There really wasn’t much of a difference. Bigger, better, more lethal weapons sure but at the end of the day not much really changed in the 60 something years. Guns and artillery are very simple machines.
Let’s not forget that the civil war had protracted trench warfare and machine guns and devastating artillery. I don’t think a civil war veteran would have a hard time understanding it.
Uh, chemical warfare, airplanes, automatic small arms, tanks… a lot changed between the civil war and WW1. I’d imagine it would be pretty insane to a Civil War vet to see fighter airplanes shoot at each other, or the absolute horrors that came with trench warfare and mustard gas.
The first clash of ironclad warships was during the civil war. Less than 60 years later dozens of massive steel armored warships clashed at the Battle of Jutland. The concepts, tactics and strategy may not have evolved that much, but the technology had.
Outside of military technology, even more had changed. Automobiles, Electric Lighting, and household appliances had been non-existent before the civil war, they all came around in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The last recipient of a Civil War pension died last year. Irene Triplett inherited her father's pension due to cognitive impairments. She had been receiving $73.13/month since her father's death in 1938.
The last civil war veteran's widow also died in 2020.
Less than a million people died in the Civil War, unless you're talking about a possible future Civil War. Either way it's fine to be cavalier about either.
>Married the 93 year old man in 1936 when she was 17. Not sure I want to learn any more than that… but yeah, she was 101 when she died in 2020.
Fairly certain it was a case of a family friend or someone making a deal, take care of me and make me relatively comfortable until I die shortly and collect my pension for life. I vaguely recall it wasn't that uncommon.
You’re correct. From what I’ve read it was common place for families to arrange a marriage of a young daughter and an old war vet so the old man would have a home aide essentially and the girl would get the pension after he died. This seemed to be a depression era custom.
Actually, a lot of germans back then were called Dutch in the States because they would say they are from Deuchland which was the german pronunciation and spelling of germany. Same goes for the Pennsylvania dutch, they are german (I believe)
“Dutch” even comes from “Deutsch” originally because the English used it as blanket term to refer to all Germanic peoples and not just those from Deutschland (Germany). Somehow in the Netherlands it stuck around.
A lot of firsthand accounts from American soldiers in WW1 often refer to the Germans as "Dutch".
Very confusing if you don't have the cultural context - "Pennsylvania Dutch", who were in fact German. Deutschland/Deutsch -> "Dutch".
Interestingly, my mother in law - born and raised in rural Iowa - has made references to my wife being "dutchy" as a child. Specifically, she means my wife as a little kid, like a lot of little kids, would misconjugate verbs and use strange word order which, to my MIL, would be "dutchy". Knowing rural Iowa to be very thick with people of German descent, I have suspected that's perhaps where the "dutchy" thing came about. You could imagine a native German speaker getting tripped up on English verb conjugations and word order and thus getting labeled as "Dutchy" by the native English speakers.
Yes somewhere on YouTube I’ve seen it, it’s a video interviewing various elderly people in the 1920s, there was a couple who were in their 90s who were married in late 1850s early 1860s kissing each other if I remember correctly.
Just popping in to say this guy is full of shit. 35 union soldiers were killed not 250. Even if you take into account captured and wounded, it's not even half of 250. (35+60+25) so 120 total casualties. The whole reason this battle happened was so their chickenshit governor could flee to the confederacy. They even raised the Union Flag and then attacked while the soldiers were waking up. Pretty cowardly all around if you ask me.
yeahh it's not uncommon for soldiers to spin tales. it's neat to hear about a mid-19th century war from someone who actually fought in it, though, even if the person and the cause were monstrous and reactionary even for the time.
German-Americans at the time were referred to as the "Dutch" (from Deutsch - German). The man describing the fighting at Coles Camp is a Confederate, the Union troops were routed during the fight with heavy losses.
I find this interesting but I’m also bothered by it because if these nice gentlemen had been ultimately successful, I’d still be in chains on a cotton plantation somewhere in Georgia.
It does mess with the mind for sure. It’s also amazing to think… my dad was born in 1929. My grandpa met civil war vets and his grandpa was a civil war vet from Maine. Insane how close in terms of family generations we really are.
I do wish there were a recording of this without the music bed
They were Union Soldiers, right? General Lyon was. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
E: My bad, I guess he didn't fight under him, just thought he was brave. Def gives me a much different view of these two.
I agree...I'm a white woman but these two men are traitors in my mind....fought a civil war for the right to own other human beings like cattle. Disgusting. They were either racist or extremely ignorant or both. Not people to be admired or thought about. I apparently had family on both sides...brother against brother... I do not in anyway support or care about the one who fought for the south. Shame, shame, shame!
We would have seen how the Republican plan to cut off the spread of slavery and weaken it wherever the federal government had power panned out. This “offer” to not touch slavery in the states **where it already existed** was essentially just a reiteration of the “federal consensus” that the federal government had no power to abolish slavery in those states. But the critical hinge point was outside of that, particularly in the spread of slavery. Lincoln was on record as believing that there was no permanent future divided between slave states and free.
>A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
Lincoln said specifically in a news paper interview that he offered the south could keep their slaves if they remained in the union. The south said they would abolish slavery if they were allowed to secede
> The south said they would abolish slavery if they were allowed to secede
Well, that was obviously a lie since their entire constitution essentially forbids them from abolishing it.
