Very good video! I am making a script for a similar video, but going into more detail with the Confederate Secession Declarations and their respective state constitutions and the constitution of the Confederacy. If you are interested in being featured in it let me know!
I think your response to the fact that Africans sold each other into slavery is a very important point. Yes they did but just like all markets they were responding to market demands. Would there still have been slavery in west Africa if the Europeans didnt use slave labour? Probably but not nearly to the same degree. Supply and demand are universal economic facts even in repugnant things like slavery.
Thats why These african empires collapsed that fast , they Laserfocus on Maximum Profit with the Slave trade and got very rich but the Moment when the europeans Stop buying them and more importantly Block the trade routes These empires Fell because they Had No Other scource of income
Arab travelers, like ibn Battuta, visited kingdoms across west Africa hundreds of years before the Atlantic slave trade. He recorded how the local Africans would compete with each other over who owned more slaves. He was given slaves as gifts by west African kings.
WOW!!! This is THE best and most factual telling of the causes of the civil war I’ve heard in some thirty years. You’ve done a very fine job. I hope people listen to this whole thing. Thank you!🙏
For the average southerner at the time it wasn't about slavery. They weren't going to fight and die for something that wasn't in their interests. Most southerners couldn't afford a slave, and slavery under cut their wages. You might say they were tricked or brainwashed, but to say I'm wrong would be dishonest. A lot of people at the time believed it was about state's rights, etc. Never mind the fact the men on both sides could buy their way out of the fighting. (That's another hornet's nest right there.) I think that is what the movie, Gods and Generals is partly about, trying to show this. The world is a lot more complicated then many people believe.
@@horactik9838 I do not deny the fact that there was a north south divide. But what was the principal divide between the two? What was almost all of the rebel states' reason for succession? It was slavery.
I could see an argument that it was simply about preserving white dominance, if these blacks were freed where they to vote? This would have led to the whites losing certain states. It is plausible, given a proper emigration plan for blacks were presented that fears may have subsided, poorer southerners may have looked upon this with opportunity as now there would be much more land with less people. One could reframe it as a racial conflict, although unsure that really appeals to modern sensibilities.
2:55 The problem with calling this a “myth” is that it isn’t all that much of a “myth” to begin with. From the view of most southerners, they weren’t fighting to preserve an institution. Even Jefferson Davis dismissed that notion outright in his often quoted interview in September, 1864. In that same interview, he also stated: “[Slavery] picked up the musket that was primed and loaded.” In his view, slavery was only a surface-level issue and that the problems that led to the conflict was that very question of States’ Rights. This was a common sentiment throughout the south and only differed with a number of other, deep-south politicians. The sentiment he expressed was commonly shared among the upper south, which had seceded due to Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops; an act they saw as an act of coercion. So, for much of the south, they weren’t fighting for slavery whatsoever. Rather, as Davis expressed in that interview, they were fighting for their independence and were willing to give up the institution if it meant gaining it. There’s also another problem: the term “Lost Cause Myth” is - itself - a buzzword. It has come to mean “any view that does not coincide with a very specific interpretation of the war.” People have been ascribed the term “lost causer,” even if they weren’t one at all. Gary Gallagher is a prime example of this; he was labeled as a “lost causer” for writing extensively about Confederate generals and praising Lee as a good general. The problem being that the term has come to mean “anyone who has anything remotely positive to say about the south at all.” It’s one I outright avoid simply due to how ambiguous the term has become.
Alexander Stephens also shared the same view regarding the causes of the war. He defined the conflict by referring to slavery as “the cause of the occasion,” but distinguished it from the “Causa Causan” on the conflict, which he described as the issue we would refer to as “States Rights.” The reason for this distinction was the same reason why we’d distinguish the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand from the alliances made between the great powers in the lead-up to the war; one is the driving issue that brought everything to ahead while the other is what made the driving issue important to begin with.
If you look at each state's declaration of succession, what do they all say? To preserve the institution of slavery. Why would the average non-slave owning man want succession? Racism, not wanting to become the bottom rung in society, fears of a slave revolt or uprising etc.
@@saltA-saurus, they say quite a lot, actually. The documents are - quite often - lengthy documents that get into detail about issues - such as the legality of secession - that aren’t even related to slavery at all.
@@MatthewChenault Dude of course they say quite a lot and many things not slavery. But when you look at the reason for secession that each state gives, the primary reason for almost all the states is "to preserve slavery".
