Was The Confederacy Fascist?

In political discussions of history, there is often a comparing or equivalating of the Southern Confederacy which seceded from the United States and fought the Civil War, to the European Axis Powers of Germany and Italy. But was the Confederacy actually Fascist? Why do so many people seem to compare the South to fascist Italy and Germany?
🕓New videos every weekend.
🪶Support Us On Patreon: / membership
🎖️Become A Channel Member:
/ @monsieurdean
👕 Merchandise: us-of-z-shop.creator-spring.com/
📘 Our Flags: / 100086678611994
✴️ Fan Reddit: / mrz_official
#history #politics #civilwar

[@tagekoolander]

People need to understand that racism does not equal fascism

[@theeternalsuperstar3773]

Ironically, Italio-Fascism isn't too racist (Mussolini was one of the least racist European leaders of the time.). National Socialism on the other hand has racism as its fundamental pillars. So, the entire argument of "was the confederacy fascist?" is flawed; the real question is "was the confederacy national socialist?" And no, it wasn't.

[@Wartensteiin]

People need to realize that the allies, atleast their populations were racist.

[@januarysson5633]

My understanding from Tik History is that fascism puts national identity first and national socialism pits ethnic/racial identity first.

[@gamervox1707]

No it is just most fascist regimes always create or implies that their an other that different or they want to oppress others.

[@BrightWendigo]

@@theeternalsuperstar3773national socialism isn’t racist and it isn’t even fascism, Italy created fascism, not Hitler, and nothing is racist about nationalism. It’s a SOLUTION to racism, as it calls for national unity.

[@Catscounteratack]

Fun fact : Slavery isn’t Fascism . Fascism isn’t Nazism .

[@vericbasilio]

@@2hotflavored666 it is actually, nearly every refrence the Nazi party talk about nationalism the only difference they like to tied ethnicity to it.

[@Dualbattle2062]

Nazism literarily is Facism. It has every single requirement that facism needs for a state to be facist

[@frenchempire9471]

​@@vericbasilionazism is an autistic breed of fascism, which is more blended and defined by law ultranationalism

[@vericbasilio]

@@Catscounteratack and i didn't

[@SpaceMarine500]

@@vericbasilio Without the advocation for a 'soft' command economy whereby all corporations come under indirect or direct party control, it is not national socialism.

[@achaeanmapping4408]

People simply don't have a clue what fascism really is, I don't get how people can speak on something with such confidence while being so ignorent to the simple definitions of they words they use

[@kellenlean2076]

Ya same could be said for a lot of different economic ideas such as capitalism and socialism. They are two economic systems NOT a form of government. Every country has some form of balance between the two. Some country’s are more lob sided while others do a great job of balancing both. Essentially commerce ≠ capitalism and collectivization ≠ socialism. It’s never as simple as it seems from both perspectives.

[@januarysson5633]

@@kellenlean2076Let’s face it. Most people don’t understand political/economic ideology at all and don’t have the patience to try. What people don’t understand is that the line between fascism and socialism is so light as to be almost indistinguishable.

[@algernonilfracombe]

Average politician : "Fascism is everything I don't like"

[@maka4235]

@@januarysson5633 XD

[@TombaFanatic]

Fascism is barely defined. I'd argue a good chunk of the Asian Tiger economies are fascist, or at least were fascist during the Cold War. We don't think of them as such because they don't come off as evil (to Westerners)

[@perceivedvelocity9914]

The term "fascist" used to mean something. It carried weight. Nowadays people throw it around casually. They use it as an insult for people who do not agree with them.

[@louisnall3102]

Arguably there are no fascist countries today, arguably there are many. Arguably China 🇨🇳 is one.

[@mcdonaldsorwhatevers]

trump is a fascist biden is a fascist stalin was a fascist the black army from the russian civil war were fascists breathing is fascism drinking cow milk is fascism

[@SunderZyzie]

​@@louisnall3102g

[@Fishhunter2014]

"Fascist" isn't a synonym for "bad" or "people I don't like." I'm not entirely sure when that happened culturally, but here we are.

[@Sundown_Clown474]

This has been going on for a long time; Sartre declared that America was in "pre-fascism" in the 1960s, American politicians have been compared to Hitler at least since Barry Goldwater( a man of Jewish descent) in 1964. I'm just shocked that people still think this is new and revolutionary.

[@liberty.b.r]

I would like to make a point that monarchism does not equal fascism. Thank you, and God bless! :)

[@ricaard6959]

The may not have been fascist, but they were racist and irredeemable.

[@theeternalsuperstar3773]

Tell that to Germany who's trying to tell its people that Wilhelm II and Adolphous Hitler are the same ideologically.

[@januarysson5633]

@@theeternalsuperstar3773Kaiser Wilhelm was definitely not a fan of Hitler.

[@The_New_IKB]

Democracy is the question, Monarchy is the answer!

[@theeternalsuperstar3773]

@@januarysson5633 I know, but try telling that to the German media and teachers.

[@somerandomname3124]

The fact anyone might ask this shows political literacy is dead.

[@TheoHawk316]

The corpse of common sense has been rotting for decades.

[@collinr9272]

@@TheoHawk316 America lost it's common sense AND its constitutional purpose all in one era once they lost an entire principal check/balance of their own called state sovereignty, and without any principal purpose a society (in this case America) will eventually rot itself to the core (like it has done and is doing) before fully eroding (under totalitarianism) and collapsing for good

[@elaishh3533]

Just because Bento Mussolini “Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions” was first published in English ( Rome) in 1935 dosnt mean the confederates didn’t utilize that ideology 60 years prior. 😂 “trust me bro“

[@trollwaffenunit1garrison784]

@@elaishh3533 cool opinion, now compare and contrast between italy of 1935 and the confederacy of 1861 for the onlookers to back up your argument, because the video you should have already watched here just demonstrated how contrasting those two states are

[@nord_anon4406]

Uh, no. They were Jeffersonian/Jacksonian liberals. Racist/white nationalist/supremacist liberals did and still do exist. Being racist doesn't make you a fascist, Italian fascism isn't even that racist.

[@kittycatwithinternetaccess2356]

yeah nazism is basically just racist facsism

[@totallynotthebio-lizard7631]

Thank you, finally, somebody disconnecting the countries!

[@Orthane]

Yeah, in fact the Libyans even gave Mussolini the title "Protector of Islam" and gave him the ceremonial Sword of Islam as thanks for his defending of Islamic culture and people in Italy's Libyan colony, since Mussolini allowed the Libyans much greater freedom than the previous Democratic governments did. Which is quite ironic when you think about it. One of Mussolini's quotes is "Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today." Showing that he wasn't even as focused on race as modern day politicians.

[@ericboom1712]

Exactly, italian fascism was barely racist until germany pressured italy to adopt racial laws.

[@Matt_Alaric]

A white nationalist liberal is a hell of a contradiction...

[@jacksonrowell4884]

Great video once again brother. I wouldn’t be surprised if less than 1% of the population could accurately define fascism in the first place.

[@MonsieurDean]

How true!

[@mikeoveli1028]

Jackson I don't think there is a very good definition for fascism. Currently in our country conservatives keep changing definitions of things. For twenty or more years Limbaugh told people that fascism was a left wing idea. As I think of it, he told that lie for probably 40 years. How can the youth understand anything when conservative liars find new ways to confuse their audience.

