@imAcowMoo100 Because every state is allowed 2 senators and a number of congressman proportional to the state's population (California has 53 congressmen). Even if though the South were allowed to keep their slaves they would more and mroe political power with each new free state admitted. Eventually there would have been enough votes to overcome the South and slavery would be banned outright.
@imAcowMoo100 The south went into succesion because Abraham Lincoln was elected President. The southerners didn't like that because he was a tread to the cotton economy (via slaves).
@OhJosie92 False, Abraham Lincoln turned the war into a war over slavery so france and britain wouldnt help the confederate states. The war actually had many different causes and most southerners did not own slaves.
@civilwarcow i have read history and if you go to college you will discover that slavery was not the main reason it was really taxation without representation
and i dont fallow them i just like there comments cause there true
@civilwarcow no getteysburg was the beginnig of the end but even after that the confederacy still won victories at Cold Harbor, Kensaw mountain,and Kernstown,etc
@civilwarcow Idk but the north had a majority in the house and senate so when a new bill was introduced and the south didnt agree, it wouldnt matter because they would be over ruled EVERY TIME
also when the bill was put into affect like new roads or buildings the south would say "where are our roads and buildings?" so really the south had balls enough to say no and that there done with this bullshit
@CM99501 Northerner's may have held a majority but REPUBLICANS did not. Therefore the 'radical' legislation that threatened the South could not have been enacted by a Republican minority. It was only when the Southern States seceeded BEFORE the innauguration of Lincoln did the Republicans gain a majority in the legislature. Had the Southern States maintained the Union they would have been able to block a good deal of legislation by working with the Northern opponents of the Republicans.
the north had a bigger population so the north had mroe representitves in congress
but the south didnt have as many due to the lack of population
so when a new bill was introduced *say a tax aginst cotton* the north would vote yes to it but the south wouldnt but i wouldnt matter and the north would win anyway due to the more representatives
eventually the south said "ok this is bull shit and were done" so they left
....Licoln made the Emancipation Proclomation to get other ppl (blacks, civilians, Europe, etc.) to see the south as only slaveholders. Black ppl DID fight for the Confederacy, the first regiment that had blacks was a Confederate unit that came from New Orleans. They were fighting for their home just like the average Confederate Soldier. The south got rid of slaver on April-18-1864 and the north got rid of it after the 13th amendment in Decemeber... they had slaves longer than the south.
Ok the war wasn't over slavery. the south seceeded because of unfair taxation and for better government. do you REALLY think 800,000 ppl would fight to JUST keep slavery? A lot of northerners including generals like Ulyses S.Grant and President Lincoln didn't care for slavery. The Emancipation Proclomation just freed slaves in the south, not the border states which was U.S. territory. ...... (continued)...
The south seceeded for a lot of reasons concerning slavery; they thought Lincoln would contain slavery, which would eventually allow free states to outnumber slave states and could end the institution over time. They were angered that the northern abolitionists were ignoring the will of the courts in the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Law. Secession had a lot to do with slavery, but Lincoln fought the war at first to preserve the union, against the idea of secession being legal.
@Plat5 I guess they never say this on the neo-confederate blogs but that "unfair taxation" you speak of was pretty much the lowest in the world. There was something called the Panic of 1857 because of it, look it up. Secession was all about the issue of slavery, no getting around it. The Emancipation Proclamation only banned slaves in states that didn't rejoin before a deadline (it was a compromise to end the war quickly). Slavery was banned throughout the nation with the 13th amendment....moron
@Plat5: 800,000 people would fight to keep it, yes. AND because they felt they were under siege for living the way they were. AND because they were conscripted into their various states' military forces. All of the above.
Same with the North: most soldiers were conscripts.
Then again, that's nothing new. Do you think 59,000 people died in Vietnam just to prevent Ho Chi Minh (who?) from making like a bandit with Saigon (what? where?)
Anyway, I recommend reading antebellum history for a clue ;)
Actually, in the south, over 40 percent of the population was slaves. The union only had 4 slave states with them so in the north, probably, only 10 percent was slaves. OutlawWolf1800, your totally off track.
