With black codes, pig laws and debt peonage they somehow made conditions infinitely worse for black people. Who still ended up enslaved in every sense of the word other than on the technicality of being a ‘free person’
OR worse.... the people that argue that slavery would have gone away in 20 years anyway and the only reasons for the lynchings and murders taking place is all the fault of the north and reconstruction forcing the hand of the "poor south". basically "If we could have just kept these people enslaved and then ended it on our OWN terms we wouldn't have to kill them after the war"
"there are times where we find a document that rewrites history" experienced this in college. Had a history of the Catholic Church as an elective. Final report was to examine first hand documents and reenact a historical moment. The group I was in did the disbandment of the knight templar. Popular culture always painted that the pope and Phillip the fair was working together to penalize the templars. But one of the documents we were recommended by the professor was the recently discovered chinon document. If I remember correctly the chinon document recorded the account there agents of the pope publicly forgave any sin the templars confessed to. It was less the king and pope were working together but more both were fighting for jurisdiction over the matter (the charges were filled in France under the kings authority but the templars as holy knights answered to the pope) where the king wanted them convicted and the pope wanted them forgiven.
Interesting. That makes it part of a larger pattern, wherein local and regional civil authorities were in a power struggle versus the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The Vatican eventually lost that power struggle and was greatly diminished in power; but it took centuries to all shake out.
@@jonadabtheunsightly oh yeah. Pick any moment In history and you will see this trend where there is a struggle with Papal authority and secular authority of kings. There is a pamphlet by Samuel Adams where he argues, paraphrasing: "a good Christian should be tolerant of others and different opinions as long as they don't subvert cival order. How ever roman Catholics should not be tolerated because they always subvert cival order." EDIT: and if you think this trend is over remember what happened when the child molestation scandle camed to light. The Vatican just moved the priest to a new location outside there native jurisdiction and with a comfy job.
About his Gods and Generals video, he has a pinned comment saying the following "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."
The Lost Cause and the Clean Wehrmacht are two perfect examples of history not always being written by the victors. There are still people today who believe the civil war was fought over states rights and that a lot of Wehrmacht generals were anti nazi/took no part in war crimes. None of that is true but because of various reasons and political situations that happened in the aftermath of both the Civil war and WWII the truth got burried in myth. Edit: (holy crap I didn’t think this comment would garner so much attention)
What is over all somewhat true would be that the Wehrmacht fostered the most well organised resistance against Hitler, with, iirc, the majority of the plots against Hitler being planned from inside the Wehrmacht. Note: I am saying Hitler, not necessarily the Nazi party as such. There was, for example, one plot that had one guy volunteer to blow himself up with Hitler (and some others of the leadership) while displaying a new uniform design (the backpack being stuffed with grenades). Unfortunately an allied bombing run destroyed the railway cart with the uniforms and when the next showing was scheduled, the soldier had lost a leg. Although that might be a slightly abridged version.
@@undertakernumberone1 The problen with that its that those officers were not trying to assassinate hitler due to ideological or ethical reasons . The reason why most conspired against him was because by mid 1944 the writing was on the wall . The red army was destroying german armies left and right , by july and august the allies had landed and they wanted to avoid the total destruction and defeat of the german armed forces and the german state. It was an atempt to avoid disaster out of desperation
@@mariosarrionandia1972 there was also some (we don’t know how many) plotting against them when Hitler was trying to annex the sudentenland if the UK and France didn’t allow Hitler to take it
@@undertakernumberone1 combined with what Mario above me said, that also ignores how the overwhelming majority of the Wehrmacht did not partake in these plots and ploys. It's kinda like saying Southerners opposed the Confederacy because West Virginia seceded from the secessionists to rejoin the Union.
I think Gods and Generals absolutely fits within that definition of Lost Cause mythology. It lionises the south and sanitises them of all negative reference to slavery, which is pretty much exactly what he was referring to.
I also agree. It was an okay film pushing a gross narrative that pandered to a demographic that believed absolutely that slavery had nothing to do with the war.
@@Mahbu To be fair, if you are going to make a civil war movie that completely demonizes one side, its going to piss off half the country and the film won't make any money. So some pandering is inevitable.
@@FuathAsarlai Sure, but Gods and Generals basically kisses the asses of the Confederacy and its generals. They were not that noble nor were they that detached from slavery. There are plenty of movies that do it better. Gettysburg, which has a lot of issues of its own, does a better job. Glory does an AMAZING job, even with its obvious biases. They don't give you as cartoonish a caricature of the Confederacy. There aren't any mustache-twirling, pupping kicking villainous characters on the Confederate side. Granted, there aren't any confederate characters at all from what I remember but there is no concerted effort to exaggerate the confederacy and that's a key difference.
Many overlook the fact that Gods and Generals was suppose to be the "pro-South" version of the trilogy with Gettysburg and The Last Full Measure (which would have been pro-Unionist). But then again you'd probably consider "Letters From Iwo Jima" to be a promotion of the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere too, huh?
I think the reason is may seem like Atun-Shei is quick to paint anything as lost cause is because he himself has admitted to being somewhat of a lost-causer in the past. I think he's honestly somewhat ashamed of that and part of his purpose behind the checkmate lincolnites series is his own personal way of atoning for it. Regardless it's a great series providing important historical context and I'm glad he made it.
@@ProxiProtogen Yes and it's important to realize that there are plenty of people who aren't bigots that fly confederate flags and believe in lost cause myths because they've been fed the revisionist history and don't know better or really understand why a confederate statue or flag would evoke negative feels in some people. In their hearts they don't hate black people, they just don't have the correct historical context behind the symbols.
In Atun-Shei’s defense, he did another video a few years ago in which he stated that one of his favorite movies was Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josey Wales, which is a Civil War movie from the Southern perspective. On top of that, his three-part review of Gettysburg is really much more balanced and much less condemning than his video about Gods and Generals.
My whole thing with the gods and generals thing is it's from the south's perspective. Gettysburg is a neutral perspective and there was gonna be a third movie made from the Union's perspective. Some of his arguments in that video are legit but some of them are rly stupid
@@Cody435 Well yeah, but his entire point of the Gods and Generals video - and some of the Josey Wales one - is that G&G puts forth an ahistorical representation of the civil war in favor of the Confederacy. Conversely, one of his reasons for liking Josey Wales over G&G is that it offers the southern POV without trying to convince the viewer that the confederacy was the pinnacle of humanity.
@@Cody435 Gods and Generals isn't from the south's perspective, it's from the post-war Lost Cause mythologized south's perspective. The South, at the time, was actively and widely defending white supremacy and enslavement of black people. Depicting the Southerners fighting without depicting the fact that they were, by and large, fighting for slavery and for white supremacy is ignorant of history. The North wasn't fighting to end slavery, but the South was *definitely* fighting for slavery.
I am from Germany and the whole 'what common soldiers fought for thing's reminds me a lot of how I view my family members who fought in the Wehrmacht. I get the argument, that a lot of these soldiers fought for noble reasons but and I want that to be true for my family. But even if my ancestors were good, wanted to protect their home and did not commit war crimes their fighting helped facilitate the Nazi crimes. And we should not forget that.
The brothers of my grandfather were drafted, so they had littel choice anyway. They died in Stalingrad. But honestly I never got the sense of honoring ancestors anyway. Their achievments and failurs are not mine. What I got from my grandfather tough was the hate for fascism.
The more I see you react to Atun Shei, the more I would like to see you do some sort of collab with him. You both have such a great knowledge on that era and these videos are always so packed with informative information and views from the both. I think a collab between you two about certain things in the Civil War or before/after it would be VERY interesting and entertaining, especially because you two both have different views on certain things.
I love this topic. I'm Colombian and due to the unofficial civil war Colombia had for decades, it's hard to navigate what's said today about it to find the real history behind it. Even my parents believe two different things yet they grew up in the same place.
History is sometimes murky and leaders of the past and present will try to spin things to work in their favor and support their own agendas. But at the very least there are some underlying facts like the dates of certain battles and the participation of certain factions.
I have just recently discovered your channel through your Grand Tactician video series, and I just want to say that I am really enjoying your work. I appreciate the nuance, thoughtfulness, and obvious erudition you bring to bear on this subject. I'm a Southerner brought up in the environment of the Lost Cause mythology, and it has taken a long time and a lot of study to arrive at a more accurate understanding of Civil War history. Thoughtful commentaries like yours that are honest without being insulting and dismissive make that journey easier for similar folks, I imagine. Thanks! I hope you're feeling better!
I think this video did a great job in contextualizing atun's arguments. He's not necessarily trying to make a fair and balanced debate he's trying to dispell someone zealously choosing ignorance over accepting truth. You can't give them an inch or they double back down on their incorrect thinking
@@Freedom_Half_Off Wrongthink? Citing 1984 like you are being suppressed when your ideology is being criticized is just playing the victim card. How about making an actual argument to the contrary?
@@Freedom_Half_Off Yes, I was aware of who you were directing your comment to, what gave you the impression otherwise? The cause of secession was foremost that of slavery, and is the primary object of Atun-Shei films's narrative. Reviewing historical accounts and responding to his Neo-confederate detractors that commented in his video was his way of delivering the substance, in the theme of two opposing soldiers having a conversation. Once again you are using overtly severe language like "propaganda" and "wrongthink" because you're preferred narrative isn't being touted, though I imagine you'd sing a different tune if said narrative was reversed, and accept its method of conveyance uncritically. Like the person below your first comment said, you're argument can be directed right back at you without any revision. Wouldn't propaganda operate by wrongfully disparaging its opponents and de-platforming them? Precisely what southern revisionists have done in the past and present? How ironic, right?
I’m ambivalent about this. He had a lot of authoritarian tendencies. It was the failures of reconstruction that I would have liked to see go a little bit differently.
Yeah, while Southern chattel slavery was a horrible institution that needed to be gotten rid of, the North didn't really have a good plan for what to *do* with millions of suddenly-freed slaves. To be fair, they *did* acknowledge the Black population's lack of material possessions or formal education, and established the Freedmen's Bureau to deal with these issues, *but* abandoned it as soon as it became politically inconvenient. In hindsight, I think that population transfer would have been a better solution. Subsidize the Great Migration. Or pay Black people reparations in the form of farmland out on the Great Plains. Alternatively, be more vindictive and expel *White* people from heavily Black areas. But FFS, put some *distance* between the freedmen and their former masters who resent them as racially-inferior "escaped livestock" and/or as Yankee political pawns. Not doing so made extreme racial conflict inevitable.
I wish he wasn't murdered as well as it was his asshole successor that denied freed slaves the 40 acres and a mule and other things like holding positions of government in the South. He literally halted so much progress.
@@Justanotherconsumer I would argue he was less authoritarian than you may think, and that the Authoritarian feeling stuff is because it was wartime, I don't think he was authoritarian and in no case do his wartime actions make him deserving of death
VTH, I love you. I just had the flu, too - and it knocked me on my @$$. No way I could do a review video in that circumstance. The fact that you have so much commentary whilst recovering from sickness makes you a man amongst boys. Keep up the good work, my friend!
11:26 Those common soldiers were totally aware that the Southern secession was caused by the issue of slavery. The states that declared secession all clearly stated that one of if not the largest reason for their secession was due to the threat to slavery. This negates any good will they could have had by claiming they were "just fighting for their homeland". It's the same thing as ex-nazi soldiers claiming they were fighting against the spread of "evil bolshevism", while knowing full and well what the Nazi regime stood for.
At 11:30 you say "plenty of soldiers were fighting to defend their homeland." And that's the problem. They saw their homeland as "The South" and not the United States. And if losing Slavery meant the identity of "The South" would be lost, then, well, - weren't they fighting for Slavery?
German here, on your point about Germans: I think you'd find that the notion of military service being something honorable is much less common in Germany, never mind in which wars or conflicts. But in my case: I loved my grandfather and grandmother about as much as anybody. And when I learned what they were respinsible for that didn't change but became much more complicated. The cognitive dissonance was mostly pushed aside in my childhood but as I grew up it came more and more to the forefront. On the one hand they were my grandparents on the other hand they were to blame as much as any german grown up of the time who didn't resist. My grandad died when I was 14, a bit before I couldn't ignore it anymore. But in dealing with my grandmother it kept me from ever getting to know her as a person, showing her what a person I am, out of fear to hear ANYTHING that would make it impossible to keep quiet. That was only possible because I was reasonably sure that she wasn't personally involved, she only knew and kept quiet. Around when I turned 18 I listened to my relatives while they told me about their lives. My mother really experienced the rebuilding and my uncle was 18 in '68 (and that was bloody fascinating). But I knew I could never do that with my grandma, as interesting as it might have been (first lived in Berlin, later in occupied moravia, she fled the red army after the german collapse, and lived through all the german history afterwards). There was just no way. And I quite vividly remember how I visited KZ Dachau before I was ten and saw the pictures of human carcasses stacked like firewood, of emanciated people too weak to rise from the bunks they shared with dead bodies in hovels, of standing atop the graves of ten thousand people here and hundreds there. There is no way that I can honor my grandparents for anything besides being the grandparents of my childhood. And my grandparents from my fathers side who died before I was two years old don't even merit that. All them disgust me with their involvement with the nazi regime, as just normal upper middle class germans of the time. Now, I'm a social democrat and a left one at that. I'm forty and my mom bore me when she was almost 40 herself. I'm not every german. Later generations will have a much less personal relation to all of this.
