My favorite Duffel Blog headline was about a meeting of soon to be retiring Colonels to determine what Civil War battles each would write a book about.
This book is just another example of liberal fascist "presentism" trying to besmirch a great historical figure. And you are correct, W&L showed much more character than this dogface's nasty scribbling.
Very bad time to live in Arkansas! I can speak only of my people. We fought because it was unthinkable to invade our brethren. And it's hard to take orders from a distant power.@@scottgoens7575
The Texas Civil war with Mexico was not racial at all.....These folks have no understanding of Texas history and it shows. Texas became an independent country for 10 years before voting to join the US. Texas was its own country and many feel that it was a mistake to join the US even today.
The Uncle Remus stories were not written by Joel Chandler Harris, as the speaker states, they were written down by Harris as told to him by slaves. Had he not done this, many such stories and fables would have been lost. He preserved a trove of cultural history out of respect for the value of the stories. Harris' home in Atlanta, The Wren's Nest, is open to visitors and the stories he preserved, and others, are retold there for visitors.
He makes a lot of good points that non-racist, fair minded Americans already know. He is tremendously self-righteous in his delivery. Such a presentation al performance promotes the Systemic Racism narrative, like all or most of us are racists. I am not a racist, in fact I know very few. I think the term “The prevalence of racism in some circles and geographical areas” is a fairer and better term. Praying for our nation!!
The speech was well delivered however, my concern is that the Colonel's speech focusing on a myth glossed over how leaders such as President (and general) Eisenhour had a picture of Lee in his White House office. Obviously, there really has been a (sometimes slowly) coming together based upon respect for leaders of both the Confederacy and the Union. To simply suggest that General Lee is a marble man is certainly not an opinion previously shared by President Ike, a modern president that we all liked and respected.
Why do I see this comment so often about Ike from lost causers? Trying to point to a good general and president and saying he had a picture of Lee so Lee must have been ok? I don't get it. Lee fought to keep other human's as slaves. Many people have fallen to the propaganda of the lost causers that tried to change what the Civil War was about. Believe the words of the secessionists and their constitutions and articles of secession. It was about slavery. Don't believe the daughters of the slave empire, excuse me, confederacy, and their white washing of history to try and make it about state's rights. State's rights to what? Keeping other humans as slaves. I can't believe we are still having to deal with this. The confederacy was a 4 year failure. The show Supernatural has lasted 4 times as long, and, from what I know, at no point was based on keeping other humans as slaves. That show has lasted almost 4 times as long and had a more positive impact on US history. It's ok if your ancestors were slave holders. That doesn't make you a bad human. No need to feel shame when realizing that they made some horrible choices and you now can choose to not support a failed rebellion that's only goal was keeping other humans as slaves.
"Monuments tell us not about the person (being memorialized) but who put them up!" BRAVO, Col. BRAVO. Thundering....courageous....compassionate. An invaluable preamble to a conversation our country desperately needs to have. You are a Scholar and a Gentleman of the First Water.
Scholarship requires comprehensive research not abstractions that interpreted incorrectly. The moment you try to argue that Lee fought because he wanted to keep slavery in place your opinion becomes irrelevant because the actual evidence does not support that claim
@@doliver859 Did Lee think the South risked losing more than they did? In other words, what did the South lose apart from the peculiar institution as a result of a Union victory?
@@LaGrandeBayou I think it's telling Seidule said both 1) The south 'started the war', but then a few minutes later 2) The north 'had to go south' and defeat multiple armies. Why would the north need to go south if it wasn't the aggressor? His one sided narrative demonstrates his lack of true appreciation of southern tradition and history, despite his cultish devotion during his upbringing. It's sad he didn't develop a nuanced narrative when he shed that cult, but instead subbed another cult, that of the northern noble cause.
@@itsbaxter2 The north going south isn't mutually exclusive with the south starting the war. Should the Union have simply waited to get attacked each time to fight back? Nonsense.
@@Ben00000 Not "waiting to get attacked" is the very definition of being the aggressor. The Confederacy had no plans to attack the USA. It wanted to peacefully withdraw, as the British American colonies had tried to do from the UK. Jefferson Davis did all he could to avoid secession and was the last southern senator to leave DC, making a tearful beneficent farewell speech. The South was not however allowed to peacefully leave, but instead were invaded by Lincoln. The proof is after the North invaded South Carolina, southern states that had remained in the Union joined the Confederacy out of horror of being demanded by Lincoln to help invade the Confederacy. Lincoln's violation of the Constitution and peace grew the Confederacy twice its size and power, and made the war and divide much worse. Had Lincoln done nothing, the few Confederate states that left, in my opinion, would have had major incentive to rejoin the US in the next 35 years as slavery inevitably would have ended, and common cause and defense would have been a major lure to rejoin. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and the US would have remained a respecter of states' rights and the country would have been stronger and better for it. Instead, we came out with massive unnecessary bloodshed and a bully central government that inspired future tyrants the world over, including Hitler.
@@itsbaxter2 You are changing the subject: The north attacking at all doesn't mean the south didn't start the war. Your logic is wrong. Your obvious apologist bias is secondary to the fact that your argument doesn't even make sense to begin with.
We could have ended slavery without the war. That is a fact. It just didn't happen. Ex slaves should have been given an education and work opportunities if desired, even with the war this didn't happen. They were left to fend for themselves. That's what I notice. The elderly could have been considered as well. I always say to put a group of high school students in a room for a week and they can solve anything. Unfortunately adults cannot.
Despite agreeing with some of the content of BG (Ret) Ty Seidule’s presentation, I’d be remiss in my comments if I didn’t admonish W&L for hosting an undergrad lecturer whose primary intent appears to have been to dictate what to think instead of sharing his education and vast experience about how to think about such challenging national issues. As a West Point alumnus and Army officer, I feel that our Nation, Army and students at Institutions of higher learning could benefit more by hearing from leaders sharing the lessons they learned, both good and bad, as they navigated such challenges using their own thought processes. There are already far too many broadcast and social media sources of partisan sound bytes for students to access that attempt to tell them what to think. Consider teaching W&L students how to think critically, respectfully debate the bases of positions on issues and offer their own innovative, unifying and focused solutions whenever possible. Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback!
I am thankful for the opportunity to listen to this presentation It it an eye and an mind opening It will have an impact on on my opinion of today situation
Awesome discussion. Much needed and appreciated information with facts. A transparent speaker will always give the background of their history when discussing the topic at hand. Similar to understanding the Bible…determine who is speaking, at what point is the occurrence and to whom is the writer speaking too. Thank you!
In 1958 the US Navy named a submarine after Lee Dwight Eisenhower kept a picture of Lee on the wall in his office So what changed? Ike debating this Colonel would have been fun to watch. What changed and who pushed for the change of attitude toward Lee and add in Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...? IMO it was an intentional rewrite to a history some prefer rather than the reality of what did occur.
What really did occur is that Lee decided to turn against his country and join a slave-master rebellion, an action that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Lee did this, while other Virginia military officers like George Thomas, Samuel Lee, William Terrill, and Winfield Scott made a different choice. _"I would not strike the fallen. I would not repel the repentant, but may my right hand forget its cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I forget the difference between the parties to that terrible, protracted and bloody conflict.”_ --Frederick Douglass.
@@TheStapleGunKid "I, ....., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve THEM (my emphasis) honestly and faithfully, The West Point Oath at the time Lee took it. Plural. States.... united. In 1861, when Lee went to his native state, the states were no long "united". How can he be held to an oath that refers to a condition of the states that no longer existed? Can you catch the difference?
@@TheStapleGunKid That which Lee pledged allegiance, those united states, no longer existed. And if you maintain that the northern states were still united, then you must also note that the southern states were united as well. So, which "set" of united states are you referring...and when Lee took his oath, the southern states were included in "those united states". If he went against the South, he would be breaking his oath to the southern states.
@@bjohnson515 I didn't say only the Northern states still existed. I said the United States still existed. The United States still existed during the Whiskey rebellion in 1794, and they still existed during the rebellion of 1861. The Confederate states were still part of the United States, they were just in rebellion. Lee never made any oath to the Southern states, he made his oath to the United States. His oath didn't say "if some states rise up in rebellion, then this oath no longer applies."
"Winfield Scott referred to the “gallant, indefatigable Captain Lee” who was “as distinguished for felicitous execution as for science and daring.” General Scott had by now, in the words of General Erasmus D. Keyes, an “almost idolatrous fancy for Lee, whose military ability he estimated far beyond that of any other officer in the army.” Indeed, Scott would later call Robert E. Lee “the very best soldier I ever saw in the field.”"
Scott also told Lee he made the worst choice of his life when Lee betrayed the Union. What a shame Lee couldn't live up to the example set by Scott, or even the example set by his own cousin Sam Lee.
@@Ao-pj1mc many of his relatives fought wirhe the Union. The ones that fought for the south chose to do so because Lee violated his oath and chose the south.
In 1958 the US Navy named a nuclear submarine after Robert E Lee..... I guess they had NOT heard the rewrite of history that is going on today. Imagine those who were closest to the events of 1861-1865 laying down the history in the books... and then 160 years later people begin to declare that they were wrong. VA and NC were in a different mindset than the Deep South, and to not recognize this is to over simplify the entire matter "The people down in these states (TN and GA) are not as much enlisted on principle in this war as we in Virginia. They regard it as a war to protect their property in slaves, and when they are lost, take no further interest in it. In Virginia, we are fighting for the right to govern ourselves in our own way and to perpetuate our customs and institutions among our own people without interference.” Wrote Capt Charles M. Blackford of Longstreet’s staff.
Secessionist are getting even and Seidule is on the list. Lies and Cowardly Lies is all Ty Seidule can produce. A Cowardly scumbag Seidule is for denigrating the dead and defenseless Confederate hero General Lee. “A hapless windbag of Cowardice” will be inscribed on Ty Seidules tombstone...mark my words.
We have some very good rehab programs in this country of which you should take advantage as soon as possible. Many people in your condition have gone on to live very productive lives and it’s not too late for you. One program even gives participants upon completion a Donald Trump DVD entitled “How to Make Money on Real Estate with No Money Down”. With prayer you’ll be on the right path very soon.
@@LaGrandeBayou If you say that anything he says is not true, then prove it. Otherwise, you are just displaying that the facts he is saying hurt your feelings. Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake.
Col. You're a prime example as to why I did not serve as you are indoctrinated and it shows, that I once learned from William (Bud ) E. Mayer educated me on how the system functions especially the military, and will continue to ignore anything you present.
If you don't have some way to refute the truth of anything he is saying, then sit down and shut your mouth. Pointing out that he is "Woke" is not saying that he is wrong. It just means that the facts he is pointing out hurt your feelings.
@@occamtherazor3201 Couldn't have said it better myself. Neoconfederates are such snowflakes these days... Can't stand it when people criticize their slaver heroes.
@@revanofkorriban1505 If cannot accept an opposing viewpoints, that is ok with me. You have the God given right to stay close minded in the dark. Sorry I upset your fantasy.
@@bjohnson515 Obviously he was, because he spouted all of the same Lost Cause nonsense. And your position of "I am going to believe these lies because Eisenhower believed them" is pretty weak.
I think the problem in your note comes back to the issue of Lee. Virginia was not a country. It was (and is) a state within the country of the United States of America. Lee had taken no oath of allegiance to Virginia. Rather, he had sworn this oath: "I ... do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Many southern officers observed that oath. I don't get your story at all. You're ignoring the facts. You don't want to call him a traitor because you respect him. But you're saying he had a national allegiance to a country that never existed as a country but was part of another country to which he had sworn a clear oath of allegiance. He never swore or signed any oath of allegiance to Virginia because they didn't have one - and why would they? Virginia was not a country but a State of an existing Country.. In saying that, are you suggesting that the "Marble Man" couldn't be trusted, that his word was not his bond, that he didn't know what he was doing (careful here .... he finished second in his class at what was arguably the best educational institution in the US at that time)? I'm sure you wish that your story was true and that there were some facts to hold it together. I'm not a Lee-hater, but I can't see him as anything other than a traitor to the country that educated him, trained him and provided him with rank and opportunity. Not before the civil war, not after the civil war, but during it. And if Lee was right to break his oath, were all the Southern officers who observed theirs traitors to their state? So George Thomas, bec Your position continues to break down logically the more you tease out its implications. Lee played a leadership role in a conflict that cost 750,000 Americans their lives. However gentlemanly, moral and god fearing he may have been, that is an awful legacy and indictment.
