To make it clear: the war happened because of the slavery. However, there are always factors surrounding the main reason, and in this video we made an attempt to explain these reasons that were borne from the practice of slavery. For example, if you ask us why the WW2 happened, we will say that Hitler's invasions were the main reason. But when we make a video, we have to mention other factors (Japan's expansion, weakness of the League of Nations, animosity between Stalin and the West, Stalin's ambitions, economic crash, revanchism, and so on and so forth). Slavery was a despicable practice and it had to be eradicated. American slavery was worse due to its essentialist nature. South fought to keep slavery. I think, we should have underlined a few more aspects, but, overall, the video starts with slavery and it ends with slavery - our position is clear. Anyone who tries to build a false narrative off our video would have done it no matter what we had said in the video.
I was wondering if you would ever go into the economics and corruption problems that were major factors leading up to the War. Including the various political scandals, fighting in the Senate, the reason Free vs Slave was important (representation and who controlled congress) as well as who was profiting from the war and came out as new Robber Barons as a result of "supplying" the war. There is a lot of history wrapped up in a fairly narrow band of time and people are only taught a simplistic version. Perhaps an in depth look at life in the North, including the various news paper accounts about Northern conditions as well as apocryphal accounting. Also Slave Law would be a good one to delve into including Free Salves owning slaves, Freeman Businesses and Industry. History is never ONE thing, the US Civil War was no different. A collision of social, economic, and political adversarial positions led to a complete failure of the US Governmental System where half of the government walked out after what was decades of actual fighting in Congress. Perhaps a warning about pushing outward towards opposite ends of an argument leads inevitably to fighting.
For everyone scrolling for controversial comments, I'm going to save you some time. It's just page after page of people saying there's going to be controversial comments.
It would be interesting to dig deeper into this. What led to a 2 party system that we don't see in other countries that have numerous parties and are forced to form coalition governments.
@@joshcoup6440 The First Past the Post voting system, the same system Britain has. Whereas Europe for example usually has proportional representation which leads to coalitions (or Hitler, so bear that in mind), FPTP leads to a two-party system almost immediately. It enables "strong" government but one that the majority of a population don't like
@Elivinture but those in power survive and even flourish under the status quo. some of the stock markets best years are under divided govs. Us commoners get screwed
@@Joker-yw9hl I’d actually argue it has less to do with first past the post and more to do with the Election of the President of the United States. The functional separation of the executive and legislative branches in the American Federal System precipitated the rise of two strong parties. Each time 3 or more parties have contested for the presidency it has resulted in a president not supported by a majority of voters. When this happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries it resulted in either very weak presidents or the Civil War. Electing the president rather than having the legislature form a government has been a very important check on power in the USA, but also creates this circumstance.
The fact that this war is still "contentious" and "controversial" nearly 160 years later shows just how much unresolved baggage The United States is still carrying from this conflict.
@Andrew Warther I have a wonderful question my simple idiot, you speak of using indoctrination to make a conquered people more controlled, so should we do it for the other nations, and people we have conquered such as the Tribals, or the Japanese, or perhaps the Mexicans they too were beaten in an armed conflict against the United States, perhaps we should place them in camps to be indoctrinated as well?
@Andrew Warther it's impossible to do that in a proper democracy. The South's democratic rights could only be held back for so long, and what's worse, the longer 'bayonet rule' by the North went on, the worse the backlash was going to be when the northern troops finally stood down. Contrast this to post-war Germany which was split into occupation zones by the four powers for 4 years after WW2, and after 1949 the new cold war rivalry made both East and West Germanies client states in a new global order.
Kings and Generals: "without further ado, let's dive straight into the American Civil War" Also Kings and Generals: Dives straight into NordVPN advertisement
Probably the best quote I've ever heard about the relationship between slavery and the American Civil War: "Slavery was behind everything that caused the war." As in, there were technically a myriad of causes for the war, but slavery was behind all of them. As well as being a major, direct cause in its own right, slavery was the "metacause", the cause of all the other causes. I heard the quote in an excellent History channel documentary about Gettysburg. Sadly, I don't remember the speaker's name.
@magicblanket - It was greed vs humanity. There are no hardliners when it comes to fighting against the terrorism of slavery. The only hardliners are the slaver terrorists.
@@skepticmonkey6923 Correct. Every rebel state identified slavery and its expansion as the cause, in their declarations of secession, their secession conventions, or both. The rebels were open, honest, and PROUD to be fighting for slavery, which they believed to be God-ordained and a "great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Pity that today's racists lack honesty and integrity. "They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble. - Henry Massey Rector, Arkansas Secession Convention, March 2, 1861.
I was born, raised and still live in the south. My family were among the poor people scratching out a living in the woods. But this is a sad and unfortunate deal. I wish we could have ended slavery without a war. It seems like those same rich, elite aristocrats who owned and fought to keep slaves are still at it - they just moved and changed tactics.
I seriously doubt you know that much about your family history. There was very little poverty in the south before the Civil War. My entire ancestry was deep south Southern and none of them were 'poor'.
Unfortunately, many of the non-rich southerners also fought to preserve slavery. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the opinion was not just a plantation owning opinion, but rather an opinion also shared by the general masses.
@@stanleyshannon4408 plz stop spreading wrong INFO i hate that shit "very little poverty in the South Before the Civil war" thats just wrong its like calling Blue Red most Southerners at the time Lived of the Land and were Poor money didnt go around because of slavery wealth didnt go around in the South only the slavers profited of slavery
@@stanleyshannon4408 I think you should watch the video again to check your facts. The South was wrong to uphold slavery, but the vast majority of southerners were poor. Let's avoid making up false information to support your narrative.
@@gregoryjones7712 Most Southerners were closely related to one another. The few rich in a given area would have been the uncles, brothers, cousins of those who might not have been quite as well off. The same goes for the few poor around. The average Southerner farmer was about as well of as the average northern farmer was. Those statistics are readily available. The slave economy was providing wealth to the entire region. It might well be true that they were 'cash poor' but so where most nothern farmers simply because of the instability of the money supply and economics of the antebellum era.
You are one of the few channels not only covering military history, but the socio-economic conditions behind it, please never stop making these amazing videos
With UA-cam's (Alphabet's) censorship from everything that differs from their opinion? I'd say most people have taken actual discussion to a more free platform.
If Confederates love to this so much? Why didn't it get famous amd started reforms in the Confederacy. Oh right! Because they like to make more excuses for owning a Man.
@@bowen1704 now start quoting all the states declaration of secession and their main reasons for seceding which they say in plain English. Spoiler alert: It was slavery.
@@bowen1704 such cherry picked comments. Half of the quotes you posted were ripped out of their speeches and letters and if you only read on to the next paragraph would reinforce the idea of white, racial superiority. What a fucking bot. And there were not black confederate soldiers, that's a simple lie, they were enslaved people, enslaved to do work.
The only corners of this world that have been spared from slavery are the parts without any people in them. The concept of human rights has a depressingly short history.
No doubt, but Lincoln would have def made a much more reasonable, and acceptable Tariff plan, let be real tho, the conflict was bound to happen soon or later around that time. The world was changing and the USA was fighting among itself on how it should progress.
Thomas Jefferson: “What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment, be deaf to all those motives whose powers supported him through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.”
@What is TRUTH? Podcast, FOLLOW IT! I have been saying this. Back then, the Democrats were pro-conservatives (The Republicans also, but the Democrats were considered far worse at the time. NEITHER of them are liberal.)
@@texanman7191 - For accuracy and clarity in USA political/governmental/historical discussions, it is often better to use terms like "liberal" and "conservative" rather than party labels such as "Democratic" or "Republican". It was "conservatives" who were the slaver terrorists. It was "conservatives" who wrote a "terrorist welfare benefit" into the constitution which encouraged slaver terrorism and rewarded the terrorists with excessive national governmental power. (a.k.a. - The Electoral College + the 3/5ths rule.) It was "conservatives" who made a lame attempt at forming a separate country based solely on terrorism. The csa. It was "conservatives" who brought genocide to the American First Nations. It was "conservatives" who formed the kkk and similar terrorist gangs. It was "conservatives" who wrote the terroristic Jim Crow laws. It was "conservatives" who tortured and lynched blacks for "entertainment". It was/is "conservatives" who honor their "Heritage OF Hate". It was "conservatives" who became so butt-hurt about losing their welfare benefit they went to war to preserve the "free stuff" awarded to terrorists(slavers), the csa. It was "conservatives" who were so ashamed of their terrorist crimes against humanity they revised their history books and invented "the lost cause" fairy tale to deflect attention away from their terrorism. It was "conservatives" who invented "Manifest Destiny" in a lame attempt to justify their genocide. It was "conservatives" who erected loser trophies and monuments to honor csa terrorists and csa terrorism. It was/is "conservatives" who attempt(ed) to hide their terroristic greed under the guise of "patriotism" and "christianity".
@@rb032682 Tell me which party has shifted more in political ideology in the last 60 years. You think JFK would recognize the Democrat Party today? Would Eisenhower see much difference in the GOP? Point I’m making is please calm your hate boner down and don’t burn done a Walgreens.
It’s probably the single most crucial event in American history other than the Revolution. Certain issues from the Civil War were never fully settled or were reversed. In many ways it’s still being fought.
@@bart6753 while tarrifs were a contributing factor, it's important to remember that the South sceding was what caused the north to fight, so only the south's reasons to fight matter here. And by their own admission the southern states seceded over the question of slavery. The writings of Southern political leaders, the constitution of the confederacy and the articles of secession for the various southern states all male clear that slavery was the salient issue. This is why the emphasis on tarrifs and the moral equivocation of the north with the south is very unfortunate in this video. Much of it is nothing more than lost cause apologia from the Jim Crow era. Its intention is to create the false beliefe that the south was justified in trying to secede and that the confederacy faight for any reason other than the preservation of an evil system. It allows the southern states to avoid reckoning with the evils of slavery.
Another interesting resource is the 1857 book "The Impending Crisis of the South," which was written by a man from North Carolina about how slavery was causing the south's economy to lag behind the north's. His thesis was that the South in 1800 had every material and political advantage, yet within one generation had already fallen behind the north. He offers a lot of useful raw statistics to back up his theories.
BUT, not all the issues were mentioned, and some of the issues mentioned in this video are just old terrorist propaganda from the "lost cause" terrorist myth. 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: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. 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 whiney, 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? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa was just a low-life, 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?
@@santamaria7733 Still are you are just mad they presented nuance to the subject rather then just saying "The people in the south were evil horrible people and they and all of their decedents should be ashamed of themselves for being so evil forever"*
@@Raidensreal I deleted the last comment, it was a bit mean. Look man, the evidence is right in your face, all you have to do is open your eyes. Playing victim isnt going to help
@@santamaria7733 I'm not playing the victim. In fact I refuse to be one. I can guarantee you that the people of the South didn't just wake up and say "Oh no Lincoln might pass a law restricting slavery further!" The history of the world is always much more complex then one event, but for some reason this narrative of Southern evil is seen as the only acceptable version of history nowadays when it simply isn't representative of the full picture.
There is a lot of bs in the video. 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: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. 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 whiney, 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? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa was just a low-life, 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?
Taiping Rebellion in China was at the same time as the American civil war, and in many ways was similar (established north vs. insurrectionist south). Britain's policy towards both was linked. At first, the British were fearful that the American civil war would cause a significant disruption to their trade (which it did), and so they were seriously considering intervening to end the war and reestablish trade. But many felt uneasy about doing so because the culture and history was so close to Britains. Yet they didn't have the same reservations towards the Chinese though (who were so far removed from the British), and so the British chose to intervene in the Chinese civil war and restore Chinese trade, to make up for the trade that was lost due to the American civil war.
@@fuzzydunlop7928Which civil war are you referring to? Was it the one during WW2 when the allies occupied the south and Germany controlled the north after Mussolini attempted to flee the country when he got fired as Prime Minister only to killed by his own pissed off people?
I'm fairly certain the reason Britain could not intervene in the American civil war, was because they wanted to intervene on the South's side due to their trade links, but seeing as they had outlawed slavery by this point and Lincoln smartly put the slavery issue first and foremost internationally it would appear rather hypocrital on Britain's part to outlaw slavery and then support a state fighting to preserve it. The British Empire wanted to protect their reputation as enlightened and civilised despots.
It's the really old system. Because USA were one of the first countries with democracy and republic, their political construction is quite out of fashion now and do not suffice political needs of modern people. Maybe we will see some changes in that case, because Trump wanted to create the third party. And it would be the end for that political system
The real problem is in-group out-group mentality, and that's human nature. Conflicts will continue to exist so long as humans do in their current form.
It's system which enables "elites" to easily keep control. You never have to admit mistake and you can always say "They did it!", and people sadly buy it. Democracy kinda doesn't work if only way you "know" people you vote for is through biased media.
Well to be honest even in multi-party systems this pretty much still happens anyway. Usually two or maybe 3 partys dominates the legislative and the other smaller parties allied or coalition with the bigger parties together when sharing interests, basically still making it a big right vs left mentality.
_"Yes, politics was important. Yes, economics were important. Yes, social issues and states’ rights were important. _*_But when you get to the core of why all these things were important, it was slavery!"_* - Bob Sutton, chief historian for the National Park Service. "Atlanta Examiner," December 11, 2010 as reprinted in "George Mason University's History News Network"
The Lincoln party platform was to prohibit slavery in the territories not end slavery. The 1860 census showed there were only 80 slaves in the territories west of the Mississippi. The climate and terrain was not conducive for cotton, rice, tobacco, indigo, sugar. If you say slavery was important how so?
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 It’s important because the people who started the war, the southern Democrats, perceived the election of Lincoln as the beginning of the end for slavery and were willing to fight to death due to that perception. You’re acting as if people in the past were somehow omniscient and knew every thing that we know. Also “only 80 slaves in the western territories” 🤮 ‘Only’
@@mugikuyu9403 Yes the 1860 census showed there was only 80 slaves west of the Mississippi in the territories. Lincoln said he wanted to prohibit slavery in the territories only. He stated he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the south and in his first inaugural address stated he was in support of the Corwin amendment which would have made slavery legal in the constitution.
