Pastor Doug Wilson reacts to Stephen Colbert's sloppy history of the American Civil War--if that's what you want to call it. Doug Reacts is presented by Canon Press.
Does anyone remember the episode of the Simpsons when Apu becomes an American citizen? He is asked the exact same question. His answer was too long and accurate for the questioner, who cut him off and said "Just say slavery." He responds "Slavery it is sir!" I am surprised another Simpsons predicting politics meme hasn't gone viral after this.
Colbert faking a southern accent? Does Doug know Colbert is from South Carolina? Colbert wasn't faking a southern accent. Chances are good Doug doesn't recognize an authentic southern accent. Doug is going to quote a confederate general to justify the cause of the Civil war? The longer he goes on, the less tethered to reality he gets. He completely misrepresents general Grant.
Being from an area doesn’t mean you have the accent. He doesn’t live there anymore, and hasn’t for a long time. He did it poorly. I say this as someone who grew up in the deep south…have no accent…and can do multiple dialects. You don’t know what you’re talking about. And Doug understands the Civil War better than you. It’s literally one of his personal interests. Pretending to assess his level of understanding based on a single video is absurd. Pretending I should take your word for it when you’ve never created a video or demonstrated ANY knowledge…is even more absurd. 🤷🏻♂️ “Hold up, guys, manager 0175 is claiming stuff on the internet. This guy knows things.”
@winstonsol8713 you are responding to the OP not the person who made the quote. Still haven't figured out YT yet? Also nice of you to attempt to counter one point and not the other.... almost as if you have no counter for the obvious and more important point just for the lesser one about comedy.
"Shall the states determine their own parameters or their own rights." Rights to do *what*, precisely? What rights were the states fighting to preserve?
It was the Federalists vs Anti-Federalist debate come to a head and going hot. Who was to be the primary source of political power, the People and the States or the Federal government.
Wars can have multiple causes and of differing types. Of course, the root cause was sin, but there are some more immediate causes. One could argue the formal cause was wether states could leave the union. Why did the south want to leave? It was because of cultural and economic clashes along with the growing demographics of the north which made some think the south's opportunity to secede was closing. Why did the two sides have cashing cultures? Partially due to climate and the different groups of initial settlers. Some historians have said the American Civil War mirrors the English Civil War. However, the two sides built their economies differently, one on the free market and the other on free labor. I think one could thus argue that slavery was the material cause of the war. Of course, a lot of people just fought for their home. People are complicated and so are groups of people. Without drawing a moral equivalence, there were good and bad things about both sides. Personally, I believe the war was God's judgment on the nation and I pray for revival, repentance, and reconciliation in the hope we don't have to go through another one. Love ya'll.
Fun history fact: there used to be more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North prior to the Civil War. The numbers changed when the northern abolitionists became so violent in their attacks on the South as a whole that it became anti-southern to associate with abolitionism as a whole.
Colbert and his audience should know that the cause of the Civil War was secession. Had the southern states not seceded there would have been no civil war. Even before he was elected Lincoln stated that as President he had no authority and no intention to end slavery anywhere it was legal. With the war begun, with sweeping war powers that no President has enjoyed before or since including martial law and suspension of the Bill of Rights, Lincoln said the following..... "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." I think he believed what he said but still he had to say it because slavery was legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and in the District of Columbia. West Virginia was admitted to the Union AS A SLAVE STATE in June of 1863. Had Lincoln unilaterally tried to abolish slavery by Presidential fiat in 1862 it would have made Maryland and Kentucky in essence enemy territory. Lincoln was an abolitionist and hated slavery. He was also a racist and white supremacist as was almost everybody in the United States. The ever pragmatic Lincoln embraced the concept of colonization and was a member of the American Colonization Society. He believed that the black race belonged somewhere else and not in North America. His Emancipation Proclamation was an act of war and was very conditional. It only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy not under the control of Union forces. So in effect it freed few slaves.
Abraham Lincoln was absolutely NOT an abolitionist until well after the war had commenced and he had taken office. In fact, Lincoln was nominated over Seward precisely because he was not an abolitionist. Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery not freeing slaves held in bondage in 1861, He held this position until 1863.
You bring up a very good negotiation suggestion. Flames will likely be thrown at me, but the Southern plantation owners knew their economic model wasn't sustainable without very cheap labor (remember, haters- there was a cost, however small compared to wages, to feed, clothe, and house workers). Industrial advances and cheaper sources of cotton to the UK cotton mills occurring by the year, the slave model would have collapsed in a decade. I'm not writing this to defend slavery, but to point out the economic and financial reasons for Southern leaders to come to the negotiating table existed.
Salute to the courage of a man under all sorts of pressure, and gaining popular notice, who isn't afraid to tell the truth no matter what attacks will come at him. I can't stand Nikki, but this must be said. To expand on the last point pastor Wilson makes, the reason they're so interested to ask gotcha questions about the "Civil War," when absolutely nobody wants to bring slavery back, is because the real issue still matters. If it didn't matter, then they wouldn't worry about it. As long as they can hammer slavery, the issues of central power can't be fixed. If you back down and accept that everything was slavery, and there was no other central issue, then you accept the out of control power of DC. Because if that wasn't a real issue, and everything was just slavery, then everyone must have always thought the central government really had such grandiose powers. You have to have the courage to refuse to reduce everything to slavery, or you display submission and an inability to express the main issues of the war that have never gone away. You are unable to logically and effectively resist and and are a collaborator of the deep state. If you want to change anything on any legal basis, not denying we need religious revival, then it absolutely requires having the courage to repudiate the results of the war and refuse to accept the reduction to slavery no matter how much grief it causes you.
So if the "deep state" opposes you enslaving people who hadn't agreed to become so, that is a more pertinent issue than the fact that, I don't know, you're enslaving people against their will?
The fact that Stephen Colbert, and many like him somehow think that it was good for 1 million Americans to die in order to free the slaves is actually very frightening. It makes me wonder about the Civil War two that he mentioned. Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights? It reminds me of John Brown. The North’s reaction to him was one of the main reasons the South felt like they had to secede. I am understanding that feeling better and better myself.
You said: "Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights?" The anti-abortion folks already are, and have been for many years. This entry would probably get removed if i listed the violent crimes committed by anti-abortions folks. I am sure you could look it up.
@@jasongcrow5313 You said: " I’m talking about calling out the army to wage war on its own citizens." I would consider what occurred on January 6, 2021 to be exactly what you described. Do not forget, T***p (and Roger Stone) wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, and have the military siege voting machines. That was not about abortion, so it is not directly related to your comment.
It's not wrong to call slavery a primary cause, but there were many causes. Slavery was debated for decades and if you read the documents as to why the Southern states seceded, slavery was the reason. But folks fought for several reasons. Folks forget that General Lee was offered per General Winfield Scott's suggestion to command the Union Armies, but Lee could not bring himself to march an Army on his home state of Virginia and order men to fire upon his own family, friends, neighbors, and statesmen.
Slavery was a reason for secession. It was not the reason for the war. It is the difference between a woman gettingca divorce and the ex husband then stalking the ex wife. To be clear I am making a logical analogy, not a moral one.
@@paradiddlemcflam7167that’s not true though. Go read the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy. “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
@scottforesman7968 Go read the formally published documents of the states who seceded. South Carolina, Mississippi, etc. all cited the North's "hostility" toward slavery. An excerpt from South Carolina's official declaration of secession. "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." No slavery, no secession. Had the North ceded to slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.
Saying the civil war was about slavery is not wrong. While technically the war was started over states ability to leave the union, the cession crisis was over the protection and expansion of slavery. So indirectly it was about slavery. It baffles me that we still discuss this. If you don’t believe me go read it from the articles of cessation. The people of the time told us what they were doing. Why would we not believe them.
???? Dude read a book it started because of the idea to outlaw slavery. And it ended with the outlawing of slavery. This bs this moron was vomiting up in small doses is so stupid. He doesn't even know many other countries fought over slavery. And yet here you are on his side and why?
You wrote that to be ironic, right? The civil war was unambiguously and specifically to preserve the institution of slavery. Full stop. There has been no revision, you can read what the traitors said themselves.
One part of the answer is "Tarriff of Abominations." The motivations were replete with financial interests on both sides. Adjusted for inflation, Trillions of bucks were at stake. Ignoring the economics of the issues is just plain ignorant.
It's just propaganda bro... lock stock and both smoking barrels. Colbert is a propagandist all late night hosts are and have been for a long time.. thry used to be able to hide it a bit better.
I'm curious if slavery wasn't the main issue then how do you explain the ordinance of secession for each seceding state stating the that their main reason for secession being the fear that the federal government would overrule the state's right to allowing the institution of slavery? Also you're right that the slave states that remained with the union were allowed to continue slavery because Lincoln wasn't a naïve fool. He understood that if he tampered with slavery in those states they would abandon the union and join the confederacy resulting in the likely hood of a victory for the south and hence half the country continuing slavery. As for the states rights vs the federal government argument you are right Doug that the civil war was about states right but, more specifically a states right to own slaves.
Some new facts that I just learned within the past few months: 1) The south did not invent secession. New England toyed with the idea 50 years earlier 2) The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Union States 3) A major cause of the war wasn't merely slavery, but the EXPANSION of it. Massive difference.
Point 3 is not a massive difference. The expansion of slavery was strongly opposed because it would eventually lead to the end of slavery. No new slave states meant representation in Congress would eventually favor anti-slavery sentiments. The other two points do show the US was not fighting to end slavery. However, the South according to their own declarations were fighting to preserve slavery. That is an accurate one word summary of the cause of the civil war
@@Ryan-mech-muffin If it was going to die out naturally, then his invasion of the South "over slavery" and the subsequent battlefield deaths of 700,000 -- not to mention those wounded and permanently maimed -- was a war crime.
Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves, that's true. It didn't become a war aim until he gave the Emancipation Proclamation. However, looking at Lincoln's motivation is really missing the point. Why did the South secede and take over countless forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. belonging to the federal government (all acts of war) culminating in their attack on Fort Sumter which started the war? Because they were afraid of losing their slaves. They state this so plainly and unapologetically it's crazy that people will not accept it. The book I'm currently reading which is pro-Confederacy actually admits they all *said* it was about slavery (it's undeniable) but this was essentially a political ploy to unite the southern people. It's not a great defense of the South to say they were lying. It's far more likely that slavery was their golden idol which made them incredibly sensitive and protective of it (as all bosom sins and guilty consciences do) so that they saw a threat from Lincoln which they dramatically exaggerated and acted upon. And in doing so they brought their own fear upon themselves - Lincoln who had no intention of ending slavery, began the process with his proclamation as a war measure and gave vital support to the 13 amendment that ended slavery.
When you want to leave a party and someone else locks the door, the fight that ensues is not about why you wanna leave the party. You’re either free to leave or you’re not.
