Feel free to hit the like button and subscribe for more content. I would also love to hear your suggestions for future reactions-drop them in the comments below!🙏
It may not seem like a long time ago to you. But it's been so long that not even our great-grandparents. Could be all the responsible for it. It was only 40 years after the United States became independent exactly 40 years. That slavery was outlawed. The people should not be blamed either as it happened. Legal during the time that it was under control by Great Britain. And to quote over simplified, saying that they were stolen from their homes is not true. They were sold into slavery by their own people and bought. A white man was more likely to catch malaria than they were to catch their own slaves. And that is fact quote me if Anyone asks you.😠
One thing that isn't often noted is how the slave trade was actually undergoing a slow decline through the 1700s. Eli Whitney saw this, and hoped his invention of the cotton gin in 1793 would help to accelerate its downfall. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect; by eliminating one of the most time-consuming parts of cotton farming (removing the seeds), the cotton gin unintentionally made slavery extremely profitable again, causing the slave trade to grow to unprecedented heights through the 1800s up until the Civil War.
Also, the US prior to the Civil War was structured a lot more like the modern day European Union. The whole reason our states are called "states" as opposed to "provinces" is because the original intention of the US was to be an alliance and economic union of sovereign states. Americans of the time identified with their state more than with the US as a whole, and in fact most of the army units that participated in the war on both sides were raised from the states rather than the federal government (thus getting units like "20th Maine" or "1st Minnesota"). Aside from the abolition of slavery, the biggest legacy of the Civil War is that it created the American identity, and is really where the US became an actual country unto itself.
True but it also highlights the effective industrialization. In just twenty years, industrealization would rapidly be pursued by the former slave owners to make up for their loss of slaves. Leaving the former slaves without jobs. And for the next forty to fifty years, those descendants of the slaves would be poor and impoverished simply because of industrialization pushing them out of the job market. If the slave trade had continued without the civil war. In all likelihood the slave trade would have slowed down. Industrialization would have taken over. Less slaves would be bought. And the number of slaves and total would reduce. Essentially slavery would have ended on its own given enough time.
Not just that but the cotton-gin was crazy easy to copy so his patent on the cotton gin was worthless. Every Tom Dick and Harry could copy it and make their own.
another reason was new breeds of cotton could grow in parts of the south they couldn't previously, allowing it to become the dominant cash crop. It is the direct reason that the trail of tears took place, the formerly unvaluable land became very profitable.
It still is true that Americans identify themselves by what state you’re from. Every state has its own identity, culture, music and food. We’re all American but state identity is still a huge part of our society
Fun fact, Czar Alexander II sent the Baltic fleet to dock in New York City Harbor. The Pacific fleet was sent to San Francisco Harbor. With orders that if the British Empire joined the war, they were to fight for the Union. Odd how that little fact gets ignored.
I am not sure it is odd that it is left out. The American Civil War was a historical event that was recorded extensively and is complicated beyond mere political disagreement -- southerners to this day refuse to admit the core conflict was about slavery. It's not really a critical fact that Alexnder II offered this noble gesture. To talk about every incident and figure one would have to have a college degree.
@@DeveusBelkan *Some southerners. I can admit the faults of my ancestors. It was a brutal and bloody war over owning people. And that sickens me, even as a southerner.
@@TheWolfman112 That was partly the reason but the only reason for the war. Think about it, 99% of the soldiers for the Confederate side didn't own slaves. You think they fought and died for slave owners? No. it was about state's rights including right to secession. One of the main points from that was slavery. But a Private in the Confederate Army didn't give a crap about slavery one way or the other.
Lincoln believed in abolition, but his 1st priority was preserving the integrity of the nation. He once said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
@@benjamindouglas862I'd say your right but before I fully agree tell me who the first president wAs ...? When you say George Washington I'll ask you to Google it he wasn't the 1st unless you mean after the Constitution then he was the first also I'd put JFK as one of the best
@@Rivanni1I’d throw both Roosevelts and Harry Truman in there too. Johnson’s domestic agenda was great, but Vietnam prevents him from getting into that upper echelon. Jimmy Carter was a lot better than he was given credit for. And I may get some flack for this, but Biden might go down pretty favorable in history as well…maybe…depends on how these next couple of years go…
As this is primarily aimed at Americans, what's not being explained is WHY the balance was so critical. In the House of Representatives, the number of Reps each state gets is dependent on its population. The Senate on the other hand has two Senators for EACH state. So the South while being slightly outnumbered in the House, could equal or even gain a majority in the Senate by skillful tactics in admitting new States to the Union. (Territories, then and now have representatives in Congress but they cannot vote.) Another factor was the majority of Presidents came from the South and looked after Southern interests in the 1840s and 50s. Which is another reason why the election of Lincoln caused an ENORMOUS uproar in the South You are absolutely correct on the slavery stance of both parties. Actually it was the Republican administration of Eisenhower that used Federal troops to enforce desegregation of Southern schools. Southern Democrats opposed integration right up to the mid-1960s. Many of them, Stennis and Byrd notably, were KKK members. Also, the President, despite what the media may have one believe, actually has very few powers regarding legislation. The levers of political power are in Congress.
Then came the great Southern strategy that caused the North to go from Progressive Republican to Democratic and the South to go from Conservative Democrat to Republican. The parties switched but each region kept their ideologies. That's why when talking about history we should remember it wasn't so much party as ideological values of the cultures which stemmed from Yankee North being very progressive and prounion and conservative Dixie South being antiunion like Strom Thurmond who became Republican after being a Democrat once his party accepted equal rights and LBJ betrayed the South for adopting Yankee values of equality for all.
@@jalicea1650 The so called "great Southern strategy" was a lie to hide Democratic opposition to Civil Rights championed by the Republican Party. ruclips.net/video/g_a7dQXilCo/видео.html The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party - Dr. Carol Swain video for Prager University Swain received tenure as an associate professor of politics and public policy at Princeton University.[3][4][6] From 1999 to 2017, she taught political science and law at Vanderbilt University.[3][6] In 2000, she earned a Master of Legal Studies from Yale Law School.[3][4] She retired from her post at Vanderbilt in 2017.
@@jalicea1650 Quit the propaganda B.S. Republican's weren't progressive, they were liberal, in the real sense of liberalism focusing on individual liverty. Progressivism is nothing but an ideology of societal control, forcing it into a progress of an ideal. It's still the same ideal as then, the rich elite (who were white) controlling the poor and deciding what is "good for them". The only difference is that they traded overt slavery, for obscure slavery via "welfare" that strips away the savings and wealth of the middle class, while focing the poorest of the poor into a "one step forward, two step back" situation to where they can't escape. The only thing that changed is the poor white "blue collar democrat voters" finally started to wake up and realize that the asshole party was started to enslave them too.
@@jalicea1650 The party swap is a bit more myth than fact. The stances that each party ran on during the civil war didn't swap but there were other stances that did change in the party's that only reared their heads later as the country progressed. The problems themselves changed more than the partys or people.
@@jalicea1650 The ideologies that were in both regions changed greatly over time. While the south became Republican, they maintained a more conservative and religious position. But the North at the time of the creation of the Republican Party was also a very religious and in some areas; a hyper religious place. So there’s more nuance to it. But in the modern day, neither party as a whole supports or would want slavery again and something almost all Americans agree on. One thing that is interesting though is that many people assume that the Republicans in the south are racist, but as a resident of the south, many people who are racist are firm Democrats who subscribe to views that were held in the 1960s. So it’s really complicated and a person to person basis. I’m not ragging on either party here. But it’s not like there’s one that is pro-slavery or pro-racism anymore.
Your English is fine. When I lived in Spain, we had a joke that the Portuguese spoke Spanish with a Russian accent. Hearing you speak English, you sound like a Russian. I love it!
Your English is fine for me. If you are getting any complaints, you might suggest that people turn on the closed captions and select auto-generated English. I find the auto-generate does a great job on foreign-accented English that is much worse than yours. By the way, I am really impressed that you are able to follow the Oversimplified narration, which is REALLY fast.
It should be noted that Lincoln was also a wrestling hall of Famer and literally invented the choke slam... and funnily enough, the man he did this to became Lincoln's friend...
Europeans are probably as uneducated about the American Civil war as I was about the English Civil war that led to my family Leaving northern England Scotland and Ireland to come to settle in the South Eastern United States. I've learned so much about history so much the past 5 or 6 years that it really helps make things make alot more sense in todays world. Grade school only gives you the basics and sometimes that history is very muddy or outdated. Learning about World History is key to having a good grasp of today's world!❤
The united kingdom has a rich everlasting history of division because scotland and ireland dont want to be subjects to the crown so usa history is filled with people who got on boats and fled for usa because there is no heredetary crown to be subject to. Theyre more united because you habe to alliance with those nearest to you because theres a greater geopolitical situation happening with europe and usa and russia and china so they count it as the united kingdom even if its ireland because they dont want to be subjects to the crown but they really are. The king is all around that whole area its the kingdom theyre all working together despite their differences. A lot of people didnt want to be subjects to that and they got on boats and assimilated into usa. Similar happened with germany thats why usa has a lot of german dna in americans who dont actually have any relation to germany they never lived there dont speak german dont even understand it nor identify with it. Because all these people left germany and never wanted to go back they had children in usa not germany. Thats all happened over the last 300 years. Ever since columbus got back and said the indians he found werent the ones with the red dot he was looking for. People saw how europe sucked and they decided theyd rather live in a less developed place. They were chopping trees build cabins habing kids to supply the future of a new world which played out going through the 1700s 1800s and 1900s.
8:16 the question you’re asking involves a concept, called “separation of powers“ Dash the founders, thought that if one branch of government could control everything, that it would expedite corruption, so the “add a state plan“ was wholly a congressional issue, and the president had no power except his usual veto or signing power.
12:53 To explain this there was what we call the party switch. I recommend looking at the Cynical Historian's documentary of Polarizing Politics to know more.
The best complete documentary about this war was done by Ken Burns, it’s a nine part series that, in my opinion, the best documentary I ever seen. It’s an investment in time, but I think it’s totally worth it. It’s simply called Civil War.
The Republic almost died aborning due to the split over slavery. The Southern states wanted slaves counted as persons for purposes of congressional representation, while the Northern states said "But, you say they're property, not people. We don't count cows or horses." This resulted in the infamous "Three-fifths compromise." Slaves were calculated as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation, and the Southern states joined the Union.
I often pride myself on my acquisition of knowledge, particularly in the realm of History, but I had complexly forgotten about the existence of the 3/5's compromise. Thank you for bringing up this event.
@@KnufWons, yes, that's what the comment was alluding to in this phrase: "The Republic almost died aborning ..." The use of "aborning" is a reference to the nation's birth era -- it's a subtle hint but a clear one.
This is actually pretty accurate, and I'm saying that as a person who has a Master's degree in the Civil War. In particular they did a good job of pointing out that Americans in that period thought of themselves as citizens of their individual states and didn't really have a overarching idea of "America". A lot of current day Americans don't understand that and they think and say absolutely stupid things about this war as a result.
Lincoln attacked the South when people in the North opposed the war. The New England states had already discussed secession decades earlier. Secession was legal. Lincoln shut down many, many newspapers and he jailed political opponents simply because they opposed the war. Lincoln violated habeas corpus. He was the literal definition of a tyrant. Marvel has written several books on this.
to be fair none of those people are americans. the slavers and their descendants are europeans, and the slaves and their descendants are africans. the only americans there either speak spanish or were reduced to "reservations" by the slavers and their lands have never been returned.
@@sabin97 you have confused the tribes( there are still many!) with Americans. What we refer to as "Native Americans" do NOT call themselves that. They identify as what their tribe is. American, North or South America, was named so by Europeans. I, myself, am of European descent and am the descendant of both Revolutionary and Confederate soldiers. I am a native Tennessean. Never owned a slave and surprisingly neither did my ancestors.
I know this is a somewhat old video, but I just wanna say you're perfectly intelligible. You do have a fairly obvious European accent, but that just adds character imo.
There was a radical shift in ideologies between the two parties in the late 1960's. Republicans were originally against slavery while the democrats were for it during the Civil War, but that changed with Lyndon B. Johnson, a Texas Southern Democrat that allowed the civil rights movement to succeed and ended segregation. Johnson was able to pass incredible reforms, but he did so at the expense of his own political capitol and influence, and many democrats of that time became republicans while many republicans became democrats, and a strange kind of inversion of ideologies occurred between the two parties over the next few decades in regards to social issues. Now democrats are seen as the party of social justice and reform while republicans are considered more conservative traditionalists.
That was part of the campaign to take the Mississippi, wasn't it? So a significant step toward that goal, even if one of the last steps in that campaign--Vicksburg--gets all the attention.
The party swap is a bit more myth than fact. The stances that each party ran on during the civil war didn't swap but there were other stances that did change in the party's that only reared their heads later as the country progressed. The problems themselves changed more than the partys or people.
