@@christophernsmb300 the only errors I see simply regard these positions of tribe location are determined when Europeans found each tribes, but fail to register the origin of the tribes. It's like how the Roman's have all of Italian penisula, but we know Rome was not to original tribe of Italian peninsula and there were other tribes. We know roughly the date Rome was founded but we dont know the original tribe of where Rome now stands.
The City of Philadelphia, PA has Blue and Gold for its municipal colors, a reference to the Swedish origin of settlement there. @@HeadCannon19 (google/wiki it all!!)
I like this chart. It has so much information that could be examined for hours. One thing your video is missing is the acknowledgment of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) which resulted in the U.S. acquisition of a sizeable portion of Mexican land. Part of the conflict leading into the Civil War (1861-1865) was the debate of whether they should prohibit slavery in the newly gained territories.
Yeah but this video should be shown to all these news organizations that say Mexico owned this part of the US and Mexico owned that part of the US when in reality Mexico didn't own any of it until well after European colonization
@@KlavierMenn EVERYWHERE THE PORTUGUESE WERE BEFORE, and whom you return almost all territories after the portuguese indipendence from spain, that lasted almost a century. The ones you dident't return to the portuguese, you gave it to the british a little later. The dutch empire in fact never existed, it was basically a corporation dedicated to explotation based on racism. In this regard, the british was the best pupil that surpassed the master
Thanks for this and mentioning the older chart from 1910, I'll have to locate one. I was surprised at the 1859 date for the last imported enslaved people from Africa, as I knew the legal importation was ended in 1808. It should be no surprise that the existence of a law does not change behavior. I had to stop the video and find out why you had that date. It took a couple tries to get my search parameters correct before I found an article on the Clotilda and another on the Wanderer. For some reason, articles about the legal end of the importation of slaves from Africa did not mention many details about the illegal importation. My schooling pointed out the legal end of slavery and that was it. I have a BA in history, but no college class on the US for the time period had time to get that specific, and I don't even recall it as a footnote. My main area of interest in history in college was the ancient world of the Middle East and Mediterranean, and Europe from then until about WWI, so I didn't have any classes that spent more time on the topic. I'm in my mid-50's so it doesn't surprise me that the culture of the times glossed over this. Here's the article I found on the Clotilda on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotilda_(slave_ship)
You should do this about Canada, since you’re Canadian ;) There’s lots of history there. I think the changes Manitoba itself went through are pretty interesting, including the North-west Territories. :)
Can't wait~ When I took that Canadian history course, the story that most interested me was Acadia. You did talk about it briefly in this video but I'm interested to hear about it more.
0:00 Explaining The Charts 2:17 A Chart From The Past inspired today’s Chart 3:14 1581 3:38 Native American Groups • St Augustine 5:02 1621 5:53 1661 • Native Americans • African Slavery 7:41 1701 8:06 1741 • Louisiana (After Louis XIV) 8:40 1781 • French And Indian War (1753-1762) 10:38 1821 • Louisiana Purchase (1803) • Lewis And Clark 12:38 1861 • The Civil War (Slavery was a big part of the war, other factors played a part as well) 13:36 1901 13:56 1941 14:13 Populations and Cities
As a resident of Florida and descendant of Floridanos, Calusa and Timucua I would like to point a few things out. First, no such nation as Seminole existed prior to the 19th century. The prevailing nation in Florida from the time the Spanish discovered Florida to the mid 18th century were the Calusa people. The Timucua were the specific nation in what became St. Augustine when the Spanish arrived in 1565. I would also like to point out that between 1761 and 1781, Florida was owned by Great Britain before it was returned to the Spanish who for all intents and purposes abandoned it to the United States who by 1818 treated it as a de facto territory though it would be another year or two before Spain officially left.
Also one minor note, not all soldiers wore blue or grey. My 3rd great grandfather was an officer in a company of Zouave volunteers. Zouaves were volunteer units who dressed in uniforms designed to appear as Turkish militia. The area of the Levant was highly romanticized by 19th century Americans who were in love with flamboyant costumes and uniforms. The colors varied greatly by unit and the most prevalent color was red and that held true for both sides though Zouaves were more common in the north. The enlisted men in my ancestor's company wore white pants and a red tunic with a small amount of both blue and grey as well as gold trim. They also carried Scimitar style swords. I believe that nearly half the fighting forces of the north were volunteer forces and of them more than half were Zouave units. Many of the other volunteer units who were not Zouaves also wore their own often flamboyant uniforms and they came in virtually every color of the rainbow.
Yeah, I think it would have been good to have a map at the conclusion of The Seven Years War. Some commentators refer The Seven Years War as the true 'first' world war.
Something I noticed is that for the Civil War map you had Missouri and Kentucky mixed. Im gonna assume that’s because they were slave states who stayed in the Union. If that is the case, Maryland and Delaware should have been mixed too.
In Texas, there were around 50 small Indian tribes throughout the state in the 1700’s. The Comanche and Apache moved in and systematically wiped out these small tribes which sometimes only consisted of 300-400 people. Many of these people fled to the 5 missions in the San Antonio area, including the Alamo. All 5 missions still exist with the Alamo being the least well preserved. You can visit them in San Antonio by following the “Mission Trail National Park”. The 50+ small Indian tribes were driven to extinction by the intrusion of the warlike Comanche and Apache.
US public schools don't teach it because the federal government never took them seriously, they just kind of ignored them and acted like they were a state until they caved. There's still a section in Vermont called the Northeast Kingdom, switch stems from the original idea of Vermont's independence. Edit: my apologies I misremembered. I originally said it was the Kingdom of Vermont (as many people still refer to it as "the Kingdom")
North-East Vermont is called "the Kingdom": because of its isolated and independent ways. @@angusb99 I'm sure this topic is mentioned in elementary school. Of course I had that in Texas, so of course, the teachers would mention the Vermont Republic.