You do know there's a difference in being a soldier and being a party member right? That is no different than saying every current Russian is communist or every white southerner is racist. If your grandparents were proud supporters of that party then you have a point. If they weren't then that shows your ignorance, and the fact that you wouldn't ask them basic questions says a lot. Germany was a chaotic nation post WWI but unfortunately in that turmoil enough Germans brought the party to power. That being said it is greatly naive to believe your grandparents were personally responsible for what happened in WWII especially when you are unwilling to find out.
I mean a lot of them barely had a choice. Either they were drafted into the military and encouraged to spur on the industry that fed the war, or they were executed as traitors or put in labor camps. But most of the Germans did allow the Nazi party to take over even though many of the German people were its first victims.
Didn't socialism start this whole mess? Communism started the mess in ussr china All capitalist nations are doing great. Even the asian ones. Yes America is declining but thats corruption. Hard to fix the country when it's the fbi breaking the laws to protect the uniparty. We have our problems but were still doing better than 95% of the world. Couldn't name the 5% but somewhere has to be better. With a socialist lazy world though looks like America is the best we have so far.
This is an incredibly minor thing, but I have to say it: your expression at the "God of Jefferson Davis..." bit had me ROLLING laughing. THE EYEBROWS! On another note, I got into your channel by watching your reactions to Checkmate Lincolnites, and I've been watching ever since. Thank you so much for the calm and sincere discussion you bring to each video. I really love it.
I think the more familiar a person is with an ideology, the more able they are to see aspects of it creeping into places where others would miss it, or attribute it to something else And the more a person makes that ideology a focus of their lives, the more sensitive they become to it and things related too it, sometimes too much so
I think it's like anything else..when you're so steeped in something, whether it's from expertise, passion or experience, we tend to view the world and things that happen within it in that framework. It's just how we perceive the world. Sometimes it serves us really well, and sometimes it means we might forget the old adage that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.
One of the reason for me as Omani to have minor in American history and working as supplement instructor in university of north Texas is this channel, I still wish to be excellent in history like mr. Chris
I’m a history student at uni and I love your channel! I just found you and subscribed. Most of the content I consume outside of school is also history related but this is definitely my new favorite channel.
@@Freedom_Half_Off It's actually not one person playing both sides, because Johnny Reb is basically a placeholder for all the lost cause talking points, many of which directly quoted from his comment section and reddit. The series more or less serves as an elaborate debunking of the lost cause theory point by point. You could argue that Johnny Reb is caricatured, but over the years Billy Yank has also turned more into a Union caricature. In many ways, the current format really does resemble the Socratic Method, in that Billy Yank is the Socratic figure and sets up Johnny Reb for contradictions in order to prove the falseness in the Lost Cause hypothesis. Nothing about this is straw-man, when most of the talking points Johnny Reb presents are ACTUALLY existing lost cause talking points. They are not constructed to make lost causers look bad, they are actually real arguments people used. If they appear to be trivial and weak, that's because they really are, and people who believe in them are extremely ignorant.
@@zxbc1 The thing is that with a Socratic dialogue, at least to the best of my knowledge, they are all based around a question of what is something, for example, the Meno discusses the question of what is virtue. While this and Checkmate Lincolnites would both be examples of debates, it simply does not mean they are the same thing.
@@Freedom_Half_Off Ironically, the "Straw man" arguments are from actual lost cause commenters on his videos. The strongest and most coherent arguments he makes for the south are the ones he writes himself. Maybe people aren't deliberately making lost causers look silly just to be dishonest and mean, maybe lost causers, like most conspiracy theorists, just look silly all on their own.
Glad you did this reaction video. I agree that not everything attributed to the Lost Cause mythology is what we would say defines the foundation. But you’re also right about the grain of truth necessary to sell the Lost Cause so that it can widely infiltrate and influence perceptions of the war. So drawing a line, sharp or fuzzy, between the Lost Cause ethos and the kernels of truth it’s built on isn’t easy clear. I don’t always agree with you or with Atun Shei, but you’re both doing good and important work.
@@Freedom_Half_Off All too true. The men who actually fought the war put it behind them, attended reunions together, even dedicated the monuments to their dead together at times. Anyone else is a johnny-come-lately or Monday morning QB.
I think the phrase "abolition" in the quote at 23:19 confuses the context as to also include the North when the remainder of the quote probably just refers to the South. The portion "it was fear of a mischief far more extensive and deeper than this" with 'this' referring to abolition of slavery, is what brings it to the level of Lost Cause-ism since it implies that fear of something greater than abolition of slavery ("property, constitutional rights, and her liberties") was the primary motivating factor.
As a young german history student I have to say I HATE this dumb quote everyone tend to say "hisory is writen by the victors" as it dosent say anything but implies directly a feeling of unfair treatment in the view of events. And its just not true, it really depends which history we mean. For example the history of the peleponesian war is writen by Thucydides, an athenian ...and athen lost the war against sparta. Or in germany many years after world war 2 history about the war was actually writen by former generals and veterans, the german losers of the war then writen there own history, blaming hitler about all and try to make the Wehrmacht "with a white jacket". I would really say that it depends which history we look at and in which country. This quote just is stupid as a general thing.
Even then, the ex-nazis helped shaped a lot of our understanding of history by recontexualizing history to push blame away from them to different reasons, mainly onto hitler. The losers helped shaped our understanding of ww2 history on the german side so a lot of misconceptions come up cause of it and a lot of people believe them cause of it.
Hi, Chris, I hope you're feeling 100 per cent very soon. An interesting video which your comments made even better. I was rewatching one of your earlier videos this afternoon and heard you say you were related to Sir Francis Drake. A video about some of your ancestors would be great, I would enjoy that.
Came to this a few days late. Very well presented! I too have ancestors on both sides of the conflict. On my mother's side, there are 2 lines that did the "Prince to Pauper" conversion after the slaves were free. One of them, remained honorable people for the most part while the other remained exceptionally bitter. When the two families were merged by a marriage, the bitter one rubbed off on the other. My mom was never a bigot (taking after her mother and maternal grandmother), but her dad was. I never got to really know my maternal grandpa in large part because my parents were concerned about what level of influence he might have on me (he had other issues as well). I just remember the one phone conversation I had with him where he kept talking about he needed me to come visit and "beat up the black kids going across his lawn ". As someone who has studied that era and who is from a Southern family, I do understand where some Southerners are coming from with their defense of statues and the Confederate flag (southern pride). But I also agree it's disingenuous to pretend slavery wasn't at the root of it all. The other motivations were certainly there, but if you keep digging, slavery is an influence somewhere with it.
My former partner, Doug was a history teacher and on his final exam, the last question was: What was the Civil War fought over? If you did not mention Slavery you got an F even if you got all the other questions right.
I think the big thing here, that even Atun-Shei isn't communicating, is how Radical Republicanism aka Abolitionist though exploded among rank and file Union soldiers progressed. Grant comes up the most, but General Butler went from a North Democrat Doughface (the original doughface!) ended up waving the bloody shirt (again, the original) and becoming the head of the Radical Republicans during the height of their power. Sure the politics of the war began just as Union Preservation evolving not only their politics after the fact, but their motives for fighting the Civil War. Exposure to the blight of African Americans, as well as fighting side by side and living next to them didn't just soften their hearts but systemically challenged their notions of white supremacy on the extreme but far from fringe spectrum. Often during civil wars or sectarian conflicts the core principals change. The French Revolution begun with just the desire to limit the power of kings in case another inept one like Louie or a tyrant came to power again and create a somewhat representative constitutional monarchy. I don't think by the end everyone agrees it broadened to democratic/republican ideological conflict, even under Napoleon. Also I'd say even at the beginning of the war, it was STILL about slavery to the North, just not Abolitionism. Lincoln and the Republican's platform didn't want to ban it overnight, but he openly stated he wanted to contain and restrict it. The message clearly was 'we aren't taking your slaves away now, but we are hoping to end the institution gradually'. Not remotely the same political or ideological position the war ended on, but still! The South was right to be worried, though uh still the evil party
sorry to know that you have been under the weather. thank you for taking the time to put this video together; your comments are very sensical and well thought out. May God bless you with a complete recovery and a happy thanksgiving.
I've also been recovering from sickness. Godspeed with your recovery (if you are still sick). With that said, I just picked up a biography of Salmon P. Chase. I'm looking forward to getting into it! Videos on specific people involved in American politics at that time like Charles Sumner, William Seward, Fred Douglass, etc. Seems like an interesting project!
The gay frog guy he mentions is the clip from Alex Jones where he said “They’re putting stuff in the water and turning the fricking frogs gay”. It’s a few years old
The conversation about the victors writing the history reminded me of a couple videos I've thought of suggesting in the past where I wondered what your perspective might be, but it's skipped my mind. I'd love to see you revisit Potential History for "History Is Not Written By The Victors" and "Germany, The Cold War, and a Pervasive Narrative." They're more focused on World War II, but they tie in together pretty well and it's a fascinating look at how the historical record can be influenced and even dictated for a long time by the losing side of a conflict.
At 8:13 you looked confused by the “gay frog guy” part. If you were it was a reference to an Alex Jones rant. Thanks for another great reaction by the way.
Checking this later... you start by saying "either will do 2 parts or I won't talk a lot". Well, that's in your matter of expertise, for sure there will be a second part! Great content, Chris, you add good insights. And I say that as the Civil War isn't much an interest to me, because as a Canadian I don't care much about it, but I watched it knowing there will be something to learn and reflect.
This is very well done....I appreciate the commentary...it helps me, as someone from the north, help understand why people think the way they do...i never really thought of the southern soldiers thoughts...it make much more sense as you think about things from both sides....KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
@@rc59191 Interesting area of retreat. The original video includes plenty of references to actual letters by soldiers on the ground who were clearly motivated by something other than "defending their homes," and it's pretty rough.
on the topic of honoring your ancestors... My ancestors were vikings. Brave heroic men who rode upon dragonheaded longships across the baltics, the ocean, into the mediterranean and even managed to reach baghdad. They were impeccable craftsmen and warriors who conquered and built kingdoms, with their norman successors continuing their legacy. But they were also ruthless killers, slavers and marauders who spread terror and horror across much of europe, like a pre-amble to the mongols on a smaller yet nevertheless terrifying scale. Whenever i talk about my ancestors, of how much i respect them and admire them, i dont need to also pretext it by saying "but they were also vile killers who burnt monks and raped monasteries", because not only is everyone aware of it, but no one ever once tried to argue otherwise, or argue that they were the good guys. That is where neo-confederates, wehraboos, Japanese imperial apologists and other such people start to diverge from other people who honor their ancestors, because they built their ancestral admiration on a massive pile of lies, revisionism and straight up mythology whilst generally sane people admire their ancestors from a distance. Lost causers will legit tell you that their ancestors fought for states rights against union Tyranny, before spewing some horseshit about how benevolent confederate slavery was, because hypocrisy is beyond them.
This is a good point and exactly why I think the guy stepped on the rake a bit here. Being able to honor some of the good aspects of your ancestors doesn't make you an A hole inherently. One reason I could see someone being "proud" would be because the southern soldiers must've known the odds were massively against them, yet they bravely fought albeit for an ultimately evil cause. So basically its like most things, a nuanced topic.
And Alex was right too. Atrazine, like a lot of herbicides, is a common water-resource pollutant, and has been documented to affect the reproduction behavior of amphibians.
@@ignatzmeyer1978 It's a mutual relationship. Corporations can only get away with poisoning people so long as the federal government is willing to cover for them; as the EPA often does. If corporations are evil for selling poison, then the government is evil for taking their money and looking the other way.
Hi Chris. Really hope you’re back to 100 percent soon. I had a few days to marinate in this one and mull things over between it’s release and your reaction. As someone from a Union state, I do see a lot of believers in what seems to be the Lost Cause. I also have a German friend whose Grandfather was in the Wehrmacht and thus my views are imbued with both perspectives, but it really bothers me when people seem to glorify the Confederacy at all. Do you think I have the lines between glorifying the cause and remembering ancestors blurred or what do you think? How can I stop myself from that kind of thinking?
