@@stephenbaugh2041 Stop being a passive aggressive s***. Nobody but you cares that an American on an American website makes a video about American history and refers to it as the Civil War.
One interesting thing I learned about the implications of the Emancipation Proclamation in my law class. By the language in which it was written, any secessionist state that quit the Confederacy and willingly rejoined the Union at that point would have been able to KEEP their slaves and the legal practice of slavery. If such a thing happened, the 13th amendment as we know it might not have come into being.
I read it myself and there is no mention about secession. it listed the states that were in rebellion would have to release the slaves. it also listed exceptions of parishes and counties and says they may continue as if the proclamation has never been issued. The Union does not recognize the confederacy as a separate country, only as states being in rebellion, reason why is for legal loopholes.
In the civil war doc by Ken Burns I really like the way they state, until the civil the country was referred to as “the untied states are” and after the war it was, “the United States is.”
I wish you had addressed the misconception that Lincoln originally offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee. People state that as fact all the time, but there's no evidence that it happened. General Winfield Scott *wanted* Lincoln to offer command to Lee, and Lee *was* unofficially offered command of the troops garrisoned in DC, but Lincoln didn't make the offer.
Abraham Lincoln's secretaries were both men named John. John G. Nicolay and John M. Hay. Women secretaries didn't start until the 1880's when typewriters became office equipment.
@@phosphorus4 The only time Soldiers are aboard ships is if they are being transported to different theater, and during the American Civil War the transports would have been merchantmen contracted by the U.S. government, not actual warships. All individuals serving aboard a warship are Sailors or Marines.
I watch this video living on the Mason-Dixon line PA / Maryland PA state line my road I live on is called Molly pitcher hwy ,I am a stones throw away from Gettysburg actually in high school ,grade school ,middle school ect we used to visit every year, field trip.. I've been there all the time actually I travel there sometimes just to travel there so I know you're out in California and New York somewhere so this is a little more streaking home than me but I think your coverage is well good job, but you left out so much too
Umm how do you think prison labour works exactly? They get paid nothing, or next to it, far less by the way than they are forced to pay to even be in there, and then the private prisons sell the items they make at a massive profit.
It's paying a debt back to society and they have far more rights than any slave ever had. Crime is a choice, being a slave wasn't. I would rather them spend their time being productive and learning a skill or trade instead of learning how to be a better criminal. Just to be clear, I am totally against private prisons.
@@Resavian are you saying ignorance is equal to slavery? I'm a little confused. The argument here is prisoners not getting paid, or paid very little is equivalent to slavery right?
@@swirvinbirds1971 that was my original argument yes, but then the counter argument was made that crime was a choice, which was a claim made from ignorance.
There was one off the coast of France, so probably. Some Confederate raiders were built in British yards, and there were many legal issues around this. The Federal government washed it's hands of Confederate debt & contracts on the grounds that it was all based on the illegality of Secession. A prominent Confederate strategy was Commerce raiding, that generated legal claims in the U.S. & elsewhere.
5:59 The 13th amendment did _not_ end slavery, and the passage you cite shows why. Slavery as punishment for a crime is still legal, and that has had exactly as many perverse incentives as you'd expect. This is a big reason why prisons in many areas are such a profitable industry, and why prison lobbying groups are always in favor of ridiculously punitive legislation - they want to maximize their pool of coerced laborers. It's a real problem.
I mean, he does say American Civil War in the first 5 seconds of the video. I mean, yes there are civil wars ongoing to this day in several countries, but I don't think that there is much confusion for most people on which civil war they are talking about
Hard agree. It isn’t even the most important civil war in history, so it’s a little short sighted. But....I’m pretty sure the audience for this channel is primarily American, and you know how we are. “What do you mean other countries exist?”
The British were really not going to help the C.S.A. in the end. Our War gave cover for France's Mexican misadventure. America's first drug addiction problem followed the War.
"Except for the punishment of a crime" Slavery was not repealed, but re-designated to the state. The state would now be responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering slaves, and then plantations and manufaturers could continue to lease them out. ("A crime to be black" laws went up everywhere).
Caught a small mistake I think. You mention Lincoln's secretary (9:58) and then refer to them as "she" a moment later. His secretaries were men and so that was a classic - sexist - mistake. Just like to draw attention to things like that whenever I can - but really love this channel and the magazine! (If I'm wrong, and you were referring to a female secretary that more often than not is left out of the story - please let me know!)
No, you're absolutely right. Our fact-checker included a note about Lincoln's secretary, and I (video producer Jon, who usually finishes up the scripts post-FC) stupidly assumed it was a woman. Thanks for catching that, a good reminder to A) check my sexist assumptions and B) be more careful incorporating fact-check info. Thanks for the comment!
@@MentalFloss We've ALL done it! But I think it's good if we all start (politely!) calling attention to it - so we can learn and be better. Thanks for the classy response and please keep up the great work!
Per the 13th amendment to the Constitution in 1865: no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime...yet young men were still being drafted into the armed forces 100 years later.
Nothing about the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia? While this battle was a draw, It changed Naval forever; the age of sail and wooden ships would soon disappear. Also many southern military men did not become traitors to their oath and to the republic.
The southern politicians chose to secede over slavery. The regular people who fought for them did so in part over states rights. Not to say slavery wasn't important to them because it was. To anyone claiming the civil war was entirely fought over on "states rights or taxation" is just wrong. Every seceding state explicitly say that slavery was their defining cause of secession. While initially the cause of the north was preserving the union, it later became both preserving the union and "abolishing/preventing expansion" of slavery in order to prevent foreign powers from coming in to protect their southern state imports. On the issue of taxes the south did pay a lot in taxes from tariffs but only because they bought, almost exclusively, products from other countries, like textiles to clothe their slaves. Tariffs were the federal income tax before income taxes were ever a thing. It was the main revenue source for the government. The north was largely industrious at this time, in other words they made their own stuff, meaning they didn't need to buy from other countries, so less spent in taxes. People can debate all day on tariffs as good tax policy but the south's economy was of their own making, being heavily dependent on slavery and imports.
