Secession: The First Wave

No video

Secession: The First Wave

Рет қаралды 8,649

Күн бұрын

Throughout the 1850s, tensions over slavery continued to divide the Northern and Southern states. Finally, after the election of Abraham Lincoln - who didn’t win a single southern state - seven of the fifteen slave states broke away from the Union, hoping the other eight slave states would join them.
Chris Calton gives a revisionist look at the antebellum period leading up to the Civil War. This is the 24th and final episode in the second season of Historical Controversies.
Historical Controversies is available online at:
Mises.org/HCPod
RSS: mises.org/itun...
iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
Google Play: play.google.co...
Soundcloud: / historical-controversies
Stitcher: www.stitcher.c...
Music: "On the Ground" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com), licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0

Пікірлер: 42

@chpa1432 4 жыл бұрын

I feel like from what I've read and heard it wasn't simply slavery. It was the ability to practice slavery as the constitution had given them right to do. So simply saying it was because of slavery is painting it with a broad brush and misleading at best.

@BradWatsonMiami 3 жыл бұрын

I AM Abraham Lincoln reincarnated. The Republican Party was started c 1856 to stop the spread of slavery into the western territories which was a liberal stance. Lincoln was the first openly anti-slavery president which is why the evil conservative Southerners seceded. In 1866, all the newly freed blacks were Republican. Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt but especially with John F. Kennedy in 1960 & LBJ in 1964, blacks switched in mass to Democrats. Today, 95% of blacks are liberal Democrats. See 7seals.blogspot.com - only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce this.

@chpa1432 3 жыл бұрын

@@BradWatsonMiami not sure what the point of your comment is but.... Lincoln was not anti slavery.

@chairmanoftheboard11 3 жыл бұрын

I think it's misleading to say the constitution GAVE them the right to practice slavery. The Constitution actually prohibited CONGRESS from banning slavery and STATES from discharging them from their owners. The Bill of Rights are where RIGHTS are GIVEN to citizens in the Constitution. The Nullification argument SC had 30 years prior was essentially the same issue except it was the ability to NULLIFY any federal law which a state deems UNCONSTITUTIONAL, an ability they believed was granted to them under the Constitution (it could very well have been interpreted that way). The only difference was the issue: Slavery. It was so powerful states seceeded before any laws were passed concerning slavery, despite coming off of major wins with the Fugitive Slave Act, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, & the Dred Scott decision. The Slave Power's guilty conscience made them panic and send hundreds of thousands of kids and men on a suicide mission.

@jamesmiller5331 8 ай бұрын

And they wanted to take their slaves out west

@porterrockwell3135 5 жыл бұрын

Conversely, I think T. Di Lorenzo makes a good argument about tariffs, being an economist himself, and for why Lincoln went to war.

@board247 5 жыл бұрын

As an economist I can tell you that Mr. Di Lorenzo's book is a lot of revisionist B.S. That is clearly evidenced by the fact that in 1832 when South Carolina declared their intention to secede over tariffs and Pres. Andrew Jackson declared secession an illegal act, not one state moved to join S.C. and not one state legislature passed a resolution disputing Andrew Jackson's "Proclamation to the People of South Carolina".

@durtdawg51 4 жыл бұрын

And what is DiLorenzo's good argument?

@travisthompson1679 7 ай бұрын

@@board247 Why the south seceded and why Lincoln went to war are 2 different things. The original comment is talking about the latter and you are talking about the former.

@JohnBrown-dj6yc 7 ай бұрын

@@travisthompson1679 You are absolutely correct. The South seceded in an attempt to firmly establish and perpetuate Slavery as an Economic, Political, and Social system. And Lincoln was forced into a War by the South in order for him to preserve the U.S. Constitution, the principles established in the Declaration of Independence, and to fight against the perpetuation of Slavery as an Economic, Political, and Social system.

@rwdyeriii 5 ай бұрын

Not only him but also Charles Adams in his book When In The Course of Human Events.

