I wish I could view this great discussion twice but cannot with the pain-causing audio glitches. Will definitely read his books.

@thadtheman3751

6 ай бұрын

Download it.

*"To approach everything we study with a real sense of humility. (...) It's easier to be moraly superior to dead people. And u gain absolutely no insight from imagining that we're better."* Ain't that true.

@Billy-4

3 ай бұрын

I am not sure that’s true. Why do you think it is?

@brianniegemann4788

22 күн бұрын

Ansolutely right!

People are commenting on the poor audio quality but honestly I didn’t have an issue hearing any of it.

@Rain-Dirt

3 жыл бұрын

The issue is that it's extremely distracting (sabotaging) and thus requires a higher focus. Requires more energy as well :)

Incredibly masterful lecture about the deep complexities and doubled-sided viewpoints of the controversaries that led to national Civil War---despite the bizarre static that exists on audio track!

The antebellum South did not control all branches of the Federal government. The House of Representatives was controlled by Northerners almost from the beginning of The United States of America in 1780

You guys should really pay more attention to your recording process, i really love that you make these videos but its hard to watch when random loud malfunctioning keeps coming up to shatter my ear drums. The guy is recorded very quietly so you have to turn it up bit then it sounds like a fan keeps turning and hitting the Mic because it gets unbearably loud and it keeps happening every 30 seconds or so

@melodymaker135

Жыл бұрын

My gosh, you’re so right. Speaker is wonderful but this is beyond painful on headphones 😅

@steventhompson399

Жыл бұрын

Yeah it sounded awful, I don't know what the hell it was but it was very annoying

Professor Ayers you truly are the best and the most knowledgeable voice I have ever heard on this subject. I have learned more from you than Anyone. Wow you know your stuff! Thank you, thank you!

One of the best, if not the best, video on the politics of the civil war. It's obvious Ayers is a skilled historian with a deep passion for understanding and explaining history. I bought his book today.

Please can you upload a version where the anoying noise which is in the audio e.g.58:03,1:02:15 removed? It is all over the video the anoying noise. Thank you.

This lecture was definitely worth my time. The audio was bad in a couple spots, but really not that bad.

The most important parts of this video are incredibly hard to hear. Great information if you turn on the caption.

"As Emory Thomas, author of and a retired professor of history at the University of Georgia, puts it, “The heart and soul of the secession argument was slavery and race. Most white Southerners favored racial subordination, and they wanted to protect the status quo. They were concerned that the Lincoln administration would restrict slavery, and they were right.”

@collectivismkills

2 жыл бұрын

And I’m pretty sure that most northern white preferred racial subordination as well; there were riots in Boston against busing blacks into white schools in the 1970s! So the theory of the “tolerant north” is out. Lincoln would have curtailed slavery, but not on moral grounds, strictly in service to northern political and economic interests. The implication is always that the North acted entirely for altruistic reasons, which is the lie told often enough, and with enough gusto, that it becomes “truth”.

@tedosmond413

2 жыл бұрын

@@collectivismkills high school is no place to end one's education.

Great discussion but horrible audio.

Thank you. Can you please improve the audio?

Contrary to Ayres remarks, Abraham Lincoln would *not* have lost the 1860 Presidential election if the Democrat Party had not split. The total electoral votes won by the combined two wings of the Democrat Party *and* the Constitutional Union Party were less that those won by Lincoln alone. In short, Ayers provides his third factual error.

@bentrinker1937

2 ай бұрын

The Tarif was incredibly strong and popular with the working class. The democrats had the weaker platform headed into that election season. Also republicans moderated from 1856, know nothings and whigs coalesced around republicans, and Abe Lincoln had a V strong personal brand.

@ianoneal3543

3 күн бұрын

wouldn't have certain states been different in the election results if Abe was 1v1 verse only a single Democrat and yes I screwed that up but you get it

very interesting. I wish someone could fix the audio.

This guy did a superb job and kept it interesting. 👍🇺🇸

@elviopavanello2597

2 жыл бұрын

Nu

One thing is certain. The subject is very complex regardless of our personal viewpoints. Unpacking this beast requires deep dives into historical records.

i really wanted to watch this... Why in 2018 is the audio so bad to be literally unwatchable? Why is this guy on a computer with Windows 98?

Turn up the volume!!!!!

This seems to be saying that this war was like all wars - over money. Surely this guy's argument stands up when you look at what happened after the war. The ex slave states were allowed to run segregated communities. And this moral outrage wasn't corrected if I remember correctly until the 1960's.

@SandfordSmythe

2 жыл бұрын

The word "allowed" got me thinking about how "allowed" usually implies an active choice, and it was mostly that other things became more important to the politicians. But the result is the same.

@kontious1

4 ай бұрын

Still not corrected

His comment about 1860 election is incorrect. If you go state by state and add up the vote share of Northern Dem and Southern Dem candidates into one unified candidate, Lincoln would still have won a narrow majority in the electoral college.

@jaichind

2 жыл бұрын

In fact, even if the Constitutional Union party merged into a United Dem party Lincoln would have still won. Lincoln won an absolute majority in VT MN MA ME RI MI NH WI PA IA CT NY OH IN IL which adds up to 169 EV out of 303 total EV.

Ayers is brilliant. You can sense that he really feels for the horrendous reality of his topic. It is so sad that such a meaningful lecture should be spoiled by a such a meaningless audio malfunction

Free labor? Lady just say "enslaved persons."

Why even post without checking the audio?’

Might be worth it to try to clean this up if there's a cheap and quick enough program or service.

Shout out to Mrs Belcher at 1:34.!!😂😂

Every American needs to watch this. Thank you, I was surprised to know that 95 percent of the North were farmers.

Exceptional and deeply engaging. Ayers is a fantastic teacher. There are a couple audio issues but they clear up so don’t be too dismayed.

@leahakel6383

2 жыл бұрын

Don't believe what he is saying. Do your own research with open mind.. I have!

The audio quality was terrible and I couldn't make out large portions of the audio due to static. What a shame because there were some interesting points presented from what I could hear.

At the end Ayers explains that President Lincoln wanted the 13th Amendment for ending slavery because he felt that if the war ended w/o it the only thing ending slavery was an Executive Order (the Emancipation Proclamation). When noting that the 13th Amendment passed in December 1865 Ayers fails to mention that ratification came only after eight of the former Confederate states ratified it.