@@saltA-saurus, first, I make that point because virtually no one has actually read through the secession documents, the secession convention hearings, and so on. It’s almost always the same, over-used lines quoted time and again; usually stripped of all other context. Second, when you look at the reasons for secession that each state gives, the primary reason for every state is the violation of the Constitution by the federal body and a sectional political party. For instance, the Upper South did not secede over slavery whatsoever. What drove them to secession was Lincoln’s unwillingness to negotiate and his escalation of the secession crisis into a Civil War by calling for 75,000 troops to force the states that had seceded back into the Union. For the Deep South, most of their issues are rooted in the same problem as stated before. Slavery - itself - was the “cause of the occasion” for the Deep South, but the root cause of the conflict was the violation of the Compact (the Constitution) by the sectional party known as the Republican Party. Many of the issues concerning the slavery debate are rooted in the violation of the Constitution by the Northern States, which - as Georgia’s Causes for Secession touched upon - was the latest manifestation of preexisting problems the Southern States had with the North. In their view, the reason why the Northern States rallied behind abolition was due to it acting as a perfect political tool; a means to the greater end of control and domination of the Federal Body. Ultimately, slavery is relevant insofar as it is the issue everyone is talking about at that time. Yet, it - alone - cannot explain why a conflict occurred nor explain why the South seceded to begin with.
Slavery is a cause, but it - alone - cannot explain why the war occurred. The problems that lead to the American Civil War extend to multiple, unsettled questions early in the republic’s history; questions such as the boundaries and powers of the States, when can and cannot a State challenge the federal body, and so on are included in this. The social and economic differences between the regions - differences that existed regardless of the institution’s existence or lack thereof - further compounded these important questions. In all of this, slavery is the hot, social issue of the time. It was - as Alexander Stephens described it - “the cause of the occasion.” It was the issue that was forefront in the discussions of secession, but had reached this position due to the aforementioned problems within the Republic. The “Causa Causan” of the conflict - within the federal councils - was the debate between federal vs national governance; a debate over what powers the federal government had and what they could and could not do. Otherwise, slavery - as an issue - would not have resulted in a civil war. The problem I’ve seen occur so often is a failure to understand that any political and social crisis has multiple factors leading into it; often driven by current, political events of that time. Slavery has to be understood as an issue, but should not be elevated over the problems that _made_ it into an issue. It has to be understood within the framework of the time period it was an issue within and why so much was seemingly made about it. In short, instead of asking “was slavery a cause of the war,” since this is already answered, We should be asking “why was slavery an issue to begin with and to what extent did it instigate the conflict?”
Civil War Had little to do with slavery It was all about tariffs. And the tariff that was levied plundering the south. Most of the federal Budget was paid for by Terrace collected from the south. In Abraham Lincoln‘s inaugural address I’ll paraphrase “pay your tariffs, and they will be no incursions”. Emancipation proclamation was a tactic of war, hoping for Surveil slave, revolt, to commence behind the confederate lines. While the men were on the front lines Confronting the north
If it had to do with tarrifs, then explain to me how the port of New York alone payed for over 50-70% of all tariffs in the union. With Boston in second and New Orleans in a FAR third place. Also tell me why each secession document prefaced slavery as the main paramount issue? And tell my Lincoln also addressed in his first inaugural numerous times he does not want to ban slavery, and Southerns should not fear banning slavery, only ending its expansion. If you’re going to be uneducated, don’t do it online so thousands of ppl can see
War was about slavery but it remains that secession was legal and war was aggression of Union against Confederacy (Confederacy did fire first shots but it was on foreign military inside of their territory that refused to evacuate for months). If in future some states would try to secede over another issue like lets say the illegal immigration issue right now what is to say central goverment isn't going to illegally invade them again. While their invasion in civil war had moral grounds of fighting against slavery it might have no clear moral ground in another potential issue. I don't think majority of people that are bringing up lost cause myth want slavery back it is about power of central government over state rights but its politicians so what else than lies can you expect from them.
Nah, that's what the war was about. You can't just leave. That's the deal. The south got to have a fugitive slave act but it wasn't enough. They wanted to have everything or nothing, what they got was better than what they deserved. Ending reconstruction was a mistake.
If states rights to nullify laws are so damn important, why didn't SC secede when Andrew Jackson sent armed tax collectors for a tariff they tried to nullify? It was about slavery and the eco ony it supported, that's why the war started.
Christopher maybe consider that the north didnt given two shits about the actual victims of Slavery and were completely fine with that practice If the south didnt want to secede and paid Their taxes only later they pretend to Care also after the civil war Most slaves Just turned from legal slaves to debt slaves aka the virtuous north didnt do Shit to help
Real good stuff
Very good video! I am making a script for a similar video, but going into more detail with the Confederate Secession Declarations and their respective state constitutions and the constitution of the Confederacy. If you are interested in being featured in it let me know!
I think your response to the fact that Africans sold each other into slavery is a very important point. Yes they did but just like all markets they were responding to market demands. Would there still have been slavery in west Africa if the Europeans didnt use slave labour? Probably but not nearly to the same degree. Supply and demand are universal economic facts even in repugnant things like slavery.
