Thomas Sowell On Slavery Leading To The Civil War In The United States

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 20 дек 2024

Комментарии • 339

  • @2bittesla
    @2bittesla 3 года назад +76

    I would also state that industrial mechanization rendered slavery less economical. One machine could do the work of a hundred men at significantly lower cost.

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад +18

      While factual, that didn't necessarily make sense to those who owned slaves. People today will try to tell you that the South "got rich off of slavery" but don't know/acknowledge that the North was _richer_ without slavery. They don't remember Fredrick Douglas being surprised at how the middle class of the North had much better homes than the rich in the South.

    • @2bittesla
      @2bittesla 3 года назад +8

      @@grondhero The North was wealthier because of industry which also gave them technical advantages during the war.

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад +3

      @@2bittesla Well, yeah. They didn't need slaves. But their technical advantage also came because of resources available.
      I'm not saying your initial statement was wrong, I'm simply stating that those who were living the life of slaveholders didn't want to see it that way.

    • @2bittesla
      @2bittesla 3 года назад +2

      @@grondhero Agreed, I dilemma that any established ideology struggles with.

    • @TheFatman819
      @TheFatman819 3 года назад +4

      There were slaves in the North as well, Sowell talks about this also. You have to remember the mental component. A freed slave would be equal to a poor white man, and they were not having that. No matter how poor a white person was they were still better than a Slave, the North challenged all of that

  • @richardanderson2742
    @richardanderson2742 3 года назад +33

    Technology was a two edged sword on slavery. Eli Whitney, an avowed abolitionist, invented the cotton gin to ease the labor of slaves. In turn the mechanization took a high labor marginal profit crop and made it extremely profitable. This revolutionary change in the economics of cotton formed the main emphasis on the last large expansion of slave agriculture. One aspect of northern labor vs. southern labor that is often overlooked is the north’s attitude of disposable labor. An old, injured or otherwise unprofitable laborer in the north was summarily fired and left with no means of supporting themselves or family. The reality was that southern labor was a lifelong financial commitment , with older, injured or otherwise compromised laborers continued to be supported (albeit at a low level). This is highlighted by the simple fact that life expectancy in the industrial north was lower than in the agricultural south. The model of a totally disposable labor force is more economic than one where some level of continued support is provided regardless of contribution to productivity. While an unpopular point of view today, the quality of life for manual labor north or south was horrid by anyone’s standards well into the 20th Century.

    • @jonshive5482
      @jonshive5482 2 года назад +2

      Do you have a source for those life expectancy stats? Couldn't find any in a quick Google search. Thanks.

  • @whineysnowflake8072
    @whineysnowflake8072 2 года назад +10

    every war needs a heartfelt "cause" for people to fight due to the fact its ALWAYS over money. No troop wants to fight because someone wants to be rich or is losing money

  • @tristamsculthorpe4609
    @tristamsculthorpe4609 3 года назад +37

    The Flag shown is NOT the flag of the Confederate States - it is General R. E Lee's battle flag.

    • @edgarmorales8944
      @edgarmorales8944 2 года назад

      No sacred ground for the conquered.

    • @joehurley3910
      @joehurley3910 2 года назад +10

      @@edgarmorales8944 did you know slavery had nothing to do with the civil war? that Lincoln offered to keep slavery legal for ALL states if it kept the union together. so why then did the war happen if the south only wanted slavery? think on that one.

    • @edgarmorales8944
      @edgarmorales8944 2 года назад +1

      @@joehurley3910 No explanations needed, you got conquered. That was the point of my statement.

    • @rexsilicignus8370
      @rexsilicignus8370 2 года назад +2

      Yeah, the whole teaching of this time has contradictions, fabricated details of events, dishonorable men falsely honored while the real heroes you remove them... they certainly don't know what they are doing..propaganda has created that mentality .... keep them stupid and they will follow...and they certainly do! Pitiful.

    • @bw3240
      @bw3240 2 года назад +3

      ​@@joehurley3910 I believed as you do now. But after reading the cessation declaration from each state, I changed my mind. Each state, including my beloved Georgia, listed the primary reason for leaving the union was to keep slavery as it was at that moment..... I understand it is easy to knee-jerk and respond but all you have to do is read the same documents I referenced and prove me wrong.....Slavery is as old as man and a bane on the very fabric of our existence.

  • @theguybehindyou4762
    @theguybehindyou4762 Год назад +4

    2023: “My body, my choice!”
    1863: “My slave, my choice!”

  • @johnsavage6628
    @johnsavage6628 2 года назад +10

    The Civil War's cause had many factors, not just one.

    • @Neljosmusic
      @Neljosmusic 2 года назад +4

      and slavery was the leading issue

    • @jacksonray3596
      @jacksonray3596 Год назад

      Slavery was by far the leading issue.

  • @melmo5218
    @melmo5218 2 года назад +65

    Lincoln wrote, in his first inaugural address, that he had no intention of ending slavery nor did he think that he had the right to do so. The proclamation itself was not made until two years after the start of the war and only affected slaves in the South. Secession was initiated by the Confederate states after refusing to pay the outrageous Morrill tax which drew money from the South for pork-barrel spending in the North. It is absurd to think that white farm workers would defend slavery when they were in direct competition with black slaves who received no wages. Since then the war has been cloaked in an heroic, humanitarian garment.

    • @frekitheravenous516
      @frekitheravenous516 2 года назад +10

      Have you read all the other things he wrote regarding slavery or you just cherry pick the ones that fit your narrative ?
      The war may not have been 100% about slavery, but make no mistake, it WAS about slavery. And as for those farmers......my family were Northern Farmers who left their farms unattended in order to help free the slaves. Specifically. And i have family letters proving so. And one letter even discusses all the other boys who felt the same. So before you make across the board statements, you damn sure better get ur facts straight.

    • @Jefleopard
      @Jefleopard 2 года назад

      Seems the facts he stated are pretty well documented unless you just don’t like them. The fact that the EP was not issued until 2 years in AND that it only freed slaves in the south ought to be enough to prove the war was not about slavery. It is to logical thinkers anyway. But it isn’t to those who have been brainwashed by a substandard public “education” which is documented to actually be for the purpose of dumbing down of the populace. I was one of those until I learned those facts above and actually thought about them. Someone once said that “if one won’t believe one truth/proof then they won’t believe even if you throw a volley of proofs at them. The “not freeing slaves in the north” is plenty to prove to me that the war of northern aggression wasn’t about freeing slaves. What it was about was centralizing power in the federal government over states rights. Which, to me, makes Lincoln one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had.

    • @SG-js2qn
      @SG-js2qn 2 года назад +5

      I think this particular video is not that good. It oversimplifies the situation to the point of error.

    • @happydee6950
      @happydee6950 2 года назад

      The Morrill Tariff had no significant effect on the secessionist movement as evidenced by the fact that they promised to pass similar legislation to aid their own industry you revisionist liar.

    • @wesleypeters4112
      @wesleypeters4112 2 года назад +3

      @@frekitheravenous516 This was the same with young Iowans who were with General Sherman when he marched through Georgia. They liberated thousands of slaves on the way. For many young Iowans this was the first time seeing the horrors of slavery and many wrote back to their families expressing this sentiment.

  • @hunterscrackpipe3246
    @hunterscrackpipe3246 3 года назад +89

    Thomas sowell continues to be awesome while Joe Biden looks at a backyard to see the front lawn

    • @lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre
      @lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre 2 года назад +5

      What?

    • @bosatsu76
      @bosatsu76 2 года назад

      This makes as much sense as all the other RW nonsense... Something something, Biden something... This replaces your something something Clinton something, which replaced your something something Obama something... You really need new material.

    • @caljader3388
      @caljader3388 2 года назад +3

      hehe , Sowell is the best,,it's my daily academics!

    • @rickeshpatel4025
      @rickeshpatel4025 2 года назад +3

      😂 😂 😂

    • @Another_Caesar
      @Another_Caesar Год назад

      Wtf does this have to do with Biden?

  • @jimd8008
    @jimd8008 3 года назад +4

    Thank you again

  • @johnnycampbell3422
    @johnnycampbell3422 3 года назад +25

    Anyone who wants to understand motivations for the civil war should read the articles of succession of any of the southern states and the Souths constitution. It really will put most arguments to rest.

    • @sliglusamelius8578
      @sliglusamelius8578 2 года назад +1

      Secession.

    • @porcudracului
      @porcudracului 2 года назад +3

      Not entirely. You also have to know the context that created those declarations

    • @johnnycampbell3422
      @johnnycampbell3422 2 года назад +1

      @@porcudracului OK, so there is a history of social and economic influences not to mention the political aspects. My point is that a quick read of the articles of separation (of any of the southern states) or the confederate constitution will clarify in 5 minutes the motivations.

