How one piece of legislation divided a nation - Ben Labaree, Jr. 

Paul Walsh love your profile pic

You do have a tumultuous history my son.

“Bloody Kansas”

Maybe it's good to be from Nebrasks right now

North Carolina gang where you at?

I pay more attention to this than in history class :)

Sadly this isn't giving the full story as it implies that there was not slavery in the north. That simply isn't factually accurate.

You mean simplistic cartoons that tell falsehoods as facts? Yeah, EVERYONE would be. But reality is a LITTLE more complicated.

Crash Course History Extra Credits History you're welcome

I totally agree!

Oshikaru make brainwashing fun for the kids and they'll keep coming back.

same

but the civil war was not at all fought over slavery. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gdym0u7suBg.html

@@kyleg2756 YES IT WAS, otherwise they would have had no reason establishing slavery in the minor territories they conquered in Mexican land, stop erasing history.

@@oliverock4092 What I mean is that it was not started over slavery, they only brought slavery into it when the north started to lose the war.

sonic55193 Yeah Really, they missed the most important reason of all his actions!!! :D

Ha ha true

Never mind that, what about the zombies?

u guys are crazy! 6:20 - zombies 7:00 - vampires

The Southerners vampires died in Pennsylvenia

Pinkie Pie: and yet you don't advocate invading CHINA over keeping more than a BILLION people in bondage-- because China is a SOVEREIGN NATION, you say. Well, so was every American state. The Declaration of Independence held the colonies to be "Free and Independent states, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that independent states may of right do." That's PLURAL; so each state was a SEPARATE nation. FACT.

Tom Evans Then it’s idiotic to call it a nation, or have a single president!

Except slavery existed in the north and tge south throughout the war.

@@SovereignStatesman ur argument for slavery is that there is no country called the USA wow

The issue is simply avoiding PROOF that the states formed a national union, because there isn't any; because you're ignoring the 24 states that didn't HAVE slavery.

That is NOT Kansas...That is Arkansas+ Oklahoma....

AngelBlue1302 I know, I'm saying its funny that the territory of modern Kansas is not in the Kansas Territory displayed in this video

I know, ITS STUPID

AngelBlue1302 Yeah, its funny because Arkansas was already a state my 1850 lmao

Ya....

Really? I did not know that. Thanks.

Also the 1772 Somerset Act

So the reason of the divide is because of the government concerning the issue of slavery? So they were like, Northerners: what about that slavery issue? Southerners: *REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*

@@orangelake2268 so slavery was illegal in the north but widespread in the south

@@tronalddump2267 Yes in the simplest way

Seward's folly, they called it, I think? Has popularity may have been fading.

Lincoln's victory at the convention may have been a shock to many people, but certainly not the steel and financial barons that backed him there. His nomination was bought and paid for.

@@carltonreese4854 Can you provide a link to that infomation?

Yep. History does not remember losers well and that shows

@@DarkNJuju I think he’s referring to the fact that Lincoln being perceived as more moderate then many was seen as more electable. It’s quite shocking that Lincoln is now revered to the level of Jefferson or Washington considering in his time he was so hated even by his own party. He was even assassinated

@@frankxu1407 same

So I am confusion why is this one Kansas this one is not called Ar-kansas America explain explain what do you mean in Arkansas

No, no, they got it right.

Me! ! We meet by the online school, I miss my school.

Yeah I am. It sucks

Sophia Cadenas me lmfaoooo 🤣😂

Me 😡😡😡😡

me

www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/novemberdecember/feature/the-man-who-came-in-second

you moron. Lincoln received over 50% in Illinois.

Lol. If you say so.

You had a reading fail, which is funny since you called another person a moron. Jonathan was talking about the national election. Not Illinois.

He still won the popular vote though....

somebody could make a map! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem

You just earned yourself a sub

The ultimate paper cut.

We are at war in Ohio as we speak. Our Lt. Governor and governor lives are at risk literally. 🤬

Almost?

Life Is Only Optional: America was NEVER a nation. The "one piece of legislation" was the Declaration of Independence; which held the colonies to be "Free and Independent states, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that independent states may of right do." That's PLURAL; so each state was a SEPARATE nation.

