Why didn't the border states join the confederacy (Short Animated Documentary)
video description
Date: 2025-12-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
el0quinn
I would imagine the large deathtoll from the War of 1812 kept Kentucky from being as militant in opposition to Lincoln as other Southern states. When the confederates invaded Kentucky, they wasted a fortune by bringing rifles with which to arm the people they were sure would rush to the confederate side. They were immensely disappointed by how few people did.
The Mexican War was fresh in some southerners memories, but it was a triumph against a fairly civilized and orderly opponent. You could be a hero dying at the Alamo, but that was only half the number of what Kentucky militia suffered in the Battle of Frenchtown. Frenchtown was awful. The first battle was a pitiful series of skirmishes that got 60 Kentuckians killed for no good reason, and then on the second day you had more than 200 die in the open, pursued by Shawnee warriors, shot at by the British with no cover in their encampment, the American commander captured and told to order the 500 men still fighting to surrender or die. By the end of the second day, 397 were killed, 547 captured having negotiated fair treatment and protection. But that night they set fire to the buildings holding the American wounded. Any who escaped the fires were scalped. Any who straggled in the march to Detroit were scalped. More than 100 prisoners were murdered this way.
These are very low numbers, especially in comparison to Civil War casualties, but in proportion to the state's very small population these were catastrophic losses comparable to if the victims of the Bataan death march were all from the same tiny frontier communities. And then they had actually enlisted a new wave of volunteer forces who would actually manage to succeed in the invasion of Ontario.
So you had this grand mythology in the South of a victory that affirmed manifest destiny, a mini Thermopylae where everyone died a hero vs a defense bungled by American officers, where American defenders fought for no reason and were forced by their leaders to stand down and accept imprisonment, only to end up scalped in the snow in a war that no one cares to think about or remember in either the embarassment of the eastern theater or the gruesome nightmare of the western theater. These events and the men involved in them are memorialized in Kentucky and many of our counties and towns have a namesake in the War of 1812, and they were of course within living memory. The privation and cruelty of the Revolutionary war was not. No shit we didn't want to fight, we knew what was coming.
reply
I would imagine the large deathtoll from the War of 1812 kept Kentucky from being as militant in opposition to Lincoln as other Southern states. When the confederates invaded Kentucky, they wasted a fortune by bringing rifles with which to arm the people they were sure would rush to the confederate side. They were immensely disappointed by how few people did.
The Mexican War was fresh in some southerners memories, but it was a triumph against a fairly civilized and orderly opponent. You could be a hero dying at the Alamo, but that was only half the number of what Kentucky militia suffered in the Battle of Frenchtown. Frenchtown was awful. The first battle was a pitiful series of skirmishes that got 60 Kentuckians killed for no good reason, and then on the second day you had more than 200 die in the open, pursued by Shawnee warriors, shot at by the British with no cover in their encampment, the American commander captured and told to order the 500 men still fighting to surrender or die. By the end of the second day, 397 were killed, 547 captured having negotiated fair treatment and protection. But that night they set fire to the buildings holding the American wounded. Any who escaped the fires were scalped. Any who straggled in the march to Detroit were scalped. More than 100 prisoners were murdered this way.
These are very low numbers, especially in comparison to Civil War casualties, but in proportion to the state's very small population these were catastrophic losses comparable to if the victims of the Bataan death march were all from the same tiny frontier communities. And then they had actually enlisted a new wave of volunteer forces who would actually manage to succeed in the invasion of Ontario.
So you had this grand mythology in the South of a victory that affirmed manifest destiny, a mini Thermopylae where everyone died a hero vs a defense bungled by American officers, where American defenders fought for no reason and were forced by their leaders to stand down and accept imprisonment, only to end up scalped in the snow in a war that no one cares to think about or remember in either the embarassment of the eastern theater or the gruesome nightmare of the western theater. These events and the men involved in them are memorialized in Kentucky and many of our counties and towns have a namesake in the War of 1812, and they were of course within living memory. The privation and cruelty of the Revolutionary war was not. No shit we didn't want to fight, we knew what was coming.