The Civil War (really the War For Southern Independence) was a tax revolt more than an attempt to keep slavery. The Union was more interested in collecting tariffs than ending slavery. Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to discourage European powers from intervening on the behalf of the Confederacy because in most or all of Europe slavery had been abolished and they didn't want to be seen as defending a system that was considered immoral.
@BWF89: the antebellum southern vs. northern debates that made the 1820 Compromise (precipitated by the new territorial gains) and the 1850 accommodation (same), the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1857 Dred Scott case, and John Brown's assault on Harper's Ferry: all of the above, leading up to the 1860 Elections, might tell you that what the founders kicked down the road during the 1787 Convention (and said they were doing so!) was what politicians were rabidly arguing about. It wasn't taxes.
But it's for sure that it wasn't only about freeing slaves, mainly about unity. Lincoln said if i could unite the states without freeing a slave I'd do it, if I can free one and unite the states I'd do it, if I can free all of the I'd do it. These may not be the exact words but it's basically what he said. I guess the people at that time weren't to keen dying for the blacks rights (both unions and confeds)
In the South, slave owners were brought to trial if they mistreated their slaves, aka "slave abuse". There were slaves in the North too. But in the North, blacks were treated a lot worse then they were treated in the South.
The South was not fighting for slaves, they were fighting for independence, freedom from oppressive government. Only 3% of the whole South owned slaves, only the rich. A southern middle class citizen did not own slaves. And most slaves in the South were treated as members of their masters family.
I guess the workers on the cotton farms saw that in a different light. Salomon Northup was kept as a slave on a cotton farm in the south. He said that the first day he had to work on the farm he and the others were under constant pressure and they were beaten to collect as much cotton as possible. In the evening the cotton each collected was weighed and if they brought less cotton the next day they were whipped. Same punishement if they slept too long.
But it wasn't about North being an forceful power and the south being "noble and pure" either my friend. There were other forces at play there that Lincoln had to simultaneously fight along with the confederates. Bankers, Europeans powers, and even the Vatican sought to reap a killing(no pun intended) by the division of the U.S. Their agents were already in America as well like Jeffeson Davis and Albert Pike(who has his own monument in Washington DC)
Iam just saying that the North acted and portrayed, for example, the British in the American Revolutionary War. The British did not want the Americans to leave, which is the same as the North making new rules from keeping the South happy. That is why I stated that the North is bad and the South is good.
That is not true about the South being the good guys and the north being the bad , u need to take some classes over , till u get that fact right , but thank this help for my essay
If you read in depth history books about the pre-war Civil War..the South were the "good" guys and the north were the "bad" guys..for example..the South played by all the rules, but the North bent all the rules in their favor to make the South mad.
Yaa but the South said some bad things because they were mean. The North said "stop it" but the South said "whatever". The North was good people and the South was sometimes bad sometimes.
Let me begin by saying I am in no way in support of slavery!! The history books are always written by the winners. The war between the states was not about slavery untill the north realized it was going to win the war. The civil war started over unfair taxation without represnentation, which according to the constitution, by the way is ILLEAGAL!! Heritage not hate. I am not racsist. This is fact.
@itsmeguys101 The civil war was fought over the preservation of the South's particular insittuions and its maintenance within the union. Southern advocates of seccession argued that Republicans explicitly sought to ban slavery from entrance into the Federal Territories (precursors to States) and to uphold personal liberty laws (reject the Fugitive slave Law) did the south secede. These are the facts. Read the accounts of the men who severed the union and you will see it was only about slavery!
Osya and Loverboy, the Civil War was, in fact about slavery. It didn't start out that way though...it began because the southern states believed the Northern states had more power, and they wanted to break away and form their own nation. Then, after the Battle of Antieta,, Lincoln announces the Emancipation Proclamtion....this then turns it into a war of slavery.
