The Civil War was about Slavery - Ultimate General: Civil War - Union Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- In the intro of my new Ultimate General: Civil War series fighting from the Union side I discuss the cause of the Civil War, and why the South attempted to leave the union... it was about slavery.
The Battle Cry of Freedom - amzn.to/2jX5LQZ (Affiliate)
Civil War Causes - www.civilwarcau...
South Carolina - Articles of Secession - www.teachingush...
Civil War Was About Slavery - www.huffingtonp...
Confederates Say Yes We Fought For Slavery - www.jacksonfree...
"You can disagree if you want. But you're wrong." I respect your bluntness. 😊
Im stealing that one lol
I think it should be noted that Lost Causers aren't entirely wrong in their argument. The whole thing stands firmly on a middle ground that people tend not to see. The Civil War was fought over State's Rights. However, the right they fought over was their right to legally allow slavery. The Union, likewise, did not fight to free slaves. They fought to crush a rebellion, and the politicians at the time, who in the Union were mainly hardline abolitionists, took their smart opportunity to write into the Constitution an amendment that had to be ratified by the end reentering states in order to allow their politicians back into the senate. It was a very clever play to finally settle the single most divisive issue the United States has ever faced. We must remember that the Union did not abolish slavery in states that did not secede with the Emancipation Proclaimation. It was mainly a power play to undermine the Confederates and boost support for Republicans in the Union. The Civil War was inevitable unless Southern paranoia could have been curtailed. The Compromise of 1850 and The Missouri Compromise are the two most famous examples of what was destroying the nation from its inside out. The war was absolutely about slavery, but the right to write that into the State Constitution and not face a Federal power seeking to control your state is the Confederate perspective. Lost Causers, I see, tend to suffer from the same incorrect education that many northerners tend to get. The Union by no means fought an altruistic war to emancipate the slaves. At the end of the day, it was just another conflict that could not be settled diplomatically, and boiled to a head that exploded into the bloodiest war in American history.
A Civil War very rarely, if ever, fades away quietly into memory as a settled matter. A Civil War is a war where the men fighting it were best friends or brothers once. A look at Kentucky will reveal that the ties to the war ran so deep, families were torn apart by their opinions on the matter and brothers fought brothers on the Battlefield. This matter will never be quietly settled, not as long as formerly rebellious entities are allowed their freedom to their beliefs. It's very hard to allow such beliefs to stand, but it promotes discussion, and it pushes people to research topics. When a nation tears itself in half by its own hands...that is a scar that will never heal. Never. It's not a scar that ever should, because it shows that a nation can endure, and that it can learn from its pain, and most importantly that it can move from settling its internal politics with bloodshed to settling them with words.
I love finding little channels that clearly care about their history as a guy who loves to learn about it himself. I'd say your argument stands on solid ground, though I personally would like to see more sources used not just from the south, but that shows the true contention between North and South that erupted into war. It isn't surprising that Southern states would advocate heavily for slavery in their declarations of secession or their constitutions. Slavery was something that helped run their economy; a cog in their agrarian machine. A very old cog, yes, but one that had previously played an important role in building the fortunes of the men who truly feared its loss. Understanding the attitudes of he South and the North is far more important, I think, to understanding the War than just pointing out that the Confederacy very much advocated for an institution they sought to protect.
Note: I started this before he basically restated my big point, so...I'm not deleting it.
It is sad that something so settled still manages to cause controversy. Thanks for this discussion.
People have always preferred feels over facts.
I completely agree with you on that because like I am 46% German and like my German ancestors on my fathers side of the family were good people along with my moms side of the family.
Too often, we confuse "Why the Civil War was fought?" and "Why did the soldiers fight the war?" The Civil War came about because of slavery. It drove secession and the whole states' rights movement at the time. The political leaders of the CSA fought for slavery. OTOH, the average Confederate soldier, fought for the state primarily. While it is fine to honor the soldiers who gave so much for their own personal cause, it is wrong to venerate the CSA as a whole as it was the result of people trying to preserve slavery. McPherson's For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War is probably the best book for the motivations of individuals in the war.
Kaiser Khan well said Kaiser!
well said indeed
I disagree, the American Dream to Confederates was to eventually acquire enough money to become a wealthy plantation slave owner, this was what they fought to protect.
Unfortunately, you're somewhat wrong. Yes, I know not every single last Confederate Soldier fought for slavery. A very large majority of them however, did. Many of them thought that should the institution of slavery be abandoned this would lead to what's known as "servile insurrection", or in our modern day tongue ... a race war. They were terrified about this. Another thing is, Irish immigrants, though the majority fought for the Union many still fought for the Confederacy, and many also LEFT the North to the South to fight for the Confederacy - their primary worry being that if blacks were freed, they would start kicking Irishmen in the US out of their jobs because they would be willing to work for less (and to an extent, this fear was actually true considering during the war a large number of Irish workers working at the NY docks went on strike, only to find the next day they had all been replaced by black freed men who accepted an even lower wage).
Not to mention that Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate commander would go on to be the first grand wizard of the clan, where the majority of it's members were - you guessed it - ex-Confederate soldiers. I'm not talking about Generals either (with the exception of Forrest), I'm talking about front and line infantry and cavalry joining the clan (note I spell it without a K to avoid CZcams's censors). Even without bringing the clan into the matter, looking into the diary entries of everyday regular soldiers can provide great clarity on the minds of Confederate soldiers, as many of them despite not being slaveowners themselves, still address slavery as a very important creed that needs to be defended.
Excerpt from the Confederate Calvaryman Frank Meyers, after registering his "Oath of Allegiance" to the Union in 1867:
"Registered, that means swore to be a liar, fool, villain, and a ******. Ain't white anymore, ain't honest anymore. Am registered as loyal to the United States, and no honest, honorable, sensible, decent white man can be that."
Diary Entry from Private Joseph Maede on the topic and rumors that the Confederate Congress might be enlisting blacks to serve late in the war (they never did, outside the New Orleans Native Guard which was never allowed to actually fight):
"I did not volunteer my services to fight for a free *****'s free country, but to fight for a free man's free country, and I do not think I love my country enough to fight alongside black soldiers."
Not a rank and file soldier this time, but James Longstreet addressing his men after General Butler refused to return escaped slaves:
"Already has the hatred of one of their great leaders attempted to make the negro your equal by declaring their freedom. They care not for the blood of babes nor the carnage of women which servile insurrection thus stirred up."
When Nathan Forrest gave a speech before a black crowd after the Civil War ended ensuring them he would "protect their interests", which actually went over well with the black attendees and one woman gave him roses and a kiss on the cheek, the "Organization of Calvary Survivors", an ex-Confederate veterans group, published this in their local paper:
"We endorse no action unworthy of a Southern gentleman. I speak of the address delivered before a black and tan audience by General N. B. Forrest. With what a glow of enthusiasm and thrill of pride have I not perused the campaigns of General Forrest's cavalry, their heroic deeds, their suffering and their successes under the leadership of one whom I always considered (in my poor judgement) second only to our immortal Hampton? And now to mar all the luster attached to his name, his brain is turned by the civilities of a mulatto wench who presented him with a bouquet of roses... What can his object be? Ah! General Forrest!" - Augusta Chronicle, July 31st, 1875
* Asterisks used in place of racial slurs, CZcams will shadow delete my comment if they're typed here)
Yeah, these two sound real concerned with states rights, don't you think? These are two of many, MANY soldier diaries that have been recovered and archived from the war. All the ones I presented above, with exception to and disregarding the speech of Longstreet, were written by rank and file soldiers and frontline officers.
Look, I know people don't like to hear that their great grandfather or great great grandfather fought in a war for the reason of preserving slavery. Did they have other reasons to fight? Definitely! Did they feel like they were defending their homes from an invading army as well? Certainly! We're they also afraid that dismantling the institution of slavery would lead to what they called "servile insurrection?", unfortunately - yes. Maybe not all of them, but we have diary after diary, journal after journal from regular rank-and-file Confederate soldiers whom, even if they don't identify the reasons they're actually fighting (which is rare), they almost always identify with two things: 1) the fear of "servile insurrection" (aka Race War), and 2) that it is a white man's god given right to own slaves.
You could say that the war was about states rights... but if we go there, then it was about a states right to uphold the institution of slavery. You have to understand the mindset of people living in the 1860's, especially in the agrarian South (but also even in the North as well). Slavery was a CORE part of life for many people in the South. While 75% of the population never even owned slaves, almost everyone saw, interacted with, and even worked with slaves on a daily basis (plantations for example didn't just have slaves, they also employed many people from the nearby towns for a variety of other tasks, especially journeyman tasks which required some modicum of experience of training that they thought black people "couldn't understand or be trusted to handle efficiently"). Slavery was so damn widespread in the South, then even African-Americans from slave families now freed, bought and purchased slaves! Another thing to take into account is the mindset of the common man in the 1800's. Whether we can fault them based on a modern system of morality or not, the simple facts were that the common man in the South held himself to be superior and that slavery was a justified institution.
So whether it was because they believed that their rights were being threatened because owning slaves was a right, it was a religious reason that God had given white men this right, because they were Irish or even German immigrants worried about being forced out of jobs, that slavery was vital to the economic wellbeing and prosperity to the South, or because they were simply scared shitless that freeing the slaves would lead to a massive race war... the common man and aristocrat alike - for different and similar reasons both - in the South did indeed believe that the institution of slavery was vital, needed to be protected, and they were willing to fight to do so.
P.S. Before you call me a lib, a commie, or whatever - I'm actually a registered Republican.