    • @sliglusamelius8578
      @sliglusamelius8578 2 года назад +4

      @@porcudracului
      Yeah, like the context of slavery?

    • @porcudracului
      @porcudracului 2 года назад

      @@sliglusamelius8578 that one too.

  • @falloutfan2502
    @falloutfan2502 3 года назад +22

    I wonder, if the South had won, how long slavery would have stayed legal there.
    A nation cannot stand alone - it needs allies, and what allies would the Confederacy have had without Britain?
    But Britain hated slavery in that age, and so it seems likely that the South would have abandoned it within a generation or two.
    If they hadn't, how would they have survived?

    • @scout360pyroz
      @scout360pyroz 3 года назад +6

      at least that might have been a bit more measured. plans put in place, etc. they would have been faced with a need to figure out what to do with the people, the time TO do something, and would not have such a massive ball of hatred and resentment towards the north to redirect o to black people.

    • @stevepowsinger733
      @stevepowsinger733 3 года назад +1

      No way the Confederacy could have kept slavery going for the long haul, Even if they won pressure would have mounted against them.

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад +4

      Considering that the British had the biggest impact of ending slavery, it wouldn't have lasted long. Britain and the US started using economic pressure to end slavery. It's how the US got various American Indian tribes to end slavery in 1866.

    • @The_Vanilla_Guerilla
      @The_Vanilla_Guerilla 3 года назад +11

      The south, as a whole, was not anti-abolition. But they wanted it to be voted on and determined "in house" as it was a states matter, not the overreaching federal govt, who didn't really care if they freed the slaves or not, that was just how they spun it to get the people on board. They were more concerned with pushing their boundries to dominate and maintain control of southern states which were coming into financial freedom of their own from the cotton and tobacco industries. The north needed that money to fund the industrial revolution, and they were heavily taxing the southerners to obtain their money. Literally the same cause of the revolutionary war 100 years earlier.

    • @scout360pyroz
      @scout360pyroz 3 года назад +1

      @@The_Vanilla_Guerilla The south were also, at the top level, trying to expand their own political influence over the federal government. Somewhat scummy stuff at the top on both sides.

  • @seankennedy4284
    @seankennedy4284 10 месяцев назад +2

    Regardless of the reason for secession, the anterior question is, Did they have the right?

    • @Tasmanaut
      @Tasmanaut 10 месяцев назад +2

      It's good to see someone still capable of asking the question. I believe the question was never really settled. Lincolnites believed that no, they didn't have the right to secede, whence their war of aggression. Interestingly, Rober E Lee himself didn't believe the south had the right to secede, but felt patriotically bound to defend his home state regardless. To this day however, the question is not settled. Many in Texas believe they have the right within their state constitution to secede, should they so choose. I agree with that, as a matter of principal, but whether it would be 'allowed', probably not. Precedent has been set.

  • @bh7286
    @bh7286 3 года назад +22

    Facts, as usual

  • @chase_modugno
    @chase_modugno 2 года назад +15

    I see where a lot of the confusion about the Civil War comes from. Slavery was indeed one of the primary causes for the Civil War, but the Civil War was about states rights. When historians say the Civil War was about states' rights, they're not being insensitive to the issue of slavery at all. They're using the term "states rights" to summarize what the entire war was about. States rights implies: control/sovereignty over land, laws, taxes, trade, military, slavery, etc.

    • @zippityb
      @zippityb 2 года назад

      Correct. I like to think of it as the fight to control the economic profits of Slavery. Northern industry vs Southern States.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      @@zippityb Well you like to think about it incorrectly then. Lincoln was elected to place slavery "in course of ultimate extinction" by banning its expansion. That's the only reason he was elected and the only reason the South seceded in response to his election. Without slavery there would be no President Lincoln, no secession, and no civil war.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад +2

      It was about slavery, pure and simple. Without slavery there would have been no secession and no war. Lincoln was elected specifically over the issue of slavery and the South seceded in response to his election for the same reason. It wasn't about the general concept of states rights, but the specific concept of preserving slavery from an anti-slavery president elected to start the process of ending it.

    • @Dcain2
      @Dcain2 Год назад

      Dude cut it out. It was over the states rights to maintain slavery. Even the trophy piece Conservative Thought, Thomas Sowell himself, says it.

    • @8figures8
      @8figures8 Год назад +1

      “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.”

  • @jamesbaker7112
    @jamesbaker7112 3 года назад +5

    2:15 This is the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, not the national flag of the CSA.

  • @grondhero
    @grondhero 3 года назад +17

    I can't remember if it was something Thomas Sowell said or somebody else, but it was mentioned that the states that seceded put slavery into their declaration as a reason for such. I checked different states' declaration of secession and the first three I checked all had fear of the North taking away slavery as a reason. (Which after going 3 for 3, I stopped looking at the others, but I'm going to presume they're in most, if not all, of the declarations.)

    • @55Quirll
      @55Quirll 3 года назад +3

      Why now when the Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to interfere in State affairs and one of those was slavery - see 10th Amendment - and it was the acceptance of slavery that the South wanted if they were to sign the Constitution otherwise it wouldn't have worked. It is just hypocrisy to let the Southern States, knowing they have slavery, be accepted into the Union and then 6 decades or so later say We, the Feds, are going to violate the Constitution and say you can't handle your own States affairs.

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад +2

      @@55Quirll You're not really making a coherent thought. What does "Why now" even mean here?
      From 1776 - 1861 is 85 years. You seem to be implying that those that the same people would be alive making the decisions.
      The next part is that slavery wasn't being banned in existing states, but about territories becoming states, so the 10th Amendment doesn't really apply to those that seceded.
      Finally, your overall implication is that you are upset that slavery was made illegal.

    • @55Quirll
      @55Quirll 3 года назад +1

      @@grondhero No, only the Federal Government said it was illegal which it had no authority to do. I understand the States being admitted into the Union would 1 free and 1 slave so as not to upset the balance in DC. Since the Southern States left they were no longer bound by the Constitution and could do what they wanted, if slavery than there would be slavery, but not everyone had slaves.

    • @porcudracului
      @porcudracului 2 года назад

      @@55Quirll of course. That's why Thomas sowell is wrong on this one. Slavery was used as an excuse to conquer the seceded states

    • @TLoumena
      @TLoumena 2 года назад

      You may want to look again, every declaration of secession I have looked at has slavery mentioned in the first paragraph, and the desire to be able to treat a race of people as property mentioned elsewhere. It is sad to see how schools in the South have brainwashed people in much the same way schools in California are now doing in other areas of life. Anyone who tried to claim that the civil war was not primarily based on the desire to keep slavery in tact shows their ignorance and can be assumed to be ignorant in most areas of history.

  • @michaelchrisman7455
    @michaelchrisman7455 3 года назад +5

    Then why did Lincoln say that he would allow slavery if it were necessary to preserve the union?

    • @stevepowsinger733
      @stevepowsinger733 3 года назад

      wouldn't it have been great if the Southern fire eaters could have foreseen the futility of rebellion?

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад +1

      Because early on, Lincoln was more concerned about keeping the Union together. After meeting (I believe multiple times) with Fredrick Douglas, Lincoln changed his mind.

    • @stevepowsinger733
      @stevepowsinger733 3 года назад

      I never heard that. Interesting. I thought it was simply that after about a year in which it became clear that the the South was making war all bets were off.

    • @stephenquinn3447
      @stephenquinn3447 Год назад

      He lied

  • @popeye7815
    @popeye7815 Год назад +1

    The prelude to the Civil War and Slavery was the Free Soil Movement...Started 1848-1854...

  • @777Outrigger
    @777Outrigger 2 года назад +10

    Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, containing over half of the population of the Confederacy, did not secede until after Lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers to invade the parts of the South that had seceded. Moderates at the secession conventions of these states were won over to secession by this invasion policy. I could complicate the issue further with more information, but the issues were multifaceted. I'm disappointed in Sowell over this.

    • @Addicted2Antlers804
      @Addicted2Antlers804 Год назад +2

      There’s a quote from the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, where union soldiers ask a confederate why he’s fighting. He said “because you came down here.”

    • @777Outrigger
      @777Outrigger Год назад +1

      @@Addicted2Antlers804 Yes, I remember that.

  • @TROOPERfarcry
    @TROOPERfarcry 2 года назад +16

    Arguing about this is kind of... I don't know the exact term... prickly? I agree with everything that Sowell said. The issue is that both the South *and* the North were wrong on this. But the South saw it as more than just slavery, they saw it as a power-grab and an over-reach of the Federal government relative to states' rights..... which, they weren't wrong, but they chose a helluva topic to dig-in on principle. And the North very conveniently kept their 'principles' in-check *until* mechanization rendered the abolition of slavery viable. That's not much of a principle if it's contingent on convenience. And for those that are in doubt about it, be aware that the Emancipation-Proclamation occurred *after* the Civil War had started.