When the states succeeded they sent letters of succession to Washington explaining their reasons for leaving the union. Some states mentioned slavery almost entirely others barely mentioned it at all. Interestingly Texas was mad about the federal government’s failure to control the southern boarder. Or maybe more correctly, they failed to reimburse them for doing the job of the feds. FWIW, it’s been years since I read them, and I didn’t read them all then. So don’t take my word for this at all… go read them yourself. lol
Only four states published Declarations of Cause which list their grievances against the Northern states and the Federal government. While all refer to slavery, their grievances have nothing to do with "preserving" it. South Carolina's lays out an extended case for states rights, Georgia's takes issue with Federal spending on infrastructure projects in the North, Texas gripes about the Federals failing to protect the border with Mexico (sound familiar?) and Mississippi's focuses almost entirely on slavery. Their focus on slavery is on the failure of the Northern states to abide by the Constitution's binding agreements on slavery they had agreed to in 1788. They had abided by them by and large for 50 years or so. But for the previous 20 years Northern states were refusing to return fugitive slaves in direct violation of Article 4 of the Constitution, they were failing to protect slave owners passing through the North with their property, they committed acts of violence that went unpunished against slave owners or their agents attempting rendition of their property and they were attempting to foment slave insurrections. Further, even though Southern states were full and equal members of the Union and even though their citizens had contributed men and treasure in the expansion of U.S. territory westward, the North was resisting Southerners' right to move to those territories with their property in the same way Northerners could settle there with their property. It should be noted that, in seceding, the South -- particularly those first seven states -- surrendered all reasonable expectations of ever settling the Western territories and expanding slavery there. While Lincoln's invasion of the those states spurred the northern tier of Southern states to secede as well, it's unlikely they would have seceded to aid the Deep South's expansion westward in a territorial war with the Union. Additionally, in seceding, the new Confederacy surrendered all legal expectations that the North would ever return another runaway slave. By secession, the South effectively gave Lincoln what he and the Republicans said they wanted. There would be no further expansion of slavery in the West and Southern slavery would remain undisturbed and the North's flaunting of Article 4 could continue. The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
The anti southern program is wholly frustrating. From memoirs to documents to actually recorded interviews with veterans will show the war was fought from independence from the federal beast. Meanwhile the arguments for the cause being slavery are front and center but they lack entirely.
Ever heard of their declarations of secession? Also read the book Apostles of Disunion which is about the South's commissioners to the upper south to convince them to secede and join the Confederacy. You'll find it was all about white supremacy and slavery. Or the South is a liar
I'm no american, but from northern europe. I always thought the american civil war was quite multifaceted in its causes and many sides had their own reasons for fighting, but the spread of abholism was the main cause for starting the chain of events that started the civil war. As far as I understood, the north and the south were quite distinct even as cultures from each other and an animosity existed between them already, but the southern economy was so heavily depended on agricultural exports and those sectors were largely run by large slave owning plantations. And when the talks of abholism were becoming stronger in the north, the landowners in south started to get very anxious not only for their own property and livelihood, but also they feared what happened in Haiti not too long ago back then, where the black slaves revolted extremely violently against the european and half-european slave owners, could happen to them as well. So they feared to loose everything, including their own lives as well as their own families lives. So they began to push the narrative in the south that the north is attacking the southern way of life and their state rights that they argued were God given. That would be a main reason to fight for the southern landowners, but for most young men fighting the war itself, it was more a matter of young men wanting to have a purpose, an adventure, rush of danger, fear of being seen as a coward, but as well the same reasons as the landowners, or simply just wanting to go to war and kill. Therefore I don't understand why the left and right in america has made this into a point of contention. The left says slavery, and the right says the state rights. But they are both right, right? So why can't you all just get along and focus on making america the role model for the world again. God bless y'all! :)
Lol the old argument “civil war was fought because of states right” and my question would be “the right to do what exactly?” 🤦🏾♂️😂. You Neo confederates are hilarious but go on
Off the top of my head I can name a dozen respected historians who agree with Colbert; Blight, Foner, McPherson, Gallagher, Nivens, Guelzo... Even Southern historians Freeman and Foote state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Can the pastor name one who does not?
From the Republican party platform of 1860 (the year Abraham Lincoln was elected President): "That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; ... that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States."
No it’s still a gotcha question because of people like this who continue to deny the incredibly basic historical fact that it was almost entirely about slavery, specifically the expansion of slavery. The fact that it’s 2024 and we still have prominent Christian leaders saying this crap is shameful. He also just flat out lied when he said the Washington DC slave market continued during the civil war, DC abolished the slave trade in 1850, however Virginia obviously didn’t. Also saying Maryland had slaves therefore the war wasn’t about slavery is genuinely one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It’s almost like the border states weren’t nearly as invested in the institution of slavery and therefore sided with the union, also Maryland became a free state during the war, how many confederate states freed their slaves during the war? Yeah that’s what I thought.
They wont wver admit it because its their whole worldview. All of their polocies and thoughts are derived from that. Telling them the civil war wasnt about slavery is telling them them up is down. And since theyve bought into public schooling and taught what to think and not HOW, they cant even begin to wrap their heads around conplex subjects.
The same problem is seen in Roe v Wade. What is Roe v Wade a debate about? Some would shout 'abortion' without hesitation while others would say its about how government functions to make and enforce laws.
The civil war was never about the morality of slavery but rather its economical ramifications. So you can say it was about states rights but primarily states rights to own slaves. I wouldn't so flippantly dismiss slavery as being the main driver of the war especially with reasoning given here : general grant owned slaves, there were slaves in the north- that proves nothing. It would be like me saying racism can't exist because i have black friends. At least back up you claims with historical documents (but not the letters of succession bc those mention slavery!)
In terms of impressionism, I thought it had a lot to so with slavery (which matters a lot politically as its connected to race). But even here in Australia much of our history is being re contextualized to fit a noble & peaceful native narrative. So, we don't know much about history, biology etc. There is always more to be learned, defended & reminded of in a world full of disinformation etc.
Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery. End of story. It’s not liberal to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I’m a conservative Reformed Baptist and unfortunately this video will push away people who might have otherwise listened to you on other topics where you genuinely have good things to say.
You said: "Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery" Dead on right, Full stop. Well done.
Of course they didn't want the Federal government impeding on slavery because it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to do so. The North was thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the South was insisting the Constitution be enforced. Try breaking your marriage vows and see how long it takes your wife to file for divorce.
Slavery would have ended without the horrendous cost of a civil war and maybe this country could have existed longer without this horrendously oppressive and gigantic federal government that Lincoln began. Did the Founders promote empire or did you Yankees? And we have been fighting wars all over the world ever since then haven’t we? Aren’t you tired of all of the death and destruction we continue to perpetrate on the world? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Where did this start? Where does the mindset come from? The god Lincoln that’s who.
@@JonJaeden source? and where did they live? If it was close to the Mason Dixon line then your point is moot. Also did they continue to have them throughout the entire war?
I grew up in a family with proud Confederate roots. We were proud that we had ancestors' names engraved on our local county courthouse who had died in the war fighting for the Confederacy. I had a tee shirt with a confederate battle flag on it that read: "If this shirt offends you, you need a history lesson." I mastered the argument that it was Lincoln who started the war. Then, around the time I was thirty years old, I read the Georgia Declaration of Secession. Some excerpts: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..." "A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state." *"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."* "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity." "The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded." "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers." "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." "For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us." *"The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States"* "For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers." "But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. *Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property* in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity." Sorry Doug. It was about slavery, plain and simple.
Love this comment, thank you for sharing. I wasn't raised in the South. However, when I moved to Georgia for a year, so many people in my reformed Baptist church were pro-Confederate and I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Then I moved to Florida and a reformed presbyterian church where likewise everyone was pro-Confederate. I was so nervous to begin teaching my children about the civil war that I decided I had to study it myself so I could make all the necessary corrections to books, etc. that speak highly of Lincoln and say the war was about slavery. But in my study, my mind was completely changed. I realized the Confederacy was dreadfully wrong, and while the North wasn't great either, I'm fearful that so many reformed people fall into the trap of supporting the Confederacy which the more I study, the more I see how wicked it was.
It's true that only slave states seceded. What's also true is that several slave states did not, and would thus be still in the Union that was supposedly a campaign to abolish slavery. West Virginia was admitted into the Union in the middle of the Civil War as a slave state.
Ok but when state legislatures left the union they gave reasons for secession, slavery was front and center. The men in power perceived an existential threat to the institution.
You People need to get Off of that Trying to say Each state Had a 'Statement' saying they were 'leaving the Union' To save Slavery'... because that is just Complete Bull shit! First off....only 4 States out of Thirteen... Even mentioned slavery... and All they actually said was that 'They were pretty dependent on slavery' for their Agricultural Business. None of the Statements Ever said they Would 'Go to War' to. Keep slavery!!
The funny thing is Doug Wilson knows about the writings from the Confederacy on this issue. It definitely a grammar issue… It’s about states rights… to OWN SLAVES. 😂 Don’t reply if you have haven’t read the Ordinances of Session from 1861…
Precisely. But even then "states' rights" was a mask. What's one of their main grievances in their declarations? States don't have the right to oppose slavery by not returning our slaves! The Constitution of the United States did not explicitly recognize African slavery and compromises had held the states together for a time. But all the while tensions grew as the desire for a strong *federal* recognition and defense of slavery was granted in the CSA's constitution which defended and protected slavery *federally.*
Lincoln's illegal war was (in his words ) fought to "preserve the Union," i.e. keep those tariff dollars rollin' in." Thomas DiLorenzo's three books on Lincoln opened my eyes to the real story about the 'Civil' War, for which I am grateful.
DiLorenzo is wrong. I used to agree with his books. He'll ask question like "how could other nations end slavery peacefully and not ours?" That's an easy answer. Because other nations did not have a people group so steeply founded upon racial supremacy in the political, social, and economical structure that they were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery.
I remember Ken Burns special saying that the Emmancipation Proclamation gave the war a cause "freeing slaves" and me reacting huh? wasn't that the whole point from the beginning. Then I began thinking. I looked up history classes online. The proffesors all said that slavery caused the civil war. No doubt slavery was a cause of great friction. Then I saw some videos saying that slavery did not cause the civil war states rights did. Then the other side said "what were those rights -- the right to own slaves". OK, but if slavery was really the cause why did the South leave in two tranches? I think the second left after Fort Sumnter. Virginia actually decided to stay in until it left. Then I realized Lincoln could not free the slaves. Dredd Scott meant that he would need to pass an Amendment -- not happening, or the Supreme Court would have to change -- that takes time. TO really understand, some day I will read the debates in the legislatures and the speeches.
THANK YOU! Ugh! I don’t understand how a man as logical and wise as Doug can get this wrong. The correct answer is the war was fought in order to preserve the union. But why was the union in danger of being torn apart? Hmm? Oh that’s right, the southern states seceding in order to preserve the institution of SLAVERY! The vice president of the confederacy himself said that it was a cornerstone of the confederate government. It’s not rocket science, people!
@@EarlSimmons-f2n clearly no one has read any of the secession letters. I can’t for the life of me understand how intelligent rational people still are able to gloss over this simple and vital portion of the argument.
It was over slavery. Period. It wasn’t over states rights. If it was about states rights, why did the south ask the federal government essentially to have the northern states return the runaway slaves?
That’s a pitiful understanding. Just a quick search you can find alot of evidence to it being over states rights (slavery being one of the) and you can even find videos of old confederate soldiers at a dance who said the same thing that it was over states rights…..
Yeah stated rights.... to buy, sell, and own slaves...... they cna just skip over the word slavery by replacing it with states rights. Let this be a lesson to you though of how easy it is to pull the wool over an idiot's eyes. This is why most of these same idiots were calling it an insurrection (and proud of it) one day then calling it a peaceful protest the next day. Just like the southerners who knew it was about slavery let themselves be convinced it was for the greater good of God, and states, and just another way to own the libs because their uneducated asses got tired and are still tired of being the losers they have always been. It's what life looks like when you believe education is worthless because you have a bible.
