Pastor Doug Wilson reacts to Stephen Colbert's sloppy history of the American Civil War--if that's what you want to call it. Doug Reacts is presented by Canon Press.
Does anyone remember the episode of the Simpsons when Apu becomes an American citizen? He is asked the exact same question. His answer was too long and accurate for the questioner, who cut him off and said "Just say slavery." He responds "Slavery it is sir!" I am surprised another Simpsons predicting politics meme hasn't gone viral after this.
Colbert faking a southern accent? Does Doug know Colbert is from South Carolina? Colbert wasn't faking a southern accent. Chances are good Doug doesn't recognize an authentic southern accent. Doug is going to quote a confederate general to justify the cause of the Civil war? The longer he goes on, the less tethered to reality he gets. He completely misrepresents general Grant.
Being from an area doesn’t mean you have the accent. He doesn’t live there anymore, and hasn’t for a long time. He did it poorly. I say this as someone who grew up in the deep south…have no accent…and can do multiple dialects. You don’t know what you’re talking about. And Doug understands the Civil War better than you. It’s literally one of his personal interests. Pretending to assess his level of understanding based on a single video is absurd. Pretending I should take your word for it when you’ve never created a video or demonstrated ANY knowledge…is even more absurd. 🤷🏻♂️ “Hold up, guys, manager 0175 is claiming stuff on the internet. This guy knows things.”
@winstonsol8713 you are responding to the OP not the person who made the quote. Still haven't figured out YT yet? Also nice of you to attempt to counter one point and not the other.... almost as if you have no counter for the obvious and more important point just for the lesser one about comedy.
Fun history fact: there used to be more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North prior to the Civil War. The numbers changed when the northern abolitionists became so violent in their attacks on the South as a whole that it became anti-southern to associate with abolitionism as a whole.
"Shall the states determine their own parameters or their own rights." Rights to do *what*, precisely? What rights were the states fighting to preserve?
It was the Federalists vs Anti-Federalist debate come to a head and going hot. Who was to be the primary source of political power, the People and the States or the Federal government.
Colbert and his audience should know that the cause of the Civil War was secession. Had the southern states not seceded there would have been no civil war. Even before he was elected Lincoln stated that as President he had no authority and no intention to end slavery anywhere it was legal. With the war begun, with sweeping war powers that no President has enjoyed before or since including martial law and suspension of the Bill of Rights, Lincoln said the following..... "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." I think he believed what he said but still he had to say it because slavery was legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and in the District of Columbia. West Virginia was admitted to the Union AS A SLAVE STATE in June of 1863. Had Lincoln unilaterally tried to abolish slavery by Presidential fiat in 1862 it would have made Maryland and Kentucky in essence enemy territory. Lincoln was an abolitionist and hated slavery. He was also a racist and white supremacist as was almost everybody in the United States. The ever pragmatic Lincoln embraced the concept of colonization and was a member of the American Colonization Society. He believed that the black race belonged somewhere else and not in North America. His Emancipation Proclamation was an act of war and was very conditional. It only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy not under the control of Union forces. So in effect it freed few slaves.
Abraham Lincoln was absolutely NOT an abolitionist until well after the war had commenced and he had taken office. In fact, Lincoln was nominated over Seward precisely because he was not an abolitionist. Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery not freeing slaves held in bondage in 1861, He held this position until 1863.
???? Dude read a book it started because of the idea to outlaw slavery. And it ended with the outlawing of slavery. This bs this moron was vomiting up in small doses is so stupid. He doesn't even know many other countries fought over slavery. And yet here you are on his side and why?
You wrote that to be ironic, right? The civil war was unambiguously and specifically to preserve the institution of slavery. Full stop. There has been no revision, you can read what the traitors said themselves.
One part of the answer is "Tarriff of Abominations." The motivations were replete with financial interests on both sides. Adjusted for inflation, Trillions of bucks were at stake. Ignoring the economics of the issues is just plain ignorant.
It's just propaganda bro... lock stock and both smoking barrels. Colbert is a propagandist all late night hosts are and have been for a long time.. thry used to be able to hide it a bit better.
You bring up a very good negotiation suggestion. Flames will likely be thrown at me, but the Southern plantation owners knew their economic model wasn't sustainable without very cheap labor (remember, haters- there was a cost, however small compared to wages, to feed, clothe, and house workers). Industrial advances and cheaper sources of cotton to the UK cotton mills occurring by the year, the slave model would have collapsed in a decade. I'm not writing this to defend slavery, but to point out the economic and financial reasons for Southern leaders to come to the negotiating table existed.
When you want to leave a party and someone else locks the door, the fight that ensues is not about why you wanna leave the party. You’re either free to leave or you’re not.
Salute to the courage of a man under all sorts of pressure, and gaining popular notice, who isn't afraid to tell the truth no matter what attacks will come at him. I can't stand Nikki, but this must be said. To expand on the last point pastor Wilson makes, the reason they're so interested to ask gotcha questions about the "Civil War," when absolutely nobody wants to bring slavery back, is because the real issue still matters. If it didn't matter, then they wouldn't worry about it. As long as they can hammer slavery, the issues of central power can't be fixed. If you back down and accept that everything was slavery, and there was no other central issue, then you accept the out of control power of DC. Because if that wasn't a real issue, and everything was just slavery, then everyone must have always thought the central government really had such grandiose powers. You have to have the courage to refuse to reduce everything to slavery, or you display submission and an inability to express the main issues of the war that have never gone away. You are unable to logically and effectively resist and and are a collaborator of the deep state. If you want to change anything on any legal basis, not denying we need religious revival, then it absolutely requires having the courage to repudiate the results of the war and refuse to accept the reduction to slavery no matter how much grief it causes you.
So if the "deep state" opposes you enslaving people who hadn't agreed to become so, that is a more pertinent issue than the fact that, I don't know, you're enslaving people against their will?
Off the top of my head I can name a dozen respected historians who agree with Colbert; Blight, Foner, McPherson, Gallagher, Nivens, Guelzo... Even Southern historians Freeman and Foote state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Can the pastor name one who does not?
I grew up in a family with proud Confederate roots. We were proud that we had ancestors' names engraved on our local county courthouse who had died in the war fighting for the Confederacy. I had a tee shirt with a confederate battle flag on it that read: "If this shirt offends you, you need a history lesson." I mastered the argument that it was Lincoln who started the war. Then, around the time I was thirty years old, I read the Georgia Declaration of Secession. Some excerpts: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..." "A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state." *"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."* "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity." "The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded." "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers." "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." "For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us." *"The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States"* "For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers." "But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. *Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property* in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity." Sorry Doug. It was about slavery, plain and simple.
Love this comment, thank you for sharing. I wasn't raised in the South. However, when I moved to Georgia for a year, so many people in my reformed Baptist church were pro-Confederate and I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Then I moved to Florida and a reformed presbyterian church where likewise everyone was pro-Confederate. I was so nervous to begin teaching my children about the civil war that I decided I had to study it myself so I could make all the necessary corrections to books, etc. that speak highly of Lincoln and say the war was about slavery. But in my study, my mind was completely changed. I realized the Confederacy was dreadfully wrong, and while the North wasn't great either, I'm fearful that so many reformed people fall into the trap of supporting the Confederacy which the more I study, the more I see how wicked it was.
Some new facts that I just learned within the past few months: 1) The south did not invent secession. New England toyed with the idea 50 years earlier 2) The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Union States 3) A major cause of the war wasn't merely slavery, but the EXPANSION of it. Massive difference.
Point 3 is not a massive difference. The expansion of slavery was strongly opposed because it would eventually lead to the end of slavery. No new slave states meant representation in Congress would eventually favor anti-slavery sentiments. The other two points do show the US was not fighting to end slavery. However, the South according to their own declarations were fighting to preserve slavery. That is an accurate one word summary of the cause of the civil war
@@Ryan-mech-muffin If it was going to die out naturally, then his invasion of the South "over slavery" and the subsequent battlefield deaths of 700,000 -- not to mention those wounded and permanently maimed -- was a war crime.
Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves, that's true. It didn't become a war aim until he gave the Emancipation Proclamation. However, looking at Lincoln's motivation is really missing the point. Why did the South secede and take over countless forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. belonging to the federal government (all acts of war) culminating in their attack on Fort Sumter which started the war? Because they were afraid of losing their slaves. They state this so plainly and unapologetically it's crazy that people will not accept it. The book I'm currently reading which is pro-Confederacy actually admits they all *said* it was about slavery (it's undeniable) but this was essentially a political ploy to unite the southern people. It's not a great defense of the South to say they were lying. It's far more likely that slavery was their golden idol which made them incredibly sensitive and protective of it (as all bosom sins and guilty consciences do) so that they saw a threat from Lincoln which they dramatically exaggerated and acted upon. And in doing so they brought their own fear upon themselves - Lincoln who had no intention of ending slavery, began the process with his proclamation as a war measure and gave vital support to the 13 amendment that ended slavery.
@@colinfoster7655 Read the Southern states declarations of secession. Read the deep South's commissioners' speeches and letter about why other slave states should secede. You know what you'll find? According to them, it was all about white supremacy and slavery.
Wars can have multiple causes and of differing types. Of course, the root cause was sin, but there are some more immediate causes. One could argue the formal cause was wether states could leave the union. Why did the south want to leave? It was because of cultural and economic clashes along with the growing demographics of the north which made some think the south's opportunity to secede was closing. Why did the two sides have cashing cultures? Partially due to climate and the different groups of initial settlers. Some historians have said the American Civil War mirrors the English Civil War. However, the two sides built their economies differently, one on the free market and the other on free labor. I think one could thus argue that slavery was the material cause of the war. Of course, a lot of people just fought for their home. People are complicated and so are groups of people. Without drawing a moral equivalence, there were good and bad things about both sides. Personally, I believe the war was God's judgment on the nation and I pray for revival, repentance, and reconciliation in the hope we don't have to go through another one. Love ya'll.
The fact that Stephen Colbert, and many like him somehow think that it was good for 1 million Americans to die in order to free the slaves is actually very frightening. It makes me wonder about the Civil War two that he mentioned. Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights? It reminds me of John Brown. The North’s reaction to him was one of the main reasons the South felt like they had to secede. I am understanding that feeling better and better myself.
You said: "Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights?" The anti-abortion folks already are, and have been for many years. This entry would probably get removed if i listed the violent crimes committed by anti-abortions folks. I am sure you could look it up.
@@jasongcrow5313 You said: " I’m talking about calling out the army to wage war on its own citizens." I would consider what occurred on January 6, 2021 to be exactly what you described. Do not forget, T***p (and Roger Stone) wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, and have the military siege voting machines. That was not about abortion, so it is not directly related to your comment.
The anti southern program is wholly frustrating. From memoirs to documents to actually recorded interviews with veterans will show the war was fought from independence from the federal beast. Meanwhile the arguments for the cause being slavery are front and center but they lack entirely.
Ever heard of their declarations of secession? Also read the book Apostles of Disunion which is about the South's commissioners to the upper south to convince them to secede and join the Confederacy. You'll find it was all about white supremacy and slavery. Or the South is a liar
I'm no american, but from northern europe. I always thought the american civil war was quite multifaceted in its causes and many sides had their own reasons for fighting, but the spread of abholism was the main cause for starting the chain of events that started the civil war. As far as I understood, the north and the south were quite distinct even as cultures from each other and an animosity existed between them already, but the southern economy was so heavily depended on agricultural exports and those sectors were largely run by large slave owning plantations. And when the talks of abholism were becoming stronger in the north, the landowners in south started to get very anxious not only for their own property and livelihood, but also they feared what happened in Haiti not too long ago back then, where the black slaves revolted extremely violently against the european and half-european slave owners, could happen to them as well. So they feared to loose everything, including their own lives as well as their own families lives. So they began to push the narrative in the south that the north is attacking the southern way of life and their state rights that they argued were God given. That would be a main reason to fight for the southern landowners, but for most young men fighting the war itself, it was more a matter of young men wanting to have a purpose, an adventure, rush of danger, fear of being seen as a coward, but as well the same reasons as the landowners, or simply just wanting to go to war and kill. Therefore I don't understand why the left and right in america has made this into a point of contention. The left says slavery, and the right says the state rights. But they are both right, right? So why can't you all just get along and focus on making america the role model for the world again. God bless y'all! :)
It's not wrong to call slavery a primary cause, but there were many causes. Slavery was debated for decades and if you read the documents as to why the Southern states seceded, slavery was the reason. But folks fought for several reasons. Folks forget that General Lee was offered per General Winfield Scott's suggestion to command the Union Armies, but Lee could not bring himself to march an Army on his home state of Virginia and order men to fire upon his own family, friends, neighbors, and statesmen.
