Slavery’s Scar on the United States
Articles Blog

Slavery’s Scar on the United States

October 13, 2019


If you’ve ever spent an entire lunch hour
just staring at a map of the United States – what, people do that right? – you’ve
probably noticed this one line that seems to run right across the middle of the country. Why is that line there? Well to figure that out, we’re going to
have to go back to the beginning. When the United States gained independence
and the founding fathers got together to write a Constitution, it was pretty much assumed
that slavery was going to naturally die out… soon. Let me be clear, not because of any altruistic
reason or movement towards equality. But because it simply wasn’t profitable. That’s right, even 200 years ago, all anyone
cared about was their bottom line. But because it was dying out and because the
US wanted to at least appear to be on the right side of history, they wrote it into
the Constitution that the importing of slaves would be allowed only until 1808 – at which
point it was made illegal. Although that didn’t really stop it either
for reasons I’ll get to later. Slavery was up to the states, they could decide
whether to abolish or allow it. And coincidentally, it had been abolished
in the northern states. Again, not because racism was over, but because
it was simply more trouble than it was worth, literally. So let’s take a look at a map and see what
the South was really worried about. The problem with looking at modern maps like
this in order to explain slavery is that it isn’t an accurate representation of what
the US was going through. So let’s take a look at what the US looked
like in 1813. We had just started a war with Great Britain,
had bought the Louisiana Territory a few years earlier, and had 18 states. 9 free, shown in blue, and 9 slave in red. At this point, there were just over a million
slaves in the United States, and only 7 million people total, so about 16% of the population. And slavery had just become profitable. When the Constitution was written, slaves
were really only used for one crop. And it’s not the crop you’re thinking
of. It was tobacco. And sugar in the Caribbean, but sugar doesn’t
grow so well in the United States, so tobacco. The crop you were thinking of, cotton, was
extremely unprofitable. This is what cotton looks like, those seeds
are not easy to remove. It took one slave an entire day to pick the
seeds out and process one pound of cotton. To put that into perspective, an average cotton
t-shirt weighs half a pound, so a slave could make enough cotton to make two shirts a day. You obviously didn’t have to pay them wages,
but you did have to house and feed them, which was extremely difficult on only two shirts
a day. So really, slavery was on its way out, at
least until Eli Whitney’s Cotton Gin, easily one of the most important inventions in history. Because it kept slavery alive. Now, instead of one slave making one pound
a day, they could make 50 pounds. It’s pretty easy to justify the cost of
keeping slaves when their profitability increases fifty times over. From the time the cotton gin was invented
until the Civil War, the number of slaves in the United States quintupled. From just under 700,000 in 1790 to nearly
4 million in 1860. So even though the importing of new slaves
was banned in 1808, that law was passed before slavery was profitable, so while a combined
US and British naval task force gave it their best college try, the trade continued. Thanks Eli Whitney. But let’s go back to the map. Tobacco and cotton were the big products in
the south and the main economic driver of slavery. You couldn’t grow those in the north, you
could really only grow corn and wheat, which you needed animal labor for, not human. So nobody really wanted to expand slavery
northwards. But we did have all of this fun new land to
the west, which most people estimated would take several hundred years for America to
expand into. As a wise man once said, if there’s one
thing we’re worse at than not murdering each other, it’s predicting the future. Anyway, after the Louis and Clark expedition,
it was pretty much figured out that the land wasn’t going to be very useful when it came
to cash crops… but it was pretty useful in the fur department. By 1817 we had evened the teams up to ten
on ten with Mississippi and Indiana. But fast forward to 1819. At this point we had agreed to jointly occupy
the Oregon Country with the British, further leading to the genocide of the buffalo, beaver,
and… some people. We uhhh… permanently borrowed Florida from
Spain, which wasn’t very useful for cash crops either. And we added Alabama and Illinois, bringing
us to 22 states. But now we had a problem. It was becoming pretty obvious to the south
that the space left for the US to expand into wasn’t very useful for slavery. And while the US House of Representatives
is apportioned by population, the Senate makes every state equal. At this point there were 22 slave-state senators
and 22 free-state senators. The Senate was what kept slavery at least
legally safe. So they wanted to maintain that equality. So in 1820, they struck a deal known as the
Missouri Compromise. Which legally mandated what the US had already
sort of been doing… *always two there are* a free state, and a slave state. The next two territories up to bat statehood
were Missouri and Maine, AND no new slave states would be admitted above this line. 36 degrees, 30 minutes latitude. This is Slavery’s Scar on the United States. Roll Credits. Before we get too deep into the compromise,
those of you with a keen eye might have noticed that Maine was already colored blue in the
1813 map. Was it already a state? Yes, but it was part of Massachusetts. Which is why it’s part of the expansion
in Fallout 4. But they wanted to break away and become their
own state, how did they come up with the name for this state? Well first, you have to understand that very
few people lived in Maine proper, they mostly lived on islands off the coast. And anyone who lives in or grew up in Hawaii
will understand that when you live on an island, the part of the country that’s on the continent
is known as the “Mainland”… and that’s how they came up with the name. Maine. Not very creative but… still interesting…
right? So back to the map. In 1837, Arkansas and Michigan were added,
