The US Civil War Was NOT Fought Over Slavery
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 2021
- Support the Channel:
www.subscribestar.com/leather...
www.buymeacoffee.com/leatherapr9
All Social Links: bio.link/leatherapronclub
The popular political refrain stating that the US Civil War was fought primarily to end slavery is absurd and a dangerous example of historical revisionism made to promote a contemporary political agenda.
In this video, I've gone through some of the hard factors which motivated this largely economic war.
If there were a country, we'll call it country A, which made the majority of its income by selling oil, and another country, country B, began imposing sanctions on country A which hurt it economically, would a war declared on country B by country A be considered to be "about" oil? What if country A had no intention of disrupting the oil production of country A at all?
CZcams: tinyurl.com/tszxmb99
Bitchute: tinyurl.com/4djn4sm3
Odysee: tinyurl.com/7e9a25vs
Twitter: / leatherapronguy
Everyone knows that the good guys have won every war ever, they're just like the Avengers!
@Witchfinder Nielsen So you’re defending Hitler now ?
@Sygg Kvisling "Witchfinder" Nielsen ї
true true yeah thats true. true
Not every war, but in the American civil war they did
@@matthewdavid6134 the "good guys" of that war committed warcrimes in Georgia and im sure other places. wow so good
Sort of like the US Invasion of Iraq was about "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
did they find any
@@jmgonzales7701 Chemical weapons yes, but these were purchased from black markets that obtained them from the West in the first place (Iirc mostly France) so this was buried and covered up at the time. Chris Kyle himself wrote about coming across this himself. Still, though, it wasn't at all close to what the media made it out to be of course
@@jmgonzales7701 the only thing they could find was yellow cake uranium, which is impossible to make a weapon out of, but is incredibly important for using as a fuel source in nuclear power plants which Iraq was trying to build at that time. At that time though your average American had no idea of that and just heard "uranium" and the MSN had manufactured consent again for another war in Iraq.
@@CriminalizeObesity bruh what the hell is france doing
Iraq's lost cause may not be lost after all..
I've always said that it's more correct to say that the Civil War was not fought over the moral question of slavery, though the institution of slavery was definitely in the mix if cultural and economic factors that led to the war.
It was about white farmers not wanting to compete with slave labor. Why do you think they import so many immigrants today? Same pattern.
It was the primary economic and cultural force of the south. The South fought to keep their “way of life” which was slavery. The North fought to keep the Union and largely did not care about slavery; the emancipation proclamation was created after the war to recontextualise it and cut the south off from foreign aid.
@@Fly-the-Light That is what is often forgotten. Britain wanted America divided. The North knew the British were vehemently anti-slavery and changed the narrative. If the North could paint the war as being about freeing slaves, the south would lose popular support from Britian and would be cut from aid.
Au contraire, slavery was NEVER a cause nor justification for waging a War of Secession. You truly need to educate yourself on U.S. history from 1820 through 1860 Anno Domini. The War of Secession was about money... more precisely rights to taxation and trade/economic regulation.
U.S. North (Federal Government) started the War of Secession. Abraham Lincoln himself stated he was waging war to maintain the Union/Republic and he even stated he was ambivalent toward slavery (Lincoln cared not for slavery pro nor con).
@@DerSchleier Funny how slavery ended right after the war and then ended globally. Not to mention southern plantation owners wanting to spread slavery to the new territories. Sure all that’s about money esp white farmers not wanting to compete with slaves in such territories. The south was a vassal state for England as well.
Just look at what we have today, massive 3rd world immigration taking jobs of working people creating a permanent underclass for elites.
Had the South shared Lincoln’s goal of sending the slaves back to Africa we would have conquered Mars by now.
Nathan Bedford Forrest said, "If we ain't fighting for slavery, I'd like to know what we're fighting for!"
ask the perpetrators of the iraq war what it was about. you'll ask 50 different people and get 100 answers. pointing out one persons opinion does not conclude the reasoning for the war. after all, abraham lincoln said that "if I could save the union without freeing a single slave I would."
@@ursamajor3362 Lincoln had no intent to free slaves upon his ascent to Presidency; he wasn't an Abolitionist. But he wasn't exactly fond over the institution of slavery, either. He chiefly stated his choice to do nothing about freeing slaves because the South was uppity about him potentially issuing harsher policies for slave owners -- which again, he did not intend to do.
The Southern aristocratic class who relied on their slave labor and held the greatest influential sway over the people, in their paranoia and rage over Lincoln winning the election, did not believe him. Hence their turn to treachery through secession, and why the Emancipation Proclamation only happened a while into the war when it became loud and clear that keeping that stance on the institution was doing less good than using the opportunity to outright get rid of it.
Read the articles of secession each southern state issued upon rebelling against the Union and joining up with the Confederates. The South, in their own words, not only wanted to preserve slavery, but *expand it.* And in doing so, they were willing to spit over everything the founding fathers fought and bled to establish.
@ursamajor3362 but we don't have to ask 100 ppl about the cause of the confederate states fighting. Their leaders made it plain.
How do you explain the secession documents? I agree that the north fought to preserve the union, but the southern states were quite clear that their intent was to preserve slavery in those documents of secession.
In fact, the US constitution does not use the words “white” or “black” at all. The Confederate Constitution did, and it’s not hard to imagine how they were used.
Alabama’s definitely said that, but most of them said it was due to the election and presidency of Abraham Lincoln. So don’t get me wrong I think to some states that was definitely part of it, but I think they all had multiple reasons, and the #1 issue was Lincoln’s totalitarianism. He was a ruthless dictator. Killed innocent civilians, including many Indians, imprisoned political opponents and critics of his, completely destroyed states’ rights to self govern, as the constitution intended. He was basically Americas version of Joesph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, just didn’t manage to kill quite as many people.
@@ESPLTD322 Wow! Very wrong. The documents that opposed Lincoln's presidency said so because he was against slavery. Here are two quick examples:
_"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_ (South Carolina)
_"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose."_ (Georgia)
If he had been pro-slavery, they wouldn't have seceded, ergo, it wasn't just his election that inspired secession.
As for "ruthless dictator", there was an entire half of the country that enslaved over 1/3 of its population which was CONVINCED that Lincoln wasn't racist enough to even risk staying part of the US, to the point of resulting in the most US casualties of any war before or since, so that's a hard sell. The Confederate constitution stepped on states' rights more than the US constitution did, so it's not like they were, in any interpretation of the word, more free after seceding.
@ESPLTD322 Lincoln would've solved a big problem if he'd live to repatriate all the slaves
@@longiusaescius2537 Not so sure the South would have survived that, based on how much they relied on slavery and how little they recovered
So refreshing to see someone explain in a a calm manner that things are often more complicated than may seem at first
Not really, just reframing things. It was about states rights but state rights to partake in slavery.
@@lampad4549 tell me what was worse, being a slave or a factory worker?
they are really not though. The confederate constituion and cornerstone speach explicitly state that slavery was the cause of the civil war.
@@jhonklan3794 well then if you know so much tell me what Lincoln thought of black people in his personal letters.
