British Guy Reacts To The American Civil War - OverSimplified (Part 1)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Help Support me on PATREON📺: / l3wg
civil war time... The American Civil War - OverSimplified (Part 1)! Part 2 will also be on the channel the day after this!
The American Civil War PART 2 REACTION HERE:
The American Civil War- OverSimplified (Part 1): • The American Civil War...
✸ Find me LIVE EVERY DAY on TWITCH: www.twitch.com... ✸
✸ 'L3WG' for $$ OFF GFUEL gfuel.ly/3giIGlu ✸
⮕ Follow me on TWITTER: / l3wg_
⮕ Follow me on INSTAGRAM: / l3wg_
⮕ Daily TIKTOK content: / l3wg
⮕ Discord: / discord
Even though Britain had outlawed slavery by this time, it had no problem buying cotton produced by slave labour and almost joined the war over it.
Then again the east India company, native Indian princes and later British empire also forced Indian peasants to grow cash crops and not food that created to famine
And that's why the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. For optics, to keep them out of it. It didn't free anyone, as schools and many blindly claim.
And Britain helped finance the transatlantic slave trade for a time.
It had been just 3 decades up to that point, (britian abolishing it) and the narrator tries to make it sound like the British monarchs had learned about slavery through HBS's book Uncle Tom's Cabin. I don't think there is a people on this planet who has had more 1st hand experience exploiting slave labor than the British throughout the tenure of their existence.
Britain abolished slavery in 1834. Slavery had been around since Roman occupation time. Millions of slaves were brought to the America’s on British ships.
I've always thought that families out picnicing on a hill to watch battles take place is the most American thing ever.
It was actually a super popular pastime in Europe too. It's why Americans thought this would be the same thing they read about in books, with families going out to watch battles with swords, halberds, and archers. They were not ready for the brutality of cannonballs or longer-range weapons.
Originally the individual states were almost like the different individual countries in the EU, and so there was the idea that they could leave like the UK did with Brexit. Over time and particularly with the precedent set with the civil war the federal government has taken more control and the states are less independent so it’s not still equivalent to the EU, but there are still some distinct differences between states.
States are still sovereign. And can set generally their own laws. Have their own police and militias. Covid showed how powerful State Governors are. Look at SD with no lockdowns v ND with lockdowns. FL v CA. USA is a union of sovereign States. Fairly independent.
Yes.
England did consider intervention on behave of the CSA. Still bitter about 1776.
Remember in 1917....America debated whether to join. Germany or England in WWI.
38% of Americans were of German heritage then.
Now in 2023... it's 17% German .. 16% Irish 9% English 6% Polish
@@therealadwarren there’s going to be a lot higher percentage that have heritage from those regions today. It’s just that there’s enough mixture of multiple countries multiple generations back that most European heritage Americans don’t identify as being associated with a specific European country. But the USA was still 63% non-Hispanic white in 2020 and most of those are going to have at least a bit of German or UK ancestry.
The States are still like independent countries. There has been a lot of power increase in the federal government following the events of 9/11. However, States still have incredible power to govern themselves with practices like nullification, Constitutional conventions, and many specific rights granted by the Constitution. It would be a mistake to think of States more like counties because, essentially on a whim they can decide to just ignore what the federal government says if they're willing to have their highway funding cut. Even if they don't reject federal rulings, there are still a lot of issues that the federal government simply doesn't have power over. For instance, the federal government during COVID did not have the power to mandate masks or curfews or vaccines. These are powers granted only to the States.
@@atomsmasher101 I never said they should be treated like counties. But they’re also not really like independent countries anymore either. There are no border checkpoints when crossing from one to another, they all use the exact same currency, there’s minimal state run military, you don’t have citizenship or a passport unique to a specific state etc. Contrast that with the colonies leading up to the forming of the United States where you couldn’t use North Carolina money in Virginia, New York and New Jersey had separate armies that skirmished over border disputes, etc.
Looking back now, historians believe Lincoln suffered from major depression which was further agitated by the stress and personal losses he experienced, it was severe enough to even be remarked on at that time, though they called it his "melancholy". It was bad enough that people had to keep knives and sharp objects away from him at the height of his depression. Which makes his achievements even more incredible in my opinion, and his assassination even more tragic. The man went through so much and was starting to try to enjoy himself, and it all just ended for him.
Regrettably.
Correct!
He had the markers for Marfan's syndrome, a connective tissue disorder. People who have it often suffer from anxiety and/or depression.
Yes, he was called "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. He also became president after the war.
His real name was "Hiram Ulysses Grant"
@@kennethcook9406 Awesome middle name !
Terrible President at that.
He is a distant cousin. We share my 12XGGF.
Unfortunately, he did.
"don't most countries just give the land back after a war?" Only a Brit who lost their empire would think that.
That’s exactly what America is. 50 different countries united in a common culture under one constitution. It’s how you can get wildly different variations in every state. But because we can move so freely those variations get assimilated into every state over time. Thus perpetuating the one common culture on the whole. God forbid we get to the point where we are restricted from free exchange. Then we’d again be in a civil war.
