201. American Civil War: Outbreak

[@zachhardware479]

Ok 31 year American amateur historian here, descendant of white Alabama Unionist -Answering your question here about “why didn’t the north just let them go?” The simple answer is that they were taking the land with them. Had they had been actually leaving, meaning leaving US territory, then absolutely they would let them go. It’s perfectly Leah to move from the United States to another country. That’s not what they were doing though. They were leaving the US, and taking the land with them, and formed a new rival bordering national called the CSA, taking massive amounts of land that included the southern half of the Mississippi River, and Gulf coast coastline. Virtually no nation or country has allowed a land secession without a fight.

[@richardyates7280]

Was the land they were taking within the existing borders of those states or were they claiming extra land? If the former, I don't see the problem.

[@tylernelson4901]

@@richardyates7280really? You don’t see a problem with secession?

[@alejandroyepez]

Both ​@@richardyates7280

[@kingofpendragon]

@@richardyates7280 You’re an idiot, and your brain is not developed if you don’t see a problem with outright THEFT of American land. Moron.

[@kingofpendragon]

@@tylernelson4901 He’s a moron.

[@MarcInTbilisi]

"General Lee is Prince Rupert", LMFAO, I freckin' love this channel!

[@colinmagnier1232]

Mark Corrigan finally made it as a Historian..

[@colinmagnier1232]

Glad someone got it

[@garyw9892]

From peep show?

[@davidsmyth4184]

It's the nasaly bit😂😂😂. Very good though

[@JonniePolyester]

😂

[@sloths-df3gf]

My wife keeps asking whether I'm *sure* it's deffo not David Mitchell speaking!

[@robertalpy]

You should read the speech that governor Sam Houston gave to texans before they threw him out of office and seceeded. He pretty much predicted the wars course and warned them that northerners weren't as much of a pushover as they expected.

[@brandonblackfyre5783]

*Always super dope to learn more about The Civil War when it has a lot of battles in your state and surrounding states in the DMV*

[@sloths-df3gf]

Lincoln et al had no idea the war would be so long and costly, any more than the Southerners. I get the impression both sides assumed it'd be over quickly, in their favour. "On to Richmond!" as the Northern newspapers put it, in 1861.

[@PaulInPorirua]

I've often wondered what would have happened if Robert Toombs' opinion had held sway, and the South hadn't fired first. Would Lincoln have gone to war for a fort or two?

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

64 dollar question. Lincoln was probably looking for a basis for declaring war on the Confederacy. Who would know the war would last 4 years and claim 750, 000 lives.

[@avenaoat]

7 Confederate States were and they wanted the other 8 border states to join. The fort Sumter attact was provocation for the Lincoln government should step anything. The 7 original states politicians thought if Lincol government had stepped a strong the sister slave system states would have joined to save the South. If Lincoln had not stepped the North would have fallen to pieces in 10-15 years. They hoped Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland to join, but I think Delaware with 1.6% slaves was not true aim in Montgomery.

[@lionzion32]

I'm so glad I've found this podcast though my wife is very not glad I found it.

[@Terinije]

The reason why so many Northerners rallied to preserve the Union was because they saw what would happen if they didn't. If the South could leave because an election didn't go their way, then that threat becomes malignant and ever-present in every election and every debate. The United States would cease to be in an increasing balkanization of the region, which would irreparably ruin the national military, economic, and political ability to grow and expand their influence. Nobody in the North wanted that, and quite frankly the South had they succeeded would've found itself splintering within a generation as well in all liklihood. In other words, the North was fighting to preserve the Union to stave off anarchy.

[@TheMudwatcher]

and did preserve the union. Modern America has no secessionists

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

That appears logical. Often wondered why the US plunged into such a bloody civil war.

[@nomadpurple6154]

It's not staving off anarchy because the states could have existed as other blocks like the confederacy and the blocks could trade with each other. Balkanization doesn't isn't inevitably a bad thing, it can prevent wars as each area gets to live its own way and have its own culture, its own military and form alliances. I think your partial sentence "political ability to grow and expand their influence". Those politicians at the centre wanted more power, they were greedy. Just like the slave owners.

[@avenaoat]

You are 100% right!

