I'm British so i am not completely aware of your guys history, but it seems to me that the civil war is a constitutional question, was the Slavery a horrible thing, yes, but did the north have the right to wage war against a group of states who wanted to get out of a union, even if slavery was horrible. It seems to me that this is like attacking Scotland because they wanted to leave the UK, or attacking Italy if they wanted to leave the EU, respond to me if i'm wrong
Civil war reenactors do nothing to educate, they hide behind that nonsense. Their playtime takes the sting out of that war. Their grown men playing army. A pioneer day is fine, or even a Redcoat battle, the civil war is as stupid as a train ride to Auswitz by grown men playing -choo-choo
Buying products from China and slavery are a idiots argument. We dont control or know what goes on in China. That war is always about ending slavery as the South had no rights when they agreed it was ok to own a human being. The north was 200 years late, every man in the US owed their life to right the wrong. That thing that makes slavery lives on, arrogance and money over human lives is alive and well
@ZackAttack261 "The fact that the union invaded the south"
The south stole federal property and attacked the north first. The south also invaded a neutral state (Kentucky) early in the war.
"It was the people right to leave the union"
Yes, anyone could physically leave, but a state can't secede.
Both sides paid people to settle in Kansas. That's not rigging an election. Rigging an election would be casting fake votes or using violence to keep people from voting (southerners did both).
@ZackAttack261 "Abraham Lincoln won with only 40 % of the national vote"
The popular vote doesn't matter in a presidential election....Lincoln won a majority of electoral votes.....
"federal government turned their back on the south"
Totally backward. The fed gov't catered to the south. The Supreme Court sided with the south in the Dred Scott case. Congress passed the tariff of 1857 which put the rate at a 19th century low. President Buchanan blamed the North/South pre-war tension on the North.
@KayBeeEee1983 Key reason why the electoral college system is flawed. Yes the tariff was low until the Morrill tariff which taxed southern import and exports by 49%. The Federal government financial situation before the war was awful and some papers encouraged the North to engage in military action to collect this tax. So the Fed gov taxed the southern states then illegally invaded it. Yes I would agree they turned their back on the south.
@flecktarn1000 Would you have preferred to have no president at all? Because no candidate won a majority of popular votes. SC didn't even let its people vote for the president, so they obviously preferred the electoral college over a direct popular election.
Tariffs don't tax exports
The highest the overall tariff rate got was 38% and that was in 1865. At the start of the war, it was at 26%.
It's moot anyway because the tariff never would've passed if the south hadn't vacated their senate seats.
@flecktarn1000 The NORTH turned their backs on the SOUTH? You've got it backward. The south seceded for god's sake....
The "invasion" of the south wasn't illegal. The south stole federal weapons and property, and demolished a federal fort while federal troops were inside. THAT'S illegal. That's a rebellion and the constitution gives the federal government the power to put down rebellions.
@KayBeeEee1983 Hear is the bottom line 1. The constitution allows sucession. 2. With a free South, the North would lose tax revenue and trade opportunities 3. Big government mentality and capitalists of the north wanted revenue. 4. Lincoln, initially, did not have Congressional consent to start the war....which he so boldly did. 5. States have the right to govern themselves...so by taxing their imports the fed gov basically said you cant..... that sounds legal to me
@KayBeeEee1983 Hear is the bottom line 1. The constitution allows sucession. 2. With a free South, the North would lose tax revenue and trade opportunities 3. Big government mentality and capitalists of the north wanted revenue. 4. Lincoln, initially, did not have Congressional consent to start the war....which he so boldly did. 5. States have the right to govern themselves...so by taxing their imports the fed gov basically said you cant..... that sounds legal to me
@KayBeeEee1983 Article 3 Section 1 "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them..." Lincoln was warned to stop restocking Fort Sumter, and he didn't listen. General Beauregard did not fire on the Fort until Lincoln sent an armed fleet. The South fired on Union Forces that were occupying Confederate Land.
@shakej94 Sumter wasn't Confederate land, it was federal land.