@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272a slave, and Lincoln was racist, pretty much everyone was, the North wasn't fighting over slavery the south was
Wow, using the emancipation proclamation in a tactical manner to cripple the south while also aiding the north with troops and by increasing morale is an incredible insight. Thank you for making this video, I was ignorant of this fact before watching this.
Insight*
@@Yochillitsthatserious thanks
Strategic not tactical, and second it was still something that many northern abolishinists had been pushing for since the beginning on moral grounds as well.
@@matthewdavid6134 explain to me the reason it was strategic while not being tactical? I’m genuinely curious as I do not see how it can’t be both tactical and strategic.
@@shanghaislim1467 to deprive the south of any direct European support, tactically it didn’t change much as freed slaves from the south were already being kept as “contraband” to aid union armies, so no tactical change, but massive strategic change. Plus it was an aim of the northerns to rid the country of its original sin.
I had a boomer teacher once tell me "Secession was about slavery, the Civil War was about Secession."
Well the Confederate elites being Jewish cared a lot about the slaves the owned because the Northern anti-Slavery sentiment was strong. They supported the secession which was being done because under the fear of raising taxes and creation of their own banking system. They both agree to support each other. So, secession was part about slavery and the Civil War was about secession to restore the central banks control.
@@muhammadabuzarkhan7450 It's crazy how everything you said was made up entirely in your imagination. I'd be surprised if you can cite one single historical document from any person at the time to support anything you're saying. I'd even accept a random opium addict from the streets of Arkansas as evidence. Not saying I won't call it out as stupid, but I'd be impressed you found anything.
@@juliank6793 Excuse me, what I stated isn't required to have sources as you can find any historian of different political belief state many of the fact. It is the interpretation of the facts is what you are actually asking sources for. But why do I have to, I am entitled to have my own interpretation instead of simply quoting away other people interpretation whose political belief matches mine.
All I did was point to even you can even google search (which isn't really a professional thing to do but not the point); almost all sources will interpret facts differently from mine. But stated these event and the fact interpretation are completely incorrect. And explain how so.
So, giving sources mean nothing as it all boils down to:
Do you have a bias that you interpret these fact to your liking?
Are you wiling to accept other people interpretation just because you give certain people a lot of credibility without keeping in mind they can be paid off, make mistake or have their own agenda to misstate things?
Do you even want to change the way you see things when an argument is presented against it or not because you invested to much on that view to change now?
All the sources in the world are present and you can find what I am saying just by doing a little more effort. But I highly down you care what I provide to you but only care how different is what I am saying to yours.
You might be one of those: Telling them something or not doesn't matter they are determine to walk down their past.
So, how about you start by providing your then I simply start using that source my reference and starting point?
@@muhammadabuzarkhan7450 Blaming the AMERICAN civil war on the JEWISH is the most anti-semetic shit i've ever heard
@@niyah000 40% of the Jewish population hold slaves meanwhile less then 3% of the Non-Jewish white population hold slaves. Tell me, if so many non-Jewish whites do not hold slave then why are they dying to converse slavery. Because the Jews have power and being close to them is beneficial.
Also, you illiterate fool; in order to be a Semite you need be part of a group who speak Semitic and genetically close to Neolithic Levantine Farmer or Neolithic Anatolian Farmers. Most of the Jews in America are most likely Sephardic at the time or British Israeli (Anglos who believe they are descendant of the lost tribe of Israel but genetically disproven otherwise).
Wars are big in scope. Any government wanting a war will pepper its populous with a multitude of justifications. By the middle of the war it becomes clearer which arguments were the most effective and so the government can shift to emphasize these reasons while also claiming that they had been talking about them right from the start.
I hate how much sense this makes.
The South would have never given up their aristocracy. That’s why they got a war.
Exactly
Republican Party Platform of 1860
...8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein..."
Republican Party Platform of 1856
"...Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.
Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery..."
*territories not states.
The Territory was a legal construction of Congress describing areas claimed by the United States (like the vast Lousiana territory after its purchase), that were not States.
@JT-bc5cd That's the thing: the Republican party platform opposed the expansion of slavery, but held that the government couldn't ban slavery in already existing states. Lincoln agreed with this position
Did republican party defend american indians? The republicans opposed their southern competitors having free labor.
@s.henrlllpoklookout5069 Lincoln agreed that the authority to abolish slavery didn't lie in the office of the President. Read his remarks more closely.
"How lucky are we that the good side won *every single war in history*" - Norm MacDonald (pbuh)
Why was it that only slave states seceded? Never could wrap my head around that one.
Not all the slave states seceded with some border states being allowed to keep slavery while staying in the union for a bit longer
@@fabrizioruffo1799yes but every state that did secede was a slave state
@@schretlenaugustijn2391 Conversely not every state which fought a war to end slavery was a free state. If the war was just to end slavery then the proposed Corwin Amendment would have been more than sufficient to prevent bloodshed.
@@fabrizioruffo1799 The war was not about ending slavery, but preserving and expanding it. The South started it with their preliminary hostilities against Union-aligned outposts armories within the South leading up to their formal attack on Fort Sumter, which kicked it off in full. They seceded not because the North was showing real evidence toward putting an end to the South's greatest moneymaking device, but because the South merely believed they were out of a paranoid sense of political competition, which they were on the losing end of as marked by Lincoln defeating his southern opponent in the election of 1860.
Reminds me of when apu on the Simpson’s got his citizenship and he was asked the cause of the civil war. He went into a diatribe and what cut off by the interviewer with ‘just say slavery’
Damn, it is SO nice to listen to you. You have such an not naive approach
😂
The problem with the states rights argument is that the right they wanted was to decide the issue of slavery…….
Also the south didn't care about the states rights of the north when they made the north return slaves to the south
exactly
Do you seriously think every single Confederate soldier, most of whom didn't even own slaves, really were going to war to fight for slavery?
@@kingrollypollyvii5565 most soldiers fight for pay
@@vantaplat7411 Boy I really hope they got paid well! (They didn’t)
The very notion that the soldiers of this time for monetary gain is absurd seeing as how lightly they were compensated for their efforts.
I don’t have the numbers handy it’s not too hard to look up with a little time and effort for those interested, but slave owners in America were such a small percentage of the population, and of that population large percentage of the slave owners weren’t what most people would call “Americans.” It’s also interesting how it’s always left out now every group of Americans besides the few slave owners that existed were outright against it or despised it for various reasons… the point is people should take the time to learn about the subject in it’s entirety.
TLDR you’d be surprised who really owned the slaves, and how many people were against it.
i know who you're talking about
Small hats were an extremely tiny percentage of plantation and slave owners despite their over representation in slave trade.
@@ludwigjohanssen3108 no
@@ludwigjohanssen3108 That's simply not true. They were vastly overrepresented as slave and plantation owners.
@@patmagroin9950 the same group of people who owned the slave ships, the majority of them
If slavery did not exist in the US in 1860, what would have been the proximate cause that brought about the 1861-65 war?
Yeah, that one question kinda makes the whole argument fall apart doesn't it?
