Part 2 is here! -> th-cam.com/video/GiW_supSSOk/w-d-xo.html Part 3 is here! -> th-cam.com/video/t56cwRxBtG8/w-d-xo.html Part 4 is here! -> th-cam.com/video/wu2mZOuvCsQ/w-d-xo.html You can help support our work directly by Joining this channel and get access to perks: th-cam.com/channels/uCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Q.htmljoin You can also support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Knowledgia
You missed the part about Mexico renting us Texas and when they wanted it back we stole it ...with force. Stop warping history with your ignorance or agendas.
dude this is such a lie. You are rewriting history. The north had already profited MASSIVELY from slavery. The southern states succeeded from the union and the north invaded.
Unbearable: how that background music and form of speech dramatizes the in itself interesting history! There must be something seriously wrong with it as an honest historian would stick to facts and not trying to manipulate viewers 😢 What about telling about the indigenous population living in those captured territories before since ages btw?
@@treeherder2201 I think that is mostly due to the confederates and their families pushing alternative history pretending that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Even now they teach that sort of thing in southern schools. Racism is still entrenched deep within southern states. The two parties had a huge change in their platform and positions as one democratic president signed into law the civil rights for black people. This angered the racists so they shifted over to the republican party, it took a while because people tend not to switch party that much later in life, it was just the younger racists who easily moved to the republican party. That is why the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists organizations are all have members almost exclusively in the republican party. They were recently rallied together to support trump during his presidential term. Currently Qanon is following "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" a Nazi propaganda article that was plagiarized by an old satire piece.
@@VodShod More of both sides pushing false history but ok, Don't forget that Kamala Harris is a descendent of a black slave owner. It's either the republicans going "I don't see color while being a brute of a human that no one supports me" then democrats going "Color is the only thing i see to the point I ignore any facts in front of me, while thinking only white people can be bad". To this day there's still no way to support a middle ground that focuses on the labor of the country because America abolished its forming of a labor party through the final blow into American understanding was the "red scare" that's still fairly around today especially with the older generation because the average American can't tell the difference between a regime and general socialism that helps everyone at the cost of a few percent extra in tax that doesn't hurt anyone. Especially if you look at the cost of private health insurance per an individual could possibly save many people hundreds to thousands per year.
The party’s did not switch, that’s a lie. The democrats are the party of slavery and the kkk. Dinesh disouza already proved this. 2 dixicrats switched to the republican side . The rest lived and died and were celebrated in the Democratic Party. Go watch his videos so you stop spreading democrat propaganda.
As the bearer of a degree in American History and the beneficiary of a classic American education, I can say that your Civil War series is quite accurate. It is sad that modern American education has deprecated the teaching of _actual_ American History. Your well researched and produced American Civil War series should be required viewing in every American classroom. +1
....except that this video needs to add specifics that bear on events TODAY ! While slavery was the obvious cause of anger between the states, it was the act of secession that triggered an actual war itself ! Lincoln was told by Supreme Court justice Salmon P. Chase that the states had the RIGHT to secede, based especially on Connecticut wishing to leave the Union during the War of 1812. Lincoln DISREGARDED this advice and declared that FORCE would be used against any seceding state. Robert E. Lee then decided that to lead such an attack against Americans would be DISHONORABLE, and he refused Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army. Lee, and many others held no affection for slavery, but, felt DEEPLY that they must defend their homes from the violence and destruction to come. Jubal Early had voted REPEATEDLY as a delegate for Virginia to STAY in the Union,but, became one of Lee's top generals. These were honorable soldiers and hence were respected by General U. S. Grant. Most rebels fought bravely to defend their homes, and NOT to defend slavery....yet, TODAY, ignorant miscreants tear down statues and memorials to brave Americans who perished just as tragically as the Yankees did. In 1858, Lincoln made disturbing statements in an effort to equal Stephen Douglass's white supremacy position. Lincoln said : " I will always say that whites are superior to the negro, and I'll always be on the side of the whites in that argument". Lincoln further stated : "...if the whites mate with the negroes, a new and violent race will emerge, which will THREATEN the very existence of white people ! " You won't see THOSE quotes carved into the marble of the Lincoln Memorial, will you ???
Except, he leaves out how the 1828 tariff of abominations sparked talks of seccession 50+ years earlier. He then ignores the corwin amendment to the constitution. Drafted under President Buchanan, it was a way to prevent war, by protecting slavery in the constitution.
@@johnfoster535 So in fairness to your first point, states do have a right to secede. However, the only form of succession permitted under the constitution is one of mutual consent between the Federal Government and the State Government, as established in Texas v White (1868). Funnily enough, Chase voted with the majority in Texas v White, so he clearly agreed that while succession is possible, all of the Confederate states did so illegally. Despite this, the Civil War probably wouldn't have actually led to outright conflict and could have eventually led to legal succession, except the new Confederate States couldn't resist constantly seizing federal property, which culminated in their assault on Fort Sumter in 1861 and forced the escalation that led to fighting. As to your second series of points, Lincoln was no doubt racist by modern standards, as was essentially every other white official on both sides of the conflict civilian and military. However, since sucession was illegal, the fact that confederate generals violated their oaths and joined a force in rebellion is a massive mark against their character in addition to their almost certainly more intense racist beliefs (Lee saw slavery as a 'neccesary evil' that hurt white people more than blacks, Jubal Early was very much pro-slavery even if he was anti-sucession). Combined with the political officials (aka the people who actually caused the civil war) all being slave owning scumbags that explicitly seceded to keep their political power and preserve the rubbish social order where owning people was permissible, I think the thoughts of the average Confederate can be neglected, especially since they were under no obligation to side with the rebel army that put their homes in danger to begin with (see West Virginia, who left Virginia due to their opposition to the war, and the four slave states that did not join in with the illegal actions of the confederates.
President Lincoln put a blockage of cotton for guns & ammo with England. All shipping ports were blocked,causing tons of cotton to sit & rot on shore. With no resolvement in sight, the students of Citadel University Took action on Fort Sumpter.
@@barefootrooferthank you. Someone else on here with a little common sense. It’s sickening to hear these people praise this clown. He may know a lot of facts but a few things he said were lies
I just watched a Ken Burns documentary on himself doing the documentary on the day leading up to the days before the start of the start of the civil war documentary . Appalling……
The hardest part about understanding history is putting aside the current morals and cultural norms, and looking at things from the perspective of the peoples of the time you're studying
@nickroberts-xf7oq history always has an impact be it negative, or positive. Lessons learned and progress made. We don't tell Holocaust survivors to get over it. Sometimes ppl can't empathize with issues not related to them. Or we choose to justify feelings based on what we are taught, regardless of the facts.
i learned more in 1 year of 7th grade history that this author omitted and that there were world powers involved in the entire history of the usa even still. take a guess which top 5 were involved the whole way and still are playing us like a violin
School, public or otherwise are still wrapped around curriculum made by the industrial machine, to make good employees. Even universities tailor their academics for the market place, except for a few research scholars they keep behind to get grants for the University.
Probably cuz you actually want to learn it now where as back in high school, we learned far less than what we were taught because of the mentality that most teenagers hold when it comes to learning. "Do as little as you need to do to make the grade." At this point, you are likely truly curious which makes people learn far more and retain far more information than when they have an emotional block to learning the info and they're just learning it to make the grade they want to make for that test or class. I made mostly A's but I had no real interest in learning. I especially hated studying history and now it's one of my favorite things because I'm actually curious about what has made the world the way it is today. Back in high school, I only had interest in being seen by my peers and parents as a student who is successful.
l love the way he speaks in such a way l can understand as being a non native English speaker and also being very dramatic in tone, wish more TH-camrs were like this.
this by far the best historical video I have ever watched. so many things between the lines that you could make this video 3 hours long. and I would watch it. my hat is off to you.
As a Brit who's lived in the US for over 40 years this presentation is the first time I've ever understood the contextual circumstances that caused the Civil War (other than the American Revolution and its connection to the Somerset Case in 1771), much appreciated 👍.
@@kayvan9057 you've added some needed nuance to the north's racist problems, but you've got a few facts a bit skewed. 1. It is true that cotton was the USA's biggest export, but tariffs are not paid on exports. Tariffs are paid on imports, and over 60% of imports came through New York City. When the south seceded, tariffs dropped 25%, a significant blow to be sure but an obvious indication that the south was paying less in taxes than the north. 2. It's true that about 12,000 freed blacks owned slaves...out of nearly 400,000 slave owners in the USA. And 94% of them owned less than 10 slaves, with about 50% owning only one. We aren't sure, but the best theory is that an enormous majority of black slave owners were men who purchased their wives and never bothered to manumit them. Besides...what's the point of mentioning that blacks owned slaves? 3. Considering that the Cherokee sued the state of Georgia in a famous case that went all the way to the supreme court, it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that Georgia was somehow innocent in the Trail of Tears. The Cherokee obviously didn't think so! 4. Northern visitors to the South were also appalled by the inhumane treatment of slaves. Many observers also noted that, considering the Southern view of blacks as sub-human and the pervasive fear of miscegenation, there were an alarming number of mixed-race folk. I am familiar with the Abbeville Institute. Some of their material is very interesting and even helpful. Some of it is the regurgitation of the same lame talking points the secessionists were using in 1860 and the same bilge the Lost Causers started using in 1866. Handle with care.
@@kayvan9057 the larger point is that cotton planters were still making huge profits on cotton. And the cotton planters dominated Confederate politics...for example, over half of Mississippi's secession delegates owned at least 10 slaves. So the whole "tariffs are making us poor" doesn't fly any way you cut it.
@@kayvan9057 Why was there a Cherokee Confederate general? Well, as you rightly note, issues are never as cut and dried as we might like to think. The Cherokee sued Georgia in 1832 and were removed to Indian Territory by 1838. The Civil War didn't start for another 22 years, Georgia wasn't the sum whole of the Confederacy, and of course the Cherokee rightly had grievances with the Federal government as well as Georgia. The Cherokee DID sue Georgia for failing to protect them. And they won. And then Jackson went ahead and drove them out anyway. So plenty of blame to go around.
As an ex-pat Brit living in New Zealand, most of this was a revelation for me. It was not a subject covered in UK schools when I was a lad. Incredibly interesting.
If it wasn’t for UK navel interference we wouldn’t have our state taxes when your king or queen were mad they couldn’t impose their taxes on us in the revolutionary war In the initial vote states were 12/13 were confederate states Maine I believe was the odd ball out which happens to be the bordering state of canada which your king/queen stole from us for trying to make our own country thats the only reason we aren’t 💀 thats what caused the revolutionary war to end we’re allies by force technically then you helped the underdog in the civil war making us sorta in debt now all of us in America get taxed “heavy” while politicians sit on stacks and our country feeds yall $$ of course this was all then when the UK was one of the biggest trading spots not now, although we still have the tax issue we just booming trade making the government richer and us poorer
As an American myself I never knew just how deep the history of the civil war ran. Thank you for providing this and other videos that teaches us, in amazing detail of our countries' past.
Best video i have ever seen in 10+ years! Should be shown in every classroom. Its amazing how many people in the US don't understand Gettysburg. Totally enjoyed video!!!! I love history.
This is such a better to tool to use for classrooms rather than words on a textbook. I loved history in high school, but having a video like this would have made it so much more fun for me and others as well.
Some people learn better visually, some learn better audibly. It aint right or wrong; it's diff strokescfor diff folks. The only wrong way is not learning.
Its a Northern narrative - no real mention of Tariffs or the "American Plan" = a national bank, high protective tariff and "internal improvements" (the federal government spending the money it raised by the tariff which is collected in the South (80%) to pick winners and losers - hint: North wins Canals etc; South loses)
I'm American and from NC (North Carolina) and this is one of the best and most succinct explanations i've seen. A part II would be great if it focused on the effects of the civil war on slavery and manifest destiny on Native Americans- there's aa lot of wicked history there wrapped up in Greed.
Slavery was only 1 reason for the war but not the main reason. The NUMBER 1 reason for the war was to preserve the union that and nothing else. NOTICE this version omits the letters to Jefferson Davis where Lincoln said he could agree to free and slave state system as long as the south did not leave the UNION. 2. the southern state was afraid of the growing power of the federal government over states.
@@johngalt-Princeton The South tried to leave the union to keep their slaves. Then the South attacked Fort Sumter. The South started it and the North won.
Excellent video. I wish i could have seen this in 1962 when in USA grade school we studdied the Civil War. I do not recall them discussing what led to the cause of this terrible war. ALSO, THE bACKGROUND MUSIC TO THIS VIDEO IS AMAZING AND COMPLIMENTED THE NARRATION. YOU DESERVE AN AWARD FOR THAT!
