Was it REALLY the War of Northern Aggression? - Historian Reaction

See the original video here - • Was it REALLY the WAR ...
The mods on our discord server have graciously set up a fund to support our future History Vlogs. You can donate here - www.gofundme.c...
Become a supporter through Patreon for exclusive supporter rewards - / vth
If you want to see more of this, make sure to hit LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and leave a comment! And if you'd like to have more input into the future of the channel, consider joining my patron team. Thank you in advance!
Check out History Guy Gaming (my strategy gaming channel) - / @thehistoryguy
Updated link for Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: [e-mail]
Special Thanks to the following who are the official sponsors of this channel:
Tier 6 - Mike Tasset, Insane
Tier 5 - Kai Stasch
Tier 4 - Graham Brown, Sandor Nagy
Tier 3 - Qethsegol, Robin Svensson, Austin White, Chris Curtis, John Molden, Peter Gadja, Raoul Kunz

[@Lp-army1]

I want a comment of mine to be pinned so ill say this ill get a yt channel thats another history guy and tell them to get this channel to 1 mil

[@CommanderStream123]

you got pinned

[@Lp-army1]

Lol

[@gabrielegenota1480]

@Rogelio Soren scam scam scam. Doesn't take half a second to look up how all of this is a fuckin scaaaam that'll just take your credentialsss

[@marknix8962]

you are comparing genocide with slavery you lose my respect every time

[@JacksonYT198]

Mark Nix they worked the slaves so hard it could be considered that (not all slave owners but the most brutal)

[@Chasmodius]

The great part about Atun-Shei videos on the Civil War is that he has the first hand experience of having been a "lost cause" believer for years, and came to the truth (or at least, the opposite opinion) through research and scholarship. So he is intimately familiar with the arguments, but also fully willing to acknowledge the nuance that exists in the arguments both for and against. And of course, his cinematography is pretty good, and his accents and acting are always outrageously fun!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Interesting to know a little more of his background. Thanks for sharing!

[@bigrigjoe5130]

@@VloggingThroughHistory He also used to be a paid New Orleans and Gettysburg tour guide/civil War Re-enactor. That's why his accents and weird mannerisms are simutaniously quite good but also so cartoony over the top and performative.

[@Rixoli]

Fascinating, I've watched a few of his videos and wasn't aware he actually bought into that side of things once upon a time.

[@drewdurbin4968]

He also leaves out many relevant sources....for example making a video dealing with Thomas J. Jackson and not referencing the work Of Dr. James Robertson....the expert on Jackson. Just sayin...

[@jordanh3665]

@@drewdurbin4968 He isn't perfect, nobody is, but he does good work in helping bring this topic to the attention of others who might be interested to learn more, or others who may have never even heard of it before. Idk about you but personally I'd wager that he has done more good than bad, but that's just my opinion.

[@NewGuy2534]

It’s funny whenever someone says “X state succeeded because of state rights, not slavery” when if you look up those same “State Rights” and Ctrl+F the word “Slavery” the whole document becomes yellow.

[@remo27]

Try Virginia :)

[@benhaney9629]

Yeah states in the confederacy both weren’t allowed to make slavery illegal and not secede from the confederacy...

[@99EKjohn]

@@yashjoseph3544 mentions slave states, not slavery, in relation to how the federal government was handling the situation. Nice attempt to gaslight though.

[@yashjoseph3544]

@@99EKjohn there is a very clear emphasis on the fact that the states owned slaves. Why would Virginia bother putting that in the first place unless they wanted to make clear they were seceding because of slavery. In fact, on April 17, 1861, Virginia, provoked by Lincoln’s raising troops to suppress the already seceded states, declared “Lincoln’s opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” as it cut ties with Washington. Slavery was also brought up a LOT during Virginia's Secession Convention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Secession_Convention_of_1861

[@99EKjohn]

@@yashjoseph3544 it's just how the southern states were identified at the time. The emphasis is your own. Northern states described southern states as slave holding states as well, even when they were not talking about slavery.

[@artembentsionov]

Wasn’t the South less insistent on states’ rights when it was not in their interests? Like the Fugitive Slave Act, which was arguably a violation of those same rights

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Absolutely.

[@wolfman4204]

But wasn’t the fugitive slave act saying that escaped slaves could be returned to their masters and not the right to own them. If that act wasn’t passed it could’ve been if a Slave escapes they’re free if they make it to a free state. I’m not agreeing with the fugitive slave act or slavery I’m just curious on how that act is insistent on states rights

[@artembentsionov]

@@wolfman4204 I believe the act forced the free states’ governments to cooperate and allowed bounty hunters from slave states to enter free states to retrieve escaped slaves. The point is that slaves states were using the federal government to force free states to do something the free states didn’t want and didn’t believe that black people should be property

[@pyromania1018]

@@wolfman4204 It isn't: the South used it as an excuse to kidnap random people off the streets who clearly weren't runaway slaves while expecting Northern states to pay for it, and when this was refused and Northern states began issuing laws designed to protect legal citizens from being abducted and stripped of their identities and humanity, the South threw a tantrum.

[@glamourweaver]

@@wolfman4204 the constitution requires the return of escaped slaves, but gives no framework for how it works. In the 1830s-40s many northern states adopted “personal Liberty laws” to try and shield escaped slaves, particularly requiring jury trials to convict them of being escaped slaves to return them, and then the northern juries could proceed to ignore the evidence and said escapees go. The compromise of 1850 however, as it’s most important concession to the South, included the Fugitive Slave Act, which imposed heavy fines and prison time on anyone who assisted an escaped slave (even officials just doing nothing was fine worthy), and allowed the Federal GoC to go in and seize an escaped slave if necessary. It was a substantial expansion of federal power over the states for the purpose of PROTECTING slavery.

[@phoenixguild8375]

Tolkien had a term that he used when people would judge history through a modern perspective, He called it chronological snobbery. This isn't to say we should condone things that have happened in history, but to have this inherent judgement is just as bad. Atun-Shei does a great job emphasizing this point: As students of history we should seek to understand it, but that doesn't mean we have to condone it's events and decisions. - Atun Shei - ROUGH paraphrase.