Power differential
Maryland and New Jersey were slave states during the war. Read about Stephen Duncan
Lincoln invaded
@@todo9633 taxes, states rights and power. History has a way of repeating itself. Look at Texas vs current government. Basically boils down to sovereignty
While the war was not directly fought over the issue of slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, every other reason for the war was rooted in the south keeping slaves en masse. Gonna keep it short, but I can expand on this if anyone asks.
1. Economics: Low skill jobs like farm hands are much easier to fill with slaves because not much thought is needed to perform these tasks. High skill jobs on the other hand require more complex thoughts. If you ever learned how to knit or created a recipe on your own you should be able to attest that learning that complex skill used up brain power. The relevant consequence of learning complex skills is that you get practice thinking critically. In salves, this leads to being better at organizing and thus becoming more rebellious. Farming was much more profitable in the south due to many reasons including climate and soil quality. Specifically plantations in the south started growing cash crops for export the most famous being cotton. Due too this being such a boon, the southern economy was based primarily around growing and exporting cash crops which in turn promoted the use of slaves. There was no need to industrialize and so very few southern states did. Exceptions to this are Kentucky (who didn't secede) with metal foundries and Georgia with a growing railway sector. The north on the other hand was not able to export cash crops due to the lack of good factors the south had. Instead their economy developed industries of creating complex goods like metals, cloth, and paper. Learning how to use these complex skills discouraged slavery. Also due to the north not having such great land as the south, a culture of using slaves to make massive amounts of cash never developed. In short, the economics of the south promoted and was promoted by slavery whereas the north's did not.
2. Political Balance: For 40 or so years before the civil war, there was conflict between the slave states and the free states. It was happening since the revolutionary war, but the conflict only started getting really heated around the recession in the 1820's. The senate had to be balanced between slave states and free states otherwise one of the sides would get uppity and try to secede. The Missouri Compromise and Bleeding Kansas are just a few examples of how bad it got. The main divide here was whether the state supported the institution of slavery or not.
3. Tariffs: As he said in the video, the tariffs disproportionately harmed the south and almost caused a civil war. Why was that though? The south was an export based agrarian economy whereas the north was a growing manufacturing power. Read point 1 for more details.
4. Culture: The south was generally pro slavery and the north was honestly wishy-washy about it. They didn't want it to expand, many even saw it as a moral evil, but there was not enough political willpower to shut it down elsewhere like Britain had done to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There were 2 big reasons for this. 1: The sects of Christianity practiced in the north and south were different in how they viewed slavery. The Quakers for instance abhorred it. 2: Southerners saw owning slaves as an ambition for them to achieve. The rich southerners had plenty of slaves but few of the poor southerners even had 1. So other than the religious aspect, economic reasons were a major factor in why the south wanted slaves. Again, go read point 1 for more details.
5. States' Rights: While I fully agree with the states being more autonomous than they are now, to understand why this was a cause of the civil war you need to look at what the issues were regarding states' rights at the time. The big ones are economics (point 1), politics (point 2), tariffs (point 3), and slavery itself. A big reason why the first set of states seceded was because they feared that Lincoln would abolish slavery. They specifically wrote that part down even.
6. Northern Aggression: While the north technically didn't fire the first shots, they definitely maneuvered the south into doing so. The south had 2 options with Fort Sumpter: let the northern garrison get resupplied and all but admit that they had no conviction in seceding or fire upon the fort and capture it thus starting the civil war. The second wave of states seceded because they saw this as the federal government overreaching. This is actually one of the few points that doesn't directly lead back to slavery. It takes a bit longer. Why did South Carolina need to fire on Fort Sumpter? Because they seceded. Why did they secede? A myriad of factors but also directly to preserve slavery. What were these other factors? Economics (point 1), politics (point 2), and tariffs (point 3).
In conclusion, while a lot of the factors that caused the civil war were not the moral justification invented halfway through the war, slavery was the root cause of every major divide between the north and the south.
Well put
Great summary
The south actually didn't pay as much in taxes as the north did. In fact, New York city alone accounted for 80% of the revenue of the United States from tariffs on the city alone.
States rights vs federalism was also one of the causes of the war
Thanks for talking about this.
The North may not have fought against slavery, that doesn't mean the South wasn't fighting to persevere slavery.
Absolutely but lovely historians want to paint the North as anti slavery from the start and Lincoln like the third arrival of Jesus when reality is completly different. Main reason for the war was to preserve the Union at all cost. Slavery was one of the reasons the south fought for, especially because their hole economy was built around it.
preserve
This is bordering on Lost Cause misinformation. Of the states that seceded and listed causes all but one list slavery/domestic institutions. Some also listed as causes free states not supporting slavery enough and allowing abolition groups to exist in the states. None of them listed tariffs in their causes in fact 90% of the federal budget was via Northern ports (NY). The Confederate constitution required any new territory to be a slave state . Atun-Shei debunks these arguments and provides more important citations and context for almost every pointed cited in his series Checkmate Lincolnites . m.czcams.com/play/PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0.html
Atun-Shei is a communist, left wing liar.
union bot
Oh God. You actually cited Atun Shei. How embarrassing.
@@feudinggreeks3316 There's literal citations in the video pointing out idiocy in this videos arguments.
@feudinggreeks3316 At least Atun-Shei cites his sources. He is a history buff, not a professional, but his excellent use of cited and peer-reviewed sources is legitimate. To deny that is either stupidity or ignorance. Now that is embarrassing.
It was fought over culture. Economics was one aspect of culture they fought over, but stripped down to a core was the old sense of life and liberty vs the new sense of life and liberty
Reasonable considering that governments making major decisions largely based on virtue isn't realistic.
First of all dig the hat, and I think that you are making a lot of good points here. The civil war was not simply a battle of right vs. wrong; it was a battle for money and power primarily. If anything, slaves were treated as pawns and scapegoats by both sides, and their eventual freedom, however just, was not a moral tactic. Escaped slaves were considered "enemy property" by the union army and were used as scouts and soldiers. Also, Lincoln initially did not want any black people at all in the army, for fear of border states seceding, to your point of his objective of unification (not freedom) at all costs.
If you're going to do more war videos, the Vietnam war is another one with a long and complicated history that you won't learn much about in American history textbooks!
uh yeah it's actually simply right vs wrong. lincoln was a tyrant and invaded the south. perhaps you should do a little research. oh and that doesn't mean watch some vice youtube videos
Lincoln intended on sending blacks over to Africa after the war ended. Such a shame juice got to him before he acted on it
@@maxchan179 South still owned slaves and would have kept them if not for union intervention.
@@ktheterkuceder6825 the south was freeing slaves before the north ever did. try reading a book sometime. and not the one your blue haired teacher gives you in class
Even as a kid, I always wondered how I was supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died trying to free slaves 😂. Even though that's pretty much how it was taught...
So slaves are sub humans and no one can be motivated to fight for them
Well man your right few did but many did die to preserve slavery
@@toadskin1610 yeah, it was 1 a way to not be at the bottom of the social class and 2 slavery was was something to look forward to in order to not be poor, the poor people were fighting for a lot of things, duty and loyalty to their state, stopping an invasion of their homeland, slavery, and much more. I agree that American education lacks nuance on the subject but yes impoverished soldiers died to keep slavery going
@@eliaskline5649 The poor couldn't afford to keep slaves... What are you talking about?