Having lived in multiple states. I can honestly say my list is as follows.
1: NJ
2. WA
3. ME
4. VA
5. OR
6. Literally any state
7. MS
@@MarkBastardAdept HAHAH of course misery is the last
Huge facts.
That's exactly how the nation was founded and how it is supposed to be. Fifty individual countries. United as one nation. Which is why the states are called states. But due to the all the power the tyrant Lincoln usurped. For the federal government. We are no longer individual countries united. We are one giant country. With a near tyrannical federal government.
Ole Abe may vary well have relinquished the power he had usurped, but he was murdered before he had the opportunity to show his true intentions.
The US should be more similar to the European Union than the United Kingdom, but sadly it is the exact opposite of how it should be.
To be fair that's not entirely the fault of Abe. Congress in the early twentieth century. Voted to give themselves more power than the individual states.
Now congress represents the federal government. Rather than the states that send them there.
A lot of this guys jokes were things that actually happened. Like the little girl saying Lincoln should grow a beard and Lincoln bought grant his favorite whiskey.
Only after he received multiple complaints about grant being constantly drunk. He also said he wished everyone drank like him.
5:28
The winner giving land back is not, and never has been, a standard process at the end of war. Usually if it's returned, it's by force in another war or from international pressure.
The Saar valley, at the border of Germany and France was under French rule after the war, and was to, after a certain time, have a plebiscite to determine which country to join. They voted for Germany.
@@DonMeaker One example does not disprove a statement of normality, plus it wasn't really given back, they were allowed back.
The reason Gen. Lee did so well is because he was a teacher in military school and trained some of the union commanders.
That, and he knew how to work with the mud. The mud was a major issue. Virginia mud was a unique problem.
Lee had been commander of the US military academy. He wasn't a general before the war, and neither was Grant. The US had, for most of its history at that time, two generals, one of whom was Winfield Scott. Andrew Jackson was the other for a while, but after he attacked a pirate base in Florida, he was demoted by Congress because of the embarrassment that caused with Spain. That was when Jackson made his first run for the presidency.
Both generals had slaves was the college the citadel?
@@b.p.stimemachines2327 Lee had slaves, mentioning 5 of them in his pre-war will (which he never updated). and as the executor of his father in law's will, he 'rented' slaves who were to be freed under his father in law's will to make money. Grant was gifted a slave when he was dirt poor, and he freed the man.
@@b.p.stimemachines2327 Lee was assigned to be commandant of the US military academy at West Point, New York.
After the US won the war with Mexico, the US purchased the land from Mexico- either as part of the "Mexican Cession" immediately after the war, in return for gold, and various debts, or as part of the Gadsden Purchase, in return for gold. The US also purchased Alaska from Russian Empire, and Hawaii requested annexation.
California, Utah and Texas also requested annexation.
Aren’t Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland separate countries yet still part of the UK 🇬🇧?
The channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey were once part of France.
@@alskjflahReally,wow I did not know that thanks for teaching me a new thing
I enjoyed watching you react to this. You were really trying to take it in and learn from it. It is a fascinating story about how it all happened. I wanted to clear up one point you mentioned about escaped slaves and the North using them. Escaped slaves were not used like the South by the North - as slave labor. You have to go through a process of how this was handled because it was unprecedented and unplanned. As Union armies start to march into Confederate territory, they were confronted with thousands of human beings wanting to be protected by them. The Armies aren’t set up to take care of them. The command structure isn’t set up to deal with them. So at first the slaves were rejected by Union armies, fearing they would be detrimental to fighting ability. This just left these people in no-man’s land with nowhere to go and no way to feed themselves. So once Lincoln figured out what was going on, he ordered the Armies to set up camps to take care of them and protect them. In exchange the ex-slaves agreed to help the Army doing what they could. Eventually they established safe passages for these people to North. It was all voluntary and the ex-slaves would leave anytime they wanted.
British guy doesnt understand how the states can be so different.
Never been to Belfast, eh?
Stephen Fry did a BBC series on the 50 different states (and the D of C).
States rights vs Federal Rights is an ongoing debate.
Look up Casius Marcellus Clay, he also helped in making the war about slavery. He was known as the deadliest abolitionist, because he dueled everyone, and won all of them.
Was Casius (Muhammad Ali) Clay named after him then?
I only just discovered this channel a few days ago. I am fascinated seeing a young Brit react to American history and culture. this is good stuff.
He's not getting all the info. I live in Texas and the most racist states I've ever been to are former non-slavery states. I've worked in nine states that were supposedly "free" states, yet, the racism I saw was more than I've ever seen in Texas.
@@thunderpants645 I've always found it ironic that thanks to the civil war and, later, the civil rights movement, racism has all but disappeared here in the south. Meanwhile, in the north, those pressures and proper condemnations weren't really to be found, so race baiters were able to revive racism there.
"[Unconditional Surrender Grant] There is no way they called him that."
Again...yes, they did. And it was the newspapers that coined that nickname playing on his initials U.S.G. and the fact he got an unconditional surrender from the Confederates at the Battle of Forts Henry and Donaldson.
