Looks like somebody needs to crack open a history book. Most of the major political controversies that led up to the war had to do with whether or not slavery would be allowed in the western territories. Also all of the secession declarations passed by the southern states (google them) specifically mention slavery as a cause for secession. The Confederate constitution is almost the same as the US one except it specifically protects slavery. Jeff Davis declared martial law just like Lincoln.
It's so obvious that slavery played a major role (not the only role, but still a major one) in the civil war that i dont even have to explain it, the only reason southerners are denying it is because they actually feel guilty for enslaving an entire race.
Your comments are rubbish. Read South Carolina's official declaration of secession issued in December 1860. The entire document is nothing but a list of complaints about how the Northern states were not keeping the 'deal' made over slavery. There is NO mention of tariffs at all. These are the people who started the war - if you have better sources of southern sentiment please enlighten me.
Someone forgot the south was drafted before the union although it's true the war wasn't over slavery. It's taught very clearly even in that ken burns film it repeats it. the maker of this video acts like he's the first one to show these facts
Also, the Morrill Tariff was too late to have a real effect. Although it could be argued the thought of it scared the southern states. BUT then why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession for the states not bring this up?! I am starting to lean towards maybe to Slavery was the main reason while the others were secondary. And explain the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens.
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
1. Why is it that Pro C.S people always rant on the Corwin Amendment, when in the C.S Constitution has the same thing as the Corwin Amendment.
2. If States' Rights was the cause why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession state they did not what Northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act?
3. States' Rights for what?
4. Why rant on Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus when the C.S Constitution allows that, in fact Davis did it too!
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
@holmeed i do not believe that it was about slavery at first, but then again, i was taught by a southerner in the state of alabama. i do know however that after the emancipation proclamation, it became about slavery because if the csa lost they would be required to free the slaves. being from the south, though, i can say that not all of us believe in an invisible man in the sky. and i certainly would not vote against my best interest economically. i hate the south, though. nice scenery, too hot.
Lincoln was one of our all time WORSE presidents. Argue if you like, but he makes Bush look like a peaceful man who respects the constitution...which is a joke also. Lincoln trampled on the constitution, freedom of press, and the individual liberties of all.
Lincoln was the biggest racist in History. He even said that the territories out west were for white people only! Well documented phrase. The emancipation proclomation was made to keep the British and French from entering the war.
@VoltismProductions If you mean "secede" the answer is yes, you most certainly can. The entire concept of the US is that it was a voluntary union which left any debate not covered to be left up to the states. The CSA took a more peaceful route through secession than that originally suggested by Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, which would have been to tear down the centralized government and create a new one which does not violate the US Constitution as Lincoln's had.
@VoltismProductions Nothing you stated helps you factually back your original comment. The whole point of the U.S was that the states voluntarily came together. If a bunch of states came together because they felt their rights were being infringed and being overly tax ( Just like England did to the 13 colonies, remember? ) they had a moral right and legal one to secede, which they did and form their own government.
@xKenseixX Actually, it did. We did originally come together, but eventually we came to rely on each other, as the world become more global. Don't get me started on confederate "morales".
@VoltismProductions You're acting retarded, can you please stop? Your opinion of "eventually we rely on each other and the world become more global" is irrelevant and makes zero sense. The North depended on South taxes to fund the large increase of the federal government, courtesy of Linclon. The South relied on the South. They exported their cash crop to Europe. So no, there wasn't much unity. The south had the lower population and made considerably more of the taxes. You're confused apparently
@VoltismProductions Your first point was invalid, so deal with it. You said legally seceding wasn't possible. That is false.
Don't get you started on confederate morale's? Are you an idiot. You realize only a small % of southerns owned slaves, right? Most didn't care if it stayed in tact, or if it did. So what moral road we going down here?
Lincoln supported a relocation plan of blacks since his early years, as did many others in North. He even represented a slave owner in court.
@VoltismProductions He had connections with slave owners, married a prominent slave owners daughter, never really gave a flying flip of discussing slavery until his first inauguration when it was already too late to attempt to calm southern issues. He SUPPORTED the indefinite slavery of blacks in south of the South promised to stay in the Union. He SAID the south would have a harder time keeping slavery out of the union than in. Hence, slavery not being the only/main issues for seceding.
@VoltismProductions That's all? One little sentence? It actually WASN'T the main issue. You're biased book reading is enjoyable to read, but wrong. 3/4 of Southerners didn't own slaves. Also, there was a division on leaving the Union on the case of the slavery issue. Some with slaves didn't think Lincoln being elected constituted leaving the Union, some thought it did. What garnered the separation support wildly, was the breaking of the insane taxation. Read the states declarations
@VoltismProductions Cont. - As slavery wasn't considered the huge main issue for all. It's cute how you try to agree, but interject that it was the MAIN issue, as if that helps your position at all. If it was the main issue, why not stay in the Union? Lincoln promised permanent slavery for the south if they stayed. He supported the re-capturing of slaves in the North. The prospects of slaves were concerning to only those small % of slave owners who didn't believe Lincoln. Taxation was main.
@VoltismProductions So now we sit here, with your comments and mine. Here we sit, with your apparently belief of some insanely terrible confederate Morales, which I've yet to see you list. As if the North was spot clean, which it wasn't, like I showed with Lincoln. Lincoln also used mercenaries and Sherman used Southem prisoners of war to clear mine fields outside Savannah. Lincoln also suspended Habeous Corpus and was a terrible president who increased the Federal Government.
@xKenseixX two wrongs make a right? apprently? yes? he made mistakes, but calling him a bad president is just plain denying history. he preserved the union, and im sick of people being butthurt about something that happened lifetimes ago (not saying you are butthurt, but many are)
@VoltismProductions More useless non-factual information. You scream foul, and offer nothing in the opposite to back up your statement. I never said two wrongs make a right, I'm telling you the facts of history. Only an idiot applies 2011 moral standards to that time period. You're stuck in some retarded version of history that was approved by one sided idiots. If you actually go to college, you might get some more facts to this time period.
There is no butthurt troll, you provided no facts.
@VoltismProductions Oh look, he preserved the union. Wow, can you get any more typical for the Lincoln lover crowd? First off, TALK ABOUT THE CONFEDERATE Morales. Answer that, since apparently they were so bad. Since like, all the South owned slaves, right bro?
Lincoln was a bad president, fact. He increased the taxes on south, way beyond it's already insane amount with the previous president. You had a small population paying almost half of everything.
@xKenseixX wow, that english, grammar, spelling........are we now involved in a diatribe/discussion with a half-wit? Is there no spell-check for YouTube? By the way, does Morales have any morals?
@TheTIMWING Wowzor mister, you really provided clear cut rebuttals to your apparent butt hurt over a lack of reality when it comes to History in the U.S. I'm so............ ( <-- See what I did there) sorry I didn't take the time to look over all the numerous comments I made to fix grammatical errors and anything else that bothers you so.
A half-wit would be a person, such as yourself, who responds with no facts, uses baseless attacks to prove a point and never responds to again. Can't wait!
@VoltismProductions Of course he wanted to keep the Union together. How else was he to fund the federal government and the increase of infrastructural activity inn the North. It was being funded by the South you bloody fool. The government would be broke with out the South.
He did nothing about concerns of the South until Inauguration. He then offered the South PERMANENT slavery if they stayed in the Union.
You're a joke kid, you know nothing of this time period. Saving the Union? Sure thing.
@VoltismProductions 1. Can't prove where states can't leave union 2. Can't provide apparently moral issues with confederate Morales which you got so butt hurt over. 3. Only can defend Lincoln by stating he saved the Union, as if all the terrible things he did apparently get nullified by the union be together at the end.
Well done. Now fuck off and don't bother me anymore.
@xKenseixX inbreds piss me off. you say im butthurt? im not the one butthurt about a war that happened over a century ago. "Can't prove where states can't leave union" go to fucking school. "Only can defend Lincoln by stating he saved the Union, as if all the terrible things he did apparently get nullified by the union be together at the end." thats it im done listening to you dumb shit, go roll in mud or something.
ratings have been disabled, interesting... jefferson davis or robert e lee said that the cause of the confederacy was the supremacy of the white man over the black man. nuf said.
LET'S SAY LINCOLN ALLOWS SECESSION, WHEN, IF EVER, WOULD THE SOUTH ABOLISH SLAVERY ON ITS OWN TERMS? 10 YEARS? 20? 100 YEARS? CAN YOU IMAGINE SLAVERY INTO THE MODERN ERA? GERMANY AND JAPAN WOULD ENSLAVE ALL AMERICANS AND THEN STATES RIGHTS WOULD BE COMPLETELY MOOT, IF NOT ALREADY. LOOKING AT THE KKK AND JIM CROW, IT TOOK 100 YEARS BEFORE MLK GOT CIVIL RIGHTS. THEN HE WAS SHOT. STATES RIGHTS MAY BE THE 'COMPANY LINE' BUT ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IS THE CENTRAL CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
@xhongnoi Read your history! Obviously you believe stupidity, you fool! The Emancipation Proclamation only freed some slaves in certain areas....NOT ALL SLAVES EVERYWHERE IN THE US! GO READ IT! That was strategy by the north to help them win, everyone thinks the north was filled with good hearted samaritans and human rights activists, BS! There were slaves in NY up until 1869 which is documented by the Smithsonian. Guess what, General Grant freed his slaves 3 years AFTER the war ended!
@xhongnoi Yeah... whatever you say. Everyone's gripe with Lincoln - who received less than 40% of the popular vote - was that he violated the Constitution - repeatedly. This is why certain members of his own party supported his execution. The regime he started ruined everything.
