Enjoyed this video and your in depth analysis of what is an ever interesting and complicated piece of history so much so that I think I'll make a video in a similar vein looking at the way the Civil War is remembered and revered in the South and why that might be. I thought this was a very spot on video by tackling this "other" interpretation that is being used as an argument for not respecting the memory of the Confederacy, be it the veterans, flags or statues. Thanks very much for making this video, very thought-provoking and very enjoyable while I was making my fajitas tonight, Hilbert

What does the word property refer to when you say 'you go after the other sides' property'?

I used to watch your classes more regularly but it has been a while. Considering all the craziness that has been going on lately it was refreshing to hear a rational and thoughtful perspective. Having taught history I really appreciate your balanced approach. In another video I saw you response to the Praeger U presentation by the West Point historian. It was great. Just wanted to say how much I admire your work.

You are like a million times better than my AP teacher. He says "the civil war is a waste of time to analyze or talk about, we only are gonna talk about the slave stuff." So thank you for being here, and doing this. I also found it interesting how you compared the "other" to the "american" view. It was really cool to see it like that, and sheds a lot of light onto the topic (especially on racism and being either uniquely such, or its just a regional thing, very awesome.)

Translation: Everyone has a psychological need to be on the side of the good guys - even if they have to invent it.

From one history teacher to another this was absolutely brilliant.

I would like more videos about the civil war. I don't think you have made many videos about it

Thank you Tom for such a great historical analysis.

Very good presentation and some of the questions you raised can never be answered completely but a couple of points ..the North was just as racist as anywhere else but the fact remains that all of the confederate leaders identified slavery as the cause of the war... it wasnt just the enslavement of blacks but the tensions that this institution caused ..the violence in Kansas and Nebraska, the canning of Charles Sumner, the Fugitive Slave Laws, the ending of free press in the South, the raid on Harpers Ferry, the Dredd Scott decison every time a new state entered the Union the slave issue caused the two sides to grow more and more hateful of each other all capped by the election of Lincoln Let not forget that Lincoln never intented to end slavery where it was but only keep it where it was..so in effect the South seceeded because they could not expand slave interests... Of course the average Southerner did not own slaves but he or she supported the Confederacy because this was his homeland that was being invaded but also because the South was gripped by a crisis of fear...they saw what happened in Hatti when the slaves revolted and feared the same.. All in all a very thoughtful presentation but i will leave you with the words of one historian..I think it is James Rhodes who said "if there had been no african slavery there would have been no civil war" I think that is very true..

As someone who had ancestry fight for both sides in the war, i appreciate your educational and unbiased videos. Very well done

You have the best edition of The Silmarillion on your shelf and I like that!

Really interesting - psychologically 'other' is a really powerful category, allowing us to project the unacceptable in ourselves onto someone else. I would be interested in a discussion of southern identity and the 'othering' of the North.

