In which John Green teaches you about the election of 1860. As you may remember from last week, things were not great at this time in US history. The tensions between the North and South were rising, ultimately due to the single issue of slavery. The North wanted to abolish slavery, and the South wanted to continue on with it. It seemed like a war was inevitable, and it turns out that it was. But first the nation had to get through this election. You'll learn how the bloodshed in Kansas, and the truly awful Kansas-Nebraska Act led directly to the decrease in popularity of Stephen Douglas, the splitting of the Democratic party, and the unlikely victory of a relatively inexperienced politician from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's election would lead directly to the secession of several southern states, and thus to the Civil War. John will teach you about all this, plus Dred Scott, Roger Taney, and John Brown. Support CrashCourse on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
Hey teachers and students - Check out CommonLit's free collection of reading passages and curriculum resources to learn more about the events of this episode. The Lincoln and Douglass debates of the 1850s fueled the argument over state's rights to decide on slavery and culminated when the two ran against one another in the Election of 1860: https://www.commonlit.org/texts/the-election-of-1860
In response to Lincoln's election, the South seceded from the Union and the Civil War began: https://www.commonlit.org/texts/the-south-secedes
Not one mention of the "Tariff of Abominations", the role of protective tariffs, the Nullification Crisis, or the military posturing by President Jackson when South Carolina threatened to secede. Further more, you merely glossed over the fact that Lincolns official stance on slavery was that it was a state right issue (until he realized he could use slavery as propaganda). Theres no doubt that slavery played a role in the civil war, but to say it was the only reason is either ignorant or disingenuous.
This is more like a crash and burn course.
I took a class where we followed a very well documented probable underground railroad route and followed the trek of the raiders from Keep' tryst to Harper's Ferry. It was the best college class I have ever taken in my life.
Dude totally underplays the fact that the south was paying 87% of the taxes prior to the war starting and the battle of ft sumner was the port in which taxes were collected...of course slavery plays a major role, but to act like tariffs weren't a dealbreaker for the south is foolish
The way it's been worded is very fucky but, A newly created state would by popular vote, decide their status. Territories of old seem to just mean land not a specific type of governmental relationship.
Video is super biased. 99% of Southerners did not own slaves, could not afford slaves. There was such a huge culture difference in the south people did not want northern politics dictating them. The Yankee hatred had been brewing for years, no it did not pop off because "slavery". Most people dont know the term "redneck" means a white servant or slave. There were about the same number of white endentured servants in the south as African slaves so don't get started that this was a war about racism.
+Destiny Davis I can conceed that it was an issue of states rights, even if the focal point of the states rights conversation came from slavery. However I think people focus on American era slavery far too much when slavery still exists in African and middle eastern countries to a far greater extent than it ever did in the states. In 19th century America owning a slave was like owning a Bentley. Most people could work a trade their whole life and not be able to afford a slave where in some countries today blacks are being rounded up by other blacks at gunpoint and forced into deadly labor with no pay. Far crueler and far more so than ever happened here.
+Clorox, Sure, many didn't own slaves but they would've if they could've, which is why, despite not owning slaves, they still supported the institution. What do you mean the Civil War wasn't about racism? It was literally fought to free slaves. That's not all it was but you talk about it like it wasn't even a fator.
It seems like this video and a lot of the comments are just an exercise in oversimplification. Everybody keeps saying either "the civil war was 100% caused by slavery" or "the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, it mostly was caused by [insert other sociocultural or economic factor]"
Both these arguments are just a real oversimplification of what is a very complex issue that historians are still debating today. Was the civil war caused by slavery? Well, it certainly influenced the war, and it was likely one of the causes. But there were other factors that were influential in the war too. States rights, economics, cultural issues, geographical issues, all sorts of issues that collectively came together and caused a civil war. Assigning one or two blanket causes to the conflict is just a gross misrepresentation of the history.
In reality, history isn't some black and white "this caused this" and "that led to this" sort of affair. Especially when it comes to things like the civil war, its a complex overlay of different factors and issues that people can spend their entire lifetime studying and still not come to a concrete conclusion on. Historians are still debating about the nature of the civil war today, and likely will be far into the future. Ultimately, it was a conflict that had many causes, but there was no one definitive cause that outclassed all the others. To say so would, again, just be oversimplification.
All this is coming from a high-school student with a passionate interest in history, so take everything with a grain of salt, but I'm not really trying to pick a side here. I just think the issue is a lot more complex than many people attempt to make it out to be, John Green included. Then again, this is an APUSH review video, so maybe it should be taken more as a rehash of required course material rather than a place to start a historical debate.
