@@amazingturtle5075”and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern SLAVEHOLDING States.” Doesn’t mention it directly? Ig?
@@degustablegerbil well the confederacy wasn’t really established yet. Up until Lincoln’s call for soldiers Virginia had an extremely pro Union governor, and had initially voted not to secede. It was still a “slave holding state” but that was just the designation- the title so to speak. They saw fort sumnter as an outcry of the people, and when Lincoln called for 75,000 soldiers (the US army beforehand had around 16,000) in response as opposed to reaching out to try and work with the Southern states to solve their grievances together; they saw it as forcing the whole South to pay for the actions of a few rebels and declaring war. Many states yes I agree had slavery in or directly as a cause, but not Virginia. Virginia was invaded. (I haven’t really read Tennessee’s, Arkansas, or North Carolina’s but they all seceded later, so I may look into them as well in a bit)
@@amazingturtle5075 well yes you are correct and that is an interpretation of the events that played out. My take is this: by Fort Sumter the southern states had already seized a dozen federal forts, armories, etc across the region. The garrison at Sumter wouldn’t surrender, so they were attacked. By that point Virginia and other border states had been sitting on the fence waiting to see if there would be a compromise. After the attack on the fort and Lincoln called for troops to put down the rebellious states (which ultimately would mean that Lincoln’s vision to limit slavery in the West would be implemented, arguably eventually leading to slavery being eclipsed down the roads), Virginia joined. The lines had been drawn. I’m sure in the eyes of the Virginians, Virginia had a lot more to lose from losing slavery than from secession, which is why they ultimately seceded. But ultimately there isn’t a single reason why Virginia seceded. I’m convinced it was principally due to slavery, but there were other things in the mix like what you brought up!
@@degustablegerbil yah, I went digging for a bit- so Georgia Mississippi Alabama South Carolina and Texas all definitely mention slavery in their declaration of causes. But I can’t really find anything for the other states (edit: but it’s entirely possible I just didn’t look hard enough to find them). Honestly you seem like a super chill guy and I’d be open to discussing more about my views and thoughts on the civil war but I’ve already committed too much time to this videos comment section. While I think slavery was a major factor I believe the war was much more complex than the propagandized “war on slavery” states, but I could understand why people think that way
As in most conflicts. The elites (slave owners in this case) needed a more honorable reason to get poor, mostly non-slave owners to sacrifice their husbands, fathers and sons.
@@aaronfleming9426 No worries. "based" in slang is a word that is "used to express approval or respect, especially in response to a social media post."
Born and raised in Mississippi, and i didnt know that slavery was such a huge part if the reasoning for the war until i was in my 20s and reading the letters of secession. Thank goodness i didnt just stop learning when i was done with school.
@@5roundsrapid263 I didn't know anything about that until now. Reading up a bit on Newt Knight and his views, it sure does tear a hole in the Lost Cause mythology. Thanks for bringing it up. Can't say it's all that surprising, though. Throughout time, the poor man is who's fought in the rich man's war.
@@WickedWeaseification Good, never stop learning. Unfortunately most people (in the world, not just the south) finish grade school and think they're educated.
Except for all the abolitionists who wanted an end to slavery and created Republicans. It was also clear that to end secession they had to end the embrace of slavery. War is a political solution and it did end slavery in this instance.
Yes. It was less about how man treated man and more about the labor. So funny that there were still slaves in the north the entire time the war was being fought.
@@conniefoxx9813 Is it really strange though? When government changes laws/rules, it can often take time to comply. If it's done arbitrarily, it just turns law abiding citizens into criminals overnight.
"The South seceded because it wanted it to maintain it's agricultural-slave based economy." This is what we were taught high school back in the 80's. Nothing was glossed over.
An agriculture-based economy that depended on Black slaves to do the work. And the freedom to spread slavery to the western territories and the freedom to keep slaves in non-slave-holding jurisdictions, like northern states and western territories. You must have grown up in the South. Slavery was constitutionally protected where it already existed at the time the Constitution was ratified.
