The #1 Reason for the Civil War Had NOTHING to Do with Slavery | Tore Olsson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Get Tore Olsson’s book here: amzn.to/46ssiu0
Full episode: • The Most INSANE Era of...
Danny Jones Podcast channel: / @dannyjones
Tore Olsson is a historian of the United States since the Civil War. His most recent book, Red Dead’s History: A Video Game, an Obsession, and America’s Violent Past highlights is an exploration of American violence between 1870 and 1920.
Get Tore Olsson’s book here: amzn.to/46ssiu0
Full episode: ruclips.net/video/jQwud7xiBcE/видео.html
Danny Jones Podcast channel: www.youtube.com/@Koncrete
Tore Olsson is a historian of the United States since the Civil War. His most recent book, Red Dead’s History: A Video Game, an Obsession, and America’s Violent Past highlights is an exploration of American violence between 1870 and 1920.
@@jonesdanny let's hope he researched his latest book and was better informed on the subject than he is about the yankee invasion of the South. People research for themselves now and you can't go copy down the official govt dribble and call it good. Perhaps mr olsson would fair better writing of Scandinavia or ice fishing. He is certainly out of his league on the 1860's in the U.S.
Trash video
Nice clickbait title for your video. I was expecting an intellectual discussion of the economic, social, & governing philosophical issues leading to the US Civil War. Instead after 17 minutes in, I'm watching a video with the intellectual depth of an SNL Wayne's World sketch discussing American History. Great job, guys!
The virtue signaling is strong in this one.
some of what he says is accurate (but still slanted )but I gave up when he said the confederacy was "strongly centralized." It was almost anything but that. even if the "south" had somehow won the war the confederacy would probably have fallen apart in a decade, like happened under the original U.S. constitution.
Forrest was acquitted of war crimes by Sherman
Who really wanted to hang him
@@arthurdent1097 My thoughts exactly. In his last book about the old west, Olsson says "capitalism and race" were the critical driving forces.
He literally just said “cRT is a Legal theory only taught in college” “it’s not about making white people feel bad for being white. “ He is also unwilling to say it was Republicans that wanted to abolish slavery. He keeps saying northerners. It was the democrats that were slavers and it was the democrats that formed the KKK right after the war. Republicans we’re all through the country.
I bet this guy took his wife’s last name 😮
😂
LOL
LOL!! 😂
Right, this guy drinks a lot of soy milk with gluten free chocolate chip cookies.
His “husband”’s
Always impressed with Danny's lack of general knowledge given his field
I guess it's specific knowledge he lacks when he's fooled by his guests
Nonstop interruption of guests is annoying enough & his lack of common knowledge is disturbing
I’m not…….he seems very dumb
I think it makes for a smoother set up for questions and is just for the interview.Its his style im guessing keep an open mind like a toddler.Word to the wise fam!❤
Yes, I knew he lacked knowledge when he used the word toxic. It is a word used by woke historians.
The civil war wasn't just about slavery, yes it came later, TAXES, government, that's the reason. The Confederate flag was a symbol, it was a battle flag. For the confederacy. This man needs to go to school again.
It was about states rights,southern states rights to own slaves.
Going to school is what gave him his skewed view. I am autodidactic and have more knowledge of history than my brothers who have a PhD and a masters. Most important, I didn't have to deprogram the indoctrination that is substituted for real education.
This dude sounds vaccinated
I'm willing to listen. But the validation will make me question everything and the revolutionary war as history tells it.
Never mind. He would have a resounding introduction if he was legitimate.
Your right. Next!
Correct. The scarlet letter of betas
😂
This guy will have you thinking slavery started in the United States. Slavery hasn't been around since beginning of time or anything!!!!!!!! All Native Americans also, all lived in peace and Harmony, YEA RIGHTTTTT........
this is the first time I've ever heard Woodrow Wilson spoken of positively.
Didn’t you know income tax and federal reserve are good things! /s
@@johnthomas4790 Being the good believer in the tenets of the CSA as was his heritage, Ole Woodrow insured the American people would be enslaved by the fed reserve--- now that's revenge...
yeah and it was idiotic
Agreed…….I don’t think his presidency did one good thing
Yeah who cares if Wilson actually resegregated the federal government
Incredible racist
Absolutely loved " Birth of a Nation " etc etc
Dude is very biased and does not have an accurate grasp as to why the average southerner, who could not afford slaves, was fighting for. He leaves out tons of relevant information. Less than 3% of southerners owned slaves and norther states also had slaves. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only affected southern states. The northern states were the last to release their slaves. The state of New York was mostly against the abolition of slavery and made more $ off of slavery than any other state.
I heard the state of Mississippi made the most money off of slavery. There were many, many millionaire cotton plantation owners. The enslaved Africans created their wealth.
I doubt New York slaves were quite as valuable as Mississippi slaves.
Any idea where I can find receipts on NY making more money from the " institution " than any other ?
Thanks in advance
WI wasn't guilty of slavery, but segregation. Segregation is a big deal for the ugly. My grandfather back in the 40's-50's had a black man working for him, way before Detroit invited blacks to work in the auto industry from the south for jobs. Some blacks did contribute to building US, even fought in WW2, don't think they fought in WW1 as much if at all. As he points out, the blacks now are important in elections. Women have 55% of the votes cast. The US would be a different place if that wasn't true.
@@Mark-lg3nlpleaae do some reading about WW1 & the Black troops who served in the US Army.
