@@SheevPalpatine66420 The Burns documentary is one source that while I can't name others does seem legitimate. I've read that he was able to work off demerits that weren't always the case so might explain why Lee still is the only one. Lee had been known as the 'marble solder' before the war though by Scott I believe.
@@SheevPalpatine66420 West Point records and biographies of Robert E Lee, as well as several Southern and Northern historians, such Shelby Foote, author of The Civil War.
I feel like his comment was geared towards the comments, not Sam. But, I'm giving my opinion on the history of this comment thread so... I suppose I'll take my leave
@@LolLolMary I would appreciate it if we could discuss this without the insults. Saying things about hating Lee in an educational video is unacceptable. The point of an educational video should be to educate people in an unbiased way and let them learn and form their own opinions. When a video inserts their opinions and biases into a video it just discredits the video as being a reliable source and causes people to question the motives of the one making the video.
Fact 102: general "stonewall" jackson used to be a school teacher before the war Fact 103: there was african americans serving in both union and the confederacy Fact 104: there also hispanics fighting for the confederacy Fact 105: some native americans also fought for the confederacy
Fact 103 is misleading as in the confederacy blacks did manual labor and never saw action. And before you bring up 1st Louisiana, no they did not see combat while fighting for the confederates only the union
@@bensudol6411 i pretty sure some actualy did see combat and we just dont know about cuz they didnt really recorded stuff that well back then so in all honesty who tf knows?
Florida man they did record combat. After every engagement they took a combat report. They were also well aware of every unit they had at their disposal. But if they did fight it was individually not in a regiment because it was highly looked down upon for blacks to fight alongside white men in the confederacy. Some generals did see reason and wanted to throw them into the fight but southern racial prejudice in the confederate government prevented this.
@@bensudol6411 thats what i meant by i pretty sure black confederates see combat and we dont know bout it maybe not one a regiment but fight individually
That was quite the... watered down, politically correct, and morally castrated millennial SJW version of history I've ever seen. Kudos for affirming my belief in social engineering!
You actually taught me some stuff about American history, which I didn't already know. This is a difficult task indeed, because I know my history quite well. I'm an American, after all. I'm a nerd. lol
They weren't fighting over slaves. The southern states seceded because of slaves, but the fighting was because they had seceded, not over slaves. As Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." This shows that he was fighting to preserve the Union. Not at all to free slaves
It was both to preserve the Union and about Slavery. The south fought to preserve slavery. This is the real facts. Just because Lincoln said a throw away line at the beginning of the war because he wanted to avoid it doesn't negate what the entire was was truly started for. Without salvery there never would have been a civil war. It was all about slavery. For the south especially. They constantly said it in thier articles of secession and in their constitution.
@@LunaS043 They did secede because of slaves, but the north only fought to preserve the Union. It was a consequence of slavery, but that was not the direct reason.
@@thursafternoon22 Okay, the Union may have fought for the preservation of the US. But the entire war started and boiled down to Slavery. The south would never have seceded if they didnt feel slavery was going to be abolished. They started the war, they fired the first shots. And continued to fight because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. There maybe many reasons for the war, but you take slavery out of it there would be no war. That is what i am getting at.
@@LunaS043 kinda forgot about when Lincoln was losing officers and troops to the point of almost losing the war because union troops didn't want to fight for blacks rights or even with blacks at all. but its ok keep your SJW idea the union troops where all fighting for blacks and equality and for the good.
@@mescatcho0403for someone speaking about people being uneducated you seem to forget that almost every state stated that the superiority of the white man over the black man was the reason for seceding.
@@slederboy maybe you can tell us all about the Civil War, then. You may skip the dumb-ass commentary in the video. I'm sure your version will be hilarious.
If only that were true. The rhetoric says illegals but what is actually being done includes legal asylum seekers. Asylum seekers by law are allowed to stay in the US until they have their day in court and lose and asylum seekers were being blocked at the border way before the corona virus started so not just illegals. Personally I am against illegal immigration and even cutting down on the number of legal immigrants. If that is what we want then by all means change the laws and do it right. However instead of going through Congress to change the law even when the Republicans controlled both houses Trump decided to break the law. That being said even if you are against illegal immigration putting children in cages and not taking care of them properly is just a not something the US should be doing. Anyone who is OK with that is not a Christian no matter what they say. If you want to ignore Jesus's teachings and stick to the Old Testament that is fine but you are not a true Christian. Also if you are OK with it no matter what your religion is then you are a truly horrible person.
@@richardthinksnot i never mentioned any of that.... i just pointed out that putting up a wall is to deter Illegal immigrants, not legal ones, and the ones fighting (as mentioned in the video, i'll bet my hat that 99.9% were legals, as you know, they were....)