[@avenaoat]

@@nomadpurple6154 Look at the 1860 Map. Virginia had the Wheeling penhandle which cut the North ALMOST into two parts! West Virginia new state idea got strong support for this! West Virginia was the child of the Rebellium. A lot of rairoads were through the future West Virginia. I think Stephen Douglas the Northern Democrat leader look at the 1860 Map and against to be competitor of Lincoln asked for his voters to fight for preserve the whole USA!

[@salex5412]

Another reason the British Government under Palmerston didn't recognize the South is because of the disastrous experience in the Crimean War five years earlier. Lincoln had already told the Palmerston government that any recognition of the South would mean war between the United States and Great Britain. And Palmerston didn't want to risk it. In addition the French wouldn't recognize the South without British recognition. And finally as pointed out in the podcast, once the Emancipation Proclamation was made known, the likelihood of recognition became almost impossible.

[@andypandy9013]

So how come when the US had stopped a British ship to take two Confederate Diplomats off and the UK Government demanded that they be released Lincoln did so saying "One war at a time gentlemen" to his colleagues? 🤔

[@salex5412]

@andypandy9013 I defer to Lincoln scholars but I suspect Lincoln didn't want war either but couldn't say it publicly. As Nixon said, You don't tell your adversaries what you won't do.

[@jamieholtsclaw2305]

Stonewall Jackson in addition to being eccentric was remembered for being a spectacularly successful general. He practiced a war of movement and dealt smashing defeats to superior opponents. I liken him to Erwin Rommel.

[@robertwalsh4397]

Great Podcast Lads ! America had huge debt owed to France from revolutionary war , and needed the south's financial support to re pay . I believe the now US Corp. Has never re paid . Keep up the great work , working my way through ! Cheers !

[@lordmountbatten154]

The same they owe to Spain who gave them huge support and have never been recognised!!

[@petebondurant58]

@robertwalsh4397 ROYALIST France aided the Colonial Americans. That regime was annihilated several years later. The United States owed nothing to revolutionary France.

[@markdavis1116]

Don’t you think saving France in TWO world wars MORE than cancels ANY debt America might have owed France from the revolution?

[@avenaoat]

USA helped France in the WV I and France got money from the Mashall plan after the WV II,

[@martinjohnson5498]

28:59 minor point but barbed wire was invented after the Civil War, patent in 1867. The Petersburg entrenchments were formidable for the day- but no barbed wire. As for the Civil War being modern, high explosives did not yet exist, either; Nobel was working on it in Sweden while the war was in progress, but the real breakthrough, dynamite, came in 1867.

[@ExiledGypsy]

10:59 You are assuming that the population in the North were all anti slavery or didn't see the value of having slaves. The way the executive and Republicans saw it was the South separating was the begining. He West would be next. There had to be a line in the sand. Besides with all that immigration pouring in, there needed to be a reason for people stop infighting and rioting. War is the best way of mobilisation. You can impose laws. Send the poor young men away and relieve the middle class and well off people feel safe again. All of this are daily concerns of governments around he world. Remembe he messaging; take back control. You start with an emotional message to start a movement

[@vincentfourment3041]

Succession was not addressed either way in the constitution, so what happens if some years later, a northern state decides to leave for some other reason? I think a part of the concern would have been future precedent.

[@nomadpurple6154]

Such a badly written compromise document which has and continues to cause much death of US citizens.

[@michaelbedford8017]

U.S. Grant: 'Phew!, This is getting to be like WW1!' Adjutant: 'Er.. World War What sir?'

[@Joker-no1uh]

Statehood is eternal. Once you choose to become a state, the only way to become independent is by war. I think Europeans not getting involved is a little underplayed. The British built a warship for the South, but one of the most little known impactful moments was when French and Britsh ships were showing up off the coast, but the Russian Navy arrived on the US side and kept the two European powers from possibly aiding the South. There was no treaty or formal agreement, but it definitely had an impact. The US and Russia have always been natural allies, and if Russia never becomes a communist country, that alliance could have dominated for centuries.

[@smokingbrush2498]

The Emancipation Proclamation emancipated those slaves beyond the powers of federal forces to emancipate. Therefore, Lincoln's 'crusading document' was completely consistent with his policy of preserving the Union by freeing all/some/no slaves. It was a piece of international diplomacy directed at Britain and France to discourage their intervention. Rather than the moral crusader most historians who are signed up to 'the Lincoln industry' would have us believe [and who tie themselves in knots trying to explain away his fairly consistently negative views of the black race up to 1865, Lincoln really needs to be seriously reviewed. Not 'cancelled', but subject to the same historical scrutiny that all other historical figures must sooner or later face. A major contemporary clue to the Lincoln problem is Douglass, who didn't trust him and at best, regarded him as the least worst option for the Afro-American population. Not a ringing endorsement from a real abolitionist.

