Bertus van Hal it’s also interesting because Mexico kind of did itself in by encouraging American settlers to migrate there due to not having enough settlers there because once war with the US came all those settlers essentially were still loyal to the US and aided their campaign (thus you get things like the bear flag revolt in California)
So not mexican, you mean the towns have spanish names as in from spain. Which are the ones that "explored" what became mexico and then the western united states.
Always interesting when people from other countries react to the Civil War. We are taught about that a lot, because it was a big deal for our country. It makes sense that you guys would have no real idea about it.
Well we western countries have a wode knowledge of it, like really big but obviously cause you're a native American you're expected to know MUCH more, It's really interesting though
@@DerekIngoe Lots of Civil wars are interesting that we don't get taught about. The War of Roses, big deal for England, just a footnote for Americans. Or the Mexican Civil War. I had no idea about it until a few years ago. only a 100 years ago and over 1 million people died in it, totally fascinating stuff.
They tried using the Natives as slaves at first, but they kept dying off as they had no immunity to diseases like smallpox. Also, if they ran away, they knew the terrain of the area so well it was easy for them to hide. So the answer is, they tried and it didn't work.
And, defining slave-status by color ( not seen before in history) made it almost impossible for slaves to disappear into the general population.. Many did, however, escape and joined various tribes, such as the Cherokee and the Seminoles, who willingly accepted them.
Some native tribes were slave holders of blacks and whites. The Comanches ,for example who were probably the most violent tribe . They committed genocide against other tribes. Enslavement was not exclusive to white Europeans .It occured throughout history .Arabs did it ,ancient Egyptians ,and even African tribes preyed on weaker tribes and enslaved them
The stories about the cane beating in Congress and the found war plans are both true! History is wild haha Thanks for reacting to this video so quickly!
About Mexico: lets not forget, they WERE part of Spain, and ITS empire, and this was around the time that ALL came crashing down HARD in a series of revolutions. Mexico, being one of them. When they fought and left, ALL the american territory Spain had, went to Mexico in the North.
The UK, at a few points in the war, almost became a Confederate ally. Southern sympathizers in London, such as Lord Palmerston’s Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell, managed to quietly supply the confederate government with guns, ammo, uniforms, and even entire battleships for their navy (see the CSS Alabama). These men (Russell especially) even tried to persuade their superiors to intervene militarily. The incident at 31:00 was known as the Trent Affair. Two confederate diplomats, one Mr. Mason and Mr. Slidell, snuck past the union blockade, made it to Cuba, and boarded the British mail carrier RMS Trent, en route to England where they would meet with Palmerston’s government. Union captain Wilkes of the battleship USS San Jacinto heard of this and, without waiting for permission, located the Trent, fired at it until its captain stopped the ship, boarded the mail carrier, and removed Mason and Slidell. The British public and government were outraged by the audacity of this action. Thousands of troops were marshaled in Canada in preparation for a potential invasion of the northern states. Lord Palmerston’s government issued an ultimatum to President Lincoln, release Mason and Slidell and send them to Britain or face war. Since both confederate diplomats were not just traitors but also slave owners, Lincoln was hoping to hang them. His Secretary of State, William Seward, attempted to persuade Lincoln against this act, but the president insisted he had made up his mind. Yet, at his next cabinet meeting, when all of his other secretaries and advisors recommended releasing the two men, Lincoln agreed. Seward, surprised by this, asked Lincoln what caused such a drastic change of heart, to which he replied “I found I could not construct an argument that would satisfy my own mind; this told me your ground was the correct one.” Mason and Slidell were released and put on a British battleship that took them to England. Lincoln’s introspection during and handling of the Trent Affair always serve to remind me how governance is a lost art these days.
Honestly, i would say the whole "The UK nearly came out in support of the confederates" is nothing but romanticist history which was perpetuated by southern sympathisers. most of the "diplomatic outrage" over the Trent affair or the Rams was very very discreet and dealt with promptly by Seward & Lord Lyons (UK ambasador to the US). Much more interesting were the French. Its often overlooked how they began striking partnerships and deals with Mexico believing that if the Rebels won then the Monroe doctrine would be shattered and France could carve up central and south America with Mexico as a key ally and helping them regain much of the mexican lands taken by the US.
Jaymes Harris I doubt Lyons could’ve been prompt about this sort of thing. The man was unaware of the term “mason dixon line” until after bull run. He was also often described as being so reluctant to look people in the eye that he “was more acquainted with the shoes of the people he spoke with” than their faces. Given how ill suited Lyons was to his post, I’m honestly not surprised Seward, despite being Secretary of State of a country in the middle of tearing itself apart, was able to work out a better deal. I’m not saying that the UK would have definitely gone into the war, but there were certainly those who would’ve liked that to happen and made preparations; such as Lord Russell negotiating secretly with the confederates through his consul Robert Bunch. If it hadn’t been for other Palmerston cabinet members such as Sir George C Lewis pointing out how the Union’s new ironclad ships could decimate their forces, they may well have. Of course, this may be why the word “if” might be called the biggest in the English language. Now that you mention it, however, Mason and Slidell did visit France and spoke with Napoleon III after leaving England. During their conversation, the two men mentioned how the Union blockade was becoming increasingly troublesome. The French Emperor recommended they employ screw steamers, and even offered to build two of them in France. Ultimately, this deal fell through.
Jaymes Harris Jaymes Harris Yeah I doubt their were really any serious considerations for the UK to actively throw support behind the Confederacy, namely because they had condemned slavery way before this. But their support truly did lean more towards the Confederacy, at least early on. Of course one major reason being they were huge consumers of southern cotton. But another reason was due to US-UK relations at the time, which were not particularly good. A divided United States would be weaker, and be less of a threat to Britain’s global power, as the US was a rapidly growing economic and industrial power during this time. A weaker US would also be beneficial to Britain’s colonial power in North America, since America had recently issued the Monroe doctrine to drive out European powers from the Americas and allow for their own country’s expansion. You mentioned the diplomatic discussions between the UK and Confederacy and the Trent affair. This might be blown out of proportion, but it definitely did further sour relations between the US and the UK gov’t. So as weird as it may seem, Britain’s sympathy’s did lean more toward the Confederacy at one point. The British were obviously apposed to Slavery. The UK did generally favor the South, and some gov’t members did want the up their support and provide substantial aid to the Confederacy. A confederate victory was seen as economically and geopolitically beneficial for the UK. And from their POV it makes sense. That said for the CSA to gain any real significant support from Britain was for the most part just Southern delusion. The best they could have hoped for was for the UK to recognize the CSA as it’s own nation, but that’s about it. Though the British did build a naval ship for the confederacy
Yes... and France's Napoleon the III was seemingly even more anxious to support than most in the UK. Had Britain backed the CSA, the French Empire (and it's Mexican puppet state) would've probably followed immediately thereafter. Napoleon III strongly desired the destruction of the Monroe Doctrine and an end to US hegemony in the America's to re-open the hemisphere to imperial ambitions.
John Brown's body lies a'moulderin' in the grave.... John Brown's body lies a'moulderin' in the grave.... John Brown's body lies a'moulderin' in the grave.... His soul is marching on!
Surprisingly this song wasn’t actually about John Brown the abolitionist, it was actually about a member of the Massachusetts volunteer infantry who was named John Brown. His fellow company men made up the song to tease him and as it slowly spread to other companies and battalions, many thought the song was about John Brown the abolitionist and so that’s how it became known as John Brown’s body, John Brown of the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry didn’t survive the war he drowned early on in the Shenandoah River near Front Royal, Virginia.
In 8th grade algebra class in South Carolina, I had a teacher who commonly used the phrase "John Brown" as an epithet -- like a substitute cuss word. If a kid was talking in class, she'd say, "Shut your John-Brown mouth, right now." Or she would tell some kid, "Sit in your John-Brown chair and pay attention." This was not an affectation. Apparently she had grown up saying it, and it likely went back 120 years in her family.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the diesel cavalry, It's strong and spry, two stories high, and loud as it can be, It's at least twelve times as fast as Sherman marching to the sea, His mech is marching on! (Source: a Twitter thread discussing the notion of resurrecting John Brown and giving him a battlemech)
yo im American and i just now realized that President Grant was Ulysses Grant, the Confederate general......... dang, just goes to show how crappy the American education system is. They teach us about the Civil war for years in elementary and simply gloss over the fact that the general of the traitors of America later became a president. huh.
McClellan: Good at two things. 1) He could build an army and make the men very confident. 2) He was good at DEFENSE. If you need to win a Defensive battle then he was your man. I do feel oversimplified does him a bit of a disservice: While he talked confident HE DID at least go out on the battlefield and expose himself to danger. He got fired at more than once. This is something that General Hooker (one of his replacements) can't claim. Hooker talked big about 'whipping Lee' but basically stayed in his headquarters the entire battle of Chancellorsville. So McClellan was not totally a coward or useless. What "Little Mac" was NOT able to do was fight on offense. Here, he was too cautious to a fault. Perhaps it was the weight of the responsibility that got to him, or perhaps he didn't like sending the men in his army off to die, but whatever it was, you could never win a war with McClellan.
