"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. " --H. L. Mencken Democracy depends on consent to government, and Lincoln destroyed that by claiming that government held _final_ authority._ Starting with the north; and they fell in line like sheep, since anyone who didn't appear obedient, simply.... DIS-appeared.
@@kenburns4547 Another lie by you. Exactly where did Lincoln make that claim? And additionally it was the South that said its illegal and rebellious government held final authority by denying the legal outcome of a free and fair election. _When the States ratified the Constitution of 1787, they pledged that they would accept the results of elections conducted according to its rules. In violation of this pledge, the Southern States seceded because they did not like the outcome of the election of 1860. Thus secession is the interruption of the constitutional operation of republican government, substituting the rule of the minority for that of the majority."_ - The Claremont Institute
Nope. “Every state said they’re leaving because of slavery.” Wrong. 7 confederate states didn’t and the non slave owner major did in fact say they’re fighting for home not slavery. He said Lincoln had every intention of ending slavery. Nope. Lincoln’s debate with Stephen Douglas proves otherwise. “We Are Fighting for Independence, Not Slavery”. - Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy to Edward Kirk
@@SouthernGentleman All the states that rebelled did so because of slavery and they either made the clear in their statements of secession or in their debates and other ways. _"Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation---the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery..."_ Thomas F. Goode, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, March 28, 1861, Virginia Secession Convention, vol. II, p518
that is because it is a false narrative, get this or check it out at the library before it gets burned *The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American History 1775-1865*
unnamedenemy9: and you just answered the question as to why there was a civil war. why all states became part of one big union. it was every state for itself, and your state is where your allegiance lied, where your money was spent, everything not the country. till after the Civil War. like all wars, the Civil war was about money, power, and control nothing to do with a slave, as a matter of fact, the Civil war was over for about 3 years before they started freeing them. Like the Iraq war do you really believe we went over there to liberate the Iraqi citizens or was there a whole lot of money, power, and oil involved.
@Pan-European Confederate White Movement all those democrats who fought for the confederacy are dead. and their descendants(the people who defend the confederacy) side mostly with the republicans.
@Pan-European Confederate White Movement funny how you skipped the important part of the comment about republicans being the only ones still trying to defend Lee/Confederate statues and flags. No one cares that you think folk are trying to remove Lincoln from everything, because we know that isnt the case.
That Dennis Prager is Jewish makes most of P/U videos even more baffling. Same with Mike Savage...the two of them carry a lot of water not just for the GOP mainstream, but to the Neo Nazis now rebranded as the Alt Right...That P/U cited the truth about slavery and the Confederacy is a tad surprising.
_"As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man."_ --US Grant
If you're too stupid to know national sovereignty from delegated powers, and thus think that it WAS a civil war simply because states delegated federal powers
Try reading the constitution some time. America was formed by "We the people of the United States", not "we the people of each individual state". America is one nation by one people. The states are merely subdivisions of the federal government, just like counties are subdivisions of states. _"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize."_ --George Washington, 1796.
@@TheStapleGunKid Madison in Federalist #39, pointing out the content of the Constitution itself, disproves that nonsense: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Actually the content of the constitution says otherwise. In addition to being formed by "We the people of the United States", it says the federal constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", and must be obeyed even if it conflicts with state constitutions. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the states are sovereign. By the way, you might want to read the next paragraph of Federalist #39 that comes after the one you posted: _"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is, by the adversaries of the plan of the convention, supposed to consist in this, that in the former, the powers operate on the political bodies composing the confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not the federal character; though perhaps not so compleatly as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which states may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. But the operation of the government on the people in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, will on the whole, in the sense of its opponents, designate it in this relation, a national government."_
@@TheStapleGunKid Bottom line, the United States was re-established under the Constitution not by "we the people of the United States" acting as one nation and people, but state by state. That's an historical fact, and it's a fact of the text of the Constitution, as Madison pointed out (even if you think I'm a moron for thinking the Federalist Papers weren't published in 1776 -- ha!) According to the Constitution's supremacy clause, laws passed by the federal government only take precedence over state constitutions to the extent they're made in pursuance of the Constitution, a Constitution which was then amended to include a whole Bill of Rights of the federal government "shall nots" and capped with the 10th amendment declaring that the states retained every power not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states by the Constitution (which would include the right of secession.)
Was the Civil War about slavery? Yes, of course. The rebels cited "slave" and "slavery" a whopping 80 separate times in their own declarations of secession, and openly admitted "Our position is *thoroughly identified* with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world." All those documents are free online; anyone can read them, and learn the truth.
Was the civil war about slavery? Of course not. Lincoln was never going to end it as stated in his inaugural address, 70% of the south didn’t have slavery, the union had 7 slave states in 1864, and 7 confederate states didn’t mention it. Marxist revisionists say it was only about slavery because 6 confederate states mentioned it like the U.S constitution, the Vice president was pro slavery, even though the Confederate President said they werent fighting for slavery and no confederate recruitment poster says fight for slavery. "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom. “Lee viewed slavery as a evil.” - Historians Douglas Cohn and Jim Kelly Articles I, Section 2, added three-fifths of “all other Persons” ‒ slaves ‒ to the number of free inhabitants of a state for purposes of representation. This clause, by boosting the number of representatives in Congress for the slave states, guaranteed political protection for slavery. The same three-fifths ratio boosted the representation of slave states in the Electoral College during presidential elections. The slave import limitation, Article I, Section 9, prohibited Congress from regulating the international slave trade until 1808, 21 years after ratification of the Constitution. Not only was Congress forbidden from regulating the transoceanic slave trade, but Article V of the Constitution explicitly forbids amending the slave import limitation, one of only two such forbidden matters in the whole document. Lastly, the Fugitive Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2, guaranteed nationally, for the first time, the right of slave owners to pursue and reclaim their slaves anywhere throughout the land. - U.S constitution
Learn the truth First. We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State. Second. We furthermore declare and ordain that article 10, sections 1 and 2, of the constitution of the State of Tennessee, which requires members of the General Assembly and all officers, civil and military, to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same are hereby, abrogated and annulled, and all parts of the constitution of the State of Tennessee making citizenship of the United States a qualification for office and recognizing the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of this State are in like manner abrogated and annulled. Third. We furthermore ordain and declare that all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, or under any laws of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed. - Tennessee We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated. We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. - North Carolina Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas: Therefore we, the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the "ordinance and acceptance of compact" passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas on the 18th day of October, A.D. 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said State, the propositions set forth in "An act supplementary to an act entitled `An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes,'" were freely accepted, ratified, and irrevocably confirmed, articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States, and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated, and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved. And we do further hereby declare and ordain, That the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government of the United States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State. We do further ordain and declare, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States of America, or of any act or acts of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect, in nowise altered or impaired, and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed. - Arkansas Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth. - Missouri
Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties. And whereas, the majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solemn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of a military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace, and have voted men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the expressed words of the constitution by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeus corpus susupended without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war agasint the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, Be it further ordained, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests are not law, and that such a government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people, and that we do therefore declare that the people are thereby absolved from all allegiance to said government, and that they have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties. - Kentucky It has been proclaimed that the election of a President is an authoritative approval of all the principles avowed by the person elected and by the party convention which nominated him. Although that election is made by little more than one third of the votes given. But however large the majority may have been to recognize such a principle is to announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution. The representative principle is a sufficient security only where the interest of the representative and the Constituent are identical with the variety of climate productions and employment of labor and capital which exist in the different sections of the American Confederacy creating interests not only diverse but antagonistic. The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism. It is in no weak and imaginary fear of the consequences but that we regard them as certain and inevitable that we are prompted by every consideration of duty and honor and of policy to meet the issue now instead of leaving it to those who are to come after us who will be less able to vindicate their rights and honor, nor is it without the sincerest sorrow that we are about to separate from that noble band of patriots in the nonslaveholding states who have faithfully vindicated our Constitutional rights that we have been impelled by every consideration which should have influence with honorable men to declare our separation from the confederacy of the United States of America trusting for the maintenance of that declaration to the virtue courage and patriotism of our people and to that God who guided our fathers through similar trials and dangers. - Florida
“We Are Fighting for Independence, Not Slavery”. - Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy to Edward Kirk “I worked night and day for 12 years to prevent the war, but I could not. The north was mad, blind,would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came.” - Confederate President Jefferson Davis “Is it worth while to continue this union of states, where the north demands to be our masters and we are required to be their tributaries.” - Thomas Cooper of South Carolina “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.” - Robert E Lee 1856 “While we see the Course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end” - Robert E Lee 1856 “I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” - Robert E Lee 1865 “All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times.” - Robert E. Lee “I have always been in favor of Emancipation.” - Robert E Lee In an 1863 letter to his home state congressman, Elihu Washburne, Grant summed up his pre-war attitude: “I never was an Abolitionist,” he said, “not even what could be called anti-slavery.” “Slavery exists. It is black in the South, and white in the North.” - Union Vice President Johnson. “We're not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principles of states rights and free trade, and in defense of our homes which we were ruthlessly invaded.” -VMI Jewish Cadet Moses Jacob Ezekiel “Abolish the Loyal League and the Ku Klux Klan; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict.” - Nathan Bedford Forrest “African Americans should have the right to vote.” - Confederate Colonel John Salmon Ford The confederate soldier “Fought because he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded” -James Webb Born Fighting a History of the Scoth-Irish in America “I was fighting for my home, and he had no business being there” -Virginia confederate Soldier Frank Potts List of causes of the Civil War- Harpers Ferry On the night of October 16, 1859, Brown and a band of followers seized the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in what is believed to have been an attempt to arm a slave insurrection. (Brown denied this at his trial, but evidence indicated otherwise.) They were dislodged by a force of U.S. Marines led by Army lieutenant colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown was swiftly tried for treason against Virginia and hanged. Southern reaction initially was that his acts were those of a mad fanatic, of little consequence. But when Northern abolitionists made a martyr of him, Southerners came to believe this was proof the North intended to wage a war of extermination against white Southerners. Brown’s raid thus became a step on the road to war between the sections. States' Rights The idea of states' rights was not new to the Civil War. Since the Constitution was first written there had been arguments about how much power the states should have versus how much power the federal government should have. The southern states felt that the federal government was taking away their rights and powers. Political power That was not enough to calm the fears of delegates to an 1860 secession convention in South Carolina. To the surprise of other Southern states-and even to many South Carolinians-the convention voted to dissolve the state’s contract with the United States and strike off on its own. South Carolina had threatened this before in the 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, over a tariff that benefited Northern manufacturers but increased the cost of goods in the South. Jackson had vowed to send an army to force the state to stay in the Union, and Congress authorized him to raise such an army (all Southern senators walked out in protest before the vote was taken), but a compromise prevented the confrontation from occurring. Perhaps learning from that experience the danger of going it alone, in 1860 and early 1861 South Carolina sent emissaries to other slave holding states urging their legislatures to follow its lead, nullify their contract with the United States and form a new Southern Confederacy. Six more states heeded the siren call: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Others voted down secession-temporarily. When President Lincoln called for Volunteers to invade the south, six southern states voted to join the Confederacy. The issue of slavery The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. Secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution. Most of the states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery. Child labor was also a growing trend in the North. The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was part of the Southern economy although only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves.
When the Confederate states’ declarations to secede from the Union literally state that the preservation of slavery was their only reason, that pretty much answers the question. These are all publicly available by the way.
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
@@kaizermonkeys "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."- Sentence one of A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of Mississippi from the Federal Union
@@RhodokTribesman But that sentence doesn't prove that their reason for secession was slavery. Again, in 1861 the institution of slavery in the USA was never under any real that of abolition, if you doubt this then please explain why the Union would draft and ratify the Corwin Amendment in order to get the Southern States back in the Union, which they rejected. If it was about slavery there would have been no reason to reject this proposal.
@@noonespecial9704 But his video on vegan stuff is lame, but i think those videos Lincolnites vids are well made atleast. But Troll 2 movie is great though as a way to troll that video since its about Vegetarian goblins eating humans when they turn to plants
@@Sparrows1121 That was a great video, man. You don’t have to agree with the thesis to appreciate how good a job he did with the presentation of his points and editing.
+buddyltd - Ya lets whine about The Iraq War. Sidestepping to the max. Why comment on the video, here is a chance to troll the horrible Americans. Don’t you get it? We Americans are SO terrible…After needlessly ending slavery, we continued our evil ways and deliberately murdered innocent civilians with uranium bombs. only because they dont "agree with our politic" citation needed. Cuz ya know slavery was not all that bad and neither is terrorism. Just look at all the citations piling up...Oh Wait!
Oh boy... Right, first off, I am not sure where either of these comments have come from, what train of thought was going through the heads of those who wrote them, or, to be honest, what any of them are saying. Both comments have managed to use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation (barring a few exceptions) and still end up as hopelessly incoherent in the context I see for it (the only context on this comment section). In case of mutual misunderstanding, I was meaning that, while most Prager Uni videos are simple propaganda, unsourced and to a large extent untrue, this video raises interesting, logical and, most importantly, logic-backed arguments. In fact, most Prager Uni videos are so idiotic that I end up either laughing with a mix of concern and hilarity, or I end up banging my head against a hard, flat surface. Such is the twaddle of most of their videos to justify my comment. However, what I was not expecting was a random inflammation of this topic, regarding other topics such as the Iraq War, likely the Vietnam War and other such atrocities committed by the US armed forces and government. I get it - the US has committed numerous atrocities over the past nearly three centuries, but that doesn't disprove the fact that this video puts forward some excellent points (even if they do it with an almost bogan level of patriotism and only restate knowledge that people have known since the Civil War was actually fought). The fact that the US has committed atrocities in the past is irrelevant. Also, in case you are trying to elicit a response drawing on my Stars n' Stripes American Patriotism, you're wasting your time. I am neither patriotic nor American.
+kayle bertges It happened even sooner. The same soldiers that fought the civil war went on to kill the Indians and drive them out... Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. He fought the war to keep power. The right to succeed was constitutional to keep a president from becoming a tyrant. The South fought for that right and sadly lost. Slavery was a product of the time. No other nation needed a civil war to end it. The UK government bought private slaves and freed them (far less costly than a war...)
I'm going to be honest, knowing Prager, I thought this was going to support some revisionist history that the American Civil War wasn't fought over slavery; and when I saw that the speaker is a military guy, that thought was strengthened. Very relieved that is not the case.
iscrewy You're conflating the secession with the war, which is unsound and leads to inaccurate notions. The secession was about preserving slavery. The war was a result of the North's baseless and utterly wrong doctrine that a state had no right to secede, and the North having left armed troops in what was then to them a foreign nation, constituting an invasion force. The video makes the same error.
Douglas Joseph It's called the USA, not the North American union. If any state can leave whenever it wants, secession will be used as a bargaining chip, as it is in the European Union, giving disproportionate power to a minority.
iscrewy Hate to break it to you, but there is not one iota of difference between your definition of "North American Union" and the pre-war states' definition of "United States of America." Northern states had threatened to secede before the Southern states did so. The notion than a sovereign nation state can join but cannot un-join, any union of its choice, is a baseless claim that exists nowhere in the states' documentation of having formed the union in the first place.
Douglas Joseph The federal government was and is superior to state governments. This was affirmed in the constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Nullification Crisis. (The doctrine of nullification and secession stems from the void Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.) Most modern American states were never independent. The original 13 colonies voted to become independent, not in their individual legislatures, but in a united body. The majority of other states were American territories before statehood. Texas, joining such a body, made an agreement to be a part of an inseperable union, whether or not it was explicitly stated. For there to be a union, the federal government must be superior to the states, and the states must not be able to secede.
iscrewy Your notions on this are so far from historical reality it is staggering. That ridiculous view led to a colossal abuse (the inaccurately so-called Civil War). The pre-war states viewed the union as something they together created by and through their power as independent nation states, and as something that they had the power to mutually dissolve if necessary and they held that any one of them had the right to depart from it if the conditions of the compact were not being abided by, which was the case.
I'm not gonna lie...I was worried we were about to be hit with some propaganda. I'm glad I watched this video. The issue is literally a matter of people being willfully ignorant of history.
You're the one who's ignorant of history. FACT: the states fought the American Revolution with the agreement, that the Union would be international like the EU, and each state would be a separate nation. And the PEOPLE of each state ratified the Constitution with the same agreement.
Perpetuating the lie that slaves were treated so well that they sang in the fields and we're part of the family. The south still bitches about the northern war of aggression.
The confirmation-bias is strong in this one. "Any support of my narrative is RIGHT!" Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
@@SovereignStatesman My narrative? Buddy, this is history. You have the very false narrative of the slave owners being heroes. You are the one rewriting history to make it look like the CSA was on the morally right side. Edit: I'm not saying that it isn't ok to be proud of your history. I have Confederate ancestors and I'm proud that they played such a pivotal part in the history of my nation, even if they were on the wrong side.
I don't understand this debate or why this was a surprise. Everyone always knew it was about slavery, but is also about state's rights. They are two sides of the same coin. The fact is when the North won the war, it also dramatically changed how the constitution was practiced to the point you can say our constitution changed. States power diminished incredibly after the war and the Federal governments power grew in the same proportion.
@@clarkwatson3217 far left......and rascist.......yeah ok......sure......can i also have some of the stuff you take? It sounds like it hits really good
@@elizabethbeck4071 You tell _me_ what the following means. From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776:
_We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, *as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.* _ That sounds to me, as a humble legal scholar, like an international union of separate independent nation-states; and that the USA was only a union among them: like the EU. And from the Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781:
_*Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,* and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly *delegated* to the United States, in Congress assembled. _ That looks like the “perpetual union” did not unite the states into a single independent state; but only an international continental union like the EU, to which certain powers were simply _delegated._
And from The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783 _His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be *free independent and independent states,* that he treats with *them* as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. _ That _also_ looks like a continental union of separate sovereign nation-states, again like the EU. And so the Constitution likewise did not unite the states as an independent unified state; but simply established the voters in each state as the principal sovereigns: rather than the state _legislatures,_ as under the Articles of Confederation. So there was really no belief or intention whatsoever, by any party, for the USA to be an unified independent state. That notion by any sitting president, first arose under President Andrew Jackson, who alleged the following in his Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832- which, as shown, directly contradicts the cited source-document (above):
_In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a state by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one state, for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. _ It looks to me, like Jackson takes liberties with the facts. However despite this, this was followed by Congressional passing of Jackson’s Force Bill, which authorized federal military force against individual states. This looks to me, like the government was running amuck, and slowly seizing power by re-writing history to give itself ownership over the _people_ of each separate sovereign nation-state. And this set precedent for President Abraham Lincoln’s actions; as he, like Jackson, accounted history differently from how it actually occurred, claiming the following:
_The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union._ _But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. _ As with Jackson, it seems to me that Lincoln takes great liberties not only with the facts; but with _equivocation,_ construing the term “perpetual” as “national,” and “perpetuity” as _sovereignty._ Even when the documents themselves expressly stated the opposite; using shyster's tricks, do deny the actual meaning of the original parties and their intended agreements. Meanwhile, it looks to me like the Constitution itself showed in Article VII, that each state had _already_ “gotten out of the Union by its own mere motion,” via the very act of _ratifying_ it: _The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. _ As James Madison likewise contextualizes in Federalist No 40 which was done as a unilateral act of abrogating the prior Union, by the electorates of each individual independent state-state: _In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. _The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth… _ This was in reference to the requirement in the Articles of Confederation, that any changes required the approval of _all thirteen_ state legislatures; which each held supreme national authority over their own respective nation-state. Under Article VII, the voters of each state chose whether to ratify the Constitution or not; no matter _what_ the other states did. And the Constitution was only between those ratifying states. This established the voters in each state, as their own final authority; and they simply delegated powers to their elected officials via the Constitution, but could overrule them at any time by popular vote. And the Constitution never expressly united the states as a single nation-state, as some claim. So it's simply an international union, like the UN or the EU. Meanwhile the _Constitution_ simply established the _voters_ in each independent state-state, as their own state's supreme authority . Unfortunately, it looks like truth became the first casualty of war; and falsehood now reigns supreme: with the Wikipedia article _Secession in the United States,_ claiming that “There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.” But as detailed above, there is clearly no legal basis for _denying_ it, any more than for the UK in Brexit. So in sum: the USA has never been expressly acknowledged as a independent state, by any other independent state. Rather, it’s just been a matter that has been ignored throughout history… the proverbial “elephant in the room” that nobody wants to mention.
The fact you say "even" Prager U shows you don't really understand politics. Dennis Prager is an old school, Reagan Era Republican, what used to be known as "Nazi fascist imperialist Nazi Nazi neocons", not this new wave of Tucker Carlson, Putin-simping alt right who co-opted tin-foil hats and tyrant worshippers from the left. To say the US military could ever be right in any conflict or do anything noble used to be a rightwing position. That's why Steven Crowder made a video praising the US marine in Haiti after the quake even though we had a Democrat President in office at the time while Hollywood's darling Hugo Chavez accused the US of starting the disaster with a sonic weapons test. It's why Noam Chomsky is...well, Noam Chomsky when he's interviewed about Ukraine. It's why The Gravel Institute made a video about Ukraine prior to the invasion that was so horrible even Vaush ripped it apart, and why Howard Zinn said this about the Civil War: "Behind the secession of the South from the Union, after Lincoln was elected President in the fall of 1860 as candidate of the new Republican party, was a long series of policy clashes between South and North. The clash was not over slavery as a moral institution-most northerners did not care enough about slavery to make sacrifices for it, certainly not the sacrifice of war. It was not a clash of peoples (most northern whites were not economically favored, not politically powerful; most southern whites were poor farmers, not decisionmakers) but of elites. The northern elite wanted economic expansion-free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the United States."
"Even Prager U" You don't understand politics. Dennis Prager is an old school, Reagan Republican, or as you used to call us "Nazi fascist imperialist Nazi Nazi neocons." This video is perfectly in character and it were released in the Bush era you'd see people pulling their hair out screaming about how this was jingoist rightwing propaganda. Before Trump America wasn't about Marxists vs. Fascists, it was about patriots vs. hatetriots.
Each state was STILL a separate sovreign nation, from 1776 onward. As declared by the words "as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. " That's plain English.
@@SovereignStatesman while states probably had much more autonomy back then they were not totally independent from one another. If they were totally independent wouldn't have bothered to set up a congress or a federal government. And that still doesn't distract from the fact that the main cause of the Civil War was clearly and overwhelmingly about slavery
Why would PU need this video to distance itself from southern slave owning democrats and the continued racist policies of contemporary democrats and their leftist supporters?
States rights to exist. The North was all about industry and the South was about agriculture. 1 of the problems were the laws and taxes that were being passed that squashed agriculture to prop up industry. It's the same thing the federal government does to this day, a great example is what they do for wind and solar power. Clearly States Rights was indeed a worthy cause to fight for, look at us today. The federal government has all the power and most of the time they force State and local governments to their will, no matter how unconstitutional.
@@Damitsall yeah their agriculture was at risk because the slaves they were using for labor were going to be freed, so again it’s about slavery, you can’t try and twist it to where it isn’t, it literally just is, that’s literally what the civil war was about, states rights to own slaves.
@@creepypastacraft Yea thats a lie; if it was about slavery, why was there still slavery in the North? The slaves were not "free" until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was more than halfway through the war, after the North had been getting their asses kicked. There was a couple reasons it happened. 1 of them was because for the North to get help from other countries, mainly the British if I recall, and one of the things they had to do was free their slaves before receiving help. I get it history is written by the victors, but if you truly want to know this stuff is out there.
@Marcial Bonifacio left-wing Fanatics are simply blow back to RIGHT Wing fanatics. It's just contrarian misinformation. Just like Karl Marx believed that Universal franchise would create a workers Paradise, but when that failed then the marxists blamed capitalism rather than corrupt politics of false democracy.
I want to address something that never gets talked about, and very few know about. This idea that all of America allowed slavery, isn't true. The state of Vermont abolished slavery as soon as we became a country. And a number of states would soon follow suit afterwards. Some states have never allowed slavery, like my home state of Indiana. The issue of slavery was a very hot topic, even in the time of our founding fathers. The founders knew that trying to tackle the issue of slavery, while they was struggling to bring the country together, would be disastrous to their attempts to bring the country together. Look at what happened 70-80 years later when we tried to abolish slavery, the country went to war with itself. Imagine if they had tried it in the 1780s-1790s. There would be no America. Building this country and it's bill of rights, wasn't easy, even after we won the Revolutionary War. Compromises had to be made, and one of them was slavery. That had to be left up to fight for, another day.
The South would have wanted to break off whether slavery was legal or not. Ethnicity, language, and culture started the war. Catalonia in Spain for example, why do they want to split off? It's all because of differences between people.
The South was not Catalonia. And New Orleans was as different from Charleston as Charleston was from New York. The only thing that made the South 'special' was its slavery! That is what unified them, their common struggle to preserve and expand slavery. _"The most crucial demographic difference between North and South, of course, resulted from slavery. … The implications of this for the economy and social structure of the two sections, not to mention their ideologies and politics, are obvious and require little elaboration here."_ - James McPherson, "Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism A New Look at an Old Question" .