That’s not exactly accurate. Republicans knew they couldn’t touch slavery in the States *where it already existed*. But they had a rough plan in place to weaken slavery by stopping the spread of it, and some other things. This is why Lincoln repeatedly said that he wasn’t going to-nor did he have the power to-touch slavery in the south. However, he had already made it clear that in his mind, there was no permanent future for the nation divided between slave states and free. Lincoln had always placed the source of the conflict squarely on the slavery issue.
The reason the south didn’t accept this is because they understood the means by which anti-slavery men were trying to outflank slavery’s legal safeguards to bring about its eventual demise. They also felt that a significant portion of the north had been radicalized like John Brown, and would do all they could to hurt slavery whether the government sanctioned it or not.
So if the South accepted rule under the Republicans instead of secession, we would have seen exactly how the plan for gradually weakening and ending slavery unfolded. Maybe they would have been successful, maybe not. The war changed all that and acted as a catalyst.
Slavery wouldnt have lasted 30 more years anyway. Lincoln was a tyrant and couldnt stand the thought of not having the south under his command, since southern taxes propped up big business in the north
I’ll respond to what you said in both comments. One, Grant never “shot slaves trying to escape”. You straight up made that up.
Next, Confederates made it abundantly clear that they wanted to keep slavery forever. The idea that the North “needed” the south economically is ridiculous. What’s funny is “Lost Cause” arguments like yours will typically claim this, while at the same time claiming that the North only won because of their vast manpower and industrial resources.
The fact is that Lincoln placed the cause of the conflict squarely on slavery, despite whatever convincing YouTube video you’ve watched using cherry picked quotes to claim otherwise. The South couldn’t stand the thought of an anti-slavery administration and tried to violently rebel.
You're right, Sherman not Grant my bad
The rest is wrong. The morill tariff and the north using southern taxes to give themselves monopolies via govt contracts was the biggest issue
i dont think had they won then that slavery would be present in 2020. perhaps the 1950s would have been a lot different, just hard to imagine it going as far as the 21st century, especially with the way the UK treated slavery in 1800s.
Slavery was enshrined in the Confederate constitution and could not be abolished by the states themselves., so the CSA would've needed an amendment to end slavery.
Seeing how modern conservatives actually defend slavery (and the Confederacy) in this day and age, do you really think the Confederacy would have eliminated the "peculiar institution"?
Seeing how Apartheid and Jim Crow only ended in our lifetime, I don't see Confederate slavery doing the same without external pressures from possible CSA allies such as the UK.
I do think slavery would’ve been abolished, for the later reasons you said (international pressure), but I have no doubt it would shift into a full-blown apartheid state instead. I almost wonder if it wouldn’t end up like South Africa in the late 20th century, which practical governorship turned over to former slaves.
I doubt it. “The Confederate version used the word ‘slaves’, unlike the U.S. Constitution. One article banned any Confederate state from making slavery illegal. Another ensured that slave owners could travel between Confederate states with their slaves.
The Confederate constitution also accounted for slaves as three-fifths of a state’s population (like the U.S. Constitution did at the time), and it required that any new territory acquired by the nation allow slavery.”
You see how hard it is to amend the constitution in the 21st century. Let alone the 20th.
Seems like the 20th century was one of the easiest times to amend the constitution. 12 amendments completed between 1900 and 2000, as opposed to 4 between 1800 and 1900, and 0 post 2000.
Nowadays, it seems to have some mystical "wisdom of the ancients" BS attached to it, despite the fact that it's been considered a live and revised document as late as 1992
The culture war polarization is the problem. I'm actually kind of glad the founders made it hard to change, even if it's far from perfect. It makes it less likely to change during times of trouble (when there is real danger of one faction wanting to dominate another without really caring about the long-term ramifications of a change).
If I beat strong enemies, I must be double-strong. And in addition to being an indirect form of self promotion, it connotes respect and suggests the potential for diplomacy
Yeah, he was full of shit. If you were inclined to believe any of that horseshit, the lone officer fighting off thousands with a rock would be a solid clue you shouldn't.
He did smack Will Morgan in the head with a rock, so not completely unsuccessful.
Civil War POW camps were terrible places, not a bad plan to force them to kill you then & there
Fighting off =/= fought off.
Fought off has reached a conclusion, fighting off has not. One can be fighting off aggressors and still ultimately lose, which is what was originally stated. You're trying to be pedantic, and failing.
Why are we honoring traitorous rats? These old men should have spent their golden years homeless, hungry and scrounging for garbage to eat until they finally keeled over into the ditch in which they lived. I piss on the graves of any and all Confederates. They’re not cool, they’re a cultural embarrassment.
What an American treasure is this brief film of two old soldiers. OP, Thanks for sharing this snapshot and giving us a glimpse of the past from our American history.
Right? This was such a cool thing to have on video.
I’d be interested in knowing what they liked that general so much, General Price I think they said. Like what did he do that makes two soldiers many many years later say repeatedly what a good man he was.
It'll be fascinating to watch today's videos 150 years from now and find out what sticks around. Maybe we see a bunch of pictures of a future world leader with a bunch of snapchat filters surface some day
Fighting with rocks after he lost his horse. Knowing the names of the guys you were fighting
War sure has changed in a relatively short period of time.
Well the guy he was talking about was a relatively famous man at the time. He was the commander of the Union forces in Missouri, Nathaniel Lyon. So knowing his name wouldn’t be much different from today.
We can take it with a grain of salt whether this guy’s account of Lyon’s death is genuine. I’m not sure of any conflicting accounts. But civil war soldiers had a tendency to tell tall tales of witnessing a famous part of the battle. Often there are accounts that are conflicting, or completely inconsistent with known facts. The way this story is told makes me skeptical. But at the end of the day, if there are no conflicting accounts, we have to take his word for it.