@Yodie208

Жыл бұрын

Please read the Emancipation Proclamation, It is only a couple of pages, and no it did not end slavery.

@cliffpage7677

7 ай бұрын

Or more fully explained, were required to sign it to be readmitted and their Representatives and Senators seated in Congress. No contract or agreement is valid that is coerced or made under duress. A first understanding in all contract law. Grant and Lincoln had wanted peaceful and unconstrained reunification, but Congress operates under is own rules. The South wanted the Yankees to leave and to be left alone. Jefferson Davis and Lee both were willing to emancipate the slaves if the Yankees would just go home.

@SandfordSmythe

6 ай бұрын

@cliffpage7677 I don't think we are talking contract law here. I never heard of the South willing to emancipate their slaves.

pity that audio is terrible.

Very interesting on many levels. The way the explanation on history can change over time. I think it was Mark Twain who said “ it isn’t so much what you don’t know that hurts you as it is what you know for certain that just ain’t so.” So the old dominion was as about old as the suburbs. Love it!

@adriankelly900

2 жыл бұрын

Xufxyfxyfxyfxyfyxfxyfyfyfyfxyfxyfxyfyfxyfyfxyfxyfxyfyfxyfxyfxyfxyfyyfxyfxyfxy afsorpts

Such a shame. This is a fascinating discussion marred by dreadful audio. Sounds like the wireless mics are picking up interference.

If, as he says, slavery would have prospered along the Missouri River, why does he say only a moment later "that slavery was inefficient and could not compete with the North. . . "

@cliffpage7677

7 ай бұрын

Southern farmers and planters were the most efficient in the world and produced the most valuable crop in the world at the time - cotton.

Oh, I forgot to say I watched this video 3 time! It she be in every high school and college in America. It is that good. Sorry I just found it in 2024!

It might be a great lecture but I can't hear it

Great lecture ruined by poor audio.

Morocco declared the South outlaws and even captured a southern Confederate vessel.

Fix the audio... please!

Not recorded right.

I am interested in the Civil War and the Pre Civil War era. I read Herriet Beecher Stowe novel with such eyes, so three thoughts: 1. For me the most surprised thing was the author showed some positive characters from the Southern Society. I think she knew Henry Clay from Kentucky (BTW Lincoln’s political examplar) who was slave holder with about 52 slaves, but he fought in the border states for a step by step abolution! It may be the son of Eliza’s earlier master (Kentuckians) frees his slaves according to Hanry Clay’s idea in the end of the book. I think Harriet did not think her book would bring a War with 600-700 000 dead people (as Lincoln said her). I think the author thought a step by step abolution as solution, however (the worst USA law) the Stephen Douglas Kansas Nebraska law and the bleeding Kansas set put the country on a war footing. 2. The positive humanist characters in the Southern Sociaty whom the author wrote in the novel were example, that to be humanist is not solution in the slavery. As Eliza’s master he and his family could be humanist slave holders but some money problem compeled them to sell their slaves into a not humanist circumtances and Tom’s fate will be this in Lousiana. The slavery indepedently somebody is humanist or not humanist it can lead to inhumanity! 3. The book had enormouse effect to hold United Kingdom and France neutral during the Civil War. It may be some politician wanted to help the South for the cotton, but the simple people did not want to help slave holder civilization…..funny but Queen Victoria was pro unionist perhaps she read Harriet’s book???? I think the abolitionist history is deeper in North America. A French protestant refugee (huguenot) Jean-Étienne de Bénézet (later known as John Stephen Benezet) was founded the first abolitionist society in 1775. Benezet founded one of the world's first anti-slavery societies, the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage (after his death it was revived as the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery). Tom Paine wrote against the slavery in 1775. Benjamin Franklin was against the slavery. Their effect was enough to founded the slavery system free states in the USA from Main to Iowa. Funny the first abolitionist newspaper was founded in East Tenneessee Jonesborough in a slave system state. The Manumission Intelligencier was an abolitionist newspaper founded by Elihu Embree, a Quaker, in 1819. The British antislavery movement was more successful (Clarkson, Wedgwood and Wilbeforce begun in the XVIIIth Century) and UK abolished the slavery in 1836 and very important Canada inspired the Underground railway which brought Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel in 1852. Without the British 1836 I think Harriet would not have writen her novel...........… I think the antebellum USA was not so simple as industrial North and the slave work fundation South! I think the pre Civil War USA consisted of 5 (five) parts and North won because they had in stronger or weaker coalition with togheter 4 (four) parts of the USA. The 1st was the mainly industrial North East from Pennsylvania to New England indeed. The 2nd was the mainly agricultural Midwest from Ohio to Minnesota with farm ecomomy and Lincoln arrived from here. The 3d was the West from California, Oregon to Kansas, territories as Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico etc. Here the majority was unionists. The 4th part of USA was the states and areas in the South where the slave population was below 20%. The border states Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and the later West Virginia were these where the unionism had strong root. Here the Confederacy had a little support but the majority supported the unio. BTW the Confederacy had territories (generaly with low% slaves population out of Cotton Kingdom) where unionists lived in high density, as East Tenneessee and some counties in west and mid Tennessee, Ozark region in Arkansas, West part of North Carolina, Newbern port city in North Carolina. Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia had smaller bigger areas pro unionists. Except for South Carolina almost everywhere were bigger unionist communities. 1. The German invention from the 1780 years the sugarbeet sugar beet industry was brought in France with Napoleon in 1801. So France became the World biggest sugar producer in 1830-1840 FROM SUGARBEET. The sugarcane sugar import was less and less important for Europe years after years, because France, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Danemark, Italy became sugar independent from the slavery system sugar cane. So some sugarcane coutries as Brasil (Egypt, India) had to look for new plant and the Civil War brought the cotton market! 2. The United Kingdom diplomacy thought from 1856 the Civil War would start in USA soon and the British consuls began to give free of charge cotton seed to the agricultural people in the Turkish Empire port cities FROM 1857, four years befor the Civil War!!!!!! It might be the British diplomacy did same in Egypt and Brasil! The British colonial administration in INDIA could have done this too. 3. The Industrial revolution leading branch was the cotton industry and the wool + flax industries were behind the cotton industry. A shorter cotton shortage could help the flax and the wool industries. 4. Northern states could export wheat and corn to the World and the new cotton producer countries could buy wheat and corn and produce cotton instead of wheat and corn. The wheat producer Northern farmer with the MC cormick engines could produce wheat and corn without slaves! Abraham Lincoln first aim was the intact United States. However he was against the slavery from his young ages in Indiana. His first political speech was about the murder of Elijah P, Lovjoy in 1837. However Lincoln was not a simple man, he was politician. He detached everybodies who spoke about abolution in 1861 and in 1862. Cameron, Fremont, General Curtiss. Lincoln said for example about Fremont's manifesto in Missouri in 1861, that Fremont lost the 19% slave population Kentucky. When the USA Army hold the border states as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and the West Virgina was formed the abolution would be better fruit for the British and French public opinion and this could bring 300 000 colored soldiers for the triumph, so Lincoln stepped! Lincoln was politician and not a saint!

