The Road to Civil War (US History EOC Review - USHC 3.1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- www.tomrichey.net/eoc
In this segment of the US History EOC Review series, Tom Richey explains the events leading up to the Civil War, including the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, Texas Annexation, the Compromise of 1850, Slavery in the Territories, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott Decision, and John Brown.
This lecture addresses USHC 3.1 in the South Carolina curriculum standards for US History and the Constitution.
Very interesting summary. I am Canadian, but am fascinated by American history.
Thanks, Tom. I can't watch documentaries anymore because of the droning, incessant, loud, nonmusical music all the film makers think is essential! You just gave the facts here, without opinions, too, it would seem. I'll be watching all your videos if they are like this one.
I just wanted to personally thank you very much for taking the time to make these videos. I never cared much about focusing in school during high school, etc. as I could always simply cram and bring my grade back up. But as I've been working instead of being in college before finally coming back to school, Ive developed the desire to actual learn and understand everything. I'm currently preparing for an American History exam, and I am simply listening to you speak as I do my dishes, etc. It is very nice and helpful to hear you touch on familiar names, happenings, and dates. From the bottom of my heart, thank you very much for taking the time to make these, as the history of our country kind of hit me unawares with the manifestation of interest. Thank you, thank you, and thank you. You've earned a subscriber from myself as I hope to follow the path of my fellow citizens throughout history.
I thought MY History teacher, Richard Benjamin, was killing it (most appreciate explanation of "free soil") at La Sierra HS in 1988. You, sir, do him great justice and expand on his knowledge.
I wish UA-cam had emoji reactions because while going over this review, I must have cracked up 5-6 times with some of your analogies and commentary. LOL. Thank you for making the USH brain-inundation more enjoyable.
“Uncle Tom’s Cabin is the Twilight of the 1850’s” XD
Or vampires are hot😂😂 great way to keep us interested and paying attention
Not sure if "Uncle Tom's Cabin was the Twilight of the 1850's" is the best or worst book review ever.
You got it right Tom. Harper's Ferry is in West Virginia now. I'm a West Virginian and I can say that it is in WV. It's in that part of the far eastern part of the Eastern Panhandle between Maryland and Virginia. I really enjoy your videos on US and world history. Keep it up, very informative and very educational
An outstanding and fascinating documentary--well-written and researched. Best of all, this presentation makes it easy to follow the narration and sequence of events.
Thank you sir. The best breakdown of the lead up to the Civil War I’ve come across yet.
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
It will be interesting in the coming years to see if states like TX, AZ, GA turn blue or become toss ups. The electoral college may start working against the fascist terrorists of today.
Think it's important to state that economic competition was a big motivator for free soilers, not to say that many weren't racist, Im sure they were! But free labor is very hard to compete with. This was similar to tensions in the Roman Republic between plebs being driven to Rome as unemployed, as rich landowners with slaves outcompeted smallholders. Love your work btw!
"Free Soil" and "Free Labor" were euphemisms for Whites Only, Free of Blacks, Slave or Free.
What is Matt Damon doing here? He's supposed to be making the next movie of "Bourne"
";-)
I thought same - he looks like him
Thank you!
Uncle Tom's Cabin was based upon the book written by Josiah Henderson - 1789-1883 - " The Life of Josiah Henderson, Formerly a Slave, now ....Canada, as narrated by Himself. " by Arthur D Phelps in 1849. Stow read this book, which most white people didn't read and she wrote the fiction, that would sell to the White Abolitionists. One may read the electronic edition; I read an old reprint book from the library system in Massachusetts. His story is the real story of an accomplished slave, and how he eventually escaped to Canada and set up an independent black society. Stow is given more credit than she deserves; Henderson deserves more recognition than he ever received. A far more real worthwhile story to read. Hope this comment is appropriate for your excellent video. Thank you.
Stowe was deeply affected by issues of the time and captured the nation's attention with her narrative in a way they could receive it. She knew Henderson's plight and effectively carried it forward, for both his sake and for that of others facing this moral dilemma. Fictionalizung events is a common way to deliver Truth. For capably doing this, Harriot Beatrice Stowe deserves all the credit she gets.