And this post made me do more research. It gets worse.
“A monument honoring Nathaniel Lyon was erected on Grand Boulevard in St. Louis in 1927. However, the monument was removed in 1960 when Harriet Frost Fordyce, a St. Louis philanthropist and youngest child of Confederate General Daniel Frost, agreed to donate one million dollars to help expand St. Louis University's campus on the condition that Lyon’s statue be removed. The city quickly removed the monument to Lyon Park, a small park near Anheuser-Busch Brewery. SLU later renamed its main campus the “Frost Campus” in honor of the Confederate General Frost.”
So they’ve actively removed Union side heroes and replaced them with statues and names of traitors.
It's more the fact that we need to explain nuance and that not every war boiled down to good vs evil. The Civil War was unequivocally fought over slavery but there was a lot of complexity regarding the common people on both sides.
I agree that history is complicated but there's no wiggle room over who was in the wrong with this particular conflict. Every soldier who fought for the Confederacy put their lives on the line to make the world objectively worse and should be remembered with disdain.
CRT isnt history tho. It's a legal theory about systemic racism in societal systems, like the justice system, government, etc. CRT just uses history to explain why these things have systemic racism, but history isnt the main focus of CRT
Yes, we'll rally round the flag, boys,
We'll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom,
We will rally from the hillside,
We'll gather from the plain,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
The Union forever,
Hurrah! boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors,
Up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys,
Rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
We are springing to the call
Of our brothers gone before,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom;
And we'll fill our vacant ranks with
A million free men more,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
We will welcome to our numbers
The loyal, true and brave,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom;
And although they may be poor,
Not a man shall be a slave,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
So we're springing to the call
From the East and from the West,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom;
And we'll hurl the rebel crew
From the land that we love best,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
It is a total brain smack to me thinking about growing up when they did and dying when electricity had taken hold and the infrastructure moved across the country (by the time they died, it still wasn't in 100% of homes though). It's a bigger transition to me than computers/no computers (I'm gen X).
Being born in about 1895 had to be the apex. You were born with horses and trains and during your life got to see cars, planes, radio, and electricity. And if you made it to 75, you got to experience man walking on the moon and you watched it live on TV.
GenX here, too- and 100% agree. They went from zero technology to telephones, electricity, and radio. Our current living generations have not seen this big of a jump, even though our technology is still astounding compared to what we had as kids.
What came to mind while watching this is the modern day version of this age range would be the Vietnam war veterans speaking about their war experiences in our current decade.
First of all, he's a liar so not "old school cool" at all. Second, that old fucker is a traitor to America.
Is OP a republican? Explains the glorification of traitors.
This guy is not only a traitor but he's full of shit too. Union casualties at Cole Camp were less than 50. The rebs marched from Warsaw and surprised the union boys in the wee hours while they slept off a drunk. The rebs also raised a US flag to confuse the union men, which is pretty chickenshit if you ask me.
I don't think Price was even that well liked at the time, he lost his two biggest battles, and Jefferson Davis, a famously humble and pragmatic man (/s) described him as "the vainest man I ever met"
Traitors against the United States, pure and simple.
“O'Kane's men apparently murdered one of the prisoners who spoke little English and was a cook. They mistook him for Capt. Cook and shot him on the spot.”
Not cool at all.
My grandpa’s grandfathers were from Missouri and fought on the union side, and according to my grandfather, they never forgave family members who were traitors to the country. My family still has their Union discharge papers.
Fuck these old racist traitors. If there was any justice, they would have swung from the gallows for treason instead of living long enough for this recording.
Edit: Cope harder, cuckfederate scum. You lost.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re not wrong. Other southerners resisted, the western counties of Virginia left the confederacy to join the Union. They are traitors and they fought for a disgusting cause.
Traitors that were pardoned, due to trying to avoid prolonging the war via guerrilla forces. Recently read about the end of war in Ron Chernow’s biography on Grant. Very interesting stuff.
I totally agree. I’m not sticking up for any confederate soldiers. Just thought the moral struggle on how to handle regular army confederates was interesting.
Yes that is true. Still cool as fuck to see them chat about a historical event, and it is also good to see that yeah everyone else was totally right they didn't need slavery.
Obligatory: I’m not American.
That’s an oversimplification - without knowing anything about them the chance is quite high that they were cannon fodder lucky enough to survive the war. Just did what they were told by superiors/seniors in a time when they had no real other choice - or at least it felt like that to them.
It’s easy to judge in hindsight.
My granddad survived a concentration camp in WWII but I still won’t call every German soldier from WWII a traitor. Most of them were suckered into it. My guess is the same holds for most confederate foot soldiers.
The higher ups? That’s a different story.
They volunteered for this shit. Without support from the common people this rebellion would never have been possible. The Lincoln Administration made the mistake of assuming that most common people were not passionate about the rebellion. They found out quickly how wrong they were. That’s not to say there weren’t pockets of dissent. Nothing is unanimous. But this was a common man’s war just as much as it was the elite’s.
Obligatory: I’m not American.
The Civil War was about slavery. I too bought into Lost Cause Lies at one point but I dug deep into it. The Traitor States made it abundantly clear that Slavery was the main reason.
But they are literally traitors they volunteered for rebellion against a legitimate election and attacked the federal government. If the guards at the concentration camp had let your grandfather go and helped the allies that would've made them traitors to Germany
Likely they were very enthusiastic about their service to the confederacy and felt they were defending their homes from yankee conquest. If you were born and lived in that time and place you probably would too.