Albert Cashier didn't start passing as male just to fight in the war; he was living as male quite a bit before that. That, combined with the fact he continued to live as a man until his death, shows me he wasn't a woman (and using his given name was inappropriate at best).
Lincoln was never interested in abolitionism. Before the war, he was perfectly okay with the Corwin Amendment which would have permanently legalized slavery in those states that had it. Even approaching the war, he was open to selling Fort Sumter to South Carolina (but only South Carolina, not the Confederacy). It was only after he was seriously losing public support for the war in the North that he tacked to abolitionism. This rallied public support for the continuation of the war -- which, at that time, the Union was actually *losing,* having suffered multiple serious defeats over the previous month (including Harper's Ferry and Second Bull Run)
That is simply not true. You make the mistake of assuming only abolitionists wanted to free the slaves. In fact, abolitionists made up only a small part of the anti-slavery bubble. Abolitionists wanted complete and immediate emancipation of every slave in the Union. This stance wasn't accepted by other anti-slavery people because it was seen as infeasible, not to mention unconstitutional. Lincoln always wanted to free the slaves, he just wanted to go about it differently. The Republican plan was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories and contain slavery as one does a disease and let it die out naturally. That is also why the Corwin Amendment was acceptable to the Republicans but unacceptable by the South. The Amendment said slavery would remain in the states where it already existed, but said nothing of the territories. The South knew that not allowing for the expansion of slavery would lead to its demise. The Corwin Amendment was the Republicans plan for emancipation all along. It was not an abolitionist's plan, but it was still a plan to end slavery. And in reality Lincoln was creating plans to free the slaves relatively early in the war. He was waiting for a Union victory to release it, but that was so he could keep control of the border states.
You've skipped a couple key facts about the Emancipation Proclamation. One, if you read the document, you'll notice that some counties in West Virginia, and some parishes in Louisiana that remained loyal to the union were permitted to retain slavery. In essence Lincoln declared slavery abolished in all of the places he had no control of, and slavery would be permitted in all of the places he had any control over. Also, Lincoln sent diplomats to the Hampton Roads peace accords to communicate to the Confederacy that if the Confederate states rejoined the Union then they'd have enough votes to defeat any emancipation efforts when it came to a vote in the US Congress. Lincoln's priority was to restore the whole Union, and abolishing slavery was a minor concern. So instead of Lincoln being some savior of the lives of slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was really insincere, and more of just a political device.
Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery. In 1855, Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed, a personal friend and slave owner in Kentucky: You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. ... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
What about misconceptions about ancient earth? I guess I'm a downer but oil isn't made from dead dinosaurs but instead is from dead and buried marine life (namely plankton).
I always thought Davis favored him, actually, slavery was on the decline in the south until the invention of the cotton gin than imported more slaves illegally, and fantastic "yarns" were also told as well like the baby by a bullet. I heard that story as a kid when I found out was a tale I was floored but then this is the south we had a relative who told fantastic tales that was one even he couldn't top.
So not gonna talk about the misconception the war wasn't over slavery until Lincoln's announcement? People still don't realize the whole issue, while it was about slavery, was the STATES RIGHTS to choice that themselves. Sure, people with an agenda say it was about slavery, but without telling you that the issue was over states rights to choice to have it, because that was the greater issue. The right of the state versus the federal government was the core argument, but to say it was purely over slavery is to say the voting rights act of 65 was purely to prevent protesting, not to give everyone equal rights to vote.
As lovely a video as this is, I would like to point out that Albert Cashier wasn't really a "woman in disguise" fighting in the war, but someone who lived as a male and insisted on being called such before joining the war, and long after it ended. Nearing the end of his life, even with severe dementia, he strongly objected to anyone calling him a woman. From various statements and actions through his life, it's fairly clear that he did not want to be referred to as a woman, and did not consider himself one. It seems disrespectful to not follow the lifelong wishes of veteran who fought for us.
Davis and Lee should have been regretting their actions from the end of a noose, IMHO. Granting clemency to the rank and file confederate soldiers is one thing. But the leaders of the Confederacy, who deliberately precipitated so much misery and suffering and death so rich people could keep their slaves, should have been treated as the traitors to their country they were.
no she didn't, in what way did she help the union or confederate cause? You could argue she was a subversive confederate since in her own account she only ventured into Maryland (union slave state).
@@raganusesbuz6240 She was a spy for the Union during the war and even planned and led a military expedition in South Carolina. Look up the Combahee River Raid.
@@erraticonteuse see the work of the historian milton sernett "Harriet Tubman: Myth, Memory, and History" she never led a military expedition in south carolina.
@@InspectorJeremy slavery is a big problem around the world. Many American companies openly use sweat shops and American prisons force people to work for little or no money and have the right to extend a persons sentence if they refuse to work. These prisons have defended this by siting provisions in the 13 amendment that allow slavery. Trump do be like that tho.
Also, he had ships ready to take any freedmen that wanted to go, back to Africa. Which, when you think about it...would have been better for everyone involved.
