Dividing a Nation: The Origins of the Secession Crisis and the Civil War

[@historify.54]

These wonderful lectures and their freedom to share and disagree are the reason I’m on KZbin. Speaks volumes to the rigor and research of American academics. Very impressive and heartening.

[@AmmoDude]

In my most humble opinion, the 3rd speaker nailed it. Follow the money! It is always, always about the economy!

[@Joseph-ue5wc]

Bingo

[@JohnJohnson-pq4qz]

That is a kind of classic 'Marxist' approach and I have not yet read his book but his initial statements seem a little odd. the period of 'compromise" was seen as the south getting its way (and slavery spreading-which the founding fathers had never intended) and led directly to the formation of the Republican Party which was clearly devoted to stopping the spread of Slavery (not abolition ). read their party platform for 1860, it full of planks of containing slavery and even rails against the reopening of the slave trade-which it claims the south is trying to do. During the war, when they have control of congress is the time to pass progressive legislation (such as the 13th amendment) and reward working people for supporting the Union (homestead act etc.)

[@MsEripmav]

This is a terrific series of talks, thanks for posting!

[@romanhood4849]

This is my first time encountering Dr. Varon. I'm floored and impressed by her grasp on the topic and insights. I've already hopped over to Amazon and bought "Disunion!"

[@romanhood4849]

@Trace Saul oh I care

[@gilscott2463]

So your saying, with slavery extinct future succession would be peaceful?

[@danaberg6354]

The Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery? Then why did the Southern States say they were defending slavery? Another piece of evidence for Slavery being the reason the South left is Alexander Steven's (Confederate Vice-President) speech that talked about the Confederacy being based on the "Moral" System of slavery.

[@janbarstow]

Slavery translates to Cheap Labor, Assets, and Increased Likelihood of Survival in harsh conditions. It also conveyed status as that meant one had the means in land and revenue to support them. That's why some Blacks, once freed, also acquired slaves -- a legal option for home and field. Slavery was a carry-over from pre-revolutionary times, and it took a growing conscience as a nation to end it. Indeed, by all counts the institution of slavery was already close to ending had it not become so entangled in politics, finance, and power. The slavery-only argument is woefully simplistic and misleading.Though slavery distinguished the southern states from the northen along voting patterns, these voting patterns existed across many interests. Slavery per se would have ended with advances in farm machinery, transportation, and other conveniences, but other differences would have remained. The entanglement was that banks and other moneyed interests profited by insuring slaves and listed slaves as collateral assets for loans, so those slaves could NOT be freed. In fact, corporate interests in the north offered financial incentives for southern businessmen to acquire even more slaves. Some NY banks even acquired and dealt in slaves when the plantation could not bring in the yield. And northern railroads rented slaves from the south as cheap labor during off seasons. So slavery was not an easily defined North-South divide; rather, it represented a difficult cultural, economic, and political divide. For decades the Confederate states had been the clear underdog in this power distribution, and they finally tried to change it. The Union states did not want to cede their advantage.

[@powerdriller4124]

@@janbarstow :: No slavery, no war; enough said. So all your "rationalization" is just BS. If the South was at any disadvantage was because its mind set was a backwards medieval one. The Southern Plantation Owners wanted to keep the rest of the Southern Whites: poor, illiterate, deceived, bigot and stupid; so they could be controlled and used as cannon fodder to defend the enormous fortunes of the filthy rich Southern Chiefs.

[@avenaoat]

@@janbarstow New York City was proslavery for financyal cause, but New York State was against slavery in majority. During the Civil War it could be seen well. In New York State was not any draft revolt only in New York City in 1863! The Kansas Nebraska act changed North against South. It may be Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin turned the Northern women readers against Slavery System, but in the Northern families the antislavery women effect could be little to break North against South. Nobody knows without Kansas Nebraska acts the 1850 compomise had remained for more years than 10 years? I think the Republican Party was not founded without Kansas Nebraska act!

[@MsEripmav]

If secession was allowed there would be as many states as KZbin channels.

[@truegritut]

yes, I think you're right, and shrinking just as quickly as youtube channels do due to censorship, that ought to be a clue about who owns us and how much authority the Constitution provides.

[@dr.idrisbhuiyan3953]

This workshop if a source of knowledge for onward human civilization.

[@moneymarty1]

Source of deception - not knowledge.

[@scarletharlot69]

the thing is had there not been slavery, would there still have been a civil war if it can be cause by economic reasons?

[@rundstedt1004]

_"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place."_ - Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5 .

