Black Soldiers (United States Colored Troops): The Civil War in Four Minutes 

black soldiers made up 10% of the Union fighting force

Yes this needed to be said

This video is a bit candy-coated. Couldn't include everything I guess. Union Army's resistance to enlisting black troops is a story in itself.

It is not sugar coating, it is meant to allow people to get a taste of the history and then research more on their own.

Of course they’re gonna leave all that out…

@@juliawinslow6665 Taste of history? A candy-coated taste maybe? You have no content. Why?

There should be a 🎥 prequel about "VICKSBURG", featuring "THE BATTLE OF MILLIKEN'S BEND."

shan rizzo sooo true, and there is a due debt of REPARATIONS owed too ADOS101.com

Dan Hey I know I’m late but the answer to your question is that if the confederates became a new nation, it would become competition to the Union both economically and physically. Also, most people at the time thought of both the North and South as American. Both sides saw each other as the same people, so unification was a must.

coincidentally, there's another civil war in four minutes video on that exact subject. there was a strong pro-union sentiment that regarded secession as profoundly undemocratic, as it indeed was as it was motivated by the rejection of the entirely democratic election of 1860. in the interests of preserving democracy, a rare form of government at that time, it was felt that the union must be preserved towards that end.

Most research historians acknowledge that the events leading up to the Civil War are extremely complex. There are many directions to come at and tackle the question, "why was there a Civil War". I suggest doing your own research and form your own opinion on the subject. The reason I suggest this is for the simple fact that so much of the historical record of the time is more available for research than at any time before. Good luck and happy hunting.

@@waterymelon9640 It's important to note that Lincoln's original plan to end slavery involved containing it in the Southern states, preventing it's expansion into the Western territories. The most popular anti-slavery view in the North was that if slavery could be prevented from expanding, it would eventually die out on it's own. It would have been pretty difficult for Lincoln to contain slavery in the South, if he lost jurisdiction over the South. And as Lincoln describes in his inaugural address, secession is incredibly dumb, illegal, and undemocratic.

Read "The Union War" by Gary Gallagher captures the main spirit of your question. The US at the time was the only country practicing (small d)democracy at the time. The revolutions of the 1840s in Europe had entrenched the monarchies of those countries. A (small d)democratic republic can not last if it splits the first time there is disagreement.

Primeiro , porque não nos diz respeito quanto a nossa história mas quiser ver um grupo de elite. só de negros em armas, temidos e valentes pesquise a Guerra do Paraguai . Só que a fama de "estupradores" tbm era grande mas isto, não tem relevância porque falamos do século 19 . Abraços

Why, they were Americans.

They did and even if they taught in yours yall would be sleeping thorough it

@@xGunner1600 they never taught this in school boy! Only white history is taught in school, black history is taught only in February and the white students complained about it. I hate ignorance...

Did you watch the video, there were no black Confederate troops in the video!

no

@@iamza_gdb mr.coburn?

Yes it is and he freed them in fear of dying before he could free them, but he had around 64 free men still riding faithfully with him in the war, and many other Black men served in the Confederate Army in multiple units non segregated unlike the Union colored troops and the Confederates had equal pay and the Union one's didn't.

@Brian Glover Bravo.

@@caelanburgos4644 wrong, he didn't like blacks.

Were you watching the video, blacks were never allowed to serve in the Confederate army dumbass. The black soldiers that fought in South Carolina were Union Soldiers!

Did this imaginary black dudes help him slaughter the soldiers in Fort Pillow or were they allowed to sit that one out?

I heard they rode unicorns into battle for the Confederacy. And played quidditch in their time off.

Dank. I put the bank on hyank.

