I love your videos. You don't favor one side or the other, you don't glorify the commonly known versions, but explain them in an unbiased way. It's as if you're telling history the way it really happened.
The real reason had nothing to do with slavery, one southerner said it best " We're sick of tariffs collected on our docks all going to the North" Cotton and tobacco were the major cash crops and couldn't be grown in the North One of the solutions proposed by the South was Emancipation with compensation and education. The other real reason was The Mad Rail Splitter wanted to make sure no state or territory would dare to try leaving again
@@goldenvulture6818 Or the Cherokee Confederate General. There were many contentions between the North and South, slavery was the least of them. All wars are for land/money, the Uncivil War was no different
I once explained it to a colleague like this: "yes, there were a lot of factors that led to the start of the Civil War. Economic factors, political factors, cultural factors, and social factors. But they're all branches from the same tree: slavery."
I love how you come right out of the gate saying that the main cause was southern states wanting to keep their slaves. There really isn’t any ambiguity there
Serious question, do you actually believe that? How come this video, not ONCE, mentions the Curse of Cain or its history, and how it relates to divine providence and the widely regarded beliefs at the time?
I can't remember the exact phrasing or source of a quote about the cause of the American Civil War but it went something like this: "When you first learn about the Civil War you heard it was about slavery. When you read deeper you discover there were multiple factors that lead to it. When you read deeper into those factors you learn it was all about slavery."
“…was slavery.” Out the fucking gate, within the first minute. As a native-born South Carolinian who spent way too much of my childhood being taught bullshit and lies, thank you. Thank you for telling the truth.
well not true but also not wrong ,it was about slavery just as much as it was about money, slavery is just a business to make money, all War is about money and that's it, saying it's about slavery is like saying it's about cotton, both are products to make money from.
@@thatautistrob not weird at all, it's important and the end of the video explains why, you didn't pay attention i guess, The rest of the world, like the example in the video, British Empire, didn't get a civil war because they paid the slave owners for the loss of property. THIS!! is why the civil war was about money, got it? if the same had happen in the USA then no civil war was needed, people had slaves for the money not for the fun of it lmao.
The best thing my high school history teacher did (in the rural South) was require us to read the secession documents. The fact that all but 1 or 2 directly name slavery, (and the 1 or 2 that don't gesture towards it) was the nail in the coffin for many "the South will rise again" types in my school
Well I live in the South and had never heard of "the civil war" until I was an adult. I grew up knowing it as "the war of northern aggression" that's how they taught it in school
Wow, that's a brave teacher. Well done! Something similar happened for me a few years back when I was in a FB debate with a former classmate and Civil War came up...and I finally decided to read the Confederate Constitution. Turns out, it gave zero additional "States' Rights", but actually managed to take ONE away--every state, current and future, MUST have/allow slaves...otherwise, it was basically a copy/paste of the US Constitution. EDIT: Oops...looks like I jumped the gun with this comment, as the video covers it.
@@S-tank_ Which perfectly sums up the direct reason for the war was disunity. Slavery contributed a lot to the disunity, but it wasn't the sole factor.
"the allure of being an elite planter was enough to keep the majority invested in the system." ah yes, the temporarily embarrassed billionaire syndrome. so glad thats gone.
Their are more billionaires today than ever before.The middle class is gone in America,which leaves only rich and poor.The elite deep state continued with their inflation tactics so your average working man cannot afford a house anymore.
@@michaelr3583 not at all... Warhawk really focuses on the tactics of even relatively minor battles, whereas K&G typically takes more of a strategic view that occasionally delves into major engagements
It wasn't really until after the abandonment of Reconstruction that white southerners went all in on the lie that the war hadn't been about slavery. True, the book The Lost Cause was published two years after the war. But they didn't really get their story straight for some time.
Actually, it was fairly clear after the war. Believe it or not, the late 1800s were actually better for black people in the US than the early 1900s. The "Lost Cause Myth" you refer to originated mostly in the early 20th century, which is when all the statues of Confederate generals were built, specifically as a middle finger to black people.
Yeah, losing forces tend to do that. It's said plain what your intentions are in the beginning before the action happens. When the war is lost, suddenly all the mounting evidence that condemns the perpetrators was 'misinterpreted.' 'States Rights' excuse has the same aim as the German military after WW2 with the 'Clean Wehrmacht' myth... covering their asses.
Tons of wars have "Lost Cause" mythologies, but they're just usually for less impressive from a literary perspective. Confederate "Lost Cause" propaganda is not historically accurate, but it sure is eloquent.
As a former U.S. History teacher, whenever the topic came up, I would describe it like this: "The Civil War did begin over states' rights...their right TO OWN SLAVES."
Began over greed, and the means to keep wealth. At that point machinery was not exactly there yet to replace manual labor. If it was slave plantations could never keep up with machine run plantations. They'd all trade in their slaves for machines or go broke. The underlaying theme is always really simple that being wealth and power and the risk of losing it. Or the gamble to gain it. And while the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution, the north never really fought to free slaves. The civil war is glorified on both sides for very wrong reasons. And the only people that suffered in the long run were people of color.
@@dgray3771 It certainly is misrepresented from the North's perspective as this moralistic crusade to free slaves - which it wasn't. I always told my students that the war wouldn't have begun without slavery, but it didn't become about FREEING slaves until the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment. The original stated war goal was just to preserve the Union and ending slavery came about as an economic necessity to defeat the Confederacy.
@@KevinTheID The problem is mostly that most Americans totally do not understand the big differences between the states and the views people had on what a state was compared to today. Also the States back then had a lot more powers and freedoms than today. And even though states today have their differences they were way more different back then. The idea of having free states and slave states didn't help either. And the fear the southern states had that slavery would be abolished in the Union was actually a fair assessment of the situation. From a overview perspective I always say that the war was about secession and the cause was as well. The reason for secession was slavery but it wasn't for the war. Why did the north not let the south go? After all there was nothing that really made them alike. The differences were really big. The only reason the North decided to send an army was that they wanted to preserve the Union. Freeing slaves wasn't even on the agenda. The big problem I have with elevating slavery as a main cause for the civil war is that it wasn't a subject for the north. Thus secession is the cause of war. That the south left the union and became a confederacy was a threat for the union. A big issue is also economics. Especially for the north. Its Also why the south was dealt with so lenient after the war. No mass executions or long jail sentences. And many former southerners served in public office. Also no war has been attributed to a one sided argument. Ever. It's just too simplistic. Take the public wars, or the Macedonian wars. Even the servile wars were not about slavery in itself. Because the institution remained. Laws changed because of the brutality of slavery. Another thing to remember is that the south tried to gain support in Europe and some European powers were willing to listen. Up until the declaration of emancipation.Which made the European powers back off. It basically was the death sentence for the south. And yet northern slaves were not freed with that legislation. Odd thing if your war cause is slavery and the end of it.
I've been waiting for this, but there are a few things to add. There were multiple forts and federal properties that were taken by the South before the seige of Ft. Sumter, mostly in the deep south. The emancipation Proclamation did not free the enslaved population. That was the 13th amendment. The EP ensured freedom for the enslaved people in the rebellion states only. Lastly, the war goal of the North was to reunite the North with the rebelling states. Lincoln and his administration were careful not to recognize the Confederacy as a seperate entity and that there were rebels within those states that were fighting, not the states or legislature themselves.
The blockade really pushed the recognition thing. If Britian or France showed the arrogance that the US did about free trade before both world wars, the Union may well have lost the Civil War. Americans don't get it. We demand "freedom of the seas", but only when it's to our advantage.
This is about the lead up. Basically all of this vid’s content is pre-Lincoln so why would the EP or recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent nation come up? There will be more parts, I’m sure all this will be mentioned.
@cal4837 K&G may bring it up. However, these are more nuanced points and are usually obershadowed in videos that are general observations of the conflict. I mentioned the EP because until Lincoln brought it to the legislature, slavery was not recognized as being the main war goal for the federal government, it was to preserve the union. Lincoln and other politicians who were not abolitionists wanted to limit the expansion of slavery, not eradicate it. The EP made the Civil War about slavery, and ending the institution of it indefinitely.
@@MatthewChenault legal argument is secession wasn’t legally possible, so none of this matters. They took government property over. Just rebel assholes who lost 160 years ago.
@MatthewChenault Not true, Ft Moultrie was fired upon by artillery, setting part of the fort ablaze. Also, they were federal properties, not the states. Much like Ft. Sumter, the states had seeded the rights to the federal government. Also, the North did not recognize secession to be legal, which is why I stated the point about rebellious groups within those states.
Have slaves. Yeah the “states rights” crowd don’t continue that thought process cause it makes them look bad. The southern states don’t look good from any angle. That’s why they’re revising history
B- but mah states’ rights… …to be part of, and benefit by, the violent oppression of human beings for monetary gain. Oh wait that was supposed to be the quiet part. Oh well, at least we didn’t write it down, right guys? …guys?
@@luked4043 Not idiotic, the side arguing that the civil war was simply about states' rights is exclusively trying to downplay slavery's role in the civil war. It's an attempt to rewrite the Confederacy's legacy. It's no coincidence that it's the same side that still flies the confederate battle flag.
No, it was not. Blaming the Civil War on Slavery is like blaming 9/11 on Israel. It's just wrong, inaccurate, and downright hateful. Do your research, Lincoln was an unreasonable man and hateful fellow.
I have to ask since you guys are doing conflicts in the 19th and 20th century which series will the Crimean war be part of will it be part of the Ottoman series I feel like since the Ottomans were less involved in the main fighting of the series with the exception of the beginning such as the battle of Sinope it was more of a Russo Franco British conflict that took place. I hope you guys do it the siege of Sebastopol incredible more people went down from disease, then actual war and of course we can’t forget the famous charge of the British light brigade and the rise of Florence Nild the Red Cross.
@@briish4615I am totally looking forward to that as the Crimean war is a war that i know very little about as the only things I know about it are the charge of the light brigade, The thin red line of baclava, the battle of kinburn, a piece of the Crimean war that has a part of Scottish musical history and this piece of the Crimean war that is a part of Scottish musical history is an interesting part of history that involves the origins of a song that is played on the bagpipes and the song is called the Green hills of Tyrol aka a Scottish soldier and the history behind the song that has to do with the Crimean war is during the Crimean campaign aka the Crimean war pipe major John Macleod of the 93rd highlanders herd a band of the Sardinian contingent playing selections from the opera William tell in the camp before Sevastopol and John was struck by the song and he put it on bagpipes and after the war the tune was passed around among bagpipers until 1900 when the song was finally published and the other part of the Crimean war that i know about is a female Mediterranean spur thighed tortoise who’s name was Timothy and the tortoise was the mascot of a British royal navy ship called the HMS Queen (1839) and Timothy was present during the first bombardment of Sevastopol and she was the last survivor of the Crimean war passing away at the age of 160 at powderham castle Devon England on April 3rd 2004.
You really, REALLY need to talk about the Texas sublevations (1813-1836) and the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). They're the prelude to the Civil War and they're mostly forgotten or barely untouched by mainstream media like cinema and T.V series.
I was told that the civil war was over states rights by a history professor at a college in Minnesota, so I guess the southern pr program worked pretty well.
States rights of course played a role such as with tensions that rose after the Tariff of Abominations and other things outside of slavery, but yes it was the perception of the right of states to allow for slavery and people to own slaves that was the primary driving force.
Bravo, Kings and Generals! That's one of the best introductions to the Civil War I've heard in a long time! Keep it up! I hope you do a series on the War of 1812 sometime.
States rights to... -secede -manage their own foreign relations -run their economy according to what makes the most sense for them -decide their own laws without Northern politicians trying to cram the legislature as a method to shove down expensive tariffs only the Federal Government profited from -maintain their way of life (Oh by the way, for the longest time many Northern states, including NJ, ALSO had slaves)
@@ethanlynch8275 ah, the denier. Refuse to admit the obvious truth that your slave wielding forebears that you worship stated in all their letters and documents…that it was about slavery….education isn’t for everyone, I guess
@@ethanlynch8275 - No state ever had that right since the founding of the United States - States don’t have that sovereignty and don’t get those powers from the constitution - Slavery doesn’t become sensible just because monsters say it is - Sates have the autonomy to decide their laws within the boundaries decided at the federal level, which every state is a part of. Southern states were even given more representation than they should have had, as per the Northern ‘compromise’ (read: appeasement) of the 3/5ths agreement. The Southern states still seceded regardless of this preferential treatment and over-representation on the federal level - You don’t get the right to maintain your ‘way of life’ if that ‘way of life’ denies that very same right to millions of enslaved people (Whataboutism doesn’t strengthen your argument and only shows that you’re ignorant to the horrors and scale at which the South continued to practice slavery. The North was in the last stages of fazing out slavery, while the South looked to preserve and even expand the practice, by force if necessary. Grow up.)
@@LostToaster - Prior to the War Between The States (hereafter "War") states rights always superseded federal authority, which was only granted to the latter by the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". - Again, 10th Amendment. - Abe Lincoln: "Let them root, hog or die" when opining on the plight of the freed slaves. "Honest Abe" favored removal of the slaves back to the continent of Africa (you might want to do some homework on the country of Liberia). Overwhelming evidence, in his own words, that support the FACT that he was the ultimate white supremacist (look up the American Colonization Society). Further evidence clearly defines that prior to the War the north did not pay equal taxes as the south did. In regards to tariffs: "Since they [the south] were so dependent on trade, by 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs”. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. - The fledgling states did, prior to the War, have "autonomy" to decide their own fate, yet after the War the Supreme Court "decided" that the federal head was the ultimate authority. "Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, but only in the case of the Confederate States of America was secession actually declared. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession". - This leads to the matter of secession.When I ask a basic question to those that disagree with succession, "why would the original 13 colonies have the right to accede to a union, but not secede from the same?", crickets abound. If it were possible for a state to "join" the United States today, is there a condition that is codified in the US Constituiom that would disallow them from leaving if they so chose? The answer is, there is not. Then pray tell, why did the south not have that option then? The facts is that no one really knew at the time of the War, and really, even until today. California, Texas and other states have threatened to leave the union. If so, good riddance. Moreover, Alexander Hamilton was obsessive about creating a centralized government (now our "beloved" federal government,) but was unable to get it across the finish line. However, Abe Lincoln did, under the guise of "slavery". Please spare us all the illusion that Lincoln "evolved" in his thinking regarding slavery in just a few short years as he and the north were losing the fight until 1863. That same thinking abounds today by politicians, the old flip-flop. - You conflate and confuse with the 3/5ths agreement comments. The southern states did not receive any additional representation, check your work. - You don't get to choose woke and revisionist dogma to judge historical events. Sadly, history is written by the victors and much of what we continue to read about the War was and is heavily influenced by not only Lincoln apologists (more books have been written about Honest Abe than almost any human since time began) but "professors" in academia who inject their weak agendas into actual facts. - Society shouldn't judge events from 150 years ago on today's standards, that's complete foolishness and sophomoric. - Attacking others thoughts by name calling shows just how weak you are and your blind positions. - We all should be thankful that slavery ended, but to paint the impetus for the War as only based on slavery is completely false, regardless of what was written by the southern states. Be careful with that, because there is a treasure trove of words and deeds by the "esteemed north" to show their utter disdain and hatred for the slave.
On the bright side, I don't see violence on the streets on Brasil justified by case of police agression to some member of a differet etnicity. Still there were no 'Obamas' on Brasil. Correct if I'm wrong
The Writer Here: Reply to this comment with any questions you may have, I'll do my best to respond to everything. However, be warned that for all "What about X Lost Cause Talking Point" questions my answer is "Go watch Atun-Shei's Checkmate Lincolnites series. He spent five years answering every Lost Causer myth. Give him the credit and views he deserves." Also, keep in mind that we have more videos coming and the specifics of how it came to blows will be covered down the line.
But what about my fee fees? -sinseerly a southern lad, prob. In all seriousness I’ve noticed certain channels I use to watch taking some…let’s say weird turns lately. Glad you guys are staying the course.
I appreciate that you gave Andy a shout out. I'm looking forward to your contributions to nailing the coffin shut. Edit: Where did you get that quote from General Thomas? I was under the impression that he destroyed most of his correspondence and didn't write a memoir. And his position as a southern-born United States general would give his interpretation much more clout than most others.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher He did destroy his own papers as he didn't want fame or accolades. However, he couldn't destroy papers in other people's collections. He wrote that in a dispatch. The Sacramento Daily Union recorded it, and it's on his Wikipedia page. I learned of it in a book about Grant vs the KKK years ago.
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” A direct quote from the declaration of secession of Mississippi. The causes of the American Civil War are one of the most black and white issues in historical research. It was about slavery. It was all about slavery. It was always about slavery.
The thing is they often focus on the North, because it's impossible to have a "War of Northern Aggression" myth if they admit the South actually started it.
@@Heike-- you liked your own comment, and yes the north fought to free the black ethnic population from slavery. Unless you have a valid soruce or evidence from the time to suggest otherwise and not some random racist cops. Also your comment writes like an AI with weird spacing and odd grammar.
Although i'm not US citizen, considering how US shaped world afterward as a united states, i think this war was really very extremely important one for not only US but whole world history. And this makes me so interested. Keep up your good work!
I think this is a very smart point, and one that people don't often consider when it comes to this topic. The United States goes on to play a significant role in the 20th century, and this likely wouldn't have been possible (at least not to the same extent) had the nation been fractured in the 19th century.
John Brown should get more credit for instigating the civil war. After his failed insurrection, the south incorrectly thought there were hundreds of John Browns in the north when he was the only one and was losing support in the abolition movement before Harpers Ferry
@@tecumseh821 They weren't completely wrong. John Brown may have been a bit marginalized, but he still got a lot of abolitionist money to fund his insurrection, and he was on good terms with many of the leading abolitionists up to the end.
@@tecumseh821 True, but I remember hearing he got funds from the Secret Six for the insurrection, and most of his friends in the abolitionist movement couldn't disagree with the logic of his attempt, but couldn't abide by how risky it was.
Hot damn, K&G doing the American Civil War is going to be amazing! I'm curious on how in depth you guys will go. I can't wait for this series! And kudos for unequivocally spelling out that it was slavery behind this horrible conflict.
@@dominicguye8058 As they should. The so-called 'Confederacy' was a treasonous venture brought about by the obscene wealth enjoyed by the Planter class who saw their immoral status being threatened. The success of the lost cause' lies propagated and promoted the racism that our nation still struggles with to this very day. It's no surprise that the deep political divisions we live with today are along the same cultural lines that brought about the traitorous actions of both the attack on Fort Sumter and the storming of our Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Both occurred from the lies of those rich and powerful who saw their "realities" being challenged and exposed. Until our education system excises the cancer of the lost cause's false history, we will continue to suffer the damaging effects of the struggle between those who acknowledge facts and those who accept the "alternate facts" (aka lies) that power-hungry politicians make up to feed those Americans who won't tolerate being told that the "history and heritage" they were taught were based on falsehoods. If only your comment that 'everyone' is denouncing the Confederacy were true. For when that finally happens, our nation will take a giant leap forward in our continuing attempt to form "a more perfect Union". Semper Fi
Thank you so much for this video. As a Civil War historical reenactor I hear this Lost Cause myth constantly, and it's so aggravating to sit there and just take it. So I appreciate a concise yet thorough video like this that brings excellent points to counter their theories.
Slavery DID cause civil wars in other countries. For example the Colombian Civil War of 1851 was a war caused by the abolition of slavery, however this war isn't talked much about because Colombia had dozens of civil wars during the XIX century so it's very difficult to keep track of all of them
Several parts of the video, especially during the first half, is making me want to re-watch Knowing Better's Neoslavery video. Also wanted to add some detail about the Cotton Gin: The fact that its invention extended slavery's existence for decades is probably the cruelest bit of irony, as I vaguely recall finding somewhere that its inventor, Eli Whitney, was himself an abolitionist.
I think what the South failed to grasp is that Slavery in the Western cultures was either out or going extinct. Between the Barbery Wars, the censure of Dahome and the Ottoman’s trearment of Bulgarians, it was hard to justify stepping in to support a pro-slave nation.
They specifically referred to their 'peculiar institution' as African Slavery for a reason. Slavery was simply the enforcement mechanism of their desired racial heirarchy, a desire that remained well after the war.
I thought the argument that it wasn't about slavery was the fact that originally at the start the South would have been allowed to keep slaves when rejoining the union. The fact the war started because of slavery I assumed was generally accepted.
In fact, the south being allowed to keep slavery if the stayed/rejoined the union only proves that slavery was the cause. This is because if the union was offering protection for slavery if they rejoined, that just means that everyone knew they left because of slavery
it's funny bc in school (early 2000s), they always taught us that slavery wasn't the main reason for the war, when in reality it was entirely based around slavery
Really? My experience in US history classes in Montana (early 2000s) was very different. We learned about Bleeding Kansas, the Mexican-American War, the abolitionists, the inherent conflicts in liberalism as envisioned by Jefferson etc... We learned a materialist history, but also the ideological history, that showed the US as at least two different sets of economic and political engines on a collision course with one another. Nobody who graduated in my class could have any doubts that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war, not to mention countless smaller conflicts before and long, long after Well almost nobody lol I definitely remember tons of intelligent devil's advocates who would ask provocative questions. but I think all of us knew they/we were doing it for the sake of argument
@@HrothgarPedersen I specifically remember my social studies teacher saying it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. I wish I still had my old text books
Basic Waffle Recipe - 2 cups flour - 1 teaspoon salt - 4 teaspoons baking powder - 2 tablespoons of sugar - 2 eggs - 1-1/2 cups of warmed milk - 1/3 cup of melted butter - 1 teaspoon vanilla extract 1. In a large bowl, mix together flour, salt, and baking powder; set aside. Preheat waffle iron to desired temperature. 2. In a separate bowl, beat the eggs. Stir in the milk, butter, sugar, and vanilla. 3. Mix the egg mixture into the flour mixture and thoroughly integrate. 4. Organize with your friends, family, and coworkers to fight against corporate capitalism and take to the streets to demand the deposition of our corporate oligarchs. 5. Pour the waffle batter into the preheated waffle iron and cook until golden brown. 6. (optional) Slice up some strawberries and mix them together with a few tablespoons of sugar (to taste), simmer it on the stove until it starts to turn syrupy. Add that on top of the waffles. If you plan to also use maple syrup on top (do not use corn-based syrups, such as Ms. Buttersworth), then use a lot less sugar in the simmered strawberries. You can also just use raw strawberries without simmering them into syrup, of course.
i appreciate that they went straight to the point in the first episode to leave no doubt. they could have dragged it on for more clicks but they didn't.
A great series that is filled with so many good quotes showing what the politics and public opinion was really like. Anyone interested in the subject should watch it :)
As an American who is sick and tired of people claiming that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, as well as terrified that people in power are attempting to rewrite history to hide that fact, I really appreciate the clarity of vision and the directness of this video. Thank you. Keep up the great work!
Should probably at least mention that 90% of the budget was funded by Tariffs and the South was paying 80% of all Tariffs. It wasn't just slavery. Slavery was a big issue, but not the only one.
The video oversimplifies the end of slavery in Brazil. That occurred gradually. Some stages emancipated children born of slaves. Of course, people cheated and fudged DOB to keep a some in bondage for extra years. But it got the ball rolling. Later there was also emancipation of elderly-ish slaves. Men of working age were also freed in large numbers, in exchange for service, during Brazil's war with Paraguay. There was absolutely gradualism in the way Brazil addressed ending slavery. The reason why America was unable to discuss ending slavery in stages or compensation is that the arrogant confederates didn't wanna.
Before I watch... The war was caused by Southern secession. The South: seceded to protect and expand the institution of slavery, The North: fought to restore the Union. Later, they added abolition as a war aim.
This is a very, very good video. I am a history teacher in a Danish High School. I am covering the historical angle covering the upcoming elections. Even though slavery is not a topic in the upcoming elections, division is.
He provided testimony from sources and pointed out the confederate declaration of succession stating why the confederacy was leaving the US. It’s not even a discussion it wasn’t states rights it was slavery.
You realise more things than one can be right at the same time...right? It can be slavery as well as state rights, theyre not mutually exclusive Besides you can argue those two reasons are very interlinked with eachother, not excluding but empowering
There's regional conflict and diverging interests without slavery (you had it between the West and coasts). There's no secession unless the stakes are slavery and fear of a bloody uprising stoked by abolitionists or belief in slave power controlling the government.
I clicked because I was concerned what you would say the "real reason" was. Yes, it was slavery. There was no mistaking then or now, but now right-wingers want to say different. (BTW, if you revere the rebels because it's your "heritage", I say screw your heritage). The next correction needed to describe the American Civil War is the names by which we describe the 2 sides. The pro-slavery side were rebels. They can themselves whatever they like, but they were rebels committing treason against the United States, whose army should be referred to as the US Army. By not calling it such, and using the term "Union Army" it implies a legitimacy for the rebel army, just as name "Confederate". Traitors have no legitimacy.
It will forever boggle my mind that certain Americans have allowed themselves to be so deluded that slavery didn’t cause the war. All the deflections and excuses….all come back to slavery.
@@chikumori5530 No, it's because what replaced it was far worse in many ways. Sure it's all swell now. Until they start another war and a draft and cause hyper inflation!
It's actually very easy to understand. People want to be proud of their history. These people know slavery his horrible. They do not want to think their families fought for something that they understand to be horrible. Add the fact a presidents have given them a way out. It's easy for them to believe lost causer bullshit, because its easy for them to wrap their head around.
I have been dying for this! I was an intern and interpreter for Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park for a few months. Looking forward to the series!
As an outsider (Non American One), i think this is one of the most tragic event in world's history from what i know. How can all of country involved in a war because of slaves is beyond me. Even there are controvercies about what causes this, still, 4 million slaves were being free is something rare in history and need to be appreciated nevertheless. We are sorry for many casualties happened that time. God bless America
It's honestly easy to understand: Slavery generated wealth for the South and the entire nation, and being a racial caste system allowed poor Southerners a way to look down on others as more wretched than themselves, comforting their egos. The threat of abolition, therefore, was a threat to the poor white Southerner's sense of superiority, and the wealthy slaver class was able to use that anxiety to generate political power. With Lincoln's first election, the slaver class had to face the reality that the political work they'd put into making the South (and therefore the Southern slaver) dominant on the national political stage had officially failed. Rather than cede political power or reinvent themselves, they sought war. As Abraham Lincoln put it: "Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came." It's also worth noting that slavery was horrific. It involved mass murder, mass torture, mass rape. Men would rape enslaved women and sell their own children born from these assaults for profit. To say that it was horrible simply does not go far enough, and once Union soldiers began freeing enslaved folk from plantations, many who were simply drafted into the conflict became ardent abolitionists from seeing the horrors of slavery. There is simply no war more justified than one that ended that evil. Once again, quoting Abraham Lincoln: "Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword - as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
@angrydoggy9170 unless you want to count the imperialist colonies of almost every single western nation. Ask the Congolese how well they were treated by the Belgians or Indians by the British or Indochinese by the French or Indonesians by the Dutch.
@@angrydoggy9170 except it wasn't lmao. Slavery was abolished in the same 20 year time frame as most countries. Definitely not the first to move, but also not the very last. European countries kept the practice straggling along in their territories into the 1900s when central governments took more direct responsibility for administration of those territories
Reason was the slave states rights to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, which is absolutely abhorrent and disgusting. God bless the Union.
Citizenship Test Agent - "Alright, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?" Apu - "Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both domestic and international-" Citizenship Test Agent - "Hey, hey!" Apu - "Yeah?" Citizenship Test Agent - "Just say slavery." Apu - "Slavery it is, sir."
I mean, it's accurate. Do you disagree with this video, or something? What do you think one of the main "schisms" between abolitionists and anti-abolutionists was? Who made better cookies? What economic factors not related to their slavery did they experience? Why did international groups disagree with the South's decisions? Literally all of this comes back to slavery to some degree. This is a very dishonest comment that paints the discussion in an inaccurate light
I guess my question is why did you not put Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina in all Confederate maps? Is it due to the date of secession? Edit: Shout out Atun Shei Films and his "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" series.
It would be interesting to examine the aftermath of the Civil War on Agriculture. We talk a lot about mechanization in farming, but never about share cropping. Today, much farm labor in the US is handled by immigrant or migrant labor.
@@thehunzz It depends on what you mean. The legislature was fairly enthusiastic about secession. Governor Sam Houston most definitely wasn't. He was literally dragged kicking and screaming from his office after repeatedly refusing to accept secession.
@@TheReaperEagle I just meant in general. Appreciate the clarification and hyperbolic Sam Houston tidbit. Interesting guy, Houston. Not quite a "taking my ball & going home" type guy, but close. Certainly stubborn. Makes me want to learn more. Thx.
The Writer Here: Nope, it's accurate. Those points are discussing the Confederacy pre-war. Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas didn't join until the after the war started. The maps are a teaser for later.
6:06 shows the confederacy before the attack on fort Sumter. Virginia only seceded on April 17, after Sumter was attacked and Lincoln calls for 75,000 troops to invade the south.
hyped for a civil war series and it be cool if you also did the Indian wars after the Civil War too. I know you guys have covered some of the post revolutionary war conflicts and it be great if you kept going through past the civil war.
Far deeper than just state rights or slaves. Anyone knows that. The ordinary folk are not going to lay down their lives for slaves when they themselves do not have them….do you seriously think the average southerner was rich enough to own let alone buy a slave? No. Many reasons but state rights and slavery were 2 of them
@@VinceMcMahon124first of all, the average Confederate soldier was much more likely to own a slave than the average Confederate citizen. That's even with large scale slave holders having been exempt from service. But beyond that, white southerns of the time were steeped in the myth of "Servile Insurrection". This was a lie about the Haitien Revolution which claimed that its atrocities were caused by the freeing of the slaves. Of course, that's not true. Haiti didn't descend into genocidal violence until _after_ Napoleon tried to _reinstate_ slavery. But white southerners had been taught propaganda that claimed that the killing was the inevitable result of freeing slaves, and most of them believed it. They thought they were protecting their families by defending slavery.
People seem to forget about this meat grinder that was fought to end this terrible practice and preserve our union . Thank you for not attempting to rewrite history and fit some other purpose. Let's all remember how terrible and scary this was and come together. People are very comfortable in their lives now and don't think about the Civil War enough.
Hi! I love your videos, and I think it would be very interesting to make a video on the Russian surfs and the later soviet Kolchozi, which are often overlooked despite also being slavery that reached up to the fall of the soviet union. Thank you!
Great video. I think it would be nice to make a video talking about brazilian history, we have been in many wars in our history. And there are many important events that, in my opinion, would make great video too.
Get 4 months extra on a 2 year plan here: nordvpn.com/kingsandgenerals. It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!
Change the title back:
Yes, it was slavery
Tim Walz being the nominee is just a prelude to Communism.
I love your videos. You don't favor one side or the other, you don't glorify the commonly known versions, but explain them in an unbiased way. It's as if you're telling history the way it really happened.
The real reason had nothing to do with slavery, one southerner said it best " We're sick of tariffs collected on our docks all going to the North" Cotton and tobacco were the major cash crops and couldn't be grown in the North
One of the solutions proposed by the South was Emancipation with compensation and education.
The other real reason was The Mad Rail Splitter wanted to make sure no state or territory would dare to try leaving again
@@goldenvulture6818 Or the Cherokee Confederate General.
There were many contentions between the North and South, slavery was the least of them. All wars are for land/money, the Uncivil War was no different
I once explained it to a colleague like this: "yes, there were a lot of factors that led to the start of the Civil War. Economic factors, political factors, cultural factors, and social factors. But they're all branches from the same tree: slavery."
I love how you come right out of the gate saying that the main cause was southern states wanting to keep their slaves. There really isn’t any ambiguity there
Serious question, do you actually believe that? How come this video, not ONCE, mentions the Curse of Cain or its history, and how it relates to divine providence and the widely regarded beliefs at the time?
Only 5% of the confederate soldiers owned slaves
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqquRussian bot found
@@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu Hah, anytime someone tries to argue it wasn't about slavery, they cite some insane shit
Wtgdf are you talking about? @@grdfhrghrggrtwqqu
I can't remember the exact phrasing or source of a quote about the cause of the American Civil War but it went something like this:
"When you first learn about the Civil War you heard it was about slavery. When you read deeper you discover there were multiple factors that lead to it. When you read deeper into those factors you learn it was all about slavery."
One of the few things in world history that can boil down to one word.
Yep, all about slavery.
@@timmccarthy9917 Incorrect. It was about economics first and foremost. The long standing conflict over slavery was just a mover. King cotton!
@tuckerbugeater, but cotton was king because of slavery.
@@tuckerbugeater ...the economics of slavery, yes.
"there was no doubt of this at the time, there should be no doubt of it now"
THANK YOU. I'm so sick of Lost Cause revisionism.
don't get bogged down in the noble north revisionism either
"... our property worth four billions of money..." is my new favourite phrase.
Vivid image of Homer Simpson uttering that phrase came to me immediately after I heard it lol
maybe not considering "our property " also meant owning human beings
@@randomname5338 Well, yeah. I mean out of context.
Yes hello I would like to exchange one money for a good and/or service. I would agree to two moneys if the good and service are separate charges.
I only got $10 money in my pockets😫😩
“…was slavery.”
Out the fucking gate, within the first minute.
As a native-born South Carolinian who spent way too much of my childhood being taught bullshit and lies, thank you. Thank you for telling the truth.
Thanks for watching!
Fair play to you for even seeing through the BS and lies to be honest!!
well not true but also not wrong ,it was about slavery just as much as it was about money, slavery is just a business to make money, all War is about money and that's it, saying it's about slavery is like saying it's about cotton, both are products to make money from.
@@Real_SkyRipper no. Saying it’s about slavery is like saying it’s about slavery. What a weird thing to be pedantic about
@@thatautistrob not weird at all, it's important and the end of the video explains why, you didn't pay attention i guess, The rest of the world, like the example in the video, British Empire, didn't get a civil war because they paid the slave owners for the loss of property.
THIS!! is why the civil war was about money, got it? if the same had happen in the USA then no civil war was needed, people had slaves for the money not for the fun of it lmao.
The best thing my high school history teacher did (in the rural South) was require us to read the secession documents. The fact that all but 1 or 2 directly name slavery, (and the 1 or 2 that don't gesture towards it) was the nail in the coffin for many "the South will rise again" types in my school
Yeah, you just made that up. 5 of 13 mention slavery. 💀
Well I live in the South and had never heard of "the civil war" until I was an adult. I grew up knowing it as "the war of northern aggression" that's how they taught it in school
Wow, that's a brave teacher. Well done!
Something similar happened for me a few years back when I was in a FB debate with a former classmate and Civil War came up...and I finally decided to read the Confederate Constitution. Turns out, it gave zero additional "States' Rights", but actually managed to take ONE away--every state, current and future, MUST have/allow slaves...otherwise, it was basically a copy/paste of the US Constitution. EDIT: Oops...looks like I jumped the gun with this comment, as the video covers it.
@@S-tank_ Which perfectly sums up the direct reason for the war was disunity. Slavery contributed a lot to the disunity, but it wasn't the sole factor.
@@LiimpZ the disunity was because of slavery.
"the allure of being an elite planter was enough to keep the majority invested in the system."
ah yes, the temporarily embarrassed billionaire syndrome. so glad thats gone.
It's gone with regards to slavery but the same myth props up the rest of our capitalist Ponzi scheme.
Their are more billionaires today than ever before.The middle class is gone in America,which leaves only rich and poor.The elite deep state continued with their inflation tactics so your average working man cannot afford a house anymore.
"I must protect the rich from people like me in case I someday become rich" is such an old concept, and just as stupid then as now.
It white supremacy that mattered to non-slave owners.
Yeah, imagine if that was still around today. Things would be _crazy_ 😬
Oooooo the civil war series is gonna be amazing. Shout out to warhawk for an amazing civil war series.
Seen Warhawks series, and yes it’s great!
@@stevefromwork6136 poor warhawk. Its like inventing the model T but having rolls royce come along rught behind you to make a better car.
@@michaelr3583 naw, he's got his own flavor, nobody dines individual units like him, KG is great but everyone adds details the other dosnt.
@@michaelr3583 not at all... Warhawk really focuses on the tactics of even relatively minor battles, whereas K&G typically takes more of a strategic view that occasionally delves into major engagements
@@sethmaxfield6658 I get that and I like them both it's just things in generals has a higher quality narrator and higher overall quality production
_My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic_ lasted longer than the Confederacy
I'm a Brony! I'm a Brony!
Starlight Glimmer's stint in G4 lasted longer than the Confederacy. FiM as a whole lasted 2 Confederacies 😂😂😂
@@SpoopySquid My Little Pony is immortal...at least to my little sister.
🎵Oh, way down south in the land of traitors 🎵
The Nassau Republic of Pirates lasted longer than the Confederacy.
South at outset of war: this is because of slavery.
South after losing war: this wasn't because of slavery.
Funny how defeat changes people.
It wasn't really until after the abandonment of Reconstruction that white southerners went all in on the lie that the war hadn't been about slavery. True, the book The Lost Cause was published two years after the war. But they didn't really get their story straight for some time.
Actually, it was fairly clear after the war. Believe it or not, the late 1800s were actually better for black people in the US than the early 1900s. The "Lost Cause Myth" you refer to originated mostly in the early 20th century, which is when all the statues of Confederate generals were built, specifically as a middle finger to black people.
Yeah, losing forces tend to do that. It's said plain what your intentions are in the beginning before the action happens.
When the war is lost, suddenly all the mounting evidence that condemns the perpetrators was 'misinterpreted.'
'States Rights' excuse has the same aim as the German military after WW2 with the 'Clean Wehrmacht' myth... covering their asses.
@@jirkazalabak1514it was more late 19th century with organisations like the ‘United Daughters of the Confederacy’ established in the 1890s.
Tons of wars have "Lost Cause" mythologies, but they're just usually for less impressive from a literary perspective. Confederate "Lost Cause" propaganda is not historically accurate, but it sure is eloquent.
As a former U.S. History teacher, whenever the topic came up, I would describe it like this:
"The Civil War did begin over states' rights...their right TO OWN SLAVES."
Indeed
And to stop them from voting to end slavery
Began over greed, and the means to keep wealth. At that point machinery was not exactly there yet to replace manual labor. If it was slave plantations could never keep up with machine run plantations. They'd all trade in their slaves for machines or go broke.
The underlaying theme is always really simple that being wealth and power and the risk of losing it. Or the gamble to gain it.
And while the south seceded to protect slavery as an institution, the north never really fought to free slaves. The civil war is glorified on both sides for very wrong reasons.
And the only people that suffered in the long run were people of color.
@@dgray3771 It certainly is misrepresented from the North's perspective as this moralistic crusade to free slaves - which it wasn't.
I always told my students that the war wouldn't have begun without slavery, but it didn't become about FREEING slaves until the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.
The original stated war goal was just to preserve the Union and ending slavery came about as an economic necessity to defeat the Confederacy.
@@KevinTheID The problem is mostly that most Americans totally do not understand the big differences between the states and the views people had on what a state was compared to today.
Also the States back then had a lot more powers and freedoms than today. And even though states today have their differences they were way more different back then.
The idea of having free states and slave states didn't help either. And the fear the southern states had that slavery would be abolished in the Union was actually a fair assessment of the situation.
From a overview perspective I always say that the war was about secession and the cause was as well. The reason for secession was slavery but it wasn't for the war.
Why did the north not let the south go? After all there was nothing that really made them alike. The differences were really big. The only reason the North decided to send an army was that they wanted to preserve the Union. Freeing slaves wasn't even on the agenda.
The big problem I have with elevating slavery as a main cause for the civil war is that it wasn't a subject for the north. Thus secession is the cause of war. That the south left the union and became a confederacy was a threat for the union. A big issue is also economics. Especially for the north. Its Also why the south was dealt with so lenient after the war. No mass executions or long jail sentences. And many former southerners served in public office.
Also no war has been attributed to a one sided argument. Ever.
It's just too simplistic.
Take the public wars, or the Macedonian wars. Even the servile wars were not about slavery in itself. Because the institution remained. Laws changed because of the brutality of slavery.
Another thing to remember is that the south tried to gain support in Europe and some European powers were willing to listen. Up until the declaration of emancipation.Which made the European powers back off. It basically was the death sentence for the south.
And yet northern slaves were not freed with that legislation. Odd thing if your war cause is slavery and the end of it.
I've been waiting for this, but there are a few things to add. There were multiple forts and federal properties that were taken by the South before the seige of Ft. Sumter, mostly in the deep south. The emancipation Proclamation did not free the enslaved population. That was the 13th amendment. The EP ensured freedom for the enslaved people in the rebellion states only. Lastly, the war goal of the North was to reunite the North with the rebelling states. Lincoln and his administration were careful not to recognize the Confederacy as a seperate entity and that there were rebels within those states that were fighting, not the states or legislature themselves.
The blockade really pushed the recognition thing. If Britian or France showed the arrogance that the US did about free trade before both world wars, the Union may well have lost the Civil War. Americans don't get it. We demand "freedom of the seas", but only when it's to our advantage.
This is about the lead up. Basically all of this vid’s content is pre-Lincoln so why would the EP or recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent nation come up?
There will be more parts, I’m sure all this will be mentioned.
@cal4837 K&G may bring it up. However, these are more nuanced points and are usually obershadowed in videos that are general observations of the conflict. I mentioned the EP because until Lincoln brought it to the legislature, slavery was not recognized as being the main war goal for the federal government, it was to preserve the union. Lincoln and other politicians who were not abolitionists wanted to limit the expansion of slavery, not eradicate it. The EP made the Civil War about slavery, and ending the institution of it indefinitely.
@@MatthewChenault legal argument is secession wasn’t legally possible, so none of this matters. They took government property over. Just rebel assholes who lost 160 years ago.
@MatthewChenault Not true, Ft Moultrie was fired upon by artillery, setting part of the fort ablaze. Also, they were federal properties, not the states. Much like Ft. Sumter, the states had seeded the rights to the federal government. Also, the North did not recognize secession to be legal, which is why I stated the point about rebellious groups within those states.
STATES' RIGHTS TO DO WHAT?!?!?!
Have slaves. Yeah the “states rights” crowd don’t continue that thought process cause it makes them look bad.
The southern states don’t look good from any angle. That’s why they’re revising history
B- but mah states’ rights…
…to be part of, and benefit by, the violent oppression of human beings for monetary gain.
Oh wait that was supposed to be the quiet part. Oh well, at least we didn’t write it down, right guys?
…guys?
Exactly
@BabyGirlDontEvenPlay TRADE WHAT
Also caused by slavery, courious how people get mad when you take away their freedom @@outshin3d495
True watcher know the original title gang.
"yes, it was slavery"
The whole slavery vs states’ rights debate is idiotic. They’re one and the same. For the North, it was slavery. For the South, it was both.
@@luked4043 Not idiotic, the side arguing that the civil war was simply about states' rights is exclusively trying to downplay slavery's role in the civil war. It's an attempt to rewrite the Confederacy's legacy. It's no coincidence that it's the same side that still flies the confederate battle flag.
No, it was not. Blaming the Civil War on Slavery is like blaming 9/11 on Israel. It's just wrong, inaccurate, and downright hateful. Do your research, Lincoln was an unreasonable man and hateful fellow.
@@lumenox8541 Lost Cause Myth, if i recall correctly.
Let’s not forget the DixieCrats rule the South!
Fear of truth is the worst form of cowardice.
Excited for this one!
Thanks!
I have to ask since you guys are doing conflicts in the 19th and 20th century which series will the Crimean war be part of will it be part of the Ottoman series I feel like since the Ottomans were less involved in the main fighting of the series with the exception of the beginning such as the battle of Sinope it was more of a Russo Franco British conflict that took place. I hope you guys do it the siege of Sebastopol incredible more people went down from disease, then actual war and of course we can’t forget the famous charge of the British light brigade and the rise of Florence Nild the Red Cross.
They already have a video on crimean war, btw.
I asked some days ago and they said there will be a crimean war series
@@briish4615 Cool - didn't know that.
@@briish4615I am totally looking forward to that as the Crimean war is a war that i know very little about as the only things I know about it are the charge of the light brigade, The thin red line of baclava, the battle of kinburn, a piece of the Crimean war that has a part of Scottish musical history and this piece of the Crimean war that is a part of Scottish musical history is an interesting part of history that involves the origins of a song that is played on the bagpipes and the song is called the Green hills of Tyrol aka a Scottish soldier and the history behind the song that has to do with the Crimean war is during the Crimean campaign aka the Crimean war pipe major John Macleod of the 93rd highlanders herd a band of the Sardinian contingent playing selections from the opera William tell in the camp before Sevastopol and John was struck by the song and he put it on bagpipes and after the war the tune was passed around among bagpipers until 1900 when the song was finally published and the other part of the Crimean war that i know about is a female Mediterranean spur thighed tortoise who’s name was Timothy and the tortoise was the mascot of a British royal navy ship called the HMS Queen (1839) and Timothy was present during the first bombardment of Sevastopol and she was the last survivor of the Crimean war passing away at the age of 160 at powderham castle Devon England on April 3rd 2004.
If it is part of the Ottoman series, we will be getting it by 2030 at the pace the Ottoman series is going.
You really, REALLY need to talk about the Texas sublevations (1813-1836) and the Mexican-American war (1846-1848). They're the prelude to the Civil War and they're mostly forgotten or barely untouched by mainstream media like cinema and T.V series.
I was told that the civil war was over states rights by a history professor at a college in Minnesota, so I guess the southern pr program worked pretty well.
Thankfully more and more people are wising up to it
States rights of course played a role such as with tensions that rose after the Tariff of Abominations and other things outside of slavery, but yes it was the perception of the right of states to allow for slavery and people to own slaves that was the primary driving force.
Bravo, Kings and Generals! That's one of the best introductions to the Civil War I've heard in a long time! Keep it up! I hope you do a series on the War of 1812 sometime.
I have wanted a naval war series about that for ever
Confederates: "We seceded from the Union because we wanted to preserve the institution of slavery."
Modern deniers: "No you didn't."
This is the biggest and best "states rights to what ?"-response
States rights to...
-secede
-manage their own foreign relations
-run their economy according to what makes the most sense for them
-decide their own laws without Northern politicians trying to cram the legislature as a method to shove down expensive tariffs only the Federal Government profited from
-maintain their way of life
(Oh by the way, for the longest time many Northern states, including NJ, ALSO had slaves)
@@ethanlynch8275 Thanks Johnny Reb.
@@ethanlynch8275 ah, the denier. Refuse to admit the obvious truth that your slave wielding forebears that you worship stated in all their letters and documents…that it was about slavery….education isn’t for everyone, I guess
@@ethanlynch8275
- No state ever had that right since the founding of the United States
- States don’t have that sovereignty and don’t get those powers from the constitution
- Slavery doesn’t become sensible just because monsters say it is
- Sates have the autonomy to decide their laws within the boundaries decided at the federal level, which every state is a part of. Southern states were even given more representation than they should have had, as per the Northern ‘compromise’ (read: appeasement) of the 3/5ths agreement. The Southern states still seceded regardless of this preferential treatment and over-representation on the federal level
- You don’t get the right to maintain your ‘way of life’ if that ‘way of life’ denies that very same right to millions of enslaved people
(Whataboutism doesn’t strengthen your argument and only shows that you’re ignorant to the horrors and scale at which the South continued to practice slavery. The North was in the last stages of fazing out slavery, while the South looked to preserve and even expand the practice, by force if necessary. Grow up.)
@@LostToaster
- Prior to the War Between The States (hereafter "War") states rights always superseded federal authority, which was only granted to the latter by the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
- Again, 10th Amendment.
- Abe Lincoln: "Let them root, hog or die" when opining on the plight of the freed slaves. "Honest Abe" favored removal of the slaves back to the continent of Africa (you might want to do some homework on the country of Liberia). Overwhelming evidence, in his own words, that support the FACT that he was the ultimate white supremacist (look up the American Colonization Society). Further evidence clearly defines that prior to the War the north did not pay equal taxes as the south did. In regards to tariffs: "Since they [the south] were so dependent on trade, by 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs”. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.
- The fledgling states did, prior to the War, have "autonomy" to decide their own fate, yet after the War the Supreme Court "decided" that the federal head was the ultimate authority. "Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, but only in the case of the Confederate States of America was secession actually declared. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession".
- This leads to the matter of secession.When I ask a basic question to those that disagree with succession, "why would the original 13 colonies have the right to accede to a union, but not secede from the same?", crickets abound. If it were possible for a state to "join" the United States today, is there a condition that is codified in the US Constituiom that would disallow them from leaving if they so chose? The answer is, there is not. Then pray tell, why did the south not have that option then? The facts is that no one really knew at the time of the War, and really, even until today. California, Texas and other states have threatened to leave the union. If so, good riddance. Moreover, Alexander Hamilton was obsessive about creating a centralized government (now our "beloved" federal government,) but was unable to get it across the finish line. However, Abe Lincoln did, under the guise of "slavery". Please spare us all the illusion that Lincoln "evolved" in his thinking regarding slavery in just a few short years as he and the north were losing the fight until 1863. That same thinking abounds today by politicians, the old flip-flop.
- You conflate and confuse with the 3/5ths agreement comments. The southern states did not receive any additional representation, check your work.
- You don't get to choose woke and revisionist dogma to judge historical events. Sadly, history is written by the victors and much of what we continue to read about the War was and is heavily influenced by not only Lincoln apologists (more books have been written about Honest Abe than almost any human since time began) but "professors" in academia who inject their weak agendas into actual facts.
- Society shouldn't judge events from 150 years ago on today's standards, that's complete foolishness and sophomoric.
- Attacking others thoughts by name calling shows just how weak you are and your blind positions.
- We all should be thankful that slavery ended, but to paint the impetus for the War as only based on slavery is completely false, regardless of what was written by the southern states. Be careful with that, because there is a treasure trove of words and deeds by the "esteemed north" to show their utter disdain and hatred for the slave.
Love this. Another super common K&G W. I hope this video upsets the few who have not figured out the values this channel stands for.
Thanks! The hope is to educate
Yesss another epic seriesss
As a Brazilian, we see the consequences of Slavery to this day. I think in the US it's the same...
It's the same,but,a certain group of US citizens won't/don't admit it tho. LOL.
Black people assimulation is still a hot button issue in both countries
On the bright side, I don't see violence on the streets on Brasil justified by case of police agression to some member of a differet etnicity. Still there were no 'Obamas' on Brasil. Correct if I'm wrong
The majority of the slaves went to Brazil.
Yea a lot of crime
The Writer Here: Reply to this comment with any questions you may have, I'll do my best to respond to everything.
However, be warned that for all "What about X Lost Cause Talking Point" questions my answer is "Go watch Atun-Shei's Checkmate Lincolnites series. He spent five years answering every Lost Causer myth. Give him the credit and views he deserves." Also, keep in mind that we have more videos coming and the specifics of how it came to blows will be covered down the line.
But what about my fee fees?
-sinseerly a southern lad, prob.
In all seriousness I’ve noticed certain channels I use to watch taking some…let’s say weird turns lately. Glad you guys are staying the course.
I appreciate that you gave Andy a shout out. I'm looking forward to your contributions to nailing the coffin shut.
Edit: Where did you get that quote from General Thomas? I was under the impression that he destroyed most of his correspondence and didn't write a memoir. And his position as a southern-born United States general would give his interpretation much more clout than most others.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher He did destroy his own papers as he didn't want fame or accolades. However, he couldn't destroy papers in other people's collections. He wrote that in a dispatch. The Sacramento Daily Union recorded it, and it's on his Wikipedia page. I learned of it in a book about Grant vs the KKK years ago.
@@TheReaperEagle
Thank you!
Thanks and brilliant shout out to Atun-Shei!
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” A direct quote from the declaration of secession of Mississippi. The causes of the American Civil War are one of the most black and white issues in historical research. It was about slavery. It was all about slavery. It was always about slavery.
The thing is they often focus on the North, because it's impossible to have a "War of Northern Aggression" myth if they admit the South actually started it.
The American Civil War is one of my favorite topics in history. Im passing this on to others to have them also watch.
Thank you for doing this series! It is a very complex event that still resonates in American politics and culture today.
@@Heike-- you liked your own comment, and yes the north fought to free the black ethnic population from slavery. Unless you have a valid soruce or evidence from the time to suggest otherwise and not some random racist cops. Also your comment writes like an AI with weird spacing and odd grammar.
I read the title and thought: “oooh this can’t be good”. But I appreciate the immediate highlight/mention that it was due to slavery lol.
me too😂
Although i'm not US citizen, considering how US shaped world afterward as a united states, i think this war was really very extremely important one for not only US but whole world history. And this makes me so interested. Keep up your good work!
I think this is a very smart point, and one that people don't often consider when it comes to this topic. The United States goes on to play a significant role in the 20th century, and this likely wouldn't have been possible (at least not to the same extent) had the nation been fractured in the 19th century.
*“~John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave; His soul is marching on~!”*
Can’t wait for more historical content from this channel!
Gosh dang that is a straight banger! I'm still waiting for the rap/hip hop update that brings it into the modern era for kids.
John Brown should get more credit for instigating the civil war. After his failed insurrection, the south incorrectly thought there were hundreds of John Browns in the north when he was the only one and was losing support in the abolition movement before Harpers Ferry
@@tecumseh821 They weren't completely wrong. John Brown may have been a bit marginalized, but he still got a lot of abolitionist money to fund his insurrection, and he was on good terms with many of the leading abolitionists up to the end.
@MrGksarathy he got alot of money for his fight in Kansas but he had alot harder time getting funds for his insurrection
@@tecumseh821 True, but I remember hearing he got funds from the Secret Six for the insurrection, and most of his friends in the abolitionist movement couldn't disagree with the logic of his attempt, but couldn't abide by how risky it was.
Dziękujemy.
Hot damn, K&G doing the American Civil War is going to be amazing! I'm curious on how in depth you guys will go. I can't wait for this series! And kudos for unequivocally spelling out that it was slavery behind this horrible conflict.
Wow. I didn’t expect this video to be so unbiased. Thank you for honest history.
Thanks for watching!
it is biased
Comments section should be fun on this one
Yup, everyone is denouncing the Confederacy
@@dominicguye8058 As they should. The so-called 'Confederacy' was a treasonous venture brought about by the obscene wealth enjoyed by the Planter class who saw their immoral status being threatened.
The success of the lost cause' lies propagated and promoted the racism that our nation still struggles with to this very day.
It's no surprise that the deep political divisions we live with today are along the same cultural lines that brought about the traitorous actions of both the attack on Fort Sumter and the storming of our Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Both occurred from the lies of those rich and powerful who saw their "realities" being challenged and exposed.
Until our education system excises the cancer of the lost cause's false history, we will continue to suffer the damaging effects of the struggle between those who acknowledge facts and those who accept the "alternate facts" (aka lies) that power-hungry politicians make up to feed those Americans who won't tolerate being told that the "history and heritage" they were taught were based on falsehoods.
If only your comment that 'everyone' is denouncing the Confederacy were true.
For when that finally happens, our nation will take a giant leap forward in our continuing attempt to form "a more perfect Union".
Semper Fi
I'm just here for the comments. You KNOW the good ol Southern boys are going to be pissed at this one
Thank you so much for this video. As a Civil War historical reenactor I hear this Lost Cause myth constantly, and it's so aggravating to sit there and just take it. So I appreciate a concise yet thorough video like this that brings excellent points to counter their theories.
I think it's a good opportunity to pop their bubble, like just straight up saying " no dude we fought for slavery".
@@vehx9316 Yes you're absolutely right!
Magnificent chapter of history can't wait for the next episode!!
I'm going to guess based on the title: may have been something to do with slavery?
No
Disunity. But slavery was part of that disunity :)
@@LiimpZIt was the driving force behind that disunity
@@LiimpZ slavery was the cause of it
@@LiimpZthe cause of every single war ever can be summed up as “disunity” but then it’s time to analyze right?
Slavery DID cause civil wars in other countries. For example the Colombian Civil War of 1851 was a war caused by the abolition of slavery, however this war isn't talked much about because Colombia had dozens of civil wars during the XIX century so it's very difficult to keep track of all of them
Checkmate Lincolnites meets Kings and Generals
Been watching this channel off and on for a while, but this video has earned my subscription. Well done.
Wonderful K&G channel guys! American civil war is one of my favourite history. I'm eagerly waiting for the next set of videos!
Several parts of the video, especially during the first half, is making me want to re-watch Knowing Better's Neoslavery video.
Also wanted to add some detail about the Cotton Gin:
The fact that its invention extended slavery's existence for decades is probably the cruelest bit of irony, as I vaguely recall finding somewhere that its inventor, Eli Whitney, was himself an abolitionist.
I think what the South failed to grasp is that Slavery in the Western cultures was either out or going extinct. Between the Barbery Wars, the censure of Dahome and the Ottoman’s trearment of Bulgarians, it was hard to justify stepping in to support a pro-slave nation.
They specifically referred to their 'peculiar institution' as African Slavery for a reason. Slavery was simply the enforcement mechanism of their desired racial heirarchy, a desire that remained well after the war.
I thought the argument that it wasn't about slavery was the fact that originally at the start the South would have been allowed to keep slaves when rejoining the union. The fact the war started because of slavery I assumed was generally accepted.
In fact, the south being allowed to keep slavery if the stayed/rejoined the union only proves that slavery was the cause. This is because if the union was offering protection for slavery if they rejoined, that just means that everyone knew they left because of slavery
Imagine it being almost controversial to say that the American Civil War kicked off due to slavery. What a world we live in
Great stuff... from an appreciative Aussie!👍🤠
This was an excellent video. Sociology and economics all mixed in one.
It was me, I'm the reason
Yep, I seen him do it, too!
it's funny bc in school (early 2000s), they always taught us that slavery wasn't the main reason for the war, when in reality it was entirely based around slavery
Did that particular school also happen to call it "the war of northern aggression"?
@@soho2409 believe it or not I live in the northern states so it wasn’t even like revisionist history
Everyone does this. The south, SS/wemacht veterans and Churchill apologists. They don’t want to have a legacy where they are considered bad people.
Really? My experience in US history classes in Montana (early 2000s) was very different. We learned about Bleeding Kansas, the Mexican-American War, the abolitionists, the inherent conflicts in liberalism as envisioned by Jefferson etc...
We learned a materialist history, but also the ideological history, that showed the US as at least two different sets of economic and political engines on a collision course with one another. Nobody who graduated in my class could have any doubts that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war, not to mention countless smaller conflicts before and long, long after
Well almost nobody lol I definitely remember tons of intelligent devil's advocates who would ask provocative questions. but I think all of us knew they/we were doing it for the sake of argument
@@HrothgarPedersen I specifically remember my social studies teacher saying it was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. I wish I still had my old text books
Basic Waffle Recipe
- 2 cups flour
- 1 teaspoon salt
- 4 teaspoons baking powder
- 2 tablespoons of sugar
- 2 eggs
- 1-1/2 cups of warmed milk
- 1/3 cup of melted butter
- 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1. In a large bowl, mix together flour, salt, and baking powder; set aside. Preheat waffle iron to desired temperature.
2. In a separate bowl, beat the eggs. Stir in the milk, butter, sugar, and vanilla.
3. Mix the egg mixture into the flour mixture and thoroughly integrate.
4. Organize with your friends, family, and coworkers to fight against corporate capitalism and take to the streets to demand the deposition of our corporate oligarchs.
5. Pour the waffle batter into the preheated waffle iron and cook until golden brown.
6. (optional) Slice up some strawberries and mix them together with a few tablespoons of sugar (to taste), simmer it on the stove until it starts to turn syrupy. Add that on top of the waffles. If you plan to also use maple syrup on top (do not use corn-based syrups, such as Ms. Buttersworth), then use a lot less sugar in the simmered strawberries. You can also just use raw strawberries without simmering them into syrup, of course.
i appreciate that they went straight to the point in the first episode to leave no doubt. they could have dragged it on for more clicks but they didn't.
If anyone is interested in learning about this in more detail, I recommend Atun Shei Films “Checkmate Lincolnite” series here on TH-cam
Thanks for that, added it to my to-watch-list
Very good and underrated web series. I've watched it multiple times.
A great series that is filled with so many good quotes showing what the politics and public opinion was really like.
Anyone interested in the subject should watch it :)
As an American who is sick and tired of people claiming that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, as well as terrified that people in power are attempting to rewrite history to hide that fact, I really appreciate the clarity of vision and the directness of this video. Thank you. Keep up the great work!
Should probably at least mention that 90% of the budget was funded by Tariffs and the South was paying 80% of all Tariffs. It wasn't just slavery. Slavery was a big issue, but not the only one.
@@TinfoilHatWearer-w9v Always one of you.
@@heckingbamboozled8097 one of what? Somebody actually discussing the history instead of blindly following an incomplete narrative?
@@heckingbamboozled8097 slavery just kind of seeped it's way in. how could such an economic powerhouse be stopped?
@@TinfoilHatWearer-w9vWrong. New York was
The video oversimplifies the end of slavery in Brazil. That occurred gradually. Some stages emancipated children born of slaves. Of course, people cheated and fudged DOB to keep a some in bondage for extra years. But it got the ball rolling. Later there was also emancipation of elderly-ish slaves. Men of working age were also freed in large numbers, in exchange for service, during Brazil's war with Paraguay. There was absolutely gradualism in the way Brazil addressed ending slavery. The reason why America was unable to discuss ending slavery in stages or compensation is that the arrogant confederates didn't wanna.
Ok I’m genuinely excited for this series
Before I watch...
The war was caused by Southern secession.
The South: seceded to protect and expand the institution of slavery,
The North: fought to restore the Union. Later, they added abolition as a war aim.
Glad to see that they agree with the historical consensus
This is a very, very good video. I am a history teacher in a Danish High School. I am covering the historical angle covering the upcoming elections. Even though slavery is not a topic in the upcoming elections, division is.
The USA in a way never really stopped fighting the Civil War and now the Confederates are winning.
Totally right and glad to hear it so plainly. SLAVERY, SLAVERY and slavery was the only cause of the traitors actions.
He provided testimony from sources and pointed out the confederate declaration of succession stating why the confederacy was leaving the US. It’s not even a discussion it wasn’t states rights it was slavery.
His sources are trust me bro
You realise more things than one can be right at the same time...right?
It can be slavery as well as state rights, theyre not mutually exclusive
Besides you can argue those two reasons are very interlinked with eachother, not excluding but empowering
@@Bearscoachesnamedmattsuck69he straight up says were he took those cotes
There's regional conflict and diverging interests without slavery (you had it between the West and coasts). There's no secession unless the stakes are slavery and fear of a bloody uprising stoked by abolitionists or belief in slave power controlling the government.
@@Bearscoachesnamedmattsuck69You can google up the Confederate Constitution. Its literally what hes saying
Extremely objective, simply marvelous. Great work.
thanks!
OOO I thought this was a one-off, but a series is a huge treat
Having watched Atun Shei's series, I'm a little disappointed at the lack of light sabre fights, necromancy and time travel in this version
Sorry. Local necromancer is racist and refused to work with us
@@KingsandGenerals Classic necromancer behaviour
Oh sweet action! I so do hope that this is the beginning of a larger series on the American Civil War🙏
Yep
I clicked because I was concerned what you would say the "real reason" was. Yes, it was slavery. There was no mistaking then or now, but now right-wingers want to say different. (BTW, if you revere the rebels because it's your "heritage", I say screw your heritage).
The next correction needed to describe the American Civil War is the names by which we describe the 2 sides. The pro-slavery side were rebels. They can themselves whatever they like, but they were rebels committing treason against the United States, whose army should be referred to as the US Army. By not calling it such, and using the term "Union Army" it implies a legitimacy for the rebel army, just as name "Confederate". Traitors have no legitimacy.
Great stuff
This video contained the most succinct description of an rentier economy, and it's pitfalls I've heard. Bravo to your researchers and scriptwriters.
@KingsandGenerals THANK YOU!!! I'm such a civil war buff!!!
It will forever boggle my mind that certain Americans have allowed themselves to be so deluded that slavery didn’t cause the war. All the deflections and excuses….all come back to slavery.
It's because they enjoy flying the Confederate flag and supporting the right but don't like being called out for what both represent.
It's easier to fool someone then convince someone that they were fooled
@@chikumori5530 No, it's because what replaced it was far worse in many ways. Sure it's all swell now. Until they start another war and a draft and cause hyper inflation!
@@Tayvin4042 the only fool is you that have no identity or meaning
It's actually very easy to understand. People want to be proud of their history. These people know slavery his horrible. They do not want to think their families fought for something that they understand to be horrible. Add the fact a presidents have given them a way out. It's easy for them to believe lost causer bullshit, because its easy for them to wrap their head around.
The cause was the same as EVERY other war…..money.
money generated from slavery you mean, also there is the white supremacy and racist aspect of it as well.
I grew up in the south and I promise in school they definitely didn’t teach it so straight forward and honest like that.
I have been dying for this! I was an intern and interpreter for Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park for a few months. Looking forward to the series!
Hard to believe we still need to talk about this topic 😂. No shame to my southern friends but it is what it is
There’s still morons in this comment section trying to deny slavery was the cause of civil war
As an outsider (Non American One), i think this is one of the most tragic event in world's history from what i know. How can all of country involved in a war because of slaves is beyond me. Even there are controvercies about what causes this, still, 4 million slaves were being free is something rare in history and need to be appreciated nevertheless. We are sorry for many casualties happened that time. God bless America
It's honestly easy to understand: Slavery generated wealth for the South and the entire nation, and being a racial caste system allowed poor Southerners a way to look down on others as more wretched than themselves, comforting their egos. The threat of abolition, therefore, was a threat to the poor white Southerner's sense of superiority, and the wealthy slaver class was able to use that anxiety to generate political power.
With Lincoln's first election, the slaver class had to face the reality that the political work they'd put into making the South (and therefore the Southern slaver) dominant on the national political stage had officially failed. Rather than cede political power or reinvent themselves, they sought war.
As Abraham Lincoln put it: "Both parties deprecated war but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."
It's also worth noting that slavery was horrific. It involved mass murder, mass torture, mass rape. Men would rape enslaved women and sell their own children born from these assaults for profit. To say that it was horrible simply does not go far enough, and once Union soldiers began freeing enslaved folk from plantations, many who were simply drafted into the conflict became ardent abolitionists from seeing the horrors of slavery. There is simply no war more justified than one that ended that evil.
Once again, quoting Abraham Lincoln: "Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword - as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
Bruh, the whole world had slaves. The 1800s were just when everyone had to give that up.
@@dread6554Nope. By the time of the civil war, slavery was abolished in nearly all western countries.
@angrydoggy9170 unless you want to count the imperialist colonies of almost every single western nation. Ask the Congolese how well they were treated by the Belgians or Indians by the British or Indochinese by the French or Indonesians by the Dutch.
@@angrydoggy9170 except it wasn't lmao. Slavery was abolished in the same 20 year time frame as most countries. Definitely not the first to move, but also not the very last. European countries kept the practice straggling along in their territories into the 1900s when central governments took more direct responsibility for administration of those territories
Reason was the slave states rights to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, which is absolutely abhorrent and disgusting.
God bless the Union.
Another great series! hell yeah!
Thank you for the video
Citizenship Test Agent - "Alright, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?"
Apu - "Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both domestic and international-"
Citizenship Test Agent - "Hey, hey!"
Apu - "Yeah?"
Citizenship Test Agent - "Just say slavery."
Apu - "Slavery it is, sir."
I mean, it's accurate. Do you disagree with this video, or something? What do you think one of the main "schisms" between abolitionists and anti-abolutionists was? Who made better cookies? What economic factors not related to their slavery did they experience? Why did international groups disagree with the South's decisions? Literally all of this comes back to slavery to some degree. This is a very dishonest comment that paints the discussion in an inaccurate light
Just stop trying to downplay slavery like it was never important. You people always make yourself look stupid 💯
I guess my question is why did you not put Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina in all Confederate maps? Is it due to the date of secession?
Edit: Shout out Atun Shei Films and his "Checkmate, Lincolnites!" series.
It would be interesting to examine the aftermath of the Civil War on Agriculture. We talk a lot about mechanization in farming, but never about share cropping. Today, much farm labor in the US is handled by immigrant or migrant labor.
The Writer Here: Correct. When we're talking about the pre-war Confederacy, those four aren't included as they didn't join until the war started.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Interesting. TX was on the map, despite what I've heard about TX being most reluctant to join the Confederacy.
@@thehunzz It depends on what you mean. The legislature was fairly enthusiastic about secession. Governor Sam Houston most definitely wasn't. He was literally dragged kicking and screaming from his office after repeatedly refusing to accept secession.
@@TheReaperEagle I just meant in general. Appreciate the clarification and hyperbolic Sam Houston tidbit. Interesting guy, Houston. Not quite a "taking my ball & going home" type guy, but close. Certainly stubborn. Makes me want to learn more. Thx.
The map showing the Confederacy is consistently wrong in the video as it doesn't include Virginia. At 3.02, 4:14 and 6:06 for instance.
The Writer Here: Nope, it's accurate. Those points are discussing the Confederacy pre-war. Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas didn't join until the after the war started. The maps are a teaser for later.
6:06 shows the confederacy before the attack on fort Sumter. Virginia only seceded on April 17, after Sumter was attacked and Lincoln calls for 75,000 troops to invade the south.
Been waiting for you to do the American civil war for so long!
best history channel in youtube IMO
hyped for a civil war series and it be cool if you also did the Indian wars after the Civil War too. I know you guys have covered some of the post revolutionary war conflicts and it be great if you kept going through past the civil war.
"It was bout "state rights""😂 yeah, to own slaves.
Far deeper than just state rights or slaves. Anyone knows that. The ordinary folk are not going to lay down their lives for slaves when they themselves do not have them….do you seriously think the average southerner was rich enough to own let alone buy a slave? No. Many reasons but state rights and slavery were 2 of them
@@VinceMcMahon124first of all, the average Confederate soldier was much more likely to own a slave than the average Confederate citizen. That's even with large scale slave holders having been exempt from service.
But beyond that, white southerns of the time were steeped in the myth of "Servile Insurrection". This was a lie about the Haitien Revolution which claimed that its atrocities were caused by the freeing of the slaves. Of course, that's not true. Haiti didn't descend into genocidal violence until _after_ Napoleon tried to _reinstate_ slavery. But white southerners had been taught propaganda that claimed that the killing was the inevitable result of freeing slaves, and most of them believed it. They thought they were protecting their families by defending slavery.
@@VinceMcMahon124 lmao
Top tier channel
YEEEEEEES NEW SERIES WOOOOOO
Me: So what caused the American Civil war
Friend: States rights....
Me: Bruhh 😔
Friend: States rights to maintain slavery
Me: 😁
People seem to forget about this meat grinder that was fought to end this terrible practice and preserve our union . Thank you for not attempting to rewrite history and fit some other purpose. Let's all remember how terrible and scary this was and come together. People are very comfortable in their lives now and don't think about the Civil War enough.
I love how sassy he is these days 😂 "spoiler alert it was slavery"
probably working for Rothschild and the city of london
This was an AMAZIN' video.
Hi! I love your videos, and I think it would be very interesting to make a video on the Russian surfs and the later soviet Kolchozi, which are often overlooked despite also being slavery that reached up to the fall of the soviet union. Thank you!
It's easy. Slavery was an economic issue that was justified with racism.
Freedom meaning owning property has been a big problem for the US since its founding
Cotton farmers lost against the factory owners. Confederates lost before the war even began
Great video. I think it would be nice to make a video talking about brazilian history, we have been in many wars in our history. And there are many important events that, in my opinion, would make great video too.
Excellent Video!