My family lineage goes back to the early to mid 1600’s, starting in Georgia. Most started out as farmers before branching out into other careers. My great, great grandfather commanded the Confederate troops from Florida that fought with the Army of Virginia. He signed the Armistice at Appomattox Court House on behalf of the State of Florida. As a child I often heard stories concerning the Civil War. Many of my relatives had men serve and some died with the Confederacy. To make things short, the vast majority of the reasons they gave for the Civil War were economic. The locals at that time were very upset with the tariffs imposed on items that were brought to the South from Europe. They were upset over the export laws and tariffs, especially those imposed on the sale and shipment of cotton to England. They saw the laws forced them to sell their cotton to New England mills for less than what they could get for their cotton going to England. These laws were forced upon them at the behest of the mill owners in New England who had the money and political clout to get Congress to pass these laws. This rightly upset cotton farmers in the south. Making things worse, the tariffs imposed on imports from Europe made the purchase of European goods such as plows, tools, and clothing more expensive than those made in New England even though it cost less to make those items here as opposed to making them in Europe. This too rightly upset those living in the South. The federal government it was felt was acting more and more like King George and that was another thorn in the side of the South. Slavery was slowly dying out in the south around this time. Buying a new slave was way too expensive for most every farmer. The cost to house them, feed them, clothe them, and keep them healthy was more expensive every year. The economics was plain to see by most farmers, bankers, cattlemen, and politicians. Check out how many Confederate soldiers owned slaves before and during the war. It was darn few. Slavery was not an issue to them or at most a minor one. It was economics and the feeling the federal government had it in for the South. Those feelings in large part still exist today and the way the federal government has been acting over the past fifty years is not helping matters.
I grew up near Charleston, S.C...the city library had copies of newspapers from the 1850's through late 1860's. Economics, northern banking monopolies, corrupt Fed gov't & northern companies getting biased treatment over southerners... Yeah, many aspects to secession. Lincoln would have allowed slavery to maintain the Union. But talk of secession had been growing since the last economic crash of the 1850'lots of southern farmers lost their homes when loans were called.by the Yankee banks. Secession was necessary.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Also note that the presenter here tried to undermine the so-called political argument which was closest to the truth by saying the person lost a defamation lawsuit to Poe. Further he referred to the third argument as “economic” when in fact it was socialist or even marxist.
@@MrGchiassonThe cause of the South’s economic problem was not the banks it was the laws and tariffs imposed on the agrarian South by the North. If Lincoln was not elected there would not have been a war. Lincoln supported the tariffs.
It is worth reading what the Congress' in most of the Confederate states had to say on their reasons for seceeding. It was clear they understood that the issue was slavery, they said so in each of their statements, in the first few paragraphs. In was written down in their own words at the time, very clearly.
@@johnryan7932 Slavery was not the issue. That issue existed since Independence and it did not prevent the formation of the Union. The issue was economic. Lincoln supported slavery during his campaign. It was his support of the Morrill Tariff which overly burdened the South that precipitated the war with all the States seceding right after his election and just before his inauguration.
I find it interesting that both Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain brevet major general USA, AND lieutenant general longstreet CSA gave the exact same reason for the war. They both stated in their respective books that the cause was a dispute over what kind of government the federalgovernment was supposed to be. The southern view was that the federal government was a democracy of states and each state was a nation in and of itself. The northern view was that the federal government was a nation of laws superior to the states and who the states were subordinate to
But the issue of slavery was the reason the kind of government was questioned. It always goes back to slavery. The seceeding states said so at the time.
@@rspro575 yes I know the Victor's write the history. But I just gave you the reason that 2 major players in the war said about the cause. They were there, they fought the war, are you saying they didn't know what they were fighting about? Let me make it simple. The south believed that each state was a nation, and that the federal government was subordinate to the states. The north believed that the federal government was a republic of laws that the states were subordinate to. Our greatest statesman debated that question for 80 some years without being able to resolve it. So they took it to the court of war and in 1865 the court of war determined that the federal government is a republic of laws that the states are subordinate to and must abide by federal law.
@@pughoneycutt1986 And what was it that the southern states wanted to do that the federal government said they could no longer do? Expand slavery into the west. The lost cause is as dead as Bobby Lee. Get over it.
Please keep in mind It was not a civil war, the Romans had a "civil war" for control of the republic. This was a war between states, the southern states seceded, started their own country and wanted to be left alone. Lincoln assembled an army, sent it down to Virginia (1st bull run) TO FORCE the south back into the Union, not to free slaves. Even the final draft of the emancipation proclamation does not mention the slaves held in border states. The civil war was fought to decide who was going to run the country, the individual states or the federal government.
And why did they want to leave? To protect their states rights, particularly slavery. If it were not for slavery, the North would not have cared enough to go to war. Sadly, the nation did lose too much of states rights. In the south, they were quickly lost due to Jefferson's efforts to win the war. The North lost them after the war. And, since it was about slipping the nation - it was a form of a civil war.
@@davidr7333 The United States of America has never been a nation per the legal meaning of the word. It remains today exactly as originally formed - a limited union of free, independent, and sovereign nations.
@@davidr7333 The war was actually over "The Morrill Tariff" which sparked the 'states rights' argument, especially where the issue of slavery was concerned; a believed necessary ingredient for a prosperous agrarian society. Lincoln never mentioned slavery in his inaugural speech, but HE DID indirectly reference the Morrill Tariff. That the SOLE REASON federal troops were at Ft. Sumpter: To guarantee the collection of the tariff despite the ever increasing political climate.
You can find an interview of an ex-Confederate soldier here on YT who talks about the Civil War from first-hand experience. The interview is very interesting and informative. Many believe the war was an illegal act on the part of the government of the time as there was no part of the Constitution or other attending documents preventing states from leaving the union. Thus the term "War of Northern Aggression" is sometimes used rather than Civil War.
The Union was made of the People. It is self evident that since the People made the Union, only the People can dissolve the Union. The Constitution protects the People from the tyranny of both the Federal government and the States. The Civil War - or Slave Owners' Rebellion, as it is sometimes and more accurately termed - is a classic case of the need for protection from the tyranny of the states. The poor white folk - to say nothing of black folk - needed protection from the slave owners, who sought to railroad their states to further their tyrannical agenda.@@scottwhitcher265
Take that “one issue” out of the equation, and guess what? No war. Everyone understands that there are personal ideals at play and everyone has slightly different perspectives. But the reality is that the war would not have happened without that issue. That should not be controversial.
"The school of adversity"... I like that line. Each one of these points of view was expressed so eloquently. I am always amazed with the eloquence that so often is a part of the written language of the 19th and 18th centuries. It saddens me how popular culture and modern technology have seemingly conspired to cheapen and make lazy the written English language in much more modern times. We like to think ourselves so evolved today from those previous generations, but the loss of eloquence in the English written language is certainly not an example of this great evolution, quite the contrary.
@@stringfellowbalk2654 Don't forget hip hop and text messaging. Idiots who didn't even obtain a GED have been rewriting the English language for over 30 years.
@@stringfellowbalk2654 I have a confession to make. When I was in Grade/High school (50's-60's) we had to turn in some called Theme Papers. he teacher would say I want (say) 250 words on a subject. I could do it. SIGH Alas those days are gone. 😞 Its a forgotten skill.
@ericstevens8131 No, because it was a much more agrarian socio-economic country back then. That is why school, even to this day, is out during the summer. For those who even attended at all, they were expected to work the fields and help with harvests and planting in the summertime. But the quality of education for those who did attend school was much greater back then, and educators didn't put up with anywhere near the crap they do today. They were much stricter, and there was generally much less distraction from actual education in those days.
first, With due respect to Rev. Taylor ....there is not mention of Slavery as a Sin in the Holy Script although many try to interpret passages to the contrary. Second ...it is true that many Southern politicians mentioned Slavery as a reason for Succession but keep in mind this usually came from the Aristocratic class which represented only 25% of the population in the South. Most Southerners were prepared to Succeed not because of Slavery but because they viewed joining the local Militia as a duty of protecting Thier culture, family and homeland. I seriously doubt the common Southern foot soldier would commit his life to the death for only keeping blacks as slaves.
On your first point, the old moral principle of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you is firmly based in holy scripture with several references" as is "love your neighbor as yourself". Your second point is valid based on primary source documentation including from President Lincoln himself. However, some of the economic benefits of slavery did trickle down to the common man. Sadly slavery exists to this day in the land of the free in greater numbers than back when it was legal. And our society as a whole continues to turn our faces as before.
@@freeinflorida4628 -While it would not be fair to hold someone who lived well over a hundred years ago to the moral standards of today one must remember up until a short time ago many people did not look at people of African ancestry as being ‘human’ in the same sense as they held people with European ancestry. Obviously, this is morally wrong but for many people that was accepted. Still is today in several places sadly. Therefore, the “love your neighbor as yourself” would not have applied back then. A slave was an economic tool not a real human being. Economic realities were slowly ending slavery and years ago I can remember learning Lincoln as well as several other politicians knew this and thought letting the practice just die out would be a whole lot less costly to the country than fighting a war. The last count I read about stated the Civil War cost our country in the neighborhood of 750,000+ lives both military and civilian. Nothing “civil” about that. To your last point, yes there are more slaves today here in this country than there were back in the 1800’s. In fact, there are more around the world than there were back then. I’ve read most every town in his country has at least one slave, normally sexual or domestic servant, within their city limits. If true, why are we turning a blind eye to it? We have learned literally nothing when it comes to this issue. Perhaps we just don’t see Hispanics, Asians, or any other non-European person as being ‘human’.
In the Bible Story, Jesus stated that he wasn’t ever changing the old law, so that means that the old commandments, covenants, etc. remained as they were. So, Exodus 21, regarding how owning entire families and passing along that property as inheritance is completely moral and just. Jesus mentioned slavery by merely saying that slaves should be good their masters. Rape is never made a sin in the Bible either, as rape victims are forced to marry the rapists in the Bible. …but there is a commandment to rest on a certain day of the week?! How difficult would it have been for a just god to add the lines, “Thou shalt not own people or rape them”? The immoral Bible and those who preached its infallibility arguably has led to much more calamity and holocaust than it has tranquility. The morals of the Bible contradict so greatly with today’s social moral standard, that it demonstrates how morals as a whole are subjective and not absolute.
The problem with your argument is that the slave owning aristocracy dominated southern politics. For example, half of Mississippi's secession delegates owned *at least* ten slaves. 30% of southern households owned slaves (statistics easily available from the 1850 US census). That leaves 70% of the population, true. They fought for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned: duty, social pressure, propaganda that convinced them Lincoln wished them ill (nonsense) or fears of slave revolt and miscegenation. Please note that many of those reasons were closely related to slavery: militias had patrolled for generations to control slave populations, for example. It's worth noting that secession was deeply unpopular in regions of the south where there were not many slaves. Many folk from those regions joined the Union army, or in the case of West Virginia just got themselves out of the rebellion completely. Counties in Texas with low slave ownership weren't even allowed to have delegates at the state secession delegation...why do you suppose that was? Sure looks to me like the primary reason was slavery.....
@@OkieSketcher1949Unfortunately for your point, the idea that people shouldn't be slaves was well known in 1860. But southern politicians had spent decades trying to gag the US Congress, censor the US mail, or just flat-out use violence to shut up anyone who tried to say slavery was immoral. So it's not that they had never heard the truth...they just didn't like it.
Currently people do not want to hear anything that doesn't support their agenda, might as well be talking to a wall. It really is a sad situation that people are blocked from learning,.. but kudos to you for trying.
I dropped my US Civil War class at UCSD on day one after the professor (who specializes in women's history, I believe) said that there was only one right answer to the question of what caused the civil war and if anyone said anything other than slavery, they weren't wanted. She was a moron.
There really is only one right answer. The south succeeded based on their belief in being able to keep slaves. You just need to read what they wrote. All the leaders of the Confederacy wrote unequivocally that succession and the war was about slavery. If you can't believe what the orchestrators of the war wrote about the reason who can you believe.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for this wonderful video. Your research helps to connect the modern community with the day-to-day existence of life during the Civil War. This is another wonderful video.
Happy New Year to you and your family! This year I discovered your YT channel and Military Images and it has been a pleasure to listen to you or read every new or old copy! Keep it up! Best :)
From the Acton/Lee correspondence: Sir:1 Although your letter of the 4th ult. has been before me some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence. As a citizen of the South, I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it. The influence of correct opinion in Europe upon the current politics of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue in the United States, involving not only constitutional freedom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright. Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to retrieve it from the mass of prejudice and passion, with which it has been covered by party spirit. I am conscious of the compliment conveyed in your request for my opinion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion which was commenced by the founders of the constitution, and has been continued to the present day. I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the States and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard of the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the States into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the Federal and Democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State governments, and to despotism. The New England States, whose citizens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern States, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threatened the disruption of the Union unless the war should be discontinued. The assertion of this right has been repeatedly made by their politicians when their party was weak; and Massachusetts, the leading State in hostility to the South, declares in the preamble to her constitution, that the people of that commonwealth “have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a Free Sovereign and Independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.” Such has been in substance the language of other State Governments, and such the doctrine advocated by the leading men of the country for the last seventy years. Judge Chase, the present Chief Justice of the United States, as late as 1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he “knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a State to perform its stipulations,” thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of State Action. But I will not weary you with this unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable because the judgment of reason has been displaced by the arbitrament of war, waged for the purpose as avowed of maintaining the union of the States. If, therefore, the result of the war is to be considered as having decided that the Union of the States is inviolable and perpetual under the constitution, it naturally follows that it is as incompetent for the General Government to impair its integrity by the exclusion of a State, as for the States to do so by secession; and that the existence and rights of a State by the constitution, are as indestructible as the Union itself. The legitimate consequence then must be the perfect equality of rights of all the States; the exclusive right of each to regulate its internal affairs under rules established by the constitution; and the right of each State to prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage. The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance of it. Virginia, to the last, made great efforts to save the Union, and urged harmony and compromise. Senator Douglass in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the Republican party; and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment was with the Republican party. Who then is responsible for the war? Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results and agrees without reserve to the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia. In other respects, I trust that the constitution may undergo no change, but that it may be handed down to succeeding generations in the form we received it from our forefathers. The desire I feel that the Southern States should possess the good opinion of one whom I esteem as highly as yourself, has caused me to extend my remarks farther than I intended, and I fear it has led me to exhaust your patience. If what I have said, should serve to give any information as regards American politics, and enable you to enlighten public opinion as to the true interests of this distracted country, I hope you will pardon its prolixity. In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the battles were fought. I have not seen the work by the Prussian officer you mention, and therefore cannot speak of his accuracy in this respect. With sentiments of great respect, I remain your obdt. Svt, R E Lee
The first argument citing abolition as the primary cause of the Civil War seems to morph into a substantial economic argument. That is, the writer laments that the admission of free state will increase national government activities which support northern commercial interests. surviving texts of prominent speeches by southern politicians prior to the Civil War dwell on the illegitimacy of government involvement in the economy, including infrastructure improvements. Those writings suggest that the Southern oligarchy was interested in the perpetuation of its economic, political and social control through the complete absence of government involvement of the economy. The third argument seems to be a general statement that the Civil War was caused by petit hostilities among those in the monied class, which implies those aforementioned economic and political differences. It seems that economic hostilities and a dispute over the role of government created a feeling of a necessity for succession, while revulsion to abolition supplied the emotional catalyst for secession.
One thing is for sure: the North profited hugely from war profiteering. The Northwest was not about to let the Confederate states command the Mississippi River. The importance of New Orleans was reflected in the renown of Andrew Jackson,
The competition between NYC and New Orleans was long standing. NYC had the initial advantage of being the farthest port southward from Canada in which the waters were too cold for wood destroying worms. As the Country moved westward, New Orleans assumed the advantage being on the Mississippi River. NYC kept pace with the Erie Canal. With California becoming the new jewel in America's crown, New Orleans was poised to take the lead with prospect of the Southern Pacific RR. Enter Stephen Douglas with legislation to permit a Northern Pacific RR Route, and the north assumed the lead again. Government backed Northern economic competition, the prospect of a Northern Pacific RR, and the peace treaty with Mexico were large factors influencing secession. They were more immediate concerns than abolition, but the threat of eventual abolition apparently was the ignition.
Revulsion to abolition supplied the emotional catalyst for secession and the necessity of it because the Slave Power lost the political control it had, and that's why Secession happened before Lincoln even took office. Read Neely's book "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism". Confederate Constitutionalism was just that. A myth. It was all means to the end of protecting slavery. Every state that seceded has commissioners that made clear and unequivocal statements about the reasons for secession, and all of them were explicitly declared to be about slavery. These written declarations are a matter of public record, but are ignored by the whitewashing of The Lost Cause until recently.
I have always thought that "civil war" is a misnomer. A civil war is a fight for control of the existing government. Our conflict was a war between the states, whatever the cause.
You're correct that it was not a civil war. It was rightly called "the war of the rebellion" for several decades until the Lost Cause propagandists convinced everyone to start calling it something that hurt their feelings less.
Technically, no. The rebels were separatists and had no desire to control the United States government. They did have their eye on conquering various territories in central America and the Carribean, but that's a different story....@@5metoo
@@aaronfleming9426 - That's like saying a divorce is just a separation, rather than the destruction of the existing order; the union. It's not about control, but losing control. The rebels became separatists when the slave states lost political power. Accordingly, the Northern public did not see it as some independence movement. At all. Read diaries and letters of the time and you'd find indignation that in secession they were trying to "break up the best government the world has ever seen." Yes I know about "The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire."
Exactly what rights are at issue here? The states have plenty of rights to run their societies as they see fit. The Tenth Amendment says they do. They just don't have the right to enslave people or deprive them of their basic human rights, like voting, marriage and sitting in the front row of a bus.
@@brianniegemann4788 The Southern States right was to forbid the Free expression of opinion as to speak against the slavery system. The first (slavery friend) Kansas Constitution forbade the Free expression of opinion against the Slavery System!
Every federated union has these conflicts. They are inevitable and James Madison was quite well aware of them when designing the US Constitution. A "country" is made up of one long ethnic heritage. A union Republic is not. It is a salad of regional and familiar contradictions. That is why patriotism over the George Washington years of the Revolution was so strongly hammered into the character of citizens of the new Republic for 200 years.
All wars are fought primarily for economic reasons and the War for Southern Independence was no exception. The irony is, by 1860, slavery was a dying institution, and the South knew it was only a matter of time before it became economically untenable. Arguably, had the war not happened, slave states would have abolished the institution of slavery sometime before 1870. We can argue the morality of slavery all we want, but the primary causes of the war were economic in nature.
Certainly slavery was economics at is core, a Democrat could steal the slave's paycheck by beating it out of him. Saying Democrats would have abolished slavery is poppycock since Dems did everything possible to keep Blacks in chains of Jim Crow and working on Democrat plantations thru vagrancy laws, peonage, etc and scared away from the voting booth via their KKK & wide variety of black voter suppression tactics like Grandfather Clauses, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. Today Democrats want the slavery of government dependency. Slave ownership is Democrat DNA and always will be, beamed into the elitist "I am better than you" attitude.
@@debbylou5729My economics professor in college did his Ph.D. dissertation on the economics of slavery and made a very good case for what I asserted above. What have you got besides ad-hominem and ignorance?
The Constitution requires that the President enforce the laws of the United States in every state. It also requires that the President suppress insurrection. Lincoln was merely stating his legal duties; the rebels were already at war with the United States, having fired on American ships, stealing American property, and kidnapping American soldiers at gunpoint.
Thank you for sharing this video. I enjoyed listening to your opinion. The Civil War is a very complicated topic. Historian Shelby Foote said it was a war between one form of society against another.
Yes. A free society and a slave-owning society, with free and slave-labor based economies. Which is why a few slave-owning states stayed in the Union, but zero free states joined the rebels.
@@aaronfleming9426 On one side there were more people physically enslaved than on the other, but the other side was attempting to economically enslave in far greater numbers. There was so much hypocrisy coming from both sides.
There was certainly plenty of economic injustice in the industrializing North, but I think it's important to distinguish between being economically oppressed and being owned outright as if you were a cow or a pig.
@@aaronfleming9426 Yes, there are important difference between being economically oppressed and enslaved. A slave owner is responsible for the well being of his property and it's in his own interest to provide a safe and healthy life for them. If your slave dies, you have to go buy another. If they are hurt or sick, you have to take care of them. A coal mine owner doesn't care at all what happens to his workers. If one dies, you just hire another. You avoid paying them by issuing company money that's only good at the company store, so they can't leave their abusive and dangerous job, because all of their money is only good if they stay and buy from you. I supposed they could pack up with nothing and leave, but where are they going to go? To the lumber mill a hundred miles away that treats them the same?
