states' rights always had limits

Sectarian conflict in early American history wasn't a struggle between libertarianism and centralization - it was a competition between fundamentally different visions of American nationality.

[@percy6070]

NOOO Billy Yank don't turn us into digestible short form content!!!!!!!

[@HontasFarmer80]

KZbin MIGHT be doing this automatically. It does do that with long form videos. Did it to a few of mine and I've barely uploaded anything.

[@dorktriogamer2865]

​@@HontasFarmer80he's stated he's purposely doing this in this case

[@justaghostinthesea]

No! I don't wanna be shorts! NOOOOOOO!

[@ZomBeeQueeen]

It’s the best way to spread his full form video. Hence why I’m here .., why do you want him and other creators not to succeed?

[@LordofGoblins12]

@@ZomBeeQueeen I think it's supposed to be a joke on "Nooo! I don't wanna be turned into a marketable plushie"

[@joaquimdantas63]

Most of all: the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, according to its Section IV, Article 2(1), expressely forbade any confederate state to abolish slavery, that is, to put an end to slavery or extinguish slavery in the state, unless all other states having done previously so; there was at least a certain limit to "states' rigths" in the Confederacy and by no coincidency it concerned slavery.

[@warlordofbritannia]

But it was totally about states’ rights and not slavery!!1! Seriously, that’s one of the only things the Confederate Constitution changed, the other being that the presidency is a single six year term and some minor language changes (like changing people in servitude to slaves). I somehow doubt secession was over the presidency have a four year standard 😂

[@joshwolf6932]

What section was this? I could honestly use this for an essay I'm working on.

[@joaquimdantas63]

@@joshwolf6932 This restriction to "states rights" concerning slavery is expressed profusely in many sections of the Constitution of the Confederacy as these excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the "Constitution of the Confederates States" [including all appropriate quotations that can be checked consulting the original text of the document]: «Differences by subject Slavery There were several major differences between the constitutions concerning slavery. Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word "slavery" or the term "Negro Slaves" but instead used "Person[s] held to Service or Labour," which included whites and Native Americans in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name. ......... While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed," the Confederate Constitution also added a phrase that explicitly protected slavery. Article I Section 9(4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves. Article IV Section 2(1) "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories, the key constitutional debate of the 1860 election, by explicitly stating slavery to be legally protected in the territories. Article IV Section 3(3) "The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states." .............. The Confederate States lost a few rights that the Union states retained. States lost the right to determine if foreigners can vote in their states: Article I Section 2(1) as mentioned above. States also lost the ability to restrict the rights of traveling and sojourning slave owners: Article IV Section 2(1) as mentioned above. (Many Southerners were already of the opinion that the U.S. Constitution already protected the rights of sojourning and traveling slave owners and that the Confederate Constitution merely made it explicit.) » I think that no other reasonable conclusion can be taken out of these sections of the Constitution of Confederates States that the overwhelming motivation for the seccession and the creation of the the Confederate States of America undoubtedly was the preservation, the continuation and even the expansion of slavery and in such an unrestricted way that these goals where paramount and superceded the states' rights to impair in any way slavery in any states that might ever consider doing so by any means, forever prohibiting them of abolishing slavery.

[@joaquimdantas63]

@@warlordofbritannia This restriction to "states rights" concerning slavery is expressed profusely in many sections of the Constitution of the Confederacy as these excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the "Constitution of the Confederates States" [including all appropriate quotations that can be checked consulting the original text of the document]: «Differences by subject Slavery There were several major differences between the constitutions concerning slavery. Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word "slavery" or the term "Negro Slaves" but instead used "Person[s] held to Service or Labour," which included whites and Native Americans in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name. ......... While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed," the Confederate Constitution also added a phrase that explicitly protected slavery. Article I Section 9(4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves. Article IV Section 2(1) "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories, the key constitutional debate of the 1860 election, by explicitly stating slavery to be legally protected in the territories. Article IV Section 3(3) "The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states." .............. The Confederate States lost a few rights that the Union states retained. States lost the right to determine if foreigners can vote in their states: Article I Section 2(1) as mentioned above. States also lost the ability to restrict the rights of traveling and sojourning slave owners: Article IV Section 2(1) as mentioned above. (Many Southerners were already of the opinion that the U.S. Constitution already protected the rights of sojourning and traveling slave owners and that the Confederate Constitution merely made it explicit.) » I think that no other reasonable conclusion can be taken out of these sections of the Constitution of the Confederates States that the overwhelming motivation for the seccession and the creation of the the Confederate States of America undoubtedly was the preservation, the continuation and even the expansion of slavery and in such an unrestricted way that these goals where paramount and superceded the states' rights to impair in any way slavery in any states that might ever consider doing so by any means, forever prohibiting them of abolishing slavery.

[@doodlypoodly7703]

No it doesn't. The Confederate Constitution expressly forbade the Confederate government from abolishing slavery, though the states still had the right to. This meant that, were the CSA to abolish slavery on a national level, it would take a Constitutional amendment... just like in the USA. Quit being ignant.

[@exren9830]

Nobody who talks about States’ Rights ever wants to talk about the Fugitive Slave Act. Weird, that one

[@charityquill4965]

Theres also bleeding Kansas, when they sent missouri residents to stuff ballot boxes and threatened and attacked people to keep them from voting for free state. They even sent "lawmen" that would stand armed around buildings where they would vote.

[@joaquimdantas63]

Neither those persons talk about the Confederacy Constitution. Since "abolish" according to all dictionaries means to "put an end to something", "to extinguish something" and since Article IV, Section 2(1), of the Constitution of the Confederate States dictated that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired", a given Confederate State could not put an end to slavery neither extinguish slavery on its territory unless all other confederate sates had done so. Because any other citizen of any other state where slavery was present and legal could "transit" and more importantly "sojourn" (it means to "reside temporarily", let's say, 180 days out of 365 days in a year) in that state without no restriction at all on his or her rights over her slaves, the states being expressly forbidden of restricting the exercise of said proprietary rights. This prohibition meant, for example, that one slaveholder could, just by changing temporarily his or her residence, rent his or her slave's or slaves' services in another state for 185 of 365 days of an year and then could be substituted for by other "sojourning" slaveholders doing likewise for same periods on and on.

