Debunking the myth of the Lost Cause: A lie embedded in American history - Karen L. Cox 

Because you know the truth. 1864-1964. 100 years. Why did it take that long??? Because there was no money in it.

Africa is a big place. where is that proverb from specifically?

history was written by winner 😞

And slavery lost yet they still wrote a fuckton about covering it up.

@@snakey934Snakeybakey northern Malawi

The Buddha once said: Three things can never be hidden forever: the sun the moon and the truth

i think republicans want history to be repeated lmao

Deleting history makes it easier to be repeated.

Exactly. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is why I think it's horrible to tear down any types of statues. Or to erase history Edit. I should make myself more clear. If you want to tear down statues, they should be put in a museum. And democratically torn down. They need to have a vote to tear them down.

@@zephyr4960 lol

🤔...hmmm

The constitutional right that the southern states felt had most clearly been violated was the right to the return of fugitive slaves, a right the southern states willingly forfeited when they seceded. So what they fought for wasn't the return of fugitive slaves or anything else to do with slavery but the right (in the words of James Madison) "to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated" as opposed to (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) "the government created by this compact" having been "made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself" which "would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers."

So they wanted the rights not to listen to federal authority? Some laws are made in the capital and respected from everyone, that's the point of being a federacy and not an indipendent country. That said, the whole conflict started on slavery and ended with slavery, so it was indeed a war to protect slavery.

@@birmax5420 Nice ahistorical myth, but actually the whole conflict started with southern independence and ended with the end of southern independence, so it was indeed a war against southern independence.

Their state body, their choice?

If you believe for a split second, that 100s of thousands of white men in the 1860s would have marched into certain death to free slaves that 98 percent of them didn't own. You're disillusioned.

It was about keeping the south in the union. It wasn't about the slaves and only the slaves. You need not look further than the tax and budget of the Federal govt and what they would lose if the south went away

@@humansvd3269 The Union wanted primarily to keep the South a part of the country and that was their primary objective. The South wanted to preserve the institution of slavery that they felt was inevitably going to disappear unless something was done.

@Jeffery Xu The North wanted to keep the south for the same reasons Britain wanted to help the colonies in. To extract taxes and have land. That's it. The slavery issue was the final straw in a series of other grievances that the South had with the North. The average northerner did not care for the slaves

The south wasn’t shy about it

ngl he has a good point

The past few couple of events really highlight his points.

He obviously knew the Democrats would be back to no good in the future.

Yeah BLM & Antifa did good that mission.

@@ChineseChicken1 Did you know the republican party was founded to end slavery? Now it has been taken over by people like you. God help you.

"men remember only fracture of history and write down they own version of it down for the future" thats my quote :P oh and when men write it down , most of them do it in a single point of view with excludes 40-60% of the truth and cause of the event :)

Douglass was an amazing writer/orator. If you haven't read his narrative of his life, I highly recommend it especially as it isn't all too long.

I remember how the Democrats fought for slavery. I’ll Never forget that.

@@ChineseChicken1 good, than you'll learn the entire country is run by horrible people, no matter which of the two right wing parties takes the W

@@ChineseChicken1 Funny how I only see Republicans glorifying Confederate generals and waving Confederate flags. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

The only myth here is that the Union was on a righteous crusade to end slavery.

@@squarecracker The Union fought to end Slavery, that Confederates to maintain Slavery and to expand the institution

@@finalMadfox That's an outright lie. Look up the Corwin Amendment. They were ready to pass a constitutional guarantee to protect slavery constitutionally (where it already existed). You are correct that the *expansion* of slavery played a major role in the conflict, but it's far from the sole cause and a totally unsympathetic portrayal of the southern cause. In my opinion it's more properly called "The War for Southern Independence". The idea that that they were fighting to end slavery is preposterous on it's face. Lincoln did not choose to resupply Ft Sumter because of slavery.

​@finalMadfox The South fought to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union.The eradication of slavery was a side note but it is not why the North went to war. They went to war because the south seceded. the self seceeded to protect slavery.

@@RayB50 You do realize it was the South who started it all by attacking Federal property and then Fort Sumter. And also the diea that the war was just about to preserve the Union is wrong, due to the Emmancipation proclamation which made the whole war about abolishing slavery, not just restoring the Union

ILL and MN were correct.

@@plumSRT Not according to the US Congress, which in July of 1861 declared by a nearly unanimous vote "that this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States".

Most kids born after 72 were lied to in public schools about American history. Today's kids are clueless.

Saying the civil war was over slavery is like saying BLM formed over abortion.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558. Believed it easily huh?

Unfortunately many fight and die for a rich man’s cause without ever knowing the true reasons for their deaths and suffering.

not exactly slavery. it was livelihood. the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses the south relied on slavery for their farms and products they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.

@@Dubs22005 Slavery was a way of life and not a business model in the South and they couldn't imagine life without them. Look at what happened after Reconstruction ended. Blacks lost many of their rights and many went back to virtual slaves as sharecroppers.

I am in highschool, in middle school, when we were asked about the causes of the Civil War, I said Slavery, my teacher corrected me, and said it was about State's Rights.

Real life King Schultz?

Yep... that pretty much sums up their thinking/rationale/excuse. But to take it one step further.. if they really thought Non-Whites to be human, they never would have done what they did. Only when you relegate people to "subhuman" or "savage" level and remove their humanity, is subjugating them and enslaving them and even killing them possible.

