UPDATE 11/4/21: The tone and purpose of my channel has changed dramatically since I made this Gods and Generals review, so I'd like to provide a bit of contextualization here - like a plaque at the base of a statue of a dead slaveowner. I had 1000 subscribers when I made this video, and if I had known then that it would reach an audience of millions, I would have gone about it very differently. This review was intended as a fun way to rip apart a shitty movie, and troll a tiny but vocal group of hate-watching Lost Causers who I used to spar with in the comment sections of my very early Civil War videos. It was not intended as a serious piece of historical scholarship and should not be taken as such. My main problem with this review is that it touches on pretty much all the tenets of the Lost Cause Myth, but rushes through them so quickly that a lot of the nuance is lost. I still stand by everything I said in this video - the history is accurate, but compared to the sort of stuff I do now, it's very surface level. If you're trying to learn more about Civil War history and memory, I urge you to consider this as a jumping-off point rather than the be-all-end-all. To that end I've compiled a list of some other videos I've made that go into greater depth about a lot of these topics: *The Best Civil War Movie from the Southern Perspective* ua-cam.com/video/AndsdQO0Wmk/v-deo.html ~ Many people have reached out to me insisting that _Gods and Generals_ is not propagandistic, but rather simply seeks to tell the story of the war from the Confederate point of view. I've always found this criticism pretty baffling, because I take a good amount of time to point out in my review that there's a difference between a character in a film professing opinions and the filmmaker themselves attempting to further an agenda. I go into more detail about that in this video. *Confederate Soldiers Didn't Fight for Slavery (Or Did They?)* ua-cam.com/video/nQTJgWkHAwI/v-deo.html ~ This video isn't among my best, but provides context for the pro-slavery beliefs of Confederate soldiers. It's hard to imagine from a 21st century perspective why anyone would want to take up arms to protect slavery, especially poor Southerners who didn't own slaves themselves. Here I attempt to explain why they did just that. Another great resource on this topic is the book _Marching Masters: Slavery, Race, and the Confederate Army During the Civil War_ by Colin Woodward. *The Mundane Horror of American Slavery* ua-cam.com/video/SbMzYRMxIvA/v-deo.html ~ Back when _Gods and Generals_ came out, Ron Maxwell tried to defend his movie's portrayal of slavery, saying that while unspeakable violent cruelties were absolutely committed, the day-to-day reality was often much more mundane than that. Which is technically true, but also a pretty egregious misunderstanding of the lived experiences of enslaved people. This brief video breaks that idea down. *Was General Sherman a War Criminal?* ua-cam.com/video/OYj9CSxlGSk/v-deo.html ~ The part of the review where I talk about the Lost Cause stereotype of the Union army as a pillaging, murderous force is badly worded. Some people have taken that section to mean that I was denying Union war crimes, which was not my intention at all! As I said, they did occasionally happen, like the burning of Columbia in 1865. I should have specified that I was alluding more to the ridiculous post-war exaggerations accusing invading Union troops of the sorts of atrocities the Germans and Japanese would commit in World War 2. These stories are common Lost Cause talking points, but they're made of whole cloth and should be disregarded. This video focuses mostly on W. T. Sherman, but also covers misconceptions about Union war crimes as a whole. For more on this, I highly recommend the book _The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans_ by Charles Royster.
I still think it's a fun video. But, I've always kind of seen these as more of a jab at the movie but not nessicary a deep dive on the history behind everything.
Mad respect for this comment. I do still love this analysis and say it still holds up well enough. But this comment does show how much you've grown since. Do you think you'd ever remake this video to update it? And is your Civil War reenactors video still up anywhere? That looks like a good watch.
As a Paul Blart buff I am compelled to refute this claim. The issue of State’s Rights was barely mentioned in the film and when it was it was just a euphemism for something else. Audiences of the time understood this.
24:08 it was about being able to play guitar hero freely without federal interference 😡 Paul Blart swore an oath to defend the mall, and his girlfriend supported him and the cause. In 150 years time Paul Blarts statue will be removed by force.
Cromwells Ghost, that’s a thought. For every statue that gets taken down, they could replace it with a statue of Paul Blart. Everyone could get behind that.
"oh look it's Alexander Stevens, the vice president of the confederacy, I wonder what he has the say" is still one of my favorite AtunSheiFilms quotes, idk why
Slavery was part of every culture & society since time immemorial. The Egyptian Empire had many slaves. The Persian Empire had many slaves. The Assyrian Empire had many slaves. The Babylonian Empire had many slaves. The Ashanti (Ghana) Empire had many slaves. The Mali Empire had many slaves. The Ethiopian Empire had many slaves. The Kingdom of Songhai (West Africa) had many slaves. The Greeks had many slaves. The Romans had many slaves. The Aztec had many slaves. The Incas had many slaves. The Mayans had many slaves. The Apache had slaves. The Sioux had slaves. The Mongolian Empire had millions of slaves. The Arab Caliphate had millions of slaves. The Japanese had millions of slaves. The Soviet Union had millions of slaves. The Ottoman Empire had millions of slaves.
@@romulus3345 We're not talking about slavery in other cultures. We're talking about slavery here in the US. Talking about slavery everywhere else in the world doesn't change the fact that the institution of slavery is wrong. Now I'm not sure how this comment is intended to come off, but to me this comes off as "what-about-ism" or "how is slavery so wrong if it's been a part of so many cultures". I sure do hope it is not the latter, because that implies so much more about you as a person.
@@ZairokPhoen So now that we have established that EVERY culture & society was engaged in slavery at one time or another throughout history, we can look at which cultures & nations ended slavery and used their power & might to make slavery illegal worldwide.. Those nations would be Great Britain and the United States of America.
@@romulus3345 Unfortunately I believe slavery still exists in places in the world today. That being said Great Britain didn't have to go through a civil war in order to end their involvement in the slave trade. Whereas the US did. I don't believe that might and power are the key factors to end slavery. That involves too much conflict and a needless waste of throwing people's lives away. I believe if we were to combat slavery or other issues that we're not too keen of, then effective diplomacy would be much more sufficient.
One of my most favorite things is Oversimplified's take on Lincoln endorsing Grant. Staff: He's a drunk. Lincoln: What does he like to drink? Staff: I believe whiskey, sir. Lincoln: Then send him MORE! *chucks whiskey bottles at staff*
That's real! (Probably) There's a real story about Lincoln wanting to give the rest of his generals whatever Grant was drinking. It's been around since the war.
@@benjamindouglas862 Just because I enjoyed the anecdote as presented by Oversimplified doesn't mean I regard it as historical fact. I am very much aware of the actual situation that spawned the anecdote. I have been fascinated by, and have studied, the Civil War my entire life. Being 20 minutes away from Gettysburg may have something to do with that. So, yes, I have read countless materials on the subject other than Wikipedia. To be frank, though, I have never read the Wikipedia page on it, as I deem other sources are likely to be far more reliable and accurate. Maybe consider the fact you do not know someone and their interests before you decide to be condescending and insulting towards them?
The thing about Grant is that he was not a regular drinker. He would be abstinent for long periods of time, then fall into a drinking stupor when he got depressed. There is evidence the alcoholism was an inherited trait, as well.
Oh wow, isn't that symbolically Jesus. Wouldnt that be saintly? My man, learn about saints before you try to push the "masons" on people. It makes you look like a joke Read wrong. Leaving up anyway.
That's a really good point with the gore in war films. Every war is a hell of a lot more bloody than they portray. I remember hearing an account of WW2 where a soldier was saying it was really hard to explain how some men died. Not because they didn't know what killed them, but how do you explain to someone back home that their son died due to their buddies bone fragments going through their skull? In that particular case an Japanese artillery shell vaporized one marine and his bones became like shrapnel. War is fucked up no matter the era.
There is also the fact that you simply don't know what is happening around you. A good example would be American tank crews dumping round after round into Japanese tanks when one was more than enough to kill a Chi-Ha. They simply didn't know what their rounds were doing. They just heard a loud bang, saw smoke from their gun, and the tank was still there with no visible damage. If the guys pulling the trigger didn't know what was happening on the other end of their own gun, how could you expect the guys they were shooting at to know what was going on?
I don't always support spreading around awareness of parts of life because I think it desensitizes people to bad things and normalizes things that are but shouldn't be the default state of existence. But sometimes I wish combat vets would give people the knowledge they ask for. I'm torn between thinking, maybe if people knew what war really was we would hesitate before we send kids into the next one. But maybe if people knew what war really was they would just accept civilian casualties, atrocities, desensitization, torture, and evil or damaged people getting put in groups with rifles and minimal supervision as normal. And everything would only get more common. Anyway just from videos and photos I've seen I don't think the wealthiest Hollywood directing co. has enough special effects guys to make war movies look realistic and sight is just one of five senses anyway
@@talkythegamer2305 Not as bloody in some ways, but the big gap I see between reality and movies is the decisions of the PEOPLE. You never see sucking chest wounds or blown off faces or limp hanging limbs or genital wounds in movies but on some level everyone who knows guns has some idea what is going to happen if a .223 hits your mouth or elbow or whatever. Gore is gore and it happens far away from war too. But until Afgh started to wind down and more info about the reality of that war and all others started to come out, I didn't realize how routine civilian casualties, atrocities, 100% debilitating PTSD (as a subset of all the PTSD people come home with), and so on are. That was more shocking than blood guts and bone to me. They should put all those details in movies.
It's also worth noting that Gods and Generals came out the same year as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, imagine how embarrassing that is?
"One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs" (And yes, I know that this quote is a comparison between Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Rings, but I think it fits here).
@@rejectedkermit1220 I believe I've heard this as the paradox of freedom. To be completely free would mean you have the ability to imprison and enslave others. The only way to solve the problem is to accept that there is no way to have complete freedom. Either we are willing to ensure everyone's right to partial freedom by restricting their ability to mistreat each other, or we accept the destruction of civilization.
They still basically say this to this day. “How dare you infringe on my right to [not wear a mask, which will] infringe on the rights [to not be infected] of others?!” Or fill in the blanks with healthcare reform, gun regulation, social media platforms stopping violent speech, etc. The times snd issues may change but their stupid ass arguments never do
@@snowcat9308 Yeah but to be fair Jackson never actually made it to Pennsylvania. If he did maybe he would have said "I stand corrected", we will never know.
Just one of the horses talking in the stables Dr. Doolitle style about justiness of the fight and rights for self-determination (just taken from behind him to really nail the irony of a horse talking out of its ass) and then have one horse say "Caarl, that kills people!"
Sir this is truly an offensive work of hackery: Paul Blart Mall Cop is truly an artistic masterpiece and I insist you retract your slander against him at once.
Kade Daivis I speak with a Danish accent because I’m A C T U A L L Y from Scandinavia, wow. How?... I know that’s really hard for a northerner to imagine but then again,,, you’re wrong by proxy
Whenever someone says that the civil war was about State Rights, I ask them "The states rights to do what?", and if they say leave the union, I ask them why they were leaving the union
So what was the 80 years war about? The Belgian war of independence? The revolutionary war? Just to name a few wars that were successful in terms of gaining independence. They were indepence wars. Now the South lost. And it gets complicated. True the south left the union over state rights, and they were rights to hold slaves. But did the north fight to free the slaves? They didn't. So you cannot say that the war was about slavery. Since the north had no issue with slavery in the south. Would slavery be ended in the long run, yes. And the proclamation of emancipation was only for slaves in the south. And as you state, the rights to what? I say about the proclamation, what was the intent? To keep the big European powers out of the war. It was simply a independence war. And people in the north of the USA should stop feeling better about themselves, because the north benefitted greatly from the raw materials farmed on the plantations and processed up north. Oops, did they indirectly condone slavery? Yes they sure did. And we still do to this day! All them feel good go green idiots who love their electric cars for which their raw materials are mined by...child slaves. Yup in the Kongo. The world hasn't changed 1 bit. But some people just have to feel like they are so good and noble. Sipping their late at Star Bucks.
@dgray3771 This one I've only encountered recently, that the north was benefitting from the South's slave labor. Is this the latest in the southern revisionist history of the civil war? You can also say the south was benefitting from northern industry. So what? Then you admit the south seceded for the state's rights to own slaves. And if the north had no issue with southern slavery, why was there an abolishionist movement and an underground railroad to get slaves to northern free states? Then you change gears entirely and bring in modern corporate slavery in Africa and try to tie it into the American civil war. The only similarity there is that the southern slave owners were using slave labor to produce a product just like the international companies are doing in Africa. And if you own a smart phone you are as quilty as anyone else. The material from those African mines are used in our phones.
@@StoutandSteady You get angry for no reason. At no point do I say that the south did not secede over slavery. My point is that the war is not over slavery. The war is about the legality of secession. Where the south claimed it could and the north said they can't. Slavery is the underlying reason for many of the things that happened but at the root lay the idea that states could have far reaching legislation and rules that made the states mini countries within the Union. Something that didn't work. And people were ignorant about it. Shoehorning it with things like having an equal number of slave states to free states. And what did they need an underground railroad for id slavery wasn't accepted in the north...oops it was accepted. Accepted in the south. Endorsed and enforced by legislation. That a runaway slave was returned to its owner. Northerners simply refuse to accept their complicity in the whole slavery business and think that they freed slaves in some noble crusade. Get off your horse. It wasn't like that. The end of slavery in the USA was an inevitability and to keep the European powers out of the war Lincoln put forward the emancipation act.
@@dgray3771The American Revolution was not just started because of Independence It had more tangible reasons Increased taxation, atrocities committed against American people, the possibility of slavery being banned Independence was just the solution the revolutionaries chose to solve them The Civil War was fought by the South to preserve slavery Period That’s not an opinion, it is a fact And the way they tried to do that was through breaking away from the Union But that doesn't change the fact the reason they chose to do so was because of slavery
@@zinkheroofyoutube8004 You are talking about the causes for why the states rebelled against the crown. But the war of independence was...you hear it in the name, fought over independence. Both sides fight over the same issue. The core breaking point which is that the states declared independence and the British crown wouldn't have it. Now you can trace back at all the causes behind causes behind causes. And taxation is but 1 cause step behind it. The increase of taxes is caused by the French war and that had another cause and so you can trace it all the way back to the stone Age. It is a cheap tactic to "justify" a war when people do it. But the fork in the road is independence. The founding fathers felt independence was the best course of action and that declaration sparked war. Which is practically the same for the south seceding and declaring their independence. This is different from, let's say wars of conquest like Alexander the greats march on Persia or Napoleon on Russia, or wars over resources like the Iraq war or Viking raids. Each had their own steps behind it. And I do acknowledge that slavery is the main cause for secession. But it isn't what caused the war. Secession caused the war. And the north did not fight to end slavery. The servile wars in Roman history were about slavery think about that if you want a war in slavery to focus on.
@BP Lup, Fugitive slave laws weren't a creation of the Confederacy. They were laws created by the US Congress in the late 1700's. Sorry, but you have bet all on final jeopardy and have dropped to 3rd place. As consultation prize Alex will now whistle Dixie for 2 minutes.
