It's ironic that the 15 states that held slaves could still block any constitutional amendments to end it. Someone said that the seceeders ("fire eaters") were the best abolitionists in the world, as they guaranteed the end of slavery.
I am very interested on the Southern unionists and unionism in the South during the Civil War. Except for the 4 North West counties (as Pickens) of South Carolina only lonely prounionists were in that state. One of them (I forgot his name) mentioned after the 7 original states secceed in Montgomery: "He had thought the slavery system would not be too long, but now (in 1861) he were thinking the slavery system would be end quickly!".
23:07 Fascinating that the presenter neglects to discuss with this young woman that Great Britain was largely ruled by Parliament and France was in its Post-Revolutionary / Post-Napoleonic Era. Monarchies had already been discarded by Western Civlization at the time of the War Between the States. Secession of the Southern States in no way threatened the democracy of the Union, but it did very much threaten their economic circumstances and its future promise.
Here we go again. Some Klan Fucker like "Mark Teague" always has to try to pretend that the Slave Fuck Klan Secessionists weren't just trying to destroy America so they could keep the white-supremacist institution of slavery.
Many college teachers allow this. Helps make the learning environment more comfortable. I was a college lecturer, allowed anything non distracting. Were I a student, I would take advantage, if not asked to do a quick fast for video recording. Student rights and responsibilities. I hated when my little sister ate with her mouth open, but she wouldn't stop, especially if asked. Probably improves taste, while annoying a sibling.
"Mkay, mkay, mkay"! Oh my god this decent fellow who's giving a wonderful lesson has a terribly annoying and distracting tic in his speech. It may take away from his messaging for many in his audience
Yes, it's misunderstood because Confederate racist traitor apologists latched onto the battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia and now everybody thinks it's the main flag of traitorous racist rebels.
There's a lot of misinformation about the South or history in general. We are told that the Democrats comprised the South but the Democrats hated the Republicans and they wrote a Constitution that is a Republican government? That doesn't make any sense.
Something else that doesn't make sense... Why was the South forced to separate? Jim Crow Law. They had to create a LAW to SEPARATE Caucasians and Negroes, meaning that Caucasians and Negroes were mingling with each other with no problem before but all of a sudden they're not allowed? When you study the North during that time you realize that the North was way more racist than the South but were led to believe otherwise. Well the victor writes the history and creates the laws.
@Dana Whatley BS. We were living better in the south than we are in the north. Those emancipated congressional representatives were elected from the south.
Do some research. Places to start:: Cornerstone Speech. Seceding states Declarations of Secession These are contemporaneous reasons for seceding. Spoiler alert: taxes do not feature.
The port of NYC was paying the vast majority of federal revenue back then, via tariffs. Idk how much more explicit they could’ve made it- it was about slavery.
@@robbieclark7828 Which they passed on to Southerners to whom they sold those goods. A more interesting question might be why did industrialization not thrive in the South. One could argue that it was because of slavery that there was a lack of interest in it since the ruling class of the South who held the vast majority of resources didn't need it. With need being the mother of invention ...
@@markteague8889 What you are not comprehending is that 90% of trade occured between the North and the South. One relied on the other, a symbiosis. All else was greatly luxury goods from abroad. Tariffs are commonly cited as a primary cause of secession and thus the war. The actual history doesn't show this though. In 1860 the tariffs in place had been set by the Tariff Act of 1857. This bill was authored by Robert M. T. Hunter. In 1857 Hunter was a U.S. Senator from Virginia, and the bill was widely supported in the southern states. Those that opposed it were largely from the northern states. The prior history of tariffs in the United State show that Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%, a move that boosted trade so overwhelmingly that revenues actually increased, from just over $20 million in 1840 ($0.5 billion in 2019 dollars), to more than $80 million by 1856 ($1.8 billion). The South had almost no complaints but the low rates angered many Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. Fact: even William Lowndes Yancey (fire-eater), the leading secessionist of the 1850s and a free trader so militant that even the southern-written and southern-endorsed Tariff of 1857 didn't satisfy him, said tariffs weren't worth fighting a war over, only a threat to slavery was.