[@avenaoat]

1. The extrem wrong American school teaching of the history. The USA Constitution said 75% vote of the states should have been for an Amend or Change of the Constitution (plus 66.666% vote in the Congress). In 1860 there were 33 states 15 slave system states and 18 free states. For an Amend of Constitution were 55.5% instead of 75%. So American politicians COULD NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHOLE COUNTRY ABOLUTIONS! Stupid historical teaching of the USA! Instead of whole country abolution the Republican Centre program (and Lincoln) said the new FUTURE Western states should be free state as Kansas or Montana, Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, etc.. 2. The Republican voters were very angry for the Dred Scott decision, because the southern effected judges FOBADE THE STAT's RIGHT by 1857! The most North Eastern states abolished their slaves according to the stats' right, it means the state assembly abolished the slavery system in the border of its own territory. The Dred Scott decision said the slaves could be slaves everywhere, so the local abolution became almost impossible. For example Delaware had 1.6% slaves so Delaware was before a local state abolition about 1870 and the Dred Scott decision disturbed such local state abolution. The Confederate Constitution forbade the Stats' Right to abolish slavery, because a slave holder could bring or take his/her slaves from each state to other (Confederate) state. This was an effect of the Dred Scott decision for the Constitution of the Confederacy. 3. The Northern Civil War effort was an ally war among Democrats, Republicans, Southern unionists and the minority open Abolutionist from 1861 to 1863. Lincoln could not say anything about whole country abolution possibilities, because the Constitution (75% rule) and the democrat voters (45% in November of 1864) only he and the Congress accepted the Butler's brilliant contraband idea. Yes the Emancipation idea was started after Antietam for the UK and France to show they would have assisted a Slavery Civilizacion. However it was also an important PROMISE, if South had not given up the Seccession and the election had won Lincoln in November of 1864 the future could have been for the North to say the Southern states would have been in rebellion so they would have lost their right to any VETO for any Amend of the CONSTITUTION! There were 25 Northern states and only 4 and Half slavery system states (West Virginia got its USA membership for a step by step abolution in its local state constitution) so 4 states could have voted against a whole county abolution only against 21 free of slavery states. It could be 84%. Once More Lincoln Emantipation proclamation was an PROMISE not decision, if he was reelected in November of 1864 he would start to an abolution direction and Lincoln got 55% and the 13th Amend of the Constitution was voted by 31th January of 1865! Lincoln kept his promise. BTW Missouri and Delaware abolished their slaves according to the Stats' Rights vbefore 31th January of 1865! 4. I think Lincoln was extrem excellent politician, the best in the XIXth Century! John Brown could never have abolished the slavery system, but his effect was important for the abolution direction by 1859! Nobody knows without John Brown the Seccession could have got strong support in the South and without the rebellion the more than 75% states vote would have been?????? Only 750 000 dead people soldiers and civilians were!

[@avenaoat]

(I am sorry, again) However it was also an important PROMISE, if South had not given up the Seccession and the election had been won by Lincoln in November of 1864 the future could have been for the North to say the Southern states would have been in rebellion so they would have lost their right to any VETO for any Amend of the CONSTITUTION!

[@nickruiz6794]

To your question about why the north just didn’t let the south secede, I think a major factor was the north thought it would be a quick and easy war

[@kcsupermom51]

If Brits wonder why the Civil War, we might wonder why Britain ruled India

[@ZattsMan]

i’m from Georgia and that southern accent is… well props for trying ig

[@avenaoat]

Britain started the World diversification of the raw cotton production by 1858, when India became brand new Crown colony, The one of the first measures was London began to increase the raw cotton production in India by1858 3 years before the Civil War. Soimilar policy was for the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and for Egypt. The port city British consules began to give free of charge cotton seed to the agricultural producers and for 1864 the raw cotton production became diversificated!

[@martinjohnson5498]

The North had to fight for fear that if secession was accepted, other regions would follow (New England almost left in the War of 1812, and many feared the NorthWest might secede), and Britain and France would act to encourage the disintegration. Lincoln says a lot in the Gettysburg Address.