reply
44hawk28
In the case of Massachusetts Abraham Lincoln had sent troops down there and kidnapped several of the state congressman and even a couple of the administrators of the state and illegally held them so that a vote could not be taken on secession. Abraham Lincoln then proceeded to gather 75, 000 troops from northern states to attack the southern states a constitutional definition of treason against what he called Southern States. If he considered them still to be states. The planned attack on these states would have been a treasonous act. Because he claimed that he had reason to do so because of the militia act. The militia act can only be engaged when the laws of normal civil Behavior are not being followed in a state and it requires federal troops to go in and quell the illegalities. However nobody but nobody thought that people were robbing and kidnapping and killing people in the south. So his argument is actually vapid. If you were such a great orator he would have been able to convince the states that he was above that kind of behavior. But Robert E Lee knew better that's why Robert E Lee resigned his commission and went to work for his home country Virginia. If you read the Paris treaty which ended the Revolutionary War you will find that each and every state of the United States is a sovereign country. And in order to have somebody speak between them as a commonwealth and the rest of the world they created the Federal Government to act as an agent under their authority. At no time did the states ever give the federal government plenary authority over them.
If you believe that slavery ended with the end of the war of Northern aggression. You're sadly mistaken. And you haven't looked at your paycheck stub lately. If you make wages first of all you're not supposed to be paying taxes because you are getting compensated for your sweat. The first penny that comes out of your pay that goes to anybody but you is thievery and is evidence of slavery handled by whoever it is that's taking the money. And in this case it's the federal and even now the state governments. I suggest you look up Black's Law and the definition of income because wages have never been income under constitutional law.
reply
In the case of Massachusetts Abraham Lincoln had sent troops down there and kidnapped several of the state congressman and even a couple of the administrators of the state and illegally held them so that a vote could not be taken on secession. Abraham Lincoln then proceeded to gather 75, 000 troops from northern states to attack the southern states a constitutional definition of treason against what he called Southern States. If he considered them still to be states. The planned attack on these states would have been a treasonous act. Because he claimed that he had reason to do so because of the militia act. The militia act can only be engaged when the laws of normal civil Behavior are not being followed in a state and it requires federal troops to go in and quell the illegalities. However nobody but nobody thought that people were robbing and kidnapping and killing people in the south. So his argument is actually vapid. If you were such a great orator he would have been able to convince the states that he was above that kind of behavior. But Robert E Lee knew better that's why Robert E Lee resigned his commission and went to work for his home country Virginia. If you read the Paris treaty which ended the Revolutionary War you will find that each and every state of the United States is a sovereign country. And in order to have somebody speak between them as a commonwealth and the rest of the world they created the Federal Government to act as an agent under their authority. At no time did the states ever give the federal government plenary authority over them.
If you believe that slavery ended with the end of the war of Northern aggression. You're sadly mistaken. And you haven't looked at your paycheck stub lately. If you make wages first of all you're not supposed to be paying taxes because you are getting compensated for your sweat. The first penny that comes out of your pay that goes to anybody but you is thievery and is evidence of slavery handled by whoever it is that's taking the money. And in this case it's the federal and even now the state governments. I suggest you look up Black's Law and the definition of income because wages have never been income under constitutional law.
reply
eric3844
0: 36 something worth mentioning here - the Republican Party ticket in 1860 was not actually Abolitionist in the strict sense of the word. In the 21st century, weve kinda flattened all historical anti-slavery movements and ideas into Abolitionism, but in reality the political stance of immediate and federal abolition of slavery was quite radical, and only held by the radical wing of the Republican party. Lincolns official stance in the election of 1860, as you mention, was a moderate one - he merely wanted to keep slavery out of the territories (thereby preventing new slave states, not interfering with slavery where it already existed. The painting of lincoln as an Abolitionist by southern democrats during the election of 1860 was a deliberate move by prominent southern politicians and newspaper men (such as thomas rhett, william yancy, and robert tombs) to whip the southern population into a violent frenzy in order to get them to support secession upon Lincolns victory, which was clealrly inevitable after the split of the Democratic party.
