The Unfortunate Truth About The Civil War
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 10. 2017
- Since VH-1 discontinued their 'I Love the ...' series before they got around to the 1860s, a lot of us are walking around with Civil War misinformation firmly wired in our brains.
Want some more SOME NEWS, starring Cody Johnston? Then CLICK HERE: goo.gl/RCEuwa
SUBSCRIBE HERE: goo.gl/ITTCPW
CLICK HERE for more HONEST ADS spoofs - goo.gl/xHchf2
CLICK HERE for GALACTIC WAR ROOM - goo.gl/kStvEN
CLICK HERE for WE'RE NOT ALONE - goo.gl/cC9L5o
CLICK HERE for ROM.COM: The Series - goo.gl/5mabAx
CLICK HERE for AFTER HOURS: goo.gl/Nrg6Jh
CLICK HERE for CRACKED ANIMATIONS: goo.gl/bSD2Sf
CLICK HERE for TODAY'S TOPICS: goo.gl/1jxB44
CLICK HERE for ESCORT MISSION: goo.gl/19YnL7
CLICK HERE to Subscribe to THE CRACKED PODCAST: goo.gl/qmdLnT
On iTunes: goo.gl/MYjkoi
See more www.cracked.com
LIKE us on: / cracked
FOLLOW us on: / cracked
FOLLOW us on: / cracked - Komedie
There is a statue of Benedict Arnold, sort of, called the Boot Monument. He was a war hero who was wounded in battle against the British, the leg wound essentially ended his career as a fighting soldier. But then he turned traitor, so he got no honors for his service, but his leg has a monument built to honor the part of Arnold that fought for America. And his name does not appear on the monument, because he was a traitor.
Andrew Edwards Dat loyal leg tho.
Gerry C How exactly does the loss of an asset as minor as West Point result in ending the war. Entire states were lost without ending the war.
Andrew Edwards he wasn't really a traitor, he was a spy working AGAINST THE traitors... the colonists were the traitors
Gavlick Apthesycerski West Point was not a minor asset. The Hudson Highlands in both the French and Indian war and the Revolution were and actually still are considered a vital defense spot for our country. If you capture West Point and Anthony's Nose, the mountain on the other side of the current Bear Mountain bridge, you can successfully cut New England off from the rest of the nation. Arnold was a hero, that is why this major betrayal was so devastating to the new country. The whole length of the Hudson from Governor's Island and the Battery in the lower New York city bay to Ft Ticonderoga especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, but really until the 1960's was considered to be a vital area to defend and a lot of money and thought were spent on that defence. That is one of the reason the Military Academy was located at West Point.
@Gerry C There is a reason wars are fought despite the deaths. Our founders felt independence justified the carnage.
We had a lot more to justify the civil war (and honestly another civil war today) than the American Revolution back then. But since I believe in their ideals (government of the people that actually represents them unlike Britain) I support American Revolutionaries.
Benedict Arnold simply backed the wrong side and suffered the historical consequences. I don't doubt that everything you say is correct from Benedict Arnold & British perspective but this is simply loyality to my own side that I support the American Revolutionaries.
This guy obviously didn't do any research at all. If he did he would know the civil war was started over vampires using slaves as food.
And Abe Lincoln needed to put those sparkly Mofos down like the emo dogs they were.
Tru dat. If God didn't want vampires to eat slaves, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Exactly. I watched the Lincoln documentary that showed this. Cracked is off it's mark
I got that reference. +1
That, and the crushing tariffs.
My one question. WHY DO WE HAVE A STATUE OF LENIN IN SEATTLE?!?!?
Jewss...____.__...
Because Abe Lincoln sold us out to Marxist conspirators
@@ashleyfromresidentevil4618 the communists slaughtered jews
LOL! I had the same question. Read the plaque, friend! The sculptor was covertly protesting Lenin, showing him as a war monger. Lenin wanted the statue destroyed, but someone believed it to be historically significant and moved it to Fremont. Someone also took the liberty of painting his hand red. And that is why you don’t tear down statues unless you’re in a third world country and the statue is of a recently toppled dictator. A statue doesn’t automatically mean that the subject is being celebrated and revered for their every action in life. It means they’re a significant figure that we should discuss, so we don’t repeat our past mistakes.
@@spartanx9293 Fascists: Wew! That was close!
This was a great video! I hope you do more!
One myth that isn't brought up as a myth is the idea of Northerners being opposed to slavery because they were abolitionists and anti-racist. This isn't true at all. The North was plenty racist.
Oregon, for instance, had it written into its state constitution that blacks couldn't establish permanent residence in the state up until 1929, despite slavery being outlawed. The New York Draft Riots resulted in the murder and lynching of 11 black men. Blacks not lynched were straight-up chased out of New York after their neighborhoods were burned to the ground. While California was a Union State during the war, many Californians went to Texas to fight on behalf of the Confederacy.
Make no mistake, the Union States had no problems with slavery as an institution establishing a racial hierarchy of white supremacy. The myth is the Union was abolitionist for moral reasons. The truth is the Union was opposed to slavery for economic reasons.
Had slavery been allowed to expand to New England, U.S. Territories, or the newly formed states of Oregon, Nevada (who became a state in 1864...part way through the war), and California, whites would have to compete with slave owners who used slaves to work in factories, mines, and plantations. Why worry about your factory workers going on strike when you can lock slaves inside and let them all die in a fire with zero fuss? Or worry about a mine collapsing?
The ugly truth is Union states don't want to recognize their role in creating racism in the United States. Their mistreatment of black Americans by Northerners got swept under the rug after the war was over and the 13th., 14th., and 15th. amendments were ratified.