It was about the right to secession, setting tariff rates and political representation. Slavery became a key issue because it was made clear that the North was going to outlaw it with the aim of doing incredible economic damage to the South. Not all of the confederate members states slavery as their reason for rebellion and the Emancipation Proclomation did not outlaw slavery in northern held territory and even had concessions and named county's that would be exempt. Was slavery a part of the reason, especially for the Southern plantation owners? Yes but the average confederate shoulder did not fight to keep the spaces but because of a North that offered them minimal political representation and was constantly violating the States rights that was envisioned by Jefferson and many Founding Fathers. I'm not from the South nor am I even American and I view slavery as one of the worst crimes that can be inflicted upon human beings but I refuse to allow history to be erased for a narrrative. If you doubt the argument of economic and political reasonings, just look at the near secession of Maine twenty years prior that almost matched the reasons laid out by the Confederates declaration of secession. Lincoln was a tyrant who wanted to remove states rights and enact top-down government and imprisoned thousands of American citizens for speaking up against him, strangled the press and sent troops to New York, causing the largest civil disturbance in American history with over 300 dead. The roots had broken out over the draft after the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation because racism was alive and well in the North just as much as it was in the south, leading to thousands of Union troops in protest.
They were being taxed to export their goods to the north (besides slaves) while rich industrialist merchants profited with no tariffs on their exportation. In a lot of ways the war was over industrialization versus agrarian lifestyles. Slavery was just largely the political football. Much like today where urban areas tend to have completely different lifestyles than people in rural areas which leads to huge disconnect in representation but today the political football is abortion. A good example of this is West Virginia where they seceded from Virginia pretty much solely because they were industrializing along the Ohio River valley and did not get fair representation in Richmond from the rich land owners. Kentucky was allowed to keep their slaves up until the Emancipation Proclamation though they remained in Union because like West Virginia their interests were in industrialization along the Ohio River Valley.
@Mr.Bones1983 Very few owned slaves. Like 25% There were a few slaves in Northern states too. Nothing to do with the point. What other right was the Federal Government going to take away that didn't revolve around the right to own slaves? Like....... "The right to secede!" Secede over slavery........ Slavery was a loaded shotgun ready to blow the nation apart. We almost weren't a nation because of the slavery issue. It festered for 8 decades and the wound finally burst wide open.
I was taught that it was primarily about secession of the southern states. I hav a southern friend that was taught that it was called the "War of Northern Agression".
the southern states wanted to split from the rest of the US because the north wanted to end slavery. Of course the south might whitewash that by claiming the north was aggressive.
I went to school in Maryland and got the pretty "standard" teaching on the "Civil War." After graduating college, I spent many years working throughout the South, where it was generally called the "War Between the States." However, my Dad got transfered to Southern Mississippi with the Navy (long story). One of his coworkers lived next door and had school age kids. His buddy was shocked when the official Mississippi state approved history textbook that his daughter had been given called it the "War of Northern Aggression "
That's what the South called it. South didn't want to be one nation. They wanted slavery and wanted to keep their President and way of life. North didn't like they had to pay for labor🤣 like that happened lmao look what happened in the North. They treated the poor and laborers that came here no better than the slaves were treated. Blacks that went North didn't fair to well either. Carpet baggers didn't help after Lincoln assassination
Yeah it's called the war of northern aggression in a lot of the south. It's part of all of the lost cause ideology. I. Don't understand why the South is so obsessed with the civil. When they lost the war and history has shown that they were fighting for what people now agree is a negative justification.
I’m 40 and went to school in and just outside Chicago and I distinctly remember being told in school prior to the final test on that section that if we just wrote down “slavery” for that question then we would not receive full credit for that answer.
It was about slavery, slavery was a deeply culturally and economically important issue to the south at the time. Even when taken from the southern perspective, it was about how abolishing slavery was a massive infringement on southern autonomy due to the north destroying such an integral institution. In this sense slavery couldn't ever end in the USA without war, as the south would never let a perceived threat to such an integral institution go unchecked. So the saying "It was about the state's right to own slaves" is literally the case in a very real way.
As a southerner who grew up with the mentioned teaching, I will tell you from my personal research - the catalyst for the war was absolutely, without a doubt, slavery. However, the ideological and political division between rural and suburban America was never resolved. Hence why we have such political divide now. Slavery was the catalyst, but we cannot ignore other issues that were going on (primarily the role of government) that plague us to this day. We need to learn from our past and not repeat our mistakes.
