The Election of 1860 Explained
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- A summary of the most consequential Presidential Election in US History, the election of Abraham Lincoln. Check out the complete list of Presidential Election lectures here • Presidential Elections...
It's 2020, and we're home from school. My history teacher sends us work and links to these 2016 videos. Lol
ur mom oloolooloolol
Same
Same
You do realize the history in this video hasn't changed in that time right?
Myles cunningham dude same.
THIS GUY SAVED MY US HISORY GRADE
Hahahahaha
same
The rise of Abe Lincoln.
Such a wonderful, factual, unbiased account. Most gloss over the fact there were multiple factions and a myriad of views on both sides of the civil war and the slavery issue. I'm sickened when people create monoliths out of the North and the South. It dumbs down our history and just isn't right. Thanks so much for making this so well balanced.
+traicetrak thanks for the awesome feedback. I hope you subscribe and spread the virtual word.
Only people from the south hate this
@@Cavsallday86 what??
Good video man keep up the good work. I always look forward to your American history videos and law stuff!
+Old Kentucky Shark Thanks for the kind comment! Be sure to tell all your classmates!
I love your vids man good job!
Again, if teachers make history come alive the way you do, every student (those that are asleep) will get an A. It is vivid and alive.
@Stephen Flynn I'm a substitute teacher, I completely understand where you are coming from.
love ur videos keep it up
That picture of Samuel Chase is inaccurate. The picture you used is of my ancestor, Samuel Chase, judge of the Supreme Court of the United states, who died in 1811. I believe you were talking about Samuel P. Chase. I apologize for me pointing out your mistake, it happens. I was just confused to see a picture of my ancestor in a video past his death date. Sorry again, I don't mean to be rude. I hope this doesn't anger you by any means.
Good work
this man blinking aggressively
i was bout to say
Good video thanks
03:46 I think it was Salmon Portland Chase, not Samuel Chase
Thank you sir, very cool
Institutions continued to divide over slavery, and when the Democratic divided, there were no more intersectional institutions left. This concept should be taught in every collegiate class.
Yes, southern Democrats spilt the national party in a deliberate strategy to get Lincoln elected and bring on secession.
@@neilpemberton5523 You missed the point: all the intersectional institutions split apart during the 1850's, so when the Democrats split, there was nothing to keep the sections together except geography. In late 1859, there was a huge fight for the speakership in the House, which should have signaled how much the sections were splitting after the caning of Charles Sumner in the Senate.. The country was just drifting rudderlessly, and James Buchanan really did nothing to steer it.
@@BuddyNovinski I'm not sure what point you're making. I merely added an additional fact to the couple facts you posted originally.
Keith, do you think we might be seeing a similar situation to where the Whigs were back then(divided.) Do you think the Republican Party will adapt to Trump, or will it fade into obscurity? Interesting times!
Lincoln was our greatest president , idk how anyone can argue otherwise .
I agree. It was extremely important to preserve the Union, and I do not think anyone else had both the desire and the ability to do that.
Edrei Argueta I think Washington was because he set all the precedents for what it meant to be president but Lincoln is a close 2nd
Michael Hill Anyone could've done what Washington did . The most important thing Washington did as president was stop being president . Lincoln poured himself into keeping the United States , united . He ultimately gave his life for the sake of the union , and that is more noble than stepping down i think .
Edrei Argueta I agree which is why it's super close for me but Washington set a lot of the precedents we don't even think about today like the cabinet and yes, the 2-term precedent and with that I don't think just any person could have done that. It takes a special character to willingly give up power. But it's definitely close, Lincoln did a lot of great things for this country and he was the perfect guy for that time in our history.
I think Washington is in a class by himself. Then we have Lincoln, who saved the union. I do not think anyone else of that time period had the ability to do that, and some did not even seem to have the desire. Then we have Franklin Roosevelt, who saved capitalism from itself, may have prevented a Fascist or Communist revolution during the Great Depression (with 25% unemployed, something had to give), recognized the threat that Hitler was, and prosecuted the war to a successful conclusion, dying just before it ended.