@@punz0934 that's the point...
It's something to aspire to just like how poor people today want to own a house but can't afford one. It's a status symbol and proof of economic improvement.
I wasn't saying the the poor owned slaves, I was saying the poor wanted to own slaves
Sorry if I didn't make that clear in the first post
It's called an Apologia, every war has one, and every winner is the "good guy"
It's primary reason was taxes then the preservation of the union and lastly slavery. When the south left emancipation was used as a weapon.
The Threat of recolonization is never talked about, I didn't consider it till now and it ads a layer of understanding to the whole war.
What "Threat of recolonization" by who?
@@Mega88888 so the British never left Canada and the French invaded Mexico to set up a puppet state which failed, and Spain invaded the Dominican Republic, and failed. So the “threat of recolonization was only for small weak countries (aka not US) and even to small countries it failed.
@@matthewdavid6134 Yes because the US would totally not be in a state of disrepair and extreme weakness after a civil war, a post-war weakness that totally could not be taken advantage of by rival powers that existed right on the borders of the US.
@@kingrollypollyvii5565 well the US economy grew during the civil war and immigration increased, and you’ll notice no power acted on it. Sure during the war France and Spain invade Mexico and the Dominican Republic but as soon as the war was over they were forced to abandon their conquests. So the US wasn’t actually that weak after the war, In fact as soon as the war was over the US began violent expansion against the plains Indians, purchased Alaska, forced Japan to open its ports for trade, and got involved in Hawaii. Within 40 years the US would defeat Spain alone and be part of the anti Boxer coalition in China. So yeah the US wasn’t weak post civil war.
Furthermore what “rival powers that existed right on the borders”? Mexico and US were positive after US helped Mexico against France, Canada and US didn’t like each other too much, but Canada was terrified of a US invasion.
@@matthewdavid6134 “Uhmmm the US actually wasn’t in a weakened state because 40 years after the fact they were strong!”
Absolutely enlightening commentary.
You make great videos. Keep up the good work.
And WW2 was not about saving the Jews or Germany trying to takeover the world. But his story is written by the victor
Great video - I hope you will do other like this one in the future. 😃
Before the American civil war, there were many anti-slavery movements in Europe. The are stories written how Polish regiments sent by Napoleon to suppress slave rebellions ended up helping said rebellion. Also cant ignore the political impact of Giuseppe Garibaldi. Garibaldi made it clear to Lincoln that the he would fight for the union on the condition it would abolish slavery. 1 year before the emancipation Proclamation, and after the war had started.
The British empire also banned the trans Atlantic slave trade in 1833 and enforced the ban with the Royal Navy.
Napoleon upon his 100 day return from exile did pass legislation freeing slaves in colonies, but he was soon defeated at Waterloo, so not much changed. Napoleon was focussed on Europe and brushed colonies off, he sent troops to suppress revolts and keep peace, but he wasnt a big overseas colonial guy
Great accurate information
@@rhysnichols8608 Wasnt it in 1807 or something? either way just goes to show how backwards the CSA was
The South Carolina declaration joining the confederacy literally mentions slavery 18 times.
Why did South Carolina mention slavery so many times? Has that been discussed historically or in other documents of the time? You mean there's more in depth reasons humans do things? No way.
The calisthenics employed to get around the truth boggle the mind.
@@theacguy9546 You have no point so you pose a bunch of useless and meaningless questions.
@uncleclem7381 look into it instead of making stupid comments.
@@theacguy9546 Then make a point I can respond to. You can't just raise a bunch of rhetorical questions and when someone says you don't have a point, you just say they're stupid.
Great breakdown!
History is not a place for niceties and good faith. Love what you're doing brother stay strong and diligent!
The reason the North went to war wasn't over slavery.
But the reason the South went to war absolutely was. They stated it themselves. They fired the first shot for that reason, and it was slavery in which their entire economy was tied.
yup, several seceding states put that in official documents about the war.
@@thejohnbeck"muh state documents" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
"muh states rights" 😂😂🤣🤣🤡🤡@@onemanarmy2electricboogalo687
@@onemanarmy2electricboogalo687Muh state rights.
@@onemanarmy2electricboogalo687yeah retard. They said it themselves. That will never be good enough for you. Mfs always wanna hate om the government. The aristocracy didn't give two shits about the average man. They had their power and money from slave plantations along with taxes would hurt said power and money. Not to mention the racist attitudes. What better way to get the common man to fight for you? Lie.
That’s not what my history teacher who I as a 15 year old knew more than taught me 😮
Yet another Great 👍 video from Apron. Great guy my wife and I are subscribed and big fans.
As my grandpa said "not a single confederate soldier i ever met (was a child in the early 1900s Texas) ever even saw a black man until after the war"
Funny since Lost Cause Southerners like to claim that "Blacks fought for the confederacy" as a reason to deny slavery as the main reason for secession....Now you claim that your grandpa never met a soldier that saw a black person UNTIL AFTER THE WAR....so they never saw or served besides any black person, yet they served. Fact is The confederate president, vice president, multiple southern senators, governors, congressmen, state legislators, generals like benning and hindman, every compromise, every secession commissioner and convention and multiple ordinances of secession......in the last 12 months BEFORE THE WAR....admitted that protecting African slavery and white supremacy was their primary motivation.
@@AlbertZiegler069 Yeah, the evidence is overwhelming. Literally millions of words from southern leaders at every corner confirming it was slavery....BEFORE the civil war. Yet southerners today claim it wasn't slavery....because denial is in their best interest. smh
Then your grandpa was either a liar or an idiot. Never even saw a black person? In the South? Come on that’s nonsense
Lol
Your grandfather is a liar or stupid lmao. You're stupid for believing him.
The North May not have been concerned about freeing slaves, but the letters of secession show that's why most southern states joined the war, even if the North Wasn't particularly concerned with freeing slaves.
The south certainly was motivated to keep the practice going.
Not saying the North were the 'good guys' or anything.
The letters of secession only reveal, however, why they joined the *war.* Not the 50 years of hatred for the Union. Ever since the USA was established on her second time (1776), the Southern States needed two things: local control and slavery; local control made the state autocephalous, the second provided an economy for the wealthy to manage the state.
Now, a problem with "the Civil War was about slavery" is, well... Yes. To the elite, and to the guys making money off of slavery, that is the case. To the 99% of the South that didn't own a slave, and that had several slurs still in use today (hillbilly, trailer/white trash, redneck, okie, scalawag, etc.) were ultimately used to demean and dehumanise the rest of the white population of the Southern working class.
To the average soldier, such as John C. Calhoun? He wanted the Carolinas to revolt against President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. To the average hillbilly, who, since 1776, hated the Union? He wanted the outsiders gone. To the average yeoman? He didn't want to pay taxes to some foreign government that did nothing for him.