Love your channel and all of your videos I’ve seen so far. Just visited your site to order some posters for my classroom, and to your friend’s site to order a couple Native American posters as well. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and hard work! It is much appreciated and enjoyed!
I love how people always point out that North America was conquered and act like all these native American tribes were a bastion of peace and love or that this is the only time in history that people were conquered.
been a subscriber since 2018, love your older videos with the more raw format, are they all gone forever or are they still hosted somewhere we can watch?
I’ve lived in Wisconsin my whole life and if I remember right, Native Americans lived first and then we have always been always mostly a German heritage state - ask anyone who lives here!
You say Native Americans were pushed off there lands but this wasn't true in Spanish lands were there was more assimilation. The Spanish and Natives created a new people called Mestizos which are their descendants. These people still dominate the southwest.
The Spanish came as conquerers and treated the Native Americans similar to how they treated serfs back in Europe. The English usually settled in unused land. It was unused due to 99% of all Native Americans dying because of disease from the beginning of the Colombian Exchange. Once Native American populations began to bounce back is when most of the fighting started.
@@timothyr3038 You cant compare. First this is a video about the US, so what happened in Latin and South America doesnt really pertain. The abuses in Latin and South America were not really an issue in the Southwest. The millions of brown people in the southwest and hundreds of millions in Latin and South America are the descendants of both Spanish and Indians. In English North America they were decimated and the survivors relocated to reservations. Again no comparison.
It's impresive to see how much Spain has to do with US history. They had the first European settlement and controlled over the 50% of the actual territory. Also, after independence, Mexico continued ruling over places like California, New Mexico or Texas. How can still Americans be annoyed when they hear someone speaking Spanish in public? It's literally part of the US
Great presentation I would like to mention, that the Civil War was actually not fought upon the idea of slavery, but rather settled upon the freedom of people. The Civil War was initially about money and trade within the United States of America. To so casually put this in the box of simply slavery does a huge disservice to the people that are watching your videos which, are so great. Thanks
Love the maps, what I do see that's missing is the Spanish American war of 1898. Which would explain Puerto Rico's current association to the US. Not to mention Philippines, Guam and Cuba. This would tell the more true story. Important for those of us living today as we travel accross this nation. It can make better sense of why things are the way they are today. Love your channal.
this is awesome. do you have a video on the history of the pacific northwest and the oregon trail?! I'm from there and it would be fascinating to learn about it from a chart perspective like these videos!
we were also the first country besides England to get rid of slavery. that is a positive. Comparing to the rest of the world that had them for over a thousand years. the dose that makes it better of course not. But I feel like a lot of people forget that positive fact about the USA.
Garret Garlinger - France abolished slavery in 1848. Portugal abolished slavery in 1858. Spain abolished slavery in 1811. Several other countries abolished slave trading before 1865. The United States was one of the the last nations to abolish slavery. Brazil and Cuba did so later.
It's popular these days to hate on America while completely disregarding that the same processes played out in every part of the world in all of human history. History itself is the tale of people conquering other people, taking their lands, and displacing or utterly annihilating the previous inhabitants.
Wow! Looking at some comments here I've realized how ignorant people are about the Viceroyalty of New Spain. The worse part of all, is that Mexicans along with Hispanic people living in today's U.S. southwest States are totally oblivious of the prowess achieved by their own ancestors. The Spanish Vice Royalty of New Spain (1521-1821), once engulfed todays' Alaska, Washington State, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma (partially) and Texas in modern U.S. - Yeah.. This video is a bit inaccurate (Nonetheless a remarkable video, double thumbs up!), as it only shows the territory where Spanish cities were built, but not the actual territory claimed by the Spanish Crown. For instance, 10:07 "Nutca" (Later Nootka in english) territory in British Columbia was discovered, explored and claimed by Spain in 1774 (4 years before Capt. James Cook arrival in the region); and built Fort San Miguel in 1789, 50 years later the first English post was built in presently British Columbia - Fort Langley. For this reason it is possible to find a bunch of Spanish names along the coastline of Alaska and Canada such as Valdez, Alberni, Juan de Fuca, Haro, etc. I read many comments on Spanish "conquistadors" massively raping indians; stealing their land, and taking away their gold, while on the other hand English "settlers" did not disturb the indian lifestyle, as they settled in unclaimed land, had sex with their own English white women... FACTS 1) The Spanish Crown bestowed nobility to many Aztec families, including the one of Emperor Montezuma, whose descendants still live in Spain under the title of Counts of Miravalle. 2) Spanish founded and built universities, castles, forts, ports, roads for the benefit and advancement of all the inhabitants of New Spain. For instance, in 1538 the first university in America was founded in Santo Domingo. Also, the first newspaper ("La Hoja de Mexico") in North America was printed and published in Mexico City in 1541. In the U.S. this happened until 1704. Then in 1543, the first technical colleges for natives were established, etc. 3) Indian natives were free to marry whoever they pleased, and they freely accepted catholicism. For example, in California Friar Junipero Serra did an extraordinary job evangelizing and integrating natives into a Hispanic society. MEANWHILE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SETTLERS 1) Between 1846 and 1873, California's Indian population plunged from perhaps 150,000 to 30,000 (Benjamin Madley, An American Genocide. The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873, Yale University. 2) English "settlers" had little concern over indian wellbeing. Fo instance, read the "Smallpox-infected blankets incident in For Pitt (Today's Pittsburgh) in 1763. 3) American General John C. Frémont: "The Spanish Law clearly and absolutely secured to Indians fixed rights of property in the land they occupy, beyond what is permitted by this government (U.S. gov.) in its relations with its own domestic tribes. Hope this little info sheds a bit more light into the New Spain Viceroyalty and its relationships with native indians.
Great video, just to clarify. Modern estimates of casualties in the American Civil War, previously thought around 500-625,000, might have been even higher, from about 700,000 to a disputed high estimate of 850,000. It included all war deaths, civilian deaths, deaths from disease, starvation, exposure, and even POW’s dying.
