🇺🇸 HISTORY IS WILD! CANADIAN'S FIRST TIME REACTION TO The American Civil War - OverSimplified Part 1

[@billparrish4385]

29:55 The differences between Lincoln and McClellan about the general's overly-cautious nature were not exaggerated. In fact, Lincoln was so frustrated at McClellan's failure to act, he sent the general a telegram that read, "If General McClellan does not want to use the Army of the Potomac, I should like to borrow it for a time..." Lincoln is also quoted as saying, "If we had a million men, McClellan would swear the enemy had two millions, and then he would sit down in the mud and yell for three."

[@HemlockRidge]

George McClellan was responsible for creating, from scratch, the Army of the Potomac. He did a really excellent job of it, the Army was robust, well supplied, and well trained. BUT... when it came to using it to fight, he didn't want to get their nice uniforms all dirty.

[@forrestcrain3401]

Correct. If a general/military commander is very good at one aspect of soldiering it doesn't mean he is across the board. One of Napoleon's greatest strengths was precisely delegating his Marshalls to tasks he knew they would excel at.

[@LJsReactions]

I agree he loved to read his name in the paper but was either to scared to attack or to cautious either way it made him look like a damn fool I personally. think he got off to easy he should have been sent with General Pope way out west to fight the Indians where they would do little harm they both damn near cost the Union the war in the first two years of the fighting.

[@russeads2995]

McClellan is the Sobel of the Civil War. (Band of Brothers reference)

[@Thisandthat8908]

This "yes, ok, ANYTHING" at 37:00 just sums it up perfectly.

[@strongest32]

he is the captain sobel of this era.

[@ExUSSailor]

My own ancestor, Edward McGivney, who emigrated to the U.S. from Ireland, enlisted in the 69th New York Regiment in 1860, and, fought as a member of the fabled Irish Brigade until war's end in 1865.

[@WaywardVet]

Raise the Harp!

Probably looking down from above on his descendant who took the soft life in the Navy, shaking his head...;)

[@WaywardVet]

Shots fired! (Interservice rivalry never gets old) 😆

[@WaywardVet]

Also, let's call them legendary, not fabled. A legend charges through musketballs. A fable is what a man calls his bayonet when he can't get it up.

[@dudewithamustache5027]

Same here, Mathew Blyde, my Irish ancestor who originally lived in Canada and was in the barrel making business in the Hudson bay area. When the war started he took his brothers boots and went south into the Union to enlist, only to find his brother had chased him all the way down where they both enlisted together. After the war he settled down as a teacher in Chicago. We have pictures of him in uniform, I unfortunately don't know the unit he was in. And supposedly he carried a bullet in him from the war to his grave. At least that's how the story goes according to my 92 year old grandmother god bless.

[@johnalden5821]

At 14:00, be careful of going too easy on the systematic racism that slavery entailed. In order to submit a whole group of people to barbaric treatment, you have to completely dehumanize them in your own brain and then consequently in your culture and society. So wherever slavery existed in America, it was not based just on "what I can gain from it" it also was based on thorough, race-based hatred and dehumanization. People were not just saying, "I am putting my own interests above those of other people," they were saying, "These are not really people in any way I am bound to recognize, so they deserve this." Let's not kid ourselves about the depth of the evil that entailed.

[@gabeenri2146]

As for Europe getting involved, it is mentioned in the video is because the Union blockade had stopped all shipments of cotton to the European countries. What you need to know is that the Southern US was, and still is, the biggest exporter of Cotton. Like you mentioned before, economics played a big role in people getting involved in the US civil war and Britain, and other European countries, still have a strong need for cotton and their main supplier was in the middle of Civil War. It’s also why the British had leaned on the idea of helping the Confederacy at the start of the war until the emancipation proclamation. On why President Lincoln did not declare the war was about abolishing slavery at the beginning: The cause of the Civil War was Slavery, but that was not the reason why people fought in the Civil War. The reason for the Union fought was to preserve the Union, and the Confederacy fought to preserve its freedom from the overreach of the Federal Government. If you told people on either side that “we need you to fight to free the slave” or “preserve someone’s else’s right to own slaves” nobody would have fought for that. Remember that abolishing slavery is still a very new phenomenon in the world at this time and would not be a strong reason for people to fight for it.

[@TheLAGopher]

True that the north did not initially fight the Civil War to end slavery. But the south very much was fighting to preserve its economic and social institutions which were built around slavery. If secession was simply about rejecting Federal overreach, why didn’t the Confederacy open its membership to any free state sick of Washington?

[@kbrewski1]

It was always Lincoln's and most Northerners main motivation, and the only way to preserve the Union was to get rid of the idea of slavery. He also was wise enough to know when to make that move.

[@hatleyhoward7193]

@@kbrewski1Yep. Slavery was the catalyst for every other listed reason above. And while slavery was not invented by Americans, the timing of the Industrial Revolution combined with America’s resources is estimated to have fueled over 75% of global economic prosperity; but slaves were deprived of any generational wealth.

[@DomR1997]

There are lots of letters from Confederate soldiers where they explicitly state that they were fighting to preserve slavery as an institution. Poor white southerners had been pumped with anti-black propaganda for over a century in order to prevent any sense of camaraderie developing between poor disenfranchised whites and black slaves. An institution that kept what they perceived as a barbarous people separate from "polite society" wasn't disliked.

[@dc4457]

Basically, the ruling class of the southern states were rich coastal planters, dependent on slave labor and trading a single product with a few select partners. The ruling class of the northern states were rich, industrial capitalists dependent on constantly expanding factories and new markets. Given the living conditions of those industrial workers, the 12+ hour workdays and the wages barely sufficient to pay for food and rent, the European nations couldn't even decide who had the moral high ground. Fear of losing their slaves was definitely the cause of the 1861 secession, but the southern states had almost seceded before in 1832 and 1850 over issues of taxes and tariffs favoring northern industry at the expense of southern agriculture. The United States was more of a voluntary, if grudging, confederation until 1865. Arguably the people didn't even think in terms of nation over state until a generation after the war.

[@mamaflush9945]

HEY Phil & Sam, great breakdown and analysis. Thanks for sharing!💯✌️

[@barsandbarbells2022]

Thank YOU for supporting the channel!

[@gkiferonhs]

People in the north were not universally against slavery. That's the main reason Lincoln was hesitant to make the war about slavery in the beginning. There wouldn't have been support for it at that point. Once he formally made the war about slavery there was more kick back in the north.

[@TheLAGopher]

The north was against slavery as an economic threat to free white labor. It wasn’t so hot on the idea of freed slaves wanting to move north and compete with the white working class for jobs.

[@tommack9395]

Not really true. They were slightly more opposed to war in general. About a third of the Union Army were immigrants. There's were huge cultural differences between the north and south in the mid ninetieth century. Most of the northern population were immigrants who fled their nations to the U.S. due to famine and wars. To go off fighting and leave you family to totally fend for themselves would be very difficult to do. You also do realize to the common people like some Irish born coal miner and their family in northeastern Pa, a German born wheelwright in Ohio and a Dutch born steel worker in NY knew or cared little to nothing about what was happening in South Carolina let alone Texas, Southern way of life seemed a world away. Those places would be a month's or more journey. To them would seems farther away than Beijing China is to us today. The economics of the war, Most production went to the war effort reducing quality of life in the north all around. An army moves on it's stomach, while the union soldiers had better rations than southern soldiers, they were nothing close to what civilians would be able to have and the toil produce and move them created waste and shortages. The resources in coal, iron etc... needed for the war effort were staggering. The labor in industries were reduced because many who otherwise would be farming, mining and manufacturing are off fighting the war. So, it's not an economic boom, much more like blowing up. While inflation was increasing. It's not like government would take care of their families back home. Soldiers were not exactly paid well, The salary for a union private was $11 while the average salary of a man in the north in 1860 was $18.50 a month.

