Well, the Constitution says the trial must take place where the crimes were committed. And as for treason we can probably say Virginia's where the _bulk_ of it (as Confederate President) actually took place. Now, if you want to debate what qualifies as a “home state” like HM said, that’s a different story.
@@mountainmangaming808 He moved to Louisiana first. He also floated the idea that the Confederate Capitol should remain in Alabama, as Richmond was for too close to the Union's power base.
There actually were consequences for Lee. His home (well, his wife's home) Arlington was seized by the Union Army. Because a lot of the war was in/near Virginia, the Union needed to find a place to bury the dead. So Secretary of War declared that Lee's land was going to be used for the cemetery. And that was the beginning of Arlington National Cemetery. Now, more than 400,000 former military personnel are buried there.
Pedantic quibbling: it wasn't the Secretary of War, it was the Union Quartermaster General (that is, the guy in charge of logistics and supply lines), a general named Montgomery Meigs. Meigs chose the site specifically to insult Lee. The site also included a village to serve as a temporary home for newly freed slaves. After the war Lee's wife (as you said, the person who technically owned the property) successfully sued to get the land back but where there was already a cemetery on the property, she almost immediately sold it back to the US government. The person who conducted this sale was Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln.
I don't think lee would've mind about turning that strip of land into a cemetery, since he we would have well known how much lives were lost at the time.
Another thing to note about Lee's amnesty is that it was more or less protected by Grant. Following Lee's surrender in 1865 a part of that surrender ensured that all Confederate soldiers (including Lee) were not going to be prosecuted for treason. When Johnson considered prosecuting Lee, Lee wrote to Grant asking if the terms of his surrender would be honored. Grant stepped in and threatened to resign if Johnson broke the terms of Lee's surrender at Appomattox, so Johnson stepped down.
Instead of surrendering, Gen Lee and Co. could have easily campaigned an insurgency for the following decade or more The Union, like most European nations, was not properly trained, to deal with, would not be able to defeat, and would compromise.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Don't see how the war hero general resigning and maybe having tons of men loyal to him and a bone to pick could be an issue?
Fun fact: After the war, some confederates went into self-exile in Brazil and established their own town called Americana. Their descendants and culture still live on in this city today.
Yugoslavia is kind of the worst case scenario for the end of a civil war. A few high ranking generals got punished by a foreign power. Everybody still hates everybody else.
The downside to the way that the American Civil War ended is that it never really ended. You got things like the Daughters of the Confederacy and the KKK, which had to be put down by the US Army. And then it rose twice more. I got to listen to family say that the South was going to rise again.
@@kostam.1113 If the Confederacy had won, the United States would have been Balkanized. The South would have been a resource colony for the British. The French would have installed a puppet state in Mexico. Neither was a democracy. The UK was an oligarchy with a weak monarchy. France was a dictatorship. That's what Lincoln meant in the Gettysburg Address by "government by the people for the people of the people." The USA was the only western democracy in 1863.
A lot, if not most of them were war heroes from the Mexican-American war, including Robert E. Lee who fought alongside many future rivals including Ulysses S. Grant, so no doubt that helped in clemency.
Tbf most people dont even realize thats why america was so armed up and had such military tactics even down to the poorest regiment...they just got done expanding mexico's cheecks and paying for military factories to get built...man early American history gets so misrepresented it ain't funny
@nathanl4083 yes because every American soldier who fought and died for oil in the middle east was a oil tycoons son?....tbh it wasn't even about that till the emancipation proclamation. Before and after that was always about keeping America together hence why we got jum crow laws
Many former CSA leaders actually turned to Grant for help with being pardoned. Which is why his funeral was attended by many from both sides. Edited for spelling.
Robert E. Lee didn't tolerate anyone saying anything unkind about Grant in his presence because Grant's generosity when he surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox even though they met once during the Mexican War briefly Lee had great respect for Grant
I honestly can’t blame him. The guy was himself formerly enslaved and therefore witnessed first hand the cruelty of the oppressive and evil system of slavery. Like other survivors of oppression, genocides, and traumatic events he never forgot the horrible things that he witnessed and went through and so would understandably have a grudge against the confederacy due to how they supported slavery. Even after slavery was abolished Frederick Douglass would also be understandably upset that while officially no longer enslaved African Americans were still being discriminated and oppressed.
Something important regarding prosecuting Confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis wasn't just that Davis was likely to be acquitted by any Southern jury (either in his actual home state of Mississippi or in Confederate capital of Virginia), but also that it would have been dangerous to the Union to lose the case. Davis wanted the trial to go on specifically because he planned to use the legality of secession as his primary legal defense, and while the issue had been settled through force of arms it had not been challenged through a Federal court system. In other words, had Davis been tried and acquitted while presenting secession as legal as his defense, the acquittal would go a long way towards being seen as an admission of legal secession. The Union could (theoretically) lose everything it gained through war in court.
He would have lost! Sure it doesn't say specifically anywhere that session isn't legal, but guess what is unconstitutional for states to do? Conduct foreign affairs! Go look at sections 8 and 10 of article I and section 2 of article II, States cannot make compacts nor treaties, they can't join alliances nor confederations nor even wage warfare, and only POTUS and the Senate can make and ratify treaties. No entity that calls itself independent and sovereign is unable to conduct foreign affairs. Davis would have lost, it wasn't an if it was whether they wanted him to even have a day in court at all and apparently they didn't. I will also add as a fun trivia fact that the first constitution of the United States of America was called “the Articles of Confederation and *Perpetual* Union”. The Founders wanted to keep all colonies-turned-states together for all of time, there is no question on this.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions You bring up some points worth noting, but I think there's misunderstanding on the point I'm trying to articulate. Going after Confederate leaders was a two-part problem. The first problem was that secession was not explicitly disallowed, which would allow a strict constructionist argument of the 10th Amendment to argue that unilateral secession was, in fact, permitted. The second issue was WHERE the Confederates would have been tried. The Constitution states that they MUST be tried where their crimes were committed, thus meaning in the formerly seceded states. It was highly unlikely that a Southern jury would convict Confederate leaders. Your points on Articles 1 and 2 are well-taken, but also, to contemporary Southern minds, entirely irrelevant. Because of one key factor: secession. Secession is the repudiation, the release of obligation to, the Constitution of the United States. Articles 1 and 2 would have prohibited these states from acting as sovereign states, but only if those states were still beholden to the Constitution. The recourse of secession was intended to absolve the South of those obligations. And, it is important to note, the Southern states were de facto acting in a sovereign capacity. They created a new compact (their Constitution), confederated, treated with other nations (as belligerents) and waged war. I'm confused as to the point you were trying to make about Davis not getting his day in court? If that were the case, if the Federal government did have such an ironclad case, why not give him a trial? I am interested to hear more about your opinion on this and get some clarification since I missed your point. As for the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777, the doctrine currently taken as fact today, i.e. the doctrine that the Constitution amended rather than repealed the Articles, was by no means taken as a matter of fact in 1865. A reasonable, educated person of the day could reasonably say that the Articles had been repealed and thus no longer binding. Of course, the Founders did not desire to create a Union only for it to fall apart. But on the other hand, an opinion shared not least by General Ulysses Grant himself, was the belief that the Founders would have much rather more explicitly safeguarded secession than there be a "war between brothers". And indeed we can see this, when after the Constitution went into effect and Rhode Island remained outside of its effects, the Union took no military action to coerce that state into the Union.
@@ericfarmer3360A few years after the War, though, the Supreme Court would find that the Articles were amended. We only consider this legal fact now because they MADE it legal fact then in Texas v. White, which also found unilateral secession unconstitutional. Of course, we have hindsight in this matter, and ultimately there is no escaping the issue of having to be tried where the crime was committed. Anyway, my point is that the situation was more in favor of the union than you might think, even if ultimately it probably wouldn't have been favorable
@@emlynselene1096 Certainly it would not have been a walk in the park for the Confederate case, I just also think it's important to note just how their arguments could have caused quite the problem under the circumstances. And of course, Texas v White came after President Johnson's amnesty and Jefferson Davis' release. My major point is more to provoke the thought of, if you were in charge and you knew these facts, would you have wanted to forge ahead and risked so much in the hope that you'd hang an already defeated enemy?
What Law was broken How could a state court try a citizen for and action of the state legislature. What happen at trial for the earlier successions Lincoln was well aware he had no legal case against the adversary before or after the war, that is why Lincoln didn't go to court when he was inaugurated.
0:05, there is one exception to this statement and that is the trial and execution of Henry Wirz, head of the Andersonville POW camp. As commandant of the camp, he was seen as responsible for the inhumane conditions and was therefore put on trial. And this is the exception that proves the rule as the trial was seen (correctly) as a long and drawn-out process that would inflame tensions further. Also, in the year since the trial there have been questions about the fairness of the trial and how much responsibility he personally bore for actions at the camp vs the impossibility of the situation. Edit: quasi exception. Happy?
Not an exception at all, He was tried for war crimes not treason. Exceptions don't "prove" the rule of course. The use of "prove" in t hat saying is an archaic meaning of "test". As in the "proof" of whiskey or the US Army's Aberdeen *Proving* Grounds. Exceptions do indeed "test" a rule don't not "prove" it as you stated. Bottom line, war crimes trial NOT treason.
