One correction: the slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states in rebellion, where Lincoln was powerless to enforce it. The slaves in border states (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri) weren’t legally freed until December 1865.
Slavery is why the south lost the war. It socially and economically stunted the south so they did not develop industrially or in population as much as they could have. It set them apart culturally and economically from the north making them vilifiable and exploitable. However. it was the political and economic corruption associated with Lincolns party with their "internal improvement programs" and biased taxation that started the war. The north did not enter the war to end slavery. Lincoln was a nationalist concerned with preserving the American empire with complete disregard to the previously accepted right to session previously supported by northern states. PS I'm a Northerner born and raised. Very rarely do I see things differently than you concerning the reasons for events in history.
Something I'm surprised wasn't mentioned was the fact Lincoln almost died at Bull Run, he like many decided to watch the battle (which for civilians was common until the civil war) and the man standing next to him was fatally wounded by shrapnel.
Oklahoma wasn’t neutral, many tribes fought under the Confederacy because they believed that the Union wouldn’t keep to their word, in fact, the last General to surrender was Cherokee And they were right
Forgot to mention Wilmer Mclean. War started on his farm and ended in his house. Also funny thing about the meeting I enjoy is Grant was happy to finally meet Lee, but Lee remembered they actually met before in the Mexican-American war.
Would have to disagree that people from the Midwest are "Yankees". As someone from Wisconsin, Yankees typically are people from New England. In my experience and the general immigrant background being different, the Midwest is distinct from New England and their culture.
Agreed. As a fellow Wisconsinite, I can safely say that there is just as much of a difference between the Midwest (especially Wisconsin) and the Northeast as there is between the Midwest and the South.
This was 160 years ago. Most of the nordic migration to the western midwest happened after the civil war. Most of the settlers of the upper midwest back then were new englanders believe it or not. There are maps that show the migration westward, and for the most part, everyone moved straight west. Virginians ended up in Kentucky and then Missouri etc... The midwest today is not the midwest of the early 1800s.
Believe it or not a large majority (i think even right up to the civil war) of the north was unfortunately not opposed to keeping slavery around in the south. Like you said the abolitionists were considered the extremists. The north relied on the south and by extention slavery to some extent for very cheap raw materials for the new industrialized factories to create new products to use domestically and overseas. Many northern elites knew this and used this system to get rich. Even escaped slaves and freed slaves were not treated well in the northern cities and often faced discrimination. People act like the northerners were champions of freedom when in fact most of them really were not
I didn't know these details, but just always assumed the actual reality would have been something like this, given that would be way more likely because in real life you never just have "good guys" and "bad guys" and opportunism is part of human nature. Good to see my intuition is fully functioning :P
True, many don't know Jim Crow laws started in either Mass. or Conn. Many States opposed slavery on the basis they didn't want blacks competing for their jobs The phrase "being sold down the river" is a euphemism to the northern slave owners selling their slaves instead of freeing them. There's tons of other slave related data. However, one bone to pick with Rudyard and so many others is they conflate secession with the war. The South seceded well before Lincoln took office and there was no war. Lincoln and the former Whigs wanted war because they wanted the tariffs off the southern cash crops. Once the South seceded, the North could have abolished slavery through the remaining States, but they didn't.
Fun fact, my great great grandfather Andrew Danielson was drafted to fight under Sherman's March to the sea was shot multiple times lightly enough to continue on but with a bullet left in his thigh the rest of his life 😅. He wasn't happy about his time in the army.
@@ethank.3201 a little dramatic but how is that wrong? In every white western nation, especially the US, we are letting ourselves be invaded & conquered by sub 80iq third world heathens. Its ridiculous.
The Huns, Avars, Magyars, Bulgars, Khazars, Mongols, Turks, Semites, Moors, Hamites, Arabs, and ((())) would like to have a word with you. That being said you are correct. Since time immemorial, we have been wiping each other out.
Hey Rudyard. Could you bring back Dave and do the Common Ground podcasts again? I really enjoyed having a different guest each time, it helped introduce me to many creators. I still enjoy history but I was hoping that when this series is finished you would go back to the Common Ground podcast.
24:44 the south nearly won at the beginning, and could have taken DC without a fight but retreated after their victory, because for the common man it was a war of defense. 31:49 what happened was Sherman... 37:44 "best" is a strong word for Sherman, he was just a murderer. Lee, Grant, and Jackson those were great military leaders. 54:08 possibly better, possibly far worse, Lincoln was the first Emperor of the US, suspended congress and the bill of rights.
Sherman was not a murderer. Sherman was more realistic about what he was doing when it came to fighting a war. Lee and Jackson and Longstreet, and all the other southern generals are held up as these paragons of tactical brilliance when the. The fact of the matter is that they were essentially still holding to a napoleonic way of war. To an extent, the north was as well until you get to Grant and sherman, who fought the war the way you're supposed to, and that is to win.
The south fighting, without significant outside backing, from another industrialized country, was doomed, from the jump. The north had all the steel manufacturing, railroads, and general infrastructure.
I have only recently begun learning about Napoleon. I knew existed before: I knew he was a general of the French, i knew he lost at Waterloo, but not too much more than that. This is probably because he doesn't come in contact much with US history, other than the Louisiana Purchase. I have recently realized my knowledge of history is pretty US centric. So, I really began diving into European History, especially the Napoleonic wars.
You nailed it. The South was at heart aristocrats with slaves. The north was a different ethnic group and cultural base. The South didn't really believe in rights for non nobles.
I love the deep dive! I do have a correction, though. Licoln did not run on abolishing slavery! He ran on leaving the slavery borders where they were at the time. He didn't support expanding slavery, which the south would view as a threat to slaverys existence.
I'm making the assumption that the south didn't have as much of an population thus north can control what laws gets passed thus since the north agreed on banning slavery this would hurt the the south economy. And it's no surprised that the north had the most industrial locations for its time period that they were able to control the economic markets
Morals and ethics count only when you fight for any reason. When you talk about two countries or two people fighting each other it really doesn't apply.
37:50 Wouldn’t you say that the Western front generals were more warrior like as they were frontier people? Compared to the city slicker generals from the North East?
