History of Civil War (4/4)

Cause of the 1861-1865 Civil War

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Civil
• War
• Abraham
• Lincoln
• slavery
• slaves
• north
• south
• anarchism
• anarchist
• anton
• batey
• khydraa

[priapus512]

When did Ryan make these videos?

[finalfrontier001]

i disagree slavery was a big fact in the civil war you need to learn harder that would be a D grade :)

[rollotwomassey]

0:45-10:05- were you trying to say, difficult from your wording, that slaves actually voted and thereby increased the political power of Southern Democrats? The 3/5 compromise was designed to account for the fact that there were over 3 million black slaves in the South, but they were not actual citizens who could vote, but they did, in fact exist, so Southern states wanted to increase their congressional representation on that basis.

[tvcrunkfool]

@franconstanza yeah excactly thank you for seeing passed my poor spelling

[franconstanza]

... Besides, by the mid of the 19th century Britain and France had already started their own plantations of cotton in their colonies in Africa and Asia, and were importing their own cotton which was more competitive that the South's. Russia was also producing it in great quantities in its southern steppes and that was actually one of the reasons for the Crimean war.

Batey simply lies in order to sustain the revisionist vision of American history, which is as unsustainable as the CSA's mono-crop

[franconstanza]

... was no lomger sustainable.

While the North's industries and capacity for invention had been thriving for decades, the South was languishing with its single crop: cotton. Were it not for slavery, the production of cotton would have gone bust before the C.W. It is true that most of the South's exports would go to Europe, but it's also true that the survival of cotton in America was due to the North's industry's inventions (e.g. mills in Lowell, Mass.) ...

[franconstanza]

A couple of historical facts that show the fallacy of Mr. Batey's video:

1) The Bristich Queen that he calls Elizabeth was in fact Victoria;

2) At the time of the Civil War's outset, it was the South who was heavily subsidised. If there was any economic factor about tariffs and levies that was hurting the US economy was that the northern industries were paying taxes to maintain the southern ruling classes outdated way of life.

By the time the C.W. started the ecomomy in the South...

[franconstanza]

@tvcrunkfool This is not surprising. This pseudo-documentary is so ill-researched that it is surprising that it lasts so long. Even with the rambling and the repetition of comments like "I don't know, but it doesn't matter", it shouldn't have taken so long. The naming of "Elizabeth" as queen (I guess, as you did) instead of Victoria shows that this piece is not to be trusted at all.

[franconstanza]

This is crap and shows a total ignorance about history. Besides it is just a fundamentalist revision of history in order to deny historical truth. These pieces are in tune with the new interpretation of American history so popular today in some quarters in order to attack the unity of America. As a foreigner I awe at the stupidity of these people, who ---in order to attain immediate financial or political gains--- are willing to end with the Union.

[tvcrunkfool]

when you daid elizabeth did you mean victoria spaz