0:45-10:05- were you trying to say, difficult from your wording, that slaves actually voted and thereby increased the political power of Southern Democrats? The 3/5 compromise was designed to account for the fact that there were over 3 million black slaves in the South, but they were not actual citizens who could vote, but they did, in fact exist, so Southern states wanted to increase their congressional representation on that basis.
... Besides, by the mid of the 19th century Britain and France had already started their own plantations of cotton in their colonies in Africa and Asia, and were importing their own cotton which was more competitive that the South's. Russia was also producing it in great quantities in its southern steppes and that was actually one of the reasons for the Crimean war.
Batey simply lies in order to sustain the revisionist vision of American history, which is as unsustainable as the CSA's mono-crop
While the North's industries and capacity for invention had been thriving for decades, the South was languishing with its single crop: cotton. Were it not for slavery, the production of cotton would have gone bust before the C.W. It is true that most of the South's exports would go to Europe, but it's also true that the survival of cotton in America was due to the North's industry's inventions (e.g. mills in Lowell, Mass.) ...
A couple of historical facts that show the fallacy of Mr. Batey's video:
1) The Bristich Queen that he calls Elizabeth was in fact Victoria;
2) At the time of the Civil War's outset, it was the South who was heavily subsidised. If there was any economic factor about tariffs and levies that was hurting the US economy was that the northern industries were paying taxes to maintain the southern ruling classes outdated way of life.
By the time the C.W. started the ecomomy in the South...
This is crap and shows a total ignorance about history. Besides it is just a fundamentalist revision of history in order to deny historical truth. These pieces are in tune with the new interpretation of American history so popular today in some quarters in order to attack the unity of America. As a foreigner I awe at the stupidity of these people, who ---in order to attain immediate financial or political gains--- are willing to end with the Union.
@tvcrunkfool This is not surprising. This pseudo-documentary is so ill-researched that it is surprising that it lasts so long. Even with the rambling and the repetition of comments like "I don't know, but it doesn't matter", it shouldn't have taken so long. The naming of "Elizabeth" as queen (I guess, as you did) instead of Victoria shows that this piece is not to be trusted at all.
Was it possible that Lincoln said he wanted to permanently allow slavery in southern states just because it was a difficult situation that he tried to keep calm while he was trying to become president, and then once he became pres he could work towards freeing the slaves?
And why are you saying you would rather segregate black people and white people? If we did that wouldn't it make equality far more difficult in the long run?
I think although this presents a useful counter-view to the children's text book versions, it is of a poor standard in terms of scholarship; no sources, no references to any actual research and rather a rambling delivery, with some confusion between 'gossip' and 'evidence'.
If you read the letters of those serving in the army in the civil war, on both sides, it WAS about slavery for many of them. The same is true of the commanders on both sides- many believed in the moral standpoint they took
Wow! real eye-openers; Abraham Lincoln reduced to a blood thirsty careerist. Was it Elizabeth the 1st and the first 'repatriation policy'? I enjoyed your views ,where did you find all this info?
Pretty Good series, but by itself, some might find it unconvincing. I think next time you get the chance, you should talk more on what the North really meant by "preserving the Union" and elaborate on the rights of people to dissolve political bonds, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Talk more about how the South was fighting for limited government, and the North was fighting for centralized government.
I agree with all your points except, from your tone, I think you miss the most important one. The end justifies the means. It is no secrete the Lincoln was hated by everyone in his time and that is why he is a great man. He did what he had to do for the greater good without a care about if people would like him or not. That is what it takes to be President. You have to put you self out there as a lightning rod to be blamed. Lincoln was willing to have himself dragged in the mud for his country.
what greater good did the civil war accomplish? The Civil war resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brainwashed Americans in the northern police states and the helpless southern states. By preserving the union, he didn't stand up for any greater good, the preservation of the union caused the federal government to grow out of control and forever repealed the rights of states to secede. The very first line of the Dec. of Ind. is about the right of people to secede!