Similarly, the power of delivering events in a publicly receptive way bears more attention, with 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' being a perfect example. Yes, Henderson's auto-biography, "The Life of Josiah Henderson, Formerly a Slave, ...", deserves pubic recognition, especially as it provided such compelling evidence for forward movement, compassion, and liberty. The books could easily be paired. If they were packaged together, I'd bet they would be a big hit. Historians, teachers, and justice seekers would love it. (BTW, I am related to Harriet)
Mr. Richey, I didn't get a handout.
Also, my dog ate my homework. Can I go to the bathroom now?
lol
Very well balanced view of how thing got out of control in mid 19th century.
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
god bless you thanks for this
excellent video. you are a master sir!
Thanks Richey! This should be the first lesson about the Civil War, but it's not the simplest of reasons to form a major part of the answer. The major problem facing the new USA was not just internal as you so skilfully portrayed previously. But global/outside issues e.g. colonialism and European expansionism (declining, not yet dead), Haiti's slaves revolt, American help to the British against the French in Quebec/Canada, Spanish sovereignty in neighbouring countries, etc. All this must in some way become part of the broader picture even though some of these issues were chronologically earlier/later than the event.
But of course this moves the answer about the causes of the American Civil War to a whole new level, more complex and certainly not as simplistic an answer you'd expect at the entry level. The simplistic answer is often used by those with an agenda, not by those students of history. So for example, you can still find imperialists claiming that European colonialism didn't impinge on the 2 World Wars. Yet when you ask why Germany then sought territorial expansion, the dismissive answer tends to be fascism. Human beings are complex, and often have complex behaviour. Therefore answers/ solutions can not always be fully understood just in a simplistic manner.
Thanks Rich!!
Watching this in 2020 shows me a lot of similarities to our current situation
Thanks for a review of the Lost Cause fairytale. You can squeeze it any way you want; but, you’ll only get three reasons, written by the CSAs themselves. #1 Slavery #2 Slavery #3 Slavery. Read the reasons they, the CSA, each wrote themselves .
Anytime I say "Compromise of 1950" I actually sing it. I made up a jingle that's pretty catchy, if I don't mind saying so myself.
nice
mr.beast?
Excellent point pertaining to fictional literature's effect on belief systems.
I LOVE YOU MAN
+Isabel Yang ☕️😆👍🏼
Everything is perfect except the audio issues. I'll definitely check out some of your other videos
you are basically my teacher because all he does is play your videos
Someday I'll be showing this to a class and they'll have no idea what Twilight was. I will be so happy.
Do one of these on the 2nd civil war and how its going to tie in with ww3 please and thank you
Hi there Tom! where can I find standard 4? also, I have to review some "isms" and I was wondering if I can find them in any of your videos: progressivism, imperialism, consumerism and modernism also about gold rush. so far, you have been of GREAT help. I'll keep you posted on my exam result.
Glad I can help! I'm still in the process of editing videos and posting them, so it will likely be a few months before the Standard 4 material finds its way online (most schools will be there around December or January so I'll have it up before then. I'll get to some of those isms you mentioned at some point, but this whole thing is still a work in progress.
Hi there Tom. I sat for my US History final examination and I passed ! thanks very much for all your help from Argentina!! you are a great teacher!!!
Another phenomenon of the era was RAILROADS. Bottom-line, the first trans-continental railroad was built to the advantage of Union interests.
That undertaking would have been impossible before the consolidation of Federal Authority.
Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, commissioned a survey for a much more practicable route of a trans-continental railroad through newly acquired territories. No snow. Less adverse topography. That route would have more closely bound California to Dixie.
My new colleague is from Kansas an d that made me think, dang I need to know about the breeding grounds of Civil-War that started in Kansas.
I knew about the civil war but still blank at details before.
At 2:06 you say the the Southern economy is based on trade. Most history says that their economy was based on agriculture. I think this is an interesting distinction. Trade, I would argue, is a much broader term than agriculture. Would you mind discussing this further?
so john brown is a violent abolitionist but Brooks is not called a violent slaver, also brown committed rebellion not treason.