Slavery was a reason for secession. It was not the reason for the war. It is the difference between a woman gettingca divorce and the ex husband then stalking the ex wife. To be clear I am making a logical analogy, not a moral one.
@@paradiddlemcflam7167that’s not true though. Go read the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy. “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
@scottforesman7968 Go read the formally published documents of the states who seceded. South Carolina, Mississippi, etc. all cited the North's "hostility" toward slavery. An excerpt from South Carolina's official declaration of secession. "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." No slavery, no secession. Had the North ceded to slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.
When the states succeeded they sent letters of succession to Washington explaining their reasons for leaving the union. Some states mentioned slavery almost entirely others barely mentioned it at all. Interestingly Texas was mad about the federal government’s failure to control the southern boarder. Or maybe more correctly, they failed to reimburse them for doing the job of the feds. FWIW, it’s been years since I read them, and I didn’t read them all then. So don’t take my word for this at all… go read them yourself. lol
Only four states published Declarations of Cause which list their grievances against the Northern states and the Federal government. While all refer to slavery, their grievances have nothing to do with "preserving" it. South Carolina's lays out an extended case for states rights, Georgia's takes issue with Federal spending on infrastructure projects in the North, Texas gripes about the Federals failing to protect the border with Mexico (sound familiar?) and Mississippi's focuses almost entirely on slavery. Their focus on slavery is on the failure of the Northern states to abide by the Constitution's binding agreements on slavery they had agreed to in 1788. They had abided by them by and large for 50 years or so. But for the previous 20 years Northern states were refusing to return fugitive slaves in direct violation of Article 4 of the Constitution, they were failing to protect slave owners passing through the North with their property, they committed acts of violence that went unpunished against slave owners or their agents attempting rendition of their property and they were attempting to foment slave insurrections. Further, even though Southern states were full and equal members of the Union and even though their citizens had contributed men and treasure in the expansion of U.S. territory westward, the North was resisting Southerners' right to move to those territories with their property in the same way Northerners could settle there with their property. It should be noted that, in seceding, the South -- particularly those first seven states -- surrendered all reasonable expectations of ever settling the Western territories and expanding slavery there. While Lincoln's invasion of the those states spurred the northern tier of Southern states to secede as well, it's unlikely they would have seceded to aid the Deep South's expansion westward in a territorial war with the Union. Additionally, in seceding, the new Confederacy surrendered all legal expectations that the North would ever return another runaway slave. By secession, the South effectively gave Lincoln what he and the Republicans said they wanted. There would be no further expansion of slavery in the West and Southern slavery would remain undisturbed and the North's flaunting of Article 4 could continue. The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
It was over slavery. Period. It wasn’t over states rights. If it was about states rights, why did the south ask the federal government essentially to have the northern states return the runaway slaves?
That’s a pitiful understanding. Just a quick search you can find alot of evidence to it being over states rights (slavery being one of the) and you can even find videos of old confederate soldiers at a dance who said the same thing that it was over states rights…..
Yeah stated rights.... to buy, sell, and own slaves...... they cna just skip over the word slavery by replacing it with states rights. Let this be a lesson to you though of how easy it is to pull the wool over an idiot's eyes. This is why most of these same idiots were calling it an insurrection (and proud of it) one day then calling it a peaceful protest the next day. Just like the southerners who knew it was about slavery let themselves be convinced it was for the greater good of God, and states, and just another way to own the libs because their uneducated asses got tired and are still tired of being the losers they have always been. It's what life looks like when you believe education is worthless because you have a bible.
State sovereignty was the deep reaching question OF the war; slavery was the catalyst FOR the war. Today we feel most acutely the negative effects of the empire that was built as a partial result of federal action. But even a casual study of Colonial America, the revolution, and the Constitutional Convention(s) reveals that chattel slavery was absolutely radioactive from the beginning. Some states almost did not ratify the constitution because they did not want to participate with states that permitted the slave trade. The so-called great compromise band-aided things together for a time, but it could not possibly last. Slavery (as the precipitating issue) and state sovereignty (by implication) are not mutually exclusive. They were both involved at different levels and both impacted motivations to fight on either side. And we do see that motivations ranged from very honorable (land and kin) to not so honorable (opportunism and exploitation) on either side.
Because it was in the original Constitution. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Lincoln's illegal war was (in his words ) fought to "preserve the Union," i.e. keep those tariff dollars rollin' in." Thomas DiLorenzo's three books on Lincoln opened my eyes to the real story about the 'Civil' War, for which I am grateful.
DiLorenzo is wrong. I used to agree with his books. He'll ask question like "how could other nations end slavery peacefully and not ours?" That's an easy answer. Because other nations did not have a people group so steeply founded upon racial supremacy in the political, social, and economical structure that they were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery.
The funny thing is Doug Wilson knows about the writings from the Confederacy on this issue. It definitely a grammar issue… It’s about states rights… to OWN SLAVES. 😂 Don’t reply if you have haven’t read the Ordinances of Session from 1861…
Precisely. But even then "states' rights" was a mask. What's one of their main grievances in their declarations? States don't have the right to oppose slavery by not returning our slaves! The Constitution of the United States did not explicitly recognize African slavery and compromises had held the states together for a time. But all the while tensions grew as the desire for a strong *federal* recognition and defense of slavery was granted in the CSA's constitution which defended and protected slavery *federally.*
Except he isn't. America was not the only country to fight over slavery. Colbert wasn't faking an accent he was making fun of one. He laughed about a joke then claimed it wasn't funny. He also has no idea what caused the Civil war if not for slavery but will twist and turn his way through bs version of events that will all ignore the initial cause was over the slavery issue.
You said: "A Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than slavery..." Oh really? Is that why Lincoln pushed for and had ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
@@manager0175 that's what I'm saying....in fact that was confirmed in the civil war documentary by Ken Burns.... I'm not saying he didn't care about slavery....are you triggered?
@@manager0175 Really? * In his first inaugural address, given in March 1861, Lincoln endorsed the recently passed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have guranteed slavery in perpetuity in the South and denied Congress the power to regulate the institution. The amendment which would have resulted in permanent bondage was intended to woo the first seven seceding states back into the Union. The preferred their independence. * Lincoln's Emancipation was a presidential executive order meant to disrupt the South during wartime. It exempted emancipation in the border states and in Southern territories under control of the Union Army. It declared freedom for slaves within the "states in rebellion," where Lincoln had no authority. Tellingly, if those states would cease their rebellion and return to the Union by December 31, 1862, the proclaimed emancipation was null and void. * Lincoln's "push" for the 13th Amendment ending slavery came after the November 1864 election -- just five months before Lee surrendered and 31 months after the war had begun. It was not passed by the Northern House and Senate, despite the absence of Southern representatives, until January 31, 1865, and followed by Lincoln's signing on February 1, 1865 -- two months and a week before Lee surrendered. It was finally ratified on December 6, 1865, making slavery -- North AND South -- unlawful. You'd think, if Lincoln was more interested in ending slavery than preserving forced-union, he might have "pushed" a little sooner. * Lincoln died from assassination on April 15, 1865. The 14th Amendment was not proposed until 1866 and was not ratified until 1868. The 15th was ratified in 1870. By this time, the only thing Lincoln was "pushing" was daisies ...
@@manager0175this is basic knowledge, it's embarrassing that you don't know it. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley August of 1862.
Ok but when state legislatures left the union they gave reasons for secession, slavery was front and center. The men in power perceived an existential threat to the institution.
You People need to get Off of that Trying to say Each state Had a 'Statement' saying they were 'leaving the Union' To save Slavery'... because that is just Complete Bull shit! First off....only 4 States out of Thirteen... Even mentioned slavery... and All they actually said was that 'They were pretty dependent on slavery' for their Agricultural Business. None of the Statements Ever said they Would 'Go to War' to. Keep slavery!!
In terms of impressionism, I thought it had a lot to so with slavery (which matters a lot politically as its connected to race). But even here in Australia much of our history is being re contextualized to fit a noble & peaceful native narrative. So, we don't know much about history, biology etc. There is always more to be learned, defended & reminded of in a world full of disinformation etc.
I'm curious if slavery wasn't the main issue then how do you explain the ordinance of secession for each seceding state stating the that their main reason for secession being the fear that the federal government would overrule the state's right to allowing the institution of slavery? Also you're right that the slave states that remained with the union were allowed to continue slavery because Lincoln wasn't a naïve fool. He understood that if he tampered with slavery in those states they would abandon the union and join the confederacy resulting in the likely hood of a victory for the south and hence half the country continuing slavery. As for the states rights vs the federal government argument you are right Doug that the civil war was about states right but, more specifically a states right to own slaves.
THANK YOU! Ugh! I don’t understand how a man as logical and wise as Doug can get this wrong. The correct answer is the war was fought in order to preserve the union. But why was the union in danger of being torn apart? Hmm? Oh that’s right, the southern states seceding in order to preserve the institution of SLAVERY! The vice president of the confederacy himself said that it was a cornerstone of the confederate government. It’s not rocket science, people!
@@user-jg6qf4cc2u clearly no one has read any of the secession letters. I can’t for the life of me understand how intelligent rational people still are able to gloss over this simple and vital portion of the argument.
I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you! Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was.
You said: "I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you! Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was." I was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. I cannot count all the times i heard: "The civil war was about states rights." "Black folks were better off a slaves." "Slavery was the original social security." "No one has more opportunities than a poor black child." And this video is perpetuating those notions. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. That was the cause of the Civil war. Every other issue was was centered on and around SLAVERY.
@@manager0175 Per my history professor from UNC, the short answer is actually "economics." It is true that there were reprehensible radicals on both sides, though. The moderates lost the debate and the rivers were filled with the blood of many thousands as a result. There is no good war.
@@manager0175 , I also live in the south. There are two things you need to remember. 1. You have a right to believe whatever you want. But facts don't lie or care about your feelings. 2. Those who won the war wrote history. Bonus: if you are a Christian brother, I love you no matter what you believe about the war.
@@manager0175 If the cause of the Civil War was slavery, that would mean slavery was also the North's motive in fighting. What is the evidence for that?
It's true that only slave states seceded. What's also true is that several slave states did not, and would thus be still in the Union that was supposedly a campaign to abolish slavery. West Virginia was admitted into the Union in the middle of the Civil War as a slave state.
The same problem is seen in Roe v Wade. What is Roe v Wade a debate about? Some would shout 'abortion' without hesitation while others would say its about how government functions to make and enforce laws.
They wont wver admit it because its their whole worldview. All of their polocies and thoughts are derived from that. Telling them the civil war wasnt about slavery is telling them them up is down. And since theyve bought into public schooling and taught what to think and not HOW, they cant even begin to wrap their heads around conplex subjects.
I remember Ken Burns special saying that the Emmancipation Proclamation gave the war a cause "freeing slaves" and me reacting huh? wasn't that the whole point from the beginning. Then I began thinking. I looked up history classes online. The proffesors all said that slavery caused the civil war. No doubt slavery was a cause of great friction. Then I saw some videos saying that slavery did not cause the civil war states rights did. Then the other side said "what were those rights -- the right to own slaves". OK, but if slavery was really the cause why did the South leave in two tranches? I think the second left after Fort Sumnter. Virginia actually decided to stay in until it left. Then I realized Lincoln could not free the slaves. Dredd Scott meant that he would need to pass an Amendment -- not happening, or the Supreme Court would have to change -- that takes time. TO really understand, some day I will read the debates in the legislatures and the speeches.