You're assuming that slave owners were rational and humane, while factory owners were stupid and brutish. It's an indefensible premise. The truth is, slaves were frequently treated brutally - not cared for, not well fed, not well clothed; beaten, raped, or sold away from their home and family. Of course it was typically worse on larger plantations, just as a white laborer in the north was better off in a small shop than a large factory. "But why would a master treat a valuable commodity that way?" Because humans behave irrationally more often than not. Today we have the advantage of decades of research on effective management, and there are still zillions of managers who treat their employees like garbage and then can't figure out why morale and productivity are so low, and turnover is so high. A slave owner had all the more reason to be inhumane: he lived in a system that was built on brutality and violence. And it had to be, because slaves had a distressing tendency to want freedom, because apparently being a slave wasn't as awesome as you seem to think it was. A slave owner was taught from his mother's milk that he was superior, that his slaves were sub-human, that destiny and even God Himself had given him power over the inferior races...is there any doubt that such an environment would breed abuse like a swamp breeds mosquitos? On the other hand: A factory worker had it bad, no doubt, but he could get some education for his kids and hope they could better their life, because they were born free. Perhaps one of his children could become a teacher, a clerk, or a clergyman, or even start a store or small workshop. A factory worker could save his wages, because he had wages. Difficult as it would be to pack up and leave, he could do so without being run down by bloodhounds, flogged, and sold to a different state - if not outright murdered to serve as an example. His wife and daughters would have legal protection from rape. He could enjoy the dignity of Christian marriage to a woman he loved. He could enjoy his family without the constant fear that one of them would suddenly be sold the next day. If he was accused of a crime, he would have recourse to the courts and a trial by a jury of his peers. He could join the army, move west to try his hand at homesteading, work on a railroad... None of those were options for slaves.@@CaffyPvP
Appreciate this approach. The past witnesses are lost now. I fear that few people can keep up with Intellectual writings by these authors, who wrote and thought at a much higher level than nearly any today. Nowadays peopke cannot grasp it without guided dissection. Also, the mindset regarding the entry into WW1, a major wrong turn in world history, all is lost. Thanks for your effort.
there are few people around that could follow Lee's letter to Acton and understand the concepts and history that he writes about, and in fact, most probably wouldnt even understand the basic language used. people these days are mental midgets, and our society suffers as a result.
No war is fought for a single reason. Even if media and public opinion focus on a single outrage, (Remember the Maine!) The reality is much deeper. Nobody would argue the Second World War was fought merely to free the captive European people held in the death camps, and nobody today would seriously argue the only result of that global conflict was the closing of those camps. Entire libraries are written expounding on the causes of the First World War, but none of those books would say the war was fought merely to make the world free of threat anarchic assassins posed to porcine princelings. There are contemporaneous accounts of Union soldiers deserting upon hearing the news that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. These Union men were not proslavery by any stretch of the imagination. They were just pro-Union first to last. Some few felt betrayed. They did not believe the sole reason for their suffering and dying to simply free the South's Africans. Most young Federals had never seen a slave in person, nor did they think about them much as they were wounded or died fighting.
The Second Great War in Europe (for it was not a World War) was not fought to free captives held in concentration camps. FDR manipulated events to bring these United States into war for the sole purpose of salvaging his failed economy after all efforts to stimulate the economy proved futile. Even the Foreign States of Europe entered the war against Germany for reasons of economics and treaty obligations. It is ironic that the very treaties intended to prevent escalation of small regional conflicts were directly responsible for the spread of war across the continent of Europe. There were no good factions in the Second Great War in Europe. The Allied Forces began nighttime bombing raids on civilian population centers, and the Germans retaliated with bombings of London after Churchill refused all requests to cease the practice. More than 20 million German civilians were victims of Allied military force, and that doesn't include the countless who perished in concentration camps as a result of hunger related disease and starvation due to food shortages and distribution issues resulting from Allied bombing raids. You've obviously never read of Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows Death Camps where more than 900,000 German POWs were killed by U.S. Army personnel between 1945 and 1950. All involved in "World War II" were evil and should share the blame and the guilt.
@@kato1224 Yes, there is much more to it. The history texts omit the fact that a US Navy destroyer fired the first shot of the war, sinking a Japanese submarine 5 hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, FDR had boots on the ground in Europe to fight against Germany by Spring 1941 and had recruited "former" US military aviators to form the Flying Tigers to fight in China against Japan months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. US military forces had been providing intelligence on German ship movements for nearly 2 years prior to America's official entry into the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific. It was FDR's illegal acts of war and his embargos against Japan by which he drew Japan to commit "the first act of aggression" (as it was pitched it to the American people) in order to drive public opinion to support war against Japan. FDR then launched an invasion of Europe a year before any retaliation was forthcoming against Japan. Just as planned, FDR and his cronies began a war with Germany to salvage America's failed economy. Our government loves to tell a distorted version of the facts as "history" in order to justify its illegal wars.
The economic argument is the reason the North would not allow secession by the South. Lincoln fought to maintain the Union, for economic reasons. Here is a serious question...had the South prevailed, would there still be slavery in 2023? I think not. It was destined to be abolished at some point in time. Of the top ten reasons for the war, slavery was #7.
I always enjoy these episodes! Thank you so much. I may show this in my university course. You are always so informative, and I love the background info on people and issues in the civil war.
Very interesting hearing those voices from the past! One thing I'd add is the subject of "internal improvements." I believe the writer may have been referring to the proposed transcontinental railroad. Railroad technology had advanced to the point it was feasable to build the railroad in the 1850's but the problem was just what the route would be, Northerners pushing for a northern route and Southerners pushing for a southern one, both points of view which should surprise no one. Since no common ground could be found the legislation concerning the same went nowhere. It wasn't until the secession of the Southern states took them completely out of the picture that the Pacific Railroad Act was passed and signed by President Lincoln although the real work wouldn't begin until the Civil War was over.
They should have adopted Sen. Stephen A. Douglas' 1850s plan to build 3 great transcontinental railroads along Southern, central and northern routes. That would have satisfied all sections of the country. Instead we got Abe Lincoln.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Yes, and look at the result -- Civil War. In the end all three lines to the Pacific were built, proving Sen. Douglas was correct.
What they are referring to was the fact that nearly all the railroads and many canals in the north were federally subsidized. Not one mile of RR in the south was. That is why all the RRs in the south were different gauges while in the north, they were all standardized. What always gets left out of the discussion is the fact that from the 1820s till the war started, the South was paying 75% of the taxes, and with a population one third the size of the North. Yet all this funding was going north.
The cause of the war was secession. The Southern states seceded because they did not have equal representation in the federal government, but also sectionalism that could be interpreted as nationalism. Slavery itself was never really in any danger. The real issue was the expansion of slavery because it affected representation. Northern and Southern attitudes toward race were similar. I am a direct descendant of both Confederate and Union soldiers so I'm about as natural as anyone can be. Oddly, this has become such a hot topic when no one could care less only a few years ago. Why people suddenly care so much is the real mystery to me.
You are a nice guy. Today, the central government is out of control and dangerous to the people's liberty. Powerful banking families control America. When did corporations take over America? It was during the Civil War. Lincoln's National Bank Acts consolidated banking. Consolidated banking led to a consolidation in industry-monopolies. Most people think we got central banking with the Federal Reserve. We got it with the Civil War. Standard Oil owner William Stillman was on the board of City Bank with Jacob Schiff. This is the partner of the Rothschilds. City Bank was designated as a reserve bank from the national bank acts. They were using these reserves to consolidate industry into monopolies. The south was for a decentralized federation not a national consolidated government. The United States is a Federal Republic. The vertical check on centralized power is the states. The Establishment historians propagate the moral myth to assist the elites into maintaining a powerful central government. America is not based on a powerful central government. Let me make this easier. Families like the Rockefellers control the central government and the benefit from this. A return to a decentralized Federation is not in their interest. Their foundations gave billions to Universities to control the narrative. This is why the elites are afraid. The Civil War lie must be maintained..The north loved black people and fought the war to end slavery for moral reasons. Really it's true. I promise.
Sounds like it was a political and economic problem, we may be on the same path today, the leaders were quick to make it a moral issue, don't misunderstand I'm not a supporter of slavery but follow the money and you will find the solution.
Wonderfully done. Thank you. I would recommend reading “In the Course of Human Events,” by Charles Adams, a northern historian, member of the CATO institute and known as the world authority on the history of taxation. It may surprise some that it is actually an argument supporting secession, but certainly not blindly so.
Thank you. I heard pretty much this same thing from my high school history teacher 40 years ago. Commerce between northern states, the south and European countries. I like the writings you quoted from men during that time frame and especially the religious slant for the Lord bringing chastisement to those needing humbling.
I live in southern California, in Wilmington, CA named after Wilmington, DE by Phineas Banning. His home is still there located near PCH, and down the street there's actually civil war barracks still standing. At Christmas time his house is open to tours and people dress up in costume of the time. At the barracks a man dressed up in military costume would ask people if they knew why the Civil war happened, most people respond slavery, no he would state and say "Taxes!"
The civil war occurred because the south, an agrarian culture was being controlled by the more heavily populated industrial north. Once Lincoln was elected in 1860, additional tariffs were added which induced great financial burdens on the south. Example: Morrill Tariff signed into law in 1860 which introduced high import duties not for the traditional purpose of national revenue but to protect northern American industry from overseas competition, inflicting significant financial hardship on the south. The south believed in states rights, the federal government, not so much. Google it. Fun facts: The civil war caused more American deaths than WW1, WW2 and the Korean war combined. Questions. If slavery was the issue, why wasn't the emancipation proclamation introduced in 1860, not three years into the civil war in 1863. Oddly, the emancipation only freed southern slaves, not the northern slaves, read the emancipation proclamation. Why would southerners (about 99.99% who didn't own slaves) fight and die for slave owners? Slavery will always be wrong, but it has existed in every culture manifested in many different ways. I do not know why the civil war has always been defined as a slavery issue, it simply is not the case, not sure why others try to rewrite history.
@jondear772 Are you aware that Lincoln was not President until March 4, 1861? It might have had little effect had he proposed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1860. Just sayin'.
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, Alexander Stephens Confederate Vice-President. The south stated why they left the Union, slavery
@@Tadadsky You say "our peculiar institution of African slavery?" That is such false propaganda as to raise questions of your level of education. Only about 6% of African slaves brought to the Americas came to the British-American colonies, and it was the British who perpetrated and profited from this trade most, not colonies themselves. Thomas Jefferson castigated the King and the wealthy class of England that drove the slave trade in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, but Georgia and South Carolina kept that language from being included. Congress outlawed the slave trade from Africa in 1808. The Caribbean and South America got the largest numbers of African slaves, over 90% of the total. Add to this the fact that the African slave traders selling to the British and other European powers were themselves black Africans, as well as Arabs under the Ottoman Empire. Africans were a commodity to other Africans, just as were white merchant sailors captured off the coasts of Africa both before and after the American Revolution. It is also true that there is more slavery in the world today than ever before. It's rampant in Africa particularly, as well as in the middle east and China. Even in the Americas, the sex slave trade is flourishing. So get off your high horse and quit pretending that this was a particularly American problem. Everywhere human beings have existed, going back to the earliest recorded history, so has slavery.
@@Rollin_L the quote I provide was from the cornerstone speech given by the confederate Vice president in the spring of 1861. It is not propaganda. It is the words of the southern leadership. The leaders of the south said at the time why they left the union. See also documents of secession from Mississippi, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina. They all say slavery. This is some interpretation after the fact. It is the words of those who left the Union
@@Tadadsky It was not clear to me that you were offering a quotation, given the lack of quote marks. Rather it read like your own statement and a paraphrase of Jefferson and Stevens. You can score me an error on that. Yet suggestion that African slavery was a "peculiar institution" to America remains false, regardless of who said it or when. The argument I made is not about the intentions of the Confederate leadership, it is against the perpetuating of the falsehood- ever pushed by today's media and politicians- that African slavery was unique to the British colonies and the United States that grew out of them. Confederate officials may have had no clue that they got only 6% of the African slaves. If they had, I am sure they would merely have argued that they didn't get their fair share" like Democrats usually do.
The interesting thing is while all the explanations were connected to slavery, none of them were just simply slavery, and the direct cause was Union states flagrantly violating the rights of southern states.
I did a term paper on the causes and immediate effects of the civil war in US history. This was in 1969 and I got the highest mark on a term paper that year with that teacher. If you knew me then you’d find that strange as I was pretty much a D student all through high school.
I have a time machine that goes back into the 60's, my brain - we were taught that the cause was States Rights - the urbanization of the north was contrary to the agriculture economy of the South, and the South had lost its rights in the U.S. Congress, due to "democracy" - the same situation we face today. I live rural West Texas, and the big cities in Texas decide the issues, simply because of population. I am ready for some States Rights in West Texas.
But you live in the same state as Dallas, Houston, Galveston, El Paso, Austin and the rest. “States’ rights” means the whole state. Are you really just arguing that the state should be governed by the minority, but only if the minority agrees with you?
If you go back to Feb. 1, 1861, the Texas Ordnance of Secession connects states rights with slavery and economics: To dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America." Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861. the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression: Therefore, We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof. This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for ratification or rejection by the qualified voters thereof, on the 23rd day of February 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2nd day of March, A.D. 1861. Provided, that in the Representative District of El Paso, said election may be held on the 19th day of February, A.D. 1861. Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861. SOURCE: The Constitution of the State of Texas, as Amended in 1861, The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, The Ordinances of the Texas Convention, and An Address to the People of Texas. Austin: Printed by John Marshall, State Printer, 1861. pp. 18-19. www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/1feb1861.html
@@mikekolokowsky I am saying it is time for West Texas to split from the city corridor, West Texas to split from Texas - and if it wants to, split from the insanity of DC - but of course that is not going to happen. My main point was that the Civil War cause was not slavery, but States Rights, as we were correctly taught in public school back then - even Lincoln made campaign jokes about disunion caused by slavery. I distinctly remember my racist, bigot, nazi, hater history teacher speaking this truth. Northern California wants to split too. Eastern Oregon wants to split from Portland too, become part of Idaho. Over 20 states, today, are talking, in their State congress about removal of their State from the Disunion. But you knew what I was talking about. You just wanted to confuse the issue.
This country has never had a civil war by definition. The servant that the States created simply decided to become master of a much larger "plantation". The States that seceded did not wish to destroy or control the Union, they simply decided to no longer be part of it.
How can anyone not understand that in a voluntary union of states it is implicit that they can leave the union when it becomes untenable? In fact, the Declaration of Independence says it is their DUTY to separate from the union under the circumstances. What the war accomplished was to put the federal government above the states and eliminate any checks on the feds power. The 17th Amendment put the final nail in the coffin by removing the only representation the states had in the federal government...the Senate. By changing it to individual vote from State Legislature appointment, the States no longer have ANY vote and the federal government expanded taking over all the State's rights. I bet if the north and south had just coexisted for the last 150 years that the south would be kicking the north's ass economically, socially, and would be 150% more free.
Napoleon was on the march in Europe, during the height of slavery, in America. Mechanized farming begins,-slavery on the way out .Geronimo and Sitting Bull on the warpath, and Civil war ending.
No, this one is pretty straightforward: almost all of the declarations of secession stated slavery as a main cause. What people *think* was the cause is not the same thing.
There were multiple causes of secession, among which was slavery. However, slavery was not a cause of Lincoln's illegal war of invasion and conquest. Far too many people allow themselves to be deceived by the political propaganda used to justify Lincoln's war because these lies have become the official narrative taught in history texts. It only takes a simple consideration of the irrefutable fact that more than 421,000 blacks remained held in slavery in the North for 7 months after the war ended for even a simpleton to realize the war was never about ending slavery.
@@LeftToWrite006 Was secession a war? No. It was merely an exercise of the unalienable rights of the Peoples of the 13 States of the South to form, amend, or reform their own governments as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Like far too many Americans, you demonstrate your ignorance of the irrefutable fact that the States were always free, independent, and sovereign nations which had joined together under a compact for their mutual benefit, ceding only limited powers to a central government in furtherance of their goals in doing so. They retained all other powers, including the right to withdraw from the Union at any time and for any reason. BTW, none of the Secession Acts mention slavery as a direct cause for secession. Also, not all of the Southern States issued Ordinances of Secession; in fact, few of these States ever formally mentioned slavery as a direct cause of secession. Secession Acts (all 13 States): www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/secession-acts-thirteen-confederate-states Declaration of Causes (Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia): www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
The more I think about it, the more I think that, If we had no Civil War, slavery, as it was then, would still have been unsupported by 1900 for many reasons. Cotton would have found better suppliers and the moral conscience of the world would have forced the South to find better ways to support the economy. Abolitionists wanted quick answers and they got it.
Abolitionists in the North were mainly white supremacists who believed the black race was incapable of surviving without the "peculiar institution of the South" and would quickly die out once the blacks were set free. The Missouri Compromise was driven by an agenda of the white supremacists in the North to preserve the Western Territories exclusively for the white race.
Well I am not defending slavery. Slavery is evil but you make some assumptions. One is you presume that working in northern factories was a walk in the park. Quite the contrary it was every bit and in some cases worse than slavery in the south. African slaves were fed, clothed, provided shelter, and given medical care. Most Americans think slaves lived on plantations. This is not correct. The average slave situation was five slaves with a family. The family worked in the fields with the slaves. There was no task master or security guard. Furthermore you presume that economically the slaves were better off after the war. This is false they were free but economically worse off. Many slaves were interviewed during the great depression and said they were better taken care of during slavery. The south was an integrated society. The black codes came from the north not the south. The south implemented black codes like the north after the war. Race relations were made bad by northern policies. Southern whites were not allowed to vote while Freedman were. This was not about equality but about keeping the government under Republican party control. John Deer would have ended slavery. About 260,000 slaves died toward the end of the Civil War not from the south but from northern total war policies and economic destruction of the south. Today the war is taught like this. The north were the good guys. The south were the bad guys who were for slavery. The north loved black people. I can't find one document that supports this. Seventy five percent of southerners did not own slaves. The union was voluntary not involuntary. I am told that Lincoln did not want to free the slaves but eventually came around to this. The evidence does not support this. The corruption today traces right to the feet of that ugly fellow now called Saint Lincoln.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 I'm not making any assumptions. I know that the conditions for the free laborers in the North was far worse than that of the slaves in the South. If a free laborer fell ill, then he and his family were out on the street and with no one to care for him he would soon perish. The North was not made up of good guys, nor was the South made up of bad guys. Slavery was the law of the Union throughout the entire period of the war. The war was not fought to end slavery. While slavery was among the causes of secession, it was not the only cause. The abuses of the Union had been growing worse for decades prior to secession, and that was the solution as seen by statesmen in the South to the tyranny of the North. The war was waged by Lincoln to preserve the economy of the North, to avoid losing the South and the nearly 70% of the federal government's revenue those States provided through tariffs paid on manufactured goods imported from the North, and to prevent Northern States from seceding as they had debated doing years before. You need to evaluate the facts and divest yourself of the fiction that the war was fought to abolish slavery, because it wasn't. Secession and the war were two completely different issues.
@@gaiustacitus4242 Tarrifs are applied to imported goods, e.g., from Europe. There were no “tarrifs” on goods moving from north to south, or vice versa. This talk about “the north” imposing tariffs seems to ignore that in the federal government, in congress, the south had outlandish power. The north and south didn’t exist independently. And there’s this thing called the filibuster, which permitted the southern states, which generally voted as a block, to block any bills they didn’t like (that is, until they started resigning due to secession, at which point they lost their advantage). This talk about “the north” imposing tariffs on the south is nonsense. I’m just waiting for someone to tell me that segregation was about tariffs or economics, and not about white superiority…
@@gaiustacitus4242 To be clear, your entire original post is speculation on your part. Assumption. Since none of that happened, how could it be anything else? Secession was about slavery. This is unambiguous. If you don’t think so, read the original documents, those of the leaders of the secession. Read their words and you’ll see that preserving the institution of slavery is front and center as the primary reason for secession. White supremacy is at the fore. And remember, they’re the ones driving the ship, not the poor farmers and soldiers. Now, to say that the causes of secession and the Civil War were “two completely different issues” is simply wishful, revisionist thinking.