No, this is not true. I have read an anecdote in a 19th century book that Ethan Allen owned slaves, and many sources describe slaves in New England states well into the early 1800's. They just changed the term from slave to servant. Vermont passed gradual emancipation laws that states slaves were to be set free after a certain age, but these allowed people to own slaves under certain ages. New England/Northern slavery died out slowly by a combination of gradual age of the slave type laws, in some cases litigation over broken promises to free slaves, Christian abolition efforts to convince slave holders slavery was apostate to God's will, and owners selling their slaves south. Once the nation was formed and seated in 1789, there was no talk about ending slavery in Congress. Only occasionally, did petitions come in from Christian groups praying for the end of the slave trade, not slavery itself. Slavery was not a north and south issue in the 1780's and 1790's, because the northern states were also slave holding states.
Every Northern state had acted to end slavery before the war, some as early as during the Revolutionary War. The last, New Jersey, enacted the final version of its gradual plan in 1846, first started in 1804. And even as early as 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North and that number is falling. (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era"). Or as Professor Paul Finkelman put it, _"By 1804, all of the states north of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware had either ended slavery outright or had passed legislation to gradually abolish the institution. Thus, after 1804, Slavery was peculiar to the South."_ But meanwhile the Southern states not only refused to try to give it up, they grew it and embraced it even more so that even at the time of the Revolution: _"The Southern Colonies of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, by contrast, were not merely societies with slaves but "slave societies" organized economically, socially, and politically around the principle and practice of human bondage. In 1760, 88 percent of the 325,806 slaves in the British mainland colonies lived in the South."_ Elizabeth R. Varon "Disunion, the coming of the American Civil War" p17 And all the border states were Southern slave states, some of which were retained in the Union one, mainly by force or threat of force. Many were divided internally themselves like Missouri that fought its own Civil War within the larger one. Kentucky had governments that claimed to represent it on both sides. Maryland had divided loyalties although the weakness of slavery there, economic ties and existing loyalty to the Union and the Federal Military presence itself saw it side with the Union. Only in Delaware with less than 1800 slaves, was there no secession movement. In the other three states it had to be suppressed. .
***** It was George Orwell, or Eric Arthur Blair, if you want his real name. It was on a column called 'As I please' and his article was published on the 4th February 1944. Here is the Link: alexpeak.com/twr/hiwbtw/ I found it to be thought-provoking.
MWH12085 Not quite, as the CSA lost the Civil War to the USA, yet here in the USA we still see the CSA influence on the historiography of modern high school textbooks.
Because the US held slaves for the shortest period of time by far for any society ever. People died to end the atrocity as soon as possible. Leave it to a smug liberal to poopoo that
Michael Haimerl It wasn't i promises you. Go look up the Haitian revolution. It was a successful(yet brutal) slave revolt that ended slavery in a french colony. Almost every Latin American nation fighting for independence made ending slavery a central part of their cause. The independence armies had more Blacks than any other ethnic group.
Spider58x Except for Brazil. The British Navy had to cut them off from the rest of the world with a permanent Naval blockade until they relented and abolished it.
Michael Haimerl You do realize that there are still countries in the world where slavery exists, right? Communist countries rely on slave labor to the government. Just a few years ago, slave workers at the iPhone factories in China were throwing themselves out of windows and killing themselves to try to get people to see what was happening there. Sex slavery is still rampant in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Central America as well. Maybe if people in other parts of the world had fought a war over slavery, they wouldn't be so tolerant of it today.
_"The Lost Cause still endures in the 21st century because it serves many sentimental and racial desires in the present."_ - David W. Blight. Professor of American history at Yale University.
@@Gww-1 _“The neo-Confederate movement has been around for a good while. Ostensibly their aim is to commemorate and glorify the history of the Southern Confederacy. But what they really are about is white supremacy, or what is sometimes called white nationalism. They use the Confederacy as a symbol of white supremacy, which they are trying to bolster in this country.”_ Eric Foner, Professor of History, Columbia University
@Tom Evans Gee, I didn't realize the Poland was actually part of Nazi Germany and had tried to break away unconstitutionally so they could protect their slavery .... Yeah, obviously the two events are totally the same ... what a joke. .
@Cameron Moore he never said they should be gone and still, why would you judge a person on their skin color and not their character? Its fundamentally wrong
Wan Farah Yes indeed. Col. Seidule offers none of the contrived and convoluted analysis typical of Prager as a mouthpiece of conservatism on every issue. Prager presentations typically offer little or no effort to explain any issue objectively and the facts that justify the conservative viewpoint often seems highly selective.
David J Gill Prager University is not so much a stopped clock as it is a clock which loses five seconds a day, but hallelujah, it's giving the right time for once! Now, if it could only get the *current* century's great moral question answered for it by a well-educated climatologist.
Great quote 04:53 “Slavery is the great shame of America’s history, no one denies that, but it is to America’s everlasting credit, that it fought the most devastating war in its history, in order to abolish slavery”
A(do)lf Hid(ler): “Slavery is the great shame of America’s history" So why ignore the national sovereignty of the individual states? " but it is to America’s everlasting credit, that it fought the most devastating war in its history, in order to abolish slavery”" Oh, _that's_ why: because it would preclude calling it a "war," since international unions can't fight wars against their individual member-states and call it a "civil war." That would be like the EU waging war on the UK over brexit: i.e. it's impossible since the EU isn't a state. And neither is the USA. And the Northern states certainly didn't levy war based in their full power as free and independent states, since that would destroy their narrative. So just _lie;_ morons never ask questions. Just mention "slavery" and watch the idiots applaud. Like this: th-cam.com/video/Gi4Z06IbSek/w-d-xo.html Just replace "9/11" with "slavery."
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
@@alfhid1947 How do you figure the US fought a war in order to abolish slavery when the Union at the outset of the war formally declared, "this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of... nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]..."?
@@alfhid1947 And when Lincoln, in his first inaugural address declared, ""I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."?
I think Prager U has a lot of great content and I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm guessing this is the only one you agree with so you want all the others to be taken down. Pretty bad take if you ask me.
There are several points that this video fails to acknowledge that I know other people will use as counter arguments. Nevertheless, the underlying premise of the video is very clear: the South rebelled to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they tell us this in their own words over and over again.
toostoned tocare Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't consider your lack of proper entertainment. Of course, if you were so bored, one could ask why you would bother stopping to announce this very fact if, for no other reason, you weren't really just a troll? Unless you have anything substinative to say, I will heretofore stop feeding your behavior.
Ike Evans You have nothing substantive to say. Learning to spell would be more productive for you. I am hungry for more.. not because of my boredom.. but for my serendipity. xx
You lost a long time ago, yet you persist..... loser. _"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war."_ - Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston _"Having swept away the counterfactual Myth of the Lost Cause, a historian may briefly state the history of the Civil War as follows._ _The eleven states that seceded and became the Confederate States of America did so in order to protect the institution of African slavery from a perceived political threat from the majority of the people of the United States who disapproved of the institution."_ - Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History" p29 .
Right Tom - -you've been disparaging Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Retarded slurs coming from you makes you the biggest loser on the planet.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks He posted *another* fake quote!! Neo-confederates are such a sad joke. I should have caught that myself. Rule of thumb here is that nothing they say should be believed no matter how insignificant or obscure.
This guy Tom Evans has been commenting on this video for 2 YEARS, from what I’ve seen his last comment was a month ago, he is a BIG confederate apologist
@@franciscoaraujo6624 What are you doing that's more important than what he is, if he's standing for the truth vs. lies? You're clearly a con-artist, or someone addicted to denial.
It's sad how only through hate can the left learn love. If you didn't hate the South, most of you would throw Lincoln under the bus like every other US President.
@@jxc1640 What's most telling about the declarations of causes of secession is that nowhere in them is any hint of the northern states forcing an abolition amendment on the slave states. So what do you think the declarations prove? They completely contradict the Righteous Cause Myth that the northern states were going to use their victory in the 1860 election to abolish slavery according to the rule of law. There was no constitutionally legitimate threat of the slave states losing their right to practice slavery. As for Stephens and racial inequality, first a quote from Stephens' March 1961 speech, then a quote from Lincoln: "...notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave." Lincoln: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races …there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
While I agree for the most part that in the north the overwhelming reason for the Civil War was slavery, I absolutely do not agree that the 90% of southerners were ready to leave the Union because of slavery. Using the votes of a legislature of a state is an extremely inaccurate way of gauging the temper of the times. Just like everywhere else in this country the rich and powerful are those most likely to either hold office or control those in office. The one thing that DID affect that common man was export taxes on cotton and tobacco. Something that even the agrarian part of the north didn't suffer from. So what few of the poor and medium farmers that would vote, would do so for their community leaders who were also those most likely to have a stake in slavery. As having come from the absolute bottom rung of society and working my way to the upper middle class, I have never seen even a hint that someone wanted to keep anyone below them on the social ladder. Religion then, was a much larger part of the lives of all communities and the teachings of Christianity is that we all have equality in the eyes of God. The pretense that such a thing as social ladders existed to any great extend is so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand. So if you wish to convince me that the cause for the south separating from the Union was purely slavery in the south you have to convince me that the export taxes did not significantly effect the cotton and tobacco business.
To perhaps make myself more clear about this social ladder thing - people that have money tend to think of themselves as being the elite and upper class. Excuse me Sir but as an enlisted man you should know that I followed orders not because I held any more respect for you than my Chief Master Sergeant (in fact, rather less) but because it was your job to order me about. While those who are the economic upper class may consider themselves superior in any and all ways no one else does. And those that gave me a hand up the economic ladder in my life never gave me the slightest feeling that they were giving me a hand up a social ladder as well. For the most part we moved in totally different circles and still do. Those that are still living.
_"The question of Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession."_ - G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama, speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861
An identical quote is attributed to Jefferson Davis in Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech as well: "Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated [slavery], as the rock upon which the old Union would split. He was right."
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that regardless of what importance slavery had for each of the Southern states' decisions to secede, emancipation was initially not part of the official Northern justification for making war, which was to suppress a declared rebellion, not to free the slaves in the South.
@@christophercollins2134 The Union didn't start the war, the South did and did so to prevent their slavery from being put on the path to extinction. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to fight a war to end slavery, they didn’t want to have to fight a war at all and had been elected on the platform of putting slavery on path to its "ultimate extinction" within the Union peaceably gradually and within the constraints of the Constitution. But because of this the South wouldn't let them even take office and rebelled. However, as President, it was Lincoln's primary duty to preserve the Union and uphold the legitimate Constitutional authority above all. So for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union was fighting to end slavery anyway as they were committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. Ending slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be an initial war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on, and which of course, caused the war. And even if the South had come back into the Union before the complete collapse of slavery, it would still have only allowed Lincoln and the Republicans to continue to put it on that path to extinction, by banning it in the territories which everyone agreed alone would start it to whither, ending it in Washington DC and federal properties, appointing free-labor officials and judges, ending the censorship of the US mails by Southern postmasters and allow the Republicans to continue to build support for gradual plans in the border states; but with a now already weakened slavery. And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the republican administration would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again. Lincoln planned on ending slavery, only he wanted to do it peaceably, gradually, and with the consent of those in the states where it was ending. The Rebels would have none of that and wanted slavery to be protected by the federal government forever. _"The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."_ - James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina .
@@TheGuitarReb Officially its called treason. And since on average 1/3 of the families in the states that rebelled were slave holding households, that's hardly just the "rich." Slavery was supported and fought for by the entire Southern communities in general. .
Credit to Prager U for actually releasing an accurate, non-propagandized video for once. Now if only they can do the same for their remaining and future videos...
There's a real need in this country for a conservative media outlet to tell the truth and report the facts, and it seems like Prager could have filled that niche. Shame that he choase MAGA slurpage instead. That choice has worked out terribly for literally every single person who made it, from Michael Cohen to Mike Pence. At least Prager can boast that Trump hasn't sent a violent clown army to lynch him.
@@Dennis-nc3vw Ten years ago? Was there something magical about 2013?The US army did fight for a noble cause, whether it's 2013 or 2023. Are you feeling okay, d-bag? Did you get too much sun or something?
@@TonPaulHatesBlacks Because that's when the Democrat Party started shifting from hating America to hating white people. Politics was very different 10+ years ago. Trump absorbed many of the terrorist hugging, flag burning, tin-foil hats that made up the core of their party (you need only look at how the partisan alignment of the Truther movement has changed over time to see this represented statistically), not to mention Europe's (the continent they used to worship) move towards the right shifted leftwing hatred away from America and towards Caucasians. That and Obama's war on Confederate monuments shifted this issue politically.
@@Dennis-nc3vw Because anti-racist is anti white right? At least that's what your friends that were marching with Tiki torches in Charleston were saying ten years ago. What a sad joke you are, trying to blame the Right wing violence and hatred on the left and its very victims. The Republicans had already moved the spectrum to the right even before Trump and they set the stage for him over the last 25 years and still kow-tow to the same mantras.
_"We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."_ - Atlanta Confederacy, 1860
Patrick Sulley right, and slavery was not a major issue at all. It was all about states’ rights. A very vague term that people who defend the South’s actions use.
_"The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery."_ Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861
Fun fact: only four of the eleven Confederate States cite slavery as one among many reasons to secede. Yankees need force the Civil War to be ONLY about slavery, otherwise they have some uncomfortable truths to confront.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that regardless of what importance slavery had for each of the Southern states' decisions to secede, emancipation was initially not part of the official Northern justification for making war, which was to suppress a declared rebellion, not to free the slaves in the South.
@@christophercollins2134 The South started the war. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to fight a war to end slavery, they didn’t want to have to fight a war at all and had been elected on the platform of putting slavery on path to its "ultimate extinction" within the Union peaceably gradually and within the constraints of the Constitution. But because of this the South wouldn't let them even take office and rebelled. However, as President, it was Lincoln's primary duty to preserve the Union and uphold the legitimate Constitutional authority above all. So for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union was fighting to end slavery anyway as they were committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. Ending slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be an initial war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on, and which of course, caused the war. And even if the South had come back into the Union before the complete collapse of slavery, it would still have only allowed Lincoln and the Republicans to continue to put it on that path to extinction, by banning it in the territories which everyone agreed alone would start it to whither, ending it in Washington DC and federal properties, appointing free-labor officials and judges, ending the censorship of the US mails by Southern postmasters and allow the Republicans to continue to build support for gradual plans in the border states; but with a now already weakened slavery. And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the republican administration would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again. Lincoln planned on ending slavery, only he wanted to do it peaceably, gradually, and with the consent of those in the states where it was ending. The Rebels would have none of that and wanted slavery to be protected by the federal government forever. _"The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."_ - James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina _”If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his adminstration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance [*sic*] of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object. They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist.”_ Open letter of Gov. Joseph E. Brown to the Georgia legislature. Dec. 7, 1860 .
@@christophercollins2134 If the North fought because of rebellion, and the rebellion was about your beloved slavery, then the North was fighting over your beloved slavery. A= B=C.
@@filmymela4638 Hey I hear ya. There is a quick test, but it requires being honest: Is there someone you would kill if you could completely get away with it?
@@Grafknar I know where you are getting at but no baby is a born sinner. That's absurd. As a hindu we believe that "DESIRES ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS" and it may sound very nihilistic cause desires are what makes us humans. But the difference is that Indian religions like hinduism and buddhism are inherently optimistic. They say that, sure life is tough and there is evil all around BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO GET FREE FROM THAT BONDAGE.
People need to realize that abolition of slavery isn't the same as equality of races the way we see it today Many Northerners at the time where racists, and believed blacks to be inferior They did not however, believe in slavery, which to them was an economic issue that affected their well-being, since they believed they would be forced to compete with free labor They weren't fighting for the slaves, they where fighting for themselves, and after the Civil War ended, up until today, racism still exists all over America Point is, the Civil War was fought because of slavery, but not because of racism, which most whites anywhere in the country could still agree on
no matter what, a system like slavery couldn't exist in the 20th century people think the US being behind in free healthcare is bad, try being the only developed country that allows slavery even if the CSA succeeded in seceding from the Union, by the 21st century at the latest, even they would have likely ended the practice and joined the rest of the world
I think the Confederate leaders didn't think that far ahead putting all their chips in slavery and a agrarian society, ironic since Britain was in the middle of a Industrial Revolution
Yes race played a huge part. One has to remember that slavery is a social institution that effects the local society at large where it is in force, not just the owners themselves. Slavery was more than a system of labor, it was an entire economic system, a social system, and a means of racial control. _"If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate-all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?"_ - S. F. Hale, Commissioner from the State of Alabama to Kentucky governor B. McGoffin . Frankfort, December 27, 1860. The Southern men, slaveholder or non-slaveholder, went off to war to fight for the society they knew, the society that was defined by racial slavery and its attendant social systems. No matter their station, the average white Southerner still benefited from slavery and slavery was entwined in the life of the non-slave holder, who also benefited from it, as well as the owners themselves. Slaves were rented, for either domestic help, for temporary agricultural labor or even building. So even the non slave-owning framer benefited from the cheaper labor. And the free white also benefited from his position as member of the preferred racial caste. _"With us the two great divisions of society are not rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and we are respected as equals... and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them."_ John C. Calhoun Or as Frederick Law Olmstead more bluntly put it,: _"From Childhood the one thing in their condition which has made life valuable to the mass of whites has been that the n****rs are yet their inferiors."_ It's called a 'Herrenvolk' democracy And so, as the letters of even the enlisted soldiers written at the time show: _"The most powerful motivator remained Confederate troops' certainty that they must fight to prevent the abolition of slavery, the worst of all possible disasters that could befall southern white men and their families. Over and over soldiers repeated the same refrains about the necessity of fighting for slavery that they had been sounding since the beginning of the war."_ - Chandra Manning "What this Cruel War Was Over" p138 .
@@justingurski8770 Actually its the only reality based video on the channel, denying the truth of this video is what is fascist propaganda. _“The neo-Confederate movement has been around for a good while. Ostensibly their aim is to commemorate and glorify the history of the Southern Confederacy. But what they really are about is white supremacy, or what is sometimes called white nationalism. They use the Confederacy as a symbol of white supremacy, which they are trying to bolster in this country.”_ Eric Foner, Professor of History, Columbia University
You're either young, new to politics, or extremely disingenuous. You can find plenty of videos where Bill Whittle or Alfonzo Rachel are saying exactly the same thing. The GOP holds regular "Lincoln Day" dinners to honor the Great Emancipator. Prior to about 10 years ago, most people who argued the Civil War wasn't about slavery were liberals trying to paint Lincoln as just another money grubbing American imperialist. Now the left's hatred of the south has eclipsed their hatred of America, so they ironically end up arguing on the right side of this issue. But make no mistake, slimey little weasels like Rundstedt100 were arguing the polar opposite when Bush was in office.
@@Dennis-nc3vw _"prior to about 10 years ago, most people who argued the Civil War wasn't about slavery were liberals trying to paint Lincoln"_ That is a bald faced lie. The only people that ever denied the war was about slavery are Neo-confederates and those have always been conservatives. Come on ... show me a so called "liberal" that denied the war was about slavery ..... Denying the reality of the Civil War has *always* been a conservative feature. _"Despite these varied attributions of "neo-Confederacy" from the period immediately after the Civil War to the present, there are a number of consistencies in neo-Confederate thought-its racist, patriarchal, heterosexist, classist, and religious undertones-that form the basis of a conservative ideology that centers upon social inequality and the maintenance of a hierarchical society."_ "Neo-Confederacy, A Critical Introduction" Edited by Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, and Edward H. Sebesta . And I've been on U-tube for more than 10 years arguing against you conservatives and your denial of the reality of the war. .
Yup it was about slavery. lol love how you spaced it down far enough that a denier would have to click on this. Getting their hopes up so they can face the truth they are trying to avoid again lol! 😂
One thing that is never talked about is how the Union army (especially during the first half of the war) was heavily divided between partisan lines over the issue of slavery, despite their common interest of preserving the country. This has been extensively researched and documented only fairly recently. The Army of the Potomac in particular lacked antislavery leanings early on in the war and it was a major obstacle to the Union cause. _"The period from late January to April 1863 was the critical refining moment in the army’s political education for several reasons. First, the emergence of the Democratic Party’s vocal antiwar wing made partisanship unavoidable for even the most apolitical enlisted men. Second, soldiers had seen the reality of slavery in Virginia. Finally, and even more importantly to most men in the ranks, recent hardships and bloodletting had fostered a bond among individual units that prided discipline and expediency above cheap partisan rancor. For these reasons, soldiers were already primed to accept Lincoln’s proclamation as a necessary measure to defeat the Confederacy, and even those opposed to it squirmed at the thought of sympathy with peace activists. Officers realized their soldiers mistrusted the political class in general, especially after McClellan’s removal. They aimed to refine that attitude by proving it was the Democrats who threatened to undo the army’s gains."_ -Zachery A. Fry, A Republic In The Ranks
It's hardly surprising that not all Union soldiers were initially onboard with fighting against slavery. A significant percentage came from pro-slavery or indifferent-to-slavery democrat districts. Plus there were more than 200,000 Union soldiers who came from Confederate states and Union slave states. But as you said, many who were initially uncertain came around, both by marching South and seeing the horrors of slavery firsthand, and coming to the realization that the twin goals of ending slavery and saving the Union were inevitably linked, as the first one was necessary for the other. It is notable that in the 1864 election, after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the total abolition of slavery became part of the Republican Party platform, Lincoln won nearly 80% of the military vote. Despite all the horrors, hardships, and setbacks the military had been through, they were still onboard with the anti-slavery candidate and his anti-slavery policies by a huge margin.
I remember being a junior in high school in North Carolina and in my AP US History Course. My teacher was adamant in teaching us that the civil war was fought over states’ rights. He talked about everything that this video touched on and more just to get his point across that the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves.This was just 6 years ago. Misinformation is a real thing in US schools!
Geovanny Cacso: your teacher was YEARS too late, to reach an audience of booger-eaters who had been taught for over six years that the USA was "one nation, indivisible." REALITY: the USA was INTERNATIONAL like the EU, with each state being a SEPARATE NATION.
"And on that "states rights" argument, for the record, the Southern states we're ardently pro-states' rights', but, with some glaring exceptions. Notably when Northern states passed laws to help protect runaway slaves, the South wanted the federal government to override those states laws. So, they loved states' rights, as long as they were the right states' rights. The wrong states' rights would be states' wrongs, wrongs which would need to be righted by the right states' rights-- look, to put it really simply, they just wanted to own black people, -and they didn't much care how." ~~ John Oliver th-cam.com/video/J5b_-TZwQ0I/w-d-xo.html
Ghostly: as HL Mencken said, "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Thanks for proving his point with your simplistic stupidity.
@@SovereignStatesman When you boil it down to the fundamentals and get over the fluff developed post-civil war about "Oh, what about states rights! Oh Heritage!!!", you can see it was about a fundamental core issue. Slavery. I don't deny there are people that value their heritage, yet to mimic and idolize slave masters is foolish. Even people that idolize George Washington are at fault. He was a feckin slave owner, his whole "every man is equal" shtick only applied to Caucasian males. When looking at history, you have to be able to the root cause of everything. Sure, Hitler stimulated the German economy, but his mission was to genocide everyone who was not pure Aryan and control a large chunk of the globe.
_"African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."_ Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860 .
@Joel Burnett Wow, you're and idiot. that supreme Court, the Founders and the very Constitution itself says you need psychological help. _“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”_ -Thomas Jefferson
@midgetydeath It was not the loss of slavery that destroyed the Antebellum South, it was the war itself and the destruction it wrought. The South was responsible for it's own fate you racist hack. .
@@rundstedt1004 Then why was Kentucky , West Virginia and many parishes in Louisiana excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation ???? Mr Set the record strait ???
Y'all notice that he wont answer the question of "Why was Kentucky , West Virginia and many parishes in Louisiana excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation"???? Because it is undeniable fact that completely undercuts his narrative that slavery was the cause of the civil war . Or you can read Lincoln's inaugural address. Or the fact that the south fired on Fort Sumter 38 days after Lincoln took office . Or the fact that a naval blockade captured 4 southern ships with ZERO slaves on board . All before 1859 . Even though they claimed that they were slave ships ... They found only standard cargo . Northern aggression was the cause of the civil war NOT slavery . No matter how many time it was mentioned . This guy is a leftist coward spreading leftist propaganda and bull shit . P.S. He also claims that NAZI Germany wasn't socialist and that Fascism is a right wing ideology .
Art of street work out Oh that's comical. This is purely from a historian standpoint coming from a historian. Even the other arguments about what the civil war was over can be traced back on the reliance on slavery. It was the cornerstone of every confederate's hopes in preserving its country.
Just commenting to see if Tom Evans replies. As a Texan, I'm so proud Sherman burned down the South, and wish he kept going. The civil war was about slavery. Says it right in the Texas Secession Statement.
He's out of your league. You wish Hitler kept going and killed all the _Jews,_ too. Dictatorship is dictatorship, and you're a fool. By law, the citizens of every state held supreme national authority over their state as a separate nation, and so government derived its powers by consent of the governed; and minorities could vote with their feet to another state if the majority somehow became destructive to their rights. But the GOP ended that, claiming final authority over the citizenry of every state, except for the flimsy vote. Fool.
alibyte: each state is a sovereign nation, that's the law. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the American Revolution established 13 sovereign nations, not ONE; and this never changed, it just shifted political supremacy from to the state legislature to the state electorate.
