"men remember only fracture of history and write down they own version of it down for the future" thats my quote :P oh and when men write it down , most of them do it in a single point of view with excludes 40-60% of the truth and cause of the event :)
I am now 57 and when I was young I was taught that the Civil War was about state's rights. I grew up in Wisconsin. Over the years my cousin learned German and translated many of the letters of our ancestors who were German Lutherans. Our great grandfather fought in the Wilderness. In his letters he never mentions states rights, but talks a lot about the inhumanity of slavery. He was elected sergeant of their company. Fun fact, none of them spoke English, only German.
not exactly slavery. it was livelihood. the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses the south relied on slavery for their farms and products they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.
@@Dubs22005 Slavery was a way of life and not a business model in the South and they couldn't imagine life without them. Look at what happened after Reconstruction ended. Blacks lost many of their rights and many went back to virtual slaves as sharecroppers.
@@rabbit251 The inhumanity of slavery is a lame excuse for a war that had nothing to do with ending the inhumanity of slavery, but I'm sure your great grandfather needed some excuse to try to justify his participation in an unjust war to destroy government by the consent of the governed (government of and by the people) in America. As the abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ... The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud..."
Exactly. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why I think it's horrible to tear down any types of statues. Or to erase history Edit. I should make myself more clear. If you want to tear down statues, they should be put in a museum. And democratically torn down. They need to have a vote to tear them down.
They only mentioned slavery in the context of things like the northern states violating their constitutional obligation (under the US constitution) to deliver up fugitive slaves, and the war unambiguously wasn't fought to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves or to do (or not do) anything else related to slavery.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Ah, so you say that according to the Confederacy, your lot hate the idea of democracy and equality since y'all are about...OWNING SLAVES?! lol.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 😢😢😢😢 I'm a pathetic Lost Causer. Whaaah. My weak and pathetic ancestors lost big time and I can't get over it. Whaaaaah 😢😢😢😢😢
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) Thanks for 1.7 K likes! I never got so many!!! Thank you!!!
I guess I had a lot of good history teachers. We were taught everything horrible about slavery. The selling that seperated family members, the labour that sometimes exhausted those poor people to death, the punishments that they endured, and the dangerous jobs that sometimes left them with gruesome injuries. It makes me sad to hear that some schools didn't teach this.
@Fancy Those in states with racists on their education board and government, so basically all of the south and some Midwest states. They’ve gone so far as to rewrite school history books by erasing truths.
I lived in Florida for a few years. All of the people whose opinion I respected told me "NEVER get into discussions wth people whose first words are "You know, the Civil War was not about slavery". Very sage advice.
I moved to Florida after living my whole life in Chicago, the religious ignorance here would explain a lot of things about the south-moving back north next year where people are not so delusional
it was not about slavery north carolina virginia tennesse and arkansas voted not to seceed lincoln illegally demanded their state malitias attack south carolina they held another vote and left because of lincolns demand more than half of the souths population lived in these 4 states lincolns responce? attack virginia at bull run
Here in Sweden we’ve always taught in history classes that the reason for the Civil War was slavery. Ihad never heard of ”the lost cause” until I spent a year in the US as a high school student. It was quite an unsettling experience to learn that entire generations were taught false history.
What makes you think the version of history you were taught to be the right one? This is not exclusive to slavery, btw. It's egotistical to think what you were taught to be the truth.
@@BR0984 Well that's because the Lost Cause is a complete myth written by delusional losers who ignore the very things the leaders of the confederacy said themselves.
@@BR0984 If his teachers provided sources, that students can check for themselves, for the textbooks and other materials, he can be relatively certain to know the truth about the Civil War and other subjects.
In middle school I remember being told specifically that the civil war was not about slavery. It wasn’t till high school that a teacher said “slavery was a main cause of the civil war” but by then a lot of my classmates didn’t even believe it.
Slavery wasn't the sole direct cause, but it was the primary and root cause because all the other issues were because of the social and economic differences of having versus not having slavery.
Both are right. It was about states rights to have slavery be decided on a state level instead of federal. The states refused to abide by the new paradigm and moved to secede. It's likely that had the issue been about states rights to, say, legalize some substances like drugs and alchool or firearm laws it would never have gotten as bad as it did.
@@TosiakiS May I suggest to use the word "facts" instead of "truth"? Like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states "In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences". Beliefs and therefore truth, too, are highly subjective. Facts on the other hand are objective and therefore unimpeachable.
@@RightfulArchon186 Practically no one believes in slavery any more, but lots of Americans believe DC has a right forcibly subjugate states to its rule if they should try to choose their own government. So the odds are very good that's what's really at play here, isn't it?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 If you want a decentralized government be my guest weirdo anarchist. But I don't really want to a nation or states that probably don't like my race.
@@RightfulArchon186 If I want a government like the EU that doesn't make me a weirdo anarchist. But go on making excuses for forcibly subjugating other people to your rulers!
You are so correct, as a southern white male I believed the story of states rights, until I read the constitution of the confederate union, that states that all new confederate states must allow Slavery. The fact is that all slavery is wrong. And history should not be changed or forgotten. Thank you for pointing this fact out. Joe Bartolotta
That's really not any different than what the US Supreme Court had already ruled the US constitution said. The Confederate constitution just said so explicitly.
Always thought it was interesting the notion that the confederacy was about states' rights, but that same CSA constitution explicitly forbade any ability to secede, so that alone should show it was never about the rights of the states.
Yep... that pretty much sums up their thinking/rationale/excuse. But to take it one step further.. if they really thought Non-Whites to be human, they never would have done what they did. Only when you relegate people to "subhuman" or "savage" level and remove their humanity, is subjugating them and enslaving them and even killing them possible.
@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster Defending the right to what? As a Syrian-German, I don't understand, how any person with the ability to empathize with other humans could defend slavery or "a state's right to support slavery".
It’s so sad how such a large portion of America refuses to accept reality. Not only about topics like this, but even current events. It’s like something has indoctrinated half the country to distrust anything academic, especially science.
Slightly more than 50% of all academic studies are false (if you want to know why that is just ask) so I can understand why they are a lot more skeptical about science.
@@NicKtheGreeK1100 but that study could be wrong. In fact it has a 50% chance of being so according to this great thinker. So much easier to make up convenient facts for yourself. It’s a great American tradition.
@@blauwbeer556But under that assumption, the academic study who proved that slightly more than 50% of academic studies are false is probably false. So we should distrust it, it falls under its own weight
I am writing this in May 2024, and in Florida, the governor is claiming that slavery benefited many slaves because they learned a trade while on the plantation. Some things never change!!
I began school in Illinois and Minnesota. I never heard the term states rights as the reason did the civil war until I moved to Missouri. Then I was treats with shock and horror that I stated slavery as the reason for the civil war. This was in the nineties
@@plumSRT Not according to the US Congress, which in July of 1861 declared by a nearly unanimous vote "that this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States".
Plus the Dixie Sisters. They practically further dragged the reason behind the Civil War into the dirt by changing the education system in southern states like Alabama and Louisiana.
More accurately you want to pretend they did when they actually didn't. And not only that, but you want to dishonestly present tangential controversies relating to slavery (like whether the northern states would uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves), things that the seceding states most definitely did not fight for (quite the opposite, seceding clearly meant forfeiting those rights rather than fighting for them) as if they were equal to the Republican-led North trying to abolish slavery in the southern states which is nothing but a revisionist propaganda myth, a complete lie.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 More accurately, y'all just wanna OWN SLAVES?! lol. Move along and let the grown-ups talk bucko, y'all can watch Firefly in the corner.
To protect the institution of slavery was the cause for "secession" but not the cause for war. The two are a separate issue that you may be misunderstanding
@@fernandofontenla8466 But EVERY Fascist in America who believes "White is Right!" is a RWer. True or False? You’re the one who’s pretending Vegans are as intolerant as racists, dude. Also what we eat is a CHOICE, again… Catch the difference? (Psst…if you can’t/won’t, there in lies the REAL problem here.)
These alternative histories have led many people to form opinions that aren't based on truth. As deadly as they can be, many pseudo truths have passed on to us today due to how powerful and influential their proponents and authors were.
I doubt that this will change anyone's mind who has their idea as to what really started the CW. Sure, Fred was there but he was not a political leader who had the inside scoop for the motivations. He is just giving his opinions based on his observations. The last thing Lincoln wanted to do was to free the slaves. He wanted the ports of trade the South now controlled and would have been OK with them keeping slaves. So I am going with slavery not being the motivation for the CW.
@@timothy3732 Preserving slavery was the South's reason for succession and fighting. They had built an economy that depended on slavery as an institution and would never have abolished it without the use of force. Lincoln's ultimate goal was preserving the Union, and he would have left slavery in place if it was the only way to do that. Lincoln declared abolishing slavery to be a Union goal to keep the British (Who had freed their own slaves by that point and were trying to proclaim themselves to the world as anti-slavery while still being entrenched in imperialism) out of the war. The British had economic reasons to favor the south, but if it was a war to end slavery they couldn't support them. So no side had pure intentions, but slavery was a critical part of the entirety of the war and cannot be written out. If anything I said was wrong, please correct me. It's been awhile since I've studied the topic.
I grew up in Missouri, and in school we had a weird mix of being taught the horrors of slavery in gruesome detail with the insistence that it was still about state's rights
@@RW2996 Fillmore was anti slavery, and the south didn't leave after his election. The fact is most northern presidents had been anti slavery but had been willing to compromise to save the union. Lincoln included. Everyone paints Lincoln as this guy with an unpopular opinion holding on to what he knows is right(or wrong in this case) but the fact is being anti slavery had been the best route to win elections in the north for decades. But he was happy to compromise those morals to maintain power over the nation as a whole. It's the political path for every successful president that's ever existed. You play middle of the road for whichever election you are trying to win at the time and there was nothing special about his politics on slavery. His firsts priority by far was keeping the union in tacked. Slavery was almost not important compared to union. From what I've read of his priorities on this, "glad" is not much of an exaggeration, if at all.
I read Frederick Douglass' book "My Bondage and My Freedom" several years ago and was blown away. The more I learn about him now, the more his prescience amazes me.
Martin Robinson Delaney is another great writer from the Civil War era! He wrote a pioneering Afrofuristic novel called Bleach, which was about a revolt by African-Americans in the Deep South, and Latin America taking shape.
One of their headquarters caught fire during the protests last summer. Unfortunately, I think it was only one, and it probably won't do much to them in the long run.
Unfortunately, yes. To this day, (in another case) there are many right-wing Japanese who believed Japan has done nothing wrong and claims the Imperial Army didn't perform any war crimes in China & SEA during WWII. Government Japanese members visiting Yasukuni Shrine doesn't help lessen the hatred of the victims' descendants.
The funny thing about the states rights arguments is it leads to the question of why the Confederacy was worried about states rights and what particular States right they were worried about. Apparently that right was the right to regulate or prohibit slavery. It seems like the states rights argument’s logical conclusion was that slavery was the reason for the civil war.
The constitutional right that the southern states felt had most clearly been violated was the right to the return of fugitive slaves, a right the southern states willingly forfeited when they seceded. So what they fought for wasn't the return of fugitive slaves or anything else to do with slavery but the right (in the words of James Madison) "to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated" as opposed to (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) "the government created by this compact" having been "made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" which "would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers."
So they wanted the rights not to listen to federal authority? Some laws are made in the capital and respected from everyone, that's the point of being a federacy and not an indipendent country. That said, the whole conflict started on slavery and ended with slavery, so it was indeed a war to protect slavery.
@@birmax5420 Nice ahistorical myth, but actually the whole conflict started with southern independence and ended with the end of southern independence, so it was indeed a war against southern independence.
So.. I'm a Canadian. I have a nephew who had high school in an Amercian school, some fancy academy in the South in around 2017 on a football scholarship. He had to leave the room when he got his history textbook referring to slavery as immigration from Africa. "Teaching this in a highschool would literally get you arrested in Canada."
As a kid we were taught the Civil War was all about the south not wanting to give up slavery. Our small town even had some tunnels used by the underground railroad to help escaped slaves. We had field trips to underground railroad sites and there was never any talk about so called states right revisionist history. Even though I grew up in rural WI in a place where all kids looked alike (mostly blond hair, blue eyes, germanic ancestry) and not a single minority in our school. The education system in rural WI at least didn't mince words about the civil war and taught about the atrocity of slavery in the southern states and their inhumane treatment of their fellow man.
I remember being taught that it was slavery and States' rights...but of course, it was in regards to slavery. And now I wonder how comfortable my teachers were who made that assertion with African American students in their classrooms.
@@jimmymarrs1556 Exactly and I believe that due to those who know it was mainly about slavery sayin for political reasons that stars rights weren't a factor are the reason that myth still persists. If instead of downright denying it (which is just revising history too) why can't we realize it was about slavery and therefore the right of the states to either allowed t or prohibit it. Why is that so hard?!
Whenever someone tries to claim "the civil war was just about states' rights" a friend of mine always just responds with "states' rights to do what?" which is the question they never want to answer because the answer is "have legal slavery." You don't see the same people glorifying the civil war as a states' rights issue supporting states legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing hard drugs, providing protections to LGBTQ+ groups/identities, or any other progressive policy. It's only about the "rights" they want states to have.
Yeah I grew up in Georgia and I remember being taught in school that it was almost entirely because of state's rights and slavery was just a little tag-along. I was just a kid when they taught this, so idk how accurately I remember it, but I will say I distinctly remember being confused when learning about the Civil War after I moved to Montana
Whenever Im confronted in discussion with the States Rights BS I point out that the folks who promoted the separation and war actually wrote down why. There is no need to speculate. Slavery is mentioned more often than any other reason
If you believe for a split second, that 100s of thousands of white men in the 1860s would have marched into certain death to free slaves that 98 percent of them didn't own. You're disillusioned.
It was about keeping the south in the union. It wasn't about the slaves and only the slaves. You need not look further than the tax and budget of the Federal govt and what they would lose if the south went away
@@humansvd3269 The Union wanted primarily to keep the South a part of the country and that was their primary objective. The South wanted to preserve the institution of slavery that they felt was inevitably going to disappear unless something was done.
@Jeffery Xu The North wanted to keep the south for the same reasons Britain wanted to help the colonies in. To extract taxes and have land. That's it. The slavery issue was the final straw in a series of other grievances that the South had with the North. The average northerner did not care for the slaves
I’m sorry but do they seriously think that there’s a meaningful difference between fighting for slavery and fighting for the right to choose slavery? There isn’t.
I was thinking the same - even if they were fighting for states right to choose for or against slavery....well that's pretty much the same as "right to choose racism"
They were fighting for the state's right to deny rights to minorities. So both are true. It was a fight for state's rights. It was also a fight for slavery. This is just spin-doctoring 101.