In the short term your onion seems to be just as good as any... except that in the longer term the world was destined to be ruled either Germany, Japan or Russia. If the United States had split in 1860, it is likely that there would have been no strong opposition to the Axis Powers. The world got off real lucky... because I don't think Stalin or Hitler would have given out any financial aid. At least the US make some effort to appear fair.
there was no way Germany, Japan, or Russia could have ever expanded to North America. I admit that at the time we were the most free nation on earth, but it was because we were the youngest.
More importantly, the WWII Empires were doomed to fail from the start. The war in fact helped them, because dictatorships thrive on war, or anything else that they can use to distract their people from the fact that they are suspending their peoples' rights'.
Did you forget the Zimmerman Note? Prior to the US involvement int the war Germany tried to get Mexico to join the Axis Powers and invade the US. For its part, Mexico was promised the South West of the US. One the age of flight began, the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean are not longer boundaries. Germany, Russia, Iran, China might as well be landlocked around the US.
You may presume that perhaps one or two nations in the world might restrain themselves, but then you can expect the many others will do what is natural and be aggressive. Human are predatory animals, our eyes are side by side like all other predators so we can judge the distance to our pray. Fortune favors the Bold. Small, weak, passive people are always eaten up by strong, aggressive people. That is how it is. All a people can do is decide if they are predator or pray.
WWII was used by the politicians in the empires to frenzy their people to support another pointless war. While Japan and Germany were destroyed in almost every way, the Soviet union languished for 45 years "preserving the Union." The Union is meaningless. Russian, British, Ours, any Union. They all fostered a gigantic bureaucracy and fell apart. What matters is the people. If the people do not have the right to separate from a union or keep their government in check, that union is unstable.
The Soviet Union was methodical and strategically undermined by the US and it Allies. The Soviet Union attempted to the same thing to the US, its just that the US and its Allies did a better job of it. It was at the heart of Communism as spelled out buy various leaders, that Communism must be spread to all people. This is there Doctrine going back to Marx. Marx thought it would happen naturally, the Soviets saw it was not and tried to force it.
One more thing... Pres. Bush would not agree, but if another Nation is threating peace and freedom elsewhere in the world, the people there have the right to overthrow their own government, and we have a responsibility to stay out of it. I believe anything else is imperialism. Conquest is theft, just on a different scale. So any Bribe Hitler, Stalin or Tojo could've come up with should've been meaningless: we had no right to defend the freedoms of the Germans, French, or anyone else.
That would be nice, except the Communists always interfered with local uprising and tried to push their agenda. If the US did not counter that, then the communists would always win. This was true during the American Revolution too. The world powers at the time were France and Britain. America could not have won without French help. The French only helped because their interest was to weaken Britain. Same pattern I described before. Nothing happens in isolation.
Interesting points. I do disagree with some of your content (opposing view) and the way you presented yourself at times. Swearing is inappropriate in civil discourse.
Thank you for posting your views though. Some of my neighbors would love this.
Slavery was abolished to be able to add a "higher cause" to the war the north wanted. You can't rally people to go and fight for tariffs. The same thing happened during Desert Storm. There was a big thing about Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwuati babies out of incubators, to steal the equipment. This turned out later to be fabricated stories to garner support for the war but we all know it was about oil. But the common man wouldnt go to war for oil (or tariffs)
Maybe its really to impose out fiat money on them? If we really wanted more oil or energy just start the war against environmentalist.
Maybe we are just following orders from Israel?
Maybe that we were spooked by people who want us killed by any manner because were western scum that glorify and promote sin in our movies, tv, and print?
Or is it part of the New World Order? Orchestrated by the Council of Foreign Relations?
Well, whatever the case, my point is that the U.S. government does not go to war for true humanitarian reasons there is always an angle and in that we are no better than any other western nation. Governments don't shed blood and spend billions without having an agenda.
Yes Some politicians and forces out side of the government do have alternative motives. I believe that people here in the US support it out of fear for their safety.