[@dvrmte]

Do you mean Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly called the Fugitive Slave Clause, of the Constitution or the acts/laws that gave it teeth? Either way it was an obligation placed on the states that was required before the Constitution was ratified by the states. Refusing to perform constitutional obligations was the reason that the federal government had to get involved but the resistance to the Constitution continued in the lawless North even after that. Some of John Brown's conspirators were allowed to escape by certain Yankee governors as well. Funny how they were allowed to return and fight on the Yankee side without punishment for treason against the United States. I'll talk about it all day, while I'm wiping the floor with you, Simpleton.

[@dvrmte]

Run and hide? LMAO You have several responses, why don't you want to talk about it? SMDH Fargin hypocritical Yankees.

[@charityquill4965]

@@dvrmte "lawless north" what a joke. Get back to me when you've read about Bleeding Kansas, simpleton

[@warlordofbritannia]

It’s always about states’ rights until it’s actually about states’ rights. Re: the Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, “popular sovereignty,” personal liberty laws, etc.

[@franciscoacevedo3036]

NY V Mississippi

[@joaquimdantas63]

This restriction to "states rights" concerning slavery is expressed profusely in many sections of the Constitution of the Confederacy as these excerpts from the Wikipedia article on the "Constitution of the Confederates States " [including all appropriate quotations that can be checked consulting the original text of the document]: « Differences by subject Slavery There were several major differences between the constitutions concerning slavery. Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word "slavery" or the term "Negro Slaves" but instead used "Person[s] held to Service or Labour," which included whites and Native Americans in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name. ......... While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed," the Confederate Constitution also added a phrase that explicitly protected slavery. Article I Section 9(4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution added that a state government could not prohibit the rights of slave owners traveling or visiting from a different state with their slaves. Article IV Section 2(1) "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories, the key constitutional debate of the 1860 election, by explicitly stating slavery to be legally protected in the territories. Article IV Section 3(3) "The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states." .............. The Confederate States lost a few rights that the Union states retained. States lost the right to determine if foreigners can vote in their states: Article I Section 2(1) as mentioned above. States also lost the ability to restrict the rights of traveling and sojourning slave owners: Article IV Section 2(1) as mentioned above. (Many Southerners were already of the opinion that the U.S. Constitution already protected the rights of sojourning and traveling slave owners and that the Confederate Constitution merely made it explicit.) » I think that no other reasonable conclusion can be taken out of these sections of the Constitution of the Confederates States that the overwhelming motivation for the seccession and the creation of the Confederate States of America undoubtedly was the preservation, the continuation and even the expansion of slavery and in such an unrestricted way that these goals where paramount and superceded the states' rights to impair in any way slavery in any states that might ever consider doing so by any means, forever prohibiting them of abolishing slavery.

[@Pangora2]

The A Federal Act, the Federal Supreme Court, a territorial issue the Federal Government wasn't fixing...I'm noticing a trend that the Feds were fucking up and people are shocked the States took charge.

[@jackiemartello7970]

And was all about The Constitution to the north until Lincoln shut down newspapers that didn’t agree with him, suspended Habeas Corpus, and used federal troops against the American People blah blah….

[@odonnell1218]

Keep in mind that among South Carolina’s reasons for secession, they listed the fact that northern states had abolitionist societies that they allowed to exist within their own states. So much for states’ rights.

[@osurpless]

“The South does not believe in states’ rights. The South believes in slavery…” - Eric Foner

[@f_youtubecensorshipf_nazis]

based on the comments I read on here about what Nikki Haley said it's pretty clear google isn't showing these to the people who need to see them

[@MasoTrumoi]

Falsely assuming that slavery-defending contrarians would even listen to these

[@f_youtubecensorshipf_nazis]

dumb kids radicalized by google in the first place would and they're the biggest problem going forward@@MasoTrumoi

[@dvrmte]

@@MasoTrumoi What's wrong with slavery?

[@lukebrainman]

​@@dvrmte Well, owning another man sounds kinda gay, doesn't it?

[@dvrmte]

@@lukebrainman Not when you own his mother too.

[@matthewlebo1841]

Plus, the reason the tariff was so controversial because they feared the added cost would weaken demand for Southern cotton in Europe, only benefitting Northern industry. It always comes back to slavery.

[@dvrmte]

That's a very shallow understanding of southern tariff opposition that continued after the War. The only means the federal government had of funding was a tariff on imports and the sell of federal land. Nobody had a problem with that at first. What happened is that after the War of 1812 there was a realization that there would have to be a series of national roads to connect the states in order to defend against invasion, and investment in manufacturing. So southerners who would later fight against protective tariffs, supported the Tariff of 1816 with its mild protections of industry, and the idea of spending the revenue on federal internal improvements. The problem was the legislation that created the tariffs was corrupt. Abolitionists joined hands with protective tariff supporters against the South. The other factor in opposing highly protective tariffs is that the burden of the tariff fell on those who couldn't pass on the higher costs due to tariffs. For example, a northern farmer wasn't generally involved in selling his produce on the world market. Instead, they sold their produce in local markets. So when the northern farmer had to pay a dollar more for a pair of jeans, he could easily recoup the extra dollar by passing the cost on by upping his prices. The northern factory worker could recoup the higher costs by changing employment or striking for higher wages. However, most southerners sold their produce on the world market at prices set by supply and demand. He had to eat the higher costs because he couldn't demand higher prices. So the North continued to drain wealth from the South until nearly WWII. So where is the relationship between slavery and tariff opposition after the War? LOL Gotcha!

[@matthewlebo1841]

@@dvrmte 😂

[@dvrmte]

@@matthewlebo1841 I didn't mean to make you cry, but if it helps you get over it, cry more.

[@battlez9577]

Weakening demand for a crop the South still grew en masse even after slavery had been abolished?