You must remember, the Civil War was plotted for decades. The Southern Rebels had always hated the Union, and the Union the Southerner, and the cause for about 50 of those years was "stop being in charge of us". By all means, both elites are terrible. The North had the Union, whom wanted hegemony; the South had the plantation elite, who wanted money. The enslaved white of the North and the poor white of the South had infinitely more in common than their respective elite, and that is exactly why the elite, when that was made clear via "The Impending Crisis of the South", decided: "Kill each other, now, and then blame each other for something you didn't do to the Africans".
To summarise this, because reading long YT comments is not a beloved pastime by all: "Who do you mean when you say 'South' and 'North'? The average poor guy who doesn't know where Maine/Louisiana is, or the elite who wanted more control in the USA's congress and more money than he needed?".
@@solo8324 Very good response.
Thank you.
The problem with reading the articles of secession at face value is that you are missing all of the underlying issues which colored their opinions as leaders of theses states. The institution of slavery itself wasn't the end goal but rather a means to an end which the south was immediately reliant upon and the destruction of which would have seen the antebellum south fall into destitution throughout their economy.
The northern states knew this when they drafted their anti-slavery rhetoric despite never freeing the slaves in their own region. The message of anti-slavery was a strong and moral one and yet for decades prior these same northerners benefited from and helped to grow and maintain the institution since the southern states paid the majority of the tax revenue in the United States.
Absolutely right. I'm somewhat surprised at this guy. In the other videos he's produced are well-sourced.
@@jacobjones3916 yeah it’s hard to provide good sources when your goal is to convince people the civil war wasn’t mainly fought over slavery. I’m glad there are big channels on here like atun shei which are both objective and effective in dismantling any lost cause arguments about the civil war
Brilliant analysis
When you consider 75% of the slave owner were those most commonly invited on Joe Rogan podcasts. The usury tariffs and setting slavery in stone makes sense. 😂
I might not agree but it is nice to see a different point of view
"but it was a factor" great clickbait bullshit
someone here needs to read the articals of the confederate states , since all the confederate states said they wanted slavery ,
its in the simpsons when apu goes for the citizen test lol
Congrats on having more than 14 subs!
From 14 subscribers to over 50k in less than two years time. Well deserved brother
If the Southern soldier were told he was fighting to preserve slavery, and the Northern soldier were told he was fighting to end slavery, there were have been no Civil war. The Southern soldier, (96% of who did not own slaves), would have correctly viewed a war to preserve slavery as a "Rich man's war, poor man's fight", and he would not have joined in the first place, or would have deserted. The Northern soldier, told that he was fighting to free slaves, would have viewed it as a situation that did not involve him at all, and at worst it would have been a threat to his financial future as his very livelihood would have been threatened by millions of freed slaves he would have to compete with for work.
I can make stuff up too ya know.
@@NulledSeries "Making up stuff..." is called "lying". I'd advise you to read the views of original Northern and Southern Soldiers and civilians as well as review actual historical events like the New York City Draft Riots of 1863, to get an accurate view of people living at the time. Many of the working class, both North and South were "conditional Abolitionists" and were in favor of slavery ending PROVIDED all black folks were sent back to Africa, so that freed blacks would not interfere with their employment. Otherwise the working class of both North and South would prefer that slavery continued. Nullpoint2006, had you grown up as a white person, on a plantation in Mississippi in the 1840's-50's, you would have likely been a slavery advocate, and completely comfortable with the practice. Had you been a mechanic in RIchmond, VA or Pittsburg, PA in the 1850's, you would have been in favor of freeing slaves as long as they were sent back to Africa so as not to interfere with your job. Follow the money and self-interest and you'll understand the attitude regardless of whether it was / is 1858 or 2023.
Not true. Many Poor southerners fought to preserve slavery, not to keep the rich, rich, but because they did not want free blacks, mixing with them.
Which is why they put so much effort into the Jim Crow laws.
There was much fear and hate, for the blacks, among poor whites.
@NullSeries all you have to do is read soldiers letters. They dont mention slavery much. They called it the war of aggression. The North was pushing its ideals on the South on several fronts. Including slavery. What if I told you I was going to destroy your way of life and you couldn't do anything about it despite the fact I made an agreement not to do that?
@@theacguy9546 That is wrong.
Many soldiers on the South wrote, that they were fighting to prrserve slavery, as they did not want free blacks roaming the land being a threat to there own families.
Your argument totally falls down, because after reconstruction, the south brought in Jim Crow laws, which had massive support from ordinary white southners.
Even today, for the poor, its they see other races, not as an exploitable product, but as a threat, to them, there race, there family
Lincoln in his Inaugural address said of the Corwin amendment '...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.' He did do a 180 a few years later
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world" Mississippi on why they are succeeding from the US. Historical revisionism is not ok
Politicians never put out propaganda and half-truths in time of war. Remember the original 13th A. would have protected the legality of slavery. Lincoln supported it. Yet secession happened. Seems like there's got to be more going on. It's fair to investigate why secession happened despite guarantees of perpetual slavery.
Which other states said the same? None
@@shithole3617 Four other states in their declarations of independence mentioned slavery as a cause for secession. The Confederate constiution also outline slavery as their primary reason for existence as a state. Not to mention newspapers from the time period and letter between confederate elites and politicians.
@@shithole3617 Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina. The list goes on. Each one cites the ‘moral institution of slavery” and that it’s preservation was paramount.
Y’all can’t let go of your comic book understanding of history . The north didn’t give a fuck about slaves and neither did Lincoln
Just came from your video about ancient Greece. I'd be interested in your take on the American Revolution and the War of 1812. I still don't know what the Americans hoped to accomplish by invading us in 1812. The official reasons given don't seem to me to be very compelling reasons for starting a war with one of the world's most powerful nations--apart from that business about the British arming First Nations whose land was being encroached on by the US, but that's not usually given as one of the primary motivations.
Impressing American sailors into service to a foreign government and arming enemies on the frontiers and lack of proper recognition were all big motivators. The hope regarding the invasion of Canada is obvious, conquest and expansion of American territory. Chalk it up to hubris.
The War of 1812 was really the closing act in the settlement between the United States and Britain begun in 1781 and helped to configure the final trade relationship. The sparking events were not on the Canadian border but at sea.
Over the course of the 19th century there was a massive change in power dynamic in the Western Hemisphere as the United States began to assert itself and the British receded. if you want to find out more I suggest searching for a video called "The Other Great Game" by Old Brittania.
So Britain was attacking US trade ships. The most famous incident was the USS Chesapeake in 1807. This is a major issue and impacted our trade with the rest of the world. Britain also hadn't given us the forts that were supposed to be given to the US in the Treaty of Paris. Then you, as you say, have the arming of Native Americans, which can't be seen understated. This was a huge issue. As the Native Americans attacked and killed US citizens and military forces, lots of times which led to massacres.
“apart from that business about the British arming First Nations whose land was being encroached on by the US“
😂
It was mainly british naval ship attack american trade ships going to france, america never tried to invade britain outside of the revolution with john paul jones.
I´m south american from Venezuela and it was a very good explanation, the economic factors were the fundamental causes of the USA civil war, thanks very much for sharing your thoughts and opinions!
love this video!! do you sell any merch?
My father who was a history professor used to say, "Victors write the history books;" and "History is lies agree upon."
Did he happen to be retarded by chance?