If slavery was important why and how so? Slavery was important because limiting slavery in the territory ensured new states to the union would side with the north on legislation promoting industry.
Note: The protective tariffs to which the video refers only affected imports, not exports. Export tariffs are prohibited by the US Constitution, something demanded by the South at the time, as exports were crucial to southern states' economies.
Tariffs are international thing too, so if US introduced protective tariffs on e.g. French machines then, France would introduce tariffs on US goods like cotton
Farmers in the south became angry because they had to buy expensive low quality industrial products from Northern USA, when imports of cheap high quality products were blocked by high tariffs. So Northern industrial expansion happened on the expense of Southern farmers. And southern farmers became very angry and thought that was unfair. This is a typical reaction farmers had towards industrialization also in other countries. Japans industrialization happened by the government taxing farmers to get money to import machinery from USA and Europe. Stalin stole food and starved millions of Ukrainian farmers to death, and then this food was sold to other countries so Russia could get money to pay for importing American industrial machinery, equipment and factories. Russia did end up as an industrial power, but it all happened at the expense of the farmers. In my own country Sweden was the iron industry protected with high tariffs throughout the entire 1800s. And the farmers thought that this was very unfair and also demanded high tariffs for farm products - but their wish was denied, and it was only in the late in the 1890's they finally got their wish through as Sweden turned super-protectionist and became the most protectionist country in the world up until the first world war.
@@lif3andthings763 With all due respect it was never that simple. I don't deny that slavery was a factor for why the South seceded but it wasn't the only reason. The Civil War wasn't a one issue conflict, there had been brewing tensions and resentment by the North and the South for decades leading up to the war.
you know the fact that most of the comments are people worrying about controversy and none actually taking that stance goes to show just how reputable in facts and un biased Kings and Generals is of a channel. You guys are awesome and are well deserving of more subscribers than what you currently got!
@DuhLaughingRepo - Here's a stance for you, and it's based of facts. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, the 3/5ths rule, USA slavery, and the *civil war*. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history: *Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Those who go to war to defend slavers and preserve slavery are also considered terrorists.* The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. 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, plus the 3/5ths census rule, 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 whiney, 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? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa was just a low-life, 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? The csa, kkk, and their ilk, are nothing more than low-life terrorist gangs.
Easily one of the best produced videos K&G has done to date. The visuals and audio and drawings were so so good. Very excited for new episodes of this series!
A bit of a nitpick: The 3/5th's Compromise didn't say that slaves themselves were worth 3/5ths of a person, but that 3/5th's of the whole slave population would be counted as a way of increasing the South's voting influence.
@@TosiakiS the 3/5th's compromise was made when the South was loosing the edge in Congress anyways. The North's industrialization policy led to the population boom normally accompanied by urbanization, as well as New York and Boston being hubs for immigration.
The 3/5th's Compromise didn't say that slaves themselves were worth 3/5ths of a person, if the Bosses of the South had wanted to impose the fraction they thought a slave was worth as a person they would have set the number to zero. While if the worth was as animal they would have set it to 800 dls of 1860.
Secede, particularly when other states had ceased to fulfill their obligations under the constitution (most prominently under the fugitive slave clause, but the principle, of course, applies to any other violation of the constitution.) And if states aren't allowed to secede even when the constitutional deal has been broken, then there obviously isn't broader right of people to choose their own governments as claimed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence either.
@@Ben00000 Seceding did nothing to secure the particular constitutional rights they (rightly) accused the northern states of violating, but it was a defense of the rule of law generally and of the foundations of free government.
@@Ben00000 Before the War of Northern Aggression 2/3 of its population was free. After the war none of the American people were free. And that -- nothing about slavery but that -- was precisely what was at stake in the war. Of course, although the numbers are a little different, the same math applies to the 13 colonies that fought for their freedom in 1776. The fact that a very significant minority of the population was completely disenfranchised doesn't change that fact, especially given that neither side was fighting for their rights, same as in the War of Northern Aggression.
@@josephbrennan370 Because the current political parties envision the other as the south. The Democrats changed their identities and call themselves the liberators. While the Republicans remind the other side whom were the true anti-slavery party. Unfortunately, history can be rewritten and the most powerful party, the Democrats, have changed education and media in their favor. In the coming years this will only get worse, as the recent election is largely seen as suspect for the many sudden rule changes and actions just before the election. So many believe the election was stolen.
I would love to see you guys make a documentary clip/series on Slavery in Brazil. A country, my country, who imported over 40% of America's slaves for a total of 5.8 million, while being the very last one to abolish slavery in 1888.
I definitely second this. People from the US in general have zero knowledge of Brazilian history, and they would be very interested to hear about the history and legacy of slavery in Brazil as it compares to the United States.
Brazil wasn't the last country to abolish slavery, just the last country of the western world to do so, the actual last one was Mauritania in 1981 (yes, you read that right)
C.S.A. participants also fled the USA following the loss of the American Civil War and founded the City of Americana in SanPaulo Brazil modern population of 229,322. So it's interesting to compare race relations following this conflict. Brazil also had a flag inspired by the USA flag in 1889 for its provisional government.
Agreed. Google New York History, slavery, sugar, additionally. The presence of legalized enslavement in the Caribbean and South America is an important topic that needs a lot more discussion.
I was born and grew up in Kansas a bit outside of Lawrence. As hinted at in the video, Bleeding Kansas was kind of the start of the Civil War. I'm proud to say my home state fought to end slavery for years before the Civil War officially started. Also a cool tidbit, the Kansas Capitol has an awesome John Brown mural in it.
Please do a whole series on the US Civil War!! Battles of Mobile Bay, Fredricksberg, Brandy Station, Antietam, Nashville, and Bull Run would all make great episodes :)
I've told soo many people about your channel, great job man your team is awesome and im a huge history lover so i can really appreciate the effort put into the content that you've created.
_"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was her cause for seceding."_ --Confederate Colonel John S. Mosby, 1907.
@@bombsawaylemay770 - Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Those who go to war to defend slavers and preserve terrorism are also considered terrorists.
@@bowen1704 But Mosby still admitted the South fought the war for slavery. He was far more honest about his faction's cause then modern day Neo-Confederates are.
@@bowen1704 _"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."_ --South Carolina state declaration of secession.
@@bowen1704 _"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."_ --Jefferson Davis' resignation speech to the senate Davis only cited slavery in that speech as cause for secession. Nothing else. _"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both."_ --Robert Lee, letter to Andrew Hunter, Jan 11, 1865 So even with the war almost over and Lee's army falling apart, Lee is still talking about his desire to preserve slavery. _"I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."_ --Confederate General James Longstreet In an 1865 letter to CSA secretary of war James Seddon opposing the use of black troops, Confederate General Howell Cobb said _"Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong but they won't make good soldiers."_ Former Secretary of State Robert Toombs agreed, saying blacks should not be used as soldiers because _"it is a surrender of the entire slavery question."_ As for Ulysses Grant, here is what he had to say in an 1863 letter to his father: _"I try to judge fairly and honestly, and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled.”_ In another letter, Grant said _"My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all Constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go.”_ In his 1885 memoirs, Grant wrote _"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that 'A state half slave and half free cannot exist.' All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true."_
It's been a long time since the last one. I'm really looking forward to this series. As a good ole Southern boy at heart, I thank you, Kings and Generals. I've been a follower since the start of the channel, and you all do fantastic work. Your work is appreciated. God bless.
Really appreciated y’all taking the time to explain from the literal beginning of our nation. Especially since many people ignore the fact that for Southerners of that time it wasn’t like they woke up one day and decided to rebel, but rather a long burning fuse over years that would eventually blow up over slavery.
Agree. The average young men in those days just joined the army since it was the duty to defend your nation or state, they don't really thought deeply into the politics or the debates among old politicians, and that was the days before television, radios, internet etc.
@@Sir_Maximus_Hardwood uhhh they haven’t released a video on Gettysburg. They have one on Shiloh but that was like one of their first videos so it doesn’t exactly count
I enjoyed your video, nice touch adding the two sides of the war. More often then not the victor makes the history yet you add additional information to better yet understand why or rather how the war came to be. Good work, it's been decades since I've seen unbiased content.
Not hard academia. Just the strawman of academia concocted by those unfamiliar with it. It’s a big system of discourse, saying all of academia is one thing or another thing is pretty fucking stupid. If you knew, you’d know it’s nigh-impossible to get anyone to agree on anything.
As an American, I can say it has gotten more interesting to learn about it once I graduated high school and can explore different perspectives rather than the BuR sOuTh BaD nOrTh GoOd perspective that's drilled into us.
@@Warsie As a white southerner the annoying part of the "Souths bad" telling of the civil war and in American history in general, is ignoring all the f*cked up sh*t the North did after the war ended and then skipping straight back to Jim Crow South in the 50s. Things like how the modern white hooded KKK grew large because of Midwest people getting pissed freed blacks were taking their jobs. With Indiana being the largest Klan state where roughly 40% of its government was run by Klan members at all levels. Or how we have a colony in Africa because a bunch of rich Northerners payed money trying to send everyone back. Or all the factories paying people in monopoly money keeping them indebted forever like black southern share croppers in the South. I fully acknowledge the war was over slavery and slavery was terrible, I just hate pretending that everything bad in American history only ever happened south of the Mason Dixon. The shit only creates resentment and makes people susceptible to falling for rascist sh*t.
It was a mixture of things that all centered around slavery it was fear of no equal representation in congress , the fear of an overreaching federal government, the economic impact and major cultural differences all lead to the war
FYI, for those in the South that are still in denial that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings, and in the constitution of the confederacy make almost no mention of tariffs. The Morrill Tariff had not passed in the Senate when 7 of the southern states seceded. The vote, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass, was 25-14 without those 7 southern states or 14 potential votes voting. If they had stayed in the Union, and all voted they could have easily prevented the passage of the Morrill Tariff since it needed 32 votes to pass (60% of 53 votes (39 that voted plus the 14 potential votes, a simple 8-6 against would do)). And the Tariffs set in 1857 were the lowest since 1817. Hence, it was not about tariffs. Or, state rights, since the south only cared about state rights so that they could keep and possibly expand slavery into newly acquired territories. The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves. So grow up -- no one is blaming you -- just some of the adults that lived in the South in 1860.
> The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings, and in the constitution of the confederacy make almost no mention of tariffs. Not true. > The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves. You don't have a clue what "states rights" actually means, do you? You think "states rights" means states have a right to disregard express constitutional obligations if they want to? "States rights" are constitutional rights of the states, not the right to trash the rule of law.
This was an unusually very balanced, detailed analysis of the issues and events that led to the Late Great Unpleasantness. It was extremely well done!!! I'm really looking forward to this series! Great job, as always!
@@rick7424 Yes. Most of the time, slavery is held out as the only thing that the war was about. In reality, it was about many things. This video did a great job presenting that, in my opinion.
@@shanemize3775 I think in his attempt to be balanced, K and G inadvertently went a bit too far into Lost Causer territory. As much as the other issues were present, the underlying thing behind them was the slavery controversy and the expansion of the institution into the territories and other potential states.
@@georgelabe-assimo4365 I disagree. I think that they were quite fair. They made very clear that slavery was the biggest problem and the economics behind it was wide ranging and interconnected with other issues. However, there were, indeed, other issues, and some of them were big issues. Slavery wasn't the end-all, be-all of the Civil War.
Thanks K&G. I used to rally behind the historical standard of the Civil War being an issue mainly around state's rights. I see now that slavery was a much bigger factor than I initially thought (and is an extension of state vs federal authority on the issue of slavery).
You must've grown up in the southern US. In the north and midwest, school curriculum and textbooks make it clear that slavery was the actual cause of the CW and the underlying reason for the growing tension and rift between north and south. Every event that ratcheted up the animosity between north and south, was literally something to do with slavery, custody of free/escaped slaves, rebellions of slaves, attempts to spread slavery into newly annexed states of the USA. The only reason an adult would have thought the CW as about "states rights" was if they had been a young mind growing up in a state where the teachers, schools and state board of education WANTED you to not know about how important slavery was, as a cause of the war.
@@americanhero8606 So what was the North doing or threatening to do to slavery that led the South to secede? Did you learn that in school (or anywhere else)? Or did you just learn to vaguely allude to inexplicable myths? Not that the war was about the South's reasons for seceding anyway. The North and defenders of the North to this day deny the right of states to secede regardless of the reason.
I've often wondered why this channel never talked about the US civil war besides one video on the battle of Shiloh so seeing this and hearing you say more is coming is, well it's a wonderful thing :)
@@majungasaurusaaaa yes I want America have one party so it can keep us together as one because having states to have there own rules doesn’t make any sense the only state that does make sense is Texas the state the has a rule that make sense because our four fathers had written the constitution and the independent rights and no I don’t want United States be a dictatorship nation because it already is right now and it’s been like this a long time ago two parties have turn people into tribal maniacs we went to war for no pear of reason because the Congress, the senate and the Supreme Court has to make the decision should we go to war and our western ales had turn our back on us because we were to stupid to see it that they making the dills with China and yes our shit ass politics and our business foundation too all of our money that we payed our tax is giving to foreign countries our money is so-posed to go to our hospital, homes, roads, highways, schools, factories, military, vets, cities, royal areas towns homes, farms companies, small companies, smalls shops, big shops and were all that go huh oh foreign countries and bombing the shit out of foreign land to waste all of our cash I want the government to look after the people of the United States and help theme no the government should no get involved of these because the people must solve things themselves the government can’t get involved in homes, farms and small businesses. The government jobs is to help, solve, secure, protect, defend and help the people, the people job is to build, create, solve and look out for there families, love one, there next door neighbor and friends just look at the history of Japan after years of fighting and years of war and conger look at Japan now a conservative society but very independent people I don’t want United States be like Japan but we can understand what they been through and came together as the people and nation with out people fighting over agents each other with dumb opinions and there hurtful feelings instead of facts, truth, logic and success
@@franklinshaki9 Paragraphs are your friend, just sayin'. When you allow differences of opinion, you're gonna get tension. Stop with this "torn apart" non sense. You ain't seen nothing if you grew up in the US.
