Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: 💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/PIAN001 Receive 13K GOLD & 1 month premium subscription, only available for the next 30 days!

@cyan4455

Ай бұрын

the game is acutally good chat play it

@aiwkwmwmwwm

Ай бұрын

Tbh cow is better

@kevincoool9613

Ай бұрын

How do i claim the gold and membership

@bowen4878

Ай бұрын

Your casualties are off again 642,427 Union casualties 483,026 Confederate casualties. Source national park services

While this was happening in the United States, Mexico was invaded by France, and Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay were fighting against Paraguay in the Paraguayan War. All at the same time

@cvvv111

Ай бұрын

Y Peru y Chile luchaban contra España en la guerra hispano-sudamericana(1865-1866)

@MoAbuAkb

Ай бұрын

Germany during WW2 was getting invaded by america Russia UK France Romania Ukraine etc the whole world was fighting Germans

@user-hp8yh4xu6n

Ай бұрын

And?

@Anthony-jo7up

Ай бұрын

European empires started taking over the Western Hemisphere when the US was no longer able to enforce Monroe Doctrine. France left immediately after the Civil War ended.

@Santiaram

Ай бұрын

America in 1860s: 💀

If you are wondering why are there battleships in this war was because to struggle for control of the coast, estuaries, and rivers.

@gareththompson2708

Ай бұрын

There are ships in this war. But I am not aware of a class of warship called a "battleship" in this era. I think anything that would be called a battleship is still a couple decades away at this point.

@kurtdustinbajar713

Ай бұрын

I think they were to prevent Europe from supplying the Confederate States

@yj4003

Ай бұрын

ironclads

@adyrodriguez5454

Ай бұрын

Hello I am Norway the USA is in trouble and us European are at war so subscribe to him 😢 *we need help*

@JordanMSeverns

17 күн бұрын

This is because supplying troops via water is more reliable than rail which were often the target of sabotage. The guy who took down new Orleans went rogue into the South and was supplied with the Northern supply route along the coast. Please correct me if I'm wrong though

Missouri just gone in a couple weeks is the most Missouri thing I have ever seen

Skip ad 1:01

@AliDiaa6

Ай бұрын

Tank you

@lilhayman9934

Ай бұрын

thx

@windowsclassicstyle

Ай бұрын

Useful

@BurcasLurton

Ай бұрын

100% useful

@BritishBallMapping5841

Ай бұрын

Thxx

From this viewpoint, the South is just losing the entire time lol

@Politography

Ай бұрын

But they were lethally close to Washington.

@Politography

Ай бұрын

Gotta give them that.

@ARandomUser6969

Ай бұрын

​@RaoulDuke141 You can win despite lines on maps not being in your favor. Looking at the casualties the union lost more men overall for having twice the manpower. The south faught for lack of a better word "harder" than the union despite less industry that could do anything in war time and being blockaded navaly. That is in itself admirable from a warfare perspective. The one thing that makes the south hard to swallow as something to look at with "nostalgia" historically is the fact that they were trying to uphold slavery. Feel free to retort to anything I might have said.

@flyingsquirrell6953

Ай бұрын

@@ARandomUser6969 The confederacy was on the defensive for most of the war and by 1864 had stuck to an attritional mindset, so obviously it was going to lose significantly less men than the Union.

@ARandomUser6969

Ай бұрын

@@flyingsquirrell6953 good point

It's a masterpiece! 👍

amazing vid bro

Another great video! Keep up the great content man!!

@countyballfan

Ай бұрын

agree!

Would be better if you could see the army count split into different areas

How were the casualties numbers determined? They looked incredibly precise (for example one month after the start of the war we have 6 Union casualties and 0 Confederate casualties).

Awesome Job on The Video 👍

Make this hit 250K views!

Next version you have enough space to have a sidebar that lists each battle with a WON / LOST symbol.

Nice

Cool

So the Red bit is the South taking the North, and those numbers racking up are combatants?

@rayquaza8674

Ай бұрын

Yes

Where is Hood's invasion of Central Tennessee and the Battle of Nashville in '64?

@truthteller9154

Ай бұрын

That occurs at the 10:10 mark. You'll see Hood going up central Tennessee.