[@JackgarPrime]

Well, in that case, it comes back to money. Which slavery also comes back to!

[@itayeldad3317]

If according to the confederacy it was ok for them to secede, why did they try to stop West Virginia?

[@jdotoz]

Because that's not how victim mentality works.

[@GremlinsAndGnomes]

If it's not OK to secede, why did the Founding Father's commit treason against their own government and secede from the British Empire? The reality of federalism is that the authority of the central government was granted to it by the several states when they ratifiee the Constitution. The states precede the Union as sovereign entities.

[@Al-Rudigor]

This is a legendary series.

[@JackgarPrime]

Yeah, I'm gonna miss it

[@OuterRimPride]

It’s at least good that they feel the need to pretend it wasn’t about slavery, now, rather than just defending slavery. Usually.

[@Pangora2]

"Usually" means someone that only meets these boogeymen online.

[@OuterRimPride]

@@Pangora2 yeah, rare creatures. Not brave enough to voice how evil they are in real life of course.

[@tjyoung7835]

Im proud to say my great Grandpa and his neighbors seceded from the Confederacy when the confederacy seceded from the Union. The formed the Independent State of Scott. They were hillbillies with no use for slaves and wernt fond of the confederacy's high crop tax, or thier strong sense of power to the Federalist. My grandpa and the rest of Scott co really just wanted to be left alone. Most of the warfare around here was fought guerilla style but my grandpa joined the Tennessee 7th Calvary of company E. His brother joined the infantry. If ur interested in this just Google the independent state of scott and i would be thrilled if someone would cover this on KZbin. Edit: thats great(x3) grandpa, 6 generations between us

[@GunslingerRose]

That still means he sided for slavery even if he didn’t own any, many confederate soldiers letters talk about how they refuse to see the negro as their equal and would die before they would recognize it

[@danielcarrillo4385]

I had to look this up, it's completely true!!! they even became their own unit the 7th Regiment Tennessee Volunteer Infantry

[@tjyoung7835]

@@danielcarrillo4385 it's just such cool little piece of history that even a lot of locals don't know. There's also a house right down the road from me that has a false wall behind a bookshelf. Story goes that Confederate guerillas in the room. You'd probably never find an article on it but it's an old house right off of Rome road

[@thecatwithatophat4069]

You know, this makes more sense about why Jackson wanted hang Calhoun.

[@aloodena5196]

If it was so important, why didn't the Confederate Constitution have a right to succession written in it? You know what they did have written in? Permanent slavery.

[@GremlinsAndGnomes]

One might ask, "if the Bill of Rights was so important, why didn't the Continental Congress write it during the Revolution"?

[@aloodena5196]

@@GremlinsAndGnomes the bill of rights was ratified 8 days after the constitution. The confederate constitution was ratified without the right to succession and in all the years it existed never added the right. You really had to twist yourself in a logic knot for that one!

[@GremlinsAndGnomes]

@@aloodena5196 the U.S. Constitution was ratified on 21 June, 1788. 12 amendments were proposed on 2 October, 1788. 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, were ratified on 15 December, 1791. There are far more compelling arguments for the point to which you allude and you forsook them to do a weird logic pretzel. Don't be salty because someone noticed.

[@aloodena5196]

@@GremlinsAndGnomes I made a mistake, you win. Still a stupid analogy though.

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

Johnny Reb: It's about state rights! The right: Owning slaves

[@worekmiesa1255]

I need new episode. I already know them all by heart.

[@Milimeteypetey]

What myth is there left to dispel? I thought the civil war history being rewritten episode was a great way to end it.

[@andrewwilsey187]

There is only one left. He's still working on the finale.

[@were-owlinwisconsin4441]

@@Milimeteypetey But didn't that one end with Klaus performing a Voodoo ritual to raise a horde of Confederate zombies from the grave? I'd say that's a pretty good hint that there's at least one more episode in the works. He just hasn't been able to focus on it for a while because of everything going on with "The Sudbury Devil".

[@Rauruatreides]

I remember one of his info videos saying that this month is the beginning of production on the final episode.

[@elbruces]

He has to grow out a beard and then shave it every time. And collect enough pro-confederacy comments.

[@mctaguer]

There you go, speaking truth, with factual details and nuance again! This will not stand! Can't I just cling to my absolutist states' rights myth and live that lie in my own way?

[@lukezeiolf6977]

Because you’re bad at strawmanning

[@TJDious]

States rights are very important. They ultimately have no place in the question of owning human beings.

[@samuelbrown3405]

States rights has only ever been invoked when the states want to conmit crimes against humanity. Fuck state's rights

[@NateGerardRealEstateTeam]

My first thought in seeing this is that the current southern states want to do whatever they want completely unchecked by a federal government. “Let the states decide for themselves” becomes “Anything that is possible, can and should be made law”

[@austinfowler2707]

A federal government that they don't agree with. These "STATES RIGHTS" people are only for state government because the current Federal Government has too many voices, many who disagree with them. Functionally, a Federal Government and State Government are the same thing, just at different scales. If the federal government agreed with them, like say, between 2017 to 2020, then they have no problem with the federal government. They will then drop the states rights act if another state disagrees with them. Say on Abortion or LGBT+ rights. It's why many of these conservatives claim to be small government, but then turn around to infringe on another states rights. It's all about using it as a tool. Once it's not as useful, time to use something else.

[@rajabuta]

I mean..... FREEDOM!!!!! 😂

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@austinfowler2707 Beyond the contradiction of “small government” conservatives overriding actual states’ rights, there’s also the innumerable times they suppress personal and make even knowing about someone else wanting to have an abortion a crime.

[@jackreisewitz6632]

Actually, you should say, "Anything that is possible should be allowed." They only want laws that bear on others, not on themselves.

[@jacob5169]

​@@austinfowler2707 It's like after the 2020 presidential election, Texas tried to sue another state over how the other state's policy on mail in ballots in a pathetic attempt to get Trump instated.