[@oceanplanet8160]

Incorrect. They weren't all for black voting rights. Big difference.

[@kbrewski1]

The disdain for Slavery was very widespread in the North for decades and decades. Religiously it was not accepted by Catholics, Quakers and other New England Puritan Protestant religions, and many immigrants like Italians and Irish who had suffered tough times themselves and highly valued freedom. So your statement is very untrue. Any early hesitancy in actually fighting the War was getting over the idea that you were actually going to be killing fellow Americans. Possibly relatives in some cases. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the moral argument much clearer and defined and spurred the North to victory.

[@maninredhelm]

Lincoln didn't initially want to make the war about slavery because he hoped the rebellion would die down without getting too far out of hand and he wanted to make it easy for the South to lay down its arms. Once he made the Emancipation Proclamation, it committed the South to fight to the bitter end, and likely helped fill its ranks with more recruits who weren't necessarily pro-slavery but terrified of living in equality with freed blacks. The North was not divided over slavery. Every Northern state had to take government action to abolish slavery, most starting in the 1780s shortly after independence. It wasn't something they just stumbled into, it took consensus and popular support. But voting against slavery doesn't necessarily mean you'd be being willing to die on a meat grinder battlefield to end slavery in a foreign state for the benefit of people you'd never met.

[@codygates7418]

Interesting facts: The 5 “Civilized Tribes” the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw all based in Oklahoma (or “Indian Territory” at the time) all had enslaved Africans. The Civil War broke tribes apart and one half could be in favor of slavery while the other half would want to abolish it. A sizable amount of Confederate troops were made up of Native Americans and Free Blacks who themselves owned slaves. The last Confederate general to surrender his troops was Stand Watie a Cherokee general who surrendered his unit of Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, and Osage Native troops in Oklahoma. After his surrender General Lee signed the terms of surrender at Appomattox Court House which was supposedly written up by Ely Samuel Parker a Seneca native and close friend of the Union general and future president, Ulysses S. Grant who personally chose him to be apart of his inner circle. Lee was alleged to have looked at Parker and say “I’m glad to see one real American here” and Parker said back “We are all Americans”. Despite the fact that so many people nowadays say the civil war was about “Whites keeping Blacks down” it’s so much more complicated then that and all groups and races had a hand in both the wars start and end.

[@kerry-j4m]

What about the way the slaves were treated after being set free ??? Everyone talks about the civil war/slavery,but,don't talk about the Jim Crow laws,black codes,rise of the KKK,grandfather clauses. Then the mass lynching of black citizens,the raping of black women by white men ( they'd form an all white jury to find the guilty wht men innocent ) then the 1900s there're 300 recorded incidents of black towns burned to the ground and innocent black citizens killed by white mobs.From 1865-to-1965-that's a 100 yrs of murders,lynchings,rapes,tortures,etc,etc,..of innocent black citizens,their-BLOOD-is on america's hands.

[@gailseatonhumbert]

The North were not just against slavery for economic concerns. The Society of Friends (the Quakers) most concentrated in Pennsylvania were definitely morally against the practice.

[@scottbivins4758]

There was also people in the South who were morally against it but they didn't feel like it was their right to tell other people what to do or how to live their life. Which I understand. If you go telling people what you think they should and should not do kind of makes you look like a tryant.

[@kbrewski1]

So were most Catholics, the Italian and Irish immigrants who came to the US en masse for more freedom and economic power themselves.

[@kbrewski1]

​@@scottbivins4758 Get rid of the Confederate profile pick Traitor.

[@maninredhelm]

Yeah, Oversimplified overstresses that part. Those people existed, but were mostly rural Northerners in the frontier states farming newly acquired land. Pennsylvania and New England had already begun the abolition process 80 years before the civil war. The economics of the moment had nothing to do with it.

[@maninredhelm]

@@scottbivins4758So slavery is bad, but telling other people what to do or how to live their lives is worse?

[@stevedavis5704]

A few points not talked about. Eli Whitney is remembered for two things. First he developed the concept of interchangeable parts in manufacturing. He used this concept to change a lot of things but what we are going to talk about today is in the production of firearms. It was a great limitation on firearms for the military because each one was hand made and if it needed repair you had to have a gunsmith or maybe a blacksmith custom make you the part you needed. This is why the military wanted people to be able to bring their own weapons. When Eli pitched his idea to the government he took the parts for ten muskets, put them on the table and then assembled ten muskets with random parts. Suddenly armies could be bigger because you could arm more people faster and cheaper than before. Then having been raised on a farm he turned his attention to helping farmers. The two main export crops in the south were cotton and tobacco. Tobacco was doing ok but cotton was so labor intensive it really wasn’t practical. It would take a massive labor force to grow and process enough cotton to be economically feasible which required the huge plantations. Most people couldn’t afford it. Then Eli developed the cotton gin to process the cotton to get it ready for market and suddenly you had a machine that could process as much cotton as you could get as fast as you could get it. Suddenly you needed to have lots of workers to get you cotton. Large fortunes were made from this but the slaves were the weak link to the process. Mechanical means of planting and caring for doing the work was coming but it probably would have taken at least another generation to impact slavery very deeply but a tractor you use and then return to the barn till next time would eventually be acknowledged as cheaper over the long run than owning people would be. What they don’t get into much is that Grant figured he could lose five men for every rebel he killed and still win. Since he demonstrated that he was willing to do this, that was one of the reasons the southern leadership sued for peace and the northern leadership was willing to talk about it.

[@gkiferonhs]

Oversimplified left some things out?? Surely not. I took two, semester-long history courses just on the Civil War and the professor kept emphasizing how much he was leaving out. Oversimplified has mastered the art of knowing what to leave out while keeping the idea intact. Love the review.

[@craigplatel813]

Ordeal of the Union by Allan Nevins 8 full volumns didn't even cover it all.

[@s.henrlllpoklookout5069]

It's almost as if they oversimplified the subject....I'll see myself out

[@scottbivins4758]

I feel like he shows too much favoritism to the union. I think when we are talking about the Civil War it is best not to show favoritism no matter what you think about the reasons of the war. If you truly love American history then you understand that both sides were American and they were fighting for what they believed. I dont agree with slavery but i dont judge them by todays standards thats not fair to them. I appreciate the dead on both sides i wish more people would think like that but they let emotions get the best of them instead of just see history for what it is an they cant stop hating o southerners they act like we are responsible for what people did before us. And I have never met a single Civil War veteran so that just goes to tell you how much of role modern played in the civil war an slavery.

[@Wickedurc]

Like I dont know the slaves who built the Norths industrial sector first before they wanted to get rid of slavery

[@michaelthrone]

@@Wickedurc Slaves built the North's industrial sector? For which country, because this was not the case in the US. If you believe it was, then you are accepting revisionist and demonstrably false history.

