I turned RDR 2 into the CIVIL WAR! 

You made the civil war that what I wanted

Hey, just wanted to say what happened to the hunger games idea you had

@@BryceEden86 still being worked on didn’t like the video at the end so moved onto other projects. I still hope to put it out at some point!

Yo, thanks for respecting both sides. As a southerner, even I despisr the cause of the south and the horrors of slavery, but each soldier is its own case and the fact you know how to make a respectful war video really restores my faith in humanity. Thanks, man!

Great video but how can the barn have People if its abondon

@mrrat6286 bro people were freaking arguing about what the “main” cause was. I just thought that I’d clarify. Plus I know a lot about the civil war. More than what school will teach.

Wikipedia: am i a joke to you? ​@mrrat6286

States rights to do what?

This comment brought a huge smile to my face! Lots of time gets put into these videos so comments like these and a person like you is why I do it! Thank you :)

The possibilities are endless. It is what keeps games like GTA V still fun to play to this day. Trust me without the mods, games like GTA V would be dead at minimum a long ago (storyline at least) and RDR2 would be slowly on its way dying too if it wasnt for mods

🥺🥺

Over a line of code

@@jackconklin5398stop being a dick

I appreciate it! Thanks for the support 😎❤️

Thanks man! No I plan on doing a ww2 just wanted to add another war video.

@@JNOS-WRLD you're welcome, ok

False. Union's war aim AT THE start was just to save the Union but when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it did become about ending slavery. And South totally seceded to protect slavery

The hat is the civil war hat it’s in a fort west of van horn trading post with the civil war knife

Also looks like the rambler jacket ( which you can get from any general store)

I use Fillmore which is not typically the most popular among a lot of creators, but hey it works for me haha. Also, Thanks for the consistent support my man!

@@JNOS-WRLD no problem dude

the gang holding u back

I always try and do longer videos but most of the time I cut a lot because they might drag on too long. I might do a full deleted scenes video on a Patrion at some point!

Thank you!

facts!

Ya and do a nomandy landing

Yea do like a Normandy landing or one massive just massive battle

It’s not meant to be historically accurate there are two disclaimers of that.

Did you not pay attention in history class? The civil war started in 1861 and ended in 1865

I hope that’s a joke

I have thought about the purge! Currently spending 100 days in a zombie apocalypse but after maybe!

Happy you enjoyed both my man!! Truly means a lot :)

Means the wrld my man!

the videos very good within what he could have done, but I think Springfield rifle would of been a better choice as the standard weapon, its the breech loaded version of what they used on both sides during the civil war and the Litchfield although around wasn't officially issued to any units apart from some cavalry companies in the last year of the war.

Yes but you can't go back more than 1898 in rdr2

nerd

Stay tuned! He will be back just not in this war 😎

A mode i think

Chill😂😂😂

and who might that be?

Murphy didn’t die.

Thanks my man!

I’ll add them when I get home just remembered I forgot to add them!

@@JNOS-WRLD no problem, thanks for aswering!