Brown committed treason. He was attacking the security of the States. He invaded Militaty forts and even killed a U.S. Marine doing so.
Brown was a terrorist.
And you dont compare a citizen turning on his own country to someone who was not doing any harm to their country.
You all are idiots.
Brown was hanged for treason. Ironically the person that lead the marines was General Lee. And also the first person that Brown and men killed when entering Harper's Ferry was a free black man that worked for the railway.
I wish you made maps bigger as you were schooling us. The USA didn't look the same.
William Walker invaded Central América in the 1850's that's what I call escalate the conflict! Just imagine the five republics as mini Texas joining the southern cause
Just trying to learn more, have long been a believer that all wars are over the mighty dollar. The money trail is interesting and I expect more correct. Add in that changes to immigration laws to allow more cheap labor into the job market during the American industrialization by “The men that made America”, makes this history learner wonder if the north just saw a new cheap labor force. Winner writes the history, but time often uncovers the truths. Long live equality, may racism one day meet the grim reaper.
Judicial Activism truly is a bane on this country. It's always better to have Originalists on the Court.
After the Missouri Compromise, Thomas Jefferson correctly predicted that the issue of slavery would destroy the Union.
_"I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."_ --Thomas Jefferson, 1820
Jefferson concluded this letter with his ominous prediction:
_"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the generation of '76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. if they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world."_
Thanks for clarification on the Compromise of 1850.
BTW- You need to help Keith Hughes with his southern accent. :-) (you sound like a South Carolinian. I'm a Georgia boy)
Absent from the discussion is the influence of EUROPEAN FINANCE.
I'm just doing this because I got homework
same
I'm confused about point 5 of the compromise of 1850. Wasn't the slave trade illegal since 1808?
x15rogersd...yes Congress enacted the “Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves” on March 2, 1807. The law took effect on January 1, 1808. The Compromise of 1850 abolished the local slave trade in the District of Columbia.
The fact that the importation of slaves into the U.S. was illegal since 1808 didn't stop the Northern bankers and investors in the slave trade, they were financing slave ships to the Caribbean and South America until the beginning of the so-called Civil War.
Wow! Man this stuff is sooo good. Thanks so much for these vids. I just found them, and they are very helpful. Most of the people I know are on this anti-white man, crazy leftist kick because they don't know history. I'm thankful for the opportunity to learn and grow and share with my friends.
What?!?...I do not understand your logic. 90% of this video is centered around slavery. Im not saying anyone should be anti-white, or anti anything for that matter, but if someone was anti-white, how would this video reverse their position?....sound ridiculous man
Own up to your truths
I'm st.even
What started war was slavery, people not following the laws. The North not wanting all these slave states to join the union, and Lincoln? Watching this video again. Lots of things easy to be confused. I got confused with free soil and abolitionist.
Free soil folks didn't want slavery to spread, but for slavery to be ok in the South. Where the Abolitionists are no slavery whatsoever?
The south was for slow abolishion of the slavery.Most of the debate about slavery was in the media and not the government.It wasn't so much in congress unless it was being used to get something else.
The South wasn't for "slow abolition of slavery", that was Lincoln's position. The South's position was "no abolition of slavery".
@@TheStapleGunKid The North was for immediate abolition.
@@fraudsarentfriends4717 Before the war, most of the North favored slow, phased abolition, starting with a ban on slavery's expansion.
u a smart nigga
good video
Soooo, was the war fought over slavery or not?
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
RB 1st of all the electoral college was created to ensure a fair election because of we were in a democracy 51% could vote for someone and the other 49% of the country would perish. And 2. If the electoral college is for “welfare queens” and that southern politicians were so bad, how did Lincoln get elected? The northern politicians would have had to cheat to get him elected right? Oh and welfare in the USA wasn’t even a thing until the 1960’s when it was created by Lyndon B. Johnson to keep black people in poverty. And the CSA didn’t start the war, the Union did. Everybody says “well they fired first” but why are there Union soldiers in confederate territory. And it’s not like Fort Sumter is on the Mason Dixon line. Fort Sumter should have been completely abandoned by the USA government because it was confederate territory all the way down to South Carolina which isn’t even close to the border states not to mention they attacked fort Sumter before union supplies got there and no union soldiers were killed.