Seems to me the south could take a lot of pride in what they were able to do with so little. At any point in the war give the south the north recourses and the north the south resources Or give Lee Grants resources and Grants Lees resources. I don’t think the issue would be not be in doubt. Had slavery continued would we still have enslaved people exhist today. Sometime it would have died on its on.
Power concedes to nothing, it would have never ended. Just look at manufacturing today and notice how it's done as cheaply as possible. Then consider slavery just "dying".
Great point. What if the CSA had Ak-47s and aircraft carriers though? Even better resources! The south chose to start the war with the soldiers and resources they had at the time. As a result, they got their asses handed to them and that's that.
Slave is another word for WORKER or LABORER. Wherever you go to work can be considered a PLANTATION and you are in BONDAGE. You can't do whatever you want at work and if you do they will let you know right away that you're getting out of line.
@@12rwoody The South did not want to start a war with the North. Ever hear of false flags? When Lincoln was elected, the South was NOT in danger of LOSING Slavery. The problem was with the Western territories. They were blocked off from there and they felt that wasn't fair. The abolitionist knew that the only way to get rid of Slavery in the South was to have a WAR and CONVENIENTLY a WAR was started. The North had twice the manpower, twice or three times the firepower and Southerners considered them a belligerent people who they definitely did not want to have a war with because they have a lot to lose. The abolitionists created that war in order to get rid of Slavery.
This professor is exactly the problem with academia, cherry picking and lying by omission. The Mississippi articles and debates are numerous in girth, and to ignore the rest of the grievance against the murder of its people, he will cherry pick the Whig Stephens and bring up human rights, without talking about the words from Stephens in 1848. Now he is attempting to lead the group to think that slavery was the reason, and he hasn't mentioned the northern States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois even Oregon black exclusion laws. The South was invaded, while the New England constitutional hating Puritans ignored the constitution. The free black population in the North was less than the free black population in the South from the beginning. A child aged 6 made more per hour in the factory in the north,than a grown black man. The south fought for independence, from the tyrannical Roundheads of New England.
You are the one who is falsifying history. Denying that slavery was the cause of the Civil War is the lowest kind of racist lying. It is not much better, morally, than denying the Holocaust.
Wait "Roundheads"??? Are you confused about which Civil War is being talked about- or are you trying to emulate Jefferson Davis when he compared the Yankees to Cromwell and the Irish?
@@krisvires I'm not confused, the New England Puritans, are/were the Roundheads. Southern Cavilers were English and Scots-Irish. Tell me you don't understand US history, without saying I don't know history. That's on you, not me.
@@TheGeneral1861 OK I can see at least see some link from the Roundheads to the Puritans in colonial America (similar religious beliefs if nothing else), but how do you link the Cavaliers to the South? I'm also well familiar with the cultural origins of the South (being from Eastern Kentucky myself) and I don't remember any famous English lords moving to the South and setting up plantations. Lots of poor people who were driven off their lands by English lords, but not the lords themselves. I also don't understand why you are trying to suggest that the US Civil War was a continuation of the English Civil War, even though the US Civil War was 300 years later and in a different country with a different political system?
@@krisvires Southern landowners liked to consider themselves as similar to the nobles who fought for Charles I. They fantasized about being an American "aristocracy", lording it over their grateful, worshipful slaves far nobler than the money grubbing traders of the North.
It's ironic that the 15 states that held slaves could still block any constitutional amendments to end it. Someone said that the seceeders ("fire eaters") were the best abolitionists in the world, as they guaranteed the end of slavery.
I am very interested on the Southern unionists and unionism in the South during the Civil War. Except for the 4 North West counties (as Pickens) of South Carolina only lonely prounionists were in that state. One of them (I forgot his name) mentioned after the 7 original states secceed in Montgomery: "He had thought the slavery system would not be too long, but now (in 1861) he were thinking the slavery system would be end quickly!".
Fantastic super professor!
23:07 Fascinating that the presenter neglects to discuss with this young woman that Great Britain was largely ruled by Parliament and France was in its Post-Revolutionary / Post-Napoleonic Era. Monarchies had already been discarded by Western Civlization at the time of the War Between the States. Secession of the Southern States in no way threatened the democracy of the Union, but it did very much threaten their economic circumstances and its future promise.