[@ericherde1]

Also, when the future confederates were still in the union, they opposed states’ rights to protect run-away slaves.

[@Pangora2]

Keep in mind the First government of the United States failed (Articles of Confederation) because the Central government was so weak it couldn't even raise revenue. So, the balance of powers was off and looked like the country might just dissolve like how South America couldn't unite. But they compromised and made the Bill of Rights and rejiggered the whole thing to make it work. Once those guys died the project started slipping again. At what point was the war inevitable and the balance could not be addressed peacefully like it was previously? At one point Lincoln offered for the South to return during the war so they could help vote to enshrine slavery. So If the Confederates....Surrendered...They would enshrine slavery. But they didn't. They kept fighting anyways. if that was the only war goal it doesn't make sense. Such a contradiction should make people think.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

Seven of them declared their secession before Lincoln's inauguration based on a statement he made that reiterated the consequences of the 1858 Dredd Scott decision - a decision that was quite explicitly *against* a state's right to ban slavery within its borders. The other four declared theirs when Lincoln asked *the states* to send their militias to put down the rebellion as had been done before in Pennsylvania in 1794 by President Washington.

[@crusaderduncan9398]

The conflict between the north (new England specifically) and the south had been boiling since the American has been a country

[@garymathena2125]

This is a Southern dodge when they don't want to admit they committed treason, to get away from slavery. Which states rights was all about, whether to allow a state to be free or slave.

[@RoKBottomStudios]

But only 5 states that succeeded wrote down slavery as the main cause.

[@d.h.foster8937]

@@RoKBottomStudios so... half of the confederacy

[@RoKBottomStudios]

@d.h.foster8937 Yeah. Only 5 made slavery as the main cause for succession. I mean Florida wasn't one of them so can't say they were fighting for slavery let alone all 11 states were in the first place.

[@d.h.foster8937]

@@RoKBottomStudios so you keep saying the 'main cause'. so slavery was still a cause even for the rest?

[@RoKBottomStudios]

@@d.h.foster8937 No the other states it was more trivial things you know, like trade and tariffs, political overreach and some other economic policies. Slavery was and will always be a economic issue of that time, as the abolitionists were not as mainstream as we might think they are. Cause slavery could've been abolish in the country without a war, but the union did not lay out any ground plans like Great Britain did when they got rid of slavery.

[@angusyang5917]

Remember what happened with the Articles of Confederation?

[@jesseingram7914]

Exactly. Not letting states “just do whatever” is exactly the reason that there’s a federal level of government in the first pllace. There has to be general oversight and a throughline or we might as well be 48 countries.

[@JayCee-ji4cb]

If only there was something saying that any power not specifically granted to federal government or denied to the states was reserved for the states.

[@cbrosentertainment1806]

I just love how Johnny Reb is drinking an Abita and Billy yank a Samuel adams, it’s so impressive the work you put into this to make it feel so natural and unlike two separately recorded segments. Also your content inspired me to do my own research, being raised not but 30 minutes from your home town I too was raised on a lot of false information that I now hold akin to the opinion that the common German soldier wasn’t complicit at all to Nazi ideology. If history is written by the victors than it is always under attack by the losers in an effort to paint themselves in a better light.

[@cursedhfy3558]

It's almost like when someone's most basic right to life and personal autonomy is violated, it supercedes any question of "rights" collectively. This sounds like one issue in particular.

[@samuelbrown3405]

People really need to follow the example of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and study rhetoric. Because "state's rights" has only ever been rhetoric for "we want to commit atrocities"

[@dvrmte]

That makes no sense. What atrocities were committed under the guise of state's rights?

[@Pangora2]

That's not what Rhetoric means. no wonder you're having trouble

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

​@@dvrmteThere were four years or so and some half a million dead Americans that keep being talked about as "states' rights".

[@dvrmte]

@@doomsdayrabbit4398 I agree that the creators of this video can't stop talking about "states rights". They're virtually the only ones. The North should've followed their constitutional obligations and not provoked a civil war. Still waiting on the atrocities committed under the guise of states rights. Try hard...

[@Real_Beaky]

​@@dvrmteslavery? And all of the brutalization that accompanied it? Did you forget?

[@matantamim1]

"States got the rights to make murder legal?" Here is a Good argument for limits on states rights

[@ctrlaltdel138]

That's no what state's rights mean. Not even close.

[@scottlien2467]

I love how the closed captioning for the southerner refers to "states' rats."

[@martinbruhn5274]

If states' rights had no limits, then it wouldn't be a nation. It wouldn't be the united states of america, it would just be "states of america"

[@christianchevez3384]

just look at latin america.

[@soyevquirsefron990]

Let’s not sugarcoat it by saying Union vs Rebels, that’s too generous to the slavers. The “Union “ was and is the United States Army. The Confederate soldiers were a different country who fought and killed United States Army and Navy personnel

[@silverlightsinaugust2756]

Let’s not demonize our enemies either. War is awful. And a bunch of our guys killed their guys, too. People kill each other in war. I’m not into getting mad about a soldier of the opposing army doing the exact same job we ask our soldiers to do to their army.

[@soyevquirsefron990]

@@silverlightsinaugust2756 you’re right, and I understand why currently living southerners want to feel pride from their ancestors who were fighting for their values . I respect fighting for your values, but there’s a major problem in determining what those values should be. Most civil war southern soldiers didn’t own slaves and they weren’t foaming at the mouth eager to whip anybody, but they were fighting for an economic system that depended on slavery. I’m sure that most civil war southern soldiers were good kind honest men that would prefer to stay home with their families and pet their dogs, but they did decide to leave home and fight for their economic system (which depended upon slavery) But still, the southern soldiers decided to fight against the United States Army and killed United States soldiers, the same army soldiers that we respect today. My point was that it wasn’t two totally alien countries fighting, it was the same current day United States Army and Navy personnel that we should all respect, fighting a self proclaimed foreign country

[@soyevquirsefron990]

Ps dogs are awesome. I don’t even like dogs but dogs convinced me

[@silverlightsinaugust2756]

@@soyevquirsefron990 as a war nerd, my problem with saying things like “Nazis are monsters” which you apparently were not saying about the South, is that it ignores the fact that human beings did these things. Human beings are the source of these evils. They aren’t exceptions to our capacity for good. We have the capacity for both. We need to understand that lest we pridefully believe we’re pure. The idea of purity was behind a lot of that racism. And dogs are awesome. I like cats, too. But I’ve recently discovered I’m a bad pet owner.