THANK you for an unbiased comment
and then they all made laws to separate the newly freed blacks from their "pure" white children
Thank you, this is probably the most overlooked facet of the civil war. Although I think it was even more basic. Slavery and capitalism are two fundamentally different economic structures.
A single economy can't have conflicting foundations.
Essentially an economy based on returning some of the wealth created to the laborers so they can exchange it for goods doesn't work with a significant portion of the workforce not getting paid. That's what "a house divided" refers to.
Michael Ellis
"Slavery and capitalism are 2 fundamentally opposed structures"
Please what?
Owning, selling and using people as workers is opposed to capitalism? That sounds like the wet dream of a capitalist.
Sorry I don't want to be rude, but that is close to the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
We live in a capitalistic world and many of our products are often (at least indirectly) produced by child and (de facto) slave labour.
Clothes or cellphones produced in the 3rd world and the materials needed to produce them are partly build on slavery and close to slavery conditions.
The stadiums for the soccer world championship in quatar are literally build with slave labour, payed for by oil money from us and to the entertainment of the capitalistic world.
And our capitalism isn't opposing it, a lot of our wealth is actually build on it. Capitalism has worked hand in hand with slavery in the past and still does today.
I guess I know what you mean, that capitalism can't work if you don't have people able to buy things, but the way you stated it is just totally wrong.
Michael Ellis
"Doesn't work with a significant portion of the work force not getting paid"
But the owners get paid. Why does it matter if a person has 10 slaves that work, if the owner gets paid and spend the money or he pays wages and the "slaves" spend the money?
Look at the discussion about minimum wage. Some what to get ready d of minimum wage and argue that the less they have to spend on wages, the more money they have and the more jobs they can create and the more they can invest and put back into the economy.
Please keep this show going. Nice to have an uncensored history lesson.
PW Bue ....Where did you go to school where you were taught a 'censored' history lesson? You seriously didn't understand the civil war until.....Now? You had to have a middle school teacher explain it to you on CZcams? Sad....
KandaPanda what's your favorite color?
creshiell spoiler alert it's white
rd0676 white is all colors before being broken up and not a color on its own (no wonder you liked this video..you must have failed middle school, so there is a lot for you to learn on youtube)...and im not white, so nice try.
green. why would that be applicable?
Well, the comments section is quite friendly here.
Ikr. I hate Ni-
@@roach2110 cotine. Me too, it's terrible for your health.
The PEW PEW PEW parts made it kind of cringey to watch.
PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW
it made me chuckle a little bit, but yeah. he did it too many times
What drove me nuts was every 5 second he has to say some stupid hastag blah blah blah, i like his style mostly but the hashtag thing drove me nuts
Just tried to make it funny yet it failed
@@ishaiahguyton64 bang bang bang
I like this new guy. Make more videos here, new guy.
Not new, he has plenty of videos
Charmanderaznable what's his name
He's made a few, but I agree he needs to make more. :)
Zora Bikangaga
Charmanderaznable thank you. He needs to put that name in text at the beginning of an episode.
I appreciate these kinds of videos, not being American. However, I find the "boom! hashtags!" kind of humour to be weirdly dissonant as opposed to humorously contrasting (which I guess was the intention). I understand that inserting random hashtags is sort of a joke these days, but, I mean, it's just disruptive. That ice cream joke was leagues better.
"haha black people were slaves and suffered for decades! BEW BEW POW POW But seriously guys let's have a civil discussion"
I agree that the modern hashtag trend is dumb and should go away.
Enthused Norseman I love history and really don't mind having statues of traitors up. As long as it's portrayed acuratly
Agree 100%
hehe sker der
Also robert E lee didn't want a statue of himself
How to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and get a statue of yourself in America. #logic
@@CalvinJary You really don't get it. 🤦♂️
I'm glad. That. Eye. Sore. Is. Damn. Gone
AND he freed his slaves when u war broke out, did not say that did he.
Not just him he didn't want statues of ANY Confederates
Brilliant! Thank you for this.
I am from Norwich, Connecticut.
We have a museum about Benedict Arnold and we understand that his story is more complicated than just deciding to switch sides.
But you will find no statue there.
The only memorial that exists is the boot memorial in Saratoga, New York, commemorating the leg that was shot and wounded in the Saratoga Battle in defense of the United States of America.
Because that's how Norwich, Connecticut do.
We'll build a statue to commemorate the only piece of you that earned it and throw the rest away.
Traitors get no statue, no matter their reasons.
I think it's really cool that you guys have a museum about Arnold. He was really important to our fight against England. It's too bad we didn't treat him well, because he was a great asset. Makes me wonder what would be different if we had rewarded him and he hadn't turned traitor.
Sarah Krupa I lived in Norwhich back in the day lol
+William Aden. you hate America ? leave. you don't like what we stand for.? leave. your not a prisoner .you can just leave. go to Africa. go to Europe. go to Russia. Mexico go anywhere. you want.if you hate the way this country became what it is. and you hate what it is. just leave.obviously there must be better places with a better history that you approve of. go there. live there. just leave.
John Knope Seriously the most un-American and fascist argument you could make. To hell with democracy, get with how we do or get out.
FaithOriginalisme to be fair, a fascist argument would be, "Agree with us or die" but I understand the point you're trying to make. Unfortunately you're probably a little misinformed on what fascism actually is. Fascism doesn't give you a choice of staying or leaving. They make the decision for you. And a person saying that you have a right to leave if you don't like the way something is, is not fascist. Are they right for telling you to get out? Not necessarily. But it's not like they're forcing you from your home or forcing you to agree with their ideas.
the humour didn't really fit in this video, but it's nice to see cracked make stuff that isn't a minute long clickbait statement
yay new contenet!!! two minutes what the fuck??? kinda like that?