I agree with the confederacy as American. I'm glad you present a very honest view on the civil war. I my self am from Michigan and my ancestors fought for the union. How ever its important to look at all of history and not just part of it. I like how you stated the cause of secession as Slavery and other things. “To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must first be abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North, to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.” - Robert Rhett South Carolina secession convention " Talk to me about the surrender of fugitive slaves-talk to me about the attacks which have been made upon our institutions by the North ; but the great attack which has been made, and continually made, and which has never been remitted or relaxed, is the attack upon all our institutions through the instrumentality of the tariff of the North. We have borne it patiently, and we entered into this contract with our eyes open, and it was but just that we should suffer. But, the question is, shall we now pause? shall we tolerate it any further? And even while we are attempting to adjust our difficulties with the North, instead of giving us an olive branch they give us the Morrill tariff-the worst tariff that ever was inflicted upon any people who call themselves free." -James C. Bruce Virginia Secession convention “there exists an irrepressible conflict between the two sections in reference to their respective systems of labor and with an avowed purpose of hostility to the institution of slavery”- FULTON ANDERSON of Mississippi “I entered into this revolution to contribute my might to sustain the rights of states and to prevent the consolidation of the government”- Governor Joseph Brown Georgia in response to the conscription act “I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purposes of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, and as a gross usurpation of power. I can be no part to this wicked violation of the laws of the Country and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina”-Governor John Ellis of North Carolina in response to Lincoln raising troops To some secession was about slavery and Tariffs or just slavery or just Tariffs or states rights in general no matter what it pertained to. Secession was indeed about slavery and other things. the motivation for the confederate soldier to fight well... let them tell you in there own words. “If I fall it will be in a good Cause in the defense of my country defending my home and fireside.” - Private Andrew J. White, 30th Georgia Infantry “War is a dreadful thing, and I would rather do anything in the world than kill a man or help to kill one-but then if we were to let Lincoln’s army pass here, they might go into the State of Virginia and burn our homes and kill the old men and the women and children, and do a great deal more harm-and I am sure I would rather see a thousand of them killed around me, than to know that they had done any harm to my wife and dear little boys”- private Samuel J. C. Moore Virginia “If my heart ever sincerely desired any thing on earth it certainly is to be useful to my country. I will sacrifice my life upon the altar of my country”- Sergeant 8th Georgia infantry “Why am I here was it merely that I might be an actor in Seenes novel and exciting that I turned my back on all the delights of home and subjected myself to the untold trials and privations of camp life and the fearful dangers of the battle field? No, I am here because a numerous and powerful enemy has invaded our country”- Privet 24th Mississippi infantry “It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”-General Patrick Clayborn, Arkansas “When a southerners home is threatened, the spirit of resistance is irrepressible”-Alabama captain “If I am killed tomorrow, it will be for Virginia, the land of my fathers, and not for the damned secession movement.” - Major Charles Minor Blackford, 2nd Virginia Cavalry.

I like your contrasts between the perspectives of Others and "we". When we look at news or history, it's really hard to detect the bias.

I would be very interested on videos of the circumstances which lead to the civil war as well as topics of Lincoln motivations and the emancipation proclamation.

What is your opinions on the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue in Lee Circle on Friday. As a black man who's very patriotic and loves history, I was looked at wrongly by my dad when I voiced my opinion that they shouldn't of taken it down.

This was great. If you could do more that would be great. I would recommend making a video on the Tejano Confederates. I know that in Laredo, Texas there is a big school named after Col. Santos Benavides.

This man is the most prolific purveyor of Strawman Arguments concerning the Civil War trying desperately to paint the Civil War as OH SO COMPLICATED. He gives a whole new meaning to being a SUPERCILIOUS POLEMICIST.

I love your videos... You get to the point succinctly and with enthusiasm. Also noticed you're in the Upstate too! To the point, I'd like to see more videos on the civil war. In particular, for you to discuss "the other things." Specifically, in my own research of primary sources; there is a highly prevalent attitude that remains from the English Civil War and also of Scots Irish heritage. I would be interested in seeing a video on how colonialism, where the settlers settled, may have created anti-yankee attitude that seemed to exist before the slavery issue and up until 1861. In essence, I would like you to discuss the King Charles vs Puritan relationship, Scots Irish/Norman vs Anglo Saxon, and how this developed part of what we see in southern vs northern culture, a tension that seems to still exist to this day. Keep up the good work.

We so often fail to consider context and place ourselves in the midst of the thinking of those in the conflict. I find that people are convinced to do things if they believe they are in the right, they want to be on the side of “good”. As we encounter conflicts the same short maxims arise: -Never forget! (but that leads to revenge) -Forgive and forget (but erasing a lesson of the past can lead to your descendants living through the same mistake in future generations) Perhaps the better maxim...”Remember but forgive”...they knew not what they did. Under the same circumstance in the same context, it is not clear whether you would behave in exactly the same way. Remembrance of their example of the experience of good to reveal evil may be what prevents you from making the very same error. Save the ones you can, pull them back from the flames, war is such an ugly, ugly thing...in this way it appears man creates his own hell over and over through his own repetitive ignorance. Maybe this is why this happens over and over again.