You are including many of the variables involved. CFR (25%of our foreign aid= Israel,not including the kosher tax that funnels billions from ALL). Our publications/news/media are consolidated by jewish interest, thus, sanitization within PR is inevitable. Pornography/ homosexuality were first in media around 1850's to 1860's, which was 51% owned by Jews. One only needs to search lightly to find sources of most 'sin', as you call it, and it is rooted directly from those who possess ownership...
that's exactly right. People aren't taught about slavery itself aside from uncle tom's cabin like lies. Author never set foot on a plantation. it was far different than most people realized and could have been ended a lot quicker and easier if the north had been willing to use the tariff money to just compensate the masters. No economic troubles and all the chaos that comes with it.
Basically, this is where the balance started shifting away from state's rights into Federal control. Now we're at the pinnacle or close to the pinnacle Federal Supremacy and we're hopefully going to swing back.
When did Ryan make these videos?
priapus512 2 days ago
i disagree slavery was a big fact in the civil war you need to learn harder that would be a D grade :)
finalfrontier001 2 months ago
0:45-10:05- were you trying to say, difficult from your wording, that slaves actually voted and thereby increased the political power of Southern Democrats? The 3/5 compromise was designed to account for the fact that there were over 3 million black slaves in the South, but they were not actual citizens who could vote, but they did, in fact exist, so Southern states wanted to increase their congressional representation on that basis.
rollotwomassey 10 months ago
... Besides, by the mid of the 19th century Britain and France had already started their own plantations of cotton in their colonies in Africa and Asia, and were importing their own cotton which was more competitive that the South's. Russia was also producing it in great quantities in its southern steppes and that was actually one of the reasons for the Crimean war.
Batey simply lies in order to sustain the revisionist vision of American history, which is as unsustainable as the CSA's mono-crop
franconstanza 1 year ago
... was no lomger sustainable.
While the North's industries and capacity for invention had been thriving for decades, the South was languishing with its single crop: cotton. Were it not for slavery, the production of cotton would have gone bust before the C.W. It is true that most of the South's exports would go to Europe, but it's also true that the survival of cotton in America was due to the North's industry's inventions (e.g. mills in Lowell, Mass.) ...
franconstanza 1 year ago
A couple of historical facts that show the fallacy of Mr. Batey's video:
1) The Bristich Queen that he calls Elizabeth was in fact Victoria;
2) At the time of the Civil War's outset, it was the South who was heavily subsidised. If there was any economic factor about tariffs and levies that was hurting the US economy was that the northern industries were paying taxes to maintain the southern ruling classes outdated way of life.
By the time the C.W. started the ecomomy in the South...
franconstanza 1 year ago
This is crap and shows a total ignorance about history. Besides it is just a fundamentalist revision of history in order to deny historical truth. These pieces are in tune with the new interpretation of American history so popular today in some quarters in order to attack the unity of America. As a foreigner I awe at the stupidity of these people, who ---in order to attain immediate financial or political gains--- are willing to end with the Union.
franconstanza 1 year ago
when you daid elizabeth did you mean victoria spaz
tvcrunkfool 1 year ago
@tvcrunkfool This is not surprising. This pseudo-documentary is so ill-researched that it is surprising that it lasts so long. Even with the rambling and the repetition of comments like "I don't know, but it doesn't matter", it shouldn't have taken so long. The naming of "Elizabeth" as queen (I guess, as you did) instead of Victoria shows that this piece is not to be trusted at all.
franconstanza 1 year ago
@franconstanza yeah excactly thank you for seeing passed my poor spelling
tvcrunkfool 1 year ago 2
Was it possible that Lincoln said he wanted to permanently allow slavery in southern states just because it was a difficult situation that he tried to keep calm while he was trying to become president, and then once he became pres he could work towards freeing the slaves?