Abraham Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,"
Ulysses S. Grant: "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
THIS VID IS SPIN AT THAT TIME 1 NEW FREE STATE ADDED REQUIRED 1 SLAVE STATE ADDED TO BALANCE POLITICAL POWER. ABE LINCOLN WAS AGAINST THIS AND WAS A SYMBOL OF ABOLITIONISM. THE SOUTH NEEDED SLAVERY AND IN DESPAIR SECEEDED RIGHT AFTER LINCOLNS ELECTED AND STOLE FEDERAL ARMORIES GUNS AND CANONS. IN ORDER TO HAVE SOLDIERS AND POPULAR SUPPORT FOR CIVIL WAR THE SOUTH DECLARED STATES RIGHTS AND SLAVERY AS REASONING. IT WAS A LIE CAUSED BY AN ADDICTION TO SLAVERY. CONFEDERATES WENT ON TO BE KKKJIMCROW
"They [the founding fathers] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races . . . Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 MORAL CONDITION."
I just don't see the rational for firing on Ft. Sumter after Southern states had seceded and at that point de facto had control of their own affairs. There were no Union troops no effective Union authority in the South nor a blockade in April 1861 and Lincoln was in office for only several weeks. It seems me to that a few hotheads in SC precipitated the fight. We can argue that it might have been inevitable but we can't argue about who fired the first shot.
@1276epr Yea, we can argue about who fired the first shot. There are accounts of a false flag operation by the north. The south didn't want to fight a war they knew they couldn't win.
@MandyVin17 wow that's a unique theory I've never heard before. but I'm not denying that Lincoln should have evacuated the fort. the Union had already lost arsenals, mints, courthouses, customs houses, naval facilities, etc......what was one more fort?. But he had hotheads to deal with up north too. The whole country needed to take a break from inflammatory rhetoric.
@MandyVin17 They didn't "know the couldn't win" they didn't want to fight because war is horrible. They sent diplomats to the north about buying the federal land still in the south and did what they could to do the PROPER way to secession. For Sumter the south fired shots, but harmed no one. In response to this, the north demanded 70,000 troops from Virginia to attack the south, that is when the more states seceded. The north was most definitely the aggressor. No arguing needed.
All I have to say is fuck federal government. The human race should not be ruled by stupid politicians who care nothing for the well being of the common american. It's not fair to those of us who wish to live our lives in freedom.
"The smartest way to enslave a person(s) is the make them think they are free."
Well, the South lost. It is time to quit hating those "Yankees" as you call them, most of who have been dead for a hundred years and move right along. The USA is a much stronger country as a whole instead of one splintered into two nations or broken up into several small state-nations
@Bumper776 WE do not hate anyone and i must say the southern way is not about slavery under 10% of southerners owned slaves and they all were not African American I as a southern man still agree that the states should have the rights to govern their people of the state were federal government should only act upon an incident that involves more than one state in dispute we did not fight for slavery it was part of america since the beginning for over 80 years! States rights vs Federal government.
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
The Morrill Tariff was imposed to northerners too, and northerners paid more because were four times as many as southerners. The problem was that Fed budget was directed to northern infrastructure and that brits and french increased their import taxes from the USA every time the americans increased theirs. But, really, only the cotton owners were really hurt by taxes. These rich owners tricked the semi-barbaric and racist lower class southies to fight and die for the cotton cause.
Poor white farmers in the South did not gain from the cotton business or from the slavery traffic, were not affected by the import tariff, they could gain much for the opening of the West as free and only white as Lincoln proposed. However, they accepted to become cannon fodder for defending the plantation owners interest. Why? because they were uneducated, semi-barbaric provincialist and extremely racist; features that the rich southerns used to goad them to war.
@powerdriller10 The way in which you allow yourself to be manipulated by your government may lead people to consider your culture as "barbaric". That makes you no different from the stereotypical white, poor, barbaric, "racist" southerners. Please show some respect to the lower class southerners who lost their lives because of the tyranny of rich men. I am not a supporter of slavery, nor am i a supporter of racism. But still, i belive that the north was unjust in it's reasons for invading dixie.
@powerdriller10 actually high tariffs hurt the poor the most because they cause the cost of all imports to increase making every thing more expensive, also farmers in the south and the Midwest made most of there income through exporting their crops to European nation so the the tariff hit them twice because it reduce the amount of money Europeans spent on American goods, the tariff did benefit wealthy industrialist in the north who protected from foreign competition.
You are right on the high tariff being good for the Northern Industrialist. But where they really bad for poor southern farmers ? They could not buy Paris stylish clothing anyway, and you are wrong with the idea of poor southern farmers being able to export anything to Europe, the only southerns that exported were the tobbaco and cotton plantation owners. Northern Farmers did not complain against the tariff. Tariffs was not the cause of resentment, it is a lie to say so.
@powerdriller10 actually there was heavy resistance to the tariff in the Midwest, the Midwest was also where most of the anti-war movement was, and actually most farmers both in the Midwest and the south shipped their goods down the Mississippi to New Orleans where it was then shipped to Europe. and although there were twice as many northerners there were more southern farmers because the south was an entirely agrarian society, southerners were 30% of the population put they paid 80% of the tax.
@powerdriller10 it is also worth noting that most of the federal budget was being spent on internal improvements in the north, the south was not happy about being robbed for corporate welfare in the north this is the reason there was popular support for secession there was no racist conspiracy, and if you look at the laws of the states the north was far more racist, having strict and cruel manumission laws to keep black out of their states there were no such laws in the south until after the war
What you mean by "the South was not happy about being robbed", you mean the rich aristocratic plantation owners. Poor white southerners had nothing to gain from defending the plantation wealth. The rich southies were responsible of the backwardness and undevelopment of the South. But, lower class whites were fools, Lincoln was about to offer them plenty of land in the West, free soil for only white settlers, but they preferred to be cannon fodder than to be free soil settlers.
@powerdriller10 you seem to be very ignorant about not only the culture of the antebellum south but also the demographics of the antebellum south. although poor by today's standards most of the white population of the south were middle class yeoman farmers who were wealthier than the average northerner who worked in manufacturing, also the south was not backward, having a culture based on agriculture instead of industry doesn't make them backward it makes them different.
@powerdriller10 also the homestead act gave most of the land to railroads which had supported Lincoln and the republicans in return for land grants, subsidies, and special privileges. the land that wasn't given to Lincoln's corporate sponsors was given to northerners who were more likely to vote republican. I am trying really hard to be civil, but you seem more interested in disparaging the south and less in the truth of why the civil war happened and why those who fought did so.
The West frontier was enormous, Lincoln could not give most of it to the Rail Road Companies, that is absurd. And of course, The Government started giving land to Northeners, land of the North West. Besides, low class whites in the South did not even know the posibilities in the West, the southern aristocrats kept them under control and in ignorance of their best interests. West Virginians were not so fool.
@powerdriller10 I am well aware that it is impossible for Lincoln to give the entire west to railroad corporations was speaking specifically about the homestead acts, of the land that was given away almost all of it given to rail corporations and republican supporters. and your view of the south being full of poor and stupid whites is ridiculous. most southerners we scotch-Irish or ulsters scots and were extremely independent middle class yeoman farmers they were neither poor nor stupid.
@powerdriller10 I would also like to note that the last 4 southern states to secede only did so after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the seceding states, they refused to go to war against there neighbors or remain in a union that would raise an army against states that left in peace and had every legal and moral right to leave.
Dude I LOVE this video! For a few years now I always knew that the South were fighting for a just cause but lost, then when they lost they were portrayed as rebellious states fighting for the right of slavery.
@WinnerClyde The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
@liberalmike1994 "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land."
Actually it goes back before there were Democrats or Republicans. However, the Republicans of 1860 did not fight against constitutional rights. That's a hoax from the neo-confederates. Go read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. Also read Wood's Empire of Liberty. You'll see how things developed over time and took on a life of their own and why it was ultimately slavery that was the actual cause.
Now while you're at it, realize that the soldiers weren't fighting for slavery per se.
I be a black man an I thinks you right. I likes de south. I LUVS the WHITE WIMMENS. Think back then I could rut with one of them fine white ladies in the big dresses, likes I seen in the movies? Cin I date any fine white daughter out there? The white wimmens I gits are nice, but I likes em sweet and perty.
Excellent distortion of facts! The Morrill Tarrif was only passed in Congress after 7 Southern States had seceded in leaving the norhtern states in a position of majority. Furthermore, these states seceded before the innauguration of Lincoln in March of 1861. By your logic, Lincoln was able to pass a major tarrif without having a majority in either the house or the senate or even be the acting President at the time of these Southern state's secession from the union! Try fact checking you bigot!
If the North hadn't illegally freed our slaves and attacked us,we would have freed our slaves once we gained enough wealth to do so. We were a poor nation of farmers that wanted peace and freedom.
....not when the entire basis of your wealth relied on a slave labour system. You were a poor nation of farmers lead by a powerful and wealthy plantation elite who didn't want to undermine the basis of their wealth...slavery.
"If the North hadn't illegally freed our slaves"....you had no right owning them in the first place...and they were unlikely to free them as most southern preachers were calling slavery a divinely ordained institution.
@leeharveyosmosis ok so since we can both agree that the plantation owners owned the majority of the slaves,why would so many fight for the south?Because it was their home and they loved it and they didn't want a government oppressing them. Aww hell.I can't explain it to you.
I have to wonder what would have happened had the south freed the slaves prior to the war and paid them the pathetic wages factory workers in the north were making at the time.
If you really want to argue, try this. Remove the issue of slavery from the argument about what the South was mad at the North for. At that point there is no more argument. That's why it's about slavery. It was the issue that drove everything else before it. You either were going to have a free labor system in the West and North which meant the South would never be able to control the federal government again and that the most valued pieces of property in the South would no longer be property.
If you really want to argue, try this. Remove the issue of slavery from the argument about what the South was mad at the North for. At that point there is no more argument. That's why it's about slavery. It was the issue that drove everything else before it. You either were going to have a free labor system in the West and North which meant the South would never be able to control the federal government again and that the most valued pieces of property in the South would no longer be property.