It always pississ me of that because America says they had the war to end slavery Britain gets no credit for actually waging war on slavery 80 years earlier and we only finished paying back the navy coffers that was spent on doing so 10 year ago or so. We did more really and get no credit.
Don't worry. Britain still gets credit for its Opium wars against China and so many other nations for similar reasons.
Yeah, because it's irrelevant lol. Nobody brings it up because it's an entirely different conversation, and when people talk to each other, it's usually not just shouting out tangentially-related events one after the other.
Honestly this just sounds like somebody whining about their country's achievements not always being talked about during an entirely different conversation.
Try 57 years 1808
@@kudjoeadkins-battle2502 Wait which nation abolished slavery in 1808
I love and want your hat. Where did you get it? Also make more vids. We need more channels like yours.
Thank goodness. Rational humans exist. Nuance is important. The intense focus on the Articles of Secession ignores so many other sources.
I am shocked!
Shocked!!
Does this mean WWII wasn't fought to save the djews either?
No it was to stop the crazy Germans from invading other countries and bombing other countries. Saving Jewish people was just a nice bonus.
No it wasn’t, we got into ww2 because we got attacked.
Now there’s some who say the people in charge at the time knew the attack was coming. But supposedly our/allied soldiers found the death camps.
Here’s a bit of a brain twister, the same people funded both sides of the war. In fact the same people have funded both sides of many wars in the past few hundred years! Follow the money
@@tomleister8075 lol wtf, who funded ww2 according to your crazy insane world view?
Definitely not from the American perspective. We were happy not to join until the Japanese attacked at pearl harbor. We were an isolationist country before then. Our troops didn't even know much about the treatment of jews until near the end of the war.
@@aurorajones908 The American Government wanted Peral harbor and insigated it, and knew it was going to happen
This video is mega kino. Sitting outside with a nice hat on while birds chirp in the background as redpills are dropped for 30 minutes.
Cannot believe this video was in response to the backlash from the meatball video.
great stuff
I have not watched the video completely, but since there are some people present who know the history of the South, how would you explain the cornerstone speech (by Alexander Stevens), if slavery had little to no part in the beginning of the civil war?
A better question to ask is: "What was the primary reason the Confederacy tried to secede from the Unites States of America?".
And the answer is "Because they wanted to preserve slavery as an institution".
No one ever said that slavery was the only reason for the civil war, or that it was the reason that the Union fought to retain control of the South, but it's dishonest at best and revisionism at worst to say that it wasn't the main reason for the war having happened in the first place, one only needs to look at the writings of the Confederate elite and their political figures(and constitution) to see that.
Finally someone with a brain in this comment section
Agreed, I generally think that any topic in regards to the civil war needs to preface with this acknowledgement.
@@cursedhfy3558 Well the preface is wrong to begin with, because it's the equivalent of saying the allies fought to establish communism just because the axis were against it, or that nazism's main cause was because of anti-communism. It was common ground that slaves would continue to exist in either union or confederacy, the point of the preservation of the united states was to consolidate a centralized federal government - veterans from the south have been recorded stating that their fight was for the right of secession (which existed before the North squashed it, just look up the Constitution of Virginia), due to the statist central planning tendencies of Lincoln as a former whig. The north itself looked down upon blacks, and they even forbade them from living there when freed, like in Illinois. Slavery wasn't even on the table until after the war. Pretending it was not only part of it, but that it was the main reason why the south wanted to secede, is nothing other than an ad-hoc excuse to make a tyrant like Lincoln look good and make the kids smile because the good guys always win. This has been a disaster for American politics and it has only helped the slow erosion of state independance, individual freedoms, democracy and federalism into an unconstitutional pseudo-unitary two-party system that will only continue to degrade over time, just look at the geriatrics or populists you'll have to vote for in the next election.
The preface is that the primary reason why the *south* attempted secession from the union was due to their desire to preserve the institution of slavery.
@@Heccinchonker12 "Pretending it was not only part of it, but that it was the main reason why the south wanted to secede"
_"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."_ - CSA VP Alexander Stephens
It could be argued that 1860 Republicans didn't have a strong moral opposition to slavery, but at a minimum, they had a political opposition to it. And if you went back in time to ask a slave whether they'd prefer to stay a slave or be free on a technicality, I think they'd choose the latter.
Checkmate Lincolnites
What book would you recommend to read about this topic?
The Coming Fury by Bruce Catton or the first volume of Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson
I think just as it’s reductionist to say the Civil War was fought only for slavery as it is to say that it was unequivocally NOT fought over slavery. Wars are complex things with numerous players each with varying mixes of motivations and apprehension, and slavery definitely played a large factor in defining the character of the war for many who fought and participated in it.
It most certainly was fought for slavery. Without slavery there would have been no secession and no war. The Confederate leaders made it perfectly clear the CSA was created to preserve slavery forever. The South made the war about slavery, not the North.
I agree but one of the biggest factors in the south was slavery and one of the biggest factors of the North was preserving the Union
A small percentage fought for slavery.
@@shaunr5450 mate you should read some of the confederate letters, it tells a different story than what you are saying
@@eliaskline5649Only 4 southern states out of 13 mentioned slavery.
The problem with your argument is the Vice-president of the confederacy said the war was about slavery and a few of the state constitutions of confederacy also.
🫡 Not a lot of traction on this comment for some reason..
do you have any direct quotes or references?
@@330GunslingersLook up "The Cornerstone Speech"
@@3LeagueSos You’re on this side of the internet lol, it’s one small echo chamber, and they aren’t here to discussion facts just whatever they believe is what they believe
@330Gunslingers the first paragraphs on each state declaration of secession directly states the protection of the industry of slavery as one of if not the key factor of said secession. Texas is the only one that cites ot in like the third paragraph. But, it's still very much there. You can look up and read them easily enough with Google.
Really interesting good job
Thanks man that was a good post, suggestion or improvement to start earlier with the meat of your argument, which was war because of the taxes it felt like it was more of an afterthought and by the time you got there, you had already been going on for quite a while
I agree
It was not a civil war but a war of southern independence which confederates lost
Abraham Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley: "...If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that..."
_"Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed. Without slavery it could not continue."_ --Abe Lincoln address to congress, 1862.
Slavery was the cause of the war, because the South made it so.
@@TheStapleGunKid So there are conflicting statements (actually they aren’t even conflicting) and you just assume your position is correct. I don’t mean this rudely, but that’s not a great way to look at history.
I am aware of Lincoln’s statements (wonder why he speaks differently with friends than in front of congress). But the point is that it is not black and white, as this video shows.
Slavery may have indeed been necessary for the war but it was most assuredly not sufficient to bring it about.
Any honest objective observer would conclude that.
@@rebaser6172 They are not conflicting at all. Lincoln said a similar thing in his second inauguration speech.
_"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."_
The problem a lot of people don't seem to get that the South determined the cause of the war, not the North. They made the war about slavery, because slavery was their cause. Lincoln didn't wage the war to end slavery, but the South waged the war to preserve it, because they knew slavery would be eventually be eliminated in the United States because Lincoln was elected to start the process of ending it.