What's a good comprehensive book about the reality of the Civil War? As a public school grad, we were taught relentlessly that it was almost solely about slavery
Saying the civil war was about slavery is not wrong. While technically the war was started over states ability to leave the union, the cession crisis was over the protection and expansion of slavery. So indirectly it was about slavery. It baffles me that we still discuss this. If you don’t believe me go read it from the articles of cessation. The people of the time told us what they were doing. Why would we not believe them.
From the Republican party platform of 1860 (the year Abraham Lincoln was elected President): "That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; ... that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States."
You said: "Doug Wilson should run for presidency.." By all means, run on a "Slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war." Anti-abortion rights, nation-wide abortion ban, pro-gun, anti-LGBT, "2020 election was stolen" "Donald T***p is a good Christian man." Platform. Democrats will give you all the campaign donations you'd ever need.
Doug's work as a father, pastor, educator, and evangelist against unbelieving culture is far more powerful than any president could ever be. Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert.
@@umaikakudo You said: "Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert." The problem is, "Christian nationalism" IS "top down authoritarianism". "Christian nationalism" is, right now, supporting the most "top down" authoritarian in US history. "Christian Nationalism" is, RIGHT NOW supporting a man that is arguing for "complete immunity" for any presidential activity. "Christian nationalism" is RIGHT NOW, supporting a man that declares himself to be "Dictator for day one" and calls for dissolution of articles of the Constitution. And we have not even talked about what Doug has asserted as his intentions within "Christian nationalism". Which is also "top down authoritarianism'.
It’s a gotcha question because along with so many other things, the term “states rights” is now determined by the powers that be to be code for racism. Like flying the Gadsden flag or carrying a gun or homeschooling all are secretly code for racism. I know because the people on the internet who call me “YT” said so. (In other words, for those who can’t tell, the people using derogatory racial terms are obviously the deciding factor on what racism ack-choo-wally is. And they usually have a link in their bio to their cash app for all their mental labor, pay a Black [capitalized] person, and all that)
I suggest people read the Lincoln Douglas debates. It was about slavery. Douglas said each territory should decide. Lincoln wanted to limit slaverys expansion.
I didn't say "one series of documents" settles what caused the Civil War. But the Lincoln Douglas debates point to the issue being the expansion of slavery. Douglas wanted to allow its expansion. Lincoln did not. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected because they wanted slavery to continue and spread. They did not see slavery as immoral.
I do remember a Northern statesmen position on it I can't remember the name right now it's been years since I read his words but he was upset about the prospect of the South expanding and colonizing Westward instead of the North and bringing in more foreigners from A frica.
@@JonJaeden source? and where did they live? If it was close to the Mason Dixon line then your point is moot. Also did they continue to have them throughout the entire war?
Actually, while the "state's rights" argument is indeed true, the Civil War was also about slavery. You can read the declarations of secession from the Southern States, it's right in there.
@@ricksamericana749 No, that's wrong. The use of "state's rights" to obscure slavery as the dominate factor did indeed come about post-Civil war. The US we live in today is vastly different than the US pre-Civil War. We live in a top-down heavy government US as a result of going through the Civil War, Depression, two World Wars, the Cold War and so we are used to the Federal government having and wielding power and telling the states what to do. That's not how the Founders set up the country, originally the States were supposed to be the main power, as a means to check federal power. It's right there in the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). But, over time, slowly and surely the Federal power grew and eroded the states powers. There was nothing in the Constitution about Slavery and thus the Southern pro-slavery States weren't too keen on the Federal government trying to tell them what they could and couldn't do concerning slavery.
@@filonin2Right, gradually ending the institution in a way that allowed society to adjust and integrate the newly freed people was totally more abominable than a war that killed over a million people, killed or maimed 50% of the Southern military-aged men, utterly devastated the Southern economy, and directly created the disease and poverty that killed nearly a million of the former slaves (25% of the total) in the years following the war.
Brazil ended slavery in 1883. She had more slaves than the United States and was just as dependent on cheap agricultural labor. Had slavery ended gradually and without violence race relations would be much much better today. But I don't think that would have been possible. In places like Brazil the whole country was either one thing or the other. Now if a person like Trump, a narcissist with a gigantic ego, had been thrown into the mix it changes things. Here's Trump. "Let them go for now, and don't make it worse than it has to be. They'll cool down when they see we mean them no harm. We'll just let it ride for my first term. In my second term we'll begin working on reunification. And by the end of my third term we'll be reunited with a plan everybody can accept and it will be a win for the South, a win for the North and a win for the blacks! We'll win so much we'll get tired of winning!" And he might have pulled it off.
Lincoln left a fortress of war in Charleston Harbor and tried to enforce it, an act of war. His Proclamation on State Militia (April, 15, 1861), Proclamation 81-Declaring a Blockade of Ports in Rebellious States (April 19, 1861) and Proclamation 82-Extension of Blockade to Ports of Additional States (April 27, 1861) say nothing of slavery but "collection of revenues." The Upper South seceded in response to Lincoln's actions. Therefore the war was not caused by slavery.
@c.w.johnsonjr6374 What you said is so highly inaccurate. The federal government owned forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. all over the South because, obviously, there were part of the country. Many of these were voluntarily given from the state to the federal government. The South had been taking over these places with armed forces for months. Those are the acts of war and they started before Lincoln was even president. Many times they took over the forts and arsenals before they even seceded - an explicitly treasonous act. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the South had seized all the federal forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom houses, revenue cutters, mints, courts, and post offices within their borders except Fort Sumter in South Carolina and Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson in Florida. Fort Sumter, in particular, had been given by voluntary statute of South Carolina to the federal government in 1836. This fort was for the defense of the harbor. The attack on Fort Sumter, the official starting point of the Civil War, was simply another act of war in a long line of hostile takeovers the South had been engaged in for the past 4 months. Lincoln had every right constitutionally to resupply Fort Sumter. It was not an act of war. On the contrary, *no one made the South fire the first shots.* That was their choice. They started the war. Why? Read their declaration of secession and the speeches and letters from the deep South commissioners to the upper southern states on why they should secede and join the confederacy. Like this one from Stephen F. Hale to the Kentucky governor. The South was absolutely NOT shy to claim the war was all about white supremacy and slavery: teachingamericanhistory.org/document/stephen-f-hale-to-governor-beriah-magoffin/
Pastor Wilson, can you recommend any history book/series that has not been tainted? Canon Press do you have such a thing out there? asking for a friend 😉
Not been tainted? Well, you sure as hell don't wanna read anything from the right wing...... also, what do you mean by tainted? Like has accurate history and does wash over the atrocities committed? Or are you referring to an alternate history that tells the story the way you wanna hear it?
Yeah so tell me what started the war? Why did it end? Another moron who doesn't know history or just wants to ignore the truth of it. Pretending it wad anything other than slaverynis a fucking joke. "Oh see it was about states rights." Yeah stated rights to..... decide if slavery was legal? "No, no it was about free markets." Free to..... buy and sell slave labor? "No it was about uh ummmm authority of the government and where to draw the line so we can have freedom." Same as the first except now the term freedom is used for everyone but slaves.... and I ask yet again would any of these detractors be OK if they were a slave?
@@HvV_FilmRoom yes. Since it wasn’t fought over slavery. It was fought over state sovereignty and because there was an invasion by the Northern States into sovereign territory. If it was fought over slavery West Virginia wouldn’t of been illegally created as a slave state loyal to the union. Not to mention Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri would of freed their slaves in 1861 not after the ratification of the 13th.
@@HvV_FilmRoom that’s one thing among others that states were allow to self determine. The primary thing was to decide whether or not a state could voluntarily withdraw from the union.
Doug said something I've often wondered: 'How about buying all the slaves?' I've never really dug around to see if anyone proposed this. I doubt any among the monied and powerful did.
It's called compensated manumission. It was widely discussed in the North and South but the mercantile North was ambivalent because it too was making a great deal of money off of slave labor. Outside of abolitionist circles leading business men in the North were quite content with the status quo. Much of the tax base prior to secession was from tariffs on cotton. Fort Sumpter existed to make sure that cotton didn't leave the harbor until the export tax was paid. The effective export tariff had risen to 60% by the 1840's.
The war was never about slavery. It was about keeping the southern states in the Union. Ending slavery was a "while we're at it" thing. We're going to get rid of the root cause of the division. And it will impoverish the South and put them in their place. But there was much trepidation in the north about hordes of freed blacks surging north to escape the horrors of the deep South. They didn't want that.@@johnlocke6800
The South did not need to secede to preserve slavery -- the institution was not under threat in the South. Slavery was practiced in all 13 of the original colonies, still legal in most of them when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That Constitution recognized the legality of the institution and the enforceable property rights of slave owners, even in states that exercised their right to ban the practice for those residing within their borders. Everyone, North and South -- and the states that subsequently joined the United States -- were voluntary members of a covenant that recognized and protected slavery, an institution just as odious in 1788 as it was in 1860. The only legal means to end slavery nationally was to pass a constitutional amendment. There were not the votes (nor, apparently, the will, even in the North) to do so. So, the South did not have to "preserve" slavery against an amendment by seceding. Politically, there was little for Southerners to fear for slavery within their borders. Lincoln and the Republicans did not target slavery in the South, only in the new territories in the West. The fourth plank of the 1860 Republican platform specifically endorsed as "inviolate the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS according to its own judgment exclusively." Lincoln himself said he did not believe he had constitutional authority to do anything about Southern slavery, nor did he have an intention to do so. He endorsed the Corwin Amendment, passed just two days before his first inauguration, that guaranteed slavery in perpetuity in those states where it was currently legal and removed Congress' authority to regulate it. If the South was concerned about preserving slavery, it merely needed to reject secession and return to the Union. The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected. Final point, despite those pesky Southerners no longer being in Congress after secession, Northerners didn't get around to passing the 13th Amendment ending slavery until 4 months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox and didn't ratify it until December 1865, ending slavery in the U.S. -- North and South -- at the same time.
@JonJaeden Thanks for the history lesson, but can you answer the question with more brevity for the sake of clarity? List the rights in order of importance that the Civil War was fought over.
@@HvV_FilmRoom The South, in 1861, seceded for the same reason the 13 colonies seceded in 1776 -- liberty and independence. The South fought in both 1861 and 1776 because it was invaded by a foreign tyranny intent on crushing its quest for independence.
No it’s still a gotcha question because of people like this who continue to deny the incredibly basic historical fact that it was almost entirely about slavery, specifically the expansion of slavery. The fact that it’s 2024 and we still have prominent Christian leaders saying this crap is shameful. He also just flat out lied when he said the Washington DC slave market continued during the civil war, DC abolished the slave trade in 1850, however Virginia obviously didn’t. Also saying Maryland had slaves therefore the war wasn’t about slavery is genuinely one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It’s almost like the border states weren’t nearly as invested in the institution of slavery and therefore sided with the union, also Maryland became a free state during the war, how many confederate states freed their slaves during the war? Yeah that’s what I thought.
Lol the old argument “civil war was fought because of states right” and my question would be “the right to do what exactly?” 🤦🏾♂️😂. You Neo confederates are hilarious but go on
Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery. End of story. It’s not liberal to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I’m a conservative Reformed Baptist and unfortunately this video will push away people who might have otherwise listened to you on other topics where you genuinely have good things to say.
You said: "Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery" Dead on right, Full stop. Well done.
Of course they didn't want the Federal government impeding on slavery because it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to do so. The North was thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the South was insisting the Constitution be enforced. Try breaking your marriage vows and see how long it takes your wife to file for divorce.
Slavery would have ended without the horrendous cost of a civil war and maybe this country could have existed longer without this horrendously oppressive and gigantic federal government that Lincoln began. Did the Founders promote empire or did you Yankees? And we have been fighting wars all over the world ever since then haven’t we? Aren’t you tired of all of the death and destruction we continue to perpetrate on the world? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Where did this start? Where does the mindset come from? The god Lincoln that’s who.
