Sam Houston's speech after being forced to resign his office was so profoundly prophetic, and may be my favorite quote from the whole historical period: “Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”
@@scottanno8861 there weren’t Irishmen in the South? There weren’t Irishmen who, in the name of The Slave Holding Southern States ( their term) attacked the North, starting the Civil War?
Love this series and the context given day by day. Hard decisions each and every day on both sides. In hindsight, we know where this is leading, but going by each day, things are not yet in motion. This video is a cliffhanger when viewed with only the information available each day. Looking forward to the next one.
I'm still hopeful Ft. Sumter will hold out longer than hindsight allows. Maj. Anderson must be totally stressed out. Thinking about myself having to make a fateful decision to save my men or hold the fort, hard times....
Thank you! I enjoy learning what happened. It gets glossed over, but the day by day shows how decisions were made, and you can see how one event led to the next.
@@edwardlulofs444We are definitely in interesting times. The lack of civility and mutual respect has me worried. The county as had bumpy roads before and after the civil war without resorting to 'much' bloodshed.
Recently sat down and watched the miniseries on Lincoln that the History Channel did recently on Abraham Lincoln with my 15 year old daughter. The way that they went about doing this series was perfect. It brought to life someone that just seems too iconic to grasp sometimes. The man wasn't always a giant statue in DC. He once was a man from extremely humble beginnings that was called up at the exact time that someone like him was needed and became the legend that saved the country and then died for the cause before he could even conceive of his own victory. A legend and a tragedy all wrapped in one. My daughter commented that she could not concieve of how fast his assassination came after Appaomatox until watching this film. It should be mandatory viewing in school and hopefully they will do a similar one on Washington as they have General Grant.
It's good to hear that the History Channel is putting good stuff out. I rediscovered a Lincoln documentary from PBS in 1992. I had watched it as a teenager, and recently found it in RUclips. I will have to check out the new one.
The perfect man at the perfect moment. My daughter and I just finished the History Channel mini-series on Lincoln and it is just unbelievable that a kid that grew up on a dirt floor that left his Homestead with a bag slung over his shoulder would go on to become maybe the most legendary figure in our country's history. I feel like our country is still recovering from the loss of his leadership after the Civil War. What a tragedy.
This whole series is extraordinarily good--the combination of maps and of coordinating events at different locations along the calendar, not to mention your clear and well-paced narration, have made yours a must-visit site!
It's FASCINATING how at the outset of the civil war the South was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, but the Union government couldn't care less about the issue and is fighting to preserve the nation instead.
I think the Southern powers knew the tide socially and politically had turned against slavery, and Lincoln's election was the proof. The north had the House of Representatives, the presidency, and then the future Supreme Court with the presidential appointments. Only the Senate was deadlocked even, but with most of the US territories being in the north, most future states would be free states, and the Senate would then be antislavery in short time. Even though Lincoln was attempting to avert a further crisis in March, once the die was cast and the conflict started, the Emancipation Proclamation was in short order.
It is so hard to imagine 1860 white americans fight for 4 years losing men by thousands just to free black people in some remote place from where they live.
@@JeffreytheLibrarianI wish that I could thumbs up 1000 times. I have been impressed all my life with Lincoln's speeches. I not good at memorizing passages, but phrases and ideas often come to mind from his inaugural speech. I rank Lincoln on par with Jefferson an Madison. They are the heroes of my life. I try to live up to their standards.
I really appreciate the amount of information you pass along in such a succinct manner. Most channels would make this an hour long extravaganza with slick graphics and sound but little factual content. Thanks for not doing that! Jeffrey the Librarian: Videos for the thinking person.
Great presentation. I find the run up to hostilities to be very interesting. The eloquence of Lincoln stands in stark contrast to the mush for brains that currently occupies the office. Is history repeating in front of our eyes?
10:02 among numerous other examples, this too, puts the lie to the assertion, so beloved of the lost causers, that the Civil War was about states rights.