@IreneSalmakis

Ай бұрын

@@truthteller9154 thanks!

The boats on the coasts of the confederates is a blockade

Turkish independence war pls

how do you do this

What program do you use for the animations?

@rayquaza8674

Ай бұрын

She uses Adobe Premiere Pro

@R0L4YT

19 күн бұрын

@@rayquaza8674thanks

What a masterpiece!

@countyballfan

Ай бұрын

agree!

Do the longest war

It was joever as soon as they got split in two

IT didnt show morgana raid

1:00

How do you make these videos

@unsubscribetomepls575

26 күн бұрын

idk probably After Effects

How?

played as montana and won against haiti + rebels first time i played conflicts of nations

Sherman's March to Atlanta Georgia.

What’s the big number on the map mean

@ericmorrison8772

21 күн бұрын

Are you joking?... You don't know what the numbers even mean?? Lol Troop populations.. comon man

How the hell did US got more casualties than CSA?

@bunnitomoe3866

Ай бұрын

Beside General Grant, Stanton and a few other notable general, the north have alot of weak and super cautious generals that more or less tend to get their mens killed (Mcclellan). The south however have General Lee, which was one of the best general at the time. Don't forget about Stonewall Jackson too. While the north got the supplies and men, the south got good generals

@andrewapurcell

Ай бұрын

Yeah I think overall the south had better generals plus I think the confederates had more of a will to fight for their cause. Plus, Abraham Lincoln was throwing out generals like piles of paper from a beginning writer.

@blitzattack567

Ай бұрын

Because the north was on the offensive. And it’s easier to defend than attack.

@RevengeOfTheKaizer

Ай бұрын

@@blitzattack567This. It was inevitable that the Union would have higher killed/wounded being on the offensive the entire war. Although Confederate casualties are also considered very much incomplete because they burned their records when Richmond fell.

@adamsmyth1156

29 күн бұрын

@@bunnitomoe3866 so good the Lee ordered an assault across a mile wide open field surrounded on three sides by guns.....masterful generalship. Southern Generalship failed once the Federals allowed competent commanders to the fore.

Yeah as this was happening Brazil Argentina and Paraguay fought Uruguay, napoleon was destroying Europe and Mexico got invaded by france

@iamcomment1410

25 күн бұрын

Napoleon Wars already ended by 1814

THE YEAR 💀

Not the 1 minute sponsor 💀

@unsubscribetomepls575

26 күн бұрын

and at the end 💀

Is there a name for the operation that splits the South in half at 7:00? Is it Union forces along the Mississippi?

@jupiter9392

Ай бұрын

its the anoconda plan or something to split the confederates into two

@CoolEdo

Ай бұрын

Mississippi Valley Campaign

@arty5876

Ай бұрын

Sherman's march to the Atlantic

@illustration7090

Ай бұрын

Not sure but the plan it was apart of was the Anaconda Plan

@Stephenc35753

Ай бұрын

​@@arty5876that was in Georgia, not along the Mississippi River.

Who were the 6 men that died before it eveb started

@joram4115

Ай бұрын

First casualties were Union soldiers who died in Alexandria, VA taking down a Confederate flag from an inm's rooftop. Google Elmer Ellsworth.

@thecollector6392

Ай бұрын

I thought it was fort Sumpter.

Most stable day from 1840-1870

@Seenu_4

Ай бұрын

In americas.

Hurrah for General Grant!

@Random-fv6kt

Ай бұрын

hurrah!!

I Love maps

1:01 skip ad

"Oh way down south of the lands of traitors"

Why does it say Missouri rebelled when they didn’t. They were just a border state

@flyingsquirrell6953

Ай бұрын

They did, it legit was so brief due to it being crushed that the history books don’t bother mentioning it with how unimportant the event was.

Pls do philippine revolution mapping pls

Most replayed s right after the sponsor💀💀💀💀💀

Glory to The Union

Let's make this bit 250k views.

Hellooo

I like conww3

Could you do a map about the Kurdish rebellion in Iran. I can help you with it

@countyballfan

Ай бұрын

maybe i will

@zanaghazal3431

Ай бұрын

@@countyballfan are u a mapper?

1 milloin deaths for only 6 man(!)