[@romanhood4849]

Whether a war would still have happened depends on where the sitting president would have allowed the states (any states) to secede, or use force against them prevent disunion. Because with or without slavery a secession would _certainly_ have eventually occurred. Not necessarily of Southern states. Not necessarily of the _particular_ Southern states that ended up doing it. When the secession that _did_ occur happened, as it happened, the president at the time made it clear that the War he made on those states was entirely about their secession and (in his words) not at all about slavery. It follows that if the alternative president of the alternative timeline without slavery felt the same way about secession, then yes there would still have been a war. A strong argument can be made (I'm not necessarily endorsing it) that slavery was the one thing keeping the union together _as long as it did_ . That disunion of some sort would certainly have come _much sooner_ due to completely different reasons.

[@GH-oi2jf]

scarletharlot69 - Not likely, although S. Carolina did start talking about secession during the administration of Andrew Jackson, the 7th president, over a tariff controversy. Jackson said, in effect, “don’t even think about it.” Interestingly, Jackson predicted that the next time the possibility of secession comes up, it would be over slavery.

[@truegritut]

You are right on the money! Remember as well, that slavery was brought in while we were a British colony.

[@JohnJohnson-pq4qz]

unlikely because the south would simply have been dominated economically by the north (or also industrialized) and it was only slavery and cotton that gave them the wealth and political power to believe they could break away and fight the north if necessary. Economic wealth is power.

[@sergesa4735]

And what about Lincoln's emancipation proclamation specifically mentioning: "And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." ... Which included only Confederate states et excluded all Northern sates... which means that there was slavery in the northern states... which means that slavery served only as an excuse for the Civil War. Ity was only about power and money.

[@SandfordSmythe]

He had no authority to abolish slavery in the North .

[@sergesa4735]

@@SandfordSmythe He had no authority to abolish slavery in the South! Even the Will Smith movie - "Emancipation" - got it wrong. Before Louisiana was "liberated" by the North, slaves were allegedly free per the Lincoln Emancipation Declaration. But when Louisiana was conquered by the North, they became slaves again!

[@SandfordSmythe]

@@sergesa4735 He had war powers in the South in the areas in rebellion and the right to seize contraband property - slaves. You may disagree with the status of the Southern states being under his authority but this was his logic. He was unsure of his powers if the states were no longer in rebellion, and so he pushed for the 13th Amendment what would give Presidential authority over slavery in the North and border states. In the total North in 1860 there were 9 old slaves in NJ waiting to die off. Personally I don't get into these arguments about slavery and the cause of the war. There's too much shallow knowledge here.

[@patscott8612]

Bondage ,Whip. Yes please Elizabeth.

[@thepianoroommusic]

2nd speaker. The time keeper, too many uh’s. Hard to listen to.

[@travisc9169]

One more thing. The first speaker talks about Southerners taking steps against the slaves of the south for security. What he fails to mention is a number of northern states enacted "negro laws" prohibiting those same blacks they supposedly felt so bad for from moving north!!! The north was not - I repeat - was not some great kind, loving friend of the blacks/slaves. I really hate it when some pompous speaker such as this first guy makes the south out to be so bad, and the north some great, great, kind just etc land of milk and honey when it simply is not true. He is a liar.

[@avenaoat]

Here in the video it was mentioned 5% abolutionists were among the Northern male people. It may be among the women could be higher % abolutionists reading Uncle Tom's Cabin, but they did not vote. The abolutionst movement was strong in New England , in East Pennsylvania and in some parts of Ohio. However the it is important to know the most pioneer people arrived to Illinois, Indiana and Ohio from Kentucky, Tenneessee, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware from 1815 to 1830. A less % arrived from the Central States and very few from New England. There were movement in Illinois to change to be slave holding state and this movement ended only in 1844. (BTW Lincoln family came from Kentucky) The North Eastern people arrived after 1830 to Mid West in majority and togheter with the European immigrants. Missouri voted about 10% to Lincoln in 1860 and Delaware with 23%. Two slave system states and more than 10% Republican voters!

[@rodneymartensen8302]

This seminar should be retitled, "post modernist drivel comes to the American Civil War." So called scholars like this do little to clarify or edify people about the Civil War.

[@eatfrenchtoast]

He is still white-washing it.

[@truegritut]

If my sons didn't want war, there would be none - Gutle Schapner , Mayer ASmschel Rothschild's wife

[@historicus146]

I blame "academics" like this woman for the tearing down of history in this nation.

[@moneymarty1]

You got that absolutely correct. The false narrative of emancipation being even remotely causal in the conflict is laughable - but viewed as credible by those who should know better.