I am a deep southerner born and raised in the 60's and have come(over the last 20 yrs ) to the same conclusions as the colonel has.Slavery is an abomination to the nation and Christianity( AS ABORTION IS TODAY) and the south has no moral high ground. Wrongs are pervasive and the consequences are long lasting and destructive. The lost cause mentality is exactly what he says , a racial path for Jim crow and inequality,segreagation. The truth is ruthless. Wrongs must be "righted". However the colonel's conclusions are not well thought out and many , not all, are erroneous from a moral and legal perspective. History is also DIRTY. I do not believe he as a military personnel has a higher calling and duty to the constitution than I do as a citizen. I have not taken his oath by word but my duty is nothing less as a citizen. He took a commission. Today you can resign that commission.Lee and thousand did exactly that not as a traitor but as a citizen who resigns a commission and goes home to live. Many people believe secession is unconstitutional, I simply do not. The revolutionaries did exactly that from Britain, the colonel holds them in high regard. They did exactly what the southerners did (WHAT I WOULD NOT DO). The revolutionaries then defended themselves when the King sent soldiers to their land to keep them in the crown.You cannot be for the revolution for some and against the revolution for others. Today as politician have railed against the constitution(electoral college etc etc etc) because of the election of a president(as they did for Lincoln),,, are they TRAITORS Colonel? They by words break your oath to the constitution. Present day is dirty also. Lincoln under war powers suspended habeous corpus, is he a traitor against the constitution ? DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY. When Lincoln ( who I study, admire,love , and revere ) and the north sent troops to the south to stop secession Lee defended his state and home. History is dirty. Lee is not a traitor , just wrong. We can talk and discuss this alot and and not plum the depths of this complex subject, iT is not simple as he concludes it is. Lastly war is terrible, the colonel concludes that the north did not do anything wrong in it's execution of the war. The former president of MY COLLEGE commited acts against the rules of war and morality today . Burning homes, taking property, raping, stealing things unassociated with war effort and leaving people to suffer in destitution are immoral wrongs, but history is dirty and war is TERRIBLE. The north did many things wrong, the truth is ruthless.
"You cannot be for the revolution for some and against the revolution for others" The 1776 rebels were fighting against a government that was governing them without giving them any voting power over the people passing laws. The 1861 rebels were just trying to preserve slavery. That's a huge difference. Not all revolutions are created equal.
Taking up arms against the US Military IS the very definition of the word traitor. Sorry it doesnt fit your personal narrative. However it is your narrative that is factually incorrect
@@rosep8481 He resigned his post from the US Army. Just like Grant did before him to go home. The United States raised an army and invaded his home and he took up arms against that army. He was not a traitor. Lee was wrong and every southerner was wrong to secede. I believe they had the right to but I would NEVER have. I think it is wrong to call him a traitor since he did not fight the United States as a US citizen.If a US citizen today renounces his citizenship today and becomes the citizen of another country he is then an enemy combatant. That is what Lee was. Grant and Lincoln agree with me.
@@TheStapleGunKid Not all revolutions are the same true. The question is whether a state can secede from the union. I have read constitutional scholars argument that a state cannot secede because of the common defense theory . We promise to protect each other so we can't leave the union. I simply do not agree. I hate slavery , slavery of all kinds. If I forced you to be in a union against your will that would be a kind of slavery or bondage. Lincoln said forcing a person to grow the corn and then not allowing him to eat it is what slavery is. I say forcing a person to protect me while they do not want to is the same thing. You have to love the union to be in it. You cannot force someone to protect that which he dislikes. That is our terrible situation today. I DO NOT THINK THE SOUTH SHOULD HAVE SECEDED. I just think they had the right to. PS I do not think the south left just because Lincoln won the election but that we had 2 countries and one country had to go forward. The correct one did.
@@paulk9214 The United States was formed by "We the people of the United States", not "we the people of each individual state". It was formed by the people, and thus can only be unformed in the same way. As the Supreme Court ruled in Texas V. White _"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."_ Your comparison of inability to secede to slavery is way wrong. No one said the Confederates couldn't simply leave the country if they didn't like it. They could always leave and go somewhere else. Slaves didn't have that option. When the CSA seceded, they didn't let their slaves leave if the slaves didn't like being there. The question wasn't weather or not Southerners were free to leave the United States, it's if they were free to take over territory in the United States can call it their own country. The constitution does not allow any such thing. Indeed, the Confederates themselves didn't allow such thing: When West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy, the CSA sent an army to stop them. The South left to preserve slavery, because they felt Lincoln was a threat to it. They would have felt the same about any president who held his anti-slavery views. As early as 1858, Jefferson Davis advocated secession in the event an anti-slavery president was elected: _"Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies. Withoutt pausing for your answer, I will state my own position to be that such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observances of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safety outside of a Union with those how have already shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and to reduce you to worse than the colonial dependence of your fathers."_
The comment about "the Truth" was ironic; I don't believe in the "truth" about anything, only what various historians say about a subject, and their conclusions are always open to debate. I thought the guy in the video is a gasbag. proudly named after the good general, I disagree with the colonel..@@michaeldalton3456
You evidently do not know who the American People are, or the true American History. You are just going by a collective of indoctrinating narratives for a racial division agenda. In the earliest years of the forming of the USA, they were NOT STATES, for they were "Common Wealths!" INDEPENDENT and Sovereign "Common Wealths: That was governed and independently, financially backed by North American SOVEREIGN Extended Families: That made a "collabration," when the United by signing the "Declaration of Independence." ALL WARS are about Money/Wealth and who controls it. Same is true for Abraham Lincolns' War of Northern Aggression. Before the War there was no one USA Treasury, or ONE American CURRENCY circulated through out the entire USA. But therewere many privately owned currencies circulated, throughout the USA, backed by the soverign independent, North American extended families. And What Abraham Lincoln wanted and a Handful of Radical Republican Northern "Common Wealths " Representatives was to "Consolidate," all of the North American "Common Wealths" Extended Families Wealth in to ONE POT: And then introduce into circulation a ONE USA CURRENCY. But from the time Andrew Jackson, was President, a hand full of Radical Northern "Common Wealths' Representatives," FULLY KNOWING, that they would always be the "MAJORITY!" in both Houses of the GOVERNMENT, (due to population)in the "Law making process," would go by a "Quorum" of whom ever, "Common Wealth" Representatives, that were present "and do a MAJORITY RULE VOTE," to make a "BILL," that they had written, into "LAW!" that DENIED the Southern "Common Wealths," Representatives a VOTE/ a VOICE in their own GOVERNMENT. (A DEMOCRACY!) (UN Constitutional) For the USA is a "Constitutional REPUBLIC!" That REQUIRES 100% of All "Common Wealths" Representatives participation, in the "Law making PROCESS!" And for a "BILL," to become "LAW" 63% of the "Common Wealths" Representatives have to VOTE the SAME WAY! Also referred to as the 2/3rds VOTE! 63% of 100% Representatives participation. But by Abraham Lincoln and his handful of Radical Republican Northern "Common Wealths" Representatives going by a Majority RULE VOTE and denying the Southern "Common Wealths" Representatives a Vote/ a,VOTE in the "Law making PROCESS:" The Southern "Common Wealths" Representatives would NOT agree to consolidation of Wealth, with the possibility of only the Northern "Common Wealths" Representatives controling ALL THE WEALTH ...by the Majority RULE VOTE in both HOUSES of the GOVERNMENT. Abraham Lincoln and his HANDFUL of Northern "Common Wealths," Radical Republicans Representatives went a head and introduced into circulation a "ONE" USA Currency: Maintaing that the CURRENCY was backed by the entire North America "Common Wealths," extended families. The Southern "Common Wealths" Representatives responded, by introducing their own "COUNTERFEIT!" Currency into circulation. Diluting all the Currency in circulation and making the ENTIRE CURRENCY WORTHLESS! Abraham Lincoln, said on the Congress floor, "That He and the entire Northern Radical Republican "Common Wealths," Representatives would OWN everything that e Southern "Common Wealths" had before he was through, especially the Southern "Common Wealths," Representatives." Only 8% of the Southerners that fought in the CIVIL WAR owned SLAVES. 8% IF the war was about SLAVERY then why didn't more than 8% fight to preserve Slavery? It's because the Wealthy Southerners that Abraham Lincoln was at War with, took their Wealth off Shore and returned to Europe to wait out the war. But they stayed invested in both sides of the War. THERE WAS NO LOST CAUSE! You refuse to recognize who the,Americans are. And they were NOT states until after the civil war, with the rewriting of Constitution to accomadate the changes determined by the war. For many of the "Common Wealths" had different geographical boundaries and borders and included portions of different states. There is more FACTUAL critiques to the Civil War, than I have written here.
I disagree, Lincoln said "if slavery isn't wrong then nothing is wrong". I could not agree more. The words of the Bible have not changed in 2000+ years. How could people think it was ok to force a man to work for you and not pay him, hold him in bondage, rape his wife and beat him to death????? I cannot understand it. It was at the time and is today morally reprehensible. They sinned grievously and we still pay for it today.
@@paulk9214 If you say it is OK to " judge a man's views on the issues of his day by the ideological fashions of another era." then you must consider Lincoln a racist, correct? his words in 1858 www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm
@@bjohnson515 Lincoln's views changed over his lifetime. He was almost always against slavery although he wasn't even an abolitionist at the begining of his presidency. Many people did not want slavery but they were racist in that they believed the black man to be inferior.I like to say slavery was a southern problem, racism was an American problem. Northerners don't want to admit that truth, it was just us southerners. Lincoln wanted to be president. I would refer you to "Lincoln's Tragic Pragmatism" by John Burt. He needed votes and his views like all politicians was to get votes. So yes he said and promised racist things and that makes him racist. BUT as time went along and after 2 presidential victories his views "evolved" and changed to a great degree. By the end of his life his views were much much closer to an ideal view of equality. Frederick Douglas would tell you the same thing. I truly understand your point of view from above, I have just come to disagree respectfully with it.
Also if I may say that there ARE issues that must be judged in the light of the understanding and knowledge of the day!!!!!!! Taxes, tariffs, politics etc are such issues. Slavery for me as a Christian person who can , as anyone can, read a scripture and understand it is a MORAL issue that time doesn't change.
@@paulk9214 And we are talking about Lee, right? Lee said "Slavery was more harmful to the White Race than the Black". Lee didnt own slaves but was thrust into the executor position of his father in law's estate. Lee was in the US military for over 30 years. Never has it been recorded he brought a "servant" with him anywhere. Yet it was not uncommon for others to do so. As for Lincoln, you say he was all good after two Presidential victories... but his last speech on April 11, Lincoln spoke of giving the vote to only those Blacks who had served in the military. So, is that racist? Yes, even after two elections. Ever notice why his first inaugural is missing from the Lincoln Monument? Only the second is posted. No one here is defending slavery, to be clear. But judging attitudes and views of people 160 years ago through the prism of today's values is unfair. We didnt have the input they had, and can not guess what that was.
When people say "From sea to shining sea" all I hear is "Kill the Natives, take their land". It's hard to hear him talk so well about Lee and slavery, then say a phrase that's basically code for "let's commit genocide" that we teach our children everyday.
If general Seidule is right federalism and the 10th amendment don’t matter and weren’t ever important issues. If he’s right James Madison was wrong when he wrote the Virginia resolutions. And that means that the constitution itself is wrong every part of it. The only thing that matters is slavery and how it was handled and allowed to exist.
@@redrjlaw It’s not just the wording of a document. It’s the foundation of our whole system of government whether or not we will do what our founding fathers really intended to ensure the liberty of all. And we don’t have to misrepresent that intent in order to condemn slavery and do away with it anyway. We can say that we were wrong about slavery without saying that we were wrong about federalism or that federalism in its true form was just a pretext for slavery, which is a false and dangerous bit of propagandizing.
@@redrjlaw Well without federalism nobody really has liberty even after slavery. We’re like subject of a king. At least with federalism we can get rid of slavery and extend liberty to all.
Although Seidule's book, by definition, is faux history (and should not be represented any other way), I respect his right to his views and to the expression of those views publicly. Unfortunately, he and those like him are neither willing nor able to extend this same generosity to those who disagree.
Interesting how you back nothing in your comment up with those silly things like facts which General Seidule did. You need to go back to your primary schools and pay them back the taxes spent on educating you, they failed at that.
You're not addressing the point about his oath and the oath of other southern officers. I'm not sure you understand the Constitution and the Declaration. The point is not whether the Declaration is a relevant document - of course it is! What we were discussing was the creation and provision of rights. That's what you were talking about. And in that context, the Declaration is nowhere near as relevant as the constitution which has overarching legal standing vs no legal standing at all. And you call the Northern government unjust ... even though you have yet to answer my question about how a people being treated unjustly had the lion's share of the wealth in the US. SO your story is that the government that enslaves other humans and profits from keeping them in enforced servitude is the "just" government in this conflict??? You can't resist digging it deeper, can you? On the casualties ... I completely refute your argument that you can't count those deaths. Those are the casualties. Even if you just took the Union dead at 364,000, you think that really makes a difference in assessing Lee's legacy? You're argument is an emotional one, unsupported by facts of the matter.
Unfortunately, Colonel Seidule is yet another woke U.S. military officer. The Colonel, and others like him, are more concered with debasing history, D.E.I. and political correctness than military prepardness. These men are the reason recruitment numbers are seriously down. Specifically, among young men from the heartland of this country. The areas that this nation has traditionally depended on, to man the deffense of this nation. God have mercy upon us if we ever find our country once agian facing a true military threat.
Lol, "woke". Such a weak word for weak people. Maybe recruitment is down because every war for the past half century has been solely to benefit the wealthy, Republicans have absolutely massacred VA benefits, and the US isn't in any present danger. We're currently crippling Russia by funding their enemies in Ukraine and it's nothing but Republicans moaning about the greatest ROI with the fewest US deaths possible. And yes, Seidule is right too :)
Ty, up until the point Lee was offered the command of what was essentially the Army of the Potomac, what was your opinion of Lee, his time at WP as a cadet, as an engineer builder of forts, in the Mexican War, in the 2nd Cavalry,? And from the time he surrendered the ANV until his death, your objections to Lee are what? I suspect your real issue with Lee lay between the years 1861-65.