It's a 7 minute 6 sec statment.
I learned something today...general lee was a terrible person
He said he was a middle school teacher so he's prolly used to giving out info dosed in some quick laugh fodder...
I thought it was funny as FUCK! and sounds all legit to me...
TYVM, very informative!!
Great job!
Excellently explained. Cleared a lot of misconceptions I personally had. Thank You!
When Cracked is just so great you arrive super early.
middle school history class and platitudes. 'so great'.
Great video man!
I love how you do history! I honestly didn't know that stuff about Lee.
Speaking of Harry Potter, you should discuss whether or not House Elves slavery should be abolished.
Trustworthy McLegitimate Or how muggle is a racist term. Now before you go and say that “wizards come in all races”, bear in mind that sensitivity to magic (the necessary ingredient for becoming a wizard) is essentially a genetic mutation; one they try to close off from intermarriage. So essentially they form their own race. And they’ve built an apartheid system around that racist ideology.
Though I dont think muggles too much fancy the magic world or its people.
merican Gamer Seeing as you would be muggle in such a world, how would YOU feel knowing magic exists? Like any branch of science (which is what it would be), do you really think an entire planets worth of humans would want to be in the dark about it? Who speaks for the billions who would benefit from the technology?
Mr. W good sir, I merely am saying what I see. Besides..... who said I was muggle?
merican Gamer :facepalm:
I'm enjoying the new videos ! Appreciate the information! Can we keep this series alive ? :)
Zack Helton if you learned something in that video...At your age....Go find your school teachers and tell them they failed. Really...Tell them "I was your student. I'm an adult now... *_(pause for laughter)_* anyway, I am and I didn't know why the civil war was fought or started. You failed at your job."
They deserve the introspection and self awareness.....
Also, your ears look fucking stupid.
I Rosencrantz
How bored is this dude?
Appreciate the back up, haha.
Damn Shock G, thanks for dropping knowledge.
Great video!
...is he shooting Star Wars blasters at the confederates?
are you that dense?
Apparently you don't like Star Wars.
aceous99 calm down bud
Yeah, isn't that special? Star Wars SUCKS (pretentious, derivative, self-aggrandizing Space Opera v. Real SF)
This was great. Thanks for making it. :)
Nicely done. :D
Nicely done
Wow... wierd how angry people get over some information.
james pond are they really angry? It’s impossible to determine ones emotions through typed text. They may have written it calmly and rationally, but in your mind you are reading it as angry.
a lot of it was cleaned up. There quite a few "unintelligent" comments earlier
james pond By cleaned up, you mean censored.
LOL, look at the president.
Cause it's not all facts, much of it is liberal propaganda.
The like to dislike ratio is surprisingly good.
I mean... most people that disagree won't be watching this channel to begin with...
Alex Kerley- People who disagree are the type to go out looking for arguments.
It's sad so many liked this drivel
Ed McKenzie lol what are you whining about you ugly little white supremacist bitch?
batwingedloony
Swing and a miss. I hate the federal government not black people.
Good work
1st most of what he says about the American Civil War is correct except when it comes to the information he gives concerning Robert E. Lee. Lee never owned slaves, his father-in-law George Washington Parke Custis
died in 1857, and in his will he decreed that all his slaves were to be FREED within 5 years of his death and that they were to be secured financially by the sale of George Washington Parke Custis
' properties, since Virginia State Law required that "No freed slave maybe release into a state of vagrancy.
" meaning that no freed slave would be freed without a means of providing for themselves weather that be in the form of money, land or a trade by which they could sustain themselves. In the will he named his son-in-law the executor of his will, he did not own the slaves, technically the slaves were still owned by Lee's father-in-law even though he was dead, and Lee was required by law as the executor to see that the stipulations of the will were carried out, which they were the last of George Washington Parke Custis
' slaves were freed in early 1861. Next him saying that Lee whipped 3 runaway slaves is a myth. the first accounts of this myth are published in a abolitionist newspaper in Boston in 1866 a year after the end of the war, the supposed letters written by an anonyms author only appear once in any writings or publications. The perceived event is supposed to have taken place in 1859, when U.S. Army Records and Lee's own correspondence prove that he is in Texas commanding the U.S. 2nd Cavalry fighting along the border with Mexico in the "Cortina War." These rumors only resurface in the book "Reading the Man" which author Elizabeth Brown Pryor claimed she processed these letters, and refused to produce them and later admitted that the letters never existed to begin with. And all reputable historians on the American Civil War agree that the claim of Lee whipping slaves is an attempt to smear Lee in hopes of forcing the federal government to put him and other former confederates on trial, and is not supported by any evidence, in fact all the evidence contradicts the claim, even those slaves supposed to have been there for the the whipping, say that no such event ever took place, and state that Lee was rarely ever at the properties, spending most of his time involved with his Army duties. As a historian and professor of history I hate it when "part time historians" fail to do actual research and use unreliable sources for their evidence. Historians have a saying for this "A thing is true because of common knowledge, and not because a actual evidence."
The majority of the people fighting for the south didn't own slaves--the rich slave owners didn't want to lose their slaves, so they fed all the uneducated hicks propaganda about leftist agendas, states rights, and conservative moral values.
And here we are today, where all the rich sweatshop owners are getting the uneducated hicks to vote for the party of tax-breaks and bail-outs by spreading propaganda about leftist agendas, states rights, and conservative moral values.