Ever hear of Fredericksburg? Or Ulysses S. Grant? Grant literally burst into tears after seeing the casualties of a battle he won SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THROWING HIS TROOPS AT A WALL WAS HIS STRATEGY. don’t talk unless you know what you’re talking about.
If the southern slaves were treated with such respect and love(as the film shows), why weren't they allowed to fight in the confederate army, and why were black northern soldiers murdered on numerous occasions when they surrendered?
A confederate son a bitch would probably make the lie “because we cared too much for our black brethren and didn’t want them getting hurt.” Or say that it’s abolitionist lies and cover up, say stupid shit like “they never killed surrendering blacks” or “the blacks were violent and didn’t want to surrender.” You know, typical racist bullshit
Oh bullshit. Lee's horse would buck off any black person who tried to ride it too, correct? That is what numerous idiots have posted online. Anyway, Confederate statues are coming down (although some never will) so they can make room for real heroes like your thug boy Fentenal Floyd.
@verbadum22 I'm not saying they are the ones that attacked im saying that because of rising tensions with the entirety of the moddle east after 911 and the saddam shenanigans going on war was inevitable
@@collincaperton6718 no it was not, there were no tensions with the entire middle east. There were tensions with Irak, and some people in the administration desired to invade it since quite some time (the plans litterally had been drafted years before). Add to that months and months of propaganda from the government and with the cooperation of the media (from both sides), attacks on anyone with a dissenting opinion, and you've got an entire nation whose anger has been fueled beyond reason, which means it's ready for war. It very well could have been different though
Ironically, the “states rights” argument only works if you completely ignore the South’s role in the Civil War. If you only look at what the Union’s goals were, which initially had nothing to do with ending slavery, then you can make some kind of feasible argument that it was about states rights. But if you just glance at any aspect of the Confederacy and why it was founded, then you really have no choice but to say “yeah, it was basically 100% about slavery”.
The whole reason there is no blood and gore in this movie is for the exact reason you made this video. They wanted as many parents and schools as possible to show this to children.
I had a history teacher in high school that would have a civil war week in class where we just watched civil war movies then took a test on them. Luckily for me his movies were glory and Gettysburg then played outlaw Joseph Wales if everyone did well enough on the tests on Friday... Also remember going to summer school where every week we just watched movies or just went outside and chilled for class.. everyone passed with a B
Not good enough. It's a war movie, not a kindergarten party movie. It's bad enough the U.S. censors nearly every bit of violence out of the news when it reports on wars. People need to know and see how bad it looks. And trust me, it's always beyond bad and worse than nightmares. Don't believe what the politicians, rich people, and even religious leaders say. War - is - always - a - horrifying - bloodbath. The other thing war movies always choose to ignore - the fact that most casualties are civilian casualties on both sides. Not always through violence, plenty of it is through disease and starvation. Oh but don't worry, for both sides mass rape and murdering of women and children (boys and girls) is common too.
@@drownsinkoolaid4203 Sorry, but the social-anarcho-monarchists in Lichtenstein didn't. The most they did was call out the Chairman of Denmark, the corrupt Huey Long out on his crimes. They didn't deserve retribution from Paul and his paramilitaries.
@@realkingofwales3917 wow it truly is sad to see someone falling for a neo visigothic propaganda. The chairman was assassinated and it was by their hands!
I remember being shown this movie in high school by my civil war teacher trying to push this narrative. Let's just say it made it real awkward sitting in that class as the only black guy.
@@Userhandle7384 Lol it's okay this happened a couple years back it's not recent. This was a slightly more "red" town in Pennsylvania, where people have some (to put it nicely) strong views about stuff like this. The teacher was kinda racist and was more concerned with spewing his story/narrative of what he interpreted as the causes of the Civil war rather than actual history.
@@ABEAZYdaRonin94 i know thismovie is based off of a book and the book was written by michael shaaras son jeff but this movie seriously offends me and its not true on how they treat slaves in this movie i dont understand why maxwell went with his screenplay i loved his previous film gettysburg but this fuckin movie butchers jeff shaaras book gods and generals fuck how could maxwell butcher a very good book
@@username-yc3bd holy shit I found that moron. He uses greentext a lot as if he's on 4chan or smt. I looked at him and he has like 100+ comments on this channel and all of them are him coping about the confederacy. It's really sad and painful to look at
I was one of the US Marines in the First Bull Run battle scene. I noticed what you are pointing out while we were filming. We tried to correct the problem in our little part through the reenacter lesson, but we were ignored.
@@daniellee2343 Reenactors are actually really important to these movies. Good directors will take advice from the reenactors because they are often subject matter experts. There was likely a time for the leaders of the reenactors to give advice and advise changes to battles, but that advice was likely ignored.
My Dad an I were real excited for this movie because the book is pretty good. We were so shockingly disappointed, that he wrote Shaara an email about how bad it was and asked if he was mad about it, too. Shaara responded that hated the movie with a passion and would never let the director/studio have rights to one of his books again.
Of course, sometimes a novelist (or other writer) can hate how a given adaptation of it is done, but that doesn't always mean that it's actually bad. In this case, it was fucking bad, and not just on an artistic level, but on an ethical and political level as well. By contrast, the writer of "Solyaris" did not like the (high profile) American re-make, "Solaris". While the meaning of the story was changed significantly, I consider Solaris to be an excellent film. it's not for everyone, but it's a lot more approachable and watchable than the two original Soviet versions.
I don’t know what your problem with the “fightin for mah rats” guy is. The government wanted to take his rats. Take away a man’s pet rats and what does he have left? Personally I would never let the government take my rat farm. Those are my rats dammit.
Maxwell, the director: “It’s not taking sides!” Maxwell, the writer: “So what if I included a scene where the guy who would later kill the president of the Union says that it’s up to the audience to decide who’s a hero while basically winking at the camera? It’s ART!!”
@@Scallycowell It’s a story of the Civil War. That being said the Stonewall Jackson funeral scene in the film was portrayed as symbolic foreshadowing of the eventual defeat of the Confederacy.
What makes it objectively worse is that he made the speech extemporaneously, which is a fancy way of saying he made the speech on the fly. Imagine how evil you gotta be that this is the first shit that pops into your head
It should have been played with the same music that played when Anakin murdered the CIS leaders and Palpatine gave his big speech about creating the Empire
Nobody in the world was sympathetic with the Union, only the Russian Empire, who was ruled at the time by a liberal (authoritarian progressive) Tsar. The prime minister of England, Lord Palmerston, who was a whig and not a tory, hated the liberalism of the North, the "presidentes" of Spain at the time (Leopoldo O'Donnel and RM Narváez), two right wingers, also hated the Union. the Pope disliked the Union, and also Napoleon III who was a rightist at the time, was 100 % pro Suthernern. In fact the ideology of the Confederacy was the closest to the ideology of Napoleon III.
Most of the lines in the movie to do with that scene never actually happened. Now what they effectively announced to the public was the vote for succession had passed they where leaving the Union who by that time had for decades been treating the Southern population in general as second class citizens compared to Northern citizens at the time. And those scares never really healed. Even today if you look up what are the poorest states in the country they are all located in the South. Mississippi is the poorest state in the US today. The 10 poorest states starting with the poorest goes .. 1. Mississippi 2. Louisiana 3.New Mexico 4. Kentucky 5. Arkansas 6. West Virginia 7. Alabama 8.Oklahoma 9. Tennessee 10. South Carolina. Do you know what all of these states have in common ? Answer they are all below the Mason-Dixon line. And thus in the South. So when you have a smaller population than the states in the north you have less political power than northerns which means laws that benefit the higher population get passed at your detriment. This occurs over decades . Your constantly getting the short end of the stick so to speak. Then when you get the bright ideal to include enslaved people as part of the population rather than just as farm equipment. The Northerns say no. Then decide to say ok but they only count as Three-Fifths of a person and called it a compromise. This was after Virginian, Benjamin Harrison, suggested that slaves should be counted as half of one person to appease the others. Fact is the entire war was political and economically motivated. The majority of the reasons the South choose to succeed had to do with them having enough of getting shafted by the Northerns who thought themselves superior to the southern population in general. The Slave owners and politicians used this to justify their own reasons for succession and sell the decision to the people. For the common 80% of the Southern population slavery wasn't an issue they were willing to get behind. And certainly not a good enough reason to succeed from the Union. What you are seeing there is a portrayal of the top 5 to 10% of the population. And how they thought and believed. Not necessarily what the rest of the population thought. The vast majority of the population either thought slavery should be abolished or phased out. This is contrary to the very selected view of history that those who wrote about the time period wrote about the Confederacy. Most of which was actually propaganda at the time. That somehow made it into the history books. And no before anyone asks I'm not one of the Army of Northern Virginia flag waving rednecks who don't understand their history well enough to realize that's not the Confederate Flag. The closes thing to the Confederate Flag flying today is the Georgia state flag. Which is quite literally the Confederate National Flag with the Georgia state seal in the center of the circle of stars. Yeah most people today have no ideal that the Georgia state flag is the actual Confederate flag with one minor change to it.
Interesting to note that the scene where Jackson is talking about the Black people serving in the military for their freedom, is played like it's some kind of noble, magnanimous gesture and not "You know, we, your generous masters, have been considering letting our slaves join our army" Like how can you possibly portray that as anything but evil?
This is one of the most painstakingly historically accurate films in existence. For example, On the set, there is a camp behind where the Bonnie Blue flag scene occurred. Inside this camp, that the audience NEVER even was able to see, even cans were labeled authentically, almost as if they were left over from that era. All reenactors were excellent and wardrobe was on point. While the political aspects of the movie are incorrect, and the movie clearly has a southern tilt, the film is very accurate cinema which you could learn much from. A topic for another one of my videos perhaps.
I just noticed something too, maybe it's a subtle difference or maybe it was entirely unintentional. But if you look at the shots when the Union is marching they all seem to be cowering, they walk slowly, they're hunched over, the soldiers look afraid, and some of them are clutching their rifles as tightly as they can. When the confederates march, their heads are held high, they're running, they're shouting, they look eager and their weapons are ready for combat.
100% intentional, body language is like one of the first three things they teach you in film school. Like 70% of what we communicate is non-verbal. A movie director and professional actors 100% know this
You also have to remember that 70-80% of the seasoned veterans of the Mexican American war and many other small conflicts happened down there that’s why they had soo many more military bases. However the body language for this movie is intentional you must remember that there is more going on than just war.
@@kennethmeyer3691 If we can just bullshit say anything, YOU got to remember most Confederate soldiers were actually extremely elderly, some being two weeks away from their own deathbed. Most didn't know how to pay their own taxes, or why.
I’m actually terrified, utterly fucking heartbroken, reading through the “newest” comments here. So much utterly unapologetic racism, why are we still like this, why is this deep suspicion of others still so present in society. God help us.
"Utterly unapologetic racism"??? Do you think when the ACLU defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL that the ACLU's defense of their rights was "utterly unapologetic racism," too? Why are you still like this with this unwavering faith in Washington, DC?
@@Tareltonlives Well......... maybe they were? ;) In all seriousness though, I believe the Empire was definetly better than the Republic. At least in the beginning.
@@callmemelody653 eh on the comics Palpatine did have a reason for creating the empire...to "save the galaxy from external threats" and whatnot. But even still the cruelty of the empire cant be excused.
@@GT-wj3gl Which is why I said that it was good in the beginning, before Palpatine started being his dickish Sith self. Honestly, if the Empire became a military Junta with someone like Thrawn at its head, I would choose the Empire any day of the week.
It helps even more that appearantly in the 10 years since he has not made another movie. Though he is currently making another movie, centered around two boys from an 1920s African game farm attending an elite school. There is so many ways this can go wrong, and i am sure he will cover most of them.
I've never seen it, but I was raised in the Deep South, so I don't need to. I went to Robert E. Lee High School. All white until the year I got there. When I was a child an old lady (a "True Dawtah!" in her nineties then) recruited kids in the neighborhood to join The Children of the Confederacy, the Sons of C's youth group. First Tuesday of each month we were carted off to a clubhouse at a public park and had our heads stuffed with Old South hocum: The South only lost because England abandoned us. Slaves were treated well. Most loved their masters. The war was about states right and had little to do with slavery, and hey, the Yankees mistreated the Irish! Lee was an honorable man who only fought for love of Ole Virginy, etc. We were taught to say War Between the States, and Late Great Unpleasantness. It wasn't a civil war! etc., etc , etc. We kids laughed at the old ladies running the show, but the grub was good (cake, cookies, ice cream, punch, etc ), and we got to play in the park after the propaganda session was over. Hilarious. Except that some of the kids in that club still believe all that shit more than fifty years later. The MAGA movement came as no surprise to me.
While that sounds horrific, at least in the mainstream, MAGA pretty strongly despises slavery and anti-black sentiment. If it was truly this all white KKK descended monolith, why the hell are so many minorities, myself included, rallying behind it.
@@evantyler8647 no, he almost undeniably was saying “rights”, as in “we’re fighting for our rights”. It sounds like rats because of his thick country souther accent.
@@fineanddandee Most of historical books he published (he studied history and was a professor before his presidency) were heavily supportive of the lost cause myth and slavery generaly, also he promoted showing of some quite southern biased movies and was generally a dickhead in some aspects. There are some videos about him discussing this. Here where I live he´s generally viewed quite possitivelly(for a US president), as during WW1 he was a supporter of Czechoslovakia´s independence and everything else is ignored, as he is pretty irrelevant to us in anything else. That´s why it is implied he´d like Gods and Generals
Damn... Sure, it might not be the greatest film ever made, but does it really deserve such harsh treatment? I'm referring, of course, to Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
Jan Narkiewicz That seen was more powerful than Chamberlin’s affix bayonet scene in Gettysburg, or the charge in glory. You can feel the pain in that scene and your heart is thumping because he is bleeding out. That scene is better than anything in Gods and Generals in its entirety.
@@flacornmallrat Typical. Africans were living quite well. Not all homes were glamorous but for most of history, African commoners had similar standards of living as European commoners and others around the world. Using such a nonsensical argument to justify chattel slavery is beyond disgusting and you're trash.
Stonewall Jackson literally did look like Jesus, even the bloody hole in the hand and holding the hand in that way. But it is obviously an impartial film
@@SouthernGentleman yes and that means not white, not as people understand it today.... the imagine the church puts out is that he was a white male.... however he would have looked more like todays Arabs.... closer to that than what jews look like today.... so the church image is extremely wrong
I mean, that's what happens when you structure you entire agrarian economy's functioning on the enslavement and abuse of other human beings. That's a dirty bed the South made and lied down in.
What do you mean the slaves weren't happy to be loyal slaves? Taken from their homes, families torn apart, raped,mutilated,starved,and over worked. What more could you ask for.
Yeah basically, it all boils down to slavery. Their entire economy relied on it. If slavery was abolished it would have severely hurt those states for a century. Not to mentioned the burning of Georgia. That war severely damaged the South. Its still the poorest and least innovative part of the country.