The civil war was never about the morality of slavery but rather its economical ramifications. So you can say it was about states rights but primarily states rights to own slaves. I wouldn't so flippantly dismiss slavery as being the main driver of the war especially with reasoning given here : general grant owned slaves, there were slaves in the north- that proves nothing. It would be like me saying racism can't exist because i have black friends. At least back up you claims with historical documents (but not the letters of succession bc those mention slavery!)
the "glorious lost cause" has revised the history of the south so much that to correctly answer the underlying reason behind the Civil War is the southern economy based on slavery is tantamount to lying. yes there are other reasons, but let us not deny that slavery was a fundamental reason
I've been listening to Doug Wilson for more than 30 years. I am increasingly curious why someone of his calibre does not debate Roman Catholic apologists? Debating atheists and bad comedians is a bunny slope. Entertaining and fun, perhaps, but the real battle is with Rome (and to a lesser degree the Orthodox). More people are leaving Reformed Churches to become Catholics or Orthodox than to become Atheists. So why, after decades of ministry, there ain't a single example of Doug debating a Catholic on RUclips (at least that I can find). Why not spar with a Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin? It would get HUGE views on both your channels.
It's the Catholics that normally refuse to debate the Reformed guys. James White of Alpha and Omega ministries has many debates with Roman Catholics and scores of Dividing Line podcast hours going over the claims of Catholic apologists in great detail for all the different categories that come up. Check that out to see how Reformed scholars address the doctrines.
@@umaikakudo I've listened to every debate James White has had with Catholics... which is a big reason why I became Catholic when I did instead of 10 years later. I was a Calvinist until I was 46 years old. DEEPLY CALVINIST Presbyterian. But even as a Presbyterian, I winced whenever listening to sophist Calvinist Credo-baptists like MacArthur and White, because they represent a bubble within a puddle of a ghetto of Christianity. I was undecided on whether they could be called "magisterial Protestants." Calvin would probably have imprisoned them (or worse) if they showed up in Geneva-- for their baptism views alone. There is a difference between the 17th century Protestants and the 16th. There are reasons why the magisterial protestants had a hard time with congregational Puritans (and still do!). I would like to see more magisterial credalists debate Catholics-- not "biblicists" like White, who are only Trinitarian because they personally find the Trinity in Scripture... not because the Church Jesus Christ established taught them this and made it a matter of dogma which people must believe if they want to be called Christians-- whether they personally find it in Scripture or not. We were born 2000 years late. Christianity isn't our private religion and we don't get to pick and choose how we use the Bible -- like a cafeteria buffet line. White's own peculiar theology (with all its nuance-- including his eschatology) probably has fewer adherents today than likely existed in the 17th century. So I'm cordially calling out Wilson, Leithart, and all the "New St. Andrews"/Ligionier/Credo types to show up and confront the "brain drain" happening in Reformed Evangelicalism of folks heading to Rome or Constantinople. They are committing pastoral malpractice to ignore this growing trend. They're still living in the 1980s when the focus was on getting disgruntled PTL Evangelicals to drop the tambourines long enough to consider the Reformed Faith. Discern the times, brothers, or you're either going to have more of your congregants swinging hard to White or to Rome. You are underrepresented in the discussion. Peace. 😘
Doug why didn’t the South free all their slaves and end slavery to avoid war? Or use Southern emancipation as negotiation leverage with the North to strengthen their state’s rights that you claim was so dear to them? Could it be that they could not let go of their idolatry of the institution of slavery without their complete subjugation to the Union?
Because the Southern states joined the Union as equals. They also joined as already-slave states. And they joined under a Constitution that recognized their right to hold slaves and the North's obligation to return those that fled. No state following the Constitution had any obligation to do anything different so the other states wouldn't invade and attack it. That, of course did not prevent Lincoln from doing exactly that.
@@JonJaeden what part of the Constitution guaranteed their right to their institution of slavery? Likewise, what part of the Constitution obligated the North to return escaped slaves to them? Couldn’t the South respect the northern State’s rights to choose not to return runaway slaves?
@@85Rossco Slavery was already a 150-year-old institution when the Constitution was ratified. The Founders were not creating a Constitution or Federal government that could wish it away. The initial drafts of the Constitution used the word slave, but it was later replaced with euphemisms. Here are the document's slave-related portions: * Article 1. Section 2. -- The "Three-Fifths Clause" allowed 60 percent of a state's slave population to be counted toward representation in Congress. * Article I, Sections 8. -- Federal government given power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections. * Article IV, Section 4: Federal government guarantees each state protection against domestic violence. This was also added to because of fears over slave rebellions. * Article I, Section 9 -- Congress prohibited from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. Beginning in 1808, no new slaves could be imported into the U.S. * Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 -- Fugitive slave clause required the return of slaves to their owners. Without this clause, Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution or joined the Union in 1788. It was the compromise that sealed the deal. All parties -- reluctantly or not -- signed on and were bound by it.
I would live to see Pastor Wilson sit down with Dr J. Peterson. 2 very intelligent men with a depth of knowledge spanning so many different areas with enough crossover to have deep conversations and enough difference to come from different aspects of thought
I'm sorry. I ignore Calvinists on RUclips. I sincerely no longer read their work, listen to their videos, and certainly disagree with Calvinistic presuppositions. Because of my boundaries, I debated responding to this video, but it caught my attention because of the phrase "sloppy . . . history." Here is a Calvinist accusing someone of sloppy history telling who cannot be honest about the history or the origins of the introduction of total depravity (inability) into Christian theology, nor express accurate history on Pelagius. When he and others that support his doctrinal views can produce an accurate historical retelling of how and why total inability was introduced into Christian theology as well as accurately describe the Pelagian conflict (Augustine knowingly and intentionally mispresented Pelagius's theology and introduced the once considered heresy of determinism into Christian theology), then I may begin to respect Doug Wilson's critique of someone else's perspective on history. In my view, you need to be honest about your own history before critiquing accusing someone else of dishonesty.
@@tellingtruthexperiencingli9355 It refers to your rather cringy threat to withhold your respect until Wilson sees it your way. I'm sure thousands are even now reconsidering their positions in order to be considered worthy.
First, it wasn't a threat. It is a consistent practice of mine. Second, your comment deals nothing with the issue I raised. Since you did not address the core issue I raised this will be my last comment to you as it is merely a distraction from the point I made. The point is that someone who is not honest with the history of certain Calvinistic doctrines should not be given respect when they accuse others of communicating bad history. It is hypocrisy. So, should I not care about hypocrisy and intentional hypocrisy? I think I will care even if you don't and this of course if your choice. I will ignore further comments because you are currently bringing nothing of substance that requires further comment from me. Indeed, you comment demonstrates you know nothing about the subject to which I am referring.
As a man that studies history, sorry sir but you are wrong on this one! The civil war was 100% about slavery, yes there was some states in the Union that still had slaves, and yes Abraham Lincoln did not make the civil war about slavery at first. The confederacy 100% made it about slavery from the beginning of their separation from the Union! In fact it actually can stem back to the beginning of the United States.
And Wil is not a student of history? What book did you read. Would there be bias if you only read one book. Or one side of the story. Victor always write history.
@@Gnmercjr76 I write the documents, I am going to guess you never have? Like the session letters, confederate Constitution, VP Alexander speech know as the cornerstone speech, and the list goes on! This is not a small little thing this I have spent months just on this topic alone.
@@Gnmercjr76 you think Doug has a bias here? Read what he has to say about biblical slavery, and if a nation can be Christian enough by his definition to have slaves.
The slavery the "confederacy 100% made it about" was the slavery the U.S. Constitution of 1788 recognized and which all states were obligated to follow. The North refused to keep covenant and the South opted out. The Constitution was the only thing that made the states a union and if one side was going to disregard it, the other side had no obligation to remain. The North had the lawful option of amending the Constitution, or, if it was unable to and was offended by its continuing association with the slave states, it could have seceded.
@@JonJaeden no where in the what part of the United States constitution states that a state my just up and leaving the union? Article and section must be provided!
As a black American, this is information I need. Mr. Doug Wilson never misses.
Ok, liar.
Lmao you definitely are not “African American” 😂
Man... some haters.. lol 😂
@@filonin2 what am I lying about exactly?
@intello8953
So, in order to be African American, I must think a certain way? How racist is that homie.. 🤔👌🏾
Does anyone remember the episode of the Simpsons when Apu becomes an American citizen? He is asked the exact same question. His answer was too long and accurate for the questioner, who cut him off and said "Just say slavery." He responds "Slavery it is sir!" I am surprised another Simpsons predicting politics meme hasn't gone viral after this.
ruclips.net/video/SFwHQYDqf6c/видео.html&ab_channel=PatrickReed
Colbert faking a southern accent? Does Doug know Colbert is from South Carolina? Colbert wasn't faking a southern accent. Chances are good Doug doesn't recognize an authentic southern accent. Doug is going to quote a confederate general to justify the cause of the Civil war? The longer he goes on, the less tethered to reality he gets. He completely misrepresents general Grant.
Being from an area doesn’t mean you have the accent. He doesn’t live there anymore, and hasn’t for a long time. He did it poorly. I say this as someone who grew up in the deep south…have no accent…and can do multiple dialects. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
And Doug understands the Civil War better than you. It’s literally one of his personal interests. Pretending to assess his level of understanding based on a single video is absurd. Pretending I should take your word for it when you’ve never created a video or demonstrated ANY knowledge…is even more absurd. 🤷🏻♂️ “Hold up, guys, manager 0175 is claiming stuff on the internet. This guy knows things.”
The Simpsons doesn't predict anything only morons believe that bs.
@winstonsol8713 you are responding to the OP not the person who made the quote. Still haven't figured out YT yet?
Also nice of you to attempt to counter one point and not the other.... almost as if you have no counter for the obvious and more important point just for the lesser one about comedy.
I studied history at a state school with progressive professors. Even they said it wasn't about slavery. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.
Who did you study under?
Because it was. Either the South were liars or it was about slavery.
Has anyone looked at the southern state’s secession declarations? Pretty sure they said they were leaving over slavery
They said they were seceding over Constitutional violations.
Fun history fact: there used to be more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North prior to the Civil War. The numbers changed when the northern abolitionists became so violent in their attacks on the South as a whole that it became anti-southern to associate with abolitionism as a whole.
curious how you seem to have no evidence for your "fun fact" at all.
Listening to colbert is like going back for your third lobotomy
I was going to say that about Doug.
Now that is funny brother. 😂I’m baffled that people still watch late night shows not to mention MSM.
As long as you keep going back. Ratings..its all about ratings.
@@user-jg6qf4cc2uok nameless bot.
Poor Jeffrey. I cant relate, I’ve only had one.
A states freedom to do what?… I wonder what every states seceding documents say. Literally every single state says the right to keep slaves.
"Shall the states determine their own parameters or their own rights."
Rights to do *what*, precisely? What rights were the states fighting to preserve?
It was the Federalists vs Anti-Federalist debate come to a head and going hot.
Who was to be the primary source of political power, the People and the States or the Federal government.
Colbert and his audience should know that the cause of the Civil War was secession. Had the southern states not seceded there would have been no civil war. Even before he was elected Lincoln stated that as President he had no authority and no intention to end slavery anywhere it was legal. With the war begun, with sweeping war powers that no President has enjoyed before or since including martial law and suspension of the Bill of Rights, Lincoln said the following.....
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
I think he believed what he said but still he had to say it because slavery was legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and in the District of Columbia. West Virginia was admitted to the Union AS A SLAVE STATE in June of 1863. Had Lincoln unilaterally tried to abolish slavery by Presidential fiat in 1862 it would have made Maryland and Kentucky in essence enemy territory.
Lincoln was an abolitionist and hated slavery. He was also a racist and white supremacist as was almost everybody in the United States. The ever pragmatic Lincoln embraced the concept of colonization and was a member of the American Colonization Society. He believed that the black race belonged somewhere else and not in North America. His Emancipation Proclamation was an act of war and was very conditional. It only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy not under the control of Union forces. So in effect it freed few slaves.
Abraham Lincoln was absolutely NOT an abolitionist until well after the war had commenced and he had taken office. In fact, Lincoln was nominated over Seward precisely because he was not an abolitionist. Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery not freeing slaves held in bondage in 1861, He held this position until 1863.
The people in the audience clapping for Colbert is even scarier.
New Yorkers.
The people in the comments thinking Doug is correct is shocking.