None are more stupid than those who believe in anarchy which is what those who believe in the South fighting for state's rights are. The South fought for the right to preserve the ability to keep four million black slaves in slavery. Everything that is going on now with this argument is revolving around the South trying to escape the moral issue of slavery by cloaking it in a series of lies to deflect the truth. Those who believe in the South fighting for state's rights are slaves to a lie.
Nice lie about the Morrill Act which was not passed until 1862...a full year after the war had started. Also, the South ran the federal government for years. This is nothing more than the typical lies ran by the neo-Confederates trying to get away from the fact that the South fought and died for the right to keep black slaves in perpetual bondage. You're not using all the facts, just the ones that you can twist to suport your position.
@gloine36 talking about facts and twisting. it was the democrats that historically wanted the slave trade and segregation while republicans fought against it and constitutional rights.
Capt Carey F Grimes, Portsmouth Light Artillery CSA. Defender of Gosport veteran of the seven days campaign and Malvern Hill..unlimbered his battalion of three companies, four guns each above Pipers Farm on the Hagerstown Turnpike posted to drive the enemy back. While directing his batteries fire he was shot from his horse; to die on the field of honor 17 Sep 1862 Sharpsburg, MD.
Deo Vindice
Such is my family's heritage in the War of Nothern Aggression ; The War Between the States
@Edmondcraft Upon being asked "why not let the South leave in peace?" he answered "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Abraham Lincoln 1861
@hebrew72 He not only said it, he said it several times. "But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
the founding fathers fought because of taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
the morrill tariff was a legal CONSTITUTIONAL tax thus voiding the claims to secession.
the rebellion over a tax was because the racist cotton farmers wanted to keep their business of slavery alive without looking for alternative means to provide income other than slave produced cotton.
if only 6% of southerners owned slaves yet slavery was still legal than it's pretty apparent that the majority of them were still racist.
slavery was ALWAYS the central issue in the debates. it's was the very reason we didn't want to annex texas because it would give slavery a bigger foothold and spread to the territories
the morril tariff was just an excuse for secession. the south really wanted to just keep their business of oppression alive
@baezalejandro your "very glad the south lost" and yet you don't like how people bow down to the federal govenement? well then wouldn't you be upset that those who refused to bow to the federal govenement lost instead of glad?
@flyingweasal007 I love and respect Robert E Lee because he believe in the PRINCIPLE of secession, as do I, but it's very apparent the the reason the South seceded was for corporate reasons and slavery.
the Morrill tarriff was a CONSTITUTIONAL tax which passed through both houses... so they had no reason to secede.
their refusal to look at alternative means of income and give up slave made cotton is why they seceded. the tax was just an excuse.
@baezalejandro Exactly! Plus the Tarriff was only passed after seven Southern States had seceeded giving up their control of both houses of the legislature. Don't forget, secession occurred before Lincoln was innaugurated. It was the spectre of Black Republican rule that terrified the Lower South and they left without challenging. Also, before this election the South absolutely dominated the executive branch of the government. Sour Grapes? History is debatable but dates and facts are not!
@flyingweasal007 slavery was always the central issue. that's why there was so much debate over the annexation of texas because the abolitionists didn't want slavery to gain a larger foothold and spread into the territories.
@flyingweasal007 the difference between the Confederacy and our Founding Fathers is that the Founding Fathers were fighting over taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
@baezalejandro so was the confederacy, and the founding fathers owned slaves as well but the english didn't make up some bull crap to invade they just took the bad rep and they were actualyl nice invaders compared to the masss murder of southern civilians (mostly black) by union "liberators" it's true look it up. Also the burning of many towns, homes, churches and schools.
@flyingweasal007 It's just like the auto industry and bankers like AIG... rather than let them just go bankrupt and have a new more efficient company replace them, we bailed them out "to protect the economy."
Did it do anything?? no. ppl are still losing their jobs and it just put a bandaid on a bullet wound so the Presidents and CEO's can keep their million dollar salaries.
@flyingweasal007 The Morrill Tariff played less prominently elsewhere in the South. In some portions of Virginia, secessionists promised a NEW protective tariff to assist the state's fledgling industries
@flyingweasal007 here's a line of SC's Declaration of Seccession talking about the North's refusal to return runaway slaves.
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
@baezalejandro i do not dispute that it actually says that, but like the video will tell you only 6% of the south owned slaves and most of them were wealthy politicians who didin't fight with the men who really wanted to stand against the federal govenment. How does that constitute mass murder of southern civilians black and white though? and if the norths true intentions were set on ending slavery then there wouldn't have been a war, no other country had a war to end slavery.
@flyingweasal007 again... if only 6% actually owned slaves it's pretty evident the majority were still non the less racists.
I'm not saying Sherman's total war was good I'm just saying they had no reason to rebel from a CONSTITUTIONAL tarriff.
although I do agree that slavery wasn't exactly the prime reason the North fought, (Lincoln & some Northerners didn't believe in secession PERIOD) it sure as hell was why the South seceded.
@baezalejandro Also it wasn't such a case of being unrepresented the natinon started divided between the anti-federalists in the south who wanted a weak federal govenement for fear of it becomeing too powerful and it did so they went to war with it. and federalists of the north who did want a strong federal govenement, thats what divided the nation not slavery and tensions only went from there. The war had nothing to do with slavery on either side.
@flyingweasal007 Robert E Lee was even critical at first of the Confederates but when they made it clear they were gonna force them back into the Union he stuck to protect his native state of Virginia because he believed in the PRINCIPLE of secession; as do I. I do not agree with the South's reasons for secession but then again I don't agree with Lincoln's interpretation that secession is never illegal either.
@baezalejandro i know why Robert E. Lee fought im a virginian myself. I don't agree with with slavery neither did he and as for succession it wasn't a matter of that, the south felt the federal govenement had become too powerful and corrupt (the next years prooved that it had) so they left the union and made their own country. there wouldn't have been a war if not for the confrontation at fort sumpter and neither president was informed of the situation colonels on both sides made mistakes.
@flyingweasal007 well I don't think a confederation where they outright say that slavery was their constitutional right in their declaration is any better than the federal government.
@baezalejandro the constitution of the of the untied statesof america doesn't have the word slave or slavery in any part of it and the confederate constitution is almost identical although i can't say for sure if it does take a stand on slavery or not.
@flyingweasal007 "No person held to service or labor in one State, UNDER THE LAWS THEREOF, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
meaning any person under "labor" whether it be slavery or indentured servitude is to be returned back to the state from which he escaped.
@flyingweasal007 The confederate constitution is explicit on slavery. The biggest differences though are more limits on the central government, explicit right of states to secede/nullify laws, a line item veto for the president. A limit of one 6 year term for the president, and all infrastructure projects to be paid for by those who use them (ie industry) rather than all taxpayers (the South had been soaked to pay for northern infrastructure). Other than that its identical.
lincoln was known to be a closet homosexual and prayed upon young political enterns that looked up to him. also the staff knew that he was sleeping with a black servant. whenever his wife was gone he would slip down to sleep with this man. maybe that does not make him a bad man. however he was a murderer of both south and north, he was the one most responsible for the deaths of at least 680,000 americans. by his order. he also knew and ordered shermans killing of women and children.
Of course there was riots in the North when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The Northerners thought that they had been fighting to reunite the Union when the war started and felt pretty tricked by Lincoln, an abolitionist. The war was not about slavery. I have a question:how many southern civilians were killed by the Union army?
@REvenzo2 there were many killed in my beloved state of tennessee. suggested reading is jack henson one mans war a true history of the civil war and how the poor civilians were treated at the hands of lincolns hate filled murderous army of the north. preachers were burned alive, farmers children were beheaded,their heads placed on the families front porch. rapes slaves raped and burned alive by union soldiers in dover,tn. and above the southern raiders only responed to the attacks on us.livefree
its pride in where we are from its not a hate thig its heritage proud that we can stand for what we belive in and not care what others think its not over race religion or creed its about pride and tradition i thank god im an american but if you ask me im a southerner and even more proud of that if you dont know why we stand by our flag then yall need a history lesson
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Yes you're right, all Declarations are all that EXCUSES. A state needs to be recognized by other nations to exist. To be recognized it helps to show you have a just cause. Fyi, the founding fathers specifically cut out portions of Jefferson's original document that could've offended France, because they wanted France to recognize them. No nation ever recognized the Confederate States. So really they were never a sovereign nation, more like a rioting region.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy What a ridiculous statement..so how do you know what they were fighting for if it doesn't matter what they tell us? The Declarations don't even matter, then or now, it's just a bunch of excuses to justify their leaving. They couldn't just say "We're leaving because we don't like the president that was democratically elected, because he represents a party that wants to take away the slaves that god gave us, even though he's said he wont free them." That would cause a war...
@LittleChicagoLiturgy All the Declarations list various reasons because they're all modeled after the American Declaration of Independence. These declarations are basically the state's justifying their secession to the rest of the world. Just like the original Declaration in 1776. The excerpt I quoted clearly lists the North's desire to free slaves as a reason. What about the Florida excerpt? Did you want me to read the other states cause i'm willing to bet they mention slavery as a cause too.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy "The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise." -Florida Declaration of Secession. (NOTE: this excerpt is historically false, the North/Lincoln tried to compromise, the Corwin Amendment would've let the South keep their slaves). Shall I bother reading the others? or is "many" good enough?
Honestly, you neo-confederates are just to easy. You don't seem to realize that facts come from history books written by a team of professors and phd's who spend years researching. You're not gonna be able to stand up to them with crap pulled off * secessionist blog sites or for that matter, the internet.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy The whole nation's economy was in bad shape because of something called the Panic of 1857 which was a result of having the LOWEST TAX RATE IN THE WORLD. The Morrill Tariff changed the rate from 17%-26% both of which are ridiculously low. As for corporations, please, this was 1860, how many corporations were there? Like 50-100. This is also way before most corporate legal and tax benefits. (P.S. first time I've ever heard someone blame the corporations, congratulations.)