[@ThugHunterfromIsrael]

@@mikeoveli1028 fascism was a left wing idea. so was national socialism. (it's called socialism, lol.) in case you dont understand, both were revolutionary new political ideologies that had the express purpose of not conserving the status quo but rather destroying it and bringing something new. they also generally socialized just about everything they could. you seem to be conflating the idea of being "right wing" with being racist. a racist leftist is just as possible as a racist right winger. nobody lied to you except your history teachers (and the various media pundits you listen to) who repeatedly told you fascism and national socialism were right wing conservative ideologies, and that right wing=racism. i highly suggest picking up an actual, historically accurate book on fascism, national socialism, and their rises to power. you'll be enlightened to the fact that everyone lied to you for their own goals. republicans, conservatives, democrats, and leftists.

[@palaghiaandrei]

Italy and Germany were not conservative. Fascism and Nazism are not conservative ideologies. They were revolutionary. Conservatism implies conserving a political system and a way of life, things they both wanted to drastically change.

[@MonsieurDean]

Perhaps you would have preferred I used the term socially right wing, but I understand the nomenclature can be confusing

[@stannisthemannis1294]

Yeah they weren't conservative. They came out of the Tradition of Sorellian Syndicalism combined with Ultra-Nationalism and in Germany''s case racialism.

[@Brody-Aleksander]

❤

[@Psycho-go5yr]

​@MonsieurDean honestly by American standards, they weren't even right wing. They were national socialists, and in America socialism is undoubtedly a left wing ideology. However in Europe, where they existed, they were considered right wing. I just don't like when people conflate the European right wing with the American right.

[@niki123489]

If Fascism and Nazism are not consevative, is Communism not conservative too?

[@Pumpkin_08_09]

(reminder) Conservative Separatism is completely different from Social Nationalism

[@macoooos9204]

Fascism is also separate from NS.

[@europanacht]

and "social nationalism" is completely different from fascism

[@emryswilliams9190]

That last bit you brought up about using modern standards to judge the past was really good, and I think we should really think about the cultural and political standards of the past to truly analyze an action someone takes in history.

[@MayoOverlord]

Even then, there were a lot of people against racism during the 1860's, like abolitionist Britain and well, the North of the USA.

[@williammarshal2190]

@@MayoOverlordNo, they most certainly were not against racism, only against slavery.

[@MayoOverlord]

@@williammarshal2190 Well, still it's not recent to be against slavery.

[@emerycandy326]

Good point . I also believe history should be taught just the way it went down especially American history warts and all.

[@SeasideDetective2]

I get very annoyed when I hear people - on both ideological sides of the aisle - say that the past was characterized by different moral standards than the present. It wasn't. Theft, rape, murder, dishonesty, and adultery have been morally wrong for the entirety of civilized Western history, and continue to be. People have often tried to find ways to flout these moral standards, but those are rationalizations rather than repudiations.

[@MrAsianPie]

Of course they were, I don’t like them. And if I don’t like them, they’re fascist!

[@thorpeaaron1110]

They fought to keep slavery though

[@jbone9900]

There both evil

[@tylerhodges11]

​@@jbone9900ehhhh rebs weren't that bad bro no where near the axis at all

[@jbone9900]

@@tylerhodges11 the reps have similar race based theories as Germany did.

[@epiccrusadr8583]

@@jbone9900 so did elites in the north race was not a major part of the states existence

[@ShaquilleOatz]

“Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today… National pride has no need for the delirium of race.” -Benito Mussolini

[@night6724]

1:40 - Neither fascism nor nazism were reactionary nor pro aristocracy/monarchy. Both Hitler and Mussolini hated the monarchy and blamed many of their problems on the aristocrats. Keep in mind as well both men claimed their countries were “pure” democracies Giovanni Gentile who was the father of fascism and a minister under Mussolini wrote in his doctrines of Fascism that liberal democracy was too chaotic but under a fully centralized state the true power of the people, or democracy, can be instated. Also both the Kingdom of Italy and the German Empire were parliamentary liberal democratic constitutional monarchies with limited crown power. Both were products of enlightened values and were more democratic than the UK at the time which disenfranchised 2/3rds of the electorate and had the unelected House of Lords.

[@David-fm6go]

On the flip side, Britain had a longer history of "responsible government", the notion that the Prime Minister and his government had to command a majority in Parliament to remain in power. This developed over the course of the 18th century, and William Pitt the Younger was the last Prime Minister to hold power for an extended period solely due to the support of the Monarch. While Victoria would have liked to have kept certain favored Prime Ministers, she never appointed someone that didn't have a majority. So even while that UK was less democratic in how that Parliament was constituted, said Parliament had greater power. The German Empire would not achieve a government responsible to a Reichstag majority, until October 1918. This history, contributes to the passive acceptance of resorting to emergency rule when the Chancellors could not obtain a majority just prior to Hitler coming to power. Your larger point is correct and the Nazis despised conservatives, though were willing to use them as useful idiots on occasion. Hitler's table talks for example, express his deep loathing for the "conservativism of Franco", especially as Franco continued to refuse to enter the War and take Gibraltar. He hated the Monarchy both in Germany and as an institution, he also disliked the Catholic Church and organized religion, believing instead in gnosticism and the dialectic.

[@zingerman11259]

Wow an actually accurate map of the CSA, most maps leave out everything west of Texas from the CSA glad to see you included Arizona

[@deeplyt00ting]

Except Kentucky and West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri were not part of the CSA, sure there were sympathisers in those states, but they ultimately stayed in the Union

[@zingerman11259]

@@deeplyt00ting I think those are claimed areas areas

[@shawnv123]

yeah, didn’t the confederacy create arizona in the first place?

[@zingerman11259]

@@shawnv123 yeah, Arizona was the confederate name for the territory and new mexico was the union name for it

[@Taipei_103]

I hate it when people conflate Nationalism, Fascism, and racism. You can have racism without Nationalism (the Confederates), racism with Nationalism (the Nazis), and Nationalism without racism (Nationalist China).

[@justsang7199]

The Nazis were extremely nationalistic, Hitlers most famous quote was “Germany above all”

[@Taipei_103]

@@justsang7199Yes, which is why I put them in the "racism with nationalism" category.

[@justsang7199]

@@Taipei_103 my bad I thought it said without I was so confused 😂

[@Taipei_103]

@@justsang7199 No problem

[@snakedick4753]

Isn’t China pretty racist And wouldn’t an extreme nationalism make you at least a little bit racist Wouldn’t the idea of love of your nation and people over all others lead to discrimination of people who are not of the nation

[@z3r0_35]

Remember, when commies call somebody or something "fascist", what they REALLY mean is "not Marxist"/"not Marxist enough."

[@hydrogen3266]

As a communist/Marxist I disagree with this fully. Most people who aren’t communist haven’t gained class consciousness, unlearned propaganda, or haven’t learned enough about socialism and communism because of our school system. The bourgeoisie aren’t even all fascists, they’re simply benefiting from the system they’re in. To me, fascists have certain rhetoric that signals authoritarianism in a very specific way

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@hydrogen3266 indeed

[@z3r0_35]

@@hydrogen3266 "As a communist..." You would disagree, because I'm exposing the truth behind your ideology (or perhaps I should say religion, because that's what Marxism really is: a gnostic cult), and communism relies on deceit to achieve its goals. Also, admitting what fascism really is would mean admitting that it's socialist, and thus left wing. You know this, but you lie about it in an attempt to disassociate yourself from the actions of certain dictators in the 1930s and 1940s. I used to be one of you, I've read all the literature, I've studied all the different theories. You're not fooling me, and your totalitarian ways will never prevail. Evil always destroys itself in the end, and communism is no different.