> Books Written Specifically About the Topic of Why Confederate Soldiers Fought, and Why They Thought They Needed to Protect Slavery Despite Not being Slaveowners (with backed up sources from diary entries):
- Marching Masters (Colin Edward Woodward)
- Family & Nation in Civil War Virginia (Aaron Sheehan-Dean)
- Origins of Proslavery Christianity (Charles F. Irons)
- Modernizing a Slave Economy (John Majewski)
I was, for a couple of years, a Confederate apologist. The Civil War couldn't possibly be about slavery, I thought. If it was about slavery, then why did so many non-slaveholding Confederates fight, I said. The North was just as bad as the South when it came to the rights of blacks, I argued.
And I was wrong. I'll admit it. Part of this is probably due to growing up in Virginia (greatest state in the Union btw), and I heard far too often in schools that slavery was not the root cause of the Civil War. Another part is that I'm related to multiple Confederate soldiers, and I just didn't want to believe that they were fighting for a government that believed in the oppression of colored people.
And then I started cataloguing the events of the Civil War day by day last December. Wow. It was an eye-opener. The original 7 states didn't secede because they were afraid of excessive taxation or because they thought Lincoln would limit the freedoms of states. They seceded because they were afraid their precious slavery would be abolished. And, ironically, their fear led to it.
That being said, it still kinda stings when someone says it was fought for slavery. There's still a little part of me that doesn't want to believe it.
Thank you for speaking the truth about the war.
You and I aren't our ancestors. We have nothing to apologize for. However, we should call a spade a spade, and therefore we should not have a problem admitting the war was about slavery.
I realize I'm not my ancestors, but I think that I didn't want to realize that I'm related to someone who (intentionally or unintentionally) for the subjugation of human beings.
I understand. We are all descended from somebody who has done wrong.
careful with that kinda shit lyle, there's no reason to ever feel guilty for your ancestor's wrongs, no matter how great, it wasn't you, you can't change it regardless.
As I am German and as I life in Germany I happily like to sign my name under this statement. I wasn't there in the 1930's and 40's so why should I be in any way responsible for what happened back then? In Germany that's actually part of an undergoing discussion which pops up from time to time. It is this. Why are we still paying for WW2? F.ex when we sell one of our awesome uber submarines to Israel then, we still give them 50% off on the price because of WW2. So people question these and other direct or indirect, as in the aforementioned example, payments we still commit. There is a little caveat in the feeling of not being guilty or not feeling sorry for what your ancestors did. The problem with it is based on the following question. What do you think would be a just verdict for Nazi Germany? Like for how long do you think is Germany guilty? What does it take or what shall we do to compensate the guilt Nazi Germany put on it's shoulders? You see where this is going to amirite? There simply is no redemption. There is nothing Germany could do to ultimately relief the guilt. As a country it will take a lot of generations and I am not keen enough to give a number, till people won't think about WW2 anymore when hearing the name of that very country Germany. This also means that we are still responsible for what our Grandfathers did. I mean, I am personally not guilty but I feel responsible to assure this won't happen again. Therefore I am behind my countries decision to still pay in one way or another. Money isn't the only thing though. It's also about schools, art, tv, paperworks, education in general, documentaries, universities and society as an entity. We need to keep the memory about it alive and we need to make sure history is been told as it happened. In other words, we need to make everyone knows about WW2 and to educate everyone to a level which guarantees it won't happen again.
So, this is about the american civil war. Why am I talking about Germany all the damn time? Easy. It's simply about parallels as the video points out. So when it comes to the south then, you people today are not guilty ofc, but you are ofc responsible to assure everyone is aware of the true history about the civil war and slavery. Slavery also isn't something you can ever pay back for. The guilt your ancestors put on your shoulders also simply is too big. The crime called slavery is so bad and so cruel that nothing you do can ever compensate it. So even by not being guilty you still have the responsibility to assure racism won't ever again be a problem in America. That's not exclusively a responsibility of the south however. Racism not exclusively has been a problem of the south. It's a problem for America as a whole and it still is to some degree.
I do not live in America nor have I ever been in your beautiful country. I therefore don't have an opinion whether enough has been done or not. Think for yourself. Ask yourself if you think you and your country have done enough to fight racism. Because the least one can do is to clearly show that things indeed have changed. Ultimately that's the only real thing anyone can do to at least try to compensate. You need to show you changed.
The war was fought over slavery, specifically the states right to be a slave state. The thought was that the federal government did not have the authority to get rid of slavery in the states where it existed. So even if you say the war was fought over states rights not slavery I would the states rights to do what? the answer to own slaves.
+Ben Nelson yup... I made a less explicit video a year or so ago and that was my key argument.
This is wrong.
While they some feared that Lincon would end Slavery, it was more likly he would Stop the Spread of Slavery and this meant that Slave States would be outbumber by non Slave States. And it meant that the south coundnt expand its way of live into Cuba and other Countrys.
I applaud you for standing for the truth but also for being generous and understanding of people's motivation for believing it.
a good voter is one who doesn't care for parties, but who is educated on both candidates, and is able to choose the better out of all the other choices presented
I appreciate your treatment of a difficult subject. I grew up in the south with the expected point of view, but I learned. Thanks.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the issue of slavery in southern states was a determining factor behind the decision of most the states to seceed, but that the decision by the northern states to declare was was based on keeping the Union together?
+Mark Kelly that's fair. Though I would argue the root cause was slavery and in tandem the south did not do enough to prove secession was legal and the north disputed its right (or said it didn't have a right) to dissolve or leave the union.
thehistoricalgamer
Actually, I've just been watching/listening to your Scourge of War Battle of Pea Ridge video. I beleive the union commander in that battle was dismissed for declaring all slaves in a state were to be freed; i think he was deemed to radical for northern popular opinion at that time in the war.
+Mark Kelly yes. The union didn't want to abolish slavery at the start of the war. The south was leaving to protect and expand slavery, the north was fighting to restore the status quo.
+Sorgan Mage maybe but I'd also argue they were fighting to protect the territorial integrity of the nation. You don't just leave a country Willy nilly, a nation is a contract/compact there are penalties to violating that.
If your talking about Fremont, he wasn't at Pea Ridge. He had by that point been reassigned to West Virginia, where he faced Stonewall Jackson during his famous Shenandoah Valley Campaign.
As far as I understand it, though I'm less studied on the subject than thehistoricalgamer, the CSA seceded to protect their state right of owning slavery. So it seems like you can say it was about state rights if you want to pick the symptom of the real issue. But as you say here, slavery was the real underlying issue.
There were a lot of soldiers who fought for the South because of loyalty to their state, many who did not own slaves, and they did it out of duty/honor. Lee is the perfect example. But I would completely disagree that this as evidence that the war was about state rights instead of slavery, because they were fighting the war after it was already declared. They surely would have fought the war if it was about something other than slavery, but that's not the heart of the matter. If you want to boil away all the excess, if there wasn't a divide on slavery, there would have been no Civil War; _quod erat demonstrandum_ slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
It’s even more damning than just a state right to slavery. The Confederate government actually restricted state rights (in favor of CSA policy) to protect slavery.
So it is even more about slavery than people realize. Slavery was the foundation and the keystone of the entire Southern economy, culture, politics. It was basically the worldview of the Confederacy.
The south didn't seem to care about states rights when the dred Scott decision, fugitive slave act, and Missouri compromise effectively imposed slavery on free states. The south had no morals at all, and they demonstrated that by their routine slaughter of black prisoners of war
it wasn't about slavery. it was about taxes, politics, and freedom. the north had slaves too, something a lot of people like to forget, 500k to the souths 2 million. only 23% of southerners owned slaves, and when abe lincoln gave the emancipation proclamation it only freed southern slaves. lincoln went directly against the constitution several times and was the one who instigated the war by raising an army after the south succeeded. this conflict was more than 30 years in the making. the southern citizens leading up to the civil war were paying 75% of the taxes even though they only accounted for less than half of the country. the war was about politics, unfair taxation, and liberty. the history books want to say lincoln was such an honorable hero, uniting the country and freeing the slaves! at the cost of how many lives? little known fact, lincolns approval rating at the end of the war was at 13% the north hated him, the south hated him. after his assassination he was made out to be a hero, when in reality slavery was the last thing on his mind when he invaded the confederacy. you're a very smart guy, surely you're able to see past the sugar-coated BS.
The Civil War was about slavery, but it's also not completely that simple and I think people do a disservice to the hundreds of thousands of people who, in their minds, died fighting for freedom and the ideals of the Constitution when they try to paint it as that simple. Not saying you are 'thehistoricalgamer', just talking to anyone who reads these comments.
Anyone who wants to learn more there's a great author named Shelby Foote with videos on here. Also, Ken Burns stuff is great too. I think evil is a moral judgement though that's best left out of an objective examination of history. It's not fair to apply your contemporary morals and values to history. It's more fair to judge things by the standards of their day.
Also, I think Shelby Foote is right in his view that most of the soldiers fighting probably didn't care about slaves. They were fighting because they were drafted by their local government (another form of slavery ironically), fighting to protect their home and hearth, and fighting to preserve or save their country from extermination. And I think it's very important to recognize that 4 of the Confederate States (including Virginia) only seceded and joined the Confederacy when the U.S. Federal government threatened military invasion of their sister States. And let's not forget the slave holding Union border States.
I think it's also important to recognize that 'State's Rights' has been used for many good causes throughout our history as well as bad. It kind of got a bad rap after this historical event though. In my own view I think both sides of the conflict were in the wrong. One side was willing to kill and destroy in order to preserve a political union while the other was willing to kill and destroy to protect the institution of chattel slavery. In my mind those are both wrong. I think it's very sad that it became a bloody conflict instead of remaining a heated disagreement between sister States.
It's worth nothing that the event was non-violent for a significant time before the fighting started. Most people don't know that. Multiple States seceded and formed their own government and seized Federal property in their territory. This new government tried to pay for these Federal properties and make a peace treaty with the U.S. Federal government, but it was rejected. President Lincoln was not willing to sign a treaty or give up the few remaining forts in southern territory unlike President Buchanan was. The Confederate government fired first at Fort Sumter, and it was a fatal error, but the argument could be made that their hand was forced.