@@topphatt1312 Sure. In place of my “role of government” - States Rights. The fact that it has become the “lost cause” of the confederacy cannot be ignored. Southern teaching can be absolutely wrong with the idea of “the war isn’t about slavery” while also being correct that the conflict also had things to do with “states rights” (other mild issues leading to the war were tariffs, exports, etc.). I’m not commenting on whether the south was right or wrong. All I’m saying is; for as much as the south tried to wash away the fact slavery is wrong and slavery was the catalyst for the war, everyone else tries to point the finger and chalk the war up it “south is racist and wanted to own slaves”. There more to it than that, and we need to look at both sides and their perceived ideals to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. If you look at the current political map, the ideals of rural America haven’t really changed as far as the rural Americans like small government (Rep) and suburban Americans leans towards bigger government (Dem). Those viewpoints have never been resolved and a resolution reached. That’s why we’re at each others throats today. I think we can learn a lot about our current political divide by looking at both perspectives from the war and moving forward from that.
@@benjaminrainwater387My take on the war has always been that slavery became the issue that a ton of other smaller issues sort of got tied to like abortion or guns today.
There were states who didn't want to be involved in the war until they suddenly had thousands of Union troops come tearing through their state. The Union boys weren't all American heroes either....read the story about Jack Henson sometime, and why he became a Confederate sniper.
Slavery caused secession. Secession triggered the war. A completely different question is what were Southern soldiers fighting for. When Lincoln called for 75 thousand troops to "put down the southern rebellion", they took up arms and fought to protect their homes and families from an invading army. Simple as that. And that was a noble cause. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
It's all about understanding what motivates people and how governments wage war. The first step in waging a war is to gain public support, even better if you can stir up righteous fervor. The PR battle to win public support was over slavery, because that was the hot button issue of the day. The North won the propaganda battle before a single shot was fired because slavery is an objectively despicable practice. Why wouldn't the North lean in to that to make their cause look justified and create that righteous fervor? But then you look at the big picture: Previous to the Civil War, the USA was a collection of sovereign countries held together by a union (think like the EU) to facilitate trade and defense. After the Civil War, the USA was a single imperial government with 50 provinces. Knowing that makes the Civil War look a lot less about slavery and a lot more about consolidating power and subjugating dissidents. And, thanks to Emperor Franklin Roosevelt, that imperial government was massively expanded, creating the foundation of the corrupt federal government we have today.
Public school....teachers encourage ld us to think on our own and we had to research history beyond what was taught. Otherwise, history always ended just after WW2.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union" - Abraham Lincoln As another post succinctly put it, "sessesion was about slavery, the North's response to it (civil war) was about saving the union." So yes, the war was about saving the union. Slavery was at best, an incidental or secondary cause. If the south had used any other reason, the response would be the same.
@@gagejernigan5277 Again: look at the experience of Black Americans for the 100+ years after the Civil War and dare to pretend that the North controlled any sort of narrative.
@@notpublic8961 “HISTORY is WRITTEN by the victors” That wasn’t history that was the current time 😂 they weren’t the majority in the south, so obviously the south made laws that were unjust. However, you won’t find a single US history book that says the south was in the right for the things they did. Hence history is written by the victors.
@@gagejernigan5277 never heard of the lost cause myth, eh, gage? Do honestly think that was an invention of the North? The South never owned what they did. Never. That's why this issue is still relevant today. Just compare them to how Germans owned up to Germany's actions in WWII. And it's instantly obvious why we haven't really moved on in the US.
The southern states merely wished to slowly stop slavery, firstly they needed their economies to adapt due to slave cotton being such an important part of their exports, and secondly they were worried about the possible violent retributions by ex slaves which had previously happened in places like Trinidad.
Slavery was the spark but I hate when people try to simplify it to just that. There were tensions between the north and south since the colonial era, economic, cultural, and in government
@@WhiteIkiryo-yt2it Go read all the State Declarations of Secession. They all state different points, every single one has two things in common: 1. The election of Abraham Lincoln, an abolitionist. 2. Their right to preserve the institution of slavery. It was about slavery.
I'm from the north. We were taught that the south was trying to anex themselves from the federal government. Slavery was primarily used as a uniting force and that Lincoln wouldn't have even added that in if he didn't need to.
@@eternalrage6548 Lincoln didn’t even want to completely end slavery at first. He only gave his emancipation proclamation in 1863 after the war was up and running because the South would not comply.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition.” -Alexander Stephens, vice president of the CSA, march 1861
You have to pick up a book published from before 1960 to get an understanding of what the civil war was really about. I recommend reading Grey Fox by Burke Davis.
It was totally about slavery, but the bottom line was a Government just deciding what everyone was going to do and how they should run there homesteads.