It's STILL wrong, though: The South explicitly fought to deny states the right to be NON-slaveholding states. Saying "The South fought for the right to choose" is like saying "Pro-life advocates fight for the right to choose".
I was just talking with my wife last week about this very topic. We both remember in high school being taught that it was about "states rights" and thinking how that explanation didn't seem to make any sense.
The war was fought over the southern states' right to independence and self-government, and there weren't any slavery-related rights that were so much as indirectly at stake in the question of independence. There were slavery-related disputes that led the southern states to secede, but none of those disputes (most prominently the northern states not fulfilling their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves) would have been resolved in the favor of slaveholders by independence.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 "There were slavery-related disputes that led the southern states to secede" Nice to see you admitted it was about the right to...OWN SLAVES?! lol.
@@noinfo1018 There wasn't anything the government was saying they couldn't do. Are you imagining there was something? If so, tell me what that was so I can show you the evidence that what you believe is an historically baseless myth.
@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 the whole reason the south seceded was because they thought Lincoln would remove slavery. He wasn’t going to, he was just going to stop its expansion, but they still seceded when he got elected regardless. They assumed the government would stop slavery, and seceded.
I'm not going to lie, part of me was scared that this comment section was gonna have diet coke racists saying Ted Ed's pushing an agenda but no, I can make a great sigh of relief knowing you're all decent people.
This is a channel with beatifully captivating animations to poetry, mithology, and stories. I think this environment gathers people interested in emotion and empathy, art and learning, so yeah, a secluded corner of the internet
I’m a white southerner from Louisiana and I grew up in the 80’s and early 90’s and we were taught in school the Civil War was fought over Slavery and I don’t understand how there could be any doubt about that.
Because southerners aren't the only ones perpetuating that. Have this conversation with some so called intellectuals some time. After the confederate soldier is rightly identified as a 'pro slavery crusader'....mention the fact that the norther soldier is BY DEFINITION an anti slavery crusader. Then stand far away because the blowback will be severe. "Oh no, the question of slavery was never the issue up north. For them is was about preserving the union." So the 'lost causers' are everywhere.
Reallocation of wealth? Control of the world's largest agricultural economy? Lol ...the north put the same people on the same cotton fields when the war was over!!! By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a great admirer of Karl Marx. He wrote him often.
As a western Canadian, the only thing I remember being taught was it was only about slavery. I had never heard about "the rights of the states" being the issue although I can see why someone might use that position to avoid drawing attention to the principal cause.
If you want to know what the war was fought over, answer this question: Did the North effectively say to the South... A) We'll continue to recognize your right to have slaves if you forfeit your right to self-government? or B) We'll recognize your right to self-government if you forfeit your right to have slaves?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 If either of those nuances in how a question was asked resulted in a civil war than both sides were idiots. I doubt the confederate states said "we'd be willing to give up slavery so long as..." but that doesn't seem to have happened. Appears to be purely on the slavery issue.
@@KevanLetourneau What the Confederacy would hypothetically have been willing to say if the North hadn't actually said it would recognize the southern states' right to have slaves as long as they wanted so long as they forfeited their right to self-government is irrelevant to what the war was actually fought over. The war was actually fought over what the South wanted that the North wasn't willing to concede.
I grew up in the south an in elementary school almost every year we learned about the Civil War often called “The war of Northern Aggression” and how it was about States Rights.
@@Greenisthebestcolor The horrors perpetrated at the hands of the Union were starkly real. Essentially, the South was given an ultimatum. Cease further conflict or we burn your cities and crops down. Both sides were wrong to varying degrees. Oh yes, and try telling that to the Confederate soldier families who were chained to posts in the heart of winter.
@@txmetalhead82xk this all happened because influencial rich southern estate owners wanted to keep holding humans as cattle just because it was more profitable for them.
In the 80s I was taught in public school that the Civil war was fought over slavery. That slavery was the foundation of the cotton economy and the states that were practicing slavery feared losing their economic and political power. I never even heard the idea of "states rights" until about 15 years ago. In a Ted talk or something where Texas was approving textbooks that called the KKK civic leaders, erased Thurgood Marshall from the curriculum, claimed that the Civil War was fought over states rights and referred to slaves as "imported labor." The whole thing made my skin crawl.
The war was fought over the southern states' secession, over their independence, over their right to self-government, over the northern states' claim to a right to enslave the southern states (and themselves, too, in the process.)
@James Madison And what did they say about slavery? One thing is sure whatever you're talking about, these "Articles of Confederacy" didn't say anything about the historical baseless myth that the North was going to free the South's slaves.
It’s crazy how history can be subjective to the ones writing it and teaching it. I grew up in NY and we were taught from a young age that the war was to end slavery. We were taught all the gruesome inhumane practices and it was a huge part of our classes. We even learned about slavery in other parts of the world like ancient China, Egypt, Rome and Mesopotamia, all the way back to the dawn of civilizations. They were definitely teaching to avoid repeating the mistakes human kind has made.
I remember when learning about the US Civil War and a classmate said that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. I laughed really hard and said: “I don’t know what’s worse, that the Union troops was lead by a drunk. Or that the south got their butts handed to them by a drunk.” But in all honesty I never believed “The Lost Cause” BS. I simply can not wrap my head around the concept of why owning and abusing a human being can be an okay concept.
"I grew up in NY and we were taught from a young age that the war was to end slavery." Have you learned yet that you were taught a lie? Shortly after the start of the war the US Congress officially declared by a practically unanimous vote: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]" And the day after issuing the preliminary emancipation proclamation Lincoln said, “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
I learned that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree & then fessed up to his pappy, saying, "I cannot tell a lie..."......And that America was wonderful & perfect & that its history only began in 1776.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So congress even agreed that they weren't trying to take away states rights. Interesting. Also interesting to hear that morality transcended even legal and constitutional grounds. It's particularly interesting to hear here these through a lens of 120 years later and to realize how absurd the idea of people being able to own another human being is / should be.
I dont agree. Those teaching about this part of history deem it to be objective and true, because they ignore facts that contradict their narrative - just like Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Theorists and other lunatics. Ever notice of much this statement applies to Republicans and those in the poor, badly educated Bible Belt of the US!!!!!
I was taught that there were many reasons why the South seceded, but that the primary cause was that the South wanted to retain their institution of slavery and they were afraid that Lincoln, who was just elected, would try to implement abolition. And I was taught furthermore that the other reasons stemmed in some way from the interest of preserving slavery.
No it was mainly slavery. They were already killing each other over it before the war started. Bloody Kansas was a unofficial civil war against pro abolitionist and pro slavers. They say there were many reasons just to confuse people. Not to mention members of congress were getting in physical fist fights over the debate.
While the debate over slavery was among the causes of secession, it was not among the causes of war. Secession and war are two completely different matters.
@@richardgeorge2250 The South never wanted war, nor did secession have anything to do with starting the war. You can lay the blame for war squarely at the feet of Lincoln.
I grew up in the New England states, and they always taught that slavery was the cause. Until one day in high school, my U.S. history teacher said, “They don’t teach this to you in the north, but the actual reason for the Civil War was state rights.” I believed him for a long while until someone else brought up that it is state rights, but state rights to have slavery.
I see why you believed them. A teacher is someone who we are taught to trust so when they say something like "State's Rights" it is difficult to not believe them given their position which makes teachers like those all the more despicable.
My 8th grade teacher was the best. I live in Michigan and he said the civil war was about slavery which made our cause much more just. However he also said that the north mostly refrained from slavery, not because we were better people. He pointed out the obvious that our economy (cold weather, indoor and factory based) wasn't conducive to slavery, as their's was down south.
Unfortunately, both are right. The difference is in the viewpoint of the different sides. To Northerners, it was about the horrid treatment of humans. But, we must remember that slavery was huge part of the South's economy. To them the issue was about states' rights and we will never know how many of the confederate states would have renounced slavery on their own over time. One of the concerns of the day was, if the Federal Government can force this issue on states, what else may it? Well, we are seeing it now as states rights are under constant attack. Remember, the forming of the union was to solve only limited issues at the time. The remainder of problems were left to the states to resolve. But this point falls on deaf ears these days with the Progressives always pushing for centralized control over whatever they can get it for.
I’m from a poor white family of the south, particularly eastern Texas, and we lost ancestors to the war and we never took pride in it cause we knew it was nothing to be proud of
The average soldier in the South was not fighting for slavery. The war was about slavery and the Confederate leaders were fighting for slavery but the average soldier was not.
@@sbnwnc True, the average confederate soldier was fighting to have the right to have slaves, even if he could not afford one.That's the Southern American Dream. Also to deny anybody to call an African American his equal. That's he Southern unequality right.
@@terrymiller111 Agreed. But we have to live together. Everyone in France is related to a Resistance fighter. No one is related to a collaborator. Some lies are required to get along.
The right to own other people, subjugate, brutalize and murder them without consequence, the right to be uncivilized, inhumane and soulless, the right to be an animal among people... 'state rights'
@@bluecat7684 1. The so-called cornerstone speech certainly doesn't prove what the OP was saying which was a point about what he called the Articles of Secession. 2. What point do you think the cornerstone speech proves that I or anyone else would dispute? Stephens even says in that speech that he didn't believe the Republican-led North even wanted slavery to end.
Southerner: The civil war was about state's rights Historian: Yes, the state's right to own slaves Edit: This thread has gone on longer than I expected. Can we at least agree that there were people who were fighting to preserve slavery even if it wasn't the only reason.
In my country, there are not lies but less focus on important leaders of past years and biasness towards some leaders like Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru instead of Subhash Chandra Bose and Dr BR Ambedkar
People really have no idea how horrible the institution of slavery was and just how complicit people were in keeping it alive. This video connects well with the Orwellian video on this same page.
@@bobbytutton3270 "All Northern states had abolished slavery in some way by 1805; sometimes, abolition was a gradual process, a few hundred people were enslaved in the Northern states as late as the 1840 census." tell me, who freed the slaves and who enslaved them? UNION W
I was born and raised in the old South (S Carolina, Georgia, in the 1940-50s) and remember my Gramma referring to "the great patriotic war against Northern aggression". Loved my Gramma, but I grew up and got a degree in History (along with 3 others). Alas, my Gramma was wrong; the sayng should have been "the misbegotten, ill-considered war to preserve barbarism". Yet I still see Americans parading around flying the stars and bars and proclaiming themselves to be the "true" patriots. True patriots do not celebrate insurrections and lost causes that decimated a portion of the country, setting it back for almost a century.
I grew up and still live in Kentucky and was taught the Civil War was about states rights and not about slavery. It wasn’t until I grew up and read more that I know the truth about the war starting over slavery. There are signs to this day at historic sites that read, The War of Northern Aggression!
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, November 7, 1861
Yet who fired the first shot? Our (South) dumbasses, that's who. There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country. Unprovoked firing on a military installation isn't one of them. I'm guessing these pinheads forgot all about Franklin's travels (and what he was doing) during the Revolution. Not surprising, my fellow southerners seem addicted to willful ignorance.
@@careyfreeman5056 "There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country." Not when the North refused to even negotiate. Here's what a couple northern abolitionists said about it at the time: "...the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate party, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other." "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation. "In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows: "'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.' "This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?" -George Bassett
Whenever someone pulls out the canard that the Civil War was about states' rights, I always ask, "So if slavery had never existed, the Civil War would have happened anyway, right?" Usually shuts them up.
@@finalMadfox That's an outright lie. Look up the Corwin Amendment. They were ready to pass a constitutional guarantee to protect slavery constitutionally (where it already existed). You are correct that the *expansion* of slavery played a major role in the conflict, but it's far from the sole cause and a totally unsympathetic portrayal of the southern cause. In my opinion it's more properly called "The War for Southern Independence". The idea that that they were fighting to end slavery is preposterous on it's face. Lincoln did not choose to resupply Ft Sumter because of slavery.
@finalMadfox The South fought to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union.The eradication of slavery was a side note but it is not why the North went to war. They went to war because the south seceded. the self seceeded to protect slavery.
@@RayB50 You do realize it was the South who started it all by attacking Federal property and then Fort Sumter. And also the diea that the war was just about to preserve the Union is wrong, due to the Emmancipation proclamation which made the whole war about abolishing slavery, not just restoring the Union
On a high-school history-class exam in Gary, Indiana, in 1958, the multiple-choice question asked What was the cause of the Civil War? I answered, "slavery." My answer was marked wrong by the teacher, who insisted that the cause was defense of states' rights! I have never forgotten this.
They were fighting for independence. They had a right to independence. And the people that deny the fact that they were fighting for independence deny the right of a state to secede for any reason, which goes to show that they, too, are only using talk about slavery to conceal the real point, namely their opposition to free government.
the truth is that the south lost, and the North wanted to make sure that no one questioned the federal government so they added Slavery to the war like it was something they wanted to get rid of in the south. Lying Lincoln wanted to save the union he didn't beleve that none white people had know how of what to do with freedom because they were not white
What a reductionist view that is needlessly provocative. Even if the leaders of the confederacy had their own reasons for seceding, did you think the common soldier fought for that? Of course not. To them they fought because the North had invaded after they declared themselves free. They fought to protect their land. And it is that belief - of the masses, not the leaders - that formed the states rights view.
I grew up in central Indiana, started elementary school in the mid 60s, and I was taught that the civil war was about preserving the union first and ending slavery second. I didn’t learn the states’ rights argument till I went to college-and even then it was held up as an example of racism. I’m surprised to hear that my experience wasn’t the norm.
It's worth noting that in reference to the "States' Rights" argument, such an argument on the basis of a state's right to allow or disallow slavery would favor the union more than the confederacy at the beginning of the war. The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it.
"The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it." No, it didn't. (It banned the central government of the Confederacy from abolishing slavery -- which the US constitution at the time implicitly did, too, according to Lincoln and practically everyone else, and Lincoln likewise said he had "no objection to" a constitutional amendment which would have made that protection of slavery "express and [going beyond the Confederate constitution, even] irrevocable" -- but the Confederate constitution made a point of *not* prohibiting states from abolishing slavery, and it even provided for issues that would arise in states that would abolish slavery.) And you're advancing an absurd re-definition of states rights, too. States rights are the constitutional rights of states. If the constitution prohibits states from granting titles of nobility, it's not anti-states rights to oppose states granting titles of nobility, because it's explicitly not a state's right.
I attended school in a rural southern town in the 90s. The history being taught was very dependent on who was teaching. I definitely had teachers that tried to downplay slavery's role in the Civil War, but I heard far more Lost Cause rhetoric from older members of the community. There are plenty of younger people that believe these lies because that's what they were told by their family.
