Wasn’t it KINDA About STATES’ RIGHTS?!?!?!?!?!?!?! - Atun-Shei Reaction Part 1

See the original video here - • Wasn’t it KINDA About ...
Other Checkmate Lincolnites Reactions:
Tariffs and Taxes - the REAL Cause of the War? - • TARIFFS and TAXES: The...
Did the Confederacy Really Have Better Generals? - • Did the CONFEDERACY Ha...
Was it Really the War of Northern Aggression? - • Was it REALLY the War ...
Was Sherman a War Criminal? - • Was Sherman a WAR CRIM...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
Join our new VTH Discord here - / discord

[@xherm3s360]

If you ever meet someone who says that the civil war was more about states rights than slavery, offer to play this game with them: They will read verbatim the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States. Every time it mentions states right to self govern, you will pay them $100, and every time it mentions slavery, you will slap them in the face. In the aftermath, the lost causer will be $0 richer and you will have a sore hand

[@sheepheard483]

i got a game for you: name the politicians calling to end slavery in 1860? now name 1 just one that proposed a thing like the emancipation proclamation in 1860??? ill wait

[@sheepheard483]

name me the people that wanted to end slavery and caused the war?

[@xherm3s360]

@@sheepheard483 If I had to point fingers and lay blame for the start of the civil war I'd generally blame the ones who threw a temper tantrum and bombed Fort Sumpter before leaving the union because they were scared that they wouldn't be allowed to own black people anymore, but thats just me ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

[@norsethenomad5978]

@@sheepheard483Cassius Marcellus Clay

[@sheepheard483]

@@iceguy9723 ill do 1 at a time. salmon was against the spreading of slavery but excepted a states right to have slaves, however in his eyes once a slave made it to a free state, that slave became a free man. so not exactly Emancipation Proclamation material

[@gmen1267]

To be fair, sometimes it takes 10 minutes of looking into the Civil War before you realize slavery may have had a role in it lol

[@samuel10125]

Did you know there where black slave owners to in the south at the time seriously look it up I never knew about it.

[@kais.1684]

to be fair, that's longer than the average attention span

[@matthewmayton1845]

But it does depend on the narrative being presented. It can be twisted in a way to make slavery a minor issue to a larger issue.

[@deus_vult8111]

The war was not about slavery. It was about preserving the union. The south didn’t want to bear the economic brunt of northern tariffs so they wanted out

[@Bojangus-]

@@deus_vult8111 let me show you a series that directly answers that- you may have heard of it, it’s called Checkmate Lincolnites

[@Oxlorne]

Chris "I'll try not to talk so much in part 2" You do realize we are here for your commentary, right? There is no such thing as too much commentary! Sincere thank you for consistently producing great content! My favorite KZbin channel by far and I'm always so happy to come home from work to see a new video waiting to be viewed.

[@abomb3601]

Thank you! If we didn't want the commentary, we would just watch the original video. We should all do that anyways, but the point still stands. We want insight.

[@ernestbatiy1070]

Not to mention some of us watch the original prior to the reaction and are just here for you

[@sociologynut8033]

Jason Kean- Chris beats my droning monotone history teachers of the past!

[@zer0nix]

Without the commentary it's just stolen content, honestly

[@PatrickOMulligan]

Yeah, it would be a and reaction video if he did not transform it via his commentary.

[@Ravage369]

If the Civil War wasn't about slavery somebody should really go back in time and tell the Confederacy.

[@GabrielUngacta]

Hey guys! The Confederacy didnt secede over slavery! 😃 *Every Confederate aims musket at you*

[@merasmurry1460]

This was very funny, however that's not your fucking joke.

[@sheepheard483]

The south succeeded because the federal government ceased to function the way it was designed. It no longer followed the rules layed out by checks and balances.the executive branch chose to openly ignore the judiciary. It would be like Biden Creating an executive order that outlaws all firearm sales. It would be unconstitutional and so it might technically be about gun rights. It would also be about the breakdown of the constitution and therefore be a overstepping of the Executive branch violating the Constitution. Would you say that the problem is strictly a gun rights problem or would you say it’s a constitutional government problem not so simple as a gun rights problem or a slave problem Abraham Lincoln technically was going against the constitution, so yes it was about slavery, but it was also about constitutional rights.

[@merasmurry1460]

@@sheepheard483 Actually out lawing all firearm sales wouldn't be unconstitutional. Plus can you provide anything that proves that the government "ceased to function".

[@sheepheard483]

@@merasmurry1460 i had hoped that after putting my full self including my vulneratilities on here that people would see that im not coming from a place with sides or an agenda. i come from a place of being mostly self educated on this subject..... that being said i avoid articles or sources that have an agenda and choose to ignore or spin facts... most civil war voices come from the same place or school of thought..... when i study history i look for the untold stories that arent on the lips of mainstreem propogandists. .... anyway, theres this new super hip thing called "the dredd scott case"... all the kids are doing it!! check out how mr....or soon to be president lincoln handled that decision... you have your proof. as for your gun and constitution statement.... im not even gunna validate that with a response. im gunna try to encourage you to do better in the future and keep it coming!

[@seraphinaaizen6278]

"I have no idea how anyone who spends more than 5 minutes studying the American Civil War ... could possibly say it had nothing to do slavery". I think you identified the problem in the first half of this statement.

[@JamesScrote]

I mean...it was 100% about state's rights. State's rights to own slaves

[@heavymetalmusichead4969]

My brother-in-law holds a "lost cause" position on the Civil War. He told me it wasn't about slavery at all. I was pretty sure it absolutely was, but I looked I to it seriously. I was kinda afraid. Could I have been wrong? No. Not even close. Every declaration of secession, every speech from the southern leaders, every piece of correspondence I could find listed slavery as the primary cause. In most cases, the ONLY cause for seccession.

[@Eric6761]

​@@heavymetalmusichead4969 it was technicaly about states owning slaves or not, so if you want to give credit to your brother you can give that credit to him

[@1krani]

The problem is that Lost Causers point to the handful of things that justify their position while dismissing all other correspondence or evidence as exceptions to their rule. It's a hardcore form of confirmation bias.