So glad you did this despite the inability to monetize. Super thanks sent. Hope you do some more oversimplifieds - World War 2 is well done. Recommend you react as well to “The History of the Entire World, I Guess,” by Bill Wurtz.
I love your reaction to this! I learned this history every year it seemed in school so its just jammed into my brain, but have come to love history in the past couple years and trying to learn other civilizations and histories from a local perspective has made it seem so heavy and wholesome. It makes me happy you value our history, love your videos!
About 13:12- you’re correct! At some point in American history, the Republican and Democratic parties of America basically switched sides. Thats why it might be confusing as to why the republican party (often seen as conservative today) was anti-slavery back then- it’s a very different party today.
Actually the change didn’t really change at all. Basic values were still kept the biggest difference is how the party narratives worked. The narratives often fluctuated depending on the timeline of the events in history. So overtime the narratives towards the republicans changed depending on the issues of the time period. Which thus changed the narrative of the democrats which changed the way voters think but not necessarily how the party thinks.
Actually the fundamentals about the parties beliefs haven’t changed. What’s changed mostly is the narrative over time. The way voters think nowadays also has changed.
I love that this video talked about how this time was a period of westward expansion and how that led to the war. My ancestors were on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line, like most Americans. The war was followed by wave after wave of economic refugees from the south. Meanwhile, the political parties evolved several times over the last 150 years. People often talk about how Lincoln wouldn’t recognize his own party. Your English is perfectly understandable. Great content!
the craziest thing is that the majority of americans nowadays don’t even have any ancestry that traces back to the civil war in america. a decent amount of new england and most of the south do but the rest of the country doesn’t and major cities have very few.
@@ninerealms69 so slaves being a part of every nation for thousands of years of our world's history was just because of a few powerful morally bankrupt people, and if they didn't exist no one would have owned slaves?
Would definitely love it if you went ahead and put out part 2 of this one. I love your other stuff, and will definitely watch it as well, but always nice when the story isn’t interrupted for too long. 😅 the civil war still remains the bloodiest conflict in US history, btw
I'm still trying to figure out why the United States is still defined by its past of slavery while slavery NEVER STOPPED all across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. There are more slaves today then at the height of the Atlantic slave trade. And this doesn't include slave types like child soldiers and many types of prostitution.
Fun fact, my great great grandfather who was a lawyer reading for the bar exam as Lincoln did, was so emaciated from the Irish potato famine that he could not serve in the military. He did become the second Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame law school before becoming a Judge. He did business with the Lincoln family law firm. Your English is great. You speak English very well. Don’t worry about it. You are more understandability. Than some of Scotland’s You Tubers!!!’
Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the Union. Freeing the slave came towards the end of the war. I was a tactical move to clog the roads with fleeing slaves. He really did believe the slaves should be free, but the country had to be preserved.
Lincoln was an odd dude. Originally his idea was to round up every dark skinned person in the US and boat them over to Africa independent of their ability to speak any language other than English, whether they were born here or not, whether they originated in the Dutch Indies for example, etc. Frederick Douglass wrote some pretty scalding letters and had conversation with him about how stupid that idea was, and how the misplaced desire to protect a European ethnostate was not a winning or useful tool.
Slavery only happened because britain influence and after they broke off from that a lot of corrupt farmers saw that as an opportunity to say if there is no rules they can use slabes to farm but it actually hindered them because they stopped advancing their farming tech by opting for slaves. The continental congress set the record straight when they tasked jefferson with writing the declaration of independance but the slavers invested in all these slaves they werent going to give up just because the continental congress said. To them it was the literal human slave backbone of food survival and clothingwear. If there was no slaves there was no cotton so they had to abolish slavery and invent to farming equipment in the same era.
Lincoln attacked the South when people in the North opposed the war. The New England states had already discussed secession decades earlier. Secession was legal. Lincoln shut down many, many newspapers and he jailed political opponents simply because they opposed the war. Lincoln violated habeas corpus. He was the literal definition of a tyrant. Marvel has written several books on this.
The best way I can explain statehood vs. federal to a European is to imagine your specific European country to be your “state” while Europe itself serves as the “Country”. Yes, America is one country but within America, even today, there’s several different cultural identities depending on which state you live in. Just like how German culture is different from the culture of Greece, so too can it be said that New York culture is different from Texas culture. Hope that helps explain why many people feel more loyalty to their state rather than to the federal government.
You should check out some of Montemayor’s content. Specifically his attack on Pearl Harbor video, his Battle of Midway series, and his Battle of the Eastern Solomons series :).
Cotton trade was slow and very labor intensive because each little tuft of cotton had numerous seeds imbedded that had to be hand picked out. Witney's "cotton gin" combed the seeds out mechanically, making it much easier to grow and process the pure fiber. (It also got a lot of cotton seeds and set off a secondary industry...pressing cottonseed oil out of those seeds) Suddenly a plantation could produce a lot more salable cotton...and more slaves could grow more raw cotton...processing it became easier...and more profitable.
@@TacticalTabby828look up the Southern Strategy. The flip started around Nixon's time and ended under Bill Clinton. We learned about it in AP US History. In Texas. And today, that's why you see Confederate flags at Republican rallies.
To answer about the single president... the president just doesn't have that much power. This was a legislative issue, so it was all about the congress. A president could theoretically have vetoed something the congress did, and the congress might not have been able to get the 2/3 vote to override the veto, but no one let it get far enough for the president to even have a say.
Wait.. you mean that He solely didnt actually authorize/make the decision to fight back for reacquiring the gulf coast bases? Legit curious/impressed an suprised by that fwiw imho.
1. Don’t worry about pausing the video. I’m watching for YOUR reaction. 2. Your English is great and I have no problem understanding your accent. 3. Don’t feel bad about being confused. I was raised and educated in the United States and the politics confuse me too. I really feel engaged by you. You aren’t watching a video saying, “That’s interesting.” You are asking questions and inviting us to answer. You give full credit to the original creator and link it below. You have more integrity than most YTbers. You’ve earned a new subscriber and I wish you the absolute best with your channel. 💕
It's not surprising that you didn't know the Civil War was about slavery. I'm from the U.S., and *some people* here consistently push for our textbooks to teach that the Civil War was fought exclusively over "States' Rights", despite most of the Confederate States writing in their own articles of secession that their reason for seceding was to keep their slaves, and even that slavery was a foundational part of their culture. And the same people that want to omit that from the history books want the all mentions of "slaves" to be replaced with "workers". Pretty despicable behavior.
It WAS about states rights. Less that 2% of white Southerners owned slaves. Furthermore the Confederacy was not outright forbidding the abolishment of slavery. Yes, it was A issue that was being discussed in regards to States rights, but it was not THE issue. It was a far more fundamental issue than that. The same thing is happening right now. Texas is threatening to secede and many states are siding with this on it. Immigration is a key driving issue that's pushing this over the edge, but this has been something that has been building up for a long time with Federal government overriding States rights. There's actually a very strong possibility that slavery would have been phased out in the South anyway. A little bit slower, but democratically, leaving less tension and conflict in the aftermath.
@@wastelandlegocheem People can fight for the right cause, motivated by the wrong reasons. Yes, slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Southerners back in the day, and that's wrong, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't other, justified reasons they opposed the Northern Union, nor does it mean the ultimate principal of States Rights was wrong. Slavery was already losing favorability even in the South. It would have eventually been phased out there too, and while I understand that to many, "eventually" is not good enough, it's also worth noting that a lot of the systemic abuses that black people faced for the next 150 years could have been avoided if it weren't for the large, centralized Federal government we built, and that it could have been phased out much more thoroughly, and with fewer tensions, if naturally voted out by citizens.
It was about power distribution, which is about economics, which is nice way to say Money. Look at the map, the South is much larger in land mass and access to other markets, but she relied on the North for sea trade. This was an old arrangement, which eventually resulted in Northern traders, using Northern banks, trading with English banks, to make the majority of the profit from all sorts of trade, inc. slavery. Both North and South were pro-slavery. Slavery was enshrined in the US Constitution, which is why Lincoln could not, did not, dare not oppose it in 1861. If was only removed because that was good for the war effort, which is what Lincoln said very loudly and openly to his party, the cabinet, and the people. If the Confederate states were still voting in Congress, the 14th & 15th Amendments would never have got thru. As it was they barely passed. The Democrats were strongly opposed to ending slavery all thru the war, and this is the Northern Dems. They are the same party today, no change.
Your English is amazing and more importantly your understanding of the language is remarkable. Most Americans would struggle with the content of this video ❤
I love the Civil War in terms of the history. Their is a movie called Lincoln that got the struggles that Abraham Lincoln went through. It was actually kind of brilliant how he turned confederate congressmen to vote yes.
You could consider each state to be its own country. They have their own laws, government, governer (president/leader) and accents. Like my state, Texas, was its own country from 1835-1845 after we gained independence from Mexico I don’t think it was mentioned a lot in the video but the beginning of the war was like colonial warfare, but by the end it was months long battles of trench warfare and machine guns. This is why the Americans turned the tide in WW1, we had already fought in harsh trench warfare and had experience
A key thing about the balance of power was that the US federal government has 3 branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. The legislature is the only branch with the power to create new laws. The president is in charge of the executive branch but has very limited influence with the other branches (in theory anyway). If the legislature (Congress) votes in a new bill, the president can veto it as long as Congress’ majority vote was less than two thirds. There’s also two sections of Congress that vote separately and the rules for how many representatives each state gets are different for the two divisions. The end result of all this is that controversial laws are difficult to pass at a federal level. This is made doubly true when we start talking about amending the constitution as that requires significantly more political support than normal laws (by design). Because of all of this, if one faction gains a slight majority, it’s unlikely to result in a major change in the relevant laws, but a bigger majority absolutely could. One last note is that there’s no way in Hell a normal bill would resolve the slavery dispute long term; it was a big enough deal that it required an amendment
The Civil War was one of the defining events in this country's history, and I say that as someone who grew up in California, about as far from the action as possible. If you can, watch The Civil War by Ken Burns--the most impactful documentary I've ever seen.
So I don't know if this has been said in the comments but a major reason why many people in non slave states were against slavery was because it was considered an unfair economic advantage that the Plantation owners did not have to pay the people they were having work. Not to mention that while many in the north were for the abolition of slavery, they were by no means for true equality. That's part of why John Brown was considered radical since he believed in true equality.
Yes. Slavery brings a vast multitude of evils struggles and conflict into the world. They will fall curses blessings in order to normalize it and in lincolns age and washingtons age they forced it on them by saying it was a nessessary part of the economy because you need people to pick the cotton or no one has clothes. So the south had slaves and they invented the cotton gin. Now you need a fraction of the slaves. George washington even called it he was saying in the long run slabery would die out and in usa it was a short run thing. After washington died they faught a war and ended it. But in the rest of the world today slabery is still active. So one side was fighting to protect their slaves when thatss tupidnthey shoulda been investing in cotton gins because what happened is they didnt and then they lost the war and died and the slaves got replaced by cotton gins. They went from walking picking wheat with a sythe to steam tractors very quickly and overnight almost you didnt need slaves all they needed was a tractor and a feild and people were getting rich growing food for money without enslaving anyone and it turned out it was better to not have slaves whoooooo couldveeee guessseddd??!?! 😂 george washington and thomas jefferson wanted to free their slaves but they grew up in britiah controlled colonies. PA was only 1/4 british english emigrant and britain was excerting full control over all colonies. Freeing slaves was illegal and if you just freed your slaves they cant get a tractor to farm to get rich also theyre not allowed to own land if they were a slave. So washington and thomas and all those guys had to detach from outside regimes in order to formulate their own form of governmdnt in order to not be regonized as subjects of the crown and subject to british "law" as well as to not be seen as in a "rouge rebel state" which was a criminal state. Thays why they had to form the 3 branch republic becsuse you cant ban slavery in a rouge state that has no form of government or if theyre subjects to a slaving tyranny like the crown who wss using the east india company to partake in the slave trade and was demanding we have to buy their yea pay for their slaves and pay their taxes. They had to go in there and lay a great foundation and they did that before the civil war but after the revolutionary war which was a short period of time and they hagent changed it ever since until today. All this corruption has been added on like the atf but the idea of a 3 branch republic is to avoid the shortfalls of democracies kingdoms dictstorships monarchies etc while also being able to not he recognised on an international level as not in a rouge state where no one is determining if slavery is illegal or not. Clearly you need them in there saying slavery is illegal. If we do the opposite its like disrupting the whole order of the universe. A moon isnt bigger than its planet. An island cannot rule a continent but a continent can protect an island. The founding fathers talked about weights. If you have a small wheel weight attached to a big wheel weight the big wheel weight when it turns overrides the small. So you can have small weights on and they can have little influence on tbe big weight but you can rotate them along by influencing the big weight. So they applied that to forming our government. Why would they let usa a big wheel weight be governed by a small wjeel weight on tbe other side of the ocean? It is the big wheel weight that when it turns every small wheel weight will follow. So they had to design a new form of government and they saw government as a nessessary evil that people loath but whoever can impliment a form of government thay maximizes happyness and reduces national cost will be like a savior. They hated government and saw it as a huge dsnger an extreme evil to people but the issue is the universe has a god that governs it with natural laws so if the universe requires natural laws to be governed if we do not govern outselves with natural laws we are ungoverned and we become out of line with gods order in the universe. They go and they say if there is no rules anything goes and thats what was happening in usa before the founding fathers had to take their roles architecting the foundation of the nation. They knew slavery was an unnatural evil more than most they grew up on slave plantations in the 13 colonies. They had a better world in north america and in the span of very few years they faught many wars claimed independance and defeated slavery. It was complicated times because they had to seperate from england but at the same time before the war england was selling and profiting off the slavery in usa they were the ones wanting the slaves to pick the cotton they only wanted to be exported to them. So they didnt want the south to side with england. There was these tar and featherints etc of people in the south who kept siding with england in the period. So they stopped talking aboht slavery waahington franklin they were all in the continental congress and tasked thomas jefferson to write the declararion of independance and slavery specifically wasnt mentioned in it because for one it was a declaration of independance it was against the king and slavery at the same time. It says all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights given by god. They recognized their own slaves deserves freedom and thomas and washington were preparing their slaves hoping it was going to happen in their lifetimes because they knew what was happening in the continental congress. Thomas jefferson had a slave who was his mistress he loved dearly and she couldnt be freed but when he got sent to europe on constitutional business for the continental congress he brought her and slavery wasnt legal in paris so there was a big deal made aboht how he had to pay her a wage while they were there so he did and she was an "paid assistant" or something. When they had to go back she said she wanted to stay and be free and he promised her if she came back with him they were going to hage children who werent going to grow up and slaves in america because he was in the continental congress and knew what was about to happen so she came back with him and their children did infact become freed and it was complicated they woukd go to free states because the soith was really salty about their slave farming business they didnt like the cotton gin as they invested all their money in slaves so they had to fight a civil war over ot we are learning about here but its incredible history anyway. Thomas begging his sweet lady to come be a slave is some rough stuff 😂 only thomas jefferson could woo a lady away from paris when paris was in its prime back to being a slave in usa right right right before slavery was about to be defeated 😂 incredible love story frankly needs to be a movie that will get the women into history for once.