I had the same situation growing up - in the 90s and a Southern town. And I noticed the same patterns as well. Those patterns are still present today… sadly, those narratives are incredibly persistent.
You’ll only believe what you’ve been told without ever digging any deeper for the truth. But again the south never cared if you knew the truth because this country was torn apart as soon as the government began over taxing US citizens even though it was supposed to be a “free country” free from the over taxation of England. BS young northern children easily believe what they’re told and go their whole lives without ever thinking to find for themselves Never the wiser
Of course, when northern states passed laws that forbade enslaved butlers, maids, valets, and cooks from being brought by their owners into those northern states, the slaveowners did not acknowledge northern states' rights to do this but instead whined bitterly.
@@-Subtle- If you ever come through Belmont County, Ohio. Go to the village of Flushing, for one of the Underground Railroad museums. R.I.P. Dr. John Matox. On an unrelated note Belmomt County had the first dually elected female sheriff in America.
not exactly slavery. it was livelihood. the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses the south relied on slavery for their farms and products they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.” - Jefferson Davis "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom.
It's an historically baseless myth that anyone was challenging that right, and the South certainly didn't fight for a right that wasn't threatened by remaining in the union. Look up the Corwin amendment for overwhelming evidence of what the North wasn't challenging.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 You are correct that the majority of the Northern population was not advocating abolition, but the South viewed slavery as threatened and acted according to that view. That's why it was front and center in the debates and the secession declarations. The North saw this, and Seward and Corwin tried to spread oil on the water by proposing the amendment, but it was too late. Every other issue was not a hill anyone was threatening to die on. Transportation, tariff, and finance issues were all resolvable politically, and on agricultural policies, Southern farmers and Midwest farmers were already allies against the East Coast commercial interests.
@@TundraTrash Sure, slavery was threatened (as it was threatened everywhere inside and outside the union, in Cuba, Brazil, etc.), but you seem to be saying that slavery in the southern states was threatened particularly by remaining in the union. Is that indeed what you're suggesting? And if so, how do you think the union threatened slavery? And how do you think seceding offered any hope of protecting against those threats?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I'm not saying the North was threatening slavery. I'm saying the South thought slavery was threatened, and that is why it seceded.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 AND BTW, I would note that your namesake was more of an abolitionist than most Northerners, and he paid for it within the AOT.
@@definitely_not_Hirohito If the war was in any way fought over slavery, why do you use the term "rebellion" to describe it? Would it be any more or less a "rebellion" if states fought for independence today under completely different circumstances? And what are you imagining the war was fought to "preserve" slavery from? What are you imagining would have happened to slavery if the southern states had never seceded in the first place and never fought for their right to independence?
I like how for a lot of deeply analyzed historical events, the answer actually IS that simple. Basic answer: The South seceded because they wanted to keep their slaves. Moderate answer: The South actually seceded because of a whole bunch of other things, of which slavery is just one part Deep answer: All those other things are either lies or just slavery in disguise, and the South DID secede because they wanted to keep their slaves. Edit: Anyone who wants to argue about this, please don't it won't help anyone. Even if you're agreeing with me just don't.
@@goldenhawk352 I invite you and all of your cronies to look up the video series “Checkmate Lincolnites,” because it goes into much more detail than I ever could in a single comment.
But the North fought the Civil War for two years, ONLY to hold the Union together, before it finally abolished slavery in the South. So, if the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, then the South wasn't fighting to keep it. Just saying, it is hard to say the civil war started as a shooting match because Slavery had been abolished, when it was never abolished until 2 years into the shooting match. If the South had ended the war before those two years, the punitive measure of abolishing slavery may never had even happened at all.
@@goldenhawk352 The Confederacy did more than just shoot that one Union outpost. Before any shots were fired they already called upon soldiers. However, I think this argument should come to an end, because what will we gain from this? Petty satisfaction that someone on the internet was wrong? I won’t. And I don’t think you will either.
@@paprus5972 And they were still allowed to have slavery 2 years into the Civil War. So that means the actual shooting war started, and was fought by the North, with no intent to end slavery, for two years. So what was the North fighting for two years if it wasn't to end slavery? The answer is to hold the Union together.
Don't need to imagine. A little digging will show you we were in Vietnam for dubious reasons and the whole Bush era wars so far most people would accept we went in there on a lie.
If I make a series on US history, I will dedicate an entire episode just to obscure wars in Latin America that the US fought in the early 20th century, and another to all the "Free World" coups that the US government was involved in throughout the Cold War! For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
Taught history for 30+ years. States Rights was an issue, but it was based on the demand to maintain slavery. Slavery was the root cause. Read the Mississippi Declaration of Succession. It spells it out clearly. Conversely, the North did not fight to free the slaves. It fought to preserve the Union. The slavery issue brought about the goofy Electoral College system and the Senate filibuster (among many other unfair laws and practices). We still suffer from the effects of slavery today.
Slavery had been around for centuries. It was around when the states freely came together into the re-established union under the constitution. How then can it make any sense to say it was the cause of the union coming apart? It doesn't.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So if something is active for years it can't cause issues leading to war? Your logic is a joke. Taxation without representation has been around for centuries. With your logic the American Revolution would never have happened.
@@snuffyballparks6501 Taxation without representation hadn't been around for centuries, not in the British colonies that became the United States. That's why it caused a strong reaction when it was introduced. Let me guess, as a history teacher you had all the expertise and accountability of our tax-funded school system?
0:10 Why so many debunking myths videos present a map with the two Virginias separated? It was a one state at the time, Western Virginia came to be as a result of the Civil War.
I definitely had an AP U.S History teacher who talked about the "states rights" argument. I learned more from Ken Burns than I did in my supposedly collegiate level class.
@@kreigkubachi3732 The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution Slavery, only. This was the second 'sentence'.
Wake up, slavery from Africa, still is, that was and is the problem, that was what Alexander Stephen was trying to say, and the USA is a free Federal Government.
It's really a "Lie", not a "Myth". Using the word "Lie" might sound too preachy, although accurate. The word "Myth" softens it into a legend, or at least a folktale, possibly based on truth.
It could be based in truth. There may have been a very small group who genuinely fought for states' rights and didn't care about slavery and everyone else just pretended that they all believed that when they lost. Then it's more of an exaggeration than a lie.
@@owenwillard5409 No, it's exactly the same as lying. It isn't the truth, is it? Pretty simple, as are they. And there are no "twisted truths", by the way: the truth is the truth. It is never "twisted" unless it is a lie.
Self-government! You don't actually believe there was any states' right having to do with slavery that the states sought to gain or secure by seceding that the Republican-led North wasn't entirely willing to concede, do you?
If you read 9th and 10th constitutional amendments, you will see about states rights in simple English. Politics of the left disregard the founding document.
The myth started before the end of the war. When Confederates where seeking for support in Europe. Slavery was absolutely unpopular there, so they came up with a series of alternative reasons that made them look like a rural utopia threatened by the expansionism of the greedy US.
Excellent point! I think you've summed up the development of the situation very accurately. The only issue that remains to be argued is whether or not their "alternative reasons" had sufficient merit to defend the Confederacy with military engagement. I personally think they did. (I'm a 63 yo, 5th generation Canadian whose ancestors were colonial American patriots in NJ who fought for the American Revolution... moving to Upper Canada just before the US Civil War broke out.)
But it’s actually not, because the lost cause is not the main narrative taught in schools- or anywhere for that matter. There will always be 2 sides to every story, and the losing side will almost always have their own perspective of events. So there’s nothing that weird or unique about it, really.
@@apeyb5606 true, but there’s a difference between perspective and literally distorting history. Also World World 2 was actually written by the losers, since the Cold War happened right after WW2, the West and the USSR distorted how they won the war. The Nazis just filled in the blanks. It’s why the whole Germans attacked the USSR in the winter myth is still so common, even though they attacked in the Summer.
@@bobshenix well, sort of. Not the entire war by a longshot, but much of the accepted history of what happened on the Eastern front was dictated by German generals (due to the iron curtain and cold war). It's where most of the "RuSsIanS uSEd hUmAn wAvEs aNd wOn oNlY wItH nUmBeRs" and "muh clean Wehrmacht" ideas originated.
The most concise explanation of secession was by South Carolina Senator Laurence Keitt: "The anti-slavery party [Lincoln’s Republicans] contends that slavery is wrong, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate republic of sovereign States."
Or this: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute." -Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
Funny thing is SC never succeed because it’s impossible for a state to succeed. US never acknowledged it. The union existed before the states. SC tried to illegally succeed and failed
Brit in the UK. Fascinating video, thank you. The idea that anybody thinks that the American civil war was about anything other than slavery was new to me.
Multiple famous Northerners, including abolitionists, presidents of the US from northern states, famous Englishmen of the time, Lincoln, the US Congress, notable Southerners... all contradicted the myth that the war was "about slavery." What do you even mean by that anyway? Do you mean that the northern states were refusing to uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves and the southern states, without making any further demands for the return of fugitive slaves from the northern states, declared the constitutional compact broken? Do you mean that Republicans were threatening to abolish slavery and the southern states secede to try to avoid abolition being forced on them and the North then went to war to force abolition on them? Or do you just mean to imply that if anything relating to slavery had however indirect a connection to the war, that it's fair to say the war was "about slavery" in the same way 9/11 was about the Palestinian territories?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 There is literally no reasoning with someone as well read as you. You’ve drunk the biased koolaid and will never truly learn. Amazing display of cognitive dissonance.
@@icevariable9600 And what koolaid did all the abolitionists, other Northerners, US presidents from northern states, Englishmen, other foreigners... that defended the right of peoples, including the people of the southern staets, to choose their own governments even through and after the War of Northern Aggression drink?
In elementary school, I was taught that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. About 6th or 7th grade, I encountered the idea that it was about a state’s right to secede, and even then, I thought the idea didn’t make sense. After all, if the reason they wanted to secede was so they could keep slavery . . . then, wasn’t the root cause still slavery? Seemed pretty obvious to me.
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.” - Jefferson Davis "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom.
@@SouthernGentleman Which people? ALL the PEOPLE, or just the ones with the light skin tone? And if they were to operate as "independent nations" within a nation then why weren't they given the right to secede in their own constitution or make laws against slavery if they wanted to? You are using Lost Causer SOPs(standard operating procedures), ie: cherry picking info that seems to support your arguments without the context or the full info. When you LITERALLY ignore written documents and spoken words, (declarations of secession, Cornerstone speech, their FULL constitution)... You are DENYING actual factual history in order to support the South's right to continue and EXPAND slavery in perpetuity. Why do you identify with the slaveholders and traitors??? The bad guys? And if you don't consider them bad guys, then you have a bigger problem than just distorting historical facts. And we both KNOW what that problem is...
Stop being a socialist revisionist ignoring 7 out of 13 of the confederacy’s documents. 7 confederate states didn’t mention slavery and the 6 that did mentioned slavery like the U.S constitution. 70% of the south didn’t have slavery, every race fought for the confederacy, and the last confederate General was a Native American. Get an education
@@USGrant-rr2by Stop being a socialist revisionist ignoring 7 out of 13 of the confederacy’s documents. 7 confederate states didn’t mention slavery and the 6 that did mentioned slavery like the U.S constitution. 70% of the south didn’t have slavery, every race fought for the confederacy, and the last confederate General was a Native American. Get an education
Ultimately, the right to alter or to abolish their form of government, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. But more specifically, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, the right of each state to judge for itself, as well of infractions of the constitution, as of the mode & measure of redress. Any other questions?
@@danomyte67 And if the South hadn't seceded in the first place they would have still had slavery. So there's no difference, is there? And regardless, the North wasn't challenging the South's right to have slavery, so that's certainly not what the North and South fought over: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." -Lincoln
MISSISSIPPI: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
It's been said that the North fought to free the slaves (wrong) and that the South fought for states' rights (wrong). What I think is that it was actually the inverse: the North fought _against_ a state's right to unilaterally secede from the Union, and the South fought _against_ the abolition they were sure would be forced on them if they remained in the Union.
this is one smart man ,but left out the taxation on the south only to benefit the aggressive northern states and the right to buy equipment from england instead of the disguting greedy north its still the same today we will pay 10 times the worth of a new car or truck on half of the salary
The South made clear they were seceding to preserve the institution of slavery. Lincoln made clear he was fighting against secession to preserve the Union. The abolition of slavery was certainly *a* motivation for fighting by the North, but secondary to the North's primary motivation of preserving the Union. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was delivered, that tied abolition of slavery in the southern states more clearly to the war effort. I always think the big cause was the incompatibility of a medieval race-based serfdom form of government with a more industrial, free labor democratic one. As Lincoln knew, it ultimately had to be one or the other.
not exactly slavery. it was livelihood. the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses the south relied on slavery for their farms and products they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.
slavery was the excuse, the cause was the classical rural v/s urban/industrial/banking conflict that defined the industrial era (a worldwide fenomena that covers almost the entire XIX and XX centuries)
"Karen" as a pejorative, if you actually have any understanding of it, is someone who insists on butting into other's business and sicking "authorities" onto them to force conformity to their world view. The Yankee was the undisputed Karen of the two sides.
In the 70s my history teacher stressed that the war was started over more than one issue, yes slavery and states rights being one of those but the forgotten and often erased issue was unfare trade and tax of goods between the north and south. As in most cases wars begin with more than one cause and end with resolution not always accepted by all . History books of today leave out the issues of fair trade and taxation and focus on slavery , I find it disturbing that we accept the truth being watered down to fit a narrative that seems aimed at keeping a racial fire burning. Slavery was wrong and still is today, but not printing the whole truth is shorting our kids of knowledge and content.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. Not one mention of 'unfair', 'trade' or 'tax'. This is the 2nd 'sentence' of the a**holes declaration. Your 'teacher' was the problem, not history. SLAVERY, SLAVERY and SLAVERY were the reason.
The North were the aggressors and Southerners saw the issue of slavery through a lens that was not filtered by today's moraes. They were living their lives as they had always been. The young men that got crushed were simply defending their way of life.
We tried to avoid the conversation in school. This was taboo and worthy of being fired or expelled for being discussed. No different than abortion, non traditional marriage, religion, or WW2 Germany. It wasn’t until college, I could have these conversations and I got to hear arguments from all perspectives. Our school just cared about us excelling in sports and auto mechanics
I taught at a school whose motto was “The Truth Shall Set You Free”… sounds like the motto at yours should have been “The Truth Shall Make You Ashamed”
The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in 1854. When their Presidential Candidate won in 1860 the South feared Lincoln would abolish slavery and so they rebelled to found their own country and keep the practice of slavery alive in the South It was not about “State’s Rights.” If it was, why did they rebel to found their own new nation? Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one
"the South feared Lincoln would abolish slavery" How would he have done that? By throwing out the constitution and ruling like a dictator? Do you mean the South feared Lincoln's election meant the end of the constitution and the rule of law?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I guess the Republican party having an overwhelming majority in the house and the senate isn't how Lincoln was going to abolish slavery eh?!