@@bjohnson515 I’m not sure how you construct an argument based on treason to Virginia. Lee’s citizenship was American, not Virginian. He swore an Oath of Allegiance to the US, not to Virginia. If you argue differently, you’re saying that the many Virginians who chose to serve the Union were the real traitors and that a man’s sworn oath means nothing. That’s shaky ground.
@@peterrobertson2580 First, he swore an oath of allegiance to the united states, plural. And the states were no longer "united" when VA seceded. So how could he be bound to allegiance to a collection of states that no longer existed? "], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them, ...." THEM, not "it". and to back this up, West Point saw the "flaw" in their oath and changed it in 1862. Virginia pre dated the federal experiment by over 100 years. And, I assume you are having trouble in this....You must put yourself into the era, not judge by the fashions of another time. Particularly in the South, the State was the object of allegiance....and VA in particular which was the home to 7 of the first 14 Presidents....and where, essentially, the national capitol was located. But your people have gotten your way...and now Monument Ave is just another street in Richmond.....I hope you see what you are doing.
As a retired colonel and amateur historian, I find this discussion self-serving and cowardly. Arrogant, modern presumptions applied to the 19th century. "The Constitution is there to put down rebellions." Shameful propaganda. It was to protect the rights of states from the fear of a powerful central government.
The slave states were perfectly happy to see Federal laws enforced if it served their needs- the Fugitive Slave Act is a perfect example. The state right they fought over was to protect slavery. Lee swore an oath to the COUNTRY, NOT VIRGINIA. There are enough examples of southern West Pointers that fulfilled their oath at great cost.
Oh...this guy. Another political military leader who has more experiece kissing butt than actual academic scholarship. "Scholar" is that an honorary title?
I made it 24 minutes. No offense is taken here. But this man is shockingly ignorant of Civil War history for an educated Southerner. So far, he's done nothing but toe the line of the current, wildly dishonest and inaccurate, historical narrative.
Im no fan of the Confederacy or Lee. Im a Southerner who thinks the Union was right. However, I knew this guy was a woke propagandist when I heard him in another interview compare J6 to secession in 1860.
@@danarose6314 Sorry can't respond rationally to your passive aggressive ad hominem attack. 😂😂😂 May I suggest: ua-cam.com/video/qGJUGSpXIUo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/BBVnlYxAh9E/v-deo.html
The part of Lee his worshippers want you to forget. www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/06/30/Confederates-slave-hunt-in-North-a-military-disgrace/stories/201306300221 _In June 1863, when Brig. Gen. Albert Jenkins' cavalry, in the vanguard of the Confederate army, galloped into Pennsylvania, its aim wasn't only to spy and steal supplies._ _The soldiers were also determined, as historian Margaret Creighton notes, to round up African-Americans, whom the Confederates regarded as "contraband" that should be returned to "rightful" owners. The "slave hunt," as contemporaries and later historians called this phase of the Confederate invasion, would last as long as Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia remained in Pennsylvania. It ended only when the defeated Southern troops retreated back to Virginia after the Battle of Gettysburg..._ _Estimates vary as to how many blacks were caught in the Confederate dragnet during the Gettysburg campaign. Mr. Smith puts the figure at more than 1,000 -- especially if it includes those seized in Winchester, Va., Martinsburg, __W.Va.__, and Rockville, Md....._ _For an army to attack unarmed and defenseless civilians is a disgrace and, by modern standards, a war crime. The African-Americans whom Southern soldiers rounded up, seized and in some cases fired upon, did not threaten the Army of Northern Virginia. As Coddington wrote a generation ago: "Under no circumstances could the Confederates justify the hunt on military necessity."_ _For Jacob Hoke, who witnessed the slave hunts and in the 1880s would write a well-regarded history of "The Great Invasion," the raids revealed the object for which many Southerners had waged war: "to found a government based on human slavery._ _"Thank God!" wrote Hoke, the effort failed..._
No they just targeted women and children burned their homes to the ground raped and pillaged regardless if a family owned slaves or not....which by the way Grant himself was a slave owner . None of which would have happened if they had stayed in the north.
@@Ao-pj1mc Utter nonsense. First of all Grant freed the only slave he ever owned long before the Civil War. As for the army conduct, some homes were burned and looted, but it was nothing like what you claim. You want to talk about mistreatment of civilians, you should check out what the Confederacy did to Chambersburg PA. The Confederate army torched the entire town just because the citizens couldn't pay a ransom demand _"The Confederates formed into squads and fanned out from the center of town. For two hours they rushed from house to house, burst open the doors with planks and axes, rifled every room for jewelry, silverware, and money, hacked up the furniture for kindling, and put torches to bedding and bureaus or lit balls of cotton saturated with kerosene. Some people were given time to collect a few belongings before their houses were fired; others were not. Describing the scene, a Confederate captain said: “It was impossible at first to convince the people, the females particularly that their fair city would [be] burnt; even when the torch was applied, they seemed dazed. Terror was depicted in every face, women, refined ladies and girls running through the streets wild with fright seeking some place of safety.” Then he added soberly: “I hadn’t bargained for this, but such it was.”_ _"One old woman was told by a Confederate squad to run, that her house was on fire. Her reply that she had not been able to walk for three years was met with curses, and one of the soldiers poured powder under her chair, saying he would teach her to walk. Neighbors later rescued her."_ _A squad of Confederates demanded their breakfast of the local schoolmaster. “Did you ever teach n*ggers?” asked a cavalryman. “Yes, sir,” the schoolmaster replied. “Damn him, fire his house,” came the quick command. The widow of a Union soldier begged for mercy. In response soldiers set fire to her house and robbed her of her money."_ Such was the conduct of the CSA: None of which would have happened if they hadn't started a rebellion to preserve slavery forever.
@@TheStapleGunKid Nonsense? lets look at what you consider nonsense. Perhaps you are familiar with an event simply called "the Burning" carried out in a 70 mile long 30 mile wide swath of the shenendoah valley . An event described by Col. James Kidd (a federal officer) as "What I saw there is burned into my memory. The anguish pictured in their faces wouldhave melted any heart not seared by the horrors and 'necessities' of war. It was too much for me and at the first moment that duty would permit I hurried from the scene." Lets also look at event knows as General order 11 (1863) In which civilians of 4 counties in Missouri were forced from their homes (which were then burned to the ground) Notable Artist George Caleb Bingham (who was by the way pro Union ) described what occured during the implementation of this order as an "act of imbecility" He then further described the events saying "It is well-known that men were shot down in the very act of obeying the order, and their wagons and effects seized by their murderers. Large trains of wagons, extending over the prairies for miles in length, and moving Kansasward, were freighted with every description of household furniture and wearing apparel belonging to the exiled inhabitants. Dense columns of smoke arising in every direction marked the conflagrations of dwellings, many of the evidences of which are yet to be seen in the remains of seared and blackened chimneys, standing as melancholy monuments of a ruthless military despotism which spared neither age, sex, character, nor condition. There was neither aid nor protection afforded to the banished inhabitants by the heartless authority which expelled them from their rightful possessions. They crowded by hundreds upon the banks of the Missouri River, and were indebted to the charity of benevolent steamboat conductors for transportation to places of safety where friendly aid could be extended to them without danger to those who ventured to contribute it." These are just 2 of dozens of war crimes commited by federal soldiers against civilians...so how exactly is this nonsense?. And by the way when Grant freed his slave does not absolve him of being a slave owner.
Would that be a bad thing? Seems like a reasonable conclusion to the scholarship would be that Washington & Lee get renamed. There is no shortage of principled people from our nation's past that could take their place.
Sherman committed very few war crimes? Intentionally burning down civilian homes and leaving unarmed women and children to the elements was pretty much what he did as a policy, and he would be tried as a war criminal today. This did not happen because some soldiers misbehaved. This is what they were instructed to do. And Sherman was not the only Union general who did this as a matter policy. The populations of entire counties were told to leave on short notice, with no provision made for them to survive.
Recent studies have shown that, for the most part, Sherman's soldiers only burned homes when someone has either shot at them or had threatened them . Yes, they lived off the land on their marches to Savannah, GA, and to Columbia, SC. However, every Civil War Army did that--even Marse Robert's. They called it "foraging." Yes, those counties that were havens for "bushwhackers" and Confederate Guerrillas or were menacing Union troops were first warned and then evacuated..
@@ajhindalou read William Gilmore Simms' "A City Laid Waste" and then tell me how seriously you think Sherman's orders to not harm civilians were taken by Sherman or his men. www.amazon.com/City-Laid-Waste-Destruction-Sesquicentennial/dp/1611170036
@@ajhindalou and there's no evidence that Lee was ever inclined to treat northern civilians in the manner Sherman did, and he had opportunity to do it in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and never did. Cornwallis treated Americans far better than Sherman did. Those are simple and undeniable facts of history.
@@ajhindalou and fort pillow was investigated by none other than Sherman, and he determined that Forrest was not guilty of any war crime there. Was he a liar? In this case he had every reason to condemn Forrest if he had evidence to do so.
@@ajhindalou and at Andersonville, there were Confederate prison guards who died of starvation. The lack of food there and in the region was the result of Union policy, and a refusal to exchange prisoners.
@@zingingcutie8421 The US should have been ripped apart. The nation Seidule serves so well is a vile, repugnant mockery of what it was founded to be, as the last generation of honorable Americans ever born , such as Lee, knew full well it would become.
Same Ole, Same Ole! This lecture was nothing more than the regurgitation of cherry-picked historical talking points used to present a biased and culturally relativistic argument against Lee and the Confederacy. It lacked any meaningful historical context, failed to address any counter-arguments to the lecturer's main points, and attempted to veil the speaker in false objectivity by spending 10 (laborious) minutes addressing how he once (regrettably) idolized Lee. The speaker first “debunks” the Lost Cause Myth that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. “Read the secession documents! They mention slavery 82 times,” he says-- as if that makes it an open and shut case. ….except the secession documents of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky NEVER MENTIONS SLAVERY! Not once. (Read them for yourselves--- they're are pretty enlightening) The speaker, like most academics, conflates secession with the War itself. The Civil War was not inevitable just because of secession. Any Civil War historian will acknowledge that fact. While slavery was undeniably the primary driver of the initial spate of secession in the south, slavery was not the only issue at play (especially for the Upper South), and it certainly was not the reason the war was fought. Anyone who argues otherwise is either incapable of reading a basic historical timeline--- or is being dishonest. The good Colonel also argues that Lee is guilty of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. I'm not great with geography, but I'm pretty sure that Bull Run Creek is NOT in Massachusetts or Illinois. If the Confederates didn't invade the North in 1861, I find it a little hard to argue that they were levying war ON the United States, but rather that the US was waging war against them. Lee, along with all of Virginia, had nothing to do with Fort Sumter, and no one made Lincoln choose war over peace. In fact, the South sent FOUR separate peace delegations to Washington prior to the Fort Sumter incident to negotiate a peace deal with the Lincoln administration--- all were dismissed out of hand by 'Honest Abe.' Once Lincoln decided to invade the South, Virginians like Lee had little choice but to fight back. The South was always fighting in self-defense. How is it treason to pick up a gun and fight an invading army bent of the forceful overthrow of your democratically elected state and local governments? (not to mention the illegal seizure of property and wealth, and the burning of towns and homes by that same invading army) The Colonel then implies that Southerners are upset because they can't stand hear the 'hard truths' about guys like Lee. That's not true at all. Lee, like the Confederacy, was deeply flawed--- and their participation in, and views on, slavery must be acknowledged. AND THEY ARE! The Confederacy, like the first 200 years of US history, will never be right on race and slavery, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is ignorant. But no one hides that fact in America, and no one shirks from hearing those truths. We acknowledge our history in America, warts and all. The Colonel needs to understand that people get upset because the academy continually fails to objectively address any of the nuances or complexities of the Civil War, nor do they accurately reflect the motivations of its participants-- on EITHER SIDE. Like Washington and Jefferson, people in the South don't honor Lee and Jackson because of their relationship with slavery, nor do they do so because of some ignorant belief in a Lost Cause idea (but thanks for the implication). We honor them because they were principled men who put their lives on the line to fight for their homes and countrymen--- regardless of what we think of that country, or its founding principals, today. I could go on, but ultimately I'm not so much arguing against the Colonel's facts, but rather how the information was presented. It was biased, and leaves out so many aspects of the objective truth that the picture he paints is ultimately one-dimensional and untrue. The Colonel is not making a historical argument, he's making a lawyer's argument. He cherry-picked from facts that supported his anti-Southern narrative, but he conveniently left out any information which might balance his thesis and paint southern soldiers as something other than raging racist bigots bent on destroying the United States. He seems to imply they were simply not good people because of their connection with slavery (unlike Washington and Jefferson for some reason), and should not be honored or remembered with any reverence. It remains an immensely frustrating point that no member of the academy is willing to present a counter-argument to the same tired, biased, and one-sided arguments constantly being used to slander Confederate soldiers 150 years after the fact. Their Union contemporaries judged them not-guilty on all counts, moved on, and together rebuilt a nation. Now, these same men are being retried in the court of public opinion despite the obvious double-jeopardy--- and the country they rebuilt is being split apart once again. ...thanks guys
Bruce Baron the colonel did do a good job ( yet not completely and not totally but only to a degree) saying the things that he said are true. That slavery was the cause (or the start) if the Civil War. It was not the only cause of which these North and South fought over or even went to war. There were other causes that lead Southerners to fight just before and after the start of the war. See this guy deliberately leaves the fact out that the South was fighting against the penalty of treason of which the leaders had slave owners fire at Fort Sumter thus committing treason against the United States. Now obviously a lot of Southerners along with a lot of Confederate soldiers agreed with secession but at the same time a lot of other Southerners including a lot of Confederate soldiers disagreed with secession. They fought for their states they didn't want their states to undergo the death penalty they didn't want their states to undergo high taxes they didn't want any of their rights Stripped Away or restricted. They were fighting also against the penalty of treason. They didn't fight just against the penalty of treason only to protect slavery but also to protect their people from losing their rights from high taxes and from the death penalty. They were fighting against the penalty of subjugation. See people like this guy come to the South and infiltrate Civil War museums and places like Washington and Lee and say that the Civil War was not just about slavery but all about slavery, just so they can have our monuments our names of streets are names of buildings our Confederate flags and finally our cemeteries either destroyed or located to museums. Because all they want to do is see them as symbols of treason racism hate as well as symbols of traitors. Lincoln was willing to not punish the South he wanted the South to be one with the north he wanted to let bygones be bygones and forget about it and move on he knew that a lot of people in the South were only trying to fight to defend their homes as well as defend slavery. See the colonel furthermore fails to mention ( I don't mean to judge harshly but he sounds very liberal and he therefore has to have his way and I think he speaks deliberately and purposely with an agenda ) that the Confederates in 1864 we're willing to to have slave owners arm their slaves in the Confederacy and free the slaves if they remain faithful to the Confederacy in order for them to have their independence. Having Independence for them met either staying out of the union or rejoining the Union just so long as they didn't face the penalty of treason against the United States. But I do acknowledge and I do confess that if it weren't for slavery there would be no Civil War, since slavery was the cause: the Civil War was about- 1.primarily preserving or abolishing the institution of slavery 2. Preserving the Union for the North. 3. Preserving Independence for the South.