Good take and angle discussing this topic. I like the platforms you assigned each viewpoint and how to explained those viewpoints. Nice and concise, good job!

Hey, I have a video request :) Could you do an APUSH video lecture of European Discovery and the Columbian Exchange using your powerpoint that you have on your website? Thanks so much, and your videos have been extremely helpful in both AP Euro and APUSH!

As a kid, my family visited a lot of American Civil War Battlefields in the north and south. One thing I remember about one place, was that if you went onto the grass, which I did get a better picture of a monument, very large, very angry bees would chase you off. This was in the late80s or early 90s. So I didn't have a camera with zoom.

What do you think the ultimate cause of the Civil War was? Was it just contempt between the North and south that had been building up over various issues like tariffs and slavery?

Dear Tom Thanks so much for the compelling video. I wonder if I might ask a massively hypothetical question. If secession had happened (either with or without the war) how long do imagine it would have taken the Confederacy to end slavery. It seems to me that around the world slave type economies were on the decline throughout the 1800's- the British commonwealth, Russia ending serfdom, the northern US etc) and that though it might have taken some time in the south, it no doubt would have reoccured at some point. Though from Canada I have always found the US civil war interesting and thought provoking but it was when I first learned that the Canadian gov't was in support of the confederacy that my interest got especially peaked. On the surface this might seem odd but when looked into deeper the reasons for this clear up. If anything connected to war can be clear, I suppose. Thanks! As an aside, I can't help but see some connection between the ending of serfdom/slavery around the world and the emergence of industrialised societies and economies. Strangely, when I ask others about this, I have never got a straight opinion one way or the other. If you have any thoughts at all, I'd be most eager to hear them.

Yes, I would like to hear more about the Civil War. But by all means, keep up with the Euro history stuff too. You put together the first course on the 30 Years war that I found on KZfaq. You beat Ryan Reeves of Gordon Conwell to the punch.

I know I'm late to the show, commenting almost two years after the fact, but I thought this was very insightful and I was impressed that you made a good effort to lay out both points of view. On a side note, if you do ever read this, I've actually watched quite a few of your videos and they helped me while I was studying for some of my various history classes at University...so thanks a bunch man!

I would also add to your conclusion to read Newspapers of the time - before, during, and after from around the country. Also, Reconstruction and the failure of the Feds to stop Jim Crow is a must study for understanding of why we have the problems we still have today.

what's the song that plays at the end?

Mark Twain thought the Civil War came about because of the Sir Walter Scott disease--a romantic notion about testing your mettle in battle and dying for a cause greater than yourself. Sam Watkins writes in his Company Aytch: "Soldiers had enlisted for twelve months only, and had faithfully complied with their volunteer obligations; the terms for which they had enlisted had expired, and they naturally looked upon it that they had a right to go home. They had done their duty faithfully and well. They wanted to see their families; in fact, wanted to go home anyhow. War had become a reality; they were tired of it. A law had been passed by the Confederate States Congress called the conscript act. A soldier had no right to volunteer and to choose the branch of service he preferred. He was conscripted. From this time on till the end of the war, a soldier was simply a machine, a conscript. It was mighty rough on rebels. We cursed the war, we cursed Bragg, we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride and valor had gone, and we were sick of war and the Southern Confederacy." But still he fought on, and so did the rest. It was a manhood thing, a see-it-through-to-the-end thing. Maybe someday soccer will replace war with its offer of bragging rights for the nations that do well or even win the title. Such a thing probably won't happen unless it's forced on us by some alien culture. "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." RE Lee, Battle of Fredericksburg, 13 Dec 1862.

Just out of curiosity what’s your opinion of the lost cause myth?

Some who fought in the civil war the only fought for the side their state was on and not for their own beliefs. An example would be General Robert E. Lee. When asked to join the union as a general by Abraham Lincoln he declined to say his duty was to his state, not his country. He had many northern beliefs yet he discarded them.

Hey what happned to the pragerU critique? Love your videos

Very good video! Its informative and unbiased, which is hard to come by on this subject. Thanks for the great work!