@@darktagmaster1861 - No; that eventually was tried. It's referred to as the African Nation of Liberia... It was founded on good ideas like 'Back to Africa,' but making amends for the wrongdoings of slavery is just not that simplistic. Liberia wasn't/isn't deliverance from slavery or oppression or inequality or injustice or ad nauseum... In fact, I'd say the methods of unification employed by Alexander the Great would have been a far better idea than 'Back to Africa' in the long run...(?). i.e., Divide whole populations in half from within the Empire & those newly conquered on the fringes of the Empire. Exchange the halves, enforce a policy of extreme integration - or, forced intermixing. If one group attempted to dominate the other, or if there was infighting, or segregation...(?)... Alexander would place the newly conquered city, land, territory, whatever, back into the hands of the very King he defeated; in fact, as part of the Empire, they would have a net gain from defeat. Except Alexander made one thing clear to: the two different populations, the conquered Leader given authority, the Overseer within the Empire receiving the new population-basically, "don't fuck up." ...because if Alexander personally discovered or received word that his order was not being followed, that one population was exercising dominion over the other, or one population killed the other, or they were just living isolate from one another, whether by way of the home population brought to the Empire's fringe, the population at home within the Empire, or the conquered, either at the fringe or within the Empire, Alexander would either himself (or give order to) lead the entire slaughter every single person in the area failing to integrate and intermix, whether from within the Empire or new to the Empire, it did not matter. Sounds kind of brutal and would result in just the slaughter of a lot of people...(?). Perhaps. Except Alexander had one infamous betrayal, and ordered the march on one or two cities...(?) He did indeed slaughter people. But...once that happened, ...it didn't continue to happen. People knew Alexander was damn serious. But, generally speaking, Hellenization is generally not remembered as a negative phenomenon. It was the most effective spread of a unified people (of different races, religions, cultures) and into a unified ideology, mythos, common language, etc., that the world would (& arguably has) see (seen; rivaled, perhaps, not until the rapid spread of Islam...). Hellenization is not ill regarded in Western Academia...the negative aspects are glossed over completely....probably because it's been a common unifying thread in the West for as long as there has been a West. 2400yrs had a very limited & brief rough start. The problem of race in the United States has been protracted....nearly 250 years. It's been present not for one leader, but every one in its entire existence. And Alexander...he didn't live to a ripe old age. He was cut down in his late 20s. If the United States had the will to resolve this perpetual (non-)issue, it would have done so long ago! And not by sending people away... Perhaps there's a reason that didn't happen. It's not because we're more "enlightened" or "civilized"-the United States' "racism" is itself an exercise in unenlightenment & uncivilized. It has much less purchase today, in my opinion. Because, for example, George Floyd; the elite attempted to inflame race in the United States, clearly. Except that purchase was largely denied. It sparked riots not based on race...but financial wellbeing. George Floyd was killed because...? He didn't have any money & tried to pass a bogus $20 bill. When ~75% of America hears that & can't help but see how close they are to doing what George Floyd did, they're not focused on skin color as they see it play out on the evening news. They're focused on a person being executed on TV...a person they've already established a likeness with. Because one thing that has become clear to me; skin color doesn't mean shit when the elite are so oblivious to the state of the people that their attempt to cash in on "racial inequality" is of a lesser quality counterfeit than the actual counterfeit note George Floyd attempted to float before his untimely death. Ironically, if not for the tenacity of the elites, this would be a great period of enlightenment & transcendence of race....but I would have to call it, by far and away, the much more the brutal route to unity than Alexander's.... As for Liberia, or "Back to Africa," ....that turned out to be a painful and bitter digression from our path toward racial transcendence & National unity. And Lincoln's ball-less scrotum of an emancipation proclamation isn't often sourced as to what lead to it. It was entirely strategic, he had no intention of ending slavery. His hand was pushed because of a dispute between two States. One seeking extradition of a Slave, the other that wouldn't extradite the claimed "Slave." The concept of slavery and of extradition were incoherent between the laws of the State seeking extradition from the Other. One, a person who claimed they were free was sufficient enough reason to believe they were free, thereby making any further inquiries about their status as a slave unjustified & incoherent. Two, extradition was request for the transfer of custody of a wanted person. A slave was by definition property; property was not subject to extradition per the law. So if a person claimed they were free, it certainly wouldn't make any sense to then ask if they were property...because they were free.....and property can't be extradited anyway... In other words, the State had already creatively banned slavery. The Governor refused the incoherent request, and so political pressure was then placed on Lincoln-fortunately, Lincoln was at least creative enough in his words to favor a one Gov. Kirkwood...who ultimately had to pay the highest price during the War ...barring his life. Did Lincoln free the slaves...? No, he did not. In fact, Kirkwood beat the US to a direct ban in law of slavery. Why? Because a ball-less scrotum one does NOT find one State adjacent ....to the Land of Lincoln.
@@j.macjordan9779 took me a few days to get around to reading this because it's was so overwhelmingly long until I had time to sit down and write a response. You are correct! I know you're correct because I have an understanding of Hellenism under Alexander. In fact, that's why the horse I use for my profile picture is my horse, Alexander. I thought Bucephalus would be too much. And of course my horse is an Appaloosa, just like Robert E. Lee's "Traveller". I'm familiar with you persuasion. I just don't care. I'm okay with all the murder associated with empire, I didn't have to do it. That's one way to get great nations, I just think those in power in the past didn't go far enough. I wouldn't care about what happened to former slaves back then because I wasn't there. I say, murder them all, let god sort of the bodies. Which is obviously just an expression. There is no god
It was not an actual "civil war" as it was not for the control of the entire country. It was more of a war for independence and was seen be by the South much the same as the "American Revolution" against Great Brittian. I am Southern, and letters that I have read from family members of the time, the common soldier and citizen felt that they were being invaded by the Northern States and only wished to be "let alone". Wars are caused by politicians and fought by the common man.
That's not what a civil war is. A civil war is a war between citizens of the same nation at the start of the conflict. It describes the people fighting, not the cause or what they want the end result to be. The term 'civil war' comes from the latin term 'bellum civile' meaning citizens war. Just look at the Sudanese Civil War. It resulted in a totally independent country but is still classified a civil war. It's called the American Revolution because it resulted in a new revolutionary government. Similar to the French Revolution. That term does describe the end result of the war.
You guys should check out Ryan Dawson for civil war history. He does a good job explaining that the north were also incredibly racist and how lincolns aim was primarily to keep the union intact as opposed to just ending slavery. The moral argument for ending slavery came in the middle of the war and the South were absolutely annoyed by the tax they disproportionately paid. I forgot the legislation but there was an offer to keep slavery but to reject secession but the South rejected it in favour of independence.