You are mixing up the secession with the civil war. The civil war did become about slavery at the end, especially with the passing of the 13th amendment, but are you sure it was about slavery in 1861?
@Itzahk Pearlman because they were a federal fort on Confederate land and refused to leave. Weird how if it was about slaves, the first shots were fired over a piece of half-submerged land, by the guys with the slaves, no less
@@PANDA-vm3tt So, why did the South wish to separate from the North? S.C. declared that she was leaving the Union in Dec. 1860 because Lincoln, an anti slavery expansion man, was going to be the next president. Six other slave states followed S.C. The Confederate States of America was declared in Feb. 1861, and Jeff Davis demanded the Fort Sumter be transferred to the C.S.A. Lincoln refused. That prompted the C.S.A. to attack. The separation of the two regions was over SLAVERY. The actual battle was triggered by the C.S.A.'s assault on the Fort Sumter.
@@mikionakade6618 pretty simple. At the rate states were being added to the union, why wouldn't you leave? Up until that point there were several compromised to balance power between the North and the South. Going even so far as to divide Texas into several States just to make things even in the Senate. It's no different than the divide from urban and rural today. People get emotional about slaves, but I ask you this, if the North really cared about slaves, why did it take another 100 years after the war to pass a civil rights act in 1965, finally making them equal? The North certainly didn't mind using blacks as low paid labourers with limited rights and free prison labourers after the war, which was essentially slavery in another form. Why fight the bloodiest war in our history to "free" the slaves into a position with limited rights? It's stupid. This was a power struggle between two regions, one conquered the other and retconned the other as an evil to give them a moral reason for their imperialism, same way we have done every war since.
@@PANDA-vm3tt And what was the difference between the regions? what made those states below the Ohio different than those above it? could it be slavery? no past to the United states 'conquered' the other nor was seeking to. Both sections are part of the same united economy and intertwined. It was the South that was fighting a "power" struggle, and the purpose of that struggle was the protection and expansion of slavery. _"But even for Calhoun, state sovereignty was a fall back position. A more powerful instrument to protect slavery was control of the national government. Until 1861 Southern politicians did this remarkably well. They used that control to defend slavery from all kinds of threats and perceived threats. They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitives."_ "This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War," McPherson, p7 .
Why don't you stop playing dumb? The left roots for the forces of tyranny invariably when its politically convenient for them, sometimes even when its not. Stalin, Castro, Mao are all your darlings. You were calling the progenitors of ISIS "freedom fighters" during the Iraq War. If the South was still Democrat and black people were still Republican, you'd worship the Confederacy.
I can assure you, that the gallant hearts that throb beneath its sacred folds, will only be content, when this glorious banner is planted first and foremost in the coming struggle for our independence. - John Bell Hood “For my part, I have no hesitancy from the first that, right or wrong, alone or otherwise, I go with Virginia.” - JEB Stuart “I would rather be a private in Virginia’s army than a general in any army that was going to coerce her.” - JEB Stuart
For anyone yammering about how Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not include the Border States, I've got news for you: Lincoln had initially planned to get rid of slavery in the Border States first. Lincoln had hoped for the federal government to buy out their slaves and had drafted a proposal to do so back in early November 1861 starting with Delaware: _“Be it enacted by the State of Delaware that on condition the United States of America will at the present session of Congress, engage by law to pay, and thereafter faithfully pay to the said State of Delaware, in the six per cent bonds of said United States, the sum of seven hundred and nineteen thousand and two hundred dollars, in thirty-one equal annual installments, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, at any time after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three within the said State of Delaware, except in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; nor, except in the punishment of crime as aforesaid, shall any person who shall be born after the passage of this act, nor any person above the age of thirty-five years, be held in slavery, or to involuntary servitude within said State of Delaware, at any time after the passage of this act.”_ Lincoln believed if Delaware, as the smallest slave state, would accept the terms then Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri would follow suit. However, Delaware would reject the idea by a margin of a single vote. Only afterward did Lincoln bring in the Emancipation Proclamation, this time targeting slavery in the states in rebellion. Lincoln smartly did not apply this to the Border States in fear they may jump ship to the Confederacy. It was a good move and further proof of how much of a calculating genius Lincoln was.
"...at any time after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three within the said State of Delaware..." 1893? That's 28 years after President Lincoln's death. I'm guessing the year is a typo and I know compensation to slaveholders was discussed (and happened in Washington, DC and for many Unioinst slaveholders) but where did you get this from? What is your source on this?
exactly. People think that he didn't want to emancipate the slaves in the border states (and some argue not even in the southern states as of 1861) but the real issue was it wasn't within his constitutional rights as president. He could use his wartime power to eventually issue the Emancipation Proclamation and the confiscation acts before it but if he did emancipate too soon while support for the war was low and there wasn't a wide public belief that the slaves should be emancipated, he could have got impeached.
@@matthewmorrison531 sounds like the confederates betrayed all their principles, their founding fathers stood for all those many years ago (specifically 3 years ago). They should at once rebel against the confederacy and declare a new confederate states of America to secede against the confederacy that is secede against the usa!
Mathieu Plasse: it wasn't a war. Wars are levied by independent states; and the USA was never a state, while the USA states DENIED their own independence. So it was only an act of terror and tyranny by ruthless politicians against the people of sovereign nations.
@@matthewmorrison531 Slavery would have been abolished in every state, just like in every OTHER nation: WHEN IT BECAME UNPROFITABLE. The ISSUE is, that every states is a separate nation. That was the UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT in 1776: i.e. "as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." PERIOD.
@@SovereignStatesman Wrong. Perhaps under the Articles of Confederation. But that system fell by the wayside when it became clear that letting states go their separate ways following the Revolution would result in exactly that, separate nations with no allegiance to one another. With the ratification of the Constitution, that changed. Amendments to the Constitution applied to all states, dictated by the ratification of the amendments by a majority of states, thus states did indeed hold some power over one another. Allegiance to one's state and one's home was one thing, but the Constitution demanded the allegiance of all states, which was broken by secession, illegally. Also not certain what your statement had to do with my previous one.
@@benbovard9579 " the Constitution demanded the allegiance of all states" GOVERMENTS. Not people, who became the supreme power over the separate nation-state. Specifically, the Preamble to the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." James Madison correctly provided the context for this in Federalist No. 39, where he writes: "On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act." And as he correctly explained in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions: the term "states" means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity; because • in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" • in that sense the "states" ratified it; and • in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result. So nothing changed with the Constitution, regarding any state’s national sovereignty; i.e. they were still each “a people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity,” i.e. a sovereign nation-state, and were simply parties to an international union on that basis. So in context, the preamble reads: "We the People of the United States: the supreme authority in each State, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong; in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity; do ordain and establish this federal- not national- Constitution for the United States of America, which does not form one aggregate nation, but each state remains a people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity." Thus the Constitution did not form a national union among the states; but only international.
@@SovereignStatesman That was a nice little copy-paste job you did there, hope you cited your sources. I'm still uncertain what any of this has to do with my original comment regarding the misconception that having individually exclusive state rights is always the best course of action. If indeed what you're trying to say is that those states were sovereign entities and therefore should have been allowed to keep whatever laws they wished, then buddy, I think you're defending the right of any state, then or now, to allow it's citizens to keep and own slaves. If that is the case, you're a lost cause. But by all means let me know if that's not the case, because I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt.
@@benbovard9579 So you don't deny that each state was a separate sovereign nation to itself, and that they never formed a national union. I'll call that a concession then. EVERY state was a sovereign nation to itself, including the 24 that didn't HAVE slavery. Idiot.
Didn’t need to watch this to know the answer to the question. As a southern man, I’ve heard it all. “No” some would say trying to argue it had nothing to do with slavery but all the points they were making lead right back to the root cause of the war, slavery. The Civil War was fought over slavery 100%. If it wasn’t a thing there would have been no war, period. It also could have been handled differently but things escalated quickly. Just as fast as “The shot that was heard around the world” during the Revolutionary War. I know some southerners joined for different reasons other than slavery and some didn’t have a choice, sure. But it really doesn’t need to be a question but instead, just a known fact.
Yup. Conscription was brutal towards the end. “Robbing both the cradle and the grave…” it was said. No doubt at the causes for individual men we varied, and possibly some wre there against their will and deserted as soon as they found opportunities because that’s a known fact recorded in memoirs of the time… but yup. As yo the cause of why they found themselves in that situation to begin with … that would be with the reasons of those in power to organize a rogue government and seize union arsenals anticipating the coming war… and those men were the one holding the slave power.
@@saladyn1000 Actually that's YOU. "And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges."-- Adolf Hitler
@@VandalAudi No, YOUR argument is. "And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges." -Adolf Hitler
What an amazing clarification of the Civil War and the motivations behind it. The articulation of the narrator was easily understood and strait to the point
I’m honestly shocked PragerU is actually in line with reality here. I thought they were going to say being a slave on southern plantations was like going to summer camp or something.
Rooting for the forces of tyranny against America is a purview of the left, not the right. The only exceptions you make are the Nazis and the Confederates, because blacks and Jews are too precious to your party. Your are either new to politics or disingenuous.
@@JasonJacksonJames Probably because he never spent half a minute in politics until Trump came into office, and he thinks the alt-right (who are almost universally anti-capitalism, anti-Israel, and pro-abortion) is the rightwing.
You were wrong. THERE WAS NO REBELLION. The Union was an INTERNATIONAL association of separate sovereign nation-states. And South Carolina was ONE of these sovereign nations, as expressly recognized in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and the South Carolina ratifying Convention; and no state EVER expressly GAVE up its national sovereignty, SO THEY DIDN'T.
Tom Evans Did a state have the right to secede at the time? Sure. But that’s not the point. The point is that the states seceded because they felt that their right to own slaves was being threatened.
@@brickbreak841 Are you claiming that their right to secede was conditional, that it not be for slavery? If not, you lost the argument. And if so, you are incorrect. The right of secession was unconditional, and anyway slavery was guaranteed in the constitution. I see everyone bashing state's rights arguments that "it was the state's right to keep slaves," but it was still a right. You can't invade a free state just because you don't like their laws and customs, if it's their right that you recognized in an agreement. It has to be something that violates international law, like genocide, or an act of war. Slavery was not enough.
Ken Burns No, I’m not. I’m saying that the reason the Confederacy seceded wasn’t because of states’ rights but because of slavery first and foremost. Did they have the right to secede? Sure. But why did they secede? Because they felt their right to own slaves was being trampled on.
@@brickbreak841 They had no legal right to rebel and commit treason. And no moral right either. _“The Declaration of Independence tells us when a revolution is justified. It tells us that when a government becomes destructive to the ends of securing the natural rights of its citizens, it’s the right of the people to alter or abolish it. That’s why the American Revolution was justified, whereas the confederates, in seeking to continue to deny natural rights to African-Americans, were not justified.”_ - Al Mackey
@@ajwiebusch212 NEWSFLASH: the states fought the American Revolution with the agreement, that the Union would be international like the EU, and each state would be a separate nation. And the PEOPLE of each state ratified the Constitution with the same agreement. So there was no civil war; just a few "Brexits." Each state is STILL a separate nation, by law.
_"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war."_ - Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
The "but" is in the actual amendment ending slavery. Slavery is abolished, EXCEPT as a punishment for crimes. Ok, you're free now, but you're also homeless cause we're not giving you those 40 acres as reparations. And by the way, homelessness (vagrancy, no visible means of support) is a crime.
“If it wasn't about slavery, then I don't know what else it was about.” -James Longstreet, a former Confederate Lieutenant General, when he was asked what caused the Civil War.
Anybody who has read anything by an actual Civil War historian, or what the South itself was saying at the time, knows the war was caused by and was about slavery, and the South admitted that itself, over and over. _"I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to you the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through you, to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.… _*_What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."_* - Henry L, Benning, Commissioner from Georgia - "Address Delivered Before the Virginia state Convention. February 18, 1861 *They didn't make those kind of statements about anything other than slavery.* So: _”Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ [or anything else] has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”_ _”I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.”_ Dr. James Loewen
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
_"When you go back and you look at the actual documents, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights, but really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves unimpeded - and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to. So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way,"_ - Historian Adam Goodheart
The altruistic version of the Union being sold here (and the contemptible version of poor Southerners) makes me skeptical. Of course, a 6-minute video is bound to contain simplifications, but this just *has* to be leaving out the bulk of the discussion regarding the motivations of individual soldiers.
Roy Staggers I know a war of any kind is not altruistic, which is why the Colonel's assertion that it *was* altruistic is suspect. And Southern Slave owners weren't poor, but most Southerners _were_ poor and he spends much of the video talking about them. My two-sentence argument stands.
Elliott Collins Regiments were formed in local town and counties. there would have been amazing pressure to sign up with your peers, and everyone thought the war would be over soon, plus after april 62 confederates drafted every white male 17-50 who didn't have a vital job. as many as 300,000 were drafted. and also 120,000 white southerners joined the U.S. military.
Elliott Collins Sorry but nope. The Civil war was over racism. The "right" the states the secede wanted to preserves was the "right" to own their fellow citizens, steal all their labor, rape them whenever it suited them, and publicly execute them whenever they felt the desire to sate the bloodlust of their fellow racists. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Deal with it.
Prester John And the Noble White Northerner was just willing to lay down his life for his fellow enslaved man? Lovely as it would be to remember my Union soldier ancestors that way, racism was way too virulent in the North for me to buy that quasi-messianic tale. If you want to think this is the one war where money wasn't a factor, cool. But there are more history books about the Civil War than any other topic; it wasn't simple.
_"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."_ -- Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Henry Pierce, April 6, 1859
Well what would one expect Abraham Lincoln to say? His Mother, Nancy Hanks was a "White" slave indentured to Abraham Enloe, a native-American plantation owner and pedophile. For a sum of money, Tom Lincoln took little Abe and Nancy away from Mrs. Enloe's embarrassment.
Lifelong Mississippian here. The territories were key. As long as slavery existed here, there could be no United States. We would have become a collection of rival states divided economically and morally. Another Europe, constantly at odds with ourselves. And plenty of people in Europe would have loved to see that happen.
This video makes it seem like the war was fought on moral grounds when it wasn't. The only reason that white Southern men fought to keep their slaves was because it was an economic incentive to do so. Don't forget that the majority of Confederate troops didn't give a shit about slavery. They were fighting because Northerners invaded their homeland. Lincoln didn't want to preserve the Union just because he cared about how the US looked on a globe. It was economically and miliarily important to keep the South as part of the US. No war in history has ever been waged SOLELY on moral grounds. The Civil War was fought over economic interests on both sides.
"They were fighting because Northerners invaded their homeland" Nope. Its quite impossible to invade your own country. The Northern soldiers were called on to crush the rebellion that the Confederates initiated when they bombed a United States Fort. The South had already mobilized,trained and drilled a large force in preparation to attack their own countrymen The Union had to play catch up after Sumter. The South seceded, began forcefully taking over Federal properties and killing US Soldiers before Lincoln was even sworn in as Pres, and then bombarded a United States Fort for 33 hours. That's what started the war. They were and have always been the aggressors, they started the war. Over slavery. "The Fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun." Thirteenth Wisconsin Infantry Regiment.
*Does not exist:* well you're just another typical Neo confederate liar. Slavery is a social institution that effects the local society at large where it is in force, not just the owners themselves. Slavery was more than a system of labor, it was an entire economic system, a social system, and a means of racial control. _"If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate-all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?"_ - S. F. Hale, Commissioner from the State of Alabama to Kentucky governor B. McGoffin . Frankfort, December 27, 1860. The Southern men, slaveholder or non-slaveholder, went off to war to fight for the society they knew, the society that was defined by racial slavery and its attendant social systems. No matter their station, the average white Southerner still benefited from slavery and slavery was entwined in the life of the non-slave holder, who also benefited from it, as well as the owners themselves. Slaves were rented, for either domestic help, for temporary agricultural labor or even building. So even the non slave-owning framer benefited from the cheaper labor. And the free white also benefited from his position as member of the preferred racial caste. _"With us the two great divisions of society are not rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and we are respected as equals... and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them."_ John C. Calhoun Or as Frederick Law Olmstead more bluntly put it,: _"From Childhood the one thing in their condition which has made life valuable to the mass of whites has been that the n****rs are yet their inferiors."_ Again, it's called a 'Herrenvolk' democracy And so, as the letters of even the enlisted soldiers written at the time show: _"The most powerful motivator remained Confederate troops' certainty that they must fight to prevent the abolition of slavery, the worst of all possible disasters that could befall southern white men and their families. Over and over soldiers repeated the same refrains about the necessity of fighting for slavery that they had been sounding since the beginning of the war."_ - Chandra Manning "What this Cruel War Was Over" p138 .
*Does Not Exist:* Calling you an idiot because you posted something idiotic is not an Ad Hom, it's a valid judgment backed by sourcing as my post testifies to, something you hacks always lack..
This is the one time I actually agree with PragerU. Perhaps it helped that the speaker was an actual history professor and knew what he was talking about, unlike most of his "colleagues" at PragerU, the university that is not a university.
Perhaps it helps that you hate the South, because the rhetoric of Confederate apologists is identical to what we see from the "anti-war" left every time America fights a tyranny. Claiming the Confederates were "just people defending their country", accusations of economic motives for the US, moral relativism...it's all the same shit we heard during the Iraq War, when lefties were cheering for the progenitors of ISIS.
A religious college is generally more likely to have biases, especially conservative biases, than an apolitical military academy like West Point. "The Civil War was not about slavery" is among the most disingenuous things you can hear from a history professor.
PragerU is a propaganda machine with a tendency to make fallacy-ridden arguments that sound good on paper but really fall apart once pried at by people who know what they're talking to. The Republican Party, after the Civil Rights Movement, adopted the Southern Strategy after realizing the LBJ lost the South for the Democrats.
@@JoshuaChaves16 I've seen that. Pure pseudohistorical propoganda that omits such vital information as the articles of secession submitted by confederate states straight up saying they were seceding to protect slavery
@@brianholmes1812 1. the articles of secession were not "submitted". 2. i have read them ALL and not all of them mention slavery, let alone as the main cause for secession. 3. of the eleven states that seceded, 10 gave at least some explanation of why it was. only 4 of the 11 cited slavery as one of the reasons
@@JoshuaChaves16 most states did not give reasons. They simply signed the ordinances of secession, which more or less simply declared that they were seceding. Texas, Virginia, south Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia, however, did publish their reasoning for sescession seperately. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world"- Mississippi "A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia"- Georgia "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Texas "Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."-South Carolina "and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."- Virginia. These are metely the most concise mentions, most going in about the "inferiority" if the "african race". Virginia being an exception and being one of the shortest Landmark historical government documents I've ever read, which is nice, although the explicit racism the managed to put in anyway is not so nice. The rest mention more a brief history of the US and their legal justifications, long with the nullificarion if the figitive slave law be several northern states and the anti-slavery position of the Republican party. I know I was mistaken in my rhetoric and should have been more careful with the ordinances and the declerations of reasoning, along with my use of the term "submitted." But don't underestimate my ability to read, and the ability of 19th century slavers to be unashamedly racist Source: www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession#:~:text=Every%20state%20in%20the%20Confederacy,decision%20to%20leave%20the%20Union.
@@JoshuaChaves16 because everyone else simply gives a brief declaration that its happening, and those that do, state hostility to their "rights". The only right actually under threat in peacetime was that to own slaves. Some were curtailed by both sides as is typical in wartime, but the only right or freedom under threat was that of owning slaves. And then we have these, I would say, fairly damning documents published by some of the key Confederate states. It seems interesting that every single separately published reasoning mentions slavery. Do you want me to go read through more 160 year old racist rhetoric or do you want to accept that people in the 1800s were incredibly racist and willing to fight ans die for slavery? Because I have quotes from everyone from Jefferson Davis right down to your average Confederate soldier and anyone in between. I hate reading and quoting such materials because it is frankly disgusting, but it is the truth. And that's what really matters. And the fact taht the south fought for slavery was not in question then. Among historians, it is not in question now. It is only in question among those who are baised, have a vested interest, or are simply in denial. This only became controversial when postwar confederates tried to cover their asses
@@donaldnaegele3040 War can only be levied by sovereign nation-states. And each state in the USA was a separate nation-state. However the nation-states of the CSA were not levying war against any nation; and neither were the nation-states of the USA, which DENIED their status as sovereign nations. The USA itself was not a nation, and certainly did not levy war on behalf of the separate nation-states of the USA-- again, whose separate nation-status was being DENIED. So it was an ACT OF TERROR. Those are the facts.
@@SovereignStatesman As soon as they ratified the consititution, this was no longer the case. The federal government clearly had authority over the states at the time of the civil war.
Colonel Ty Seidule (US Army), Professor Emeritus of Military History, West Point: “Clearly the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. In fact it is mentioned in every Confederate State’s Proclamation of Secession.” About half the people here who barely passed high school: “Uhhhh, aktually....”
I'm a legal scholar who has fully researched this issue, and proved that It wasn't a war because the States were sovereign nations, and the USA never was. PERIOD. YOU are the one going "Uhhhhh, akchooallleeeee....." blindly accepting what some Blue Nazi tell you about the Holocaust.
Oh wow! Holy shit so I just went & read each individual states proclamation and the Colonel totally lied. So far in my reading 4/5 states haven’t mentioned it at all... will report back.
So you're equating the declarations of causes of secession with a declaration of war? That must be because you're trying to argue that secession is justification for war regardless of the reasons. Which is to say you recognize the war was really about the freedom of the southern states, not the freedom of any slaves. And even the declarations of causes of secession don't provide any evidence for your and the government clown's BS propaganda.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 _"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of nxgro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the nxgro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a nxgro slave remains in these States."_ - Texas ("nxgro" censored for TH-cam). That refutes your points quite cleanly, I must say. It appears "freedom" for the south was the "freedom" to fully subject 4 million black people to their will. It's interesting to say the least how you work your words around unsavory words like "slavery".
_”This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”_ --April 6, 1859 Lincoln, Letter to Henry Pierce
The truth is that the states fought the American Revolution with the AGREEMENT, that the Union would be international like the EU, and each state would be a separate nation. And the PEOPLE of each state ratified the Constitution with the same agreement. So each state was a sovereign nation from 1776-present.
At some point, we all have to agree that we are more alike than different. We must realize that one of the many flaws that humans possess is that we focus on the differences of a group. Progress will only happen through forgiveness, not violence.....I look forward to the day where we don’t focus on “adjectives “ when describing a person’s background. “I’m not African American, I’m am an American”, for example. A divided house cannot stand....
He did not speak truth. The proclamation statement is a flat lie. He has so many omissions, misleading statements and half truths its not even funny. Here is some more information that you might find interesting. 1. The CSA abolished the slave trade. No more slave markets. What you got is what you have. That put a expiration date on Slavery. 2. Robert E Lee was known to favor freeing slaves, after they were educated enough to thrive in society. 3. Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He even voiced no opposition to the amendment that passed the entire house and senate that would have protected slavery in the states it was currently in. 4. Lincoln himself said that whites were the superior race. 5. Blacks could not legally enter Lincolns state of Illinois. 6. The economies were vastly different. Only a couple of Northern states produced food. 7. The states from TN north never had their slavery taken away. Slavery did not end until well AFTER Lincolns death. 8. GA and AR both rejected secession initially. It was not until the North raised an Army to stop secession did they actually secede. 9. Only two states listed slavery as the sole reason of secession. 10. South Carolina seceded BEFORE Lincoln was elected. 11. The Southern Economy was suffocating under taxation and tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff. Even the most anti slave country, England, supported the southern states due to those issues. If the slaves disappeared over night, it would be the death blow to the southern economy. 12. Slavery was not about owning another human for the sake of owning another human. It was about having the tools to efficiently farm the land. 13. Not all slaves were black. Not all slave owners were white. There were white slaves(indentured servants) who actually had no laws protecting them against mistreatment(Black slaves did have laws protecting them). 14. The split started over a decade earlier than the war when the North started a trade war with the South. The South tried to nullify law after law and kept getting rejected.(States rights again). They felt they no longer had a valid voice in the government, as a few states controlled congress because they had controlling stake. This is similar to the situation today where Tx, Fl, Ny, and Ca combined have enough power to control the rest of the country.
@@BamaShinesDistillery you make some good points. The problem with history is it keeps getting re written. The war cost the lives of over 600,000 men obviously there was much more to it than slavery.
@The Real Talk with Jacob Wilson Did you REALLY just write that? EVERYONE AGREED in 1787 that they were sovereign nations before, during and after the Constitution. I'm not doubting your stupidity; I'm just trying to find out how far it goes.
_"Of all these interpretations, the state's rights argument is the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? States rights and sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. … In the Antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery."_ - James McPherson "This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War," p7
they were concerned about their own "states rights" to protect slavery of Black people. They did NOT, however, believe in other state's "states rights" when they pushed the Fugitive Slave Law, giving them the 'right' to violate other 'state's' "state's right" by invading them to recapture people that escaped/fled slavery.
@@sabot19691974 It;s called having evidence and backing. Something you Neo-confederates don't have. You're not arguing with me, but the entire academic field of history.
The Southern police state was too crushing for a rebellion to be successful. All attempts by slaves in the South were violently put down and the oppression increased.