Sure, there are always side issues. But most, if not all, of those side issue tie directly back to slavery. *The economy? Yes, slave vs. free. *The territories? You mean, would they be free or slave? *Culture? You mean, a culture dominated by slave owners or a culture dominated by industrialists? *Industry vs. Agriculture? That one's bogus on its face. There were many agricultural states in the North. Not a single one of them joined the rebellion. *Tariffs? You mean, taxes that benefitted free labor economies instead of slave labor economies? And so on.
Interesting. The first two gentlemen make interesting arguments. The third gentleman sounds a lot like more than a few Brits I met during several visits to that rainy little place. The more things change I suppose.
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Memorial Day 1884..... to his veterans “Now, I think the cause of that war lay in a political question. And that was as to the nature of our political union, and the form of government. ….The question left unsettled as to the nature of our government, was one of political supremacy, of what is called sovereignty…… I do not think that many went ion the war with the motive, distinctly and directly to overthrow slavery by force of arms. The destruction of slavery was more than we dreamed of. The attempt of the South to carry slavery into the free territory of the US made it a burning question. But the American Congress in 1861, by unanimous vote declared that neither the Federal government nor the people had the right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slave holding states of the Union. No….we did not assume when we took the field and the sea in the country’s defense that we were going to settle by force a moral question which had baffled all the wisdom and the patriotism of our fathers……No, we did not take up arms for the conscious purpose of fighting slavery down: but God, in his providence ……..allowed it swept aside …”
How could there by loyalty to the "nation" of the Union when it was NEVER a nation? The States are the nations which comprise this Union. They owe no duty of loyalty to the Union beyond that which they freely give. Just as the free, independent, and sovereign States joined the Union and ceded only limited powers for their mutual benefit by free will, they may withdraw from this Union at any time and for any reason in their Peoples' pursuit of happiness.
But didn't the constitution exist to form a union of separate states for economic reasons. We had been under the articles of Confederation with 13 sepaprate little countries attempting to trade with each other. It didn't work very well. Should the south secede as they have been saying for decades, how will they negotiate trade among themselves, yet alone other countries and the other states. Reference what happened to Britain after Brexit. Their economy collapsed as truck drivers and corporations moved to the mainland to avoid the complications that came with Brexit. Would they be able to form their own military? how will they financially exist as most southern states depend on federal money, military bases and contractors to survive. How many people would be willing to live in states with draconian religious based laws such as what is happening with abortion and other issues. Frankly, the south has been fighting a civil war with the rest of us for decades to preserve a culture that should have died years ago. A culture formed by plantation owners with an elitist racist attitude of superiority derived from the Ulster Irish and lowland Scots who settled there. To carry this same attitude in 2024 is backward and doesn't say much for the south and only reenforces stereotypes.
@@garytorresani8846 The South already has an economy that would immediately be the world's third largest with only 38% of the population of the current United States. With free trade policies it would quickly grow to be the world's second largest economy. As for a military, the South would honor the intent of the Constitution which forbids the maintenance of a standing armies (yes, the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force are unconstitutional military forces; only the U.S. Navy is permitted to exist in perpetuity, with the U.S. Marine Corps being a subordinate element thereof). The South has not been fighting a civil war. It has been suffering under the effects of Reconstruction for nearly 16 decades. The Yankees stole everything that wasn't nailed down, and even stole much of what was. They continue to punish the South through oppressive policies. BTW, it isn't just the South that wants to secede from this accursed and lawless Union - and it never was.
@@gaiustacitus4242Funny, the people who argued against the ratification of the Constitution did so precisely because they recognized that they would be surrendering their sovereignty and that a new nation would be formed. For example, Patrick Henry led the anti-Constitution argument in Virginia, and he said: "Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"
@@aaronfleming9426 The Constitution of the United States does not confer sovereignty upon the federal government, nor does it strip sovereignty from the States. It was, in effect, nothing more than a compact between the States that ceded only limited powers of the States to the central government. Furthermore, the Constitution was not lawfully ratified at the time the federal government began operating. Therefore, if any compact remains between the States, then it is the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution that remains in effect. The States retain their sovereignty, and they may withdraw from any union for any reason, whether good, bad, or indifferent. In any event, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that the People have the unalienable right to form, amend, or to reform (to dissolve and form anew) their own government in their pursuit of happiness. We are not chattel slaves who are unwilling subjects of any government. We are free men from whom all sovereign powers of government are derived. Upon expression of our will, we can leave the existing government to institute another between like-minded persons in our pursuit of happiness. Any act by government to prevent such reform is tyrannical, immoral, unlawful, and repugnant to Nature's Creator and to all rational people.
@@gaiustacitus4242It is the People who are sovereign, not the states. This was well known at the time of ratification, and was indeed one of the primary reasons for some of the most vigorous opposition to ratification. Patrick Henry led the opposition in VIrginia with these clear arguments: "Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?" Robert E. Lee seems to have been quite familiar with Henry's arguments, and actually agreed, also indicating that he knew that secession was illegal and in fact treasonous: "The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?" You are correct, we are not unwilling chattel - although of course the specious arguments of the Confederates, which you now repeat, were concocted for precisely the purpose of keeping certain races as chattel. And of course the numerous abuses of liberty by the slave states are well known: gags put on Congress, censorship of the US mail, widespread intimidation and violence against both white and black people, the violation of states' rights including the use of the Federal army to protect legalized human trafficking in free states, etc. This is a vital point: we can easily see, along with Lee, that the Constitution protects the People not only from the tyranny of the federal government, but also from the states. So, along with Lee, we can also recognize that there are legal and legitimate expressions of the will of the People: "...the consent of all the people in convention assembled". There is an argument to be made for the right to revolution, as the Founders argued. There are substantive differences between their cause and the cause of the rebels of 1861: the first revolution was the attempt of disenfranchised people to establish a representative government in which they had a voice; the second was a coup by the reactionary slave owning aristocracy who were already heavily over-represented in their own government, and advantage they cast aside to ensure that they could own humans as chattel for perpetuity: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world....These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union..." - State of Mississippi, Declaration of Causes
Interesting 👍👍 as are the comments below. I had the impression Lincoln was mainly against the US breaking in two. And now I get the impression his party was mainly against additional slave states tending to take political power from the northern industrial states. And the moral reason was minor.
I love it when humans can be so definitive about exactly what God does and why. I think about the soldiers who had to do the fighting and the families who lost their loved ones. Was God so cruel as to cause the misery of soldiers who had nothing to do with slavery and the struggles of families to make their way in the world without their lost soldier just to punish "the nation" for slavery? That makes no sense to me.
The full context of the passage I read from Taylor may be useful: www.google.com/books/edition/Cause_and_probable_results_of_the_Civil/gCdcAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+chastisement+is+both+retributive+and+disciplinary.+In+regard+to+discipline+I+may+simply+say,+that+no+man,+or+corporation+or+nation+can+attain+to+humble+permanent+greatness+without+great&pg=PA5&printsec=frontcover
I assume the speaker was a Christian, and so his "God" was the God of Abraham. Leviticus 25: 44-46 KJV will give you a taste of God's instructions regarding slavery. As far as the cruelty of God; there's a long list, but Leviticus 20: 10 NLT,,,, or Chronicles 15: 12-13 NAB ... Deuteronomy 13: 13 -19 NLT is a small sample
@@reasonablespeculation3893 I find that people tend to have their own opinions and then harken to religious sources to authorize their opinions. My favorite example of this is the WW I German belt buckle that was inscribed "Gott Mitt Uns". Which chapter(s) of the Bible deemed that God was on the German side? I'm reading a biography of George Patton at the moment. He was a great invoker of God. Was God on the Allied side in WW II? "There are no atheists in foxholes." I'm watching the excellent "The Pacific" mini-series. It depicts a Marine praying before his first battle. How many soldiers have done that? I enjoy watching UA-cam videos with interview of WW II veterans and frequently hear them saying that God saved them. That's because the soldiers that said the same prayers but were killed anyway were not available to be interviewed. God decided not to save them? Which book of the Bible applies to God's decisions of who lives and dies in a fire fight? I have also watched some videos where the veteran prayed the common prayer that goes like this: "God, if you protect me I'll spend the rest of my my life in your service" -- and that's what they do. Personally I don't think that God said, "OK, I'll take the deal. I will ensure that the bullets will miss you." I think some really lucky guys were personally inspired after the war to do good. We have those men to thank for their service, not a "Let's Make a Deal God". The God of Abraham might be responsible for smiting the heathens, but it was Jesus of the New Testament who said, "Love thy neighbor as thy self." I'm less interested in in what "God" might be doing via his unseen hand and much more interested in what the Bible and other religious texts do to inspire humans to be their best selves. "Love thy neighbor" would have prevented the Civil War and a lot of other wars. That "new commandment" has been in place for over 2000 years and we still see terrible things. If the God of Abraham was/is so powerful, why hasn't that stopped? It was humans who held other humans in bondage. Many of these people called themselves Christians. It was other humans who declared that slavery was wrong and decided to fight and die to rid our country of that scourge. I agree with that eminent religious philosopher Napoleon who said "God is on the side of the strongest artillery." I'm glad "God is with us" applied to the Union side in 1861-1865.
@@emmgeevideo Nice Gish Gallop. I'll address two of your questions. As for gott mits uns : you posit the question; "Which experts of the Bible deemed God was on the German side?" There is no evidence that any Bible expert found such a passage, about Germany, in the Bible. As for your assertion that "God is with us applied to the Union side"; I see no Biblical passages regarding the Union 1861-1865 either. For your consideration: Jesus' words regarding the permanency of Mosaic Law. Matthew 5: 18 KJV Have heaven and earth has passed? Has all has been fulfilled? Keep in mind the Biblically predicted Second Coming has not happened yet.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 My "gallop" was largely confirmed by you. "Gott Mitt Uns" was a conceit by the Germans that their cause was just and that God was on their side. Of course the Bible has no support for this. See my first assertion. Nor is a Bible verse applicable to God being on the Union side during the Civil War. I facetiously quoted Napoleon for how God decides which side to support. I don't think he was quoting the Bible. I am not a Biblical scholar but in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." My reading of the New Testament is that Jesus was unhappy with the legalisms that followed from the original 10 commandments. My interpretation is he was saying, "Let's make this a little more simple..." I think he was a little tired of money changers in the temple and the head religious people looking the other way. I'm speaking metaphorically here by the way. In any case, I respect the Bible but I don't like cherry-picking quotes and saying, "See here? This is where it says homosexuality is an abomination." Maybe my quote above is cherry picking too, but I await your more learned opinion about whether Jesus central message was love or not. Maybe I'm all wet, but in my 70 years on the planet (which includes extensive Catholic, Methodist, and Buddhist education) my view is that people are free to act and the miseries and goodnesses are attributable to human action. My "gallops" began with a contemporary interpretation that the Civil War was God's doing. Abraham Lincoln believed this as well. I just don't buy it. BTW, Jesus was born at a time (which I'm sure you know) that there was a strong sect of Jews who believed that the end was near. One reason Jesus resonated with people in his time is that they thought that the Messiah was here. 2024 years later a lot of people have been born and died and the end of times and the Second Coming is still a non-event. I'll check in with you in 2024 more years. In the meantime, it is up to us humans to "form a more perfect union".
I have held this view for years. My daughter now teaches middle school Civics and History. She often cringes at the lessons the curriculum requires which are approved by the education system in their myopic view of the Civil War. She sprinkles in, that all students must ask questions and do research to glean the truth and formulate their opinion based on the all the facts . But, alas, we all know the winners write the history..............Thanks for your insight
@@marqsee7948 Exactly! while there may have been 20 or 30 million people around at the time (includong soldiers generals politicians slaves et al) we are lucky to hear from the 3 people who could clearly see what all those others could not
@@marqsee7948 I meant to say "three people responsible" because my comment was intended as a back handed insult to the so called historian who made the video, but in a subtle sarcastic way...so not an oopsie at all
back handed insults are not mistakes? Why not be direct, then? If your comment is meant to be read by the public, responsible wording and phrasing is important, to be understood.@@forddon
Interesting. I suspect there are more reasons, however. The drive by the North for a central bank, and Federal overreach that threatened States Rights should be on the list. Also, while the North was largely industrial, the South was largely agricultural. The South's economy required cheap and stable labor. The North did too, but managed that in a different way (like company stores, labor payments in company script, and wages kept ridiculously low, justified by trying to curtail drunkenness.). One of your examples alluded to different opinions on tariffs and trade. Those topics could do with some expansion. The economic vs the moralistic abolitionists split could use a bit more fleshing out as well. Overall... good job.
@billharm6006...You are correct, the North also ...." ...required cheap and stable labor." Yes, the North managed that need in a different way, And this "different way", and the want of cheap labor were children, very young children, many as young as six years old.... who were forced to work 16-18 hrs. every day with very little pay...almost nothing....There were few if any safety concerns for the children and many died and/or badly injured and mutilated in the mills. How is this any different from slavery? And the North had slaves, too. Not as many as the South, but slaves nonetheless. But when talking about the Civil War and slavery...the subject of atrocious child labor, and of the North also owning slaves, is hardly ever...if ever....mentioned. Why...???
Before watching, I say "To preserve the Union". After listening, far more complicated. When I try to discuss the cause(S) of the civil war, if I even suggest other contributing causes, it triggers so many people who want a simple Good vs. Evil evaluation.
the majority of people these days cant seem to handle any kind of nuance at all, everything is black and white, even though the reality is far from that. its my experience that the more someone insists something is only good vs evil, black or white, its just a reflection on their inability to consider complex concepts and critical thinking. in other words, they are just dumb. oh, and its also virtue signaling, they get to attach themselves to something that they think gives them kind of worth.
My great greats were farmers in Wisconsin. They were required by the fugitive slave act to apprehend, and hold in the county jail and to return the escaped slave to the owner at county expense. The county then had to raise taxes to pay for this.
Great point. Wisconsin was nullifying federal law ironically pointing to the 1798 and 1799 kentucky and virginia resolutions written to reject the aliens and sedition act to reject the fugitive slave act.
I'm an Iowan. Same story here, although being closer to the border, we sometimes had bands of armed Missourians breaking down doors at night looking for escaped slaves. So much for states' rights, eh?
And the cost wasn't the worst of it. The act meant all citizens had to support slavery, even though who thought it was a moral abomination. It was equivalent to forcing citizens to pay for abortions with their tax money. The money isn't the issue it is the forcible use of our money to do what we don't agree with.
The civil war exposed one of the limitations of federalism. Without explicitly defining a right as in the bill of rights u create ambiguity around federal versus state powers.
The Declaration of Independence is the Organic Law of the United States of America, and it does clearly state that governments are instituted among men and that the people have the unalienable right to form, amend, or reform their own government in their pursuit of happiness. The nature of the States as free, independent, and sovereign nations is made crystal clear via the Treaty of Paris dated 3rd September 1783 and the original Articles of Confederation which established the "perpetual union" that was dissolved by implicit acts of secession when the Constitution was ratified to form "a more perfect union" (not a nation).
@@PersistentPatriot I've said nothing of the sort. You're obviously unaware that there were significantly more abolition societies in the South than in the North. The issue was never whether slavery would come to an end, but how the blacks could be integrated into society. Where the Yankees wanted the blacks to die out as a race within the Union, the Southerners cared for what would become of them if they freed without having the skills to survive in a free market economy.
Life on the Civil War Research Trail, you might want to research this one. I read about it years back and it's on my old computer that broke down. Back then it wasn't allowed for a Attorney to run for President of the United States of America, and Abraham Lincoln was a Attorney even if he was self taught. "No Lawyers In Public Office". This may had been the reason Abe was temporary taken off the Ballot, as we recently learned. This was Ratified by enough States as soon as the State of Virginia Signed it too, but that's just where the Civil War began and the place where this Document was going to be Signed burned down, along with the Ratification to be Sign. I was however found in some Book, in 1983?, with it, 1825 'Constitution of The United States', 'A old-book of the-Constitution' pdf about it. It was the original 13th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution and later replaced it with another reason for the 13th Amendment. Another thing was the economic problems in the South due to they were paying much higher taxes, I've read sometimes as much as 50% more. It really had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, in order for Abraham Lincoln to pay off the Property Clause Debt, where people could could buy property here in the USA, including foreign governments (which btw they been trying to use that Property Clause to sell, as if it we still owe that Debt, illegally I might add. And they passed a Law long ago, barring foreign governments from buying U.S. Lands, which they are illegally doing anyways at this time) When Abe Lincoln let the Central Bank of England pay off our Civil War Debt, we were trapped, as the Forefathers, Founders of our Country warned us about, not to have anything to do with The Central Bank of England, and Abe did it anyways, that's when his decision cause us all to become Slaves, to The Central Banks and back under England's thumb. I wish I could get that hard drive from my old computer to get that Book information. However I did find it in a File I sent to my email. 'old-book-of-the-constitution' pdf and a Blog?, News article from Liberty Beacon on July 27th, 2018. It's still there online, as I just check.
An interesting three individual perspectives. The first captures a reality of a major cause for the initiation of secession, the political impacts of the expansion (or not) of slavery into the western territories. But there is more to the moral, political, and economic complexities. I recommend to you "And There Was Light, Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle" by Jon Meacham, particularly the first chapter. While in Kentucky my research into the late 1700s-early 1800s division of the Baptist churches in Virginia and Kentucky over the morality of slavery took me to many of the same primary resources Meacham has found. It's a revelation to explore the anti-slavery moral foundations of the community that the Lincoln family was a part of. It is a counterpoint to a fundamental assumption of the first document you read.
It's a 'civil war' when two groups are trying to take over the same government. The South had formed a new union of sovereign States 7 months before Lincoln realized the economic impact and declared war. The Confederate States had no interest in taking over the existing government in Washington, DC.
Read the book Battle Cry of Freedom to find out. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era is a 1988 book on the American Civil War, written by James M. McPherson. It is the sixth volume of the Oxford History of the United States series. An abridged, illustrated version of the book was published in 2003. It won the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for History.
Nice reference to a source with the time to gather information, the time for reflection, and the time to sort out and communicate the numerous viewpoints of a complex and costly conflict.
That is an established history book. An establishment historian changes history in key areas in settle ways so it will achieve an outcome that is acceptable to families like the Rockefeller family.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 - And movies and myth and stories change history in key areas to make it acceptable to families who wish to avoid the shame of having fought the war to preserve slavery. If you doubt this, just look what happened to Longstreet's reputation after the war. His reputation was destroyed -indeed the loss of the war was blamed on him by established historians of the Southern Historical Society- because he had the temerity to let bygones be bygones and join the Republican Party.
@@5metoo The north did not fight the war to end slavery. Lincoln in his first inaugural address stated he would support the Corwin Amendment to the constitution. This would have made slavery permanent in the south. It was the northerner states who proposed this amendment. The War Aims Resolution was passed in Congress which stated they did not want to interfere with slavery in the states. You forget that slavery existed in the northern states. Delaware did not end slavery until 1865. Slavery existed in Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland and other states. There were about 14 percent of the slaves in the United States of America and 60 percent in the Confederate States of America. Slavery existed in Washington DC until 1862. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. Read the document. To summarize, it stated that slaves in the Confederate States of America are free and slaves in the United States of America are not free. Slavery is wrong but it was legal until 1865 in the north and the south. Seventy five percent of southerners did not own any slaves. The 1860 Republican Party position was Anti-Slavery in the Western territories but they were Pro-slavery in the south. The north was complicit in slavery. They were using slave cotton in the factories. Yankee ships along with English ships were responsible for the slave trade. Remember it was the New England states that dominated shipping not the south. The northern states were providing credit and finance for purchasing slaves. My defense of correct history is not a defense of slavery. The problems we have today with our government have to do with Lincoln. Lincoln created the all powerful government that we fear today. This destroyed the union which was based on decentralized power. Today we have centralized power. The north waged war against the south because a free trade south would have devastated northern industry.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 - The initial cause was secession. But the root cause of secession was slavery, and this was recognized as the war dragged on and it eventually did become a war to end slavery since it was recognized there would be no peace or restored union with slavery. Fun fact: by the time the Civil War began in 1861, the song "John Brown's Body" had spread throughout the Union army.
So your saying slavery was the pinnacle? Computer analysis reveals not one word , slave or slavery ,was hit on 1000's of confederate letters written home bound.
That is incorrect. Historian James McPherson did exactly that analysis for his book "For Cause and Comrades" and found that 20% of Confederate letters mentioned the cause of slavery.