Ryan Dawson is an idiot. Ending slavery and preserving the Union were never mutually exclusive. In fact, a lot of Northerners saw ending slavery as the means through which to preserve the Union because that's what the South was fighting for. The Civil War was always about slavery because the South made it always about slavery. The North was morally opposed to slavery prior to the Civil War. That's why they were big supporters of the anti-slavery Republican Party. Taxes and tariffs were a red herring developed after the Civil War to distance the Confederacy from it's true cause, the defense of slavery. When the South wrote down why they seceded they didn't even mention tariffs. Their only mention of taxes was the tax they paid on slaves. The Corwin Amendment, which is the legislation you're thinking of, didn't succeed because it was actually the Republican's plan all along. Their plan was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories and keep slavery contained in the South and letting it die out. Even this was seen as an affront to the slave states. The South knew this was the Republican plan "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."-Georgia Order of Secession. The South wanted to slavery to not only remain, but to expand into the territories and into Central America. The Republicans fought to prevent that, and that is why the South seceded.
Things I hope the video covers.. Lincoln had a speech about assigning the superior position to the white race, Indians were Black slave owners who joined the south, got reparations but refused to share with freed slaves, 99% of America both north & south were against ending slavery, slave owners got reparations but their slaves didn't, the North didn't fight because it cared about slavery but to keep the south in check.
It was more so a war about slaves giving the south an advatage brought out by free labor. Thank goodness the US fixed this by outsourcing slaves to China.
@@j.j.9511 Untrue. What was the 3/5 compromise for then? South had a massive population of slaves and the south fought viciously to have them counted as a whole person. If you do not understand why that was a bad thing you haven't the faintest clue how the US government works. Something tells me that isn't all what your ignorant on.
"99% of America both north & south were against ending slavery" That's just false. The North was very against slavery. That's why they heavily supported and voted for the Anti-Slavery Republican Party.The South started the Civil War to protect slavery. It's a fact, they literally wrote it down. And the North did not have more slaves than the South. Around 30% of all Southern households had slaves.
Every time theres a history episode they somehow forget the rest of the facts. Slavery is LEGAL in the US. Just read the 13th amendment.... Idk why I watch this show.
What'd you learn that in 6th grade social studies? We are a democracy and we are a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you really wanna get technical, all republics are democracies. A democracy is an ideology, the republic is the tool by which that ideology is practiced.
Which civil war? There have been thousands, you should really be specific. Just saying 'THE' I assume you're talking about a current civil war, but there are nearly 30 ongoing civil wars right now.
The South made every aggressive move in the buildup to the Civil War. They attacked federal arsenals, forts, and even fired on a US Naval ship. The South started the Civil War and they did it to protect slavery.
@@g3heathen209 Lincoln was a crafty lawyer and he was interested in optics .He took advantage of the situation to have the South fire the first shot at an innocent Federal property. The South says the aggressor is the one who makes the other fire a shot. It is almost a meaningless point to argue.
Ah the American Civil War. I was expecting misconceptions about Oliver Cromwell and King Charles 🤣
I thought it might be one of the Roman civil wars.
To be fair, mental floss is based in the US. The Civil War is, by default, our civil war. We specify for others.
@@austinshoupe3003 That's true but to be fair, I am 'others' :)
@@stephenbaugh2041 Stop being a passive aggressive s***. Nobody but you cares that an American on an American website makes a video about American history and refers to it as the Civil War.
One interesting thing I learned about the implications of the Emancipation Proclamation in my law class. By the language in which it was written, any secessionist state that quit the Confederacy and willingly rejoined the Union at that point would have been able to KEEP their slaves and the legal practice of slavery. If such a thing happened, the 13th amendment as we know it might not have come into being.
I read it myself and there is no mention about secession. it listed the states that were in rebellion would have to release the slaves. it also listed exceptions of parishes and counties and says they may continue as if the proclamation has never been issued. The Union does not recognize the confederacy as a separate country, only as states being in rebellion, reason why is for legal loopholes.
In the civil war doc by Ken Burns I really like the way they state, until the civil the country was referred to as “the untied states are” and after the war it was, “the United States is.”
thats really cool
I wish you had addressed the misconception that Lincoln originally offered command of the Union Army to Robert E. Lee. People state that as fact all the time, but there's no evidence that it happened. General Winfield Scott *wanted* Lincoln to offer command to Lee, and Lee *was* unofficially offered command of the troops garrisoned in DC, but Lincoln didn't make the offer.
Lee was a general in the Union Army; he wore a Colonel's uniform in the Confederate Army because he held that rank in the Virginia militia.
Doesn't change the facts, bro. Water isn't wet - it gets you wet
Abraham Lincoln's secretaries were both men named John. John G. Nicolay and John M. Hay. Women secretaries didn't start until the 1880's when typewriters became office equipment.
The individuals serving aboard ships are not soldiers or troops, those a titles reserved for the Army, they are Sailors and Marines.
Maybe…they also had soldiers on them…or…it was different back then…
@@phosphorus4 The only time Soldiers are aboard ships is if they are being transported to different theater, and during the American Civil War the transports would have been merchantmen contracted by the U.S. government, not actual warships. All individuals serving aboard a warship are Sailors or Marines.
I watch this video living on the Mason-Dixon line PA / Maryland PA state line my road I live on is called Molly pitcher hwy ,I am a stones throw away from Gettysburg actually in high school ,grade school ,middle school ect we used to visit every year, field trip.. I've been there all the time actually I travel there sometimes just to travel there so I know you're out in California and New York somewhere so this is a little more streaking home than me but I think your coverage is well good job, but you left out so much too
How about the story of Molly pitcher and why for some of us it's not us route 30, but Molly pitcher hwy?
