The Union War with Dr. Gary Gallagher 

No. He’s batting a thousand

Yes, once, but he was four.

He give a perspective that is little talked about.

He was often on the History Channel's shows about pawn brokers, I mean about The War Between the States. This makes more sense to me now. It was the states who raised the soldiers and people speak most often about the various units using the state of origin when explaining who they were. Even the Back Hats were understood to be a mostly WI brigade and The Stonewall brigade to hail from VA, plus the state regiments get the most discussion.

Great comment. You nailed it

@@robertferguson533 Thank you, Robert! Hats off to Professor Gallagher!

Looking for this now. Available on RU-vid?

Don't you mean cursed, he is from Colorado, which isn't a Southern State!

@@carywest9256- Get a clue. The Civil War is over.

​@@carywest9256ad hominem AND genetic fallacies. Well done!!😢😢

David U make good points. But so what if states were countries? The colonies were all different and even had different money. Personally I think it’d be better if each state was its own country. It would prevent California from forcing its views on another state. The current system we have lets bankers or New York force its will on all states and the world. The federal reserve is private paying a 6% dividend. If states were all different countries I guarantee you we wouldn’t have endless wars like we do today cause endless wars are only possible by fiat currency and a private central bank and big government. That way inflation is spread out upon all workers everywhere and even the world today in trade. Small governments prevent big fraud which is what money printing is. Europe would be much better off if they ended the EU. Sure there’s benefits from having a lose federal government or federation to protect states or countries in time of war. Europe all separate countries have nato which is basically like a federal government providing military protection but all countries are independent. Idk I think we could have a super small federal Government or something and have states act like their own country. There’d be way less waste or less theft by inflation that’s for sure. Remember the federal reserve is private paying a 6% dividend and around the same time the irs was made basically to force people ti use the federal reserve money.

Ya it definitely wasn’t a civil war but a war of secession yet schools teach it’s a civil war when in reality the revolutionary war was a civil war. The traitor George Washington was a British soldier that fought against the French and Indian war. But George won so he’s a hero. If he lost he would have been labeled a terrorist basically.

And...right there it is, again.

@@ziggystardust1122i🎉😮🎉😢probably gonna 🎉y🎉🎉po🎉😢🎉😢😢😂🎉😮❤🎉😢u😂😊🎉😂😅i😊😮rest 🎉 a really cool young woman 😢😢😮😮😅😢😂 q😂 😂❤

It’s more that he’s talking about this perspective. Most Professors and Doctorates are saying the same as Dr Gallagher.

​@@johnmartin7158Name them!!

Careful, He also demolishes the argument for pulling down at the statues of confederate leaders. Lee was until thirty years ago was a symbol of reconciliation. Remember that the Union invasion of the South was in 1944 as close in time as close to us as D-Day is to us today. My great-grand mother whom I knew was a child who remembered her sin at losing her favorite uncle in the Battle of Vicksburg and hiding from Union soldiers. Gone with the Wind was in many respects as real for many people as Savings Private Ryan is for us.

Willoutlaw It wasn’t a war about slavery. Ask yourself if the south banned slavery and seceded would the north allow it? No the war still would have happened if slavery was banned in the south. It was a war over secession. It wasn’t a civil war as the south didn’t want to rule the north. The revolutionary war was a real civil war as the traitor George Washington which commanded British troops against the French and Indians rebelled and fought to control the country’s government. George was British fighting British. It was a civil war.

@@koltoncrane3099the articles of secession, the new state constitutions and most of the confederate senators speeches upon leaving the union will say otherwise.

@@koltoncrane3099 There probably would have been a civil war if the South had seceded, but I think that without slavery, secession is unimagineable.

​@@dcgreenspro Yeah, a lot of the ordinances/articles of secession just say "We're leaving. Adios", but I feel like all high-school students, especially in the South, should be made to memorize South Carolina's, Texas' and Mississippi's ordinances of Secession by heart. Those ordinances either strike a massive blow at any Lost Cause Sentiment or if they choose to reject them, by default puts ALL primary sources into question.

Yeah, you can look at something like the coal industry in West Virginia. A handful of people actually own coal mines in West Virginia. And only about 3% of the workforce is employed at coal mines. Yet the politics of the area is massively connected to protecting coal mining.

The original Confederation and the Second Confederation use the term "perpetual" Union, but the US Constitution does not.

@@cliffpage7677- True, but likewise the Constitution does not say that it replaces the original Articles in their entirety. Clearly, the Constitution prevails where the Articles are incompatible with it, but the Constitution is silent on whether the Union is “perpetual.” It was the intent of the original states, which included South Carolina and Virginia, that the Union be perpetual.

