Civil War Minutes: The Union (Vol. 1) | Full Feature Documentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лют 2013
- Click here: geni.us/JansonMediaYT to subscribe to Janson Media and get notified for more videos! Janson Media uploads on the daily to stay tuned for more videos of your interest!
Civil War Minutes: Confederate reveals little know facts and stories about major Confederate players in the Civil War. Viewers will discover why few photographs exist of General Robert E. Lee and get an eyewitness account of J.E.B. Stuart's death.
Volume I
Though people often remember the generals and commanders from a major war, its outcome also depends largely on the nameless soldiers in the front lines. Illuminating little known history, Civil War Minutes: Confederate Volume I features rarely told stories of both the famous and average Confederate soldiers in the Civil War.
In the film, you will learn about many aspects of the Confederate soldier's life. See the canteen, knife and sewing kit he carried, the implements of war he used, the musket he fired, the battle flag he waved and his personal story from the letters he wrote to home and the entries made in his diary. Also get an eyewitness view of the battle at Gettysburg through a Confederate After Action Report. - Розваги
thank you for the great video!...I love it
The most interesting and informative civil war documentary I've ever seen
Outstanding work; well done everybody involved and thank you very much.👍
Great video. Thanks for posting!
The best civil war video iv ever seen. So much history packed in this video 👍
All the stuff in this video looks like it belongs in a museum.
TheCjcalioso or devoured in a garbage truck
TheCjcalioso Thanks for watching! Subscribe for more high quality videos from Janson Media! bit.ly/JansonUA-cam
Museums have the leftovers. The juicy stuff belongs to private collectors. And I love museums!
-edit: A lot of this stuff is already in museums. I used to live 30 miles outside of Gettysburg. They have plenty of museums and they’re all full. I loved going as a kid.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." James Madison
Very well done. Thank you!~
This is a well crafted insite into the Civil War. It is full of detailed information and construction with the care cleary showing the knowledge of people who love their subject.
I loved the detail of this programs full of insights into the life and war of soldiers from the American Civil War.
More please!!!!!!!!
Awesome historical information of the fine details; almost like history from the point of view of those who were there. I find it fascinating....
Outstanding, so many little things that are overlooked as meaning little.
Excellent! One of the best I've seen.
I'm Native & black and I careless about the flag. I'm one of the very few who didn't care about that flag being out on the poles, wasn't bothering me. I'm also one of the few that will never go back to the Democratic party.
The Democrats have crippled the Negro population and have undone the amazing financial accomplishments that the they did on their own.
nobody cares
Jean Doe17 -glad to see someone who can think for yourself and havnt been brainwashed by the evil Democrats. Obama and the Clintons have left the party in ruins. Cant trust a word they say. I’m a mix of Native, Irish and Greek blood. My family is from the south-middle Tennessee parts mainly.
I think it’s bad they are trying to remove war memorials for southern soldiers and refuse to fly the stars&bars or even taking it out of state flags that have it as part of the overall design.
If we forget our history then we a bound to repeat it. Doesn’t make good sense.
Jean Doe
Good. We don't need you. And by the way, ingnorant douchebag, it was the Republicans that freed your ass
Great grandfather × 3 served with the 27th North Carolina was wounded at Sharpsburg (Anteitum) survived the war only to pass at age 41 in 1881 from complications from that wound, it never hearled properly from what I know I live walking distance from his property where his home was and my mom's childhood home in Fayetteville NC.
(1/2)
“The express authority of the people alone could give validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.” Madison, Federalist no. 43
Most excellent history lesson! Thank you.
My grandfather’s great grandfather was a true Connecticut Yankee. Ivy League, Congregationalist, and a proud Union veteran. He fought throughout the southern rebellion. He commanded artillery at Antietam and many other battles as a young officer. My gramps told us he saw his cannon cut rebels clean in half and never shed a tear for the rebels he killed. Gramps also said his great grandfather told him that Union troops did take scalps and ears as souvenirs. That it just wast Rebels who did that. That’s not in the papers or history books. “Cause it wouldn’t help the nation healing”.
The only good rebel is a dead rebel. This might give insight as to why ( quote ) On 1 May 1863 the Confederate States of America adopted a new national flag known as “the Stainless Banner,” said by its designer to represent the “supremacy of the white man”:
"...Our idea is simply to combine the present battle-flag with a pure white standard sheet; our Southern Cross, blue on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue union in the old United States flag, or the St. George’s cross in the British flag. As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause....". ( end quote )
@@gribwitch it also stands for surrender.
Better watch this before it gets banned too.
CaliPatriot88 Hehe! Nah, all the whiny liberals can do or will ever do is cry about it.
FastPonyGT The communists are coming! The communists are coming! Oh wait...
Cousin Itt I know you're excited, but settle down there junior! Just make sure you mop up after they're finisned, ok squirt?
CaliPatriot88 Sooner the better. Oh, and you're not a patriot if you support CSA terrorism. United We Stand!
Cousin Itt CSA = Communist States of Anarchy
Very informative ! A+
awsome video!!!!
Excellent video! Such fine detail, whether you supported the North or the South, very good to know our American history.
***** Thanks for watching! Subscribe for more high quality videos from Janson Media! bit.ly/JansonUA-cam
Whether you support North or South? Whether you support the USA or not? F@ck you!
@@cfarino1 whether you support Patriots or traitors!!
supporting racist scumbags?
"If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'" Thomas Jefferson
"You got your ass kicked, stop whining, you racist traitors."
- Abraham Lincoln
@@VideoHostSite USA is a "Constitutional REPUBLIC! REPUBLIC! REPUBLIC!
Hear that word "Constitution?"