@nanouli6511

6 ай бұрын

Stowe never visited the south. Think about it.

@avenaoat

6 ай бұрын

@@nanouli6511 She was in Kentucky! Kentucky had higher % slave population when she was there. Between 1850 and 1860 Kentucky gave to Deep South 70 000 slaves and the slave population decreased under 20%.

@avenaoat

6 ай бұрын

@@nanouli6511 THIS EARLY BRICK GEORGIAN TOWNHOUSE sits inconspicuously in the historic downtown of Washington, Kentucky. The building now houses the Harriet Beecher Stowe, Slavery to Freedom Museum, but also goes by the name of the Marshall Key House. This early antebellum home would play a significant role in American history. The home was built in 1807 by Eli Metcalfe and in 1815, Metcalfe sold the home to Marshall Key. Marshall Key was the nephew of the first Supreme Court Justice of the United States, John Marshall. In 1833, a young teacher by the name of Harriet Beecher (before she was married and became Harriet Beecher Stowe), came to Washington, Kentucky to stay with her pupil, Elizabeth Marshall Key at the Marshall Key house. One day, Mr. Key, escorted Ms. Beecher down to the courthouse lawn where a slave auction was in progress. Ms. Beecher became so distressed over the horrible spectacle of the slave auction that she never forgot what she saw. In fact, this event affected her so much, that it inspired her almost 20 years later to write her anti-slavery book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852). Uncle Tom’s Cabin went on to not only become the second best selling book of the 19th century in America, but her book sparked the beginnings of events that would lead to the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln said upon meeting her, “So this is the little lady who started the big war.”

Per the National Park Service, the North produces 80% of the nation's wheat, yet Virginia is the largest producer of wheat?

“ Old granny’s “ he said, that’s is perfect, 🤩 I was thinking how his animated gestures, and the way he reminded me the Simmon’s girly man, and a old aunt of mine who was in her late 70’s or early 80’s😊, could he be an officer for combat, or a soldier or a sailor? 😢 Maybe 🤔 I wonder if this gentleman has ever used a simple pull start lawn mower? He says the South went to war to defend slavery. I disagree, I say they went to war, because they were invaded, by the Union, and they left the union to defend there right to make their own decisions, and choice’s, they left because, obviously they were not loved by their northern neighbors who were constantly even then as now, criticizing us, I mean,the South, and the situation they inherited. He seems to defend a crusade, but forget’s the South was not compensated, so it was a war measure of conquest, and destruction, and it’s not been settled obviously as a just cause for the fact, it is still needing and, having to defend itself, because of its failure to do the good job, that they did half ass, And has left 160 years of, social distancing, and social problems, and tensions. WHY ? The winner’s have caused such a great mess, and need to keep tooting the horn? What about the plans Indian’s war as it’s officially declared, as war of Rebellion? I contend that Southern’s black & white, probably would be ever & even closer than we literally are now, with out, there meddling, and interfering, and bullying, and nosing into our own minds, and certainly with their superior attitude towards us, and their declaration of war, and taking 4 of the bloodiest years in history, and their refusal to fight, civilized war, and by going on to “ Total War “ on “ American’s, and after wards and 157 years and the Reunited States and the amendment’s and their allies and conquest to continue, to give a cause of the horrors that they are more responsible for, bc it wasn’t as even today, for any citizen to be in another’s free choice of life style. Unless you are a “ Southerners” well that is👌You made “ The South “ special, keep it up 👍 You can definitely like it or not ! Is it not a fact ? So you can love it or not! lol you chicken hearted scallwag you caused more division today, by your defense of your whole time, you talked is about Slavery, yes it was about it, but not for it, as you are advocating, you are not, giving society, or it’s people anyway for change, growth, or progress, but the only way you certainly seem to be able to defend it. Abolish by death ☠️, and destruction, and bullying, by all or nothing. So can you be optimistic about other alternatives? A better turn out? A look back, to learn? WO the fingers always pointing to the south, in a manner of implying Evil? Please don’t deny you have not done this. Or take the challenge! I believe you are seeking attention and you are getting it. And I believe also you are a cowards coward, but you have more opportunity for rebuttal than I can offer, for my “ freedom has certain limits “ but I’ll publicly debate you! 😊 thank you for allowing me to comment on your sissy lecture. 😅 I’ll apologize when you deliver the whole truth wo your display of emotion’s that has, gave rise to to my own personal, use of the Bill of Right’s K ?

Too bad the audio sucks because this guy is awesome. Unwatchable due to audio

@Yausbro

Жыл бұрын

no it's not unwatchable but it is a brilliant lecture

Why is everyone whispering?🤨

The host microphone is picking interference or has shorted. Change microphone.

I'm sure it was edifying to be in there in the room, but this kind of discussion on lo-fi makes for dull viewing.

He just said it industrial vs agriculture

What is he talking about? By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South. Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats

Abbeville Institute I believe does a better job with facts. And the views of our forefathers. Jeffersonian America and Lincolnian America are very different. In today's world, it'd be like all you farmers must stop using your farm equipment and use robots. We the government will not pay you for either. I'd guess farmers would make a fight of that issue.

The War and end of slavery just happened... that's weak! There were International pressure to end slavery also.

Bad audio detracts from this talk.

First he says that 95% of all Americans are farmers then he says the South is 80% of America's economy, notwithstanding that it has only one-third of America's population, including slaves.

@teacopem

Жыл бұрын

Because they were more productive

@mrsnakesmrnot8499

5 ай бұрын

Because SLAVES were more productive. The monetary investment in slave capital was more than all other types of capital in the entire USA. Yes, more was invested in slaves than all other trains, railroads, canals, shipping, factories, tools, etc. COMBINED. The planter lobby which feared losing their expensive slave capital lost their minds when a presidential candidate won a clear majority, who for the first time in American presidential history wasn’t politically “in bed” with the planter class. Why can’t this host just say this. Plus, it wasn’t impossible to just end slavery, as he claims. The method in England worked. The French were able to do it too. This host sure likes to beat around the bush.