whatever, but the real interesting addition to this map is Texas, which got its independence
from Mexico in 1836. And while it really, really wanted to be part
of the United States, the United States didn’t want it, because it’s divorce with Mexico
was extremely messy and anyone who has dated a recent divorcee knows that it comes with
a lot of baggage, not least of which is trouble with the ex. But I’ve talked about Texas enough in my
previous videos… so I don’t really want to give them too much screen time now… Not to mention, you can’t really grow anything
in Texas. So while Texas did have slaves, they were
mostly ranching country. Anyway, in 1846 Florida and Iowa were added…
and then in 1848 Wisconsin and… oh for.. fine. Texas was added. But wait, what happened to all that Texas
territory that went up into Wyoming? Well, Texas was a slave state, and that was
above the line. So the cut it off and gave it to what would
become Oklahoma. Which is why Oklahoma has a panhandle… there… I finally answered it… you happy? But we had also gained all of this new territory
from Mexico that year. Unfortunately, it’s not very good for growing
any cash crops… or anything else for that matter. In fact, the US had pretty much state-ified
all of the good cotton growing land. So in 1850, when California became a state,
they ran into a new problem. They had thought about dividing California
in two, California and Colorado, which I talked about in a previous video. But California didn’t really want to be
divided up… So instead they decided that California had
to send one free- senator and one slave- senator. *always two there are* Which was difficult
because there really wasn’t much slavery going on there. California is good farming land for fruits
and vegetables, not really for anything where slavery would be profitable. But they went with it… at least until 1854. Kansas and Nebraska were up for statehood,
but both of them were above the magic line. One was good for growing corn, the other for
wheat. Again, not really suited for slavery crops. So they did away with the compromise and instead
decided that the people IN that state should decide whether they are free or not. An idea known as Popular Sovereignty. The problem with this, of course, was that
suddenly, Kansas was being flooded with people from other states, slave owners and abolitionists,
hoping to sway the vote one way or another. Which, if we’re going to talk about the
actual start of the Civil War, this is where the fighting began, in what became known as
Bleeding Kansas. In 1860, Kansas decided to become a free state,
and their constitution passed the House, but was stalled in the Senate over the issue of
slavery. Four months later, the Civil War started. Which, by the way, is why Washington DC now
looks like this… rather than like this. But this also happened to coincide with Lincoln
taking office, and it’s a commonly held belief that he is why the Confederacy broke
away. But Lincoln never campaigned for abolition
and never said anything about wanting to free the slaves. It’s kind of the 1860 version of people
saying Obama wants to take your guns. Lincoln wants to take your slaves… despite
all evidence to the contrary. In fact, a year into the war, Lincoln wrote
a letter saying “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and
if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing
some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” That last one, coincidentally is what he ended
up doing with the Emancipation Proclamation. It only freed the slaves in any area in active
rebellion. So the slave states which were loyal to the
Union, occupied Tennessee, and the Union occupied areas of New Orleans and Virginia were able
to keep their slaves. It wasn’t until the war was ended and the
Thirteenth Amendment was passed that slavery ended completely. So was the Civil War about slavery? Yes. And to say otherwise is simply wrong. For the North, it was about preserving the
union and ending a rebellion. But for the South, it was a last ditch effort
to keep slavery because it was becoming increasingly obvious that western expansion was eventually
going to end it for them. The Civil War was not inevitable. That saying is part of the Lost Cause myth,
which tries to explain it away as part of the growing pains of the United States…
and they were just acting out. You know, like a teenager. It’s the end of slavery that was inevitable. So while even people like Robert E Lee acknowledged
that… actually, I’ll let him speak for himself. “The blacks are immeasurably better off
here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing
is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope,
for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary
is known and ordered by a merciful Providence… This influence, though slow, is sure. … While we see the course of the final abolition
of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the
progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences,
and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this,
must know that he has neither the right nor the power of operating, except by moral means;
that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master.” So to paraphrase, slavery will end eventually
*now don’t be hasty* but it’s not our place to end it before God wills it. Our thoughts and prayers are with them during
this instructional transition. Also, in order to benefit the slave, you shouldn’t
anger the master. Yeah, this goes out to all the people who
think that Robert E Lee was one of the good ones and didn’t actually fight for slavery. So the next time someone tries to tell you
that the Civil War was fought over state’s rights or that the Civil War was inevitable,
hopefully now, you’ll know better. Hey guys, tomorrow is my one year anniversary,
so stay tuned for a video with some special announcements. But if you enjoyed this video or you learned
something make sure to give that like button a click. If you’d like to see more from me I put
out new videos every Sunday, so make sure to emancipate that subscribe button. Also make sure to follow me on facebook and
twitter, and join the conversation on the reddit. But in the mean time if you’d like to watch
one of my older videos, how about this one?