Furthermore and finally the South may have the " myth of the Lost Cause," but the North along with the rest of the United States has what I call the " Myth of the Victor's story," since it is said that the "Victor writes the story," or " To the victor goes the spoils." And by the way these people are taking our spoils when they destroy our monuments and are Confederate flags and names of streets and buildings and anything and everything related to the Confederate History.
@@TonyWright8121 “A large part of McPherson’s [author of “Ordeal by Fire”] success is due to the fact that his sources are incredibly reliable since they originated from the actual war years instead of potentially revised, sentimentalized, or sanitized remembrances recorded years after the war. More importantly he addressed one of the most crucial concerns that dominate this type of scholarship: What made men willing to go to war, and, once there to endure it? By tackling this question, he was able to confront an imperative issue of our own generation-the soldiers personal ideology to slavery” (William B. Rogers and Terese Martin ‘A Consensus at Last: American Civil War Texts and the Topics that Dominate the College Classroom’ p. 524). “A considerable part of McPherson’s success can be contributed to the fact that he clearly conveyed the relevance of the slavery issue in regards to the cause of the war. In particular, his research on the years leading up to the war clearly demonstrated how the economic, political, and social struggles of the time were all interconnected with slavery” (William B. Rogers and Terese Martin ‘A Consensus at Last: American Civil War Texts and the Topics that Dominate the College Classroom’ p. 527). “Most of these monographs as well as McPherson’s text share one common thread; they acknowledge the significant role slavery had in the events leading up to the war as well its lasting ramifications on American society. Thus, many of these works contain little debate over war causation since they recognize that slavery was the root cause of the war” (William B. Rogers and Terese Martin ‘A Consensus at Last: American Civil War Texts and the Topics that Dominate the College Classroom’ p. 530). www.amazon.com/James-M.-McPherson/e/B000AQ3NV2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1556305236&sr=1-1&fbclid=IwAR2PoXMFjhpFyUPowwxT1CJ_CpXG1VisBPWL1as8ioPljaQifslpTQiEyig
@@TonyWright8121 "Men like Alexander Stevens and Jefferson Davis and others made no bones about slavery as the reason; the threat to slavery posed by the incoming Lincoln administration as their reason for their secession. In 1861 the pro-slavery argument was alive and well. It was a respectable argument in the South. Even a respectable argument in parts of the North. They may not have wanted slavery for themselves; Steven Douglass for example said we don't want it here in Illinois but any state or territory where they do want it they should have the right to have it. …The majority consensus in the South is that slavery was a positive good. Once the war was over and slavery had been abolished and once Southerners realized they had very little support in the world...for slavery as the basis of the good society; Once the North had made it clear that they were fighting for emancipation; I think it became a bit of a shock to Southerners to realize that their institution had not only been abolished but discredited in the eyes of the world. And if that institution was discredited int the eyes of the world, then the Confederacy itself would be discredited in the eyes of history. So, it became a psychological necessity, I think for them to deny that the war was about slavery. …So they developed a series of alternative explanations for their raison d'etre, for their reason for existence and states-rights became one of those...causes for which they were fighting" (James M. McPherson "This Mighty Scourge, Perspectives on the Civil War, part 1" 'UA-cam' video). ua-cam.com/video/xGQeEKeBkZ8/v-deo.html&app=desktop
Lol this guy is so far off base...1. Lee was not in the army when he took command of Virginia forces. 2. The praise for Lee was not born by some post war group hell bent on revisionism it was born during the war by his soldiers that damn near worshipped him. And by his adversaries including Grant. There is a reason this guy is called professor woke. His book is nothing but abstractions (poorly researched abstractions to be presise). I suggest Dr. James Randall or Dr James Robertson( an actual expert on Lee) rather than this revisionist garbage.
Robert E. Lee was a newly-appointed US Army Colonel (President Lincoln signed Lee's promotion) and resigned from the US Army to accept a commission with the Confederate States of America. And why would Grant admire Lee? Given both of their backgrounds, the fact that Lee was being defeated by Grant might have been thought of as an insult by Lee. They likely had a level of respect for each other as Soldiers, but that would be the extent of it.
If you havent watched this mans Causes for the Civil war video then I suggest you do that before listening to this lecture. Its more or less the same but the video he made was riddled with contradictions to his own arguments and Iv seen several videos picking the video apart and pointing out flaws in his logic and facts he clearly twists to benefit his position. Dont let this man fool you into thinking hes an unbiased scholar discovering the non debatable truth. He is agenda driven just like most scholars are who claim to be correct in all things. Do your own research and try your best to see the historical and economic story from all sides to form the truth, not just the sides you want to hear.
My friend, I would refer you to Harvard historian Jill Lepore who has written, "History is a story about the past accountable to evidence". (facts). If Col. Seidule's perspective is inconsistent, that means he is struggling with the difficulty of the weight of evidence. That is the hallmark of a man of integrity and a first-rate historian, especially in view of his lifelong reverence for the Myth of the Lost Cause.
@@marshalkrieg2664 The CSA killed more Americans then any other faction in history, all for the sake of preserving slavery. Why should they deserve any respect?
@@TheStapleGunKid During the war Lincohn had a proposal to allow slavery to persist in the US until 1893. During the war, had the Union effected a victory in 1862, slavery would have still been the law of the entire land. Several months into the war, the US Congress declared the the goal of the war was not to end slavery. General Lee was strongly pro Union until Lincohn announced plans to invade the deep South. Lee held no slaves when war broke out. Jeb Stuart only owned two slaves and got rid of them before the war broke out. Jefferson Davis wrote his wife in Feb. 1861 " ...in any case our slave property eventually will be lost" meaning even a Confederate victory spelled the end of slavery for them. The South had more free blacks than the north, about 260,000 and 10% of these blacks' owned slaves. The war was fought over the principle of self government, the attempt by the South to preserve the real Union of Jeffersonian republicanism, the original nation, which was utterly smashed and destroyed by traitor Lincohn and his terrorist mercenary invading army. , and we are now still dealing with the aftermath- Lincohn ism went on to slaughter the plains Indians, invade Latin America umpteen times, and now Lincolnian descendants got us into the Iraq and Afghani wars etc. Lincohn was our worst president by far, as he got one million Americans killed. When the deep South seceded this was a duplication of the republic, not it's end, and Abe just could not let them go, primarily over money his northern financier clique stood to lose, so he got a bullet his brain on the day he was planning on a way to have all blacks deported out of the US- an idea he never gave up on, while late in 1864 Lee and Davis were coming round to the idea of Confederate emancipation. Lee understood that the freed slaves would have to be allowed to remain in the South afterwards, and be treated equally- thus we see that Lee was more advanced in his thinking than Lincohn was.
12:33 Correction Uncle Remus was an ex slave. He was not a slave in the movie. Its post civil war. He was a free man
Zippedee doo da
My favorite Duffel Blog headline was about a meeting of soon to be retiring Colonels to determine what Civil War battles each would write a book about.
I have to say it's honorable to let this gentleman voice his opinion and no one protested or threw apples at him. Kudos to W&L.
This book is just another example of liberal fascist "presentism" trying to besmirch a great historical figure. And you are correct, W&L showed much more character than this dogface's nasty scribbling.
In fact they applauded. Resoundingly. As we should, also
As simple farmers from the mountains of Arkansas we had no slaves, but we did not feel compelled to take up arms against rebellion.
What if the rebels came to enslave you?
Then they were more than likely unionist, forced by conscription to fight. Mountain people rarely sided with the rich slavers.
"All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - some wise guy
We didn't go anywhere or enslave anyone. We fought because the North called for volunteers from our state to invade others.@@ignacio1088
Very bad time to live in Arkansas! I can speak only of my people. We fought because it was unthinkable to invade our brethren. And it's hard to take orders from a distant power.@@scottgoens7575
The Texas Civil war with Mexico was not racial at all.....These folks have no understanding of Texas history and it shows. Texas became an independent country for 10 years before voting to join the US. Texas was its own country and many feel that it was a mistake to join the US even today.
The Uncle Remus stories were not written by Joel Chandler Harris, as the speaker states, they were written down by Harris as told to him by slaves. Had he not done this, many such stories and fables would have been lost. He preserved a trove of cultural history out of respect for the value of the stories. Harris' home in Atlanta, The Wren's Nest, is open to visitors and the stories he preserved, and others, are retold there for visitors.
Brion McClanahan has several videos on UA-cam discussing Robert E. Lee and this book.
Yeah, Brion crushed this Seidule creep down into powder.....
@@marshalkrieg2664 Seidule is a complete clown.
My Mothers Mom was Robert E Lee's 3rd Cousin. She was brought up as a Lee in Virginia near Virginia Beach. She was not wealthy but lived simply.
She was a segregationist.
He makes a lot of good points that non-racist, fair minded Americans already know. He is tremendously self-righteous in his delivery. Such a presentation al performance promotes the Systemic Racism narrative, like all or most of us are racists. I am not a racist, in fact I know very few. I think the term “The prevalence of racism in some circles and geographical areas” is a fairer and better term. Praying for our nation!!
The speech was well delivered however, my concern is that the Colonel's speech focusing on a myth glossed over how leaders such as President (and general) Eisenhour had a picture of Lee in his White House office. Obviously, there really has been a (sometimes slowly) coming together based upon respect for leaders of both the Confederacy and the Union. To simply suggest that General Lee is a marble man is certainly not an opinion previously shared by President Ike, a modern president that we all liked and respected.
Why do I see this comment so often about Ike from lost causers? Trying to point to a good general and president and saying he had a picture of Lee so Lee must have been ok? I don't get it. Lee fought to keep other human's as slaves. Many people have fallen to the propaganda of the lost causers that tried to change what the Civil War was about. Believe the words of the secessionists and their constitutions and articles of secession. It was about slavery. Don't believe the daughters of the slave empire, excuse me, confederacy, and their white washing of history to try and make it about state's rights. State's rights to what? Keeping other humans as slaves. I can't believe we are still having to deal with this. The confederacy was a 4 year failure. The show Supernatural has lasted 4 times as long, and, from what I know, at no point was based on keeping other humans as slaves. That show has lasted almost 4 times as long and had a more positive impact on US history. It's ok if your ancestors were slave holders. That doesn't make you a bad human. No need to feel shame when realizing that they made some horrible choices and you now can choose to not support a failed rebellion that's only goal was keeping other humans as slaves.
"Monuments tell us not about the person (being memorialized) but who put them up!" BRAVO, Col. BRAVO. Thundering....courageous....compassionate. An invaluable preamble to a conversation our country desperately needs to have. You are a Scholar and a Gentleman of the First Water.
🐎 💩!
Scholarship requires comprehensive research not abstractions that interpreted incorrectly. The moment you try to argue that Lee fought because he wanted to keep slavery in place your opinion becomes irrelevant because the actual evidence does not support that claim
@@doliver859 Did Lee think the South risked losing more than they did? In other words, what did the South lose apart from the peculiar institution as a result of a Union victory?