@LittleChicagoLiturgy "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."-Texas Declaration of Secession. I suggest you reread it the word slave appears 25 times. And it defines the two sides by the "non-slaveholding" and the slaveholding.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy There was more than 2. I no longer have my history books so I can't tell you but I remember Texas was one. I'll have to look for the others. And I did say Constitution in my last post when I meant Declaration. But all the states constitution protected slavery INCLUDING the CSA Constitution. If what you say about Lincoln is true though, what in particular were the fearful of? And more importantly, why did 7 states secede before Lincoln ever stepped into office?
Many Confederate State Constitution's specifically mention slavery as to why they seceded. And all of them had specific Amendments protecting slavery. The Civil War was undeniably all about the issue of slavery. Other reasons people say for secession such as economic and states rights are largely bullshit and weren't thought up until they had already succeeded and needed to justify themselves.
The South succeeded because the Republican party had gained the presidency, the Republican party at this time was a brand new Northern abolitionist party. Before his presidency Lincoln had no politically importance whatsoever and in no way could he have possibly affected the South. What got him elected (and what pissed of the South) was a series of debates with Stephen Douglas in which he completely obliterated this idea that slavery was a divine right. The South was so appalled they succeeded.
And lets clear up your' misconception of "The Cause." The LOST Cause had no involvement in the Civil War or States rights. After the war, during reconstruction The Lost Cause was what the south referred to as restoring themselves to pre-war status, explaining why they lost (religion), and remembering their heroes (statues/memorials). The Lost Cause was opposite Reconstruction. Make sense? In a sense you should be proud. Reconstruction failed, and even today The Confederacy remains popular.
To understand why slavery was so important to southerner's despite the fact that few ever owned slaves you have to understand the class system. During the Antebellum South you had the "Incredibly Rich" (Richest in the world in fact), the poor, and the slaves. The poor, though destitute, were their own persons (*kinda*) and in all cases came above a slave. So it was in the poor's interest to keep slavery alive. There has to be a lower class, and so slavery was an easy choice to make for the poor.
Just curious, did any of you pro-Confederates pass high school? Lets look at the dates. Morrill Tariff adopted March 2 1861; Abraham Lincoln assumed office March 4 1861. That's right, the Morrill Tariff was signed by Democratic (Pro South Party) president James Buchanan. Surprised, well you're about to shit yourself. (FACT):7 out of 11 states succeeded before Lincoln even assumed office. (FACT): War began only after the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.
Davis had a black son... her mother was a slave... he raped her mother... and now he had a black son... he treated him well to appeal to the public, otherwise he would have put him on the auction block
By the way, the tax was so that the US economy would do better, more manufacturing. The tax wasn't there to bankrupt the Southerners, it only made the super-rich planters lose a little money on their silk clothing.
@REvenzo2 Wrong. The tariff was installed to give advantage to northern industrialists so they could build up industry because otherwise they couldn't compete against Britain and other countries' industry. The South was to serve as a captive market and pay higher prices for manufactured goods while at the same time losing sales abroad as other countries imposed retaliatory tariffs and most exports came from the South-it wasn't just "super rich planters" who paid the price in the South.
Not sure where your knowledge of the Immediate causes came from, I suggest you not trust it for factual data. Slavery was the only cause stated is ludicrous and shallow as to the definitive manner in which it was being applied as cause. The States quickly adopted this? 4 states sighted the economic factors of slavery & ZERO sited it in the legal Ordinances of Secession. You also fail to explain the 5 slave states in the Union sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html#crisise
@RebelGuy95 - yes but even though it is immoral, slavery was considered a right for the people and since the southern representatives were the minority, the only way to hold some control in the congress was to have more slave states so they would have more representatives.
Funny how nobody ever aknowledges the 70,000 black confederates, 40% of which were free.
@Holyjunker, nobody was questioning the Southern American citizen's right to own a slave. Their problem was the lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and the mere possibility that they would lose political clout....to advance their favorite institution, as you just stated.
As for black confederates, the Confederate Congress did not authorize their armament until 1865...although some were sent *unofficially* to fight along with their masters, etc. Could you cite a scholarly text?
@RebelGuy95 You might want to read a little of Fredrick Douglas. He rendered profound insight into the fact of the Black Confederates.The issue of Slavery was strictly political, and not societal in nature among the average Southerners.The undisputed fact that 94% of southerners never owned slaves, or a direct vested interest in that institution. Many things occured outside of the official sanctions of the CSA gov. Remember the issue of States Rights,States also acted idependently
@okhicksnc1, lol. Only about 7% of Southerners owned the nearly 4,000,000 slaves, but they are not the only beneficiaries, genius. They had spouses, children, and Southerners that were too poor to own a slave still rented them for labor. At least ¾ of Southerners directly benefitted from African enslavement.
Several of the Southern legislatures issued Declarations of Secession....they said it was all about slavery, not me!
Further, it was societal...KKK and 58+ years of segregation...?
Don't forget the northern mills, clothes makers, hell clothes wearers, and anyone who used cotton. At least 75% of the US population at the time benefited from it.
"KKK and 58+ years of segregation...?"
The kkk spent 60 years in the north if you didn't know...
I was talking about the order to forcibly move people from the 4 counties. The U.S. Army alongside guerrillas murdered several hundred of the homeless that couldn't prove their loyalty of North.
I never denied that the nation was virtually founded on slave labor.
The KKK began in the South and actually died in less than 10 years after its creation for around 30 years after federal investigations, until 1915. Again, it was reignited in the deep South.
I agree that slavery wasn't the reason for the war...however three things bothered me about this.
1. Confederates attacked first
2. There was no intention of ending slavery by southerners
3. Many slave-owners had black children, mostly to create more field hands not out of countering slavery.
wolfstar143 2 months ago
@wolfstar143 If these slavers were white, then I pretty much doubt any children they'd concept would be black.
Snagprophet 3 days ago
@Snagprophet During that time the law states that if you were 1/32 black you were black.
wolfstar143 2 days ago
tl;dr
redneckfag.
In the end you made this because you hate black people. And yes, slavery played an enormous part in starting the civilwar
futtgoredo 2 months ago
Looks like somebody needs to crack open a history book. Most of the major political controversies that led up to the war had to do with whether or not slavery would be allowed in the western territories. Also all of the secession declarations passed by the southern states (google them) specifically mention slavery as a cause for secession. The Confederate constitution is almost the same as the US one except it specifically protects slavery. Jeff Davis declared martial law just like Lincoln.
wolfpax22 2 months ago
It's so obvious that slavery played a major role (not the only role, but still a major one) in the civil war that i dont even have to explain it, the only reason southerners are denying it is because they actually feel guilty for enslaving an entire race.
carlsm95 3 months ago
Your comments are rubbish. Read South Carolina's official declaration of secession issued in December 1860. The entire document is nothing but a list of complaints about how the Northern states were not keeping the 'deal' made over slavery. There is NO mention of tariffs at all. These are the people who started the war - if you have better sources of southern sentiment please enlighten me.
celco77 4 months ago
Someone forgot the south was drafted before the union although it's true the war wasn't over slavery. It's taught very clearly even in that ken burns film it repeats it. the maker of this video acts like he's the first one to show these facts
NAEIRNBRUFORU 4 months ago
Also, the Morrill Tariff was too late to have a real effect. Although it could be argued the thought of it scared the southern states. BUT then why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession for the states not bring this up?! I am starting to lean towards maybe to Slavery was the main reason while the others were secondary. And explain the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens.
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
SunofAusterlitz1805 4 months ago
1. Why is it that Pro C.S people always rant on the Corwin Amendment, when in the C.S Constitution has the same thing as the Corwin Amendment.
2. If States' Rights was the cause why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession state they did not what Northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act?
3. States' Rights for what?
4. Why rant on Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus when the C.S Constitution allows that, in fact Davis did it too!
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
SunofAusterlitz1805 4 months ago
there was so many differant things fought about in the civil war, heirtage not hate!!!! God i hte when poeple wanna call it a racist flag!!!!
18apostolicalcoholic 5 months ago
LMAO
What southern sheeple
OF COURSE IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY
The south and their backwards ways have ruined America. Should of built a freakin wall after the war...
Hard to take ANYONE serious when they believe in a man in the clouds (that loves only them) and votes against their best interest economically...
holmeed 5 months ago
@holmeed i do not believe that it was about slavery at first, but then again, i was taught by a southerner in the state of alabama. i do know however that after the emancipation proclamation, it became about slavery because if the csa lost they would be required to free the slaves. being from the south, though, i can say that not all of us believe in an invisible man in the sky. and i certainly would not vote against my best interest economically. i hate the south, though. nice scenery, too hot.
atheistjacob 4 months ago
WOW... I learned something new today, thank you. I'm black, by the way.
thegreatjenova 5 months ago
Lincoln was one of our all time WORSE presidents. Argue if you like, but he makes Bush look like a peaceful man who respects the constitution...which is a joke also. Lincoln trampled on the constitution, freedom of press, and the individual liberties of all.
mugelerm 6 months ago in playlist truth about the {CSA}
Lincoln was the biggest racist in History. He even said that the territories out west were for white people only! Well documented phrase. The emancipation proclomation was made to keep the British and French from entering the war.
MrJpn1996 6 months ago
also, you cant legally suceed from the union. thats just not possible.
VoltismProductions 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions If you mean "secede" the answer is yes, you most certainly can. The entire concept of the US is that it was a voluntary union which left any debate not covered to be left up to the states. The CSA took a more peaceful route through secession than that originally suggested by Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, which would have been to tear down the centralized government and create a new one which does not violate the US Constitution as Lincoln's had.
VileIntentionsUS 6 months ago
@VileIntentionsUS There is a difference between taking down the government and turning it into a new one, and part of the country seceding.