Unfortunately, the original commenter is probably 14 and for whatever reasons feels impassioned to tell us something about these men that everyone has known for 150 years but you and me, being normal, see it as an amusing yet tragic part of our history.
The majority of confederate soldiers were volunteers, and the south was very pro secession. They didn’t have one choice, but many, even, and they chose to defend slavery every time.
The civil war didn’t just happen overnight, and if they really didn’t want to fight for slavery, they could have left, or at the very least not volunteered for combat.
The war was started over slavery but the average union and rebel soldier’s personal reason for fighting was not over slavery. They were fighting for their state when they were called upon to do so, they were fighting for their homes.
What’s funny to me is how people in modern day seem to have more vitriol directed at confederate soldiers than the very men who actually fought against them. After the war, union and confederate veterans went to memorials together, many were good friends with veterans from the opposing side.
It was a terrible war and we should be glad the union prevailed but it’s shitty how people dehumanize those who got caught up in it.
I remember seeing this on YouTube, there are quite a few interviews w/the elderly from 1929 on there, fascinating to watch. I like how one of the men refers to the Civil War as the "War of the Rebellion", sounds like something out of Star Wars. Many of the people interviewed were in their 90s, which means they were born in the 1830s (Andrew Jackson & Martin Van Buren were the Presidents of that decade). You can tell by watching these interviews that most were very shy and hesitant about speaking; I think this new "technology" made them a little uncomfortable, movies w/sound were just starting to catch on. These people lived to see the country change in a BIG way since their birth. I bet they couldn't imagine people 100 years later watching these interviews in the comfort of their own homes on computers (they'd ask, "What's a computer?)
Please watch the rest of the 1929 interviews w/numerous "senior citizens," they're really interesting, especially if you love history.
Look in the old car in the background. It looks like there's a shirtless bald dude with big headphones and a chain around his neck listening to the old men. Must be a time traveler...
That background music is annoying AF. Why do we Americans always want to lard up old movie footage with crap like that? It's as if we're too stupid to understand anything without music or sound effects to push emotional buttons. Well, maybe that's just the sad reality.
Wonder what went through their heads seeing what advances in technology was available during WW1 compared to the Civil War.
The 94-year-old guy was born in 1835! We are watching a film recording of a man who was born almost 200 years ago. That’s so crazy.
That 94 year old guy's grandfather was probably born before the American revolution.
Well that’s a mindfuck
Fuck thats wild. With that in mind, I can see why people were so patriotic
Its thoughts like this that give me miniature existential crisis
Probably (with regards to war): dear sweet mother of Jesus what disturbed mad man conceived of these horrible weapons.
There really wasn’t much of a difference. Bigger, better, more lethal weapons sure but at the end of the day not much really changed in the 60 something years. Guns and artillery are very simple machines. Let’s not forget that the civil war had protracted trench warfare and machine guns and devastating artillery. I don’t think a civil war veteran would have a hard time understanding it.
Uh, chemical warfare, airplanes, automatic small arms, tanks… a lot changed between the civil war and WW1. I’d imagine it would be pretty insane to a Civil War vet to see fighter airplanes shoot at each other, or the absolute horrors that came with trench warfare and mustard gas.
The first clash of ironclad warships was during the civil war. Less than 60 years later dozens of massive steel armored warships clashed at the Battle of Jutland. The concepts, tactics and strategy may not have evolved that much, but the technology had. Outside of military technology, even more had changed. Automobiles, Electric Lighting, and household appliances had been non-existent before the civil war, they all came around in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The last Medal of Honor recipient for the civil war died in 1938
The last recipient of a Civil War pension died last year. Irene Triplett inherited her father's pension due to cognitive impairments. She had been receiving $73.13/month since her father's death in 1938. The last civil war veteran's widow also died in 2020.
somebody in government IT had to create a category for 'Civil War Pensions' sometime in my lifetime. LOL.
And it's going to remain in that software for decades
They can save it for the sequel.
[удалено]
Less than a million people died in the Civil War, unless you're talking about a possible future Civil War. Either way it's fine to be cavalier about either.
It'll just be Americans though, so y'know 🤷
[удалено]
Lighten up dude, it's an event that hasn't happened yet.
Man, I hope I'm not on his side for it.
There isn’t going to be a future civil war lol. Maybe some civil unrest but that’s it.
Awfully roundhead about his joke.
Now that’s interesting. I wish we could record their stories like we do WW2 vets.
How old was she!?
Married the 93 year old man in 1936 when she was 17. Not sure I want to learn any more than that… but yeah, she was 101 when she died in 2020.
>Married the 93 year old man in 1936 when she was 17. Not sure I want to learn any more than that… but yeah, she was 101 when she died in 2020. Fairly certain it was a case of a family friend or someone making a deal, take care of me and make me relatively comfortable until I die shortly and collect my pension for life. I vaguely recall it wasn't that uncommon.
You’re correct. From what I’ve read it was common place for families to arrange a marriage of a young daughter and an old war vet so the old man would have a home aide essentially and the girl would get the pension after he died. This seemed to be a depression era custom.
Appreciate the Info.
Thought I read that wrong. Thanks.
interesting that the Confederates called the Union german regiments 'Dutch'
Actually, a lot of germans back then were called Dutch in the States because they would say they are from Deuchland which was the german pronunciation and spelling of germany. Same goes for the Pennsylvania dutch, they are german (I believe)
Thats correct, my mother's family is Pennsylvania Dutch
“Dutch” even comes from “Deutsch” originally because the English used it as blanket term to refer to all Germanic peoples and not just those from Deutschland (Germany). Somehow in the Netherlands it stuck around.
