200. American Civil War: The Causes

Welcome to The Rest Is History 'American Civil War' series.
The release schedule of the four episodes is as follows:The Causes (Monday 27th June)Outbreak (Tuesday 28th June)Gettysburg (Thursday 30th June)Aftermath & Legacy (Monday 4th July)
However, members of The Rest Is History Club get all four episodes RIGHT NOW, so head to restishistorypod.com to sign up.
In the first of a four part series, Tom and Dominic are joined by historian Adam Smith for an in-depth look at the origins of the war. They ask whether the moral, political and economic problems of slavery made conflict inevitable and discuss the character of Abraham Lincoln.
Producer: Paul King
Twitter:@TheRestHistory@holland_tom@dcsandbrook
Email: [e-mail]

[@zachferreira]

the opening impressions of marx and trump were so funny omg

[@brandonblackfyre5783]

*Recently found your channel by seeing a interview with Dan Carlin and boy am I glad I found it because I've been looking for some new stuff to watch on KZbin and since I am a history buff & lover, this channel is perfect.... felt like a Kid on Christmas scrolling through your videos. About to binge watch a ton of them all week!😂*

[@alanbrady7116]

Excellent channel, no doubt

[@fcsomerta7680]

Dan Carlin sent me here to mine this gold

[@reconstructionmanifest7349]

New Subscriber. I just want to say keep up the great work and I look forward to enjoying all of your episodes. I live in in the US in FL. I frequently drive by confederate flags. I say that only because its a small example of some dots this episode has connected in my mind. I can tell you from conversations with people I have spoken with that some are still proud of that past, and there is a lot of fervor stirred up in some of these areas not just in FL, but around the country today.

[@johnleovy6816]

Slight correction to something your guest said, when he claimed that Lincoln obtained "only a small minority of the national popular vote" in the 1860 Presidential election. This is not correct. There were 4 major candidates running that year: Lincoln for the Republicans, Douglas for the Democrats, Breckinridge for a splinter group of Democrats, and John Bell from a party called "Constitutional Union." Lincoln won 39.8 percent of the national popular vote, which was the most any of those four candidates won; Stephen Douglas, the second place finisher, won only 29.5 percent. In a "first past the post" system, the one currently in force for parliamentary elections in the UK, Lincoln's large plurality of 39.8 percent would likely be considered a clear win. It is also true, as your guest pointed out, that Lincoln won a large majority in the Electoral College. Lincoln's large plurality win was more than sufficient to make his Republican Party a viable political organization. especially in the context of the split in the Democratic Party, contrary to what your learned guest said at about minute 40 on this show.

[@Ozgipsy]

Wow, what a tale!

[@blogbalkanstories4805]

Actually Friedrich Engels was sometimes nicknamed "General" for his dedication to and knowledge of military history and contemporary military matters.

[@dearestsimone]

It's absolutely marvelous to hear Brits talk about American history with such much zeal (says this American). I don't know why. I must think about it. But carry on!! Carry on!

[@UltiEd]

I had to come here and comment on that beautiful Trump impression. I couldn't stop laughing and hearing Dominick laugh in the background just made it that much funnier

[@tommonk7651]

When I visited Great Britain 8-10 years ago, I was stunned to see a statue of Abraham Lincoln across from Parliament, I believe in front of the UK Supreme Court. Interesting. Though not quite as interesting as finding a statue of George Washington in a park in Budapest....

[@AliHiggs]

Great guest. I strongly recommend his book Business Secrets of the Pharaohs

[@yankeegonesouth4973]

As someone who can't do an accent worth squat, I must express my appreciation for Tom 's horrid accents. You make us proud, Tom.

[@davidatlanta1]

As a lifelong student of the War and lifelong resident of Georgia, I am deeply impressed by the participants' understanding of the subject. Cotton -- its profitability and exponential growth after the invention of the gin -- is the root cause.

[@raoulduke8003]

Great show!

[@user-wt5kq5nn5q]

if I need a laugh it's you two

[@stephendaisley8645]

They giggle a lot these geniuses

[@jacobhammock3355]

This should be interesting

[@bobague9654]

these two guys are great, but I think they should’ve gotten somebody who has a little bit deeper knowledge about American history to answer this question about freedom. You can’t look at the United States as one nation, America has a monoculture. The ideas of liberty are very different in New England, the tidewater, the Midlands, and Appalachia That just wasn’t one reason why Americans were willing to begin working towards revolution

[@Terinije]

It's important to note that Christianity was also used as a bulwark for slavery, argued by southern preachers that slavery was merely a societal recognition of a divinely established order of races. Christianity doesn't get a free pass as the moral foundation in a vacuum. Plenty of God-fearing Christians never batted an eye at the evils of slavery. And if there were any Southern Republicans can't be known. Probably not, but the whole south more or less blocked the Republicans from even appearing on the ballot in 1860.

[@cg98243]

Stumbling all over contingency here I'm afraid. The south, before the United States became so completely federalized, thought they had the right to secede over slavery or anything else. Their grandfathers had fought a successful civil war for economics. The watershed moment here is to go from a regionally diverse and much less centralized governmental culture to one in which any rebellion becomes unthinkable.