The us Civil War was literally the first time POW camps existed. No nation knew how to "properly" run one, and with the deteriorating supplies (thanks in large part to Gen Sherman's match to the sea), thousands of prisoners perished.
@@PhilipJFry-qh2jg Um, no. Try the the British Norman Cross POW camp built 1797. In the Civil War the exchange system originally in place collapsed in 1863 because the Confederacy refused to treat Black prisoners the same as Whites. They said they were probably ex-slaves and belonged to their masters, not to the Union Army. The South needed the exchanges much more than the North did, because of the severe manpower shortage in the Confederacy. In 1864 Ulysses Grant, noting the "prisoner gap" (Union camps held far more prisoners than Confederate camps), decided that the growing prisoner gap gave him a decided military advantage. He therefore opposed wholesale exchanges until the end was in sight. Around 5,600 Confederates were allowed to join the Union Army. Known as "galvanized Yankees" these troops were stationed in the West facing Indians.
@@FIREBRAND38 I will give you the first part setting aside that the statement was misleading, but his trial was just about the most ideal environment; a forgiven national defendant with mediocre recourses, a controversial and passionate subject in a friendly court room, and the proceedings still took the better part of three months. Once people figured this out, the idea of putting people like Jefferson Davis would be even more time consuming and higher risk meant that it was deemed not worth it. Thus, the trial of Herny Wirz was a test to see if any further trial were possible or even remotely practical which they were not.
And from what I read the camp had no supply line attached so most of the deaths were due to gangs starting to form, health issues and understaffed guards. Guards were barely supplied too so if serious breakout happened they would take heavy casulties. The camp commendant was a bit of red haired step child among Confeds so that made him perfect throwaway piece in the aftermath.
Actually, Capt. Henry Wirz was the commanding officer of Camp Sumter, which was located partly in Sumter County, GA and partly in Macon County, GA, near Andersonville, GA.
Several others were hanged : Marcellus Jerome Clarke, Champ Ferguson, & Henry C. Magruder they were guerilla fighters in the parts of the west where the fighting was quite nasty and many war crimes were committed (some by the Union forces as well).
my theory is that it began with a classic "this -town- territory ain't big enough for the both of us!" moment and instead of a high noon shootout, they split the Dakotas instead. 🤭
From Wikipedia, "The Territory of Dakota was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that existed from March 2, 1861, until November 2, 1889, when the final extent of the reduced territory was split and admitted to the Union as the states of North and South Dakota." So like Jimmy theorized, it was first one Dakota they ran a knife through
It's also worth noting that, rare in US history, the executive office was run by a very rare "unity ticket" of president and vice president from different parties -- Lincoln a Republican and Johnson a Democrat. When Johnson succeeded Lincoln, executive policy shifted demonstrably towards a kid-gloves approach to the South. It was to the point that the Republican Congress tried to remove Johnson from office.
@@Losangelesharvey It was in fact very rare. The constitution had been amended in 1804 to end the practice of the VP going to the runner-up. After, president and VP candidates ran together.
He also, like the other President Johnson, had a bizarre habit of showing his johnson to people against their will. He did this while campaigning for reelection, while standing on a tree stump, delivering a speech.
I wouldn’t say that Johnson shifted policy. Lincoln had been a huge proponent of reconciliation and had died before he had time to enact his own version of reconstruction. Johnson mostly tried to follow Lincoln’s plan
It should be noted that the United States has rarely ever punished its rebels. Only 2 men were hung from Shays' Rebellion and 2 from the Whiskey Rebellion were sentenced to hang but later pardoned by Washington. This was the case even after the civil war. At this point its basically established precedent that we forgive our rebels and reconcile differences.
@@toad2117 Hardly, his goal was to launch a slave rebellion (it just didn't get that far). And, like other slave rebellions were far more ruthlessly punished than the two mentioned above, funny that.
That is an interesting bit of history that I never hear spoken much about, the Civil War always just sort of ends, and then Linchon dies, and that's that.
It "just ends" because the south got it's ass handed to it and it had no reason other than evil and greed to support it, but since it was allowed to live much like it had before being put down, they get to influence the narrative of the present. Make no mistake, they lost, they could have been ruthlessly subdued, but they were allowed to fester and so we have the modern era where history is written by the loser.
@@Losangelesharvey Crushed? After 4 years of war and far more casualties. Crushed isn't the word. The Army of Northern Virginia was likely the finest army ever fielded by Americans. Even Bruce Catton, a pro-Union historian, said the Army of the Potomac found it hard to move when it decided to linger on a particular spot.
@@pocketmarcy6990that honor probably goes to James Buchanan, who did literally nothing to stop the Civil War from happening and basically let the south secede. That’s not to say Johnson wasn’t also terrible and completely botched reconstruction though.
I think there was also a concern that a not guilty verdict in the trial would imply or impose a precedent that secession was legal. That, more than anything was a concern, until Texas v. White
I know you only have a few minutes for the video but it is worth noting that Jefferson was held prisoner in Fort Monroe in a damp subterranean gunpowder room converted into a cell. He captors did the usual tortures of having sentries tramp up and down the corridor at all hours and leaving a lamp burning 24 hours in his cell. Plus his heath severely declined during this time as his cell was extremely damp being below the water level. He was finally moved to a better location after seven months. He was finally bailed out of prison due to his passing into the custody of the local US marshal. He spent about three years in jail by the time he was bailed out in May of 1867.
@@quintus920 The North didn't look at it that way. Had they, they would basically be admitting the Confederacy was it's own country. Something they carefully tried not to recognize.
England did play a significant role just not formally. A large number of English and Scottish soldiers were involved (on the Protestant side). Many of which perished of disease and/or lack of supplies. The Stuart King's supported their relatives and Co religious but perhaps not whole heartily. This was one of the reasons the Stuarts were criticised domestically. Interest waned once the chance to fight at home arose from 1638 onwards. Many veterans of the TYW returned to command the Scottish, English and Irish armies of the period.
Likewise they had to make laws barring PoC from holding office because it wasn't overtly and explicitly illegal and in the books. There was a whole scramble to make the former slave masters and powerful southerners happy at the expense of the now free slaves and their rights. Unity was about keeping white landowners and political power houses happy. Period. The comfort of people who owned other humans was put lightyears ahead of the wellbeing of the newly freed slaves.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinionsNo Grant shouldn’t have. The Klan was partially created because former Confederates were disenfranchised after the war. Grant giving former Confederates ability to hold office and vote again was a big reason why the first iteration of the Klan died so quick. Grant wasn’t a perfect president, but he did carry out Lincoln’s wish of reconciliation.
The Supreme Court was asked about this and they warned that they might have to rule that the southern states had the right to secede and therefore the outcome of the war was wrong and would have to be reversed and the confederacy would have to be recognized. In 1832 Massachusetts had petitions to secede from the nation in the supreme court ruled that they had the right to do so. This is one reason all 13 confederate states voted themselves out of the union and were astonished that the northern states invaded and attacked them.
Why did no Spanish Viceroy every try to rebel against Spain? They controlled much larger territory, with more population, and were an ocean away. They could have secured the loyalty of the military with bribes and land. It seems like it would have been relatively easy
That sounds like the perfect topic for a HM video: a question I didn't know I needed answered ^^ IIRC, the Spanish colonial system was designed to prevent something like that from happening: the viceroys served fixed terms (5-6 years) and there were crown officials who reported on them to Spain. Still, it's interesting that over a period of several hundred years, not a single viceroy tried to create his own kingdom. Whatever the answer is, I'm sure the church is part of it. Bishops and other church officials were, as a rule, loyal to the Spanish Crown, and I'm sure any rebel viceroys would have had a hard time keeping things under control if the church had challenged their legitimacy.
I wouldn't be surprised if a combination of family still in Spain, even if not officially as hostages, and very careful selection for loyalty also played a part.
Henry Wertz (spelling) Is the only one to have been fully convicted of what we would call crimes against humanity and hung because of the notoriously cruel Andersonville prison camp as its commandant.
Another significant part in Jefferson Davis not serving time, not being convicted for treason, was down to people paying for his bail (including those who disagreed with what he stood for, believing that the delays in his trial were too long) and he was eventually pardoned by Andrew Johnson
Nothing special about that. President Johnson pardoned Davis and all other confederates on Christmas Day in 1868 for those eligible who applied for it.
The union did the Goku thing where they thought "I beat you and now that I've shown myself to be the stronger guy you can turn to good and we can be friends" and because Dragonball hadn't been written yet they had no way of knowing it doesn't work out almost every time.
One thing about Gen Lee. When his army was cornered by Grant some of his officers and men offered to break out of the Union encirclement and carry on the war as a guerilla war for as long as it would take. Lee talked them out of it, anticipating the cruelty and loss of life from that. Because of Lee we didn't have an insurgency costing 10s or 100s of thousands of more lives.
Not at all. As he pointed out, they would be found innocent, which the Supreme Court told Lincoln. There was nothing against secession. That's why Davis wanted to be put on trial.