@@HypeTrain-Follow : Well, I'm glad you liked it. Did you ever wonder why the Democrats would run a man vs Lincoln who was as cowardly or inept as that video seemed to make him out to be? If you read about how he came back (Lincoln had already dismissed him once when replacing him with Pope and one or two other Generals that got their asses kicked and men's morale was at a low point so Lincoln bit the bullet and recalled him) before Antietam you'd see that the men in the Army of the Potamac raised this huge cheer when they saw McClellan riding toward them. Then why did they vote for Lincoln when it was Lincoln vs McClellan two years later? Well, they knew Lincoln wanted to continue the war which 1 they were winning and 2 they had shed so much blood for, and yes, there was a possibility that McClellan wasn't willing to see the final year of the war through as so much blood had been shed. The soldiers, in other words, did not trust that McClellan wouldn't betray all their efforts in a misguided attempt to spare their lives.
One thing you forget though. Hooker fought in the Seminole and Mexican American wars where he received brevet promotions for leadership and gallantry. Though he most likely wasn't accustomed to commanding such a huge number of men as much of his career was serving on staff and not actual command
Thing about Hooker at Chancellorsville was that he was actually in the thick of the fighting as his headquarters was attacked and he was nearly killed by a cannonball that smashed into the timber of the porch he was standing on that gave him a concussion which addled him for the rest of the battle.
"John Brown's Body Lies a Smoldering in his Grave,...but his Spirit goes marching on!" ---Sung by every Union Soldier in the American civil war and still around when I was a kid in the 1960's.
Hello. There is a TH-cam channel called "Mr. Terry History". Have you heard of it? I hear that Mr. Terry is a History teacher and he did a reaction to this video, The American Civil War (Part 1) by Oversimplified. I think you should watch his reaction to this video you just reacted to. I learned a lot by watching his reaction to this Video. You could learn a lot. Thanks.
I blinked when he looked at his friend during the whole slave trade basic explanation and his jaw dropped and he said “No!” In shock. It’s like I was confused because...actually you know what, question: aren’t they taught this? I don’t know, that’s what got me and made me confused.
He gasped and explained it like he thought that Africans are native to the Americas, but what is failed to mention is that local Africans traded their own men to the Europeans and the Americans from West Africa where they would be transported to North and South America. That's why black people exist in the West, because of slavery.
I was confused by that, too. Like, where else did you think the black people came from? The natives were native, the white people came from Europe, and the black people came from Africa.
@@kristijanEX The transatlantic slave trade though was something else. Slavery in Africa was not the transatlantic slave trade and was largely indentured servitude. Let’s not act like Africans started slavery. America had it’s own unique slavery with its own laws.
They literally found the war plans wrapped around cigars. All the tobacco was grown in the south, so when the war started the North couldn't get cigars (except the expensive cubans) so the scout found them thinking he'd scored some tobacco and tah-dah! There were Lee's orders written out, left by Confederate Cavalry.
This is really cool and informative as an American too. A lot of these names and battles I memorized in school, and yes did know more about the beginnings of the war, but it’s hard to visualize all the different strategies and what was happening militarily. I’m from Virginia which is on the border between north and south and where a ton of battles were fought. There’s still like weird tension between north and south. Not like political or hostile just like “damn Yankees” vs “southern hicks” type of thing and sadly racism is a lot more prevalent in the south. But we have cemeteries filled with soldiers from both sides. We also have monuments to soldiers from both sides because even though the south lost a lot of folks from around here have family who fought on both sides.
The story about civilians picnicking and watching the first battle of Bull Run is absolutely true. They didn't know how long the war was gonna last so they wanted to go see the action up close. And Lee really did leave his battle plans wrapped around three cigars. I majored in history in college. I'm very good with my history.
Well, I'm not familiar with him, but did he go about it in a civilized way, or was he just out there recruiting slaves to butcher white southerners who weren't even necessarily slave owners?
Maybe because John Brown was a lunatic who (among other things) murdered a kid because his dad owned slaves, killed slaves that didn't want to rebel, and wanted us to live in a theocracy. Just because the guy opposed slavery doesn't make him a hero.
I'm from Delaware, which was a slave state. However by the time the war started, Delaware had already freed about 90% of it's black population and was close to ending slavery overall. Delaware, despite being a slave state, stayed loyal to the Union and fought for the North. Fun fact as well, Delaware is the only southern state that didn't have a Confederate army.
One good thing McClellan was responsible for was the training and organization of the army of the Potomac, that led to future victories under generals who were less cautious.
Okay. A separate post then. "Saint" is the masculine form. "Santa" is the feminine form. (In Romance languages.) "Santa Barbara", "Santa Maria", are but two examples. (Whomever came up with, "Santa Claus", ignored that, or was unaware of that.) But anyway, the place names that were put in place by the founders of those places, tended to be kept, even if the names weren't English names. Translating from Spanish, French, and the various Native American Nation languages, to English, would cost a lot of money and resources. "Oklahoma", would be, "Home of the Red Man". "Corpus Christi", would be, "Corpse of Christ". "Baton Rouge", would be, "Stick, Red". "Annapolis", would be, "Ann's City". And so on and so forth. 🤔 Here in Oklahoma, it has been said, "That you know you're an Oklahoman, when you can correctly pronounce all of our place names." 👍😎
The cigar in the field thing is true, the way the story goes is that a messenger was given a copy of the plans from Lee, to take to one of his commanders, and Lee had wrapped them around some cigars as a gift for the commander, and the messenger lost them...then a Union soldier came along and found them.
Originally slavery was a multiethnic affair in America. You would have irish Scottish black and many different ethnicity indentured servants.in fact if you reverse it one of the first slave owners in Colonial America was a man born in Africa. However around the early 1700s Virginia had to deal with multiethnic worker rebellions. So as to keep them a little bit more divided it took a more racial tone with privileges given to white workers and citizenship made harder for blacks.( including a law making it so that whatever your mother was instead of whatever your father was decides your citizenship.)
@@royronson3275 There was no such thing as Irish slaves. They were indentured servants who served for a fixed term. They didn't serve their whole live,s they didn't have their children sold off never to be seen again.
corvus13 Yes you are right. But during these years before they would be freed. they worked as slaves doing slave labor. So I’d say they were slaves. The definition of a slave is “a person who is the legal property of another person and forced to obey them.” In very early colonial America these “white slaves,” were brought to the colony to forcibly do hard labor. So they were technically slaves for a period. But in all honesty you’re right in the respect that indentured servitude was not nearly as awful and cruel as black slavery. Black slaves were not even viewed or treated as humans. I still might argue that the first forced laborers, who were mostly white were still “slaves.” But these white slaves aren’t really comparable to Black Slaves in America. Ya know you probably got me on this one. I’m admittedly sorta twisting things a bit to defend my original comment towards you. So I’ll concede, you win and I apologize for questioning you.
My family and I are from Virginia; and my parents currently live in Manassas. There are still immaculately kept battlegrounds you can still visit from the Civil War.
People specialize in single parts of the Civil War as historians. They dedicate their entire lives to battle history, Antebellum society, Reconstruction, the Politics, etc. This war started long before actual war was declared and still continues in some ways. It was extremely complicated and meant different things to different people. A lot of ppl did fight for freeing slaves. A lot of other, namely extremely poor, men fought for pay. Or because they didn't agree with their state not being able to dictate what happened in said state. In the North, a lot of sons fought to protect their factories, to gain prestige for their family by fighting on the right side, etc.
Even we in Malaysia, our history textbooks talked about American westward expansion, the American Civil War and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade with decent detail, What IS taught in British history textbooks??? We based our syllabus somewhat on yours too
Great reaction, just to answer some of your questions and respond to some of the things you were surprised about. The prospect of losing slaves wasn't just the economic loss of labor, but slavery was often the most valuable piece of property. I have done quite a bit of southern genealogy and gone through many estate records and often a single slave could be worth more than hundreds of acres of land, nevertheless someone with many slaves. So the idea of losing slaves meant the threat of losing their wealth (not defending it for the record, it was vile and I glad it was stopped when it did even at the cost of lives). As far as slaves being brought in from elsewhere, this was mostly during the colonial days when these were British colonies and they were just one of the many colonies the British empire exported slaves too. America inherited it's slavery from Britain (though grew it into a massive beast of it's own). The condemnation of slavery the video mentions by Jefferson in the declaration of independence (that was removed) was basically condemning Britain for leaving it's taint of slavery on the colonies (remember the colonies were mostly British economic ventures originally). Shortly after the American revolution importing of slaves outside the US was made illegal (despite some illegal trafficking still continuing). For context somewhere around 10 million slaves were exported out of Africa via the trans-atlantic slave trade and only about 300k ended up in what would become the US. So from that 300k by 1860 there were 4 million slaves, the US slave population grew almost completely from within itself after the initial population. Slave owners and slavers saw it as a breeding. A very sad concept. Regarding Indian slaves, they were enslaved as well, mostly earlier on. Some Native Americans also owned Black slaves themselves as well. It likely proved harder to cement Native enslavement due to their familiarity and proximity to their people, while Africans exported as slaves had neither of those aids.
Great comment cheers 👍 never really thought of a slave as a way of losing your money/asset. Just tend to think of it more like all the work they were forced to do against their will 😔 shame so many lives were lost fighting for it - dave
@@HypeTrain-Follow Yeah, to put it another way: When Frederick Douglass (the black abolitionist in the video) published his first memoir, he had to leave the country so that his legal owner couldn't have him captured and returned. He went to Britain, and while on tour there giving abolitionist speeches, his British friends and admirers decided to write to Douglass's owner about purchasing his freedom. The man (Thomas Auld) set the price of Douglass's freedom at £150 in 1847. Today, that's about £15,678.