The fixed areas of aboriginal tribes are very misleading. For example in 1581 for Florida, the Timucua were declining but were in the northern parts with the Calusas in the south (the Ais may or may not been part of the Calusas in the East Central region). The Creeks and others enslaved the few (about 1000) remaining Timucua around 1700 and the remnant of Timucua and Calusa were transferred by the Spanish to Cuba about ten years later. These invading tribes along with escaped African slaves led to the Seminoles and Miccosukee. So these were not fixed entities but dynamic and warring for new lands even during the European colonialization.
Thank you so much for this! I’ve been wanting to buy this chart but I wanted to see a walkthrough first! As promised! Again, always back with another great video!
Thank you for your time and effort that you put into these charts I made charts by hand many years ago when the mafia and different dynasties I can imagine the work that it entails
French are always in North America today (in the Caribbean : Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Barthélémy, St Martin ; in the pacific : Cliperton (but the Mexico cares about) ; and St pierre et Miquelon (near to Canada)).
I LOVE your charts, and this is a very detailed one. The only criticism I have is that you didn't include the part Where Texas was briefly its own country known as the Republic ofTexas, it was right around the time of the Mexican-American war.
I like your videos. Just a few criticisms (both Canada and U.S.). 40 year intervals are a pretty good basis for change, but don't think you need to be committed to that time exactly. If something changes, then use that year. You spend a lot of time talking about native Americans, mention the trail of tears, but ignore how Indian territory/Oklahoma became one of the states. The mea culpa in this and your Canadian video and some of the information about native Americans aren't part of the thesis of the video. Yes, when borders change someone is typically getting hurt. For example in your Canadian video you only casually mention the transplantation of the Acadians /Cajuns, not the horrors of it, because, while interesting, it disrupts the flow of the narrative.
The Civil War was fought for States rights, one of them being weather they can have salvery, which NO they never should of had. When teaching American history we should teach it correctly.
The French also had Port Royal in Acadia (established 1605). The 1661 map shows Acadia as French territory but at that time it was under English control. It was seized in 1654 and not returned to France until the signing of the Treaty of Breda in 1667.
In the 1861 map why is west virginia shown as part of the confederacy? They were under union control and had a functioning government separate from Virginia's despite not being a state until 2 years later.
I realize these videos are an overview of your charts, but you skipped what, in my opinion, was very significant period in your 1821-1861 gap, and that was the Republic of Texas.
It wasn't the French Indian war, it was the Seven Years War between the British & French. The war was brought to North America and ended in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City when the British defeated the French. I believe it was around 1763 that the British kicked the Acadians out of Nova Scotia. Due to speaking French, they went to Louisiana and became known as Cajuns. It was several years later they were allowed to return to Nova Scotia . However a number of Acadians chose to stay in what became known as New Orleans.
its interesting how in the south, the civil war was taught as being fought over "states rights to self govern", but in the north it is taught as being over just slavery. also, i was surprised at looking at the major urban areas. i am from the houston area and growing up, it was the 4th most populated city in the US. i'm surprised its fallen to 10th.
I am from Pennsylvania and have heard it as the southern states "right to self govern" with each state deciding on slavery; most or all southern states accepting slavery. So the War was fought over States rights, with one right being slavery.
they're not mutually exclusive. the main reason for the war was over slavery, the corollary was states rights vis a vis the federal government. not everybody in the south owned slaves, not everybody who owned slaves was white, and not everybody in the northern states was against slavery. meaning a southerner may have disagreed with slavery on principle but would rather his state secede from the union than be forced to abandon the practice by royal fiat from the federal government, figuring that the support for the practice would eventually be phased out, as indeed the English abolished it 30 years prior. It's important to note that back then States of the US operated more like countries within the EU, so a Texan or a South Carolinian as opposed as he would be to the concept of slavery, would not just move to northern state just as a german today would not move to spain if he disagreed with some of the domestic customs. Most people in america didn't view themselves as Americans, but rather as citizens of their respective states. this means that the war was not necessarily pro-slave vs anti-slave but rather Northern states vs Southern States, the reason being the refusal of governors and affluent people in the south to renounce slavery. for most common folk in the south though it was the war of northern aggression = federal government centered in the north imposing on their state's sovereignty. all of this is not to gloss over the blatant and gross racism that was prevalent in the south, (and to some degree the north as well) but America was hardly the exception when you consider what was going on in the rest of the world at the time.
It's partly due to semantics, partly due to politics. But honestly a big part of it is simply due to simplifying it to age level. For most americans this is covered first in elementary school, briefly perhaps, but when they talk about President Lincoln on President's Day they will usually say he freed the slaves. Then in middle school and high school they will cover it more, but with the vast curriculum and comprehension levels they want to keep it simple and just get through it.
Thanks for the video. Consider doing something about Vietnam please. Due to government propaganda, we are never taught anything about how the Vietnamese territory expanded southward into the Champa kingdom & part of the Khmer Empire to found the city Saigon. Teachers at schools were ordered to tell students that it was just the wilderness in the south, and those generals who moved south were just sort of doing public service of chopping down trees in forests to make way for life
What about his? :) (It is not much, but better than nothing, I guess...) ruclips.net/video/dVITTpIiXyE/видео.html Btw., may I ask what was taught to you in school about the colonial and post-colonial (-war) era and the eventual unification of Vietnam? The only thing we had in school about South East Asia was the so called "Vietnam War" (I think you would call it the American war). I have a sort of special sympathy for Vietnam (and other former/still communist countries) because I come from Eastern Germany which was also for 40 years a communist state (although I was born after the fall of the communist dictatorship). There is this amusing story about the coffee plantations in Vietnam: The East German Government tried to avoid importing exotic products like coffee, etc. because they were too expensive on the world market. The thing is: A large percentage of the east german inhabitants are from the region of Saxony and coffee plays a important part in our culture (like the English with their Tea, our nickname is even "Coffee Saxons"). When the coffee supply was shortened, it almost caused an uprising (!). Therefore, the government decided to help building coffee plantations in a "socialist brother country", trying to avoid the high world market prices. The tried it in Angola and then Mosambique, but the Civil wars there were slightly inconvenient for the trade. Then the GDR turned to Vietnam in the mid-80s and helped building new coffee plantations. Unfortunately, coffee trees need to grow several years before you can have a good harvest. The first coffee shipload should have arrived in East Germany in 1990, but at that time there was already a peaceful revolution going on and later that year the GDR united with West Germany. We never saw a gram of coffee from Vietnam, but your country is still the world's second largest coffee producer... I find this kinda funny.