*More utter lies disinformation and a blatant corruption of the Confederate Historical Record by a gutless COWARD Ty Seidule*
@@hamnchee Many many sons..🤔😞
We need a gigantic statue of Sherman - in Atlanta!
Awesome lecture, it destroys the myth of the lost cause and shows directly the civil war was about slavery
It’s total bullshit lies and disinformation...
*Ty Seidule is a COWARD*
@@LaGrandeBayou I think it's telling Seidule said both 1) The south 'started the war', but then a few minutes later 2) The north 'had to go south' and defeat multiple armies. Why would the north need to go south if it wasn't the aggressor? His one sided narrative demonstrates his lack of true appreciation of southern tradition and history, despite his cultish devotion during his upbringing. It's sad he didn't develop a nuanced narrative when he shed that cult, but instead subbed another cult, that of the northern noble cause.
@@itsbaxter2 The north going south isn't mutually exclusive with the south starting the war. Should the Union have simply waited to get attacked each time to fight back? Nonsense.
@@Ben00000 Not "waiting to get attacked" is the very definition of being the aggressor. The Confederacy had no plans to attack the USA. It wanted to peacefully withdraw, as the British American colonies had tried to do from the UK. Jefferson Davis did all he could to avoid secession and was the last southern senator to leave DC, making a tearful beneficent farewell speech. The South was not however allowed to peacefully leave, but instead were invaded by Lincoln. The proof is after the North invaded South Carolina, southern states that had remained in the Union joined the Confederacy out of horror of being demanded by Lincoln to help invade the Confederacy. Lincoln's violation of the Constitution and peace grew the Confederacy twice its size and power, and made the war and divide much worse. Had Lincoln done nothing, the few Confederate states that left, in my opinion, would have had major incentive to rejoin the US in the next 35 years as slavery inevitably would have ended, and common cause and defense would have been a major lure to rejoin. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and the US would have remained a respecter of states' rights and the country would have been stronger and better for it. Instead, we came out with massive unnecessary bloodshed and a bully central government that inspired future tyrants the world over, including Hitler.
@@itsbaxter2 You are changing the subject: The north attacking at all doesn't mean the south didn't start the war. Your logic is wrong. Your obvious apologist bias is secondary to the fact that your argument doesn't even make sense to begin with.
We could have ended slavery without the war. That is a fact. It just didn't happen. Ex slaves should have been given an education and work opportunities if desired, even with the war this didn't happen. They were left to fend for themselves. That's what I notice. The elderly could have been considered as well. I always say to put a group of high school students in a room for a week and they can solve anything. Unfortunately adults cannot.
Crap
Thank You Sir. For you honesty, courage, service, and integrity.
The ability to change is truly one of the great virtues.
Despite agreeing with some of the content of BG (Ret) Ty Seidule’s presentation, I’d be remiss in my comments if I didn’t admonish W&L for hosting an undergrad lecturer whose primary intent appears to have been to dictate what to think instead of sharing his education and vast experience about how to think about such challenging national issues. As a West Point alumnus and Army officer, I feel that our Nation, Army and students at Institutions of higher learning could benefit more by hearing from leaders sharing the lessons they learned, both good and bad, as they navigated such challenges using their own thought processes. There are already far too many broadcast and social media sources of partisan sound bytes for students to access that attempt to tell them what to think. Consider teaching W&L students how to think critically, respectfully debate the bases of positions on issues and offer their own innovative, unifying and focused solutions whenever possible. Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback!
I am thankful for the opportunity to listen to this presentation It it an eye and an mind opening It will have an impact on on my opinion of today situation
Please don’t fall for this!This man is doing nothing but dividing and weakening the Country and the Military!
@@jasoneyopp9744 You'll have to point out... anything..... if you hope to make some kind of case here.
@@hamnchee Well I gave a link to 4 different UA-cam videos, but UA-cam deleted my comment.
@@jasoneyopp9744 So i guess you are saying that we should keep on living a lie?? We can't take the truth?
@@djcogdill9263 "I tried to let 4 other people do the thinking for me but I got spam filtered" is not a winning reply to be sure
Awesome discussion. Much needed and appreciated information with facts. A transparent speaker will always give the background of their history when discussing the topic at hand. Similar to understanding the Bible…determine who is speaking, at what point is the occurrence and to whom is the writer speaking too. Thank you!
Sic Semper Tyrannis
In 1958 the US Navy named a submarine after Lee
Dwight Eisenhower kept a picture of Lee on the wall in his office
So what changed? Ike debating this Colonel would have been fun to watch.
What changed and who pushed for the change of attitude toward Lee and add in Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...?
IMO it was an intentional rewrite to a history some prefer rather than the reality of what did occur.
What really did occur is that Lee decided to turn against his country and join a slave-master rebellion, an action that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Lee did this, while other Virginia military officers like George Thomas, Samuel Lee, William Terrill, and Winfield Scott made a different choice.
_"I would not strike the fallen. I would not repel the repentant, but may my right hand forget its cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I forget the difference between the parties to that terrible, protracted and bloody conflict.”_ --Frederick Douglass.
@@TheStapleGunKid
"I, ....., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve THEM (my emphasis) honestly and faithfully,
The West Point Oath at the time Lee took it.
Plural.
States.... united.
In 1861, when Lee went to his native state, the states were no long "united".
How can he be held to an oath that refers to a condition of the states that no longer existed?
Can you catch the difference?
@@bjohnson515 Exactly, plural. Lee took his oath to the United States, not Virginia. And yes, they did still exist when Lee joined the rebellion.
@@TheStapleGunKid That which Lee pledged allegiance, those united states, no longer existed.
And if you maintain that the northern states were still united, then you must also note that the southern states were united as well.
So, which "set" of united states are you referring...and when Lee took his oath, the southern states were included in "those united states". If he went against the South, he would be breaking his oath to the southern states.
@@bjohnson515 I didn't say only the Northern states still existed. I said the United States still existed. The United States still existed during the Whiskey rebellion in 1794, and they still existed during the rebellion of 1861. The Confederate states were still part of the United States, they were just in rebellion.
Lee never made any oath to the Southern states, he made his oath to the United States. His oath didn't say "if some states rise up in rebellion, then this oath no longer applies."
"Winfield Scott referred to the “gallant, indefatigable Captain Lee” who was “as distinguished for felicitous execution as for science and daring.” General Scott had by now, in the words of General Erasmus D. Keyes, an “almost idolatrous fancy for Lee, whose military ability he estimated far beyond that of any other officer in the army.” Indeed, Scott would later call Robert E. Lee “the very best soldier I ever saw in the field.”"
Scott also told Lee he made the worst choice of his life when Lee betrayed the Union. What a shame Lee couldn't live up to the example set by Scott, or even the example set by his own cousin Sam Lee.
@@TheStapleGunKid You beat me to it! 👏👍
I'm more a Zachary Talyor man! 😠
Yes I'll dare he side with his own family and community....
@@Ao-pj1mc many of his relatives fought wirhe the Union. The ones that fought for the south chose to do so because Lee violated his oath and chose the south.
In 1958 the US Navy named a nuclear submarine after Robert E Lee.....
I guess they had NOT heard the rewrite of history that is going on today.
Imagine those who were closest to the events of 1861-1865 laying down the history in the books...
and then 160 years later people begin to declare that they were wrong.
VA and NC were in a different mindset than the Deep South, and to not recognize this is to over simplify the entire matter
"The people down in these states (TN and GA) are not as much enlisted on principle in this war as we in Virginia. They regard it as a war to protect their property in slaves, and when they are lost, take no further interest in it. In Virginia, we are fighting for the right to govern ourselves in our own way and to perpetuate our customs and institutions among our own people without interference.”
Wrote Capt Charles M. Blackford of Longstreet’s staff.
Wants his intro short - in order to brag on himself for 10 minutes. Such a humble man.
THANK YOU!!
Seidule is a NAZI
This was so awesome and worth my time
🐎 💩!
The secesh being big mad in the comments made my day...
Secessionist are getting even and Seidule is on the list.
Lies and Cowardly Lies is all Ty Seidule can produce.
A Cowardly scumbag Seidule is for denigrating the dead and defenseless Confederate hero General Lee.
“A hapless windbag of Cowardice” will be inscribed on Ty Seidules tombstone...mark my words.
Dick
We have some very good rehab programs in this country of which you should take advantage as soon as possible. Many people in your condition have gone on to live very productive lives and it’s not too late for you. One program even gives participants upon completion a Donald Trump DVD entitled “How to Make Money on Real Estate with No Money Down”. With prayer you’ll be on the right path very soon.
@@LaGrandeBayou 🖕🤡. If you know anything about these issues, you know he's correct.
@@LaGrandeBayou If you say that anything he says is not true, then prove it. Otherwise, you are just displaying that the facts he is saying hurt your feelings.
Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake.
You are a great activist
This man’s ideological evolution has tracked the convenience of his career path from jump.
Col. You're a prime example as to why I did not serve as you are indoctrinated and it shows, that I once learned from William (Bud ) E. Mayer educated me on how the system functions especially the military, and will continue to ignore anything you present.
Song of the South is a wonderful, memorable film. It shows the innocence of a child's perspective untainted by society.
I loved the Uncle Remus books as a kid. Never knew it was considered racist until Yanks started crapping all over that black storyteller.
Ty
you are the hood ornament for wokeness in the military.....
Good luck with this gig you are creating for yourself...and your book sales.
If you don't have some way to refute the truth of anything he is saying, then sit down and shut your mouth.
Pointing out that he is "Woke" is not saying that he is wrong. It just means that the facts he is pointing out hurt your feelings.
B Johnson Don't be ignorant. 🤡
@@occamtherazor3201 Couldn't have said it better myself. Neoconfederates are such snowflakes these days... Can't stand it when people criticize their slaver heroes.
B.Johnson, relax snowflake
Abbeville Institute gives an alternative view.
Abbyville.😂🤡💩
Your a clown Marsh
But you already knew that
@@LaGrandeBayou why did you call Marsh a clown?
Abbeville Institute is a fucking clownhub. They're a bunch of idiots. Just idiots.
@@revanofkorriban1505 If cannot accept an opposing viewpoints, that is ok with me. You have the God given right to stay close minded in the dark. Sorry I upset your fantasy.
Amazing that this guy appeared in a PragerU video....
The one and only PragerU video that isn't complete dog-shit.
President and General Dwight Eisenhower revered Lee. I'll take Ike.
@@bjohnson515 Yeah, Ike was raised with the Lost Cause mythology as well.
@@occamtherazor3201 You wish. But he wasnt. You stick with your social studies two page version of everything.
@@bjohnson515 Obviously he was, because he spouted all of the same Lost Cause nonsense.
And your position of "I am going to believe these lies because Eisenhower believed them" is pretty weak.
@@bjohnson515 That just willful ignorance 🤡
I think the problem in your note comes back to the issue of Lee. Virginia was not a country. It was (and is) a state within the country of the United States of America. Lee had taken no oath of allegiance to Virginia. Rather, he had sworn this oath: "I ... do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Many southern officers observed that oath.
I don't get your story at all. You're ignoring the facts. You don't want to call him a traitor because you respect him. But you're saying he had a national allegiance to a country that never existed as a country but was part of another country to which he had sworn a clear oath of allegiance. He never swore or signed any oath of allegiance to Virginia because they didn't have one - and why would they? Virginia was not a country but a State of an existing Country.. In saying that, are you suggesting that the "Marble Man" couldn't be trusted, that his word was not his bond, that he didn't know what he was doing (careful here .... he finished second in his class at what was arguably the best educational institution in the US at that time)? I'm sure you wish that your story was true and that there were some facts to hold it together. I'm not a Lee-hater, but I can't see him as anything other than a traitor to the country that educated him, trained him and provided him with rank and opportunity. Not before the civil war, not after the civil war, but during it. And if Lee was right to break his oath, were all the Southern officers who observed theirs traitors to their state? So George Thomas, bec Your position continues to break down logically the more you tease out its implications. Lee played a leadership role in a conflict that cost 750,000 Americans their lives. However gentlemanly, moral and god fearing he may have been, that is an awful legacy and indictment.
Sounds simplistic sort of like conspiracy theory but I’m sure you got virtue points for giving the speech !
I am a deep southerner born and raised in the 60's and have come(over the last 20 yrs ) to the same conclusions as the colonel has.Slavery is an abomination to the nation and Christianity( AS ABORTION IS TODAY) and the south has no moral high ground. Wrongs are pervasive and the consequences are long lasting and destructive. The lost cause mentality is exactly what he says , a racial path for Jim crow and inequality,segreagation. The truth is ruthless. Wrongs must be "righted".
However the colonel's conclusions are not well thought out and many , not all, are erroneous from a moral and legal perspective. History is also DIRTY.
I do not believe he as a military personnel has a higher calling and duty to the constitution than I do as a citizen. I have not taken his oath by word but my duty is nothing less as a citizen.
He took a commission. Today you can resign that commission.Lee and thousand did exactly that not as a traitor but as a citizen who resigns a commission and goes home to live.