Winfield Scott was not only a Veteran of the Mexican American War, but also a veteran of the War of 1812. Also, in their American Revolution video, they mention Washington's second in command disobeying orders and charging the British. That subordinate was "Lighthorse" Harry Lee, Robert E. Lee's father.
No, the Lee in the American Revolution video (the "borderline treason" guy) was Charles Lee, who as it happens, actually was a traitor. He was in contact with British spies and was on his way to becoming a Benedict Arnold until after the Battle of Monmouth.That's when John Laurens (one of Washington's aides) challenged him to a duel and, well, there's a certain musical that has the rest of the story if you want it (songs "Stay Alive" and "Ten Duel Commandments")
The slave trade was the fault of European powers and a deal with the local African war lords to sell captured members of enemy tribes to the Europeans. That part was left out.
Yeah they also missed out that UK had passed the slavery ban act over 30 years before this... Not sure about all of Europe I'm just glad sense prevailed in this crazy world 🤔.... Kev
Chron0ClocK K I think you should take your own piece of advice. Isn’t it interesting that whenever colonialism and/or slavery is discussed, people always find these types of scapegoats. Perhaps If we all just accepted history instead of trying sugarcoat or falsify details, then maybe we could stop these types of ignorant conversations.
1. That "how am I funny?" Bit is a nod to the American gangster cult classic, that is said to be the most accurate in depicting the style and mentity of the mafia. 2. That man that moved to get away from the war is the same man the jokes about waiting on his wife trying to flee from the first battle of bull run (or Manassas depending on where you grew up) and lived in the home where grant and Lee met to sign the surrender papers and would later comment "the war started in my backyard (bull run) and ended in my front room (appomattox)" Also, there's a number of neat little differences in attire between officers and pretty neat interactions as well during the signing that some documentaries, the most recent one being titled grant here in the states that go into more detail on that.
No, Gen. Lee's Special Orders No. 191 (his detailed war plans) were actually found by two Union soldiers, Private Barton Mitchell and Sergeant John Bloss of the 27th Indiana, wrapped around cigars, presumably accidentally dropped by a Confederate officer.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but the story of the confederate soldier who tended to the wounded union soldiers is true. His name was Richard Rowland Kirkland and was born in South Carolina. Today, he is revered as “The angel of Maryes Heights”. As fate would have it, he later died at the Battle of Chickamauga. RIP
This is a time before electricity was commonly used and before engines were commonly used. Communication was done by written notes carried by horseback, and while not drawn up for battle armies were quite spread out compared to modern times due to the difficulty of keeping large numbers of people supplied in any one place. Coordinating the movement of tens of thousands of soldiers camped in spread out locations and who could only move by foot required numerous written copies of planned routes and timetables of troop movements to be carried by messengers over large distances. The story about Lee's plans being found wrapped around a cigar is humorous, but it's actually not surprising and also not an isolated occurance. The same happened to Napoleon before Waterloo. The joining of the British and Prussian forces that decided the battle happened because of the same situation - Wellington got ahold of the French plans and so was able to coordinate with Blucher to face Napoleon together rather than being defeated piecemeal according to Napoleon's plans.
One thing to note is mexico didn't really do much to settle the lands that they lost to Texas which later joined the usa and california which also later joined the usa. Both of which declared independence and fought against mexico
Textile mills in Lancashire built during the Industrial Revolution became rich in part from spinning cotton from the American South (as well as from India and other crown colonies). That steady supply of cotton started the economic boom times for Manchester and Liverpool. So it should be no surprise that many people in north-west England wanted the British Empire to aid the South during the U.S. Civil War.
The civil war was actually about how much power the federal government had over each states power while Lincoln saw how much the south needed slave labor Lincoln used as his main campaign strategy to get support from the north.
Hey guys I just want to say thank you so much for at least watching this vid. Wither you agree or not its good to see people wanting to learn from history. Mankind as a whole must learn from its past.
One big advantage that Robert E. Lee had was that he had been the commandant of the US Military Academy at West Point. Because of that he new just about all of the generals on both sides.
The sad thing is that while the Continental Congress was drawing up the Bill of Rights there was a huge debate about whether to abolish slavery or not. Unfortunately, the states that had slaves relied on them economically so they were unwilling to discuss it, to the point they essentially threatened to flip the table and leave altogether if they weren't allowed to keep their slaves. So it became a choice between abolishing slavery or keeping the nation together and they decided to table it in the hopes that it could be dealt with later.
A fantastic documentary series to watch is Ken Burns' Civil War series. It is a great breakdown of the cause of the war and the war itself. If you don't want to sit through all that, two movies that are worth seeing are 'Gettysburg' and 'Glory'.
The Mexican territory thing was inherited by Spain per their victory in the Seven Years war they inherited it from french colonies in North America Montana and Los Angeles were Spanish names meaning "Mountain" and "The Angels"
35:00 the importation of new slaves had been outlawed in 1807. By the time of the Civil War almost all of the slaves in the South were 2nd or third generation, or longer
Valdez Alaska was not Mexican territory. It was named for the Spanish explorer in 1790 . Native tribes ,or for lack of a better word Eskimos occupied the territory As far as Russia goes ,Calif territory owned by them consisted of 2 or 3 small outposts
12:40 The seaborn trade in slaves had largely ceased by then, because it was abolished in the preceding decades. The vast majority of slaves talked about in these videos where born in America (as slaves), although some older ones might still have crossed the ocean. Families were still being separated at the same rate though.
The caning on the senate floor did actually happen. It was widely reported at the time, so there's records of it. However, such violence was, and remains, incredibly unusual. That's why it's noteworthy at all. It shows that the tensions in the senate weren't just limited to harsh language, but had escalated to impassioned physical violence. It also serves to highlight how much people in America identify with their home state over the country as a whole, which still continues to this day (partly thanks to sports, politics, and cultural differences).
Actually violence was quite common in Congress in the decades before the Civil War, it was just all kind of hushed up by "gentlemanly understanding" between Congress and the Washington press. A really great book came up out about this a couple years ago, called _The Field of Blood_ by Joanne Freeman. Basically she went through all of these letters and diaries and other private papers of Congressmen and people who worked in Congress and found all of these references to fights breaking out and duel challenges and the like. The caning of Charles Sumner was publicized because of the national tensions at the time, and considered so heinous in part because Preston Brooks attacked him from behind, which was "dishonorable."
It's interesting when people talk about "there were so many other issues other than slavery" because...yes, yes there were, but when you dig down on those issues, they all lead back to slavery....the economics differences, had their roots in slavery...the territorial problems were more to do with where 'slavery' could and could not be...for the most part, the more you try to move away from slavery being the main issue and explore other reasons...you keep coming back to slavery being a big factor in each of those others issues as well. It was not the only issue, but without the question of slavery, it would never have gotten nearly as contentious, as most of those big issues would either have not existed, or at the least not have been as big and problematic. So, when you really dig deep, yes, it all circled about the question of slavery at the heart of it.
Good job, I am happy following you and this crazy oversimplyfied History. As Spaniard I like to see the video explain the helping of our country. Later English help us against Napoleon :). I disagree respectfully concerning much countries involved, i believe only two, just France and Spain. Also i would like to say Mexico was so large (As you mentioned in other video) inside USA because prior to that was Spaniard, as that is showed in this vídeo. The Kingdom of Spain had 52% of USA in XVI -XVIII centuries, so colonialist century XIX found a mixed Indian Spanish world. Not a totally wild territory , From Mexico to South Canada, and to the east to Florida. Even some factories in Alaska temporary , even Russian and Spaniards almost had a war in north of California. An example is the Apache Geronimo, the name is old spanish, he was baptized, and his language was spanish. They were sedentaries in the XVII and spaniards gave protection from Comanches, more aggressive . The attacks from apaches came later when Mexicans and Americans entered into war. All theses stories even in Spain we did not know, thankfully all the history is being revisioned, the Hollywood movies did not help us too much, I enjoyed a lot these movies but not too good to study history. Regards
But just to tell everyone before they get the wrong impression....the suspension of habeas corpus is constitutional Article 1, section 9 clearly states that the it can be suspended in the time of invasion or rebellion Jefferson Davis actually did it twice....but like I said, it can be suspended in the time of *invasion* or *rebellion*
Interesting tidbit. The Atlantic Slave Trade that the Americans were using was actually founded by the British Empire. King George also introduced, and encouraged, the southern states to use the slaves as plantation workers. This is why Thomas Jefferson criticized the practice in the Declaration of Independence, as it was tied directly to the crown that they were criticizing. It has to be removed so that the southern states would be on board, because it was important that every state was in on this so that if the British empire decided to fight it, they would not have an easy opening through an allied British state. By not addressing slavery then and there, the south had the leverage to keep it going all the way up to the founding of the Constitution, where it would become even more difficult to abolish it. Most of America, even back then, were against the practice, but there was a lot of big money in it, and a lot of funding and lobbying to keep it going.
Thanks for your interest in American history! It is worth noting, not to excuse slavery but to see what was considered acceptable at the time, that the US abolished the kidnapping/forced importing of native Africans starting in 1808. Some Natives were enslaved in the 1600s, but they had too much of a home field advantage strategically and it was almost unheard of except maybe as punishment for crimes (or losing wars) in the 1700s.
The deadliest war in American history with more than 750,000 people dead. Relative to the US population today that would be around 8 million people. Pretty hard to imagine.