I take issue with one thing. The bible not saying that slavery is wrong. I seem to remember this guy named Moses.

How ironic is the noise present in this fellow’s lecture. It is worth a read provided you are supplied a very sharp pencil.

LOUDER PLEASE

awful sound

Can't watch this. Audio sucks. Too much focus on the body of the lecturer & not enough on the content on the power point. Another example of the reality of INCOMPETENCE ABOUNDS. exiting out.

Sooooo, in the end I’m hearing it’s about economics. The economics of slavery. The loss of slavery would have been the loss of free labor. The racism was and is both north and south. Here is a question . If the south could have been compensated for slave labor, would they be happy to give up slavery?

@powerdriller4124

3 жыл бұрын

Of course not. Not to say that the total value of all slaves was enormous, impossible to be paid by the Government Treasure.

@johnmoreno9636

3 жыл бұрын

Also, losing their slaves meant losing their source of income. Yes, they are paid for their slaves. Now how do they make their enormous profits? There was no plan for their future income without slaves labor.

@PeckerwoodIndustries

3 жыл бұрын

That is what they did in England, the government bought the freedom of the enslaved peoples.

@sassymedea3065

3 жыл бұрын

Lincoln tried to do that but the south refused

@lnss8775

3 жыл бұрын

Economics(wealth/asset accumulation & competition of natural resources) is the cause of every war from ancient civilization wars to the Crusades to revolutions to the WWs to present say. Economic control is used to maintain & exercise POWER!

It was all about industrialization not slavery, the brought “free the slaves” as a hell Mary. Most northerners had slaves as well

@mrsnakesmrnot8499

5 ай бұрын

With respect… Why would you say that most northerners had slaves when that claim wasn’t even true in the South? What the hell is a “Hell Mary”? You are clearly ignorant.

Every historian provides a unique facet to understanding, but it is only a perspective. We all learn from listening and reading a large variety of ideas from different perspectives. Edward Ayers' perspective on the causation of the War between the States is one of the contemporary historical revisionism that places the nexus on slavery. He makes good arguments and provides interesting statistics. But, what he says here is glossing over major points to focus on his agenda of causation "slavery". He argues his points well and certainly, brings much to the discussion and is, it would appear, open-minded to contrary or new ideas. He even argues with himself, which is a good sign of an apt scholar. But, he says nothing of the Morell Tariff and characterizes all such matters to "economic theory". He fails to recognize the British industrial revolution and their cotton textile production that was the backbone of that development, and while he talks of the high price of slaves, he fails to mention the slim margins of profit for the cotton planters. He mentions the importance of slavery in Virginia but fails to mention the manumission laws of 1786 in the state and how liberal Virginia was permitting slave freedom and the responsibilities required by law upon the owners wanting to free their slaves, which indeed constrained manumission. He says nothing of the fact that Lee and nearly all his General staff had freed their slaves. Maybe this is digging too deep in the weeds for a group of 4th-grade teachers, but it does add color to the understanding of the Virginia slaveholder. He also glosses over Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to invade SC and fails to note altogether Governor Letcher's reply to President Lincoln when he requested troops and passage. Thus he says nothing about the fact that Lincoln not only invaded Virginia unconstitutionally but did so in Maryland also. He talks about Chief Justice Tauny in regards to the Dred Scott Decision, which only upheld the Constitutional right of property, but fails to mention the equally important case of ex parte Milligan in which Taunny ruled that Lincoln violated the Constitution in illegally denying habeas corpus. And, he says nothing of the arrest by Lincon of half the Maryland Legislature by Lincoln, a serious violation of the Constitution which protects the republican form of government in the States and Territories. Yes, slavery was a major factor in the causation of the war, but Ayers fails to note that Congress and Lincoln both declared that the war and invasion of the South were not over slavery and he says nothing of the Corwin Amendment. I find his analysis interesting and it adds another fractal to historical understanding, but it also gives understanding to why and how the Museum of the Confederacy has been transformed into a museum of historical revisionism and renamed the American Civil War Museum. Unfortunately, this kind of historical revisionism has become a dominating force that has been used for nefarious and destructive purposes and has laid the groundwork for the Maoist Cultural Revolution that has torn the heart out of Virginia and Dixie.

@PeckerwoodIndustries

3 жыл бұрын

By naming the specific items you believe to be causal factors in the start of the war you don't necessarily disprove his argument, and therefore fail in making the argument that his analysis is revisionist. He simply chose to support his analysis with those data that he deemed as most relevant to the causes of the war by his judgement as a scholar. You may be sure that he is aware of those specific events you mentioned, but neither he nor I has measured those events as those most critical to the analysis as made. Your items are pertinent within history, and contributory to the overall outcome of history, but do not play the pivotal role in the start of the war. It was Lincolns decision to put down both an insurrection, as well as punish an intentional act of provocation, namely an attack upon the citizen soldiers defending their very lives, their weaponry, and sovereign soil of a military reserve according to their sworn constitutional duty as soldiers that committed the north to a war the south started. Further, there is no mistake when stating that the provocation was intentional, and in furtherance of protecting the rights of slaveholders to bring with them their chattel property to any state in the union, and thus bring with them the institution of slavery, and it's corrosive effect upon the nation. To believe that every 3/5 of a man held in slavery by violence would give over his 3/5 of a vote in continuation of his own slavery strains credulity of any semblance of a government by and for the people. To allow that form of governance to spread throughout the union, and hold eventual, and ultimate tyranny over every man, woman, and child in this union would have created great suffering unto this very day.

@TM-vq1bf

2 жыл бұрын

Confederate Hogwash .

@TM-vq1bf

2 жыл бұрын

The war In the south was for slavery . The war in the north was for union . Then slavery but always union first

@cliffpage7677

2 жыл бұрын

@@TM-vq1bf The war was not over slavery for either side. Congress issued a declaration stating this fact in 1861. President Lincoln said so in his first igneous. He claimed the war was over the union, but that was a cover for what he stated to Sec. Stanton and to the Southern Peace Commission led by Virginia before she seceded when he stated "but how will I run my government". The South was the richest section of the country since colonial times and paid 85% of the Federal government budget. That finance was raised by the tariff on British imports paid for by cotton. Additionally, the Corwin Amendment was passed and signed by Buchanan, guaranteeing perpetual rights of slavery to those states where it existed. Lincoln noted this in speeches he made. The South was not interested in even considering this amendment for ratification. Slavery was already enshrined in the Constitution and no taking of property was permitted without just compensation. The war started by illegal and belligerent actions taken by Mr. Lincoln, at Sumpter, Pensacola, Portsmouth, against Maryland, and when Virginia was invaded by Federal troops. You need to read more history.