Elis Island and the Dept of Treasury@@paulsansonetti7410
This dude is rewriting history.
This guy doesn’t even know Forest was a Brig. Gen.
Was half of forests body guard black? Where those body guards members of the klan?
Came here for this comment.
@@SweetTea023 Who cares, when he is a loser in more aspects than one.
@@RateEpisodethe guy is a fraud and just makes up shit theories as fact. The obvious mistakes show that.
This guy has white guilt so bad that he developed Lebron’s hairline
😂😂
Dammmmmmmmnn. 😂
I've heard guest on this channel talk about aliens and get wayyy less resistance, I can't believe some of these comments 🤔
interesting reaction to a bunch of empirical facts
@@jring383 Much of what this guy said is just plain wrong. Confederate soldiers were not fighting for the richest 3% to continue to own slaves. We have their letters and diaries, so we know what their motivations were. In more than 90% of them, slavery was not a motivating factor. Would you fight and die in a war so that billionaires can continue to fly Learjets? That would be the modern equivalent to his view.
No, there literally is a narrative pushed by a lot of professors and "influencers" that absolutely push what he says they don't.
This was my first time to watch this podcast, so I have a question, do you guys always have guest that are ignorant in the subject they speak about?
No , no he does not . Though i do think it a good idea to bring on people who disagree and are willing to be taken to task on that belief or idea ( with no violent recourse . )
As you posted this comment two days ago you might have already viewed another , if not i would encourage you to do so . I would suggest one , but i leave it to you for you to suit your own tastes .
I must confess i found this guy completely unimpressive as far as his interpretation of the Civil War era . I do believe he should read more up on the founding documents and the very heated debates over slavery that almost stopped all that proceeded the ratification of the Declaration of Independence .
I will be leaving a comment of my own regarding as much .
If i don't get a reply Have a pheanominal life ...
And yea , i know i probably spelled it wrong .
What do you mean ignorant? These guys were right on.
@@docsmith9915
His time line and charactors , absolutely correct .
Most of the rest left to interpretation .
Interpretation can be , but not solely based on one's beliefs .
Usually pretty good, he just opted for the least educated little fairy girl in history for this one... I dunno why. I
@@curtiswalker5764 His knowledge of certain characters like Forrest is pitifully limited. He knows little or nothing about the guy except for the KKK. That's not history. It's activism.
So, in 1850 blacks were slaves and now we're all slaves. Got it.
imo many adults who fancy themselves political experts these days should take a adult history course.
For being a historian, he skipped over ALOT of key details... however, at least he admits the Civil War wasn't started because of slavery. He calls it unification. What that means is money.
He Really needs to do more research.
There’s plenty of documentation showing why southern states seceded and preserving slavery was a key element.
They feared Republicans would push for abolition.
Are these not facts?
The civil war was started because of southern states rights to own slave,thus it was because of slavery.
Especially the Democrats role in all of this
The Dems split into Northern and Southern factions during the 1860 campaign. Had they not split, the Democrats would have won handily.
Lincoln took less than 40% of the vote.
Right this guy knows nothing.” I’m blanking on it . Sell me down the river no! “Sail me down the river” is a reference to passing and burial
Interesting talk. One thing I disagreed with was the dismissal of criticism of critical race theory as simply conservative Americans not wanting to own up to all the horrible things their European ancestors did to natives and blacks. Rather than deriving from the Enlightenment ideas of our founding fathers and mothers, critical race theory is derived from the same anti-Enlightenment philosophical ideas that inspired Marxists and Nazis. Critical theory teaches that all human relationships are relationships of power between an oppressor class and an oppressed class. For the Marxists, the bourgeoisie were the oppressors, for the Nazis, it was the Jews, and for the critical race theorists of today, it's the whites. I'm for teaching kids about American history, warts and all. But indoctrinating them with the belief that racist oppression is "baked in" to America, its institutions, and the minds of its citizens goes to far. We need to get back to the idea that what's baked in to America is that we are a nation that believes in its founding ideals of the equality and inalienable rights and has struggled mightily to put them into practice. We are a nation that has come far and now has to keep up the hard work, keep the faith, and let good things come to fruition.
I like the word in-a-lien-able
didn't read.
crt = "hypocritical racism against whites is good," simple as
I agree, as long as what I would call important information about our history isn’t omitted from the curriculum. I was never taught about this Forrest guy at all in my high school years or even middle school years. That info. isn’t something I feel I would forget. It’s important to teach about American History in a way that we can learn from our past that allows us to grow as a nation for our future. I graduated from a large school, very “white” to speak frankly, 1 of 2 black guys (0 black girls) in a school of 3000+. I feel a little cheated not finding out about a lot of things from my history classes that I wish I had learned in school. Like Mr. Forrest or about Gearge Washington’s false teeth or even that he had slaves (which I didn’t learn until I was almost 50). Maybe I’m just asking for too much, but I do feel that as much info about our past needs to be intelligently taught without complete omission of information, because someone or group wants to sweep it under the rug like it didn’t happen. I’d been content with a side note. lol. Peace ✌️
@supadave17hunt56 check out the book "his excellency"
@@supadave17hunt56 This guy left out all the bad ass stuff about Forrest and just talked about the bad things he did. Forrest was a beast in combat and as a general. The list of his deeds and successful battles was long. Historians are supposed to be objective and just lay out the good with the bad. Unfortunately, that ended when campuses were politicized in the 60s.
I guess the old adage is true, the victor gets to write history, even if they just regurgitate what their college professor told them without thinking.