Source: Madness Rules the Hour by Paul Starobin
reply
0: 36 something worth mentioning here - the Republican Party ticket in 1860 was not actually Abolitionist in the strict sense of the word. In the 21st century, weve kinda flattened all historical anti-slavery movements and ideas into Abolitionism, but in reality the political stance of immediate and federal abolition of slavery was quite radical, and only held by the radical wing of the Republican party. Lincolns official stance in the election of 1860, as you mention, was a moderate one - he merely wanted to keep slavery out of the territories (thereby preventing new slave states, not interfering with slavery where it already existed. The painting of lincoln as an Abolitionist by southern democrats during the election of 1860 was a deliberate move by prominent southern politicians and newspaper men (such as thomas rhett, william yancy, and robert tombs) to whip the southern population into a violent frenzy in order to get them to support secession upon Lincolns victory, which was clealrly inevitable after the split of the Democratic party.
Source: Madness Rules the Hour by Paul Starobin
reply
billt8504
Kentucky was the key to the whole western theatre early on. Had Kentucky joined the CSA, the Ohio River would have been the boundary between North and South, a very formidable natural barrier. Well sighted forts could be placed on the tributaries leading south like the Cumberland River. But instead the northern border was Tennessee - the border is marked by stones, ala Mason Dixon. No natural barriers. Worse, where the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers exit Tennessee into Kentucky is fairly low, swampy ground. Not a good place to put forts on either bank. So Forts Donelson and Henry, instead of being in Kentucky on high ground overlooking the entrance to the Cumberland, the forts are on low ground with no natural barriers to aid in defense. Gen Grant and Adm Porter easily swept the river defenses aside and the rivers became Northern highways. The CSA really, really needed Kentucky. which is why they invaded first.
reply
Kentucky was the key to the whole western theatre early on. Had Kentucky joined the CSA, the Ohio River would have been the boundary between North and South, a very formidable natural barrier. Well sighted forts could be placed on the tributaries leading south like the Cumberland River. But instead the northern border was Tennessee - the border is marked by stones, ala Mason Dixon. No natural barriers. Worse, where the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers exit Tennessee into Kentucky is fairly low, swampy ground. Not a good place to put forts on either bank. So Forts Donelson and Henry, instead of being in Kentucky on high ground overlooking the entrance to the Cumberland, the forts are on low ground with no natural barriers to aid in defense. Gen Grant and Adm Porter easily swept the river defenses aside and the rivers became Northern highways. The CSA really, really needed Kentucky. which is why they invaded first.
reply
skipperson4077
the landscape of Virginia (which at the time included West Virginia) made a big effect on the local economies, specifically slavery. Farther west you go the more mountainous, plantations with export-based crops in the east, in the west it was food cropping mostly aimed at local consumption. The west in general had fewer slaves, a smaller black population, and a higher percentage of freemen. So the west didn't really have slavery as a causes belli and also must have felt underrepresented at the legislature in Richmond, dominated by bigger eastern counties and established Virginia political families. Civil War provided an opportunity/need to make a break, some in Virginia think they got the better part of the deal (although West Virginia is beautiful and has potential)
reply
the landscape of Virginia (which at the time included West Virginia) made a big effect on the local economies, specifically slavery. Farther west you go the more mountainous, plantations with export-based crops in the east, in the west it was food cropping mostly aimed at local consumption. The west in general had fewer slaves, a smaller black population, and a higher percentage of freemen. So the west didn't really have slavery as a causes belli and also must have felt underrepresented at the legislature in Richmond, dominated by bigger eastern counties and established Virginia political families. Civil War provided an opportunity/need to make a break, some in Virginia think they got the better part of the deal (although West Virginia is beautiful and has potential)
reply
zachburks6886
Couple things you wouldn’t know unless you were from here.
Kentucky had slaves but never in the number of the other states as they were too far north to grow cotton or other intensive crops. Their economy was tied to the north via the Ohio River.
Missouri would have joined the confederacy and much of the state seceded when the state didn’t. They just don’t like being told what to do and when they were initially occupied by the south they decided to stay in the union despite most of the population joining the confederate army (they already had pro slavery militias operating from before the war)
Fun fact there’s a county that declared itself a kingdom and has never officially rejoined the union; see Kingdom of Calloway.
reply
Couple things you wouldn’t know unless you were from here.
Kentucky had slaves but never in the number of the other states as they were too far north to grow cotton or other intensive crops. Their economy was tied to the north via the Ohio River.
