Reconstruction after the Civil War Explained in 10 Minutes
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- Mr. Hughes through the 1800's like butta'. Easy to digest, Mr. Hughes covers the basic causes and facts about the role of the government as it related to the war. Specifically designed for the US History and Government regents exam in NY State.
Thanks Jim, I am pretty progressive but I try to keep an open mind when teaching. Balancing a tradition textbook with Howard Zinn can be tricky at times. I agree Lincoln was a player but I would add he was a brilliant one. And I think in his hearts of hearts he knew slavery was immoral. Thanks again for the kudos.
You sir are a badass. Because of your videos, I have received a 91 on my last exam. You make history interesting!
Yes, I may of stumbled across this idea as well. In fact it is in one of my videos entitled the Emancipation Proclamation Didn't Free the Slaves. I'm 39 years old and I know this. And I am beyond impressed with your intelligence and further more go-getterness for watching online videos and interacting with academia. If I had an extra hundred bucks, I would bet it on you.
Dude, Thank you very much... I have this topic due tomorrow and all that you have taught me is going to help me... Thank you once again, and I really appreciate it.
Thanks alot, really easy to grasp, Im from Scotland and iv been trying to cram all day for an exam tomorrow but this has really broke down the important factors to focus on, thanks !
AP- US Exam this week- Your videos are SAVING me!
Thanks, I hate I screwed up the date..... the woes of a concept teacher.
@KVASEY
I see the EP not in the border states more of a decision not to risk their unionship but your point is well taken. It is certainly possible for two well intention people to come to different conclusions. I assure you a major thrust in my class is for my kids to question, explore and create. Peace.
@gta4sergio yeah, I previously posted that. I was mentally connecting Lincoln's elections and the immed. secession of the deep south. But yes, militarily the war starts at Sumpter. 1861, April. Thanks for you inquiry.
It wasnt the Republicans who threw us into the Civil War, it was the seceding South and their misjudgment that the Republicans would take action against slavery. That I think appeared unlikely in the short term, in fact I think Lincoln would of went out of his way to accommodate the Southern states to avoid war.
Great Video. Exam on Tuesday and this really helped :)
amazing, thank you very much. Just what i needed, a general overview!
and also remember it was the Federal Gov. who executed John Brown.
woooo i got my regents tomorrow and this helped alot my teacher this year only taught by making us watch videos he was terrible
THANK YOU SO MUCH(: needed this for my US history exam! :D
Keith, when Rutherford B. Hayes was elected in 1876, Samuel Tilden had won the popular vote, by 200,000 votes, (a fun fact i tought you should have mentioned). Also, Hayes was of course Governor of Ohio. But Tilden was also a Notherner. He was the Governor of New York at the time.
He is very interesting to watch and smart!
Awesome material and said sir ! :)
Mr Hughes. Slavery was one of the main reasons for the american civil war. The Lincoln Douglas debates proved the importance of this issue. Lincoln emerged from the debates as the anti slave man. When Lincoln won the 1860 election, the south bolted from the union.
@KVASEY
I suck at math and years, you are right, thanks, 1.5 years. I do include the narrative that you suggest and you are only seeing a ten minute lecture, I do a two day lecture in class on it and we do discuss these ideas openly and freely. Lincoln did shift his focus to slavery as a war aim, I think as much to influence England but also agree that in his heart he was against slavery and enjoyed ending it. I think without politics he is an abolitionist. I cant escape his gamemanship.
This is awesome. You've helped me out with my intro African American Studies class. Thank you!
i finally understand! thank u!
I agree. Lincoln felt that slavery would slowly disolve if left on course. He also felt it should not be allowed to spread to the territories. His views changed after two years of war. It was then that he sat down and wrote the emansipation proclamation. This document along with the civil war abolished slavery. In his political speaches in 1860, he did not plan on doing any of it. What counts is what he actually did. People don't give him credit for it now.
You. Are. Awesome.
Great video. Glad to hear a history teacher saying the civil war was not all about slavery. How can the average "Johnny Reb" go to war when only a small percentage owned slaves? Slavery was an evil that needed to be purged from our nation. But it was not all the South's fault. There were slave owners and racists in the North, too. But for generations, the South has born the brunt of it all.
I'm a French student at uni !AND THANK YOU *_* ! you save my exam haha =)
p.s. I do enjoy your videos. Good info... excellent conviction... Keep'm Rollingggggg.... :)
@mdstalla
I am not arguing there was not an abolitionist movement... just not inside the US Government. While I think Lincoln had progressive views regarding slavery, I do not believe he fought the war to end it..... it became a matter of circumstances and the war itself which led him to take steps like the Emancipation..... remember even though Lincoln was progressive his early idea on reconstruction involved shipping blacks back to Africa.