    • @lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre
      @lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre 2 года назад

      What the actual funky, mate? You been rolling up with the pages of a history book from Georgia in 1900? Can ya be more backwards?

    • @doctorcrafts
      @doctorcrafts 2 года назад

      Expound if you will brightness

    • @rpalmatres5898
      @rpalmatres5898 2 года назад +3

      The issue you mean is that both the North and South "Democrats" were wrong. The narrative that the conflict was about "states rights" North & South is 🗑. Yes there were people in the south like Robert E Lee who didn't outright support slavery and thus sided with the confederacy but their understanding of government was much different then.

    • @TROOPERfarcry
      @TROOPERfarcry 2 года назад +1

      @@rpalmatres5898 Yes. This. And there's other contextual issues as well. Less than 2% of people owned a slave in those times. Man of the Confederate Soldiers -- damn near all of them -- didn't own a slave. They were fighting for something else.
      -
      The Civil War nicely illustrates two different things: that it's possible to do the right things for the wrong reasons.... and that it's possible to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
      -
      But it wasn't *just* about slavery; there's much more nuance to it than just that.

    • @porcudracului
      @porcudracului 2 года назад

      Also it applied only to the slaves in the south , not the ones in the north

  • @vaughnslavin9784
    @vaughnslavin9784 2 года назад

    Thank you!

  • @davidcooke8005
    @davidcooke8005 3 года назад +2

    The potential is still there if we can't muzzle the corporate media that is trying to spark one.

  • @castelodeossos3947
    @castelodeossos3947 2 года назад

    How does this tally with Abraham Lincoln's statement in a letter to Horace Greeley? 'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.'

    • @gunshotlagoon922
      @gunshotlagoon922 2 года назад

      Read the last part of what Lincoln said in that letter: '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.' Lincoln always wanted total abolition, but could only do so within his legal means.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      That letter just covers Lincoln goals for winning the war, not his political agenda that got him elected President. Lincoln was elected to place slavery "in course of ultimate extinction" by banning its expansion. That's the only reason he was elected and the only reason the South seceded in response to his election. The South made the war about slavery, not Lincoln.

  • @nobodynobodys3828
    @nobodynobodys3828 Год назад +1

    Slavery is greatly overplayed, the reality is the federal government was more than willing to allow slavery to keep the South in it's control, and Lincoln would and did use military force when slavery wasn't the only concern of the South.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад +2

      Slavery was not the South's only concern, but it was their reason for secession and war. Neither of those things would have happened without slavery. Lincoln was elected to start the process of ending slavery by banning it in the federal territories, and on this issue he would never compromise, not even to save the Union. In 1860 he rejected the Crittenden compromise, which might have restored the Union without war, because it would have permitted the expansion of slavery into the federal territories.
      Lincoln was clear on his position, stating _"Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again."_

    • @nobodynobodys3828
      @nobodynobodys3828 Год назад

      @@TheStapleGunKid Yada Yada, ignore literally anything the other side says

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад +1

      @@nobodynobodys3828 I responded to what you said, I didn't ignore it.

    • @nobodynobodys3828
      @nobodynobodys3828 Год назад +2

      @@TheStapleGunKid the implying of Lincoln being the one to abolish slavery, or at least being the beginning of the process, is foolish. Slavery was already on it's way out due to the fact the Southern population was increasing, and industrialization and machines replacing the labor required to run the plantations. Slavery would have died out with or without federal interference. Even with that in consideration, the issue at hand was the federal government being used to dictate what the States do, which up until that point was not how the federal government was meant to operate. I can repeat this day in and day out, but it falls on deaf ears. I've grown bored of these kinds of arguments, and it's become so tiresome.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      @@nobodynobodys3828 It's not foolish, it's what Lincoln was elected to do. He was specifically elected to start the process of ending slavery by banning it in the federal territories. That was the main plank of his election platform. Read the Republican Platform of 1860. It covers that issue more than anything else. Lincoln's opposition to slavery in the territories is literally the only reason he was their candidate.
      Again, this was about FEDERAL territory, not state territory. So no, it wasn't about the federal government dictating what the states can do. It was about the Confederate states trying to create a right to force slavery into federal land even if the federal government, the territorial government, and the people living in the territories didn't want it. This is because the South knew if slavery could not expand with the rest of the nation, it would die out in all of it.
      The idea that slavery was on the way out in the South is ridiculous. Slavery was dying in the rest of the country, but in the South it was thriving. There were more slaves in the South in the South in 1860 than there were at any time in history. The South seceded specifically for the purpose of preserving slavery forever. We know this because the Confederate leaders said so. Why are you calling them liars? Why should anyone believe you over them?
      _"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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."_ --Mississippi Declaration of Secession.

  • @lolly1405
    @lolly1405 5 месяцев назад

    Most of the northern states still had slavery all the way up to the emancipation proclamation. It’s really hard to believe they were willing to go to war or something they themselves did.

  • @SG-js2qn
    @SG-js2qn 2 года назад +1

    I'm disappointed in the lack of nuance in this video. While some in the South were seceding to retain the right to own slaves, others believed they were seceding to protect states' rights. And for decades leading up to the conflict, there were political tensions between the N and S based on trade, where when the N rose to power, the S would become impoverished, and when the S would rise to power, the N would suffer. This hatred between N and S started before the issue of slavery blew up. Also, SC tried to secede from the Union earlier, over taxes, and President Jackson threatened to take the army to SC and start hanging everyone who refused to pay. So there was an antecedent for secession and rebellion that had nothing to do with slavery, and it was linked to states' rights and a feeling that the federal govt was not always looking out for the well being of the South.

    • @tillvalhalla2271
      @tillvalhalla2271 Год назад

      Most ppl don't know two things about secession. Only 4 of the seceeding states issued a Declaration of Causes. The other being that New York City, that's right, New York City flirted heavily with seceeding because of their economic partnership with the south.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      @@tillvalhalla2271 It was more than 4 states. But in any case, the point is that every single state that cited their motivation for secession in their declaration of causes cited slavery.
      Also New York didn't issue a declaration of secession. They did the opposite:
      _"Whereas, Treason, as defined by the Constitution of the United States, exists in one or more of the States of this Confederacy, and"_
      _"Whereas, the insurgent State of South Carolina after seizing the Post Office, Custom House, Moneys and Fortifications of the Federal Government, has, by firing into a vessel ordered by the Government to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter, virtually declared war; and whereas, the forts and property of the United States Government in Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana, have been unlawfully seized with hostile intentions; and whereas, further, Senators in Congress avow and maintain their treasonable acts; therefore"_
      _"Resolved, (If the Senate concur,) That the Legislature of New York, profoundly impressed with the value of the Union, and determined to preserve it unimpaired, hail with joy the recent firm, dignified and patriotic Special Message of the President of the United States, and that we tender to him, through the Chief Magistrate of our own State, whatever aid in men and money he may require to enable him to enforce the laws and upheld the authority of the Federal Government. And that in defence of "the more perfect Union," which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our Fathers, we are ready to devote "our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor" in upholding, the Union and the Constitution."_
      _"Resolved, (If the Senate concur,) That the Union-loving Representatives and Citizens of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, who labor with devoted courage and patriotism to withhold their States from the vortex of Secession, are entitled to the gratitude and admiration of the whole people."_
      _"Resolved, (If the Senate concur,) That the Governor be respectfully requested to forward, forthwith, copies of the foregoing resolutions to the President of the Nation, and the Governors of all the States of the Union."_
      --State of New York, in assembly, Jan 11, 1861

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      People "believe" all sorts of things. But the people running the CSA, the people who determined the Confederate cause, made it clear they seceding to preserve slavery. The division between North and South was division over slavery. That's the only reason there was a North and South.
      The nullificaiton crisis of the 1830s was just that. A dispute over nullification, not secession. South Carolina was trying to nullify a federal law, not secede.