@@MagnusSheeler > we have to force people to not own other people That's a nice revisionist myth if you hate government by the consent of the governed, but of course your narrative is pure BS myth. The reality is the North was totally willing to go along with slavery in the South so long as the southern states didn't assert their right to independence and self-government.
As a southern man, I understand the desire to want the Lost Cause to be true. No one wants to think of their relatives as having died for a bad cause. We can still respect and remember them as people and our family, but let us not glorify the war itself. It was a tragedy for the south of the highest order and it didn’t need to happen. Memorialize the fallen, but don’t memorialize the war itself.
@@sbnwnc Indeed. At the end of the day, I don’t believe the common front line fighting man should be blamed for the war he’s sent to fight. He’s simply defending his community, as all men have been expected to do for all of time.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 As a northern man, I understand the desire to want the Righteous Cause Myth to be true. No one wants to think of their relatives having died for a bad cause or their country having fought for a bad cause. The South had a right to secede. The North's cause was altogether unjustified.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 That the war was about ending slavery is the historically baseless Righteous Cause Myth I was talking about. The Union even officially declared by a practically unanimous vote of Congress at the start of the war that, "this war is not waged... for any purpose... of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States..."
It was always about slavery, until they lost the war, then it suddenly wasn’t. Tear down the UDC stuff, and teach a history as written by the victors, not the losers trying to make excuses for their poor choice to fight a war they couldn’t win (“There’s no cannon factories in the south” -Rhett Butler.)
I mean, it's not like the winners can lie about history or anything (I'm not defending the UDC, I'm just saying that "teach a history as written by the victors" isn't always all that good)
How do you figure it was always about slavery when the North went to war formally declaring that it wasn't at all about slavery? Even abolitionists called out the false pretenses of the North.
@@markdaniel9657 History should not be based on the victors, nor the losers. It should be based on the facts. The facts are that the Southern states openly declared they were fighting for slavery. the northern states, however, were not fighting to abolish slavery. The northern states were fighting to keep the country from falling apart. Abolition came later and was simply a tool towards victory
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The South went to wart over slavery. The north went to war over holding the nation together. It was always about slavery because the south were the ones that started it over slavery.
I'm 64. I was taught both things in my grade and high school years. I have no problem with that dichotomy, agreeing that slavery was the primary reason.
I was taught a mixture of both. That while the South did fight for the sovereignty of the individual states from the federal government, the right was primarily slavery, which was one of the reasons Texas seceded from Mexico as well
I didn't learn anything about the Civil War till adultnight school in the mid 80s. A middle age teacher said " if you answered slavery to what was the cause of the civil war, you ll get an F. He wanted to hear about tariffs etc...not slavery!! This was a central New Jersey public school GED class.
The total tax generation for all northern ports, including New York, was $48.3 million. New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues. The entire South generated only $4.0 million in tariff revenues, with New Orleans being the southern port that collected the most, at $3.1 million. New Orleans was captured without resistance by the Union in 1862.
@@crazando Why did they want to secede? What issue were they so concerned that the Federal government might eventually decide on? 🤔 All roads lead to slavery. There's only one reason one would argue they don't. I think we both know what that reason is. No matter how much cognitive dissonance it possesses, the Confederacy will never be able to claim the moral high ground in the American Civil War. The Union can't always claim it either, but they can sometimes which always more than never.
"Especially in regards to" *crickets turned to 11* *nervous sweat* "In order to preserve the institution of" "So how about them dallas cowboys?" *faceplam*
A state's right right to decide for itself how to address issues not addressed by the Constitution per the Tenth Amendment. Even IF the issue was slavery, it was Federal overreach to decide the matter without states' input. There was no law against slavery until after the so-called civil war. Why not before? Why not DURING? Of course, it was an era when passions were stirred by matters of principal, a philosophy rapidly fading since the end of WWII.
@@iasimov5960 It was more so due to Morality growing. People began to realize what slavery truly meant as real accounts from slaves from the south began to circulate to the north. To many people in the north who weren't apart of the government, it wasn't a heavily known fact what slaves lives were like. but as more slaves escaped to the north, slaves day to day struggles and lives became more and more well known. It was also, at that time, that other countries were abolishing slavery. As well as the United states government wanted to have those men and women who were seen as slaves in the south, be American citizens, as, by that point, they had been in the US for generations, and thus would have been considered US Citizens much like you or I would at the time. And the reason why there were no laws until after, well, in the north there wasn't really a need for slaves, as well as the north was where most major cities were and more common practices from other major cities like London for instance, were rather common. The reason why laws were made after the war was because the law could be made Nation Wide and followed since they had a war about it, and the nation was unified
@★ Froggie Animation ★ Why did the civil war start? Because the Federal Government was going to overreach and dictate how states should govern themselves. Which back in the day was a massive issue of dispute. With the end result being the decision that states don't really have the freedom to govern themselves.
I went to live in the south for a little while. I remember how my niece won an essay competition presided over by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Her prize was a $5 bill. She was so proud. I couldn't resist pointing out how it was Abraham Lincoln who defeated the Confederacy.
Also after the civil war, many confederates ran into south American countries where slavery wasn't abolished yet, an interesting example was the Confederate colony of Americana in Brazil, the Brasilian empire will not abolish slavery until 1888 when the princes Isabel, daughter of Emperor Pedro the II, signed the abolition of slavery in the country. Also many other confederates moved to Cuba, and owned many sugar plantations of the island, that will not abolish slavery until 1880.
I grew up in Nebraska back in the '50's. The one thing that was stressed to us was that the Civil War was not about slavery - it was about states' rights. I don't remember anything else that the teachers cared about. But they definitely wanted to make sure that we understood what the Civil War was "really" all about.
"If this war is to be forgotten, I ask the name of all things sacred, what shall men remember?" Damn. What a great quote.
"men remember only fracture of history and write down they own version of it down for the future" thats my quote :P oh and when men write it down , most of them do it in a single point of view with excludes 40-60% of the truth and cause of the event :)
Douglass was an amazing writer/orator. If you haven't read his narrative of his life, I highly recommend it especially as it isn't all too long.
I remember how the Democrats fought for slavery. I’ll Never forget that.
@@ChineseChicken1 good, than you'll learn the entire country is run by horrible people, no matter which of the two right wing parties takes the W
@@ChineseChicken1 Funny how I only see Republicans glorifying Confederate generals and waving Confederate flags. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I am now 57 and when I was young I was taught that the Civil War was about state's rights. I grew up in Wisconsin. Over the years my cousin learned German and translated many of the letters of our ancestors who were German Lutherans. Our great grandfather fought in the Wilderness. In his letters he never mentions states rights, but talks a lot about the inhumanity of slavery. He was elected sergeant of their company. Fun fact, none of them spoke English, only German.
Unfortunately many fight and die for a rich man’s cause without ever knowing the true reasons for their deaths and suffering.
not exactly slavery. it was livelihood.
the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses
the south relied on slavery for their farms and products
they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.
@@Dubs22005 Slavery was a way of life and not a business model in the South and they couldn't imagine life without them. Look at what happened after Reconstruction ended. Blacks lost many of their rights and many went back to virtual slaves as sharecroppers.
Real life King Schultz?
@@rabbit251 The inhumanity of slavery is a lame excuse for a war that had nothing to do with ending the inhumanity of slavery, but I'm sure your great grandfather needed some excuse to try to justify his participation in an unjust war to destroy government by the consent of the governed (government of and by the people) in America.
As the abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” ...
The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud..."
Denying history makes it easier to be repeated
The Buddha once said:
Three things can never be hidden forever: the sun the moon and the truth
i think republicans want history to be repeated lmao
Deleting history makes it easier to be repeated.
Exactly. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why I think it's horrible to tear down any types of statues. Or to erase history
Edit. I should make myself more clear. If you want to tear down statues, they should be put in a museum. And democratically torn down. They need to have a vote to tear them down.
@@zephyr4960 lol
Another reason we can debunk this is the founding documents of the CSA. They mention slavery more often than state’s
rights.
They only mentioned slavery in the context of things like the northern states violating their constitutional obligation (under the US constitution) to deliver up fugitive slaves, and the war unambiguously wasn't fought to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves or to do (or not do) anything else related to slavery.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Oh, so they mentioned how the Federal government was trying to take away their right to...OWN SLAVES?!
@@CosmoShidan No, they didn't. But nice myth if you worship DC and hate the idea of government by the consent of the governed.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Ah, so you say that according to the Confederacy, your lot hate the idea of democracy and equality since y'all are about...OWNING SLAVES?! lol.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
😢😢😢😢
I'm a pathetic Lost Causer. Whaaah. My weak and pathetic ancestors lost big time and I can't get over it. Whaaaaah
😢😢😢😢😢
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Thanks for 1.7 K likes! I never got so many!!! Thank you!!!
ngl he has a good point
The past few couple of events really highlight his points.
He obviously knew the Democrats would be back to no good in the future.
Yeah BLM & Antifa did good that mission.
@@ChineseChicken1 Did you know the republican party was founded to end slavery? Now it has been taken over by people like you. God help you.
"Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter." -African proverb
Because you know the truth.
1864-1964.
100 years.
Why did it take that long???
Because there was no money in it.
Africa is a big place. where is that proverb from specifically?
history was written by winner 😞
And slavery lost yet they still wrote a fuckton about covering it up.
@@snakey934Snakeybakey northern Malawi
I guess I had a lot of good history teachers. We were taught everything horrible about slavery. The selling that seperated family members, the labour that sometimes exhausted those poor people to death, the punishments that they endured, and the dangerous jobs that sometimes left them with gruesome injuries.
It makes me sad to hear that some schools didn't teach this.
Truly very rare, not even in the UK can I say our history lessons were this well informing.
@Fancy Those in states with racists on their education board and government, so basically all of the south and some Midwest states. They’ve gone so far as to rewrite school history books by erasing truths.
ruclips.net/video/qD3kqf4eZPo/видео.html
Jammu Kashmir related vlog
@Fancy There is. Not directly of course, but there are minimalizations of certain truths to make unjust things seem just.
I loved my history teacher. He inspired me, and I did manage to get a "4" on the AP test.
I didn't have a good history teacher.
I lived in Florida for a few years. All of the people whose opinion I respected told me "NEVER get into discussions wth people whose first words are "You know, the Civil War was not about slavery". Very sage advice.
you are so sure
@@DeidadesForeverYes! It was fantastic, intelligent, advice!
I moved to Florida after living my whole life in Chicago, the religious ignorance here would explain a lot of things about the south-moving back north next year where people are not so delusional
Yeah, civil war was fought because people could not agree whether to drive on the left or on the right side of the street.
it was not about slavery north carolina virginia tennesse and arkansas voted not to seceed lincoln illegally demanded their state malitias attack south carolina they held another vote and left because of lincolns demand more than half of the souths population lived in these 4 states lincolns responce? attack virginia at bull run
Here in Sweden we’ve always taught in history classes that the reason for the Civil War was slavery. Ihad never heard of ”the lost cause” until I spent a year in the US as a high school student. It was quite an unsettling experience to learn that entire generations were taught false history.
What makes you think the version of history you were taught to be the right one? This is not exclusive to slavery, btw. It's egotistical to think what you were taught to be the truth.
@@BR0984 Maybe he knows that "Lost Cause" is bogus history because that has been proven.
@@BR0984 Well that's because the Lost Cause is a complete myth written by delusional losers who ignore the very things the leaders of the confederacy said themselves.
@@BR0984 If his teachers provided sources, that students can check for themselves, for the textbooks and other materials, he can be relatively certain to know the truth about the Civil War and other subjects.
Wait, why were they teaching American history in Swedish schools?
In middle school I remember being told specifically that the civil war was not about slavery. It wasn’t till high school that a teacher said “slavery was a main cause of the civil war” but by then a lot of my classmates didn’t even believe it.
Slavery wasn't the sole direct cause, but it was the primary and root cause because all the other issues were because of the social and economic differences of having versus not having slavery.
Both are right. It was about states rights to have slavery be decided on a state level instead of federal. The states refused to abide by the new paradigm and moved to secede. It's likely that had the issue been about states rights to, say, legalize some substances like drugs and alchool or firearm laws it would never have gotten as bad as it did.
@@TosiakiS May I suggest to use the word "facts" instead of "truth"? Like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states "In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences". Beliefs and therefore truth, too, are highly subjective. Facts on the other hand are objective and therefore unimpeachable.
@@l0lLorenzol0l uh the thing is lincoln wasnt trying to take away their slaves and just hoped it would naturally die out if he prevented its expansion
I was told years ago that it was just economics. Yes, the economics of slavery!
Can't wait for the first comments being like "I used to like TED-Ed but now they just want to push an Agenda"
lol
Sheep go bbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaa
@@vasaradragonsbane5580 ^ said the sheep of a different pasture.
🙄
@@s.l.3281 You'll be ok, just get back to suckling that narrative teat till the big bad RUclips comments go away.
You did not have to wait long
How hard is it to just not own slaves
How hard is it to just respect other people's right to choose their own government, to not forcibly subjugate them to your rule?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 You're trying to justify slavery, I'm trying to justify why we had to remove the Confederates.
We are not the same.
@@RightfulArchon186 Practically no one believes in slavery any more, but lots of Americans believe DC has a right forcibly subjugate states to its rule if they should try to choose their own government. So the odds are very good that's what's really at play here, isn't it?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 If you want a decentralized government be my guest weirdo anarchist. But I don't really want to a nation or states that probably don't like my race.
@@RightfulArchon186 If I want a government like the EU that doesn't make me a weirdo anarchist. But go on making excuses for forcibly subjugating other people to your rulers!
You are so correct, as a southern white male I believed the story of states rights, until I read the constitution of the confederate union, that states that all new confederate states must allow Slavery. The fact is that all slavery is wrong. And history should not be changed or forgotten. Thank you for pointing this fact out.
Joe Bartolotta
That's really not any different than what the US Supreme Court had already ruled the US constitution said. The Confederate constitution just said so explicitly.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Shouldn't you be searching for documents?
Always thought it was interesting the notion that the confederacy was about states' rights, but that same CSA constitution explicitly forbade any ability to secede, so that alone should show it was never about the rights of the states.
You might trouble yourself to note the Confederate Constitution was never ratified.
what about thomas jefferson
"defending our right to ignore human rights if we wanted" - the lost cause
Yep... that pretty much sums up their thinking/rationale/excuse. But to take it one step further.. if they really thought Non-Whites to be human, they never would have done what they did. Only when you relegate people to "subhuman" or "savage" level and remove their humanity, is subjugating them and enslaving them and even killing them possible.