[@Terinije]

The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia gets all the attention, but the Union Army of the Tennessee was the real powerhouse army of the Civil War.

[@robertdarby6553]

According to Wikipedia, the use of the word 'hooker' as slang for a prostitute, predated General Hooker, being used in print as early as 1845.

[@romain2725]

That, and Stonewall Jackson probably got his name from the Stonewall Brigade rather than from his performance at 1st Bull Run. Interesting podcast nonetheless.

[@Sarsfield-jm2bg]

Lincoln did not give the "House Divided Speech" during the Lincoln- Douglas debates.

[@remycallie]

Why didn't the North just let the South go? 1. North and South were connected forever by the Revolution -- the two centers of revolutionary activity being Virginia and Massachusetts. Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, famously referenced "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land." 2. Every military officer swore (and still does) to "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Effectively, every southerner who raised his hand against the Union was a traitor. 3. Maybe harder for Brits to understand, but Americans love their country. There is a famous quote from a letter written to his wife by a union officer on the eve of a battle in which he expected to (and did) die: "Sarah, my love for you is deathless. It seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but omnipotence can break; and yet, my love of country comes over me like a great wind, and bears me irresistibly on to the battlefield."

[@nomadpurple6154]

1. Are you saving that the North believed that Britain would return to rule them???!! 2. All the southerners who swore that oath were also defending their country and believed the North were enemies of it. 3. All nations love their country. Most have had civil wars where both sides believe they are fighting to save the country. None of what you say makes any sense of the decision to force together peoples who wanted to go their separate ways. It appears authoritarian, stupid and kinda evil.

[@remycallie]

@@nomadpurple6154 Given that at least a hundred million people agree with me, maybe you could make an effort to understand the viewpoint rather than say "none of it makes sense" [to you]. I've read many books on the Civil War. Just a few weeks ago I finished Eric Larson's new book "The Demon of Unrest" which tracks political events from the brief period between Lincoln's election and the firing on Fort Sumter (the start of the war) and shows how each state wrestled with the question of secession. Nobody in the south wanted to just "go their separate ways." There was agonizing on both a personal and regional level. Why was the decision difficult? Because they saw themselves as Americans and in the case of the military, had taken a solemn oath (as they do to this day) to "defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." There was one and only one issue in the Civil War and that was slavery. The seceding states, in their formal document setting forth their reasons for secession, said that their economy and their social order could not exist without slavery and that God had given them charge of the inferior race of Africans. They were certainly right economically. The collective investment in slaves at the time of the Civil War was somewhere between 3 and 4 billion dollars (in 1860's dollars not 2024 money) which is a staggering amount . Many of the plantation owners would have been (and were) wiped out financially if slavery had been abolished. In their view, the Constitution guaranteed their right to property. As long as no law or court decision denied that human beings could be property, they were among the most patriotic of Americans. But with the election of Lincoln, they saw the handwriting on the wall. Sooner or later, slavery was going to be abolished. So they began a rebellion such that the laws of the United States could not be enforced on their territory. And it started with an attack on American military forts in the south. You think the United States government was going to pack up, hand over the forts and armaments to the rebels, and wish them good luck with their new thing?

[@avenaoat]

@@remycallie Lincoln thought the slavery would abolisg in the all country about 1920!!!!!!! The Republican mild and the Centre as Lincoln thought 75% of the states would be without slavery system about 1920! Any Amend or Change needed 75% vote of the States. Lincoln and Republican centre wanted the newer Western states should have been without slavery and they hoped the low % slaves states as Delaware 1.6% slaves or Missouri 9.7% slaves and other low % slave states would abolish the slavery system in their local territory according to the States' Rights. So the free states majority would be by 1920! Extrem stupid seccessionist politicians got the whole country abolution the 13th Amend of the Constitution on 31th January of 1865 instead of 1920! North had to fight for an intact coutry, because North America would have become a many darfs counties Continent. Stephen Douglas (democrat candidate for 1860 election) would have asked for 200 000 volounters instead Lincoln's 75000 after fort Sumter. IStephen Douglas and the majority Democrats assissted the Lincol government almost untill 1864, moreover lots of them untill 1866.

[@ianmedford4855]

Wait... baseball is a FASTER paced game than Cricket? That's not good fellas.

[@smokingbrush2498]

It was until ten years ago.