    • @tillvalhalla2271
      @tillvalhalla2271 Год назад

      @@TheStapleGunKid 🤣

  • @JonJaeden
    @JonJaeden 2 года назад +1

    The South did not need to secede to preserve slavery -- the institution was not under legal threat in the South.
    Slavery was practiced in all 13 of the original colonies, still legal in most of them when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That Constitution recognized the legality of the institution and the enforceable property rights of slave owners, even in states that exercised their right to ban the practice for those residing within their borders. Everyone, North and South -- and the states that subsequently joined the United States -- were voluntary members of a covenant that recognized and protected slavery, an institution just as odious in 1788 as it was in 1860.
    The only legal means to end slavery nationally was to pass a constitutional amendment. There were not the votes (nor, apparently, the will, even in the North) to do so. So, the South did not have to "preserve" slavery against an amendment by seceding.
    Politically, there was little for Southerners to fear for slavery within their borders. Lincoln and the Republicans did not target slavery in the South, only in the new territories in the West. The fourth plank of the 1860 Republican platform specifically endorsed as "inviolate the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS according to its own judgment exclusively." Lincoln himself said he did not believe he had constitutional authority to do anything about Southern slavery, nor did he have any intention to do so. He endorsed the Corwin Amendment, passed just two days before his first inauguration, that guaranteed slavery in perpetuity in those states where it was currently legal and removed Congress' authority to regulate it. If the South was concerned about preserving slavery, it merely needed to reject secession and return to the Union.
    Only four states published Declarations of Cause which list their grievances against the Northern states and the Federal government. While all refer to slavery, their grievances have nothing to do with "preserving" it. South Carolina's lays out an extended case for states rights, Georgia's takes issue with Federal spending on infrastructure projects in the North, Texas gripes about the Federals failing to protect the border with Mexico (sound familiar?) and Mississippi's focuses almost entirely on slavery.
    But their focus on slavery is on the failure of the Northern states to abide by the Constitution's binding agreements on slavery made in 1788. They had abided by them by and large for 50 years or so. But for the previous 20 years Northern states were refusing to return fugitive slaves in direct violation of Article 4 of the Constitution, they were failing to protect slave owners passing through the North with their property, they committed acts of violence that went unpunished against slave owners or their agents attempting rendition of their property and they were attempting to foment slave insurrections.
    Further, even though Southern states were full and equal members of the Union and even though their citizens had contributed men and treasure in the expansion of U.S. territory westward, the North was resisting Southerners' right to move to those territories with their property in the same way Northerners could settle there with their property.
    It should be noted that, in seceding, the South -- particularly those first seven states -- surrendered all reasonable expectations of ever settling the Western territories and expanding slavery there. While Lincoln's invasion of the those states spurred the northern tier of Southern states to secede as well, it's unlikely they would have seceded to aid the Deep South's expansion westward in a territorial war with the Union. Additionally, in seceding, it surrendered all legal expectations that the North would ever return another runaway slave. By secession, the South effectively gave Lincoln what he and the Republicans said they wanted. There would be no further expansion of slavery in the West and Southern slavery would remain undisturbed and the North's flaunting of Article 4 could continue.
    The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
    Final point, despite those pesky Southerners no longer being in Congress after secession, Northerners didn't get around to passing the 13th Amendment ending slavery until 4 months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox and didn't ratify it until December 1865, ending slavery in the U.S. -- North and South -- at the same time.

    • @gunshotlagoon922
      @gunshotlagoon922 2 года назад +1

      The Republicans actually championed domestic rights for all states, unlike the Southern states. They did not wish to touch the South's peculiar institution. It was the South who was trampling on the rights of the Northern free states by making them accept the Fugitive Act of 1850 and later the Dred Scott decision, in complete violation of the domestic bills those states passed. The South complained that free states would not allow them to bring their human cargo onto their soil and wanted Congress to pass federal codes granting them unrestricted access to free states and into all the Western territories. The South loved to use, and abuse, federal power if it would favor their one and only institution.
      Article IV of the Constitution doesn't absolutely require states to carry out the return of fugitives, all it does is recognize and allow it. Read it carefully, the return of fugitives of labor depends on the laws of the states involved. The federal government does not endorse the institution and never did. You see, the South never cared about states rights, only one right to make the federal government secure protections for their institution, even if it overrode the rights of the other states. If they couldn't get what they wanted they'd threaten to dissolve the federal government itself.
      The Confederates had started taking US Western territories within the first year of the war when they began claiming the southern half of New Mexico Territory and then began forging treaties among the tribes of Oklahoma Indian Territory. Too bad for them that Union forces drove them back into Texas, ending any hope of the Confederates taking more land and property that didn't belong to them. Confederates also had plans to take Mexico and Cuba which did not formalize.
      The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 gave Congress the authority to regulate the institution in the territories. There is absolutely no constitutional basis or even historical precedence for the settlers of a territory or the existing states or local territorial legislatures to make that decision for US federal territory, which is clearly under the jurisdiction of the federal government and always had been.
      Don't bother looking at the declarations of secession, their only purpose is to declare that they're seceding. If you want to look at the reasons why then look to each state's resolution conventions before they held their ordinances of secession. You'll find that all of them really only gave one uncontested reason for their decision to secede.
      The South was not willing to stay in the same union that just elected a president whose goal it was to contain the institution to its present limits. They saw this as the first step towards their culture's obliteration, a blow to their economy, social hierarchy, and way of life. If they could not spread the institution outside its borders then there was no guarantee the institution would last where it currently existed, even if it was constitutionally protected. The whole purpose of Lincoln abolishing it in the Western territories was to place the institution "on a path towards ultimate extinction" and the South was not going to let that happen.

    • @JonJaeden
      @JonJaeden 2 года назад

      Ah, the Northern Noble Cause Myth ...
      So, by Republicans and their fellow Northerners championing domestic rights for all states, does that include the ban by Illinois -- Land of Lincoln -- on free blacks residing in that state? If memory serves, Ohio likewise adopted a similar ban. Does it also include the Republican desire to not only exclude slaves from the Territories, but free blacks as well?
      It looks like the Republican goal was to turn the South into a black ghetto so the rest of the country could be white. The outworking of this would have been to turn the South into an impoverished reservation for blacks -- the North's blacks as well -- as those same Republicans did, post-War, to barren, unproductive lands further west for the Indians.
      Let's hear what some of our antebellum Northern betters and others had to say about domestic rights:
      “By God, sir, men born and nursed of white women are not going to be ruled by men who were brought up on the milk of some damn Negro wench!” -- Congressman David Wilmont of Pennsylvania. Famous for the Wilmont Proviso.
      * “The dark man, the black man declines, it will happen by and by that the black man will only be destined for museums like the DoDo.” --Ralph Waldo Emerson, Northern writer, abolitionist, and humanitarian. Expressing his desire that blacks “die out.”
      * “Southerners have retarded progress because of the direct influence of so large a population of half-barbarous Africans interspersed among them, GT and who had instructed them in the structures and principles of African despotism.” -- Thomas Goodwin, Northern author and abolitionist.
      * “I’ve heard you have abolitionists here, we have a few in Illinois and we shot one the other day.” -- Abraham Lincoln, 9/1848. Spoken in a jocular tone revealing his disdain for abolitionists.
      * “Canada is just to our North, and offers a fine market for wool.” Gov of Conn. -- William Alfred Buckingham. His response to the need to take in black war contrabands.
      * “There is in the great masses of the people a natural and proper loathing of the negro, which forbids contact with him as with a leper.” -- Chicago Times.
      * “Confine the negro to the smallest possible area, hem him in, coup him up, sloth him off, preserve just so much of North America as it possible for the white man and to free institutions.“ -- The Atlantic Monthly.
      * “I went through the State of Illinois for the purpose of getting signers to a petition, asking the Legislature to repeal the Testimony Law, so as to permit colored men to testify against white men. I went to prominent Republicans, and among others to Abraham Lincoln and Lyman Trumbull, and neither of them dared to sign that petition to give me the right to testify in a court of justice! If we sent our children to school, Abraham Lincoln would kick them out, in the name of Republicanism and anti-slavery!… I care nothing about that anti-slavery which wants to make the Territories free, while it is unwilling to extend to me, as a man, in the free States, all the rights of a man.” -- H. Ford Douglas, free negro abolitionist in Chicago, Illinois.
      * “The white man needs this continent to labor upon. His head is clear, his arm is strong, and his necessities are fixed. He must and will have it. To secure it, he will oblige the Government of the United States to abandon intervention in favor of slave labor and slave States, and go backward forty years, and resume the original policy of intervention in favor of free labor and free States... Mr. President, this expansion of the empire of free white men is to be conducted through the process of admitting new States, and not otherwise. The white man, whether you consent or not, will make the States to be admitted, and he will make them all free States. -- Sec of State William Seward, Speech before the US Senate 3/3/1858.
      * “The negro is a foreign and feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation, a pitiful exotic, unnecessarily and unwisely transplanted into our field, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard.” -- William Seward, in a speech at an 1860 political rally.
      * “In the State where I live we do not like Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana (Mr. Wright) said yesterday, ‘The whole people of the Northwestern States are, for reasons, whether correct or not, opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation of nearly all the Northwestern States.’“ Ohio Senator John Sherman, brother of William Tecumseh Sherman, on April 2, 1862.
      * “Keeping slaves out of the West will confine the negro to the South.” -- Abolitionist Charles Elliot of Massachusetts.
      * “I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it … that the North hates the negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale.” Charles Dickens, 1862.
      Word of advice ... if you want to virtue signal, get some virtue first.