Only registered users can comment.

  1. It's common practice to color slave states as red. Google "map of civil war" you'll see hundreds of people doing the same – I didn't do this as some dumb political party smear.

  2. Well I don't care that much about Southern way of life, independence, or states rights to govern themselves, or the love for the south. But I would fight for the slavery.

  3. Yea, because, after slavery was 'abolished' because of Lincolns' and the North's valiant intentions, there was never any racial segregation in the North ever again. Yea,, it wan't about states rights, but solely about slavery, yea ok…. And I'm guessing the South being colored red was just a 'coincidence', right? Hey, what party was Nathan Beford Forest, Martin Van Buren, and Stephen A. Douglas have in common ? (hint; Their color party is actually BLUE). Funny how none of the political party names were mentioned here also…that would be.. inconvenient… Don't worry, I already know better…

  4. The so-called founders don't deserve to be remembered. Must be scrubbed. Country must be rebuilt by non-racist people. Which is why ANTIFA need to annihilate the republicans and their racist party.

  5. Stupid lazy greedy rich white people should have left them in Africa, dumbasses. Look at all the trouble we in da u.s. have now. We got to keep them separated, God did in da begining.

  6. Thanks for the prolific Robert E Lee quote. He was right that africans here would end up better off than those that hadnt committed crimes and gotten sold to the whites by their african kings/kangs

  7. Nice opinion piece well done but wrong. The war was about states rights and the Union made it about slavery but believe what you will

  8. If the production of cotton increases, the price of cotton decreases. It's a well kept secret who was responsible for slavery.

  9. slavery wasn't ended it was perfected, now all u.s. citizens are enslaved under the centralized government was created by the union. they only "freed" the blacks to arm them up and use them as cannon fodder on the front lines to help win the war. you will never hear that in the curriculum of a government public indoctrination camp.