Teachers*

If they did, you might know how to spell correctly, but then again probably not because Ted doesn't even know that that isn't the confederate flag, nor was it ever.

Matt Boyd well to be fair its the virginian battle flag so it is a type of confederate flag just not the confederate flag

In an ideal world.

Yes, it does, but if all the problems were included & explained we’d have a two year long university level course to go through. There are already several of those available here on YT, which I’d certainly recommend watching.

Sadly their home was Indiana-Illinois area. White settlers pushed them out.

@@antoniusbritannia8217 that is sad, actually. I wonder if they had ever been "pushed out" by any other tribes, or ever "pushed out" tribes that weren't their own? That would be equally sad, would it not?

There's a county. I live "near enough" that county to tell you.

@@migiddymike1403 yes

Also bugged me.

Karmic Reballance Arkansas means South Wind and Kansas means people of the south Wind so technically people from Arkansas should be called Kansas and Kansas should have a different name.

+Grokford Arkansas is actually the Illini Indian name for the Quapaw Indians, the "Down River People". When the French explorers Marquette and Joliet traveled from the Great Lakes down the Mississippi, they encountered the Illini Indians. After spending some time in modern-day Illinois, they continued their travels down the Mississippi River. They asked the Illini Indians what tribes of Indians (peaceful or aggressive) they might encounter. The Illini Indians told them of the Arkansea people, or "Down River People" who were peaceful and friendly. Marquette and Joliet named the land of the Quapaw (or the Arkansea) on the first maps of the region, created in the mid-1760s.

Kasey Hill really, that's fascinating I wonder where my information came from.

"so I am confusion. Why iz dis one KansasS? but this one is not R KansasS? AMEeRICA EsPLAIN!

+Markus FIN The South was always mad whenever they lost power, they had grown used to abusing it.

You mind opening that comment up a bit, because I am not sure what you mean?

Markus FIN Well, by abusing power there was the example listed in the video regarding how they ignored the Missouri Compromise. Further back, there is the 3/5 clause. I don't remember the specific issue, but during the times of the Articles of Confederation, the south was already threatening to break relations with their northern neighbors over some really petty issue, I can't remember exactly. Then there were the border ruffians, as mentioned. There were other things too, this isn't an exhaustive list. By being mad whenever they lose power, two things that I mentioned above count here as well: the 3/5 clause which exaggerated their influence in the House of Representatives, and their early threats of secession. I don't remember all the issues where they threatened to secede, and I admit I should do more research in that area, but it occurred quite a few times. Threat of secession was used multiple times by the southern states before the civil war as a scare tactic whenever they couldn't get their way by more logical means.

So the whole idea about the South becoming and independent nation did not just "bounce up" from nowhere when slavery became an issue, but had been there already before and used as an argument every time they couldn't get their way?

Markus FIN Well, "every" time would be an exaggeration. But they had threatened to secede over more petty issues. I don't remember the details right now. Things are kindof hectic right now, so I will do research on what I vaguely remember when I get the opportunity. It was brought up earlier on the slavery issue during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. A senator from ?Virginia? I think. Could have the wrong state, but Jackson was vehemently opposed to secession even though he supported slavery. There was a time before during the Articles o Confederation period, but I don't remember the details. I believe there might have been one other time.

And the WRITER screwed up the FACTS. The USA was NOT a nation. The "one piece of legislation" was the Declaration of Independence; which held the colonies to be "Free and Independent states, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that independent states may of right do." That's PLURAL; so each state was a SEPARATE nation.

Tom Evans hmm I wonder if the country changed in hundred years 😂😂😂 like what dude

The worst part is they label it correctly a minute or so before hand, before dropping the ball.

@@SovereignStatesman Huh? The Declaration of Independence was not a piece of legislation. It was an explanation, not law. The U.S. was absolutely a nation, first united as a confederation of states under the Articles, and then under federalism with the Constitution.

@@sarahmccoin5157 Nope. Every state retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence under the Articles of Confederation; and the Constitution came AFTER the American Revolution, which established the states as separate nations. Check your Dunning-Kruger privilege.

I seem to recall something about a camel passing through the eye of a needle, but I couldn't say for sure.

Christopher Diaz, PhD maybe...

@@jesseberg3271 the camel/needle thing is about worshipping wealth. It isn't wrong to have wealth. A lot of people see that verse incorrectly. Thought I'd point it out.