I replied to the channel creator in another comment, saw yours and just though you might be interested in this. In 1828, South Carolina threatened to secede over the introduction of revised tariffs under Andrew Jackson, however by the end of the crisis, it was clear that South Carolina's intentions were to use the tariffs as justification for secession, and not their primary motive, which boiled down to southern nationalism. Jackson himself recognized this, and predicted that some years later, the issue of slavery would take this role and serve as bed for southern secession in form of a pretext, just as tariffs did the first time. And he was completely right, when Lincoln and Congress offered to enshrine slavery into the constitution during the secession crisis, all but two slave states completely ignored this, and both slave states were Kentucky and Delaware, who both ended up staying with the Union. For a nation described to be so hell-bent on preserving slavery, that doesn't sound right, not to mention of course the previous attempt by SC in 1828. If slavery could then in this information be considered a pretext that was cited in legal documentation, and a casus belli more than anything for the South, then it is quite obvious that their real intentions were not only rooted in southern nationalism, but also against the national tax that Lincoln proposed [which the south considered tyrannical], both ideas of course you can see said by the majority of the Confederate Government, especially by Davis, who by coincidence spent a good amount of time during the war with the confederate congress who up until the end were fighting each other for why they seceded in the first place. That doesn't sound like a unified state that is concrete on a single reason for secession, other than the freedom of the state itself. To add onto this, Davis sent Duncan Kenner as a diplomat to both France and Britain to negotiate an alliance in exchange for total and instant abolition, which would have torn the southern economy apart and caused mass famine, but he literally didn't care as his primary cited purpose of secession was to form their own nation, that of which they would sacrifice anything for. Fun fact about that, Napoleon III actually agreed to this as long as Britain would do the same, but the war ended before Kenner was able to secure a British agreement. as for the north.. where to start man.. Slavery was legal in the North until after they had forced many southern states to outlaw it before turning their focus onto their own slave states, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Lincoln didn't care about the issue of slavery whatsoever [in fact he was a very staunch white supremacist], and his main focus was to keep the union together no matter what, which is why he tried to get southern states to come back with the Corwin amendment, but it failed. Both Congress and Lincoln stated staunchly up until the end of the war their goal was not to end slavery but to bring the southern states back into the fold, most likely for the industry and monetary potential with forced industrialization and the new federal income tax, which is exactly what happened during reconstruction. Oh yes, and while we're talking about slaves, the North had millions of pseudo-slaves, poor city folk who were forced to work in industrial revolution era factories, literally being worked to death for little to no wage in hellish conditions and went uncompensated if the machinery they worked with tore off their limbs or mauled them beyond recognition. This went on for more than 40 years after the civil war had ended. I can sit here all day and tear the union apart, along with Lincoln and his hideous plans, one that was actually carried out in an attempt to exterminate the native populations [wonder why they joined the confederacy? now you know.] that saw the mass hunting of buffalo almost until extinction and caused thousands of Indians to starve to death. Or when Lincoln proposed the idea of Liberia as a place to round up former slaves and send them back to Africa. But in the end, does it really matter? 600,000 Men, People, Brothers, died on the battlefield for whatever they did believe in, both good and terrible. There were true abolitionists in the Union who genuinely wanted the era of Slavery to be over with, and true devils like the jayhawkers who killed and raped at their own discretion under the pretext of abolition. There were god-fearing southerners fighting for their new nation, family and land, and ignorant southern elites who wanted to keep that evil institution alive for their own benefit. When we look at it today, we get opinions from all people, possibly valid in one way or another, and we continue the civil war, by yelling, screaming, and cursing at each other. There wasn't a time not too long ago before PC Politics that Union and Rebel boys got along, respected each other, and would sit down for drinks any day. Anymore, it's gone. You're either 'right', or 'wrong'