Subjugation..."It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern schoolbooks their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant deed as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects of derision" - Maj Gen Patrick R. Cleburne CSA - This film is a classic example. SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY
Oh cool....make the war look like it was all about slaves. -_-
CM99501 3 months ago
Wait why would the south withdraw from USA? If Abraham agued against expanding slavery. I'm Australian so I'm not very familiar with the civil war
imAcowMoo100 4 months ago
@imAcowMoo100 Because every state is allowed 2 senators and a number of congressman proportional to the state's population (California has 53 congressmen). Even if though the South were allowed to keep their slaves they would more and mroe political power with each new free state admitted. Eventually there would have been enough votes to overcome the South and slavery would be banned outright.
stopdroplol1 3 months ago
@imAcowMoo100 The south went into succesion because Abraham Lincoln was elected President. The southerners didn't like that because he was a tread to the cotton economy (via slaves).
GUALLACOL 3 months ago
@OhJosie92 False, Abraham Lincoln turned the war into a war over slavery so france and britain wouldnt help the confederate states. The war actually had many different causes and most southerners did not own slaves.
TheIphone4thewin 6 months ago
Europeans are infatuated with the civil war....
bwild61 8 months ago
IT WAS NOT JUST OVER SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!
southerneroak 8 months ago
@civilwarcow i have read history and if you go to college you will discover that slavery was not the main reason it was really taxation without representation
and i dont fallow them i just like there comments cause there true
CM99501 1 year ago
@civilwarcow look up Plat5's comment and BWF89's in the highest rated comments
the yankiess just wanted to keep the union togather
and real mature how you crack jokes that are fucking retarded -_-
also the rebels killed 110,070 in battle soooo we killed more in the battle them selves
CM99501 1 year ago
@civilwarcow no getteysburg was the beginnig of the end but even after that the confederacy still won victories at Cold Harbor, Kensaw mountain,and Kernstown,etc
so ya we lost but we took ALOT with us
CM99501 1 year ago
@civilwarcow Idk but the north had a majority in the house and senate so when a new bill was introduced and the south didnt agree, it wouldnt matter because they would be over ruled EVERY TIME
also when the bill was put into affect like new roads or buildings the south would say "where are our roads and buildings?" so really the south had balls enough to say no and that there done with this bullshit
so they left
CM99501 1 year ago
@CM99501 Northerner's may have held a majority but REPUBLICANS did not. Therefore the 'radical' legislation that threatened the South could not have been enacted by a Republican minority. It was only when the Southern States seceeded BEFORE the innauguration of Lincoln did the Republicans gain a majority in the legislature. Had the Southern States maintained the Union they would have been able to block a good deal of legislation by working with the Northern opponents of the Republicans.
hebrew72 1 year ago
states rights because heres the deal
the north had a bigger population so the north had mroe representitves in congress
but the south didnt have as many due to the lack of population
so when a new bill was introduced *say a tax aginst cotton* the north would vote yes to it but the south wouldnt but i wouldnt matter and the north would win anyway due to the more representatives
eventually the south said "ok this is bull shit and were done" so they left
CM99501 1 year ago
losing the civil war was the greatest thing that ever happened to the south
QuitePossiblyANinja 1 year ago
Thanks, this helped a lot on my school project.
wwethemes46 1 year ago
the vids wrong :( i knew it would
CM99501 1 year ago
Nice clip! Nancy B. Brewer- author of Carolina rain
NancyBBrewer 1 year ago
There was no civil war - It was the War of Northern Aggression.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
This is like a 6th grade History Day video. And not a winning one.
LarryCebula 2 years ago
Comment removed
pyatskowitii 2 years ago
sorry i got the date wrong, i meant April of 1865.
Plat5 3 years ago
....Licoln made the Emancipation Proclomation to get other ppl (blacks, civilians, Europe, etc.) to see the south as only slaveholders. Black ppl DID fight for the Confederacy, the first regiment that had blacks was a Confederate unit that came from New Orleans. They were fighting for their home just like the average Confederate Soldier. The south got rid of slaver on April-18-1864 and the north got rid of it after the 13th amendment in Decemeber... they had slaves longer than the south.
