ArticlesBlog

Was the Civil War About Slavery?

Was the Civil War About Slavery?


Was the American Civil War fought because
of slavery? More than 150 years later this remains a controversial question. Why? Because many people don’t want to believe
that the citizens of the southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve a morally
repugnant institution. There has to be another reason, we are told. Well, there isn’t. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Slavery
was, by a wide margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War — for both sides.
Before the presidential election of 1860, a South Carolina newspaper warned that the
issue before the country was, “the extinction of slavery,” and called on all who were not
prepared to, “surrender the institution,” to act. Shortly after Abraham Lincoln’s victory,
they did. The secession documents of every Southern
state made clear, crystal clear, that they were leaving the Union in order to protect
their “peculiar institution” of slavery — a phrase that at the time meant “the thing special
to them.” The vote to secede was 169 to 0 in South Carolina, 166 to 7 in Texas, 84 to 15 in Mississippi. In no Southern state was the vote close. Alexander Stephens of Georgia, the Confederacy’s
Vice President clearly articulated the views of the South in March 1861. “Our new government,” he said, was founded on slavery. “Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great
truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, submission to the superior
race, is his natural and normal condition.” Yet, despite the evidence, many continue to
argue that other factors superseded slavery as the cause of the Civil War. Some argue that the South only wanted to protect
states’ rights. But this raises an obvious question: the states’ rights to what? Wasn’t
it to maintain and spread slavery? Moreover, states’ rights was not an exclusive Southern
issue. All the states — North and South — sought to protect their rights — sometimes they
petitioned the federal government, sometimes they quarreled with each other. In fact, Mississippians
complained that New York had too strong a concept of states’ rights because it would not allow Delta planters to bring their slaves to Manhattan. The South was preoccupied with
states’ rights because it was preoccupied first and foremost with retaining slavery. Some argue that the cause of the war was economic.
The North was industrial and the South agrarian, and so, the two lived in such economically different societies that they could no longer stay together. Not true. In the middle of the 19th century, both North
and South were agrarian societies. In fact, the North produced far more food crops than
did the South. But Northern farmers had to pay their farmhands who were free to come
and go as they pleased, while Southern plantation owners exploited slaves over whom they had
total control. And it wasn’t just plantation owners who supported
slavery. The slave society was embraced by all classes in the South. The rich had multiple
motivations for wanting to maintain slavery, but so did the poor, non-slave holding whites.
The “peculiar institution” ensured that they did not fall to the bottom rung of the social
ladder. That’s why another argument — that the Civil War couldn’t have been about slavery
because so few people owned slaves — has little merit. Finally, many have argued that President Abraham
Lincoln fought the war to keep the Union together, not to end slavery. That was true at the outset
of the war. But he did so with the clear knowledge that keeping the Union together meant either
spreading slavery to all the states — an unacceptable solution — or vanquishing it
altogether. In a famous campaign speech in 1858, Lincoln
said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” What was it that divided the country?
It was slavery, and only slavery. He continued: “I believe this government cannot endure permanently
half slave and half free… It will become all one thing, or all the other.” Lincoln’s
view never changed, and as the war progressed, the moral component, ending slavery, became
more and more fixed in his mind. His Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 turned that into law. Slavery is the great shame of America’s history.
No one denies that. But it’s to America’s everlasting credit that it fought the most devastating war in its history in order to abolish slavery. As a soldier, I am proud that the United States
Army, my army, defeated the Confederates. In its finest hour, soldiers wearing this
blue uniform — almost two hundred thousand of them former slaves themselves — destroyed
chattel slavery, freed 4 million men, women, and children from human bondage, and saved
the United States of America. I’m Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor and Head,
Department of History at the United States Military Academy, West Point
for Prager University.

Comments (100)

  1. The fundamental and fatal error in trying to equate secession and war is Secession began as a defensive measure by SC, a defense from the creation of large numbers of free Blacks, and the defense spread. The defense of slavery began secession, but not all the original 7 CSA states seceded solely on that issue. And, only 7 of 15 slave states were involved. 