Not Chris, but I'll give my thoughts on the topic (take them or leave them). To me, the danger in the glorification of historical figures and causes seems to come from painting harmful ideas as more benevolent than they actually were. It's completely possible to say "Yeah, my great great grandpa was a complicated, multifaceted man, and even though he fought for a cause that I know to be unjust, I still respect and honor him for his other deeds" without having that problem. I think the problem comes into play when people refuse to accept or acknowledge any wrongdoing from the figures being honored and remembered. In fact, I believe that acknowledging the flaws of our ancestors helps us to better understand and honor the person they truly were in a deeper and more meaningful way than touting a mythicized, perfect version of them that never really existed. Just like I can read and enjoy a Lovecraft novel, and recognizing the fact that he was massively racist and xenophobic only adds to the depth at which I understand his writing and its inspiration. People are all flawed, some more than others, but that doesn't mean they need to be condemned and forgotten entirely.
Currently watching at 3 a.m. ET with a 100.9 fever so I feel you pain. Your video is helping take my mind off it. I love Atun-Shei, but as always, I appreciate your insight, too.
Glad to see you feeling better. I was concerned when I saw your last video. It was evident that you'd been having a rough time of it. As someone who grew up immersed in lost cause mythology, I can attest to the accuracy of the observations made from childhood experience. I spent years unlearning what had been presented to me as literal gospel. Looking forward to the next installment.
6:30 Andrew talks abt “The Outlaw Josey Wales” as a great civil war film as well as praising Shelby Foote. So I think you have the wrong perspective there just from the gods and generals video
One of the best ways I like to think of honoring your ancestors bad or good is to be better than they were whether it be morally better or academically better or both
What, precisely, is the purpose of "taking pride in [one's] ancestors" (19:54)? I mean to question the essential function of assuming such a point of view, _the honoring of one's antecedents._ I can understand that there might be an emotional boost from the association with some ancestor who performaed a remarkable worthwhile act, and that a wider recognition of such acts adds to that emotional boost. However, I don't believe heaping any honora on a dead progenitor provides any actual benefit to that deceased individual. In fact, when we honor our ancesors, what we are actually doing is attempting to bring honor to ourselves. We boost the ancestor's reputation and then borrow from it. My conclusion is this: the honoring of ancestors, either genetic or cultural, is a self-serving emotional exercise.
@@VloggingThroughHistory No difference at all. My point was that such "honoring" is, in effect, an artifice. Granted, it may serve particular functions to the benefit -- or detriment -- of the human psyche, but the entire premise is one of practical delusion. What is of more intrinsic value is what we _learn_ from the behaviors and experiences of those people, in other words, their history. In typical histrionic fashion, Donald Trump, in reaction to the dismantling of Confederate memorials, said something to the effect of questioning whether it would lead to the destruction of all memorials. And that got me to thinking: what if it did? If we have history books, why do we need monuments? This led to a consideration of ancestor worship, as practiced by some traditional cultures. FInally, it brought me around to the concept of "original sin," how its effects are supposedly visited upon all creatures born human, and how seemingly unfair and presumptuous that seems to be, at least to me, a former seminarian. If I am not responsible for my fathers' sins, then I am no more responsible for their honorable or dishonorable behavior. Honoring or apologizing for them becomes an act of self-indulgence. What's more, even in its mildest forms, it smacks of prsonality cult. One might debate the practical effects of Memorial Day tributes on the morale of extant serving military, but the aggrandizing of ancestors, per se, has a distinct risk of obscuring the message of history. One might further debate whether one's ancestor was or was not responsible for the general trend of a particular sociatal circumstance, but, frankly, I don't think it rises to being worthy of concern, let alone mention. IMH -- if lengthy -- O
@@VloggingThroughHistory Allow me to make clear that my prior comments were not meant to reference you personally regarding your ancestors. I am new to your channel and was not aware of your many historical ties at the time I replied. To be clear, it was not my intent to reference anyone individually regarding their personal histories. My point was intended to draw a line between the motivation of historical figures and the behavior or actions that they pursued. It is my contention that an emphasis on the character of the historical actors is a distraction from the facts of their actions. We get hung up defending or deriding a figure's character when, in fact, that character may have been significant at the time history occurred, but now that focus can obscure what actually happened. I admit, it's a fine point, but a history of personalities does not seem to offer the same lessons as a history of what happened.
I was listening to this video last week and wondering what your take on it would be, thanks for letting us know despite the fact you're under the weather. Get well soon!
Love it. Will McKee (18th GA, B Company) injured 1862, recovered, and then deserted in 1864. Pledged his allegiance back to the US before the war ended Guess he decided he'd rather not "fall in the struggle for it"
Hope you better I really do enjoy your videos it’s really important to learn about the civil war from both sides many people fought and died for what they believe in I believe in seeing everyone get along now matter what there race are
I will have to disagree with one of your early statements. The Civil War was one of the few wars where the losers wrote most of the histories. Lee protrayed as some kind of war saint and Grant painted as the Butcher. The glorifications of the limited success of the war East of the Appalachians and ignoring the fact that West of the Appalachians was realistic a series of Union victories that split the Confederacy as they isolated the South and destroyed the industrial capacity of the Confederacy.
One other example of history constantly being rewritten that's near and dear to my heart: the Three Kingdoms era of China (3rd century CE). In the immediate aftermath, the Jin Dynasty which was descended from the Wei Dynasty pushed the notion that the Wei Dynasty was the legitimate inheritor of the Han Dynasty. In the 14th century, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms was published, one of the 4 Great Chinese Classics, and became a gigantic cultural touchstone. It is historical fiction and should not be mistaken otherwise, but it became so influential that it altered the common perception of the Three Kingdoms era, establishing the Shu-Han Dynasty as the virtuous with larger-than-life heroes while the Wei Dynasty were the villains. In just the 21st century, as non-Chinese media have visited this time period, I've watched the history around this be reconsidered and it is fascinating to watch.
@@painvillegaming4119 Some of it. We have original writings from people like Cao Cao and Zhou Yu and the Records of the Three Kingdoms was written during the Jin Dynasty so we do have some things. But things like "why did Lu Bu betray Dong Zhuo" we don't know. Was it because he was sleeping with a maid (the origin of the Diao Chan mostly-myth) or was it because Dong Zhuo threw a halberd near his head in a fit of rage? I think it's hilarious that we have actual documentation that Sun Shang Xiang/Sun Ren/Lady Sun was a tomboy who terrified Liu Bei but don't even know what her name actually was. But like I said, the biggest problem is that what is common knowledge mostly comes from Romance of the Three Kingdoms. While serious historians can mostly pull apart fact from fiction, the stories we tell each other mostly come from the fiction.
@@painvillegaming4119 No, Liu Bei's existence if firmly established. His work during the Yellow Turban rebellion was far more limited (though he was recognized for distinguished service) and he had zero involvement in the anti-Dong Zhou coalition - this appears to be entirely an invention of Romance - but his service and succession of Tao Qian in Xu Province (Xia Pi) through to his founding of Shu-Han is very well established in history. The more recent revision is towards both his talent and supposed virtue. He has a few points that lend credence - his disastrous retreat south from Cao Cao does appear to have been largely from him willingly escorting a large refugee convoy and he was given Xu Province over Tao Qian's children both suggesting that he had some virtue to him, but he betrayed each of Cao Cao and Sun Quan on separate occasions not to mention how he came to be in charge of Cheng Du. As for military success, if we exclude every battle that Zhuge Liang was a part of, his military record is quite poor. I believe Hanzhong is the only campaign he officially won without Zhuge - Zhuge was back governing Cheng Du at the time but might have drafted the original plan. And actually, I believe Cao Cao's attack on Lu Bu at Xia Pi is the only other campaign he was a part of without Zhuge that was successful (he was like 1 for 3 in battles involving Xia Pi)
I saw the Atun-Shei video on my feed, but was waiting to see your reaction to it just because I love hearing different perspectives on history, and you're one of the only UA-cam reactors who really adds to the conversation. I hope you feel better soon and I'm looking forward to the second half.
I largely view Atun-Shei's commentary as a high grade pop history like whatever Kurtzgesagt is to pop science than an exhaustive and historical review of the sources and the evolution of this over time.
This is education UA-cam perfection. Atun-Shei's vids are already packed with details and context, and you add even more, on top of that. You have a different perspective and express those differences with dignity and precision. And finally, there is a very particular kind of anger that sparks in you whenever you discuss the history of Reconstruction and the KKK, a moral fire that shines through professionalism. I cannot put into words how valuable those reactions are for me (an atheist leftie) - to see a conservative and Christian who seems to be guided by faith instead of being blinded by it. Mad respect, good Sir.
Autun Shei has actively enjoyed films that depict the southern perspective of the civil war, but ones that do so in a way that avoid the Lost Cause Myth. Also there's plenty of reasons to hate the Confederacy. Given so many were implicated in the secession that led to so many supporting slavery and owning slaves and fighting for the rights to persecure hundreds of thousands of people. The Lost Cause myth is seen in films like Gods and Generals because of their blatant canonising of the Confederate slave owning generals by ignoring the problems and depicting them almost as Saints. That sort of almost heroic and holy depiction of the Southern leadership is part of the Lost Cause myth, the Lost Causers treat Lee and Jackson and other generals as leaders of some glorious cause when they were just protecting their despicable source of property and a brutal economic system. Honoring an ancestor of the confederacy is still honoring the cause they are attached to. They fought for a horrific cause. It'd be like honoring an SS officer or a Wermacht war criminal you're still honoring the horrible things they did. Same with US war criminals from ww2.
I think you missed the point at 24:33:"The late Civil War...has been generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause." Jones is setting up a straw man, it's well known that the North didn't enter the war to abolish slavery. Jones goes on to say it was "fear of a mischief far more extensive" that drove Southern secession, but he avoids saying what mischief specifically. It's classic Just Cause BS.
Slavery and state‘s rights were intertwined with each other. The southern states were also in fear of being left behind by the north‘s rapid and thorough industialization and becoming an economic backwater and losing their culture. Which included slavery. For what it’s worth I am from the south, born and raised with ancestors who mostly fought for the confederacy. I don’t know what their motivations were but i can’t imagine slavery wasn’t part of the equation.
Sorry if my comment wasn’t as clear as intended. There is no possible way to separate slavery and state‘s rights as the cause of succession. It was the primary driver. Ancillary to that was the loss of antebellum southern culture, of which slave owning was a central pillar. It is an indelible stain on our history and the northern cause post-1862 was a righteous one.
Coming back to this video after watching Japan military aggression that was left unchecked (punished), it would seem like not taking these Southern generals to court after the war was a mistake. It lead to Southerners reasoning themselves into thinking they were just in their succession.
Interesting that you mentioned the men who chose to fight for the Confederacy from border states. My family comes from West Virginia. About half fought for the Confederates and half were Union. One of my ancestors from present-day Jackson County WV took his two sons across the OH River to join an Ohio Cavalry Regiment in the early days of the war.
I think one of things that gets lost in the whole "why would the common southerner fight for slavery" and the confusion that comes with being confronted with the quotes from the soldiers is that you have to remember that these people were whipped up by propaganda in the same way we are today. For instance, why would poor southerners today that work for mega corporations keep fighting for ideals of giving the corporations more and more tax cuts in the face of those same corporations using those tax cuts to enrich the people at the top? Even worse, they see that pay has gone up marginally because of a lack of willing workers. They have proof that unconditional tax cuts did nothing and labor refusing to participate did something. But they continue to fervently back the idea of even more unconditional tax cuts and tell people to go back to work and quit being lazy. Their convictions don't have to make sense. They just have to be convinced to have them. Politicians and the wealthy have always had the ability and resources to sell people (especially people who are busy fighting tooth and nail to make a living rather than studying socioeconomic policy) on whatever benefits said politicians and wealthy. Even if you disagree with me on the specific example, put one you agree with in. I'm sure you can think of at least one.
Outlaw Josey Wales is the best “Lost Cause” movie. While not historically accurate by any means, it has an amazingly written story where you can almost believe that Josey Wales existed somewhere in that time period.
It's not really a lost cause movie though. Yes he's a confederate but the story isn't trying to push a pro-confederate or "noble-south" message. That would be like saying cold mountain is a lost cause movie or hell on wheels was a lost cause tv show.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider reacting to the Last Week Tonight segment they did on the Confederacy? From what I remember it was pretty funny, and rather informative.