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster Defending the right to what? As a Syrian-German, I don't understand, how any person with the ability to empathize with other humans could defend slavery or "a state's right to support slavery".

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster wooooosh

That's EXACTLY right

nailed it friend

this is one smart man ,but left out the taxation on the south only to benefit the aggressive northern states and the right to buy equipment from england instead of the disguting greedy north its still the same today we will pay 10 times the worth of a new car or truck on half of the salary

That's probably as close as anyone can get to summarising the situation.

@@harryholyfield1550 You sound like a Navajo...

The South made clear they were seceding to preserve the institution of slavery. Lincoln made clear he was fighting against secession to preserve the Union. The abolition of slavery was certainly *a* motivation for fighting by the North, but secondary to the North's primary motivation of preserving the Union. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was delivered, that tied abolition of slavery in the southern states more clearly to the war effort. I always think the big cause was the incompatibility of a medieval race-based serfdom form of government with a more industrial, free labor democratic one. As Lincoln knew, it ultimately had to be one or the other.

your last sentence... generational hate teaches the next generations to continue the hate

Lost Causes are only worthwhile if they're noble. The Confederacy was in no way noble.

I had the same situation growing up - in the 90s and a Southern town. And I noticed the same patterns as well. Those patterns are still present today… sadly, those narratives are incredibly persistent.

Actually the US government lied. Not about slavery existing, but about the real reason for burning and slaughtering the south

You’ll only believe what you’ve been told without ever digging any deeper for the truth. But again the south never cared if you knew the truth because this country was torn apart as soon as the government began over taxing US citizens even though it was supposed to be a “free country” free from the over taxation of England. BS young northern children easily believe what they’re told and go their whole lives without ever thinking to find for themselves Never the wiser

Truly very rare, not even in the UK can I say our history lessons were this well informing.

@Fancy Those in states with racists on their education board and government, so basically all of the south and some Midwest states. They’ve gone so far as to rewrite school history books by erasing truths.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qD3kqf4eZPo.html Jammu Kashmir related vlog

@Fancy There is. Not directly of course, but there are minimalizations of certain truths to make unjust things seem just.

I loved my history teacher. He inspired me, and I did manage to get a "4" on the AP test. I didn't have a good history teacher.

lol

Sheep go bbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaa

@@vasaradragonsbane5580 ^ said the sheep of a different pasture. 🙄

@@s.l.3281 You'll be ok, just get back to suckling that narrative teat till the big bad RU-vid comments go away.

You did not have to wait long

Because you grew up in the North. It's about where you grew up, not race

@@AntiContradiction Gee, I ponder why race and slavery are entwined eh?!

That underground railroad now shuttles illegal aliens INTO slavery.

are you here from the Oversimplified channel?

@@adityashirolkar5038 YES

@@aleksandarvil5718 I know because McClellan used the same phrase in the Oversimplified Video...

Oversimplified vibes

@@SuperPrem The best type

What makes you think the version of history you were taught to be the right one? This is not exclusive to slavery, btw. It's egotistical to think what you were taught to be the truth.

@@BR0984 Maybe he knows that "Lost Cause" is bogus history because that has been proven.

@@BR0984 Well that's because the Lost Cause is a complete myth written by delusional losers who ignore the very things the leaders of the confederacy said themselves.

@@BR0984 If his teachers provided sources, that students can check for themselves, for the textbooks and other materials, he can be relatively certain to know the truth about the Civil War and other subjects.

Wait, why were they teaching American history in Swedish schools?

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." -London Times, November 7, 1861

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 It was a war fought to preserve the country and put an end to slavery.

Yet who fired the first shot? Our (South) dumbasses, that's who. There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country. Unprovoked firing on a military installation isn't one of them. I'm guessing these pinheads forgot all about Franklin's travels (and what he was doing) during the Revolution. Not surprising, my fellow southerners seem addicted to willful ignorance.

Secession due to slavery War due to keeping the union

@@careyfreeman5056 "There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country." Not when the North refused to even negotiate. Here's what a couple northern abolitionists said about it at the time: "...the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate party, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other." "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation. "In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows: "'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.' "This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?" -George Bassett

More accurately you want to pretend they did when they actually didn't. And not only that, but you want to dishonestly present tangential controversies relating to slavery (like whether the northern states would uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves), things that the seceding states most definitely did not fight for (quite the opposite, seceding clearly meant forfeiting those rights rather than fighting for them) as if they were equal to the Republican-led North trying to abolish slavery in the southern states which is nothing but a revisionist propaganda myth, a complete lie.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 More accurately, y'all just wanna OWN SLAVES?! lol. Move along and let the grown-ups talk bucko, y'all can watch Firefly in the corner.

Slavery was the cause for "session" but not the cause for war

To protect the institution of slavery was the cause for "secession" but not the cause for war. The two are a separate issue that you may be misunderstanding

@@jamesbuchanan6256 So, the cause for the war was independence over...OWNING SLAVES?! lol.

Slavery wasn't the sole direct cause, but it was the primary and root cause because all the other issues were because of the social and economic differences of having versus not having slavery.

Both are right. It was about states rights to have slavery be decided on a state level instead of federal. The states refused to abide by the new paradigm and moved to secede. It's likely that had the issue been about states rights to, say, legalize some substances like drugs and alchool or firearm laws it would never have gotten as bad as it did.