[@robertmonroe7930]

I disagree entirely with Tolkien. "Chronological snobbery," is the only way we learn from history. How do we know slavery was wrong if we aren't judging based on the morals we live by today. Yes, it's important to understand WHY they thought the way they did, but learning from history is the single most important thing for continuance of this Nation. Atun shei did a great job laying down that argument

[@phoenixguild8375]

@@robertmonroe7930Thus the latter part of what I said. We have to understand it, not condone it. When I say this, I'm not saying that one must agree with decisions that were made, but rather that one must understand with what context they were made. This is what I mean, is to save criticism for ourselves, because ultimately it is ourselves that want to avoid what we see as mistakes or missteps. I don't think that the idea of avoiding this snobbery is a bad thing, because all it's saying is to reserve criticism of events until context is observed. It says nothing about agreeing with or condoning either decisions or the context about them, but it does permit objective analysis of events which is important in understanding the general issue that could have applications in avoiding such results in the future. I'll be blunt and say most of history is generally pretty miserable, and that Humans are just generally indifferent. Many middling, some bad, some worse, and some good. So when I say to withhold this judgement, it is only to withhold it until you fully understand the how's and why's because hindsight is infinitely clearer. That's what it is. People in the moment don't have the benefit of hindsight, so passing judgement on them as if they do is chronological snobbery. But if you understand why they made those decisions, then you can judge that. All it really means is to be objective, and to view history through a clear lens, unaffected by emotion. IE, tell it as it is. I hope that kinda clarifies what I am jabbing at by using that. It's been a while since I've popped into this thread.

[@robertmonroe7930]

@@phoenixguild8375 wasn't arguing just adding. I realize that.

[@phoenixguild8375]

@@robertmonroe7930All good, I enjoy talking about this sort of stuff so it's no biggie.

[@benlowe1701]

One observation: You don't need to compare "By Modern Standards" to think that slavery was an abomination. Slavery was known to be a horrific evil at the time. You know you knew? The Slaves. Saying "Well, they couldn't have none it was evil", is not only false, it suggests that the only people whose opinion of what was right and wrong mattered, was the white masters. You might as well say "Well, by the standards of the Nazi's in 1944, they couldn't have known the Holocaust was wrong." As if there weren't a host of other people and voices all of whom knew that Slavery was ill. I don't judge them by a modern perspective. I judge them by a contempory perspective. The thing to remember this this: The victims of any great atrocity, were as much a contempory voice as the perpetrators. The same, incidentally, is true of the victims of every horrific act of slaughter, genocide, and crime against humanity, ever perpetrated by any group.

[@theparadigm8149]

The Confederates: “Heck YEAH, it was a war of northern aggression!” Also the Confederates: “Yeah, we removed Lincoln from our election ballots and attacked Fort Sumpter first! So?!”

[@NikephorosCaesar]

Fort Sumpter was in a confederate state tho

[@theparadigm8149]

@@NikephorosCaesar Yeah, but session wasn’t constitutional, and the CSA wasn’t recognized by pretty much anyone outside of it, so I would consider it an ilegitimaste nation

[@theparadigm8149]

@@NikephorosCaesar *secession

[@NikephorosCaesar]

@@theparadigm8149 Secession was constitutional it was even encouraged by the founding fathers as a right of every state in the union the north refusing to recognize its independence makes it no different to Great Britain going to war to keep the colonies

[@theparadigm8149]

@@NikephorosCaesar Where in the constitution does it say anything about secession, let alone secession as a right?

[@johanrunfeldt7174]

About "States' Rights": the South wasn't too concerned with states' rights ten years earlier when the enhanced Fugitive Slaves' Act of 1850 was implemented.

[@jurtra9090]

OOPS

[@Halo-lg7rq]

THISSS NIGGA SPITTINNNNNNN

[@stevelucky7579]

@@Halo-lg7rq I believe it’s called dribbling

[@michaelschaefer1904]

Go back further, yes they were.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@michaelschaefer1904 Maybe in principle they did, but certainly not in practice as OP pointed out. They only use state's rights when it suited them. Not to say no one else did the same, but it doesn't give the whole state's rights argument much water.

[@bigrigjoe5130]

Watching this as your first Checkmate Lincolnites/Atun Shei Films video must have been so confusing when it turned into Puritans and Nazis for no apparent reason lol

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Lol I started this series in the middle too and was confused by some of the stuff that happens but generally accepted it as some humor.

[@nukclear2741]

I ran into this series first, and assumed that the Puritan reference was because of Johnny’s claims at the time.

[@Dreigonix]

It was my first too. Then again, I also started Kingdom Hearts with KH3D, so I am no stranger to accidentally jumping onto series at the point when the lore goes absolutely insane. XD

[@jeffreygao3956]

I thought it was magic the first time.

[@ronstoppable5198]

26:25. I loved how he was completely trolling him with singing John Brown's Body. I wish he would have sung the Union version of Dixie. That would have been great.

[@megelizabeth9492]

Union dixie does get a highlight in another Checkmate Lincolnites video!

[@ronstoppable5198]

Do you remember which one?

[@richardswinford7078]

@@ronstoppable5198 The one about if Sherman was a war criminal.

[@ronstoppable5198]

I saw that one. Thank you.

[@EmmaBonn96]

Way down south in the land of traitors Rattlesnakes and Aligators

[@invadergirness7817]

So happy to see you react to Checkmate Lincolnites! I really enjoy the series and it opened my eyes to a lot of lost cause myths that I myself had believed. I'd love to see you react to more of the series.

[@joshrhodes2266]

Honestly same I used to be what I consider a soft lost causer which seems to be what you were Atun-shei and other channels specifically Cynical Historian really dispelled the myths about the civil war I thought were true

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@trugrit7210 Uh no. Atun-shei films uses facts backed by sources; you can see the little numbers on the bottom left corner which is used as a citation that you can look up in his description. He uses facts and logic to breakdown the Lost Cause myth, and does so in a humorous and entertaining way. He also doesn't strawman anything as he takes the neo-confederate arguments directly from his own comment section hence why a screenshot of said comment pops up at the bottom. Facts and truth doesn't have to be presented in a dry and bland way. People learn better when they are engaged with the material. The means of presentation doesn't detract from the arguments presented forward by him.

[@MrThorfan64]

Well its good these videos can inform some people away from still commonly believed myths... which are ultimately doing a lot of harm.

[@thunderbird1921]

One thing that I'm very surprised that never really developed in the South (at least to my knowledge) was a "Stab In The Back" Myth, similar to Germany after World War I. After all, the Confederates in some areas won some of the war's last battles. Propaganda could have been that the Confederacy was able to fight on, but Lee betrayed the cause and surrendered to Grant at Appomattox rather than fight on as Jefferson Davis hoped. "Stonewall would have never done that!" they could have cried. The fact that this never developed went a long way in leading to the country reuniting in the decades that followed. Otherwise, we could have possibly gotten an southern US-equivalent of 1930s Germany (thank Heaven THAT did not happen).

[@jeffreygao3956]

Episode 10 will be the last of all and that will be THAT!

[@rasmusn.e.m1064]

Being from continental Europe where we don't learn a lot about the US Civil War, this was extremely informative. What really relaxed my bias lookout muscles was the juxtaposition of a video debunking confederate apologist views with a reaction video from a historian with a Conservative standpoint. Lovely to see how civil it can be. ps. It was also very interesting to witness how much attention was paid to the acts of individuals. We didn't really have as much of that in my school years. Besides cultural differences, I suspect that might have to do with the limited source material further back.

