Causes of Southern Secession: An Essay
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- In an ongoing debate about the causes of the Southern Secession that preceded the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865, three different narratives have presented themselves: The Slavery Narrative, the States' Rights Narrative, and the Lost Cause Narrative. This essay goes over the most important aspects of each of them, explores the initial roots of the Lost Cause with an interpretation of the works of Edward Alfred Pollard and then segways into an evaluation of the arguments brought forth between the principle of States' Rights and the particular policy that was Slavery.
The creator allows himself a personal conclusion on which of the three narratives beats the other two, but invites any and all commenters to offer their own thoughts in the comment section below.
SOURCES
- Burt, John (2013). Lincoln's Tragic Pragmatism: Lincoln, Douglas and Moral Conflict. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
- Daley, Jason (2018). "Texas Will Finally Teach That Slavery Was Main Cause of the Civil War". Smithsonian.com. Retrieved 2019-01-14.
- Davis, Jefferson (1881). The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.
- Government of the Confederate States (1862). Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
- Government of the United States (1776). United States Constitution.
- King, Connor (2013). Lost Cause Textbooks: Civil War Education in the South from the 1890s to the 1920s. Oxford, Mississippi: University of Mississippi. Approved by Professors Holm, April; McKee, Kathryn.
- Mason, Matthew (2006). Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic.
- Pollard, Edward Alfred (1866). The Lost Cause: A New History of the War of the Confederates. New York: E.B. Treat and Co., Publishers.
- State Archives of Florida, Series 577, Carton 1, Folder 6, “Gov. Madison Starke Perry - Constitutional Convention 1861" (1861). Florida Declaration of Causes (undated and untitled). Retrieved 2019-01-16.
- State Government of Alabama (1861). Alabama Ordinance of Secession.
- State Government of Mississippi (1861). A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
- State Government of South Carolina (1860). Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.
- State Government of Texas (1861). A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
- Stephens, Alexander H (1861). “Corner Stone Speech". Savannah, Georgia. 21 March 1861.
Music used:
- Alex M: "Asiatic Country Theme"
- Alex M: "Millennium Dawn"
- Alex M: "Mother Russia"
- Järpehag, Jonatan: "Jonny Comes Marching Home"
- Lucille Hegamin And The Dixie Daisies: "Cold Winter Blues"
- Pietro: "You'll find old Dixieland in France"
I'm simply amazed that we are still having this discussion.
The North won the fighting war but the south won the propaganda war.
Read the secession documents and various letters from Southern leaders (Stephens is my favorite) and it leaves no doubt.
I've been researching this for hours now. I think i'm going to throw up.
I'm trying to get several different perspectives on the issue. The moral perspective is obvious: the institution of slavery(*hrgghp* oh God, I threw up a little in my mouth...) is despicable. The legal perspective is interesting: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence support the idea that the federal government didn't yet have the authority to take the actions it did, and the mechanism to grant that authority existed as the Amendment process. The economic perspective is hard to separate from the moral issue given the obvious basis for the Southern economy, and (not but) it seems that the Southern economy was doomed one way or another (thank God it was the quick way, one of the major points for my pride in my country is that we stamped that crap out waaaay quicker than other countries) because their cash crops were stripping the soil of the necessary minerals and nutrients, and especially nitrogen, and because of the rise of industry. All this because I'm trying to figure out why people that otherwise seem to be fairly intelligent are denying that slavery was an issue at all, let alone the main reason. Denying the relevance is absurd.
I've seen US commenters saying "and after the civil war we freed the slaves and were an inspiration to the rest of the world to do it too!" but... erm. nawp :) The US was very late to the game. I'm not sure what country you refer to as yours but chances are they did it before the US. The Brits did things like, make slavery illegal in England itself but not it's colonies. It took decades until it ended it across the board (I am half english so I have to walk that line of some pride in some of my ancestor's accomplishments alongside things like slavery, the east india company, and dozens of other really ugly efforts). The US probably would have followed a similar path. Slavery was an issue during the revolution as well, both in terms of whether to have it and if not, what to do with it. The Brits took in runaway slaves and used them as laborers "freeing them" (but also returned slaves to Loyalist owners so.. depended on whom they ran away from). So, no one is really the hero when it comes to early US history and slavery/racism (there are a few but, definitely not common).
Reading up on Hamilton, you learn more about how the founding fathers were racist (a normal thing back then), and either supported slavery or (for the most part) saw it as an issue they had to figure out some logistical way of eliminating without leaving all those people of color walking around town. It doesn't paint as pretty a picture as Freedom! Equality!!! So.. instead of being honest, we teach our kids how perfect they were. We *could* teach them that we started there, and got to here, and these were the steps, but that might inspire people to keep headed in that direction. It would seek to eliminate racism in the US, which some people still depend upon for some reason. We'd also have to explain all those pictures of hundreds of white people acting all christian like, milling around a lynched human being. Far worse than explaining about a drunk uncle.. I find it kind of ironic when racist people go on about the BLM mobs and how horrible they are, but somehow missed all the disgusting things that white mobs did during Jim Crow and into desegregation.
I think they need the Lost Cause because they need to have that ancestry be "cleaner" than it really was. That's true of the north too, which had brutal working conditions and were very racist themselves (we're still seeing those sources today). If those sources are "clean" then we don't really have to do anything today because hey, we're all equal and everything's good except for those whiney people lying about racism etc. In reality we *have* gotten better since 1776 but we still have to put our sleeves up and do some work to live up to the ideals of those words they wrote so long ago.. (to *really* live up to them).