@@HypeTrain-Follow To put it in perspective- take every other war the United States fought in. American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, various Indian wars, Spanish War, WW1, various Caribbean/Central American conflicts, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, War on Terror. You can go from the Revolution to over halfway through Vietnam before you equal the casualties of the Civil War. Even after a century and a half, Antietam remains our bloodiest day, Gettysburg our bloodiest battle, and Grant's Overland Campaign our bloodiest military operation.
GlennWH26 Also crazy to think about the percentage of soldiers who died in the war. According to the video around 3 million men served during the war. Which would mean that almost a third of the men who enlisted would would go in to die in the conflict. That’s a very significant amount of boys and young men who would never return to their families. This must have really hurt the American people, so many mothers losing their sons in battle. Such a tragic loss of life. I think Britain and France had a similar experience in the First World War. Where I believe those countries lose close to the same percentage of their young men. War really is so tragic.
Gen. McClellan had numerous opportunities to wrap the war up early if he had had the nerve. Had he Lee's or Jackson's nerve the war could have been over in about 1 1/2. "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson is a great read for those with a budding interest in CW history.
If he’d won the war so quickly, Lincoln wouldn’t have been pressured by Europe’s possible meddling, and wouldn’t have made the emancipation proclamation.
I have to admit I was a little surprised the hosts didn't know where African slaves came from, but in retrospect It makes sense when I think of my own understanding of British history. I am glad this didn't turn out to be one of those, "The ACW wasn't about slavery' videos.
The following was found at this link: coxok.com/tidbits/headrights.htm Edited synopsis: The Headright System was designed by England to encourage emigration to the colonies by getting the rich to pay to transport laborers to Virginia in return for free land. Planters who brought in slaves were awarded fifty acres per slave, just as they were awarded fifty acres per indentured servant.
Yeah Mexico was basically forced to sell their land to USA in that war. Despite the southern west already containing many Mexicans and other latinos from central/south America, the names remained the same for the most part. Every "Los/Las" and "San (Diego, Gabriel, Fernando, Francisco)" are all spanish names. To this day there still are the 21 missions built by Spain from 18th-19th century in California and they are all named after the missions (San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara). They were built to convert Native Americans into Christians and Spanish citizens...
12:45 some Native Americans were enslaved some were sort of free and some were slave owners themselves. Mostly they were just dealing with the genocide and some of those that had to assimilate became plantation owners. It gets a little complicated when looking at the history up close
Before Texas was annexed it was an independent nation for like 5 years and when it was annexed the federal government integrated the northern part of the country into an unorganized territory since it was sparsely populated. that territory ould eventually go on to become part of other western states
To respond to a statement you made Hype Train guys, black people are not native to the Americas. They were brought to the Americas from Africa by slave traders from a number of European countries: Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Also, about that big chunk of Mexico you didn't know about. That area was the northern part of Mexico until 1848. That was when a treaty was signed to end the Mexican-American War. The US won the war, and forced Mexico give up about 1/3 of its territory. That territory is the southwestern corner of the US today, making up all or part of states such as California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah.
Just for future referrence. Some information was incorrect. It was not 4 million. it was 12 million. An they where not slaves. Slaves are people who agree to a contract to work for low wages until a finished product is complete an they are paid a huge pay off at the end. Like a 6 figure payment. This was not slavery this was captivity.
Prior to 1861 and the secession of the southern states there had been several northern states who threatened secession over the continued existence of slavery. The US Constitution says nothing about secession. There is an amendment to the US Constitution that clearly states any political rights not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the individual states. Republicans and Democrats in the US are still arguing over State's Rights to this day.
12:30 so, by this point in time new slave importations had ended, banned back in 1807. But for two centuries up to that point importations did occur. The government screwed over the Indians in a different way
Sad fact to throw out there, there are more people in literal semi-institutionalized enslavement in places like Africa and India than at the time in the America’s over 40 million if memory serves of the study. That doesn’t account for other slightly less conditions like debt peonage or travel document withholding contracts in the Middle East, or the various states and formed of Human Trafficking that aren’t abject slavery so while there are a lot more free people now there are at least as many if not more in bondage.
I think post spain claim to that area, mexico had the claim the shortest time 30 years and quickly lost. Mainly due to the fact they didn't settle those lands so didn't actually have a population of citizens loyal to Mexico.
Exactly. Spain had all that territory. Then mexico broke away from spain and had all that land. But they were economically unstable. It was a matter of time before they would lose that land
The cotton gin was intended to end slavery but it made it worse as plantation owners got more slaves to work more crops. Eli Whitney on his death bed lamented his guilt for making his invention. Slavery could have ended that much sooner.
Fun fact: the slave trade is still going on to this day, in many countries it's in the form of sex trafficking while in countries like Saudi Arabia it's still legal to own slaves.
Everything from Texas west to Cali used to be Mexico. Also most Mexicans are Native Americas just like better known natives like the Cherokee and the Sioux. Mexicans native Americans can be from many different tribes. They were forced out of their native land (what is now the Southwest US) just like other native Americans during the attempted genocide called “manifest destiny”.
JeremySpaceInvaders Meh. Bit of an oversimplification. The Spanish who originally colonized Mexico and South America wiped out the large majority of Natives in all of the Americas, about 90% died within 100 years of Spanosh arrival, before the US existed it the British had even colonized N. America. And Spain established the colony of Mexico, which became independent. You’re right, most Mexicans were of partial Native descent but most of the Native Civilizations and way of life had already been destroyed, and the ruling class in Mexico was still mostly of White Spanish background. So the country of Mexico had been created on what was once Native land, and the Mexicans weren’t exactly people of the true Native culture that once thrived there. They definitely did integrate the surviving Native populations much better than the US, it still wasn’t exactly good for the populations either and their original way of life was destroyed. Also it’s hard to say what the Mexicans would have done with the Native Americans in NM, Cali, etc, as most those areas were not yet heavily settled by Mexico. The Natives likely would have had better treatment by Mexico, but they most likely would have had to give up their land and original tribal lifestyle and integrated into Mexico. So it’s kinda not really correct to paint Mexico as some innocent country of Native people who protected the Native tribes. Until the US “stole” the land and killed all the natives. Also calling manifest destiny an “intentional genocide” is a real stretch lol
every town or city who begins with "Las" has been Mexican, Las Vegas, Los Angeles are Original spanish names.
Oh ok 👍 that kind of makes sense - dave
Bertus van Hal it’s also interesting because Mexico kind of did itself in by encouraging American settlers to migrate there due to not having enough settlers there because once war with the US came all those settlers essentially were still loyal to the US and aided their campaign (thus you get things like the bear flag revolt in California)
Not true, San Diego is German for "A whales vagina"
So not mexican, you mean the towns have spanish names as in from spain. Which are the ones that "explored" what became mexico and then the western united states.
@Zeb Brennan You mean Bugsy Siegel, right? The gangster from New York? The first one to set up the Vegas Strip.
The story about the cigars / battle plans is actually true!
Quite fascinating really. Not very clever either 😅-dave
The entire nine book alternative history of the United States written by Harry Turtledove begins with those battle plans not being found.
@@corvus1374 That's really cool :)
corvus13 Really? No way
@@corvus1374 do the Confederates win because of that in the book ?
Always interesting when people from other countries react to the Civil War. We are taught about that a lot, because it was a big deal for our country. It makes sense that you guys would have no real idea about it.
True most knowledge of this I've learned from documentaries and films.. These are a really good quick fix reminder 👍😊... Kev
Well we western countries have a wode knowledge of it, like really big but obviously cause you're a native American you're expected to know MUCH more,
It's really interesting though
@@DerekIngoe Lots of Civil wars are interesting that we don't get taught about. The War of Roses, big deal for England, just a footnote for Americans. Or the Mexican Civil War. I had no idea about it until a few years ago. only a 100 years ago and over 1 million people died in it, totally fascinating stuff.
@@pokeygorilla9368 Yeah we mandatorily had to learn the War of the Roses but very briefly, like who what when how, who came on top and all that
@@HypeTrain-Follow want a cool history movie watch Gettysburg
They tried using the Natives as slaves at first, but they kept dying off as they had no immunity to diseases like smallpox. Also, if they ran away, they knew the terrain of the area so well it was easy for them to hide. So the answer is, they tried and it didn't work.
And, defining slave-status by color ( not seen before in history) made it almost impossible for slaves to disappear into the general population.. Many did, however, escape and joined various tribes, such as the Cherokee and the Seminoles, who willingly accepted them.
Some native tribes were slave holders of blacks and whites. The Comanches ,for example who were probably the most violent tribe . They committed genocide against other tribes.
Enslavement was not exclusive to white Europeans .It occured throughout history .Arabs did it ,ancient Egyptians ,and even African tribes preyed on weaker tribes and enslaved them
The stories about the cane beating in Congress and the found war plans are both true! History is wild haha
Thanks for reacting to this video so quickly!
This is why you can no longer carry weapons onto the house/senate floor, and why those 2 Rep. got in trouble.
The cane beating was also much more brutal than how it was described.
@@Perfectly_Cromulent351 yea, sumner almost died
About Mexico: lets not forget, they WERE part of Spain, and ITS empire, and this was around the time that ALL came crashing down HARD in a series of revolutions. Mexico, being one of them. When they fought and left, ALL the american territory Spain had, went to Mexico in the North.
By this point Mexico had been independent for 20 years and Spain accepted our independence since 1836.
The UK, at a few points in the war, almost became a Confederate ally. Southern sympathizers in London, such as Lord Palmerston’s Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell, managed to quietly supply the confederate government with guns, ammo, uniforms, and even entire battleships for their navy (see the CSS Alabama). These men (Russell especially) even tried to persuade their superiors to intervene militarily.