[@undertakernumberone1]

For a long time, history was about individuals, Only rather recently it changed more towards "History of people" rather than History of Great Persons"

[@GrachLP]

@@undertakernumberone1 Not at all, at least not in europe (in my experience). The main point of pretty much all of europeans modern history was about the people, because those people didn't have a country for most of the time, so the struggle for an own country and for freedom of the people (from feudalism to monarchism to capitalism) is pretty much the most important part of european history (and defining in many ways)

[@buriedalive3192]

@@GrachLP I also live in Europe, and I have to disagree. History has been about the actions of the select few for the vast majority of history. Just look at how we talk about Athens, Rome, Medieval times etc... We don't say that the people of Athens created democracy, we say Cleisthenes created it. We don't say that Rome defeated Carthage, but that Scipio beat Hannibal. History has been viewed through the eyes of great people, because that is more relatable. The newer view of history, where the focus is on ethnicities, for example the way groups of people fought for a long time to separate from the Habsburg and later Austro-Hungarian empire, and found their own countries (Slovakia, Czechia, etc...) came about only after the 18th century where nationalism became a thing and national success became more important than the success of the ruler.

[@specialk4431]

I literally just watched this video for the first time an hour ago. What the heck is this timing?!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

That's crazy!

[@jamier65551]

Algorithm at work

[@arlonfoster9997]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I like your reactions to Atun Shei.

[@baseupp12]

You should watch more of the Checkmate Lincolnites videos I feel every can learn at least one thing from those videos

[@jamesnichols2348]

Petulant Child - "I"m running away!" Parent - "No." Petulant Child - "This is parental aggression!"

[@remo27]

"United States", "UNION" of States. Sorry, but it was long accepted by just about everyone that States could succeed from the Union though HOW they could do it was up for grabs. What was not legitimate was stealing Federal Property and firing first, not merely wanting OUT. A Constitutional Convention probably should have been called to formalize the procedures.

[@drewdurbin4968]

The issue is that the US was looked at as a VOLUNTARY union...which denotes choice. Im not saying it was right or wrong im just pointing out where the point of view originated

[@remo27]

@@drewdurbin4968 : Also supported by Thomas Jefferson and the 9th and 10th Amendments as well as any knowledge of history of what the Constitution replaced.

[@rickybobby6028]

No children/parent dynamic = False analogy. Wife files for divorce, husband locks her in basement...

[@remo27]

@@rickybobby6028 To be fair, her 'filing for divorce' included no warning (process for succeeding), and when she was put in the basement she was in the process of stabbing him with a knife (the attack on Fort Sumter). The Confederates would have a stronger case for THEIR freedom if they weren't attacking first, and often making the case (90 percent plus of the writs of Succession) that they should be able to treat other men as property...

[@AresKusa]

VTH and Atun-Shei singing 'John Brown's Body' in concert is actually very cool and kind of heart-warming. Love both channels - cheers to you!

[@spookyboi8446]

If I remember right both Lincoln and Grant had significant changes in their views during the course of the war. Of course Fredrick Douglass probably played a large role in changing perceptions of northern figures. While at the start of the war they seemed indifferent to the slaves plight but over time they softened their stances.

[@drewdurbin4968]

Douglas is a very interesting individual. like so many of the figures of this time Lincoln, Lee, Jackson etc they are immortalized in folklore...what is often left out is how all of them especially Liconln Lee and Douglas were highly intelligent individuals. Douglas had the foresight to understand that in order for slavery to be abolished, Whites that resisted abolition had to be convinced to do so. its an often overlooked characteristic of any civil rights issue...the people that are looked at as the oppressors actually cast the votes to grant a given right. Think about it how many congresswomen voted to give women the vote?? Men had to be convinced to do so.

[@sassymedea3065]

@@drewdurbin4968 Fun fact about Douglas he spoke at the Seneca halls convention for the women's vote. He really was a man ahead of his time.

[@sharktenko267]

@@drewdurbin4968 lee was an idiot

[@pyromania1018]

Grant was never an abolitionist, something he admitted, but his father's influence made him, at the very least, uncomfortable with slavery. He freed the one slave he owned when he could have sold the guy, and he was forbidden from interacting with his in-laws' slaves because he was too nice to them.

[@LawrenceRoss1906]

I was ten years old when my great great grandfather was celebrating his 100th birthday in 1976. He'd been born in 1876 and his father was a slave. It's not that far away and most people who aren't Black tend to think that it was a period where people today don't have connections. We do.

[@LawrenceRoss1906]

One other note. My grandmother, at the latter parts of her life, had Alzheimer's. One of the things it did was reopen memories that I believe had been long buried. One evening at Thanksgiving, she took me aside and had a look of terror in her face. I was really REALLY alarmed. All she kept saying was "Don't let them get me. They hung that colored boy yesterday down that road." Over and over. She was born in the mid-1920s. I assume this was something she saw in Texas as a child. It haunts me to this day.

[@salientsolution5436]

It's heartbreaking to hear your family had to suffer like that for so long. If there is an afterlife I hope they can see the progress the world has made (even if we've made a few steps back in recent years).

[@SaraphDarklaw]

You lived through the end of Jim Crow. This crap isn’t over.

[@seanmcloughlin5983]

Something I’d like to bring up about Lincoln and his view on colonization was that this is another thing he had a change of heart on, particularly after his conversation with Fredrick Douglas, Douglas mentions in his memoirs that Lincoln thought that African Americans wanted to return to Africa and saw that as their homeland, but Douglas made him see that they did see America as their home and just wanted the opportunity to fight for it and improve their lives.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Jennifer Chiaverini in her book about Mrs. Keckley comments on Lincoln's "learning curve" about race

[@pattersong6637]

Agreeing with this, I'd just point out that a lot of times people write "Lincoln" when they mean 1858 Lincoln or 1861 Lincoln or 1865 Lincoln when he changed his mind on a LOT. He was way way way different on race especially by 1865 than he was in his debates with Douglas in 1858.

[@joshuaquintanilla1479]

im not saying your wrong, but historians debate that subject. It makes me wonder if the confederates had won the civil war what would happen to the fugitive slave laws when 19th century northern didn't want them to be their neighbors. Liberia seems a likely place for northern society to accept and its far away enough to prevent Africans people from coming to the mainland USA. I think the union would have asked Liberia to be a territory

[@blaugranisto]

One of my new favorite channels! Instead of random people reaction to silly stuff, you are reacting to historical events and explaining what happened in the background! Amazing work, keep it up. A fan from Jordan living in Sydney, Australia.