@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster Defending the right to what? As a Syrian-German, I don't understand, how any person with the ability to empathize with other humans could defend slavery or "a state's right to support slavery".
@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster wooooosh
That's EXACTLY right
It’s so sad how such a large portion of America refuses to accept reality. Not only about topics like this, but even current events. It’s like something has indoctrinated half the country to distrust anything academic, especially science.
@AgentFlea does it matter?
Slightly more than 50% of all academic studies are false (if you want to know why that is just ask) so I can understand why they are a lot more skeptical about science.
@@blauwbeer556 spoken with true facts i presume. where did you get that percentage? can you find a referance to a related study? i guess not.
@@NicKtheGreeK1100 but that study could be wrong. In fact it has a 50% chance of being so according to this great thinker. So much easier to make up convenient facts for yourself. It’s a great American tradition.
@@blauwbeer556But under that assumption, the academic study who proved that slightly more than 50% of academic studies are false is probably false. So we should distrust it, it falls under its own weight
I am writing this in May 2024, and in Florida, the governor is claiming that slavery benefited many slaves because they learned a trade while on the plantation. Some things never change!!
In case you don’t remember Democrats were the ones that owned all of the slaves so correct some things don’t change
No matter who is saying what, slavery is illegal and that is a bit of a change in my humble opinion.
You’re a moron! The south will rise again!
@@That.Guy. Democrats fought for civil rights, join us in the 21st century, fascist
The parties and their ideologies looked a lot different back then ….
Confederates: *"We didn't lose, We merely failed to win!"*
are you here from the Oversimplified channel?
@@adityashirolkar5038 YES
@@aleksandarvil5718 I know because McClellan used the same phrase in the Oversimplified Video...
Oversimplified vibes
@@SuperPrem The best type
I began school in Illinois and Minnesota. I never heard the term states rights as the reason did the civil war until I moved to Missouri. Then I was treats with shock and horror that I stated slavery as the reason for the civil war. This was in the nineties
ILL and MN were correct.
@@plumSRT Not according to the US Congress, which in July of 1861 declared by a nearly unanimous vote "that this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States".
Most kids born after 72 were lied to in public schools about American history. Today's kids are clueless.
Saying the civil war was over slavery is like saying BLM formed over abortion.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558. Believed it easily huh?
The UDC was a huge problem historically, think of all the minds changed and statues built, setting us back by decades
That's the difference between museum ( place of learning) and monuments ( place of praise).
And I think she said the UDC was still around? That's outrageous!
They were the first Karens
@@mmmk1616 they’re a crowd gathering event here in SC and Georgia
Plus the Dixie Sisters. They practically further dragged the reason behind the Civil War into the dirt by changing the education system in southern states like Alabama and Louisiana.
The Confederate leaders told us explicitly that slavery was the cause of secession and war so there is no question
More accurately you want to pretend they did when they actually didn't.
And not only that, but you want to dishonestly present tangential controversies relating to slavery (like whether the northern states would uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves), things that the seceding states most definitely did not fight for (quite the opposite, seceding clearly meant forfeiting those rights rather than fighting for them) as if they were equal to the Republican-led North trying to abolish slavery in the southern states which is nothing but a revisionist propaganda myth, a complete lie.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 More accurately, y'all just wanna OWN SLAVES?! lol. Move along and let the grown-ups talk bucko, y'all can watch Firefly in the corner.
Slavery was the cause for "session" but not the cause for war
To protect the institution of slavery was the cause for "secession" but not the cause for war. The two are a separate issue that you may be misunderstanding
@@jamesbuchanan6256 So, the cause for the war was independence over...OWNING SLAVES?! lol.
“There is no form of protest against racism that is acceptable to racists” ~Bernice King
The XXI century version of this is "there's no form of veganism that is acceptable to animal abusers"
@White wolf If you don’t live here, and your skin is white, how could you know?
@@fernandofontenla8466 Vegetarians aren’t Fascists.
Catch the difference?
@@hadara69 not all vegetarians are facists, I can give you that.
@@fernandofontenla8466 But EVERY Fascist in America who believes "White is Right!" is a RWer.
True or False?
You’re the one who’s pretending Vegans are as intolerant as racists, dude. Also what we eat is a CHOICE, again…
Catch the difference?
(Psst…if you can’t/won’t, there in lies the REAL problem here.)
These alternative histories have led many people to form opinions that aren't based on truth. As deadly as they can be, many pseudo truths have passed on to us today due to how powerful and influential their proponents and authors were.
My wife's boyfriend loves this comment ✊🏿
@@zabrak999 Thanks for letting us know. Your wife's boyfriend sounds like a great guy.
I doubt that this will change anyone's mind who has their idea as to what really started the CW.
Sure, Fred was there but he was not a political leader who had the inside scoop for the motivations. He is just giving his opinions based on his observations.
The last thing Lincoln wanted to do was to free the slaves. He wanted the ports of trade the South now controlled and would have been OK with them keeping slaves. So I am going with slavery not being the motivation for the CW.
@@timothy3732 you're going with slavery not being the cause even though the secession letter swritten by the states all state it is the reason?
@@timothy3732 Preserving slavery was the South's reason for succession and fighting. They had built an economy that depended on slavery as an institution and would never have abolished it without the use of force. Lincoln's ultimate goal was preserving the Union, and he would have left slavery in place if it was the only way to do that. Lincoln declared abolishing slavery to be a Union goal to keep the British (Who had freed their own slaves by that point and were trying to proclaim themselves to the world as anti-slavery while still being entrenched in imperialism) out of the war. The British had economic reasons to favor the south, but if it was a war to end slavery they couldn't support them. So no side had pure intentions, but slavery was a critical part of the entirety of the war and cannot be written out. If anything I said was wrong, please correct me. It's been awhile since I've studied the topic.
I grew up in Missouri, and in school we had a weird mix of being taught the horrors of slavery in gruesome detail with the insistence that it was still about state's rights
@Tara Miller Did you know Abraham Lincoln would have gladly allowed slavery if the confederates had remained in the union?
@@kkknotcool If that's true then why did the South secede?
@@neilpemberton5523 Because Abraham Lincoln was not king of the north.
@@kkknotcool I Doubt it would have been "Gladly" since he was known to be against slavery. Which is why the south left the Union after his election.
@@RW2996 Fillmore was anti slavery, and the south didn't leave after his election.
The fact is most northern presidents had been anti slavery but had been willing to compromise to save the union. Lincoln included.
Everyone paints Lincoln as this guy with an unpopular opinion holding on to what he knows is right(or wrong in this case) but the fact is being anti slavery had been the best route to win elections in the north for decades. But he was happy to compromise those morals to maintain power over the nation as a whole.
It's the political path for every successful president that's ever existed.
You play middle of the road for whichever election you are trying to win at the time and there was nothing special about his politics on slavery.
His firsts priority by far was keeping the union in tacked. Slavery was almost not important compared to union. From what I've read of his priorities on this, "glad" is not much of an exaggeration, if at all.
I read Frederick Douglass' book "My Bondage and My Freedom" several years ago and was blown away. The more I learn about him now, the more his prescience amazes me.
Martin Robinson Delaney is another great writer from the Civil War era! He wrote a pioneering Afrofuristic novel called Bleach, which was about a revolt by African-Americans in the Deep South, and Latin America taking shape.
He was one of the Greatest!!
@@CosmoShidan Thanks..I'll look for that one!!
Wait a freaking second... THE UDC IS STILL AROUND?!?!?!
Best keep our heads up now... Wouldnt you agree?
Just like people who believe in Flat Earth, yes.
One of their headquarters caught fire during the protests last summer. Unfortunately, I think it was only one, and it probably won't do much to them in the long run.
When I was applying to colleges I remember seeing a scholarship under their name for descendants of members of the confederacy. It's ridiculous!!
Unfortunately, yes. To this day, (in another case) there are many right-wing Japanese who believed Japan has done nothing wrong and claims the Imperial Army didn't perform any war crimes in China & SEA during WWII. Government Japanese members visiting Yasukuni Shrine doesn't help lessen the hatred of the victims' descendants.
The funny thing about the states rights arguments is it leads to the question of why the Confederacy was worried about states rights and what particular States right they were worried about. Apparently that right was the right to regulate or prohibit slavery. It seems like the states rights argument’s logical conclusion was that slavery was the reason for the civil war.
🤔...hmmm
The constitutional right that the southern states felt had most clearly been violated was the right to the return of fugitive slaves, a right the southern states willingly forfeited when they seceded. So what they fought for wasn't the return of fugitive slaves or anything else to do with slavery but the right (in the words of James Madison) "to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated" as opposed to (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) "the government created by this compact" having been "made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" which "would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers."
So they wanted the rights not to listen to federal authority?
Some laws are made in the capital and respected from everyone, that's the point of being a federacy and not an indipendent country.
That said, the whole conflict started on slavery and ended with slavery, so it was indeed a war to protect slavery.
@@birmax5420 Nice ahistorical myth, but actually the whole conflict started with southern independence and ended with the end of southern independence, so it was indeed a war against southern independence.
Their state body, their choice?
So.. I'm a Canadian.
I have a nephew who had high school in an Amercian school, some fancy academy in the South in around 2017 on a football scholarship.
He had to leave the room when he got his history textbook referring to slavery as immigration from Africa. "Teaching this in a highschool would literally get you arrested in Canada."
Comment ti vote thus up
This is how it should be.
Nah, in Canada no one would be arrested
It sucks all the enslaved people should have esacped to canada so america whould not succced
@@normboy8376 Canada didn't abolish slavery until 1834 when Westminister made slavery illegal.
As a kid we were taught the Civil War was all about the south not wanting to give up slavery. Our small town even had some tunnels used by the underground railroad to help escaped slaves. We had field trips to underground railroad sites and there was never any talk about so called states right revisionist history. Even though I grew up in rural WI in a place where all kids looked alike (mostly blond hair, blue eyes, germanic ancestry) and not a single minority in our school. The education system in rural WI at least didn't mince words about the civil war and taught about the atrocity of slavery in the southern states and their inhumane treatment of their fellow man.
Because you grew up in the North. It's about where you grew up, not race
@@AntiContradiction Gee, I ponder why race and slavery are entwined eh?!
That underground railroad now shuttles illegal aliens INTO slavery.
I remember being taught that it was slavery and States' rights...but of course, it was in regards to slavery. And now I wonder how comfortable my teachers were who made that assertion with African American students in their classrooms.
Because what they said was true. Slavery WAS the main cause, and the issue of states rights was kind of a symptom of slavery.
@@jimmymarrs1556
Exactly and I believe that due to those who know it was mainly about slavery sayin for political reasons that stars rights weren't a factor are the reason that myth still persists.
If instead of downright denying it (which is just revising history too) why can't we realize it was about slavery and therefore the right of the states to either allowed t or prohibit it. Why is that so hard?!
Whenever someone tries to claim "the civil war was just about states' rights" a friend of mine always just responds with "states' rights to do what?" which is the question they never want to answer because the answer is "have legal slavery."
You don't see the same people glorifying the civil war as a states' rights issue supporting states legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing hard drugs, providing protections to LGBTQ+ groups/identities, or any other progressive policy. It's only about the "rights" they want states to have.
Yeah I grew up in Georgia and I remember being taught in school that it was almost entirely because of state's rights and slavery was just a little tag-along. I was just a kid when they taught this, so idk how accurately I remember it, but I will say I distinctly remember being confused when learning about the Civil War after I moved to Montana
@@estrogenearthquake7160 same
Whenever Im confronted in discussion with the States Rights BS I point out that the folks who promoted the separation and war actually wrote down why. There is no need to speculate. Slavery is mentioned more often than any other reason
If you believe for a split second, that 100s of thousands of white men in the 1860s would have marched into certain death to free slaves that 98 percent of them didn't own. You're disillusioned.
It was about keeping the south in the union. It wasn't about the slaves and only the slaves. You need not look further than the tax and budget of the Federal govt and what they would lose if the south went away
@@humansvd3269 The Union wanted primarily to keep the South a part of the country and that was their primary objective. The South wanted to preserve the institution of slavery that they felt was inevitably going to disappear unless something was done.
@Jeffery Xu The North wanted to keep the south for the same reasons Britain wanted to help the colonies in. To extract taxes and have land. That's it. The slavery issue was the final straw in a series of other grievances that the South had with the North. The average northerner did not care for the slaves
The south wasn’t shy about it
I’m sorry but do they seriously think that there’s a meaningful difference between fighting for slavery and fighting for the right to choose slavery? There isn’t.
I was thinking the same - even if they were fighting for states right to choose for or against slavery....well that's pretty much the same as "right to choose racism"
@@Royan1900 The right to chose. That’s always what people fight for. South was supremely based in that but was pretty weak.
They were fighting for the state's right to deny rights to minorities. So both are true. It was a fight for state's rights. It was also a fight for slavery. This is just spin-doctoring 101.
bing
It's STILL wrong, though: The South explicitly fought to deny states the right to be NON-slaveholding states. Saying "The South fought for the right to choose" is like saying "Pro-life advocates fight for the right to choose".
I was just talking with my wife last week about this very topic. We both remember in high school being taught that it was about "states rights" and thinking how that explanation didn't seem to make any sense.
The war was fought over the southern states' right to independence and self-government, and there weren't any slavery-related rights that were so much as indirectly at stake in the question of independence. There were slavery-related disputes that led the southern states to secede, but none of those disputes (most prominently the northern states not fulfilling their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves) would have been resolved in the favor of slaveholders by independence.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 "There were slavery-related disputes that led the southern states to secede"
Nice to see you admitted it was about the right to...OWN SLAVES?! lol.
@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
Well why did they want to self-govern? What was the government saying they couldn’t do?
@@noinfo1018 There wasn't anything the government was saying they couldn't do. Are you imagining there was something? If so, tell me what that was so I can show you the evidence that what you believe is an historically baseless myth.
@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 the whole reason the south seceded was because they thought Lincoln would remove slavery. He wasn’t going to, he was just going to stop its expansion, but they still seceded when he got elected regardless. They assumed the government would stop slavery, and seceded.
I'm not going to lie, part of me was scared that this comment section was gonna have diet coke racists saying Ted Ed's pushing an agenda but no, I can make a great sigh of relief knowing you're all decent people.
@Eve Angélique lol idk, I just guess the people who watch are generally people open to learning
I've seen some, but fortunately they get called out basically immediately.