I don’t understand how celebrating the confederacy is about your ancestry. The confederacy wasn’t an ethnicity. It wasn’t a culture group. It wasn’t a religion. It was a failed rebel state that lasted about 4 years. You don’t have to honor your ancestors by celebrating 4 years. Why don’t you celebrate the other 300 years of history that took place in USA besides the confederacy? also, why does everyone have to have “good” ancestors. Why can’t people accept that maybe not every single person in your family history was a wonderful person? Every family has good people and bad people.
Idk, as I have been saying in other replies, VTH has recently become a lot more openly pro-Confederate and it makes me uncomfortable. It's like he just deep down refuses to accept that the Confederacy was a white supremacist state.
@@mudnarchist like, I got assholes in my family TODAY. it is a cliche that everyone has family that has opinions you disagree with, or is a jerk, or whatever. But if they’re a family member you never met from 200 years ago it’s suddenly impossible for your family members to have flaws or even possibly be bad people? It’s beyond naive.
@@Mosca_Tube I know. Idk I genuinely used to really like this channel cuz of how chill it was. After VTH's pro-monarchy, anti-voter, and weirdly defensive comments about the Confederacy, I am starting to become less and less of a fan.
I’d recommend watching his video about The Outlaw Josie Wales, that’s basically him loving a piece of media gold from the confederate point of view that *isnt* lost cause propaganda
I’ll admit as a former lost causer right now, any sort of charitable view of the south during the war makes me irrationally angry. I’m trying to come to terms with it as I’m more mad that I was duped by a history teacher I had when I knew he was incredibly biased at the time. Maybe one day I’ll have a more balanced view of the war but right now I’m still pissed a history teacher with a Bachelor’s degree in Bible studies from an non accredited college managed to fool me into believing the south was in the right.
In response to Honoring Family ancestors in the military. The common soldiers in war face the same horrors no matter what side they are on. In WW1 Allies had Trenches the Germans had Trenches both used Gas saw the same things Death Destruction and so on. I remember talking to a Canadian Veteran once. He said we didn't fight for the politicians in charge and their goals we fought for our Country the flag on our shoulder our Families our brother and sisters in arms in the same foxhole for others suffering in other countries. Every Soldier has a different story and reason on why they fight maybe they support what the government is doing maybe not that doesn't mean that if they died in the line of duty doing what they thought was right they should not be forgotten. Each side in history always believes they are doing the right thing from their point of view. I agree you can honor any soldier from your family who served because it does not mean you believe what they believed or what the country they where fighting for believed. For we are all human and have different views.
Speaking as someone who grew up in China, one angle we could look at this with is a comparison to the Sino-Japanese war. Many of the Japanese war heroes are installed and commemorated in Yasukuni JInja in Tokyo, including many who orchestrated the invasion of China. It is the act of war and war crimes committed by those individuals, and the spirit of militarism and fascism that we condemn, but it is another issue when it comes to common soldiers who were defending their homes. Indeed, many war crimes were carried out by the commons soldiers as well. And that we record and condemn. Those who committed the crime, if alive, should also be punished. This just makes the recording of such actions all the more important and meaningful.
As per Britannica: "Lost Cause, an interpretation of the American Civil War viewed by most historians as a myth that attempts to preserve the honour of the South by casting the Confederate defeat in the best possible light." As per Wikipedia: "The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is an American pseudohistorical negationist mythology that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery." In this case, I side with Atun Shei. The Lost Cause is pernicious and prevalent. And Gods and Generals is absolutely a perpetrator (and also a terrible movie).
One of the more interesting places where history is being rewritten- correctly- is with regards to Napoleon. I always grew up learning that Waterloo was a close fight and that Napoleon would've been able to hold power. That just isn't true, and the modern narrative has begin to speak to that- Napoleon could not have won the 100 days war.
I think that's exactly it. Waterloo seemed like the decisive moment, but with modern perspectives we can look back and see that, eveni f he had won, the Coalition would've tried again, and again, and again, until he finally lost. D-Day was crucial, but it only worked because of the other operations and the insane logistics involved. Gettysburg was tactically important, but Vicksburg was far more strategically significant.
@@richeybaumann1755 Looking at chess as an analogy (which is fitting since chess is a war game), some people look at the endgame as when the game is won or lost, but most of the time, something that happened much earlier in the game gave the ultimate winner the favorable position going into the endgame. For that matter, while watching The Great War series, it wasn't really obvious that Germany was losing until well into 1918, but the successful naval blockade really made it a matter of time.
I love this one. It is great. It says what the ground soldiers said and thought. It was the best of his videos. Thank you for showing what the everyday soldier was truly ready to die for. I am kind of dissatisfied with the idea that the upper guys were the ones who fought for slavery when it was ALL OF THEM. They were not fighting for their homes, they were fighting for white supremacy. And the white northern never stated they were not a bunch of racists that is the point. They were not fighting for equality and they were not going to die for it. That was the job of the people of Black people. The North were fighting for the continuation of the union, nothing more. There were more sundown towns in mid America than in the South. The fact that the northern never changed their horse mid stream and tried to sell woof tickets to the rest of us as fact. Those status went up to remind black people of their place while they were attempting to gain their constitutional rights. And the anger was already there. The former Confederates did not join the Klan to avenge their lost war but to once again remind the blacks where they stood in the natural order of things. And the occasional statements are a reflection of the still deep water of White Supremacy. It is so deep you are uncomfortable saying it and laws are being written in which whites being made uncomfortable because they are racist are being written. WHY are you comfortable with racism? AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHY YOU MAKE THAT ARRANGEMENT? Really? Because I cant wrap my mind around it. The Confederates would be equal to the Nazis if not for the Daughters of the Confederate. Let us be honest, everyone should be proud of their ancestors except for the former slaves. There is where the lines should be draw because that reflects poorly on your confederate ancestors. Tell the truth you side eye the people who are proud of the Nazi grandfather who worked filling ovens. You are going to look crazy eyed at that person. And then you are uncomfortable with the teaching of the history of the slaves because well that is something you are uncomfortable with and uncomfortable laws are there to protect you. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUTH IS MADE UP OF THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE. Stop trying to separate the two. And you cant tell me Lost Cause isnt still a religion that ignores the people whom it to this day still hurts.
"The war was about slavery" is a true statement. "The war was not only about slavery" is also a true statement. South Carolina seceded over fears of slavery being outlawed federally while some slave states remained in the Union. Virginia broke itself in two over whether or not to secede. Many free states were exceptionally racist against black Americans (looking at my own Oregon here which forbade both slavery and the entry of free black Americans by law in the 1840s and 50s) despite absolute aversion to slavery. Any time something is painted as strictly black and white in the historical record it deserves a closer look and this is no exception. I'm not convinced that the American method of militarily ending slavery was better than the British method of the government buying and freeing all the slaves. It's certainly more of a contemporary topic here than it seems to be over there even though they only just finished paying off the related debt in 2015.
I think instead of talking about the American method of ending slavery, you should specifically say the Southern method of trying to preserve slavery. Lincoln, although a part of the Abolitionist-led Republican party at the time, promised to not touch the current institution of slavery. However, the Southern States wanted the expansion of slavery, which is why they rejected the Corwin Amendment before the war. Then they started raiding Federal forts and armories for weapons to prepare for the war. The South started the war while Lincoln begged them not to do it. No matter the reason for doing so, the South pulled the trigger. Over losing an election. Does that sound oddly familiar to anyone else?
There's a weird stigma around 'revisionist history.' Not only does the contemporary political right feel as if there is an element of 'wokeness' in regard to the teaching of history nowadays, but the traditionalist camps when it comes to political arguments are often annoyed by later-emerging historical opinions. The decision to use the Atomic Bombs, for some reason is the one that comes to mind for me. Immediately after the war, and for several decades after, the predominant opinion was that these were 'necessary' to win the war as and when it was to 'save lives.' There is an element of history being written by the victor here, this concept plays a massive role in influencing the purposes of sources of information. Furthermore, there is the issue of access to information, and personal positions. Many post-war historians in the West were soldiers or had family members that were soldiers. It was easier for them to justify the bombs by feeling that they themselves, their comrades and/or their family relate to the situation in one-way shape or form. Hell, even contemporary servicemen and women might feel they relate to this to some degree. But as the years go by, and the historical spectators become more impartial, more sources of information are uncovered, declassified and used, you begin to be able to paint a bigger picture. Japanese, Soviet and American sources as the years go by begin to paint a far more detailed and convoluted picture that all point toward Japan surrendering because, well, there were a million and one different reasons. The A-bombs definitely made a dent, but they were not *the* reason for capitulation, nor were they necessary to facilitate victory. They were necessary to facilitate a post-war international political situation that the USA wanted, one that was in their favour, but not necessary to capitulate Japan. This same concept can be applied to many situations. The further you get from a political event (at least more modern history, ancient history is a whole other battle) the more information you have access to, and the more impartial people are likely to be. It's about breaking down sources, their provenance, their purpose, their access to information and understanding how and why people have come to the conclusions that they have come to.
Lincolnites has grown much less black and white as it's gone on. Atun Shei has mentioned in some of his Q/A content being regretful about how 1-sided his early videos on the topic were
After the First World War, Many Germans from the Officer/Land owning Prussian class, talked about the Stab in the Back Myth. The argument was Germany was in the Brink of winning the war, they still held parts of France and Belguim, and huge parts of the East That is was the Civiians who stabbed them in the back. This Stab in the back was taken over by the Nazi, who stated it was the Jews who weilded the knife. In reality it was the German high command , who called for peace, who instructed the Civilains, they could not win the war, only lose it.
"Black people had it better under slavery, because look how much worse I intentionally made things for them once they were freed." -southern logic
This 100%
Holy crap, laser accuracy
With black codes, pig laws and debt peonage they somehow made conditions infinitely worse for black people. Who still ended up enslaved in every sense of the word other than on the technicality of being a ‘free person’
OR worse.... the people that argue that slavery would have gone away in 20 years anyway and the only reasons for the lynchings and murders taking place is all the fault of the north and reconstruction forcing the hand of the "poor south". basically "If we could have just kept these people enslaved and then ended it on our OWN terms we wouldn't have to kill them after the war"
@@VloggingThroughHistory thank you for all the videos you make. Like this channel
"there are times where we find a document that rewrites history" experienced this in college. Had a history of the Catholic Church as an elective. Final report was to examine first hand documents and reenact a historical moment. The group I was in did the disbandment of the knight templar. Popular culture always painted that the pope and Phillip the fair was working together to penalize the templars. But one of the documents we were recommended by the professor was the recently discovered chinon document. If I remember correctly the chinon document recorded the account there agents of the pope publicly forgave any sin the templars confessed to. It was less the king and pope were working together but more both were fighting for jurisdiction over the matter (the charges were filled in France under the kings authority but the templars as holy knights answered to the pope) where the king wanted them convicted and the pope wanted them forgiven.
They fought over jurisdiction as it was a hostile corporate take over in the modern sense and gained the assets.
Interesting. That makes it part of a larger pattern, wherein local and regional civil authorities were in a power struggle versus the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The Vatican eventually lost that power struggle and was greatly diminished in power; but it took centuries to all shake out.
It was still about the Templar wealth.
@@johnthomas2485 or at least about debt. Philip owed quite a bit to the templars
@@jonadabtheunsightly oh yeah. Pick any moment In history and you will see this trend where there is a struggle with Papal authority and secular authority of kings. There is a pamphlet by Samuel Adams where he argues, paraphrasing: "a good Christian should be tolerant of others and different opinions as long as they don't subvert cival order. How ever roman Catholics should not be tolerated because they always subvert cival order."
EDIT: and if you think this trend is over remember what happened when the child molestation scandle camed to light. The Vatican just moved the priest to a new location outside there native jurisdiction and with a comfy job.
About his Gods and Generals video, he has a pinned comment saying the following
"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."
The Lost Cause and the Clean Wehrmacht are two perfect examples of history not always being written by the victors. There are still people today who believe the civil war was fought over states rights and that a lot of Wehrmacht generals were anti nazi/took no part in war crimes. None of that is true but because of various reasons and political situations that happened in the aftermath of both the Civil war and WWII the truth got burried in myth.
Edit: (holy crap I didn’t think this comment would garner so much attention)
What is over all somewhat true would be that the Wehrmacht fostered the most well organised resistance against Hitler, with, iirc, the majority of the plots against Hitler being planned from inside the Wehrmacht.
Note: I am saying Hitler, not necessarily the Nazi party as such.
There was, for example, one plot that had one guy volunteer to blow himself up with Hitler (and some others of the leadership) while displaying a new uniform design (the backpack being stuffed with grenades). Unfortunately an allied bombing run destroyed the railway cart with the uniforms and when the next showing was scheduled, the soldier had lost a leg. Although that might be a slightly abridged version.