[@scottmaclellan5688]

The answer is no and was never yes. In fact, Ulysses S. Grant sitting in hotels lobbies (where the term lobbying comes from) to talk business with wealthy corporate agents in order to decide who gets federal funding has more in common with Italian corporate fascism (marriage of state and business). Further, the post-war US has always demonstrated fascistic tendencies through corporations either being tools of the state (like with FDR, himself an admirer of Mussolini) or just having near outright control over government action (when the Marines were fighting for United Fruit or military contractors buying out politicians). Americans don't know their own history.

[@gavinmoody5678]

Lol whAaa? Is that why fascists conspired to kill FDR and luckily their plan got busted up before they could carry it out.

[@PrimericanIdol]

Didn't Mussolini himself say that race "was a feeling, not a reality", and that "National pride has no need for the delirium of race"?

[@archelon1012]

Yes. Mussolini wanted to unite all Italians around their national identity, not around exclusive racial identities. It would have been very interesting to see how fascism would have evolved if Mussolini was never made into Hitler's pawn, and dragged into his war. Although it is probably best that he was, as Hitler was so crazy that he delegitimized fascism as a respectable ideology in western culture.

[@chimerastonewall3471]

“ we are not fighting for slavery”-Confederate president Jefferson Davis

[@justsang7199]

*meanwhile fighting for slavery.

[@chimerastonewall3471]

@@justsang7199 "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”-Abraham Lincoln

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

“Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquility, and to obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled.” Jefferson Davis’ inargual address. Which rights were they fighting for? His VP laid it all to see in the Cornerstone Speech, not to mention the Causes of Secession of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, etc. This nonsense that slavery, it expansion (or lack thereof) and the racism that was the foundation of slavery was not the primary and overarching cause of the ACW is utter nonsense.

[@thorpeaaron1110]

​@@chimerastonewall3471They did fight for slavery

[@thorpeaaron1110]

​@@chimerastonewall3471There is a greater context.

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

Brazil had a non-racist fascist movement in which its anthem celebrated the mixed race person embodying the true spirit of Brazil.

[@zackkilgore528]

Funnily enough Mussolini said Race didn’t exist which is where the Integralists drew inspiration from

[@weather_master708]

I’ve been waiting for this….knew it would come. A week ago my friend and I had an argument over what the better ideology was between communism and fascism. When I tried making my argument I was immediately met with the “you’re such a Nazi”. That day I no longer saw him as my friend, as he was plagued by the radical progressives at my old school who hopped on the woke train back in 2020 in the 6th grade. 🤣

[@zoomer9686]

They are both trash, one just gets more of a free pass because they didn't lose a war... if the soviets had lost and the nazis won, it would be the hammer and sickle getting youtube videos demonitized rather than the swastika, and the default brainless insult from your friend would be "you're such a commie" (indeed, it may have been you insulting your friend in such a way if he dared to advocate for communism over nazism in this alternate scenario...) it really strips away the myths endemic to these ideologies- the "utopian order" envisioned by communists which is conveniently always being denied because of "oppressors," and the restoration of some "natural order" envisioned by nazis which is always being denied because of "subversives" or "da jooz"... you want your ideology to seem "good" or practical"? Simple -you don't need the ideology to ACTUALLY have any virtue or ACTUALLY work- you just need to win wars! Because God help you if you lose, you get relegated to wistful commentors on a video hosting website...

[@richardstarkey2247]

In contempoary America, fascist is just a buzzword to describe anything the person saying it doesn't like.

[@blockmasterscott]

Exactly this a thousand times over.

[@lastpaw8315]

Not only America. Almost everywhere

[@filrabat1965]

Same thing with "communist", "Marxist", even "socialist". Recall the black and white photos of white segregationists holding picket signs saying "Race Mixing is Communism".

[@hydrogen3266]

However, there’s no denying the similarities between the rhetoric of some republican politicians like Ron DeSantis and the rhetoric of fascist leaders. While I think it’s unhelpful to call random people on the internet fascist or people like Joe Biden or even Mike Pence fascists, there are clear similarities between some American politicians and fascists of history

[@Helperbot-2000]

@@hydrogen3266 yeah exactly

[@Matt_Alaric]

Because the people who say it are the people who believe anything that isn't progressive is racist/fascist/xxxxphobic/etc. The accuracy of the insult is less important than publicly labelling any non-progressives as bad people whose rights or opinions therefore are irrelevant.

[@chrisriverata1917]

Well to play devil's advocate they were holding back social and economic development of an entire race that literally is being non-progressive.

[@TheoHawk316]

Dead on.

[@borginburkes1819]

The confederacy was racist. I feel like even the dumbest and most stubborn person can agree with this assessment.

[@gups4963]

@@borginburkes1819 The whole fucking world was then

[@Matt_Alaric]

@@borginburkes1819 Do you think the confederacy was fascist?

[@James_72302]

In 1861 the term fascism was not even invented

[@josephrudder2104]

If looked at, it was Lincoln's administration that was authoritarian. Consider these points: -It was the Union that was favorably mentioned in Mein Kampf, not the Confederacy. The CSA was opposite of the Third Reich. -The Confederate States of America was a American creation. Its Constitution, politically ideology and structure were based on Jeffersonian Democracy. -The Lincoln administration provoked the conditions for Fort Sumter. Lincoln ordered a Federal naval officer to prepare a armed naval flotilla under Commander Foxx to reinforce the fort with fresh troops and military supplies in direct contradiction to his letter to South Carolina governor. This is very similar to the false flag operation in late August 1939 that "gave" Hitler the excuse to attack. -Lincoln had Supreme Court Chief Justice placed under house arrest. Had a Republican congressman, from his own party, expelled from the Union for speaking out against Lincoln policy, He seized control of telegraph network. Newsman and editors were arrested for printing unfavorable news on the Lincoln administration. -Had Native Americans massacred and tried to cover it up to prevent British intervention. -Lincoln authorized Grant, Sherman and Sheridan to wage war on civilians in direct violation of the rules and norms of civilized warfare. He tried to have it both ways. Saying that, by his illegal and twisted view, Secession was illegal (based on nothing) and thus the Southerners were still United States citizens BUT allowing his commanders to set their troops on helpless Southern women, children and old men to starve and terrorize. -Ordered a illegal blockade against the rules of war. -Lincoln was conspiring for most of his adult life for the return of all blacks to their now alien continent. "Root hog or die" was his response to someone's concern. The Union (rump United States of America) was fascist as it advocated centralization of federal and state authority.

[@snakedick4753]

The Lincoln monument has fascist bundles on either side of his throne

[@thorpeaaron1110]

Southern militias attacked Federal property first

[@MrMah-zf6jk]

Arresting journalists and shutting down newspapers in times of crisis is legal under the Constitution. Secession was illegal. The Constitution heavily implies that secession is illegal, and James Madison himself stated directly that secession is illegal. Blockades weren't against the rules of war. Lincoln supported the plan to send freed blacks back to Africa out of genuine care, not malice. He believed that it would be impossible for freed black slaves to reintegrate into white society, so he thought it would be for their own good to be sent back to Africa. This was considered a very progressive view on things, with many other people supporting returning black people to Africa out of hatred towards them. Having a centralized state doesn't equal fascism.

[@RC15O5]

Aptly put.

[@gregoryturk1275]

War is war.