@Wagsii

Ай бұрын

Those six people dying at the beginning were not the reason the Civil War started lol. There were no casualties in the first battle of the Civil War other than one guy whose cannon misfired, so I'm actually really curious who the other five people are.

@MakriaMicronation

Ай бұрын

Bro thinks that's why the Civil War started😂 learn American history please. Oversimplified has a very good 2 parter about it.

Are we better off with the result?

@randomguy6152

Ай бұрын

yes unless you are part of a white slave owning family

@adamsmyth1156

29 күн бұрын

Yes, significantly.

A

リンカーンが主導した戦い。

Skip ad at: 1:01

Thank you for showing the Winter of Treason properly. The Americas was in chaos in the 1860s.

The fight , for the right to do wrong .

@Laffey99

Ай бұрын

The US did a lot more wrong than the Confederacy such as child soldiers, violating women and burning down Atlanta just to win the 1864 election.

@tolik5929

Ай бұрын

@LandonLilly-sb4fg No ! The South claimed it was about States Rights .......in other words , they claimed it was a right to do what is clearly WRONG .

@Tht1MCuber

27 күн бұрын

@@tolik5929lmao the guy u tagged his acc got deleted

The union looked like they had control of a lot of ships and they put some troops on there and invade them like that. Why didn’t they do that?

@rebelfriend9006

Ай бұрын

They kinda did. The navy took all of the key confederate ports. It just wasn’t practical to take other cities like that because they were so much farther inland, and closer to supplies.

Algo

10:08-10:23 Away down South in the land of traitors Rattlesnakes and alligators Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Where cotton's king and men are chattels Union boys will win the battles Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie I wish I was in Baltimore I'd make secession traitors roar Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) We'll put the traitors all to route I'll bet my boots we'll whip 'em out Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie! Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie Oh, may our Stars and Stripes still wave Forever o'er the fee and brave Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) And let our motto ever be Forever Union and for liberty Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Ride away (ride away) Come away (come away) We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie

take me home

@countyballfan

Ай бұрын

...

@dragoe7441

Ай бұрын

Glowy

To everybody who’s new to the Civil War, this war started over the issue of slavery in the United States. For 80 years in the first half of its history, the US was kicking the slavery question down the road, of course, slavery was a thing before the US was a country, but even then, founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who owned slaves themselves, thought it was a barbaric system and it should die off naturally, George Washington himself signed the first anti-slavery resolution into law that banned slave ships from trading with the United States and then freed his slaves in his will after he died, made Martha promise to do the same, and made sure his youngest and eldest slaves were educated and paid before they were set free. By the late 1850’s, tensions between the North and South over slavery were high and were ready to escalate into civil war, with events in the 1840’s and early 1850’s that included John Brown’s revolt in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) and the Dread Scott case that added fuel to the ever growing fire. The thing that finally made the tension explode was the Election of 1860, when Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln won the election in a four way race between a divided Democratic Party and himself and was about to become the 16th President of the United States. Before Lincoln became President, South Carolina seceded from the United States, starting the secession crisis with the creation of the Confederate States of America, which lead to the Civil War.