Missouri would have joined the confederacy and much of the state seceded when the state didn’t. They just don’t like being told what to do and when they were initially occupied by the south they decided to stay in the union despite most of the population joining the confederate army (they already had pro slavery militias operating from before the war)
Fun fact there’s a county that declared itself a kingdom and has never officially rejoined the union; see Kingdom of Calloway.
reply
ADMusic1999
The civil war is interesting but actually kind of dumb if you really think about it:
The South gets scared because a guy who says he won’t free the slaves and makes no initiative to do so, is elected president and they somehow think he’s coming for their slaves. But as a result of secession, Lincoln frees the slaves in a region he has no control over and lets the border states that he does have control over, keep their slaves. What makes it weirder is that had the South not fought, they could’ve kept the slaves they were fighting for. Even weirder than that is that Lincoln, who ran on an abolitionist ticket, would’ve let slavery continue had it happened that way. So in a sense, the South seceding is what freed the slaves.
reply
The civil war is interesting but actually kind of dumb if you really think about it:
The South gets scared because a guy who says he won’t free the slaves and makes no initiative to do so, is elected president and they somehow think he’s coming for their slaves. But as a result of secession, Lincoln frees the slaves in a region he has no control over and lets the border states that he does have control over, keep their slaves. What makes it weirder is that had the South not fought, they could’ve kept the slaves they were fighting for. Even weirder than that is that Lincoln, who ran on an abolitionist ticket, would’ve let slavery continue had it happened that way. So in a sense, the South seceding is what freed the slaves.
reply
Doodle1266
Texas had an extensive plantation economy at this time. No oil. A lot of cattle country was still raided by the Comanche in central Texas. But east Texas was very much farming. So much so Slaves were moved there during the war to prevent capture in more active war theaters like Tennessee and Virginia Northern Georgia or Northern Mississippi. They were leased to local owners who increased crop yields with extra labor. Sent crops to Mexico to sell to Europe and buy guns and ammo to keep the war going. This is why Vicksburg Mississippi had to be taken and The Mississippi River shutdown to Confederate traffic. Can't cross the river no supplies for Georgia troops or Virginia. Yes Sam Houston knew the Confederates would lose.
reply
Texas had an extensive plantation economy at this time. No oil. A lot of cattle country was still raided by the Comanche in central Texas. But east Texas was very much farming. So much so Slaves were moved there during the war to prevent capture in more active war theaters like Tennessee and Virginia Northern Georgia or Northern Mississippi. They were leased to local owners who increased crop yields with extra labor. Sent crops to Mexico to sell to Europe and buy guns and ammo to keep the war going. This is why Vicksburg Mississippi had to be taken and The Mississippi River shutdown to Confederate traffic. Can't cross the river no supplies for Georgia troops or Virginia. Yes Sam Houston knew the Confederates would lose.
reply
history_matters
The two major plantation crops that slavery thrived on was cotton and tobacco. Slaves weren't seen as viable miners. Truthfully the number of slaves in Arkansas and Tennessee weren't that high either and this was a big reason West Virgina West Virgina'd.
Slave owners were the ruling class but most southerners didn't own slaves and that was especially true of Appalachia. The Confederates needed to convince these soldiers to fight and die for them which is where the whole States Rights and anti-Yankee sentiment came into play. Not that the Union made it hard for them to hate Yankees, see the segment on Missouri.
reply
The two major plantation crops that slavery thrived on was cotton and tobacco. Slaves weren't seen as viable miners. Truthfully the number of slaves in Arkansas and Tennessee weren't that high either and this was a big reason West Virgina West Virgina'd.
Slave owners were the ruling class but most southerners didn't own slaves and that was especially true of Appalachia. The Confederates needed to convince these soldiers to fight and die for them which is where the whole States Rights and anti-Yankee sentiment came into play. Not that the Union made it hard for them to hate Yankees, see the segment on Missouri.
reply
romad275
Missouri & Kentucky WERE admitted to the CSA, but both had been immediately occupied by the invading Northern Army with several battles in Missouri. Lincoln ordered the occupation of Maryland AND imprisoned its legislature and governor to prevent it from seceding. As for the slave state of Delaware, it probably saw what happened to the other three and hunkered down. Interestingly, Lincoln only freed the slaves in those areas where he had military control. The slaves in the border states and in the unoccupied areas of the CSA states weren't legally freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified in December 1865.