Finally, I think it may be more accurate to say that slavery was the spark that lit the fire, but the issue was secession. Which I think if you have a genuine understanding of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and Founding Fathers then you would agree is not an illegal and certainly not immoral act. The idea that because an ancestor signed an agreement to join a political entity, their progeny are never allowed to leave that political entity upon penalty of death is truly insane. It's especially ironic because the country wouldn't exist in the first place without secession.
What's this? Someone talking about history and actually citing their sources? How unusual.
States rights were also of much less importance to the Southern Confederacy because, as their various various new secessionist state constitutions pointed out, their was little love for those southern states that may have decided to renege on their status in the confederacy. The state constitutions and the Confederate constitution, didn't leave any room for state secession from the Confederate States, looking at these constitutions it appears that the Confederacy was bound to slavery so much so that any future slavery-doubting state did not have the state right to secede from the Confederacy in order to lead a new free state without slavery.
Oh really? That's quite ironic. Can you tell me where to find those?
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Article IV Sec 3 (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Isnt it that only people in the south of the USa believe it was not about Slavery? At least I know nobody in Europe, where I live, that would say the civil war was not about slavery.
2 years later I play a civil war game on my channel and get also comments about how the war was not about slavery. I make a video about it, how it was about slavery and almost 1/3 disagree. I stand corrected, at least in Germany there are some who do not know that the war was about Slavery, I am shocked.
+ReviewGameX it's not limited to the south only but it's probably an American centric viewpoint.
thehistoricalgamer but didn't Lincoln say he had no intention to end slavery ? and didn't the north pay double the amount for finding slaves guilty and sending them back south ? don't get me wrong we should have never had slaves
+west pool he said if he could save the union by freeing the slaves he would, if he could save the union and free no slaves he would, and if he could save the union by freeing only part of the slaves he would. The war started due to the south attempt to leave, the south viewed Lincoln as an abolitionist, they didn't believe he wasn't going to preserve slavery and so they left to get out from the risk of the north limiting slavery, the north initially only wanted to maintain the union but the union needed to be maintained because the south left to save slavery.
And also he tried to pass a law to deport all the African Americans
thehistoricalgamer BTW thanks for the quick response I love your channel
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. You sound a lot like Dan Carlin with his Hardcore History podcast. Both of you cite and quote primary sources and it sheds great light on the nuance of the real story. Great video.
Kent Johnson Dan Carlin? Wow! That’s high praise! Thanks Kent, and I’m glad you enjoyed it.
The war was about states rights
a states right to decide weather they have legal slavery
States rights was just a political argument used to protect slavery. The fundamental reason for the war was slavery. Read the ordinances of secession.
Except that we have the Fugitive Slave Act.
So, while the South was all for the slaver rights to keep slavery around, they are very strongly opposed to any state rights regarding freeing slaves... Looks like the only constant is the support of slavery
Even today, the South is hypocritical. "Let the States decide....unless they decide they want abortion and legal weed..."
If the South truly cared about states' rights then they would've honored the rights of states that had already abolished slavery and therefore should've outlawed the practice of trespassing in Northern states to catch fugitive slaves. "But the Fugitive Slave Act was a Federal law ... " you may whine, except yes, that means that if you are willing to follow that Federal law, then you also need to follow Federal law if Federal law also decides to abolish slavery. Can't just pick and choose.
I had three Great, Great Grandfathers that served in the Confederate forces. They didn't own slaves, they served their country....Virginia. They survived the war and lived out their lives as loyal citizens of the United States. Also had one that served in the union army. Don't know what happened to him. He was probably disowned by the rest of the family.
We have the records of the secession conventions of each state, recording the debate over whether to secede. These records are very detailed and reveal that the reason for secession was....in every state... to maintain slavery. Can't really blame them: whether you owned slaves or not, sudden emancipation seemed like it would mean economic collapse. You can analogize how people might react if a government was elected on an extreme environmentalist platform of outlawing all use of petroleum products. Whether you own an oil company or not, you might view that as a threat to your way of life.
The proof continued well after 1861 when the CSA would have had a much better chance of victory by announcing either gradual emancipation (to gain European support) or enlisting black soldiers into the Army exchange for their freedom after the war. But this sensible idea was repeatedly rejected even when defeat was imminent. If the war wasn't about preserving slavery, the South lost the war trying to hide that fact. Pick up one of the many good books on the wartime southern debates over emancipation. Every war has more than one cause but the cause(s) of the Civil War were concentrated on one factor (preserving slavery) more than almost any other conflict.
just joined Steam AND bought Ultimate General Civil war because of your fine work!
@@zxccxz164 not lately but I have
i love RTS. I love historical wars. i agree 100℅ with your point. Sub earned
"You can disagree with me if you want ...but you're wrong." I didn't need to listen to anymore
+greygamervideo sorry you feel that way. I acknowledge it was a bit abrasive but on the flip side I think that abrasiveness helped to spur some really great discussions in this thread.
"Great discussion"?
But according to your opening statement ...pointless because only one viewpoint is valid.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy your channel, I'll still watch your video etc. But such a statement seems against what history is about. No need to dig any deeper than it was about slavery etc. Such an approach dumbs down history to a simple binary of event X was caused by Y.
History is a very nuanced subject, what lessons can be learned from "The Civil War was about Slavery", if slave owners had been handsomely compensated for giving up their slaves and the white population reassured that it wasn't the end of the world was war still inevitable? How much blame can be put on the previous administration etc.? Adam Smith suggested that slavery didn't even make economic sense for example.
Sorry for rambling on, but it really irked me. Anyway back to the gaming ;)
I was deliberately provocative because I intended to provoke discussion. With that said, I do think while History is complicated to OVERLY complicate factors also diminishes the utility of History. In the case of the Civil War peoples desire to diminish the importance of slavery has caused many in America to lose sight of the real motivation in the Civil War. By making Slavery a bit player you lose the actual understanding of what the war was about. This kind of street goes two ways, close mindedness simple history has downsides, so does overly complicating things as well. There needs to be a balance.
You don't need to listen to anymore because your delicate sensibilities and preconceived notions were too offended? There is being impartial, and there is being unbiased - being impartial means you do not care which side is right or wrong - factually morally or otherwise - and you take the middle ground. Being UNBIASED means going with whichever side is factually correct, but letting it be decided by the plain facts. IF YOU THINK THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG. You can - because I am generous - say it wasn't JUST about slavery, but slavery was the 'biggie'. So what is your problem? Either your wrong and you're pissy about being wrong - or you're not wrong, in which case what's the problem?
This series was why I became a subscriber. This game has become of my all time favorites. There is no question as to why the South seceded, slavery. I hope you did not lose too many subs over it.
After talking for 30 minutes that the civil war was fought because of slavery you said what is probably more appropriate:
The secession was caused because of slavery, but in my opinion, and on what most of the historians outside of the US agree is that the war was fought because of the very issue of secession.
I have studied the history of the 19th century and what almost all agree on is that the attack on Fort Sumter provoked an Union military response.
From first Bull Run the war wasn't about slavery anymore, but about independence. Why? Because from that point every political solution was off the table.
I agree totally that slavery was the immediate cause of the secession, and I also completely agree with you that the south shouldn't be gloryfied in that matter, but there were other reasons as well. For example the tariffs and Lincolns promise to raise them.
Also cultural differences, the fact that the north industrialised and the economic pressure on the south was becoming unbearable. Don't forget that 75% of the federal budged was derived from southern tariffs.
You provide an america-centrist view on the story. I guess you would also state that the War of Independence was fought because of freedom, while in reality it was fought for economical reasons and for the abolition of British taxes. (Boston tea party)
Slavery in the southern economy was at the time a vital asset and the north provided no alternatives so that the south could move away from it. So slavery was a moral question for the north, but an ecomomical for the south.
The fact that american historians now promote this "everything because of slavery" doctrine is because you can't say to your fellow citizens "you wanted to become independent, your own nation and we didn't let you. We rather sacrifized 620,000 men, two percent of our population, outrageous amounts of money and resources before we let you become your own nation."
In that matter the union would become the oppresor. Just think about that today US-citizens see themself as "americans" while at that time they viewed themselfes more like Virginians, New Yorkers, etc.
I don't want to destroy your view and would happily like to hear your answer, but to fight to preserve slavery or to fight to supress a nations (CSA) wish for self rule (independence) are almost equaly evil. Always mind the flip side
So to you slavery is just as bad as not accepting illegal succession? Just want to see if that is exactly your point
Bruce Catton once wrote that all differences between North and South could have been solved without Civil War. Slavery however made it impossible to resolve without bloodshed.
That being said, Grant was a greater General than Lee
+WarlordofBritannia not sure I agree. Grant was very good but he lacked a consistency of boldness in the way Lee acted.
thehistoricalgamer
It is my opinion that Lee was overbold at times (Gettysburg, and even at Fredericksburg he was thinking of attacking after repulsing Burnside) while Grant was more willing to wait for a better chance at success (Chattanooga, Petersburg) once he realized a headon assault was unlikely to succeed
However the margin of greatness between the two is largely due to their character, and both were certainly Great Captains in their own right, Lee was simply unfortunate to have to face Grant and his superior resources as much as Hannibal Barca was against Scipio Africanus' Romans
George H. Thomas was better than both. He had a mastery of logistics, battlefield tactics, pursuit, and did more to advance the technology and fighting of war than Grant of Lee.
You can admire Lee’s boldness, but his boldness came in a cost of blood that he truly couldn’t afford.
You can admire Grant’s aggressiveness, but his aggressiveness came at the cost of tactical carelessness that cost lives that, while he could afford to lose them, he did not need to lose them.
Thomas was able to mesh a certain cautiousness of tactics, but without the disregard for lives that marked many of the more renown generals of the time period.