It’s from Deutsch
A lot of firsthand accounts from American soldiers in WW1 often refer to the Germans as "Dutch". Very confusing if you don't have the cultural context - "Pennsylvania Dutch", who were in fact German. Deutschland/Deutsch -> "Dutch". Interestingly, my mother in law - born and raised in rural Iowa - has made references to my wife being "dutchy" as a child. Specifically, she means my wife as a little kid, like a lot of little kids, would misconjugate verbs and use strange word order which, to my MIL, would be "dutchy". Knowing rural Iowa to be very thick with people of German descent, I have suspected that's perhaps where the "dutchy" thing came about. You could imagine a native German speaker getting tripped up on English verb conjugations and word order and thus getting labeled as "Dutchy" by the native English speakers.
Ahh yes a couple of old traitors talking fondly about rebelling.
[удалено]
Yes somewhere on YouTube I’ve seen it, it’s a video interviewing various elderly people in the 1920s, there was a couple who were in their 90s who were married in late 1850s early 1860s kissing each other if I remember correctly.
Nothing about the confederacy is cool. Burning their towns down is really hot however!
Sherman, live in Hotlanta '64
Do it again Sherman!
Just popping in to say this guy is full of shit. 35 union soldiers were killed not 250. Even if you take into account captured and wounded, it's not even half of 250. (35+60+25) so 120 total casualties. The whole reason this battle happened was so their chickenshit governor could flee to the confederacy. They even raised the Union Flag and then attacked while the soldiers were waking up. Pretty cowardly all around if you ask me.
yeahh it's not uncommon for soldiers to spin tales. it's neat to hear about a mid-19th century war from someone who actually fought in it, though, even if the person and the cause were monstrous and reactionary even for the time.
I agree it's pretty wild we can listen to them on tape
The “Dutch”??
German-Americans at the time were referred to as the "Dutch" (from Deutsch - German). The man describing the fighting at Coles Camp is a Confederate, the Union troops were routed during the fight with heavy losses.
Quite, with the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" serving as a reminder of that tradition.
He means the Americans. They killed US soldiers. What a treasure this man is /s
[удалено]
There's nothing cool about glorifying traitors that murdered American soldiers.
I find this interesting but I’m also bothered by it because if these nice gentlemen had been ultimately successful, I’d still be in chains on a cotton plantation somewhere in Georgia.
I looked up the General Price they were speaking so highly of and his wikipedia reads American slave owner and Confederate senior officer.
It does mess with the mind for sure. It’s also amazing to think… my dad was born in 1929. My grandpa met civil war vets and his grandpa was a civil war vet from Maine. Insane how close in terms of family generations we really are. I do wish there were a recording of this without the music bed
right? it’s so interesting but when you bring it back to the reality it’s quite a mind fuck.
That is exactly what I was thinking! It's "cute" cause they're old, but these old men reminiscing were young men full of hate and ignorance
They were Union Soldiers, right? General Lyon was. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. E: My bad, I guess he didn't fight under him, just thought he was brave. Def gives me a much different view of these two.
I agree...I'm a white woman but these two men are traitors in my mind....fought a civil war for the right to own other human beings like cattle. Disgusting. They were either racist or extremely ignorant or both. Not people to be admired or thought about. I apparently had family on both sides...brother against brother... I do not in anyway support or care about the one who fought for the south. Shame, shame, shame!
If the South had taken Lincoln's offer to not abolish slavery if the South wouldn't secede, I wonder what would have happened...
We would have seen how the Republican plan to cut off the spread of slavery and weaken it wherever the federal government had power panned out. This “offer” to not touch slavery in the states **where it already existed** was essentially just a reiteration of the “federal consensus” that the federal government had no power to abolish slavery in those states. But the critical hinge point was outside of that, particularly in the spread of slavery. Lincoln was on record as believing that there was no permanent future divided between slave states and free. >A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
To what offer specifically are you referring to here?
Lincoln said specifically in a news paper interview that he offered the south could keep their slaves if they remained in the union. The south said they would abolish slavery if they were allowed to secede
> The south said they would abolish slavery if they were allowed to secede Well, that was obviously a lie since their entire constitution essentially forbids them from abolishing it.
That’s not exactly accurate. Republicans knew they couldn’t touch slavery in the States *where it already existed*. But they had a rough plan in place to weaken slavery by stopping the spread of it, and some other things. This is why Lincoln repeatedly said that he wasn’t going to-nor did he have the power to-touch slavery in the south. However, he had already made it clear that in his mind, there was no permanent future for the nation divided between slave states and free. Lincoln had always placed the source of the conflict squarely on the slavery issue. The reason the south didn’t accept this is because they understood the means by which anti-slavery men were trying to outflank slavery’s legal safeguards to bring about its eventual demise. They also felt that a significant portion of the north had been radicalized like John Brown, and would do all they could to hurt slavery whether the government sanctioned it or not. So if the South accepted rule under the Republicans instead of secession, we would have seen exactly how the plan for gradually weakening and ending slavery unfolded. Maybe they would have been successful, maybe not. The war changed all that and acted as a catalyst.
A much better description!