Rarely do I ever go to the comments to applaud a video, but this was phenomenal. Extremely engaging, the effects, the music, the tone of the narrator and all the history well put together and flowed perfectly. Great video. Earned a subscriber, please do a part 2 if you haven't, I'ma go check if you do or not
very impressive... if it was true... It is amazing how children in 2022 explain how the things were happening in 1822 just as little as 400 (four hundred) years ago... Great... Keep going. I believe that these children would have created much better Constitution of the USA and free all the slaves back in 1774 and avoid this Civil War altogether... and we will pay retribution to all the slaves anyway... just for the hack of it... 400 years later...
@@Mrjasinek1 Abraham Lincoln was a "good ol' man"......... good ol' honest Abe didn't GAF about the freedom of slaves......... just see what Louis Farrikhan said about President Lincoln.........
The ones where I say that are the ones where people do. Most young narrators swallow the last parts of sentences and never listen to what they produce. Many are good writers; I am spoiled, I was taught to over-pronounce everything in radio training in College. And, I am in a different generation. Thanks for commenting. So few take the time to say anything. Dennis
As a Brit who's lived in the US for over 40 years this presentation is the first time I've ever understood the contextual circumstances that caused the Civil War (other than the American Revolution and its connection to the Somerset Case in 1771), much appreciated .
The US schools teach that Abe Lincoln was a great president and that the Civil War was about slavery. What a shame that our US schools are such a scam. Lincoln imprisoned thousands of journalists and slavery didn't enter into the fray until way after the war had kicked off. The US schools teach white guilt. And that every minority is a victim. What a shame that American students aren't taught the truth.
Repent to Jesus Christ “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Matthew 6:33 NIV T
An interesting side note. During the war some prisoners were given the option of changing sides. One of my ancestors joined the Union. Was captured by the Confederates and chose to fight for them instead of a POW camp. He was then recaptured by the Union and fought for them until the end of the war.
My 2nd great grandfather was captured at Little Round Top, Gettysburg, sent to Rock Island POW camp where he signed onto a Union frontier unit. His widow received a Union pension, but was rejected for a Confederate, being classified as a deserter.
@@thekingflea2199 Well, and if we think about how the US waged wars, fighting only weaker enemys or joing wars only after years of fighting, we are getting a total different picture of this "brave Nation".
@@Peet_McFly the brave nation that was 13 little colonies that held their own against the far superior UK who was preying on the weak because America had no millitary 😂😂😂
@@SecondPlaceSince1865 yes, indeed, let the truth be known! "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"
History does repeat its self. Look at today's democrats want your guns, control the media, education system of brainwashing , use federal govt to go after political opponents hmm sounds like nazism
This definitely needs a part 2. Extremely engaging and worth translating in as many other languages as possible as the world needs to understand the history of one of the strongest nations and how it came to be. Good job.
@@victorherreraguzman5014 I am not sure how well it will come out but I can help with the Bengali and Hindi. 2 of the major language of the Indian subcontinent. If it helps.
Those who study history are doomed to watch history be repeated by those who are ignorant to history. We can see a lot of the division in today's society mimic the divisions that tore apart past societies. The issues may not be the same but the effects of division may well end up being the same if we cannot reunite society.
The biggest obstacle to that, is that the Confederates went in to damage limitation after the war and tried to sanitize their reasons for fighting in the first place. "Oh no it wasn't about slavery, it was about "states rights". These idiots in the south today who glorify the slave owners rebellion have swallowed The Lost Cause Myth hook line and sinker. Once these falsehoods are finally buried, we can all move on
@@TimDyck The issues are of the fallout of the civil war, sparked by capitalist coporations who get off on the partisan conflict. I'm worried for my southern neighbour.
I haven't even looked at your other videos but if they are a half as good as this, you have won me over. Instant subscribe just based on this video. Thanks for all your hard work and research. Well done mate.
I don't recall being taught much about American history here in Slovakia, this was very informative and I finally have at least an idea on what civil war really was. Will there be part two ?
@@zbt62 US media dominates the world, most of the music, podcasts, tv shows, movies, video games, etc. are either made in or centered around America sometimes the civil war was mentioned in said media, yet I had very little idea about what was really going on at the time (and it is not THAT distant past either). I felt like I should really educate myself about the events, and this video was very helpful.
You people are like children, you have no idea what you are talking about! The Federated States of America started in 1040AD, they militarized the Celtic Indian tribes to wipe out the Vikingar (Cretan Guard) who had been in America since 1200BC. The Great Schism happened in 1054AD, the Vikings were wiped out by 1066AD. The Franciscan Movement into America happened in 1201AD with the St. Clare Expedition at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. The Phoenicians of the Appalachians who had been in America since 261BC after the fall of Carthage rebelled. The Orion Armistice with the Heads & Tails Accord created the Confederate States of America in 1255AD. Let's open up this debate, and get even more controversial. In 1307AD it was all out war, with the Templar Knights making beachhead at Boston in 1309AD. The Plague hit in 1347AD. The Scottish Rite brought the Templar to the Mountain of Rushmoor in 1362AD for the Last Stand. These three Sinclair Expeditions created the Aztec warriors who fought the Mongols by the Volga River in 1325AD, and Inca warriors who were sent to the Caucassus Mountains in 1438AD. It is the Grecco-Roman War, the Aesir-Vanir War, the Western Roman Empire vs. the Eastern Roman Empire. Slavery was a tool to get rid of lazy white people who had gotten fat. The Union had more plantations than the south. After the Civil War, the Union army went to South Africa and took out the German controlled regime. That started WW1 & 2. Only idiots cry about slavery as the cause, you are uninformed. This is a social cast system designed to force Titan white people to mix with Gold Coast tribespeople from Egypt (500BC from Ethiopia) to pass on intelligence to a new cast of people. It is the story of the Minotaur. Primordials replaced by the Titans, who were replaced by the Olympians, who were replaced by the Troians, who were replaced by the Ionians, who were replaced by the Hellenes who sent Rheingold Maidens to America in the Ptolemaic Era of Egypt to create American Indians. Geez, read a book or something.
This is Propeganda, The US Schools have been taken over by Communist that are stirring up Racism. Read a History Book if they havent burnt them all . Not a BS text book.
We in the U. S. never had them either. Just boring textbooks with a few maps. And I'll bet the textbooks in the South may be different than the textbooks in the North. The conflict continues to this day.
This presentation would easily defeat the cumbersome reading of history books and will be retained much better due to audio-video graphics. Thanks so so much! Eagerly awaiting the Concluding Part 2.
@jds6206 I don't care. As long as i got the basic idea that's what's important. Any argument about it, I won't pay much attention. Why? Coz it's history as in HISTORY not only in terms of time but in terms of RELEVANCE. If you want to get to the nitty gritty of things, that's your call and not my concern. The general idea & concept of the events is what's important as far as I'm concerned.
it did not mention all the constitutional abuses that Lincoln committed. He first used the Patriot Act, had people arrested and never charged. G W Bush is the one who put IT into law. Just ask the J6 people. history repeats itself
This was very well done. I was looking for Part 2...but notice this was just released three days ago. So looking forward to find out what happens next. : ) I probably learned more about the civil war in 23 minutes than I had in all of high school and two semesters of college history. Nicely done.
I believe Amazon has a pretty good documentary that is super informative about the eras before during and after the civil war. Forgot the name of it but definitely look into it if you'd like to be properly educated.
I’ve studied the war between the States deeply for nearly 45 years. This is a fairly accurate assessment. Thank you. I had family on both sides of the conflict. My fathers side were Germans who emigrated in 1853. They enlisted in the Indiana Infantry when called upon. My Mothers side has been in this country since 1635 and being from (at that time) Missouri, were southern sympathizers. They moved to Tyler Texas, where my 2G Grandfather (Cpt Steven Carter Ragan) formed a Calvary unit that fought many battles, including the Siege of Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Battle of Atlanta to Mobile, AL, upon the end of hostilities, then they went home to farm their crops. Steven was next a two term State Senator and later Undersheriff of Kansas City MO.
As famed radio announcer, Paul Harvey, used to say.... and now, The Rest of the Story! Lincoln was pro-secession as a lawyer elected to Congress. Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." Lincoln would not leave Ft Sumter because he wanted REVENUE TAX MONEY! Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter. "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......" Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter) "Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......" Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run"). "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH LEGALLY SECEDE? The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America). English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist: "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for 'ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug). Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS TO THE NORTH. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…”
@@christopherdibble5872 Actually, NOT. Slavery was the token for "states rights", the desire of the South to maintain their independence and rural agrarian way of life. The recent (1840-1861 improvements to the cotton gin had reduced by 80% the number of workers (slaves) required to remove the seeds from cotton, thus reducing the need for slaves. Had this trend been allowed to continue unfettered, slavery would have ended in the South without the "unfortunate war of Northern aggression". Certainly, not in 1864, but, even Southerners knew that they didn't need to feed, and clothe slaves that weren't making them money!
Many things in current times are explained by events of the past. American history is fascinating and looking forward to learn more on their civil war. It seems the war was inevitable and even necessary but it also caused a lot of damage to the unity of its people.
As terrible as it was, it was necessary. I think we have again reached that same crossroads with the Republicans turning into a fascist cult bent on overthrow of democracy.
@@shock_n_Aweful largely brought in part by the southern strategy for the past half century, neoliberalism or Reaganomics, the rise of Trump, and many other issues indeed.
at the time of the outbreak of the civil war, Only 3% of the white men in the Southern Usa owned slaves that means 97% (rest of the white male pop) were piss poor farmers there was not much manufacturing, not much tourism, or service sector in the South. Any time two economic Masters bump into the Present of a Day and date, then they learn how little they know about business models. the majority of the white in the South were enslaved to the whims of a few white men. slavers do not allow their slaves to use tools, much. for the tools might end the enslavement / Note: the Hebrews of the Bible, out of Egypt with moses in charge, had slaves the Hs were not known as slaves of Egypt, rather 'paid laborers'. slavery is not banned, rather used to push the leftovers from 'bad economic zones where overbreeding occurs'. or where wars happen and the leftovers prefer to be a slave, over being dead their choice Jesus was dark skinned, so enslaving blacks might seem stupid. God spoke thru the blacks before speaking thru Joan of Arc. not one white man has HEARD (not an amber alert) the words except in C Heston's voice. lol so enslaving the skin tone of JC might piss off God, u think? the economic model of owning a human is too High vs the setting them free to work for other shareholders shareholders have learned to allow the slaves to move from Job 3:14, to another and another all the while the wages remain lower than the actual cost of enslaving, housing, hiring men to wipe them, rape them and keep them in line. too much cost so the Southern States now use low wages to enslave their slaves and it works the few shareholders r well maintained, just like in the Pre Civil war days myop dumb asses should not be Bloodlined into wealth they should have to pass a business model test and learn the proper methods of making more Profits // slavery is not banned by the Bible, but only a dumb white man would enslave a Black Fellow (kkknowing Jesus, Son of God, was in deed not a white bread)! better to enslave the white skinned humans JUST Like Rome did than waste time playing small g god and pissing off the 1 God // the atheists will always hate Jesus for Commanding all toe RENDER on to Caesar as per the Constitution's Article 1 S 8 P1, words written by white men. He whom be a dumb white of the inability to read, shall be called Kiffur. and shall be read into the words of the White Founder! Dumb whites are never going to unify under the white Founder's words, because the dumb white men do not read the words, and if they did, they would admit to hating the white Founder's words! they r the Kiffurs, by their low wage acceptance it has not a THING to do with their skn tone.
@@rypatmackrock oh yea this has been brewing for a long time and it definitely started with the southern strategy. Them cuddling up to the religious right and feeding their voters on hate and fear of the other came long before Dump. He is a symptom of the disease not that cause. I don't really see a path for them to turn that around either, deprograming someone out of a cult is possible but extremely difficult and more likely to fail than succeed. Doing that with 30 million people is not a reasonable expectation. We have to prepare for a steady increase of mass shootings and other terrorist activity from them. The leadership knows they cannot win legally and once the people on the ground accept that they will turn to more violence.
I just finished a class that covered all of these topics, and honestly this is a really great summary. The only mistake I saw was the Mexican Cession also included the later Gadsden Purchase, but everything else seemed really well done. I would also mention that the South’s 9 million inhabitants included millions of enslaved people, from whom they could not recruit. By the end of the conflict, the percentage of white men who were forced into the confederate army was 80%… mind blowingly high
Towards the end of the war, black slaves actually did fight on the side of south. Sure, very few, but woke history doesn't like that idea, instead insisting that any new Viking movie must have black actors in them, like History's Vikings last season (their worst of course) where they put not only a woman but a black women as chief of Viking Kattegut fort/town. Needless to say, this idiocy put an end to an othewise good series. Next we'll see shows where blacks were really great chiefs of most of the plains indian tribes...