@@cleothehermetichermeticist8391 Short answer: Slavery Long answer: The continued bondage and exploitation of men, women, and children with black skin for the financial benefit of men, women, and children with white skin.
I have degrees in American history, Political Science, and Law. I have lived in more than a dozen states and taught at more than 5 colleges and universities. Whenever I am "told" that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War I cringe. In every case the person giving me the lecture has neither the education not the learning experience to explain what was the "real" cause, other than a general statement about "State's Rights", was. Nor have they ever been able to articulate what those "Rights" were exactly , or how the North was interfering with those "States Rights". Good job. Maybe some will actually watch and learn. I hope.
The Same thing happened in Brazil, my country, Many rich involved in Agriculture wanted slaves, While Industrialists didn't want slavery to persist. The main difference was the size of the war, in America, it was bloodier.
@@focumQuarium Yes, that's why we pay their patreon. Still partaking in the seedy world of sponsorship is a smack in the face for us. And yes, I know I personally can watch em without commercials. Not the point.
Maybe I should have clarified the point: Sponsorship comes with a price. It may be small at the beginning (We'd like you not to swear in videos we sponsor), but will end in things like "Please do not talk about the uighurs in China, do not call the Amenian genocide a genocide". And as much as receivers of sponsorship will claim they will never be influenced, one has only got to look at the great channels from a few years back, and their quality today.
@Secret Politics - Did you self-advertise on my comment now? And a bunch of others? Congratulations to the imminent influx of dislik es and spam reports, you wannabe. :D Such a tool.
@@sumdude8867 - For the regular ads you can just get an adblocker for your internet browser. This 1,5 minute ad I commented on was part of the actual video. ^^
This is easily, one of the most accurate and concise depictions of the events leading up to the Civil War, that I have seen made since 2000. I would however, if I needed to make a suggestion, suggest that the 13th amendment being signed into law by Buchanan, be mentioned. While not impacting the Civil War, it further demonstrated the myriad of reasons behind the Civil War, and the multivariate reasons for those who fought it
Do you mean Lincoln signing the 13th Amendment? Buchanan had nothing to do with the 13th. Lincoln is the only President to have signed an amendment tho.
@@WeaslyTwin He also made a point of saying: "...a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. ...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Clearly politics is not your strong suit. Please don't accidentally wander into a voting booth. The Corwin amendment you're referring to was in fact the republican party's plan all along. Prior to the south starting the war, they didn't see a way to end slavery directly. So they were gonna suffocate it like a fire. The Corwin amendment says they can't interfere in the states where slavery already exists, but makes no mention of the territories where the real battle over slavery was being held. The Republicans were playing the long game. Let the slave states continue the institution until it eventually died out. Lincoln was a much smarter man than you.
As the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said shortly after the end of the war: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general - not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ... in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 You really are everywhere. I am too, so you must be like, the opposite of me. You're here seeking out debate because of some need to have youtube-comment arguments like I do, but instead of using facts, you use denial. Anyways, "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." that's the vice president, Alexander Stephens. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." That's from Mississippi's article of secession. "he was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." Texas's article 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. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction." That's South Carolina's article of secession.
"The people of the northern States have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is, hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the southern States, and that party has elected a President and Vice President of the United States, pledged to administer the government upon principles inconsistent with the rights, and subversive of the interests of the people of the southern States." Arkansas. "That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity." Georgia. "And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States." Alabama.
America had two economies with one that forbade infrastructure for fear slaves would use it to run away. Also, southern states could not lay people off because they had a slave economy with slave overhead. Therefore each economy-the wage and the slave-demanded a single tariff policy. But a single tariff policy would exclude one of the two economies. Also, northern states needed skilled workers since many immigrants were from rural areas. In the south, slave owners would rent out slaves for blacksmithing, construction, coal shoveling on steamboats, bridge repairs, boat repairs, etc. No one talks about how well runaways fit into the northern economy and how certain northern factions knew that and allowed them in the north to fit into the wage economy. The south was anti-northern states rights regarding this.
While many factors lead to war, the fact that this video doesn't make clear,is that the issue over slavery was 99.9% of reason the South rebelled against the U.S.A. The issue of states rights had more to do with slavery. If it wasn't for slavery there really wouldn't have been much of issue over states rights. I think this video take too much of a sympathetic view with the South.
There is no outright claim to what ignited the Civil War. But through its thorough presentation of facts and events one can see it all came down to a few rich southerners who wanted to keep their slaves and expand their practice into the new territories. A few final events tipped the scales before and after Lincoln’s election, and the south seceded. And a tragic half a million people died. And the sad thing is even after all that. The black mans journey into personal autonomy wasn’t finished. After came Jim Crow and mass lynchings in reprisal. It was indeed a long dark night after a brief sunrise. Nothing would change again until MLK came onto the scene
Throughout the entire video they are talking about the north policies about limiting slavery expansion, tariffs to slave owners, and political conflicts between anti-slavery parties and pro-slavery parties. This video clearly points out that slavery was the focal point of all the other issues that spiraled into the civil war; but unlike the propaganda-like media it showcases facts from both sides, allowing the viewer to understand the situation on its own. You clearly failed to understand it.
The fact is the South tried to tame it's issue of Slavery after the war by distorting it as an issue of states rights instead of really about slavery which is in reality a false narrative and this video just helps to support that false narrative by making it seem more about tariffs and states rights than is deserved rather than about slavery which was really at the heart of the matter entirely.
@@markadams7046 Which again is stated throughout the entire video and they even quoted the constitution of the confederacy. They said that the south was making it a matter of state rights, but the whole situation described points out at slavery, which again is to allow the viewer to understand the whole picture. You’re literally the only one who thinks they are somehow siding with the south when in fact this video is the most neutral thing I’ve ever seen regarding this topic so far.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko You can't be neutral between a truth and a false narrative. Also, a reply from 2 people disagreeing with me I would hardly say makes me the only one who sees it this way.
The fact this video goes all the way back to the start of the country is great because the divide really does start at the beginning even going back to the founding of America at two separate, at Jamestown and New England, that developed far differently from each other so well done
@@arroganceinvictus either an incredibly bad faith take, or you have no idea about anything about the Haitian Revolution beyond captioned images, memes, and right wing propaganda. Go read the Black Jacobins by C.L.R James, one of the earliest, most nuanced, and most highly acclaimed analyses of the Revolution ever written.
@@lif3andthings763 the fact he analyzed and presented thoroughly “lost cause revisionism” is just what I meant by a neutral factual based presentation. Most coverings of the American Civil war do a poor job presenting both sides. It doesn’t matter that the south lost or was wrong. History’s events and facts need to be presented. Should be a no brained though that slavery was the fork in the road. He made that pretty clear
This one was so good. Children should be forced to watch this in history class. So informative and accurate and unbiased. As a black man this was your best work toward informing others of a peoples history. I know that wasn't the point or focus but thats how powerful it was. Thank you guys
ohhhhhh, so it was about taxes levied because of slavery.... and the state's right to secede due to restriction of slavery... and the cultural differences brought about by slavery.... seems like there is a common theme here....
Funny thing: the civil war wasn't required to end slavery. The industrial revolution would've made the practice unprofitable pretty quickly. If and when the world ever de-industrializes, slavery will make a comeback. Will it be racialized? Highly unlikely. But it will reappear - indeed, some would say it has never really left.
3 роки тому+3
I also felt like they danced around the "main" course for the civil war a bit in the last part of the video.
@@yomomz3921 Quite on contrary, the industrial revolution was linked to the increase on slave population. New machinery and methods to process cotton made a boom on the market, in the 1860 there was more slaves than in any other point in US history. Slavery was alive and well, that's why the south fought so bitterly.
@@MasterofGamesBr - new machines on the market... does automation not kill obsolete jobs? Yeah, slavery _was_ thriving immediately prior to the war. In another decade or two, it would have been rapidly declining.
@@yomomz3921 Lies. Slavery would have continued in the industrial South. Slaves would have been required to work in factories instead of plantations. There’s zero evidence that the South ever intended to end slavery while there’s plenty of evidence the south would have indefinitely continued slavery - just read their constitution which banned abolishing slavery.
I thought this was weaker than I normally expect from K&G. There were a lot of minor to middling errors, such as a map that showed West Virginia as a state in the 1820s, or calling Kansas and Nebraska "states" at the time of the 1854 Act. Also, you seemed to be obsessed with the tariffs. They are one among several secondary causes of the war, not more or less equivalent to slavery. Those other minor causes barely get a mention. And really, that Mississippi statement says it all. This was mostly about slavery. When abolition became prevalent in the north (and Europe), the south got its back up. There are reasons to be explored as to why that happened, but by 1860, slavery was an article of faith for the south, and they twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain how great it was for everyone, even the well-whipped slaves themselves (example: over 20 novels written as answers to "Uncle Tom's Cabin.") When people are convinced their way of life is under dire threat, and especially when there are politicians and other leaders of society working overtime to spread that message, bad things can happen--as we in the US seem determined to demonstrate again.
Not to mention the nonmention of major cultural differences between the north and south that formed as early as the first settlers(northerners largley coming from Wessex and Hampshire, whereas southerners largely came from Northumbria, the Bordercountry, and lowland Scotland), including linguistic accent differences. I recall reading journal entries from a union soldier saying paraquote "I cannot understand a word from anyone south of the mason-dixon". Continuing minor map errors the Union wasn't called 'The United States of America' during the civil war and it wasn't until after the spanish-american war that 'america' to refer to the united states was finally used, instead 'these united states' or 'the union' were almost exclusively used up until then.
100% agreed, there's some subtle pro-Lost Cause argumentation in this that I didn't particularly like. The Nullification Crisis wasn't nearly as widespread as the video makes it out to be (only SC really did anything with it, and backed down in part because nobody else would join in). And the Morrill Tariff didn't even pass Congress until the end of Feb 1861- after 7 states had already seceded (which is precisely why it passed in the Senate). And then the "only 3% of Southerns were slave-owners" tidbit that ignores a heaping pile of context...
@@TheDarthbinky I got a feeling they were trying to placate both historic revisionist camps, deliberately avoiding the historic context that disproves both.
To be fair overall to the country's supposed "inaction" on Slavery. Until the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney, slavery was seen as a dying practice - it was not very economical, and the cost of keeping slaves was barely offset by the value of their labor in a lot of cases. Cotton was not a "cash crop" in America before 1794 - even with slave labor, it was difficult to make a profit from it. The total number of slaves (estimated) had not changed substantially from 1776 - 1794. However, all hopes of slavery dying a slow but inevitable death were dashed by the cotton Gin. In 1790, there were ~655,000 slaves in the United States. By 1820, that number had more than doubled to 1,510,000. The number of slaves continued to balloon with cotton's value, so that by 1860, there were some 4,000,000 souls in bondage. The nation at the time was more segmented by "state" than it is today, so the people of Maine did not see Slavery in Georgia as much of their business. Even if they did feel strongly about it, they could do no more than complain. The Federal Government at the time was also not the behemoth we have today - it was considered only one part of the power structure - a leader among "equals" as it were. The balancing act that delayed the war was not by chance - it was carefully considered at every step to try and avoid bloodshed. It is truly shameful the blood of the people suffering in bondage was considered an acceptable price to pay for peace, but in that regard, we're not much better today.
Interesting thing about slaves counting as 3/5th a person in representation. The real horror of this is not that they counted as 3/5ths a person,, but that they were counted at all, because they couldn't vote this essential meant their slave owners were getting 3/5 of their representation and using it to keep them enslaved.
It was a tough situation for ant-slavery faction to be in. If slaves counted as represenation, it would give the slave masters more power. But if they didn't count at all, then slave masters could make the case that slaves were property (which of course they did anyway, by it would be harder to argue against them). So a compromise where they just partially counted was the most feasible option under that situation.
@@TheStapleGunKid If your argument for the 3/5 compromise isn't revisionist, let's see the the pre-ratification evidence that your argument isn't as revisionist as your explanation of what the War of Northern Aggression was aboutt.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 _"Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property._ --Federalist papers #54. ' Thus partially counting them established that slaves were "persons" as the constitution said, not property. But I'm sure you'll find some way to call that "revisionist", just as you do when I cite what the Confederate leaders in the war of Southern aggression said.
@@allennguyen4456 Don't piggy back your bigotry on my comment. It was written for racists like you. There is no grand conspiracy. The radical leftist crap you're talking about, are or rather were Republican ideals and polices that lead to things like the 13th amendment. Just because you have been given a false narrative about your white history to soothe your discomfort with the past doesn't make it false. Correcting that false narrative doesn't make it cancel culture. It's being honest and telling the truth and owning up to the states past. So bring on your misinformation and conspiracy theories. Your hate and your ignorance. I'm ready for it. For one thing is sure you didn't learn anything from this video. U were only here to troll. U took my troll bait.
@Andrew Warther Democracy, I find it so interesting that you useful idiots always speak of democracy, but also refuse to ever acknowledge that a man who's greatest accomplishments was being the VP to a half black man who's only legacy is the charred remains of children, and dozens of destroyed nations, could ever manage to gain more votes then any other president in American history, and also required 25,000 soldiers to stand guard in the Capital to assure his reign to power, sorry I mean his "legitimate" "democratic" assent to the presidency. So very interesting
This video is NOT "unbiased history". 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: Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The Electoral College was written for only one purpose. 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 whiney, 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? What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics? The csa was just a low-life, 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?