    One can make an evaluation of thought here; I think only SC,GA,LA,and MS felt mortally threatened by a possible sudden end to slavery. There was more to the creation of the CSA than just slavery.
    But the question is about WAR. The war was about fundamental political concepts. Put to many Virginians, the war was not caused by secession, but, rather secession was caused by the war.
    If secession had been such an egregious act that it required military correction then SC should have been corrected in Jan, 1861. If secession were so clearly illegal as some say, then the CSA could never have been formed. Secession and war do not seem to equate. THESE IDIOTS do not wish to discuss why the CSA was allowed to form…..it messes with whatever emotional narrative they might employ. That narrative is heart warming and fuzzy feeling.

  2. If secession had been such an egregious act that it required military correction then SC should have been corrected in Jan, 1861. If secession were so clearly illegal as some say, then the CSA could never have been formed. Secession and war do not seem to equate. THESE IDIOTS do not wish to discuss why the CSA was allowed to form…..it messes with whatever emotional narrative they might employ. That narrative is heart warming and fuzzy feeling.

  3. It's not a "defensive measure" to attack and kill American soldiers LOLOLOL. Pearl Harbor was not a "defensive measure."

  4. I do not know how to more simply explain that war and secession were not one in the same.
    The war was about political notions. Secession began over questions of slavery.
    Had secession been obviously illegal, war would have commenced BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated. The Civil War was clearly a struggle over the nature of Union.

  5. The CSA was not "allowed to form" LOLOLOL. America raised an army and upheld the Constitution, just like during the Whiskey Rebellion.

  6. AS EVIDENCE that the war is actually the main motivator of secession…Virginia didnt secede until after the war broke out.

  7. arguing that slavery was the cause of war is an ad hoc fallacy.

  8. "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority."
    The rebels chose bloodshed and violence, just like Osama bin Laden and the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

  9. ronpaullovespatrick….they had 4 months to militarily correct SC before Sumter. If secession was rebellion…why wait four months? why not simply crush the single state and "nip it in the bud"?????????????????????????

  10. The rebels themselves said slavery was the cause of war LOLOLOLOLOL

  11. nononono…no back tracking….answer the question…if secession was rebellion that needed to be put down…using your "whiskey rebellion" example…..THEY WOULD NOT HAVE WAITED….They didnt wait on the whiskey rebellion….

  12. America did not suppress the Whiskey Rebellion until the rebels started attacking American officials. Even then, America first sent peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels. Oops!!!!

  13. Fat Boy has now openly admitted that "Secession began over questions of slavery." Either you believe slavery is morally wrong or you don't. Simple.

  14. Fat Boy has now openly admitted that "Secession began over questions of slavery." Whether someone supports that decision today depends entirely on whether you agree with slavery, or believe slavery is morally wrong. Simple.

  15. “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." – Lincoln

  16. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the plantation owners for bringing these bastards over here.

    Thank you.