[@themarm9679]

fascism and nazism arent even conservative tbh, both are secular and anti-Christian. Sure they could be described as socially conservative, but that was mostly rooted in their desire to protect what they considered to be traditional German or Italian lifestyles as opposed to them doing so because they saw the inherent moral virtue in those lifestyles rooted in Christian doctrine.

[@theeternalsuperstar3773]

Well, not entirely. Austro-Fascism was thoroughly identified the institution of the Austrian Catholic Church to such a degree that Austria in the 1930's could be labeled as pseudo-theocratic.

[@mcdonaldsorwhatevers]

Fascism was created by a atheist but most fascists are Christian with a few anti-christian ones (makes sense since most people in west at the time were religious)

[@theodoremccarthy4438]

Fascism and National Socialism weren’t Conservative because they idealized traditional social forms. That is simple romanticism, not conservatism.

[@derDeutsche-mh2zj]

" We stand by freedom of religion as far as it doesn't interfere with the morals and beliefs of the Germanic people, as for ourselves the party is positively Christian. - 25 points of the NSDAP.

[@CantoniaCustoms]

It depends where. In spain franco was the preferred choice for Catholics.

[@oilybat3269]

“You can’t judge someone of the past with modern standards” John brown did.

[@filrabat1965]

Contemporaries also judged the French Revolution's Committee of Public Safety and the Mongol warriors as terrible, too.

[@lukeporras1288]

Yeah and he was a homicidal terrorist kook.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

John Brown did not have modern standards I don't think he even knew what lgbt people were

[@aeida6140]

And he got hanged

[@joeyginise6051]

Never once has anyone I saw talking about the confederacy brought up how its government functioned, its laws, and how its people lived. All I ever hear is "Slavery le bad" and that is it. With the retort to states' rights being "Right to do what, hmm?" Forcing the other party to capitulate the discussion because "Slavery le bad." This is the first time I have heard anyone bring up confederate government and culture, if admittedly briefly.

[@wewuzaryans]

Because slavery is le bad

[@sterlingsimmons2212]

The Confederacy had a culture? What was their "culture"?.

[@newwaveinfantry8362]

I had never heard anyone say that before. I wasn't even aware that this is a debate that was being had.

[@pancsaer2]

Very good educational video explaining differences between them.

[@macoooos9204]

Ad0lf nationalised every major industry, this is Socialism & not Conservative. The political systems in Italy & Germany were different. Germany was not Fascist.

[@derDeutsche-mh2zj]

​@@macoooos9204LOL Hitler privatized the industry.

[@_Devil]

Aristocracy is NOT Fascism. There, I just answered the question lmao

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Suggestion man: What if Louis II of hungary defeated the ottomans?

[@dagothur5595]

They had slaves yes but they didn't hate American Indians because they had the same enemy the north .

[@samhogan7587]

There was a North American country with fascist levels of executive control at that time, but it wasn’t the Confederacy.

[@GavinKoerber]

What is it?

[@RobertH1971]

Secretary of State Seward will now arrest you for your disloyalty.

[@samhogan7587]

Thankfully it will be a speedy trial since no evidence is needed at this time.

[@Sato_Goth]

Canada?

[@TheoHawk316]

Bit of a stretch, but just a bit.

[@BluegrassKnight]

I'm glad this was made, I really get frustrated when I hear people say the Confederacy and everyone who fought for them are racist and fascist. As an American from Kentucky, I had family fight and die on both sides of the civil war, the fact is that is not the case, it was mostly fought over states' rights (yes, the right to own slaves was one of those rights). Though the vast majority of those that fought for the south didn't even own slaves and yes, some people were racist on both sides. But, to say those that fought and died for their country, are bad or evil, over beliefs they may or may not have held, is a disgrace to their sacrifice! Thanks for making this and showing the difference between the two, I hope more people educated themselves on this time period!

[@emerycandy326]

@joshuadeaton76 It's refreshing to read comments and replies from people who are knowledgeable about the history of thier home state's and the different eras in American history. I don't condone slavery or racism but I do condone lumping everyone who fought for the Confederacy together and automatically assuming they were all slave owning racists. When I was in High school both up North and down here in Florida during the 1980s there was one thing my Liberal, Moderate and Conservative History Teachers all had in common they taught about Lincoln 's proposed cotton tax. Thier southerners who didn't own slaves but fought for the Confederacy because they saw the proposed cotton tax as a violation of thier State's rights of taxation with repsentaion which one of the causes of the American Revolutionary War of Indepence. I always gave those Teachers respect for putting aside thier political differences and different views about the Civil War to be honest about that era. And eventough the Outlaw Joesy Wales was a fictional movie based on a fctional book(don't me wrong the movie was great and I'm the book was too) I would not be suprised if thier were men like Josey Wales who joined the Missouri Bushwackers Aka Border Ruffians because they lost family members and thier homes to the Red Legs. There was also an Irish born Confederate General named Patrick R. Cleburne who sided with the Confederacy mainly because he believed the South's War of Indepence from the North wasn't much different from Irealnd's struggles from indepence from the British Empire. He saw both as a David and Goliath struggle between rural societies Against industrial giants. Cleburne even wanted to offer inslaved blacks thier freedom in return for service in the Confederate Army. And The Confederate bands of the Five Civilized Tribes The Creeks, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokees in the Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) didn't just side with the South over the slavery issue they didn't trust the Federal Union because the indigenous people of America had been on the receiving end of broken treaties and the CSA promised to let them keep thier lands in the Indian Territory and even allow them to send thier own Representatives to the Confederate Congress. Most Tejanos(Mexican /Texans ) have never been fond of slavery to say the least but at least half of them fought for the Cinfederacy because they believed in small government and each State's right to taxation with representation or simply because they couldn't bring themselves to go to war with them home state. There are a lot of gray areas in history. Many whites of that era had racist views about blacks and not all of the whites up North were happy about Lincoln freeing the slaves. In NYC for instance a lot of WASPs in the Bowery and many of thier hated Irish Catholic immigrant foes in the Five Points slum didn't want to see slavery to be abolished because they didn't want compition from more free blacks moving North. This lead to dominately mobs of Irish immigrants violently attacking blacks during the 1863 draft riots. This terrible event is shown towards the end of Gangs of New York but never mentioned in Glory even though Colonel Shaw comments that most of the Irish of that era have never been known for thier fondess of coloreds while the Irish immigrant Sgt. Major Malcauy berates black recruits in the film. However to be fair to him he literally salutes them after thier training while they March of to war. He does flog Trip under Shaw's orders from being A.W.L but both are reluctant to carry out that punishment when they see the scars on his back. Well sorry to get off the beaten track and get long winded. I hope you find solace in the fact other people share your opinions and before anyone tells me that corporal punishment was banded in the U.S. Army in 1861 I already know that. Glory was an awesome film but like many historic epics Hollywood took a bit of creative license with creation scenes.

[@emerycandy326]

@@upg5702 I'm not arguing the fact the South seceded over slavery since Lincoln made no secret of the fact he wanted to abolish slavery in Washington D.C. when he ran for President in 1860 and the south's ruling planter class lead thier States into secession fearing he abolish slavery in thier States next however I am stating historic fact when I say Cleburne defiantly wanted to offer enslaved blacks thier freedom in return for service in the Confedetate Army however since the Confedertate Government feared the idea of armed black soldiers on thier soil and didn't to see an end to slavery they rejected the idea. And it both ignorant and naive to believe everybody in the North opposed slavery and were all ablosintist do goodness. Even alot of white Union soldiers officers and enlisted alike were skeptical of weather blacks would make good soldiers or not until brave black soldiers in Union Army Regiments like the 54th Massachusetts proved themselves on the battlefields the hard way. As far as I am concerned soldiers like the men in the 54th and Fredrick Douglas did as much if not more to abolish slavery as Lincoln.