[@wetwilly01]

I had a social studies teacher draw on the whiteboard, a diagram explaining why it wasn't about slavery and really about money. He sucked. His last name was Lyons too, I wonder if there's a correlation.

[@dbach1025]

Always blown away how Atunshei has exusive rights to audio recordings of people that have been dead for over 150 years. How does he do that?

[@PaulMcElligott]

"The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural."

[@LjuboCupic1912]

@@PaulMcElligott how are you verified with 190 subscribers?

[@PaulMcElligott]

@@LjuboCupic1912 I had my identity verified for my Google+ business page, and apparently that carries over to KZbin. I didn’t ask for it and now I can’t get rid of it. Wish I could so I didn’t have to keep answering this same question all the time. 🙄

[@Subsandsoda]

It's because of his connections with the vvitchfinder general

[@dbach1025]

@@Subsandsoda hahah. I bet you are right.

[@Ddonaldson9]

As John Green has told a story about himself in HS, his teacher replied to him on this topic, "The States' right to do what sir?"

[@MrShadowThief]

To secede. Wow, that was easy.

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

@@MrShadowThief The states themselves said it was about slavery.

[@wordforger]

@@MrShadowThief Why'd they want to secede, though?

[@ChargingStag]

Everyone is technically right here. I prefer the term 'state's rights' personally, as that is an umbrella term that easily covers everything, and as such is better to use. If anyone wants to follow up with 'state's rights to do what?' then I'll elaborate the reasons such as slavery, the right to secede, hostility towards the union, the election of Lincoln etc etc. But I feel that state's rights is a better thing to say as a basic overview as it is more appropriate to cover everything. Because it was more than just one thing. Even if one thing was the tipping point more than the other things.

[@Ddonaldson9]

@@ChargingStag the problem with using 'state's rights' as the justification is that it buries the reality of their true, abhorrent ambitions under the guise of a legitimate political debate. This happens all the time to this day and is something we should all be aware of.

[@fogwar]

It's a testament to how great your channel is that whenever I see new history content my first thought is "Wow, I wonder what Chris will make of this?"

[@KelpyJee]

You said it brother

[@kais.1684]

I was thinking the same and, "Looking forward to Chris' commentary on this one!"

[@briangambler9166]

Same!! I always love his analysis of atun-shei’s stuff

[@Zarflame99_Alt]

Hello, the fog of war, I subbed to your channel a few days ago.

[@ThirteenthOfFour]

My exact thoughts

[@lukes9550]

When I saw the new "Checkmate Lincoinites" video my first thought was immediately "Man I hope VTH reacts to this". Thanks for teaching me that dreams do come true

[@davidjones1310]

VTH doesn't mess around! He got this one up super-quickly.

[@longforgotten4823]

No one can call themselves a history fan, if they’re not bothering to read primary source documentation. The articles of Confederacy are completely and utterly clear about the role of slavery in the Civil War. Also the majority of legislation prior to, during, and post- Civil War was specifically about slavery, its abolition, and the restitution.

[@Carlton-B]

I presume you mean the Constitution of the Confederacy, not the Articles of Confederation. Yes, the document is eerily familiar, since it copies much of the U.S. Constitution word-for-word, then takes a left turn with pro-slave additions. Recommended reading.

[@longforgotten4823]

@@Carlton-B thank you for the proper correction. It’s been a long day.

[@Billybob-bm7vt]

@@Carlton-B This is actually an interesting front, because when it comes to the two Constitutions, there are only two differences when it comes to slavery. One is that the slave trade was banned immediately except for the US, while the US Constitution gave the option of banning it in 20 years--and the other is that the US constitution spoke of slavery by implication, with terms like "persons held to labor" while the Confederate Constitution spoke directly. Meanwhile, the two differed vastly when it came to the size and scope of government. Not only were several more checks and balances put in so that each branch further limited the power of the others, but several more checks were put on the federal government's power--states could even impeach federal officials sent to their state! Moreover, there were three massive changes: *The Confederate Constitution specifically states "no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury." No money from the government to fund any business or industry. Yeah, the Confederate Constitution strictly bans corporate welfare. No more of taxpayers across the country paying for gifts to well-connected businessmen. *Likewise, spending on "any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce" was strictly banned. No massive, corrupt transcontinental railroads (which, more than any one thing, were the reason for Lincoln's invasion, and for the Plains Wars after--terrorism against the South to get the money, and against the Plains Tribes to get the land), or equally corrupt canal projects that invariably ended up as vastly expensive debacles. Narrow exceptions for the CS Constitution were made for improving navigation, with the specific caveat that the price for these is paid by the navigation that gets improved. That's the end of "internal improvements"--which we later called "pork-barrel spending" because it was more accurate, and then changed to "earmarks" because pork-barrel was TOO accurate. No more congressmen getting elected by promising to bring federal money to their voters. *"...nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry..." That's the end of Protectionism. No more can the government use revenue laws to restrict competition and let businesses charge artificially high prices. (Note that when Lincoln entered politics in 1832, he said " My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles." Likewise, the Boston Tea Party had less to do with a 3% tax and more to do with the fact that King George granted the Dutch East India company a government-backed monopoly in the colonies--if you don't like their tea or their price, too bad because there's nowhere else to go; they knew this would cost them a lot more than 3%.) *And perhaps most importantly, the phrase "promote the general welfare." It's not there. No trace of it at all; it was excised like the cancerous tumor that it is. In many ways, this clause was Hamilton's poison-pill--a backdoor, you could say, into the security system against tyranny our Constitution was written to provide. In Federalist Paper 83 (speaking mainly of civil trials), Hamilton argued that "this specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretention to a general legislative authority"--in plainer language, because our Constitution makes specific notes of the powers granted it obviously doesn't grant a wide general authority to do what it wishes; it's foolish to think that Congress has any general legislative power to act as it feels like, or else those specified powers would be worthless. Why enumerate those specific duties and powers, if the General Welfare Clause would trump them? This is important, because the battle in which Lincoln defeated Davis--not with rhetoric, but with rifle, bayonet, and penis (yes, that, because the rape of Southern women was a vital part of his victory!)--was part of a larger war fought between Henry Clay and John Calhoun, and before that by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton was the one who pushed hardest for a constitution under the guise that "we need a government of more energy" even though under the Articles we had defeated the most powerful superpower in the world, and his plan was a president-for-life who would appoint the governors of each state and have veto power over all state legislation. Later he invented "war powers" (supposed powers by which the president's duty to wage war implies the ability to do whatever he feels would possibly advance the cause of the war), and even the nationalization of industries that supply military goods. And indeed, AFTER the Constitution was ratified Hamilton suddenly saw a vast array of new powers contained in that single phrase, powers that allowed the government to do whatever it thought would help somebody, somewhere. The Confederate Constitution was a repudiation of Lincoln and his mercantilist schemes, of his "war powers," and his demand for more control--but first and foremost it was a repudiation of Hamilton.