  17. I'm proud of being Southern and our Confederate past. But I'm also glad slavery was abolished.

  18. So which way did it turn out General? Did we all become "A" free men or "B" slaves, or did we become the rarely discussed option "C" a hybrid of both? I believe many US citizens like myself are chained to our jobs because of unfair financial debt practices and a government that says, "give me tax money so I can give it to your countrymen, the military that protects the world, needy non-US citizens population bombs, and to bribe whole foreign countries to do as we in power wish of them", and by that we all become a type of tax paying consumer based debt slaves to our nation and the world. On the others side of things, many people are tied down by welfare programs that encourage them to have a gross lack of motivation to succeed in many areas of life to include education, spirituality, marriage, parenting, and upward mobility within the free market of capitalism making them a type of tax absorbing consumer-based welfare slave. There is a third tax dodging or tax absorbing slave group to include all those folks that can't fit in to the system with it's simple set of rules because they ether don't want to, or they are not designed in their nature to thus making these people a type of exiled social peace and order cast of slaves. This last cast of slaves finds their way into prisons, jails, homeless shelter, tent cities, gangs, prostitution, drug dens, and broken-down houses and trailers all over the present landscape albeit an urban or a rural one. The one true freedom 99% of us all have is in deciding which type of social financial slave type we will be in our life unless we are "A" born into financial freedom or "B" talented enough or soulless enough or both in some way to figure out a path to achieve such financial freedom. Freedom and slavery maintain the balance of civil peace between a prison exile slave population, a welfare slave population, and a struggling debt and tax laden working-class slave population. The former two being enslaved mostly by the government while the later and larger one is jointly enslaved by the government, the former slave casts, and ultimately the financial institution of usury and central banking with its loan-based credit to debt interest system of rewards and punishments. Both these primary slave masters float uneasily upon their management between the growing ranks of tax absorbing and tax dodging slave casts and an ever-shrinking tax producing slave cast. This selfish style of freedom through capitalism is cannibalistic in nature due to financial greed and politically progressive self-inflicted wounds that promote population killing social policies towards drug abuse, reproductive family units, sexuality, preventative healthcare, organic natural nutrition, religious doctrine, and sexual reproduction. Add on reckless legal and illegal immigration policies putting downward pressure on wages for every type of occupation from engineers to ditch diggers and you get a dying middle class and a deteriorating demographic of unity, racial cohesiveness, lawfulness, and national pride among the greater population. Nope General sir, in the end I fear the US government didn't eliminate slavery during the Civil War, but rather it got into bed with it, hence the double standards between the have and the have nots, leading with their secret motto of “rules for thee, but not for me”. This is all very apparent in the current cultural cold civil war on immigration, free-speech vs. hate-speech, big tech’s politically biased censorship, environmentalism, identity-based politics, abortion rights, LGBTQ etc., and gun control debates. General sir, it looks like the next civil war will also be in great part about slavery. In fact, the next civil war will mostly likely not only be limited to only a US phenomenon this time. Global economics, the push of Islam into the West, third world migration to the first, the internet, and the predictable succession fights between global powers in the wake of US civil instability and economic collapse will one by one push global populations everywhere to turn against their masters and their oppressors and thus onset the first Great Global Civil War across the planet. We both know that once the US military steps away from the guarding the walls and the sea lanes all hell will break loose then such will end the Pax Americana.

  19. Neo-Confederates really only show that it's not about history for them, it's their own contemporary political gripes based upon a made reality. Neo Confederates try to hide and minimize slavery and the racial supremacist system of the CSA as the cause of the war in order to make it easier for them to minimize and excuse their own white supremacy today, and perhaps also give themselves psychological comfort and internal self-justification for what are now recognized as pretty despicable attitudes.

    "Despite these varied attributions of "neo-Confederacy" from the period immediately after the Civil War to the present, there are a number of consistencies in neo-Confederate thought — its racist, patriarchal, heterosexist, classist, and religious undertones — that form the basis of a conservative ideology that centers upon social inequality and the maintenance of a hierarchical society."

    "Neo-Confederacy, A Critical Introduction" Edited by Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, and Edward H. Sebesta

    .

  20. It's ok to believe what you want to believe it is not ok to demand we believe what you wants us to believe

  21. "Slavery is the major cause of the Civil War. Anyone that denies that is a bad student of history."

    – James I. Robertson in "Education week" "150 Years Later: Primary Sources, Technology Bring Civil War to Life" By Erik Robelen on April 12, 2011.

    .

  22. Runstedt…"Lincoln said he was ok with secession…as long as you don't shoot at us"

  23. The presidency and both houses of Congress said we are not Waging War to the destroy the institutions of slavery in 1861

  24. "reunification is the major cause of war, anyone who denies that is a bad student of history" Patrick Sulley 2019

  25. Anybody who has read anything by an actual Civil War historian, or what the South itself was saying at the time, knows the war was caused by and was about slavery, and the South admitted that itself, over and over.

    "I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to you the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through you, to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.… What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."