Missouri was half free half slave. Oklahoma was a slave territory thanks to the 5 civilized tribes. Kentucky was a free state that often fought for the south
Best explanation I’ve been able to come up with was the north initially fought to preserve the union while the south fought over concerns the north would one day abolish slavery. But then in 1863 , the civil war became about slavery for the north, to grant them a morale boost during a time of intense unpopularity of the war, riots over drafts, taxes, and the womping republicans got in the midterm elections.
thats still relevant good point how civil war had 60year old tactics and doctrines that still shows today and repeats often in history.... society cant afford to fight but every 60 or 80 years and many places in europe last war was 80 years ago WW2.
Haven’t seen the whole video but topics like the Era of Good Feelings and the Reconstruction period would be rly good bc of how poorly understood they r in America I took AP US history and I can rly only give a one sentence description of basic characteristics for each which should say something
I gave this video a thumbs down because it presented falsehoods as though they were truth. 1) Missouri Compromise - per the video "in the 1830's." Truth: the Missouri Compromise was dated 1820 - at least a full decade prior to the time referred to by the video. 2) "A Southern Senator beat a Northern Senator with a stick." As stated by the video. In fact, a northern Senator (Sumner) was beaten on the floor of the US Senate by a southern member of the House (with no business in the Senate chamber) using his walking stick - a heavy, largely decorous cane. 3) According to the video, Lincoln "ran on an abolish slavery platform." (around 27:45, in the video) In fact, Lincoln did not run on an abolish slavery platform. The platform opposed the addition of new slave states to the Union - not the abolition of slavery in existing states such as MO, KY, MD, and DE. Each of those states remained in the Union, albeit with certain military pressure. 4) At 28:56, the video states that "Richmond (Va) was the only city large enough and developed enough to be the Confederate Seat of Government. Fact, Richmond had a population of about 38,000 in 1860. Charleston, SC had about the same (40,000) and New Orleans had a population of 168,000! Obviously, the size of the city was not the determining factor in the location of the Capital. You are, of course, able and welcome to air your opinions on TH-cam. However, presenting falsehoods as truth is not the same thing. - sj
Funny how you talk about the “Rust Belt” taking over after the Civil War. The Steel Belt took over; it had not rusted yet. Maybe that’s an intentional joke, but yeah, thanks for another historical recap. This was the 12th video in the playlist of 18 dialogues in chronological order.
I've always hated how you overgeneralize the south. We did produce guns, we did feed our soldiers, we had amazing generals, and we even produced submarines in an attempt to take back the seas. The south is not nearly as incompetent as you frame us to be. Yes the north produced more, yes the north had better infrastructure, but you act like the south were less advanced than the indians. I liked your discussion on the battles and I love your insights into cultures and history but I just think you could work harder on your presentation. Regardless I'm happy you're back and I'm still hoping you debate Vaush again.
He probably shouldn’t debate Vaush again. When both sides enter a debate thinking the other is both evil and an idiot who has no idea what they’re talking about, nothing good is accomplished. It’s not a good faith discussion. It’s a sports game with each side cheering on their gladiator.
Should've talked about how Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks to an African or South American colony Also, didn't talk about the Prussians the north allowed to immigrate taking war numbers from 2:1 to 4:1
I don't think it's "ironic" that the Union attacked the rebel strong holds in Tennessee. I mean, taking where you have support makes sense too, but taking the Mississippi makes it a no brainer.
I like the lecture but I would like a bit more engagement from cohost more- ask questions that can really help the viewer understand the implications of the events the lecturer describes. The maps are always great, albeit logical. Let’s explore the perspectives of different peoples at the time, such as poor white folk in south, slaves in south, runaway slaves in north, white folk in north, southern sympathizers, immigrants, neighbor countries. These perspectives are crucial to understanding the complexity of history.
The secessions might have been partly due to slavery. The war was not. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans could have just let the original seven States peacefully go their own way.
The abolition of slavery in the context of the Civil War was just as much an economic as a political change. Slavery was basically an economic system that was replaced by industrialization because it altered the nature of agricultural development. The mechanization of farming effectively made slaves unnecessary.
But that didn’t take effect until about 100 years after the Civil War ended, hence why neoslavery/“sharecrop” serfdom/Jim Crow happened as Rudyard alluded to at the end of the video. The direct consequence of the introduction of mechanized farming to the cotton South was the Second Great Migration of blacks to Northern cities, a ridiculously underrated aspect of history that feeds into modern race relations and inner city culture as the book Promised Land by Nicolas Lemann details.
@@terranceramirez4816 You make a great point. Yet one must keep in mind that my comment also refers to Europe. Which was also beginning to industrialize and which had abolished slavery and later serfdom. However, some colonial powers did revive the practice in the plantations of the New World.
Nt just unnecessary but outdated and obsolete. Remember the old folklore John Henry? He beat the Railroad machine sure, but died at the end and he had border inhuman in endurance. Which black slaves did not. Anyways, the point is machinery and heavy machinery will always beat and outlast humans.
@@josephstalin839the problem is then that over reliance on machines makes humans weak and then the society degenerates. Machines will win out in pure terms of labor, but machines can’t keep a society sane and functioning.
The idea that the war of northern aggression (I.e, the civil war) was about slavery can be disproven quite easily, Abraham Lincoln explicitly stated in his inaugural speech that he intended to preserve the institution of slavery, saying that he had no right to alter it, but he did state that he intended to increase tariffs, and that he was willing to wage war with any state that opposed him in this regard, secondly, after the states seceded to form the confederacy, the union attempted to lure them back into the country by proposing the corwin amendment, which was specifically designed to protect slavery from being touched by federal power, if the confederacy was only interested in preserving slavery they would have rejoined the union and used their voting power to ratify the corwin amendment instead of fighting a war for 4 years and having hundreds of thousands of southerners killed for no reason, saying that the civil war was about slavery makes zero logical sense
They were workers and they were always meant to be paid. There’s maybe something to say of them being exploited but at no point could you call them explicitly enslaved.
@@joshuamitchell5018Chinese yes, but there most certainly were Native American slaves in California prior to American conquest. Johan Sutter even made use of them on his plantation and had plans to invite pro-slavery Southerners to move to the Sacramento Valley before gold was discovered. Had that not happened there is a pretty good chance that Cali would have been a slave state.