[@Qba86]

A vast majority of southeners (around 70% I believe) didn't own slaves -- true. However, a majority of those with influence and political power did. Also, the perception of belonging to the "superior race" certainly was an important element of identity even for non-slaveowning southerners.

[@nathanieldavis1671]

The worst pain in having ancestors from both sides is how close we have always came to the same nazi's theology. Im also have slave ancestors. I will say it did take a lot of that puritan philosophy to take on the nazis

[@adrianainespena5654]

About Nazis, there is a depressing thought: for all the talk about Fascism, the worst things about Nazism did not come from Fascism, but from the USA. Eugenics and forced sterilization? USA led the way... in fact Germany did not have an eugenics instituted until some American millionary funded one. The Nuremberg laws? Copied from Jim Crow. Seeking "vital space" and getting rid of the "subhumans" living there? The Indian wars... Mussolini can be blamed for a lot of things, but not from what the Nazis copied from America

[@kuramacon]

Well that was educational. I've always been obsessed with history

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Me too, Josh. Me too.

[@jeffreygao3956]

@@VloggingThroughHistory Which part of history though? US? Mongol? French?

[@gordonduke8812]

You bring up the horrors after reconstruction. I believe that while fighting the war, the average southerner, who was sold the idea of state's rights reason for secession, wanted to avoid the truth of slavery as the core issue. This way their cause could be a noble one. But once the Emancipation Proclamation put slavery to the forefront of the war's objective, and the humiliating defeat and dissolution of the Confederacy, that same issue of slavery gave the people a target for their humiliation and revenge. If the war was about the black man, then the black man is the reason of out misery and humiliation. It was the perfect storm of this is the reason for your misery, this is who to blame, and no one will stand in the way of your revenge. It was truly a horrible time in our history. In some ways this time was worse than slavery itself. During slavery, the blacks were a financial investment and that investment would have been protected to some extent. But after the war the now freed slaves were a completely expendable target for aggression.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

That’s a very fair assessment of the situation.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

That’s a very fair assessment of the situation.

[@carpediem5232]

Just because a majority did not own slaves, does not mean that they didn't fight to defend the institution of slavery, just that they did not fight to keep their own slaves. There are still plenty of people that vote certain ways not because they themselves are super rich, but because they are afraid of others and of competition and therefore vote for policies that keeps others down even more. The typical kicking down instead of looking up. The same can probably be said for most southerners who not only wanted to keep the institution of slavery for reasons of labor competition, but maybe even mainly because of racial reasons. These people still fought for slavery.

[@vodyanoy2]

VTH denies that sadly.

[@arlonfoster9997]

@@vodyanoy2 no I think he was right because the common soldier north or south at the time had all sorts of different motivations and reasons for enlisting in the northern and southern armies and it wasn’t all revolving around preserving the Union or slavery. As he said there were people from the south who definitely genuinely believed in States Rights. The political government of the CSA did have the motivation to keep slavery it doesn’t mean that was the only motivation for the average southern soldier. We seem to have this 21st century misconception and misunderstanding that everyone in the north living in the Civil War were against slavery and for equality and abolition and everyone living in the South was for slavery which is a absurd misconception and misunderstanding of bigger nuances. It was a mix of both in north and south. The north may have won the war and Lincoln may have freed the slaves but that doesn’t mean they were always the saintly anti slavery crusaders they portrayed themselves to be once the war was over. Call me crazy but all I hear are propaganda and misconceptions from both northern and southern propaganda

[@arlonfoster9997]

That doesn’t mean however there weren’t pro and anti slavery people north and south but it was a lot more complicated than what you grew up learning from the classroom

[@carpediem5232]

@arlonfoster9997 were there pro and anti slavery people on both sides? Yes. That is also taught in history classes. This isn't some grand discovery. However, the vast majority of Southerners were pro slavery for one or another reason, where a majority of northerners were either against the institution of slavery or didn't care if it continued. There are always individuals and small percentages that don't fit the rule, but to try to excuse southern soldiers in general because they might not have owned a slave themselves doesn't make sense and is falling for the same rethoric that was employed during reconstruction.

[@arlonfoster9997]

@@carpediem5232 actually arguing that most southern soldiers fought for various motivations isn’t a stupid argument. And just because I made that argument I am not excusing the South’s actions I am judging the actions of both sides while understanding various motivations. It seems you are excusing northerners and their actions

[@tomfitzgerald8150]

As a big time historian, I think Atun has broken massive ground in presenting history in a much more forward and honest narrative then has been attempted in quite a long time to the masses; Yes, I know and understand that more serious historians such as myself have got the "been there done that" attitude. But, the target audience must be the masses, especially in this day and age of "facefuck", "tweeker", "instanobodygives a shit about your photo of avocado and toast". As a bonus it is entertaining and put together rather well. Wow look at that, I just spent more time typing than 90% of you people out there do checking too verify what you heard on the news was true.

[@seanmcloughlin5983]

I believe he described it as “meeting people where their at,” No one is gonna read your dissertation paper “The Lost Cause, a history, the affect on a culture, and a pervading narrative of war aims,” But people will absolutely watch a video with costumes and funny voices and costumes, why do you think everyone loves Bill Nye so much?

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

I think the term for Bill Nye would be a science communicator. Someone who communicates science in a understandable and typically engaging way to an audience, usually the public masses. Although science communicators could also work for a company as an advisor, and in that case it is much more dry and not to the public... But anyway, my point is that the scientific field has been doing this for several decades with Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson. The role of 'history communicator' had largely been given to documentaries, movies, TV shows, and dramas... While entertaining, they usually have a lot to be desired in terms of authenticity and accuracy. Reenactors, living history and museum curators could be a better example of a 'history communicator' but their audience is very small compared to Bill Nye who inspired an entire generation of physicist, chemists, and engineers. It is only with the advent of the internet, and KZbin, do we really see a lot more accessible educational content for the masses. Science communicators have expanded to a much larger audience due to KZbin. Likewise, it also allowed the history side of things to reach a larger audience. Unfortunately, the internet goes both ways; conspiracy theories and myths also gets a larger audience.

[@gary9346]

How edgy.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Also too many historians are not skilfull in presenting their ideas. They can be dry and boring. Atun-Shei is actually funny and you are having such a good laugh that you do not realize you are learning.

[@placeholderplaceholder6056]

It's people like you that make the history community look like a dreary, arrogant, egotistical circle-jerk. Insulting the target audience just makes them hate you, you have to be able to present things in an initially very easy-to-digest manner so you can get people hooked, and then gradually bring them into wanting to do their own research and such. Atun-Shei has indeed done this fairly well, and ought to be encouraged whole-heartedly by the history community.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

I think the best part about your reaction videos is that you actually give real substance when you watch these videos. No fluff, no pointless jerking the audience around.