[@happyjohn354]

Last I checked the US civil war played a part in the formation of Germany. I remember reading somewhere that Prussia would sent people to the US to observe the war and thus learned how to use trains and rail systems to move troops and supplies more effectively. Also they got to see some new weapons in action.

[@Staxx0]

Well also don’t forget the union had over 200k Germans (who didn’t speak English at all) in their army.

[@MrSteelerfan09]

The Gettysburg 1993 movie would be great for you to watch and react to. Shows both sides unbiased in my opinion. Thanks for the video.

[@mikealvarez2322]

People were more loyal to their state than to the nation. Remember, people back then rarely traveled more than 20 miles from their place of birth. Robert E. Lee was against Virginia leaving the Union and would have fought for the North had Virginia not voted for secession.

[@timothycote236]

Enjoy listening how you really delve into the topic. Great discussion about the subject. My ancestors were in Quebec at the time.

[@defftony]

The comedic effect can also make you think some things were a joke that were also real. Like the guy who really did wear women's underwear, which really was against the rules of his position.

[@cathyhetzel7692]

I am proud to be related to Hariett Tubman and Frederick Douglas.

[@arnoldcox9128]

That's awesome

[@michaelwolf7840]

There's a very small chance that you are related to both of them but your probably not. I mean I have DNA evidence that proves I'm the 3000th person in line for the crown of England so what evidence do you have to prove your related to 2 black people that were living in different states and lived at different times? I think your mom told you some bullshit so you felt like you were somebody when your really nobody

[@jm52995]

gross

[@cathyhetzel7692]

F@@jm52995 Are you one of those confederates believe the wars still going on? YOU FRIGGING LOST YOU MIGHT LIKE TO NO I AM CAUCASIAN

[@kbrewski1]

How did you determine that? Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas are not related in any way, by the way. The odds you are related to both are pretty far fetched.

[@philipstoddard1502]

What this does a good job of is the characterization of Lincoln's thinking and objectives. He condemned slavery but put the priority on preservation of the Union. Look up his letter to Horace Greeley for confirmation. As for "Little Mac"/General McClellan, he was great at training troops and terrible at prosecuting a war. His greatest contribution was arguably the McClellan saddle, of which, I wish I had one. They still have enthusiastic fans to this day.

[@garybradford8332]

Surprisingly comfortable and much lighter on the horses back. I have three. One original and two reproductions I used as a Union cavalry reenactor, commanding the 9th Kansas Volunteer Cavalry, Company F.

[@philipstoddard1502]

@@garybradford8332 I envy you, sir! I've had a western saddle, an Australian stock saddle, a barrel racing saddle and even had an English saddle custom made for my daughter. I believe the barrel racing saddle is my closest approximation to the McClellan given that it is still a very different creature. I enjoy the reenactments at odd whiles and even thought I'd like to participate. As it stands, my lineage would have me in butternut and lined up in the field across from you.

[@garybradford8332]

My g-g uncle, Sidney J Hatch, was in the 7th Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry, Co. D. UNION. He was part of the "Home Grown Yanks" which infuriated Nathan Bedford Forrest. He joined on September 24, 1862 for one year and died at age 21 on September 23, 1863, one day shy of his enlistment. I've not been able to find his cause of death, his records were destroyed by Forrest's men after his company was tricked a few months later into surrendering. Those poor TN soldiers arrived at Andersonville stripped of all possessions, practically naked. My Bradford family settled in Arkansas, so I believe I had relatives on both sides. I occasionally rode Confederate when I first started reenacting. I honor the Americans on both sides of that horrible war. @@philipstoddard1502

[@philipstoddard1502]

@@garybradford8332 It's easy to believe that you could have family on both sides. It was a more common phenomenon than is widely realized. There is a novel based upon the family history of my father's forebears, Long Meadows. It concludes with members of this same family facing off on opposite sides in the final battle. My family always hung on to that redemptive notion, but my own research only makes confirmed connection to Confederates. Unlike previous generations of my family, my feeling center around understanding more than guilt. One can't choose or rewrite the past, only learn from it.

[@tcsam73]

The best description I've ever seen about McClellan is that using the information found before the battle of Antietam, a blind man on a three legged horse could have used that info to crush the South's army and bring a swift end to the Civil War. For McClellan, it was barely enough to achieve a draw. The man was brilliant in logistics and exactly who you would want to arm and supply an army at war, but he was incompetent when it came to fighting that war. He was his biggest admirer, and he was really the only one who thought he should have been in command. He got the job because he was the most senior office after Lee left the Union Army and sided with the South.

[@TheLastGarou]

Accused by a political opponent of being "two-faced", Lincoln responded: "If I had another face, would I really use THIS one?" Edit: The dangers of a major uprising by former slaves who no longer had any means of living (as demonstrated by a number of such in places like the Philippines) was another factor that delayed the end of slavery. Even people who detested it and had the political power to DO something couldn't figure out HOW to do it without vast upheaval. Edit 2: Winfield Scott was also one of the major heroes of the War of 1812, particularly the northern campaigns in New York and Canada.

[@kerry-j4m]

650,000 americans died during the Civil War,this problably doesn't include the dead civilians either. So many people died in such a short period of time,great deal of the male age work-force gone too.Including 650,000 tax payers gone,plus this included the babies that would've been born from all these casualties.Problably took america several years to recover from these issues.

[@RogCBrand]

I believe with civilians added it was about 1 million, which if it was adjusted to today's population it would be like 10 million! It's hard to imagine what it would be like, today, if we had that many people dead in just 4 years!

[@kerry-j4m]

@@RogCBrand 1 million sounds about right,in my opinion a civil war is one of the worst kind of wars to fight,hard feelings last for a very-LONG-time from both sides. I can only imagine the personal vendettas played out over the years.

[@wastelandlegocheem]

​@@RogCBrandthat's a third of my state cali's population. Thats INSANE

[@kevinhooper3003]

⁠@@kerry-j4m The Siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi lasted for 70 days, ending on July 4th. It affected them so much that the city of Vicksburg didn’t celebrate the 4th of July for almost a century.

[@kerry-j4m]

@@kevinhooper3003 I wouldn't want to celebrate on that date either.

[@gkiferonhs]

The terrible thing about Civil Wars is that you literally have brother against brother. In our family there were brothers on each side.

[@theveryworstluck1894]

Yeah I had family on both sides too

[@RickSimmons-ej1pv]

I live in a border state. The county where I'm from was split almost 50-50.

[@kellylassen6769]

Same here. My family members are from Pa and Md.

[@NP-ui3tr]

The question regarding the early Union generals, in particular, McClellan was he lacked moral courage to do what was necessary to win the war in 1862 (unlike US Grant) At Antietam, Lee’s General Orders 191 were found my Union soldiers that detailed his entire plan for his invasion of Maryland; including the order of march & the location & objectives of his divisions That was the ONLY time Little Mac moved w any speed but when it came down the fight on September 16th (or 17th) he BLINKED. The Army of the Potomac outnumbered Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia by almost 3 to 1…but he sent them in piece meal & still had division & corps commanders who were not the quality they needed When the Confederate center broke around midday at Antietam (the sunken road/bloody lane) McClellan had an entire CORPS in reserve, some 10,000 fresh troops; had he sent them in at that moment its almost assured that they would’ve captured/destroyed Lee’s army…but he didn’t & the war raged on for nearly 3 more years

[@betJohnson]

My husband is a musician so we watch you everyday. May I suggest Autograph, Turn up the radio. I think you will love it. First time commenter!❤

[@subitman]

If you want to see a movie about the Civil War try watching Glory. The cast are made up of famous actors. It's about a company of first African American soldiers recruited to fight in the North. A more in depth analysis would be the PBS documentary Ken Burns Civil War. It had several episodes and included famous actors who read diaries and letters at the time of the war from both sides.