Circa 2013, 2 "conservative intellectuals" promoted re-legalizing contract slavery.

Maybe a laser show to get people bumpin'.

lol

Bulldog Bank: The USA was NOT a nation, so there was no civil war. The "one piece of legislation" was the Declaration of Independence; which held the colonies to be "Free and Independent states, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all the other things that independent states may of right do." That's PLURAL; so each state was a SEPARATE nation.

Tom Evans and? So slavery is justifiable? Because the legislation in “independent” states can decide for themselves? Or would you rather go outside now and tell everyone in the US “hey USA was never a nation”.

@@Voltaire8559 As far as I see it, he did not try to justify slavery. I think what he was getting at was that secession, or the right to secede or not, is not written anywhere in the constitution of the United States. The constitution gives power to the states, and puts limits on the federal government. As secession was not mentioned it could be assumed that their was nothing constitutional wrong with it. The constitution did not give authority to the federal government to regulate it. This may be why sometimes the Civil War is referred to as the War between the States, or something along those lines. The reason the Civil War happened has more to do with Abraham Lincoln deciding that he was going to use the office of the presidency to keep the union of all the states together. It is a well known fact that Abraham Lincoln's interests were preserving the Union as a whole, that is why he resisted the Southern states' secession. He would have tried to preserve the union between all the states even if that meant preserving slavery in some of the states. He even said as much. I think the greatest travesty of the Civil War was that it laid the framework for a large federal government, and set the precedent that the federal government would regulate the states, and the union itself even on matters the constitution never gave authority. It is interesting though on two regards, the North would not have had the power at least at the time to outlaw slavery, because they would not have had enough states to outweigh the South's vote to make the constitutional amendment. Abraham Lincoln did not allow the states to secede, always seeing them as part of the U.S.A but after the war would not let them vote on the constitutional amendment. I guess that makes sense. Although it does not add up ideologically. Secondly if I am not mistaken, Texas was its own Republic for a time, and the people of Texas voted to join the United States, with the condition that if the people of Texas ever voted to leave the Union they would be allowed to. Abe didn't allow them to. Don't say yeah well slavery... because that was not Abraham Lincoln's reasoning for not letting them secede, it was solely to stop the states from leaving, as far as he was concerned.

@@leviturner3265 Slavery was crushed secession too end of story.

@@greatsageequaltoheaven8115 Slavery was crushed in the United States, after the war. That was not the reason that Abraham Lincoln resisted secession. The war started because Lincoln would not let them leave. He even said that, if he could end the war and keep slavery he would have. He opposed slavery, but that was not the reason for him not allowing the states to secede, and he would have let slavery continue if it would end the war and save the Union. I should also say that the constitutionality of secession is debated, not as though Lincoln let it go to the courts though. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln though he opposed slavery, only made slavery illegal in states that were no longer in the union. So the states he had no control of, it was a political tactic. He let the states that have slavery that did not secede have their slaves until the war ended and the constitutional amendment was passed. Third and most important, slavery still is wide spread on the continent of Africa as it has been for thousands of years. We never talk about it, because we are busy talking about Ukraine, among other things. So slavery is very far from crushed, but there is less of it, and none legal in the States.

@TriplePlay Yes obviously the United States is still here, a nation divided is not a nation that doesn't exist, or a nation that is crumbling. Just because the US will continue to be split between Democrats and Republicans does not mean our democracy or order will crumble; that's just how the country works. And yes, our nation being divided as it is now is an issue, and will always be an issue.

Being divided may be much healthier than being united in a terrible way. For example, World War 2 Japanese were united in support of their emperor. They could have used a lot more division. Same could be said for the Germans.

This is more relevant then ever

Shut up

Shut up

+Kasey Hill It makes me curious how educational content is when their are little errors as such in them? How can we teach history if we don't keep the facts straight. Or are they and it questions what side of the line one is one?

bruh you serious?

