One major false claim - slavery was in no danger, while the south was in the union. Getting rid of slavery would require a constitutional amendment. We know this because it was required, even without the south in the union. There were 15 slave states in 1860. To pass a constitutional amendment over them you would have to have 60 states. Slavery was in absolutely no danger. It made northern bankers rich, and most opposition to it was not based on moral grounds; northern workers didn’t want to have to compete. I wouldn’t either; but actual abolitionists were a tiny minority.
If I had a nicks for every time a president threatened to kill their Vice President. I would have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
@@uber-tionen9948 when Trump threatened to kill Mike Pence during the congress storming in january 2021. Though, I also think Thomas Jefferson thretened to kill Aron Burr for wanting to make his own state in the Lousiana territory. Idk which of them Bwkjam is refering to.
@@uber-tionen9948thomas jefferson accused his VP Aaron Burr of treason, Burr also shot and killed political rival Alexander Hamilton while VP. Perhaps he is referring to that?
@@uber-tionen9948 I wonder if he is counting Trump? I dont believe Trump was a direct threat though, just an implied threat. "Hey. Here is this mob. They want you to not do this thing. Don't mind the guillotine."
I don't think all of the southern states would've left South Carolina hanging like that. As soon as Jackson would've taken aggressive action neighboring states would've came to their defense.
Yeah, people forget that the upper south didn’t secede right away when Lincoln was elected. It was Lincoln’s preparation for invasion of the lower 7 that caused the upper 4 to secede. A similar thing probably would’ve happened here. Not sure how much it affects the rest of the video though.
@@riogrande1840 When pressed to make a choice when the nascent Confederacy pressed the issue in the hot bed of fire eaters in South Carolina by starting the war at Sumter, the border states then sided with slavery, because of slavery. The upper Southern states didn't threaten to secede when the Confederacy called up 100,000 troops BEFORE Lincoln's call and before Sumter. Troops which were to be used to coerce the legal federal power and Unionist Southern citizens, steal federal property and attack its installations. The upper Southern states, given their position and economic ties to the North were more reluctant and at first looked to a unified position and possible compromise, but when it was clear that a choice had to be made to side with or against the slave states and slavery, they chose slavery because of slavery. The Southern border states at first wanted to wait and to have a Southern convention for unified action, their initial hesitation doesn't mean that they were not also acting to protect slavery. The the nascent slave state needed a war in order to drag in the vacillating border slave states otherwise their rebellion would have just died on the vine. _"In other states of the Cotton Kingdom, there was similar outrage at Lincoln’s election but less certainty about how to respond to it. Those who advocated immediate secession by each state individually were opposed by the “cooperationists,” who believed the slave states should act as a unit. If the cooperationists had triumphed, secession would have been delayed until a southern convention had agreed on it."_ _"Some of these moderates hoped a delay would provide time to extort major concessions from the North and thus remove the need for dissolving the Union. But South Carolina’s unilateral action set a precedent that weakened the cooperationists’ cause."_ - Robert A. Divine et al., eds., The American Story, 3rd ed. (2 vols., New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007), 1: 380-381. _"If it had not been for the election of an antislavery party to the presidency, there would have been no secession, no firing on Fort Sumter, and no secession by the other four states (including Virginia) that followed the first seven out after Fort Sumter._ _The claim that his call for troops was the cause of the upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered repots of the attack on Sumter April 12 and its surrender the next day, huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville, and other upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees. These crowds waved the Confederate flags and cheered the glorious cause of southern independence. They demanded that their own states join the cause. Scores of such demonstrations took place from April 12 to 14 BEFORE Lincoln issued his call for troops. Many conditional unionists were swept along by this tide of Southern Nationalism; others cowed into silence."_ - McPherson, "The Battle Cry of Freedom" p278 .
AL of the states would have risen up against Jackson. ALL of them. As Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46: *But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.* *Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.* *To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.* Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.* So the Robber-barons bided their time, allowing Jackson's "Force Bill" precedent sink in, until they believed that it was POSSIBLE to carry out such a takeover-coup; and such a lunatic as Lincoln who would carry it out.
"We desperately need your strength and wisdom to triumph over our fears, our prejudices, ourselves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution" --Amistad, Anthony Hopkins
What if the American Revolution did not happen? If the American Revolution did not happen, I can see John Calhoun tried to rebel against the British government again once the Parliament passed the act that abolish slavery and the movement that demand for the westward expansion keeps growing more and more restless. But I can see the northern colonies remained loyal to Britain. And if the British won, the reward is most likely the autonomy and the rights for the expansion northward instead because Britain just acquired Canada from France.
@@jeremym4451 And why will they do that? I mean, construct a fleet of warships and dispatch them across the ocean to fight against one of the most powerful navies in the world?!
@@jeremym4451 Aside from the fact that the King of Britain at the time is quite a big egotistic, there is no reason for him to be overthrown. And him having quite an ego is definitely not a good reason for this.
I appreciate this video, not for its presentation of alternative time-line possibilities, which never manifested, but for the clear presentation of some of the conditions which made the Civil War which did occur more understandable. The Civil War is often presented as if it happened in a vacuum, without reason beyond a disagreement over the practice of slavery. That's an absurd view, but few people put in the effort to educate themselves about the conditions which led to it.
Slavery was a huge part of the reason why the “Civil” War took place but it was far from the only reason: there were a lot of other economic factors at play and when you look at the war through that lens, it really changes your perspective on things and makes you ask questions that most American history teachers wouldn’t even try to answer. For example, if the northern states were that much better off economically, how would they have been able to feed and clothe their citizens without their main supplier of those agricultural resources no longer being part of the US or willing to do any business with them over the excessive tariffs that were in place at the time? Another topic of discussion is the fact that contrary to popular belief, no Confederate soldier was ever found guilty of treason. And there were two reasons for that: 1) you can’t charge another nation’s citizens with treason against yours and 2) even if that could be done in 1865, that would essentially make acts like Sherman’s March a war crime against American civilians, resulting in serious charges against every UNION soldier involved in what a certain art-school dropout in the distant future would implement. In other words, mutually assured destruction
Keep in mind also that North Carolina ( despite supplying with Confederate Army with the largest amount of men) came extremely close to staying with the Union. You would have a a defacto Union state behind Confederate lines.
actually Lincoln blew it by calling for an army afte Fort Sumter. That pushed VA and NC into the Confederacy. the idea of a large armed force crossing their state to reach the rebellion states was too much and their fears were justified considering wanton looting and destruction of civilian property in VA during the war...see Fredericksburg
Flawed logic. Americans didn’t view themselves as “Americans” but as Virginians, Georgians, or Carolinians. While nullification wasn’t popular elsewhere, Southern states would not attack another Southern state. There also was not a large, standing federal army and the one we had was Iill - equipped and ill trained.
I am pretty sure Henry Clay viewed himself as American. There were many people who felt that way, the viewpoint. ultimately became the one held by Lincoln. But I take your point that it was less common than it is now.
Idea- If 1933-1945 Germany and Poland attacked the Soviets, I hard this was an idea, that the Germans wanted to do until Pilsduski died. Here is the Channel that states it- www.youtube.com/@ZoomerHistorian/videos
Andrew Jackson was profoundly a nationalist, and nowhere near the straw man he is portrayed as. As someone said, South Carolina was too small for a country, too large for an insane asylum.
It almost did. The US had Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Prussia backing it and the Confederacy had Britain and France supporting it so it could’ve happened.