@@aaronfleming9426 That's an old debate.A few letters were later produced from officers but they were tied to a few wealthy plantations owners. No dieing confederate soldier said "I was trying to preserve slavery ." No dieing union soldier said, " I was trying to free the slave "
@@BryanGilcrease20% is a lot different than your factually incorrect assertion that "not one word" was hit on. And since 30% of southern households had slaves, there were plenty of men with direct interest in preserving slavery...but why would they write home about that? Everyone already knew that. Their loved ones wanted news about their healthy, their adventures, etc. What is far more interesting from a political standpoint is the letters of northern soldiers who became more and more strongly abolitionist as the war went on and they saw the horrific impact of slavery for themselves. But of course no one is thinking about politics as they bleed out from having their entrails shredded by a piece of shrapnel. What men think about when they die has little or nothing to do with why their political leaders chose war in the first place. Thankfully, the historical record is intact and quite clear. The political elite of the south seceded, and went to war, to preserve slavery. The political elite of the north responded with violence to preserve the status quo of union. Most of the soldiers were caught up in "A rich man's war, a poor man's fight". We poor folk need to think a little harder before we sign up to kill each other.
@@aaronfleming9426 of course about theme and figuratively speaking. I'm not saying that no words were spoken around the camp fires, but probably not much. New materials are found constantly . Tennessee parks division battle field archivists, still say not one word.I let common since prevail. Who's writing, who's the audience and when. A year after the civil war ended, they abolish slavery , 100000 slaves were freed ,and you say that represents 30% of southern ownership .
@@BryanGilcreaseI don't know why the Tennessee parks division is still issuing misinformation. But lots of people are issuing misinformation about the Civil War, so it's not surprising. The Lost Cause "historians" threw a lot of crap around and it's still stuck in people's eyes. No, "I" don't say that 30% of southern households own slaves. The U.S. Census says that. See, I'm presenting you with facts that any person can research in just a few minutes. You're trying to dodge the facts by appealing to "common sense", but that doesn't fly. Common sense is what you use when you *don't* have the facts. Anyway, common sense doesn't agree with you either. Rank-and-file soldiers have rarely fought for the same things their political leaders tell them to fight for. I've demonstrated that already. Now you're just dodging. Come back at me with some real facts, or say, "Whoa, cool, I've been misinformed, sure am glad I met this guy on the internet who informed me more accurately, all without cussing or calling me names!"
I just listened carefully. I am not a highly educated man, but to those writers were. I'm still not exactly sure what they said. But thats ok. Thanks for the video
The authors were not well educated men. Had that been the case, then they would have stated clearly the right of the free, independent, and sovereign States to secede from the Union and that any war waged by the Union was an international conflict without just cause. Secession had slavery among its causes; the war had nothing to do with slavery.
I love these attempts to find a single cause and ignore the other factors in the war. Saying the Civil War was about Slavery is like saying WWII was about the Holocaust. Both were evil things and wrong, but just a subset of the whole. As a kid, I could never wrap my hands around how during all the build up, the adults in the room could not sit down and figure out a reasonable plan to stop this. There were men of high integrity on both sides and some very scholarly and stoic people on both sides. Now sadly, I get it. I see the same thing repeating itself today. I wonder in 150 years what the historians will say? Will illegal immigration be credited for the war? Will big government spending, Federal overreach, moral bankruptcy, Federal defaults, or some other unknown be twisted at the root? There is a great recording on YT from Julius Howell if I remember right, an actual Confederate soldier discussing what he remembered. One of the things that keeps coming up in stories in how the South felt underrepresented because of the North's density of population in the cities. That sounds awfully familiar to people wanting to do away with Electoral College. You have the South talking about taxation and policies that benefitted industry but hurt farming. You had big debates about State rights vs. Fed rights. That looks alot like what Abbott and Texas is doing on the border vs. Biden and his Border Patrol policies. The other thing is that people miss that the Confederacy did not want to rule the whole, they wanted to leave and be left to their own government. That is why you hear terms like "War of the States" and "War of Northern Aggression". People talk about history repeating itself and I am afraid we are seeing it happening before our eyes and those adults who see it are being silenced by the radicals on both sides.
That's a pretty insightful comment. I hope we don't come to a second war, if we do it will be literally big cities vs small towns. And whatever reason the survivors give for it will be far short of the mark. Thanks for your insight.
I think the soldiers themselves would not agree. The Irish troops mostly quit after the Immancipation and Grant's war of attrition began in earnest in 63'. There was such animosity between Blacks and Irish at the time, if the Irish were told they were fighting to defeat slavery they would not have signed up to begin with or quit sooner. Witness the "Draft Riot" that amounted to the Irish rising up against forced conscription while hunting down Blacks (and killing some) who were favored for employment over the Irish leaving many of them with no options for survival besides joining the Army. Ken Burns discovered many Southerners were fighting "because you are here". I believe slavery as a cause was invented later in the war and that myth has been perpetuated ever since as a plank for the division sought by the Democrats to divide the nation and use that theme as a cash cow to this day. Used by LBJ to facilitate the raiding of the National Treasury through the faux racial programs in the 60's.
The south left the union because slavery would end once enough free states joined the Union to outlaw it. Read why they said they left the union. The North initially fought to maintain the Union
One shouldn't think that only the North was being chastised by the war. I am quite sure that Atlanta Georgia, Columbia SC and Richmond VA would all certainly agree on that point.
You are correct. It wasn't a civil war, because it was two different countries. They couldn't tell the kids that Lincoln sent a bunch of a-holes south, to murder southerners and abscond with their valuables. Burn whatever is too heavy to carry away. They would have taken back whole mountains, if it were possible.LOL
Interesting comparison and juxtaposition of motivations for the war. People even nowadays seem to prefer one interpretation over the others. Nevertheless, I have imagined that if the Southerners had preempted Lincoln by freeing the slaves, it would have taken the wind out of the sails of the North, England might have come in on the side of the South, and Lincoln would have had to sue for peace, more than likely. I come from one of those stretched out families, where my grandfather was born in 1858 in Pennsylvania, and my dad was born in 1907 -I turned 73 the other day. It's kind of weird to think that my grandfather was 5 years old when Gettysburg was going on and he was in western Pennsylvania at the time. The second strange thing is that, watching the movie Gettysburg, I noticed that R.E. Lee was born in 1807, also on the exact birthday as my dad -100 years to the day. Purely coincidences, but it makes the Late, Great, Unpleasantness seem rather closer that it might be otherwise.
From reading journals, diaries and letters written during that time in history by the people who actually lived through it, the cause of the Civil War was different things to different people. Ken Burns' amazing documentary about the Civil War spelled this out clearly. When the morale of the troops in the Union army fell to a new low in the third year of the war, Pres. Lincoln then invoked the idea that the troops were fighting for freedom of the slaves. Abolitionists were convinced from the beginning that the war was God's wrath upon the nation for the sin of slavery. A large number of people truly believed that the war was a fight for State's rights and that the Federal Government had overstepped the bounds of their authority.
And yet the political leaders who enacted secession were abundantly clear: they did it to preserve slavery forever. Why individual soldiers went off to fight is interesting, but does not explain why the war was triggered in the first place.
Misleading clickbait. The actual subject of this podcast is the explanations of the civil war in England by visiting American self-appointed experts, to English audiences. This video does not discuss what explanations of the causes of the war were given by Americans in their own country, speaking to their fellow Ameericans whether North and South.
The fact that the States (Southern AND Northern) had to send units of troops to do the fighting tells us that the war of 1860-65 was indeed a War Between the States. The Southern people were not trying to take over the Federal government. They wanted to separate from the Union. The rallying cries for the war in the North were: Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys! and "Save the Union". That was how they got men to join their State Armies.
When you no longer can enforce the agreements (Constitution) via the ballot box, you either revolt or succeed. The south succeeded and the north did not want to lose control over them or their economic resources.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken. History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today. Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy! In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks. And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the southern states even considered such a thing. People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable. People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it. Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? chuckbaldwinlive.Com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3336/The-Confederate-Flag-Needs-To-Be-Raised-Not-Lowered.aspx
That is the best comment on the subject i have read here.Thank you for that bit of history.Makes perfect sense as the victors always write the history.
You started out 0:23 saying that the reasons were “all connected to slavery”, but in the three letters that you read, I noted that references to slavery were very sparse.
You limited your research to slavery connected views. It was the excessive taxation and tariff of the North (federal budget was 80 million taxes and tariffs on the South were 75 million).Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if the South did not secede. He was a racist who wanted to send all blacks back to Africa or to South America. He was also a admirer of Marxism making him the first RINO. To try to save face he issued the Emancipation Proclamation almost 3 years in to the war which only effected slaves in the South which at the time was a foreign country. It did not effect slaves held in the north. Black men fought in the Confederate army and were paid the same wages as white soldiers (and other races) and could become officers unlike in the union army where they could not. Please remember that there many blacks in the South who had never been slaves
Right it started over taxes and tariffs, the South was the 4th largest economy in the world at the time and the founding fathers did buy the country of Liberia for the black people to go back to around 1821-23 so slavery was already being phased out.
Example: New Orleans. There were wealthy blacks living there that were part of society (not segregated society) and also owned their own slaves. There was also a lot of interracial relations and marriages. Reconstruction bulldozed the advancements in New Orleans and destroyed families. It wasn't;t the freeing of slaves...it was the competition and animosity introduced by the northerners and federal control.
Government documents are still available which demonstrate that the North paid about 80% of tariffs. No, black men did not fight for the Confederacy, except for a very few cases. In one of the very few documented cases they were observed manning a cannon...under the threat of death from a pistol-wielding rebel officer. In fact, no lesser general than Patrick Cleburne argued that slaves *should* be given freedom in exchange for fighting. He was shouted down in every part of the Confederacy, until March of 1863 when a few companies of black soldiers were recruited and drilled, but never given weapons.
@@parajerryThe interracial marriage in New Orleans dated back to French rule. By 1860 white people did not marry colored people. When the wealthy blacks of New Orleans offered to serve the Confederate military, they were turned down stone cold. They joined the Union army instead, where some of the units saw their first action at Milikens Bend. The racial problems in New Orleans during reconstruction were caused by white terrorists who were trying to restore the antebellum social order. They largely succeeded, thanks to several notorious massacres of innocent people.
I think what was written about what spell general george thomas's family during the nate turner insurrection would be an excellent piece to read.. I would like to know what happened to the slaves in his family. Who tried to be accessories to that after everything was settled
The answer to the Civil War can be answered so quickly. Was the war fought over slavery. Absolutely not. Imagine eleven states leave the Union. That left on Maryland and Delaware having slaves. That meant the very day the last CSA state left the United States, the USA could have abolished slavery. They didn't, slavery wasn't an issue. Abe Lincoln had two emancipation proclamations, neither said anything about abolishing slavery in the US. To know the answer, what needs to be known first. The southern states paid 80% of US taxes from selling cotton to Britain. That left the Northerners out. Then Abraham was going to revisit the previously talked about tariff of the south, trying to force the south to sell cotton for penny's so the north could make clothes and sell it. Everyone who thinks differently should get off crack
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. “ Mississippi “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery” Georgia “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.” South Carolina The states said why the left the union, slavery
@@Tadadsky Love how you keep quoting short snippets of statements made by the aristocracy...out of context...and refuse to actually have a discussion. I suspect you have the smallest amount of actual knowledge and have opinions based on what the popular media tells you...which is about 95% lies on ANY topic.
@@parajerryit was the easiest quote. You can also look at South Carolina “the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” Georgia “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery” Don’t forget the Cornerstone Speech by Confederate VP Stephens in March 1861 when he said the immediate cause of the rupture in the Union was slavery as Jefferson had predicted. What context am I missing? Why shouldn’t I believe what the South said at the time?
Translation for those who watched but didn't understand: Only number 2 mentions an issue with slavery, however, coming from someone who utilized at minimum the Old Testament, their moral complaint is laughable at best. Numbers 1 and 3 both indicate that the corruption of the north led to an attack on the south. First, they used legislation and adamantly opposed new states if they even THOUGHT they'd be slave states. They also utilized a Communo-Fascist expansion method across the north to better facilitate their upcoming war effort and resource removal to the north (Communism was the new social model they used for their "infrastructure" expansion and Fascism was what they manipulated Christianity into at this time for the moral subjugation of their new voting block). The second was a multi-faceted grab of federal powers facilitated by the growing military threat of the north. The north targeted primarily poor Irish, Scottish and German neighborhoods for their enslavement into the Union Army; however, they called it a Draft, because they'd taken control of the federal government and could rewrite all definitions of control. Additionally, the ranks of the Union military were suspiciously devoid of large numbers of anglo-british descendants; further indicating that the North used the Civil War as a silent genocide against non-English European descendant American citizens. In short, since their inception, the Republican party has been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes one can commit upon their countrymen. Their complicity in the racial bigotry that they helped create before, during and after the Civil War has caused them to never admit to their wrongdoings. If you question about them being Communist, go look at what Republican/Conservatives call Communist behavior (wealth redistribution, identity politics, etc.) and compare it to the propaganda and actions the Republican party engaged in post-Civil War. This is hidden history; kept from you to keep you ignorant and ashamed. The Republicans enslaved America with capitalism after they cemented their control after the Civil War. On a side note: they were such bad stewards and so corrupt that the Democrat party started winning Republican cities in the North by the early 20th century. The Democrats have simply adapted the Republicans approach and constantly evolve it to keep themselves in power.
Ironic, sounds like people did not understand reality back the nany better than they do now. The Northern economy grew immensely both during the war and in the gilded age that followed. Humans were then as now good at projecting rather than objective observation.
Very nicely researched and presented; thank you for your efforts. While I sincerely wish that the institution of slavery had never become established upon these shores, that was long before my time. There are several aspects of the decades-long runup to the conflict that was the American Civil War which are seldom touched upon, first of which is that as unethical as slavery was, it was completely legal in the southern states; opposition was wholly from northern states, all of which had tried slavery and been unable to make it profitable on their own soil. Was the opposition then rooted in religious or ethical concerns, or was it jealousy at watching the detested southerners (who were universally viewed as uneducated rubes) making huge profits? Non-military solutions were certainly available; the Federal gov't could have reimbursed slave owners for each slave they wished freed and then passed legislation to ban the practice, but there wasn't enough money in the treasury. Much more expedient to goad and insult southerners over a period of decades until an excuse was precipitated, then once those areas had been invaded, the Feds could simply do as they wished. If the real reason for the conflict was concern for the well-being of the slaves, then why was so little done on their behalf post conflict? Northern textile mills then had all the cotton they needed for pennies on the dollar and the southern states were reduced to the status of an occupied territory for decades afterward. The former slaves were, during that period, in a worse situation than they had been while actually slaves, as someone previously had to provide them food and shelter. Almost everything we've ever been taught about the CW is simply hogwash, and a cursory perusal of the facts is usually enough to make that clear...
Your claims are grossly incorrect. First, more than 421,000 blacks continued to be held in slavery in the North for 7 months after the war ended. If ending slavery had been a real cause of the war, then all slaves in the North would have been set free before Lincoln initiated his illegal war of invasion and conquest. Second, there are far more abolition societies in the South than in the North. The debate wasn't about if slavery would end, but how the blacks would be integrated into society. Many slave owners feared that the blacks would be unable to function in free society or to provide for themselves. The white supremacists in the North believed that the blacks would die out if the "peculiar institution of the South" by which slaves were provided for from cradle to grave was brought to and end. Third, the North cared nothing for the slaves. More than 1,000,000 freed blacks perished in Union "freed men camps" (which were truly concentration camps) as a result of disease borne of unsanitary conditions, hunger, and starvation. The Yankees cannot hold themselves out to be morally superior when by their hands so many perished.
@@gaiustacitus4242 So it's pretty much the same today with the modern plantation. As Dems espouse today the blacks cannot subsist without whitey's help. So the nation must support them either by gov programs or allow them to freely steal. Illegals now make it even more difficult for blacks to be productive workers
Yes, we all know slavery was the major thorny issue leading to secession. Were there other reasons also? Obviously, yes. However, we like our answers simple nowadays, no complexities or moral ambiguities allowed. The real question is not why the southern states seceded, but why Lincoln chose war. Lost in all this is the fact that Lincoln still had a decision to make, whether to invade the CSA and use military force. He could have just let the CSA go its own way, similar to how nowadays neither party is allowed to use force to keep the other party in a marriage, and divorce is granted, there is 'no fault' required. Lincoln opted for war. That was entirely his choice. It was also an illegal, unconstitutional choice. Congress declares war, not a President. Congress can suspend habeas corpus, not a President, etc. Presidents are not allowed to jail justices, jail legislators, have goon squads, shut down the free press, etc. But, then, tyrants often behave that way. Tyrants often engage in wars of choice, especially to hang on to or increase their power. Lincoln turned away the CSA delegates there to negotiate a peaceful transition. The real reason for the War of Northern Aggression is that one man, Lincoln, behaving in numerous ways like a tyrant, chose war.
The reason Lincoln hated the south so much was that his mother had been a bound servant in N.C. and when it looked like N.C. might not secede he took steps to make sure they did
According to Bob Dylan, a trawl through the press cuttings of the period show that slavery was not mentioned until some time into the Civil War. I feel that most contemporaries would have got their information that way than through the writings of these three scholars.
This is only a small sampling of the voluminous writings about slavery before and into the war. They appeared in books, magazines and newspapers. Included is the secession ordinances of the states that joined the Confederacy, all of which prominently cite slavery.
Yes, agree that prosperity caused the War of Northern Agression. Prosperity in the south brought about by Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin and the cotton trade with the Birtish empire.
My family lineage goes back to the early to mid 1600’s, starting in Georgia. Most started out as farmers before branching out into other careers. My great, great grandfather commanded the Confederate troops from Florida that fought with the Army of Virginia. He signed the Armistice at Appomattox Court House on behalf of the State of Florida. As a child I often heard stories concerning the Civil War. Many of my relatives had men serve and some died with the Confederacy. To make things short, the vast majority of the reasons they gave for the Civil War were economic. The locals at that time were very upset with the tariffs imposed on items that were brought to the South from Europe. They were upset over the export laws and tariffs, especially those imposed on the sale and shipment of cotton to England. They saw the laws forced them to sell their cotton to New England mills for less than what they could get for their cotton going to England. These laws were forced upon them at the behest of the mill owners in New England who had the money and political clout to get Congress to pass these laws. This rightly upset cotton farmers in the south. Making things worse, the tariffs imposed on imports from Europe made the purchase of European goods such as plows, tools, and clothing more expensive than those made in New England even though it cost less to make those items here as opposed to making them in Europe. This too rightly upset those living in the South. The federal government it was felt was acting more and more like King George and that was another thorn in the side of the South. Slavery was slowly dying out in the south around this time. Buying a new slave was way too expensive for most every farmer. The cost to house them, feed them, clothe them, and keep them healthy was more expensive every year. The economics was plain to see by most farmers, bankers, cattlemen, and politicians. Check out how many Confederate soldiers owned slaves before and during the war. It was darn few. Slavery was not an issue to them or at most a minor one. It was economics and the feeling the federal government had it in for the South. Those feelings in large part still exist today and the way the federal government has been acting over the past fifty years is not helping matters.
I grew up near Charleston, S.C...the city library had copies of newspapers from the 1850's through late 1860's.
Economics, northern banking monopolies, corrupt Fed gov't & northern companies getting biased treatment over southerners...
Yeah, many aspects to secession. Lincoln would have allowed slavery to maintain the Union. But talk of secession had been growing since the last economic crash of the 1850'lots of southern farmers lost their homes when loans were called.by the Yankee banks.
Secession was necessary.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Also note that the presenter here tried to undermine the so-called political argument which was closest to the truth by saying the person lost a defamation lawsuit to Poe. Further he referred to the third argument as “economic” when in fact it was socialist or even marxist.
@@MrGchiassonThe cause of the South’s economic problem was not the banks it was the laws and tariffs imposed on the agrarian South by the North. If Lincoln was not elected there would not have been a war. Lincoln supported the tariffs.
It is worth reading what the Congress' in most of the Confederate states had to say on their reasons for seceeding. It was clear they understood that the issue was slavery, they said so in each of their statements, in the first few paragraphs. In was written down in their own words at the time, very clearly.
@@johnryan7932 Slavery was not the issue. That issue existed since Independence and it did not prevent the formation of the Union. The issue was economic. Lincoln supported slavery during his campaign. It was his support of the Morrill Tariff which overly burdened the South that precipitated the war with all the States seceding right after his election and just before his inauguration.
I find it interesting that both Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain brevet major general USA, AND lieutenant general longstreet CSA gave the exact same reason for the war. They both stated in their respective books that the cause was a dispute over what kind of government the federalgovernment was supposed to be. The southern view was that the federal government was a democracy of states and each state was a nation in and of itself. The northern view was that the federal government was a nation of laws superior to the states and who the states were subordinate to
Well said.