The incident at 31:00 was known as the Trent Affair. Two confederate diplomats, one Mr. Mason and Mr. Slidell, snuck past the union blockade, made it to Cuba, and boarded the British mail carrier RMS Trent, en route to England where they would meet with Palmerston’s government. Union captain Wilkes of the battleship USS San Jacinto heard of this and, without waiting for permission, located the Trent, fired at it until its captain stopped the ship, boarded the mail carrier, and removed Mason and Slidell.
The British public and government were outraged by the audacity of this action. Thousands of troops were marshaled in Canada in preparation for a potential invasion of the northern states. Lord Palmerston’s government issued an ultimatum to President Lincoln, release Mason and Slidell and send them to Britain or face war.
Since both confederate diplomats were not just traitors but also slave owners, Lincoln was hoping to hang them. His Secretary of State, William Seward, attempted to persuade Lincoln against this act, but the president insisted he had made up his mind. Yet, at his next cabinet meeting, when all of his other secretaries and advisors recommended releasing the two men, Lincoln agreed. Seward, surprised by this, asked Lincoln what caused such a drastic change of heart, to which he replied “I found I could not construct an argument that would satisfy my own mind; this told me your ground was the correct one.”
Mason and Slidell were released and put on a British battleship that took them to England. Lincoln’s introspection during and handling of the Trent Affair always serve to remind me how governance is a lost art these days.
Honestly, i would say the whole "The UK nearly came out in support of the confederates" is nothing but romanticist history which was perpetuated by southern sympathisers. most of the "diplomatic outrage" over the Trent affair or the Rams was very very discreet and dealt with promptly by Seward & Lord Lyons (UK ambasador to the US).
Much more interesting were the French. Its often overlooked how they began striking partnerships and deals with Mexico believing that if the Rebels won then the Monroe doctrine would be shattered and France could carve up central and south America with Mexico as a key ally and helping them regain much of the mexican lands taken by the US.
Jaymes Harris I doubt Lyons could’ve been prompt about this sort of thing. The man was unaware of the term “mason dixon line” until after bull run. He was also often described as being so reluctant to look people in the eye that he “was more acquainted with the shoes of the people he spoke with” than their faces. Given how ill suited Lyons was to his post, I’m honestly not surprised Seward, despite being Secretary of State of a country in the middle of tearing itself apart, was able to work out a better deal.
I’m not saying that the UK would have definitely gone into the war, but there were certainly those who would’ve liked that to happen and made preparations; such as Lord Russell negotiating secretly with the confederates through his consul Robert Bunch. If it hadn’t been for other Palmerston cabinet members such as Sir George C Lewis pointing out how the Union’s new ironclad ships could decimate their forces, they may well have. Of course, this may be why the word “if” might be called the biggest in the English language.
Now that you mention it, however, Mason and Slidell did visit France and spoke with Napoleon III after leaving England. During their conversation, the two men mentioned how the Union blockade was becoming increasingly troublesome. The French Emperor recommended they employ screw steamers, and even offered to build two of them in France. Ultimately, this deal fell through.
Jaymes Harris Jaymes Harris Yeah I doubt their were really any serious considerations for the UK to actively throw support behind the Confederacy, namely because they had condemned slavery way before this. But their support truly did lean more towards the Confederacy, at least early on. Of course one major reason being they were huge consumers of southern cotton.
But another reason was due to US-UK relations at the time, which were not particularly good. A divided United States would be weaker, and be less of a threat to Britain’s global power, as the US was a rapidly growing economic and industrial power during this time. A weaker US would also be beneficial to Britain’s colonial power in North America, since America had recently issued the Monroe doctrine to drive out European powers from the Americas and allow for their own country’s expansion. You mentioned the diplomatic discussions between the UK and Confederacy and the Trent affair. This might be blown out of proportion, but it definitely did further sour relations between the US and the UK gov’t.
So as weird as it may seem, Britain’s sympathy’s did lean more toward the Confederacy at one point. The British were obviously apposed to Slavery. The UK did generally favor the South, and some gov’t members did want the up their support and provide substantial aid to the Confederacy. A confederate victory was seen as economically and geopolitically beneficial for the UK. And from their POV it makes sense. That said for the CSA to gain any real significant support from Britain was for the most part just Southern delusion. The best they could have hoped for was for the UK to recognize the CSA as it’s own nation, but that’s about it. Though the British did build a naval ship for the confederacy
Yes... and France's Napoleon the III was seemingly even more anxious to support than most in the UK. Had Britain backed the CSA, the French Empire (and it's Mexican puppet state) would've probably followed immediately thereafter. Napoleon III strongly desired the destruction of the Monroe Doctrine and an end to US hegemony in the America's to re-open the hemisphere to imperial ambitions.
Jesus, One period of History lesson and I'm not even at school
The _Dred Scott V. Sanford_ decision is considered one of the worst decisions in US Supreme Court history
I agree. I feel like the ruling had it gone the other way, would’ve just started the war a little earlier.
@Francisco Rivera I didn’t know that! It’s almost like he wasn’t impartial 😂
John Brown's body lies a'moulderin' in the grave....
John Brown's body lies a'moulderin' in the grave....
John Brown's body lies a'moulderin' in the grave....
His soul is marching on!
Surprisingly this song wasn’t actually about John Brown the abolitionist, it was actually about a member of the Massachusetts volunteer infantry who was named John Brown. His fellow company men made up the song to tease him and as it slowly spread to other companies and battalions, many thought the song was about John Brown the abolitionist and so that’s how it became known as John Brown’s body, John Brown of the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry didn’t survive the war he drowned early on in the Shenandoah River near Front Royal, Virginia.
In 8th grade algebra class in South Carolina, I had a teacher who commonly used the phrase "John Brown" as an epithet -- like a substitute cuss word. If a kid was talking in class, she'd say, "Shut your John-Brown mouth, right now." Or she would tell some kid, "Sit in your John-Brown chair and pay attention." This was not an affectation. Apparently she had grown up saying it, and it likely went back 120 years in her family.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the diesel cavalry,
It's strong and spry, two stories high, and loud as it can be,
It's at least twelve times as fast as Sherman marching to the sea,
His mech is marching on!
(Source: a Twitter thread discussing the notion of resurrecting John Brown and giving him a battlemech)
Fun side notes: Lincoln is on both the 1 cent Penny and the $5 bill while Grant (later 18th President) would be on the $50 bill.
yo im American and i just now realized that President Grant was Ulysses Grant, the Confederate general......... dang, just goes to show how crappy the American education system is. They teach us about the Civil war for years in elementary and simply gloss over the fact that the general of the traitors of America later became a president. huh.
@@lightningdashproductions8824 ...Grant was the Union commanding general (by the end of the war).
@@lightningdashproductions8824 He was a unionist my dude.
@@erraticonteuse yus i realized my entire mistake like the next day
@@lightningdashproductions8824 if anything, you just made your argument against the American education system stronger
The quote by the little girl talking to Lincoln about his face at the train station is true.
McClellan: Good at two things. 1) He could build an army and make the men very confident. 2) He was good at DEFENSE. If you need to win a Defensive battle then he was your man. I do feel oversimplified does him a bit of a disservice: While he talked confident HE DID at least go out on the battlefield and expose himself to danger. He got fired at more than once. This is something that General Hooker (one of his replacements) can't claim. Hooker talked big about 'whipping Lee' but basically stayed in his headquarters the entire battle of Chancellorsville. So McClellan was not totally a coward or useless. What "Little Mac" was NOT able to do was fight on offense. Here, he was too cautious to a fault. Perhaps it was the weight of the responsibility that got to him, or perhaps he didn't like sending the men in his army off to die, but whatever it was, you could never win a war with McClellan.
Thank you for the info.. Good to hear more details you are right the video does not paint him very good at all 👍... Kev
@@HypeTrain-Follow : Well, I'm glad you liked it. Did you ever wonder why the Democrats would run a man vs Lincoln who was as cowardly or inept as that video seemed to make him out to be? If you read about how he came back (Lincoln had already dismissed him once when replacing him with Pope and one or two other Generals that got their asses kicked and men's morale was at a low point so Lincoln bit the bullet and recalled him) before Antietam you'd see that the men in the Army of the Potamac raised this huge cheer when they saw McClellan riding toward them. Then why did they vote for Lincoln when it was Lincoln vs McClellan two years later? Well, they knew Lincoln wanted to continue the war which 1 they were winning and 2 they had shed so much blood for, and yes, there was a possibility that McClellan wasn't willing to see the final year of the war through as so much blood had been shed. The soldiers, in other words, did not trust that McClellan wouldn't betray all their efforts in a misguided attempt to spare their lives.
One thing you forget though.
Hooker fought in the Seminole and Mexican American wars where he received brevet promotions for leadership and gallantry.
Though he most likely wasn't accustomed to commanding such a huge number of men as much of his career was serving on staff and not actual command
Thing about Hooker at Chancellorsville was that he was actually in the thick of the fighting as his headquarters was attacked and he was nearly killed by a cannonball that smashed into the timber of the porch he was standing on that gave him a concussion which addled him for the rest of the battle.
“It’s been two centuries since that happened”.
....Well, we might be headed for another one, things are getting pretty crazy here.
Lol yeah I see that but huge cover up so very hard to get Truth here 🤔.... Kev
"John Brown's Body Lies a Smoldering in his Grave,...but his Spirit goes marching on!" ---Sung by every Union Soldier in the American civil war and still around when I was a kid in the 1960's.
"Unconditional Surrender" Grant was also a deliberate play on his initials, USG (Ulysses S. Grant).
Oh, that’s clever, I never noticed that!
Hello.
There is a TH-cam channel called "Mr. Terry History". Have you heard of it?
I hear that Mr. Terry is a History teacher and he did a reaction to this video, The American Civil War (Part 1) by
Oversimplified.
I think you should watch his reaction to this video you just reacted to.
I learned a lot by watching his reaction to this Video.
You could learn a lot.
Thanks.
Hi, yes we are actually subscribed to him 😀 he's very informative - dave
kim ahn, I’m one of Mr. Terry’s moderator’s, lol
So you’d react to a reaction?
Shout out Terry, mans a legend
I blinked when he looked at his friend during the whole slave trade basic explanation and his jaw dropped and he said “No!” In shock. It’s like I was confused because...actually you know what, question: aren’t they taught this?
I don’t know, that’s what got me and made me confused.
He gasped and explained it like he thought that Africans are native to the Americas, but what is failed to mention is that local Africans traded their own men to the Europeans and the Americans from West Africa where they would be transported to North and South America.
That's why black people exist in the West, because of slavery.
I was confused by that, too. Like, where else did you think the black people came from? The natives were native, the white people came from Europe, and the black people came from Africa.
Especially as Europeans were responsible for starting the slave trade (mainly taking them to South and Central America).
@@kristijanEX The transatlantic slave trade though was something else. Slavery in Africa was not the transatlantic slave trade and was largely indentured servitude. Let’s not act like Africans started slavery. America had it’s own unique slavery with its own laws.
They literally found the war plans wrapped around cigars. All the tobacco was grown in the south, so when the war started the North couldn't get cigars (except the expensive cubans) so the scout found them thinking he'd scored some tobacco and tah-dah! There were Lee's orders written out, left by Confederate Cavalry.
This is really cool and informative as an American too. A lot of these names and battles I memorized in school, and yes did know more about the beginnings of the war, but it’s hard to visualize all the different strategies and what was happening militarily. I’m from Virginia which is on the border between north and south and where a ton of battles were fought. There’s still like weird tension between north and south. Not like political or hostile just like “damn Yankees” vs “southern hicks” type of thing and sadly racism is a lot more prevalent in the south.
But we have cemeteries filled with soldiers from both sides. We also have monuments to soldiers from both sides because even though the south lost a lot of folks from around here have family who fought on both sides.
The story about civilians picnicking and watching the first battle of Bull Run is absolutely true. They didn't know how long the war was gonna last so they wanted to go see the action up close. And Lee really did leave his battle plans wrapped around three cigars. I majored in history in college. I'm very good with my history.
"Good on John Brown, then."
Sadly enough, that's still considered a controversial statement in parts of the U.S.
Well, I'm not familiar with him, but did he go about it in a civilized way, or was he just out there recruiting slaves to butcher white southerners who weren't even necessarily slave owners?
@@waldoman7 I think it's more that the 'Northern Aggression' (what some southern states call the war) was helped by John Brown.
Maybe because John Brown was a lunatic who (among other things) murdered a kid because his dad owned slaves, killed slaves that didn't want to rebel, and wanted us to live in a theocracy. Just because the guy opposed slavery doesn't make him a hero.
Verratos Rogue it was more of him being fuckin crazy and killing people who didn’t necessarily have anything to do with slavery
John Brown was the most based American to ever live
"John Brown's Body" was the original name for the song "Battle Hymn Of The Republic"!
I'm from Delaware, which was a slave state. However by the time the war started, Delaware had already freed about 90% of it's black population and was close to ending slavery overall. Delaware, despite being a slave state, stayed loyal to the Union and fought for the North. Fun fact as well, Delaware is the only southern state that didn't have a Confederate army.
One good thing McClellan was responsible for was the training and organization of the army of the Potomac, that led to future victories under generals who were less cautious.
The reason i love oversimplified is because normal people not history buffs can learn so much
Amen 🙏😁.... Kev
Okay. A separate post then. "Saint" is the masculine form. "Santa" is the feminine form. (In Romance languages.) "Santa Barbara", "Santa Maria", are but two examples. (Whomever came up with, "Santa Claus", ignored that, or was unaware of that.) But anyway, the place names that were put in place by the founders of those places, tended to be kept, even if the names weren't English names. Translating from Spanish, French, and the various Native American Nation languages, to English, would cost a lot of money and resources. "Oklahoma", would be, "Home of the Red Man". "Corpus Christi", would be, "Corpse of Christ". "Baton Rouge", would be, "Stick, Red". "Annapolis", would be, "Ann's City". And so on and so forth. 🤔
Here in Oklahoma, it has been said, "That you know you're an Oklahoman, when you can correctly pronounce all of our place names." 👍😎
The cigar in the field thing is true, the way the story goes is that a messenger was given a copy of the plans from Lee, to take to one of his commanders, and Lee had wrapped them around some cigars as a gift for the commander, and the messenger lost them...then a Union soldier came along and found them.
Originally slavery was a multiethnic affair in America. You would have irish Scottish black and many different ethnicity indentured servants.in fact if you reverse it one of the first slave owners in Colonial America was a man born in Africa. However around the early 1700s Virginia had to deal with multiethnic worker rebellions. So as to keep them a little bit more divided it took a more racial tone with privileges given to white workers and citizenship made harder for blacks.( including a law making it so that whatever your mother was instead of whatever your father was decides your citizenship.)
it would be nice if something akin the slave revolt of hati happened in the south, then again that could majorly backfire, just a thought
That's a lie, but ok, you be you.
@@corvus1374 a lie? No. A oversimplification? A little.
@@royronson3275 There was no such thing as Irish slaves. They were indentured servants who served for a fixed term. They didn't serve their whole live,s they didn't have their children sold off never to be seen again.
corvus13 Yes you are right. But during these years before they would be freed. they worked as slaves doing slave labor. So I’d say they were slaves. The definition of a slave is “a person who is the legal property of another person and forced to obey them.” In very early colonial America these “white slaves,” were brought to the colony to forcibly do hard labor. So they were technically slaves for a period.
But in all honesty you’re right in the respect that indentured servitude was not nearly as awful and cruel as black slavery. Black slaves were not even viewed or treated as humans. I still might argue that the first forced laborers, who were mostly white were still “slaves.” But these white slaves aren’t really comparable to Black Slaves in America. Ya know you probably got me on this one. I’m admittedly sorta twisting things a bit to defend my original comment towards you. So I’ll concede, you win and I apologize for questioning you.
My family and I are from Virginia; and my parents currently live in Manassas. There are still immaculately kept battlegrounds you can still visit from the Civil War.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand" - The words of Jesus Christ in Mark 3:25 as repeated by Abraham Lincoln.
av3nger3 also if it’s infested with termites
That would be Mark 3:25 not Matthew (it does appear in Matthew 12:25 though)
av3nger3 10:54
@@ProBreaker Thanks for the correction. I accidentally typed Matthew. I corrected it above.
People specialize in single parts of the Civil War as historians. They dedicate their entire lives to battle history, Antebellum society, Reconstruction, the Politics, etc. This war started long before actual war was declared and still continues in some ways. It was extremely complicated and meant different things to different people. A lot of ppl did fight for freeing slaves. A lot of other, namely extremely poor, men fought for pay. Or because they didn't agree with their state not being able to dictate what happened in said state. In the North, a lot of sons fought to protect their factories, to gain prestige for their family by fighting on the right side, etc.
Anyone fighting on the side of slavers for _any_ reason is evil.
See also: Allying with Russia.
No the Indians were instead forced out of their homes and onto reservations. You guys should look into the Trail of Tears. It’s quite sad.
Love the poem by Lincoln. It's basically a classier version of the 'loser says what?' joke.
Even we in Malaysia, our history textbooks talked about American westward expansion, the American Civil War and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade with decent detail,
What IS taught in British history textbooks???
We based our syllabus somewhat on yours too
Great reaction, just to answer some of your questions and respond to some of the things you were surprised about.
The prospect of losing slaves wasn't just the economic loss of labor, but slavery was often the most valuable piece of property. I have done quite a bit of southern genealogy and gone through many estate records and often a single slave could be worth more than hundreds of acres of land, nevertheless someone with many slaves. So the idea of losing slaves meant the threat of losing their wealth (not defending it for the record, it was vile and I glad it was stopped when it did even at the cost of lives).
As far as slaves being brought in from elsewhere, this was mostly during the colonial days when these were British colonies and they were just one of the many colonies the British empire exported slaves too. America inherited it's slavery from Britain (though grew it into a massive beast of it's own). The condemnation of slavery the video mentions by Jefferson in the declaration of independence (that was removed) was basically condemning Britain for leaving it's taint of slavery on the colonies (remember the colonies were mostly British economic ventures originally). Shortly after the American revolution importing of slaves outside the US was made illegal (despite some illegal trafficking still continuing). For context somewhere around 10 million slaves were exported out of Africa via the trans-atlantic slave trade and only about 300k ended up in what would become the US. So from that 300k by 1860 there were 4 million slaves, the US slave population grew almost completely from within itself after the initial population. Slave owners and slavers saw it as a breeding. A very sad concept.
Regarding Indian slaves, they were enslaved as well, mostly earlier on. Some Native Americans also owned Black slaves themselves as well. It likely proved harder to cement Native enslavement due to their familiarity and proximity to their people, while Africans exported as slaves had neither of those aids.