Aight, heres an idea I just thought of (and before someone says, "um actually 🤓" I know it's unrealistic. This is just completely for fun. The British and the South strike up a deal for cotton, and the british would start supplying guns and ammo plus a few EXTRA warships, they OTL. France, who also desires the cotton attempts to do the same thing.. but sees radical push back. The Emperor is forced to change his hand and support the North instead. Using Napoleon's idea of liberty to strengthen his claims of northern supremacy. The Prussians see this ally with the Brirish and confederates as they see it as a good way to weaken out France, making it dump extra weapons and ships into the Union. Russia supports the Union as both states had high relations. The only 3 who I couldn't fit on here were the ottomans, who could side with either or because they were one of the highest cotton producers at the time, but they supported the Union. Austria, because really it could go either way, as I said. and Italy, because idk if Italy even exists yet (I wrote this all up without using google) and also even if they did I wouldn't know where or how to fit them in. And yes, I know its unrealistic and poorly written lmao
It did in 1777, and helped reshape Europe and the UK due to their loss of the new USA. The world war shifted alliances between UK, Spain, Netherlands, France, Russia, Columbian colonies, the Caribbean colonies, the India colonies. The 1775 conflict arose as an anti Britain rebellion, but by 1776 it had become an American civil war in all regions of the new War for Independence. Loyalist forces were fairly well balanced to patriots in both rural and urban districts, North South East and West.
I actually love that you made this video because it helps prove a point I've been trying to make as a historian for so long about how until the emancipation proclaimation was issued, the us civil war was not about slavery at first, Lincoln even said "the war is to preserve the union at all costs, not to take your slaves" himself so i don't want to see anyone say it was 100% about slavery that is just northern propaganda so they don't look so bad for forcing more centralization on the states after the war. The main reason for cecession was not slavery, sure thats A reason but not THE reason or certainly not the ONLY reason, but it was actually the fact that the federal government, which was a majority of the opposite side, was out voting them and passing new teriffs and economic policies that benefited the northern industry based economy at the expense of the southern agricultural way of life. Essentially, they were trying to force the South to industrialize and modernize against their will the same way mao did to china in "the great leap forward." An example would be a higher tax, tariff, and purchase price on the cotton gin, which was an essential tool for processing cotton in the south, but wasn't used at all in the north and was produced overseas in England, thus was heavily tariffable, as well as other industrial and agricultural equipment necessary to run their plantations. The government was deliberately making policies where things the south needed were more expensive and things the north needed were cheaper by setting higher tariffs and taxes on, or simply banning the sale of items needed by the south on purpose to hurt their economy, just because it was based on slavery. The south had to pay more tariffs and taxes on the same items as the north, and their standard of living decreased as the northern industry increased ,they saw the central governments industry and economic conditions as a threat to their society and survival. They believed that since the union was an agreed apon entity, they had the right to leave the union if it no longer benefited them to be in it. Which IS a fair reason to leave, and it wasn't illegal back then to do so... They believe the government was working against them and treated them like a separate country, so they decided to actually become one and thought it better off to be independent. I see no difference between what the South did and what the 13 colonies did to Britain during the revolution. People don't know this because they don't actually research they believe the first thing school tells them, even if its a lie. Napoleon bonaparte said, "History is written by the winners, and the losers' story is never told." The us Civil War is an example of Napoleon being correct in his statement... also the fact that nearly all the major European countries and native Americans were in support of the South and were going to intervene on the south side directly until the emancipation proclamation was issued that it became about slavery, also there were slaveholding states in the union and free states in the confederacy so this is more prooof it wasn't about slavery, also the EP didn't free ALL slaves, just the ones in rebel states(slave states in the union like kansas and Tennessee got to keep their slaves even after the war). Im a historian and I can prove all of this is true with documents and sources...if anyone disagrees, i need you to send links by real historians, not by government sources proving that everything i said isn't true and it can't just be your own opinion or just because you never heard of it this way before because you would have if you actually studied history. No, i need peer reviewed essays that directly oppose these ideas and explain why they are not true, do not give me propaganda saying the "states fought for states rights but it was rights to own slaves not states rights to cecede from the union to make independent decisions" because this is not true, everyone automatically assumes that this meant "states rights to own slaves" but thats not really true and technically it doesn't matter what rights a state fights for, states rights should always go above federal oversight. What they meant was that decisions in government should be unanimous rather than by a majority vote that could outvote state decisions and that states had the right to leave the union if they kept getting their policies outvoted by the majority rule of the opposition in power at the time. They claimed to be fighting for states' rights to make decisions separate from the federal government, not states' rights to continue owning slaves... there's a huge difference, and that's why everyone gets confused. So i think having this video out and explaining how it almost happened before 1861 for other reasons is a good thing because it helps reinforce the true idea that the actual civil war wasn't how we thought it was either... it was a war over the right of the states to have more power over the federal government or the other way around. Saying it was about slavery was a purely political ploy to stop European nations from recognizing the souths independence. Im not a Southerner or Confederacy supporter, but i still recognize the facts because i have a history degree and took the time to research.
A great modern-day example of this is the Texas border crisis... if you believe that Texas has the right to set up barriers and take border control into their own hands in direct opposition to the constitution (which says they cant do that) and the policies of the central government under Biden, then you agree with states rights and would be no different from the confederacy, if you believe that the government gets to decide border policy regardless of how it affects a specific state and that states should have to petition the federal government to make changes instead of just doing it themselves...you agree with federationists and you are like the union... if you believe the feds should still be able to bust people for weed in legal states despite it being federally illegal, you are pro union, but if you think that weed legality should be decided directly by states alone and that the feds have no right to bust people in legal states, you agree with the confederacy... the same ideas about states vs. feds persist in current times and have nothing to do with slavery but it can still cause issues or another civil war... also the fact that in the early days of the USA, there literally was almost a civil war over federalists and antifederalists over whether states or central government had more power is yet more proof that its always been about states rights or federal oversight. There was also a civil war over whiskey while Washington was president, it was about whether the federal government had the right to tax whiskey made in the states or if the state got to decide for itself whether to tax it. It was also about who had the right to grant a brewing license, the states or the feds... the feds won that war, and it's more proof still...
Several points: 1) when threatened with military action, there is a huge difference between Jackson and Lincoln. Not only was Jackson a proven leader who could win against odds, if he had to challenge Calhoun in a personal duel Jackson would not hestitate. You screwed with Jackson at your own personal peril. Lincoln, meanwhile, took 2 years to find a general who could consistently beat the Rebels. 2) You did not mention the Morrill Tariff being passed in March 1860 - basically rubbing salt into Southern wounds. It was higher rates than the tariff in 1832. It allowed the South to threaten having low to zero tariffs, thus directly threatening Northern industry and shipping. While this brought business interests to support Lincoln's efforts to force the South back under Northern control, I don't quite see 100,000s of volunteers joining the army to support tax law. Still, it certainly did not help the South to decide NOT to secede.
If anything, attacking South Carolina like that, would spark revolt against Jackson, labeling him as a tyrant who went too far. It's also possible that while most states didn't agree with nullification at least some would respect the right of a state to leave the union, so some others would consider secession as well, similar to what happened with the actual civil war Even *if* Jackson got his goal of scaring states into staying no matter what and the backlash didn't come, a lot of the compromises that came about later would not happen so easily, because secession would no longer be a safety net if diplomacy failed. Just about every fight over any major issue would be a Bleeding Kansas As for Liberia, if that issue dragged on past the abolition of slavery, Liberia would *not* gain its independence for the same reasons that secession would never be allowed to happen. It'd either remain a territory like Puerto Rico or push to become a state. Similarly, the Philippines would also attain statehood or remain a territory.
Thank you. I feel like he went completely off the rails with his assumption that no other state would have come to South Carolina's defense, particularly given the content of the Andrew Jackson quote he highlighted himself about nullification only being a pretext.