Republicans were liberal / progressive in the olden days. This quickly changed over the next 60 years. FDR(Franklin Delaware Roosevelt) was a progressive Democratic President. Republicans became right wing after Theodore Roosevelt. The parties basically flipped and thats where you're getting the dissonance between current party positions and those contained in the video. If Lincoln were around today he'd be a Democrat. Your English is great. At some points your accent is a little thick but that's normal and perfectly fine.
The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was a strong advocate for big government, while Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was committed to curbing federal power. This switch in platforms is often referred to as the “Great Switch.”
Wait, this is not correct. Both presidents seriously advanced stronger and more comprehensive federal control of governance. Roosevelt literally seized control of pretty much the entire country's industrial production in support of the war. He had the entire nationality of Japanese immigrants interred on nothing but suspicion that some may be disloyal to the nation during the war. And the New Deal consisted of huge expansions of federal involvement in aspects of the economy and society that previously had been the charge of state governments or had no government involvement of any sort.
@@ravynvega2579 Sure, but that doesn't make the statement, "Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was committed to curbing federal power." true, or even anywhere arguably close to true. The Civil War and great Depression/WWII periods mark two periods of the most extreme expansion of federal and specifically federal executive power.
Don't worry, your accent is not a problem at all! It's so fun to see you react to things like American history. You have such a positive outlook and you're so interested in learning and I really respect that!
US civil war was about taxes. South didnt want to pay for export tax, tobacco and cotton, to england. North seen it as not helping the states so needed to be taxed
You arent understanding that the states were separate countries and made their own internal laws. The president only gets involved in issues between states and other countries. We are 50 states united.
12:03 Yes, it is crazy. But it's also understandable. People like what they're comfortable with, and the slave owners and traders were very comfortable. It was also easy for them to justify based on the idea that Africa was not a very civilized continent and its peoples considered savages. The Native Americans were also considered savages and not equal to a human in value to society. It's important to remember that the United States did NOT invent African slavery. It inherited it. And, finally, abolished it.
I grew up here in the US and had Civil War in classes just about every year. Never heard the Missouri Compromise described so clearly. I mostly heard the term "Missouri Compromise" used to describe mullets. Great video!
13:00 its complicated, but long story short, the social and economic policies of the two parties flipped between the late 1800s and the 1930s. It's strange, but also interesting to read up on.
The party swap is a bit more myth than fact. The stances that each party ran on during the civil war didn't swap but there were other stances that did change in the party's that only reared their heads later as the country progressed. The problems themselves changed more than the partys or people.
In the 1950s and 60s, you see a dramatic change happening as the Republicans look to grow their political power. Good opportunity to learn about Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy. At the same time, the turbulence of the Vietnam War causes chaos among the Democrats during the 1968 Dem National Convention, leading to that party's lasting transition to more progressive policies.
@@GiRR007I mean there's a reason democrats used to win every election in the south, and now it's completely dominated by republicans. The republicans were not always the conservative party they are now.
@@AndrewWright1973 The 'southern strategy' was like one or two people in the 50/60s, and it didn't even work that well, which is why they fell out of favor and stopped winning elections and their strategy never caught on more widespread. It did make a really good point for anachronistic smears decades against the republicans though, just like the LBJ quote for the democrats from literally the exact same time period.
The Republican Party was founded to eliminate slavery, it is even in the party charter. The Democrat party were mostly Southerners then. When Lincoln was elected president and worked to outlaw slavery the southern states chose to leave (secede) from the union thereby breaking up the United States. They called it "states rights" and secession was the cause of the Civil War even though secession was the result of outlawing slavery. Hope that helps.
Modern Republicans hate when you point out the party switch that happened not long after though. But it's not hard to guess which party supports what now. Just look for the ones that cried about "heritage" and have Confederate flags at rallies and marches. Lol.
The south rebelled as soon as Lincoln was elected, not in response to anything specific he did. It was more about fear of what he might potentially do with his abolitionist ideals rather than anything he had actually done yet. They had seen people, especially the North and the majority of Europe, become more and more anti-slavery over time and they faced more and more resistance to the institution of slavery over time. Lincoln was just the straw that broke the camels back as they saw it as the moment the scales finally tipped against them. Lincoln was definitely looking for ways to minimize slavery, seeing as how he had the Emancipation Proclamation written for quite a while before he decided to issue it, but he probably only would have done what he could have gotten away with while preserving the union. The south rebelling actually allowed him to advance his cause way, way more than if they had just stayed.
My friend. There exists Americans that are not aware of this history. 😂. It’s more personal for me because I had family on both sides of the conflict. It really did a number on my relatives and we were almost wiped out as a result. My great grandfather rebuilt our family with two wives and 14 children.
My father's family is the result of two families fleeing Tennessee then getting caught in the CW. Great-grandfather was wounded and ran away to keep them from cutting off the leg. So the family had to do it. After he died his widow claimed widow benefits but they had refused because he was recorded as a deserter. So she reapplied with a different regiment number.
Yeah, Lincoln was something of a brainiac, and one of the finest writers of prose in the English language. He was a remarkable combination of the highest morals + the highest intelligence. (Think Chekhov, but instead Lincoln became a lawyer. I don't know what this says about Americans.)
“Funny how? Funny like a clown? Do I amuse you?” Is from the movie Goodfellas. Joe Pesci says this a bit before he ends up beating a guy to death for saying he was a “funny guy.”😂 We say this every so often in our family, as a joke, of course.
LOL… I somehow graduated from a US high school with no idea that Portuguese, Spanish, and French colonies also practiced slavery. I only learned about slavery in the US! 😢
@@StrawberryShortcake12335 It will really blow your mind when you learn how widespread slavery was throughout the world, such as among Middle Easterners and North Africans, who not only took huge numbers of black slaves mostly from East Africa but also enslaved around 1 million Europeans. North Africans even raided Iceland of all places and carried off an entire coastal village's population to be sold into slavery for example. Only a very small percentage of the transatlantic slave trade involved slaves taken to the United States or what would become the United States; yet many American school fixate only on that as if slavery in the rest of the world isn't important somehow.
@@JRRLewis Yes, I know that now. I’m much older and a prolific reader, but very disappointed in my school’s history classes! The 2014 (ish) revision of the AP US History test was equally bad.
The political parties in the U.S. have evolved continuously since they were founded in the early history of the country. In effect, the country has seen several party alignment shifts (historians calls them party "systems") as the major issues changed over time. So, while the names remain the same, the Democratic and Republican parties have very different ideologies and constituencies than they did at the time of the Civil War. At that time, the Democratic Party represented both Southern agrarian (slaveholding) interests and (strangely enough) immigrant workers in the northern cities. In the 1950s through the 1970s, Southerners completely shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party, which lost the support of more progressive voters in some of the Northern states.
I came here to say that. A lot of people including some Americans don't really understand the shifts in the parties and how essentially they have swapped places more or less.
Hooooo boy.. The moment the U.S. nearly imploded. I''m gonna watch your reaction to the Revolution and be back. American history is... not exactly rosy nor just, and our politics are... necessary but so far from optimal that it looks ridiculous from inside and out. Anywho, remember we want to see your "long pauses" because we want to hear your perspective, don't apologize.
@@docsavage8640 LoL I was alluding to the fact that most politicians are bought and paid for by capitalists and corporations who would and do stab us all in the back for a quick buck, and that our "First past the post" style of governance is why we are stuck with Democrats and Republicans but okay.
It would be so much easier if you just gave up your Social Security and your Medicare. Oh, and stop freeloading off states with bigger economies and higher tax bases.
England, France, Spain were all waiting (and want g) that US implosion for their territorial interests. The U.S. Civil War isn’t all that long ago - yet it was also less far from the U.S. Revolution (and establishment of the Constitution) especially given the histories of those European countries.
Lincoln was not only smart, he was tough. He is one of only two Presidents (the other being Teddy Roosevelt) to be inducted into the Wrestlers Hall of Fame. He had an astounding record of 300 wins, one loss.
The parties basically swapped sides gradually over like 40-50 years, between about the 30s to 80s (primarily in the 60s-ish). It's a lot more complicated than that, and the extent to which the switch happened depends on who you talk to, but yes, you're understanding the parties right.
@@ShojoBakunyu And as this comment illustrates, many in our country still refuse to acknowledge any of this from the get-go. They claim the Civil War was about a tyrannical over-reach of federal power and had nothing to do with slavery. Further they claim that the Republican party today is ideologically the same as the one in the past, completely rejecting the reality of things like Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and so on. A contradiction that's EASILY debunked when you look at who gets upset about the Confederate memorials being taken down today. The good thing is that you can get accurate historical information on these periods from any reputable source. While these fringe ideas are popular in this country amongst a certain segment, it's still only accept inside their own circles.
It less that they swapped and more that the original democrats party 'died' in the first half of 1900s (like the Wigs did when the Republicans started gaining steam) because they got way less votes, and so different people with different values were voted for in their place, causing the party to significantly change. So the democrats literally became something completely different and just happened to keep the name. The republicans have shifted some over the years as the things they originally cared about mostly became things that both sides agreed upon so were no longer an issue, so they started to fight over different issues. They also absorbed some of the other political factions (business, religious, 'traditional values', etc) that saw them as more agreeable compared to the 'new' democrats, so that changed them as well.
@@ShojoBakunyu this question should be interesting, then: The KKK, originally a Southern Democrat terrorist organization, now supports which party? Also: the people who now fly the Confederate Battle Flag support which party?
24:45 When thinking about casualties to North vs South, you have to adjust for resources, like population. Of course, morale of the nation matters, so the North cannot simply accept huge losses. Basically, the South would have to inflict about x4 losses on the North to have any chance. Also keep in mind that about 2/3 of all losses in ACW were from disease and sickness. The second set of casualties shown was the battle of Shiloh, a major Southern surprise offensive. This HAD to succeed and drive back Grant's army, before it was joined by another Union army, after which that massive force would take the railhead connecting East-West trade in the Confederacy (Vicksburg was the other one further south, and even bigger). So the North got their ass kicked on the first day, but Grant refused to give up. The next day, the Southern force was forced to withdraw. Note that these rebel forces were railed in from all over the map, and some had to be sent back to stabilize Tennessee, so this non-victory was a big loss. Also, the Southern Major-Gen Johnson was killed. The men lost on both sides were 50% raw recruits... so not the end of the world for the North, which lost more. Shiloh was the battle that really began the great friendship between Grant and Sherman. One of Grant's division commanders was Lew Wallace, who wrote the famous story (later movie) Ben Hur. Wallace marched down the wrong road on the first day, then counter-marched back, basically missing most of the battle. He should not be confused with L.E. Wallace who commanded a different division for Grant that first day, who was killed holding the line. He did not have a chance to write a book.