@@dreamcoyote I see you have an excellent grasp of that part of history. I should have been clearer. I am from the US, and I too have British ancestry, and I am well aware of the complicated reality of things. There are aspects of such of my ancestry as I am aware of, including English, Irish, Welsh, German, and Cherokee that I find pride in (my grandmother was descended from the House of Lancaster and my great great grandfather was a Rough Rider with Roosevelt and full Cherokee, which is interesting if completely irrelevant) and mistakes that I try to learn from. My grandfather was from Missouri and I inherited the middle name Lee from him as the eldest son; I don't actually know one way or another but this apparent tradition may have originated in homage to Robert E Lee. I'm not going to change it, I'm going to let it remind me not to judge people by skin color. The institution of slavery is a stain on the history of humanity as well as the United States and I have to look to the good points to maintain my faith in our species sometimes. I didn't mean that the United States was the first, or even one of the first, country to ban the horrible practice, I'm referring to the fact that from the Declaration of Independence to the Emancipation Proclamation was only 87 years. My grandfather is older than that. I frequently argue with people who concentrate entirely on the slavery and the states rights aspects. That Lost Cause idea is a whole lot of bollocks wrapped around a grain of truth while the idea that the South is entirely unredeemable is a slightly reductionistic perception of the sad reality that's mixed with a touch of regional prejudice. Both narratives try too hard to vindicate terrible people by glossing over atrocities on both sides. I object to the idea that the the hands of the North were entirely clean as well as the idea that the motivation of the South was entirely innocent.
@@revwroth3698 Oh agreed on the north. Along with the Lost Cause mythos, I always say after we're done beating on the CSA we need to address the predominantly racist northerners.
I don't think everything from the south is valueless, but to me it's a bit dishonest to fly that specific flag and claim it's just for historic pride in everything except white supremacy and slavery ;) There are.. paths people could take to redeem the *real* southern culture that was good and positive but to me it seems they are stuck with that damned flag which is *still* used to intimidate people of color to this day.
My father's side is Dutch and arrived in NY ~1650 I think. Holland.. more slavery! yay :/. One of them argued that Native Americans should not be integrated but rather respected and left to live as they were (hey! maybe not-an-asshole! there's one at least!). Another great something-er-other was married to Geronimo's son. At least they got married during a drunken bout and they lived in different places soon after and then he died. :P
History is endlessly interesting.. and it *should* teach us how *not* to treat each other in this day and age. Unfortunately we're often stuck with circling the same Lost Cause blockade around a host of other uncomfortable issues.
@@dreamcoyote I'll let decorated Army Col. Ty Seidule, *🔹Head of History🔹* at West Point Military Ä̤ᴄᴀᴅᴇᴍʏ explain it in this ᴠᴇʀʏ sʜᴏʀᴛ ᴠɪᴅᴇᴏ
ruclips.net/video/pcy7qV-BGF4/видео.html
To answer the question in your last paragraph. It's rather obvious.
Modern proud southerners simply cannot admit being on the wrong side of history. They will not allow themselves to admit that their ancestors fought over the enslavement of human beings.
They must, they absolutely must find a way to justify becoming traitors that is reasonable and easy to stomach.
Y’all forgot Virginia only joined the confederacy because they Virginia people thought that they was gonna get invaded
Yes, they felt the North would exploit them, as they had done to the Whole of the South after the war...
but Virginia was a slave-owning state, and so too did not want to change with the industrializing world.
Translated, that means they were afraid they would be invaded, because they woud have been exploited,
because their resources weren't keeping with the times, because their primary method of commerce was outdated,
because their goal was to continue their lifestyle of exploiting slave labor.
Now, I know most Southerners couldn't afford slaves, but the ones who did owned a lot and drove the Southern economy. These few Plantation owners did the dirty work to benefit the White, rural Southerner's way of life as they would reap this benefit and turn a blind eye.
I grew up in Alabama in the 80s and yes, a lot of the history pointed to states rights tariffs taxes, overall sentiment as a reason for succession almost as if the north forced the south to succeed. I’m very very happy to see things have changed partially because I believed a lot of it, when I was young before, I could actually look at my own facts all you have to do like this video says is look at the source material from the confederacy itself. It doesn’t mention anything about tariffs or taxes or anything else besides slavery these and I’ll say it now monsters believed that slaves were not human sure there was a few benevolent masters, but the majority were not. They looked at human beings nothing more than a prized horse or cow, gave them below substandard living conditions very few lived to old age, most had horrible dental problems thank God for the north. If I can make a request, you should do a video on how good the union generals actually were that’s another part of the lost cause myth that needs to fall is that the confederacy were somehow gods of war, even though they lost and they lost all the greatest battles, and it was because of strategy not manpower and material. This is the last shoe that needs to drop to stop the lost cause once and for all.
1.) You proved that it was about a culture clash. It was about industrial power. Hence why the north complained about slave owner power.
2.) You also ignore the fact that it was about states having the right to abolish or dictate industrial practices.
3.) You ignore that the average person didn't know what was going on. They realized they were getting attacked and the average man wanted to protect his home state.
1. I agree that there was a culture clash and I agree the war was about industrial power. The reason the south developed its own "culture" (at least insofar that there was a cultural aspect that united the southern states and that also separated them from the northern states) and the reason the south developed an agricultural society were a direct result of its economic, cultural and societal attachment to the institution of slavery.
2. The states' rights to abolish or dictate industrial practices is at most marginally relevant. I would however like to see Confederate politicians or documents citing states' industrial practice policy as their primary reason to secede, that would be quite interesting.
3. The video is not at all concerned with the motivations of the soldiers or civilians on the ground, as any such concern would be inherently moralistic and I couldn't hope to make a somewhat factual video if it involved moralistic appeals - as you can't defend defenders of slavery on any moralistic merit. So what I instead did was to try and identify the motivations of political leaderships and diplomats in the Confederacy.
Thank you for your comment.
Maybe you should read what the leaders of the South themselves wrote about why they felt compelled to secede from the Union.
Yes, it was about a "Clash of cultures."
The North had a culture of entrepreneurs and yeomen farmers. The South had a culture of a powerful arristocracy built on slave labor and racial supremacy.
Almost for any conflict the average person has no idea what is going on.
1) You'd complain about slave-owning power too if the state nullified your laws because they wanted to profit off of slave labor by trading with foreign powers.
2) In the advancing times these were, an Argicultural Economy would've always eventually become less profitable than Industrial Economy. The South didn't want to deal with admitting that.
3) No one ever cares about the worldly points of view from the people in any time period that simply don't know anything at all.
The South should have stuck to the argument of nullification and not the practice of it. They were correct in its principle, but executing that right was useless in practice. But they lost the only principles of their issues when they seceded due to Lincoln getting elected and fired on Ft. Sumter. Ultimately, they just wanted to profit from slave labor for as long as they could.