@@rb032682 Let the man educate himself with decent content from people who create it for free. Nobody needs you spewing your panicked fears accompanied by derogatory highschool terms. Get a life, doomsayer, and get some sun while you're at it.
Concise and explains well *how* the divide between the American North & South occurred. This is also so well produced that I'm surprised it's free. Thank you for the video.
@@bowen1704 I'm not going to spend the time to debunk each piece of this B.S. but just know ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. You can cherry pick a few quotes, most that were made AFTER the war, in the first attempt to white wash the Confederacy by the old confederate veterans, or that were made during the war in an attempt to convince European powers the south wasn't fighting for slavery and they should assist (that failed). I can find you way more quotes of Jeff Davis, Lee, etc. supporting slavery as an institution. You quote Nathan Bedford Forrest as some egalitarian hero when he was quite literally the First Grand Wizard of the KKK. And was notorious in the war for having his men brutally execute black union POWs (Fort Pillow Massacre). And yeah, maybe Grant wrote a letter being indifferent to black people I'm 1863, but you know what else he did in 1863? He captured Vicksburg, freed the slaves there, and then over 20,000 slaves from the surrounding area escaped to Vicksburg. Want to know what Lee was doing in '63? Before losing in Gettysburg, his raiders kidnapped over 4000 free black people in Pennsylvania and sent them south to become slaves. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. TLDR: This guy is full of shit and a simple Google search can debunk his whole narrative.
@@bowen1704 Again, bullshit. The black people that Lee's army kidnapped in Pennsylvania were not "runaway slaves" and he was not just simply enforcing the laws of ol America cuz he just darn loved America, they were Pennsylvania citizens, they were free citizens kidnapped and sold into slavery, almost as if people in the Confederacy thought that was their natural state, so bullshit. Lee owned slaves and explicitly said in that letter you apologist types love quoting that "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things." He wasn't against slavery, thought it was necessary, so bullshit again. Your account of the Fort Pillow Massacre is merely Forrest's own EXCUSE, not an objective report of the battle. Black troops were found CRUCIFIED after that battle, that's fact, sorry if you don't like it. And Forrest didn't end the KKK you kidding me? He simply quit when the first federal crack down begin. The lies that you and people like you have made for generations are easily debunked by an actual objective history book, And I mean a REAL history book, not some shit that you read as a kid that was funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy, and clearly brainwashed you. If the Confederacy didn't have preserving slavery as their objective, please explain why states like Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia all explicitly stated in their Articles of Succession that slavery was the reason for succeeding? Id honestly love to hear your excuse for that. If you don't believe me just look up articles of Succession for any of those states, then throw me your b.s. on it.
This history of the US is one of the most glorious in world history since they broke free from the standard of the world which WAS slavery and it showed how Europeans could be better than the rest of the world despite a strong insurgence by hostile groups
@@timyumichuck9262 what? The US didn't invent the ideas or the movement for abolitionism of slavery, not even remotely, not by a country mile. Multiple nations in Europe had already completely abolished slavery years, even decades before the first shots were fired in the US civil war.
@@monisomo8487 That's funny, because all the Confederate Secession documents explicitly cite slavery as their reason for committing Treason against the US. Only one or two of them even bothered to MENTION tariffs, like at the bottom of the document.
@@SRosenberg203 That really doesnt seem relevant. Yes slavery was a reason but the tariffs were what caused official sessession, before the tariffs the south and north were content with operating differently.
Psh. Anyone who still thinks the Civil War WASN'T caused by the issue of slavery needs to take a second to read the Declaration of Independence of the Confederate states. The Confederacy say CLEARLY in it that slavery is why they were seceding.
I feel people need to differentiate why the south seceded vs why the south fought the war. They left because of slavery, no question about that. Why did soldiers fight for the South? That is more nuanced. It's clear the majority of Confederate soldiers didn't feel they were fighting to protect the right of rich aristocrats to keep slaves. Most probably agreed with slavery, but most had no slaves either. The soldiers gave all manner of reasons why they fought. That is where I think the debate ultimately comes from. Southerners see diaries and records from their ancestors and others saying they fought for 'states rights' and 'unfair rule from Washington' and 'freedom' for themselves and their states... and then see someone say 'the south fought to keep slaves' and find that answer completely wrong. Both are right, it's just the context they are arguing is completely different. The south seceded to protect the institution of slavery, the southern soldiers fought the war for a variety of reasons.
@@Fordo007 does that really matter at the end of the day though? In the end, the Southern States as an institution were fighting to protect slavery. The southern soldiers were fighting because their government told them to or because they felt some obligation to via propoganda. The difference there and the same analogy with the German soldiers during WW2 is that Germany as a nation has been apologetic and repetenant of their past. The German people have taken great strides into acknowledging their part in what took place during WW2. The Southern United States have not, instead they have consistently been stubbornly prideful that what they were fighting for was homeland and states rights, eager to erase how big of a part slavery was in that conflict. That's the difference. The people of the Southern United States need to take a page out of what the German people are doing. They need to condemn the confederacy, condemn their symbols and cease glorifying their part in the war as some form of patriotisim. It's disgraceful. Whether or not the southern soldiers realized it, they were fighting to protect rich plantation owners and their ability to keep slaves. That's the reality. The southern US needs to come to terms with that.
@@illerac84 the civil war was a reactionary war. that is, the confederacy, in their defiance to the union, acted in reaction to the rapid industrialisation of the north. an economic reliance on industrialisation has many unwanted side effects to common society, and these effects were viewed as a valid arguement against industrialisation and for slavery, which has been the standard form of production for thousands of years before the modern era. there is, very surely, a moral arguement against slavery, but let's not act like the victors of war do not dictate history as they please.
@@ezzy2254 Every time I hear the words "Victors write History" I want to put a bullet in my brain. Like, if Victors truly wrote History, there'd be no Lost Causers out there, because all the evidence would be covered up. This isn't even mentioning the fact there are times when losers write History, like when Nazi Generals were allowed to write and sell their memoirs to the public, without it ever been fact checked, by historians, leading to Clean Wehrmacht myths still being regurgitated over the Internet. Oh yeah, another one instance is the fucking Torah, the largest piece of information we have about Moses-era Ancient Egypt, from a people who were exiled, far away from Egypt.
@@belgebelgravia100 the rule of the victora is not administred through law(though an exception is that it's illegal to deny the holocaust in many countries), it is administered through psychology. the raising of the confederate flag is seen as racist, the very identification towards the south side of the war is shunned by the public, you believe what you think happened then, but nobody was alive then to really know, yet we say with utmost certainty, because the process of de"south"ification and de"nazi"fication is still administered by the victors even years after the wars were done. it is not that the victors write history, but it is that, the victors dictate to us what to think of the past. though these anti-consensus memoirs and books exist, the man controlled by the victors automatically repels any consideration of these books sub-consciously.
The Simpsons, Apu takes his citizenship test: Proctor: Name the cause of the Civil War. Apu: Well there were several factors including the growing abolitionist movement, the Kansas/Nebraska Act, the Missouri Compromise... Proctor: Just say slavery. Apu: Slavery it is sir!
To make it clear: the war happened because of the slavery. However, there are always factors surrounding the main reason, and in this video we made an attempt to explain these reasons that were borne from the practice of slavery. For example, if you ask us why the WW2 happened, we will say that Hitler's invasions were the main reason. But when we make a video, we have to mention other factors (Japan's expansion, weakness of the League of Nations, animosity between Stalin and the West, Stalin's ambitions, economic crash, revanchism, and so on and so forth).
Slavery was a despicable practice and it had to be eradicated. American slavery was worse due to its essentialist nature. South fought to keep slavery. I think, we should have underlined a few more aspects, but, overall, the video starts with slavery and it ends with slavery - our position is clear. Anyone who tries to build a false narrative off our video would have done it no matter what we had said in the video.
Freedom balochistan free baloch free azadi inasha Allah ameen ameen
This viedo should be 1 sentence the south wanted to keep there slaves and were afraid the north was gonna take them
I was wondering if you would ever go into the economics and corruption problems that were major factors leading up to the War. Including the various political scandals, fighting in the Senate, the reason Free vs Slave was important (representation and who controlled congress) as well as who was profiting from the war and came out as new Robber Barons as a result of "supplying" the war. There is a lot of history wrapped up in a fairly narrow band of time and people are only taught a simplistic version. Perhaps an in depth look at life in the North, including the various news paper accounts about Northern conditions as well as apocryphal accounting. Also Slave Law would be a good one to delve into including Free Salves owning slaves, Freeman Businesses and Industry.
History is never ONE thing, the US Civil War was no different. A collision of social, economic, and political adversarial positions led to a complete failure of the US Governmental System where half of the government walked out after what was decades of actual fighting in Congress. Perhaps a warning about pushing outward towards opposite ends of an argument leads inevitably to fighting.
@@andmake-qg5bi Do you even grammar, bro?
Kings and generals why are you not making early muslim expansion videos
For everyone scrolling for controversial comments, I'm going to save you some time. It's just page after page of people saying there's going to be controversial comments.
@@prussianprince7828 based
How dare you!
You are the hero we deserve
I'm glad to be wrong then.
I find that offensive!
...
Poor John Adams. His greatest fear ended up becoming the biggest truth about the USA system.
It would be interesting to dig deeper into this. What led to a 2 party system that we don't see in other countries that have numerous parties and are forced to form coalition governments.
@@joshcoup6440 The First Past the Post voting system, the same system Britain has. Whereas Europe for example usually has proportional representation which leads to coalitions (or Hitler, so bear that in mind), FPTP leads to a two-party system almost immediately. It enables "strong" government but one that the majority of a population don't like
@Elivinture but those in power survive and even flourish under the status quo. some of the stock markets best years are under divided govs. Us commoners get screwed
@@Joker-yw9hl thanks. I'll look more into fptp
@@Joker-yw9hl I’d actually argue it has less to do with first past the post and more to do with the Election of the President of the United States. The functional separation of the executive and legislative branches in the American Federal System precipitated the rise of two strong parties. Each time 3 or more parties have contested for the presidency it has resulted in a president not supported by a majority of voters. When this happened in the 19th and early 20th centuries it resulted in either very weak presidents or the Civil War.
Electing the president rather than having the legislature form a government has been a very important check on power in the USA, but also creates this circumstance.
Hot damn the production quality on these documentaries just keeps getting better
👍👍👍
@@allennguyen4456 I don’t see what my comment has to do with “radical leftists” but ok bud
The fact that this war is still "contentious" and "controversial" nearly 160 years later shows just how much unresolved baggage The United States is still carrying from this conflict.
This has been going on since 1792....
@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 he’s referring to the civil war
One wants legalized slavery, and the other wants a 3/5th compromise.
@Andrew Warther I have a wonderful question my simple idiot, you speak of using indoctrination to make a conquered people more controlled, so should we do it for the other nations, and people we have conquered such as the Tribals, or the Japanese, or perhaps the Mexicans they too were beaten in an armed conflict against the United States, perhaps we should place them in camps to be indoctrinated as well?
@Andrew Warther it's impossible to do that in a proper democracy. The South's democratic rights could only be held back for so long, and what's worse, the longer 'bayonet rule' by the North went on, the worse the backlash was going to be when the northern troops finally stood down.
Contrast this to post-war Germany which was split into occupation zones by the four powers for 4 years after WW2, and after 1949 the new cold war rivalry made both East and West Germanies client states in a new global order.
Kings and Generals: "without further ado, let's dive straight into the American Civil War"
Also Kings and Generals: Dives straight into NordVPN advertisement
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And what do you think pays for this video? No advertising, no videos.
The sad part is, even hearing the announcement of diving straight into the topic, I was expecting an advertisement.
@@szbszig same
@@HistoryonUA-cam huh? I don't complain about the ad. Just the placement of it within the video is questionable.
Probably the best quote I've ever heard about the relationship between slavery and the American Civil War: "Slavery was behind everything that caused the war." As in, there were technically a myriad of causes for the war, but slavery was behind all of them. As well as being a major, direct cause in its own right, slavery was the "metacause", the cause of all the other causes.
I heard the quote in an excellent History channel documentary about Gettysburg. Sadly, I don't remember the speaker's name.
@magicblanket - It was greed vs humanity. There are no hardliners when it comes to fighting against the terrorism of slavery. The only hardliners are the slaver terrorists.
It was actually cotton. (Which needed slaves to pick)
@jake dominguez It was an enchanted era, from when the world of men was still young.
@@bowen1704 Stop bullshiting, the Civil War was fought over slavery, every confederate declaration of independence says so, lets not kid ourselves.
@@skepticmonkey6923 Correct. Every rebel state identified slavery and its expansion as the cause, in their declarations of secession, their secession conventions, or both. The rebels were open, honest, and PROUD to be fighting for slavery, which they believed to be God-ordained and a "great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Pity that today's racists lack honesty and integrity.
"They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble.
- Henry Massey Rector, Arkansas Secession Convention, March 2, 1861.
I was born, raised and still live in the south. My family were among the poor people scratching out a living in the woods. But this is a sad and unfortunate deal. I wish we could have ended slavery without a war. It seems like those same rich, elite aristocrats who owned and fought to keep slaves are still at it - they just moved and changed tactics.
I seriously doubt you know that much about your family history. There was very little poverty in the south before the Civil War. My entire ancestry was deep south Southern and none of them were 'poor'.
Unfortunately, many of the non-rich southerners also fought to preserve slavery. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the opinion was not just a plantation owning opinion, but rather an opinion also shared by the general masses.
@@stanleyshannon4408 plz stop spreading wrong INFO i hate that shit "very little poverty in the South Before the Civil war" thats just wrong its like calling Blue Red most Southerners at the time Lived of the Land and were Poor money didnt go around because of slavery wealth didnt go around in the South only the slavers profited of slavery
@@stanleyshannon4408 I think you should watch the video again to check your facts. The South was wrong to uphold slavery, but the vast majority of southerners were poor. Let's avoid making up false information to support your narrative.