Slavery is definitely the primary causation of the struggle. In 1860, the candidate that was pro-slavery, Breckinridge, won the southern states. The candidate that was anti-slavery, Lincoln, won the northern states. Southern states were calling for states rights because they knew the federal government would end slavery. It was only a matter of time before the new western territories would become states, and most of them were in free soil, and this would tip the Senate in favor of abolition.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian if being against the spread of slavery is being anti-slavery then one can say that Lincoln was anti-slavery. initially, all he wanted, was to confine the owning of humans to the places it existed already. it wasn't until the middle years of the war, with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation, that the slaves in the territories then defined as being "in rebellion" (the CSA) were freed. slavery was still allowed in territories that were within the union fold. it wouldn't be until after the war was concluded that the 13th amendment was ratified. that was the deathknell of slavery as it had existed antebellum. it turns out that, even though it cost the lives of a half million men on the battlefields, and probably more away from them, and the wasting of much treasure, abolishing the institution was the easy part. attitudes were another thing. we would then "progress" to share-cropping and jim crow, and many other forms of "legal" servitude. leading to the situation we have before us in this day and age. there is still much hard work to be done.
I think the ruling plantation class knew the gig was up. The north had the population to elect anti-slavery presidential candidates. The senate was going to turn permanently anti-slavery with so much territory in the north soon to become new states. It was only a matter of time before the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches were all anti-slavery.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian abolition was still a long way off though, pre Civil War defeat. Post war it still kind of continued for a long time in the form of sharecropping from which the old plantation owners seemed to be profiting quite well.
@4:22 and @12:20 - This should settle the war as a war against slavery. @5:27 - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Apparently Lincoln did not read the Constitution. @8:04 - But occupying land of another country is aggression and an act of war. Which he did allow in South Carolina.
Do you really think Abraham Lincoln, and the movement to preserve the United States and abolish slavery, was "despotic"? I would argue that Abraham Lincoln helped make the United States "a more perfect Union."
@@JeffreytheLibrarian What I am saying is that Lincoln said the war was not about slavery. If it was he would have freed the slaves in the north. Heck he trample the Constitution in other ways, why not free the slaves if he wanted to do that? I am also saying that he did not read the Declaration of Independence, could not comprehend it's words or lied about what it said about not supporting secession. The quote is directly from it stating that men have the right to break away from a country when they feel it betters them. If you mean by perfect, the trampling of Constitution, then yes he did do that. Look at the aftermath. The 13th and 14th Amendment where not so legally ratified. You cannot say things like unless you pass an amendment the occupation will continue or unless you pass an amendment you will not have Senate representation. The snow ball down hill kept a rolling.
@@smacky101 The Constitution is not a document to limit the people but to define the exact powers of the government. Read the 10th Amendment. The founders clearly thought that it was a right. Remember reading this: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".? Here is a quote from Jefferson on how we get to your thought process. I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. So your real question should be, where in the Constitution does it say it is illegal? It doesn't. So that is left up to the states and/or the People. The Constitution is not that hard of a document to understand. Any questions are answered in the Federalist Papers.
@@tangle70 Article 6 says the federal government will be the supreme authority of the land. Texas v White later supports the fact that secession is illegal. You're right about the constitution being simple. It is how people choose to interpret it is the complicated part.
4:07 Narrator: "Lincoln had remained tight lipped until this moment". 4:40 Lincoln stating he won't interfere with slavery: "I have made this and many similar declarations and I have never recanted them". Mmm.. one of the two is not telling the truth.
Great listening ear. I think I can explain. The statement "Lincoln had remained tight lipped until this moment" is referring to after his November election. Lincoln purposely did not make major statements while Buchanan was still in office, out of the respect that Buchanan was still the president. The "similar declarations" statement from his inauguration is referring to his presidential campaign, when his stances would have been widely debated and known. Thanks for watching.
...And like all politicians, Lincoln publicly says one thing and does the opposite. - He said he would not be the aggressor to ignite civil war...yet he deliberately maintained armed troops in Fort Sumter knowing the result to come. Even after CSA commanders made multiple requests to Washington/Lincoln to vacate the fort, Lincoln chose to leave them in place to instigate action by the South. (LBJ used a similar excuse for war in Vietnam) Slavery and the mistreatment of black people was extremely wrong and terrible. It needed to end throughout the country...but the actions of Lincoln trampling the constitution and going to war, costing 600,000+ lives, was even more terrible AND tyrannical. * Let's not forget, slavery (being the inhumane and immoral practice) was still completely legal in the USA and a common practice throughout the entire world for many centuries...... it WAS also written into the U.S. Constitution as a Legal & protected practice. ONLY a ratified amendment to modify the constitution could lawfully abolish such practice. * Lincoln absolutely did Not free any slaves Nor did he/the union legally abolish slavery during the entire 4 years of the war....while having complete control in Washington DC. * The North had MUCH to gain by going to war. It provided massive wealth with a war-time economy, then the North seized control over the southern lands and cotton production...which was an even more lucrative industry than anything else in the western hemisphere at the time. * In my view (for the record), slavery should've been abolished at the very founding of the USA....it went against the very principles of the nation's founding. ** With that said - The South had several legitimate reasons and the Right to secede.... 1) Holding the view of state sovereignty which existed since the founders' establishment, who also held that same belief. 2) A decades-long threat undermining the Constitution and the legal (yet morally wrong) use of slavery and the massive wealth/livelihood it provided to the southern upper class. 3) A real concern by the South of corruption between wealthy northerners and the coming administration under Lincoln.