@KVASEY I am not arguing there was not an abolitionist movement, just that it did not sway major influence over the gov. I know Lincoln was part of the Free Soil, party, but do your research, it wa less of an abolitionist party and more of an economic westward party. And as disturbing as I make you, I encourage to look at the regents questions on the Civil War in NY state, the answer is the war was fought to save the union. And please explain why the emanicpation only freed rebel state slaves
I would concur with that summation. Lincoln did take action though, including habeaus suspension in order to WD-40 that process of them staying. Although WD-40 loosens things and makes the analogy really make little sense. And I also agree that they claimed they left over slavery. My argument rests on the intention of Lincoln, which was never to free slaves... so in fact the war was over miscommunication. Which I am happy about b/c it ended slavery. My brain hurts. thanks for ur comment.
The CC subtitles are rather accurate :)
Ist april 2022 and it’s really cool that this just was recommended to me :D
wow just learned more than 10 months in my history class haha
thanks a lot
Do a video about the patriot Nathan Bedford Forest.
This is a good lecture. Keep it up with the analogies! And I chuckled to myself when you referred the federal government to daddy.
It's cool to see how old a vast majority of the comments are
you really skimmed through the Civil War!
Where do you teach? You must be a great teacher... love your style.
Also, making inferences based on his 'power base', the Republicans, (born from the Abolition Movement) would also be a worthwhile investigation. Lincoln was chosen to achieve their goal, run their agenda. Lincoln definitely talked out of both sides of his mouth, proving he was a politician... but, better check his references if you really want to know where he's coming from...
Didn't the Civil war start with the firing on Ft. Sumter on April 12th, 1861?
“If Lincoln was really interested in freeing the slaves, what’s he waiting for? With the onset of the secession the preservation of the union became Lincoln’s top priority. His strong anti-slavery stance was sidelined by the greater crisis. It wasn't a non-issue as the speaker implies. The emancipation proclamation didn’t happen until 1863 because Lincoln knew it wouldn’t carry any political weight until the North had a victory, which took far longer than expected due poor Union generalship.
@ItchMyFoot Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I’m gonna be watching you.-Sam Kinison, Back to School.
So often the claim is made that the South fought not for slavery but for state's rights, as though that wasn't just a more palatable term for virtually the same thing. Although, in fairness to the teacher who posted the video, I think his comments were only in reference to the Lincoln's motives and objectives. Cheers.
@hughesDV I had always hear that initially the war was fought to preserve the union first and foremost and that Lincoln didn't like slavery but he wasn't an abolitionist.
Mr. Devil, or is it Mr. Boy?... either way you are welcome. Good luck!
Ha. Fetus HHH.
I love this.
Not an issue at the time as blacks couldn't vote when the EP was issued and that later reality was not on the foreseeable horizon at the time of its issuance. That the blacks gained the vote later was a consequence of emancipation that developed as it was realized that the freedmen needed a political voice for their own protection.
Some in the Republican party yes... others not so much.... and the Free Soil Party was as much about free labor for economic reasons as much as anything..... I didn't see too many John Brown types in the Free Soil Party. but we are probably in more agreement than disagreement. And dont worry in 8th grade these kids were to see Lincoln as Lord Jesus Christ who battles slavery like a David versus a Goliath. Perhaps I am balancing the scales of historical justice.
Wouldn't that be "swaying" my audience as well. People can make up their own minds about what is inside the mans brains. I could care less, I am more interested in concepts than psycho analyzing dead peoples motives. The attempt to dismantle the Voting RIghts Act of 1965 is more of a concern and if a concept can facilitate that understanding, than booya, if not then oh well. I personally dont think he was racist for the time period,I just think he was a player. I also don't see him as a Christ.
From the South Carolina ordinance of secession, December 20, 1860; A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of theu United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery... he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
@hughesDV He didn’t have the constitutional authority to free slaves in non-rebel states. He knew a constitutional amendment was needed and was active in pushing it through congress. Lincoln’s goal at the outset was merely to restore the union to status quo, but once it became clear that reconciliation was impossible his war aim transitioned to, ending slavery. What a shame if Regents exams neglect this important point. BTW, AL’s inauguration 3/4/61 to the prelim EP 9/22/63 is 1.5 not 3 years.
Basically, he spoke up against slavery cause there was a gun to his head, no pun intended.
lol. That makes it a tremendously better apology.
Oui Oui. La bonne chance et moi espérons que vous souscrivez et dites à vos amis. (I obviously used an online translator and can only speak Pepe La Pew French.