[@LeCharles07]

@@silverlightsinaugust2756 They're not my enemies, they are enemies of the United States. Treason is no joke and I don't think it's unreasonable to label anyone flying a confederate flag in solidarity with the CSA as a traitor to the nation (probably not deserving of the maximum punishment but certainly deserving of a few hundred hours of community service).

[@theylied1776]

I am from Tennessee, and several counties did not agree with State Secession. These were simple farmers and planters, so they went to war with wealthy plantation owners. Almost none of these wealthy plantation owners or their sons went to fight in the Civil War. They went to Florida to wait out the war.

[@jamesczerniak7808]

In Federalist 45, Madison argues that the Union as outlined in the Constitution is necessary to the people's happiness and that the balance of power between the states and the national government will support the greatest happiness for the people. He argues that the primary purpose of government, and hence of the Constitution, is the people's happiness, and therefore only a government that promotes the people's happiness is legitimate, writing, "Were the plan of the Convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, abolish the Union".[1

[@CyberController-]

If you don't want the central government to have any power, why are you even in a united states?

[@petermorhead4160]

Mint money and provide for the common defense. What could go wrong?

[@Pangora2]

The United States of America used to be a plural noun. Many States, uniting. Not just the singular "United States". Its like there was a big war fought over which side would win.

[@CurlyHairedRogue]

In the same way I understand why Germany was upset over it’s financial situation in the wake of the First World War, I understand why the south might have been justified in at least questioning the tariffs and taxation of their goods. That being said, explanations are not excuses, especially for violations of human rights in favor of state’s rights. You can question why you’re in such a bad situation over decisions made by your government, but the moment you start treating people as lessers, you need to understand that perhaps you’ve been led to take more liberties than were taken from you (pun completely intended).

[@kingcamelot1395]

Remember people, always ask them the question: States Rights to do what?

[@timthetechpriest8876]

"John C Calhoun if you secede your state from this nation then I will secede your head from the rest of your body"

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I've studied the nullification crisis from a different perspective: constitutional law. I study Article V of the Constitution. Madison's words from the Virginia Resolution were twisted by Hamilton to claim he was arguing for nullification. It was slander and Madison clarified that isn't what he was talking about. But the rumors persisted and during the nullification crisis, Calhoun still claimed he supported the idea. Madison wrote a treatise on Constitutional Law in response in the form of a letter, which he was pursuaded to publish. He also worked behind the scenes to encourage South Carolina to use the Article V Convention path to get the policy they sought. He correctly presumed you could not successfully amend the Constitution that way without overwhelming national support that did not exist. The effots in many states turned toward that method which resoundingly failed and the crisis ended.

[@velazquezarmouries]

States rights to do what

[@SintiSnake]

That’s a question confederate sympathizers like to ignore

[@Tritian4]

I remember reading somewhere that Lincoln said he couldn't let the South go otherwise who would pay for the government. And I also remember reading somewhere that he had plan to send the slaves to Liberia. Maybe I am misremembering.

[@vehx9316]

@yeah you are misremembering. It's as if you are making shit up and cherry picking as you go along.

[@Tritian4]

@@vehx9316 dude didnt have to be rude about it. could have just said the first thing. And I dont make stuff up. I did find that Lincoln did have plans to send freed slaves to Africa. As for the other thing I found that to so I was not misremebering.

[@vehx9316]

Excpt that idea was still incredibly progressive for it's time and was also supported by prominent blacks. And in his second term, lincoln publicly called for blacks to have the right to vote. So yeah, context, nuance and understanding. These are not present.

[@Pangora2]

@@vehx9316 Funny enough, Liberia does exist. With a mock US flag because they were the colony we sent them to, to send them back to Africa. Despite being aggressive you didn't realize any of that.

[@vehx9316]

@@Pangora2 Funny enough, you don't seem to understand the differences between voluntarily colonization and a forced colonization. To put it simply, at no point of time did Lincoln forcibly transport freed slaves back to Africa. This is pratically textbook level information that is hardly worth a "gotcha" moment,

[@laurencewinch-furness9450]

It's certainly true that the South cecceded for the worst possible reason and in the worst possible way. However, there is something pretty authoritarian about the idea that states have no right to cecceed under any circumstances. The association of separatism and political decentralisation with the right is a peculiarly American phenomenon. In the rest of the democratic world, separatist movements are primarily left wing. In my own country the SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru are all left of centre. The same goes for Quebec, Catalonia, Brittany and elsewhere. It should be possible to call out the hypocrisy of American conservatives when they call for "states' rights" only when it suits their interests, without dismissing the entire concept of political separatism per-se.

[@AndrewAMartin]

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court ruled that since it required the consent of Congress for a territory to become a state and a member of the Union, it also required a Congressional vote for a state to leave. It was the _unilateral_ secession of the Confederacy that was illegal, not secession itself. But that was after the fact...

[@LeCharles07]

Note: The War only began when THE CONFEDERACY besieged a Federal fort and fired on Federal soldiers. The CSA brought about it's own destruction.

[@vehx9316]

The case of texas v white states that states can seceeded after negotiations with the federal gov and other states but unilateral secession in and of itself is always illegal. South seceeded only after they lost an election that they rigged. So yeah there was never any good justification for the South to seceed.

[@Pangora2]

@@LeCharles07 Besieged a fort in the land they claimed. If Russia or China owned Manhattan Island, how long would the US mind? (See Cuban Missile Crisis)

[@Pangora2]

@@AndrewAMartin So it was about the States' Right to secede, like Lincoln thought. And Lincoln thought "No" on that question.