Fun fact Jefferson Davis has a statue in the capital building the room just past the speakers office ( I don’t remember the name of that room but it was the old house chambers before they expanded them)
Lincoln and Johnson were both opposed to the program that would become known as “Reconstruction” and it is likely that some of the continuing anger over that time, from the South’s end, stems from it. While the leadership of the former Confederate states were not punished, the states themselves were severely. They had specific conditions to meet in order to be considered states again and not under military control. During that period, even those representing the states to the federal government were picked for them by the federal government. South Carolina, being the first state to leave, was given particularly harsh terms. Despite complying with all the requirements for readmission, she was denied re-entry until all the other states had been allowed in, thereby having the longest period of occupation. A prominent abolitionist and Unionist newspaper publisher from Charleston, who had argued against secession, called for an end to the war during it, and immediately supported Reconstruction during it was elected to the US Senate by the people of South Carolina. Despite his credentials and clear support for the federal government, the Senate refused him (since being both from South Carolina and picked by South Carolina must mean he was unworthy) and seated someone else in his place.
The idealism that accompanied the start of the war had long since given way to the practical realities of a lot of death, suffering, and destruction. It's easy to look back after 160 years and say what logic or one's beliefs dictate, but for those at the time, they likely remembered all the funerals of friends and family from the past 5 years and that reality spoke louder than what they might have wished they could accomplish.
@@whyshouldwecare3267 It was a massive mistake fueled by racist sentiment that didn't want to condemn the South for slavery so yes it's pretty easy to judge unless you're evil
Brave of you to talk about this. Too many people oversimplify it. From the research I've done, I've come to these conclusions. 1. The CSA seceded because of slavery. 2. The Union initially went to war over money. 3. Not everyone who fought in the war was a diehard supporter. Some people were drafted and would have been legally punished otherwise.
Slavery, for the South, _was_ a money issue. Also, point 3 is at least as much about fighting for their homeland (ie, Lee fighting for Virginia) as it is about the draft. And the North was worried about a slippery slope,too; if the South could secede over slavery, what would it take for other regions (or individual states) to secede. It's worth mentioning that New England came close during the War of 1812; if they had had the example of Southern succession to look to, they may well have.
@@dextercochran4916don't make me laugh. The southern states literally said they were fighting for racism and slavery in the articles of secession and the cornerstone speech.
@@dextercochran4916 Yeah my man that is a "clean South" rewrite and reimagining of actual history. State sovereignty, you say? Fighting to protect what they believed to be their sovereign right to do what exactly? The answer was to continue the practice of slavery. Every southern state in their articles of secession named slavery as their primary reason for said secession.
Excelent video. I wanted to recomend you the topic for a video specifically could be, what happened to the caveliiers who fought in the english civil war after the parliament won?
Three other U.S.-centric video topic suggestions: 1.) Why did the Gadsden Purchase happen? 2.) Why did the nation’s capital change so often in the early years? 3.) Why is the U.S. host to the United Nations?
Gadsden Purchase was to assure a southern transcontinental railroad route. Apparently the terrain is much easier to put a railroad through than farther north, and it turned out eventually to be a much more useful route.
1) The USA wanted to install a transcontinental railroad, the land purchased was a good pathway. It also had the added effect of paying more money to Mexico for the land they lost, to help with smoothing over relations. 2) Between a revolutionary war where the goal was to not let the redcoats decapitate the leadership, and multiple large cities vying for the prestigious position of "Capital of the United States", it was bound to change. Washington D.C. was swampland that no one wanted to use, so it needed time to be built up. 3) Following World War 2, most countries in Europe were still putting out fires and trying to rebuild. Countries in Africa expressed no interest in uniting all nations. Russia was seen as an enemy, so the Allies were not going to join them if they started a new club. East Asia was also putting out fires and trying to rebuild. The US hadn't suffered direct attacks, outside of Pearl Harbor and some submarine warfare. The US had the ambition, funding, political weight, and timing to make it work.
@@GuardianTactician Countries in Africa were mostly colonies. Only after the war, and particularly in the 1960s, did decolonisation take flight. Also, the 'enemy' country was the Soviet Union, not Russia. One other consideration might be - but this is mere speculation - that the USA provides stability, because it's extremely difficult to invade. Switzerland might have been an option, what with it being neutral. But it didn't become a member until 2002, even though it housed many UN functions before that.
What are they teaching kids today? An Imperial remembrancer has even chronicled the event. Just look up the assassination of Warboss Lincoln at your local Adeptus Administratum office, or use google.
@@Toonrick12 I'm guessing they changed their comment to "war of independence" after you commented this but he hasn't done one about the independence yet
A interesting fact is that when Virginia was ratifying the US constitution, they did so with the added motion that they may withdraw from the union as remedy for “Federal injury or oppression” should they so please.
@erikanders3343 they got the 10th, which if the Constitution fully replaced the Articles, would grant the authority to the States or the People, since it certainly isn't reserved to the Federal government. And since the constitution makes no mention of the Articles, and reads like a full replacement, and is generally taught as such in history classes, about the only time it isn't considered a full replacement is a few obscure SCOTUS cases in the latter half of the 19th century, which kinda sounds like activist judges voting their polictics rather than the constitution is perhaps older than we usually think.
You guys should do a video about how Grover Cleveland was elected to non consecutive terms! Pretty relevant considering the recent election results in the US.
Thank you 🙏. This was an insightful look at a topic I had not learned much about, bc I am not American and not that personally interested in US history, but knowing it helps put a lot of modern Western history into perspective. 👍
TLDW: Because the federal government was worried that putting them on trial will lead their case to the Supreme Court, where they might rule that southern succession is legal, so they didn't want to take any chances. Plus they didn't want a 2nd retaliation where more soldiers will have to die.
Now that would have been far FAR more embarrassing than their home courts just declaring them innocent. Imagine the supreme court just deciding "yea, the winning side was basically wrong".
@@HolyDarkness767 The Supreme Court already ruled Lincoln violated the Civil rights of Maryland State legislators for arresting them because they were going to vote for Maryland to seceed.
They actually did almost have a sequel. That’s why the North eventually ended reconstruction. The reason why the Compromise of 1877 happened is because the North almost had a Civil War over who got to be President.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions Supreme Court has no legitimate authority anyway. Didn’t they just give themselves the authority to declare what’s Constitutional and what’s not with Judicial Review?
@@badart3204 Exactly! But, they still found an answer within the Constitution as to why states can't succeed, it's because foreign affairs are a power reserved to the federal government and only the federal government! Can't be independent without that, how can you? Plus, there's the prohibition on creating alliances or confederacies in article III, section 10, clause 1. It's all there! The fact that people still think states being able to secede was a gray area until after the Civil War is nonsense. I don't think the leadership of the CSA would have been found innocent of treason, the opposite is probably true that they would be found guilty swiftly! Too swiftly and thus provoke a continuation of hostilities at least as guerrilla warfare for decades to come, which did happen but against African-Americans!
I love your videos SO MUCH! ♥🤣♥ You do such an amazing job of creating characters so individually detailed that I can immediately recognize them, despite all of them being virtually the exact same size and shape. The fact that I immediately recognized the likes of Joseph Johnston and Edwin Stanton is just amazing! (Although there was a point where both Grant and Sherman where shown together and I wasn't quite sure which was which. i had to go back and watch it again.)
If history tells us anything, it's far better to put the emotions aside and try for reconciliation. Given the state of the South, how bloody the Civil War was for both sides, and how difficult Reconstruction was, it was for the best. Just look at the Treaty of Versailles and how badly Germany was punished after WW1. It's likely we wouldn't have seen the rise of angry mustache man if they didn't have their territory annexed and their military capabilities depleted, on top of the oppressive reparation payments that ushered in hyperinflation and a fundamentally broken economy in the Weimar Republic.
Versailles was a joke. They wanted a country gone, but didn't want to look like the 'bad guys,' so instead they tried to cripple it. The result was, the thing they wanted to get rid of but didn't became an even bigger problem. Now why does it sound like that was a re-run of something that happened/is happening on the other side of the Atlantic?
Actually, history has shown us the opposite is often true. Reconstruction wasn't just difficult, it was a failure. Precisely *because* America chose "reconciliation" instead of justice. And thus, within a generation the formerly slave-owning aristocracy had reestablished their control of the South, and created the festering wound of Jim Crow and the "Lost Cause". Likewise, it could equally be argued that where the Treaty of Versailles failed was in not punishing Germany *enough* rather than in punishing them too harshly. Contrary to Germany complaints, they were in fact more than capable of paying the reparations imposed. And were covertly violating the treaty in every way they could manage even before mustache man arrived on the political scene. And now we see yet another example in the form of Russia. Look at where the conciliatory treatment of them in the 1990s after USSR fell got us. For most of that decade, the West treated it as priority #1 to coax Russia into the fold, while treating all of the other ex-Soviet republics (ie formerly enslaved by Russia) with an attitude ranging from neglect to outright contempt. Russia was treated as being a "real" nation, while the smaller countries like Ukraine and Kazakhstan were not. And that just led to a resurgent Russia that feels as if it's entitled to dominate the rest of the former Soviet Union. Had Russia been forced to disarm like Ukraine was, the current war wouldn't be happening.