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory"
-- Committee on Federal Relations, In the South Carolina House of Representatives, Dec 31, 1836
civilwarhome[DOT]com/sumterownership[DOT]htm
The "armed fleet" was just to escort the supply ship because SC had fired on an unarmed supply ship once already
@KayBeeEee1983 Article 3 Section 1 "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them..." Too Bad, Lincoln was warned to stop restocking the Fort. Lincoln was the aggressor, not the south. The South offered to pay for the damage to federal property, and the president you support in like 10 vids (who is responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Americans) rejected this. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession.
Slavery was all about profit, working the fields for the least reward you could imagine , a meal a day . Slavery is still in its different from here today ! .multi corporations with minimum wages no health care , no education opportunity this keeps the worker chained to the company for life , ,. Massive profits for the company ,its product is overpriced ,so when was slavery abolished in the land of the free ,
@mcgeogheganj Slavery was abolished in 1865. Poor people might not have health insurance or education, but they can't be raped, beaten into unconsciousness, or have their children kidnapped.
@ZackAttack261 So slave owners and proslavery people from the south went to Kansas in 1854, (even though Kansas was North of the 36' 30 North parallel line, which is the exact line used in the Missouri comprimise you quoted, making the comprimise as it stood, Kansas by rights was already free before the Kansas-Missuori Act.)years before the 1860 election, and started killing people because someone else was going to take away that persons "right" to own a slave? Do I have that right?
@ZackAttack261 Ok then, entertain me.First off, what are you even talking about with going against the constitution? And secondly why, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, (when newly inducted states would be giving the right to vote among themselves if they would be free or slave) why did Missouri send almost 10000 militia into Kansas to break up polling stations and cast fake votes? Was 40% a majority? Are you aware the Democrats sent 2 people for the nominee? Douglas and Breckenridge?
Now that we are forced to pay taxes to the puppet governments in order for the interest (out of thin air) of the Goldman sachs and Fed loans to be repaid, we are "not" slaves...
Slavery existed everywhere for thousands of years, not only in America against africans, but also in Africa against Europeans.
the big danger now is that the US will become a plutocracy, with 1% of wealth-holders living large and everyone else scrabbling for a living - the middle class is in danger of being impoverished - think aristocratic Europe of 2-3 centuries ago, that's what is likely to happen - already the privatized prison system sucks federal funding while nabbing and incarcerating poor ethnic minorities on trivial charges. As for Goldman Sachs, lynch 'em -
@SupernalOne Interesting, i believe that a financial crisis has the characteristics of its causes, it is artificial, i am of the opinion that whatever is going to happen will be and it is pre conditioned and planned
@SupernalOne Interesting, i believe that a financial crisis has the characteristics of its causes, it is artificial, i am of the opinion that whatever is going to happen will be and it is pre conditioned and planned
Whats funny is that the north supported slavery by buying slave made southern products. Today,we buy cheaply made products made in China by child or slave labor! Yet those same people complaining that there families were slaves in America 500 years ago gladly buy these products without a second thought... Talk about BS
Guess nothing as changed and if we dont stop this "system" we will all be slaves in the future!
@abarrathemaster ...Slavery ended in most European countries too,without a single drop of blood! Only the Americans could have slight their own brothers throats over such issues...
Anyways, slavery was just ONE of the reasons for the civil war! Most of the farmland was in the south and Lincoln the tyrant would not allow the south to secede even if it was their right as inscribed in the constitution! Lincoln was the aggressor and blacks were treated worse the north!
@abarrathemaster Also, how many Irishmen were used to win this war? The Irish were pretty much slaves like blacks were, but sent to their deaths killing other Americans for not bowing down to Lincoln the tyrant... Which is worse?
@Skin828 The vast majority of Irish and Germans volunteered for the Army, often as soon as they got off the boats. They'd seen disunion in Europe, especially the Germans, and didn't want to see it in America. At the same time, the Irish weren't enthusiastic about freeing the blacks, who'd compete with them for the lowest-paying jobs. 300,000 Irishmen and 100,000 Germans served in the U.S. Army during the war. They weren't slaves; their employers couldn't sell their wives and children.