[@marvincool3744]

If the federal government has no jurisdiction over the states, we don’t have a country.

[@user-xk1ff4gp7k]

Asking someone that type of question is not ethical nor is it right it just shows how desperate they are to tell their side of the story if they were telling the truth it would be evident

[@rsfaeges5298]

You do these so well.

[@SebastianWoodard]

I spy with my little eye an Abita Beer. That beer is made real close to my house and I can tell you the local folktale about the water used in that beer and why Abita beer is so special to us here in Da Boot.

[@LeCharles07]

Well... we're waiting. :P

[@SebastianWoodard]

@@LeCharles07 so long ago, the daughter of the Jena band Choctaw married a Spaniard, and they subsequently moved to New Orleans. This was early 1800s and disease was terrible in New Orleans. She fell sick, likely with malaria, though it's unknown, and no doctor could help her in New Orleans. The medicine man of the tribe advised her to return home, which she did. She went out into the woods and found a hickory stump. This was a peculiar stump though, as it had water flowing up out of it. She then drank from the water, which flows from a natural underground spring, and was healed. They then named the spring, the river, and the town after her, and the brewery was named based on the town's name.

[@joshgladfelter9597]

I’ve got to say… I don’t know if anyone else noticed this… But I love how the northern earth is drinking Sam Adams, and the southern is drinking abita.

[@fdumbass]

Its kinda nice to see two mortal enemies chit-chating and enjoying a beer

[@thomasdevine867]

Jackson probably just wanted to hang Calhoun. That would have put Jackson in the same category as most of the people Calhoun knew.

[@Gexx15]

Love this guys stuff wish he had a PBS show or something. :)

[@Callsign_viper]

The confed sounds like russel ward from the America rising mod on fallout 4

[@notcats2139]

rebb is an intresting character, not inherently racist, but stout in his beliefs about the civil war. He doesn't want to believe that his descendants lost so much and acted in such a way. For slavery. And tries very hard to try and prove differently. Enough that it eats away at his whole persona. But he's always willing to talk, to hear out the other person (If not with the occasional interruption). He's not a bad person deep down, he's quite civil. Just kinda strikes me as someone who was raised by a family with heavy lost cause values in mind. A kind soul otherwise washed in tainted waters

[@perrinklumpp4664]

Calhoun was so vile, even people I consider disgusting thought he was too much. I am so very glad we no longer have a lake named after him.

[@USGrant-rr2by]

Read Washington's "Letter of Transmittal" of the Constitution to Congress to be voted on. He explains this very well.

[@chuckoneill2023]

Well, part of Virginia did secede from Virginia and the Confederacy. That's why we have "West Virginia".

[@normanhines5189]

States rights? No state has the right to deny inalienable, personal rights.

[@re1010]

Whats funny is the Confederacy was explicitly called a "permenant, federal government" in their constitution.

[@ghsrthstrhsrthsthstrh9654]

oh man i love how the comments go on and on about slavery when this particular video actually never mentioned the word even once. truly a brainless echochamber of all time

[@TheSuzberry]

States rights to make slavery legal within their borders?

[@kanteannightmare]

Agree but the 'central government' part i think is the wrong term because the whole point of the us government was to avoid centralizing power.

[@lexxpowered8836]

You do realize it’s called the “Federal Government” because it’s the CENTRALIZED system of power within America right? America was made to HAVE representation not DISALLOW centralization

[@JessRenee91481]

Maybe it's good. Maybe it's bad. The Constitution did not ban secession, thus secession falls under the 10th. I also can't think that the framers would have seen this as a perpetual union considering the context of the Revolution. It's not even a case of "they didn’t think of that" when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia had secession clauses in their state constitutions.

[@vehx9316]

Atun Shei already covered that. Also, the Constitution also grants the president powers to suppress any rebellions in the territories, which unilateral secession of the South certainly counts as one.

[@JessRenee91481]

@vehx9316 no, he hand waved it away. Just because you don't like a fact, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, it's hard to argue that it's rebellion when a state had a right to do something and followed a legal legislative process.

[@vehx9316]

@@JessRenee91481 No he did refer to the supremacy clause in the constitution, and he pointed out that the act of the South to secede after they lost a valid election makes it illegal and thus invalid. He did not "hand wave it away", maybe if you like actually watched the video you would have known.

[@vehx9316]

"I also can't think that the framers would have seen this as a perpetual union considering the context of the Revolution" Actually they did, Atun Shei highlight James Madison's letter to Alexander Hamilton : " The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only."

[@vehx9316]

"Maybe it's good. Maybe it's bad. The Constitution did not ban secession". Leaving out the fact that the Constitution did make it by default that any unilateral secession is illegal (which the south did). You hid a good point on the morality of secession, as John Stuart Mill put it : "Neither rebellion, nor any other act which affects the interests of others, is sufficiently legitimated by the mere will to do it. Secession may be laudable, and so may any other kind of insurrection; but it may also be an enormous crime. It is the one or the other, according to the object and the provocation." So even on the morality front, the South failed hard.

[@Deathnotefan97]

Yeah, I’m all for states rights, but most of my grievances with the overstepping of federal power comes from the fact that most of it violates the constitution, not necessarily because the thing itself is something I feel the federal government shouldn’t have power over

[@nashmonti120]

So wait the whole argument here is that we assume the confederacy wouldn’t allow Louisiana to secede? Don’t get me wrong I don’t think they would have but also considering it didn’t happen it seems like a flimsy argument, as the point made is resting on the fact that they didn’t secede even though that doesn’t prove that they couldn’t have seceded if they wanted to.

[@Schizniit]

It's just like all that nationalist, "small government" rhetoric. Where they don't actually want small government, they just want to go unchecked

[@reddeserted13]

Tell us about how Zach Taylor would have personally led an army into the South to stop secession in 1850.