The holding of the Dred Scott decision was that blacks, whether free or slave, were not citizens. Thus, Dred Scott did not have standing to bring his lawsuit in federal court. Had the Court stopped at that point, probably, it would not have been controversial. But the Court went on to decide the case as if it had jurisdiction, and declared, in obiter dicta, that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which hardened views all around and sped the onset of the Civil War.
Bingo! Here's where Taney goofed! The best decisions are narrow. Dred Scott did not have standing. Case closed.
A ruling that black people were not citizens would have still been controversial since nothing in the text of the Constitution supports the argument and because free black people had historically been considered citizens -- in the early national period free blacks could vote as far south as North Carolina, and in 1857 still could in seven northern states (Ohio, New York, and all the New England states except Connecticut). Ohio and New York only offered limited suffrage, while the New England states had equal suffrage.
Also, the Militia Act of 1792 refers to "every free able-bodied white male citizen," and it would not have been necessary to include the modifier "white" unless you also had citizens who weren't white.
Roger Taney flat-out LIED when he said that it was generally accepted that black people had no rights which a white man was bound to respect. His ruling was without textual support in the Constitution -- flat-out contradicted it, in fact, since he argued that state citizenship did not confer national citizenship and Article IV section 2 says that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States." He flat-out lied about the history he was using as precedent.
Taney's extremism backfired so spectacularly he lost moral authority in the North. Thus Lincoln suffered manageable political damage when he ignored Taney's rulings he found inconvenient, such as when Taney told him to restore habeas corpus.
Thank you for this! You helped me write my essay!
Imagine if this fell into the House of Representatives. 1824 would look positively civil
There is a typo at 6:25
Really well done video
+DwRockett Thanks for the nice comment, hope your subbed!
I dig the phrase "where energy goes" attention flows" it's 2022 is Hip still doing these videos ?
Thanks for getting me into College!
The Democratic National Convention was a complete firey trainwreck that year; not only did you have three conventions, but two separate tickets: this effectively handed the election to Lincoln before the votes were cast.
Also, the Northern Democratic convention did not select a running mate for Stephen Douglas - Senator Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama declined the VP nomination after he had been the only one on the ballot (William Alexander of New Jersey dropped out).
Douglas offered the VP nomination to Herschel Johnson at the end of the convention, which Johnson accepted.
Thank you! This election shaped contemporary history
who were the opponent I can't see them
why does he blink so much
Regarding the Democrat vote being split: If we would add up Breckinridge´s and Douglas's votes, they would have enough to win all of Bell's states, but from Lincoln they'd only take California and Oregon, so still lose 173 to 130.
Did they keep 2 states votes out of this election?
Said Oregon incorrectly and mistook Samuel Chase for Salmon P. Chase in the span of 10 seconds.
why put up a map and stand in front of it ?
And thanks a lot to all the people who voted Lincoln in 1860. They made history! I voted rajoy in spain in 2011, he is more or less our Lincoln
Can you do the confederate presidential election.
Interesting idea. I like it
Was there a popular election for the Confederate president?
They didn't have an election. They appointed him in a convention.
Since Davis ran unopposed it wouldn't be all that interesting.
"They didn't have an election. They appointed him in a convention."
Davis was appointed provisional president by the convention in the winter of 1861. Later in the year he was elected president for a six year term starting in February 1862. No one ran against him.
I wish Sam Houston could've been president. He would have been the only president to have been president of another nation.
Hell ya brother! Texas and the USA!
He'd have been a better choice than either Pierce or Buchanan.
@@gregoryeatroff8608Or even hothead John C Fremont, who would have hanged all the secessionists and asked questions later...
@@nora22000 Fremont had charisma and good intentions, and not much else. It's a good thing he never became president.
@@gregoryeatroff8608 I do realize his political and negotiating talents were limited; must be part of the water in South Carolina. None of them seemed too good at the finer points of getting along with people.