Many people believe secession is unconstitutional, I simply do not. The revolutionaries did exactly that from Britain, the colonel holds them in high regard. They did exactly what the southerners did (WHAT I WOULD NOT DO). The revolutionaries then defended themselves when the King sent soldiers to their land to keep them in the crown.You cannot be for the revolution for some and against the revolution for others. Today as politician have railed against the constitution(electoral college etc etc etc) because of the election of a president(as they did for Lincoln),,, are they TRAITORS Colonel? They by words break your oath to the constitution. Present day is dirty also. Lincoln under war powers suspended habeous corpus, is he a traitor against the constitution ? DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY.
When Lincoln ( who I study, admire,love , and revere ) and the north sent troops to the south to stop secession Lee defended his state and home. History is dirty. Lee is not a traitor , just wrong.
We can talk and discuss this alot and and not plum the depths of this complex subject, iT is not simple as he concludes it is.
Lastly war is terrible, the colonel concludes that the north did not do anything wrong in it's execution of the war. The former president of MY COLLEGE commited acts against the rules of war and morality today . Burning homes, taking property, raping, stealing things unassociated with war effort and leaving people to suffer in destitution are immoral wrongs, but history is dirty and war is TERRIBLE. The north did many things wrong, the truth is ruthless.
"You cannot be for the revolution for some and against the revolution for others"
The 1776 rebels were fighting against a government that was governing them without giving them any voting power over the people passing laws. The 1861 rebels were just trying to preserve slavery.
That's a huge difference. Not all revolutions are created equal.
Taking up arms against the US Military IS the very definition of the word traitor. Sorry it doesnt fit your personal narrative. However it is your narrative that is factually incorrect
@@rosep8481 He resigned his post from the US Army. Just like Grant did before him to go home. The United States raised an army and invaded his home and he took up arms against that army. He was not a traitor. Lee was wrong and every southerner was wrong to secede. I believe they had the right to but I would NEVER have. I think it is wrong to call him a traitor since he did not fight the United States as a US citizen.If a US citizen today renounces his citizenship today and becomes the citizen of another country he is then an enemy combatant. That is what Lee was. Grant and Lincoln agree with me.
@@TheStapleGunKid Not all revolutions are the same true. The question is whether a state can secede from the union. I have read constitutional scholars argument that a state cannot secede because of the common defense theory . We promise to protect each other so we can't leave the union. I simply do not agree. I hate slavery , slavery of all kinds. If I forced you to be in a union against your will that would be a kind of slavery or bondage. Lincoln said forcing a person to grow the corn and then not allowing him to eat it is what slavery is. I say forcing a person to protect me while they do not want to is the same thing. You have to love the union to be in it. You cannot force someone to protect that which he dislikes. That is our terrible situation today. I DO NOT THINK THE SOUTH SHOULD HAVE SECEDED. I just think they had the right to.
PS I do not think the south left just because Lincoln won the election but that we had 2 countries and one country had to go forward. The correct one did.
@@paulk9214 The United States was formed by "We the people of the United States", not "we the people of each individual state". It was formed by the people, and thus can only be unformed in the same way. As the Supreme Court ruled in Texas V. White _"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."_
Your comparison of inability to secede to slavery is way wrong. No one said the Confederates couldn't simply leave the country if they didn't like it. They could always leave and go somewhere else. Slaves didn't have that option. When the CSA seceded, they didn't let their slaves leave if the slaves didn't like being there. The question wasn't weather or not Southerners were free to leave the United States, it's if they were free to take over territory in the United States can call it their own country. The constitution does not allow any such thing. Indeed, the Confederates themselves didn't allow such thing: When West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy, the CSA sent an army to stop them.
The South left to preserve slavery, because they felt Lincoln was a threat to it. They would have felt the same about any president who held his anti-slavery views. As early as 1858, Jefferson Davis advocated secession in the event an anti-slavery president was elected:
_"Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies. Withoutt pausing for your answer, I will state my own position to be that such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observances of its mere forms entitled to no respect.
In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safety outside of a Union with those how have already shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and to reduce you to worse than the colonial dependence of your fathers."_
isn't it great to know "The TRUTH!" . . .
...sounding smug as you sit there with the name 'Lee' in your moniker!
The comment about "the Truth" was ironic; I don't believe in the "truth" about anything, only what various historians say about a subject, and their conclusions are always open to debate. I thought the guy in the video is a gasbag. proudly named after the good general, I disagree with the colonel..@@michaeldalton3456
The dragon sure is awake now!!!
Yeah, the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan
You evidently do not know who the American People are, or the true American History. You are just going by a collective of indoctrinating narratives for a racial division agenda.
In the earliest years of the forming of the USA, they were NOT STATES, for they were "Common Wealths!" INDEPENDENT and Sovereign "Common Wealths: That was governed and independently, financially backed by North American SOVEREIGN Extended Families: That made a "collabration," when the United by signing the "Declaration of Independence."
ALL WARS are about Money/Wealth and who controls it. Same is true for Abraham Lincolns' War of Northern Aggression.
Before the War there was no one USA Treasury, or ONE American CURRENCY circulated through out the entire USA. But therewere many privately owned currencies circulated, throughout the USA, backed by the soverign independent, North American extended families. And What Abraham Lincoln wanted and a Handful of Radical Republican Northern "Common Wealths " Representatives was to "Consolidate," all of the North American "Common Wealths" Extended Families Wealth in to ONE POT: And then introduce into circulation a ONE USA CURRENCY.
But from the time Andrew Jackson, was President, a hand full of Radical Northern "Common Wealths' Representatives," FULLY KNOWING, that they would always be the "MAJORITY!" in both Houses of the GOVERNMENT, (due to population)in the "Law making process," would go by a "Quorum" of whom ever, "Common Wealth" Representatives, that were present "and do a MAJORITY RULE VOTE," to make a "BILL," that they had written, into "LAW!" that DENIED the Southern "Common Wealths," Representatives a VOTE/ a VOICE in their own GOVERNMENT.
(A DEMOCRACY!)
(UN Constitutional)
For the USA is a "Constitutional REPUBLIC!"
That REQUIRES 100% of All "Common Wealths" Representatives participation, in the "Law making PROCESS!" And for a "BILL," to become "LAW"
63% of the "Common Wealths" Representatives have to VOTE the
SAME WAY! Also referred to as the 2/3rds VOTE!
63% of 100% Representatives participation.
But by Abraham Lincoln and his handful of Radical Republican Northern "Common Wealths" Representatives going by a Majority RULE VOTE and denying the Southern "Common Wealths" Representatives a Vote/ a,VOTE in the "Law making PROCESS:" The Southern "Common Wealths" Representatives would NOT agree to consolidation of Wealth, with the possibility of only the Northern "Common Wealths" Representatives controling ALL THE WEALTH ...by the Majority RULE VOTE in both HOUSES of the GOVERNMENT.
Abraham Lincoln and his HANDFUL of Northern "Common Wealths," Radical Republicans Representatives went a head and introduced into circulation a "ONE" USA Currency: Maintaing that the CURRENCY was backed by the entire North America "Common Wealths," extended families. The Southern "Common Wealths" Representatives responded, by introducing their own "COUNTERFEIT!" Currency into circulation. Diluting all the Currency in circulation and making the ENTIRE CURRENCY WORTHLESS!
Abraham Lincoln, said on the Congress floor, "That He and the entire Northern Radical Republican "Common Wealths," Representatives would OWN everything that e Southern "Common Wealths" had before he was through, especially the Southern "Common Wealths," Representatives."
Only 8% of the Southerners that fought in the CIVIL WAR owned SLAVES. 8%
IF the war was about SLAVERY then why didn't more than 8% fight to preserve Slavery?
It's because the Wealthy Southerners that Abraham Lincoln was at War with, took their Wealth off Shore and returned to Europe to wait out the war. But they stayed invested in both sides of the War. THERE WAS NO LOST CAUSE!
You refuse to recognize who the,Americans are.
And they were NOT states until after the civil war, with the rewriting of Constitution to accomadate the changes determined by the war. For many of the "Common Wealths" had different geographical boundaries and borders and included portions of different states.
There is more FACTUAL critiques to the Civil War, than I have written here.
@@savanahmclary4465 Writes the person who seems to confuse a personal narrative with facts. Nothing he said was incorrect.
@@TheVuduYuDu Seidule is a NAZI
It is unfair to judge a man's views on the issues of his day by the ideological fashions of another era.
I disagree, Lincoln said "if slavery isn't wrong then nothing is wrong". I could not agree more. The words of the Bible have not changed in 2000+ years. How could people think it was ok to force a man to work for you and not pay him, hold him in bondage, rape his wife and beat him to death????? I cannot understand it. It was at the time and is today morally reprehensible. They sinned grievously and we still pay for it today.
@@paulk9214 If you say it is OK to " judge a man's views on the issues of his day by the ideological fashions of another era." then you must consider Lincoln a racist, correct?
his words in 1858
www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm
@@bjohnson515 Lincoln's views changed over his lifetime. He was almost always against slavery although he wasn't even an abolitionist at the begining of his presidency. Many people did not want slavery but they were racist in that they believed the black man to be inferior.I like to say slavery was a southern problem, racism was an American problem. Northerners don't want to admit that truth, it was just us southerners. Lincoln wanted to be president. I would refer you to "Lincoln's Tragic Pragmatism" by John Burt. He needed votes and his views like all politicians was to get votes. So yes he said and promised racist things and that makes him racist. BUT as time went along and after 2 presidential victories his views "evolved" and changed to a great degree. By the end of his life his views were much much closer to an ideal view of equality. Frederick Douglas would tell you the same thing. I truly understand your point of view from above, I have just come to disagree respectfully with it.
Also if I may say that there ARE issues that must be judged in the light of the understanding and knowledge of the day!!!!!!! Taxes, tariffs, politics etc are such issues. Slavery for me as a Christian person who can , as anyone can, read a scripture and understand it is a MORAL issue that time doesn't change.
@@paulk9214 And we are talking about Lee, right? Lee said "Slavery was more harmful to the White Race than the Black".
Lee didnt own slaves but was thrust into the executor position of his father in law's estate.
Lee was in the US military for over 30 years. Never has it been recorded he brought a "servant" with him anywhere. Yet it was not uncommon for others to do so.
As for Lincoln, you say he was all good after two Presidential victories...
but his last speech on April 11, Lincoln spoke of giving the vote to only those Blacks who had served in the military.
So, is that racist? Yes, even after two elections. Ever notice why his first inaugural is missing from the Lincoln Monument? Only the second is posted.
No one here is defending slavery, to be clear. But judging attitudes and views of people 160 years ago through the prism of today's values is unfair. We didnt have the input they had, and can not guess what that was.
When people say "From sea to shining sea" all I hear is "Kill the Natives, take their land". It's hard to hear him talk so well about Lee and slavery, then say a phrase that's basically code for "let's commit genocide" that we teach our children everyday.
If general Seidule is right federalism and the 10th amendment don’t matter and weren’t ever important issues. If he’s right James Madison was wrong when he wrote the Virginia resolutions. And that means that the constitution itself is wrong every part of it. The only thing that matters is slavery and how it was handled and allowed to exist.
I know right, imagine the enslavement of human beings taking precedence over the wording of a document.
@@redrjlaw It’s not just the wording of a document. It’s the foundation of our whole system of government whether or not we will do what our founding fathers really intended to ensure the liberty of all.
And we don’t have to misrepresent that intent in order to condemn slavery and do away with it anyway.
We can say that we were wrong about slavery without saying that we were wrong about federalism or that federalism in its true form was just a pretext for slavery, which is a false and dangerous bit of propagandizing.
Liberty for all. except slaves
@@redrjlaw Well without federalism nobody really has liberty even after slavery. We’re like subject of a king.
At least with federalism we can get rid of slavery and extend liberty to all.
@@redrjlaw The point is that federalism didn’t have to be destroyed in order to destroy slavery
Although Seidule's book, by definition, is faux history (and should not be represented any other way), I respect his right to his views and to the expression of those views publicly. Unfortunately, he and those like him are neither willing nor able to extend this same generosity to those who disagree.
Interesting how you back nothing in your comment up with those silly things like facts which General Seidule did. You need to go back to your primary schools and pay them back the taxes spent on educating you, they failed at that.
This guy has made a lecture circuit living and probably got his brigidar's star by running down a much better man than himself.
Robert e Lee was a trader to his country..🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
@@jimmyjam5453when in the course of human events…
You're not addressing the point about his oath and the oath of other southern officers.
I'm not sure you understand the Constitution and the Declaration. The point is not whether the Declaration is a relevant document - of course it is! What we were discussing was the creation and provision of rights. That's what you were talking about. And in that context, the Declaration is nowhere near as relevant as the constitution which has overarching legal standing vs no legal standing at all. And you call the Northern government unjust ... even though you have yet to answer my question about how a people being treated unjustly had the lion's share of the wealth in the US. SO your story is that the government that enslaves other humans and profits from keeping them in enforced servitude is the "just" government in this conflict??? You can't resist digging it deeper, can you?
On the casualties ... I completely refute your argument that you can't count those deaths. Those are the casualties. Even if you just took the Union dead at 364,000, you think that really makes a difference in assessing Lee's legacy?
You're argument is an emotional one, unsupported by facts of the matter.
What are you blabbering about? Are you even in the same discussion?