@@8thCavalry thank you
But the issue of slavery was the reason the kind of government was questioned. It always goes back to slavery. The seceeding states said so at the time.
@@rspro575 yes I know the Victor's write the history. But I just gave you the reason that 2 major players in the war said about the cause. They were there, they fought the war, are you saying they didn't know what they were fighting about? Let me make it simple. The south believed that each state was a nation, and that the federal government was subordinate to the states. The north believed that the federal government was a republic of laws that the states were subordinate to. Our greatest statesman debated that question for 80 some years without being able to resolve it. So they took it to the court of war and in 1865 the court of war determined that the federal government is a republic of laws that the states are subordinate to and must abide by federal law.
@@pughoneycutt1986 And what was it that the southern states wanted to do that the federal government said they could no longer do? Expand slavery into the west. The lost cause is as dead as Bobby Lee. Get over it.
Please keep in mind It was not a civil war, the Romans had a "civil war" for control of the republic. This was a war between states, the southern states seceded, started their own country and wanted to be left alone. Lincoln assembled an army, sent it down to Virginia (1st bull run) TO FORCE the south back into the Union, not to free slaves. Even the final draft of the emancipation proclamation does not mention the slaves held in border states. The civil war was fought to decide who was going to run the country, the individual states or the federal government.
You don't even know how to spell secede and you pretend to be an exert? Why did the southern states want to secede?
All part of his grand strategy, its chess not checkers.
And why did they want to leave? To protect their states rights, particularly slavery.
If it were not for slavery, the North would not have cared enough to go to war.
Sadly, the nation did lose too much of states rights. In the south, they were quickly lost due to Jefferson's efforts to win the war. The North lost them after the war.
And, since it was about slipping the nation - it was a form of a civil war.
@@davidr7333 The United States of America has never been a nation per the legal meaning of the word. It remains today exactly as originally formed - a limited union of free, independent, and sovereign nations.
@@davidr7333 The war was actually over "The Morrill Tariff" which sparked the 'states rights' argument, especially where the issue of slavery was concerned; a believed necessary ingredient for a prosperous agrarian society. Lincoln never mentioned slavery in his inaugural speech, but HE DID indirectly reference the Morrill Tariff. That the SOLE REASON federal troops were at Ft. Sumpter: To guarantee the collection of the tariff despite the ever increasing political climate.
These historical refreshers are badly needed. Thanks for the video.
You can find an interview of an ex-Confederate soldier here on YT who talks about the Civil War from first-hand experience. The interview is very interesting and informative. Many believe the war was an illegal act on the part of the government of the time as there was no part of the Constitution or other attending documents preventing states from leaving the union. Thus the term "War of Northern Aggression" is sometimes used rather than Civil War.
don't you mean the "confederate rebellion"?
Or "Slave Owners Rebellion" to be more precise.@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf
The "Union" was made of states choosing to unite. It is self evident that if there is a choice to unite, there can also be a choice to separate.
The Union was made of the People. It is self evident that since the People made the Union, only the People can dissolve the Union.
The Constitution protects the People from the tyranny of both the Federal government and the States. The Civil War - or Slave Owners' Rebellion, as it is sometimes and more accurately termed - is a classic case of the need for protection from the tyranny of the states. The poor white folk - to say nothing of black folk - needed protection from the slave owners, who sought to railroad their states to further their tyrannical agenda.@@scottwhitcher265
@@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf Read his post again.
Thank you. When I hear people distill the actions and incentives of over a million individuals into one issue, I die a little inside.
Take that “one issue” out of the equation, and guess what? No war. Everyone understands that there are personal ideals at play and everyone has slightly different perspectives. But the reality is that the war would not have happened without that issue. That should not be controversial.
"The school of adversity"... I like that line. Each one of these points of view was expressed so eloquently. I am always amazed with the eloquence that so often is a part of the written language of the 19th and 18th centuries. It saddens me how popular culture and modern technology have seemingly conspired to cheapen and make lazy the written English language in much more modern times. We like to think ourselves so evolved today from those previous generations, but the loss of eloquence in the English written language is certainly not an example of this great evolution, quite the contrary.
Blame the public education system.
Doltishness is a virtue.
@@stringfellowbalk2654 Don't forget hip hop and text messaging. Idiots who didn't even obtain a GED have been rewriting the English language for over 30 years.
@@stringfellowbalk2654
I have a confession to make. When I was in Grade/High school (50's-60's) we had to turn in some called Theme Papers. he teacher would say I want (say) 250 words on a subject. I could do it. SIGH Alas those days are gone. 😞 Its a forgotten skill.
Weren't illiteracy rates significantly higher back then?
@ericstevens8131 No, because it was a much more agrarian socio-economic country back then. That is why school, even to this day, is out during the summer. For those who even attended at all, they were expected to work the fields and help with harvests and planting in the summertime. But the quality of education for those who did attend school was much greater back then, and educators didn't put up with anywhere near the crap they do today. They were much stricter, and there was generally much less distraction from actual education in those days.
first, With due respect to Rev. Taylor ....there is not mention of Slavery as a Sin in the Holy Script although many try to interpret passages to the contrary. Second ...it is true that many Southern politicians mentioned Slavery as a reason for Succession but keep in mind this usually came from the Aristocratic class which represented only 25% of the population in the South. Most Southerners were prepared to Succeed not because of Slavery but because they viewed joining the local Militia as a duty of protecting Thier culture, family and homeland. I seriously doubt the common Southern foot soldier would commit his life to the death for only keeping blacks as slaves.
On your first point, the old moral principle of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you is firmly based in holy scripture with several references" as is "love your neighbor as yourself".
Your second point is valid based on primary source documentation including from President Lincoln himself. However, some of the economic benefits of slavery did trickle down to the common man.
Sadly slavery exists to this day in the land of the free in greater numbers than back when it was legal. And our society as a whole continues to turn our faces as before.
@@freeinflorida4628 -While it would not be fair to hold someone who lived well over a hundred years ago to the moral standards of today one must remember up until a short time ago many people did not look at people of African ancestry as being ‘human’ in the same sense as they held people with European ancestry. Obviously, this is morally wrong but for many people that was accepted. Still is today in several places sadly. Therefore, the “love your neighbor as yourself” would not have applied back then. A slave was an economic tool not a real human being. Economic realities were slowly ending slavery and years ago I can remember learning Lincoln as well as several other politicians knew this and thought letting the practice just die out would be a whole lot less costly to the country than fighting a war. The last count I read about stated the Civil War cost our country in the neighborhood of 750,000+ lives both military and civilian. Nothing “civil” about that.
To your last point, yes there are more slaves today here in this country than there were back in the 1800’s. In fact, there are more around the world than there were back then. I’ve read most every town in his country has at least one slave, normally sexual or domestic servant, within their city limits. If true, why are we turning a blind eye to it? We have learned literally nothing when it comes to this issue. Perhaps we just don’t see Hispanics, Asians, or any other non-European person as being ‘human’.
In the Bible Story, Jesus stated that he wasn’t ever changing the old law, so that means that the old commandments, covenants, etc. remained as they were. So, Exodus 21, regarding how owning entire families and passing along that property as inheritance is completely moral and just. Jesus mentioned slavery by merely saying that slaves should be good their masters. Rape is never made a sin in the Bible either, as rape victims are forced to marry the rapists in the Bible. …but there is a commandment to rest on a certain day of the week?! How difficult would it have been for a just god to add the lines, “Thou shalt not own people or rape them”? The immoral Bible and those who preached its infallibility arguably has led to much more calamity and holocaust than it has tranquility.
The morals of the Bible contradict so greatly with today’s social moral standard, that it demonstrates how morals as a whole are subjective and not absolute.
The problem with your argument is that the slave owning aristocracy dominated southern politics. For example, half of Mississippi's secession delegates owned *at least* ten slaves.
30% of southern households owned slaves (statistics easily available from the 1850 US census). That leaves 70% of the population, true. They fought for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned: duty, social pressure, propaganda that convinced them Lincoln wished them ill (nonsense) or fears of slave revolt and miscegenation.
Please note that many of those reasons were closely related to slavery: militias had patrolled for generations to control slave populations, for example.
It's worth noting that secession was deeply unpopular in regions of the south where there were not many slaves. Many folk from those regions joined the Union army, or in the case of West Virginia just got themselves out of the rebellion completely. Counties in Texas with low slave ownership weren't even allowed to have delegates at the state secession delegation...why do you suppose that was?
Sure looks to me like the primary reason was slavery.....
@@OkieSketcher1949Unfortunately for your point, the idea that people shouldn't be slaves was well known in 1860. But southern politicians had spent decades trying to gag the US Congress, censor the US mail, or just flat-out use violence to shut up anyone who tried to say slavery was immoral. So it's not that they had never heard the truth...they just didn't like it.
Currently people do not want to hear anything that doesn't support their agenda, might as well be talking to a wall. It really is a sad situation that people are blocked from learning,.. but kudos to you for trying.
I dropped my US Civil War class at UCSD on day one after the professor (who specializes in women's history, I believe) said that there was only one right answer to the question of what caused the civil war and if anyone said anything other than slavery, they weren't wanted. She was a moron.
Moron or not, she was right about the cause. It was about slavery, slavery, slavery. Ken Burns
There really is only one right answer. The south succeeded based on their belief in being able to keep slaves. You just need to read what they wrote. All the leaders of the Confederacy wrote unequivocally that succession and the war was about slavery. If you can't believe what the orchestrators of the war wrote about the reason who can you believe.
Sounds like you are a cry baby.
@@owensomers8572 sounds like you are a moron.
Yep, from what I’ve read it was economic like when Georgia threatened to leave under President Jackson
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for this wonderful video. Your research helps to connect the modern community with the day-to-day existence of life during the Civil War. This is another wonderful video.
Happy New Year to you and your family! This year I discovered your YT channel and Military Images and it has been a pleasure to listen to you or read every new or old copy! Keep it up! Best :)
From the Acton/Lee correspondence:
Sir:1
Although your letter of the 4th ult. has been before me some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence.
As a citizen of the South, I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it. The influence of correct opinion in Europe upon the current politics of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue in the United States, involving not only constitutional freedom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright. Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to retrieve it from the mass of prejudice and passion, with which it has been covered by party spirit. I am conscious of the compliment conveyed in your request for my opinion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion which was commenced by the founders of the constitution, and has been continued to the present day. I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the States and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard of the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the States into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the Federal and Democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State governments, and to despotism. The New England States, whose citizens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern States, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threatened the disruption of the Union unless the war should be discontinued. The assertion of this right has been repeatedly made by their politicians when their party was weak; and Massachusetts, the leading State in hostility to the South, declares in the preamble to her constitution, that the people of that commonwealth “have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a Free Sovereign and Independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”
Such has been in substance the language of other State Governments, and such the doctrine advocated by the leading men of the country for the last seventy years. Judge Chase, the present Chief Justice of the United States, as late as 1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he “knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a State to perform its stipulations,” thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of State Action. But I will not weary you with this unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable because the judgment of reason has been displaced by the arbitrament of war, waged for the purpose as avowed of maintaining the union of the States. If, therefore, the result of the war is to be considered as having decided that the Union of the States is inviolable and perpetual under the constitution, it naturally follows that it is as incompetent for the General Government to impair its integrity by the exclusion of a State, as for the States to do so by secession; and that the existence and rights of a State by the constitution, are as indestructible as the Union itself. The legitimate consequence then must be the perfect equality of rights of all the States; the exclusive right of each to regulate its internal affairs under rules established by the constitution; and the right of each State to prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage.
The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance of it. Virginia, to the last, made great efforts to save the Union, and urged harmony and compromise. Senator Douglass in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the Republican party; and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment was with the Republican party. Who then is responsible for the war? Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results and agrees without reserve to the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia. In other respects, I trust that the constitution may undergo no change, but that it may be handed down to succeeding generations in the form we received it from our forefathers.
The desire I feel that the Southern States should possess the good opinion of one whom I esteem as highly as yourself, has caused me to extend my remarks farther than I intended, and I fear it has led me to exhaust your patience.
If what I have said, should serve to give any information as regards American politics, and enable you to enlighten public opinion as to the true interests of this distracted country, I hope you will pardon its prolixity.
In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the battles were fought. I have not seen the work by the Prussian officer you mention, and therefore cannot speak of his accuracy in this respect.
With sentiments of great respect,
I remain your obdt. Svt,
R E Lee
"...sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home..." huh, that doesnt sound familiar at all...
The first argument citing abolition as the primary cause of the Civil War seems to morph into a substantial economic argument. That is, the writer laments that the admission of free state will increase national government activities which support northern commercial interests. surviving texts of prominent speeches by southern politicians prior to the Civil War dwell on the illegitimacy of government involvement in the economy, including infrastructure improvements. Those writings suggest that the Southern oligarchy was interested in the perpetuation of its economic, political and social control through the complete absence of government involvement of the economy. The third argument seems to be a general statement that the Civil War was caused by petit hostilities among those in the monied class, which implies those aforementioned economic and political differences.
It seems that economic hostilities and a dispute over the role of government created a feeling of a necessity for succession, while revulsion to abolition supplied the emotional catalyst for secession.
One thing is for sure: the North profited hugely from war profiteering. The Northwest was not about to let the Confederate states command the Mississippi River. The importance of New Orleans was reflected in the renown of Andrew Jackson,
The competition between NYC and New Orleans was long standing. NYC had the initial advantage of being the farthest port southward from Canada in which the waters were too cold for wood destroying worms. As the Country moved westward, New Orleans assumed the advantage being on the Mississippi River. NYC kept pace with the Erie Canal. With California becoming the new jewel in America's crown, New Orleans was poised to take the lead with prospect of the Southern Pacific RR. Enter Stephen Douglas with legislation to permit a Northern Pacific RR Route, and the north assumed the lead again. Government backed Northern economic competition, the prospect of a Northern Pacific RR, and the peace treaty with Mexico were large factors influencing secession. They were more immediate concerns than abolition, but the threat of eventual abolition apparently was the ignition.
Well put
Sorry, Bruce. You lost me at wood destroying worms.@@brucebutler2746
Revulsion to abolition supplied the emotional catalyst for secession and the necessity of it because the Slave Power lost the political control it had, and that's why Secession happened before Lincoln even took office. Read Neely's book "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism". Confederate Constitutionalism was just that. A myth. It was all means to the end of protecting slavery. Every state that seceded has commissioners that made clear and unequivocal statements about the reasons for secession, and all of them were explicitly declared to be about slavery. These written declarations are a matter of public record, but are ignored by the whitewashing of The Lost Cause until recently.
I have always thought that "civil war" is a misnomer. A civil war is a fight for control of the existing government. Our conflict was a war between the states, whatever the cause.
You're correct that it was not a civil war. It was rightly called "the war of the rebellion" for several decades until the Lost Cause propagandists convinced everyone to start calling it something that hurt their feelings less.
Yes someone with a brain.
Setting up an alternative government and army isn't about a fight for control of the existing government?
Technically, no. The rebels were separatists and had no desire to control the United States government. They did have their eye on conquering various territories in central America and the Carribean, but that's a different story....@@5metoo
@@aaronfleming9426 - That's like saying a divorce is just a separation, rather than the destruction of the existing order; the union. It's not about control, but losing control. The rebels became separatists when the slave states lost political power. Accordingly, the Northern public did not see it as some independence movement. At all. Read diaries and letters of the time and you'd find indignation that in secession they were trying to "break up the best government the world has ever seen." Yes I know about "The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire."
States Rights vs Federal Power !!!
And little has changed !!!
Exactly! The South should have let the free states enact Personal Liberty Laws without a peep! Such an anti-state’s rights position!
States rights to do what? Secede? Now why would they want to do that?
Exactly what rights are at issue here? The states have plenty of rights to run their societies as they see fit. The Tenth Amendment says they do. They just don't have the right to enslave people or deprive them of their basic human rights, like voting, marriage and sitting in the front row of a bus.
@@brianniegemann4788 The Southern States right was to forbid the Free expression of opinion as to speak against the slavery system. The first (slavery friend) Kansas Constitution forbade the Free expression of opinion against the Slavery System!
Stop lying traitor. And by nothing has changed it means you MAGA will be defeated again.
These problems seem very contemporary. Thank you for this studious contribution.
Every federated union has these conflicts. They are inevitable and James Madison was quite well aware of them when designing the US Constitution.
A "country" is made up of one long ethnic heritage. A union Republic is not. It is a salad of regional and familiar contradictions. That is why patriotism over the George Washington years of the Revolution was so strongly hammered into the character of citizens of the new Republic for 200 years.
All wars are fought primarily for economic reasons and the War for Southern Independence was no exception. The irony is, by 1860, slavery was a dying institution, and the South knew it was only a matter of time before it became economically untenable. Arguably, had the war not happened, slave states would have abolished the institution of slavery sometime before 1870. We can argue the morality of slavery all we want, but the primary causes of the war were economic in nature.
Certainly slavery was economics at is core, a Democrat could steal the slave's paycheck by beating it out of him. Saying Democrats would have abolished slavery is poppycock since Dems did everything possible to keep Blacks in chains of Jim Crow and working on Democrat plantations thru vagrancy laws, peonage, etc and scared away from the voting booth via their KKK & wide variety of black voter suppression tactics like Grandfather Clauses, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. Today Democrats want the slavery of government dependency. Slave ownership is Democrat DNA and always will be, beamed into the elitist "I am better than you" attitude.
You are waaay off base. Self taught?
Maybe read okiesketcher1949. Someone who knows stuff
@@debbylou5729My economics professor in college did his Ph.D. dissertation on the economics of slavery and made a very good case for what I asserted above. What have you got besides ad-hominem and ignorance?
And sadly none of it stuck
Refreshing and interesting to hear the insights of observers from that time. Well done. BTW I am blessed to have been born in this country.
What about Lincoln’s inaugural address where he promised that he would use force to collect the tariffs.
That sounds like economic to me. 🤔
The Constitution requires that the President enforce the laws of the United States in every state. It also requires that the President suppress insurrection. Lincoln was merely stating his legal duties; the rebels were already at war with the United States, having fired on American ships, stealing American property, and kidnapping American soldiers at gunpoint.
You are 100 percent correct. You should read the letter from Salmon Chase where he says if we get a national bank and tariffs a war will be worth it.
Lincoln never said that.
Thank you for sharing this video. I enjoyed listening to your opinion. The Civil War is a very complicated topic. Historian Shelby Foote said it was a war between one form of society against another.
Yes. A free society and a slave-owning society, with free and slave-labor based economies.
Which is why a few slave-owning states stayed in the Union, but zero free states joined the rebels.
@@aaronfleming9426 On one side there were more people physically enslaved than on the other, but the other side was attempting to economically enslave in far greater numbers. There was so much hypocrisy coming from both sides.
There was certainly plenty of economic injustice in the industrializing North, but I think it's important to distinguish between being economically oppressed and being owned outright as if you were a cow or a pig.
@@aaronfleming9426 Yes, there are important difference between being economically oppressed and enslaved. A slave owner is responsible for the well being of his property and it's in his own interest to provide a safe and healthy life for them. If your slave dies, you have to go buy another. If they are hurt or sick, you have to take care of them.
A coal mine owner doesn't care at all what happens to his workers. If one dies, you just hire another. You avoid paying them by issuing company money that's only good at the company store, so they can't leave their abusive and dangerous job, because all of their money is only good if they stay and buy from you. I supposed they could pack up with nothing and leave, but where are they going to go? To the lumber mill a hundred miles away that treats them the same?
You're assuming that slave owners were rational and humane, while factory owners were stupid and brutish. It's an indefensible premise.
The truth is, slaves were frequently treated brutally - not cared for, not well fed, not well clothed; beaten, raped, or sold away from their home and family. Of course it was typically worse on larger plantations, just as a white laborer in the north was better off in a small shop than a large factory. "But why would a master treat a valuable commodity that way?"
Because humans behave irrationally more often than not. Today we have the advantage of decades of research on effective management, and there are still zillions of managers who treat their employees like garbage and then can't figure out why morale and productivity are so low, and turnover is so high.
A slave owner had all the more reason to be inhumane: he lived in a system that was built on brutality and violence. And it had to be, because slaves had a distressing tendency to want freedom, because apparently being a slave wasn't as awesome as you seem to think it was. A slave owner was taught from his mother's milk that he was superior, that his slaves were sub-human, that destiny and even God Himself had given him power over the inferior races...is there any doubt that such an environment would breed abuse like a swamp breeds mosquitos?