The "Constitution Protocol" REQUIRES! 100% of ALL the States Representatives must CAST a "VOTE," on EACH BILL, one WAY or the other. And it takes
"63%" of the States Representatives casting the "VOTE," the "SAME WAY," on EACH "BILL" for it to become "LAW!".
Because the Fore Fathers wrote the CONSTITUTION and declared the USA A "REPUBLIC!"
The USA is NOT a "DEMOCRACY!" where "MAJORITY" RULES: Where 50 - 50 States Representatives VOTES, makes "LAW." And also without 100% of the States Representatives casting a "Vote." (Today with Proxy Voting. UnConstutional!.)
The Fore Fathers knew, that each States Representatives is elected by the number in Population, in their districts, to declare it warrant, for to have a elected Representative. For the FORE FATHERS KNEW that there would always some States, that would NEVER hold the MAJORITY in Population; therefore, these states will always be in the "MINORITY," in population, thus, in states Representatives. To BE FAIR...The Fore Fathers made the 100% of ALL STATES REPRESENTATIVES "VOTING RULE," with the 63% SAME VOTE RULE, for the States in "MINORITY" on population, thus, giving ALL States Representatives a "VOICE," in their USA GOVERNMENT.
And Abraham Lincoln and his Northern States Republican Representatives: Who held the "MAJORITY,," in States Representatives. Would "DOMINATE," and they would DECLARED "Bill's," into "LAW!" with the "MAJORITY VOTE!" of
50 - 50. TOTALLY IGNORING THE "CONSTITUTION!" and it's PROTOCOL.. And this had been going on since, Andrew Jacksons' days.
Abraham Lincoln and his Northern States REPUBLICAN Representatives MADE "LAWS," against Southern States "Commodities," by "MAJORITY," VOTE denying SOUTHERN STATES REPRESENTATIVES A "VOTE." . ...A. "VOICE!"'
And the Southern States in population were always in the "MINORITY!"
SO. YOU BELIEVE THE SOUTHERN STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE A "VOICE," IN THE USA GOVERNMENT?
What if the TABLES had been TURNED and the Southern STATES had held the MAJORITY in Population: Thus, The Majority in STATES REPRESENTATIVES? Southern States had "Dominated," not allowed the Northern States a "VOICE," in the USA GOVERNMENT.. I shan't say you'd be a might ANGRY as well.
So! How did Abraham Lincoln make the "Morill Tarriff Act," the call for 75,000 Troops, SUSPENDED the Constitution. Place the ENTIRE USA UNDER "NORTHERN MILITARY RULE," And DECLARE "Martial LAW," "Emancipation PROCLAMATION" and "Conscription Act," With ONLY the NORTHERN STATES REPRESENTATIVES VOITING ON THE BILLS, WITH "MAJORITY VOTE" of 50 - 50. Without the Southern States in the USA Houses of Representatives: When the "CONSTITUTION" "REQUIRES" 100% of ALL STATES REPRESENTATIVES to CAST a VOTE on EACH BILL...ONE WAY OR THE OTHER....
LINCOLN WAS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!"
@@savanahmclary4465Not any more. Fascist now.
@@VideoHostSite Oh how soon we forget? The first thing Abraham Lincoln did as President was to "SUSPENDED the Constitution" and place the ENTIRE USA UNDER his "MILITARY RULE!"
NORTH and SOUTH... Then he called
"Martial LAW."
So, Northerners just LOVED IT When they had "NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?" and MILITARY RULE?
While You were off playing Soldier for Lincoln: The UNION ARMY could DECLARE your family members at home, (in Michigan) of a CRIME and put your family members in JAIL, or EXECUTE THEM!
And your Family member was DENIED a Lawyer, a hearing, a judge, or a JURY of their piers?
THEY HAD NO RIGHTS....
ONLY WHAT THE UNION MILITARY ORDERED!
If your Family members was just jailed: Your had to PETITION the MILITARY FOR A HEARING. If the MILITARY did NOT warrant your family members a hearing.... And your family members were just left in jail to ROT.
And most likely the UNION ARMY DECLARED YOUR JAILED Family Members as POWS.... If they protested their incarceration, with out
"Due PROCESS of LAW." Or 4th 5th and 6th Amendment RIGHTS.
Many of NORTHERN FARMERS were JAILED, by the UNION ARMY. And were EXECUTED as POWs. Buried in MASS graves. And were DENIED "Due Process of LAW!"
UNION ARMY had total CONTROL of EVERY ONES LIFE.
This is why John Wilkes Boothe assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln allowed Boothes' Cousin (civilian) to be executed without any "Constitutional Rights."
@@VideoHostSite Is obviously ignorant.
excellent vid.
Fascinating stuff !
Freedom has many fathers, if somebody tries to cut my freedom, I will fight as my father did and so will my sons!
macsporan
"...if somebody tries to cut my freedom, I will fight as my father did and so will my sons...".
Very right and noble. Relax though. You don't need to go that far, Staffan. Slavery has already been abolished !
@macsporan: You'll be reincarnated as gay.
Wish you all had suceeded in leaving.
What about the freedom of others that you robbed ???
Anyone know where this flag is today? My Great Grandfather was with the 48th NC.
Great grandfather × 3 served with the 27th North Carolina was wounded at Sharpsburg (Anteitum) survived the war only to pass at age 41 in 1881 from complications from that wound, it never hearled properly from what I know I live walking distance from his property where his home was and my mom's childhood home in Fayetteville NC.
Mine was in the 44th if you find anything out or know anything let me know
In the trash where it belongs😂😂 why would you want a losing flag,,,they got they azz kicked
GOD BLESS your G. Gradfather Dewey,
I hope he is resting in peace !!