In the case of Brazil, the Empire (1822-1889), gradually, made laws to end slavery, from 1830 to 1888. It had three major consequences: 1. Allowed a better integration of former black slaves into brazilian society (racism in Brazil is nowhere near racism in the US) 2. Avoided a civil war. 3. Motivated the rural elites, devoid of their slaves and not compensated financially by the government after the definitive abolition, to ally with progressive branches of the brazilian army to end the empire by a coup d’état in november 15th, 1889, establishing a republic led by the military and these elites until well into the 20th century. There were a few slave rebellions, but small and with only local minor consequences. Slavery in Brazil ended virtually without a single shot fired.
@@eltonalonsopompeu615 If slavery had not ended first in the Southern US because of the war, than Brazil would not have experienced the same pressure that it did to end it when it did, and indeed would have a powerful new ally to support the institution instead. _"At the outset we should note striking contrast between North America and the many slave other societies to the south with respect to frequency and size of slave revolts as well as escapes to fairly durable maroon communities. Although the population of slaves in the United Sates eventually dwarfed the numbers in Brazil and the Caribbean, there were no significant revolts in the colonial Chesapeake from 1619 to 1775 or in the nation as a whole from 1831 to 1865. IN Brazil, by contrast, slave revolts were more common, and in the 1600 thousands of fugitives found refuge for nearly a century in the maroon community of Palmares, until the Brazilian army finally destroyed the refuge in 1694. Continued slave insurrections continued to erupt in British Jamaica from the 1670 to 1831, and the islands maroon communities were so formidable that they negotiated treaties with the colonial government"_ David Brion Davis, "Inhuman Bondage, the Rise and Fall of slavery in the New World," p207 Stephanie McCurry, in _"Confederate Reckoning", writes: “There is an important pattern in the history of slave emancipation in the Western Hemisphere, one of considerable significance for the Confederate States of America; and that is the intimate association of war, slave enlistment, and emancipation. From the American War of Independence to the last surrender of slavery in Brazil in the aftermath of the Paraguayan American Wars of Independence, the U.S. Civil War, the Ten-Years War in Cuba - slaves fought for and won their freedom in the context of war. It was in the context of war that slave men became the objects of state interest and the focus of intense competition between warring states for political loyalty and military service.”_ Both the nature of slavery itself and the political climate it existed in; in those other countries was totally different than in the Southern US. The situations were nowhere near the same. For example; while more slaves might have been imported to Brazil, due to the higher death rates and that mostly men were brought in meant that by 1860, approximately two thirds of all slaves in the Americas lived in the US South. Brazil had only between 1 and 1.5M at that time. In 1872 the overall slave population of Brazil is 15%, and that was distributed throughout the nation not regionally as in the US. In the US in 1860, slavery is concentrated in that one region and constitutes a growing 3.9 Million of its little more than 9 Million total population. In Virginia, the 'breeding' of slaves to export to other Southern states becomes its second most important state ‘product’ and a reason the state was a big supporter of banning the slave trade. The South was totally committed to slavery, it had been over the years ingrained in their culture, and slavery provided the political power as well as its economic basis of the South. _"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."_ - Mississippi, Statement of secession The situations in the other countries, the historical and cultural developments, were in no way similar to that in the US. It is just silly and superficial to try and that assertion and it totally ignores the nature of, and the entire history of slavery in the US and in all the other countries in making it. And in the end, it doesn't really matter for this particular argument has no merit anyway on another level, for it was the South that choose the path of war. They were the ones that rejected any political solution upon the first intrusion on their peculiar institution. If slavery were ever to end how would that ever happen peaceably if on the first inkling of opposition they violently and unconstitutionally rebel? _"The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."_ - James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina .
they did have one other good video with the dirty jobs guy that was pretty good. It was all about following opportunitys that allow you to find a good career. Even if the job is unorthodox. Pretty solid advice for younger people. But yeah a lot of their stuff is not good
it was NOT a war. It was an ACT OF TERROR. ONLY NATION STATES CAN LEVY WAR! The North was NOT a state, nor was the USA. And the Northern states DENIED their status as nation-states. The South, meanwhile, MAINTAINED their status as nation-states, and DEFENDED THEMSELVES AS SUCH. Against INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.
@g % Not for the south, but the revival of the Confederacy. He is a useless disintegrationist somehow. Sadly, still his freedom of speech is gauranteed and even though he is shitting around, can't block em.
Because Sherman ordered his men to rape civilian, US Army raping became the cause of the War of American Aggression regardless of the Emancipation Proclamation. Ty Seidule is proud of the rape
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
Of course, another sad play on the Greeley "quote mine." The usual first refuge of a Neo-confederate presenting an erstaz intellect as if were actual knowledge. Typically they will leave out the last line and the very important proper context. _"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _*_official_*_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed _*_personal_*_ wish that all men every where could be free."_ So what Lincoln is saying to Greeley there is that he's doing all he can within the scope of his office, that he is duty bound to first look to the Union itself but if it were only up to him personally, they'd all be freed already. And the letter wasn't private, it was printed in the paper as a letter to the editor and was meant as a public relations devise to pave the way for the Emancipation Proclamation which Lincoln *had already decided to issue,* and was already written and waiting in Lincoln's desk Drawer for the right opportunity. He he took the opportunity as a way of preparing the public for what he was about to do. And additionally, as he stated, it was Lincoln's first duty per his oath of office to save the Union above all, he is only stating the obvious there. He had to by his duty as president save the Union above all. And losing the war wouldn't have freed the slaves, one went hand in hand with the other. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to fight a war to end slavery, they were elected on the platform of putting on its path to its end within the Union peaceably, but the South wouldn't let them. So for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union was fighting to end slavery as they were committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. Ending Slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be a war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on .
@@TheJurgisRud Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to, or need to, fight a war to end slavery, they had been elected on the platform of putting slavery on its path to its "ultimate extinction" within the Union peaceably, but because of this the South wouldn't let them even take office and rebelled. However, as President, it was Lincoln's primary duty to preserve the Union and uphold the legitimate Constitutional authority above all. So, for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union *was* fighting to end slavery as they were already committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. *Ending slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be an initial war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on, and which of course, caused the war.* And even if the South had come back into the Union before the complete collapse of slavery, it would still have only allowed Lincoln and the Republicans to continue to put it on that path to extinction, by banning it in the territories, ending it in Washington DC and federal properties, appointing free-labor officials and judges, ending the censorship of the US mails by Southern postmasters and allow the building of free-labor parties to build support for gradual plans probably in the in the border states first; but with a now already weakened slavery. And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the republican administration would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again. Lincoln planned on ending slavery, only he wanted to do it peaceably, gradually, and with the consent of those in the states where it was ending. The Rebels would have none of that and wanted slavery to be protected by the federal government forever. _"The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery."_ Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861 .
The secession documents he talks about in the video can by found by googling "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States", where you can read the state's reasons in their own words. Spoiler alert: It was slavery.
Certainly not their right to practice slavery, nor anything else relating to slavery that the southern states can be said to have fought for in the war. They certainly didn't fight to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves, as the northern states had obligated themselves to do when they ratified the constitution.
But if you want to know what the war was about, try looking at official declarations about the war itself. As the US Congress officially declared by a nearly unanimous vote, ""this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 _”If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his adminstration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance [*sic*] of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object. They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist.”_ Open letter of Gov. Joseph E. Brown to the Georgia legislature. Dec. 7, 1860
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 _"Can there be a doubt in any intelligent mind, that the object which the Black Republican party has in view is the ultimate extinction of slavery in the United States? To doubt it, is to cast the imputation of hypocracy and imbecility upon the majority of the people of every Northern State, who have stood by this party through all its trials and struggles, to its ultimate triumph in the election Lincoln._ _In these declarations Mr. Lincoln has covered the entire abolition platform - hatred of slavery, disregard of judicial decisions, ne9r0 equality, and, as a matter of course, the ultimate extinction of slavery. None of these doctrines, however, are left to inference, so far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, as we see he has avowed them in the plainest and clearest language. They are not exceeded by the boldness of Seward, the malignity of Giddings, or the infamy of Garrison. It was the knowledge of these facts which induced his nomination by the Republican party; and by the free circulation which has been given to them in the canvass, it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is indebted to their popularity for his election._ _There is one dogma of this party which has been so solemnly enunciated, both by their national conventions and Mr. Lincoln that it is worth of serious consideration. I allude to the doctrine of ne9r0 equality. The stereotyped expression of the Declaration of Independence that "All men are born equal," has been perverted from its plain and truthful meaning, and made the basis of a political dogma which strikes at the very foundations of the institution of slavery. Mr. Lincoln and his party assert that this doctrine of equality applies to the ne9r0, and necessarily there can exist no such thing as property in our equals. Upon this point both Mr. Lincoln and his party have spoken with a distinctiveness that admits of no question or equivocation. If they are right, the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States is in direct violation of the fundamental principles of our Government; and to say that they would not use all the powers in their hands to eradicate the evil and restore the Government to its "ancient faith," would be to write themselves down self-convicted traitors both to principle and duty._ _In the election which just transpired, the Black Republicans did not hesitate to announce, defend and justify the doctrines and principles which I have attributed to them. During the progress of the canvass I obtained copies of the documents which they were circulating at the North, with a view of ascertaining the grounds upon which they were appealing to the people for their support and confidence. With the exception of a few dull speeches in favor of a protective tariff, intended for circulation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and still fewer number of pitiful appeals for squandering the public lands, the whole canvass was conducted by the most bitter and malignant appeals to the anti-slavery sentiment of the North._ _Fellow-citizens of Georgia, I have endeavored to place before you the facts of the case, in plain and unimpassioned language; and I should feel that I had done injustice to my own convictions, and been unfaithful to you, if I did not in conclusion warn you against the danger of delay and impress upon you the hopelessness of any remedy for these evils short of secession. You have to deal with a shrewd, heartless and unscrupulous enemy, who in their extremity may promise anything, but in the end will do nothing. On the 4th day of March, 1861, the Federal Government will pass into the hands of the Abolitionists. It will then cease to have the slightest claim upon either your confidence or your loyalty; and, in my honest judgment, each hour that Georgia remains thereafter a member of the Union will be an hour of degradation, to be followed by certain and speedy ruin...'"_ - Howell Cobb (future President of the Provisional Confederate Congress), December 6, 1860
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 "When I say that this rebellion has its source and life in slavery, I only repeat a simple truism." --George W. Julian, US Congressman, in a speech to the House of Representatives, January 14, 1862
bluedoggg1: Even if they were seceding over slavery, that doesn't make it a rebellion. Just like the UK seceding, isn't rebellion against the EU. The USA is not a national union, just because Lincoln said so. Lincoln deliberately equivocated generic independence with SOVEREIGN independence, to claim that the Union was national. But look who I'm talking to.
@@bowen1704 It doesn't matter why a state secedes from a union, it only matters whether the union is national or international. And the USA was never expressly defined as a national union-- only international.
Anybody else noticed how he only talked about the reason for secession but not the reason for war like the title suggests? And why didn't the confederate states stay independent after they lost, if it wasn't about them seceding? Would there have been no war if they had seceded and given up slavery at the same time?
Michael Haimerl The point is there wouldn't have been a reason for the South to secede in the first place if they didn't practice slavery. Secession was intimately tied to slavery and thus the war was fought because of it.
Michael Haimerl This is because there are usually different reasons for each side to go to war, which the video did mention. The southern states felt threatened because Lincoln had just been elected president, and the Republican party's platform then included many abolitionist positions. After the southern states started the rebellion and attacked Fort Sumter, the rest of the states in the US were initially motivated by preserving the Constitution and the US. A bit later into the Civil War, the US also included emancipation as an objective.
Michael Haimerl You are wrong about that. The speaker clearly stated that Lincoln's purpose for prosecuting the war was to preserve the Union. But we can't ignore the obvious fact that the reason the Southern states seceded from the Union was SLAVERY. Thus the cause of the war or the reason for the war was slavery. SLAVERY and only slavery. Slavery caused disunion so seeking to preserve the Union required that the nation confront slavery. The is no contradiction or confusion here unless you expect simplistic answers. History is not so simple but understanding that slavery caused secession and that this war over secession was a war caused by slavery, is not rocket science.
Michael Haimerl To say that the southern states were motivated to rebel against the US because of slavery wouldn't be entirely correct, as southern states forced northern states to return former slaves who had escaped (Fugitive Slave Act of 1850). So in this sense, the southern slave states were interested in a strong central government because it acted in their interest. In fact, the first federal police force were US Marshalls whose only job was to track and return escaped slaves. Obviously this offended the northern and western states that had prohibited slavery, and disrespected their state laws. Where were their states rights?
Youre right, I dont like mistruths, half truths, omissions, lies and cherry picking. 1. The CSA did not reestablish the slave trade. No more slave markets. What you got is what you have. That put a expiration date on Slavery. 2. Robert E Lee was known to favor freeing slaves, after they were educated enough to thrive in society. 3. Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He even voiced no opposition to the amendment that passed the entire house and senate that would have protected slavery in the states it was currently in. 4. Lincoln himself said that whites were the superior race. 5. Blacks could not legally enter Lincolns state of Illinois. 6. The economies were vastly different. Only a couple of Northern states produced food. 7. The states from TN north never had their slavery taken away. Slavery did not end until well AFTER Lincolns death. 8. GA and AR both rejected secession initially. It was not until the North raised an Army to stop secession did they actually secede. 9. Only two states listed slavery as the sole reason of secession. 10. South Carolina seceded BEFORE Lincoln was elected. 11. The Southern Economy was suffocating under taxation and tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff. Even the most anti slave country, England, supported the southern states due to those issues. If the slaves disappeared over night, it would be the death blow to the southern economy. 12. Slavery was not about owning another human for the sake of owning another human. It was about having the tools to efficiently farm the land. 13. Not all slaves were black. Not all slave owners were white. There were white slaves(indentured servants) who actually had no laws protecting them against mistreatment(Black slaves did have laws protecting them). 14. The split started over a decade earlier than the war when the North started a trade war with the South. The South tried to nullify law after law and kept getting rejected.(States rights again). They felt they no longer had a valid voice in the government, as a few states controlled congress because they had controlling stake. This is similar to the situation today where Tx, Fl, Ny, and Ca combined have enough power to control the rest of the country.
@@SovereignStatesman Since when is it hypocritical to agree with stupid people on the rare occasion that they are right? I get the feeling you don't even understand what the word hypocrisy means.
It was totally about slavery. If the north addressed all other concerns that the south had then said, we're still going to end slavery, the south would still have seceded. Great video.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I guess the rebels were "revisionists" then. _"I feel impelled, Mr. President [of the convention], to vote for this Ordinance [of secession] by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery"_ - Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861 .
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Quick answer: Yes.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
"
--H. L. Mencken
Democracy depends on consent to government, and Lincoln destroyed that by claiming that government held _final_ authority._
Starting with the north; and they fell in line like sheep, since anyone who didn't appear obedient, simply.... DIS-appeared.
@@kenburns4547
Another lie by you. Exactly where did Lincoln make that claim? And additionally it was the South that said its illegal and rebellious government held final authority by denying the legal outcome of a free and fair election.
_When the States ratified the Constitution of 1787, they pledged that they would accept the results of elections conducted according to its rules. In violation of this pledge, the Southern States seceded because they did not like the outcome of the election of 1860. Thus secession is the interruption of the constitutional operation of republican government, substituting the rule of the minority for that of the majority."_ - The Claremont Institute
Nope. “Every state said they’re leaving because of slavery.” Wrong. 7 confederate states didn’t and the non slave owner major did in fact say they’re fighting for home not slavery.
He said Lincoln had every intention of ending slavery. Nope. Lincoln’s debate with Stephen Douglas proves otherwise.
“We Are Fighting for Independence, Not Slavery”. - Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy to Edward Kirk
Quick Answer: No
@@SouthernGentleman
All the states that rebelled did so because of slavery and they either made the clear in their statements of secession or in their debates and other ways.
_"Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation---the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery..."_ Thomas F. Goode, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, March 28, 1861, Virginia Secession Convention, vol. II, p518
Only time Praguer and Crash Course have ever agreed about anything ever,
that is because it is a false narrative, get this or check it out at the library before it gets burned *The Declaration of Independence and Other Great Documents of American History 1775-1865*
skysthe limitvideos "Only time Praguer and Crash Course have ever agreed about anything ever,"
Thus proving just how wrong it is.
mowgli2071The Confederacy was a group of sovereign nations, shit-BRAIN.
No it wasn't, you stupid lying sack of shit. States are *not* sovereign according to the US Constitution.
unnamedenemy9: and you just answered the question as to why there was a civil war. why all states became part of one big union. it was every state for itself, and your state is where your allegiance lied, where your money was spent, everything not the country. till after the Civil War. like all wars, the Civil war was about money, power, and control nothing to do with a slave, as a matter of fact, the Civil war was over for about 3 years before they started freeing them. Like the Iraq war do you really believe we went over there to liberate the Iraqi citizens or was there a whole lot of money, power, and oil involved.
South fought to preserve slavery. Coming up next: why was Robert E. Lee a good guy and we should have statues of him.
I'm wondering how long before Prager deletes this like they deleted that Robert E Lee statue video
F*ck Robert e Lee and Confederate Republicans
@Pan-European Confederate White Movement
all those democrats who fought for the confederacy are dead.
and their descendants(the people who defend the confederacy) side mostly with the republicans.
@@splinter1psi99
they deleted the rober e lee statue video?
damn....i wanted to re-comment there and see if there was anyone still defending lee....
@Pan-European Confederate White Movement
funny how you skipped the important part of the comment about republicans being the only ones still trying to defend Lee/Confederate statues and flags. No one cares that you think folk are trying to remove Lincoln from everything, because we know that isnt the case.
Oh wow, I totally expected a states rights argument. I actually agree with you on this. Good job
When I saw "Prager University", I was prepared for some BS.
@@ShogunOfHarlem exactly
That Dennis Prager is Jewish makes most of P/U videos even more baffling. Same with Mike Savage...the two of them carry a lot of water not just for the GOP mainstream, but to the Neo Nazis now rebranded as the Alt Right...That P/U cited the truth about slavery and the Confederacy is a tad surprising.
@@ShogunOfHarlem same
@@troyevitt2437 who specifically do you consider to be alt right?
_"As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man."_ --US Grant
If you're too stupid to know national sovereignty from delegated powers, and thus think that it WAS a civil war simply because states delegated federal powers
Try reading the constitution some time. America was formed by "We the people of the United States", not "we the people of each individual state". America is one nation by one people. The states are merely subdivisions of the federal government, just like counties are subdivisions of states.
_"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize."_ --George Washington, 1796.
@@TheStapleGunKid Madison in Federalist #39, pointing out the content of the Constitution itself, disproves that nonsense: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Actually the content of the constitution says otherwise. In addition to being formed by "We the people of the United States", it says the federal constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", and must be obeyed even if it conflicts with state constitutions. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the states are sovereign.
By the way, you might want to read the next paragraph of Federalist #39 that comes after the one you posted:
_"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the operation of the government, is, by the adversaries of the plan of the convention, supposed to consist in this, that in the former, the powers operate on the political bodies composing the confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the constitution by this criterion, it falls under the national, not the federal character; though perhaps not so compleatly as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which states may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. But the operation of the government on the people in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, will on the whole, in the sense of its opponents, designate it in this relation, a national government."_
@@TheStapleGunKid Bottom line, the United States was re-established under the Constitution not by "we the people of the United States" acting as one nation and people, but state by state. That's an historical fact, and it's a fact of the text of the Constitution, as Madison pointed out (even if you think I'm a moron for thinking the Federalist Papers weren't published in 1776 -- ha!)
According to the Constitution's supremacy clause, laws passed by the federal government only take precedence over state constitutions to the extent they're made in pursuance of the Constitution, a Constitution which was then amended to include a whole Bill of Rights of the federal government "shall nots" and capped with the 10th amendment declaring that the states retained every power not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states by the Constitution (which would include the right of secession.)
Was the Civil War about slavery? Yes, of course. The rebels cited "slave" and "slavery" a whopping 80 separate times in their own declarations of secession, and openly admitted "Our position is *thoroughly identified* with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world." All those documents are free online; anyone can read them, and learn the truth.
Hey, I remeber you, your that moron from the John Oliver video.
Was the civil war about slavery? Of course not. Lincoln was never going to end it as stated in his inaugural address, 70% of the south didn’t have slavery, the union had 7 slave states in 1864, and 7 confederate states didn’t mention it. Marxist revisionists say it was only about slavery because 6 confederate states mentioned it like the U.S constitution, the Vice president was pro slavery, even though the Confederate President said they werent fighting for slavery and no confederate recruitment poster says fight for slavery.
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution
The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom.
“Lee viewed slavery as a evil.” - Historians Douglas Cohn and Jim Kelly
Articles I, Section 2, added three-fifths of “all other Persons” ‒ slaves ‒ to the number of free inhabitants of a state for purposes of representation. This clause, by boosting the number of representatives in Congress for the slave states, guaranteed political protection for slavery. The same three-fifths ratio boosted the representation of slave states in the Electoral College during presidential elections. The slave import limitation, Article I, Section 9, prohibited Congress from regulating the international slave trade until 1808, 21 years after ratification of the Constitution. Not only was Congress forbidden from regulating the transoceanic slave trade, but Article V of the Constitution explicitly forbids amending the slave import limitation, one of only two such forbidden matters in the whole document. Lastly, the Fugitive Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2, guaranteed nationally, for the first time, the right of slave owners to pursue and reclaim their slaves anywhere throughout the land.
- U.S constitution
Learn the truth
First. We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State.
Second. We furthermore declare and ordain that article 10, sections 1 and 2, of the constitution of the State of Tennessee, which requires members of the General Assembly and all officers, civil and military, to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same are hereby, abrogated and annulled, and all parts of the constitution of the State of Tennessee making citizenship of the United States a qualification for office and recognizing the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of this State are in like manner abrogated and annulled.
Third. We furthermore ordain and declare that all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, or under any laws of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
- Tennessee
We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.
We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.
- North Carolina
Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:
Therefore we, the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the "ordinance and acceptance of compact" passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas on the 18th day of October, A.D. 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said State, the propositions set forth in "An act supplementary to an act entitled `An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes,'" were freely accepted, ratified, and irrevocably confirmed, articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States, and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated, and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved.
And we do further hereby declare and ordain, That the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government of the United States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.
We do further ordain and declare, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States of America, or of any act or acts of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect, in nowise altered or impaired, and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
- Arkansas
Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and
Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.
- Missouri
Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and
Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore,
Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties.
And whereas, the majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solemn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of a military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace, and have voted men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the expressed words of the constitution by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeus corpus susupended without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war agasint the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore,
Be it further ordained, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests are not law, and that such a government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people, and that we do therefore declare that the people are thereby absolved from all allegiance to said government, and that they have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.
- Kentucky
It has been proclaimed that the election of a President is an authoritative approval of all the principles avowed by the person elected and by the party convention which nominated him. Although that election is made by little more than one third of the votes given. But however large the majority may have been to recognize such a principle is to announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.
The representative principle is a sufficient security only where the interest of the representative and the Constituent are identical with the variety of climate productions and employment of labor and capital which exist in the different sections of the American Confederacy creating interests not only diverse but antagonistic.
The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.
It is in no weak and imaginary fear of the consequences but that we regard them as certain and inevitable that we are prompted by every consideration of duty and honor and of policy to meet the issue now instead of leaving it to those who are to come after us who will be less able to vindicate their rights and honor, nor is it without the sincerest sorrow that we are about to separate from that noble band of patriots in the nonslaveholding states who have faithfully vindicated our Constitutional rights that we have been impelled by every consideration which should have influence with honorable men to declare our separation from the confederacy of the United States of America trusting for the maintenance of that declaration to the virtue courage and patriotism of our people and to that God who guided our fathers through similar trials and dangers.
- Florida
“We Are Fighting for Independence, Not Slavery”. - Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy to Edward Kirk
“I worked night and day for 12 years to prevent the war, but I could not. The north was mad, blind,would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came.” - Confederate President Jefferson Davis
“Is it worth while to continue this union of states, where the north demands to be our masters and we are required to be their tributaries.” - Thomas Cooper of South Carolina
“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.” - Robert E Lee 1856
“While we see the Course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end” - Robert E Lee 1856
“I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” - Robert E Lee 1865
“All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times.” - Robert E. Lee
“I have always been in favor of Emancipation.” - Robert E Lee
In an 1863 letter to his home state congressman, Elihu Washburne, Grant summed up his pre-war attitude: “I never was an Abolitionist,” he said, “not even what could be called anti-slavery.”
“Slavery exists. It is black in the South, and white in the North.” - Union Vice President Johnson.
“We're not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principles of states rights and free trade, and in defense of our homes which we were ruthlessly invaded.” -VMI Jewish Cadet Moses Jacob Ezekiel
“Abolish the Loyal League and the Ku Klux Klan;
let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict.” - Nathan Bedford Forrest
“African Americans should have the right to vote.” - Confederate Colonel John Salmon Ford
The confederate soldier “Fought because he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded”
-James Webb Born Fighting a History of the Scoth-Irish in America
“I was fighting for my home, and he had no business being there”
-Virginia confederate Soldier Frank Potts
List of causes of the Civil War-
Harpers Ferry
On the night of October 16, 1859, Brown and a band of followers seized the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in what is believed to have been an attempt to arm a slave insurrection. (Brown denied this at his trial, but evidence indicated otherwise.) They were dislodged by a force of U.S. Marines led by Army lieutenant colonel Robert E. Lee.