Grant was so insecure about Thomas that he attacked his character non-stop throughout the war (as a part of a personal grudge), and even persisted in attacking his memory after Thomas passed away.
The Veterans of the Army of the Cumberland spent much of the post war years defending his memory.
Tactically, the battle of Nashville was the most decisive victory of the war. Thomas’ use of cavalry for pursuit was something purposeful and not matched in any other theater. His use of scouting, spies, cartographers, to gather intelligence and be at his most prepared was also not matched.
Many want to see what the war would have been like if it had been Grant vs Lee from the start. Or if Jackson has survived.
I want to know what it would have been like if we had gotten Thomas vs. Lee.
Still a lot more fun to side with the CSA in Victoria 2 though.
But you are right about slavery causing the civil war.
I've never been able to win as the CSA in Vicky 2. It takes too long to mobilize the full manpower.
Due to the wars with Mexico much of the military is recruited in the south in my games, most of the southern units will join the CSA, it will still be an uphill battle though but it is possible to win.
Have lost a few times though.
I think you have a warped perspective of the opposing view. Slavery is not discounted outside of racist circles, it is generally seen as one of the driving forces in this war. But slavery could've been preserved under the union, as suggested by Lincoln. What drove the secession was the economic war fought between the northern and southern elites exemplifed by such legislation as the 'tariff of abominations'. Neither is the secession viewed as an act of treason, since the union began as a voluntary construct from which secession was a right the states explicitly reserved when they entered. It is the north under Lincoln that violated this agreement. The focus on slavery is mainly a cover to hide this part of the American heritage. What the civil war represented was the shift from a balanced federal system to the total political supremacy of a centralized national government, a shift observable around the world.
The war is not solely about slavery, however it was the spark, the last straw that caused the war, states rights was undoubtedly a part of it, however it would be incorrect to state that the civil war was fought solely over them. No war is over one sole issue, but the Civil War was over, to pretty large degree, slavery, it was, and it's long done.
Glad to see a CZcams channel where reason prevails. U seem like a legit cool guy that I would enjoy a beer with. Keep up the good work. And congrats on the 10k subs.
It really wasn't about slavery entirely...the biggest contention was about slavery but in reality, it was states rights against the government.....the biggest issue during this time was slavery as it was being banned world wide by this time.....i'm not taking sides in saying slavery is good blah blah blah, its bad and shouldn't have lasted that long but it was if the government had the right and power to tell the states they could not continue slavery.....you also have to remember that slavery was considered an economic issue so then you start going into is the government able to dictate economic issues within a state if it does not cross state boundaries
I might make a recording of your quote at the begging it was amazing! You read that so well and its such an amazing quote love to play it for some of my "neighbors" ie assholes here in Texas
Somone mentioned in the comments that you should do more historical podcasts and such, I agree, your awesome at it. I sat through the whole video just listening, great content and I'm happy to subscribe :)
Great video. The entirety of my detailed knowledge of the Civil War comes from Professor Gary W. Gallagher's lecture series for The Great Courses (which I highly recommend to anyone new to the subject; it can be watched for free via a 1 month free trial on The Great Courses Plus.) He entirely agrees with your emphasising how vital it is to study what people said at the time: "In 1861, the white South were not confused about how important slavery was."
In addition to the Stephens quote, he also cites Davis: "The labour of African slaves was and is indispensable to the South's economic development. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperilled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced." And as the Mississippi State Convention put it: "a blow at slavery is a blow at civilisation."
He summarises this in the course notes as follows:
"Secession cannot be disentangled from the institution of slavery. The Lower South embraced secession as a means to stave off Northern efforts to strike at slavery. White Southerners feared that their social and economic fabric would be destroyed by a dominant North, and the Republican Party’s victory in 1860 focused their fears. Postwar Southern arguments tried to shift focus away from slavery. One argument revolved around constitutional issues, and both Davis and Stephens wrote lengthy tomes on this issue. In studying this era and this question, we need to note what people said at the time to properly evaluate retrospective comments."
I agree that anyone who denies that slavery was the main issue simply hasn't done enough research. You should do more of these history podcast type videos, you're really good at it.
Slavery defined the early Republic. Every crisis and all the famous compromises were all over slavery, its why so many states came in to the Union in pairs. Slavery haunted the Republic from its founding and the issue was ALWAYS controversial and was very much in conflict with the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. Abolition was a movement from the beginning and that conflict caused the nation to lurch from crisis to crisis until finally in the election of 1860 the electoral math finally shifted to permanently put the South at an electoral disadvantage. It is worth noting that the secession crisis of 1860 wasn't the first one, there had been others through out the the 1800's. The simple fact is that the South was constantly threatening to secede and they finally did it when they did the math and realized that slavery would eventually be outlawed in the whole nation and there would be NOTHING they could do to stop it. And they were right. After the election of 1860 had the south not seceded there eventually would have been a Constitutional Amendment to end it and it would have been ratified eventually. The ratification would've been tough, but I think it would have happened. Of course the southern leaders knew this and the Civil War happened.
So what you've seen to date, if one could only purchase one Civil War game..would you recommend Ultimate General or Scourge of War? Thanks in advance.
Do the Brits have statues to Washington for his service to the Crown pre-war?
+Dan Zelman not for his service no. They have one statue of Washington in London but it portrays him as US president and wasn't erected until after the U.K. and US became close friends following WWI.
the civil war was not about slavery. It was about states rights for the south and preserving the union for lincoln. He war was two years old before the amancipation proclamation. It was about who decides, states or the feds. Half the confederacy did not succeed until lincoln called for an army to subdue the southern rebellion.
States Rights = Slavery. For the north your right.
I'm not going to argue a dead point, I have read much and there is as much info to believe either way. History is written by the victors. From reading many of the archived person correspondence of officers and soldiers, The timeline of many events, my conclusion is very few fought for slavery. The vast majority fought for other reasons. Truth can be hard to swallow when it challenges your beliefs.
Truth be told lincoln did many things worse than slavery as bad as that was.
The union did things that in today's mindset only a super villain would do. Only imaginable in movies yet lincoln and the union are heralded as heros.
Amazing video, I applaud your demonstration of knowledge.
eh, hes quoting an opinion from a single individual who capped his comment with a question.." is it not so?" that's an opinion and does not fully validate the claim.
The playlist is upside down.
As a long standing student of the ACW I consider that you are correct in that while there were a number of issues - the south's loss of political power, the desire of the north for protective tariffs etc - slavery was the one issue which could not be negotiated away. I would suggest that this may have been less due to economic issues but to those of control of the African slave population which had been badly treated and which, notably in the deep South, outnumbered the whites cf apartheid in South Africa in the 20th century.
Are you going to make a 10000+ subs vid?
+Tyler Furner I intend to but I'm sick off my ass, have been the last three days. Ugh!
I know I am a year late on this but your entire video is well put together, there is just one glaring issue. You talk as if the people who say it was about states rights are in denial or don't have enough information, as if they don't think they are right just as much as you think you are. I grew up in the North and studied Ancient European history at university, I believe the civil war was over states rights in a very semantic sense. The states right in question was slavery, but in my opinion the war was fought over the secession of states and they seceded due to an over reach by the federal government. You can make a rough (very very rough) analogy to Brexit, yes they are seceding from the EU due to immigration, but if Germany declared war on them for seceding the war would not be over immigration, Britain wants to leave the EU not reform it. The CSA had no intention of reforming the Union, they wanted to break apart to a looser federation. That is the crux I see in the argument, they felt disenfranchised and thought the Union wasn't acting in their interest so they left and then the Union tried to bring them back into the fold.
The war wasn't fought originally over how the government should be run? The union wanted a strong central government and the confederacy wanted the states to have more power
+Evan Seggerman that was only the case because the south wanted to avoid northern domination of the congress because if the north dominated congress the future of slavery was in doubt. The south wanted a decentralized state in order to protect the institution of slavery.
+Evan Seggerman in essence the south though the union govt was too powerful because it was dictating rules for what new states could be added to the union as slave vs free. The south wanted them all slave.
Thanks for speaking up. The minimizing of slavery as the cause of the civil war must be challenged.
@Old Corps Marine says the guy trying to rewrite it.
@Old Corps Marine That is bull and you know it.
@Old Corps Marine The Fox News version isn't the version in touch with actual history bud. Sorry to be the guy to tell you this.
the root cause was slavery. the actual causal issues were economic/political. Slavery was the "upstream" issue, but the waters "downstream" in which 'people actually swam' was not entirely ONLY slavery.
The north had a policy to end slavery, but it didn't launch a war specifically to end slavery - it responded to the South's starting the war. I guess I'm splitting hairs here and I mostly agree with your premise and less disagree with it, but it was not a simplistic case of the North saying, "okay, enough with the slaves already, we're gonna invade you now!"
+James Cox that's a southern centric way of looking at it but fundamentally I think we agree. I never meant to suggest it was the only cause, rather the operative cause, the cause by which secession because a possibility, the other causes would not have lead to war and the north was not fighting to end slavery but that's a separate issue from why the south left.
The actual fighting of the war broke out simply because the formation of the CSA was a rebellion against the federal government of the United States. The government has the obligation and the right to put down rebellions. If not, then regions are basically free to do what they want, then you no longer have a country, and your nation fractures. The objective of freeing slaves came later after the Battle of Antietam.
thehistoricalgamer
word.
HalfLifeExpert1
you are right about the obligation to put down revolts, I think it's even Constitutionally bound to do so. as a case in point, I did some preliminary look-see into usurping my state government, possibly putting something more palatable in charge, maybe myself,aybe a puppet. I was curious as to the Federal response - my beef was not at all with the Feds and only with the crappy State. Obviously when I found out the Fed had an obligation to assist the State against me, it made my position untenable. not only did I not have a fight with the Fed, but I don't think I would last that long anyway.