@6:05 so slavery is still legal in the penal system. All inmates are legally slave labor?
Umm how do you think prison labour works exactly? They get paid nothing, or next to it, far less by the way than they are forced to pay to even be in there, and then the private prisons sell the items they make at a massive profit.
It's paying a debt back to society and they have far more rights than any slave ever had. Crime is a choice, being a slave wasn't.
I would rather them spend their time being productive and learning a skill or trade instead of learning how to be a better criminal.
Just to be clear, I am totally against private prisons.
@@swirvinbirds1971 crime is often less of a choice than ignorance.
@@Resavian are you saying ignorance is equal to slavery?
I'm a little confused. The argument here is prisoners not getting paid, or paid very little is equivalent to slavery right?
@@swirvinbirds1971 that was my original argument yes, but then the counter argument was made that crime was a choice, which was a claim made from ignorance.
It's a mixconception (on your part) that the people who crew ships are known as troops and soldiers. 13:34
What is a "mixconception "? There are misconceptions such as the one you have about the spelling of this word.
It would be interesting to know how many boys participated in the war, drummers, powder monkeys, etc.
Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1807 and 1794 in France.
Misconceptions about the Alamo would be good.
The what? I forgot.
You mean how all the so called heroes,the big name Americans were all captured while trying to run away? Great idea.
The whole thing is a misconception 🤣
A side note Russia assisted the Union at sea to keep the English and French at bay.
I saw a youtube video a while ago that claimed that there was a short naval battle between the north and south off the coast of Brazil.
There was one off the coast of France, so probably. Some Confederate raiders were built in British yards, and there were many legal issues around this. The Federal government washed it's hands of Confederate debt & contracts on the grounds that it was all based on the illegality of Secession. A prominent Confederate strategy was Commerce raiding, that generated legal claims in the U.S. & elsewhere.
5:59 The 13th amendment did _not_ end slavery, and the passage you cite shows why. Slavery as punishment for a crime is still legal, and that has had exactly as many perverse incentives as you'd expect. This is a big reason why prisons in many areas are such a profitable industry, and why prison lobbying groups are always in favor of ridiculously punitive legislation - they want to maximize their pool of coerced laborers. It's a real problem.
“Labor” is over stated. Prisoners aren’t doing any real labor any more. They haven’t for decades.
I was looking for this!!!
As a formal institution and industry, it DID finish it off. What did not die was the reason slaves existed in the first place ,which is what you cited
@@uncletrick1 but who breaks all the rocks for America’s booming pebble industry? And who’s gonna hammer all those license plates?
Maybe title it ‘the American civil war’ there have been others :P
I mean, he does say American Civil War in the first 5 seconds of the video. I mean, yes there are civil wars ongoing to this day in several countries, but I don't think that there is much confusion for most people on which civil war they are talking about
I'm sure all the problems in the world could be fixed at once if only this one TH-cam video had a different title. Get em, tiger.
Hard agree. It isn’t even the most important civil war in history, so it’s a little short sighted.
But....I’m pretty sure the audience for this channel is primarily American, and you know how we are.
“What do you mean other countries exist?”
As u said he should have title it American civil war as there is other civil war like the English civil war in 1642
I often wonder how people who get upset about things like this handle real life. I mean, it must be debilitating to get through every day.
The British were really not going to help the C.S.A. in the end. Our War gave cover for France's Mexican misadventure. America's first drug addiction problem followed the War.
Justin, I would enjoy listening to you read the phone book. You just make the delivery like velvet. Thank you sir. Great info.
Yeah
"Except for the punishment of a crime" Slavery was not repealed, but re-designated to the state. The state would now be responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering slaves, and then plantations and manufaturers could continue to lease them out. ("A crime to be black" laws went up everywhere).
Can someone explain to me what it means for a ship to be docked and prone? Like obviously I know what docked means but, prone?
Edit: typo
It couldn't sail and needed repairs. Kind of like if a person was too badly injured to fight.
The Copperheads were around decades before the war.
Caught a small mistake I think. You mention Lincoln's secretary (9:58) and then refer to them as "she" a moment later. His secretaries were men and so that was a classic - sexist - mistake. Just like to draw attention to things like that whenever I can - but really love this channel and the magazine! (If I'm wrong, and you were referring to a female secretary that more often than not is left out of the story - please let me know!)
No, you're absolutely right. Our fact-checker included a note about Lincoln's secretary, and I (video producer Jon, who usually finishes up the scripts post-FC) stupidly assumed it was a woman. Thanks for catching that, a good reminder to A) check my sexist assumptions and B) be more careful incorporating fact-check info. Thanks for the comment!
@@MentalFloss We've ALL done it! But I think it's good if we all start (politely!) calling attention to it - so we can learn and be better. Thanks for the classy response and please keep up the great work!
do a episode on misconceptions regarding Indians
Per the 13th amendment to the Constitution in 1865: no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime...yet young men were still being drafted into the armed forces 100 years later.
Nothing about the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia? While this battle was a draw, It changed Naval forever; the age of sail and wooden ships would soon disappear. Also many southern military men did not become traitors to their oath and to the republic.
The southern politicians chose to secede over slavery. The regular people who fought for them did so in part over states rights. Not to say slavery wasn't important to them because it was. To anyone claiming the civil war was entirely fought over on "states rights or taxation" is just wrong. Every seceding state explicitly say that slavery was their defining cause of secession. While initially the cause of the north was preserving the union, it later became both preserving the union and "abolishing/preventing expansion" of slavery in order to prevent foreign powers from coming in to protect their southern state imports. On the issue of taxes the south did pay a lot in taxes from tariffs but only because they bought, almost exclusively, products from other countries, like textiles to clothe their slaves. Tariffs were the federal income tax before income taxes were ever a thing. It was the main revenue source for the government. The north was largely industrious at this time, in other words they made their own stuff, meaning they didn't need to buy from other countries, so less spent in taxes. People can debate all day on tariffs as good tax policy but the south's economy was of their own making, being heavily dependent on slavery and imports.
something wrong with the audio on this video?