Rudyard, There's a few things I hoped you would have mentioned. Delaware In school in the 80s and 90s they told us Delaware was a "Neutral State". Since leaving school, I've read that Delaware was a pro-slavery state that stayed with the Union. I was hoping you had something interesting to say on that topic. I also thought you night have pointed out similarities between the South seceding, and Lincoln saying Oh no you di'int! and taking the south back by force, and Ukraine seceding from the USSR and Putin attempting to take Ukraine back by force. If Putin is successful in reassembling the Soviet Union, do you think he will have to cripple Ukraine to make sure it can never exist on it's own again without the Soviet Union, the American Union did to the south? Do you think People in Europe put signs in their yards that said stuff like "Pray for the Confederacy"?
You got the analogy the wrong way round. The slave owners are putin and his clique and various clients. The former slaves refusing to be enslaved again is Ukraine.
Both of the takes here are missing key facts.. when comparing Russia and Ukraine to the American civil war. Lol The United States and NATO and their constant provocation of Russia must be acknowledged. They wanted this war in Eastern Europe.
@@kevinlawler3252 Hi Kevin. Obviously I’m not sure what provocation you’re referring to. I can address the usual suspect. The main “provocation” is usually attributed to NATO allowing new members to join the alliance that had previously been under the soviet yolk. We need to recognise 2 things about that. 1) These former Eastern European Nations have agency. These people have a right to determine their foreign affairs. 2) All the new NATO members of former Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO. And they wanted this for very good historical reasons that folks who have never experienced life under communism or kremlin control may not appreciate. From what I can gather, folks who identify with the confederacy against the Union can’t put themselves in the shoes of the slaves. Perhaps if the ‘us vs them’ could be removed from the equation one would see that the institution of slavery cannot be defended. Just as the institution of authoritarianism also cannot be defended.
@@BradyR2020 yeah that's true. I guess my follow up question would be why didn't they make fortify the city better? If they had put up a fight like Vicksburg did then it probably would've played out a little bit differently, possibly.
New Orleans was not built for war, and they didnt expect it to be attacked. New Orleans has always been built as a logistics depot unlike Savannah or Mobile which were explicitly built for war and became industrial ports later. New orleans was about money, and it grew so fast thru the 1800s that the efforts the US did make to fortify it did not keep pace with the industrial growth. Even today go there and youll be suprised by how big the cities industrial footprint is compared to its residential footprint. Its by many measures the largest port in the western hemisphere. Secondly they didnt think it would be attacked because the entire midwest relied on it. Thats part of why the copperhead movement was so popular there. Lastly, and really least of all, is culturally and biologically its not a good pick for a capital. Culturally New Orleans was not so much plugged in with the rest of the south as it was with international business. And biologically, a lot of people in the 1860s would die from illness shortly after arriving to Louisiana. There were tropical illnesses here that you need a generation to develop immunity to. Thats what made Port Hudson and Vicksburg so impenetrable really, not so much physical fortifications. It can literally change the color of your skin to salllow
can't believe you skipped over Bleeding Kansas my homestate. where it all started. Kansas was the only state to join the union while other states were trying to leave in 1861. Besides that Nebraska was never a state until after the war
"American Revolution: Fewer than 10% of the 500,000 slaves in the 13 colonies lived in the North at the time of the American Revolution. New York had the most slaves in the North, with just over 20,000. 1800: There were still more than 36,000 enslaved people in the North. Slavery was never as widespread in the North as it was in the South. However, the North was not without its slave population, and many northern businessmen profited from the slave trade and investments in the South." "No, Abraham Lincoln did not free slaves in the Northern states during the Civil War because the Emancipation Proclamation, which he issued, only applied to states that had seceded from the Union, meaning it did not affect slavery in the loyal Northern states; his primary goal was to preserve the Union, not necessarily to abolish slavery across the entire country. " "Up to 75 percent of all the individuals who came off the transatlantic ships in the 17th century were indentured servants. During Jamestown's first 20 years, the majority of the women who arrived, and they were few, were indentured servants." "1619: The first documented enslaved Africans arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, and worked in the tobacco fields. 1700: There were 27,817 enslaved Africans in British North America. 1740: There were 150,024 enslaved Africans in British North America. 1770: There were 462,000 enslaved Africans in British North America, which was about one-fifth of the total colonial population." Just some actual facts about northern slavery and how it was fully practiced from the great migration through the early 1800s. Your facts are either misrepresented or outright wrong and you should correct your video.
The north could not legally end slavery in the south. For one reason, each state has 2 senators and abolition would have to pass the Senate to become law. Lincoln and the Republicans were "Free Soil". That was a policy and name of the Republican party predecessor. Free soil would not interfere with slavery in southern states, but would also not allow new slave states into the union. Instead of dealing with that reality for one Lincoln term, the south chose to attack Ft Sumter before Lincoln
"Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator" is an excellent video that's somewhat related. Edit 1: On machine guns: I believe the first machine gun was the Chambers Flintlock, which America used to mow down Redcoats in the 1812 War. However, the Gatling Gun invented for the Civil War is closer to the modern style of machine guns.
Can’t stand the cohost honestly. 0/2, shame really. Find someone who shares the interest and excitement and at least some base level knowledge to bounce off of please.
You’re not digging deep enough into the slavery argument. Most of the southern troops did not have slaves. In some ways, slavery was a straw-man argument. You’re not digging deep enough into the conflict between Yankee-Puritan ethnicity vs the Scots-Irish ethnicity. It is a conflict that lasts up to this day - and it is the hidden conflict in this upcoming election. Look at the outliers in the 1860 election - the pro-slavery candidate almost won Oregon and did very well in California (which Lincoln won), while the pro-slavery candidate won 10 votes for every slave in Delaware (which he won) - but Lincoln did well there. The pro-slavery candidate also did well in Connecticut and Vermont; Vermont was also heavily Scots-Irish.