reply
Missouri & Kentucky WERE admitted to the CSA, but both had been immediately occupied by the invading Northern Army with several battles in Missouri. Lincoln ordered the occupation of Maryland AND imprisoned its legislature and governor to prevent it from seceding. As for the slave state of Delaware, it probably saw what happened to the other three and hunkered down. Interestingly, Lincoln only freed the slaves in those areas where he had military control. The slaves in the border states and in the unoccupied areas of the CSA states weren't legally freed until the 13th Amendment was ratified in December 1865.
reply
X23SSaviourGundam
I'm gonna say that it's not that the states didn't believe him, they knew what he ran on but decided to hyperbole the truth it get the idiot masses to die for a cause that could give them more political power if they somehow won. They knew Lincoln wasnt going to abolish slavery but lied about it anyway, which ironically forced Lincoln into a position where abolishing slavery became a major goal to keep fighting and defeat the CSA and force reunification. I'm going to shit on southerners and conservatives, but rich people know how to play them like a fiddle.
reply
I'm gonna say that it's not that the states didn't believe him, they knew what he ran on but decided to hyperbole the truth it get the idiot masses to die for a cause that could give them more political power if they somehow won. They knew Lincoln wasnt going to abolish slavery but lied about it anyway, which ironically forced Lincoln into a position where abolishing slavery became a major goal to keep fighting and defeat the CSA and force reunification. I'm going to shit on southerners and conservatives, but rich people know how to play them like a fiddle.
reply
exercisethemind
Lost Cause historical revisionism is an incredibly pernicious evil. It's shocking how many Confederate flags you'll find in places like New York and Pennsylvania. The thing with democracy is, if it doesn't serve the people, they can get pretty pissed off. And the forms their upset takes can range from simply odd to downright dangerous. Moral of the story: liberty and justice for all is something that we shouldn't just talk about before an election, but actually practice in governance. Corruption will be the death of us.
reply
Lost Cause historical revisionism is an incredibly pernicious evil. It's shocking how many Confederate flags you'll find in places like New York and Pennsylvania. The thing with democracy is, if it doesn't serve the people, they can get pretty pissed off. And the forms their upset takes can range from simply odd to downright dangerous. Moral of the story: liberty and justice for all is something that we shouldn't just talk about before an election, but actually practice in governance. Corruption will be the death of us.
reply
stevenlouie6922
The reason these border states do not have as many slaves and did not care as much, is because the further North you are, the less economical it is to oWN A slave. For farming, the further north you go, the worse winter gets, and your slave do even less work because how much work can you do when the ground is frozen. Cotton is labor intensive, but you can't grow cotton in winter, so the slaves have more free time in winter, which means the owners lose money at that time. Now in tropics, Sugarcane go year round.
reply
The reason these border states do not have as many slaves and did not care as much, is because the further North you are, the less economical it is to oWN A slave. For farming, the further north you go, the worse winter gets, and your slave do even less work because how much work can you do when the ground is frozen. Cotton is labor intensive, but you can't grow cotton in winter, so the slaves have more free time in winter, which means the owners lose money at that time. Now in tropics, Sugarcane go year round.
reply
Actiongameinc2
Missouri actually nearly did join the confederacy, in fact, we nearly split like Virginia & West Virginia did. There was a Missouri confederate Unit that risen up at the start of the war. But the Unionists risen up and chased & fought the confederates out of state. They would never return. And Missouri would remain unified as a state after the war. But people in southern Missouri still displays the Confederate flag, mostly as a reminder of the lessons of the war. And how close our state nearly came to being divided.
reply
Missouri actually nearly did join the confederacy, in fact, we nearly split like Virginia & West Virginia did. There was a Missouri confederate Unit that risen up at the start of the war. But the Unionists risen up and chased & fought the confederates out of state. They would never return. And Missouri would remain unified as a state after the war. But people in southern Missouri still displays the Confederate flag, mostly as a reminder of the lessons of the war. And how close our state nearly came to being divided.
reply
cbirch7302
We should have just defeated the south, executed every plantation owner, white plantation worker, and Confederate soldiers as traitors, offered all freed slaves transportation out of the Confederacy, and then kicked all of the Confederate states out of the union anyways. Then just completely blocked all trade with them and built a giant wall blocking off the south from the north.