    – Henry L, Benning, Commissioner from Georgia – "Address Delivered Before the Virginia state Convention. February 18, 1861

    They didn't make those kind of statements about anything other than slavery.

    So:

    “Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ [or anything else] has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”

    "I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” Dr. James Loewen

    .

  26. Anybody who reads anything by an actual Civil War historian will tell you that the war was started by the desire to reunify the states the secession of four Southern States was due to slavery when 4 joined after War started. Since the war had already started before four of them joined the Confederacy the war itself could not have been started by them seceding because they did it after the war started

  27. Wow, all Patrick has is to parrot a lie out of what I post. He has nothing and has repeatedly been shown a liar here.

  28. "Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war." – Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston

    "Slavery is the major cause of the Civil War. Anyone that denies that is a bad student of history."

    – James I. Robertson in "Education week" "150 Years Later: Primary Sources, Technology Bring Civil War to Life" By Erik Robelen on April 12, 2011.

  29. Union General: Fire at will.
    Union soldier: which one is Will?
    Will: Screw you guys

  30. Within the profession there are hardly any further discussions as it's quite evident that the war was fought over reunification as Abraham Lincoln said he had no desire to interfere with the institution of slavery both houses of Congress said they would not wage war to get rid of any institution of the South including slavery. There's only one other option left and that's reunification. But Abraham Lincoln was fine with secession as long as it didn't shoot them or at them

  31. Wow all Runstedt has left is to parrot biased opinions of supposed historian hacks. He has lost all aspects of this debate and now.ONLY refers to other people's opinions

  32. Frankly he has never had an opinion of his own he's never made any arguments for or against he's only parroted out what other people have said and when I say "other people..I am referring to OPINIONS of other people.. he has no independent thought whatsoever

  33. Basically it boils down to he has an opinion based solely on other people's opinions It's just kind of like double hearsay

  34. Well I would say that Runstedt lies but he hasn't formed an opinion of his own …it's the one thing I can say is that the people that he quotes lie. He lacks the ability for abstract thought and therefore can't form his own opinion and articulated them in a way that I can either call him a liar or not

  35. Great presentation. Slavery was the driving force without question. The war, however, did not end slavery. Lincoln knew his proclamation was not worth the paper it was written on if it got to the courts. He knew when the war ended his war powers that confiscated the slaves and freed them would not stand under law. It was the fight in congress and the passing of the 13 th amendment that ended slavery. It did not state that blacks and whites are equal as humans , which of course they are, but rather that all men are equal before the law. It was the beginning of the long fight to where we are today. Perhaps not a perfect union but nothing is ever perfect. It is certainly much better than anywhere on the planet.

    Thank you for your service

  36. "As evidenced by the prewar political discord, the nature of the compromise efforts on the eve of Fort Sumter – all of which concerned the legal status of slavery – and the prewar statements of Southern political leaders, slavery was THE (his emphasis) sectional issue. Southern political leaders led their states out of the Union to protect slavery from a disapproving national majority. …

    Secession was not heroic- it was mean and narrow and a profound mistake. Its leaders were wrong and authored a major tragedy for American People."

    – Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History" p27

  37. "It's all about slavery. But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all.… And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate." – Edna Medford, Howard University

  38. "The triumph of the Confederacy would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of friends all over the civilized world. The American Civil War is destined to be a turning point for good or evil, of the course of human affairs." – English philosopher of freedom and liberty, John Stuart Mill

  39. "Socially and culturally the North and South were not much different. They prayed to the same deity, spoke the same language, shared the same ancestry, sang the same songs. National triumphs and catastrophes were shared by both." "For all the myths they would create to the contrary, the only significant and defining difference between them was slavery, where it existed and where it did not, for by 1804 it had virtually ceased to exist north of Maryland. Slavery demarked not just their labor and economic situations, but power itself in the new republic."_ – Historian William C. Davis

  40. Let me post other people's opinions about the war as if I'm some kind of historian. Posting other people's opinion just makes you a plagiarizer. You have to add some of your own content in order not to be a plagiarizer

  41. Lincoln was not "fine with secession" LOLOLOL. His First Inaugural Address is widely available online, for anyone to read. Fat Boy loses again.