"scots irish" is a fake ethnic group Nobody in britain calls them "scots irish" The "scots irish" were northern english and lowland scottish protestants sent to ulster by king james the 1st to ethnically cleanse the catholic irish Also it's funny how you people focus on the "scots irish" so much but ingnore that most southerners descended from southern english anglican gentry and their indentured servants, not ulster scots presbyetians. you literally pretend the entire south is "scots irish" instead of the actual reaity which was that the upper south was descended from ulster scots and the rest of the south was desended from southern english anglicans
9:40 You’re right about the south’s constitutional right for slavery (obviously they were still morally wrong), but not about secession. While secession is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, James Madison (founding father of the constitution) opposed secession most of the time
If secession was prohibited, it would say as much in article 1 section 10. The fact that it doesn't and the fact that 3 states only ratified the Constitution on the condition that secession was allowed would suggest that it's allowed.
@@ihateyankees3655The fact that the states who tried to secced lost proves that it's not. In reality the law is only as valid as the force of arms backing it. You can argue that is immoral or whatever but that's how things actually work
@@Hakar17 if a mugger successfully takes your wallet it doesn't suddenly become his property. Likewise, winning a war doesn't suddenly make you the good guy. You don't actually believe that might makes right , you're latching onto it as the only excuse left for supporting the side that was objectively wrong.
You did not mention the enlistment of black soldiers giving the Union an advantage with man power. The Emancipation Proclamation was really a wartime document because Lincoln, courtesy of Frederick Douglass’s pressure, realized that the enlistment of enslaved and free black soldiers could offset the war. Lincoln was initially against it because he feared slave rebellion (much like other presidents before him). But black regiments played a pivotal role in turning the tide of the war.
@@ZontarDow Even so, the presence of black regiments was still significant in the latter years of the war and should be recognized. It is an aspect of the Civil War that should not be ignored. Doing so contributes to historical erasure and doesn’t tell the full history.
I however doubt that the US/South would have joined the European alliances. I think the US would have gone a history similar to Latin America or Spain.
The South most certainly would have allied with Britain and France, at least at first, to maintain its independence. French puppet Mexico would also have been part of the alliance. I do believe that the alliance structure would have been different, though. There would have been a maintenance of the Prussian-Russian alliance with Union mediation, who was friendly with both. I also think that France would have been quicker to back Austria’s play in the Brothers War, which would have either prevented the conflict and with it the Second Reich, or would have resulted in a Franco-Austrian victory unless Russia joined in. I think the North German Confederation would have formed organically without Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg.
@Soloong_Gaybowzer The Confederates themselves made it clear in their constitution and their articles of secession that they were seceding in order to preserve the institution of slavery. They said so themselves. Clearly and repeatedly, in their own founding documents.
@@Soloong_GaybowzerIt also ignores that the Union didn't begin fighting the civil war to end slavery, but rather to "preserve the union" aka bring the southern states under federal control. It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation after Gettysburg that the official narrative would change to ending slavery.
@@natel9019 The states rights to practice slavery ane secede. The CSA constitution then explicitly forbade the formation of free states and secession. The states didn't want to ensure their rights, they wanted to exercise their supposed right to leave to secure the foundation of slavery and then make sure the states didn't have the right to challenge slavery in their new federation.
One correction: the slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states in rebellion, where Lincoln was powerless to enforce it. The slaves in border states (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri) weren’t legally freed until December 1865.
Slavery is why the south lost the war. It socially and economically stunted the south so they did not develop industrially or in population as much as they could have. It set them apart culturally and economically from the north making them vilifiable and exploitable. However. it was the political and economic corruption associated with Lincolns party with their "internal improvement programs" and biased taxation that started the war. The north did not enter the war to end slavery. Lincoln was a nationalist concerned with preserving the American empire with complete disregard to the previously accepted right to session previously supported by northern states. PS I'm a Northerner born and raised. Very rarely do I see things differently than you concerning the reasons for events in history.
8:45 New Jersery. They had changed their definition of slavery so that slaves were "apprentices for life"
Something I'm surprised wasn't mentioned was the fact Lincoln almost died at Bull Run, he like many decided to watch the battle (which for civilians was common until the civil war) and the man standing next to him was fatally wounded by shrapnel.
In years of reading about the Civil War, I've never heard of this. Thank you for sharing!
@@jatuttable it's something that I'm surprised gets ignored given how radically different things would have likely played out had he been hit instead.
@@ZontarDow Maybe a million Americans would not have died?
Oklahoma wasn’t neutral, many tribes fought under the Confederacy because they believed that the Union wouldn’t keep to their word, in fact, the last General to surrender was Cherokee
And they were right
And the Cherokee were allowed to keep their slaves for years after the civil war!
happy to see the lego lion knights castle in your background
Forgot to mention Wilmer Mclean. War started on his farm and ended in his house. Also funny thing about the meeting I enjoy is Grant was happy to finally meet Lee, but Lee remembered they actually met before in the Mexican-American war.
Would have to disagree that people from the Midwest are "Yankees". As someone from Wisconsin, Yankees typically are people from New England. In my experience and the general immigrant background being different, the Midwest is distinct from New England and their culture.
Agreed. As a fellow Wisconsinite, I can safely say that there is just as much of a difference between the Midwest (especially Wisconsin) and the Northeast as there is between the Midwest and the South.
"Yankee" is region-based. For midwesterners, it's New Englanders. For southerners, it's northerners. For Brits, it's all Americans
850 here, anybody east of the Miss and not a Confederate State is a Yankee. Willing to bet Yankee terminology changes as you get to the Border States.
This was 160 years ago. Most of the nordic migration to the western midwest happened after the civil war. Most of the settlers of the upper midwest back then were new englanders believe it or not. There are maps that show the migration westward, and for the most part, everyone moved straight west. Virginians ended up in Kentucky and then Missouri etc... The midwest today is not the midwest of the early 1800s.
@@BlueGamingRage yankee doodle dandy
Believe it or not a large majority (i think even right up to the civil war) of the north was unfortunately not opposed to keeping slavery around in the south. Like you said the abolitionists were considered the extremists. The north relied on the south and by extention slavery to some extent for very cheap raw materials for the new industrialized factories to create new products to use domestically and overseas. Many northern elites knew this and used this system to get rich. Even escaped slaves and freed slaves were not treated well in the northern cities and often faced discrimination. People act like the northerners were champions of freedom when in fact most of them really were not
I didn't know these details, but just always assumed the actual reality would have been something like this, given that would be way more likely because in real life you never just have "good guys" and "bad guys" and opportunism is part of human nature. Good to see my intuition is fully functioning :P
True, many don't know Jim Crow laws started in either Mass. or Conn.