00:38 Minor Correction: The Imperial Bolt Pistol that assassinated Abraham Lincon would not be invented until at least the end of the Age of Strife at about c.30,000 AD. The gun that John Wilks Booth uses was actually a Philadelphia Deringer pistol dagger.
In short:the north wanted reconciliation not retribution,also by law they would have to face trial in virginia,a former confederate state that at the time strongly supported davis and the confederacy which is why the trial would probbably not go anywhere
Another thing I read, was that they didn't want it to go to trial, because any challenge could go to the Supreme Court. And if they rule it legal, that would've been mayhem. That sounds logical, given the last few supreme court decisions...
Although the most likely outcome of a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of secession would be, it requires an Act of Congress. Unilaterally declaring secession is just a form of insurrection. Also I'm pretty sure the terms of surrender for most Confederate generals included a form of amnesty.
@@QuisUtDeus828 Remind me again Johnny Reb, who fired the first shots? Who refused to negotiate and just jumped straight to insurrection when they didn't get their way in a presidential election?
I'm surprised you don't have "American Civil War" in the title especially considering that you're British. There's been a lot of civil wars in history.
@@heinzjeder514And the English Civil War was one of them if you consider the Irish Campaign as part of it. The King, Parliament and the Irish Confederacy fighting each other.
@@seamonster936 Very true, but when I hear about some "confederates" during "the civil war" without further context I think of the American Civil war, and not the Targowica Confederation or the German Confederation.
We absolutely know which Confederacy you mean, but in Poland any kind of rebellion against the king (somewhat legally sanctioned? It was stated that if the confederacy wins, they were right) was called a confederacy. It lasted 800 years and they were high-hundreds of Polish "civil wars" with confederacies on one or both sides
IMO, the leniency shown by the US govt towards the South after the war, & the resulting "Lost Cause" myth that was allowed to spring up because of said leniency, created a wound in the US that has never healed. In much the same way that Germany post WW1 did not hold their leaders to account, which led to the "stab in the back" myth and then future issues, reconciliation was the "easy" way out for the North. It has held the country back for decades.
Yeah it's likely that if the US government severely punished the South, the US wouldn't exist today. Germany is a completely different situation, Germany post WW1 lead to WW2 and then the splitting of Germany in half in just 30 years time. Many Germans lived entirely thru that period. The US still stands 160 years later the US still stands, and no one from the time of the Civil War is alive today. The wound has healed. If you think that means America should be devoid of racial issues and have no problems, that's a phantasy. That's called politics. No country is devoid of conflict, it's a never ending struggle. If you want to point to the Civil War as the cause of American problems today and compare it to Germany, that's lazy. Let's solve the problems today, cause there will be new ones waiting as it always does in a democracy.
About a hundred yards from my chair is the grave of Edwin Collins, Private Co. D, 9th Texas Infantry Regiment, CSA. Died at Sabine Pass 1862. I always imagined him dying in battle but that was in ‘63. Yellow fever killed him.
Minor correction: Jefferson Davis was from Mississippi. He had been installed as President of the CSA prior to Virginia’s secession.
Plus, he took the oath of office in Montgomery, Alabama; the Confederacy's first capital.
He was born in Fairview Kentucky later moved to Mississippi
Well, the Constitution says the trial must take place where the crimes were committed. And as for treason we can probably say Virginia's where the _bulk_ of it (as Confederate President) actually took place. Now, if you want to debate what qualifies as a “home state” like HM said, that’s a different story.
@@mountainmangaming808 He moved to Louisiana first. He also floated the idea that the Confederate Capitol should remain in Alabama, as Richmond was for too close to the Union's power base.
Wrong. He wasn't "installed".
There actually were consequences for Lee. His home (well, his wife's home) Arlington was seized by the Union Army. Because a lot of the war was in/near Virginia, the Union needed to find a place to bury the dead. So Secretary of War declared that Lee's land was going to be used for the cemetery. And that was the beginning of Arlington National Cemetery. Now, more than 400,000 former military personnel are buried there.
Pedantic quibbling: it wasn't the Secretary of War, it was the Union Quartermaster General (that is, the guy in charge of logistics and supply lines), a general named Montgomery Meigs. Meigs chose the site specifically to insult Lee. The site also included a village to serve as a temporary home for newly freed slaves.
After the war Lee's wife (as you said, the person who technically owned the property) successfully sued to get the land back but where there was already a cemetery on the property, she almost immediately sold it back to the US government. The person who conducted this sale was Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln.
Honestly that’s a pretty poetic origin story. I’m glad it turned out that way now
THATS where it started?! Suprised I didn't know
not much of a consequence ...
I don't think lee would've mind about turning that strip of land into a cemetery, since he we would have well known how much lives were lost at the time.
0:39 I just realized Booth had a leg brace, since he broke his leg jumping off Lincoln’s theater booth onto the stage.
"Booth in a Booth"
That is a myth. He most likely broke his leg during his escape when his horse fell on him.
kinda gay
@@Nyx773 Which makes more sense. He'd have had trouble getting out of the theater with a broken leg once the crowd realized what had happened.
@@Nyx773 Yes
Another thing to note about Lee's amnesty is that it was more or less protected by Grant.
Following Lee's surrender in 1865 a part of that surrender ensured that all Confederate soldiers (including Lee) were not going to be prosecuted for treason. When Johnson considered prosecuting Lee, Lee wrote to Grant asking if the terms of his surrender would be honored. Grant stepped in and threatened to resign if Johnson broke the terms of Lee's surrender at Appomattox, so Johnson stepped down.
Instead of surrendering, Gen Lee and Co. could have easily campaigned an insurgency for the following decade or more The Union, like most European nations, was not properly trained, to deal with, would not be able to defeat, and would compromise.
I dont get how resigning is a threat.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Don't see how the war hero general resigning and maybe having tons of men loyal to him and a bone to pick could be an issue?
@@legoeasycompany No. A new general would simply be given his post. Any grunts who disagree would be disciplined to know their place.
Those terms should not have been accepted.
Fun fact: After the war, some confederates went into self-exile in Brazil and established their own town called Americana. Their descendants and culture still live on in this city today.
i know! i cant wait to visit!
Do they still own human beings? If not it is not the same culture.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv no but the union does! ha!
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Slavery is a legal system, not a culture. Racism is a culture.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yvslavery was legal at the time in Brazil and would be until 1888
Cue the James Bisonette jokes
Nobody gives credit to Kelly Moneymaker
Bold of you to assume they are jokes.
Fun fact, No
*Add James Bisonette Joke Here*
James Bisonette single-handedly ended the Civil War.
Yugoslavia is kind of the worst case scenario for the end of a civil war. A few high ranking generals got punished by a foreign power. Everybody still hates everybody else.
The downside to the way that the American Civil War ended is that it never really ended. You got things like the Daughters of the Confederacy and the KKK, which had to be put down by the US Army. And then it rose twice more.
I got to listen to family say that the South was going to rise again.
There was no Yugoslavia after the civil war
Unlike what happened after the American civil war
@@kostam.1113 I do believe that's part of the "worst case scenario for a civil war"
@@kostam.1113read the comment again
@@kostam.1113 If the Confederacy had won, the United States would have been Balkanized. The South would have been a resource colony for the British. The French would have installed a puppet state in Mexico. Neither was a democracy. The UK was an oligarchy with a weak monarchy. France was a dictatorship. That's what Lincoln meant in the Gettysburg Address by "government by the people for the people of the people." The USA was the only western democracy in 1863.
0:38 why is John Wilkes Boothe shooting Lincoln with a 40k bolta pistol?
HERESY
Hennesy!!
Lincoln believed in Tyranid Emancipation
Lincoln believed in Tyranid Emancipation
For the greater dakka, obviously
A lot, if not most of them were war heroes from the Mexican-American war, including Robert E. Lee who fought alongside many future rivals including Ulysses S. Grant, so no doubt that helped in clemency.
Tbf most people dont even realize thats why america was so armed up and had such military tactics even down to the poorest regiment...they just got done expanding mexico's cheecks and paying for military factories to get built...man early American history gets so misrepresented it ain't funny
Sometimes the only difference between opposing sides is the color of their uniforms.
@@samsonsoturian6013and fighting for slavery...
@@nathanl4083 and the accent
@nathanl4083 yes because every American soldier who fought and died for oil in the middle east was a oil tycoons son?....tbh it wasn't even about that till the emancipation proclamation. Before and after that was always about keeping America together hence why we got jum crow laws
Many former CSA leaders actually turned to Grant for help with being pardoned. Which is why his funeral was attended by many from both sides.
Edited for spelling.
Crazy to see how loved and respected he was by everyone due to his honest, humble, and honorable mindset
@@SRrayquaza Everybody loves a drunkard.
Robert E. Lee didn't tolerate anyone saying anything unkind about Grant in his presence because Grant's generosity when he surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox
even though they met once during the Mexican War briefly
Lee had great respect for Grant
Longstreet and Grant had been friends since West Point.
I applaud that you care about proper spelling in youtube comments.
Fredrick Douglass does NOT look happy like a happy camper.