@Kasey Hill, That is right, but it was by no means entirely clear whether the Missouri Compromise applied solely to the those territories under the possession of the United States at the time of the passage of the act, i.e. the Louisiana Territory. As the United States government accrued additional territory, the applicability of the Missouri Compromise was widely discussed and debated which greatly agitated the controversy over slavery in the territories. Slavery was made illegal in Arkansas per the Emancipation Proclamation, not the Thirteenth Amendment, at least as far as the rebellion was concerned. The legality of the proclamation beyond the suppression of the rebellion was questionable though and hence, as far as Arkansas is concerned, the Thirteenth Amendment codified the Emancipation Proclamation into Constitutional law. I would also disagree with the video in terms of assessing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but that is an interpretative issue.

notice who wanted that slavery? democrats HA!

hardwirecars And parties never change? The original Republicans were seen as radicals...crazy etc. Just like One side calls the other side nasty names, this crap is why we can't have nice things...

hardwirecars Notice who defends the confederates and the use of the traitor flag now?

@@nurb101 lol. Good point.

Which party was behind the move to end racism, from desegregating/integrating the military in the late 40's to the Civil Rights/Voting Rights Act?.... The Democrats! Which party opposes removal of statues, flags and monuments that the Democrats of the past put up and the Democrats of today want to get rid of?.... The Republicans, saying that the Democrats want to destroy OUR ((Republicans') heritage and history 😂😂😂

Or the Morrill Tariff that effectively subjugated the southern economy and made secession inevitable?

@@carltonreese4854 Tariff political wars went back to the 1700s, but the Slavers had been winning since ~late 1840s (? or for a while).

Smh, that's what it was back then. Can't you see that?

PolyvinyLs Arkansas was already an admitted state in 1854, by 18 years.

PolyvinyLs The rivers haven't changed though. Look at a map.

+PolyvinyLs no, it wasn't. At no point was Arkansas territory (AR+OK) part of Kansas Territory (present day KS and the part of CO that doesn't want to be CO)

The other way was not to have been tricked in to firing first on Ft. Sumter...

***** Call it outsmarted if you like. Lincoln knew he would have less support for his war among residents of the North if he were not the aggressor. So he took advantage of the Ft. Sumpter situation to outsmart the southerners in to firing first. But the real aggressor in the war was Lincoln, even as the southern plantation holders maintained their aggression on the blacks. And remember, that remedying that aggression was only a pretext for the war. Lincoln said if he could have maintained federal power over the south while keeping slavery, he would have done so. The south wanted to secede and did so peacefully. Lincoln killed 700,000 Americans in order to maintain his own power. Racism today would be much less had the Civil War never been fought, and the South had been allowed to secede peacefully. The scourge of slavery would have died out soon anyway, without war, as it did in nearly every other nation.

Blarghalt The US Civil War WAS a violent implosion. So was the Great Depression. Nations have violent implosions.

freesk8 if i was lincoln i would have killed all the slaveholders. all of them. lincoln wanted only to free the slaves and he unfortunately didn't had any intention in punishing the slave owning motherfuckers. very unfortunate. i would have punished them way more than they and you could have imagined. fuck them.

ptegegn1 It is a very common misconception that Lincoln's primary aim was to free the slaves. Lincoln's primary motivation was to prevent the South from leaving the union. He wanted to preserve the power of the federal government over the southern states. He wanted to maintain the tariff revenue from the southern ports that went to DC. Lincoln was actually quite racist. He voted, as an Illinois legislator, to outlaw freed blacks from moving to Illinois. His favored solution was to ship all of the blacks back to Africa. No, Lincoln merely USED the slavery issue to gain support for the war among people in the North. His emancipation proclamation was an effort to get slaves within Confederate territory to rebel, and divert Confederate troops from the war. Look into it. I am telling the truth. Lincoln cared more about his legacy: he did not want to be the President under whom the southern states were allowed to leave, even though they had a right to. Slavery is evil, but the situation of racism we have today would be a lot better had we done away with slavery the way nearly every other nation on the Earth did it: without a horribly bloody war. And N. America would be better off with the Southern States being their own nation. Less power in DC.

Four?

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear I was listening to Ed Bearss in Ken Burn's Civil War documentary.

John Brown had a huge impact on history.

Militias had been in the United States since the English colonial Trained Bands of Jamestown (1607) and Plymouth (1620). In the United States proper militias, North and South, were nationally consecrated in the Federal Militia Act of 1792. “Militia” in the English sense had its origins as far back as the Saxon Fyrd in the 10th century. It was nothing new and certainly wasn’t particular to the South.