And why are you saying you would rather segregate black people and white people? If we did that wouldn't it make equality far more difficult in the long run?
dobbywarnshryptr 1 year ago
I think although this presents a useful counter-view to the children's text book versions, it is of a poor standard in terms of scholarship; no sources, no references to any actual research and rather a rambling delivery, with some confusion between 'gossip' and 'evidence'.
If you read the letters of those serving in the army in the civil war, on both sides, it WAS about slavery for many of them. The same is true of the commanders on both sides- many believed in the moral standpoint they took
kincsem1 1 year ago
Nice one! Although I wanted to see the history of the war not the reasons for it! But very good work!
ChrisF1979 1 year ago
Rivisionist history at it's worst.
DiGiTaLdAzEDM 1 year ago
Excellent work my friend!
Hildolf72 1 year ago
Wow! real eye-openers; Abraham Lincoln reduced to a blood thirsty careerist. Was it Elizabeth the 1st and the first 'repatriation policy'? I enjoyed your views ,where did you find all this info?
wotnuhellizdis 1 year ago
if were going to expell anyone, let it be the stupid jackasses
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
monre set up liberia
themetalhead667 1 year ago
Pretty Good series, but by itself, some might find it unconvincing. I think next time you get the chance, you should talk more on what the North really meant by "preserving the Union" and elaborate on the rights of people to dissolve political bonds, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Talk more about how the South was fighting for limited government, and the North was fighting for centralized government.
Skyler827 2 years ago
I agree with all your points except, from your tone, I think you miss the most important one. The end justifies the means. It is no secrete the Lincoln was hated by everyone in his time and that is why he is a great man. He did what he had to do for the greater good without a care about if people would like him or not. That is what it takes to be President. You have to put you self out there as a lightning rod to be blamed. Lincoln was willing to have himself dragged in the mud for his country.
tsafa1 2 years ago
what greater good did the civil war accomplish? The Civil war resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brainwashed Americans in the northern police states and the helpless southern states. By preserving the union, he didn't stand up for any greater good, the preservation of the union caused the federal government to grow out of control and forever repealed the rights of states to secede. The very first line of the Dec. of Ind. is about the right of people to secede!
Skyler827 2 years ago
In the short term your onion seems to be just as good as any... except that in the longer term the world was destined to be ruled either Germany, Japan or Russia. If the United States had split in 1860, it is likely that there would have been no strong opposition to the Axis Powers. The world got off real lucky... because I don't think Stalin or Hitler would have given out any financial aid. At least the US make some effort to appear fair.
tsafa1 2 years ago
there was no way Germany, Japan, or Russia could have ever expanded to North America. I admit that at the time we were the most free nation on earth, but it was because we were the youngest.
More importantly, the WWII Empires were doomed to fail from the start. The war in fact helped them, because dictatorships thrive on war, or anything else that they can use to distract their people from the fact that they are suspending their peoples' rights'.
Skyler827 2 years ago
Did you forget the Zimmerman Note? Prior to the US involvement int the war Germany tried to get Mexico to join the Axis Powers and invade the US. For its part, Mexico was promised the South West of the US. One the age of flight began, the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean are not longer boundaries. Germany, Russia, Iran, China might as well be landlocked around the US.
tsafa1 2 years ago
You may presume that perhaps one or two nations in the world might restrain themselves, but then you can expect the many others will do what is natural and be aggressive. Human are predatory animals, our eyes are side by side like all other predators so we can judge the distance to our pray. Fortune favors the Bold. Small, weak, passive people are always eaten up by strong, aggressive people. That is how it is. All a people can do is decide if they are predator or pray.
tsafa1 2 years ago
WWII was used by the politicians in the empires to frenzy their people to support another pointless war. While Japan and Germany were destroyed in almost every way, the Soviet union languished for 45 years "preserving the Union." The Union is meaningless. Russian, British, Ours, any Union. They all fostered a gigantic bureaucracy and fell apart. What matters is the people. If the people do not have the right to separate from a union or keep their government in check, that union is unstable.