Great comment cheers 👍 never really thought of a slave as a way of losing your money/asset. Just tend to think of it more like all the work they were forced to do against their will 😔 shame so many lives were lost fighting for it - dave
@@HypeTrain-Follow Yeah, to put it another way: When Frederick Douglass (the black abolitionist in the video) published his first memoir, he had to leave the country so that his legal owner couldn't have him captured and returned. He went to Britain, and while on tour there giving abolitionist speeches, his British friends and admirers decided to write to Douglass's owner about purchasing his freedom. The man (Thomas Auld) set the price of Douglass's freedom at £150 in 1847. Today, that's about £15,678.
Winfield Scott was not only a Veteran of the Mexican American War, but also a veteran of the War of 1812. Also, in their American Revolution video, they mention Washington's second in command disobeying orders and charging the British. That subordinate was "Lighthorse" Harry Lee, Robert E. Lee's father.
No, the Lee in the American Revolution video (the "borderline treason" guy) was Charles Lee, who as it happens, actually was a traitor. He was in contact with British spies and was on his way to becoming a Benedict Arnold until after the Battle of Monmouth.That's when John Laurens (one of Washington's aides) challenged him to a duel and, well, there's a certain musical that has the rest of the story if you want it (songs "Stay Alive" and "Ten Duel Commandments")
Thank you, I stand corrected.
The slave trade was the fault of European powers and a deal with the local African war lords to sell captured members of enemy tribes to the Europeans. That part was left out.
Yeah they also missed out that UK had passed the slavery ban act over 30 years before this... Not sure about all of Europe I'm just glad sense prevailed in this crazy world 🤔.... Kev
HypeTrain other wise it sounds like Americans were just kidnapping Africans.
Malk Von Batshit That’s complete bs
@@nmt6076 Read a book, and learn your history before popping off on the keyboard, exposing yourself for the fool that you are.
Chron0ClocK K I think you should take your own piece of advice. Isn’t it interesting that whenever colonialism and/or slavery is discussed, people always find these types of scapegoats. Perhaps If we all just accepted history instead of trying sugarcoat or falsify details, then maybe we could stop these types of ignorant conversations.
1. That "how am I funny?" Bit is a nod to the American gangster cult classic, that is said to be the most accurate in depicting the style and mentity of the mafia.
2. That man that moved to get away from the war is the same man the jokes about waiting on his wife trying to flee from the first battle of bull run (or Manassas depending on where you grew up) and lived in the home where grant and Lee met to sign the surrender papers and would later comment "the war started in my backyard (bull run) and ended in my front room (appomattox)"
Also, there's a number of neat little differences in attire between officers and pretty neat interactions as well during the signing that some documentaries, the most recent one being titled grant here in the states that go into more detail on that.
This is my favorite oversimplified video(s) nailed it
Cheers 👍-dave
I meant that Lincoln said, " if i could keep the union together without freeing one slave i would"
21:00 Yup nothing has changed, people today would film war with their phones all the same.
No, Gen. Lee's Special Orders No. 191 (his detailed war plans) were actually found by two Union soldiers, Private Barton Mitchell and Sergeant John Bloss of the 27th Indiana, wrapped around cigars, presumably accidentally dropped by a Confederate officer.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but the story of the confederate soldier who tended to the wounded union soldiers is true.
His name was Richard Rowland Kirkland and was born in South Carolina. Today, he is revered as “The angel of Maryes Heights”.
As fate would have it, he later died at the Battle of Chickamauga. RIP
This is a time before electricity was commonly used and before engines were commonly used. Communication was done by written notes carried by horseback, and while not drawn up for battle armies were quite spread out compared to modern times due to the difficulty of keeping large numbers of people supplied in any one place.
Coordinating the movement of tens of thousands of soldiers camped in spread out locations and who could only move by foot required numerous written copies of planned routes and timetables of troop movements to be carried by messengers over large distances.
The story about Lee's plans being found wrapped around a cigar is humorous, but it's actually not surprising and also not an isolated occurance. The same happened to Napoleon before Waterloo. The joining of the British and Prussian forces that decided the battle happened because of the same situation - Wellington got ahold of the French plans and so was able to coordinate with Blucher to face Napoleon together rather than being defeated piecemeal according to Napoleon's plans.
One thing to note is mexico didn't really do much to settle the lands that they lost to Texas which later joined the usa and california which also later joined the usa. Both of which declared independence and fought against mexico
We love how the partys have changed ideals, causes no confusion at all
Textile mills in Lancashire built during the Industrial Revolution became rich in part from spinning cotton from the American South (as well as from India and other crown colonies). That steady supply of cotton started the economic boom times for Manchester and Liverpool. So it should be no surprise that many people in north-west England wanted the British Empire to aid the South during the U.S. Civil War.
The civil war was actually about how much power the federal government had over each states power while Lincoln saw how much the south needed slave labor Lincoln used as his main campaign strategy to get support from the north.
Hey guys I just want to say thank you so much for at least watching this vid. Wither you agree or not its good to see people wanting to learn from history. Mankind as a whole must learn from its past.
One big advantage that Robert E. Lee had was that he had been the commandant of the US Military Academy at West Point. Because of that he new just about all of the generals on both sides.
Mexico was that high up because after they won there war of independence they got all of Spain’s territory in North America
people from Ireland, Germany and many other countries fought in this war too.
Harpers ferry actually has a wax museum dedicated to brown.
The sad thing is that while the Continental Congress was drawing up the Bill of Rights there was a huge debate about whether to abolish slavery or not. Unfortunately, the states that had slaves relied on them economically so they were unwilling to discuss it, to the point they essentially threatened to flip the table and leave altogether if they weren't allowed to keep their slaves.
So it became a choice between abolishing slavery or keeping the nation together and they decided to table it in the hopes that it could be dealt with later.
"Never thought Mexico was that high"
Serious, mate? XD 4.20 :,D
A fantastic documentary series to watch is Ken Burns' Civil War series. It is a great breakdown of the cause of the war and the war itself. If you don't want to sit through all that, two movies that are worth seeing are 'Gettysburg' and 'Glory'.
There were black soldiers during the Civil War. My ex wifes family actually had a drummer from the 54th.
The Mexican territory thing was inherited by Spain per their victory in the Seven Years war they inherited it from french colonies in North America Montana and Los Angeles were Spanish names meaning "Mountain" and "The Angels"
35:00 the importation of new slaves had been outlawed in 1807. By the time of the Civil War almost all of the slaves in the South were 2nd or third generation, or longer
BTW unconditional surrender was Grant's actual nickname.
With regard to how far up Mexico went at the time, Mexico had a town (Valdez) as far north as Alaska. And the Russians as far south as California.
Valdez Alaska was not Mexican territory. It was named for the Spanish explorer in 1790 .
Native tribes ,or for lack of a better word Eskimos occupied the territory
As far as Russia goes ,Calif territory owned by them consisted of 2 or 3 small outposts
12:40 The seaborn trade in slaves had largely ceased by then, because it was abolished in the preceding decades. The vast majority of slaves talked about in these videos where born in America (as slaves), although some older ones might still have crossed the ocean.
Families were still being separated at the same rate though.
The caning on the senate floor did actually happen. It was widely reported at the time, so there's records of it. However, such violence was, and remains, incredibly unusual. That's why it's noteworthy at all. It shows that the tensions in the senate weren't just limited to harsh language, but had escalated to impassioned physical violence. It also serves to highlight how much people in America identify with their home state over the country as a whole, which still continues to this day (partly thanks to sports, politics, and cultural differences).
Actually violence was quite common in Congress in the decades before the Civil War, it was just all kind of hushed up by "gentlemanly understanding" between Congress and the Washington press. A really great book came up out about this a couple years ago, called _The Field of Blood_ by Joanne Freeman. Basically she went through all of these letters and diaries and other private papers of Congressmen and people who worked in Congress and found all of these references to fights breaking out and duel challenges and the like. The caning of Charles Sumner was publicized because of the national tensions at the time, and considered so heinous in part because Preston Brooks attacked him from behind, which was "dishonorable."
It's interesting when people talk about "there were so many other issues other than slavery" because...yes, yes there were, but when you dig down on those issues, they all lead back to slavery....the economics differences, had their roots in slavery...the territorial problems were more to do with where 'slavery' could and could not be...for the most part, the more you try to move away from slavery being the main issue and explore other reasons...you keep coming back to slavery being a big factor in each of those others issues as well. It was not the only issue, but without the question of slavery, it would never have gotten nearly as contentious, as most of those big issues would either have not existed, or at the least not have been as big and problematic. So, when you really dig deep, yes, it all circled about the question of slavery at the heart of it.
Good job, I am happy following you and this crazy oversimplyfied History. As Spaniard I like to see the video explain the helping of our country. Later English help us against Napoleon :).
I disagree respectfully concerning much countries involved, i believe only two, just France and Spain. Also i would like to say Mexico was so large (As you mentioned in other video) inside USA because prior to that was Spaniard, as that is showed in this vídeo. The Kingdom of Spain had 52% of USA in XVI -XVIII centuries, so colonialist century XIX found a mixed Indian Spanish world. Not a totally wild territory , From Mexico to South Canada, and to the east to Florida. Even some factories in Alaska temporary , even Russian and Spaniards almost had a war in north of California. An example is the Apache Geronimo, the name is old spanish, he was baptized, and his language was spanish. They were sedentaries in the XVII and spaniards gave protection from Comanches, more aggressive . The attacks from apaches came later when Mexicans and Americans entered into war. All theses stories even in Spain we did not know, thankfully all the history is being revisioned, the Hollywood movies did not help us too much, I enjoyed a lot these movies but not too good to study history.
Regards
But just to tell everyone before they get the wrong impression....the suspension of habeas corpus is constitutional
Article 1, section 9 clearly states that the it can be suspended in the time of invasion or rebellion
Jefferson Davis actually did it twice....but like I said, it can be suspended in the time of *invasion* or *rebellion*
Interesting tidbit. The Atlantic Slave Trade that the Americans were using was actually founded by the British Empire. King George also introduced, and encouraged, the southern states to use the slaves as plantation workers. This is why Thomas Jefferson criticized the practice in the Declaration of Independence, as it was tied directly to the crown that they were criticizing. It has to be removed so that the southern states would be on board, because it was important that every state was in on this so that if the British empire decided to fight it, they would not have an easy opening through an allied British state. By not addressing slavery then and there, the south had the leverage to keep it going all the way up to the founding of the Constitution, where it would become even more difficult to abolish it. Most of America, even back then, were against the practice, but there was a lot of big money in it, and a lot of funding and lobbying to keep it going.
Thanks for your interest in American history! It is worth noting, not to excuse slavery but to see what was considered acceptable at the time, that the US abolished the kidnapping/forced importing of native Africans starting in 1808. Some Natives were enslaved in the 1600s, but they had too much of a home field advantage strategically and it was almost unheard of except maybe as punishment for crimes (or losing wars) in the 1700s.
The deadliest war in American history with more than 750,000 people dead. Relative to the US population today that would be around 8 million people. Pretty hard to imagine.
Definitely 😔-dave
@@HypeTrain-Follow To put it in perspective- take every other war the United States fought in. American Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War, various Indian wars, Spanish War, WW1, various Caribbean/Central American conflicts, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, War on Terror. You can go from the Revolution to over halfway through Vietnam before you equal the casualties of the Civil War.
Even after a century and a half, Antietam remains our bloodiest day, Gettysburg our bloodiest battle, and Grant's Overland Campaign our bloodiest military operation.
GlennWH26 Also crazy to think about the percentage of soldiers who died in the war. According to the video around 3 million men served during the war. Which would mean that almost a third of the men who enlisted would would go in to die in the conflict. That’s a very significant amount of boys and young men who would never return to their families. This must have really hurt the American people, so many mothers losing their sons in battle. Such a tragic loss of life.
I think Britain and France had a similar experience in the First World War. Where I believe those countries lose close to the same percentage of their young men. War really is so tragic.
Is that also true if you don't count the Confederacy's dead?
Gen. McClellan had numerous opportunities to wrap the war up early if he had had the nerve. Had he Lee's or Jackson's nerve the war could have been over in about 1 1/2. "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson is a great read for those with a budding interest in CW history.
If he’d won the war so quickly, Lincoln wouldn’t have been pressured by Europe’s possible meddling, and wouldn’t have made the emancipation proclamation.
The blood that flows through my Veins are from my grandfathers who have died in that war
I have to admit I was a little surprised the hosts didn't know where African slaves came from, but in retrospect It makes sense when I think of my own understanding of British history. I am glad this didn't turn out to be one of those, "The ACW wasn't about slavery' videos.
Special order 191 someone stashed it in a field and a corporal in the 27th Indiana regiment found it by just sitting down
Not one of the reaction videos of the civil war hasn't answered the question...
Is cereal a soup?
The following was found at this link: coxok.com/tidbits/headrights.htm
Edited synopsis:
The Headright System was designed by England to encourage emigration to the colonies by getting the rich to pay to transport laborers to Virginia in return for free land. Planters who brought in slaves were awarded fifty acres per slave, just as they were awarded fifty acres per indentured servant.
hey guys! it would be fun to see you guys react to the geography now Belgium episode! i'm sure you guys will like it!
well its funny because in France we call it, the war of secession instead of the "american civil war" or secession war depends of traduction
Another fun fact only around 15% of slaves went to the United States through the entirety of the Atlantic slave trade, the rest were to South America
incredibly important
Yeah Mexico was basically forced to sell their land to USA in that war. Despite the southern west already containing many Mexicans and other latinos from central/south America, the names remained the same for the most part. Every "Los/Las" and "San (Diego, Gabriel, Fernando, Francisco)" are all spanish names. To this day there still are the 21 missions built by Spain from 18th-19th century in California and they are all named after the missions (San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara). They were built to convert Native Americans into Christians and Spanish citizens...
a video so good they left the whole midroll ad in
12:45 some Native Americans were enslaved some were sort of free and some were slave owners themselves. Mostly they were just dealing with the genocide and some of those that had to assimilate became plantation owners. It gets a little complicated when looking at the history up close
Can't wait till y'all get 100000 subs
Before Texas was annexed it was an independent nation for like 5 years and when it was annexed the federal government integrated the northern part of the country into an unorganized territory since it was sparsely populated. that territory ould eventually go on to become part of other western states
conflict continued after including the hatfield mccoy fued which lasted decades jim crow laws and so forth.
15:42 Not just European but all societies go through cycles of disintegration and integration predictably so, I'd look into cliodynamics.
To respond to a statement you made Hype Train guys, black people are not native to the Americas. They were brought to the Americas from Africa by slave traders from a number of European countries: Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Denmark.
Also, about that big chunk of Mexico you didn't know about. That area was the northern part of Mexico until 1848. That was when a treaty was signed to end the Mexican-American War. The US won the war, and forced Mexico give up about 1/3 of its territory. That territory is the southwestern corner of the US today, making up all or part of states such as California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah.
Just for future referrence. Some information was incorrect. It was not 4 million. it was 12 million. An they where not slaves. Slaves are people who agree to a contract to work for low wages until a finished product is complete an they are paid a huge pay off at the end. Like a 6 figure payment. This was not slavery this was captivity.
26:44 this had me laughing quite a bit. "Then send him more."
HypeTrain, what would have been your nickname for General Grant?
I believe they did initially try to use native americans as slaves but they knew the land to well and they got away.
Prior to 1861 and the secession of the southern states there had been several northern states who threatened secession over the continued existence of slavery. The US Constitution says nothing about secession. There is an amendment to the US Constitution that clearly states any political rights not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the individual states. Republicans and Democrats in the US are still arguing over State's Rights to this day.
I wonder if Americans still spoke with an English accent at this time?
Im not 100% but im pritty sure the american accents developed pritty quick
Today's English accents are totally different than 18th/19th century English accents.
The accent wasn’t as it is today but they didn’t have a British accent
12:30 so, by this point in time new slave importations had ended, banned back in 1807. But for two centuries up to that point importations did occur.
The government screwed over the Indians in a different way
Native Americans were also enslaved in some states or just slaughtered and land taken from them.
Sad fact to throw out there, there are more people in literal semi-institutionalized enslavement in places like Africa and India than at the time in the America’s over 40 million if memory serves of the study. That doesn’t account for other slightly less conditions like debt peonage or travel document withholding contracts in the Middle East, or the various states and formed of Human Trafficking that aren’t abject slavery so while there are a lot more free people now there are at least as many if not more in bondage.
I think post spain claim to that area, mexico had the claim the shortest time 30 years and quickly lost. Mainly due to the fact they didn't settle those lands so didn't actually have a population of citizens loyal to Mexico.
Exactly. Spain had all that territory. Then mexico broke away from spain and had all that land. But they were economically unstable. It was a matter of time before they would lose that land
The cotton gin was intended to end slavery but it made it worse as plantation owners got more slaves to work more crops.
Eli Whitney on his death bed lamented his guilt for making his invention.
Slavery could have ended that much sooner.
Fun fact: the slave trade is still going on to this day, in many countries it's in the form of sex trafficking while in countries like Saudi Arabia it's still legal to own slaves.
Ironic the guy on the left looks like Abe Lincoln. That's totally a compliment by the way.
Haha thank you 😊👍... Kev
Everything from Texas west to Cali used to be Mexico. Also most Mexicans are Native Americas just like better known natives like the Cherokee and the Sioux. Mexicans native Americans can be from many different tribes. They were forced out of their native land (what is now the Southwest US) just like other native Americans during the attempted genocide called “manifest destiny”.
JeremySpaceInvaders Meh. Bit of an oversimplification. The Spanish who originally colonized Mexico and South America wiped out the large majority of Natives in all of the Americas, about 90% died within 100 years of Spanosh arrival, before the US existed it the British had even colonized N. America. And Spain established the colony of Mexico, which became independent. You’re right, most Mexicans were of partial Native descent but most of the Native Civilizations and way of life had already been destroyed, and the ruling class in Mexico was still mostly of White Spanish background. So the country of Mexico had been created on what was once Native land, and the Mexicans weren’t exactly people of the true Native culture that once thrived there. They definitely did integrate the surviving Native populations much better than the US, it still wasn’t exactly good for the populations either and their original way of life was destroyed.
Also it’s hard to say what the Mexicans would have done with the Native Americans in NM, Cali, etc, as most those areas were not yet heavily settled by Mexico. The Natives likely would have had better treatment by Mexico, but they most likely would have had to give up their land and original tribal lifestyle and integrated into Mexico. So it’s kinda not really correct to paint Mexico as some innocent country of Native people who protected the Native tribes. Until the US “stole” the land and killed all the natives. Also calling manifest destiny an “intentional genocide” is a real stretch lol