@@ZaenderistRobert Firstly, I gotta give credit where credit is true, holy shit. You really can form a good argument for why the Confederacy didn't secede because of slavery but still it isn't true. There is lot to unpack there. Yes South Carolina almost seceded in 1828 but as John C. Calhoun himself said "I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestic institution (Slavery) of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union." President Jackson's joust with Calhoun was really about two opposing views of White Nationhood. In Jackson's mind, why should the planters of Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky be disturbed because South Carolina? By seceding South Carolina became similar external threat to slavery and white nationhood, just like the Red Indians of Georgia and Florida. The deal Lincoln and Republicans offered that you refer to Corwin Amendment, which the last ditch effort to prevent the war. It would have enshrined slavery in the states that already existed. But to Southerners it was completely inadequate because to the Confederates it wasn't just about preserving slavery but expanding it like Cuba, Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska etc. And containing slavery as the Corwin amendment would have done was the position that many Northerners support, containing slavery and watching it's gradual death, which would have really helped Lincoln to get 4 years more in 1864. The South would only accept the proposed Crittenden Compromise which would have enshrined *African Slavery* as completely constitutional and free to expand wherever she wanted. The Republicans spat at the Crittenden Compromise. To them it would destroy the image of America as *the land of the free*. And of course Lincoln didn't immidietly enforce the Emancipation Proclamations in the Slave States of the Union. You know what that would have done? Make them join the Confederacy and damage the war effort. So instead Lincoln pushed that the northern slaveholders accept gradual and compensated emancipation. And the "National Tax plan" you're mentioning, you're probably meaning the Morill Tariff which yes, was very favourable to Northern interests, yes was fiercely opposed by Southern Democrats BUT it wasn't passed till March of 1861 and if the Southern States didn't start seceding in Winter of 1860-1861, there would have have been no way it would have passed so instead of it being cause of secession, the Morill Tariff was passed as result of secession. The Tariff issue had been for a long time part of the huge list of issues between North and South, primary of which was African Slavery. And of course Davis and Confederacy told Britain and France that they didn't fight for slavery, both nations had abolished slavery and huge majority of their people were abolitionists so of course Confederates gave any other reason for which they seceded, especially tariffs which were disliked especially by the British who were all about free trade. But many British knew better. As Philosopher and abolitionist John Stewart Mill wrote in 1862 in which he correctly stated: There is a theory in England ... that, on the side of the North, the question is not one of slavery at all. The North, it seems, have no more objection to slavery than the South have. Their leaders never say one word implying disapprobation of it. They are ready, on the contrary, to give it new guarantees; to renounce all that they have been contending for; to win back, if opportunity offers, the South to the Union by surrendering the whole point. If this be the true state of the case, what are the Southern chiefs fighting about? Their apologists in England say that it is about tariffs, and similar trumpery. [Confederates] say nothing of the kind. They tell the world, and they told their own citizens when they wanted their votes, that the object of the fight was slavery. The world knows what the question between the North and South has been for many years, and still is. Slavery alone was thought of, alone talked of. Slavery was battled for and against, on the floor of Congress and in the plains of Kansas. On the slavery question exclusively was the party constituted which now rules the United States: on slavery Fremont (The Republican Candinate in 1856) was rejected, on slavery Lincoln was elected; the South separated on slavery, and proclaimed slavery as the one cause of separation.