I don’t think many Diet Coke racists are much concerned about educating themselves.
they're here, but ashamed and quiet
This is a channel with beatifully captivating animations to poetry, mithology, and stories. I think this environment gathers people interested in emotion and empathy, art and learning, so yeah, a secluded corner of the internet
I’m a white southerner from Louisiana and I grew up in the 80’s and early 90’s and we were taught in school the Civil War was fought over Slavery and I don’t understand how there could be any doubt about that.
Because southerners aren't the only ones perpetuating that. Have this conversation with some so called intellectuals some time. After the confederate soldier is rightly identified as a 'pro slavery crusader'....mention the fact that the norther soldier is BY DEFINITION an anti slavery crusader. Then stand far away because the blowback will be severe. "Oh no, the question of slavery was never the issue up north. For them is was about preserving the union." So the 'lost causers' are everywhere.
I'm from Louisiana as well and it's pretty easy to understand how the war wasn't fought over slavery. There's plenty of doubt.
@@chuckwest7045 propaganda moment
Reallocation of wealth? Control of the world's largest agricultural economy? Lol ...the north put the same people on the same cotton fields when the war was over!!! By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a great admirer of Karl Marx. He wrote him often.
@@3625hdarrel
1. every issue you mentioned can be traced back to slavery
2. Sharecropping wasn't a northern invention
3. Your point?
As a western Canadian, the only thing I remember being taught was it was only about slavery. I had never heard about "the rights of the states" being the issue although I can see why someone might use that position to avoid drawing attention to the principal cause.
If you want to know what the war was fought over, answer this question: Did the North effectively say to the South...
A) We'll continue to recognize your right to have slaves if you forfeit your right to self-government?
or
B) We'll recognize your right to self-government if you forfeit your right to have slaves?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 If either of those nuances in how a question was asked resulted in a civil war than both sides were idiots. I doubt the confederate states said "we'd be willing to give up slavery so long as..." but that doesn't seem to have happened. Appears to be purely on the slavery issue.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 States rights to do what? OWN SLAVES?!
@@KevanLetourneau What the Confederacy would hypothetically have been willing to say if the North hadn't actually said it would recognize the southern states' right to have slaves as long as they wanted so long as they forfeited their right to self-government is irrelevant to what the war was actually fought over. The war was actually fought over what the South wanted that the North wasn't willing to concede.
I grew up in the south an in elementary school almost every year we learned about the Civil War often called “The war of Northern Aggression” and how it was about States Rights.
Sad...delusions of persecution...all the while persecuting and enslaving blacks. This is mental illness.
@@Greenisthebestcolor Then whey did northern abolitionists around the time of the war basically say the same thing themselves?
@@Greenisthebestcolor I wouldn’t call it mental illness if call it destructive delusions
@@Greenisthebestcolor The horrors perpetrated at the hands of the Union were starkly real. Essentially, the South was given an ultimatum. Cease further conflict or we burn your cities and crops down. Both sides were wrong to varying degrees. Oh yes, and try telling that to the Confederate soldier families who were chained to posts in the heart of winter.
@@txmetalhead82xk this all happened because influencial rich southern estate owners wanted to keep holding humans as cattle just because it was more profitable for them.
In the 80s I was taught in public school that the Civil war was fought over slavery. That slavery was the foundation of the cotton economy and the states that were practicing slavery feared losing their economic and political power. I never even heard the idea of "states rights" until about 15 years ago. In a Ted talk or something where Texas was approving textbooks that called the KKK civic leaders, erased Thurgood Marshall from the curriculum, claimed that the Civil War was fought over states rights and referred to slaves as "imported labor." The whole thing made my skin crawl.
The war was fought over the southern states' secession, over their independence, over their right to self-government, over the northern states' claim to a right to enslave the southern states (and themselves, too, in the process.)
Yet another reason to never move to Texas.
@@sb4040 Good barbecue I hear, though.
@James Madison What are these "Articles of Confederacy"? Do you have a clue what you're talking about?
@James Madison And what did they say about slavery? One thing is sure whatever you're talking about, these "Articles of Confederacy" didn't say anything about the historical baseless myth that the North was going to free the South's slaves.
It’s crazy how history can be subjective to the ones writing it and teaching it. I grew up in NY and we were taught from a young age that the war was to end slavery. We were taught all the gruesome inhumane practices and it was a huge part of our classes. We even learned about slavery in other parts of the world like ancient China, Egypt, Rome and Mesopotamia, all the way back to the dawn of civilizations. They were definitely teaching to avoid repeating the mistakes human kind has made.
I remember when learning about the US Civil War and a classmate said that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. I laughed really hard and said:
“I don’t know what’s worse, that the Union troops was lead by a drunk. Or that the south got their butts handed to them by a drunk.”
But in all honesty I never believed “The Lost Cause” BS. I simply can not wrap my head around the concept of why owning and abusing a human being can be an okay concept.
"I grew up in NY and we were taught from a young age that the war was to end slavery."
Have you learned yet that you were taught a lie?
Shortly after the start of the war the US Congress officially declared by a practically unanimous vote: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]"
And the day after issuing the preliminary emancipation proclamation Lincoln said, “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
I learned that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree & then fessed up to his pappy, saying, "I cannot tell a lie..."......And that America was wonderful & perfect & that its history only began in 1776.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So congress even agreed that they weren't trying to take away states rights. Interesting.
Also interesting to hear that morality transcended even legal and constitutional grounds. It's particularly interesting to hear here these through a lens of 120 years later and to realize how absurd the idea of people being able to own another human being is / should be.
I dont agree. Those teaching about this part of history deem it to be objective and true, because they ignore facts that contradict their narrative - just like Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Theorists and other lunatics. Ever notice of much this statement applies to Republicans and those in the poor, badly educated Bible Belt of the US!!!!!
I was taught that there were many reasons why the South seceded, but that the primary cause was that the South wanted to retain their institution of slavery and they were afraid that Lincoln, who was just elected, would try to implement abolition. And I was taught furthermore that the other reasons stemmed in some way from the interest of preserving slavery.
No it was mainly slavery. They were already killing each other over it before the war started. Bloody Kansas was a unofficial civil war against pro abolitionist and pro slavers. They say there were many reasons just to confuse people. Not to mention members of congress were getting in physical fist fights over the debate.
While the debate over slavery was among the causes of secession, it was not among the causes of war. Secession and war are two completely different matters.
@@gaiustacitus4242I mean, the secession was just the first step in starting the war
@@richardgeorge2250 The South never wanted war, nor did secession have anything to do with starting the war.
You can lay the blame for war squarely at the feet of Lincoln.
I grew up in the New England states, and they always taught that slavery was the cause. Until one day in high school, my U.S. history teacher said, “They don’t teach this to you in the north, but the actual reason for the Civil War was state rights.” I believed him for a long while until someone else brought up that it is state rights, but state rights to have slavery.
I see why you believed them. A teacher is someone who we are taught to trust so when they say something like "State's Rights" it is difficult to not believe them given their position which makes teachers like those all the more despicable.
not really, it was about taxation among other issues
My 8th grade teacher was the best. I live in Michigan and he said the civil war was about slavery which made our cause much more just. However he also said that the north mostly refrained from slavery, not because we were better people. He pointed out the obvious that our economy (cold weather, indoor and factory based) wasn't conducive to slavery, as their's was down south.
@@embalmertrick1420 What taxation? New York was the most taxed state at the time.
Unfortunately, both are right. The difference is in the viewpoint of the different sides. To Northerners, it was about the horrid treatment of humans. But, we must remember that slavery was huge part of the South's economy. To them the issue was about states' rights and we will never know how many of the confederate states would have renounced slavery on their own over time.
One of the concerns of the day was, if the Federal Government can force this issue on states, what else may it? Well, we are seeing it now as states rights are under constant attack. Remember, the forming of the union was to solve only limited issues at the time. The remainder of problems were left to the states to resolve. But this point falls on deaf ears these days with the Progressives always pushing for centralized control over whatever they can get it for.
I’m from a poor white family of the south, particularly eastern Texas, and we lost ancestors to the war and we never took pride in it cause we knew it was nothing to be proud of
The average soldier in the South was not fighting for slavery. The war was about slavery and the Confederate leaders were fighting for slavery but the average soldier was not.
@@sbnwnc True, the average confederate soldier was fighting to have the right to have slaves, even if he could not afford one.That's the Southern American Dream. Also to deny anybody to call an African American his equal. That's he Southern unequality right.
Good to you for your wise concept in thinking
@@sbnwnc Doesn't excuse them completely.
@@terrymiller111 Agreed. But we have to live together. Everyone in France is related to a Resistance fighter. No one is related to a collaborator. Some lies are required to get along.
The right to own other people, subjugate, brutalize and murder them without consequence, the right to be uncivilized, inhumane and soulless, the right to be an animal among people... 'state rights'
slavery has always existed, and it still does. There are slaves in the USA right now. Funny how no one cares.
That's America for you. *rimshot
What a blatant example of americo-centrism
"Right to do what" is the best thing to ask a neoconfederate
@@raxusveritasright to economic power over the federal government
The Articles of Secession for every state seceding expressly stated that the preservation of slavery was why they seceded.
No, they didn't. Nice myth, though, if you hate government by the consent of the governed.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558Cornerstone speech.
@@bluecat7684 1. The so-called cornerstone speech certainly doesn't prove what the OP was saying which was a point about what he called the Articles of Secession.
2. What point do you think the cornerstone speech proves that I or anyone else would dispute? Stephens even says in that speech that he didn't believe the Republican-led North even wanted slavery to end.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 it doesn’t matter what the north wanted. It’s what the south identified as
Southerner: The civil war was about state's rights
Historian: Yes, the state's right to own slaves
Edit: This thread has gone on longer than I expected. Can we at least agree that there were people who were fighting to preserve slavery even if it wasn't the only reason.
State's rights to secede, decide taxation, decide laws.
@@crazando Nope. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
@@WeaslyTwin Yes it actually was the rights I mentioned. What you brought up was a quote from a speech from a man with no power in the CSA
@@crazando Virtually every single states declaration of succession directly lists slavery as a reason...
Oof I commented a similar thing before I saw ur comment... sorry
Sadly, there are a lot of lies in American history
Uh, that's the case with every country lol.
But... Who made them is the question..
@@amicableenmity9820 yep, that's what happens when the winners gets to write history
@@paulkenjerski5137 thats a good question
In my country, there are not lies but less focus on important leaders of past years and biasness towards some leaders like Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru instead of Subhash Chandra Bose and Dr BR Ambedkar
People really have no idea how horrible the institution of slavery was and just how complicit people were in keeping it alive. This video connects well with the Orwellian video on this same page.
and Northern States/commonwealths also had slavery!
@@bobbytutton3270 "All Northern states had abolished slavery in some way by 1805; sometimes, abolition was a gradual process, a few hundred people were enslaved in the Northern states as late as the 1840 census."
tell me, who freed the slaves and who enslaved them? UNION W
Northern states we’re just as guilty.I had family union and confederation.
@@vintinoo1924 Africans caught other African tribesmen and sold them into slavery. But then again every race had been enslaved
@@jeffrothegamer all northern states abolished slavery by 1805 COMMON UNION W
I was born and raised in the old South (S Carolina, Georgia, in the 1940-50s) and remember my Gramma referring to "the great patriotic war against Northern aggression". Loved my Gramma, but I grew up and got a degree in History (along with 3 others). Alas, my Gramma was wrong; the sayng should have been "the misbegotten, ill-considered war to preserve barbarism". Yet I still see Americans parading around flying the stars and bars and proclaiming themselves to be the "true" patriots. True patriots do not celebrate insurrections and lost causes that decimated a portion of the country, setting it back for almost a century.
But you need education for that. Something that many Americans are reluctant to get. 😢
"The thing about truth is.. It can be denied. Not avoided."
-Prince EA
truth is rarely pure and never simple - Oscar Wilde
The biggest lies are the ones told the most
"You do not have depression."
- Prince EA
@@samtepal3892 lol i remember this
Funny thing Prince EA said that, since he manufactures trues to go with his narrative.
I grew up and still live in Kentucky and was taught the Civil War was about states rights and not about slavery. It wasn’t until I grew up and read more that I know the truth about the war starting over slavery. There are signs to this day at historic sites that read, The War of Northern Aggression!
"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, November 7, 1861
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 It was a war fought to preserve the country and put an end to slavery.
Yet who fired the first shot? Our (South) dumbasses, that's who. There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country. Unprovoked firing on a military installation isn't one of them. I'm guessing these pinheads forgot all about Franklin's travels (and what he was doing) during the Revolution. Not surprising, my fellow southerners seem addicted to willful ignorance.
Secession due to slavery
War due to keeping the union
@@careyfreeman5056 "There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country."
Not when the North refused to even negotiate.
Here's what a couple northern abolitionists said about it at the time:
"...the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate party, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other."
"It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?" -George Bassett
Whenever someone pulls out the canard that the Civil War was about states' rights, I always ask, "So if slavery had never existed, the Civil War would have happened anyway, right?" Usually shuts them up.
I know right? I just ask them "The States rights to what?" and they always fumble trying to avoid slavery as their answer.
You can add that under the Confederacy no state was allowed to END slavery per their constitution.
@@wiscgaloot Every single crisis in American history from 1848 to 1861 was about slavery.
Good one!
Wait. Where is Captain American and Ironman in this?
They were fighting in a secluded fort. Not very likely to be seen.
It is sad how far this myth has spread, all the way to our history curriculum in India.
The only myth here is that the Union was on a righteous crusade to end slavery.
@@squarecracker The Union fought to end Slavery, that Confederates to maintain Slavery and to expand the institution
@@finalMadfox That's an outright lie. Look up the Corwin Amendment. They were ready to pass a constitutional guarantee to protect slavery constitutionally (where it already existed). You are correct that the *expansion* of slavery played a major role in the conflict, but it's far from the sole cause and a totally unsympathetic portrayal of the southern cause. In my opinion it's more properly called "The War for Southern Independence". The idea that that they were fighting to end slavery is preposterous on it's face. Lincoln did not choose to resupply Ft Sumter because of slavery.
@finalMadfox The South fought to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union.The eradication of slavery was a side note but it is not why the North went to war. They went to war because the south seceded. the self seceeded to protect slavery.
@@RayB50 You do realize it was the South who started it all by attacking Federal property and then Fort Sumter. And also the diea that the war was just about to preserve the Union is wrong, due to the Emmancipation proclamation which made the whole war about abolishing slavery, not just restoring the Union
On a high-school history-class exam in Gary, Indiana, in 1958, the multiple-choice question asked What was the cause of the Civil War? I answered, "slavery." My answer was marked wrong by the teacher, who insisted that the cause was defense of states' rights! I have never forgotten this.
Damn thats rough mahn
Critical Race was abolished by this history teacher.