Robert E.Lee, the noblest figure in the war, did not throw his hat in over defending slavery, but states rights. He considered himself a loyal son of Virginia, and fought for the right of the south to defend itself from invasion by northern troops.
Slavery was central, but it’s not as if you can ignore the nullification crisis, tariffs, and the general animosity between northern and southern states that grew around the time of the American System.
The Civil War wasn't about slavery. The North was more manufacture based, fast-paced, and wanted gov't control to be placed opposite of what the slower paced agricultural South wanted. They fought over States rights vs. Federal rights, ultimately bringing them to Civil War. The North imported just as many indentured servants and low pay immigrants, mainly the Irish, to work the long, hard, unbearable hours, jobs that we didn't want. Often hiring children or while families as well. The South based their economy on farming and the use of slave and indentured workers. Slavery becomes a buzzword and ideology to stand on. Like the war in Iraq being about nuclear warheads, when it was actually about oil rights. This abolitionist movement did have a strong foothold in America at the time and would have ended slavery anyway. They did so in England, and across Europe, America's time was coming.
If the Civil War wasn't about slavery, please tell the secessionist movement leaders who repeatedly assured the US that their primary motivation was to preserve slavery
So if it wasn’t about slavery then why did the southern states legislatures focus predominantly on slavery related issues when that put forth their immediate causes for secession documents. These were documents they issued to explain and justify their reasons for voting to secede. These are the words of the men who made the decisions not some lost cause historian writing decades later. I implore you to listen to them. Read their words. Here is a sampling- Mississippi- Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. South Carolina- Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. Georgia- The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end
I thought it was about the Southern States not wanting to join a Union with the Northern States. Of course in joining the Union, the wealthy landowners had to set their slaves free. The rich landowners took this as the North taking away their means of wealth.
I was taught the war was about slavery and then I kept reading and learning outside of government schools. Yes, slavery was a huge issue. Undoubtedly. Only when Lincoln argued with European powers not to support the south. Then tens of thousands of union soldiers deserted. Some fun facts: Lincoln had a plan to send all former slaves back to Africa. Yeah, he said they should be free but didn’t see them as equals. He had people arrested so they couldn’t vote. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states in rebellion. 2 slave states fought for the north. Texas was promised they could keep slaves if they didn’t join the Confederacy. Yeah, slavery was an issue. A big issue. Yeah, the confederacy wanted slavery. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union at all costs. Why? Commerce. The South had the raw resources and the North had the factories. Ya wanna know why the civil war happened? Money. Plain and simple. Not people, not slavery, not your sense of self righteousness. Money. Fuck you, that’s the bottom line. I WISH it was about a moral cause but no, money.
Slavery was the central issue to the conflict, without it there is no civil war. If preserving the Union was really just about money and nothing else, then why was the North unified on stopping the expansion of slavery into new territories? Lincoln juggled every anti-slavery option he could and abandoned the ideas if they weren't accepted or weren't going to work. The idea to send freed slaves to Africa was a popular anti-slavery measure dating all the way back to the beginning of the 19th century, he floated it again to see if people would bite, but it was rejected and he never brought it up again. He also tried compensation programs for slave owners for their slaves. As for the emancipation proclamation, there was no legal basis for a total freedom of all slaves throughout America without a constitutional amendment, which is precisely what he pushed with the 13th at the end of his first term I agree that we should stop harping on the civil war from a moralist POV since it is true that most Union soldiers weren't fighting for emancipation, or didn't believe in black equality as it was considered a radical for the 1800s. But the idea that Lincoln didn't care about what happened to the slaves is absolutely ridiculous and needs to die. He morally opposed slavery throughout his life, but it wasn't politically possible to abolish it in 1860 as it was in 1864/65, if abolition and equality was the stated goal from the start then the war is immediately lost. And him espousing white supremacist views in 1858 (something often taken completely out of context) doesn't change what he accomplish to bring the end of chattel slavery, or that he simply could have changed as its happened with presidents many times before
Yes. It was about slavery, but not primarily over the morality of slavery. Slaves were a cheap labor resource and the North couldn't compete, so the federal government wanted to end the southern states ability to exploit cheap labor. Lincoln didn't care whether the USA kept slavery, only that the country was unified. Lincoln didn't actually free any slaves.