State sovereignty was the deep reaching question OF the war; slavery was the catalyst FOR the war. Today we feel most acutely the negative effects of the empire that was built as a partial result of federal action. But even a casual study of Colonial America, the revolution, and the Constitutional Convention(s) reveals that chattel slavery was absolutely radioactive from the beginning. Some states almost did not ratify the constitution because they did not want to participate with states that permitted the slave trade. The so-called great compromise band-aided things together for a time, but it could not possibly last. Slavery (as the precipitating issue) and state sovereignty (by implication) are not mutually exclusive. They were both involved at different levels and both impacted motivations to fight on either side. And we do see that motivations ranged from very honorable (land and kin) to not so honorable (opportunism and exploitation) on either side.
Because it was in the original Constitution. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
I've been listening to Doug Wilson for more than 30 years. I am increasingly curious why someone of his calibre does not debate Roman Catholic apologists? Debating atheists and bad comedians is a bunny slope. Entertaining and fun, perhaps, but the real battle is with Rome (and to a lesser degree the Orthodox). More people are leaving Reformed Churches to become Catholics or Orthodox than to become Atheists. So why, after decades of ministry, there ain't a single example of Doug debating a Catholic on UA-cam (at least that I can find). Why not spar with a Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin? It would get HUGE views on both your channels.
It's the Catholics that normally refuse to debate the Reformed guys. James White of Alpha and Omega ministries has many debates with Roman Catholics and scores of Dividing Line podcast hours going over the claims of Catholic apologists in great detail for all the different categories that come up. Check that out to see how Reformed scholars address the doctrines.
@@umaikakudo I've listened to every debate James White has had with Catholics... which is a big reason why I became Catholic when I did instead of 10 years later. I was a Calvinist until I was 46 years old. DEEPLY CALVINIST Presbyterian. But even as a Presbyterian, I winced whenever listening to sophist Calvinist Credo-baptists like MacArthur and White, because they represent a bubble within a puddle of a ghetto of Christianity. I was undecided on whether they could be called "magisterial Protestants." Calvin would probably have imprisoned them (or worse) if they showed up in Geneva-- for their baptism views alone. There is a difference between the 17th century Protestants and the 16th. There are reasons why the magisterial protestants had a hard time with congregational Puritans (and still do!). I would like to see more magisterial credalists debate Catholics-- not "biblicists" like White, who are only Trinitarian because they personally find the Trinity in Scripture... not because the Church Jesus Christ established taught them this and made it a matter of dogma which people must believe if they want to be called Christians-- whether they personally find it in Scripture or not. We were born 2000 years late. Christianity isn't our private religion and we don't get to pick and choose how we use the Bible -- like a cafeteria buffet line. White's own peculiar theology (with all its nuance-- including his eschatology) probably has fewer adherents today than likely existed in the 17th century. So I'm cordially calling out Wilson, Leithart, and all the "New St. Andrews"/Ligionier/Credo types to show up and confront the "brain drain" happening in Reformed Evangelicalism of folks heading to Rome or Constantinople. They are committing pastoral malpractice to ignore this growing trend. They're still living in the 1980s when the focus was on getting disgruntled PTL Evangelicals to drop the tambourines long enough to consider the Reformed Faith. Discern the times, brothers, or you're either going to have more of your congregants swinging hard to White or to Rome. You are underrepresented in the discussion. Peace. 😘
You said: "A Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than slavery..." Oh really? Is that why Lincoln pushed for and had ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
@@manager0175 that's what I'm saying....in fact that was confirmed in the civil war documentary by Ken Burns.... I'm not saying he didn't care about slavery....are you triggered?
@@manager0175 Really? * In his first inaugural address, given in March 1861, Lincoln endorsed the recently passed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have guranteed slavery in perpetuity in the South and denied Congress the power to regulate the institution. The amendment which would have resulted in permanent bondage was intended to woo the first seven seceding states back into the Union. The preferred their independence. * Lincoln's Emancipation was a presidential executive order meant to disrupt the South during wartime. It exempted emancipation in the border states and in Southern territories under control of the Union Army. It declared freedom for slaves within the "states in rebellion," where Lincoln had no authority. Tellingly, if those states would cease their rebellion and return to the Union by December 31, 1862, the proclaimed emancipation was null and void. * Lincoln's "push" for the 13th Amendment ending slavery came after the November 1864 election -- just five months before Lee surrendered and 31 months after the war had begun. It was not passed by the Northern House and Senate, despite the absence of Southern representatives, until January 31, 1865, and followed by Lincoln's signing on February 1, 1865 -- two months and a week before Lee surrendered. It was finally ratified on December 6, 1865, making slavery -- North AND South -- unlawful. You'd think, if Lincoln was more interested in ending slavery than preserving forced-union, he might have "pushed" a little sooner. * Lincoln died from assassination on April 15, 1865. The 14th Amendment was not proposed until 1866 and was not ratified until 1868. The 15th was ratified in 1870. By this time, the only thing Lincoln was "pushing" was daisies ...
@@manager0175this is basic knowledge, it's embarrassing that you don't know it. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley August of 1862.
What's a good comprehensive book about the reality of the Civil War? As a public school grad, we were taught relentlessly that it was almost solely about slavery
Actually, while the "state's rights" argument is indeed true, the Civil War was also about slavery. You can read the declarations of secession from the Southern States, it's right in there.
@@ricksamericana749 No, that's wrong. The use of "state's rights" to obscure slavery as the dominate factor did indeed come about post-Civil war. The US we live in today is vastly different than the US pre-Civil War. We live in a top-down heavy government US as a result of going through the Civil War, Depression, two World Wars, the Cold War and so we are used to the Federal government having and wielding power and telling the states what to do. That's not how the Founders set up the country, originally the States were supposed to be the main power, as a means to check federal power. It's right there in the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). But, over time, slowly and surely the Federal power grew and eroded the states powers. There was nothing in the Constitution about Slavery and thus the Southern pro-slavery States weren't too keen on the Federal government trying to tell them what they could and couldn't do concerning slavery.
It’s a gotcha question because along with so many other things, the term “states rights” is now determined by the powers that be to be code for racism. Like flying the Gadsden flag or carrying a gun or homeschooling all are secretly code for racism. I know because the people on the internet who call me “YT” said so. (In other words, for those who can’t tell, the people using derogatory racial terms are obviously the deciding factor on what racism ack-choo-wally is. And they usually have a link in their bio to their cash app for all their mental labor, pay a Black [capitalized] person, and all that)
"It was all about a battle for our freedom!" So slavery had nothing to do with it! Sorry, but anybody who knows the basics of US history understands that Civil War was indeed about slavery. You can pretend all you want that it was "actually" about something deeper and more abstract, like people's rights to run their localities the way they want free of interference from that wicked old federal gummint, but that's a ridiculous argument and is easily disproved based on the facts on the ground at the time of the Civil War. So it's pretty clear that you are an apologist for the South and for slavery. But by all means tell us more! If you don't want to call it the "Civil War," what term do you prerer? I'm figuring maybe "The War of Northern Aggression," or something like that. Is that about right? Your supposed "refutations" of the facts about the Civil War are stupid, long since debunked, and really unworthy of anyone who knows anything about history.
You make a lot of assertions the debate is settled, but I looked and I see no evidence or argument to support them. I prefer "War for Southern Independence."
@@JonJaeden Its's weird to me how people who offer no evidence for their own positions always justify their dismissal of contrary positions because they haven't been offered evidence. Seriously? THis is just a way to be dishonest. In fact, I could offer piles of evidence, though typically that's not what comments on UA-cam are for. But since you ask, I'll offer a few: Check out Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech." Or read the articles of secession for various states. Or any other myriad documents. i can offer some more if you'd like! The historical record is easily found, and filled with Confederates themselves explaining how slavery, which they recognized was under threat, was so integral to their way of life, and thus required drastic action in order to rescue. And this is in fact true: The South was not just a slave economy, but a slave SOCIETY, and the end of slavery basically destroyed the Southern economic and social organization. This was one reason that after the war they were so desperate to find ways to extend slavery to the extent they could, via Jim Crow laws which were in place until the 1960s. (Another reason was the truly vicious racism, which was imbedded in the white Southern mind, and arose no doubt from the need to justify both their economic/social organization and also consider themselves good people. It's a tough circle to square.) There's really no excuse for people NOT to understand what the Civil War was about, so it's hard not to conclude that those who insist that slavery was not the major underlying factor are willfully ignorant and wish to avoid acknowledging American racism, and very likely are themselves actuated by racism. Which is sort of the conclusion one reaches when people offer "alternative" names for the War that make the Southerners look like the good guys. You know, like "War for Southern Independence."
I suggest people read the Lincoln Douglas debates. It was about slavery. Douglas said each territory should decide. Lincoln wanted to limit slaverys expansion.
I didn't say "one series of documents" settles what caused the Civil War. But the Lincoln Douglas debates point to the issue being the expansion of slavery. Douglas wanted to allow its expansion. Lincoln did not. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected because they wanted slavery to continue and spread. They did not see slavery as immoral.
I do remember a Northern statesmen position on it I can't remember the name right now it's been years since I read his words but he was upset about the prospect of the South expanding and colonizing Westward instead of the North and bringing in more foreigners from A frica.
@@colinfoster7655 Read the Southern states declarations of secession. Read the deep South's commissioners' speeches and letter about why other slave states should secede. You know what you'll find? According to them, it was all about white supremacy and slavery.
@@filonin2Right, gradually ending the institution in a way that allowed society to adjust and integrate the newly freed people was totally more abominable than a war that killed over a million people, killed or maimed 50% of the Southern military-aged men, utterly devastated the Southern economy, and directly created the disease and poverty that killed nearly a million of the former slaves (25% of the total) in the years following the war.
Brazil ended slavery in 1883. She had more slaves than the United States and was just as dependent on cheap agricultural labor. Had slavery ended gradually and without violence race relations would be much much better today. But I don't think that would have been possible. In places like Brazil the whole country was either one thing or the other. Now if a person like Trump, a narcissist with a gigantic ego, had been thrown into the mix it changes things. Here's Trump. "Let them go for now, and don't make it worse than it has to be. They'll cool down when they see we mean them no harm. We'll just let it ride for my first term. In my second term we'll begin working on reunification. And by the end of my third term we'll be reunited with a plan everybody can accept and it will be a win for the South, a win for the North and a win for the blacks! We'll win so much we'll get tired of winning!" And he might have pulled it off.
You said: "Doug Wilson should run for presidency.." By all means, run on a "Slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war." Anti-abortion rights, nation-wide abortion ban, pro-gun, anti-LGBT, "2020 election was stolen" "Donald T***p is a good Christian man." Platform. Democrats will give you all the campaign donations you'd ever need.
Doug's work as a father, pastor, educator, and evangelist against unbelieving culture is far more powerful than any president could ever be. Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert.