@ObviousPath

Ай бұрын

Someone's been studying APUSH 👀

@Pik180

Ай бұрын

"this war started over the issue of slavery" Only for the radicals on both sides like abolitionists and fire-eaters. For everyone else it was over the issues of federal government, interpretation of the constitution, social order, land ownership and most importantly: would these questions be answered within the Union (coöperation) or outside it (secession). From the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 up until the 1860 presidential election the South and North were competing for control of the White House and Congress as well as the status of new states forming in the West, with both sides threatening to secede at various stages, New England during the Hartford Convention and South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis. Whoever won would get to impose their idea of federal government upon the nation. To this end, uniting the various Northern factions such as Whigs, Free-Soilers and Know-Nothings, who used to engage in pork-barrel politics with their constituents up until the 1850's, the Republican Party was formed. In 1860, Lincoln, a Republican, won the presidency, and so New England business and Western free-soilers got their way. It seemed the North was inevitably going to seize control of Congress as a confederation of particular regional interest, isolating and gradually reducing Southern agriculture. This in turn radicalised the South, with coöperationists giving in to secessionists and fire-eaters in South Carolina, the most pro-secessionist state, whose secession opened the door to 7 more states. Lincoln was against Southern notions of popular sovereignty or states rights and for big government, so he used the issue of Fort Sumter, a federal garrison which was ordered to remain on South Carolinian ground, as a pretext to instigate war. When, despite promising not to reinforce the fort in prior negotiations, the 'Star of the West' came in with guns and supplies on deck, the Southern militia seized the fort. He then called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. Upon these news 4 border states decided to secede, while clashes between Unionists and Southern sympathisers broke out in Maryland and Missouri. This is a brief political history of the prelude to the American Civil War, which certainly favours the South, seeing as its struggle, the fight against federal encroachment under the motto "Sic semper tyrannis" is not a 'lost cause' but quite alive and enduring. That's not to say this is all there is to say about the War of Separation, it's just to say there's more than slavery. If you want to discuss African slavery in the South, you need to talk about race, and if you talk about race in the 1850's and early 1860's, you'll see that both sides justified their actions from a viewpoint of strengthening white hegemony and accused each other of failing that purpose. Southerners accused the North of trying to instigate slave revolts like in the Caribbean, giving blacks citizenship and promoting miscegenation, while the North accused Southerners of undercutting free labour in the North and South while stealing free soil from free white men in the West with cheap slave labour and promoting the growth of the black race. While the war is key to interpreting America's present, it also left gaping wounds that the nation has not recovered from til this day. Talk of slavery distracts from the fact that this was a brother's war between white men of good character who just few years prior were brothers-in-arms during the Mexican expedition, a river of blood apt to dye the Mississippi scarlet, and a devastating trauma to the US just 80 years after its founding. That the score was not worth the game is becoming more and more apparent by the increasingly immense efforts required to ignore its long-term consequences, after 100 and further near 200 years. America is a sick man, and the War of Separation was a botched operation due to assigning the wrong cause, the wrong procedure and the wrong remedy, governed by doctors repeating these wrongs, grown out of a fear to admit to their own error into a shamelessness with which they deceive the patient. Finally, it is left to us faithful witnesses and keepers of written history to, if we cannot be so ourselves, raise and edify men who may devise cures to the diseases caught by earlier generations as it played out. For that let us pray to the Lord. Amen.

@flyingsquirrell6953

Ай бұрын

@@Pik180 It’s impressive how you could know so much yet be so wrong.