[@dflatt1783]

5:02 The vast majority of the people in the South did not own slaves This is true. However, just because most people couldn't afford slaves did not mean the institution wasn't supported by the people.

[@fogwar]

Indeed, or that the people who didn't own them didn't want to own them one day. Many fought because they feared a race war if slaves were to be freed. Which did actually happen, it was just white Southerners who instigated it during Reconstruction.

[@adrianainespena5654]

The vast majority of the population does not own banks. Are banks thus irrelevant to our history?

[@hobbyistsparadise3205]

Hey I recently moved to Ohio about a month ago and that same day that I moved I saw one of your videos and fell in love with your channel . Keep on reacting my friend

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Nice. What part of Ohio?

[@GerardoMoreno14]

That is awesome. Are you in Northeast Ohio as well?

[@V0liathon]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I live in the northeast of Ohio too, in the raccoon County

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

What is the Raccoon County?

[@V0liathon]

@@VloggingThroughHistory Geauga, its native American for raccoon

[@murrax7639]

I really like your content. I don't have much time to read into primary sources and when I do it's for obscure things, so I get most of my knowledge on these semi-modern historical events from the internet. I find you to be a great balance to folks and it allows me to get two different sides, you kind of serve as a counterweight to people. Thanks for what you do and keep it up!

[@marinewillis1202]

Actually a lot of people don’t know that when Lee went north the first time in 62, a big chunk of his army refused to cross into Maryland. They were like nope we are defending our homes not invading others. One of the reasons Lee was so outnumbered at Antietam.

[@remo27]

Well, that's impossible because we are assured over and over that pretty much every southerner (maybe a rare exception here and there) was fighting for slavery, first and foremost. I mean, crap, look at the other comments on this very thread. One might forget that the vast majority of the southerners were poor farmers who owned not one slave, and that in the end its possible more were drafted than ever volunteered to fight for the rich slaveowning political overlords.

[@benhaney9629]

We are not assured over and over again that every southerner was fighting for slavery. Quite the opposite. Pretty much every major historian says the exact opposite. That the South fought for slavery but not necessarily Southerners. Like pretty much every was in history, the people fought because, well... because... because they were told to, because they were wrapt you in propaganda, because they were forced to, because it was the thing to do, to prove their manhood, “protect their families...” basically... because. You sound like a bitter Lost Causer.

[@benhaney9629]

Both the people talking in this video don’t say that every Southerner fought for slavery, even most comments do not either, although this is the internet...

[@remo27]

@@benhaney9629 : LOL! Most "Lost Causers" I know or have fought with have always said it was about tariffs! And I don't know what rock you crawled under the past 12 years, but the nation's National Parks (such as Gettysburg) have been changed to center slavery as the sole or only important cause of the war and the effort to remove pretty much all flags and statues that tell any alternate story has been all over the news. The ideas that some Confederates considered the war purely a defensive one or that States Rights ever superseded the Slavery Question (Gen Robert E Lee was lying about his motivations you see or perhaps he was just a victim of unconscious bias as all white people are) in any important Confederate figures minds are considered beyond the pale, and just making excuses for the 19th century equivalent of Nazis. It's so bad that there is a rush to rename famous military forts that have been named after Confederate leaders, soldiers, or generals. A people and political class that had ANY kind of nuanced view of the history of the Civil War wouldn't be bothering with such pettiness, hatefulness and spite, and I'm quite ashamed of people who claim to care so much about history doing so little to defend it. fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44959.pdf Your 'balanced or fair' historians such as Bruce Catton are either dead or in hiding keeping their heads down.

[@yankeeyankee5]

@@remo27 But your argument is entirely predicated on saying that if someone didn’t own a slave they wouldn’t fight for slavery. That’s quite the assumption, and many diaries and memoirs of lower-ranked Confederates would completely disagree with you. The planter classes characterized the struggle as a necessary one against an oppressive government which would force equality between the races if they won, and that was something that many poor southerners were willing to fight against. Many knowingly did fight for slavery and its continuance, even if owning no slaves themselves.

[@pyromania1018]

Actually, the common rebel soldier did believe in slavery. Even those who didn't own slaves still believed in the institution, and Confederate propaganda focused almost exclusively on the "apocalypse" that would occur if slavery was abolished, which they swallowed completely.

[@vodyanoy2]

Sadly VTH denies this.

[@darwinism8181]

I am curious how you jump from the average person not owning slaves to the assumption that they therefor could not have been fighting for slavery? Individual people all have individual motives, but in something like this even if we ignore the people who were in it for state's rights (to own slaves)... yeah a lot of the rank and file were in it specifically to defend slavery.

[@brahimdiop5506]

Looking at articles from the American Civil War Museum, you're right, but naturally there is some nuance. The average CSA soldier did fight primarily to maintain slavery, which they deemed the pillar of their society. However the majority of volunteer confederates were from slave owning families and the video covers how tyrannical and propagandist the CSA government could be against citizens. Both conscripted and volunteer soldiers wrongly feared the Northern Army would confiscate all their property, as they couldn't distinguish between enslaved peoples and land, as well as the rightly earned devastation a "servile insurrection" could cause. So, a fairer assessment imo is CSA soldiers fought for their native slavery-based society, not slavery in it of itself

[@darwinism8181]

​@@brahimdiop5506 I think this is a good distinction, though it bears noting that every society based on slavery found ways to moralize their ownership of people. It's the tragedy of these causes; that many of the people embroiled in them seem to never had a chance to formulate other ideologies. I think we naturally want to give these people some pity or excuse. But that's sort of a trap; we have to realize that no matter how tragic some of these people are in their own minds, they were still, at the end of the day, on the side of keeping human beings as property. And it's okay to simplify it that way for broad overviews.

[@ibefullofme]

@@brahimdiop5506 There was a widely held belief at the time that free black people would essentially bring race riots upon the general populus of the South as well. You can see some of this in the Nazi comparable, horrific conditions of the reconstruction South. The overwhelming majority truly believed that free black people presented a personal threat to their well-being.

[@darwinism8181]

​@@trugrit7210 That was the reason that some people fought, I'm sure. It's worth noting that the Union didn't invade the entirety of the South and that large parts of the war were solidly on Union territory, so it's not like we can just assume everyone, or even a majority, were in it purely for defense of their own community. Also while 'defending what's yours' is something we can all empathize with, when 'what's yours' includes slaves (or other's slaves) you should probably not get any recognition for good intentions, unless that recognition is for providing a whole bunch more pavement on that road to hell.