He lost an Epic Rap Battle 😅
I honestly can’t blame him. The guy was himself formerly enslaved and therefore witnessed first hand the cruelty of the oppressive and evil system of slavery. Like other survivors of oppression, genocides, and traumatic events he never forgot the horrible things that he witnessed and went through and so would understandably have a grudge against the confederacy due to how they supported slavery. Even after slavery was abolished Frederick Douglass would also be understandably upset that while officially no longer enslaved African Americans were still being discriminated and oppressed.
Can you blame him
@@ecurewitz No I can’t.
Same with Stanton, who I'm glad to see is appropriately angry/grumpy all the time
They didn't have the requirements to use the focus path
Something important regarding prosecuting Confederate leaders such as Jefferson Davis wasn't just that Davis was likely to be acquitted by any Southern jury (either in his actual home state of Mississippi or in Confederate capital of Virginia), but also that it would have been dangerous to the Union to lose the case. Davis wanted the trial to go on specifically because he planned to use the legality of secession as his primary legal defense, and while the issue had been settled through force of arms it had not been challenged through a Federal court system. In other words, had Davis been tried and acquitted while presenting secession as legal as his defense, the acquittal would go a long way towards being seen as an admission of legal secession. The Union could (theoretically) lose everything it gained through war in court.
He would have lost! Sure it doesn't say specifically anywhere that session isn't legal, but guess what is unconstitutional for states to do? Conduct foreign affairs! Go look at sections 8 and 10 of article I and section 2 of article II, States cannot make compacts nor treaties, they can't join alliances nor confederations nor even wage warfare, and only POTUS and the Senate can make and ratify treaties. No entity that calls itself independent and sovereign is unable to conduct foreign affairs.
Davis would have lost, it wasn't an if it was whether they wanted him to even have a day in court at all and apparently they didn't.
I will also add as a fun trivia fact that the first constitution of the United States of America was called “the Articles of Confederation and *Perpetual* Union”. The Founders wanted to keep all colonies-turned-states together for all of time, there is no question on this.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions You bring up some points worth noting, but I think there's misunderstanding on the point I'm trying to articulate. Going after Confederate leaders was a two-part problem. The first problem was that secession was not explicitly disallowed, which would allow a strict constructionist argument of the 10th Amendment to argue that unilateral secession was, in fact, permitted. The second issue was WHERE the Confederates would have been tried. The Constitution states that they MUST be tried where their crimes were committed, thus meaning in the formerly seceded states. It was highly unlikely that a Southern jury would convict Confederate leaders.
Your points on Articles 1 and 2 are well-taken, but also, to contemporary Southern minds, entirely irrelevant. Because of one key factor: secession. Secession is the repudiation, the release of obligation to, the Constitution of the United States. Articles 1 and 2 would have prohibited these states from acting as sovereign states, but only if those states were still beholden to the Constitution. The recourse of secession was intended to absolve the South of those obligations. And, it is important to note, the Southern states were de facto acting in a sovereign capacity. They created a new compact (their Constitution), confederated, treated with other nations (as belligerents) and waged war.
I'm confused as to the point you were trying to make about Davis not getting his day in court? If that were the case, if the Federal government did have such an ironclad case, why not give him a trial? I am interested to hear more about your opinion on this and get some clarification since I missed your point.
As for the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777, the doctrine currently taken as fact today, i.e. the doctrine that the Constitution amended rather than repealed the Articles, was by no means taken as a matter of fact in 1865. A reasonable, educated person of the day could reasonably say that the Articles had been repealed and thus no longer binding. Of course, the Founders did not desire to create a Union only for it to fall apart. But on the other hand, an opinion shared not least by General Ulysses Grant himself, was the belief that the Founders would have much rather more explicitly safeguarded secession than there be a "war between brothers". And indeed we can see this, when after the Constitution went into effect and Rhode Island remained outside of its effects, the Union took no military action to coerce that state into the Union.
@@ericfarmer3360A few years after the War, though, the Supreme Court would find that the Articles were amended. We only consider this legal fact now because they MADE it legal fact then in Texas v. White, which also found unilateral secession unconstitutional. Of course, we have hindsight in this matter, and ultimately there is no escaping the issue of having to be tried where the crime was committed. Anyway, my point is that the situation was more in favor of the union than you might think, even if ultimately it probably wouldn't have been favorable
@@emlynselene1096 Certainly it would not have been a walk in the park for the Confederate case, I just also think it's important to note just how their arguments could have caused quite the problem under the circumstances. And of course, Texas v White came after President Johnson's amnesty and Jefferson Davis' release.
My major point is more to provoke the thought of, if you were in charge and you knew these facts, would you have wanted to forge ahead and risked so much in the hope that you'd hang an already defeated enemy?
What Law was broken
How could a state court try a citizen for and action of the state legislature.
What happen at trial for the earlier successions
Lincoln was well aware he had no legal case against the adversary before or after the war, that is why Lincoln didn't go to court when he was inaugurated.
0:05, there is one exception to this statement and that is the trial and execution of Henry Wirz, head of the Andersonville POW camp. As commandant of the camp, he was seen as responsible for the inhumane conditions and was therefore put on trial. And this is the exception that proves the rule as the trial was seen (correctly) as a long and drawn-out process that would inflame tensions further. Also, in the year since the trial there have been questions about the fairness of the trial and how much responsibility he personally bore for actions at the camp vs the impossibility of the situation.
Edit: quasi exception. Happy?
Not an exception at all, He was tried for war crimes not treason. Exceptions don't "prove" the rule of course. The use of "prove" in t hat saying is an archaic meaning of "test". As in the "proof" of whiskey or the US Army's Aberdeen *Proving* Grounds. Exceptions do indeed "test" a rule don't not "prove" it as you stated. Bottom line, war crimes trial NOT treason.
The us Civil War was literally the first time POW camps existed. No nation knew how to "properly" run one, and with the deteriorating supplies (thanks in large part to Gen Sherman's match to the sea), thousands of prisoners perished.
@@PhilipJFry-qh2jg Um, no. Try the the British Norman Cross POW camp built 1797. In the Civil War the exchange system originally in place collapsed in 1863 because the Confederacy refused to treat Black prisoners the same as Whites. They said they were probably ex-slaves and belonged to their masters, not to the Union Army. The South needed the exchanges much more than the North did, because of the severe manpower shortage in the Confederacy. In 1864 Ulysses Grant, noting the "prisoner gap" (Union camps held far more prisoners than Confederate camps), decided that the growing prisoner gap gave him a decided military advantage. He therefore opposed wholesale exchanges until the end was in sight. Around 5,600 Confederates were allowed to join the Union Army. Known as "galvanized Yankees" these troops were stationed in the West facing Indians.
@@FIREBRAND38 I will give you the first part setting aside that the statement was misleading, but his trial was just about the most ideal environment; a forgiven national defendant with mediocre recourses, a controversial and passionate subject in a friendly court room, and the proceedings still took the better part of three months. Once people figured this out, the idea of putting people like Jefferson Davis would be even more time consuming and higher risk meant that it was deemed not worth it. Thus, the trial of Herny Wirz was a test to see if any further trial were possible or even remotely practical which they were not.
@@PhilipJFry-qh2jg What of camp constructed by the British during the wars with France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Norman Cross?
0:38 oh my God-Emperor, Booth has a Bolt Pistol...
A Boolth pistol?
Suprised that Abe's skull is still intack after that
Booth pattern bolt pistol, the ancient design dating back from 865 M2. Cawl just dug up its ancient STC to make his version.
Until he wasn't the boss .... my man you are too funny
praise the omnissiah
Actually one confederate officer was executed after war, Henry Wirz. He had been the commander of the prison at Andersonville.
That was for war crimes, not for treason.
And from what I read the camp had no supply line attached so most of the deaths were due to gangs starting to form, health issues and understaffed guards. Guards were barely supplied too so if serious breakout happened they would take heavy casulties. The camp commendant was a bit of red haired step child among Confeds so that made him perfect throwaway piece in the aftermath.
The officer wasn't even American. He was Austrian. You should watch the Andersonville movie
Actually, Capt. Henry Wirz was the commanding officer of Camp Sumter, which was located partly in Sumter County, GA and partly in Macon County, GA, near Andersonville, GA.
Several others were hanged : Marcellus Jerome Clarke, Champ Ferguson, & Henry C. Magruder they were guerilla fighters in the parts of the west where the fighting was quite nasty and many war crimes were committed (some by the Union forces as well).
Ok why is Lincoln now killed by a bolter
For the emperor
Alpha legion
And a neu40k one at that
It's probably Alpharius fault.
@@overlordmgcover2262And somehow Erebus's too, probably
Sugestion to video: Why there are two Dakotas?
my theory is that it began with a classic "this -town- territory ain't big enough for the both of us!" moment
and instead of a high noon shootout, they split the Dakotas instead.
🤭
From Wikipedia, "The Territory of Dakota was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that existed from March 2, 1861, until November 2, 1889, when the final extent of the reduced territory was split and admitted to the Union as the states of North and South Dakota."