So this Forrest guy didn’t have the soldiers under his command murder all the blacks fighting at fort Pillow? So he had all soldiers killed? Or none at all? He wasn’t a slave trader who got rich in his profession? I wasn’t taught any of this information in school (predominantly white school) and I would consider that a war crime and a crime against humanity. If just either one is true he’d have to live the rest of his life like Mother Theresa to make up for it. So what did he do to have a statue erected or a holiday on his birthday? Or was this statue next to some statues of the third reich and Genghis Con generals? I’m not saying Forrest was pure Evil but someone that does those things has a moral compass that is broken or faulty and wouldn’t deserve any recognition other than learn about him in American history. I’m not here to argue, everything is relative from their own point of view but don’t dismiss others point of view as wrong if they are bias from their point of view by not telling the entire truth, but from my view, I can very comfortably say that if he was a slave trader, had only black people murdered After a battle in a war and was Grand Wizard in the clan (in any era of the clan), He absolutely without a doubt, 💯 does NOT deserve a statue and a state holiday EVER.
That’s why they failed to mention that Forrest’s was Democrat and the Confederacy was the Democratic Party leaving the Union
I love the way Olsson is adamant about racism being a problem created by one and only one racial group, but is unwilling to discuss how racism is a flaw in all segments of society. Another false fact Olsson bravely misses the ball on is how we as a society are avoiding the discussion of the impact of historical slavery on modern society, but then Olsson expertly misses that the Civil War abolished race based institutional slavery only to expand and replace institutional slavery with citizenship based economic slavery owned entirely by the US Government. Since the end of the Civil War the American people haven't been voting for public servants when we elect people into offices, we have been electing our own slave masters.
@@Tomydispik that’s some manifesto. Are union workers slaves too?
Without the white man pushing the standard on looks, we'd have no racism!
💯
@@PaulMcCartGuitarTracksNo, they’re communists.
I can listen to any perspective or point of view. This is assinine. What is his premise?
Dr. Olsson forgot the part about Fort Pillow where Forrest had called for the surrender of the fort multiple times guaranteeing their safety. The commander of the Union garrison refused multiple times and when Forrest’s men stormed the fort The Union commander fled and abandoned his troops without surrendering them. Forrest also told the Union commander if he did not surrender Forrest could not be held responsible for the fate of the Union garrison. So none of this would’ve happened if the Union garrison had surrendered when formally asked instead of trying to surrender after they had invited an attack.
👏... Now do jenkins ferry
This guest pee’s sitting down and gets offended if you don’t recycle
But, that's his business not yours! Should everyone live life according to what you do?
@@Carlbooze That one sailed past you so fast, you didn't even see a blur.
100%
If it would've been about slavery lincoln wouldve freed the slaves at the beginning of war in 1860 and not in 1863 and he would've freed all the slaves not just the ones in the succession states. People are just very ignorant.
Exactly right. He also wouldn’t have fully supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have granted all 11 states the right to slavery, in a Constitutional Amendment (which still can be ratified, interestingly). It passed, but wasn’t ratified, because lo and behold, the south didn’t care about it at that point-it was all about draconian and ruthless money-grabbing taxation on the south. People seem to forget that Lincoln was a white separatist and a racial purist, and was involved in the “back to Liberia” movement at the time. Also look into the so-called “Black Code Laws” of Illinois-some of the most racist policies ever invented.
The guest said exactly this in his talk. Lincoln's goal was to save the Union, and freeing the slaves was instrumental to that goal, not a goal in itself. It deprived the south of wealth, fighting men, and resources, punished traitors for starting the war, and protected free labor from competition with slave labor going forward. If the confederates would have surrendered in 1862 before emancipation was on the table, they could have rejoined the union and kept their slaves. Slavery was protected by the constitution. Lincoln didn't have the power to free the slaves in the 4 loyal southern states that were not in rebellion, regardless of how much he might have hated the institution personally.
So are you two idiots actually trying to give a positive spin to enslaving people? Seriously? Realise, the differences between North and South could have been worked out politically had it not been for slavery. That was the nastiness that the North could no longer tolerate and the South refused to stop enslaving people and went to war over it.
You do know that enslaved persons were manumitted by the 1861/1862 Confiscation Acts. In 1862 Congress emancipated the enslaved in DC and Lincoln the executive order Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The north was expand industrialization (wage-based economy) and south refused to industrialize and remain plantation focused. Free slavery or wage slavery!
@@dpg227 The south seceded to protect and perpetuate slavery as stated in the individual seceding states Declarations of Secession. Read Mississippi's Declaration to get a bone chilling reference of the vile inhumanity that was entrenched within the Southern way of life. The southern states seceded BECAUSE Lincoln won the presidency. In previous congessional debates Lincoln made clear what his thoughts were on the institution of slavery, and they knew Lincolns voting record and his stance on making ALL NEW territories FREE states. Lincoln even propositioned the federal government to buy the freedom of southern slaves at $300 a person. The south would ABSOLUTELY NOT entertain such blasphemy.
A man slave, of prime working age might have price of $800 in 1860 or about $200k in 2020 US dollars. An average slave owner might own 3 slaves.
This guy is so biased, his statement on florida gives him away. Florida is amazing very friendly to all races my best friend is black.... In Los Angeles where I come from I faced mass amounts of racism from the black community for having the audacity to be engaged to a black woman as a white man.. the college I went to UCLA had pushed for segregation in many forms no whites allowed in several spaces they pushed for segregated dorms, safe space, and graduation none of that in Florida. Stop the race bait hypocrite crap. Call out racism in all forms not just white people over a century ago.