@Pik180

Ай бұрын

​@@flyingsquirrell6953 My friend, the way you answered me I stand neither corrected nor victorious, when I would love to be either. If you are right, I would love to hear if you could point out how or where you think I am wrong or if you are wrong, I would love to know why you think your degree of knowledge would render you being right more likely. If "being wrong" refers to facts, then one of us could help the other approach the truth, and if "being wrong" refers to attitude, then one of us could help the other approach morality. Your silence punishes me while I remain oblivious of my supposed guilt, which leaves me with no other defence but to go on the attack. In your post you portrayed it as though Washington and Jefferson were opposed to slavery. You sugarcoated it by saying they thought it a "barbaric system", but this is in absolute distortion of the lives of these men who, moral qualms withstanding, would have never conceived of their overseeing of plantations as barbaric. They certainly wanted it gone in the long term, but mainly kept that thought to themselves, Washington more so than Jefferson. By the time Jefferson was president, the Haitian Revolution was in full swing, which instilled in the new generation of Americans, mainly Southerners, quite the opposite of the optimism regarding gradual emancipation held by the founders. It would take a while to properly reflect the nuance of their views in writing. Jefferson certainly felt blacks were innately inferior to whites, and even if emancipated, could not survive on their own in American society, hence he saw the solution in the colonisation of freedmen in Africa. Washington did not view blacks as inferior but nonetheless preferred to keep the races separated based on practical experience as, for example, on his Mt. Vernon estate. What they, along with all founders, were certainly unanimous about, was regarding America as a nation for white men. In founders' intent, "All men are created equal" did not refer to slaves or other non-citizens, and that only whites could be citizens was clearly reaffirmed in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and in Charles Pinckney's speech to the House of Representatives regarding the admission of Missouri, 13. Feb. 1821. The easiest answer is to say the two felt ambivalent about slavery: opposed to it in the long-term, to their friends in private and to us who were born after them, but silent in public, toward their contemporaries. They co-authored the constitution, yet did not object to Pinckney's and Butler's submission, Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, that "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor". It also reflects their origins: Pinckney and Butler were South Carolineans (Lower South), opposition to the clause came from Wilson of Pennsylvania and Sherman of Connecticut (North), Washington and Jefferson, being Virginians (Upper South), remained indifferent. The clause, along with the 10th Amendment, clearly subjected slavery to state law. Furthermore, it was at request of Washington that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was passed. Of course, he also restricted slavery via the Slave Trade Act of 1794. This combination of moderate anti- and pro-slavery positions was fashionable both in North and South roughly until the Missouri Compromise. Most of all the Founding Fathers tried to preserve national concord and prevent sectional interest from dissolving the union. Yet it was this type of sectional interest which undermined the very basis of the compact which was agreed upon during the 1787 Constitutional Convention as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. The failure to point out these most elementary observations regarding the founders in a historical extract weighs heavily against arguments or objections proceeding from it. Now to ask which side or what issue of the sectional divide was responsible for the outbreak of hostilities is superfluous, and my pointing out of this superfluity can in and of itself not be wrong. The point of contention, I imagine, whose acceptance is unappealing, is the substantial reason I forward for the hostilities. And this can only be the differing opinion regarding government, limited vs. unlimited, soluble vs. insoluble. The South, believing no government to be above the purpose of the compact which formed it, seceded. The North, believing the preservation of the compact of government to be a purpose unto itself, invaded. As said, discussing the purpose of the compact, even if it informed the decision to dissolve or enforce the union, is rendered superfluous by the question of sovereignty. If the Union was indeed the commonwealth of a sovereign people, then the withdrawal of a section of shareholders should, as with all other ventures, have produced no worry, if not rather satisfaction, in the party of proprietors who maintained the asset for themselves without sharing the risks or paying the dividends of their former associates any longer. On the other hand, if the Union was the sovereign, then of course, it should be anxious to remain in control over its subjects, just as the failing entrepreneur is desperate to keep his investors engaged. Theories on the matter of slavery were firmly entrenched at least 20 years before any shot was fired, yet even in 1860 and early 1861, as the Deep South was seceding, hardly a Congressmen had the stomach to put them to the test with cannon roars and battle cries. Only following the Fort Sumter affair - when both sides claimed to fight for their view of sovereignty - did men line up in rank and file. Then New York City, long deemed a stronghold of Southern sympathy in the North, rallied around the federal cause, and Richmond, indecisive til then, declared for the Confederacy. In fact, this entire elaboration would be unnecessary if one could only bear in mind that in 1861, not a single US soldier marched south with the goal of freeing slaves or abolishing slavery in the South and not a single CS soldier marched north with the intent of spreading slavery in the territories in the West or enforcing fugitive slave laws in the North. Nothing in the US constitution prohibited secession and most of all, nothing in it impelled the federal government to use force to maintain the Union. The reasons for war and secession were entirely separate. After all, the border states of the Upper South that remained in the Union did so with the intent of remaining slave states too. It was only after Lincoln ordered an invasion of their Confederate sisters that half of them seceded, while the other half remained in the Union hoping to maintain neutrality, but failing. Theirs is a tragedy that is too often overlooked, despite its emblematic character for the war as a whole. The war was concocted by a gang of generals, secretaries and congressmen surrounding Lincoln in the District of Columbia, and the issue of slavery was eventually brought up by the North as a fig leaf to cover the massive policy blunder that led to tens of thousands of deaths. The emancipation proclamation was a military stratagem in reaction to the Battle of Sharpsburg. The South, by contrast, put the issue of slavery in the background as its expansion to the north and west was discarded, only setting its sights on Mexico and Cuba after the war, and increasingly saw independence as meaningful unto itself. The culture war preceding the War of Separation was certainly heavily influenced by questions surrounding slavery, but the beginning of the war was distinct from it. To bring the whole argument home, let me give you a modern analogy: Imagine if Trump got re-elected and blue states started seceding prior to his inauguration. Then the Californian state guard went to a stand down over some federal garrison on CA territory and the commander-in-chief called for volunteers to put down an insurrection. More blue states seceded and Civil War 2.0. broke out. How did arguments over the spread or abolition of transgender bathrooms and Pepe the Frog factor into this? They didn't. But in this hypothetical scenario, they, along with many other themes of the modern culture war, would have certainly played a role in motivating the blue states to secede. And if Trump, in the midst of the war, decided to pass an "emancipation proclamation" to abolish gender neutral restrooms and liberate Pepe the Frog from being an ADL-hate symbol, mentally challenged historians would certainly argue "The Second Civil War was about non-binary water closets and amphibian memes" while debilitated Democrat-defending apologists would helplessly talk about "states' rights". In this case, disregarding any ideology, the obvious cause of war was governmental invasion and the obvious cause of secession a deep-seated antipathy. Just so, the original civil war happened because the South was by all means and in all aspects of life so utterly disgusted with the North, and Lincoln was the punching bag that embodied everything they hated about it so perfectly, that it felt forced to secede. And it doesn't matter whether that hate grew out of Bloody Kansas, Harper's Ferry, the Morrill Tariff or codfish and potatoes. As my Georgian friends like to say: "TOTAL YANKEE DEATH". And what do you know, Old Abe's aggressive policy just further nurtured their aversion. Thus the spark of hatred met the timber of power to ignite the flames of war. May the Lord bless this discussion.