I'm a Northerner civil war reenactor and no the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights to govern themselves because the northern aggression who taxed and put tariffs on the south's tobacco and cotton, also the confederate states put it up to a vote weather or not they should secede from the union, also when the union offered Lee (who actually was against slavery and actually freed all of his slaves that he got from his parents) declined because he knew virginia would secede from the union and he didn't want to kill his fellow virginians, also a lot of C.S.A generals were against slavery like longstreet(Old war horse) and stonewall jackson and everyone knew that slavery would die of natural causes. also Lincoln didn't care if the southern states either kept their slaves or freed them all he cared about was preserving the union heck he wouldn't care if any already established free states would take back slavery again, just none of the new states. and it was lincoln that made it a slavery war in 1863 he needed to give the men a better reason to fight and win the war other then preserving the union so LINCOLN made it about slavery.
Jeff Oliver See it’s comments like this that I am glad to see. I am stating that I have come across people stating the civil war was only about states rights and had nothing to do about slavery. Yes it was both. It just really pisses me off when people try and hide the slavery fact for there own selfish reasons.
The fact about a man being shot in the face and later coughing the bullet/ musket ball/ mini ball out actually happened to an ancestor of mine who fought in the civil war (not the same one) my ancestor got shot in the head with a mini ball, survived and several years later after several severe headaches he sneezed it out.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks he has been quoted as saying the exact opposite, there are some accounts he witnessed lavery as a child and was repulsed by it, but these sources are not substantial or verified.
I hate to have done this but I had to give you a thumbs down. A lot of your facts were completely wrong including some right at the beginning. For example the Civil War was not started or fight over slavery, it was fight over the same reasons as the revolutionary war. Taxation and representation.
Interesting tidbit the machine gun was not the weapon that would reverse the majority of casualties being due to disease. It was actually heavy artillery at the beginning of ww1 that pushed the combat casualties above non-combat casualties. Ik that wasn’t what u we’re claiming just thought it was interesting to point out.
@WorthlessVids everyone hated Grant, he was too careful and not aggressive enough. There were so many times that the south won only because Grant decided it wasn't worth to press the attack which angered Lincoln and the other generals and got demoted so many times
11:27 I just wanted to say that I know it is your channel and you can do whatever you want with it, but I found that making a personal political point in the middle of a history video did not allow me to enjoy the video. However I may just be reacting to this more due to my objection to the actual point you were making. I find that a lot of channels on RU-vid have begun to make their political opinions clear, which often means that I do not engage with their content as much, as their are mostly on the left while I am more on the right. The best example of this would be on all the late night shows such as Jimmy Kimmel. I know that I may have overreacted to small point in your video, but I felt like I would just give some feedback.
“Anyone else finding it hard to hate him?” Robert E. Lee was STRONGLY opposed to slavery and he actually was given the option of leading the Union army but he turned it down, and the reason why he fought for the South was because he “couldn’t betray Virginia.”
One can't "STRONGLY oppose slavery," the ownership and mistreatment of other human beings, and still fight to maintain it. I guess he didn't oppose slavery enough?
@@ThatDragonGuy I don't think he's saying he supports slavery, just the fact that the union also had slaves as well, just they weren't called slaves, they were "indentured servants". Though they still were owned by the corporation or official they worked for a fairly lengthy stretch of time that most likely did not see them surviving their servitude. Though the American Civil War is definitely a war that involved slavery it wasn't a war to keep slaves so much as a war for representation. It really all started in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise. This was a line set at 36° 30 right under the state of Missouri, and stated all states below this line may be slave states while states above are free states. Leaving Missouri and Kentucky swing states. Well as American expansion grew into the late 1800's it became pretty apparent that there was way more land north than south, meaning that as more states become ratified there will be less representation of the southern states as opposed to the nothern states. Now, I know having the whole concept of slavery as your main political party backing is pretty shitty, but there were several other issues that the south was concerned about, a lot of it dealing with the upcoming railroad industry and taxation. All of this, including politicians who can't agree on anything and the free of lack of representation caused the south to secede. During the war both sides committed horrible atrocities towards one another and at the end of the day, even though slavery was abolished, racism and oppression were rampant in both the north and south for many more years to come. I don't believe this gentleman here was necessarily defending slavery, more or less saying its not fair to completely pit one side as a total monster when at the end of the day, the war was all Americans, fighting brother against brother.
So true. Vietnam (being a Vietnam veteran) was a "crisis." Korea was a United Nations "police action. The last "War" (only the Senate can declare war) was World War II.
Can you do a 101 facts on the Revolutionary War since Trump seems to think that we overtook airports and Air Force One flew over the battlefield. We might need a refresher course....