Starting the process of ending slavery was not a military objective for Lincoln because it was a separate political objective had already obtained the means carry out by being elected president. That's why the South seceded and started the war.
_"What will be the result to the institution of slavery, which will follow submission to the inauguration and administration of Mr. Lincoln as the President of one section of the Union? My candid opinion is, that it will be the total abolition of slavery, and the utter ruin of the South, in less than twenty-five years. If we submit now, we satisfy the Northern people that, come what may, we will never resist. If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his adminstration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object. They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist."_ --Geogia governor Joseph Brown, Dec 7, 1860.
@@TheStapleGunKid Again, I don’t mean this rudely, but I am not reading that. I know everything you are going to say. I’ve heard it all.
Most people agree with YOU, not me. Don’t worry about that. The numbers are on your side.
I’m simply saying you are an ideologue quote harvesting and ignoring all the quotes that conflict with your presupposition about the world. This is a rhetorical question so don’t answer, but please try and explain away Lincoln’s letter to Greeley; what in the world did he mean by that? Let me guess, he was drunk or it’s a forgery. You just simply ignore it and post text walls of other quotes.
You know what I am saying too. You just won’t admit it to yourself at this time because you are desperate to hold onto your view of the world.
I will not debate this subject because it’s been had. The information is out there for us to come to conclusions.
I wish you luck.
@@rebaser6172 The Confederacy said in plain English that Lincoln's election was hostile to slavery and that his election represented a crusade against slavery. They seceded before he even took office for the first time. Quoting Lincoln well after the South had already made their cause clear doesn't prove your point. The Confederate president and vice president both said slavery was the Confederate "cornerstone". It takes serious mental gymnastics to derive any other cause from that.
Do you plan on making another video on this? I think you missed a lot, especially regarding Sumter negotiations, and pre-war negotiations regarding slavery with Lincoln.
It revolves around Lincoln he was a genocidal maniac the whole republican tyranny in the Reconstruction Era was pretty much horrid 😢 that's why you had the Birth of the Olden Klan it was a Democrat Party reaction to republican Tyranny who empowered Free Slaves installing them in higher up position nd race crimes started going rampant
So much of this I've never heard a word of in school.
because its wrong
@@I-like-history then make a rebuttal
@@rightinthedome9973 Ok.
Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
Alexander Stephens - Cornerstone Address: "Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws."
Constitution of the Confederacy: " (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."
If you dont want to read all that, let me shorten it for you. The Confederacy fought to preserve and expand slavery.
@@rightinthedome9973 There are many that already exist. Check out Crash Course Black History and their civil war section. It uses primary source documentation to support it's arguments.
@@rightinthedome9973the primary cause was slavery, which is made clear from the secession documents left by the states, as well as by the speech of the VP of the confederates
i'm binging ur channel and it is really amazing, kudos on ur fantastic work!
Bro you are awesome!!!
Facts!
Slavery was always a reason for the war, while the North didn't fight to end slavery from day 1, but the Confederates fought to keep and expand the institution of slavery from the very beginning
The average Southern American was negatively impacted by slavery 😂😂 you are hilarious
@@zacharystephens174 so your saying the confederacy didn't break from the US and start a war over slavery?
@dogguy8603 How about you watch the video we are commenting on instead of acting dumb. No, it was not over slavery. It played a factor, but ultimately the war was started over Northern aggression.
@@zacharystephens174 lol, what northern aggression? The south fired the first shots, also it was absolutely over slavery, the entire cause of the confederacy was to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. This sint a debate these are facts, hell Alexander Stepens agrees with me
@dogguy8603 So you deny that Lincoln was willing to not free the slaves to avoid the secession? How is that possible if the secession was over slavery? Are you saying the Corwin amendment was not properly voted on and approved by several politicians at the time? Are you saying that the Tariff of 1828 wasn't negatively impacting the South?
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" (Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, 1861).
Same tired, tortured logic: "The Civil War wasn't over slavery, it was about economics" or "the Civil war wasn't about slavery it was about states rights". How about, "The Civil War was fought over the right of states to continue using slave labor as the basis of their economy". As for the "moral high ground" being taken by the victors, that's because it was there for the taking from the amoral slave owners.
@@brewtul The civil war WAS fought over economics tho. Slavery became embedded in southern economy, forcing the south to instantly abolish slavery would cripple it's economy which surprise, it did. There is a reason slavery in the Roman Empire for instance faded away gradually.
The Confederate South literally stated in each state's personal article of secession that, pretty chiefly among their reasonings and rationales, they were rebelling with intent to split from the Union (read: spitting over everything the Founding Fathers fought and bled to establish) because they felt the institution of slavery was threatened by the North and its competing political influence. And by 'they,' I mean the aristocratic 1% that held the greatest sway over the southern states and their interests. It was their (perceived) problem, so they made sure the rest of the south came to know it as their problem as well.
Not only were they willing to effectively commit treason over their uppity upper crust's slaves, but they wanted to _expand the institution itself._ They wanted to try their hand at Making Slavery Great Again, wanted to double down on the practice and milk it for all it was worth. But due to the outcome of the war, that never had the chance to happen. Thank goodness, I suppose, that nepotism is scarcely a match for merit.
Lincoln and the Union had little intent to take away the South's slaves. But if you look at the political philosophies most prevalent in the North at the time of the Civil War's start, it's abundantly clear that most of them felt the institution was showing signs toward going the way of the dodo, given its increasing and frankly stark lack of popularity among the majority of Western nations, who viewed it increasingly less and less as a necessary evil, and more as just plain evil. The majority of ruling northern politicians were not so radical as to be counted among the ranks of the Abolitionist movement, so they felt that simply staying the course and letting the chips fall where they may was the best course of attaining moral victory over the messy matter. Heck, they only issued the Emancipation Proclamation about midway through the war because (and thanks to a little pushing from the strengthened and emboldened Abolitionists and their sympathizers) the South had pushed the issue beyond the diplomatic point of no return, and it served in the Union's best interests at the moment, less than because it served as a means to expedite the demise of the inhuman institution.
So yeah, the North had no intention of taking the South's precious slaves away, or even really imposing stricter boundaries for those practicing it. But the South... _simply did not care about this._ They felt threatened, they were paranoid, and they were ambitious. The truth of the matter is, the Union did not make the issue of slavery the cause of the American Civil War.
*The South did.*
Abraham Lincoln's real name was Springstein. His father's name was A.A. Springs shortened from Springstein.
The leaders of the Confederacy said that the civil war was about slavery.
What leaders
@@moffettcoates6455have you not read the cornerstone speech?
for them yes, for the union is questionable. neither side is good
@@Ongang161 one side clearly had a superior moral position
Maryland and New Jersey were slave states during the war
The problem with this analysis is that it doesn't explain why the South started the war. The North may not have been interested in abolishing slavery but the South had a great interest in preserving it. So why did they feel threatened enough to start a war? I think that it was a moral issue to the extent that it made the Declaration of Independence hollow when "All men are created equal" yet Africans and African Americans are legally deemed chattel and not men. Besides the fact that England had already abolished slavery it created a political pressure on the United States and greatly undermind their justification for the principles extol The Declaration of Independence which is the fundamental "raison d’être" of the nation. I don't think one can get away from the moral argument even if the combatants themselves were not great exemplars of the justification. The Dobbs decision, for example, overturning Roe V. Wade was decided on States rights but the moral argument was the thrust of it because it goes to the heart of who we are as human beings. These are human identity arguments that can't be avoided.