Greentiger_420 most slaves we to the north friend, unless you consider Virginia the south lol. the majority of southern slave owning industry ( the very rich ) was Georgia and Louisiana but not near what the north had ,well Virginia and up the east coast. the largest slave owner in Mississippi was a wealthy black (free) man. free blacks existed before the war. and if anyone is moving to bama,mississip, there is very little industry or jobs. hemly Rd coden A.L I grew up by an old plantation house that was right on the sound . it's been kept in the same family since long ago a black family

c.j Johns Virginia is in the south, the confederate capital was in Richmond, Virginia. I knew there were black slave owners, but I’m pretty sure they were all mixed. Northern states outlawed slavery by the time of the civil war

Greentiger_420 geographically a large part of Indiana is further south than Virginia, I was actually making a joke thank you tho

c.j Johns no problem

Interesting

Jarrod Ings stfu :D

This isn't true. The Confederate gov't didn't start raising black regiments until March of 1865 - very late in the game indeed. And none of those regiments saw combat. There were plenty of enslaved blacks, who worked detail, dug trenches and reinforced the defenses of forts but that's not really the same thing as volitionally serving as a soldier.

John Henry Roenigk none of those regiments saw combat- tell that to Levi Miller who FOUGHT in the battle of the Wilderness in 1864 get ur facts straight mate

Many did, mostly it was unofficial but Officers would enlist or take in Black men and states would enlist them as well, and here's the thing they weren't in segregated units like the Black Union troops they were integrated, the Confederate Army was an integrated army, and get this the Black Confederates had equal pay unlike their Union counterparts. These are things that Union supporters and many today try to deny all because the CSA Congress said no Colored troops but that was largely ignored at the time and people try to say no free Blacks served in the CSA Army which is wrong, they did and it really disproves the war being about slavery which is the moral justification they use to cover up illegal acts, for one Lincoln suspending the Great writ, throwing men in jail for free speech, even the supreme court Justice at the time was ordered to be arrested because he said that Lincoln acts were unconstitutional, news papers that showed southern support or dislike of federal acts were shut down and owners arrested, an illegal invasion without congressional approval, Lincoln got away with the invasion because he prevented congress from meeting for 3 months, and the Naval blockade another act of war was also illegal. So of course to sweep all of this under the rug He signed the emancipation with the recomondation of waiting until a decisive battle had been won, and it didn't do anything because he purposly made it apply only to Confederate states which he had no control over because they were a Nation of there own, and So if all of this was the case then was the war really about slavery ? No but people today try to use that Union propaganda to sweep the illegal and unjust acts under the rug and make the south look bad and say Oh yeah it was all about slavery. Also There are black men and women today who are in full swing support of the Confederacy, Like H.K Edgerton search his name here on youtube and you'll see what I mean and check out his website southernheritage411.com and see the truth for yourself.

If anyone really wants to know what Confederates thought of black soldiers, look no further than their treatment during the Fort Pillow Massacre and the Battle of the Crater. Brutally massacred and there are written accounts by Confederate troops basically relishing killing them. There’s also Reconstruction and the treatment of blacks by former Confederates in the South to reckon with as well for those seeking to whitewash the Confederacy.

BULLSHIT, they would have been lynched, sons of the confederacy or members of the KKK.

"There is not one genuine verifiable incident or instance of an African American serving as an enlisted soldier in the confederate army." Professor William Davis, Virginia Tech. New York City Historical Society 5/31/12, Cspan3 .

Rundstedt1 *Cough* New Orleans guard *Cough*

Spring Fox Whose soldiers *cough* defected to the Union *cough.*

They fights 4 being slaves?

@@rasseliste4095 The 1st Louisiana Native Guard never faced actual combat until their defection to the Union.