Unfortunately, Colonel Seidule is yet another woke U.S. military officer. The Colonel, and others like him, are more concered with debasing history, D.E.I. and political correctness than military prepardness. These men are the reason recruitment numbers are seriously down. Specifically, among young men from the heartland of this country. The areas that this nation has traditionally depended on, to man the deffense of this nation. God have mercy upon us if we ever find our country once agian facing a true military threat.
Lol, "woke". Such a weak word for weak people. Maybe recruitment is down because every war for the past half century has been solely to benefit the wealthy, Republicans have absolutely massacred VA benefits, and the US isn't in any present danger. We're currently crippling Russia by funding their enemies in Ukraine and it's nothing but Republicans moaning about the greatest ROI with the fewest US deaths possible.
And yes, Seidule is right too :)
Ty, up until the point Lee was offered the command of what was essentially the Army of the Potomac, what was your opinion of Lee, his time at WP as a cadet, as an engineer builder of forts, in the Mexican War, in the 2nd Cavalry,?
And from the time he surrendered the ANV until his death, your objections to Lee are what?
I suspect your real issue with Lee lay between the years 1861-65.
Perhaps so, but that's a pretty big issue, isn't it?
Treason not enough?
@@whoamarshrobert2781 Treason to Virginia?
You fail to place yourself in the era.
@@bjohnson515 I’m not sure how you construct an argument based on treason to Virginia. Lee’s citizenship was American, not Virginian. He swore an Oath of Allegiance to the US, not to Virginia. If you argue differently, you’re saying that the many Virginians who chose to serve the Union were the real traitors and that a man’s sworn oath means nothing. That’s shaky ground.
@@peterrobertson2580 First, he swore an oath of allegiance to the united states, plural. And the states were no longer "united" when VA seceded.
So how could he be bound to allegiance to a collection of states that no longer existed?
"], that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them, ...." THEM, not "it".
and to back this up, West Point saw the "flaw" in their oath and changed it in 1862.
Virginia pre dated the federal experiment by over 100 years.
And, I assume you are having trouble in this....You must put yourself into the era, not judge by the fashions of another time.
Particularly in the South, the State was the object of allegiance....and VA in particular which was the home to 7 of the first 14 Presidents....and where, essentially, the national capitol was located.
But your people have gotten your way...and now Monument Ave is just another street in Richmond.....I hope you see what you are doing.
As a retired colonel and amateur historian, I find this discussion self-serving and cowardly. Arrogant, modern presumptions applied to the 19th century. "The Constitution is there to put down rebellions." Shameful propaganda. It was to protect the rights of states from the fear of a powerful central government.
The slave states were perfectly happy to see Federal laws enforced if it served their needs- the Fugitive Slave Act is a perfect example.
The state right they fought over was to protect slavery.
Lee swore an oath to the COUNTRY, NOT VIRGINIA. There are enough examples of southern West Pointers that fulfilled their oath at great cost.
He should t even be allowed in Lee chapel, but he has books to sell! You won’t convince me Lee wasn’t an honorable man!
Well done! Precise and to the point.
and Total BULLSHIT!
Oh...this guy. Another political military leader who has more experiece kissing butt than actual academic scholarship. "Scholar" is that an honorary title?
And here is where DEI started…thanks COL for your bad ideas and dancing around the questions.
Why does he have red straps then
I made it 24 minutes. No offense is taken here. But this man is shockingly ignorant of Civil War history for an educated Southerner. So far, he's done nothing but toe the line of the current, wildly dishonest and inaccurate, historical narrative.
Don't fall for this man's BS opinions.
Im no fan of the Confederacy or Lee. Im a Southerner who thinks the Union was right. However, I knew this guy was a woke propagandist when I heard him in another interview compare J6 to secession in 1860.
We don't need anymore "Conversation" point made already , let's turn the damn page
Brilliant.
Woke historian is woke
Yeah, he is woke. Facts tend to have a liberal bias.
@@occamtherazor3201 No bias. But from facts and evidence.
@@whoamarshrobert2781 Yeah, REALITY tends to lean somewhat to the Left if you objectively evaluate the facts.
Poor history... In a word... Woke revisionism.
Maybe you should move to a place where they still have slavery. Seems you'd fit in.
@@danarose6314 Sorry can't respond rationally to your passive aggressive ad hominem attack. 😂😂😂
May I suggest:
ua-cam.com/video/qGJUGSpXIUo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/BBVnlYxAh9E/v-deo.html
@@michaelr.stoddard3391 Appreciate your sense of humor.
@@danarose6314 You mean like Africa?
Martinez Kevin Jones Larry Thompson Cynthia
🙄
The part of Lee his worshippers want you to forget.
www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/06/30/Confederates-slave-hunt-in-North-a-military-disgrace/stories/201306300221
_In June 1863, when Brig. Gen. Albert Jenkins' cavalry, in the vanguard of the Confederate army, galloped into Pennsylvania, its aim wasn't only to spy and steal supplies._
_The soldiers were also determined, as historian Margaret Creighton notes, to round up African-Americans, whom the Confederates regarded as "contraband" that should be returned to "rightful" owners.
The "slave hunt," as contemporaries and later historians called this phase of the Confederate invasion, would last as long as Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia remained in Pennsylvania. It ended only when the defeated Southern troops retreated back to Virginia after the Battle of Gettysburg..._
_Estimates vary as to how many blacks were caught in the Confederate dragnet during the Gettysburg campaign. Mr. Smith puts the figure at more than 1,000 -- especially if it includes those seized in Winchester, Va., Martinsburg, __W.Va.__, and Rockville, Md....._
_For an army to attack unarmed and defenseless civilians is a disgrace and, by modern standards, a war crime. The African-Americans whom Southern soldiers rounded up, seized and in some cases fired upon, did not threaten the Army of Northern Virginia. As Coddington wrote a generation ago: "Under no circumstances could the Confederates justify the hunt on military necessity."_
_For Jacob Hoke, who witnessed the slave hunts and in the 1880s would write a well-regarded history of "The Great Invasion," the raids revealed the object for which many Southerners had waged war: "to found a government based on human slavery._
_"Thank God!" wrote Hoke, the effort failed..._
Now tell the class what federal troops did to civilians throughout the south.
@@Ao-pj1mc They didn't enslave them.
No they just targeted women and children burned their homes to the ground raped and pillaged regardless if a family owned slaves or not....which by the way Grant himself was a slave owner
. None of which would have happened if they had stayed in the north.
@@Ao-pj1mc Utter nonsense. First of all Grant freed the only slave he ever owned long before the Civil War. As for the army conduct, some homes were burned and looted, but it was nothing like what you claim. You want to talk about mistreatment of civilians, you should check out what the Confederacy did to Chambersburg PA. The Confederate army torched the entire town just because the citizens couldn't pay a ransom demand
_"The Confederates formed into squads and fanned out from the center of town. For two hours they rushed from house to house, burst open the doors with planks and axes, rifled every room for jewelry, silverware, and money, hacked up the furniture for kindling, and put torches to bedding and bureaus or lit balls of cotton saturated with kerosene. Some people were given time to collect a few belongings before their houses were fired; others were not. Describing the scene, a Confederate captain said: “It was impossible at first to convince the people, the females particularly that their fair city would [be] burnt; even when the torch was applied, they seemed dazed. Terror was depicted in every face, women, refined ladies and girls running through the streets wild with fright seeking some place of safety.” Then he added soberly: “I hadn’t bargained for this, but such it was.”_
_"One old woman was told by a Confederate squad to run, that her house was on fire. Her reply that she had not been able to walk for three years was met with curses, and one of the soldiers poured powder under her chair, saying he would teach her to walk. Neighbors later rescued her."_
_A squad of Confederates demanded their breakfast of the local schoolmaster. “Did you ever teach n*ggers?” asked a cavalryman.
“Yes, sir,” the schoolmaster replied. “Damn him, fire his house,” came the quick command. The widow of a Union soldier begged for mercy. In response soldiers set fire to her house and robbed her of her money."_
Such was the conduct of the CSA: None of which would have happened if they hadn't started a rebellion to preserve slavery forever.
@@TheStapleGunKid Nonsense? lets look at what you consider nonsense. Perhaps you are familiar with an event simply called "the Burning" carried out in a 70 mile long 30 mile wide swath of the shenendoah valley . An event described by Col. James Kidd (a federal officer) as "What I saw there is burned into my memory. The anguish pictured in their faces wouldhave melted any heart not seared by the horrors and 'necessities' of war. It was too much for me and at the first moment that duty would permit I hurried from the scene." Lets also look at event knows as General order 11 (1863) In which civilians of 4 counties in Missouri were forced from their homes (which were then burned to the ground) Notable Artist George Caleb Bingham (who was by the way pro Union ) described what occured during the implementation of this order as an "act of imbecility" He then further described the events saying
"It is well-known that men were shot down in the very act of obeying the order, and their wagons and effects seized by their murderers. Large trains of wagons, extending over the prairies for miles in length, and moving Kansasward, were freighted with every description of household furniture and wearing apparel belonging to the exiled inhabitants. Dense columns of smoke arising in every direction marked the conflagrations of dwellings, many of the evidences of which are yet to be seen in the remains of seared and blackened chimneys, standing as melancholy monuments of a ruthless military despotism which spared neither age, sex, character, nor condition. There was neither aid nor protection afforded to the banished inhabitants by the heartless authority which expelled them from their rightful possessions. They crowded by hundreds upon the banks of the Missouri River, and were indebted to the charity of benevolent steamboat conductors for transportation to places of safety where friendly aid could be extended to them without danger to those who ventured to contribute it."
These are just 2 of dozens of war crimes commited by federal soldiers against civilians...so how exactly is this nonsense?. And by the way when Grant freed his slave does not absolve him of being a slave owner.
A disgusting and inaccurate talk. Without Robert E. Lee, Washington and Lee would not even exist.
Would that be a bad thing? Seems like a reasonable conclusion to the scholarship would be that Washington & Lee get renamed. There is no shortage of principled people from our nation's past that could take their place.
Sherman committed very few war crimes? Intentionally burning down civilian homes and leaving unarmed women and children to the elements was pretty much what he did as a policy, and he would be tried as a war criminal today. This did not happen because some soldiers misbehaved. This is what they were instructed to do. And Sherman was not the only Union general who did this as a matter policy. The populations of entire counties were told to leave on short notice, with no provision made for them to survive.
Recent studies have shown that, for the most part, Sherman's soldiers only burned homes when someone has either shot at them or had threatened them . Yes, they lived off the land on their marches to Savannah, GA, and to Columbia, SC. However, every Civil War Army did that--even Marse Robert's. They called it "foraging."
Yes, those counties that were havens for "bushwhackers" and Confederate Guerrillas or were menacing Union troops were first warned and then evacuated..
@@ajhindalou read William Gilmore Simms' "A City Laid Waste" and then tell me how seriously you think Sherman's orders to not harm civilians were taken by Sherman or his men.
www.amazon.com/City-Laid-Waste-Destruction-Sesquicentennial/dp/1611170036
@@ajhindalou and there's no evidence that Lee was ever inclined to treat northern civilians in the manner Sherman did, and he had opportunity to do it in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and never did. Cornwallis treated Americans far better than Sherman did. Those are simple and undeniable facts of history.
@@ajhindalou and fort pillow was investigated by none other than Sherman, and he determined that Forrest was not guilty of any war crime there. Was he a liar? In this case he had every reason to condemn Forrest if he had evidence to do so.
@@ajhindalou and at Andersonville, there were Confederate prison guards who died of starvation. The lack of food there and in the region was the result of Union policy, and a refusal to exchange prisoners.
I reject this poor, untrustworthy, speaker.
Schmuk!!!
Bobby Lee was a better man than Ty Seidule.
No. One tried to rip apart the us the other served it diligently and truthfully
@@zingingcutie8421 The US should have been ripped apart. The nation Seidule serves so well is a vile, repugnant mockery of what it was founded to be, as the last generation of honorable Americans ever born , such as Lee, knew full well it would become.
Ty, Semper Fidelis!
Sic Sember Tyrannis.
What do atheist US citizens have in the way of an oath-ending option - the "so help me God" ending seems presumptive.
Same Ole, Same Ole!
This lecture was nothing more than the regurgitation of cherry-picked historical talking points used to present a biased and culturally relativistic argument against Lee and the Confederacy. It lacked any meaningful historical context, failed to address any counter-arguments to the lecturer's main points, and attempted to veil the speaker in false objectivity by spending 10 (laborious) minutes addressing how he once (regrettably) idolized Lee.
The speaker first “debunks” the Lost Cause Myth that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. “Read the secession documents! They mention slavery 82 times,” he says-- as if that makes it an open and shut case.
….except the secession documents of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky NEVER MENTIONS SLAVERY! Not once. (Read them for yourselves--- they're are pretty enlightening)
The speaker, like most academics, conflates secession with the War itself. The Civil War was not inevitable just because of secession. Any Civil War historian will acknowledge that fact. While slavery was undeniably the primary driver of the initial spate of secession in the south, slavery was not the only issue at play (especially for the Upper South), and it certainly was not the reason the war was fought. Anyone who argues otherwise is either incapable of reading a basic historical timeline--- or is being dishonest.