  42. Ronpaulhatesniggarsandlovespatricksdick says Lincoln didn't say secession was ok….I can quote him if you like

  43. He said and I will paraphrase… Hey guys I'm okay with what you're doing I won't be aggressive to you as long as you don't be aggressive to me in other words hey everything is cool as long as you don't fire on us

  44. Anybody who reads anything by an actual Civil War historian will tell you that the war was started by the desire to reunify the states the secession of four Southern States was due to slavery when 4 joined after War started. Since the war had already started before four of them joined the Confederacy the war itself could not have been started by them seceding because they did it after the war started

  45. Patrick is lying again just parroting what I post to distort it and make his racist lies.

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

  47. "As evidenced by the prewar political discord, the nature of the compromise efforts on the eve of Fort Sumter – all if which concerned the legal status of slavery – and the prewar statements of Southern political leaders, slavery was THE (his emphasis) sectional issue. Southern political leaders led their states out of the Union to protect slavery from a disapproving national majority.

    Although slaveholders constituted a distinct minority of Southern people, a majority of these people were committed to the institution for African Americans…

    Secession was not heroic- it was mean and narrow and a profound mistake. Its leaders were wrong and authored a major tragedy for American People."

    – Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History" p27

  48. The upper Southern states didn't threaten to secede when the Confederacy called up 100,000 troops BEFORE Lincoln's call and before Sumter. Troops which were to be used to coerce the legal federal power and Unionist Southern citizens, steal federal property and attack its installations. The upper Southern states, given their position and economic ties to the North were more reluctant and at first looked to a unified position and possible compromise, but when it was clear that a choice had to be made to side with or against the slave states and slavery, they chose slavery because of slavery.

    The Southern border states at first wanted to wait and to have a Southern convention for unified action, their initial hesitation doesn't mean that they were not also acting to protect slavery.

    "The claim that his call for troops was the cause of the upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered repots of the attack on Sumter April 12 and its surrender the next day, huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville, and other upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees. These crowds waved the Confederate flags and cheered the glorious cause of southern independence. They demanded that their own states join the cause. Scores of such demonstrations took place from April 12 to 14 BEFORE Lincoln issued his call for troops. Many conditional unionists were swept along by this tide of Southern Nationalism; others cowed into silence." – McPherson, "The Battle Cry of Freedom" p278

  49. "What is it that has already divided and distracted our people and that threatens to overthrow completely the great fabric of this government of ours? What is the moving cause so far as Virginia is concerned? Understand me, I wish to consider these questions from a Virginia standpoint. I wish to confine myself in their consideration to their effect upon Virginia's rights, Virginia's interests and Virginia's honor.

    I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery…." – John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861 "Journal of the Virginia Secession Convention, Vol. II, p. 139"

  50. The Civil War was really about reunification of the states Abraham Lincoln said as much. The house and the Senate of the Union said as much there's not a lot of debate about what started the war the only thing anyone can conceivably debate is secession and it's not much of a baby either as it is a human right to secede and Abraham Lincoln said as much when he was in the Senate and Texas what's seceding from Mexico and our own Declaration of Independence is clear on the issue

  51. Lincoln clearly stated that the war was caused by and about slavery. "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

  52. Patrick just continues to lie. Lincoln never argued in favor of secession. Patrick Sulley is lying again. Lincoln is talking about revolution there, and revolution is inherently unconstitutional. Typically he just takes part of the quote out of context, which was the war with Mexico. He also leaves out the line before: "The extent of our territory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on REVOLUTION."