So like Jimmy theorized, it was first one Dakota they ran a knife through
jimmy is kinda right but the importance of the southern capital in south Dakota bc railroad outshined the north the north Dakotans than wanted out
There was a rivalry as to which land was better, also where the capital would be, northern dakota or southern dakota
@@Lp-army1 this is correct
Imagine having 1,000,000 casualties and then going to trial and losing the trial. That would not look good at all
James Bissonette Decided to give them amnesty
Slander not the name of James Bissonette.
His word is law.
Nah
Nah, bissonette insisted to Lincoln that punish was a terrible idea
Shut up
I still remember reading how Lincoln was assassinated with a Bolt Pistol. The mess was unbelievable.
if each one of us chips in with a little, we can get Booglie Wooglie back in the list of patrons
Can’t wait for more historical content from this channel!
It's also worth noting that, rare in US history, the executive office was run by a very rare "unity ticket" of president and vice president from different parties -- Lincoln a Republican and Johnson a Democrat. When Johnson succeeded Lincoln, executive policy shifted demonstrably towards a kid-gloves approach to the South. It was to the point that the Republican Congress tried to remove Johnson from office.
not "very rare"-that's how the constitution required for many years since the start of the republic
@@Losangelesharvey It was in fact very rare. The constitution had been amended in 1804 to end the practice of the VP going to the runner-up. After, president and VP candidates ran together.
He also, like the other President Johnson, had a bizarre habit of showing his johnson to people against their will. He did this while campaigning for reelection, while standing on a tree stump, delivering a speech.
I wouldn’t say that Johnson shifted policy. Lincoln had been a huge proponent of reconciliation and had died before he had time to enact his own version of reconstruction. Johnson mostly tried to follow Lincoln’s plan
It's truly unfortunate that they failed at removing Johnson from office.
It should be noted that the United States has rarely ever punished its rebels. Only 2 men were hung from Shays' Rebellion and 2 from the Whiskey Rebellion were sentenced to hang but later pardoned by Washington. This was the case even after the civil war. At this point its basically established precedent that we forgive our rebels and reconcile differences.
John Brown begs to differ.
@@aze94 Right, because he was actually *convicted* of treason
@@aze94 John Browns actions were much more akin to a terrorist attack than popular rebellion
@@toad2117 Hardly, his goal was to launch a slave rebellion (it just didn't get that far).
And, like other slave rebellions were far more ruthlessly punished than the two mentioned above, funny that.
"After Lincoln had been boothed"
I cried lol
Same.
0:37
"BOLTERS, BROTHERS!!!"
That is an interesting bit of history that I never hear spoken much about, the Civil War always just sort of ends, and then Linchon dies, and that's that.
"just sort of ends"?? The Union crushed the Confederacy is what happened
@@Losangelesharvey That's prior to the end of the war, and completely besides my point.
It "just ends" because the south got it's ass handed to it and it had no reason other than evil and greed to support it, but since it was allowed to live much like it had before being put down, they get to influence the narrative of the present. Make no mistake, they lost, they could have been ruthlessly subdued, but they were allowed to fester and so we have the modern era where history is written by the loser.
@@Losangelesharvey the nickname "the butcher" grant wasn't because of Confederate casualties.
@@Losangelesharvey Crushed? After 4 years of war and far more casualties. Crushed isn't the word. The Army of Northern Virginia was likely the finest army ever fielded by Americans. Even Bruce Catton, a pro-Union historian, said the Army of the Potomac found it hard to move when it decided to linger on a particular spot.
just wanna say this is my fav channel on youtube. when a history matters video pops up in my feed i always watch it first
0:37
Was that a karking bolt-pistol?
It should probably be added that Andrew Johnston was not well liked due to how he handled reconstruction.
Possibly our worst president ever
@@pocketmarcy6990that honor probably goes to James Buchanan, who did literally nothing to stop the Civil War from happening and basically let the south secede. That’s not to say Johnson wasn’t also terrible and completely botched reconstruction though.
@@pocketmarcy6990 Note: Prior to 2016, Andrew Johnston was voted as the Number 1 worse president to ever serve a term.
@TheUndeadslayer221 Well, at least Joe Biden had taken the heat off him since then.
@@shorewall Incorrect; The most hated immediately after Johnston is Trump.
I think there was also a concern that a not guilty verdict in the trial would imply or impose a precedent that secession was legal. That, more than anything was a concern, until Texas v. White
0:38 that’s a Warhammer boltgun…is that a reference to the meme where war boss Lincoln is shot?
I know you only have a few minutes for the video but it is worth noting that Jefferson was held prisoner in Fort Monroe in a damp subterranean gunpowder room converted into a cell. He captors did the usual tortures of having sentries tramp up and down the corridor at all hours and leaving a lamp burning 24 hours in his cell. Plus his heath severely declined during this time as his cell was extremely damp being below the water level. He was finally moved to a better location after seven months. He was finally bailed out of prison due to his passing into the custody of the local US marshal. He spent about three years in jail by the time he was bailed out in May of 1867.
1:23 Article 3 actually says trials shall be held in the state where the crime was committed.
He did his governing in virginia
State? these areas rebelled, sound like conquered territories to me.
@@quintus920 The North didn't look at it that way. Had they, they would basically be admitting the Confederacy was it's own country.
Something they carefully tried not to recognize.
0:37 someone's been playing too much Space Marine 2
Is there such a thing as "too much" Space Marine 2?
"Did you reunite the nation?"
"Yes..."
"What did it cost?"
*Deep breath*
Video idea: Why didn’t England have a bigger role in the 30 years war despite being a Protestant kingdom?
Same reason as many other events in European History, they didn't care about what happens on the mainland.
Because the French were on the side of the Protestants and good Englishmen have standards.
@@khronostheavenger8923The french only joined in the last phase of the war tho.
@@darkphoenix2745 Yes but before that it was mostly a civil war within the Holy Roman Empire, with outside support.
England did play a significant role just not formally.
A large number of English and Scottish soldiers were involved (on the Protestant side). Many of which perished of disease and/or lack of supplies. The Stuart King's supported their relatives and Co religious but perhaps not whole heartily. This was one of the reasons the Stuarts were criticised domestically.
Interest waned once the chance to fight at home arose from 1638 onwards. Many veterans of the TYW returned to command the Scottish, English and Irish armies of the period.
I liked the part when James Bisonette said it’s Bisonette time and then he funded history matters truly one of the most history moments of all time
Learn some new jokes, kid
Another young person on the internet.
Your jokes are not good or funny.
You're obviously American child.
Why do you say this, American? Why?
Confederates were banned from holding office after the war via the 14th amendment, but Congress waived the bans for most people by the early 1870s
@@scottshanbom
And that because Grant urged Congress to do so! He should have let that issue rest.
Likewise they had to make laws barring PoC from holding office because it wasn't overtly and explicitly illegal and in the books.
There was a whole scramble to make the former slave masters and powerful southerners happy at the expense of the now free slaves and their rights. Unity was about keeping white landowners and political power houses happy. Period. The comfort of people who owned other humans was put lightyears ahead of the wellbeing of the newly freed slaves.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinionsI'm glad we have you here to correct people.
@@dextercochran4916
🙄
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinionsNo Grant shouldn’t have. The Klan was partially created because former Confederates were disenfranchised after the war. Grant giving former Confederates ability to hold office and vote again was a big reason why the first iteration of the Klan died so quick. Grant wasn’t a perfect president, but he did carry out Lincoln’s wish of reconciliation.
Charity towards all malice towards none, as Old Abe said. Then a few days after the war he was shot in the head and called a tyrant.
He was a Tyrant. Whether it was justified or not can be argued, but his actual actions cannot.
Do why did Montenegro get northern Albania after the first balkan war.
The funny thing is that sentiment of keeping America together no matter to cost still applies today. If you're poor or black they don't care
The Supreme Court was asked about this and they warned that they might have to rule that the southern states had the right to secede and therefore the outcome of the war was wrong and would have to be reversed and the confederacy would have to be recognized. In 1832 Massachusetts had petitions to secede from the nation in the supreme court ruled that they had the right to do so. This is one reason all 13 confederate states voted themselves out of the union and were astonished that the northern states invaded and attacked them.
Video Suggestion: Why did Caeser cross the Rubicon? I pretty much know the answer already I just wanna see you cover the Roman Republic
Why did no Spanish Viceroy every try to rebel against Spain? They controlled much larger territory, with more population, and were an ocean away. They could have secured the loyalty of the military with bribes and land. It seems like it would have been relatively easy
That sounds like the perfect topic for a HM video: a question I didn't know I needed answered ^^ IIRC, the Spanish colonial system was designed to prevent something like that from happening: the viceroys served fixed terms (5-6 years) and there were crown officials who reported on them to Spain. Still, it's interesting that over a period of several hundred years, not a single viceroy tried to create his own kingdom.
Whatever the answer is, I'm sure the church is part of it. Bishops and other church officials were, as a rule, loyal to the Spanish Crown, and I'm sure any rebel viceroys would have had a hard time keeping things under control if the church had challenged their legitimacy.
I wouldn't be surprised if a combination of family still in Spain, even if not officially as hostages, and very careful selection for loyalty also played a part.
Made enough money working under Spanish rule
If rule on their own a general might overthrow him
"...because he was the boss. Until he very suddenly wasn't, that is." Yikes!