@@toddfluhr4655 Yeah, there's a big difference between, "this state doesn't want to follow the rules we agreed to" and "this state is being *forced* to stay in the union at gunpoint" As I recall, in our timeline, some of the Confederate States did not join until *after* the war started. Today, many will be like, "the Confederacy brought it on themselves but attacking that US fort" but the way that state and the states who later joined up saw it, resupplying the fort instead of abandoning it was a clear act of aggression That was just resupplying a fort. Imagine the reaction to invasion would be
Nicely done video. My only quibble is that statement near the beginning that the north and the south had been enemies for centuries. The country wan' not that old.
You should do a video regarding the several northern new England states who came at least as close to seceding two decades before that because of tariffs which most people 10:22 in the US agreed was their constitutional right.
Nice to see some props for Henry Clay. Now do one on what would have happened re: the civil war, mexican war, etc. if he had been elected president as a whig in the '40s and served 2 terms
Video Suggestion: What if the Russian Provisional Government survives from 1918 Russian Revolution(and became the Russian Republic)? - The 1918 Russian Revolution ended the decades rule of Russian tsardom and the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. A Russian Provisional Government was formed by Alexander Kerensky in hopes to turn Russia into a democratic republic but due of instability and crisis, it was overthrew by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Kerensky was exiled in the US and remain there until his death in 1970 while Russia became the communist Soviet Union after the Reds won the Russian Civil War over the Whites and ruled the nation with an iron fist and bloodshed until it collapsed in 1991. But what could have happen if Kerensky's Russian Provisional Government survives and manage to outsmart the Bolsheviks? One of the best alternate scenarios was the attempted assassination of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin survived many assassinations including the event after his speech, he got almost killed by anti communist perpetrator with a pistol that happened a few days before the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government. But for the sake of this scenario, let's just say the assassin managed to slightly aim and shot Lenin, hit him on the chest fatally and died. The Bolsheviks were shock & scattered before they have a plan to overthrew the provisional government. Kerensky saw this as a big opportunity to purge the Bolsheviks and other communist affiliations. After this, Kerensky managed to fix the instability and crisis within the nation with the help of the Western allies like the US and Britain. As for Nicholas and his family due of the Bolsheviks was already crushed, they survived but no longer has their royal status and would retire a normal citizen life. Kerensky would lead Russia into a democratic republic in the two terms before he resigned. As for WW2, the Nazis would still rise to power in Germany but with Russia as republic instead of Soviet Union, it would likely the Nazi Germany invade Poland and started WW2 which Russia will criticize the invasion. Without the Winter War because the Soviet Union never exist, Finland would remain neutral. Japan would likely invade Manchuria and install a puppet government, causing a border crisis between them and Russia. The rest of scenario is up to you.
0:43 - the Pilgrim Fathers didn't sail to America to escape religious persecution, they left England because they considered it too permissive in matters of religion. They wanted more persecution (just of other people though)
Senator Thomas Hart Benton when asked about this during the Nullification crisis: I have known the general long enough to know when he says this....ehehehe...you're screwed.
You do realize that in the decades leading to 1860 the South had over 60% of the value of all American exports. In fact, the North had the Panic of 1857 that that the South did not experience. Frankly, the European Industrial Revolution needed Southern cotton - it did not need Northern factories. So do not make the mistake that the Southern agricultural economy was at a disadvantage over the Northern industrial economy. In fact, one could argue that the Northern economy did as well as it did because of protectionist tariffs that made imported European goods artificially more expensive, which allowed Northern factories to raise their prices. Hence the Southern complaints about protectionist tariffs in the 1830s and the Morrill Tariff of March 1860 that protected Northern factories at the expense of the South.
Another likely scenario would be the transfer of former slaves out west to what now is Arizona and/or New Mexico for settlement either in conjunction with the establishment of Liberia (but not the need to expand) or perhaps in lieu of creating Liberia.
This is a pretty awful alternative timeline that reminds us that the Civil War unfortunately kinda had to happen. Even though Reconstruction was abandoned by the North, the whole scenario where the war never happened would’ve allowed the planters to maintain their power legally in addition to in practice, and the entire country (not just the South) wouldn’t have confronted the horrible evils of slavery. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t just kill the large slave holding aristocrats when they could have - they were monsters, and their descendants still have too much influence today
Thing is, most owners weren't the large slave holding aristocrats but the average middle class Southerner. Almost half the families were slave holding households in South Carolina in 1860. Of the 26,701 slave holders there only 449 held more than 100 and only 8 of that number more than 500 while 3,763 were holders of only a single slave. _"While slaves were concentrated in the areas where staple crops were produced on a large scale, the bulk of the slave owners were small farmers" "It is not generally known that 200,000 owners in 1860 had five slaves of less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88% of all owners of slaves held less than twenty slaves."_ - John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom" p113 .
What if England had eliminated slavery before the US? What if the premise that states do not have to blindly follow Unconstitutionality was followed? What if the states were to make their own laws as long ad they stayed within the broad range of the Constitution? What if the federal government was only supposed to be an overseer of individual liberties and the protection against foreign adversaries?
Damn I love Andrew Jackson...as a fellow Tennessean ol Mr. Calhoun got lucky he didn't get whacked lol. From what I understand AJ didn't really like the idea of succession in general and was actually against it in practice. Can You imagine a man like AJ today? He would be cancelled with lies upon lies and nasty racist labels....ughh I can only hope people with spines are still out there and hopefully their time will come again!
"Brewing for centuries?" Let's see...given the plural, that is a minimum of 200 years. That would be since 1661. Roughly 130 before there was a country to have a civil war.
To say South Carolina would have stood alone is a bit misleading. Even if other states didn't overtly support nullifying it doesn't mean they would have thrown their support behind Jackson either. Alot of people thought the 1st battle of Manassas was going to be a push over, people even camped out and made into a holiday event to come watch the rebellion be put down, they had a rude awakening.
Excellent job on this video. Its has always amazed me how people consistently over simplify the Civil War and the causes for it as if slavery alone would have been enough. The Emancipation Proclamation came well after the beginning of the war and came with enough loop holes and caviots to protect slave owners of states that did not leave the Union that it was not worth anything at the time except as a propaganda stunt to recruit abolitionists to the unpopular War. The 13th Amendment in December of 1865 is what ended slavery. And also, by the way I agree, West Virginia is a bastard state that by all rights should have never been allowed to leave its home state. Isn't that Lincoln's view of succession?😮
In the end, slavery did not cause the Civil War on its own, because the South KNEW their cause was doomed to fail from the very start. The trouble was that the South had successfully intimidated the federal government for a decade prior to the actual secession crisis. Indeed, there were two Presidents willing to face a civil war. One was, of course, Andrew Jackson who this averted one, and the other was Zachary Taylor, who would have averted The Civil War if he had not died, leaving the Government to men whom the South could easily intimidate.
The South did NOT know their cause was doomed from the start. What you state is Lost Cause mythology. In fact, there were several points where the South could have won the Civil War. Plus, in 1860 the South was the richest part of the country, with the Industrial Revolution in Europe buying all the cotton the South could produce. And with the protectionist Morrill Tariff in place, the South did pass a low tariff alternative, which would cause all the European imports coming in through Charlestown instead of New York - thus potentially destroying Northern industry. No, the South would have done just fine as a separate country - but they needed those slaves sadly enough.
What are you thoughts about Alabama defying a Supreme Court order about gerrymandering? Why do you think the population of native people in the region of American Liberia would be low?
What if: Liberia decided to demand statehood, and representation? We would have one state that literally required a military presence, all landlocked sided as well as a coastline. How long before prison sentences would be replaced by forced emigration (to support the colony/state, of course)? Would the Tulsa Massacre become the Tulsa Diaspora?