@@umaikakudo You said: "Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert." The problem is, "Christian nationalism" IS "top down authoritarianism". "Christian nationalism" is, right now, supporting the most "top down" authoritarian in US history. "Christian Nationalism" is, RIGHT NOW supporting a man that is arguing for "complete immunity" for any presidential activity. "Christian nationalism" is RIGHT NOW, supporting a man that declares himself to be "Dictator for day one" and calls for dissolution of articles of the Constitution. And we have not even talked about what Doug has asserted as his intentions within "Christian nationalism". Which is also "top down authoritarianism'.
I’m gonna be honest, Doug. I came across a theology video of yours a while back and thought you were quiet intelligent and brought up interesting points. But the more content of yours I’ve consumed, especially if it involves politics in some way, you’re so frustratingly predictable. Your lack of humility and empathy to opposing views and why others might have them (even if they are wrong) make for a very self-righteous image to those who don’t mindlessly consume your content because it confirms the beliefs they already hold. At your worst, you make fun of and put others down, which is just so disappointing. I thought I had found someone who could challenge and sharpen my own beliefs, but I’ve come away realizing that like so many others in the church, your political identity seems to have overtaken your faith and turned it into something very unproductive. Seeing what’s wrong with the far left is pretty obvious. Even the far right. But you? That’s a hell of a lot harder. The Enemy’s masterpiece is not the obvious evil, it’s the army of church leaders who have convinced masses of believers they come in the name of Jesus only to preach a distorted image of Him. You’re not the worst, by any means, and you’re not even “bad” because I don’t think you have any ill intentions. But so many of your teachings are skewed just enough that I think the net effect is a lot more damage than you would ever imagine, but not enough that it’s easy to show. Anyway, I’m rambling at this point. I don’t comment much at all, the Colbert skit was lame, and your reaction wasn’t the best example of my remarks, but I finally just felt like I had to let it out. I hope you’ll consider my words, give them some thought, and genuinely pray about it. The Spirit can communicate my feelings and God’s desires for you and humanity far more than I ever could. God Bless, Pastor.
Except he isn't. America was not the only country to fight over slavery. Colbert wasn't faking an accent he was making fun of one. He laughed about a joke then claimed it wasn't funny. He also has no idea what caused the Civil war if not for slavery but will twist and turn his way through bs version of events that will all ignore the initial cause was over the slavery issue.
Sad. It was ALL about slavery and that alone. Alexander H. Stephens said so and he was Confederate Vice President - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Alexander Stephens' lightning-rod Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously. There was no written copy. What we have of it comes from a newspaper reporter who took notes and wrote it up. Stephens, post-war, took issue with how his words had been reported "with glaring errors" (during the war, several versions of it were circulated). Stephens, a longtime friend of Lincoln -- even meeting with him for peace talks during the war -- voted against secession at the Georgia secession convention.
@@JonJaeden I'm sure he had no reason to change his story 🤣 Just give it up, the south with not rise again, and was righteously dealt with. You a little snowflake about your precious confederacy?
@@JonJaeden The South was simply all about abusing fellow human beings and the whole purpose of their war was the continuation of such. They and those who support them today are just like the NAZIs or Putin with his outrages in Ukraine. Evil to the core and God judges such even in this life as He did the Confederates, NAZIs and He will Putin and Russia.
Lincoln left a fortress of war in Charleston Harbor and tried to enforce it, an act of war. His Proclamation on State Militia (April, 15, 1861), Proclamation 81-Declaring a Blockade of Ports in Rebellious States (April 19, 1861) and Proclamation 82-Extension of Blockade to Ports of Additional States (April 27, 1861) say nothing of slavery but "collection of revenues." The Upper South seceded in response to Lincoln's actions. Therefore the war was not caused by slavery.
@c.w.johnsonjr6374 What you said is so highly inaccurate. The federal government owned forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. all over the South because, obviously, there were part of the country. Many of these were voluntarily given from the state to the federal government. The South had been taking over these places with armed forces for months. Those are the acts of war and they started before Lincoln was even president. Many times they took over the forts and arsenals before they even seceded - an explicitly treasonous act. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the South had seized all the federal forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom houses, revenue cutters, mints, courts, and post offices within their borders except Fort Sumter in South Carolina and Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson in Florida. Fort Sumter, in particular, had been given by voluntary statute of South Carolina to the federal government in 1836. This fort was for the defense of the harbor. The attack on Fort Sumter, the official starting point of the Civil War, was simply another act of war in a long line of hostile takeovers the South had been engaged in for the past 4 months. Lincoln had every right constitutionally to resupply Fort Sumter. It was not an act of war. On the contrary, *no one made the South fire the first shots.* That was their choice. They started the war. Why? Read their declaration of secession and the speeches and letters from the deep South commissioners to the upper southern states on why they should secede and join the confederacy. Like this one from Stephen F. Hale to the Kentucky governor. The South was absolutely NOT shy to claim the war was all about white supremacy and slavery: teachingamericanhistory.org/document/stephen-f-hale-to-governor-beriah-magoffin/
The South did not need to secede to preserve slavery -- the institution was not under threat in the South. Slavery was practiced in all 13 of the original colonies, still legal in most of them when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That Constitution recognized the legality of the institution and the enforceable property rights of slave owners, even in states that exercised their right to ban the practice for those residing within their borders. Everyone, North and South -- and the states that subsequently joined the United States -- were voluntary members of a covenant that recognized and protected slavery, an institution just as odious in 1788 as it was in 1860. The only legal means to end slavery nationally was to pass a constitutional amendment. There were not the votes (nor, apparently, the will, even in the North) to do so. So, the South did not have to "preserve" slavery against an amendment by seceding. Politically, there was little for Southerners to fear for slavery within their borders. Lincoln and the Republicans did not target slavery in the South, only in the new territories in the West. The fourth plank of the 1860 Republican platform specifically endorsed as "inviolate the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS according to its own judgment exclusively." Lincoln himself said he did not believe he had constitutional authority to do anything about Southern slavery, nor did he have an intention to do so. He endorsed the Corwin Amendment, passed just two days before his first inauguration, that guaranteed slavery in perpetuity in those states where it was currently legal and removed Congress' authority to regulate it. If the South was concerned about preserving slavery, it merely needed to reject secession and return to the Union. The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected. Final point, despite those pesky Southerners no longer being in Congress after secession, Northerners didn't get around to passing the 13th Amendment ending slavery until 4 months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox and didn't ratify it until December 1865, ending slavery in the U.S. -- North and South -- at the same time.
@JonJaeden Thanks for the history lesson, but can you answer the question with more brevity for the sake of clarity? List the rights in order of importance that the Civil War was fought over.
@@HvV_FilmRoom The South, in 1861, seceded for the same reason the 13 colonies seceded in 1776 -- liberty and independence. The South fought in both 1861 and 1776 because it was invaded by a foreign tyranny intent on crushing its quest for independence.
I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you! Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was.
You said: "I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you! Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was." I was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. I cannot count all the times i heard: "The civil war was about states rights." "Black folks were better off a slaves." "Slavery was the original social security." "No one has more opportunities than a poor black child." And this video is perpetuating those notions. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. That was the cause of the Civil war. Every other issue was was centered on and around SLAVERY.
@@manager0175 Per my history professor from UNC, the short answer is actually "economics." It is true that there were reprehensible radicals on both sides, though. The moderates lost the debate and the rivers were filled with the blood of many thousands as a result. There is no good war.
@@manager0175 , I also live in the south. There are two things you need to remember. 1. You have a right to believe whatever you want. But facts don't lie or care about your feelings. 2. Those who won the war wrote history. Bonus: if you are a Christian brother, I love you no matter what you believe about the war.
@@manager0175 If the cause of the Civil War was slavery, that would mean slavery was also the North's motive in fighting. What is the evidence for that?
Does anyone remember the episode of the Simpsons when Apu becomes an American citizen? He is asked the exact same question. His answer was too long and accurate for the questioner, who cut him off and said "Just say slavery." He responds "Slavery it is sir!" I am surprised another Simpsons predicting politics meme hasn't gone viral after this.
ua-cam.com/video/SFwHQYDqf6c/v-deo.html&ab_channel=PatrickReed
Colbert faking a southern accent? Does Doug know Colbert is from South Carolina? Colbert wasn't faking a southern accent. Chances are good Doug doesn't recognize an authentic southern accent. Doug is going to quote a confederate general to justify the cause of the Civil war? The longer he goes on, the less tethered to reality he gets. He completely misrepresents general Grant.
Being from an area doesn’t mean you have the accent. He doesn’t live there anymore, and hasn’t for a long time. He did it poorly. I say this as someone who grew up in the deep south…have no accent…and can do multiple dialects. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
And Doug understands the Civil War better than you. It’s literally one of his personal interests. Pretending to assess his level of understanding based on a single video is absurd. Pretending I should take your word for it when you’ve never created a video or demonstrated ANY knowledge…is even more absurd. 🤷🏻♂️ “Hold up, guys, manager 0175 is claiming stuff on the internet. This guy knows things.”
The Simpsons doesn't predict anything only morons believe that bs.
@winstonsol8713 you are responding to the OP not the person who made the quote. Still haven't figured out YT yet?
Also nice of you to attempt to counter one point and not the other.... almost as if you have no counter for the obvious and more important point just for the lesser one about comedy.
As a black American, this is information I need. Mr. Doug Wilson never misses.
Ok, liar.
Lmao you definitely are not “African American” 😂
Man... some haters.. lol 😂
@@filonin2 what am I lying about exactly?
@intello8953
So, in order to be African American, I must think a certain way? How racist is that homie.. 🤔👌🏾
Listening to colbert is like going back for your third lobotomy
I was going to say that about Doug.
Now that is funny brother. 😂I’m baffled that people still watch late night shows not to mention MSM.
As long as you keep going back. Ratings..its all about ratings.
@@EarlSimmons-f2nok nameless bot.
Poor Jeffrey. I cant relate, I’ve only had one.
I studied history at a state school with progressive professors. Even they said it wasn't about slavery. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.
Who did you study under?
Because it was. Either the South were liars or it was about slavery.
"Shall the states determine their own parameters or their own rights."
Rights to do *what*, precisely? What rights were the states fighting to preserve?
It was the Federalists vs Anti-Federalist debate come to a head and going hot.
Who was to be the primary source of political power, the People and the States or the Federal government.
Somebody didn't watch the rest of the video
Wars can have multiple causes and of differing types. Of course, the root cause was sin, but there are some more immediate causes. One could argue the formal cause was wether states could leave the union. Why did the south want to leave? It was because of cultural and economic clashes along with the growing demographics of the north which made some think the south's opportunity to secede was closing. Why did the two sides have cashing cultures? Partially due to climate and the different groups of initial settlers. Some historians have said the American Civil War mirrors the English Civil War. However, the two sides built their economies differently, one on the free market and the other on free labor. I think one could thus argue that slavery was the material cause of the war. Of course, a lot of people just fought for their home. People are complicated and so are groups of people. Without drawing a moral equivalence, there were good and bad things about both sides. Personally, I believe the war was God's judgment on the nation and I pray for revival, repentance, and reconciliation in the hope we don't have to go through another one. Love ya'll.
root cause 'sin'? well, what sin? Slavery? NO. Money? Yes.
Fun history fact: there used to be more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North prior to the Civil War. The numbers changed when the northern abolitionists became so violent in their attacks on the South as a whole that it became anti-southern to associate with abolitionism as a whole.
curious how you seem to have no evidence for your "fun fact" at all.