Im late but I can sort of explain it, Lincolns views changed wildly overtime. Lincoln at the early point of his political career was indeed racist. He was actually a supporter of the idea that we as a country should have relocated African Americans to Africa. Over the course of the war he softened and we have the Lincoln we know and love. The Slave ownership, I've got no clue. I can't find any info on it, sorry.
no, the Civil War was fought over the question of whether or not states have a right to secede. The Southern states seceded because they feared Lincoln might abolish slavery. Lincoln decided to use force to bring the Southern states back into the Union. Lincoln didn't decide to use force to end slavery. major distinction there
Wow, the bias shows, John.
Any video about the cause of the civil war with no mention of the american-mexican war is gonna be inaccurate at best.
"A states right to what, sir?"
How about a states right to decide what to do with the territory that was won with the lives of the sons and brothers of said state?
Though you are butchering the legacy of John Brown, a bad strategist? So you're willfully ignoring the Battle of Black Jack, defending the Free Soil town of Palmyra from Border Ruffians, or the Wakruska War, where he rallied the Free Soiler militia to defend Lawrence successfully. Even in the battle of Osawatomie when he was defeated, that was only the case because he was outnumbered by the hundreds. He was still renowned by Free Soilers for his stand at Osawatomie. If you intend to be a historian, John, ensure you deliver the whole and balanced truth
So, I know this is in 2018, but I had a paper to do and I trusted Crash Course to help me get my facts straight,HOWEVER, something has been brought to my attention about how no one was fighting for slavery and the Most outrageous truth and horrid nature of it all was the fact they actually were...Well kind of...People of color(All color, ya know because it's not always black people being suppressed) was fighting for their families and their rights, but they were also fighting for slavery to end....and some did actually care about morals because we're not that bad so let's all get along and agree we were terrible people when it came to slavery...Onto my paper that I have to right....send an ambulance, I'm about to die of boredom...
Cabal is one of the characters on Star Trek the early episodes is name is ball same difference at least in the way the story played out it's like they were sending a message a lot of TV shows are like that which is probably why they got cancelled prematurely unless they made the Kabbalah a lot of money
I don’t think the Civil Was was just over slavery because a) only about 1/1000 southerners owned a massive plantation b) still only about 1/20 was wealthy enough to own a single slave, and c) if it was about slavery, or more specifically the morality of slavery, since the North won, why did we see another century and need a Civil Rights movement to finally give all races equal rights in law?
You mentioned at the beginning that your perspective was that every other argument came back to slavery, but then you didn’t really mention economics or political sectional divides that did exist and contribute.
Is it in another video?
Actually Stephen A. Douglas never supported the Lecompton Constitution, but President James Buchanan did. The northern Democrats split from the southern Democrats in this fact, as many northern democrats, while approving of popular sovereignty, disagreed with the means of reasoning behind conflict. SAD actually was slightly anti-slavery (not abolitionist) as he only tried to repeal 36' 30 and the Missouri Compromise due to his belief in the Ramsdell thesis which stated slavery would be enclosed to the Southeast of the US due to climate and soil in the North and West. Therefore with his disapproval of the Lecompton Constitution, it was eventually stopped in the House of Representatives from being passed.
Pause the video at 7:13 notice anything? No? Just Steven Douglass, well do you notice that the picture is very similar to a celebrity you've probably seen before, no? Google John C. Reilly and compare pictures side by side
Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.
John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save;
Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.
He captured Harper’s Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled thru and thru;
They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew,
But his soul is marching on.
John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.
The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,
On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue.
And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed they mean to do,
For his soul is marching on.
Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may,
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,
For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,
And his soul is marching on.
It wasn't a state's right to own slaves. States didn't own slaves being as states aren't people. And there were around 1 million slaves in Union states all through the war. The issue was over the rights of people to have their states secede from the Union. The issue was competing nationalism. The nationalism of most Southerners was focused on their individual states while the nationalism of many Northerners was focused on the federal government. Certainly many of the Deep South Southern states wanted to protect slavery and saw the fact that the Republicans could elect a President without winning a single Southern State as an eventual threat to slavery. But the states that seceded in the second wave -such as Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee- state economic and nationalist issues as their main causes. For example, Virginians did not secede until Lincoln demanded Virginia send troops to participate in an invasion of a then peaceful South. Virginians refused to wage war against fellow Southerners and when faced with a choice of either being forced to participate by federal order or secession, chose secession.
_"But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery agitation, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so?_
*_"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"
_"The claim that his call for troops was the cause of the upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered reports 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
All the states that rebelled did so because of slavery and they either made the clear in their statements of secession or in their debates and other ways.