The Republican and Democratic parties essentially switched party platforms on social and political issues is the 1960's (in response to the confusion at 13:00 in the video). A lot of people even in the US don't know that.
The switch started before the 1960's, the change in political alignment happened gradually over around 90 years, it wasn't a single moment that flipped the political alignment, but a series of steps on both sides, the 1960's marked more or less the end of the party switch, but it started almost immediately after the end of the civil war.
13:00 You're correct, and it makes sense that it would be confusing. In a nutshell, the Republican Party was originally a "left-wing" party and the Democratic Party was originally a "right-wing" party, more or less. The two parties gradually switched sides over a span of a few decades during the 1900s, from roughly the 1930s to the 1960s. The Democrats began to appeal to the poor and working class and the Republicans began to appeal to the business community. The process was largely complete by 1968 when the Democrats had passed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans had implemented the "Southern Strategy" of trying to win the votes of conservative Christians in the southern states. If you want to see this comparison, look at a map of the 1860 election and the 2012 election, or even the 1952 election and the 1964 election. You'll see that the southern states flipped from blue to red and vice versa.
The North had no exports. The South was the money maker thru agricultural exports. The only way the North could profit was thru Tariffs. But The South was able to use Tenant Farmers and Migrant Workers to harvest those cash crops. The North engaged in human trafficking. All the American slave ships were owened and run by Northerners. So The North saturated the South with slaves they captured from Africa, (using a "buy one now, and own them for life" marketing pitch), leaving no work for Tenant Farmers or Migrant Workers. When the South said "We have enough workers", Lincoln renamed the slaves "Sharecroppers" and claimed they were paid 1/3 of a plantation's earning in the form of "Taxable Wages". The South declared it unconstitutional, and LEGALLY seceded from the union. The North declared war and invaded the South, refusing to vacate Fort Sumter, converting that defensive port into a Sentry Post preventing the South from engaging in free trade with Europe. The South had fully seceded, even using its own currency. That's why the North attacked. But you won't hear this in history class, becuse its the truth.
The majority of black slaves brought to America were sold or traded by thier own tribal chiefs in Africa. History books fail to mention this for some reason 🤔
By the way, we still can't even agree on the names of the battles. Union army dispatches would refer to the nearest geographical feature (Bull Run, Antietam, Balls Bluff, etc) while the Confederate army dispatches would refer to the nearest town or settlement (Manassas, Sharpsburg, Leesburg, etc) or where they did the best of the fighting (Fair Oaks vs Seven Pines).
At 8:11 when you ask about the President, they actually had far less power and influence than they do now and the dominant branch of government tended to be congress. It was the civil war and Lincoln's Presidency that saw the powers of the President expand, and they continued to expand all the way up to today.
It happened around the civil rights era. You can see the beginning of it in the transition from the 1960 presidential election to the 1964 election. The “solid south” voted for Kennedy, but then took the opposition stance against the popular LBJ. This party switch on presidency persisted, but many of those southern voters remained Democrats officially. However the Dixiecrat tradition had weakened, and their children who supported segregation followed the lead of Strom Thurmond and committed to the Republican Party. A big reason those southern voters switched parties was because Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon began implementing the Southern Strategy of appealing to segregationist beliefs.
Vloggging Through History had the same issue. I think you can resolve it. But, yeah, no monetary value in you reaction. Thanks for continuing. POTUS's oath of office on inauguration day. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Every POTUS represents the entire US. Most of them do so. During the Civil Rights Movement, the parties flipped.
There was a thing that happened in the 60s or 70s called The Southern strategy, which caused the Dems and Republicans voting base to flip. It had to do with the civil rights movement. Republicans knew that the Democrats in the south were upset about the civil rights movement, so they pandered to that anger and convinced a lot of southern Democrats to become Republicans. The South had been a Democrat stronghold for a long time at that point, so it was a pretty big deal. Republicans nowadays will tell you that this never happened, because they like to say that the Dems are the party of slavery, and the Southern strategy just puts the blame back on Southerners where it rightfully belongs. They have always defended racism and slavery since the beginning of the countries existence, and they still do it today
Yeah, there is no denying it. The same people who fly confederate flags because it's "their heritage" also support Republicans. So it's clear the switch did happen, but it started before the 60s, it just accelerated during that time.
@@alexs1640 not really. modern people that fly it are slpit to was. racists bigots. or those that beleive in small government. Ironically the south had a good reason to start but chose the wrogn thign to start it over.
This is an oft-parroted lie - that Republicans went after the racists, and that's why the south (which had been strongly Democrat) is now Republican. Except Strom Thurmond was the only prominent southern Democrat to become Republican. Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, numerous others from across the south who fought against the Civil Rights Bills of the 50s and 60s, all stayed Dems to their dying day. The "Southern Strategy" was a term used by the media to talk about Nixon inroads into the south - except it's not true. Wallace (3rd party) pulled votes away from Humphrey (D), not Nixon (R). Nixon *DID* get more votes in the south - in the border state South: Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina. What else was happening in the 60s and 70s, in addition to adoption of Civil Rights and enforced desegregation? The south was adopting air conditioning, and folks were relocating. Huge inroads of voters from the cooler north were moving south. Some southern states increased in population over 200% in just 2 decades. Nixon and Reagan were able to increase previous Republican vote totals in some formerly Dem states because - surprise! Huge migration from northern states was occurring, offsetting historic Dem voters from throughout the south. Democrats now maintain their plantation mentality - the same mentality that had Lyndon Johnson quoted as saying (after he signed the Civil Right Act of 1965), "I'll have them [n-word]s voting Democrat for 200 years." The idea that they (Democrats) will take care of those less-fortunate, less-educated. "They can't even get a driver's license!" It's that racist white Democrat mentality that pervades the party to this day: the same "we know better and we'll take care of you" plantation mentality.
The Dred Scot case is a fascinating one. I'm sorry they glossed over it. Dred Scot argued that since he traveled to and lived in a free Missouri territory, then he was automatically free. He lost his case, but this was a high-profile incident in which a black man made a bold move to freedom. It was one of many bold moves black people made. Eventually progress was made.
Yeah in that case judge Taney a Democrat said the Scott couldn't be counted as a whole person because then they have to give him gun rights. That's where the first gun laws come from.
Keep reacting. I enjoy your laugh and how you understand just how nuts we are, as a people!!!! My grandmother in Owensboro, KY she said our ancestors till felt, "We could have beat them Yankees with corn stalks, but were fighting with guns."
8:01 - you're correct, there's only one President, who can only sit on one side of the fence. The problem here, with trying to keep an equal number of "Slave" States and "Free" States isn't about the President. It's about the Senate. The Senate is one of the two Houses of Congress. See, in the other House, the House of Representatives, each state gets a number of Representatives that is (supposed to be) proportional to their population. Today, California gets 52 Representatives; Wyoming gets 1. But in the Senate, every State gets 2 Senators. Period. (The idea was supposed to be that the House of Representatives represents The People, and the Senate represents The States.) Laws have to be passed by both Houses, and at this point in time, the North was FAR more populated than the South - which meant the North essentially held control over the House of Representatives. But in the Senate, if the North had one more State than the South, the North would control the Senate - and therefore the entirety of the Federal government - and therefore could abolish slavery, which the South simply could not tolerate. If the South had one more State than the North, then the South would control the Senate, and could just simply reject any anti-slavery bill the House tried to pass, and government would grind to a halt. Therefore, the only way to either end slavery or protect slavery was to create one more "Slave" state or one more "Free" state.
Agree, I like oversimplified--very educative & entertaining at the same time, I already watched many of them, all very good. And don't worry about your english, it's good and easy to understand. As someone told me when I was learning: practice makes perfect--and for you, recording these reactions is a way to practice. Keep on doing them, and of course, we want part 2, or any other video from their channel, you have many to choose from, so go ahead. Have a nice day & see you next.
i’m a southerner from the us so i think my view is a bit biased, but i consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the civil war and i have a bachelors degree in history for what that’s worth i think this video, as the title says, oversimplified a lot to get the main ideas across. but what that means is that the standard narrative continues: the south sucks and we’re racists and blah blah. it’s very frustrating because we’re incredibly kind and loving people who are a bit rough around the edges but we welcome everyone. i don’t like that we carry the burden of this stereotype when THE WHOLE US at the time shared the beliefs most southerners had at the time about racial dynamics and slavery. in world terms it’s even worse, as at the time slavery was an extremely common institution world wide. i also have an issue with slavery being cast as the primary issue for both sides in the war not because i don’t think it was, but it’s that it lends itself to the yankee propaganda machine framing of the civil war as the rest of the countries righteous crusade against the backwards southerners to help black people when black people were treated equally if not worse in the north than in the south before 1865. which makes a lot sense the more you look i to it when you realize states like mississippi, my native state, and south carolina were and are again rapidly approaching being majority black.
Feel free to hit the like button and subscribe for more content. I would also love to hear your suggestions for future reactions-drop them in the comments below!🙏
E
How about AN ABSTRACT CARNIVAL OF PAIN by Therussianbadger
Edit: or DESTROY ALL TAX PAYERS DOLLARS by Therussianbadger
please check my reply below . keep learning young man .
You are correct, the Republican party was against slavery during the civil war.
It may not seem like a long time ago to you. But it's been so long that not even our great-grandparents. Could be all the responsible for it. It was only 40 years after the United States became independent exactly 40 years. That slavery was outlawed. The people should not be blamed either as it happened. Legal during the time that it was under control by Great Britain. And to quote over simplified, saying that they were stolen from their homes is not true. They were sold into slavery by their own people and bought. A white man was more likely to catch malaria than they were to catch their own slaves. And that is fact quote me if Anyone asks you.😠
Your accent is NOT a problem, and your English is very good! I love your channel!
Thank you! 😃
@@european-reactsI love the accent ngl, reminds me of my friend Artytom and your English sounds like it's coming from a native speaker.
Your accent is charming, its just fine@@european-reacts
Yeah, your accent is cool, but where is it from? I can't tell, outside of it maybe being eastern european.
@@NightOwl1515He's Portuguese.
One thing that isn't often noted is how the slave trade was actually undergoing a slow decline through the 1700s. Eli Whitney saw this, and hoped his invention of the cotton gin in 1793 would help to accelerate its downfall. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect; by eliminating one of the most time-consuming parts of cotton farming (removing the seeds), the cotton gin unintentionally made slavery extremely profitable again, causing the slave trade to grow to unprecedented heights through the 1800s up until the Civil War.
Also, the US prior to the Civil War was structured a lot more like the modern day European Union. The whole reason our states are called "states" as opposed to "provinces" is because the original intention of the US was to be an alliance and economic union of sovereign states. Americans of the time identified with their state more than with the US as a whole, and in fact most of the army units that participated in the war on both sides were raised from the states rather than the federal government (thus getting units like "20th Maine" or "1st Minnesota"). Aside from the abolition of slavery, the biggest legacy of the Civil War is that it created the American identity, and is really where the US became an actual country unto itself.
True but it also highlights the effective industrialization.
In just twenty years, industrealization would rapidly be pursued by the former slave owners to make up for their loss of slaves.
Leaving the former slaves without jobs.
And for the next forty to fifty years, those descendants of the slaves would be poor and impoverished simply because of industrialization pushing them out of the job market.
If the slave trade had continued without the civil war.
In all likelihood the slave trade would have slowed down.
Industrialization would have taken over.
Less slaves would be bought.
And the number of slaves and total would reduce.
Essentially slavery would have ended on its own given enough time.
Not just that but the cotton-gin was crazy easy to copy so his patent on the cotton gin was worthless. Every Tom Dick and Harry could copy it and make their own.
another reason was new breeds of cotton could grow in parts of the south they couldn't previously, allowing it to become the dominant cash crop. It is the direct reason that the trail of tears took place, the formerly unvaluable land became very profitable.
Hmm I’ve a similar story involving war and the Nobel Prize inventor.
It still is true that Americans identify themselves by what state you’re from. Every state has its own identity, culture, music and food. We’re all American but state identity is still a huge part of our society
Hell theres at least 10 different cultures in california. Well, therwas before tbe crime spike....
Woah cool.. both you and @op.
Definitely true , sometimes even cities , I'm a proud New Orleans girl ❤
I'm actually very impressed with your ability to understand all our quirky idioms, which absolutely litter these videos, I'm just noticing.
Fun fact, Czar Alexander II sent the Baltic fleet to dock in New York City Harbor. The Pacific fleet was sent to San Francisco Harbor. With orders that if the British Empire joined the war, they were to fight for the Union. Odd how that little fact gets ignored.
I am not sure it is odd that it is left out. The American Civil War was a historical event that was recorded extensively and is complicated beyond mere political disagreement -- southerners to this day refuse to admit the core conflict was about slavery. It's not really a critical fact that Alexnder II offered this noble gesture. To talk about every incident and figure one would have to have a college degree.