Brown was swiftly tried for treason against Virginia and hanged. Southern reaction initially was that his acts were those of a mad fanatic, of little consequence. But when Northern abolitionists made a martyr of him, Southerners came to believe this was proof the North intended to wage a war of extermination against white Southerners. Brown’s raid thus became a step on the road to war between the sections.
States' Rights
The idea of states' rights was not new to the Civil War. Since the Constitution was first written there had been arguments about how much power the states should have versus how much power the federal government should have. The southern states felt that the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.
Political power
That was not enough to calm the fears of delegates to an 1860 secession convention in South Carolina. To the surprise of other Southern states-and even to many South Carolinians-the convention voted to dissolve the state’s contract with the United States and strike off on its own.
South Carolina had threatened this before in the 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, over a tariff that benefited Northern manufacturers but increased the cost of goods in the South. Jackson had vowed to send an army to force the state to stay in the Union, and Congress authorized him to raise such an army (all Southern senators walked out in protest before the vote was taken), but a compromise prevented the confrontation from occurring.
Perhaps learning from that experience the danger of going it alone, in 1860 and early 1861 South Carolina sent emissaries to other slave holding states urging their legislatures to follow its lead, nullify their contract with the United States and form a new Southern Confederacy. Six more states heeded the siren call: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Others voted down secession-temporarily. When President Lincoln called for Volunteers to invade the south, six southern states voted to join the Confederacy.
The issue of slavery
The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. Secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.
Most of the states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery. Child labor was also a growing trend in the North.
The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was part of the Southern economy although only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves.
When the Confederate states’ declarations to secede from the Union literally state that the preservation of slavery was their only reason, that pretty much answers the question. These are all publicly available by the way.
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
look at what happened at congress on Jan. 6. that is what freedom looks like. the US army should rape every one.
Michael Scott: Not all unions are national, like Lincoln claimed.
@@kaizermonkeys "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."- Sentence one of A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of Mississippi from the Federal Union
@@RhodokTribesman But that sentence doesn't prove that their reason for secession was slavery. Again, in 1861 the institution of slavery in the USA was never under any real that of abolition, if you doubt this then please explain why the Union would draft and ratify the Corwin Amendment in order to get the Southern States back in the Union, which they rejected. If it was about slavery there would have been no reason to reject this proposal.
Didn't expect PragerU to make the best "Checkmate Lincolnites" video I've seen.
What?
@@Dennis-nc3vwIt's a funny video series that debunks the Lost cause mythology
@@noonespecial9704 But his video on vegan stuff is lame, but i think those videos Lincolnites vids are well made atleast. But Troll 2 movie is great though as a way to troll that video since its about Vegetarian goblins eating humans when they turn to plants
@@Dennis-nc3vw Look it up.
@@Sparrows1121 That was a great video, man. You don’t have to agree with the thesis to appreciate how good a job he did with the presentation of his points and editing.
This is possibly one of the most logical and sensible Prager Uni videos. Well done.
+buddyltd Yes It IS.
christofer MacFistifur Uh... What conversation did that come from?
+buddyltd - Ya lets whine about The Iraq War. Sidestepping to the max.
Why comment on the video, here is a chance to troll the horrible Americans.
Don’t you get it? We Americans are SO terrible…After needlessly ending slavery, we continued our evil ways and deliberately murdered
innocent civilians with uranium bombs.
only because they dont "agree with our politic" citation needed.
Cuz ya know slavery was not all that bad and neither is terrorism.
Just look at all the citations piling up...Oh Wait!
Oh boy...
Right, first off, I am not sure where either of these comments have come from, what train of thought was going through the heads of those who wrote them, or, to be honest, what any of them are saying. Both comments have managed to use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation (barring a few exceptions) and still end up as hopelessly incoherent in the context I see for it (the only context on this comment section).
In case of mutual misunderstanding, I was meaning that, while most Prager Uni videos are simple propaganda, unsourced and to a large extent untrue, this video raises interesting, logical and, most importantly, logic-backed arguments. In fact, most Prager Uni videos are so idiotic that I end up either laughing with a mix of concern and hilarity, or I end up banging my head against a hard, flat surface. Such is the twaddle of most of their videos to justify my comment.
However, what I was not expecting was a random inflammation of this topic, regarding other topics such as the Iraq War, likely the Vietnam War and other such atrocities committed by the US armed forces and government. I get it - the US has committed numerous atrocities over the past nearly three centuries, but that doesn't disprove the fact that this video puts forward some excellent points (even if they do it with an almost bogan level of patriotism and only restate knowledge that people have known since the Civil War was actually fought). The fact that the US has committed atrocities in the past is irrelevant.
Also, in case you are trying to elicit a response drawing on my Stars n' Stripes American Patriotism, you're wasting your time. I am neither patriotic nor American.
+kayle bertges
It happened even sooner.
The same soldiers that fought the civil war went on to kill the Indians and drive them out...
Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. He fought the war to keep power.
The right to succeed was constitutional to keep a president from becoming a tyrant. The South fought for that right and sadly lost.
Slavery was a product of the time. No other nation needed a civil war to end it. The UK government bought private slaves and freed them (far less costly than a war...)
I'm going to be honest, knowing Prager, I thought this was going to support some revisionist history that the American Civil War wasn't fought over slavery; and when I saw that the speaker is a military guy, that thought was strengthened. Very relieved that is not the case.
iscrewy You're conflating the secession with the war, which is unsound and leads to inaccurate notions. The secession was about preserving slavery. The war was a result of the North's baseless and utterly wrong doctrine that a state had no right to secede, and the North having left armed troops in what was then to them a foreign nation, constituting an invasion force. The video makes the same error.
Douglas Joseph
It's called the USA, not the North American union. If any state can leave whenever it wants, secession will be used as a bargaining chip, as it is in the European Union, giving disproportionate power to a minority.
iscrewy Hate to break it to you, but there is not one iota of difference between your definition of "North American Union" and the pre-war states' definition of "United States of America." Northern states had threatened to secede before the Southern states did so. The notion than a sovereign nation state can join but cannot un-join, any union of its choice, is a baseless claim that exists nowhere in the states' documentation of having formed the union in the first place.
Douglas Joseph
The federal government was and is superior to state governments. This was affirmed in the constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Nullification Crisis. (The doctrine of nullification and secession stems from the void Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.)
Most modern American states were never independent. The original 13 colonies voted to become independent, not in their individual legislatures, but in a united body. The majority of other states were American territories before statehood. Texas, joining such a body, made an agreement to be a part of an inseperable union, whether or not it was explicitly stated.
For there to be a union, the federal government must be superior to the states, and the states must not be able to secede.
iscrewy Your notions on this are so far from historical reality it is staggering. That ridiculous view led to a colossal abuse (the inaccurately so-called Civil War). The pre-war states viewed the union as something they together created by and through their power as independent nation states, and as something that they had the power to mutually dissolve if necessary and they held that any one of them had the right to depart from it if the conditions of the compact were not being abided by, which was the case.
I'm not gonna lie...I was worried we were about to be hit with some propaganda. I'm glad I watched this video. The issue is literally a matter of people being willfully ignorant of history.
You're the one who's ignorant of history. FACT: the states fought the American Revolution with the agreement, that the Union would be international like the EU, and each state would be a separate nation. And the PEOPLE of each state ratified the Constitution with the same agreement.
Tom Evans lmao why do you talk like Dwight shrute in all of your comments. Talkin bout some “FACT” outta here with your confederate apologist self 😂
How many Blacks and Northerners, owned Slaves????
Rodney Mills a lot of them !! New York had the most slaves followed by New Jersey !!
Perpetuating the lie that slaves were treated so well that they sang in the fields and we're part of the family. The south still bitches about the northern war of aggression.
If only all PragerU were this well done & honest
You make me sad
@@docthiry1 …..¿Qué pasó?
You just say that because its what you wanted to hear, and you're reason for wanting to hear it isn't beautiful or noble like Prager U's message.
Says the WOKE!
@@Dennis-nc3vwthey like hearing true things instead of lies. More at 11
"A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one"
The confirmation-bias is strong in this one. "Any support of my narrative is RIGHT!"
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. It is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. For example, a person may cherry-pick empirical data that supports one's belief, ignoring the remainder of the data that is not supportive. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
@@SovereignStatesman My narrative? Buddy, this is history. You have the very false narrative of the slave owners being heroes. You are the one rewriting history to make it look like the CSA was on the morally right side.
Edit: I'm not saying that it isn't ok to be proud of your history. I have Confederate ancestors and I'm proud that they played such a pivotal part in the history of my nation, even if they were on the wrong side.
Hello there
@The Real Talk with Jacob Wilson ignites lightsaber
I don't understand this debate or why this was a surprise. Everyone always knew it was about slavery, but is also about state's rights. They are two sides of the same coin. The fact is when the North won the war, it also dramatically changed how the constitution was practiced to the point you can say our constitution changed. States power diminished incredibly after the war and the Federal governments power grew in the same proportion.
The fact that this is even a question shows the damage the US is suffering
Because the US is all about never questioning the government.
The ignorance of your statement shows how the far left and racist have become your brainwashed
@@clarkwatson3217 Use proper grammar when you're trying to make a (albeit bad) point, Clark.
@@clarkwatson3217 far left......and rascist.......yeah ok......sure......can i also have some of the stuff you take? It sounds like it hits really good
@@Schweizer_Politik They probably believe in the horseshoe theory
When John Oliver and Prager U agree with each other
Then you KNOW you're wrong.
@@SovereignStatesman Do you have anything better to do in your life than write false neo-confederate propaganda?
@@elizabethbeck4071 You tell _me_ what the following means.
From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776:
_We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, *as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.*
_
That sounds to me, as a humble legal scholar, like an international union of separate independent nation-states; and that the USA was only a union among them: like the EU.
And from the Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781:
_*Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,* and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly *delegated* to the United States, in Congress assembled.
_
That looks like the “perpetual union” did not unite the states into a single independent state; but only an international continental union like the EU, to which certain powers were simply _delegated._
And from The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783
_His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be *free independent and independent states,* that he treats with *them* as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
_
That _also_ looks like a continental union of separate sovereign nation-states, again like the EU.
And so the Constitution likewise did not unite the states as an independent unified state; but simply established the voters in each state as the principal sovereigns: rather than the state _legislatures,_ as under the Articles of Confederation.
So there was really no belief or intention whatsoever, by any party, for the USA to be an unified independent state.
That notion by any sitting president, first arose under President Andrew Jackson, who alleged the following in his Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832- which, as shown, directly contradicts the cited source-document (above):
_In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a state by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one state, for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations.
_
It looks to me, like Jackson takes liberties with the facts.
However despite this, this was followed by Congressional passing of Jackson’s Force Bill, which authorized federal military force against individual states.
This looks to me, like the government was running amuck, and slowly seizing power by re-writing history to give itself ownership over the _people_ of each separate sovereign nation-state.
And this set precedent for President Abraham Lincoln’s actions; as he, like Jackson, accounted history differently from how it actually occurred, claiming the following:
_The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union._
_But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
_
As with Jackson, it seems to me that Lincoln takes great liberties not only with the facts; but with _equivocation,_ construing the term “perpetual” as “national,” and “perpetuity” as _sovereignty._
Even when the documents themselves expressly stated the opposite; using shyster's tricks, do deny the actual meaning of the original parties and their intended agreements.
Meanwhile, it looks to me like the Constitution itself showed in Article VII, that each state had _already_ “gotten out of the Union by its own mere motion,” via the very act of _ratifying_ it:
_The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
_
As James Madison likewise contextualizes in Federalist No 40 which was done as a unilateral act of abrogating the prior Union, by the electorates of each individual independent state-state:
_In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY.
_The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth…
_
This was in reference to the requirement in the Articles of Confederation, that any changes required the approval of _all thirteen_ state legislatures; which each held supreme national authority over their own respective nation-state.
Under Article VII, the voters of each state chose whether to ratify the Constitution or not; no matter _what_ the other states did. And the Constitution was only between those ratifying states.
This established the voters in each state, as their own final authority; and they simply delegated powers to their elected officials via the Constitution, but could overrule them at any time by popular vote.
And the Constitution never expressly united the states as a single nation-state, as some claim.
So it's simply an international union, like the UN or the EU.
Meanwhile the _Constitution_ simply established the _voters_ in each independent state-state, as their own state's supreme authority
.
Unfortunately, it looks like truth became the first casualty of war; and falsehood now reigns supreme: with the Wikipedia article _Secession in the United States,_ claiming that “There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.”
But as detailed above, there is clearly no legal basis for _denying_ it, any more than for the UK in Brexit.
So in sum:
the USA has never been expressly acknowledged as a independent state, by any other independent state.
Rather, it’s just been a matter that has been ignored throughout history… the proverbial “elephant in the room” that nobody wants to mention.
🐘 “Secession? Don’t be crazy.”
this has been debunked and discredited
th-cam.com/video/RPOnL-PZeCc/w-d-xo.html,
th-cam.com/video/-phooIF4y98/w-d-xo.html
I feel weak. I was totally expecting them to try and paint it as being about states rights.
Shit's wrong when even PragerU debunk the Lost Cause myth
I'm conservative, and trust me even I think the lost cause is stupid. Union forever! Slavery and treason died in the same grave in 1865.
Right? I never, ever expected any degree of rationality from PragerU.
I still don't. But this time they were actually rational.
What else are they wrong about?
The fact you say "even" Prager U shows you don't really understand politics. Dennis Prager is an old school, Reagan Era Republican, what used to be known as "Nazi fascist imperialist Nazi Nazi neocons", not this new wave of Tucker Carlson, Putin-simping alt right who co-opted tin-foil hats and tyrant worshippers from the left. To say the US military could ever be right in any conflict or do anything noble used to be a rightwing position. That's why Steven Crowder made a video praising the US marine in Haiti after the quake even though we had a Democrat President in office at the time while Hollywood's darling Hugo Chavez accused the US of starting the disaster with a sonic weapons test. It's why Noam Chomsky is...well, Noam Chomsky when he's interviewed about Ukraine. It's why The Gravel Institute made a video about Ukraine prior to the invasion that was so horrible even Vaush ripped it apart, and why Howard Zinn said this about the Civil War:
"Behind the secession of the South from the Union, after Lincoln was elected President in the fall of 1860 as candidate of the new Republican party, was a long series of policy clashes between South and North. The clash was not over slavery as a moral institution-most northerners did not care enough about slavery to make sacrifices for it, certainly not the sacrifice of war. It was not a clash of peoples (most northern whites were not economically favored, not politically powerful; most southern whites were poor farmers, not decisionmakers) but of elites. The northern elite wanted economic expansion-free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the United States."
"Even Prager U"
You don't understand politics. Dennis Prager is an old school, Reagan Republican, or as you used to call us "Nazi fascist imperialist Nazi Nazi neocons." This video is perfectly in character and it were released in the Bush era you'd see people pulling their hair out screaming about how this was jingoist rightwing propaganda.
Before Trump America wasn't about Marxists vs. Fascists, it was about patriots vs. hatetriots.
the fact that even pragerU made this video to distance themselves from confederate apologists speaks volumes
Each state was STILL a separate sovreign nation, from 1776 onward. As declared by the words "as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. "
That's plain English.
@@SovereignStatesman while states probably had much more autonomy back then they were not totally independent from one another. If they were totally independent wouldn't have bothered to set up a congress or a federal government. And that still doesn't distract from the fact that the main cause of the Civil War was clearly and overwhelmingly about slavery
Why would PU need this video to distance itself from southern slave owning democrats and the continued racist policies of contemporary democrats and their leftist supporters?
@@edstergrant because it's not democrats, nor liberals, nor leftists trying to sell the 'states rights' and 'tarrifs' civil war narrative...
They made this video because they aren't partisan hacks who side with the forces of tyranny whenever its politically convenient, unlike the Democrats.
“nO iTs AbOuT STatEs rIgHtS” states rights to do what? :)
States rights to exist. The North was all about industry and the South was about agriculture. 1 of the problems were the laws and taxes that were being passed that squashed agriculture to prop up industry. It's the same thing the federal government does to this day, a great example is what they do for wind and solar power.
Clearly States Rights was indeed a worthy cause to fight for, look at us today. The federal government has all the power and most of the time they force State and local governments to their will, no matter how unconstitutional.
@@Damitsall yeah their agriculture was at risk because the slaves they were using for labor were going to be freed, so again it’s about slavery, you can’t try and twist it to where it isn’t, it literally just is, that’s literally what the civil war was about, states rights to own slaves.
@@Damitsall they literally declared when seceding that the only reason was over the right to own slaves.
So we dont get government interference
@@creepypastacraft Yea thats a lie; if it was about slavery, why was there still slavery in the North? The slaves were not "free" until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was more than halfway through the war, after the North had been getting their asses kicked.
There was a couple reasons it happened. 1 of them was because for the North to get help from other countries, mainly the British if I recall, and one of the things they had to do was free their slaves before receiving help.
I get it history is written by the victors, but if you truly want to know this stuff is out there.
Did I just like a PragerU video?
@Kay Morton Nah, this is just the only PragerU video that makes sense. This and the small business regulations one
C H like a fish liked a worm on a hook, and swallows it line and sinker.
Tom Evans Nah, I still realise that PragerU is shit.
@Marcial Bonifacio left-wing Fanatics are simply blow back to RIGHT Wing fanatics. It's just contrarian misinformation. Just like Karl Marx believed that Universal franchise would create a workers Paradise, but when that failed then the marxists blamed capitalism rather than corrupt politics of false democracy.
@@CH-zr7qr why? In every video they make, they back up their opinions with facts and evidence. They always cite their sources. Is this shit?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Absolutely.
I want to address something that never gets talked about, and very few know about.
This idea that all of America allowed slavery, isn't true. The state of Vermont abolished slavery as soon as we became a country. And a number of states would soon follow suit afterwards. Some states have never allowed slavery, like my home state of Indiana. The issue of slavery was a very hot topic, even in the time of our founding fathers. The founders knew that trying to tackle the issue of slavery, while they was struggling to bring the country together, would be disastrous to their attempts to bring the country together. Look at what happened 70-80 years later when we tried to abolish slavery, the country went to war with itself. Imagine if they had tried it in the 1780s-1790s. There would be no America.
Building this country and it's bill of rights, wasn't easy, even after we won the Revolutionary War. Compromises had to be made, and one of them was slavery. That had to be left up to fight for, another day.
The South would have wanted to break off whether slavery was legal or not. Ethnicity, language, and culture started the war.
Catalonia in Spain for example, why do they want to split off? It's all because of differences between people.
The South was not Catalonia. And New Orleans was as different from Charleston as Charleston was from New York. The only thing that made the South 'special' was its slavery! That is what unified them, their common struggle to preserve and expand slavery.
_"The most crucial demographic difference between North and South, of course, resulted from slavery. … The implications of this for the economy and social structure of the two sections, not to mention their ideologies and politics, are obvious and require little elaboration here."_ - James McPherson, "Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism A New Look at an Old Question"
.
William Hartsock, they had the same ethnicity language and culture.
No, this is not true. I have read an anecdote in a 19th century book that Ethan Allen owned slaves, and many sources describe slaves in New England states well into the early 1800's. They just changed the term from slave to servant. Vermont passed gradual emancipation laws that states slaves were to be set free after a certain age, but these allowed people to own slaves under certain ages. New England/Northern slavery died out slowly by a combination of gradual age of the slave type laws, in some cases litigation over broken promises to free slaves, Christian abolition efforts to convince slave holders slavery was apostate to God's will, and owners selling their slaves south.
Once the nation was formed and seated in 1789, there was no talk about ending slavery in Congress. Only occasionally, did petitions come in from Christian groups praying for the end of the slave trade, not slavery itself. Slavery was not a north and south issue in the 1780's and 1790's, because the northern states were also slave holding states.
Every Northern state had acted to end slavery before the war, some as early as during the Revolutionary War. The last, New Jersey, enacted the final version of its gradual plan in 1846, first started in 1804. And even as early as 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North and that number is falling. (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era"). Or as Professor Paul Finkelman put it,
_"By 1804, all of the states north of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware had either ended slavery outright or had passed legislation to gradually abolish the institution. Thus, after 1804, Slavery was peculiar to the South."_
But meanwhile the Southern states not only refused to try to give it up, they grew it and embraced it even more so that even at the time of the Revolution:
_"The Southern Colonies of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, by contrast, were not merely societies with slaves but "slave societies" organized economically, socially, and politically around the principle and practice of human bondage. In 1760, 88 percent of the 325,806 slaves in the British mainland colonies lived in the South."_
Elizabeth R. Varon "Disunion, the coming of the American Civil War" p17
And all the border states were Southern slave states, some of which were retained in the Union one, mainly by force or threat of force. Many were divided internally themselves like Missouri that fought its own Civil War within the larger one. Kentucky had governments that claimed to represent it on both sides. Maryland had divided loyalties although the weakness of slavery there, economic ties and existing loyalty to the Union and the Federal Military presence itself saw it side with the Union. Only in Delaware with less than 1800 slaves, was there no secession movement. In the other three states it had to be suppressed.
.
As the old saying goes: "Those who win wars, write history."
MWH12085 I thought the saying was "History is written by the victors."
MWH12085 But why wait 100 years after the war to start? Be very watchful of the new agendas that this benefits.
***** It was George Orwell, or Eric Arthur Blair, if you want his real name. It was on a column called 'As I please' and his article was published on the 4th February 1944. Here is the Link:
alexpeak.com/twr/hiwbtw/
I found it to be thought-provoking.
MWH12085 Amen!
MWH12085 Not quite, as the CSA lost the Civil War to the USA, yet here in the USA we still see the CSA influence on the historiography of modern high school textbooks.
You should make another video called "Why the US was the only country in the world where a war was needed to end slavery".
Because the US held slaves for the shortest period of time by far for any society ever. People died to end the atrocity as soon as possible. Leave it to a smug liberal to poopoo that
Michael Haimerl It wasn't i promises you. Go look up the Haitian revolution. It was a successful(yet brutal) slave revolt that ended slavery in a french colony. Almost every Latin American nation fighting for independence made ending
slavery a central part of their cause. The independence armies had more Blacks than any other ethnic group.
Spider58x Except for Brazil. The British Navy had to cut them off from the rest of the world with a permanent Naval blockade until they relented and abolished it.
The human shrug. A quick wikipedia check will tell you otherwise.
Michael Haimerl You do realize that there are still countries in the world where slavery exists, right? Communist countries rely on slave labor to the government. Just a few years ago, slave workers at the iPhone factories in China were throwing themselves out of windows and killing themselves to try to get people to see what was happening there. Sex slavery is still rampant in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Central America as well.
Maybe if people in other parts of the world had fought a war over slavery, they wouldn't be so tolerant of it today.
_"The Lost Cause still endures in the 21st century because it serves many sentimental and racial desires in the present."_ - David W. Blight. Professor of American history at Yale University.
You have been going on for that long? My word... It kinda impresses me.
Projection of an Ivy League elitist liberal trying to get people to think any opposition to Democrats is racist, racist, racist.
The Ukrainians support slavery which is why Southerners like them. -Herman Switer Professor of History at Yale University
David Blight is wrong.
@@Gww-1
_“The neo-Confederate movement has been around for a good while. Ostensibly their aim is to commemorate and glorify the history of the Southern Confederacy. But what they really are about is white supremacy, or what is sometimes called white nationalism. They use the Confederacy as a symbol of white supremacy, which they are trying to bolster in this country.”_ Eric Foner, Professor of History, Columbia University
"I'm proud that the United States army, my army, defeated the Confederates" 🤙🤙🤙
Just like Hitler in Poland.
@Tom Evans
Gee, I didn't realize the Poland was actually part of Nazi Germany and had tried to break away unconstitutionally so they could protect their slavery .... Yeah, obviously the two events are totally the same ... what a joke.
.
@@SovereignStatesman You dont actually want slaves, do you?
@Cameron Moore by any chance are you a kkk member? Or a troll?
@Cameron Moore he never said they should be gone and still, why would you judge a person on their skin color and not their character? Its fundamentally wrong
This is probably the first PragerUniversity video I agree with.
USA is still ensalving the middle East and the world in the beautiful name of DEMOCRACY.
Wan Farah
Yes indeed. Col. Seidule offers none of the contrived and convoluted analysis typical of Prager as a mouthpiece of conservatism on every issue. Prager presentations typically offer little or no effort to explain any issue objectively and the facts that justify the conservative viewpoint often seems highly selective.
David J Gill Prager University is not so much a stopped clock as it is a clock which loses five seconds a day, but hallelujah, it's giving the right time for once!
Now, if it could only get the *current* century's great moral question answered for it by a well-educated climatologist.
+David J Gill What planet are you living on? Have you even seen a Prager University video?
+Wan Farah pity that it had to be the one with huge logical holes.
Great quote 04:53 “Slavery is the great shame of America’s history, no one denies that, but it is to America’s everlasting credit, that it fought the most devastating war in its history, in order to abolish slavery”
A(do)lf Hid(ler): “Slavery is the great shame of America’s history"
So why ignore the national sovereignty of the individual states?