Why did the Southern states secede? What reasons do the southern states give for taking such a drastic step? What was the role of the commissioners and delegates who fanned out across the South in late 1860 and early 1861? What ideas and principles was the Confederacy to be based upon? How crucial was the role of the delegates who fanned out across the South in bringing about the crisis of secession? Why does the author believe their role has been underappreciated? What sort of evidence does Dew use to support his conclusions? Do the sources on the website support Dew’s conclusions? After gathering all the evidence, what would you say was the fundamental cause of the American Civil War, and why is it so important we understand the answer to that question today?
If anyone wants to answers this in a 500 or more word essay that would be great. Xoxo
wat
I'm totally willing to buy that slavery was the primary cause of secession. However, I'm really confused by a few points.
First off, your argument against the states rights position included the point that a) the Supreme Court had just given an extremely favorable ruling to slaveholders, basically giving them carte blanche to move their slaves across state lines and b) there was nothing that Abraham Lincoln could realistically do to outlaw slavery as long as a majority of the slaves states remained in the union.
Add to this the fact that both Lincoln and the 1860 Republican party platform specifically said that they had no intention of outlawing slavery in the states where it already existed. And while the Republicans did want to outlaw it in the territories, by seceding the southern states completely lost access to the territories and any possibility of slavery's expansion.
And if the grievance of the southern states was lackadaisical free state enforcement of the fugitive slave act, if the northern states weren't enforcing it vigorously enough beforehand, there was no way they were going to be returning runaway slaves after the south seceded.
So if slavery was the overriding concern of the south, why on Earth did the southern states secede when it clearly and immediately made the prospects for maintaining and expanding slavery so much worse? As you showed, some seceding states specifically pointed to slavery as a reason for seceding, which makes this even more confusing.
CalculatorFrenzy I think the confederates figured the time to do something was running out so they jumped the gun. Maybe thinking or knowing that slavery would eventually become illegal so they figured seceding would buy them time.
Also people say slavery but it was already dying off and when they say slavery they really mean money. If the union government was able to pay off the slave owners I’m pretty sure that would have happened. I don’t think most owners are how people and movies make them out to be. Pretty sure they would prefer to do better things than to supervise and babysit
I can address all of these questions. Yes, secession meant that the South would lose access to those Federal territories...but it also meant that, as an independent country, they would be safe from the legislative power of Washington, and a Northern electorate increasingly hostile to slavery. Yes, the Republicans "Promised" that they had no intention to touch slavery where it already existed. The Southerners did not believe them. Also, the Slave states were already outnumbered 13 to 19 in the Senate, and that imbalance was only going to get worse as more Free states were admitted to the Union. Each new Free State Senate vote made it more likely that Congress would pass legislation to hurt slavery. Without the need to create more Slave State Senate votes, the incentive to expand went away.
As to your third point, many Southern leaders who argued against secession made those very same points in their home states. Kentucky in particular felt that slavery was safer in the Union than outside it.
@@occamtherazor3201 I would say that the second part of your comment shows why slavery was not the issue that people think it is now. Nobody in the deep South thought that secession would preserve or prolong slavery either. Alexander Stephens himself said that secession would hasten the demise of slavery and so did Jefferson Davis and so did William Lloyd Garrison and so did Lysander Spooner. In fact, Spooner called Seward and Lincoln and Sumner vipers and hypocrites for not letting the South go.
The discussion around slavery had less to do with moral reasons and that is obvious when you look at the Black Codes of the northern states. They were just as viciously racist as the South and some states didn't want slavery because they wanted to create a white society free of what the Puritans called the "putrid influence" of the black race. I mean imagine being so racist that you oppose slavery because it means having black people around. So the reason Southerners did not believe them did not have to do with any moral disagreements. It had to do with economics. Senator David Wilmot of PA proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 that would make slavery illegal in any new states or territories and the reasoning that he gave was that he did not want any competition with "free white Pennsylvania labor". He was also instrumental in crafting the Republican party platform on 1856. The only reason the South feared that the North would encroach on the institution of slavery was that the North was creating a dominant majority of Congress and the Senate to make all of the states like the Northern industrial society and not like the Southern agrarian society. That is why the Confederate Constitution made the vote to accept any new state into the confederacy a 2/3 majority instead of a simple majority. That way, one side could not grow to dominate their opponents by accepting new states by a simple majority.
@@thefreeman8791 www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
You don't have to take my word for why the states of the Deep South Seceded. They can speak for themselves in these documents.
Yes, Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis both thought slavery was safer INSIDE the Union and voted against secession. But they were outvoted, and they both clearly threw themselves into the cause once it was decided upon.
Strange that you bring up Stephens at all, because, among all Southern leaders, he was the least shy about slavery's central role in secession.
The fact that slavery was just as much an economic issue as a moral one is not relevant. It was still the central reason why the South decided to rebel.
If the North was just as racist as the South, you should go back in time and tell that to the Secession Commissioners. Because they were pretty convinced that the North was gradually being taken over by Radical Abolitionists, and they referenced that many times in their secession documents.
If you want to point to racist Northern laws like the Black Codes in Illinoise, the Southern States did not seem impressed by this. They were more concerned with the laws in the New England states protecting escapes slaves, and the fact that Federal Marshals attempting to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act were being resisted by violent mobs of whites people who objected to seeing their black neighbors dragged away in chains.
Industry/Agriculture was NOT the basis if the divide between North and South. Slavery/Freedom was. There were plenty of powerful Agricultural interests in the North. They just grew food crops instead of cash crops.
Thank you for the knowledge.
From the very first paragraph of Georgia's Declaration of Causes for secession
" 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."
From the first few sentences of Mississippi's
" 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."
an Excerpt from Texas's
"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."
I encourage you to read the rest here
www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia
But long story short the south seceded due to their perception that they would soon be outnumbered in the Senate and slavery would be legislated against.
They were angry about the Northern states nullifying the fugitive slave act by refusing to return runaway slaves.