@@TosiakiS May I suggest to use the word "facts" instead of "truth"? Like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states "In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences". Beliefs and therefore truth, too, are highly subjective. Facts on the other hand are objective and therefore unimpeachable.

@@l0lLorenzol0l uh the thing is lincoln wasnt trying to take away their slaves and just hoped it would naturally die out if he prevented its expansion

I was told years ago that it was just economics. Yes, the economics of slavery!

Best keep our heads up now... Wouldnt you agree?

Just like people who believe in Flat Earth, yes.

One of their headquarters caught fire during the protests last summer. Unfortunately, I think it was only one, and it probably won't do much to them in the long run.

When I was applying to colleges I remember seeing a scholarship under their name for descendants of members of the confederacy. It's ridiculous!!

Unfortunately, yes. To this day, (in another case) there are many right-wing Japanese who believed Japan has done nothing wrong and claims the Imperial Army didn't perform any war crimes in China & SEA during WWII. Government Japanese members visiting Yasukuni Shrine doesn't help lessen the hatred of the victims' descendants.

No it was mainly slavery. They were already killing each other over it before the war started. Bloody Kansas was a unofficial civil war against pro abolitionist and pro slavers. They say there were many reasons just to confuse people. Not to mention members of congress were getting in physical fist fights over the debate.

While the debate over slavery was among the causes of secession, it was not among the causes of war. Secession and war are two completely different matters.

Ultimately, the right to alter or to abolish their form of government, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. But more specifically, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, the right of each state to judge for itself, as well of infractions of the constitution, as of the mode & measure of redress. Any other questions?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 While this may not necessarily be wrong, you're taking the issue out of context for the time between 1861-1865.

@@TRNATO1 Then how would you answer your own question?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 slavery dude. If the south won, they would still have slavery. Simple

@@danomyte67 And if the South hadn't seceded in the first place they would have still had slavery. So there's no difference, is there? And regardless, the North wasn't challenging the South's right to have slavery, so that's certainly not what the North and South fought over: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." -Lincoln

That's really not any different than what the US Supreme Court had already ruled the US constitution said. The Confederate constitution just said so explicitly.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Shouldn't you be searching for documents?

Always thought it was interesting the notion that the confederacy was about states' rights, but that same CSA constitution explicitly forbade any ability to secede, so that alone should show it was never about the rights of the states.

You might trouble yourself to note the Confederate Constitution was never ratified.

what about thomas jefferson

The XXI century version of this is "there's no form of veganism that is acceptable to animal abusers"

@White wolf If you don’t live here, and your skin is white, how could you know?

@@fernandofontenla8466 Vegetarians aren’t Fascists. Catch the difference?

@@hadara69 not all vegetarians are facists, I can give you that.

@@fernandofontenla8466 But EVERY Fascist in America who believes "White is Right!" is a RWer. True or False? You’re the one who’s pretending Vegans are as intolerant as racists, dude. Also what we eat is a CHOICE, again… Catch the difference? (Psst…if you can’t/won’t, there in lies the REAL problem here.)

My Florida highschool taught that it was about states rights and economic discrepancies between the north and south, which was a real thing that was happening at the time, but my teachers also off the records made many comments about it being caused by slavery, but they were not allowed to teach that for risk of losing their jobs

Definitely taught in MS on a collegiate level in the early 2000s.

Comment ti vote thus up

This is how it should be.

Nah, in Canada no one would be arrested

It sucks all the enslaved people should have esacped to canada so america whould not succced

@@normboy8376 Canada didn't abolish slavery until 1834 when Westminister made slavery illegal.

My wife's boyfriend loves this comment ✊🏿

@@zabrak999 Thanks for letting us know. Your wife's boyfriend sounds like a great guy.

I doubt that this will change anyone's mind who has their idea as to what really started the CW. Sure, Fred was there but he was not a political leader who had the inside scoop for the motivations. He is just giving his opinions based on his observations. The last thing Lincoln wanted to do was to free the slaves. He wanted the ports of trade the South now controlled and would have been OK with them keeping slaves. So I am going with slavery not being the motivation for the CW.

@@timothy3732 you're going with slavery not being the cause even though the secession letter swritten by the states all state it is the reason?

​@@timothy3732 Preserving slavery was the South's reason for succession and fighting. They had built an economy that depended on slavery as an institution and would never have abolished it without the use of force. Lincoln's ultimate goal was preserving the Union, and he would have left slavery in place if it was the only way to do that. Lincoln declared abolishing slavery to be a Union goal to keep the British (Who had freed their own slaves by that point and were trying to proclaim themselves to the world as anti-slavery while still being entrenched in imperialism) out of the war. The British had economic reasons to favor the south, but if it was a war to end slavery they couldn't support them. So no side had pure intentions, but slavery was a critical part of the entirety of the war and cannot be written out. If anything I said was wrong, please correct me. It's been awhile since I've studied the topic.