On the other hand: A factory worker had it bad, no doubt, but he could get some education for his kids and hope they could better their life, because they were born free. Perhaps one of his children could become a teacher, a clerk, or a clergyman, or even start a store or small workshop.
A factory worker could save his wages, because he had wages.
Difficult as it would be to pack up and leave, he could do so without being run down by bloodhounds, flogged, and sold to a different state - if not outright murdered to serve as an example.
His wife and daughters would have legal protection from rape.
He could enjoy the dignity of Christian marriage to a woman he loved.
He could enjoy his family without the constant fear that one of them would suddenly be sold the next day.
If he was accused of a crime, he would have recourse to the courts and a trial by a jury of his peers.
He could join the army, move west to try his hand at homesteading, work on a railroad...
None of those were options for slaves.@@CaffyPvP
Appreciate this approach. The past witnesses are lost now. I fear that few people can keep up with Intellectual writings by these authors, who wrote and thought at a much higher level than nearly any today. Nowadays peopke cannot grasp it without guided dissection. Also, the mindset regarding the entry into WW1, a major wrong turn in world history, all is lost. Thanks for your effort.
there are few people around that could follow Lee's letter to Acton and understand the concepts and history that he writes about, and in fact, most probably wouldnt even understand the basic language used. people these days are mental midgets, and our society suffers as a result.
No war is fought for a single reason. Even if media and public opinion focus on a single outrage, (Remember the Maine!) The reality is much deeper. Nobody would argue the Second World War was fought merely to free the captive European people held in the death camps, and nobody today would seriously argue the only result of that global conflict was the closing of those camps. Entire libraries are written expounding on the causes of the First World War, but none of those books would say the war was fought merely to make the world free of threat anarchic assassins posed to porcine princelings. There are contemporaneous accounts of Union soldiers deserting upon hearing the news that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. These Union men were not proslavery by any stretch of the imagination. They were just pro-Union first to last. Some few felt betrayed. They did not believe the sole reason for their suffering and dying to simply free the South's Africans. Most young Federals had never seen a slave in person, nor did they think about them much as they were wounded or died fighting.
As the famous quote goes, the first casualty of war is the truth!
The Second Great War in Europe (for it was not a World War) was not fought to free captives held in concentration camps. FDR manipulated events to bring these United States into war for the sole purpose of salvaging his failed economy after all efforts to stimulate the economy proved futile. Even the Foreign States of Europe entered the war against Germany for reasons of economics and treaty obligations. It is ironic that the very treaties intended to prevent escalation of small regional conflicts were directly responsible for the spread of war across the continent of Europe.
There were no good factions in the Second Great War in Europe. The Allied Forces began nighttime bombing raids on civilian population centers, and the Germans retaliated with bombings of London after Churchill refused all requests to cease the practice. More than 20 million German civilians were victims of Allied military force, and that doesn't include the countless who perished in concentration camps as a result of hunger related disease and starvation due to food shortages and distribution issues resulting from Allied bombing raids.
You've obviously never read of Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows Death Camps where more than 900,000 German POWs were killed by U.S. Army personnel between 1945 and 1950.
All involved in "World War II" were evil and should share the blame and the guilt.
@@gaiustacitus4242 What you say is correct but there is still more to it and it is too much to cover here.
@@kato1224 Yes, there is much more to it. The history texts omit the fact that a US Navy destroyer fired the first shot of the war, sinking a Japanese submarine 5 hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Furthermore, FDR had boots on the ground in Europe to fight against Germany by Spring 1941 and had recruited "former" US military aviators to form the Flying Tigers to fight in China against Japan months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. US military forces had been providing intelligence on German ship movements for nearly 2 years prior to America's official entry into the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific.
It was FDR's illegal acts of war and his embargos against Japan by which he drew Japan to commit "the first act of aggression" (as it was pitched it to the American people) in order to drive public opinion to support war against Japan. FDR then launched an invasion of Europe a year before any retaliation was forthcoming against Japan. Just as planned, FDR and his cronies began a war with Germany to salvage America's failed economy.
Our government loves to tell a distorted version of the facts as "history" in order to justify its illegal wars.
The economic argument is the reason the North would not allow secession by the South. Lincoln fought to maintain the Union, for economic reasons.
Here is a serious question...had the South prevailed, would there still be slavery in 2023? I think not. It was destined to be abolished at some point in time.
Of the top ten reasons for the war, slavery was #7.
I always enjoy these episodes! Thank you so much. I may show this in my university course. You are always so informative, and I love the background info on people and issues in the civil war.
Very interesting hearing those voices from the past!
One thing I'd add is the subject of "internal improvements." I believe the writer may have been referring to the proposed transcontinental railroad. Railroad technology had advanced to the point it was feasable to build the railroad in the 1850's but the problem was just what the route would be, Northerners pushing for a northern route and Southerners pushing for a southern one, both points of view which should surprise no one. Since no common ground could be found the legislation concerning the same went nowhere.
It wasn't until the secession of the Southern states took them completely out of the picture that the Pacific Railroad Act was passed and signed by President Lincoln although the real work wouldn't begin until the Civil War was over.
They should have adopted Sen. Stephen A. Douglas' 1850s plan to build 3 great transcontinental railroads along Southern, central and northern routes. That would have satisfied all sections of the country. Instead we got Abe Lincoln.
@@browngreen933 Unfortunately Douglas' plan apparantly pleased nobody.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706
Yes, and look at the result -- Civil War. In the end all three lines to the Pacific were built, proving Sen. Douglas was correct.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 And might have been prohibitively expensive.
What they are referring to was the fact that nearly all the railroads and many canals in the north were federally subsidized. Not one mile of RR in the south was. That is why all the RRs in the south were different gauges while in the north, they were all standardized.
What always gets left out of the discussion is the fact that from the 1820s till the war started, the South was paying 75% of the taxes, and with a population one third the size of the North. Yet all this funding was going north.
Given that Southerners called it the War of Northern Agression for decades, should give a bit of context on how people felt.
Gives context on how propaganda works. Firing on Fort Sumpter wasn't aggression I guess? Here's where you tell me they were tricked into firing first.
The cause of the war was secession. The Southern states seceded because they did not have equal representation in the federal government, but also sectionalism that could be interpreted as nationalism. Slavery itself was never really in any danger. The real issue was the expansion of slavery because it affected representation. Northern and Southern attitudes toward race were similar. I am a direct descendant of both Confederate and Union soldiers so I'm about as natural as anyone can be. Oddly, this has become such a hot topic when no one could care less only a few years ago. Why people suddenly care so much is the real mystery to me.
You are a nice guy. Today, the central government is out of control and dangerous to the people's liberty. Powerful banking families control America. When did corporations take over America? It was during the Civil War. Lincoln's National Bank Acts consolidated banking. Consolidated banking led to a consolidation in industry-monopolies. Most people think we got central banking with the Federal Reserve. We got it with the Civil War. Standard Oil owner William Stillman was on the board of City Bank with Jacob Schiff. This is the partner of the Rothschilds. City Bank was designated as a reserve bank from the national bank acts. They were using these reserves to consolidate industry into monopolies. The south was for a decentralized federation not a national consolidated government. The United States is a Federal Republic. The vertical check on centralized power is the states. The Establishment historians propagate the moral myth to assist the elites into maintaining a powerful central government. America is not based on a powerful central government. Let me make this easier. Families like the Rockefellers control the central government and the benefit from this. A return to a decentralized Federation is not in their interest. Their foundations gave billions to Universities to control the narrative. This is why the elites are afraid. The Civil War lie must be maintained..The north loved black people and fought the war to end slavery for moral reasons. Really it's true. I promise.
it's never really as "cut & dried" as most people claim
one side of three arguments.............good vid thanks
Sounds like it was a political and economic problem, we may be on the same path today, the leaders were quick to make it a moral issue, don't misunderstand I'm not a supporter of slavery but follow the money and you will find the solution.
Wonderfully done. Thank you. I would recommend reading “In the Course of Human Events,” by Charles Adams, a northern historian, member of the CATO institute and known as the world authority on the history of taxation. It may surprise some that it is actually an argument supporting secession, but certainly not blindly so.
Thank you. I heard pretty much this same thing from my high school history teacher 40 years ago. Commerce between northern states, the south and European countries. I like the writings you quoted from men during that time frame and especially the religious slant for the Lord bringing chastisement to those needing humbling.
I live in southern California, in Wilmington, CA named after Wilmington, DE by Phineas Banning. His home is still there located near PCH, and down the street there's actually civil war barracks still standing. At Christmas time his house is open to tours and people dress up in costume of the time. At the barracks a man dressed up in military costume would ask people if they knew why the Civil war happened, most people respond slavery, no he would state and say "Taxes!"
Wow, he has a military costume. He MUST be right!
Ron, greatly appreciate how you expose very true history. Thank you for that.
The civil war occurred because the south, an agrarian culture was being controlled by the more heavily populated industrial north. Once Lincoln was elected in 1860, additional tariffs were added which induced great financial burdens on the south. Example: Morrill Tariff signed into law in 1860 which introduced high import duties not for the traditional purpose of national revenue but to protect northern American industry from overseas competition, inflicting significant financial hardship on the south. The south believed in states rights, the federal government, not so much. Google it. Fun facts: The civil war caused more American deaths than WW1, WW2 and the Korean war combined. Questions. If slavery was the issue, why wasn't the emancipation proclamation introduced in 1860, not three years into the civil war in 1863. Oddly, the emancipation only freed southern slaves, not the northern slaves, read the emancipation proclamation. Why would southerners (about 99.99% who didn't own slaves) fight and die for slave owners? Slavery will always be wrong, but it has existed in every culture manifested in many different ways. I do not know why the civil war has always been defined as a slavery issue, it simply is not the case, not sure why others try to rewrite history.
@jondear772 Are you aware that Lincoln was not President until March 4, 1861? It might have had little effect had he proposed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1860. Just sayin'.
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, Alexander Stephens Confederate Vice-President. The south stated why they left the Union, slavery
@@Tadadsky You say "our peculiar institution of African slavery?" That is such false propaganda as to raise questions of your level of education. Only about 6% of African slaves brought to the Americas came to the British-American colonies, and it was the British who perpetrated and profited from this trade most, not colonies themselves. Thomas Jefferson castigated the King and the wealthy class of England that drove the slave trade in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, but Georgia and South Carolina kept that language from being included. Congress outlawed the slave trade from Africa in 1808. The Caribbean and South America got the largest numbers of African slaves, over 90% of the total. Add to this the fact that the African slave traders selling to the British and other European powers were themselves black Africans, as well as Arabs under the Ottoman Empire. Africans were a commodity to other Africans, just as were white merchant sailors captured off the coasts of Africa both before and after the American Revolution.
It is also true that there is more slavery in the world today than ever before. It's rampant in Africa particularly, as well as in the middle east and China. Even in the Americas, the sex slave trade is flourishing. So get off your high horse and quit pretending that this was a particularly American problem. Everywhere human beings have existed, going back to the earliest recorded history, so has slavery.
@@Rollin_L the quote I provide was from the cornerstone speech given by the confederate Vice president in the spring of 1861. It is not propaganda. It is the words of the southern leadership. The leaders of the south said at the time why they left the union. See also documents of secession from Mississippi, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina. They all say slavery. This is some interpretation after the fact. It is the words of those who left the Union
@@Tadadsky It was not clear to me that you were offering a quotation, given the lack of quote marks. Rather it read like your own statement and a paraphrase of Jefferson and Stevens. You can score me an error on that. Yet suggestion that African slavery was a "peculiar institution" to America remains false, regardless of who said it or when. The argument I made is not about the intentions of the Confederate leadership, it is against the perpetuating of the falsehood- ever pushed by today's media and politicians- that African slavery was unique to the British colonies and the United States that grew out of them. Confederate officials may have had no clue that they got only 6% of the African slaves. If they had, I am sure they would merely have argued that they didn't get their fair share" like Democrats usually do.
Excellent video! Happy New Year to you and your family!
Well said, Sir.
Absolutely superb!
Thanks for the history lesson. I hope you’re writing about today’s happenings so that 100 years from now people will know what preceded them.
The interesting thing is while all the explanations were connected to slavery, none of them were just simply slavery, and the direct cause was Union states flagrantly violating the rights of southern states.
I did a term paper on the causes and immediate effects of the civil war in US history. This was in 1969 and I got the highest mark on a term paper that year with that teacher. If you knew me then you’d find that strange as I was pretty much a D student all through high school.
I have a time machine that goes back into the 60's, my brain - we were taught that the cause was States Rights - the urbanization of the north was contrary to the agriculture economy of the South, and the South had lost its rights in the U.S. Congress, due to "democracy" - the same situation we face today. I live rural West Texas, and the big cities in Texas decide the issues, simply because of population. I am ready for some States Rights in West Texas.
But you live in the same state as Dallas, Houston, Galveston, El Paso, Austin and the rest. “States’ rights” means the whole state.
Are you really just arguing that the state should be governed by the minority, but only if the minority agrees with you?
If you go back to Feb. 1, 1861, the Texas Ordnance of Secession connects states rights with slavery and economics:
To dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861.
the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:
Therefore,
We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.
This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for ratification or rejection by the qualified voters thereof, on the 23rd day of February 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2nd day of March, A.D. 1861. Provided, that in the Representative District of El Paso, said election may be held on the 19th day of February, A.D. 1861.
Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861.
SOURCE:
The Constitution of the State of Texas, as Amended in 1861, The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, The Ordinances of the Texas Convention, and An Address to the People of Texas. Austin: Printed by John Marshall, State Printer, 1861. pp. 18-19.
www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/1feb1861.html
@@mikekolokowsky I am saying it is time for West Texas to split from the city corridor, West Texas to split from Texas - and if it wants to, split from the insanity of DC - but of course that is not going to happen. My main point was that the Civil War cause was not slavery, but States Rights, as we were correctly taught in public school back then - even Lincoln made campaign jokes about disunion caused by slavery. I distinctly remember my racist, bigot, nazi, hater history teacher speaking this truth. Northern California wants to split too. Eastern Oregon wants to split from Portland too, become part of Idaho. Over 20 states, today, are talking, in their State congress about removal of their State from the Disunion. But you knew what I was talking about. You just wanted to confuse the issue.
@@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail I did not read you comment, you are a teacher - of propaganda.
@@JKent-ry9ygNice. The guy quotes a historical document - with no comment of his own! - and you accuse him of teaching propaganda.
This country has never had a civil war by definition. The servant that the States created simply decided to become master of a much larger "plantation". The States that seceded did not wish to destroy or control the Union, they simply decided to no longer be part of it.
It is sad that so few Americans were sufficiently well educated to grasp this basic truth.
How can anyone not understand that in a voluntary union of states it is implicit that they can leave the union when it becomes untenable? In fact, the Declaration of Independence says it is their DUTY to separate from the union under the circumstances. What the war accomplished was to put the federal government above the states and eliminate any checks on the feds power. The 17th Amendment put the final nail in the coffin by removing the only representation the states had in the federal government...the Senate. By changing it to individual vote from State Legislature appointment, the States no longer have ANY vote and the federal government expanded taking over all the State's rights. I bet if the north and south had just coexisted for the last 150 years that the south would be kicking the north's ass economically, socially, and would be 150% more free.
Napoleon was on the march in Europe, during the height of slavery, in America. Mechanized farming begins,-slavery on the way out .Geronimo and Sitting Bull on the warpath, and Civil war ending.
a better title would be what were the CAUSES of the first american civil war. there is never one cause for anything this complicated.
No, this one is pretty straightforward: almost all of the declarations of secession stated slavery as a main cause. What people *think* was the cause is not the same thing.
I’ll take the word of the secessionists themselves. They were virtually unanimous on the matter.
There were multiple causes of secession, among which was slavery. However, slavery was not a cause of Lincoln's illegal war of invasion and conquest. Far too many people allow themselves to be deceived by the political propaganda used to justify Lincoln's war because these lies have become the official narrative taught in history texts.
It only takes a simple consideration of the irrefutable fact that more than 421,000 blacks remained held in slavery in the North for 7 months after the war ended for even a simpleton to realize the war was never about ending slavery.
@@LeftToWrite006 Was secession a war? No. It was merely an exercise of the unalienable rights of the Peoples of the 13 States of the South to form, amend, or reform their own governments as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Like far too many Americans, you demonstrate your ignorance of the irrefutable fact that the States were always free, independent, and sovereign nations which had joined together under a compact for their mutual benefit, ceding only limited powers to a central government in furtherance of their goals in doing so. They retained all other powers, including the right to withdraw from the Union at any time and for any reason.
BTW, none of the Secession Acts mention slavery as a direct cause for secession. Also, not all of the Southern States issued Ordinances of Secession; in fact, few of these States ever formally mentioned slavery as a direct cause of secession.
Secession Acts (all 13 States):
www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/secession-acts-thirteen-confederate-states
Declaration of Causes (Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia):
www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
@@chrismiller9987 The causes of secession were not the causes of war. The two matters are completely independent.
The more I think about it, the more I think that, If we had no Civil War, slavery, as it was then, would still have been unsupported by 1900 for many reasons. Cotton would have found better suppliers and the moral conscience of the world would have forced the South to find better ways to support the economy. Abolitionists wanted quick answers and they got it.
Abolitionists in the North were mainly white supremacists who believed the black race was incapable of surviving without the "peculiar institution of the South" and would quickly die out once the blacks were set free. The Missouri Compromise was driven by an agenda of the white supremacists in the North to preserve the Western Territories exclusively for the white race.
Well I am not defending slavery. Slavery is evil but you make some assumptions. One is you presume that working in northern factories was a walk in the park. Quite the contrary it was every bit and in some cases worse than slavery in the south. African slaves were fed, clothed, provided shelter, and given medical care. Most Americans think slaves lived on plantations. This is not correct. The average slave situation was five slaves with a family. The family worked in the fields with the slaves. There was no task master or security guard. Furthermore you presume that economically the slaves were better off after the war. This is false they were free but economically worse off. Many slaves were interviewed during the great depression and said they were better taken care of during slavery. The south was an integrated society. The black codes came from the north not the south. The south implemented black codes like the north after the war. Race relations were made bad by northern policies. Southern whites were not allowed to vote while Freedman were. This was not about equality but about keeping the government under Republican party control. John Deer would have ended slavery. About 260,000 slaves died toward the end of the Civil War not from the south but from northern total war policies and economic destruction of the south. Today the war is taught like this. The north were the good guys. The south were the bad guys who were for slavery. The north loved black people. I can't find one document that supports this. Seventy five percent of southerners did not own slaves. The union was voluntary not involuntary. I am told that Lincoln did not want to free the slaves but eventually came around to this. The evidence does not support this. The corruption today traces right to the feet of that ugly fellow now called Saint Lincoln.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 I'm not making any assumptions. I know that the conditions for the free laborers in the North was far worse than that of the slaves in the South. If a free laborer fell ill, then he and his family were out on the street and with no one to care for him he would soon perish.
The North was not made up of good guys, nor was the South made up of bad guys.
Slavery was the law of the Union throughout the entire period of the war. The war was not fought to end slavery.
While slavery was among the causes of secession, it was not the only cause. The abuses of the Union had been growing worse for decades prior to secession, and that was the solution as seen by statesmen in the South to the tyranny of the North.
The war was waged by Lincoln to preserve the economy of the North, to avoid losing the South and the nearly 70% of the federal government's revenue those States provided through tariffs paid on manufactured goods imported from the North, and to prevent Northern States from seceding as they had debated doing years before.
You need to evaluate the facts and divest yourself of the fiction that the war was fought to abolish slavery, because it wasn't.
Secession and the war were two completely different issues.
@@gaiustacitus4242 Tarrifs are applied to imported goods, e.g., from Europe. There were no “tarrifs” on goods moving from north to south, or vice versa. This talk about “the north” imposing tariffs seems to ignore that in the federal government, in congress, the south had outlandish power. The north and south didn’t exist independently. And there’s this thing called the filibuster, which permitted the southern states, which generally voted as a block, to block any bills they didn’t like (that is, until they started resigning due to secession, at which point they lost their advantage). This talk about “the north” imposing tariffs on the south is nonsense.
I’m just waiting for someone to tell me that segregation was about tariffs or economics, and not about white superiority…
@@gaiustacitus4242 To be clear, your entire original post is speculation on your part. Assumption. Since none of that happened, how could it be anything else?
Secession was about slavery. This is unambiguous. If you don’t think so, read the original documents, those of the leaders of the secession. Read their words and you’ll see that preserving the institution of slavery is front and center as the primary reason for secession. White supremacy is at the fore. And remember, they’re the ones driving the ship, not the poor farmers and soldiers. Now, to say that the causes of secession and the Civil War were “two completely different issues” is simply wishful, revisionist thinking.