They were angry about slaves not being permitted in territory north of the 36th parallel as laid out in the Missouri compromise.
There were angry about the Kansas-Nebraska act that established the idea of popular sovereignty and let territories that were considering statehood to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted slavery.
None of these reasons go against the Slavery argument or in favor of the States' Rights argument. In fact, I'd argue it's a different way to draw open the slavery argument - although I'd argue mine is more specific about the dichotomy between slavery and states' rights, yours is perfectly sufficient.
slavery was constitutionally protected on both sides the legal argument there making in the declarations is non enforcement of the Fugitive slave act to their liking.arguing taxes would not have legal standing in a court of law under the Constitution while residing under the constitution of the North this is why they chose not to make the main argument about taxes.North Carolina had to secession declarations one was a completely the opposite all about taxes and very little about slavery
@@SLRheckler North Carolina was the second last state to succeed. They pretty did because of the rest of the states. Also NC was unique in that I believe it is the only Confederate state to raise a union volunteer army. North Carolina is the outlier. The initiation of succession was due to slavery.
The southern states may have not liked the compromises and prohibitions on slavery, but they agreed to them. That's why they were compromises. The slave states wanted them at the time then realized they committed to a bad deal. They didn't want to live with their mistake so they succeeded so they could continue to enslave human beings.
That's weird because the Confederate Congress towards the end of the war was leaning towards ending slavery and introducing a feudal system where the former slaves were tied to the land this way the great Powers Britain France ETc.. might intervene then on their behalf
I've never heard of this. Got a source, because this sounds strange.
@@JtheCritic I'll let decorated Army Col. Ty Seidule, *🔹Head of History🔹* at West Point Military Ä̤ᴄᴀᴅᴇᴍʏ explain it in this ᴠᴇʀʏ sʜᴏʀᴛ ᴠɪᴅᴇᴏ
ruclips.net/video/pcy7qV-BGF4/видео.html
It seems like virtual slavery.
Sounds like slavery with more steps........Regardless......that was towards the end of the war.....protecting slavery was why they started it.
0:33 the Victoria 2 war declaration sound took me by surprise
We. The South. Lost. As such. I retain protection under the US Constitution. Period.
Lincoln, one of history's most underrated War Criminals.
Objection, baseless.
A baseless claim that you southern revisionist constantly paddle
Cope harder that the southern traitors lost a war that they started
The ‘war criminal’ who allowed every Confederate general who betrayed their oath to return home as citizens of the United States in retirement
@@PopeSixtusVI Anyone who thinks that comment was baseless really owes it to themselves to watch this very short (10-minute) video by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo called "The Abraham Lincoln Problem." It is factual and can be accurately corroborated.
ruclips.net/video/jOC9gkJmnZM/видео.html
You may never see Lincoln the same. What we were taught about him was not accurate. It proves "to the victors goes the writing of history."
@Game Ranch Watch the video. Truth is a terrible thing to waste. 😉
Just because they mentioned slavery, doesn't mean that it was the reason. The South had enough power in Congress to block any bill that would abolish slavery. Lincoln started centralizing our government, and the South wanted more states rights, and less federal involvement. The way our founding fathers wanted it. You didn't dig deep enough on this one my friend. You even failed to mention the fact that our constitution was contained inside of theirs.
They didn't 'mention slavery', they designated it the cornerstone of their civilization and the threat of its abolition as their reason of secession. The idea that they cared about states' rights is debunked in this video, using the Constitution the CSA gave itself. And for someone who cites constitutional history, you seem to ignore the fact that the US Constitution deliberately avoided the slavery issue, whereas the CS Constitution specifically protected it indefinitely. So, yeah, youre right, the CS Constitution is largely congruent with its US counterpart - but differs on one key area: Slavery. So, tell me, what did I not "dig deep enough" on?
@@Ted52 understood... slavery is unconstitutional. You can thank Lincoln for the joke that is the Supreme Court. You didn't mention the fact that secession was actually legal until the early 1800s. You made a determination based off of research that was lacking facts. Of course they didn't want to lose their slaves, but you didn't respond to to the Congressional control that the South had. Slavery was at the surface, but learning about Lincoln's dream for Federal totalitarianism makes me support the South. He is the reason we can't even make individual laws, and interpret the constitution as we see fit on a personal, and state level. Our Federal government is able to tell us what our constitution means now. I respect your opinion, but I urge you to really research what Lincoln's side actually stood for and, what he was doing with centralization and many other things. Remember that the winner always writes history. The Union made slavery a convenient excuse. Like all politicians they had other reasons for doing what they did. They just needed something for everyone to rally behind. I believe that this was true for both sides. They all owned slaves at that time. This was a worldwide way of life. You mean to tell me that they woke up one day and saw the light? Doubtful... Look below the surface my friend. There is always a second hidden meaning containing a long term power grab. Thanks for the response. I enjoy a good debate.
@@jamesdalecopeland2719 So... uhhh... who cares? Who cares about Lincoln's view on slavery and the effectiveness of the Supreme Court? Who cares about the legality of secession? Who cares about the objective of the North? Did the South secede because of slavery or not?
@@Ted52 as I said.... Slavery may have been the cause that commoners could get behind. False flags are nothing new... Do you really believe that the majority of the population is able to understand the intricacies of the things I mentioned? Look at all of the wars we have ever been in. There were at least 2 reasons for them. Most people only know the glorious one that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy about killing people. That is my conclusion after researching the civil war for years. All of the things you just mentioned are very important to politicians. They are a power grab. If you believe it was about slavery then you are ignorant to the facts.
@@jamesdalecopeland2719 Wouldn't "let's be free from the federal tyrants" be much more appealing than "let's enslave black people"? If you look at the Lost Cause propaganda after the Civil War, they called upon the opinions of many Dixie soldiers who claimed they never fought for slavery but instead to free their home states from federal tyranny.
To secede from a country to preserve slavery has an inherent internal contradiction regarding freedom, "lets be free so we can keep others unfree", whereas to secede for states rights is just "lets be free". It would be much easier to sell that message if it was really just about popular propaganda.
States right to do what? State rights to own slaves
you need to keep in mind that the winner always writes the history so this is not entirely factual
Look at southern cities today and tell me southern civilisation wasn't threatend.