Moral of the story: you're a dumb hick
This guys is so damn funny even talking about a serious topic. PLEASE Cracked we need more of him.
"you don't name highways after traitors you put that in a museum." Huh. I mean, that isn't saying hide the gory past, or Disney-fy it in any way, with both extremes doing harm. I like it.
Abraham Lincoln always owned slaves
Great job!!!!!!!!
I was hoping this was about the Avengers' reaction to the Hero Registration Act.
*ba dum tiss*
The Confederate constitution forbade members states from abolishing slavery, or even regulating to make it milder. So much for state's rights, eh?
Also, difference between Jefferson and the Confederacy? Here's a suggestion from the mouth of the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation 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. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... 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 ideas; its 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 normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
In my opinion you are indicative of the overriding issue regarding this discussion of history. Let me remind you that states are first and always part of a greater whole. Y'all don't get to make a constitution, sir. Your vice president is duely elected by the Union. You start your diatribe with "Confederate constitution" and "Confederate Vice President," but this is simply an attempt to ligitimize the actions of a group of traitors with false titles and impotent documents. Frankly, you are on the wrong side of history. I feel everyone gets caught up in the raical aspect of the civil war but that's not necessary. We are a republic of laws. Break them, pay the consequenses. The cause of the war was as simple as it is inalienable: treason.
Eric Williams Yknow he was pointing out why the State's Rights argument is bullshit, right...?
Eric, as Voden said, I was pointing out that the "state's rights" argument is nonsense. I am against the Confederacy. OTOH, i think the treason argument against the Confederacy is nonsense too, it's a sort of blanket argument which any country could use against any secessionist territory. And i think blanket opposition to secession is bad, in fact, i personally think secessions should by default be seen as good, and supported, the exceptions being if they are done for a bad reason, eg to preserve slavery.
+Voden Myshi My point (as indicated by "indicative of the overriding issue" was you can't just decide "hey, i think i won't be America any more." Anything after that is bullshit. That was the video poster's first point more than anything as I saw it.
Sorry to reply to myself- it's not that I did not understand what zeleni's comment implied. I just hate the concept of ligitimizing a tratior's cause by recognizing their Vice President and constitution. It's a minor thing, but I think for some just using the words gives them credence. As you can tell I can't abide by secession. Change (supposedly) happens through the democratic process in our republic. That's the foundation for all of this. To me, it's intergal to our national identity.
Excellent!
Excellent
Bro you just did my whole six grade report in 7:06 minuets and it took me weeks.
Cracked can go pretty far left on certain issues but this segment has been good and this video was well made. It shouldn't be a debate: WE DON'T MAKE STATUES OF TRAITORS
Don't erase the past, put all of them in a museum, talk about these prominent Southerners in classrooms. But if you start a fight and lose said fight, you get nothing.
Darth Vader was never going to build up a statue of Han Solo, it wouldn't make sense...
Moral of the story, we should replace the Confederate statues with Star Wars statues.
+David. Darth Vader turned Han Solo into a statue. It didn't make sense.
"Darth Vader was never going to build up a statue of Han Solo, it wouldn't make sense..."
Wow... of all the metaphors you could have come up with, you literally chose the one where Darth Vader quite literally made Han Solo ~INTO A STATUE~ of carbonite, thus making your metaphor impotent...
David except mate, all confederate soldiers were pardoned by the US government in recent history making them not traitors...
It's not that the towns don't want to move them, it's that small towns can't really afford to move the statues. It's truly a waste of funds which could be used much better elsewhere. Also when you think about these statues, think about the people and not the confederates. Robert e lee freed all his slaves years before the war and even used his own money to send some back to Africa. He was an amazing general and a true gentleman and I think that's what he should be remembered for, and not the side he fought for. The only reason he fought for the confederacy anyway was because he couldn't bring himself to attack his home state
of Virginia.
Good job
👍 good job
'the difference is that confederate leaders chose region over country and committed treason' but didn't the likes of Washington choose colony over empire and commit treason too? The only difference is that the confederacy lost their war. The confederacy was abhorrent for trying to maintain slavery but that's just not a valid argument against them
RonPaulHatesBlacks given that the US established a system that maintained slavery for decades longer than the empire they left I'd say that's a slightly hollow argument
RonPaulHatesBlacks you've missed my point entirely. Slavery is an abomination and I'm glad the South lost in your civil war. I was arguing that calling confederates traitors who put region above country and saying that makes them any different to the American revolutionaries is a poor argument, I was making no point at all about slavery
RonPaulHatesBlacks and the revolutionaries fought to expand west and slaughter the natives in direct contradiction to British law. The 'why' is still abhorrent in both
RonPaulHatesBlacks I would suggest you do a little research on colonial history, it's very well documented. Treaties such as that of Fort Stanwix and Lochaber prevented settlers expanding over the Apalachian mountains and contributed to the outbreak of the revolution
RonPaulHatesBlacks or perhaps that's because I spend my days at work, not on CZcams. I'm quite well aware of where they are and I don't see a spelling error on a mountain range half way across the globe as being a serious error, especially as you've clearly misspelt it yourself. I'm not in the habit of debating in CZcams comments so I suggest you either read a book on why the American revolution occurred, why the vast majority of native American tribes in the relevant areas remained allied to the British for decades after American independence or how colonists treated native tribes in the Eastern states . It's really not my job to educate you, but you really do live up to the reputation of Americans for being completely ignorant of history, even of your own country
But from my perspective the jedi are evil!
Isn't mind raping people with force powers a form of slavery?
The Jedi creep me out.
the jedi is a movie..this is real life..do you know the difference
Luke Keeling Yeah. The confederates were still cartoonishly evil.