[@wordbearer8202]

While I am glad the civil war happened because I think it has lead to the best outcome for the US, it seems to me that the initial intention behind the constitution is something more akin to the European union of sovereign nations united together rather than a federal nation which we have today. My primary reasoning for this is the articles of confederation and the 10th amendment which in all honesty Should be stricken from the bill of rights because it's completely ignored by all levels of government.

[@timsterrett2417]

Hold on i will google the political history and get back with the answer!!!

[@heartrate0]

It's important to consider that its a very complex issue. Were the George Floyd riots about 1 cop killed 1 man? or was that a boiling point to a complex issue. You guys act like it's so black and white (no pun intended)

[@Pangora2]

They need to, because if they admit it was 99% slavery and 1% something else, they feel they're losing ground. Then there is nuance. If a single Confederate soldier died nobly in battle doing no wrongs in his life and getting drafted - then they can't have their easy morality story.

[@d.h.foster8937]

@@Pangora2 there is no confederate soldier that died nobly; he fought for the confederacy.

[@heartrate0]

@@d.h.foster8937 I never said that... I said that it's a very complex issue then used BLM as an example. What you did is commonly called a "strawman" because it's ridiculous. You should stick to trying to convince sane people that women can have penises.

[@stretmediq]

They agreed to the supremacy clause when they ratified the constitution

[@movieloverfan18]

During the Civil War, when Virginia seceded from the United States, the Western part of Virginia disagreed and West Virginia seceded from the State of Virginia. Virginia was mad and said they had no right to do so. The United States However, accepted it and welcomed the New State of West Virginia.

[@vehx9316]

secession for me but not for thee.

[@jamesmccarthy4777]

Can you talk about Sam Houston opposing the secession movement?

[@Todd_Swank]

Ill preface this with I dont know much about the southern CSA constitution or their standing laws, but there absolutely wasnt a law or clause that said states couldnt secede from the USA. That means their right to secede was outlined in the 10th A. While part of the USA, no they couldnt do what ever they wanted as outlined specifically in the constitution, its a pact that any state had to agree with to join the union(alliance). Once leaving the union, those rules no longer applied.

[@LeCharles07]

Note: The War only began when THE CONFEDERACY besieged a Federal fort and fired on Federal soldiers. The CSA brought about it's own destruction.

[@Todd_Swank]

@@LeCharles07 It wasnt the federal fort when SC left the union. It was on SC land and their property. Those who were "besieging" the ft were the union troops. Theres a reason why no union soldier were killed, and that because SC didnt want to kill them.

[@christophertaylor9100]

The constitution should have set up a way for a state to leave the union, to be honest

[@vondas1480]

Nah

[@newsomsr2000]

We need to separate from America now just look at them

[@shootercinema8577]

Keep this going

[@arcadeus5546]

Everyone forgets we tried the Articles of Confederation before the constitution, basically giving states all the rights and creating a VERY weak federal government. There are a lot of reasons it didn't stick.

[@Pangora2]

I'm glad you brought this up. The government at the Federal Level couldn't do anything. However, after fixing things we go to where we are talking about. Lincoln even told the Confederates Mid-war to rejoin the Union so they could have the votes to enshrine Slavery. Yet, if the war was only about slavery and not an overreaching Federal Government, why didn't this work?

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

Everyone forgets to call the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union what it was: the first constitution. That's why I've gotten into the habit of referring to the current document as either the second, federal, or 1787 constitution.

[@eswift8318]

This seems kind of complicated to me. Let's say - just making up something off the top of my head - a Governor of a state decided to throw Federal law enforcement off a piece of land and replace them with the state National Guard. Then the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest federal court there is, told him to stop being an ass. Obviously, no one would be confused about what should happen, right?

[@jamesczerniak7808]

did you know that there were 451,021 slaves counted in the 1860 census in states and territories that would make up the Union during the Civil War? Twenty years earlier, in the 1840 census, there were 355,777 slaves counted and in 1850, 415,510. When you look at the census data, New England is the only region where slavery ends rather quickly. In other areas of the north and west, slavery continues until right up to the Civil War

[@StardragonTheCanadian]

Union Man: stop making sense. You'll hurt their feelings!

[@chimera6485]

I currently live in south Carolina and im going to have to watch the first part again because i dont know what the hell he said XD

[@selenahughes2401]

These are fascinating…. Thank you 😊

[@AlexA-ko8lu]

If the right to secede was important to the slave states, they would have put that right in the confederate constitution, it didn't contain that right. Do you know what right was added to the Confederate constitution? That is correct, the permanent enumerated right to own slaves.

[@johnking6252]

Somewhat the reason the South LOST the war ! Just saying. 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🔵

[@wilurbean]

A city secession is very different than a state if you're referring to nola. If you mean the entire state of Louisiana, yes i think the state could've seceded from the confederacy without much care of they agreed to not join the union prior to the war ending. The justification used in this video means Germany and France should've gone to war over brexit. Brexit had less justification than the confederacy after bleeding Kansas and the election manipulation. These videos are just propaganda and nothing more.

[@samrevlej9331]

Do you honestly have no clue that this is about the Civil War?

[@jackiemartello7970]

Well, not all of Louisiana seceded from the union. Jefferson Parish for example, right next to New Orleans, refused to leave nor formally cooperate with the confederacy. This is the second time I have corrected one this guys videos.

[@anyabureau9894]

That’s what Nikki said

[@nickswartzfager3928]

I definitely agree slavery was wrong. I do think that the souther pride is the pride the us had during the revolutionary War, Americans like to rebel against federal government. It's in our dna lol

[@vehx9316]

problem is that the South have no problem using Federal powers to get what they want like with the Fugitive Slave Act.

[@cadenz7719]

Why stop at state? Jones County wanted to make its own decision in 1864. States rights are important yes, but the whole point of the civil war was for the state’s right to keep slavery.

[@Pangora2]

This is the recurring issue. It was a central point, but to keep saying it was the whole point is like saying WW1 was only about the Archduke getting killed and doesn't say anything about why everyone got in and stayed in.

[@loverizzato9081]

"States just can't do whatever" wish that applied to uteruses and women's rights. The Government put its foot down in 1973 and 50 years later 5 people changed history for 168 million females. Love your series!