@@motomike3475 the only black slaves I know of who "served" in the confederate army were laborers, cooks, musicians, and so on. They were not armed or given uniforms, and very very few of them were paid. The Confederates wouldn't even allow the Louisiana native guard to fight in the war, even in the very end they only allowed slaves to enlist and "earn" their freedom if their masters would allow it.
And after so many deaths, General Lee and President Davis weren't executed for their crimes against the nation. And the Democrat party wasn't immediately abolished. They managed to spend the next 100 years trying to keep black people (and women of all colors) from voting. And then suddenly overnight, apparently in the 60s, they became the party of women and colored?
@@motomike3475 No black man ever formally served as a Confederate soldier on the battlefield. If you believe otherwise, please provide the man's rank, name, and unit.
@@motomike3475 I don't know why people bother arguing over this. It was illegal for blacks to serve as soldiers in the Confederate army until out of desperation they changed the law in the last 3 weeks of the war, too late to have any impact. But let's say for the sake of argument they had recruited them from the very beginning. Sure, they would have found some dupes to sign up. So what? People fight for causes against their own best interests all the time. It's happened in every recent US election, on both sides. You drag some poor soul off a plantation who was never even taught to read, convince him that firing a rifle is more fun than picking cotton, and now suddenly the South's cause is validated? It's ridiculous.
In high school, I learned as much as I could about our Civil War. This short video explained alot, filling in the missing pieces such as the Dred Scott case. Well done on this video as I'm adding you to my subscriber list!
Not hearing about dredd Scott makes me assume you were educated in the south. Is this correct? Not trying to be rude or anything but I learned that name in grade school (by age 14not sure how early I heard about it but I believe 7th grade history so 13 years old) Also may I ask ur age as well? I think being educated in 96-04 for grade school (think that’s the correct number lol I hate math but not history) but yes older eras of education may have been more effected by what was out there and honestly if u were in the south…. The historical feelings if educated older folks that were closer to the civil war then it could have effected the education due to how some southerners still feel a certain way bout the war which is wild to me
@@whatthetech7647 I beg to differ, may I have your source, please? Do you also believe the earth is flat and not round? (Yes, I am questioning your intelligence.)
Yes it would make a great movie! Dred Scott changed everything. The Democrats argued that only white people could be protected by constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney conspired with presidents and senators to nationalize negro slavery through the Supreme Court.
I hv many books on the Civil War and many topics have been written on it especially on why it came about. But somehow your video was very clear and makes me fully understood why it happened. Kudos!!
This was excellent, I recently visited the Civil War Museum (renamed from the Confederate Civil War museum) in New Orleans. This video cleared up a lot of what I may have missed while walking through the museum. I also have read a few book s on the Civil War but this brought it home, great video.
Please do part 2. I love the way you cover this topic, I read so much of the civil war in the past and your video definitely makes it more fun to learn about it.
I'm a history buff (I actually minored in it almost by accident) and American Civil War is my specialty area but I've never seen such a thorough but understandable video on this complicated topic. Thank you.
@@snoodydoody2685 possibly you should go read the first amendment to the Constitution of the US. The Founding Fathers specifically stated the US might be “under God” but the government is not to be a religious one
@@suekelley2109 Anyone can get a degree, thats not even that hard to do. That doesn't mean you know anything. A head full of knowledge is not a head full of truth. You might want to go relearn your history and go look at what the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence say my dear. Because you don't know what you're talking about. And it shows. I would bet money you don't have a degree in American History. I bet you have a degree in revisionism.
What they don't mention is the "definition" of FREE STATE. In the 1800s, the term meant WHITE STATE. Abe Lincoln said it this way in his speech in Peoria, IL. "Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of "free white people". This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for "poor white people" to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for "poor (white) people" to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories." Lincoln invaded the South for money. Slaves were freed to strip the South of its political power under the Constitution's 3/5 Compromise Clause. Slavery was not "free labor" as it actually COST MORE to house, feed, clothe, care for the slaves than simply offer a wage.
The Union, and this video, talks about EXPANDING SLAVERY. *WHERE?* Once the States seceded, there was NO PLACE in which to expand. That was just another LIE to control black people in claiming the war was about slavery.
The history of secession in the US explains it all. The New England States wanted to secede in 1815 under the Hartford Convention. One of the reasons mentioned was the 3/5 Compromise Clause. The House of Representatives and the Electoral College are based on POPULATION. The South wanted every slave counted. The North wanted none of the slaves counted. So, the COMPROMISE was that only 3/5 of the total slave population were to be counted. The North thought that gave the South too much power in the federal government. So, they talked about secession. The tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abomination, started South Carolina's secession talk. Basically, the South was getting wealthy due to the Industrial Revolution and its textile mills demands for cotton. So the Union started taxing the South to pay for northern infrastructure, railroads, industry, and employees. But, very little was being paid to the South. This continued into the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. Look up the term "protectionism." South Carolina continued watching the federal tax laws. On May 10 1860, the House passed another pro-North tax bill, the Morrill Tax. A week later, the Republican Party Platform pledged their support. In November 1860, the Republicans won the election, and on December 20, South Carolina seceded.
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 95 is the *ONLY* federal document that mentions "freeing slaves," but no one ever reads it! "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;.." Lincoln illegally declared emancipation in the following locations in his Proclamation: "Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, *(EXCEPT* the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, *(EXCEPT* the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which *EXCEPTED* parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued." *NOTE:* Does Lincoln release any of the estimated 1 million slaves still held in the Union States? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Union Territories? *NO!* Does he release any slaves held in Indian reservations or territories? *NO!* Did he release any slaves in the Southern Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in West Virginia? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Confederate State of Tennessee? *NO!* Does he release slaves in select counties/parishes of the Confederate States of Virginia and Louisiana? *NO!* The REASON this is the ONLY document referencing slavery is because "slavery was legal under the Constitution" which makes Lincoln's Proclamation *ILLEGAL!* Slavery was legal under the Constitution: Migration and Importantion Clause, Fugitive Slave Clause, 3/5 Compromise Clause, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment. Slavery was recognized as legal by federal laws of Congress: 1794 Fugitive Slave Act, 1820 Missouri Compromise, 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, 1854 Kansas - Nebraska Act, etc. Slavery was recognized as legal by SCOTUS in their decisions, such as 1857 Dred Scott v Sanford based on the 5th Amendment. Lincoln recognized slavery as legal in his first Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 (quoting the Republican Party Platform plank #4 in paragraph 6 and the US Constitution 's Fugitive Slave Clause here). "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." *AND THERE IS THIS - WHICH NO ONE MENTIONS!* Lincoln sent General John Charles Frèmont to Missouri to head up the Western Department and control the further secession of States. Frèmont issued an emancipation edict on August 30 1861. For this action, Lincoln charged Frèmont with INSUBORDINATION and removed him from his post on November 2, 1861. But, Lincoln does the exact same thing thirteen months later?
Please look up Lincoln's Presidential Proclamations NO. 81 and 82 as well as the US House of Representatives Crittenden-Johnson Resolution. Here's what you'll find: Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter. "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......" Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter) "Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......" Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run"). "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America).
Excellent video. I enjoyed this very much. Just want to point out a small detail in the narrative @19:50 ...Robert E. Lee was a Colonel of the U.S. Army when he led the militia force to stop the raid on Harpers Ferry. He would go on to resign the U.S. Army when Secession began to take place and become a General for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
This is the type of "good-info" that young adults and adults can turn to again and again to review the beginnings of the bloodiest war ever fought on US soil. Don't let the revisionists change how it came to be. Good Job!
Whoa, this information is so much different than what I thought I knew about the Civil War! But then again we are taught what they want us to know, not the facts. Great job on expanding my knowledge. Ty
Be aware that history is taught by the winners. Did the South "fail to industrialize" as stated in the video, or were they artificially prevented by Northern policy, in which southerners paid higher prices for tariffs which went to Washington, only to be spent on federal projects up north?
Also a slight nitpick the Confederate State's didn't fail to industrialize once they shifted their economy into a war time one they became one of the largest industrial powers in the world right behind the United States, Britain, and France. They were cranking out cannons and ironclad warships without much issue not to mention Atlanta was known as the workshop of the Confederacy.
I read your comment and thought, "No, that's not right," but I googled some stats on Confederate cannon production and lo and behold, it was much higher than I imagined. Thanks for the comment! I would note that although the Confederacy did produce a number of iron clads, it was never enough in the same place at the same time, and thus never made a substantive difference. They probably would have been much better off producing locomotives instead. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
@Sam Doe first of all , without Spain and Germany and France the South would not have been able to do this - Thankfully Lincoln put Grant in charge or english may not be our first language - having said this , a few very wealthy people used propaganda and pushed a false narrative in order to garner support - the average Reb wasn't defending slavery - they didn't have the resources to even think about the concept - they were fighting for their home + again , this was because of the false narrative - sound familiar ? It was a different time - impossible to judge those unless you are a narcisstic piece of shit who doesn't have a clue about our true history -
@@aaronfleming9426 you're welcome ya you're right about the ironclads it's still pretty impressive though considering not that long ago they were entirely an agricultural society.
Just a couple of quick corrections: Robert E. Lee was not a general until 1861. At the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, he held the rank of Captain and was a Lieutenant Colonel at Harpers Ferry. Same thing with Grant. Grant was not a general at the time of the Mexican-American War, he was a Second Lieutenant at the outbreak of the conflict.
Also, the south was not dependent on free labor. There were just a few Plantation owners who wanted to be rich and had pocketed politicians. There were many independent farmers making an honest living.
@@JustLikeHeaven77please do more research. Whataboutism never looks good in any way. Here is the truth Slavery was so profitable, it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America's southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation. Their fuel of choice? Human slavery.Mar 6, 2018
As a non American this was fantastic, I appreciated the continuity of the map so you can actually see what was happening and where as the scale of the U.S can make it difficult to grasp what was where.
I’ll add that, prior to the Civil War, each State was a lot more like a separate country. Also, People’s dedication and loyalties were ‘Their own State first, and then the entire country.’
Love your presentations. You can present one of the most polarizing events in American history without the over the top political hyperbole so often chained to this subject. I can just sit back and immerse myself for a while.
I have just launched a 3rd AI-generated shorts channel, this time about the Civil War. This is the absolute best pre-Civil War video out there. So much perspective! Thank you for making fantastic content! Thank you for making my research super easy!
Repent to Jesus Christ “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Matthew 6:33 NIV
Aye. I learned a lot. 6:09 This part seem highly suspicious about a southern US diplomat being ignored by Mexico. If I have to guess, the diplomat was a bait. He have no intention of trading territory with Mexico. He went there to survey the place and provoke the Mexicans. And then the first shot is fired. That's the sound of Land grabbing campaign is guaranteed xD
@@condorX2 Provocation is the key. A time-honored way to pick a fight...send a diplomat with a proposal so outrageous your opponent is honor-bound to respond harshly, then blame them for the ensuing war.
@@SpaceRanger187 what? Don't be a sheeple and blindly listen to what you see on the news. You want change, you have a vote, go out and express your opinion and get support from others, then form a party and get elected. It's called democracy.
@@ghostofdre The United States has never been a democracy. It was formed as a Republic. Don't be a sheeple and blindly listen to what you see on the news.
What will happen is, if the present administration manage to keep disregarding our Constitution, ,, we Americans will be enslaved. We need to protect our Constitution and demand our Congressman and Senators do their sworn duty to protect the constitution
As famed radio announcer, Paul Harvey, used to say.... and now, The Rest of the Story! Lincoln was pro-secession as a lawyer elected to Congress. Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." Lincoln would not leave Ft Sumter because he wanted REVENUE TAX MONEY! Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter. "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......" Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter) "Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......" Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run"). "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH LEGALLY SECEDE? The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America). English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist: "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for 'ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug). Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS TO THE NORTH. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…”
Hold on a minute…yes Polk was looking for any excuse to declare war on Mexico however the Mexican American war was inevitable since Mexico never recognized Texan independence. Under practices at the time, it was against the “rules of war” to make a foreign leader sign any treaty under duress, which was exactly what Mexico considered Santa Anna to be under when he surrendered in San Jacinto. The proper formal delegations of both countries (Texas and Mexico) never met to discuss terms of surrender and instead forced Santa Anna to make promises he didn’t have the authority to make. Later when USA annexed Texas (which Mexico still claimed similar to China and Taiwan today) it angered Mexico and the political ambience was tense to say the least. It was inevitable for Mexico to try and reclaim Texas. So yes, Polk did look for the excuse however, it wasn’t just the US that looked for the fight. Mexico wanted it too. I’m a Mexican born in Mexico and has lived in Texas since 2002. I’ve studied both sides of history here and this is what seems to be the most complete picture.
Do you think Mexico would have eventually declared war on the United States to try to reclaim Texas? I think Guatemala/Belize might be a better analogy than China/Taiwan. Guatemala knows they'll never get Belize back, though it remains a convenient political red herring. Santa Anna and others might have talked tough about Texas, but surely they would have known they weren't getting it back???