Not as scary as the number of losers clapping and cheering for Trump.... also what was the true cause of the Civil war?
@@user-jg6qf4cc2uwomp womp chill out
Don't be fooled, it's a laugh track, it's always a laugh track
Spot on! The revision history they push upon us is mind boggling.
???? Dude read a book it started because of the idea to outlaw slavery. And it ended with the outlawing of slavery. This bs this moron was vomiting up in small doses is so stupid. He doesn't even know many other countries fought over slavery. And yet here you are on his side and why?
You wrote that to be ironic, right? The civil war was unambiguously and specifically to preserve the institution of slavery. Full stop. There has been no revision, you can read what the traitors said themselves.
One part of the answer is "Tarriff of Abominations." The motivations were replete with financial interests on both sides. Adjusted for inflation, Trillions of bucks were at stake. Ignoring the economics of the issues is just plain ignorant.
It's just propaganda bro... lock stock and both smoking barrels. Colbert is a propagandist all late night hosts are and have been for a long time.. thry used to be able to hide it a bit better.
You bring up a very good negotiation suggestion. Flames will likely be thrown at me, but the Southern plantation owners knew their economic model wasn't sustainable without very cheap labor (remember, haters- there was a cost, however small compared to wages, to feed, clothe, and house workers). Industrial advances and cheaper sources of cotton to the UK cotton mills occurring by the year, the slave model would have collapsed in a decade. I'm not writing this to defend slavery, but to point out the economic and financial reasons for Southern leaders to come to the negotiating table existed.
When you want to leave a party and someone else locks the door, the fight that ensues is not about why you wanna leave the party. You’re either free to leave or you’re not.
Salute to the courage of a man under all sorts of pressure, and gaining popular notice, who isn't afraid to tell the truth no matter what attacks will come at him. I can't stand Nikki, but this must be said.
To expand on the last point pastor Wilson makes, the reason they're so interested to ask gotcha questions about the "Civil War," when absolutely nobody wants to bring slavery back, is because the real issue still matters. If it didn't matter, then they wouldn't worry about it. As long as they can hammer slavery, the issues of central power can't be fixed. If you back down and accept that everything was slavery, and there was no other central issue, then you accept the out of control power of DC. Because if that wasn't a real issue, and everything was just slavery, then everyone must have always thought the central government really had such grandiose powers.
You have to have the courage to refuse to reduce everything to slavery, or you display submission and an inability to express the main issues of the war that have never gone away. You are unable to logically and effectively resist and and are a collaborator of the deep state. If you want to change anything on any legal basis, not denying we need religious revival, then it absolutely requires having the courage to repudiate the results of the war and refuse to accept the reduction to slavery no matter how much grief it causes you.
So if the "deep state" opposes you enslaving people who hadn't agreed to become so, that is a more pertinent issue than the fact that, I don't know, you're enslaving people against their will?
Off the top of my head I can name a dozen respected historians who agree with Colbert; Blight, Foner, McPherson, Gallagher, Nivens, Guelzo... Even Southern historians Freeman and Foote state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Can the pastor name one who does not?
I grew up in a family with proud Confederate roots. We were proud that we had ancestors' names engraved on our local county courthouse who had died in the war fighting for the Confederacy. I had a tee shirt with a confederate battle flag on it that read: "If this shirt offends you, you need a history lesson." I mastered the argument that it was Lincoln who started the war.
Then, around the time I was thirty years old, I read the Georgia Declaration of Secession. Some excerpts:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..."
"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."
*"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."*
"The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."
"The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded."
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers."
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
"For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."
*"The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States"*
"For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers."
"But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. *Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property* in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity."
Sorry Doug. It was about slavery, plain and simple.
Love this comment, thank you for sharing. I wasn't raised in the South. However, when I moved to Georgia for a year, so many people in my reformed Baptist church were pro-Confederate and I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Then I moved to Florida and a reformed presbyterian church where likewise everyone was pro-Confederate. I was so nervous to begin teaching my children about the civil war that I decided I had to study it myself so I could make all the necessary corrections to books, etc. that speak highly of Lincoln and say the war was about slavery. But in my study, my mind was completely changed. I realized the Confederacy was dreadfully wrong, and while the North wasn't great either, I'm fearful that so many reformed people fall into the trap of supporting the Confederacy which the more I study, the more I see how wicked it was.
Some new facts that I just learned within the past few months:
1) The south did not invent secession. New England toyed with the idea 50 years earlier
2) The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Union States
3) A major cause of the war wasn't merely slavery, but the EXPANSION of it. Massive difference.
Point 3 is not a massive difference. The expansion of slavery was strongly opposed because it would eventually lead to the end of slavery. No new slave states meant representation in Congress would eventually favor anti-slavery sentiments.
The other two points do show the US was not fighting to end slavery. However, the South according to their own declarations were fighting to preserve slavery. That is an accurate one word summary of the cause of the civil war
And Lincoln said if he could hold the union together without freeing a single slave, he would.
Misleading. True he said that, but he believed that slavery would die out naturally.
@@Ryan-mech-muffinWhy fight a war to end something that would die out naturally?
@@hudjahulos because he wanted to preserve the union?
@@Ryan-mech-muffin If it was going to die out naturally, then his invasion of the South "over slavery" and the subsequent battlefield deaths of 700,000 -- not to mention those wounded and permanently maimed -- was a war crime.
Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves, that's true. It didn't become a war aim until he gave the Emancipation Proclamation. However, looking at Lincoln's motivation is really missing the point. Why did the South secede and take over countless forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. belonging to the federal government (all acts of war) culminating in their attack on Fort Sumter which started the war? Because they were afraid of losing their slaves. They state this so plainly and unapologetically it's crazy that people will not accept it. The book I'm currently reading which is pro-Confederacy actually admits they all *said* it was about slavery (it's undeniable) but this was essentially a political ploy to unite the southern people. It's not a great defense of the South to say they were lying. It's far more likely that slavery was their golden idol which made them incredibly sensitive and protective of it (as all bosom sins and guilty consciences do) so that they saw a threat from Lincoln which they dramatically exaggerated and acted upon. And in doing so they brought their own fear upon themselves - Lincoln who had no intention of ending slavery, began the process with his proclamation as a war measure and gave vital support to the 13 amendment that ended slavery.
You all let Dougy feed you his version but the historic documents show otherwise.
there is no way you can prove that except through cherry picking the documents and then you have proven nothing
@@colinfoster7655 Read the Southern states declarations of secession. Read the deep South's commissioners' speeches and letter about why other slave states should secede. You know what you'll find? According to them, it was all about white supremacy and slavery.
Wars can have multiple causes and of differing types. Of course, the root cause was sin, but there are some more immediate causes. One could argue the formal cause was wether states could leave the union. Why did the south want to leave? It was because of cultural and economic clashes along with the growing demographics of the north which made some think the south's opportunity to secede was closing. Why did the two sides have cashing cultures? Partially due to climate and the different groups of initial settlers. Some historians have said the American Civil War mirrors the English Civil War. However, the two sides built their economies differently, one on the free market and the other on free labor. I think one could thus argue that slavery was the material cause of the war. Of course, a lot of people just fought for their home. People are complicated and so are groups of people. Without drawing a moral equivalence, there were good and bad things about both sides. Personally, I believe the war was God's judgment on the nation and I pray for revival, repentance, and reconciliation in the hope we don't have to go through another one. Love ya'll.
root cause 'sin'? well, what sin? Slavery? NO. Money? Yes.
The fact that Stephen Colbert, and many like him somehow think that it was good for 1 million Americans to die in order to free the slaves is actually very frightening. It makes me wonder about the Civil War two that he mentioned. Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights? It reminds me of John Brown. The North’s reaction to him was one of the main reasons the South felt like they had to secede. I am understanding that feeling better and better myself.
Exactly brother
KKK is still taking members.
You said: "Will they be willing to spill blood for abortion rights?" The anti-abortion folks already are, and have been for many years. This entry would probably get removed if i listed the violent crimes committed by anti-abortions folks. I am sure you could look it up.
@@manager0175 I’m not talking about isolated fringe groups. I’m talking about calling out the army to wage war on its own citizens.
@@jasongcrow5313 You said: " I’m talking about calling out the army to wage war on its own citizens." I would consider what occurred on January 6, 2021 to be exactly what you described. Do not forget, T***p (and Roger Stone) wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, and have the military siege voting machines. That was not about abortion, so it is not directly related to your comment.
You’re spot on Doug!!!! About state rights!!!!
Excellent analysis, as always.
The anti southern program is wholly frustrating. From memoirs to documents to actually recorded interviews with veterans will show the war was fought from independence from the federal beast. Meanwhile the arguments for the cause being slavery are front and center but they lack entirely.
Ever heard of their declarations of secession? Also read the book Apostles of Disunion which is about the South's commissioners to the upper south to convince them to secede and join the Confederacy. You'll find it was all about white supremacy and slavery. Or the South is a liar
I'm no american, but from northern europe. I always thought the american civil war was quite multifaceted in its causes and many sides had their own reasons for fighting, but the spread of abholism was the main cause for starting the chain of events that started the civil war. As far as I understood, the north and the south were quite distinct even as cultures from each other and an animosity existed between them already, but the southern economy was so heavily depended on agricultural exports and those sectors were largely run by large slave owning plantations. And when the talks of abholism were becoming stronger in the north, the landowners in south started to get very anxious not only for their own property and livelihood, but also they feared what happened in Haiti not too long ago back then, where the black slaves revolted extremely violently against the european and half-european slave owners, could happen to them as well. So they feared to loose everything, including their own lives as well as their own families lives. So they began to push the narrative in the south that the north is attacking the southern way of life and their state rights that they argued were God given. That would be a main reason to fight for the southern landowners, but for most young men fighting the war itself, it was more a matter of young men wanting to have a purpose, an adventure, rush of danger, fear of being seen as a coward, but as well the same reasons as the landowners, or simply just wanting to go to war and kill.
Therefore I don't understand why the left and right in america has made this into a point of contention. The left says slavery, and the right says the state rights. But they are both right, right? So why can't you all just get along and focus on making america the role model for the world again. God bless y'all! :)
It's not wrong to call slavery a primary cause, but there were many causes. Slavery was debated for decades and if you read the documents as to why the Southern states seceded, slavery was the reason. But folks fought for several reasons. Folks forget that General Lee was offered per General Winfield Scott's suggestion to command the Union Armies, but Lee could not bring himself to march an Army on his home state of Virginia and order men to fire upon his own family, friends, neighbors, and statesmen.
Slavery was a reason for secession. It was not the reason for the war. It is the difference between a woman gettingca divorce and the ex husband then stalking the ex wife. To be clear I am making a logical analogy, not a moral one.
@@paradiddlemcflam7167that’s not true though. Go read the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
yes, it is wrong. 100% wrong.
@@paradiddlemcflam7167 Who fired the first shot at a little place called Fort Sumter?
@scottforesman7968 Go read the formally published documents of the states who seceded. South Carolina, Mississippi, etc. all cited the North's "hostility" toward slavery. An excerpt from South Carolina's official declaration of secession. "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." No slavery, no secession. Had the North ceded to slavery, no secession. No secession, no war.
When the states succeeded they sent letters of succession to Washington explaining their reasons for leaving the union.
Some states mentioned slavery almost entirely others barely mentioned it at all.
Interestingly Texas was mad about the federal government’s failure to control the southern boarder. Or maybe more correctly, they failed to reimburse them for doing the job of the feds.
FWIW, it’s been years since I read them, and I didn’t read them all then. So don’t take my word for this at all… go read them yourself. lol
Only four states published Declarations of Cause which list their grievances against the Northern states and the Federal government. While all refer to slavery, their grievances have nothing to do with "preserving" it. South Carolina's lays out an extended case for states rights, Georgia's takes issue with Federal spending on infrastructure projects in the North, Texas gripes about the Federals failing to protect the border with Mexico (sound familiar?) and Mississippi's focuses almost entirely on slavery.