Here we go again. Some Klan Fucker like "Mark Teague" always has to try to pretend that the Slave Fuck Klan Secessionists weren't just trying to destroy America so they could keep the white-supremacist institution of slavery.
Why is that woman eating a salad? Rude.
Getting things done. She probably has a full schedule. But community colleges are cool and they want/need to fill seats.
Many college teachers allow this. Helps make the learning environment more comfortable. I was a college lecturer, allowed anything non distracting. Were I a student, I would take advantage, if not asked to do a quick fast for video recording. Student rights and responsibilities.
I hated when my little sister ate with her mouth open, but she wouldn't stop, especially if asked. Probably improves taste, while annoying a sibling.
Modern people have no clue about manners... just animal behavior... taught at high school and broken homes
@@craighoyer6543 What else did you allow....😁...I love when girls eat like a cow... chomping....I bust out laughing 🤣.... it's a ghetto thing
What should she be eating? In your opinion.
Wow, a lot of confused people in the comments.
Lost Causers are still alive and well.😔
They're not confused. Just primates who cannot let go of their biases
@@indy_go_blue6048 So are post-war Northern Propagandists.
@@markteague8889 Whatever you say, Inbred Klan Sisterfucker.
Mkay! 😂😂
"Mkay, mkay, mkay"! Oh my god this decent fellow who's giving a wonderful lesson has a terribly annoying and distracting tic in his speech. It may take away from his messaging for many in his audience
The victorious have always owned the narrative.
The Confederacy lost… remember?
@@ibcoull It wasn't a criticism. Just a statement in fact.
@@dennisosborne9993 it's actually incorrect. Historians and politicians have the narrative.
How do you explain that the losing side in the Civil War has owned the narrative about it for most of the 155 years since?
@@dennisosborne9993 It’s not a “statement in fact.” It’s a cliche, and it doesn’t hold true for the Confederacy and the Civil War.
Very confused
please look at the history of what we call, 'the confederate flag' it is not the flag of the confederacy.
I suppose one traitorous rag is as good as the other.
Nobody gives a shit about confederate flag history.
Yes, it's misunderstood because Confederate racist traitor apologists latched onto the battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia and now everybody thinks it's the main flag of traitorous racist rebels.
There's a lot of misinformation about the South or history in general. We are told that the Democrats comprised the South but the Democrats hated the Republicans and they wrote a Constitution that is a Republican government? That doesn't make any sense.
Something else that doesn't make sense... Why was the South forced to separate? Jim Crow Law. They had to create a LAW to SEPARATE Caucasians and Negroes, meaning that Caucasians and Negroes were mingling with each other with no problem before but all of a sudden they're not allowed? When you study the North during that time you realize that the North was way more racist than the South but were led to believe otherwise. Well the victor writes the history and creates the laws.
The south could do nothing without help from the north
@Dana Whatley BS. We were living better in the south than we are in the north. Those emancipated congressional representatives were elected from the south.
Does he talk about over taxing of the south
Do some research. Places to start::
Cornerstone Speech.
Seceding states Declarations of Secession
These are contemporaneous reasons for seceding.
Spoiler alert: taxes do not feature.
The port of NYC was paying the vast majority of federal revenue back then, via tariffs.
Idk how much more explicit they could’ve made it- it was about slavery.
@@DouglasLyons-yg3lv Wow! One must completely ignore the 40 years leading up to the war from 1820 - 1860 to arrive at such a conclusion.
@@robbieclark7828 Which they passed on to Southerners to whom they sold those goods. A more interesting question might be why did industrialization not thrive in the South. One could argue that it was because of slavery that there was a lack of interest in it since the ruling class of the South who held the vast majority of resources didn't need it. With need being the mother of invention ...
@@markteague8889 What you are not comprehending is that 90% of trade occured between the North and the South. One relied on the other, a symbiosis. All else was greatly luxury goods from abroad.
Tariffs are commonly cited as a primary cause of secession and thus the war. The actual history doesn't show this though. In 1860 the tariffs in place had been set by the Tariff Act of 1857. This bill was authored by Robert M. T. Hunter. In 1857 Hunter was a U.S. Senator from Virginia, and the bill was widely supported in the southern states. Those that opposed it were largely from the northern states.