@@aaronfleming9426 To answer your question: Absolutely! It’s kind of difficult to imagine a country with the military prowess that Mexico has declaring war on the most powerful nation. However this wasn’t the case back then. The USA was not the global superpower that it is today. They were a powerful nation in the midst of industrialization but compared to European powers, it’s military lacked in strength. In fact, it wasn’t until the civil war where the American military was competitive in terms of strength. The only reason why big stick diplomacy worked was because of the logistics involved for the European powers to wage war across the ocean. It wasn’t until WW1 and WW2 where the US militarized and got up on the global stage as the super power of the world. We also have to remember that Texas’ territorial claims were so big that even Mexico (who was a larger country than the US at the time) had difficulty controlling and taming the land and it’s inhabitants. So to sum it all up, the Mexican government didn’t view the American government as powerful and they thought the USA would not be able to defend the newly annexed Texas and her territorial claims. For the longest time the viewpoint in Mexico was that we would take back Texas eventually (internal disputes kept kicking the can down the road) however as the US kept industrializing and growing as en economic prowess, the belief that we would retake Texas was slowly waning. It was however still popular opinion that Mexico would call forth her sons to defend itself to what was viewed as American expansionism.
@@lalochivafan I certainly agree that Mexicans were right to be concerned about American aggression. We have rarely treated our southern neighbor fairly. I can't agree that retaking Texas was ever a rational goal, though...the war of 1846-48 was lopsided and decisive even though it was well before the USA's emergence as a super power.
I would not consider the U.S. and Mexico historically to be like China and Taiwan. Very different situations. As for Santa Anna, he was given mercy when many would have hanged him on the spot.
Thanks for a good summary. Small point of correction: Robert E. Lee was a colonel when he helped end the raid on Harpers Ferry, not a general. Lee became a general only in the Confederate army.
As famed radio announcer, Paul Harvey, used to say.... and now, The Rest of the Story! Lincoln was pro-secession as a lawyer elected to Congress. Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." Lincoln would not leave Ft Sumter because he wanted REVENUE TAX MONEY! Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter. "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......" Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter) "Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......" Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run"). "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH LEGALLY SECEDE? The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America). English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist: "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for 'ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug). Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS TO THE NORTH. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…”
As a North Carolinian, that grew up around people flying the confederate flag. I had no idea about the details of this video. This was very well made and informative. Thanks,
'Checkmate Lincolnites' series by a historian turned youtuber has a really entertaining way of giving a perspective I never got from growing up in a former southern state.
In summary…. The south wanted to own humans… the north didn’t. Also it’s weird how there’s no mention that American farmers moved to Texas region and brought slaves… even though Mexico abolished slavery in 1829. This decision was a reason why “Texans” or YT Americans provoke revolution and broke away from Mexico later asking for US annexation. Oh and there’s seems to be a chunk of history skipped… the trail of tears which is why the Indian Territory was made
that is good history all of us as humans must look back on and learn of course, but this video is on the topic of the civil war, something which the indian territories had very little effect on.
@@ziggystardust1122 They didn't. Don't talk about Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. They weren't "the North," they just didn't rebel. The goal was to find legal means to phase out slavery, most likely in the gradual way it was done in the Mid-Atlantic a generation earlier. The North didn't just wake up one day and charge into the South to end slavery immediately at gunpoint. It was the South that put the matter to gunpoint, and once it became clear they weren't going to surrender easily it was then that the switch was flipped on Emancipation, because the only reason for the gradual legal approach had been to avoid a costly war. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri didn't do that, so in their case there was still reason to take the gradual approach. That doesn't mean the North wanted to extend slavery in those states, they just wanted war even less than slavery.
@@charlesfenwick6554 we, the U.S. were in possession of Mexico City. Mexico's capital. One could say we could have fought on and taken possession of all of Mexico. We didn't and negotiated a peace settlement. A compromise. Not an unfair land grab as you assert.
@@charlesfenwick6554 in the treaty the US paid for the land. Not to mention that the population for those territories was miniscule. LA was the largest population with only a couple thousand. That's why Mexico agreed to the US purchasing it in the peace treaty.
That showed the hunger for power that white "Americans" have always had 🧐 But now they say Russian should not try to get any more territory in Ukraine for example 🙄 But the "Americans" coming from Europe took a big chunk of land from Mexico 🤫
It is not confined at the time to such of a division. There were people in the North who still owned slaves until 1863. There were people in the South who did not, and would not own slaves.
@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 90% of slaves were in the south. 33% of the south were slaves, 2% of the North were slaves.........Look up primary source documents, the pronouns of the country at the time were slave state, free state, slaveholdings state, non-slave holding state......Hundreds of thousands of words and admissions, every compromise, every secession commissioner confirmed, more proof that God's existence, that the divide was primarily over the future existence and expansion of slavery, this was the cause of the souths secession. Imagine saying that detroit isn't dangerous because salt lake city has crime too. when the south seceded, they took 90%+ of america's slaves with them.
We are still slaves to the banking cartel work pay taxes buy something pay taxes get $$$% out of the bank they want to know what you are doing with it is that freedom?
What a great video, amazing script, very easy to follow. I particularly appreciate the time they took in the middle to step aside and explain the moral dispute among both sides.
This video was absolutely amazing! I do believe it helps to better understand the evolution of our nation and why the worst war in our history actually happened. Politics and big government has lead us and our thinking since the beginning.
Part 2 is here! -> th-cam.com/video/GiW_supSSOk/w-d-xo.html
Part 3 is here! -> th-cam.com/video/t56cwRxBtG8/w-d-xo.html
Part 4 is here! -> th-cam.com/video/wu2mZOuvCsQ/w-d-xo.html
You can help support our work directly by Joining this channel and get access to perks:
th-cam.com/channels/uCuEKq1xuRA0dFQj1qg9-Q.htmljoin
You can also support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Knowledgia
By the way, your map wrong West Virginia, split off from Virginia to become part of the North
You missed the part about Mexico renting us Texas and when they wanted it back we stole it ...with force. Stop warping history with your ignorance or agendas.
Oh my goodness !!!!!! How has this not shown up for me.
dude this is such a lie. You are rewriting history. The north had already profited MASSIVELY from slavery. The southern states succeeded from the union and the north invaded.
Unbearable: how that background music and form of speech dramatizes the in itself interesting history! There must be something seriously wrong with it as an honest historian would stick to facts and not trying to manipulate viewers 😢 What about telling about the indigenous population living in those captured territories before since ages btw?
The years leading up to the civil war really quite honestly is more important to learn about than the actual war itself.
Well we didn't learn anything. Look at the divide in the country now.
I’ve been saying this for months now, I honestly think we’re heading towards the same thing today
@@treeherder2201 I think that is mostly due to the confederates and their families pushing alternative history pretending that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Even now they teach that sort of thing in southern schools. Racism is still entrenched deep within southern states. The two parties had a huge change in their platform and positions as one democratic president signed into law the civil rights for black people. This angered the racists so they shifted over to the republican party, it took a while because people tend not to switch party that much later in life, it was just the younger racists who easily moved to the republican party. That is why the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists organizations are all have members almost exclusively in the republican party. They were recently rallied together to support trump during his presidential term. Currently Qanon is following "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" a Nazi propaganda article that was plagiarized by an old satire piece.
@@VodShod More of both sides pushing false history but ok, Don't forget that Kamala Harris is a descendent of a black slave owner. It's either the republicans going "I don't see color while being a brute of a human that no one supports me" then democrats going "Color is the only thing i see to the point I ignore any facts in front of me, while thinking only white people can be bad". To this day there's still no way to support a middle ground that focuses on the labor of the country because America abolished its forming of a labor party through the final blow into American understanding was the "red scare" that's still fairly around today especially with the older generation because the average American can't tell the difference between a regime and general socialism that helps everyone at the cost of a few percent extra in tax that doesn't hurt anyone. Especially if you look at the cost of private health insurance per an individual could possibly save many people hundreds to thousands per year.
The party’s did not switch, that’s a lie. The democrats are the party of slavery and the kkk. Dinesh disouza already proved this. 2 dixicrats switched to the republican side . The rest lived and died and were celebrated in the Democratic Party. Go watch his videos so you stop spreading democrat propaganda.
As the bearer of a degree in American History and the beneficiary of a classic American education, I can say that your Civil War series is quite accurate. It is sad that modern American education has deprecated the teaching of _actual_ American History. Your well researched and produced American Civil War series should be required viewing in every American classroom. +1
....except that this video needs to add specifics that bear on events TODAY ! While slavery was the obvious cause of anger between the states, it was the act of secession that triggered an actual war itself ! Lincoln was told by Supreme Court justice Salmon P. Chase that the states had the RIGHT to secede, based especially on Connecticut wishing to leave the Union during the War of 1812. Lincoln DISREGARDED this advice and declared that FORCE would be used against any seceding state. Robert E. Lee then decided that to lead such an attack against Americans would be DISHONORABLE, and he refused Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army. Lee, and many others held no affection for slavery, but, felt DEEPLY that they must defend their homes from the violence and destruction to come. Jubal Early had voted REPEATEDLY as a delegate for Virginia to STAY in the Union,but, became one of Lee's top generals. These were honorable soldiers and hence were respected by General U. S. Grant. Most rebels fought bravely to defend their homes, and NOT to defend slavery....yet, TODAY, ignorant miscreants tear down statues and memorials to brave Americans who perished just as tragically as the Yankees did. In 1858, Lincoln made disturbing statements in an effort to equal Stephen Douglass's white supremacy position. Lincoln said : " I will always say that whites are superior to the negro, and I'll always be on the side of the whites in that argument". Lincoln further stated : "...if the whites mate with the negroes, a new and violent race will emerge, which will THREATEN the very existence of white people ! " You won't see THOSE quotes carved into the marble of the Lincoln Memorial, will you ???
Except, he leaves out how the 1828 tariff of abominations sparked talks of seccession 50+ years earlier. He then ignores the corwin amendment to the constitution. Drafted under President Buchanan, it was a way to prevent war, by protecting slavery in the constitution.
@@johnfoster535 So in fairness to your first point, states do have a right to secede. However, the only form of succession permitted under the constitution is one of mutual consent between the Federal Government and the State Government, as established in Texas v White (1868). Funnily enough, Chase voted with the majority in Texas v White, so he clearly agreed that while succession is possible, all of the Confederate states did so illegally. Despite this, the Civil War probably wouldn't have actually led to outright conflict and could have eventually led to legal succession, except the new Confederate States couldn't resist constantly seizing federal property, which culminated in their assault on Fort Sumter in 1861 and forced the escalation that led to fighting.
As to your second series of points, Lincoln was no doubt racist by modern standards, as was essentially every other white official on both sides of the conflict civilian and military. However, since sucession was illegal, the fact that confederate generals violated their oaths and joined a force in rebellion is a massive mark against their character in addition to their almost certainly more intense racist beliefs (Lee saw slavery as a 'neccesary evil' that hurt white people more than blacks, Jubal Early was very much pro-slavery even if he was anti-sucession). Combined with the political officials (aka the people who actually caused the civil war) all being slave owning scumbags that explicitly seceded to keep their political power and preserve the rubbish social order where owning people was permissible, I think the thoughts of the average Confederate can be neglected, especially since they were under no obligation to side with the rebel army that put their homes in danger to begin with (see West Virginia, who left Virginia due to their opposition to the war, and the four slave states that did not join in with the illegal actions of the confederates.
President Lincoln put a blockage of cotton for guns & ammo with England. All shipping ports were blocked,causing tons of cotton to sit & rot on shore. With no resolvement in sight, the students of Citadel University
Took action on Fort Sumpter.
This series leaves out SO MUCH, and is extremely inaccurate in many ways, Yet the victor's always write history
Finally a format in which I could digest it all in one sitting instead of splashes of history, never a beginning to end. Thanks!
It’s impossible to do that in one setting
But good luck in your limited scope
@@barefootrooferare you really that friggin lame, lol.
@@barefootrooferthank you. Someone else on here with a little common sense. It’s sickening to hear these people praise this clown. He may know a lot of facts but a few things he said were lies
@@RobertDixon-di7ru outright lies…
Several
🤦♂️
I just watched a Ken Burns documentary on himself doing the documentary on the day leading up to the days before the start of the start of the civil war documentary . Appalling……
The hardest part about understanding history is putting aside the current morals and cultural norms, and looking at things from the perspective of the peoples of the time you're studying
..... THEN to realize that nobody living today was a slave or a slave holder and move on ! 🇺🇸
@nickroberts-xf7oq But denying that Slavery had no current impact, is assassin and foolish. Only the oppressor can deny that it ever happened.
@@MrChambers8109
It was THE impact !
But nobody today owes anybody today anything today !