[@BluegrassKnight]

I don't think you have read very many letters from the Civil War, maybe some officer's letters (which were usually from the slave owning class), but not most enlisted confederate soldiers could care less. That doesn't speak to individual beliefs about other races prevalent on both sides at the time. Most southerners didn't like the north telling them what to do and the fact they were trying to take something from them and of course federalism, most southerners liked more states rights, instead of big government! As to a slave rebellion, they were aware of the potential, but there just wasn't the same parody of numbers as in Haiti, there were about 90% black to white. Unlike there however, here in the US around the same time frame it was almost the reverse, at about 85% white to black (though with some southern areas having a higher concentration of black to white). Though most slaves weren't highly educated at the time I'm sure they realized that a rebellion wouldn't succeed. All of which can be found by honest research and an open mind, it is always ok question, you just have to be willing to accept the facts! @@upg5702

[@emerycandy326]

@@upg5702 The facts speak for themselves when the Civil War broke out in 1861 the North was only fighting to preserve the Union not to abolish slavery. The Civil War did not become the anti-slavery cause until January 1st 1863. Also the Emancipation Proclamation only abolished slavery in the secdeing Southern States. Slavery was not abolished in the border states of Delaware and Maryland until 1864 after Lincoln was re elected to a second term and slavery was abolished in Kentucky and Missouri in 1865 by the 13th Amdement. If the radical left and far right stopped playing tug of war the minds of our nation's students and went back to telling history the way it really happened people in America would squabbling over the past and take care of our problems in the present.

[@emerycandy326]

@@BluegrassKnight Good luck trying to get this guy and others like him to see the truth. Our education system is off the tracks. As I said before the far left wants all to wrongly believe the North was fighting to abolish slavery throughout the entire Civil War and refuses to admitt that were Unionists in the four border states who owned slaves. They also don't want us to know that Contrabands Slaves who escaped thier Confederate masters to cross over to Union Army lines and slaves seized from the Union Army from secessionists were declared property of the Federal Union and were just as much slaves as they were when they were in bandage by the secessionists who owned them. There were also female Contrabands raped by both white enlisted men and commissioned officers in the Union Army. The blacks murdered during the 1863 draft riots and 1864 Sand Creek massacre against Southern Cheyenne Indians in the Colorado Territory who under a flag of truce when they attacked by Union Colonel John M.Chivington commanding the 3rd Colorado Volunteers is something I hardly hear left wing arm chair historians mention lately either when they are discussing 19th century American history. The right wing arm chair historians on the opposite side of the coin are actually trying to teach kids in Florida that blacks benefited from slavery. And I wouldn't be suprised if they condone how the Native of Americans were mistreated since still have a racist stereotyped image of all Native Americans as primitive people running around in loin cloths and living in Tee pees when in fact the Five Civilized Tribes were intelligent people who were successful Farmers and Ranchers. The Cherokees even had thier own alphabet before other Tribes. I must admitt both Davis And Lincoln suspended habis corpus so can say neither really believed in small government.

[@magickaldood]

More like Mercantilist, they were an export trade economy. A wealthy upper class of land owners, and a low complexity economy focused on subsistence farming and raw material production.

[@bobriquardo5317]

lol 'mercantilist'

[@januarysson5633]

The meme at 6:53 made me remember that the German Confederation offered the imperial crown of Germany to Emperor Franz Josef of Austria but he refused it because it was conditional on his abdicating the Hungarian throne. What a mistake for Franz Josef that was.

[@parttimememedealer7071]

I feel like they're fundamentally not comparable. They weren't comand economies and overall weren't looking to drastically expand. The south genuinely didn't want to wage a war but the fascists revolutionaries definitely wanted wars in order to expand their former glory.

[@willkriegforkartoffeln4878]

Not really true. The south was looking to for a union with Mexico and the Caribbean.

[@TheBoss10725]

They uh, started the war

[@chunkmen]

@@willkriegforkartoffeln4878 That wasn't necessarily true, It was a specific group called the knights of the golden circle that were part of the South that wanted to unite the entire Caribbean area.

[@paloim]

@@TheBoss10725 a war that they viewed as defensive They started it because the Union wouldn't leave the forts within the CSA. Imagine if Scotland seceded from the UK, but the UK refused to remove its military from Scotland and Scotland tried forcing them out. Would this hypothetical scenario be one where Scotland or the UK started the war?

[@TombaFanatic]

While I think the CSA was not necessarily expansionist, its economic system and culture would have made it expansionist. American culture was expansionist, the South remains militaristic to this day, and Latin America is full of territories that have made great slave plantations that were militarily weak. If the South didn't want to fall even farther behind it's Northern rivals, it would need to expand (or ban slavery and adopt a more humane and better economic system, but they left specifically to keep that so that isn't on the table in a hypothetical future CSA). I still don't think it would become fascist, and retain it's federal republic roots

[@obi_wanbeans5242]

I've got no liking for the confederates, but I think you did a fantastic job of explaining the differences between the confederacy and fascist europe.

[@thomaswatson1739]

Confederacy was great country

[@trench_raider8247]

I got no liking for you either

[@louisnall3102]

@@thomaswatson1739yeah they have a great national flag 🏳

[@louisnall3102]

@@directsound4962 lol.

[@trance7443]

@@directsound4962 it was a fucking raid led by 19 men or so not a full scale civil with thousands of men on both sides and actually it was 1 day and had a more righteous cause compared to your illlegitimate rebellion

[@Gdoug325]

Every time i hear someone says the CSA and Third Reich governments were exactly the same i lose any and all respect 1 was a confederation other was a dictatorship

[@jed_5124]

Spains fascism was completely justified

[@randomguy6152]

oh no as a black man these countries were racist by modern and colonial standards my people never thought the Europeans weren't racist

[@Adolf-Schickelgruber]

man I love your flags for alternativ history, so simple and so complex

[@MonsieurDean]

Well thanks, pal

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

​@@MonsieurDeanyou're awesome man

[@death-istic9586]

Love your videos!🩶

[@irispaiva]

The weirdest thing to me is that people like to conveniently forget that Mussolini wasnt not racist nor an anti semite

[@anoobnoduhgaming9416]

Oh boy I wonder where he got this idea *hoi4 kaiserreich intensifies*

[@AnotherDoomerWeeb]

>Everyone I dislike is a fascists! >Even politican movements that pre-date Fascismo rule of Italy by 61 years? >Especially the ones who pre-date the ideology For real, this mindset is why we have so little political diversity beyond me good, them bad.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Amazing man! Your videos are awesome! Idea: the house of trastamara survives in spain with the heir of the Catholic Monarchs juan surviving

[@keyes858]

You are incorrect in your assertion that the Confederacy was not radically conservative. Secession was radical.

[@SantaFe19484]

Wanting to exterminate a class of people, and depending on a class of people for free labor are two different things.

[@kristiancusack7355]

I have no idea how we got to the point where every authoritarian ideology is defacto Fascist. Italy was the only Fascist country in history and they literally became a meme because of how poorly they did in the war.

[@theodoremccarthy4438]

We got here by letting the left lie about history for the past 80 years.