Southern civilization absolutely was threatened, considering it was based entirely around slavery and racism, and some people just couldn't get past the idea that slavery and racism might not be great. How dare they threaten southern civilization like that
@@Ted52 so basically all three theories are right, but slavery is in the center.
Southern civilisation developed around slavery. The abolition of slavery was a hard hit for southern culture. But looking at the south today... the south was absolutly raped by the end of slavery on a long term basis.
So in some sence the lost cause theory is right. And i would call it moraly justified to fight for something as horrific as slavery to preserve your cultural identity and civilisation...
@@stilicho8762 the Lost Cause version of history specifically seeks to distract from slavery as a centerpiece of southern civilization.
Regardless, I am almost impressed by your ringing endorsement of chattel slavery. You win the "opinion most obviously held by a privileged monster" award for today, I suppose.
@@Ted52 Slavery wasn't the centerpiece of southern civilisation. If so most people in the south hadnt't souther culture at all. Southern culture differed much from its nothern counterpart. Like every other culture that might have bad parts in it, it had the right to survive. Slavery would have been abolished anyways. Maby 50 years later but it would have been abolished in the end. But the actions that were taken after the civil war destroyed the south more than an organic end of slavery.
And i think to say that entire cultures have no right to exist because they had an cruel aspect that almost every other culture had before is the "priviledged view" of somebody in the west in the 21. century.
@@stilicho8762 "Slavery wasn't the centerpiece of southern civilisation."
Really? Because the elected officials of the South sure seemed to think so:
Mississippi: _"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world."_
South Carolina: _"The Union of the Constitution, was a union of slaveholding States. It rests on slavery"_
Georgia: _"That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity."_
Vice President Stephens: _"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."_
President Davis: _"It ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been, at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner-stone of a Western Republic."_
You don't express any concern over the countless instances of African culture that were destroyed by American slavery, but viewing the South in an unfavorable, historically accurate way is "cruel"? It was "morally justified" to preserve culture that depended on slavery despite the culture it had to destroy to have it to begin with? It's clear where your priorities are at to say the least!
Ted 52 you never mentioned the Morill tariffs either that were imposed by northern industrialists right before the civil war, this hurt the southern economy by lowering their export abilities. The tariffs even led Britain to almost allying the confederacy because of the the Lancashire Cotton Famine.
The tariffs came into effect by newly elected Republican Congress during the 1860 election. These tariffs were actually passed because of the 1857 panic which caused northern industrialists to distain British Laissez Faire economic system.
@@jamesgodfried3224 why did the tariffs hurt the South? Because they had no local industry of their own, and were an agrarian society that depended on being able to export their goods. Why did they have no local industry? Because they put all of their local investment in slave plantation cash crops, which can only make a profit, if you can sell them abroad to be used in manufacturing. The mass majority of southerners were local self-subsistence farmers who were illiterate and practically made everything they needed, and barely interacted with international, or even across-state, trade, so who was affected by the tariffs? The plantation owners who used slaves as their main workforce to produce the cash crops that were being sold on the international market.
Read the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.
@smith lovy because arguing taxes would not have legal standing the President and the Congress have the right to levy taxes It would be like arguing with the a judge about the speed being to slow when you get a speeding ticket.He would say the gov has the right to set the posted speed limit.South Carolina had to declarations the other one was written by a man who thought they should have left the Union forty years ago. his document was all taxes and very little about slavery.
Lost cause mythos is still being peddled 150 years later.
If I can save the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it" - Abraham Lincoln
"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."- Also Lincoln
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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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. Yours,
Explain what caused Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas to secede.
The fait accompli that they were presented with by the Deep Southern states' acts of secession and the federal government's reaction to it.
Had they not seceded, the federal government might have very easily crushed the Deep South, and ended chattel slavery at least there, from where on the constitutional abolition of slavery - the eternal bogeyman of the south - would have been much easier to accomplish.
Slavery. Slavery caused them to secede. Hope this helps :)
the is one reason and one reason only economics. the south had a slave economy. the north did not. there fore they had fundamentally different economic goals. throw in the rhetoric of the abolitionist movement and you got fightin words.
and they certainly had slavery in the north they just called it indentured servitude but it had gone out of fashion as the economy became more industrialized. same thing would have happened with slavery in time no matter what.
The equivocation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery is as old as it is idiotic. It was not inheritable, nor was it the economic basis of the northern economy, whereas slavery very much was the basis of the southern economy.
I do disagree with some of your points in the video but overall I really liked your video. I liked how you are talking about secession and secession only. Most people will conflate secession on why the South fought the war and that is an entirely different issue.While I have several disagreements with you, I do overall like your video because you just presented the facts. When I was getting my history degree, my favorite professor told the class all the time that there are no ifs ands or buts in history. It either happened or it did not. So while people can speculate what would have happened if Lincoln had not been shot, that is not history. He was shot and the speculation does not change squat and it is not history.
Where I disagree is the context of slavery. I do not deny that the South had slavery and I do not deny that many Southerners viewed slaves as inferior and all that. My problem with the whole discussion is that, while the South is free game, to criticize the North is anathema. Like when I quote the OH senate saying that they threw out a free black reporter in 1854 because his mere presence was a "violation of the truth of the superiority of the white race" I am told that is a lie and made up by the Daughters of the Confederacy. It is literally in their senate records and you can find it online. And I can go through Northern state after Northern state and cite extremely racist statements from their delegates and senators and congressmen and nobody has ever heard of it so instead they tell me that it is all lies made up by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Those racist Northern laws and Northern politicians are important in this discussion because if slavery is all about racism then why would the South think that these Northern racists were going to abolish slavery in the South? I mean we all know that Alexander Stephens was a racist but so was Lincoln and so was Seward and so was Sumner and so was John Sherman and so was William Herndon and so was Benjamin Wade. Yet people look at them as anti slavery. And yes they did not want slavery but it was not because they wanted racial equality. Lincoln himself flat out said that and when he fired General Fremont for freeing slaves in MO he said that Fremont "should not have dragged the negro into it". Did the South see Northern politicians as a threat to slavery? Yes. Can you find racist statements from Southerners? Yes. But that does not mean that the issue of slavery was a race issue as most Northerners that were opposed to slavery were themselves just as racist as Alexander Stephens and most Northern politicians support the Northern Black Codes that were designed to keep black people as second class citizens. The Black Codes of the North were so bad that in no Northern state did they ever grow their black population from 1790-1860. The Northern Black Codes and the Northern politicians that were virulently racist all indicates that all the talk about slavery did not really have a whole lot to do with race issues.