VoltismProductions 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions Nothing you stated helps you factually back your original comment. The whole point of the U.S was that the states voluntarily came together. If a bunch of states came together because they felt their rights were being infringed and being overly tax ( Just like England did to the 13 colonies, remember? ) they had a moral right and legal one to secede, which they did and form their own government.
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@xKenseixX Actually, it did. We did originally come together, but eventually we came to rely on each other, as the world become more global. Don't get me started on confederate "morales".
VoltismProductions 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions You're acting retarded, can you please stop? Your opinion of "eventually we rely on each other and the world become more global" is irrelevant and makes zero sense. The North depended on South taxes to fund the large increase of the federal government, courtesy of Linclon. The South relied on the South. They exported their cash crop to Europe. So no, there wasn't much unity. The south had the lower population and made considerably more of the taxes. You're confused apparently
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions Your first point was invalid, so deal with it. You said legally seceding wasn't possible. That is false.
Don't get you started on confederate morale's? Are you an idiot. You realize only a small % of southerns owned slaves, right? Most didn't care if it stayed in tact, or if it did. So what moral road we going down here?
Lincoln supported a relocation plan of blacks since his early years, as did many others in North. He even represented a slave owner in court.
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions He had connections with slave owners, married a prominent slave owners daughter, never really gave a flying flip of discussing slavery until his first inauguration when it was already too late to attempt to calm southern issues. He SUPPORTED the indefinite slavery of blacks in south of the South promised to stay in the Union. He SAID the south would have a harder time keeping slavery out of the union than in. Hence, slavery not being the only/main issues for seceding.
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@xKenseixX was it the only issue, no. was it the main issue, yes. that and taxation.
VoltismProductions 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions That's all? One little sentence? It actually WASN'T the main issue. You're biased book reading is enjoyable to read, but wrong. 3/4 of Southerners didn't own slaves. Also, there was a division on leaving the Union on the case of the slavery issue. Some with slaves didn't think Lincoln being elected constituted leaving the Union, some thought it did. What garnered the separation support wildly, was the breaking of the insane taxation. Read the states declarations
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions Cont. - As slavery wasn't considered the huge main issue for all. It's cute how you try to agree, but interject that it was the MAIN issue, as if that helps your position at all. If it was the main issue, why not stay in the Union? Lincoln promised permanent slavery for the south if they stayed. He supported the re-capturing of slaves in the North. The prospects of slaves were concerning to only those small % of slave owners who didn't believe Lincoln. Taxation was main.
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions So now we sit here, with your comments and mine. Here we sit, with your apparently belief of some insanely terrible confederate Morales, which I've yet to see you list. As if the North was spot clean, which it wasn't, like I showed with Lincoln. Lincoln also used mercenaries and Sherman used Southem prisoners of war to clear mine fields outside Savannah. Lincoln also suspended Habeous Corpus and was a terrible president who increased the Federal Government.
xKenseixX 6 months ago
@xKenseixX two wrongs make a right? apprently? yes? he made mistakes, but calling him a bad president is just plain denying history. he preserved the union, and im sick of people being butthurt about something that happened lifetimes ago (not saying you are butthurt, but many are)
VoltismProductions 6 months ago
@VoltismProductions More useless non-factual information. You scream foul, and offer nothing in the opposite to back up your statement. I never said two wrongs make a right, I'm telling you the facts of history. Only an idiot applies 2011 moral standards to that time period. You're stuck in some retarded version of history that was approved by one sided idiots. If you actually go to college, you might get some more facts to this time period.
There is no butthurt troll, you provided no facts.
xKenseixX 5 months ago
@VoltismProductions Oh look, he preserved the union. Wow, can you get any more typical for the Lincoln lover crowd? First off, TALK ABOUT THE CONFEDERATE Morales. Answer that, since apparently they were so bad. Since like, all the South owned slaves, right bro?
Lincoln was a bad president, fact. He increased the taxes on south, way beyond it's already insane amount with the previous president. You had a small population paying almost half of everything.
xKenseixX 5 months ago
@xKenseixX wow, that english, grammar, spelling........are we now involved in a diatribe/discussion with a half-wit? Is there no spell-check for YouTube? By the way, does Morales have any morals?
WOW
TheTIMWING 4 months ago
@TheTIMWING Wowzor mister, you really provided clear cut rebuttals to your apparent butt hurt over a lack of reality when it comes to History in the U.S. I'm so............ ( <-- See what I did there) sorry I didn't take the time to look over all the numerous comments I made to fix grammatical errors and anything else that bothers you so.
A half-wit would be a person, such as yourself, who responds with no facts, uses baseless attacks to prove a point and never responds to again. Can't wait!
xKenseixX 4 months ago
@VoltismProductions Of course he wanted to keep the Union together. How else was he to fund the federal government and the increase of infrastructural activity inn the North. It was being funded by the South you bloody fool. The government would be broke with out the South.
He did nothing about concerns of the South until Inauguration. He then offered the South PERMANENT slavery if they stayed in the Union.
You're a joke kid, you know nothing of this time period. Saving the Union? Sure thing.
xKenseixX 5 months ago
@VoltismProductions 1. Can't prove where states can't leave union 2. Can't provide apparently moral issues with confederate Morales which you got so butt hurt over. 3. Only can defend Lincoln by stating he saved the Union, as if all the terrible things he did apparently get nullified by the union be together at the end.
Well done. Now fuck off and don't bother me anymore.
xKenseixX 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xKenseixX inbreds piss me off. you say im butthurt? im not the one butthurt about a war that happened over a century ago. "Can't prove where states can't leave union" go to fucking school. "Only can defend Lincoln by stating he saved the Union, as if all the terrible things he did apparently get nullified by the union be together at the end." thats it im done listening to you dumb shit, go roll in mud or something.
VoltismProductions 5 months ago
ratings have been disabled, interesting... jefferson davis or robert e lee said that the cause of the confederacy was the supremacy of the white man over the black man. nuf said.
VoltismProductions 6 months ago
LET'S SAY LINCOLN ALLOWS SECESSION, WHEN, IF EVER, WOULD THE SOUTH ABOLISH SLAVERY ON ITS OWN TERMS? 10 YEARS? 20? 100 YEARS? CAN YOU IMAGINE SLAVERY INTO THE MODERN ERA? GERMANY AND JAPAN WOULD ENSLAVE ALL AMERICANS AND THEN STATES RIGHTS WOULD BE COMPLETELY MOOT, IF NOT ALREADY. LOOKING AT THE KKK AND JIM CROW, IT TOOK 100 YEARS BEFORE MLK GOT CIVIL RIGHTS. THEN HE WAS SHOT. STATES RIGHTS MAY BE THE 'COMPANY LINE' BUT ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IS THE CENTRAL CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
xhongnoi 7 months ago
@xhongnoi Read your history! Obviously you believe stupidity, you fool! The Emancipation Proclamation only freed some slaves in certain areas....NOT ALL SLAVES EVERYWHERE IN THE US! GO READ IT! That was strategy by the north to help them win, everyone thinks the north was filled with good hearted samaritans and human rights activists, BS! There were slaves in NY up until 1869 which is documented by the Smithsonian. Guess what, General Grant freed his slaves 3 years AFTER the war ended!
tBusket 7 months ago 17
@xhongnoi Yeah... whatever you say. Everyone's gripe with Lincoln - who received less than 40% of the popular vote - was that he violated the Constitution - repeatedly. This is why certain members of his own party supported his execution. The regime he started ruined everything.
Abraham Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,"
Ulysses S. Grant: "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
VileIntentionsUS 6 months ago
THIS VID IS SPIN AT THAT TIME 1 NEW FREE STATE ADDED REQUIRED 1 SLAVE STATE ADDED TO BALANCE POLITICAL POWER. ABE LINCOLN WAS AGAINST THIS AND WAS A SYMBOL OF ABOLITIONISM. THE SOUTH NEEDED SLAVERY AND IN DESPAIR SECEEDED RIGHT AFTER LINCOLNS ELECTED AND STOLE FEDERAL ARMORIES GUNS AND CANONS. IN ORDER TO HAVE SOLDIERS AND POPULAR SUPPORT FOR CIVIL WAR THE SOUTH DECLARED STATES RIGHTS AND SLAVERY AS REASONING. IT WAS A LIE CAUSED BY AN ADDICTION TO SLAVERY. CONFEDERATES WENT ON TO BE KKKJIMCROW
xhongnoi 7 months ago
The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union didn't even mention tariffs.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
"They [the founding fathers] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races . . . Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 MORAL CONDITION."
-Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA
Speech given at Savannah, Georgia 1861
erichollywood2002 7 months ago
I just don't see the rational for firing on Ft. Sumter after Southern states had seceded and at that point de facto had control of their own affairs. There were no Union troops no effective Union authority in the South nor a blockade in April 1861 and Lincoln was in office for only several weeks. It seems me to that a few hotheads in SC precipitated the fight. We can argue that it might have been inevitable but we can't argue about who fired the first shot.
1276epr 8 months ago
@1276epr Yea, we can argue about who fired the first shot. There are accounts of a false flag operation by the north. The south didn't want to fight a war they knew they couldn't win.
MandyVin17 6 months ago
@MandyVin17 wow that's a unique theory I've never heard before. but I'm not denying that Lincoln should have evacuated the fort. the Union had already lost arsenals, mints, courthouses, customs houses, naval facilities, etc......what was one more fort?. But he had hotheads to deal with up north too. The whole country needed to take a break from inflammatory rhetoric.
1276epr 6 months ago
@MandyVin17 They didn't "know the couldn't win" they didn't want to fight because war is horrible. They sent diplomats to the north about buying the federal land still in the south and did what they could to do the PROPER way to secession. For Sumter the south fired shots, but harmed no one. In response to this, the north demanded 70,000 troops from Virginia to attack the south, that is when the more states seceded. The north was most definitely the aggressor. No arguing needed.
mugelerm 6 months ago in playlist truth about the {CSA}
All I have to say is fuck federal government. The human race should not be ruled by stupid politicians who care nothing for the well being of the common american. It's not fair to those of us who wish to live our lives in freedom.