[@brandonblackfyre5783]

❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@SophyaAgain]

4:20 Why, Mr. Trump! We got something in common! I've been asking the same question for quite a long time. Why The USA ended up in a such deadly Civil War?

[@colinwhaley244]

A very guardian esque unbalanced view from the elites. Must be nice to hold perfect approved views, does not help in understanding the past though!

[@johnleovy6816]

Otherwise the show was pretty great!

[@therambler3055]

Secession was about slavery, the war was about the right of secession. Slavery was always used for both political parties to get more power. Every free state that comes into the union give the Republican Party two extra representation, and every slave gave the Democrat Party two extra representation. That’s why and how states came in or were created out off existing states in the union.

[@seansullivan5965]

So, the South secedes because of the possibility of losing their slaves - and they fight it out with the North for the right to secede from the Union. . . So they can keep their slaves.

[@therambler3055]

@@seansullivan5965 They were two slave holding nations fighting each other. When the war broke out there were more slave states in the union then the confederacy.

[@seansullivan5965]

@@therambler3055 I understand there were still slave states in the north. However, your facts are wrong "Populations The population of the Union was 18.5 million. In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people." www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm I mean, even look at the percentage of slaves compared to free men in the south's population.

[@therambler3055]

@@seansullivan5965 I know the population and percentage numbers. That has nothing to do with what I said. The link doesn’t contradict anything I stated.

[@jharris0341]

Exactly. The war that followed secession was never automatic or inevitable.

[@cg98243]

I think I object to a bit of the cynicism about northern abolitionists. These were not just white people who started to act once their economic interests were affected. That certainly doesn't account for the mass movement against slavery, or for the efforts of individuals as diverse as Stowe, Garrison, and Brown, who all bring nothing but moral weight to the issue, whether expressed religiously or not.

[@rubenjames7345]

Wonder what happened to Mexican POW's after the war? Just curious why it was always Africans that were enslaved.

[@Adsper2000]

Even if they spoke a different language, they were still fellow Europeans and thus off-limits.

[@JonniePolyester]

Just listening to a man born in 1846 who fought in the Civil War … amazing. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3OwlIx5l56BeqM

[@michaelbedford8017]

Yea! I bought the same guy a pint in our pub last week. Listened to him until closing time. Fascinating!

[@maggiesimmons1084]

Love this channel, but @ around 6:58, you state some US colonies had slavery, some did not. This is FALSE! 12 of the 13 colonies in 1776 had legal slavery. Only Rhode Island had abolished slavery. Pennsylvania followed in 1780, to become the 2d. "Some" is a plural term in the English language. Don't you people ACTUALLY do research?!

[@maggiesimmons1084]

By the way, New York state abolished slavery in 1832

[@Elitist20]

@@maggiesimmons1084 He could have phrased it better, but I think it's clear he's describing, not just the state of affairs in 1776 itself, but the situation in the period between 1776 and the early 19th century.

[@nigelhornberry8062]

@maggiesimmons1084 I can't resist being the pedant who points out that "some" does have acceptable singular uses in English i.e. "some guy on KZbin"

[@Joseph-ue5wc]

Rich man's war to keep making $.

[@ted356]

What percentage of white southerners owned slaves before the war? Only 25%? I thought it must have been 80-90%.

[@bilinguru]

Sorry lads, to bring in a non-American historian as your expert on the American Civil War is rather obscene. How would you lot feel if an American history podcast featured a guy from Tennessee to lecture people on the intricacies of the Reformation or a lady from Florida to pontificate about The War of the Roses? You'd be appalled and quite rightly. It's simply not cricket! That being said...very interesting to hear voices of a collapsed Empire attempt to describe and explain the sociological and cultural faultlines that underpin the American Empire. Fundamentally, the existence of slavery ran completely counter to the entire vision for the country as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, which states that "All Men are Created Equal." That's it. Slaveholders wanted all the other Rights and Freedoms that document offered, but were unwilling to surrender the economic benefits derived from the subjugation of human beings. Religion had bugger all to do with it. Kansas has millions of acres of wheatfields that could have been harvested far more cheaply with the advantage of free labour. Same with corn in Nebraska or fruit in Califiornia. Those landowners made the moral decision to harvest their crops by employing people (although still at ridiculously low wages that persist to this day) rather than own, trade and toruture their fellow man.

[@ciano9535]

Dude chill

[@alexdudley2917]

Did you not listen? He is an expert on the topic. Pay attention next time.

[@alexdudley2917]

Someone can be an expert on American history while also not being from there.

[@michaellynn8081]

An expert is an expert you arrogant fool. He/she does not have to come from the same geographical area of the subject in question to have gained enough valid and accurate knowledge to make them so. Its gained through hard ,impartial study and old fashioned intelligence. This person is clearly an expert and probably knows more than a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic. Take that chip off your shoulder and open your mind as well as your ears.

[@grahamparkin5568]

Edward Gibbon ) was an English historian and Member of Parliament. Gibbon is often referred to as the first "modern" historian; Gibbon's objectivity and accuracy in the use of reference material became a model for the methodologies of nineteenth and twentieth century historians. His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788.