But his shoot first reputation might have helped quell the situation instead of the passivity of Buchanan and the expected irresoluteness (lawyers talk too much) of Lincoln. If he'd gotten his father-in-law's backing and won in 1856, he may have gotten the Fire Eaters in hand the way that wildman Andrew Jackson did with the same people in the Nullification Crisis. He would definitely have been a planter's worst nightmare, though--a Southern abolitionist.
The only thing we learn from history...is that we don't learn from history...
The question that keeps me up at night is: What if US Senator Douglas Won?
There’s a video about that on the CZcams channel Mr Beat. What if Lincoln lost?
Lincoln was not apart of the free soil party he was apart of the whig party I know this because I watched a biography on him
I think Lincoln was a Free Soiler before he was a Whig.
Lincoln was never part of the Free Soil Party, but he was a free soiler (lowercase letters) in the sense that he supported the free soil doctrine of banning slavery in the territories. It's like being part of the small-L libertarian faction of the Republican Party instead of joining the capital-L Libertarian Party today.
Lincoln was a Whig until the Illinois Whig Party dissolved and merged with the anti-Lecompton Democrats to form a Republican Party in the state. That happened in 1855 or 1856, I don't recall the exact date.
Many Whigs were free-soilers (Conscience Whigs). Others supported slavery, even some in the North (Cotton Whigs).
James Buchanan was president 1857-61. He was NOT the worst president, but certainly among the bottom of the below average.
Tbh I don't understand what he said???
I love how Lincoln is one of the best presidents and yet he did the absolute worst in the popular vote out of any victor
John Quincy Adams did worse in the popular vote.
He didn't win the popular vote. I probably should have probably added "any victor in the popular vote"
Andrew johnson did not support either breckinridge or douglas, but union canidate john bell...ironically he would end up being the 4th mans vice president 4 years kater
mr griffin students?
*13 Keys to the White House (1860 Edition):*
1. *The President's Party gained seats in Congress in the last midterm.:* False (The Republicans won the House for the first time ever in history.)
2. *No competitive primary contest in the President's Party.:* False (It was so contnencious, that the Democratic Party split into two.)
3. *The Incumbent President seeking re-election.:* False (Buchanan was so unpopular, that he didn't even campaign for re-election.)
4. *No strong third party candidates.:* False (Not only did the Southern Faction split from the party and nominate their own candidates, but the Constitutional Union Party was formed on a platform to stop secession.)
5. *The economy is not in recession in 1860.:* True (The economy was still going strong, thanks to the new land they just won.)
6. *We'll see economic growth in the long term.:* False (The country was breaking up, so the economy was about to fall apart.)
7. *Major policy changes:* True (Buchanan's support of Dred Scott showed the Democratic Party's attitude shift towards slavery.)
8. *No social unrest:* False (Pro-Slavery movements were on the rise in the South, and were hell-bent at destroying America.)
9. *No scandals:* True (James Buchanan, despite not being a compitent President, wasn't embroiled in scandal at all.)
10. *No foreign/military policy failures:* False (The Mormon War was a disaster for America.)
11. *Major foreign/military policy successes:* True (The Pig War was handled well, with both the US and UK armies holding San Juan Island in a joint military occupation.)
12. *Charasmatic incumbent:* False (I would give them the point if the Democrats picked only one candidate and now two.)
13. *Uncharasmatic challenger:* False (Do I even need to say anything? Lincoln was as charasmatic as Presidential Candidates could get.)
*True:* 4
*False:* 9
*Result:* Political Earthquake
Maybe we should have left the South secede?
Kevalry I wonder about that sometimes. I totally 'get' why Lincoln felt responsible for the secessions and that he wanted to wrestle them down and force them to change their minds. But NYC tried to secede too, as a separate city-state, so he was looking at a potentially disintegrating nation. He just got the shorr end of rhe stick; the compromise clock ran out on his watch.
One of the better reasons to not let that happen was money. Lincoln said something along the line of, why should northern business man and bankers lose their profit just because some Southerners want to quit the union. And Southern debt was substantial.