As you will see throughout these videos, Grant's military and civilain superiors would call on Lincoln to kick Grant out of the Army either for being a drunk (which he was) or for disobeying his higher commanders (which he did to resounding success). Lincoln, fortunately, told them all to pound sand.
His name was Ulysses S Grant but the papers gave him the nickname Unconditional Surrender Grant
the sheer size of the US is one reason why people thought we would not stand as a nation. Before the Civil War, the idea of such a diverse place as one nation was hard to believe. The Civil War is what finally melded the states into the nation that we have had since. there still has always been states rights people and groups of extremists. but today we ARE one nation.
We're just as divided as we were then, and on even more basic issues than freedom.
Keeping the escaped slaves as contraband only meant the north could refuse to send them back to the south. I'm certain the ones who worked on the railroads in the north were paid, given livable accomodations and weren't whipped.
The “contraband” pay by the Union army was $10/month for male workers and $8/month for female. For comparison union soldiers were paid $13/month in the beginning of the war and $16/month at the end.
So certainly a low wage and it wasn’t exactly freedom at that point, but it was a step up from slavery and many slaves that could make it to union lines applied for contraband status for protection against being returned to slavery.
@@AdamNisbett exactly
@@AdamNisbett It was a low wage compared to the soldiers, but the soldiers are putting their lives on the line. Today we call that combat pay.
@@thewiseoldherper7047 the pay difference remained even after blacks were allowed to join the actual military as armed servicemen in the latter portion of the Civil War.
And though it’s hard to directly compare how much the cost of food and other supplies provided factors in, the average laborer wage around 1860 seems to have been around $1 per day which is generally notably higher than both the contraband wage and the military private wage for whites.
The military often struggled to find whites willing to fill the non-combat labor that they were having the contraband slaves do even with higher wages, so it clearly wasn’t a particularly decent wage.
Though again, even though it wasn’t a particularly great wage, it was certainly a big step up from unpaid slavery and put them on a footing a bit closer to the wage rates of the lower classes of free whites.
You mean like the railroads did to the Chinese
I was born and raised down south 22 years and I've lived in Pennsylvania now for 22 years the differences today still never cease to amaze me. One fun fact is they're very religious downsouth so instead of saying g-damn it , they say John Brown it(that crazy guy) . Also worth pointing out is the language that was used, a voluntary Union of independent states ,and the Constitution forbids the federal government from invading any state unless under a foreign power(like Britain) so when the South declared their independence much like the Americans did in the Revolutionary War ,Lincoln took the opportunity to say that a Confederacy is a foreign power and "invaded" witch in many Southern people's minds circumvented the Constitution, and despite 11 of the states citing slavery for the reason they wanted to be independent from the union , the first two states did indeed cite the unfair taxation of European Goods as their reasons ( the north just started their textile factorys and didn't want the south buying from the queen so they put a heavy tax on imports)( by the way the queen sent the South money to help with the war effort , guess she wasn't a fan of the union) I think today we can all agree on two things, You cannot own another human being and, we are not the colonies
Grew up in the south and yes they don't call it the bible belt for nothing but I have never heard or read(til now) anyone use John Brown as a curse
@@nikjoyner i didn`t really understand until i got older (educated ), but a lot of the older generation would say something like , that john brown dog wont stop barking , or they hit there thumb with a hammer they would yell , johnbrownit (like its 1 word ) at least in NC , and Va (on the Coastal side)
Nobody says that. You have a VIVID imagination.
My Grandfather still say it to this day . NC27909.
Ever herd , Ah.. Bless his heart , but not in a good way ?
This presentation truly, is OVER simplified. There is SO much more to this. Anyway, the United States isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional representative republic; this means the voters are the source of the government's authority.
Right and that majority wins with protection for the minority.
"Lincoln called for volunteers...and people signed up in droves."
Except in New York City where the people basically said, "Heck no we are not fighting for slaves!" and started rioting. It was so bad that the military had to be called in and the U.S. Navy bombarded New York City to put down the riots.
The NYC riots didn't start until after conscription. NY had many volunteer regiments, perhaps the most famous was the 69th Infantry.
Mexico didn’t have many citizens living in the territories that the U.S. took and its claims to the area were mostly based on older Spanish claims, rather than strong political or social ties. US settlers quickly outnumbered Mexican residents and Mexicans in California etc weren’t that loyal to the Mexican government anyhow. Most of the people living in these sparsely populated territories were Native Americans that were not citizens of either country. There was no incentive for the territories to be returned to Mexico.
gold
"States are independent" - somewhat. In the UK, your countries, like Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England are somewhat similar to our states (but not exactly, but it's a closer analogy than comparing them to UK cities). For instance, Scotland can secede from the UK in the same way the US South did.
Yes, he beat another representative to unconsciousness with his walking cane and was sent new ones from fan mail.
And yes, around that time, politicians packed heat during meetings and conferences in case more fights broke out in Congress.
"Packed heat" = armed with a weapon/gun
Lincoln's cabinet was unique. He appointed individuals from both sides of the issues. So they famously argued.