"The smartest way to enslave a person(s) is the make them think they are free."
Forora 8 months ago
Well, the South lost. It is time to quit hating those "Yankees" as you call them, most of who have been dead for a hundred years and move right along. The USA is a much stronger country as a whole instead of one splintered into two nations or broken up into several small state-nations
Bumper776 8 months ago
@Bumper776 WE do not hate anyone and i must say the southern way is not about slavery under 10% of southerners owned slaves and they all were not African American I as a southern man still agree that the states should have the rights to govern their people of the state were federal government should only act upon an incident that involves more than one state in dispute we did not fight for slavery it was part of america since the beginning for over 80 years! States rights vs Federal government.
MrDrsfm 8 months ago
"If I thought this war was over slavery I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side" US Grant
Andrew Johnson was a run-away bond slave from N. Carolina
Lincoln won the 1860 election with 42% of the votes and wasn't on the ballot in 10 Southern States.
26% of Free Blacks in Louisiana owned slaves in 1860, 13% of whites in Louisiana owned slaves in 1860.
The USA is not a country, we are a federation of states, a union (USA)
The president gives the state of the union.
brainerdrebel 8 months ago
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Edmondcraft 8 months ago
The Morrill Tariff was imposed to northerners too, and northerners paid more because were four times as many as southerners. The problem was that Fed budget was directed to northern infrastructure and that brits and french increased their import taxes from the USA every time the americans increased theirs. But, really, only the cotton owners were really hurt by taxes. These rich owners tricked the semi-barbaric and racist lower class southies to fight and die for the cotton cause.
powerdriller10 8 months ago
@powerdriller10 Semi barbaric and racist? stereotyping southerners like that is almost as bad as racism.
LULWUTMAN 7 months ago
@LULWUTMAN
Poor white farmers in the South did not gain from the cotton business or from the slavery traffic, were not affected by the import tariff, they could gain much for the opening of the West as free and only white as Lincoln proposed. However, they accepted to become cannon fodder for defending the plantation owners interest. Why? because they were uneducated, semi-barbaric provincialist and extremely racist; features that the rich southerns used to goad them to war.
powerdriller10 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 The way in which you allow yourself to be manipulated by your government may lead people to consider your culture as "barbaric". That makes you no different from the stereotypical white, poor, barbaric, "racist" southerners. Please show some respect to the lower class southerners who lost their lives because of the tyranny of rich men. I am not a supporter of slavery, nor am i a supporter of racism. But still, i belive that the north was unjust in it's reasons for invading dixie.
LULWUTMAN 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 actually high tariffs hurt the poor the most because they cause the cost of all imports to increase making every thing more expensive, also farmers in the south and the Midwest made most of there income through exporting their crops to European nation so the the tariff hit them twice because it reduce the amount of money Europeans spent on American goods, the tariff did benefit wealthy industrialist in the north who protected from foreign competition.
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
@monkeyfire087
You are right on the high tariff being good for the Northern Industrialist. But where they really bad for poor southern farmers ? They could not buy Paris stylish clothing anyway, and you are wrong with the idea of poor southern farmers being able to export anything to Europe, the only southerns that exported were the tobbaco and cotton plantation owners. Northern Farmers did not complain against the tariff. Tariffs was not the cause of resentment, it is a lie to say so.
powerdriller10 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 actually there was heavy resistance to the tariff in the Midwest, the Midwest was also where most of the anti-war movement was, and actually most farmers both in the Midwest and the south shipped their goods down the Mississippi to New Orleans where it was then shipped to Europe. and although there were twice as many northerners there were more southern farmers because the south was an entirely agrarian society, southerners were 30% of the population put they paid 80% of the tax.
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 it is also worth noting that most of the federal budget was being spent on internal improvements in the north, the south was not happy about being robbed for corporate welfare in the north this is the reason there was popular support for secession there was no racist conspiracy, and if you look at the laws of the states the north was far more racist, having strict and cruel manumission laws to keep black out of their states there were no such laws in the south until after the war
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
@monkeyfire087
What you mean by "the South was not happy about being robbed", you mean the rich aristocratic plantation owners. Poor white southerners had nothing to gain from defending the plantation wealth. The rich southies were responsible of the backwardness and undevelopment of the South. But, lower class whites were fools, Lincoln was about to offer them plenty of land in the West, free soil for only white settlers, but they preferred to be cannon fodder than to be free soil settlers.
powerdriller10 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 you seem to be very ignorant about not only the culture of the antebellum south but also the demographics of the antebellum south. although poor by today's standards most of the white population of the south were middle class yeoman farmers who were wealthier than the average northerner who worked in manufacturing, also the south was not backward, having a culture based on agriculture instead of industry doesn't make them backward it makes them different.
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 also the homestead act gave most of the land to railroads which had supported Lincoln and the republicans in return for land grants, subsidies, and special privileges. the land that wasn't given to Lincoln's corporate sponsors was given to northerners who were more likely to vote republican. I am trying really hard to be civil, but you seem more interested in disparaging the south and less in the truth of why the civil war happened and why those who fought did so.
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
@monkeyfire087
The West frontier was enormous, Lincoln could not give most of it to the Rail Road Companies, that is absurd. And of course, The Government started giving land to Northeners, land of the North West. Besides, low class whites in the South did not even know the posibilities in the West, the southern aristocrats kept them under control and in ignorance of their best interests. West Virginians were not so fool.
powerdriller10 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 I am well aware that it is impossible for Lincoln to give the entire west to railroad corporations was speaking specifically about the homestead acts, of the land that was given away almost all of it given to rail corporations and republican supporters. and your view of the south being full of poor and stupid whites is ridiculous. most southerners we scotch-Irish or ulsters scots and were extremely independent middle class yeoman farmers they were neither poor nor stupid.
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
@powerdriller10 I would also like to note that the last 4 southern states to secede only did so after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the seceding states, they refused to go to war against there neighbors or remain in a union that would raise an army against states that left in peace and had every legal and moral right to leave.
monkeyfire087 7 months ago
It took over a 100 years for the truth...bout damn time!
zombie2wo 8 months ago
buchanan passed the morril tariff before lincoln took office 7 states seceded before this act. please get the facts straight.
EBCHILL2 9 months ago
Dude I LOVE this video! For a few years now I always knew that the South were fighting for a just cause but lost, then when they lost they were portrayed as rebellious states fighting for the right of slavery.
WinnerClyde 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WinnerClyde The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Edmondcraft 8 months ago
@WinnerClyde the liberals had to justify their carpetbaggers and looting somehow!
TheTIMWING 4 months ago
The north made blacks work long hours with little pay hipacits ......... CSA |X|
RANDCGAMEING 9 months ago
CSA [x]
RANDCGAMEING 9 months ago
"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
-Texas Declaration of causes for succession.
liberalmike1994 9 months ago
@liberalmike1994 "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land."
Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1864
xtremejohnny69 9 months ago
Actually it goes back before there were Democrats or Republicans. However, the Republicans of 1860 did not fight against constitutional rights. That's a hoax from the neo-confederates. Go read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. Also read Wood's Empire of Liberty. You'll see how things developed over time and took on a life of their own and why it was ultimately slavery that was the actual cause.
Now while you're at it, realize that the soldiers weren't fighting for slavery per se.
gloine36 10 months ago
I be a black man an I thinks you right. I likes de south. I LUVS the WHITE WIMMENS. Think back then I could rut with one of them fine white ladies in the big dresses, likes I seen in the movies? Cin I date any fine white daughter out there? The white wimmens I gits are nice, but I likes em sweet and perty.
PuddlesMcNiggley 11 months ago
Excellent distortion of facts! The Morrill Tarrif was only passed in Congress after 7 Southern States had seceded in leaving the norhtern states in a position of majority. Furthermore, these states seceded before the innauguration of Lincoln in March of 1861. By your logic, Lincoln was able to pass a major tarrif without having a majority in either the house or the senate or even be the acting President at the time of these Southern state's secession from the union! Try fact checking you bigot!
hebrew72 11 months ago
If the North hadn't illegally freed our slaves and attacked us,we would have freed our slaves once we gained enough wealth to do so. We were a poor nation of farmers that wanted peace and freedom.
sarge958 11 months ago
@sarge958
....not when the entire basis of your wealth relied on a slave labour system. You were a poor nation of farmers lead by a powerful and wealthy plantation elite who didn't want to undermine the basis of their wealth...slavery.
"If the North hadn't illegally freed our slaves"....you had no right owning them in the first place...and they were unlikely to free them as most southern preachers were calling slavery a divinely ordained institution.
leeharveyosmosis 10 months ago
@leeharveyosmosis ok so since we can both agree that the plantation owners owned the majority of the slaves,why would so many fight for the south?Because it was their home and they loved it and they didn't want a government oppressing them. Aww hell.I can't explain it to you.
sarge958 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leeharveyosmosis A lot of the founding fathers had slaves. By your own words, men like our founding fathers had no right to seek freedom.