[@pawanyr360]

@@Billybob-bm7vt "when it comes to the two Constitutions, there are only two differences . . . One is that the slave trade was banned immediately . . . and the other is that the US constitution spoke of slavery by implication . . . while the Confederate Constitution spoke directly." False. Other differences include the explicit banning of ending slavery - "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." It also mandated slavery in the territories, among other pro-slavery provisions. "That's the end of "internal improvements" - celebrating this is weird, since that's also the end of America as an economic powerhouse, the highway system, etc. "granted the Dutch East India company a government-backed monopoly" - wrong company. "under the Articles we had defeated the most powerful superpower" - the articles were ratified only near the end of the war. Also, they were in many ways weaker than the Continental Congresses that preceded them. They were also rather famously unable to deal with far lesser military threats than the British, which you'd know if you watched the video you're commenting on. I'm not touching the rest of this insane, lost cause, heavily inaccurate screed.

[@dgray3771]

You are confusing the act of secession with the civil war. They are not the same, though linked. Nobody who isn't a fool would say that the entire underlying cause is slavery. But the war isn't. secession is. The war is caused due to property claims by the seceding states. In this case fort Sumter. And the immediate reason for the North to fight is the preservation of the Union. At this point, slavery is not on the table. It will be on the table and it will become an even bigger issue, but that is all due to the fear of European intervention on behalf of the south. And that is the reason for the declaration of emancipation. As someone from the outside looking into this entire war there is no Khaleesi going around with dragons freeing the slaves. You see bureaucrats and politicians manoeuvring their way on 1 side to preserve the union and the other to have their secession succeed. And like I said above, the secession is over slavery. Their state right to hold slaves. Yet not both sides are arguing the same argument. South-slaves, North-preservation of the union.

[@davidwood8730]

Grant made a good point about the civil war. He said maybe the 13 original colonies had some argument about the right to secede, but all the other states were settled with the help of the federal government. All of these states were acquired by treaty, purchase, or conquest by the federal government.

[@russellmiles2861]

Well Grant was aware of the settlers incursion into Texas bringing slavery into an area where it was illegalGrant though expressed that this expansion would upset the balance in the USA between free and slave interests and lead to war. The US Army and Navy personal according to Grant we’re somewhat sympathetic to the Mexicans they were ordered to defeat.

[@TheStapleGunKid]

The 13 colonies had a moral case for secession, not a legal one. None of the founders claimed secession was legal under British law.

[@eRev21]

As stated in Mississippi's declaration of succession (literally the first reason listed): "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery". Honestly, this entire topic is pretty well summarized in the first couple lines spoken... the state's rights to own slaves. Not really sure who could possibly argue with this.

[@FordHoard]

Wow, ONE sentence. You forgot to add the rest of the reasons.

[@eRev21]

@@FordHoard you don't feel as if the first listed reason would be the most important one? Sure, there were other reasons listed. About five or six of which are also about slavery, slaves, or black rights, but whatever.

[@FordHoard]

@@eRev21 The other reasons are not about slavery. The first amendment is the first one, so it's the most important right? Why do you ally with people who want to tear down history and silence people?

[@AllyMonsters]

@@FordHoard Did you think the Mississippi's declaration of succession is the The Constitution or Deceleration of Independence??

[@FordHoard]

@@AllyMonsters That's not what I said at all, but you're going to believe what you want to.

[@Matthew_Baratheon]

I can speak from experience that if you grow up in the south, most of your history teachers use the argument that it was not fought over slavery, but for State's rights...and the text books chosen gloss over a lot of the points that could easily refute that argument. And while a more avid history buff would certainly know better, your average highschool graduate from the South who probably made a C or B in that class will spend the rest of their lives arguing that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, because they certainly won't question what they were taught in school.

[@rich355]

From your experience, what 'Lost Cause' argument did they use as the reason for the Civil War and State Secession? Like what examples of States Rights?

[@SJ-vc6zn]

@@rich355 As someone who personally went through this but, being more educated in history than many of my peers I didn't buy it. There was no arguement against it being about slavery. The entire lesson was framed around states rights being the issue. They just omit everything else and mention Slavery as an after thought. My earliest memory of school actually was of my Kindergarden Teacher telling us it was about States Rights, my father also subscribed to this idea with no idea how wrong he was simply because of how the Civil War was taught to him. Its easy to belive that garbage when they dont even teach anything about the leaders of the Confederacy litterally word for word saying it was about slavery.

[@karthiktirumala1773]

they're changing the curriculum now (This is in Texas btw), I just graduated 11th grade and in APUSH, it is mentioned many times that slavery was the "states rights" they were fighting for and they even let us analyze some of the reasons for secession.

[@msspi764]

Me too. That’s exactly what the UDC was after. To accomplish that goal of instituting their own view of history they got review authority from some key states of text books and curricula. My grade school US history textbook in Maryland was the same as the one used in Mississippi. So we were all being “educated.” In fact generations were being educated in Southern heroism and racial inequality.