@creativemonsters5410 5 ай бұрын

Would be cool If Chris would debate Thomas DiLorenzo

@stevenbaumann5911 3 жыл бұрын

I mainly watch this video because I think it is an important one as some States today are considering seceding. I would actually support seceding from the Union because I think our differences are just too big to live peacefully together. And I think the issue would be Freedom vs. Tyranny. We have an out-of-control federal government that is continuously trampling on our rights. If there is another succession I hope it does not immediately lead to Civil War. That is why I say let them fire the first shot.

@carlabroderick5508 4 жыл бұрын

A title change might get more views of this wonderful podcast which answered a number of questions I’ve had since the rejection of Lincoln during the sixties. Try a title like “Did the South seceed to maintain slavery or for economic reasons?”

@avenaoat 7 ай бұрын

I thought for a long time to read about the Civil War, that South Carolina was the only Confederate state where there were no Unionists in large numbers, apart from a few isolated unionists. I have recently found information that in the lowest slave populated county Pickens (21%) and in another 3 neighboring counties, a significant number of Unionists lived in South Carolina, which was burning with paranoid secession fever, and they were understandably very silent. Not East Tenneessee, West part of North Carolina, North West Arkansas, North Alabama or Ohio river valley Virginia level, but it was surprising for me. The historians connected this for deserter numbers which was higher % than the without 4 counties South Carolina deserter numbers.

@bigdurk4115 6 жыл бұрын

Awesome as usual, thanks for my fix these episodes can't come out soon enough.

@BradWatsonMiami 3 жыл бұрын

@pierlombardini8705 4 жыл бұрын

Every subject involved in the democratic process (whether state or citizen) has to agree upon the recognition of the winner in the electoral competion - if I recognize the government (and subsequently abide the law) only whenever my part prevails then the idea of democracy merely dies - so any government is compelled to use every possible mean to avoid such a threat that really implies the denial of its own legitimacy

@BradWatsonMiami 3 жыл бұрын

@JohnnyRebKy 4 жыл бұрын

Are you ever going to cover the rest of the war?? I’ve watched several and you stop at Shiloh. It’s a great series and you should continue!

@BradWatsonMiami 3 жыл бұрын

@board247 5 жыл бұрын

Chris Calton's assertion @ 6:11 that the Constitutionality is a moot question is absurd. And his assertion @ 7:11 that the reasons don't matter is likewise absurd. Of course the reasons matter. Even in the Declaration of Independence the colonists gave clear reasons for their actions. If the question were just a philosophical question as to whether a government can force submission, than the U.S. Constitution itself is inherently unethical and in violation of human or natural rights. It expressly denotes the authority of the Federal Government to suppress rebellions. In fact, a major motivation for the need of the U.S. Constitution was Shay's Rebellion which was a rebellion by the People protesting perceived economic and civil rights injustices.

@chairmanoftheboard11 3 жыл бұрын

Hell of a point. Who are you bro.

@LeandroLima81 6 жыл бұрын

I'm at 5:14 and... OMG. This is amazing. I hope there's a neat playlist I can tap on to listen to an chapter or whatnot....

@board247 5 жыл бұрын

What Chris Calton neglects to recognize is that the issue against secession was over the violation and abuse of natural rights. The South was abusing that right with inauthentic and hypocritical claims of protecting their rights and freedoms and false claims of self-preservation. The fight for the Union was not just about preserving the United States of America, which it was, but also preserving Democracy. If a state or a community could simply secede at will whenever it wanted to dominate politics, then that destroys the democratic process and endangers the individual rights of the People. Furthermore, preserving the Union was also essential to the aspirations of the Republican Party to eventually abolish slavery. The importance of the Republican goals of preventing the further spread of slavery and of maintaining the Union of the United States was ultimately that of upholding and extending the natural rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for all mankind, as well as advancing the truth "that all men are created equal" -- both of which the seceding states expressly repudiated in their words and actions.

@BradWatsonMiami 3 жыл бұрын