Tyler V "But from my perspective the jedi are evil!"
Actually the Galactic Empire was about the Lincoln Administration: think about it: an evil overlord agitating for increased taxes, to create a separatist movement to justify the use of "The Grand Army of the Republic" against it, and creating a rebel alliance in response, resulting in an empire... ring any bells yet.
Thank you for clearing that up for me....let's face facts, the truth considered dangerous in the eyes of those who would benefit from a lie.
Cool vid dude. Truth is truth
Loving all these new faces, this was interesting and entertaining!
Agree, more Zora B. PEW! PEW! PEW!
Machineface Waterson
lol Wow. But no.
Machineface Waterson and everything out of Africa is irate, explain the nonviolent civil rights movement? And Hitler? Hitler must have been from South Africa and MLK from Germany🤣🤣🤣. And an irate muthafucka would have killed yall and stole your ships and goods instead of trading.
Love the video. Funny, informative, but please shoot with a higher shutterspeed and add motionblur in post. Just makes green screen easier. Also, can I suggest a stronger tungsten backlight? Just to separate the hair from the green better.
time to add R S M B
150 years later and we still are still trying to analyse wtf wuz goin on!
Not really most people have a pretty clear understanding of what was going on, it is that there is a minority who want to lie about it and gaslight the impressionable in order to justify their political beliefs and maintain their power base.
Because it was unnecessary and we've been brainwashed to believe it wasn't. Slavery was already being phased out. It was proving inefficient and wasteful. Humans have so much more potential when educated and liberated.
pew pew pew
@Joey Pastrana except for that double negative. Reads better as 'It was not necessary and we've been brainwashed to believe it was'.
Dont wast. Ur. Time. The. Stupid. War. Sucks. To. Much. And. Is. To. Stupid to. Be. Anilised
I cracked at the end😂
PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW!
"But by taking down those statues you're erasing history."
Honey. Let me tell you something. The only thing that would qualify as a statue of Adolf Hitler I have ever seen here in Germany, where I have lived all my life, was a wax doll in Madame Tusdaud's in Berlin. It was the only one there you were not allowed to take photos with. You couldn't even go near it. You could only look at it through a tiny window and show it some middle fingers (which I did, it felt awesome.) And to do that, you had to physically stand behind Anne Frank.
That is the only "statue" of Hitler in Germany outside a museum. Is there any German who doesn't know about the Holocaust, the third Reich and World War Two? No.
Because statues are not history.
If you make a statue of someone, it is to celebrate that person. And Confederate generals should not be celebrated, just like Nazis.
Interesting argument.
It's not that the towns don't want to move them, it's that small towns can't really afford to move the statues. It's truly a waste of funds which could be used much better elsewhere. Also when you think about these statues, think about the people in them and not the side they fought for. Robert e lee freed all his slaves years before the war and even used his own money to send some back to Africa. He was an amazing general and a true gentleman and I think that's what he should be remembered for, and not the side he fought for. The only reason he fought for the confederacy anyway was because he couldn't bring himself to attack his home state of Virginia.
If no museum is interested in the statue, I'm sure there are scrap dealers that would pick them up for free: Copper's expensive.
+Aiden Hall
We can start a Patreon.
Colby Lewis are you on the spectrum? Because that was by far and above the most retarded thing I've heard in my life. Go read a book if you can.
I wish I had this guy as my history teacher growing up, I would have LOVED history if so
I remember as a child moving from Michigan to Atlanta some 55 years ago my father commenting, "They're still fighting the civil war" and shaking his head. Some things never change.
The way he tried to comically tell these stories makes me convinced he actually was a middle school history teacher.
"Pew Pew Pew. No that we have an understanding..." was the last thing I heard.
I learned all of this in my Early American History class, but I still enjoyed the video 👍🏻
Good video.
I love this dude. Unfunny or not this video is needed, some people have no concept of true American history other than what they were fed through our public school system.
The truth is that you'll never know "true" American history. Unless you lived through it and experienced it yourself, you'll never know the real, honest truth. History is written by man, and man is not infallible. Sure we'll always get pieces of it, and maybe we can piece together what we think is the truth, but that will always be our own perception and what we choose to believe. Say a man walks up to you and hands you a book. He claims it's the true history of whatever it is you wanted to learn about at the time. And say you read through it and it's all things you personally wanted to believe were true. Is it really all truth? Or is it just the truth you want to believe?
Public schools are always more prone to be meddled with by the state. Here in Brazil the educational material distributed in public schools is very biased, inadequate and inaccurate.
He was a school teacher
He fed the information you're complaining about...
Idiot
Jeebz3000 it helps when there are multiple accounts verifying the same information. That's way more accurate than let's say your personal account of having lived it. It gives a broader view of things. Even bringing up the question of who is a more reliable source between countless historians and of people who use selective information in history to excuse their racism shows a lack of common sense
Unfortunately Americans probably have the worst knowledge of history out of any of the western nations. The truly sad part is that Americans are almost exclusively taught American history, but even that is so massively biased it's not funny. The way your school boards are allowed to control what is taught is just plain stupid, it leads to so much misinformation and bias that the rest of the world ends up thinking WTF is wrong with these people.
As for this video, he gave his truth, but it's not the only truth and indeed if you research what caused the civil war properly then you will find there was much more to it and that Lincoln was a war mongering asshole, just like Churchill was in WW2.
I'm so proud of myself for already knowing all of this. Thanks Cracked!
the only thing i learned in high school about the civil war was how they amputated limbs...that is all the teacher was stuck on..
DoubleGoon because this video is just as full of crap as you are. No wonder you like it.