@@DeveusBelkan After all, this is OVER simplified.
@@DeveusBelkan *Some southerners. I can admit the faults of my ancestors. It was a brutal and bloody war over owning people. And that sickens me, even as a southerner.
@@TheWolfman112 That was partly the reason but the only reason for the war. Think about it, 99% of the soldiers for the Confederate side didn't own slaves. You think they fought and died for slave owners? No. it was about state's rights including right to secession. One of the main points from that was slavery. But a Private in the Confederate Army didn't give a crap about slavery one way or the other.
@@anthonyanderson9303but he did fight for the rights to own slaves
Lincoln believed in abolition, but his 1st priority was preserving the integrity of the nation. He once said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
He was not quite the hero we made him out to be.
@@kreiner1heroes are never perfect
No, he wasn't an abolitionist. Cassius Clay, his ambassador to russia was an abolitionist, but Lincoln was not, at least not at the start of the war.
@@kreiner1 He was the hero we needed, not the one we deserved.
@@Alex-dh2cx if Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, why was he so reviled in the South?
Yes, I would like part 2 soon. I'm so glad you enjoy learning about our history. And your English is great, no problems!
Thank you! 😃
Lincoln wasn't one of the best presidents, he was the
Best.
@@benjamindouglas862I'd say your right but before I fully agree tell me who the first president wAs ...? When you say George Washington I'll ask you to Google it he wasn't the 1st unless you mean after the Constitution then he was the first also I'd put JFK as one of the best
@@Rivanni1I’d throw both Roosevelts and Harry Truman in there too. Johnson’s domestic agenda was great, but Vietnam prevents him from getting into that upper echelon. Jimmy Carter was a lot better than he was given credit for. And I may get some flack for this, but Biden might go down pretty favorable in history as well…maybe…depends on how these next couple of years go…
@@RandomNonsense1985 I definitely agree with you there except on the Biden part lol 😁
As this is primarily aimed at Americans, what's not being explained is WHY the balance was so critical.
In the House of Representatives, the number of Reps each state gets is dependent on its population. The Senate on the other hand has two Senators for EACH state. So the South while being slightly outnumbered in the House, could equal or even gain a majority in the Senate by skillful tactics in admitting new States to the Union. (Territories, then and now have representatives in Congress but they cannot vote.) Another factor was the majority of Presidents came from the South and looked after Southern interests in the 1840s and 50s. Which is another reason why the election of Lincoln caused an ENORMOUS uproar in the South
You are absolutely correct on the slavery stance of both parties. Actually it was the Republican administration of Eisenhower that used Federal troops to enforce desegregation of Southern schools. Southern Democrats opposed integration right up to the mid-1960s. Many of them, Stennis and Byrd notably, were KKK members.
Also, the President, despite what the media may have one believe, actually has very few powers regarding legislation. The levers of political power are in Congress.
Then came the great Southern strategy that caused the North to go from Progressive Republican to Democratic and the South to go from Conservative Democrat to Republican. The parties switched but each region kept their ideologies. That's why when talking about history we should remember it wasn't so much party as ideological values of the cultures which stemmed from Yankee North being very progressive and prounion and conservative Dixie South being antiunion like Strom Thurmond who became Republican after being a Democrat once his party accepted equal rights and LBJ betrayed the South for adopting Yankee values of equality for all.
@@jalicea1650 The so called "great Southern strategy" was a lie to hide Democratic opposition to Civil Rights championed by the Republican Party.
ruclips.net/video/g_a7dQXilCo/видео.html The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party - Dr. Carol Swain video for Prager University
Swain received tenure as an associate professor of politics and public policy at Princeton University.[3][4][6] From 1999 to 2017, she taught political science and law at Vanderbilt University.[3][6] In 2000, she earned a Master of Legal Studies from Yale Law School.[3][4] She retired from her post at Vanderbilt in 2017.
@@jalicea1650 Quit the propaganda B.S. Republican's weren't progressive, they were liberal, in the real sense of liberalism focusing on individual liverty. Progressivism is nothing but an ideology of societal control, forcing it into a progress of an ideal. It's still the same ideal as then, the rich elite (who were white) controlling the poor and deciding what is "good for them".
The only difference is that they traded overt slavery, for obscure slavery via "welfare" that strips away the savings and wealth of the middle class, while focing the poorest of the poor into a "one step forward, two step back" situation to where they can't escape.
The only thing that changed is the poor white "blue collar democrat voters" finally started to wake up and realize that the asshole party was started to enslave them too.
@@jalicea1650 The party swap is a bit more myth than fact. The stances that each party ran on during the civil war didn't swap but there were other stances that did change in the party's that only reared their heads later as the country progressed. The problems themselves changed more than the partys or people.
@@jalicea1650 The ideologies that were in both regions changed greatly over time. While the south became Republican, they maintained a more conservative and religious position. But the North at the time of the creation of the Republican Party was also a very religious and in some areas; a hyper religious place. So there’s more nuance to it. But in the modern day, neither party as a whole supports or would want slavery again and something almost all Americans agree on. One thing that is interesting though is that many people assume that the Republicans in the south are racist, but as a resident of the south, many people who are racist are firm Democrats who subscribe to views that were held in the 1960s. So it’s really complicated and a person to person basis. I’m not ragging on either party here. But it’s not like there’s one that is pro-slavery or pro-racism anymore.
Your English is fine. When I lived in Spain, we had a joke that the Portuguese spoke Spanish with a Russian accent. Hearing you speak English, you sound like a Russian. I love it!
I do also love oversimplified. I like that it’s presented in a way where we can laugh but still recognize the seriousness of the topic
Absolutely go ahead with part 2. So much of who we are as a nation was born out of that conflict.
Including the fact that we continue to argue about it 😆
Your English is fine for me. If you are getting any complaints, you might suggest that people turn on the closed captions and select auto-generated English. I find the auto-generate does a great job on foreign-accented English that is much worse than yours. By the way, I am really impressed that you are able to follow the Oversimplified narration, which is REALLY fast.
It should be noted that Lincoln was also a wrestling hall of Famer and literally invented the choke slam... and funnily enough, the man he did this to became Lincoln's friend...
Europeans are probably as uneducated about the American Civil war as I was about the English Civil war that led to my family Leaving northern England Scotland and Ireland to come to settle in the South Eastern United States. I've learned so much about history so much the past 5 or 6 years that it really helps make things make alot more sense in todays world. Grade school only gives you the basics and sometimes that history is very muddy or outdated. Learning about World History is key to having a good grasp of today's world!❤
The united kingdom has a rich everlasting history of division because scotland and ireland dont want to be subjects to the crown so usa history is filled with people who got on boats and fled for usa because there is no heredetary crown to be subject to. Theyre more united because you habe to alliance with those nearest to you because theres a greater geopolitical situation happening with europe and usa and russia and china so they count it as the united kingdom even if its ireland because they dont want to be subjects to the crown but they really are. The king is all around that whole area its the kingdom theyre all working together despite their differences. A lot of people didnt want to be subjects to that and they got on boats and assimilated into usa. Similar happened with germany thats why usa has a lot of german dna in americans who dont actually have any relation to germany they never lived there dont speak german dont even understand it nor identify with it. Because all these people left germany and never wanted to go back they had children in usa not germany. Thats all happened over the last 300 years. Ever since columbus got back and said the indians he found werent the ones with the red dot he was looking for. People saw how europe sucked and they decided theyd rather live in a less developed place. They were chopping trees build cabins habing kids to supply the future of a new world which played out going through the 1700s 1800s and 1900s.
"Often felt more loyalty to their State, than to the nation."
Sounds a lot like today.
Is there something inherently wrong with that?????
@@milsimgamerwell, it did partially lead to a civil war…
@@secondsea2 Yes if the usa could get rid of states they would. It's pesky having to share power with the people isn't it?
it used to be way worse then tbf
Am I one of the few who feels no loyalty to my state? I consider myself a citizen of the US before the state that I was born into.
8:16 the question you’re asking involves a concept, called “separation of powers“ Dash the founders, thought that if one branch of government could control everything, that it would expedite corruption, so the “add a state plan“ was wholly a congressional issue, and the president had no power except his usual veto or signing power.
They learned alot from what happened in Britain during the time.
@@GiRR007 indeed, the founders were observant, humble in the face of human nature, and wholly cognizant of the corrupting nature of power.
I smell sarcasm
@@peachykeen7634the only thing I wish they added was term limits to Congress
Thomas paine described it as a tree with branches
Yes. No question. Do Part 2 now so we don't forget Part 1. And because you love us.
Yes, the war was about preserving the Union first, freeing the slaves wasn't the primary goal of the North in the beginning.
12:53 To explain this there was what we call the party switch. I recommend looking at the Cynical Historian's documentary of Polarizing Politics to know more.
The "im funny "funny how" is quote from Goodfellas a must see film
The best complete documentary about this war was done by Ken Burns, it’s a nine part series that, in my opinion, the best documentary I ever seen. It’s an investment in time, but I think it’s totally worth it. It’s simply called Civil War.
Thanks for sharing, looks like a good way to use my spare time with.
@@kate2create738 I saw the original in 1990 on PBS I watch whenever I can
@@kate2create738 --- YES. BURNS ALWAYS IS A . . . good way to waste spare time when there are no women in the room.
Burns is a bit of a lefty, but his Civil war documentary is still quite a good watch with a nice soundtrack.
Ken Burns makes the best documentaries.
The Republic almost died aborning due to the split over slavery. The Southern states wanted slaves counted as persons for purposes of congressional representation, while the Northern states said "But, you say they're property, not people. We don't count cows or horses." This resulted in the infamous "Three-fifths compromise." Slaves were calculated as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation, and the Southern states joined the Union.
I often pride myself on my acquisition of knowledge, particularly in the realm of History, but I had complexly forgotten about the existence of the 3/5's compromise. Thank you for bringing up this event.
finally, fact over BS.
Dude… this was established in the Constitutional Convention back in the 18th century. It was not a “end the civil war” compromise.
@@KnufWons, yes, that's what the comment was alluding to in this phrase: "The Republic almost died aborning ..." The use of "aborning" is a reference to the nation's birth era -- it's a subtle hint but a clear one.
Interesting bit of hypocrisy caught in parchment
This is actually pretty accurate, and I'm saying that as a person who has a Master's degree in the Civil War. In particular they did a good job of pointing out that Americans in that period thought of themselves as citizens of their individual states and didn't really have a overarching idea of "America". A lot of current day Americans don't understand that and they think and say absolutely stupid things about this war as a result.
Lincoln attacked the South when people in the North opposed the war. The New England states had already discussed secession decades earlier. Secession was legal. Lincoln shut down many, many newspapers and he jailed political opponents simply because they opposed the war. Lincoln violated habeas corpus. He was the literal definition of a tyrant. Marvel has written several books on this.
I am a Tennessean first and fore most!
to be fair none of those people are americans.
the slavers and their descendants are europeans, and the slaves and their descendants are africans.
the only americans there either speak spanish or were reduced to "reservations" by the slavers and their lands have never been returned.
lol@@sabin97
@@sabin97 you have confused the tribes( there are still many!) with Americans. What we refer to as "Native Americans" do NOT call themselves that. They identify as what their tribe is.
American, North or South America, was named so by Europeans.
I, myself, am of European descent and am the descendant of both Revolutionary and Confederate soldiers. I am a native Tennessean.
Never owned a slave and surprisingly neither did my ancestors.
I know this is a somewhat old video, but I just wanna say you're perfectly intelligible. You do have a fairly obvious European accent, but that just adds character imo.
There was a radical shift in ideologies between the two parties in the late 1960's. Republicans were originally against slavery while the democrats were for it during the Civil War, but that changed with Lyndon B. Johnson, a Texas Southern Democrat that allowed the civil rights movement to succeed and ended segregation.
Johnson was able to pass incredible reforms, but he did so at the expense of his own political capitol and influence, and many democrats of that time became republicans while many republicans became democrats, and a strange kind of inversion of ideologies occurred between the two parties over the next few decades in regards to social issues. Now democrats are seen as the party of social justice and reform while republicans are considered more conservative traditionalists.
My man, your english is very good. No need to worry about it, never been a time in any of your videos I didn't understand you.
Had a grandfather in the battle of Memphis, not well known but very strategic win for the north.
How old are you 0.o
That was part of the campaign to take the Mississippi, wasn't it? So a significant step toward that goal, even if one of the last steps in that campaign--Vicksburg--gets all the attention.
The party swap is a bit more myth than fact. The stances that each party ran on during the civil war didn't swap but there were other stances that did change in the party's that only reared their heads later as the country progressed. The problems themselves changed more than the partys or people.
@@GiRR007I think you posted this reply in the wrong thread.
@@MarsJenkar huh... That's weird. I coulda sworn someone posted about it here. Anyway thanks. Should I delete it ?