[@bjohnson515]

@@moneymarty1 1. The North did not invade the South to free the slaves. 2. There had been no diplomatic efforts to free the slaves prior to the War. 3. The Deep South did indeed secede over concerns regarding slavery. 4. Lincoln said if he could keep the Union together, he would not free any slaves. (Lincoln’s first inaugural omitted from the Lincoln Memorial) 5. The Johnson Crittenden Resolution passed in both Houses of Congress shortly into the War asserted that the War was not about slavery. 6. Virginia was in favor of staying in the Union, in convention, as late as the first week in April 1861. They only seceded when forced to engage in War against the Deep South, embargo the Deep South, and allow federal forces making War on the Deep South to traverse their state and use their ports. 7. Virginia ratified the Constitution 70 years earlier with the proviso that “DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:” Accepted. And invoked in 1861. A “right” of the State of Virginia. 8. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas in rebellion and out of control of the federal govt at the time. MO, KY, MD, DE and parts of LA were not impacted and slavery persisted. 9. The alleged “Lost Cause” is considered a post War myth by some, but was actually laid out prior to the War by Jefferson Davis in his first inaugural. 10. It is clear in Alexander Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech the racial attitude of the South. Yet, Lincoln said essentially the same thing, to applause, in 1858 Charleston IL. 11. Northern shipping made fortunes in the slave trade.

[@onepiecefan74]

@@nancydenton7496 Cope.

[@davidharner5865]

@@bjohnson515 Commonwealth of Virginia

[@danwoodliefphotography871]

I blame lost causers and racists. My ancestors were Confederate soldiers, and I live and breathe Civil War history, but the inability of Southerners to admit the North's reasons for fighting were more just and the actions and rhetoric of racists and neo-Confederates tore down statues. As for history, it is a subject - the study of the past. The past never changes, but if our understanding of it did not change, historians are not doing their jobs.

[@darthbigred22]

The root cause of the war is who gets the most power from something produced like cotton. Does the plantation owner make the most profit or the factory that makes it into clothing? The US could have paid the slave owners off like the UK had done but chose not to. They claim the Southern plantation owners were so racist they'd never take the money but again these are the 1% of antebellum society so OF course they'd take more money. Their labors costs were about to shoot up since they'd actually have to hire people. I'm not defending them or slavery but saying a country fought the civil war purely to free the black man and then ignored enforcing any of those laws about it for 100 years is why blacks and white southerners both say it's not really about slavery.

[@powerdriller4124]

Southerners started the war to preserve slavery, their "Cause". Northerners reacted and started fighting to Preserve The Union. Once the war began there was no possible negotiation, then Lincoln saw that abolishing slavery was a convenient measure, cause and tool to defeat the god damn Rebs.

[@travisc9169]

I have issues with the first speaker. He starts immediately with the premise that slavery was the cause of the war. he quotes Lincoln saying that slavery "was the only substantial dispute" Well that is a bald face lie but the speaker then goes on to try to support that falsehood. Of course these talks are one person's opinion and any speaker give evidence for their opinion but that does not make them right. In fact, in this case it makes him part of the problem. Besides what I write check out the Abbeville Institute for some truth about the war. Before anyone simply swallows at least the first speakers line, check out some info on the Morrill tarrif, the transcontinental RR, Lincoln's other speeches, such as the one that said specifically he was not going to eliminate slavery, look at when West Virginia was allowed to join the Union and allowed to keep their slaves (after the supposed great "Emancipation Proclamation". Look at how the 13th Ammendment first failed until Lincoln sweetened the deal. Look at how many southerners actually owned slaves (not that many) and yet they want you to believe that all those hundreds of thousands of boys joined to fight to support the few rich guys so those few could keep their slaves! Look at how many of the southern leaders were well known in their opposition to slavery. Many were, the problem was they were economically tied and couldn't get out. Some people talk about "free labor" of slaves. That is not true. A slave was a cradle to the grave situation. Not like northern industrial slave owners (yes they were) that got some Irishman off the boat, worked him for almost nothing and then when he got hurt fired him. Oh how easy it is to forget that! No other country fought a war to supposedly "free the slaves" we didn't either, but that is how it has to be portrayed so that Lincoln's mass murder of hundreds of thousands can be justified. If the north would have said "we will buy their freedom" which is what the Brit's did, then no one would have had to die. But not they did not want to do that!

[@HaleysComet81]

Imagine taking the time to type out such nonsensical drivel.🤡😂

[@travisc9169]

@@HaleysComet81 If you are going to disagree please provide evidence.