The South had the bigger economy, 4th Largest economy in the world at the time, they also grew food for the north. So if the South is paying 70% of the countries taxes and not being represented? Plus the north imported African slaves at a higher rate 6 years after outlawing it, and then imported Chinese slaves to build the railroads. If you want a highly detailed accounting of the horrible things Lincoln did, then check out Rageaholics "Lincoln was the first American Dictator" video.
@@HOLDFASTBEAR *TEXAS:*
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established *exclusively by the white race* , for themselves and their posterity; that the *African race* had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an *inferior and dependent* race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government *all white men* are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the *servitude of the African* race, as existing in these States, *is mutually beneficial* to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen *slave-holding* States.
*MISSISSIPPI:*
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery* -- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the *black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.* These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but *submission to the mandates of abolition* , or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
*GEORGIA:*
The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North *opposed to slavery *an to stake their future political fortunes upon *their hostility to slavery everywhere.* This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. *The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races* , disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. *The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.*
*SOUTH CAROLINA:*
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the *non-slaveholding States.* Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our *domestic institutions* ; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; *they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery* ; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to *eloign the property of the citizens of other States.* They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our *slaves to leave their homes* ; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to *servile insurrection.*
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are *hostile to slavery.* He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that *slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.*
*CSA CONSTITUTION:*
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing *the right of property in negro slaves* shall be passed."
-CSA Constitution, Art. 1, Section 9, Clause 4.
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, *with their slaves and other property* ; and *the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired* ."
-CSA Constitution, Art. 4 Section 2.
"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."
-CSA Constitution, Art. 4 Section 3.
@@HOLDFASTBEAR The South wasn't paying 70% of taxes. Not even close. Nearly all federal tax income, and the North, with its much larger population, richer population, and larger amount of ports, imported way more property than the South did. 60% of Imports came through New York alone.
And of course the South was being represented. They got to vote and participate in elections just like everyone else. The South had dominated the federal government prior to the civil war. Nearly every federal law and Supreme Court ruling from 1850-1860 went in their favor. That's why the North elected Lincoln to place slavery "in course of ultimate extinction", which caused the South to secede and start the war to preserve slavery forever.
@@HOLDFASTBEAR The south did not meaningfully export food to the north, nor were they bearing a larger tax burden than the north, especially not in the tarrifs discussed in the video, wherein New York alone bore more of the cost than all southern ports combined.
In a small way. Blacks were still considered second class citizens. After the War of Independence the southern states felt disenfranchised because they sympathised with the British. There were rumblings of returning to British rule by the south and that meant a large part of the US economy would disappear. Taxes and tariffs were another big part of the war. In fact taxes were the tipping point for the War of Independence. The one percenters invented causes that promoted their pockets and prestige. The south was the stronger force but lost the war through gross mismanagement. A side note. The French saved the US twice. The War of Independence and another successful short lived invasion by the British in 1814 where they took Washington and burnt down the Whitehouse. Napoleon return to France and Britain found themselves in conflict with France again. Today the spirit of the Civil War is seen in America's politics. Democrat or Republican. Red or blue. Crips or bloods. The red, white or blue. Politically Americans are the most polarised people on earth.
“Abraham Lincoln,” he proclaimed, “believed [himself] to be bone from our bone and flesh from our flesh. He supposed [himself] to be a descendant of Hebrew parentage. He said so in my presence. And, indeed, he preserved numerous features of the Hebrew race, both in countenance and character.”
Just found your page great content very based and quite optical if you ask me
This channel seems pretty rare for youtube
@@nitsuanomrah6997 i hope they don't take it down but seeing as this channel is gaining a lot of traction, hope it doesn't get nuked overnight
Its the most retarded bullshit I've ever heard. Y'all need to pick up a damn book.
Ehh, I disagree mate yeah he brings up good information but left a lot of important info having to do with the South, which conveniently made it seem that they were fighting over taxation instead of the preservation of their right to own people
I’m surprised the powers that be didn’t nuke your channel for this one
What happened to the other war videos? They sounded pretty interesting
Great video
Tbf, the American Revolution is taught that the British taxed us too much so we revolted. Economic reasons can be moral justifications.
As long as it is that, and not wanting to own slaves
Meh, slaves have always been around and always will be. Even today, we may not call them slaves. But they might as well be
It had to do with taxes, but the real problem was that they felt like they werent properly represented in parliament even though they were taxes. Even if it was just "too many taxes" slavery, although economic, is far from moral.
Hello Based Department.
Technically it was. If there hadn't have been slavery, there would have been no civil war, because that was the whole reason the south wanted to leave.
After reading so many books I thought I had a decent understanding of the causes of the Civil War, but finally a guy with a hat came on CZcams to reveal us the truth…
Wars are fought over power and resources.
Now i understand why racism still lasted until 1980s or so
A few things to look into, first, the only income the federal govt had before the war was from fines and tariffs, second, Lincoln manipulated the firing on Sumpter by sending supplies and reinforcements, third, the emancipation proclamation was issued to keep Britain from recognizing the cs govt, and finally, laws against blacks in northern states prior to the war, and the doubling of the provost guard by McLellan for fears that his troops would riot when the Eman proc made the war about slavery instead of keeping the union together. It definitely was not a morale raiser
Lot of interesting information. I imagine theirs enough info to talk on this subject for weeks and still wonder about the point when done. If I remember right the Emancipation Proclamation also had the intended benefit (and result) of getting France (who was about to support the south, I mean yay cheap, raw materials) to stay out of the war. I don't think I had ever thought about the double whammy the South faced. Not only did they have to pay more for what they needed, but the price for what they produced cratered. I imagine the wealth of the south (standard of living) was easily cut in half while investment in the north was rampant. I can't imagine that being a pill many were interested in swallowing. I imagine southern options were "move west" or fight the north. Of course once the south lost the economy may have tanked for righteous reasons (no more slaves) but I doubt they were ready to lose their land over taxes. That was probably unforeseen.
The combination of Union threats of declaring War on France and Britain if they formally recognized the Confederacy and the US Naval blockade is what stopped French and British supplies reaching Southern ports.
Oh and the British and French already had troops on the boarders.
I always thought it was about the political landscape much like what it is today. There could be a war between Republicans and Democrats. Thanks for the video.
Let's just hope we don't go through another dark road. Say what you want about politics but I wish no bloodshed for my countrymen
Very different situation. Extremely different. A civil war today is laughable.
@@boygenius538_8 Well of course, but that's the thing about modern politics... It is impossible to predict the future.
The Democrat Party was a white man's party back then it was pretty much White Southern and DEMOCRATIC
@@boygenius538_8 Dude forgets civil wars can happen in any country. Especially now when we are so split it is actually very likely to boil over at some point.
So much evidence. This video is basically the final word on the topic. Bravo
“So much evidence” 😂