The Union could not let the South secede. They'd lose too much in tariffs.
@@johnmassoud930 Both sides would have been better off.
Probably would have brought WWI here though. Still haven't read them but I know in the Harry Turtledove books about what would happen if the north/south stayed divided he has the Confederates allying with the British and French in the lead-up to WWI, and the Union in turn allying with the Germans, and I think that's probably what would happen. Obviously the entire timeline would be drastically different but I think the Great War would probably happen regardless and with all the animosity that would still be there it'd probably lead to at least another Civil War
I'm just watching this cuz I love history lol
to the south. So they obviously didn’t like it if someone was just taking their money or just losing their money.
2. What would make a northerner participate in the Underground Railroad?
Their family could be slaves and they want to help them out or even the slaves could repay them in a way, like with money or other things. Another reason why they would participate in it is because they dislike slavery and they just want to help out the slaves.
(Northerners were made to help capture slaves, wether they wanted to or not, this made them angry.)
3. What did the South get in this compromise (1850)? Why was this important to Southerners?
The south got the fugitive slave act, the fugitive slave act is when the south can go into North American and get their slaves back and capture them because “They are their property.”
This is important because slaves could just escape to the north and just be free but then the south would lose money from that so it is important to the south because they get their property back and their money back.
Did not need a warrant
No trial by jury
Federal Commissionists -10.00 per slave 5.00 if the were acquitted.
4. What did the North get in this compromise? Why was this important to Northerners?
North-California admitted as a free state-slave trad abolished in D.C..
North South
California free state for the rest of the
Who do you think “won” the compromise? Why?
5. What was the Fugitive Slave Act? What was its impact?
The fugitive slave act was basically someone could get their slave back even if they were in the free land.The impact was that people could go into free land and take slaves and the north hated it.
6. Did the Fugitive Slave Act achieve the South's goal of stopping the underground railroad?
No, there were still people who would help out the slaves, but many of them didn’t because they didn’t want to go to jail.
7. Why do you think that the Fugitive Slave Act made Northerners who weren't abolitionists angry?
They were mad because they didn’t believe in having slaves. Other Northerners were mad because they were being told that they had to legally help southerners retrieve their runaway slaves.
8. What was the reaction of Northerners who read Uncle Tom's Cabin?
300,000 copies
It was popular in the north, it made people realize the horror of what slaves go through.
I brought up issues of slavery.
9. What did the South think about the Uncle Tom's Cabin?
They felt that the story was exaggerated. They were angry about the loss in slaves.
10. There are many causes of the Civil War but why do you think Lincoln said that the author was “the little old lady who started this great big war”? Harriet Beecher stowe wrote the book “Uncle toms cabin” and it became a best seller and caused people to realize.
Even if all votes lincoln didn't get where combined he would win with 169 electoral votes but lost the popular vote by over 20 points
Samuel Chase? Don't you mean Salmon P Chase? Samuel died in 1811.
Funny Lincoln list was forbade in some Southern areas, so we learnt Lincoln did not get many vote in the South it might be he would have got some, if the people could have voted for him. In Missoury (slave state) Lincoln got the 10% of the vote and Lincoln got some votes in Kentucky and Maryland (slave states) about 1000-2000. It doesn not matter he became the winner, but these vote lost forever.
help
In view of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, quoted at 8:57, how long would North and South have stared at each other if the South had not attacked Fort Sumter? Would the United States and the Confederate States eventually have reached peaceful coexistence?
Consider Cuba. The Communist government undoubtedly views Guantanamo to be as much of an insult to its sovereignty as the Confederacy thought Fort Sumter was to its sovereignty. Yet, Castro, demonstrating that he has far more intelligence and common sense than Jefferson Davis, never attacked Guantanamo, because he knew Cuba would then be reduced to a bubbling oil slick.
Lincoln, of course, knew that the Southerners were hotheads, and that it would just be a matter of time. And he was right.