@TM-vq1bf

2 жыл бұрын

@@cliffpage7677 I have a degree in history but thanks. Nothing you said backed your case

Question: where are the enslaved person’s rights? Lost in the fog of war and the anxiety that players, north south, black and white. Or, is the game supposedly rigged in favor of the power structures both black and white? All citizens of the US are supposed to enjoy freedom and liberty for all. No?

@jonnie106

Ай бұрын

That's true. One must BE a citizen before walking down that road. In the mind of the enslaver, a slave is as much a citizen as a plow horse is a citizen. The rights of a slave are to live in servitude to a master. Any other life choice isn't practicable, as the slave was thought incapable. The incapacity of a slave was purely a thought, as black Americans had shown themselves capable since the Revolution.

States rights. States rights to slavery in this particular case.

northern abolitionists lived off Slavery as much as southern planters. northern bankers made loans, northern insurance companies underwrote activities, northern textile mills bought slave cotton, northerners ate slave sugar and smoked slave Tabacco and before 1808, slave ships built and crewed by northerners transported slaves into the U.S. Maybe the war happened because the guilty feeling of northern abolitionists and indignation of southern slavers at the hypocrisy of the abolitionists. and what's crazy is that most people today are decedents of post-bellum immigrants that had nothing to do with anything and just want to get on with life.

@theyowiehunters7698

Жыл бұрын

"Maybe the war happened because the guilty feeling of northern abolitionists and indignation of southern slavers at the hypocrisy of the abolitionists." LMAO. I've officially heard it all. Talk about victim blaming, heh. I bet the North's skirt was too short too, huh.

@avenaoat

11 ай бұрын

From 1830 the World biggest sugar exporter was France! France used the German XVIIIth Century investmen the SUGAR BEET for sugar produce. The suger beet could be produced by free farmers in Europe!

@cliffpage7677

7 ай бұрын

Yankee Jews and Puritan types didn't stop building, crewing, or sailing false flags of convenience on the slave their slave ships. They may not have run the slaves into North America, but the sure ran them into Cuba, and Venizuela until the latter finally ended theslave trade. This was done while the USN and US Federal courts looked the other way. And no doubt New York bankers were probably continuing to invest in the building and outfitting, and insurance on those vessels. The Confederate Constitution forbid the international slave trade.

@dpg227

Ай бұрын

Northern abolitionists made up a tiny percentage of northern citizens and were regarded by other northerners as extremists and trouble makers.

@danielyeomans7566

Ай бұрын

@@avenaoatNot Brazil?

My question is why did the south get away with the claims that the bible supported slavery in the manner they would define it or had implemented it as it clearly says slavery is only a safety net someone would use in hard times if they had to lease their land or have someone help them financially and they would be enslaved to repay the debt and limited time of 7 years before they where to be free and their land returned to them along with a part of what that labor made to take with them so they had a chance to make it on their own. Slavery in the bible was amoung men that are equal its just a avenue someone takes if they need a loan or can't pay a debt. So American slavery could have been proven immoral if you could have converted them that all men are equal in the bible if they follow God and the blacks were taught to follow God so they were entitled to be land owners etc. However I think they failed before slavery because in the bible God gives all the Isrealites land that can never be taken each family has land and only can lease it for 7 years if they go into debt then it's returned to them. I wonder if someone could have preached the real message of the bible to Washington and the founders and avoided the entire system that let slavery be used as a cruel profiting abusive injustice and avoid many issues of poverty and injustice that we see today bc not everyone is entitled to being a land owner as a right.

@cliffpage7677

7 ай бұрын

Ya, tell that to Hagar!

@mrsnakesmrnot8499

5 ай бұрын

Read Exodus 21, where it describes chattel slavery. It is the rules set by god about how to treat slaves, which can be considered property that can be passed on as inheritance. Exodus 21 mentions a trick of how a slave owner can own a slave forever (not just 7 years). A slaver can beat a slave as long as the slave doesn’t die in a couple days. There is more… Read Exodus 21. Jesus even said that slaves should be kind to their masters. Southern slavers read many selected passages to their slaves to put the fear of hell into them. Religious-based Mental abuse was used just like religious people do to their own children.

"No industry in the North"? "The value of the enslaved population in the south is worth more than all the banks, railroads and factories in the nation combined"? Not so sure about these points.

@SandfordSmythe

6 ай бұрын

There were about 4 million slaves, at a rough price of a $1,000 a slave in their current prices. The amount of capital in slavery was overwhelming.Also, slaves were used as collateral in Southern banking.

@thomaspaine374

6 ай бұрын

@@SandfordSmythe It looks like while the market value of the slaves was about $4 billion, the total Northern assets were $11.2 billion. This was a war fought primarily over economics, tariffs and federal control. The slaves were just part of the economics and fight...admittedly a big part.

This is a smart guy offering a very interesting explanation. However, I don't understand his emphasis on expansion of slavery. Why would wealthy southerners go to war and risk everything for expansion of slavery beyond the current slave states?

@jfwduffield1

4 жыл бұрын

Pretty obvious. Every new state changed the political balance of the Union. Two senators each & congressmen. The slave states were worried new free states with large populations would out vote them in Congress and attack slavery as an institution.

@Rymsha1

4 жыл бұрын

Technically, the south didn't go to war, they seceded from the Union, something many states (also in the North) felt was part of the ratification process. How sure were they that Lincoln would let them go or fight them? I don't know.

@bearthalamas9241

3 жыл бұрын

I can't post a link but look up Executive intelligence report 10/10/78-10/16/78 The Rothschild roots of the kkk It goes into detail about the British intelligence infiltrating both the confederate States and the union states and instigating the war, and sabotaged all attempts at reconciliation between the two. They lost on the battlefield and went back to England, and started a silent coup attempt, and assassinated Lincoln.