​@@LordValorum Thank you kindly for the reply, it's well thought out and is a genuine response, however I have a few points I disagree with. You're right, Calhoun did in fact say that, but in the quote, I find little genuine concern over slavery itself, and rather the economic and social impact slavery was having negatively as its byproduct, "in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union". South Carolina was unhappy, some over the issue of slavery it's true, but many others, especially those who simply couldn't afford them, probably felt alienated that those Northern states that 'could consider themselves much superior in their morals' were pressing down verbally and physically with their own weight for many of various reasons in particular hostility, while not specifically aimed at everyone, did impact everyone. If this was happening in 1828, image some people in SC or the south in general thinking like this for decades? It's not too far of a shot to say that in the eras of nationalist revolutions in Europe that over these years the Southern people self-forged their own identity, which definitely left a visible impact, culturally and politically. Well.. Sort of. The Corwin Amendment could be described as 'last ditch' because it was the last compromise [i am aware of] to try and save the union, but it was the result of talks that lasted over a year, one of which the early resolutions you pointed out was the Crittenden Compromise [Introduced by a Unionist]. However, upon reading it, it's obvious that any moderate would reject it, because it has a clause stating it could never be edited, amended, or cancelled out by any future act. Whatever that however, it does not matter, as just as the Corwin amendment, it was nearly completely ignored by the majority of southern state senators and representatives, only a few being in those three, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware actually taking a stance on it, which just tells me the same thing as the rejection of the Corwin amendment did, they simply didn't care. As for the argument of the expansion of Slavery, I have my own doubts about it all. The South during that time between 1828 and 1860 were not solidly Democrat, and throughout its existence, many southern states, sometimes over half, had a majority Whig vote, whose platform was generally against the actions of the expansion of Slavery due to its stance against Manifest Destiny. Furthermore, and this is something I have thought over for a while crossing back to my first point, if the attitude of states without slaves is that neutral at the least and hostile at the most to a slave holding state's people, then for southern politicians regardless of their position on slavery [even though many were pro-slavery], it was in their best interests to keep the system 'balanced' in an effort so that Northern states couldn't run circles in legislature that would end up punishing not just slaveholders, but everyone. I'm afraid I didn't mean the Morill Tariff. I was referring to the National Revenue Act of 1861 and its further expansions throughout the war. Lincoln made it quite clear on his platform that he wanted a strong national tax to give the federal government and its branches plenty of funding to do whatever they needed, in the eyes of someone in the South, slaveholder or not, the image of the Federal government was quite poor, as to them it represented the Northern states more than it did them. Upon learning this it obviously enraged most people in the south, especially farmers too poor to afford slaves, but who raked in just enough money that they would have to pay these brand-new multiple taxes, and this was just the start. Throughout the War, Lincoln made several very aggressive, and as some would say at the time, unconstitutional, programs and bills to expand upon these new taxes, including the establishment of the IRS in 1862. And well.. yes, he did. But you must understand the significance the Kenner Affair was, if the Confederate Congress would had found out at any point that Davis went behind their back and done something so significant without their permission, he would have been hung for high treason, he risked his life for what he believed in, and I seriously doubt he was lying for lying's sake. He stated publicly and privately throughout the war the fight was never about slavery, and he would come to know, he entered his own compromise to slavery during the secession crisis, which wasn't just rejected by the North, but the South as well. The official reasons for secession and the war in the secession documents and diplomats sent by the CS congress WERE slavery, but I already described how I am fairly certain as Jackson had said, it was a pretext to give legal reasoning for their actions, which at the time, it would of been likely that secession in that name would of been legal, which is why Jefferson Davis was never tried, and why Slavery was not outlawed by federal law, as at the time the Supreme Court would of struck it down. This is specifically called a Casus belli, a pretext given to justify a major legal event, most often war, however, is not always accurate. One famous example would be the US invasion of Iraq for their possession of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', this was not true at all, and the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was clear some years later. As for the Union and things like the Emancipation Proclamation, this was merely a stunt played in the same game as the Confederate pretext. When the Emancipation Proclamation was read in Britain, it would have appeared at first glance that the Union was condemning Slavery and was going to be fighting the war over it, and thus the document scared France and Britain out of even official verbal support. However, legally, the document did nothing, and was just a clever strain of words to win the diplomatic war. [it stated that all territories outside the union were to have slavery abolished, but Lincoln and congress denied that the southern states ever left and that they were still in the union.]. This is confirmed by the fact that Lincoln repealed and reprimanded two general's orders of emancipation AFTER the emancipation proclamation was issued. This is not to say that there were not Southern Politicians and people who did not view the war as a fight for slavery, indeed many did, some in congress wrote disgusting theories on the 'races of man' and the 'servitude of those races', but the simple fact is that they were combatted in the south too, like I mentioned before the CS Congress and especially Davis would regularly have incidents of screaming and yelling during secession over this issue, which in total convinces me that the nation as a whole was not set and stone on the idea of slavery. As for Bushwhacker and Jayhawker action in Kansas, Missouri, and beyond, you have to realize that rather early on those conflicts shifted from "Abolitionists VS Slavers" to "Unionists VS Secessionists". Quantrill, perhaps one of the most famous bushwhackers, held a negative moral view of slavery, as did most of the people whom he commanded, many had family raped and murdered by Jayhawkers. In conclusion, I'm not shifted too much in perspective. It would have to take some extremely strong and damning evidence to clear the fact that a nation accused of being all for slavery rejected multiple different proposals aiming to enshrine it into federal and constitutional law.