@@Studtacular78 I suppose you would not want the flag at wake Island or fredricksburg or any other flag that was in a losing battle. It is respect for men that died in a cause they beleaved in. The common soldier union and confederate did what they did out of loyalty to there state and country but mostly as is today they died for the men left and right of them and that should be looked on with reverence. As a combat vet of 20 years I find your kind of thinking pathetic as a American. Serve in combat and I don't think you will have that opinion. If you have in glad you were not backing me up when the shit was flying
“The interiors of the ‘housewives’ were usually lavish & rich” Oh really. 😅😂😂 Why am I like this.
Great video
"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
Graham Taylor
LOL! Why the EP TWO YEARS INTO THE WAR???? As a war measure obviously. The Congress passed a resolution in 1861 stating they were NOT fighting a war to end slavery - indeed slavery still existed in several states that remained in the union.
Also, the Lincoln Administration got the Corwin Amendment passed by the Northern dominated Congress after the Southern delegation had left and got it ratified by 3 states. The Corwin Amendment would have enshrined slavery in the constitution and made it IRREVOCABLE. All the Southern states had to do was agree to it and come back and slavery would have been protected forever. So if slavery were really the reason they seceded, why would this not have addressed their concerns?
The obvious answer is that slavery is not what they had seceded over in the first place.
Graham Taylor The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. Slaves in states loyal to the Union were not freed. It was a political and military move on Lincoln's part, to prevent England from supporting the Confederacy and to get blacks to join the northern armies, which northern people were tired of sending their boys into. There were protests in the north against the draft and against the war itself. Shelby Foote, "The Civil War", three volumes.
Don’t you be speaking truth now.
These facts are often ignored in most history books. Because to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands died over revenue and taxes can't be morally justified.
The south fought hard, killing many thousands more than the north. despite being outgunned by many thousands. Much respect!
lol, "this side of Nazism" Man that argument is so used up and anyone knows deep down inside that it's just bull shit. Confederates NEVER intended to annihilate an entire populace (like the Nazi's did) they just enslaved them. Was it wrong? Yep!! . . . Is the south the only ones who were guilty of this? Fuck No they weren't!! Can you name ANYONE else who was NOT guilty of this, including blacks themselves??? Now ask yourself, did the south TRULY deserve to be invaded for this (at a time that all of this was legal), from people who had JUST AS MUCH dirt on their hands? . . . Did the south have just cause for defending themselves? You damn RIGHT they did! This issue definitely went way beyond slavery. Again, no one disputes that slavery was wrong, needed to come to an end, and should have never happened in the first place. Even the union army respected the confederate's army, bravery, and persistence at that time. It's obvious in the many documented comments of that era, including the ones from Grant himself.
outnumbered by not outfought,fighting the looters and pillagers and chicken thieves
good points mansfield
Sid Mansfield - "Much respect" ??? Respect.... for killing those noble Union soldiers and sailors who were fighting to end slavery ? You're insane. And every bit a racist piece of shit as the Confederates were. The point is that any decent SELF RESPECTING civilisation would never have tolerated slavery in the first place. Let alone proudly start a war over it in the name of their "rights".
Very interesting video. Thank you.
Good Video
Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).
THEIR WERE 4 PEACE CONFRENCES BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR AND 3 ATTEMPTS IN CONGRESS TO AVOID
THE CIVIL WAR!! ALL OF THEM FAILED OVER THE ADBOLITION OF SLAVERY!!
LINCOLN AND SEWARD HAD ONLY ONE PEACE CONFRENCE WITH SOUTHERN REPS TO END THE CIVIL WAR,
HE OFFERED FULL REINSTATEMENT AND $400 MILLION TO PURCHASE THE SLAVES!!
THE SOUTHERN REPS OF JEFFERSON DAVIS ACCEPTED ALL THE TERM EXCEPT THEY INSISTED ON KEEPING SLAVERY, SO THE WAR CONTINUED!!
No soldier on either side gave a damn about slaves! To Yankee soldier was fighting to save or preserve the union. To the Southern soldier was fighting for something much easier to understand. A Southern soldier was ask once why what are you fighting for Johnny Reb? I'm fighting cause your down here!
brt 123
Yeah but that means nothing when it comes to the political causes of the war. The confederate states seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. They formed a coalition to protect slavery. that doesn't mean that they didn't lie to the average working class man to have them think it was about 'the rights.'
if by rights they meant 'right to own and expand slaves and slavery' then yes, it was about rights
YES!!! thank You @brt123
The war was about slavery there is no getting around it
Clem Cornpone it wasn't illegal under the Constitution federal government violate the constitution Lincoln is nothing but a war criminal under the Constitution and you sir are just a f****** idiot good day
Thank you !!
This is kick ass. I'm much obliged.
1/2
"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
So because a government based on preserving the institution of slavery was better suited to the South they are to be honored? Lmao... 😒
FTW
USA #1
Thanks to Republicans
"When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience. Congress would probably exercise long patience before they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately required it, they would use that recurrence."
-- Thomas Jefferson
The fact that it's a Virginian saying that is pretty damning for the Confederacy.
"This war is not about Slavery." Robert E. Lee
Yeah, but he lost and now there are no slaves. So........ maybe he was wrong ?
Oh yes it was!
@@jamessimon1956 No, the war was about the North using war to compel the South to not leave the Union. Lincoln wouldn't lose half the country during his watch. He even said before the outbreak that the north wouldn't interfere with the industry of slavery where it exist. Later in the war, he made the emancipation proclamation to give the North a cause and a morale boost.