@@stevenpopejr1540 - Why are you attempting to defend terrorists? You have no proof to back up your claims about the Electoral College.
Why are you repeating old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda?
Unearned "free stuff" from the USA government is usually called "welfare".
@@stevenpopejr1540- The Electoral College awarded excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The math to prove that fact is in the USA Constitution.
RB I’m not defending “terrorists”. And yes I do. The electoral college is set up where the electors vote for the president based off of their district’s popular vote. And the north created the kkk and sent them to terrorize southerners. The kkk everybody thinks about now was during the 1900s and they were racist people both northern and southern. It makes no sense that a man that freed many black people to be the grandmaster of the kkk if they are racist. I’m talking about Nathan Bedford Forrest by the way. And the south was the last part of the country that got “free stuff” from the government. Northern politicians made up the most of congress therefore they got any laws they wanted passed. The south had no governmental control and the north was using that power to tax the south.
2:30 false. The trade was in the northern states.
The south had to sell its cotton. It was sold mostly to Europe.
Politicians vided for power, the north had a predatory bent towards the rich South....if the western territories could be free states and not slave states, then that would eventually give the north enough political power to tax or otherwise plunder the South into near-non existence. Thus the slave issue was the instrument that the thief would use, but in truth the guilt lay with the thief, and not the instrument. The war was caused by northern perfidy.
Bull. All those boys in blue fought and died just so they might get their hands on some slaveowner's money? Nonsense. Same old mistake 90% of people make, believing what they want to believe, to support their bias, instead of what the evidence shows. I live in Alabama and I still have to put up with this lost cause crap over 150 years after the Civil War. Slavery had to end. Mexico ended it 30 years before. Can you really imagine now owning black people? Thank God fools like you don't rule the world. Jeez, what Bull!!
@@TheophilusBoone The north said the war was to keep the nation together, Lincoln said this and Congress passed the Crittenden resolution saying this in the summer of 1861, with no mention of slavery. When the war was over the north imposed a freight rate on the South to prevent industrialization, which also harmed blacks there as well. The rate did not end until the crisis of WW2 caused the Feds to finally allow the South to develop some economic prosperity. The norths victory was thus very cruel ... Slavery did have to end, the new GOP and Lincoln were so committed to white supremacy that they wanted no slavery out west, to ensure there would be no race mixing and no black competition with whites for jobs. After the war the north did not offer any freed slave even one solitary acre out west, since black well-being was not in their mind. We also now know that Lincoln schemed to mass deport all the blacks out of the country all the way up the day he got shot- this, while General Lee and Jeff Davis were moving to allow slaves to become free and serve in the Confederate army, and to let them remain in the South afterwards.
Texans have been talking more lately about sucession - again. They are really upset about unrestricted mass immigration, selling the USA to the world, and federalization of many things such as federalized law enforcement. States Rights awareness is rising again.
Not going to happen. More than a 45% of Texas population are Latinos. Let's say the federal government goes crazy and gives Texans a chance to vote for it. Considering that the remaining 55% will probably not vote "LEAVE" then you see how unlikely it seems.
1Fireskull multiple studies and polls show less than %10 (at most) of the pop. of Texas doesn't want to leave the union.
What is dishonest is this video. The upper Southern states didn't threaten to secede when the Confederacy called up 100,000 troops BEFORE Lincoln's call and before Sumter. Troops which were to be used to coerce the legal federal power and Unionist Southern citizens, steal federal property and attack its installations. The upper Southern states, given their position and economic ties to the North were more reluctant and at first looked to a unified position and possible compromise, but when it was clear that a choice had to be made to side with or against the slave states and slavery, they chose slavery because of slavery.
The Southern border states at first wanted to wait and to have a Southern convention for unified action, their initial hesitation doesn't mean that they were not also acting to protect slavery.