[@tomwolfe6063]

If you or your family is from one of the former confederate states, you learn pretty early on how to deal with this subject. You avoid it like the plague until you're cornered. Then, you just zone out, bob your head and wait for a chance to change the subject to college football.

[@itz_otto]

which is stupid, if youre from anywhere in the US including the south you and your living family are not responsible for slavery and did not defend it

[@VoFALT]

@@itz_ottoThat's easy to say when your family weren't slave owners in the past.

[@itz_otto]

@@VoFALT anybody living today has nothing to do with what their ancestors did 150 years ago. It’s easy to say for anyone with common sense

[@gibbletronic5139]

After you finish part 2, I suggest that you two react to the movie "Amistad," which explores the issue of slavery shortly before the American Civil War.

[@JohnReedy07163]

You have to remember (or learn) that at the start of the war, Lincoln is a backwoods nobody belonging to the Radical and Brand NEW Republican Party. He has no actual school experience while the Army Officers, including McClellan were all West Point (Army College) graduates. Essentially even Northern Republicans weren't sure he could command a war. Today the President is the commander in chief of the US Armed forces, in 1860 that was Winfield Scott. Abraham Lincoln essentially created the idea that military policy was a concern of the President, not the highest rank military commander (with the help of the Telegraph).

[@itscoleman85]

As a non american I feel like its important to notice this has happened everywhere in the world and still happens today which is so sad. We have to stop pretending it was only in America and is all gone today.

[@alansnow1129]

Yes and all races were slaves like the Irish

[@divinedesolation4825]

Slavery has been around since the first true civilizations were established. The earliest proof we have of slavery dates all the at back to Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, there’s also proof of it happening along the Nile River in Egypt, the Indus Valley in India, and the Yangtze River Valley in China. This puts the date of slavery as far back as 3500 BC. The number of slaves wasn’t all that high back at the beginning but it did happen. By 1750 BC slavery had been institutionalized in Mesopotamia as it featured in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi in which it is referred to as an established institution. Slaves over the course of history have been of many different ethnicities, there were times where slavery was not a matter of something as asinine as skin color, but of other factors such as prisoners of war, different religious beliefs, and other reasons. Slavery was a widespread practice in the ancient world in most places, it was particularly well established in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and in Africa, in various forms and for various reasons. In Europe the practice of slavery didn’t start becoming slightly more uncommon until the Middle Ages although many areas of Europe continued to practice slavery. In the 16th century European Merchants, from Portugal, initiated the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade. They purchased imprisoned Africans from West Africa and began to transport them to Europe and Europe’s colonies including America. Then the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade boomed and the slaves brought to Europe and the Colonies were no longer just prisoners. Some were stolen and brought to Europe and America by merchants , some were sold by their own family into slavery, some were abducted and trafficked by other Africans before being sold to the merchants who would then bring them to the rest of the world. All of these different ways slaves were acquired played a role. (Prisoners didn’t not have many, if any rights for a long portion of human history) Britain didn’t abolish slavery until 1833 with the passing of The Slavery Abolition Act. The first European Country to abolish slavery was Denmark-Norway in 1792, however slavery still existed in the Danish Colonies until 1848. Portugal abolished slavery in 1858 but all slaves have to serve a further 20 years of apprenticeship. The Netherlands abolished slavery in 1861. Abraham Lincoln declared that slavery would be illegal in 1862, which was to be in effect January 1st, 1863, but the 13th Amendment that banned slavery wasn’t actually passed until December 18th 1865. Mauritania (In Northwest Africa) was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981, however despite being technically illegal the “ban” was never strongly enforced and so many people have continued to be kept as slaves. All of the above implies that slavery for the most part no longer happens, however that would be a lie. Slavery still happens basically everywhere to this day, it isn’t called slavery anymore, but in essence human trafficking is slavery. As of 2021 an estimated 50 million people are living in situations of modern slavery. This includes human trafficking, sexual exploitation, forced labor, debt bondage, domestic servitude, forced marriages, forced child labor, and unlawful recruitment and use of child soldiers, among other things. The most venerable to modern day slavery are children, women, and migrants. A staggering 71% are female, the remaining 29% being male. Age is also another factor, the highest percentage of adult females fall in the 18-20 age group where as for men the highest percentage is over 39 years of age. 25% of victims are children younger than 12. This includes 3.3 million children in forced labor and 8.9 million children forced into marriage. Here are a few statics of estimated number of slaves in countries today: North Korea: 2,696,000 Mauritania: 149,000 Saudi Arabia: 740,000 Turkey: 1,320,000 Tajikistan: 133,000 Russia: 1,899,000 Afghanistan: 505,000 United States: 1,100,000 United Kingdom: 122,000 Canada: 69,000 Japan: 144,000 Germany: 47,000 Belgium: 11,000 Netherlands: 10,000 Here are some under 10,000 Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Finland. In the United States it’s estimated that 18,000 foreign nationals and 400,000 Americans are being trafficked into and within the United States, per year. 80% of them being female. 109,000 (low estimate, some people think higher) of victims being trafficked in the US per year are children. In the UK 11,000 people are trafficked per year the 48% being adults 47% being children. 34% of those trafficked in the UK are Uk nationals. In Canada 17,000 people are victims of modern day slavery, every year. 96% percent of victims in Canada are female. 71% of them are under the age of 25. The numbers are staggering, but not many people educate themselves about modern day forms of slavery, and like to think that things like that would never happen to them or to someone they know. It’s easier not to think about such things but they’re still happening everyday, every minute somewhere in the world yet another person is forced into horrific circumstances like the ones listed above. I really wish more people were aware of these things, maybe if more people knew about theses things and the number of people suffering everyday there would be more done to stop it.

[@markkringle9144]

You're not wrong. Alot of people in the North didn't want to invade the south. Likewise in the South, alot of Confederates didn't want to invade the North.

[@kevinstrade2752]

Many changes were happening at the time. Slavery was becoming increasingly unpopular even in the south. However, the southern economy relied upon it. Even at the foundation of our nation, there was a movement to free slaves but economically we couldn't. Our nation was founded as a largely agricultural colony. It was the industrial revolution that finally made slavery obsolete up north anyway. The south however still relied upon it as the souths climate was good for growing crops nearly year around. The nation was changing and rapidly. The south was concerned about many issues becoming federalized and taken from states jurisdiction. Hence thier cry for states rights. The nation couldn't be ran on states rights only any more either as the US was growing very quickly on many levels. A centralised government was inevitable. Of course this meant more say in fewer hands which is usually never good. I see what the souths concerns were as far as federalizing and centralisation of power, but it was a reality they were gonna have to face eventually. We were becoming a regional power and industrially were already in our way to be a world leader.

[@Metrion77]

It's also worth pointing out that the VAST majority of people in the south could not afford slaves. While they are free labor, that's still another person to feed and house and keep healthy enough to do the work. The mega-plantation owners had cornered the world market on cotton and tobacco, and were expanding vigorously into the west and up the bible belt. The south quite literally seceded to appeal to the 1%.