Thats why These african empires collapsed that fast , they Laserfocus on Maximum Profit with the Slave trade and got very rich but the Moment when the europeans Stop buying them and more importantly Block the trade routes These empires Fell because they Had No Other scource of income
Arab travelers, like ibn Battuta, visited kingdoms across west Africa hundreds of years before the Atlantic slave trade. He recorded how the local Africans would compete with each other over who owned more slaves. He was given slaves as gifts by west African kings.
Yeah there would be, Europeans didn't introduce slavery to West Africa. Not to mention how tribal societies always had slavery.
Oh some people aren’t gonna like this 😂
The comments section will light up
You’re so virtuous. And better than everyone.
WOW!!! This is THE best and most factual telling of the causes of the civil war I’ve heard in some thirty years. You’ve done a very fine job. I hope people listen to this whole thing. Thank you!🙏
It was them dadburned Yankess using picante sauce from...NEW YORK CITY! ( Actually slavery.)
The Civil War wasn’t about slavery! It was about where it was legal to own other human beings!
That gave me a chuckle
For the average southerner at the time it wasn't about slavery. They weren't going to fight and die for something that wasn't in their interests. Most southerners couldn't afford a slave, and slavery under cut their wages. You might say they were tricked or brainwashed, but to say I'm wrong would be dishonest. A lot of people at the time believed it was about state's rights, etc. Never mind the fact the men on both sides could buy their way out of the fighting. (That's another hornet's nest right there.)
I think that is what the movie, Gods and Generals is partly about, trying to show this. The world is a lot more complicated then many people believe.
Certainly, the divide between north south has always existed ever since the early days of America. It's just societal.
A state's rights to what?!? 😂
@@saltA-saurus It being finally blown over by slavery doesn't negate the fact that the divide has existed ever since the country was birthed.
@@horactik9838 I do not deny the fact that there was a north south divide. But what was the principal divide between the two? What was almost all of the rebel states' reason for succession? It was slavery.
Just like every other war it was fought over money. Hooray for Dixie !!
LETS GOOOOOOO
What caused the American Civil War? GREED.
I could see an argument that it was simply about preserving white dominance, if these blacks were freed where they to vote? This would have led to the whites losing certain states. It is plausible, given a proper emigration plan for blacks were presented that fears may have subsided, poorer southerners may have looked upon this with opportunity as now there would be much more land with less people. One could reframe it as a racial conflict, although unsure that really appeals to modern sensibilities.
2:55
The problem with calling this a “myth” is that it isn’t all that much of a “myth” to begin with. From the view of most southerners, they weren’t fighting to preserve an institution. Even Jefferson Davis dismissed that notion outright in his often quoted interview in September, 1864. In that same interview, he also stated: “[Slavery] picked up the musket that was primed and loaded.” In his view, slavery was only a surface-level issue and that the problems that led to the conflict was that very question of States’ Rights.
This was a common sentiment throughout the south and only differed with a number of other, deep-south politicians. The sentiment he expressed was commonly shared among the upper south, which had seceded due to Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops; an act they saw as an act of coercion. So, for much of the south, they weren’t fighting for slavery whatsoever. Rather, as Davis expressed in that interview, they were fighting for their independence and were willing to give up the institution if it meant gaining it.
There’s also another problem: the term “Lost Cause Myth” is - itself - a buzzword. It has come to mean “any view that does not coincide with a very specific interpretation of the war.” People have been ascribed the term “lost causer,” even if they weren’t one at all. Gary Gallagher is a prime example of this; he was labeled as a “lost causer” for writing extensively about Confederate generals and praising Lee as a good general. The problem being that the term has come to mean “anyone who has anything remotely positive to say about the south at all.” It’s one I outright avoid simply due to how ambiguous the term has become.
Alexander Stephens also shared the same view regarding the causes of the war. He defined the conflict by referring to slavery as “the cause of the occasion,” but distinguished it from the “Causa Causan” on the conflict, which he described as the issue we would refer to as “States Rights.” The reason for this distinction was the same reason why we’d distinguish the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand from the alliances made between the great powers in the lead-up to the war; one is the driving issue that brought everything to ahead while the other is what made the driving issue important to begin with.
If you look at each state's declaration of succession, what do they all say? To preserve the institution of slavery. Why would the average non-slave owning man want succession? Racism, not wanting to become the bottom rung in society, fears of a slave revolt or uprising etc.
@@saltA-saurus, they say quite a lot, actually. The documents are - quite often - lengthy documents that get into detail about issues - such as the legality of secession - that aren’t even related to slavery at all.
@@MatthewChenault Dude of course they say quite a lot and many things not slavery. But when you look at the reason for secession that each state gives, the primary reason for almost all the states is "to preserve slavery".