That is completely wrong. The claims bantered about of Lee freeing his slaves before the war are a Neo-confederate lie. In reality Lee held slaves as long as he possibly. He inherited his father in laws slaves in 1857 and the will stated that they were to be freed within five years. But he already owned his own that he bought after getting out of west point and the share of his mothers that he inherited upon her death. And even the Custis slaves he was executor of from his father-in-law will, Lee fought to go back on the terms of the will and wanted to keep just the slaves; but not even a Confederate court could break the terms of a will and he was forced to free them. So Lee was not against slavery, he fought at every opportunity to keep the slaves he was in charge of. _"The [Lee's father-in-law's] will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies-raised from selling property-should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away-as they expected-he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property._ _Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863-ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect."_ - Elizabeth Brown Pryor author of "Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters And again, that was only the Custis' slaves, who he also had no problem whipping, like he did Mary Norris, he still had his own slaves, and although he legally freed them at the same time they were most probably actually freed by the Federal armies as they occupied Arlington and the places he had hired the slaves out to. Lee was NOT opposed to slavery. And Lee's famous letter from before the war about slavery actually just shows that he was only really concerned about slavery's effect on white people, he had no concern over slavery itself as an institution of bondage, said blacks were better off in slavery and said nothing should be done to end it. The gist of the letter is: "ohh us poor white people, having to carry the burden of being masters" it's sad hypocrisy and as racist as any of the other slavery apologists of the time. Lee fought for slavery not only in his professional life as a soldier, but personally. He never freed his slaves willingly, he whipped them, he fought in court to try and keep in slavery those that were ordered free in his father-in-law's will. *Lee was not against slavery and the hierarchical social system that surrounded it.* Meanwhile Grant only ever had one slave, William Jones, that was given to him by his father in law but he freed him before the war in 1859 even though he could have well used the money if he had just sold him instead, but he freed him. But it really doesn't even matter anyway. The war was still caused by and about slavery. .

That is completely wrong. The claims bantered about of Lee freeing his slaves before the war are a Neo-confederate lie. In reality Lee held slaves as long as he possibly could. He inherited his father in laws slaves in 1857 and the will stated that they were to be freed within five years. But he already owned his own that he bought after getting out of west point and the share of his mothers that he inherited upon her death. And even the Custis slaves he was executor of from his father-in-law will, Lee fought to go back on the terms of the will and wanted to keep the slaves; but not even a Confederate court could break the terms of a will and he was forced to free them. So Lee was not against slavery, he fought at every opportunity to keep the slaves he was in charge of. _"The [Lee's father-in-law's] will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies-raised from selling property-should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away-as they expected-he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property._ _Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863-ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect."_ - Elizabeth Brown Pryor author of "Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters And again, that was only the Custis' slaves, who he also had no problem whipping, like he did Mary Norris, he still had his own slaves, and although he legally freed them at the same time they were most probably actually freed by the Federal armies as they occupied Arlington and the places he had hired the slaves out to. Lee was NOT opposed to slavery. And Lee's famous letter from before the war about slavery actually just shows that he was only really concerned about slavery's effect on white people, he had no concern over slavery itself as an institution of bondage, said blacks were better off in slavery and said nothing should be done to end it. The gist of the letter is: "ohh us poor white people, having to carry the burden of being masters" it's sad hypocrisy and as racist as any of the other slavery apologists of the time. Lee fought for slavery not only in his professional life as a soldier, but personally. He never freed his slaves willingly, he whipped them, he fought in court to try and keep in slavery those that were ordered free in his father-in-law's will. *Lee was not against slavery and the hierarchical social system that surrounded it.* Meanwhile Grant only ever had one slave, William Jones, that was given to him by his father in law but he freed him before the war in 1859 even though he could have well used the money if he had just sold him instead, but he freed him. And it doesn't even matter anyway. The war was still caused by and about slavery. .

Colby Hurd You have notably shown *nothing.* And if you mean "Mack Lee" he has been shown a charlatan eking out a pittance from from the white supremacist power structure.

Liar

Keith Hamlett Lee was a desperate coward

That's probably because they really didn't exist. _"The myth of "Negro Confederates" is one of the strangest myths of all. Yes, there were a few black body servants of Confederate officers, or other blacks who served in logistical capacities, who may have taken up a weapon in the heat of battle, but until the Confederacy enacted a Negro soldier bill in March 1865 there were no actual black soldiers in the Confederate army, and of course no more than a handful of recruits were organized and none saw any fighting after passage of that bill. But slaves (and some free blacks) were crucial to the logistics of Confederate armies, as laborers, teamsters, blacksmiths, servants, cooks, nurses, and the like. Many thousands served in those capacities."_ - James McPherson .

Completely untrue they did exist,you can't change facts just because you don't like it,there were black confederate troops

You can't make 'facts' up, there were no so called "black Confederates" and you can show none. As the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities states, the idea of there being these so called 'black confederates' is: _"not only untrue; it’s complete nonsense."_ _"Our position with the North and before the world will not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes."_ - Confederate Secretary of war James Seddon . "There is not one genuine verifiable incident or instance of an African American serving as an enlisted soldier in the confederate army." Professor William Davis, Virginia Tech. New York City Historical Society 5/31/12, Cspan3 .