[@darwinism8181]

@@trugrit7210 If they're burning down my neighbor's community because my neighbor owned slaves and also attacked them and also illegally claimed sovereignty in order to prevent anyone from telling them not to own slaves... well I start losing empathy somewhere in there

[@WasThisMail]

So happy you found this series love "CHECKMATE, LINCOLNITES" and hope your react to more

[@squamish4244]

Liberal arts didn't disappear, it just went online :) This guy is centre-right and I am AOC left. But I appreciate FAIR history and someone like this makes me think maybe we can bridge the divide, given time.

[@Zarastro54]

If more conservatives were as honest as he, we wouldn’t be in such a mess.

[@spitxfire99]

@@Zarastro54 Please

[@sharktenko267]

Uh actually no he isnt center right, he is either dead center or center left

[@spitxfire99]

@@sharktenko267 He literally states he leans right wing as a conservative

[@snackreaper]

@@Zarastro54 says the self-assured leftist :)

[@theflapjack_1236]

never knew there was so much discussion about the civil war

[@watchm4ker]

There might not have been had Reconstruction not been botched as it had.

[@jakubfabisiak9810]

It has intensified recently. In the 1980s, and 90s, there were films like Gettysburg, North and South, Class of '61 (a pilot for a series that never materialised), and others. Recently, though, there's been an awful lot of what can only be described as "yankee revisionism", with people going absolutely apeshit if you dare suggest that the southern confederates were not 110% evil, rabid slavers who only fought for enslavement of black people.

[@watchm4ker]

@@jakubfabisiak9810 That's arisen out of the fear that people who genuinely believe the Lost Cause idea will gain power, and work to undo all the work made towards equal rights. Especially once you throw armed militias or the like into the mix.

[@1996koke]

@@jakubfabisiak9810 I mean, seeing how many people are still trying to push lost cause myths it's kind of understandable, specially considering what happened the last time the lost cause myths was allowed to gain traction

[@Tzar1]

Also, BLM really brought it up again. Even in Canada, but of course it just might be my area as it is a Conservative strong hold

[@redtube8667]

VTH, feel free to just delete this comment if it causes any issues. But, it has to be said. It is hard to not compare Nazi Germany to the Confederacy because the Nazi "Final Solution" was directly based on Confederate/Reconstruction pseudo science and how the United States committed mass genocide against the Native Americans, with the idea of Death Camps coming from Southern cotton plantations. The United States and Confederacy directly inspired Germany to do the things they did during WW2. Something that needs to be remembered.

[@undertakernumberone1]

Noice! Finally! Been waiting for Checkmate Lincolnites! Unfortunately i hadnt noticed this Video popping up when it went up 5 hours ago... "Was Sherman a war criminal" is also a nice episode

[@Ballin4Vengeance]

Sherman: Remember kids. It’s not a warcrime if it’s funny

[@nukclear2741]

@@Ballin4Vengeance I showed someone I know is from Georgia some of the Sherman jokes, and she laughed at them.

[@maxedoutvibes]

The icing on the cake is the things he argues against aren’t even made up by him, they’re his comments!

[@HistorysRaven]

I find the whole "states' rights" argument funny, and mostly hypocritical. The southern states, their politicians and other leaders, continued to make the argument, but a lot of their arguments, if not all, ignore the Dred Scott Decision, which essentially took away states' rights to decide whether to allow slavery within their borders. As to the US racism connection to Nazi Germany, Nazi lawyers and lawmakers studied Jim Crow and other racist policies to form the Nuremburg Laws.

[@fogwar]

Also, the Confederate Constitution banned any state from being able to abolish slavery.

[@raphaelr.5904]

20.300 Subscribers! We finally made it.

[@Mr.Truxton]

Is it weird that I as a finnish man like studying the American Civil War and watching these videos? I find it a very interesting war and a part of history in general.

[@vodyanoy2]

Not at all.

[@DamonNomad82]

Not weird at all. As an American and a lover of history myself, I enjoy studying the histories of all the different countries of the world, and appreciate that there are like-minded people around the world.

[@ToBeZucc]

It’s amazing seeing someone so passionate about something talk about it. It just makes me feel happy, ya know

[@romas011]

So happy you did a reaction of Atun-Shei. One of my favourite channels.

[@ClaytonCampbell]

I freaking love Atun's channel! Such a great advocate of history. Keep watching his channel

[@edmeister4031]

Man, people really, REALLY love to pull out the Greeley letter quote out of context. They also love pulling the Lincoln-Douglas debate quote as well, which was in 1858, and say "There's your Lincoln." While conveniently forgetting that the main reason that Lincoln was killed was because of that impromptu speech he gave once he heard about Lee's surrender and spoke about limited suffrage for black men. Mainly the educated and the veterans. Not to say that he would not expand to universal suffrage to black men and full citizenship. Which of course did not sit right with Booth, who was quoted to have said, "That means ni***r citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make."

[@Thankfully_Over]

This was genuinely interesting and educational, thank you for such an interesting video!

[@georgeprchal3924]

The Age of Empires sound effects are a nice touch.

[@thehandoftheking3314]

I was just about to say the same. Brings back good memories. Might have to reinstall the game.

[@Chris-qo4rt]

If slavery hadn't existed at the time there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. Arguing that the North didn't invade the South because of the slavery issue doesn't change the fact that slavery was the root cause of secession.

[@hitomisalazar4073]

I'm always sketchy of the logic that because someone didn't own slaves, that means they didn't fight for slavery. Mostly because it doesn't ring true. Both by their own writings I've seen in preserved letters and journals the common CSA soldier most certainly seemed to be aware they were fighting for slavery and the "supremacy of the white race". But also just in general. How often do you see things like rich liberals stating they champion the causes of the poor working class? That the poor working class is championing the cause of rich capitalists? These are just kind political realities about America that most people I believe are really deeply aware of. People who don't have 2 bucks to rub together at the end of the month will believe in, vote for, even help the campaigns of, multi-millionaires. And similarly people who have never known what it was like to go to bed hungry, and work twice as hard to just barely break even at the end of the month, who say things like hardship was having to get a part time job to buy a car because their parents didn't just give them one, will proclaim themselves the champions of those working poor. I dunno. it's a weird bit of logic that people throw out a lot as if it's a given. That someone would never fight for slavery if they didn't own slaves. Even though by their own words written down we have, or just human nature we can see in everyday life, we know that logical premise doesn't hold true at all.

[@nicholasparker2086]

Seems like the slaver planter class seceded to protect their bottom line, and the poor white people of the south supported it to "own the libs"

[@saudade7842]

The Nazis even based a lot of their policies off of the antebellum and post-war US, especially the reconstruction south.

[@troublewithweebles]

I've watched that video so many times, but man, if it isn't good to see a response from a historian. You brought a lot to the table, and I'm glad for your expertise.