If you want to look into the racist Northern laws then I suggest starting with an old website called salvenorth .com. It was made by a man who is from RI and he is no Southern sympathizer at all. he very much downplays Northern racism and Northern involvement in the salve trade. He is just more honest about the North's involvement in slavery.
You are absolutely correct on your comments regarding the Northern leadership. There is a certain double standard in how the North's and South's intentions are read in public culture. The Southern cause is read by the intention of southern statesmen and their pro-slavery (and thus 'evil') political goals, whereas the North gets the credit of being represented by its individual soldiers, who often were inspired by abolitionist (and thus 'noble') intentions. Certainly, if you read the northern soldiers vs the southern soldiers or the northern statesmen vs the southern statesmen, then the disparity grows smaller (although the Northern side probably would still land (if just marginally) closer to what the contemporary mind would consider 'noble').
I have considered creating more videos about the history of the U.S., but I'm not American, and many American content creators have created content about the USA, whereas I could cover topics about the rest of the world as well. Something that I did consider making was a video about the history and political background of how the US two party system came about and how that went forward.
I really appreciate the comment (RUclips even gave me an alert this time, good job RUclips). Glad you enjoyed the video.
Correct, sir. The abolition of slavery was less about the dignity and human rights of blacks and more about economic warfare, the crippling of the souths economy and putting their slave workforce to work in the factories of the north. Remember, history is written by the victors who always paint themselves in the best light and their enemies in the worst.
Slavery was definitely a racial issue hence why all the slaves where either African or of African descent
There was a lot to disagree with indeed.
@Bernard S so you’re argument is basically “the north was racist too”?
In 1860 ¼ of white families in the slave states owned at least one slave
I've seen a statistic similar to that one, but never one broken down by household. That's very interesting, do you have a source?
@@Ted52 the 1860 census would be your best bet
Must be frustrating to see so many comment repeat the myths literally debunked in the video...
I have accepted that most people don't care about what is or what is not, but only about what they want to be and what they want not be.
Away down South in Dixie!
Of the three reasons you list, you forgot the real reason ALL wars are waged. Economics and gain of land, wealth , resources and power. Wars are never fought over humanitarian reasons. Ever. You neglected to point out how much the north relied on slavery to drive nearly, it's entire, economy. Self defense was indeed true, one stood as invader the other stood as defender. No one can deny that. The north was aggressive, however they did not invade to end slavery. In both of linclons war proclamations he never mentioned slavery as a cause, he did however mention collecting his tariff in both, which of course the fire eaters hated, and rightfully so, why should the south have had to finance northern infrastructure for nearly 60 years as their infrastructure was neglected. The north cared less about the slaves than did the planters. Free soilers only sought to keep blacks from migrating west, free or not.
Northern politicians were envious of the southern politicians as they had to go home to tend to their farms when southern politicians did not. Plus the south enjoyed a higher standard of living, by not overpopulating their cities with urban sprawl, whose cities are largely broken down ghettos now, Baltimore, Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Camden, and most of North Jersey Philly and so on. Karma. Southerners also enjoyed higher wages and the 4th largest economy in the world. If they weren't jealous their troops would not have been robbing defenseless women of their wedding rings and everything else they had.
Lincoln himself sent 400 FREE blacks to Haiti, because in his words " There is an unwillingness of the people in the north to live with you , therefore it is better that we both be separated". You left that out when you defend the norths position on slavery. The real and main cause, was that the south, had become tired of, financing the north and lincoln campaigned on a 40% tariff. This is why SC FINALLY succeeded as it had tried to do for 30 years. Slavery was the cause propagated by the fire eaters at the time and was largely unpopular with the common man in the south, but it was how they hoped to gain support for succession. The North, just as bad, was NEVER on a crusade to end slavery and many deserted the Union army after emancipation, so too were race riots in the north over another race competing for their jobs. You fail to point out lincoln's final draft of the 13th amendment, as well the fact that his funeral train in NYC was to have had all blacks banned from it. Thousands were wanting to go but only a few hundred were allowed to go after Edwin Stanton forced the issue, by then too many were scared of going.
Nice hit piece on the south but you should blame the entire country. Had the union won the war in the first two years, there is NOTHING to suggest slavery was going anywhere and the final draft of linclons 13th amendment proves that as well as his sentiment on blacks being absolutely no different from Alexander Stevens or even as Texas had listed in their constitution.
Where'd you get THAT, about Lincoln wanting blacks to be prevented from approaching the funeral train?
Slavery did play a role, but it wasn’t as much about slavery as a whole. It is about state rights. States could abolish slavery, it also allowed states to join as a free state. I’ve read the CSA constitution. You’re misinterpreting it and you’ve obviously have not read all of it. It was extremely similar to the US constitution, but it made very clear the role of government being mostly towards the states.
Why didn’t they secede during the Nullification Crisis 30 years earlier? It was all about slavery and white supremacy.
...........Why did you use a picture of Jefferson Davis for Pollard?
Because I initially used a quote by Jefferson Davis in that segment, then exchanged it for a quote by Pollard.
In short, I fucked up. My bad bois.
@@Ted52 All good man, I had to Google Jefferson Davis to make sure I didn't have amnesia lol Great video!
Read the entire declaration, all of the states. Including Texas who complained about lack of border control.
Cherry picking.
I have read all of them, and they are all cited in the description. Texas may have complained about lack of border control, but the fact that you can specifically point to Texas as a state to do so whereas you cannot disspell either Texas or one of the other states I listed citing slavery as a reason shows that slavery was more widespread among the declarations and undeniably present within the declaration issued by Texas as well. Also, I would like to point out that the declaration does not much time at all stressing the issue of border control and then, in the very next paragraph, goes on to list a rather exhaustive list of non slave holding states and their supposed transgressions - in two consecutive paragraphs no less, both of which are individually longer than the paragraph referencing the border control.