So yeah, you're right about that.
Was secession motivated by slavery? Absolutely.
Was Lincoln's decision to put down secession by force, motivated by slavery? NO
The primary case as to why the South seceded is pretty clear cut.
The case as to why the North refused to let them go is not so much.
+Patrick Phillips yes, exactly what I've been saying all over this chat.
thehistoricalgamer I gotcha, but I think what secession was over and what the war was over are two separate points that need to be parsed out. It is disingenuous for southern apologists to suggest secession was all about tariffs and Lincoln's Whig/Republican economic agenda. But it is likewise disingenuous to suggest that Lincoln's decision to turn a peaceful secession into armed conflict was motivated by anything remotely resembling a retort of the institution of slavery.
+Patrick Phillips depends on if you think secession is legal or if it's an armed rebellion. Also the south did fire first.
thehistoricalgamer that is true, which is why I find a discussion of northern motivations to be far more interesting and difficult absent the slavery issue which, we've already established, did not energize the northern cause in the early years. If secession was illegal, as Lincoln held, then the legitimacy of the entire American secession from Great Britain must come under question.
And you're right, the South did fire the first shot, though I think there's a good argument to be made that that was the result Lincoln had desired when he made a sudden decision change over reinforcing Fort Sumter. Lincoln scholar Richard N Current wrote a great book on the lead up to Sumter and all the efforts made by both sides, from cabinet meetings to secret envoys, to avoid what both sides understood would inevitably lead to war. "Lincoln and the First Shot." Though a Lincoln admirer, Current wrote an amazingly balanced account of those months.
Anyway, I love this discussion you raise. I appreciate the fact you discuss these very sensitive and complicated issues without all the charged language and vitriol most resort to. It's such a poorly understood and incredibly complex period in our history.
+Patrick Phillips I'll look into that book and I have no doubt Lincoln wanted war by the time sumnter happened. He likely viewed it as the only way to save the union without allowing the south to blackmail it though I'd love to learn more on northern motivations.
Have you read Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion? It does a deep dive into the men who went to different Secession Conventions to try and convince other states to leave. Is very enlightening and very much backs up what you say. Great video!
The irony of the American Civil war is that the majority of the southern troops were not slave owners.
As a Brit I'm aware my knowledge on the American Civil War isn't that big, but I'm surprised to hear that there is even a debate over this. Furthermore while it certainly would have benefited the us at the time to get involved and help the south, I'm glad we took the moral high ground and stayed out of the war.
Definitely. The main reasons why Britain stayed out were the fact that the UK had already abolished slavery decades prior (in fact I think the US was one of the last major nations to abolish slavery), also the Confederate government had a misguided belief that Britain depended on southern cotton, which was no longer the case due to the acquisition of India and Egypt. Therefore the British and the French did not have much to gain from supporting the CSA militarily.
I don't think that would have been a very good investment. I would rather invest in the side that has a larger population and industry, as opposed to the side that, by comparison, was backward, barely industrialized, and much smaller in population. And yes I believe Brazil was the last major holdout, they abolished slavery, I think, in 1882.
Also Britain stayed out due to the United States providing them with lots of grain food shipments to feed their population which is more important than Cotton which they could get from Egypt and India as alternatives after all the UK is a trading Island historically.
Yes, the threat of cutting off the grain supply was crucial to keeping Britian 'formally' out of the war. But you did not take the moral high ground in this war. Rather, Britian causiously dangled it's feet time and again. It's no coincidence Lee's two invasions coincided with key votes to support the war in the House of Commons. And you were not as cut off from Dixie's cotton as you might think. Confederate blockade runners went straight to British territory to sell their cash crops to your mills. Those 'new sources' would not come online until late in the Civil War.
The CSS Alabama of course is the most damning of Britians support efforts to support the Confederacy. Here was a Raider commissioned in Liverpool and never once docked at a confederate port.. despite being one of the Confederacy's most successful warships.
In 1867 Britian was found liable for millions of dollars of shipping losses in it's efforts to aide the confederates.
So, no, you did not take the moral high ground. Nor did you "stay out" of the war. The gold you gave Johnny Reb from your insatiable mills kept guns rolling into the South straight from British ports. You were half the reason the Confederacy had something to shoot with on any given day in the Civil War.
Please.. one win north of the Mason Dixon line and you would have been mustering an army in Montreal. You were balls deep in that war.
I always love that "states rights" comment that many that have not researched the causes of the Civil War bring up. In a way they are correct. It was indeed states rights. States right to allow slavery. Look at nearly every single declaration of secession from the CSA states and they have listed slavery as the reason for leaving.
Undoubtedly the war was about slavery, I am a long time civil war buff. Appears to me, although some think the lost cause believers were arguing that slavery was not the cause of the war I say not quite. People like DS Freeman, and many others, accepted slavery. They knew it was the cause of the war but it was not the only reason.
If it was about slavery, all that means is that it was about private property rights, which makes their cause entirely legitimate. These people were under no obligation to place one political concept - some brand new notion of universal human rights - over the far more ancient concept of private property rights. The worst thing that can be said for the South is that the were not immediately sharing political concepts which they had just created with the entire world. Slavery was a legal, constitutionally validated economic system, which their region had become dependent upon for purely rational, economically sound reasons., and one that had been aided and abetted by financial, industrial and shipping institutions across the western world. There was an international market for cheap cotton produced by slave labor, the South was only one part of that system. They did not create it.
Funny thing, now thinking back from high school, all the history books that talked about the civil war era put a big emphasis on Sectionalism, which extends to state right and slavery. Although I don’t remember specifically whether or not slavery was necessarily being taught as the most direct conflict that led to the war, it was actually implied (I grew up in NY btw and this American history class I was referring to was AP US History). If you think about sectionalism and state rights, what’s the biggest part of it that the South didn’t want to (or afraid of loosing) loose when Lincoln was elected as president? Slavery, they didn’t want to lose their “properties”. So ultimately, yeah, slavery was the whole damn issue. So going back to the video more closely and some of the great comments down below, yes, everyone nowadays has the responsibility to prevent history from repeating itself (bad things such slavery, the Holocaust etc.), not just those people who are most closely related to the topic of discussion (people from the south and people from Germany). Now going to the military side of this, soldiers and generals should not be blamed for the cause of conflicts and wars throughout history, because from a military point of view, their jobs are to follow whatever order that was given to them, whether or not they may or may not know or have any feelings about the cause. The number one rule in he military is to follow the order, not questioning it. So people like Lee, Jackson, Rommel are great generals and maybe even people too. So at the end of the day they should be revered, but maybe not honored in status or highway names simply because they did not fight for the right cause. This is my option, and this game is great btw, I just played through as the union and finished before the new year... but I think I might watch all of the historical gamer videos cause I’m very interested in some of the points he makes and talks about throughout series!
There is no serious argument about the subject.
And if people feel otherwise, it's like an argument over "2+2=5".
It was wrong to have a Civil War over slavery because Slavery was completely legal before, during, and even soon after the civil war. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865 - this ended the Civil War. Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ..... blah blah blah - The 13th amendment was not even Passed until Jan 31st of 1865 so how was it legal for the North to fight a Civil War over Slavery which began on April 12, 1861 !!!! The only legal justification could have been because the idiots in Charlestown fired on Ft. Sumter. But it was completely improper to fight the war over slavery. If one concludes it was ok to fight it over slavery or to say it occurred because of slavery then one must accept the concept that it would be completely proper to then have a civil war over abortion. Because of abortion and how that many are against it in the Untied States it should therefore be completely fine for a group of states to unite together and start a civil war over abortion even though abortion is legal in the United States everyone who thinks the Civil War was proper to be fought over slavery should support the idea that a civil war could be fought over abortion. It is difficult to exist in the realm of truth isn't it. ?? To say its ok to fight the war over keeping the union together then one has to entertain the concept that the states were not allowed to ever leave the union. When one honestly looks at the parameters wherein the states decided to join the union a rational person could easily deduct that the states or a state at any time could leave the union. The cold hard truth is that the people at the beginning of our country who mostly lived in the New England area states many of them were actually Tories ( Loyalists were American colonists who stayed loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War, often called Tories, Royalists, or King's Men at the time. They were opposed by the Patriots, who supported the revolution, and called them "persons inimical to the liberties of America". ) There is still this feeling by many such Americans that it is perfectly fine for a small elite to force their opinions on others hence a monarchy. This is the same thinking that caused the civil war ( the idea that states cannot secede or that states can be made to abolish slavery even though it is lawful or that stats can have sanctuary cities wherein persons illegally in the state can be protected ) and is causing so many divisions in this country now.
I agree with that to a certain extent. The south's stance on slavery was caused by two things. First was the south's economic need for it. It formed the main part of their economy as well as society. Their is a reason it was called king cotton and with out the slaves to pick it virtually all economic activity would come to a standstill. Another reason was politics. The southerners at the time felt that congress was swayed more by the north than the south. This left many southerner feeling abandoned by their own government. Note I am NOT saying that slavery wasn't a cause I'm just saying that slavery was needed by the south and with them feeling like the federal government had forsaken them in favor of the north the south felt the need to leave. This is coming from the southerner by the way.
(open to friendly arguments and debates)
Looking at the 1860 election I believe southerners felt that the election was stolen from them rather than abandoned. Had the slave states voted for one candidate they would of had the electoral and popular(maybe) majority.
It actually *is* true that the southern states weren't just fighting for slavery. They were also fighting for white supremacy.
Texas and Georgia said so in plain English in their respective Declarations of Causes, which are freely available for anyone to read, and are easily found online.
11:50 You admit its about state's rights then immediately say it was about slavery. I think your logic is confused. If the South went to war to protect the right of a state to decide its own course on issues (even if the overwhelmingly most important issue is slavery) then its still a war about states right isnt it?