Tomato tomato.... States rights yes! the main one being the right to slavery.
Seriously, even if state's rights was one of the causes, it wasn't the only cause, and definitely wasn't the primary cause.
It was correctly marked "wrong".
"History teaches, but it has no pupils." - Antonio Gramsci
The problem isn’t history itself but who is teaching it and from what perspective.
A reasonable quote, but odd that it comes from one of the infamous fathers of Cultural Marxism
@@trumpetpunk42 cultural marxism? isnt that a conspiracy theory...
The Cornerstone Speech should be the first piece of evidence brought against anyone saying it wasn't about slavery.
So basically, they lost and were too embarrassed to acknowledge what they were fighting for.
They were fighting for independence. They had a right to independence. And the people that deny the fact that they were fighting for independence deny the right of a state to secede for any reason, which goes to show that they, too, are only using talk about slavery to conceal the real point, namely their opposition to free government.
the truth is that the south lost, and the North wanted to make sure that no one questioned the federal government so they added Slavery to the war like it was something they wanted to get rid of in the south. Lying Lincoln wanted to save the union he didn't beleve that none white people had know how of what to do with freedom because they were not white
Yes, basically. That about sums it up.
Nope, they hide it so people forget so they can do it again
What a reductionist view that is needlessly provocative. Even if the leaders of the confederacy had their own reasons for seceding, did you think the common soldier fought for that? Of course not. To them they fought because the North had invaded after they declared themselves free. They fought to protect their land. And it is that belief - of the masses, not the leaders - that formed the states rights view.
I grew up in central Indiana, started elementary school in the mid 60s, and I was taught that the civil war was about preserving the union first and ending slavery second. I didn’t learn the states’ rights argument till I went to college-and even then it was held up as an example of racism. I’m surprised to hear that my experience wasn’t the norm.
The Civil War was fought over whether slavery would expand into the Western Territories.
You were taught the truth
i wonder if preserving the union could have mabe possibly been conected to STATES RIGHTS ,just a thought
shame on your teachers for not teaching the truth in history,it does not need to be rewritten
@@harryholyfield1550 define re-written
Ted ed has this magical power to make you feel well learned within a span of 5 min
Yes, that is a the product of hard work by many intelligent people.
and animation. sweet, sweet animation!
ruclips.net/video/qD3kqf4eZPo/видео.html
Jammu Kashmir related vlog
Or 3 minutes if you watch at 1.5x speed ;)
@@K4R3N lol
It's worth noting that in reference to the "States' Rights" argument, such an argument on the basis of a state's right to allow or disallow slavery would favor the union more than the confederacy at the beginning of the war. The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it.
"The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it."
No, it didn't. (It banned the central government of the Confederacy from abolishing slavery -- which the US constitution at the time implicitly did, too, according to Lincoln and practically everyone else, and Lincoln likewise said he had "no objection to" a constitutional amendment which would have made that protection of slavery "express and [going beyond the Confederate constitution, even] irrevocable" -- but the Confederate constitution made a point of *not* prohibiting states from abolishing slavery, and it even provided for issues that would arise in states that would abolish slavery.)
And you're advancing an absurd re-definition of states rights, too. States rights are the constitutional rights of states. If the constitution prohibits states from granting titles of nobility, it's not anti-states rights to oppose states granting titles of nobility, because it's explicitly not a state's right.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 you’re pro-slavery
I attended school in a rural southern town in the 90s. The history being taught was very dependent on who was teaching. I definitely had teachers that tried to downplay slavery's role in the Civil War, but I heard far more Lost Cause rhetoric from older members of the community. There are plenty of younger people that believe these lies because that's what they were told by their family.
your last sentence...
generational hate
teaches the next generations to continue
the hate
Lost Causes are only worthwhile if they're noble. The Confederacy was in no way noble.
I had the same situation growing up - in the 90s and a Southern town. And I noticed the same patterns as well. Those patterns are still present today… sadly, those narratives are incredibly persistent.
Actually the US government lied. Not about slavery existing, but about the real reason for burning and slaughtering the south
You’ll only believe what you’ve been told without ever digging any deeper for the truth. But again the south never cared if you knew the truth because this country was torn apart as soon as the government began over taxing US citizens even though it was supposed to be a “free country” free from the over taxation of England. BS young northern children easily believe what they’re told and go their whole lives without ever thinking to find for themselves Never the wiser
Of course, when northern states passed laws that forbade enslaved butlers, maids, valets, and cooks from being brought by their owners into those northern states, the slaveowners did not acknowledge northern states' rights to do this but instead whined bitterly.
And when they did my ancestors stole them and took them to freedom.
@@-Subtle- If you ever come through Belmont County, Ohio. Go to the village of Flushing, for one of the Underground Railroad museums. R.I.P. Dr. John Matox. On an unrelated note Belmomt County had the first dually elected female sheriff in America.
not exactly slavery. it was livelihood.
the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses
the south relied on slavery for their farms and products
they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.
@@Dubs22005 Thier livelihood WAS Slavery. So they fought for slavery.
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.” - Jefferson Davis
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution
The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom.
There was only one "state's right" they were fighting for: owning other people.
It's an historically baseless myth that anyone was challenging that right, and the South certainly didn't fight for a right that wasn't threatened by remaining in the union. Look up the Corwin amendment for overwhelming evidence of what the North wasn't challenging.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 You are correct that the majority of the Northern population was not advocating abolition, but the South viewed slavery as threatened and acted according to that view. That's why it was front and center in the debates and the secession declarations. The North saw this, and Seward and Corwin tried to spread oil on the water by proposing the amendment, but it was too late. Every other issue was not a hill anyone was threatening to die on. Transportation, tariff, and finance issues were all resolvable politically, and on agricultural policies, Southern farmers and Midwest farmers were already allies against the East Coast commercial interests.
@@TundraTrash Sure, slavery was threatened (as it was threatened everywhere inside and outside the union, in Cuba, Brazil, etc.), but you seem to be saying that slavery in the southern states was threatened particularly by remaining in the union. Is that indeed what you're suggesting? And if so, how do you think the union threatened slavery? And how do you think seceding offered any hope of protecting against those threats?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I'm not saying the North was threatening slavery. I'm saying the South thought slavery was threatened, and that is why it seceded.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 AND BTW, I would note that your namesake was more of an abolitionist than most Northerners, and he paid for it within the AOT.
The Conferacy lasted 4 years. The Hazbin Hotel franchise is older than that
Government by the consent of the governed lasted 89 years, not just the final 4 that the North fought to destroy it and the South fought to defend it.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 traitor spotted
@@DonsStudios Why do you consider everyone that believes in the principles that American independence was founded on a traitor?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558He doesn't, just neo confederates who try to excuse slavery and the rebellion to preserve it.
@@definitely_not_Hirohito If the war was in any way fought over slavery, why do you use the term "rebellion" to describe it? Would it be any more or less a "rebellion" if states fought for independence today under completely different circumstances?
And what are you imagining the war was fought to "preserve" slavery from? What are you imagining would have happened to slavery if the southern states had never seceded in the first place and never fought for their right to independence?
I like how for a lot of deeply analyzed historical events, the answer actually IS that simple.
Basic answer: The South seceded because they wanted to keep their slaves.
Moderate answer: The South actually seceded because of a whole bunch of other things, of which slavery is just one part
Deep answer: All those other things are either lies or just slavery in disguise, and the South DID secede because they wanted to keep their slaves.
Edit: Anyone who wants to argue about this, please don't it won't help anyone. Even if you're agreeing with me just don't.
@@goldenhawk352 I invite you and all of your cronies to look up the video series “Checkmate Lincolnites,” because it goes into much more detail than I ever could in a single comment.
But the North fought the Civil War for two years, ONLY to hold the Union together, before it finally abolished slavery in the South. So, if the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, then the South wasn't fighting to keep it. Just saying, it is hard to say the civil war started as a shooting match because Slavery had been abolished, when it was never abolished until 2 years into the shooting match. If the South had ended the war before those two years, the punitive measure of abolishing slavery may never had even happened at all.
@@OakInch It’s in the constitution of the Confederacy that all confederate states must allow for slavery. See also the videos I reccomended earlier.
@@goldenhawk352 The Confederacy did more than just shoot that one Union outpost. Before any shots were fired they already called upon soldiers.
However, I think this argument should come to an end, because what will we gain from this? Petty satisfaction that someone on the internet was wrong? I won’t. And I don’t think you will either.
@@paprus5972 And they were still allowed to have slavery 2 years into the Civil War. So that means the actual shooting war started, and was fought by the North, with no intent to end slavery, for two years. So what was the North fighting for two years if it wasn't to end slavery? The answer is to hold the Union together.
Imagine how much 'revision' in the wars the US fought overseas if this much is in a war fought domestically...
We’d need a whole year to go over all that
I mean most people don't know that the US lost the Vietnam War so…
as a Vietnamese, I can clearly feel what you said
Don't need to imagine. A little digging will show you we were in Vietnam for dubious reasons and the whole Bush era wars so far most people would accept we went in there on a lie.
If I make a series on US history, I will dedicate an entire episode just to obscure wars in Latin America that the US fought in the early 20th century, and another to all the "Free World" coups that the US government was involved in throughout the Cold War!
For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
Taught history for 30+ years. States Rights was an issue, but it was based on the demand to maintain slavery. Slavery was the root cause. Read the Mississippi Declaration of Succession. It spells it out clearly. Conversely, the North did not fight to free the slaves. It fought to preserve the Union. The slavery issue brought about the goofy Electoral College system and the Senate filibuster (among many other unfair laws and practices). We still suffer from the effects of slavery today.
Slavery had been around for centuries. It was around when the states freely came together into the re-established union under the constitution. How then can it make any sense to say it was the cause of the union coming apart? It doesn't.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So if something is active for years it can't cause issues leading to war? Your logic is a joke. Taxation without representation has been around for centuries. With your logic the American Revolution would never have happened.
@@snuffyballparks6501 Taxation without representation hadn't been around for centuries, not in the British colonies that became the United States. That's why it caused a strong reaction when it was introduced. Let me guess, as a history teacher you had all the expertise and accountability of our tax-funded school system?
@snuffyballparks6501 +++
EC/EV and (more severely) two-US-Senators per state give slavers/oligarchs a huge power advantage.
0:10 Why so many debunking myths videos present a map with the two Virginias separated? It was a one state at the time, Western Virginia came to be as a result of the Civil War.
At the end of the day they still left Virginia after secession so not sure why you are having a conniption over it. Like what 2 years at most.
I definitely had an AP U.S History teacher who talked about the "states rights" argument. I learned more from Ken Burns than I did in my supposedly collegiate level class.
How could it be any different?
@@kreigkubachi3732 The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution
Slavery, only. This was the second 'sentence'.
Wake up, slavery from Africa, still is, that was and is the problem, that was what Alexander Stephen was trying to say, and the USA is a free Federal Government.
Burns was a Leftist propagandist.
If Ken Burns is the biggest source of your Civil War knowledge then you have a lot more to learn.
It's really a "Lie", not a "Myth". Using the word "Lie" might sound too preachy, although accurate. The word "Myth" softens it into a legend, or at least a folktale, possibly based on truth.
...unless you keep on and keep on telling it like its the truth. That's what makes it "a lie". Simple.
It could be based in truth. There may have been a very small group who genuinely fought for states' rights and didn't care about slavery and everyone else just pretended that they all believed that when they lost. Then it's more of an exaggeration than a lie.
well it is based around a twisted truth. they are simply double speaking which is different than lying.
@@owenwillard5409 No, it's exactly the same as lying. It isn't the truth, is it? Pretty simple, as are they. And there are no "twisted truths", by the way: the truth is the truth. It is never "twisted" unless it is a lie.
It's a myth because many believed it.
and you can end any lost cause argument by asking "states rights to what" and they will immediatley back down.
Good one.
most frequent reply is "the Morrill tariffs" (though those don't/didn't fit into the secession timeline)
Wrong!
Self-government!
You don't actually believe there was any states' right having to do with slavery that the states sought to gain or secure by seceding that the Republican-led North wasn't entirely willing to concede, do you?
If you read 9th and 10th constitutional amendments, you will see about states rights in simple English. Politics of the left disregard the founding document.
The myth started before the end of the war. When Confederates where seeking for support in Europe. Slavery was absolutely unpopular there, so they came up with a series of alternative reasons that made them look like a rural utopia threatened by the expansionism of the greedy US.
Excellent point! I think you've summed up the development of the situation very accurately. The only issue that remains to be argued is whether or not their "alternative reasons" had sufficient merit to defend the Confederacy with military engagement. I personally think they did. (I'm a 63 yo, 5th generation Canadian whose ancestors were colonial American patriots in NJ who fought for the American Revolution... moving to Upper Canada just before the US Civil War broke out.)
"The last shot of The American Revolution, will not be fired, until all men are freed.", John Quincy Adams...
The Lost Cause myth is one of those weird instances where history was written by the losers.
But it’s actually not, because the lost cause is not the main narrative taught in schools- or anywhere for that matter. There will always be 2 sides to every story, and the losing side will almost always have their own perspective of events. So there’s nothing that weird or unique about it, really.
@@apeyb5606 true, but there’s a difference between perspective and literally distorting history.
Also World World 2 was actually written by the losers, since the Cold War happened right after WW2, the West and the USSR distorted how they won the war. The Nazis just filled in the blanks. It’s why the whole Germans attacked the USSR in the winter myth is still so common, even though they attacked in the Summer.
@@apeyb5606 It is though. In Texas history books can literally not be sold to schools if they don't mention The Lost Cause
@@That_GuyRUclips You actually believe WW2 history was "written by the losers"... Lol WOW ! I have a bridge to sell you in London.
@@bobshenix well, sort of. Not the entire war by a longshot, but much of the accepted history of what happened on the Eastern front was dictated by German generals (due to the iron curtain and cold war). It's where most of the "RuSsIanS uSEd hUmAn wAvEs aNd wOn oNlY wItH nUmBeRs" and "muh clean Wehrmacht" ideas originated.
The most concise explanation of secession was by South Carolina Senator Laurence Keitt: "The anti-slavery party [Lincoln’s Republicans] contends that slavery is wrong, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate republic of sovereign States."
Or this: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."
-Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
Funny thing is SC never succeed because it’s impossible for a state to succeed. US never acknowledged it. The union existed before the states. SC tried to illegally succeed and failed
And this, my dear classmates, is why we need to learn history properly.
"The Civil War has been over for about 150 years, not so you'd notice, just kinda on paper" - George Carlin
Brit in the UK. Fascinating video, thank you. The idea that anybody thinks that the American civil war was about anything other than slavery was new to me.