Teaching the idea that slavery is 100% the cause of the current social and economic situation of African Americans is not true and detrimental to children and adults alike. My grandfather played baseball in the negro leagues because of segregation. He served during WWII in the segregated U.S. Army. My father went to an all black college in North Carolina because of segregation. However, both were able to achieve social and economic success. They did not have to resort to crime to feed themselves. They did not look at themselves as victims. I neither perceive myself as a victim today. I do not seeks advantages because of my race and teach my children to do the same. It is on merit. What happen in the past matters, but it does not define who you are today and how you should conduct yourself going forward. If my grandfather and father could achieve a measure of success under black letter law that disenfranchised them from society, all the more can African Americans and other minorities achieve success today. With white and minorities, not everyone is going to make it. That is just the hard reality of life. We have to accept that. We cannot make everything equal and we cannot blame the past for our actions of today. Nor for our obligation to take responsibilities for ourselves.
So smartly written. I would much rather listen to your knowledge than these dopes. Thank you for your sage, honesty.
Both of the men look sickly.
Best wishes to you and God bless
America is still in the cultural shadow of slavery and Jim Crow. The success of my family or yours does not negate the impact of those institutions on todays society.
I'm glad to read about someone with critical thinking. Not a lot has changed from then as today, in the sense that the Civil War was more of a second revolution, then freeing slaves. Was slavery bad, yes. However, there were aboloishionist in the revolutionary war. If you read horrace greeleys address to Abraham Lincoln, he clearly states the war is about the continuity of government. If you look at the amendment that frees slavery. It realistically makes everyone a potential slave because it says no more slavers EXCEPT if you commit a crime. Unfortunately, today, we have a JUST-US system that has 1/4 of the world's prison population, which is mostly privatized. That can find anyone to be a "criminal." Who is mostly in that system? Do to policies that have targeted black communities. Like Terry v Ohio. As well as the debt slavery every American is under. I think they throw it in our face by making the dollar out of cotton
1865 was the year 1776 died
1871 was the final nail in the coffin
There are books that show musket stocks with Rev 2 etched into it.
@@JordanCBakercame here to say this Jordan !! 🎯 (baker to baker) 😏
Same thing with 1776 vs 1492.
Forrest also had personal slaves who fought with him through the entire war and forests cavalry was basically the special forces of the day anyway at wars end when they were all freed they were given the option to go home with forest and continue working as freeman and MOST of them chose to do just this.....also the 1st klan was formed against carpet baggers and when they started getting violent against freeman Forrest ordered it disbanded the 2nd kkk and 3rd are the ones everyone things about being violent against blacks....u like all modern history "teachers" are telling the story from an extremely biased angle to fit with your ideological believes.....also because one participated in slave trade did make a person evil you can't judge people of the past according to our standards today and this is coming from a white guy with 2 mixed race kids....slavery was a legal institution at the time it was a bad thing yes but it's just the way it was
Did Bedford's slaves participate in the Fort Pillow Massacre, in which some 300 surrendering union colored troops were killed by the victorious confederates?
Thank you for validating my intuition with this guy.
You’re just being ignorant. Whether you want to believe it or not, Forrest was a nasty salve owner who trafficked in people. He was diabolical and he believed that he was superior to black “savages.” That propaganda was permeated throughout the USA.
Better to be the right hand of the devil than in his path.
Since slavery was legal, the descendants of slaves should be paid reparations.
Slavery is still alive and well today in the United States. The best slave is the one that does not know it’s a slave. 50 trillion in debt. Ask yourself how they can just print legal tender out of thin air. If you know you know.
Right! And then taxed on said money
Makes ya wonder why taxes exist in the first place if we can just print more money
@@Seabang84 Well according to the Grace commission. Not one dime of fed tax goes to infrastructure. It all pays the interest to the shadows that print the legal tender.
Oh you forgot the carve out for goverment prescribed slavery.
A historian that specializes in the Civil War south but doesn't know the price of a slave.....🤔
The Tennessee Army National Guard is nicknamed "Forrest's Critters"
The southern states owed these men a debt, they answered the call to fight, also the families still lived in these states. Not once have I seen anything that's not a memorial for these men, you wouldn't dig up and move a burial mound, leave those statues alone.
Of course not... we just build cities on top of them and call them 'hill city' (st louis)
You have to have lived in the timeline to fully understand the time . From our point of view, we can only speculate .
Congrats Danny, you interviewed the last living customer of the Dallas Buyers club.
One man's hero is another man's villain
Might as well just title the video "I admit it, I am a fool."
I think slavery had at least a "little" something to do with it. The southern politicians said so in their declarations about why they went to war.
Then ...
On August 1, 1858 Lincoln made the following statement on Slavery. "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."
My translation: as I would not be I would not have a slave. Slavery is wrong.
Reading each of the 11 states' articles of succession reveals only two of the states referenced slavery as one the reasons for their succession. One of the two states used the word slavery. The other referenced the other state's words of succession.
I cannot listen to a "historian" who does not remember ranks, dates or "I think" the number of troups in a historic fort.
He is all over the place.
History is written by the victors.