The ideas here are not supported by the historical community. Slavery was THE issue behind the war, period. It had been the contentious issue around which all others revolved for some time. Slavery didn't just appear on the seen with the EP, slaves were being freed already by the Confiscation acts, fear for the future of slavery was the reason the south said it was leaving.
Not trying to sound rude but the Civil War started in 1861 not 1860
I don't hold a doctorates in history but, from what I've learned along the way... the Civil War started because the South seceded... got it... with you there... and... the South seceded ... because... uuuhhhhmmm... Lincoln was elected President of the U.S... with a Republican platform... i.e., Abolition etc... Not trying to go back to Socrates 101 ... but, I feel like we just came 'full circle' on this one.
@hughesDV Yes, I think you're right about that reason for excluding the border states.
@THEPROUDSON Lincoln to slavery is as Obama is to gay marriage. Read some zinn on Lincoln, he was the consummate political , not an abolishment partisan. Did Obama always want gay marriage...probably... Did he run on it ? No. But he was obviously mor liberal than his opponents on the issue. In the movie Lincoln you see him coming to grips with this sturuggle.
I've read that the civil war didn't technically end until 20 August 1866 when Johnson finally recognized Texas' Constitution.
I’m assuming that was in some sort of textbook in the south.
theoretically he was antislavery but he never committed to abolishing slavery and as far as into 1863 he was still dangling admission to the union of the southern slave states to the union w/ slavery. The Emancipation didnt free slaves in border states.I think the south bolted b/c of the illusion that Lincoln would free the slaves. Think about Obama and gay marriage, was he always for it? Probably? Did he use rhetoric to get elected that back burnered it? Yes. did he come round? Yes.
He had no power to stop slavery, except in states that were in rebellion.
Lincoln was a politician, maybe the best ever. Your quote above would have many students leaning toward the fact that; A. Lincoln was a racist and, B. Lincoln had NO intention of freeing the slaves. Whether he was being a 'racist' or merely working his audience and picking his fights is between he and God... but, as far as whether or not he intended to free the slaves... there are MANY quotes Sir you could draw from to sway your audience there as well... start with the 'House Divided' speech.
Hey Mr.Hughes... Just curious- have you ever read "Gone with the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell? Seeing the movie doesn't count- tho' it's a (rather cornball) classic. Woven in amid all Scarlett's ridiculous schemes to win Ashley (a dude, btw), there is actually some pretty interesting history on how the south was affected by the war- and a totally different take on how slaves were treated- which was probably NOT the case for the vast majority of them, but a good book none-the-less.
I find it funny that you are attempting to correct him when in fact all the facts you just stated, he stated in the first two minutes of his video.
That might be the worse apology ever but its a good start. I am not going to write this up, just think before you post an obscenity about someone you don't know. If you ever need any help in Global let me know, for a dou***beg, I am a pretty decent teacher.
Citizens and sovereigns live under two different jurisdictions sir . :) I'm with my forefathers a sovereign . :)
You're good. I'll have to listen to more of what you say. I hope you have something on how the two parties (Republican and Democrat) seemed to have switched philosophies, possibly known as the 'southern strategy'.
Both... XD Thank you :D
“Many people still have the misconception that this was fought to end slavery.” On the contrary, the notion that slavery had little or nothing to do with it has become the greatest misconception of the Civil War in our day. It’s disturbing to find a teacher among the crowd of those who want to wow others with the ‘everything you learned about the Civil War was wrong’ routine by spouting lesser known facts and from them drawing twisted conclusions. Watch videos by David W. Blight instead.
Abolitionism is no where in the Republican platform. Stopping the expansion of slavery to the West is but no abolitionism of slavery. Perhaps the South thought that Lincoln would but he never said that or proposed it. Hence the kunudrum
There was Constitutional support of slavery in the existing states. More eventual free states could change that.
Don' forget to mention the process of incorporation when talking about the 14th Amendment just to get people thinking a step higher. Great video nonetheless!
You betcha Brain Wrinkling the 14th Amendment
Does anyone else think he kind of looks a bit like Elton John? Just saying...
@jimlobue
"Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order. The Confederates of 1861-65 were much more honest about the importance of slavery than are the neo-Confederates of today." - Professor Brooks D. Simpson
I just made a better video on sectionalism. It is on my front page if you ever have the time. thanks for watching either way friend.
A question was posed, your answer came in the form of a direct quote (without quotation marks) ... It definitely would get people thinking... just saying... providing only one quote ... that goes in only one direction... doesn't really lead to analytical thinking... it more than likely fuels unsubstantiated opinion. Just saying... providing a couple of quotes or references, rather than one... would paint a more accurate picture... Lincoln, as the master politician. He was damn good.
b-i-n-g-o
Sounds drunk or high really.
this is totally incorrect
how
Ho Lee 💩
You look so young !