​​@@ZaenderistRobert According to your argument, Calhoun thought " it's ok to keep people ENSLAVED because of the economy and white people might get angry if free black people lived among them" The National Revenue Act of 1861 was passed in AUGUST, well after the war started, and the act, like all of the tax acts passed during the civil war were passed in order to get funds for the war effort And let's take a closer look at the declarations of the causes of secession shall we? On Christmas Eve 1860, the South Carolina secession convention declared The people of the non-slaveholding states, have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of (abolitionist( societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign (take away) the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes and those who remain have been incited to a servile insurrection" Few weeks later Mississippi declared *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world... the hostility to this institution... denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction... the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion... It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. In January of 1861 Florida proclaimed "All hope of the preservation of the Federal Union, upon terms consistent with the safety and honor of the slave-holding States, has finally dissipated by the recent indications of the strength of the recent anti-slavery sentiment in the non-slaveholding state" Few days later Alabama: "And Whereas, a sectional party, known as the Black (in racial sense) Republican Party, has, in the recent election, elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President of these United States, upon the avowed principle that the Constitution of the United States does not recognise property in slaves, and that the Government should prevent its extension into the common Territories of the United States, and that the power of the Government should be so exercised that slavery in time, should be exterminated" Georgia also shared similar language in their declaration for causes of secession "The people of the North have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into hands (of the Republican Party). The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers." Louisiana didn't draft a document for their causes of secession, but fearful of fighting Texas in the Civil War to follow, sent George Williamson to state their causes for secession and urged Texas to secede as well "The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery if Texas... should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy... If she remains in the Union, the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharps rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders." Williamson's words may have had an impact, in February Texas declared that not only was slavery at danger, but also white supremacy "the people of the non-slave-holding states... have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the nation, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." After South Carolina militia fired on Fort Sumter, Virginia was forced to pick a side, and they picked the for the Confederacy. Declaring their states rights were at danger... their states rights to own slaves "[Whereas] African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed and the jurisdiction of the several states over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous." Virginia politicians were shrewd politicians and knew that White Supremacist fear-mongering alone wouldn't work but argument for constitutionality of abolishing or restricment of slavery In May, Arkansas joined the rebellion on declared "The people of the northern States have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character; the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the southern States, and that party has elected a President and Vice President of the United States... they have denied to the people of the southern States the right to an equal participation in the benefits of the common territories of the Union by refusing them the same protection to their slave property therein that is afforded to other property, and by declaring that no more slave states shall be be admitted into the Union... they have degraded American citizens by placing them upon an equality with negroes at the ballot box. North Carolina had large amount of Unionist, especially in the mountainous westernpart where the terrain and climate made cash crop plantations impossible, but when Fort Sumter was attacked, Governor John Ellis called a secession convention. His proclamation is unique in that it doesn't include mention of slavery directly "I am informed that... Abraham Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South. United action in defense of the sovereignty of North Carolina, and of the rights of the South, becomes now the duty of all." Last but not least, Tennessee. They had large amount of Unionists too but their declaration was far more radical "Tennessee has taken her position and has proudly determined to throw her banners to the breeze for the sacred cause of the white man of the South" In April, 1861, President Jefferson Davis gave an address to the Confederate Congress, in which he stated that "[The Republican Party seeks] not to promote the general welfare or insure domestic tranquility, but to awaken the bitterest hatred against the citizens of sister states by violent denunciation of their institutions... In moral and social condition [the African slaves have] been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor [has] been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people." Barely any mention of States Rights. And certainly no mention of Tariffs or Taxes At the heart of the Confederate experiment laid the conviction, that the end of slavery would either plunge south into a race war (aka servile insurrection) or stain the blood of the white man in a way that it can be never be fixed. The Slave Republic of the Confederacy sought to light spirit of American Revolution but to fix what they thought was the biggest mistake of the Founding Fathers. As Vice-President Alexander Stephens put it "The prevailing ideas... of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideaIts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and moral condition." My friend, when you think about it, I'm not saying that the Confederates seceded to protect slavery, the Confederates said that they seceded to protect slavery

Slavery was a major part as well

@@JNOS-WRLD I was told it had very little to do with slavery But fair enough

@@morkoblooper7991 not sure who told you that? I keep getting people not specifically you say slavery was a “small part”. To put into simple terms for everyone (again not just you my man). It was a rather LARGE part 😂

It would have been a great battle in that area. However, I wanted to pay tribute to the battle of Gettysburg.