@@GH-oi2jf Virginia was the last state to ratify the Constitution. Already sufficient signatories had put it in force. Virginia was not a part of that Union until it ratified the document. Ratifications are agreements between sovereign states. The State of Virginia specifically stated in its ratification agreement the right of the Commonwealth to remove itself from the Union if it felt abuse. Four other States also ratified the Constitution under such provisos. The Constitution has the "equipoise clause" which guarantees to all states the same rights as any other. Therefore, all States had the right to secede. When New England States threatened to secede in the War of 1812, over the US trade embargo with England and fishing rights, Jefferson encourage such secession. Both Jefferson and Madison the authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, engendered to protest the illegal Alian and Sedition Acts imposed by President John Adams, the argued for State nullification, the illegality of this law which violated the Bill of Rights, the right of State interposition, and that the Constitution was a compact amongst the States. The Constitution is a compact which limits the Federal government to very specific enumerated matters and all others are left to the states as defined in the10th Amendmendment. "Property" was the cornerstone of the Constitution, as understood by all from the writings of John Locke. Lincoln seriously violated the Constitution repeatedly. The 14th Amendment is focused on "Freedom" an idea of Rousseau, while the 15th Amendment expanded voting rights and citizenship to former slaves. Prior to this voting rights was a State prorogative and only certain men (in many states property owners) could vote and Women, Negros, Indians, children were not citizens, nor could they vote. Immegrants in some states had to own property before they could vote.

You’ve obviously never read Lincoln’s Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861. A clearer, more concise statement of the federal government’s duty & obligation in the secession crisis doesn’t exist….🎩🙏🇱🇷

Does Genius Trump write his own.

Ed Ayers and Robert Penn Warren have done that.

Didn't he literally do exactly that in the video?

And...again.

@@ziggystardust1122 President Lincoln was a traitor, dictator, and gross violator of the US Constitution and rules of war, and created a war, which killed around 650,000 soldiers - North and South, and caused between 1-1.25 million Negros to die of starvation, deprivation, or disease, and transformed our republic into a nation-state more like other European nations of the time and created something the United States never had before and is still prohibited in the Constitution - a standing army. Lincoln was sworn to uphold the Constitution and he violated it like no other individual holding Presidential Executive power before or after.

I'd aIso never argue that to a Confederate apologist.

He just points out that Foote is wrong sometimes , which he most certainly was

Nonsense. Mr. Gallagher is a professional historian. Foote is not.

Why should he be. It’s 2 different fields.

Ignore this bot. He says the same thing on every video.

He's irritated by Shelby Foote, and he's not alone. Foote was FoS.

If you compare the Crittenden Resolution and the Crittenden Ammendment, then it becomes very clear that the war was started over essentially the issue of slavery. Now, granted the North was not looking to abolish slavery when the war started, you are right about that, however they still did want to limit it's spread to the states where it was already established. This is what was proposed in the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution AFTER the war began as an attempt to try and assuage the fighting from Southern states escalating any further after Bull Run. It was however rejected in congress later in December of 1861. However, this was not good enough for the Southern states who were not satisfied with simply the guarantee that slavery as it existed would not be interfered with. They wanted the institution of African slavery to be permanently enshrined and protected in the Constitution and given every right to expand to newly formed states. This was outlined in the Crittenden Compromise which was proposed in 1860 to make African slavery a permanent part of the American constitution and to allow it to spread to any new Western states. THIS is the issue that caused the Northern states to overturn it. Lincoln and the Northern Republicans were willing to compromise by maintaining the institution of slavery as it existed in the Southern states, but they were not prepared to give it room to expand to new states. And this was unacceptable to the Southern states, as they wanted to expand the institution of slavery, hence why they went off to try to form their own separate nation that would be explicitly founded on the basis that African slavery and racism towards Africans was morally just. Read Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's infamous "Cornerstone Speech." He pretty explicitly spells out that the reason why the Confederacy was seceding and forming their own nation was to enshrine slavery and protect it from the North. So, ultimately you are partially right. In the beginning years of the secession crisis and the war, the North was not necessarily fighting to abolish slavery in its entirety, only to limit it's spread and to preserve the Union. However, the Southern states were always, from the very beginning, fighting to maintain and expand the institution of slavery.

@ziggystardust1122 care to cite an example? Gallagher is about as honest a historian as I've ever found.

@@JB-wh3we Never said he wasn't honest. But he is partisan. And yes, the evidence is abundant, no cite needed. Just look at the name he uses for battles. That's a conscious choice...every single time.

What do you mean by “entire knowledge”?

@@historify.54 When an individual makes a choice, willingly takes on the responsibility of teacher, instructor, the sharing, the passing on of knowledge that he knows well his audience often isn't as well-versed in as himself, a portion of that greater position is to respect the intellect of the listener (audience) by passing on to them the whole of your knowledge of the story/issue/subject. When an individual knows well there exist a strong argument that would refute in part or, in whole, the one chosen and shared, this practice is not only a disservice to the student/listener/audience, its a disservice to the profession. Above all, it's pandering and disrespectful to the intellect of all who hear. The stroking of egos or pandering to people's emotional reactions should never be masqueraded as scholarship. Give the audience the knowledge you possess on the subject. Let them be real adults and form their own opinions, free from one-sided, manupulitve practices. Respect them...their abilities, judgment and intellect.

​ @ziggystardust1122 You made the claim, now back it up. Otherwise, near as I can tell, you're just a hack wo has nothing better to do than pretend at knowledge you don't actually have. 1. Show that he's partisan in some way. Claiming the names he uses for battles doesn't cut it. 2. Just how much knowledge on a subject can someone share in a 40 minute lecture? Yes, 40, the rest of the video was Q&A. Especially when he's been studying the subject for decades and has thousands of books on the subject at home?