I appreciate the feedback. Lincoln kept troops at Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens because they were United States forts, and it was his duty as the president to protect them. As far as the accusation of aggression, the Confederacy, not the United States, fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. Slavery is morally wrong and has no place in a republic. As people in 1860 and earlier argued, slavery is the exact opposite of freedom, and the United States is supposed to enshrine freedom not slavery. A major argument used in 1860 against slavery was that if one group could be enslaved today, then another group could be enslaved tomorrow. The total abolition of slavery protects all people, groups, classes, etc. from being enslaved now or in the future. Yes, the North was wealthy in 1860 by that era's standards. This was largely because workers were not slaves and people in the North had the means, education, and ability to improve their condition. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cincinnati, and other northern cities were exploding with population at this time because Germans, Irish, and other people could come to these places and be citizens, earn education, obtain paid employment, and improve their lives. They were citizens, not slaves, and a population of citizens is better for the whole society. The major reason the Southern powers pushed for "states' rights" at this time was because they wanted to protect slavery.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian I agree - that yes, the confederates fired the first shots AND that slavery should have been abolished (in reality at the outset of adopting the U.S. constitution), but certainly by 1860. I believe the entire issue could have been resolved without war. But Lincoln and many Northern businessmen saw the plantations as what they truly were, corporations in control of Massive wealth ! (Research the GDP of just Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia from 1850-1860. One of the largest GDP's in the entire world) - And yes, the south fighting for "states rights" was to continue slavery. Which was still completely Legal by Federal law. (Constitution) ** Side note/question - 1860, free the slaves and take away their given housing, food, etc in exchange for a minimum wage at the time.... Would that have resolved the moral outrage and totally diffused the situation? Doubtful. Many millions of Americans work in those very conditions today. THAT is my point....regardless of the morality of the subject, slavery was still Constitutionally Legal throughout the duration of the war. A difference of opinion (North & South) on the morality of any subject, is no excuse to ignite a war. Change the Supreme law of the land first...Then if it's not followed, it gives a legitimate reason to use force. Did the Union controlled congress during the war, without any southern states represented or involved, bother to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery ?...No. That took place in 1865, after the war was over and Lincoln was dead. Did Lincoln remove Union troops from multiple forts throughout the South as the states seceded and requested their removal?...Yes. So why did Lincoln intentionally leave troops in only two remaining forts, that were located deeply within Southern states already seceded? - To say that is was U.S. Forts or territory has no logic....being that he'd already removed troops from so many other locations in what would also be considered "U.S. territory". I believe it was a deliberate effort to invite aggression...and therefore ignite a war. With Massive agricultural industries and their wealth to be gained. (King Cotton)
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Sam Houston's speech after being forced to resign his office was so profoundly prophetic, and may be my favorite quote from the whole historical period:
“Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”
"Plus, they have an endless stream of irishmen to draft as cannon fodder!" 😅
Sam Houston will get a video in the future. It took real courage to refuse the oath of the Confederacy and remain loyal to the United States.
@@scottanno8861 there weren’t Irishmen in the South? There weren’t Irishmen who, in the name of The Slave Holding Southern States ( their term) attacked the North, starting the Civil War?
Love this series and the context given day by day. Hard decisions each and every day on both sides. In hindsight, we know where this is leading, but going by each day, things are not yet in motion. This video is a cliffhanger when viewed with only the information available each day. Looking forward to the next one.
I'm still hopeful Ft. Sumter will hold out longer than hindsight allows. Maj. Anderson must be totally stressed out. Thinking about myself having to make a fateful decision to save my men or hold the fort, hard times....
Thank you! I enjoy learning what happened. It gets glossed over, but the day by day shows how decisions were made, and you can see how one event led to the next.
I can't help but wonder if we are in similar times. I hope that I am over reacting. I am scared as I have never been before in my life.