Their focus on slavery is on the failure of the Northern states to abide by the Constitution's binding agreements on slavery they had agreed to in 1788. They had abided by them by and large for 50 years or so. But for the previous 20 years Northern states were refusing to return fugitive slaves in direct violation of Article 4 of the Constitution, they were failing to protect slave owners passing through the North with their property, they committed acts of violence that went unpunished against slave owners or their agents attempting rendition of their property and they were attempting to foment slave insurrections.
Further, even though Southern states were full and equal members of the Union and even though their citizens had contributed men and treasure in the expansion of U.S. territory westward, the North was resisting Southerners' right to move to those territories with their property in the same way Northerners could settle there with their property.
It should be noted that, in seceding, the South -- particularly those first seven states -- surrendered all reasonable expectations of ever settling the Western territories and expanding slavery there. While Lincoln's invasion of the those states spurred the northern tier of Southern states to secede as well, it's unlikely they would have seceded to aid the Deep South's expansion westward in a territorial war with the Union. Additionally, in seceding, the new Confederacy surrendered all legal expectations that the North would ever return another runaway slave. By secession, the South effectively gave Lincoln what he and the Republicans said they wanted. There would be no further expansion of slavery in the West and Southern slavery would remain undisturbed and the North's flaunting of Article 4 could continue.
The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
@@JonJaedenso it was about slavery for the most part 😂. Stop sugar coating it
You know those slaves were also Americans, right?
@JonJaeden So do you think slavery continuing would've been a good thing?
Also, what made black people their "property" exactly?
It was over slavery. Period. It wasn’t over states rights. If it was about states rights, why did the south ask the federal government essentially to have the northern states return the runaway slaves?
That’s a pitiful understanding. Just a quick search you can find alot of evidence to it being over states rights (slavery being one of the) and you can even find videos of old confederate soldiers at a dance who said the same thing that it was over states rights…..
Yeah stated rights.... to buy, sell, and own slaves...... they cna just skip over the word slavery by replacing it with states rights.
Let this be a lesson to you though of how easy it is to pull the wool over an idiot's eyes.
This is why most of these same idiots were calling it an insurrection (and proud of it) one day then calling it a peaceful protest the next day.
Just like the southerners who knew it was about slavery let themselves be convinced it was for the greater good of God, and states, and just another way to own the libs because their uneducated asses got tired and are still tired of being the losers they have always been. It's what life looks like when you believe education is worthless because you have a bible.
State sovereignty was the deep reaching question OF the war; slavery was the catalyst FOR the war.
Today we feel most acutely the negative effects of the empire that was built as a partial result of federal action. But even a casual study of Colonial America, the revolution, and the Constitutional Convention(s) reveals that chattel slavery was absolutely radioactive from the beginning. Some states almost did not ratify the constitution because they did not want to participate with states that permitted the slave trade. The so-called great compromise band-aided things together for a time, but it could not possibly last.
Slavery (as the precipitating issue) and state sovereignty (by implication) are not mutually exclusive. They were both involved at different levels and both impacted motivations to fight on either side. And we do see that motivations ranged from very honorable (land and kin) to not so honorable (opportunism and exploitation) on either side.
Because it was in the original Constitution.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Doug, you know I'm right there with you. Deo Vindice!
Don't forget non silba, sed anthar! 😬
Lincoln's illegal war was (in his words ) fought to "preserve the Union," i.e. keep those tariff dollars rollin' in." Thomas DiLorenzo's three books on Lincoln opened my eyes to the real story about the 'Civil' War, for which I am grateful.
DiLorenzo is wrong. I used to agree with his books. He'll ask question like "how could other nations end slavery peacefully and not ours?" That's an easy answer. Because other nations did not have a people group so steeply founded upon racial supremacy in the political, social, and economical structure that they were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery.
it was about the States Rights, and here in Texas , the right to have slavery. :)
It was so much freedom that we could own people
The funny thing is Doug Wilson knows about the writings from the Confederacy on this issue. It definitely a grammar issue… It’s about states rights… to OWN SLAVES. 😂 Don’t reply if you have haven’t read the Ordinances of Session from 1861…
Precisely. But even then "states' rights" was a mask. What's one of their main grievances in their declarations? States don't have the right to oppose slavery by not returning our slaves! The Constitution of the United States did not explicitly recognize African slavery and compromises had held the states together for a time. But all the while tensions grew as the desire for a strong *federal* recognition and defense of slavery was granted in the CSA's constitution which defended and protected slavery *federally.*
Spot on Doug!
Except he isn't.
America was not the only country to fight over slavery.
Colbert wasn't faking an accent he was making fun of one.
He laughed about a joke then claimed it wasn't funny.
He also has no idea what caused the Civil war if not for slavery but will twist and turn his way through bs version of events that will all ignore the initial cause was over the slavery issue.
I remember the history I learned in High School well - A Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than slavery...
You said: "A Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than slavery..." Oh really? Is that why Lincoln pushed for and had ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
@@manager0175 that's what I'm saying....in fact that was confirmed in the civil war documentary by Ken Burns....
I'm not saying he didn't care about slavery....are you triggered?
@@freeman7296 I see your point. They are not exclusive goals I stand corrected.
@@manager0175 Really?
* In his first inaugural address, given in March 1861, Lincoln endorsed the recently passed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have guranteed slavery in perpetuity in the South and denied Congress the power to regulate the institution. The amendment which would have resulted in permanent bondage was intended to woo the first seven seceding states back into the Union. The preferred their independence.
* Lincoln's Emancipation was a presidential executive order meant to disrupt the South during wartime. It exempted emancipation in the border states and in Southern territories under control of the Union Army. It declared freedom for slaves within the "states in rebellion," where Lincoln had no authority. Tellingly, if those states would cease their rebellion and return to the Union by December 31, 1862, the proclaimed emancipation was null and void.
* Lincoln's "push" for the 13th Amendment ending slavery came after the November 1864 election -- just five months before Lee surrendered and 31 months after the war had begun. It was not passed by the Northern House and Senate, despite the absence of Southern representatives, until January 31, 1865, and followed by Lincoln's signing on February 1, 1865 -- two months and a week before Lee surrendered. It was finally ratified on December 6, 1865, making slavery -- North AND South -- unlawful. You'd think, if Lincoln was more interested in ending slavery than preserving forced-union, he might have "pushed" a little sooner.
* Lincoln died from assassination on April 15, 1865. The 14th Amendment was not proposed until 1866 and was not ratified until 1868. The 15th was ratified in 1870. By this time, the only thing Lincoln was "pushing" was daisies ...
@@manager0175this is basic knowledge, it's embarrassing that you don't know it. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley August of 1862.
i love it
So basically the South was right but on the wrong issue.
do you have resources on canon plus that cover what the war was really about?
Doug is wrong on this issue. Check out the book Property in Man which shows the fight for slavery beginning 1787 all the way through the civil war.
Ok but when state legislatures left the union they gave reasons for secession, slavery was front and center. The men in power perceived an existential threat to the institution.
You People need to get Off of that Trying to say Each state Had a 'Statement' saying they were 'leaving the Union' To save Slavery'... because that is just Complete Bull shit! First off....only 4 States out of Thirteen... Even mentioned slavery... and All they actually said was that 'They were pretty dependent on slavery' for their Agricultural Business. None of the Statements Ever said they Would 'Go to War' to. Keep slavery!!
In terms of impressionism, I thought it had a lot to so with slavery (which matters a lot politically as its connected to race). But even here in Australia much of our history is being re contextualized to fit a noble & peaceful native narrative. So, we don't know much about history, biology etc. There is always more to be learned, defended & reminded of in a world full of disinformation etc.
I'm curious if slavery wasn't the main issue then how do you explain the ordinance of secession for each seceding state stating the that their main reason for secession being the fear that the federal government would overrule the state's right to allowing the institution of slavery? Also you're right that the slave states that remained with the union were allowed to continue slavery because Lincoln wasn't a naïve fool. He understood that if he tampered with slavery in those states they would abandon the union and join the confederacy resulting in the likely hood of a victory for the south and hence half the country continuing slavery. As for the states rights vs the federal government argument you are right Doug that the civil war was about states right but, more specifically a states right to own slaves.
Inarticulocity…that should be the word you’re looking for
What state right were they fighting over? Specifically?
THANK YOU! Ugh! I don’t understand how a man as logical and wise as Doug can get this wrong. The correct answer is the war was fought in order to preserve the union. But why was the union in danger of being torn apart? Hmm? Oh that’s right, the southern states seceding in order to preserve the institution of SLAVERY! The vice president of the confederacy himself said that it was a cornerstone of the confederate government. It’s not rocket science, people!
Slavery of course. Everyone knows this, but people like to play word games.
Secession
@@MarianneBrandon Why did they want to secede?
@@user-jg6qf4cc2u clearly no one has read any of the secession letters. I can’t for the life of me understand how intelligent rational people still are able to gloss over this simple and vital portion of the argument.
I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you!
Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was.
You said: "I can not express how FANTASTIC it is to have you tell the truth about the Civil War. Thank you!
Next, you need to have a reaction video about Abraham Lincoln not being what everybody thinks he was." I was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. I cannot count all the times i heard: "The civil war was about states rights." "Black folks were better off a slaves." "Slavery was the original social security." "No one has more opportunities than a poor black child." And this video is perpetuating those notions. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. SLAVERY. That was the cause of the Civil war. Every other issue was was centered on and around SLAVERY.
@@manager0175 Per my history professor from UNC, the short answer is actually "economics." It is true that there were reprehensible radicals on both sides, though. The moderates lost the debate and the rivers were filled with the blood of many thousands as a result. There is no good war.
@@manager0175 , I also live in the south. There are two things you need to remember.
1. You have a right to believe whatever you want. But facts don't lie or care about your feelings.
2. Those who won the war wrote history.
Bonus: if you are a Christian brother, I love you no matter what you believe about the war.
@@oruwatching I am indeed a Christian man.
@@manager0175 If the cause of the Civil War was slavery, that would mean slavery was also the North's motive in fighting. What is the evidence for that?
It's true that only slave states seceded. What's also true is that several slave states did not, and would thus be still in the Union that was supposedly a campaign to abolish slavery. West Virginia was admitted into the Union in the middle of the Civil War as a slave state.
Perfect three word comeback on the question about the cause of the Civil War: "Democrats owning slaves".
The same problem is seen in Roe v Wade.
What is Roe v Wade a debate about?
Some would shout 'abortion' without hesitation while others would say its about how government functions to make and enforce laws.
They wont wver admit it because its their whole worldview. All of their polocies and thoughts are derived from that. Telling them the civil war wasnt about slavery is telling them them up is down. And since theyve bought into public schooling and taught what to think and not HOW, they cant even begin to wrap their heads around conplex subjects.
I remember Ken Burns special saying that the Emmancipation Proclamation gave the war a cause "freeing slaves" and me reacting huh? wasn't that the whole point from the beginning.
Then I began thinking. I looked up history classes online. The proffesors all said that slavery caused the civil war. No doubt slavery was a cause of great friction.
Then I saw some videos saying that slavery did not cause the civil war states rights did. Then the other side said "what were those rights -- the right to own slaves".
OK, but if slavery was really the cause why did the South leave in two tranches? I think the second left after Fort Sumnter. Virginia actually decided to stay in until it left.
Then I realized Lincoln could not free the slaves. Dredd Scott meant that he would need to pass an Amendment -- not happening, or the Supreme Court would have to change -- that takes time.
TO really understand, some day I will read the debates in the legislatures and the speeches.
no.
What's a good comprehensive book about the reality of the Civil War? As a public school grad, we were taught relentlessly that it was almost solely about slavery
Some would say it’s too Southern, but I’m enjoying Shelby Foote’s works.
I would say you tangentially learn a lot about it from the later volumes of Carl Sandburg's 1930s multivolume biography of Abraham Lincoln.
You said: "As a public school grad, we were taught relentlessly that it was almost solely about slavery". Wow, they got it right.
@@manager0175 Learned that in public school did you?
@@jasongcrow5313 I did.
Saying the civil war was about slavery is not wrong. While technically the war was started over states ability to leave the union, the cession crisis was over the protection and expansion of slavery. So indirectly it was about slavery.
It baffles me that we still discuss this. If you don’t believe me go read it from the articles of cessation. The people of the time told us what they were doing. Why would we not believe them.