Many States opposed slavery on the basis they didn't want blacks competing for their jobs
The phrase "being sold down the river" is a euphemism to the northern slave owners selling their slaves instead of freeing them.
There's tons of other slave related data. However, one bone to pick with Rudyard and so many others is they conflate secession with the war. The South seceded well before Lincoln took office and there was no war. Lincoln and the former Whigs wanted war because they wanted the tariffs off the southern cash crops.
Once the South seceded, the North could have abolished slavery through the remaining States, but they didn't.
14:31 Actually, it was a Congressman beating a Senator with a Cane, but your point remains the same here. Just being ultra-specific.
🤓
Congratulations on your pregnancy, Mr. Rudyard! I hear you start to feel the baby writhe and kick around 5 months in!
Just 4 months to go!
@@MrReedlingfour months later…
More maps please! Awesome conversations on this channel and it would help to visualize if you’d include more maps.
Sherman didn't win Chattanooga, Grant did.
Fun fact, my great great grandfather Andrew Danielson was drafted to fight under Sherman's March to the sea was shot multiple times lightly enough to continue on but with a bullet left in his thigh the rest of his life 😅. He wasn't happy about his time in the army.
My butthole aches.
"our greatest enemy is ourselves" this is the story of the Aryan people since our beginning.
Ok dude 💀
@@ethank.3201 a little dramatic but how is that wrong? In every white western nation, especially the US, we are letting ourselves be invaded & conquered by sub 80iq third world heathens. Its ridiculous.
The Huns, Avars, Magyars, Bulgars, Khazars, Mongols, Turks, Semites, Moors, Hamites, Arabs, and ((())) would like to have a word with you. That being said you are correct. Since time immemorial, we have been wiping each other out.
You are from PA but you now reside in TX. You are by definition a "damn" Yankee. A good Yankee would return to the north.
Another great video Mr alt history
You guys should do the New Deal, FDR or the American homefront during WWII
😊u😊u😊u😊u😊😊u😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊until😊😊😊you’re 😊😊😊😊😊u😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊u😊😅😅😊u😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😅😅😊y😅😊u😅😊😅😅😊😊😊😊😊😅😅😅😊😅😅😊😅😅😅😊😅😅😅😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😅 😅 your
Hey Rudyard. Could you bring back Dave and do the Common Ground podcasts again? I really enjoyed having a different guest each time, it helped introduce me to many creators. I still enjoy history but I was hoping that when this series is finished you would go back to the Common Ground podcast.
Yeah what happened to that? I was so confused when history102 started showing up.
Excited for season 2 Rudyard. But where are the book recommendations?
24:44 the south nearly won at the beginning, and could have taken DC without a fight but retreated after their victory, because for the common man it was a war of defense.
31:49 what happened was Sherman...
37:44 "best" is a strong word for Sherman, he was just a murderer. Lee, Grant, and Jackson those were great military leaders.
54:08 possibly better, possibly far worse, Lincoln was the first Emperor of the US, suspended congress and the bill of rights.
Sherman was not a murderer. Sherman was more realistic about what he was doing when it came to fighting a war. Lee and Jackson and Longstreet, and all the other southern generals are held up as these paragons of tactical brilliance when the. The fact of the matter is that they were essentially still holding to a napoleonic way of war. To an extent, the north was as well until you get to Grant and sherman, who fought the war the way you're supposed to, and that is to win.
The south fighting, without significant outside backing, from another industrialized country, was doomed, from the jump. The north had all the steel manufacturing, railroads, and general infrastructure.
Great video and summary. You should add Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s book “The Real Lincoln” to your reading list/library. Cheers.
36:17 baisically entire podcast from his side
Excellent video as per usual!
Enjoying the channel - Foote’s Trilogy is an excellent read and IMO offers a more accurate perspective than what was presented here.
I love this podcast you guys got going. I'm hoping you guys do Napoleon at some point. I'm a really big fan of his.
I have only recently begun learning about Napoleon. I knew existed before: I knew he was a general of the French, i knew he lost at Waterloo, but not too much more than that. This is probably because he doesn't come in contact much with US history, other than the Louisiana Purchase. I have recently realized my knowledge of history is pretty US centric. So, I really began diving into European History, especially the Napoleonic wars.
You nailed it. The South was at heart aristocrats with slaves. The north was a different ethnic group and cultural base. The South didn't really believe in rights for non nobles.
Nice, thought provoking video. Would love to see you guys do a video on the Russian Revolution & Soviet Union.
These are my new favorite TH-cam videos
A slight correction. The confederate cavalry was present at the battle of Gettysburg, but they did not arrive until the evening of the 2nd day.
I love the deep dive! I do have a correction, though. Licoln did not run on abolishing slavery! He ran on leaving the slavery borders where they were at the time. He didn't support expanding slavery, which the south would view as a threat to slaverys existence.
I'm making the assumption that the south didn't have as much of an population thus north can control what laws gets passed thus since the north agreed on banning slavery this would hurt the the south economy. And it's no surprised that the north had the most industrial locations for its time period that they were able to control the economic markets
Morals and ethics count only when you fight for any reason. When you talk about two countries or two people fighting each other it really doesn't apply.
Sorry Buddy, Sherman wasn’t even at Chickamauga. And the South won that battle, only to lose at Chattanooga
37:50 Wouldn’t you say that the Western front generals were more warrior like as they were frontier people? Compared to the city slicker generals from the North East?
0:23 great to hear that Rudyard. Who is the lucky guy?
Missouri was half free half slave. Oklahoma was a slave territory thanks to the 5 civilized tribes. Kentucky was a free state that often fought for the south
Best explanation I’ve been able to come up with was the north initially fought to preserve the union while the south fought over concerns the north would one day abolish slavery.
But then in 1863 , the civil war became about slavery for the north, to grant them a morale boost during a time of intense unpopularity of the war, riots over drafts, taxes, and the womping republicans got in the midterm elections.
thats still relevant good point how civil war had 60year old tactics and doctrines that still shows today and repeats often in history.... society cant afford to fight but every 60 or 80 years and many places in europe last war was 80 years ago WW2.