The comment section should be fun
you have no idea lmao
Surprisingly tame, probably because the people with the strongest opinions on the civil war have no interest in history
love your videos, are you able to make a video that goes more in-depth on the reconstruction period?
Henry Wertz (spelling) Is the only one to have been fully convicted of what we would call crimes against humanity and hung because of the notoriously cruel Andersonville prison camp as its commandant.
Elvira Prison, New York.
🙂
is "fully" convicted kind of like "convicted"?
@@dextercochran4916 Elmira.
Not the only one. Champ Ferguson and Henry Magruder were also Confederates who were executed for war cimes.
Another significant part in Jefferson Davis not serving time, not being convicted for treason, was down to people paying for his bail (including those who disagreed with what he stood for, believing that the delays in his trial were too long) and he was eventually pardoned by Andrew Johnson
you missed the part of the video where he was not even tried
Nothing special about that. President Johnson pardoned Davis and all other confederates on Christmas Day in 1868 for those eligible who applied for it.
Lame duck president
Let’s see who biden pardons in his last days
Already passing out all the money in the treasury
treason?!? haven't you read the declaration of independence?!?
The biggest issue with civil wars is that you still have to live with the other side after it's all over.
The union did the Goku thing where they thought "I beat you and now that I've shown myself to be the stronger guy you can turn to good and we can be friends" and because Dragonball hadn't been written yet they had no way of knowing it doesn't work out almost every time.
One thing about Gen Lee. When his army was cornered by Grant some of his officers and men offered to break out of the Union encirclement and carry on the war as a guerilla war for as long as it would take. Lee talked them out of it, anticipating the cruelty and loss of life from that. Because of Lee we didn't have an insurgency costing 10s or 100s of thousands of more lives.
Unfortunately, this probably played a factor in reconstruction era south where things were horrendous for the now freed slaves.
I bet it was all peaches and cream for them in the North. 🙄
Not at all. As he pointed out, they would be found innocent, which the Supreme Court told Lincoln. There was nothing against secession. That's why Davis wanted to be put on trial.
@@dextercochran4916you tell us, how were things in the North for former slaves? you probably cant
@@antcantcook960 Mediocre to terrible.
Can you
Did night riders attack them?
0:31 I am thinking the same way Frederick Douglass is thinking.
Because they put their hands on their head stuck their tongue out and said "teehee"
Fun fact Jefferson Davis has a statue in the capital building the room just past the speakers office ( I don’t remember the name of that room but it was the old house chambers before they expanded them)
Lincoln and Johnson were both opposed to the program that would become known as “Reconstruction” and it is likely that some of the continuing anger over that time, from the South’s end, stems from it.
While the leadership of the former Confederate states were not punished, the states themselves were severely.
They had specific conditions to meet in order to be considered states again and not under military control. During that period, even those representing the states to the federal government were picked for them by the federal government.
South Carolina, being the first state to leave, was given particularly harsh terms. Despite complying with all the requirements for readmission, she was denied re-entry until all the other states had been allowed in, thereby having the longest period of occupation.
A prominent abolitionist and Unionist newspaper publisher from Charleston, who had argued against secession, called for an end to the war during it, and immediately supported Reconstruction during it was elected to the US Senate by the people of South Carolina. Despite his credentials and clear support for the federal government, the Senate refused him (since being both from South Carolina and picked by South Carolina must mean he was unworthy) and seated someone else in his place.
Damn that bolter is gonna cause some bigger issues than a vice presidential takeover
The idealism that accompanied the start of the war had long since given way to the practical realities of a lot of death, suffering, and destruction. It's easy to look back after 160 years and say what logic or one's beliefs dictate, but for those at the time, they likely remembered all the funerals of friends and family from the past 5 years and that reality spoke louder than what they might have wished they could accomplish.
Also Lincoln's successor was a lot more racist than he was that helped too
Be quiet with your empathy! We want to judge
Empathy for some. @@whyshouldwecare3267
@@whyshouldwecare3267 It was a massive mistake fueled by racist sentiment that didn't want to condemn the South for slavery so yes it's pretty easy to judge unless you're evil
@@alexeistrife56 sure, everyone was racist 150 years ago, just like I am guessing you believe they still are?
Brave of you to talk about this. Too many people oversimplify it.
From the research I've done, I've come to these conclusions.
1. The CSA seceded because of slavery.
2. The Union initially went to war over money.
3. Not everyone who fought in the war was a diehard supporter. Some people were drafted and would have been legally punished otherwise.
*1. State sovereignty and economic concerns.
2/3 ain't bad, though.
Slavery, for the South, _was_ a money issue.
Also, point 3 is at least as much about fighting for their homeland (ie, Lee fighting for Virginia) as it is about the draft.
And the North was worried about a slippery slope,too; if the South could secede over slavery, what would it take for other regions (or individual states) to secede. It's worth mentioning that New England came close during the War of 1812; if they had had the example of Southern succession to look to, they may well have.
@@dextercochran4916don't make me laugh. The southern states literally said they were fighting for racism and slavery in the articles of secession and the cornerstone speech.
@@dextercochran4916 You sound like a fan of 3/5ths
@@dextercochran4916 Yeah my man that is a "clean South" rewrite and reimagining of actual history. State sovereignty, you say? Fighting to protect what they believed to be their sovereign right to do what exactly? The answer was to continue the practice of slavery. Every southern state in their articles of secession named slavery as their primary reason for said secession.
Excelent video. I wanted to recomend you the topic for a video specifically could be, what happened to the caveliiers who fought in the english civil war after the parliament won?
Make a video about Operation Paperclip next
Three other U.S.-centric video topic suggestions:
1.) Why did the Gadsden Purchase happen?
2.) Why did the nation’s capital change so often in the early years?
3.) Why is the U.S. host to the United Nations?
Gadsden Purchase was to assure a southern transcontinental railroad route. Apparently the terrain is much easier to put a railroad through than farther north, and it turned out eventually to be a much more useful route.
1) The USA wanted to install a transcontinental railroad, the land purchased was a good pathway. It also had the added effect of paying more money to Mexico for the land they lost, to help with smoothing over relations.
2) Between a revolutionary war where the goal was to not let the redcoats decapitate the leadership, and multiple large cities vying for the prestigious position of "Capital of the United States", it was bound to change. Washington D.C. was swampland that no one wanted to use, so it needed time to be built up.
3) Following World War 2, most countries in Europe were still putting out fires and trying to rebuild. Countries in Africa expressed no interest in uniting all nations. Russia was seen as an enemy, so the Allies were not going to join them if they started a new club. East Asia was also putting out fires and trying to rebuild. The US hadn't suffered direct attacks, outside of Pearl Harbor and some submarine warfare. The US had the ambition, funding, political weight, and timing to make it work.
@@GuardianTactician Countries in Africa were mostly colonies. Only after the war, and particularly in the 1960s, did decolonisation take flight. Also, the 'enemy' country was the Soviet Union, not Russia.
One other consideration might be - but this is mere speculation - that the USA provides stability, because it's extremely difficult to invade. Switzerland might have been an option, what with it being neutral. But it didn't become a member until 2002, even though it housed many UN functions before that.
@@GuardianTactician Everything you've just said only leads me to believe Canada should have been the host.
My history book left out that Boothe used a Bolt Pistol…
The Emperor didn't protect Lincoln.
What are they teaching kids today? An Imperial remembrancer has even chronicled the event. Just look up the assassination of Warboss Lincoln at your local Adeptus Administratum office, or use google.
0:38 is that a Bolt Pistol? 🤣
0:38 for a second I thought Lincoln had massive calf muscles 😂
You forgot Henry Wirz. The guy who ran Andersonville. He was the sole exception
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:*
What did The Native Americans do during The American War Of Independence?
Some sided with the North, some with the South, others just kept plundering.
Oops, I'm confused with the Civil War.
He already did a video on this.
@@Toonrick12 I'm guessing they changed their comment to "war of independence" after you commented this but he hasn't done one about the independence yet
@@fransbuijs808 Native Americans, plundering their own land...okay.
@@jmhorange
Yep. They did that for centuries.
Is Booth sporting a bolter gun to off Lincoln?
A interesting fact is that when Virginia was ratifying the US constitution, they did so with the added motion that they may withdraw from the union as remedy for “Federal injury or oppression” should they so please.
They wrote that, but it had no power of law. Be have any power they needed a constitutional amendment, which they never got.
@@erikanders3343 i suppose in the end it was more of a motion to ease the acceptance of the new constitution to the Virginia legislature
@@isnel1021 it was a talking point. Never enacted.
@erikanders3343 they got the 10th, which if the Constitution fully replaced the Articles, would grant the authority to the States or the People, since it certainly isn't reserved to the Federal government. And since the constitution makes no mention of the Articles, and reads like a full replacement, and is generally taught as such in history classes, about the only time it isn't considered a full replacement is a few obscure SCOTUS cases in the latter half of the 19th century, which kinda sounds like activist judges voting their polictics rather than the constitution is perhaps older than we usually think.
You guys should do a video about how Grover Cleveland was elected to non consecutive terms! Pretty relevant considering the recent election results in the US.