Colbert and his audience should know that the cause of the Civil War was secession. Had the southern states not seceded there would have been no civil war. Even before he was elected Lincoln stated that as President he had no authority and no intention to end slavery anywhere it was legal. With the war begun, with sweeping war powers that no President has enjoyed before or since including martial law and suspension of the Bill of Rights, Lincoln said the following.....
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
I think he believed what he said but still he had to say it because slavery was legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and in the District of Columbia. West Virginia was admitted to the Union AS A SLAVE STATE in June of 1863. Had Lincoln unilaterally tried to abolish slavery by Presidential fiat in 1862 it would have made Maryland and Kentucky in essence enemy territory.
Lincoln was an abolitionist and hated slavery. He was also a racist and white supremacist as was almost everybody in the United States. The ever pragmatic Lincoln embraced the concept of colonization and was a member of the American Colonization Society. He believed that the black race belonged somewhere else and not in North America. His Emancipation Proclamation was an act of war and was very conditional. It only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy not under the control of Union forces. So in effect it freed few slaves.
Abraham Lincoln was absolutely NOT an abolitionist until well after the war had commenced and he had taken office. In fact, Lincoln was nominated over Seward precisely because he was not an abolitionist. Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery not freeing slaves held in bondage in 1861, He held this position until 1863.
You bring up a very good negotiation suggestion. Flames will likely be thrown at me, but the Southern plantation owners knew their economic model wasn't sustainable without very cheap labor (remember, haters- there was a cost, however small compared to wages, to feed, clothe, and house workers). Industrial advances and cheaper sources of cotton to the UK cotton mills occurring by the year, the slave model would have collapsed in a decade. I'm not writing this to defend slavery, but to point out the economic and financial reasons for Southern leaders to come to the negotiating table existed.
Has anyone looked at the southern state’s secession declarations? Pretty sure they said they were leaving over slavery
They said they were seceding over Constitutional violations.
A states freedom to do what?… I wonder what every states seceding documents say. Literally every single state says the right to keep slaves.
Salute to the courage of a man under all sorts of pressure, and gaining popular notice, who isn't afraid to tell the truth no matter what attacks will come at him. I can't stand Nikki, but this must be said.
To expand on the last point pastor Wilson makes, the reason they're so interested to ask gotcha questions about the "Civil War," when absolutely nobody wants to bring slavery back, is because the real issue still matters. If it didn't matter, then they wouldn't worry about it. As long as they can hammer slavery, the issues of central power can't be fixed. If you back down and accept that everything was slavery, and there was no other central issue, then you accept the out of control power of DC. Because if that wasn't a real issue, and everything was just slavery, then everyone must have always thought the central government really had such grandiose powers.
You have to have the courage to refuse to reduce everything to slavery, or you display submission and an inability to express the main issues of the war that have never gone away. You are unable to logically and effectively resist and and are a collaborator of the deep state. If you want to change anything on any legal basis, not denying we need religious revival, then it absolutely requires having the courage to repudiate the results of the war and refuse to accept the reduction to slavery no matter how much grief it causes you.
So if the "deep state" opposes you enslaving people who hadn't agreed to become so, that is a more pertinent issue than the fact that, I don't know, you're enslaving people against their will?
Parameters to do what, Doug? WHAT WERE THEY WANTING STATE PARAMETERS FOR DOUG???
The people in the audience clapping for Colbert is even scarier.
New Yorkers.
The people in the comments thinking Doug is correct is shocking.
Not as scary as the number of losers clapping and cheering for Trump.... also what was the true cause of the Civil war?
@@EarlSimmons-f2nwomp womp chill out
Don't be fooled, it's a laugh track, it's always a laugh track
The fact that Stephen Colbert, and many like him somehow think that it was good for 1 million Americans to die in order to free the slaves is actually very frightening. It makes me wonder about the Civil War two that he mentioned. Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights? It reminds me of John Brown. The North’s reaction to him was one of the main reasons the South felt like they had to secede. I am understanding that feeling better and better myself.
Exactly brother
KKK is still taking members.
You said: "Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights?" The anti-abortion folks already are, and have been for many years. This entry would probably get removed if i listed the violent crimes committed by anti-abortions folks. I am sure you could look it up.
@@manager0175 I’m not talking about isolated fringe groups. I’m talking about calling out the army to wage war on its own citizens.
@@jasongcrow5313 You said: " I’m talking about calling out the army to wage war on its own citizens." I would consider what occurred on January 6, 2021 to be exactly what you described. Do not forget, T***p (and Roger Stone) wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, and have the military siege voting machines. That was not about abortion, so it is not directly related to your comment.
So basically the South was right but on the wrong issue.
It's not wrong to call slavery a primary cause, but there were many causes. Slavery was debated for decades and if you read the documents as to why the Southern states seceded, slavery was the reason. But folks fought for several reasons. Folks forget that General Lee was offered per General Winfield Scott's suggestion to command the Union Armies, but Lee could not bring himself to march an Army on his home state of Virginia and order men to fire upon his own family, friends, neighbors, and statesmen.
Slavery was a reason for secession. It was not the reason for the war. It is the difference between a woman gettingca divorce and the ex husband then stalking the ex wife. To be clear I am making a logical analogy, not a moral one.
@@paradiddlemcflam7167that’s not true though. Go read the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
yes, it is wrong. 100% wrong.
@@paradiddlemcflam7167 Who fired the first shot at a little place called Fort Sumter?
@scottforesman7968 Go read the formally published documents of the states who seceded. South Carolina, Mississippi, etc. all cited the North's "hostility" toward slavery. An excerpt from South Carolina's official declaration of secession. "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." No slavery, no secession. Had the North ceded to slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.
Saying the civil war was about slavery is not wrong. While technically the war was started over states ability to leave the union, the cession crisis was over the protection and expansion of slavery. So indirectly it was about slavery.
It baffles me that we still discuss this. If you don’t believe me go read it from the articles of cessation. The people of the time told us what they were doing. Why would we not believe them.
@drivingonice... Yes it Is WRONG Dummy. No slaves were freed until 2 years into the war.... and Lincoln only did that to use them as Yankee soldiers.
Spot on! The revision history they push upon us is mind boggling.
???? Dude read a book it started because of the idea to outlaw slavery. And it ended with the outlawing of slavery. This bs this moron was vomiting up in small doses is so stupid. He doesn't even know many other countries fought over slavery. And yet here you are on his side and why?
You wrote that to be ironic, right? The civil war was unambiguously and specifically to preserve the institution of slavery. Full stop. There has been no revision, you can read what the traitors said themselves.
One part of the answer is "Tarriff of Abominations." The motivations were replete with financial interests on both sides. Adjusted for inflation, Trillions of bucks were at stake. Ignoring the economics of the issues is just plain ignorant.
It's just propaganda bro... lock stock and both smoking barrels. Colbert is a propagandist all late night hosts are and have been for a long time.. thry used to be able to hide it a bit better.
Well I didn't think Wilson could get any dumber and yet here he is denying the Civil war was about slavery.....
Doug, at 5:12 you contradict yourself by saying that the war WAS fought over slavery.
I'm curious if slavery wasn't the main issue then how do you explain the ordinance of secession for each seceding state stating the that their main reason for secession being the fear that the federal government would overrule the state's right to allowing the institution of slavery? Also you're right that the slave states that remained with the union were allowed to continue slavery because Lincoln wasn't a naïve fool. He understood that if he tampered with slavery in those states they would abandon the union and join the confederacy resulting in the likely hood of a victory for the south and hence half the country continuing slavery. As for the states rights vs the federal government argument you are right Doug that the civil war was about states right but, more specifically a states right to own slaves.
Some new facts that I just learned within the past few months:
1) The south did not invent secession. New England toyed with the idea 50 years earlier
2) The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Union States
3) A major cause of the war wasn't merely slavery, but the EXPANSION of it. Massive difference.
Point 3 is not a massive difference. The expansion of slavery was strongly opposed because it would eventually lead to the end of slavery. No new slave states meant representation in Congress would eventually favor anti-slavery sentiments.
The other two points do show the US was not fighting to end slavery. However, the South according to their own declarations were fighting to preserve slavery. That is an accurate one word summary of the cause of the civil war
And Lincoln said if he could hold the union together without freeing a single slave, he would.
Misleading. True he said that, but he believed that slavery would die out naturally.
@@Ryan-mech-muffinWhy fight a war to end something that would die out naturally?
@@hudjahulos because he wanted to preserve the union?
@@Ryan-mech-muffin If it was going to die out naturally, then his invasion of the South "over slavery" and the subsequent battlefield deaths of 700,000 -- not to mention those wounded and permanently maimed -- was a war crime.
Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves, that's true. It didn't become a war aim until he gave the Emancipation Proclamation. However, looking at Lincoln's motivation is really missing the point. Why did the South secede and take over countless forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. belonging to the federal government (all acts of war) culminating in their attack on Fort Sumter which started the war? Because they were afraid of losing their slaves. They state this so plainly and unapologetically it's crazy that people will not accept it. The book I'm currently reading which is pro-Confederacy actually admits they all *said* it was about slavery (it's undeniable) but this was essentially a political ploy to unite the southern people. It's not a great defense of the South to say they were lying. It's far more likely that slavery was their golden idol which made them incredibly sensitive and protective of it (as all bosom sins and guilty consciences do) so that they saw a threat from Lincoln which they dramatically exaggerated and acted upon. And in doing so they brought their own fear upon themselves - Lincoln who had no intention of ending slavery, began the process with his proclamation as a war measure and gave vital support to the 13 amendment that ended slavery.
When you want to leave a party and someone else locks the door, the fight that ensues is not about why you wanna leave the party. You’re either free to leave or you’re not.
it was about the States Rights, and here in Texas , the right to have slavery. :)
When the states succeeded they sent letters of succession to Washington explaining their reasons for leaving the union.
Some states mentioned slavery almost entirely others barely mentioned it at all.
Interestingly Texas was mad about the federal government’s failure to control the southern boarder. Or maybe more correctly, they failed to reimburse them for doing the job of the feds.
FWIW, it’s been years since I read them, and I didn’t read them all then. So don’t take my word for this at all… go read them yourself. lol
Only four states published Declarations of Cause which list their grievances against the Northern states and the Federal government. While all refer to slavery, their grievances have nothing to do with "preserving" it. South Carolina's lays out an extended case for states rights, Georgia's takes issue with Federal spending on infrastructure projects in the North, Texas gripes about the Federals failing to protect the border with Mexico (sound familiar?) and Mississippi's focuses almost entirely on slavery.
Their focus on slavery is on the failure of the Northern states to abide by the Constitution's binding agreements on slavery they had agreed to in 1788. They had abided by them by and large for 50 years or so. But for the previous 20 years Northern states were refusing to return fugitive slaves in direct violation of Article 4 of the Constitution, they were failing to protect slave owners passing through the North with their property, they committed acts of violence that went unpunished against slave owners or their agents attempting rendition of their property and they were attempting to foment slave insurrections.
Further, even though Southern states were full and equal members of the Union and even though their citizens had contributed men and treasure in the expansion of U.S. territory westward, the North was resisting Southerners' right to move to those territories with their property in the same way Northerners could settle there with their property.