To be honest, I would have voted for Douglas and not Lincoln.
Douglas was a northern democrat, so not the racist one
@@morgankingsley4992 Douglas was still pretty racist. He hit the white supremacy theme hard when Lincoln ran against him for the Senate back in 1858. He wasn't pro-slavery like Breckinridge, his attitude towards the Peculiar Institution was "not in my back yard," but other people can do whatever they want with it. Southern extremists were horrified that he was willing to let people in the territories vote against slavery if they wanted instead of imposing slavery on an unwilling population, but most northerners were angry with him for being willing to let slavery spread if the local whites wanted it to.
At any rate, I'm curious -- why do you prefer Douglas over Lincoln? There were a lot of policy differences between the two, which ones make you like Douglas better?
Or is it because you think the southern states wouldn't have seceded if Douglas won and his election would have prevented civil war? And that letting slavery survive decades longer than it did in our own history is a price worth paying to prevent the war.
@@gregoryeatroff8608 Lincoln had said some racist things to. Many people probably didn’t know, but despite the opposition of slavery for many northerns there was still a lot of racism going around. They hate slavery for the principle of it but they could careless about the blacks themselves, The African nation Liberia was originally created to send off free blacks to live in peace away from white people with them including Lincoln thinking that Blacks and whites can’t live together in peace (and ironically the freed slaves that were sent to Liberia ended up enslaving many of the local natives of that region.)
Ory - gun
Hi Aaron
You yo daddy son
+ErnLeJern k
+Ryan F u tryna beef cuh?!!!???!!!?
+ErnLeJern yuh
+Ryan F ur bae isn't even fam thooooooo
How is this video relevant to December 2023? Colorado decides to remove Trump from the ballot and then here we are with another history lesson. Let's go Trump 2024!!
Dude...it wasn't about the s word
SCREW THIS WHY AM I HERE?????????? WTF?
Because a big clown hit you?
ORGON
U look like muselk
Bernie winning could make history repeat.
The Confederate Battle Flag is not racist, it's real name is the Saint Andrew's cross battle flag and only has religious symbolism.
LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERACY
FrecklyCash1488 nah
Uh, you forgot about an other very very important item, that was the catalyst for Lincoln's war, The Morrill Tariff, n the previous egregious taxations imposed on the southern states, also the fact that the northern states were getting pissed at having to pay above average import taxes on southern goods coming back from Europe, if they'd just paid fair market value for the goods in the first place to the south! Plus, the North didn't want the south to gain an economic foothold in world trade! Slavery was never the primary issue for the war of northern aggression! It was economics and unfair taxation!
Bullshit. It was a far milder tariff than the one that South Carolina tried to secede over during Jackson's Presidency. And, unfortunately for you, all the seceding states and Confederate politicians straight up to the President and Vice President of the Confederacy said they seceded over slavery. The War of Southern Arrogance was launched to preserve slavery first and foremost. The only states' right they cared about was the right to own slaves and they cheered the Dred Scott decision which stripped the free states of their right to be free states.
I'd honestly be fine if you bastards had left though. We wouldn't have Trump or Hillary running for the White House in 2016 if you bastards were gone.
The Morrill Tariff wasn't a catalyst for the war. The Morrill Tariff didn't have the votes to pass in the senate until AFTER the cotton state senators walked out over slavery. The Morrill Tariff was an EFFECT of secession, not a CAUSE.
Oh, and the upper south states all rejected secession after the Morrill Tariff passed in that shrunken Senate.
In fact the Tariff of 1857, the tax rate in effect when secession started, was the LOWEST rate in more than 30 years, and had passed without a SINGLE dissenting vote in any of the states that tried to secede. Alexander Stephens used the tariff to argue AGAINST secession, telling the Georgia convention "hey, we won on taxes, if we just keep cool we'll win on slavery too." (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.)
Dee Dee FItz is either grossly ignorant of history, or is simply lying.
“Northern aggression” it was the confederacy that fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. They started the war in he first place.
The little giant got 4th. Omg