The civil war wasn’t fought strictly over slavery, that’s the thing that aggravates me about anything civil war related. Did slavery contribute? Yes but it wasn’t what the war was fought over
Yes it was. _"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war."_ - Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston . _"The war was _*_about_*_ slavery._ [Catton's emphasis] _Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place."_ - Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5 .
both Dixiecrat/Republican senators from Iowa have agreed with John C Calhoun that states did not have to obey federal laws. Calhoun also stated that slaves were happy in the cotton fields,
How does this affect things like the modern/contemporary black population of the country, and the civil rights movements around them? Does this United States keep more or even all of Mexico after the Mexican-American war? I can see many changes stemming from Woodrow Wilson not developing the same ideas of American history, maybe never becoming a professor let alone President.
This makes zero sense. A) They would have fought guerilla style and won. B) You cannot be a 'traitor' in a republic or union, as that goes against the definition of a union of independent entities.
@@William-the-Guy I’m not gonna deny that was bad, but from Jackson’s pov he saw conflict brewing between southerners in Georgia and native tribes and thought a war would break out between the groups, so he wanted to separate them, but it wasn’t done in the best way.
@@crusader2112 The supreme ruled it was unconstitutional for him to do it, and just ignored them. So he wasn't just wrong, he was breaking the law and violating the constitution. He really should not have gotten away with it.
It is right. And consertutional for the states. To make their own laws. And self governor. Thats what is called Federalist. In a nationalism. Washington DC makes all the laws.
Firstly, while slavery was the pivotal issue, the South seceded over states rights. Secondly, the Pilgrims had little to do with our history, certainly not as much as you claim. They were not the first colony here, by far, and not even the most profitable. And as a religious movement, it had died out well before our Revolutionary War began.
@@Tylerboyd2001 NC seceded when Oregon gained Statehood, and the federal g'ment did not allow the citizens to vote on slavery. The feds made it a slave free state. As I said, slavery was a capitol issue, but NC left over state's rights.
@@conrioakfield414 you didn’t specify NC. Yes, they didn’t seem to depend on slavery like other southern states, but to say the south as a whole didn’t seceded because of slavery is absurd.
@@Tylerboyd2001 After NC, States seceded in support. You are aware, I would hope, that abolition of slavery had nothing to do with the Federal part in the war, until it became politically neccessary.
This video is very uninformed and simplistic; thinking that the president could ALWAYS just wave his hand, and instantly call down all the other states against any ONE state, and raise a federal army of millions, institute martial law, and everything else Lincoln did. It doesn't work that way. EVERY STATE WAS A SEPARATE SOVEREIGN NATION, BY LAW-- and the all KNEW it. But Jackson said that the states were NEVER separate sovereign nations; and so he would have utterly FAILED for all time. From Federalist No. 46: *But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.* *Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.* So Jackson's Robber-baron benefactors were crafty, knowing that the time was not yet ripe for such a coup. So they backed Jackson's "Force Bill" through congress, lobbying their puppet-cronies to pass it; and this allowed for 28 years of such precedent to infect the political sphere while they further wove their webs of deception. And so they finally backed Lincoln for president; because in 1856 he THREATENED military force against the Southern States if they tried to secede. Even then, Lincoln had great difficulty in acquiring support, and maintaining it; but he used censorship, silencing those who spoke the TRUTH about the legality of secession. And it's been lying EVER SINCE.
Actually I would argue that if South Carolina was made an example of, a lot more southern states would’ve seen John C. Calhoun and other South Carolina leaders killed as Martyr’s and Andrew Jackson would’ve been Seen as a Caesar on a thrown more so than he was in our timeline! And the consequences would’ve been worse! Britain most likely would’ve gotten involved and not just southern states would’ve been involved even some northern states would’ve denounced Jackson and his military occupation of South Carolina! In another possibility, This could’ve lead to Secession as a popular uprising in the 19th Century and beyond and America would’ve looked very different today and we would view Andrew Jackson as a authoritarian James Buchanan President that was unstable to lead and not very competent!
@@Grafknar I'm going to be honest, when I first read that I thought you said the federal government has absolute power to prevent secession and I got really confused
Kinda....they wanted a Puritan--in the theological sense--government, that required conformity with their beliefs. They didn't get it, even in new england. They had fled England after the restoration for the Netherlands, but thought that country was too tolerant.
As a viewer and casual one at that who paid money for no adds, I'm really pist off that you and others include adds in your content. This being said I have no choice but give you a dislike, regardless of how much I enjoyed your video with all the hard work with the research and editing, that have to dislike it for the printable. I apologize that this is the first out of many that i didn't dislike. For now own every content creator that has a sponsor and uses it as an add through your content, I will dislike regardless of how much I liked it. Apologizes again to you again, this just happens to the 5th video back to back from other content creator's that had sponsor adds! Me as the viewer, I'm like F This and this is b.s.
What if Biden wins the next election, makes ultra, and mean ultra liberal reforms and the red states suceed? Discuss. What if Trump wins the next election and makes ultra right wing reforms and the blue states suceed? Discuss. I'm from Scotland, so I'm neutral. I'll just get myself a comfy chair and popcorn.😅😊
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the SUMMER DEAL expires: get.atlasvpn.com/JoshSullivanHistory !
Love your work!🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
That last racist comment attacking Appalachians is fucked up!! I am boycotting your videos, bigot boy.
I hate sponsorships on RUclips stop sponsorships now
Centuries? How about decades.
@@TimothySielbeck The divisions stemmed in the colonial period, as I explained in the video. America has history before 1776.
One major false claim - slavery was in no danger, while the south was in the union.
Getting rid of slavery would require a constitutional amendment. We know this because it was required, even without the south in the union.
There were 15 slave states in 1860. To pass a constitutional amendment over them you would have to have 60 states.
Slavery was in absolutely no danger. It made northern bankers rich, and most opposition to it was not based on moral grounds; northern workers didn’t want to have to compete.
I wouldn’t either; but actual abolitionists were a tiny minority.
If I had a nicks for every time a president threatened to kill their Vice President. I would have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
When was the other time it happened ? As a non-american i don't know much about this but i find it fascinating.
@@uber-tionen9948 Trump did indirectly, his supporters took one of his tweets as mike pence being a traitor with then chanting "Hang Pence"
@@uber-tionen9948 when Trump threatened to kill Mike Pence during the congress storming in january 2021. Though, I also think Thomas Jefferson thretened to kill Aron Burr for wanting to make his own state in the Lousiana territory. Idk which of them Bwkjam is refering to.
@@uber-tionen9948thomas jefferson accused his VP Aaron Burr of treason, Burr also shot and killed political rival Alexander Hamilton while VP. Perhaps he is referring to that?
@@uber-tionen9948 I wonder if he is counting Trump? I dont believe Trump was a direct threat though, just an implied threat. "Hey. Here is this mob. They want you to not do this thing. Don't mind the guillotine."
The Tariff Was Passed.
The States Were Pissed.
Down with Dixie!
The legend himself
The Z has arrived. 👍
yoo
The chad himself
I don't think all of the southern states would've left South Carolina hanging like that. As soon as Jackson would've taken aggressive action neighboring states would've came to their defense.
South Carolina was voted Most Likely to Secede!
@@johnh.tuomala4379 *lmao*
Yeah, people forget that the upper south didn’t secede right away when Lincoln was elected. It was Lincoln’s preparation for invasion of the lower 7 that caused the upper 4 to secede. A similar thing probably would’ve happened here. Not sure how much it affects the rest of the video though.
@@riogrande1840
When pressed to make a choice when the nascent Confederacy pressed the issue in the hot bed of fire eaters in South Carolina by starting the war at Sumter, the border states then sided with slavery, because of slavery. The upper Southern states didn't threaten to secede when the Confederacy called up 100,000 troops BEFORE Lincoln's call and before Sumter. Troops which were to be used to coerce the legal federal power and Unionist Southern citizens, steal federal property and attack its installations. The upper Southern states, given their position and economic ties to the North were more reluctant and at first looked to a unified position and possible compromise, but when it was clear that a choice had to be made to side with or against the slave states and slavery, they chose slavery because of slavery. The Southern border states at first wanted to wait and to have a Southern convention for unified action, their initial hesitation doesn't mean that they were not also acting to protect slavery. The the nascent slave state needed a war in order to drag in the vacillating border slave states otherwise their rebellion would have just died on the vine.