@@Rex-gu1bu I agree that for the north, the war was not about slavery. But the war was 100 % about slavery for the south. It sucks. But white people going to white people. I am one, I know how we are.
@@jamessimon1956 The North forced the war though, so it was never about slavery. It was about maintaining the union. Government agents flood rooms talking about the civil war and make childish comments trying to get us heated. Don't fall for it. The North really had little sympathy for slaves, just was not their industry. The majority of the nation was racial, that was the world.
Most excellent history of the Civil War, thank"s so much. God Bless America & God Bless The U.S.A.
wh- my guy.
Great vid.
I really appreciate this.
"the real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North are in the injust taxation and expenditure 0f the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic into a national sectional despotism." Charleston Mercury 2 days before the 1860 election.
Where are you getting that quote from? I can't find it anywhere on the internet.
Kevin Luna
I provided the source. Its from the Charleston Mercury.
hungarygator I didn't ask for the source. I asked where you got the quote from. Or are you saying that you have the 150 year old original newspaper?
Kevin Luna "If we have but the wisdom to keep our Confederation one of pro-slave republics exclusively, and not to mix it of states having different domestic institutions and antagonistic views. No more of 'the irrepressible conflict,' and hands off with the North, is clearly our policy." Charleston Mercury April 5 1861. The paper was pro south, owned by a man with 2 plantations and 200 slaves. It would argue anything as long as it was anti North. It was however not a part of the Confederate government. It is clear what they were after.
***** Yes, the perpetuation of slavery.
“To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can only exist by the sword?" Alexander Hamilton
Excellent series...
'Jacksons..."Foot Calvary" ' .... self titled moniker that the only unit in the CSA named after a person....or any unit for that matter...one of the best 'up close & personal' iterations of that struggle ever presented...odd that PBS didn't pick it up or the History Channel...maybe they did don't know...but a 'must see' for those interested.
Awesome documentary
What a lie, Adams expressly stated the opposite:
"In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence." JQ Adams
This was outstanding
Such a well done feature❤
“Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro and until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up and down dale. As to secession being rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing. Massachusetts now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede again and again.” Charles Dickens.
My ancestor was killed at the Battle of Sharpsburg 17 Sep 1862 while working his batteries against Federal troops. He died on the field of honor for God, family, home, the Commonwealth of Virginia and States Rights. The south had every right to secede under the Constitution and did so. Lincoln armed and invaded. His surrogates pillaged, raped, burned and destroyed everything of consequence south of the Mason Dixon. For this barbarism Lincoln has been hailed as a hero? for the last 150 years the Confederate Battle flag flies in the face of ignorance and stands tall as a symbol of resistance to oppression and an overbearing federal government. It shall never fade away. Deo Vindice!
+macsporan . . . lol, you're funny as hell. Who the fuck are you calling losers punk boy?
Let's just go with your stupidity for a moment. You act like WE, (as in the people alive today) actually had enough to do with that time era to justify YOU pinpointing a winning or losing game on us. Well then, I guess it's actually YOU LOSER who didn't get off so damn easy then, now did you? The south killed MANY thousands more than YOURS did loser!!! You had more people, more guns, more canons. Yeah, the south lost the game, but definitely scored more points. Seems to me that you're the fucking loser. lol
you're right about that,your ancestor is a hero
"The triumph of the Confederacy would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of friends all over the civilized world. The American Civil War is destined to be a turning point for good or evil, of the course of human affairs." - English philosopher of liberty and freedom, John Stuart Mill
well said sir
absolutely correct
Excellent music!
This is an extraordinary documentary. Thank you very much for posting.
Not being an American it is a confusing subject "Civil War" to many of us historically outside of this conflict. First notion we are presented with is that it was a war to free slaves ( Federal viewpoint ) but Southern Confederacy viewpoint is of "State's Rights". The Draft riots of New York City (July 13, 1863 to July 16 1863 ) clearly appears to degenerate into a race riot which leaves 119 -120 dead & 2000 wounded with photographs of Afro-Americans hanging from street posts. Secondly there are Federal States who are sanctioned to practice slavery in the North ie.. Delarware,Maryland,Missouri, West Virginia & Kentucky. Like I have clearly stated I am not Amreican & find this conflict a confusion of ideology & would appreciate some clear & concise information regarding these issues.
I have tried to read previous posts & comments to understand the complexities involved but the issue is muddied by emotional responces for my understanding & clarification.
I am willing to concede my post may contain errors, as I am gathering information from various sources which at this time I have not confirmed as completely factual.
The Civil war was about slavery, but at first for the North it was not necessarily about the slave himself. Slavery effected the entire political and economic landscape as well as the social one. Even if the individual Northerner was not particularly fond of African Americans and had little care over the blacks themselves, slavery was still stymieing free labor and perverting white democracy in their eyes. And that some of the Southern areas where slavery was the weakest stayed in the Union, only shows the correlation between slavery and secession.
I recommend that if you are a beginner on the topic to pick up "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson.
Rundstedt1 thanks for the tip..
Missouri was invaded by greedy radical repubs Union troops and we did leave the union by Gov. Fox in 1861. The slavery issue did not come to surface until the 1863 proc. by linclon, but that was only for the rebel states. the last state to give slaves freedom was New Jersey in1865. remember the victors write the history, but there is much they ignore or leave out, There are 2 sides to every story. I suggest you do your own investigation and consider the source of the information
I don't know what do you think do you believe that the Confederate flag is not only a symbol of heritage but also a symbol of protest against the northern states?
It fits with Hamilton's showing that force was not to be used against a state. The union was in all respects VOLUNTARY.
a great series on civil war knives at the begining.