The North couldn't compete? That's absolutely ridiculous, they were easily the more economically and industrially superior side. At the start no one was actually considering the end of slavery, the North was trying to stop its expansion into new territories which was completely unacceptable to the South The idea that Lincoln "didn't care about the slaves" also needs to die. He morally opposed slavery throughout his life and made it clear through dozens of speeches. When he became president he recognized that emancipation in 1860 wasn't politically possible because the country wasn't at a place to accept it, so the common consensus was that the Union was to be preserved while the slavery issue was to be dealt with later Lincoln absolutely freed slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation did it for any southern areas that became taken over by Union forces, just not throughout the entire North because there was no legal basis for it. He also worked tirelessly to push for the 13th Amendment by basically bribing congressmen with patronage jobs and money Stop promoting these lost cause myths
Licoln made it clear, the north went to war union and rule of law. But it is just as clear many northerners joined tonfight slavery. And it was clear that if the south lost, slavery would end, eventually.
The solution to this is simple. "It was NEVER about slavery! It was about state rights!" "Which state rights?" "Well... the right to own property!" "Oh? Which property in particular?" "You don't know what property is?" "I know exactly what property is, and nobody in the north was saying you couldn't own a house, farm, factory, or horse. So which property was it?" "..."
Well this could be longer than this It was about States Rights to control their economy What economic liberty was infringed enforced by the north? Manufactures deciding in what manner they want to manage or control their businesses I know managerial management and responsibility what is the mannerism you’re talking about? Well the right to treat our resources What resources weren’t being treated like most of these things weren’t being removed or taken away from the south by the north Yes they were The treatment of our resources were removed What resource though? (…)
@@VivasPuertorriquenos oh, it's ALWAYS been longer than what I've written. I figured people would prefer the short version that gets the point across 🙂 EDIT: Plus, the longer and more detailed it gets, the more likely some jackass is going to say it didn't happen.
The war was fought primarily over slavery but it is important to go deeper and as why - nearly none of those who fought actually owned slaves This is why it is important to look at root cause to learn the lessons of the past. Slavery was the surface cause but the root was fear and division between the North and the South. The individual soldiers of the South were truly fighting because they believed they were preserving their homes from an enemy who wanted to take over.
Yes, it was states' rights Yes, the right to insist that people were property was the issue. BUT, a very small percent that were fighting, were slave owners. This means that even during the conflict, many poor southerners were TRICKED into supporting their rich overlords.
It was about both, and more complex on the states rights thing than is warranted in this video. Grew up in the North where slavery is all I ever heard, the South had an addendum to expand states rights, and not just for slavery, but the right to tell the federal government to kick rocks, and the right of the states to exit the union if they disagreed and form their own. Of course the northern industrial economy didn’t want to have to let go of its access to the agrarian southern economy and threw a shit-fit over multiple states succeeding. But yes, slavery was part of it, but not all of it, and this old stodger is full of hubris.
Every single state that seceded listed as part of the major reason that they were seceding was to preserve the right to own slaves and that it was their god-given right as the white man to rule over the black man which didn't paint it in such nice words. Throughout the first hand documents of the political leaders of the Confederacy this sentiment was repeated over and over again about the reason why they were seceding was so that they could keep slavery alive because they were the superior race and God ordained this to be.
@@aaronfleming9426 Or why the North was unified on limiting the expansion of slavery into new territories, if slavery was so lucrative to northern factories, then why wouldn't they want it to expand for economic reasons?
@@dr.aisaitl7439 A convergence of factors: abolitionists opposed slavery on moral grounds, and sought to limit it in any way possible. Other groups wanted land for homesteaders, not owners of giant plantations. Laborers didn't want to have to compete with slave labor and be subject to the same sort of abject poverty so common among southern whites. Many of the territories were unsuitable for cotton, so they wouldn't have produced the cotton that northern mills wanted. Large free populations of highly motivated farmers and mechanics with spending power would make a larger market for manufactured goods than would a population of a few white slave holders with lots of slaves who didn't participate in the consumer economy.
The American Civil War was fought over states rights, although the right to own Enslaved Africans was oone of those rights. The old guy gave you the clue. Did anyone pickup on it?
As a descendent of a Confederate Veteran. I dont care what or why the war was fought. Just let me honor my dead ancestors in peace. Sure theres a whole heck of a lot of crazies out there, and I can't speak for everyone. But all I want is just to be left alone. I fly the American flag, and below it the 3rd National Confederate flag. Out of respect for my ancestors that fought and died in the revolution and in the civil war. Also in the wars that followed. My family has been Americans first, we're just proud of our glorious dead. Because the history ties us to this great land.