  10. Knowing better claims he isn't a liberal-tard and didn't color the north blue and the south red for political reasons… but we all… know better.

  11. So, basically all of that interesting build-up and history was so that in the last seconds you could take a gratuitous swipe at Robert E. Lee, who has been revered by about every president of the US of either party since he died (check Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Wilson, and Ford who in 1975 reinstated Lee's citizenship). I don't know why you bothered. And I don't understand your other strawmen – the Civil War wasn't invevitable but it was caused by a failure to compromise. And the war was fought over the right of state's rights to secede (though of course in the south the primary issue was slavery or it's expansion). I fail to see how you did not knock the Lincoln quote even more than the Lee one you selectively shared. Lincoln was perfectly willing so throw slaves under the bus if that's what it took to save the Union, which should be all one needs hear to understand that the North's primary motive was saving the Union, not freeing slaves, though that did become a war aim late in the war. So the next time anyone tells you that that Civil War was fought over anything other that one group of state's right to secede based on the the will of the people in those states versus another group of states forcing them to stay at the point of gun, you'll know better.

  12. I guess I'm still confused. If slavery was going to end anyways, why did the south still want it? If it wasn't profitable why did the south still want it?

  13. Slavery was a thing that most nations did throughout history, and then the US abolished it. Why does no one give the US credit for doing away with slavery?

  14. When I lived in WV [1972] we were taught that the state wasn't part of the south, because when the Confederacy was formed WV became a state by seceding from VA. [OT: we were also taught that WV wasn't the south bc Kennedy carried the state in the 1960 presidential election, thus proving that it wasn't prejudiced against Catholics.] Blech.

  15. Given how many former slaves starved to death and the social unrest that followed, I'm inclined to think Lee did have a point–although he didn't have the same woke views as modern-day wokeologists, but then again who can live up to such a high standard? Otherwise, excellent and informative video.

  16. 'Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
    Taught my benighted soul to understand
    That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
    Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
    Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
    "Their colour is a diabolic die."
    Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,
    May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train
    ~ On Being Brought from Africa to America by PHILLIS WHEATLEY.

    How is the any different than what Robert E. Lee said? He also said he rejoiced that slavery was ended.

    Having studied how the destruction of the war and immediate emancipation resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of freed slaves from disease, starvation, and exposure, it is perfectly understandable why Lee would pray for a slow end to slavery. Also, Lee did not fight for the south until Virginia seceded in response to Lincoln's unconstitutional call for troops to suppress the lower south in order to collect tariffs. Lincoln's 1861 proclamations of war and blockade do not mean slavery, but collection of revenues as the northern cause.

  17. why do you have the South, mostly Democratic, as red states, and the North, mostly Republican, blue states…. you have it wrong… the North was red, and the South was blue… you won't answer the question… you will probably delete it because you want to hide the fact that it was the democrats that were in the south, and the north were republicans, more and more of what the democrats hide to America

  18. >America turns traitor against the crown
    >Praises traitors
    >South secedes
    >HOW DARE YOU TRAITORS!!
    American history is next level bullshittery.

  19. I mean, not like i'm pro-slavery, but as northern states wanted the south to give up slavery ant southern states didn't actually want to force the north to own slaves, how is it not a state rights issue? How is Lincoln's quote that he didn't give a shit about slavery and only wanted to force the south not to secede a proof that the Civil War was about slavery and not states rights?

  20. Jews owned a majority of slaves in the southern states, and had a huge hand in the slave trade ring in the Caribbean. They made life for blacks a living hell, and made it hard for the average farmer to make ends meet.

    And then the union invaded to stop it, and the south became a battlefield. Stores, towns, farms, and fields burnt to a crisp.

    Low class people in the south blamed blacks for a long time for their things being destroyed by the union, and saw them as the cause of it all.