XConfederateSoldierX 10 months ago
I have to wonder what would have happened had the south freed the slaves prior to the war and paid them the pathetic wages factory workers in the north were making at the time.
snedly3c 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you really want to argue, try this. Remove the issue of slavery from the argument about what the South was mad at the North for. At that point there is no more argument. That's why it's about slavery. It was the issue that drove everything else before it. You either were going to have a free labor system in the West and North which meant the South would never be able to control the federal government again and that the most valued pieces of property in the South would no longer be property.
gloine36 11 months ago
If you really want to argue, try this. Remove the issue of slavery from the argument about what the South was mad at the North for. At that point there is no more argument. That's why it's about slavery. It was the issue that drove everything else before it. You either were going to have a free labor system in the West and North which meant the South would never be able to control the federal government again and that the most valued pieces of property in the South would no longer be property.
gloine36 11 months ago
None are more stupid than those who believe in anarchy which is what those who believe in the South fighting for state's rights are. The South fought for the right to preserve the ability to keep four million black slaves in slavery. Everything that is going on now with this argument is revolving around the South trying to escape the moral issue of slavery by cloaking it in a series of lies to deflect the truth. Those who believe in the South fighting for state's rights are slaves to a lie.
gloine36 11 months ago
Nice lie about the Morrill Act which was not passed until 1862...a full year after the war had started. Also, the South ran the federal government for years. This is nothing more than the typical lies ran by the neo-Confederates trying to get away from the fact that the South fought and died for the right to keep black slaves in perpetual bondage. You're not using all the facts, just the ones that you can twist to suport your position.
gloine36 11 months ago
@gloine36 "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely think they are Free."
brainerdrebel 11 months ago
@gloine36 talking about facts and twisting. it was the democrats that historically wanted the slave trade and segregation while republicans fought against it and constitutional rights.
XxM4RtyRxX 10 months ago
Capt Carey F Grimes, Portsmouth Light Artillery CSA. Defender of Gosport veteran of the seven days campaign and Malvern Hill..unlimbered his battalion of three companies, four guns each above Pipers Farm on the Hagerstown Turnpike posted to drive the enemy back. While directing his batteries fire he was shot from his horse; to die on the field of honor 17 Sep 1862 Sharpsburg, MD.
Deo Vindice
Such is my family's heritage in the War of Nothern Aggression ; The War Between the States
s6u6r6f6 1 year ago
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -
the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in
its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. "Its labor supplies
the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important
portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow
at commerce and civilization."
Edmondcraft 1 year ago
@Edmondcraft Upon being asked "why not let the South leave in peace?" he answered "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Abraham Lincoln 1861
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator Source for this quote?
hebrew72 11 months ago
@hebrew72 He not only said it, he said it several times. "But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
hungarygator 11 months ago
Great video! I just wish more people knew the actual truth instead of the over dramatic side published in books from the norths perspective!
Today this still is the mist debatable topic in the US!
cer184 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not to mention that map is completely WRONG.
Missouri and Kentucky and west virginia fought for the north.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not to mention that the map is completely WRONG.
Missouri, kentucky and west virginia fought for the north.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
not to mention that map is completely WRONG.
Missouri, kentucky and west virginia fought for the north.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
Comment removed
baezalejandro 1 year ago
the founding fathers fought because of taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
the morrill tariff was a legal CONSTITUTIONAL tax thus voiding the claims to secession.
the rebellion over a tax was because the racist cotton farmers wanted to keep their business of slavery alive without looking for alternative means to provide income other than slave produced cotton.
pure corporatism!
fuck that rebel flag!!
baezalejandro 1 year ago
if only 6% of southerners owned slaves yet slavery was still legal than it's pretty apparent that the majority of them were still racist.
slavery was ALWAYS the central issue in the debates. it's was the very reason we didn't want to annex texas because it would give slavery a bigger foothold and spread to the territories
the morril tariff was just an excuse for secession. the south really wanted to just keep their business of oppression alive
baezalejandro 1 year ago
was lincoln a bad person?
REvenzo2 1 year ago
@REvenzo2 the very reason we annexed texas is why we had a war with mexico so we could come up with an excuse to fight a war take their land.
soldiers even wrote in their memoirs saying how obvious it was that they were sent to the border to provoke a fight.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@REvenzo2 the only thing I really hate about Lincoln was that he didn't believe in the PRINCIPLE of secession.
he wasn't very anti-slavery. he wanted to end slavery but didn't believe they could co-exist and wanted to send them back to Africa.
but I'm still VERY glad the South lost.
the only real bad consequence of the war was that people became conditioned to bow down to the federal government
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro your "very glad the south lost" and yet you don't like how people bow down to the federal govenement? well then wouldn't you be upset that those who refused to bow to the federal govenement lost instead of glad?
flyingweasal007 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 I love and respect Robert E Lee because he believe in the PRINCIPLE of secession, as do I, but it's very apparent the the reason the South seceded was for corporate reasons and slavery.
the Morrill tarriff was a CONSTITUTIONAL tax which passed through both houses... so they had no reason to secede.
their refusal to look at alternative means of income and give up slave made cotton is why they seceded. the tax was just an excuse.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro Exactly! Plus the Tarriff was only passed after seven Southern States had seceeded giving up their control of both houses of the legislature. Don't forget, secession occurred before Lincoln was innaugurated. It was the spectre of Black Republican rule that terrified the Lower South and they left without challenging. Also, before this election the South absolutely dominated the executive branch of the government. Sour Grapes? History is debatable but dates and facts are not!
hebrew72 11 months ago
@hebrew72 finally somebody who has thier facts straight
EBCHILL2 9 months ago 7
@flyingweasal007 slavery was always the central issue. that's why there was so much debate over the annexation of texas because the abolitionists didn't want slavery to gain a larger foothold and spread into the territories.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 the difference between the Confederacy and our Founding Fathers is that the Founding Fathers were fighting over taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro so was the confederacy, and the founding fathers owned slaves as well but the english didn't make up some bull crap to invade they just took the bad rep and they were actualyl nice invaders compared to the masss murder of southern civilians (mostly black) by union "liberators" it's true look it up. Also the burning of many towns, homes, churches and schools.
flyingweasal007 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 I know about Sherman and his total war campaigns.
And no the confederacy wasn't fighting for the same reasons as the Founding Fathers, because they had a voice in Congress.
It took a couple of years but the South did eventually recover after the war and did just fine without slave made cotton and the tax in place.
whenever u hear someone bitch about a tarriff it's usually for corporate reasons.
People would of lined up to pay British taxes if they had a voice in Parliament.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 It's just like the auto industry and bankers like AIG... rather than let them just go bankrupt and have a new more efficient company replace them, we bailed them out "to protect the economy."
Did it do anything?? no. ppl are still losing their jobs and it just put a bandaid on a bullet wound so the Presidents and CEO's can keep their million dollar salaries.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 The Morrill Tariff played less prominently elsewhere in the South. In some portions of Virginia, secessionists promised a NEW protective tariff to assist the state's fledgling industries
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 here's a line of SC's Declaration of Seccession talking about the North's refusal to return runaway slaves.
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro i do not dispute that it actually says that, but like the video will tell you only 6% of the south owned slaves and most of them were wealthy politicians who didin't fight with the men who really wanted to stand against the federal govenment. How does that constitute mass murder of southern civilians black and white though? and if the norths true intentions were set on ending slavery then there wouldn't have been a war, no other country had a war to end slavery.
flyingweasal007 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 again... if only 6% actually owned slaves it's pretty evident the majority were still non the less racists.
I'm not saying Sherman's total war was good I'm just saying they had no reason to rebel from a CONSTITUTIONAL tarriff.
although I do agree that slavery wasn't exactly the prime reason the North fought, (Lincoln & some Northerners didn't believe in secession PERIOD) it sure as hell was why the South seceded.
they knew if they stuck around slavery would end.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro Also it wasn't such a case of being unrepresented the natinon started divided between the anti-federalists in the south who wanted a weak federal govenement for fear of it becomeing too powerful and it did so they went to war with it. and federalists of the north who did want a strong federal govenement, thats what divided the nation not slavery and tensions only went from there. The war had nothing to do with slavery on either side.
flyingweasal007 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 Robert E Lee was even critical at first of the Confederates but when they made it clear they were gonna force them back into the Union he stuck to protect his native state of Virginia because he believed in the PRINCIPLE of secession; as do I. I do not agree with the South's reasons for secession but then again I don't agree with Lincoln's interpretation that secession is never illegal either.
The Civil war is over-romanticized by both sides.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
Comment removed
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 oops, typo, I meant to say...
"I don't agree with Lincoln's interpretation that secession IS illegal either."
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro i know why Robert E. Lee fought im a virginian myself. I don't agree with with slavery neither did he and as for succession it wasn't a matter of that, the south felt the federal govenement had become too powerful and corrupt (the next years prooved that it had) so they left the union and made their own country. there wouldn't have been a war if not for the confrontation at fort sumpter and neither president was informed of the situation colonels on both sides made mistakes.
flyingweasal007 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 well I don't think a confederation where they outright say that slavery was their constitutional right in their declaration is any better than the federal government.
the past is the past but I'm sure glad they lost.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 it is overromanticized on by both sides though.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@baezalejandro the constitution of the of the untied statesof america doesn't have the word slave or slavery in any part of it and the confederate constitution is almost identical although i can't say for sure if it does take a stand on slavery or not.
flyingweasal007 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 "No person held to service or labor in one State, UNDER THE LAWS THEREOF, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
meaning any person under "labor" whether it be slavery or indentured servitude is to be returned back to the state from which he escaped.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 also, ever heard of the 3/5th's Clause?
that sure as hell wasn't put in their for indentured servants. that was PURELY for slaves.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 we can play semantics all day long but the South's intentions were clear.
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@flyingweasal007 The confederate constitution is explicit on slavery. The biggest differences though are more limits on the central government, explicit right of states to secede/nullify laws, a line item veto for the president. A limit of one 6 year term for the president, and all infrastructure projects to be paid for by those who use them (ie industry) rather than all taxpayers (the South had been soaked to pay for northern infrastructure). Other than that its identical.
hungarygator 1 year ago
There were 4 million slaves in the south before the Civil War. More than half the population of South Carolina was made up of slaves.
haymaker710 1 year ago
lincoln was known to be a closet homosexual and prayed upon young political enterns that looked up to him. also the staff knew that he was sleeping with a black servant. whenever his wife was gone he would slip down to sleep with this man. maybe that does not make him a bad man. however he was a murderer of both south and north, he was the one most responsible for the deaths of at least 680,000 americans. by his order. he also knew and ordered shermans killing of women and children.
live free
doversniper 1 year ago
Of course there was riots in the North when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The Northerners thought that they had been fighting to reunite the Union when the war started and felt pretty tricked by Lincoln, an abolitionist. The war was not about slavery. I have a question:how many southern civilians were killed by the Union army?