I should have watched the entire vid before commenting. Im not sure if youre even worthy of debate. Lets see if/how you respond.
+Raveena of Punjab not if the war wouldn't occur without the issue of slavery. Look at the documents made during the war, the South Carolina declaration for example mentions slavery 18 times, it doesn't mention states rights once. It alludes to it off hand but never directly calls it out like it does slavery.
"not if the war wouldn't occur without the issue of slavery." Thats not a statement any credible historian would make. You can't know what would have happened in the past if you change variables around.Qualify it by saying,in my opinion, or the like. Your logic is still flawed and this statement does nothing to address the fact that even if slavery was the only issue, which it wasnt, the war was still to protect the right of states to decide most issues for themselves including slavery. It does not matter how many issues there were or how important they were, its still a matter of states rights.
+Raveena of Punjab the reason the states say for themselves that they left was to protect the institutions of slavery. That was the fundamental reason for leaving, it was at the core of the difference between the union and the confederacy. I've provided numerous quotes in the video, you've provided nothing but semantics. Anyway I'm sort of burned out with this. You may think I'm arrogant but you're dismissing almost all scholarship on the subject, out of hand and without evidence, as if you're qualified to do so, that's far more arrogant than anything I've said. I won't be covering this topic again so feel free to disagree it's your choice, you can watch future videos if you like or not that's also your choice. I hope you have a nice night, I'm sick and feel like crap so I'm going to get some sleep.
Of the 200k or so Confederate soldiers who died, how many do you think owned slaves? Would you fight a war whose only purpose was to protect slavery if you didn't own slaves? Why then did all those ppl fight and die for the Confederacy? Could it be because they were fighting for something else?
Okay so even if the south had won, they would have to abolish slavery either way to get trade with European powers. That's why England and France didn't join in on the confederates because they did not abolish slavery and probably factors of not enough money. But if a president called for a 75,000 volunteer army to suppress a rebellion and your state was the one being targeted and essentially attacked, would you join the union or confederates. I feel like most regular soldiers in the confederate army felt that if they didn't protect their land now, it would be taken away from them or looted by this force of northerners.
What people miss is it wasn't States Rights or Slavery but "and", that slavery law was State not Federal. And truth be States rights is an issue to this day. It reared its head again over homosexuality and there division in each individual state same with slavery and secession back then Virginia most of all. I fully believe if Virginia had stayed with the Union The US Army, lead by Lee would have crushed the Confederacy within weeks if not months instead of 4 long years. And next time you see some arguing States Rights or Slavery tell them they're both right.
Overall, you're correct. But this is not the way to go about getting what you want. You're making the same mistakes Ken Burns did: presenting the Civil War from an abolitionists perspective. You need to present what it was about slavery that made it a national crisis and a cause for a war that killed nearly 1 million people. Because if it was just about slavery this war would have been fought in 1820 or any other date between 1788 and 1861. But it doesn't even start to become a major national issue until the 1830s. And what that something is.. is fear. Fear of losing one's job to slavery (free soil/free labor.. Lincoln ' s platforms), fear of St. Dominique occurring through the South (1804 Haitian Massacre), the 'Golden Circle', the 'Shrinking South'. My ancestor did not chase Governor Price to Pea Ridge in B company 44th Illinois because he thought he would feel better with the slaves freed; he did it so he could move west and own land (read: vote).. two things the South was actively preventing him from doing by preventing the settling of the west because they wouldn't have to votes to block abolition in the Senate anymore.
"Because if it was just about slavery this war would have been fought in 1820 or any other date between 1788 and 1861." - No. Compromises were found at those times. With election of a President that was vocally opposed to slavery, and ran on keeping slavery out of the territories, that was too much for the South.
"But it doesn't even start to become a major national issue until the 1830s." - You haven't heard of the Missouri Compromise? But, the real reason it wasn't too much of an issue before that is because it was understood that the Founders' vision of killing off slavery by attrition was in place. After the Missouri Compromise, the possibility of slavery expansion became real.
"My ancestor did not chase Governor Price to Pea Ridge in B company 44th Illinois because he thought he would feel better with the slaves freed; he did it so he could move west and own land" - But, that doesn't mean the Southern states didn't rebel to ensure and expand perpetual African chattel slavery.
Yes, it would've been fought at those times, but compromises were reached. This was a time when no compromises could be found.
All of your words were debunked in just a few sentences.
You can disagree but you wrong lol? You are wrong, slavery didn't became an issue until later in war probably to gain international support. Lincoln initially wanted to stop spreading slavery to new territories not to abolish it in the south. Small percentage of people owned slaves so you think hundred of thousands of people volunteered to fight for slavery when they never owned a slave? Slavery is a horrible thing my nation experiences it too but you have to be honest about things. If you educated yourself about civil war you must have just read what you wanted to hear to fit official version. Winners write history, like today's wars USA wages is about freedom and democracy right? You wanna believe it fine but do not say that if somebody thinks otherwise is wrong. You can not put down people who defended their homes and families and call it some "stories" of heroism. Southerners had balls. North committed horrible atrocities, ever heard of Sherman march for example ? You think northerners gathered to fight for slaves? You must be very naive if you think so, If you would ask northerners from that period about slaves I think your leftist world would crumble if you heard them answers. Sadly you just sound like you are infected with communist-Marxist way of spreading propaganda. Show one historical document where Lee said he fights to keep slavery? Slavery was not the cause of the war. War ended it yes but it did not cause it.
This is an old video, but I still appreciated the discussion here. As someone not from the US, I suppose it's much easier for me to view the US Civil War from a more "objective" (whatever that means) standpoint, and I get the feeling that the "lost cause" narrative is getting even more traction over the last few years than it did in the past, and that's a little disturbing to see.
The country I live in was overrun twice by Germany (once as the German Empire in WW1, and then as the Third Reich in WW2) and I know people who's family members were murdered by the Nazis, but I have no problems admitting that I have looked up a lot of information on German military figures, tactics and equipment. In fact I often enjoy playing as the Germans in military video games because I have more knowledge of German military equipment than I do of, for example, the equipment of the Red Army. I have no issue doing so because despite all that, I have a solid grasp of the historical context of both (rather complex) conflicts. I can separate my interest in the history from my feelings on the actions taken by Nazi Germany for example. Considering the history of my country under German occupation in WW2, it is highly likely that someone related to me by blood would have participated in some shape of form to the persecution of Jewish people during the occupation. I would never have the desire to defend those actions if they were to have ever happened, despite understanding the broader historical picture.
It's not unusual for me to have strong opinions on historical subjects, but I at least do my best to base them on known facts, or scholarly consensus. If someone is able to prove me wrong, I'm more than happy to admit defeat. History and historical facts are too important to let them become part of modern partisan politics.
Did you know that slavery was not abolished in states that supported the Union until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, after the war was over.
If it was all about slavery, it is strange that several states that supported slavery fought on the side of the Union, including Washington DC and Delaware.
+TheToledoTrumpton you misunderstood me. The north didn't fight to end slavery im not saying that. I'm saying the south left the union because they were worried the north would impose its will on it with regards to slavery. So the south left the union or tried to because of their desire to protect slavery. I.e. Without the slave issue the south never leaves and there's no war.
*****
Although slavery was the issue, the principle that was being fought over was a state's ability to say "No" to the federal government.
Yes, slavery was the issue that caused them to say "No", but if they had been allowed to ignore a federal bill (a right which they believed they held under the original articles of confederation) then that wouldn't have been a problem.
My point is that even if the North had backed off slavery, it is very likely, given the differences in culture and the economy, of the Northern and Southern states, that something else would have come along that the Southern States would have objected to.
The fact that the States were not aligned purely on the slave issue, does show that there was more at stake.
As mentioned, slave states Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri never declared succession.
In non-cotton states, slavery was already dying out, So although, if you read the cotton states declarations of war, they all mention slavery, South Carolina and Virginia don't mention it at all.
*****
No, I agree it is a fine point, but the fact remains that if the Southern States had known they would be forced to relinquish slavery, they wouldn't have joined the union in the first place.
And when they joined they were assured that they could leave if they wanted to.
Yes, slavery was the issue that tested the principle, but the civil war changed the nature of the union for ever, binding the states together tighter than anyone at the initial declaration ever imagined possible.
If you study American history beyond Kindergarten, is it important to realize why this wasn't just about slavery.
It was a war of unification, that, from that day forward, empowered the federal government to make unilateral decisions for the entire United States.
How do you get the map Cedar Mountain and the 48 small battles? my UGCW doesnt have them.
Let’s see 🤔 Lincoln himself said his paramount objective was to restore the Union (addressing secession) and not to save or to destroy slavery. He then goes on to say he would restore the Union with or without slavery or even saving the Union while freeing some and leaving others alone (meaning leaving some in bondage) I would also do that. So quoting Abe Lincoln himself it sure looks like the driving factor of the war for him was to end secession by force and preserving the Union.
The war started because the south was trying to secede over slavery. The unions motivations were to preserve the union not abolish slavery you are correct but the crisis started because the south was trying to leave specifically to protect slavery.
If slavery wasn’t an issue, the south would never have seceded and there would have been no war.
The war was started because Lincoln was trying to prevent the south from seceding. The unions motivations were to preserve the union not abolish slavery, you are correct but the crisis was started because Lincoln wouldn't leave the south be, so he started a war of imperialist aggression "I can't let the south leave, who would pay for the government?" because the south was trying to leave specifically for self government. See what i did there?
A gr8 video...gr8 insight
Even the "state's rights" argument, I would argue is just propaganda. The South only cared about state's rights when it strengthened slavery. They weren't concerned about the states rights of the Free states in regard to the Fugitive Slave Act. They weren't concerned with the state sovereignty of Kansas. They were more than happy to use the power of the federal government to further strengthen their institution.