"I'm not promoting either or, I'm Just passing one school of thought off as simplistic and the other, confederate sympathizer, side as nuanced"

I would love to hear an analysis of the African-American's perspectives on the Civil War, the statues, and all the iconography of the Confederacy. Getting an African-American perspective on these issues would be very enlightening. An African-American point of view should be included.

Hello, some more on the war between the states would be welcome. Coincidentally, I recently saw someone post on Facebook who said primary sources are unreliable - this person specifically attacked period newspapers because they were political arms of the different parties. Craziness abounds these days.

Yes, please - more on this. My mother was from the south and she would NEVER discuss or give opinions on any aspects of the south. I do know that her immediate family moving away was a huge breach and there was never any further contact with the rest of the family that stayed behind, at least as far as I have been aware, and I'd like to know more about the area, the time, and the subject. Thank you.

Hey ! Could you do a video on how to introduce bills in the house and the senate and how congressmen and women work and know what kind of bills they have to draw up . Thanks !

I would like a video about how they start to think(or to see) Confederate as "other". I did researched that the violation in the war(duration tactics etc.) have something to do about it but i want to understand more.

Yes, please do more on the civil war and it's aftermath.

Nice video. Showed clearly how history can be interpreted. But there dawned a question on me - that might be a little bit out of scope for this video. It's kind of a large question so bear with me. All states are build on stolen land of the native population. This happened even before US independence. So this would be an argument for the confederacy 'as American'. So when or where in time do you take an event like the civil war and start to interpret it as a somewhat isolated event in history? For me it doesn't feel like an event that is isolated, but part of history that started with the mayflower and run all the way up to the 1930's. After which the US came in a new phase. Where do you determine a start and end point for your historical interpretation? For the example the rise and fall of Rome, has clear start and end points. Rome rose from a vacuum and ended in a vacuum. It took a couple of centuries after the fall of Rome before the dark ages began. But during the Roman era almost all events were interlocked with each other. So is it even possible to take an event as the US civil war and interpret it as an isolated event, the way you did in the video?

I can explain the statues. There is a Southern Wind which carries the pain of the soldiers, the poor men who had to give their lives for something they had no part in...their cries still haunt the South. The statues are a symbol of Them for MANY of Us Some don't hear it, but we know the South only had 2 battles off our own lands.. Look into Lincoln quotes as he was racist. The North put many Negros in contraband camps that had horrible conditions. They didn't want mixing as Lincoln's own words prove.

I happen to study the civil war and antebellum era. My cousin and I argue that the south is much more racist than the north. We're from Detroit but he's moved to Georgia and has been there for about 10 years now. His sister, my cousin Shermy, moved to Dallas in 2005 and many followed her there. I lived in Houston when I was a kid and I didn't notice any racism. As an adult, I go to Georgia several times a year and always have (dads side). I find the people of Georgia to be much less racist than they are in the north. When I visit Dallas, I notice very little racism as I do here at home. As you said, you come from a completely different world and while you might empathize with our plight you'd never get it. My former boss (a white man) was a rocket scientist and he basically mentored me. We'd go out for lunch from time to time. I was always spoken to last. Once we ordered the exact same thing for lunch. Mine came with a sole of watermelon on my plate. Another time we Jay walked. Guess who was ticketed? And the police. It used to make me want to scream! Now I just go right ahead and scream. When you pay for something the clerk puts your change on the counter instead of just handing it to you. I could go on. You wouldn't believe how much we go through daily. It's usually from someone in their late forties and up. Most in my generation barely even see color, I'm 32 I normally don't until something like some of the examples I just shared above happen. But have never happened to me in the south. My cousin who moved to Georgia, Sean, swears they are way more racist down there. I just don't see it. I figured that whites in the south were not as nasty as they are here because they're used to us in the south, after all they've known us the longest & because it's not as segregated so they have black neighbors and such. Detroit is the most segregated metropolitan area in the country so maybe that has something to to with it. Anyway, my nieces and nephews see color even less. My parents are both 67. My dad loves everyone. Mom, very skeptical of whites. She may even be racist. I can only hope that things will change in the coming years as whites become a minority and people of any kind of color population numbers continue to rise. The census bureau projects 50%\ 50% within the next 20 to 30 years. I think it's somewhere around 59% white now and 41% black/brown/other.