    • @JonJaeden
      @JonJaeden 2 года назад

      The South was a slave economy when the Constitution was adopted. All parties forming the nation knew this. It was no surprise. All signed up for a nation where slavery was practiced and memorialized in its Constitution, the latter a requirement for the South to join. So, your outrage over the South continuing to defend the institution when challenged by those who were willing parties to their agreement is disingenuous. Pushback was to be assumed and expected.
      The language of Article IV's Fugitive Slave Clause clearly requires that escaped slaves "SHALL BE delivered." Whatever that means in practice, it does not permit states to act in ways to prevent delivery, nor violate Article IV or the Congress' Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, which had supremacy over state law. Justice Story ruled in 1842 that Article IV's Fugitive Slave Clause wasn't incidental to the Constitution, but rather fundamental, because without it the Union would not have come into being. Thus, only Congress had the power to pass legislation implementing the clause. Seizing one's fugitive slaves was therefore a constitutional right, and states could not pass laws that interfered with the right.
      Toss in the Scott decision affirming slaves as property, the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the notion of a nation of equals, and you have the South's legal, logical and reasonable foundation for its complaint that "free states would not allow them to bring their human cargo onto their soil and wanted Congress to pass federal codes granting them unrestricted access to free states and into all the Western territories." Nothing out of line here.
      It is the Court -- interpreting the obvious intent of the Framers as evidenced by their words and the early decades of adherence to them -- that should be the object of your gripe. All the South was doing was trying to preserve the agreement all had made in 1788.
      Regarding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, it was occasioned by the North's unwillingness to return stolen property ... even property whose theft it encouraged. How can you maintain a union with people like that? Not seceding in 1850 was more than a compromise for the South -- it was a sacrifice. Of course, the act didn't pass without plenty of Northern votes. Just as they compromised in 1788, they compromised in 1850, presummably because they perceived a benefit. Such weak men trample their own rights. If those Northerners were truly victimized by the South, "made to accept" the 1850 act and morally opposed to slavery, they should have done the right thing and seceded.
      Regarding that "threaten to dissolve the federal government itself" sillines ... Southern secession involved separating itself from the Union of states that had created the federal government. It was a divorce between the Southern and Northern states with the North getting custody of the child they had created -- the federal government. No federal government was dissolved or injured in the process of pursuing this divorce, any more than the divorce between the colonies and King George dissolved the monarchy. Drama, drama ...

    • @JonJaeden
      @JonJaeden 2 года назад

      Of course the Confederates had started taking the Western Territories, claiming ground and making treaties with Indian tribes. That's what sovereign nations do. Of course, it's worth noting this was after the South had been invaded by a hostile army.
      Whatever procedures for disposition of new territories had been written into the U.S. Constitution, they were of no effect in the new nation. The citizens of what became the Confederacy had spent blood and treasure to obtain it 15 years before, and it fell below the Missouri Compromise Line of 1850 giving their claim a historic and geographic legitimacy. Nothing to clutch your pearls over. During the same period the Union Army was fighting Indians in the Territories, hanging a bunch of them in Minnesota and planning the railroad it planned to build there. It's just what sovereign nations do.
      Further, had the South achieved its independence, the Missouri Compromise Line well could have formed the boundary between the CSA and USA in the West. How would the two nations have waged a war for territory in the West without leaving the populated East open to invasions. A compromise, followed by recognition of common interests (aside from slavery) might well have developed.
      I do question how anxious the poor Southern agrarian men who made up the cannon fodder of the War would be to leave home to fight 2,000-3,000 miles across the country just to extend an institution relatively few profited from. Ditto for getting them to go fight in Cuba and Mexico. Fighting an invader is one thing ... fighting to add territory is something else.
      You say, "They saw this as the first step towards their culture's obliteration, a blow to their economy, social hierarchy, and way of life." They were right. Had they forseen that decades before the federal government would be hijacked to obliterate them by military power and otherwise, they never would have joined. They would have remained "free and independent states." In 1860, it had become time for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume their own power again.

    • @gunshotlagoon922
      @gunshotlagoon922 2 года назад

      @@JonJaeden The Northwest Ordinance was in effect before the Constitution was even ratified. The South knew they were coming into a federal union whose leaders sought to restrict the institution from spreading further West. The founders, despite allowing the institution in the beginning and being practitioners themselves, knew it would rip the young republic apart. They made early steps to put it on a path towards abolition. Their predictions proved to be hauntingly correct, as America would later fight its bloodiest conflict to end the institution.
      Your analogy to the American colonies separating from the British crown doesn't hold up. The United States is a constitutional federal republic, the only one of its kind on the planet at the time. It formed as one with the consent of all states and every new state petitioned Congress and the other states for permission to join. The Confederates, through their abrupt secessionist activities, sought to invalidate everything the founders did as wrong and that the whole American experiment was a mistake. The idea that any state can just unilaterally leave at any time and for any reason while taking any land and property they want without any input, agreement or treaty from the other states completely discredits the idea of a federal union.
      Article IV says it loud and clear: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein..." Southern politicians were the ones who pushed this clause into law, but this was still too weak for them as it still gave other states too much jurisdiction. Northern states did not want a bunch of bounty hunters encroaching within their borders just to retrieve persons who may or may not even legally belong to them. Then they pushed the Fugitive Act of 1793. When that still proved to be ineffective they later pushed the Fugitive Act of 1850. These did nothing to satisfy them. They were willing to sacrifice the stability of the union for the sake of human property.
      All those quotes you posted are worthless, so congratulations you wasted a post. We're talking about 19th century America here. The whole country advocated white supremacy and racial biases. The only difference is that the free states were not willing to dismantle the union their fathers built in order to further spread a backwards socioeconomic institution that was destructive to everybody and was a relentless cancer to the whole nation. History has proven the Southerners wrong. Don't take my word for it, take a look at the South today. Republicanism has saved the South and the region is prospering more and more in the last 20 years than it ever has, proving that the GOP was right in winning the war. God bless Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman.

  • @christopherfisher128
    @christopherfisher128 Год назад

    Legal slavery in the United States of America lasted for a grand total of 101 years. That is miniscule in the historical sense.

    • @Shadowboy33
      @Shadowboy33 Год назад

      Depends on the context. You're correct if we're talking about all of history. However, the US is 247 years old. So that's a significant chunk of US history.

  • @mostlypeacefulmisterputin
    @mostlypeacefulmisterputin 2 года назад +1

    Umm…that’s not Thomas Sowells voice

  • @EMO_alpha
    @EMO_alpha 2 года назад +4

    I understand that slavery was a defining characteristic of the South. But I have this inclination that slavery was more of a means to their socialism instead of an ends to itself. So my question is.. Was The Civil War actually a battle between Southern Socialism and Northern Capitalism?

    • @kylemohs8728
      @kylemohs8728 2 года назад +4

      To be more precise I'd call it Southern Feudalism vs Northern Capitalism.
      That distinction is primarily to recognize Slavery as a relic of a more primitive time that has existed long before the concept of Socialism was even thought up. Which is why many on the left can get away with calling the Confederates "Conservative" whilst ignoring the fundamental difference between "Conserving" Classical Liberalism and "Conserving" relics of Feudalism.
      Admittedly the distinction between Socialism and Feudalism is primarily Rhetorical (Feudalism highlights the Hierarchy and obedience, whereas Socialism CLAIMS to speak for the Common man/Worker.... while still implemented a strict hierarchy).

    • @EMO_alpha
      @EMO_alpha 2 года назад

      @@kylemohs8728 Really great response man, you fleshed out my thoughts exactly. Do you think that Socialism/Communism is actually a goal in itself or just a means to destroy Capitalism? because i have been kicking around the idea that Communism is really a late stage Christianity and they really do want heaven on earth lol

    • @kylemohs8728
      @kylemohs8728 2 года назад +1

      @@EMO_alpha I think the goal is very much defined by the individual.
      Its worth recognizing that Communism, as defined by Marx himself and implemented but every state that has adopted it, absolutely LOATHS religion in all its forms, and frequently persecutes priests as well as open believers. So I'm not particularly inclined to call it "late stage Christianity".
      I will recognize that some of its followers, particularly younger more impressionable ones, will shroud their belief in Socialism with Christian Rhetoric, usually taken blatantly out of context. Their dream is very much utopian in nature.
      I'm still inclined to believe most of the older, intellectual class Socialists don't have such noble motives. If you are given every opportunity to see that your ideology is wrong, you have all the facts necessary to realize its implementation will lead to suffering, the only excuse I can think of you your continued adherence to it is the belief that you will be exempt from that brutal reality. You will be that wealthy politician who gets to choose who gets sent to the gulag and who gets their bread rations for the week.
      Maybe that's harsh, but given I've actually heard these kinds of people brush off the facts as presented it seems logical.
      One example that comes to mind is when Bernie Sanders went so far as to say. in his Debate with Ted Cruz, that if your business can't pay a "living wadge" it shouldn't be allowed to exist at all. Which ironically excludes most small businesses and mom and pop shops from the workforce. He's just doing "Da Wan Pacants!" job for them!