@@gregoryjones7712 Most Southerners were closely related to one another. The few rich in a given area would have been the uncles, brothers, cousins of those who might not have been quite as well off. The same goes for the few poor around. The average Southerner farmer was about as well of as the average northern farmer was. Those statistics are readily available. The slave economy was providing wealth to the entire region. It might well be true that they were 'cash poor' but so where most nothern farmers simply because of the instability of the money supply and economics of the antebellum era.
You are one of the few channels not only covering military history, but the socio-economic conditions behind it, please never stop making these amazing videos
CHECKMATE, LINCOLNITES!
I see you're a man of culture, as well
@@thepuffin4050
Atun Shei is awesome
@@kayvan671 indeed my friend
All the south wanted to do was chill and YEARN for freedom from Yankee Oppression.
@@burningphoneix that's a great joke
A lot of comments about how crazy the comment section is going to be, but no actual crazy comments.
I am disappoint.
@@ALLAHwithdaughterALLAT we got one! Thanks for helping out.
Joe loves to touch kids watch old C-span videos for evidence
With UA-cam's (Alphabet's) censorship from everything that differs from their opinion? I'd say most people have taken actual discussion to a more free platform.
Channel for history nerds, not right-wingers in fantasy land lol.
You just invited the crazies, i think.
With the way kings and generals do their thing, if we had another golden record project, archive this channel for all eternity.
So, to simplify:
"The Issue of Slavery is solved and it shall never come up again!"
*A Few Years Later, It Came Up Again*
Oversimplified
If Confederates love to this so much?
Why didn't it get famous amd started reforms in the Confederacy.
Oh right! Because they like to make more excuses for owning a Man.
@@bowen1704 now start quoting all the states declaration of secession and their main reasons for seceding which they say in plain English. Spoiler alert: It was slavery.
@@bowen1704 such cherry picked comments. Half of the quotes you posted were ripped out of their speeches and letters and if you only read on to the next paragraph would reinforce the idea of white, racial superiority. What a fucking bot. And there were not black confederate soldiers, that's a simple lie, they were enslaved people, enslaved to do work.
In what decade were the rights of black Americans finally codified into law ?
I didn't know that native americans also owned slaves. Fascinating history, I must say. The world is way more complex then one would think.
Yeah, a good example is the Utes, they took many of my people the Navajo as slaves. It was a fairly common practice back then
The only corners of this world that have been spared from slavery are the parts without any people in them. The concept of human rights has a depressingly short history.
It was different.
@@maninredhelm The hypocrisy of human rights organization has a short history.
In America some blacks owned blacks too. There is a famous case about it
Worth pointing out that the Morrill tariff wouldnt have passed the Senate if the Southern States hadnt seceded.
facts
hmm
No one ever accused the slavers of being intelligent. Or self-aware.
No doubt, but Lincoln would have def made a much more reasonable, and acceptable Tariff plan, let be real tho, the conflict was bound to happen soon or later around that time. The world was changing and the USA was fighting among itself on how it should progress.
@T Paine obvious bait is obvious lol
Thomas Jefferson: “What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment, be deaf to all those motives whose powers supported him through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.”
Also Thomas Jefferson: Riiide Sallayyy Riiiide
Jefferson also called those that talked about dissolving the Union, a reign of witches.
Jefferson had a black mistress
@@bryon5284 Who happened to be the half-sister of his diseased wife. Really fucked up.
Thank you for that. Even if you needed to looking up. Younger people NEED TO hear more of this
Covering the American civil war by the Kings and Generals is something i have been waiting for this long
Avengers was the most ambitious crossover in his-
Democratic Republican Party:
Sorry to be that guy, but this is literally the opposite of a cross-over.
@@matt_9112 you really had to be that guy huh /s
@What is TRUTH? Podcast, FOLLOW IT! I have been saying this. Back then, the Democrats were pro-conservatives (The Republicans also, but the Democrats were considered far worse at the time. NEITHER of them are liberal.)
@@texanman7191 - For accuracy and clarity in USA political/governmental/historical discussions, it is often better to use terms like "liberal" and "conservative" rather than party labels such as "Democratic" or "Republican".
It was "conservatives" who were the slaver terrorists.
It was "conservatives" who wrote a "terrorist welfare benefit" into the constitution which encouraged slaver terrorism and rewarded the terrorists with excessive national governmental power. (a.k.a. - The Electoral College + the 3/5ths rule.)
It was "conservatives" who made a lame attempt at forming a separate country based solely on terrorism. The csa.
It was "conservatives" who brought genocide to the American First Nations.
It was "conservatives" who formed the kkk and similar terrorist gangs.
It was "conservatives" who wrote the terroristic Jim Crow laws.
It was "conservatives" who tortured and lynched blacks for "entertainment".
It was/is "conservatives" who honor their "Heritage OF Hate".
It was "conservatives" who became so butt-hurt about losing their welfare benefit they went to war to preserve the "free stuff" awarded to terrorists(slavers), the csa.
It was "conservatives" who were so ashamed of their terrorist crimes against humanity they revised their history books and invented "the lost cause" fairy tale to deflect attention away from their terrorism.
It was "conservatives" who invented "Manifest Destiny" in a lame attempt to justify their genocide.
It was "conservatives" who erected loser trophies and monuments to honor csa terrorists and csa terrorism.
It was/is "conservatives" who attempt(ed) to hide their terroristic greed under the guise of "patriotism" and "christianity".
@@rb032682 Tell me which party has shifted more in political ideology in the last 60 years. You think JFK would recognize the Democrat Party today? Would Eisenhower see much difference in the GOP? Point I’m making is please calm your hate boner down and don’t burn done a Walgreens.
As a European I don't know that much about American history so I really appreciate this video👍
It’s probably the single most crucial event in American history other than the Revolution. Certain issues from the Civil War were never fully settled or were reversed. In many ways it’s still being fought.
This video is largely correct as far as slavery is concerned, but the focus on tariffs is confused. Tariffs were not a cause.
@@BookofFuture How is it still fought?
@@ScottLedridge If the incentives to the war were economic, can it not include both slavery and tariffs?
@@bart6753 while tarrifs were a contributing factor, it's important to remember that the South sceding was what caused the north to fight, so only the south's reasons to fight matter here. And by their own admission the southern states seceded over the question of slavery. The writings of Southern political leaders, the constitution of the confederacy and the articles of secession for the various southern states all male clear that slavery was the salient issue.
This is why the emphasis on tarrifs and the moral equivocation of the north with the south is very unfortunate in this video. Much of it is nothing more than lost cause apologia from the Jim Crow era. Its intention is to create the false beliefe that the south was justified in trying to secede and that the confederacy faight for any reason other than the preservation of an evil system. It allows the southern states to avoid reckoning with the evils of slavery.
Fun fact - Civil War veterans marched alongside returning World War 2 soldiers in 1945. Some were still alive.
And the last person eligible for a Civil War veteran's widow pension died last year. When measured in lifetimes, these things were not so long ago.
I've seen the footage. Was astonished!
Do you mean WWI soldiers?
@@Oxtocoatl13 When you get into family genealogy suddenly the 1700's was just last week. Its a weird feeling how compressed time becomes.
@@LuvBorderCollies Yep. John Tyler, born 1790 and POTUS from 1841 to 1845 has a currently living grandson.
Another interesting resource is the 1857 book "The Impending Crisis of the South," which was written by a man from North Carolina about how slavery was causing the south's economy to lag behind the north's. His thesis was that the South in 1800 had every material and political advantage, yet within one generation had already fallen behind the north. He offers a lot of useful raw statistics to back up his theories.
This was a nice detailed look at the issues involved in the start of the civil war
BUT, not all the issues were mentioned, and some of the issues mentioned in this video are just old terrorist propaganda from the "lost cause" terrorist myth.
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:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
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 whiney, 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?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa was just a low-life, 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?
Kings and Generals is the greatest thing on UA-cam! Seriously!
Used to be*
@@santamaria7733 Still are you are just mad they presented nuance to the subject rather then just saying "The people in the south were evil horrible people and they and all of their decedents should be ashamed of themselves for being so evil forever"*
@@Raidensreal I deleted the last comment, it was a bit mean. Look man, the evidence is right in your face, all you have to do is open your eyes. Playing victim isnt going to help
@@santamaria7733 I'm not playing the victim. In fact I refuse to be one. I can guarantee you that the people of the South didn't just wake up and say "Oh no Lincoln might pass a law restricting slavery further!" The history of the world is always much more complex then one event, but for some reason this narrative of Southern evil is seen as the only acceptable version of history nowadays when it simply isn't representative of the full picture.
@@Raidensreal southern slave owners were decent people?? Bro if they didnt have African slaves who do you think would be next?? ...Thats right, you
Would be interesting if he did a video on the Cherokee that served in the Confederate Army
Does that mean Elizabeth warren has ancestral ties to slavery lol
@@claymore484 funnily enough, yes. The Native tribes in Oklahoma had multiple slaves.
@@azovac What?
@@firebird4491 It may refer to how African warlords sold massive amounts of people as slaves to America
Stand Watie; interesting guy. Look him up. The Cherokee had their own civil war about slavery.
Best history lesson I have seen on UA-cam. You’re an inspiration to have on this platform. Much respect. @Kings and Generals
There is a lot of bs in the video.
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:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
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 whiney, 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?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa was just a low-life, 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?
Taiping Rebellion in China was at the same time as the American civil war, and in many ways was similar (established north vs. insurrectionist south). Britain's policy towards both was linked. At first, the British were fearful that the American civil war would cause a significant disruption to their trade (which it did), and so they were seriously considering intervening to end the war and reestablish trade. But many felt uneasy about doing so because the culture and history was so close to Britains. Yet they didn't have the same reservations towards the Chinese though (who were so far removed from the British), and so the British chose to intervene in the Chinese civil war and restore Chinese trade, to make up for the trade that was lost due to the American civil war.
Italy’s civil war also had similar cultural dynamics.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Yeah, good point.
@@fuzzydunlop7928Which civil war are you referring to? Was it the one during WW2 when the allies occupied the south and Germany controlled the north after Mussolini attempted to flee the country when he got fired as Prime Minister only to killed by his own pissed off people?
@@brandonlyon730 Think he is referring to the War of Italian unification
I'm fairly certain the reason Britain could not intervene in the American civil war, was because they wanted to intervene on the South's side due to their trade links, but seeing as they had outlawed slavery by this point and Lincoln smartly put the slavery issue first and foremost internationally it would appear rather hypocrital on Britain's part to outlaw slavery and then support a state fighting to preserve it. The British Empire wanted to protect their reputation as enlightened and civilised despots.
The Railroads will play a pivotal role in this war.
As the ocean did for WW2, as the internet will for WW3.
Union Army: "All abord the wagons! Time to fight some Dixies!"
Yes
*Sherman will remember that.
idk, am i the only think Victoria II after reading this comment?
I always knew a two party system was a bad idea, so did Adams.
The problem isn't the two party system, the problem is the people who vote for (one of) the parties
It's the really old system. Because USA were one of the first countries with democracy and republic, their political construction is quite out of fashion now and do not suffice political needs of modern people. Maybe we will see some changes in that case, because Trump wanted to create the third party. And it would be the end for that political system
The real problem is in-group out-group mentality, and that's human nature. Conflicts will continue to exist so long as humans do in their current form.
It's system which enables "elites" to easily keep control. You never have to admit mistake and you can always say "They did it!", and people sadly buy it.
Democracy kinda doesn't work if only way you "know" people you vote for is through biased media.
Well to be honest even in multi-party systems this pretty much still happens anyway. Usually two or maybe 3 partys dominates the legislative and the other smaller parties allied or coalition with the bigger parties together when sharing interests, basically still making it a big right vs left mentality.
_"Yes, politics was important. Yes, economics were important. Yes, social issues and states’ rights were important. _*_But when you get to the core of why all these things were important, it was slavery!"_* - Bob Sutton, chief historian for the National Park Service. "Atlanta Examiner," December 11, 2010 as reprinted in "George Mason University's History News Network"
The Lincoln party platform was to prohibit slavery in the territories not end slavery. The 1860 census showed there were only 80 slaves in the territories west of the Mississippi. The climate and terrain was not conducive for cotton, rice, tobacco, indigo, sugar. If you say slavery was important how so?
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 It’s important because the people who started the war, the southern Democrats, perceived the election of Lincoln as the beginning of the end for slavery and were willing to fight to death due to that perception.
You’re acting as if people in the past were somehow omniscient and knew every thing that we know.
Also “only 80 slaves in the western territories” 🤮
‘Only’
@@mugikuyu9403 Yes the 1860 census showed there was only 80 slaves west of the Mississippi in the territories. Lincoln said he wanted to prohibit slavery in the territories only. He stated he had no intention to interfere with slavery in the south and in his first inaugural address stated he was in support of the Corwin amendment which would have made slavery legal in the constitution.
If slavery was important why and how so? Slavery was important because limiting slavery in the territory ensured new states to the union would side with the north on legislation promoting industry.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944
Slavery was "important" because it was SLAVERY!
Last time I was this early, the Americans were still fighting the British Americans.
Last time I was this early, the offspring of exiled Loyalists burned down the Executive Mansion.
@@00BillyTorontoBill Ash is pretty white
Americans fighting British Americans? Huh?
Ah, Canadians - the illegitimate love children of the British Empire...
@@kevin6293 In the revolution 30% of the population sided with the British, and 10% moved to Canada after the war.
Note: The protective tariffs to which the video refers only affected imports, not exports. Export tariffs are prohibited by the US Constitution, something demanded by the South at the time, as exports were crucial to southern states' economies.
Tariffs are international thing too, so if US introduced protective tariffs on e.g. French machines then, France would introduce tariffs on US goods like cotton
Farmers in the south became angry because they had to buy expensive low quality industrial products from Northern USA, when imports of cheap high quality products were blocked by high tariffs. So Northern industrial expansion happened on the expense of Southern farmers. And southern farmers became very angry and thought that was unfair.