I found your statements to be interesting and I now am able to understand the war a little differently. I have had an avid interest in the Civil War since 7th grade and do read a lot about it. The major issue to me is what kind of collection of states did we have before the war and did that change afterward? You are right that the Constitution does not address the issue of succession so eventually it had to be tested whether the cause was slavery or something else. A look at American history before the war would show that America's unity was not tightly held together. In fact I am surprised that America stayed together as long as it. I posit that before the Civil War America was a collection of states that came together for the common good. Northern states were, for the most part, committed to national unity. The Southern States believed that unity was fine as long as it worked for them but for the 20 or so years prior to the Civil War American unity was not working for them any more. There were economic issues, primarily slavery and they felt a need to separate from that unity and be free to govern themselves. I do think seccession was a mistimed mistake. South Carolina didn't want to wait or listen, it just wanted out. Lincoln just wanted to preserve the Union. He said if he could preserve the union and not free any slaves, that would be ok with him. When union victory was in sight he wanted to invite the Southern states to return to the Union. He wanted to let the South down easy. Alas, it did not work out that way. I think Lincoln was the best friend the South had but unfortunately they did not recognize that. I do have much more to say but my hands are sore and dinner is ready. My grandmother was from York, PA and was born 15 years after the Civil Wae ended. She showed me an old family Bible that had been in the family long before the Civil War. Every blank page was full of newspaper obits of family member who died in the Civil War especially during the Battle of Gettysburg. I don't think we should let the Civil War fade from our memories but remember that everyone who fought were Americans. I do love history. I have a M.Div. in Church History and am facisinated by American History.

Right now it is 1492 in my classroom. Near the end of the year, it will be 1861 and am going to use your ideas similar to Colonization and "Lead me, Follow me, or Get out of my Way!"

Please do more video's in this series.

I love analytical videos like this. Good job

Great vid. We have discussed this in APUSH many times. As a matter of fact...have we any statues commemorating the 1st Persian Gulf War or individuals from that time? I think not. Maybe our society is just afraid of offending groups of people. I hope we don't go through all of our past wars and start deciding to bring down statues, take names off buildings, streets, etc.... That would be a sad day. I hope I'm not around to see it. We learn from our history. You have to be educated and not just assume. Thanks Tom for this vid.

The problem with that argument of Teddy Roosevelt's - which I do have some sympathy for, the notion of honoring their conviction and bravery if not agreeing with the motives behind it - is that almost everyone who does something awful believes that what their doing is ultimately for the best, at least at the time they do it. I won't go full Godwin's law, but how about the Conquistaors that enslaved and murdered Native Americans? Or the USSR killing dissedents en masse? Many of the people doing these awful things believed that what they were doing was moral in some fashion. They had conviction. At some point - and I don't know if that point is a clear line that can be objectively drawn, or if it can be drawn for entire sides, or maybe must be drawn with each group and within each group - their convictions aren't enough of a defense to not condemn them as the monsters - or monster defenders - that they were.

I hope this video gets more views. Greetings from Spain

Dear Mr. Richey, thank you for this interesting assessment. You mention seeing “The South” as “Other”. It may be argued that racism, as are other “isms”, is yet another way of viewing a group of people as “Other” and (almost by definition) lesser than the viewer. Again, thank you.

It would be interesting to add diachronous analysis of the economic history of slavery that the south was so much more heavily dependent on leading up to the civil war to the synchronous interpretations you're comparing - this is the biggest aspect of why racism in the south was different than the rest of America. They farmed people.

I will ask you a question, Mr Richey. Why the removal of Confederate monuments at this time in 2017?