Lincoln made it about slavery with the emancipation proclamation.... remember his quote..if I could do this without freeing a single slave I would....the North also had slaves...oddly enough General Robert E Lee did not own slaves while General Grant Did... Lincoln ..seeing that the north was constantly losing battles united the north by making the war about slavery and thu making the fight about Good (North) vs Evil (South)
A softball tossed to an anti-South revisionist historian by a 'set-up" man (as Abbott to Costello) to oppose the "Lost Cause" narrative of his (and "fellow-traveller" historians) creation - a strawman configuration. Don't be deceived by his Kelsy Grammer- is renditions. There were boatloads of regional issues (nearly all economic) between the "Industrial" North and the "Agrarian" South - slavery being first and foremost. This historian's "Presentism" (judging the past by standards of the present) taints his perspective.
I'm native from OK and was taught in public school that the Civil War was about Slavery! I'm 65 so not sure where or when this guy got taught differently. However I was also taught a very different story by my own tribal elders. The Civil War was about much much more than only slavery. It was a fight over who was going to control the western territories, including Indian Territory. Ask any tribe in Indian Territory that got devastated and genocided by both sides in the Civil War and you will get the bigger picture. Ask the plains tribes about Lincoln's mass hanging execution of the Dakota 38 one week before he signed his famous emancipation proclamation. Lincoln didn't give a shit about the slaves. he talked about putting the 'freed' slaves on reservations in the western territories just like the Indians. Meanwhile he was treating the Indians like dogs, stealing their land etc. The Civil War was about power pure and simple. Slavery gave the south an economic power advantage. The rich northern factory owners maintained their own economic power with another form of slavery under the guise of child labor,/sweatshops/ indentured servants etc. Slavery is vile, but so are the other forms of forced servitude common at the time. There was no moral high ground on either side in the Civil War, just a whole lot of death and destruction. My tribe lost 1/4- 1/5 of our citizens during the Civil War. We also lost all the infrastructure we had built up after being forced from our original homeland where we had lost 1/4 of our tribe on the Trail of Tears just two generations prior to the CW. Both the Civil War and The Trail of Tears were major genocidal and culturally devastating events for us.
If the US had never taken from Mexico the Western Territories. There would never have been a Civil War. Without the Western Expansion, Slavery would not have been an issue and would die out as mechanization took hold in agriculture as it was beginning to in places like Ohio, Indiana, etc in the harvesting of corn in the 1850's and 1860's. Also this author has his agenda.
At its most basic the Civil War was about GREED the economy of the south was supported by large plantations that produce most of the countries, cotton and tobacco, some of which was exported to other countries the plantation owners depended on slave labor to work the fields and if they were made to pay the workers it would have dramatically cut down on their profits
Actually...emancipation of the slaves in the south, was being considered by Jeff Davis etc when Ft Sumter was fired on. Can you imagine how "different" everyones perception of the Civil War would be, had the south freed the slaves, prior to succession? Slavery was a reason used to "justify" the norths treatment of the south! To "justify" the norths behavior etc. But slavery was NOT the reason for succession by the south!
I am very greatful that our high school had such a great history program. Being from the Boston area, we got to do the freedom trail, underground railroad sites. Plus the Washington DC trip was awesome. My Floriduhh born grandkids will learn the truth, NO matter what the Gov. Wants regarding white washing history.
This man is propagating revisionist history. The core issue was establishing the sovereignty of states. The core tenet of the articles of confederation was the establishment of a weak central government. The US government had been slowly pushing to a more and more centralized government, like we have today. Slavery was symbolic of this difference. 1.25 million poor southerners did not join up to defend the rights of 1.6% of the population’s “right” to own slaves.
"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.' - Otto von Bismark - Chancellor of Germany
This exact same issue keeps getting debated over and over again. If you really don't care that much about history and don't really care to, then in your over-simplified perspective it was all about slavery. But if you are interested in history and care about how and why things happen the way they do, then it was far more complex. Choose your perspective, but don't think for one split second "it was just about slavery" is an adequate explanation.
I dont know where that guy went school but I grew up in Alabama... we were taught Slavery was the underlying reason for not only the Civil War but also Texas independence
too often forgotten. The South had the 7 richest cities in the USA. Rivers were used to float cotton and corn to Port cities that then shipped cotton abroad. This was very profitable. The Industrial Revolution caused a need to to transport item the North produced yet lacked the source to do so. To build rail lines the Barons taxed the souther cities with tariffs. The money was then used to buy land, which was then given to the rich Barons. These RR Barons ran the political machines in the north. The north wanted new anti slave states for their vote for more taxes while the south wanted the slave pro state for it's vote against. Neither political parties bosses cared one bit for the black man, nor did they care about the poor whites. Follow the money.