I think it’s different when the southern leaders were allowed to become part of the government later on and especially on the state level
@@undertakernumberone1 The problen with that its that those officers were not trying to assassinate hitler due to ideological or ethical reasons .
The reason why most conspired against him was because by mid 1944 the writing was on the wall . The red army was destroying german armies left and right , by july and august the allies had landed and they wanted to avoid the total destruction and defeat of the german armed forces and the german state.
It was an atempt to avoid disaster out of desperation
@@mariosarrionandia1972 there was also some (we don’t know how many) plotting against them when Hitler was trying to annex the sudentenland if the UK and France didn’t allow Hitler to take it
@@undertakernumberone1 combined with what Mario above me said, that also ignores how the overwhelming majority of the Wehrmacht did not partake in these plots and ploys. It's kinda like saying Southerners opposed the Confederacy because West Virginia seceded from the secessionists to rejoin the Union.
I think Gods and Generals absolutely fits within that definition of Lost Cause mythology. It lionises the south and sanitises them of all negative reference to slavery, which is pretty much exactly what he was referring to.
I also agree. It was an okay film pushing a gross narrative that pandered to a demographic that believed absolutely that slavery had nothing to do with the war.
@@Mahbu To be fair, if you are going to make a civil war movie that completely demonizes one side, its going to piss off half the country and the film won't make any money. So some pandering is inevitable.
@@FuathAsarlai Sure, but Gods and Generals basically kisses the asses of the Confederacy and its generals.
They were not that noble nor were they that detached from slavery.
There are plenty of movies that do it better. Gettysburg, which has a lot of issues of its own, does a better job.
Glory does an AMAZING job, even with its obvious biases. They don't give you as cartoonish a caricature of the Confederacy. There aren't any mustache-twirling, pupping kicking villainous characters on the Confederate side. Granted, there aren't any confederate characters at all from what I remember but there is no concerted effort to exaggerate the confederacy and that's a key difference.
Yeah God’s and Generals is straight up Confederate propaganda, it’s also not a good movie.
Many overlook the fact that Gods and Generals was suppose to be the "pro-South" version of the trilogy with Gettysburg and The Last Full Measure (which would have been pro-Unionist).
But then again you'd probably consider "Letters From Iwo Jima" to be a promotion of the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere too, huh?
These are always my favorite review videos. The sheer amount of knowledge on display between these two causes such a dense wealth of learning.
Agreed
Yep
110% true.
Agreed!
absolutely agree
I think the reason is may seem like Atun-Shei is quick to paint anything as lost cause is because he himself has admitted to being somewhat of a lost-causer in the past. I think he's honestly somewhat ashamed of that and part of his purpose behind the checkmate lincolnites series is his own personal way of atoning for it. Regardless it's a great series providing important historical context and I'm glad he made it.
when you feel manipulated by people you trust it hurts alot talking from experience
And that's exactly why Johnny (the Confederate) is portrayed as just a misguided friend instead of a monster out for bigotry like alot of people do.
@@ProxiProtogen Well, now anyway. It has been a neat evolution for sure, but the first episode ended with Johnny Reb getting gunned down...
@@ProxiProtogen Yes and it's important to realize that there are plenty of people who aren't bigots that fly confederate flags and believe in lost cause myths because they've been fed the revisionist history and don't know better or really understand why a confederate statue or flag would evoke negative feels in some people. In their hearts they don't hate black people, they just don't have the correct historical context behind the symbols.
@@Canuovea the first one wasn't Johnny rebel, that was straight up a literal confederate soldier.
In Atun-Shei’s defense, he did another video a few years ago in which he stated that one of his favorite movies was Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Josey Wales, which is a Civil War movie from the Southern perspective. On top of that, his three-part review of Gettysburg is really much more balanced and much less condemning than his video about Gods and Generals.
My whole thing with the gods and generals thing is it's from the south's perspective. Gettysburg is a neutral perspective and there was gonna be a third movie made from the Union's perspective. Some of his arguments in that video are legit but some of them are rly stupid
@@Cody435 Well yeah, but his entire point of the Gods and Generals video - and some of the Josey Wales one - is that G&G puts forth an ahistorical representation of the civil war in favor of the Confederacy. Conversely, one of his reasons for liking Josey Wales over G&G is that it offers the southern POV without trying to convince the viewer that the confederacy was the pinnacle of humanity.
@@aspeckinthegrandschemeofth3457 hell even Jeff Shaara who wrote the book hates the movie.
@@Cody435 Gods and Generals isn't from the south's perspective, it's from the post-war Lost Cause mythologized south's perspective. The South, at the time, was actively and widely defending white supremacy and enslavement of black people. Depicting the Southerners fighting without depicting the fact that they were, by and large, fighting for slavery and for white supremacy is ignorant of history. The North wasn't fighting to end slavery, but the South was *definitely* fighting for slavery.
@@Cody435 Which movie did you watch? Because it definitely wasn't only the south's perspective.
I am from Germany and the whole 'what common soldiers fought for thing's reminds me a lot of how I view my family members who fought in the Wehrmacht.
I get the argument, that a lot of these soldiers fought for noble reasons but and I want that to be true for my family. But even if my ancestors were good, wanted to protect their home and did not commit war crimes their fighting helped facilitate the Nazi crimes. And we should not forget that.
The brothers of my grandfather were drafted, so they had littel choice anyway. They died in Stalingrad. But honestly I never got the sense of honoring ancestors anyway. Their achievments and failurs are not mine. What I got from my grandfather tough was the hate for fascism.
Now, if they were fighting for the German Empire... that's a different story entirely.
@@dawoifee how do you feel about communism?
@@dawoifee why hate something that you have never experienced or had any encounters with?
@@blankeon6613 Because muderous Dicktatorships bad. Should also answer Osis question ;)
The more I see you react to Atun Shei, the more I would like to see you do some sort of collab with him.
You both have such a great knowledge on that era and these videos are always so packed with informative information and views from the both.
I think a collab between you two about certain things in the Civil War or before/after it would be VERY interesting and entertaining, especially because you two both have different views on certain things.
But would VTH collab with Johnny Reb… or the Witchfinder General!!!!!!????!!
I am picturing a duell with pistols from that era about the interpretation of Gods and Generals^^.
Na, this guy is too confused.
@@MollymaukT cool! I’d love to see this!
Atun shei is a sad left winger I bet he would be OK with tearing down statues of Washington just to virtue signal
I love this topic. I'm Colombian and due to the unofficial civil war Colombia had for decades, it's hard to navigate what's said today about it to find the real history behind it. Even my parents believe two different things yet they grew up in the same place.
History is sometimes murky and leaders of the past and present will try to spin things to work in their favor and support their own agendas. But at the very least there are some underlying facts like the dates of certain battles and the participation of certain factions.
Sounds like the liars win then. They distorted reality to look better after.
I have just recently discovered your channel through your Grand Tactician video series, and I just want to say that I am really enjoying your work. I appreciate the nuance, thoughtfulness, and obvious erudition you bring to bear on this subject. I'm a Southerner brought up in the environment of the Lost Cause mythology, and it has taken a long time and a lot of study to arrive at a more accurate understanding of Civil War history. Thoughtful commentaries like yours that are honest without being insulting and dismissive make that journey easier for similar folks, I imagine. Thanks! I hope you're feeling better!
I think this video did a great job in contextualizing atun's arguments. He's not necessarily trying to make a fair and balanced debate he's trying to dispell someone zealously choosing ignorance over accepting truth. You can't give them an inch or they double back down on their incorrect thinking
Here's a tip for you: if you ever make an argument that can be directed right back at you with no changes, then you haven't made an argument.
@@Freedom_Half_Off Wrongthink? Citing 1984 like you are being suppressed when your ideology is being criticized is just playing the victim card. How about making an actual argument to the contrary?
@@Freedom_Half_Off Yes, I was aware of who you were directing your comment to, what gave you the impression otherwise? The cause of secession was foremost that of slavery, and is the primary object of Atun-Shei films's narrative. Reviewing historical accounts and responding to his Neo-confederate detractors that commented in his video was his way of delivering the substance, in the theme of two opposing soldiers having a conversation. Once again you are using overtly severe language like "propaganda" and "wrongthink" because you're preferred narrative isn't being touted, though I imagine you'd sing a different tune if said narrative was reversed, and accept its method of conveyance uncritically. Like the person below your first comment said, you're argument can be directed right back at you without any revision. Wouldn't propaganda operate by wrongfully disparaging its opponents and de-platforming them? Precisely what southern revisionists have done in the past and present? How ironic, right?
Man, I wish Lincoln hadn't been murdered.
I’m ambivalent about this.
He had a lot of authoritarian tendencies.
It was the failures of reconstruction that I would have liked to see go a little bit differently.
Yeah, while Southern chattel slavery was a horrible institution that needed to be gotten rid of, the North didn't really have a good plan for what to *do* with millions of suddenly-freed slaves. To be fair, they *did* acknowledge the Black population's lack of material possessions or formal education, and established the Freedmen's Bureau to deal with these issues, *but* abandoned it as soon as it became politically inconvenient.
In hindsight, I think that population transfer would have been a better solution. Subsidize the Great Migration. Or pay Black people reparations in the form of farmland out on the Great Plains. Alternatively, be more vindictive and expel *White* people from heavily Black areas.
But FFS, put some *distance* between the freedmen and their former masters who resent them as racially-inferior "escaped livestock" and/or as Yankee political pawns. Not doing so made extreme racial conflict inevitable.
I wish he wasn't murdered as well as it was his asshole successor that denied freed slaves the 40 acres and a mule and other things like holding positions of government in the South. He literally halted so much progress.
@@Justanotherconsumer no he didn't
@@Justanotherconsumer I would argue he was less authoritarian than you may think, and that the Authoritarian feeling stuff is because it was wartime, I don't think he was authoritarian and in no case do his wartime actions make him deserving of death
VTH, I love you. I just had the flu, too - and it knocked me on my @$$. No way I could do a review video in that circumstance. The fact that you have so much commentary whilst recovering from sickness makes you a man amongst boys. Keep up the good work, my friend!
11:26
Those common soldiers were totally aware that the Southern secession was caused by the issue of slavery. The states that declared secession all clearly stated that one of if not the largest reason for their secession was due to the threat to slavery. This negates any good will they could have had by claiming they were "just fighting for their homeland".
It's the same thing as ex-nazi soldiers claiming they were fighting against the spread of "evil bolshevism", while knowing full and well what the Nazi regime stood for.
Also worth noting is that "their homeland" in many cases referred to a place their families moved to just a couple of years prior to the civil war.
VTH denies this, and it really turned me off of his content ngl
At 11:30 you say "plenty of soldiers were fighting to defend their homeland." And that's the problem. They saw their homeland as "The South" and not the United States. And if losing Slavery meant the identity of "The South" would be lost, then, well, - weren't they fighting for Slavery?
German here, on your point about Germans: I think you'd find that the notion of military service being something honorable is much less common in Germany, never mind in which wars or conflicts. But in my case: I loved my grandfather and grandmother about as much as anybody. And when I learned what they were respinsible for that didn't change but became much more complicated. The cognitive dissonance was mostly pushed aside in my childhood but as I grew up it came more and more to the forefront. On the one hand they were my grandparents on the other hand they were to blame as much as any german grown up of the time who didn't resist. My grandad died when I was 14, a bit before I couldn't ignore it anymore. But in dealing with my grandmother it kept me from ever getting to know her as a person, showing her what a person I am, out of fear to hear ANYTHING that would make it impossible to keep quiet. That was only possible because I was reasonably sure that she wasn't personally involved, she only knew and kept quiet. Around when I turned 18 I listened to my relatives while they told me about their lives. My mother really experienced the rebuilding and my uncle was 18 in '68 (and that was bloody fascinating). But I knew I could never do that with my grandma, as interesting as it might have been (first lived in Berlin, later in occupied moravia, she fled the red army after the german collapse, and lived through all the german history afterwards). There was just no way. And I quite vividly remember how I visited KZ Dachau before I was ten and saw the pictures of human carcasses stacked like firewood, of emanciated people too weak to rise from the bunks they shared with dead bodies in hovels, of standing atop the graves of ten thousand people here and hundreds there.
There is no way that I can honor my grandparents for anything besides being the grandparents of my childhood. And my grandparents from my fathers side who died before I was two years old don't even merit that. All them disgust me with their involvement with the nazi regime, as just normal upper middle class germans of the time.
Now, I'm a social democrat and a left one at that. I'm forty and my mom bore me when she was almost 40 herself. I'm not every german. Later generations will have a much less personal relation to all of this.