Ever hear "truth is stranger than fiction"?
each American state is a sovereign nation state unto itself. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, where it says that the colonies were a "free and independent states, with the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states May by right do."
And then the Articles of Confederation said that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence, and every right, jurisdiction, and power that is not delegated to the Congress in the articles.
And then the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each state by name as free, Sovereign, and independent states.
And the Constitution did not unite the states as a single nation-state, it simply established the voters of their respective State as the final Authority therein.
So when a state seceded, that was a brexit. Each state was simply looking out for its own economic interest, just like with the Hartford Convention of 1814 considering secession to prevent other states from acting to jeopardize it.
Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the European Union is a single Sovereign nation state and that no member State can secede from it, and that the European Union should have engaged in civil war against it. Because that's exactly what happened in 1861, with the North American Union.
I had USHistory teacher like this cat in middle school. They changed my life.
Confederate flags and monuments are the ultimate participation trophies.
Jim Simandle lol good one
Good one? Not really, it’s idiotic and ignorant really. They are memorials to soldiers left on the field. Money raised by families to honor and remember soldiers, their family members, who answered their states call to protect their homeland from invasion and takeover. Yet no one slams states today that what to secede for financial reasons. Which was the reason for the CW. New England Yanks started and controlled the transatlantic slave trade up until 1858 even though illegal. It built the northeast US! They sold them south to expand agriculture esp cotton for northern factories. They had the population thus votes to control the legislature. The south even tried to get slaves counted for more equal congressional representation but the north would only allow slaves they sold the south to be counted as 3/5’ths a person to keep the congressional control. Senator Daniel Webster was their PR speech giver to hide their slaving past and shake the shameful finger at the south. What a con job. Classic diversionary tactic. Narcissistic northerners. Read a northern historians book “Disowning Slavery.” She was shocked at the BS she was taught. Did anyone on here read the Lincoln Douglas Debates? Slavery was started by the north for money people, period. And Africans sold Africans up to 10 for a $2 barrel of New England Rum netting up to 10k for the traders. All the “Holier than Thou” Ivy League Institutions made money off of slavery. Then the north voted tariffs on southern ports only who paid up to 90 percent of the Federal Income with no investment back to the south, only the northern controlled congress got the roads, bridges, schools, the south paid to build. They don’t tell you that. If it was about slavery why weren’t all the slaves freed? Just the ones where the Union had no control. They used the slaves they controlled themselves as slaves to send the cotton up north. They also put thousands of slaves into concentration camps. Most people have been hoodwinked so bad it’s ridiculous. And the “Jim Crow” north separated races on rail cars for the first time in Boston in 1838!
So much more I could tell you and prove with facts but just chew on those basics for a while.
slavenorth.com/profits.htm
time.com/5527029/jim-crow-plessy-history/
blackmainstreet.net/never-forget-devils-punchbowl-20000-freed-slaves-died-forced-post-slavery-concentration-camp/
czcams.com/video/-zy9D-0IkQM/video.html
@@lilolmejusayin8671 bruh did u really type that thinking people were gonna read it?
Sam Doesn’t matter to me in any case. Ignorance is a choice and lazy.
What a nice little history lesson,kudos👏👏
Mao's World each American state is a sovereign nation state unto itself. Try reading the Declaration of Independence, where it says that the colonies were a "free and independent states, with the full power to Levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish Commerce, and do all the other things that free and independent states May by right do."
And then the Articles of Confederation said that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence, and every right, jurisdiction, and power that is not delegated to the Congress in the articles.
And then the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each state by name as free, Sovereign, and independent states.
And the Constitution did not unite the states as a single nation-state, it simply established the voters of their respective State as the final Authority therein.
So when a state seceded, that was a brexit. Each state was simply looking out for its own economic interest, just like with the Hartford Convention of 1814 considering secession to prevent other states from acting to jeopardize it.
Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the European Union is a single Sovereign nation state and that no member State can secede from it, and that the European Union should have engaged in civil war against it. Because that's exactly what happened in 1861, with the North American Union.
As a middle school history teacher, I'm sure you're guilty of perpetuating some myths too
Like?
If your going to say that you really have to give an example
I miss you cracked
Hmm, for some reason I just remembered that song right now. "I-Im the Cult of Personality..." (Ban nah nah, bah nah nah, bah nanananah!)
Inb4 hurr dur cracked isn't what it used to be hurrrrdurrr
lmao, when was cracked ever not political?
I wish you had mentioned the Haitian Revolution as a catalyst to the selling of Louisiana territory.
Now THAT's some great reference. Thanks!
Hahahahaha😂😂😂 love this video and its faulty logic. and historical context
Robert E Lee road and High School in Tyler Texas. Weird!
I love this guy! Teach me more history using imaginary six-shooters, please!
Yes thank you black man for making fun of my culture, maybe you should spend a week in Africa to really see what hate is.
About this "beautiful lake" part, and how he is not happy evil people took his ancestors to US.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_Uganda#Statistics
Seriously, this video was extremely well done. Some people of course will choose not to hear it, but I think it's great and would love to see more of this type of content.
Leggon Arm If you have no desire to learn the history of the USA, like us patriotic Americans, then maybe you should go back to whatever piece of shit country you came from. #Inbredistan
My grandparents used to love visiting old southern mansions, and they picked up souvenir postcards at all of them. Cards from the 1960s and 70s often feature images of slaves doing their work - a product of the lost cause ideal. By the time we reach the 90s, slaves vanish from these postcards, and we're left with huge, well-manicured yards, fields of crops, and huge mansions with absolutely nobody in them.
It's more comfortable to erase slavery than to defend it.