Multiple famous Northerners, including abolitionists, presidents of the US from northern states, famous Englishmen of the time, Lincoln, the US Congress, notable Southerners... all contradicted the myth that the war was "about slavery." What do you even mean by that anyway? Do you mean that the northern states were refusing to uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves and the southern states, without making any further demands for the return of fugitive slaves from the northern states, declared the constitutional compact broken? Do you mean that Republicans were threatening to abolish slavery and the southern states secede to try to avoid abolition being forced on them and the North then went to war to force abolition on them? Or do you just mean to imply that if anything relating to slavery had however indirect a connection to the war, that it's fair to say the war was "about slavery" in the same way 9/11 was about the Palestinian territories?

​@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 More lies. Sad

​@Patrick Cleburne You will never escape the words of the Confederares.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 There is literally no reasoning with someone as well read as you. You’ve drunk the biased koolaid and will never truly learn. Amazing display of cognitive dissonance.

@@icevariable9600 And what koolaid did all the abolitionists, other Northerners, US presidents from northern states, Englishmen, other foreigners... that defended the right of peoples, including the people of the southern staets, to choose their own governments even through and after the War of Northern Aggression drink?

Good one.

most frequent reply is "the Morrill tariffs" (though those don't/didn't fit into the secession timeline)

Wrong!

Self-government! You don't actually believe there was any states' right having to do with slavery that the states sought to gain or secure by seceding that the Republican-led North wasn't entirely willing to concede, do you?

If you read 9th and 10th constitutional amendments, you will see about states rights in simple English. Politics of the left disregard the founding document.

Because what they said was true. Slavery WAS the main cause, and the issue of states rights was kind of a symptom of slavery.

@@jimmymarrs1556 Exactly and I believe that due to those who know it was mainly about slavery sayin for political reasons that stars rights weren't a factor are the reason that myth still persists. If instead of downright denying it (which is just revising history too) why can't we realize it was about slavery and therefore the right of the states to either allowed t or prohibit it. Why is that so hard?!

Whenever someone tries to claim "the civil war was just about states' rights" a friend of mine always just responds with "states' rights to do what?" which is the question they never want to answer because the answer is "have legal slavery." You don't see the same people glorifying the civil war as a states' rights issue supporting states legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing hard drugs, providing protections to LGBTQ+ groups/identities, or any other progressive policy. It's only about the "rights" they want states to have.

Yeah I grew up in Georgia and I remember being taught in school that it was almost entirely because of state's rights and slavery was just a little tag-along. I was just a kid when they taught this, so idk how accurately I remember it, but I will say I distinctly remember being confused when learning about the Civil War after I moved to Montana

@@estrogenearthquake7160 same

I taught at a school whose motto was “The Truth Shall Set You Free”… sounds like the motto at yours should have been “The Truth Shall Make You Ashamed”

What was the problem with WW2 Germany that it was nit talked about?

Yes, that's how I was taught it in Missouri elementary school and high school as well. Then in college, my American history professor said forget everything you learned in high school and my mind was blown when I learned about the Confederate leadership's own speeches and words and constitution.

@@MaseryStar Did you know Abraham Lincoln would have gladly allowed slavery if the confederates had remained in the union?

@@kkknotcool If that's true then why did the South secede?

@@neilpemberton5523 Because Abraham Lincoln was not king of the north.

@@kkknotcool I Doubt it would have been "Gladly" since he was known to be against slavery. Which is why the south left the Union after his election.

Are you from America?

@@AgentFlea does it matter?

Slightly more than 50% of all academic studies are false (if you want to know why that is just ask) so I can understand why they are a lot more skeptical about science.

@@blauwbeer556 spoken with true facts i presume. where did you get that percentage? can you find a referance to a related study? i guess not.

@@NicKtheGreeK1100 but that study could be wrong. In fact it has a 50% chance of being so according to this great thinker. So much easier to make up convenient facts for yourself. It’s a great American tradition.

They were fighting in a secluded fort. Not very likely to be seen.

That's the difference between museum ( place of learning) and monuments ( place of praise).

And I think she said the UDC was still around? That's outrageous!

They were the first Karens

@@mmmk1616 they’re a crowd gathering event here in SC and Georgia

Plus the Dixie Sisters. They practically further dragged the reason behind the Civil War into the dirt by changing the education system in southern states like Alabama and Louisiana.

I was thinking the same - even if they were fighting for states right to choose for or against slavery....well that's pretty much the same as "right to choose racism"

@@Royan1900 The right to chose. That’s always what people fight for. South was supremely based in that but was pretty weak.

They were fighting for the state's right to deny rights to minorities. So both are true. It was a fight for state's rights. It was also a fight for slavery. This is just spin-doctoring 101.

bing

It's STILL wrong, though: The South explicitly fought to deny states the right to be NON-slaveholding states. Saying "The South fought for the right to choose" is like saying "Pro-life advocates fight for the right to choose".

The total tax generation for all northern ports, including New York, was $48.3 million. New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues. The entire South generated only $4.0 million in tariff revenues, with New Orleans being the southern port that collected the most, at $3.1 million. New Orleans was captured without resistance by the Union in 1862.

he was right

Because southerners aren't the only ones perpetuating that. Have this conversation with some so called intellectuals some time. After the confederate soldier is rightly identified as a 'pro slavery crusader'....mention the fact that the norther soldier is BY DEFINITION an anti slavery crusader. Then stand far away because the blowback will be severe. "Oh no, the question of slavery was never the issue up north. For them is was about preserving the union." So the 'lost causers' are everywhere.