_"Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation---the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery..."_ Thomas F. Goode, Mecklenburg County, Virginia, March 28, 1861, Virginia Secession Convention, vol. II, p518
The case of Virginia actually just shows even more that it was all about slavery.
_"The vote in favor of secession at the Virginia convention on April 17, 1861, was 88 to 55. Most of the anti-secession votes came from the Shenandoah Valley and from the mountainous counties of western Virginia (which eventually became West Virginia), where slavery was of less importance than in the Piedmont and Tidewater regions that voted strongly for secession, and where slavery was a crucial part of the socioeconomic order. In fact, there was a pretty direct correlation between the percentage of slaves and slaveholders in a given district and its support for secession."_ - James McPherson
States rights were a big part of the secession. Every document I've read of the states that seceded, they did say they wanted the states right to govern themselves. Yes they were slave states, and there was a lot of tension between the north and south over the issue. Only 7 states seceded in the beginning. The other states voted against secession. Wonder why they don't like to talk about this? Oh yeah, it would destroy their narrative that it was all about slavery. The rest of the states seceded after the Lincoln called for 75000 troops to invade the south. And in their Ordinance of Secession they mention they seceded because the Union was invading them. You'd fight to if someone attacked your home. Amazingly they always say that the South started the war by firing upon Fort Sumter. But they constantly forget to say that on Jan 9th, 200 Union soldiers and supplies aboard ship tried to enter Charleston Harbor, which is an act of war, but left when Confederate batteries fired at it. Major Anderson, commander of the fort was ordered to surrender but refused. So it became a siege. When food became short, the Confederates allowed the women and children to leave the fort so they wouldn't have to suffer. A very nice and humanitarian gesture. Later when the Forts food was about out, the Confederates offered Major Anderson food for his troops, but he refused to accept it. The Confederates found out Lincoln was sending another ship to resupply and reinforce the Fort, again, Lincoln knew that it is an act of war to enter the territorial waters of another nation with military ships or troops. So Lincoln forced the firing upon Fort Sumter by this action. Major Anderson did agree to surrender at noon on April 15th, hoping the supplies and reinforcements would arrive during the night. However, the envoy that was negotiating with him knew about the resupply and reinforcements he hoped to receive that night and the ultimatum was surrender now, or the firing upon the Fort would start at 4:30 AM on April 15th. The envoy left Major Anderson and the Fort about midnight on the 14th. Union resupply and reinforcement on board ships were seen on the 15th outside the harbor. Once the fort surrendered, the Confederates allowed Major Anderson and his men to leave on the Union ships. A very nice gesture of the Confederates who could have taken them prisoner. No one was killed in the fort during the bombardment. However, the Confederates allowed Major Anderson to fire a 100 gun salute as they took down the Stars and Bars. While doing so, a cannon prematurely fired killing one soldier and mortally wounding another. The war started because Lincoln refused to order the fort to surrender and come home peacefully, knowingly forcing the firing upon the fort in order to use it as an excuse to invade the south. He didn't have to invade, he could have allowed the states to leave the Union, but instead decided to use force to bring them back into the Union. That is what caused the war, not slavery. Had he not invaded, there would have been no war.
Yes I have read what the secession documents say about slavery and race. I don't agree with it, as I prefer to remember that God looks upon the heart of the person, not their skin color and so I do that also. But times were far different in those days, and I don't pretend to understand it all like so many today think they can. What I am referring to when I start out with states rights had a big part in the reason the original 7 states seceded, is because so many want to claim that it was never about states rights and the south didn't come up with that argument until after the turn of the century. Each one comes out and says "States Rights." Its in the documents. The 7 states that seceded felt their right to self government was being infringed upon by the northern states. There was plenty of bickering between the slave states and the non slave states, so yes I'm sure they felt that the northern states were trying to force them to change their way of life to meet their standard. Unfortunately, their way of life included slavery. But the narrative that it was all about slavery and had nothing to do with states rights is an outright lie. The narrative that the war was over slavery is also a lie. The war started because Lincoln refused to let the 7 states leave the Union and govern themselves. The other 5 states seceded after Lincoln began his invasion of the southern states. Lincoln could have chosen peace, but he chose war to force his will upon the other states. Lincoln made probably the biggest power grab that the federal government had made up to that point and for years to come. A hateful and bigoted mind will only see slavery and disregard the rest of the truth. One must see the whole truth, like it or not, and not just what they want to see. I am also very happy that slavery did come to an end.
I read what Lincoln said about "The Negro" and slavery. Isn't all that colourful either. Slavery is an abomination but Lincoln never wanted black people to be citizens, and the DoE was only meant for the south, the 13th amendment was put in action after the war, and basically, slaves in Kentucky a Union state, were still slaves after the war. So spare me the sob story of virtue that the Union fought over slaves. They only fought over their own interest. And not to be weakened internationally into 2 nations.