Actually the union wanted to impose higher taxes on cotton imports, and they even offered for the south to keep their slaves but yet they refused. Hell even Robert E Lee. A man who gained ownership of his fathers slaves and immediately freed them. Many of these men who find out that there is an army coming to invade their homes. Need I remind you that the union was worse than we were because we didn’t destroy everything in our path like the union did. There are many areas in the south that are affected by it still.
The war was over secession. Slavery was legal before, during and after the war in four union states until the ratification of the 13th amendment. It's dishonest to say the war was over slavery as that implies the union fought to end slavery rather than to restore and preserve the authority of the constitution in the confederate states.
I would like to formally apologize as a Floridian for some of the comments on this video calling it leftist propaganda. Literally look up Mississippi’s leaving the Union declaration (that’s what I think it’s called) if you believe it wasn’t about slavery.
Mississippi's declaration of causes of secession doesn't even mention the war. The war hadn't even started yet. Why do dismiss official declarations about the war itself in favor of some vague myth based on documents that don't even mention the war? Official Union declaration, July 1861: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 yes, that was why the Union was fighting, but Mississippi succeeded from the Union because Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t EXPAND slavery, not that he would take it away. “It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.”-A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. That sounds like Mississippi is succeeding to due slavery no longer being spread to me. Not even that Lincoln was going to abolish it, JUST THAT IT WOULDN’T SPREAD FARTHER. Wow.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 100+ comments on this channel alone, all trying to argue with people about "muh states rights (right to slavery)" get a job and a hobby you bum lmfao
I was a teenager discussing this movie with a stranger adult in Tennessee and I was enthusiastic about it. I liked it because it covered lesser known battles and gave perspectives from all sides. I said, "We've had Gettysburg, and now the first half of the civil war, I can't wait for the final half where we get Sherman's march and Vicksburg and cold harbor". And the man looked at me and said, "No one wants to see the south beaten." It occurred to me then and there that it wasn't just liking history and battles, it was personal and more emotionally raw to some people. Some modern people, wanted the south to win and slaves to have not been freed.
@@Osmium192 Don’t worry, buddy, you’ve already got it! Too bad it’s only squashing the rights of women and minorities, eh? Sounds like you’d want a piece of the action 😉
@@Osmium192Individual liberty exists for everyone or it exists for no one. Your precious Confederacy didn't care about actual liberty; they just wanted to keep owning other people.
The arguement of "good treatment" for slaves has always been hollow. If a man had the legal power to punish me, restrict my movement, beat and kill me, take my possessions, sell, rape, and murder my family, I would find that situation intolerable. I do not give a fuck how "nice" the man was to me. "Oh he's constantly holding a gun to your head, but he doesn't pull the trigger, and he occasionally throws you a BBQ! Be grateful, you have it so good!" It's just the Sword of Damocles.
"If a man had the legal power to punish me, restrict my movement, beat and kill me, take my possessions, sell, rape, and murder my family, I would find that situation intolerable." But if that man were elected by voters in another section of the country, then you're fine with it?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558When did he say that? Oh, nowhere? Because you're making things up out of thin air? Because you can't understand the simplist comments? Oh.
@@al3xa723 I edited my previous comment to change the final period to a question mark. And I'll direct the question at you, too. Do you believe all people (and that would include in the context of this video both slaves and Southerners) have an inalienable right to self-government?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Your previous comment has disappeared to me, but taking this question now in isolation, yes. Absolute self governance? Likely not. In fact it's almost a necessity to sacrifice some control if you are to operate in a society.
@@al3xa723 "In fact it's almost a necessity to sacrifice some control if you are to operate in a society." Sure, I agree, but there's a fundamental difference between former slaves choosing to continue working on the plantations where they were previously enslaved/Southerners choosing to continue in the union, on the one hand, and masters/political masters sacrificing the control of their slaves/subjects, on the other hand. The important question is whether the person/people whose control is being sacrificed are the ones that are deciding on the sacrifice. "Your previous comment has disappeared to me..." If you sort comments by "newest first" and then scroll down to this thread you might be able to see all the comments in the thread. I have no idea why that makes a difference but it normally does for me.
@@melvynobrien6193 Loved Gettysburg but never saw the last full measure, The olny thing that I didn't like about Gods and Generals was that it would have been better if it was 50 percent union and 50 percent Confederate othet than that I felt it was much better than this reviewer said it was.
"Particularly out west in Kansas and Missouri" My great great great grandpa moved from Ireland, got drafted into the Army of Kansas, did nothing for the bulk of the war, spent the last six months basically ordered to maraud deep South plantations, and he basically carried off someone's library by himself, I don't know how. He became the town vet with no formal training with the husbandry manuals because that was something you could just do. The 1800s were wacky.
If you really want to know about grandpa you should teach thyself about How the new state of Kansas started, and how IMMIGRANT settlers were pawns (John Brown plans) of the elites of the North to acquire electoral votes and gain control of our government. You should know what the RedLegs of Kansas did to the people of Missouri who were farmers mainly descended from the original settlers of this country. That was the beginning of the War Between The States. Ref: "The South Under Siege 1830-2000".
The Stonewall Jackson death scene is the corniest and least subtle thing I've ever seen, he even has blood on his palm like Jesus and it frames the shot of the flag on his coffin to be shaped like the Christian cross
And the deification of a traitor, slaver and a momentary obstacle in the path of true American hero's like Lincoln is something Choptop finds offensive
We fought for: State rights (to own slaves) The economy (which was built on slavery) Their way of life ( made possible through slavery) Slavery wasn’t a branch of the reasons for the civil war, it was the whole damn tree.
@John John it was only incomplete when the racist president following Lincoln listened to the confederate south when they wanted to instate Jim Crow laws to ensure the black population couldn’t vote. Shortly after the civil war black people began gaining a lot of political power over the south because they were high in number and what remained of the confederate army couldn’t have it. The only reason it was incomplete was cause they didn’t go far enough in putting the confederacy in its place. (Note the north was also racist but they didn’t try to deny the crime that was slavery) And since when did we need to compensate slave owners. Oh boo hoo they payed good money to commit a crime against humanity. The poor rich bastards. Why didn’t they get a refund? On what moral ground do you believe you stand on?
@John John Incomplete freedom is still better than the no freedom they had under the South. And Lincoln had nothing to do with what happened to them after they were freed. He was shot in the head remember? And we should have compensated the slaves, not their owners.
@John John Well you're clearly an idiot. You think being a slave is better than partial freedom? What a lunatic you are. All of modern America's problems are because of the guy after him, you complete imbecile. Again, why do you want to compensate the slave owners, but not the slaves themselves? How is freeing the slaves tyrannical when it's done through a completely legal Constitutional Amendment? The President doesn't even have direct authority in the Amendment process, you dolt.
I never got the whole confederate pride thing. They lost, they were on the moral low ground. They didn’t go out in a blaze of glory, they lost weak and bleeding out resources. I don’t get the reason to be proud about losing.
Yes, slavery is wrong, and undoubtedly the Civil War was fought because of slavery (among other things). Southern states believed that slavery should be allowed to spread in the new western territories. Because slavery was legal at the time, a slave was considered a man's property. The Constitution protects your right to property. That means that restricting slavery in the western territories was unconstitutional, but northerners wanted to stop its spread. To a Southerner, this was serious. Northerners were encroaching on their rights to property. Many Southerners were very resentful of the fact that Northerners were hurting the South. Another example of this was Northern insistence of tariffs to imported goods. Many Southerners relied on European imports, and were furious. All of this resulted in the states seceding from the Union. Southerners saw the North as oppressive and outnumbering them, and therefore a threat to their way of life. Many Southerners saw no benefit in remaining in what they saw as an oppressive Union. Furthermore, the Constitution gives the people a right to rebel against an oppressive government (although it was later decided that it was unconstitutional to secede). Obviously, the Confederate Vice President declared that slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy. However, most Southerners were small farmers who farmed for their own subsistence, usually without slaves. And yes, the Confederates did start the war by attacking Fort Sumter. However, for many Confederates, Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion was interpreted by many Southerners as a serious threat to their homes, as an invading army would directly threaten them. This is the primary reason why most southerners fought for the South, to protect their homes. The South was at a major disadvantage during the war, in terms of men, industry, weapons, everything. However, the South fought on against these odds for four years, and lost 200,000 men doing so. This is the primary factor in Southern pride. It is very hard to admit you were wrong when so many fought in defense of what you thought was right. The fact that the Confederates are depicted as "the bad guys" makes those who are descended from former Confederates feel alienated. The fact that their ancestors are dismissed as bad people makes many people today angry. Also, the Civil War is a major unifying factor in the South, as it is really the only thing that is a clear example of their distinct history. That is why many people are fond of the Confederacy. The fact that their distinct way of life was under threat, and that they fought in defense of the "Northern Aggressors" for four years is why many are fond of the Confederacy. Most of those who are fond of the Confederacy realize slavery is bad, and therefore don't want to admit that the Confederacy was formed because of slavery. That is the main reason why people fond of the Confederacy have a bad reputation, and why the Confederacy is more and more being seen as a most evil thing, furthering a divide. Personally, I am a Northerner. The fact that the Confederates are dismissed as evil made me interested in them. I do not like how Northerners have written their history, even if many aspects of it were negative. I think that it is detrimental to dismiss 200,000 dead Southerners as evil. Instead, I think if everyone learned more about the war and kept the memory of it with them, the United States would be a better place.
Of course you wouldn't get, because you are fucking stupid. You are conditioned today to not have pride in anything so it's no wonder you cannot fathom the concept of rebels being proud they fought off the carpertbaggers for 4 years, nearly winning.
Django unchained is not even pretending to be anything besides a power / revenge fantasy, it ain't masquerading as some historically accurate depiction of the era (it's Tarantino ffs). If you find that offensive look in the mirror
@@randomchannel-px6ho Satire and propaganda are not mutually exclusive. Django is far more propagandistic than Gods and Generals, the same way The Daily Show is more propagandistic than a long C-Spann Book TV interview with a controversial author.
The only thing i disagree with is the way they want to take down the statues. I dont believe they need to be removed because i mean its a huge part of history
Germansherman 383 Yeah they’re a huge part of history, but they don’t keep statues of Hitler or Stalin around Germany or Russia either. There is a way to preserve history without glorifying its villains, and it’s by putting the statues in museums.
"I mean, if more people became free, maybe I'd love it less! Value of a commodity is directly proportional to its scarcity in the marketplace, after all"
Y-Yeah, thats why we're interested in the Civil War. For the stories of the people! Totally not for the minutiae of the uniforms and weapons *sweats nervously*
Knowing it is possible to sympathize with and even love your captor/tormentor, why should it be offensive if a slave is depicted that has accepted his fate and makes the best out of it. Even acting happy. You know it must have happened, probably quite a lot since slavery was so widespread. So why is this offensive? It is not like there are no slaves shown that are struggling with their position.
If you thought this movie was bad, buckle up and head into Ronald Maxwell's last movie: Copperhead. It's almost a remake of Birth of a Nation if you replaced the savage black mobs with savage white abolitionists.
Except the great bulk of Yankees, including the savage ones, weren't actually abolitionists. They were willing to go along with slavery rather like the US has been going along with China for the last several decades.
Your opinion on how the false portrayal of slavery in these movies is harmful is spot on. I feel the same about _Song of the South._ I’m irritated that Disney hides the movie so hard, because it’s important to watch to understand the harm. The only way to watch it in full, is to pirate a rough VHS copy of it from its very short release in the European market in the 90s. Disney rereleased that film in theaters multiple times, as late as 1983 (IIRC). That means your parents and grandparents were around when that film still had enough relevance to enter theaters. What’s worse is that the film itself isn’t _actively_ racist. No one’s dropping the N word or beating a slave (technically takes place in Reconstruction Georgia, which is even worse if you know the history of slavery post-civil war). The problem in the movie is the _passive_ racism being shown - which is much worse. The fact that Uncle Remus has such a cordial and flirty(?🤨) relationship with the plantation’s mistress out in the open, the fact that her grandson is just allowed to go hang out with Remus, these are toxic things to show in a historically based movie. Given the cartoon segments spliced throughout, it gives the live action a more realistic tone. I just imagine halfway through how people might’ve just assumed the south was. And if the post civil war setting became obvious to them, then it’s worse. Because, denying slavery and its awfulness while living in the 20th century is hard to believe. However, most never hear about conditions of Black Americans during Reconstruction on while in history class. Shit, I bet most of y’all didn’t know that in school either. Yet, conditions for Black Americans got so much worse in this time period. So, ignorant movie goers who don’t know this time period will look at it as a reference example for lack of any concrete ones. *And that’s what makes it so harmful.* …but not getting to watch it means we can’t even learn from it and use it as an example of harmful types of _passive racism._
"The planters (The super rich aristocrats) ultimately decided that it would be better to rip the country in half than risk their bottom line" Well it's a good thing we don't have anything like that any more... oh shit wait.
@Ebony Panther No nothings changed, that was kind of my point though. I took a quote from the video to draw a comparison. While everything you said was true my point was to show that the rich assholes were and still are the biggest problem.
@Ebony Panther I'm not sure that I agree that they actually saw black people as people who were made to be slaves. They knew that black people were human beings. This was just an excuse forged from propaganda that they used to morally justify slavery so that it wouldn't conflict with their religion.
Shen Kichin They really didn’t, the reintegration of the Southern Elite in to academia later would accelerate the concept of scientific racism and black genetic inferiority. Slavery was always an economic liability to the South, but it was never about the economics, it was always about racial supremacy.
@Ebony Panther I honestly think it was just a broad "wars are fought by the poor for the interests of the rich" sentiment. And I think I get why that could sound like apology by omission, and a distraction from the central point.
Exactly! And northern industry being imports/exports did not pay duties & tariffs like Southern ports. There was no Federal Income Tax so the Federal Government was primarily funded through Import & Export Duties & Tariffs,...the majority of ;which came from Mobile, New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah,..etc.
He's probably gonna be banking on both closeted and open neo confederate audiences to watch it under the guise of "don't let the liberals control you" or "this film would get you cancelled" or some bullshit. Given the rise of the far right wouldn't surprise me if this one would be his most successful one yet
Maxwell was making some non Civil War movies before Gettysburg (like one about two girls trying to have sex first) Gettysburg was his first Civil War Film Cant wait to see what he has this time
I think that scene with Chamberlain recognizing the parallels between Caesar crossing the Rubicon and the Union crossing the Rappahannok was pretty epic. Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute you!