So glad you did this despite the inability to monetize. Super thanks sent. Hope you do some more oversimplifieds - World War 2 is well done. Recommend you react as well to “The History of the Entire World, I Guess,” by Bill Wurtz.
I love your reaction to this! I learned this history every year it seemed in school so its just jammed into my brain, but have come to love history in the past couple years and trying to learn other civilizations and histories from a local perspective has made it seem so heavy and wholesome. It makes me happy you value our history, love your videos!
About 13:12- you’re correct! At some point in American history, the Republican and Democratic parties of America basically switched sides. Thats why it might be confusing as to why the republican party (often seen as conservative today) was anti-slavery back then- it’s a very different party today.
Actually the change didn’t really change at all. Basic values were still kept the biggest difference is how the party narratives worked. The narratives often fluctuated depending on the timeline of the events in history. So overtime the narratives towards the republicans changed depending on the issues of the time period. Which thus changed the narrative of the democrats which changed the way voters think but not necessarily how the party thinks.
Actually the fundamentals about the parties beliefs haven’t changed. What’s changed mostly is the narrative over time. The way voters think nowadays also has changed.
I love that this video talked about how this time was a period of westward expansion and how that led to the war. My ancestors were on either side of the Mason-Dixon Line, like most Americans. The war was followed by wave after wave of economic refugees from the south. Meanwhile, the political parties evolved several times over the last 150 years. People often talk about how Lincoln wouldn’t recognize his own party.
Your English is perfectly understandable. Great content!
the craziest thing is that the majority of americans nowadays don’t even have any ancestry that traces back to the civil war in america. a decent amount of new england and most of the south do but the rest of the country doesn’t and major cities have very few.
12:01-
once upon a time, the whole WORLD thought this was okay.
No, they didn't. Slavery being around doesn't mean it was ever okay. It just means powerful morally bankrupt people existed.
@@ninerealms69 so slaves being a part of every nation for thousands of years of our world's history was just because of a few powerful morally bankrupt people, and if they didn't exist no one would have owned slaves?
They knew it wasn't okay, they didn't care, and some still don't.
@@ceddispaghetti8090 How can you be so certain of that?
The entire fucking world practiced slavery until the British were the first to actually pass an abolition act.
Would definitely love it if you went ahead and put out part 2 of this one. I love your other stuff, and will definitely watch it as well, but always nice when the story isn’t interrupted for too long. 😅 the civil war still remains the bloodiest conflict in US history, btw
Love your reactions to Oversimplified. Your Genuine intrigue in the events make it a fun watch
I'm still trying to figure out why the United States is still defined by its past of slavery while slavery NEVER STOPPED all across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. There are more slaves today then at the height of the Atlantic slave trade.
And this doesn't include slave types like child soldiers and many types of prostitution.
Fun fact, my great great grandfather who was a lawyer reading for the bar exam as Lincoln did, was so emaciated from the Irish potato famine that he could not serve in the military. He did become the second Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame law school before becoming a Judge. He did business with the Lincoln family law firm.
Your English is great. You speak English very well. Don’t worry about it. You are more understandability. Than some of Scotland’s You Tubers!!!’
Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the Union. Freeing the slave came towards the end of the war. I was a tactical move to clog the roads with fleeing slaves. He really did believe the slaves should be free, but the country had to be preserved.
Lincoln was an odd dude. Originally his idea was to round up every dark skinned person in the US and boat them over to Africa independent of their ability to speak any language other than English, whether they were born here or not, whether they originated in the Dutch Indies for example, etc. Frederick Douglass wrote some pretty scalding letters and had conversation with him about how stupid that idea was, and how the misplaced desire to protect a European ethnostate was not a winning or useful tool.
Slavery only happened because britain influence and after they broke off from that a lot of corrupt farmers saw that as an opportunity to say if there is no rules they can use slabes to farm but it actually hindered them because they stopped advancing their farming tech by opting for slaves. The continental congress set the record straight when they tasked jefferson with writing the declaration of independance but the slavers invested in all these slaves they werent going to give up just because the continental congress said. To them it was the literal human slave backbone of food survival and clothingwear. If there was no slaves there was no cotton so they had to abolish slavery and invent to farming equipment in the same era.
I hope you will react to part 2 of this, since part 2 is important to get the full picture of what happened, and why Lincoln is so revered.
Revered? Dude started a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and didn't even finish his term.
Lincoln attacked the South when people in the North opposed the war. The New England states had already discussed secession decades earlier. Secession was legal. Lincoln shut down many, many newspapers and he jailed political opponents simply because they opposed the war. Lincoln violated habeas corpus. He was the literal definition of a tyrant. Marvel has written several books on this.
@@johnl5316 what a complete load of crap.
Even historians admit the reverence for Lincoln is a myth.
Building the huge Lincoln Memorial was a form of "doubling down"@@robineggblue-bp3rq
The best way I can explain statehood vs. federal to a European is to imagine your specific European country to be your “state” while Europe itself serves as the “Country”.
Yes, America is one country but within America, even today, there’s several different cultural identities depending on which state you live in. Just like how German culture is different from the culture of Greece, so too can it be said that New York culture is different from Texas culture.
Hope that helps explain why many people feel more loyalty to their state rather than to the federal government.
You should check out some of Montemayor’s content. Specifically his attack on Pearl Harbor video, his Battle of Midway series, and his Battle of the Eastern Solomons series :).
Cotton trade was slow and very labor intensive because each little tuft of cotton had numerous seeds imbedded that had to be hand picked out. Witney's "cotton gin" combed the seeds out mechanically, making it much easier to grow and process the pure fiber. (It also got a lot of cotton seeds and set off a secondary industry...pressing cottonseed oil out of those seeds) Suddenly a plantation could produce a lot more salable cotton...and more slaves could grow more raw cotton...processing it became easier...and more profitable.
Don't worry about your English. It's correct and always easy to understand
A harsh accent an s speaks too fast
At one point, the platforms flipped their ideology. To this day, people debate, argue, and fight about this topic.
Party switch is a lie.
During Nixon. The flip was completed under Bill Clinton.
@@TacticalTabby828look up the Southern Strategy. The flip started around Nixon's time and ended under Bill Clinton. We learned about it in AP US History. In Texas. And today, that's why you see Confederate flags at Republican rallies.
Your English is fine. I’m from Baltimore and you speak better English than most people I know.👍🏾
To answer about the single president... the president just doesn't have that much power. This was a legislative issue, so it was all about the congress. A president could theoretically have vetoed something the congress did, and the congress might not have been able to get the 2/3 vote to override the veto, but no one let it get far enough for the president to even have a say.
Wait.. you mean that He solely didnt actually authorize/make the decision to fight back for reacquiring the gulf coast bases? Legit curious/impressed an suprised by that fwiw imho.
1. Don’t worry about pausing the video. I’m watching for YOUR reaction.
2. Your English is great and I have no problem understanding your accent.
3. Don’t feel bad about being confused. I was raised and educated in the United States and the politics confuse me too.
I really feel engaged by you. You aren’t watching a video saying, “That’s interesting.” You are asking questions and inviting us to answer.
You give full credit to the original creator and link it below. You have more integrity than most YTbers.
You’ve earned a new subscriber and I wish you the absolute best with your channel. 💕
It's not surprising that you didn't know the Civil War was about slavery.
I'm from the U.S., and *some people* here consistently push for our textbooks to teach that the Civil War was fought exclusively over "States' Rights", despite most of the Confederate States writing in their own articles of secession that their reason for seceding was to keep their slaves, and even that slavery was a foundational part of their culture. And the same people that want to omit that from the history books want the all mentions of "slaves" to be replaced with "workers". Pretty despicable behavior.
States right to do what?
-doobus goobus
It WAS about states rights. Less that 2% of white Southerners owned slaves.
Furthermore the Confederacy was not outright forbidding the abolishment of slavery. Yes, it was A issue that was being discussed in regards to States rights, but it was not THE issue.
It was a far more fundamental issue than that.
The same thing is happening right now. Texas is threatening to secede and many states are siding with this on it. Immigration is a key driving issue that's pushing this over the edge, but this has been something that has been building up for a long time with Federal government overriding States rights.
There's actually a very strong possibility that slavery would have been phased out in the South anyway. A little bit slower, but democratically, leaving less tension and conflict in the aftermath.
@@Phatnaru0002 the point is the politicians' reasons. We (or at least i know) most southerners didnt own slaves.
@@wastelandlegocheem People can fight for the right cause, motivated by the wrong reasons. Yes, slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Southerners back in the day, and that's wrong, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't other, justified reasons they opposed the Northern Union, nor does it mean the ultimate principal of States Rights was wrong. Slavery was already losing favorability even in the South. It would have eventually been phased out there too, and while I understand that to many, "eventually" is not good enough, it's also worth noting that a lot of the systemic abuses that black people faced for the next 150 years could have been avoided if it weren't for the large, centralized Federal government we built, and that it could have been phased out much more thoroughly, and with fewer tensions, if naturally voted out by citizens.
It was about power distribution, which is about economics, which is nice way to say Money. Look at the map, the South is much larger in land mass and access to other markets, but she relied on the North for sea trade. This was an old arrangement, which eventually resulted in Northern traders, using Northern banks, trading with English banks, to make the majority of the profit from all sorts of trade, inc. slavery. Both North and South were pro-slavery. Slavery was enshrined in the US Constitution, which is why Lincoln could not, did not, dare not oppose it in 1861. If was only removed because that was good for the war effort, which is what Lincoln said very loudly and openly to his party, the cabinet, and the people. If the Confederate states were still voting in Congress, the 14th & 15th Amendments would never have got thru. As it was they barely passed. The Democrats were strongly opposed to ending slavery all thru the war, and this is the Northern Dems. They are the same party today, no change.
Your English is amazing and more importantly your understanding of the language is remarkable. Most Americans would struggle with the content of this video ❤
I think the algorithm has given me a good New Years gift 🙏🏻
I look forward to seeing more of your content!
I love the Civil War in terms of the history. Their is a movie called Lincoln that got the struggles that Abraham Lincoln went through. It was actually kind of brilliant how he turned confederate congressmen to vote yes.
Terrible movie
*There
@@docsavage8640nah its awesome
@@docsavage8640I don't think it was terrible, but I'm a history buff. You're right. It was just about the politics of the 13th amendment.
Sometimes I think I'm the only one who loves that movie...
You could consider each state to be its own country. They have their own laws, government, governer (president/leader) and accents. Like my state, Texas, was its own country from 1835-1845 after we gained independence from Mexico
I don’t think it was mentioned a lot in the video but the beginning of the war was like colonial warfare, but by the end it was months long battles of trench warfare and machine guns. This is why the Americans turned the tide in WW1, we had already fought in harsh trench warfare and had experience
A fun fact about abraham lincoln is that he was incredibly good at wrestling and is actually in the wrestling hall of fame. He won 300 matches.
A key thing about the balance of power was that the US federal government has 3 branches: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. The legislature is the only branch with the power to create new laws. The president is in charge of the executive branch but has very limited influence with the other branches (in theory anyway). If the legislature (Congress) votes in a new bill, the president can veto it as long as Congress’ majority vote was less than two thirds.
There’s also two sections of Congress that vote separately and the rules for how many representatives each state gets are different for the two divisions.
The end result of all this is that controversial laws are difficult to pass at a federal level. This is made doubly true when we start talking about amending the constitution as that requires significantly more political support than normal laws (by design). Because of all of this, if one faction gains a slight majority, it’s unlikely to result in a major change in the relevant laws, but a bigger majority absolutely could.
One last note is that there’s no way in Hell a normal bill would resolve the slavery dispute long term; it was a big enough deal that it required an amendment
The Civil War was one of the defining events in this country's history, and I say that as someone who grew up in California, about as far from the action as possible. If you can, watch The Civil War by Ken Burns--the most impactful documentary I've ever seen.
So I don't know if this has been said in the comments but a major reason why many people in non slave states were against slavery was because it was considered an unfair economic advantage that the Plantation owners did not have to pay the people they were having work. Not to mention that while many in the north were for the abolition of slavery, they were by no means for true equality. That's part of why John Brown was considered radical since he believed in true equality.