Plat5 3 years ago
Ok the war wasn't over slavery. the south seceeded because of unfair taxation and for better government. do you REALLY think 800,000 ppl would fight to JUST keep slavery? A lot of northerners including generals like Ulyses S.Grant and President Lincoln didn't care for slavery. The Emancipation Proclomation just freed slaves in the south, not the border states which was U.S. territory. ...... (continued)...
Plat5 3 years ago 5
The south seceeded for a lot of reasons concerning slavery; they thought Lincoln would contain slavery, which would eventually allow free states to outnumber slave states and could end the institution over time. They were angered that the northern abolitionists were ignoring the will of the courts in the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Law. Secession had a lot to do with slavery, but Lincoln fought the war at first to preserve the union, against the idea of secession being legal.
Albyiscool 3 years ago
It was over money and land
TheWunjoMan 2 years ago
@Plat5 it was also over slavery as well
Bellazvideos98 1 year ago
@Plat5 it was also over slavery as well but ya i do agree otherwise
Bellazvideos98 1 year ago
@Plat5 I guess they never say this on the neo-confederate blogs but that "unfair taxation" you speak of was pretty much the lowest in the world. There was something called the Panic of 1857 because of it, look it up. Secession was all about the issue of slavery, no getting around it. The Emancipation Proclamation only banned slaves in states that didn't rejoin before a deadline (it was a compromise to end the war quickly). Slavery was banned throughout the nation with the 13th amendment....moron
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@Plat5: 800,000 people would fight to keep it, yes. AND because they felt they were under siege for living the way they were. AND because they were conscripted into their various states' military forces. All of the above.
Same with the North: most soldiers were conscripts.
Then again, that's nothing new. Do you think 59,000 people died in Vietnam just to prevent Ho Chi Minh (who?) from making like a bandit with Saigon (what? where?)
Anyway, I recommend reading antebellum history for a clue ;)
episkyros 11 months ago 6
Actually, in the south, over 40 percent of the population was slaves. The union only had 4 slave states with them so in the north, probably, only 10 percent was slaves. OutlawWolf1800, your totally off track.
SuperGrunt08 3 years ago
I would just like to point out that the North lost the war of reconstruction. Their propaganda could only go so far.
KurtPila1 3 years ago
The Civil War (really the War For Southern Independence) was a tax revolt more than an attempt to keep slavery. The Union was more interested in collecting tariffs than ending slavery. Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to discourage European powers from intervening on the behalf of the Confederacy because in most or all of Europe slavery had been abolished and they didn't want to be seen as defending a system that was considered immoral.
BWF89 4 years ago 2
@BWF89 If the south had won they would of felt bigger than the union and would of kept slavery anyway.
So either way they deserved to get defeated.
AgrivatedKillah 11 months ago
@BWF89: the antebellum southern vs. northern debates that made the 1820 Compromise (precipitated by the new territorial gains) and the 1850 accommodation (same), the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1857 Dred Scott case, and John Brown's assault on Harper's Ferry: all of the above, leading up to the 1860 Elections, might tell you that what the founders kicked down the road during the 1787 Convention (and said they were doing so!) was what politicians were rabidly arguing about. It wasn't taxes.
episkyros 11 months ago
lol
lemonrock13 4 years ago
But it's for sure that it wasn't only about freeing slaves, mainly about unity. Lincoln said if i could unite the states without freeing a slave I'd do it, if I can free one and unite the states I'd do it, if I can free all of the I'd do it. These may not be the exact words but it's basically what he said. I guess the people at that time weren't to keen dying for the blacks rights (both unions and confeds)
nicksccc 4 years ago
In the South, slave owners were brought to trial if they mistreated their slaves, aka "slave abuse". There were slaves in the North too. But in the North, blacks were treated a lot worse then they were treated in the South.
OutlawWolf1800 4 years ago
The South was not fighting for slaves, they were fighting for independence, freedom from oppressive government. Only 3% of the whole South owned slaves, only the rich. A southern middle class citizen did not own slaves. And most slaves in the South were treated as members of their masters family.