They were stolen, by other raiding parties and tribes in the region. The conversation always starts in UK and US, not in Africa where this all started. Slavery is worldwide but most slaves all across history generally comes from a few landmasses. Where is the real accountability and why does it end with people who ironically can pay for said sin? It’s all a little strange of a talk.
Another interesting and entertaining reaction.
Yes, the caning of Charles Sumner on the floor of the US Senate did actually happen in 1856. And the slaves who went to the North or were freed by the north were not used as slave laborers, they were paid wages...though they were paid less than white workers. Also, you missed the part where they said that the Emancipation Proclamation meant that IF/WHEN the North wins the war, then all the slaves in the South would be freed. The war did not end with the Battle of Antietam, all that the Northern victory there did was give Lincoln the impetus to issue the proclamation, the North still had to fight for over 2 more years after that to actually defeat the South and force them to surrender. As the North took territory in the states that seceded, they did free all the slaves after the proclamation, and most of the freed people...at least the men...were put to work as laborers paid a low wage.
PAID LABOR? There was SOME pay SOME times. But mostly, no. Read about, well see the movie GLORY. Which comes from the writings of the White commander.
Wow, you need continued study. Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed southern slaves which is why MOST northern Blacks went to Canada. Read Harriett Tubman's story.
I did say that the Proclamation would only free slaves in the South...and Glory had to do with the pay of Black soldiers...he was talking about the slaves that were freed as the North moved into Southern areas, so I was talking about the North paying them for their labor. Of course the North did not pay them as well as they should have.
And the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any that were in the north at the time.
That document was only issued for optics, just to keep Britain from aiding the south. Lol
@@donnascales-k2851 Lincoln wasn’t a king. He did not have the power to simply outlaw slavery in states that were still part of the union. He used war powers, which was probably a bit of a stretch,to outlawed in southern states. It was already outlawed at the state level in northern states, with the exception of a few border states that were still with the union. In order to outlaw it at the federal level for the whole country it needed to pass the Senate and Congress. Too many modern day, TH-cam "historians”make videos where they pick out certain things to make certain points without really considering the whole context and limitations of the people involved. There should never have needed to be the 13th or 14th amendment if the Supreme Court had interpreted the constitution properly but southern democrat presidents got enough sympathizers in the Supreme Court to pass things like the Dred Scott decision.
I know this is entertainment, but families were torn apart by these issues! I am 70 years old and knew my grandfather well, his family had some go into the Confederate army and some into the Union. Can you imagine the anguish his mother faced?
My father's maternal grandfather was forced into the Union army in Kansas (he just wanted to farm his land) while his paternal grandfather jumped to join the Confederacy when he was just 16. It still tears us all apart.
I grew up in the Hagerstown/Smithsburg, Maryland area which is just a few miles from the Antietam Battlefield (and about 20 miles from Gettysburg, PA) It was always so surreal too know how many men lost their lives on the ground i walked on and grew up on.
That little girl event actually happened. Only she thought he was dashing - she didn't do the meh thing. LOL
I always like it when OverSimplified takes a second to be serious. We still have problems confronting this part of our history.
There's nothing to confront. It happened and it's been gone for more than a century. That should be the end of it
Literally every history class I ever took since elementary school confronted that history. The problems we have now are almost entirely disconnected at this point - with far more specific issues and solutions needed.
@@Unknown-hb3idA class talking about it doesn’t mean it’s been confronted 🙄
@@brucem6442Imagine being this brainwashed
@@OmahaGirl Ok, then at what point would you consider it to be confronted?
It still surprises me how little you learn about foreign wars... Thats really a considerable part of our history. We learn a lot of World History in US schools.
As an American, I don't recall learning much about wars that didn't involve the US.
Possibly because America has involved itself in just about every military action since the civil war...???
@marshallpeters7i did, both in private and public school, but then again i love history and love learning it as a hobby. We had world history as a subject in public high school
@@lacebolla5059they have tried to avoid it but get pulled in. I.E. 1st and 2nd World wars. Took them awhile to enter both, kinda forced into them. But with the US it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. No matter what the US does people are going to b**** and complain that they should have done something differently
@@amyjohnson5839 Yeah, I learned quite a bit of world history in public, parochial, and base schools(my parents were both in the Army, so I attended school on base some semesters/years)... But whenever we got to know families either abroad, or from abroad, they really had very little knowledge of American history. I think it's because for so long, many other countries have tried to villainize the American people and their way of life/governance. Historically we are the rebels of the world, and that creates a lot of haters(politically especialy...).
As the Civil War progressed, civilians fled, often leaving their slaves behind. Slaves were property, and the Bill of Rights protects property. Since the outcome of the war was uncertain, Lincon couldn't just free the slaves since some slave states and counties did not rebel. Abandoned and refugee slaves were designated Contraband.
As slaves began seeking refuge and freedom by fleeing to areas under Union control, the Union army had to set up Contraband Camps since most slaves weren't self suffienct. In case of a negotiated peace, the slaves would've been returned to their owners. The Emancipation Proclamation basically turned the Union Contraband into free people.