@@edwardlulofs444We are definitely in interesting times. The lack of civility and mutual respect has me worried. The county as had bumpy roads before and after the civil war without resorting to 'much' bloodshed.
Your lessons month by month of this era should be seen by all US citizens
Thank you!
Great job! Keep producing these and I'll keep watching.
Thank you! More to come!
Thank you. Well done, as always.
I appreciate it!
Recently sat down and watched the miniseries on Lincoln that the History Channel did recently on Abraham Lincoln with my 15 year old daughter.
The way that they went about doing this series was perfect. It brought to life someone that just seems too iconic to grasp sometimes.
The man wasn't always a giant statue in DC. He once was a man from extremely humble beginnings that was called up at the exact time that someone like him was needed and became the legend that saved the country and then died for the cause before he could even conceive of his own victory.
A legend and a tragedy all wrapped in one. My daughter commented that she could not concieve of how fast his assassination came after Appaomatox until watching this film.
It should be mandatory viewing in school and hopefully they will do a similar one on Washington as they have General Grant.
It's good to hear that the History Channel is putting good stuff out. I rediscovered a Lincoln documentary from PBS in 1992. I had watched it as a teenager, and recently found it in RUclips. I will have to check out the new one.
Once again, well done sir
Thank you!
I am always struck by Lincoln's eloquence and depth of thought.
Lincoln was a brilliant philosopher and statesman. His inaugural speech might be my favorite presidential speech.
If god spoke english, could he have sounded better than Lincoln?
Hard to imagine.
The perfect man at the perfect moment. My daughter and I just finished the History Channel mini-series on Lincoln and it is just unbelievable that a kid that grew up on a dirt floor that left his Homestead with a bag slung over his shoulder would go on to become maybe the most legendary figure in our country's history.
I feel like our country is still recovering from the loss of his leadership after the Civil War. What a tragedy.
You, Sir, are a masterful historian, and a great narrator. Love the maps! Just wonderful, all of it.
Thank you!
Great video - lots of information to digest - please create more of these!
More to come, thank you!
This whole series is extraordinarily good--the combination of maps and of coordinating events at different locations along the calendar, not to mention your clear and well-paced narration, have made yours a must-visit site!
Thank you!
Another excellent video!
Much appreciated!
Love your videos man keep up the great work!
Thank you!
Thanks for these, love your content!!
Much appreciated!
Oh yeah! Jeff with another hitter!
I appreciate the enthusiasm. Thank you!
It's FASCINATING how at the outset of the civil war the South was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, but the Union government couldn't care less about the issue and is fighting to preserve the nation instead.
I think the Southern powers knew the tide socially and politically had turned against slavery, and Lincoln's election was the proof. The north had the House of Representatives, the presidency, and then the future Supreme Court with the presidential appointments. Only the Senate was deadlocked even, but with most of the US territories being in the north, most future states would be free states, and the Senate would then be antislavery in short time. Even though Lincoln was attempting to avert a further crisis in March, once the die was cast and the conflict started, the Emancipation Proclamation was in short order.
It is so hard to imagine 1860 white americans fight for 4 years losing men by thousands just to free black people in some remote place from where they live.
Can’t wait for the next episode
Wow. I used to think that this was just history.
I think we should all read Lincoln's inaugural speech and rediscover the great philosopher that we had at the most important time in our history.
@@JeffreytheLibrarianI wish that I could thumbs up 1000 times.
I have been impressed all my life with Lincoln's speeches.
I not good at memorizing passages, but phrases and ideas often come to mind from his inaugural speech.
I rank Lincoln on par with Jefferson an Madison. They are the heroes of my life. I try to live up to their standards.
I really appreciate the amount of information you pass along in such a succinct manner. Most channels would make this an hour long extravaganza with slick graphics and sound but little factual content. Thanks for not doing that! Jeffrey the Librarian: Videos for the thinking person.
Thank you so much! I appreciate the nice comments.
Great presentation. I find the run up to hostilities to be very interesting. The eloquence of Lincoln stands in stark contrast to the mush for brains that currently occupies the office. Is history repeating in front of our eyes?
Lincoln was a genius. The right man at the right time.
10:02 among numerous other examples, this too, puts the lie to the
assertion, so beloved of the lost causers, that the Civil War was about states rights.