Sorry he’s wrong on a good part. Only the original secession states held that up. And what about Maryland a Northern state that held Slaves until 1863.
So this is where people get it mixed, it wasn't about slavery....But it was, the aouth was heavily dependent on the practice and its economic development, it was about whom has ultimate authority, before the Civil War you had allegiance to your state over the union of states, after the Civil War the union became the state. People don't grasp the fact that 75% of Southern whites were non land owning plebians whom were in direct competition for employment via slave owners and their slaves whom could obviously work for less pay. Slavery essentially off a plantation was pimping out people for work, essentially a staffing agency with a whip and authority over a individual in the grossest way possible.
One can't pigeon hole the civil war So much had to happen I've been studying this conflict since I was a boy I Memphis tnn Jefferson and Adams both felt the mistake was not fighting hard for abolishment
The civil war is a very, very complicated war. From Lincoln’s election to the poorest of poor of the south trying to survive with the massive fluctuation of tobacco and cotton prices. Slavery is what is taught in elementary school and to a extremely simplified explanation you’d be correct. I’ve done massive amounts of research since the age of 5. My high school teacher wrote the curriculum in my state to hold a 9 week class on this subject alone. And I continue today reading journals and personal accounts of soldiers, wives and children of soldiers on both sides. The loser doesn’t write history the victor always has and always will, but from well researched opinion this war is no different than any war it was over money and control.
The Lost Cause as it’s known is an alternative version of history which attempts to frame the Civil War in terms of state’s rights. It’s still taught in many Southern school districts to this day although there is a lot of pushback from teachers unions in most inner city schools districts
I don't agree sorry... The biggest reason was Federal government's power over the states... You had an agriculture sector and an industrial sector.. the two collided.. slavery was used as a catalyst to codify the norths Battle cry.., don't get me wrong slavery was a big issue as well but it certainly was not the only one....
Wars are fought for power. Wars are not fought for humanitarian causes. In the middle of the war there were the “draft riots” in New York City where the locals strung up every person of color they could find. As Sherman marched to the sea freed slaves started following the army and they did some rather underhanded things to make them stop (and resulted in more than a few of them drowning). Real love fest.
I teach my students that it is about slavery but there's more than just slavery at stake. There were two cultures that had developed two versions of what was success. And as long as those two cultures didn't have to compete with each other they were fine but when the West was added after the Mexican-American war those two cultures could no longer coexist. Southern plantation style cotton production using slave labor was self-destructive because cotton wore out the soil
@@aaronfleming9426 cultures and economics aren't the same thing. The Southern economy was just an extension of the colonial southern economy. An 18th century creation. Cotton allowed it to supercharged and go into a scale and unknown in the United States beforehand. the culture developing in the North based on commercial farming and industrialization using the Puritan work ethic, machines to overcome the shortage of labor on the farm, and land ownership to improve your lot in life through hard work of your own, was the new evolving as technology changed.
@@jimevert7099 It's fair to say that cultures and economics aren't the same thing. It's also fair to say that they're often very closely intertwined, and that the people who hold the wealth in a given society tend to drive a lot of other cultural developments. The southern slave holding economic elite were also the political, social, military, and religious elite. The overlap may not have been complete, but it was overwhelming. The slave economy depressed wages and opportunity for poor white folk, with strong negative implications for the value of "land ownership and improv[ing] your lot in life through hard work of your own". It is admittedly difficult to disentangle economics from culture, particularly when discerning which gives birth to which; the development often seems simultaneous.
@@aaronfleming9426 very true. But not true of every Southern State. The upper South was not quite as dominated by the planter elite. Part of the reason why they push so hard in the 1850s to up the paranoia was because they could see their economic power diminishing. The upper South was becoming more and more economically tied to the north. But in my general philosophy when I'm teaching this it is about slavery but it's not all about slavery. But you can't escape slavery's impact History is seldom simple. Trying to teach something as complicated as the civil war by narrowing it down to just slavery is a disservice to history and effectively rewriting it. Did everybody who voted to leave United States do it to protect slavery.... No.. because the vast majority of the Southern society did not benefit from slavery in fact most of them were suffering as well from slavery. But what I tell my students is simple there is a new society developing in the North that is a challenge to the South societies. The two societies cannot coexist because they both need land. The north needs it for new opportunities the South needs it to maintain the power base of the planters.