    And later where he says: "It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

    Clearly Lincoln is not even talking about secession but revolution, and revolution by its very nature is extra-constitutional, as it gets rid of the 'old laws' of the US constitution and replaces them. What destroys the Constitution can in no way be considered Constitutional, that would be a ridiculous proposition

  53. "The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them." — Virginia-born Union General George H Thomas, 1868

  54. As a senator Abraham Lincoln argued for secession when Texas was leaving Mexico try again

  55. Lincoln was Notorious for saying what it is his particular crowd at the time wanted to hear

  56. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons: not one was about slavery

    1. Physically the states cannot separate.

    2. Secession is unlawful.

    3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

    4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.

    5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive

  57. Patrick just continues to lie. Lincoln never argued in favor of secession. Patrick Sulley is lying again. Lincoln is talking about revolution there, and revolution is inherently unconstitutional. Typically he just takes part of the quote out of context, which was the war with Mexico. He also leaves out the line before: "The extent of our territory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on REVOLUTION."

    And later where he says: "It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

    Clearly Lincoln is not even talking about secession but revolution, and revolution by its very nature is extra-constitutional, as it gets rid of the 'old laws' of the US constitution and replaces them. What destroys the Constitution can in no way be considered Constitutional, that would be a ridiculous proposition.
    .

  58. As the rebellion was based upon the protection of slavery, slavery is the cause of the war and what it was about.

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

  60. 1958 Abe ole boy said
    We will be unable to find one word from anybody in the Republican ranks, opposed to that Popular Sovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim in a little while, that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. We do not remember, that in that old Declaration of Independence, it is said that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There is the origin of Popular Sovereignty….. And these are the very words South Carolina used when they seceded from the Union

  61. South Carolina already had self government under the Constitution as Lincoln was pointing out.

  62. It's called squatter sovereignty or popular sovereignty and it depends on what the people in that particular area by popular vote decide

  63. Of our political revolution of '76, we all are justly proud. It has given us a degree of political freedom, far exceeding that of any other nation of the earth. In it the world has found a solution of the long mooted problem, as to the capability of man to govern himself. In it was the germ which has vegetated, and still is to grow and expand into the universal liberty of mankind.
    –February 22, 1842

  64. And I haven't even hit you with Lincoln's best quote about secession and 1835

  65. I'm going to hold on to that one for a minute and use it as a sledgehammer

  66. Patrick just keeps on making stuff up about Lincoln and distorting what he said. He's really only further showing that the Civil war as all about slavery.

  67. These are Lincoln quotes…how can I make up direct quotes straight from the man

  68. We all like that quote that's okay I'll delete it for you because I got another one I'm just waiting to drop on you

  69. I just distorted what Lincoln said? Did he or did he not say that there will be no aggression unless by the south. And if there was never any aggression he would have never done anything about secession

  70. Patrick makes stuff up about the meaning of Lincoln's quotes. He never advocated for secession. As I have explained Lincoln is talking about revolution there, and revolution is inherently unconstitutional. Typically Patrick just takes part of the quote out of context, which was the war with Mexico. He also leaves out the line before: "The extent of our territory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on REVOLUTION."

    And later where he says: "It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
    Clearly Lincoln is not even talking about secession but revolution, and revolution by its very nature is extra-constitutional, as it gets rid of the 'old laws' of the US constitution and replaces them. What destroys the Constitution can in no way be considered Constitutional, that would be a ridiculous proposition

    .

  71. Hey absolutely advocated for secession specifically about Texas from Mexico and he made quite a speech about it

  72. I'll drop that speech on you when the time is right

  73. If there was never any aggression by the South they would still be in the Union. Lincoln would enforce the laws and the Constitution peacefully. The South needed the war, the Union did not.
    .

  74. Patrick makes stuff up about the meaning of Lincoln's quotes. He never advocated for secession. As I have explained Lincoln is talking about revolution there, and revolution is inherently unconstitutional. Typically Patrick just takes part of the quote out of context, which was the war with Mexico. He also leaves out the line before: "The extent of our territory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on REVOLUTION."