@drivingonice... Yes it Is WRONG Dummy. No slaves were freed until 2 years into the war.... and Lincoln only did that to use them as Yankee soldiers.
That entire Ken Burns letter was funny…it’s just that the late shows employ all the bad comedy writers.
Compensated Emancipation.
Its telling that every single state that seceded listed slavery as a primary cause in their articles of secession.
5:46 There was a war fought on the seas mostly by the British Navy! I agree with the rest, but war was necessary to prevent slaves being transferred.
From the Republican party platform of 1860 (the year Abraham Lincoln was elected President): "That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; ... that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States."
Doug Wilson should run for presidency..
You said: "Doug Wilson should run for presidency.." By all means, run on a "Slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war." Anti-abortion rights, nation-wide abortion ban, pro-gun, anti-LGBT, "2020 election was stolen" "Donald T***p is a good Christian man." Platform. Democrats will give you all the campaign donations you'd ever need.
Doug's work as a father, pastor, educator, and evangelist against unbelieving culture is far more powerful than any president could ever be.
Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert.
@@umaikakudo You said: "Bottom up reformation that makes disciples that willingly follow God's law is the only way to change this country without an authoritarian top down regime that the opposition will violently oppose and subvert." The problem is, "Christian nationalism" IS "top down authoritarianism". "Christian nationalism" is, right now, supporting the most "top down" authoritarian in US history. "Christian Nationalism" is, RIGHT NOW supporting a man that is arguing for "complete immunity" for any presidential activity. "Christian nationalism" is RIGHT NOW, supporting a man that declares himself to be "Dictator for day one" and calls for dissolution of articles of the Constitution. And we have not even talked about what Doug has asserted as his intentions within "Christian nationalism". Which is also "top down authoritarianism'.
@@umaikakudo Well said, Let's pray that Lord keeps blessing Him to bring the knowledge of Christ to the church with a much broader influence.
It’s a gotcha question because along with so many other things, the term “states rights” is now determined by the powers that be to be code for racism. Like flying the Gadsden flag or carrying a gun or homeschooling all are secretly code for racism.
I know because the people on the internet who call me “YT” said so. (In other words, for those who can’t tell, the people using derogatory racial terms are obviously the deciding factor on what racism ack-choo-wally is. And they usually have a link in their bio to their cash app for all their mental labor, pay a Black [capitalized] person, and all that)
Correction: the United States WERE caught up.
Doug, at 5:12 you contradict yourself by saying that the war WAS fought over slavery.
I suggest people read the Lincoln Douglas debates. It was about slavery. Douglas said each territory should decide. Lincoln wanted to limit slaverys expansion.
The Republican goal was no blacks in the territories. Lincoln's Illinois already banned free blacks from settling in the state.
Sooo....one series of documents settles the "cause" question? What other historiographical debates are settled by a single series of documents?
I didn't say "one series of documents" settles what caused the Civil War. But the Lincoln Douglas debates point to the issue being the expansion of slavery. Douglas wanted to allow its expansion. Lincoln did not. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected because they wanted slavery to continue and spread. They did not see slavery as immoral.
I do remember a Northern statesmen position on it I can't remember the name right now it's been years since I read his words but he was upset about the prospect of the South expanding and colonizing Westward instead of the North and bringing in more foreigners from A frica.
hmm you're going to be hammered in the comments, although that never stopped you before. I do agree either way.
mr. wilson sure knows it all
Grant freed Jones (his slave) in March 1859.
The Grant family continued to be served by four slaves gifted the Julia Grant by her father.
@@JonJaeden source? and where did they live? If it was close to the Mason Dixon line then your point is moot. Also did they continue to have them throughout the entire war?
Excellent video! If only more people would educate themselves with the true history and cause of the civil war!
So what was the true cause of the Civil war?
@@danielessex2162 States rights to do things other than slavery. Like stuff! And things! Important things!
@@filonin2 LOL yeah
What was it then?
@@HvV_FilmRoom I doubt Brittani knows, but they'll pretend they do.
Can anyone name me the TOP THREE BEST HISTORICAL CIVIL WAR BOOKS to read?
Actually, while the "state's rights" argument is indeed true, the Civil War was also about slavery. You can read the declarations of secession from the Southern States, it's right in there.
The "States' Rights" rationalization only occurred after the war was lost and slavery ended.
@@ricksamericana749 No, that's wrong. The use of "state's rights" to obscure slavery as the dominate factor did indeed come about post-Civil war. The US we live in today is vastly different than the US pre-Civil War. We live in a top-down heavy government US as a result of going through the Civil War, Depression, two World Wars, the Cold War and so we are used to the Federal government having and wielding power and telling the states what to do. That's not how the Founders set up the country, originally the States were supposed to be the main power, as a means to check federal power. It's right there in the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). But, over time, slowly and surely the Federal power grew and eroded the states powers. There was nothing in the Constitution about Slavery and thus the Southern pro-slavery States weren't too keen on the Federal government trying to tell them what they could and couldn't do concerning slavery.
Slavery ended everywhere else 60+ years before the Civil War and Americans were proposing ending slavery gradually through 1906.
Exactly the reason the war was needed. One second longer was an abomination.
Slavery still exists today.
@@filonin2Right, gradually ending the institution in a way that allowed society to adjust and integrate the newly freed people was totally more abominable than a war that killed over a million people, killed or maimed 50% of the Southern military-aged men, utterly devastated the Southern economy, and directly created the disease and poverty that killed nearly a million of the former slaves (25% of the total) in the years following the war.
Brazil ended slavery in 1883. She had more slaves than the United States and was just as dependent on cheap agricultural labor. Had slavery ended gradually and without violence race relations would be much much better today. But I don't think that would have been possible. In places like Brazil the whole country was either one thing or the other.
Now if a person like Trump, a narcissist with a gigantic ego, had been thrown into the mix it changes things. Here's Trump.
"Let them go for now, and don't make it worse than it has to be. They'll cool down when they see we mean them no harm. We'll just let it ride for my first term. In my second term we'll begin working on reunification. And by the end of my third term we'll be reunited with a plan everybody can accept and it will be a win for the South, a win for the North and a win for the blacks! We'll win so much we'll get tired of winning!"
And he might have pulled it off.
@@filonin2 I've got some home addresses of baby terminators ... are you game?
Lincoln left a fortress of war in Charleston Harbor and tried to enforce it, an act of war. His Proclamation on State Militia (April, 15, 1861), Proclamation 81-Declaring a Blockade of Ports in Rebellious States (April 19, 1861) and Proclamation 82-Extension of Blockade to Ports of Additional States (April 27, 1861) say nothing of slavery but "collection of revenues." The Upper South seceded in response to Lincoln's actions. Therefore the war was not caused by slavery.
BWahahaahahaahahhaha
@c.w.johnsonjr6374 What you said is so highly inaccurate. The federal government owned forts, arsenals, post offices, etc. all over the South because, obviously, there were part of the country. Many of these were voluntarily given from the state to the federal government. The South had been taking over these places with armed forces for months. Those are the acts of war and they started before Lincoln was even president. Many times they took over the forts and arsenals before they even seceded - an explicitly treasonous act. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the South had seized all the federal forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom houses, revenue cutters, mints, courts, and post offices within their borders except Fort Sumter in South Carolina and Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson in Florida.
Fort Sumter, in particular, had been given by voluntary statute of South Carolina to the federal government in 1836. This fort was for the defense of the harbor. The attack on Fort Sumter, the official starting point of the Civil War, was simply another act of war in a long line of hostile takeovers the South had been engaged in for the past 4 months. Lincoln had every right constitutionally to resupply Fort Sumter. It was not an act of war. On the contrary, *no one made the South fire the first shots.* That was their choice. They started the war. Why? Read their declaration of secession and the speeches and letters from the deep South commissioners to the upper southern states on why they should secede and join the confederacy. Like this one from Stephen F. Hale to the Kentucky governor. The South was absolutely NOT shy to claim the war was all about white supremacy and slavery: teachingamericanhistory.org/document/stephen-f-hale-to-governor-beriah-magoffin/
"Inarticulation?"
Pastor Wilson, can you recommend any history book/series that has not been tainted?
Canon Press do you have such a thing out there?
asking for a friend 😉
Doug wrote a book called "Black and Tan" on this topic.
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
@@MarianneBrandon There is a PIG Civil War book too, more specifically.
The Real Lincoln
Not been tainted? Well, you sure as hell don't wanna read anything from the right wing...... also, what do you mean by tainted?
Like has accurate history and does wash over the atrocities committed? Or are you referring to an alternate history that tells the story the way you wanna hear it?
Succession and insurrection are different things
Secession
Thank you Doug for discussing the truth of the war of Northern Aggression. I am so tired of the lies that the war was just over that "s" word.
Yeah so tell me what started the war? Why did it end? Another moron who doesn't know history or just wants to ignore the truth of it. Pretending it wad anything other than slaverynis a fucking joke.
"Oh see it was about states rights."
Yeah stated rights to..... decide if slavery was legal?
"No, no it was about free markets."
Free to..... buy and sell slave labor?
"No it was about uh ummmm authority of the government and where to draw the line so we can have freedom."
Same as the first except now the term freedom is used for everyone but slaves.... and I ask yet again would any of these detractors be OK if they were a slave?
Was there anything they fought the war over that was more important than slavery?
@@HvV_FilmRoom yes. Since it wasn’t fought over slavery. It was fought over state sovereignty and because there was an invasion by the Northern States into sovereign territory. If it was fought over slavery West Virginia wouldn’t of been illegally created as a slave state loyal to the union. Not to mention Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri would of freed their slaves in 1861 not after the ratification of the 13th.
@@michaelclark2458 State sovereignty to do what? Own slaves?
@@HvV_FilmRoom that’s one thing among others that states were allow to self determine. The primary thing was to decide whether or not a state could voluntarily withdraw from the union.
No, the reason it's a gotcha question is that diversity is a weakness and our diversity egenda makes it so that we can't be logical.
Doug said something I've often wondered: 'How about buying all the slaves?' I've never really dug around to see if anyone proposed this. I doubt any among the monied and powerful did.
The option was out there, England had already done it. Gives credence to the argument that the war was about more than just slavery.
It's called compensated manumission. It was widely discussed in the North and South but the mercantile North was ambivalent because it too was making a great deal of money off of slave labor. Outside of abolitionist circles leading business men in the North were quite content with the status quo. Much of the tax base prior to secession was from tariffs on cotton. Fort Sumpter existed to make sure that cotton didn't leave the harbor until the export tax was paid. The effective export tariff had risen to 60% by the 1840's.
The war was never about slavery. It was about keeping the southern states in the Union. Ending slavery was a "while we're at it" thing. We're going to get rid of the root cause of the division. And it will impoverish the South and put them in their place. But there was much trepidation in the north about hordes of freed blacks surging north to escape the horrors of the deep South. They didn't want that.@@johnlocke6800
@@johnlocke6800Even if the war wasn't exclusively about slavery, was there anything more important than slavery that it was about? If so, what?
@HvV_FilmRoom I do think that slavery is a central point of the war. How to deal with slavery is a crucial question.
Centralization vs decentralization
Well I didn't think Wilson could get any dumber and yet here he is denying the Civil war was about slavery.....
The spread of slavery.
If it wasn't slavery but state rights what rights were they losing? It seems to me that slavery would be one of those.
The South did not need to secede to preserve slavery -- the institution was not under threat in the South.
Slavery was practiced in all 13 of the original colonies, still legal in most of them when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That Constitution recognized the legality of the institution and the enforceable property rights of slave owners, even in states that exercised their right to ban the practice for those residing within their borders. Everyone, North and South -- and the states that subsequently joined the United States -- were voluntary members of a covenant that recognized and protected slavery, an institution just as odious in 1788 as it was in 1860.
The only legal means to end slavery nationally was to pass a constitutional amendment. There were not the votes (nor, apparently, the will, even in the North) to do so. So, the South did not have to "preserve" slavery against an amendment by seceding.