I'm from Louisiana as well and it's pretty easy to understand how the war wasn't fought over slavery. There's plenty of doubt.

@@chuckwest7045 propaganda moment

Reallocation of wealth? Control of the world's largest agricultural economy? Lol ...the north put the same people on the same cotton fields when the war was over!!! By the way, Abraham Lincoln was a great admirer of Karl Marx. He wrote him often.

@@3625hdarrel 1. every issue you mentioned can be traced back to slavery 2. Sharecropping wasn't a northern invention 3. Your point?

The war was fought over the southern states' secession, over their independence, over their right to self-government, over the northern states' claim to a right to enslave the southern states (and themselves, too, in the process.)

Yet another reason to never move to Texas.

@@sb4040 Good barbecue I hear, though.

The Articles of Confederacy I clearly say's SLAVERY 88 times

@@jamesmadison3580 What are these "Articles of Confederacy"? Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

Since Obama, this narrative has resurged with a vengeance, no matter how absurdly obvious it is that for the south the motivation for fighting was slavery. One only has to look at the articles of secession and the confederate constitution to recognize unambiguously that no other conclusion is possible.

Yes. "Cotton is King". Slavery was free labor for big cotton. Huge profits is all that mattered. Those who suffered were expendable.

@@namvet1968 Indeed

I remember when learning about the US Civil War and a classmate said that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. I laughed really hard and said: “I don’t know what’s worse, that the Union troops was lead by a drunk. Or that the south got their butts handed to them by a drunk.” But in all honesty I never believed “The Lost Cause” BS. I simply can not wrap my head around the concept of why owning and abusing a human being can be an okay concept.

"I grew up in NY and we were taught from a young age that the war was to end slavery." Have you learned yet that you were taught a lie? Shortly after the start of the war the US Congress officially declared by a practically unanimous vote: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]" And the day after issuing the preliminary emancipation proclamation Lincoln said, “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”

I learned that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree & then fessed up to his pappy, saying, "I cannot tell a lie..."......And that America was wonderful & perfect & that its history only began in 1776.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So congress even agreed that they weren't trying to take away states rights. Interesting. Also interesting to hear that morality transcended even legal and constitutional grounds. It's particularly interesting to hear here these through a lens of 120 years later and to realize how absurd the idea of people being able to own another human being is / should be.

I dont agree. Those teaching about this part of history deem it to be objective and true, because they ignore facts that contradict their narrative - just like Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Theorists and other lunatics. Ever notice of much this statement applies to Republicans and those in the poor, badly educated Bible Belt of the US!!!!!

Uh, that's the case with every country lol.

But... Who made them is the question..

@@amicableenmity9820 yep, that's what happens when the winners gets to write history

@@paulkenjerski5137 thats a good question

In my country, there are not lies but less focus on important leaders of past years and biasness towards some leaders like Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru instead of Subhash Chandra Bose and Dr BR Ambedkar

"The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it." No, it didn't. (It banned the central government of the Confederacy from abolishing slavery -- which the US constitution at the time implicitly did, too, according to Lincoln and practically everyone else, and Lincoln likewise said he had "no objection to" a constitutional amendment which would have made that protection of slavery "express and [going beyond the Confederate constitution, even] irrevocable" -- but the Confederate constitution made a point of *not* prohibiting states from abolishing slavery, and it even provided for issues that would arise in states that would abolish slavery.) And you're advancing an absurd re-definition of states rights, too. States rights are the constitutional rights of states. If the constitution prohibits states from granting titles of nobility, it's not anti-states rights to oppose states granting titles of nobility, because it's explicitly not a state's right.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 you’re pro-slavery

Sad...delusions of persecution...all the while persecuting and enslaving blacks. This is mental illness.

@@Greenisthebestcolor Then whey did northern abolitionists around the time of the war basically say the same thing themselves?

@@Greenisthebestcolor I wouldn’t call it mental illness if call it destructive delusions

@@Greenisthebestcolor The horrors perpetrated at the hands of the Union were starkly real. Essentially, the South was given an ultimatum. Cease further conflict or we burn your cities and crops down. Both sides were wrong to varying degrees. Oh yes, and try telling that to the Confederate soldier families who were chained to posts in the heart of winter.

@@txmetalhead82xk this all happened because influencial rich southern estate owners wanted to keep holding humans as cattle just because it was more profitable for them.

I see why you believed them. A teacher is someone who we are taught to trust so when they say something like "State's Rights" it is difficult to not believe them given their position which makes teachers like those all the more despicable.

not really, it was about taxation among other issues

My 8th grade teacher was the best. I live in Michigan and he said the civil war was about slavery which made our cause much more just. However he also said that the north mostly refrained from slavery, not because we were better people. He pointed out the obvious that our economy (cold weather, indoor and factory based) wasn't conducive to slavery, as their's was down south.

@@embalmertrick1420 What taxation? New York was the most taxed state at the time.

Unfortunately, both are right. The difference is in the viewpoint of the different sides. To Northerners, it was about the horrid treatment of humans. But, we must remember that slavery was huge part of the South's economy. To them the issue was about states' rights and we will never know how many of the confederate states would have renounced slavery on their own over time. One of the concerns of the day was, if the Federal Government can force this issue on states, what else may it? Well, we are seeing it now as states rights are under constant attack. Remember, the forming of the union was to solve only limited issues at the time. The remainder of problems were left to the states to resolve. But this point falls on deaf ears these days with the Progressives always pushing for centralized control over whatever they can get it for.