@anthonyminimum

Ай бұрын

@@Pik180 I’m going to quote Vlogging Through History here “If it takes you an hour to try and convince people of your point of view, I think you probably are trying too hard.” These long ass comments aren’t going to convince people, they are just gonna say “TLDR”

imagine if France and Germany decided to form an EU superstate on the basis of bringing different refugee laws to Poland or Hungary, and the other european nations picked sides or remained neutral along a whole variety of factors. then imagine 300 years later everyone saying the war was about refugees...

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

The war was about slavery it's not people talk about slavery 300 years after only as the main reason

@cvvv111

Ай бұрын

​@@ShubhamMishrabro la guerra fue porque el norte (proteccionista e industrial) y el sur (liberal y agrícola) no estaban de acuerdo a los aranceles altos de EE.UU en ese momento q favorecia a la industria del norte para q no puedan ser superados por la industria británica dentro de su propio país.

@davestevenson9080

Ай бұрын

@@ShubhamMishrabro if the war was about slavery then the north would have freed their slaves first...

@ShubhamMishrabro

Ай бұрын

@@davestevenson9080 well they stopped taking slaves which South didn't. And yes the war was about slavery. It has been debunked that it wasn't

@flyingsquirrell6953

Ай бұрын

Neat idea, but the Civil War was still about Slavery.

Hahahahha, the great american history😂😂😂

if the south would have won would usa have that ugly flag? good thing the north won

@blazer9547

Ай бұрын

That's how you feel about the Mexican American war Mr Miguel.

@cvvv111

Ай бұрын

Si el sur hubiera ganado USA sería un país agrícola y esclavo de Reino Unido, nunca hubiera sido la potencia que es hoy, ya que nunca hubieran utilizado el proteccionismo que les protegió de la industria británica, el sur era liberal y queria aranceles bajos..

@My_Lacrimosa

Ай бұрын

No, if the Confederate States of America had won, the US remaining would still have its flag, just with less stars. The Confederacy would have just kept their flag

@AIRWAY26

Ай бұрын

no, the south did not want to take over the northern states, they wanted to be a separate country

@fictionalinanutshell

16 күн бұрын

They would most likely make the Union pay war reparations, and not annex them. If they DID annex them, they will most likely change their flag.

🦅🇺🇸🦅

I wish we still had Presidents like Abe Lincoln. 🇺🇲

@TheEurofighter100

29 күн бұрын

Same

@JohnathonPhilips-zq6xz

25 күн бұрын

Better than Biden and trump

@ericmorrison8772

21 күн бұрын

I don't. He was a tyrrant

If France defeated Mexico, the union would have been unable to do anything against the Confederates and the French Empire supporting them.

@GenericYoutubeGuy

12 күн бұрын

Pft the French could never stop us.

@webosXD

12 күн бұрын

@@GenericKZreadGuy keep dreaming

@GenericYoutubeGuy

12 күн бұрын

@@webosXD the American dream defeated three empires. British, Mexican, and Spanish. Likely the German Empire also.