    If lower/middle class America at the time decided to do something about it sooner, I don't believe we would have had the civil war.

  21. I work in Jeffersonville Indiana and learns about the knights of golden circle which had Abe Lincoln killed and tried expanding slavery to Mexico. Remember the Alamo. Downey California

  22. I am interested in seeing your resources. Much of it has truth in it but with added interpretational bias.

    From the founding of the country many were opposed to slavery not because it was unprofitable, but because they believed it was an abomination. Many puritans and abolitionists believed that. And some also believed blacks were inferior to whites but still believed that it was wrong to enslave them.. Lincoln was a great president because his ultimate goal to uphold the oath of office and preserve the union. He did everything he could to do this. Ultimately he pushed for the abolition of slavery. You are right he was not an abolitionist during his campaigning. Another quote from him. “A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other”

    He was against slavery but not a “radical” abolitionist. Radical only for the time period we can’t look at history through the eyes of 2019. It’s not that simple

  23. The first official legal recognition of chattel slavery as a legal institution in British North America was in Massachusetts, in 1641, with the "Body of Liberties." Slavery was legalized in New Plymouth and Connecticut when it was incorporated into the Articles of the New England Confederation (1643). Rhode Island enacted a similar law in 1652. That means New England had formal, legal slavery a full generation before it was established in the South.

  24. Some major misrepresentations in this video: liar in this video represents that the main (and basically only) reason slavery wasn't very big in the north was because it simply wasn't profitable, because as he says (and this is another big lie) all people in the early American period cared about was money. False! The majority of northerners were philosophically opposed to slavery, but why tell the truth when you can make everyone look bad with an ignorant YouTube video??? Another huge lie in this video is in reference to the line between the north and south. He says the whole line was just slave line. False! That line was started as a way to delineate lands that parsed out by the English Crown that had nothing to do with slavery. That line runs across a latitude line on planet earth used to divide the planet into pieces. There was NO concern or thought given to slavery when this line when it made. The guy just made that up, or took it from someone else who didn't know what they were talking about. This video is a perfect example of why most Americans are ignorant to American history. This propagandist probably teaches (brainwashes) little children in a school because colleges are producing uneducated people like him, giving them degrees.

  25. Fun fact you can guess an area's political leaning based on it's geology.

    So places with slightly higher altitude and chalky soil were worse for agriculture, and thus more likely to be given to free black Americans.

    You can see it if you look at a map of glacial deposits vs current political leaning by district.

  26. Slavery was a institution Forced on the early Americans by the British King, around 1670. Americans had adopted the English Common Law. which prohibits outright slavery, all had to be released after set period calling them indentured servants. which was allowed.
    The Slave Trade was a Royal monopoly, mostly selling Irish rebels, the poor & criminals of all types, slaves for a Limited period of time. Over 3 million went to North America and the Caribbean Islands. A few black slaves were in the mix. A few were farmers, freed when their time was up. A typical crime was for people to keep their indentured servants beyond their time. Every so often a commotion was raised, and forced their release.
    To keep things short, there was a (Bacons) revolt , which Berkeley crushed with the aid of a army by the King. Berkeley then re wrote all the laws to his pleasing. This included making slavery legal, for life, and any children. The surviving rebels moved to Massachusetts, others fled west into the forest.
    Why? Because the King gave land grants to a slew of loyal Nobles who had lost their Estates in the wars. These aristocrats needed serf's. And the King supplied them for a profit.
    Trials of the captured (Bacons) rebels
    " Drummond replied, with dignity, " I expect no mercy from you. I have followed the lead of my conscience, and done what I might to free my country from oppression." He was condemned at one o'clock and hanged at four ; and his brave wife, Sarah, was denounced as a " traitor " and banished, with her children, to the wilderness, there to subsist on the bounty of friends.

    In the 1670s William Berkeley, Governor of Virginia, wrote,

    “I thank God, we have not free schools nor printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has brought disobedience, and heresy and sects into the world; and printing has divulged them and libels against the government. God keep us from both!”