    And later where he says: "It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

    Clearly Lincoln is not even talking about secession but revolution, and revolution by its very nature is extra-constitutional, as it gets rid of the 'old laws' of the US constitution and replaces them. What destroys the Constitution can in no way be considered Constitutional, that would be a ridiculous proposition

  75. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

    "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this."

  76. _"I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual….It follows….that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.
    _
    – Lincoln – First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

  77. Lincoln, Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861

    "The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution."
    .

  78. Runstedt…stop dude
    You lost a long time ago

  79. I'm about to drop that quote on you and you're going to blow your f**** brains out

  80. Lincoln may have changed his mind over the course of years like a lot of people do but there was a time he believed in secession and when I drop this f**** bomb on you I don't want you to sit there and try to pick it apart and cry and whine and bitching about it

  81. Unlike you I'm going to drop the quote first and then I'mma put it into context a lot of your quotes are out of context

  82. It was the recent passed interstate tax that was shoved down the south's throats. Every time their good crossed a state border it picked up that tax over and over again, it was Taxation Without Representation. That is what sparked off the Civil War. Less than 2% of Southerners Had slaves let that sink in. The North had more under a different term, it was as close to indentured service at all the Northern Manufactures Read History. He is full of shit read the history, he is spewing the shit he was fed in College…

  83. If anything, Patrick is just amusing.
    "When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him—at least, I find it so with myself; but when the misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him." – Lincoln

  84. If I get old and decide to spend my few remaining years on Earth posting hateful and evil comments about people with a different skin color or sexual orientation, I hope someone does the right thing and takes me out. One bullet to the brain. Honestly, what a waste of a human life. On your deathbed, are you going to be proud of how you spent today?

  85. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LH8MNJspg4k

  86. This Guy has to be the MOST Biased Person in the History of Prager U.
    He has blinded himself to the entire geopolitical situation of the time.
    The North were Taxing the products of the South Heavily, and refused to allow the south to even count any slave in any population numbers.
    the horrible 3/5 comprimise was the north's giving in because they didn't want ANY slave counted At All.

    Lets take LEE, General Robert E. Lee. on more than one occasion after the war, stated that it was his biggest mistake. but He Believed in States Rights. Not Slavery. He was a Abolutionist, but wanted to Educate slaves BEFORE they were Freed. In order to allow them the largest Chance of Success. Lee Suffered a Great Cost from the War, as the entire arlington Cemetary was land Taken From him Forcefully, after the war.

    to put this was as a single issue war, makes this person as valid of a expert as ME. because he clearly ignores all facts that don't support his conclusions.

    Slavery is and continues to be the most horrible institution in the World, it was dieing in America, and whether the Civil war was fought or not, slavery would have eventually ended. Peroid, as there was a VERY Strong abolutionist movement in the South, and it was GETTING STRONGER.

    One of the Facts that you Choose to ignore, was that Because of the HEAVY taxation on the south, the land owners were Forced to continue using slaves to be profitable. (State's Rights) and the Heavy Taxation was more a cause than Slavery. but the North Needed the taxes for their infrostructure.

    Thus as many military men, such as this, he has no knowledge of anything other than military tactics, and results, and propaganda. and fully discounted as a expert in anything other than actual battle analysis.

    So, Please take this horrendous video down, it is a complete false narritive, that Even U.S.Grant, would see as Complete LIES.

  87. The demonrats want to do this again when Trump got elected. Let's go Patriots let the blue states to vote out of the union again

  88. @TheStapleGunKid  yes there was heavy taxation. Cotton was the cash crop. 3/4s of all revenue was created by that one crop. And 3/4 of all revenue was spent in the north. It may not have been called a tariff or a tax but just like high gas prices are effectively a tax…that situation was effectively a tax

  89. Why would the south want to spend their money on northern states …..using a slave driven cash crop…that benefited the north…only to have them encourage slaves to revolt. That would be stupid

  90. Cotton could be purchased for as little as 12 to 20 cents a pound, transported to New York for 4 cents a pound, and sold for up to $1.89 a pound. One observer noted that the “mania for sudden fortunes in cotton” meant that “Every [Union] colonel, captain, or quartermaster is in secret partnership with some operator in cotton.” The lure of cotton wealth would entice white Northern civilians and Union soldiers south during and after the war.