@galoon They were not slaves like the blacks but economic slaves. There were volunteers but most Irish and Germans only supported the Union not to be left out, since they were hated by the native Anglo-Americans about just as much as asians and blacks!
Not to mention that Ireland was under British rule with a famine... It would have been better for the Irish to organize and fight the Brits! Then maybe Ireland would have been free and the Union would have definitely lost the civil-war!
@Skin828 True, the immigrants saw serving in the Army as a good way to prove their loyalty--the Irish were particularly hated by the natives, as you said--and some of those guys did join the Fenian league with the intention of using their combat experience gained in the war to fight the English later! I wouldn't go so far as to say they won the war singlehandedly, but many of their units were very good, particularly the Irish Brigade that served with the Army of the Potomac.
@galoon The Irish came off the boats starving and were left to starve in the ghettos! The only way to make a serious living was being a soldier, somewhat payed to support their families and at least fed... Basically the Irish won the war...
@Skin828 "Yet those same people complaining that there families were slaves in America 500 years ago gladly buy these products without a second thought... "
500 years ago?! I suggest you take an American history class.
@KayBeeEee1983 Those are not my words! Its the words of blacks and stupid idiots who call themselves historians these days... I only wrote what was said!
Slavery is as old as mankind and everyone was a slave at one point in time! IMO blacks and their white bitches apologizing for something that happened before we were born and that happened to us in the past as well (but nobody apologizes for that), is retarded and total brainwashing to make us feel white guilt!
majority of southerners did not own slaves in 1861, and people are real stupid if they think people in the north didn't own slaves, its a common misconception that slavery was the cause of the war, but it wasn't, the north was taxing the south without representation and also not letting the states govern themselves, the union unjust and unconstitutional.
@89andyman People in the north did own slaves, but not in the number that the south did. The south was actually being protected by the north in the antebellum era with the Tariff of 1857. The union wanted to protect its country's economy by lowering taxes lower than the cost to import goods. If the south was not represented then how did they have so many justices in the supreme court in the dredd scott case and how did they vote for the election of 1860. Abolitionism was what caused disunion.
What taxes? What representation? The Northern and Southern states both had Congressmen, Senators, Governors, Lawyers, and the Supreme Court was loaded with Southerners and sypathetic to the south(Dred Scott). The Civil War was about slavey. Southerns can state that it was about states rights but I have yet to have someone tell me what other "rights" were infringed upon other than a states "right" to own a slave.
wrong wrong wrong, at bottom it was all about slavery - the immigrant workers of the north could vote, the black slaves could not, so the north had more representation in the House - the "rights" that were being denied were the right to export slavery to the free western territories, & lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act - and those who cared were the big cotton planters & their Congressmen - Lincoln wanted to limit slavery not stop it, but the South refused
@89andyman "its a common misconception that slavery was the cause of the war, but it wasn't, the north was taxing the south without representation and also not letting the states govern themselves, the union unjust and unconstitutional."
How were they being taxed without representation? Have you heard of Congress? Three-fifths compromise? The south had more representation than they deserved. How was the federal government they not letting the south govern themselves?
@DeadKool2 It the south was going to secede over tariffs then why didn't they do it back in 1828 when one of the most severe tariffs, the "tariff of abominations" was levied? Why did that crisis blow over but we kept coming back to the issue of slavery in the territories? Why did they not secede until -after- Lincoln, with a platform against slavery in the territories, was elected? And btw, the Morrill Tariff was passed in March, 1861, Most of the states had seceded by February.
@wolfpax22 They didn't secede in 1828 because the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations". Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
@mikeh0114 I've read over the inauguration just now and only found one line that mentions taxation at all. All he was saying there was that his administration would continue to operate federal institutions in the south from which they were based, such as the mail or already established military bases, and collect the taxes that had -already- been established as any other administration would do. Most of the speech is him trying to say he had no intention of abolishing slavery in the south.
@mikeh0114 what most people didn't realize was that secession wasn't a new idea. During the war of 1812, the Federalists wanted to seceede, which ruined their reputation, and your right about the Tarrif of Abominations, because South Carolina wanted to seceede because of that.