It should be noted that, in seceding, the South -- particularly those first seven states -- surrendered all reasonable expectations of ever settling the Western territories and expanding slavery there. While Lincoln's invasion of the those states spurred the northern tier of Southern states to secede as well, it's unlikely they would have seceded to aid the Deep South's expansion westward in a territorial war with the Union. Additionally, in seceding, the new Confederacy surrendered all legal expectations that the North would ever return another runaway slave. By secession, the South effectively gave Lincoln what he and the Republicans said they wanted. There would be no further expansion of slavery in the West and Southern slavery would remain undisturbed and the North's flaunting of Article 4 could continue.
The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
@@JonJaedenso it was about slavery for the most part 😂. Stop sugar coating it
You know those slaves were also Americans, right?
@JonJaeden So do you think slavery continuing would've been a good thing?
Also, what made black people their "property" exactly?
The anti southern program is wholly frustrating. From memoirs to documents to actually recorded interviews with veterans will show the war was fought from independence from the federal beast. Meanwhile the arguments for the cause being slavery are front and center but they lack entirely.
Ever heard of their declarations of secession? Also read the book Apostles of Disunion which is about the South's commissioners to the upper south to convince them to secede and join the Confederacy. You'll find it was all about white supremacy and slavery. Or the South is a liar
I'm no american, but from northern europe. I always thought the american civil war was quite multifaceted in its causes and many sides had their own reasons for fighting, but the spread of abholism was the main cause for starting the chain of events that started the civil war. As far as I understood, the north and the south were quite distinct even as cultures from each other and an animosity existed between them already, but the southern economy was so heavily depended on agricultural exports and those sectors were largely run by large slave owning plantations. And when the talks of abholism were becoming stronger in the north, the landowners in south started to get very anxious not only for their own property and livelihood, but also they feared what happened in Haiti not too long ago back then, where the black slaves revolted extremely violently against the european and half-european slave owners, could happen to them as well. So they feared to loose everything, including their own lives as well as their own families lives. So they began to push the narrative in the south that the north is attacking the southern way of life and their state rights that they argued were God given. That would be a main reason to fight for the southern landowners, but for most young men fighting the war itself, it was more a matter of young men wanting to have a purpose, an adventure, rush of danger, fear of being seen as a coward, but as well the same reasons as the landowners, or simply just wanting to go to war and kill.
Therefore I don't understand why the left and right in america has made this into a point of contention. The left says slavery, and the right says the state rights. But they are both right, right? So why can't you all just get along and focus on making america the role model for the world again. God bless y'all! :)
Lol the old argument “civil war was fought because of states right” and my question would be “the right to do what exactly?” 🤦🏾♂️😂. You Neo confederates are hilarious but go on
The same thing the 13 colonies did when they fought England to secure their sovereign rights.
Off the top of my head I can name a dozen respected historians who agree with Colbert; Blight, Foner, McPherson, Gallagher, Nivens, Guelzo... Even Southern historians Freeman and Foote state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Can the pastor name one who does not?
Colbert......asininity defined
Wow, you're a big disappointment. The war was about slavery. The end.
🤤🤤🤤🤤
Compensated Emancipation.
Inarticulocity…that should be the word you’re looking for
"...slavery is the pretext, not the cause of the [civil war].."- US General William T Sherman
From the Republican party platform of 1860 (the year Abraham Lincoln was elected President): "That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; ... that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States."
Colbert is terrible at his job.
No it’s still a gotcha question because of people like this who continue to deny the incredibly basic historical fact that it was almost entirely about slavery, specifically the expansion of slavery. The fact that it’s 2024 and we still have prominent Christian leaders saying this crap is shameful. He also just flat out lied when he said the Washington DC slave market continued during the civil war, DC abolished the slave trade in 1850, however Virginia obviously didn’t. Also saying Maryland had slaves therefore the war wasn’t about slavery is genuinely one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It’s almost like the border states weren’t nearly as invested in the institution of slavery and therefore sided with the union, also Maryland became a free state during the war, how many confederate states freed their slaves during the war? Yeah that’s what I thought.
They wont wver admit it because its their whole worldview. All of their polocies and thoughts are derived from that. Telling them the civil war wasnt about slavery is telling them them up is down. And since theyve bought into public schooling and taught what to think and not HOW, they cant even begin to wrap their heads around conplex subjects.
What was the cause of the Civil War?
The North.
Why do they keep talking about the civil war?
Antiwhiteism.
The same problem is seen in Roe v Wade.
What is Roe v Wade a debate about?
Some would shout 'abortion' without hesitation while others would say its about how government functions to make and enforce laws.
The civil war was never about the morality of slavery but rather its economical ramifications. So you can say it was about states rights but primarily states rights to own slaves. I wouldn't so flippantly dismiss slavery as being the main driver of the war especially with reasoning given here : general grant owned slaves, there were slaves in the north- that proves nothing. It would be like me saying racism can't exist because i have black friends. At least back up you claims with historical documents (but not the letters of succession bc those mention slavery!)
Perfect three word comeback on the question about the cause of the Civil War: "Democrats owning slaves".
In terms of impressionism, I thought it had a lot to so with slavery (which matters a lot politically as its connected to race). But even here in Australia much of our history is being re contextualized to fit a noble & peaceful native narrative. So, we don't know much about history, biology etc. There is always more to be learned, defended & reminded of in a world full of disinformation etc.
Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery. End of story. It’s not liberal to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I’m a conservative Reformed Baptist and unfortunately this video will push away people who might have otherwise listened to you on other topics where you genuinely have good things to say.
I disagree with your assessment.
You said: "Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery" Dead on right, Full stop. Well done.
Of course they didn't want the Federal government impeding on slavery because it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to do so. The North was thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the South was insisting the Constitution be enforced. Try breaking your marriage vows and see how long it takes your wife to file for divorce.
Slavery would have ended without the horrendous cost of a civil war and maybe this country could have existed longer without this horrendously oppressive and gigantic federal government that Lincoln began. Did the Founders promote empire or did you Yankees? And we have been fighting wars all over the world ever since then haven’t we? Aren’t you tired of all of the death and destruction we continue to perpetrate on the world? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Where did this start? Where does the mindset come from? The god Lincoln that’s who.
Grant freed Jones (his slave) in March 1859.
The Grant family continued to be served by four slaves gifted the Julia Grant by her father.
@@JonJaeden source? and where did they live? If it was close to the Mason Dixon line then your point is moot. Also did they continue to have them throughout the entire war?
Can anyone name me the TOP THREE BEST HISTORICAL CIVIL WAR BOOKS to read?
I grew up in a family with proud Confederate roots. We were proud that we had ancestors' names engraved on our local county courthouse who had died in the war fighting for the Confederacy. I had a tee shirt with a confederate battle flag on it that read: "If this shirt offends you, you need a history lesson." I mastered the argument that it was Lincoln who started the war.
Then, around the time I was thirty years old, I read the Georgia Declaration of Secession. Some excerpts:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..."
"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."
*"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."*
"The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."
"The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded."
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers."
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
"For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."
*"The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States"*
"For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers."
"But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. *Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property* in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity."
Sorry Doug. It was about slavery, plain and simple.
Love this comment, thank you for sharing. I wasn't raised in the South. However, when I moved to Georgia for a year, so many people in my reformed Baptist church were pro-Confederate and I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Then I moved to Florida and a reformed presbyterian church where likewise everyone was pro-Confederate. I was so nervous to begin teaching my children about the civil war that I decided I had to study it myself so I could make all the necessary corrections to books, etc. that speak highly of Lincoln and say the war was about slavery. But in my study, my mind was completely changed. I realized the Confederacy was dreadfully wrong, and while the North wasn't great either, I'm fearful that so many reformed people fall into the trap of supporting the Confederacy which the more I study, the more I see how wicked it was.
It's true that only slave states seceded. What's also true is that several slave states did not, and would thus be still in the Union that was supposedly a campaign to abolish slavery. West Virginia was admitted into the Union in the middle of the Civil War as a slave state.
That entire Ken Burns letter was funny…it’s just that the late shows employ all the bad comedy writers.
Ok but when state legislatures left the union they gave reasons for secession, slavery was front and center. The men in power perceived an existential threat to the institution.
You People need to get Off of that Trying to say Each state Had a 'Statement' saying they were 'leaving the Union' To save Slavery'... because that is just Complete Bull shit! First off....only 4 States out of Thirteen... Even mentioned slavery... and All they actually said was that 'They were pretty dependent on slavery' for their Agricultural Business. None of the Statements Ever said they Would 'Go to War' to. Keep slavery!!
Doug, you know I'm right there with you. Deo Vindice!
Don't forget non silba, sed anthar! 😬
Not a Haley fan but yes, Colbert is a hack and propagandist who lost all touch with both reality and humor.
No, the reason it's a gotcha question is that diversity is a weakness and our diversity egenda makes it so that we can't be logical.
The funny thing is Doug Wilson knows about the writings from the Confederacy on this issue. It definitely a grammar issue… It’s about states rights… to OWN SLAVES. 😂 Don’t reply if you have haven’t read the Ordinances of Session from 1861…
Precisely. But even then "states' rights" was a mask. What's one of their main grievances in their declarations? States don't have the right to oppose slavery by not returning our slaves! The Constitution of the United States did not explicitly recognize African slavery and compromises had held the states together for a time. But all the while tensions grew as the desire for a strong *federal* recognition and defense of slavery was granted in the CSA's constitution which defended and protected slavery *federally.*
Excellent analysis, as always.
Entertaining AND insightful. Subscribe
Lincoln's illegal war was (in his words ) fought to "preserve the Union," i.e. keep those tariff dollars rollin' in." Thomas DiLorenzo's three books on Lincoln opened my eyes to the real story about the 'Civil' War, for which I am grateful.
DiLorenzo is wrong. I used to agree with his books. He'll ask question like "how could other nations end slavery peacefully and not ours?" That's an easy answer. Because other nations did not have a people group so steeply founded upon racial supremacy in the political, social, and economical structure that they were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery.
hmm you're going to be hammered in the comments, although that never stopped you before. I do agree either way.
I remember Ken Burns special saying that the Emmancipation Proclamation gave the war a cause "freeing slaves" and me reacting huh? wasn't that the whole point from the beginning.
Then I began thinking. I looked up history classes online. The proffesors all said that slavery caused the civil war. No doubt slavery was a cause of great friction.
Then I saw some videos saying that slavery did not cause the civil war states rights did. Then the other side said "what were those rights -- the right to own slaves".
OK, but if slavery was really the cause why did the South leave in two tranches? I think the second left after Fort Sumnter. Virginia actually decided to stay in until it left.
Then I realized Lincoln could not free the slaves. Dredd Scott meant that he would need to pass an Amendment -- not happening, or the Supreme Court would have to change -- that takes time.
TO really understand, some day I will read the debates in the legislatures and the speeches.
no.
Correction: the United States WERE caught up.
Sam Harris Demolishes Christianity. Do a response to that, please
What state right were they fighting over? Specifically?
THANK YOU! Ugh! I don’t understand how a man as logical and wise as Doug can get this wrong. The correct answer is the war was fought in order to preserve the union. But why was the union in danger of being torn apart? Hmm? Oh that’s right, the southern states seceding in order to preserve the institution of SLAVERY! The vice president of the confederacy himself said that it was a cornerstone of the confederate government. It’s not rocket science, people!
Slavery of course. Everyone knows this, but people like to play word games.
Secession
@@MarianneBrandon Why did they want to secede?