[@CantoniaCustoms]

Tbf they got dragged in by germany when they clearly werent ready and didnt want the fight before internal development.

[@kristiancusack7355]

@@CantoniaCustoms They didn't have to declare war it was a move made in hopes of knocking Britain out so Germany could focus on its actual goal of Lebensraum. Which to point out are all East of Germany aside from the territories France took in ww1. They had no realistic chance of taking anything in Europe without Germany doing the heavy lifting so in the context of the time period they made the only bet they could.

[@brunomerinocanales3433]

Nazi Germany allying/puppeting a variety of authoritarian countries plus communists having a fetish with calling any enemy of them fascist

[@RedCommunistDragon]

Don’t forget Spain

[@Toto-95]

next up : "were the ancient romans communists ?"

[@ChristianGunNut2001]

The CSA was what is called a Herrenvolk democracy (Apartheid South Africa being another example of this type of government). Meanwhile most of the European Axis countries were fascist (aka nation state socialist) dictatorships. The Third Reich was a Nazi (aka racial socialist) dictatorship.

[@Artporductions]

Very good thanks takes

[@kevinbourke1847]

Only in timeline 191 , Jake Featherston

[@night6724]

2:10 - No it didn’t. The CSA constitution said the federal government couldn’t abolish slavery but -not the states.- states could do that.

[@thorpeaaron1110]

Slavery was guaranteed by the Confederate Constitution.

[@Matt_Alaric]

" the federal government couldn’t abolish slavery but not the states" ?

[@mriumposc]

what ?

[@Matt_Alaric]

@@mriumposc That sentence made no sense.

[@mriumposc]

@@Matt_Alaric it did not

[@anvos658]

To be fair the Confederacy did have expansionist plans for the Caribbean and Central America, though that is less facist and more imperialist.

[@gups4963]

Your conflating a small group of people talking about doing that, as the confederacy advocating for it. The Knights of the Golden Circle weren't the confederacy

[@anvos658]

@@gups4963 The problem being that expansion would be the few ways a largely agrarian and cash crop economy would keep up with the industrializing power house of the Union, given slavery isn't such a good system when technological industry is involved.

[@gups4963]

@@anvos658 It isn't really ever economically a good system as you allude to, it stagnates quickly. it works out well for the "1%" types, and royally screw over everyone else. Similar to what is happening with illegal immigration in the U.S. now

[@ziongarner4485]

> the Confederacy did have expansionist plans No, that was the Knights of the Golden Circle, a tiny and fringe secret organization that never held any real power whatsoever. Though, for some reason they've been romanticized in modern times to be this large and powerful org. that held power in the Confederate Congress, or their plans being misinterpreted to be the Confederacy's goal, like we see in this comment.

[@alessiodecarolis]

Ironically most of the strongest supporters of AWI were in the South. Had they hypothetically won the civil war, it's VERY probable that the South would've imploded, given the rivalries btw states, as happened in S. America with Great Colombia. Contrary to fascist nations, the South didn't liked too much industrializzati on, they were essentially an agricultural economy, and also their elites despised eccessive technology, engineers and technicians were very rare, and this hampered heavily their war economy.

[@thomaswatson1739]

Not exactly. States had rivalries but they never got too bad during the War between the states. Not to mention many of the states had a sister/mother identity as its settlers had moved from South Eastern states. Texas was basically founded by people from the Southern states especially Tennessee and Georgia

[@sassycat]

Enter Eli Whitney...

[@voiceofreason2674]

Whats AWI ?

[@alessiodecarolis]

@@voiceofreason2674 American War of Indipendence.

[@mr.normalguy69]

Sorry answer: No. Long answer: Aristocratic? Yes. Fascist? Definitely not, but the Confederacy did have some similarities to fascist states like Italy and Spain.

[@Wendeta-hq2cp]

I agree! One thing that I would also mention is that if the Confederates had won, then they would have eventually abolished slavery anyway seeing as Britain was embargoing all countries which still practiced slavery and the North had no reason to do business with the South after losing a war. I imagine that the South would end up with a very poor economy until discovering the oil in Texas, which might mend realtions with the North and definitelly offer an economic out for the South. Whether the Slaves would be sent back to Africa or suffer under opression, I have no real way of knowing. P.S.: You are pretty brave to have the N@zi flag in them thumbnail.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your content z!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤

[@MonsieurDean]

I always appreciate the support!

[@sircatangry5864]

What if Dell Conagher became president of the US?

[@warcriminalgaming2359]

Engineer Gaming

[@beans00001]

The battle between RED and BLU would become even ferocious

[@timetogitgud2310]

Who would be his VP, Soldier or Scout?

[@BadCompanyGaming]

I hope that doesn't mean mass produced mimi sentries.

[@gillprus27]

Interesting comparison

[@matheuspinho4987]

I can call fascism many things but racist In _The Doctrine of Fascism_ Mussolini uses the term "race" once and it was to *_mock_* the concept of it being the bases of a national state

[@dustincarner7427]

Thank you for including all the Southern states in the map. Only thing I would add is that more than half of Kentucky and the southern portion of Missouri should be colored gray as well as those areas fell under the governance of those state's respective Confederate state governments during the war as well. As someone from the South nothing boils my blood more than those who try to take a simplistic view that the South was and is just an evil society about slavery and that's it. When in reality it was a very complex and multilayered situation that we still live in the shadow of to this day. Outside of the most diehard Lost Causers, most Southerners including myself willingly admit that a significant amount of the war was around slavery, however it was not the only reason. Economics, State's Rights, Cultural Differences, and Constitutional Theory are big reasons as well. I tend to think constitutionally the South had the right to fight for it's independence and preserve it's identity, it just didn't do it for all the right reasons.

[@emerycandy326]

@dustincarner Even though I was born in the North I lived in Florida for thirty seven years and can honestly The South is still complex. When first moved down here in 1986 there a lot of white guys and girls I met who lived here thier whole lives and had friends who black they knew thier whole lives they didn't just hang with them to look p.c. and say I hay I have black friends. They knew them thier whole lives and hunted with them fished with them and camped with them. However these same Southern born white guys and girls would never date or marry outside thier race. Eventually the longer I lived here the more I saw black and white couples. Most people I know down here tell me thier parents and grandparents were harassed by the Klan during the Civil Rights era and the KKK chapters are still more out in the open then are throughout most of the Northeast. However Even Southern whites I have met who oppose the KKK discuss the Jim Crow era. They tell me they believe slavery was inhumane but also believe Lincoln's proposed cotton violated thier State's rights of taxation with representation. And belive the South was justified for leaving the Union and compare the Civil War to the American Revolutionary War of Indepence. And they also argue that since joining the Federal Union was voluntary leaving is voluntary under the U.S. Constitution. They also correctly point out that thier were slave owning Unionists in the border states and even the North were slavery had been banned several years before the Civil War it was legal to discriminate against blacks and Irish immigrants. I get backlash from some people when I say all of this. So I know ware you are coming from. I tried to point out that Irish immigrant General Patrick Cleburne wanted to offer inslaved blacks thier freedom in return for service in the Confederate Army and how he saw a parallel between the American Civil War and Ireland's struggle for Indepence and how poorly most Native Americans were treating by the Federal Union before during and after the Civil War and it is not far fetched to belive there could have been real Missouri Farmers weren't slave owners and originally didn't want any part of the Bleeding of Kansas and the Civil War but were attacked by Jay Hawkers and Red Legs who killed thier next of kin and niegbors while destroying thier homes then joined. Some may have about these raids and joined a Guerilla band or secessionist Milita to protect thier homes. But they still keep denying any of these things happened and probably never heard of General Cleburne. On the other hand it is important to remind everybody that the Bushwackers/ Border Ruffians weren't Angles either. Most of us have heard about the massacre in Lawrence Kansas but I doubt if many know about the Centrilla Masscre. As as I am concerned it was worse as a matter of fact a lot of people consider the Centrilla massacre to be the worst atrocity of the American Civil War. Bloody Bill Anderson and his Guerillas attacked the town which was in the State of Missouri and were not satisfied slaughtering Union Troops after they surrendered they also massacred civilian men and raped the women there. The fact they terrorized and raped women they claimed thier fighting to protect from the Jay Hawkers and liberate from a Federal Union they saw as being oppressive and corrupt makes the massacre even worse. Well ending a more pleasant note I think your comments are interesting and it's good to read points of view from people who actually know States history. I pity and anybody who has to tell a MAGA flying the Confederate flag Lincoln was a Republican.