Yeah, slavery was wrong then and it's wrong today! Nothing to examine or compare!
@nickroberts-xf7oq history always has an impact be it negative, or positive. Lessons learned and progress made. We don't tell Holocaust survivors to get over it. Sometimes ppl can't empathize with issues not related to them. Or we choose to justify feelings based on what we are taught, regardless of the facts.
I learned more from this short video than a year of high school US history.
that's because you chose to watch this rather than being held captive in a classroom
you should fact check everything in this video still..
i learned more in 1 year of 7th grade history that this author omitted and that there were world powers involved in the entire history of the usa even still. take a guess which top 5 were involved the whole way and still are playing us like a violin
School, public or otherwise are still wrapped around curriculum made by the industrial machine, to make good employees. Even universities tailor their academics for the market place, except for a few research scholars they keep behind to get grants for the University.
Probably cuz you actually want to learn it now where as back in high school, we learned far less than what we were taught because of the mentality that most teenagers hold when it comes to learning.
"Do as little as you need to do to make the grade."
At this point, you are likely truly curious which makes people learn far more and retain far more information than when they have an emotional block to learning the info and they're just learning it to make the grade they want to make for that test or class.
I made mostly A's but I had no real interest in learning. I especially hated studying history and now it's one of my favorite things because I'm actually curious about what has made the world the way it is today. Back in high school, I only had interest in being seen by my peers and parents as a student who is successful.
l love the way he speaks in such a way l can understand as being a non native English speaker and also being very dramatic in tone, wish more TH-camrs were like this.
So you do understand how meaningful abolishing slavery was and is.
@@christopherdibble5872 Yeah? Where do you wanna go with that?
@@yuukiyoshizawa7007 yeah.just like slavery was wrong so what we did to the American Indian was just wrong and unconcivable.
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🇺🇲🧑⚖️
@christopherdibble5872
you’re really giving racist undertones xoxo
this by far the best historical video I have ever watched. so many things between the lines that you could make this video 3 hours long. and I would watch it. my hat is off to you.
The Civil War started in 1792. The first battle was fought in 1857 in KS.
Think of how many hours of study you’d have to complete to understand what was presented here in 23 minutes. Great job!
As a Brit who's lived in the US for over 40 years this presentation is the first time I've ever understood the contextual circumstances that caused the Civil War (other than the American Revolution and its connection to the Somerset Case in 1771), much appreciated 👍.
Search 'Checkmate Lincolnites'. Also a really good series.
@@kayvan9057 you've added some needed nuance to the north's racist problems, but you've got a few facts a bit skewed.
1. It is true that cotton was the USA's biggest export, but tariffs are not paid on exports. Tariffs are paid on imports, and over 60% of imports came through New York City. When the south seceded, tariffs dropped 25%, a significant blow to be sure but an obvious indication that the south was paying less in taxes than the north.
2. It's true that about 12,000 freed blacks owned slaves...out of nearly 400,000 slave owners in the USA. And 94% of them owned less than 10 slaves, with about 50% owning only one. We aren't sure, but the best theory is that an enormous majority of black slave owners were men who purchased their wives and never bothered to manumit them. Besides...what's the point of mentioning that blacks owned slaves?
3. Considering that the Cherokee sued the state of Georgia in a famous case that went all the way to the supreme court, it seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that Georgia was somehow innocent in the Trail of Tears. The Cherokee obviously didn't think so!
4. Northern visitors to the South were also appalled by the inhumane treatment of slaves. Many observers also noted that, considering the Southern view of blacks as sub-human and the pervasive fear of miscegenation, there were an alarming number of mixed-race folk.
I am familiar with the Abbeville Institute. Some of their material is very interesting and even helpful. Some of it is the regurgitation of the same lame talking points the secessionists were using in 1860 and the same bilge the Lost Causers started using in 1866. Handle with care.
@GM_Steelhaven Lolololol
iTs PrOpAgAnDa
I suppose next you are gonna say The Lost Cause Myth is 100% legit
@@kayvan9057 the larger point is that cotton planters were still making huge profits on cotton. And the cotton planters dominated Confederate politics...for example, over half of Mississippi's secession delegates owned at least 10 slaves. So the whole "tariffs are making us poor" doesn't fly any way you cut it.
@@kayvan9057 Why was there a Cherokee Confederate general? Well, as you rightly note, issues are never as cut and dried as we might like to think. The Cherokee sued Georgia in 1832 and were removed to Indian Territory by 1838. The Civil War didn't start for another 22 years, Georgia wasn't the sum whole of the Confederacy, and of course the Cherokee rightly had grievances with the Federal government as well as Georgia.
The Cherokee DID sue Georgia for failing to protect them. And they won. And then Jackson went ahead and drove them out anyway. So plenty of blame to go around.
As an ex-pat Brit living in New Zealand, most of this was a revelation for me. It was not a subject covered in UK schools when I was a lad. Incredibly interesting.
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇸🎆✅😁
If it wasn’t for UK navel interference we wouldn’t have our state taxes when your king or queen were mad they couldn’t impose their taxes on us in the revolutionary war
In the initial vote states were 12/13 were confederate states Maine I believe was the odd ball out which happens to be the bordering state of canada which your king/queen stole from us for trying to make our own country thats the only reason we aren’t 💀 thats what caused the revolutionary war to end we’re allies by force technically then you helped the underdog in the civil war making us sorta in debt now all of us in America get taxed “heavy” while politicians sit on stacks and our country feeds yall $$ of course this was all then when the UK was one of the biggest trading spots not now, although we still have the tax issue we just booming trade making the government richer and us poorer
Expat?
@@Sun-gs6hq It means you emigrated to another country. NZ is a different country than the UK, though still in the Commonwealth.
Brit history is really confusing to we Yanks.
As an American myself I never knew just how deep the history of the civil war ran. Thank you for providing this and other videos that teaches us, in amazing detail of our countries' past.
As a fellow American I feel the same. In school, they never showed the connection between the Civil War and Mexican-American War.
The conservatives want to erase history and defund the education system and have been for some time now (decades). I'm not surprised you don't know.
Yes they did. It’s just easier for people to watch videos about it, than read it in books.
@@Batony not all school districts teach the same thing
@@AR-qk3mg If you have children, you are abusing them if you send them to any liberal city's schools.
Best video i have ever seen in 10+ years! Should be shown in every classroom. Its amazing how many people in the US don't understand Gettysburg. Totally enjoyed video!!!! I love history.
I did not understand Gettysburg until I got older. I am aghast at these soldiers that laid their life for my ancestors and my freedom
Hows that freeing of the slaves workin out for ya now? Not so fuckin good is it?
I always thought it was the north that didn't accept the decision of the south and started the war. Actually the south started it at that island?
This is such a better to tool to use for classrooms rather than words on a textbook. I loved history in high school, but having a video like this would have made it so much more fun for me and others as well.
Some people learn better visually, some learn better audibly. It aint right or wrong; it's diff strokescfor diff folks. The only wrong way is not learning.
ⁿ99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999⁹⁹@@henrybutchy3242
Well it's extremely inaccurate, so it's not
@@mrrooster4876
I'm know history buff so please tell how this was inaccurate.
@@mrrooster4876 It is not inaccurate.
This was incredible. Way better than any boring textbook I read in school. You brought history to life. Bravo 👏🏼
Why do you believe it?
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇲
Book doesn't turn you on like a cartoon does..
@@howardjohnson6584Who said he believes everything
Its all bullshit
We need a Part 2!!! Aussie here, I've been learning about the civil war and found this very informative.
Its a Northern narrative - no real mention of Tariffs or the "American Plan" = a national bank, high protective tariff and "internal improvements" (the federal government spending the money it raised by the tariff which is collected in the South (80%) to pick winners and losers - hint: North wins Canals etc; South loses)
I'm American and from NC (North Carolina) and this is one of the best and most succinct explanations i've seen. A part II would be great if it focused on the effects of the civil war on slavery and manifest destiny on Native Americans- there's aa lot of wicked history there wrapped up in Greed.
Technically it was not a "civil war", but rather a war of Northern agression.
Slavery was only 1 reason for the war but not the main reason. The NUMBER 1 reason for the war was to preserve the union that and nothing else. NOTICE this version omits the letters to Jefferson Davis where Lincoln said he could agree to free and slave state system as long as the south did not leave the UNION. 2. the southern state was afraid of the growing power of the federal government over states.
@@johngalt-Princeton The South tried to leave the union to keep their slaves. Then the South attacked Fort Sumter. The South started it and the North won.
Excellent video. I wish i could have seen this in 1962 when in USA grade school we studdied the Civil War. I do not recall them discussing what led to the cause of this terrible war. ALSO, THE bACKGROUND MUSIC TO THIS VIDEO IS AMAZING AND COMPLIMENTED THE NARRATION. YOU DESERVE AN AWARD FOR THAT!
Despite what they say, this is what we were taught prior to desegregation and bussing.
Terrible video. Do you believe the lies this clown told too?
All I can say is WOW! This was so well done. This page should be the new way we teach history. Great job people.
hi
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇸✝️😁
Rarely do I ever go to the comments to applaud a video, but this was phenomenal. Extremely engaging, the effects, the music, the tone of the narrator and all the history well put together and flowed perfectly. Great video. Earned a subscriber, please do a part 2 if you haven't, I'ma go check if you do or not
Damn it
very impressive... if it was true... It is amazing how children in 2022 explain how the things were happening in 1822 just as little as 400 (four hundred) years ago... Great... Keep going. I believe that these children would have created much better Constitution of the USA and free all the slaves back in 1774 and avoid this Civil War altogether... and we will pay retribution to all the slaves anyway... just for the hack of it... 400 years later...
That all sounds good…. If the story is true
@@Mrjasinek1 Abraham Lincoln was a "good ol' man"......... good ol' honest Abe didn't GAF about the freedom of slaves......... just see what Louis Farrikhan said about President Lincoln.........
NYC had a slave market & Northern Generals even owned slaves
How refreshing it is to see/hear a documentary in which the narrator DOES NOT mumble his words. Well done.
or used a robo voice... gawd I hate those robovoice videos
He has an annoying sigh sound at the end of some sentences though.
What sort of documentaries do you watch where they mumble their words?
The ones where I say that are the ones where people do. Most young narrators swallow the last parts of sentences and never listen to what they produce. Many are good writers; I am spoiled, I was taught to over-pronounce everything in radio training in College. And, I am in a different generation. Thanks for commenting. So few take the time to say anything. Dennis
Yea, the way it sounded was much more important than the truth!!!!!!
As a Brit who's lived in the US for over 40 years this presentation is the first time I've ever understood the contextual circumstances that caused the Civil War (other than the American Revolution and its connection to the Somerset Case in 1771), much appreciated .
How did you do it?
I was itching for blighty after a fortnight.
I'm British and found this exceptionally interesting and informative. I'm motivated to find out much more of American history!
Regardless now the Mexicans are the slaves working all the fields of the US
The US schools teach that Abe Lincoln was a great president and that the Civil War was about slavery. What a shame that our US schools are such a scam. Lincoln imprisoned thousands of journalists and slavery didn't enter into the fray until way after the war had kicked off. The US schools teach white guilt. And that every minority is a victim. What a shame that American students aren't taught the truth.
@Mandie Shumway There is a lot of shit In history that is pathetic too. How many Jews did Hitler kill like 10 million
@Mandie Shumway totally. America was the only place w a history of slavery
@Mandie Shumway Most people’s countries have a sordid history
Finally a piece done without two hours of modern demonetization but the facts as they were then and from their perspectives.
Repent to Jesus Christ “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Matthew 6:33 NIV
T
An interesting side note. During the war some prisoners were given the option of changing sides. One of my ancestors joined the Union. Was captured by the Confederates and chose to fight for them instead of a POW camp. He was then recaptured by the Union and fought for them until the end of the war.
My 2nd great grandfather was captured at Little Round Top, Gettysburg, sent to Rock Island POW camp where he signed onto a Union frontier unit. His widow received a Union pension, but was rejected for a Confederate, being classified as a deserter.
Sounds like a bunch of traitors to me
@@thekingflea2199 Well, and if we think about how the US waged wars, fighting only weaker enemys or joing wars only after years of fighting, we are getting a total different picture of this "brave Nation".
@@Peet_McFly the brave nation that was 13 little colonies that held their own against the far superior UK who was preying on the weak because America had no millitary 😂😂😂
@@Peet_McFly the US wages war with everyone because we are the superpower whatever side we join is winning
The storytelling in this ancient history documentary is top-notch! It really makes the ancient world feel alive and relevant today.
How can people hate history? It's fascinating. I see it repeating itself.
Most people aren't very smart.
It's repeating itself because a the wealthy keep doing the same shit over and over to maintain their status quo.
@@SecondPlaceSince1865 yes, indeed, let the truth be known! "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"
Repeating itself? Perhaps - when the communists come for our guns.