" but it is to America’s everlasting credit, that it fought the most devastating war in its history, in order to abolish slavery”"
Oh, _that's_ why: because it would preclude calling it a "war," since international unions can't fight wars against their individual member-states and call it a "civil war."
That would be like the EU waging war on the UK over brexit: i.e. it's impossible since the EU isn't a state. And neither is the USA.
And the Northern states certainly didn't levy war based in their full power as free and independent states, since that would destroy their narrative.
So just _lie;_ morons never ask questions. Just mention "slavery" and watch the idiots applaud.
Like this: th-cam.com/video/Gi4Z06IbSek/w-d-xo.html Just replace "9/11" with "slavery."
Ken Burns gotta admit the A(do)lf Hid(ler) portion made me laugh 😂 funny
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
@@alfhid1947 How do you figure the US fought a war in order to abolish slavery when the Union at the outset of the war formally declared, "this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of... nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]..."?
@@alfhid1947 And when Lincoln, in his first inaugural address declared, ""I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."?
The fact that PragerU still has this video live on TH-cam is basically the best thing you can say about PragerU in 2023
The fact that liberal pieces of shit still think blacks can't get an id to vote in 2023 is hilarious😂😂😂😂
@@rebelp311
The fact that you posted a racist non-sequitur dog whistle comment is just sad and disgusting.
.
A video that Nikki Haley might have missed. 😲
I think Prager U has a lot of great content and I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm guessing this is the only one you agree with so you want all the others to be taken down. Pretty bad take if you ask me.
@@matthew2487
This is the only reality based video on the entire channel
There are several points that this video fails to acknowledge that I know other people will use as counter arguments. Nevertheless, the underlying premise of the video is very clear: the South rebelled to protect the institution of slavery. We know this because they tell us this in their own words over and over again.
Ike Evans they? Who? How many owned slaves?
toostoned tocare You aren't paying attention, are you?
Not really.. you bore me to tears.
toostoned tocare Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't consider your lack of proper entertainment. Of course, if you were so bored, one could ask why you would bother stopping to announce this very fact if, for no other reason, you weren't really just a troll?
Unless you have anything substinative to say, I will heretofore stop feeding your behavior.
Ike Evans You have nothing substantive to say. Learning to spell would be more productive for you. I am hungry for more.. not because of my boredom.. but for my serendipity. xx
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Socrates
You lost a long time ago, yet you persist..... loser.
_"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war."_ - Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
_"Having swept away the counterfactual Myth of the Lost Cause, a historian may briefly state the history of the Civil War as follows._
_The eleven states that seceded and became the Confederate States of America did so in order to protect the institution of African slavery from a perceived political threat from the majority of the people of the United States who disapproved of the institution."_
- Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History" p29
.
Right Tom - -you've been disparaging Ty Seidule,
Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Retarded slurs coming from you makes you the biggest loser on the planet.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks
He posted *another* fake quote!! Neo-confederates are such a sad joke.
I should have caught that myself. Rule of thumb here is that nothing they say should be believed no matter how insignificant or obscure.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Wow! Now we have this moron posting ANOTHER FAKE QUOTE. Is he really that desperate?
Ruth and Alfred Blumrosen wrote in their book Slave Nation, “American liberty could be defined as the desire to protect black slavery.” (Pg. 71)
This guy Tom Evans has been commenting on this video for 2 YEARS, from what I’ve seen his last comment was a month ago, he is a BIG confederate apologist
And totally dishonest in everything he posts, just like this Matthew Morrison. Neither should be taken seriously.
Miggerz bruh 2 YEARS He really doesn’t have anything better to do 💀
He also doesn't believe the U.S. is a nation.
@@giuffre714 You're the one claiming it's a nation, not the Constitution.
@@franciscoaraujo6624 What are you doing that's more important than what he is, if he's standing for the truth vs. lies? You're clearly a con-artist, or someone addicted to denial.
A rare example of a good PargerU video
It's sad how only through hate can the left learn love. If you didn't hate the South, most of you would throw Lincoln under the bus like every other US President.
-video- damage control
@@Ben00000 This video was made in 2015.
@@Dennis-nc3vw Funny if you think the alt-right only started latching onto mainstream conservatism fewer than 7 years ago.
I had this argument. Settled it by printing out the Letters of Succession and highlighting the references to slavery.
Could’ve just pulled up Stephens quote about their great truth of racial inequality
@@bandit4741 using both is even better for their argument
why did Davis free the slaves then?
@@matthewmorrison531 He didn't.
@@jxc1640 What's most telling about the declarations of causes of secession is that nowhere in them is any hint of the northern states forcing an abolition amendment on the slave states. So what do you think the declarations prove? They completely contradict the Righteous Cause Myth that the northern states were going to use their victory in the 1860 election to abolish slavery according to the rule of law. There was no constitutionally legitimate threat of the slave states losing their right to practice slavery.
As for Stephens and racial inequality, first a quote from Stephens' March 1961 speech, then a quote from Lincoln:
"...notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
Lincoln: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races …there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
I was expecting to cringe at this, but apparently not.
I sure did.
That's because you are a brainwashed moron, especially if you believe the civil war was about slavery.
While I agree for the most part that in the north the overwhelming reason for the Civil War was slavery, I absolutely do not agree that the 90% of southerners were ready to leave the Union because of slavery. Using the votes of a legislature of a state is an extremely inaccurate way of gauging the temper of the times. Just like everywhere else in this country the rich and powerful are those most likely to either hold office or control those in office.
The one thing that DID affect that common man was export taxes on cotton and tobacco. Something that even the agrarian part of the north didn't suffer from. So what few of the poor and medium farmers that would vote, would do so for their community leaders who were also those most likely to have a stake in slavery.
As having come from the absolute bottom rung of society and working my way to the upper middle class, I have never seen even a hint that someone wanted to keep anyone below them on the social ladder. Religion then, was a much larger part of the lives of all communities and the teachings of Christianity is that we all have equality in the eyes of God. The pretense that such a thing as social ladders existed to any great extend is so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand.
So if you wish to convince me that the cause for the south separating from the Union was purely slavery in the south you have to convince me that the export taxes did not significantly effect the cotton and tobacco business.
To perhaps make myself more clear about this social ladder thing - people that have money tend to think of themselves as being the elite and upper class. Excuse me Sir but as an enlisted man you should know that I followed orders not because I held any more respect for you than my Chief Master Sergeant (in fact, rather less) but because it was your job to order me about. While those who are the economic upper class may consider themselves superior in any and all ways no one else does. And those that gave me a hand up the economic ladder in my life never gave me the slightest feeling that they were giving me a hand up a social ladder as well. For the most part we moved in totally different circles and still do. Those that are still living.
truthseekr420 "brainwashed"
_"The question of Slavery is the rock upon which the Old Government split: it is the cause of secession."_ - G. T. Yelverton, of Coffee County, Alabama, speaking to the Alabama Secession Convention on January 25, 1861
An identical quote is attributed to Jefferson Davis in Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech as well:
"Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated [slavery], as the rock upon which the old Union would split. He was right."
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that regardless of what importance slavery had for each of the Southern states' decisions to secede, emancipation was initially not part of the official Northern justification for making war, which was to suppress a declared rebellion, not to free the slaves in the South.
@@christophercollins2134
The Union didn't start the war, the South did and did so to prevent their slavery from being put on the path to extinction. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to fight a war to end slavery, they didn’t want to have to fight a war at all and had been elected on the platform of putting slavery on path to its "ultimate extinction" within the Union peaceably gradually and within the constraints of the Constitution. But because of this the South wouldn't let them even take office and rebelled. However, as President, it was Lincoln's primary duty to preserve the Union and uphold the legitimate Constitutional authority above all. So for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union was fighting to end slavery anyway as they were committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. Ending slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be an initial war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on, and which of course, caused the war. And even if the South had come back into the Union before the complete collapse of slavery, it would still have only allowed Lincoln and the Republicans to continue to put it on that path to extinction, by banning it in the territories which everyone agreed alone would start it to whither, ending it in Washington DC and federal properties, appointing free-labor officials and judges, ending the censorship of the US mails by Southern postmasters and allow the Republicans to continue to build support for gradual plans in the border states; but with a now already weakened slavery.
And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the republican administration would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again. Lincoln planned on ending slavery, only he wanted to do it peaceably, gradually, and with the consent of those in the states where it was ending. The Rebels would have none of that and wanted slavery to be protected by the federal government forever.
_"The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."_ - James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina
.
@@Deadener Some called it the "Rich Man's War."
@@TheGuitarReb
Officially its called treason. And since on average 1/3 of the families in the states that rebelled were slave holding households, that's hardly just the "rich." Slavery was supported and fought for by the entire Southern communities in general.
.
Credit to Prager U for actually releasing an accurate, non-propagandized video for once. Now if only they can do the same for their remaining and future videos...
There's a real need in this country for a conservative media outlet to tell the truth and report the facts, and it seems like Prager could have filled that niche. Shame that he choase MAGA slurpage instead. That choice has worked out terribly for literally every single person who made it, from Michael Cohen to Mike Pence. At least Prager can boast that Trump hasn't sent a violent clown army to lynch him.
10 years ago you probably would have called this propaganda, because it implies the US army fought for a noble cause.
@@Dennis-nc3vw Ten years ago? Was there something magical about 2013?The US army did fight for a noble cause, whether it's 2013 or 2023. Are you feeling okay, d-bag? Did you get too much sun or something?
@@TonPaulHatesBlacks Because that's when the Democrat Party started shifting from hating America to hating white people. Politics was very different 10+ years ago. Trump absorbed many of the terrorist hugging, flag burning, tin-foil hats that made up the core of their party (you need only look at how the partisan alignment of the Truther movement has changed over time to see this represented statistically), not to mention Europe's (the continent they used to worship) move towards the right shifted leftwing hatred away from America and towards Caucasians. That and Obama's war on Confederate monuments shifted this issue politically.
@@Dennis-nc3vw
Because anti-racist is anti white right? At least that's what your friends that were marching with Tiki torches in Charleston were saying ten years ago. What a sad joke you are, trying to blame the Right wing violence and hatred on the left and its very victims. The Republicans had already moved the spectrum to the right even before Trump and they set the stage for him over the last 25 years and still kow-tow to the same mantras.
_"We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."_ - Atlanta Confederacy, 1860
its morally ok..as long as you only own one slave...right?
Nope slavery is gay.
Let them keep believing the Civil War wasn’t over slavery. Giving evidence that it was will not change their minds.
@@Diachachimba shame there is very little evidence to suggest that slavery was the reason for war...it was one of several reasons for Secession
Patrick Sulley right, and slavery was not a major issue at all. It was all about states’ rights. A very vague term that people who defend the South’s actions use.
_"The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery."_ Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861
Fun fact: only four of the eleven Confederate States cite slavery as one among many reasons to secede. Yankees need force the Civil War to be ONLY about slavery, otherwise they have some uncomfortable truths to confront.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that regardless of what importance slavery had for each of the Southern states' decisions to secede, emancipation was initially not part of the official Northern justification for making war, which was to suppress a declared rebellion, not to free the slaves in the South.
@@christophercollins2134
The South started the war. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to fight a war to end slavery, they didn’t want to have to fight a war at all and had been elected on the platform of putting slavery on path to its "ultimate extinction" within the Union peaceably gradually and within the constraints of the Constitution. But because of this the South wouldn't let them even take office and rebelled. However, as President, it was Lincoln's primary duty to preserve the Union and uphold the legitimate Constitutional authority above all. So for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union was fighting to end slavery anyway as they were committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. Ending slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be an initial war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on, and which of course, caused the war. And even if the South had come back into the Union before the complete collapse of slavery, it would still have only allowed Lincoln and the Republicans to continue to put it on that path to extinction, by banning it in the territories which everyone agreed alone would start it to whither, ending it in Washington DC and federal properties, appointing free-labor officials and judges, ending the censorship of the US mails by Southern postmasters and allow the Republicans to continue to build support for gradual plans in the border states; but with a now already weakened slavery.
And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the republican administration would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again. Lincoln planned on ending slavery, only he wanted to do it peaceably, gradually, and with the consent of those in the states where it was ending. The Rebels would have none of that and wanted slavery to be protected by the federal government forever.
_"The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."_ - James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina
_”If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his adminstration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance [*sic*] of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object. They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist.”_ Open letter of Gov. Joseph E. Brown to the Georgia legislature. Dec. 7, 1860
.
@@christophercollins2134 If the North fought because of rebellion, and the rebellion was about your beloved slavery, then the North was fighting over your beloved slavery. A=
B=C.
@@TonPaulHatesBlacks Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit was it? But I must say you certainly know mathematics!
1 John 1:8 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
I reject this statement and christian idea that one is born with sins and unrighteousness is inherent in a person.
@@filmymela4638 I've actually met God
@@filmymela4638 Hey I hear ya. There is a quick test, but it requires being honest:
Is there someone you would kill if you could completely get away with it?
@@Grafknar I know where you are getting at but no baby is a born sinner. That's absurd.
As a hindu we believe that "DESIRES ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL THE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS" and it may sound very nihilistic cause desires are what makes us humans. But the difference is that Indian religions like hinduism and buddhism are inherently optimistic.
They say that, sure life is tough and there is evil all around BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO GET FREE FROM THAT BONDAGE.
@@filmymela4638 The fact that the Confederacy ever existed is proof that we are born in sin and tend to want to sin.
A clear, concise, and factual account of American history.
People need to realize that abolition of slavery isn't the same as equality of races the way we see it today
Many Northerners at the time where racists, and believed blacks to be inferior
They did not however, believe in slavery, which to them was an economic issue that affected their well-being, since they believed they would be forced to compete with free labor
They weren't fighting for the slaves, they where fighting for themselves, and after the Civil War ended, up until today, racism still exists all over America
Point is, the Civil War was fought because of slavery, but not because of racism, which most whites anywhere in the country could still agree on
False
no matter what, a system like slavery couldn't exist in the 20th century
people think the US being behind in free healthcare is bad, try being the only developed country that allows slavery
even if the CSA succeeded in seceding from the Union, by the 21st century at the latest, even they would have likely ended the practice and joined the rest of the world
"no matter what, a system like slavery couldn't exist in the 20th century"
Says who? You?
Why?
Why doesn't it matter?
I think the Confederate leaders didn't think that far ahead putting all their chips in slavery and a agrarian society, ironic since Britain was in the middle of a Industrial Revolution
Yes race played a huge part. One has to remember that slavery is a social institution that effects the local society at large where it is in force, not just the owners themselves. Slavery was more than a system of labor, it was an entire economic system, a social system, and a means of racial control.
_"If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate-all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?"_ - S. F. Hale, Commissioner from the State of Alabama to Kentucky governor B. McGoffin . Frankfort, December 27, 1860.
The Southern men, slaveholder or non-slaveholder, went off to war to fight for the society they knew, the society that was defined by racial slavery and its attendant social systems. No matter their station, the average white Southerner still benefited from slavery and slavery was entwined in the life of the non-slave holder, who also benefited from it, as well as the owners themselves. Slaves were rented, for either domestic help, for temporary agricultural labor or even building. So even the non slave-owning framer benefited from the cheaper labor. And the free white also benefited from his position as member of the preferred racial caste.
_"With us the two great divisions of society are not rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and we are respected as equals... and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them."_ John C. Calhoun
Or as Frederick Law Olmstead more bluntly put it,:
_"From Childhood the one thing in their condition which has made life valuable to the mass of whites has been that the n****rs are yet their inferiors."_
It's called a 'Herrenvolk' democracy
And so, as the letters of even the enlisted soldiers written at the time show:
_"The most powerful motivator remained Confederate troops' certainty that they must fight to prevent the abolition of slavery, the worst of all possible disasters that could befall southern white men and their families. Over and over soldiers repeated the same refrains about the necessity of fighting for slavery that they had been sounding since the beginning of the war."_ - Chandra Manning "What this Cruel War Was Over" p138
.
This video makes me feel like I'm in a parallel universe...
That's kind of the point. It's quite literally fascist propaganda.
@@justingurski8770
Actually its the only reality based video on the channel, denying the truth of this video is what is fascist propaganda.
_“The neo-Confederate movement has been around for a good while. Ostensibly their aim is to commemorate and glorify the history of the Southern Confederacy. But what they really are about is white supremacy, or what is sometimes called white nationalism. They use the Confederacy as a symbol of white supremacy, which they are trying to bolster in this country.”_ Eric Foner, Professor of History, Columbia University
You're either young, new to politics, or extremely disingenuous. You can find plenty of videos where Bill Whittle or Alfonzo Rachel are saying exactly the same thing. The GOP holds regular "Lincoln Day" dinners to honor the Great Emancipator. Prior to about 10 years ago, most people who argued the Civil War wasn't about slavery were liberals trying to paint Lincoln as just another money grubbing American imperialist. Now the left's hatred of the south has eclipsed their hatred of America, so they ironically end up arguing on the right side of this issue. But make no mistake, slimey little weasels like Rundstedt100 were arguing the polar opposite when Bush was in office.
@@Dennis-nc3vw
_"prior to about 10 years ago, most people who argued the Civil War wasn't about slavery were liberals trying to paint Lincoln"_ That is a bald faced lie. The only people that ever denied the war was about slavery are Neo-confederates and those have always been conservatives. Come on ... show me a so called "liberal" that denied the war was about slavery ..... Denying the reality of the Civil War has *always* been a conservative feature.
_"Despite these varied attributions of "neo-Confederacy" from the period immediately after the Civil War to the present, there are a number of consistencies in neo-Confederate thought-its racist, patriarchal, heterosexist, classist, and religious undertones-that form the basis of a conservative ideology that centers upon social inequality and the maintenance of a hierarchical society."_
"Neo-Confederacy, A Critical Introduction" Edited by Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, and Edward H. Sebesta
.
And I've been on U-tube for more than 10 years arguing against you conservatives and your denial of the reality of the war.
.
@@rundstedt1004
That's because you have a "no true Scotsman" cop out when it comes to racism and liberalism.
It was about states rights.
To have slaves
always have been
Yup it was about slavery. lol love how you spaced it down far enough that a denier would have to click on this. Getting their hopes up so they can face the truth they are trying to avoid again lol! 😂
@Mark Branham but i dont think owning slaves is good
*Property
@Mark Branhamthey also explicitly denied Confederate states the right to secede from their new country. They absolutely knew what they were doing.
One thing that is never talked about is how the Union army (especially during the first half of the war) was heavily divided between partisan lines over the issue of slavery, despite their common interest of preserving the country. This has been extensively researched and documented only fairly recently. The Army of the Potomac in particular lacked antislavery leanings early on in the war and it was a major obstacle to the Union cause.
_"The period from late January to April 1863 was the critical refining moment in the army’s political education for several reasons. First, the emergence of the Democratic Party’s vocal antiwar wing made partisanship unavoidable for even the most apolitical enlisted men. Second, soldiers had seen the reality of slavery in Virginia. Finally, and even more importantly to most men in the ranks, recent hardships and bloodletting had fostered a bond among individual units that prided discipline and expediency above cheap partisan rancor. For these reasons, soldiers were already primed to accept Lincoln’s proclamation as a necessary measure to defeat the Confederacy, and even those opposed to it squirmed at the thought of sympathy with peace activists. Officers realized their soldiers mistrusted the political class in general, especially after McClellan’s removal. They aimed to refine that attitude by proving it was the Democrats who threatened to undo the army’s gains."_
-Zachery A. Fry, A Republic In The Ranks
It's hardly surprising that not all Union soldiers were initially onboard with fighting against slavery. A significant percentage came from pro-slavery or indifferent-to-slavery democrat districts. Plus there were more than 200,000 Union soldiers who came from Confederate states and Union slave states. But as you said, many who were initially uncertain came around, both by marching South and seeing the horrors of slavery firsthand, and coming to the realization that the twin goals of ending slavery and saving the Union were inevitably linked, as the first one was necessary for the other.
It is notable that in the 1864 election, after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the total abolition of slavery became part of the Republican Party platform, Lincoln won nearly 80% of the military vote. Despite all the horrors, hardships, and setbacks the military had been through, they were still onboard with the anti-slavery candidate and his anti-slavery policies by a huge margin.
So you're trying to water the truth down with this or what?
The Armies actually became radicalized against slavery during the war due to religious revival and seeing the effects of it personally.
@@josephcapra8484 If facts that you don't like bother you, it isn't the "truth" you're defending.
I remember being a junior in high school in North Carolina and in my AP US History Course. My teacher was adamant in teaching us that the civil war was fought over states’ rights. He talked about everything that this video touched on and more just to get his point across that the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves.This was just 6 years ago. Misinformation is a real thing in US schools!
Geovanny Cacso: your teacher was YEARS too late, to reach an audience of booger-eaters who had been taught for over six years that the USA was "one nation, indivisible."
REALITY: the USA was INTERNATIONAL like the EU, with each state being a SEPARATE NATION.
"And on that "states rights" argument, for the record, the Southern states we're ardently pro-states' rights', but, with some glaring exceptions. Notably when Northern states passed laws to help protect runaway slaves, the South wanted the federal government to override those states laws. So, they loved states' rights, as long as they were the right states' rights. The wrong states' rights would be states' wrongs, wrongs which would need to be righted by the right states' rights-- look, to put it really simply, they just wanted to own black people, -and they didn't much care how."
~~ John Oliver
th-cam.com/video/J5b_-TZwQ0I/w-d-xo.html
@@SovereignStatesman So no one cheered louder than you, Tom, when you found out how Northern states were making a mockery of fugitive slave laws?
Your teacher was correct - that's why young boys who didn't know any slave owners fought and died.
@@blindnord5146...incorrect. There I fixed it for you 💁
well even the broken clock is right twice a day
Biden is a clock with no hands, he’s never right
Джек Итальянец - Well this time it's wrong. The USA is international like the UN or the EU.
Yikes
@@hannahmadden3573 Or Bolivia
@@jdamah And he's always slow.
Quick and easy answer: YES
How's that'?
Ghostly: as HL Mencken said, "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
Thanks for proving his point with your simplistic stupidity.
@@SovereignStatesman When you boil it down to the fundamentals and get over the fluff developed post-civil war about "Oh, what about states rights! Oh Heritage!!!", you can see it was about a fundamental core issue. Slavery. I don't deny there are people that value their heritage, yet to mimic and idolize slave masters is foolish. Even people that idolize George Washington are at fault. He was a feckin slave owner, his whole "every man is equal" shtick only applied to Caucasian males.
When looking at history, you have to be able to the root cause of everything. Sure, Hitler stimulated the German economy, but his mission was to genocide everyone who was not pure Aryan and control a large chunk of the globe.
@@GhostStealth590 I think you really have limited intelligence, if you don't know what national sovereignty means.
@@GhostStealth590 when you boil it down the Confederates were fighting for their freedom
the only sane PragerU video I have ever seen
_"African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."_
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860
.
@Joel Burnett
Wow, you're and idiot. that supreme Court, the Founders and the very Constitution itself says you need psychological help.
_“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”_ -Thomas Jefferson
@Nelson's Rudolph
I'm not here to "converse" with idiots, racists, and other historical amateurs and hacks. I'm here to set the record straight.
.
@midgetydeath
It was not the loss of slavery that destroyed the Antebellum South, it was the war itself and the destruction it wrought. The South was responsible for it's own fate you racist hack.
.
@@rundstedt1004 Then why was Kentucky , West Virginia and many parishes in Louisiana excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation ???? Mr Set the record strait ???
Y'all notice that he wont answer the question of "Why was Kentucky , West Virginia and many parishes in Louisiana excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation"???? Because it is undeniable fact that completely undercuts his narrative that slavery was the cause of the civil war . Or you can read Lincoln's inaugural address. Or the fact that the south fired on Fort Sumter 38 days after Lincoln took office . Or the fact that a naval blockade captured 4 southern ships with ZERO slaves on board . All before 1859 . Even though they claimed that they were slave ships ... They found only standard cargo . Northern aggression was the cause of the civil war NOT slavery . No matter how many time it was mentioned .
This guy is a leftist coward spreading leftist propaganda and bull shit .
P.S.
He also claims that NAZI Germany wasn't socialist and that Fascism is a right wing ideology .
Only video by PragerU that I like.
Good video. I bet everyone else here was worried for a second that Prager might actually say it wasn't about slavery! :P
Edmond Mitchell I thought the same thing lol.
I was thinking the exact same thing
Edmond Mitchell I disappointing that Prager become liberal propagandist
Art of street work out Oh that's comical. This is purely from a historian standpoint coming from a historian. Even the other arguments about what the civil war was over can be traced back on the reliance on slavery. It was the cornerstone of every confederate's hopes in preserving its country.
***** Because sometimes their truth seems a bit not true.
Wow an actually good prageru video.
Good northern collectivist propaganda
Define woman please
All PragerU videos are good.
@@kimberHD45 WTF is more anti-individualist than a slave plantation?
One and only.
Just commenting to see if Tom Evans replies. As a Texan, I'm so proud Sherman burned down the South, and wish he kept going. The civil war was about slavery. Says it right in the Texas Secession Statement.
He's out of your league. You wish Hitler kept going and killed all the _Jews,_ too. Dictatorship is dictatorship, and you're a fool.
By law, the citizens of every state held supreme national authority over their state as a separate nation, and so government derived its powers by consent of the governed; and minorities could vote with their feet to another state if the majority somehow became destructive to their rights.