Imagine owning someone else?😳😱 that’s crazy🥶🤣
It wasn't about slavery it was about taxes and how would their labor force be changed yea slavery played a big part because the north offerd alleged freedom so they fought
Ya this was my thought also. I’m pretty sure it was about the north being in so much debt while needing to repay it and the the south not wanting to being held liable for that debt
Labor force was slavery… wouldn’t that make it about slavery?
The north had just as many slaves and not all of them wanted to do away with slavery
@@karlvann5840Not if the Corwin Amendment (that Lincoln fully backed, if not covertly sponsored) obliterates this entire premise.
This guy's knowledge of civil war history is the perfect example of the great job the US empire's role in spreading their lies since 1865.
Clear example of manipulating information to substantiate a point of view.
Take this info and merge it with political / Economic activities outside of the U.S at the time.
Myself: I was born in Chattanooga TN (on the GA border) and so more Southern than most of East TN. That was in 1956 so I was a young child during the centennial observances of the war. I grew up on an actual battlefield and one of my ancestors died at Vicksburg, not during the siege but on the death march to prison camp afterwards. This is the worst discussion of CW history I have ever encountered.
This dudes wife 100% has a boyfriend
The war was fought over slavery, not the slaves.
The north couldnt exist if the southwrn slave owners were allowed to build factories and staff them with free labor.
On top of that, the souther slave owners were freezing out the banks because they didnt need loans, soaid and france were wikking to buy cotton and textiles directly from the south.
That is why the war had to be fought
You should read horrace greeley address to Abraham Lincoln. He states it's about continuity of government. The 13th amendment made everyone a slave through crime. That's why today we have 1/4 of the world's prison population
So it was about slavery. Can't have an institution of slavery without bodies. Free labor. Think about what you are saying. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Which is the reason why the economy is in the condition it is in today.
@clearvizionmedia1151 the distinction is that , the well being and freedom of thr slaves is inconsequential. Thr economic impact of maintaining the institution is the priority. That is what Lincololns speech was about.
@@marquesmurray Exactly. Why should a slave owner care about a slave? It's about the money and economy. So Lincoln could have cared less about us. He "freed" the slaves to get back at the slaveowners and to cripple the cotton industry in the South. Those slaveowners didn't care about the Yankee. They just cared about the bottom line, which is no different today than it was back then.
Making fun of statue right from the start. This was like listening too Young teenagers occasionally stay on topic
A historian painting lefty history. This is the problem with the country. Everyone wants truth until it’s an inconvenience to them
I had a feeling the title is click bait so I stopped watching.
What else have you guys read on this topic? See the Abbeville Institute and the book The Real Lincoln by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo.
Also any lecture by the great Donald Livingston (on Abbeville’s yt channel).
@@DookeyRidr Indeed, good sir!
Just so we’re clear on something here. Tennessee was a state divided on slavery. The middle of the state and to the west were larger farms and plantations . Thus they had the need and money for slaves. From the middle to the east of the state were almost all small farms and people did not have the need or money for slaves. Most in the eastern part of the state came from the downtrodden of Europe, so owning someone was not something they went for on just moral grounds alone. This is why the state waited so long to join the confederacy, as there were two different view points and two different perspectives as to which side we should be on. It was the overwhelming financial advantage those in the western third had which made the middle and east loose the argument. This is also why most in the west were confederate soldiers and most in the east were union soldiers. Those in the middle of the state were split. We have three distinct areas of the state, with three different landscapes, three different ways of looking at the world, and why we have three stars on the flag. A star for each region basically. I had 11 family members who fought in the war. 10 were union soldiers, the highest ranked and most well known being Perry Webb. The one outlier lived around Nashville and viewed things differently. Those around Sevier county, where most of my family for more than ~ 200 years now, and I, are from, were not slave owners and fought predominantly for the union. This goes for those in all the surrounding counties too. Again, this is for the largest part, not everyone. From what I know about my family history, I can’t see them ever really wanting to break from the union anyway. I actually come from a long line of gunsmiths going back to before the revolutionary war. The story in the newspapers say that my ancestors made rifles that have been used in every American war up till WW1. Even then, being a gunsmith stayed a thing they just did, and did well apparently. They’re are some of their rifles and muskets in several museums across the region. The “Gibson” rifles were apparently pretty phenomenal for their day and known for quality and accuracy. The last in the unbroken line was my great great grandfather, Wiley Gibson. After that, we all had and love guns, but no one was a gunsmith. Then, after Obama came into office and they were blaming the AR for everything under the sun, I decided to buy another one. But, you couldn’t find or afford them. So, I did a lot of reading and then built my first. While doing it my mom told me about Wiley. After doing a lot of reading on him and the articles about him, I decided it wasn’t something that was going to die on my watch. I’ve been building AR’s, AK’s, 1911’s and a few odds and ins. Others in the family became interested, so I’ve been teaching it to as many as I can, a long with loading and reloading ammunition for all things center fire and shotgun shells. Now, several cousins, an uncle, and four of the next generation have learned, or are learning it from me. It makes me proud, especially because the tradition is still alive and I’m working to insure that it stays that way a while longer anyway. It’s all legal here by the way. None are sold or for sale, all parts are legal, and if I build one for someone else in the family, I ask what they want it to do and then work out a parts list for them to buy. I just assemble, or show them how to assemble them. There’s also a standing rule that if they want to sell them, I will buy them if they’re being reasonable. That way it’s not put out in the wild, even though it’s all legal.
Man, sorry for my ranting book here. I think I might have some undiagnosed ADHD or something lol.
When you started talking about FLORIDA, you LOST ME.