@@EarlSimmons-f2n clearly no one has read any of the secession letters. I can’t for the life of me understand how intelligent rational people still are able to gloss over this simple and vital portion of the argument.
It was over slavery. Period. It wasn’t over states rights. If it was about states rights, why did the south ask the federal government essentially to have the northern states return the runaway slaves?
That’s a pitiful understanding. Just a quick search you can find alot of evidence to it being over states rights (slavery being one of the) and you can even find videos of old confederate soldiers at a dance who said the same thing that it was over states rights…..
Yeah stated rights.... to buy, sell, and own slaves...... they cna just skip over the word slavery by replacing it with states rights.
Let this be a lesson to you though of how easy it is to pull the wool over an idiot's eyes.
This is why most of these same idiots were calling it an insurrection (and proud of it) one day then calling it a peaceful protest the next day.
Just like the southerners who knew it was about slavery let themselves be convinced it was for the greater good of God, and states, and just another way to own the libs because their uneducated asses got tired and are still tired of being the losers they have always been. It's what life looks like when you believe education is worthless because you have a bible.
State sovereignty was the deep reaching question OF the war; slavery was the catalyst FOR the war.
Today we feel most acutely the negative effects of the empire that was built as a partial result of federal action. But even a casual study of Colonial America, the revolution, and the Constitutional Convention(s) reveals that chattel slavery was absolutely radioactive from the beginning. Some states almost did not ratify the constitution because they did not want to participate with states that permitted the slave trade. The so-called great compromise band-aided things together for a time, but it could not possibly last.
Slavery (as the precipitating issue) and state sovereignty (by implication) are not mutually exclusive. They were both involved at different levels and both impacted motivations to fight on either side. And we do see that motivations ranged from very honorable (land and kin) to not so honorable (opportunism and exploitation) on either side.
Because it was in the original Constitution.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
You’re spot on Doug!!!! About state rights!!!!
I've been listening to Doug Wilson for more than 30 years. I am increasingly curious why someone of his calibre does not debate Roman Catholic apologists? Debating atheists and bad comedians is a bunny slope. Entertaining and fun, perhaps, but the real battle is with Rome (and to a lesser degree the Orthodox). More people are leaving Reformed Churches to become Catholics or Orthodox than to become Atheists. So why, after decades of ministry, there ain't a single example of Doug debating a Catholic on UA-cam (at least that I can find). Why not spar with a Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin? It would get HUGE views on both your channels.
It's the Catholics that normally refuse to debate the Reformed guys.
James White of Alpha and Omega ministries has many debates with Roman Catholics and scores of Dividing Line podcast hours going over the claims of Catholic apologists in great detail for all the different categories that come up.
Check that out to see how Reformed scholars address the doctrines.
@@umaikakudo I've listened to every debate James White has had with Catholics... which is a big reason why I became Catholic when I did instead of 10 years later. I was a Calvinist until I was 46 years old. DEEPLY CALVINIST Presbyterian. But even as a Presbyterian, I winced whenever listening to sophist Calvinist Credo-baptists like MacArthur and White, because they represent a bubble within a puddle of a ghetto of Christianity. I was undecided on whether they could be called "magisterial Protestants." Calvin would probably have imprisoned them (or worse) if they showed up in Geneva-- for their baptism views alone.
There is a difference between the 17th century Protestants and the 16th. There are reasons why the magisterial protestants had a hard time with congregational Puritans (and still do!).
I would like to see more magisterial credalists debate Catholics-- not "biblicists" like White, who are only Trinitarian because they personally find the Trinity in Scripture... not because the Church Jesus Christ established taught them this and made it a matter of dogma which people must believe if they want to be called Christians-- whether they personally find it in Scripture or not.
We were born 2000 years late. Christianity isn't our private religion and we don't get to pick and choose how we use the Bible -- like a cafeteria buffet line.
White's own peculiar theology (with all its nuance-- including his eschatology) probably has fewer adherents today than likely existed in the 17th century.
So I'm cordially calling out Wilson, Leithart, and all the "New St. Andrews"/Ligionier/Credo types to show up and confront the "brain drain" happening in Reformed Evangelicalism of folks heading to Rome or Constantinople. They are committing pastoral malpractice to ignore this growing trend. They're still living in the 1980s when the focus was on getting disgruntled PTL Evangelicals to drop the tambourines long enough to consider the Reformed Faith. Discern the times, brothers, or you're either going to have more of your congregants swinging hard to White or to Rome. You are underrepresented in the discussion. Peace. 😘
I remember the history I learned in High School well - A Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than slavery...
You said: "A Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than slavery..." Oh really? Is that why Lincoln pushed for and had ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
@@manager0175 that's what I'm saying....in fact that was confirmed in the civil war documentary by Ken Burns....
I'm not saying he didn't care about slavery....are you triggered?
@@freeman7296 I see your point. They are not exclusive goals I stand corrected.
@@manager0175 Really?
* In his first inaugural address, given in March 1861, Lincoln endorsed the recently passed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have guranteed slavery in perpetuity in the South and denied Congress the power to regulate the institution. The amendment which would have resulted in permanent bondage was intended to woo the first seven seceding states back into the Union. The preferred their independence.
* Lincoln's Emancipation was a presidential executive order meant to disrupt the South during wartime. It exempted emancipation in the border states and in Southern territories under control of the Union Army. It declared freedom for slaves within the "states in rebellion," where Lincoln had no authority. Tellingly, if those states would cease their rebellion and return to the Union by December 31, 1862, the proclaimed emancipation was null and void.
* Lincoln's "push" for the 13th Amendment ending slavery came after the November 1864 election -- just five months before Lee surrendered and 31 months after the war had begun. It was not passed by the Northern House and Senate, despite the absence of Southern representatives, until January 31, 1865, and followed by Lincoln's signing on February 1, 1865 -- two months and a week before Lee surrendered. It was finally ratified on December 6, 1865, making slavery -- North AND South -- unlawful. You'd think, if Lincoln was more interested in ending slavery than preserving forced-union, he might have "pushed" a little sooner.
* Lincoln died from assassination on April 15, 1865. The 14th Amendment was not proposed until 1866 and was not ratified until 1868. The 15th was ratified in 1870. By this time, the only thing Lincoln was "pushing" was daisies ...
@@manager0175this is basic knowledge, it's embarrassing that you don't know it. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley August of 1862.
What's a good comprehensive book about the reality of the Civil War? As a public school grad, we were taught relentlessly that it was almost solely about slavery
Some would say it’s too Southern, but I’m enjoying Shelby Foote’s works.
I would say you tangentially learn a lot about it from the later volumes of Carl Sandburg's 1930s multivolume biography of Abraham Lincoln.
You said: "As a public school grad, we were taught relentlessly that it was almost solely about slavery". Wow, they got it right.
@@manager0175 Learned that in public school did you?
@@jasongcrow5313 I did.
It was so much freedom that we could own people
Actually, while the "state's rights" argument is indeed true, the Civil War was also about slavery. You can read the declarations of secession from the Southern States, it's right in there.
The "States' Rights" rationalization only occurred after the war was lost and slavery ended.
@@ricksamericana749 No, that's wrong. The use of "state's rights" to obscure slavery as the dominate factor did indeed come about post-Civil war. The US we live in today is vastly different than the US pre-Civil War. We live in a top-down heavy government US as a result of going through the Civil War, Depression, two World Wars, the Cold War and so we are used to the Federal government having and wielding power and telling the states what to do. That's not how the Founders set up the country, originally the States were supposed to be the main power, as a means to check federal power. It's right there in the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). But, over time, slowly and surely the Federal power grew and eroded the states powers. There was nothing in the Constitution about Slavery and thus the Southern pro-slavery States weren't too keen on the Federal government trying to tell them what they could and couldn't do concerning slavery.
i love it
The war was about state's rights? Their right to do what?
The spread of slavery.
do you have resources on canon plus that cover what the war was really about?
Doug is wrong on this issue. Check out the book Property in Man which shows the fight for slavery beginning 1787 all the way through the civil war.
"Inarticulation?"
It’s a gotcha question because along with so many other things, the term “states rights” is now determined by the powers that be to be code for racism. Like flying the Gadsden flag or carrying a gun or homeschooling all are secretly code for racism.
I know because the people on the internet who call me “YT” said so. (In other words, for those who can’t tell, the people using derogatory racial terms are obviously the deciding factor on what racism ack-choo-wally is. And they usually have a link in their bio to their cash app for all their mental labor, pay a Black [capitalized] person, and all that)
I guess I could forgive Colbert for being stupid or disingenuous, but for him to stand up and pretend to be funny when he's not........ pathetic.
Not a fan of Steven C.
"It was all about a battle for our freedom!" So slavery had nothing to do with it! Sorry, but anybody who knows the basics of US history understands that Civil War was indeed about slavery. You can pretend all you want that it was "actually" about something deeper and more abstract, like people's rights to run their localities the way they want free of interference from that wicked old federal gummint, but that's a ridiculous argument and is easily disproved based on the facts on the ground at the time of the Civil War. So it's pretty clear that you are an apologist for the South and for slavery. But by all means tell us more! If you don't want to call it the "Civil War," what term do you prerer? I'm figuring maybe "The War of Northern Aggression," or something like that. Is that about right? Your supposed "refutations" of the facts about the Civil War are stupid, long since debunked, and really unworthy of anyone who knows anything about history.
You make a lot of assertions the debate is settled, but I looked and I see no evidence or argument to support them.
I prefer "War for Southern Independence."
@@JonJaeden Its's weird to me how people who offer no evidence for their own positions always justify their dismissal of contrary positions because they haven't been offered evidence. Seriously? THis is just a way to be dishonest. In fact, I could offer piles of evidence, though typically that's not what comments on UA-cam are for.
But since you ask, I'll offer a few: Check out Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech." Or read the articles of secession for various states. Or any other myriad documents. i can offer some more if you'd like! The historical record is easily found, and filled with Confederates themselves explaining how slavery, which they recognized was under threat, was so integral to their way of life, and thus required drastic action in order to rescue. And this is in fact true: The South was not just a slave economy, but a slave SOCIETY, and the end of slavery basically destroyed the Southern economic and social organization. This was one reason that after the war they were so desperate to find ways to extend slavery to the extent they could, via Jim Crow laws which were in place until the 1960s. (Another reason was the truly vicious racism, which was imbedded in the white Southern mind, and arose no doubt from the need to justify both their economic/social organization and also consider themselves good people. It's a tough circle to square.)
There's really no excuse for people NOT to understand what the Civil War was about, so it's hard not to conclude that those who insist that slavery was not the major underlying factor are willfully ignorant and wish to avoid acknowledging American racism, and very likely are themselves actuated by racism. Which is sort of the conclusion one reaches when people offer "alternative" names for the War that make the Southerners look like the good guys. You know, like "War for Southern Independence."
I suggest people read the Lincoln Douglas debates. It was about slavery. Douglas said each territory should decide. Lincoln wanted to limit slaverys expansion.
The Republican goal was no blacks in the territories. Lincoln's Illinois already banned free blacks from settling in the state.
Sooo....one series of documents settles the "cause" question? What other historiographical debates are settled by a single series of documents?
I didn't say "one series of documents" settles what caused the Civil War. But the Lincoln Douglas debates point to the issue being the expansion of slavery. Douglas wanted to allow its expansion. Lincoln did not. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected because they wanted slavery to continue and spread. They did not see slavery as immoral.