_"In other states of the Cotton Kingdom, there was similar outrage at Lincoln’s election but less certainty about how to respond to it. Those who advocated immediate secession by each state individually were opposed by the “cooperationists,” who believed the slave states should act as a unit. If the cooperationists had triumphed, secession would have been delayed until a southern convention had agreed on it."_
_"Some of these moderates hoped a delay would provide time to extort major concessions from the North and thus remove the need for dissolving the Union. But South Carolina’s unilateral action set a precedent that weakened the cooperationists’ cause."_ - Robert A. Divine et al., eds., The American Story, 3rd ed. (2 vols., New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007), 1: 380-381.
_"If it had not been for the election of an antislavery party to the presidency, there would have been no secession, no firing on Fort Sumter, and no secession by the other four states (including Virginia) that followed the first seven out after Fort Sumter._
_The claim that his call for troops was the cause of the upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered repots of the attack on Sumter April 12 and its surrender the next day, huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville, and other upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees. These crowds waved the Confederate flags and cheered the glorious cause of southern independence. They demanded that their own states join the cause. Scores of such demonstrations took place from April 12 to 14 BEFORE Lincoln issued his call for troops. Many conditional unionists were swept along by this tide of Southern Nationalism; others cowed into silence."_ - McPherson, "The Battle Cry of Freedom" p278
.
AL of the states would have risen up against Jackson. ALL of them.
As Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46:
*But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.*
*Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.*
*To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.*
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.*
So the Robber-barons bided their time, allowing Jackson's "Force Bill" precedent sink in, until they believed that it was POSSIBLE to carry out such a takeover-coup; and such a lunatic as Lincoln who would carry it out.
"We desperately need your strength and wisdom to triumph over our fears, our prejudices, ourselves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution"
--Amistad, Anthony Hopkins
What if the American Revolution did not happen?
If the American Revolution did not happen, I can see John Calhoun tried to rebel against the British government again once the Parliament passed the act that abolish slavery and the movement that demand for the westward expansion keeps growing more and more restless. But I can see the northern colonies remained loyal to Britain. And if the British won, the reward is most likely the autonomy and the rights for the expansion northward instead because Britain just acquired Canada from France.
I have better idea what if the American Revolution toppled the British Monarchy
@@jeremym4451 And why will they do that? I mean, construct a fleet of warships and dispatch them across the ocean to fight against one of the most powerful navies in the world?!
@@lerneanlion not what I meant the Revolution spread to the UK and toppled the monarchy
@@jeremym4451 Aside from the fact that the King of Britain at the time is quite a big egotistic, there is no reason for him to be overthrown. And him having quite an ego is definitely not a good reason for this.
@@lerneanlion no I meant like he doesn't back down and bleeds the Empire dry trying to stop the American Revolution
“West Virginia never exists”
*Sad John Denver noises*
I appreciate this video, not for its presentation of alternative time-line possibilities, which never manifested, but for the clear presentation of some of the conditions which made the Civil War which did occur more understandable. The Civil War is often presented as if it happened in a vacuum, without reason beyond a disagreement over the practice of slavery. That's an absurd view, but few people put in the effort to educate themselves about the conditions which led to it.
while not the only reason, it was the main reason, to think otherwise is absurd.
Slavery was a huge part of the reason why the “Civil” War took place but it was far from the only reason: there were a lot of other economic factors at play and when you look at the war through that lens, it really changes your perspective on things and makes you ask questions that most American history teachers wouldn’t even try to answer. For example, if the northern states were that much better off economically, how would they have been able to feed and clothe their citizens without their main supplier of those agricultural resources no longer being part of the US or willing to do any business with them over the excessive tariffs that were in place at the time?
Another topic of discussion is the fact that contrary to popular belief, no Confederate soldier was ever found guilty of treason. And there were two reasons for that: 1) you can’t charge another nation’s citizens with treason against yours and 2) even if that could be done in 1865, that would essentially make acts like Sherman’s March a war crime against American civilians, resulting in serious charges against every UNION soldier involved in what a certain art-school dropout in the distant future would implement. In other words, mutually assured destruction
Keep in mind also that North Carolina ( despite supplying with Confederate Army with the largest amount of men) came extremely close to staying with the Union. You would have a a defacto Union state behind Confederate lines.
actually Lincoln blew it by calling for an army afte Fort Sumter. That pushed VA and NC into the Confederacy. the idea of a large armed force crossing their state to reach the rebellion states was too much and their fears were justified considering wanton looting and destruction of civilian property in VA during the war...see Fredericksburg
Flawed logic. Americans didn’t view themselves as “Americans” but as Virginians, Georgians, or Carolinians. While nullification wasn’t popular elsewhere, Southern states would not attack another Southern state. There also was not a large, standing federal army and the one we had was Iill - equipped and ill trained.
I am pretty sure Henry Clay viewed himself as American. There were many people who felt that way, the viewpoint. ultimately became the one held by Lincoln. But I take your point that it was less common than it is now.
Idea- If 1933-1945 Germany and Poland attacked the Soviets, I hard this was an idea, that the Germans wanted to do until Pilsduski died. Here is the Channel that states it- www.youtube.com/@ZoomerHistorian/videos
Suggestion: What if Napoleón was more careful and consolidated his gains, his family spread in thrones all over europe.
Andrew Jackson was profoundly a nationalist, and nowhere near the straw man he is portrayed as. As someone said, South Carolina was too small for a country, too large for an insane asylum.
What if the civil war turned into a world war
It almost did. The US had Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Prussia backing it and the Confederacy had Britain and France supporting it so it could’ve happened.
Aight, heres an idea I just thought of (and before someone says, "um actually 🤓" I know it's unrealistic. This is just completely for fun.
The British and the South strike up a deal for cotton, and the british would start supplying guns and ammo plus a few EXTRA warships, they OTL. France, who also desires the cotton attempts to do the same thing.. but sees radical push back. The Emperor is forced to change his hand and support the North instead. Using Napoleon's idea of liberty to strengthen his claims of northern supremacy. The Prussians see this ally with the Brirish and confederates as they see it as a good way to weaken out France, making it dump extra weapons and ships into the Union. Russia supports the Union as both states had high relations.
The only 3 who I couldn't fit on here were the ottomans, who could side with either or because they were one of the highest cotton producers at the time, but they supported the Union.
Austria, because really it could go either way, as I said.
and Italy, because idk if Italy even exists yet (I wrote this all up without using google) and also even if they did I wouldn't know where or how to fit them in.
And yes, I know its unrealistic and poorly written lmao
It did in 1777, and helped reshape Europe and the UK due to their loss of the new USA. The world war shifted alliances between UK, Spain, Netherlands, France, Russia, Columbian colonies, the Caribbean colonies, the India colonies.
The 1775 conflict arose as an anti Britain rebellion, but by 1776 it had become an American civil war in all regions of the new War for Independence. Loyalist forces were fairly well balanced to patriots in both rural and urban districts, North South East and West.