[@bobwait3629]

When it comes to seceding from the Union, the erstwhile newspaper columnist Tony Kornheiser once put it this way: "We don't do Meech Lake. We do Antietam."

[@matthewcostello3530]

you might be interested in Ken Burns' documentary THE CIVIL WAR

[@matthewcostello3530]

if the first 3 minutes don't hook you turn it off

[@gheddafiduck8239]

I suggest the 1st and 2nd Punic war for oversimplified next reaction, they’re his best videos

[@vidpie]

"Ultimately, British popular opinion was not decidedly pro-North or pro-South at the start of the Civil War. The preservation of slavery was a chief concern of the southern states in the years leading up to secession, which went against widespread anti-slavery sentiment in Britain. However, the North’s initial lack of enthusiasm for emancipation made people doubt the Union's commitment to abolition. Additionally, protectionist U.S. trade policies against British products, which were driven by northern Republicans, made many see the North as Britain's economic adversary. As a result, many contemporary British commentators were uneasy about supporting the Union, including Charles Dickens who believed the war was caused by northern protectionism. However, the popular majority in Great Britain also objected to and was disturbed by southern support for slavery. For this reason, general British attitudes towards the American Civil War could be characterized as indifferent or even disdainful towards both the North and the South. In the end, the Confederacy's commitment to slavery, and the Union's eventual dedication to supporting abolition, served to undermine attempts by Confederate leaders to win widespread popular support in Britain."

[@tommack9395]

Imports were extremely important during the first year-and-a-half of the war. The union bought much needed supplies and even arms from British companies. So did the south. The Enfield Rifle was British made and the most widely used weapon in the war. The republicans did not come into power in congress or the executive branch until 1860 and after. Before that congress were all Democrats and Whigs.

[@rxlxviii]

Oversimplied is great as it gets major points in a short concise video. Obviously in a short video you can't get the entire history of something that took place over several years. I guess if these critics were asked to write an essay on a specific point in history, I guess they would write a 1 million page essay.

[@PatrickORourke-yz3xn]

I think it's awesome to do this by "over simplified" first! It gives you some decent context. Like you say, you can look at other things in detail, but without the general war context, you can't get as much out of a deeper dive. You guys are lucky all around regarding what you watch. You are starting at the top of every genre and working out. Those that lived through the '70's and '80's heard a lot of crappy music, too, that you don't have to hear!

[@modelopapi8617]

Canadians can speak for an hour without you knowing they aren’t American until they say “ about” 🤣

[@kellylassen6769]

I'm from the Mason-Dixon line. Pennsylvania/Maryland. My ancestors fought in the Civil War. Also, my Northern family members helped with the Underground Railroad. There's still discussions in my family about North a south sides! I graduated from South Hagerstown High School Md...aka The Rebels. Other family members graduated from North Hagerstown High school. Hence, North-South rivalry in sports and school activities. Good fun though!! Really like your history videos so far!

[@AbusiveUncleJoe]

If you want to learn more I recommend Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative

[@BushmasterBrackett]

"In 1814 we took a little trip. Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty mississip." Battle of New Orleans, War of 1812

[@randomlyweirdjeff4638]

One thing this narrator mentioned. Yes Lincoln, spoke out against slavery regularly but he felt that the constitution limited his power. But slavery wasn't his primary aim, it was preserving the Union. Later things changed. He also mentions that African slaves were stolen? Nope not true. African tribes sold their own to Europeans. John Thornton and Linda Heywood say that about 90% were sold by their own into slavery in the New World. The African tribes that sold fellow Africans in return became wealthy. Some were sold into slavery to cover debt as well. The commentary both of you provided is awesome. Sending love to Canada from the US.

[@edwardmeade]

So 1/4 of my ancestry fought for the South, 1/4 fought for the North and 1/2 of it watched it all from New Brunswick (not Canada yet.) Fun fact, after the war, some Americans suggested annexing Canada due to England's 'support' for the Confederacy including building the commerce raider C.S.S. Alabama. Rep. Nathanial Banks of Massachusetts introduced the Annexation Bill of 1866 which authorized the President to annex Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, East Canada (Quebec), West Canada (Ontario), the Selkirk Lands (Manitoba), Saskatchewan Territory (including modern-day Alberta) and the northern half of Columbia. Evidently he didn't want P.E.I. or Newfoundland. Go figure. The bill went nowhere in Congress but was highly publicized in British North American and helped hasten Confederation.

[@tommack9395]

At the time of the revolution slavery was not common in the northern states - in fact illegal. All the northern states abolished slavery before the U.S. Constitution was written. In order to get the constitution ratified by the states in 1788 language had to be included to skirt around the slavery issue. The United States implemented its ban on the Atlantic slave trade in 1808, Thus the slaves in the slave states were limited to those already there and their offspring. Culture, Most the northern states were very religious i.e. New England states primarily puritans - the most literate place on Earth at the time those colonies founded, Pennsylvania Quakers. Most the northern states were populated and settled by immigrants from Germanic nations, prior to Britain. New York Dutch, Pennsylvania Germans and Swedish. Compared to the south much older of Scott-Irish heritage (Mercia in middle England). A big reason that the Slavery issue took so long to come to a head is you must realize is that to the common people like some coal miner and their family in northeastern Pa knew or cared little to nothing about what was happening in South Carolina let alone Texas, was not written about and seemed a world away. That would be a months journey. To them would seems farther away than Beijing China is to us today.

[@JPMadden]

1) Are Canadians taught about the Underground Railroad? 2) The northern states had a growing industrial economy prior to the Civil War, but they also profited tremendously from the commerce of slave-produced cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice. Prior to the abolition of the slave trade in the early 1800s, in my northern colony/state of Rhode Island, many great fortunes were amassed in the slave trade, one by the family for which Brown University is named. 3) OverSimplified briefly mentioned the fear Southerners felt toward Abraham Lincoln. I believe this is an underappreciated cause of the war. In their secession decrees, the Confederate states talked about the wrongs they thought they had already endured. But I think the fervent zeal for secession was fueled by the fear of what the increasingly dominant northern states were about to do. 4) One reason Americans tended to identify more with their state than the country is that the railroads had only recently been built. Excluding sailors, most Americans had never travelled further than 50 or 100 miles from their birthplace. Unrelated, this would dramatically increase the mortality rates from disease when soldiers mingled in the army camps. 5) It was never likely that the UK would intervene on the side of the Confederacy. While the textile workers were suffering, the general population of the UK held anti-slavery sentiments. 6) Despite having Lee's plans for the Battle of Antietam, the battle was tactically a draw and strategically a defeat for the Union, because McClellan allowed the enemy's army to escape and fight many more battles. But since the invasion of the North was repelled, it looked enough like a victory to be considered one.

[@maninredhelm]

The importation of slaves was banned in 1800, but couldn't take effect until 1808 because the North had to guarantee leaving the slave trade open for 20 years to get the Southern states to ratify the Constitution in 1788. Wealthy Rhode Island ship owners may have benefited, but nevertheless the leaders Rhode Islanders elected cut off the slave trade they economically benefited from as soon as legally possible. If anything that shows better character than being anti-slavery with nothing to lose from abolishing it.