Because they couldn't serve officially. There were many black confederates- for example read about blacks in General Forrest cavalry.

Robinson Crusoe What you mean by "unofficially" is they were not soldiers and were conscripted laborers as I already stated. Try actually reading what McPherson said. The only blacks Forrest had with him were teamsters, cooks, and servants, they were NOT soldiers. Was there a slave or two who in the heat of battle might have picked up a gun and taken a pot shot off in either the heat of passion or to increase his position with his white overlords? Certainly. That doesn't mean they're a soldier and especially not that they're fighting for the confederacy. And if there were really all these so called "black confederates" already, then why did the CSA have the raucous debate in 1865 about perhaps letting some blacks serve? How come if there were already there nobody in the South mentioned them during those debates? Why didn't the confederate soldiers themselves mention them? Why didn't the officers comment about their performance? Why... because they were not there, the CSA did not allow blacks to serve. Come on, if there were all these so called 'black confederates' already, then why did the CSA have the raucous debate in 1865 about perhaps letting some blacks serve? How come if there were already there nobody in the South mentioned them during those debates? Why are didn't the confederate soldiers themselves mention them? Why didn't the officers comment about their performance? Why... because they were not there, the CSA did not allow blacks to serve. _"I just spent seven years reading thousands of Confederate soldiers letters, and I didn’t find one writer who described “black Confederate” soldiers in action."_ - Ken Noe, Alumni Professor and Draughon Professor of Southern History, Auburn University .

The Civil War was about slavery. This was no secret if you read primary sources from the era.

English. Learn some.

blackriflex39 The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Apologists for the South have been trying to convince everyone since then; that it was all about 'States Right.' But the states rights that they were fighting for was the right to have slaves. They were any with Abe Lincoln even before he was sworn in as President because of the anti-slavery remarks he had made before he was elected. @2015

blackriflex39 Exactly! If Lincoln really wanted the slaves free, why didn't he claim an Emancipation earlier and why wasn't slavery abolished until after he was killed?

That is vastly over simplifying the complex politics of the war that Lincoln had to deal with. Had he immediately initiated the Emancipation Proclamation, he most likely would have lost the neutral border states that were essentially still loyal to the Union. He also had to maintain support from the North, many of whom thought he should end the war and agree to peace terms with the South, even at the cost of letting slavery continue there. So he had to wait until victory seemed more sure before trying something like that.

Lol no there weren’t.

Shut up!

@@georgelabe-assimo4365 learn how to speak English, and you try to convince people about our history! LMBO...

@@straydog2002 He was just laughing at an obviously stupid claim. Your English isn't exactly up to snuff, either, mister. It's actually worse, in my opinion. You don't even capitalize the first letter of your sentence. Your sentence structure doesn't make much grammatical sense. While there are grammatically correct ways to place the "Learn how to speak English" line first, it just flows better when you switch it to the end. The word "convince" appears to be inappropriate for the context as well, but we'll work with it. Here, let me retype it for you: "If you want to convince people of our history, learn how to speak English." Alternatively, you may have wanted to write two sentences. I'm going to remove "convince" here, because it's awkward: " ...And you try to teach people about our history. Learn how to speak English." Starting a sentence with "and" isn't technically proper. I don't mind it, but if we're being grammar fascists, it's worth pointing it out. The use of the ellipsis to suggest an omission of words before it does allay this issue significantly. Personally, I think it sounds better when you phrase the "learn English" portion as a rhetorical question: "You want to convince people of our history? Learn how to speak English." There's a million ways to type this to make it read better, based on the exact impression you're trying to communicate. You chose one of the sloppiest. Instead of dominating your perceived opponent in a battle of grammatical wits, you merely displayed a profound lack of introspection. It's pretty embarrassing.

@@Deadener ask me if I care? To me English is a slave language that was passed down to me from my enemies, are you for real?...or are you stupid! Lol 😆 You are indeed an ignorant one.