[@nomadpurple6154]

Five days and desperate for a tie - absolutely nail biting as no.9 batsman comes in.

[@SubTroppo]

I think of baseball as Slow-Spit-Ball (and basketball as Too-Tall-Ball). No similar names for cricket yet but I am working on it however watching video clips of Shane Warne at his best does not help,

[@Martijn_Steinpatz]

To add to Stonewall's character, he refused to season his food with pepper because 'it made his left leg ache'. Seriously, you can't make these characters up.

[@colino5056]

His dying words still make me sad. Something along the lines of “let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees”. Still commanding his men.

[@bitcoinzoomer9994]

Compare the political situation in 19th century antebellum america to modern antebellum america

[@joannshupe9333]

A major problem with "patriotism" was - a patriot of what country? When RE Lee refused Lincoln's offer to lead his armies, he referred to "his country", by which he meant Virginia. The concept of such a huge country as the entire east coast just didn't sit with emotions - a state was about as much of an area as people could grasp. Also it occurs to me that everyone had their eyes on the enormous amounts of land to the west, which everyone wanted desperately. Besides the natives, acquiring every bit of it would mean another major war between the natives AND the "other" country. AND it took Lincoln 4 years because it took him that long to find a general that would work with him and handle Lee.

[@avenaoat]

The North had 2-4% open abolutionists and 10-12% silent abolutionists. The majority the most democrates soldiers went to war to preserve the Union between 1861 and 1863 and I do not say anything about the Republicans soldiers. . Butler was proslavery Northern democrat in 1860 and he began his job in Baltimore Maryland to hold in the union by 1861 and he invented the contraband idea in the fort of Monroe. Later he founded the first 3 Afican American regiments in South Louisiana in September of 1862!

[@BrutusMcCrunch]

Wasn't John Wilkes Booth a northerner? And... relevant for the woke bullies of today's Hollywood, an overrated actor.

[@ACordinerB]

I feel the first part of this series on the Civil War gives a very good insight into why the North chose to fight. In that first part they say that the war with Mexico had to be the most successful campaign for the acquisition of territory. A victory like that would have vindicated the idea of the United States as this unstoppable force and vindicated the American Revolution, and the founding fathers. To let the South secede would be the opposite. It would mean failure of the ideals of the founding fathers, failure of America and a massive loss of land as another commenter has said. Plus if the North felt outrage at the institution of slavery it would be an even bigger outrage if part of the county became this international beacon across the world for the cause of slavery.

[@johnrohde5510]

The North probably expected a quick victory. It had a numerical superiority, all of the regular army and all of the navy. In two recent liberal v conservative clash, the liberals had won fairly easily: Switzerland's Sonderbund War and the Franco-Austrian War. Most wars are embraced because they are expected to be quick and easy. The South had the stronger motive and the weaker resources; the North had the weaker motive and the greater strength.

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

The US-Mexican war of 1846-48 was over in two years, with around 13, 500 lost US lives. That may have been the yardstick. Just a thought.

[@tommonk7651]

As a native Atlantan, that might be the worst Southern accent I've ever heard. LOL Love the podcast.... I get so tired of people arguing the Civil War was not about slavery. Of course it was.... America is better off for the demise of cricket. 🙂 Gen. McClellan was not a good fighter; he was a good trainer and preparer, but he was not aggressive. He was fired because of his lack of aggression.

[@kingofpendragon]

The Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Your pitiful gorilla brain simply cannot comprehend the complexity and nuances of historical issues. It wasn’t about slavery.

[@kingofpendragon]

Also, stop acting like black Americans were the only slaves at that time period; THEY WERE NOT. POOR WHITES AND NATIVES were not exactly on easy street, dummy.

[@kingofpendragon]

Lastly, the fact that former black American slaves FOUGHT FOR THE CONFEDERACY AND THEIR FORMER SLAVE MASSAS proves that the war wasn’t about just slavery. You people are really fucking STUPID.

[@tommonk7651]

@@kingofpendragon I'm sorry, did I say anything about blacks being the only slaves or are you just reading in your own prejudices? Yes, there were indentured servants and poor sharecroppers, but even they weren't slaves. They didn't require an amendment to the Constitution to free them from bondage. And you may call me names, but I'll put my poly sci degree, my minor in history, my experience teaching history and my law degree up against you anytime.