When people say "slavery" they imply that it was a moral question. Well, back in the day, the only people who were concerned with slavery as a moral question were the abolitionists, who were a distinct minority. To the Northern government and to the South it was an economic question. It was the means by which profit was made on Southern plantations. Wage-slavery was the means by which profit was made in the Northern factories. The Northern workers may have been "free" to choose their master, but they were still working 14-16 hour days for a pittance in airless factories, or mines or mills, under dangerous conditions with no rights to legally change anything. It was a matter of economic competition of the North with the South, and therefore of political power, linked to the means of harnessing a working class to produce profits. When Reconstruction was begun, the new plantation owners, usually Northerners, of Southern plantations had no intention of letting the blacks leave the plantations. They were forced to continue working on them, for a pittance, etc. No alternative allowed.
Karen Bartlett
I see you're still posting made up Neo-confederate lies. Free labor was FREE, they could move, they could change their condition and most did. They also could legally change things as they had the vote.
You are disgusting, to try and equate free labor with chattel slavery the way you do. Men women and children died every day, were murdered, raped beaten whipped in the South, and those people had absolutely NO CHOICE as their condition. even if they tried to leave they were captured brought back in chains and often then maimed to hobble their future efforts at freedom. Millions of poor free workers will move west, will improve their conditions, will use the political process to better their situations. When while the slaves were voiceless beasts of burden. You are an incredibly ignorant to make such a piece of shit heartless argument. It discredits itself and you make yourself look like an ass. Good work, you only show your true nature.And Slavery was also a moral question and for more than just the abolitionists.
"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." - The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
.
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Brooks D. Simpson
.
Sir, Your hatred has made you ill.
Karen Bartlett
What I 'hate,' if one could use that word in this regard, is the anti-historical bullshit spouted by Neo-confederates like you, it is the same type of anti-intellectualism that holocaust deniers use, and just as dishonest and as discredited. It is the 'creationist' form of US history and just as baseless.
Karen Bartlett Nevermind the little runt Runstedt. He doesn't give a rat's ass for blacks ... not yesterday, not today or ever. Anyone can clearly see he's just a far left commited neo-Commie hack who hates conservatives and Christians.
" If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union. So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." - Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862
hungarygator : Slavery was the BIGGEST industry of the South. The value of all the slaves was much greater than the value of all cotton, tobacco, and other crops combined.
In 1860, the Southern plantation owners owed a billion dollar$ to New York City banks and NYC markets took 40% of the profits from the cotton and tobacco industries. A successful rebellion would mean that the Southern plantation owners would not have to pay their debts like their grandfathers in 1776.
I think that rakish fullness of the skirt on the jacket was so that the general could sit on his horse without crushing the jacket
Beginning in late 1862 James Phelan, Joseph Bradford and Reuben Davis, wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents the war was for the defense of slavery. (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American pp 479-480). They called those making the claim demagogues. Cooper notes that when 2 Northerners visited Davis during the war, Davis insisted that "the Confederates were not battling over slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue." (Jefferson Davis, American pp 524)
In late 1862 it was in the confederacy's best interest to claim that the war wasn't in defense of slavery because by late 1862 the confederacy needed foreign countries like France and Britain to enter the war on their side, which would have been impossible if France and Britain believed that by fighting for the confederacy they were defending slavery. Before the war, the south didn't think it would need any help defeating the Yankees, so it had no reservations about admitting that secession and the upcoming war were all about defending slavery.
Kevin Luna
Except Davis and others had said so all along - not just in late 1862. Also, Davis empowered his ambassador with plenipoteniary powers to agree to treaties that would abolish slavery. Your obsession with me is rather comical Kaybee/RonPaulHatesBlacks.
hungarygator No, Davis said at the beginning of the war that it was about slavery.
"A great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States. In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented form about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced"
-- Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, April 29, 1861
Kevin Luna
Davis made it quite clear that it was not about slavery. How many times do you want to go back and forth with this? We've already done so at least 20 times. You must be bored to try to get this same thread going with me again after we've been down this road so many times already.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis
+hungarygator You idiot read history before you write
“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.” Times of London September 1862:
Graham Taylor
au contraire. Had they allowed them to depart those states would have no longer enjoyed the protections of the fugitive slave clause in the US Constitution since they would have been a foreign country. Any slave who stepped over the 1500 mile border would instantly be free. Slavery would have collapsed very quickly without bloodshed - as it did in Brazil when this happened.
hungarygator
If you truly believe that, then you hadn't read the text of the Confederate constitution. It was worded with the explicit aim of entrenching slavery and preventing it from being abolished.
How then, do you reconcile this with your assertion that slavery would have "collapsed very quickly" if they had departed ?
.......au contraire ?
Had the civil war not been fought in 1861. It would have boiled over to an outright shooting war in the 1960's. Most of us can remember the race riots of the 60's.
Von Clausewitz said " war is an instrument of political will. It must be waged until one side or the other recognizes their defeat, otherwise it will rekindle itself."
Lenny K.
Ref: "On war" by General Carl Von Clausewitz
Graham Taylor
Wrong Had they left, they would not have had the protection of the fugitive slave clause in the constitution thus any slave who crossed the border would be instantly free...leading to the rapid collapse of slavery. Lincoln himself explicitly pointed this out and it was widely understood by all parties.
Graham Taylor
The Confederate constitution did not require any state to have or to ban slavery. Yes, states which did not have slavery COULD join the CSA or a state within it could ban slavery. There was no prohibition against that.