[@klrowdean]

Definitely do his Gods & Generals review. I find both of your channels to be reasonable and nuanced, and I would be interested in your critique of the points he made in that video.

[@gary0044187]

absolutely agree. I didn't think I would end up agreeing with his disagreements with gods n generals or even gettysburg (killer angels) but after watching them I did.

[@nukclear2741]

He did react to it, in fact, that was his first reaction to Atun Shei. But he deleted them due to what was happening in the comments.

[@gary0044187]

@@nukclear2741 rip, people have so many opinions and so little civility.

[@obi-wankenobi1233]

True, many rebels didn't own slaves, BUT! they did DREAM of doing so, which would be impossible if the union decided in favour of emancipation.

[@h20bp]

Considering the South attack Fort Sumter, wasn't it really the War of Southern Agression?

[@Cheddar_Wizard]

You have become my favorite channel of this year. I’m absolutely addicted and have no regrets.

[@mr_fantastic6595]

I could listen to you all day man 😂

[@HarbingerOfBattle]

I will never claim to know what it was like to be a slave, but one thing I do know is that I am descended from slave owners in Georgia. A fact that is a source of tremendous personal shame. I don’t care if their slaves were treated with all the civility as accorded to them by the declaration of human rights, it’s the mere ownership of human beings in the first place.

[@vehx9316]

Saying who is your ancestors is not a point of shame, it's only when you try to defend or justify or lie about their actions which are indefensible that you are. Which is what most lost causer don't get, people are treating them like jerks because they are acting like jerks.

[@tomaszkietyka2325]

You should definetly watch his gods and generals video, it's great, in my opinion!

[@carmenmonoxide7459]

"Stop that damn noise!" Lost it, but I'm sleepy. LOL

[@winniethepoohesq.5697]

this dude gives me hope that more sane conservatives exist than i thought

[@cmp6]

People claiming the South didn't succeed to keep slavery is pretty much the same as people claiming the earth is flat. Both have no factual basis.

[@jameslane2326]

46 degrees today in PA it felt so warm by contrast, i opened my sunroof lol

[@omarreyes7626]

I'm going to have to disagree about the reason the south soldiers fight the war, true the majority didn't own slaves but slave was still a social class, the general consensus at the time even in the north was that black people and native americans were sub-human species, to treat them the same as "regular humans" was outrageous, there's plenty of soldier mail that shows this was the case, regular southerners didn't want their kids going to school with "animals" didn't want to eat next to them, share their stores, beds, food, etc. with them, want more evidence? the whole Jim Crow laws, they were meant to keep the black people inferior to whites in a "lawful" way. So yes, southerners that couldn't own slaves STILL fight for slavery, not because it was something they could afford but because they wanted to keep the slaves as subspecies, oh and because it would give them a sense of superiority as in "well I may be dirt poor but at least I'm not a slave" kind of superiority.

[@nolaabroad1514]

I like Atun-Shei's channel. Lots of good discussions on there. I don't agree with him on everything, but I really like how he implements his comment section into his arguments. I wish I had those videos when I lived in New Orleans and Baton Rouge and had to deal with racist southern sympathizers who had many of the same opinions so I am glad to see your reactions to it.

[@WeaslyTwin]

2:00 Can't tell if that's the best or worst place to pause the video. Atun is staring into my soul.

[@mrcroob8563]

When Mississippi left they admitted to leaving because of slavery. It's not really debatable...

[@zombieoverlord5173]

Pretty much all the states won't shut up about slavery in their letters of secession

[@gabesworld3188]

Great video. Love hearing your thoughts.

[@johnedwards1968]

I would argue that States Rights was NOT one of the motivations for the civil war. Southern states argued that Northern States MUST return escaped slaves prior to their secession. I don't know how you could argue this didn't violate the States Rights of the states seeking to abolish slavery. The reason for the war is simple. The South fought for slavery, and the North fought to preserve the United States. Individual soldier motivations, are irrelevant.

[@Prattical]

About Lincoln changing, there's a quote from one of my favorite books, Oathbringer, that makes me think about Lincoln's changing. "Sometimes a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing."

[@TailcoatGames]

Yo checkmate Lincolnites is like my favorite history series

[@AttaMan]

7:57 Southern aggression pre-war 19:18 Lincoln on slavery in regard to his official duty vs personal belief

[@christianf5131]

I’ve been a big fan of Atun Shei and discovered your channel due to this video. Looks like I’ll have to stick around and subscribe

[@royroy1282]

I live in Amelia ohio and I am quite the history buff myself, I absolutely love this channel. thank you, thank you, thank you!!

[@swirvinbirds1971]

The 1860 census tells us 49% of households in Mississippi owned slaves. Yes, the people of Mississippi were highly invested.

[@TheGrumbliestPuppy]

Hey, great video! I just wanted to challenge you on your statement that "the vast majority of southerners didn't own slaves". In 1860, 1% of white southern families owned 200 or more human beings, but in states of the Confederacy, at least 20% owned at least one, and MS and SC ran as high as 50%. Those 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67% of the confederacy's free population were slave owners. However, a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit those slaves. So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8% of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

So even that doesn’t change what I said. That puts it at 70% didn’t own slaves. Take away a few states like Mississippi and that number goes way up in many of the others.

[@TheGrumbliestPuppy]

​@@VloggingThroughHistory I'm just saying I don't think 1 in 3 southern families owning slaves would count as the "vast minority" to most people, it's a shockingly high number. A minority, but a large one. The reason I think its important to clarify this is because of what a common talking point it is in confederate apologist circles, that only a tiny amount of rich men owned slaves to downplay the extent of it. The truth is that much of the middle class owned slaves, and even more rented slaves from other owners, making the number of families that benefited from slavery in those states even higher. The point isn't "southerners are evil", just that a huge amount of southern society participated in slavery, thus why it was so important that they seceded.

[@TheGrumbliestPuppy]

​@@VloggingThroughHistory Removing MS unfortunately doesn't change it much, outside the border states. Here's the state-by-state figures of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia. Mississippi: 49% South Carolina: 46% Georgia: 37% Alabama: 35% Florida: 34% Louisiana: 29% Texas: 28% North Carolina: 28% Virginia: 26% Tennessee: 25% Kentucky: 23% Arkansas: 20% Missouri: 13% Maryland: 12% Delaware: 3%

[@WeaslyTwin]

Exactly. The number of people that owned slaves is roughly the same amount that have a college degree today. Statistically speaking at least one of your neighbors would have owned slaves. You also have to consider the number of people that rented slaves, that would jack up those numbers a lot.

[@D.Jay.]

Southern soldiers were absolutely fighting for slavery at a personal and individual level.

[@possumverde]

Lol

[@MrAwsomenoob]

oh you gotta do his William sherman video it is hilarious.