What else happened at the close of the civil war? What role did international politics and tav collectors have on the collection of taxes. (?). Was the civil war propelled by international politics?
This guy sounds smart until you listen to what he's actually saying.
No. LOL!
bro, these comments on this dude are soo funny!!😂😂 I made it 20 mins n stopped!🙅♂️
I would like to see a debate between him and thomas dilorenzo
AND Donald Livingston + Ry Dawson.
Ryan Dawson! A walking Civil War encyclopedia.
Thomas dilorenzo keeping those southern feelings engendered "lest we forget" and the ole Liberty Monument down in New Orleans spelled it out
Nathan Bedford Forrest saw to it that a great deal of blk labor was employed in Memphis in the 1870s.
This war was NOT about "resisting slavery" it was about resisting "The Dixie" as a currency/money to diminish its "power" and "influence".
Try reading the seceding states Declarations of Secession. The south seceded to protect their peculiar institution...
Try reading the seceding states Declarations of Secession... they seceded to protect their peculiar institution.
?
@@tomyoung8563 My comment and several others are hidden. I wonder why... 🤔
Economics may have been at the heart of the Civil War, but slavery was at the heart of Southern economics.
Guys like Forest were on both sides of every war. They're crazy people. But, I'm always amazed at how guys today, who've never been in war, never even a fight, act so certain and morally superior with their presentism modeling.
Obsessing over race will turn average people into rage monsters. It's good to teach about it. But to obsess over it? It's a net negative on society to dwell on it 24/7
There was five slave states in the Union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. My great grandfather was a union solider and slave owner from Maryland.
And this guy has no idea how much a slaves costs? Wow.
You have no idea how much not having freedom costs a slave. Wow!
@@plainman9887 so, how much?
Typical Liberal Teacher
Missouri DID secede. They were preemptively invaded because of all the unrest on the Kansas border. By the time the state legislature met and voted to secede, they were already split in half. It was the problems caused by having union troops occupying the state that ultimately led to the pro secessionists in the state legislature meeting and voting to secede. It's generally accepted by most scholars these days. The US government eventually considered most of the irregular units in the region 'partisans' because of the fact that there wasn't much of a regular army to join in the area.
Of course, the 'official narrative' is that the government that met wasn't official and didn't have any authority to make that decision but the decision was already made by the pro union officials who decided to remain with the union. They, and most historians for years, didn't acknowledge the authority of that government despite the fact that these were legitimately elected officials, mostly from the southern side of the Missouri river, who were acting on behalf of their constituents. For a long time, Missouri was simply considered a 'union' or, more often, 'border' state, leading to a very oversimplified and ignorant account of the very long and complex history of not only the civil war in the western and frontier theatres, but also the events leading up to the war. So... YES, Missouri DID secede from the union... but it's a little more complex than all that and more and more modern historians are acknowledgung this
When you erase history history will repeat itself.
So true. That’s what scary about certain people who don’t want true US history taught in our schools. We are already seeing ugly divisions across class and racial lines due to ignorance of our real history. 😕
The combination of Mr. Olson's jocular, smug, and triumphalist style of delivery with his clearly inaccurate grasp of many of the details of this discussion have led me to reject any notion of wanting to purchase or read his book. That's too bad. A little less arrogance and a lot more careful research could have made this a genuinely enlightening discussion.
I’ve been telling people this for years and they called me crazy. I’m from an urban community and am man of color but I was always interested in history period. Heavily, and when I was young I remember reading about the war and slavery was just an icing on the cake. Then I went to school and they acted like that’s all it was about so then I lashed out told my teacher she was a straight liar and I got suspended 😭
Crazy thing is My hometown of Hattiesburg, Mississippi sits in Forrest county.
A lot of us were born in Forrest General hospital…
Every state secession declaration specifically identified slavery as the reason for leaving the Union.
lol wrong
Heck 4 slave states voted to remain in the union until Lincoln wanted them to send troops to subjugate the Deep South
These are my notes regarding this video it’s a little long, but I felt it was important to give my input on the subject matter
Danny, I want to thank you for being vulnerable and honest about your knowledge of American history and further willingness to learn about some of the darker sides of American history.
First of all, why would you believe it’s wild that Tennessee would continue a practice celebrating the first grand wizard up to 2020? The South along with several white people then and still do now believe heritage and tradition are more important than doing the right thing. For example, what happened in Rankin Mississippi in 2022? Look it up for yourself. We know racism is taught, but it’s also inculcated into the culture by Heritage and tradition.
Second, the reason why people just want to forget about slavery and how it has shaped our culture in history in America is because it has a lot of shame and many families, white and black from slavery and from inbreeding Black people in America. it’s much easier to dismiss or mitigate and simply say let’s move forward. You don’t even know the history and how brutal the intent to dehumanize and destroy Black people plus this never been any reconciliation in our country like South Africa. There’s been no apology or attempt to reconcile with Black people for the atrocities that we’ve committed in this country that built the country so there’s a void and that’s why people still talk about it and that’s why people are distrusting that many people will never forget.
Third, I’m glad this gentleman gave an educational lesson to Danny about the Civil War. He is correct. The war started with the idea of keeping and preserving the union by keeping the southern states from fleeing that union, but after the war, The South quickly turned their lost rights into what they call” states rights”, the right for southern states to keep slaves as a inherit right. Plus, you have to keep in mind many of the black men who fled to the North who were sometimes captured and brought back to the South were also profitable, and black hunters also participated in this practice.