@@goldenhawk352 I invite you and all of your cronies to look up the video series “Checkmate Lincolnites,” because it goes into much more detail than I ever could in a single comment.

But the North fought the Civil War for two years, ONLY to hold the Union together, before it finally abolished slavery in the South. So, if the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, then the South wasn't fighting to keep it. Just saying, it is hard to say the civil war started as a shooting match because Slavery had been abolished, when it was never abolished until 2 years into the shooting match. If the South had ended the war before those two years, the punitive measure of abolishing slavery may never had even happened at all.

@@OakInch It’s in the constitution of the Confederacy that all confederate states must allow for slavery. See also the videos I reccomended earlier.

@@goldenhawk352 The Confederacy did more than just shoot that one Union outpost. Before any shots were fired they already called upon soldiers. However, I think this argument should come to an end, because what will we gain from this? Petty satisfaction that someone on the internet was wrong? I won’t. And I don’t think you will either.

@@paprus5972 And they were still allowed to have slavery 2 years into the Civil War. So that means the actual shooting war started, and was fought by the North, with no intent to end slavery, for two years. So what was the North fighting for two years if it wasn't to end slavery? The answer is to hold the Union together.

😂😂

"slavery had nothing to do, it was about states rights" -Patrick Copeburne

@@finalMadfox Copeburn LMAO

@@kade-qt1zu Traitors really cope

@@finalMadfox Imagine how much Copium they're going to be inhaling when they see this comment.

slavery has always existed, and it still does. There are slaves in the USA right now. Funny how no one cares.

That's America for you. *rimshot

What a blatant example of americo-centrism

"Right to do what" is the best thing to ask a neoconfederate

@@raxusveritasright to economic power over the federal government

@Eve Angélique lol idk, I just guess the people who watch are generally people open to learning

I've seen some, but fortunately they get called out basically immediately.

I don’t think many Diet Coke racists are much concerned about educating themselves.

they're here, but ashamed and quiet

This is a channel with beatifully captivating animations to poetry, mithology, and stories. I think this environment gathers people interested in emotion and empathy, art and learning, so yeah, a secluded corner of the internet

"the South feared Lincoln would abolish slavery" How would he have done that? By throwing out the constitution and ruling like a dictator? Do you mean the South feared Lincoln's election meant the end of the constitution and the rule of law?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I guess the Republican party having an overwhelming majority in the house and the senate isn't how Lincoln was going to abolish slavery eh?!

That's what they meant. It was about states rights to choose for themselves whether or not to have slavery.

and Northern States/commonwealths also had slavery!

@@bobbytutton3270 "All Northern states had abolished slavery in some way by 1805; sometimes, abolition was a gradual process, a few hundred people were enslaved in the Northern states as late as the 1840 census." tell me, who freed the slaves and who enslaved them? UNION W

Northern states we’re just as guilty.I had family union and confederation.

@@vintinoo1924 Africans caught other African tribesmen and sold them into slavery. But then again every race had been enslaved

@@jeffrothegamer all northern states abolished slavery by 1805 COMMON UNION W

The problem isn’t history itself but who is teaching it and from what perspective.

A reasonable quote, but odd that it comes from one of the infamous fathers of Cultural Marxism

@@trumpetpunk42 cultural marxism? isnt that a conspiracy theory...

truth is rarely pure and never simple - Oscar Wilde

The biggest lies are the ones told the most

"You do not have depression." - Prince EA

@@samtepal3892 lol i remember this

Funny thing Prince EA said that, since he manufactures trues to go with his narrative.

Yes, that is a the product of hard work by many intelligent people.

and animation. sweet, sweet animation!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qD3kqf4eZPo.html Jammu Kashmir related vlog

Or 3 minutes if you watch at 1.5x speed ;)

@@K4R3N lol

No, fortunately no

We’d need a whole year to go over all that

I mean most people don't know that the US lost the Vietnam War so…

as a Vietnamese, I can clearly feel what you said

Don't need to imagine. A little digging will show you we were in Vietnam for dubious reasons and the whole Bush era wars so far most people would accept we went in there on a lie.

If I make a series on US history, I will dedicate an entire episode just to obscure wars in Latin America that the US fought in the early 20th century, and another to all the "Free World" coups that the US government was involved in throughout the Cold War! For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

The Civil War was fought over whether slavery would expand into the Western Territories.

You were taught the truth

i wonder if preserving the union could have mabe possibly been conected to STATES RIGHTS ,just a thought

shame on your teachers for not teaching the truth in history,it does not need to be rewritten

@@harryholyfield1550 define re-written

It was never about slavery. It was about state’s rights to secede from the Union.

​@@stephenbryant5251Please stop with the nonsense. Read the words of the traitors aloud and see how it sounds.

@@stephenbryant5251 You're right it wasn't about preserving slavery...but EXPANDING slavery. So states' rights to...OWN SLAVES?!

​@@CosmoShidanIs that guy still around? I think he blocked me 😂

@@sbnwnc 🤣

They were fighting for independence. They had a right to independence. And the people that deny the fact that they were fighting for independence deny the right of a state to secede for any reason, which goes to show that they, too, are only using talk about slavery to conceal the real point, namely their opposition to free government.

the truth is that the south lost, and the North wanted to make sure that no one questioned the federal government so they added Slavery to the war like it was something they wanted to get rid of in the south. Lying Lincoln wanted to save the union he didn't beleve that none white people had know how of what to do with freedom because they were not white

Yes, basically. That about sums it up.