@lnss8775

3 жыл бұрын

@@Rymsha1 @Rymsha1 by technical if u mean they didn't have a declaration of war against the US then true, but the US didn't have one either. The south DID start the Civil War when the SC militia attacked Ft. Sumter which was a federal property. And they were pretty sure Lincoln wasn't gonna do sh!t before the conflict at Ft. Sumter cuz Lincoln said & acted that way. Before Ft. Sumter the US govt withdrew from US property in an attempt to avoid war.

@Rymsha1

3 жыл бұрын

@@lnss8775but viewing in the historic context - the seceding states felt they had a right to leave the union. Fort Sumter ”blocked” the port of an important harbor. From their perspective I doubt that the Union could have federal property located there. If the union wanted to avoid war they could have left the fort. It is over simplified to claim that one side wanted to avoid war and one didn’t. It was an escalation of events where it is obvious that Lincolns intention was to preserve the union by force. According to him the union was perpetual. My point is, in response to the comment above, the south did not go to war (but they most likely saw that as a potential consequence). Had the union agreed that they could secede in peace it is less likely there had been a war.

It's not as simple as "states' rights" vs. Federalism, the "rights" the Southern states fought for were their "right" to own people!

@user-cg6nc5ip8c

3 ай бұрын

Slavery was legal!!

The monetary investment in slave capital was more than all other types of capital in the entire USA. Yes, more was invested in slaves than all other trains, railroads, canals, shipping, factories, tools, etc. COMBINED. The planter lobby which feared losing their expensive slave capital lost their minds when a presidential candidate won a clear majority, who for the first time in American presidential history wasn’t politically “in bed” with the planter class. Why can’t this host just say this. Plus, it wasn’t impossible to just end slavery, as he claims. The method in England worked. The French were able to do it too. This host sure likes to beat around the bush.

Ayers is wrong about the population dynamics of the US before the war. The South did not have less immigration because of slavery. It had slavery because of less immigration. Few immigrants, most from northern Europe, wanted to migrate into the South. The north was simply a better area to build industry and the kind of farms most Europeans were accustomed to. The agriculture of the South was quite foreign to most Europeans and simply did not attract many immigrants.

@barbiedahl

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, they did not want to be relegated to being laborers or, at best, the merchant class because of the artificially depressed wages on Free Labor as a natural result of Slave Labor in the South.

@stanleyshannon4408

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbiedahl To whatever extent that is true (and it doesn't appear to be as skilled labor in the south seems to have commanded higher wages than in the north) it only became so after slavery was an established fact. Slavery became an established fact because of the climate and geography of the south, which was more dangerous and unappealing to natives of north western Europe, and of course, because those in the north and in England who controlled the slave trade were trying to expand their markets. The north offered better economic conditions over all to working class emigrants of northwest European origins than the south did, that is very true. But slavery didn't cause that. Rather that is what made slavery an economic necessity. If you were to spend a few days working outside in Georgia in the summer time you might understand better. It takes some getting used to.

@barbiedahl

2 жыл бұрын

@@stanleyshannon4408 I lived in south Florida, I know what the weather is like. White people were lazy and didn't want to do the work they could have done themselves. Sorry, I disagree. Why pay a white guy for something that you can have a slave do for free and rent out to get paid for his labor? Slaves weren't just used to pick cotton they were used for every job you could think of. If you didn't want to pay the blacksmith to shoe your horses you can have your slave trained for it and get it done for free from now on. Slaves were in agriculture, industry, service, crafts, Construction and almost every other industry that existed at the time. Free Labor is what drove down the wages of free people in the South and is the reason why we still live with its Legacy today, right to work.

@stanleyshannon4408

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbiedahl Kind of weird then that my entire family lineage is from the deep south and somehow developed every working skill known to man and a strong work ethic immediately after all the slaves were freed. Oh, and also managed to out fight every army sent against them for four years including the black ones.

@barbiedahl

2 жыл бұрын

@@stanleyshannon4408 you're not a very deep thinker, are you? Nothing you said negates my assertion. Do better.

Prof. Ayers thinks it unusual that two groups, agricultural vs industrial, could start to mistrust each other? Oh come on. And then he says "there's nothing to it"?

@johanragnarsson9310

5 жыл бұрын

Did you listen? 95% of the north were also farmers.

@carywest9256

5 жыл бұрын

@@johanragnarsson9310 Everyone today forgets that the fastest telecommunication in the mid-nineteenth century was the telegraph, and the second was a newspaper.So information was slow to get to the masses, and watered down once you heard it from kinfolk,friends and neighbors. I believe a lot of people were misinformed.The original Constitution which is in D.C.has never been altered.And it states that the Union is volunteer,not perpetual as Lincoln always touted. During the War of 1812,the New England States talked secession.I have yet to find any text stating that it was not viable. The North didn't want to let the South go because of the golden goose,so to speak. I don't believe in slavery,never did,never will.I remember talking to my dad when I was about 10 or 12 about it.And he told me that we,meaning he,myself and others like us wouldn't have a job if slavery would have persisted for another century. It was 1972-74 then. I feel that it would have played out by at least 1900. The steam tractor was invented in the 1870s.Then other technologies followed. It would have been a different America for sure.I don't think that the immigration boom of the late 1800s,early 1900s would have been as big as it was. But you can't change history.

@markb6639

5 жыл бұрын

@@johanragnarsson9310 Yet, the North had 26% industrialization, while the South was only 10%. And, the Northern farmers were producing most of the nation's food; while the South was selling 67% of the world's cotton. And, producing tobacco and sugar; not wheat or oats.

@jimland4359

4 жыл бұрын

There may be "something" to it, but I don't think it is much. New York and California aren't anywhere close to starting a war with Kansas and Nebraska today. We don't see other societies having wars between the agricultural and industrial centers.

@herecomesaregular8418

Жыл бұрын

Mistrust does not equal a blood bath. That was his whole point. Not that the two groups might have cause to not like each other so much, but that it doesn't explain a Civil War that cost the modern equivalent of 8 million casualties. All that being said, it had *nothing* to do with it, because there wasn't even a *little* distrust or discontent. Reason being there simply was no such thing as an "industrial north", because, *again*, the VAST majority of Americans north and south were farmers. It's all nonsense and you're trying very hard through purposeful misunderstanding to propagate it.