Everyone interested should read more about the cause of the civil war. While the question of slavery was a component, it was not 'the' major factor causing the south to secede from the Union. Ignoring for the moment Britain's interest in prodding the Southern states into war, and focusing on the vast political disputes between the North and South: The North was becoming Republican (Lincoln was the first Republican President). The Northern States had become industrial, as the South stayed more agricultural, resulting in higher population density for the North, compared to the South. The South did not have enough power in the House of Representatives due to population alone, nor the Senate due to fewer total states than the North. While Northern states did have Slavery (Mrs. Lincoln owned slaves), it may have been a threat used to further financially drain the South. This drain was the Reason the southern states were separating. The issue of slavery being abolished came up late in the war. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation grandfathered legal slavery for the Northern states. Schools have intentionally told their own versions of history on many things. Lying is normally done to manipulate people. Given the truth people can make much better decisions for their futures.
What does everyone fail to mention that slavery existed under British rule longer than it existed under United States rule. It was a legacy handed down by the British.
European legacy. This ignorance that the British were the only slave traders is just moronic. Anyway Europeans learnt slavery from the best at it Africans but, we're supposed to pretend that african empires built on slaves never happened.
I love these maps and videos...so excellent! Though why in 2014 does the urban area of NY have a larger population (23.5 m) than the entire state of NY (19.7 m)? Or am I reading that wrong? Anyhow, the map and presentation are amazing! Thank you so much for this excellent video!
Thanks for pausing on the Native American fact. To think they had been here for thousands of years then displaced in only a few decades. Sad fact so many overlook.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
Students should have your charts in textbooks
I disagree, it has some serious errors in it.
Caden Grace that’s not how it works. The charts are checked and fixed.
@@the8thgemmer467 Well, these are too error-filled to be a teaching tool in an American classroom.
Caden Grace just wondering but what are the errors?
@@christophernsmb300 the only errors I see simply regard these positions of tribe location are determined when Europeans found each tribes, but fail to register the origin of the tribes. It's like how the Roman's have all of Italian penisula, but we know Rome was not to original tribe of Italian peninsula and there were other tribes. We know roughly the date Rome was founded but we dont know the original tribe of where Rome now stands.
Now create a similar map for the Holy Roman Empire. lol.
Imagine if he does
“Eww David”. The border gore, the 200 pack pencil crayons required.
Forgot my three favorite facts about US history: Spanish Hemisphere, Russian Alaska, and Swedish Delaware.
Hold up, Swedish Delaware? How have I never heard about this?
The Swedish created a small colony in modern day Delaware called New Sweden and soon after was conquered by the Dutch and after that by the English.
i'm wondering if Spanish »Hemisphere« would be "Hampshire" instead or it's a reference to the Treaty of Tordesillas…
And russian Fort Ross in California - the first settlement on west coast.
The City of Philadelphia, PA has Blue and Gold for its municipal colors, a reference to the Swedish origin of settlement there. @@HeadCannon19 (google/wiki it all!!)
History, geography, culture in a truly marvelous chart! I applaud you, sir, and for your clear and concise recounting of the story itself as well!
I like this chart. It has so much information that could be examined for hours. One thing your video is missing is the acknowledgment of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) which resulted in the U.S. acquisition of a sizeable portion of Mexican land. Part of the conflict leading into the Civil War (1861-1865) was the debate of whether they should prohibit slavery in the newly gained territories.
I noticed that too! Thanks for mentioning it
Yeah but this video should be shown to all these news organizations that say Mexico owned this part of the US and Mexico owned that part of the US when in reality Mexico didn't own any of it until well after European colonization
@@stylicho Are you out of your mind? do you hear yourself?
@@germanbrana7819 the name Mexico didn't exist until after the Spanish arrived
@@stylicho so? what's your point? Americans didn't exist until after europeans arrived ... duhhh
The Dutch were not defeated. They recaptured new amsterdam but then traded it for Surinam.
bla5102 That’s what a defeated Dutch man would say.
@@j.a.weishaupt1748 Actually not. Surinam was a more profitable colony.
@@PJ035 emphasis on was
@@PJ035 more profitable than New York? Are you high?
@@chrisklitou7573
at that time Suriname was a more profitable territory, New York became a great city much later.
I just bought a few charts. That has to be one of the best designed websites I've ever been on. Really hope the product reflects that
The Dutch actually traded their colony for Suriname, they weren't defeated.
Did the Dutch tell you that?
The dutch settled EVERYWHERE. Funnily, many of those settlements had the name of Nassau n it. There was even one settlement in Brazil of all places!
@@KlavierMenn EVERYWHERE THE PORTUGUESE WERE BEFORE, and whom you return almost all territories after the portuguese indipendence from spain, that lasted almost a century. The ones you dident't return to the portuguese, you gave it to the british a little later. The dutch empire in fact never existed, it was basically a corporation dedicated to explotation based on racism. In this regard, the british was the best pupil that surpassed the master
There’s a large Indian burial mound where I’m from that is over 2,000 years old, from the extinct Adena culture.
Wow! Thank you for making this video, you have a really nice way of presenting historical facts, great job!
Thanks for this and mentioning the older chart from 1910, I'll have to locate one.
I was surprised at the 1859 date for the last imported enslaved people from Africa, as I knew the legal importation was ended in 1808.