_"The claim that his call for troops was the cause of the upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered repots of the attack on Sumter April 12 and its surrender the next day, huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville, and other upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees. These crowds waved the Confederate flags and cheered the glorious cause of southern independence. They demanded that their own states join the cause. Scores of such demonstrations took place from April 12 to 14 BEFORE Lincoln issued his call for troops. Many conditional unionists were swept along by this tide of Southern Nationalism; others cowed into silence."_ - McPherson, "The Battle Cry of Freedom" p278
All the states that rebelled did so because of slavery and they either made the clear in their statements of secession or in their debates and other ways.
_"Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation---the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery..."_ Thomas F. Goode, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, March 28, 1861, Virginia Secession Convention, vol. II, p518
Virginia just shows even more that it was all about slavery.
_"The vote in favor of secession at the Virginia convention on April 17, 1861, was 88 to 55. Most of the anti-secession votes came from the Shenandoah Valley and from the mountainous counties of western Virginia (which eventually became West Virginia), where slavery was of less importance than in the Piedmont and Tidewater regions that voted strongly for secession, and where slavery was a crucial part of the socioeconomic order. In fact, there was a pretty direct correlation between the percentage of slaves and slaveholders in a given district and its support for secession."_ - James McPherson
And the difference in the economy was slavery. The South had its factories also, but it was slavery that dominated the economy. Slaves even worked just as profitably in the tobacco factories in Richmond and in a few of the mills in the South. The real difference was it was harder to maintain control and fraternization with poor whites.
And Lincoln always said he could do little directly against slavery. He never said different things. The House divided speech only warned of danger, it didn't say he could do anything. It was a call for the public to consider it's alternatives.
_"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end."_
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
Corwin did nothing. It was a non-issue for Lincoln as it only restated the existing law and rejected by the South because it didn't really protect slavery from Republican plans. Slavery was already only a purview of the states, and Congress and the President already had no power to end it in the states where it existed short of an amendment. And there was little possibility of that because, for it to pass, a good number of slave states would have to vote for it. So as far as Lincoln was concerned the Corwin amendment only restated what was already the case, and it didn't stop the states from ending slavery themselves as all the Northern states had, or the Republicans from banning slavery in the territories.
And when coming into office, that was Lincoln's plan. Ban slavery in the territories and slavery would start the whither, remove federal patronage of it and in its stead appoint free labor officials, (Lincoln would appoint three supreme court justices during his tenure on top of the usual federal appointments) end the censorship of abolitionist materials in the mail by Southern states, and there would eventually be gradual compensated emancipation with the consent of the states starting where slavery was weakest in the border states. All this would cause the price of slaves to plummet as they lost their attractive speculative value and the system start to collapse from within.
And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the election of Lincoln would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again.
And there was no "dispute" over a right of a state to "secede." The South didn't base its actions on a constitutional right of secession but on the natural right of revolution. The question of a state "seceding" was really settled during the ratification debates. Madison himself made it clear.
_"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, AND FOR EVER."_ [emphasis added]
That had been re-enforced many times during the preceding 80 odd years. By the founders themselves to the official word of the court.
_"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."_ [US Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 389] 1821
To president Jackson, hardly to be considered a Northerner.
_"That the right of the people of a single State, to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged; and that such authority is utterly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the general government is constituted, and the objects which it was expressly formed to attain."_ - President Andrew Jackson, message to Congress, January 16, 1833.
Even in 1850 the Mississippi state convention called to discuss the events that lead to the compromise of that year stated:
_"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."_
They did go on to list 6 complaints which if not addressed _"would amount to intolerable oppression."_ All directly concerned slavery.
And good grief, I gave up after 20 min. He''s not saying or implying that the topic isn't worth further study. He's making a short and to the point video the debunk the Neo-confederate lost cause. This entire video is an exercise in finding fault where there is none.
Here, Tommy wants the long version.
ua-cam.com/video/QXXp1bHd6gI/v-deo.html
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Touch that mic one more time and I swear!
Your interpretation of the "victim"hood being applied "to the white farmer",certainly a racist position, is simply that -YOUR interpretation. Personal interpretations such as these often suggest a state of affairs-the suggestion of which is usually the motivation for that particular interpretation.
fifth!!!!!!!! 143 viewer
Be forewarned. Don't be wasting your money getting a degree at this school.
For GOD sake, Please stop hitting your mic!