Yeah let’s ignore the fact that slavery existed. Let’s forget all those 1,000,000 men who died fighting for freedom of slaves, or in some people’s opinion, fighting for state rights. LEtS ErASe SlAVeRy, your being racist as shit. Pointing out slavery is not racist.
You're trash
1st of all the Civil War was NOT about slavery. Robert E Lee was against slavery, he simply stood with his state Virginia. While Lincoln only freed the Southern Confederate slaves to weaken their Army. He did NOT free the Northern or Union slaves...
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. Abraham Lincoln.
@@alwaysuseignocito3402 With all due respect, I think you completely missed the point of my comment. I'm not making a value judgment as to which version of these postcards is "better" or "worse", I'm observing a historical difference and pondering on how history should be depicted, preserved, and celebrated. There's no such thing as a neutral depiction of American slavery, and refusing to depict it is a form of erasure. So what should be done? I'm intentionally asking a question to which I don't know the answer.
got my subscription and like
Subbed
I wish you had been my history teacher. Great video, both informative and funny. A statue to Peter Pettigrew? Ha! XD
Nice faceover, accurate.
I've heard there was a financial war going on between the factory sweatshop north and the agrarian slave owning south-that the north had been treating the south as it's third world colony. That a business battle occurred in the north in New York (the real capital from whence the major players would coach to DC to find the nearest mild winter) leading to a unified team who then set their sights on the south by agreeing to not overbid each other on the raw product. Story goes the south figured it out in due coarse as the prices started tanking and got their clan together to agree no one would sell for so cheap. Northern businessmen fire back by buying politicians and creating some aggressive laws to target and thus pressure the south. None of this has to contradict the Mason/Dixon Missouri Compromise and I don't know if it's true. I tend to think follow the money. The US didn't start with the revolutionary war but the French and Indian war- wanted by colonial businessmen more than England-suppose to be a short little affair-lead to the first truly global war-The Seven Years War and when done costing a lot more than anticipated so England upped the taxes to pay back costs. A thriving black market in Tea and other product occurred in the colonies (like a McDonald"s franchise selling to Burgerking) undercutting EnglishTea (from India) causing a stockpile to build and new management to get hired and fired to sell the damn stuff. Finally England says sell our tea cheaper and undercuts the colonial black marketeers which starts working and so they dress up like Indians and cry "HeyHo Taxation without representation and toss the tea of their competitors (England) overboard. or ...the Indian wars-follow the money...Afganistafollow the money
In short the US civil war had a myriad of causes, the south didn't just spring up and attack because of slavery. Nor did poor white southerners fight just to stay above blacks.
Dude, you're wrong as HELL about everything..........but you sure are entertaining. This was fun to watch. PEW PEW PEW.
I was waiting for you to get t ok the core of the civil war, economics.
The whole southern economy was based around slavery. They were economically dependent on it, plain and simple.The whole Southern economy required that the system be sustained. The Deep South was directly dependent on slave labor. The Upper South might have survived economically without it, but they were benefiting both as a consumer of slave labor and as a source of it and the combination made it just as important to them as it was to the cotton states. By 1860, there was no easy solution to this. Lincoln had no intention of trying to ban slavery, but the paranoia of the plantation owners, who feared economic ruin if slavery ended, won out over good sense.
Yeah dude, you made history kinda fun and interesting. Good job.
And fictitious.
Colin Silver- Dude; suppress your gag reflex and do to him what you long to do! Cause, you know Dude, history should be kinda fun, huh?!
Im here for this video. Learned more about civil war and slavery than my own classroom. #Takedownthosestatues
Or... make additional statues of William T. Sherman and his army with lighter fluid ( im aware that this was not a thing back then) and matches chasing them #ShermansMarch
#Dontbesheep #Leftistpropanganda
....you didn't listen to the video if you want to "take down those statues".
I guess we should take down MLK's statues. After all, we seem to be judging people by a single thing in their past. While we're at it, we can get rid of anything with Grant on it. See, Lee FREED his slaves BEFORE the war. Grant waited until he was forced. MLK was an adulterer. He plagiarized his doctoral dissertation. He even plagiarized some of his most famous speech. We need to ignore ALL of the good he did, and focus ONLY on the bad, since that is the standard. It must be applied to ALL historical figures.
And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? There is a reason EVERYONE knows the Bible verse "He who is without sin may cast the first stone", because it's an axiom that EVERYONE knows is true. No one is righteous. No, not one. So when your standard is "judge everyone by the worst thing they ever did in life", your world view is going to be shit. Because EVERYONE is going to look like a monster.
I also find it odd how NO ONE until this generation had any problem with those statues. Now, suddenly, it's this pressing issue that needs to be addressed. And unfortunately, the media and the far left tipped their hands early on this one. The day after the statues came down in one town, the press was writing stories about "blowing up Mt Rushmore", and busts of Lincoln were being destroyed....you know, the white supremacist Nazi who freed the slaves and ended up getting shot in the head for it? They showed, once again, that if their intolerance was tolerated, they wouldn't just take the inch given. They would take the world, then scream "racist" at anyone objecting.
So no, we shouldn't "tear down those statues". I have this odd feeling this has nothing to do with them being Confederates. I think it has the most to do with them being Democrat. The left tried for years to claim "we all switched sides in the 60s", but a simple Google search shows that to be a lie. They claim "racism" is what swung the south. If that's the case, it took 35 years for the deepest parts to swing red (the "most racist" parts didn't swing Republican until the mid 90s). And one might think that the Democrats lost the South because they removed God from their platform.....you know, since it's called the "Bible Belt". Methinks that the Democrats are itching to whitewash the worst parts of their past in an effort to never have to take responsibility for it.