But the GOP ended that, claiming final authority over the citizenry of every state, except for the flimsy vote. Fool.
alibyte: each state is a sovereign nation, that's the law.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
And the American Revolution established 13 sovereign nations, not ONE; and this never changed, it just shifted political supremacy from to the state legislature to the state electorate.
You are mixing up the secession with the civil war. The civil war did become about slavery at the end, especially with the passing of the 13th amendment, but are you sure it was about slavery in 1861?
@@ElGrandoCaymano It was never a civil war, the states never formed a single nation together. Are you too dumb to know what that means?
@@SovereignStatesman Oh, so there was no civil war. Interesting. I guess it was just a war of northern aggression.
It's kind of sad that we still have to teach that the slavery caused the Civil War. It should be so obvious that we shouldn't even need to explain.
Nah it was the shelling of fort Sumter that caused the civil war. The South was completely separate for nearly 6 months before that.
@Itzahk Pearlman because they were a federal fort on Confederate land and refused to leave.
Weird how if it was about slaves, the first shots were fired over a piece of half-submerged land, by the guys with the slaves, no less
@@PANDA-vm3tt So, why did the South wish to separate from the North? S.C. declared that she was leaving the Union in Dec. 1860 because Lincoln, an anti slavery expansion man, was going to be the next president. Six other slave states followed S.C. The Confederate States of America was declared in Feb. 1861, and Jeff Davis demanded the Fort Sumter be transferred to the C.S.A. Lincoln refused. That prompted the C.S.A. to attack. The separation of the two regions was over SLAVERY. The actual battle was triggered by the C.S.A.'s assault on the Fort Sumter.
@@mikionakade6618 pretty simple. At the rate states were being added to the union, why wouldn't you leave? Up until that point there were several compromised to balance power between the North and the South. Going even so far as to divide Texas into several States just to make things even in the Senate. It's no different than the divide from urban and rural today.
People get emotional about slaves, but I ask you this, if the North really cared about slaves, why did it take another 100 years after the war to pass a civil rights act in 1965, finally making them equal? The North certainly didn't mind using blacks as low paid labourers with limited rights and free prison labourers after the war, which was essentially slavery in another form. Why fight the bloodiest war in our history to "free" the slaves into a position with limited rights? It's stupid.
This was a power struggle between two regions, one conquered the other and retconned the other as an evil to give them a moral reason for their imperialism, same way we have done every war since.
@@PANDA-vm3tt
And what was the difference between the regions? what made those states below the Ohio different than those above it? could it be slavery? no past to the United states 'conquered' the other nor was seeking to. Both sections are part of the same united economy and intertwined. It was the South that was fighting a "power" struggle, and the purpose of that struggle was the protection and expansion of slavery.
_"But even for Calhoun, state sovereignty was a fall back position. A more powerful instrument to protect slavery was control of the national government. Until 1861 Southern politicians did this remarkably well. They used that control to defend slavery from all kinds of threats and perceived threats. They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitives."_
"This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War," McPherson, p7
.
PragerU had a stopped clock moment
Lmao
Why don't you stop playing dumb? The left roots for the forces of tyranny invariably when its politically convenient for them, sometimes even when its not. Stalin, Castro, Mao are all your darlings. You were calling the progenitors of ISIS "freedom fighters" during the Iraq War. If the South was still Democrat and black people were still Republican, you'd worship the Confederacy.
@@Dennis-nc3vw Facts don't care about your feelings loser
I can assure you, that the gallant hearts that throb beneath its sacred folds, will only be content, when this glorious banner is planted first and foremost in the coming struggle for our independence. - John Bell Hood
“For my part, I have no hesitancy from the first that, right or wrong, alone or otherwise, I go with Virginia.” - JEB Stuart
“I would rather be a private in Virginia’s army than a general in any army that was going to coerce her.” - JEB Stuart
@@wardennorth7882 Facts don’t care about your feelings, Marxist.
Also Confederates won 4 wars FYI. You must hate the French
For anyone yammering about how Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not include the Border States, I've got news for you: Lincoln had initially planned to get rid of slavery in the Border States first. Lincoln had hoped for the federal government to buy out their slaves and had drafted a proposal to do so back in early November 1861 starting with Delaware:
_“Be it enacted by the State of Delaware that on condition the United States of America will at the present session of Congress, engage by law to pay, and thereafter faithfully pay to the said State of Delaware, in the six per cent bonds of said United States, the sum of seven hundred and nineteen thousand and two hundred dollars, in thirty-one equal annual installments, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, at any time after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three within the said State of Delaware, except in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; nor, except in the punishment of crime as aforesaid, shall any person who shall be born after the passage of this act, nor any person above the age of thirty-five years, be held in slavery, or to involuntary servitude within said State of Delaware, at any time after the passage of this act.”_
Lincoln believed if Delaware, as the smallest slave state, would accept the terms then Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri would follow suit. However, Delaware would reject the idea by a margin of a single vote. Only afterward did Lincoln bring in the Emancipation Proclamation, this time targeting slavery in the states in rebellion. Lincoln smartly did not apply this to the Border States in fear they may jump ship to the Confederacy. It was a good move and further proof of how much of a calculating genius Lincoln was.
it was specifically designed to speak to the border sts
the proclamation was DESIGNED by lincoln to deal w border sts
"...at any time after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three within the said State of Delaware..."
1893? That's 28 years after President Lincoln's death. I'm guessing the year is a typo and I know compensation to slaveholders was discussed (and happened in Washington, DC and for many Unioinst slaveholders) but where did you get this from? What is your source on this?
Exatly. Mr. Baxter was just being honest.
exactly. People think that he didn't want to emancipate the slaves in the border states (and some argue not even in the southern states as of 1861) but the real issue was it wasn't within his constitutional rights as president. He could use his wartime power to eventually issue the Emancipation Proclamation and the confiscation acts before it but if he did emancipate too soon while support for the war was low and there wasn't a wide public belief that the slaves should be emancipated, he could have got impeached.
The south fought for State rights is a nice way to say : the south fought to preserve slavery.
The slave-owning class believed preserving slavery cancelled the "states rights of the non-slaveowning states"!
The south would only need to defend slavery if the war was over slavery . Read Lincolns inaugural address moron .
The South had so many British spies that it is amazingthat there was slavery at all.
@@johnathanmiller3033 more accurately they started a war over slavery, not defended it.
No, they fought to preserve their national sovereignty that they LAWFULLY WON in 1783 from Great Britain.
And they STILL HAVE IT, by law.
When did slavery stop in the South? When they lost the war.
The Confederate congress voted to abolish slavery in 1863, but the paper got lost until 1865. David kept a messy office.
@@matthewmorrison531 sounds like the confederates betrayed all their principles, their founding fathers stood for all those many years ago (specifically 3 years ago). They should at once rebel against the confederacy and declare a new confederate states of America to secede against the confederacy that is secede against the usa!
Mathieu Plasse: it wasn't a war.
Wars are levied by independent states; and the USA was never a state, while the USA states DENIED their own independence.
So it was only an act of terror and tyranny by ruthless politicians against the people of sovereign nations.
@@matthewmorrison531 Slavery would have been abolished in every state, just like in every OTHER nation: WHEN IT BECAME UNPROFITABLE.
The ISSUE is, that every states is a separate nation.
That was the UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT in 1776: i.e. "as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." PERIOD.
That didnt stop it.
11k people still think that owning another person should be a right
Each state was a separate sovereign nation.
@@SovereignStatesman Wrong. Perhaps under the Articles of Confederation. But that system fell by the wayside when it became clear that letting states go their separate ways following the Revolution would result in exactly that, separate nations with no allegiance to one another. With the ratification of the Constitution, that changed. Amendments to the Constitution applied to all states, dictated by the ratification of the amendments by a majority of states, thus states did indeed hold some power over one another. Allegiance to one's state and one's home was one thing, but the Constitution demanded the allegiance of all states, which was broken by secession, illegally. Also not certain what your statement had to do with my previous one.
@@benbovard9579 " the Constitution demanded the allegiance of all states"
GOVERMENTS. Not people, who became the supreme power over the separate nation-state.
Specifically, the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
James Madison correctly provided the context for this in Federalist No. 39, where he writes:
"On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act."
And as he correctly explained in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions: the term "states" means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity; because
• in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;"
• in that sense the "states" ratified it; and
• in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.
So nothing changed with the Constitution, regarding any state’s national sovereignty; i.e. they were still each “a people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity,” i.e. a sovereign nation-state, and were simply parties to an international union on that basis.
So in context, the preamble reads:
"We the People of the United States: the supreme authority in each State, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong; in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity; do ordain and establish this federal- not national- Constitution for the United States of America, which does not form one aggregate nation, but each state remains a people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity."
Thus the Constitution did not form a national union among the states; but only international.
@@SovereignStatesman That was a nice little copy-paste job you did there, hope you cited your sources. I'm still uncertain what any of this has to do with my original comment regarding the misconception that having individually exclusive state rights is always the best course of action. If indeed what you're trying to say is that those states were sovereign entities and therefore should have been allowed to keep whatever laws they wished, then buddy, I think you're defending the right of any state, then or now, to allow it's citizens to keep and own slaves. If that is the case, you're a lost cause. But by all means let me know if that's not the case, because I wanna give you the benefit of the doubt.
@@benbovard9579 So you don't deny that each state was a separate sovereign nation to itself, and that they never formed a national union. I'll call that a concession then.
EVERY state was a sovereign nation to itself, including the 24 that didn't HAVE slavery. Idiot.
Didn’t need to watch this to know the answer to the question. As a southern man, I’ve heard it all. “No” some would say trying to argue it had nothing to do with slavery but all the points they were making lead right back to the root cause of the war, slavery. The Civil War was fought over slavery 100%. If it wasn’t a thing there would have been no war, period. It also could have been handled differently but things escalated quickly. Just as fast as “The shot that was heard around the world” during the Revolutionary War. I know some southerners joined for different reasons other than slavery and some didn’t have a choice, sure. But it really doesn’t need to be a question but instead, just a known fact.
Yup. Conscription was brutal towards the end. “Robbing both the cradle and the grave…” it was said. No doubt at the causes for individual men we varied, and possibly some wre there against their will and deserted as soon as they found opportunities because that’s a known fact recorded in memoirs of the time… but yup. As yo the cause of why they found themselves in that situation to begin with … that would be with the reasons of those in power to organize a rogue government and seize union arsenals anticipating the coming war… and those men were the one holding the slave power.
And then Colonel Ty Seidule was not asked to participate in another PragerU video.
the end where he took pride in wearing the uniform got me all teary eyed
So did Hitler , who ALSO claimed that the American states had no sovereignty of their own.
Tom Evans lol, so, your argument is better because it is backed by,... Hitler? Bwahahaha.
@@SovereignStatesman Argumentum ad hitlerum - you've already lost the discussion
@@saladyn1000 Actually that's YOU.
"And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges."-- Adolf Hitler
@@VandalAudi No, YOUR argument is.
"And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges." -Adolf Hitler
God rest Abraham Lincoln’s soul and every abolitionists soul because they saw what was morally wrong and fought to fix it
Abolitionists used terrorism.
How can his soul rest in hell for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he caused.
Lincoln excused the rapes ordered by his generals. He is in help or purgatory. Forrest relented of his sins and is in heaven.
Most union generals were serial arsonists, but that's ok.
@@matthewmorrison531 Where is your proof union generals ordered rape?
What an amazing clarification of the Civil War and the motivations behind it. The articulation of the narrator was easily understood and strait to the point
I’m honestly shocked PragerU is actually in line with reality here. I thought they were going to say being a slave on southern plantations was like going to summer camp or something.
Why did you think that ?
Rooting for the forces of tyranny against America is a purview of the left, not the right. The only exceptions you make are the Nazis and the Confederates, because blacks and Jews are too precious to your party. Your are either new to politics or disingenuous.
@@JasonJacksonJames Probably because he never spent half a minute in politics until Trump came into office, and he thinks the alt-right (who are almost universally anti-capitalism, anti-Israel, and pro-abortion) is the rightwing.
@FBI - Federal Bereau of Investigation Lincoln himself called John Brown a "misguided fanatic."
@@Dennis-nc3vw Could you please explain more specifically how the alt-right is "anti-capitalist, anti-Israel and pro-abortion"?
Didnt even know this was being debated. Thought it was obvious lol
You were wrong. THERE WAS NO REBELLION. The Union was an INTERNATIONAL association of separate sovereign nation-states. And South Carolina was ONE of these sovereign nations, as expressly recognized in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and the South Carolina ratifying Convention; and no state EVER expressly GAVE up its national sovereignty, SO THEY DIDN'T.
Tom Evans Did a state have the right to secede at the time? Sure. But that’s not the point. The point is that the states seceded because they felt that their right to own slaves was being threatened.
@@brickbreak841 Are you claiming that their right to secede was conditional, that it not be for slavery?
If not, you lost the argument.
And if so, you are incorrect. The right of secession was unconditional, and anyway slavery was guaranteed in the constitution. I see everyone bashing state's rights arguments that "it was the state's right to keep slaves," but it was still a right. You can't invade a free state just because you don't like their laws and customs, if it's their right that you recognized in an agreement.
It has to be something that violates international law, like genocide, or an act of war. Slavery was not enough.
Ken Burns No, I’m not. I’m saying that the reason the Confederacy seceded wasn’t because of states’ rights but because of slavery first and foremost. Did they have the right to secede? Sure. But why did they secede? Because they felt their right to own slaves was being trampled on.
@@brickbreak841
They had no legal right to rebel and commit treason. And no moral right either.
_“The Declaration of Independence tells us when a revolution is justified. It tells us that when a government becomes destructive to the ends of securing the natural rights of its citizens, it’s the right of the people to alter or abolish it. That’s why the American Revolution was justified, whereas the confederates, in seeking to continue to deny natural rights to African-Americans, were not justified.”_ - Al Mackey
"Well there isn't."
Lmao I love it
You love stupidity.
@@SovereignStatesman How about you shut up and go back to your own country? Oh wait! IT DOESN'T EXIST!
@@ajwiebusch212 NEWSFLASH: the states fought the American Revolution with the agreement, that the Union would be international like the EU, and each state would be a separate nation. And the PEOPLE of each state ratified the Constitution with the same agreement. So there was no civil war; just a few "Brexits." Each state is STILL a separate nation, by law.
Tom Evans NEWSFLASH: it was primarily about preserving slavery. Y’all lost. Sry bout it.
@@mollie4960 Sovereign nations can secede from international unions.
They CANNOT engage in civil wars against other nations.
_"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war."_ - Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
i was sitting hear waiting for that "but" or that "what actually happened" but it never came... this was just a simple historical video, based
super based i loved it
The "but" is in the actual amendment ending slavery. Slavery is abolished, EXCEPT as a punishment for crimes. Ok, you're free now, but you're also homeless cause we're not giving you those 40 acres as reparations. And by the way, homelessness (vagrancy, no visible means of support) is a crime.
@@vincentmcshan7817 i suppose the problem is that criminals are treated as subhuman
@@lesussie2237 I suppose being poor qualifies as criminal.
@Comment Crusader I'm pretty sure that fighting for slavery wasn't a just cause ngl
“If it wasn't about slavery, then I don't know what else it was about.”
-James Longstreet, a former Confederate Lieutenant General, when he was asked what caused the Civil War.
@dosdude Which is why the Southern States that ratified the Constitution revoked their own ratification of the US Constitution?
Anybody who has read anything by an actual Civil War historian, or what the South itself was saying at the time, knows the war was caused by and was about slavery, and the South admitted that itself, over and over.
_"I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to you the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through you, to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.… _*_What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."_*
- Henry L, Benning, Commissioner from Georgia - "Address Delivered Before the Virginia state Convention. February 18, 1861
*They didn't make those kind of statements about anything other than slavery.*
So:
_”Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ [or anything else] has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”_
_”I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.”_ Dr. James Loewen
Although I dislike PragerU, I was really surprised with this.
Coming up next: Why confederate general statues should stay up
Should it
@@axel665 At museums where people interested in history want to see them sure, but they don't need to be in the public squares
History, kid. To remember the racist democrats that fought to destroy the nation
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
The csa was nothing more than a low-life terrorist gang. Terrorists deserve only dis-honor.
_"When you go back and you look at the actual documents, many people have said since then that it was about states' rights, but really the only significant state right that people were arguing about in 1860 was the right to own what was known as slave property - property and slaves unimpeded - and to be able to travel with that property anywhere that you wanted to. So it's clear that this was really about slavery in almost every significant way,"_ - Historian Adam Goodheart
The altruistic version of the Union being sold here (and the contemptible version of poor Southerners) makes me skeptical. Of course, a 6-minute video is bound to contain simplifications, but this just *has* to be leaving out the bulk of the discussion regarding the motivations of individual soldiers.
Roy Staggers I know a war of any kind is not altruistic, which is why the Colonel's assertion that it *was* altruistic is suspect. And Southern Slave owners weren't poor, but most Southerners _were_ poor and he spends much of the video talking about them. My two-sentence argument stands.
Elliott Collins Regiments were formed in local town and counties. there would have been amazing pressure to sign up with your peers, and everyone thought the war would be over soon, plus after april 62 confederates drafted every white male 17-50 who didn't have a vital job. as many as 300,000 were drafted. and also 120,000 white southerners joined the U.S. military.
Elliott Collins Sorry but nope. The Civil war was over racism. The "right" the states the secede wanted to preserves was the "right" to own their fellow citizens, steal all their labor, rape them whenever it suited them, and publicly execute them whenever they felt the desire to sate the bloodlust of their fellow racists. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Deal with it.
Prester John And the Noble White Northerner was just willing to lay down his life for his fellow enslaved man? Lovely as it would be to remember my Union soldier ancestors that way, racism was way too virulent in the North for me to buy that quasi-messianic tale.
If you want to think this is the one war where money wasn't a factor, cool. But there are more history books about the Civil War than any other topic; it wasn't simple.
"And the Noble White Northerner was just willing to lay down his life for his fellow enslaved man? "
_"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."_
-- Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Henry Pierce, April 6, 1859
Tom Lincoln, Honest Abe's step dad was an abusive alcoholic.
Well what would one expect Abraham Lincoln to say?
His Mother, Nancy Hanks was a "White" slave indentured to Abraham Enloe, a native-American plantation owner and pedophile.
For a sum of money, Tom Lincoln took little Abe and Nancy away from Mrs. Enloe's
embarrassment.
Lifelong Mississippian here. The territories were key. As long as slavery existed here, there could be no United States. We would have become a collection of rival states divided economically and morally. Another Europe, constantly at odds with ourselves. And plenty of people in Europe would have loved to see that happen.
This video makes it seem like the war was fought on moral grounds when it wasn't. The only reason that white Southern men fought to keep their slaves was because it was an economic incentive to do so. Don't forget that the majority of Confederate troops didn't give a shit about slavery. They were fighting because Northerners invaded their homeland. Lincoln didn't want to preserve the Union just because he cared about how the US looked on a globe. It was economically and miliarily important to keep the South as part of the US. No war in history has ever been waged SOLELY on moral grounds. The Civil War was fought over economic interests on both sides.
"They were fighting because Northerners invaded their homeland"
Nope. Its quite impossible to invade your own country.
The Northern soldiers were called on to crush the rebellion that the Confederates initiated when they bombed a United States Fort.
The South had already mobilized,trained and drilled a large force in
preparation to attack their own countrymen
The Union had to play catch up after Sumter.
The South seceded, began forcefully taking over Federal properties and killing US Soldiers before Lincoln was even sworn in as Pres, and then bombarded a United States Fort for 33 hours.
That's what started the war.
They were and have always been the aggressors, they started the war.
Over slavery.
"The Fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this
infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for slavery,
is as plain as the noon-day sun."
Thirteenth Wisconsin Infantry Regiment.
*Does not exist:* well you're just another typical Neo confederate liar. Slavery is a social institution that effects the local society at large where it is in force, not just the owners themselves. Slavery was more than a system of labor, it was an entire economic system, a social system, and a means of racial control.
_"If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate-all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country. Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed?"_ - S. F. Hale, Commissioner from the State of Alabama to Kentucky governor B. McGoffin . Frankfort, December 27, 1860.
The Southern men, slaveholder or non-slaveholder, went off to war to fight for the society they knew, the society that was defined by racial slavery and its attendant social systems. No matter their station, the average white Southerner still benefited from slavery and slavery was entwined in the life of the non-slave holder, who also benefited from it, as well as the owners themselves. Slaves were rented, for either domestic help, for temporary agricultural labor or even building. So even the non slave-owning framer benefited from the cheaper labor. And the free white also benefited from his position as member of the preferred racial caste.
_"With us the two great divisions of society are not rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and we are respected as equals... and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them."_ John C. Calhoun
Or as Frederick Law Olmstead more bluntly put it,:
_"From Childhood the one thing in their condition which has made life valuable to the mass of whites has been that the n****rs are yet their inferiors."_
Again, it's called a 'Herrenvolk' democracy
And so, as the letters of even the enlisted soldiers written at the time show:
_"The most powerful motivator remained Confederate troops' certainty that they must fight to prevent the abolition of slavery, the worst of all possible disasters that could befall southern white men and their families. Over and over soldiers repeated the same refrains about the necessity of fighting for slavery that they had been sounding since the beginning of the war."_ - Chandra Manning "What this Cruel War Was Over" p138
.
I won't acknowledge comments containing ad hominem arguments. I am not a confederate sympathizer, white, nor am I in favor of slavery. Please proceed.
DoesNotExist305
En enfecto.
"I wont admit Im wrong"
"Please proceed"
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
*Does Not Exist:* Calling you an idiot because you posted something idiotic is not an Ad Hom, it's a valid judgment backed by sourcing as my post testifies to, something you hacks always lack..
This is the one time I actually agree with PragerU. Perhaps it helped that the speaker was an actual history professor and knew what he was talking about, unlike most of his "colleagues" at PragerU, the university that is not a university.
"The Civil War was not about slavery " Keven Hosey-History Professor - Trinity Baptist College
Justinian the Great no one is fond of slaves m8. I ain’t a dem but that’s just facts.
Perhaps it helps that you hate the South, because the rhetoric of Confederate apologists is identical to what we see from the "anti-war" left every time America fights a tyranny. Claiming the Confederates were "just people defending their country", accusations of economic motives for the US, moral relativism...it's all the same shit we heard during the Iraq War, when lefties were cheering for the progenitors of ISIS.
A religious college is generally more likely to have biases, especially conservative biases, than an apolitical military academy like West Point. "The Civil War was not about slavery" is among the most disingenuous things you can hear from a history professor.
PragerU is a propaganda machine with a tendency to make fallacy-ridden arguments that sound good on paper but really fall apart once pried at by people who know what they're talking to. The Republican Party, after the Civil Rights Movement, adopted the Southern Strategy after realizing the LBJ lost the South for the Democrats.
Holy shit... prager U...said something true???
this has been debunked and discredited:
th-cam.com/video/LH8MNJspg4k/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/RPOnL-PZeCc/w-d-xo.html
@@JoshuaChaves16 I've seen that. Pure pseudohistorical propoganda that omits such vital information as the articles of secession submitted by confederate states straight up saying they were seceding to protect slavery
@@brianholmes1812
1. the articles of secession were not "submitted".
2. i have read them ALL and not all of them mention slavery, let alone as the main cause for secession.
3. of the eleven states that seceded, 10 gave at least some explanation of why it was. only 4 of the 11 cited slavery as one of the reasons
@@JoshuaChaves16 most states did not give reasons. They simply signed the ordinances of secession, which more or less simply declared that they were seceding. Texas, Virginia, south Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia, however, did publish their reasoning for sescession seperately.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world"- Mississippi
"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia"- Georgia
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Texas
"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."-South Carolina
"and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."- Virginia.
These are metely the most concise mentions, most going in about the "inferiority" if the "african race". Virginia being an exception and being one of the shortest Landmark historical government documents I've ever read, which is nice, although the explicit racism the managed to put in anyway is not so nice. The rest mention more a brief history of the US and their legal justifications, long with the nullificarion if the figitive slave law be several northern states and the anti-slavery position of the Republican party.
I know I was mistaken in my rhetoric and should have been more careful with the ordinances and the declerations of reasoning, along with my use of the term "submitted." But don't underestimate my ability to read, and the ability of 19th century slavers to be unashamedly racist
Source: www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession#:~:text=Every%20state%20in%20the%20Confederacy,decision%20to%20leave%20the%20Union.
@@JoshuaChaves16 because everyone else simply gives a brief declaration that its happening, and those that do, state hostility to their "rights". The only right actually under threat in peacetime was that to own slaves. Some were curtailed by both sides as is typical in wartime, but the only right or freedom under threat was that of owning slaves. And then we have these, I would say, fairly damning documents published by some of the key Confederate states. It seems interesting that every single separately published reasoning mentions slavery. Do you want me to go read through more 160 year old racist rhetoric or do you want to accept that people in the 1800s were incredibly racist and willing to fight ans die for slavery? Because I have quotes from everyone from Jefferson Davis right down to your average Confederate soldier and anyone in between. I hate reading and quoting such materials because it is frankly disgusting, but it is the truth. And that's what really matters. And the fact taht the south fought for slavery was not in question then. Among historians, it is not in question now. It is only in question among those who are baised, have a vested interest, or are simply in denial. This only became controversial when postwar confederates tried to cover their asses
We have found it... we found the ONE PragerU video that isn't wrong.