[@rich355]

@@SJ-vc6zn Makes sense, I only have recently been doing my own research on the Civil War as I'm currently pursuing my history degree. My American history teacher had to rush through it in order to not fall behind onto our later lessons like the industrial revolution, the progressive movement, WW1 etc, so I imagine it's quite easy for instructors who actually want to teach the Lost Cause myth to students by glossing over it. Thank you for the reply. I would love to visit the South to witness how it's actually done. Because as someone who lives in the southwest hearing stuff like this is quite mind-blowing. When you consider that these states are under the same country.

[@Oleksandr.Derkach]

I like how at the start you clarify that states rights were to preserve slavery right before it was said in the video and after that your "There it is" was followed by "There it is" second later in the video 😂

[@IndyGuest]

My enjoyment of these reaction videos never cease for me. Your criticisms of Atun-Shei have always been very fair and respectful and I think that has helped him make better videos too. On top of that I always get even more history details that aren't fleshed out as much which is a huge treat. Thanks Chris!

[@SonicsniperV7]

One thing people forget about the idea of freeing slaves via compensated emancipation was that the Constitution forbid the US government from taking peoples peoperty without just compensation. And since slaves were "property", they were working within the framework of what they had.

[@bkucenski]

You're kidding, right? If slavery is illegal, they are not property. Therefore no compensation is required. They were stolen people from a foreign land. Not enough slave masters died in the Civil War.

[@JaneSmith-so6hw]

It's pretty crazy you have a piece of the tree so directly connected with death of your ancestors. I can't really think of the right words for that, except it's amazing you were able to connect your ancestors to that point in history and have a physical memento of their lives/deaths.. Always appreciate your videos and keep up the great content.

[@jamesoblivion]

The Checkmate, Lincolnites series just keeps getting better, and more in depth, as it goes.

[@highschoolhistorian6332]

I think these reactions are pretty cool. Getting someone who's goal is to provide context and educate the audience overlaying a video which raises primary evidence to support a debate. It's basically 'Extra for Experts' for history nerds lol.

[@Longshanks1690]

29:15 Yeah, it’d be more accurate to say that northern opinion was largely ambivalent to slavery, opposed to it in a personal sense but not going out of their way to interfere in the affairs of the other states - and the necessary cotton trade that enriched them as well. There was surely a large minority opinion opposed to the expansion of slavery in future states, which could be chalked up to not wanting future job prospects to be taken by unpaid labourers, and finally a small minority of moral opposition to slavery as an anti-American, anti-Christian practise that had to be eradicated for the ideals of the Declaration of Independence to be upheld. So there was a general consensus in the north that “slavery is bad,” with several “buts” added onto that sentence such as “but it’s nothing to do with us,” that made the whole question more complicated in northern opinion than I think Atun is implying here.

[@MollymaukT]

Northerners thought slavery was bad kinda like people today think slavery is bad and still buy stuff from sweatshops

[@MrSkeltal268]

What I rarely seen talked about, is that even those who wished for slavery’s end, wanted nothing to do with free blacks. Some wanted them shipped back to Africa, most didn’t care where they went as long as they didn’t live near them. :/

[@CharlieNoodles]

I find the entire issue of northern racism to be nothing more than a red herring. It’s brought up by lost causers merely as a way of deflecting the conversation away from the issue of the south slave industry.

[@sheepheard483]

@@CharlieNoodles its brought up because what we now call "racism" didnt have a name back then. it was just apart of the general world view and even backed up through the very primitivize and bias sciences of the time.. it was common to speak of "mongrel races" in scientific papers, and early anthropologists made many references to savages who needed to be civilized "though it may not be in their nature. this didnt come from a place of hate, anger, or even prejudice. these were excepted facts that were taught and discussed by all the intellectuals of the day.... the staunchest abolitionist had a view that would offend any of us today. the pictures they paint of the free black man is of a relationship between a adult and a child. they didnt believe the blacks could integrate or where even capable of taking care of themselves.... the exceptions they would chalk up to the person having a white ancestors traits come out which allowed them to be somewhat normal... separate

[@stephenelberfeld8175]

One key issue in Shay's Rebellion was the lack of hard currency, because produce could not be bartered to pay taxes, but was used locally to avoid personal debts.

[@MLCrisis1790]

I grew up in Massachusetts and was very surprised as I got older that more people didn't know that. Of course, I also went on field trips to the Boston Tea Party museum and Lexington and Concord damn near every year in school so it might've been a local focus, lol

[@tomogburn2462]

I love that the characters are drinking regionally appropriate beers.

[@mattbo9125]

Don’t feel the need to shorten your commentary, even if this turns into a 3 part thing. Your detail and insight is why I’m watching. Keep doing what you do

[@romanbarna1316]

I finished the original video a few hours ago and have to sleep, and yet I find myself watching your analysis of it. Never realized that reaction videos could be so entertaining before I found this channel.

[@Archone666]

This video, and the commentary about the cotton gin, inspired me to check something. And... sure enough. Eli Whitney did indeed invent the cotton gin - and the same people who screamed and snarled about their "property rights" were super duper quick to infringe on his patent and make their fortunes while cheating Whitney. So... on top of everything else, they were being lying hypocrites about the whole "property rights" thing. Literally every single thing about the plantation owners made them subhuman. Scum.

[@sociologynut8033]

I love this channel. I can be educated and entertained simultaneously! The acting skits are really funny. I just found it 20 minutes ago, great that it makes history buffs laugh. I think this is the best result of social media, sharing serious information with tongue in cheek funny illustration. This is way better than political keyboard wars, or antisocial media!