Haven’t seen the whole video but topics like the Era of Good Feelings and the Reconstruction period would be rly good bc of how poorly understood they r in America
I took AP US history and I can rly only give a one sentence description of basic characteristics for each which should say something
I gave this video a thumbs down because it presented falsehoods as though they were truth.
1) Missouri Compromise - per the video "in the 1830's." Truth: the Missouri Compromise was dated 1820 - at least a full decade prior to the time referred to by the video.
2) "A Southern Senator beat a Northern Senator with a stick." As stated by the video. In fact, a northern Senator (Sumner) was beaten on the floor of the US Senate by a southern member of the House (with no business in the Senate chamber) using his walking stick - a heavy, largely decorous cane.
3) According to the video, Lincoln "ran on an abolish slavery platform." (around 27:45, in the video) In fact, Lincoln did not run on an abolish slavery platform. The platform opposed the addition of new slave states to the Union - not the abolition of slavery in existing states such as MO, KY, MD, and DE. Each of those states remained in the Union, albeit with certain military pressure.
4) At 28:56, the video states that "Richmond (Va) was the only city large enough and developed enough to be the Confederate Seat of Government. Fact, Richmond had a population of about 38,000 in 1860. Charleston, SC had about the same (40,000) and New Orleans had a population of 168,000! Obviously, the size of the city was not the determining factor in the location of the Capital.
You are, of course, able and welcome to air your opinions on TH-cam. However, presenting falsehoods as truth is not the same thing.
- sj
Funny how you talk about the “Rust Belt” taking over after the Civil War. The Steel Belt took over; it had not rusted yet. Maybe that’s an intentional joke, but yeah, thanks for another historical recap. This was the 12th video in the playlist of 18 dialogues in chronological order.
Have you ever heard of Morgans Raiders? a confederate civil war unit that penetrated the furthest north. I live near where they surrendered
23:47 what if the nzis won the civil war and what if the south won ww2?
No book list?
Yo Rudyard! Do you have an episode on the French Revolution/Napoleonic era coming up?
I've always hated how you overgeneralize the south. We did produce guns, we did feed our soldiers, we had amazing generals, and we even produced submarines in an attempt to take back the seas. The south is not nearly as incompetent as you frame us to be. Yes the north produced more, yes the north had better infrastructure, but you act like the south were less advanced than the indians. I liked your discussion on the battles and I love your insights into cultures and history but I just think you could work harder on your presentation. Regardless I'm happy you're back and I'm still hoping you debate Vaush again.
Pee pee man
The south was less civilized than the north
The south was less civilized than the north
I didnt know barrack obama was a og democrat aswell
He probably shouldn’t debate Vaush again. When both sides enter a debate thinking the other is both evil and an idiot who has no idea what they’re talking about, nothing good is accomplished. It’s not a good faith discussion. It’s a sports game with each side cheering on their gladiator.
Should've talked about how Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks to an African or South American colony
Also, didn't talk about the Prussians the north allowed to immigrate taking war numbers from 2:1 to 4:1
I don't think it's "ironic" that the Union attacked the rebel strong holds in Tennessee.
I mean, taking where you have support makes sense too, but taking the Mississippi makes it a no brainer.
My favorite line. “I am a yankee but there are some mitigating factors.😂
I like the lecture but I would like a bit more engagement from cohost more- ask questions that can really help the viewer understand the implications of the events the lecturer describes.
The maps are always great, albeit logical. Let’s explore the perspectives of different peoples at the time, such as poor white folk in south, slaves in south, runaway slaves in north, white folk in north, southern sympathizers, immigrants, neighbor countries. These perspectives are crucial to understanding the complexity of history.
This is a very yankee view of the civil war
The correct point of view you mean lmao
Didnt maryland support the Union and they had slavery?
And Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri.
Only after the Union Army invaded the State and arrested the government officials and replaced them with their own people.
"If you went back and asked, no one would say that the war was about slavery. But it was about slavery." Hmm
The secessions might have been partly due to slavery. The war was not. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans could have just let the original seven States peacefully go their own way.
Can we get a video on the French Revolution / Napoleonic Wars?
They did not run out of men. There was still a giant Confederate army in existence in Tennessee.
Rudyard, make a video explaining The Fourth Turning by Neil Howe & William Strauss.
The abolition of slavery in the context of the Civil War was just as much an economic as a political change. Slavery was basically an economic system that was replaced by industrialization because it altered the nature of agricultural development. The mechanization of farming effectively made slaves unnecessary.
But that didn’t take effect until about 100 years after the Civil War ended, hence why neoslavery/“sharecrop” serfdom/Jim Crow happened as Rudyard alluded to at the end of the video. The direct consequence of the introduction of mechanized farming to the cotton South was the Second Great Migration of blacks to Northern cities, a ridiculously underrated aspect of history that feeds into modern race relations and inner city culture as the book Promised Land by Nicolas Lemann details.
@@terranceramirez4816 You make a great point. Yet one must keep in mind that my comment also refers to Europe. Which was also beginning to industrialize and which had abolished slavery and later serfdom. However, some colonial powers did revive the practice in the plantations of the New World.
Nt just unnecessary but outdated and obsolete. Remember the old folklore John Henry? He beat the Railroad machine sure, but died at the end and he had border inhuman in endurance. Which black slaves did not. Anyways, the point is machinery and heavy machinery will always beat and outlast humans.
@@josephstalin839 Good point.
@@josephstalin839the problem is then that over reliance on machines makes humans weak and then the society degenerates. Machines will win out in pure terms of labor, but machines can’t keep a society sane and functioning.
I wanna see Korea Civilization. Can we vote like in the main channel on what would you explain next?
You're glowing mamas 🥰 ✨️🤰
The idea that the war of northern aggression (I.e, the civil war) was about slavery can be disproven quite easily, Abraham Lincoln explicitly stated in his inaugural speech that he intended to preserve the institution of slavery, saying that he had no right to alter it, but he did state that he intended to increase tariffs, and that he was willing to wage war with any state that opposed him in this regard, secondly, after the states seceded to form the confederacy, the union attempted to lure them back into the country by proposing the corwin amendment, which was specifically designed to protect slavery from being touched by federal power, if the confederacy was only interested in preserving slavery they would have rejoined the union and used their voting power to ratify the corwin amendment instead of fighting a war for 4 years and having hundreds of thousands of southerners killed for no reason, saying that the civil war was about slavery makes zero logical sense
The unpreperadness of one of guys is just unsettling. Figure it out for gods sake
It is interesting how California was admitted as a free state despite their use of Chinese and American Indian slaves
They were workers and they were always meant to be paid. There’s maybe something to say of them being exploited but at no point could you call them explicitly enslaved.