If you think it's hard to believe how townspeople would spectate the battles, remember that these are the same towns that would collectively decide they absolutely had to drop what they were doing and go watch a public execution, apparently having nothing better to do. It was a time when there was a lot more room for boredom and life was cheaper. XD
I mean there's still people this day that watch gore videos as a form of entertainment
They had to work and earn everything back in those days, there was no room for boredom!
Yes, the caning and subsequent replacement cane gift giving was reality.
The caning happened because there was no answer to the facts that southern slave masters raped their servants, bred them, and sold their children by such couplings for profit.
Lee hated slavery as much as Lincoln. Look up "The Lee Family of Arlington Virginia ". They were the first to demand an end to slavery long before the colonies even became states. Their stance never changed and Lee himself declared slavery one the worst atrocities ever perpetuated by man.
Utterly false revisionist history. Lee was a cruel slaveowner himself.
To get a feel for the times try watching the movie Gettysburg. The movie is about the three days the battle was fought, July 1 and July 3, 1863, from the viewpoint of both armies. The movie centers covering two battles Little Round Top and Pickets Charge. Almost all the "actors" were Civil War reenactors who volunteered their time and brought their own "costumes". Anyway. Try watching Gettysburg. You might like it
You don't just change over from British rule overnight. Slavery was an international business and the United States was the last to outlaw it. But we very much inherited the attitude from the crown. People like Ben Franklin wanted to abolish it on day one. Instead, they decided to kick the can down the road almost a hundred years instead.
I thought I heard somewhere that Brazil didn't abolish slavery until around 1888
Yeah im pretty sure that we we're pretty early to abolish slavery conpared to a lot of the other older countries.
@@genehollowell472 Then even if I'm wrong, the last countries were within three years of each other. All I meant was that American attitudes toward race didn't happen in a vacuum.
@@samlewis3869 What country do you mean?
@@LeslieLanagan A lot of Asian countries, African countries, and South American countries. A big name if you want me to name one is Korea which banished slavery in 1894 but they still practiced it until 1930.
One of the things that made American slavery different is that the slaves were not considered people. They were property. This is how you can say All Men Are Created Equal and justify still having enslaved people.
Sometimes morbidly a friend of mine would call us Blacks antebellum farming equipment. Funny but not funny
i'm not sure i can think of a single country that wasn't built by slaves...
@@tryptime Maybe you can't, but there's still a huge difference. In every other instance slaves eventually melded into society. Roman slaves eventually became Romans --- same with Greeks, British, Africa, Chinese, various Native Americans tribes, etc. It may have taken a few generations, but many earned their freedom and became citizens. American society did something different. They built a caste system based on skin color. Skin color allowed them to easily identify and discriminate against people en masse. That caste system is still in play today, 150 years after the end of slavery.
@5:41 i dont think the U.S. has ever given territory back after it's been captured, like we still own most of the pacific island as leftovers from ww2.
Only time I can remember would be War of 1812 when Treaty of Ghent restored pre-war boundaries between Canada (Britian) and the US....of course in that war the British took a whole lot more territory from the US than the US took....and years after the Spanish-American War (1898), when Congress prohibited the US from annexing Cuba, but the US did annex the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and some other small Pacific islands, the Philippines were granted their independence in the 1920s I believe, but that's not the same as giving it back to Spain...If I remember correctly from a video on here, the US lost more troops fighting the Filipino insurgency AFTER the Spanish-American War than fighting against the Spanish troops during the actual war
If that poem by Lincoln wasn't found scrawled onto the wall of an outhouse or a bathroom in the White House, then I can only assume the man carried a pen and paper with him whenever he took a shit--because those sound like the words of a man taking a shit.
Yes.
At Manassas early in War .... families came to picnic and watch...till the debacle....then fled in fear.
20:36 Mark! Even back then, some people had difficulty with when to say "battle" or "war" like they do with "boat" and "ship"! 😢😮
The Trent Affair and the "Lost Orders" are favorite jumping off points for Civil War alternate history.
11:51 Mark! The guy in white is a caricature of "Colonel Sanders"! 😂
Prior to the Civil War, the US was addressed by saying "The United State are...." After the Civil War the US was address by saying "The United States is...."
I came upon your vids about 10 days ago & I love your excitement about everything. I've been binge watching. I'm so glad you are learning about our history too instead of just parks & food!
I loved his confusion that California wasn't given back after the Mexican American war. All I could think was that Ireland would like a word with you about that topic.
@@cktrapp4880lol
The thing is it had nothing to do with fear of losing the slaves. Like the video said the north had the factorys the south produced the raw goods. The north bought the raw goods and then sold them back to the south at a much higher price causing the south to become more dependent on slave labor to make ends meet. They broke away because they wanted to make products rather then just raw goods. Like the video said Abe made it about slavery to keep Britain out of it.
That was a part of it but it was mainly about slavery. What makes me think that? Great question.
When they seceded, each state published a declaration of secession where they stated their causes for leaving. They all said it was first and foremost about their right to own slaves.