    He also was against public schools and suppressed them.
    There would be no printing press in Virginia until half a century after Berkekey.. Or public schools.

  27. Wasnt totally about slavery there’s no denying that it was partially but really it wasn’t 100% slavery the south was evil no that’s just as insane to say as saying the war had nothing to do with slavery

  28. I remember my mother telling me her and her sisters and mother would pick cotton to make a living back in the 1940s and 1950s. In the state of Oklahoma in Elk City.

  29. The unprofitably of non-colonial slavery during the industrial revolution was also the main reason the Tsar of Russia eventually abolished serfdom (which was essentially domestic slavery), though even then, the aristocracy fought tooth and nail simply because slave-as-property wealth and plantations were a status symbol. The Tsar was forced to allow it simply because its industry and economy lagged so far behind Europe that wage based industry and farming was the only real logical choice, even though the Tsar tended to be indifferent toward their plight at best. It would have been abolished a hundred years earlier if not for aristocratic greed, which did led to several failed serf rebellions.

    The lateness of its abolition likely contributed to its inability to keep up with Europe up until the First World War.

  30. speaking of economics, what sense does it make to bring slaves from Africa when there were already black people here in North America? Most of the slaves were not brought here from Africa.

  31. There's an excellent audiobook from The Great Courses on the Civil War. The lecturer makes this point about states rights and the Confederacy: the central government of the Confederacy was much more authoritarian and its states had less say it what was going on than did the Union.

  32. You take LINCOLN completly out of context. He did want to free slaves. A) He was a politician, he couldnt tell northern whites it was a fight for enslaved black men. B) why dont people read the very next paragraph from that letter?? Read it and it's made very clear what he actually thought of slavery

  33. out of context it's hilarious xD ♥
    "One of the most important inventions in human History. Because it kept slavery alive."

  34. The nullification movement of the 1830s definitely did have alot to do with the Civil War but slavery became the main focus of conflict. I think that Southern politicians were so upset by the Nullification crisis that they were no longer willing to give a inch, even if it ment supporting something like slavery.

  35. Don't you mean, the lying politicians and race industry scars on America? slavery was practiced everywhere. africa, britain, the middleast, turkey, india, asia, south america, central america. did i leave any out? except ireland. They were made slaves on their own farms by the Brits. How fucking insulting is that? Fuck slavery's scar on America.

  36. By banning bump stocks Donald Trump has done more to promote gun control in 3 years than Obama did in 8. Obama talked a lot. Trump actually does things.

  37. Lol this guy's obviously a democratic. Slavery was for sure a reason for the south leaving but not the only reason.

  38. Lol, my husband and I are Civil War reenactors and everyone is always like "the Civil War wasn't fought over slavary" at this point I'm just like, sure keep telling yourself that. There were other reasons sure, but that was the big one.

  39. So a federal government forcing their social political ideas on states.
    Disagree with Lincoln and Obama both were attacking citizens rights and states rights. Each in their own way.
    Slavery was one part of many, and was used to justify the war. An keep Eourpian mainly Britain and France out of the conflict.
    Many northerners said let them leave. An their were many draft and race roits during the civil war. But that's seems to get censored for union government agencies were good guys and political propaganda. Some local tribes fought for CSA, even some color units in CSA. Again censored out, just like the union war crimes.

  40. Let's just add that Texas went "independent" because the USAssholes who got there didn't wanted to free their slaves as they agreed to do with the Mexican government. So, is not only a scar to the USA.

  41. free healthcare for slaves too. as long as they were on your plantation as a democrat they all counted as votes for who you wanted too. The more you have the more money you make so all yougot to do is promise them free stuff and they will stay your slaves as democratic too.

  42. USA's history of the terrorism of slavery:

    The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens".

    What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?

    What happened when the terrorist slaver welfare queens lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?

    The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".

    After the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting ………. might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *