Was the Civil War about slavery? | Jeremi Suri and Lex Fridman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ย. 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Jeremi Suri: Civil War...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep... to get special savings
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com... to get 10% off
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.... to get 20% off
- Athletic Greens: athleticgreens... to get 1 month of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/GvX-heRWFfA/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin.
What's funny is that the Confederate states said in their new constitutions and declarations of independence that they were seceding because of slavery. Yet, people still deny that's what it was about for the south.
However, at the beginning of the war, the union was not fighting against slavery, they were fighting to preserve the union.
You NAILED IT
Slavery didn't end with the civil war. You had four slave states on the winning side. The 13 th amendment ended slavery on December 6, 1865, several months after the end of the war.
@@ralphholiman7401 Things work slowly when you’re legislating, a few months is nothing. The fact that the border states allowed slavery, and the slave owning population waited until 12/06/1865 to free their slaves doesn’t mean anything. I don’t think you have a cogent point.
@@ELL289 , or you just don't like my point.
@@ralphholiman7401 I just think whether slavery ended a few months earlier or later doesn’t matter. And yes, war is always complicated, both strategically and personally.
As a southerner and after a dive into the documents and letters around the articles of confederation journals and the news papers, i find it puzzling how people can say that slavery was not at the root of the succession. While it was complex, and certainly people were conscripted, certainly not every one owned laborers, the reality was it was right there in the letters and documents between the leaders at the time. Understanding that and accepting it is the first step to letting go of the lie that was the propaganda around the war and there after. Here we are 160 years later still buying from industries that promote slavery globally, and renaming it where it happens internally as human trafficking so that it sounds better. We're in practice no better than we were then except by our ideals. I hope we one day live up to the aspirations we hold for virtue. Although history would show its a slow crawl.
Exactly, as a southerner myself, I don't understand how one can argue that slavery was not the root cause of the civil war. Most factors in the war boil down to slavery and the balancing act of maintaining the number of slave states vs free states, etc. It was a war fought by the poor southerner for the interests of the rich, and we are still blindly accepting the argument that the secession was due solely to some noble cause of preserving states rights and fighting tyranny
@Winnie every one shares guilt. It's easy to point fingers and blame the rich. Some one was buying the cotton. The same as we buy the device made of the cobalt picked by slave labor in the congo. Or the coffee, or chocolate, or Cocaine, or I could go on. We just turn a blind eye to it..
It's also ignorant to ignore how the federal government finally defeated the antifederalists in the war and firmly established power over what the union would be, you can't be a southerner and hold allegiance to america first, my state, my region, my country I think that's how all southerners should see it, so yes knowing everything I know now I'd still saddle up and follow marse to hell come any day not for any cause in particular cept for Killin yanks, if black fellas wanna ride along; ride along but don't forget you got no reason to side against your neighbors in this our new southern cause it should be our homeland birthed from the fires of the first Civil War and Slavery Reconstruction and Jim Crow; either Stonewall Jackson and Martin Luther King Jr. Are the martyrs of the New South and the long journey to get here or BOTH should be destroyed in order to start again in a second reconstruction one done by southerners not northern scum for glory for dixie from the potomac to the Rio Grande from Norfolk down through to El Paso, for the hillbillies,for the freedman, for the cherokee,creek,chocktaw, for the Mexican, for the Cajuns and Cavaliers there is no more 'new frontier' we have got to make it here....
@@Oolida4Kcompletely wrong unfortunately. It was known as the war of northern aggression and Lincoln was viewed as a dictator trying to consolidate power. Even European embassadors came to convince him not to proceed with the war which he sent them back. He also jailed most journalists in the NY criticizing him for the war. Black and native American militia's also fought in the war again the North, thus it was not about slavery at the core.
Well spoken and heart felt, sir. As a Northerner, I commend you for having the courage to speak out.
The Civil War was about slavery in the sense that every thing that caused it was ultimately rooted in slavery, so yes. That does not mean that each individual was motivated by pro or anti-slavery sentiment, but there would have been no war at all without the slavery issue.
I don't think anyone is advocating that everyone on the souths side was only in it for slavery.
What? In the states articles of succession they all but 1 I believe name slavery for the reason as leaving.
@joeybluey Yea. I agree. Maybe you dud not read my post. Slavery caused the civil war.
the civil war was not about slavery. that is a total lie. How on earth could the civil war been about slavery when the overwhemlingly majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves??
@ransizzles Read pretty much every article of secession from the Confederate states, or the Cornerstone Speech. The leaders of the Confederacy were very open and unambiguous about seceding to preserve slavery. That does not mean that each individual soldier was motivated by it, but the slavery was the geopolitical cause of the war, and the motivation of the actual policy makers who made it happen.
Ak-47 owners yes, they owned cannons, they owned warships, and siege weapons.
Seriously James Madison wrote a letter back to a privately owned Warship with full cannon-loadout who's Captain was nervous that he would be seen as a hostile as he fought pirates off of American shorelines. James wrote him basically saying "bruh thats what that whole war was about we even wrote it on the wordoc that youre good."
Yeah this guy is so full of shit. Cant take you serious when privateers had same weapons as militaries
@@busterdog321This is an intriguing topic! The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal to privateers. It stands to reason that roaming around with a warship attacking other vessels - pirate or not - would be illegal without such a letter. So it's not necessarily a carte blanche to privately own and operate a warship...or is it?
From Mississippi's articles of secession (2nd sentence)- "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.". Not really a question why they seceded, told you themselves explicitly.
uhhh...no...only 4 states said that.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 but but ... only 4 out the 11 states were this explicit!!
@@aiauc ...none of them wanted the federal government to tell them what to do... slavery was just one of the many things that they didnt want the feds telling them what to do about. But the Confederates did not go to war for that. They were bound and determined to Leave the Union because they knew sooner or later... the yankees would soon be their usual selves and start telling them what to do... just as King George did their ancestors. The proof is in what actually h appened. When the war began... no one set any slaves free for 2 whole years in fact.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 but they were fine with the Fugitive Slave Actand the Kansas-Nebraska Act being passed by Congress.
Start telling them what to do... and make them abolish slavery like UK did in 1834 (about 20 years before the US).
There's a literal civil war... I think freeing slaves might be a bit lower on the prioirty list (unfortunately)
@@aiauc ..well you need to remember that the uk didnt just depend on its livelihood from slave labor and there werent near as many of them as there were in the South. Also most Americans were still not fully convinced that African slaves were fully human... a tale that the yankees themselves had spread around when they imported them over here. The yankees were going to work them in their factories but that didnt turn out so good. They had a hard time getting the slaves to perform as they wanted them to because of their extremly cold weather... so.. what did they do?.. they looked around to see who they could unload them off on.. and guess what.. they thought of the South! And so it began... the slaves performed very well in the Souths temperatures and Southern planters were a lot more humane with them than the yankees were in their cold factories. After a while... a lot ( but not all!) Southerners discovered that their slaves had human feelings and affection... and started treating them as they did. Hence the teaching of a lot if them to read,write (which was against U.S Law), learn about Christianity, and even ket them have their own church or provided places for them to worship in the masters Churches also. Well..yeah they were alright with the Kansas nebraska act.. it helped Them didnt it? It was the Yankee Congress who passed it! Showing that the yankees were just as much or more racist as any southerner that was! That was the reason for the war in the first place.. a BIG Government 'telling us what to do'... is Not what the founders wanted... so... being. Sons,and grandsons of the Founders.. the South seceeded just as the Constitution,and the Bill of rights gurantees! I can see by your statement that you just dont get it. That is why... We are not like Gt. Britain..and why we left them too! Do you not realise that??? Slavery WAS a little bit low on the priority list to Both sides! Yeah... slavery is bad to us now...but in 1860... it hadnt been determined to be 100% bad yet. Thats why Lincoln didnt even mention.doing it... or even try to set any slaves free in 1861.
You can, and should, read each southern state’s letter of secession. They clearly spell out their reasons for leaving the Union.
The second line from Georgia's contribution, "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." basically stating that that were shitbags and wanted to stay that way.
They TRIED to call it anything but what it was. It was about states rights.....to own slaves. You can put a pig in a dress if you want, but it's still a pig.
i.e. they wanted to keep slaves
@Travis Larkin What do you guys think of the mauriturans that are currently being enslaved by arabs? These slaves are white.
Ghana, chad, the congo, Togo, and even the sweat shops all over Asia.
Why are none of these people who still want hold white Americans accountable. When in the countries I listed. Slavery is still the in the thing? Why do you guy think no one is up protesting this stuff? I am wondering, cause I really can't understand the logic here.
It happened, and it sucks it happened. It is still happening in lots of places on the planet.
@@You-Tube-FBI the white guilt level is over 9000 lol
Short answer is yes, it was about slavery.
Indeed it was
Short answers aren't better
As historian doesn't this guy know half of the union party's naval ships and canons where privately owned the 2A has had absolutely no restrictions there was no such thing as for "military use only"
Edit-
I ment to put "no such restrictions in the past" lol today we obviously know it's way more regulated today
The gun grabbers are always ignorant or purposefully deceitful when discussing history and purpose of 2nd amendment.
@m_train1 Well, no, I don't have an F-35 in my garage, or even an automatic weapon as my state prohibits them, and me being one of the 95% of people who are responsible gun owners follow those rules. But the idea of the people having more power than the military is a good thing. Think of all of the times throughout history were people rights were taken away and all of the sudden everyone is a slave to their government. I'm not die hard anti government, I just like the ability to protect myself and my family against threats both foreign and domestic.
Had the Founders seen today’s American who shoots up his family, neighbors, coworkers, school children, classmates, party goers or himself, they would have never allowed the 2nd Amendment. The wanton Killings unlike in any other developed country and American exceptionalism of “active shooter” training for school children was never the dream of the the country’s founders.
@m_train1 Thank you for your service sir, now I'm not a service member but as far as I've seen, the military has been lacking in its weaponry department for quite some time. But that seems more like a failure on the specific branches behalf, rather than being about keeping the people better armed than the government.
@m_train1 You can continue living in a dystopian fantasy and in denial. But research shows otherwise and the politicians who support the weapon sales industry in the U.S. continue to block Federal research into gun violence in the U.S. because they understand the ugly truth will threaten their political careers. Tide is turning though slowly because the country is changing, becoming less religious, more progressive, less conservative. The NRA is losing new membership as their population of retirees expire so the future is in favor of more death control.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Abraham Lincoln
_"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."_ --Abe Lincoln.
The South made slavery the cause of the war, not Lincoln.
@@TheStapleGunKidwhat about a fact that before the Civil War even broke out Lincoln tried to create the 13th amendment which would have solidified slavery as constitutional?
I'm not saying the South didn't want slavery. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that, of course they did. But when you sat down and look at the evidence it's pretty blatant that money was the main cause of that ignitird the war.
Just like I was saying look at the fact that there was no diplomatic attempt to in flavory. There was the complete opposite. He tried to lure them back into the Union with the promise a flavor you being protected.
@@ShootYourRadio First of all, Lincoln didn't try to create the Corwin amendment. It went all the way through the federal government and off to the states for a ratification vote before he was in office. Lincoln had nothing to do with it. Second of all, the Corwin amendemnt was insufficient to preserve slavery, since it wouldn't stop Lincoln from banning the expansion of it. Slavery had to be able to expand with the rest of the country to survive. Finally, the Corwin amendment never even came close to being ratified, so it was really a non-issue.
Lincoln would never compromise on his election platform to ban slavery's expansion, not even to save the Union. That's why he rejected the Crittenden crompromise. The Crittenden comproimse might have averted war and restored the Union, but Lincoln rejected it because it would have allowed the expansion of slavery.
Again read what Lincoln said on the matter: _"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."_ --Abe Lincoln.
I always laugh when someone says something like "it wasn't about slavery, it was about money." As if slavery was somehow a separate issue from money. But of course it wasn't. The issues were one and the same. The South seceded and stgarted the war to preserve slavery because slavery was very profitible for them. The entire economy was based around it. So that's why they were not willing to peacefully let it go into terminal decline.
_"We have much to say in vindication of our conduct, but this we must leave to history. The bloody conflict between brothers, is closed, and we 'come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.' The South had $2,000,000,000 invested in Slaves. It was very natural, that they should desire to protect, and not lose this amount of property. Their action in this effort, resulted in War. There was no desire to dissolve the Union, but to protect this property. The issue was made and it is decided."_ --Alabama Plantation owner Sterling Cockrill, letter to President Andrew Johnson.
@@TheStapleGunKid "All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
In other words, all believed in this vague and inexplicable "somehow" myth.
"Lincoln had nothing to do with [the Corwin amendment]."
Presidents play no role in amending the constitution. But Congress passed the amendment because Republicans with views just like Lincoln's supported it. The fact that he was the president-elect instead of a congressmen is an irrelevant deflection.
"Finally, the Corwin amendment never even came close to being ratified, so it was really a non-issue."
Only because the war broke out. There's no reason to believe Northerners at the state level would have otherwise been any less supportive of the amendment than their representatives in DC.
"the Corwin amendemnt was insufficient to preserve slavery, since it wouldn't stop Lincoln from banning the expansion of it."
Then secession was insufficient to "preserve" slavery, since secession wouldn't stop Lincoln from preventing the "expansion" of it.
"Lincoln would never compromise on his election platform to ban slavery's expansion, not even to save the Union."
And it's at least as true and infinitely more relevant that Lincoln would never compromise on DC control over the southern states, not even to free all the slaves immediately.
This was written 3 months AFTER Lincoln introduced the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. It was to a Newspaper, answering the call for Emancipation, and Lincoln hoped his answer would be printed because , in a time of military set backs, he wanted to keep the border states and other Northerners who cared little for the slaves engaged in the war. Keeping the War about "union" and not emancipation kept the country together. Also, he knew that he had to save the Union of there would never be an opportunity to end slavery. The USA would not be able to end slavery in an independent CSA any more than It could end it in Brazil
My belief is that the 2nd Amendment isn't "stuck" in history like the guest speaker is sorta alluding to in his reference to Scalia, when he says "it's designed to allow citizens to defend their communities, but not necessarily with an uzi."
Well, what if the external threat outside of the community has an uzi...? Or a M4 or AK? If it's intended that everyday citizens aren't required to partake in a national/federal military, but it will fall to them as a civic duty to defend their communities... then that's pretty straightforward to me. That we should be able to have exactly what an enemy would have (which in this day and technological age isn't a 1861 Springfield or Henry Repeating Rifle). The ability to defend one's community or own property should equally grow and evolve with the contemproary technology of the day. So, yes... that means if you think I'm going to resort to a Colt Navy Revolver when my door is getting kicked down by someone with a Mk18... then what the hell is the 2nd Amendment worth if it doesn't allow the community and individual gun owner to evolve with the times.
Such a silly argument from Scalia and, what looks to be supported by, the guest speaker as well.
It wasn't a silly argument from Scalia and is taken out of context. Scalia recognized that the technology moved faster than the ability of society as a whole to adequately control itself and all rights have limitations. The courts, as a whole, have always struggled with the pace of technology in many matters and how it fits within the context of the Bill of Rights. Radio, television and now social media are prime examples. However, the guest obviously has a bias against gun ownership as he stated by his example of an AK-47.
We should be allowed tanks.
yep lets allow everyone to own a bazuka because YoUr EnEmy CaN gEt ThEiR hAnDs On The MoDeRn TeCh. Just cause your enemy can get their hands on an illegal weapon doesnt mean everyone should own said illegal weapon
The 2nd amendment was intended to allow states to massacre natives and put down slave rebellions. The right to rip apart human flesh with bullets is rooted in white supremacy.
@@BluesAndNoise What a cringe take. It's clear to anyone with a brain that it was intended to let American's defend themselves against the red skins AND the red coats.
The barbaric red indians were a menace that deserved to be conquered for their heathen lifestyle.
Furthermore, it was in the worlds best interest that English speakers conquered America. Look how basically every other non English speaking civilisation is more or less overtly fascist. At least in the English speaking world it's taken over 150 years for the fascists to gain control.
"Not AK-47 owners", yes, but they have been "Tommy Gun" owners, BAR owners, and several other fully automatic weapons (also used by the military at the time) that were available through mail order catalog until the 1940's.
Tommy Gun & BAR owners ruined it for everyone trying to turn everything into swiss cheese
sigh.... just stop.
So question, he stated the entire population was armed prior to the civil war, why is it that post war gun ownership was the issue with the Black population in being annihilated? In today’s modern standards when we fight a war we win we keep people there to ensure it doesn’t fall back into corruption. So would seem that the problem wasn’t the guns the former solders had it was the lack of federal protection and standing soldiers to ensure the transition. Some thing President Ulysses S. Grant addressed by putting standing soldiers in the south only to have the very next president Rutherford B. Hayes remove the soldiers allowing black codes to flourish.
Compromise of 1877.
He didn't say the "entire population" was armed. You said that. Listen to it again.
They know that. All white people know that even if they don't know the details
I think it’s important to note that there isn’t necessarily a causality between the handing out of rifles and the fact that crime is dropping in Ukraine. One important aspect is that the people unite against a common enemy, so there is much more incentive to drop differences and disputes in order to be able to fraternise and defeat that common enemy. Another aspect is that during war it is first of all very difficult to get crime statistics, and secondly, war crimes go up, from both sides. People, that were civilians previously, are now comitting devastating acts, as soldiers. I think there is a lot of nuance here
You should spell check before attempting to write an intelligent post. The poor spelling takes away from your point
@@rmmm6725 people who liked the comment say otherwise.
It's been repeatedly documented that when gun ownership increases crime goes down.
@@rmmm6725 Thanks ! I should indeed have checked it before hitting send. (English is my third language and I was in a rush though)
I think your sources of documentation are fuzzy. And again, correllation and causality between crime and gun ownership is not as direct as you make it out to be here.
I think socio-economic and societal elements, like devision, education etc. are much more important determinants for crime than gun ownership is.
Fact is that the US has more guns per capita than any other developed nation and six times the homicide rate of neighboring Canada, more than seven times as many as Sweden, and 16 times as many as Germany.
Again, I'm not saying this is because of the guns, but they don't seem to help either.
“No Treason: the Constitution of no Authority,1,2 and 6,” Lysander Spooner,1867-1870. He was there.
A muzzle loader was an AK 47 in the 1800s.
These 2 are dummies who don’t understand firearms.
In the 19th century private citizens owned cannons and warships - today’s equivalent of a battleship. Those men were called merchants
(Fact) Slavery was legal in the United States back then, and the states which formed the confederacy did not have to succeed to keep it legal by virtue of their small power in the Senate. Abolishing slavery required a constitutional amendment, and the southern states had more than enough votes for the 1/4 needed to block any such change. If the only goal of the southern states was to preserve slavery, they would have stayed in the United States, and simply blocked any contrary amendment proposed! Slavery was not the primary issue. Lincoln repeatedly claimed that he would gladly protect the legal institution of slavery, if it would preserve the union. Read Lincoln’s first inaugural address where he sounds more like a Klan member than a president! Then you will see why people always refer to his second inaugural address instead. Some people have called his first inaugural address “the slavery forever speech”
Lincolns call four 75,000 soldiers to invade the south did more to begin the war as soon as it did than any other cause. States like my state-Tennessee, and Virginia and North Carolina while unhappy with the political situation they found themselves in, had decided to stay with the union. All three of the states had voted against secession, but then reversed themselves after Lincolns call for an army of invasion of the South! In response to Lincoln, Tennessee’s governor said that Tennessee would furnish no troops for “the evil purpose of subduing our sister southern states”. April 1861, Lincoln precipitated war by sending ships to reinforce fort Sumter, South Carolina. Confederate forces at Charleston fired on the fort. Lincoln answered by calling for 75,000 volunteers to put down the revolt and governor Harris of Tennessee seize the moment. “Tennessee will not furnish a single man for the purpose of coercion,” he responded to Lincoln, “but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights and those of our southern brethren”
How is it hard to understand that crime is going down? If im a criminal im looking for the weakest person in society to exploit normally. If you have a gun you are not weak and have the capability to end me so the decision making process of free easy gains is gone.
because criminals can still find weak points. if you're with 2 people in a car and all three of you have a rifle or pistol, but 15 men with rifles pull you over, you're essentially defenseless.
Some of y'all need to stop thinking of guns as the force field around you that makes criminals go somewhere else. It's cringe af.
@@sleazypolar Funny thing, guns statistically do make criminals go somewhere else, why do you think schools are getting shot up? Lots of people hate the police now so they're out of the schools, and schools are gun free zones, so the law abiding teachers aren't gonna be carrying. I do 100% agree tho, "criminals can still find weak points". Ban guns all you want, then mass stabbings are gonna pop up in the news. Plus, banning guns wont solve the issue, if they have the intent to kill someone, they are not gonna follow a law limiting what weapon they can use.
@@sleazypolar bruh im speaking as an ex criminal. its how we think
@@user-li3gl3du8t Typical of a dumb as rocks criminal to believe all people who commit crime think the same.
@@ChosenChicken There are actually in depth studies on why schools are targets for shootings and it has nothing to do with them not having guns in the building. Every time a school is shot up the person doing the shooting has a deep a problematic relationship with that school. Try again? maybe do some reading before you try again though.
It’s a shame this newly liberated union with an army of freedom fighters didn’t share the same humanitarian ideas with the native Americans on the expansion of the west.
It's wild that people think the civil war wasn't about slavery.
Daughters of the Confederacy is who to thank for that.
It’s wild to think that free white men in the north would sign up to die in war just to free black slaves in the south. Nobody would ever risk their own life just to free black slaves. To believe they would is idiotic.
It was more than slavery
I know it's very late but my 8th grade social studies teacher mentioned it wasn't about slavery nearly every day in class (Tennessee). Unreal
@@ollieollie66she's right, and she probably knows what a woman is too
The original 13th amendment would’ve codified slavery into law if the South rejoined the union, with several northern states ratifying. If their main priority was perpetuating slavery, they would’ve ratified as well and simply rejoined the union. The civil war was a war for southern independence above all else
Yes it was… people do realize we have records of this stuff right? Letters were sent from the seceding states to Congress explaining their reasons for leaving and guess what? Slavery is mentioned as a primary reason in all those letters
It’s amazing how well the post war south’s PR campaign has gone. “The Myth of the Lost Cause”. As if it was a heroic fight against northern aggression, and the poor beleaguered south had little choice but to secede.
I’m not sure “people do realize we kept records on this stuff”.
They also kept records about the current president thought about it "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln
@@redmonkeyass26 Idk bro I think he's saying he would do anything to preserve the union idk though I just read the words you commented
@@kisa4748 exactly, meaning the war was not about slavery, but the union.
Lex is *the* interviewer of our generation.
Lex is definitely an interviewer
He’s excellent. A fantastic talent. He doesn’t dumb anything down for accessibility or to generate extra views. I noticed that many podcasters, once they reach a certain level of success, they tailor their output solely for the views or algorithm. They serve up banality, dumb things down, or sensationalise their output. They get seduced by the very mentality that modern online media is rife with: namely quick fix, lowest common denominator, sensation and easy thinking. I hope lex always remains true to himself and keeps with the intelligence, honesty and respect for his viewers, that sadly, many other podcasters have lost. We demand to be challenged intellectually, made to think, I don’t want ideas served up to me pre-baked and packaged. Reason over rhetoric!
No he isn’t, he is completely astroturfed.
I can appreciate his approach
From 8:25 to 9:00 aprox Jeremi makes the argument that because weapons where given to soldiers, after the war those former soldiers used their guns to commit crimes. But minutes earlier he stated that the citizens were already armed. Any way, you could rape of kill somebody with no weapon at all, or even a knife/machete can be way more dangerous that a gun of that time.
So that argument that he makes doesn't sound that solid.
That's because Suri takes an anti-arms position in real life and he has to somehow shoehorn gun-control into his historical analysis. The "Gun owner but not AK-47 owner" statement made me cringe. The same technology that was available to both national armies, was available to individuals. They had access to the same types of rifles, and in the case of merchant mariners, access to cannons.
Because they built an ass load of guns during the war. Also that doesn't really poke a hole in the theory. Pre war its pappy all waxing nostalgic about kicking the brits over the ocean. When he gets back from the civil war he's certainly killed at least several men by that point and seen hundreds if not thousands of his own and enemy alike die. He's coming home hopped up on violence coming from an environment where success meant killing your opponent dead. So now because he's a racist dipshit, his opponent is the black dude with barely $5 to his name, so he's gonna go kill him because its frankly a drop in the bucket compared to the war. And he gets away with it because the cops and judges as mentioned are also racist dipshits hopped up on violence just like him, and they even offer to help.
Guns are always more dangerous than a knife
The crimes were committed against slaves, who were not citizens before the war and not armed.
@@GooblyWoobly69 They are also more dangerous to criminals, which is why you tend to have less violent crime in areas where the population is armed.
A tank on private grounds? You're all good. That's not regulated.
It's the gun on the tank.
Yup the key search term is "decommissioned". Plenty of military stuff can be owned privately as long as the pew pew parts are removed.
And regulating the gun is unconstitutional. The government doesn’t wanna follow the written rules
All too many people confuse the WAR and its causes with Secession which were TWO different events with different causes.
The north was going to preserve the union no matter what and that was made very clear by Lincoln. If slavery was a cause for the succession that lead to the war, then slavery was the cause of the war. It’s pretty fucking simple.
It's like someone in a hospital with a brain bleed caused by a workplace accident caused by the company skimping on security regulations.......saying the injury and workplace malpractice are different is stupid...one wouldn't happen without the other.....There would have been no civil war without secession, there would have been no secession without the will to secede to protect slavery.
@@rjsimmons732 > If slavery was a cause for the succession that lead to the war, then slavery was the cause of the war.
Let me expose the foolishness of that reasoning: If Islam was a cause for the 9/11 attacks that led to the US invasion of Iraq, then Islam was the cause of the war in Iraq.
@@kninezbanks > there would have been no secession without the will to secede to protect slavery
Secede to protect slavery??? That's just nonsense, nothing but an inexplicable revisionist myth. What threat do you think there was to slavery that seceding offered any prospect of protecting against?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
"That's just nonsense, nothing but an inexplicable revisionist myth".......The revisionist myth is the lost cause myth, the one pushed by the daughters of confederate (traitor) veterans. The literal daughters of the former slaveholding planter class that became teachers after the war and chose to revise history.
The civil war was because the south wanted to protect slavery and preserve white supremacy, most of the founding documents confirm this, all the compromises, commissioners, conventions confirm it was slavery. the confederate president, vice president, senators, governors, congressmen, state legislators, mayors, generals, supreme court justices, former presidents, in hundreds of thousands of words...enough to replace the new testament....more proof than of God's existence, confirmed it was slavery, they called the south "Slave holding states" or "Slave states".....and the north "Non-slaveholding states" or "free states" thousands of times.....all the senate farewell speeches confirm this fact.
civilwarcauses.org/
It's a tough pill for conservatives and gun-nuts to swallow and accept that america's biggest armed rebellion against the government was for a bad cause....this delusion is 10x worse and more divisive than the "gender dysphoria" they complain about daily....pathetic.
Lex, your guest leaves out a major point often overlooked. Yes, the South’s economic system was dominated by a small landed aristocracy (like the Google of their day), but the financial and mercantile interests that invested in and provided a network for them (think VCs and advertisers) were in NY and Boston. The mercantile interests also opposed anything that would impair their business interests - i.e., they were for slavery and opposed 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments. Put another way, economic interests were not as simple as North vs. South, more like elites vs. non.
It's always annoying with someone talks about gun laws in the US and they don't know them. His example not being able to own an Uzi just illustrates his ignorance of the law. Yes, a US citizen can own an Uzi. It requires additional paper work to be filed with the BATFE, form 4 Transfer etc.. and $200. Full Automatic weapons are artificially expense due to Gov Restrictions on manufacturing for civilian ownership.
He was paraphrasing a CONSERVATIVE supreme court justice, not making a statement on the laws.
@@twizzle777 That's not better. A lawyer of that level should know the law.
@@robertvillalobos7083 "A lawyer of that level" - You're aware that you're talking about a supreme court justice?
Well regulated. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege
@@robertvillalobos7083 maybe he knows better than you?
He comes so close to getting at the real economic reasons for Southern discontent, but conveniently ignores. Northern textiles and industrial products could not compete with those coming from Great Britain, which the generally poorer South preferred to purchase over Northern products. The massive tariffs passed against British products and the resulting retaliatory tariffs passed against the United States did great damage to the Southern economy in the lead up to the Civil War.
Well said. 100% agree
That isn't true because none of the articles of secession at that time mentioned tariffs. The Southern states at that time were far more worried about losing their slaves who were the engine behind the Confederate economic system.
@@dustybaron5942 > none of the articles of secession at that time mentioned tariffs
That's not true, not that it matters, because they weren't declarations of war, nor were they even declarations of what the southern states sought to gain by seceding -- that would be like if a woman split up with a man because the man didn't help with the dishes or vacuuming or any other such housework, the man felt he had a right to a continued relationship with her with or without her continued consent and he violently beat her to force her to continue in the relationship... that would be like claiming that the woman's grievances about the relationship proved that the beating she received and her resistance to that beating was about trying to force the man to do his share of the housework, when in reality she wasn't trying to force him to do anything but was just wanting to go her own way -- but the basis of your claim nonetheless isn't even true.
> The Southern states at that time were far more worried about losing their slaves
And what threat of losing their slaves would you like to imagine the southern states faced by remaining in the union that they wouldn't have faced if they had won their independence? That's nothing but an inexplicable revisionist myth.
Official declaration of the US Congress, not about the causes of the break-up but about the objectives of the war itself: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Your claims that the Articles of Secession weren't "declarations of what the southern states sought to gain by seceding" is totally untrue and divorced from reality. How do we know? Because the Confederates themselves called these documents "Articles of Secession" -- it's LITERALLY IN THE NAME -- while stating that these Articles were both the casus belli for their violent secession and the primary cause of why they left the USA.
After all, that was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the Articles of Session -- to act as a second Declaration of Independence from the USA, and to declare for historical purposes of WHY the Confederate State of America formed and why the states themselves seceded.
Look at the Article of Secession that was called "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States," used by Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia, which started its document with the following text:
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation."
Seriously, you have never read an Article of Secession judging by your response.
Tariffs were at historic lows in 1860, thanks to a tariff law written by a Virginian and supported throughout the south. Britain had already abolished tariffs so there were no retaliatory tariffs. The north paid about 80% of the tariffs, so that was handy for the south too. So tariffs could hardly be the root of southern economic discontent, could they?
Also, the generally poorer south would have been generally richer if they didn't have slave labor cutting the bottom out of the labor market and keeping 45% of the population completely out of the consumer economy. The poor folk really ought to have told the slave holders to go jump in a lake, but we poor folk tend to be a bit too eager to fight the rich man's war. Dang propaganda.
Actually you can have a tank but ammo for the gun is a whole other situation. There's a bunch of registration red tape. But Drive Tanks in Texas has some you can rent and Nevada has some similar places I think. The place in Texas has lots of historic machine guns and artillery and grenades too. Demolition Ranch has been there a few times.
Even if you can own or rent one, you can't drive one on the road, can you? Doesn't seem like they'd be road legal. Plus, they must chew up the pavement.
@@udohoerhold5337 dunno, fpsRUSSIA drove to white castle in one
You can have any weapon you want. The problem is the government violates our very rights - “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean a little infringement is ok. He means NONE.
@@darbyohara I'd like to agree with you but I find it convenient that the entire 2A crowd ignores the "well regulated militia" part completely. Personally I don't mind people having weapons as long as they're not threatening.
4:55 Need to push back a bit here. Both sides were overwhelmingly volunteer soldiers, even after conscription.
The CSA instituted conscription first in 1862 (he conflates it with the Union) and the USA in 1863.
So clearly the south was forcing people to be soldiers hence not defending their homeland nonsense.
The Civil War is talked about like it was all about slavery, or it wasn’t at all. How about it’s like any other war, where there is a multitude of factors. Slavery was one of many factors. The context that gets left out in schools today, is that how the United States was viewed back then is how we view the European union now. That’s why states rights gets brought up, but obviously one of those state rights that they advocated for was screwed up. The other aspect is the north was doing terrible things too, but focused on the issue of slavery and not their own baggage as well. Anyone saying the Civil War was a black and white issue is completely misinformed. .
Here’s another piece of context that goes missing on people. The way we view Zelenskyy today, at least, as far as the narrative goes, being a hero in Churchill like, is the same sort of narrative that was made for Abraham Lincoln in the north. Was he truly this incredible man unlike any other? No, he was the guy at the time that was in charge and the union needed high levels of propaganda to survive. Doesn’t mean you can’t like him. The same narrative applies to Robert E in the south.
Lastly, what isn’t discussed is the political element and big money. Back then, it was Big Railroad (compare that to Big Pharma.) The north wanted the railroad in their territory, the south wanted it in their own. Civil War begins, and what happens? Lincoln builds the transcontinental railroad in the north to the west with BR money of which they were Republican donors. Was possible bc southerns weren’t the government until the post-cw era.
The GOP could’ve said they’d use their resources to send slaves to Liberia. Lower the tariffs to help the south with that process. That never happened. South was terrible, but so was the north.
Anyone that tries to introduce more nuance into this war when it doesn't actually exist has an agenda. You both downplay the importance of slavery in causing the war, and play up the union as also being a bad guy in some both-sides fallacy. I think you need to get real. In their declaration of secession, South Carolina literally blamed the US for "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery" and claimed that "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
It is very obvious that slavery was the number one issue here and folks like you love to play it down for no good reason. Those southern aristocrats were not your friends. Maybe they were your relatives, who knows, but it doesn't look like you have a dime from them anyway (AFAIK). Stop defending bad history.
@@morkallearns781 firstly, respectfully, you’re misunderstanding the comment. I’m not siding with the south, I’m breaking down the north’s narrative. Both sides had false narratives and I assumed everyone knew the false narratives for the south, but not the north. Secondly, it’s not black and white. Compare the government today to the government back in the day. The government doesn’t necessarily represent the people. Yes, slavery was obviously a factor, but to say it was the ONLY factor, even I know you don’t believe that and I’ve never met you. That doesn’t take away from what slavery was.
(Fact) Lincoln in a letter to secretary of treasury, Salmon P, Chase, on September 3, 1863 “the emancipation proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a war measure.”
If you read it in it’s entirety, it actually protected 832,000 slaves in the border states. It did not free one single slave. (History is a lie ) When Lincoln truly had in his power to bring real and immediate freedom to those 832,000 enslaved people in the loyal border states the same Abraham Lincoln instead, carefully insured that they would remain slaves. Emancipation proclamation, blah blah blah.
*"Who would hire a young Abe Lincoln when they could get a slave for free?"*
You had to buy the slave first, genius- and they weren't cheap. This is who writes our history...
Laborers in free-state Iowa earned about $14 a month in 1860. Across the state line in slave-state Missouri, slaves could be rented for $7 a month.
(Fact) While prosecuting the war to “free the slaves“, Lincoln said “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization…in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race.“ Annual message to congress December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln.
He can’t help but inject his ideological prejudices into his historical perspective.
No one can you are just sensitive to his perspective because you disagree with it.
@@joshido7352you seem to be pretty sensitive yourself.
@@vladtheinhaler8940 what makes you say that?
It’s unfortunate. It’s a view he gained from others. Not his own ideas
I quit listening when this dude says, "Why would anyone hire poor Abe to do something when they could get a slave to do it for free?" Slaves weren't free. They were very expensive.
Uh oh, I'll be back for the shitshow.
I'm pretty sure multiple states wrote that they were leaving because slavery was integral to their way of life.
Yes- they are the secession papers issued by each of the Confederate states. They all- every...single...one...state clearly that they left the Union because of slavery.
Yes Ak 47s. During the founders time people owned warships with canons and modern day military weapons. That standard is maintained. We own modern day military arms because in defense, that is what we’ll be up against.
Come on man. To fight the government you'll need an F-357, man. Not joking. You know the thing
@@harryiculus and some nukes, f-16s, and all the other weapons of mass destruction our military has
The truth is that you would be up against AI/unmanned weaponry. A drone strike doesn't give a shit what weapon is in your hand. 2A is now mostly used a means to encourage sales that provide R&D to those who make and distribute firearms. Its about making money of a citizen's shallow understanding of what freedom is and could be.
In terms of the 2nd amendment, The People should be able to match the police when it comes to weaponry. The police often are seen as the oppressor, and to fight against oppression you must match it in both aggression and might. If we ok the police to ride around with long guns the People should be able to as well. “Equal rights means equal fights”.
I think it's rather intuitive. Most crimes are committed by parties that are going after soft targets ie school shooters because they know nobody can fight back. When you reinforce the awareness of equal defense, the advantage is lost upon the aggressors as they no longer see a weakness to exploit.
That's why I think he was wrong when he said that the black communities were attacked because the southern soldiers took their guns home with them. It was more that the people who were targeted were unarmed and could not defend themselves.
It shouldn't even be a question at this point of time. It's so blindingly obvious that you either had to be blind or wilfuly so to not accept that yes the civil war was about slavery.
So why do you figure just about everyone on earth at the time, North and South and European..., pro-slavery, abolitionist, not-pro-slavery-but-willing-to-get-along-with-slavery... was, according to you, blind with regards to just about everything that was said directly about the war?
"And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before...
"All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” ... are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats - so transparent that they ought to deceive no one - when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..." Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner
"The key part of the Second Amendment for me, as a historian, is the 'well-regulated' part"
Luckily for the rest of us, the actual key part is the "shall not be infringed" part.
This guy really sucks.
Well regulated means to be kept in working order and the people trained in their usage i.e maintenance, we know this is the correct meaning cause of the "shall not be infringed" which is the other definition of regulate to control something it is stating to ensure weapons are maintained and that no control over this right shall be infringed(restricted) by the government by law or demand it is the right of every citizen.
As a lifelong gun owner, I have no problem with gun registration and regulations. I own guns, hunting guns, not war guns. And I also have grandkids in schools that I prefer they are not shot at in school.
Really cringe listening to them talk about gun control when they don’t think the 2A is more about personal protection and overthrowing tyrannical governments. The reference about it being to defend property and their communities.
The main purpose of the 2A is to check government tyranny, everything else is secondary.
To put a comment out there on 7:49, think about it for a minute, would you rob a house knowing that the resident owns a gun? Would you go shoot up a pro 2nd amendment rally knowing that easily half of the people there could be armed? Would you go shoot up a school if the teachers are allowed to carry guns? And probably the biggest of them all, if you were the leader of a foreign nation, would you declare war and attempt to invade the US knowing that about 40% of all civilians own a gun?
Just something I encourage people to think about. The world sometimes isn't black and white, although people make it out to be.
Ragaholic had an interesting video on Abraham Lincoln
He also thinks proven fraudster is the best president ever so prob not a great take.
Abe our first Dick Tator luved it .. Chistyd had a great video about Abe being Gay top 5 gay Americans good shat
It was a great video, it highlights how big of a pos Lincoln was.
Left out the fact that "Honest Abe" was a rich railroad lawyer, whose connections got him into office, and he profited personally from land deals involving the railroads while in office. Look it up, The railroad museum in Sacramento CA has an exhibit which mentions that in good detail.
Probably left out of a 9 minute video because the level of relevance is very low. Southerners didn't call Lincoln a "Black Republican" because he was a railroad lawyer.
@@aaronfleming9426 Don't worry schizo, I just so happen to have the facts for you! Dr. Thomas Durant was Abraham Lincoln's friend , legal /lobbyist client and biggest campaign financier . Hence , as soon as Lincoln got elected he did two things . 1. He raised taxes/tariffs on the South 2. He gave the exclusive Contract to build the first ever in U.S.history federally funded endeavor the infamous Transcontinental Union Pacific Railroad to his friend Durant . An unscrupulous businessman who bribed Congress and stole $23 million from the U.S. Treasury ! Who do you think was in charge of the project before Lincoln was elected ? Well, former U.S. Secretary of War Jefferson Davis ! His five independent surveys all pointed to the South below the 32nd Parallel line as the most feasible and safe route . However, after a corrupted Republican Nomination and subsequent election Lincoln was now a Northern President only ( not one vote in the South) , who owed Durant big time and he also owned the property in Council Bluffs , Iowa which coincidently was the location of the first terminal ! So he fought a war to fund the project because the country needed Southern cotton. So this is why he never intended on freeing the slaves and even offered to keep them forever according to his letter supporting the March 1861 Corwin amendment .
No , it was economical warfare . The southern states were agriculturally superior in every facet. From sugar cane , rice , tobacco, black tea, cotton , even the blacks of gullah geechee culture would tell you that it was about money. After the establishment of the Northern colonies there was really no need for slavery. If they had the same year around agricultural as the south , well.. Also The emancipation proclamation was just propaganda, Lincoln couldn't give two sh*ts. Needed financial support for the war effort , I guess secededing from the union wasn't enough. Thank Fredrick Douglas.
Not only were cannons allowed to be owned by private citizens, which many did, but it's also true that several private citizens owned gunships. These were large seafaring vessels with lined rows of cannons on the side, much like any regular warship of the time. Claiming otherwise is ahistorical and factually untrue.
Gotta watch that Lincoln video from Razorfist 💯
Exactly, Lincoln was a POS.
Lex as a russian speaking guy, should know that nobody is giving "AK47" to anybody who wants in Ukraine. It was one time thing, that they gave about 20k AK to civilian in Kiev, when russians were really close to the city. He should also know that, now in Ukraine gun permitting process is simplify, but in Ukraine you could own gun since it's formal beginning, like in most developed countries in the world!!!!
Is't funny how people in the US, who don't have any knowledge about gun and gun laws around the world, or even US laws (like Jeremi Suri) thinks, that only in the US you can own those scary AK,AR and UZI. That's simply not true you can have those type of guns in pretty much in every country in EU, or even Europe.
I live in Poland, and yes average citizen can buy here an Ak, AR, or UZI, after getting gun permit, which is simpler than getting driving license.
Argument about tank is also funny, because for example in Poland there is no law that prevents average citizen from having tank, with demiled main gun. If you want to have fully functional tank, you just need to make private museum. I don't know US laws in that manner, but im pretty positive that there are also ways to own tank there, like in most countries in the world. There are people in France, Germany that also own tanks in their private museums, i dont know if they are demiled or not, but they own scary tanks, that are even scarier that AR-15 with high capacity 30 round clipazine.
My grandpa bought a tank when I was in high school. He wasn't allowed to drive it on MOST public roads, he also wasn't allowed to have live ammunition.
Also, in USA communities with high gun ownership have significantly less crime.
Also, shocked it's not mentioned that native americans were larger slave owners than plantation owners.
“It’s made up of 9 million people and 4 million slaves.”
This guy is so deep in the past that he doesn’t even count enslaved people as people.
I would want him to go into more details on how the Senate and electoral collete had more power.
Each state had two senators and the electoral college was base on how each state setup their elections.
I disagree with this guy but the issue he is pointing out is that the population of all states is not equal but they all have equal number of senators. That was intentional but this guy wants it closer to popular vote ruling.
His argument doesn’t make sense. The North outnumbered the South in population and the number of states so they should control both the House and Senate.
@@kingmidas430 The disproportion of power is not at the Federal level, i.e Congress. It is the lack of power accountability in the southern states.
Comparable example is the disproportionate power the Railroads had in California. It led to the implementation of proposition voting which essentially is a legislative process that relies on popular vote.
Southern Aristocrats underestimated Lincoln. Just like Saddam Hussein misjudged George Bush.
A wiser choice instead of war, the south should have negotiated for economic concessions that would enable plantation owners to accept the abolition of slavery.
How ironic the Republicans now are viewed as racist.
I think he might also be referring to the 3/5th rule which gave power to slave owners through extra votes (they control the votes of their slaves)
@@dennisbrinkley8613 because they hang Democrat Confederate flags and wont take Democratic Confederate leaders statues down. I love what the Republican party USED to stand for now they act like the democrats from the south and protect ALOT of the views they had. SOUTHERN STRATEGY.
Kurt Russell had recently gave the American Civil War as an example of the 2nd amendment being used.
So was it?
Of course it was. As they just said the US government had a very small army at the beginning of the civil war. So Lincoln had to ask the governors of the northern states for the use of the states WELL REGULATED MILITIA! Look up almost any civil war battle and look at the union regiments. They are almost all state militias like the 52nd Massachusetts, or the 23rd New York.
Of course we still have these " well regulated militias" today but we call them the National Guard...
@@TheVert1276 I know what you’re saying but didn’t the south want to secede from the Union?