I do remember a Northern statesmen position on it I can't remember the name right now it's been years since I read his words but he was upset about the prospect of the South expanding and colonizing Westward instead of the North and bringing in more foreigners from A frica.
Succession and insurrection are different things
Secession
You all let Dougy feed you his version but the historic documents show otherwise.
there is no way you can prove that except through cherry picking the documents and then you have proven nothing
@@colinfoster7655 Read the Southern states declarations of secession. Read the deep South's commissioners' speeches and letter about why other slave states should secede. You know what you'll find? According to them, it was all about white supremacy and slavery.
Slavery ended everywhere else 60+ years before the Civil War and Americans were proposing ending slavery gradually through 1906.
Exactly the reason the war was needed. One second longer was an abomination.
Slavery still exists today.
@@filonin2Right, gradually ending the institution in a way that allowed society to adjust and integrate the newly freed people was totally more abominable than a war that killed over a million people, killed or maimed 50% of the Southern military-aged men, utterly devastated the Southern economy, and directly created the disease and poverty that killed nearly a million of the former slaves (25% of the total) in the years following the war.
Brazil ended slavery in 1883. She had more slaves than the United States and was just as dependent on cheap agricultural labor. Had slavery ended gradually and without violence race relations would be much much better today. But I don't think that would have been possible. In places like Brazil the whole country was either one thing or the other.
Now if a person like Trump, a narcissist with a gigantic ego, had been thrown into the mix it changes things. Here's Trump.
"Let them go for now, and don't make it worse than it has to be. They'll cool down when they see we mean them no harm. We'll just let it ride for my first term. In my second term we'll begin working on reunification. And by the end of my third term we'll be reunited with a plan everybody can accept and it will be a win for the South, a win for the North and a win for the blacks! We'll win so much we'll get tired of winning!"
And he might have pulled it off.
@@filonin2 I've got some home addresses of baby terminators ... are you game?
Doug Wilson should run for presidency..
You said: "Doug Wilson should run for presidency.." By all means, run on a "Slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war." Anti-abortion rights, nation-wide abortion ban, pro-gun, anti-LGBT, "2020 election was stolen" "Donald T***p is a good Christian man." Platform. Democrats will give you all the campaign donations you'd ever need.
Doug's work as a father, pastor, educator, and evangelist against unbelieving culture is far more powerful than any president could ever be.
Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert.
@@umaikakudo You said: "Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert." The problem is, "Christian nationalism" IS "top down authoritarianism". "Christian nationalism" is, right now, supporting the most "top down" authoritarian in US history. "Christian Nationalism" is, RIGHT NOW supporting a man that is arguing for "complete immunity" for any presidential activity. "Christian nationalism" is RIGHT NOW, supporting a man that declares himself to be "Dictator for day one" and calls for dissolution of articles of the Constitution. And we have not even talked about what Doug has asserted as his intentions within "Christian nationalism". Which is also "top down authoritarianism'.
@@umaikakudo Well said, Let's pray that Lord keeps blessing Him to bring the knowledge of Christ to the church with a much broader influence.
5:46 There was a war fought on the seas mostly by the British Navy! I agree with the rest, but war was necessary to prevent slaves being transferred.
That pharma shill should've stuck to be a Goodwrench huckster
Its telling that every single state that seceded listed slavery as a primary cause in their articles of secession.
Stephen Colbert is a propagandist, not a comedian.
Colbert is sloppy on about everything, to put it charitably
I’m gonna be honest, Doug. I came across a theology video of yours a while back and thought you were quiet intelligent and brought up interesting points.
But the more content of yours I’ve consumed, especially if it involves politics in some way, you’re so frustratingly predictable.
Your lack of humility and empathy to opposing views and why others might have them (even if they are wrong) make for a very self-righteous image to those who don’t mindlessly consume your content because it confirms the beliefs they already hold.
At your worst, you make fun of and put others down, which is just so disappointing.
I thought I had found someone who could challenge and sharpen my own beliefs, but I’ve come away realizing that like so many others in the church, your political identity seems to have overtaken your faith and turned it into something very unproductive.
Seeing what’s wrong with the far left is pretty obvious. Even the far right.
But you? That’s a hell of a lot harder. The Enemy’s masterpiece is not the obvious evil, it’s the army of church leaders who have convinced masses of believers they come in the name of Jesus only to preach a distorted image of Him.
You’re not the worst, by any means, and you’re not even “bad” because I don’t think you have any ill intentions. But so many of your teachings are skewed just enough that I think the net effect is a lot more damage than you would ever imagine, but not enough that it’s easy to show.
Anyway, I’m rambling at this point. I don’t comment much at all, the Colbert skit was lame, and your reaction wasn’t the best example of my remarks, but I finally just felt like I had to let it out. I hope you’ll consider my words, give them some thought, and genuinely pray about it. The Spirit can communicate my feelings and God’s desires for you and humanity far more than I ever could.
God Bless, Pastor.
Spot on Doug!
Except he isn't.
America was not the only country to fight over slavery.
Colbert wasn't faking an accent he was making fun of one.
He laughed about a joke then claimed it wasn't funny.
He also has no idea what caused the Civil war if not for slavery but will twist and turn his way through bs version of events that will all ignore the initial cause was over the slavery issue.
Sad. It was ALL about slavery and that alone. Alexander H. Stephens said so and he was Confederate Vice President - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
No! Don't let them see this😬
Alexander Stephens' lightning-rod Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously. There was no written copy. What we have of it comes from a newspaper reporter who took notes and wrote it up. Stephens, post-war, took issue with how his words had been reported "with glaring errors" (during the war, several versions of it were circulated).
Stephens, a longtime friend of Lincoln -- even meeting with him for peace talks during the war -- voted against secession at the Georgia secession convention.
@@JonJaeden I'm sure he had no reason to change his story 🤣
Just give it up, the south with not rise again, and was righteously dealt with. You a little snowflake about your precious confederacy?
@@EarlSimmons-f2n I'm sure if Stevens had reason to change his story, it would not be because you've contributed anything to give him second thoughts.
@@JonJaeden The South was simply all about abusing fellow human beings and the whole purpose of their war was the continuation of such. They and those who support them today are just like the NAZIs or Putin with his outrages in Ukraine. Evil to the core and God judges such even in this life as He did the Confederates, NAZIs and He will Putin and Russia.
Lincoln left a fortress of war in Charleston Harbor and tried to enforce it, an act of war. His Proclamation on State Militia (April, 15, 1861), Proclamation 81-Declaring a Blockade of Ports in Rebellious States (April 19, 1861) and Proclamation 82-Extension of Blockade to Ports of Additional States (April 27, 1861) say nothing of slavery but "collection of revenues." The Upper South seceded in response to Lincoln's actions. Therefore the war was not caused by slavery.
BWahahaahahaahahhaha
@c.w.johnsonjr6374 What you said is so highly inaccurate. The federal government owned forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. all over the South because, obviously, there were part of the country. Many of these were voluntarily given from the state to the federal government. The South had been taking over these places with armed forces for months. Those are the acts of war and they started before Lincoln was even president. Many times they took over the forts and arsenals before they even seceded - an explicitly treasonous act. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the South had seized all the federal forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom houses, revenue cutters, mints, courts, and post offices within their borders except Fort Sumter in South Carolina and Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson in Florida.
Fort Sumter, in particular, had been given by voluntary statute of South Carolina to the federal government in 1836. This fort was for the defense of the harbor. The attack on Fort Sumter, the official starting point of the Civil War, was simply another act of war in a long line of hostile takeovers the South had been engaged in for the past 4 months. Lincoln had every right constitutionally to resupply Fort Sumter. It was not an act of war. On the contrary, *no one made the South fire the first shots.* That was their choice. They started the war. Why? Read their declaration of secession and the speeches and letters from the deep South commissioners to the upper southern states on why they should secede and join the confederacy. Like this one from Stephen F. Hale to the Kentucky governor. The South was absolutely NOT shy to claim the war was all about white supremacy and slavery: teachingamericanhistory.org/document/stephen-f-hale-to-governor-beriah-magoffin/
Centralization vs decentralization
If it wasn't slavery but state rights what rights were they losing? It seems to me that slavery would be one of those.
The South did not need to secede to preserve slavery -- the institution was not under threat in the South.
Slavery was practiced in all 13 of the original colonies, still legal in most of them when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That Constitution recognized the legality of the institution and the enforceable property rights of slave owners, even in states that exercised their right to ban the practice for those residing within their borders. Everyone, North and South -- and the states that subsequently joined the United States -- were voluntary members of a covenant that recognized and protected slavery, an institution just as odious in 1788 as it was in 1860.
The only legal means to end slavery nationally was to pass a constitutional amendment. There were not the votes (nor, apparently, the will, even in the North) to do so. So, the South did not have to "preserve" slavery against an amendment by seceding.
Politically, there was little for Southerners to fear for slavery within their borders. Lincoln and the Republicans did not target slavery in the South, only in the new territories in the West. The fourth plank of the 1860 Republican platform specifically endorsed as "inviolate the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS according to its own judgment exclusively." Lincoln himself said he did not believe he had constitutional authority to do anything about Southern slavery, nor did he have an intention to do so. He endorsed the Corwin Amendment, passed just two days before his first inauguration, that guaranteed slavery in perpetuity in those states where it was currently legal and removed Congress' authority to regulate it. If the South was concerned about preserving slavery, it merely needed to reject secession and return to the Union.
The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
Final point, despite those pesky Southerners no longer being in Congress after secession, Northerners didn't get around to passing the 13th Amendment ending slavery until 4 months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox and didn't ratify it until December 1865, ending slavery in the U.S. -- North and South -- at the same time.
@JonJaeden Thanks for the history lesson, but can you answer the question with more brevity for the sake of clarity? List the rights in order of importance that the Civil War was fought over.
Easy. Look at all the individual and state rights that the federal govt has usurped since the civil war.
@@HvV_FilmRoom The South, in 1861, seceded for the same reason the 13 colonies seceded in 1776 -- liberty and independence. The South fought in both 1861 and 1776 because it was invaded by a foreign tyranny intent on crushing its quest for independence.
How was the Federal government trying to end slavery in the South in 1860-61? They weren't.
mr. wilson sure knows it all
Everyone is correct.
💪🏼⚔️🐉
I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you!
Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was.
You said: "I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you!
Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was." I was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. I cannot count all the times i heard: "The civil war was about states rights." "Black folks were better off a slaves." "Slavery was the original social security." "No one has more opportunities than a poor black child." And this video is perpetuating those notions. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. That was the cause of the Civil war. Every other issue was was centered on and around SLAVERY.
@@manager0175 Per my history professor from UNC, the short answer is actually "economics." It is true that there were reprehensible radicals on both sides, though. The moderates lost the debate and the rivers were filled with the blood of many thousands as a result. There is no good war.
@@manager0175 , I also live in the south. There are two things you need to remember.
1. You have a right to believe whatever you want. But facts don't lie or care about your feelings.
2. Those who won the war wrote history.
Bonus: if you are a Christian brother, I love you no matter what you believe about the war.
@@oruwatching I am indeed a Christian man.
@@manager0175 If the cause of the Civil War was slavery, that would mean slavery was also the North's motive in fighting. What is the evidence for that?