OutlawWolf1800 4 years ago 2
I guess the workers on the cotton farms saw that in a different light. Salomon Northup was kept as a slave on a cotton farm in the south. He said that the first day he had to work on the farm he and the others were under constant pressure and they were beaten to collect as much cotton as possible. In the evening the cotton each collected was weighed and if they brought less cotton the next day they were whipped. Same punishement if they slept too long.
nicksccc 4 years ago
part 2:
I guess the farmer didn't use a whip on his wife or kids if they slept too long... or manners are / were a little bit different then
in the south....
nicksccc 4 years ago
But it wasn't about North being an forceful power and the south being "noble and pure" either my friend. There were other forces at play there that Lincoln had to simultaneously fight along with the confederates. Bankers, Europeans powers, and even the Vatican sought to reap a killing(no pun intended) by the division of the U.S. Their agents were already in America as well like Jeffeson Davis and Albert Pike(who has his own monument in Washington DC)
galatian5 4 years ago
The civil war was not about freeing the slaves, you should add that in your video
flowmaster45 4 years ago
Iam just saying that the North acted and portrayed, for example, the British in the American Revolutionary War. The British did not want the Americans to leave, which is the same as the North making new rules from keeping the South happy. That is why I stated that the North is bad and the South is good.
mdhelm09 4 years ago
That is not true about the South being the good guys and the north being the bad , u need to take some classes over , till u get that fact right , but thank this help for my essay
ValidStar 4 years ago
If you read in depth history books about the pre-war Civil War..the South were the "good" guys and the north were the "bad" guys..for example..the South played by all the rules, but the North bent all the rules in their favor to make the South mad.
mdhelm09 4 years ago
Yaa but the South said some bad things because they were mean. The North said "stop it" but the South said "whatever". The North was good people and the South was sometimes bad sometimes.
drfunk444 4 years ago 2
Let me begin by saying I am in no way in support of slavery!! The history books are always written by the winners. The war between the states was not about slavery untill the north realized it was going to win the war. The civil war started over unfair taxation without represnentation, which according to the constitution, by the way is ILLEAGAL!! Heritage not hate. I am not racsist. This is fact.
itsmeguys101 4 years ago 2
How were they being unfairly taxed?
d3p3ch3mod3 4 years ago
@itsmeguys101 The civil war was fought over the preservation of the South's particular insittuions and its maintenance within the union. Southern advocates of seccession argued that Republicans explicitly sought to ban slavery from entrance into the Federal Territories (precursors to States) and to uphold personal liberty laws (reject the Fugitive slave Law) did the south secede. These are the facts. Read the accounts of the men who severed the union and you will see it was only about slavery!
hebrew72 1 year ago
The War for Southern Independence had as much to do about slavery as the War in Iraq has to do with "Spreading Democracy".
The U.S. just used slavery as an excuse and to justify their invasion.
ConfederateBrave 4 years ago
You are absolutely right. I'm sure that a lot of learned scholars would agree with you.
ImFrom1900 4 years ago
*Antietam
piagetspjs 4 years ago
Osya and Loverboy, the Civil War was, in fact about slavery. It didn't start out that way though...it began because the southern states believed the Northern states had more power, and they wanted to break away and form their own nation. Then, after the Battle of Antieta,, Lincoln announces the Emancipation Proclamtion....this then turns it into a war of slavery.
piagetspjs 4 years ago
actually it was more about the southerin states wanting to succeed from the US bout slavery was a key factor
Gmelch94 4 years ago
Yeah that's what I said...break away from the nation..secede.
piagetspjs 4 years ago 2
go union!!! free slavery
soap1st 4 years ago
Thxn this really helped me out for an essay i have!
Syrixdg 4 years ago
If the war was really about slavery I doubt the US army could recruit more then 10,000 men.
osya77 4 years ago
The American civil war was not about slavery.
Loverboy954 4 years ago
Subjugation..."It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern schoolbooks their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant deed as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects of derision" - Maj Gen Patrick R. Cleburne CSA - This film is a classic example. SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY
ichykawa 4 years ago
thanks i learned something new today in just under three minutes
ricardo305 4 years ago
Thant's what we aim for! Thanks!
ignitelearning 4 years ago