It should be no surprise that the existence of a law does not change behavior. I had to stop the video and find out why you had that date. It took a couple tries to get my search parameters correct before I found an article on the Clotilda and another on the Wanderer. For some reason, articles about the legal end of the importation of slaves from Africa did not mention many details about the illegal importation.
My schooling pointed out the legal end of slavery and that was it. I have a BA in history, but no college class on the US for the time period had time to get that specific, and I don't even recall it as a footnote. My main area of interest in history in college was the ancient world of the Middle East and Mediterranean, and Europe from then until about WWI, so I didn't have any classes that spent more time on the topic.
I'm in my mid-50's so it doesn't surprise me that the culture of the times glossed over this.
Here's the article I found on the Clotilda on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotilda_(slave_ship)
That would have course place the last arrivals of slaves on the eve of the US Civil War. Good research.
You should do this about Canada, since you’re Canadian ;) There’s lots of history there. I think the changes Manitoba itself went through are pretty interesting, including the North-west Territories. :)
It's definitely coming. I already have a Timeline of Canadian history poster... just have to make the video.
Can't wait~ When I took that Canadian history course, the story that most interested me was Acadia. You did talk about it briefly in this video but I'm interested to hear about it more.
UsefulCharts.com That’s great!! Can’t wait!! Love your videos:)
0:00 Explaining The Charts
2:17 A Chart From The Past inspired today’s Chart
3:14 1581
3:38 Native American Groups
• St Augustine
5:02 1621
5:53 1661
• Native Americans
• African Slavery
7:41 1701
8:06 1741
• Louisiana (After Louis XIV)
8:40 1781
• French And Indian War (1753-1762)
10:38 1821
• Louisiana Purchase (1803)
• Lewis And Clark
12:38 1861
• The Civil War
(Slavery was a big part of the war, other factors played a part as well)
13:36 1901
13:56 1941
14:13 Populations and Cities
Why would the poster lie and say "the civil war was fought over the issue of slavery"?
Liars go to Hell.
@@killthehobbits7420 Harsh
The catalyst of the war was slavery. Not going to hell.@@killthehobbits7420
As a resident of Florida and descendant of Floridanos, Calusa and Timucua I would like to point a few things out. First, no such nation as Seminole existed prior to the 19th century. The prevailing nation in Florida from the time the Spanish discovered Florida to the mid 18th century were the Calusa people. The Timucua were the specific nation in what became St. Augustine when the Spanish arrived in 1565. I would also like to point out that between 1761 and 1781, Florida was owned by Great Britain before it was returned to the Spanish who for all intents and purposes abandoned it to the United States who by 1818 treated it as a de facto territory though it would be another year or two before Spain officially left.
Also one minor note, not all soldiers wore blue or grey. My 3rd great grandfather was an officer in a company of Zouave volunteers. Zouaves were volunteer units who dressed in uniforms designed to appear as Turkish militia. The area of the Levant was highly romanticized by 19th century Americans who were in love with flamboyant costumes and uniforms. The colors varied greatly by unit and the most prevalent color was red and that held true for both sides though Zouaves were more common in the north. The enlisted men in my ancestor's company wore white pants and a red tunic with a small amount of both blue and grey as well as gold trim. They also carried Scimitar style swords. I believe that nearly half the fighting forces of the north were volunteer forces and of them more than half were Zouave units. Many of the other volunteer units who were not Zouaves also wore their own often flamboyant uniforms and they came in virtually every color of the rainbow.
Great video this is a COOL chart; VERY GOOOD!!!!!!!
These are entertaining because of how educational they are. Thank you.
Yeah, I think it would have been good to have a map at the conclusion of The Seven Years War. Some commentators refer The Seven Years War as the true 'first' world war.
I really appreciate your presentation this morning! Again, great work!
Something I noticed is that for the Civil War map you had Missouri and Kentucky mixed. Im gonna assume that’s because they were slave states who stayed in the Union. If that is the case, Maryland and Delaware should have been mixed too.
In Texas, there were around 50 small Indian tribes throughout the state in the 1700’s. The Comanche and Apache moved in and systematically wiped out these small tribes which sometimes only consisted of 300-400 people. Many of these people fled to the 5 missions in the San Antonio area, including the Alamo. All 5 missions still exist with the Alamo being the least well preserved. You can visit them in San Antonio by following the “Mission Trail National Park”. The 50+ small Indian tribes were driven to extinction by the intrusion of the warlike Comanche and Apache.
I’ve lived in Vermont my whole life and I never knew it used to be it’s own country.
US public schools don't teach it because the federal government never took them seriously, they just kind of ignored them and acted like they were a state until they caved. There's still a section in Vermont called the Northeast Kingdom, switch stems from the original idea of Vermont's independence.
Edit: my apologies I misremembered. I originally said it was the Kingdom of Vermont (as many people still refer to it as "the Kingdom")
Will and Anderson Gray I just looked up what you said and it’s completely false. Vermont has never been called the Kingdom of Vermont
I fuckin' shat myself. I thought only 2 US States were Countries...but now it's 3... At least... God damn.
@@WillGrayCoopcontrol understandable actually IMO, biased/revisionist or not, just one of those anamolies of (a country's) history...
North-East Vermont is called "the Kingdom": because of its isolated and independent ways. @@angusb99 I'm sure this topic is mentioned in elementary school. Of course I had that in Texas, so of course, the teachers would mention the Vermont Republic.
I love your charts/videos. Love how the information is displayed (warm massage for my brain). Hope to have a few one day.
Great video as always. Although I do wish it hadn't glossed over James K. Polk and the Mexican American War.
COMPLETELY glossed over.
Love your channel and all of your videos I’ve seen so far. Just visited your site to order some posters for my classroom, and to your friend’s site to order a couple Native American posters as well.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and hard work! It is much appreciated and enjoyed!
Amazing work. Congrats.