[@collinr9272]

@dustincarner7427 Right on!

[@scorpionjaxxer339]

Thanks Mr. Z!

[@andrewplowman1002]

Interesting comparisons

[@CM610LLL]

No, they were not socialist. It would be a wild argument to say that the CSA was a nationally socialist state

[@antmikedavis]

I’ve seen some people argue that Lincoln was a proto-fascist. I can see what they mean considering his ideas of nationalism, unionism, and expanding executive power; but I wouldn’t necessarily say he is myself.

[@WestlehSeyweld]

Lmao, he was a “fuck the constitution while I centralize power for my illegal war” but proto-fascist is a little far.

[@caesargaming42]

That’s why he was absolutely based. Grant was based too, he made order 11

[@bg1052]

​​​@@WestlehSeyweldHe did bend the constitution a lot, but his illegal war? He didn't even start it and whether or not states could secede wasn't settled yet. There was nothing illegal about it on his part.

[@WestlehSeyweld]

@@bg1052 the 10th amendment (go read it) gives states the rights to secede, which they did. A federal garrison refused to leave an independent South Carolina, and was fired upon with no deaths occurring. Imagine Russian garrisons refusing to leave east Germany after the fall, who claim self defense. It was all a bait. The north had no legal right to invade to south.

[@MonsieurDean]

Lincoln was just a Whig who assumed normal wartime powers. It was more authoritarian than what the country was used to, but not fascist.

[@Xelanicc]

Real talk tho, i might actually make content like he does. I think these topics are very interesting and there should be more like this out there

[@carterghill]

Isn't radical conservatism an oxymoron? Seems more expedient to just ditch the word conservative

[@Tirana-qg1ft]

Who owned the slaves? Oy vey..

[@borginburkes1819]

Who started a war to ultimately keep the slaves? Who then went on to create 100 years of legislation which held those former slaves down? Was it Jewish people? I don’t think so

[@Fireball_og]

No

[@foshershmul1648]

The real question is, was the union more fascist than the south?

[@MonsieurDean]

Relative to the South, technically it would have more similarities, but that doesn’t mean much.

[@Hamstorian]

Quick Answer: No

[@directorjames1855]

I really liked this video. I thought that you did I good job talking purely about the differences between how the Confederacy worked and how fascist nations worked, but I do want to contest one thing. At the end, you were saying that we apply modern standards to these nations in regards to racism, but that’s simply not true. Equality for all is a moral going all the way back to Ancient Israel in the Bible, then repeated again multiple times by Jesus and Paul. Both the NAZIs and Confederates actually changed the Bible to support their ideologies (Reference the “Slave Bible” and “positive Christianity” respectively.), so they fully acknowledged these old and established morals, then chose to disregard them. We are indeed applying morals of that day to that day when we talk about racism.

[@naberville3305]

Are they both nations established for the overt and direct benefit of their ruling economic class. Yeah.

[@RedSoxFanatic4Life]

Fascism and National Socialism are neither conservative nor progressive as those terms are typically used in the modern USA. These ideologies are unique, though both are variations of the broad economic and political concept of socialism, and do not neatly fit on the American left-right political spectrum (which is, itself, antiquated and overly simplistic for the present situation, but that’s a separate discussion).

[@thebrittaniondragon6183]

I haven't delved to deep into confederate alt History but I never understood the almost Cliché of the Confederacy joining the Axis, however something that might confuse people is the hole Golden Circle where a few people in the confederacy wanted to annex basically all of central/south America to keep slavery alive, and that to is a staple of Confederate alt history so maybe that where some make the leap to compare them to fascist nations of the 20th century

[@thebrittaniondragon6183]

@@upg5702 Didn't want to make any assumptions

[@thebrittaniondragon6183]

@@upg5702Yep this is the internet and I've been stuck in a war for months over my opinion, I no very little about the historical figures and that theirs a lot of love for the confederacy for some reason the last thing I want to do is start another war on a subject I now e=very little on

[@metroidsboy]

Very well done video, and much needed for our increasingly confused generation!

[@SamuelWeatherly]

Facism represents centralization of government and collaboration of the class societies. Confederateism represents decentralization and feudal free market capitalist economics. The two systems are mirror images

[@fatihgulec9326]

Why southeastern part of Turkey is missing on the map?

[@MonsieurDean]

Annexed by the Persians (probably)

[@cjvoerman5591]

American conservatism: We should return to the values of individualism, hard work, and self-made success. European conservatism: We need to return to a strong, monarchical society, with a royal family and eliminate the voices of the progressive.

[@derDeutsche-mh2zj]

European conservatism: we need to limit the social system to those wo can not work. We need to return to simple things in life.

[@filrabat1965]

American Conservatism (counterfeit form, at least): Traditional definitions and standards of "normal" and "abnormal behavior" and "respect-worthy" and "disrespect-worthy" person are fine as they are; and therefore don't need changing. In fact, changing them will mean the Chinese flag will be flying over Nashville City Hall 40 years from now.

[@wyatt1828]

The confederacy was as decentralized as a state gets. It was practically the opposite of fascist

[@commandergree6131]

Buddy what?

[@wyatt1828]

@@commandergree6131 I meant fascist 😂

[@keyes858]

I think it's disingenuous for you to ask whether the Confederacy was "fascist" knowing the answer is going to be no. Rather, you should be asking whether the Confederacy was authoritarian, to which the answer is YES.

[@cjalexanderjr8811]

The Confederacy could NOT have been Fascist because the founder of Fascism, Giovanni Gentile, was not even born at that time.

[@Cool-123]

I’d argue modern marxist intellectuals are the ones to blame for this, since to them if a system isn’t communist it’s either fascist or liberal, which is such a simplified and unnuanced world view that it simply fails to function in reality. Also I’m in some of the highest spheres of academia and I will say openly Marxist intellectuals are the ones making most decisions, and when I say open I mean self declared Marxist intellectuals which most professors parrot, especially in the humanities unfortunately.

[@Cool-123]

Just to note, I’m basically quoting verbatim what a self described Marxist intellectual speaker who came to my university to talk on african-American labor rights stated on systems of commerce, which is just laughable to anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics. To his credit atleast he didn’t glorify the unions and ignore the fact that they were generally socially conservative and pro-segregation, unlike many other similar speakers have.