Good stuff. I believe you should stay on the War between the States to talke about the aftermath of the civil war not in the sense of reconstruction but late 19th and 20th century views. Also the statements made by notable figures such as Presidents (TR) and others.

I would love to hear more

From everything I have read on both sides of the issue, my conclusion, briefly; In 1780's we adopted the Virginia plan, while the New Jersey plan was ignored. A near 90 years later the constitution was not being interpreted in the manner the Virginia plan was intended, and leaning more into the new jersey plan. The south had a definite right to constitutionally secede from the Union. Lincoln determined that there could not be a "brexit" and declared war on the 'others' who wanted a different coalition of states and states rights. This can be confirmed by the taking of Florida, part of Mexico, etc. call it national security if you wish, but have a different philosophy of government sout of Arlington VA would be a definite disadvantage to our northern givernment, under which we are oppressed today.

Most the statues of are men that served in the U.S. Service's. Stonewall Jackson was a hero of two battles in the American/Mexican War as also Lee was a hero of that war. They were men that mostly didn't want to Secede from a Country and Flag they and their Ancestors fought for. But when Lincoln started raising a Army is when their sentiments changed to defend their states and not let Invading Armies cross through their states to invade other states. Freedom means you have the Freedom to leave last time I checked.

Last time I checked you don’t see too many statues of General Sherman in the south who basically is responsible for in the war I wonder why that is

More on the Civil War, please!

Another perspective: the south is still less urbanized than the north. People living in cities are less likely to own the land they live on, and thus hold less affinity for it. Conversely, southerners are more likely to both own land and to have familial connections to where they live. Ergo, southerners are more likely to identify with the confederacy because their affection is for where they live rather than to the more ephemeral idea of a national identity.

Great video! Just found this and your channel. I’d like more CW stuff

I have no problems with war memorials per se and the South has the right to mourn their dead as anyone else. But putting up monuments to the leaders is something different. Over here in Germany we have WW2 memorials honoring the fallen but we do not adorn them with statues of generals or Nazi leaders or slogans like "they died so Germany may live" (at least we don't do that anymore and quietly, without mass protests, remove questionable elements now). Admittedly there is still some work to do regarding WW1 but it rarely is about The Cause (and in many cases we simply put up some context information next to historical monuments to make clear that we are aware of the problem. Unlike in the US we have no full-time vandal bridgades to get rid of that).

Confederate memorials went up the same time Union did and many by the same artist. However while it was more steady for the union, the memorials in the south took longer in many instances because of the economics of the communities. Some took 20 years to raise enough private funds and there is a spike of their unveiling usually, not always, around anniversary of battles, reunions, or the 10th, 25th, 50th etc. of the beginning and ending of the conflict. When a large portion of your able bodied men do not return to their home community and family members do not know of the results or last moments of their loved ones we begin to see the healing aspect of placing memorials as if grave markers to those that did not return. Union soldiers contributed to their construction as well as both white and black. Booker T. Washington himself contributed to a Confederate memorial in Alabama and encouraged others to do so. Aged veterans were dying off and efforts were made to honor them as well before they did. This was no different in the north than in the south. We do this today as it took nearly 60 years after WWII to place a memorial in the capital to remember the veterans of WWII. This is a very American thing to do no matter what part of the region you lived. We should allow people to remember their history and honor their family as they desire instead of trying to look at history through the lenses of modern sensitives and political posturing to justify a modern victim mentality. The battles were here, the towns where the battles took place were here. The bullet holes and damage from shells still mark our homes. The battlefields were our vacation destinations and in our backyards. Remnants of bullets could be found by the bucket loads. Our family lived it here and suffered here...there is no better place for memorials to the dead to be. Slavery should be taught as evil and their story told and memorialized as well, but there is no need to demonize the motivations of the solider that answered the call of what they saw as their country for doing their duty to home and family and honor on either side of that war. Leave them all alone.

Hm. Thank you. This has definitely put this issue in a new light.

Please do more on the Civil War.

This historical analysis is more relevant now in 2020 than ever before.