History does repeat its self. Look at today's democrats want your guns, control the media, education system of brainwashing , use federal govt to go after political opponents hmm sounds like nazism
The history videos you make are amazing. So so much better than any detailed long documentaries that are not even available for free.
This definitely needs a part 2. Extremely engaging and worth translating in as many other languages as possible as the world needs to understand the history of one of the strongest nations and how it came to be. Good job.
I would offer to do it in Spanish, without a problem
@@victorherreraguzman5014 I am not sure how well it will come out but I can help with the Bengali and Hindi. 2 of the major language of the Indian subcontinent. If it helps.
Part 2 ~ rough timeline of the release date?
Maybe in part 2 he could stop talking bullshit lost cause myth.....
@@skillcoiler Where does he mention anything relating to the lost cause myth?
This was an absolute masterpiece of a video. Subscribed
Great unbiased synopsis of what transpired antebellum and the start of secession. Remember, we must learn from history here and not to repeat it.
unfortunately, due to certain situations, the current climate is leading to a divide nation.
Those who study history are doomed to watch history be repeated by those who are ignorant to history.
We can see a lot of the division in today's society mimic the divisions that tore apart past societies. The issues may not be the same but the effects of division may well end up being the same if we cannot reunite society.
The biggest obstacle to that, is that the Confederates went in to damage limitation after the war and tried to sanitize their reasons for fighting in the first place. "Oh no it wasn't about slavery, it was about "states rights". These idiots in the south today who glorify the slave owners rebellion have swallowed The Lost Cause Myth hook line and sinker. Once these falsehoods are finally buried, we can all move on
@@mr.patriotjol agreed!
@@TimDyck The issues are of the fallout of the civil war, sparked by capitalist coporations who get off on the partisan conflict. I'm worried for my southern neighbour.
I haven't even looked at your other videos but if they are a half as good as this, you have won me over. Instant subscribe just based on this video. Thanks for all your hard work and research. Well done mate.
I don't recall being taught much about American history here in Slovakia, this was very informative and I finally have at least an idea on what civil war really was. Will there be part two ?
@@1noduncledude what the fuck?
No offence but why do u care as a slovakian
@@zbt62 US media dominates the world, most of the music, podcasts, tv shows, movies, video games, etc. are either made in or centered around America
sometimes the civil war was mentioned in said media, yet I had very little idea about what was really going on at the time (and it is not THAT distant past either). I felt like I should really educate myself about the events, and this video was very helpful.
@@zbt62it’s called intelligence. Knowledge is power.
@@zbt62 we Europeans care as much as you Americans care about world domination and spreading democracy 😂
Thank you for this refresher summary. It's been 60 years since I studied this in school
You people are like children, you have no idea what you are talking about! The Federated States of America started in 1040AD, they militarized the Celtic Indian tribes to wipe out the Vikingar (Cretan Guard) who had been in America since 1200BC. The Great Schism happened in 1054AD, the Vikings were wiped out by 1066AD. The Franciscan Movement into America happened in 1201AD with the St. Clare Expedition at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. The Phoenicians of the Appalachians who had been in America since 261BC after the fall of Carthage rebelled. The Orion Armistice with the Heads & Tails Accord created the Confederate States of America in 1255AD. Let's open up this debate, and get even more controversial. In 1307AD it was all out war, with the Templar Knights making beachhead at Boston in 1309AD. The Plague hit in 1347AD. The Scottish Rite brought the Templar to the Mountain of Rushmoor in 1362AD for the Last Stand. These three Sinclair Expeditions created the Aztec warriors who fought the Mongols by the Volga River in 1325AD, and Inca warriors who were sent to the Caucassus Mountains in 1438AD. It is the Grecco-Roman War, the Aesir-Vanir War, the Western Roman Empire vs. the Eastern Roman Empire. Slavery was a tool to get rid of lazy white people who had gotten fat. The Union had more plantations than the south. After the Civil War, the Union army went to South Africa and took out the German controlled regime. That started WW1 & 2. Only idiots cry about slavery as the cause, you are uninformed. This is a social cast system designed to force Titan white people to mix with Gold Coast tribespeople from Egypt (500BC from Ethiopia) to pass on intelligence to a new cast of people. It is the story of the Minotaur. Primordials replaced by the Titans, who were replaced by the Olympians, who were replaced by the Troians, who were replaced by the Ionians, who were replaced by the Hellenes who sent Rheingold Maidens to America in the Ptolemaic Era of Egypt to create American Indians. Geez, read a book or something.
Excellent video. Quality is very nice and the topic is well explained! 👍
Best one so far, can't wait for the rest!
I with my social studies class in Canada had videos like this. I would’ve actually paid attention. Great job.
This is Propeganda, The US Schools have been taken over by Communist that are stirring up Racism. Read a History Book if they havent burnt them all . Not a BS text book.
🇨🇦🤝
We in the U. S. never had them either. Just boring textbooks with a few maps. And I'll bet the textbooks in the South may be different than the textbooks in the North. The conflict continues to this day.
Excellent video! Definitely looking forward to part 2
This presentation would easily defeat the cumbersome reading of history books and will be retained much better due to audio-video graphics.
Thanks so so much!
Eagerly awaiting the Concluding Part 2.
What makes you think "this presentation" is entirely true and not without bias?
@jds6206
I don't care.
As long as i got the basic idea that's what's important.
Any argument about it, I won't pay much attention.
Why?
Coz it's history as in HISTORY not only in terms of time but in terms of RELEVANCE.
If you want to get to the nitty gritty of things, that's your call and not my concern.
The general idea & concept of the events is what's important as far as I'm concerned.
it did not mention all the constitutional abuses that Lincoln committed. He first used the Patriot Act, had people arrested and never charged. G W Bush is the one who put IT into law. Just ask the J6 people. history repeats itself
@knowledgiagiveaway
Hehe... Cool.
How do I get to you in Telegram, sir.
@knowledgiagiveaway
Thanks!
Great job! Definitely looking forward to part 2!
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇲
This has to be the most amazing work you made so far.
Please keep it up.
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🇺🇲🧑⚖️
Thanks for video... Well presented ❤
This was very well done. I was looking for Part 2...but notice this was just released three days ago. So looking forward to find out what happens next. : )
I probably learned more about the civil war in 23 minutes than I had in all of high school and two semesters of college history. Nicely done.
*SPOILERS:* The Union wins.
The exact same thing happened to me. Great content and great delivery.
Great delivery. Not accurate maps or info.
I believe Amazon has a pretty good documentary that is super informative about the eras before during and after the civil war. Forgot the name of it but definitely look into it if you'd like to be properly educated.
Next one 😭😭😭
I’ve studied the war between the States deeply for nearly 45 years. This is a fairly accurate assessment. Thank you.
I had family on both sides of the conflict. My fathers side were Germans who emigrated in 1853. They enlisted in the Indiana Infantry when called upon.
My Mothers side has been in this country since 1635 and being from (at that time)
Missouri, were southern sympathizers. They moved to Tyler Texas, where my 2G Grandfather (Cpt Steven Carter Ragan) formed a Calvary unit that fought many battles, including the Siege of Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Battle of Atlanta to Mobile, AL, upon the end of hostilities, then they went home to farm their crops. Steven was next a two term State Senator and later Undersheriff of Kansas City MO.
As famed radio announcer, Paul Harvey, used to say.... and now, The Rest of the Story!
Lincoln was pro-secession as a lawyer elected to Congress.
Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it."
Lincoln would not leave Ft Sumter because he wanted REVENUE TAX MONEY!
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter.
"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......"
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter)
"Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......"
Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run").
"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH LEGALLY SECEDE?
The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America).
English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist:
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for 'ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug).
Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS TO THE NORTH. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…”
Wow that's great story in itself...😎👍
With all that studying I hope you agree, SLAVERY was the greatest lesson.
@@christopherdibble5872 Actually, NOT. Slavery was the token for "states rights", the desire of the South to maintain their independence and rural agrarian way of life. The recent (1840-1861 improvements to the cotton gin had reduced by 80% the number of workers (slaves) required to remove the seeds from cotton, thus reducing the need for slaves. Had this trend been allowed to continue unfettered, slavery would have ended in the South without the "unfortunate war of Northern aggression". Certainly, not in 1864, but, even Southerners knew that they didn't need to feed, and clothe slaves that weren't making them money!
Ken, if you have more to tell I would certainly love to read it!!
Many things in current times are explained by events of the past. American history is fascinating and looking forward to learn more on their civil war. It seems the war was inevitable and even necessary but it also caused a lot of damage to the unity of its people.
And if you read Colin Woodard‘s American nations and American character, he bluntly stated in an interview “We’ve always been this way!”
As terrible as it was, it was necessary. I think we have again reached that same crossroads with the Republicans turning into a fascist cult bent on overthrow of democracy.
@@shock_n_Aweful largely brought in part by the southern strategy for the past half century, neoliberalism or Reaganomics, the rise of Trump, and many other issues indeed.
at the time of the outbreak of the civil war, Only 3% of the white men in the Southern Usa owned slaves
that means 97% (rest of the white male pop) were piss poor farmers there was not much manufacturing, not much tourism, or service sector in the South.
Any time two economic Masters bump into the Present of a Day and date, then they learn how little they know about business models.
the majority of the white in the South were enslaved to the whims of a few white men.
slavers do not allow their slaves to use tools, much. for the tools might end the enslavement /
Note: the Hebrews of the Bible, out of Egypt with moses in charge, had slaves the Hs were not known as slaves of Egypt, rather 'paid laborers'.
slavery is not banned, rather used to push the leftovers from 'bad economic zones where overbreeding occurs'.
or
where wars happen and the leftovers prefer to be a slave, over being dead their choice
Jesus was dark skinned, so enslaving blacks might seem stupid. God spoke thru the blacks before speaking thru Joan of Arc.
not one white man has HEARD (not an amber alert) the words except in C Heston's voice. lol so enslaving the skin tone of JC might piss off God, u think?
the economic model of owning a human is too High vs the setting them free to work for other shareholders
shareholders have learned to allow the slaves to move from Job 3:14, to another and another all the while the wages remain lower than the actual cost of enslaving, housing, hiring men to wipe them, rape them and keep them in line. too much cost
so the Southern States now use low wages to enslave their slaves and it works the few shareholders r well maintained, just like in the Pre Civil war days
myop dumb asses should not be Bloodlined into wealth they should have to pass a business model test and learn the proper methods of making more Profits // slavery is not banned by the Bible, but only a dumb white man would enslave a Black Fellow (kkknowing Jesus, Son of God, was in deed not a white bread)! better to enslave the white skinned humans JUST Like Rome did than waste time playing small g god and pissing off the 1 God //
the atheists will always hate Jesus for Commanding all toe RENDER on to Caesar as per the Constitution's Article 1 S 8 P1, words written by white men.
He whom be a dumb white of the inability to read, shall be called Kiffur. and shall be read into the words of the White Founder!
Dumb whites are never going to unify under the white Founder's words, because the dumb white men do not read the words, and if they did, they would admit to hating the white Founder's words! they r the Kiffurs, by their low wage acceptance it has not a THING to do with their skn tone.
@@rypatmackrock oh yea this has been brewing for a long time and it definitely started with the southern strategy. Them cuddling up to the religious right and feeding their voters on hate and fear of the other came long before Dump. He is a symptom of the disease not that cause. I don't really see a path for them to turn that around either, deprograming someone out of a cult is possible but extremely difficult and more likely to fail than succeed. Doing that with 30 million people is not a reasonable expectation. We have to prepare for a steady increase of mass shootings and other terrorist activity from them. The leadership knows they cannot win legally and once the people on the ground accept that they will turn to more violence.
Wow. So much to learn at my late age. Ill have to watch this again. Excellent presentation.
I just finished a class that covered all of these topics, and honestly this is a really great summary. The only mistake I saw was the Mexican Cession also included the later Gadsden Purchase, but everything else seemed really well done. I would also mention that the South’s 9 million inhabitants included millions of enslaved people, from whom they could not recruit. By the end of the conflict, the percentage of white men who were forced into the confederate army was 80%… mind blowingly high
Towards the end of the war, black slaves actually did fight on the side of south. Sure, very few, but woke history doesn't like that idea, instead insisting that any new Viking movie must have black actors in them, like History's Vikings last season (their worst of course) where they put not only a woman but a black women as chief of Viking Kattegut fort/town. Needless to say, this idiocy put an end to an othewise good series.
Next we'll see shows where blacks were really great chiefs of most of the plains indian tribes...
@@motomike3475 the only black slaves I know of who "served" in the confederate army were laborers, cooks, musicians, and so on. They were not armed or given uniforms, and very very few of them were paid. The Confederates wouldn't even allow the Louisiana native guard to fight in the war, even in the very end they only allowed slaves to enlist and "earn" their freedom if their masters would allow it.