"For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of slavery is thrown to the winds. There is hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse provided only that the seceding states re-enter the Union.....Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave!" London Quarterly Review 1862
The British were being hypocritical on this issue. Only relatively recently up to that point, had slavery been abolished in Britain ITSELF - thanks chiefly to the campaigning efforts of William Wilberforce, whose efforts had resulted in the passing in that country of The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
Newspaper and magazine comments at that time sounded to me like they were still bitter that they themselves could no longer benefit financially from slavery, and fondly wished that they still had the legal power to exploit their former slaves. In fact, the capitalist barons of England made sure that THEIR OWN oppressed workers ( i.e. white, free men ) had no opportunity to improve their lot. Until that is, trade unionism was born and grew in strength, much later.
Given this, I'm surprised there hadn't been a ( second ) Civil War in England too !
Graham Taylor False. Britain passed legislation to abolish slavery in 1832 and had abolished it throughout the British Empire by 1838. That was over 20 years earlier. The Royal Navy did more than any other organization on earth to halt the slave trade. Your theories are without merit here. Britain was firmly anti-slavery by 1861 - but they were also very good at spotting Northern hypocrisy on the issue.
hungarygator
You're repeating what I said. (Quote) ; "Only RELATIVELY RECENTLY up to THAT POINT, had slavery been abolished in Britain ITSELF -....".
.....I had stated that slavery had been abolished in Britain via the anti-slavery legislation. We differed only on the year of the actual legislation being introduced and ratified ( in 1833, according to Wikipedia ). You claimed it was in 1832. We're splitting hairs here.
We disagree on who was being the more hypocritical at the time. But do you doubt that many or most, capitalists were nostalgic for a return to the days when they could treat their subjects however they wanted ? I bet they were.
Oddly enough, from the ferocity with which you defend the Southern / capitalist position in your posts, with not a word of sympathy and empathy with the oppressed blacks - one would be inclined to suspect your moral values. How about displaying some humanity ?
Graham Taylor
Secession meant the rapid end of slavery as everybody understood. There's no way they could have prevented people from crossing a 2,000 mile border and once they crossed they'd be in a different country which owed no protection to return such "property" in persons. Your attempt to make a subtle ad hominem argument here fails.
I always thought a Toothpick was a Bowie, so it's good to learn the truth.
Excellent video, by the way
You only continue to prove me correct and live up to my analogy.
What's more interesting than the Civil War is the psychology behind it. Consider the fact that at it's apex, only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves. It seems unlikely a whole nation could be brought to war over the interests of literally the 1% yet our current political landscape as well as history itself is replete with such examples.
Chris Hedges wrote the seminal book on this subject called War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. It examines the almost narcotic compulsion towards nihilism, where the very act of warfare becomes it's own raison d'être. The fetishizing of the Civil War in shows like this clearly demonstrates that it's war itself that defines us, not the political issues behind the conflict.
Michael RedCrow Actually, during Reconstruction the federal government protected the rights of blacks remarkably well. This was one of the few bright spots of Grant's presidency. Lots of people of African descent were elected to office. P.B.S. Pinchback was elected Governor of Louisiana. Blanche Bruce, a former slave, was elected US Senator from Mississippi. Joseph Rainey, also a former slave, was elected US Representative from South Carolina. And there were countless others elected to federal, state, and local offices. It was only after the federal troops were removed from the south by President Hayes in 1877 that blacks began having their rights taken away.
Michael RedCrow Read your comment, then read my comment.
Michael RedCrow Yes, the federal government stood by and let blacks get elected to federal office. THE HORROR. Fuck you.
Michael RedCrow I didn't misunderstand anything. It's clear that you had no clue whatsoever that the federal government helped over 1,000 black people win public office by guaranteeing free, fair elections in the south. You were obviously trying to blame the Lincoln administration and his heirs for the "100 years of blatant oppression until the Civil Rights Era of the 1960's". Unfortunately, you can't do it. Lincoln's generation freed the slaves and protected them. The following generation forsaked them. I don't know how you can call the elevation of over 1,000 blacks to public office, just a few years after blacks were enslaved, a failure. You must be on drugs or something. Or your hatred of the North and/or the federal government has rendered you psychotic.
Michael RedCrow
*" It's one thing to ride a moral and fairytale high horse, its quite another to stay atop it when faced with actual historical events which show the other side of the coin to the happy land painting you described to."* Uhhh...this applies to you, not to me. You said the federal government failed to help and protect ex-slaves, I explained why you're wrong, and yet, inexplicably, you continue to push the idea that the federal government failed to protect ex-slaves. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're a conservative southern christian.
Long live the rebels!!!
ozoffroader fuck you racist dumbasses
joe kiva there goes the uneducated and uncontrolled mouth off in the comments :p
Southern Pride let's say for instance you were an educated not - mouthing off person, let's say you were a scholar with good intentions that all can agree with and also from the south, like Faulkner for instance. Would you be able to vouch that the person who made the statement made by ozoffroader 'long live the rebs' is not a): a troll b): a racist c): a nazi
??
Now please help me understand, let's say you are not any of those three things, here's the question for you:: are you the type of person who on occasion says 'long live the rebels'?
See, I asked bc if that's the case, it has been proven, by scholars and Faulkner among them, that only racists believe that the rebs should be memorialized in that way, see the rebs were racists.
I too am from the south and a scholar and not-mouthing off.
@@southernpride2311 but hes not wrong the reason that the south decided to split was purely out of racism and greed
@@myemailaccount3046 I wrote the comment to state that you were commenting like you just lost a game on COD and attempting to RIP the dude who beat ya.
And by all means yeah, slavery was cause/role in the war. But this war was not for slavery in a whole. It was economic freedom. Industry vs agriculture. Took the racist Lincoln himself to proclaim freedom to those slaves in existing rebious states but discluded thos in the border states. A fourth of the union army left because of his proclamation as well!