People also keep saying they were traders. You can't be a traitor to a government/country that's founding principal was "..Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.." anyone can revoke their consent

You are refreshing. I dont want lies good or bad about my ppl. I just want to understand the true history. I had at least 43 family members fight for the Confederate army including my 3rd great grandfather a Sargent in the 5th infantry. Is there anywhere I could go to learn more about the 5th infantry? My blood are good ppl and if they believed in the fight I'll honor that till I die. The south will rise again 150 years of oppressing the south is enough.

I'd love to hear more. The time has come to stop calling it the "Civil War." Jefferson Davis had no intention of taking Washington DC just as George Washington had no intention of taking London. Lincoln's War, The War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States are more accurate.

I’ve seen many people use a Supreme Court decision that came after the war to say that the secession was illegal. I don’t think that is a legitimate argument because the south had no such case to base their actions on. As far as I can tell whenever the concept of secession was brought up in other states like around the war of 1812 it was never seen as an illegal action. I may be wrong on that but I can’t find anything.

yeah! MORE CIVIL WAR VIDEOS! And the answer to Teddy Roosevelt is: if those soldiers did not want to fight, defend or belong to the United States... then the United States should not have monuments to them.

Pretty sure you misspelled "Equivocating" somewhere in your title.

I think it’s also worth noting that Congress ruled Confederate dead the same status as US dead after the war. That is Confederate soldier’s or to be protected the same as US soldiers as far as burials and what not go.

The Constitution is not silent on secession. It clearly says that the US constitution is the Supreme Law of land and establishing courts violates that. The confederates violated of the reserved powers of the federal government. The constitution clearly says that waging war against the US is treason. For secession or any other right to be legal, a court of law must make a legal court ruling that says it is a legal right. The law is not subject to private interpretation. US Supreme Court said in the Prize cases that the CSA clearly violated the Constitution when it prevented the basic functions of the USA. As a civil war is never publicly proclaimed, eo nomine, against insurgents, its actual existence is a fact in our domestic history which the Court is bound to notice and to know. The true test of its existence, as found in the writings of the sages of the common law, may be thus summarily stated: When the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts of Justice cannot be kept open, civil war exists, and hostilities may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign enemies invading the land.” [67 US 635, 666-668]

This speaks the truth. The American history always has an American bent, where the English history has English bent. But that is true for everyone.

More War Between the States videos plz

its really rare to find anyone talking about this topic with any kind of nuance. I really appreciate it, because I always want to learn about this, without the heavy slant one way or the other. I cant stand the "other"-ing of the south, because its basically giving people an excuse to horribly simplify an extremely complex topic, so I suppose I would subscribe to the "America vs. America" look on the matter. After all, the civil war was often described as "Brother against brother" they literally had families that split and were shooting each other, because they didn't agree on which side to be on. and funny thing some of the northern states did have slaves during the civil war. if that's not a complicated situation that needs a lot of research to find the reality, especially with both sides being so heated, I don't know what is, and I would love to learn more.

It’s good to know that there are still people out there who teach about the civil war without it being biased.

Interesting. I don't know how much I agree with your dichotomy, but I certainly fond the idea of the view of the Confederacy as an "other" something to think about. Thank you!

How about what Jefferson Davis said in his cornerstone speech? I think it makes it very clear why they were fighting the civil war.

Well presented, well argued, and bringing forward a perspective I've not been aware of before-Thumbs up! **edit, yes please talk more about the American Civil War

I enjoy your videos on US history. Thank you.

Cameron just how did you know why every Confederate fought in the War? That must have been a lot of exhaustive research

Thank you for sharing; Yes, more US Civil War!

It’s a verifiable fact of history that the Southern leadership had divided over the issue of (Confederate) emancipation by 1864-65. Leaders like Davis, Lee, Benjamin, Kenner, Cleburne, etc. were willing to sacrifice slavery to win the war. Leaders like RMT Hunter, on the other hand, apparently preferred the annihilation of the South to any weakening of the institution of slavery. The point is, in any case, that the totality of Confederate political culture can’t be completely understood through focusing exclusively on the 1860-61 period. In fact, no country’s political culture can be fully understood by focusing only on a very specific point in its history. The real anomaly, IMO, is that Lost Cause, that self-proclaimed defender of Southern heritage, has never been any more interested in addressing the subjects of Confederate emancipation and the criminality of 19th-century Western imperialism than has anti-Southern bias.