[@professorwhat2704]

I'll try to give some perspective as someone who was raised as a Lost Causer and has grown out of that in hopes that it might help people who try to teach the truth to understand where they're coming from to hopefully help make them more prepared to deal with those arguments. There's a lot to unpack here, so this is going to be long. (Apologies for that in advance, but I'll try to make it worthwhile.) First, I can tell you how people who study the war can argue that the war wasn't about slavery. They study in an echo chamber. Their sources are all sources that agree with their preconceived notions that focus on favorable points while ignoring unfavorable ones. They use talking points to deal with anything else. When that's the way someone functions, they can end up truly believing some crazy stuff. (You can find proof of that in the number of people that believe any number of ridiculous ideas.) You've got to get them out of their comfort zone and end the reliance on their talking points to make any headway. It's also not going to be quick. When someone has had something pounded into them over a long period of time or they've functioned in a closed minded arena for a long time, it takes some work to break through. Second, I'd point out that the idea of a "second war of independence" isn't one that only existed at the time of the war. It still exists today. As per what I said above, there are still those who see it as nothing more than an oppressive invasion into a sovereign nation in order to force them back under a yoke of domination. If you're going to try to reason with someone that believes in the lost cause, you'd best be prepared for that. Over 150 years later, that's still going strong. Third, the point about banning the slave trade only making slavery more valuable is a very useful one. Absolutely use that and give the proper perspective. Those who try to argue that the war had nothing to do with slavery like to point out that the Confederate Constitution banned the foreign slave trade. But why? Because it was in the interest of the wealthy that owned slaves that became more valuable because of the ban. I can just about guarantee that someone who tries to use the slave trade ban has never had that point effectively explained, and they might not have even considered it. I promise you they'll argue with it, but it will get them off balance. Fourth, NEVER use Texas vs White as an argument against secession. They know about it, trust me. And they'll be very quick to point out that it was after the fact, and they'll argue that it was only a further oppressive move to ensure that the southern states were kept under the yoke. And they'll be quick to point out that the New England states made the threat earlier on. If you bring up Texas vs White, you're only going to embolden them. Hamilton's statements, though they'll likely be viewed in a hostile manner since they came from a "Yankee," will be much more effective. If you want to combat the idea of secession being legal at the time of the war, you're going to have to do it with pre-war, not post-war facts. Fifth, also absolutely make the differing motives of the deep south and the upper south clear. That echo chamber comes back into play now. The more favorable arguments will be the ones they're most familiar with. There's no separation made between the states of those two regions in the mind of lost causers. If they can make the argument for one state that potentially favors them, they'll apply it to all. My suggestion would be to keep the focus on the first seven states to secede. If the details of the secession declarations of the earlier states that seceded can be established, it will do a lot to undercut their argument. It will likely upset them, and it might end the conversation, but the point will have been established. Hopefully, down the road, that will be a seed that can be watered. Sixth, I also agree that it's important to recognize that the north wasn't nearly as anti-slavery as the common narrative today seems to suggest. They're going to make that argument. They're going to remind you of the fact that there was racism in the north and that Lincoln made statements that suggested that he didn't have a deep desire to free slaves. This is one area that they're going to be prepared, since there is actually plenty of history that supports them on this individual point. My suggestion would be to use that as an area that you can establish some common ground. If you can force them to recognize that you see eye to eye with them on certain areas, their guard is lowered. There's no longer a reason for them to feel like they have to be on the defensive all the time, and that might allow you to have an opportunity to make more points to them. As for the whataboutism, don't let them do that. Bring things back to an agreement that the idea of one human owning another is wrong, no matter who's doing it. In the long term, that's going to work in your favor, simply because of the raw numbers. Anyway, Chris, if you're still reading at this point, thanks again for the work you put into this. Your commentary always adds a lot (read, we want you adding a lot of comments), and your attitude is always a welcoming one. That's a very good tool for teaching real history to those who have been indoctrinated with something else.

[@bfure1]

This is a great walk through, and again, to emphasize what I feel is the most important point, you have to acknowledge that both sides of the conflict had a seperate reason for it, the South absolutely and 100% seceded for the cause of slavery, but, this does not mean the North fought for the cause of freedom of slaves, at least at the beginning. Recognising that the sides had different issues they were fighting for is to me the most important thing, as if you found your argument on the north being anti slavery, then they can just use Lincoln's quote to discredit your whole statement off the bat.

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

I would also add the Preamble of the Constitution “… in order to form a more perfect Union …” What was the Union that was being made more perfect? The Articles of Confederation clearly spells that out: “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.” Perpetual Union means continuously ongoing, never ending. So the Founding Fathers were quite clear and to the point that they envisioned a Union that never ended.

[@undertakernumberone1]

"Those who try to argue that the war had nothing to do with slavery like to point out that the Confederate Constitution banned the foreign slave trade. But why? Because it was in the interest of the wealthy that owned slaves that became more valuable because of the ban. " Not only that, but they also knew that, if they appeared to have any (official) inkling of doing so, they knew that Great Britain might be (even) less likely to join their cause... especially if they attempted to do so during the war. They'd have had the Royal Navy on their ass before you could've sung "The Alabama and Kearsarge", "They're going to remind you of the fact that there was racism in the north and that Lincoln made statements that suggested that he didn't have a deep desire to free slaves" well, here's the issue: other statements made it pretty clear that he'd prefer to be able to abolish slavery and free the slaves but wouldn't do so for the good of the union. One of those examples actually cropped up in Checkmate, Lincolnites!... can't remember which one though.

[@MrShadowThief]

"there are still those who see it as nothing more than an oppressive invasion into a sovereign nation in order to force them back under a yoke of domination" Isn't that technically true, though?

[@undertakernumberone1]

@@MrShadowThief no. The south wasn't a sovereign nation, it only tried to be one, without international recognition. The south itself was oppressive and tried to enforce domination, while the north, for quite a while, would've been just fine with them returning ot the status quo.

[@e_parade]

I watched his video earlier today, but the whole time I was thinking "Should I just wait? VTH will likely have a reaction video up by tomorrow." Glad I was right, and happy to have supported both channels by watching in both places.

[@argel1200]

Yeah, better to watch the original in its pure form and then watch the reaction. Two great channels!!

[@shauncorley4305]

Please do talk just as much in part 2! Your commentary is why we are here! Love your channel man. I'm excited for every new post!

[@AngelWolf12]

Oh wow, I was literally watching the original video thinking "Oh man, I bet VTH is going to have some stuff to say about this, can't wait."

[@johnmoore5118]

Shelby Foote once stated that “slavery has everything to do with the Civil War and nothing to do with the Civil War.” Always thought that was fundamentally faulty; good to see this discussion come up again since it is also a very important discussion.

[@FordHoard]

He wasn't wrong. It was way more complicated than people now think. You have to put yourself in the minds of those living in those times.