The story pushed by modern neo-confederates would have us believe that the CSA "weren't all that attached" to the issue of slavery and would have happily given it up after a while, because "after all my great grandparents weren't THAT evil".... the war was of course mainly about economic causes, not slavery at all. There are two problems with that narrative though. 1) it conflicts with all of the evidence and contemporary accounts, and 2) it isn't true.
@@lightwalker222yes, their right to own slaves....also about state rights. You have to look at it from the perspective of our founding, not viewed from today's perspective. We are more federal government focused now (fed government has more power then they should) while back then, states rights was more prominent. For many, especially those who weren't slave owners (which the majority of southerners weren't) nor cared either way, it was more about state rights.
@@amyjohnson5839 Yes, it was about states' rights vs the federal government. It was about one specific right. The right to own slaves. Slavery was the issue that had been dividing the nation for decades. Slavery was the issue that was causing violence between militias in border states. Slavery was the issue causing a desperate power struggle in Congress.
Yes, some people in some states were mildly annoyed about tariffs. But the city of New York ALONE paid like 65% of the total tariffs collected in 1860 and New York didn't peep a single word about secession. No. The claim that the war was over "generic states' rights, not slavery specifically" is simply untrue, part of a larger narrative authored by the Daughters of the Confederacy and various Confederate veterans groups in the decades after the war as an attempt to rehabilitate Southern cultural identity on the national stage.
The assertion that the average Confederate soldier/citizen was not fighting explicitly for slavery is also false. Keep in mind that although only like 10% of Southerners actually owned slaves, EVERYONE lived and worked around slaves every day, whether in plantations or any other industry. It was a fundamental part of their social order. The average Southerner was ideologically committed to slavery, ipso facto. Atun-Shei has a great video debunking that specific claim.
27:58 Mark! While you were sipping your beverage, you missed a funny visual! 😮😂
Wait, you're not understanding the US taking land from then, mexico... yet the UK at the same time had the phrase "the sun never sets on the British Empire "
33:16 Mark! He wouldn't have put "Part 1" in the title of this one if there wasn't at least one more part! 😁
Always remember that the US was not empty. The Native Americans and Mexicans were already present with established farming, livestock, communities, languages, religions, etc.
Lol. Is that what they were doing?
The state of Nevada became a state in the midst of the Civil War precisely because Congress needed enough votes to pass the amendment that bans slavery…except for punishment of a crime…a clause that we are re-examining today. Making Nevada a state for this purpose was so important that the entire state constitution was transmitted over the telegraph using Morse Code to speed up the voting process in Congress to admit Nevada as a non-slavery state who would vote for President Lincoln’s second term the next week. Six months later, Nevada was one of the states that voted in support of the 13th Amendment…which wouldn’t have passed without Nevada. Hence, the Nevada state motto is “Battleborn.”
That big win was just a battle win ( not a war ending win)……part 2 is WAY more bloody and deadly
Emancipation proclamation happened when it did because of a man named Cassius Clay....the man was a bulldozer looking for a hill...
The real issue of the Civil War was whether a state could quit the union. The states were and are autonomous nations who ceded limited powers to the federation. Each state still makes its own civil and criminal laws, operates its own courts and police, and to some extent, it's own military. Each state controls the professions, attorneys, physicians, dentists, accountants, etc. Each controls education. Creates sales and other taxes. In short, as the Constitution says, all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government remain with the states. Basically that's treaties, military and interstate commerce. Nothing in the Constitution addresses the issue of a state leaving, although many states formally reserved the right to leave when they joined the Union.
That's what the war was about. Lincoln said he would free the slaves, leave them as slaves or expel them, whatever it took to preserve the Union. You can see this sort of issue today. Texas has deployed troopers to patrol the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. They install barbed wire and floating barriers and conduct naval operations on the river. The federal government has sued, because there's nothing that says a state can't control its borders. It will be up the the Supreme Court, and I suspect they will agree that there's nothing to stop it.
The North won the war before it began. The South had essentially no industry and few people. The North won with one hand tied behind its back. It never had to exert itself.
The other reason thenorth won the war (this is really for part 2) was because Lincoln had given grant free reign to do whatever he wanted, whereas Lee had to get permission from Jefferson Davis on every move he made
Fun fact: General Sherman was Superintendent of Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military (Later LSU) when Louisiana seceded from the Union. He said he developed his scorched earth policy because he knew how southerners were. They would never give up unless they were absolutely decimated. He knew that if he didn’t destroy everything in his path that the war would go on forever. And he was probably right.
He was definitely caned.
And the reason why? The slave power pretended that the relationship of the masters to the slave women was not sexual, and Sumner gave a speech that suggested strongly that it was not so.
30:25 Mark! You're right! They didn't exist back then! 😮😂
Man, since this old man from Kentucky pushing the next decade of his life with the digit in tens place supporting the big seven.for 70 years, I have been leaving thoughts and messages all over the place. I then found that I was leaving messages from two years ago to early today, 8-12-23. If it not too much out of your way, would acknowledge for me that embrace old. People like myself to your channel. I am on hour 13 binge watching your channel. Seeing your enthusiasm toward my home country through your eyes, has given me a whole new appreciation for the country of my home, America, to a deeper love where my pedigree began long before the middle 1600's when the Wallingford 's, which is my sir name sailed to the New Word from beautiful Mother Britain.