Amazing video, THG! I agree with all of your points about the history of the Civil War and slavery. I also bought the game, Ultimate General: Civil War thanks to your Let's Play series.
Majority of the southern soldiers fought for their State not for slavery.
You are totally ignoring the fact that the seceded states left the Union and fought for their declared independence and existence as a separate nation 🤔
They tried to leave the Union because of slavery. That’s my point. Without the issue of slavery the south would have never tried to leave and there would have been no war.
The reasons why states left the union doesn't even matter. There had been threats of secession even from some Northern states. S. Carolina came close to leaving the union in the 1820's under Jackson's administration for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery. And might I add, that even some states today have considered secession, Texas, Arizona and California and again for reasons that have Nothing to do with slavery. The truth for the singular cause of the war was secession. Now as far as slavery, states rights, suspicion of the inner workings of the Federal govt. that many Southern politicians felt would ruin the South and benefit the North was also a factor of secession. Mr. Lincoln's election as President had more to do with secession than did slavery since he was not even a candidate on ballots in the South. Might I remind you that there were NO laws threatening slavery at that time but there were laws Protecting it's existence in the states where it was considered legal. Even Lincoln agreed to that. There were no public works projects that benefited the South. The Erie canal catapulted the Northern economy while the South stayed stagnant. Even the Trans Continental Rail Road which could have been located in a more central East/West location that could have benefitted the Southern economy some, was rejected and ultimately located far North from Chicago. Again, leaving the Southern states with Only slavery as their option. No wonder they clung to slavery as they did, they were basically left with no choice. Remember Lincoln's words: "Both sides have shared in the cause of the war as they have shared in the cost of it." Slavery as the cause for war/secession is a cop out, nothing more than an easy excuse.
@@MrKe4bss wow, nice essay. You win the no life 2019 award.
Since I have no life? I refuse your award......stuff it!
@@MrKe4bss no no no, you can't refuse it, it's yours wether you like it or not, since your stupid enough to type paragraphs on paragraphs I'm CZcams comments, like your actually going to change anyone's mind
I agree with your argument, even as a southerner, personally, I believe states rights was a cause, but slavery was the big thing with states rights, it was the question of slavery being a right of a state that caused the war.
The Kansas-Nebraska act that allowed the population to vote on slave state or no, Slave state or no, this alone I believe would prove that the war was about slavery.
I didn't mind your comments at all. They were all slave states at one point. If you could ask a union soldier why he was fighting, what would be his answer?
You’d probably get a variety of answers, someone from Massachusetts would be likely to be an abolitionist, someone from New York might just say to preserve the Union, and answers before and after the emancipation proclamation may vary greatly… but the Union soldiers didn’t start the war, or the crisis, the southern elites did, by their movement to secede from the Union and that was triggered primarily by the slave question.
@@thehistoricalgamer I think the predominant answer was more than likely they did not have the 300 dollars to avoid the Union draft. Conversely if you asked a confederate soldier the same question, he'd answer because the yanks were invading his home. As far as who started the war, the Election of 1860 may have well been the cause. It's important to note that slavery was legal in all states with Vermont being the first to limit it in 1777, while the Revolutionary war was ongoing. In the post American revolutionary era the two economies grew apart The northern becoming more industrialized and the south remaining mostly agrarian. When you insert the abolitionist movement which was deemed radical by all even up to the start of the ACW. Working conditions for a typical NYC factory worker was in many ways worse than the southern equivalent. Secession wasn't something just talked about at the beginning of the ACW and the American Revolution was a secessionist act as expressed by the idea of popular sovereignty that is rooted in the declaration. I'm not saying that slavery was not a terrible evil, it was. What I am saying is "Slavery as the predominant cause" especially early on in the war is not all that clear. Fort Sumter, the presumed act that began the civil war, had no casualties except for a lone soldier that died during a powder explosion while a salute to the colors was being performed. Sorry to be long winded--- TJ
Raised in Texas our heroes were the Texas Rangers, some of whom, previous to their service to the state, had been outlaws. We didn't really get much into the Civil War arguments of the deep south but as a student of history I had no choice. The central issue for war was slavery because how it affected the economy of the southern states. Tough discussion on here, but truthful! The North, however, will have to accept some of the blame for slavery in the south because they demanded goods and services the South provided at a moderate prices. To keep the prices down and goods flowing North at moderate prices many southern farmers turned to slavery after the war of 1812. My great grandfather did not have slaves per se on a North Carolina tobacco plantation but paid each man black or white a portion out of each year's sales. However, the problem he ran into was that by treating them as free men they were often treated as runaways by slave owners if they left the field houses to find other work and punished or killed as runaways. At any rate, though slavery was an evil institution. Yes, we revere the skills of our southern generals and field commanders. We still revere the fighting spirit of the southern soldier when facing an opponent that outclassed the South in weaponry. The recent move to obliterate our Southern battle flag has caused a lot resentment. We, in most of the South, certainly do not revere it over the flag of the United States today, but it is history and it happened and a few of my relatives rallied under the stars and bars. Most of my Texas family fought for the United States only because we believed that God founded this nation as unified nation. Anyway, keep up the great gaming that you have done with this series.
LOL, how simple-minded are the people who sit comfortably with their mistaken belief that the "war was about slavery." There is so much evidence to the contrary. Of course slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests for which every Southern household paid the price.
In fact, in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
As a history major, I have studied this issue extensively. I would respectfully encourage others, and "thehistoricalgamer," to learn more about this financial cause - the real cause - of this terrible war. Thank you.
In regards to the states right argument a states right to do what? Human Chattel Slavery
The easiest answer to this question: google The Cornerstone Speech. Or, read the Texas Ordinance of Secession, where they mention slavery 21 times. The war was clearly fought over slavery. The Ordinance of Secession for each southern state really show the reason why so many poor men and young men in the south fought. White men felt superior to black people. Being black was the lowest of the low in the south. If you were a poor white farmer with no slaves, you were still a white man. You would never be a slave. This must be viewed objectively and not through rose-colored glasses. The civil war was about slavery, ergo it was about the perceived inferiority of humans with black skin.
If you are interested, there is almost a book's worth of discussion on the game-labs forum about this very issue:
forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/18148-war-for-abolition/&page=4#comment-352293
I agree though.. everything points to the south seceding over slavery..
It doesn't necessarily means that the individual soldiers or generals were fighting for against slavery, they might have had other reasons to fight, but the reason for the war erupting was at the end of the day slavery as you say.
I really enjoyed this video. It is frustrating that there are still holdouts trying to claim the war wasn't about slavery. But I also think it would have been worth it to clarify why the South seceded when it did, as opposed to any other time in the over half century since the United States became a sovereign nation. The root cause of the war was overwhelmingly Slavery, but slavery was indirectly the cause of secession starting at the end of 1860. The flashpoint for South Carolina leaving the Union in December 1860, and therefore leading to the others to leave, was the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. While Lincoln did receive a definitive majority of the Electoral Votes, at 180 with the next closest being 72, he did not get a single Electoral vote from any of the Southern states. He also did not get a definitive majority of the popular vote, getting just under 40%. This was primarily due to the Democratic party being split and having a Northern Democratic Candidate (Stephen Douglas), and a Southern Democratic Candidate(John C Breckenridge). From what I understand the split did have to do with differences over how to deal with the new Republican party, which was most definitely the party that was Anti-Slavery, despite Lincoln's public stance that was somewhat more moderate. That was the immediate reason for secession in 1860-61. The Flashpoint for the outbreak of war was of course the standoff over Fort Sumter.
+HalfLifeExpert1 all true. Good point!
Thanks, I think it is also clear that a showdown over slavery was inevitable from the moment the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights became law in the 1790s. That inherent contradiction of basic rights for people alongside slavery was going to come to blows eventually, simply due to Southern stubbornness over the issue. It is true that slavery was a vital part of their agricultural economy, but they refused to made any sort of reforms to work toward reducing the need for slavery, and I think that primarily had to do simply with racism.
+HalfLifeExpert1 I'm not sure about that. I don't think there's much evidence that much of the north was somehow less racist. I think it was just that it was working so well and it's hard to get prosperous people to change their ways. Look at the oil States in the gulf that should diversify their economies, know they should, and yet struggle to. I don't think there's much evidence in the belief of equality the north outside a handful of abolitionist circles.
I'm not saying the North wasn't racist, many, many people most definitely were. What I am saying its that the southern determination to resist industrialization and stick to African slavery had a significant racist side to it. The North industrialized and modernized to the point where slavery simply was not needed. It is also important to remember that the slavery dispute was not primarily over slavery in the "old South", the states of the CSA. The primary dispute that came to blows in the years prior to 1860 was the expansion of slavery into the unincorporated territories east of the Mississippi River. The North wanted to contain slavery and let it die out eventually. The South wanted to expand slavery to the West. This was the reasons behind the Missouri compromise and Bleeding Kansas. It was also about control of the senate. Since each state is represented equally in the Senate, the North feared a Slave majority, and the South feared a Free-State majority.
Another very good book is Disease in the Public Mind - A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. It is a more contemporary explanation of the major part slavery played in the founding of the nation up into 1861.
I think it's important to note the "Lost Cause" theory that still prevails in Southern states today was born at those troubling years after the Civil War. Im sure the majority of those against the issue of slavery are from the South. Perhaps you should do a video on that next (The Lost Cause and Southern Redeemer movement)?
I know that I am late to the game but thought that I would share a teachers view. A History teachers view.
The Civil War is so far in the past that we forget what was driving the slavery issue. Most Northerners didn't care about slavery. Most Southerners didn't own slaves. What it truly came down to was Economics.
Prior to the Revolutionary War, the economies of the southern colonies were doing fairly well. Virginia was, in fact, the most wealthy of ANY colony. After the Revolutionary War the northern colonies began to diversify into industry much more than their southern counterparts. The south increasingly relied upon their fertile soil and more hospitable climate to grow just about anything that the world would want. Tobacco. Cotton. Vegetables. etc. To do so took a LOT of physical labor. Labor that was in ready supply through slavery.