The prior history of tariffs in the United State show that Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%, a move that boosted trade so overwhelmingly that revenues actually increased, from just over $20 million in 1840 ($0.5 billion in 2019 dollars), to more than $80 million by 1856 ($1.8 billion). The South had almost no complaints but the low rates angered many Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry.
Fact: even William Lowndes Yancey (fire-eater), the leading secessionist of the 1850s and a free trader so militant that even the southern-written and southern-endorsed Tariff of 1857 didn't satisfy him, said tariffs weren't worth fighting a war over, only a threat to slavery was.
Seems to me the south could take a lot of pride in what they were able to do with so little. At any point in the war give the south the north recourses and the north the south resources Or give Lee Grants resources and Grants Lees resources. I don’t think the issue would be not be in doubt. Had slavery continued would we still have enslaved people exhist today. Sometime it would have died on its on.
Power concedes to nothing, it would have never ended. Just look at manufacturing today and notice how it's done as cheaply as possible. Then consider slavery just "dying".
Pride in 600,000 deaths…. Yeah, you run with that. They fired upon Ft. Sumpter, remember? It’s all on them…. The woulda, coulda, shoulda is laughable.
Great point. What if the CSA had Ak-47s and aircraft carriers though? Even better resources! The south chose to start the war with the soldiers and resources they had at the time. As a result, they got their asses handed to them and that's that.
Slave is another word for WORKER or LABORER. Wherever you go to work can be considered a PLANTATION and you are in BONDAGE. You can't do whatever you want at work and if you do they will let you know right away that you're getting out of line.
@@12rwoody The South did not want to start a war with the North. Ever hear of false flags? When Lincoln was elected, the South was NOT in danger of LOSING Slavery. The problem was with the Western territories. They were blocked off from there and they felt that wasn't fair. The abolitionist knew that the only way to get rid of Slavery in the South was to have a WAR and CONVENIENTLY a WAR was started.
The North had twice the manpower, twice or three times the firepower and Southerners considered them a belligerent people who they definitely did not want to have a war with because they have a lot to lose. The abolitionists created that war in order to get rid of Slavery.
This professor is exactly the problem with academia, cherry picking and lying by omission. The Mississippi articles and debates are numerous in girth, and to ignore the rest of the grievance against the murder of its people, he will cherry pick the Whig Stephens and bring up human rights, without talking about the words from Stephens in 1848. Now he is attempting to lead the group to think that slavery was the reason, and he hasn't mentioned the northern States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois even Oregon black exclusion laws. The South was invaded, while the New England constitutional hating Puritans ignored the constitution. The free black population in the North was less than the free black population in the South from the beginning. A child aged 6 made more per hour in the factory in the north,than a grown black man. The south fought for independence, from the tyrannical Roundheads of New England.
You are the one who is falsifying history. Denying that slavery was the cause of the Civil War is the lowest kind of racist lying. It is not much better, morally, than denying the Holocaust.
Wait "Roundheads"??? Are you confused about which Civil War is being talked about- or are you trying to emulate Jefferson Davis when he compared the Yankees to Cromwell and the Irish?
@@krisvires I'm not confused, the New England Puritans, are/were the Roundheads. Southern Cavilers were English and Scots-Irish. Tell me you don't understand US history, without saying I don't know history. That's on you, not me.
@@TheGeneral1861 OK I can see at least see some link from the Roundheads to the Puritans in colonial America (similar religious beliefs if nothing else), but how do you link the Cavaliers to the South? I'm also well familiar with the cultural origins of the South (being from Eastern Kentucky myself) and I don't remember any famous English lords moving to the South and setting up plantations. Lots of poor people who were driven off their lands by English lords, but not the lords themselves. I also don't understand why you are trying to suggest that the US Civil War was a continuation of the English Civil War, even though the US Civil War was 300 years later and in a different country with a different political system?
@@krisvires Southern landowners liked to consider themselves as similar to the nobles who fought for Charles I. They fantasized about being an American "aristocracy", lording it over their grateful, worshipful slaves far nobler than the money grubbing traders of the North.