[@A_Name_]

@21:00 come on now, your telling me you have thought about teaching Quebec who's boss? 😉 Edit: bah you guys talk about it 9 seconds after I typed that lol

[@stevepincombe3836]

McClellan was scared. He always claimed Lee outnumbered him and would not attack out of fear of harming his brand new shiny army. It was the same story for every battle he commanded.

[@andrewmackinnon3378]

One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) the civil war lasted as long as it did is that the Confederate States had the best commanders going in while the Union had either over the hill or inexperienced commanders. Yes McClellan was very good at putting an army together, supply and train them but just didn't know how to or had the fortitude to act or fight.

[@WaywardVet]

Yeah. I'm biased towards little Mac, but my drill sergeants mainly hailed from Tennessee and to a New England boy, that's South. They knew how to shoot, how to tell people to shut up, and if you can shoot and shut people up, you'll go far.

[@jackiebinns6205]

Part 2 please ❤

[@linkerthejedi2575]

As a native Kansan bleeding kansas was a huge part of our state’s history and theres a giant mural of it in our state capitol building

[@xJamesLaughx]

What he does not mention here in the video is one of the other reasons that Europe did not get involved....Russia. The North sent a diplomat to Russia who convinced them to side with the North and Russia sent messages to England and France that should they even recognize the Confederacy that they would be going to war with Russia. Russia then proceeded to send their Atlantic and Pacific fleets to both coasts of the US, the Atlantic fleet even going into New York Harbor, both with sealed orders to only be opened should England or France recognize the South.

[@dragonage2112]

That would be Cassius Clay, the greatest abolitionist ever he was the ambassador to Russia. Who was born in Kentucky and came from one of the richest slave owners in the state.

[@glen3679]

That could've happened here in Canada with the three referendum with Quebec. Then there was Louis Riel then there was the joke where a bunch of farmers north of Toronto marched on to Toronto but got sidetracked at the Jolly Rogers bar 🍺 where they were arrested

[@SquirminHermanthe1eyedGerman]

When I was in Hi Skool 1982 {junior year} down here in Covington Georgia {home of the General Lee & Dukes of Hazzard, Heat of the Night} I had to do a book report for my history class & I interviewed the 114 year old great great grandmother {born 1868, her older brothers & sisters were born into slavery} of a good friend of mine whose parents were slaves & later sharecroppers after they were freed! She talked to me for 3 hours & I used 2 cassette tapes to record her! She told me so many things I never would have gotten from a text book & their family still owns & lives on the same plot of land to this day! Luckily Covington was sparred from Sherman's march to the sea as his roommate when he was a West Point cadet was from Covington! Its still weird for me to think that my school was integrated the first time in 1973 when I was in 2nd grade! Most white folks back then still thought that blacks had no rights & were constantly starting sh*t with them, seen lots of violent acts & I can also remember 2 lynching's that happened during the '70s! We also have our famous confederate carving of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee & Stonewall Jackson on the largest chunk of granite on the planet Stone Mountain which used to be a Creek & Cherokee Native American site 9000 yrs ago then in the 17th century it was a slave trading post & then in 1915 it became the 2nd founding of the KKK until 1958 when the state of Georgia purchased it & made it into a park! Ever get a chance come to Georgia & visit us ✌💖☮

[@Heavygunner-yz9oj]

If I remember correctly, Eli Whitney was actually anti slavery and invented the cotton gin in hopes of reducing the number of slaves in the south

[@scottclark3761]

Of course they missed stuff.....people have written their PhD thesis on the American Civil War. Every general in WW1 studied the American Civil War....it was the first war to have rifles, Gatlin guns, AKA machine guns, and trench warfare. It's a large slice of Western history.

[@jeffe9083]

its called oversimplified for a reason

[@randomlyweirdjeff4638]

I will also add this for context. The Confederate Government did believe in racial inequality which stems from the religious as well as social beliefs they held. General Lee went with Virginia because that was his home. So it shows that in the army of Northern Virginia some fought for slavery and some may not have. Patriotism is huge with the American identity, but in those days patriotism consisted of two different ideas. 1. Loyalty to one's state 2. Loyalty to the nation. These two ideas would be heavily tested and the war would help to form the national patriotic identity Americans share today. The southerners believed in fidelity to their home while Northerners saw it as a whole.

[@user-PeteBronxUSA]

The slave trade is definitely a practice that is absolutely horrific and still goes on up to this day. The narrator is doing a great job. Just a part when he said they were stolen and taken here is 100% incorrect. they were captured & sold by their own. People were brutal back then.

[@Axxis270]

Slaves were stolen and brought here. You are just using word play and semantics to try and lessen America's role in slavery. They were taken against their will and brought to a different country against their will. Stolen or captured word play doesn't change that. Who or how they were captured makes no difference to the fact that American's bought them once they got here and or paid to bring ship loads of them over here.

[@jamalwright2854]

Who were their own?

[@gamerhunter9189]

​@@jamalwright2854the waring Africa tribes sold the tribes they have fought they used to or still did just killed the males of the lost tribe from age of 5 on up and raised the younger males as there own. And for the women they keep some as trophies but if they didn't need or want they would do the same as the males either sell or kill them

[@jamalwright2854]

@@gamerhunter9189 so were they really their own people?

[@gamerhunter9189]

@@jamalwright2854 what do you not get?

[@knowledgeseeker-yy1ix]

I live about 25 miles from Beardstown Illinois...where the almanac trial took place...the Duffy Armstrong case...

[@arizona_anime_fan]

nah, McClellan was seriously risk adverse. his battlefield performance played out the same over and over again. he was cautious to a fault, scared to gamble, unwilling to take risks.

[@johnwheeler8882]

The reason that Lincoln didn't make the war about the abolition of slavery initially is that he was concerned that by doing so, the border states would go over to the Confederacy, which would leave Washington completely surrounded by Confederate territory and make the war much more difficult to win. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed those enslaved in the Confederacy, not in the remaining slave states loyal to the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was of questionable legality as it stood and probably wouldn't have survived legal challenges in the North. This is one of the main reasons that Lincoln rushed the 13th Amendment through Congress in early 1865 before the war was over to guarantee that those enslaved people who were freed wouldn't be returned to slavery after the war ended (Lincoln's proclamation was considered a war measure and would no longer be in effect once the war ended) and to ensure that those enslaved in states that remained loyal to the Union would be free. In Part 2, West Virginia separates from Virginia to join the Union and was still a slave state but as a condition of joining the Union, West Virginia had to abolish slavery in its state constitution.

[@michaelpurdon7032]

John Brown spent a ton of time in Chatham, Ontario where a lot of the abolitionist movement was based out of as it was the end of the underground railroad. He met Harriet Tubman there and that is also where they gathered forces for many of their raids. About 2000 of the 6000 residents of Chatham at the time were freed(fugitive) slaves

[@terryallen345]

Highly recommend you watch "Lincoln" starring Daniel Day Lewis, helped me understand the situation better. Set at the end of the war

[@artbagley1406]

While I adore the movie "Lincoln," it's too narrow a topic to get "new students" embroiled. Reconstruction (the post-war years) itself is yet another mountain to climb.

[@maciedixon3983]

I would just like to say most of canadas population lives in a small part of your country so it’s not surprising you have less conflict. This initial thing stemmed from different economics and climates (planting versus industry in the north) Canada is mostly the same.