It is weird to accuse me of cherry picking and to then turn around and do it yourself.
If you are reading Texas` Declaration of Causes and concluding that border security held equal importance with slavery, then I really don`t know what to do with you. That is like reading the Declaration of Independence, ignoring 95% of it, and insisting that the Revolution was all about the quartering of soldiers.
Occam Therazor slam dunk.
@@occamtherazor3201 the issue with "border security" was that slaves were escaping across the border.
@@frankverdino477 Actually, for southern states in general, slaves escaping the border was huge....but for Texas, they specifically stated their issue with the border was actually Attacking Mexican bandits and Native Americans at their border , Natives who were very recently kicked out, trying to reclaim their living space........But overall 95% of the document was slavery.
They even minimized the border security reason immediately after stating it when they went back to the main topic on hand. Slavery.
"When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude."........emphasis on "FAR GREATER MAGNITUDE".
Finally......."They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State."
Insisting the ONLY REASON the North refused to help them with their border was because Texas was a slave state.
Once again. Slavery was 95% of the reason, the other 5% can still be tied somewhat to slavery......The original poster.....is the only one cherry picking here.
Hi.
Hi.
Saying states rights is denying those rights were to keep slaves. It’s the same argument. 😂 taxes were still over slavery cuz how do you think they paid those taxes??? With free labor. End of video you’re welcome
How did lost cause add to secession?
I feel like the lost cause and states rights narrative holds true when applied to most everyday Southerners. The slaveholders and upper class split off for slavery but most Southern accounts state their unhappiness with Northern cultural influence and their will to impose rules over the South. I think this is an important distinction to make, as who fought the civil war? The everyday man or the upper class? Asking why some groups would lawyer for the lost cause and then just saying they are evil and are trying to lie is childish. Culturally as I’ve said 10 fold, the average Southerner saw the war as this and is why they fought so boldly for it, confirmed by most Southern input of the day, governments were in it for other things aka slavery. Does this mean that average Southern men were never fighting to uphold slavery? Well no, but it was lumped into their belief of the threatening of their way of life, as millions of freed slaves could bite them in the butt, who knew what a half of the population would do to you when free. There was a lot of hatred between the North and South, they loathed the other’s way of life, either agricultural slavery or sweatshop style factories and cultural emptiness. The North was seen as a hodgepodge of greedy businessmen and random Europeans from everywhere in Europe, the South thought of themselves as the true founding Anglo-Saxon stock of America with high worth given to chivalry and community. The North saw the South as stubborn, selfish and backwards without many given specifics. Think about the narratives that soldiers have in war and what their leaders have in war, how many times has a Land gone to war over cringe excuses or empty causes for hidden goals, yet the soldiers believe in an utterly different cause.
Even if that was true - and there are some pretty damning social histories of Confederate civilians and soldiers -, the war was started by landowning elites that used the Southern white lower class as an army for their own economic gain. And that economic gain was certainly motivated by slavery, as the contemporary statesmen willfully admit in the founding documents.
@@kenfresno5218 I don't see where you actually disagree with me. The South seceded and attacked the federal government's installation in an act of rebellion by shelling Fort Sumter. Then the federal government raised an army to restore the would-be secessionist territory.
You seem to restate what I said.
You should quotes from the diaries of confederate soldiers it gives a rather damning impression.
The state's rights argument here is misrepresented. When people ask the state's rights to what the answer can be found in what Jefferson Davis himself said that states rights mean. "The North was mad and blind and would not let us govern ourselves and so the war came and so it must go on." Those that say that it was the state's rights to slavery totally ignore that at the time the phrase states rights meant the right to govern themselves, as Davis said.
Also, just a correction here, when you have the photo of the free and slave states at 9:55 there are two states on the list that had slavery legal at the start of the war that are listed as free states. NY made slavery illegal after the war started, in 1861, and NJ had slavery legal until the ratification of the 13th Amendment and then on a state level did not officially make slavery illegal until 1869.
For me personally, I agree with Shelby Foote when he said that "those who say that slavery had nothing to do with the war are just as wrong as those that say that slavery was the only cause of the war." Slavery was a major component but the issue of tariffs and taxes can not be ignored either. It is the only issue that Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln both addressed in their Inaugural Addresses. So it was obviously a big enough deal that both men addressed it in their addresses but only Lincoln talked about slavery and that was to declare his support of the proposal of making slavery "express and irrevocable".
I dont know why I would listen to Jefferson Davis quotes over secessionist declarations of causes. Davis did not declare secession, the states did.
As for the list of states, it shows the political alignment of the states on the political issue. New York and New Jersey would have obviously been in favor of the abolition of slavery, hence they are colored as free states.
And the question of tariffs is really a meme. The US states have historically often and regularly disagreed over fiscal policy, but the only time this has resulted in secession is when there was a concurrent national dispute over the future of slavery. It must as a result seem as if the slavery is the more decisive point rather than the question of tariffs.
But this begs the question if souther states never left union in first place would slavery be a thing in south.
Seeing as how other states abolished slavery without civil wars, it seems a safe assumption that abolition without civil war would have been viable in the United States as well.
@@Ted52 Did Abraham Lincoln had any intention on freeing black slaves in south after he was elected as president of united states of america just saying.
@@ernestoguillen2266 Abraham Lincoln, whenever asked, made sure to have people know that he personally would prefer to see slavery abolished, but that he politically would not push the issue in order to avoid the dissolution of the Union.
I refer you to his letter to Horace Greeley of 22 August 1862, which is probably the most famous document in which he states this dichotomy of personal and political goals.
But there would have been Presidents after Lincoln, and the public opinion of the US would have changed over time. In a world without the civil war, we might see slavery continue into the 1870s, 1880s or maybe even the 1890s (which would make the US the last country to abolish slavery, as Brazil did so in 1888), but it would not survive the upheavals of the early 20th Century.