How about a misconceptions episode about car manufacturers, and where cars are assembled?
Are you related to Tim Dodd? I'll get this question answered eventually.
Albert Cashier didn't start passing as male just to fight in the war; he was living as male quite a bit before that. That, combined with the fact he continued to live as a man until his death, shows me he wasn't a woman (and using his given name was inappropriate at best).
Thank you for a well researched, balanced look at a very touchy subject.
Thank you for the kind words! I enjoyed making this ep!
Well researched? Sure. Balanced? Not even close.
@@codystanfield9380 damn shame when a video isn't more pro-slavery, right? 🤐
“We’ll drink all stone wine when Johnny comes marching home!”
Right
Lincoln was never interested in abolitionism. Before the war, he was perfectly okay with the Corwin Amendment which would have permanently legalized slavery in those states that had it. Even approaching the war, he was open to selling Fort Sumter to South Carolina (but only South Carolina, not the Confederacy).
It was only after he was seriously losing public support for the war in the North that he tacked to abolitionism. This rallied public support for the continuation of the war -- which, at that time, the Union was actually *losing,* having suffered multiple serious defeats over the previous month (including Harper's Ferry and Second Bull Run)
That is simply not true. You make the mistake of assuming only abolitionists wanted to free the slaves. In fact, abolitionists made up only a small part of the anti-slavery bubble. Abolitionists wanted complete and immediate emancipation of every slave in the Union. This stance wasn't accepted by other anti-slavery people because it was seen as infeasible, not to mention unconstitutional. Lincoln always wanted to free the slaves, he just wanted to go about it differently. The Republican plan was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories and contain slavery as one does a disease and let it die out naturally. That is also why the Corwin Amendment was acceptable to the Republicans but unacceptable by the South. The Amendment said slavery would remain in the states where it already existed, but said nothing of the territories. The South knew that not allowing for the expansion of slavery would lead to its demise. The Corwin Amendment was the Republicans plan for emancipation all along. It was not an abolitionist's plan, but it was still a plan to end slavery.
And in reality Lincoln was creating plans to free the slaves relatively early in the war. He was waiting for a Union victory to release it, but that was so he could keep control of the border states.
On avoiding conscription at 1:45 I believe that is the wrong document.
Misconceptions about the Bastille
You've skipped a couple key facts about the Emancipation Proclamation. One, if you read the document, you'll notice that some counties in West Virginia, and some parishes in Louisiana that remained loyal to the union were permitted to retain slavery. In essence Lincoln declared slavery abolished in all of the places he had no control of, and slavery would be permitted in all of the places he had any control over.
Also, Lincoln sent diplomats to the Hampton Roads peace accords to communicate to the Confederacy that if the Confederate states rejoined the Union then they'd have enough votes to defeat any emancipation efforts when it came to a vote in the US Congress. Lincoln's priority was to restore the whole Union, and abolishing slavery was a minor concern.
So instead of Lincoln being some savior of the lives of slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation was really insincere, and more of just a political device.
Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery.
In 1855, Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed, a personal friend and slave owner in Kentucky:
You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. ... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Fun fact: my partner is descended from slaves owned by Robert E. Lee. It's how his family got their last name.
Ok
I did Ancestry. They said I was descended from Adam.
your poor father
Who's fun is that??? Do you make fun of him because of that??? You don't threaten to sell him come New Years Day do you?
What about misconceptions about ancient earth? I guess I'm a downer but oil isn't made from dead dinosaurs but instead is from dead and buried marine life (namely plankton).
Misconceptions about Australia
I always thought Davis favored him, actually, slavery was on the decline in the south until the invention of the cotton gin than imported more slaves illegally, and fantastic "yarns" were also told as well like the baby by a bullet. I heard that story as a kid when I found out was a tale I was floored but then this is the south we had a relative who told fantastic tales that was one even he couldn't top.
Lol @ comments like this
So not gonna talk about the misconception the war wasn't over slavery until Lincoln's announcement? People still don't realize the whole issue, while it was about slavery, was the STATES RIGHTS to choice that themselves. Sure, people with an agenda say it was about slavery, but without telling you that the issue was over states rights to choice to have it, because that was the greater issue. The right of the state versus the federal government was the core argument, but to say it was purely over slavery is to say the voting rights act of 65 was purely to prevent protesting, not to give everyone equal rights to vote.
As lovely a video as this is, I would like to point out that Albert Cashier wasn't really a "woman in disguise" fighting in the war, but someone who lived as a male and insisted on being called such before joining the war, and long after it ended. Nearing the end of his life, even with severe dementia, he strongly objected to anyone calling him a woman. From various statements and actions through his life, it's fairly clear that he did not want to be referred to as a woman, and did not consider himself one. It seems disrespectful to not follow the lifelong wishes of veteran who fought for us.
Thanks for pointing this out to me
New intro poggers
Ok
“The civil war” this channel 🤣
False why don't you talk about 1871 ,
Davis and Lee should have been regretting their actions from the end of a noose, IMHO.
Granting clemency to the rank and file confederate soldiers is one thing. But the leaders of the Confederacy, who deliberately precipitated so much misery and suffering and death so rich people could keep their slaves, should have been treated as the traitors to their country they were.
Where's John Green?
I literally love this guy
Yeah
So much of this sounds like contemporary history... :O
Ok
@@LemurJackson Why are you going around say Ok to everything. Did you want attention?
Ok
@@LemurJackson That actually gave me a giggle. Ok. :D
Ok
Jefferson Davis may have not wanted to secede but only if he could continue to keep human beings as slaves. Much of your analysis is BS.