[@kingofpendragon]

@@tommonk7651 And, obviously, you got those degrees and educational accreditations UNDER A MANGO TREE. The Civil War was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY; It was about STATES RIGHTS AND SOUTHERN AUTONOMY, NO DIFFERENT THAN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR OR THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO HER BODY IN THE ABORTION DEBATE. Obviously, you puny brain cannot grasp these concepts, so I suggest you take those worthless degrees back AND REQUEST A REFUND, MORON.

[@Desert-Father]

I dont know many children that can hit a 100 mph fastball.

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

To be fair, Lincoln and the North didn’t know they would lose 300,000 soldiers. It’s impossible of course but I wonder if they would have made a different decision after Fort Sumter if they’d known.

[@avenaoat]

The repeatin rifle was used to late. Specer and Hanry were ready to use in 1861!

[@jrob7975]

Hi - Josh here from Ohio (the Union side). Let me give you my thoughts. Again, just my thoughts, so please don't hunt me down LOL 4:10-4:30 = You are absolutely correct, within 10years or less, the Confederacy would have collapsed, resulting in the freeing of the slaves. But back to the original question, why did the North decide to fight vs. let them slowly crash. Well #1, NO NO NO (honoring my favorite British PM Margaret Thatcher), we are the United States of America, so, just try and break away, it's as simple as that. We will do whatever it takes to ensure the Union stays together. Thank God, Abe Lincoln had the good sense to know what needed to be done to ensure the Union remained together during those rough years; along with his Emancipation Proclamation, which led to the Constitution being updated with the 13th Amendment. Great time in History!

[@kevinmcinerney1959]

On the secession question.. I was strongly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. But I was also worried about the point where leaving might be declared illegal secession. So if the EU became ever more close-knIt, having its own army, and sovereignty was ever more centralised, when would that watershed arrive? I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one day unwillingness to continue - because the EU became more undemocratic, say, or enacted an authoritarian constitution - would result in a war. And this always made me wonder - why COULD not the South secede peacefully. I understand that it would be in the cause of slavery, and that is grotesque. But was the South's participation in the USA not voluntary?

[@nelsonchereta816]

As president Lincoln did not have the constitutional authority to end slavery in the United States. As happened historically, that required an Amendment to the Constitution. What Lincoln could do, as Commander and Chief, was seize the property of rebels. That's why slaves in Maryland and Kentucky remained slaves, but slaves in Alabama and Georgia, far beyond Union lines were 'freed.'

[@johnpowell9174]

Lancashire was profoundly anti-slavery. The cotton factory owners and most of the workers tolerated the cotton famine with remarkable fortitude and with substantial personal loss. Another reason for UK not entering the war on behalf of the Confederates.

[@pauljohansen8043]

What is ironic is it was the Civil War itself that caused Americans to identify fist as an American,rather than “A Virginian, a New Yorker” first, etc.!

[@stephenbrunner2543]

🇺🇲 A side issue: If you let south leave how long then before New York or Maine decides to secede too for some future unknown issue? Still another: how long before the Confederacy and Union go to war anyway? One even today nightmare is US ends up with a bunch of warring segments like Europe, another continent condemned to endless conflicts.

[@gordonaddie3107]

An argument has been made that the much vaunted Lee fought too many aggressive campaigns into union territory, when all the Confederacy had to do was fight a defensive war. They also hemmorhaged more men in almost all major engagements *dead and inured* than the Union army did (when the Confederacy had less men to spare). Also an argument that if the south had mobilized its black men to fight it could have blostered its ranks considerably as it had many black men of fighting age, but of course it wouldnt do that due to it being such a racist white supremacist entity. Also not to mention that the Union simply had far more resources, industrial output and population on its side.

[@wowomah6194]

It's absolute bullshit that Richmond had to become such a focal point because if it hadn't, we'd have even more beautiful architecture and buildings still and history, which of course, is bizarre considering how there is history on every bloc of Richmond city. Old iron works, old bridges, old homes, old banks, old churches, old graveyards, and so on. Ironically, despite the war and the burning of Richmond, without looking this up, I'd have to imagine that Richmond probably has some of the oldest, most intact buildings in all of America (also because other cities like Boston, Philadelphia, DC or New York had far more development and industrialization onwards into the 20th century and thus built over whole city blocs with new buildings).