To keep this brief, the economics of slavery made the south a viable economic force. The threat of the abolition of this money saving mechanism went on for years and then came to a head with Lincoln's election to the Presidency. He won with less than 50% of the vote. The south had multiple candidates that "split" the southern vote. Had they agreed on a single candidate, Lincoln would likely not have won. This doesn't mean that the southern states would not have left the Union BUT it might have held it off for a bit longer had a southern candidate won the election. In the end, the south knew that a northern controlled White House and Congress would spell doom for their economy leaving them little choice but to take matters into their own hands and leave the Union.
I could go on for pages and pages but I will refrain. In short, while the southern withdrawal was not 100% due to the slavery issue, it WAS the major factor for southern success.
Right on Hg. The best measure of what the civil war was about is the writings and pronouncements of the secessonists in 1861. Slavery is the only "state's right" the people involved were concerned about. I enjoy your pieces on Ultimate General Civil War. My own game play has been improved by y9our examples. Thank you very much.
It is the same about the people who say that all Wehrmacht soldiers were innocent angels who just followed orders. When in fact they participated several times in mass murder and other war crimes. It was not just the SS that were evil. But then again, the allies were not exactly purehearted either.
Congrats on 10k :D
+Meridian thanks!
When the influence of the US federal government touches on just about every aspect of our lives today - I think its a little silly to say that slavery is the most relevant issue to us or to the people who lived in that era.
As a southerner who used to subscribe to a pro Confederacy view of history (and who has since matured) these arguments tend to become too black and white. The war was most certainly fought over slavery. This doesn't mean every southern soldier fought for slavery, nor does it mean every northerner fought to free slaves. Overall, the South fought to protect an evil institution and the north fought against the idea you could leave the country if you wanted. Both sides believed it would be an easy war and stumbled in on ideologically flawed concepts. It is sad it took such bloodshed to end slavery in the US, but at least something good came out of the tragedy.
Basically exactly my point. Thank you !
thehistoricalgamer
Just stumbled across your channel, good history discussion and video games combined makes for a good time. 10/10 Will continue following haha
Not sure you would want to discuss this on what I thought was your gaming channel. Of course it's up to you.
I agree with the points you are making about the reason the war was fought and think the same issues can lead to a second civil war still exist today. If you think about how our republic is actually governed you will find conditions much the same as in the north and south prior to the civil war. Who ruled those state houses were the wealthy land owners, who owned slaves and the industrialists who owned the factories. If you look at who rules today it is still wealth and power. By in large the views of normal working Americans are ignored over party and power. This can lead to decisions which don’t reflect the views of the constituents. I suspect the rank and file knew next to nothing about what the south was fighting war but like Germany they likely drank the same cool aid that their leaders were spouting about protecting their towns, homes and families from the evil northern oppressors who wanted to change their way of life. Also remember that during that time period it was almost impossible to fact check anyone, or even get news first hand. Much of what people knew and understood came to them through word of mouth and frequently distorted by personal bias. So I believe the southern political leaders were fighting to protect slavery while the folks that did the fighting and dying were fighting fo hearth and home. If you look at the aftermath of the Civil war the south was almost completely wiped out. The railroads were destroyed, the rivers blocked with wreckage, most of the towns burned to the ground, what little industry the south had prior to the war gone and the economy destroyed. There was mass starvation, illness and death even without fighting as folks had no way to house or feed themselves. I say a second war is possible as the country is again as polarized by folks on the far left and right and again our elected leaders are mostly the rich and powerful with their own agendas. Like the Civil war two sides formed and stopped listening to one another. They forgot how to compromise, how to work together for the good of the union, different views and alternatives were shouted down because they did not match the group think of the day. When people are no longer able to interact and share a free expression of ideas, what comes next is usually hate and distortion. I do agree that the wealthy southern and northern politicians are responsible for the hate and distrust that led to the countries first Civil war and with your point that from the southern point of view at least at the political level, it was slavery. I wonder if the next war will be over immigration. Imagine a country of immigrants fighting over immigration. It’s nuts. ;-)
There was one northern state that used state's rights to ignore the Fugitive Slave Act
I believe it was Maryland, typically because most southern Marylanders cold hardily believed that the state should be a southern state because it is below the Mason Dixion line but sense the state hosts the capital and couldn't consider itself a slave state. So, the other state in mind could be Tennessee if I'm wrong.
I would say that many of the soldiers and some of the generals of the South were not fighting in their own minds for the preservation of slavery but for the defense of their homes. And this goes back to the culture of the time in the USA that almost all citizens considered themselves Virginians, New Yorkers, Ohioans, Texans, first and US citizens second so to many even if they disagreed with slavery they felt it was their duty to defend their state! We see this especially with Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet. Lee agonized over the decision of weather to go with the his State or with the Union 'With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword..." Then after the war was over he said this about slavery "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained." Longstreet after the war became a active member of the Republican party! The actions of these men and the reason we don't view them as evil or bad men is that they did what they did because of honor and duty not because of a want of slavery the 3 generals I list here were all against the institution of slavery! and against succession as well but they thought their duty to defend their homes. The war was about slavery but I can still respect the men who did not go to war because of slavery! That is why I despise Nathan Forest because he was a vile and horrible man who was all for slavery and founded the KKK after the war! The difference in why people fight is the reason why we can hold a Rommel up as a decent person and do not condemn the average German Soldier! Sorry for the long post I get rambling! But I do agree with your main point!
+Ben Nelson well put Ben. Exactly on the mark. When evaluating why the south left we are not necessarily evaluating why the people fought. Those can in many cases be two very different issues. However in investigating why a war occurred we must look at why the war began and why the south left, why people fought is a question that can be answered separately from what caused it.
Yep exactly!
Hmm, I should have read this comment before posting and just +1 this instead haha...
Sometimes for people, the loyalty to their country trumps all. Take world war two, yeah there were Nazis in Germany but there were some that fought for Germany while secretly saving Jews. In their ideals, it is better to fight for home then fight to change it within, than to lose your home all together.
I never have understood the relentless push for the Status Quo (TM)
It's not like thousands of schools/colleges and their government approved textbooks need any help with that.
I am in university. And was taught all history is someone's opinion of what happened. the data they reference is compiled by man and witness statements all have innate prejudice for certain observational and moral reasons their collection will never be accurate to what happened. Remember quoting a person is the writer's interpretation of what is said. Media has always found ways to get things wrong. I think your opinion of the motivations for the civil war is true I just would not be taking historian's writings as the truth of what happened. I am from Japan and our histories make the Samurai times seem like a wonderful era. I assure you they were not for anyone that was not Daimyō or Samurai.
My biggest concern when people start saying "the Civil War was about slavery" is not stating this fact - it was indeed fought over slavery ; it's rather the conclusions people jump to so eagerly : the North was marching on a crusade to free those poor slaves... which is WRONG. Lincoln himself hated Blacks with all his guts, but like many people who had to work as free laborers he was a staunch abolitionnist since slavery basically was unfair competition from slave owners, who put many competitors from the North out of business because they had no wages to pay. The Civil War was about enforcing the Northern economical system before anything else.
I'm 5 years late but what the heck. I love history and those with a similar passion for it. I don't disagree with you; the right to own slaves was the keystone of succession. Not much ambiguity there. No slavery = no civil war. But balancing passion with equal measure emotional detachment is important when interpreting history and how it shaped the world of today. The Lost Cause argument is not a valid one. I believe it is objectively bankrupt intellectually. But what about the utility of it? Is there some strange intrinsic value to that mindset? These are questions that require complete emotional sterility to assess. Civil wars are almost always the graveyards of countries. No matter who wins the seeds of hatred, resentment, and revenge are sown for generations. The victors often relish in the humiliation and subjugation of the conquered. No attempts are made to draw the warring sides back together so they can heal as one people. Making America whole again DEMANDED compromise between victor and vanquished. We may look back today and be disgusted by some of the compromises. Completely robbing southerners of their dignity and self worth would have ensured no lasting peace. The benefit of peacefully rejoining the fold had to outweigh the cost of further resistance. Southerners needed the Lost Cause and we more or less let them have it. No honor = no peace. Germany was basically castrated following WW1 and look what happened. Someone a thousand times worse picked up the Kaiser's pieces and started another world war. Nazis gained traction in a broken and humiliated country. Men can and will fight for want of dignity. Southern honor simply had to be left intact. America ended up coming out of the Civil War an even stronger country. Some might consider that a miracle. But to achieve this we had to sometimes give the baby its bottle. Again, not ideal but unavoidable in accomplishing the immediate and long term goals set forward. Time always has a funny way of sorting these things out though. Most people know the Lost Cause is a myth, even if they won't admit to it.
I wonder why I thought you were working on your PhD on History with an emphasis on the US Civil War? Either way, I always enjoy listening to your vast knowledge of this war. I am happy to say, thank goodness the Union won the war! I believe the South would have eventually abandoned slavery because of industrial advances, but since there was such a strong belief in the inferiority of Blacks (I'd say at least until the end of the 1960's) that we probably would have gone the way of apartheid -- and that is worth ending the practice earlier rather than later.
I still prefer to say that the Civil War was fought for the rights of states to enforce slavery because to my knowledge, the South was not trying to make the North slave states, but wanted them to acknowledge their rules for slavery. I am originally from Illinois but did live in the South when I was in the Army until settling in Washington.
In Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson deals extensively with the 30 or so years leading up to the war. No matter what raison de jour you may choose to justify the war from a southern perspective, it always comes back to slavery.
BTW I was born and raised in the South in the mid 50s and was an apologist for the lost cause for many years, but sometimes truth jumps up and slaps you in the face and it can hurt.