You do know there's a difference in being a soldier and being a party member right? That is no different than saying every current Russian is communist or every white southerner is racist. If your grandparents were proud supporters of that party then you have a point. If they weren't then that shows your ignorance, and the fact that you wouldn't ask them basic questions says a lot. Germany was a chaotic nation post WWI but unfortunately in that turmoil enough Germans brought the party to power. That being said it is greatly naive to believe your grandparents were personally responsible for what happened in WWII especially when you are unwilling to find out.
I mean a lot of them barely had a choice. Either they were drafted into the military and encouraged to spur on the industry that fed the war, or they were executed as traitors or put in labor camps. But most of the Germans did allow the Nazi party to take over even though many of the German people were its first victims.
Didn't socialism start this whole mess?
Communism started the mess in ussr china
All capitalist nations are doing great. Even the asian ones. Yes America is declining but thats corruption. Hard to fix the country when it's the fbi breaking the laws to protect the uniparty. We have our problems but were still doing better than 95% of the world. Couldn't name the 5% but somewhere has to be better. With a socialist lazy world though looks like America is the best we have so far.
This is an incredibly minor thing, but I have to say it: your expression at the "God of Jefferson Davis..." bit had me ROLLING laughing. THE EYEBROWS!
On another note, I got into your channel by watching your reactions to Checkmate Lincolnites, and I've been watching ever since. Thank you so much for the calm and sincere discussion you bring to each video. I really love it.
I think the more familiar a person is with an ideology, the more able they are to see aspects of it creeping into places where others would miss it, or attribute it to something else
And the more a person makes that ideology a focus of their lives, the more sensitive they become to it and things related too it, sometimes too much so
I think it's like anything else..when you're so steeped in something, whether it's from expertise, passion or experience, we tend to view the world and things that happen within it in that framework. It's just how we perceive the world. Sometimes it serves us really well, and sometimes it means we might forget the old adage that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.
One of the reason for me as Omani to have minor in American history and working as supplement instructor in university of north Texas is this channel, I still wish to be excellent in history like mr. Chris
Supplements Instroctor in American history
Good luck to you!
I’m a history student at uni and I love your channel! I just found you and subscribed. Most of the content I consume outside of school is also history related but this is definitely my new favorite channel.
I absolutely enjoy the way you agree and disagree with certain aspects. It brings real meaning to the term "critical thinking".
I love the Socratic Dialogue style of these videos. This is by far Atun-Shei's best series.
@@Freedom_Half_Off It's actually not one person playing both sides, because Johnny Reb is basically a placeholder for all the lost cause talking points, many of which directly quoted from his comment section and reddit. The series more or less serves as an elaborate debunking of the lost cause theory point by point. You could argue that Johnny Reb is caricatured, but over the years Billy Yank has also turned more into a Union caricature. In many ways, the current format really does resemble the Socratic Method, in that Billy Yank is the Socratic figure and sets up Johnny Reb for contradictions in order to prove the falseness in the Lost Cause hypothesis. Nothing about this is straw-man, when most of the talking points Johnny Reb presents are ACTUALLY existing lost cause talking points. They are not constructed to make lost causers look bad, they are actually real arguments people used. If they appear to be trivial and weak, that's because they really are, and people who believe in them are extremely ignorant.
@@zxbc1 The thing is that with a Socratic dialogue, at least to the best of my knowledge, they are all based around a question of what is something, for example, the Meno discusses the question of what is virtue. While this and Checkmate Lincolnites would both be examples of debates, it simply does not mean they are the same thing.
@@Freedom_Half_Off Ironically, the "Straw man" arguments are from actual lost cause commenters on his videos. The strongest and most coherent arguments he makes for the south are the ones he writes himself. Maybe people aren't deliberately making lost causers look silly just to be dishonest and mean, maybe lost causers, like most conspiracy theorists, just look silly all on their own.
I know this isn’t related to the comment, but I like your profile pic.
@@coldwar45 it's the Freedom of Russia flag, the flag of the anti-Putin Russian opposition.
Glad you did this reaction video. I agree that not everything attributed to the Lost Cause mythology is what we would say defines the foundation. But you’re also right about the grain of truth necessary to sell the Lost Cause so that it can widely infiltrate and influence perceptions of the war. So drawing a line, sharp or fuzzy, between the Lost Cause ethos and the kernels of truth it’s built on isn’t easy clear. I don’t always agree with you or with Atun Shei, but you’re both doing good and important work.
Definitely
Lost Cause mythology is a myth itself.
@@Freedom_Half_Off All too true.
The men who actually fought the war put it behind them, attended reunions together, even dedicated the monuments to their dead together at times.
Anyone else is a johnny-come-lately or Monday morning QB.
I think the phrase "abolition" in the quote at 23:19 confuses the context as to also include the North when the remainder of the quote probably just refers to the South. The portion "it was fear of a mischief far more extensive and deeper than this" with 'this' referring to abolition of slavery, is what brings it to the level of Lost Cause-ism since it implies that fear of something greater than abolition of slavery ("property, constitutional rights, and her liberties") was the primary motivating factor.
As a young german history student I have to say I HATE this dumb quote everyone tend to say "hisory is writen by the victors" as it dosent say anything but implies directly a feeling of unfair treatment in the view of events.
And its just not true, it really depends which history we mean.
For example the history of the peleponesian war is writen by Thucydides, an athenian ...and athen lost the war against sparta. Or in germany many years after world war 2 history about the war was actually writen by former generals and veterans, the german losers of the war then writen there own history, blaming hitler about all and try to make the Wehrmacht "with a white jacket".
I would really say that it depends which history we look at and in which country. This quote just is stupid as a general thing.
Even then, the ex-nazis helped shaped a lot of our understanding of history by recontexualizing history to push blame away from them to different reasons, mainly onto hitler. The losers helped shaped our understanding of ww2 history on the german side so a lot of misconceptions come up cause of it and a lot of people believe them cause of it.
@@SquidsAgainstChickens Exactly, in this case its quite the opposite of "the victors write history" and its not the only example
Atun-Shei also made a video about King Philip's War. It's not set in the era of the Civil War as usual, but I think it's worth reacting to as well. :)
Always appreciate your added knowledge and balanced approach!
Hope your feeling OK soon, love your content so much!
Hi, Chris, I hope you're feeling 100 per cent very soon. An interesting video which your comments made even better. I was rewatching one of your earlier videos this afternoon and heard you say you were related to Sir Francis Drake. A video about some of your ancestors would be great, I would enjoy that.
Came to this a few days late. Very well presented! I too have ancestors on both sides of the conflict. On my mother's side, there are 2 lines that did the "Prince to Pauper" conversion after the slaves were free. One of them, remained honorable people for the most part while the other remained exceptionally bitter. When the two families were merged by a marriage, the bitter one rubbed off on the other. My mom was never a bigot (taking after her mother and maternal grandmother), but her dad was. I never got to really know my maternal grandpa in large part because my parents were concerned about what level of influence he might have on me (he had other issues as well). I just remember the one phone conversation I had with him where he kept talking about he needed me to come visit and "beat up the black kids going across his lawn ". As someone who has studied that era and who is from a Southern family, I do understand where some Southerners are coming from with their defense of statues and the Confederate flag (southern pride). But I also agree it's disingenuous to pretend slavery wasn't at the root of it all. The other motivations were certainly there, but if you keep digging, slavery is an influence somewhere with it.
My former partner, Doug was a history teacher and on his final exam, the last question was: What was the Civil War fought over?
If you did not mention Slavery you got an F even if you got all the other questions right.
My man.....
Based
Because it shows a general misunderstanding of the conflict.
I think the big thing here, that even Atun-Shei isn't communicating, is how Radical Republicanism aka Abolitionist though exploded among rank and file Union soldiers progressed. Grant comes up the most, but General Butler went from a North Democrat Doughface (the original doughface!) ended up waving the bloody shirt (again, the original) and becoming the head of the Radical Republicans during the height of their power. Sure the politics of the war began just as Union Preservation evolving not only their politics after the fact, but their motives for fighting the Civil War. Exposure to the blight of African Americans, as well as fighting side by side and living next to them didn't just soften their hearts but systemically challenged their notions of white supremacy on the extreme but far from fringe spectrum.
Often during civil wars or sectarian conflicts the core principals change. The French Revolution begun with just the desire to limit the power of kings in case another inept one like Louie or a tyrant came to power again and create a somewhat representative constitutional monarchy. I don't think by the end everyone agrees it broadened to democratic/republican ideological conflict, even under Napoleon.
Also I'd say even at the beginning of the war, it was STILL about slavery to the North, just not Abolitionism. Lincoln and the Republican's platform didn't want to ban it overnight, but he openly stated he wanted to contain and restrict it. The message clearly was 'we aren't taking your slaves away now, but we are hoping to end the institution gradually'. Not remotely the same political or ideological position the war ended on, but still! The South was right to be worried, though uh still the evil party
sorry to know that you have been under the weather. thank you for taking the time to put this video together; your comments are very sensical and well thought out. May God bless you with a complete recovery and a happy thanksgiving.
I've also been recovering from sickness. Godspeed with your recovery (if you are still sick). With that said, I just picked up a biography of Salmon P. Chase. I'm looking forward to getting into it! Videos on specific people involved in American politics at that time like Charles Sumner, William Seward, Fred Douglass, etc. Seems like an interesting project!
The gay frog guy he mentions is the clip from Alex Jones where he said “They’re putting stuff in the water and turning the fricking frogs gay”. It’s a few years old
Glad to hear your feeling a little better Sir. Hope you continue to be on the up and up.
The conversation about the victors writing the history reminded me of a couple videos I've thought of suggesting in the past where I wondered what your perspective might be, but it's skipped my mind. I'd love to see you revisit Potential History for "History Is Not Written By The Victors" and "Germany, The Cold War, and a Pervasive Narrative." They're more focused on World War II, but they tie in together pretty well and it's a fascinating look at how the historical record can be influenced and even dictated for a long time by the losing side of a conflict.
Always awesome to see your reaction to Checkmate, Lincolnites! I really appreciated your balanced approach to these.
At 8:13 you looked confused by the “gay frog guy” part. If you were it was a reference to an Alex Jones rant. Thanks for another great reaction by the way.
It took me a minute to get that too. 😂
Thank you so very much for the video.
And hope you're feeling better.
Checking this later... you start by saying "either will do 2 parts or I won't talk a lot". Well, that's in your matter of expertise, for sure there will be a second part!
Great content, Chris, you add good insights. And I say that as the Civil War isn't much an interest to me, because as a Canadian I don't care much about it, but I watched it knowing there will be something to learn and reflect.
This is very well done....I appreciate the commentary...it helps me, as someone from the north, help understand why people think the way they do...i never really thought of the southern soldiers thoughts...it make much more sense as you think about things from both sides....KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
One of the great tragedies of war is when good, devout, brave people sacrifice themselves and/or their future for an unworthy cause.
i blame the politicians not the soldier as they usually fed a lie
When someone invades your home you fight back that's just common sense.
@@vyshakvidyasakar762 both sides are to blame for the war nobody has clean hands in it.
@@rc59191 Interesting area of retreat. The original video includes plenty of references to actual letters by soldiers on the ground who were clearly motivated by something other than "defending their homes," and it's pretty rough.
@@wvu05 ya I saw it none of those letters had any way to verify if they were real or not.
on the topic of honoring your ancestors...
My ancestors were vikings. Brave heroic men who rode upon dragonheaded longships across the baltics, the ocean, into the mediterranean and even managed to reach baghdad. They were impeccable craftsmen and warriors who conquered and built kingdoms, with their norman successors continuing their legacy.
But they were also ruthless killers, slavers and marauders who spread terror and horror across much of europe, like a pre-amble to the mongols on a smaller yet nevertheless terrifying scale.
Whenever i talk about my ancestors, of how much i respect them and admire them, i dont need to also pretext it by saying "but they were also vile killers who burnt monks and raped monasteries", because not only is everyone aware of it, but no one ever once tried to argue otherwise, or argue that they were the good guys.
That is where neo-confederates, wehraboos, Japanese imperial apologists and other such people start to diverge from other people who honor their ancestors, because they built their ancestral admiration on a massive pile of lies, revisionism and straight up mythology whilst generally sane people admire their ancestors from a distance.
Lost causers will legit tell you that their ancestors fought for states rights against union Tyranny, before spewing some horseshit about how benevolent confederate slavery was, because hypocrisy is beyond them.
This is a good point and exactly why I think the guy stepped on the rake a bit here. Being able to honor some of the good aspects of your ancestors doesn't make you an A hole inherently. One reason I could see someone being "proud" would be because the southern soldiers must've known the odds were massively against them, yet they bravely fought albeit for an ultimately evil cause. So basically its like most things, a nuanced topic.