@@joshuamitchell5018Chinese yes, but there most certainly were Native American slaves in California prior to American conquest. Johan Sutter even made use of them on his plantation and had plans to invite pro-slavery Southerners to move to the Sacramento Valley before gold was discovered. Had that not happened there is a pretty good chance that Cali would have been a slave state.
Rudyard,
There's a few things I hoped you would have mentioned.
Delaware
In school in the 80s and 90s they told us Delaware was a "Neutral State".
Since leaving school, I've read that Delaware was a pro-slavery state that stayed with the Union.
I was hoping you had something interesting to say on that topic.
I also thought you night have pointed out similarities between the South seceding, and Lincoln saying Oh no you di'int! and taking the south back by force, and Ukraine seceding from the USSR and Putin attempting to take Ukraine back by force.
If Putin is successful in reassembling the Soviet Union, do you think he will have to cripple Ukraine to make sure it can never exist on it's own again without the Soviet Union, the American Union did to the south?
Do you think People in Europe put signs in their yards that said stuff like "Pray for the Confederacy"?
You got the analogy the wrong way round. The slave owners are putin and his clique and various clients. The former slaves refusing to be enslaved again is Ukraine.
Both of the takes here are missing key facts.. when comparing Russia and Ukraine to the American civil war. Lol
The United States and NATO and their constant provocation of Russia must be acknowledged. They wanted this war in Eastern Europe.
@@kevinlawler3252 Hi Kevin. Obviously I’m not sure what provocation you’re referring to. I can address the usual suspect. The main “provocation” is usually attributed to NATO allowing new members to join the alliance that had previously been under the soviet yolk.
We need to recognise 2 things about that.
1) These former Eastern European Nations have agency. These people have a right to determine their foreign affairs.
2) All the new NATO members of former Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO.
And they wanted this for very good historical reasons that folks who have never experienced life under communism or kremlin control may not appreciate.
From what I can gather, folks who identify with the confederacy against the Union can’t put themselves in the shoes of the slaves. Perhaps if the ‘us vs them’ could be removed from the equation one would see that the institution of slavery cannot be defended. Just as the institution of authoritarianism also cannot be defended.
Wasn't New Orleans the biggest city in the south? Why wasn't New Orleans made the capital of the Confederacy?
Because with the naval blockade and the Mississippi River as a transport system, New Orleans fell quickly back into Union control
@@BradyR2020 yeah that's true. I guess my follow up question would be why didn't they make fortify the city better? If they had put up a fight like Vicksburg did then it probably would've played out a little bit differently, possibly.
New Orleans was not built for war, and they didnt expect it to be attacked. New Orleans has always been built as a logistics depot unlike Savannah or Mobile which were explicitly built for war and became industrial ports later. New orleans was about money, and it grew so fast thru the 1800s that the efforts the US did make to fortify it did not keep pace with the industrial growth. Even today go there and youll be suprised by how big the cities industrial footprint is compared to its residential footprint. Its by many measures the largest port in the western hemisphere.
Secondly they didnt think it would be attacked because the entire midwest relied on it. Thats part of why the copperhead movement was so popular there.
Lastly, and really least of all, is culturally and biologically its not a good pick for a capital. Culturally New Orleans was not so much plugged in with the rest of the south as it was with international business. And biologically, a lot of people in the 1860s would die from illness shortly after arriving to Louisiana. There were tropical illnesses here that you need a generation to develop immunity to. Thats what made Port Hudson and Vicksburg so impenetrable really, not so much physical fortifications. It can literally change the color of your skin to salllow
@voiceofreason2674 that's an impressive response!
can't believe you skipped over Bleeding Kansas my homestate. where it all started. Kansas was the only state to join the union while other states were trying to leave in 1861. Besides that Nebraska was never a state until after the war
South Carolina and Massachusetts voted together against Herbert Hoover
The death of Stonewall was huge
It's been a while!
Rudyard, this guy looks exactly like one of the guys on the Moment of Zen podcast - but theyre different people?
"American Revolution: Fewer than 10% of the 500,000 slaves in the 13 colonies lived in the North at the time of the American Revolution. New York had the most slaves in the North, with just over 20,000.
1800: There were still more than 36,000 enslaved people in the North.
Slavery was never as widespread in the North as it was in the South. However, the North was not without its slave population, and many northern businessmen profited from the slave trade and investments in the South."
"No, Abraham Lincoln did not free slaves in the Northern states during the Civil War because the Emancipation Proclamation, which he issued, only applied to states that had seceded from the Union, meaning it did not affect slavery in the loyal Northern states; his primary goal was to preserve the Union, not necessarily to abolish slavery across the entire country. "
"Up to 75 percent of all the individuals who came off the transatlantic ships in the 17th century were indentured servants. During Jamestown's first 20 years, the majority of the women who arrived, and they were few, were indentured servants."
"1619: The first documented enslaved Africans arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, and worked in the tobacco fields.
1700: There were 27,817 enslaved Africans in British North America.
1740: There were 150,024 enslaved Africans in British North America.
1770: There were 462,000 enslaved Africans in British North America, which was about one-fifth of the total colonial population."
Just some actual facts about northern slavery and how it was fully practiced from the great migration through the early 1800s. Your facts are either misrepresented or outright wrong and you should correct your video.
The north could not legally end slavery in the south. For one reason, each state has 2 senators and abolition would have to pass the Senate to become law.
Lincoln and the Republicans were "Free Soil". That was a policy and name of the Republican party predecessor. Free soil would not interfere with slavery in southern states, but would also not allow new slave states into the union. Instead of dealing with that reality for one Lincoln term, the south chose to attack Ft Sumter before Lincoln
You’re a d4mn yankee…, but I respect your opinion enough to hear you out.
dude please wear a collared shirt, you look a little sleazy
"Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator" is an excellent video that's somewhat related.
Edit 1: On machine guns: I believe the first machine gun was the Chambers Flintlock, which America used to mow down Redcoats in the 1812 War. However, the Gatling Gun invented for the Civil War is closer to the modern style of machine guns.