    • @bosatsu76
      @bosatsu76 2 года назад

      @@kylemohs8728 The South came from Ireland and Scotland originally.. Neither of which had a clue what Classic liberalism was... They weren't 'conserving' anything from the past except their inferiority complex as they were escaping England because they were considered the bottom of society... Their continued drunkenness and crude behaviors made them the bottom here in the US as well... This is the foundation of their current inferiority complex and toxic Alpha wannabeeism still.

  • @556deltawolf
    @556deltawolf 2 года назад

    All these people who are insisting that slavery was the cause of the American Civil War need to ask this, why did the Federal government respond the way it did? Why did it move a military force to Fort Sumter with the intention of using it to close off Charleston Harbor (this is why the CSA attacked it and thus triggering the civil war)? Why did they response with military and economic sanctions? The Union could've easily have just said "Fine secede!" and let slavery collapse under it's economic unsustainability. People the cause of the civil war wasn't the South seceding it was the government's reaction to the south seceding.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      The intention wasn't to close off Charlston harbor. The harbor was operating just fine and was going to keep operating just fine if the South left fort Sumter alone. The only reason it was garrisoned was to keep it from being taking over by the South, as the South had already taken over all federal property in or around the Confederate states. It was the garrison in fort Sumter was the under siege by the surrounding harbor, not the other way around. All the 84 troops in the fort could do was hunker down and try not to starve to death.
      Yeah sure you can say the Union could have easily said "Fine secede", but you could just as easily say the South could have said "Fine we'll accept losing the election to an anti-slavery President." Obviously any war can be avoided if one side just gives up everything they want. But why should the North be the one to do it? Why shouldn't that burden fall on the South, the side that seceded and started a war to preserve slavery forever? It wasnt' Lincoln's job to hand over half the country to the slave masters so they could turn it into their own slavery empire. Without slavery there's no secession and no Southern war to carry out that secession. So slavery was the cause of the war, because the South made it so.

  • @ozziecrosby2092
    @ozziecrosby2092 3 года назад +9

    Okay.... so if requiring ID to vote is "racist", then why not just record each vote with video or facial recognition like they do when you buy a lottery ticket? When you buy a lottery ticket there is a timestamp of when you bought the ticket and a video to reference such time. You do not need an ID to buy a lottery ticket.

    • @TheFatman819
      @TheFatman819 3 года назад

      But you do need to be 18yrs old to claim the prize. Requiring ID means people would have to pay for said ID, which is how minority were kept from voiting in the past

    • @bettyboop7298
      @bettyboop7298 3 года назад +5

      @@TheFatman819 , wrong. Minorities have no problem from getting ID, just ask them!

    • @TheFatman819
      @TheFatman819 3 года назад

      @@bettyboop7298 Since I am one, I should know.
      Some states refused to accept birth certificates from hospitals and wanted state records $$$
      The elderly that were born at home with no Hospital record and had voted their entire lives had to spend $$$ to get an acceptable record.
      Some states like Virginia did offer free State ID's to people that needed, but most wanted money

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад +2

      @@TheFatman819 You're stating a lot of past tense accounts. I worked with a black man who celebrated two birthdays: one when he was born and the other when his mom took him to the hospital days later and they issued a birth certificate for that day. And that would have been in the late 50's early 60's. There are videos out there asking black people if they have ID, do they know where to get it, _et cetera_ and they all give informed answers.
      In the state of Texas, you can register to vote the same place you get your driver's license. There's nothing "racist" about that.

    • @TheFatman819
      @TheFatman819 3 года назад

      @@grondhero we are talking past and present tense. Texas, doesn’t represent what other states and local governments do. The fact there are still Differences in healthcare between blacks and whites proves the point. the opioid epidemic is effects predominantly whites because physicians would not give pain meds to Blacks in the amount or frequency that they gave whites, even the AMA has acknowledged this. As I states some states and local governments charge fees, move locations for people to get ID’s creating travel expenses. let’s not forget minority areas would have 2 voting machines while white areas would have 50. Look up poll tax and it’s history, then you will see why this is just a rebrand of an old idea.

  • @jacksykes2000
    @jacksykes2000 Год назад

    Anyone that agrees with owning another human being should try being owned by someone for 50 years or more.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      _"Whenever I hear someone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong urge to see it tried on him personally."_ --Abe Lincoln.

  • @marileedent8499
    @marileedent8499 Год назад

    Slaves sold into slavery...😢

  • @surnbe
    @surnbe 2 года назад

    Salmon P. Chase graced the front of the first dollar bill, which was issued in 1862.

  • @monadugas9113
    @monadugas9113 Год назад +1

    Let’s be real the civil war was not fought for slavery.

    • @Shadowboy33
      @Shadowboy33 Год назад

      Then why did most of the Confederate states list slavery as a major reason for seccesion?

  • @tomjeffries58
    @tomjeffries58 3 года назад +12

    There was much more to it than slavery. The south was being squeezed by the north through tariffs and one sided trading practices and the south believing they could secede. The war which was purposefully encouraged by Lincoln and the north was begun as most American wars are begun, by taunting the other side into a first move (Spanish-American, and WW2 are the best examples). Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa. The War Between The States had many players. Slaves could have been bought off as they had in Europe, ending peacefully. It was obvious even back then that free labor produced better and more than slavery. The last hand was England which lost control of the States after Jackson killed the bank in the 1830's and they wanted it back. They loaned the south war money and tried to do the same for the north. England wanted war but Lincoln refused the high interest loans and printed Greenbacks to fund the war meaning England lost out so they had Lincoln killed.

    • @theancientsam
      @theancientsam 2 года назад +1

      Nice comment bro

    • @tomjeffries58
      @tomjeffries58 2 года назад

      @@theancientsam Look! We're doing it again right now. You heard The State of Ukraine Address the other night.

  • @abolishsanctity492
    @abolishsanctity492 2 года назад

    I think England incited thr whole debacle like the wizard of friggin ozzy

  • @BRYCONIC
    @BRYCONIC 2 года назад

    It was an entire economic system, like fuedalism. Just like now, the same people are complaining about radical changes. ;)

  • @adamwuttemberger7923
    @adamwuttemberger7923 3 года назад +13

    I respect Thomas Sowell he is insightful and articulate but I think I'm going to disagree on the slavery ,Civil War issue in my opinion as humble as it may be ,I believe the Civil War was not just a war about slavery but it was a war about secession and competition ,the 13 northern states had industry they had coal mines they had factories they had people in which to work in the factories and mines ,southern plantation owners did not have enough work force to maintain the fields there for slaves were used in order to be competitive with their Northern counterparts,

    • @TheFatman819
      @TheFatman819 3 года назад +6

      True test of a person is if they can face the cold hard facts. You have failed this test

    • @bettyboop7298
      @bettyboop7298 3 года назад +4

      If you truly respect Thomas, you would be wise to not only listen but learn from him. The CIVIL WAR was ALL about slavery.

    • @adamwuttemberger7923
      @adamwuttemberger7923 3 года назад +4

      I have no problem with cold hard facts, and I do respect the man ,his wisdom and insight, what I do have a problem with is people telling me that either I am close-minded or disrespectful because I have a difference of opinion, tell me something gentleman if Thomas Sowell came out tomorrow and said 2+2=5, would you still say I am close minded and disrespectful because I disagree

    • @black86coop
      @black86coop 3 года назад

      @@adamwuttemberger7923 2+2=5? What base are we using to add? (Kidding)
      Seriously, I think you may be a bit wrong-minded in your thinking above. However, I think this approaches an argument of semantics/framing/scope. First, I think Mr. Sowell was largely framing the argument from a macro perspective. Second, the ideas of secession, competition, and industry are all intertwined with slavery. I think as an economics mind, Sowell is merging those aspects given slavery was the economic backbone of the US until the Industrial Revolution and served as the impetus for the Civil War and the associated grievances that created the rift between North and South.

    • @adamwuttemberger7923
      @adamwuttemberger7923 3 года назад

      @@black86coop thank you, I appreciate your comment and the way in which you framed it👍

  • @Not_Sure-2020
    @Not_Sure-2020 2 года назад +1

    "...that the potential for a race war, was quite real"...and it seems as though some people are still trying to make that happen. ;)

  • @clydedettor7080
    @clydedettor7080 Год назад

    This doesn't sound like Dr. Sowell to me. It might come from his channel but I'd bet someone else wrote this.