[@HaleysComet81]

@@travisc9169 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[@carywest9256]

That woman is a Pennsylvania yankee, from the Philly area. Just looked up to see where she's born. No birthplace but went to yankee college west of Philly. Tight fisted yankees don't travel far from home to get egdemacated. MISSPELLED INTENTIONALLY!

[@Treklosopher]

That guy Marc Egnal is a modern day lost cause mythologist dressed up as an academic. What a joke.

[@TheJunehog]

Big gaps in his reading. I don't feel like he's got the literature down.

[@onepiecefan74]

Your clearly to dumb to understand what hes talking about. Hes saying the economic conditions of a half slave half wage economy lead to the civil war. This in opposition to the idea that the war was an ideological and moral crusade against slavery. Slavery is still the key factor. But its the economic factor not the moral component.

[@tonywright1081]

yes the South went to war over slavery, and yes they did fight for states rights for slavery. butt I believe that it was mainly the slave owners that fought in the Civil War fought for states rights for slavery while the non slave owners not only for social status concerning slavery they also mainly fought to defend their states rights to protect themselves from the northern invader. in fact I believe President Lincoln was planning, when the Southern politicians seceded from the Union to hold on to their states rights for slavery to send Union troops down to the South to invade on not just their states rights to hold slaves but everyones everyone is states rights as well which includes not to slavery but all their states rights to live any way they please until the southern politicians surrender the slaves and to see that back to the Union. but instead the stubborn politicians refuse to release their slaves and instead sent people who had less than twenty slaves to fight for them. because those that had 20 or more slaves were exempted from fighting. therefore the people cried a rich man's War but a poor man's fight therefore the Civil War is about slavery secession and states rights. which is states rights for slave owners who had less than twenty slaves to fight for their right to own slaves and for the rest of the men in the Confederacy to fight for the Yankees not to take over their whole self and invading every single right they had, despite the fact that's slavery also benefited non slaveholders. yes I believe by the time of the Civil War slavery did not benefit non slave owners as much as it did earlier during the Antebellum Period because I believe there were more free blacks by the time of the Civil War than there were slaves. yet again mr. Lincoln only was planning on infringing upon their rights to own not only for slavery but every single right they had until they gave up their slaves.

[@nora22000]

Tony Wright I think you've got the gist of it; the rich planters fooled the poor men to go out there and fight for their right to own slaves. While this was taking place, everything that the poor people owned and loved got trashed by the Union, so that the poor people suffered the worst from the war started by the rich slave owners. I think that Southerners have a bone to pick with their so-called heroes just as much as the Northerners that came in and destroyed their homes.

[@truegritut]

don't fall for the lies of the same people who are destroying America and Beirut right now.

[@avenaoat]

Between the lower % slavery populated areas and the higher % pro unionist population is a positive CORRELATION! The East Tennessee, Ozark region of Arkansas, North Alabama (+Georgia), Jones county in Mississippi, East part of North Carolina (+New Bern port city) Loudon county in (old) Virginia. West Virginia became new state. Little areas in Texa, Lousiana, Florida had less concentation unionist in some areas. There were single unionists among the strong seccessionist areas as in South Carolina or in other areas (there were pro unionist gerrilla actions not only North Carolina, but Texas and South Alabama as well). About 100 000 WHITE (not only colored ex slaves) soldiers came from the Seccessionist states and Tennessee gave the most!

[@i.charles8658]

Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln 1864, congratulating the American people on your decisive victory. Marx support for the Unionists was based on what he felt was a Class War. Southern Land owning classes and the workers.and labour class.

[@JohnJohnson-pq4qz]

more the old economic system vs the new, worker fueled one.

[@davidharner5865]

The crisis was not about secession, but rather Lincolns inappropriate reaction thereto.

[@HaleysComet81]

Fuck off, white supremacist traitor

[@JohnJohnson-pq4qz]

LOL...To do nothing was to concede secession. When things like the Corwin amendment failed (which would have enshrined slavery in the constitution where it already existed-but rejected by a south hell bent on expanding into an evil empire of global slavery) then war was becoming likely (as the south was using force to seize military installations and armeres.) You are not fighting a war with out troops and a war must be fought to be won..or not at all.

[@kimmartin6160]

The cause being slavery was always such a Noble endeavor But Lincoln telling the North the reason they were fighting was such BS Idont think any of would take field If it really a war of emanc They wouldnt have to keep hammering that Apparently was a norm for the time I remember how we slaughtered ie FREED the INDIANS

[@tomyoung8563]

Nothing but yankee speakers? That’s suspect

[@davidharner5865]

All New Englanders?

[@dhsscd]

PCness