That was Joshua Chamberlain, a professor of rhetoric and religion. A polyglot who could speak 10 languages. A very learned man. It may be entirely in keeping with his character to make the connection in his mind. The full quote: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain : In the Roman civil war, Julius Caesar knew he had to march on Rome, which no legion was permitted to do. Marcus Lucanus left us a chronicle of what happened. "How swiftly Caesar had surmounted the mighty alps and in his mind conceived immense upheavals, coming war. When he reached the water of the little Rubicon, clearly to the leader through the murky night appeared a mighty image of his country in distress, grief in her face, her white hair streaming from her tower-crowned head, with tresses torn and shoulders bare, she stood before him and sighing said, "Where further do you march? Where do you take my standards warriors? If lawfully you come, if as citizens, this far only is allowed." Then trembling struck the leader's limbs, his hair grew stiff and weakness checked his progress, holding his feet at the rivers edge. At last he speaks, "Oh Thunderer, surveying Rome's walls from the Tarpeian Rock. Oh Phrygian house gods of Iulus, Clan and Mystery of Quirinus who was carried off to heaven, Oh Jupiter of Latium seated in lofty Alda and Hearths of Vesta, Oh Rome, equal to the highest deity, favor my plans! Not with impious weapons do I pursue you. Here am I, Caesar, conqueror of land and sea, your own soldier, everywhere, now too, if I am permitted. The man who makes me your enemy, it is he who be the guilty one." Then he broke the barriers of war and through the swollen river swiftly took his standards. And Caesar crossed the flood and reached the opposite bank. From Hesperia's Forbidden Fields he took his stand and said, "Here I abandoned peace and desecrated law; fortune it is you I follow. Farewell to treaties. From now on war is our judge!" Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!
Then you got people who say the war was NOT about slavery but about states rights..... But when the northern states were not complying with the FUGITIVE slave act, the southern states DEMANDED that the federal government FORCE the northern states into compliance. In other words, they were only for Southern states rights, to own slaves
donutak74u Well, Jackson was a very eccentric man. It looks like the movie tries to provide excuses for his eccentricities. At Bull Run (I), they depict Jackson holding his arm up because he was wounded. In fact, he routinely went into battle with one hand up to supposedly “balance the humors”. As for the lemonade, I don’t know how much Jackson drank it, but he did frequently suck on lemons. And he was very religious. For instance, he would never send mail where it would be in transit on a Sunday.
@@danielhann37 Typical of American war movies were good guys are OP and a small band can pierce an enemy army of hundreds, if not thousands. Just thought it was over the top to satisfy audiences.
@@mondaysinsanity8193 So you are saying that the person who invented this cringe-worthy plot idea might have had his or her heart just in the right place for some odd reason?
It just hit me: as the voice of the director, he chose JOHN WILKES BOOTH to represent himself. JOHN. WILKES. FUCKING. BOOTH. Yeah, that's an impartial voice if I ever saw one.
Such an impartial voice he used his impartial firearm to assassinate someone impartially via sending his impartial bullet impartially to the back of the head. /s
The irony of how the movie portrays Union generals was that most Union generals were born poor and had to actually work to the top while the Confederate generals got their jobs through nepotism and wealth
It wAs AbOuT sTatEs RiGhts “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us-This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” Alexander Stephens 1861
No mention of the war there (which hadn't even started yet.) Nor any mention of anything about slavery that was even indirectly at stake in the war. Stephens never at any point said *the war* was about slavery. If that was implied by the speech you quote, why didn't he say so directly when the war actually started? Because it wasn't actually implied. Stephens said in 1860 that, "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it," a position he never changed. The fight for independence therefore obviously wasn't even indirectly a fight for slavery. Stephens, 1864: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty."
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Stephens actually provides an exceptionally strong argument against your revisionist myth. Stephens, 1860: "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it." Stephens, March 1861: "notwithstanding their [Republicans'] professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave." Stephens, 1864: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Is that a joke about him being played by Jackie Earle Haley in Lincoln? Also, it is impressive that a guy who played a child murdering paedophile demon's most evil character was in the movie Lincoln.
Can we please get a Civil War film directed by Tommy Wiseau? I need that level of insanity in my life. “I did not shot Stonewall Jackson, it’s bullshit, I did noooot! Oh hi Mark.”
UPDATE 11/4/21: The tone and purpose of my channel has changed dramatically since I made this Gods and Generals review, so I'd like to provide a bit of contextualization here - like a plaque at the base of a statue of a dead slaveowner.
I had 1000 subscribers when I made this video, and if I had known then that it would reach an audience of millions, I would have gone about it very differently. This review was intended as a fun way to rip apart a shitty movie, and troll a tiny but vocal group of hate-watching Lost Causers who I used to spar with in the comment sections of my very early Civil War videos. It was not intended as a serious piece of historical scholarship and should not be taken as such.
My main problem with this review is that it touches on pretty much all the tenets of the Lost Cause Myth, but rushes through them so quickly that a lot of the nuance is lost. I still stand by everything I said in this video - the history is accurate, but compared to the sort of stuff I do now, it's very surface level. If you're trying to learn more about Civil War history and memory, I urge you to consider this as a jumping-off point rather than the be-all-end-all.
To that end I've compiled a list of some other videos I've made that go into greater depth about a lot of these topics:
*The Best Civil War Movie from the Southern Perspective* ua-cam.com/video/AndsdQO0Wmk/v-deo.html ~ Many people have reached out to me insisting that _Gods and Generals_ is not propagandistic, but rather simply seeks to tell the story of the war from the Confederate point of view. I've always found this criticism pretty baffling, because I take a good amount of time to point out in my review that there's a difference between a character in a film professing opinions and the filmmaker themselves attempting to further an agenda. I go into more detail about that in this video.
*Confederate Soldiers Didn't Fight for Slavery (Or Did They?)* ua-cam.com/video/nQTJgWkHAwI/v-deo.html ~ This video isn't among my best, but provides context for the pro-slavery beliefs of Confederate soldiers. It's hard to imagine from a 21st century perspective why anyone would want to take up arms to protect slavery, especially poor Southerners who didn't own slaves themselves. Here I attempt to explain why they did just that. Another great resource on this topic is the book _Marching Masters: Slavery, Race, and the Confederate Army During the Civil War_ by Colin Woodward.
*The Mundane Horror of American Slavery* ua-cam.com/video/SbMzYRMxIvA/v-deo.html ~ Back when _Gods and Generals_ came out, Ron Maxwell tried to defend his movie's portrayal of slavery, saying that while unspeakable violent cruelties were absolutely committed, the day-to-day reality was often much more mundane than that. Which is technically true, but also a pretty egregious misunderstanding of the lived experiences of enslaved people. This brief video breaks that idea down.
*Was General Sherman a War Criminal?* ua-cam.com/video/OYj9CSxlGSk/v-deo.html ~ The part of the review where I talk about the Lost Cause stereotype of the Union army as a pillaging, murderous force is badly worded. Some people have taken that section to mean that I was denying Union war crimes, which was not my intention at all! As I said, they did occasionally happen, like the burning of Columbia in 1865. I should have specified that I was alluding more to the ridiculous post-war exaggerations accusing invading Union troops of the sorts of atrocities the Germans and Japanese would commit in World War 2. These stories are common Lost Cause talking points, but they're made of whole cloth and should be disregarded. This video focuses mostly on W. T. Sherman, but also covers misconceptions about Union war crimes as a whole. For more on this, I highly recommend the book _The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans_ by Charles Royster.
interesting
I still think it's a fun video. But, I've always kind of seen these as more of a jab at the movie but not nessicary a deep dive on the history behind everything.
Mad respect for this comment. I do still love this analysis and say it still holds up well enough. But this comment does show how much you've grown since.
Do you think you'd ever remake this video to update it?
And is your Civil War reenactors video still up anywhere? That looks like a good watch.
I really like how you pin your changed vies on old videos to show what you have learned. Been binging and notice you do this everywhere. Cool!
It'd be cool to see a "revisit" and more in-depth analysis of the film, kinda in the same vein as the Gettysburg videos
Sigh, everyone gets this wrong. Paul Blart Mall Cop was about state's rights.
As a Paul Blart buff I am compelled to refute this claim. The issue of State’s Rights was barely mentioned in the film and when it was it was just a euphemism for something else. Audiences of the time understood this.
Or at least Stores' Rights.
24:08 it was about being able to play guitar hero freely without federal interference 😡
Paul Blart swore an oath to defend the mall, and his girlfriend supported him and the cause.
In 150 years time Paul Blarts statue will be removed by force.
haha
Cromwells Ghost, that’s a thought. For every statue that gets taken down, they could replace it with a statue of Paul Blart. Everyone could get behind that.
God’s and Generals sounds like a mobile game
This is a way underrated comment
Couldn't agree more.
Mobile games just want money. This movie wants you to believe in fake history
I actually think it is a mobile game.
I thought it was about the history channel Kings and Generals
Cool it with the bigoted anti Paul Blart the mall cop rhetoric
Yeah, stop being Blartphobic.
Yeah, Paul Blart is an all time American classic
@TheNostromozero Thats offensive. Don't act like you dont know.
Lmao this kid is actually trying to be edgy using Paul Blart.
Screenshotting this.
@Your Therapist lmfao
"oh look it's Alexander Stevens, the vice president of the confederacy, I wonder what he has the say" is still one of my favorite AtunSheiFilms quotes, idk why
This one always makes me laugh. One Mans words do not provide evidence one way or the other.
@@drewdurbin4968 what exactly are you trying to say
@drewdurbin4968 hold on the second highest ranking leader in the csu statement is just an opinion😂😂
Because it's the lead into a quote which completely dunks on the lost cause myth.
I'd like to formally apologize for what he just said about Judah P. Benjamin.
Maybe the real state's rights were the friends we made along the way
*looks around at a field of dead soldiers*
You have made me audibly chuckle, thank you sir. A good day to you.
states rights ≈ the right to own slaves and to run death camps
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_prison_camps#Death_rates
Wow, that has to be one of the best comments I have ever read on this god forsaken website.
@@alexscriabin We know, you are preaching to the choir.
“And now we go on to Stonewall Jackson’s death. Spoilers by the way.” Dude had to have a spoiler warning for historical events lol.
I'm still at the Rome Chapter, so yeah it was a bit of a spoiler.
Btw, I'm really liking this Ceasar character. Hope nothing bad happens to him.
@@mistman_161 Julius or Augustus?
@@strongbone9471 most likely Julius
Well his audience is mainly American.
@@mistman_161 C-A-E-S-A-R FFS.
every black man in this movie is uncle ruckus fr
its true though just look at that accurate historical account of candylands destruction and poor old stephan which applies to them all of course
If a movie has slavery and it doesn't make you uncomfortable then its not showing you slavery right
Well said.
Slavery was part of every culture & society since time immemorial.
The Egyptian Empire had many slaves.
The Persian Empire had many slaves.
The Assyrian Empire had many slaves.
The Babylonian Empire had many slaves.
The Ashanti (Ghana) Empire had many slaves.
The Mali Empire had many slaves.
The Ethiopian Empire had many slaves.
The Kingdom of Songhai (West Africa) had many slaves.
The Greeks had many slaves.
The Romans had many slaves.
The Aztec had many slaves.
The Incas had many slaves.
The Mayans had many slaves.
The Apache had slaves.
The Sioux had slaves.
The Mongolian Empire had millions of slaves.
The Arab Caliphate had millions of slaves.
The Japanese had millions of slaves.
The Soviet Union had millions of slaves.
The Ottoman Empire had millions of slaves.
@@romulus3345 We're not talking about slavery in other cultures. We're talking about slavery here in the US. Talking about slavery everywhere else in the world doesn't change the fact that the institution of slavery is wrong. Now I'm not sure how this comment is intended to come off, but to me this comes off as "what-about-ism" or "how is slavery so wrong if it's been a part of so many cultures". I sure do hope it is not the latter, because that implies so much more about you as a person.
@@ZairokPhoen So now that we have established that EVERY culture & society was engaged in slavery at one time or another throughout history, we can look at which cultures & nations ended slavery and used their power & might to make slavery illegal worldwide.. Those nations would be Great Britain and the United States of America.
@@romulus3345 Unfortunately I believe slavery still exists in places in the world today. That being said Great Britain didn't have to go through a civil war in order to end their involvement in the slave trade. Whereas the US did. I don't believe that might and power are the key factors to end slavery. That involves too much conflict and a needless waste of throwing people's lives away. I believe if we were to combat slavery or other issues that we're not too keen of, then effective diplomacy would be much more sufficient.
WARNING: YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE COMMENTS SECTION. HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION EQUIPMENT REQUIRED.
EMERGENCY: USER DEAD IMMINENT
*Insert rebel yell here*
Why do you think I am down here
Why are we here? Just to suffer?
No
God, the Civil War was the great American moment for facial hair.
12:49 gonna grow that great mutton chop on my own face, verily.
And Ww1 was mustaches 😂
this
Amen to that
When I become an army officer, I'm gonna grow out my beard and curl my mustache.
One of my most favorite things is Oversimplified's take on Lincoln endorsing Grant.
Staff: He's a drunk.
Lincoln: What does he like to drink?
Staff: I believe whiskey, sir.
Lincoln: Then send him MORE! *chucks whiskey bottles at staff*
That's real! (Probably) There's a real story about Lincoln wanting to give the rest of his generals whatever Grant was drinking. It's been around since the war.
Finally a oversimplified fan
@@benjamindouglas862 Just because I enjoyed the anecdote as presented by Oversimplified doesn't mean I regard it as historical fact. I am very much aware of the actual situation that spawned the anecdote. I have been fascinated by, and have studied, the Civil War my entire life. Being 20 minutes away from Gettysburg may have something to do with that. So, yes, I have read countless materials on the subject other than Wikipedia. To be frank, though, I have never read the Wikipedia page on it, as I deem other sources are likely to be far more reliable and accurate. Maybe consider the fact you do not know someone and their interests before you decide to be condescending and insulting towards them?
The thing about Grant is that he was not a regular drinker. He would be abstinent for long periods of time, then fall into a drinking stupor when he got depressed. There is evidence the alcoholism was an inherited trait, as well.
@@revanofkorriban1505 And he still managed to be one of if not the greatest man on the battlefield.
Jackson’s hand wasn’t raised in a saintly way. It was in a messianic way. The blood on his palm, as if a spike went through it.
Way worse.
Oh wow, isn't that symbolically Jesus. Wouldnt that be saintly?
My man, learn about saints before you try to push the "masons" on people. It makes you look like a joke
Read wrong. Leaving up anyway.
@@richard-fish-monger he said "messianic" not "masonic"
@@richard-fish-mongerreading is hard, huh
@@richard-fish-mongerread the comment again, mate
@@generalgrievous2202 I got it the first time someone commented it. Thank you for repeating him
That's a really good point with the gore in war films. Every war is a hell of a lot more bloody than they portray. I remember hearing an account of WW2 where a soldier was saying it was really hard to explain how some men died. Not because they didn't know what killed them, but how do you explain to someone back home that their son died due to their buddies bone fragments going through their skull? In that particular case an Japanese artillery shell vaporized one marine and his bones became like shrapnel. War is fucked up no matter the era.
There is also the fact that you simply don't know what is happening around you. A good example would be American tank crews dumping round after round into Japanese tanks when one was more than enough to kill a Chi-Ha. They simply didn't know what their rounds were doing. They just heard a loud bang, saw smoke from their gun, and the tank was still there with no visible damage. If the guys pulling the trigger didn't know what was happening on the other end of their own gun, how could you expect the guys they were shooting at to know what was going on?
I agree even films that try to portray the reality of war don't portray it as bloody as it actually was.