@@Ted52 makes sense
@@ernestoguillen2266 Lincoln considered sending the slaves back to Africa
So his Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional?
In a peacetime United States with slave power supreme court judges... it might have been judged to be.
But to hide between the constitutionality of chattel slavery ain't the best look, chief.
@@Ted52 To make it clear, I think slavery is an absolutely horrendous practice. It just bugs me that some people place all the blame on the South.
That proclamation was a war tactic to keep other countries from recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign nation.
So motivation for cessation was slavery. Then the cause of the Civil War is the North saying “No you cannot secede (and take all of your money that we love getting from you), so we declare war on you to keep you from secession”. Shocker. The war was caused by the issue of whether or not it is the “State’s Right” to secede.
Great video.
You used an image of The csa president by accident at 2:46
True. Editorial oversight on my part.
Yeah I’m pretty sure that was a pic of President Jefferson Davis, NoT Edward Pollard😆🤣🤦🏾♂️
Great video
Cheers :)
I would free all slaves I would free no slave I would free some slaves to save the union Abraham Lincoln
That is not verbatim the quote at all, but Lincoln's mentality mattered far less than what the southerners believed his mentality to be.
@@Ted52 go to Abbeville Institute
@@jessiecole659 and what would I look for there
@@jessiecole659 quote mining lincoln is a pathetic way to argue. typical, but pathetic.
Here is the full qoute
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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
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. Yours,
Interesting take on the "Civil War" question, however I disagree on your argument against states rights. Even though the Confederate States stated (no pun intended) that the main causes for leaving was to maintain slavery, this does not prove that the main cause was Slavery, as this was primarily a State's Rights to own slaves. Your refutation of this was also false as yes, who would have thought that the Confederate States would have all agreed to slavery, I mean it was the main reason they left the Union anyway, so why not put it in their constitution? Lastly your argument about the attack from the north and the south can be refuted by the polarised culture between the two on not only the question of slavery, but culture and economics. One example is the Nullification Crisis's of 1828-1832, where President Adams put tariffs on imports, which the South suffered heavily from and the North recovered with (due to the economic downturn). This inevitably led to South Carolina succeeding and Andrew Jackson having the Force Bill passed. Nonetheless, very objective and formal style video, looking forward to more in the future!
If they said it was about slavery, and their concern about states' rights only extended to slavery, and they didn't care about states' rights enough to keep themselves a backdoor to abolish slavery, and they didn't care about states' rights enough on all the other issues like Fugitive Slave Laws, then at some point, States' Rights as a principle seems like a very weak narrative. If you consistently break a principle when it comes to a particular policy, then it would appear as if that policy is more important than the principle. If you go through a long process of secession to assert your freedom, but then subjugate yourself to a new document that doesn't grant you the principle you initially seceded because of, then it stands to reason that you never really cared so much about the principle in the first place.
I guess you could disagree with my initial premise that the States' Rights position is a "principle versus policy" difference when compared to the Slavery position, but if you accept that premise, and then the principle is only consistent regarding this one particular policy, then the principle is just semantics at this point. Why even talk about a principle when it only pertains to one policy?
I appreciate the comment.
@@Ted52 Slavery is justified because why is the free market called "free"
@@sjsabattis okay Tanto, go to bed
The Confederate Constitution forbade any state or territory from infringing upon the right of slave property. Virtually the only differences between the confederate Constitution and the US Constitution involve clauses protecting slavery
Did Sherman go far enough though?
The state of Georgia continues to function as a political entity, so I would say the answer is "no".
That has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard you do know Sherman’s army killed both black and white women and children including raping and pillaging this video is really dumb and incorrect high tariffs was why the south seceded Lincoln invaded the state’s to preserve the union and I quote if I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave I would :Lincoln the war was about economics and power my god people do some research
@@southernlogger2307 you are wrong about why the south succeeded and you also don't have the full context of the letter.
nice vid bru
In your argument to disgrace one side and vilify them you actually disprove your own argument.
No, I didn't. There's plenty of Confederate apologist weirdos on this video's comment section, and the best thing they came up with to disprove my argument so far was "You probably think OJ Simpson is innocent". Needless to say, my argument stands. The Confederacy made very sure to leave a legacy of the defense of slavery in the hopes that this would be their great foundational moment of the new nation. What they instead left behind is a self-indictment of grandiose proportions.
@@Ted52 you believe what you do, I believe what I do. One side has facts and the other has the facts written by the victors to cover up the other facts. Both sides made mistakes and the victors had to rewrite history because they did more harm to our country than good. Why does the North have to constantly be on the offensive? It might be that the best defense is a strong offense. We are reunited as a country, but i see history repeating itself and the cover story then was slavery; today it is racism. I am not saying that either side were angels, but I have called Lincoln a war criminal and I stand behind that statement. I am not a racist and I can take pride in that and take pride in my beliefs based on facts. I just do not want to see history erased any more than it has been or another war like that. I love my country and I can move on, but I am not going to stick my head in the sand either. I accept our country as the greatest on the Earth with the good and the bad from our past making us what we are today.
@@Squib1911 Do you think that the declarations of secessions and attached declarations of causes of secession of the various southern states, adopted by the southern legislatures over the course of 1860 and 1861, are written by the northerners?
I made very sure to focus on documents written by southerners in my video. This is how they wanted the two of us to remember them: as racial supremacists and slaveholders. That's why they wrote these declarations this way. That's why Mr Stephens held his Cornerstone Speech the way he did. Southern statesmen tried to forge a legacy for themselves. It honors you that your bite reflex is to declare this legacy enemy propaganda - because that at least implies you think slavery is bad -, but the 1860s were a different time.
Back then, slavery was absolutely an issue where (white) people could have different opinions about it, and the state legislatures that I cite and that eventually came together to forge the Confederate Constitution that I also cite wanted to make sure that the two of us know that they are on what they perceived to have been the right side of history: that of slavery.
@@Ted52 I don't know how to convince a social justice warrior who cannot look at history objectively to quit omitting facts. It is on you to discover how to be a better historian.
@@Squib1911 Another one bites the dust. Ad hominem, no argument, no sources. Have a great day :)