I actually found this to be utterly simplistic. Of course the war was about slavery. But it was more importantly about a Jeffersonian anti-federalist versus Lincolnian future of the country. Lincoln never set out to emancipate the slaves. The entire thing was over whether the states were Sovereign entities under a week federal government or whether the federal government had plenary power over the states. And whether or not the central federal government had the power of the purse. It's actually rather unfortunate that slavery got caught up in this argument because it became a moral argument over slavery which clouded the argument over the sovereignty of the states and allowed us to have this massively overpowered central government and Federal Reserve that just prints money out of thin air.

@stayclean777

Жыл бұрын

Wrong. If "the entire thing" was about any 1 cause it would be Lincoln's/the Republicans' absolute opposition to the further spread of slavery.

@juliank6793

9 ай бұрын

He set out to restrict slavery, and abolished it when he had the chance. Where did the south ever have a problem with the federal government? People say this all the time but never have ANY proof that the south seceded because they had some different economic view of the country. They seceded when an abolitionist was elected, when abolitionists got all of congress, and vowed not to allow any more slave states into the country. Where is the evidence it was about rights or the federal government?

@user-rl8mg2nw2s

9 ай бұрын

coo coo coo coo

@cliffpage7677

7 ай бұрын

Absolutely!!! The Radical Republicans and the assination of Lincoln and the impeachment of Johnson did more to destroy the United States than anything the War ever did.

Thank you for sparing the children from the horros of the truth, but it doesn't stop us from teaching them about "Satin", and "Hell fire" and the pseudo natural..

@ALRIGHTYTHEN.

Жыл бұрын

What's wrong with teaching children about satin?

@scoremxcom

Жыл бұрын

@@ALRIGHTYTHEN. because it's a lie, don't teach anything to a kid, you can't prove.

@ALRIGHTYTHEN.

Жыл бұрын

@@scoremxcom Satin is very real. I used to have a shirt made of it.

@scoremxcom

Жыл бұрын

@@ALRIGHTYTHEN. Would you let your 5 year old grand daughter watch the "The Exorcist" and tell her it's true?

@ALRIGHTYTHEN.

Жыл бұрын

@@scoremxcom I wouldn't let my 5 year old granddaughter watch The Exorcist, but I would let her sleep on satin sheets.

This was great. But some notes; The difference for the black slaves after the civil war was that the owners couldnt sell the slaves children anymore. (Whaat) The republican party was not antislave But anti south. The conflict was about property (right to bring slaves whereever) ;)

No one has changed their mind about anything. We know why the south seceded, they each stated in their articles that they seceded to maintain and support slavery. They took up arms against their own country to maintain the practice of slavery.

@marshalkrieg2664

4 жыл бұрын

In 1860 the idea of what the United States actually was, was different from what we think it is today. The idea of a strong centralizing authority was much more controversial back then. Most people in the south saw the nation as a loose compact between the states, almost an alliance of sorts. Secession was generally viewed as a legal right- it is even written in at least Virginia's documents when they joined the country after the Revolutionary War.. Many if not most Confederates saw themselves as following in the exact footsteps of their grandfathers when they rebelled against the British crown in the 1770's. (Patrick Henry, 'Give me Liberty or give me death"...- he owned over 100 slaves) Lincoln provoked the war- www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html He maneuvered events around Ft. Sumter to get the result he desired. He committed treason against the United States by militarily blockading Va and NC, thus basically forcing them to secede- w/out those two states, there never would have been a Civil War, the south would not have lasted long at all. The secession documents? Appeals to the planter class, they had the money that could make the Confederacy succeed. The North- by then a foreign nation- invaded the south, and now the south is demonized for resisting their own rape and murder. The reason why Lincoln was opposed to the spread of slavery in the territories was due to his concern over race-mixing. He wasn't opposed to slavery in and of itself, in the territories. Four Union states held slaves- were they fighting to end their own slavery, lol ? Lincolns Proclamation Declaration was just a cynical war measure to try to incite a slave rebellion, and this effort failed ( the document mainly 'freed' slaves in areas beyond Union control ). Three northern states- after the war- rejected the amendment to free slaves - so how can anyone claim the north was fighting a moral crusade to end slavery ? After Union troops raped scores of black slave women in the Civil War, they went on out West after the war to murder and rape untold numbers of Indians- this is your righteous Union army. Secession had many causes, and the war had many causes- slavery, property rights, sectionalism, vested interests, states rights, tariffs and taxes, etc. People need to stop treating this war in simplistic politically correct terms and they need to see the whole complexity of all the issues instead of going on moralizing lectures against the Confederacy. Countries do not wage war against other countries over their labor practices.

@thomaskiernan1553

4 жыл бұрын

Rivers_of_Blood Marshal goo nation of the bullshit lost cause theory. Lincoln was president of the United States, the southern stEs were part of the United States. It was them who committed treason by seceding. You claim there were many causes for the war, but, the southern states cited only one, to maintain and preserve slavery., in their articles of secession. Revise history somewhere else you are simply a southern sympathizer and possibly a klansman or Nazi

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomaskiernan1553 how was it treason? The option to leave the union was in the contract when states joined it.

@thomaskiernan1553

4 жыл бұрын

#1 tricycle mechanic There was never an option.yo have gotten a hold of some bad info.

@ericfarmer3360

3 жыл бұрын

And those same Southern States refused to rejoin the Union after the Union reiterated time and time again up until the very end of the war that not only would they not attack slavery, they'd defend it through Constitutional Amendment. The causes that they used to justify secession was used to show that the compact had been violated and thus necessitated a separation.

Dr. Ayers notes that tariffs were seldom discussed in the Virginia Secession Convention but he fails to mention that Northerners raised tariffs on dutiable from 19% at the start of the war to an average of 45% for the *next fifty years.* Thus, protective tariffs were an important war aim for the North and Ayers is only looking at what the South wanted.

@rsotis

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/aodtmMuKia-Wkto.html

@cliffpage7677

7 ай бұрын

Yes! And there also was a graduated and increasing tarrif on Iron imports, which would have directly benefited the Northern intustralizing States and hurt the South which traded its Cotton for the best machinery and iron goods in the world coming from Great Britain, France and Germany.

@christiansoldier77

5 ай бұрын

​@@cliffpage7677There were no raised tariffs on the south that is a myth

The average southern soldier was fighting to preserve slavery about to the same extent and degree that the typical G.I. invading Normandy in 1944 was there to save the New York Stock Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade.

@theacguy9546

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you. I've been trying to get people to get this thru their thick skulls. Less than 1% of southerners were connected to slavery in any way. It's a joke to say the war was about slavery.