[@JaneSoper]

George McClellan was constantly asking for additional men and wouldn't engage the enemy

[@artbagley1406]

Another Lincoln quip about McClellan's constant requests for reinforcements was, "Sending more soldiers to General McClellan is as fruitless as shoveling fleas across a barnyard!"

[@davidanthony4845]

@stevedavis5704 The 5 to 1 figure is absurd. The major battles in the East cost >95000 men 1862-1863 and had the armies facing each other where they had begun ( the Peninsula Campaign excepted.) It took Grant/Meade/the AoP almost exactly a year to get from the Wilderness to Appomattox with significantly fewer casualties. It took the Western Allies a month longer to get from Normandy to VEDay with a 3 to 2 ratio of loss to the Hitlerites. These wars were fought at the price of incompreensible death and suffering. My father, and his classmates, had by their own testimony this in common with the men of '61; when tbey saw what the struggle was really about THEY PAID IT.

[@athens_1psvr31]

A Turkey was the National Bird suggestion before the Eagle. Watch who you’re learning from.

[@James-mv8hs]

100% myth nobody wanted the turkey to be the national bird... you should practice what you preach lmao

[@scottbivins4758]

The damn turkey the South fought it all we could. 🤣

[@artbagley1406]

Slight correction: the WILD TURKEY was up for nomination as national bird (and I don't mean the whisky).

[@abramsalinas1004]

If on your own time you both should watch the Ken burns filmmaker documentary from 1990 called "The Civil War A film by Ken Burns" It's lengthy, but in depth.

[@BraydenHatfield38]

Cool little side story there was two soldiers in the Civil War Randolph Mccoy and Anderson "Devil Anse" Hatfield. After the war they turned against each other and often had shootouts where they lost a few family members. They were confederate soldiers but Randolphs brother was on the northern side of the war. It's something cool yall could look into. There was also romance problems a hatfield boy got a Mccoy girl pregnant and her dad kicked her out and the hatfields frowned on the boy for getting her pregnant

[@reginaldlynsey6107]

Going to also put in a bit about George b McClellan. He was one of the worst Union generals. He was a great administrator but terribly cautious on the battlefield. Like at the battle of Antietam. He had (at the beginning of the Battle) 73,500 men battle ready again Robert e lees 15,000. If he had attacked with overwhelming force, the war could have ended then and there. But moving on from that point. The best generals that the US had, many of them went to fight for the south. Robert E Lee, Joesph E Johnston, Albert Sidney Johnson, James Longstreet, Thomas J (stonewall) Jackson etc. all went south. So the officer corps that Lincoln had to choose from was very limited. Many were fresh off the dock at West Point, old past their prime, or were politicians with no reason to be on the battlefield in a position of leadership to begin with.

[@tcsam73]

British intervention was quite possible, during our Civil War. The American South was the largest source of cotton for British cotton mills. With the embargo of the southern states, not as much cotton was getting out, and thus the mill owners were basically not employing anyone, making many British people starve since they had no jobs. There was also the hope that a disunited states could fall under the influence of the British Empire, so aristocrats wanted us to fail and intervening on the side of the South would help that cause. Also, there was something called The Trent Affair, which involved a US Navy ship stopping a British ship in international waters to forcefully remove the Confederate ambassadors to the UK and France. Fortunately, Prince Albert was able to find a peaceful resolution to that.

[@jamesHadden-l6l]

Massachusetts Governor John Albion Andrew championed the anti-slavery cause through his legal and political career. During the Civil War, Andrew also led efforts to enlist African American men as soldiers and organized the famous 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment. The comander was white There was a movie about it Called GLORY Starring Matthew Broderick Denzel Washington Cary Elwes Morgan Freeman Maybe do a reaction to the movie

[@TheLastGarou]

An absolutely incredible film. Definitely a "Must Watch." I'd suggest 'Gettysburg' as well.

[@stevesnow315]

Thomas Jefferson one of the writers of the constitution said slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears. You didn't like it but you dare not let it go.

[@willracer1jz]

15:28 there's a couple of good video's of the Mexican American war that cover how the USA got the land west from Texas. Check out History Heros and Knowledgia channels for the videos.

[@artbagley1406]

Another little-understood, strong-armed, land-grab performed by Americans: some individual U.S. citizens, some governmental movers-and-shakers.

[@Blondie42]

15:30 Which is why Mexican food in the US is often so much different than in Mexico 🇲🇽 of today. Also is why the 3rd largest population demographic is Mexican heritage in the US.

[@matthewcostello3530]

Gettysburg was the largest battle ever fought in the Western Hemisphere, the casulties at Antietam were twice those of D Day

[@markhodge7]

Probably one of the most complicated wars in history. North vs South just doesn't even come into the same time zone of what actually took place. Ken Burns' 10 hour documentary still only touches the surface. Worth investigating this most critical event of the USA.

[@aleksandergolembka8659]

Complicated? It's pretty straightforward in the reason and how the fighting itself went.

[@markhodge7]

@@aleksandergolembka8659 Nope

[@stlmopoet]

McClellan would not fight. He just trained the men forever. Regardless of the reason, it was maddening. He always spoke of not having enough manpower.

[@ScottT248]

George McClellan was a great general for making an army and supplying them and all the recruitment, but he was not a great field general out in the field where he did not want to fight the enemy much. This video is pretty accurate that Lincoln's generals were all cautious and some were old that they didn't want to go after the enemy.

[@braidentoelke2735]

Abraham Lincoln actually offered the head general position to Robert E Lee, but Lee declined citing he had to stay loyal to his state. Crazy! He was such a great general, good thing Grant's a coming😎

[@tnolddawg]

Another thing that you're missing is about logistics The army at the time was made up of assembled individual state militias and this was before combustion engines Everything had to be moved on foot, by ship, or in horrse drawn vehicles

[@Tijuanabill]

It's not insane to watch a musket battle from visible range. The bullets couldn't travel far enough to hit the onlookers.

[@davedalton1273]

The Civil War was fought to right a great wrong. Yes, the North was telling the South that slavery could no longer endure. It had persisted for four hundred years, but it was past time to bring it to an end. If its abolition could not be achieved through peaceful means, then it would be resolved by military means. Remember, that it was the Confederacy that fired the first shot. Lincoln responded by issuing a declaration of war. If he had simply accepted the argument that, well, southerners believed that slavery was a good thing, so who were we to tell them how to live their lives, (isn't it odd that some of the responses here don't mention that, if we apply that same logic to slavery, then were not the slave owners doing what Mr. Bivins finds so loathsome, namely forcing other people to live lives dictated by those with greater power?). Besides, this is how things change. Slavery was destroyed by the sword. Suffrage for women was achieved through less violent actions, but in both cases, a struggle resulted in historic change. There are always those who point out the way ahead. Lincoln was one such prophet; M.L.K was another.

[@kbrewski1]

Well stated.

[@9822703]

no, the war was over government influence and property; slaves, territory and facilities. the noble cause to free the slaves is a well propagated myth.

[@curtisw502]

Grant is one of my favorite people from American history...he was a really good guy to a fault. Grant by Ron Chernow is an outstanding biography. Grant's attack on Vicksburg won the war even if Gettysburg never happened.

[@chaddubois8164]

I need to read his autobiography and other books on Grant. The more I learn about him, the more I like him. He's my kind of guy.