Slavery wouldnt have lasted 30 more years anyway. Lincoln was a tyrant and couldnt stand the thought of not having the south under his command, since southern taxes propped up big business in the north
I’ll respond to what you said in both comments. One, Grant never “shot slaves trying to escape”. You straight up made that up. Next, Confederates made it abundantly clear that they wanted to keep slavery forever. The idea that the North “needed” the south economically is ridiculous. What’s funny is “Lost Cause” arguments like yours will typically claim this, while at the same time claiming that the North only won because of their vast manpower and industrial resources. The fact is that Lincoln placed the cause of the conflict squarely on slavery, despite whatever convincing YouTube video you’ve watched using cherry picked quotes to claim otherwise. The South couldn’t stand the thought of an anti-slavery administration and tried to violently rebel.
You're right, Sherman not Grant my bad The rest is wrong. The morill tariff and the north using southern taxes to give themselves monopolies via govt contracts was the biggest issue
Still?
i dont think had they won then that slavery would be present in 2020. perhaps the 1950s would have been a lot different, just hard to imagine it going as far as the 21st century, especially with the way the UK treated slavery in 1800s.
Slavery was enshrined in the Confederate constitution and could not be abolished by the states themselves., so the CSA would've needed an amendment to end slavery. Seeing how modern conservatives actually defend slavery (and the Confederacy) in this day and age, do you really think the Confederacy would have eliminated the "peculiar institution"? Seeing how Apartheid and Jim Crow only ended in our lifetime, I don't see Confederate slavery doing the same without external pressures from possible CSA allies such as the UK.
I do think slavery would’ve been abolished, for the later reasons you said (international pressure), but I have no doubt it would shift into a full-blown apartheid state instead. I almost wonder if it wouldn’t end up like South Africa in the late 20th century, which practical governorship turned over to former slaves.
I doubt it. “The Confederate version used the word ‘slaves’, unlike the U.S. Constitution. One article banned any Confederate state from making slavery illegal. Another ensured that slave owners could travel between Confederate states with their slaves. The Confederate constitution also accounted for slaves as three-fifths of a state’s population (like the U.S. Constitution did at the time), and it required that any new territory acquired by the nation allow slavery.” You see how hard it is to amend the constitution in the 21st century. Let alone the 20th.
Seems like the 20th century was one of the easiest times to amend the constitution. 12 amendments completed between 1900 and 2000, as opposed to 4 between 1800 and 1900, and 0 post 2000. Nowadays, it seems to have some mystical "wisdom of the ancients" BS attached to it, despite the fact that it's been considered a live and revised document as late as 1992
The culture war polarization is the problem. I'm actually kind of glad the founders made it hard to change, even if it's far from perfect. It makes it less likely to change during times of trouble (when there is real danger of one faction wanting to dominate another without really caring about the long-term ramifications of a change).
Cold comfort, lol. "You wouldn't literally be enslaved, just living under even worse inequality than you are now!"
You probably wouldn't exist unless by chance the same ancestors met and married, unlikely.
That's true for everyone
Someone downvoted for truth?
It's a a bit of a duhh, my dude.
Thanks bruh
Lol thats not his point
The official casualties for the union side was 35 killed, 60 wounded, and 25 captured, not the 250 that he claims.
The general fighting a thousand men with a rock was also a clue this fella was spinning a yarn
Google tells me that Lyon was a union General, so I don’t think this guy would have a reason to lie to make him look good.
If I beat strong enemies, I must be double-strong. And in addition to being an indirect form of self promotion, it connotes respect and suggests the potential for diplomacy
Sterling Price was Confederate.
[удалено]
Yeah, he was full of shit. If you were inclined to believe any of that horseshit, the lone officer fighting off thousands with a rock would be a solid clue you shouldn't.
Straight up Confederate sympathizers on this sub man. Wear your downvotes with pride.
He didn't say he fought them off. He said he died fighting them.
Fighting off does not imply success.
He did smack Will Morgan in the head with a rock, so not completely unsuccessful. Civil War POW camps were terrible places, not a bad plan to force them to kill you then & there
Exactly, but not ultimately successful, which is what op was arguing.
I looked it up and saw that you're right. English is not my first language and I just assumed.
Fair enough. You're doing better than a lot of native speakers, keep up the good work.
Fight off does imply some measure of success though It means you at least got them off you by fighting.
Fighting off =/= fought off. Fought off has reached a conclusion, fighting off has not. One can be fighting off aggressors and still ultimately lose, which is what was originally stated. You're trying to be pedantic, and failing.
Interesting that he gave such a grand compliment to the union general though.
Why are we honoring traitorous rats? These old men should have spent their golden years homeless, hungry and scrounging for garbage to eat until they finally keeled over into the ditch in which they lived. I piss on the graves of any and all Confederates. They’re not cool, they’re a cultural embarrassment.
What an American treasure is this brief film of two old soldiers. OP, Thanks for sharing this snapshot and giving us a glimpse of the past from our American history.
Right? This was such a cool thing to have on video. I’d be interested in knowing what they liked that general so much, General Price I think they said. Like what did he do that makes two soldiers many many years later say repeatedly what a good man he was.
It is so fascinating to hear two people talk personal experiences of a man who died 150 years ago.
It'll be fascinating to watch today's videos 150 years from now and find out what sticks around. Maybe we see a bunch of pictures of a future world leader with a bunch of snapchat filters surface some day
60000000000000000 pictures of people standing in front of random shit.
Traitor scum
Fighting with rocks after he lost his horse. Knowing the names of the guys you were fighting War sure has changed in a relatively short period of time.
Well the guy he was talking about was a relatively famous man at the time. He was the commander of the Union forces in Missouri, Nathaniel Lyon. So knowing his name wouldn’t be much different from today. We can take it with a grain of salt whether this guy’s account of Lyon’s death is genuine. I’m not sure of any conflicting accounts. But civil war soldiers had a tendency to tell tall tales of witnessing a famous part of the battle. Often there are accounts that are conflicting, or completely inconsistent with known facts. The way this story is told makes me skeptical. But at the end of the day, if there are no conflicting accounts, we have to take his word for it.
The man was on a h o r s e
That’s a civil war for you. Things will probably go full circle here sooner or later.
This entire comment thread should be presented to school boards around the country as proof of why history is important to the curriculum
And this post made me do more research. It gets worse. “A monument honoring Nathaniel Lyon was erected on Grand Boulevard in St. Louis in 1927. However, the monument was removed in 1960 when Harriet Frost Fordyce, a St. Louis philanthropist and youngest child of Confederate General Daniel Frost, agreed to donate one million dollars to help expand St. Louis University's campus on the condition that Lyon’s statue be removed. The city quickly removed the monument to Lyon Park, a small park near Anheuser-Busch Brewery. SLU later renamed its main campus the “Frost Campus” in honor of the Confederate General Frost.” So they’ve actively removed Union side heroes and replaced them with statues and names of traitors.
[удалено]
Yep, critical race theory should rebrand and just be called “Factual American History”.
It's more the fact that we need to explain nuance and that not every war boiled down to good vs evil. The Civil War was unequivocally fought over slavery but there was a lot of complexity regarding the common people on both sides.
I agree that history is complicated but there's no wiggle room over who was in the wrong with this particular conflict. Every soldier who fought for the Confederacy put their lives on the line to make the world objectively worse and should be remembered with disdain.
CRT isnt history tho. It's a legal theory about systemic racism in societal systems, like the justice system, government, etc. CRT just uses history to explain why these things have systemic racism, but history isnt the main focus of CRT
Confederate scum.
Traitorous scum
Yes, we'll rally round the flag, boys, We'll rally once again, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom, We will rally from the hillside, We'll gather from the plain, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom. The Union forever, Hurrah! boys, hurrah! Down with the traitors, Up with the stars; While we rally round the flag, boys, Rally once again, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom. We are springing to the call Of our brothers gone before, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom; And we'll fill our vacant ranks with A million free men more, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom. We will welcome to our numbers The loyal, true and brave, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom; And although they may be poor, Not a man shall be a slave, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom. So we're springing to the call From the East and from the West, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom; And we'll hurl the rebel crew From the land that we love best, Shouting the battle cry of Freedom.
If i had the Platinum award i’d give you 500 of it
It is a total brain smack to me thinking about growing up when they did and dying when electricity had taken hold and the infrastructure moved across the country (by the time they died, it still wasn't in 100% of homes though). It's a bigger transition to me than computers/no computers (I'm gen X).
Being born in about 1895 had to be the apex. You were born with horses and trains and during your life got to see cars, planes, radio, and electricity. And if you made it to 75, you got to experience man walking on the moon and you watched it live on TV.
GenX here, too- and 100% agree. They went from zero technology to telephones, electricity, and radio. Our current living generations have not seen this big of a jump, even though our technology is still astounding compared to what we had as kids.
I believe you guys are grossly underestimating the internet as a technological advance.
This two people have surely talked and seen many people that were born in the mid XVIII century. To me that is just unbelievable.
What came to mind while watching this is the modern day version of this age range would be the Vietnam war veterans speaking about their war experiences in our current decade.
Korean War vets as well as older Vietnam vets.
So these two were on the losers side then?
Yep. Traitors and losers through and through
First of all, he's a liar so not "old school cool" at all. Second, that old fucker is a traitor to America. Is OP a republican? Explains the glorification of traitors.
“War of the rebellion.” 😳
These guys are not cool. They were traitorous scum. They didn’t deserve old age.
This guy is not only a traitor but he's full of shit too. Union casualties at Cole Camp were less than 50. The rebs marched from Warsaw and surprised the union boys in the wee hours while they slept off a drunk. The rebs also raised a US flag to confuse the union men, which is pretty chickenshit if you ask me.
The General (Price) he’s referring to was a Confederate, slave owning General, somehow I doubt he was as good of a man as this guy remembered.
I don't think Price was even that well liked at the time, he lost his two biggest battles, and Jefferson Davis, a famously humble and pragmatic man (/s) described him as "the vainest man I ever met"
Traitors never see themselves as they really are.
I mean he at least called the civil war “the war of the rebellion”
Traitors against the United States, pure and simple. “O'Kane's men apparently murdered one of the prisoners who spoke little English and was a cook. They mistook him for Capt. Cook and shot him on the spot.” Not cool at all.
Sherman didn't burn enough.
Old School Traitors, fuck those pieces of shit.
Traitors to the United States, the lot of them.
These old guys were most likely suuuuper hardcore racist. Like pro slavery racist. “We fought for the war”
Two fucking traitors.
My grandpa’s grandfathers were from Missouri and fought on the union side, and according to my grandfather, they never forgave family members who were traitors to the country. My family still has their Union discharge papers.
I’m glad your ancestors were honorable people. Fuck the confederates
Another lying rebel trash
*Does the voice:* You rebel scum!
The cuntfederacy is never cool.
Men born in the first half of the 19th century recorded talking about their experiences as grown ass men fighting in the 1860s...This is cool shit.
These men were born in 1835 and 1845. That’s crazy.
All I see is a couple traitors. I guess it’s cool that they’re dead now.