Just a heads up, when he was talking about the “Gay frog guy” he was referencing that one Alex Jones clip from his infowars channel
And Alex was right too. Atrazine, like a lot of herbicides, is a common water-resource pollutant, and has been documented to affect the reproduction behavior of amphibians.
@@redaug4212 Enviromentalist Alex Jones. Go Green!
@@ignatzmeyer1978 Unironically yes. Just don't trust the US government to go green for you because they wont. There's too much money involved.
@@redaug4212 But not because the government itself is evil, but the big influence of corporate lobbists
@@ignatzmeyer1978 It's a mutual relationship. Corporations can only get away with poisoning people so long as the federal government is willing to cover for them; as the EPA often does. If corporations are evil for selling poison, then the government is evil for taking their money and looking the other way.
Hi Chris. Really hope you’re back to 100 percent soon. I had a few days to marinate in this one and mull things over between it’s release and your reaction. As someone from a Union state, I do see a lot of believers in what seems to be the Lost Cause. I also have a German friend whose Grandfather was in the Wehrmacht and thus my views are imbued with both perspectives, but it really bothers me when people seem to glorify the Confederacy at all. Do you think I have the lines between glorifying the cause and remembering ancestors blurred or what do you think? How can I stop myself from that kind of thinking?
Not Chris, but I'll give my thoughts on the topic (take them or leave them). To me, the danger in the glorification of historical figures and causes seems to come from painting harmful ideas as more benevolent than they actually were. It's completely possible to say "Yeah, my great great grandpa was a complicated, multifaceted man, and even though he fought for a cause that I know to be unjust, I still respect and honor him for his other deeds" without having that problem. I think the problem comes into play when people refuse to accept or acknowledge any wrongdoing from the figures being honored and remembered. In fact, I believe that acknowledging the flaws of our ancestors helps us to better understand and honor the person they truly were in a deeper and more meaningful way than touting a mythicized, perfect version of them that never really existed. Just like I can read and enjoy a Lovecraft novel, and recognizing the fact that he was massively racist and xenophobic only adds to the depth at which I understand his writing and its inspiration. People are all flawed, some more than others, but that doesn't mean they need to be condemned and forgotten entirely.
Interesting video. Well explained on both sides.
P.S. England looked solid today
It was Iran
@Andy Pandy Still gotta beat the team in front of you. England made 2 mistakes today and Iran scored off both of them
Currently watching at 3 a.m. ET with a 100.9 fever so I feel you pain. Your video is helping take my mind off it. I love Atun-Shei, but as always, I appreciate your insight, too.
VTH. You're such a prolific updater, I wouldn't have even known you were falling behind if you hadn't said you were sick.
Glad to see you feeling better. I was concerned when I saw your last video. It was evident that you'd been having a rough time of it. As someone who grew up immersed in lost cause mythology, I can attest to the accuracy of the observations made from childhood experience. I spent years unlearning what had been presented to me as literal gospel. Looking forward to the next installment.
This is the only channel every time I see a new video I click on it and enjoy it every time
6:30 Andrew talks abt “The Outlaw Josey Wales” as a great civil war film as well as praising Shelby Foote. So I think you have the wrong perspective there just from the gods and generals video
Listening to him speak about "Lost Cause Evangelist" makes me remember the game Bioshock Infinite at how the Lost Causers painted the North.
The gay frog guy is Alex Jones. "They are turning the frogs gay!"
He was right about thattoo
One of the best ways I like to think of honoring your ancestors bad or good is to be better than they were whether it be morally better or academically better or both
I watched this one yesterday. Wait until you see the very end. It's crazy!!
What, precisely, is the purpose of "taking pride in [one's] ancestors" (19:54)? I mean to question the essential function of assuming such a point of view, _the honoring of one's antecedents._ I can understand that there might be an emotional boost from the association with some ancestor who performaed a remarkable worthwhile act, and that a wider recognition of such acts adds to that emotional boost. However, I don't believe heaping any honora on a dead progenitor provides any actual benefit to that deceased individual. In fact, when we honor our ancesors, what we are actually doing is attempting to bring honor to ourselves. We boost the ancestor's reputation and then borrow from it. My conclusion is this: the honoring of ancestors, either genetic or cultural, is a self-serving emotional exercise.
Of course it’s a self serving emotional exercise. How is that any different than events that we hold for Memorial Day, for example?
@@VloggingThroughHistory No difference at all. My point was that such "honoring" is, in effect, an artifice. Granted, it may serve particular functions to the benefit -- or detriment -- of the human psyche, but the entire premise is one of practical delusion. What is of more intrinsic value is what we _learn_ from the behaviors and experiences of those people, in other words, their history.
In typical histrionic fashion, Donald Trump, in reaction to the dismantling of Confederate memorials, said something to the effect of questioning whether it would lead to the destruction of all memorials. And that got me to thinking: what if it did? If we have history books, why do we need monuments? This led to a consideration of ancestor worship, as practiced by some traditional cultures. FInally, it brought me around to the concept of "original sin," how its effects are supposedly visited upon all creatures born human, and how seemingly unfair and presumptuous that seems to be, at least to me, a former seminarian.
If I am not responsible for my fathers' sins, then I am no more responsible for their honorable or dishonorable behavior. Honoring or apologizing for them becomes an act of self-indulgence. What's more, even in its mildest forms, it smacks of prsonality cult.
One might debate the practical effects of Memorial Day tributes on the morale of extant serving military, but the aggrandizing of ancestors, per se, has a distinct risk of obscuring the message of history. One might further debate whether one's ancestor was or was not responsible for the general trend of a particular sociatal circumstance, but, frankly, I don't think it rises to being worthy of concern, let alone mention. IMH -- if lengthy -- O
@@VloggingThroughHistory Allow me to make clear that my prior comments were not meant to reference you personally regarding your ancestors. I am new to your channel and was not aware of your many historical ties at the time I replied. To be clear, it was not my intent to reference anyone individually regarding their personal histories. My point was intended to draw a line between the motivation of historical figures and the behavior or actions that they pursued. It is my contention that an emphasis on the character of the historical actors is a distraction from the facts of their actions. We get hung up defending or deriding a figure's character when, in fact, that character may have been significant at the time history occurred, but now that focus can obscure what actually happened. I admit, it's a fine point, but a history of personalities does not seem to offer the same lessons as a history of what happened.
I was listening to this video last week and wondering what your take on it would be, thanks for letting us know despite the fact you're under the weather. Get well soon!
Love it. Will McKee (18th GA, B Company) injured 1862, recovered, and then deserted in 1864. Pledged his allegiance back to the US before the war ended
Guess he decided he'd rather not "fall in the struggle for it"
Hope you better I really do enjoy your videos it’s really important to learn about the civil war from both sides many people fought and died for what they believe in I believe in seeing everyone get along now matter what there race are
I will have to disagree with one of your early statements. The Civil War was one of the few wars where the losers wrote most of the histories. Lee protrayed as some kind of war saint and Grant painted as the Butcher. The glorifications of the limited success of the war East of the Appalachians and ignoring the fact that West of the Appalachians was realistic a series of Union victories that split the Confederacy as they isolated the South and destroyed the industrial capacity of the Confederacy.
You are so right in what you say in your commentary. I have studied civil war history for 30 years and i still learn.
One other example of history constantly being rewritten that's near and dear to my heart: the Three Kingdoms era of China (3rd century CE). In the immediate aftermath, the Jin Dynasty which was descended from the Wei Dynasty pushed the notion that the Wei Dynasty was the legitimate inheritor of the Han Dynasty. In the 14th century, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms was published, one of the 4 Great Chinese Classics, and became a gigantic cultural touchstone. It is historical fiction and should not be mistaken otherwise, but it became so influential that it altered the common perception of the Three Kingdoms era, establishing the Shu-Han Dynasty as the virtuous with larger-than-life heroes while the Wei Dynasty were the villains. In just the 21st century, as non-Chinese media have visited this time period, I've watched the history around this be reconsidered and it is fascinating to watch.
Cao Cao! Cao Cao! Cao Cao! :D
it also cause alot of this stuff is hard to know if it actually happened cause it very mixed with mythology
@@painvillegaming4119 Some of it. We have original writings from people like Cao Cao and Zhou Yu and the Records of the Three Kingdoms was written during the Jin Dynasty so we do have some things. But things like "why did Lu Bu betray Dong Zhuo" we don't know. Was it because he was sleeping with a maid (the origin of the Diao Chan mostly-myth) or was it because Dong Zhuo threw a halberd near his head in a fit of rage? I think it's hilarious that we have actual documentation that Sun Shang Xiang/Sun Ren/Lady Sun was a tomboy who terrified Liu Bei but don't even know what her name actually was.
But like I said, the biggest problem is that what is common knowledge mostly comes from Romance of the Three Kingdoms. While serious historians can mostly pull apart fact from fiction, the stories we tell each other mostly come from the fiction.
@@forgottenfamily if am not mistaking liu bei existence is also up in the air
@@painvillegaming4119 No, Liu Bei's existence if firmly established. His work during the Yellow Turban rebellion was far more limited (though he was recognized for distinguished service) and he had zero involvement in the anti-Dong Zhou coalition - this appears to be entirely an invention of Romance - but his service and succession of Tao Qian in Xu Province (Xia Pi) through to his founding of Shu-Han is very well established in history.
The more recent revision is towards both his talent and supposed virtue. He has a few points that lend credence - his disastrous retreat south from Cao Cao does appear to have been largely from him willingly escorting a large refugee convoy and he was given Xu Province over Tao Qian's children both suggesting that he had some virtue to him, but he betrayed each of Cao Cao and Sun Quan on separate occasions not to mention how he came to be in charge of Cheng Du. As for military success, if we exclude every battle that Zhuge Liang was a part of, his military record is quite poor. I believe Hanzhong is the only campaign he officially won without Zhuge - Zhuge was back governing Cheng Du at the time but might have drafted the original plan. And actually, I believe Cao Cao's attack on Lu Bu at Xia Pi is the only other campaign he was a part of without Zhuge that was successful (he was like 1 for 3 in battles involving Xia Pi)
I saw the Atun-Shei video on my feed, but was waiting to see your reaction to it just because I love hearing different perspectives on history, and you're one of the only UA-cam reactors who really adds to the conversation. I hope you feel better soon and I'm looking forward to the second half.
I largely view Atun-Shei's commentary as a high grade pop history like whatever Kurtzgesagt is to pop science than an exhaustive and historical review of the sources and the evolution of this over time.
This is education UA-cam perfection. Atun-Shei's vids are already packed with details and context, and you add even more, on top of that. You have a different perspective and express those differences with dignity and precision. And finally, there is a very particular kind of anger that sparks in you whenever you discuss the history of Reconstruction and the KKK, a moral fire that shines through professionalism. I cannot put into words how valuable those reactions are for me (an atheist leftie) - to see a conservative and Christian who seems to be guided by faith instead of being blinded by it. Mad respect, good Sir.
Autun Shei has actively enjoyed films that depict the southern perspective of the civil war, but ones that do so in a way that avoid the Lost Cause Myth. Also there's plenty of reasons to hate the Confederacy. Given so many were implicated in the secession that led to so many supporting slavery and owning slaves and fighting for the rights to persecure hundreds of thousands of people. The Lost Cause myth is seen in films like Gods and Generals because of their blatant canonising of the Confederate slave owning generals by ignoring the problems and depicting them almost as Saints. That sort of almost heroic and holy depiction of the Southern leadership is part of the Lost Cause myth, the Lost Causers treat Lee and Jackson and other generals as leaders of some glorious cause when they were just protecting their despicable source of property and a brutal economic system. Honoring an ancestor of the confederacy is still honoring the cause they are attached to. They fought for a horrific cause. It'd be like honoring an SS officer or a Wermacht war criminal you're still honoring the horrible things they did. Same with US war criminals from ww2.
I think you missed the point at 24:33:"The late Civil War...has been generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause." Jones is setting up a straw man, it's well known that the North didn't enter the war to abolish slavery. Jones goes on to say it was "fear of a mischief far more extensive" that drove Southern secession, but he avoids saying what mischief specifically. It's classic Just Cause BS.
I really enjoy the reviews of Atun-shei's Checkmate Lincolnites :D Hope you are well soon!
Slavery and state‘s rights were intertwined with each other. The southern states were also in fear of being left behind by the north‘s rapid and thorough industialization and becoming an economic backwater and losing their culture. Which included slavery. For what it’s worth I am from the south, born and raised with ancestors who mostly fought for the confederacy. I don’t know what their motivations were but i can’t imagine slavery wasn’t part of the equation.