[@anthonyrussell3626]

Love these two & am complete (new) fan of The Rest is History - but slightly shocked at the pro-war sentiment expressed (7.00) or was that statement meant to be quoting others? They already explained how the world was moving to abolition anyway. 'Democracy' as they put it, could have remained as a shining beacon in the North & the door always open for re-admittance of the South, sparing both the catastrophic bloodshed & unknown (& virtually unconsidered) externalities / long-term consequences of the war.

[@avenaoat]

If North had not keept the whole USA, North America would have consisted in 10 countries instead of 3 countrias as Mexico, Canada and USA! The problem was the Army ordanance leaders did not want such weapons as the Spencer reapiting rifles which used cooper cartridge, South had not cooper mines!

[@robertalpy]

When I lived at Ft. Stewart when I was younger. Savanna's is about the only place seeing other than Atlanta airport. Probably the most beautiful city I've ever seen. Well...parts of it. I wonder if Tom was in the British Navy. That's what brings most Brits to Savanna. Nice town to drink in. To answer the question we couldn't let the south go. One if we'd let them go they would have built their golden circle and then we'd have a slave power stretching from Virginia to Panama. It would only put off the war and the longer they had to prepare, the worse it'd be.

[@DanSam48]

Before the war, the South was better educated, top to bottom, richer, and more prosperous overall. Slavery was made immoral by the industrial revolution, but prior to this it or something like it was necessary, Europe had peasants, but America didn't have enough people to have a peasant class so they imported their labor pool. The north wanted the opportunity to loot the south and take their wealth, and also to take their labor pool and relocate many of them to the north to work in factories. The south was the first colony in the Global Imperial American Empire. Slavery and its elimination became the moral armor for the corrupt and naked power grab that came out of the civil war.

[@jackconnolly5339]

We shoulda let you cousin fuckers go

[@avenaoat]

South gathered the 7% of tariff in 1859! The bigger part of the tax were gathered in North too! Withouth the South North built a big extrem expensive Navy and big Army together without the South and without inflation.

[@DanSam48]

@@avenaoat Because of the greenback, and because of the destruction brought by the war. As long as there are not excesses, inflation is avoided.

[@avenaoat]

@@DanSam48 The Confederacy felt wrong about any extra tax and tariff so the bank note press was used instead of tax! The 1861 agricultural production was good enough (in the newer border Confederate states) and the Confederate Army (Navy) was volounter. The conscription of the Confederate Army started 16th April 1862 and increasing the running slaves began to incease by 1862. The agricultural decline started by 1862. Low tax (+tariff) big Army with conscripted white food production farmers in the Army, fewer slave workers, minimal foreign loan, decreased cotton export = accelerating inflation. January of 1862 = 21.8%, January of 1863 = 136.6%, January of 1864 = 700% and September of 1864 = 53.73% (this time, when Deep South turned from Cotton to Food production and Sherman planed his March in Georgia. There was food in Georgia.) and January of 1865 = 172.73% inflation.

[@DanSam48]

@@avenaoat Yeah war does that to a smaller power who can not compete with the maritime power of their enemy.

[@launiesoult3248]

Why didn't we just let them go the preservation of the Union

[@launiesoult3248]

I'm from the Union Pennsylvania you hit it on the head it's the Union

[@dearestsimone]

It is a strange idea to me that people here generally felt the union had to be held together for moral reasons that had anything to do with the rest of the world. Maybe so, but it does not ring right for me. LIncoln thought loftly, and maybe some others, but recall how independently minded we were, in our New World, living on the enormous tracts of land out in the wild, the prairie. The world was very much right here and no where else. I don't know whether to call that selfishness, not at that point. Whatever it was has certainly contributed to who we are today.

[@invisibleray6987]

Do your Marlon Brando again!!! LMAO

[@thomaslittle8593]

I know you guys sometimes write children’s books but does it not occur to you that the north was not going to give up the cotton crop of the south to British textile mills, that the US was not going to give up the port of New Orleans, that the US was going to let Texas and Missouri and who could guess how much of the western territories without a fight. Your default to, “oh the northern politicians were just so idealistic” really throws your credibility into question. The “expert” is obviously not qualified on the subject

[@procinctu1]

Exactly, most wars are economic and this was no exception. Adoption of the Black Hat/White Hat dichotomy is absurd and wrong.