@@saltA-saurus, first, I make that point because virtually no one has actually read through the secession documents, the secession convention hearings, and so on. It’s almost always the same, over-used lines quoted time and again; usually stripped of all other context.
Second, when you look at the reasons for secession that each state gives, the primary reason for every state is the violation of the Constitution by the federal body and a sectional political party. For instance, the Upper South did not secede over slavery whatsoever. What drove them to secession was Lincoln’s unwillingness to negotiate and his escalation of the secession crisis into a Civil War by calling for 75,000 troops to force the states that had seceded back into the Union.
For the Deep South, most of their issues are rooted in the same problem as stated before. Slavery - itself - was the “cause of the occasion” for the Deep South, but the root cause of the conflict was the violation of the Compact (the Constitution) by the sectional party known as the Republican Party.
Many of the issues concerning the slavery debate are rooted in the violation of the Constitution by the Northern States, which - as Georgia’s Causes for Secession touched upon - was the latest manifestation of preexisting problems the Southern States had with the North. In their view, the reason why the Northern States rallied behind abolition was due to it acting as a perfect political tool; a means to the greater end of control and domination of the Federal Body.
Ultimately, slavery is relevant insofar as it is the issue everyone is talking about at that time. Yet, it - alone - cannot explain why a conflict occurred nor explain why the South seceded to begin with.
It was politicians that caused it
Slavery is a cause, but it - alone - cannot explain why the war occurred.
The problems that lead to the American Civil War extend to multiple, unsettled questions early in the republic’s history; questions such as the boundaries and powers of the States, when can and cannot a State challenge the federal body, and so on are included in this. The social and economic differences between the regions - differences that existed regardless of the institution’s existence or lack thereof - further compounded these important questions.
In all of this, slavery is the hot, social issue of the time. It was - as Alexander Stephens described it - “the cause of the occasion.” It was the issue that was forefront in the discussions of secession, but had reached this position due to the aforementioned problems within the Republic. The “Causa Causan” of the conflict - within the federal councils - was the debate between federal vs national governance; a debate over what powers the federal government had and what they could and could not do. Otherwise, slavery - as an issue - would not have resulted in a civil war.
The problem I’ve seen occur so often is a failure to understand that any political and social crisis has multiple factors leading into it; often driven by current, political events of that time. Slavery has to be understood as an issue, but should not be elevated over the problems that _made_ it into an issue. It has to be understood within the framework of the time period it was an issue within and why so much was seemingly made about it.
In short, instead of asking “was slavery a cause of the war,” since this is already answered, We should be asking “why was slavery an issue to begin with and to what extent did it instigate the conflict?”
Civil War Had little to do with slavery
It was all about tariffs. And the tariff that was levied plundering the south. Most of the federal Budget was paid for by Terrace collected from the south. In Abraham Lincoln‘s inaugural address I’ll paraphrase “pay your tariffs, and they will be no incursions”. Emancipation proclamation was a tactic of war, hoping for Surveil slave, revolt, to commence behind the confederate lines. While the men were on the front lines Confronting the north
If it had to do with tarrifs, then explain to me how the port of New York alone payed for over 50-70% of all tariffs in the union. With Boston in second and New Orleans in a FAR third place. Also tell me why each secession document prefaced slavery as the main paramount issue? And tell my Lincoln also addressed in his first inaugural numerous times he does not want to ban slavery, and Southerns should not fear banning slavery, only ending its expansion.
If you’re going to be uneducated, don’t do it online so thousands of ppl can see
War was about slavery but it remains that secession was legal and war was aggression of Union against Confederacy (Confederacy did fire first shots but it was on foreign military inside of their territory that refused to evacuate for months). If in future some states would try to secede over another issue like lets say the illegal immigration issue right now what is to say central goverment isn't going to illegally invade them again. While their invasion in civil war had moral grounds of fighting against slavery it might have no clear moral ground in another potential issue. I don't think majority of people that are bringing up lost cause myth want slavery back it is about power of central government over state rights but its politicians so what else than lies can you expect from them.
Nah, that's what the war was about. You can't just leave. That's the deal. The south got to have a fugitive slave act but it wasn't enough. They wanted to have everything or nothing, what they got was better than what they deserved. Ending reconstruction was a mistake.
I stopped at “War as about slavery but”…
If states rights to nullify laws are so damn important, why didn't SC secede when Andrew Jackson sent armed tax collectors for a tariff they tried to nullify? It was about slavery and the eco ony it supported, that's why the war started.
Christopher maybe consider that the north didnt given two shits about the actual victims of Slavery and were completely fine with that practice If the south didnt want to secede and paid Their taxes only later they pretend to Care also after the civil war Most slaves Just turned from legal slaves to debt slaves aka the virtuous north didnt do Shit to help