Multiple famous Northerners, including abolitionists, presidents of the US from northern states, famous Englishmen of the time, Lincoln, the US Congress, notable Southerners... all contradicted the myth that the war was "about slavery." What do you even mean by that anyway? Do you mean that the northern states were refusing to uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves and the southern states, without making any further demands for the return of fugitive slaves from the northern states, declared the constitutional compact broken? Do you mean that Republicans were threatening to abolish slavery and the southern states secede to try to avoid abolition being forced on them and the North then went to war to force abolition on them? Or do you just mean to imply that if anything relating to slavery had however indirect a connection to the war, that it's fair to say the war was "about slavery" in the same way 9/11 was about the Palestinian territories?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 More lies. Sad
@Patrick Cleburne You will never escape the words of the Confederares.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
There is literally no reasoning with someone as well read as you. You’ve drunk the biased koolaid and will never truly learn. Amazing display of cognitive dissonance.
@@icevariable9600 And what koolaid did all the abolitionists, other Northerners, US presidents from northern states, Englishmen, other foreigners... that defended the right of peoples, including the people of the southern staets, to choose their own governments even through and after the War of Northern Aggression drink?
In elementary school, I was taught that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. About 6th or 7th grade, I encountered the idea that it was about a state’s right to secede, and even then, I thought the idea didn’t make sense. After all, if the reason they wanted to secede was so they could keep slavery . . . then, wasn’t the root cause still slavery? Seemed pretty obvious to me.
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.” - Jefferson Davis
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution
The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom.
@@SouthernGentleman Which people? ALL the PEOPLE, or just the ones with the light skin tone? And if they were to operate as "independent nations" within a nation then why weren't they given the right to secede in their own constitution or make laws against slavery if they wanted to? You are using Lost Causer SOPs(standard operating procedures), ie: cherry picking info that seems to support your arguments without the context or the full info. When you LITERALLY ignore written documents and spoken words, (declarations of secession, Cornerstone speech, their FULL constitution)... You are DENYING actual factual history in order to support the South's right to continue and EXPAND slavery in perpetuity. Why do you identify with the slaveholders and traitors??? The bad guys? And if you don't consider them bad guys, then you have a bigger problem than just distorting historical facts. And we both KNOW what that problem is...
Stop being a socialist revisionist ignoring 7 out of 13 of the confederacy’s documents. 7 confederate states didn’t mention slavery and the 6 that did mentioned slavery like the U.S constitution. 70% of the south didn’t have slavery, every race fought for the confederacy, and the last confederate General was a Native American. Get an education
@@SouthernGentleman And...you didn't or CAN'T answer ANY of my questions from my first reply. WHY? Because it would incriminate you? We both know why.
@@USGrant-rr2by Stop being a socialist revisionist ignoring 7 out of 13 of the confederacy’s documents. 7 confederate states didn’t mention slavery and the 6 that did mentioned slavery like the U.S constitution. 70% of the south didn’t have slavery, every race fought for the confederacy, and the last confederate General was a Native American. Get an education
This argument is easily countered by asking:
"States rights for what?"
Ultimately, the right to alter or to abolish their form of government, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But more specifically, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, the right of each state to judge for itself, as well of infractions of the constitution, as of the mode & measure of redress.
Any other questions?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558
While this may not necessarily be wrong, you're taking the issue out of context for the time between 1861-1865.
@@TRNATO1 Then how would you answer your own question?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 slavery dude. If the south won, they would still have slavery. Simple
@@danomyte67 And if the South hadn't seceded in the first place they would have still had slavery. So there's no difference, is there?
And regardless, the North wasn't challenging the South's right to have slavery, so that's certainly not what the North and South fought over: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." -Lincoln
MISSISSIPPI: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
It's been said that the North fought to free the slaves (wrong) and that the South fought for states' rights (wrong). What I think is that it was actually the inverse: the North fought _against_ a state's right to unilaterally secede from the Union, and the South fought _against_ the abolition they were sure would be forced on them if they remained in the Union.
nailed it friend
this is one smart man ,but left out the taxation on the south only to benefit the aggressive northern states and the right to buy equipment from england instead of the disguting greedy north its still the same today we will pay 10 times the worth of a new car or truck on half of the salary
That's probably as close as anyone can get to summarising the situation.
@@harryholyfield1550 You sound like a Navajo...
The South made clear they were seceding to preserve the institution of slavery. Lincoln made clear he was fighting against secession to preserve the Union. The abolition of slavery was certainly *a* motivation for fighting by the North, but secondary to the North's primary motivation of preserving the Union. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was delivered, that tied abolition of slavery in the southern states more clearly to the war effort. I always think the big cause was the incompatibility of a medieval race-based serfdom form of government with a more industrial, free labor democratic one. As Lincoln knew, it ultimately had to be one or the other.
I grew up in Greece and it was always known that the US civil war was about slavery. I had no idea there was another narrative.
And here I was thinking it was a war about the economy, which just happened to be build around slavery for most of the confederate states.
Goes hand in hand.
Slavery was at the heart of the Civil War, but the reasons were not limited to the moral controversy.
not exactly slavery. it was livelihood.
the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses
the south relied on slavery for their farms and products
they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.
@@Dubs22005 That's partly true...
slavery was the excuse, the cause was the classical rural v/s urban/industrial/banking conflict that defined the industrial era (a worldwide fenomena that covers almost the entire XIX and XX centuries)
Bruh the UDC is literally just the first Karens
What about the bigots' that put down any one named Karen?
Lmao yeah
"Karen" as a pejorative, if you actually have any understanding of it, is someone who insists on butting into other's business and sicking "authorities" onto them to force conformity to their world view. The Yankee was the undisputed Karen of the two sides.
@@billconroy2880 Calm down, Karen
I wonder how long till I see a Karen statement
In the 70s my history teacher stressed that the war was started over more than one issue, yes slavery and states rights being one of those but the forgotten and often erased issue was unfare trade and tax of goods between the north and south. As in most cases wars begin with more than one cause and end with resolution not always accepted by all . History books of today leave out the issues of fair trade and taxation and focus on slavery , I find it disturbing that we accept the truth being watered down to fit a narrative that seems aimed at keeping a racial fire burning. Slavery was wrong and still is today, but not printing the whole truth is shorting our kids of knowledge and content.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
Not one mention of 'unfair', 'trade' or 'tax'. This is the 2nd 'sentence' of the a**holes declaration. Your 'teacher' was the problem, not history. SLAVERY, SLAVERY and SLAVERY were the reason.
The North were the aggressors and Southerners saw the issue of slavery through a lens that was not filtered by today's moraes. They were living their lives as they had always been. The young men that got crushed were simply defending their way of life.
We tried to avoid the conversation in school. This was taboo and worthy of being fired or expelled for being discussed. No different than abortion, non traditional marriage, religion, or WW2 Germany. It wasn’t until college, I could have these conversations and I got to hear arguments from all perspectives. Our school just cared about us excelling in sports and auto mechanics
I taught at a school whose motto was “The Truth Shall Set You Free”… sounds like the motto at yours should have been “The Truth Shall Make You Ashamed”
What was the problem with WW2 Germany that it was nit talked about?
The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in 1854. When their Presidential Candidate won in 1860 the South feared Lincoln would abolish slavery and so they rebelled to found their own country and keep the practice of slavery alive in the South
It was not about “State’s Rights.” If it was, why did they rebel to found their own new nation?
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one
"the South feared Lincoln would abolish slavery" How would he have done that? By throwing out the constitution and ruling like a dictator? Do you mean the South feared Lincoln's election meant the end of the constitution and the rule of law?
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I guess the Republican party having an overwhelming majority in the house and the senate isn't how Lincoln was going to abolish slavery eh?!
That's what they meant. It was about states rights to choose for themselves whether or not to have slavery.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558oh no, we have to force people to not own other people, womp womp, cry more Dixie boy
@@MagnusSheeler > we have to force people to not own other people
That's a nice revisionist myth if you hate government by the consent of the governed, but of course your narrative is pure BS myth. The reality is the North was totally willing to go along with slavery in the South so long as the southern states didn't assert their right to independence and self-government.
As a southern man, I understand the desire to want the Lost Cause to be true. No one wants to think of their relatives as having died for a bad cause. We can still respect and remember them as people and our family, but let us not glorify the war itself. It was a tragedy for the south of the highest order and it didn’t need to happen. Memorialize the fallen, but don’t memorialize the war itself.
Good people fight for bad causes sometimes
@@sbnwnc Indeed. At the end of the day, I don’t believe the common front line fighting man should be blamed for the war he’s sent to fight. He’s simply defending his community, as all men have been expected to do for all of time.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 As a northern man, I understand the desire to want the Righteous Cause Myth to be true. No one wants to think of their relatives having died for a bad cause or their country having fought for a bad cause. The South had a right to secede. The North's cause was altogether unjustified.
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I’d say ending slavery was more important.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 That the war was about ending slavery is the historically baseless Righteous Cause Myth I was talking about.
The Union even officially declared by a practically unanimous vote of Congress at the start of the war that, "this war is not waged... for any purpose... of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States..."
It was always about slavery, until they lost the war, then it suddenly wasn’t.
Tear down the UDC stuff, and teach a history as written by the victors, not the losers trying to make excuses for their poor choice to fight a war they couldn’t win (“There’s no cannon factories in the south” -Rhett Butler.)
I mean, it's not like the winners can lie about history or anything (I'm not defending the UDC, I'm just saying that "teach a history as written by the victors" isn't always all that good)
And funny thing is... they did nearly win, despite all the disadvantages.
How do you figure it was always about slavery when the North went to war formally declaring that it wasn't at all about slavery? Even abolitionists called out the false pretenses of the North.
@@markdaniel9657 History should not be based on the victors, nor the losers.
It should be based on the facts.
The facts are that the Southern states openly declared they were fighting for slavery.
the northern states, however, were not fighting to abolish slavery.
The northern states were fighting to keep the country from falling apart.
Abolition came later and was simply a tool towards victory
@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The South went to wart over slavery.
The north went to war over holding the nation together.
It was always about slavery because the south were the ones that started it over slavery.
I'm 64. I was taught both things in my grade and high school years. I have no problem with that dichotomy, agreeing that slavery was the primary reason.
No, they were defending slavery.
I was taught a mixture of both. That while the South did fight for the sovereignty of the individual states from the federal government, the right was primarily slavery, which was one of the reasons Texas seceded from Mexico as well
I’m an illinoisian
It was all driven by pure greed, a desire to keep making a profit no matter who suffers
Yes. "Cotton is King". Slavery was free labor for big cotton. Huge profits is all that mattered. Those who suffered were expendable.
@@namvet1968 Indeed
like in Hellenistic Greece or perhaps they were "less worse" @@namvet1968
I didn't learn anything about the Civil War till adultnight school in the mid 80s.
A middle age teacher said " if you answered slavery to what was the cause of the civil war, you ll get an F.
He wanted to hear about tariffs etc...not slavery!!
This was a central New Jersey public school GED class.
The total tax generation for all northern ports, including New York, was $48.3 million. New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues.
The entire South generated only $4.0 million in tariff revenues, with New Orleans being the southern port that collected the most, at $3.1 million.
New Orleans was captured without resistance by the Union in 1862.
he was right
Lost Causer: "The Civil War was about States' Rights."
Anyone: "States' right to do what, exactly?"
Lost Causer: "ShUt uP!"
State's rights to secede, decide taxes, form alliances
@@crazando Why did they want to secede? What issue were they so concerned that the Federal government might eventually decide on? 🤔
All roads lead to slavery. There's only one reason one would argue they don't. I think we both know what that reason is.
No matter how much cognitive dissonance it possesses, the Confederacy will never be able to claim the moral high ground in the American Civil War. The Union can't always claim it either, but they can sometimes which always more than never.
"- The Secession was NOT about slavery, it was about states' right!!!!"
"- States' rights to WHAT?"
"- ...er....." (crickets)
The state's right to determine how to govern itself, didn't you watch?
"Especially in regards to"
*crickets turned to 11*
*nervous sweat*
"In order to preserve the institution of"
"So how about them dallas cowboys?"
*faceplam*
A state's right right to decide for itself how to address issues not addressed by the Constitution per the Tenth Amendment. Even IF the issue was slavery, it was Federal overreach to decide the matter without states' input. There was no law against slavery until after the so-called civil war. Why not before? Why not DURING? Of course, it was an era when passions were stirred by matters of principal, a philosophy rapidly fading since the end of WWII.
@@iasimov5960 It was more so due to Morality growing. People began to realize what slavery truly meant as real accounts from slaves from the south began to circulate to the north. To many people in the north who weren't apart of the government, it wasn't a heavily known fact what slaves lives were like. but as more slaves escaped to the north, slaves day to day struggles and lives became more and more well known. It was also, at that time, that other countries were abolishing slavery. As well as the United states government wanted to have those men and women who were seen as slaves in the south, be American citizens, as, by that point, they had been in the US for generations, and thus would have been considered US Citizens much like you or I would at the time. And the reason why there were no laws until after, well, in the north there wasn't really a need for slaves, as well as the north was where most major cities were and more common practices from other major cities like London for instance, were rather common. The reason why laws were made after the war was because the law could be made Nation Wide and followed since they had a war about it, and the nation was unified
@★ Froggie Animation ★ Why did the civil war start? Because the Federal Government was going to overreach and dictate how states should govern themselves. Which back in the day was a massive issue of dispute. With the end result being the decision that states don't really have the freedom to govern themselves.
I went to live in the south for a little while. I remember how my niece won an essay competition presided over by the Daughters of the Confederacy. Her prize was a $5 bill. She was so proud. I couldn't resist pointing out how it was Abraham Lincoln who defeated the Confederacy.
I understand where you're coming from, but you will have to tell her eventually....
Abe Lincoln lost his life because of an illegal war.
@@staceytetzlaff2822 He said he already told her, Numbnuts.
and everyone knows that he was the worst president ever in history half of the population killed under his bad leadership
lincoln by far the worst president ever ,ubtil sleepy joe brandon
Also after the civil war, many confederates ran into south American countries where slavery wasn't abolished yet, an interesting example was the Confederate colony of Americana in Brazil, the Brasilian empire will not abolish slavery until 1888 when the princes Isabel, daughter of Emperor Pedro the II, signed the abolition of slavery in the country.
Also many other confederates moved to Cuba, and owned many sugar plantations of the island, that will not abolish slavery until 1880.
"What shall men remember"
I hope future generations will acknowledge all the horror and good that we are making today.
I grew up in Nebraska back in the '50's. The one thing that was stressed to us was that the Civil War was not about slavery - it was about states' rights. I don't remember anything else that the teachers cared about. But they definitely wanted to make sure that we understood what the Civil War was "really" all about.