And after so many deaths, General Lee and President Davis weren't executed for their crimes against the nation. And the Democrat party wasn't immediately abolished. They managed to spend the next 100 years trying to keep black people (and women of all colors) from voting. And then suddenly overnight, apparently in the 60s, they became the party of women and colored?
@@motomike3475 No black man ever formally served as a Confederate soldier on the battlefield. If you believe otherwise, please provide the man's rank, name, and unit.
@@motomike3475 I don't know why people bother arguing over this. It was illegal for blacks to serve as soldiers in the Confederate army until out of desperation they changed the law in the last 3 weeks of the war, too late to have any impact. But let's say for the sake of argument they had recruited them from the very beginning. Sure, they would have found some dupes to sign up. So what? People fight for causes against their own best interests all the time. It's happened in every recent US election, on both sides. You drag some poor soul off a plantation who was never even taught to read, convince him that firing a rifle is more fun than picking cotton, and now suddenly the South's cause is validated? It's ridiculous.
In high school, I learned as much as I could about our Civil War. This short video explained alot, filling in the missing pieces such as the Dred Scott case.
Well done on this video as I'm adding you to my subscriber list!
Lol maybe read a few books instead, especially ones about who the southern elites were and the view of slavery by the common people.
@@glideronthemoon well they didn't teach us about XXXX in school is a common and totally lame excuse.
go to library, check out book, read, learn.
@@glideronthemoon yeah are you kidding they don't want to teach this in school
Your high school didn't teach the Dred Scott case ?
I think I see the problem here ...
Not hearing about dredd Scott makes me assume you were educated in the south. Is this correct? Not trying to be rude or anything but I learned that name in grade school (by age 14not sure how early I heard about it but I believe 7th grade history so 13 years old)
Also may I ask ur age as well? I think being educated in 96-04 for grade school (think that’s the correct number lol I hate math but not history) but yes older eras of education may have been more effected by what was out there and honestly if u were in the south…. The historical feelings if educated older folks that were closer to the civil war then it could have effected the education due to how some southerners still feel a certain way bout the war which is wild to me
I spent months in school learning this. Being a visual learner, i felt more clear learning from this than all the reading in school.
Well you probably made the correct decision. All they teach in school now is how to argue over what gender you are.
Learning styles aren't real
@@jamescook6564 .... get back to your street corner with your cardboard sign yelling about how the world is ending
@@whatthetech7647 I can see you're part of the problem.
@@whatthetech7647 I beg to differ, may I have your source, please? Do you also believe the earth is flat and not round? (Yes, I am questioning your intelligence.)
Wow. This was thorough. Respect.
that Dred Scott case would make one HELL of a movie. like, a racial historical period courtroom drama
Yes it would make a great movie! Dred Scott changed everything. The Democrats argued that only white people could be protected by constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney conspired with presidents and senators to nationalize negro slavery through the Supreme Court.
I hv many books on the Civil War and many topics have been written on it especially on why it came about. But somehow your video was very clear and makes me fully understood why it happened. Kudos!!
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇸🎆✅😁
I appreciate the careful wording. Well done.
This was excellent, I recently visited the Civil War Museum (renamed from the Confederate Civil War museum) in New Orleans. This video cleared up a lot of what I may have missed while walking through the museum. I also have read a few book s on the Civil War but this brought it home, great video.
Babe wake up, Knowledgia just uploaded!
Please do part 2. I love the way you cover this topic, I read so much of the civil war in the past and your video definitely makes it more fun to learn about it.
the most clean and simple, yet comprehensive, civil war build up explanation I have found. Thanks for helping me understand it better.
I'm a history buff (I actually minored in it almost by accident) and American Civil War is my specialty area but I've never seen such a thorough but understandable video on this complicated topic. Thank you.
Then you arent a history buff. Go watch one nation under God by David Barton. America's history is Godly, not secular.
@@snoodydoody2685 possibly you should go read the first amendment to the Constitution of the US. The Founding Fathers specifically stated the US might be “under God” but the government is not to be a religious one
@@suekelley2109 So again, you arent a history buff, because thats not what it says lololol
@@snoodydoody2685 and I am and have the degree to prove it 😁
@@suekelley2109 Anyone can get a degree, thats not even that hard to do. That doesn't mean you know anything. A head full of knowledge is not a head full of truth. You might want to go relearn your history and go look at what the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence say my dear. Because you don't know what you're talking about. And it shows. I would bet money you don't have a degree in American History. I bet you have a degree in revisionism.
One of the best videos out there on the civil war. To the point and well edited. I subscribed !
NYC had a slave market
@@redskywalker3374 I think NY still does I live and work here and trust me.. most of us feel like we are
As a black American southerner this video was great to watch I learned a lot can’t wait for part 2
What they don't mention is the "definition" of FREE STATE. In the 1800s, the term meant WHITE STATE.
Abe Lincoln said it this way in his speech in Peoria, IL.
"Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of "free white people". This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for "poor white people" to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for "poor (white) people" to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories."
Lincoln invaded the South for money. Slaves were freed to strip the South of its political power under the Constitution's 3/5 Compromise Clause.
Slavery was not "free labor" as it actually COST MORE to house, feed, clothe, care for the slaves than simply offer a wage.
The Union, and this video, talks about EXPANDING SLAVERY. *WHERE?*
Once the States seceded, there was NO PLACE in which to expand. That was just another LIE to control black people in claiming the war was about slavery.
The history of secession in the US explains it all.
The New England States wanted to secede in 1815 under the Hartford Convention. One of the reasons mentioned was the 3/5 Compromise Clause.
The House of Representatives and the Electoral College are based on POPULATION. The South wanted every slave counted. The North wanted none of the slaves counted. So, the COMPROMISE was that only 3/5 of the total slave population were to be counted.
The North thought that gave the South too much power in the federal government. So, they talked about secession.
The tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abomination, started South Carolina's secession talk. Basically, the South was getting wealthy due to the Industrial Revolution and its textile mills demands for cotton.
So the Union started taxing the South to pay for northern infrastructure, railroads, industry, and employees. But, very little was being paid to the South. This continued into the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833.
Look up the term "protectionism."
South Carolina continued watching the federal tax laws. On May 10 1860, the House passed another pro-North tax bill, the Morrill Tax. A week later, the Republican Party Platform pledged their support. In November 1860, the Republicans won the election, and on December 20, South Carolina seceded.
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 95 is the *ONLY* federal document that mentions "freeing slaves," but no one ever reads it!
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;.."
Lincoln illegally declared emancipation in the following locations in his Proclamation:
"Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, *(EXCEPT* the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, *(EXCEPT* the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which *EXCEPTED* parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."
*NOTE:* Does Lincoln release any of the estimated 1 million slaves still held in the Union States? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Union Territories? *NO!* Does he release any slaves held in Indian reservations or territories? *NO!* Did he release any slaves in the Southern Border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in West Virginia? *NO!* Does he release any slaves in the Confederate State of Tennessee? *NO!* Does he release slaves in select counties/parishes of the Confederate States of Virginia and Louisiana? *NO!*
The REASON this is the ONLY document referencing slavery is because "slavery was legal under the Constitution" which makes Lincoln's Proclamation *ILLEGAL!*
Slavery was legal under the Constitution: Migration and Importantion Clause, Fugitive Slave Clause, 3/5 Compromise Clause, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment.
Slavery was recognized as legal by federal laws of Congress: 1794 Fugitive Slave Act, 1820 Missouri Compromise, 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, 1854 Kansas - Nebraska Act, etc.
Slavery was recognized as legal by SCOTUS in their decisions, such as 1857 Dred Scott v Sanford based on the 5th Amendment.
Lincoln recognized slavery as legal in his first Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 (quoting the Republican Party Platform plank #4 in paragraph 6 and the US Constitution 's Fugitive Slave Clause here).
"No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."
*AND THERE IS THIS - WHICH NO ONE MENTIONS!*
Lincoln sent General John Charles Frèmont to Missouri to head up the Western Department and control the further secession of States.
Frèmont issued an emancipation edict on August 30 1861. For this action, Lincoln charged Frèmont with INSUBORDINATION and removed him from his post on November 2, 1861.
But, Lincoln does the exact same thing thirteen months later?
Please look up Lincoln's Presidential Proclamations NO. 81 and 82 as well as the US House of Representatives Crittenden-Johnson Resolution.
Here's what you'll find:
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter.
"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......"
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter)
"Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......"
Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run").
"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America).
Excellent video. I enjoyed this very much. Just want to point out a small detail in the narrative @19:50 ...Robert E. Lee was a Colonel of the U.S. Army when he led the militia force to stop the raid on Harpers Ferry. He would go on to resign the U.S. Army when Secession began to take place and become a General for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
I love their US History content. Keep up the good work!!!
This is the type of "good-info" that young adults and adults can turn to again and again to review the beginnings of the bloodiest war ever fought on US soil. Don't let the revisionists change how it came to be. Good Job!
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇸🎆✅😁✝️
Whoa, this information is so much different than what I thought I knew about the Civil War! But then again we are taught what they want us to know, not the facts. Great job on expanding my knowledge. Ty
What were you taught?
Be aware that history is taught by the winners. Did the South "fail to industrialize" as stated in the video, or were they artificially prevented by Northern policy, in which southerners paid higher prices for tariffs which went to Washington, only to be spent on federal projects up north?
@@ConanTheContrarian1 Definitely a contrarian, if the south's economic survival depended on mass human enslavement it deserved to be destroyed.
Everyone that has ever taught teaches things they want you to know. Including this video.
@@ConanTheContrarian1 the south failed to not be gay.
Love the content! How did I not know about this channel
Welcome!!
Also a slight nitpick the Confederate State's didn't fail to industrialize once they shifted their economy into a war time one they became one of the largest industrial powers in the world right behind the United States, Britain, and France. They were cranking out cannons and ironclad warships without much issue not to mention Atlanta was known as the workshop of the Confederacy.
I read your comment and thought, "No, that's not right," but I googled some stats on Confederate cannon production and lo and behold, it was much higher than I imagined. Thanks for the comment!
I would note that although the Confederacy did produce a number of iron clads, it was never enough in the same place at the same time, and thus never made a substantive difference. They probably would have been much better off producing locomotives instead. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
@Sam Doe first of all , without Spain and Germany and France the South would not have been able to do this - Thankfully Lincoln put Grant in charge or english may not be our first language - having said this , a few very wealthy people used propaganda and pushed a false narrative in order to garner support - the average Reb wasn't defending slavery - they didn't have the resources to even think about the concept - they were fighting for their home + again , this was because of the false narrative - sound familiar ? It was a different time - impossible to judge those unless you are a narcisstic piece of shit who doesn't have a clue about our true history -
@Sam Doe well, war does change things
@@aaronfleming9426 you're welcome ya you're right about the ironclads it's still pretty impressive though considering not that long ago they were entirely an agricultural society.
@Sam Doe what do you mean your forced labour away? My family all fought for the Union and I'm a Sons of Union Veterans member.
This was a very excellent summary. Nice job. :)
Just a couple of quick corrections: Robert E. Lee was not a general until 1861. At the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, he held the rank of Captain and was a Lieutenant Colonel at Harpers Ferry. Same thing with Grant. Grant was not a general at the time of the Mexican-American War, he was a Second Lieutenant at the outbreak of the conflict.
who gives a shit
Also, the south was not dependent on free labor. There were just a few Plantation owners who wanted to be rich and had pocketed politicians. There were many independent farmers making an honest living.
And Grant was disgusted by this unjust war.
@@JustLikeHeaven77please do more research. Whataboutism never looks good in any way. Here is the truth
Slavery was so profitable, it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America's southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation. Their fuel of choice? Human slavery.Mar 6, 2018
This guy doesn't care about actual facts...😂😂
I cant wait to listen fully when i have time. I hope this is impartial in its entirety, because it sounds fantastic, so far!
Nice!! Can't wait to see who wins when part 2 comes out !!
As a non American this was fantastic,
I appreciated the continuity of the map so you can actually see what was happening and where as the scale of the U.S can make it difficult to grasp what was where.
Kentucky wasn't the south.
@@aniya8759it was a slave state, that's what it was showing. (Maryland and Delaware as well)
Really well done honestly. I could listen to the narrators voice all day
When brother fights brother theres never a winner
I’ll add that, prior to the Civil War, each State was a lot more like a separate country. Also, People’s dedication and loyalties were ‘Their own State first, and then the entire country.’
Don't think that has disappeared. More and more people are sick of the Federal Government.
As it was meant to be. And I believe the south had every right to a divorce from it’s agreement to be part of the union.
@@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953 you think slavery was okay?
@@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953 ??? 😭
"State first, then country"
George Thomas: "Hold my beer."
Thank You, for producing this easily understood backgrounder.