  • @joehurley3910
    @joehurley3910 2 года назад

    sorry but it was about being ruled over by a tyrant. if it was about slavery why did Abraham Lincoln offer to leave slavery legal if it would keep the union together? freed slaves fought for the south because they even realized what would happen afterwards.

  • @normanbraslow7902
    @normanbraslow7902 3 года назад +3

    Slavery was not the prime cause of the war, but it surely complicated resolving the sectional issues, the real heart of the controversy.

    • @55Quirll
      @55Quirll 3 года назад

      I don't see how it should have been since it was a State issue and the Federal Government was forbidden from interfering in what States did within their borders. Slavery being one of them

  • @Atomic-Monkey
    @Atomic-Monkey 3 года назад +6

    sorry, i love sowell's work, but this is one instance in which he's completely wrong. the idea that the southern states seceded over slavery is idiotic.
    lincoln had repeatedly presented his opinion that slavery was an issue for the southern states, as recently as 1858 stating that; "I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all." the simple reason being that, constitutionally, slavery was allowed in the US and a state issue, not a federal one. at best, or worst if you were from the southern states, was that lincoln supported the idea of compensating slave holders or states for freeing their slaves, to encourage them to WILLINGLY emancipate their slaves. given that, the likelihood that any bill abolishing slavery would pass through congress, and not get vetoed, was pretty damn slim during a lincoln presidency. despite that, the secession of the southern states began at the end of 1860, less than two months after lincoln was elected president, with the civil war beginning a month after his inauguration. it makes no sense that the southern states would secede, and then fight a civil war, to protect slavery, in response to a president being elected who opposed the idea of forcing them to end slavery.

    • @Merauder777
      @Merauder777 3 года назад

      I've seen this sentiment shared before, even by people i largely agree with and recognize as having a good eye for history and truth. Personally i am bot yet sold on the notion, but not because i think it is wrong, rather because i have yet to fully look into it myself. Do you have any recommendations on where to look? Or, if you are willing, could you provide more details on the topic?
      In particular i feel like this notion comes off as though Lincoln simply had no sympathy for slaves, or that the narrative of the south fighting to keep their slaves was entirely separate from the actual cause of the war. I guess what i am asking for is some more historical context to better understand the situation.

    • @tycox8704
      @tycox8704 3 года назад +3

      This revelation about Lincoln’s attitude-if true-is fascinating. Is this why BLM activists threatened to deface the Lincoln Memorial after weeks of toppling confederate statues? It made no sense to me. Lincoln was regarded as a liberator. Having said this, I had a back-and-forth recently with a Civil War expert/enthusiast who insisted historians have studied the question of the Civil War’s purpose and are unanimous that it was over the morality of slavery. My hunch was that the Civil War was a direct result of the secession. Imagine today, if a large portion of states decided to secede from the rest of the country over politics. It would effectively diminish the significance of the country. The federal government wouldn’t allow it.

    • @animeisdead
      @animeisdead 3 года назад +8

      Slavery was most definitely a main cause. If you read Jefferson Davis’s farewell address, it clearly states so. However, what many people don’t seem to understand, is that there were far more reasons for secession than JUST slavery. Taxes, tarrifs, economic independence, social pressure, etc. The South was the backbone of Northern industry, and Lincoln openly supported their institutions, so long as the North remained wealthy. Of course, when southerners seceded (which is completely legal, the new English states had attempted to in 1812) Lincoln was against it, as it would not only hurt northern industry, but it further supported the decentralized nature of Jeffersonian America; something that Lincoln openly despised. (he was an avid supporter of Henry Clay, and believed in centralizing the government further and further)
      In Jefferson Davis memoirs, he states that slavery was not the cause, but the occasion, and that the south, regardless of the actions against slavery, would’ve seceded either way. While it is ok to question his motives, his writings let us gain insight into to the primary mindset of the southerner during this period. Even towards the end of the war, slavery was beginning to fade away, as in 1865, the confederacy allowed for blacks to enlist, and be free once done fighting. Jefferson Davis himself advocated for this during the early periods of the war, and even promoted integrated regiments and fair treatment.
      Sorry for rambling, I just find the war between the states to be a fascinating subject. And while I have my Union sympathies, I overall side with the confederacy, which is a controversial opinion; but one I hold strongly.

    • @SE-ZESS
      @SE-ZESS 3 года назад +1

      Well, NONE of that was mentioned in VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone speech which made it explicitly clear that the role of Black people would be clearly a position of subjugation, which as far as he was concerned was the "cornerstone" of the Confederate gov't.

    • @Atomic-Monkey
      @Atomic-Monkey 3 года назад +1

      @@SE-ZESS ah yes, who cares about historical circumstances, what people's attitudes were at the time, relevant events that were occurring, basic logical analysis, etc, etc, etc. none of that matters, because "A GUY SAID A THING!"
      so if i find anyone who said something different does the entire universe implode due to two contradicting truths being present at once?
      you said it yourself; "as far as HE was concerned" last i checked, the confederacy and overall secession movement did not in fact consist of a single individual named Al

  • @coreystinson132
    @coreystinson132 Год назад +1

    Read the Corwin Ammendment....the Civil war was NOT about slavery but about tariffs and politics. The fact it was an immoral institution did not make it the reason for session. Research Lincoln himself...READ what he SAID about slavery. Even the emancipation proclamation didn't come until 1863, the war was going on for 2 plus years already.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад +2

      Nope it was fought for slavery. The proposed Corwin amendment, which never came close to ratification, didn't change that. It was never ratified, nor would it have been enough to preserve slavery if it was. The Confederates made it perfectly clear they seceding to preserve slavery.
      _"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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."_ --Mississippi Declaration of Secession.
      And yes, read what Lincoln said himself, especially the part where he said slavery was the cause of the war.
      _"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it"_ --Abe Lincoln, second inaugural address.
      The CSA was formed for slavery, started the war for slavery, and died for slavery.

  • @tywaits3896
    @tywaits3896 2 года назад +1

    The civil war was so the slave owners could stay rich.
    They continued slavery after the war and made multiple laws and rules to keep the rich out of the war.
    Like if u own 20 slaves the youngest child didn't have to go to war and 20 more means a second son didn't have to go to war and so on.

  • @joelperry8187
    @joelperry8187 Год назад +1

    Funny how there is no discussion of westward expansion and slavery. "Bleeding Kansas" and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The balance of power between slave and free states. Sectional tensions. The civil war was about the institution of slavery. Case closed.

  • @tedclemens4093
    @tedclemens4093 Год назад +1

    Can't discount self-determination and a broken contract in the slavery issue. The South was supported by the Ul.S Constitution which endorsed the historic way in the otherwise "sovereign" states. (Or was the Revolutionary War only about taxation without representation as well?) Succession was recognized as the initial answer to this for the South-as recognized by Lincoln in his drive to preserve the Union-not to end slavery. War, of course, resulted when the terms of separation ware violated at Ft. Sumter.
    War could have been avoided had the Constitution been changed first-and would have been justified had the South succeeded afterwards.

    • @TheStapleGunKid
      @TheStapleGunKid Год назад

      Well it wasn't changed first, so secession was not permitted. In any case, the South seceded and started the war to preserve slavery. They made the war about slavery, not Lincoln.

  • @rivermcratt3683
    @rivermcratt3683 2 года назад +5

    False, slavery was a secondary issue.
    The true cause of the second American civil war was unfair taxation and annexation of the Ulster population. The first civil war was in 1781 when Ulster scots, Scott's Irish refused to become citizens therefore refusing to pay American taxes. George Washington himself led the attack on Vermont and its people, driving out the Scotts Irish forcing them to move Westward eventually settling in Kentucky.

    • @rivermcratt3683
      @rivermcratt3683 2 года назад +1

      @thecrt2 where?
      Notice after I said false I provided detail and evidence?
      You must now do the same

    • @mrmackey8776
      @mrmackey8776 Год назад

      the truth

    • @stephenquinn3447
      @stephenquinn3447 Год назад

      Look at the Confederate States constitutions (I don't just mean the one for the CSA as a whole, but the individual states aswell) and see they said their primary goal what to preserve slavery instead of believing lies about men rotting in hell, created by men rotting in hell, and preserved by men who'll soon rot in hell

    • @mrmackey8776
      @mrmackey8776 Год назад

      @@stephenquinn3447 4 out of the eleven lol

    • @stephenquinn3447
      @stephenquinn3447 Год назад

      @@mrmackey8776 It was about slavery, and frankly, even if it was about taxes, if a group of people rely of slavery as their means of income, and would seceed start a whole war that ended with 620,000 people dead, than those "taxes" that the South definitely seceeded from (and totally not because they were run by a bunch of racist idiots) were well deserved.