So why would they need an amendment?
The south wasn’t a militia.
for an alleged historian, this guy is wildly misinformed on some things. "but not uzis or ak47s" is rather uneducated. at the time of the revolutionary war, private ownership of ships of the line with cannons was permitted and fully legal. the modern equivalent would be owning a fully equipped aircraft carrier. restricting militarily capable firearms from citizens is a rather modern notion.
Read the Hazard Circular. The war was about money. The south had quietly withdrawal all their money out of the northern banks prior to secession. In fact the south seceded from the north for 6 months before Lincoln go into office and before fort Sumter/ start of the war. And guess which banked funded Lincoln and the Union? Chase bank, now called JP Morgan Chase after the merge in 2000. Chase was also the Secretary of the Treasury. He helped make the green backs (USD) for the war.
legendary combover
😂😂
But if you don't believe the Civil War was fought solely over the immorality of slavery, then you're a nazi! Everyone knows that every war has a single and simple reason why it is being fought, which is easily understandable by everyone regardless of their education and intellect, and one side is evil with moustaches and the other side is holy and righteous forevermore and accompanied by flying angels with swords. The holy and righteous forevermore side just happens to always be the ones who win the war, because the righteous always win in the end, that's the Law of the Universe (not just in movies).
Lincoln's initial primary motivation was to preserve the union. It wasn't until after the emancipation proclamation was issued that the tide of the war began to shift in favor of the north! Always a joy to listen to Jeremi Suri!
That's not necessarily true. That's only true in the eastern theater of the war.
The war in the west was Fort Donelson with the Union taking huge territory in Tennessee. Then Shiloh a Union victory followed by the capture of Corinth. All of which happened in 1862 before Emancipation. You also had New Orleans captured
Lincoln only refrained from being strongly anti slavery in the early civil war to try to maintain the relationship they had with the border states where slavery was legal. Lincoln was afraid if he tried to free the slaves in the border states they would join the confederacy.
@@knunk5476 He actually did still try to free the slaves in the border states though. It's a little-known fact that Lincoln offered those states federal compensation in exchange for voluntary emancipation. Sadly none of them accepted his offer, but it really is notable that at a time when the government was drowning in war debt, Lincoln was still willing to spend millions of federal dollars to free the Union's slaves.
Lincoln's primary motivation was to preserve the union, yes. But the southern states' motivation was the expansion of slavery. They said so in their articles of secession, on the floor of their state house in Richmond, the politicians said it in stump speeches, and in the newspapers.
@@TheStapleGunKid "Lincoln was still willing to spend millions of federal dollars"
Where did he offer millions? Show me (or point me to) the offer.
Very interesting that the guys with the guns, so easily terrorized the guys without the guns
All modern gun control efforts in the US stem from trying to keep blacks unarmed after slavery ended.
War is way too complex to boil it down to one simple cause. Every global political issue is complex. No doubt slavery and reasons adjacent to slavery, are a large factor in the start of the civil war.
preservation of the institution of slavery is literally cited in almost all of the letter of secession from rebelling states.
Slavery was the reason.
@@sleazypolar Was it ? " If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Abraham Lincoln
@@sleazypolar What did Virginia's letters of secession say? What did West Virginia's secession papers say when they seceded from Virginia as a slave state to join the Union?
@@djcogdill9263 The Virginia Secession Ordinance was to "repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia." That Constitution had been "perverted to their injury and oppression…not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding states."
need help googling anything else?
@@sleazypolar Yes. Why did Virginia secede when they did and not earlier? Why did West Virginia separate from Virginia and join the Union as a slave holding state in a war that was supposedly meant to end slavery?
One second he says the American populace was well-armed before the war. The next second he says hundreds of rapes and murders occurred BECAUSE the soldiers took their guns home with them. How can anyone just let a logical fallacy like this slide?
This is a more complete history than what we learned in school. This is like a full history class in 10 minutes 😂
Then maybe you should stop being lazy and read the books the schools assign to you. There's no way that you or anyone can learn about the civl war in 10 minutes, nor can someone explain it. I'm sorry.
@mikerobinson4409 idk about the role freemasonry did or didn't have in the civil war, but you're right that this is a very one-sided perspective.
@@Tyler_W
Washington was built around Freemasonry .
The way the Whitehouse has been constructed is interesting , the Eye on the Pyramid with the Cap stone missing on the dollar bill is exactly where the masonic lodge is placed in an aerial view .
Apparently every town & city on Earth has been constructed using masonic principles
. New World Order a conspiracy theory or fact ?
Didn't see anyone mention "states rights" unironically...I'm proud.
Excellent job with this interview!
Atun Shei, Checkmate Lincolnites. He been going iver the topic alot more.
You guest speaker is more of an activist than he is a historian. He incorrectly states several facts about the 2nd amendment and what the civil war was about to push his agenda. So much is taken out of context form what was written and understood at the time. Does not take much to read papers/reports of that time period to determine that.
"Disproportionate power" is a drastic oversimplification of the functions of the Supreme Court and senate.
Disproportionate Power is spot on.
Ah, the good ol South. Still struggling 150 years later.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
While I agree, there are complete tools who arm themselves, look for trouble and a reason to use their gun, while also never shutting up about their beliefs. These people are obviously more rare and show up on social media bc the real silently trained warriors wouldn't be so dumb to give up their greatest advantage: blending in.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
A poorly argued statement. The reality of our American life is much darker.....because of guns.
"they were able to do that because they brought their guns home" it must be that in these academic circles even the most obviously ridiculous ideas are never even debated. this guy is either disingenuous or self-deluding
Love seeing this man come back on, going to watch the full podcast when I got the time.
I am in the pro-gun court, but I quite value Suri's intellect and candor above any single issue. You can tell he's not too comfortable on that subject for obvious raisins, but I know his stance isn't coming from a bad place, and that makes an absolutely massive difference when talking about 2A rights, gun law, or gun control.
Suri is as American as any one man can get, and he doesn't need to wave an AR-15 around to do it.
I am monke, I prefer the AR-15 method, but it's gotta be for all Americans, not small groups here and there. Will be interesting to see what new compromises and agreements will come in the future, specifically on weapons ownership in the US. I look forward to Lex's following of the subject too!
I think the legality of tanks tends to be "as long as the tank can't fire its' cannon, you can own it", because at that point it's really no more dangerous than a bulldozer or other large tracked vehicle.
US Civil War was about perseving the Union. Lincoln and DC hated the idea of America becoming like Europe, a bunch of independent countries. When the South was "shopping around" for allies around the world, Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation. The world (Europe) was against slavery by the mid 1800s and therefore could not and would not help the South. Lincoln "made" the war about slavery to keep the South isolated. Brilliant political move by Lincoln that helped end the war quicker.
You couldn’t on an AK 47 but you could on the same exact guns the military had. Lost a lot of respect for this guy
I dobt think this guy is completely wrong about the civil war but i find alot wrong with his explanations for the civil.
7:07 I wouldn't be surprised. At the same time, I would only imagine someone saying, "I own a tank for home defense"
You can own a tank... And cannons
And full auto weapons, just prohibitively expensive due to Gov Regs. His example of an Uzi just shows his ignorance of the laws. I know people who own Uzi's and M16s. I can't afford one but if I could I would own them. Just need to file the right paperwork with the ATF.
Yes, it was. This should not even be a question. The individual Confederate solider, 9 times out of 10, had reasons for fighting that were completely unrelated to slavery. After all, slave ownership was an upper class thing. Lower class white southerners did not own slaves.
That being said, the political forces behind the secessionist movement, the Governments of the various seceding states, did so to protect the institution of slavery. That is a fact.