Nope, they hide it so people forget so they can do it again

What a reductionist view that is needlessly provocative. Even if the leaders of the confederacy had their own reasons for seceding, did you think the common soldier fought for that? Of course not. To them they fought because the North had invaded after they declared themselves free. They fought to protect their land. And it is that belief - of the masses, not the leaders - that formed the states rights view.

Damn thats rough mahn

Critical Race was abolished by this history teacher.

Tomato tomato.... States rights yes! the main one being the right to slavery.

Seriously, even if state's rights was one of the causes, it wasn't the only cause, and definitely wasn't the primary cause.

It was correctly marked "wrong".

And when they did my ancestors stole them and took them to freedom.

@@-Subtle- If you ever come through Belmont County, Ohio. Go to the village of Flushing, for one of the Underground Railroad museums. R.I.P. Dr. John Matox. On an unrelated note Belmomt County had the first dually elected female sheriff in America.

not exactly slavery. it was livelihood. the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses the south relied on slavery for their farms and products they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.

@@Dubs22005 Thier livelihood WAS Slavery. So they fought for slavery.

“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.” - Jefferson Davis "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America." - Confederate constitution The Confederate States gain several rights that the U.S. states did not have. For example, they gained the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state. The Confederate Constitution omits the phrase emit Bills of Credit from Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting the Confederate States the right to issue such bills of credit. States rights mean confederate state is to work as if an independent nation within the nation itself to give the people more individual freedom.

We definitely have losers running the country today.

Hey my name is also Danny B! What's up!

WRONG

@@davidscott9572 wrong what?

@@conservativetexan2289 history IS always written by the winners

What do you think it even means that the war "was all about slavery"? You don't believe the easily disproved lie that the North fought to force abolition on the South, do you? You don't believe there was anything about slavery that either side could have conceded at any point during the war that would have appeased the other side and gotten it to quit fighting and lay down its arms, do you? Is there any making sense of, any explaining what it even means to say the war was all about slavery? Or do inexplicable revisionist myths just continue to appeal to you?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So we should ignore what Jefferson Davis said about independence and accept that it was about states' rights to...OWN SLAVES?! lol.

@@CosmoShidan Ignore it? How about you try making some sense of whatever it is you're referring to? What do you think it even means that the war "was all about slavery"? You don't believe the easily disproved lie that the North fought to force abolition on the South, do you? You don't believe there was anything about slavery that either side could have conceded at any point during the war that would have appeased the other side and gotten it to quit fighting and lay down its arms, do you? Is there any making sense of, any explaining what it even means to say the war was all about slavery? Or do inexplicable revisionist myths just continue to appeal to you?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 Oh so you mean the Lost Cause is easily disprovable revisionism eh?! lol.

@@CosmoShidan How about you try making some sense of whatever it is you're referring to? What do you think it even means that the war "was all about slavery"? You don't believe the easily disproved lie that the North fought to force abolition on the South, do you? You don't believe there was anything about slavery that either side could have conceded at any point during the war that would have appeased the other side and gotten it to quit fighting and lay down its arms, do you? Is there any making sense of, any explaining what it even means to say the war was all about slavery? Or do inexplicable revisionist myths just continue to appeal to you?

State's rights to secede, decide taxation, decide laws.

@@crazando Nope. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

@@WeaslyTwin Yes it actually was the rights I mentioned. What you brought up was a quote from a speech from a man with no power in the CSA

@@crazando Virtually every single states declaration of succession directly lists slavery as a reason...

Oof I commented a similar thing before I saw ur comment... sorry

It's an historically baseless myth that anyone was challenging that right, and the South certainly didn't fight for a right that wasn't threatened by remaining in the union. Look up the Corwin amendment for overwhelming evidence of what the North wasn't challenging.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 You are correct that the majority of the Northern population was not advocating abolition, but the South viewed slavery as threatened and acted according to that view. That's why it was front and center in the debates and the secession declarations. The North saw this, and Seward and Corwin tried to spread oil on the water by proposing the amendment, but it was too late. Every other issue was not a hill anyone was threatening to die on. Transportation, tariff, and finance issues were all resolvable politically, and on agricultural policies, Southern farmers and Midwest farmers were already allies against the East Coast commercial interests.

@@TundraTrash Sure, slavery was threatened (as it was threatened everywhere inside and outside the union, in Cuba, Brazil, etc.), but you seem to be saying that slavery in the southern states was threatened particularly by remaining in the union. Is that indeed what you're suggesting? And if so, how do you think the union threatened slavery? And how do you think seceding offered any hope of protecting against those threats?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 I'm not saying the North was threatening slavery. I'm saying the South thought slavery was threatened, and that is why it seceded.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 AND BTW, I would note that your namesake was more of an abolitionist than most Northerners, and he paid for it within the AOT.

The average soldier in the South was not fighting for slavery. The war was about slavery and the Confederate leaders were fighting for slavery but the average soldier was not.

@@sbnwnc True, the average confederate soldier was fighting to have the right to have slaves, even if he could not afford one.That's the Southern American Dream. Also to deny anybody to call an African American his equal. That's he Southern unequality right.