I actually love that you made this video because it helps prove a point I've been trying to make as a historian for so long about how until the emancipation proclaimation was issued, the us civil war was not about slavery at first, Lincoln even said "the war is to preserve the union at all costs, not to take your slaves" himself so i don't want to see anyone say it was 100% about slavery that is just northern propaganda so they don't look so bad for forcing more centralization on the states after the war. The main reason for cecession was not slavery, sure thats A reason but not THE reason or certainly not the ONLY reason, but it was actually the fact that the federal government, which was a majority of the opposite side, was out voting them and passing new teriffs and economic policies that benefited the northern industry based economy at the expense of the southern agricultural way of life. Essentially, they were trying to force the South to industrialize and modernize against their will the same way mao did to china in "the great leap forward." An example would be a higher tax, tariff, and purchase price on the cotton gin, which was an essential tool for processing cotton in the south, but wasn't used at all in the north and was produced overseas in England, thus was heavily tariffable, as well as other industrial and agricultural equipment necessary to run their plantations. The government was deliberately making policies where things the south needed were more expensive and things the north needed were cheaper by setting higher tariffs and taxes on, or simply banning the sale of items needed by the south on purpose to hurt their economy, just because it was based on slavery. The south had to pay more tariffs and taxes on the same items as the north, and their standard of living decreased as the northern industry increased ,they saw the central governments industry and economic conditions as a threat to their society and survival. They believed that since the union was an agreed apon entity, they had the right to leave the union if it no longer benefited them to be in it. Which IS a fair reason to leave, and it wasn't illegal back then to do so... They believe the government was working against them and treated them like a separate country, so they decided to actually become one and thought it better off to be independent. I see no difference between what the South did and what the 13 colonies did to Britain during the revolution. People don't know this because they don't actually research they believe the first thing school tells them, even if its a lie. Napoleon bonaparte said, "History is written by the winners, and the losers' story is never told." The us Civil War is an example of Napoleon being correct in his statement... also the fact that nearly all the major European countries and native Americans were in support of the South and were going to intervene on the south side directly until the emancipation proclamation was issued that it became about slavery, also there were slaveholding states in the union and free states in the confederacy so this is more prooof it wasn't about slavery, also the EP didn't free ALL slaves, just the ones in rebel states(slave states in the union like kansas and Tennessee got to keep their slaves even after the war). Im a historian and I can prove all of this is true with documents and sources...if anyone disagrees, i need you to send links by real historians, not by government sources proving that everything i said isn't true and it can't just be your own opinion or just because you never heard of it this way before because you would have if you actually studied history. No, i need peer reviewed essays that directly oppose these ideas and explain why they are not true, do not give me propaganda saying the "states fought for states rights but it was rights to own slaves not states rights to cecede from the union to make independent decisions" because this is not true, everyone automatically assumes that this meant "states rights to own slaves" but thats not really true and technically it doesn't matter what rights a state fights for, states rights should always go above federal oversight. What they meant was that decisions in government should be unanimous rather than by a majority vote that could outvote state decisions and that states had the right to leave the union if they kept getting their policies outvoted by the majority rule of the opposition in power at the time. They claimed to be fighting for states' rights to make decisions separate from the federal government, not states' rights to continue owning slaves... there's a huge difference, and that's why everyone gets confused. So i think having this video out and explaining how it almost happened before 1861 for other reasons is a good thing because it helps reinforce the true idea that the actual civil war wasn't how we thought it was either... it was a war over the right of the states to have more power over the federal government or the other way around. Saying it was about slavery was a purely political ploy to stop European nations from recognizing the souths independence. Im not a Southerner or Confederacy supporter, but i still recognize the facts because i have a history degree and took the time to research.
A great modern-day example of this is the Texas border crisis... if you believe that Texas has the right to set up barriers and take border control into their own hands in direct opposition to the constitution (which says they cant do that) and the policies of the central government under Biden, then you agree with states rights and would be no different from the confederacy, if you believe that the government gets to decide border policy regardless of how it affects a specific state and that states should have to petition the federal government to make changes instead of just doing it themselves...you agree with federationists and you are like the union... if you believe the feds should still be able to bust people for weed in legal states despite it being federally illegal, you are pro union, but if you think that weed legality should be decided directly by states alone and that the feds have no right to bust people in legal states, you agree with the confederacy... the same ideas about states vs. feds persist in current times and have nothing to do with slavery but it can still cause issues or another civil war... also the fact that in the early days of the USA, there literally was almost a civil war over federalists and antifederalists over whether states or central government had more power is yet more proof that its always been about states rights or federal oversight. There was also a civil war over whiskey while Washington was president, it was about whether the federal government had the right to tax whiskey made in the states or if the state got to decide for itself whether to tax it. It was also about who had the right to grant a brewing license, the states or the feds... the feds won that war, and it's more proof still...
Several points: 1) when threatened with military action, there is a huge difference between Jackson and Lincoln. Not only was Jackson a proven leader who could win against odds, if he had to challenge Calhoun in a personal duel Jackson would not hestitate. You screwed with Jackson at your own personal peril. Lincoln, meanwhile, took 2 years to find a general who could consistently beat the Rebels. 2) You did not mention the Morrill Tariff being passed in March 1860 - basically rubbing salt into Southern wounds. It was higher rates than the tariff in 1832. It allowed the South to threaten having low to zero tariffs, thus directly threatening Northern industry and shipping. While this brought business interests to support Lincoln's efforts to force the South back under Northern control, I don't quite see 100,000s of volunteers joining the army to support tax law. Still, it certainly did not help the South to decide NOT to secede.
hey josh really love your videos can you do a what if gran colombia never fell video
If anything, attacking South Carolina like that, would spark revolt against Jackson, labeling him as a tyrant who went too far. It's also possible that while most states didn't agree with nullification at least some would respect the right of a state to leave the union, so some others would consider secession as well, similar to what happened with the actual civil war
Even *if* Jackson got his goal of scaring states into staying no matter what and the backlash didn't come, a lot of the compromises that came about later would not happen so easily, because secession would no longer be a safety net if diplomacy failed. Just about every fight over any major issue would be a Bleeding Kansas
As for Liberia, if that issue dragged on past the abolition of slavery, Liberia would *not* gain its independence for the same reasons that secession would never be allowed to happen. It'd either remain a territory like Puerto Rico or push to become a state. Similarly, the Philippines would also attain statehood or remain a territory.
Thank you. I feel like he went completely off the rails with his assumption that no other state would have come to South Carolina's defense, particularly given the content of the Andrew Jackson quote he highlighted himself about nullification only being a pretext.
@@toddfluhr4655 Yeah, there's a big difference between, "this state doesn't want to follow the rules we agreed to" and "this state is being *forced* to stay in the union at gunpoint"
As I recall, in our timeline, some of the Confederate States did not join until *after* the war started.
Today, many will be like, "the Confederacy brought it on themselves but attacking that US fort" but the way that state and the states who later joined up saw it, resupplying the fort instead of abandoning it was a clear act of aggression
That was just resupplying a fort. Imagine the reaction to invasion would be
I haven't watched the video yet, and well we all know that John C.Calhoun's head would have been "secceded" from his body.
Nicely done video. My only quibble is that statement near the beginning that the north and the south had been enemies for centuries. The country wan' not that old.
Disputes between them go back to when they were colonies
You should do a video regarding the several northern new England states who came at least as close to seceding two decades before that because of tariffs which most people 10:22 in the US agreed was their constitutional right.
Nice to see some props for Henry Clay. Now do one on what would have happened re: the civil war, mexican war, etc. if he had been elected president as a whig in the '40s and served 2 terms
Yeah That was us as a South Carolinian we are one of the few states to learn about this in standard classes
Video Suggestion: What if the Russian Provisional Government survives from 1918 Russian Revolution(and became the Russian Republic)? - The 1918 Russian Revolution ended the decades rule of Russian tsardom and the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. A Russian Provisional Government was formed by Alexander Kerensky in hopes to turn Russia into a democratic republic but due of instability and crisis, it was overthrew by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Kerensky was exiled in the US and remain there until his death in 1970 while Russia became the communist Soviet Union after the Reds won the Russian Civil War over the Whites and ruled the nation with an iron fist and bloodshed until it collapsed in 1991. But what could have happen if Kerensky's Russian Provisional Government survives and manage to outsmart the Bolsheviks?