The so called "unionists" illegally annexed Texas, Hawaii and forced former colonies like Puerto Rico into subclass to the US citizen. And this by the same so called Union fanbois. There is nothing so toxic as hypocrisy. And the entire idea that the CSA split off only and solley due to slavery is false. Slavery is a main issue. Yet the elephant in the room is not slavery. It is how Union states screwed over southern states with increased tariffs and going back on their word, that is indeed slaves that run away should be returned and epecially those that commit crime. Northern states pissed on state rights. In fact they did not feel like states at all but more as a nation state. While the south did predominantly felt themselves a union of states.
This same type of issue we see back with the EU. A union of states? Or a nation state? Many people feel this will result in war. And it will. Eventually. Only leftist nutcases do not realize it.
What is going on at 12:57? They are firing on unarmed civilians! What scene is being portrayed in that drawing? Where and when did that happen? I can't recall something significant happening in 1857. Guess I should watch the rest of the vid to see if John explains those scenes from 1850 and 1857! I was just so taken aback by that scene that I had to stop and ask.
Obviously popular presentation but your cynicism is not really humor. While introducing the subject, flippant and whimsical is just more post modern BS. Why? Because everything is not funny
And the subject is serious. Just laugh your way through the momentous and the profound. And of course all your politically correct digs on white people (except you right...you're cool...and of course no references to the Democrats being the party of slavery. Convenient omissions.
Teach our child to be cynical. Advance the agenda of confusion.
"abortion is about freedom to choose". Freedom to choose what? abortion. That's called circular logic. Not a valid argument especially from people who have a record of opposing freedom of choice on just about everything other than abortion. Slavery - abortion, so many correlations. Oh how history repeats itself. "blacks are not people" -"a fetus isn't a person". "Property rights (slavery)" - "reproductive rights" (abortion)
What do you mean, "a state's right to what?" It means a state's right to govern its own internal affairs. Remember how this used to be a union of different states? That was the original idea, wasn't it?
I had a history teacher in high school that played the State's Rights & Southern economy cards (funny thing is I live in New York). It's amazing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify historically bad things.
"'A state's right to what, sir?' And for the first time in your snotty little life you'll be will and truly speechless."
How about the state's right to leave the union, given that Constitution is silent on the issue and given the "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. That sir, would imply the power to leave the union was, at that time, in the hands of the state. Also would it not, sir, given that that was not a settle issue until 1869 when the Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, was that not one of the reasons the US government did not Jefferson Davis, as it was not clear at that time if the war was in fact legal for a state to leave the union, and had the Supreme Court ruled against the US the war would have been fought for nothing.
This was brought up in MY history class, when I was in high school.
Even the 'states rights' argument is backwards...
The state rights that were being violated was the right to declare your state a free state. If people from South Carolina could dictate law in Massachusetts to the extent of declaring a citizen of your state was nothing more than livestock and could be requisitioned at will...and people from Missouri could come and kill people in your community for daring to vote for a constitution that limited slavery...
...then what, exactly, did the South expect was going to happen? That the north would just roll over and take this continued abuse forever?
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth - right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail." William T. Sherman, comments to David Boyd at Louisiana State Seminary
Please explain the Corwin amendment, if slavery was the only cause of the war. If the north was fighting a war of abolition, why did the US president state repeatedly he had no inclination to interfere with slavery? Making such a polarized statement right from the beginning of your video says much about the validity of your so-called facts.
states right to govern ourselves. the entire country was using slavery. the Kansas Nebraska act was to keep black people out of the new territories and make them all white. Lincoln wanted to send all blacks back to africa and south America and he would have if he wasnt assassinated. the north hated black people so much, Frederick Douglass had to flee to the UK.
Mineral purifiers naturally sanitize the water while keeping the amount of chemical additives to a minimum, saving time and money.
Chlorine - most common type of cleaning system Frog - Mineral based system that helps reduce amount of needed chlorine Nature 2 - Mineral based system that can be combined with salt water systems Salt System - creates chlorine from salt for a less chemical swimming experience Baquacil - Chlorine-free system that is less irritating to eyes and easier on pool liners.
Rising Sun Pools also offers a number of private-label cleaning supplies to keep your pool sparkling. Stop by one of our showrooms for details.
Rising Sun Pools is proud to carry Sundance Spas in-ground hot tubs. See our Hot Tubs section for more information.
Privacy is usually a concern and should incorporate various design elements such as trees, walls, fences, screen, shrubs, gardens or whatever you like that accomplishes your goal.