I remember a filmmaker saying that to create a true war movie, he'd have to market it as "horror".
I don't always support spreading around awareness of parts of life because I think it desensitizes people to bad things and normalizes things that are but shouldn't be the default state of existence. But sometimes I wish combat vets would give people the knowledge they ask for. I'm torn between thinking, maybe if people knew what war really was we would hesitate before we send kids into the next one. But maybe if people knew what war really was they would just accept civilian casualties, atrocities, desensitization, torture, and evil or damaged people getting put in groups with rifles and minimal supervision as normal. And everything would only get more common.
Anyway just from videos and photos I've seen I don't think the wealthiest Hollywood directing co. has enough special effects guys to make war movies look realistic and sight is just one of five senses anyway
@@talkythegamer2305 Not as bloody in some ways, but the big gap I see between reality and movies is the decisions of the PEOPLE. You never see sucking chest wounds or blown off faces or limp hanging limbs or genital wounds in movies but on some level everyone who knows guns has some idea what is going to happen if a .223 hits your mouth or elbow or whatever. Gore is gore and it happens far away from war too. But until Afgh started to wind down and more info about the reality of that war and all others started to come out, I didn't realize how routine civilian casualties, atrocities, 100% debilitating PTSD (as a subset of all the PTSD people come home with), and so on are. That was more shocking than blood guts and bone to me. They should put all those details in movies.
It's also worth noting that Gods and Generals came out the same year as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, imagine how embarrassing that is?
And Master and Commander
"One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
The other, of course, involves orcs"
(And yes, I know that this quote is a comparison between Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Rings, but I think it fits here).
No it doesn't.@@CSXIV
@@HostileGG It fits to us normal folks who aren't chuds and confederate loving creeps.
@@HostileGG I'm sure it does!
“How dare you infringe on my right to infringe on the rights of others?!”
"How dare ye infringe on my right to infringe on your right to infringe on the rights of others?!" Infringe-ception
@@rejectedkermit1220 I believe I've heard this as the paradox of freedom. To be completely free would mean you have the ability to imprison and enslave others. The only way to solve the problem is to accept that there is no way to have complete freedom. Either we are willing to ensure everyone's right to partial freedom by restricting their ability to mistreat each other, or we accept the destruction of civilization.
"This country was founded on the idea that one corporation couldn't hog all the slaves, while the rest of us wallow in poverteh!"
Eric Cartman
Alamo: Fighting for the freedom to hold slaves
They still basically say this to this day.
“How dare you infringe on my right to [not wear a mask, which will] infringe on the rights [to not be infected] of others?!”
Or fill in the blanks with healthcare reform, gun regulation, social media platforms stopping violent speech, etc. The times snd issues may change but their stupid ass arguments never do
"We would never send our men to march in and tyranize other states!" Kansas would like a word with you, Gernal Jackson.
well they did it to Texas before it became independent
Pennsylvania would like a word with you, General Jackson.
@@snowcat9308 Yeah but to be fair Jackson never actually made it to Pennsylvania. If he did maybe he would have said "I stand corrected", we will never know.
@@rswarre No but my point was that the Confederacy absolutely sent their men into Pennsylvania to terrify us. They didn't get very far, mind you.
Fun fact: the Gods and Generals: Extended edition went on for longer than the actual confederacy.
😂😂😂😂🤣
F00g3n So does this monotone, boring, review.
🤣🤣🤣
😜
@EPlease refrain from this scandalous slander, I'm sure the extended version is at least two DVD's!! xD
A film critic noted everyone in the movie gave a speech except for the horse.
Not in the standard edition, maybe.
Where's Mr.Ed when you need him?
lol
Just started wondering how it would have looked if a horse gave a sorkinesque speech to gaslight about the causes of the American Civil War.
Just one of the horses talking in the stables Dr. Doolitle style about justiness of the fight and rights for self-determination (just taken from behind him to really nail the irony of a horse talking out of its ass) and then have one horse say "Caarl, that kills people!"
Sir this is truly an offensive work of hackery: Paul Blart Mall Cop is truly an artistic masterpiece and I insist you retract your slander against him at once.
Noah Sabin I read this in a southern aristocrat accent. I hope that was your intention lol
Kade Daivis I speak with a Danish accent because I’m A C T U A L L Y from Scandinavia, wow. How?... I know that’s really hard for a northerner to imagine but then again,,, you’re wrong by proxy
@@justinthomas2052 *muttonchops intensify*
@@AF-tv6uf Muttonchops intensify everything. So true.
@@dajjukunrama5695 I as well am not sure what you're getting at lol?
Whenever someone says that the civil war was about State Rights, I ask them "The states rights to do what?", and if they say leave the union, I ask them why they were leaving the union
So what was the 80 years war about? The Belgian war of independence? The revolutionary war? Just to name a few wars that were successful in terms of gaining independence. They were indepence wars. Now the South lost. And it gets complicated. True the south left the union over state rights, and they were rights to hold slaves. But did the north fight to free the slaves? They didn't. So you cannot say that the war was about slavery. Since the north had no issue with slavery in the south. Would slavery be ended in the long run, yes. And the proclamation of emancipation was only for slaves in the south. And as you state, the rights to what? I say about the proclamation, what was the intent? To keep the big European powers out of the war. It was simply a independence war. And people in the north of the USA should stop feeling better about themselves, because the north benefitted greatly from the raw materials farmed on the plantations and processed up north. Oops, did they indirectly condone slavery? Yes they sure did.
And we still do to this day! All them feel good go green idiots who love their electric cars for which their raw materials are mined by...child slaves. Yup in the Kongo. The world hasn't changed 1 bit. But some people just have to feel like they are so good and noble. Sipping their late at Star Bucks.
@dgray3771 This one I've only encountered recently, that the north was benefitting from the South's slave labor. Is this the latest in the southern revisionist history of the civil war? You can also say the south was benefitting from northern industry. So what? Then you admit the south seceded for the state's rights to own slaves. And if the north had no issue with southern slavery, why was there an abolishionist movement and an underground railroad to get slaves to northern free states? Then you change gears entirely and bring in modern corporate slavery in Africa and try to tie it into the American civil war. The only similarity there is that the southern slave owners were using slave labor to produce a product just like the international companies are doing in Africa. And if you own a smart phone you are as quilty as anyone else. The material from those African mines are used in our phones.
@@StoutandSteady You get angry for no reason. At no point do I say that the south did not secede over slavery. My point is that the war is not over slavery. The war is about the legality of secession. Where the south claimed it could and the north said they can't.
Slavery is the underlying reason for many of the things that happened but at the root lay the idea that states could have far reaching legislation and rules that made the states mini countries within the Union. Something that didn't work. And people were ignorant about it. Shoehorning it with things like having an equal number of slave states to free states.
And what did they need an underground railroad for id slavery wasn't accepted in the north...oops it was accepted. Accepted in the south. Endorsed and enforced by legislation. That a runaway slave was returned to its owner.
Northerners simply refuse to accept their complicity in the whole slavery business and think that they freed slaves in some noble crusade. Get off your horse. It wasn't like that. The end of slavery in the USA was an inevitability and to keep the European powers out of the war Lincoln put forward the emancipation act.
@@dgray3771The American Revolution was not just started because of Independence
It had more tangible reasons
Increased taxation, atrocities committed against American people, the possibility of slavery being banned
Independence was just the solution the revolutionaries chose to solve them
The Civil War was fought by the South to preserve slavery
Period
That’s not an opinion, it is a fact
And the way they tried to do that was through breaking away from the Union
But that doesn't change the fact the reason they chose to do so was because of slavery
@@zinkheroofyoutube8004 You are talking about the causes for why the states rebelled against the crown. But the war of independence was...you hear it in the name, fought over independence. Both sides fight over the same issue. The core breaking point which is that the states declared independence and the British crown wouldn't have it.
Now you can trace back at all the causes behind causes behind causes. And taxation is but 1 cause step behind it. The increase of taxes is caused by the French war and that had another cause and so you can trace it all the way back to the stone Age. It is a cheap tactic to "justify" a war when people do it.
But the fork in the road is independence. The founding fathers felt independence was the best course of action and that declaration sparked war.
Which is practically the same for the south seceding and declaring their independence.
This is different from, let's say wars of conquest like Alexander the greats march on Persia or Napoleon on Russia, or wars over resources like the Iraq war or Viking raids.
Each had their own steps behind it. And I do acknowledge that slavery is the main cause for secession. But it isn't what caused the war. Secession caused the war. And the north did not fight to end slavery.
The servile wars in Roman history were about slavery think about that if you want a war in slavery to focus on.
"We won't march into other states and terrorize other peoples."
What is the Fugitive Slave Act for 400, Alex.
Ladies, Gentlemen and Variations Thereupon, we have a winner!
Unless that state is Missouri. Ohio, Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Mexico.
Ghost of Alex*
@BP Lup, Fugitive slave laws weren't a creation of the Confederacy. They were laws created by the US Congress in the late 1700's.
Sorry, but you have bet all on final jeopardy and have dropped to 3rd place. As consultation prize Alex will now whistle Dixie for 2 minutes.
@@sterlingprice5100 I guess we'll just ignore the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 then lol
Surely it’s a sign of progress that more of us feel compelled to defend Paul Blart than The Southern Cause.
@@puncha.commie194 Damn dude it's easier to understand King Crimson's abilities than comprehend where you got all this bullshit from
@@puncha.commie194 Sir this is a wendys
@@puncha.commie194 "It's just a matter of how many of them have to die"
TF????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@puncha.commie194 bro 2016 ended 5 years ago nobody fucking cares
and whats wrong with paul blart? huh? paul blart is an american hero, and dont you dare tell me otherwise.
Ironically Paul Blart throwing himself at a door was exactly Stonewall Jackson’s strategy
And "bayonets" lots of bayonets.
He is the South's most obvious example of a killer angel.
"Praise the Lord to help me kill them all!"
I’m tilted but impressed.
@@vincefarina7977 but lots of bayonets is Alexander Anderson's thing. Specifically having bayonets for days.
Ever hear of Fredericksburg? Or Ulysses S. Grant? Grant literally burst into tears after seeing the casualties of a battle he won SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THROWING HIS TROOPS AT A WALL WAS HIS STRATEGY. don’t talk unless you know what you’re talking about.
If the southern slaves were treated with such respect and love(as the film shows), why weren't they allowed to fight in the confederate army, and why were black northern soldiers murdered on numerous occasions when they surrendered?
A confederate son a bitch would probably make the lie “because we cared too much for our black brethren and didn’t want them getting hurt.” Or say that it’s abolitionist lies and cover up, say stupid shit like “they never killed surrendering blacks” or “the blacks were violent and didn’t want to surrender.” You know, typical racist bullshit
Oh bullshit. Lee's horse would buck off any black person who tried to ride it too, correct? That is what numerous idiots have posted online. Anyway, Confederate statues are coming down (although some never will) so they can make room for real heroes like your thug boy Fentenal Floyd.
read a book plenty of southern blacks were hoodwinked into fighting for the slavers.
There were black Confederates.
@@southslastrebel2575 And black Confederate graveyards to prove it.
Downfall is a great example of making a movie about history’s bad guys and making the audience empathise with them, without attempting to justify them
Some neo-Nazis didn't get the message.
Because his Xbox broke down.
@@thundy9124 not hitler. the other characters.
@@thundy9124 like the child soldiers? but i do get your point many of them are war criminals.
@@thundy9124 i remember seeing children using panzerfaust. maybe its in a different movie.
Paul Blart Mall Cop was not stupid. It's our generation's Citizen Kane.
Y E S B R O T H E R
Hell yeah
PREEEEAAAAACH
true
@ TheEncyclopediaofPopCulture 2 Likewise, you’re a regressive biased edgelord who deserves to have nothing.
"Yeah the village idiot was the one who wanted to prevent a f***ing war, WHAT AN IDIOT!" I need that on a T-shirt or something.
same
@verbadum22 what a surprise you attack a country and the citiziens want blood
@verbadum22 I'm not saying they are the ones that attacked im saying that because of rising tensions with the entirety of the moddle east after 911 and the saddam shenanigans going on war was inevitable
@@collincaperton6718 no it was not, there were no tensions with the entire middle east. There were tensions with Irak, and some people in the administration desired to invade it since quite some time (the plans litterally had been drafted years before).
Add to that months and months of propaganda from the government and with the cooperation of the media (from both sides), attacks on anyone with a dissenting opinion, and you've got an entire nation whose anger has been fueled beyond reason, which means it's ready for war.
It very well could have been different though
NO
Ironically, the “states rights” argument only works if you completely ignore the South’s role in the Civil War.
If you only look at what the Union’s goals were, which initially had nothing to do with ending slavery, then you can make some kind of feasible argument that it was about states rights.
But if you just glance at any aspect of the Confederacy and why it was founded, then you really have no choice but to say “yeah, it was basically 100% about slavery”.
The whole reason there is no blood and gore in this movie is for the exact reason you made this video. They wanted as many parents and schools as possible to show this to children.
Wow, pretty fucking creepy.
@@domtom9594 Well put, one day people will stop painting entire groups, factions etc as good or evil, its quite a bit more complicated than that.
@@domtom9594 except it doesn’t show the sides like they where
I had a history teacher in high school that would have a civil war week in class where we just watched civil war movies then took a test on them.
Luckily for me his movies were glory and Gettysburg then played outlaw Joseph Wales if everyone did well enough on the tests on Friday...
Also remember going to summer school where every week we just watched movies or just went outside and chilled for class.. everyone passed with a B
Not good enough. It's a war movie, not a kindergarten party movie.
It's bad enough the U.S. censors nearly every bit of violence out of the news when it reports on wars. People need to know and see how bad it looks. And trust me, it's always beyond bad and worse than nightmares. Don't believe what the politicians, rich people, and even religious leaders say. War - is - always - a - horrifying - bloodbath. The other thing war movies always choose to ignore - the fact that most casualties are civilian casualties on both sides. Not always through violence, plenty of it is through disease and starvation. Oh but don't worry, for both sides mass rape and murdering of women and children (boys and girls) is common too.
I hate people that defend Paul Blart, he clearly was a war criminal
My Grandpa was killed by Paul Blart when he looted the Moon in 1935.
@@drownsinkoolaid4203 Sorry, but the social-anarcho-monarchists in Lichtenstein didn't. The most they did was call out the Chairman of Denmark, the corrupt Huey Long out on his crimes. They didn't deserve retribution from Paul and his paramilitaries.
@@realkingofwales3917 This is why I always go to the comment section 😂😂😂
@@realkingofwales3917 wow it truly is sad to see someone falling for a neo visigothic propaganda. The chairman was assassinated and it was by their hands!
CHECKMATE PAULINITES
I remember being shown this movie in high school by my civil war teacher trying to push this narrative. Let's just say it made it real awkward sitting in that class as the only black guy.
Ugh that’s so awful, sorry! Where was this?? I cannot believe this movie was even made, I’d never even seen it or knew what it was about
@@Userhandle7384 Lol it's okay this happened a couple years back it's not recent. This was a slightly more "red" town in Pennsylvania, where people have some (to put it nicely) strong views about stuff like this. The teacher was kinda racist and was more concerned with spewing his story/narrative of what he interpreted as the causes of the Civil war rather than actual history.