Yes. Slavery brings a vast multitude of evils struggles and conflict into the world. They will fall curses blessings in order to normalize it and in lincolns age and washingtons age they forced it on them by saying it was a nessessary part of the economy because you need people to pick the cotton or no one has clothes. So the south had slaves and they invented the cotton gin. Now you need a fraction of the slaves. George washington even called it he was saying in the long run slabery would die out and in usa it was a short run thing. After washington died they faught a war and ended it. But in the rest of the world today slabery is still active. So one side was fighting to protect their slaves when thatss tupidnthey shoulda been investing in cotton gins because what happened is they didnt and then they lost the war and died and the slaves got replaced by cotton gins. They went from walking picking wheat with a sythe to steam tractors very quickly and overnight almost you didnt need slaves all they needed was a tractor and a feild and people were getting rich growing food for money without enslaving anyone and it turned out it was better to not have slaves whoooooo couldveeee guessseddd??!?! 😂 george washington and thomas jefferson wanted to free their slaves but they grew up in britiah controlled colonies. PA was only 1/4 british english emigrant and britain was excerting full control over all colonies. Freeing slaves was illegal and if you just freed your slaves they cant get a tractor to farm to get rich also theyre not allowed to own land if they were a slave. So washington and thomas and all those guys had to detach from outside regimes in order to formulate their own form of governmdnt in order to not be regonized as subjects of the crown and subject to british "law" as well as to not be seen as in a "rouge rebel state" which was a criminal state. Thays why they had to form the 3 branch republic becsuse you cant ban slavery in a rouge state that has no form of government or if theyre subjects to a slaving tyranny like the crown who wss using the east india company to partake in the slave trade and was demanding we have to buy their yea pay for their slaves and pay their taxes. They had to go in there and lay a great foundation and they did that before the civil war but after the revolutionary war which was a short period of time and they hagent changed it ever since until today. All this corruption has been added on like the atf but the idea of a 3 branch republic is to avoid the shortfalls of democracies kingdoms dictstorships monarchies etc while also being able to not he recognised on an international level as not in a rouge state where no one is determining if slavery is illegal or not. Clearly you need them in there saying slavery is illegal. If we do the opposite its like disrupting the whole order of the universe. A moon isnt bigger than its planet. An island cannot rule a continent but a continent can protect an island. The founding fathers talked about weights. If you have a small wheel weight attached to a big wheel weight the big wheel weight when it turns overrides the small. So you can have small weights on and they can have little influence on tbe big weight but you can rotate them along by influencing the big weight. So they applied that to forming our government. Why would they let usa a big wheel weight be governed by a small wjeel weight on tbe other side of the ocean? It is the big wheel weight that when it turns every small wheel weight will follow. So they had to design a new form of government and they saw government as a nessessary evil that people loath but whoever can impliment a form of government thay maximizes happyness and reduces national cost will be like a savior. They hated government and saw it as a huge dsnger an extreme evil to people but the issue is the universe has a god that governs it with natural laws so if the universe requires natural laws to be governed if we do not govern outselves with natural laws we are ungoverned and we become out of line with gods order in the universe. They go and they say if there is no rules anything goes and thats what was happening in usa before the founding fathers had to take their roles architecting the foundation of the nation. They knew slavery was an unnatural evil more than most they grew up on slave plantations in the 13 colonies. They had a better world in north america and in the span of very few years they faught many wars claimed independance and defeated slavery. It was complicated times because they had to seperate from england but at the same time before the war england was selling and profiting off the slavery in usa they were the ones wanting the slaves to pick the cotton they only wanted to be exported to them. So they didnt want the south to side with england. There was these tar and featherints etc of people in the south who kept siding with england in the period. So they stopped talking aboht slavery waahington franklin they were all in the continental congress and tasked thomas jefferson to write the declararion of independance and slavery specifically wasnt mentioned in it because for one it was a declaration of independance it was against the king and slavery at the same time. It says all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights given by god. They recognized their own slaves deserves freedom and thomas and washington were preparing their slaves hoping it was going to happen in their lifetimes because they knew what was happening in the continental congress. Thomas jefferson had a slave who was his mistress he loved dearly and she couldnt be freed but when he got sent to europe on constitutional business for the continental congress he brought her and slavery wasnt legal in paris so there was a big deal made aboht how he had to pay her a wage while they were there so he did and she was an "paid assistant" or something. When they had to go back she said she wanted to stay and be free and he promised her if she came back with him they were going to hage children who werent going to grow up and slaves in america because he was in the continental congress and knew what was about to happen so she came back with him and their children did infact become freed and it was complicated they woukd go to free states because the soith was really salty about their slave farming business they didnt like the cotton gin as they invested all their money in slaves so they had to fight a civil war over ot we are learning about here but its incredible history anyway. Thomas begging his sweet lady to come be a slave is some rough stuff 😂 only thomas jefferson could woo a lady away from paris when paris was in its prime back to being a slave in usa right right right before slavery was about to be defeated 😂 incredible love story frankly needs to be a movie that will get the women into history for once.
Republicans were liberal / progressive in the olden days. This quickly changed over the next 60 years. FDR(Franklin Delaware Roosevelt) was a progressive Democratic President. Republicans became right wing after Theodore Roosevelt. The parties basically flipped and thats where you're getting the dissonance between current party positions and those contained in the video. If Lincoln were around today he'd be a Democrat.
Your English is great. At some points your accent is a little thick but that's normal and perfectly fine.
The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was a strong advocate for big government, while Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was committed to curbing federal power. This switch in platforms is often referred to as the “Great Switch.”
Wait, this is not correct. Both presidents seriously advanced stronger and more comprehensive federal control of governance. Roosevelt literally seized control of pretty much the entire country's industrial production in support of the war. He had the entire nationality of Japanese immigrants interred on nothing but suspicion that some may be disloyal to the nation during the war. And the New Deal consisted of huge expansions of federal involvement in aspects of the economy and society that previously had been the charge of state governments or had no government involvement of any sort.
@@tchoupitoulos he asked when the Dem and Rep parties switched...
@@ravynvega2579 Sure, but that doesn't make the statement, "Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was committed to curbing federal power." true, or even anywhere arguably close to true. The Civil War and great Depression/WWII periods mark two periods of the most extreme expansion of federal and specifically federal executive power.
Don't worry, your accent is not a problem at all! It's so fun to see you react to things like American history. You have such a positive outlook and you're so interested in learning and I really respect that!
US civil war was about taxes. South didnt want to pay for export tax, tobacco and cotton, to england. North seen it as not helping the states so needed to be taxed
You arent understanding that the states were separate countries and made their own internal laws. The president only gets involved in issues between states and other countries. We are 50 states united.
12:03 Yes, it is crazy. But it's also understandable. People like what they're comfortable with, and the slave owners and traders were very comfortable. It was also easy for them to justify based on the idea that Africa was not a very civilized continent and its peoples considered savages. The Native Americans were also considered savages and not equal to a human in value to society.
It's important to remember that the United States did NOT invent African slavery. It inherited it. And, finally, abolished it.
Just a point of order, slavery was abolished in several other 1st world countries long before the US did, including England, France, and Spain.
@@anthonyanderson9303 So? Belgium wants a word...
Lincoln was a great tactical planner, but it took the North a while to find a great general.
I grew up here in the US and had Civil War in classes just about every year. Never heard the Missouri Compromise described so clearly. I mostly heard the term "Missouri Compromise" used to describe mullets. Great video!
Yes react to part 2 please. Things got so much worse but it had to happen. Your English is perfect btw.
13:00 its complicated, but long story short, the social and economic policies of the two parties flipped between the late 1800s and the 1930s. It's strange, but also interesting to read up on.
The party swap is a bit more myth than fact. The stances that each party ran on during the civil war didn't swap but there were other stances that did change in the party's that only reared their heads later as the country progressed. The problems themselves changed more than the partys or people.
In the 1950s and 60s, you see a dramatic change happening as the Republicans look to grow their political power. Good opportunity to learn about Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy. At the same time, the turbulence of the Vietnam War causes chaos among the Democrats during the 1968 Dem National Convention, leading to that party's lasting transition to more progressive policies.
@@GiRR007I mean there's a reason democrats used to win every election in the south, and now it's completely dominated by republicans. The republicans were not always the conservative party they are now.
@@AndrewWright1973 The 'southern strategy' was like one or two people in the 50/60s, and it didn't even work that well, which is why they fell out of favor and stopped winning elections and their strategy never caught on more widespread. It did make a really good point for anachronistic smears decades against the republicans though, just like the LBJ quote for the democrats from literally the exact same time period.
@@liarwithagun You mean the LBJ quote that was made up?
The Republican Party was founded to eliminate slavery, it is even in the party charter. The Democrat party were mostly Southerners then. When Lincoln was elected president and worked to outlaw slavery the southern states chose to leave (secede) from the union thereby breaking up the United States. They called it "states rights" and secession was the cause of the Civil War even though secession was the result of outlawing slavery. Hope that helps.
Modern Republicans hate when you point out the party switch that happened not long after though. But it's not hard to guess which party supports what now. Just look for the ones that cried about "heritage" and have Confederate flags at rallies and marches. Lol.
The south rebelled as soon as Lincoln was elected, not in response to anything specific he did. It was more about fear of what he might potentially do with his abolitionist ideals rather than anything he had actually done yet. They had seen people, especially the North and the majority of Europe, become more and more anti-slavery over time and they faced more and more resistance to the institution of slavery over time. Lincoln was just the straw that broke the camels back as they saw it as the moment the scales finally tipped against them.
Lincoln was definitely looking for ways to minimize slavery, seeing as how he had the Emancipation Proclamation written for quite a while before he decided to issue it, but he probably only would have done what he could have gotten away with while preserving the union. The south rebelling actually allowed him to advance his cause way, way more than if they had just stayed.
I love the combination of YOU and Oversimplified!!
I love this guy, But the accent makes the video even better.
My friend. There exists Americans that are not aware of this history. 😂. It’s more personal for me because I had family on both sides of the conflict. It really did a number on my relatives and we were almost wiped out as a result. My great grandfather rebuilt our family with two wives and 14 children.
My father's family is the result of two families fleeing Tennessee then getting caught in the CW. Great-grandfather was wounded and ran away to keep them from cutting off the leg. So the family had to do it. After he died his widow claimed widow benefits but they had refused because he was recorded as a deserter. So she reapplied with a different regiment number.
same i got family on both sides
History re-written and taken as fact, unfortunately
The people want part 2. Give the people what they want! :)
Yeah, Lincoln was something of a brainiac, and one of the finest writers of prose in the English language. He was a remarkable combination of the highest morals + the highest intelligence. (Think Chekhov, but instead Lincoln became a lawyer. I don't know what this says about Americans.)
Lincoln was a racist.
“Funny how? Funny like a clown? Do I amuse you?” Is from the movie Goodfellas. Joe Pesci says this a bit before he ends up beating a guy to death for saying he was a “funny guy.”😂 We say this every so often in our family, as a joke, of course.
When you think if Miss Meeker had accepted Lincoln's Marrage proposal, he would have been a southern slave owner, you see how weird history can be.
I’d like to learn more about the Portuguese slave trade and the Brazilian/Portuguese relationship historically if you ever do a video like that.
LOL… I somehow graduated from a US high school with no idea that Portuguese, Spanish, and French colonies also practiced slavery. I only learned about slavery in the US! 😢
@@StrawberryShortcake12335 don’t forget the Netherlands!
@@StrawberryShortcake12335 It will really blow your mind when you learn how widespread slavery was throughout the world, such as among Middle Easterners and North Africans, who not only took huge numbers of black slaves mostly from East Africa but also enslaved around 1 million Europeans. North Africans even raided Iceland of all places and carried off an entire coastal village's population to be sold into slavery for example.
Only a very small percentage of the transatlantic slave trade involved slaves taken to the United States or what would become the United States; yet many American school fixate only on that as if slavery in the rest of the world isn't important somehow.
@@JRRLewis Yes, I know that now. I’m much older and a prolific reader, but very disappointed in my school’s history classes! The 2014 (ish) revision of the AP US History test was equally bad.
The political parties in the U.S. have evolved continuously since they were founded in the early history of the country. In effect, the country has seen several party alignment shifts (historians calls them party "systems") as the major issues changed over time. So, while the names remain the same, the Democratic and Republican parties have very different ideologies and constituencies than they did at the time of the Civil War. At that time, the Democratic Party represented both Southern agrarian (slaveholding) interests and (strangely enough) immigrant workers in the northern cities. In the 1950s through the 1970s, Southerners completely shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party, which lost the support of more progressive voters in some of the Northern states.
I came here to say that. A lot of people including some Americans don't really understand the shifts in the parties and how essentially they have swapped places more or less.
Hooooo boy.. The moment the U.S. nearly imploded. I''m gonna watch your reaction to the Revolution and be back. American history is... not exactly rosy nor just, and our politics are... necessary but so far from optimal that it looks ridiculous from inside and out. Anywho, remember we want to see your "long pauses" because we want to hear your perspective, don't apologize.
If only our pesky Socilaists would leave things would be fine
@@docsavage8640 LoL I was alluding to the fact that most politicians are bought and paid for by capitalists and corporations who would and do stab us all in the back for a quick buck, and that our "First past the post" style of governance is why we are stuck with Democrats and Republicans but okay.
@@docsavage8640 There are almost no socialists involved. You're delusional.
It would be so much easier if you just gave up your Social Security and your Medicare. Oh, and stop freeloading off states with bigger economies and higher tax bases.
England, France, Spain were all waiting (and want g) that US implosion for their territorial interests. The U.S. Civil War isn’t all that long ago - yet it was also less far from the U.S. Revolution (and establishment of the Constitution) especially given the histories of those European countries.