I'm glad you took the time to comment and hope your thoughts are heard. At least know, you are "heard" by others watching this and reading your comment. I'm fascinated by history and love hearing stories from my elders. Sometimes it is the only way to find out what really happens compared to what is taught. My family came over in the 1600s, too. The English side in Jamestown for being Catholic Stuart supporters during the Cromwell times and the German for being Lutheran/ Quakers. Who knew they'd end up merging and producing descendents? 😂😂😂
Am also in my 70's and have read your message. It is good to learn about people.
Please remember the North had a LOT of city dwellers who didn't know one end of a muzzle loader from its butt, while Southerners were country boys who knew how to shoot well.
Slavery wasn’t an issue between North vs South.
It was an issue between Democrats in the North AND South who supported slavery and Republicans who were only in the North who opposed slavery.
And now Republicans are the ones flying Confederate flags. Crazy, right?
Slavery was certainly a North-South issue. The Republican Party didn't even exist when the Northern states outlawed slavery in the late 1700s, nor were they around for the Missouri Compromise nor the Compromise of 1950. And the Northern Democrats weren't so much pro-slavery as not especially anti-slavery. The main reason the Southern Democrats split off was that they wanted to expand slavery westward, whereas the Northern Democrats generally wanted it to end with the existing slave states and for everyone to just stop rocking the boat. They would not have chosen to fight a war to rid the South of slavery, but they certainly wouldn't have fought a war to preserve and expand slavery.
The peninsula campaign under McClellan was the last campaign my great great grandfather Jacob Edwards was able to participate in before he received what we now call a medical discharge. He was there during each battle and the final pull back to evacuate.
Yeah, so...basically, everything you said "There's no way that happened"...really did happen.
Everytime i hear the question "is cereal a soup?" I break out laughing cause what?! 😂😂
"All men are created equal" never included women. And for many years it also excluded the Chinese, the Japanese, the Native American Indians, the Irish, Jews, gays & lesbians, and others depending on the time & place.
"All men are created equal" means all humans.
Which is how we got to where we are today, where all rights are recognized to every human citizen equally.
I live less then 3 miles from the house John Brown lived at the time he left foe Martin's ferry...it sat across the road from his father-
in - law Col .Perkins...they take all school children to do tours.and we obviously learn alot about him...
I found that extremely insulting to the people how died during the war. It was one of the most bloody was in us history.
Many different states one ideal. If you read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution you can get the gist of what that ideal is. Unity under one great idea, the idea that individual freedom trumps the government and that no one person's right to freedom trumps another's.
Everything you said "no way" about actually happened. And I mean everything
I've been to Harpers Ferry before, and it's open to the public. You can walk around in the very room John Brown and his men held out in, was a pretty surreal experience. There were bullet holes still on the walls and in the door.
Fun fact, honest Abe actually owned 175 slaves himself.
Originally the states were to govern themselves and the fed was only there if the states requested help.
Actually the slaves were owned by his wife not him.
No, Lincoln owned no slaves. He did have a patent, and was, to my knowledge, the only president to have one.
22:52 Mark! Right, you're mistaken! He wasn't being hypocritical! He gave them jobs! Being a Slave isn't a job!
Think of States as countries in the EU
1:10 Mark! The striped buckets are "Kentucky Fried Chicken" buckets! (AKA "KFC"!) 😂
Oh, no. He got caned.
Was sent to Britain for medical care....was there for 3 years....came back to serve in the Senate during Reconstruction and still wore bandages on his forehead years later
@@genehollowell472 It was horrible. He almost died, right?
Is cereal a soup? Blew my friggin mind right now.
Oversimplified is great.
Someone’s probably already said it but if you read the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents you’ll notice it’s actually “These” United States since the original intent was for each state to be more like an independent country. Yeah I worded that poorly but you get it lol.
Imagine the scenario where you have separate, but aligned states - then a group of them says they want to break their alliance, and be their own group - and the other states attack them to keep the separatists as a part of the larger whole - then put their own rulers in those states to keep them in line and also punish them quite a bit for trying to separate.
That's what happened.
10:28 He also spoke FOR it early on, and I think in his first inaugural address.
He also spoke about sending them back to Africa.
Yea lincoln did advocate for that.
Something else they never taught when I was in school, Lincoln Co authored a bill while he was a congressman to keep slavery a permanent institution in the usa.
Trust me… most of us Americans are unbelievably embarrassed over our country’s history.
Don't trust this guy.. He's in the minority. Lol
Speak for yourself every country on this planet has skeletons
@@richardrose9943 Pretty sure that he didn't say no-one else has them. Just that we're embarrassed of them.
I'm part blackfoot. I'm Irish, too. Both those peoples were treated badly at times. I'm far more proud than embarrassed by U.S. history. Weve done far more good than evil. Can't ask more than that.