One of the best alternate scenarios was the attempted assassination of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin survived many assassinations including the event after his speech, he got almost killed by anti communist perpetrator with a pistol that happened a few days before the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government. But for the sake of this scenario, let's just say the assassin managed to slightly aim and shot Lenin, hit him on the chest fatally and died. The Bolsheviks were shock & scattered before they have a plan to overthrew the provisional government. Kerensky saw this as a big opportunity to purge the Bolsheviks and other communist affiliations. After this, Kerensky managed to fix the instability and crisis within the nation with the help of the Western allies like the US and Britain. As for Nicholas and his family due of the Bolsheviks was already crushed, they survived but no longer has their royal status and would retire a normal citizen life. Kerensky would lead Russia into a democratic republic in the two terms before he resigned. As for WW2, the Nazis would still rise to power in Germany but with Russia as republic instead of Soviet Union, it would likely the Nazi Germany invade Poland and started WW2 which Russia will criticize the invasion. Without the Winter War because the Soviet Union never exist, Finland would remain neutral. Japan would likely invade Manchuria and install a puppet government, causing a border crisis between them and Russia. The rest of scenario is up to you.
0:43 - the Pilgrim Fathers didn't sail to America to escape religious persecution, they left England because they considered it too permissive in matters of religion. They wanted more persecution (just of other people though)
What if the Austrians won the War of Spanish succession?
14:24 Same man!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
Do you see Mr Z's version of events? He used the Indian Removal Act never being made as the cause.
Senator Thomas Hart Benton when asked about this during the Nullification crisis: I have known the general long enough to know when he says this....ehehehe...you're screwed.
You do realize that in the decades leading to 1860 the South had over 60% of the value of all American exports. In fact, the North had the Panic of 1857 that that the South did not experience. Frankly, the European Industrial Revolution needed Southern cotton - it did not need Northern factories. So do not make the mistake that the Southern agricultural economy was at a disadvantage over the Northern industrial economy. In fact, one could argue that the Northern economy did as well as it did because of protectionist tariffs that made imported European goods artificially more expensive, which allowed Northern factories to raise their prices. Hence the Southern complaints about protectionist tariffs in the 1830s and the Morrill Tariff of March 1860 that protected Northern factories at the expense of the South.
Another likely scenario would be the transfer of former slaves out west to what now is Arizona and/or New Mexico for settlement either in conjunction with the establishment of Liberia (but not the need to expand) or perhaps in lieu of creating Liberia.
thanks mate, real good video, i was waiting for someone to make an alternate history with this exact scenario
This is a pretty awful alternative timeline that reminds us that the Civil War unfortunately kinda had to happen.
Even though Reconstruction was abandoned by the North, the whole scenario where the war never happened would’ve allowed the planters to maintain their power legally in addition to in practice, and the entire country (not just the South) wouldn’t have confronted the horrible evils of slavery.
It’s unfortunate that they didn’t just kill the large slave holding aristocrats when they could have - they were monsters, and their descendants still have too much influence today
Thing is, most owners weren't the large slave holding aristocrats but the average middle class Southerner. Almost half the families were slave holding households in South Carolina in 1860. Of the 26,701 slave holders there only 449 held more than 100 and only 8 of that number more than 500 while 3,763 were holders of only a single slave.
_"While slaves were concentrated in the areas where staple crops were produced on a large scale, the bulk of the slave owners were small farmers" "It is not generally known that 200,000 owners in 1860 had five slaves of less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88% of all owners of slaves held less than twenty slaves."_ - John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom" p113
.
Sixth.
Awesome seeing You here Z!
What if England had eliminated slavery before the US?
What if the premise that states do not have to blindly follow Unconstitutionality was followed?
What if the states were to make their own laws as long ad they stayed within the broad range of the Constitution?
What if the federal government was only supposed to be an overseer of individual liberties and the protection against foreign adversaries?
What do you mean by "England had elimunated slavery before the US" ?
Damn I love Andrew Jackson...as a fellow Tennessean ol Mr. Calhoun got lucky he didn't get whacked lol. From what I understand AJ didn't really like the idea of succession in general and was actually against it in practice. Can You imagine a man like AJ today? He would be cancelled with lies upon lies and nasty racist labels....ughh I can only hope people with spines are still out there and hopefully their time will come again!
If the South never seceded, we could see American intervention in Mexico should the French even attempt to install Maximilian as emperor at all.
What’s wrong with West Virginia being it’s own state?
South Carolina would have folder the moment they saw their bluff was called
History can repeat itself 😢wake up America.
Where did you get that flag design from?
Dude you left out VanBuren!
Actually it was President Washington's whiskey wars.
Hi
The first pilgrims weren’t fleeing from religious persecution. They were English colonists
"Brewing for centuries?" Let's see...given the plural, that is a minimum of 200 years. That would be since 1661. Roughly 130 before there was a country to have a civil war.
The divisions stemmed in the colonial period, as I explained in the video. America has history before 1776.
the problem is if the union used too much force other states in the south would have quickly sided with south carolina.
To say South Carolina would have stood alone is a bit misleading. Even if other states didn't overtly support nullifying it doesn't mean they would have thrown their support behind Jackson either. Alot of people thought the 1st battle of Manassas was going to be a push over, people even camped out and made into a holiday event to come watch the rebellion be put down, they had a rude awakening.
Excellent job on this video. Its has always amazed me how people consistently over simplify the Civil War and the causes for it as if slavery alone would have been enough. The Emancipation Proclamation came well after the beginning of the war and came with enough loop holes and caviots to protect slave owners of states that did not leave the Union that it was not worth anything at the time except as a propaganda stunt to recruit abolitionists to the unpopular War. The 13th Amendment in December of 1865 is what ended slavery. And also, by the way I agree, West Virginia is a bastard state that by all rights should have never been allowed to leave its home state. Isn't that Lincoln's view of succession?😮
Interesting two alternative civil war scenarios between you and Mr Z this weekend. Almost feels planned..... lol
In the end, slavery did not cause the Civil War on its own, because the South KNEW their cause was doomed to fail from the very start. The trouble was that the South had successfully intimidated the federal government for a decade prior to the actual secession crisis. Indeed, there were two Presidents willing to face a civil war. One was, of course, Andrew Jackson who this averted one, and the other was Zachary Taylor, who would have averted The Civil War if he had not died, leaving the Government to men whom the South could easily intimidate.
The South did NOT know their cause was doomed from the start. What you state is Lost Cause mythology. In fact, there were several points where the South could have won the Civil War. Plus, in 1860 the South was the richest part of the country, with the Industrial Revolution in Europe buying all the cotton the South could produce. And with the protectionist Morrill Tariff in place, the South did pass a low tariff alternative, which would cause all the European imports coming in through Charlestown instead of New York - thus potentially destroying Northern industry. No, the South would have done just fine as a separate country - but they needed those slaves sadly enough.
@@johnmoreno9636 Maybe not after 1850. A decade of premature surrender will certainly have that effect.
It will happen again, not as we know it but something like smatterings all over this troubled land.
What are you thoughts about Alabama defying a Supreme Court order about gerrymandering? Why do you think the population of native people in the region of American Liberia would be low?
What if: Liberia decided to demand statehood, and representation? We would have one state that literally required a military presence, all landlocked sided as well as a coastline. How long before prison sentences would be replaced by forced emigration (to support the colony/state, of course)? Would the Tulsa Massacre become the Tulsa Diaspora?
Alabama suceded almost immediately after south Carolina and Florida was right behind Alabama
If you're not careful the US might be having another one any day now.