Thank you 🙏. This was an insightful look at a topic I had not learned much about, bc I am not American and not that personally interested in US history, but knowing it helps put a lot of modern Western history into perspective. 👍
TLDW: Because the federal government was worried that putting them on trial will lead their case to the Supreme Court, where they might rule that southern succession is legal, so they didn't want to take any chances. Plus they didn't want a 2nd retaliation where more soldiers will have to die.
Exactly.
TLDW?!?! it's less than 3 minutes long!
Real
Now that would have been far FAR more embarrassing than their home courts just declaring them innocent. Imagine the supreme court just deciding "yea, the winning side was basically wrong".
@@HolyDarkness767 The Supreme Court already ruled Lincoln violated the Civil rights of Maryland State legislators for arresting them because they were going to vote for Maryland to seceed.
“…..until he very suddenly wasn’t!” Love it!
In hindsight they probably should have found a way to do it since amnesty only resulted in people idolizing them centuries later.
Nice video! I thought Davis' home state was Mississippi.
History matters vids are the cleanest, best pleasure.
I could think of a joke in time
no you couldn't
@@chad9015something, something James Bisonette?
@@dee3246is this the pinnacle of comedy?
@@helpmii215 boys we found it. We found the PEAK of Comedy
Before watching, I'm going to assume they didn't want a sequel.
They didn't want to be found not guilty.
@@chubbycatfish4573
Yeah, that's the answer unfortunately.
They actually did almost have a sequel. That’s why the North eventually ended reconstruction. The reason why the Compromise of 1877 happened is because the North almost had a Civil War over who got to be President.
You touched on the biggest reason: if the leaders were found not guilty then secession would be legal.
@@tylermiller5836
Except that in 1868 the Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that secession was unconstitutional!
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions
Supreme Court has no legitimate authority anyway. Didn’t they just give themselves the authority to declare what’s Constitutional and what’s not with Judicial Review?
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinionsthat’s 3 years later when the trials would have started years earleir
@@badart3204
Exactly! But, they still found an answer within the Constitution as to why states can't succeed, it's because foreign affairs are a power reserved to the federal government and only the federal government! Can't be independent without that, how can you?
Plus, there's the prohibition on creating alliances or confederacies in article III, section 10, clause 1. It's all there! The fact that people still think states being able to secede was a gray area until after the Civil War is nonsense.
I don't think the leadership of the CSA would have been found innocent of treason, the opposite is probably true that they would be found guilty swiftly! Too swiftly and thus provoke a continuation of hostilities at least as guerrilla warfare for decades to come, which did happen but against African-Americans!
Technically, it's legal regardless. There is no clause in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the authority to invade the states.
I love your videos SO MUCH! ♥🤣♥
You do such an amazing job of creating characters so individually detailed that I can immediately recognize them, despite all of them being virtually the exact same size and shape. The fact that I immediately recognized the likes of Joseph Johnston and Edwin Stanton is just amazing! (Although there was a point where both Grant and Sherman where shown together and I wasn't quite sure which was which. i had to go back and watch it again.)
Suggestion for a future topic: How did Portugal managed to break the unioni with Spain in 1640?
If history tells us anything, it's far better to put the emotions aside and try for reconciliation. Given the state of the South, how bloody the Civil War was for both sides, and how difficult Reconstruction was, it was for the best. Just look at the Treaty of Versailles and how badly Germany was punished after WW1. It's likely we wouldn't have seen the rise of angry mustache man if they didn't have their territory annexed and their military capabilities depleted, on top of the oppressive reparation payments that ushered in hyperinflation and a fundamentally broken economy in the Weimar Republic.
Versailles was a joke. They wanted a country gone, but didn't want to look like the 'bad guys,' so instead they tried to cripple it. The result was, the thing they wanted to get rid of but didn't became an even bigger problem.
Now why does it sound like that was a re-run of something that happened/is happening on the other side of the Atlantic?
Actually, history has shown us the opposite is often true.
Reconstruction wasn't just difficult, it was a failure. Precisely *because* America chose "reconciliation" instead of justice. And thus, within a generation the formerly slave-owning aristocracy had reestablished their control of the South, and created the festering wound of Jim Crow and the "Lost Cause".
Likewise, it could equally be argued that where the Treaty of Versailles failed was in not punishing Germany *enough* rather than in punishing them too harshly. Contrary to Germany complaints, they were in fact more than capable of paying the reparations imposed. And were covertly violating the treaty in every way they could manage even before mustache man arrived on the political scene.
And now we see yet another example in the form of Russia. Look at where the conciliatory treatment of them in the 1990s after USSR fell got us. For most of that decade, the West treated it as priority #1 to coax Russia into the fold, while treating all of the other ex-Soviet republics (ie formerly enslaved by Russia) with an attitude ranging from neglect to outright contempt. Russia was treated as being a "real" nation, while the smaller countries like Ukraine and Kazakhstan were not. And that just led to a resurgent Russia that feels as if it's entitled to dominate the rest of the former Soviet Union. Had Russia been forced to disarm like Ukraine was, the current war wouldn't be happening.
this show was better when it was 10min
You should make a one off podcast episode where you talk with James Bisonette.
there are you tubers how did that already
00:38 Minor Correction: The Imperial Bolt Pistol that assassinated Abraham Lincon would not be invented until at least the end of the Age of Strife at about c.30,000 AD. The gun that John Wilks Booth uses was actually a Philadelphia Deringer pistol dagger.
In short:the north wanted reconciliation not retribution,also by law they would have to face trial in virginia,a former confederate state that at the time strongly supported davis and the confederacy which is why the trial would probbably not go anywhere
I can’t believe Lincoln was executed by a Commissar. 😞
Another thing I read, was that they didn't want it to go to trial, because any challenge could go to the Supreme Court.
And if they rule it legal, that would've been mayhem.
That sounds logical, given the last few supreme court decisions...
Although the most likely outcome of a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of secession would be, it requires an Act of Congress. Unilaterally declaring secession is just a form of insurrection.
Also I'm pretty sure the terms of surrender for most Confederate generals included a form of amnesty.
Did George Washington wait for the British House of Commons to approve of the American colonies seceeding from the British Empire?
We are 50 individual sovereign states in a voluntary union. The civil war was an abomination of northern aggression.
@@QuisUtDeus828 hurr durr hurr durr :P
@@QuisUtDeus828 Remind me again Johnny Reb, who fired the first shots? Who refused to negotiate and just jumped straight to insurrection when they didn't get their way in a presidential election?
@@ObadiahtheSlimremind me again what the nation of the US did to Brittain? Seceed
Was that St. Vincent of Ferrer at the end of the video?
Love the episode, quick to the point and nice
I'm surprised you don't have "American Civil War" in the title especially considering that you're British.
There's been a lot of civil wars in history.
Not that many civil wars had one of the sides named "Confederates"
@@heinzjeder514And the English Civil War was one of them if you consider the Irish Campaign as part of it. The King, Parliament and the Irish Confederacy fighting each other.
@@seamonster936 Very true, but when I hear about some "confederates" during "the civil war" without further context I think of the American Civil war, and not the Targowica Confederation or the German Confederation.
We absolutely know which Confederacy you mean, but in Poland any kind of rebellion against the king (somewhat legally sanctioned? It was stated that if the confederacy wins, they were right) was called a confederacy. It lasted 800 years and they were high-hundreds of Polish "civil wars" with confederacies on one or both sides
Reconstruction is such an interesting time in Americas history because it could have gone so SO much worse than it did…
Wrong
Worse, or better? Because worse for the South would've been better for America as a whole.
@@RedXlV Would it be better? Civil wars are always messy and resentment can hibernate for centuries, so bad unintended repercussions kinda inevitable
IMO, the leniency shown by the US govt towards the South after the war, & the resulting "Lost Cause" myth that was allowed to spring up because of said leniency, created a wound in the US that has never healed. In much the same way that Germany post WW1 did not hold their leaders to account, which led to the "stab in the back" myth and then future issues, reconciliation was the "easy" way out for the North. It has held the country back for decades.
Spot on.
Thankfully, the lost cause myth is dying. Probably will still be a few generations before it finally dies, but it's on its way out.
@@ChristophBrinkmann Sadly, I don't think so. I just see it gaining motion.
Yes, it was the worst mistake America ever made. At least prior to 2016.
Yeah it's likely that if the US government severely punished the South, the US wouldn't exist today. Germany is a completely different situation, Germany post WW1 lead to WW2 and then the splitting of Germany in half in just 30 years time. Many Germans lived entirely thru that period. The US still stands 160 years later the US still stands, and no one from the time of the Civil War is alive today. The wound has healed. If you think that means America should be devoid of racial issues and have no problems, that's a phantasy. That's called politics. No country is devoid of conflict, it's a never ending struggle. If you want to point to the Civil War as the cause of American problems today and compare it to Germany, that's lazy. Let's solve the problems today, cause there will be new ones waiting as it always does in a democracy.
About a hundred yards from my chair is the grave of Edwin Collins, Private Co. D, 9th Texas Infantry Regiment, CSA. Died at Sabine Pass 1862. I always imagined him dying in battle but that was in ‘63. Yellow fever killed him.
0:37 - I think for historical accuracy, it is important to note that Lincoln is unlikely to have been executed with a 40k bolt pistol.