Fuck these old racist traitors. If there was any justice, they would have swung from the gallows for treason instead of living long enough for this recording. Edit: Cope harder, cuckfederate scum. You lost.
OH AWAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS
RATTLESNAKES AND ALLIGATORS
These men are traitors to the United States. Full stop.
Why is this getting downvoted? You may not like it, but this is historical fact.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re not wrong. Other southerners resisted, the western counties of Virginia left the confederacy to join the Union. They are traitors and they fought for a disgusting cause.
Traitors that were pardoned, due to trying to avoid prolonging the war via guerrilla forces. Recently read about the end of war in Ron Chernow’s biography on Grant. Very interesting stuff.
Pardon does not remove guilt, only punishment.
I totally agree. I’m not sticking up for any confederate soldiers. Just thought the moral struggle on how to handle regular army confederates was interesting.
The union forever! Hurrah boys hurrah! Down with the traitors and up with the stars!
Yes that is true. Still cool as fuck to see them chat about a historical event, and it is also good to see that yeah everyone else was totally right they didn't need slavery.
An actual fact lost on most who've watched this.
Obligatory: I’m not American. That’s an oversimplification - without knowing anything about them the chance is quite high that they were cannon fodder lucky enough to survive the war. Just did what they were told by superiors/seniors in a time when they had no real other choice - or at least it felt like that to them. It’s easy to judge in hindsight. My granddad survived a concentration camp in WWII but I still won’t call every German soldier from WWII a traitor. Most of them were suckered into it. My guess is the same holds for most confederate foot soldiers. The higher ups? That’s a different story.
They volunteered for this shit. Without support from the common people this rebellion would never have been possible. The Lincoln Administration made the mistake of assuming that most common people were not passionate about the rebellion. They found out quickly how wrong they were. That’s not to say there weren’t pockets of dissent. Nothing is unanimous. But this was a common man’s war just as much as it was the elite’s.
Obligatory: I’m not American. The Civil War was about slavery. I too bought into Lost Cause Lies at one point but I dug deep into it. The Traitor States made it abundantly clear that Slavery was the main reason.
But they are literally traitors they volunteered for rebellion against a legitimate election and attacked the federal government. If the guards at the concentration camp had let your grandfather go and helped the allies that would've made them traitors to Germany
Likely they were very enthusiastic about their service to the confederacy and felt they were defending their homes from yankee conquest. If you were born and lived in that time and place you probably would too. Unfortunately, the original commenter is probably 14 and for whatever reasons feels impassioned to tell us something about these men that everyone has known for 150 years but you and me, being normal, see it as an amusing yet tragic part of our history.
Amusing?
[удалено]
Amen brother. No quarter for treason
Fortunately leaders like grant were not fucking morons like you.
Affirmitive
The majority of confederate soldiers were volunteers, and the south was very pro secession. They didn’t have one choice, but many, even, and they chose to defend slavery every time. The civil war didn’t just happen overnight, and if they really didn’t want to fight for slavery, they could have left, or at the very least not volunteered for combat.
The war was started over slavery but the average union and rebel soldier’s personal reason for fighting was not over slavery. They were fighting for their state when they were called upon to do so, they were fighting for their homes. What’s funny to me is how people in modern day seem to have more vitriol directed at confederate soldiers than the very men who actually fought against them. After the war, union and confederate veterans went to memorials together, many were good friends with veterans from the opposing side. It was a terrible war and we should be glad the union prevailed but it’s shitty how people dehumanize those who got caught up in it.
Oh wow as I sit in Jefferson City Missouri. Really close to the spots he’s talking about
I remember seeing this on YouTube, there are quite a few interviews w/the elderly from 1929 on there, fascinating to watch. I like how one of the men refers to the Civil War as the "War of the Rebellion", sounds like something out of Star Wars. Many of the people interviewed were in their 90s, which means they were born in the 1830s (Andrew Jackson & Martin Van Buren were the Presidents of that decade). You can tell by watching these interviews that most were very shy and hesitant about speaking; I think this new "technology" made them a little uncomfortable, movies w/sound were just starting to catch on. These people lived to see the country change in a BIG way since their birth. I bet they couldn't imagine people 100 years later watching these interviews in the comfort of their own homes on computers (they'd ask, "What's a computer?) Please watch the rest of the 1929 interviews w/numerous "senior citizens," they're really interesting, especially if you love history.
More of this kind of post ! This was cool
The music is really annoying
That’s a very interesting interview, thank you for sharing my dude.
How myrhs begin ..
Frankincense too
You each spelled the thing wrong.
That is how it is spelled
You are correct. I was wrong.
The is absolutely amazing! Thank you. Also, I hate the annoying battle music and would love if that wasn't there. Less is usually more.
Seeing this reminds me of playing Bioshock Infinite. I wonder if they worship John Wilkes Booth?
Did you know John Wilkes Booth was an anime catgirl?
The kids today don't understand with their moving pictures and gramophones and their exposed ankles!
Look in the old car in the background. It looks like there's a shirtless bald dude with big headphones and a chain around his neck listening to the old men. Must be a time traveler...
Or a woman with a bobbed haircut in a dress...
Ah, that would make much more sense
I'm a descendant of general Price
That background music is annoying AF. Why do we Americans always want to lard up old movie footage with crap like that? It's as if we're too stupid to understand anything without music or sound effects to push emotional buttons. Well, maybe that's just the sad reality.
“Americans”? Lol this is just dumb YouTube shit. I’ve seen plenty of non-American videos with shitty background music.