Simple, the 13 colonies resisted the British Empire, King George wasnt happy, England fought America, America won,on 4th July 1776 George Washington signed the declaration of independence
I'm glad you were able to upload the video. Great job on the Civil War, BTW, and for making clear the cause of it early on. Please do 101 Facts about: 1. Stephen King 2. Sailor Moon 3. Ballet 4. King Arthur 5. Lucifer (TV series) 6. Victorian England
DiabloEncarnate at the beginning of the war it was about preserving the union and after a couple years Lincoln decided to go after the workers for the south maximum profits (slaves). Honestly there was a warning sent to the south that stated if they didn’t rejoin the union he will pass the emancipation proclamation.
@@Mike_Bloomberg general Lee didn't fought for Slavery, the reason why he left is because he refused to fight against his home state of Virginia. 2nd Fact, my grammar sucks. 3rd fact 80% of the Southerns never owned Slaves. Only the Confederate Government wanted to keep Slavery. 4th fact, Both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, claimed that the war wasn't fought for slavery.
@@FlynukebomberFlynukebomber the war was fought by the Confederate government for slavery, they sighted it as the reason in there new constitution. wither or not the majority of southerners were for or against slavery the government and therefore the war was over slavery. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis would have likly only said that it wasn't in ordar to speed up reintgration of southerne states and try to heal the divided the war casueeed. I was also unable to find any instance of either of them saying that.
The war wasnt fought over slavery...it was fought over tariffs, taxes, and state rights...lincoln even said if he could save the union with freeing a single slave he would do it...get your history right...
To be fairly represented in congress...you see with the advent of agricultural machines just 30 to 40 years away most slave owners would have released the slaves because the cost of feeding and housing wouldn't have been profitable... But what did happen was the north levying huge tariffs on imports and exports...and since the south relied heavily on both, they were paying the vast majority of the taxes. This was so prevalent that the south was paying a staggering 60 to 70percent in taxes...and they nearly seceded in 1843 a full 20 years before...they rolled those tariffs back but 20 years later they did the same thing and the south said nope... But not everyone who fought for the south was pro slavery...Robert e. Lee was anti slavery...in fact lincoln offered him command of the union army first...but he was loyal to his state...state loyalists was a huge deal then. But although the man was anti slavery his statues are being removed... History of this incident is there...but teachers have made it about something it wasnt. Lincolns emancipation proclamation wasnt even thought of until 2 years after the start of the war. If this was about slavery it would have been the catalyst not the tariffs... So in closing dont believe what the left is trying to brainwash you into believing...which is hard for me to understand considering the left was the south and slave owners, there has never been a party switch. Its the left propaganda and this video proves it
How were they unfairly represented in Congress? What specifically was denied them? The reality is the South benefited from 30 years of Democratic rule that resulted in low tariffs. From the Compromise Tariff to the Walker Tariff to the Tariff Act of 1857 tariffs were already low and would stayed low had they not seceded. Northern industrial interests repeatedly lost on this issue until the Morill Tariff which only passed because the majority was handed to Senate Republicans when Southerners vacated their seats. It was signed by James Buchanan who had clear ties to protectionist Pennsylvania but the South chose to overlook that in favor of his virtual non-stance on slavery. They could have demanded a more blatant free trade candidate in 1856 but they didn't. A move they didn't hesitate to do in 1860 to get a stronger pro slave candidate. The majority of tariff revenue was collected in the North not the South, specifically the port of NY.
lol i hope you know that all the current media focus on "illegal immigrants" are actually on legal immigrants who are here seeking asylum and were jailed, arrested, taken away from families, or forced to stay in the US without being granted asylum
And all immigrants came from Europe, all were white, all were Christian, and none received any benefits whatsoever. But he also conveniently forgot that.
John P Well, the US had laws that explicitly preferred certain groups over others, so there might have been some illegal immigration. Here's an interesting overview of U.S. immigration: www.history.com/topics/immigration/immigration-united-states-timeline
John Bold immigrants ussually take low level jobs, if your scared of a immigrant with a 3rd grade education that can barely speak english I pitty you and your pathetic way of holding on to the shitty job you have.
It's weird that you don't seem to get the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL migration. Legal migrants and immigrants tend to be a good thing, because if they weren't beneficial, you wouldn't let them in, unless they're refugees, but most refugees want to pay back their adoptive communities. Illegal migrants and immigrants tend to harm their adoptive communities, either by being an economic burden either because themselves on a community that can't support them, they engage in conduct that harms the community and is therefore illegal, or by making it easier for criminals to get past the borders that are meant to let welcome migrants through, but keep unwelcome migrants out. It's literally the same as the difference between a guest or roommate and a burglar.
No Grant was the butcher. The only reason this has any standings is because people think that Lee lost like 25% and grant lost 15%...but they never had the same numbers so it doesnt matter and grant would loose more. So grant would have the less casualty percentage but it meant more men were killed and wounded.
You should do "101 facts about the Great Hanging of Gainesville, Texas in 1862." A lot of people dont know about it, but it was insane. Happened right in my home town!