The saying about the broken clock proves true once more.
I always wondered how they let this one stay up all these years.
"Was the Civil War About Slavery?"
Yes. Next question, please.
Get this one right first. There was no civil war, only a series of brexits.
@@SovereignStatesman it was a war
And the South was not racist
@@donaldnaegele3040 War can only be levied by sovereign nation-states. And each state in the USA was a separate nation-state.
However the nation-states of the CSA were not levying war against any nation; and neither were the nation-states of the USA, which DENIED their status as sovereign nations.
The USA itself was not a nation, and certainly did not levy war on behalf of the separate nation-states of the USA-- again, whose separate nation-status was being DENIED.
So it was an ACT OF TERROR.
Those are the facts.
@@SovereignStatesman Literally every history book is now wrong?
Really wasn't expecting this. Props to PragerU for once.
It WASN'T a civil war, since the South already HAD national authority over their own states since 1776.
@@SovereignStatesman As soon as they ratified the consititution, this was no longer the case. The federal government clearly had authority over the states at the time of the civil war.
Anyone that expected anything else from Prager U is clueless (and I haven't even watched the video.)
@@clapanse he doesn’t respond to anyone who invalidates his argument with facts and logic. Don’t waste your time
Colonel Ty Seidule (US Army), Professor Emeritus of Military History, West Point:
“Clearly the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. In fact it is mentioned in every Confederate State’s Proclamation of Secession.”
About half the people here who barely passed high school:
“Uhhhh, aktually....”
I'm a legal scholar who has fully researched this issue, and proved that It wasn't a war because the States were sovereign nations, and the USA never was. PERIOD.
YOU are the one going "Uhhhhh, akchooallleeeee....." blindly accepting what some Blue Nazi tell you about the Holocaust.
@@SovereignStatesman The legal scholar who has no clue on how the United States has ever worked.
Oh wow! Holy shit so I just went & read each individual states proclamation and the Colonel totally lied. So far in my reading 4/5 states haven’t mentioned it at all... will report back.
So you're equating the declarations of causes of secession with a declaration of war? That must be because you're trying to argue that secession is justification for war regardless of the reasons. Which is to say you recognize the war was really about the freedom of the southern states, not the freedom of any slaves.
And even the declarations of causes of secession don't provide any evidence for your and the government clown's BS propaganda.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 _"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of nxgro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the nxgro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a nxgro slave remains in these States."_ - Texas ("nxgro" censored for TH-cam).
That refutes your points quite cleanly, I must say. It appears "freedom" for the south was the "freedom" to fully subject 4 million black people to their will. It's interesting to say the least how you work your words around unsavory words like "slavery".
_”This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”_
--April 6, 1859 Lincoln, Letter to Henry Pierce
Long answer: yes.
Short answer: yes.
Then why did abolitionists at the time deny it?
Holy shit an actually good PragerU video.
If you think shit's good you must be a fly.
and i am proud of you sir. for speaking the truth. it still needs to be spoken for all time.
The truth is that the states fought the American Revolution with the AGREEMENT, that the Union would be international like the EU, and each state would be a separate nation. And the PEOPLE of each state ratified the Constitution with the same agreement. So each state was a sovereign nation from 1776-present.
At some point, we all have to agree that we are more alike than different. We must realize that one of the many flaws that humans possess is that we focus on the differences of a group. Progress will only happen through forgiveness, not violence.....I look forward to the day where we don’t focus on “adjectives “ when describing a person’s background. “I’m not African American, I’m am an American”, for example. A divided house cannot stand....
He did not speak truth. The proclamation statement is a flat lie. He has so many omissions, misleading statements and half truths its not even funny. Here is some more information that you might find interesting.
1. The CSA abolished the slave trade. No more slave markets. What you got is what you have. That put a expiration date on Slavery.
2. Robert E Lee was known to favor freeing slaves, after they were educated enough to thrive in society.
3. Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He even voiced no opposition to the amendment that passed the entire house and senate that would have protected slavery in the states it was currently in.
4. Lincoln himself said that whites were the superior race.
5. Blacks could not legally enter Lincolns state of Illinois.
6. The economies were vastly different. Only a couple of Northern states produced food.
7. The states from TN north never had their slavery taken away. Slavery did not end until well AFTER Lincolns death.
8. GA and AR both rejected secession initially. It was not until the North raised an Army to stop secession did they actually secede.
9. Only two states listed slavery as the sole reason of secession.
10. South Carolina seceded BEFORE Lincoln was elected.
11. The Southern Economy was suffocating under taxation and tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff. Even the most anti slave country, England, supported the southern states due to those issues. If the slaves disappeared over night, it would be the death blow to the southern economy.
12. Slavery was not about owning another human for the sake of owning another human. It was about having the tools to efficiently farm the land.
13. Not all slaves were black. Not all slave owners were white. There were white slaves(indentured servants) who actually had no laws protecting them against mistreatment(Black slaves did have laws protecting them).
14. The split started over a decade earlier than the war when the North started a trade war with the South. The South tried to nullify law after law and kept getting rejected.(States rights again). They felt they no longer had a valid voice in the government, as a few states controlled congress because they had controlling stake. This is similar to the situation today where Tx, Fl, Ny, and Ca combined have enough power to control the rest of the country.
@@BamaShinesDistillery you make some good points. The problem with history is it keeps getting re written. The war cost the lives of over 600,000 men obviously there was much more to it than slavery.
@The Real Talk with Jacob Wilson Did you REALLY just write that?
EVERYONE AGREED in 1787 that they were sovereign nations before, during and after the Constitution.
I'm not doubting your stupidity; I'm just trying to find out how far it goes.
The rarest of PragerU Ws. If only they used actual quotes in their videos about other social issues.
I don't support slavery, but I support Southern Secession today. I just want to come with them...
BoyKagome i agree. I also think the south should be made to leave the united states. I suggest chopping off the south and pushing it far away.
***** This channel become liberal propagandist. Tax issues are come first, before slavery. If it all about slavery, why income tax come after that?
Oh please, I bet after 2 months of all the conservatives leaving to the south; the left would be trying to jump the fence to get in their again too.
All people need to do is look up the declarations of cessation for the different southern states. They list exactly why- it was all about slavery
Neon. I'm going to let the years from 1780 - 1930 speak for themselves.
_"Of all these interpretations, the state's rights argument is the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? States rights and sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. … In the Antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery."_ - James McPherson "This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War," p7
they were concerned about their own "states rights" to protect slavery of Black people. They did NOT, however, believe in other state's "states rights" when they pushed the Fugitive Slave Law, giving them the 'right' to violate other 'state's' "state's right" by invading them to recapture people that escaped/fled slavery.
Do you do anything but copy/paste others works?
@@sabot19691974
It;s called having evidence and backing. Something you Neo-confederates don't have. You're not arguing with me, but the entire academic field of history.
At least America went to war with it self. Mexico and Brazil slaves had to rebel
The Southern police state was too crushing for a rebellion to be successful. All attempts by slaves in the South were violently put down and the oppression increased.
Rundstedt100 another reason why confederacy sucks and the flag should be treason even tho it already is. USA rules... Murcia
In the case of Brazil, the Empire (1822-1889), gradually, made laws to end slavery, from 1830 to 1888. It had three major consequences:
1. Allowed a better integration of former black slaves into brazilian society (racism in Brazil is nowhere near racism in the US)
2. Avoided a civil war.
3. Motivated the rural elites, devoid of their slaves and not compensated financially by the government after the definitive abolition, to ally with progressive branches of the brazilian army to end the empire by a coup d’état in november 15th, 1889, establishing a republic led by the military and these elites until well into the 20th century.
There were a few slave rebellions, but small and with only local minor consequences.
Slavery in Brazil ended virtually without a single shot fired.
@@eltonalonsopompeu615
If slavery had not ended first in the Southern US because of the war, than Brazil would not have experienced the same pressure that it did to end it when it did, and indeed would have a powerful new ally to support the institution instead.
_"At the outset we should note striking contrast between North America and the many slave other societies to the south with respect to frequency and size of slave revolts as well as escapes to fairly durable maroon communities. Although the population of slaves in the United Sates eventually dwarfed the numbers in Brazil and the Caribbean, there were no significant revolts in the colonial Chesapeake from 1619 to 1775 or in the nation as a whole from 1831 to 1865. IN Brazil, by contrast, slave revolts were more common, and in the 1600 thousands of fugitives found refuge for nearly a century in the maroon community of Palmares, until the Brazilian army finally destroyed the refuge in 1694. Continued slave insurrections continued to erupt in British Jamaica from the 1670 to 1831, and the islands maroon communities were so formidable that they negotiated treaties with the colonial government"_ David Brion Davis, "Inhuman Bondage, the Rise and Fall of slavery in the New World," p207
Stephanie McCurry, in _"Confederate Reckoning", writes: “There is an important pattern in the history of slave emancipation in the Western Hemisphere, one of considerable significance for the Confederate States of America; and that is the intimate association of war, slave enlistment, and emancipation. From the American War of Independence to the last surrender of slavery in Brazil in the aftermath of the Paraguayan American Wars of Independence, the U.S. Civil War, the Ten-Years War in Cuba - slaves fought for and won their freedom in the context of war. It was in the context of war that slave men became the objects of state interest and the focus of intense competition between warring states for political loyalty and military service.”_
Both the nature of slavery itself and the political climate it existed in; in those other countries was totally different than in the Southern US. The situations were nowhere near the same. For example; while more slaves might have been imported to Brazil, due to the higher death rates and that mostly men were brought in meant that by 1860, approximately two thirds of all slaves in the Americas lived in the US South. Brazil had only between 1 and 1.5M at that time.
In 1872 the overall slave population of Brazil is 15%, and that was distributed throughout the nation not regionally as in the US. In the US in 1860, slavery is concentrated in that one region and constitutes a growing 3.9 Million of its little more than 9 Million total population. In Virginia, the 'breeding' of slaves to export to other Southern states becomes its second most important state ‘product’ and a reason the state was a big supporter of banning the slave trade.
The South was totally committed to slavery, it had been over the years ingrained in their culture, and slavery provided the political power as well as its economic basis of the South.
_"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."_ - Mississippi, Statement of secession
The situations in the other countries, the historical and cultural developments, were in no way similar to that in the US. It is just silly and superficial to try and that assertion and it totally ignores the nature of, and the entire history of slavery in the US and in all the other countries in making it.
And in the end, it doesn't really matter for this particular argument has no merit anyway on another level, for it was the South that choose the path of war. They were the ones that rejected any political solution upon the first intrusion on their peculiar institution. If slavery were ever to end how would that ever happen peaceably if on the first inkling of opposition they violently and unconstitutionally rebel?
_"The moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."_ - James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina
.
th-cam.com/video/RPOnL-PZeCc/w-d-xo.html
As the Vulcans say: "Only Nixon could go to China." I literally agree with nothing else that Prager U puts out. This, they nailed.
they did have one other good video with the dirty jobs guy that was pretty good. It was all about following opportunitys that allow you to find a good career. Even if the job is unorthodox. Pretty solid advice for younger people. But yeah a lot of their stuff is not good
I was really worried about this video before I clicked on it.
WHEW
Damn I almost cried at the end. I never thought I’d say this but thank you PragerU
it was NOT a war. It was an ACT OF TERROR. ONLY NATION STATES CAN LEVY WAR!
The North was NOT a state, nor was the USA. And the Northern states DENIED their status as nation-states.
The South, meanwhile, MAINTAINED their status as nation-states, and DEFENDED THEMSELVES AS SUCH.
Against INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.
@g % Not for the south, but the revival of the Confederacy. He is a useless disintegrationist somehow. Sadly, still his freedom of speech is gauranteed and even though he is shitting around, can't block em.
This has been debunked and discredited:
th-cam.com/video/LH8MNJspg4k/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/RPOnL-PZeCc/w-d-xo.html
Because Sherman ordered his men to rape civilian, US Army raping became the cause of the War of American Aggression regardless of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Ty Seidule is proud of the rape
For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz: That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.-Gen. William T. Sherman
"If I could end the war without ending slavery I would, if I could end the war with ending slavery I would" - Abraham Lincoln
Of course, another sad play on the Greeley "quote mine." The usual first refuge of a Neo-confederate presenting an erstaz intellect as if were actual knowledge. Typically they will leave out the last line and the very important proper context.
_"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _*_official_*_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed _*_personal_*_ wish that all men every where could be free."_
So what Lincoln is saying to Greeley there is that he's doing all he can within the scope of his office, that he is duty bound to first look to the Union itself but if it were only up to him personally, they'd all be freed already.
And the letter wasn't private, it was printed in the paper as a letter to the editor and was meant as a public relations devise to pave the way for the Emancipation Proclamation which Lincoln *had already decided to issue,* and was already written and waiting in Lincoln's desk Drawer for the right opportunity. He he took the opportunity as a way of preparing the public for what he was about to do. And additionally, as he stated, it was Lincoln's first duty per his oath of office to save the Union above all, he is only stating the obvious there. He had to by his duty as president save the Union above all. And losing the war wouldn't have freed the slaves, one went hand in hand with the other. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to fight a war to end slavery, they were elected on the platform of putting on its path to its end within the Union peaceably, but the South wouldn't let them. So for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union was fighting to end slavery as they were committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. Ending Slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be a war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on
.
@@rundstedt1004 If Lincoln had the opportunity to end the war and preserve the Union WITHOUT freeing the slaves, do you think he would have done it?
@@TheJurgisRud
Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want to have to, or need to, fight a war to end slavery, they had been elected on the platform of putting slavery on its path to its "ultimate extinction" within the Union peaceably, but because of this the South wouldn't let them even take office and rebelled. However, as President, it was Lincoln's primary duty to preserve the Union and uphold the legitimate Constitutional authority above all. So, for Lincoln and the Republicans fighting to save the Union *was* fighting to end slavery as they were already committed to putting it on its path to its ultimate extinction within it. *Ending slavery for the Republicans didn't need to be an initial war aim, as that was already their overall aim that they were elected on, and which of course, caused the war.*
And even if the South had come back into the Union before the complete collapse of slavery, it would still have only allowed Lincoln and the Republicans to continue to put it on that path to extinction, by banning it in the territories, ending it in Washington DC and federal properties, appointing free-labor officials and judges, ending the censorship of the US mails by Southern postmasters and allow the building of free-labor parties to build support for gradual plans probably in the in the border states first; but with a now already weakened slavery.
And he would do something else the slave power secessionists so feared, he would begin to talk about the end of slavery using the voice of the government. The South had been extremely successful in stifling any sort of democratic debate on the topic, not only in the national government, but especially in their own states, even censoring the mail as stated. And the South knew that the republican administration would put their peculiar institution on the road to "ultimate extinction" and they said so over and over again. Lincoln planned on ending slavery, only he wanted to do it peaceably, gradually, and with the consent of those in the states where it was ending. The Rebels would have none of that and wanted slavery to be protected by the federal government forever.
_"The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery."_ Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861
.
So true
Lincoln hated blacks. Didnt give a damn about ending slavery unless it helped him win.
The secession documents he talks about in the video can by found by googling "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States", where you can read the state's reasons in their own words.
Spoiler alert: It was slavery.
Certainly not their right to practice slavery, nor anything else relating to slavery that the southern states can be said to have fought for in the war. They certainly didn't fight to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves, as the northern states had obligated themselves to do when they ratified the constitution.
But if you want to know what the war was about, try looking at official declarations about the war itself. As the US Congress officially declared by a nearly unanimous vote, ""this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]"
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
_”If Mr. Lincoln places among us his Judges, District Attorneys, Marshals, Post Masters, Custom House officers, etc., etc., by the end of his adminstration, with the control of these men, and the distribution of public patronage, he will have succeeded in dividing us to an extent that will destroy all our moral powers, and prepare us to tolerate the running of a Republican ticket, in most of the States of the South, in 1864. If this ticket only secured five or ten thousand votes in each of the Southern States, it would be as large as the abolition party was in the North a few years since. It would hold a ballance [*sic*] of power between any two political parties into which the people of the South may hereafter be divided. This would soon give it the control of our elections. We would then be powerless, and the abolitionists would press forward, with a steady step, to the accomplishment of their object. They would refuse to admit any other slave States to the Union. They would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and at the Forts, Arsenals and Dock Yards, within the Southern States, which belong to the United States. They would then abolish the internal slave trade between the States, and prohibit a slave owner in Georgia from carrying his slaves into Alabama or South Carolina, and there selling them. These steps would be taken one at a time, cautiously, and our people would submit. Finally, when we were sufficiently humiliated, and sufficiently in their power, they would abolish slavery in the States. It will not be many years before enough of free States may be formed out of the present territories of the United States, and admitted into the Union, to give them sufficient strength to change the Constitution, and remove all Constitutional barriers which now deny to Congress this power. I do not doubt, therefore, that submission to the administration of Mr. Lincoln will result in the final abolition of slavery. If we fail to resist now, we will never again have the strength to resist.”_ Open letter of Gov. Joseph E. Brown to the Georgia legislature. Dec. 7, 1860
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
_"Can there be a doubt in any intelligent mind, that the object which the Black Republican party has in view is the ultimate extinction of slavery in the United States? To doubt it, is to cast the imputation of hypocracy and imbecility upon the majority of the people of every Northern State, who have stood by this party through all its trials and struggles, to its ultimate triumph in the election Lincoln._
_In these declarations Mr. Lincoln has covered the entire abolition platform - hatred of slavery, disregard of judicial decisions, ne9r0 equality, and, as a matter of course, the ultimate extinction of slavery. None of these doctrines, however, are left to inference, so far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, as we see he has avowed them in the plainest and clearest language. They are not exceeded by the boldness of Seward, the malignity of Giddings, or the infamy of Garrison. It was the knowledge of these facts which induced his nomination by the Republican party; and by the free circulation which has been given to them in the canvass, it would seem that Mr. Lincoln is indebted to their popularity for his election._
_There is one dogma of this party which has been so solemnly enunciated, both by their national conventions and Mr. Lincoln that it is worth of serious consideration. I allude to the doctrine of ne9r0 equality. The stereotyped expression of the Declaration of Independence that "All men are born equal," has been perverted from its plain and truthful meaning, and made the basis of a political dogma which strikes at the very foundations of the institution of slavery. Mr. Lincoln and his party assert that this doctrine of equality applies to the ne9r0, and necessarily there can exist no such thing as property in our equals. Upon this point both Mr. Lincoln and his party have spoken with a distinctiveness that admits of no question or equivocation. If they are right, the institution of slavery as it exists in the Southern States is in direct violation of the fundamental principles of our Government; and to say that they would not use all the powers in their hands to eradicate the evil and restore the Government to its "ancient faith," would be to write themselves down self-convicted traitors both to principle and duty._
_In the election which just transpired, the Black Republicans did not hesitate to announce, defend and justify the doctrines and principles which I have attributed to them. During the progress of the canvass I obtained copies of the documents which they were circulating at the North, with a view of ascertaining the grounds upon which they were appealing to the people for their support and confidence. With the exception of a few dull speeches in favor of a protective tariff, intended for circulation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and still fewer number of pitiful appeals for squandering the public lands, the whole canvass was conducted by the most bitter and malignant appeals to the anti-slavery sentiment of the North._
_Fellow-citizens of Georgia, I have endeavored to place before you the facts of the case, in plain and unimpassioned language; and I should feel that I had done injustice to my own convictions, and been unfaithful to you, if I did not in conclusion warn you against the danger of delay and impress upon you the hopelessness of any remedy for these evils short of secession. You have to deal with a shrewd, heartless and unscrupulous enemy, who in their extremity may promise anything, but in the end will do nothing. On the 4th day of March, 1861, the Federal Government will pass into the hands of the Abolitionists. It will then cease to have the slightest claim upon either your confidence or your loyalty; and, in my honest judgment, each hour that Georgia remains thereafter a member of the Union will be an hour of degradation, to be followed by certain and speedy ruin...'"_
- Howell Cobb (future President of the Provisional Confederate Congress), December 6, 1860
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
"When I say that this rebellion has its source and life in slavery, I only repeat a simple truism."
--George W. Julian, US Congressman, in a speech to the House of Representatives, January 14, 1862
Just read the declarations of secession and the Constitution of the Confederate States.
Just read the US Declaration of Independence.
And 7 confederate states didn’t mention slavery. So yes please read them.
bluedoggg1: Even if they were seceding over slavery, that doesn't make it a rebellion. Just like the UK seceding, isn't rebellion against the EU. The USA is not a national union, just because Lincoln said so.
Lincoln deliberately equivocated generic independence with SOVEREIGN independence, to claim that the Union was national. But look who I'm talking to.
@@bowen1704 It doesn't matter why a state secedes from a union, it only matters whether the union is national or international.
And the USA was never expressly defined as a national union-- only international.
@@hannahmadden3573 The Declaration of Independence? It was a voluntary union, but it was a national union
Anybody else noticed how he only talked about the reason for secession but not the reason for war like the title suggests? And why didn't the confederate states stay independent after they lost, if it wasn't about them seceding? Would there have been no war if they had seceded and given up slavery at the same time?
Michael Haimerl Excellent question.
Michael Haimerl The point is there wouldn't have been a reason for the South to secede in the first place if they didn't practice slavery. Secession was intimately tied to slavery and thus the war was fought because of it.
Michael Haimerl This is because there are usually different reasons for each side to go to war, which the video did mention. The southern states felt threatened because Lincoln had just been elected president, and the Republican party's platform then included many abolitionist positions. After the southern states started the rebellion and attacked Fort Sumter, the rest of the states in the US were initially motivated by preserving the Constitution and the US. A bit later into the Civil War, the US also included emancipation as an objective.
Michael Haimerl
You are wrong about that. The speaker clearly stated that Lincoln's purpose for prosecuting the war was to preserve the Union. But we can't ignore the obvious fact that the reason the Southern states seceded from the Union was SLAVERY. Thus the cause of the war or the reason for the war was slavery. SLAVERY and only slavery. Slavery caused disunion so seeking to preserve the Union required that the nation confront slavery.
The is no contradiction or confusion here unless you expect simplistic answers. History is not so simple but understanding that slavery caused secession and that this war over secession was a war caused by slavery, is not rocket science.
Michael Haimerl To say that the southern states were motivated to rebel against the US because of slavery wouldn't be entirely correct, as southern states forced northern states to return former slaves who had escaped (Fugitive Slave Act of 1850). So in this sense, the southern slave states were interested in a strong central government because it acted in their interest. In fact, the first federal police force were US Marshalls whose only job was to track and return escaped slaves.
Obviously this offended the northern and western states that had prohibited slavery, and disrespected their state laws. Where were their states rights?
Have a feeling that a lot of regular prageru viewers didn’t like this video 🤣
And I'm also sure that a lot of those who like this video don't like PragerU, but are blind to their own hypocrisy.
Youre right, I dont like mistruths, half truths, omissions, lies and cherry picking.
1. The CSA did not reestablish the slave trade. No more slave markets. What you got is what you have. That put a expiration date on Slavery.
2. Robert E Lee was known to favor freeing slaves, after they were educated enough to thrive in society.
3. Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He even voiced no opposition to the amendment that passed the entire house and senate that would have protected slavery in the states it was currently in.
4. Lincoln himself said that whites were the superior race.
5. Blacks could not legally enter Lincolns state of Illinois.
6. The economies were vastly different. Only a couple of Northern states produced food.
7. The states from TN north never had their slavery taken away. Slavery did not end until well AFTER Lincolns death.
8. GA and AR both rejected secession initially. It was not until the North raised an Army to stop secession did they actually secede.
9. Only two states listed slavery as the sole reason of secession.
10. South Carolina seceded BEFORE Lincoln was elected.
11. The Southern Economy was suffocating under taxation and tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff. Even the most anti slave country, England, supported the southern states due to those issues. If the slaves disappeared over night, it would be the death blow to the southern economy.
12. Slavery was not about owning another human for the sake of owning another human. It was about having the tools to efficiently farm the land.
13. Not all slaves were black. Not all slave owners were white. There were white slaves(indentured servants) who actually had no laws protecting them against mistreatment(Black slaves did have laws protecting them).
14. The split started over a decade earlier than the war when the North started a trade war with the South. The South tried to nullify law after law and kept getting rejected.(States rights again). They felt they no longer had a valid voice in the government, as a few states controlled congress because they had controlling stake. This is similar to the situation today where Tx, Fl, Ny, and Ca combined have enough power to control the rest of the country.
@@BamaShinesDistillery I actually hope you are joking with that long list of cherry picked facts and some straight up lies
@@SovereignStatesman Since when is it hypocritical to agree with stupid people on the rare occasion that they are right?
I get the feeling you don't even understand what the word hypocrisy means.
@@BamaShinesDistillery Source?? Or are you just making shit up.
It was totally about slavery.
If the north addressed all other concerns that the south had then said, we're still going to end slavery, the south would still have seceded.
Great video.
End slavery? What a ridiculously revisionist myth!
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
I guess the rebels were "revisionists" then.
_"I feel impelled, Mr. President [of the convention], to vote for this Ordinance [of secession] by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery"_ - Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861
.