[@corvanna4438]

@@FordHoard Not really, Slavery was the motivating factor driving the rift and leading to conflict. It may be uncomfortable, but it is true all the same.

[@JETZcorp]

I'm going to guess that what he meant was, slavery meant everything to the South but initially meant almost nothing to the North. Slavery caused secession, preservation of the Union caused the war. Later on, both for political reasons and as Union soldiers witnessed slavery first-hand, abolition did become a major Northern war aim.

[@ShadowRulah]

​@@FordHoard Would you put yourself in their mind by reading what they wrote or repeating revisionist histories that mainly came out of opposition the Civil rights movement? Nobody was shy about the fact it was about slavery at the time.

[@FordHoard]

@@ShadowRulah I trust the actual men who fought in the war. That's what you call "revisionist", when in reality you're the one believing revisionists that are blue haired leftists on twitter who hate history.

[@ThaneaPally]

Oh that first joke hit way harder after watching you make the same point right before he said it. "There it is" and I was laughing my ass of.

[@stephenparker6362]

Hi, Chris, your input makes whatever you review so much more informative and interesting. Enjoyed this.

[@corey2232]

Funny, I just stumbled across this video a couple hours ago, saw the length & figured I'd watch a couple mins before moving on. Somehow, I ended up being so intrigued that I watched it all, and now I'm here watching it all AGAIN just for your thoughts 😂 Damn, guess there goes half my day, because now I need to see part 2...

[@aribantala]

I absolutely love your work here, I always been so fascinated by American Early History prior to 1940s. You absolutely enhances the value of the discussion presented by Andrew here on his Educational "sketch" and adds more information that he doesn't cover to avoid tangents And please don't tone down your talk on Pt. 2 because I have beem thoroughly enjoyed them 👍😄

[@phoenixblitz4304]

This reminds of me of a Simpsons episode where Apu is taking a citizenship test. One of questions involves why did the Civil War began. He began to list various reasons till the guy administering the test says "you only needed to say slavery" or something along those lines.

[@gary9346]

One of my favorites as well

[@jakelloyd9482]

Apparently that actually happened to a friend of the writer of that episode during their citizenship test, according to a commentary on the DVD IIRC

[@jackmessick2869]

If you actually read the South Carolina secession "proclamation" it doesn't mention states' rights. It highlights the refusal by northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, a Federal law; the exact opposite of the notion of states' rights. And it highlights the inability of states to get along with each other, which is more of a criticism of states' rights.

[@vinceo1058]

And includes various forms of the word "slave" 18 times. (The document laying out their rationale, not the proclamation itself. )

[@chesterparish3794]

this is a long one. I'll stay for every moment. I love both of you and you talking about Atun Shei is one of my favorite things.

[@felixgutierrez993]

These videos are GOLD man! Love it whenever you react with this guy. If you collabed with him irl or on video chat would be epic!

[@pcrackenhead]

To the point about Northerners and slavery, my state of Oregon became a state right before the Civil War. When residents voted on the new constitution, we voted 2:1 to outlaw slavery in the state. Yay us! Unfortunately, in that same vote, we chose not to allow free blacks to live in Oregon by an 8:1 margin. Even if they were opposed to slavery, racism still ran deep in early America.

[@MrSkeltal268]

I was just reading about this (and funnily enough, the two competing newspapers that still exist, one pro slave and one anti) and you absolutely hit the nail on the head. I think the sentiment was not uncommon in northern states that called for abolition, sadly. Slavery was a threat to the working class, and some people objected on moral grounds, but a large portion did not want free blacks living in their neighborhoods. Kinda like how many wanted native Americans to be treated fairly… just treated fairly somewhere far from here, this land is far too valuable to let them have it. :/

[@joncurtis199]

Gonna be honest I never realised the US consistution wasnt the first attempt at a framework of governing the country made by the US. It seems something so daft to bot know, but there really is so much to learn off these videos.

[@nowthisnamestaken]

As a self professed Lincolnite.. I cant wait I love this subject... Checkmate me!!!

[@SGT676]

38:26 The look on your face is priceless when you interrupted that as something else

[@StealthMarmot_]

*He starts talking about the Federalist papers and how many Hamilton wrote* *The Musical's song Non-Stop starts playing in my head*

[@TheGiggityG]

I love your reactions to Atun-Shei vids, would be even better if you two were to do a collaboration on some civil war topic. It would be amazing.

[@Gravelgratious]

Nice I’m glad Chris was so quick on this one, Andy makes some great stuff.

[@somerandomdude827]

@@gordonhuskin7337 cry more down with traitors!

[@drkirkland79]

22:23 "HAMILTON WROTE THE OTHER FIFTY ONE!"

[@dylanhunsel5489]

38:25 the sheer but brief moment of confusion is hilarious to me

[@Kriegter]

Confederate leaders: It was about slavery Some pro confederate guy hundreds of years later: YOU'RE WRONG!

[@pokemaster123ism]

Childhood is when you think the Civil War was fought over slavery. High school is when you think it was about a lot more than that. Adulthood is when you know that the Civil War *_was fought over slavery._*

[@enclavesoldier8893]

38:28 Yeah I thought the same thing at first too, lol.

[@TheUSgoverment]

God bless the enclave

[@drinks1019]

I saw this vid in my recommended before I even realized there was a new Checkmate Lincolnites! Great work sir!

[@dipgrizzly25]

Sure it was about states rights. But the right being fought over goes against basic human rights.

[@Imperium83]

>basic human rights >1860s Progress is a thing.

[@brianhall4182]

What I've never understood about the whole 'states rights vs federal government' thing is that, well, they're both governments. It always seems to me that people espouse 'states rights' as being a benefit to the people. as if only a federal government can be tyrannical and true freedom lies with the state. But the state government has every bit as much power to fark the people over. If every state was its own country then you'd be just as beholden to state laws as you are to federal ones now.

[@valritz1489]

Oh absolutely, but the argument has two things going for it: 1) Most of the arguments we have on any side of the argument are from senators and governors, who have a vested interest in expanding their powers and shrinking the powers of those over them, who then got hero-worshipped to the point that their self-serving rhetoric became gospel, 2) The more things change, the more they stay the same. People today will go on about the government being controlled by "East Coast elites" or "California liberals" or whatever.

[@tannerraque4348]

As someone who is a conservatives and whose family for the most part also consists of conservatives ; the reason that we believe that state governments should have a significant amount of power while the federal government should have less is not because that state governments can't be tyrannical but because we believe that state governments better represent the people of that state than the federal government ever could and thus states rights should be maintained. Additionally while both can be tyrannical the federal government is capable of being much more tyrannical than a state government could ever be due to the fact that the federal government has the resources of the entire nation while state governments only have their own. Put simply it's a matter of scale. I hope this is at least an okay explanation, cheers.

[@JLS639]

Because it is mostly an argument of convenience. Strict states' rights constructionists in power have turned on a dime to Federalists when it suited their immediate political needs

[@JLS639]

Because it is mostly an argument of convenience. Strict states' rights constructionists in power have turned on a dime to Federalists when it suited their immediate political needs

[@MagicButterz]

They weren't as educated as you during that time. Generations of all those families were from the war of independence. They were afraid of a government that ruled like the British.

[@jimmyguitar2933]

I just stumbled on "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" yesterday & I'm totally hooked! Hilarious and historical, what a combination!

[@VivBrodock]

Owning a piece of the tree your ancestors were hung on is so fucking metal

[@jamesearly8518]

Half the fun of these videos is Chris' facial expressions. Just that alone made me literally laugh out loud from 27:58 to 28:08!

[@JozefLucifugeKorzeniowski]

i thought the civil war was about "navery"; the right for churches to have whatever size nave they desired.

[@theAverageJoe25]

I like how he just casually pulls out a piece of the tree his relatives were hanged off of

[@JackFroster]

I saw his video pop up in my feed earlier and thought 'I KNOW Chris will react to this at some point but probably not the same DAY, eh i'll watch it anyway!' Guess I'm watching it twice!

[@protectrondudebuddy311]

Bro was it just me or at 28:10-19 (somewhere in there) when he was reading that comment it seemed he almost broke and it made me laugh so hard lmao

[@unknowngamer37415]

I've seen someone actually argue that it wasn't about slavery and they really didn't like it when I brought up the many of the declarations made by the seceding states explicitly said that they were seceding because they wanted to keep slavery

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

I was in a “debate” with someone that said the Declarations were a list of specific grievances. I countered that the only grievance that the states got specific about in great detail was slavery. Haven’t heard back from that guy yet.

[@unknowngamer37415]

@@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture Usually they just huff and pretend you didn't say anything at all. It can be incredibly frustrating.

[@valritz1489]

38:32 I see that expression, and I understand it deeply.

[@petersmythe6462]

"slavery is economic, social, and political continuity" This is the best argument for revolutionary annihilation of economic, social, and political continuity I've heard in awhile. Frankly America including the South would be better off if the North and the newly freed slaves had liquidated the planters as a class and removed all traces of the order the planters had imposed.

[@annierayofficial7955]

I absolutely froze when you said Edward Sizemore! I am one of his descendants as well! My grandfather's mom was a Sizemore! I have never heard of anyone else even saying the name before! 😲

[@jordansizemore2263]

I also froze when he said Sizemore! We’re still around, mostly in South Carolina I believe

[@annierayofficial7955]

@@jordansizemore2263 that is so cool!

[@anonnymousperson]

Looking forwards to your take on the idea that the confederacy was on it's way to becoming an autocratic, theocratic, slave-based empire.

[@PokerPlayerJames]

Only just realised he made sure that the confederates were the white pieces on that chess board. 😂

[@stegotops7415]

I think we all know what Chris was thinking at 38:25

[@Anonymoususer44569]

Fun fact: there was a Confederate general named “States Rights”

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Yep. States Rights Gist.

[@adrianainespena5654]

I always regretted that there was not a Confederate General named Guildestern

[@TheStapleGunKid]

There was also a Union General named Jefferson Davis. What a lousy name to have in that war.

[@kevincousino2276]

​@@TheStapleGunKidthat dude outright murdered General "Bull" Nelson.

[@dewblitz4956]

So to answer your question about why people deny the role of slavery when it comes to the civil war , it really comes down to two groups of people. The first group is just blatant racism and white supremacism. The latter group isn’t necessarily racist or is as racist, it’s usually made of people whose ancestors fought for the confederacy. Understandably for the latter it is difficult for many people to come to grips with the reality that one of your family members was on the wrong side of history. I think on some level we all like to believe that our relatives were good and decent human beings who could do no wrong but if we had the ability to learn everything about every single ancestor of our family history it would be a statistical guarantee that at least one of them was a monster. My girlfriend is from Germany and her grandfather was a member of the Wehrmacht which isn’t not that far removed. So theres alway variation among people. Some more nuanced than others

[@2Links]

Related to this is Knowing Better's video on Neoslavery he did recently. Would recommend you to check it out. He breaks down when the last slave was freed in America, and it's about a whole lot more than the civil war.

[@ThisTrainIsLost]

There's that word: "notwithstanding." The negotiations attendant to the repatriation of Canada's Constitution were stalled for quite some time until they came to a unanimous agreement on the precise meaning of "notwithstanding" (that was back in 1981-82 and I no longer recall where in the document that term appeared). However I do remember the camera and lens used to take the shot of Queen Elizabeth II and the Prime Minister signing the paperwork at a table outdoors in front of the Parliament buildings.

[@PaulGaither]

8:30 Edward Sizemore? We might be related Chris. Sizemore is my mother's side of the family. Interesting.

[@saadsachwani2837]

The post credit scene is amazing

[@kuyperianberean]

Always nice to see your reactions as you really do contribute to them. Keep up the great work Chris!

[@matthewmayton1845]

I'm not sure if you've recorded the 2nd part yet, but just to let you know, the last 5 to 10 minutes is something else. Not sure what since I was only listening to this at work, but you are about halfway through the main content. Maybe to an extra for the last bit. Oh, and enjoy the cameo towards the end.