[@artbagley1406]

A slight rewording that makes a big difference: "Grant's attack on Vicksburg..." should read "Grants months-long CAMPAIGN against Vicksburg" in large part led to Union victory in the war.

[@VirginiaPeden-Harrington-qd5zu]

PLEASE NOTE: When I lived in Europe for three years, so many people asked me why the US started slavery. This was never asked politely. The answer is that the US and other countries on the two American continents did not start slavery, we inherited it from the Europeans who had settled in the south many years before the US became a country. This human horror was so economically and culturally entrenched in these states that war seemed to be the only way to end it. We the current residents of all races are still paying the price for the European slave trade.

[@Stinger2222]

Lincoln wanted Robert E. Lee who was commandant at West Point. Lee would have been his Patton (of WW2 fame for his aggressiveness) but his loyalty was to his state of Virginia, his captured home was turned into Arlington Cemetery. Instead Lincoln got McClellan who turned out to be his Montgomery (of WW2 fame for being a constant planner always waiting for more troops and supplies).

[@mikejordan8259]

What this video, as well as others seem to leave out is the fact that talk of Civil War was happening while the American Revolution was still going on. And... the topic was not about Slavery. The Northern States and the Southern States during the Revolution governed themselves very different. The Southern States had a lot of British Loyalists living there.

[@Kairon111161]

I'm gonna stick with it, but I got annoyed at the coverage of the INTENSE Continental Congress debate and even feud in 1776 during the Congress's review of Jefferson's Declaration. The Southern colonies DID walk out of the Congress, and only after a harrowing debate between John Adams and Ben Franklin did Ben convince them both (Jefferson and Adams) that they NEEDED the Southern Colonies to successfully effect their dis-union from Britain. For a great dramatic portrayal of it see the movie 1776. It's a musical, and has some fanciful elements, but that debate was very accurate and well-dramatized in the movie.

[@clinthowe7629]

of course it’s true that African coastal kingdoms were selling, or rather, trading slaves for trade goods, after all, it should be obvious to most people that the slave traders began as goods traders and certainly wouldn’t approach the African coast or cross the Atlantic with empty ships, so they traded away their goods for slaves in payment, of course im not going to say that specific slave runners didn’t exist, they certainly could have, but why undertake a dangerous activity like chasing and capturing slaves when you can more safely and easily trade for them?

[@maxhedrick311]

I’m American born and raised and have always been an independent, the lack of a third party and acknowledgement of a need of one is going to be, in my opinion, the reason we the people will take back what is now a corrupt military industry that runs on greed

[@BubbaFett00]

The idea of a single country was a debate from the very beginning. It's a common held position that prior to the civil war the US were referred to with the term "are" where as after the term "is" became more common. Sort of shows the mentality of the people at the time. Some saw a single country, some saw more of a European union type association although that was also often determined on what position made your argument better. Such as with the compromise of 1850 where southerners were able to justify a strong federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act.

[@seosamh.forbes]

That one funny thing about California and Texas formerly being Mexican. Anti-immigration folks will point at a Spanish speaking ranchero in Arizona telling him go back to where he came from and sometimes the rancheri has the receipts to prove his family was there first. And one thing about how the UK has always always always operated both today and since the 1000s: They abhor slavery within Britain, but are all too happy to rub shoulders with slaveholders abroad or turn a blind eye to it in their own colonies if it's lucrative enough.

[@user-kg7co9vi5r]

Slavery in the United States was such a complicated situation. The USA's first industry was in agriculture which was facilitated by slavery. One of the greatest conglomerations of wealth on Earth was in the southern states, tied up in the abomination of slavery. The money crops also ruined the land so expansion of slave states was imperative to maintenance of that wealth. This is also oversimplified, but it is a part of the story that seldom gets talked about. I am not trying to justify the institution, but I think the economic implications need to be understood.

[@artbagley1406]

Slavery is difficult to cope with because it's based on a two-component system, wherein the two components are tightly aligned: SOCIOLOGY and ECONOMICS. Socioeconomic concerns that never got unwound until Lincoln, abolitionists, Republicans, and others grappled with the reality of the evils of slavery.

[@lusthawk1]

Did not know you guys were fellow canucks...grew up lower mainland BC...now in Edmonton...how's it goin eh!?

[@mikealvarez2322]

Grant's political enemies spread rumors that Grant was drunk during battles and that explained his heavy losses. Fortunately, Lincoln knew these things were just rumors. Grant was on the offense and that's why he had higher casualties than Southern troops who were on defense.

[@pkloehe]

The reason the UK didn't mind getting involved on the side of the South was because the war at that point was not about slavery. That is why Lincoln made the war explicitly about slavery to make supporting the South morally untenable for Britain.

[@richardripberger2902]

You hit on the key. All of the most talented and experienced military leaders where southerners.

[@rubroken]

No southern general cut the Union in half like Sherman did to the south. Early Grant victories in the "west" were great military planning. Sheridan. Even Custer was a very able cavalryman

[@James-mv8hs]

Not true... Not even close

[@rubroken]

@@James-mv8hs Really? Then why did the south lose?

[@James-mv8hs]

@@rubroken awww pumkin imagine having a brain so smooth to think that you thought I was talking to you

[@rubroken]

@@James-mv8hs smooth brained, that's a new insult, kind of funny too. Should I be insulted or just laugh?

[@kellylassen6769]

Oh! And I live between Chambersburg and Gettysburg Pa.

[@kilks95]

Keep in mind that this is not modern day politics. Britain was just concerned with the economic climate with the cotton trade at the time which i think like 60% or more of the world's cotton came form the southern states. Infact France also thought about helping the south due to trade and economic reasons. Britain at the time cared for one thing money still do kinda. It was the whole reason they had an empire. There are still issues between the south and north in the states but it's definitely more the states rights. I still Introduce myself as a person form georgia then someone form the USA.

[@scottkidder9046]

You’re right about about it being an economic issue and a lot of it was just the fact that free labor is obviously incredibly nice to have and it keeps raw materials cheap. And yes, Africans sold their own people into the slave trade proving that morally speaking, none of us is particularly immune from being human beings. But it also was more than that. The idea of racial supremacy also did play a role. With the Dred Scott case, it’s obvious that people didn’t see African Americans as people. They weren’t citizen and for many, they were a lesser species entirely separate from humans. This idea justified their place as slaves in early American society. It’s unclear what came first, the slave trade or the idea of white supremacy to help justify the existence of it, but it played a massive role in keeping slavery around. It’s not like everyone was sitting there only worried about economics. Many saw not only the ownership of slaves, but also the awful and barbaric treatment of them as the natural way of things. They treated their pack animals in a similar fashion and yet they treated slaves worse because they had the ability to potentially fight back. All I’m saying is that it was telling that Congress considered the issues of slavery, equal treatment under the law, and racial equality completely different topics of conversation. The radicals backing the abolition of slavery didn’t necessarily believe in racial equality, just that all men should be treated equally under the law. It’s both very depressing, but also a testament to Western, enlightenment ideals that our culture has so radically transformed over the last 2 centuries. It feels slow, unbearably slow, but it’s more progress than the rest of humanity made in the previous 10,000 years, it’s unimaginably more progress. And the reason is not that the West is better, I think history proves that wrong, but that it encourages and protects people’s right to criticize it. That’s been the ticket, and it’s served us extremely well.