[@avenaoat]

I do not know the Northen politicians knew the British government decided on the UK began the raw cotton World diversification in 1858 3 years before the Civil War! For 1864 the raw cotton production became diversificated. The Southern seccessionists did not know at all.

[@therambler3055]

The North couldn’t just let the south go. Upwards of 80-90% of European trade comes through southern ports because the south was low tariff, and then shipped the goods up through the railroad or the Mississippi. Also the south was the richest region of the country leading up to the war and you can’t just let them go.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

Nobody wants Taliban level religious extremists at their border that feels emboldened to bombard your bases and steal national property. Nor would it be fair to the remaining Americans trapped on Confederate territory.

[@therambler3055]

@@eatfrenchtoast the fact that you said anything about the Taliban tells me your reaching for the stars. Just because a few people were against secession doesn’t mean they were loyal to the USA unless your going to acknowledge the same for the pro southerns in the union. Also Lincoln was told by Winfield Scott personally not to resupply ft Sumpter SC, and ft Pickens FL because it would cause the new Confederate nation to fire on them. Because if they didn’t they would look weak on the world stage.

[@Sarsfield-jm2bg]

It's Pah-toe-mac

[@waxer32123]

The south was fighting for slavery, the north was fighting for union and the idealistic vision of the US as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

[@chemicalcowpoke307]

Thé British mind just cannot fathom the American sense of Union, and manifest destiny…

[@dearestsimone]

Why could the North not just let the South go? I think the standard answer taught to American school childen (self included) was that we were all economically dependent on slavery.. That still make sense to me. It was a short, simple explanation, never complicated (at least in my memory).

[@scottbronnenberg3414]

Was the rump USA willing to share a 3,000 mile border with British Canada AND a 3,000 mile border with a potential British client state ?

[@eatfrenchtoast]

The Confederate rebels were religious extremists and terrorists.

[@petebondurant58]

@dearestsimone Yet, the victorious Union outlawed slavery as soon as the war ended.

[@remycallie]

You must have been taught that in a woke school ten years ago. Some place using the 1619 Project as a text book.

[@fishbone2921]

Well, thank you civil war. Baseball is far superior to cricket.

[@procinctu1]

Sad to see modern politics control your commentary on the war. I am very disappointed, normally this is a very good historical channel. The simpering and abject fear about “not being politically correct” in your conclusions from the history is flatly disgusting.

[@TimLeandro]

Quite nauseating, this romanticising of confederates. "Cavaliers"? Really? Nazis are the comparison that comes to my mind.

[@colinmagnier1232]

@@TimLeandro i bet this ain't the first time you've used the nazi anology.

[@procinctu1]

You must be fun at parties calling everyone who you don’t like a NAZI

[@BrutusMcCrunch]

How is it that different to how many Brits to this day kiss the feet of the obnoxious Oliver Cromwell who made Robert E Lee look like Gandhi. (Fun Fact: Gandhi hated Black folks 10 times more than Robert E Lee or Fred Goldman)

[@adtastic1533]

"What's the matter? The CIA got you pushing too many pencils?"

[@henkvandergaast3948]

Oh look.. I was all for the cricket world dominance until we cheated I am afraid that once a cheat.. may as well hang on to rugby

[@Mute_Nostril_Agony]

Was Stonewall Jackson gay?

[@cybertronian2005]

Why do you say that, just because of the Stonewall Riots? I don't think the Stonewall Inn where it was all started was named for him, I mean it was in New York for a start lol

[@BrutusMcCrunch]

Many slave owners actually were. They didn't own male slaves just for cotton-picking trust me

[@maggiesimmons1084]

I am so fed up by your lack of research and / or intentional lies about history. I now un-subscribe, and NEVER will watch again

[@petebondurant58]

@maggiesimmons1084 Can you explain specifically what the lies are in the video?

[@nicholasoliver9957]

​@@petebondurant58 Asking an American Conservative snowflake for evidence? Don't wait too long, Pete. :P

[@BrutusMcCrunch]

Go date the nearest rapper and stay out of intellectual discussions that are above your pay grade

[@TrevorBarre]

Donald Trump could do with listening to this.

[@petebondurant58]

@TrevorBarre Can you go a single hour of your life without thinking of Donald Trump?

[@BrutusMcCrunch]

Considering today's corrupt Liberals, he'd be far wiser studying the blatant immorality and arrogance of Marie Antoinette and updating the tactics of Robespierre