[@imyourdaddy5822]

I kinda wish Atun-Shei would do more videos on specific Civil war generals, he's already done ones on Stonewall Jackson and Tecumseh Sherman.

[@vaudevillian7]

Good Lord that was quick!

[@elbruces]

It used to be that the limiting factor on Checkmate Lincolnites releases was how long it took Atun-Shei to grow his beard back after shaving, now it's that so many fewer people are commenting any pro-Confederacy things for Johnny Reb to quote.

[@keirantalent]

On today’s episode: Dutch Van Der Linde educates you on the civil war.

[@TheUSgoverment]

Damn he doesn't kinda look like him

[@EmmaBonn96]

I honestly want to see you and Atun Shei do a video together. I think you both have researched, defensible, and interesting views that I would like to see discussed

[@collin6691]

36:40 "we must do bad thing because it would make people uncomfortable to stop/change" is a pretty ongoing theme in politics

[@KeganStucki]

Really glad you hopped right on this! I'm looking forward to watching it again with your outstanding input!

[@msspi764]

Nicely done. Mostly staying the course with your previous responses to Checkmate Lincolnites, but that's what you should be doing.

[@savagedarksider5934]

I love the civil war era; it's my second favorite time period in world history.

[@jackmessick2869]

The compromise over slavery didn't only start in the Constitutional Convention, it goes back to the Declaration when Jefferson pulled the grievance about the King imposing slavery on the colonies. It's fascinating that the deep south states seceded first, then months later AFTER the defense of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for soldiers, the upper south seceded (Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia). It's not just called "The Second War for Independence," but also The War Between The States The War Against The States The War of Northern Aggression and "The Late Un-pleasantness"

[@undertakernumberone1]

or, for example in Germany, it's called "Sezessionskrieg", War of Secession.

[@dutch0201]

8:25 ancestor named Tom Riddle 🐍hmmmmmm. just thought that was interesting lol

[@1984isnotamanual]

8:25 -Thomas Riddle? Your ancestor was Voldemort?!?!

[@loganlabbe9767]

States rights is different now than it was them. With the exception of Texas, Americans identify as Americans first and citizens of their state second. That wasnt as much the case in the very beginning. Now "States Rights" is only invoked when the argument is completely lost on the National stage so they (always conservatives) retreat to the level of the state and say they care about "states rights".

[@brianmccabe6731]

I like to think of it like a math problem, where all this other issues and Slavery are added together equaling Civil War. If each time you ran the problem you took a different issue out of the equation before crunching the numbers, and it keeps adding up to War. I believe the only time it doesn't equal Civil War is when Slavery is removed from the equation.

[@TheUSgoverment]

Unironically, 🤓

[@anthonyferrari711]

What is this, "It's Always Sunny in the Confederacy"? The confederate performance remains me so much of Charlie Day doing a poor man's affectation haha, as he is so brilliant at

[@Anonymoususer44569]

I like how the “swelling” part is the most rewatched part

[@collin6691]

I'd like to see a reaction or commentary track by a historian on atun-shei's feature fiction film on puritans when it releases edit: would you consider reacting to Knowing Betters video on "neoslavery"

[@SaraphDarklaw]

KB is underrated. I would love more exposer.

[@yashjoseph3544]

@@SaraphDarklaw His video on Ayn Rand was not that good though.

[@finesthour7068]

First. I learned so much about American history because of this channel.❤

[@gakster29]

I don't want to spoil anything for the second part, but the last part of the discussion absolutely *floored* me.

[@bullreeves1109]

Love the mustache you’re working on man! Keep up the great videos 👍

[@wilhelm_iron2359]

The second half of this reaction is gonna be interesting

[@blankeon6613]

I still do not see how there really is a debate over whether or not the Civil War was about Slavery OR States' rights, they are not mutually exclusive. The war was about how much the US Federal government should be allowed to dictate the policies of the individual states. Slavery was of course the most contentious of these policies. To say that Slavery was not an important part of the Civil War is dishonest though.

[@historypaul1657]

And yet, the Fugitive Slave law was a Federal permission slip for other States to impinge on other State rights because of slavery...

[@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture]

On the issue of secession being allowed in the Constitution is not only wrong, it seems to have implied, at the very least, the opposite, that secession was not an option. The Preamble of the Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Now what Union were the framers trying to make more perfect? The only one in existence was that established by the Articles of Confederation. And before anyone points out the AoC has no legal bearing today, it did back when the framers were crafting the constitution. It also provides the needed context on establishing what Union was being made more perfect. In the AoC, it clearly spells out what the Union was that existed between the states: “To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.”” Please note how it says “… perpetual union between …” and then list the states by name. Perpetual means never ending. How can then can a state be able to secede from a union that was to be perpetual between all those involved? This seems to make it clear the founding fathers and framers of the constitution did not see secession as an option.

[@joshuawells835]

I have heard an argument from a Mousieur Z video (part of a larger series on US History) that during the Antebellum, there were two fringe factions that contributed to the dividing of the nation: the Planter Class of the Deep South vs. the Neo-Puritan Abolitionists of New England. My professors in college taught that with the exception of the more radical abolitionists, most Northerners were of the position of "Free Soil," meaning they wanted to prevent the spread of slavery further west, but were content with it continuing in the states where it was firmly established (i.e. the South).

[@crusader2112]

I’d say there’s truth to that, the planter class and the Puritanical-Radical Abolitionists both contributed to the divide in the nation and unfortunately drowned out the majority “moderates”. The Series is called the Seven Ages of America and it’d be great if Chris would react to it and give his commentary on it, oh and Monsieur Z’s clickbait, but still good video, “Wilson did nothing wrong”.

[@jakelloyd9482]

Why is it “unfortunate” that puritanical-Radical Abolitionists “contributed to the divide in the nation and drowned out the majority moderates.”? It would have been more fortunate if slavery was allowed to exist where it stood and didn’t expand into the territories? How could a person in 2022 disagree with the abolitionists on this one?

[@joshuawells835]

​@@jakelloyd9482 For a point of reference, think of the present day fringe ends of both parties.