All the over simplified videos are great!
Lincoln was not only smart, he was tough. He is one of only two Presidents (the other being Teddy Roosevelt) to be inducted into the Wrestlers Hall of Fame. He had an astounding record of 300 wins, one loss.
Washington and Lincoln are usually rated either Nbr 1 or 2 of the Great Presidents. I am in the Washington #1 camp, for reasons.
my top 3 in no particular order are Washington, Lincoln and FDR
@@Basebidet0 Nah. Washington, Lincoln, and TEDDY Roosevelt.
The parties basically swapped sides gradually over like 40-50 years, between about the 30s to 80s (primarily in the 60s-ish). It's a lot more complicated than that, and the extent to which the switch happened depends on who you talk to, but yes, you're understanding the parties right.
This myth will never die. Please leave your echo chamber.
@@ShojoBakunyu And as this comment illustrates, many in our country still refuse to acknowledge any of this from the get-go. They claim the Civil War was about a tyrannical over-reach of federal power and had nothing to do with slavery. Further they claim that the Republican party today is ideologically the same as the one in the past, completely rejecting the reality of things like Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and so on. A contradiction that's EASILY debunked when you look at who gets upset about the Confederate memorials being taken down today.
The good thing is that you can get accurate historical information on these periods from any reputable source. While these fringe ideas are popular in this country amongst a certain segment, it's still only accept inside their own circles.
It less that they swapped and more that the original democrats party 'died' in the first half of 1900s (like the Wigs did when the Republicans started gaining steam) because they got way less votes, and so different people with different values were voted for in their place, causing the party to significantly change. So the democrats literally became something completely different and just happened to keep the name. The republicans have shifted some over the years as the things they originally cared about mostly became things that both sides agreed upon so were no longer an issue, so they started to fight over different issues. They also absorbed some of the other political factions (business, religious, 'traditional values', etc) that saw them as more agreeable compared to the 'new' democrats, so that changed them as well.
@@ShojoBakunyu this question should be interesting, then: The KKK, originally a Southern Democrat terrorist organization, now supports which party? Also: the people who now fly the Confederate Battle Flag support which party?
Your english is excellent! Do not worry. As an American, i am thoroughly enjoying your perspective
24:45 When thinking about casualties to North vs South, you have to adjust for resources, like population. Of course, morale of the nation matters, so the North cannot simply accept huge losses. Basically, the South would have to inflict about x4 losses on the North to have any chance. Also keep in mind that about 2/3 of all losses in ACW were from disease and sickness.
The second set of casualties shown was the battle of Shiloh, a major Southern surprise offensive. This HAD to succeed and drive back Grant's army, before it was joined by another Union army, after which that massive force would take the railhead connecting East-West trade in the Confederacy (Vicksburg was the other one further south, and even bigger). So the North got their ass kicked on the first day, but Grant refused to give up. The next day, the Southern force was forced to withdraw. Note that these rebel forces were railed in from all over the map, and some had to be sent back to stabilize Tennessee, so this non-victory was a big loss. Also, the Southern Major-Gen Johnson was killed. The men lost on both sides were 50% raw recruits... so not the end of the world for the North, which lost more.
Shiloh was the battle that really began the great friendship between Grant and Sherman. One of Grant's division commanders was Lew Wallace, who wrote the famous story (later movie) Ben Hur. Wallace marched down the wrong road on the first day, then counter-marched back, basically missing most of the battle. He should not be confused with L.E. Wallace who commanded a different division for Grant that first day, who was killed holding the line. He did not have a chance to write a book.
The Republican and Democratic parties essentially switched party platforms on social and political issues is the 1960's (in response to the confusion at 13:00 in the video). A lot of people even in the US don't know that.
The switch started before the 1960's, the change in political alignment happened gradually over around 90 years, it wasn't a single moment that flipped the political alignment, but a series of steps on both sides, the 1960's marked more or less the end of the party switch, but it started almost immediately after the end of the civil war.
13:00 You're correct, and it makes sense that it would be confusing. In a nutshell, the Republican Party was originally a "left-wing" party and the Democratic Party was originally a "right-wing" party, more or less. The two parties gradually switched sides over a span of a few decades during the 1900s, from roughly the 1930s to the 1960s. The Democrats began to appeal to the poor and working class and the Republicans began to appeal to the business community. The process was largely complete by 1968 when the Democrats had passed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans had implemented the "Southern Strategy" of trying to win the votes of conservative Christians in the southern states. If you want to see this comparison, look at a map of the 1860 election and the 2012 election, or even the 1952 election and the 1964 election. You'll see that the southern states flipped from blue to red and vice versa.
I was scrolling to see if someone explained this, and you did!
The North had no exports.
The South was the money maker thru agricultural exports.
The only way the North could profit was thru Tariffs.
But The South was able to use Tenant Farmers and Migrant Workers to harvest those cash crops.
The North engaged in human trafficking. All the American slave ships were owened and run by Northerners.
So The North saturated the South with slaves they captured from Africa, (using a "buy one now, and own them for life" marketing pitch), leaving no work for Tenant Farmers or Migrant Workers.
When the South said "We have enough workers", Lincoln renamed the slaves "Sharecroppers" and claimed they were paid 1/3 of a plantation's earning in the form of "Taxable Wages".
The South declared it unconstitutional, and LEGALLY seceded from the union.
The North declared war and invaded the South, refusing to vacate Fort Sumter, converting that defensive port into a Sentry Post preventing the South from engaging in free trade with Europe.
The South had fully seceded, even using its own currency.
That's why the North attacked.
But you won't hear this in history class, becuse its the truth.
The majority of black slaves brought to America were sold or traded by thier own tribal chiefs in Africa. History books fail to mention this for some reason 🤔
By the way, we still can't even agree on the names of the battles. Union army dispatches would refer to the nearest geographical feature (Bull Run, Antietam, Balls Bluff, etc) while the Confederate army dispatches would refer to the nearest town or settlement (Manassas, Sharpsburg, Leesburg, etc) or where they did the best of the fighting (Fair Oaks vs Seven Pines).
At 8:11 when you ask about the President, they actually had far less power and influence than they do now and the dominant branch of government tended to be congress. It was the civil war and Lincoln's Presidency that saw the powers of the President expand, and they continued to expand all the way up to today.
Yeah. As a whole the government has only grown more powerful over time, all three branches. The president is the one most obvious in this.
Republicans used to be the liberals, and Democrats used to be the conservatives. Somewhere along the way they swapped
It happened around the civil rights era. You can see the beginning of it in the transition from the 1960 presidential election to the 1964 election. The “solid south” voted for Kennedy, but then took the opposition stance against the popular LBJ. This party switch on presidency persisted, but many of those southern voters remained Democrats officially. However the Dixiecrat tradition had weakened, and their children who supported segregation followed the lead of Strom Thurmond and committed to the Republican Party. A big reason those southern voters switched parties was because Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon began implementing the Southern Strategy of appealing to segregationist beliefs.
Vloggging Through History had the same issue. I think you can resolve it. But, yeah, no monetary value in you reaction. Thanks for continuing.
POTUS's oath of office on inauguration day. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Every POTUS represents the entire US. Most of them do so. During the Civil Rights Movement, the parties flipped.
There was a thing that happened in the 60s or 70s called The Southern strategy, which caused the Dems and Republicans voting base to flip. It had to do with the civil rights movement. Republicans knew that the Democrats in the south were upset about the civil rights movement, so they pandered to that anger and convinced a lot of southern Democrats to become Republicans. The South had been a Democrat stronghold for a long time at that point, so it was a pretty big deal. Republicans nowadays will tell you that this never happened, because they like to say that the Dems are the party of slavery, and the Southern strategy just puts the blame back on Southerners where it rightfully belongs. They have always defended racism and slavery since the beginning of the countries existence, and they still do it today
Yeah, there is no denying it. The same people who fly confederate flags because it's "their heritage" also support Republicans. So it's clear the switch did happen, but it started before the 60s, it just accelerated during that time.
@@alexs1640 not really. modern people that fly it are slpit to was. racists bigots. or those that beleive in small government. Ironically the south had a good reason to start but chose the wrogn thign to start it over.
This is an oft-parroted lie - that Republicans went after the racists, and that's why the south (which had been strongly Democrat) is now Republican. Except Strom Thurmond was the only prominent southern Democrat to become Republican. Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, numerous others from across the south who fought against the Civil Rights Bills of the 50s and 60s, all stayed Dems to their dying day. The "Southern Strategy" was a term used by the media to talk about Nixon inroads into the south - except it's not true. Wallace (3rd party) pulled votes away from Humphrey (D), not Nixon (R). Nixon *DID* get more votes in the south - in the border state South: Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina. What else was happening in the 60s and 70s, in addition to adoption of Civil Rights and enforced desegregation? The south was adopting air conditioning, and folks were relocating. Huge inroads of voters from the cooler north were moving south. Some southern states increased in population over 200% in just 2 decades. Nixon and Reagan were able to increase previous Republican vote totals in some formerly Dem states because - surprise! Huge migration from northern states was occurring, offsetting historic Dem voters from throughout the south.
Democrats now maintain their plantation mentality - the same mentality that had Lyndon Johnson quoted as saying (after he signed the Civil Right Act of 1965), "I'll have them [n-word]s voting Democrat for 200 years." The idea that they (Democrats) will take care of those less-fortunate, less-educated. "They can't even get a driver's license!" It's that racist white Democrat mentality that pervades the party to this day: the same "we know better and we'll take care of you" plantation mentality.
The Dred Scot case is a fascinating one. I'm sorry they glossed over it. Dred Scot argued that since he traveled to and lived in a free Missouri territory, then he was automatically free. He lost his case, but this was a high-profile incident in which a black man made a bold move to freedom. It was one of many bold moves black people made. Eventually progress was made.
Yeah in that case judge Taney a Democrat said the Scott couldn't be counted as a whole person because then they have to give him gun rights. That's where the first gun laws come from.
Keep reacting. I enjoy your laugh and how you understand just how nuts we are, as a people!!!! My grandmother in Owensboro, KY she said our ancestors till felt, "We could have beat them Yankees with corn stalks, but were fighting with guns."
Slavery was LEGAL, so it was never a war over slavery.
Stop spamming your lost cause garbage.
Actually the slaves were willing to fight against their NORTHERN enslavers.
The video you're watching is perpetuating a false narrative.
I don't like the ads, but appreciate you giving the creator the bump.
8:01 - you're correct, there's only one President, who can only sit on one side of the fence. The problem here, with trying to keep an equal number of "Slave" States and "Free" States isn't about the President. It's about the Senate.
The Senate is one of the two Houses of Congress. See, in the other House, the House of Representatives, each state gets a number of Representatives that is (supposed to be) proportional to their population. Today, California gets 52 Representatives; Wyoming gets 1. But in the Senate, every State gets 2 Senators. Period. (The idea was supposed to be that the House of Representatives represents The People, and the Senate represents The States.)
Laws have to be passed by both Houses, and at this point in time, the North was FAR more populated than the South - which meant the North essentially held control over the House of Representatives. But in the Senate, if the North had one more State than the South, the North would control the Senate - and therefore the entirety of the Federal government - and therefore could abolish slavery, which the South simply could not tolerate. If the South had one more State than the North, then the South would control the Senate, and could just simply reject any anti-slavery bill the House tried to pass, and government would grind to a halt. Therefore, the only way to either end slavery or protect slavery was to create one more "Slave" state or one more "Free" state.
Agree, I like oversimplified--very educative & entertaining at the same time, I already watched many of them, all very good. And don't worry about your english, it's good and easy to understand. As someone told me when I was learning: practice makes perfect--and for you, recording these reactions is a way to practice. Keep on doing them, and of course, we want part 2, or any other video from their channel, you have many to choose from, so go ahead. Have a nice day & see you next.
In high school, we did a popular piece in marching band called "The Great Locomotive Chase" is based off an event during the Civil War.
i’m a southerner from the us so i think my view is a bit biased, but i consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the civil war and i have a bachelors degree in history for what that’s worth
i think this video, as the title says, oversimplified a lot to get the main ideas across. but what that means is that the standard narrative continues: the south sucks and we’re racists and blah blah. it’s very frustrating because we’re incredibly kind and loving people who are a bit rough around the edges but we welcome everyone. i don’t like that we carry the burden of this stereotype when THE WHOLE US at the time shared the beliefs most southerners had at the time about racial dynamics and slavery. in world terms it’s even worse, as at the time slavery was an extremely common institution world wide.
i also have an issue with slavery being cast as the primary issue for both sides in the war not because i don’t think it was, but it’s that it lends itself to the yankee propaganda machine framing of the civil war as the rest of the countries righteous crusade against the backwards southerners to help black people when black people were treated equally if not worse in the north than in the south before 1865. which makes a lot sense the more you look i to it when you realize states like mississippi, my native state, and south carolina were and are again rapidly approaching being majority black.