excuses for slavery, whatever that means? And how many countries in the Americas, where slave-trading European powers like Britain and Spain imposed slavery, did you study before making your grand pronouncement? Europe imposed slavery on the Americas. That's not an excuse, it's a fact. Doesn't mean slavery wasn't a shameful blot on the history of every country in the Americas that had the institution of slavery, including the US. But Europeans can't "make excuses" about how it started in the Americas.
@@stewrobb2329 What other country fought a war to end the practice? What other country can claim they were willing to send their husbands and sons to fight and die for the freedom of an entire race apart from their own?
The UK wouldnt intervene against the north when they saw it was a just cause ... but the UK was one of the bigest buyers of cotton they basically created the slave institution in the south and the enormous scale to which it grew they didnt seem to mind buying cotton from slave plantations
I should already know the history, but I guess I remembered more abbot policy changes than battle fields. I used to pronounce Antietam as Antie Tam. There’s too much about those years to learn it all. The overview is a great idea.
Well you COULD try to learn it all, just give up everything else in your life. lol I know a few people who are civil war buffs and know all about it.
I'm from the Ozarks of Missouri, I've always seen it like we're a child in a custody battle by looking at the weather, in the winter we belong to our ice cold mother the north, and in the summer we belong to our sweltering cruel father the south.
There is still kinda an argument in Missouri as to whether we are the south or not.
Jesse James and his brother Frank, later famous outlaws were in the Battle of Wilson's Creek outside of Springfield Missouri, they diserted the army there, and later joined William Quantrell, a real bad dude who later formed Quantrellr Raiders, the James gang guys were also in Quantrells Raiders, real racist dudes.
Mark 2:50. Did you notice the buckets from, "KFC"? 🤔 Later, one of the, Southern Leaders, looks like their mascot, "Colonel Sanders"! 😅😂🤣
You guys should totally do a reaction video for the final episode of season two of #TheProudFamilyLouderAndProuder. That show is a reboot of one from the early 2000s, and that particular episode features a bunch of issues surrounding race that are still very important in the United States. Actually, it would be a great idea if you guys reacted to the entire series.
The American Civil War more Americans died in a thing in American history. More people died in 9/11 D-Day.
Mark 12:27. There! The, "Colonel Sanders", look-alike! 😅
Please react to three kingdoms on oversimplified
When are you reacting to Part 2?
I get a real kick out of the amazing, the tragic and generally bittersweet parts of national, world and histories of other nations-
As subjects FROM history I especially like watching things about (not in order mostly:) WW2, the U.K.'s 1400s, their 30s to now, the Civil War AND Japan's Samurai Era.
😮💨👍Even the perspective of WW2 from the NAZIs / Soviet Russian sides are darkly interesting.
We are cruel people :'>
Part of this problem was because the US isn't Parliamentary, it is winner-take-all majoritarian. So it is harder for losers in an election to feel effective representation (including today). Unresolved issues from the past, continue to bedevil descendants. Had I been alive then, I would have fought for Lincoln, an imperfect man but great leader. American Presidency is very strange, unlike other Presidents/PMs ... the American President is also Commander-in-Chief aka head of the military, even if he/she is inexperienced. The Supreme Court never got to rule on the issue of secession (and people didn't want it to, because it was conservative then). And yet no amendment to the Constitution was made, before or even after the war, to prevent secession from happening again.
Lincoln couldn't outlaw slavery before the war. As he (oversimplified) explaines just before, it's a states thing. The rpesident simply had no legal authority to change these.. This is a really complicated topic. He had to step careful. Too fast and he would lose support in the north, the war would end and slavery would just continue in another foul compromise. But when he could, he did.
The movie Lincoln shows and explains that really well while it also gives a brilliant insight into the man ant the time. The (british...) guy who played Lincoln , won an oscar for it. and rightly so..
The Civil War was among the most deadly in history, per capita. It was one of actually very few large scale wars fought in the period after gunpowder, but before modern medicine. Infection killed more soldiers than bullets. Any injury was a death sentence without anything to fight infection, no pain killers, and very little scientific knowledge of human anatomy.
As a native of Richmond, Va I was overjoyed to see the monuments and statues of Confederate soldiers taken off our streets FINALLY. The fact that they lost but still got monuments erected (for being inhumane and cruel) is mind boggling.
The civil war was bloody, but can you imagine the years and years of conflict if the south solidified a second nation? Oi.
The war had many causes. Slavery and economics and states rights were 3 of the chief reasons. For the 1.8 % who owned slaves in the south it was about slavery. For the rest of the South it was states rights.
Please pay attention to the statement slaves could be held as contraband... Followed immediately by the statement of these people were put to work helping the union war cause... So slavery gottcha
An Amazing Movie to react too About the Civil War is the true story Free State of Jones. Staring Matthew McConaughey.
Now yall see why alot of black folks don't respect the flag or the national anthem
Now Watch “The Patriot” movie