@@jimevert7099 "it is about slavery but it's not all about slavery. But you can't escape slavery's impact History is seldom simple. Trying to teach something as complicated as the civil war by narrowing it down to just slavery is a disservice to history" Yeah, I can go with that. I think what we often get sucked into in these threads is people (like me) getting frustrated by people (not meaning you) who desperately try to downplay the impact of slavery. I would have loved to be a high school history teacher, but life took me in another direction. I don't know if you're a high school teacher, but if you are...thank you for your service, and you have my best wishes and a bit of my envy :D
When you know you are wrong about something specific, you make it about a bigger overarching issue. "It's not about slavery, it's about States rights!"
Having slaves as low cost labor was essential to the Souths agricultural economy the same way illegal migrants who cannot claim the wages and benefits of legal workers still fuels American manual labor. Southern planters pointed out a field hand had a better life than an Immigrant coal miner. The planter had an interest in keeping slaves healthy. There was a fresh boat of hungry Irish and Italians pulling in every day.
I got it the opposite. It was taught that Slavery was the keystone and all the other circumstances around it were inconsequential. As an adult you realize there is nuance and complexity in all historical climax.
The winning side of a war likes to be seen in a positive light as well. General Sherman said in his memoirs that slavery became the pretext of the war but was not the cause. Imagine if history recorded that the North forced Southerners to be ruled by a government they chose to reject. Slavery (which was an issue at the time) was a convenient excuse to send hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths in order "to maintain the unity of the nation."
It was one of the tenants of the war absolutely. But it wasn't necessarily the central but it was highly important.... It became a primary war aim after the emancipation
es. Because the South wasn't willing to part with their economic powerhouse at the time. Tehy couldn't replace the workers fast enough. But the truth was, over time, Slaves in that period costed more than they were worth. Also depending on other slaves, who would cost you even more.
If slavery was not an essential reason for the U.S. Civil War, than why was slavery mentioned in each Confederate State's articles of session? Each Confederate State had an agrarian economy and needed slave labor.
I grew up not far from Boston and my recollection was that we were taught there were many reasons for the ACW. Maybe my memory is wrong, but I don't remember it being reduced to a single word.
There are interviews with very old civil war veterans on RU-vid that address this. I think the modern narrative is more about the victor writing the history and people generally tending towards simplifying reasons for historical events.
It goes both ways though. For the winner to say they had slaves and we didn't so we are better and we win. Just over simplifies it. Yes slavery is horrible and was a main factor of it but there were other factors as well. That is like saying the revolutionary war was because of tea taxes.
Seems like an intelligent man. Shame he misses one central point. There will always be elites that find some way to hold themselves over others. The war was less about slavery than firmly establishing who would be in charge. Old men strengthened power, young men died. Same in every war no matter the cause.
This guy's case sounds exactly like what robert e lee said. He led the Confederacy and afterwards.He said not to tear open old wounds and that the country needs to heal. And not to glorify the fight of the south.
It was straight up in the written as the reason for leaving the union. Also Brazil who was a slave owning country wrote numerous time that if the south was to fall they would too. Like it was common knowledge that it was a war fought over slavery. Just rewritten in the past 40 years as something other then that
well of course slavery was the central issue. this is not the hard part for most people to understand. the hard part for most people to understand is that most people who were alive at the time that were against slavery weren't really against it for the same reasons we are against it today. you can clearly see this by how the emancipation proclamation was written, as it didn't free northern slaves. US Grant had multiple slaves before the war. it's a shame that slavery couldn't have been dealt with some other way, but it seems that, looking back, too many politicians weren't actually interested in coming to a compromise. a lot like today, come to think of it.
It’s funny in a way because I went to high school in Michigan in the early 2000s and even I had two history teachers who I think were very smart that I like but even then and there one was like “slavery is the main and only reason” and the other was like “it was a reason but not the only reason”.
As a southerner, we obsfucate and try to flip the narrative but it was solely about slavery and rich people keeping their slaves and sending my peasant ancestors to go get gutted in the north for them.
I was in middle school or jr high on the east coast. There I was taught the cause of the Civil War was slavery. I went to high school in the south. There I was taught that the war was fought over state’s rights.