Very useful chart explained the history in the best way
I love how people always point out that North America was conquered and act like all these native American tribes were a bastion of peace and love or that this is the only time in history that people were conquered.
been a subscriber since 2018, love your older videos with the more raw format, are they all gone forever or are they still hosted somewhere we can watch?
Some of the old ones are in this unlisted folder here: ruclips.net/p/PL5Ag9n-o0IZCk5xMKqlkPh9951mzL_BLy&feature=shared
youre awesome man, hope your health is improving@@UsefulCharts
Great ep and Can you Do Denmark Royal family piz 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
Fantastic visual timeline
I’ve lived in Wisconsin my whole life and if I remember right, Native Americans lived first and then we have always been always mostly a German heritage state - ask anyone who lives here!
You say Native Americans were pushed off there lands but this wasn't true in Spanish lands were there was more assimilation. The Spanish and Natives created a new people called Mestizos which are their descendants. These people still dominate the southwest.
Someone tell Jesse about the Ecomienda system... assimilation did happen but let's not discount it wasn't exactly voluntary
@@timothyr3038 also we can't forget the South American groups
@@timothyr3038 right. "assimilation" is a pretty nice term for what was to a large part mass rape, at least at first.
The Spanish came as conquerers and treated the Native Americans similar to how they treated serfs back in Europe. The English usually settled in unused land. It was unused due to 99% of all Native Americans dying because of disease from the beginning of the Colombian Exchange. Once Native American populations began to bounce back is when most of the fighting started.
@@timothyr3038
You cant compare. First this is a video about the US, so what happened in Latin and South America doesnt really pertain. The abuses in Latin and South America were not really an issue in the Southwest. The millions of brown people in the southwest and hundreds of millions in Latin and South America are the descendants of both Spanish and Indians. In English North America they were decimated and the survivors relocated to reservations. Again no comparison.
Just found this page and I absolutely love it
It's impresive to see how much Spain has to do with US history. They had the first European settlement and controlled over the 50% of the actual territory. Also, after independence, Mexico continued ruling over places like California, New Mexico or Texas. How can still Americans be annoyed when they hear someone speaking Spanish in public? It's literally part of the US
A friend's mom is pissed off she has to choose a language at the ATM. People will complain about everything.
nobody really gets annoyd except for real uptight people but htose are vrywhere not just US
People like to understand what's going on around them. Things they can't understand feel inherently dangerous. I could go on if you want...?
Excellent exposition and really useful!
Thank you for this. 👍
This is great mate - game of thrones family trees next? 🙂
GoT slated for Oct. 1st.
UsefulCharts.com I can’t wait :) especially House Targaeryan.
@@UsefulCharts that game of thrones video is now your most Popular video lol
Great presentation I would like to mention, that the Civil War was actually not fought upon the idea of slavery, but rather settled upon the freedom of people. The Civil War was initially about money and trade within the United States of America. To so casually put this in the box of simply slavery does a huge disservice to the people that are watching your videos which, are so great.
Thanks
Except for that part where every southern state specifically identifies the threat to slavery as a reason for secession.
Thanks
Any fair study of the Civil War learns that Slavery was the catalyst of the conflict.
Might be my favorite chart so far
Amazing work!
Wow, this was pretty cool, thanks 🙏
Well done on every level!
Love your charts
Love the maps, what I do see that's missing is the Spanish American war of 1898. Which would explain Puerto Rico's current association to the US. Not to mention Philippines, Guam and Cuba. This would tell the more true story. Important for those of us living today as we travel accross this nation. It can make better sense of why things are the way they are today. Love your channal.
I love your posters!! I just bought some, they'll be great gifts for my mom!!
Your charts look very good.
Great job. Great information. Thanks
Very well done.
Thanx 4 Your Effort Man Greetings From Iraq.
Great works ! Very organized and informative. Thanks. 👍
Matt! Thank you sooooo much! Your channel is great! I love the idea and you explain so well🙏🙏🙏
this is awesome. do you have a video on the history of the pacific northwest and the oregon trail?! I'm from there and it would be fascinating to learn about it from a chart perspective like these videos!
we were also the first country besides England to get rid of slavery. that is a positive. Comparing to the rest of the world that had them for over a thousand years. the dose that makes it better of course not. But I feel like a lot of people forget that positive fact about the USA.
Garret Garlinger - France abolished slavery in 1848.
Portugal abolished slavery in 1858.
Spain abolished slavery in 1811.
Several other countries abolished slave trading before 1865. The United States was one of the the last nations to abolish slavery. Brazil and Cuba did so later.
It's popular these days to hate on America while completely disregarding that the same processes played out in every part of the world in all of human history. History itself is the tale of people conquering other people, taking their lands, and displacing or utterly annihilating the previous inhabitants.
That's awesome. Well done man
Great video!
Good educational content, thank you.
Wow! Looking at some comments here I've realized how ignorant people are about the Viceroyalty of New Spain.
The worse part of all, is that Mexicans along with Hispanic people living in today's U.S. southwest States are totally oblivious of the prowess achieved by their own ancestors.
The Spanish Vice Royalty of New Spain (1521-1821), once engulfed todays' Alaska, Washington State, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma (partially) and Texas in modern U.S.
- Yeah.. This video is a bit inaccurate (Nonetheless a remarkable video, double thumbs up!), as it only shows the territory where Spanish cities were built, but not the actual territory claimed by the Spanish Crown. For instance, 10:07 "Nutca" (Later Nootka in english) territory in British Columbia was discovered, explored and claimed by Spain in 1774 (4 years before Capt. James Cook arrival in the region); and built Fort San Miguel in 1789, 50 years later the first English post was built in presently British Columbia - Fort Langley. For this reason it is possible to find a bunch of Spanish names along the coastline of Alaska and Canada such as Valdez, Alberni, Juan de Fuca, Haro, etc.
I read many comments on Spanish "conquistadors" massively raping indians; stealing their land, and taking away their gold, while on the other hand English "settlers" did not disturb the indian lifestyle, as they settled in unclaimed land, had sex with their own English white women...