[@redline841]

Communist? A majority of these "modern Marxists" aren't marxists. They are a certain group of people though, best way to know who they are is to say what they are and gauge how viciously they react. You can call them every single name under the sun, and it runs off them like water off a duck. However, call them what they are, they will shrink, jump back. Almost as if to say "I've been found out"

[@ebhark2012]

Thanks for posting this. Most people would agree if they were properly educated. Still, I feel that the racists we know today have seemed to be getting closer to fascism.

[@ebhark2012]

@directsound4962 An opinion coming from someone with an avatar of one of the most overrated racists in US history.

[@borginburkes1819]

@@directsound4962if a country is founded on the idea of oppressing another race and treating them like animals… what do we call that?

[@jbone9900]

​@@directsound4962yes,it does same as evil or lost causes

[@johnweber4577]

Jeffrey Zvengrowski wrote a fascinating book called “Jefferson Davis, Napoleonic France, and the Nature of Confederate Ideology, 1815-1870” that not enough people talk about which breaks down the two major factions within the Confederacy and their ideological forerunners. It’s especially interesting, seeing as how often they are all portrayed as basically thinking the same way with some just being more pragmatic than others. He contrasted the Pro-Davis Confederates who saw slavery as a means to the end of white supremacy which they associated with equality among whites and the Anti-Davis Confederates who saw white supremacy as a means to the end of slavery which they associated with traditional class hierarchy. The former and latter largely having been Democrats and Whigs respectively within the previous party system. The Pro-Davis faction believed that a certain level of consolidation was warranted while the Anti-Davis faction believed in radical states’ rights. The Pro-Davis faction wanted to be able to wage centralized Napoleonic-style warfare while the Anti-Davis faction preferred waging decentralized guerrilla-style warfare instead. The Pro-Davis faction was open to having seats at the table for white-ethnic religious minorities like Catholics and Jews in society while the Anti-Davis faction was insistent upon maintaining the dominance of Anglo-Protestants. The Pro-Davis faction was willing to allow for women to take their first steps out of the domestic sphere and into the workforce while the Anti-Davis faction was too strictly patriarchal to ever consider it. And the Pro-Davis faction favored France as an ally and model to an extent while the Anti-Davis faction favored Great Britain on both accounts. The Pro-Davis faction’s affinity for what was then the Second French Empire being rooted in the long sense of kinship between the American and French revolutions while the Anti-Davis faction’s affinity for Britain was rooted in the Cavalier Mythos and nostalgia for colonial times. Zvengrowski traces the divide back to that which emerged between the War Hawks and Tertium Quids during the War of 1812. He grants that Davis himself wound up going along with the narrative of his rivals but points out that most of his supporters had either fallen into disgrace or been arrested by then which left little room for argument. The Confederate congress had even been taken over by old Whigs following their midterms in 1863. They were the ones to ultimately gain power in the region as the Southern Bourbon Democrats, the Northern ones were classical liberals in the mold of Martin Van Buren, who disenfranchised not only blacks but many poor whites as well. The Jacksonian element would reassert itself to challenge them in the form of, though it wasn’t exclusively Southern, the Populist Movement which famously propelled William Jennings Bryan’s political career. With that all being said, neither faction was fascistic if we’re using any precise definition of the word. Jefferson Davis was accused by his vice president turned leader of the opposition Alexander Stephens of being a Bonapartist dictator in the making for reasons alluded to earlier. And while Bonapartism is often framed as a kind of Proto-Fascism, either claim is still a big stretch regardless of what anybody thinks about the Confederacy as a project. The term was simply used as an epithet for things people didn’t like fast enough for George Orwell to comment on the matter.

[@acabusarmies7279]

Interesting. I wonder what would have happened to these factions if the confederacy kept on holding on for a longer period (without outright winning) due to some quotations pulled from an Atun-Shei video that show a growing mood for industrialized, dictatorial plantation economics?

[@eatafox]

I reject the notion that Germany and Italy were conservative. Tell me what they were trying to conserve; Race? Italy? No, their fascism wasn't all that racist, and even in the German case the idea of the aryan race was a new "science" so only partly. And their while idea on the economy and social structure was very "progressive".

[@zrunner800]

Nazi Germany is defined by its genocidal racism. It was violently reactionary, to the point that rather than using state power to conserve a feature of society, the Nazis invented a mythical past that had been stollen from them. This is radical conservatism. Nazi Germany was by every possible definition, ultra conservative, extreme right wing, fascist and authoritarian. And I think it’s legitimately crazy to down play just how evil the nazi regime was, with a “they weren’t that racist” remark. I’m disappointed in you

[@iattacku2773]

Well it boils down to most people not knowing what fascism is. Hell fascism is more of a left wing movement than right wing movement. I would say to south was closer to feudalism without official titles

[@silenthawkstudios9924]

Way too many people don't seem to realize that racism is only one aspect of fascism. A strong centralized government is also another aspect of fascism, and one of the things the confederates were fighting for was to have a weaker, decentralized government.

[@saltytriscuit896]

Can you do “What if Georgism Succeeded”?

[@collinr9272]

@MonsieurDean video suggestion Populism/Statism

[@slightlyistorical1776]

The Confederate States was not fascist, but it was also by no means a freedom-loving republic Lost Causers try to make it out to be. It was a modern feudalist oligarchy where the rich slave-owning plantation class of society held complete power in the government and military, and often were exempt from the extremely unpopular drafts and food shortages which plagued the average Southerner. It was not a continuation for the Founding Fathers' vision of America, it was a gross bastardization of it

[@stannisthemannis1294]

No doubt the south isn't the continuation of the founder's America, but I wouldn't call the north it either. The founder's nation was destroyed in the civil war. With aristocratic plantations on one side and Lincoln's Federal government on the other. Lincoln ultimately set the precedent of Federal>State & Local power.

[@thorpeaaron1110]

​@@directsound4962So you were okay with it being run by an elite group of planters.

[@MrMah-zf6jk]

@@stannisthemannis1294 the federal government always had authority over state governments. It's in the Constitution and was further reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1800s.

[@damackabet.4611]

@@thorpeaaron1110 I mean its run by an elite group of business men today. since the industrialist north won, they became the major ruling power. Instead of plantation owners. Inevitable any government will have one main group as the people running it, sometimes small sometimes relatively large in population for how many are running it.

[@stannisthemannis1294]

@@MrMah-zf6jk Well, our country isn't perfect I guess.

[@m.a.118]

The last bit largely summing up how the "left" conflates the Axis with the CSA is spot on... but I think it's half the equation- We should also be cognisant of the fact the "right", by this I mean the far,far, faaaaaar right has also often welded these two together. IE, it's not uncommon we see Wehraboos and straight up actual neo-N@zis really going all in to CSA lost-cause myths, talking points, and historically fetishising the South since 1945 onward... The popular (cheap) historiography regarding this conflation both from radical Liberals and radical right populists that has happened since 1945 would also be interesting to study.

[@Gunitz89]

And italian fascism wasnt even racist

[@_YouTube-User_]

Yes it was for example the Italian Dodecanese where a lot of Jews were killed and the native Greeks were oppressed

[@Gunitz89]

war time control of people is not necessarily racist, and the jew thing is more linked with italy alliance with Germany than with Fascism being really racist or anti-semitic@@_KZbin-User_

[@_YouTube-User_]

@@Gunitz89 I agree in the most part but the operation of the Greeks started as soon as Mussolini came to power although it heavily intensified with the 1940 Greco-Italian war

[@GabrielUngacta]

Harry Turtledove: They will be. They will be.

[@rafaellorentz6592]

No. People has to stop naming everything as fascism.