Skyler827 2 years ago
The Soviet Union was methodical and strategically undermined by the US and it Allies. The Soviet Union attempted to the same thing to the US, its just that the US and its Allies did a better job of it. It was at the heart of Communism as spelled out buy various leaders, that Communism must be spread to all people. This is there Doctrine going back to Marx. Marx thought it would happen naturally, the Soviets saw it was not and tried to force it.
tsafa1 2 years ago
One more thing... Pres. Bush would not agree, but if another Nation is threating peace and freedom elsewhere in the world, the people there have the right to overthrow their own government, and we have a responsibility to stay out of it. I believe anything else is imperialism. Conquest is theft, just on a different scale. So any Bribe Hitler, Stalin or Tojo could've come up with should've been meaningless: we had no right to defend the freedoms of the Germans, French, or anyone else.
Skyler827 2 years ago
That would be nice, except the Communists always interfered with local uprising and tried to push their agenda. If the US did not counter that, then the communists would always win. This was true during the American Revolution too. The world powers at the time were France and Britain. America could not have won without French help. The French only helped because their interest was to weaken Britain. Same pattern I described before. Nothing happens in isolation.
tsafa1 2 years ago
My teacher taught me about all of this at my "government education camp".
newcovertedchristian 2 years ago
Interesting points. I do disagree with some of your content (opposing view) and the way you presented yourself at times. Swearing is inappropriate in civil discourse.
Thank you for posting your views though. Some of my neighbors would love this.
techygrrlkush 2 years ago
You made me laugh hard about how the KKK was formed based on this economy/outlook of slaves freed. :)
Good times...
Thank you for your presentation.
japaneseempress 3 years ago
Slavery was abolished to be able to add a "higher cause" to the war the north wanted. You can't rally people to go and fight for tariffs. The same thing happened during Desert Storm. There was a big thing about Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwuati babies out of incubators, to steal the equipment. This turned out later to be fabricated stories to garner support for the war but we all know it was about oil. But the common man wouldnt go to war for oil (or tariffs)
grester 3 years ago 2
Are you sure it's a war for oil?
Maybe its really to impose out fiat money on them? If we really wanted more oil or energy just start the war against environmentalist.
Maybe we are just following orders from Israel?
Maybe that we were spooked by people who want us killed by any manner because were western scum that glorify and promote sin in our movies, tv, and print?
Or is it part of the New World Order? Orchestrated by the Council of Foreign Relations?
bossman068410 3 years ago
Well, whatever the case, my point is that the U.S. government does not go to war for true humanitarian reasons there is always an angle and in that we are no better than any other western nation. Governments don't shed blood and spend billions without having an agenda.
grester 3 years ago
Yes Some politicians and forces out side of the government do have alternative motives. I believe that people here in the US support it out of fear for their safety.
bossman068410 3 years ago
You are including many of the variables involved. CFR (25%of our foreign aid= Israel,not including the kosher tax that funnels billions from ALL). Our publications/news/media are consolidated by jewish interest, thus, sanitization within PR is inevitable. Pornography/ homosexuality were first in media around 1850's to 1860's, which was 51% owned by Jews. One only needs to search lightly to find sources of most 'sin', as you call it, and it is rooted directly from those who possess ownership...
MaindrianPace666 2 years ago
On the up side we got cheap oil and in the Civil War we freed the slaves AND preserved a great country. Plus and plus and plus=a winner.
techygrrlkush 2 years ago
that's exactly right. People aren't taught about slavery itself aside from uncle tom's cabin like lies. Author never set foot on a plantation. it was far different than most people realized and could have been ended a lot quicker and easier if the north had been willing to use the tariff money to just compensate the masters. No economic troubles and all the chaos that comes with it.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
@grester
The common man would not go to war to free black slaves either.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
Basically, this is where the balance started shifting away from state's rights into Federal control. Now we're at the pinnacle or close to the pinnacle Federal Supremacy and we're hopefully going to swing back.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
That's right. States rights were destroyed at appomattox and we have what we have.
Luigi84289 2 years ago