FACTS
1) The Spanish Crown bestowed nobility to many Aztec families, including the one of Emperor Montezuma, whose descendants still live in Spain under the title of Counts of Miravalle.
2) Spanish founded and built universities, castles, forts, ports, roads for the benefit and advancement of all the inhabitants of New Spain. For instance, in 1538 the first university in America was founded in Santo Domingo. Also, the first newspaper ("La Hoja de Mexico") in North America was printed and published in Mexico City in 1541. In the U.S. this happened until 1704. Then in 1543, the first technical colleges for natives were established, etc.
3) Indian natives were free to marry whoever they pleased, and they freely accepted catholicism. For example, in California Friar Junipero Serra did an extraordinary job evangelizing and integrating natives into a Hispanic society.
MEANWHILE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SETTLERS
1) Between 1846 and 1873, California's Indian population plunged from perhaps 150,000 to 30,000 (Benjamin Madley, An American Genocide. The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873, Yale University.
2) English "settlers" had little concern over indian wellbeing. Fo instance, read the "Smallpox-infected blankets incident in For Pitt (Today's Pittsburgh) in 1763.
3) American General John C. Frémont: "The Spanish Law clearly and absolutely secured to Indians fixed rights of property in the land they occupy, beyond what is permitted by this government (U.S. gov.) in its relations with its own domestic tribes.
Hope this little info sheds a bit more light into the New Spain Viceroyalty and its relationships with native indians.
Very beautiful! One suggestion: I'd rather display US charts based on main event's dates rather than each 40 years. Bravo
Great video, just to clarify. Modern estimates of casualties in the American Civil War, previously thought around 500-625,000, might have been even higher, from about 700,000 to a disputed high estimate of 850,000. It included all war deaths, civilian deaths, deaths from disease, starvation, exposure, and even POW’s dying.
The fixed areas of aboriginal tribes are very misleading. For example in 1581 for Florida, the Timucua were declining but were in the northern parts with the Calusas in the south (the Ais may or may not been part of the Calusas in the East Central region). The Creeks and others enslaved the few (about 1000) remaining Timucua around 1700 and the remnant of Timucua and Calusa were transferred by the Spanish to Cuba about ten years later. These invading tribes along with escaped African slaves led to the Seminoles and Miccosukee. So these were not fixed entities but dynamic and warring for new lands even during the European colonialization.
I saw Savvanah on the chart and my 7 times great grandfather signed the treaty of savvanah his name was chief wolf king
At 14:17 it shows that New York State has a lower population than New York City :P
Please do a video on Timeline of European History
Thank you so much for this! I’ve been wanting to buy this chart but I wanted to see a walkthrough first! As promised! Again, always back with another great video!
Thank you for your time and effort that you put into these charts I made charts by hand many years ago when the mafia and different dynasties I can imagine the work that it entails
what software do you use for your charts? they look great
Miami up in Michigan always gets me
Love your research and narratives. You should be a university proffessor
I love charts and maps like these.
Really interesting to look at!
French are always in North America today (in the Caribbean : Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Barthélémy, St Martin ; in the pacific : Cliperton (but the Mexico cares about) ; and St pierre et Miquelon (near to Canada)).
this is how you remember dates, not just memorizing everything separately. You gotta make a timeline in your head
brilliant, thanks
On this day a legend was born
I LOVE your charts, and this is a very detailed one. The only criticism I have is that you didn't include the part Where Texas was briefly its own country known as the Republic ofTexas, it was right around the time of the Mexican-American war.
It's shown on the timeline but not in the maps.
@@UsefulCharts Oh, ok. Thats great to know! I retract my comment haha
Well done.
The trail of tears was just inhumane
True. But it only passed Congress by 1 vote.
I like your videos. Just a few criticisms (both Canada and U.S.). 40 year intervals are a pretty good basis for change, but don't think you need to be committed to that time exactly. If something changes, then use that year. You spend a lot of time talking about native Americans, mention the trail of tears, but ignore how Indian territory/Oklahoma became one of the states. The mea culpa in this and your Canadian video and some of the information about native Americans aren't part of the thesis of the video. Yes, when borders change someone is typically getting hurt. For example in your Canadian video you only casually mention the transplantation of the Acadians /Cajuns, not the horrors of it, because, while interesting, it disrupts the flow of the narrative.
Great US history
Just FYI The Seminoles were not in Florida till the 1700's
The Civil War was fought for States rights, one of them being weather they can have salvery, which NO they never should of had. When teaching American history we should teach it correctly.
The French also had Port Royal in Acadia (established 1605).
The 1661 map shows Acadia as French territory but at that time it was under English control. It was seized in 1654 and not returned to France until the signing of the Treaty of Breda in 1667.
In the 1861 map why is west virginia shown as part of the confederacy? They were under union control and had a functioning government separate from Virginia's despite not being a state until 2 years later.
Must be a mistake. I'll check it.
I wondered the same thing. At least it should be shown as MO and KY are, as 'disputed'
Like in Kentucky and Missouri, in West Virginia, the various issues were in contention. Although a revision might indeed show W. Virginia,
I realize these videos are an overview of your charts, but you skipped what, in my opinion, was very significant period in your 1821-1861 gap, and that was the Republic of Texas.
Good stuff
It wasn't the French Indian war, it was the Seven Years War between the British & French. The war was brought to North America and ended in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City when the British defeated the French. I believe it was around 1763 that the British kicked the Acadians out of Nova Scotia. Due to speaking French, they went to Louisiana and became known as Cajuns. It was several years later they were allowed to return to Nova Scotia . However a number of Acadians chose to stay in what became known as New Orleans.
its interesting how in the south, the civil war was taught as being fought over "states rights to self govern", but in the north it is taught as being over just slavery. also, i was surprised at looking at the major urban areas. i am from the houston area and growing up, it was the 4th most populated city in the US. i'm surprised its fallen to 10th.