They're constantly trying to justify their genocidal ideology than atone for it
@@ABEAZYdaRonin94 i know thismovie is based off of a book and the book was written by michael shaaras son jeff but this movie seriously offends me and its not true on how they treat slaves in this movie i dont understand why maxwell went with his screenplay i loved his previous film gettysburg but this fuckin movie butchers jeff shaaras book gods and generals fuck how could maxwell butcher a very good book
@@DarthVaderReturns1 Sounds like dude did the same thing my teacher did, telling his version of history instead of real history.
4 years later, Klansmen are still soyraging down here
there’s one neo confederate who has over 200 comments on this channel
@@username-yc3bd Truly amazing
@@username-yc3bdwhats his name?
@@alexhobbs2209
patrick cleburne i think
@@username-yc3bd holy shit I found that moron. He uses greentext a lot as if he's on 4chan or smt. I looked at him and he has like 100+ comments on this channel and all of them are him coping about the confederacy. It's really sad and painful to look at
I was one of the US Marines in the First Bull Run battle scene. I noticed what you are pointing out while we were filming. We tried to correct the problem in our little part through the reenacter lesson, but we were ignored.
Well, ya tried. At least you know it was bad
You did pretty good
Lol no you didn't
I read a comment about this movie like 10 years ago about this movie . Was that u?
@@daniellee2343 Reenactors are actually really important to these movies. Good directors will take advice from the reenactors because they are often subject matter experts. There was likely a time for the leaders of the reenactors to give advice and advise changes to battles, but that advice was likely ignored.
My Dad an I were real excited for this movie because the book is pretty good. We were so shockingly disappointed, that he wrote Shaara an email about how bad it was and asked if he was mad about it, too.
Shaara responded that hated the movie with a passion and would never let the director/studio have rights to one of his books again.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
The guy who wrote October Sky also said he hated the Disney version of it.
same with the guy who wrote "it" hating BBC adaption of his novel
Interesting
Of course, sometimes a novelist (or other writer) can hate how a given adaptation of it is done, but that doesn't always mean that it's actually bad. In this case, it was fucking bad, and not just on an artistic level, but on an ethical and political level as well.
By contrast, the writer of "Solyaris" did not like the (high profile) American re-make, "Solaris". While the meaning of the story was changed significantly, I consider Solaris to be an excellent film. it's not for everyone, but it's a lot more approachable and watchable than the two original Soviet versions.
I don’t know what your problem with the “fightin for mah rats” guy is.
The government wanted to take his rats. Take away a man’s pet rats and what does he have left? Personally I would never let the government take my rat farm. Those are my rats dammit.
I too will protect mah rats
Lol
You guys need laws against the government takin' yuh rats
"Sir, for the last time: You legally cannot keep rats in the kitchen of your restaurant!"
Of course, I knew it along. The war was about state "rats", not State "rights". Makes sense now!
So many people nostalgic for a version of the south that never existed
Conservatism.
Yeah thats the basis of all nationalism
Maxwell, the director: “It’s not taking sides!”
Maxwell, the writer: “So what if I included a scene where the guy who would later kill the president of the Union says that it’s up to the audience to decide who’s a hero while basically winking at the camera? It’s ART!!”
Cause that’s not what the movies about?
@@Planeman516
No? Then why is it very clearly that?
@@Scallycowell It’s a story of the Civil War. That being said the Stonewall Jackson funeral scene in the film was portrayed as symbolic foreshadowing of the eventual defeat of the Confederacy.
@@KaosNova2 uh huh.
The south actually had a lot of respect for Lincoln.
11:25
That Alexander Stephens speech was literally him saying “Look at us, we’re the bad guys.”
"guys for real, we are literally evil. What else do we need to say? That we will eat your babies? Fuck's sake"
What makes it objectively worse is that he made the speech extemporaneously, which is a fancy way of saying he made the speech on the fly. Imagine how evil you gotta be that this is the first shit that pops into your head
It should have been played with the same music that played when Anakin murdered the CIS leaders and Palpatine gave his big speech about creating the Empire
Nobody in the world was sympathetic with the Union, only the Russian Empire, who was ruled at the time by a liberal (authoritarian progressive) Tsar. The prime minister of England, Lord Palmerston, who was a whig and not a tory, hated the liberalism of the North, the "presidentes" of Spain at the time (Leopoldo O'Donnel and RM Narváez), two right wingers, also hated the Union. the Pope disliked the Union, and also Napoleon III who was a rightist at the time, was 100 % pro Suthernern. In fact the ideology of the Confederacy was the closest to the ideology of Napoleon III.
Most of the lines in the movie to do with that scene never actually happened.
Now what they effectively announced to the public was the vote for succession had passed they where leaving the Union who by that time had for decades been treating the Southern population in general as second class citizens compared to Northern citizens at the time. And those scares never really healed. Even today if you look up what are the poorest states in the country they are all located in the South.
Mississippi is the poorest state in the US today.
The 10 poorest states starting with the poorest goes ..
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3.New Mexico
4. Kentucky
5. Arkansas
6. West Virginia
7. Alabama
8.Oklahoma
9. Tennessee
10. South Carolina.
Do you know what all of these states have in common ? Answer they are all below the Mason-Dixon line. And thus in the South.
So when you have a smaller population than the states in the north you have less political power than northerns which means laws that benefit the higher population get passed at your detriment. This occurs over decades . Your constantly getting the short end of the stick so to speak. Then when you get the bright ideal to include enslaved people as part of the population rather than just as farm equipment. The Northerns say no. Then decide to say ok but they only count as Three-Fifths of a person and called it a compromise.
This was after Virginian, Benjamin Harrison, suggested that slaves should be counted as half of one person to appease the others.
Fact is the entire war was political and economically motivated. The majority of the reasons the South choose to succeed had to do with them having enough of getting shafted by the Northerns who thought themselves superior to the southern population in general.
The Slave owners and politicians used this to justify their own reasons for succession and sell the decision to the people. For the common 80% of the Southern population slavery wasn't an issue they were willing to get behind. And certainly not a good enough reason to succeed from the Union.
What you are seeing there is a portrayal of the top 5 to 10% of the population. And how they thought and believed. Not necessarily what the rest of the population thought.
The vast majority of the population either thought slavery should be abolished or phased out. This is contrary to the very selected view of history that those who wrote about the time period wrote about the Confederacy. Most of which was actually propaganda at the time. That somehow made it into the history books.
And no before anyone asks I'm not one of the Army of Northern Virginia flag waving rednecks who don't understand their history well enough to realize that's not the Confederate Flag.
The closes thing to the Confederate Flag flying today is the Georgia state flag. Which is quite literally the Confederate National Flag with the Georgia state seal in the center of the circle of stars.
Yeah most people today have no ideal that the Georgia state flag is the actual Confederate flag with one minor change to it.
Isn’t it odd that all the soldiers are like 40 year old suburbanites while the actual civil war soldiers were 80 pound farm boys ?
average civil war soldier
5foot 8inches
140 pounds
@@drewdurbin4968 Graeme was using "poetic license" here. Don't take things so literally.
Buckwheats. Buckwheats were buckwheats before they were Buckwheat.
what else are they supposed to look like ?
Actors
Interesting to note that the scene where Jackson is talking about the Black people serving in the military for their freedom, is played like it's some kind of noble, magnanimous gesture and not "You know, we, your generous masters, have been considering letting our slaves join our army"
Like how can you possibly portray that as anything but evil?
I remember thinking as a teen, “This movie must be historically accurate, on account of how boring it was.” Now I see it was just a waste of my time.
This is one of the most painstakingly historically accurate films in existence. For example, On the set, there is a camp behind where the Bonnie Blue flag scene occurred. Inside this camp, that the audience NEVER even was able to see, even cans were labeled authentically, almost as if they were left over from that era. All reenactors were excellent and wardrobe was on point. While the political aspects of the movie are incorrect, and the movie clearly has a southern tilt, the film is very accurate cinema which you could learn much from. A topic for another one of my videos perhaps.
So blacks were born to exist in an advanced white mans society? Why didn't they have their own advanced black society?
@@headshotsongs9465 They did, in Africa, there's tons of wondrous Sub-Saharan civilizations.
@@headshotsongs9465 Don't mistake your ignorance of African history for a lack of history in Africa.
@@road-eo6911 With electrical grid and international air travel? Science, physics, and complex musical symphonies?
I just noticed something too, maybe it's a subtle difference or maybe it was entirely unintentional. But if you look at the shots when the Union is marching they all seem to be cowering, they walk slowly, they're hunched over, the soldiers look afraid, and some of them are clutching their rifles as tightly as they can. When the confederates march, their heads are held high, they're running, they're shouting, they look eager and their weapons are ready for combat.
100% intentional, body language is like one of the first three things they teach you in film school.
Like 70% of what we communicate is non-verbal. A movie director and professional actors 100% know this
You also have to remember that 70-80% of the seasoned veterans of the Mexican American war and many other small conflicts happened down there that’s why they had soo many more military bases. However the body language for this movie is intentional you must remember that there is more going on than just war.
Yea the movie is shot from their point of view.i might not like it but thts how they felt the war was for them
You got to remember most Union soldiers were immigrates some being less in two weeks in country. Most didn't know who they fighting or why.
@@kennethmeyer3691 If we can just bullshit say anything, YOU got to remember most Confederate soldiers were actually extremely elderly, some being two weeks away from their own deathbed. Most didn't know how to pay their own taxes, or why.
"It's about state's rights!"
A state's right to WHAT, sir?
Owning slaves of course what else
Insert some idiot here going: “tHe RiGhT tO lEaVe ThE uNiOn ObViOuSlY”
In which case, m’lud, why did they want to leave in the first place? Slavery.
It was kinda about state's rights: Specifically, the Confederates were mad that the northern states weren't helping to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
@@thexalon Mad that the north was exercising THEIR states rights lul
@@johnkitchens1823 to own slaves
I’m actually terrified, utterly fucking heartbroken, reading through the “newest” comments here. So much utterly unapologetic racism, why are we still like this, why is this deep suspicion of others still so present in society. God help us.
ikr
"Utterly unapologetic racism"??? Do you think when the ACLU defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL that the ACLU's defense of their rights was "utterly unapologetic racism," too?
Why are you still like this with this unwavering faith in Washington, DC?
Fear -hatred =Power .
That's why you avoid "new" at all cost, if you want faith in humanity that is
That book where Abe Lincoln hunted vampires was more historically accurate then this flim.
Amen!
Flim
Agreed.
Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter is the most historically accurate film what do mean?
@@janmelantu7490 yeah your right
Imagine if Palpatine speech from Star Wars episode 3 had patriotic rousing music.
I really want to see "Star Wars: Gods and General Style:" with new dialogue and music to make the Empire the good guys
@@Tareltonlives Well......... maybe they were?
;)
In all seriousness though, I believe the Empire was definetly better than the Republic. At least in the beginning.
@@callmemelody653 eh on the comics Palpatine did have a reason for creating the empire...to "save the galaxy from external threats" and whatnot. But even still the cruelty of the empire cant be excused.
@@GT-wj3gl Which is why I said that it was good in the beginning, before Palpatine started being his dickish Sith self. Honestly, if the Empire became a military Junta with someone like Thrawn at its head, I would choose the Empire any day of the week.
It would be better long live the empire
Minecraft lasted longer than the confederacy
Minecraft is still popular
Minecraft didn't go to war with the union army for 4 years and kill a huge number of them at that.
@@rodneyjones7078 its a jome
@@rodneyjones7078 joke*
@@rodneyjones7078 yet
Debunking neoconfederate propaganda to classic Spyro music is something I never knew I needed until now
If it helps, this movie is one of the biggest box office bombs of all time.
Thank you
There’s also Copperhead(2013) which Ron attempts to recover from Gods & Generals using what he got out of it($12m) and it did way worse($171,000)
@@theanimalguy7 I so have to check that out 😁
It helps even more that appearantly in the 10 years since he has not made another movie. Though he is currently making another movie, centered around two boys from an 1920s African game farm attending an elite school. There is so many ways this can go wrong, and i am sure he will cover most of them.
Kind of like the confederacy states which is why they’re mainly welfare states.
I cannot express how badly I want to see “Paul Blart, Confederate General.”
Django unchained
brett knoss Django Unchained 2, the Legend of Gen. Paul Blart’s Gold.
Pickets change on the golf cart.
master baiter into a closed glass door.
Paul Blart, Stars'n'Bars.
The Wii U lasted longer than the Confederacy, so why don't we have statues commemorating that Animal Crossing Amiibo board game that everyone hated
I agree with this entirely
@@archerboy10 u two based as hell
*Breaking News* Robert E Lee statue replaced with Isabelle Amiibo. Truly, the best timeline.
Also wii u's don't look as cool
Because not everyone hates the Confederacy
I've never seen it, but I was raised in the Deep South, so I don't need to. I went to Robert E. Lee High School. All white until the year I got there.
When I was a child an old lady (a "True Dawtah!" in her nineties then) recruited kids in the neighborhood to join The Children of the Confederacy, the Sons of C's youth group. First Tuesday of each month we were carted off to a clubhouse at a public park and had our heads stuffed with Old South hocum: The South only lost because England abandoned us. Slaves were treated well. Most loved their masters. The war was about states right and had little to do with slavery, and hey, the Yankees mistreated the Irish! Lee was an honorable man who only fought for love of Ole Virginy, etc.
We were taught to say War Between the States, and Late Great Unpleasantness. It wasn't a civil war! etc., etc , etc. We kids laughed at the old ladies running the show, but the grub was good (cake, cookies, ice cream, punch, etc ), and we got to play in the park after the propaganda session was over.
Hilarious. Except that some of the kids in that club still believe all that shit more than fifty years later. The MAGA movement came as no surprise to me.
While that sounds horrific, at least in the mainstream, MAGA pretty strongly despises slavery and anti-black sentiment. If it was truly this all white KKK descended monolith, why the hell are so many minorities, myself included, rallying behind it.
“We’re fighting for our rats.”
Well bless your heart!
Does he mean literal rats? Like, hes fighting for furry little rodents that he has as pets, or is this some sort of slang that I'm not understanding
@@evantyler8647 he means rations
@@noblechief4023 ah, now I feel dumb. Thanks!
@@evantyler8647 no, he almost undeniably was saying “rights”, as in “we’re fighting for our rights”. It sounds like rats because of his thick country souther accent.
This is Woodrow Wilson's favorite movie since Birth of a Nation.
He’s watchin’ from hell.
@@Ballin4Vengeance Nah, they don't get TV rights in the boiler room of hell.