This is a typical reaction farmers had towards industrialization also in other countries. Japans industrialization happened by the government taxing farmers to get money to import machinery from USA and Europe.
Stalin stole food and starved millions of Ukrainian farmers to death, and then this food was sold to other countries so Russia could get money to pay for importing American industrial machinery, equipment and factories. Russia did end up as an industrial power, but it all happened at the expense of the farmers.
In my own country Sweden was the iron industry protected with high tariffs throughout the entire 1800s. And the farmers thought that this was very unfair and also demanded high tariffs for farm products - but their wish was denied, and it was only in the late in the 1890's they finally got their wish through as Sweden turned super-protectionist and became the most protectionist country in the world up until the first world war.
He clearly explained that. Did you not even watch the video???
Tariffs are purely incidental and more of a symptom of the competing economic systems
@@nattygsbord
The South Felt Tariffs were unfair, but Slavery was Just !
I like how objectively you approach the topic. You keep your opinions to yourself and tell the story. I love it.
I only wish teachers in the classroom would do the same.
Okay what opinion would offend you. Let me check something out, the south were the bad guys because they wanted to keep slavery, what is your opinion.
What do you mean neutral he was using fucking lost cause revisionism. The war was about slavery and the south were the aggressors.
I agree. It's quite refreshing to have a different take on the causes of the Civil War rather than claiming it was all due to slavery.
@@lif3andthings763 With all due respect it was never that simple. I don't deny that slavery was a factor for why the South seceded but it wasn't the only reason. The Civil War wasn't a one issue conflict, there had been brewing tensions and resentment by the North and the South for decades leading up to the war.
you know the fact that most of the comments are people worrying about controversy and none actually taking that stance goes to show just how reputable in facts and un biased Kings and Generals is of a channel. You guys are awesome and are well deserving of more subscribers than what you currently got!
@DuhLaughingRepo - Here's a stance for you, and it's based of facts.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, the 3/5ths rule, USA slavery, and the *civil war*.
The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
*Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Those who go to war to defend slavers and preserve slavery are also considered terrorists.*
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
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, plus the 3/5ths census rule, 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 whiney, 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?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa was just a low-life, 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?
The csa, kkk, and their ilk, are nothing more than low-life terrorist gangs.
Agreed. To some extent anyway@@rb032682
The comment section on this one is gunna be real _CIVIL._ Get it? I’ll show my self out.
Lmao facts
Take my like and get out you degenarate lol
Let the shit show begin!
@@ALLAHwithdaughterALLAT Yeah, the two parties haven't evolved at ALL in over 150 years. lmao
At least there’s no civil inside a civil
Easily one of the best produced videos K&G has done to date. The visuals and audio and drawings were so so good. Very excited for new episodes of this series!
A bit of a nitpick: The 3/5th's Compromise didn't say that slaves themselves were worth 3/5ths of a person, but that 3/5th's of the whole slave population would be counted as a way of increasing the South's voting influence.
You mean decrease, because if it was 1, they'd have more electoral college votes.
@@TosiakiS Yes, it was designed to decrease the South's representational gravitas.
@@TosiakiS the 3/5th's compromise was made when the South was loosing the edge in Congress anyways. The North's industrialization policy led to the population boom normally accompanied by urbanization, as well as New York and Boston being hubs for immigration.
The 3/5th's Compromise didn't say that slaves themselves were worth 3/5ths of a person, if the Bosses of the South had wanted to impose the fraction they thought a slave was worth as a person they would have set the number to zero. While if the worth was as animal they would have set it to 800 dls of 1860.
The Compromise decreased the slave states' representation in Congress. But, it also reduced those states' contribution to the federal government.
"The Civil War was about states' rights."
"Their right to do what, specifically?"
Secede, particularly when other states had ceased to fulfill their obligations under the constitution (most prominently under the fugitive slave clause, but the principle, of course, applies to any other violation of the constitution.) And if states aren't allowed to secede even when the constitutional deal has been broken, then there obviously isn't broader right of people to choose their own governments as claimed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence either.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So, slavery, but in more words 😂
@@Ben00000 Seceding did nothing to secure the particular constitutional rights they (rightly) accused the northern states of violating, but it was a defense of the rule of law generally and of the foundations of free government.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 "Free government" with 1/3 of its population enslaved? Explain, please.
@@Ben00000 Before the War of Northern Aggression 2/3 of its population was free. After the war none of the American people were free. And that -- nothing about slavery but that -- was precisely what was at stake in the war.
Of course, although the numbers are a little different, the same math applies to the 13 colonies that fought for their freedom in 1776. The fact that a very significant minority of the population was completely disenfranchised doesn't change that fact, especially given that neither side was fighting for their rights, same as in the War of Northern Aggression.
Just as I looked at the title, I heard a little voice in me saying "uh-oh"
Why? Is it very controversial in America?
@@josephbrennan370
Among certain groups, yes.
@@josephbrennan370 Some southerners still believe in the lost cause, so that's why the south has sprawling act of neo-Nazis and white supremacists
@@josephbrennan370 It is the number one controversial subject in the US.
@@josephbrennan370 Because the current political parties envision the other as the south. The Democrats changed their identities and call themselves the liberators. While the Republicans remind the other side whom were the true anti-slavery party. Unfortunately, history can be rewritten and the most powerful party, the Democrats, have changed education and media in their favor.
In the coming years this will only get worse, as the recent election is largely seen as suspect for the many sudden rule changes and actions just before the election. So many believe the election was stolen.
I would love to see you guys make a documentary clip/series on Slavery in Brazil. A country, my country, who imported over 40% of America's slaves for a total of 5.8 million, while being the very last one to abolish slavery in 1888.
I definitely second this. People from the US in general have zero knowledge of Brazilian history, and they would be very interested to hear about the history and legacy of slavery in Brazil as it compares to the United States.
Brazil wasn't the last country to abolish slavery, just the last country of the western world to do so, the actual last one was Mauritania in 1981 (yes, you read that right)
C.S.A. participants also fled the USA following the loss of the American Civil War and founded the City of Americana in SanPaulo Brazil modern population of 229,322. So it's interesting to compare race relations following this conflict. Brazil also had a flag inspired by the USA flag in 1889 for its provisional government.
You mean the Portuguese importing slaves from Africa and the Americas?
Agreed. Google New York History, slavery, sugar, additionally. The presence of legalized enslavement in the Caribbean and South America is an important topic that needs a lot more discussion.
I was born and grew up in Kansas a bit outside of Lawrence. As hinted at in the video, Bleeding Kansas was kind of the start of the Civil War. I'm proud to say my home state fought to end slavery for years before the Civil War officially started. Also a cool tidbit, the Kansas Capitol has an awesome John Brown mural in it.
What other terrorists do you celebrate?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Hopefully not the ones that wore gray.
@@SStupendous But you're okay celebrating terrorism if the terrorists wear the colors of your side?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 No.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Yup
"Without further ado let's dive into the Civil War"
*Proceeds to start Ad for Nord VPN*
@@JoeOvercoat very insightful. I did not consider that perspective.
Imagine if he had started an add for SouthVPN
Please do a whole series on the US Civil War!! Battles of Mobile Bay, Fredricksberg, Brandy Station, Antietam, Nashville, and Bull Run would all make great episodes :)
12:40 "So you're the little lady who started this war." Abraham Lincoln to Harriet Beecher Stowe
I've told soo many people about your channel, great job man your team is awesome and im a huge history lover so i can really appreciate the effort put into the content that you've created.
_"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was her cause for seceding."_ --Confederate Colonel John S. Mosby, 1907.
@@bombsawaylemay770 - Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. Those who go to war to defend slavers and preserve terrorism are also considered terrorists.
@@bombsawaylemay770 Still an overall loser
@@bowen1704 But Mosby still admitted the South fought the war for slavery. He was far more honest about his faction's cause then modern day Neo-Confederates are.
@@bowen1704 _"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."_ --South Carolina state declaration of secession.
@@bowen1704 _"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."_ --Jefferson Davis' resignation speech to the senate
Davis only cited slavery in that speech as cause for secession. Nothing else.
_"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both."_ --Robert Lee, letter to Andrew Hunter, Jan 11, 1865
So even with the war almost over and Lee's army falling apart, Lee is still talking about his desire to preserve slavery.
_"I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery."_ --Confederate General James Longstreet
In an 1865 letter to CSA secretary of war James Seddon opposing the use of black troops, Confederate General Howell Cobb said _"Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong but they won't make good soldiers."_
Former Secretary of State Robert Toombs agreed, saying blacks should not be used as soldiers because _"it is a surrender of the entire slavery question."_
As for Ulysses Grant, here is what he had to say in an 1863 letter to his father: _"I try to judge fairly and honestly, and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled.”_
In another letter, Grant said _"My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all Constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go.”_
In his 1885 memoirs, Grant wrote _"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that 'A state half slave and half free cannot exist.' All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true."_
Easily the most ambitious episode y'all have taken on. I appreciate your nuanced depiction
Is there a text copy available?
It's been a long time since the last one. I'm really looking forward to this series. As a good ole Southern boy at heart, I thank you, Kings and Generals. I've been a follower since the start of the channel, and you all do fantastic work. Your work is appreciated. God bless.
Really appreciated y’all taking the time to explain from the literal beginning of our nation. Especially since many people ignore the fact that for Southerners of that time it wasn’t like they woke up one day and decided to rebel, but rather a long burning fuse over years that would eventually blow up over slavery.
Agree. The average young men in those days just joined the army since it was the duty to defend your nation or state, they don't really thought deeply into the politics or the debates among old politicians, and that was the days before television, radios, internet etc.
“The first battle history of the American Civil war will be released soon”
*4 months later*
Just what I was thinking
@@Sir_Maximus_Hardwood uhhh they haven’t released a video on Gettysburg. They have one on Shiloh but that was like one of their first videos so it doesn’t exactly count
*8 months later*
The presentation has acheived a new level of quality. Gorgeous!
John Adams, wherever you are, your humble apprehension is spot on.
Lee’s Special Order 191 wouldn’t have been captured if he had used Nord VPN
Nah -- Stonewall Jackson wouldn't have bothered to install it.
He didn't use it because he wanted South VPN.
I enjoyed your video, nice touch adding the two sides of the war. More often then not the victor makes the history yet you add additional information to better yet understand why or rather how the war came to be. Good work, it's been decades since I've seen unbiased content.
I have to say, you guys are really good at being politically neutral and explaining both sides without being judgmental. So rare in academia nowadays.
God forbid we judge the South
Not hard academia. Just the strawman of academia concocted by those unfamiliar with it. It’s a big system of discourse, saying all of academia is one thing or another thing is pretty fucking stupid. If you knew, you’d know it’s nigh-impossible to get anyone to agree on anything.
General Sherman did nothing wrong
yessssssssssssss! the american civil war is such an interesting war, and im saying that as a norwegian, cant wait for the battle episodes!
As an American, I can say it has gotten more interesting to learn about it once I graduated high school and can explore different perspectives rather than the BuR sOuTh BaD nOrTh GoOd perspective that's drilled into us.
@@Warsie As a white southerner the annoying part of the "Souths bad" telling of the civil war and in American history in general, is ignoring all the f*cked up sh*t the North did after the war ended and then skipping straight back to Jim Crow South in the 50s. Things like how the modern white hooded KKK grew large because of Midwest people getting pissed freed blacks were taking their jobs. With Indiana being the largest Klan state where roughly 40% of its government was run by Klan members at all levels. Or how we have a colony in Africa because a bunch of rich Northerners payed money trying to send everyone back. Or all the factories paying people in monopoly money keeping them indebted forever like black southern share croppers in the South.
I fully acknowledge the war was over slavery and slavery was terrible, I just hate pretending that everything bad in American history only ever happened south of the Mason Dixon. The shit only creates resentment and makes people susceptible to falling for rascist sh*t.
@@bowen1704 dont listen to this guy bowen hes a confederate sympathizer, sadly they still do exists
It was a mixture of things that all centered around slavery it was fear of no equal representation in congress , the fear of an overreaching federal government, the economic impact and major cultural differences all lead to the war
Yeah, and as you said all the various reasons were tied into slavery.
@@specialnewb9821 correct
None of those things are centered around slavery. How does a growing federal government center around slavery?
@@Sgtassburgler When the reson for expansion is a response to slavery.
@@Sgtassburgler Because the South feared a growing Federal Government would emancipate their slaves
FYI, for those in the South that are still in denial that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery. The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings, and in the constitution of the confederacy make almost no mention of tariffs. The Morrill Tariff had not passed in the Senate when 7 of the southern states seceded. The vote, which needed a 2/3 majority to pass, was 25-14 without those 7 southern states or 14 potential votes voting. If they had stayed in the Union, and all voted they could have easily prevented the passage of the Morrill Tariff since it needed 32 votes to pass (60% of 53 votes (39 that voted plus the 14 potential votes, a simple 8-6 against would do)). And the Tariffs set in 1857 were the lowest since 1817. Hence, it was not about tariffs. Or, state rights, since the south only cared about state rights so that they could keep and possibly expand slavery into newly acquired territories. The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves. So grow up -- no one is blaming you -- just some of the adults that lived in the South in 1860.
> The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings, and in the constitution of the confederacy make almost no mention of tariffs.
Not true.
> The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights by forcing the North to help enforce slavery against their state's policy about not having slaves.
You don't have a clue what "states rights" actually means, do you? You think "states rights" means states have a right to disregard express constitutional obligations if they want to? "States rights" are constitutional rights of the states, not the right to trash the rule of law.
When in war, people desire peace; when in peace, people desire war
True
This was an unusually very balanced, detailed analysis of the issues and events that led to the Late Great Unpleasantness. It was extremely well done!!! I'm really looking forward to this series! Great job, as always!
@@rick7424 Yes. Most of the time, slavery is held out as the only thing that the war was about. In reality, it was about many things. This video did a great job presenting that, in my opinion.