+01gharms
> compares adultery to slavery
> thinks they have a point
Obvious you never had AP US History and then you would know this dude doesn't know what he's talking about
Pay Attention class, this is going to be on the final.
That ad was engaging
We need this kind of content to help set records straight.
This content is a lie
An often overlooked point is that every U.S. state has two Senators in the Senate. Long after Free states overtook slave staes in population, slave states continued to have a majority in the upper chamber of Congress. Lincoln's policy of leaving slavery alone, while halting it's spread, would in time, have changed this. The confederate states weren't waiting around to see it happen.
Richard Murray: Don't be naive! EVERY ruthless politician disguises his tyranny as benevolence; and halting the spread of slavery, was NOTHING but a "Trojan Horse" to increase TAXES ON slave-states, as well as to maintain segregation: and the passage of the long-pending Morrill Tariff Act was the SUCCESS of that ploy. Here's Lincoln's own words:
*All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.*
*From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other.*
So according to Lincoln, the federal government could do whatever the F it wanted, that the Constitution didn't expressly say it COULDN'T do-- by its OWN JUDGMENT; i.e. that he could just sit there and say "the Constitution doesn't expressly say we CAN'T do that," and there wouldn't be a damn thing ANY states could do about it.
Even the Supreme Court, Lincoln said, had no power outside of actual cases before it: i.e. that he could CONTINUE TO ENFORCE federal laws, that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional:
*such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.*
So Lincoln not only declared the USA to a national empire that could do as it pleased; but he disbanded the separation-of-powers, that was intended to PREVENT tyranny, by the power of judicial review-- that had been in effect since 1803 under Marbury v. Madison.
And so he claimed that not only
1) the federal government could pass and enforce ANY law, that that (it CLAIMED) the Constitution "didn't EXPRESSLY SAY say it COULDN'T pass;" but that
2) he could CONTINUE to ENFORCE even laws that the Supreme Court had ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL-- in violation of not only Marbury v. Madison, but also HABEAS CORPUS: i.e. if Congress passed an official state religion, and the Supreme Court ruled it violated the First Amendment, then Lincoln could STILL enforce it against anyone but the actual DEFENDANT in that case.
WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?
To quote Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions:
*the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.*
And as James Madison concurred in the Virginia Report:
*where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.*
So there you have it: the federal government had NO POWER to intercede against secession against any state's People, OR to ignore Supreme Court rulings.
Lincoln was a TYRANT who ABOLISHED the Constitution with fancy lawyer's talk; nothing more.
@@ralphgoodman4670 Lincoln wasn't a tyrant he was elected by electoral college landslide
Man I wish this guy was still around
Refreshing.
I obtained this knowledge outside of high school. Shame
Didn't that other Cracked guy argue that maybe Benedict Arnold deserves some recognition
Nicholas de Vera He mostly explained that there was more to the story, but the end note was still "Benedict Arnold was a dick and a traitor".
Or MAYBE Cracked.com has invested heavily in shares of BenedictArnoldStatues.com and are slowly distributing propaganda to make us all build more benedict arnold statues so they can reap the enormous profits!!!
I knew this all from a book, but this was slightly more entertaining.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Nailed it B LOL Right on target. Sure hope every true God fearing-God loving American stumbles over this clip as I have. I will share it to everyone I know. Keep killin bro. God Bless and have mercy on us all.
If you read up on the actual history of Benedict Arnold, he's kind of a sympathetic character. I'd rather have statues of Arnold instead of Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK (yes, we have statues of him).
Livid Imp Benedict Arnold was more of a double agent. We are the traitors
Would rather have statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest rather than a fuckin traitor, get the fuck outa here, you fuckin yankee
+Benjamin Perry
Wow, how did you even know what I wrote? I didn't know you make a computer out of Coors Light cans, chicken gibbets and rusted out car parts. I'm so excited to make first contact with _Hillbillus Appalachius._
Benjamin Perry the confederates were traitors tho....
Forrest was a Traitor and killed more Americans than Arnold - Arnold was betrayed by his country before he turned on it. Forrest was a murderer that fought like a coward and got defeated by real patriots.
I would be more willing to listen to this guy if he spoke like an adult.
0:34 UUUUGGGGHHHH. Jefferson.
@4:07
Killing it
Wait, I’ve cream existed in the 18th century?
Yep
It's super easy to make
I want more content from this guy. Specifically that which relates to history, but he’s got a nice voice and interesting personality that would make him easy to watch in anything.
I agree. He's like a modern day, less clumsy Steve Urkel. Very comforting vibe.
+ PeaceInExile....
yep, this are great reasons to believe something. "A great voice and interesting personality" is how we got Obama, NOT his policies. I'm sure as I'm sitting on the john, that you voted for that socialist TWICE.
triggerhappydad65 nope. Couldn’t stand the guy. Not sure what could have possibly made you think that just because I like an entertainer I would have voted for someone like Obama but whatever.
This guy is ignorant, childish, uneducated or a liar with an annoying voice
Not to mention that Lincoln literally said that if he could keep the union together he would have allowed slavery.
Hence why the south were traitors.....the war eventually became about ending slavery for the north and slavery was one of the reasons but it was mainly about preservation of the union, also why do confederate sympathizers hang on lincolns every word when it fits their narrative but totally ignore those southern states who said in their session statement it was about the preservation of slavery...
@@lesterjohnson2621 Not to mention they like to ignore that Lincoln said that his only goal was to preserve the union and he was fine with maintaining slavery so long as it saved the union.
Lincoln: "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."
Completely truthful.