@outlaw5094

2 жыл бұрын

@Yankee Heritage Naw Hell Naw thats bullsh-t we southerners aint ashamed of none that or anything else…we got a whole lotta southern pride…down here in sweet dixieland..and for us our gloryous confederate flag constitutes that we been fightin terrorist since 1861 ..Halallua !

@michaelbee2165

2 жыл бұрын

Bullshit. The average Southern soldier didn't own slaves and fought to preserve his family, and his home and his farm from destruction.

@barbiedahl

2 жыл бұрын

@@theacguy9546 yes, all of the Secession documents from the traitorous racist rebel slave states, as well as the Keystone speech,, were a joke. The punchline being that they all cite the peculiar institution of slavery as their primary cause for cecession. A joke on lost cause revisionists whose only defense is to ignore them.

@theacguy9546

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbiedahl so in the future we'll use political documents to determine the motivations of the majority? Douchebag elitists don't speak for the majority. Much like talentless historical hacks trying to push ideological theories.

Show me the cause of the Civil War has become painfully obvious with plenty of research. The only person up to and throughout the Civil War that was both ignoring law, ignoring the Constitution, and conspiring before the war to attack what he considered other states without any justification, he didn't have a declaration of war from Congress, he had no justification for Gathering troops in order to invade the South, the South had committed no crime, and secession had been used to grow the country for many decades. And was not illegal for any state to resend their agreement to be a part of the United States. The individual states, that were Sovereign countries and their own right if you read the Paris Accords that ended the Revolutionary War, had created the Federal Government as a mechanism to have communication between themselves as a commonwealth and the rest of the world. And the federal government had no authority to tell the states what they could and could not do including leaving the Union. Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia before they can become a territory and a state on their own. There were no federal taxes until 1861. Md5 million-pound elephant the room is that slavery was still legal. I didn't say I agree with it, but it was legal. And if you make the very first argument that Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery, he had never said such a thing. His advisors had advised him to start a war with France or England in order to get out from underneath the recession that it caused by the fact that the gold and silver was running out of the Comstock Lode and Sutter's Mill. Lincoln was put up to run for president by Wall Street. And the best thing that can be said about Lincoln is he may have started to understand about three years into the war that he was being used as a pawn to destroy our country. He had totally removed the Jeffersonian ideal of freedom. Like Nathan Bedford Forrest understood, slavery was over the day the war started that's why 4245 of his own slaves were Elite troops in his cavalry. Of the 60 or more blacks who were in his cavalry. Black troops that work for the South got the same pay ate the same food and lived with every other race on the planet that fought for the South. Accept it when they were captured and sent to Fort Douglas before they got to Fort Douglas the Northerners line them up and murdered them. Northerners didn't allow slavery in the north not because they were so good and understanding the blacks were human. They didn't even want them in the goddamn country. They hated them and one of them the hell out of there white country. Which was even worse been in the South where at least they were worth money. My people, the American Indians are now facing being wiped out of existence from history because our names are coming off of the schools they're coming off of the sports teams. They don't even want to discuss how badly they've treated the American Indian up to and including till today.

@juliank6793

7 ай бұрын

Lincoln hadn't even made it to DC before the southern states were already seizing federal armories at gunpoint. Your position is pure delusion.

Cotton gin.

It is very interesting that Mr. Ayers does not show the State of New Jersey as a slave state, which it was all through the civil war, and the State of New Jersey fought on the side of the Union. I guess that it would blow holes in his narrative as the causation for the Civil War vs high tariffs,the nullification of the 10th Amendment and the usurpation and consolidation of power away from the states. It does show that history is always rewritten by the victors.

@SandfordSmythe

Жыл бұрын

NJ had a plan to eliminate slavery. They had under 20 in 1860.

@juliank6793

9 ай бұрын

Do you have any evidence it was about tariffs? Any quotes from confederate leaders, at all? Any proof the 10th amendment was under threat, or that Lincoln was about to take power away from the states? Lost causers always say this, but never have any facts to back it up.

@christiansoldier77

5 ай бұрын

The tariffs were low stop with the myth making. New Jersey had abolished slavery in 1804 but it was a gradual process so some slaves were still remaining in NJ at the time of the war but this is irrelevant because the North didn't enter the war to end slavery but the South started the war to keep slavery

In America slaves were forced to procreate. Thats how evil that system was. Or the slave owners did it.

@michaelbee2165

2 жыл бұрын

🙄

@SandfordSmythe

Жыл бұрын

There are stories of men secretly refusing, but they faced whippings.

@teacopem

Жыл бұрын

Most people do it for pleasure

The Civil War was a clash between two competing economic systems; one based on industry, trade and innovation, the other an agrarian system based on ancient traditions of aristocracy. They also differed in types of government. The south was heirarchical; the north more democratic and inclusive. They carried on an uneasy coexistence until the balance of power shifted with the admission of new, free states. The southern leaders then percieved that their political power and "way of life" was threatened, and decided to secede. Basically, one side was embracing the future and the other clinging to the past.

This video needs to be cleaned up or deleted

The Civil War is the saddest war ever saw roughly 50 years before we fought side-by-side for our freedom against Britain. My direct descendent was at the battle of New Orleans. Fighting beside French pirates Native Americans and free slaves Unfortunately, I had family on both sides of the Civil War lost uncle Samuel at shallow. Uncle Chickasaw was a slave owner, but he fought for the north Served under Sherman as a scout president Lincoln use slavery to recruit soldiers . It was not over slavery, but it should’ve been.

@ronnienaron8389

2 ай бұрын

Gotta remember the South had a lot of the Mississippi River tied up major trade route New Orleans would be up for grabs if the north one just something to think about🤔

Great video on the war of Northern aggression, the South saw the north gaining more and more power over their lives and realized if they wanted to remain free, they had to secede.

@juliank6793

9 ай бұрын

Where's the proof of that? What power was the north gaining over the south that posed such a threat?

@SandfordSmythe

7 ай бұрын

If you look at the first 40 years or so, the federal government was dominated by Southerners. ​@juliank6793

Same old. Nothing new here

@Yausbro

Жыл бұрын

except he presents reality, not the lost cause alternative facts nonsense

@teacopem

Жыл бұрын

​@@Yausbro such as

@theyowiehunters7698

Жыл бұрын

Aw , apologist triggered you yet again walked out of your safe space on accident?

was trying to figure out if this guy is a soft spoken southerner attempting to subtly get hicks to stop being racist or a confederate martin mcguinness... then I went deaf