@@shanemize3775 I think in his attempt to be balanced, K and G inadvertently went a bit too far into Lost Causer territory. As much as the other issues were present, the underlying thing behind them was the slavery controversy and the expansion of the institution into the territories and other potential states.
@@georgelabe-assimo4365 I disagree. I think that they were quite fair. They made very clear that slavery was the biggest problem and the economics behind it was wide ranging and interconnected with other issues. However, there were, indeed, other issues, and some of them were big issues. Slavery wasn't the end-all, be-all of the Civil War.
Thanks K&G. I used to rally behind the historical standard of the Civil War being an issue mainly around state's rights. I see now that slavery was a much bigger factor than I initially thought (and is an extension of state vs federal authority on the issue of slavery).
You must've grown up in the southern US. In the north and midwest, school curriculum and textbooks make it clear that slavery was the actual cause of the CW and the underlying reason for the growing tension and rift between north and south. Every event that ratcheted up the animosity between north and south, was literally something to do with slavery, custody of free/escaped slaves, rebellions of slaves, attempts to spread slavery into newly annexed states of the USA.
The only reason an adult would have thought the CW as about "states rights" was if they had been a young mind growing up in a state where the teachers, schools and state board of education WANTED you to not know about how important slavery was, as a cause of the war.
@@americanhero8606 So what was the North doing or threatening to do to slavery that led the South to secede? Did you learn that in school (or anywhere else)? Or did you just learn to vaguely allude to inexplicable myths?
Not that the war was about the South's reasons for seceding anyway. The North and defenders of the North to this day deny the right of states to secede regardless of the reason.
Waiting for the Southern Cope 🍿
I've often wondered why this channel never talked about the US civil war besides one video on the battle of Shiloh so seeing this and hearing you say more is coming is, well it's a wonderful thing :)
And this is why United States is divided now is because of two parties had torn us apart as one nation
100% u are correct
So you'd like a 1 party dictatorship? Is that your version of "unity"?
@@majungasaurusaaaa yes I want America have one party so it can keep us together as one because having states to have there own rules doesn’t make any sense the only state that does make sense is Texas the state the has a rule that make sense because our four fathers had written the constitution and the independent rights and no I don’t want United States be a dictatorship nation because it already is right now and it’s been like this a long time ago two parties have turn people into tribal maniacs we went to war for no pear of reason because the Congress, the senate and the Supreme Court has to make the decision should we go to war and our western ales had turn our back on us because we were to stupid to see it that they making the dills with China and yes our shit ass politics and our business foundation too all of our money that we payed our tax is giving to foreign countries our money is so-posed to go to our hospital, homes, roads, highways, schools, factories, military, vets, cities, royal areas towns homes, farms companies, small companies, smalls shops, big shops and were all that go huh oh foreign countries and bombing the shit out of foreign land to waste all of our cash I want the government to look after the people of the United States and help theme no the government should no get involved of these because the people must solve things themselves the government can’t get involved in homes, farms and small businesses. The government jobs is to help, solve, secure, protect, defend and help the people, the people job is to build, create, solve and look out for there families, love one, there next door neighbor and friends just look at the history of Japan after years of fighting and years of war and conger look at Japan now a conservative society but very independent people I don’t want United States be like Japan but we can understand what they been through and came together as the people and nation with out people fighting over agents each other with dumb opinions and there hurtful feelings instead of facts, truth, logic and success
@@franklinshaki9 Paragraphs are your friend, just sayin'. When you allow differences of opinion, you're gonna get tension. Stop with this "torn apart" non sense. You ain't seen nothing if you grew up in the US.
Short answer is slavery, long answer is how various things ties back to the root cause which was slavery
Short answer: Slavery.
Long answer: Slaaaaaaaavery.
@@cleothehermetichermeticist8391
Short answer: Slavery
Long answer: The continued bondage and exploitation of men, women, and children with black skin for the financial benefit of men, women, and children with white skin.
@@deltapapa130 what about the Indians who owned slaves?
@@UnironicMonarchist they too but whats your point
@@deltapapa130 your long answer is better.
*hands you the crown*
I have degrees in American history, Political Science, and Law. I have lived in more than a dozen states and taught at more than 5 colleges and universities. Whenever I am "told" that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War I cringe. In every case the person giving me the lecture has neither the education not the learning experience to explain what was the "real" cause, other than a general statement about "State's Rights", was. Nor have they ever been able to articulate what those "Rights" were exactly , or how the North was interfering with those "States Rights". Good job. Maybe some will actually watch and learn. I hope.
The Same thing happened in Brazil, my country, Many rich involved in Agriculture wanted slaves, While Industrialists didn't want slavery to persist. The main difference was the size of the war, in America, it was bloodier.
"Without further ado, let's dive into the American civil war... after this 1,5 minute long ad(o)."
@@focumQuarium - And that's okay of course, but saying "without further ado" and immediately going to further ado is worth mentioning. =')
@@focumQuarium Yes, that's why we pay their patreon. Still partaking in the seedy world of sponsorship is a smack in the face for us.
And yes, I know I personally can watch em without commercials. Not the point.
Maybe I should have clarified the point: Sponsorship comes with a price. It may be small at the beginning (We'd like you not to swear in videos we sponsor), but will end in things like "Please do not talk about the uighurs in China, do not call the Amenian genocide a genocide".
And as much as receivers of sponsorship will claim they will never be influenced, one has only got to look at the great channels from a few years back, and their quality today.
@Secret Politics - Did you self-advertise on my comment now? And a bunch of others? Congratulations to the imminent influx of dislik es and spam reports, you wannabe. :D Such a tool.
@@sumdude8867 - For the regular ads you can just get an adblocker for your internet browser. This 1,5 minute ad I commented on was part of the actual video. ^^
Graphics are absolutely beautiful. Well done.
This honestly is better content than any documentary I’ve seen on the subject.
Lincoln was truly one of the best presidents !
If you like authoritarian presidents that trashed the noblest of America's founding principles.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Was one of those "founding principles" the ownership of human beings?
@@Evil0tto he jailed journalists and firebombed civilians homes
@@captainhook155 And the southerners OWNED HUMAN BEINGS. Do you have a counter-argument to that?
@@Evil0tto Black people are human? News to me.
Thank you for this explanation. As a VA native, it’s nice to understand the reasons for this war
This is easily, one of the most accurate and concise depictions of the events leading up to the Civil War, that I have seen made since 2000. I would however, if I needed to make a suggestion, suggest that the 13th amendment being signed into law by Buchanan, be mentioned. While not impacting the Civil War, it further demonstrated the myriad of reasons behind the Civil War, and the multivariate reasons for those who fought it
Do you mean Lincoln signing the 13th Amendment? Buchanan had nothing to do with the 13th. Lincoln is the only President to have signed an amendment tho.
@@WeaslyTwin He also made a point of saying: "...a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. ...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Clearly politics is not your strong suit. Please don't accidentally wander into a voting booth. The Corwin amendment you're referring to was in fact the republican party's plan all along. Prior to the south starting the war, they didn't see a way to end slavery directly. So they were gonna suffocate it like a fire. The Corwin amendment says they can't interfere in the states where slavery already exists, but makes no mention of the territories where the real battle over slavery was being held. The Republicans were playing the long game. Let the slave states continue the institution until it eventually died out. Lincoln was a much smarter man than you.
PragerU already covered this topic. The US civil war was all about slavery.
As the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said shortly after the end of the war:
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general - not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ... in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before."
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 You really are everywhere. I am too, so you must be like, the opposite of me. You're here seeking out debate because of some need to have youtube-comment arguments like I do, but instead of using facts, you use denial. Anyways,
"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."
that's the vice president, Alexander Stephens.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
That's from Mississippi's article of secession.
"he was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Texas's article 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. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
That's South Carolina's article of secession.
"The people of the northern States have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is, hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the southern States, and that party has elected a President and Vice President of the United States, pledged to administer the government upon principles inconsistent with the rights, and subversive of the interests of the people of the southern States."
Arkansas.
"That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."
Georgia.
"And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States."
Alabama.
This topic? You must like dancing through minefields.
America had two economies with one that forbade infrastructure for fear slaves would use it to run away. Also, southern states could not lay people off because they had a slave economy with slave overhead. Therefore each economy-the wage and the slave-demanded a single tariff policy. But a single tariff policy would exclude one of the two economies. Also, northern states needed skilled workers since many immigrants were from rural areas. In the south, slave owners would rent out slaves for blacksmithing, construction, coal shoveling on steamboats, bridge repairs, boat repairs, etc. No one talks about how well runaways fit into the northern economy and how certain northern factions knew that and allowed them in the north to fit into the wage economy. The south was anti-northern states rights regarding this.
While many factors lead to war, the fact that this video doesn't make clear,is that the issue over slavery was 99.9% of reason the South rebelled against the U.S.A. The issue of states rights had more to do with slavery. If it wasn't for slavery there really wouldn't have been much of issue over states rights. I think this video take too much of a sympathetic view with the South.
There is no outright claim to what ignited the Civil War. But through its thorough presentation of facts and events one can see it all came down to a few rich southerners who wanted to keep their slaves and expand their practice into the new territories. A few final events tipped the scales before and after Lincoln’s election, and the south seceded. And a tragic half a million people died. And the sad thing is even after all that. The black mans journey into personal autonomy wasn’t finished. After came Jim Crow and mass lynchings in reprisal. It was indeed a long dark night after a brief sunrise. Nothing would change again until MLK came onto the scene
Throughout the entire video they are talking about the north policies about limiting slavery expansion, tariffs to slave owners, and political conflicts between anti-slavery parties and pro-slavery parties.
This video clearly points out that slavery was the focal point of all the other issues that spiraled into the civil war; but unlike the propaganda-like media it showcases facts from both sides, allowing the viewer to understand the situation on its own.
You clearly failed to understand it.
The fact is the South tried to tame it's issue of Slavery after the war by distorting it as an issue of states rights instead of really about slavery which is in reality a false narrative and this video just helps to support that false narrative by making it seem more about tariffs and states rights than is deserved rather than about slavery which was really at the heart of the matter entirely.
@@markadams7046
Which again is stated throughout the entire video and they even quoted the constitution of the confederacy. They said that the south was making it a matter of state rights, but the whole situation described points out at slavery, which again is to allow the viewer to understand the whole picture.
You’re literally the only one who thinks they are somehow siding with the south when in fact this video is the most neutral thing I’ve ever seen regarding this topic so far.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko You can't be neutral between a truth and a false narrative. Also, a reply from 2 people disagreeing with me I would hardly say makes me the only one who sees it this way.
The fact this video goes all the way back to the start of the country is great because the divide really does start at the beginning even going back to the founding of America at two separate, at Jamestown and New England, that developed far differently from each other so well done
Oooh John Brown's body lies a'mouldering in the grave
But his spirit marches on!
God bless his beard
GLORY, GLORY, HALLELUJAH
But his truth is marching on.
His Truth IS marching on!
I'm impressed at how accurate this is.
Y’all should do the Haitian Revolution as part of the African History series
The Haitian Revolution is so complex it could be its own series.
The one where they killed White men, women and children and established one of the most corrupt states in the modern world?
That would be good as one of the many offshoots of 1776.
@@arroganceinvictus either an incredibly bad faith take, or you have no idea about anything about the Haitian Revolution beyond captioned images, memes, and right wing propaganda. Go read the Black Jacobins by C.L.R James, one of the earliest, most nuanced, and most highly acclaimed analyses of the Revolution ever written.
@Eugene Kendrick we Haitians are Africans haiti is africa in the heart of america
This will trigger a lot of edgelords.
Sad. :-)
Finally an objective look at the American Civil war
I was honestly surprised by how neutral the look was. Wonderful display of facts and events
What do you mean neutral he was using fucking lost cause revisionism. The war was about slavery and the south were the aggressors.
@@lif3andthings763 Well, you have to lie to make it sound neutral.
@@lif3andthings763 the fact he analyzed and presented thoroughly “lost cause revisionism” is just what I meant by a neutral factual based presentation. Most coverings of the American Civil war do a poor job presenting both sides. It doesn’t matter that the south lost or was wrong. History’s events and facts need to be presented. Should be a no brained though that slavery was the fork in the road. He made that pretty clear
"In the South the war is what AD is elsewhere; they date from it." - Mark Twain
@@JaMeshuggah Did you see their false idol - a golden Donald Trump - at the CPAC convention?
Wasteful time fogs the mind. Can't come up with a thought of your Owen, ???? Mark Twain.
@@jamiewooten6635
@@CaptWesStarwind Sock puppet account ,is that a Mark Twain
Relapse
@@deltapapa130 Did u see we're did u get yours .I heard my pillow guy is sales now. Or did u buy them out.
This one was so good. Children should be forced to watch this in history class. So informative and accurate and unbiased. As a black man this was your best work toward informing others of a peoples history. I know that wasn't the point or focus but thats how powerful it was. Thank you guys
John Brown's body lies a mouldering in the grave, but his truth goes marching on!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!
ohhhhhh, so it was about taxes levied because of slavery.... and the state's right to secede due to restriction of slavery... and the cultural differences brought about by slavery.... seems like there is a common theme here....
Funny thing: the civil war wasn't required to end slavery. The industrial revolution would've made the practice unprofitable pretty quickly.
If and when the world ever de-industrializes, slavery will make a comeback. Will it be racialized? Highly unlikely. But it will reappear - indeed, some would say it has never really left.
I also felt like they danced around the "main" course for the civil war a bit in the last part of the video.
@@yomomz3921 Quite on contrary, the industrial revolution was linked to the increase on slave population. New machinery and methods to process cotton made a boom on the market, in the 1860 there was more slaves than in any other point in US history. Slavery was alive and well, that's why the south fought so bitterly.
@@MasterofGamesBr - new machines on the market... does automation not kill obsolete jobs?
Yeah, slavery _was_ thriving immediately prior to the war. In another decade or two, it would have been rapidly declining.