Sorry if my comment wasn’t as clear as intended. There is no possible way to separate slavery and state‘s rights as the cause of succession. It was the primary driver. Ancillary to that was the loss of antebellum southern culture, of which slave owning was a central pillar. It is an indelible stain on our history and the northern cause post-1862 was a righteous one.
Hope you feel better, I always enjoy your content
Coming back to this video after watching Japan military aggression that was left unchecked (punished), it would seem like not taking these Southern generals to court after the war was a mistake. It lead to Southerners reasoning themselves into thinking they were just in their succession.
I always wonder how much of these problems would have been lessend/worsened had lincoln not been killed and his post war plans enacted
Interesting that you mentioned the men who chose to fight for the Confederacy from border states. My family comes from West Virginia. About half fought for the Confederates and half were Union. One of my ancestors from present-day Jackson County WV took his two sons across the OH River to join an Ohio Cavalry Regiment in the early days of the war.
There was no such thing as West Virginia until Virginia succeeded.
Love your videos, I pray you get to feeling better!
I think one of things that gets lost in the whole "why would the common southerner fight for slavery" and the confusion that comes with being confronted with the quotes from the soldiers is that you have to remember that these people were whipped up by propaganda in the same way we are today. For instance, why would poor southerners today that work for mega corporations keep fighting for ideals of giving the corporations more and more tax cuts in the face of those same corporations using those tax cuts to enrich the people at the top? Even worse, they see that pay has gone up marginally because of a lack of willing workers. They have proof that unconditional tax cuts did nothing and labor refusing to participate did something. But they continue to fervently back the idea of even more unconditional tax cuts and tell people to go back to work and quit being lazy. Their convictions don't have to make sense. They just have to be convinced to have them. Politicians and the wealthy have always had the ability and resources to sell people (especially people who are busy fighting tooth and nail to make a living rather than studying socioeconomic policy) on whatever benefits said politicians and wealthy. Even if you disagree with me on the specific example, put one you agree with in. I'm sure you can think of at least one.
The average confederate soldier was sold a bill of goods by rich slave holders.
3:15 that’s the same sentence I use whenever someone tries to tell me the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.
Outlaw Josey Wales is the best “Lost Cause” movie. While not historically accurate by any means, it has an amazingly written story where you can almost believe that Josey Wales existed somewhere in that time period.
It's not really a lost cause movie though. Yes he's a confederate but the story isn't trying to push a pro-confederate or "noble-south" message. That would be like saying cold mountain is a lost cause movie or hell on wheels was a lost cause tv show.
Just out of curiosity, would you consider reacting to the Last Week Tonight segment they did on the Confederacy? From what I remember it was pretty funny, and rather informative.
Your look at the "gay frog guy" was priceless
I don’t understand how celebrating the confederacy is about your ancestry. The confederacy wasn’t an ethnicity. It wasn’t a culture group. It wasn’t a religion. It was a failed rebel state that lasted about 4 years. You don’t have to honor your ancestors by celebrating 4 years. Why don’t you celebrate the other 300 years of history that took place in USA besides the confederacy? also, why does everyone have to have “good” ancestors. Why can’t people accept that maybe not every single person in your family history was a wonderful person? Every family has good people and bad people.
Idk, as I have been saying in other replies, VTH has recently become a lot more openly pro-Confederate and it makes me uncomfortable. It's like he just deep down refuses to accept that the Confederacy was a white supremacist state.
@@mudnarchist like, I got assholes in my family TODAY. it is a cliche that everyone has family that has opinions you disagree with, or is a jerk, or whatever. But if they’re a family member you never met from 200 years ago it’s suddenly impossible for your family members to have flaws or even possibly be bad people? It’s beyond naive.
@@Mosca_Tube I know. Idk I genuinely used to really like this channel cuz of how chill it was. After VTH's pro-monarchy, anti-voter, and weirdly defensive comments about the Confederacy, I am starting to become less and less of a fan.
Really good video Chris hope you feel better soon!
With the rampant dishonesty and absence of accountability, I don't blame people for looking to Alex Jones. Hating those people is hating the symptom.
That said, I hate the symptom.
I’d recommend watching his video about The Outlaw Josie Wales, that’s basically him loving a piece of media gold from the confederate point of view that *isnt* lost cause propaganda
I’ll admit as a former lost causer right now, any sort of charitable view of the south during the war makes me irrationally angry. I’m trying to come to terms with it as I’m more mad that I was duped by a history teacher I had when I knew he was incredibly biased at the time. Maybe one day I’ll have a more balanced view of the war but right now I’m still pissed a history teacher with a Bachelor’s degree in Bible studies from an non accredited college managed to fool me into believing the south was in the right.
Great commentary on one of my favourite channels.
In response to Honoring Family ancestors in the military. The common soldiers in war face the same horrors no matter what side they are on. In WW1 Allies had Trenches the Germans had Trenches both used Gas saw the same things Death Destruction and so on. I remember talking to a Canadian Veteran once. He said we didn't fight for the politicians in charge and their goals we fought for our Country the flag on our shoulder our Families our brother and sisters in arms in the same foxhole for others suffering in other countries. Every Soldier has a different story and reason on why they fight maybe they support what the government is doing maybe not that doesn't mean that if they died in the line of duty doing what they thought was right they should not be forgotten. Each side in history always believes they are doing the right thing from their point of view. I agree you can honor any soldier from your family who served because it does not mean you believe what they believed or what the country they where fighting for believed. For we are all human and have different views.
Speaking as someone who grew up in China, one angle we could look at this with is a comparison to the Sino-Japanese war. Many of the Japanese war heroes are installed and commemorated in Yasukuni JInja in Tokyo, including many who orchestrated the invasion of China. It is the act of war and war crimes committed by those individuals, and the spirit of militarism and fascism that we condemn, but it is another issue when it comes to common soldiers who were defending their homes. Indeed, many war crimes were carried out by the commons soldiers as well. And that we record and condemn. Those who committed the crime, if alive, should also be punished. This just makes the recording of such actions all the more important and meaningful.
As per Britannica:
"Lost Cause, an interpretation of the American Civil War viewed by most historians as a myth that attempts to preserve the honour of the South by casting the Confederate defeat in the best possible light."
As per Wikipedia:
"The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is an American pseudohistorical negationist mythology that claims the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was just, heroic, and not centered on slavery."
In this case, I side with Atun Shei. The Lost Cause is pernicious and prevalent. And Gods and Generals is absolutely a perpetrator (and also a terrible movie).
Love this series and love your reactions, get well soon!
One of the more interesting places where history is being rewritten- correctly- is with regards to Napoleon.
I always grew up learning that Waterloo was a close fight and that Napoleon would've been able to hold power.
That just isn't true, and the modern narrative has begin to speak to that- Napoleon could not have won the 100 days war.
I think that's exactly it. Waterloo seemed like the decisive moment, but with modern perspectives we can look back and see that, eveni f he had won, the Coalition would've tried again, and again, and again, until he finally lost.
D-Day was crucial, but it only worked because of the other operations and the insane logistics involved. Gettysburg was tactically important, but Vicksburg was far more strategically significant.
@@richeybaumann1755 Looking at chess as an analogy (which is fitting since chess is a war game), some people look at the endgame as when the game is won or lost, but most of the time, something that happened much earlier in the game gave the ultimate winner the favorable position going into the endgame.
For that matter, while watching The Great War series, it wasn't really obvious that Germany was losing until well into 1918, but the successful naval blockade really made it a matter of time.
I love this one. It is great. It says what the ground soldiers said and thought. It was the best of his videos. Thank you for showing what the everyday soldier was truly ready to die for. I am kind of dissatisfied with the idea that the upper guys were the ones who fought for slavery when it was ALL OF THEM. They were not fighting for their homes, they were fighting for white supremacy. And the white northern never stated they were not a bunch of racists that is the point. They were not fighting for equality and they were not going to die for it. That was the job of the people of Black people. The North were fighting for the continuation of the union, nothing more. There were more sundown towns in mid America than in the South. The fact that the northern never changed their horse mid stream and tried to sell woof tickets to the rest of us as fact.
Those status went up to remind black people of their place while they were attempting to gain their constitutional rights. And the anger was already there. The former Confederates did not join the Klan to avenge their lost war but to once again remind the blacks where they stood in the natural order of things. And the occasional statements are a reflection of the still deep water of White Supremacy. It is so deep you are uncomfortable saying it and laws are being written in which whites being made uncomfortable because they are racist are being written. WHY are you comfortable with racism? AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHY YOU MAKE THAT ARRANGEMENT? Really? Because I cant wrap my mind around it. The Confederates would be equal to the Nazis if not for the Daughters of the Confederate.
Let us be honest, everyone should be proud of their ancestors except for the former slaves. There is where the lines should be draw because that reflects poorly on your confederate ancestors. Tell the truth you side eye the people who are proud of the Nazi grandfather who worked filling ovens. You are going to look crazy eyed at that person. And then you are uncomfortable with the teaching of the history of the slaves because well that is something you are uncomfortable with and uncomfortable laws are there to protect you.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUTH IS MADE UP OF THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE. Stop trying to separate the two.
And you cant tell me Lost Cause isnt still a religion that ignores the people whom it to this day still hurts.
"The war was about slavery" is a true statement. "The war was not only about slavery" is also a true statement. South Carolina seceded over fears of slavery being outlawed federally while some slave states remained in the Union. Virginia broke itself in two over whether or not to secede. Many free states were exceptionally racist against black Americans (looking at my own Oregon here which forbade both slavery and the entry of free black Americans by law in the 1840s and 50s) despite absolute aversion to slavery.
Any time something is painted as strictly black and white in the historical record it deserves a closer look and this is no exception. I'm not convinced that the American method of militarily ending slavery was better than the British method of the government buying and freeing all the slaves. It's certainly more of a contemporary topic here than it seems to be over there even though they only just finished paying off the related debt in 2015.
I think instead of talking about the American method of ending slavery, you should specifically say the Southern method of trying to preserve slavery.
Lincoln, although a part of the Abolitionist-led Republican party at the time, promised to not touch the current institution of slavery. However, the Southern States wanted the expansion of slavery, which is why they rejected the Corwin Amendment before the war. Then they started raiding Federal forts and armories for weapons to prepare for the war.
The South started the war while Lincoln begged them not to do it. No matter the reason for doing so, the South pulled the trigger. Over losing an election.
Does that sound oddly familiar to anyone else?
you cant really say "militarily ending slavery is bad" when that was the only option.
There's a weird stigma around 'revisionist history.' Not only does the contemporary political right feel as if there is an element of 'wokeness' in regard to the teaching of history nowadays, but the traditionalist camps when it comes to political arguments are often annoyed by later-emerging historical opinions. The decision to use the Atomic Bombs, for some reason is the one that comes to mind for me.
Immediately after the war, and for several decades after, the predominant opinion was that these were 'necessary' to win the war as and when it was to 'save lives.' There is an element of history being written by the victor here, this concept plays a massive role in influencing the purposes of sources of information. Furthermore, there is the issue of access to information, and personal positions. Many post-war historians in the West were soldiers or had family members that were soldiers. It was easier for them to justify the bombs by feeling that they themselves, their comrades and/or their family relate to the situation in one-way shape or form. Hell, even contemporary servicemen and women might feel they relate to this to some degree. But as the years go by, and the historical spectators become more impartial, more sources of information are uncovered, declassified and used, you begin to be able to paint a bigger picture. Japanese, Soviet and American sources as the years go by begin to paint a far more detailed and convoluted picture that all point toward Japan surrendering because, well, there were a million and one different reasons. The A-bombs definitely made a dent, but they were not *the* reason for capitulation, nor were they necessary to facilitate victory. They were necessary to facilitate a post-war international political situation that the USA wanted, one that was in their favour, but not necessary to capitulate Japan.
This same concept can be applied to many situations. The further you get from a political event (at least more modern history, ancient history is a whole other battle) the more information you have access to, and the more impartial people are likely to be. It's about breaking down sources, their provenance, their purpose, their access to information and understanding how and why people have come to the conclusions that they have come to.
Lincolnites has grown much less black and white as it's gone on. Atun Shei has mentioned in some of his Q/A content being regretful about how 1-sided his early videos on the topic were
After the First World War, Many Germans from the Officer/Land owning Prussian class, talked about the Stab in the Back Myth.
The argument was Germany was in the Brink of winning the war, they still held parts of France and Belguim, and huge parts of the East
That is was the Civiians who stabbed them in the back.
This Stab in the back was taken over by the Nazi, who stated it was the Jews who weilded the knife.
In reality it was the German high command , who called for peace, who instructed the Civilains, they could not win the war, only lose it.
That ending was about as random as full-frontal Nudity in a child film.
You'll see what I mean...
It's a good day when another "Checkmate Lincolnites" drops. A great day is when your reaction to the video drops.