Politically, there was little for Southerners to fear for slavery within their borders. Lincoln and the Republicans did not target slavery in the South, only in the new territories in the West. The fourth plank of the 1860 Republican platform specifically endorsed as "inviolate the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS according to its own judgment exclusively." Lincoln himself said he did not believe he had constitutional authority to do anything about Southern slavery, nor did he have an intention to do so. He endorsed the Corwin Amendment, passed just two days before his first inauguration, that guaranteed slavery in perpetuity in those states where it was currently legal and removed Congress' authority to regulate it. If the South was concerned about preserving slavery, it merely needed to reject secession and return to the Union.
The South seceded and fought to preserve its liberty and the Constitution the North had rejected.
Final point, despite those pesky Southerners no longer being in Congress after secession, Northerners didn't get around to passing the 13th Amendment ending slavery until 4 months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox and didn't ratify it until December 1865, ending slavery in the U.S. -- North and South -- at the same time.
@JonJaeden Thanks for the history lesson, but can you answer the question with more brevity for the sake of clarity? List the rights in order of importance that the Civil War was fought over.
Easy. Look at all the individual and state rights that the federal govt has usurped since the civil war.
@@HvV_FilmRoom The South, in 1861, seceded for the same reason the 13 colonies seceded in 1776 -- liberty and independence. The South fought in both 1861 and 1776 because it was invaded by a foreign tyranny intent on crushing its quest for independence.
How was the Federal government trying to end slavery in the South in 1860-61? They weren't.
That pharma shill should've stuck to be a Goodwrench huckster
Entertaining AND insightful. Subscribe
No it’s still a gotcha question because of people like this who continue to deny the incredibly basic historical fact that it was almost entirely about slavery, specifically the expansion of slavery. The fact that it’s 2024 and we still have prominent Christian leaders saying this crap is shameful. He also just flat out lied when he said the Washington DC slave market continued during the civil war, DC abolished the slave trade in 1850, however Virginia obviously didn’t. Also saying Maryland had slaves therefore the war wasn’t about slavery is genuinely one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It’s almost like the border states weren’t nearly as invested in the institution of slavery and therefore sided with the union, also Maryland became a free state during the war, how many confederate states freed their slaves during the war? Yeah that’s what I thought.
💪🏼⚔️🐉
Lol the old argument “civil war was fought because of states right” and my question would be “the right to do what exactly?” 🤦🏾♂️😂. You Neo confederates are hilarious but go on
The same thing the 13 colonies did when they fought England to secure their sovereign rights.
Everyone is correct.
Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery. End of story. It’s not liberal to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I’m a conservative Reformed Baptist and unfortunately this video will push away people who might have otherwise listened to you on other topics where you genuinely have good things to say.
I disagree with your assessment.
You said: "Sorry Doug you dropped the ball on this one. When you say it was about state’s rights you have to ask yourself the question, what was the right that all the states didn’t want the federal government impeding on? Slavery" Dead on right, Full stop. Well done.
Of course they didn't want the Federal government impeding on slavery because it was unconstitutional for the Federal government to do so. The North was thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the South was insisting the Constitution be enforced. Try breaking your marriage vows and see how long it takes your wife to file for divorce.
Slavery would have ended without the horrendous cost of a civil war and maybe this country could have existed longer without this horrendously oppressive and gigantic federal government that Lincoln began. Did the Founders promote empire or did you Yankees? And we have been fighting wars all over the world ever since then haven’t we? Aren’t you tired of all of the death and destruction we continue to perpetrate on the world? Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Where did this start? Where does the mindset come from? The god Lincoln that’s who.
The civil war was never about the morality of slavery but rather its economical ramifications. So you can say it was about states rights but primarily states rights to own slaves. I wouldn't so flippantly dismiss slavery as being the main driver of the war especially with reasoning given here : general grant owned slaves, there were slaves in the north- that proves nothing. It would be like me saying racism can't exist because i have black friends. At least back up you claims with historical documents (but not the letters of succession bc those mention slavery!)
the "glorious lost cause" has revised the history of the south so much that to correctly answer the underlying reason behind the Civil War is the southern economy based on slavery is tantamount to lying. yes there are other reasons, but let us not deny that slavery was a fundamental reason
Don't forget the North's "False Cause."
I've been listening to Doug Wilson for more than 30 years. I am increasingly curious why someone of his calibre does not debate Roman Catholic apologists? Debating atheists and bad comedians is a bunny slope. Entertaining and fun, perhaps, but the real battle is with Rome (and to a lesser degree the Orthodox). More people are leaving Reformed Churches to become Catholics or Orthodox than to become Atheists. So why, after decades of ministry, there ain't a single example of Doug debating a Catholic on RUclips (at least that I can find). Why not spar with a Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin? It would get HUGE views on both your channels.
It's the Catholics that normally refuse to debate the Reformed guys.
James White of Alpha and Omega ministries has many debates with Roman Catholics and scores of Dividing Line podcast hours going over the claims of Catholic apologists in great detail for all the different categories that come up.
Check that out to see how Reformed scholars address the doctrines.
@@umaikakudo I've listened to every debate James White has had with Catholics... which is a big reason why I became Catholic when I did instead of 10 years later. I was a Calvinist until I was 46 years old. DEEPLY CALVINIST Presbyterian. But even as a Presbyterian, I winced whenever listening to sophist Calvinist Credo-baptists like MacArthur and White, because they represent a bubble within a puddle of a ghetto of Christianity. I was undecided on whether they could be called "magisterial Protestants." Calvin would probably have imprisoned them (or worse) if they showed up in Geneva-- for their baptism views alone.
There is a difference between the 17th century Protestants and the 16th. There are reasons why the magisterial protestants had a hard time with congregational Puritans (and still do!).
I would like to see more magisterial credalists debate Catholics-- not "biblicists" like White, who are only Trinitarian because they personally find the Trinity in Scripture... not because the Church Jesus Christ established taught them this and made it a matter of dogma which people must believe if they want to be called Christians-- whether they personally find it in Scripture or not.
We were born 2000 years late. Christianity isn't our private religion and we don't get to pick and choose how we use the Bible -- like a cafeteria buffet line.
White's own peculiar theology (with all its nuance-- including his eschatology) probably has fewer adherents today than likely existed in the 17th century.
So I'm cordially calling out Wilson, Leithart, and all the "New St. Andrews"/Ligionier/Credo types to show up and confront the "brain drain" happening in Reformed Evangelicalism of folks heading to Rome or Constantinople. They are committing pastoral malpractice to ignore this growing trend. They're still living in the 1980s when the focus was on getting disgruntled PTL Evangelicals to drop the tambourines long enough to consider the Reformed Faith. Discern the times, brothers, or you're either going to have more of your congregants swinging hard to White or to Rome. You are underrepresented in the discussion. Peace. 😘
Colbert is sloppy on about everything, to put it charitably
The war was about state's rights? Their right to do what?
Doug why didn’t the South free all their slaves and end slavery to avoid war? Or use Southern emancipation as negotiation leverage with the North to strengthen their state’s rights that you claim was so dear to them? Could it be that they could not let go of their idolatry of the institution of slavery without their complete subjugation to the Union?
Because the Southern states joined the Union as equals. They also joined as already-slave states. And they joined under a Constitution that recognized their right to hold slaves and the North's obligation to return those that fled. No state following the Constitution had any obligation to do anything different so the other states wouldn't invade and attack it. That, of course did not prevent Lincoln from doing exactly that.
@@JonJaeden what part of the Constitution guaranteed their right to their institution of slavery? Likewise, what part of the Constitution obligated the North to return escaped slaves to them? Couldn’t the South respect the northern State’s rights to choose not to return runaway slaves?
@@85Rossco Slavery was already a 150-year-old institution when the Constitution was ratified. The Founders were not creating a Constitution or Federal government that could wish it away.
The initial drafts of the Constitution used the word slave, but it was later replaced with euphemisms. Here are the document's slave-related portions:
* Article 1. Section 2. -- The "Three-Fifths Clause" allowed 60 percent of a state's slave population to be counted toward representation in Congress.
* Article I, Sections 8. -- Federal government given power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.
* Article IV, Section 4: Federal government guarantees each state protection against domestic violence. This was also added to because of fears over slave rebellions.
* Article I, Section 9 -- Congress prohibited from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. Beginning in 1808, no new slaves could be imported into the U.S.
* Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 -- Fugitive slave clause required the return of slaves to their owners. Without this clause, Southern states would not have ratified the Constitution or joined the Union in 1788. It was the compromise that sealed the deal. All parties -- reluctantly or not -- signed on and were bound by it.
I guess I could forgive Colbert for being stupid or disingenuous, but for him to stand up and pretend to be funny when he's not........ pathetic.
Sam Harris Demolishes Christianity. Do a response to that, please
Colbert......asininity defined
I would live to see Pastor Wilson sit down with Dr J. Peterson. 2 very intelligent men with a depth of knowledge spanning so many different areas with enough crossover to have deep conversations and enough difference to come from different aspects of thought
I'm sorry. I ignore Calvinists on RUclips. I sincerely no longer read their work, listen to their videos, and certainly disagree with Calvinistic presuppositions. Because of my boundaries, I debated responding to this video, but it caught my attention because of the phrase "sloppy . . . history." Here is a Calvinist accusing someone of sloppy history telling who cannot be honest about the history or the origins of the introduction of total depravity (inability) into Christian theology, nor express accurate history on Pelagius. When he and others that support his doctrinal views can produce an accurate historical retelling of how and why total inability was introduced into Christian theology as well as accurately describe the Pelagian conflict (Augustine knowingly and intentionally mispresented Pelagius's theology and introduced the once considered heresy of determinism into Christian theology), then I may begin to respect Doug Wilson's critique of someone else's perspective on history. In my view, you need to be honest about your own history before critiquing accusing someone else of dishonesty.
The rumor mill says Doug is crushed.
I'm sorry. I don't understand this comment. My opinion is not about crushing Wilson. It is about blatant hypocrisy.
@@tellingtruthexperiencingli9355 It refers to your rather cringy threat to withhold your respect until Wilson sees it your way. I'm sure thousands are even now reconsidering their positions in order to be considered worthy.
First, it wasn't a threat. It is a consistent practice of mine. Second, your comment deals nothing with the issue I raised. Since you did not address the core issue I raised this will be my last comment to you as it is merely a distraction from the point I made. The point is that someone who is not honest with the history of certain Calvinistic doctrines should not be given respect when they accuse others of communicating bad history. It is hypocrisy. So, should I not care about hypocrisy and intentional hypocrisy? I think I will care even if you don't and this of course if your choice. I will ignore further comments because you are currently bringing nothing of substance that requires further comment from me. Indeed, you comment demonstrates you know nothing about the subject to which I am referring.
@@tellingtruthexperiencingli9355 Now I'm crushed.
What was the cause of the Civil War?
The North.
Why do they keep talking about the civil war?
Antiwhiteism.
Not a fan of Steven C.
As a man that studies history, sorry sir but you are wrong on this one! The civil war was 100% about slavery, yes there was some states in the Union that still had slaves, and yes Abraham Lincoln did not make the civil war about slavery at first. The confederacy 100% made it about slavery from the beginning of their separation from the Union! In fact it actually can stem back to the beginning of the United States.
And Wil is not a student of history? What book did you read. Would there be bias if you only read one book. Or one side of the story. Victor always write history.
@@Gnmercjr76 I write the documents, I am going to guess you never have? Like the session letters, confederate
Constitution, VP Alexander speech know as the cornerstone speech, and the list goes on! This is not a small little thing this I have spent months just on this topic alone.
@@Gnmercjr76 you think Doug has a bias here? Read what he has to say about biblical slavery, and if a nation can be Christian enough by his definition to have slaves.
The slavery the "confederacy 100% made it about" was the slavery the U.S. Constitution of 1788 recognized and which all states were obligated to follow. The North refused to keep covenant and the South opted out. The Constitution was the only thing that made the states a union and if one side was going to disregard it, the other side had no obligation to remain. The North had the lawful option of amending the Constitution, or, if it was unable to and was offended by its continuing association with the slave states, it could have seceded.
@@JonJaeden no where in the what part of the United States constitution states that a state my just up and leaving the union?
Article and section must be provided!