Harriet Tubman also fought in the civil war
That is not an unknown fact; they even called her "The General" in the underground railroad.
no she didn't, in what way did she help the union or confederate cause? You could argue she was a subversive confederate since in her own account she only ventured into Maryland (union slave state).
@@raganusesbuz6240 She was a spy for the Union during the war and even planned and led a military expedition in South Carolina. Look up the Combahee River Raid.
@@erraticonteuse see the work of the historian milton sernett "Harriet Tubman: Myth, Memory, and History" she never led a military expedition in south carolina.
@@raganusesbuz6240 According to history Channel she helped lead the Combahee Ferry Raid.
The biggest misconception is that slavery ever ended.
@Sushi Sandwiches look up "13th amendment loophole"
@@InspectorJeremy slavery is a big problem around the world. Many American companies openly use sweat shops and American prisons force people to work for little or no money and have the right to extend a persons sentence if they refuse to work. These prisons have defended this by siting provisions in the 13 amendment that allow slavery. Trump do be like that tho.
@@dillonqaphsiel7977 You confuse up an important term.
It's not desputed that there is slavery in much of the world today
9:03 Yeah, right 🤣 Don’t force your bs into history.
@Conner Wine it doesn’t, they’re just forcing today’s politics into history.
Oh. Not the movie.
Lincoln: If I could unite them without abolishing slavery I would, but I can not
He had slaves, a lot
Lincoln did not have slaves. And you've clearly never read that entire letter, have you?
Also, he had ships ready to take any freedmen that wanted to go, back to Africa. Which, when you think about it...would have been better for everyone involved.
@@darktagmaster1861 - No; that eventually was tried. It's referred to as the African Nation of Liberia... It was founded on good ideas like 'Back to Africa,' but making amends for the wrongdoings of slavery is just not that simplistic. Liberia wasn't/isn't deliverance from slavery or oppression or inequality or injustice or ad nauseum...
In fact, I'd say the methods of unification employed by Alexander the Great would have been a far better idea than 'Back to Africa' in the long run...(?). i.e., Divide whole populations in half from within the Empire & those newly conquered on the fringes of the Empire. Exchange the halves, enforce a policy of extreme integration - or, forced intermixing. If one group attempted to dominate the other, or if there was infighting, or segregation...(?)... Alexander would place the newly conquered city, land, territory, whatever, back into the hands of the very King he defeated; in fact, as part of the Empire, they would have a net gain from defeat. Except Alexander made one thing clear to: the two different populations, the conquered Leader given authority, the Overseer within the Empire receiving the new population-basically, "don't fuck up." ...because if Alexander personally discovered or received word that his order was not being followed, that one population was exercising dominion over the other, or one population killed the other, or they were just living isolate from one another, whether by way of the home population brought to the Empire's fringe, the population at home within the Empire, or the conquered, either at the fringe or within the Empire, Alexander would either himself (or give order to) lead the entire slaughter every single person in the area failing to integrate and intermix, whether from within the Empire or new to the Empire, it did not matter.
Sounds kind of brutal and would result in just the slaughter of a lot of people...(?). Perhaps. Except Alexander had one infamous betrayal, and ordered the march on one or two cities...(?) He did indeed slaughter people. But...once that happened, ...it didn't continue to happen. People knew Alexander was damn serious.
But, generally speaking, Hellenization is generally not remembered as a negative phenomenon. It was the most effective spread of a unified people (of different races, religions, cultures) and into a unified ideology, mythos, common language, etc., that the world would (& arguably has) see (seen; rivaled, perhaps, not until the rapid spread of Islam...). Hellenization is not ill regarded in Western Academia...the negative aspects are glossed over completely....probably because it's been a common unifying thread in the West for as long as there has been a West. 2400yrs had a very limited & brief rough start.
The problem of race in the United States has been protracted....nearly 250 years. It's been present not for one leader, but every one in its entire existence. And Alexander...he didn't live to a ripe old age. He was cut down in his late 20s. If the United States had the will to resolve this perpetual (non-)issue, it would have done so long ago! And not by sending people away...
Perhaps there's a reason that didn't happen. It's not because we're more "enlightened" or "civilized"-the United States' "racism" is itself an exercise in unenlightenment & uncivilized. It has much less purchase today, in my opinion. Because, for example, George Floyd; the elite attempted to inflame race in the United States, clearly. Except that purchase was largely denied. It sparked riots not based on race...but financial wellbeing. George Floyd was killed because...? He didn't have any money & tried to pass a bogus $20 bill. When ~75% of America hears that & can't help but see how close they are to doing what George Floyd did, they're not focused on skin color as they see it play out on the evening news. They're focused on a person being executed on TV...a person they've already established a likeness with. Because one thing that has become clear to me; skin color doesn't mean shit when the elite are so oblivious to the state of the people that their attempt to cash in on "racial inequality" is of a lesser quality counterfeit than the actual counterfeit note George Floyd attempted to float before his untimely death.
Ironically, if not for the tenacity of the elites, this would be a great period of enlightenment & transcendence of race....but I would have to call it, by far and away, the much more the brutal route to unity than Alexander's.... As for Liberia, or "Back to Africa," ....that turned out to be a painful and bitter digression from our path toward racial transcendence & National unity.
And Lincoln's ball-less scrotum of an emancipation proclamation isn't often sourced as to what lead to it. It was entirely strategic, he had no intention of ending slavery. His hand was pushed because of a dispute between two States. One seeking extradition of a Slave, the other that wouldn't extradite the claimed "Slave." The concept of slavery and of extradition were incoherent between the laws of the State seeking extradition from the Other. One, a person who claimed they were free was sufficient enough reason to believe they were free, thereby making any further inquiries about their status as a slave unjustified & incoherent. Two, extradition was request for the transfer of custody of a wanted person. A slave was by definition property; property was not subject to extradition per the law. So if a person claimed they were free, it certainly wouldn't make any sense to then ask if they were property...because they were free.....and property can't be extradited anyway... In other words, the State had already creatively banned slavery. The Governor refused the incoherent request, and so political pressure was then placed on Lincoln-fortunately, Lincoln was at least creative enough in his words to favor a one Gov. Kirkwood...who ultimately had to pay the highest price during the War ...barring his life. Did Lincoln free the slaves...? No, he did not. In fact, Kirkwood beat the US to a direct ban in law of slavery. Why? Because a ball-less scrotum one does NOT find one State adjacent ....to the Land of Lincoln.