Slavery is definitely the primary causation of the struggle. In 1860, the candidate that was pro-slavery, Breckinridge, won the southern states. The candidate that was anti-slavery, Lincoln, won the northern states. Southern states were calling for states rights because they knew the federal government would end slavery. It was only a matter of time before the new western territories would become states, and most of them were in free soil, and this would tip the Senate in favor of abolition.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian if being against the spread of slavery is being anti-slavery then one can say that Lincoln was anti-slavery.
initially, all he wanted, was to confine the owning of humans to the places it existed already.
it wasn't until the middle years of the war, with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation,
that the slaves in the territories then defined as being "in rebellion" (the CSA) were freed.
slavery was still allowed in territories that were within the union fold.
it wouldn't be until after the war was concluded that the 13th amendment was ratified.
that was the deathknell of slavery as it had existed antebellum.
it turns out that, even though it cost the lives of a half million men on the battlefields,
and probably more away from them, and the wasting of much treasure,
abolishing the institution was the easy part.
attitudes were another thing.
we would then "progress" to share-cropping and jim crow,
and many other forms of "legal" servitude.
leading to the situation we have before us in this day and age.
there is still much hard work to be done.
Did we ever learn which Charleston merchant was willing to supply Ft Sumter?
I have not yet found that information. I imagine this was something that was never disclosed.
If u get that time please make more vids there so good
More coming!
I noticed at the 3:42 mark, you date it as 1863.
Thanks for catching that.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian No problem, keep up the great work!
Oops. - proves your human !!😊 @@JeffreytheLibrarian
Considering how emphatic Lincoln was about not interfering in slavery why did the South secede anyway?
I think the ruling plantation class knew the gig was up. The north had the population to elect anti-slavery presidential candidates. The senate was going to turn permanently anti-slavery with so much territory in the north soon to become new states. It was only a matter of time before the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches were all anti-slavery.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian abolition was still a long way off though, pre Civil War defeat. Post war it still kind of continued for a long time in the form of sharecropping from which the old plantation owners seemed to be profiting quite well.
@4:22 and @12:20 - This should settle the war as a war against slavery.
@5:27 - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Apparently Lincoln did not read the Constitution.
@8:04 - But occupying land of another country is aggression and an act of war. Which he did allow in South Carolina.
Do you really think Abraham Lincoln, and the movement to preserve the United States and abolish slavery, was "despotic"? I would argue that Abraham Lincoln helped make the United States "a more perfect Union."
@@JeffreytheLibrarian What I am saying is that Lincoln said the war was not about slavery. If it was he would have freed the slaves in the north. Heck he trample the Constitution in other ways, why not free the slaves if he wanted to do that?
I am also saying that he did not read the Declaration of Independence, could not comprehend it's words or lied about what it said about not supporting secession. The quote is directly from it stating that men have the right to break away from a country when they feel it betters them.
If you mean by perfect, the trampling of Constitution, then yes he did do that. Look at the aftermath. The 13th and 14th Amendment where not so legally ratified. You cannot say things like unless you pass an amendment the occupation will continue or unless you pass an amendment you will not have Senate representation. The snow ball down hill kept a rolling.
@@tangle70where in the Constitution does it say secession is allowed?
@@smacky101 The Constitution is not a document to limit the people but to define the exact powers of the government. Read the 10th Amendment.
The founders clearly thought that it was a right. Remember reading this: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".?
Here is a quote from Jefferson on how we get to your thought process.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
So your real question should be, where in the Constitution does it say it is illegal? It doesn't. So that is left up to the states and/or the People. The Constitution is not that hard of a document to understand. Any questions are answered in the Federalist Papers.
@@tangle70
Article 6 says the federal government will be the supreme authority of the land.
Texas v White later supports the fact that secession is illegal.
You're right about the constitution being simple. It is how people choose to interpret it is the complicated part.
4:07 Narrator: "Lincoln had remained tight lipped until this moment".
4:40 Lincoln stating he won't interfere with slavery: "I have made this and many similar declarations and I have never recanted them".
Mmm.. one of the two is not telling the truth.
Great listening ear. I think I can explain. The statement "Lincoln had remained tight lipped until this moment" is referring to after his November election. Lincoln purposely did not make major statements while Buchanan was still in office, out of the respect that Buchanan was still the president. The "similar declarations" statement from his inauguration is referring to his presidential campaign, when his stances would have been widely debated and known. Thanks for watching.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian Thanks for this clarification.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian
@@JeffreytheLibrarian
Promo_SM 🤪
...And like all politicians, Lincoln publicly says one thing and does the opposite. - He said he would not be the aggressor to ignite civil war...yet he deliberately maintained armed troops in Fort Sumter knowing the result to come. Even after CSA commanders made multiple requests to Washington/Lincoln to vacate the fort, Lincoln chose to leave them in place to instigate action by the South. (LBJ used a similar excuse for war in Vietnam)
Slavery and the mistreatment of black people was extremely wrong and terrible. It needed to end throughout the country...but the actions of Lincoln trampling the constitution and going to war, costing 600,000+ lives, was even more terrible AND tyrannical.