@DeadKool2 "No Mention of the Morrill Tarrif? YOu know... Taxation without representation? Isn't that a MAJOR reason for the Civil War?"
LMAO. No, not even close. The Morrill tariff was passed after 7 states had already seceded and it wouldn't have passed if those states hadn't seceded in the first place. "Taxation without representation" has nothing to do with the civil war because the southern states had even more representation in Congress than they deserved.
Excellent. The interviews are enlightening and informative...very knowledgeable historians. The narration is clear, concise and well-done. The engraved plates, the pen and ink drawings and the photos are wonderful to view. This was an outstanding explanation. Thank you tbrowrite
These maps are awful. 1:45 the Potomac River (separating Virginia and Maryland) is not a canal. The Connecticut River, the most important river in New England, is also not a canal.
CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN CONTINENTAL WAR BETWEEN THE STATES:
1. Lincoln invaded the South.
2. If you need further information, go back and read #1.
SovereignStatesman 1 week ago
2.17. Tha'ts more like Inverness Scotland. Liverpool is about 400 miles south, in England.
MrJuno6 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm British so i am not completely aware of your guys history, but it seems to me that the civil war is a constitutional question, was the Slavery a horrible thing, yes, but did the north have the right to wage war against a group of states who wanted to get out of a union, even if slavery was horrible. It seems to me that this is like attacking Scotland because they wanted to leave the UK, or attacking Italy if they wanted to leave the EU, respond to me if i'm wrong
toberses11 3 weeks ago
Civil war reenactors do nothing to educate, they hide behind that nonsense. Their playtime takes the sting out of that war. Their grown men playing army. A pioneer day is fine, or even a Redcoat battle, the civil war is as stupid as a train ride to Auswitz by grown men playing -choo-choo
guitargold77 3 weeks ago
Buying products from China and slavery are a idiots argument. We dont control or know what goes on in China. That war is always about ending slavery as the South had no rights when they agreed it was ok to own a human being. The north was 200 years late, every man in the US owed their life to right the wrong. That thing that makes slavery lives on, arrogance and money over human lives is alive and well
guitargold77 3 weeks ago
Not about slavery you fools!
canvas1usa 4 weeks ago
THE NORTH USED LIES!!!
MrARKWILD 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZackAttack261 "The fact that the union invaded the south"
The south stole federal property and attacked the north first. The south also invaded a neutral state (Kentucky) early in the war.
"It was the people right to leave the union"
Yes, anyone could physically leave, but a state can't secede.
Both sides paid people to settle in Kansas. That's not rigging an election. Rigging an election would be casting fake votes or using violence to keep people from voting (southerners did both).
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@ZackAttack261 "Abraham Lincoln won with only 40 % of the national vote"
The popular vote doesn't matter in a presidential election....Lincoln won a majority of electoral votes.....
"federal government turned their back on the south"
Totally backward. The fed gov't catered to the south. The Supreme Court sided with the south in the Dred Scott case. Congress passed the tariff of 1857 which put the rate at a 19th century low. President Buchanan blamed the North/South pre-war tension on the North.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Key reason why the electoral college system is flawed. Yes the tariff was low until the Morrill tariff which taxed southern import and exports by 49%. The Federal government financial situation before the war was awful and some papers encouraged the North to engage in military action to collect this tax. So the Fed gov taxed the southern states then illegally invaded it. Yes I would agree they turned their back on the south.
flecktarn1000 1 month ago
@flecktarn1000 Would you have preferred to have no president at all? Because no candidate won a majority of popular votes. SC didn't even let its people vote for the president, so they obviously preferred the electoral college over a direct popular election.
Tariffs don't tax exports
The highest the overall tariff rate got was 38% and that was in 1865. At the start of the war, it was at 26%.
It's moot anyway because the tariff never would've passed if the south hadn't vacated their senate seats.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@flecktarn1000 The NORTH turned their backs on the SOUTH? You've got it backward. The south seceded for god's sake....