  • @JonahGeideman
    @JonahGeideman 2 года назад

    🇺🇸PROUD🔫YANKEE🇺🇸

  • @cuchulain1647
    @cuchulain1647 3 года назад +1

    Corwin Amendment

  • @Dslats
    @Dslats 2 года назад

    I WISH YOU PEOPLE WOULD STOP LIVING IN THE PAST, ITS GONE.

    • @rickeshpatel4025
      @rickeshpatel4025 2 года назад +1

      Knowledge is all the product of the past. We all live in the past perhaps modified but still of the past.

  • @erichoopes7643
    @erichoopes7643 2 года назад

    The early history of the Civil War being stated here is wrong. The War did not come about because of slavery. It was about Lincoln-izm vs Jefferson-izm. There was no legislation written up before the war about slavery. Legislation didn't come till 3-4 years later.

  • @stevepowsinger733
    @stevepowsinger733 3 года назад

    interesting but I expected something deeper.

    • @grondhero
      @grondhero 3 года назад

      It's a long book and they only take excerpts from it. Essentially, though, it all boils down to slavery. Without the election of Lincoln, the South wouldn't have feared an end to slavery and wouldn't have rebelled. I've even read a few declarations from states that seceded and they each put slavery as one of their reasons.

    • @stevepowsinger733
      @stevepowsinger733 3 года назад

      Actually, the person of Lincoln’s election was a big reason. He essentially drew a redline around the South and announced that there was to be no compromises the with South, as over Missouri etc, anymore.

  • @victorstalick3719
    @victorstalick3719 3 года назад +1

    How do we know that these are the true thought of Thomas Sowell?

    • @ThomasSowellTV
      @ThomasSowellTV  3 года назад +3

      Go read the book.

    • @victorstalick3719
      @victorstalick3719 3 года назад +3

      @@ThomasSowellTV My objection stems from the fact that you use Thomas Sowell's name on your channel. It is YOUR interpretation of his book etc that you put up with no evidence that he agrees with you.

    • @davidcooke8005
      @davidcooke8005 3 года назад +2

      That's Thomas Sowells voice. It's very distinctive.

  • @merlinwizard1000
    @merlinwizard1000 2 года назад

    179th

  • @chrismcknight8925
    @chrismcknight8925 Год назад

    Technically the civil war wasn't fought over slavery at the beginning. Economics was the reason the civil war started the North putting taxes on the south cuz of shipments coming from Europe. Slavery didn't become an issue until around the middle of the civil war. And it was a tactical move to boost morale for the north. No slaves was freed from the north or the south just from the grounds the north gained were freed to join the military. So basically the civil war was fought truly for the same reasons America was born taxes. Cuz the true 13th amendment was basically going to make slavery permanent and Congress wouldn't be allowed to make an amendment to get rid of slavery then the civil war broke out witch kept the amendment from passing. Both sides north and south wanted to keep slaves but Abraham Lincoln used it to his advantage to win and preserve the Union.

  • @jebbohanan2626
    @jebbohanan2626 2 года назад

    Diseases on the African Continent were particularly harsh on white people sent into the African country side.
    Most white people who did venture into the African Wilderness often died or became cripplingly ill from diseases that African peoples were immune to.
    Most white sailors had already very weakened immune systems because of dietary habits and the stress of hard life aboard ships.
    Because of these risks there were very very few white people willing to risk life and limb trying to catch black peoples!
    It just was not worth, running through African jungles or out onto open savanna chasing Africans, trying to throw nets on them too capture them.
    Plus throw in the fact that Africa has wild animals that would eat people.
    It was much more efficient and effective to trade African tribes for their ability to capture other African peoples.
    Maybe the Chiefs of those tribes wanted whiskey or rhum or weapons or cloth!
    Whatever the trade was it was black tribes capturing other black peoples and using them as trade for resources!!!
    Very few white peoples hunted black people in Africa for the slave trade!
    So all this crap you are spewing has removed your credibility with me.
    One more thing!
    The Civil War was started because the Untied States Government started taxing the Southern States with a special tax!
    The Northern factories tried to use slaves but didn’t want to spend the money needed to keep them healthy!
    So those slaves died by the thousands!
    But, not one word is ever mentioned about that atrocity!
    No, never.

  • @georgiezhdankevich8361
    @georgiezhdankevich8361 3 года назад +2

    Wow there are so many "states rights" types among Thomas Sowell's fans. I wonder why lol

    • @murdockhancock
      @murdockhancock 3 года назад +2

      can you clarify this comment?

    • @spiffygonzales5160
      @spiffygonzales5160 3 года назад +9

      Because there are elderly southerners today who actually talked with people who fought during the civil war and were told by those same people that the war on an individual level wasn't about slavery so much as wanting to protect their families; and southerners are getting sick of having themselves, their families, and quite literally their geographic location being called "ists" and "phobes" simply for being proud of their ancestors for fighting?
      Oh wait, sorry.
      "Derr herr. It states rites. Me suthurn stereo tipe. Slavery not at all involved, derr herr."
      The overwhelming majority of people are aware of slavery and why the south seceded and that even for the average man slavery was an essential part of their economy.
      The issue that southerners have is the constant demonizing of people who were fighting to support themselves.
      "Off the back of slaves derr herr"
      Yeah, off the back of slaves. This wasn't the age of Walmart and Ikea where if you were hungry you just went to your local supermarket. They needed slavery. So yes, the federal government, and even a nice chunk of the people in battle fought for it. But this mindset where people just forget that people had kids to feed and assume that the whole thing was just "where there's a whip there's a way" is absurd. There was international politics and trade that needed to happen, there was the massive industrialization that demanded tons of raw resources, there was the fear of a slave uprising (which had occurred in many places INCLUDING the United States. And when it did it was a bloodbath), there were racial boundaries the entire world over that would make BLM cream themselves. This wasn't the modern era.
      To be frank here, before you decide to judge somebody from 150 years ago for having slavery back when it was necessary, where was your phone made, your computer, your designer clothes, etc.
      If the answer is "an authoritarian regime with resources obtained from nations that still have slavery to this day." Than I don't think your in much place to judge people who didn't have the same say in ethical business practices as you do.

    • @falloutfan2502
      @falloutfan2502 3 года назад +8

      Because good people being able to agree to disagree is the path to peace and prosperity.
      Having one central government dominating your life is the path to oppression and resentment.
      Those who understand this, and how civilizations rise and fall, would be fans of Thomas - sure.

    • @black86coop
      @black86coop 3 года назад +4

      @@spiffygonzales5160 As a person of color (a couple, including black; but also non-poc, say what you will to that) that has lived all over this Great Nation, I think there are a lot of logical fallacies that abound in our day-to-day arguments. I've seen and interacted with folks that hate me purely for what I Iook like -- and not just in the south. I have also oddly experienced people that don't necessarily know how to interact with me initially (even saying the... N-word *gasp*); but are some of the most authentically kind a gentle individuals I've ever interacted with in my life.
      I give this anecdotal and bit of personal background for a couple reasons; to highlight a small bit of the complexity of individuals AND to illustrate I'm writing this comment in "good faith". First the complexity/fallacies: It is true that a lot of Southerners fought for "States Rights" or individual freedoms; however, I think it is common in society (not just US) to create straw-men, slippery slope arguments, and other argumentative "shortcuts" for the narratives that support our own internalized stories. I think it is difficult for most people to separate there own personal bias from the facts AND multiplicity of a given "state-of-affairs". Getting away from the jargon of the prior sentences, folks often cannot take a step back to note that multiple things can be true at once -- as you seem to point out!
      That said, I do think approaching this issues is tough, but siding too much on being apologetic to the idea that people fought for self and family can be a bit precarious. I would assume (fairly or unfairly) that most knew what they were fighting for broadly, even if their particular reasons where in conflict. The ideology of racism/slavery is much more nuanced that just hatred of people based on phenotypes or other things [and the idea that POCs cant be racist is total BS]. I think that this has and continues to color how people make decisions since most folks don't actively make decision they believe will bring themselves harm. So, folks make choices for their benefit and in line with their "privilege" (which everyone has in some capacity, not just white people) -- and somethings those choices are made knowing that it is NOT the ethical decision.
      As such, I definitely try not to judge folks that fought or had slaves 150 years ago, but my empathy for those individuals has it's limitations insofar as the option to not fight was always an option (not an easy option, but an option).
      ---
      To the second point. I don't really intend on replying to any responses, and I probably should not be typing out comments in RUclips whatsoever, but I thought your comment was cogent and respectful and thought I'd contribute even though/because I disagree in part. All said, hope you and anyone that reads a good day and good health.

    • @spiffygonzales5160
      @spiffygonzales5160 3 года назад +4

      @@black86coop
      Wow, that's actually really good.
      Despite disagreeing your comment was respectful and civil.
      😅 And yeah I was probably a little heated making that comment. Glad we can agree to disagree bud. You have a good day.