Cause most people think the Confederate Battle Flag is the official confederate flag.

+Ideally Jekyl, At least we know, now.

It looks cool.

Because the Confederate Government sucked the Confederate Military on the other hand were bad asses they stood up to a government with way more industry way more man power and way more of everything and almost won

Just saw the same thing. Hope the historians are better than the animators.

joseblancoize this video is factually accurate, but yeah idk what they did with that map

It'll be over that one Abortion Ruling. The fact that 3 states are already pushing to imprison women for having abortions is kind of... well... Long Live the Union, my friend.

Reparations or free college will be the cause of the war. A lot of folk (including myself) voted against Clinton because of Obamacare. Not necessarily because we loved Trump or even that we hated Clinton. What do you think will happen if unnecessary taxation continues?

@@kurousagi8155 There will never be "reparations." "Free" college might be a worthwhile idea. We certainly need to change the way we educate people. It won't be as simple as suddenly paying everyone's tuition. If the govt starts paying more of that cost, it will also expect to have more control is how higher education operates.

I don't even know what the Patriot Act is exactly... because it does not affect me. I don't think it will be the reason for much of anything happening. .... I looked it up. Yeah, I like when law enforcement can protect me. When it can stop criminals. Patriot act sounds great unless I see a lot of evidence that innocent people are being harmed. I have heard of no such thing so far.

Check my links and look at the maps closely you moron.

The Arkansas Territory was established into the state of Arkansas in 1836 which is 14 years prior to the proposal so even if the areas were disputed it is cannot disputed that the area they picture from 2:01 and on as "Kansas Territory" was actually a state at that point.

You're not american if you don't know this. I bet you voted for Trump. Dimwit moron.

You people don't know how to read a map. Like seriously look at them. What they are calling the "Kansas Territory" is actually the Arkansas Territory. Like serious pause at 1:58. You can actually see them using the wrong map right beside the right map. The top representation of the Kansas territory is actually the Arkansas territory, and the bottom one is the correct one. How you can tell them a apart is that the Kansas Territory has straight southern border, ans the Arkansas Territory has a bumpy southern border.

+S Jia I am not disputing that Arkansas existed. I know it already existed. What I am saying is that they are using a depiction of the Arkansas Territory for the Kansas Territory.

Southerners has much reduced tariffs beginning in ~late 1840s. Articles/ordinances of secession all stress the south's (oligarchs') "right" to own humans as slaves.

@@jcbjcb2 Human trafficking and slavery continue under Democrats to this day. The civil war was not a war on poverty. Blacks suffered far greater under northern occupation than they ever did under slavery. The television is not an education on history.

+Maryland DelaWHERE is it?

Thanos snapped it away

Well, only sometimes. At the beginning and end it was Kansas but in the middle it became Arkansas.

except for feeding most of the nation. and kansas suppling one of the greatest presidents ever.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What did your teacher say?

so h

Namaste1001 just follow the law dude, there is a reason for it and government can’t judge wether you are fit to not follow the law, there is too much of a risk

LOL!

How else would we end slavery and discrimination?

+Kaiser Amadeus I'm sorry but stephen Douglas was the one who blamed the civil war and if he only just didn't divide the new state he would prevent the civil war.

Mikel Apuada But the Northern states didn't want Slavery to expand, while the Southern States did. We would have to compromise in order to prevent the Civil War. Eventually something else would happen that could trigger War.

+Mikel Apuada You are correct. A good argument could be made that the Civil War actually started along the Missouri/Kansas border. I was raised in small Missouri town along the border that was practically Ground Zero for the Bleeding Kansas conflict. The Civil War lasted 10 years there (not 4 years), starting in 1854. We were fighting and killing each other for nearly 6 years before anyone in the south lifted a finger. The county I am from (Cass County) was completely destroyed in November 1863 by Ewing's Order No. 11. More than 10,000 people were thrown out of their homes by Union troops and became homeless war refugees. Every house, barn, business, church, school and public building in the county was burned to the ground. When they were done, it looked as if the government had dropped a bomb on the county. The fighting there was unimaginable.

+RD M Harrisonville eh? Yeah I think we were still a bit sore at you guys for what Quantrill did a few months prior.