The "invasion" of the south wasn't illegal. The south stole federal weapons and property, and demolished a federal fort while federal troops were inside. THAT'S illegal. That's a rebellion and the constitution gives the federal government the power to put down rebellions.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Hear is the bottom line 1. The constitution allows sucession. 2. With a free South, the North would lose tax revenue and trade opportunities 3. Big government mentality and capitalists of the north wanted revenue. 4. Lincoln, initially, did not have Congressional consent to start the war....which he so boldly did. 5. States have the right to govern themselves...so by taxing their imports the fed gov basically said you cant..... that sounds legal to me
flecktarn1000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Hear is the bottom line 1. The constitution allows sucession. 2. With a free South, the North would lose tax revenue and trade opportunities 3. Big government mentality and capitalists of the north wanted revenue. 4. Lincoln, initially, did not have Congressional consent to start the war....which he so boldly did. 5. States have the right to govern themselves...so by taxing their imports the fed gov basically said you cant..... that sounds legal to me
flecktarn1000 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Article 3 Section 1 "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them..." Lincoln was warned to stop restocking Fort Sumter, and he didn't listen. General Beauregard did not fire on the Fort until Lincoln sent an armed fleet. The South fired on Union Forces that were occupying Confederate Land.
shakej94 5 days ago
@shakej94 Sumter wasn't Confederate land, it was federal land.
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory"
-- Committee on Federal Relations, In the South Carolina House of Representatives, Dec 31, 1836
civilwarhome[DOT]com/sumterownership[DOT]htm
The "armed fleet" was just to escort the supply ship because SC had fired on an unarmed supply ship once already
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 Article 3 Section 1 "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them..." Too Bad, Lincoln was warned to stop restocking the Fort. Lincoln was the aggressor, not the south. The South offered to pay for the damage to federal property, and the president you support in like 10 vids (who is responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Americans) rejected this. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession.
shakej94 5 days ago
u really helped me with my homework thank u!!!!!!!!
basketball12331 1 month ago
Slavery was all about profit, working the fields for the least reward you could imagine , a meal a day . Slavery is still in its different from here today ! .multi corporations with minimum wages no health care , no education opportunity this keeps the worker chained to the company for life , ,. Massive profits for the company ,its product is overpriced ,so when was slavery abolished in the land of the free ,
mcgeogheganj 1 month ago
@mcgeogheganj Slavery was abolished in 1865. Poor people might not have health insurance or education, but they can't be raped, beaten into unconsciousness, or have their children kidnapped.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@ZackAttack261 So slave owners and proslavery people from the south went to Kansas in 1854, (even though Kansas was North of the 36' 30 North parallel line, which is the exact line used in the Missouri comprimise you quoted, making the comprimise as it stood, Kansas by rights was already free before the Kansas-Missuori Act.)years before the 1860 election, and started killing people because someone else was going to take away that persons "right" to own a slave? Do I have that right?
joeyhol75 1 month ago
@ZackAttack261 Ok then, entertain me.First off, what are you even talking about with going against the constitution? And secondly why, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, (when newly inducted states would be giving the right to vote among themselves if they would be free or slave) why did Missouri send almost 10000 militia into Kansas to break up polling stations and cast fake votes? Was 40% a majority? Are you aware the Democrats sent 2 people for the nominee? Douglas and Breckenridge?
joeyhol75 1 month ago
What exactly did Garrison mean by "Republicanism?" I'm guessing he meant it the way a politician might use the word "democracy" these days. IDK.
YourDogIsDeadHAHA 2 months ago
@YourDogIsDeadHAHA Republicanism is the type of govt. we used to have A COnstitutional democratic Republic....After the war a democratic union.
sovereignliberty 2 months ago
Now that we are forced to pay taxes to the puppet governments in order for the interest (out of thin air) of the Goldman sachs and Fed loans to be repaid, we are "not" slaves...
Slavery existed everywhere for thousands of years, not only in America against africans, but also in Africa against Europeans.