REvenzo2 1 year ago
@REvenzo2 there were many killed in my beloved state of tennessee. suggested reading is jack henson one mans war a true history of the civil war and how the poor civilians were treated at the hands of lincolns hate filled murderous army of the north. preachers were burned alive, farmers children were beheaded,their heads placed on the families front porch. rapes slaves raped and burned alive by union soldiers in dover,tn. and above the southern raiders only responed to the attacks on us.livefree
doversniper 1 year ago
@doversniper thanks, but was Lincoln a bad person?
REvenzo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its pride in where we are from its not a hate thig its heritage proud that we can stand for what we belive in and not care what others think its not over race religion or creed its about pride and tradition i thank god im an american but if you ask me im a southerner and even more proud of that if you dont know why we stand by our flag then yall need a history lesson
redneckcowboy1001 1 year ago
About 6% owned slaves. Now what were the other 94% fighting for? Get your common sense hats on. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out now.
UltimateAnonymous 1 year ago
Great Video but the south invaded the north first...if they had gone to the Supreme Court the United States would not be what it is today
MrsDrPeper 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy why do I get the sense you haven't learned anything from this..
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Yes you're right, all Declarations are all that EXCUSES. A state needs to be recognized by other nations to exist. To be recognized it helps to show you have a just cause. Fyi, the founding fathers specifically cut out portions of Jefferson's original document that could've offended France, because they wanted France to recognize them. No nation ever recognized the Confederate States. So really they were never a sovereign nation, more like a rioting region.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@stopdroplol1 Exactly, rioting region, like the 13 British american colonies were before 1781, at best.
Which boils down to the fact that right is founded on violence (in this case, a war won over GB)
061369317 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy What a ridiculous statement..so how do you know what they were fighting for if it doesn't matter what they tell us? The Declarations don't even matter, then or now, it's just a bunch of excuses to justify their leaving. They couldn't just say "We're leaving because we don't like the president that was democratically elected, because he represents a party that wants to take away the slaves that god gave us, even though he's said he wont free them." That would cause a war...
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy All the Declarations list various reasons because they're all modeled after the American Declaration of Independence. These declarations are basically the state's justifying their secession to the rest of the world. Just like the original Declaration in 1776. The excerpt I quoted clearly lists the North's desire to free slaves as a reason. What about the Florida excerpt? Did you want me to read the other states cause i'm willing to bet they mention slavery as a cause too.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy "The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise." -Florida Declaration of Secession. (NOTE: this excerpt is historically false, the North/Lincoln tried to compromise, the Corwin Amendment would've let the South keep their slaves). Shall I bother reading the others? or is "many" good enough?
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
Honestly, you neo-confederates are just to easy. You don't seem to realize that facts come from history books written by a team of professors and phd's who spend years researching. You're not gonna be able to stand up to them with crap pulled off * secessionist blog sites or for that matter, the internet.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy The whole nation's economy was in bad shape because of something called the Panic of 1857 which was a result of having the LOWEST TAX RATE IN THE WORLD. The Morrill Tariff changed the rate from 17%-26% both of which are ridiculously low. As for corporations, please, this was 1860, how many corporations were there? Like 50-100. This is also way before most corporate legal and tax benefits. (P.S. first time I've ever heard someone blame the corporations, congratulations.)
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."-Texas Declaration of Secession. I suggest you reread it the word slave appears 25 times. And it defines the two sides by the "non-slaveholding" and the slaveholding.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy There was more than 2. I no longer have my history books so I can't tell you but I remember Texas was one. I'll have to look for the others. And I did say Constitution in my last post when I meant Declaration. But all the states constitution protected slavery INCLUDING the CSA Constitution. If what you say about Lincoln is true though, what in particular were the fearful of? And more importantly, why did 7 states secede before Lincoln ever stepped into office?
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
Many Confederate State Constitution's specifically mention slavery as to why they seceded. And all of them had specific Amendments protecting slavery. The Civil War was undeniably all about the issue of slavery. Other reasons people say for secession such as economic and states rights are largely bullshit and weren't thought up until they had already succeeded and needed to justify themselves.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
The South succeeded because the Republican party had gained the presidency, the Republican party at this time was a brand new Northern abolitionist party. Before his presidency Lincoln had no politically importance whatsoever and in no way could he have possibly affected the South. What got him elected (and what pissed of the South) was a series of debates with Stephen Douglas in which he completely obliterated this idea that slavery was a divine right. The South was so appalled they succeeded.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
And lets clear up your' misconception of "The Cause." The LOST Cause had no involvement in the Civil War or States rights. After the war, during reconstruction The Lost Cause was what the south referred to as restoring themselves to pre-war status, explaining why they lost (religion), and remembering their heroes (statues/memorials). The Lost Cause was opposite Reconstruction. Make sense? In a sense you should be proud. Reconstruction failed, and even today The Confederacy remains popular.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
To understand why slavery was so important to southerner's despite the fact that few ever owned slaves you have to understand the class system. During the Antebellum South you had the "Incredibly Rich" (Richest in the world in fact), the poor, and the slaves. The poor, though destitute, were their own persons (*kinda*) and in all cases came above a slave. So it was in the poor's interest to keep slavery alive. There has to be a lower class, and so slavery was an easy choice to make for the poor.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
Just curious, did any of you pro-Confederates pass high school? Lets look at the dates. Morrill Tariff adopted March 2 1861; Abraham Lincoln assumed office March 4 1861. That's right, the Morrill Tariff was signed by Democratic (Pro South Party) president James Buchanan. Surprised, well you're about to shit yourself. (FACT):7 out of 11 states succeeded before Lincoln even assumed office. (FACT): War began only after the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.
stopdroplol1 1 year ago
Great video. I guess you played this music 'cause it was about the invaders.
followthemoney100 1 year ago
Davis had a black son... her mother was a slave... he raped her mother... and now he had a black son... he treated him well to appeal to the public, otherwise he would have put him on the auction block
REvenzo2 1 year ago
By the way, the tax was so that the US economy would do better, more manufacturing. The tax wasn't there to bankrupt the Southerners, it only made the super-rich planters lose a little money on their silk clothing.
REvenzo2 1 year ago
@REvenzo2 Wrong. The tariff was installed to give advantage to northern industrialists so they could build up industry because otherwise they couldn't compete against Britain and other countries' industry. The South was to serve as a captive market and pay higher prices for manufactured goods while at the same time losing sales abroad as other countries imposed retaliatory tariffs and most exports came from the South-it wasn't just "super rich planters" who paid the price in the South.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@DarkstarNV
Not sure where your knowledge of the Immediate causes came from, I suggest you not trust it for factual data. Slavery was the only cause stated is ludicrous and shallow as to the definitive manner in which it was being applied as cause. The States quickly adopted this? 4 states sighted the economic factors of slavery & ZERO sited it in the legal Ordinances of Secession. You also fail to explain the 5 slave states in the Union sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html#crisise
okhicksnc1 1 year ago
sources please.... not that i doubt this i just would like to study it myself
xST4RSCREAMx 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95 - yes but even though it is immoral, slavery was considered a right for the people and since the southern representatives were the minority, the only way to hold some control in the congress was to have more slave states so they would have more representatives.
Funny how nobody ever aknowledges the 70,000 black confederates, 40% of which were free.
Holyjunker 1 year ago
@Holyjunker, nobody was questioning the Southern American citizen's right to own a slave. Their problem was the lack of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and the mere possibility that they would lose political clout....to advance their favorite institution, as you just stated.
As for black confederates, the Confederate Congress did not authorize their armament until 1865...although some were sent *unofficially* to fight along with their masters, etc. Could you cite a scholarly text?
RebelGuy95 1 year ago 3
@RebelGuy95 You might want to read a little of Fredrick Douglas. He rendered profound insight into the fact of the Black Confederates.The issue of Slavery was strictly political, and not societal in nature among the average Southerners.The undisputed fact that 94% of southerners never owned slaves, or a direct vested interest in that institution. Many things occured outside of the official sanctions of the CSA gov. Remember the issue of States Rights,States also acted idependently
okhicksnc1 1 year ago
@okhicksnc1, lol. Only about 7% of Southerners owned the nearly 4,000,000 slaves, but they are not the only beneficiaries, genius. They had spouses, children, and Southerners that were too poor to own a slave still rented them for labor. At least ¾ of Southerners directly benefitted from African enslavement.
Several of the Southern legislatures issued Declarations of Secession....they said it was all about slavery, not me!
Further, it was societal...KKK and 58+ years of segregation...?
RebelGuy95 1 year ago 2
@RebelGuy95
"At least ¾ of Southerners"
Don't forget the northern mills, clothes makers, hell clothes wearers, and anyone who used cotton. At least 75% of the US population at the time benefited from it.
"KKK and 58+ years of segregation...?"
The kkk spent 60 years in the north if you didn't know...
And the north had just as much segregation.
TheBoberton 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95
Can you cite a scholarly text as to the nonexistence of them?
I can cite Dr. Lewis Steiner. Who can you cite?
TheBoberton 1 year ago
@TheBoberton, nonexistence of what?
I was talking about the order to forcibly move people from the 4 counties. The U.S. Army alongside guerrillas murdered several hundred of the homeless that couldn't prove their loyalty of North.
I never denied that the nation was virtually founded on slave labor.
The KKK began in the South and actually died in less than 10 years after its creation for around 30 years after federal investigations, until 1915. Again, it was reignited in the deep South.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago 4
@RebelGuy95
"nonexistence of what?"
Oh, I should have been more clear on that one. I was replying to one of your earlier posts about black Confederates.