@@j.macjordan9779 took me a few days to get around to reading this because it's was so overwhelmingly long until I had time to sit down and write a response.
You are correct!
I know you're correct because I have an understanding of Hellenism under Alexander. In fact, that's why the horse I use for my profile picture is my horse, Alexander. I thought Bucephalus would be too much. And of course my horse is an Appaloosa, just like Robert E. Lee's "Traveller". I'm familiar with you persuasion. I just don't care. I'm okay with all the murder associated with empire, I didn't have to do it. That's one way to get great nations, I just think those in power in the past didn't go far enough. I wouldn't care about what happened to former slaves back then because I wasn't there. I say, murder them all, let god sort of the bodies. Which is obviously just an expression. There is no god
It was not an actual "civil war" as it was not for the control of the entire country. It was more of a war for independence and was seen be by the South much the same as the "American Revolution" against Great Brittian. I am Southern, and letters that I have read from family members of the time, the common soldier and citizen felt that they were being invaded by the Northern States and only wished to be "let alone". Wars are caused by politicians and fought by the common man.
That's not what a civil war is. A civil war is a war between citizens of the same nation at the start of the conflict. It describes the people fighting, not the cause or what they want the end result to be. The term 'civil war' comes from the latin term 'bellum civile' meaning citizens war. Just look at the Sudanese Civil War. It resulted in a totally independent country but is still classified a civil war. It's called the American Revolution because it resulted in a new revolutionary government. Similar to the French Revolution. That term does describe the end result of the war.
This man has a fine ability to make interesting information completely boring :/
You guys should check out Ryan Dawson for civil war history. He does a good job explaining that the north were also incredibly racist and how lincolns aim was primarily to keep the union intact as opposed to just ending slavery. The moral argument for ending slavery came in the middle of the war and the South were absolutely annoyed by the tax they disproportionately paid. I forgot the legislation but there was an offer to keep slavery but to reject secession but the South rejected it in favour of independence.
Ryan Dawson is an idiot. Ending slavery and preserving the Union were never mutually exclusive. In fact, a lot of Northerners saw ending slavery as the means through which to preserve the Union because that's what the South was fighting for. The Civil War was always about slavery because the South made it always about slavery. The North was morally opposed to slavery prior to the Civil War. That's why they were big supporters of the anti-slavery Republican Party. Taxes and tariffs were a red herring developed after the Civil War to distance the Confederacy from it's true cause, the defense of slavery. When the South wrote down why they seceded they didn't even mention tariffs. Their only mention of taxes was the tax they paid on slaves. The Corwin Amendment, which is the legislation you're thinking of, didn't succeed because it was actually the Republican's plan all along. Their plan was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories and keep slavery contained in the South and letting it die out. Even this was seen as an affront to the slave states. The South knew this was the Republican plan "The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."-Georgia Order of Secession. The South wanted to slavery to not only remain, but to expand into the territories and into Central America. The Republicans fought to prevent that, and that is why the South seceded.
Things I hope the video covers.. Lincoln had a speech about assigning the superior position to the white race, Indians were Black slave owners who joined the south, got reparations but refused to share with freed slaves, 99% of America both north & south were against ending slavery, slave owners got reparations but their slaves didn't, the North didn't fight because it cared about slavery but to keep the south in check.
It was more so a war about slaves giving the south an advatage brought out by free labor. Thank goodness the US fixed this by outsourcing slaves to China.
@@Emogeta north had more slaves than the south.
@@j.j.9511 Untrue. What was the 3/5 compromise for then? South had a massive population of slaves and the south fought viciously to have them counted as a whole person. If you do not understand why that was a bad thing you haven't the faintest clue how the US government works. Something tells me that isn't all what your ignorant on.
"99% of America both north & south were against ending slavery" That's just false. The North was very against slavery. That's why they heavily supported and voted for the Anti-Slavery Republican Party.The South started the Civil War to protect slavery. It's a fact, they literally wrote it down. And the North did not have more slaves than the South. Around 30% of all Southern households had slaves.
@@j.j.9511 this is blatantly wrong at all points of American history.
Every time theres a history episode they somehow forget the rest of the facts. Slavery is LEGAL in the US. Just read the 13th amendment.... Idk why I watch this show.
It SHOULD still be “state first, country second”. We are a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy as many people believe.
What'd you learn that in 6th grade social studies? We are a democracy and we are a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you really wanna get technical, all republics are democracies. A democracy is an ideology, the republic is the tool by which that ideology is practiced.
Which civil war? There have been thousands, you should really be specific. Just saying 'THE' I assume you're talking about a current civil war, but there are nearly 30 ongoing civil wars right now.
Your comment is needlessly pedantic
trans man... so... a woman
Did you mean The war of northern aggression?
I always wondered why pepole called it that, when it was the south who shot first. (Fort Sumter, April 12 1861)
The South made every aggressive move in the buildup to the Civil War. They attacked federal arsenals, forts, and even fired on a US Naval ship. The South started the Civil War and they did it to protect slavery.
ah yes, the war of 1812; we never made the mistake of underestimating Canada ever again...
Checkmate Lincolnites!
@@g3heathen209 Lincoln was a crafty lawyer and he was interested in optics .He took advantage of the situation to have the South fire the first shot at an innocent Federal property. The South says the aggressor is the one who makes the other fire a shot. It is almost a meaningless point to argue.