Yes they do
OUTSTANDING !!..superb history lesson.. I'm off to eBay to bid a copy of "Confederate Veteran"..
you are not committing a crime of treason when you don't belong to the union, the csa was not govern by the laws of the union, plus your union soldiers you are so proud of killed slaves and so did the citizens of the north because they had to compete with them for jobs and plus they blamed them for the war, the north ain't do pretty after all huh? you ever heard the term carpet baggers? the southern soldier protected the south land from these because the tyrannis government wanted to impose another tax on the people of the south ....what happens when you don't pay your taxes ask Robert e Lee who used to own Arlington, they seized it for these new taxes that's what they wanted the southern people to lose their farm land cuz the government promised theses carpet baggers land to industrialize, no one thinks of the civilian soldier who did not own slaves, they fought for their land, family, Amma states rights, to stop the burning and plunder of the northern mercenary look at Fredericksburg, va and Atlanta and all the towns between Atlanta to Savannah ga just a few examples, slavery wasn't all bad, they got a better I opportunity in life to get out of poverty stricken lands and not all owners were bad to slaves some fought along side their white family, some were treaTed as family, welfare is slavery, it keeps you poor and limits you and piles you on top of each other in government housing. ...restricting you don't you get it. ...i stand for my blood line i stand confederate strong
You're an idiot. Every officer swore an oath to protect the Constitution. When they broke that oath, and fired on US troops, they committed treason. They all should have been hung.
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war." Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
Michael RedCrow
Of course you also missed the days in your history class that Reconstruction was covered, its Civil rights efforts, and why it didn't succeed in it's objectives. I'll give you a hint, it had to do with race and those most responsible were the same conservatives that had split the Union to protect slavery.
Oh and by the way, Lincoln did, in his last speech open the door to further debate on black suffrage and blacks will be given the vote thanks to amendments made possible only because of the war.
And you also seem to forget that the war was about slavery, not social equality for blacks. That issue will arise really only during the war, and thanks to the conservatives, again mainly in the South, it will take another 100 years after the collapse of Reconstruction for it to begin to be addressed again as fully as it was during the Reconstruction period.
And finally, yes, freedom to the freedmen did matter, even if it was an imperfect freedom. How little you seem to know of what being an actual slave meant.
And BTW, excuse my tone, it may not seem like it, but I'm actually trying to be nice here. I Understand your frustration and I recognize that your heart in in the right place, but what is desired and what was, at that particular time possible, due to social, economic and legal reasons, are two different things. Yeah we'd all like it if the war would have solved all past centuries problems that accumulated over race and slavery, but that's not realistic. Yes things could have worked out better, particularly if not for the intransigence of the white conservatives, mostly in the South, even if only because it was mostly in the South that Reconstruction altered the social structure. Alternatively it could also have worked out worse.
Michael RedCrow
So you missed the Civil Rights acts of 1866, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments among other items? And your history is faulty, the North certainly was no panacea but it was a far cry form the institutional segregation in the South. The North did move to integrate schools, did by the 1880s end interracial marriage laws ect... The south was FORCED to end them by the courts in 1967.
And you want me to list the Southern riots in the Reconstruction era where Southern white conservatives attacked black meetings? Yes the Civil Rights era effected the North also, but how you ignore the equal yet different violence that was happening in the South perpetrated by white southerners.
And sorry, but as demonstrated virtually every historian of the era disagrees with you. And it was the South that acted, it was only the North that reacted.
And then the old and sorry "history written by the victor" saying which is just a silly platitude. So are we to believe that there was no holocaust because the allies won WWII and wrote the history? By that metric there is no history and it makes everything false. Your conspiracy argument has no merit. Present your evidence to the academic world, it will be judged on its merits as is the academic process. Meanwhile that process has shown that the war was caused by and about slavery and the South admitted that over and over again. It was NOT about any made up 'taxes' there were not even any federal taxes and the only form of 'economic control' involved the economics of slave holding.
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Brooks Simpson
Try reading an actual book on the topic.
Michael RedCrow
Of course the Civil War was about slavery, the South itself stated as such over and over again.
"I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to you the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through you, to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.… What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."
Henry L, Benning, Commissioner from Georgia - "Address Delivered Before the Virginia state Convention. February 18, 1861
So as one Southern Historian has stated:
"Slavery is the major cause of the Civil War. Anyone that denies that is a bad student of history."
- James I. Robertson in "Education week" "150 Years Later: Primary Sources, Technology Bring Civil War to Life" By Erik Robelen on April 12, 2011.
You only just made a fool of yourself.
Now your done.
Michael RedCrow
You are an ignorant troll and nothing more. You are full of shit and you know it. YES the South was a hotbed of racial intolerance. That riots occurred in the North is inconsequential. The fact is the urban population was in the north to be able to riot. In the South the white supremacists kept the blacks more under the boot and they were more a rural population.
You latch on to one inconsequential item and ignore the mass amounts of events that transpired in the South.
And you have presented NO evidence that the war was about anything but slavery, meanwhile I have presented concrete proof not only from the most eminent of historians but from the south itself.
Do you think the South was lying when they said for example like Mississippi that: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" Mississippi Statement of secession
You now only prove that you are nothing but an ignorant lying troll.
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
2/3
they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster
Yes you've already posted this and I already addressed it.