  91. Did former slaves have it better than while slaves? The future of former slaves remained sealed in the cotton fields. Blacks were denied economic and physical mobility by federal government policy, by the racial animosity of Northern whites, and by the enduring need for cotton labor in the South. The federal government was forced to confront the question of what to do with slave refugees and those who had escaped behind Union lines. In 1863 Union Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas in the Mississippi Valley devised a solution, a form of containment policy, whereby freed slaves would remain in the South. They would be used in the military service, or “placed on the abandoned [cotton] plantations to till the ground.”

  92. Former slaves were to be contracted to work on the abandoned plantations – many around Vicksburg. Labor guidelines, such as $10 a month pay and a 10-hour day, were posted. If a laborer missed two hours of work a day, he lost one-half of his day’s pay. The former slaves were not allowed to leave the plantation without a pass….this was done by the federal government…not the Confederates

  93. “the most successful agricultural industry in the States of America which has been ever contemplated or realized.” Cotton exports alone put the United States on the world economic map. On the eve of the Civil War, raw cotton constituted 61 percent of the value of all U.S. products shipped abroad.

  94. The Civil War was about slavery- from the South's point of view. For the North, it was about maintaining the Union. There were actually 4 slave states on the Union side.

  95. This is how disingenuous these three Idiots Are. One idiot the main one says that simply because it's not in their secession declaration that slavery was an issue you have to look at their writings. As proof . And then the other lady his butt buddy turns around and says hey economics is not in the secession declaration therefore economic has nothing to do with it despite what extemporaneous writing said at the time

  96. raw cotton constituted 61 percent of the value of all U.S. products shipped abroad. Farmers sold their crops at 7 to 10 cent a pound. New York brokers sold the cotton purchased for up to 1.98 a pound….no wonder they left…they were getting raped

  97. The war cannot be about slavery when four of the Union States were slave states. The war cannot be about slavery whenever it was about economics most importantly cotton being 61% of all exported products from the union and all 61% did not go to the southern states that produce cotton only one fourth of the money was spent in Southern States. The war was about reunification and keeping that cotton money in the union instead of letting it all go to Southern States. How can it be about slavery whenever during Reconstruction the northern troops enlisted black troops and put them in the cotton fields to till the fields so they could sell the cotton so that they can get those cotton profits back and if you had to leave a cotton field you had to get a permit from the federal government…if that's not slavery what is? You don't Slaughter 640000 people for slavery just to turn around and put them into slavery again. You're blowing smoke up people's ass whenever you say that the war was only about slavery it was not it was not it was not it was not I don't know how many f**** times someone has to hit you in the head with a hammer to drive this point across but it was not just about slavery.. FULL STOP

  98. And all the border states were Southern slave states that were retained in the Union one way or another. Many were divided internally themselves like Missouri that fought its own Civil War within the larger one. Kentucky had governments that claimed to represent it on both sides. Maryland had divided loyalties although the weakness of slavery there, economic ties and existing loyalty to the Union and the Federal Military presence itself saw it side with the Union. Only in Delaware with less than 1800 slaves was there no secession movement. In the other three states it had to be suppressed.

  99. @Rundstedt100  I never said that the Growers didn't profit. That would be stupid to say that where did I ever say that the Growers didn't profit? I said that the Growers sold their cotton for $0.07 to $0.10 and then it was sold not double but triple or more and I don't blame them because I'm a free capitalism kind of guy but that's not the point the point is when the South left the north knew they weren't getting all of that cotton profit anymore that cotton profit was the main driver of federal revenue the federal government could not exist without it. Period. They could not afford to lose the southern states and their cash crop

  100. A shade over 61 percent of federal Revenue came from cotton….SIXTY ONE percent. I wonder why Lincoln REALLY wanted war with the south…hmmmm

Comment here