@webosXD

11 күн бұрын

@@GenericKZreadGuy The USA was in a civil war, that was USA vs USA + French Empire + Second Mexican Empire at once.

@GenericYoutubeGuy

11 күн бұрын

@@webosXD no… not really. The us couldn’t participate much in the war in Mexico until the south was defeated, and the Mexican empire and French Empire barely ever fought the US. Also, it was the CSA vs the USA. Maybe think before you write.

Hell nah man usa cooked so hard bro 🔥

the confederates never stood any chance of winning.

Third

First

The good side are losing

@codeation5862

Ай бұрын

Troll

I salve blcak wmoan and man they my saox salve.

Im gay

@countyballfan

Ай бұрын

no one asked

@Posidon09

Ай бұрын

no one asked

@zoeluxyt

Ай бұрын

This is one of the shocking & intriguing reveal ever O_O

@Halal2907

Ай бұрын

no one asked based of unhumanity

@SquidMonke4

Ай бұрын

Thx for telling im the guy who asked

Rest peacefully, Confederacy. You broke no laws and you did nothing wrong.

@flyingsquirrell6953

Ай бұрын

Obvious troll is obvious

@FRCAmerica

Ай бұрын

slavery

@Ihavpickle

28 күн бұрын

Anime gooner

The South Shall Rise Again ❤🤍💙

@Fantaiscool

Ай бұрын

You do know that the annoying orange has lasted 3 times longer than the entire confederate existance

@Win0038

Ай бұрын

@@Fantaiscool Canada lasted longer than the United States itself. The northern dominion is still free to this day. The south shall rise again. ❤

@thecollector6392

Ай бұрын

Boo! My microweiner is longer than the Confederates time on earth.

@Fantaiscool

Ай бұрын

@@thecollector6392 the average confedarate sympathiser penis is about 2-3 mm long

@Win0038

Ай бұрын

@@thecollector6392 Lol! You’re a funny guy. That’s jokes.

Crimea and Donbas is Ukraine 🇺🇦.

@JesusisGod..

Ай бұрын

Go free it then

@vqziks

Ай бұрын

@@JesusisGod.. In the process, smart man, there is what is called established boundaries and recognition

@JesusisGod..

Ай бұрын

@@vqziks buddy my reply just meant that u were off topic. This is a video about the Civil War not Ukraine. If you want to comment that do it under videos that are talking about the war

@ilyasghanny11

Ай бұрын

@v1rusok14 Bruh, this is not Ukraine war, this is Amerikan civil war. You're out of topic in this video

@DooroodAndNotSalom

Ай бұрын

Dude, that's a real fact, but you're still out of the topic!

glory to the south

GG to the South that managed to kick the Union asses multiple times even when most of the time they were two to three times less than the others. Yankees what to expect.

@uttpsuckslol

9 күн бұрын

U on the south side or the union side?

In my personal opinion, the war could have been avoided. We should have just left the South alone.

@AIRWAY26

Ай бұрын

the south had slaves bruv

@anderbustos2472

Ай бұрын

​@@AIRWAY26 the north had segregation and such harsh capitalism that the only difference between slavery was that the boss didnt had to take care of the worker

@Wagsii

Ай бұрын

@@AIRWAY26 While true, the Union didn't fight to free the slaves. Abolishing slavery was actually not a majority opinion in 1860. They fought to get the states back. Had the civil war ended in the first year or two, the south would have been allowed to continue using slave labor. Eventually, Lincoln decided that there was no scenario where that was going to work, and that's how we got the emancipation proclamation in 1863. Circling back to OP's comment, technically yes, letting the south secede would have avoided the war. Not fighting a war typically avoids war. There are some scenarios where they still would have fought anyway, like land disputes over the West, or if the Confederacy had invaded Cuba like they apparently eventually planned to, the Union might have came to Spain's aid. There's a lot you can debate about what would have happened if the Confederacy succeeded in becoming its own country, but pretty much everyone agrees that both the North and South would have been worse off.

@Bonk_RN

Ай бұрын

war still likely would have started, maybe just a few years later

@flyingsquirrell6953

Ай бұрын

And that would be a good thing… why?

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A