* Let's not forget, slavery (being the inhumane and immoral practice) was still completely legal in the USA and a common practice throughout the entire world for many centuries...... it WAS also written into the U.S. Constitution as a Legal & protected practice. ONLY a ratified amendment to modify the constitution could lawfully abolish such practice.
* Lincoln absolutely did Not free any slaves Nor did he/the union legally abolish slavery during the entire 4 years of the war....while having complete control in Washington DC.
* The North had MUCH to gain by going to war. It provided massive wealth with a war-time economy, then the North seized control over the southern lands and cotton production...which was an even more lucrative industry than anything else in the western hemisphere at the time.
* In my view (for the record), slavery should've been abolished at the very founding of the USA....it went against the very principles of the nation's founding.
** With that said - The South had several legitimate reasons and the Right to secede.... 1) Holding the view of state sovereignty which existed since the founders' establishment, who also held that same belief. 2) A decades-long threat undermining the Constitution and the legal (yet morally wrong) use of slavery and the massive wealth/livelihood it provided to the southern upper class.
3) A real concern by the South of corruption between wealthy northerners and the coming administration under Lincoln.
I appreciate the feedback. Lincoln kept troops at Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens because they were United States forts, and it was his duty as the president to protect them. As far as the accusation of aggression, the Confederacy, not the United States, fired the first shots at Fort Sumter.
Slavery is morally wrong and has no place in a republic. As people in 1860 and earlier argued, slavery is the exact opposite of freedom, and the United States is supposed to enshrine freedom not slavery. A major argument used in 1860 against slavery was that if one group could be enslaved today, then another group could be enslaved tomorrow. The total abolition of slavery protects all people, groups, classes, etc. from being enslaved now or in the future.
Yes, the North was wealthy in 1860 by that era's standards. This was largely because workers were not slaves and people in the North had the means, education, and ability to improve their condition. New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cincinnati, and other northern cities were exploding with population at this time because Germans, Irish, and other people could come to these places and be citizens, earn education, obtain paid employment, and improve their lives. They were citizens, not slaves, and a population of citizens is better for the whole society.
The major reason the Southern powers pushed for "states' rights" at this time was because they wanted to protect slavery.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian I agree - that yes, the confederates fired the first shots AND that slavery should have been abolished (in reality at the outset of adopting the U.S. constitution), but certainly by 1860. I believe the entire issue could have been resolved without war.
But Lincoln and many Northern businessmen saw the plantations as what they truly were, corporations in control of Massive wealth ! (Research the GDP of just Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia from 1850-1860. One of the largest GDP's in the entire world)
- And yes, the south fighting for "states rights" was to continue slavery. Which was still completely Legal by Federal law. (Constitution) ** Side note/question - 1860, free the slaves and take away their given housing, food, etc in exchange for a minimum wage at the time.... Would that have resolved the moral outrage and totally diffused the situation? Doubtful.
Many millions of Americans work in those very conditions today.
THAT is my point....regardless of the morality of the subject, slavery was still Constitutionally Legal throughout the duration of the war. A difference of opinion (North & South) on the morality of any subject, is no excuse to ignite a war. Change the Supreme law of the land first...Then if it's not followed, it gives a legitimate reason to use force.
Did the Union controlled congress during the war, without any southern states represented or involved, bother to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery ?...No. That took place in 1865, after the war was over and Lincoln was dead.
Did Lincoln remove Union troops from multiple forts throughout the South as the states seceded and requested their removal?...Yes.
So why did Lincoln intentionally leave troops in only two remaining forts, that were located deeply within Southern states already seceded? - To say that is was U.S. Forts or territory has no logic....being that he'd already removed troops from so many other locations in what would also be considered "U.S. territory".
I believe it was a deliberate effort to invite aggression...and therefore ignite a war. With Massive agricultural industries and their wealth to be gained. (King Cotton)
Lincoln fighting to preserve the union-- worse than slavery.
Incredible. That's the US public education system folks.