@@Ballin4Vengeance was Woodrow Wilson a bad dude? Genuine question
@@fineanddandee Most of historical books he published (he studied history and was a professor before his presidency) were heavily supportive of the lost cause myth and slavery generaly, also he promoted showing of some quite southern biased movies and was generally a dickhead in some aspects. There are some videos about him discussing this. Here where I live he´s generally viewed quite possitivelly(for a US president), as during WW1 he was a supporter of Czechoslovakia´s independence and everything else is ignored, as he is pretty irrelevant to us in anything else. That´s why it is implied he´d like Gods and Generals
@@Ballin4Vengeance Wow! Thank you for being in depth with that, I appreciate it
Damn... Sure, it might not be the greatest film ever made, but does it really deserve such harsh treatment? I'm referring, of course, to Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
Got me in the first half I’m not gonna lie
@@badboi8591 same
Yeah, lazy he kept using the same "Mall Cop" scene. The bandaid seen was EPIC.
Jan Narkiewicz That seen was more powerful than Chamberlin’s affix bayonet scene in Gettysburg, or the charge in glory. You can feel the pain in that scene and your heart is thumping because he is bleeding out. That scene is better than anything in Gods and Generals in its entirety.
@@marcoe.3314 Like the tension in Paul Blart Mall Cop 2 where he eats a little girls melted ice cream drips.
So many salty Neo-Confederates in the comments.
It gives me life. 😂🎉
@@Lili_Chen2005 In the distant future earth is empty hell is full neo-confederate tears are fuel.
The South: Our economy would suffer with the liberation of-
Well don’t set up your economy around the suffering of millions.
tim cook: [intense sweating]
@@flacornmallrat did you just defend slavery? Would you like to rephrase that?
@@flacornmallrat Typical. Africans were living quite well. Not all homes were glamorous but for most of history, African commoners had similar standards of living as European commoners and others around the world. Using such a nonsensical argument to justify chattel slavery is beyond disgusting and you're trash.
@@flacornmallrat What about freedom?
This is how it was back in the day. slave economy was a real thing. And it wasn’t “evil” in those times. it was just a normal thing to do. Don’t hate.
Stonewall Jackson literally did look like Jesus, even the bloody hole in the hand and holding the hand in that way. But it is obviously an impartial film
Except for that whole BEING WHITE thing.... Unless you mean "Jesus as imaginary construct"?
@@SouthernGentleman yes and that means not white, not as people understand it today.... the imagine the church puts out is that he was a white male.... however he would have looked more like todays Arabs.... closer to that than what jews look like today.... so the church image is extremely wrong
You hold a hand wound over your shouldervto stop the swelling. Not Godly, common sense
Jesus wasn't even white stfu😂
Americans are strange people.
The South: If slavery is abolished, we won't make money!
Lincoln: sounds like a personal problem.
Bully Maguire: I missed the part where that's my problem
I mean, that's what happens when you structure you entire agrarian economy's functioning on the enslavement and abuse of other human beings. That's a dirty bed the South made and lied down in.
Mr. Lincoln, you are aware that it is a "personal problem" for Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri too, even though they are on our side?
@@harvey1954 Yes ☕😌
harvey1954 didn’t they have preferential treatment from congress for not being shitbags
This video has now been around longer than the CSA
"The war was about states rights!"
A state's rights to what?
@Gamer Boah no one hates history, but they hate the racism that exists in history and those who accept it and unvillify it.
@Gamer Boah _A states rights to what rebel?_
@Gamer Boah Nothing more unamerican than worshiping a slaver rebellion.
"Property" yes, but that 'property' was human beings, which is horrible
@Gamer Boah it was
What do you mean the slaves weren't happy to be loyal slaves? Taken from their homes, families torn apart, raped,mutilated,starved,and over worked. What more could you ask for.
You don't know anything about American slavery.
@Thought for Food get over it. No one cares
@@thaxtoncook132 shut the hell up confederate
By the 1860s, the slave trade has been outlawed for 50 years and most slaves there had grown up without being free.
I find it funny how no one sees this as a joke
The civil war was about states rights.
The states right to slavery.
Yeah basically, it all boils down to slavery. Their entire economy relied on it. If slavery was abolished it would have severely hurt those states for a century. Not to mentioned the burning of Georgia. That war severely damaged the South.
Its still the poorest and least innovative part of the country.
Actually the union wanted to impose higher taxes on cotton imports, and they even offered for the south to keep their slaves but yet they refused. Hell even Robert E Lee. A man who gained ownership of his fathers slaves and immediately freed them. Many of these men who find out that there is an army coming to invade their homes. Need I remind you that the union was worse than we were because we didn’t destroy everything in our path like the union did. There are many areas in the south that are affected by it still.
@@commissardante926 well call the scholars and present your shitty thesis
Lee owned slaves until forced to free them by losing a fucking war.
The war was over secession. Slavery was legal before, during and after the war in four union states until the ratification of the 13th amendment. It's dishonest to say the war was over slavery as that implies the union fought to end slavery rather than to restore and preserve the authority of the constitution in the confederate states.
I would like to formally apologize as a Floridian for some of the comments on this video calling it leftist propaganda. Literally look up Mississippi’s leaving the Union declaration (that’s what I think it’s called) if you believe it wasn’t about slavery.
Mississippi's declaration of causes of secession doesn't even mention the war. The war hadn't even started yet.
Why do dismiss official declarations about the war itself in favor of some vague myth based on documents that don't even mention the war?
Official Union declaration, July 1861: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 yes, that was why the Union was fighting, but Mississippi succeeded from the Union because Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t EXPAND slavery, not that he would take it away.
“It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.”-A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
That sounds like Mississippi is succeeding to due slavery no longer being spread to me. Not even that Lincoln was going to abolish it, JUST THAT IT WOULDN’T SPREAD FARTHER. Wow.
That’s odd. They talk about slavery even though the South wasn’t seceeding over it.@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558traitor
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
100+ comments on this channel alone, all trying to argue with people about "muh states rights (right to slavery)" get a job and a hobby you bum lmfao
I was a teenager discussing this movie with a stranger adult in Tennessee and I was enthusiastic about it. I liked it because it covered lesser known battles and gave perspectives from all sides. I said, "We've had Gettysburg, and now the first half of the civil war, I can't wait for the final half where we get Sherman's march and Vicksburg and cold harbor". And the man looked at me and said, "No one wants to see the south beaten." It occurred to me then and there that it wasn't just liking history and battles, it was personal and more emotionally raw to some people. Some modern people, wanted the south to win and slaves to have not been freed.
The Confederate constitution called for an end to slavery.
There are year long courses in a lot of southern colleges that cover up to JUST before Antietam for this reason.
based
@@Osmium192 Don’t worry, buddy, you’ve already got it! Too bad it’s only squashing the rights of women and minorities, eh? Sounds like you’d want a piece of the action 😉
@@Osmium192Individual liberty exists for everyone or it exists for no one. Your precious Confederacy didn't care about actual liberty; they just wanted to keep owning other people.
The arguement of "good treatment" for slaves has always been hollow. If a man had the legal power to punish me, restrict my movement, beat and kill me, take my possessions, sell, rape, and murder my family, I would find that situation intolerable. I do not give a fuck how "nice" the man was to me.
"Oh he's constantly holding a gun to your head, but he doesn't pull the trigger, and he occasionally throws you a BBQ! Be grateful, you have it so good!"
It's just the Sword of Damocles.
"If a man had the legal power to punish me, restrict my movement, beat and kill me, take my possessions, sell, rape, and murder my family, I would find that situation intolerable."
But if that man were elected by voters in another section of the country, then you're fine with it?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558When did he say that? Oh, nowhere? Because you're making things up out of thin air? Because you can't understand the simplist comments? Oh.
@@al3xa723 I edited my previous comment to change the final period to a question mark. And I'll direct the question at you, too. Do you believe all people (and that would include in the context of this video both slaves and Southerners) have an inalienable right to self-government?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Your previous comment has disappeared to me, but taking this question now in isolation, yes. Absolute self governance? Likely not. In fact it's almost a necessity to sacrifice some control if you are to operate in a society.
@@al3xa723 "In fact it's almost a necessity to sacrifice some control if you are to operate in a society."
Sure, I agree, but there's a fundamental difference between former slaves choosing to continue working on the plantations where they were previously enslaved/Southerners choosing to continue in the union, on the one hand, and masters/political masters sacrificing the control of their slaves/subjects, on the other hand. The important question is whether the person/people whose control is being sacrificed are the ones that are deciding on the sacrifice.
"Your previous comment has disappeared to me..."
If you sort comments by "newest first" and then scroll down to this thread you might be able to see all the comments in the thread. I have no idea why that makes a difference but it normally does for me.
"It is good that Gods and Generals is terrible, otherwise men would grow fond of it" Not Robert E Lee 2020
underrated comment
Dead 😂😂😂😂😂
Most of you fools don't seem to realize that this film is one of a trilogy about the Civil War. You'd like the other two. Go watch them.
@@melvynobrien6193 I watched "Gettysburg" in the theater; I thought it was a tedious clunker.
@@melvynobrien6193 Loved Gettysburg but never saw the last full measure, The olny thing that I didn't like about Gods and Generals was that it would have been better if it was 50 percent union and 50 percent Confederate othet than that I felt it was much better than this reviewer said it was.
Imagine getting shot by your own men and being considered a martyr.
"Particularly out west in Kansas and Missouri"
My great great great grandpa moved from Ireland, got drafted into the Army of Kansas, did nothing for the bulk of the war, spent the last six months basically ordered to maraud deep South plantations, and he basically carried off someone's library by himself, I don't know how. He became the town vet with no formal training with the husbandry manuals because that was something you could just do. The 1800s were wacky.
Sounds good lol
If you really want to know about grandpa you should teach thyself about How the new state of Kansas started, and how IMMIGRANT settlers were pawns (John Brown plans) of the elites of the North to acquire electoral votes and gain control of our government. You should know what the RedLegs of Kansas did to the people of Missouri who were farmers mainly descended from the original settlers of this country. That was the beginning of the War Between The States. Ref: "The South Under Siege 1830-2000".
@@cajiedog I love how almost all the feedback I can find about that book is from people talking about how inaccurate it is.
The 1800s were maaagic!
@@elvellarambles9151 it's me Percy!
The Stonewall Jackson death scene is the corniest and least subtle thing I've ever seen, he even has blood on his palm like Jesus and it frames the shot of the flag on his coffin to be shaped like the Christian cross
And it took fucking forever.
And?
It’s corny as fuck@@elliottbaker201
Bro Jackson got absolutely massacred because his boys are cousin fuckers 💀 @@elliottbaker201
And the deification of a traitor, slaver and a momentary obstacle in the path of true American hero's like Lincoln is something Choptop finds offensive
We fought for:
State rights (to own slaves)
The economy (which was built on slavery)
Their way of life ( made possible through slavery)
Slavery wasn’t a branch of the reasons for the civil war, it was the whole damn tree.
Yeah, I'm gonna be stealing this.
@John John it was only incomplete when the racist president following Lincoln listened to the confederate south when they wanted to instate Jim Crow laws to ensure the black population couldn’t vote. Shortly after the civil war black people began gaining a lot of political power over the south because they were high in number and what remained of the confederate army couldn’t have it. The only reason it was incomplete was cause they didn’t go far enough in putting the confederacy in its place. (Note the north was also racist but they didn’t try to deny the crime that was slavery)
And since when did we need to compensate slave owners. Oh boo hoo they payed good money to commit a crime against humanity. The poor rich bastards. Why didn’t they get a refund? On what moral ground do you believe you stand on?
@John John Incomplete freedom is still better than the no freedom they had under the South. And Lincoln had nothing to do with what happened to them after they were freed. He was shot in the head remember? And we should have compensated the slaves, not their owners.
@John John Well you're clearly an idiot. You think being a slave is better than partial freedom? What a lunatic you are. All of modern America's problems are because of the guy after him, you complete imbecile. Again, why do you want to compensate the slave owners, but not the slaves themselves? How is freeing the slaves tyrannical when it's done through a completely legal Constitutional Amendment? The President doesn't even have direct authority in the Amendment process, you dolt.
@John John Wow, you might just be the dumbest person I've ever seen. It's almost impressive how terrible you are.
Thankfully we now have the best civil war movie, with an even greater length:
Checkmate Lincolnites: The full Saga
I never got the whole confederate pride thing. They lost, they were on the moral low ground. They didn’t go out in a blaze of glory, they lost weak and bleeding out resources. I don’t get the reason to be proud about losing.
Yes, slavery is wrong, and undoubtedly the Civil War was fought because of slavery (among other things). Southern states believed that slavery should be allowed to spread in the new western territories. Because slavery was legal at the time, a slave was considered a man's property. The Constitution protects your right to property. That means that restricting slavery in the western territories was unconstitutional, but northerners wanted to stop its spread. To a Southerner, this was serious. Northerners were encroaching on their rights to property. Many Southerners were very resentful of the fact that Northerners were hurting the South. Another example of this was Northern insistence of tariffs to imported goods. Many Southerners relied on European imports, and were furious. All of this resulted in the states seceding from the Union. Southerners saw the North as oppressive and outnumbering them, and therefore a threat to their way of life. Many Southerners saw no benefit in remaining in what they saw as an oppressive Union. Furthermore, the Constitution gives the people a right to rebel against an oppressive government (although it was later decided that it was unconstitutional to secede).
Obviously, the Confederate Vice President declared that slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy. However, most Southerners were small farmers who farmed for their own subsistence, usually without slaves. And yes, the Confederates did start the war by attacking Fort Sumter. However, for many Confederates, Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion was interpreted by many Southerners as a serious threat to their homes, as an invading army would directly threaten them. This is the primary reason why most southerners fought for the South, to protect their homes. The South was at a major disadvantage during the war, in terms of men, industry, weapons, everything. However, the South fought on against these odds for four years, and lost 200,000 men doing so. This is the primary factor in Southern pride. It is very hard to admit you were wrong when so many fought in defense of what you thought was right. The fact that the Confederates are depicted as "the bad guys" makes those who are descended from former Confederates feel alienated. The fact that their ancestors are dismissed as bad people makes many people today angry. Also, the Civil War is a major unifying factor in the South, as it is really the only thing that is a clear example of their distinct history. That is why many people are fond of the Confederacy. The fact that their distinct way of life was under threat, and that they fought in defense of the "Northern Aggressors" for four years is why many are fond of the Confederacy. Most of those who are fond of the Confederacy realize slavery is bad, and therefore don't want to admit that the Confederacy was formed because of slavery. That is the main reason why people fond of the Confederacy have a bad reputation, and why the Confederacy is more and more being seen as a most evil thing, furthering a divide.
Personally, I am a Northerner. The fact that the Confederates are dismissed as evil made me interested in them. I do not like how Northerners have written their history, even if many aspects of it were negative. I think that it is detrimental to dismiss 200,000 dead Southerners as evil. Instead, I think if everyone learned more about the war and kept the memory of it with them, the United States would be a better place.
Of course you wouldn't get, because you are fucking stupid. You are conditioned today to not have pride in anything so it's no wonder you cannot fathom the concept of rebels being proud they fought off the carpertbaggers for 4 years, nearly winning.
@@Coconutszz you lost get over it. And why have pride in rebelling for such a cause that staunchly backed slavery?