@@yomomz3921 Lies. Slavery would have continued in the industrial South. Slaves would have been required to work in factories instead of plantations. There’s zero evidence that the South ever intended to end slavery while there’s plenty of evidence the south would have indefinitely continued slavery - just read their constitution which banned abolishing slavery.
I thought this was weaker than I normally expect from K&G. There were a lot of minor to middling errors, such as a map that showed West Virginia as a state in the 1820s, or calling Kansas and Nebraska "states" at the time of the 1854 Act. Also, you seemed to be obsessed with the tariffs. They are one among several secondary causes of the war, not more or less equivalent to slavery. Those other minor causes barely get a mention. And really, that Mississippi statement says it all. This was mostly about slavery. When abolition became prevalent in the north (and Europe), the south got its back up. There are reasons to be explored as to why that happened, but by 1860, slavery was an article of faith for the south, and they twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain how great it was for everyone, even the well-whipped slaves themselves (example: over 20 novels written as answers to "Uncle Tom's Cabin.") When people are convinced their way of life is under dire threat, and especially when there are politicians and other leaders of society working overtime to spread that message, bad things can happen--as we in the US seem determined to demonstrate again.
Not to mention the nonmention of major cultural differences between the north and south that formed as early as the first settlers(northerners largley coming from Wessex and Hampshire, whereas southerners largely came from Northumbria, the Bordercountry, and lowland Scotland), including linguistic accent differences. I recall reading journal entries from a union soldier saying paraquote "I cannot understand a word from anyone south of the mason-dixon". Continuing minor map errors the Union wasn't called 'The United States of America' during the civil war and it wasn't until after the spanish-american war that 'america' to refer to the united states was finally used, instead 'these united states' or 'the union' were almost exclusively used up until then.
100% agreed, there's some subtle pro-Lost Cause argumentation in this that I didn't particularly like. The Nullification Crisis wasn't nearly as widespread as the video makes it out to be (only SC really did anything with it, and backed down in part because nobody else would join in). And the Morrill Tariff didn't even pass Congress until the end of Feb 1861- after 7 states had already seceded (which is precisely why it passed in the Senate). And then the "only 3% of Southerns were slave-owners" tidbit that ignores a heaping pile of context...
Also the fact that he gets the population wrong
@@TheDarthbinky I got a feeling they were trying to placate both historic revisionist camps, deliberately avoiding the historic context that disproves both.
To be fair overall to the country's supposed "inaction" on Slavery. Until the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney, slavery was seen as a dying practice - it was not very economical, and the cost of keeping slaves was barely offset by the value of their labor in a lot of cases. Cotton was not a "cash crop" in America before 1794 - even with slave labor, it was difficult to make a profit from it. The total number of slaves (estimated) had not changed substantially from 1776 - 1794. However, all hopes of slavery dying a slow but inevitable death were dashed by the cotton Gin. In 1790, there were ~655,000 slaves in the United States. By 1820, that number had more than doubled to 1,510,000. The number of slaves continued to balloon with cotton's value, so that by 1860, there were some 4,000,000 souls in bondage.
The nation at the time was more segmented by "state" than it is today, so the people of Maine did not see Slavery in Georgia as much of their business. Even if they did feel strongly about it, they could do no more than complain. The Federal Government at the time was also not the behemoth we have today - it was considered only one part of the power structure - a leader among "equals" as it were. The balancing act that delayed the war was not by chance - it was carefully considered at every step to try and avoid bloodshed. It is truly shameful the blood of the people suffering in bondage was considered an acceptable price to pay for peace, but in that regard, we're not much better today.
Interesting thing about slaves counting as 3/5th a person in representation. The real horror of this is not that they counted as 3/5ths a person,, but that they were counted at all, because they couldn't vote this essential meant their slave owners were getting 3/5 of their representation and using it to keep them enslaved.
It was a tough situation for ant-slavery faction to be in. If slaves counted as represenation, it would give the slave masters more power. But if they didn't count at all, then slave masters could make the case that slaves were property (which of course they did anyway, by it would be harder to argue against them). So a compromise where they just partially counted was the most feasible option under that situation.
@@TheStapleGunKid Revisionist logic to add to your revisionist history, huh?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Was there supposed to be any substance in that response? If so, you clearly forgot it.
@@TheStapleGunKid If your argument for the 3/5 compromise isn't revisionist, let's see the the pre-ratification evidence that your argument isn't as revisionist as your explanation of what the War of Northern Aggression was aboutt.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 _"Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property._ --Federalist papers #54.
'
Thus partially counting them established that slaves were "persons" as the constitution said, not property. But I'm sure you'll find some way to call that "revisionist", just as you do when I cite what the Confederate leaders in the war of Southern aggression said.
It was brave to go with this topic. Seeing as current events have shown some are still fighting the American civil war.
@@allennguyen4456 .....quite tru
@@allennguyen4456 literally who asked weirdo
@@allennguyen4456 Don't piggy back your bigotry on my comment. It was written for racists like you. There is no grand conspiracy. The radical leftist crap you're talking about, are or rather were Republican ideals and polices that lead to things like the 13th amendment. Just because you have been given a false narrative about your white history to soothe your discomfort with the past doesn't make it false. Correcting that false narrative doesn't make it cancel culture. It's being honest and telling the truth and owning up to the states past. So bring on your misinformation and conspiracy theories. Your hate and your ignorance. I'm ready for it. For one thing is sure you didn't learn anything from this video. U were only here to troll. U took my troll bait.
@Andrew Warther Democracy, I find it so interesting that you useful idiots always speak of democracy, but also refuse to ever acknowledge that a man who's greatest accomplishments was being the VP to a half black man who's only legacy is the charred remains of children, and dozens of destroyed nations, could ever manage to gain more votes then any other president in American history, and also required 25,000 soldiers to stand guard in the Capital to assure his reign to power, sorry I mean his "legitimate" "democratic" assent to the presidency. So very interesting
@@laffyblitz977 What were you trying to say in that jumbled mess? That Biden did not legitimately win the election?
I love your videos, I always learn a lot of new things...unbiased history is hard to find...Thucydides would be proud...
This video is NOT "unbiased history". 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:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
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 whiney, 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?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa was just a low-life, 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?
@@rb032682 Let the man educate himself with decent content from people who create it for free. Nobody needs you spewing your panicked fears accompanied by derogatory highschool terms. Get a life, doomsayer, and get some sun while you're at it.
Could have used this a bit earlier for my history coursework, great video!
Thank fuck you got to do the work yourself and learned something in the process.
Concise and explains well *how* the divide between the American North & South occurred. This is also so well produced that I'm surprised it's free. Thank you for the video.
I am not crazily in love for the history of the US, but I have to say that your ability to produce masterpieces is growing, it’s really well done!
@@bowen1704 I'm not going to spend the time to debunk each piece of this B.S. but just know ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. You can cherry pick a few quotes, most that were made AFTER the war, in the first attempt to white wash the Confederacy by the old confederate veterans, or that were made during the war in an attempt to convince European powers the south wasn't fighting for slavery and they should assist (that failed). I can find you way more quotes of Jeff Davis, Lee, etc. supporting slavery as an institution. You quote Nathan Bedford Forrest as some egalitarian hero when he was quite literally the First Grand Wizard of the KKK. And was notorious in the war for having his men brutally execute black union POWs (Fort Pillow Massacre). And yeah, maybe Grant wrote a letter being indifferent to black people I'm 1863, but you know what else he did in 1863? He captured Vicksburg, freed the slaves there, and then over 20,000 slaves from the surrounding area escaped to Vicksburg. Want to know what Lee was doing in '63? Before losing in Gettysburg, his raiders kidnapped over 4000 free black people in Pennsylvania and sent them south to become slaves. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
TLDR: This guy is full of shit and a simple Google search can debunk his whole narrative.
@@bowen1704 Again, bullshit. The black people that Lee's army kidnapped in Pennsylvania were not "runaway slaves" and he was not just simply enforcing the laws of ol America cuz he just darn loved America, they were Pennsylvania citizens, they were free citizens kidnapped and sold into slavery, almost as if people in the Confederacy thought that was their natural state, so bullshit. Lee owned slaves and explicitly said in that letter you apologist types love quoting that "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things." He wasn't against slavery, thought it was necessary, so bullshit again. Your account of the Fort Pillow Massacre is merely Forrest's own EXCUSE, not an objective report of the battle. Black troops were found CRUCIFIED after that battle, that's fact, sorry if you don't like it. And Forrest didn't end the KKK you kidding me? He simply quit when the first federal crack down begin. The lies that you and people like you have made for generations are easily debunked by an actual objective history book, And I mean a REAL history book, not some shit that you read as a kid that was funded by the Daughters of the Confederacy, and clearly brainwashed you. If the Confederacy didn't have preserving slavery as their objective, please explain why states like Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia all explicitly stated in their Articles of Succession that slavery was the reason for succeeding? Id honestly love to hear your excuse for that. If you don't believe me just look up articles of Succession for any of those states, then throw me your b.s. on it.
This history of the US is one of the most glorious in world history since they broke free from the standard of the world which WAS slavery and it showed how Europeans could be better than the rest of the world despite a strong insurgence by hostile groups
@@timyumichuck9262 what? The US didn't invent the ideas or the movement for abolitionism of slavery, not even remotely, not by a country mile. Multiple nations in Europe had already completely abolished slavery years, even decades before the first shots were fired in the US civil war.
@@timyumichuck9262
wtf? Slavery in europe was long gone, decades before the civil war even started.
***SPOILERS*** Slavery
Tariffs
@@monisomo8487 It was slavery, and they knew it.
@@monisomo8487 That's funny, because all the Confederate Secession documents explicitly cite slavery as their reason for committing Treason against the US. Only one or two of them even bothered to MENTION tariffs, like at the bottom of the document.
@@SRosenberg203 That really doesnt seem relevant. Yes slavery was a reason but the tariffs were what caused official sessession, before the tariffs the south and north were content with operating differently.
@@MrGksarathy Its pretty irresponsible to ignore the role the Tariffs played in the sessession.
Great video, consider doing a video on the Taiping rebellion which happened around the same time?
Psh. Anyone who still thinks the Civil War WASN'T caused by the issue of slavery needs to take a second to read the Declaration of Independence of the Confederate states. The Confederacy say CLEARLY in it that slavery is why they were seceding.
I feel people need to differentiate why the south seceded vs why the south fought the war. They left because of slavery, no question about that. Why did soldiers fight for the South? That is more nuanced. It's clear the majority of Confederate soldiers didn't feel they were fighting to protect the right of rich aristocrats to keep slaves. Most probably agreed with slavery, but most had no slaves either. The soldiers gave all manner of reasons why they fought. That is where I think the debate ultimately comes from. Southerners see diaries and records from their ancestors and others saying they fought for 'states rights' and 'unfair rule from Washington' and 'freedom' for themselves and their states... and then see someone say 'the south fought to keep slaves' and find that answer completely wrong. Both are right, it's just the context they are arguing is completely different. The south seceded to protect the institution of slavery, the southern soldiers fought the war for a variety of reasons.
@@Fordo007 does that really matter at the end of the day though? In the end, the Southern States as an institution were fighting to protect slavery. The southern soldiers were fighting because their government told them to or because they felt some obligation to via propoganda.
The difference there and the same analogy with the German soldiers during WW2 is that Germany as a nation has been apologetic and repetenant of their past. The German people have taken great strides into acknowledging their part in what took place during WW2. The Southern United States have not, instead they have consistently been stubbornly prideful that what they were fighting for was homeland and states rights, eager to erase how big of a part slavery was in that conflict.
That's the difference. The people of the Southern United States need to take a page out of what the German people are doing. They need to condemn the confederacy, condemn their symbols and cease glorifying their part in the war as some form of patriotisim. It's disgraceful.
Whether or not the southern soldiers realized it, they were fighting to protect rich plantation owners and their ability to keep slaves. That's the reality. The southern US needs to come to terms with that.
Slavery and the knock-on socio-economic effects of slavery
Industrialisation and the knock-on socio-economic effects of industrialisation.
@@ezzy2254
Explain
@@illerac84 the civil war was a reactionary war. that is, the confederacy, in their defiance to the union, acted in reaction to the rapid industrialisation of the north. an economic reliance on industrialisation has many unwanted side effects to common society, and these effects were viewed as a valid arguement against industrialisation and for slavery, which has been the standard form of production for thousands of years before the modern era. there is, very surely, a moral arguement against slavery, but let's not act like the victors of war do not dictate history as they please.
@@ezzy2254 Every time I hear the words "Victors write History" I want to put a bullet in my brain.
Like, if Victors truly wrote History, there'd be no Lost Causers out there, because all the evidence would be covered up. This isn't even mentioning the fact there are times when losers write History, like when Nazi Generals were allowed to write and sell their memoirs to the public, without it ever been fact checked, by historians, leading to Clean Wehrmacht myths still being regurgitated over the Internet.
Oh yeah, another one instance is the fucking Torah, the largest piece of information we have about Moses-era Ancient Egypt, from a people who were exiled, far away from Egypt.
@@belgebelgravia100 the rule of the victora is not administred through law(though an exception is that it's illegal to deny the holocaust in many countries), it is administered through psychology. the raising of the confederate flag is seen as racist, the very identification towards the south side of the war is shunned by the public, you believe what you think happened then, but nobody was alive then to really know, yet we say with utmost certainty, because the process of de"south"ification and de"nazi"fication is still administered by the victors even years after the wars were done. it is not that the victors write history, but it is that, the victors dictate to us what to think of the past. though these anti-consensus memoirs and books exist, the man controlled by the victors automatically repels any consideration of these books sub-consciously.
The Simpsons, Apu takes his citizenship test:
Proctor: Name the cause of the Civil War.
Apu: Well there were several factors including the growing abolitionist movement, the Kansas/Nebraska Act, the Missouri Compromise...
Proctor: Just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is sir!
More civil war episodes! The Spanish and Chinese civil wars are both so interesting.