The good Colonel also argues that Lee is guilty of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. I'm not great with geography, but I'm pretty sure that Bull Run Creek is NOT in Massachusetts or Illinois. If the Confederates didn't invade the North in 1861, I find it a little hard to argue that they were levying war ON the United States, but rather that the US was waging war against them. Lee, along with all of Virginia, had nothing to do with Fort Sumter, and no one made Lincoln choose war over peace. In fact, the South sent FOUR separate peace delegations to Washington prior to the Fort Sumter incident to negotiate a peace deal with the Lincoln administration--- all were dismissed out of hand by 'Honest Abe.'
Once Lincoln decided to invade the South, Virginians like Lee had little choice but to fight back. The South was always fighting in self-defense. How is it treason to pick up a gun and fight an invading army bent of the forceful overthrow of your democratically elected state and local governments? (not to mention the illegal seizure of property and wealth, and the burning of towns and homes by that same invading army)
The Colonel then implies that Southerners are upset because they can't stand hear the 'hard truths' about guys like Lee. That's not true at all. Lee, like the Confederacy, was deeply flawed--- and their participation in, and views on, slavery must be acknowledged. AND THEY ARE! The Confederacy, like the first 200 years of US history, will never be right on race and slavery, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is ignorant. But no one hides that fact in America, and no one shirks from hearing those truths. We acknowledge our history in America, warts and all.
The Colonel needs to understand that people get upset because the academy continually fails to objectively address any of the nuances or complexities of the Civil War, nor do they accurately reflect the motivations of its participants-- on EITHER SIDE.
Like Washington and Jefferson, people in the South don't honor Lee and Jackson because of their relationship with slavery, nor do they do so because of some ignorant belief in a Lost Cause idea (but thanks for the implication). We honor them because they were principled men who put their lives on the line to fight for their homes and countrymen--- regardless of what we think of that country, or its founding principals, today.
I could go on, but ultimately I'm not so much arguing against the Colonel's facts, but rather how the information was presented. It was biased, and leaves out so many aspects of the objective truth that the picture he paints is ultimately one-dimensional and untrue. The Colonel is not making a historical argument, he's making a lawyer's argument. He cherry-picked from facts that supported his anti-Southern narrative, but he conveniently left out any information which might balance his thesis and paint southern soldiers as something other than raging racist bigots bent on destroying the United States. He seems to imply they were simply not good people because of their connection with slavery (unlike Washington and Jefferson for some reason), and should not be honored or remembered with any reverence.
It remains an immensely frustrating point that no member of the academy is willing to present a counter-argument to the same tired, biased, and one-sided arguments constantly being used to slander Confederate soldiers 150 years after the fact. Their Union contemporaries judged them not-guilty on all counts, moved on, and together rebuilt a nation. Now, these same men are being retried in the court of public opinion despite the obvious double-jeopardy--- and the country they rebuilt is being split apart once again.
...thanks guys
Bruce Baron thank you for your comment buddy that was awesome I couldn't agree more
Bruce Baron the colonel did do a good job ( yet not completely and not totally but only to a degree) saying the things that he said are true. That slavery was the cause (or the start) if the Civil War. It was not the only cause of which these North and South fought over or even went to war. There were other causes that lead Southerners to fight just before and after the start of the war. See this guy deliberately leaves the fact out that the South was fighting against the penalty of treason of which the leaders had slave owners fire at Fort Sumter thus committing treason against the United States. Now obviously a lot of Southerners along with a lot of Confederate soldiers agreed with secession but at the same time a lot of other Southerners including a lot of Confederate soldiers disagreed with secession. They fought for their states they didn't want their states to undergo the death penalty they didn't want their states to undergo high taxes they didn't want any of their rights Stripped Away or restricted. They were fighting also against the penalty of treason. They didn't fight just against the penalty of treason only to protect slavery but also to protect their people from losing their rights from high taxes and from the death penalty. They were fighting against the penalty of subjugation. See people like this guy come to the South and infiltrate Civil War museums and places like Washington and Lee and say that the Civil War was not just about slavery but all about slavery, just so they can have our monuments our names of streets are names of buildings our Confederate flags and finally our cemeteries either destroyed or located to museums. Because all they want to do is see them as symbols of treason racism hate as well as symbols of traitors. Lincoln was willing to not punish the South he wanted the South to be one with the north he wanted to let bygones be bygones and forget about it and move on he knew that a lot of people in the South were only trying to fight to defend their homes as well as defend slavery. See the colonel furthermore fails to mention ( I don't mean to judge harshly but he sounds very liberal and he therefore has to have his way and I think he speaks deliberately and purposely with an agenda ) that the Confederates in 1864 we're willing to to have slave owners arm their slaves in the Confederacy and free the slaves if they remain faithful to the Confederacy in order for them to have their independence. Having Independence for them met either staying out of the union or rejoining the Union just so long as they didn't face the penalty of treason against the United States. But I do acknowledge and I do confess that if it weren't for slavery there would be no Civil War, since slavery was the cause: the Civil War was about- 1.primarily preserving or abolishing the institution of slavery
2. Preserving the Union for the North.
3. Preserving Independence for the South.
Furthermore and finally the South may have the " myth of the Lost Cause," but the North along with the rest of the United States has what I call the " Myth of the Victor's story," since it is said that the "Victor writes the story," or " To the victor goes the spoils." And by the way these people are taking our spoils when they destroy our monuments and are Confederate flags and names of streets and buildings and anything and everything related to the Confederate History.
@@TonyWright8121 “A large part of McPherson’s [author of “Ordeal by Fire”] success is due to the fact that his sources are incredibly reliable since they originated from the actual war years instead of potentially revised, sentimentalized, or sanitized remembrances recorded years after the war. More importantly he addressed one of the most crucial concerns that dominate this type of scholarship: What made men willing to go to war, and, once there to endure it? By tackling this question, he was able to confront an imperative issue of our own generation-the soldiers personal ideology to slavery” (William B. Rogers and Terese Martin ‘A Consensus at Last: American Civil War Texts and the Topics that Dominate the College Classroom’ p. 524).
“A considerable part of McPherson’s success can be contributed to the fact that he clearly conveyed the relevance of the slavery issue in regards to the cause of the war. In particular, his research on the years leading up to the war clearly demonstrated how the economic, political, and social struggles of the time were all interconnected with slavery” (William B. Rogers and Terese Martin ‘A Consensus at Last: American Civil War Texts and the Topics that Dominate the College Classroom’ p. 527).
“Most of these monographs as well as McPherson’s text share one common thread; they acknowledge the significant role slavery had in the events leading up to the war as well its lasting ramifications on American society. Thus, many of these works contain little debate over war causation since they recognize that slavery was the root cause of the war” (William B. Rogers and Terese Martin ‘A Consensus at Last: American Civil War Texts and the Topics that Dominate the College Classroom’ p. 530).
www.amazon.com/James-M.-McPherson/e/B000AQ3NV2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1556305236&sr=1-1&fbclid=IwAR2PoXMFjhpFyUPowwxT1CJ_CpXG1VisBPWL1as8ioPljaQifslpTQiEyig
@@TonyWright8121 "Men like Alexander Stevens and Jefferson Davis and others made no bones about slavery as the reason; the threat to slavery posed by the incoming Lincoln administration as their reason for their secession. In 1861 the pro-slavery argument was alive and well. It was a respectable argument in the South. Even a respectable argument in parts of the North. They may not have wanted slavery for themselves; Steven Douglass for example said we don't want it here in Illinois but any state or territory where they do want it they should have the right to have it.
…The majority consensus in the South is that slavery was a positive good. Once the war was over and slavery had been abolished and once Southerners realized they had very little support in the world...for slavery as the basis of the good society; Once the North had made it clear that they were fighting for emancipation; I think it became a bit of a shock to Southerners to realize that their institution had not only been abolished but discredited in the eyes of the world. And if that institution was discredited int the eyes of the world, then the Confederacy itself would be discredited in the eyes of history. So, it became a psychological necessity, I think for them to deny that the war was about slavery.
…So they developed a series of alternative explanations for their raison d'etre, for their reason for existence and states-rights became one of those...causes for which they were fighting" (James M. McPherson "This Mighty Scourge, Perspectives on the Civil War, part 1" 'UA-cam' video). ua-cam.com/video/xGQeEKeBkZ8/v-deo.html&app=desktop
Lies Lies and more Lies!
And yet a remarkably substance-free comment.
Yep, you and similarly opinionated folks are losers who can't face the truth. Fortunately there's fewer of you with each generation. Bye, bye!!~
See the other speakers at this event....u know the actual experts on Robert e lee. Sediule is called professor woke for a reason.
Southern trash belongs in the can
@@Jumbled717 Let me guess you’re another sack of shit that wants to live down south or already moved here!
Lol this guy is so far off base...1. Lee was not in the army when he took command of Virginia forces. 2. The praise for Lee was not born by some post war group hell bent on revisionism it was born during the war by his soldiers that damn near worshipped him. And by his adversaries including Grant. There is a reason this guy is called professor woke. His book is nothing but abstractions (poorly researched abstractions to be presise). I suggest Dr. James Randall or Dr James Robertson( an actual expert on Lee) rather than this revisionist garbage.
Yes
If Benedict Arnold had formally resigned from the continental army before joining the redcoats, would that make him any less of a traitor?
Robert E. Lee was a newly-appointed US Army Colonel (President Lincoln signed Lee's promotion) and resigned from the US Army to accept a commission with the Confederate States of America. And why would Grant admire Lee? Given both of their backgrounds, the fact that Lee was being defeated by Grant might have been thought of as an insult by Lee. They likely had a level of respect for each other as Soldiers, but that would be the extent of it.
Note to Lost Cause deadenders and hangers on: idolatry is a sin. Repent!
Says the side that worships Lincoln. Y'all literally built him a throne flanked by fasces. XD
@jp0tter2086 your another woke >=wimp of killing enlightenment
If you havent watched this mans Causes for the Civil war video then I suggest you do that before listening to this lecture. Its more or less the same but the video he made was riddled with contradictions to his own arguments and Iv seen several videos picking the video apart and pointing out flaws in his logic and facts he clearly twists to benefit his position. Dont let this man fool you into thinking hes an unbiased scholar discovering the non debatable truth. He is agenda driven just like most scholars are who claim to be correct in all things. Do your own research and try your best to see the historical and economic story from all sides to form the truth, not just the sides you want to hear.
My friend, I would refer you to Harvard historian Jill Lepore who has written, "History is a story about the past accountable to evidence". (facts). If Col. Seidule's perspective is inconsistent, that means he is struggling with the difficulty of the weight of evidence. That is the hallmark of a man of integrity and a first-rate historian, especially in view of his lifelong reverence for the Myth of the Lost Cause.
In his Prager U video you can tell he is full of hate for the Confederacy. I'm sure he supports the statues being vandalized. He is a total ass.
@@marshalkrieg2664 Just to be clear, why would the Confederacy not deserve outright condemnation and eradication from the nation it rebelled against?
@@marshalkrieg2664 The CSA killed more Americans then any other faction in history, all for the sake of preserving slavery. Why should they deserve any respect?
@@TheStapleGunKid During the war Lincohn had a proposal to allow slavery to persist in the US until 1893. During the war, had the Union effected a victory in 1862, slavery would have still been the law of the entire land. Several months into the war, the US Congress declared the the goal of the war was not to end slavery. General Lee was strongly pro Union until Lincohn announced plans to invade the deep South. Lee held no slaves when war broke out. Jeb Stuart only owned two slaves and got rid of them before the war broke out. Jefferson Davis wrote his wife in Feb. 1861 " ...in any case our slave property eventually will be lost" meaning even a Confederate victory spelled the end of slavery for them. The South had more free blacks than the north, about 260,000 and 10% of these blacks' owned slaves.
The war was fought over the principle of self government, the attempt by the South to preserve the real Union of Jeffersonian republicanism, the original nation, which was utterly smashed and destroyed by traitor Lincohn and his terrorist mercenary invading army. , and we are now still dealing with the aftermath- Lincohn ism went on to slaughter the plains Indians, invade Latin America umpteen times, and now Lincolnian descendants got us into the Iraq and Afghani wars etc. Lincohn was our worst president by far, as he got one million Americans killed. When the deep South seceded this was a duplication of the republic, not it's end, and Abe just could not let them go, primarily over money his northern financier clique stood to lose, so he got a bullet his brain on the day he was planning on a way to have all blacks deported out of the US- an idea he never gave up on, while late in 1864 Lee and Davis were coming round to the idea of Confederate emancipation. Lee understood that the freed slaves would have to be allowed to remain in the South afterwards, and be treated equally- thus we see that Lee was more advanced in his thinking than Lincohn was.
Colonel Scidule is wrong at all levels
No u lol.
Whatever…
Some truth. Some tripe, but regardless, this guy’s a clown.
Righteous Cause rubbish.
Where's that treasury of counterfeit virtue now, Colonel? ua-cam.com/video/yUgxEZLUuDM/v-deo.html
So profoundly ironic for a man sporting the American flag as his profile pic to espouse the virtues of slaver Confederate traitors.
Very one sided and contrived.
Lee had FARTS with more honor,character, and military genius than ANY would be detractor who dares to defame him at the sacred place of his burial !!