This guy is a lightweight
Lincoln didn't oppose slavery. He explicitly said the civil war wasn't about slavery
The literally south secession declaration literally says with the first 2 sentences that they are secesseding to preservethe right to slavery
@@troyspears6470 Yes to join the confederacy you had to oppose the redistribution of slavery assets.
This does not change the fact that the war was not about slavery and Lincoln did not oppose slavery
Then why did Lincoln emancipate the slaves if he wasn't opposed to slavery?
The southern states explicitly said their secession WAS about slavery.
so now what?
@@RolandRED The emancipation proclamation did not free any slaves.
what a unionist view of the war.
Who owned the slave ships?
You know They did.
Uh oh
Most were owned by the British followed by the French and Portuguese
I heard the Jews owned them
One of Lex’s cousins
There were war crimes committed by both sides during and post civil war and not just armed southerners. Also, if the victims were armed it’s very likely that less crimes would’ve been successfully committed.
That Man is absolutely accurate. Great History lesson and video.
(FACT) “ What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.“ Springfield, Illinois. July 17, 1858. Abraham Lincoln.
Thank you for your interpretation of the history of my country. I would also like to thank you for your opinion on the 2A 😜
What the fuck is 2A😜😜😜😜
It’s kinda crazy. I live in southern Indiana and from what I hear around here is that the people in my town and towns around me, they wanted to leave the union and join the confederacy. I don’t think it happened but I’m sure there were a good amount of people from here that did join the confederacy.
Funny he said not ak47. If they existed back then the people would have had them.
Reeeeee
The South wanted sovereignty. It was becoming clear that they did not have any political power and were beholden to the northern policies. These policies were often designed to benefit businesses in the North at the expense of the South.
Slavery was the key issue of the day. It became clear with the election of Lincoln that the southern "right" to slavery would soon be abolished. This was the last straw.
The conflict over slavery had existed since the beginning of the country, but it never caused a war. The South almost seceded during the nullification crisis, and the key issue then was tariffs.
The election of Lincoln in a landslide, when the South did not even include him on the ballot, was the trigger. This event PROVED to the South that they had no power to control their own destiny, even when they essentially cheated. It was clear they would need to leave the union agreement if they wanted to have a say in how they were governed.
The desire to self govern was the cause of the Civil War.
> Slavery was the key issue of the day. It became clear with the election of Lincoln that the southern "right" to slavery would soon be abolished.
Nonsense! Even today, 160+ years later there still aren't even close to enough states in the union to ratify a constitutional amendment without the support of the states that were slave states in 1860. There was no threat of the North abolishing slavery in the South, and none of the seceding states said anything about anything of the sort.
> The election of Lincoln in a landslide
He needed 152 electoral votes to win. He won 180, but he only won thirty-some percent of the electorate, the lowest percentage of any president to ever win the electoral college.
> when the South did not even include him on the ballot
Were Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats on the ballot in Massachusetts? Who cares? What does it matter?
In any case, it wasn't "cheating." And it obviously wouldn't have made a bit of difference if Lincoln had been on the ballot in any of the states that were so turned off by Republicans winning the election that they seceded in response to it.
> The desire to self govern was the cause of the Civil War.
Your conclusion is sound. But you could also look at it from the other perspective: The desire to deny self-government to the southern states was the cause of the war.
Nope, about states rights
Right to slavery
State's rights to keep slaves
Is that why not one slave was freed by the emancipation proclamation and the last slaves were in union states,
Nice hs text book talking point though
@@henrywolf5332 this is the dumbest statement
If the north really cared about slaves why then when after the war millions of dollars were given to the railroad and big industry to move south, but yet the freed man they supposedly fought for received nothing, not one dollar, acre or mule.
THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today-big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.
Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."
History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.
Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.
Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.
Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.
That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.
The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.
States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.
The Morrell Tariff did not pass Congress until the rebel states withdrew their Congressmen, so it cannot be a cause of secession.
@@aaronfleming9426 By that stupid logic, no future threat to slavery could have played any role in secession either. But unlike the revisionist myths of threats to southern slaveholding rights posed by Republicans, the Morrill tariff was a real, articulable threat, actually passed before the war even started, and clearly articulated in the platform Republican ran on before any of the southern states had seceded.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first part (up to the second comma) is saying 'An Army is necessary to protect the State'. The second part says 'You cannot take people's guns away BECAUSE of the first part'.
> The first part (up to the second comma) is saying 'An Army is necessary to protect the State'.
No! The first part is saying the exact opposite. As Elbridge Gerry, delegate to the constitutional convention and fifth vice presidents of the US said, "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."
The first part of the second amendment is actually pretty much just another way of saying what the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution said before: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up..." And several other states had similar statements about standing armies in their original constitutions and bills of rights.
I find it strange that the guest seems to suggest slavery was an overall economic boon for southerners that made men like Lincoln resentful, when one of the less moral, more practical incentives for ending slavery was that it would eventually become an economic burden. Needing to manage the health of slaves could be more costly than just paying someone a wage and sending them on their way.
Southerners certainly found slavery to be an overall economic boon. In fact, they considered it the cornerstone of their prosperity. I find it strange that you feel a need to defend them in ways they never bothered to defend themselves.
@@aaronfleming9426 Your attempt to display your piety for the current social zeitgeist in response to a benign observation is completely transparent. You have economists as early as 100 years earlier questioning the efficiency of slavery in books like "The Wealth of Nations". Slavery marginally increased the output of cotton and other products, but it could still diminish total welfare given enough time. Slave labor produced an income stream equal to a slave’s output minus the cost of the slave’s subsistence, maintenance, and management. The average slave cost the modern equivalent of $40,000 to purchase, on top of housing, clothing, and feeding the slave.
Slaves who worked in skilled trades were often the most profitable for slaveholders. Not just because of the price for their labor, but because those slaves had greater control over their labor-leisure ratio, often living offsite and choosing their own employers in the city. Removal of preferred labor-leisure tradeoff through coerced labor increased output but decreased welfare. By how much? About 74 million dollars, or the modern equivalent of 24 billion and 420 million dollars. The southern economy's nearly two-decade collapse after the war also coincided with a sharp increase in welfare. Why? Leisure-labor tradeoff was back in the hands of the emancipated.
The south even required government intervention to maintain their institution, outlawing slaves from purchasing their freedom, and forcing the conscription of poor whites into monitoring plantations for fear of escapees or uprising. Income per capita in the slave states (counting slaves) remained more than 25 percent lower than that of the free states throughout the three decades leading up to the Civil War. But slaveholders had so much wealth tied up in this human capital that they were willing to invest considerable resources and eventually go to war to preserve a system that provided them only market returns.
Amongst the modern works that assert the south, or even America as a whole, was built by slavery, like 2014's, "Empire of Cotton" how many address that cotton production had approached its prewar peak just five years after the war ended? None. They just ignore this. Cotton accounted for 5% of America's GDP. Slavery inflicted untold horrors on people for generations, it also wasn't even worth upholding even from a utilitarian perspective. Not that you would need that perspective to justify its end.
9 minutes is a long time just to say yes.
Yes. The Civil War was about slavery. Why are we still debating this???
I suggest everyone watch Razorfist facts of the civil war rather than opinions and takes on the civil war. He goes deep on letters and actually events that caused it. Let’s just say it’s not what they teach you at school boys and girls.
He was debunked
th-cam.com/video/XZmQ692aXGE/w-d-xo.html
As someone born and raised in tx, I was definitely salty he only named only like 4 confederate states and had to mention tx like 6 times lol Let’s throw Mississippi and Alabama under the bus too and not leave us out here alone in the cold