It's just an entire section of the country filled with completely worthless pieces of garbage. No value whatsoever.
reply
We should have just defeated the south, executed every plantation owner, white plantation worker, and Confederate soldiers as traitors, offered all freed slaves transportation out of the Confederacy, and then kicked all of the Confederate states out of the union anyways. Then just completely blocked all trade with them and built a giant wall blocking off the south from the north.
It's just an entire section of the country filled with completely worthless pieces of garbage. No value whatsoever.
reply
GraemeCree
One thing that's important to take into account is not just location, but how many slaves were in each state. It's misleading to just say Delaware and Virginia were both slave states, what's the difference The difference is that there were well about half a million slaves in Virginia, and they made up about 40% of the entire population. In Delaware they made up 2%. No border state had more than 20% slaves (Kentucky. The fewer slaves, the less likely a state is going to be to fight over them.
reply
One thing that's important to take into account is not just location, but how many slaves were in each state. It's misleading to just say Delaware and Virginia were both slave states, what's the difference The difference is that there were well about half a million slaves in Virginia, and they made up about 40% of the entire population. In Delaware they made up 2%. No border state had more than 20% slaves (Kentucky. The fewer slaves, the less likely a state is going to be to fight over them.
reply
history_matters
As a Marylander, I'll tell you this. It's because 1. we're overall culturally, geogrphically, and politcally\economically Northern, and were still like that in the 1860s. 2. Slavery was declining in Maryland at a fast rate. 3. Northern\Western Maryland was very Pro-union while the Southern and Eastern populations which were rural were pro-confederate, so thus the regions were more people lived (pro-union) ultimately got their way. There's more to it, but these are some reasons.
reply
As a Marylander, I'll tell you this. It's because 1. we're overall culturally, geogrphically, and politcally\economically Northern, and were still like that in the 1860s. 2. Slavery was declining in Maryland at a fast rate. 3. Northern\Western Maryland was very Pro-union while the Southern and Eastern populations which were rural were pro-confederate, so thus the regions were more people lived (pro-union) ultimately got their way. There's more to it, but these are some reasons.
reply
MarkLatvala
Conspiracy Theorists take note: In the previous years, Lincoln worked as a lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad. (the most corrupt & politically involved business of its time) Stephen Douglas was then also a lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad. Their boss at the Railroad None other than George McClelland!
Non-Conspiracy Theorists may now point out that the population was much, much smaller than today & you didn't need six degrees of separation to connect the dots.
reply
Conspiracy Theorists take note: In the previous years, Lincoln worked as a lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad. (the most corrupt & politically involved business of its time) Stephen Douglas was then also a lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad. Their boss at the Railroad None other than George McClelland!
Non-Conspiracy Theorists may now point out that the population was much, much smaller than today & you didn't need six degrees of separation to connect the dots.
reply
thimsbarkler5178
Pre watch comment: If this doesnt have a huge West Virginia explanation here imma be dissapointed.
Edit: I am dissapointed. IDGAF if you just ignored the Golden Goose here, but a video like yours should not be made without mentioning the complexities in Virginia during the Civil War. If not for the Civil War, Virginia would not have split and remained one Virginia. Its a pretty huge thing to not even footnote. Just sayin'.
reply
Pre watch comment: If this doesnt have a huge West Virginia explanation here imma be dissapointed.
Edit: I am dissapointed. IDGAF if you just ignored the Golden Goose here, but a video like yours should not be made without mentioning the complexities in Virginia during the Civil War. If not for the Civil War, Virginia would not have split and remained one Virginia. Its a pretty huge thing to not even footnote. Just sayin'.
reply
cplassen2138
Interesting how you left out Tennessee voted down secession by a wide margin, only to MAGICALLY vote for it 8 months later under a governor who fled the state shortly thereafter.
Edit: There's a reason Tennessee named a county Union County and Lincoln Memorial University are located there.
Some might think there was a reason every battle fought in the state was a decisive loss for the Confederates.
reply
Interesting how you left out Tennessee voted down secession by a wide margin, only to MAGICALLY vote for it 8 months later under a governor who fled the state shortly thereafter.
Edit: There's a reason Tennessee named a county Union County and Lincoln Memorial University are located there.
Some might think there was a reason every battle fought in the state was a decisive loss for the Confederates.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