I've long said the war between the States was far more than the issue of slavery. Thanks for the video and those who posted below.
Sure, there are always side issues. But most, if not all, of those side issue tie directly back to slavery.
*The economy? Yes, slave vs. free.
*The territories? You mean, would they be free or slave?
*Culture? You mean, a culture dominated by slave owners or a culture dominated by industrialists?
*Industry vs. Agriculture? That one's bogus on its face. There were many agricultural states in the North. Not a single one of them joined the rebellion.
*Tariffs? You mean, taxes that benefitted free labor economies instead of slave labor economies?
And so on.
Interesting. The first two gentlemen make interesting arguments. The third gentleman sounds a lot like more than a few Brits I met during several visits to that rainy little place. The more things change I suppose.
Thank you for that. It’s a complex issue. So complex, in fact, it is impossible to explain to simpletons.
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Memorial Day 1884..... to his veterans
“Now, I think the cause of that war lay in a political question. And that was as to the nature of our political union, and the form of government. ….The question left unsettled as to the nature of our government, was one of political supremacy, of what is called sovereignty……
I do not think that many went ion the war with the motive, distinctly and directly to overthrow slavery by force of arms. The destruction of slavery was more than we dreamed of. The attempt of the South to carry slavery into the free territory of the US made it a burning question. But the American Congress in 1861, by unanimous vote declared that neither the Federal government nor the people had the right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the slave holding states of the Union.
No….we did not assume when we took the field and the sea in the country’s defense that we were going to settle by force a moral question which had baffled all the wisdom and the patriotism of our fathers……No, we did not take up arms for the conscious purpose of fighting slavery down: but God, in his providence ……..allowed it swept aside …”
Thank you, a great quote from one of Gettysburg's great heroes.
How could there by loyalty to the "nation" of the Union when it was NEVER a nation? The States are the nations which comprise this Union. They owe no duty of loyalty to the Union beyond that which they freely give. Just as the free, independent, and sovereign States joined the Union and ceded only limited powers for their mutual benefit by free will, they may withdraw from this Union at any time and for any reason in their Peoples' pursuit of happiness.
But didn't the constitution exist to form a union of separate states for economic reasons. We had been under the articles of Confederation with 13 sepaprate little countries attempting to trade with each other. It didn't work very well.
Should the south secede as they have been saying for decades, how will they negotiate trade among themselves, yet alone other countries and the other states. Reference what happened to Britain after Brexit. Their economy collapsed as truck drivers and corporations moved to the mainland to avoid the complications that came with Brexit.
Would they be able to form their own military? how will they financially exist as most southern states depend on federal money, military bases and contractors to survive. How many people would be willing to live in states with draconian religious based laws such as what is happening with abortion and other issues.
Frankly, the south has been fighting a civil war with the rest of us for decades to preserve a culture that should have died years ago. A culture formed by plantation owners with an elitist racist attitude of superiority derived from the Ulster Irish and lowland Scots who settled there. To carry this same attitude in 2024 is backward and doesn't say much for the south and only reenforces stereotypes.
@@garytorresani8846 The South already has an economy that would immediately be the world's third largest with only 38% of the population of the current United States. With free trade policies it would quickly grow to be the world's second largest economy.
As for a military, the South would honor the intent of the Constitution which forbids the maintenance of a standing armies (yes, the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force are unconstitutional military forces; only the U.S. Navy is permitted to exist in perpetuity, with the U.S. Marine Corps being a subordinate element thereof).
The South has not been fighting a civil war. It has been suffering under the effects of Reconstruction for nearly 16 decades. The Yankees stole everything that wasn't nailed down, and even stole much of what was. They continue to punish the South through oppressive policies.
BTW, it isn't just the South that wants to secede from this accursed and lawless Union - and it never was.
@@gaiustacitus4242Funny, the people who argued against the ratification of the Constitution did so precisely because they recognized that they would be surrendering their sovereignty and that a new nation would be formed. For example, Patrick Henry led the anti-Constitution argument in Virginia, and he said:
"Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"
@@aaronfleming9426 The Constitution of the United States does not confer sovereignty upon the federal government, nor does it strip sovereignty from the States. It was, in effect, nothing more than a compact between the States that ceded only limited powers of the States to the central government.
Furthermore, the Constitution was not lawfully ratified at the time the federal government began operating. Therefore, if any compact remains between the States, then it is the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution that remains in effect.
The States retain their sovereignty, and they may withdraw from any union for any reason, whether good, bad, or indifferent. In any event, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that the People have the unalienable right to form, amend, or to reform (to dissolve and form anew) their own government in their pursuit of happiness.
We are not chattel slaves who are unwilling subjects of any government. We are free men from whom all sovereign powers of government are derived. Upon expression of our will, we can leave the existing government to institute another between like-minded persons in our pursuit of happiness.
Any act by government to prevent such reform is tyrannical, immoral, unlawful, and repugnant to Nature's Creator and to all rational people.
@@gaiustacitus4242It is the People who are sovereign, not the states. This was well known at the time of ratification, and was indeed one of the primary reasons for some of the most vigorous opposition to ratification. Patrick Henry led the opposition in VIrginia with these clear arguments:
"Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"
Robert E. Lee seems to have been quite familiar with Henry's arguments, and actually agreed, also indicating that he knew that secession was illegal and in fact treasonous:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
You are correct, we are not unwilling chattel - although of course the specious arguments of the Confederates, which you now repeat, were concocted for precisely the purpose of keeping certain races as chattel. And of course the numerous abuses of liberty by the slave states are well known: gags put on Congress, censorship of the US mail, widespread intimidation and violence against both white and black people, the violation of states' rights including the use of the Federal army to protect legalized human trafficking in free states, etc.
This is a vital point: we can easily see, along with Lee, that the Constitution protects the People not only from the tyranny of the federal government, but also from the states.
So, along with Lee, we can also recognize that there are legal and legitimate expressions of the will of the People: "...the consent of all the people in convention assembled".
There is an argument to be made for the right to revolution, as the Founders argued. There are substantive differences between their cause and the cause of the rebels of 1861: the first revolution was the attempt of disenfranchised people to establish a representative government in which they had a voice; the second was a coup by the reactionary slave owning aristocracy who were already heavily over-represented in their own government, and advantage they cast aside to ensure that they could own humans as chattel for perpetuity:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world....These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union..." - State of Mississippi, Declaration of Causes
Interesting 👍👍 as are the comments below. I had the impression Lincoln was mainly against the US breaking in two. And now I get the impression his party was mainly against additional slave states tending to take political power from the northern industrial states. And the moral reason was minor.
I love it when humans can be so definitive about exactly what God does and why. I think about the soldiers who had to do the fighting and the families who lost their loved ones. Was God so cruel as to cause the misery of soldiers who had nothing to do with slavery and the struggles of families to make their way in the world without their lost soldier just to punish "the nation" for slavery? That makes no sense to me.
The full context of the passage I read from Taylor may be useful: www.google.com/books/edition/Cause_and_probable_results_of_the_Civil/gCdcAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+chastisement+is+both+retributive+and+disciplinary.+In+regard+to+discipline+I+may+simply+say,+that+no+man,+or+corporation+or+nation+can+attain+to+humble+permanent+greatness+without+great&pg=PA5&printsec=frontcover
I assume the speaker was a Christian, and so his "God" was the God of Abraham.
Leviticus 25: 44-46 KJV will give you a taste of God's instructions regarding slavery.
As far as the cruelty of God; there's a long list, but Leviticus 20: 10 NLT,,,, or Chronicles 15: 12-13 NAB ...
Deuteronomy 13: 13 -19 NLT is a small sample
@@reasonablespeculation3893 I find that people tend to have their own opinions and then harken to religious sources to authorize their opinions. My favorite example of this is the WW I German belt buckle that was inscribed "Gott Mitt Uns". Which chapter(s) of the Bible deemed that God was on the German side? I'm reading a biography of George Patton at the moment. He was a great invoker of God. Was God on the Allied side in WW II?
"There are no atheists in foxholes." I'm watching the excellent "The Pacific" mini-series. It depicts a Marine praying before his first battle. How many soldiers have done that? I enjoy watching UA-cam videos with interview of WW II veterans and frequently hear them saying that God saved them. That's because the soldiers that said the same prayers but were killed anyway were not available to be interviewed. God decided not to save them? Which book of the Bible applies to God's decisions of who lives and dies in a fire fight?
I have also watched some videos where the veteran prayed the common prayer that goes like this: "God, if you protect me I'll spend the rest of my my life in your service" -- and that's what they do. Personally I don't think that God said, "OK, I'll take the deal. I will ensure that the bullets will miss you." I think some really lucky guys were personally inspired after the war to do good. We have those men to thank for their service, not a "Let's Make a Deal God".
The God of Abraham might be responsible for smiting the heathens, but it was Jesus of the New Testament who said, "Love thy neighbor as thy self." I'm less interested in in what "God" might be doing via his unseen hand and much more interested in what the Bible and other religious texts do to inspire humans to be their best selves. "Love thy neighbor" would have prevented the Civil War and a lot of other wars. That "new commandment" has been in place for over 2000 years and we still see terrible things. If the God of Abraham was/is so powerful, why hasn't that stopped?
It was humans who held other humans in bondage. Many of these people called themselves Christians. It was other humans who declared that slavery was wrong and decided to fight and die to rid our country of that scourge. I agree with that eminent religious philosopher Napoleon who said "God is on the side of the strongest artillery." I'm glad "God is with us" applied to the Union side in 1861-1865.
@@emmgeevideo Nice Gish Gallop.
I'll address two of your questions.
As for gott mits uns : you posit the question; "Which experts of the Bible deemed God was on the German side?" There is no evidence that any Bible expert found such a passage, about Germany, in the Bible.
As for your assertion that "God is with us applied to the Union side"; I see no Biblical passages regarding the Union 1861-1865 either.
For your consideration: Jesus' words regarding the permanency of Mosaic Law.
Matthew 5: 18 KJV
Have heaven and earth has passed? Has all has been fulfilled?
Keep in mind the Biblically predicted Second Coming has not happened yet.
@@reasonablespeculation3893 My "gallop" was largely confirmed by you. "Gott Mitt Uns" was a conceit by the Germans that their cause was just and that God was on their side. Of course the Bible has no support for this. See my first assertion. Nor is a Bible verse applicable to God being on the Union side during the Civil War. I facetiously quoted Napoleon for how God decides which side to support. I don't think he was quoting the Bible.
I am not a Biblical scholar but in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." My reading of the New Testament is that Jesus was unhappy with the legalisms that followed from the original 10 commandments. My interpretation is he was saying, "Let's make this a little more simple..." I think he was a little tired of money changers in the temple and the head religious people looking the other way. I'm speaking metaphorically here by the way.
In any case, I respect the Bible but I don't like cherry-picking quotes and saying, "See here? This is where it says homosexuality is an abomination." Maybe my quote above is cherry picking too, but I await your more learned opinion about whether Jesus central message was love or not. Maybe I'm all wet, but in my 70 years on the planet (which includes extensive Catholic, Methodist, and Buddhist education) my view is that people are free to act and the miseries and goodnesses are attributable to human action.
My "gallops" began with a contemporary interpretation that the Civil War was God's doing. Abraham Lincoln believed this as well. I just don't buy it.
BTW, Jesus was born at a time (which I'm sure you know) that there was a strong sect of Jews who believed that the end was near. One reason Jesus resonated with people in his time is that they thought that the Messiah was here. 2024 years later a lot of people have been born and died and the end of times and the Second Coming is still a non-event. I'll check in with you in 2024 more years. In the meantime, it is up to us humans to "form a more perfect union".
I have held this view for years. My daughter now teaches middle school Civics and History. She often cringes at the lessons the curriculum requires which are approved by the education system in their myopic view of the Civil War. She sprinkles in, that all students must ask questions and do research to glean the truth and formulate their opinion based on the all the facts . But, alas, we all know the winners write the history..............Thanks for your insight
I'm glad that someone has finally explained the civil war from the points of view of the three persons actually responsible
a journalist, a minister/author, and an English political commentator, after the war?
@@marqsee7948 Exactly! while there may have been 20 or 30 million people around at the time (includong soldiers generals politicians slaves et al) we are lucky to hear from the 3 people who could clearly see what all those others could not
oh no, not exactly. 'the three persons actually responsible' is an oopsie@@forddon
@@marqsee7948 I meant to say "three people responsible" because my comment was intended as a back handed insult to the so called historian who made the video, but in a subtle sarcastic way...so not an oopsie at all
back handed insults are not mistakes? Why not be direct, then? If your comment is meant to be read by the public, responsible wording and phrasing is important, to be understood.@@forddon
Thank you!
Interesting. I suspect there are more reasons, however. The drive by the North for a central bank, and Federal overreach that threatened States Rights should be on the list. Also, while the North was largely industrial, the South was largely agricultural. The South's economy required cheap and stable labor. The North did too, but managed that in a different way (like company stores, labor payments in company script, and wages kept ridiculously low, justified by trying to curtail drunkenness.). One of your examples alluded to different opinions on tariffs and trade. Those topics could do with some expansion.
The economic vs the moralistic abolitionists split could use a bit more fleshing out as well.
Overall... good job.
@billharm6006...You are correct, the North also ...." ...required cheap and stable labor." Yes, the North managed that need in a different way, And this "different way", and the want of cheap labor were children, very young children, many as young as six years old.... who were forced to work 16-18 hrs. every day with very little pay...almost nothing....There were few if any safety concerns for the children and many died and/or badly injured and mutilated in the mills. How is this any different from slavery?
And the North had slaves, too. Not as many as the South, but slaves nonetheless. But when talking about the Civil War and slavery...the subject of atrocious child labor, and of the North also owning slaves, is hardly ever...if ever....mentioned. Why...???
@@marbleman52 For many years the Irish made excellent slaves, then along came the Italians,..
Before watching, I say "To preserve the Union".
After listening, far more complicated. When I try to discuss the cause(S) of the civil war, if I even suggest other contributing causes, it triggers so many people who want a simple Good vs. Evil evaluation.
the majority of people these days cant seem to handle any kind of nuance at all, everything is black and white, even though the reality is far from that. its my experience that the more someone insists something is only good vs evil, black or white, its just a reflection on their inability to consider complex concepts and critical thinking. in other words, they are just dumb. oh, and its also virtue signaling, they get to attach themselves to something that they think gives them kind of worth.
My great greats were farmers in Wisconsin.
They were required by the fugitive slave act to apprehend, and hold in the county jail and to return the escaped slave to the owner at county expense. The county then had to raise taxes to pay for this.
Thanks for sharing this account from your family's history.
Great point. Wisconsin was nullifying federal law ironically pointing to the 1798 and 1799 kentucky and virginia resolutions written to reject the aliens and sedition act to reject the fugitive slave act.
I'm an Iowan. Same story here, although being closer to the border, we sometimes had bands of armed Missourians breaking down doors at night looking for escaped slaves.
So much for states' rights, eh?
And the cost wasn't the worst of it. The act meant all citizens had to support slavery, even though who thought it was a moral abomination. It was equivalent to forcing citizens to pay for abortions with their tax money. The money isn't the issue it is the forcible use of our money to do what we don't agree with.
Not after secession they didn’t, only the border states that didn’t secede
Razorfist agrees and you are both right.
The civil war exposed one of the limitations of federalism. Without explicitly defining a right as in the bill of rights u create ambiguity around federal versus state powers.
The Declaration of Independence is the Organic Law of the United States of America, and it does clearly state that governments are instituted among men and that the people have the unalienable right to form, amend, or reform their own government in their pursuit of happiness.
The nature of the States as free, independent, and sovereign nations is made crystal clear via the Treaty of Paris dated 3rd September 1783 and the original Articles of Confederation which established the "perpetual union" that was dissolved by implicit acts of secession when the Constitution was ratified to form "a more perfect union" (not a nation).
you're right, southern slavery sould've been explicitly granted so northerners would've stopped their radical abolitionism
@@PersistentPatriot I've said nothing of the sort. You're obviously unaware that there were significantly more abolition societies in the South than in the North. The issue was never whether slavery would come to an end, but how the blacks could be integrated into society.
Where the Yankees wanted the blacks to die out as a race within the Union, the Southerners cared for what would become of them if they freed without having the skills to survive in a free market economy.
Presidents and even Lincoln wanted them repatriated to Africa, stop the lies and stop playing with me.@@gaiustacitus4242
Life on the Civil War Research Trail, you might want to research this one. I read about it years back and it's on my old computer that broke down. Back then it wasn't allowed for a Attorney to run for President of the United States of America, and Abraham Lincoln was a Attorney even if he was self taught. "No Lawyers In Public Office". This may had been the reason Abe was temporary taken off the Ballot, as we recently learned. This was Ratified by enough States as soon as the State of Virginia Signed it too, but that's just where the Civil War began and the place where this Document was going to be Signed burned down, along with the Ratification to be Sign. I was however found in some Book, in 1983?, with it, 1825 'Constitution of The United States', 'A old-book of the-Constitution' pdf about it. It was the original 13th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution and later replaced it with another reason for the 13th Amendment. Another thing was the economic problems in the South due to they were paying much higher taxes, I've read sometimes as much as 50% more. It really had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, in order for Abraham Lincoln to pay off the Property Clause Debt, where people could could buy property here in the USA, including foreign governments (which btw they been trying to use that Property Clause to sell, as if it we still owe that Debt, illegally I might add. And they passed a Law long ago, barring foreign governments from buying U.S. Lands, which they are illegally doing anyways at this time) When Abe Lincoln let the Central Bank of England pay off our Civil War Debt, we were trapped, as the Forefathers, Founders of our Country warned us about, not to have anything to do with The Central Bank of England, and Abe did it anyways, that's when his decision cause us all to become Slaves, to The Central Banks and back under England's thumb. I wish I could get that hard drive from my old computer to get that Book information. However I did find it in a File I sent to my email. 'old-book-of-the-constitution' pdf and a Blog?, News article from Liberty Beacon on July 27th, 2018. It's still there online, as I just check.
An interesting three individual perspectives. The first captures a reality of a major cause for the initiation of secession, the political impacts of the expansion (or not) of slavery into the western territories. But there is more to the moral, political, and economic complexities. I recommend to you "And There Was Light, Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle" by Jon Meacham, particularly the first chapter. While in Kentucky my research into the late 1700s-early 1800s division of the Baptist churches in Virginia and Kentucky over the morality of slavery took me to many of the same primary resources Meacham has found. It's a revelation to explore the anti-slavery moral foundations of the community that the Lincoln family was a part of. It is a counterpoint to a fundamental assumption of the first document you read.
The term "civil war was never used by the people that fought in the war between the states.
Not a big fan of the Gettysburg Address, are you?
@@preparedsurvivalist2245 Did Lincoln fight in the war between the states?
@@pamelarose1834 Not familiar with what a commander and chief does, are you?
@@preparedsurvivalist2245 Are we talking about your commander in chief Joe Biden?
Or is it Kamala Harris now?
Wasn't about slavery, it was about money and power, and still is
Good video
It literally dawned on me a few weeks ago that they referred to it as “the war between the states” and not the civil war.
It's a 'civil war' when two groups are trying to take over the same government. The South had formed a new union of sovereign States 7 months before Lincoln realized the economic impact and declared war. The Confederate States had no interest in taking over the existing government in Washington, DC.
Read the book Battle Cry of Freedom to find out.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era is a 1988 book on the American Civil War, written by James M. McPherson. It is the sixth volume of the Oxford History of the United States series. An abridged, illustrated version of the book was published in 2003. It won the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for History.
Nice reference to a source with the time to gather information, the time for reflection, and the time to sort out and communicate the numerous viewpoints of a complex and costly conflict.
That is an established history book. An establishment historian changes history in key areas in settle ways so it will achieve an outcome that is acceptable to families like the Rockefeller family.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 - And movies and myth and stories change history in key areas to make it acceptable to families who wish to avoid the shame of having fought the war to preserve slavery. If you doubt this, just look what happened to Longstreet's reputation after the war. His reputation was destroyed -indeed the loss of the war was blamed on him by established historians of the Southern Historical Society- because he had the temerity to let bygones be bygones and join the Republican Party.