Napoleontas 2 months ago
@Napoleontas
the big danger now is that the US will become a plutocracy, with 1% of wealth-holders living large and everyone else scrabbling for a living - the middle class is in danger of being impoverished - think aristocratic Europe of 2-3 centuries ago, that's what is likely to happen - already the privatized prison system sucks federal funding while nabbing and incarcerating poor ethnic minorities on trivial charges. As for Goldman Sachs, lynch 'em -
SupernalOne 1 month ago
@SupernalOne Interesting, i believe that a financial crisis has the characteristics of its causes, it is artificial, i am of the opinion that whatever is going to happen will be and it is pre conditioned and planned
Napoleontas 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SupernalOne Interesting, i believe that a financial crisis has the characteristics of its causes, it is artificial, i am of the opinion that whatever is going to happen will be and it is pre conditioned and planned
Napoleontas 1 month ago
Whats funny is that the north supported slavery by buying slave made southern products. Today,we buy cheaply made products made in China by child or slave labor! Yet those same people complaining that there families were slaves in America 500 years ago gladly buy these products without a second thought... Talk about BS
Guess nothing as changed and if we dont stop this "system" we will all be slaves in the future!
Skin828 3 months ago 12
@Skin828 will slavery did end up ending whatever happen before the civil war.
abarrathemaster 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abarrathemaster ...Slavery ended in most European countries too,without a single drop of blood! Only the Americans could have slight their own brothers throats over such issues...
Anyways, slavery was just ONE of the reasons for the civil war! Most of the farmland was in the south and Lincoln the tyrant would not allow the south to secede even if it was their right as inscribed in the constitution! Lincoln was the aggressor and blacks were treated worse the north!
Skin828 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@abarrathemaster Also, how many Irishmen were used to win this war? The Irish were pretty much slaves like blacks were, but sent to their deaths killing other Americans for not bowing down to Lincoln the tyrant... Which is worse?
Skin828 1 month ago
@Skin828 The vast majority of Irish and Germans volunteered for the Army, often as soon as they got off the boats. They'd seen disunion in Europe, especially the Germans, and didn't want to see it in America. At the same time, the Irish weren't enthusiastic about freeing the blacks, who'd compete with them for the lowest-paying jobs. 300,000 Irishmen and 100,000 Germans served in the U.S. Army during the war. They weren't slaves; their employers couldn't sell their wives and children.
galoon 1 month ago
@galoon They were not slaves like the blacks but economic slaves. There were volunteers but most Irish and Germans only supported the Union not to be left out, since they were hated by the native Anglo-Americans about just as much as asians and blacks!
Not to mention that Ireland was under British rule with a famine... It would have been better for the Irish to organize and fight the Brits! Then maybe Ireland would have been free and the Union would have definitely lost the civil-war!
Skin828 1 month ago
@Skin828 True, the immigrants saw serving in the Army as a good way to prove their loyalty--the Irish were particularly hated by the natives, as you said--and some of those guys did join the Fenian league with the intention of using their combat experience gained in the war to fight the English later! I wouldn't go so far as to say they won the war singlehandedly, but many of their units were very good, particularly the Irish Brigade that served with the Army of the Potomac.
galoon 1 month ago
@galoon The Irish came off the boats starving and were left to starve in the ghettos! The only way to make a serious living was being a soldier, somewhat payed to support their families and at least fed... Basically the Irish won the war...
Skin828 1 month ago
@Skin828 "Yet those same people complaining that there families were slaves in America 500 years ago gladly buy these products without a second thought... "
500 years ago?! I suggest you take an American history class.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Those are not my words! Its the words of blacks and stupid idiots who call themselves historians these days... I only wrote what was said!
Slavery is as old as mankind and everyone was a slave at one point in time! IMO blacks and their white bitches apologizing for something that happened before we were born and that happened to us in the past as well (but nobody apologizes for that), is retarded and total brainwashing to make us feel white guilt!
Skin828 1 month ago
@Skin828 In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
cwcwful 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
farbyondvulgar 3 months ago
Comment removed
realblush 3 months ago
majority of southerners did not own slaves in 1861, and people are real stupid if they think people in the north didn't own slaves, its a common misconception that slavery was the cause of the war, but it wasn't, the north was taxing the south without representation and also not letting the states govern themselves, the union unjust and unconstitutional.