TheLaydewlf Nah I’m from Georgia and they teach us that it was a mix of State’s rights and slavery.
Sir Devil same in va they said it started out as state rights and then slavery began becoming a reason
I am from Pennsylvania and have heard it as the southern states "right to self govern" with each state deciding on slavery; most or all southern states accepting slavery. So the War was fought over States rights, with one right being slavery.
they're not mutually exclusive. the main reason for the war was over slavery, the corollary was states rights vis a vis the federal government. not everybody in the south owned slaves, not everybody who owned slaves was white, and not everybody in the northern states was against slavery. meaning a southerner may have disagreed with slavery on principle but would rather his state secede from the union than be forced to abandon the practice by royal fiat from the federal government, figuring that the support for the practice would eventually be phased out, as indeed the English abolished it 30 years prior. It's important to note that back then States of the US operated more like countries within the EU, so a Texan or a South Carolinian as opposed as he would be to the concept of slavery, would not just move to northern state just as a german today would not move to spain if he disagreed with some of the domestic customs.
Most people in america didn't view themselves as Americans, but rather as citizens of their respective states. this means that the war was not necessarily pro-slave vs anti-slave but rather Northern states vs Southern States, the reason being the refusal of governors and affluent people in the south to renounce slavery. for most common folk in the south though it was the war of northern aggression = federal government centered in the north imposing on their state's sovereignty.
all of this is not to gloss over the blatant and gross racism that was prevalent in the south, (and to some degree the north as well) but America was hardly the exception when you consider what was going on in the rest of the world at the time.
It's partly due to semantics, partly due to politics. But honestly a big part of it is simply due to simplifying it to age level. For most americans this is covered first in elementary school, briefly perhaps, but when they talk about President Lincoln on President's Day they will usually say he freed the slaves. Then in middle school and high school they will cover it more, but with the vast curriculum and comprehension levels they want to keep it simple and just get through it.
Thanks for the video. Consider doing something about Vietnam please. Due to government propaganda, we are never taught anything about how the Vietnamese territory expanded southward into the Champa kingdom & part of the Khmer Empire to found the city Saigon. Teachers at schools were ordered to tell students that it was just the wilderness in the south, and those generals who moved south were just sort of doing public service of chopping down trees in forests to make way for life
What about his? :) (It is not much, but better than nothing, I guess...) ruclips.net/video/dVITTpIiXyE/видео.html
Btw., may I ask what was taught to you in school about the colonial and post-colonial (-war) era and the eventual unification of Vietnam? The only thing we had in school about South East Asia was the so called "Vietnam War" (I think you would call it the American war). I have a sort of special sympathy for Vietnam (and other former/still communist countries) because I come from Eastern Germany which was also for 40 years a communist state (although I was born after the fall of the communist dictatorship).
There is this amusing story about the coffee plantations in Vietnam: The East German Government tried to avoid importing exotic products like coffee, etc. because they were too expensive on the world market. The thing is: A large percentage of the east german inhabitants are from the region of Saxony and coffee plays a important part in our culture (like the English with their Tea, our nickname is even "Coffee Saxons"). When the coffee supply was shortened, it almost caused an uprising (!). Therefore, the government decided to help building coffee plantations in a "socialist brother country", trying to avoid the high world market prices. The tried it in Angola and then Mosambique, but the Civil wars there were slightly inconvenient for the trade. Then the GDR turned to Vietnam in the mid-80s and helped building new coffee plantations. Unfortunately, coffee trees need to grow several years before you can have a good harvest. The first coffee shipload should have arrived in East Germany in 1990, but at that time there was already a peaceful revolution going on and later that year the GDR united with West Germany. We never saw a gram of coffee from Vietnam, but your country is still the world's second largest coffee producer... I find this kinda funny.
Don’t forget about the time when the us occupied Cuba and the Philippines
En Cuba solo garantizaron su "independencia", ocuparon Filipinas, Puerto Rico, Guam y otras islas del pacífico
Never occupied Cuba bud
AR15 fair enough, I stand corrected
Everyone interested should read more about the cause of the civil war. While the question of slavery was a component, it was not 'the' major factor causing the south to secede from the Union. Ignoring for the moment Britain's interest in prodding the Southern states into war, and focusing on the vast political disputes between the North and South: The North was becoming Republican (Lincoln was the first Republican President). The Northern States had become industrial, as the South stayed more agricultural, resulting in higher population density for the North, compared to the South. The South did not have enough power in the House of Representatives due to population alone, nor the Senate due to fewer total states than the North. While Northern states did have Slavery (Mrs. Lincoln owned slaves), it may have been a threat used to further financially drain the South. This drain was the Reason the southern states were separating. The issue of slavery being abolished came up late in the war. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation grandfathered legal slavery for the Northern states. Schools have intentionally told their own versions of history on many things. Lying is normally done to manipulate people. Given the truth people can make much better decisions for their futures.
Just above Miami is sac n fox. They now go by Meskwaki and are located in central Iowa and became the first tribe to purchase their land in the 1800’s
Could you please look into making one of these for Middle Eastern History, from 622 to the present.
What does everyone fail to mention that slavery existed under British rule longer than it existed under United States rule. It was a legacy handed down by the British.
European legacy. This ignorance that the British were the only slave traders is just moronic. Anyway Europeans learnt slavery from the best at it Africans but, we're supposed to pretend that african empires built on slaves never happened.
I love these maps and videos...so excellent! Though why in 2014 does the urban area of NY have a larger population (23.5 m) than the entire state of NY (19.7 m)? Or am I reading that wrong? Anyhow, the map and presentation are amazing! Thank you so much for this excellent video!
I believe the NYC urban area contains areas actually located in 3 states. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut
The civil war was not about slavery
More please. Maybe a history of US laws or economy?
Thanks for pausing on the Native American fact. To think they had been here for thousands of years then displaced in only a few decades. Sad fact so many overlook.
error in the Louisiana Purchase map....
Can you do more American history?