Love your presentations. You can present one of the most polarizing events in American history without the over the top political hyperbole so often chained to this subject. I can just sit back and immerse myself for a while.
The people who like to pretend slavery wasn’t the cause probably didn’t enjoy all the talk about slavery lol
@@wtripley Slavery was the cause of succession, but succession was the cause of the war.
@@jamesmith5960 So, by the transitive property, slavery was the cause of the war.
@@jamesmith5960 secession
@@jamesmith5960 if a = b, and b = c, then a=c.
I have just launched a 3rd AI-generated shorts channel, this time about the Civil War. This is the absolute best pre-Civil War video out there. So much perspective! Thank you for making fantastic content! Thank you for making my research super easy!
This was an excellent video but honestly I learned all of this in high school because I liked history and I was paying attention.
Repent to Jesus Christ “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Matthew 6:33 NIV
Aye. I learned a lot.
6:09 This part seem highly suspicious about a southern US diplomat being ignored by Mexico.
If I have to guess, the diplomat was a bait. He have no intention of trading territory with Mexico. He went there to survey the place and provoke the Mexicans. And then the first shot is fired.
That's the sound of Land grabbing campaign is guaranteed xD
@@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist3 What an odd comment for this video.
@@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist3 solid advice, but not really on topic.
@@condorX2 Provocation is the key. A time-honored way to pick a fight...send a diplomat with a proposal so outrageous your opponent is honor-bound to respond harshly, then blame them for the ensuing war.
Very relevant to our current conundrum. Such an important bit of history to inform our perspective & struggles. Thank you!
It needs to happen again,before it's to late
@@SpaceRanger187 Right! 🤣
@@SpaceRanger187 what? Don't be a sheeple and blindly listen to what you see on the news. You want change, you have a vote, go out and express your opinion and get support from others, then form a party and get elected. It's called democracy.
@@ghostofdrethey want facism
@@ghostofdre The United States has never been a democracy. It was formed as a Republic. Don't be a sheeple and blindly listen to what you see on the news.
Fantastic video. I wish my kids had to watch this in school. I downloaded it for them to watch as homework. Thank you.
Wow, thank you!
The reason this video exists is because school is daycare now
Yep,daycare and indoctrination
What a cliffhanger! I'm so curious what will happen. Great video!
What will happen is, if the present administration manage to keep disregarding our Constitution, ,, we Americans will be enslaved. We need to protect our Constitution and demand our Congressman and Senators do their sworn duty to protect the constitution
This is one of the best antebellum videos I have seen. And as a history buff I have seen more than my share and this one is top notch.
As famed radio announcer, Paul Harvey, used to say.... and now, The Rest of the Story!
Lincoln was pro-secession as a lawyer elected to Congress.
Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it."
Lincoln would not leave Ft Sumter because he wanted REVENUE TAX MONEY!
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter.
"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......"
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter)
"Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......"
Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run").
"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH LEGALLY SECEDE?
The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America).
English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist:
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for 'ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug).
Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS TO THE NORTH. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…”
See, whether then or now SLAVERY is wrong.
Hold on a minute…yes Polk was looking for any excuse to declare war on Mexico however the Mexican American war was inevitable since Mexico never recognized Texan independence. Under practices at the time, it was against the “rules of war” to make a foreign leader sign any treaty under duress, which was exactly what Mexico considered Santa Anna to be under when he surrendered in San Jacinto. The proper formal delegations of both countries (Texas and Mexico) never met to discuss terms of surrender and instead forced Santa Anna to make promises he didn’t have the authority to make. Later when USA annexed Texas (which Mexico still claimed similar to China and Taiwan today) it angered Mexico and the political ambience was tense to say the least. It was inevitable for Mexico to try and reclaim Texas. So yes, Polk did look for the excuse however, it wasn’t just the US that looked for the fight. Mexico wanted it too. I’m a Mexican born in Mexico and has lived in Texas since 2002. I’ve studied both sides of history here and this is what seems to be the most complete picture.
Do you think Mexico would have eventually declared war on the United States to try to reclaim Texas?
I think Guatemala/Belize might be a better analogy than China/Taiwan. Guatemala knows they'll never get Belize back, though it remains a convenient political red herring. Santa Anna and others might have talked tough about Texas, but surely they would have known they weren't getting it back???
@@aaronfleming9426 To answer your question: Absolutely! It’s kind of difficult to imagine a country with the military prowess that Mexico has declaring war on the most powerful nation. However this wasn’t the case back then. The USA was not the global superpower that it is today. They were a powerful nation in the midst of industrialization but compared to European powers, it’s military lacked in strength. In fact, it wasn’t until the civil war where the American military was competitive in terms of strength. The only reason why big stick diplomacy worked was because of the logistics involved for the European powers to wage war across the ocean. It wasn’t until WW1 and WW2 where the US militarized and got up on the global stage as the super power of the world. We also have to remember that Texas’ territorial claims were so big that even Mexico (who was a larger country than the US at the time) had difficulty controlling and taming the land and it’s inhabitants. So to sum it all up, the Mexican government didn’t view the American government as powerful and they thought the USA would not be able to defend the newly annexed Texas and her territorial claims. For the longest time the viewpoint in Mexico was that we would take back Texas eventually (internal disputes kept kicking the can down the road) however as the US kept industrializing and growing as en economic prowess, the belief that we would retake Texas was slowly waning. It was however still popular opinion that Mexico would call forth her sons to defend itself to what was viewed as American expansionism.
@@lalochivafan I certainly agree that Mexicans were right to be concerned about American aggression. We have rarely treated our southern neighbor fairly. I can't agree that retaking Texas was ever a rational goal, though...the war of 1846-48 was lopsided and decisive even though it was well before the USA's emergence as a super power.
I would not consider the U.S. and Mexico historically to be like China and Taiwan. Very different situations. As for Santa Anna, he was given mercy when many would have hanged him on the spot.
0:14 A perfect balance, a happy medium, a harmonious relationship.
Thanks for a good summary. Small point of correction: Robert E. Lee was a colonel when he helped end the raid on Harpers Ferry, not a general. Lee became a general only in the Confederate army.
When Lee graduated high school he was voted most likely too"secede".😂😂😂
As famed radio announcer, Paul Harvey, used to say.... and now, The Rest of the Story!
Lincoln was pro-secession as a lawyer elected to Congress.
Abraham Lincoln, US Congressman, 12 January 1848 on the floor of the US House of Representatives:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. *THIS IS A MOST VALUABLE, - A MOST SACRED RIGHT - a RIGHT,* which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it."
Lincoln would not leave Ft Sumter because he wanted REVENUE TAX MONEY!
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 81, April 19 1861, five days after the Union evacuation of Ft Sumter.
"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States *FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY)* can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution *WHICH REQUIRES DUTIES (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES;* ......"
Lincoln's Presidential Proclamation NO. 82, April 27 1861 (after more Southern States secede due to the Union invasion of Ft Sumter)
"Whereas since that date public property of the United States has been seized, *THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE (TAX MONEY) OBSTRUCTED,* and......"
Crittenden-Johnson Resolution issued by the US House of Representatives, 25 July, 1861 (four days after the defeat of the invading US Army at Manassas, VA "Bull Run").
"Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, *WILL RECOLLECT ONLY ITS DUTY (REVENUE TAX MONEY) TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY;* that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, *NOR PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING OR INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OR ESTABLISHED "INSTITUTIONS" (such as slavery) OF THOSE STATES,* but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to *PRESERVE THE UNION (TREASURY),* with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
WHY NOT LET THE SOUTH LEGALLY SECEDE?
The Confederate States of America (1861-1865) started with an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe. *IF CLASSED AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY,* the area of the Confederate States would have ranked as the *FOURTH-RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD IN 1860."* (Wikipedia: Economy of the Confederate States of America).
English author, Charles Dickens, author of A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist:
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for 'ECONOMIC CONTROL* (cotton and other raw materials) of the Southern states." (Google: Charles Dickens, piece of specious humbug).
Dickens owned a magazine called All the Year Round. In it, an article attacked the tariff . “…under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle,” it said. “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; *SECESSION MEANS THE LOSS OF THE SAME MILLIONS TO THE NORTH. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils…”
.
Colonel or general his surrender was not the death of the south but the birth of the United states.
@@vernwallen4246 how long have you waited to use that? Well played.
As a North Carolinian, that grew up around people flying the confederate flag. I had no idea about the details of this video. This was very well made and informative. Thanks,
'Checkmate Lincolnites' series by a historian turned youtuber has a really entertaining way of giving a perspective I never got from growing up in a former southern state.
You didn't know . Here in NC all confederate
Dude-love Your work as always but I had to put video speed x 1.25- and it still was not to fast.All the best.
That was really well done! Thank you!
In summary…. The south wanted to own humans… the north didn’t.
Also it’s weird how there’s no mention that American farmers moved to Texas region and brought slaves… even though Mexico abolished slavery in 1829. This decision was a reason why “Texans” or YT Americans provoke revolution and broke away from Mexico later asking for US annexation.
Oh and there’s seems to be a chunk of history skipped… the trail of tears which is why the Indian Territory was made
that is good history all of us as humans must look back on and learn of course, but this video is on the topic of the civil war, something which the indian territories had very little effect on.
You assert the north didn't want to own slaves. So now explain why they did.
@@ziggystardust1122 They didn't. Don't talk about Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. They weren't "the North," they just didn't rebel. The goal was to find legal means to phase out slavery, most likely in the gradual way it was done in the Mid-Atlantic a generation earlier. The North didn't just wake up one day and charge into the South to end slavery immediately at gunpoint. It was the South that put the matter to gunpoint, and once it became clear they weren't going to surrender easily it was then that the switch was flipped on Emancipation, because the only reason for the gradual legal approach had been to avoid a costly war. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri didn't do that, so in their case there was still reason to take the gradual approach. That doesn't mean the North wanted to extend slavery in those states, they just wanted war even less than slavery.
@@maninredhelm Wow, well stated. Some conjecture, some opinion but overall... well said.
The Texan Revolution was not over the abolition of slavery, it was over Santa Anna becoming a dictator and suspending the Mexican constitution.
Wow that war against Mexico 🇲🇽 was a serious blow to that country
An unfair land grab-an example of "might makes right".
@@charlesfenwick6554 we, the U.S. were in possession of Mexico City. Mexico's capital. One could say we could have fought on and taken possession of all of Mexico. We didn't and negotiated a peace settlement. A compromise. Not an unfair land grab as you assert.
@@charlesfenwick6554 in the treaty the US paid for the land. Not to mention that the population for those territories was miniscule. LA was the largest population with only a couple thousand. That's why Mexico agreed to the US purchasing it in the peace treaty.
i love how free states needed more land to defeat slave states so they they stole land from Mexico 🤦🏻
That showed the hunger for power that white "Americans" have always had 🧐
But now they say Russian should not try to get any more territory in Ukraine for example 🙄
But the "Americans" coming from Europe took a big chunk of land from Mexico 🤫
i like how the video ends with “the civil war had begun” chilling
Excellent. Really good explanation.
Well done. Liked and subscribed.
Bravo! Very good Knowledgia. Well described, and documented. A lot was covered in a short summary. Keep up the great work. (hat tipped)
To even hear the words free states and slave states is such a wild thing.
It is not confined at the time to such of a division. There were people in the North who still owned slaves until 1863. There were people in the South who did not, and would not own slaves.
You're very right. They tried to whitewash those words. History is history. It is what it was
Is a little disingenuous.
@@insideoutsideupsidedown2218 90% of slaves were in the south. 33% of the south were slaves, 2% of the North were slaves.........Look up primary source documents, the pronouns of the country at the time were slave state, free state, slaveholdings state, non-slave holding state......Hundreds of thousands of words and admissions, every compromise, every secession commissioner confirmed, more proof that God's existence, that the divide was primarily over the future existence and expansion of slavery, this was the cause of the souths secession. Imagine saying that detroit isn't dangerous because salt lake city has crime too. when the south seceded, they took 90%+ of america's slaves with them.
We are still slaves to the banking cartel work pay taxes buy something pay taxes get $$$% out of the bank they want to know what you are doing with it is that freedom?
That was good I love the narration!!
History is so interesting when packed like this. Well done!
This was an awesome video! Can’t wait to see the real conclusion to this historical event in part 2!!!
Not exactly correct.
Spoiler alert the north winds the Civil War
What a great video, amazing script, very easy to follow. I particularly appreciate the time they took in the middle to step aside and explain the moral dispute among both sides.
VIVA APPOMATTOX 🧑⚖️🇺🇲
This video was absolutely amazing! I do believe it helps to better understand the evolution of our nation and why the worst war in our history actually happened. Politics and big government has lead us and our thinking since the beginning.
This is pure masterpiece. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
It's a pure masterpiece because every ingredient taught about SLAVERY makes it that.