The civil war wasn’t fought strictly over slavery, that’s the thing that aggravates me about anything civil war related. Did slavery contribute? Yes but it wasn’t what the war was fought over
Yes it was.
_"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war."_ - Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
.
_"The war was _*_about_*_ slavery._ [Catton's emphasis] _Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place."_ - Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
.
both Dixiecrat/Republican senators from Iowa have agreed with John C Calhoun that states did not have to obey federal laws. Calhoun also stated that slaves were happy in the cotton fields,
What if: The Qing won the First Opuim War?
Historically, never been a big fan of Andrew Jackson.
His rage seemed larger than his brain.
What if Germany united in the 1848 Revolution and stayed a Democracy with a constitutional monarchy?
good video
Yay no Wal-Mart Virginia!
Centuries? USA was not even 100 years old by the time of the civil war
How does this affect things like the modern/contemporary black population of the country, and the civil rights movements around them? Does this United States keep more or even all of Mexico after the Mexican-American war? I can see many changes stemming from Woodrow Wilson not developing the same ideas of American history, maybe never becoming a professor let alone President.
boston had slavvery before the south did
Thats because they colonized it first
@@ScribbleBox no irginia waas colonised irst
@@colinmcewen9530 ik that im saying they colonized boston before the south
They also abolished it first 😂
@@Tylerboyd2001 facts
To much government bad people getting tired of it.
This makes zero sense.
A) They would have fought guerilla style and won.
B) You cannot be a 'traitor' in a republic or union, as that goes against the definition of a union of independent entities.
Jackson’s my favorite president. Hail Jackson!
John Quincy Adams is better and this tariff ruined him
😂😂YOU PAGAN SECULAR HUMANIST.HAIL COLUMBIA OUR LADY OF LIBERTY INSTEAD.HA,HA.
He has fun stories. But... trail of tears... basically genocide.
@@William-the-Guy I’m not gonna deny that was bad, but from Jackson’s pov he saw conflict brewing between southerners in Georgia and native tribes and thought a war would break out between the groups, so he wanted to separate them, but it wasn’t done in the best way.
@@crusader2112 The supreme ruled it was unconstitutional for him to do it, and just ignored them. So he wasn't just wrong, he was breaking the law and violating the constitution. He really should not have gotten away with it.
Actually, the pilgrims didn't come to america to escape from persecution, they came to america to persecute
Well we can tell your very angry but your wrong
Well, to practice-and enforce-a more radical religion than what the Anglicans were
Actually both. Tolerance for their own and intolerance for those in their way.
It is right. And consertutional for the states. To make their own laws. And self governor. Thats what is called Federalist. In a nationalism. Washington DC makes all the laws.
No, that's not how it works.
Carolina would've gotten obliterated over that foolish defiance
what if china was United by the dog meet General
Love your videos Josh
Long live father Abraham and the Unión! Down with Dixie!
Would would the demographics of the USA and the demographics of liberia be
Brewing, for centuries? I think you’re getting a little carried away there
Andrew Jackson needs to come from grave and save the union right now swear
SC did not just shoot themselves in the foot there, they nuked it.
Wonder if we still got balls in south carolina . Because they did not care about succeeding lol
This amternate hisrory is very fascinating.
What about the Irish people who came to the US to escape British oppressions? Who later became the hillbillys .
Firstly, while slavery was the pivotal issue, the South seceded over states rights.
Secondly, the Pilgrims had little to do with our history, certainly not as much as you claim.
They were not the first colony here, by far, and not even the most profitable. And as a religious movement, it had died out well before our Revolutionary War began.
Bs. It was slavery
@@Tylerboyd2001 NC seceded when Oregon gained Statehood, and the federal g'ment did not allow the citizens to vote on slavery. The feds made it a slave free state. As I said, slavery was a capitol issue, but NC left over state's rights.
@@conrioakfield414 you didn’t specify NC. Yes, they didn’t seem to depend on slavery like other southern states, but to say the south as a whole didn’t seceded because of slavery is absurd.
@@Tylerboyd2001 After NC, States seceded in support.
You are aware, I would hope, that abolition of slavery had nothing to do with the Federal part in the war, until it became politically neccessary.
By "centuries" you mean decades.
That guy on the thumbnail is very handsome 😘
What if Al Gore never invented the internet?
He had not do with it. The internet has been out since the 60$ for communication incase the US was nuked. It didn't go mainstream until the mid 90s
@@averagecitizen8491 Ya don’t say 😂
Good thing Andrew jackson was pro union
WV would never exist. Ditto for soul food and modern jazz.
This video is very uninformed and simplistic; thinking that the president could ALWAYS just wave his hand, and instantly call down all the other states against any ONE state, and raise a federal army of millions, institute martial law, and everything else Lincoln did.
It doesn't work that way. EVERY STATE WAS A SEPARATE SOVEREIGN NATION, BY LAW-- and the all KNEW it.
But Jackson said that the states were NEVER separate sovereign nations; and so he would have utterly FAILED for all time.
From Federalist No. 46:
*But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.*
*Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.*
So Jackson's Robber-baron benefactors were crafty, knowing that the time was not yet ripe for such a coup.
So they backed Jackson's "Force Bill" through congress, lobbying their puppet-cronies to pass it; and this allowed for 28 years of such precedent to infect the political sphere while they further wove their webs of deception.
And so they finally backed Lincoln for president; because in 1856 he THREATENED military force against the Southern States if they tried to secede.
Even then, Lincoln had great difficulty in acquiring support, and maintaining it; but he used censorship, silencing those who spoke the TRUTH about the legality of secession. And it's been lying EVER SINCE.
Actually I would argue that if South Carolina was made an example of, a lot more southern states would’ve seen John C. Calhoun and other South Carolina leaders killed as Martyr’s and Andrew Jackson would’ve been Seen as a Caesar on a thrown more so than he was in our timeline! And the consequences would’ve been worse! Britain most likely would’ve gotten involved and not just southern states would’ve been involved even some northern states would’ve denounced Jackson and his military occupation of South Carolina! In another possibility, This could’ve lead to Secession as a popular uprising in the 19th Century and beyond and America would’ve looked very different today and we would view Andrew Jackson as a authoritarian James Buchanan President that was unstable to lead and not very competent!
Read the constitution.
10A. The federal government has absolutely no right whatsoever to prevent secession.
@@Grafknar I'm going to be honest, when I first read that I thought you said the federal government has absolute power to prevent secession and I got really confused
Brewing for centuries?
Didn't the pilgrims go to America to DO religious persecution?
Also, would Texas stil join?
Kinda....they wanted a Puritan--in the theological sense--government, that required conformity with their beliefs. They didn't get it, even in new england. They had fled England after the restoration for the Netherlands, but thought that country was too tolerant.
Its very incorrect but i like it especially the removal of a certain group
Let's be honest, it was brewing for millennia.
TEXAS 2024.. 😡💀
As a viewer and casual one at that who paid money for no adds, I'm really pist off that you and others include adds in your content. This being said I have no choice but give you a dislike, regardless of how much I enjoyed your video with all the hard work with the research and editing, that have to dislike it for the printable. I apologize that this is the first out of many that i didn't dislike. For now own every content creator that has a sponsor and uses it as an add through your content, I will dislike regardless of how much I liked it. Apologizes again to you again, this just happens to the 5th video back to back from other content creator's that had sponsor adds! Me as the viewer, I'm like F This and this is b.s.
Too bad it didn't happen
a much more unified, and racist society
What if Biden wins the next election, makes ultra, and mean ultra liberal reforms and the red states suceed? Discuss. What if Trump wins the next election and makes ultra right wing reforms and the blue states suceed? Discuss. I'm from Scotland, so I'm neutral. I'll just get myself a comfy chair and popcorn.😅😊
White Woof