Some residents of the western part of Virginia knew exactly what the war was about. They felt no need to fight "the slaveholders war."

As you alluded to in your closing comments, the statue is just an object. It was unveiled in 1915, the same year that Birth of a Nation came out. Also the same year a resurgence in racism was sweeping the south and the resurgence of the KKK. These statues were placed not out for reverence for the men they depicted but the ideals that they stood for including racism. The coincidence that 70% of Confederate statues were erected at the same time as the reemergence of the KKK and the rise of sestemic racism after the period of reconstruction should not be ignored.

If you want to know more about the Civil War especially the southern view on the Civil War go to Abbeville Institute KZfaq channel or visit Brian Macclenny hams KZfaq channel.

Greeting from Asia: American Culture Revolution!

'A View of the Constitution' - used as a textbook at West Point in the 1820's and later. The author allows for secession of a state. William Rawle, was the founder of the Historical Society in Philadelphia. His book is still in print and is available on Amazon. No Confederate was ever accused in court of treason.

Removing historical monuments has only deepened my desire to fly the rebel flag and teach my sons why their great, great, great grandfathers on both sides of their family all fought for the south. None of them owned slaves but they fought to repel an invading army that was raping, burning and destroying everything in it's path. The yanks would have fought just as hard to repel an invading southern army into northern states. The fact is there were multiple causes for this war, not just slavery. My ancestors fought at Fort Donaldson, Fort Henry, Shiloh, Corinth, Nashville and Murfreesboro. I have one great grandfather who was s signer of the Declaration of Independence. I myself took the oath and put on the uniform, serving 10 years in the US army. It's odd to think but it's true that the most patriotic soldiers I served with were of southern heritage and none of us looked at the stars and bars as a flag of racial divide. Personally I hate it when a white racist stands behind the flag of southern pride. But, if my home state were being invaded by a northern army I too would have joined the confederacy.

Sam Houston was right. He did his best to talk reason. He didn't support secession and tried to keep Texas out of the war. He paid dearly for it. In the end he was right.

+Tom Richey did you ever research how many of these confederate soldiers were Christian?

South Carolina’s articles of secession, state explicitly, several times, that slavery was the sole, motivating factor. There is very little reason to doubt their words. As far as this talk of “slavery would have ended n naturally, on its own;” even if that were true, that in way suggests southern states would have been any better about granting equal rights to the formerly enslaved. In fact it is safe to say the opposite is true. The violent acts of terror used to forestall civil rights, after the war and continuing efforts of legal disenfranchisement speaks loudly to that. I believe you are bordering on dangerously sanitizing the true zeitgeist of the confederacy. Certainly racism was ubiquitous in America and still has deep effects on the country but in the confederacy, it was elevated to a legal, economic and social foundation that is unique. There is no escaping this. I apologize that my comment comes a year after much of this discussion has been held.

You can look at when the Confederate monuments were installed. Most of them went up during the Equal Rights struggle for African Americans. You can also look at the lack of monuments to Abraham Lincoln. There are more memorials to Lincoln in Europe than there are in the Southern States.

This is an interesting lecture. It seems that the "Other" interpretation seems to have captured the field in recent years, feeding a drive to eradicate any honored memory of the Confederates, especially anywhere where political hay can be made from attacking "racist" symbols. Now, they are looking to remove the Reconciliation monument from Arlington National Cemetery, which is gut wrenchingly sad.

Will be back here in 11 months

The Constitution contains no probation against succession. Lincoln actually promoted the war by requiring each State to provide 75,000 solders. Oregon actually had a law prohibiting blacks from living in Oregon.

Are you that one guy who was on the Real World?