89andyman 3 months ago
@89andyman People in the north did own slaves, but not in the number that the south did. The south was actually being protected by the north in the antebellum era with the Tariff of 1857. The union wanted to protect its country's economy by lowering taxes lower than the cost to import goods. If the south was not represented then how did they have so many justices in the supreme court in the dredd scott case and how did they vote for the election of 1860. Abolitionism was what caused disunion.
JavierJr3 3 months ago
What taxes? What representation? The Northern and Southern states both had Congressmen, Senators, Governors, Lawyers, and the Supreme Court was loaded with Southerners and sypathetic to the south(Dred Scott). The Civil War was about slavey. Southerns can state that it was about states rights but I have yet to have someone tell me what other "rights" were infringed upon other than a states "right" to own a slave.
joeyhol75 2 months ago
@89andyman
wrong wrong wrong, at bottom it was all about slavery - the immigrant workers of the north could vote, the black slaves could not, so the north had more representation in the House - the "rights" that were being denied were the right to export slavery to the free western territories, & lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act - and those who cared were the big cotton planters & their Congressmen - Lincoln wanted to limit slavery not stop it, but the South refused
SupernalOne 1 month ago
@89andyman right on the money!
Skin828 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@89andyman "its a common misconception that slavery was the cause of the war, but it wasn't, the north was taxing the south without representation and also not letting the states govern themselves, the union unjust and unconstitutional."
How were they being taxed without representation? Have you heard of Congress? Three-fifths compromise? The south had more representation than they deserved. How was the federal government they not letting the south govern themselves?
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
Comment removed
danyangelobatio 4 months ago
Comment removed
danyangelobatio 4 months ago
Ummm. No Mention of the Morrill Tarrif? YOu know... Taxation without representation? Isn't that a MAJOR reason for the Civil War?
DeadKool2 4 months ago
@DeadKool2 It the south was going to secede over tariffs then why didn't they do it back in 1828 when one of the most severe tariffs, the "tariff of abominations" was levied? Why did that crisis blow over but we kept coming back to the issue of slavery in the territories? Why did they not secede until -after- Lincoln, with a platform against slavery in the territories, was elected? And btw, the Morrill Tariff was passed in March, 1861, Most of the states had seceded by February.
wolfpax22 4 months ago
@wolfpax22 They didn't secede in 1828 because the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations". Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate was not collected.
mikeh0114 4 months ago
@mikeh0114 I've read over the inauguration just now and only found one line that mentions taxation at all. All he was saying there was that his administration would continue to operate federal institutions in the south from which they were based, such as the mail or already established military bases, and collect the taxes that had -already- been established as any other administration would do. Most of the speech is him trying to say he had no intention of abolishing slavery in the south.
wolfpax22 4 months ago
@mikeh0114 what most people didn't realize was that secession wasn't a new idea. During the war of 1812, the Federalists wanted to seceede, which ruined their reputation, and your right about the Tarrif of Abominations, because South Carolina wanted to seceede because of that.
Windsor1able 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadKool2 "No Mention of the Morrill Tarrif? YOu know... Taxation without representation? Isn't that a MAJOR reason for the Civil War?"
LMAO. No, not even close. The Morrill tariff was passed after 7 states had already seceded and it wouldn't have passed if those states hadn't seceded in the first place. "Taxation without representation" has nothing to do with the civil war because the southern states had even more representation in Congress than they deserved.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
Geez... that song in the beginning is so catchy! Does anybody know what song that is?
TheEzz09 4 months ago
Excellent. The interviews are enlightening and informative...very knowledgeable historians. The narration is clear, concise and well-done. The engraved plates, the pen and ink drawings and the photos are wonderful to view. This was an outstanding explanation. Thank you tbrowrite
dkoch1945 6 months ago
These maps are awful. 1:45 the Potomac River (separating Virginia and Maryland) is not a canal. The Connecticut River, the most important river in New England, is also not a canal.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
haha, the placement of liverpool is quite hilarious
karoolta 9 months ago