@@5metoo The north did not fight the war to end slavery. Lincoln in his first inaugural address stated he would support the Corwin Amendment to the constitution. This would have made slavery permanent in the south. It was the northerner states who proposed this amendment. The War Aims Resolution was passed in Congress which stated they did not want to interfere with slavery in the states. You forget that slavery existed in the northern states. Delaware did not end slavery until 1865. Slavery existed in Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland and other states. There were about 14 percent of the slaves in the United States of America and 60 percent in the Confederate States of America. Slavery existed in Washington DC until 1862. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. Read the document. To summarize, it stated that slaves in the Confederate States of America are free and slaves in the United States of America are not free. Slavery is wrong but it was legal until 1865 in the north and the south. Seventy five percent of southerners did not own any slaves. The 1860 Republican Party position was Anti-Slavery in the Western territories but they were Pro-slavery in the south. The north was complicit in slavery. They were using slave cotton in the factories. Yankee ships along with English ships were responsible for the slave trade. Remember it was the New England states that dominated shipping not the south. The northern states were providing credit and finance for purchasing slaves. My defense of correct history is not a defense of slavery. The problems we have today with our government have to do with Lincoln. Lincoln created the all powerful government that we fear today. This destroyed the union which was based on decentralized power. Today we have centralized power. The north waged war against the south because a free trade south would have devastated northern industry.
@@libertycoffeehouse3944 - The initial cause was secession. But the root cause of secession was slavery, and this was recognized as the war dragged on and it eventually did become a war to end slavery since it was recognized there would be no peace or restored union with slavery. Fun fact: by the time the Civil War began in 1861, the song "John Brown's Body" had spread throughout the Union army.
So your saying slavery was the pinnacle? Computer analysis reveals not one word , slave or slavery ,was hit on 1000's of confederate letters written home bound.
That is incorrect. Historian James McPherson did exactly that analysis for his book "For Cause and Comrades" and found that 20% of Confederate letters mentioned the cause of slavery.
@@aaronfleming9426 That's an old debate.A few letters were later produced from officers but they were tied to a few wealthy plantations owners.
No dieing confederate soldier said "I was trying to preserve slavery ."
No dieing union soldier said, " I was trying to free the slave "
@@BryanGilcrease20% is a lot different than your factually incorrect assertion that "not one word" was hit on. And since 30% of southern households had slaves, there were plenty of men with direct interest in preserving slavery...but why would they write home about that? Everyone already knew that. Their loved ones wanted news about their healthy, their adventures, etc.
What is far more interesting from a political standpoint is the letters of northern soldiers who became more and more strongly abolitionist as the war went on and they saw the horrific impact of slavery for themselves.
But of course no one is thinking about politics as they bleed out from having their entrails shredded by a piece of shrapnel. What men think about when they die has little or nothing to do with why their political leaders chose war in the first place.
Thankfully, the historical record is intact and quite clear. The political elite of the south seceded, and went to war, to preserve slavery. The political elite of the north responded with violence to preserve the status quo of union.
Most of the soldiers were caught up in "A rich man's war, a poor man's fight". We poor folk need to think a little harder before we sign up to kill each other.
@@aaronfleming9426 of course about theme and figuratively speaking. I'm not saying that no words were spoken around the camp fires, but probably not much. New materials are found constantly . Tennessee parks division battle field archivists, still say not one word.I let common since prevail. Who's writing, who's the audience and when. A year after the civil war ended, they abolish slavery , 100000 slaves were freed ,and you say that represents 30% of southern ownership .
@@BryanGilcreaseI don't know why the Tennessee parks division is still issuing misinformation. But lots of people are issuing misinformation about the Civil War, so it's not surprising. The Lost Cause "historians" threw a lot of crap around and it's still stuck in people's eyes.
No, "I" don't say that 30% of southern households own slaves. The U.S. Census says that.
See, I'm presenting you with facts that any person can research in just a few minutes. You're trying to dodge the facts by appealing to "common sense", but that doesn't fly. Common sense is what you use when you *don't* have the facts.
Anyway, common sense doesn't agree with you either. Rank-and-file soldiers have rarely fought for the same things their political leaders tell them to fight for. I've demonstrated that already. Now you're just dodging. Come back at me with some real facts, or say, "Whoa, cool, I've been misinformed, sure am glad I met this guy on the internet who informed me more accurately, all without cussing or calling me names!"
Good stuff
I just listened carefully. I am not a highly educated man, but to those writers were. I'm still not exactly sure what they said. But thats ok. Thanks for the video
The authors were not well educated men. Had that been the case, then they would have stated clearly the right of the free, independent, and sovereign States to secede from the Union and that any war waged by the Union was an international conflict without just cause. Secession had slavery among its causes; the war had nothing to do with slavery.
I love these attempts to find a single cause and ignore the other factors in the war. Saying the Civil War was about Slavery is like saying WWII was about the Holocaust. Both were evil things and wrong, but just a subset of the whole. As a kid, I could never wrap my hands around how during all the build up, the adults in the room could not sit down and figure out a reasonable plan to stop this. There were men of high integrity on both sides and some very scholarly and stoic people on both sides. Now sadly, I get it. I see the same thing repeating itself today. I wonder in 150 years what the historians will say? Will illegal immigration be credited for the war? Will big government spending, Federal overreach, moral bankruptcy, Federal defaults, or some other unknown be twisted at the root? There is a great recording on YT from Julius Howell if I remember right, an actual Confederate soldier discussing what he remembered. One of the things that keeps coming up in stories in how the South felt underrepresented because of the North's density of population in the cities. That sounds awfully familiar to people wanting to do away with Electoral College. You have the South talking about taxation and policies that benefitted industry but hurt farming. You had big debates about State rights vs. Fed rights. That looks alot like what Abbott and Texas is doing on the border vs. Biden and his Border Patrol policies. The other thing is that people miss that the Confederacy did not want to rule the whole, they wanted to leave and be left to their own government. That is why you hear terms like "War of the States" and "War of Northern Aggression". People talk about history repeating itself and I am afraid we are seeing it happening before our eyes and those adults who see it are being silenced by the radicals on both sides.
That's a pretty insightful comment. I hope we don't come to a second war, if we do it will be literally big cities vs small towns. And whatever reason the survivors give for it will be far short of the mark. Thanks for your insight.
I think the soldiers themselves would not agree. The Irish troops mostly quit after the Immancipation and Grant's war of attrition began in earnest in 63'. There was such animosity between Blacks and Irish at the time, if the Irish were told they were fighting to defeat slavery they would not have signed up to begin with or quit sooner. Witness the "Draft Riot" that amounted to the Irish rising up against forced conscription while hunting down Blacks (and killing some) who were favored for employment over the Irish leaving many of them with no options for survival besides joining the Army. Ken Burns discovered many Southerners were fighting "because you are here". I believe slavery as a cause was invented later in the war and that myth has been perpetuated ever since as a plank for the division sought by the Democrats to divide the nation and use that theme as a cash cow to this day. Used by LBJ to facilitate the raiding of the National Treasury through the faux racial programs in the 60's.
The south left the union because slavery would end once enough free states joined the Union to outlaw it. Read why they said they left the union. The North initially fought to maintain the Union
So even then rich men used economics to pit the poor Irish against the blacks just to get soldiers.🤔
One shouldn't think that only the North was being chastised by the war. I am quite sure that Atlanta Georgia, Columbia SC and Richmond VA would all certainly agree on that point.
at the time wasn't considered civil war .... guess the victor writes the history
You are correct. It wasn't a civil war, because it was two different countries. They couldn't tell the kids that Lincoln sent a bunch of a-holes south, to murder southerners and abscond with their valuables. Burn whatever is too heavy to carry away. They would have taken back whole mountains, if it were possible.LOL
Interesting comparison and juxtaposition of motivations for the war. People even nowadays seem to prefer one interpretation over the others. Nevertheless, I have imagined that if the Southerners had preempted Lincoln by freeing the slaves, it would have taken the wind out of the sails of the North, England might have come in on the side of the South, and Lincoln would have had to sue for peace, more than likely.
I come from one of those stretched out families, where my grandfather was born in 1858 in Pennsylvania, and my dad was born in 1907 -I turned 73 the other day. It's kind of weird to think that my grandfather was 5 years old when Gettysburg was going on and he was in western Pennsylvania at the time. The second strange thing is that, watching the movie Gettysburg, I noticed that R.E. Lee was born in 1807, also on the exact birthday as my dad -100 years to the day. Purely coincidences, but it makes the Late, Great, Unpleasantness seem rather closer that it might be otherwise.
From reading journals, diaries and letters written during that time in history by the people who actually lived through it, the cause of the Civil War was different things to different people. Ken Burns' amazing documentary about the Civil War spelled this out clearly. When the morale of the troops in the Union army fell to a new low in the third year of the war, Pres. Lincoln then invoked the idea that the troops were fighting for freedom of the slaves. Abolitionists were convinced from the beginning that the war was God's wrath upon the nation for the sin of slavery. A large number of people truly believed that the war was a fight for State's rights and that the Federal Government had overstepped the bounds of their authority.
And yet the political leaders who enacted secession were abundantly clear: they did it to preserve slavery forever. Why individual soldiers went off to fight is interesting, but does not explain why the war was triggered in the first place.
IF you can find it may I recommend Allan Nevins "The Ordeal Of The Union".
The civil war was about $$MONEY$$ !!!!
Yep, the Confederacy wanted that free labor.
All wars are about Money. The question really is, what will they use to deflect attention from that fact?
Yep. Can't stop that flow of slave-produced cotton!
Misleading clickbait. The actual subject of this podcast is the explanations of the civil war in England by visiting American self-appointed experts, to English audiences. This video does not discuss what explanations of the causes of the war were given by Americans in their own country, speaking to their fellow Ameericans whether North and South.
The fact that the States (Southern AND Northern) had to send units of troops to do the fighting tells us that the war of 1860-65 was indeed a War Between the States. The Southern people were not trying to take over the Federal government. They wanted to separate from the Union. The rallying cries for the war in the North were: Rally 'Round the Flag, Boys! and "Save the Union". That was how they got men to join their State Armies.
When you no longer can enforce the agreements (Constitution) via the ballot box, you either revolt or succeed. The south succeeded and the north did not want to lose control over them or their economic resources.
3 views? Thanks, no. I thought this was going to be a balanced look, not a selective analysis. Turned off vid at 0:58
Question: "What caused the Civil War?"
Answer: "Anger"
Next question.
some of these criticisms are still valid today....
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army?
chuckbaldwinlive.Com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3336/The-Confederate-Flag-Needs-To-Be-Raised-Not-Lowered.aspx
That is the best comment on the subject i have read here.Thank you for that bit of history.Makes perfect sense as the victors always write the history.
Excellent. Thank you for the factual truth.
Then, like present day, journalists, pundits and politicians had an enormous supply of hot air.
Please find a more coherent version of the economic argument. This one is not coherent. Seriously. It says virtually nothing.
We can go back to these ideas origins by visiting the southern church sermons of the time.
When did it start? No one knows, I would say it started somewhere in the 1770s.
Yes. Which state or region of states would rule the nation. All about power and money.
@@mikegraves6070Yes. The power of some people to make money by owning other people.
You started out 0:23 saying that the reasons were “all connected to slavery”, but in the three letters that you read, I noted that references to slavery were very sparse.
You limited your research to slavery connected views. It was the excessive taxation and tariff of the North (federal budget was 80 million taxes and tariffs on the South were 75 million).Lincoln was willing to keep slavery if the South did not secede. He was a racist who wanted to send all blacks back to Africa or to South America. He was also a admirer of Marxism making him the first RINO. To try to save face he issued the Emancipation Proclamation almost 3 years in to the war which only effected slaves in the South which at the time was a foreign country. It did not effect slaves held in the north. Black men fought in the Confederate army and were paid the same wages as white soldiers (and other races) and could become officers unlike in the union army where they could not. Please remember that there many blacks in the South who had never been slaves
Right it started over taxes and tariffs, the South was the 4th largest economy in the world at the time and the founding fathers did buy the country of Liberia for the black people to go back to around 1821-23 so slavery was already being phased out.
Example: New Orleans. There were wealthy blacks living there that were part of society (not segregated society) and also owned their own slaves. There was also a lot of interracial relations and marriages. Reconstruction bulldozed the advancements in New Orleans and destroyed families. It wasn't;t the freeing of slaves...it was the competition and animosity introduced by the northerners and federal control.
Government documents are still available which demonstrate that the North paid about 80% of tariffs.
No, black men did not fight for the Confederacy, except for a very few cases. In one of the very few documented cases they were observed manning a cannon...under the threat of death from a pistol-wielding rebel officer.
In fact, no lesser general than Patrick Cleburne argued that slaves *should* be given freedom in exchange for fighting. He was shouted down in every part of the Confederacy, until March of 1863 when a few companies of black soldiers were recruited and drilled, but never given weapons.
@@parajerryThe interracial marriage in New Orleans dated back to French rule. By 1860 white people did not marry colored people.
When the wealthy blacks of New Orleans offered to serve the Confederate military, they were turned down stone cold. They joined the Union army instead, where some of the units saw their first action at Milikens Bend.
The racial problems in New Orleans during reconstruction were caused by white terrorists who were trying to restore the antebellum social order. They largely succeeded, thanks to several notorious massacres of innocent people.
I think what was written about what spell general george thomas's family during the nate turner insurrection would be an excellent piece to read..
I would like to know what happened to the slaves in his family. Who tried to be accessories to that after everything was settled
The answer to the Civil War can be answered so quickly. Was the war fought over slavery. Absolutely not.
Imagine eleven states leave the Union. That left on Maryland and Delaware having slaves. That meant the very day the last CSA state left the United States, the USA could have abolished slavery. They didn't, slavery wasn't an issue.
Abe Lincoln had two emancipation proclamations, neither said anything about abolishing slavery in the US.
To know the answer, what needs to be known first. The southern states paid 80% of US taxes from selling cotton to Britain. That left the Northerners out.
Then Abraham was going to revisit the previously talked about tariff of the south, trying to force the south to sell cotton for penny's so the north could make clothes and sell it.
Everyone who thinks differently should get off crack
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. “ Mississippi
“For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery” Georgia
“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.” South Carolina
The states said why the left the union, slavery
@@Tadadsky Love how you keep quoting short snippets of statements made by the aristocracy...out of context...and refuse to actually have a discussion. I suspect you have the smallest amount of actual knowledge and have opinions based on what the popular media tells you...which is about 95% lies on ANY topic.
@@parajerryit was the easiest quote. You can also look at South Carolina “the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” Georgia “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery”
Don’t forget the Cornerstone Speech by Confederate VP Stephens in March 1861 when he said the immediate cause of the rupture in the Union was slavery as Jefferson had predicted. What context am I missing? Why shouldn’t I believe what the South said at the time?
Translation for those who watched but didn't understand: Only number 2 mentions an issue with slavery, however, coming from someone who utilized at minimum the Old Testament, their moral complaint is laughable at best. Numbers 1 and 3 both indicate that the corruption of the north led to an attack on the south. First, they used legislation and adamantly opposed new states if they even THOUGHT they'd be slave states. They also utilized a Communo-Fascist expansion method across the north to better facilitate their upcoming war effort and resource removal to the north (Communism was the new social model they used for their "infrastructure" expansion and Fascism was what they manipulated Christianity into at this time for the moral subjugation of their new voting block). The second was a multi-faceted grab of federal powers facilitated by the growing military threat of the north. The north targeted primarily poor Irish, Scottish and German neighborhoods for their enslavement into the Union Army; however, they called it a Draft, because they'd taken control of the federal government and could rewrite all definitions of control. Additionally, the ranks of the Union military were suspiciously devoid of large numbers of anglo-british descendants; further indicating that the North used the Civil War as a silent genocide against non-English European descendant American citizens. In short, since their inception, the Republican party has been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes one can commit upon their countrymen. Their complicity in the racial bigotry that they helped create before, during and after the Civil War has caused them to never admit to their wrongdoings. If you question about them being Communist, go look at what Republican/Conservatives call Communist behavior (wealth redistribution, identity politics, etc.) and compare it to the propaganda and actions the Republican party engaged in post-Civil War. This is hidden history; kept from you to keep you ignorant and ashamed. The Republicans enslaved America with capitalism after they cemented their control after the Civil War. On a side note: they were such bad stewards and so corrupt that the Democrat party started winning Republican cities in the North by the early 20th century. The Democrats have simply adapted the Republicans approach and constantly evolve it to keep themselves in power.
Ironic, sounds like people did not understand reality back the nany better than they do now. The Northern economy grew immensely both during the war and in the gilded age that followed. Humans were then as now good at projecting rather than objective observation.
Very nicely researched and presented; thank you for your efforts.
While I sincerely wish that the institution of slavery had never become established upon these shores, that was long before my time. There are several aspects of the decades-long runup to the conflict that was the American Civil War which are seldom touched upon, first of which is that as unethical as slavery was, it was completely legal in the southern states; opposition was wholly from northern states, all of which had tried slavery and been unable to make it profitable on their own soil. Was the opposition then rooted in religious or ethical concerns, or was it jealousy at watching the detested southerners (who were universally viewed as uneducated rubes) making huge profits? Non-military solutions were certainly available; the Federal gov't could have reimbursed slave owners for each slave they wished freed and then passed legislation to ban the practice, but there wasn't enough money in the treasury. Much more expedient to goad and insult southerners over a period of decades until an excuse was precipitated, then once those areas had been invaded, the Feds could simply do as they wished. If the real reason for the conflict was concern for the well-being of the slaves, then why was so little done on their behalf post conflict? Northern textile mills then had all the cotton they needed for pennies on the dollar and the southern states were reduced to the status of an occupied territory for decades afterward. The former slaves were, during that period, in a worse situation than they had been while actually slaves, as someone previously had to provide them food and shelter. Almost everything we've ever been taught about the CW is simply hogwash, and a cursory perusal of the facts is usually enough to make that clear...
Your claims are grossly incorrect. First, more than 421,000 blacks continued to be held in slavery in the North for 7 months after the war ended. If ending slavery had been a real cause of the war, then all slaves in the North would have been set free before Lincoln initiated his illegal war of invasion and conquest.
Second, there are far more abolition societies in the South than in the North. The debate wasn't about if slavery would end, but how the blacks would be integrated into society. Many slave owners feared that the blacks would be unable to function in free society or to provide for themselves. The white supremacists in the North believed that the blacks would die out if the "peculiar institution of the South" by which slaves were provided for from cradle to grave was brought to and end.
Third, the North cared nothing for the slaves. More than 1,000,000 freed blacks perished in Union "freed men camps" (which were truly concentration camps) as a result of disease borne of unsanitary conditions, hunger, and starvation. The Yankees cannot hold themselves out to be morally superior when by their hands so many perished.
@@gaiustacitus4242
So it's pretty much the same today with the modern plantation. As Dems espouse today the blacks cannot subsist without whitey's help. So the nation must support them either by gov programs or allow them to freely steal.
Illegals now make it even more difficult for blacks to be productive workers
Yes, we all know slavery was the major thorny issue leading to secession. Were there other reasons also? Obviously, yes. However, we like our answers simple nowadays, no complexities or moral ambiguities allowed.
The real question is not why the southern states seceded, but why Lincoln chose war.
Lost in all this is the fact that Lincoln still had a decision to make, whether to invade the CSA and use military force. He could have just let the CSA go its own way, similar to how nowadays neither party is allowed to use force to keep the other party in a marriage, and divorce is granted, there is 'no fault' required.
Lincoln opted for war. That was entirely his choice. It was also an illegal, unconstitutional choice. Congress declares war, not a President. Congress can suspend habeas corpus, not a President, etc. Presidents are not allowed to jail justices, jail legislators, have goon squads, shut down the free press, etc. But, then, tyrants often behave that way. Tyrants often engage in wars of choice, especially to hang on to or increase their power.
Lincoln turned away the CSA delegates there to negotiate a peaceful transition.
The real reason for the War of Northern Aggression is that one man, Lincoln, behaving in numerous ways like a tyrant, chose war.
The reason Lincoln hated the south so much was that his mother had been a bound servant in N.C. and when it looked like N.C. might not secede he took steps to make sure they did
According to Bob Dylan, a trawl through the press cuttings of the period show that slavery was not mentioned until some time into the Civil War. I feel that most contemporaries would have got their information that way than through the writings of these three scholars.
This is only a small sampling of the voluminous writings about slavery before and into the war. They appeared in books, magazines and newspapers. Included is the secession ordinances of the states that joined the Confederacy, all of which prominently cite slavery.
Yes, agree that prosperity caused the War of Northern Agression. Prosperity in the south brought about by Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin and the cotton trade with the Birtish empire.
Confederacy were British loyalists before war and Nazis after. They weren't sending their best and their bs and.propaganda dogs us to the modern day.