Good to you for your wise concept in thinking

@@sbnwnc Doesn't excuse them completely.

@@terrymiller111 Agreed. But we have to live together. Everyone in France is related to a Resistance fighter. No one is related to a collaborator. Some lies are required to get along.

Or this: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute." -Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Funny thing is SC never succeed because it’s impossible for a state to succeed. US never acknowledged it. The union existed before the states. SC tried to illegally succeed and failed

it was most definately about states rights and unfair taxation ,and jerky is not made from grass

@@harryholyfield1550

​@@harryholyfield1550 Maybe you should actually read the articles of succession of each confederate state.

How could it be any different?

@@kreigkubachi3732 The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution Slavery, only. This was the second 'sentence'.

Wake up, slavery from Africa, still is, that was and is the problem, that was what Alexander Stephen was trying to say, and the USA is a free Federal Government.

Burns was a Leftist propagandist.

If Ken Burns is the biggest source of your Civil War knowledge then you have a lot more to learn.

I know right? I just ask them "The States rights to what?" and they always fumble trying to avoid slavery as their answer.

You can add that under the Confederacy no state was allowed to END slavery per their constitution.

@@wiscgaloot Every single crisis in American history from 1848 to 1861 was about slavery.

Good one!

Nice myth! How are you imagining that right was at stake in the war?

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 It is in the primary source documents.

I agree with much of what you say. However, you say that "Certainly, no on in 1861 said "Hey! Slavery is a problem! Let's have a war!" That's true of course, but it's a very close call. Bleeding Kansas basically _was_ a situation very much like "Slavery is a problem, let's have a war!" We can split hairs about all of the different causes of the Civil War, but reduced to its essence, it was about slavery. All or almost all of the other causes connect to slavery.

@@sbnwnc Yes, didn't John Brown say that America's sin of slavery could only be cleansed with blood?

@@gmansard641 He sure did, and sadly he was right.

But it’s actually not, because the lost cause is not the main narrative taught in schools- or anywhere for that matter. There will always be 2 sides to every story, and the losing side will almost always have their own perspective of events. So there’s nothing that weird or unique about it, really.

@@apeyb5606 true, but there’s a difference between perspective and literally distorting history. Also World World 2 was actually written by the losers, since the Cold War happened right after WW2, the West and the USSR distorted how they won the war. The Nazis just filled in the blanks. It’s why the whole Germans attacked the USSR in the winter myth is still so common, even though they attacked in the Summer.

@@apeyb5606 It is though. In Texas history books can literally not be sold to schools if they don't mention The Lost Cause

@@That_GuyRU-vid You actually believe WW2 history was "written by the losers"... Lol WOW ! I have a bridge to sell you in London.

@@bobshenix well, sort of. Not the entire war by a longshot, but much of the accepted history of what happened on the Eastern front was dictated by German generals (due to the iron curtain and cold war). It's where most of the "RuSsIanS uSEd hUmAn wAvEs aNd wOn oNlY wItH nUmBeRs" and "muh clean Wehrmacht" ideas originated.

...unless you keep on and keep on telling it like its the truth. That's what makes it "a lie". Simple.

It could be based in truth. There may have been a very small group who genuinely fought for states' rights and didn't care about slavery and everyone else just pretended that they all believed that when they lost. Then it's more of an exaggeration than a lie.

well it is based around a twisted truth. they are simply double speaking which is different than lying.

@@owenwillard5409 No, it's exactly the same as lying. It isn't the truth, is it? Pretty simple, as are they. And there are no "twisted truths", by the way: the truth is the truth. It is never "twisted" unless it is a lie.

It's a myth because many believed it.

The government legit encourages it, many of the old population and middle population of Turkey are Nationalists

Slavery had been around for centuries. It was around when the states freely came together into the re-established union under the constitution. How then can it make any sense to say it was the cause of the union coming apart? It doesn't.

@@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 So if something is active for years it can't cause issues leading to war? Your logic is a joke. Taxation without representation has been around for centuries. With your logic the American Revolution would never have happened.

@@snuffyballparks6501 Taxation without representation hadn't been around for centuries, not in the British colonies that became the United States. That's why it caused a strong reaction when it was introduced. Let me guess, as a history teacher you had all the expertise and accountability of our tax-funded school system?

@snuffyballparks6501 +++ EC/EV and (more severely) two-US-Senators per state give slavers/oligarchs a huge power advantage.

Goes hand in hand.

Slavery was at the heart of the Civil War, but the reasons were not limited to the moral controversy.

not exactly slavery. it was livelihood. the north didn't need slaves because they had different businesses the south relied on slavery for their farms and products they saw it as the north trying to powercreep on them. if they didn't need slaves for business, they would have let them go without a fight.

@@Dubs22005 That's partly true...

slavery was the excuse, the cause was the classical rural v/s urban/industrial/banking conflict that defined the industrial era (a worldwide fenomena that covers almost the entire XIX and XX centuries)

I understand where you're coming from, but you will have to tell her eventually....

Abe Lincoln lost his life because of an illegal war.

@@staceytetzlaff2822 He said he already told her, Numbnuts.

and everyone knows that he was the worst president ever in history half of the population killed under his bad leadership

lincoln by far the worst president ever ,ubtil sleepy joe brandon