I kinda want whatif to do a history review of popular history videos. Maybe collaborate with another history channel.
That video is actually very inaccurate and does misinterpret a lot of its own sources.
I like turtles. 😎
Hooker, what a legend!
0:24 , 😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹 nice one
Didn’t start watching but already expect it being so based.
Ssssssooooooo bbaaassseeedddd
Talk more about Benjamin Judah
Please highlight for me an area pf "the north" that was a racial utopia for black folks in the north.
Guy on the left has the easiest podcast job in history 😂
Sure, the civil war was primarily fought over slavery, and WW2 was primarily fought over the holocaust
Can’t stand the cohost honestly. 0/2, shame really. Find someone who shares the interest and excitement and at least some base level knowledge to bounce off of please.
He's not a co-host
You’re not digging deep enough into the slavery argument. Most of the southern troops did not have slaves. In some ways, slavery was a straw-man argument. You’re not digging deep enough into the conflict between Yankee-Puritan ethnicity vs the Scots-Irish ethnicity. It is a conflict that lasts up to this day - and it is the hidden conflict in this upcoming election. Look at the outliers in the 1860 election - the pro-slavery candidate almost won Oregon and did very well in California (which Lincoln won), while the pro-slavery candidate won 10 votes for every slave in Delaware (which he won) - but Lincoln did well there. The pro-slavery candidate also did well in Connecticut and Vermont; Vermont was also heavily Scots-Irish.
"scots irish" is a fake ethnic group
Nobody in britain calls them "scots irish"
The "scots irish" were northern english and lowland scottish protestants sent to ulster by king james the 1st to ethnically cleanse the catholic irish
Also it's funny how you people focus on the "scots irish" so much but ingnore that most southerners descended from southern english anglican gentry and their indentured servants, not ulster scots presbyetians. you literally pretend the entire south is "scots irish" instead of the actual reaity which was that the upper south was descended from ulster scots and the rest of the south was desended from southern english anglicans
Southerners were right to secede!!!!
Nah
Lee was a greate general
9:40 You’re right about the south’s constitutional right for slavery (obviously they were still morally wrong), but not about secession. While secession is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, James Madison (founding father of the constitution) opposed secession most of the time
If secession was prohibited, it would say as much in article 1 section 10. The fact that it doesn't and the fact that 3 states only ratified the Constitution on the condition that secession was allowed would suggest that it's allowed.
@@ihateyankees3655The fact that the states who tried to secced lost proves that it's not. In reality the law is only as valid as the force of arms backing it. You can argue that is immoral or whatever but that's how things actually work
@@Hakar17 might doesn't make right. Actually address the points I've made like a civilized person.
@ihateyankees3655 Except in reality it does it isn't a debatable thing and believing otherwise is incredibly naive.
@@Hakar17 if a mugger successfully takes your wallet it doesn't suddenly become his property. Likewise, winning a war doesn't suddenly make you the good guy. You don't actually believe that might makes right , you're latching onto it as the only excuse left for supporting the side that was objectively wrong.
What?!?! I thought you said you were on the pill.
42:15 God's Intervention to save the United States any more bloodshed.
You did not mention the enlistment of black soldiers giving the Union an advantage with man power. The Emancipation Proclamation was really a wartime document because Lincoln, courtesy of Frederick Douglass’s pressure, realized that the enlistment of enslaved and free black soldiers could offset the war. Lincoln was initially against it because he feared slave rebellion (much like other presidents before him). But black regiments played a pivotal role in turning the tide of the war.
The union had a significant manpower advantage even without using black soldiers.
@@ZontarDow Even so, the presence of black regiments was still significant in the latter years of the war and should be recognized. It is an aspect of the Civil War that should not be ignored. Doing so contributes to historical erasure and doesn’t tell the full history.
Just imagine how hard the Black Regiments fought given the stakes
I however doubt that the US/South would have joined the European alliances. I think the US would have gone a history similar to Latin America or Spain.
The South most certainly would have allied with Britain and France, at least at first, to maintain its independence. French puppet Mexico would also have been part of the alliance. I do believe that the alliance structure would have been different, though. There would have been a maintenance of the Prussian-Russian alliance with Union mediation, who was friendly with both. I also think that France would have been quicker to back Austria’s play in the Brothers War, which would have either prevented the conflict and with it the Second Reich, or would have resulted in a Franco-Austrian victory unless Russia joined in. I think the North German Confederation would have formed organically without Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg.
14:40, remind you if today just a little?
The woke are the South of today.
I actually have thought this for years but it was too controversial too drop on this podcast lol
@WhatifAltHist I know you deftly dodged it at the end, I do recall you saying a part earlier about paralleling to today.
Wise still
@@WhatifAltHistI did not expect to see you comment here. This surprised me.
The South did nothing wrong, especially 14:34 lmao
Deo Vindice
Europe had serfs and indentured servants.
Eastern Europe especially.
The north did not abolish slavery halfway through the war through the 16th Amendment. C’mon man. You got two things wrong in the same sentence.
This dude (allegedly) should debate Ryan Dawson on the civil war. I already cant listen to this historical nonsense any longer.
Explain the nonsense for me please
@@stephenguerin2955Butt hurt because the South caught a whooping
if only you were this... hinged (!!!) in your main channel!
The Civil War was all about slavery. Basically, the South became scared that Abraham Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery in the territories.
What are the most ignorant comments I've ever heard in my life.
Easily disproven by both historical records and the context.
@Soloong_Gaybowzer The Confederates themselves made it clear in their constitution and their articles of secession that they were seceding in order to preserve the institution of slavery.
They said so themselves. Clearly and repeatedly, in their own founding documents.
States rights
@@Soloong_GaybowzerIt also ignores that the Union didn't begin fighting the civil war to end slavery, but rather to "preserve the union" aka bring the southern states under federal control. It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation after Gettysburg that the official narrative would change to ending slavery.
@@natel9019 The states rights to practice slavery ane secede. The CSA constitution then explicitly forbade the formation of free states and secession. The states didn't want to ensure their rights, they wanted to exercise their supposed right to leave to secure the foundation of slavery and then make sure the states didn't have the right to challenge slavery in their new federation.