Fourth, he doesn’t go into much detail about the reconstruction which I understand because a lot happened, but reconstruction also allowed many slave owners who were white and black, especially black slave owners in South Carolina the ability to whitewash the money that they made from slavery and use it to donate money to other institutions and organizations. This allowed some southern owners to survive and still have influence while others donated to colleges to get well educated which is the case with many white people and few Black people. The gentleman is correct that the ideal of reconstruction impact was two-folded. While the idea of racial equality started to become a reality once White men regained control in the South intentionality unfolded their true Aspirations for black men. Dehumanization and black men being subservient continued in full effect and the black codes started around the 1830s continued well after the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Fifth, I love how the gentlemen taught about how Black people and white people lived among each other like he mentioned nursing their children, but many black men bought their freedom and purchased land and also had white workers so most of the country's history was segregated several parts of the country were integrated. I believe this is important to teach people today and the youth that white and Black people opposed segregation and some did not support slavery or Jim Crow. Some white people marched with Martin Luther King and suffered just as brutally as Black people suffered. This was a lesson to teach white people if they did not support segregation and the dehumanization of Black people they would be treated just like Black people were treated. They often called them, N lovers. I don’t need to spell it out for you.
Sixth, On the subject of migration, the gentleman’s historical prowess is completely on point about Mexico, but I will further it. Some the reason why our immigration policy and the hypocritical nature of why immigration is such a problem today also relates to Central America and what the CIA did to several of those countries. We stole their resources because we wanted them and the director of the CIA quoted verbiage that those Central American countries had a functional working system of socialism that threatened the US. So what do you think the people of those countries are willing to do when their country no longer functions and the US is primarily responsible?
Good discussion. I’d love to be a part of this sometime. I can give you a true perspective
Danny disappoints with this garbage
All anyone has to do is read each States Declaration of Secession. The vast majority of each text is dedicated to their god given right to own slaves
And then, tell them to go listen to “The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston” here on RUclips, which will illuminate the stark cultural differences between north/south (also sometimes referred to as “Jeffersonian vs Lincolnian”). And then read the Corwin Amendment. Follow that up with this statement from Lincoln’s inaugural speech: “I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” -March 4th, 1861.
@@DookeyRidr The south hated Lincoln primarily for his hostility towards slavery and seceded shortly after he was elected. This isn’t my opinion this is history “ Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves “- Lincoln .. .. Why is this so hard to except ? The south’s economy was virtually entirely dependent on slavery…
Also, read horace greeleys address to Lincoln. He states the war is for continuity of government
The South lives in denial and feeds on myths.
@41:28 "NURSED THEM?!?!?" This is a prime example of how uninformed most Americans are about slavery and jim crow.
Celebrating Bedford's birthday has no significent effect on black people.
Wait where did you get that title? Wtf?
They took down a beautiful Statue of Forrest illegally in the middle of the night. That Statue was partly paid for by Black Memphis Citizens. Forrest Funeral Procession was over 2 miles long. Over 3,000 Black Citizens came to pay their Respects to the Great General had done for them after the war. Forrest was simply a victim of Propaganda. Forrest had 9 Blacks in his Green Army which were his Body Guards. His Black Cavalry Riders had Uniforms, a Rifle and up to 3 Pistols in their Saddle Bags. Fort Pillow is a lie. What happened was Bradford had Surrendered. He was waiting for a Gun Ship to come down the river. Bradford took down the White Flag and the Union started shooting Forres's Men that were outside the Fort waiting to take the Surrender. They broke the Code of Honor and they paid for that stupid decision. Those men wore Uniforms and were terrorizing the Citizens in upper West Tennessee. How about talking about Sherman and Sheridan raping, murdering, torturing, burning and pillag up to 100,000 defenseless women and the Elderly. Those Southerners were not wearing Uniforms. Some reason that is never discussed.
The professional revisionists of history have done a good job of erasing what the war was really about and how it started: the unfair taxation & tariff was the primary issue that led to the secession crisis of 1860-61 and that the "Great Emancipator" Abraham Lincoln was content to preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union. The Corwin Amendment proved this, which passed with the full backing of Lincoln, and would have been ratified if slavery was the issue. It’s funny how modern interpretations of history from that time fail to acknowledge this. No one should forget that Lincoln was by profession a railroad lawyer. Keep that in mind and in perspective. Where do you think the term “railroaded” i.e. getting royally screwed, came from?
Reps Corwin and Seward (northerners, OH & NY) were allies of Lincoln, and Lincoln personally wanted the 11 southern states to vote to ratify the Corwin Amendment. Slavery and equality was not the primary issue as revisionists espouse, and the Corwin Amendment only proves that-it was a last-ditch effort that would have served to appease the southern states by preserving slavery. But the southern states seceded anyways. An often unmentioned point is that Lincoln was a racial purist and a white separatist, and supported the “Back to Liberia” movement. This is also reflected in the “Black Code Laws” of his home state of Illinois. It’s easy to stare at the trees and not see the forest.
“It was Lincoln himself who had instructed his soon-to-be secretary of state William Seward to suggest three resolutions, the import of the first of which was identical with that of the Corwin Amendment, to the ‘Committee of Thirteen’ in the U.S. Senate “without indicating they issued from Springfield”-that is, from Lincoln himself. (p. 28, quoting Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals)”
Preserving the union was Lincoln’s ONLY concern. But why? Why was Lincoln against constitutionally supported states’ right of succession (especially when he had supported succession of Texas from Mexico prior)? That was the stated goal, in his first speech to congress.