[@amellirizarry9503]

As an anarchist i believe that States should have no rights 🚩🏴

[@matthewbittenbender9191]

This is much more technical than even an above average educated Confederate lost cause apologist ever discusses. The most intellectual argument you will get from them is a superficial comment on states rights or Northern Taxation of Abominations.

[@LeCharles07]

Just read the articles of succession to them. They run from the argument after about the 5th one. Always start with Mississippi, that one's a real banger.

[@Pangora2]

@@LeCharles07 The ones full of remarks about tariffs and Federal overreach? I've read them, some say slavery a whole lot. Some cite individual tariff issues. Its like people don't read history and only watch youtube.

[@3_14pie]

I don't understand ½ of what the confederate dude says

[@kiarajames3932]

Factually incorrect Before the civil war States rights far exceeded the rights of the “Union” or central govt In fact, before the Civil War, most people did not even consider themselves US citizens. They would refer to themselves as Pennsylvanians or Ohioans or Tennesseans, etc They were far more loyal to their states than to the Union That only changed after the civil war when Lincoln demanded Union above states rights To say that states can’t leave is like saying today that European states cannot leave the European Union. They can and they have. But it is a battle because govts never like giving up power

[@lexxpowered8836]

When did Lincoln “demand Union” before he became president huh? Show me the quote or speech where he did this before the war was declared

[@kiarajames3932]

@@lexxpowered8836 “before the war was declared” what does that mean? He did it at the exact time the war started. That’s literally what started the war But if you really want to know where he showed his leanings that the Union was above states rights. Well that’s easy: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."- 1858 The following sentences “I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.” If he says the Union MUST be united and CANNOT be divided then he says that slavery must be abolished. Well that tells you exactly what you need to know- demanded that Union rights were above states rights And he definitely meant it and forced it And I thank goodness for that. Or I may still be a slave today. The ends justified the means but it doesn’t mean what Lincoln did was wholly good. He did massive harm to correct an even worse abomination

[@Eat-Glass]

You said the rights of South Carolina and I stopped caring f*** South Carolina

[@devingimple]

Sorry but it was about states rights. Lol

[@StormCrownSr]

States rights to do what?

[@darthjarjar3152]

So when theres different flavors of unionists but all southerners were racists. (According to your previous videos)

[@meka.1142]

No? Rebb isn't racist from what I see, but the point is that the cause is rooted deeply in racism, so you can't follow it without at least being complicit in racism.

[@AvangionQ]

The only thing I know about John Calhoun is that he has a meme-able portrait:

[@AvangionQ]

Fucking KZbin algorithm, autodeleting memes and flagging them. WTAF?!

[@BirdDogg]

In a bit of foreshadowing, On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, “the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.” Lincoln continued the cycle stating “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue” it’s always been about money and power, it always will be.

[@vehx9316]

That funny because the articles of secession barely touched on tariffs or taxes, they sure like to cite slavery a lot though. Also, Lincoln's proclaimation for the blockade is based on his powers and duties as president so of course he did not cite slavery as a reason.

[@BirdDogg]

@@vehx9316 only four states issued a declaration of causes. Go ahead and show me where Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida l, Louisiana and Missouri mention slavery in their articles, I’ll wait. In the mean time, explain how New Jersey, Delaware, and Kentucky were allowed to keep their slaves until after the war(hint: they paid the tax) For the rest, do your own research, after millions of comments on my content of folks unwilling to dig into actual source material it gets a little old. Log off, get a book and do your own research is my advice.

[@vehx9316]

@@BirdDogg Yeah true, but they did not cite any other reason as well, nor do they seem to mind much that the Confederate was founded explicitly for slavery. If you get 10 people sitting at a table talking to a Nazi, you get 11 Nazis.

[@vehx9316]

@@BirdDogg And yeah, the border states still kept slaves because the main contention was the expansion of slavery into the territories, not the abolition of slavery. Also, Lincoln have to keep the border states in the Union so moving on slavery before the Confederacy was defeat makes 0 sense.

[@vehx9316]

@@BirdDogg We have covered this before in other videos, but selective memories I see.

[@jackreisewitz6632]

The Southern states choosing to name themselves "The Confedrate States" is directly linked to the Articles of Confederacy under which the United States were governed for 11 years before the writing and adaption of the constitution by the original colonies. The desire to return to the form of organization had under the Articles of Confederation was a major motivation and goal of the rebellion of the Southern States. It had established strong States rights (the States acting more like independent nations) cooperating in a confederation with no strong central government. And the central government could not regulate trade (or resolve trade disputes between states), levy taxes - leaving it incapable of funding military for national defense, and a host of other shortcomings - which lead to it being replaced by a majority of the voters. And just like today, there were those who didn't want to be subject to taxation in any form, or have a government that has authority to regulate their actions. The power to intercede in the issue of slavery was the biggest aggrevation brought to the forefront by this discontent with the existence of a strong national government under the Constitution.

[@LeCharles07]

The Articles of Confederation were abandoned because they were a total shit show... slavery, it was about slavery.

[@Pangora2]

Also noteworthy here is the US Government became far stricter during the war, meanwhile the Confederacy was a far weaker state that might have been doomed to dissolve even if it had survived. Slavery, while the thing that set it off, was about Federal Power, and in the absence of Federal Power, its the rights of the States.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

They literally just copied and pasted the federal constitution of 1787, not the 1777 constitution so often just referred to as "the Articles of Confederation".

[@daviddegraff5137]

No.

[@Mortablunt]

The fact the Soviet Union let all of it states leave peacefully while the Americans had a Civil War about it still strikes me as genuinely hilarious.

[@petermorhead4160]

The Soviet "states" were free living countries with centuries long histories before becoming Soviet "states." Were these Soviet "states" forced to become Soviet "states" against their will? The states of the United States entered the union freely and without force.

[@Pangora2]

Even Czarist Russia let countries leave. The one that backed up the US Government to stop Europe from intervening.