[@Clasteau]

The LoTR bit was what put it over for me.

[@TomorrowNobody]

22:47 I can think of at least one currently active politician who has been preaching the exact same message for 30 years or so.

[@obi-wankenobi1233]

Who?

[@TomorrowNobody]

@@obi-wankenobi1233 Bernie Sanders

[@rustywenzlawe6287]

This got wild real quick

[@magnalucian8]

I can't wait to see you engage with Gods & Generals

[@d007ization]

I am curious about the logic of most Southern soldiers and their vanguard not owning slaves and thereby not caring about the institution. There were still indirect benefits for them because of it and there's the psychological factor of having a group of people who are always lower than you being an appealing thing to humans.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

There were plenty of the same indirect benefits, in fact one could argue MORE indirect benefits to slavery in the north.

[@d007ization]

@@VloggingThroughHistory The cheap sugar and cotton? As well as the low number of free or unfree black people in the north? Hm, I suppose.

[@DominionSorcerer]

@@d007ization Even the poorest man will want to have someone he can spit down on and freedmen would be competition for a lot of work. It's the same reason why Irishmen were told they needn't apply to a lot of jobs throughout the US.

[@Kuronosa]

...how in the world did I get from the Cassanova Killer to here? I know the Atun-Shei channel, and when I saw the "Checkmate Lincolnites" thumbnail I thought I was hitting the video on his channel...as serial killers aren't something to really watch over dinner.....but I didn't expect it to be you reacting to it.... Anyways, suggestion to watch other videos from his channel... the other "Checkmate Lincolnites", as well as some of his earlier stuff on more local New Orleans history, and his videos about King Phillip's War.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Glad you made your way here! Btw I'm quite the student of serial killers, especially Jack the Ripper. Expect a video on that soon.

[@Kuronosa]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I had been watching a documentary about the Leopold and Loeb "Perfect Crime" in hopes of hearing some of the very well spoken closing statement by Clarence Darrow, and after that was done, the Cassanova Killer documentary was the next suggested. And your wife brought up that you were big on Jack the Ripper when she reacted to your reaction of the Jack vs. Hannibal ERB.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Also his video on Crackpot Archeology.

[@KazeShikamaru]

Always good to watch this stuff. It is good to make sure I double check everything.

[@sungjinkim712]

I am confused. Are you trying to say that seceding isn't an act of war in itself. Why kind of reaction would you expect from the federal government.

[@DylanHabibi]

Lincoln did see it as an act of war. He called it a rebellion to be specific. But he waited for the south to attack first before he attacked them. "In your hands, not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war." The point is, lincoln didnt respond militarily to their declarations of successions. He waited for the south to attack first.

[@phantomtitan9792]

You have a truly epic passion my dude. 👍

[@Thickcurves]

The fact that you're conservative and have your views on the civil war, means you are very open minded IMO.

[@James_Hough]

If it hasn't started already, we're on the cusp of reaction videos to reaction videos......to reaction videos....and I'll watch them.

[@leighfoulkes7297]

The southern lower classes probably had the same mentality they have today. They didn't care if the upper classes screwed them as long as they weren't the lowest of the low. The whole idea of slavery made them higher in there oppressive states (oppressive towards themselves as much as slaves) and some warped way, this makes them feel important. This might have made them just as angry or even angrier at the idea of ending slavery.

[@WeaslyTwin]

Men are men, and men will seek pride. Even if that pride comes at the expense of an entire race.

[@Mr.PoliticallyIncorrect]

As a Southerner, yeah the mentality hasn't changed at all.

[@megamuffin15]

I disagree with the conclusion that the majority of people in the Confederate army weren't fighting for slavery based on the argument that a large majority of them didn't own slaves. A white southerner did not have to own slaves to benefit from the institution. Poor white southerners had an economic incentive to preserve slavery, one reason being they didn't need millions of other poor people to suddenly enter the labor force. Not to mention the abhorrent racism across America at the time (including in the North!) who saw the subjugation of black people as "natural" and believed in white superiority. That was a fundamental belief of millions of Americans, regardless of whether or not they personally owned slaves.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

It was a fundamental belief in the north and south, and the benefits of slavery extended to many northern industries as well.

[@vehx9316]

@@VloggingThroughHistory The north was racist, but to say that they were so racist to the point where they think Blacks are fit only for slavery is wrong as they elected Lincoln on a anti-slavery plank. IMHO the fact that the North voted anti-slavery even at the expense of their benefits shows how sincere they were in the matter.

[@steveclarke6257]

I entirely agree that you cant judge the morals/standards of the past by the morals/standards of today, and likewise with the how our descendants in future will think of us now.

[@badcornflakes6374]

The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. - Thomas Jefferson

[@drewdurbin4968]

Agreed...History must be viewed in its proper Historical Context. Luckily most Historians understand and practice this....its the pseudo historians that seem to not understand this.

[@sassymedea3065]

We shouldn't also ignore the fact that there were people who live in those times who went against the prevailing narrative and that's how change occured

[@misterpinkandyellow74]

We cut the foreskins off helpless babies right now. We are a pretty trash culture

[@generybarczyk6993]

I especially credit your statement (15:30) regarding not judging history by contemporary sensibilities.

[@saadsachwani2837]

I think that you should make a reaction to every atun chei productions video

[@SRosenberg203]

4:50 According to the Census figures I've seen from 1860, Mississippi was around 45% of households owning at least one slave when the census was conducted that year, and the rest of the states in the Confederacy ranged between 10% ownership and 25% ownership, with one or two being in the high thirties. But if you take the overall average, it's well under one quarter, possibly as low as one sixth, of households owning at least one slave. But also, there would have been a massive distinction in terms of social class and standard of living between a household owning one or two slaves, and a plantation owning hundreds or thousands, and the figures I've seen don't really account for that disparity.

[@thearmchairadmiral]

watching this as a british viewer interested in all forms of history i couldnt help but smile as the puritan slaped the confederate when they are oppresesors and then watch as the confederate turned into a nazi what can i say.

[@ilikechamomile4502]

I’m just weak for the last 15 minutes of the video he was just in shock/confusion 😂😭

[@mallc8874]

When is the next Q&A

[@siervodelovecraft]

Saying that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves is simply not enough to argue that they were not fighting to preserve slavery. They were part of an economy that was based on the preservation of slavery and if this economy fell they would feel the consequences. Of course, this does not prove either that they were in fact fighting to preserve slavery, but I don't understand why people bring up that point. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[@xGoodOldSmurfehx]

8:06 me: uh-oh im having age of empires flashbacks 9:01 me: oh my, im being betrayed by a traitorous AI script 9:40 me: well, time for chaos and paladins

[@PopeSixtusVI]

It would've made my day if VTH started singing along with em.