@@Coconutszz 1. Self like for the win
2. Nazis had a lot of fight in them as well, don’t really see a reason to be proud of being a wermacht soldier.
@@ВиталяКекс-ц6е just curious where are you from? I'm from the United States, CA to be exact.
Stonewall Jackson even has the Christ stigmata when he is dying.
so did hitler
um cause he was shot in the hand
Oh my goodness! Time to clutch those pearls, kiddies!
Stonewall Jackson was epic. So was Lee. Not because they were of confederate alignment to be clear.
Liam Oconnor Hitler burned Bibles
Gods and Generals feels like if Leonardo DiCaprio's character from Django Unchained time traveled to 2003 and made a movie about the Civil War.
Django Unchained ? Want to talk about propaganda ? What a fantasy .
Django unchained is not even pretending to be anything besides a power / revenge fantasy, it ain't masquerading as some historically accurate depiction of the era (it's Tarantino ffs).
If you find that offensive look in the mirror
@@randomchannel-px6ho Satire and propaganda are not mutually exclusive. Django is far more propagandistic than Gods and Generals, the same way The Daily Show is more propagandistic than a long C-Spann Book TV interview with a controversial author.
@@FungusMossGnosisOh for fucks sake.
Not even remotely the same.
@@hemihead001 Django Unchained isn't portraying actual people and historical events.
How the hell did he manage to get so many big actors to be in this horrific film.
His previous film Gettysburg was a huge success and many people enjoyed working on it
They were in the last film, which was liked
jesus christ just looking at the like-dislike ratio i can tell the comments are gonna be fun
This popped up in my suggestions for no reason and I knew it would be delicious.
You could say the comments are a... house divided... ;D
Just goes to show The Southern Cause is still alive and well lol
The only thing i disagree with is the way they want to take down the statues. I dont believe they need to be removed because i mean its a huge part of history
Germansherman 383 Yeah they’re a huge part of history, but they don’t keep statues of Hitler or Stalin around Germany or Russia either. There is a way to preserve history without glorifying its villains, and it’s by putting the statues in museums.
“This rebel gave me my freedom papers, so now I want to join the confederate army, because I loved being a free man so much.”
"I mean, if more people became free, maybe I'd love it less! Value of a commodity is directly proportional to its scarcity in the marketplace, after all"
That scene made me throw up in my mouth a little.
@@EdamL22 Because it's absurd.
Y-Yeah, thats why we're interested in the Civil War. For the stories of the people!
Totally not for the minutiae of the uniforms and weapons
*sweats nervously*
don't forget the facial hair
Speaking of sweating.... 90 degrees 8000% humidity in those uniforms.... gah!!
My interest lies in both places. The stories are fascinating, and the uniforms, weapons, and tactics are equally so.
@@MollymaukT how could we forget facial hair. That shit needs to have a comeback it’s amazing. Ambrose burnside literally invented sideburns lmao.
LMAO I was waiting for this comment! The women’s fashion 👏🏾👌🏾👏🏾
The "happy slave" is the most offensive part of the Lost Cause myth. Seeing it depicted in film is nauseating.
Happy slave is basically a textbook example of Stockholm Syndrome.
Knowing it is possible to sympathize with and even love your captor/tormentor, why should it be offensive if a slave is depicted that has accepted his fate and makes the best out of it. Even acting happy. You know it must have happened, probably quite a lot since slavery was so widespread. So why is this offensive? It is not like there are no slaves shown that are struggling with their position.
@@janmetdekorteachternaam3673 yeah "happy slaves" existed. Definitely. But why is only the best of slavery being depicted
thats how i feel when i see amazon commercials where they show happy workers at the fulfillment facilities.
@@doggodoggo3000 oh yeah. It's kinda disgusting but society will gladly ignore it if it helps them.
Technically the civil war was about a state right. It just happened that that state right was slavery.
Genghis, weren’t you canceled
That One Guy I think
Aren't you also dead? By like eight hundred years?
That One Guy Yup.
My lord, you're fast for disheveled corpse
If you thought this movie was bad, buckle up and head into Ronald Maxwell's last movie: Copperhead.
It's almost a remake of Birth of a Nation if you replaced the savage black mobs with savage white abolitionists.
Except the great bulk of Yankees, including the savage ones, weren't actually abolitionists. They were willing to go along with slavery rather like the US has been going along with China for the last several decades.
stupid abolitionists, always raiding my slaves from me.
I hope he reviews that one, because the Copperheads were the Amerikadeutscher Volksbund of the 20th century.
@@Tareltonlives, I’m pretty sure the German American bund was the German American bund of the 20th century…
@@ChickenLiver911 I suppose if you ignore Germany's radicalization into increasing fascism, sure
Your opinion on how the false portrayal of slavery in these movies is harmful is spot on. I feel the same about _Song of the South._ I’m irritated that Disney hides the movie so hard, because it’s important to watch to understand the harm. The only way to watch it in full, is to pirate a rough VHS copy of it from its very short release in the European market in the 90s.
Disney rereleased that film in theaters multiple times, as late as 1983 (IIRC). That means your parents and grandparents were around when that film still had enough relevance to enter theaters.
What’s worse is that the film itself isn’t _actively_ racist. No one’s dropping the N word or beating a slave (technically takes place in Reconstruction Georgia, which is even worse if you know the history of slavery post-civil war). The problem in the movie is the _passive_ racism being shown - which is much worse. The fact that Uncle Remus has such a cordial and flirty(?🤨) relationship with the plantation’s mistress out in the open, the fact that her grandson is just allowed to go hang out with Remus, these are toxic things to show in a historically based movie.
Given the cartoon segments spliced throughout, it gives the live action a more realistic tone. I just imagine halfway through how people might’ve just assumed the south was. And if the post civil war setting became obvious to them, then it’s worse. Because, denying slavery and its awfulness while living in the 20th century is hard to believe. However, most never hear about conditions of Black Americans during Reconstruction on while in history class. Shit, I bet most of y’all didn’t know that in school either. Yet, conditions for Black Americans got so much worse in this time period. So, ignorant movie goers who don’t know this time period will look at it as a reference example for lack of any concrete ones. *And that’s what makes it so harmful.*
…but not getting to watch it means we can’t even learn from it and use it as an example of harmful types of _passive racism._
what can one learn about passive racism from watching the film that one can't learn from simply talking about it?
"The planters (The super rich aristocrats) ultimately decided that it would be better to rip the country in half than risk their bottom line" Well it's a good thing we don't have anything like that any more... oh shit wait.
@Ebony Panther No nothings changed, that was kind of my point though. I took a quote from the video to draw a comparison. While everything you said was true my point was to show that the rich assholes were and still are the biggest problem.
@Ebony Panther I'm not sure that I agree that they actually saw black people as people who were made to be slaves. They knew that black people were human beings. This was just an excuse forged from propaganda that they used to morally justify slavery so that it wouldn't conflict with their religion.
Shen Kichin They really didn’t, the reintegration of the Southern Elite in to academia later would accelerate the concept of scientific racism and black genetic inferiority. Slavery was always an economic liability to the South, but it was never about the economics, it was always about racial supremacy.
@Ebony Panther I honestly think it was just a broad "wars are fought by the poor for the interests of the rich" sentiment. And I think I get why that could sound like apology by omission, and a distraction from the central point.
Exactly! And northern industry being imports/exports did not pay duties & tariffs like Southern ports. There was no Federal Income Tax so the Federal Government was primarily funded through Import & Export Duties & Tariffs,...the majority of ;which came from Mobile, New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah,..etc.
Ron Maxwell’s 1st movie came out in 1993, this came out in 2003, his 3rd one came out in 2013, we are in danger of another this year.
Aw hell naw man
He's probably gonna be banking on both closeted and open neo confederate audiences to watch it under the guise of "don't let the liberals control you" or "this film would get you cancelled" or some bullshit. Given the rise of the far right wouldn't surprise me if this one would be his most successful one yet
Maxwell was making some non Civil War movies before Gettysburg (like one about two girls trying to have sex first)
Gettysburg was his first Civil War Film
Cant wait to see what he has this time
Oh dead gods, I hope not.
Well, since Copperhead bombed I'm feeling doubtful he'll try again.
The fact that I remember a couple of times union characters say “Hail Caesar” gave it away to me.
It just implies that the speaker was well read.
I think that scene with Chamberlain recognizing the parallels between Caesar crossing the Rubicon and the Union crossing the Rappahannok was pretty epic. Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute you!
That was Joshua Chamberlain, a professor of rhetoric and religion. A polyglot who could speak 10 languages. A very learned man. It may be entirely in keeping with his character to make the connection in his mind.
The full quote:
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain : In the Roman civil war, Julius Caesar knew he had to march on Rome, which no legion was permitted to do. Marcus Lucanus left us a chronicle of what happened. "How swiftly Caesar had surmounted the mighty alps and in his mind conceived immense upheavals, coming war. When he reached the water of the little Rubicon, clearly to the leader through the murky night appeared a mighty image of his country in distress, grief in her face, her white hair streaming from her tower-crowned head, with tresses torn and shoulders bare, she stood before him and sighing said, "Where further do you march? Where do you take my standards warriors? If lawfully you come, if as citizens, this far only is allowed." Then trembling struck the leader's limbs, his hair grew stiff and weakness checked his progress, holding his feet at the rivers edge. At last he speaks, "Oh Thunderer, surveying Rome's walls from the Tarpeian Rock. Oh Phrygian house gods of Iulus, Clan and Mystery of Quirinus who was carried off to heaven, Oh Jupiter of Latium seated in lofty Alda and Hearths of Vesta, Oh Rome, equal to the highest deity, favor my plans! Not with impious weapons do I pursue you. Here am I, Caesar, conqueror of land and sea, your own soldier, everywhere, now too, if I am permitted. The man who makes me your enemy, it is he who be the guilty one." Then he broke the barriers of war and through the swollen river swiftly took his standards. And Caesar crossed the flood and reached the opposite bank. From Hesperia's Forbidden Fields he took his stand and said, "Here I abandoned peace and desecrated law; fortune it is you I follow. Farewell to treaties. From now on war is our judge!" Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!
Ave true to Caesar
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish this film wasn't made
Then you got people who say the war was NOT about slavery but about states rights..... But when the northern states were not complying with the FUGITIVE slave act, the southern states DEMANDED that the federal government FORCE the northern states into compliance. In other words, they were only for Southern states rights, to own slaves
How dare you insult the cinematic masterpiece of Paul Blart’s Mall Cop
"I don't have no master anymore, now he's my boss"
Karl Marx: you're sooo close
@Phuk Hugh Hi stirner
lmao
Funny and true.
JUST GET THE HAMMER AND SICKLE
Karl Marx: _you got soooo close_
_but this is past mending..._
_You got the bad.... ending...._
* *vanishes* *
In Stonewall Jacksons death scene he even has blood on his palm. Man's literally got stigmata
Depicted as Jesus was fucking hilarious.
And only HE is allowed to bleed in this movie. It's like the opposite of 300.
donutak74u Well, Jackson was a very eccentric man. It looks like the movie tries to provide excuses for his eccentricities. At Bull Run (I), they depict Jackson holding his arm up because he was wounded. In fact, he routinely went into battle with one hand up to supposedly “balance the humors”. As for the lemonade, I don’t know how much Jackson drank it, but he did frequently suck on lemons.
And he was very religious. For instance, he would never send mail where it would be in transit on a Sunday.
I thought he was shot in the hand
It gives you the impression he died of being shot in the hand!
Can we be honest and admit that OutKast was more important to US History than the Cuckfederacy could ever hope?
I feel like that opening battle scene in Lincoln where those guys are fighting in the mud and drowning each other in it was more accurate.
You mean that one where Black soldiers were so overpowered it took 4 confederates to kill one?
@@rafidi1692 is that seriously what you took away from that scene?
@@rafidi1692 valve pls fix
@@danielhann37 Typical of American war movies were good guys are OP and a small band can pierce an enemy army of hundreds, if not thousands. Just thought it was over the top to satisfy audiences.
@@jonme225 Parroting meme comments, how original. Another day at the pond, fishing for likes.
Note: I forgot to mention: Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Slayer.
Brilliant documentary
@@getredytagetredy gonna need a source for that
So vampires are not racist, they are just for states' rights? I'm confused.
@@maniak1768 i believe the plot was they wanted to use the slaves for blood basically
@@mondaysinsanity8193 So you are saying that the person who invented this cringe-worthy plot idea might have had his or her heart just in the right place for some odd reason?
It just hit me: as the voice of the director, he chose JOHN WILKES BOOTH to represent himself. JOHN. WILKES. FUCKING. BOOTH.
Yeah, that's an impartial voice if I ever saw one.
Like Bruh....
Such an impartial voice he used his impartial firearm to assassinate someone impartially via sending his impartial bullet impartially to the back of the head.
/s
@@tobinfromfireemblem9742 "My shooting the president in the back of the head can be considered heroic, it is up for the audience to decide"
The irony of how the movie portrays Union generals was that most Union generals were born poor and had to actually work to the top while the Confederate generals got their jobs through nepotism and wealth
If the director had made Downfall. He would probably had harp music when Hitler killed himself.
@Jan Brady both racists, both bad people
@Pep yeah but at least they didn't literally have slaves
@Pep imagine unironically being a lost causer whose only arguement is "Lincoln was racist" like 99% of the white population at time.
@Jan Brady It's an extreme example, but it's still very fitting
Have you not taken part of any political discourse since 2016? Everyon is literally Hitler!
It wAs AbOuT sTatEs RiGhts
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us-This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
Alexander Stephens 1861
No mention of the war there (which hadn't even started yet.) Nor any mention of anything about slavery that was even indirectly at stake in the war.
Stephens never at any point said *the war* was about slavery. If that was implied by the speech you quote, why didn't he say so directly when the war actually started? Because it wasn't actually implied.
Stephens said in 1860 that, "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it," a position he never changed. The fight for independence therefore obviously wasn't even indirectly a fight for slavery.
Stephens, 1864: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty."
I swear, anything that man says is horrifying. Also why does he look like a burn victim?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558The war was about slavery, Stephens made that more clear than anyone in power over the Confederacy.
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Stephens actually provides an exceptionally strong argument against your revisionist myth. Stephens, 1860: "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it."
Stephens, March 1861: "notwithstanding their [Republicans'] professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
Stephens, 1864: "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a wayward sister, 'depart in peace.'"
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Is that a joke about him being played by Jackie Earle Haley in Lincoln?
Also, it is impressive that a guy who played a child murdering paedophile demon's most evil character was in the movie Lincoln.
Can we please get a Civil War film directed by Tommy Wiseau? I need that level of insanity in my life.
“I did not shot Stonewall Jackson, it’s bullshit, I did noooot! Oh hi Mark.”
You're tearing me a part Lisa!!!!
😂😂😂😂😂
Also with Confederate propaganda. Look where the Union got ya!
"You are tearing me apart Lincoln!"
Where is this from😅
All I know is the soldiers on all sides were pretty dripped out
so true
A lot of their early gear was surplus from Europe.
Dude 19th century drip goes so hard