15:03 "I'm glad they went with the eagle." Me, too. If Benjamin Franklin had had his way (in this case, I know he had his way in lots of others) our national bird would have been the turkey. Does that mean we would be eating eagle on American Thanksgiving day? Who knows. I, for one, am glad we don't have to know.
Do you think Mexico was a country before colonialism?
"A large number of civilians also rode out from D.C. to picnic on the nearby hill to watch the excitement unfold."
"WHAT?!?!? Nah! There ain't no way, bro!"
Actually....yes. Strangley, it was not uncommon at that time for cvilians to travel just to watch a battle, given the near choreographed Napoleonic tactics American forces were utilizing (despite this being the first "modern" war which made Napoleonic tactics obeselete)....especially one that they believe was going to end a certain way.
The only thing I'd object to in this video is that slaves were "stolen from their homeland". In some cases I'm sure that was true but the vast majority of slaves were owned by Africans and sold to people in the US. The US did not go to Africa and just start snatching people up out of their homes. Of course there is not a hug distinction between purchasing people vs stealing them, but accuracy is important. The Founding Fathers didn't want slavery in the new world, even though many of them owned slaves. But the need to form the Union was paramount and it could not have happened without the cooperation of the South, so it was taken out of the Declaration of Independence to get the South on board. What irks me about slavery is that people seem to treat it as an issue that was created by America, when slavery has been around since the very first tribes of people began forming, thousands of years before the US existed. I don't think the US gets enough credit as the country who put an end to it. It almost tore the country apart and hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the effort to irradicate it. The US didn't invent slavery, but we did end it.
First off, the video never said or even implied the US was the one who actually captured the slaves. So, there's no problem with the "stolen from their homelands" line.
Second, no one is saying that america invented slavery. The practice is millenia old, atributing it to a country that's only been around for ~250 years would be absurd. But the US also didn't end slavery, much of europe had outlawed it decades prior. that's why the emancipation proclamation made them decide not to join the south, because they already opposed slavery. And even europe was not even close to the first to do so, you can find various nations and governments restricting and outlawing slavery stretching back centuries. You also conspicuously failed to mention that even though thousands of americans died to eradicate slavery, thousands also died trying to uphold it.
You want praise for ending a institution you upheld as your cherished right for 200 hundred years? That's like a former drug dealer wanting a Nobel peace after he is arrested.
After watching hours and hours of your videos, this original video is by far the funniest 😹 Love your commentary and hope you make it to USA soon. I live 30 min from Yosemite.
Yes, the UK was on the side of the south, because of the cotton they needed. If you are interested and strong enough to go into it, continue to explore the continued violence against Black people.
I had a grandfather that was a captain of the 2ed Rifles during the civil war... he fought at Gittysburge an was there when Lee surrendered..
Us states are the size of countries, Texas is alone is the almost the size of Europe, excluding Russia
Dont let people fool you. The incredibly rich slave ship owners lived in the north
First there were not 4 million slaves in America. Historians keep upping the amount. I think by today it is 6-7 million. They did a census in 1861 and there was under 2 million or just over. So don't always believe the numbers. Also, 600,000 + men died in the civil war including Indians and black men. And no matter what people say it was most definitely over slavery. Some for the financial reason and some for the moral reason and some for whatever reason, but it was over slavery. South Carolina wasn't to leave or secede from the nation of America and become British ruled again and President Lincoln said no. It was because they wanted to end slavery and the south didn't.
Before talk of freeing slaves ever came to the White House The South was already talking about seceding from the Union. The civil war was fought for the preservation of the Union slavery was just the tipping point
Ben Franklin brought it up in the beginning and nobody listened.
The former slaves served the north by providing necessary labor needed for the transportation system. Which moved necessary support for the fighting troops
14:51 Mark! When some people claim that it was more than just Slavery there were also state rights. Well, the "Right to Slavery" is one of them, but they deny it! 😮
As for state loyalty? That's evolved into local sports team loyalty. 😮
Where I live in West Virginia there is two towns named after General Winfield Scott....Winfield and Scott Depot, and the schools mascots in Winfield is a general, the Winfield Generals, lol.
Lincoln wasn't just a lawyer, but a railway lawyer, who are very crooked.
Our schools paint Lincoln to basically be a saint, but he wasn't. There are many bad things that he did and said, such as imprisoning people running newspapers and politicians without any charges. He also sent the army to New York City when there were riots (i believe over the draft) and many were killed in that confliction. He's the reason why the government assumes it has the power to draft people for war now.
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free anyone. It only applied to the south, who he didn't have control of anymore, and did not apply to the slv states and counties in the north. They did it later in the war mainly for optics, to keep Britain from aiding the south.
There are a lot of other bad things that I haven't mentioned. Our schools and most other places refuse to mention those things. You have to learn it through independent research, or from a few sources/books who did the research.
90% of the military supplies used in the southern Confederacy came from the United Kingdom. And, the UK almost joined the southern States in the fight against the North. The UK wanted southern cotton for their textile mills. But, when it looked like the South was going to lose the War, Great Britain backed out. But, they continued to send supplies around the northern blockade to the South.