My position is that the Confederate flag is racist. Understood that the flag being an inanimate object cannot of itself be racist, but what the flag symbolizes is racism. The flag represents the founding political ideologies. As stated by the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition"
Each person who joined with Confederate forces understood this was the ideologies of the Confederate, and anyone who stood deadest against slavery would not have joined the Confederate Army. The lines were clear in just what the Confederates stood for. If by chance the lines were not clear, it certainly would become clear when each Confederate state seceded, citing slavery as one of the main reasons in its "Cause of Secession", thus causing the Civil War. sunsite.utk.edu.... The Confederates knew what was at stake when fighting the Civil War.
All too often when considering the symbolism and views of the Confederate flag, it is only considered from the perspective of Confederate soldiers, by their descendants, or sympathizers of the Confederate Cause,never considering how the flag is viewed by the people it has victimized and how it is viewed by their descendants. Freedom was the only cause that mattered to African Americans, in which the Confederates stood undeniably squarely against, regardless of any other cause they may have had, or what the flag was a symbol of in the past. It stood squarely against African Americans having their freedom, all going back to its original premise as stated by Alexander Stephens. This is what the flag represents.
It is also my position that the "misinformation" being put out about the Confederate flag comes from "The United Daughters of Dixie" in what is known as their " Lost Cause Agenda.
Most Confederate soldiers fought not to promote slavery but to defend their States from what they considered an oppressive and then invasive Federal Govt. The Flag was merely a symbol of their struggle meant to promote cohesiveness in what was basically an every State for itself attitude in 1861 . The North as winners both wrote and interpreted history to fit their agenda. To say the Flag represents racism is the result of the interpretation of that History in MY opinion of course. And please note that I am not a Southerner .
disgustedvet it is in fact a southern started myth that the war was about states rights to have a more informed opinion about it I would suggest u read what the southerners actually wrote at the time of the war u will see repeated references to "our domestic institutions" being interfered with as a primary cause of the war if u need more evidence look at the anti Lincoln propaganda during the campaign after the war southerners having lost need a more honorable reason for the glorious cause than a fight for slavery hence states rights
dj johnson Sir I suggest you read the time life series letters from the civil war. If it was all about slavery then how did they get a white kid from Maine to join the Army?
why r u surprised a kid from maine fought for csa kids from Alabama fought for the union I am sure fact of the matter is then like now men fought more for the man beside them than for any flag but I will say again read what politicians and generals wrote AT THE TIME and it is undeniable what caused the war
dj johnson I didn't say he fought for the CSA, the kid from Maine. You are way oversimplifying this discussion. There was a very narrow political tightrope the two governments walked. Outside of the US the Union hammered home the war was about Slavery. Inside the US they hammered home it was about preserving the union. Brilliant actually. There is no way they could have gotten a white kid from Ohio to leave his farm to march south and possibly die a horrible death to save a black man. That is a fact. Don't apply politics of today to the past. Down south they told the kids from the mountains of Virginia that he had to defend the freedom of the states. You would have never gotten that poor young man to leave his place to protect the assets of a large plantation owner. So you see there is no one big cause it was very, very complicated. I mention the series of books because it is mostly front line soldier's letters. You will be interested to find why he thought he was there. Very good reading.
I Thankyou Sir.
Can you please do a vid on HORSES !
mans best friend and clearly sufferred equally WITH these brave souls.
Wish there was more civil war minutes!!!!!!...or civil war digital digest
Alfred scales law office in NC is just about 1000 yards up my family road at the top of the main Rd 311.. it's kept up too and looks nice
In Rockingham county, and law office prior to his governorship and southern war service
Sad, but informative. It all "happened".
The interior of my house wife isn't so extravagant 😆
(1/3)
If you're talking about the Hartford conventions, neither he nor they advocated unilateral secession.
"After deliberating for three weeks, the Hartford Convention's final demands were, in fact, quite moderate. The Convention asked for the federal government to supply financial aid to help New England's trade economy, and for a new Constitutional amendment which required a two-thirds majority, rather than a simple 51% majority, in order for embargoes to be imposed or war to be declared.
"But it again has been as has been show."
You're getting flustered and just senseless .... LOL
(4/7)
There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff.
3/3
Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington & Hamilton to Clinton & Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each & every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."
Imagine walking barefoot from three am to nightfall
Rip, gentlemen!
Them guys were tough as hell. Barefoot beast mode
@@bradmoberly6164 these men found something they were willing to die for and I am so proud of them
That boy is a good drummer
(5/7)
There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious reasons).
An excellent series of films, well presented and very informative.
If only the right side had won, it would be such a different and better world
He is one man. His opinions AFTER THE FACT are irrelevant. What the parties actually agreed to is what is directly relevant here.
at 2:10 the bars and stars are upside down, I see this a lot.
In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that "the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter."
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." --Charles Dickens, 1862
Quote mine.... You miss the part where he says:
"It surely does not follow from the fact, of the States or rather people embodied in them, having as parties to the compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the Compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest, and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether, from a compact with the rest" James Madison
My great-great grandfather fought with the 42nd Alabama infantry
The Founders said they had a natural right to SECEDE. They didn't use the word at the time because...that term was not used at the time - its as simple as that. The natural right of a sovereign community to leave had not changed in the three intervening generations.
(8/8)
"The old Articles of Confederation were entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual."
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union" James Buchanan
So if you and I agree to a contract and then I say the terms are different AFTER we've agreed, does this make the terms different?
One party may not unilaterally alter a contract.
The Morrill Tariff passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, before Lincoln's election and before any state had seceded. It passed the U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration. (Abe vigorously lobbied for the bill, telling a Pittsburgh, Pa. audience two weeks before his inauguration that no other issue - none - was more important.)
"The Union (Vol. 1)" Did the videos get mixed up?
Correct. They would have said it in plain language had they intended it as you suggest.