I’m not sure what your reasoning is when you say “To say it was about economics and not slavery is mind boggling” If that’s true, and the Corwin Amendment would have preserved slavery for eternity (being forged and un-amendable within our constitution, because it’s actually possible to this day for it to be ratified), then why didn’t the southern states take the deal? Why did slavery of blacks and Chinese continue in the northern union states/territories after the civil war, if the civil war was ultimately about ending slavery? What do you believe Lincoln’s reasoning was for abolishing slavery and going to war for it (if that’s what you believe)? What do you believe Lincoln’s feelings and ideas were about other races, such as blacks and native Americans?
Signed Transmittal letter, 16 March 1861, from President Abraham Lincoln to Governor John W. Ellis, with original Thirteenth Amendment:
digital.ncdcr.gov/Documents/Detail/signed-transmittal-letter-march-16-1861-from-abraham-lincoln-to-governor-john-w.-ellis/413645?item=5822673
The reason to secede and the reason there was a war are two different things. The South was not attepting to seperate simply over a policy reason. Donald Livingston goes over the Confederate constitution, which will illuminate the stark cultural differences. (“The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston” here on RUclips)
Lincoln’s first written message to congress… was about taxes: “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861).” reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln’s First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
“I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
“Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein.” -April 1861, Lincoln
On Dec 25, 1860 South Carolina, who was paying the majority of the taxes, seceded from the union. Two weeks later New York City threatened secession. If the south was not taxed, parts of the North were going to leave and join the free trade zone too. It was odd that Lincoln decried secession illegal-as in regards to the conflict between Texas and Mexico, he stated on the House floor, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Yeah, good ol’ Abe Lincoln supported secession, just not when it made he and his cronies lose money.
What was the role of the SS Harriet Lane? Why did Lincoln send it to Charleston Harbor? Which happened first: The south firing on Fort Sumter, OR the SS Harriet Lane firing on the civilian steamship “Nashville”?
Lincoln was the original NeoCon, and all he cared about was his paper, boo-boo.
The revisionist were southern historians after the Civil War who told a false narrative to save face of the horrors the South really did.
😮 you look too young to have this much wisdom and insight. What is the source of your knowledge? Guessing not public school - family shared wisdom ?
You forgot Democrat
Good to see how many people understand the truth about the war of northern aggression
This guy seems nice, passionate, and concerned about doing the right thing. However, he’s completely captured and has very little insight into what right leaning or conservative people think. He was completely inaccurate in all of his depictions of Florida, republicans, and how people feel.
I'm a southerner as well as Potowatomi. And I'm 100 percent ok with conversations about race. But not ones that are crafted by any type of Marxism. Any type of marxism has led to piles and piles of bodies, racial and climate marxism will be no different.
One of the main reasons why there was disputes for Texas and Mexico is bcs Mexico government actually granted land to American settlement. Then in 1824 after the Mexican revolution the Mexicans that took over tried to retract the land grants. This of course was after Spain sold the land to America out of spite towards the Mexicans and more importantly the Tejano people actually held a vote to approve of the sale to the American people. There is a plaque not far from the Alamo that details the election that approved the sale by Tejanos to Americans.
So the Mexican government gave many land grants to Americans before 1824. Specially Stephen F Austin’s father was given the original settlement grant papers in Mexico City in 1921.
One day America will realize that in this big story of earth… they are the villain …not the hero ❤
💯💯
46:59 "slavery" again! But "worse"! For slaves "were given" room and board, food, health care, etc. They NEVER "had to worry" about lack of "essential necessities". Now "employees" are treated totally different than THAT... there being no "guarantees" for any essential necessities of any kind at all.("accept" sum money)
CLICKBAIT THE DUDES A BLUEMAN MANDATORY VAGSZER
I wasn’t ready for this 😢
Slavery is Human history, not just American history. It’s been happening since the first men and continues to this day. Yes right now today slaves still exist but for some reason people are focused on American slaves from generations past. Smh
He founded the KKK in response to the Union Soldiers terrorizing the defeated South. They fought the Night Riders who were killing and terrorizing mostly women and children. The first KKK was not concerned with blacks.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
America fought over slaves three times in America. The tea party was about slaves, civil war was about slaves, the alamo was about slaves...
This guy is the last white blood cell fighting sickle cell.
What about Fort Bragg? He was a confederate soldier or whatever, but we also won WW2 out of Ft Bragg. If people aren’t worshipping the man but want to keep name for what it had become. If you let the politically correct remove everything that offends them say goodbye to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
This “man” is probably the bottom in his relationship
Everyone has an opinion.
@@nighttalkersmedia yeah , they're just like buttholes, erbody got one and tores stinks
Everyone also has an arshole. That doesn't validate actual intelligence nor tact.
Florida did what?
@2:19 "through hard work"??...felt like dude can't be serious with that answer, until he redeemed himself by explaining his actions further.
41:07 Yes! And "Segregation" WAS(is) "going on" IN THE NORTH "WAY BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR" Started! Yankees would routinely belittle and denigrate Southerners "for touching black people and holding one another's children". Blacks who were "fighting for the Yankees" were in VERY "segregated" units. Whereas in the Southern armies the blacks and whites fought side by side(for the most part! ) So, the South loses the war and "becomes" more "Yankee-Like"("Liking" what and "as" the Yankee's do). And now the Blacks are in a worst "State" than before. TRUTH... "hurts"!